Loading...
PC Packet 02-23-16CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber PLANNING COMMISSION 6:45 PM SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1.Subject: Election of new Chair, Vice Chair and Committee appointments Recommended Action: elect new Chair and Vice Chair; make a recommendation to the Environmental Review Committee; assign Committee representation; review 2016 meeting calendar Staff Report draft Committee roster 2016 Meeting Calendar APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2.Subject: Draft Minutes of February 9, 2016 Recommended Action: Approve or modify Draft Minutes of February 9, 2016 Draft Minutes of February 9, 2016 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO February 23, 2016Planning Commission AGENDA 3.Subject: Appeal of a Director's approval of a Two Story Permit to allow the construction of a new 5,140 square foot single family residence and a Minor Residential Permit to allow a second story balcony on the new residence; Application No(s).: R-2015-08, RM-2015-08; Applicant(s): Jing Quan (Kingkay Capital, LLC); Appellant(s): Matthew or Angela Miller; Location: 21900 Oakview Lane APN #326-19-105 Recommended Action: deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision per the draft resolutions Staff Report 1 - Draft Resolution for R-2015-08 2 - Draft Resolution for RM-2015-08 3 - Plan Set 4 - Two-Story and Minor Residential Permits Action Letter 5 - Appellant's Letter and Images OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Commission Mayor’s Monthly Meeting with Commissioners Economic Development Committee Meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADJOURNMENT Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO February 23, 2016Planning Commission AGENDA If 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 agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. In the event an action taken by the planning Commission is deemed objectionable, the matter may be officially appealed to the City Council in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Commission’s decision. Said appeal is filed with the City Clerk (Ordinance 632). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next Planning Commission meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, Planning Commission meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Department located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Planning packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. Members of the public are entitled to address the Planning Commission concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Commission, and deliver it to the City Staff prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Chair will recognize you. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes. For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda, contact the Planning Department at (408) 777 3308 or planning@cupertino.org. Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application:Planning Commission Election Agenda Date: February 23, 2016 RECOMMENDATION Elect a Chair and Vice Chair Recommendan Environmental Review Committee (ERC) representative Appoint a Housing Commission representative Appoint a Design Review Committee (DRC) member and an alternate Appoint an Economic Development Committee representative DiscusstheHearing Schedule for 2016 BACKGROUND Terms The terms of office of the Chair, Vice Chair and Design Review Committee members are for one year and end in January of each year. Environmental Review Committee Typically, the City Council reviews the staff members of ERC annually. Historically, the Planning Commission recommends its Chair to serve on the Environmental Review Committee. The Planning Commission recommended ERC member will be reviewed and formally appointed by the City Council. Housing Commission The Planning Commission sends a representative to the Housing Commission to provide better communication between the Commissions. The Planning Commissioner is not a voting member and there is no term of office. New appointments occur from time-to-time; the same representative may be re-appointed or a new representative may be selected. Usually the selection is determined by the level of interest of a particular Planning Commissioner. Design Review Committee The Municipal Code provides that the Chair of the Design Review Committee is the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, so only one member and an alternate need to be appointed. Economic Development Committee Each year, the Planning Commission sends a representative to the Economic Development Committeeto help enhance awareness and communicationwith the business community. The Economic Development Committee is anad hoc committee. There are no term limits, the same representative may be re-appointed or a new representative may be selected. DISCUSSION Chair and Vice Chair: The selection of the Chair typically is the Vice Chair, who is Alan Takahashi(appointed in February 2013, firsttermends 2017). The selection of the new Vice Chair typically is based on seniorityand rotation. The following Commissioners are listed below based on seniorityand rotation: 1. Margaret Gong-appointed in February 2013(first term ends 2017) 2. Don Sun –re-appointed January 2015(secondterm ends 2019) 3. Geoff Paulsen–appointed January 2015(first term ends 2019) 4. Winnie Lee –re-appointed in February 2013, second term ends 2017) Prepared by: Beth Ebben, Administrative Clerk Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1 -Planning Commission Committee Appointees 2 -Tentative 2016Planning Commission Hearing Schedule G:\Planning\PDREPORT\MISCELL\2016\pc appointments 2-23-16.rtf PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE APPOINTEES updated 2/23/16 Planning Commission Meeting / 2nd & 4th Tuesday, 6:45 p.m. -Chair -Vice Chair -Commissioner -Commissioner -Commissioner Design Review Committee / 1st & 3rd Thursday, 5:00 p.m., Conference Room C -Chair -Commissioner -alternate Economic Development Committee/ Quarterly, 2nd Wednesday, 10:00a.m., Conference Room A (2-10-16, 5-11-16,8-10-16and 11-09-16) –representative –alternate (City Council representatives: Chang, Vaidhyanathan) Environmental Review Committee / 1st & 3rd Thursday, 9:30 a.m., Conference Room C –representative –alternate (City Council representatives: Sinks, Vaidhyanathan (alternate)) Housing Commission Meeting / 2nd Thursday, 9:00 a.m., Conference Room C –representative -alternate Mayor’s Monthly Meeting/ 1stWednesday, 5:30pm, Conference Room A Don Sun…January 6th Geoff Paulsen…February 3rd …March 2nd …April 6th …May 4th …June 1st …July 6th …August 3rd …September 7th …October 5th …November 2nd … December 7th G:\Planning\MISCELL\pcreps.doc Created with WinCalendarCalendar Creator More Calendar Templates: 2016Calendar, 2017Calendar ◄Dec 2015 January 2016 Feb 2016 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 HOLIDAY 2 3 4 5 City Council meeting -Cancelled 6 7 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 8 9 10 11 HOLIDAY 12 Planning Commission meeting 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 City Council meeting 20 21 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 22 23 24 25 26 Planning Commission meeting 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: Created with WinCalendarCalendar Creator More Calendar Templates: 2016Calendar, 2017Calendar ◄Jan 2016 February 2016 Mar 2016 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 City Council meeting 3 4 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 5 6 7 8 9 Planning Commission meeting 10 11 12 13 14 15 HOLIDAY 16 City Council meeting 17 18 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 19 20 21 22 23 Planning Commission meeting 24 25 26 27 28 29 Notes: Created with WinCalendarCalendar Creator More Calendar Templates: 2016Calendar, 2017Calendar ◄Feb 2016 March 2016 Apr 2016 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 City Council meeting 2 3 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 4 5 6 7 8 Planning Commission meeting 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 City Council meeting 16 17 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 18 19 20 21 22 Planning Commission meeting 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: Created with WinCalendarCalendar Creator More Calendar Templates: 2016Calendar, 2017Calendar ◄Mar 2016 April 2016 May 2016 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 City Council meeting 6 7 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 8 9 10 11 12 Planning Commission meeting 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 City Council meeting 20 21 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 22 23 24 25 26 Planning Commission meeting 27 28 29 30 Created with WinCalendarCalendar Creator More Calendar Templates: 2016Calendar, 2017Calendar ◄Apr 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 City Council meeting 4 5 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 6 7 8 9 10 Planning Commission meeting 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 City Council meeting 18 19 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 20 21 22 23 24 Planning Commission meeting 25 26 27 28 29 30 HOLIDAY 31 Notes: Created with WinCalendarCalendar Creator More Calendar Templates: 2016Calendar, 2017Calendar ◄May 2016 June 2016 Jul 2016 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 3 4 5 6 7 City Council meeting 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Planning Commission meeting 15 16 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 17 18 19 20 21 City Council meeting 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Planning Commission meeting 29 30 Notes: Created with WinCalendarCalendar Creator More Calendar Templates: 2016Calendar, 2017Calendar ◄Jun 2016 July 2016 Aug 2016 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 HOLIDAY 5 City Council meeting 6 7 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 8 9 10 11 12 Planning Commission meeting 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 City Council meeting 20 21 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 22 23 24 25 26 Planning Commission meeting 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: Created with WinCalendarCalendar Creator More Calendar Templates: 2016Calendar, 2017Calendar ◄Jul 2016 August 2016 Sep 2016 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 City Council meeting 3 4 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 5 6 7 8 9 Planning Commission meeting 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 City Council meeting 17 18 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 19 20 21 22 23 Planning Commission meeting 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: Created with WinCalendarCalendar Creator More Calendar Templates: 2016Calendar, 2017Calendar ◄Aug 2016 September 2016 Oct 2016 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 2 3 4 5 HOLIDAY 6 City Council meeting 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Planning Commission meeting 14 15 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 16 17 18 19 20 City Council meeting 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Planning Commission meeting 28 29 30 Notes: More Calendars from WinCalendar.com: 2016 Calendar, 2017 Calendar, Web Calendar with Holidays Created with WinCalendarCalendar Creator More Calendar Templates: 2016Calendar, 2017Calendar ◄Sep 2016 October 2016 Nov 2016 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 City Council meeting 5 6 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 7 8 9 10 11 Planning Commission meeting 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 City Council meeting 19 20 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 21 22 23 24 25 Planning Commission meeting 26 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: Created with WinCalendarCalendar Creator More Calendar Templates: 2016Calendar, 2017Calendar ◄Oct 2016 November 2016 Dec 2016 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 City Council meeting 2 3 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 4 5 6 7 8 Planning Commission meeting 9 10 11 HOLIDAY 12 13 14 15 City Council meeting 16 17 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 18 19 20 21 22 Planning Commission meeting 23 24 HOLIDAY 25 HOLIDAY 26 27 28 29 30 Notes: Created with WinCalendarCalendar Creator More Calendar Templates: 2016Calendar, 2017Calendar ◄Nov 2016 December 2016 Jan 2017 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 2 3 4 5 6 City Council meeting 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Planning Commission meeting 14 15 ERC meeting 9:30 DRC meeting 5:00 16 17 18 19 20 City Council meeting 21 22 23 HOLIDAY 24 25 26 HOLIDAY 27 Planning Commission meeting City Hall closed 28 City Hall closed 29 City Hall closed 30 HOLIDAY 31 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. FEBRUARY 9, 2016 TUESDAY CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS The regular Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 2016, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. byChairperson Winnie Lee. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chairperson:Winnie Lee Commissioner:Don Sun Commissioner: Geoff Paulsen Commissioner: Margaret Gong Commissioners Absent: Vice Chairperson: Alan Takahashi Staff Present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava Assistant CommunityDevelopment Director: Benjamin Fu Consulting Attorney: Colleen Winchester 1.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the December 8, 2015 Planning Commission meeting: Com. Gongrequested the following addition to Page 2, following Jennifer Griffin’s remarks, insert “Chair Lee closed the public hearing.” Com. Gong’s reference to the adjournment wording “6:45 p.m.” on the last page refers to the start time of the next meeting, not the end time of the current meeting. It is standard wording for the minutes. Motion:Motion by Com.Sun, second by Com. Paulsen, and unanimously carried 4-0-0(Vice Chair Takahashi absent) to approve the minutesof the December 8, 2015 Planning Commission meeting as amended. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: 2.U-2015-10 Use Permit for a separate bar at a proposed restaurant located Alex Miramar in the Nineteen800 (formerly Rosebowl) Mixed Use Development (Doppio Zero Pizzeria) 10088 No. Wolfe Rd. Cupertino Planning Commission February 9, 20162 3.R-2015-38 Consider an appeal of Two-Story Permit to allow construction Mike Chen of a new 2,775 square foot single-family residence (PatelResidence 18780Tilson Ave. Items 2 and 3 were postponed to a date yet to be determined. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: PEGGY GRIFFIN, Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSGI): Presented an information packet on the goals of the Initiative; reviewed contents of the packet including summary of Initiative and upcoming developmental projects, what CCSGI will and will not do; FAQ; text of CCSGI; City Attorney’s title and summary, Said many people think that any change to the General Plan requires the vote of the people, which is untrue. She asked the Commission to review the materials; one of the provisions is setbacks; the Initiative onlydoes setbacks in two places –Stevens Creek Blvd. in the Heart of the City from85 to the eastern border. Another issue the Initiative discusses is building planes. She asked that they review the building planes in the plan and look at the Initiative. The numbers came from the city’s plans. LING FENG CHAO, Cupertino resident: Thanked the Commission for recommending zero office and zero housing for the 2014 General Plan Amendment. The Initiative follows theCommission’s recommendation, taking away housing and office not because the group felt Vallco could be retail only, but because they think a location for housing and office was allocated without sufficient public engagement which is what the Commission discussed on October 20, and the public needs to weigh in. The purpose of the Initiative is to roll back the clock, give more time to discuss what kind of Vallco they would like. The Initiative would not lock Vallco into any configuration, because as long as the voters approve, Vallco could be mixed use. The City Council also considered the option to put Vallco on the ballot to be approved by voters. She said she was grateful that in the last 10 years there hasn’t been any project special amendments except for Apple, and even for Apple, there have only been minor amendments which she said is the way it should be. There should be mostly citywide amendments and very rare to have projects that would alter the General Plan. Chair Lee closed Oral Communications. General Plan Authorization Applications. There was a discussion about the General Authorization Applications wherein Ms. Shrivastava answered Commissioners’ questions. Ms. Shrivastava said that the City Council, after review, decided not to authorize the applications from the Oaks and Goodyear Tire. She explained that some changes will be made in the process, the applicants may reapply, and theapplications will be accepted twice a year. The new process will give the public the ability to hear the applications before staff starts working on them. She said that there are no limits on applications, only timelines for submissions; postcards will be mailed to city addresses; it will be posted online and people can send in comments. Once the City Council authorizes the project, staff can begin working on the project. Colleen Winchester, Attorney: Reminded those present that the item being discussed was not listed on the agenda and therefore comments should be limited to general conversation. To the extent there is a desire of a Cupertino Planning Commission February 9, 20163 commissioner to look at any type of development, there would need to be a noticed agenda,outreach and the need to have process involved. With respect to the Initiative, City Council has authorized a report under Election Code 92.12. Once the report is prepared it will besubmitted as a public document; that is the process now. The City Council has authorized the 92.12 Report and it will be prepared and discussed. There are 7 factors including environmentalimpact, fiscal impact, etc. CONSENT CALENDAR: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: No meeting. Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meeting. Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Com. Paulsen reported on the following: Parks and Rec Comm.: Looking forward to City Council meeting to address Joint Cities Feasibility Study on Stevens Creek Trail; meeting postponed to March. Continuing work on Stevens Creek Corridor and Parks Master Plan; and looking at Stocklmeir property. Mayor would like to have a swim center at Memorial Park near Senior Center. Bike andPed Comm.: Proposing Walk One Week to School; city will close streets to autos near schools to help traffic. Teen Comm.: Proposed speakers for Teen Comm.: Apple, NASA. Needs space for study, tutoring. TEC Comm.: GIS support available to the public. Mapping all dead phone areas. Library Comm.: Circulation up sinceno fees charged for non-residents. Running out of room for functions. Programproposed “So You Want To Be Mayor”. Misc.: Leigh High Cement Plantis for sale. Cupertino Planning Commission February 9, 20164 4.REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Ms. Shrivastava introduced Benjamin Fu, thenew Assistant Planning Director, replacing Gary Chao. Mr. Fu reviewed his background. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to next Planning Commission meeting on January 12, 2016, beginning at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date:February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Consider an appeal of Two-Story Permit (R-2015-08) to allow the construction of a new 5,140-square-foot single-family residenceand a Minor Residential Permit(RM-2015-08) to allow a second story balcony on the new residence.(ApplicationNo. R-2015-08and RM- 2015-08; Applicant: WEC & Assoc.(Kingkay Capital, LLC)); Appellant: Matthew and Angela Miller; Location:21900 Oakview Lane; APN: 326-19-105) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director’sdecision to approve the project in accordance with the draft resolutions (see Attachment 1 and 2). PROJECT DATA: General Plan designation LowDensity (1-5DU/Ac.) Zoning designation R1-10 Environmental review Categorically Exempt from CEQAunder Section 15303 Net lot area 11,425square feet Project consistency with: General Plan Yes Zoning Yes Allowed Proposed Lot coverage 5,713 square feet (45% + 5% for eaves/roof overhangs and covered patios) 3,557 square feet (31.13%) FAR 5,141 square feet (45%)5,140square feet (44.98%) Height 28’ 25’ –4” OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit Allowed Proposed Setbacks:First Floor Second Floor First Floor Second Floor Side Combined 15’ (no side less than 5’) Combined 25’ (no side less than 10’) 10’-9” (west) and 5’ (east) 15’-7” (west) and 20’-1” (east) Front 20’25’25’29’–5” Rear 20’25’ 32’–11”36’–7” BACKGROUND: On March 20, 2015 the applicant, WEC & Assoc. (Kingkay Capital, LLC),applied for a Two-Story Permit to allow a new 5,140-square-foot single-family residence and a Minor Residential Permit to allow a second story balcony on the new residence located at 21900 Oakview Lane (see Attachment 3).The project property is located inthe R1-10zoning district that permits two-story homes with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 45%,up to 28 feet in height. The applicant is not proposing to have any outdoor sheds etc., which would increase the FAR beyond 45%. Additionally, the project is not subject to design review sincethe proposed second floor is less than 66% of the square footage of the first floor and provides at least 15-foot side yard setbacks on the second floor. The project is consistent with all aspects of the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Ordinance and other pertinent City ordinances. Prior to thepublic commentperiodfor the project, three property owners within the cul- de-sac expressed concernsto staffaboutprivacy impacts, reduceddaylight exposure, possible existing ground contamination, increased noise impacts due to construction in the cul-de-sac, and overall project design and massing. With subsequent project submittals, aside from meeting the prescriptive development requirements as established in the Single-Family Residential Ordinance, the applicant incorporated architectural trims to the western wall to provide relief on the portion of the western elevation where the first and second floor walls are not offset. Additionally,during the comment period, the applicant separately met with the east and west property owners to discuss lingering concerns which resulted in the applicant: Providing obscured and non-openable windows to the master bathroom and one of the second story bedrooms on the western elevation; Agreeing to remove the eight Italian Cypress trees on the subject site and removing new privacy plantings proposed as requested by the eastern property owners; and Offering monthly pool cleaning to the eastern property ownersduring construction. R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit The project was approved by the Community Development Director on January 8, 2016 with an increase in the front yard setback due to the property owner’s decision to meet the recorded covenant against the properties within the original subdivision entitled “Declaration of Restrictions” section (b) which states that “No dwelling shall be erected on any building plot nearer than twenty-five (25) feet to the front property line.”The last day to appeal the project was January22, 2016; Matthew and Angela Miller, the property ownersto the east,appealed the approvalof the Two Story Permitand Minor Residential Permiton January21, 2016 (see Attachment 4). DISCUSSION: Basis of the Appeal The appellant's basis of appeal is summarized below. Where appropriate, staff's responses are in italics. 1.Oakview Lane is a culdesac with 13 houses, only one of which has a complete second story. That house was built years ago without the culdesac residents knowledge of its two story size until it was too late to appeal. One of the purposes of the R-1 Ordinance is to ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods. There are threeother two-story homes on the street and several other newer and older two story homes in the general neighborhood.While the appellant indicates that a majority of the homes on this street are single-story structures, there are several two-story old and new homes in the residential neighborhood that this project is proposed in. This is a neighborhood in transition and most new homes proposed within the neighborhood are two-story. Prior to 2005, the R-1 Ordinance allowed the construction of two story homes with a second to first floor ratio of 35% or under to be built with a building permit and no noticing, comment period or a public hearing. The house in reference was constructed in 1999. 2.“This is not a Minor Residential Permit in the scale of this project or zoning ordinances since will affect in many aspects the four direct neighbors and others near by since the size of this construction it is not harmonious with the other houses near by on this street.” Per the R-1 Ordinance, applications for second story balconies which may have privacy impacts on neighbors’ side or rear yards are processed with a Minor Residential Permit as stipulated by Section 19.28.040 (Permits Required for Development) per the procedures outlined in Chapter 19.12, Administration. The proposed plans included a rear facing second floor balcony; therefore, a Minor Residential Permit was required and processed. R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit 3.“The project can’t be granted since it will result in a condition that is detrimental to the the quality of the outdoor life of the owners of the houses around this new project and their insurance of privacy, sunlight in their back yards, swimming pool, solar panels, garden sun light, vegetable garden sunlight, a pollution view from the size of this construction plan.” One of the principal purposes of the R-1 Ordinance is to ensure provisions of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels. These are implemented through the setbacks, daylight plane and privacy planting requirements, and other prescriptive requirements incorporated within the R-1 Ordinance. The daylight plane established for the single story portion of the project ensures light and air at the single story level while increased setback requirements on the second level ensure that a reasonable level of sunlight and air is available for neighbors. In addition, all second story windows that are not exempt from privacy plantings are required to provide trees or shrubs in an area bounded by a thirty-degree angle measured from the edges on each side window jamb. The applicant proposes such plantings on all applicable windows, but pursuant to a request by the property owner to the east, eliminated the proposed privacy plantings on the eastern property line. The size of the home is based on the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In the case of property zoned R-1, the allowable FAR is 45% of the net lot areawith no maximum house size limitations.This means that a larger lot could have a larger home developed on the site while a smaller lot would have a smaller home.The proposed FAR maximizes the amount of development on the property, but does not exceed the allowable FAR. 4.“The proposed project is not harmonious in scale on adjoining properties or the other neighbors in front of this project or the many houses in the cul-de-sac street.” See response #1 and #3regarding the size and scale of the home. The proposed project conforms to the requirements of the R-1 Ordinance and does not seek any exceptions from it. 5.“The granting of the permit for this project will result in a condition that is detrimental and injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity because we won’t have sun on our swimming pool around 3:30 PM during summer time. We won’t be able in the future to stall solar voltaic on our house according to our plans because the shadow this project willcreate on our roof and backyard. Then neighbor on the other side will have no sun light on his side yard at least until 1:00 PM and look which will have an impact in his garden and property. He also will a have massive wall with windows against his property. This will be a visual impact on his side.” See response #3. R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit 6.“Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties can’t be reasonably mitigated because the damages, I mention above, this new project will cause in the neighborhood. We want to clarify here the word neighborhood also means –‘Quality or condition of being neighbors.’ The size of this project is not harmonious on this street.” The R-1 Ordinance requires mitigation of views from the proposed project into side and rear yards of other existing residential properties. It does not require mitigation of the visual impacts of the proposed projectfrom neighboring properties.In compliance with the R-1 Ordinance, the applicant will be required to plant a 24-inch box front yard tree to mitigate the second story mass from the street. The applicant has alsocomplied with the R-1 Ordinance byproposingto plant all the required privacy planting to ensure that visual impacts in to the neighbor’s side and rear yards are mitigated. During the comment period, the appellant (eastern property owner at 21884 Oakview Lane) voiced their concerns to the applicant regarding the existing trees and the proposed privacy trees limiting sun exposure and the potential increase in yard maintenance. In response the applicant agreed to remove eight Italian Cypresses and the appellantagreed to waive any additional privacy protection measures that the applicant would have had to plant. 7.“Many inconsistencies have been found in this project because there was no study done by the owner or by the city for this project about the future consequences, which I mentioned before. The City Code mention. (sunlight, the damage in receiving the sun light on the pool of 21884 Oakview Lane and solar panels efficiency, the future lost of vegetable garden this neighbor have, the visual impact from neighbors both sides, back and in front of this project, not harmonious construction, the wrong design for this part of the neighborhood, privacy issues because windows and balcony from this project, the second floor height will impact our quality of life in using our swimming pool, backyard, etc.).” The R-1 Ordinance does not require the applicant to furnish studies on light impacts to adjacent properties or to existing thermal panels if all prescriptiveregulations regarding the first-floor building envelope, overall building height, and first and second story setbacks are met.These prescriptive requirements are deemed adequate to address light, and privacy issues.See response #3. 8.“It will have a significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from all four adjoining properties and in front the neighbors’s house which can’t be mitigated to the maximum extent possible because the height of the second floor construction, windows and balcony taking out our privacy and other issues I already mention above.” See previous response #3 and #6regarding visual and privacy impacts. In addition, the R-1 Ordinance allows amaximum height of 28 feet(no more than two stories)for principal R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit dwellings on the site. The proposed building is 25 feet 4 inches in height and therefore, under the maximum allowed height in this zoning district. 9.“I already explain in the beginning this letter this project will injurious to the neighbors in different matters.” Refer to response#3through #8. 10.“The exception to be granted is one that will require a modification in the design to a one story house.” Since the subject property is not located in a Single Family Residential District Restricted to One Story (indicated with the “i”suffix), a proposed project on the site cannot be required to be limited to a single story. The subject property’s zoning (R1-10) permits the applicant to construct up to a two-story home provided that all development regulations regarding two-story developments (floor area ratios, setbacks, second-to-first floor ratio, etc.) are met. 11.“The proposed design will result in significant impacts as viewed from four abutting properties and front neighbors. The size of the house, the privacy with the windows and balcony in the second floor, the intrusive design of the chimney in the side of the house will have an impact on our view and architectural in the neighbor backyard of 21884 Oakview Lane, the enormous wall on the side of the neighbor at 21917 Oakview Lane. The windows and balcony also with clear view of the sides and back neighbors. The neighbors don’t want trees to be plant because they will shade more their house, the roots will cause future problems on the fences, the leaves during winter in their backyards, swimmingpool, gutters and roofs.” See response #3regarding the size of the home. See response #3and #6regarding privacy and visual impacts. The proposed fireplace and chimney, adjacent to the eastern property line, encroaches less than one foot into the required five-foot side yard setback. Architectural features, such as fireplaces, cornices and eaves, are permitted to encroach up to three (3) feet into a required yard setback and are exempt from daylight plane restrictions per the R-1 Ordinance. The applicant addressed staff concerns about unarticulated walls (in particular the wall facing 21917 Oakview Lane) by addingarchitectural trims to denote the separation of first and second floors. 12.“This project violates all the Municipal Code 19.28.140 (A), (B), (C), (D), which we have been seen over and approved by the planning commission is this neighborhood.This project must be modify to a one store house. This project is not harmonious with this part of the street. We are sure, anyone that visits the site will see that.” R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit The project meets the findings listed in Sections 19.28.140 (A) and (B). However, Sections 19.28.140 (C) and (D) do not apply to the proposed project. The requested permits were approved at an administrative level in compliance with the requirements of the Municipal Code. See response #2 regarding the size and scale of the home. 13.“People who have lived here for decades have been discuss with the action of the city plan commission in transforming this city in a polluted visionof construction, traffic, more air pollution, less water and loose the quality of life.The planning commission continue ignore complaints and our inputs from the tax payers. We need to pay a high cost city appeal when this is our rights to have it without no cost. In many of the cases we have been seen the abuse of the power from planning commission and the city council to approve this high density constructions.” The proposed project is an allowed use within the zoning district that it is proposed in andmeets all the prescriptive requirements outlined in the R-1 Ordinance as adopted by the City Council. The City Council set the appeal fee at $182, much below the actual costs of processing and taking an application through the appeal process, recognizing that appellants should not be priced out of appealing a project,and that this would only cover a small portion of administrative, staff,and processing time associated with appeals. 14.“This land for this project is big enough to built a one store house fora family of six people.” See response #10. 15.“The owner from this new project have many cypress pine trees in his property. These kind of trees attract rats, garden snakes, damage the paint of our cars, fill the gutters from our houses with pines, damage our plants, the yellow powder came from the trees cause a lot allergies to the neighbors during spring time, dust in our houses. These trees must be cut in both sides of this property as soon as possible before construction start. These trees are detrimental for the neighbors. These cypruss trees hidden the real impact of this construction in adjoining properties and already make shade in our solar panels.” See response #3regarding privacy protection trees.Although the appellant stresses that these trees be cut on both sides of the property, the western property owner (21917 Oakview Lane) has stated his concerns regarding privacy, therefore no trees are proposed to be removed along the western property line. 16.“We need to know the time of duration for this construction will be in any case of the projects be approved or modify because in three occasions in this street we have R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit neighbors built or remodel their houses and took more time than the normal period necessary for it. A lot problems of dust, noise, traffic of big trucks, construction people which we don’t know looking over our house, damage our front yard and healthy issues because the dust. What kind the fence will be add around construction and hight to protect us from all these factors. The neighbors would have a communication when the house will be demolish and how long will take it.” The timeline of construction will be determined by the applicant, but construction will need to be initiated prior to the expiration dates of the two planning permits. The applicant has one year from the date of final decision on the project (i.e., from the date of decision on allappeals) to apply for building permits. Once a building permit is issued, the applicant must have inspections every 180 days in order to ensurethat the building permit does not expire.The Building Department requires a temporary construction fence at least fivefeet in height at the front of the property. The building permit will also be subject to all Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for construction to minimize dust, runoff,and other construction impacts. 17.“We need to know all measurements the owner this project will take to protect, clean, avoid the dust in the swimming pool, solar panel at the neighbor’s house of 21884 Oakview Lane and other neighbors.” See response #16regardingBest Management Practices. In addition, the applicant has offered to provide monthly pool cleaning to the appellant (eastern property owner at 21884 Oakview Lane), which was acceptable to them prior to appealing the project. 18.“Our neighbor Jan Kucera was inform this project was going to have the decision from the planning commission on February/2016. He has the intent to have a CAD design to show better the impact this project. Mr. Jan Kusera was surprise when we send an e- mail to him with the short time to appeal. He is traveling and the planning department new about it. This action from the planning commission it is not fair because he don’t have the chance to appeal the way he was planning to do it. The city action is not fair with the ones already have been express their opinion against this project and deny time for appeal which can be discuss in court because wrong informations. We feel it is not time the year this project can be approved or not since many of the neighbors which call the city didn’t received the letter of the appeal rights.” Staff met with Mr. Jan Kucera and spoke with him on the phone on several occasions to clarify and provide supplemental information.In addition,the comment period letter dated December 8, 2015and the notice of decision letter dated January 8, 2016were mailed to him. Staff has been availableduring boththe comment and appealperiods to receive comments and provide assistance. Aside from the comments received prior to the comment period by concerned adjacent neighbors, staff receivedtwoadditional lettersfrom Mr. Kucera (the western property R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit owner) during the comment period.No other communication was received from any other concerned parties. 19.“We want to make clear we are not against some two floor constructions but this must happen when have harmony of size of project with side, front neighbors and street house constructions, the law is respected, privacy between neighbors, don’t damage the quality of outdoor life or healthy.” Please see previous responses #1, #3, #4, #6and #10. 20.“The sign for this project is very far from the street and very clear. The neighbors feel uncomfortable to go and see the project plan because is too much inside the property and have renters is this property. The desin from this project must be more in front the house and the period for analyses from the neighbors be extended.” The original sign was located in a bare planting area adjacent to a paved walkway deemed appropriate by staff for the notice board notifying the public of the comment period.The comment period noticing letter included a site plan and elevation drawings of the proposed project in compliance with the requirements of the Municipal Code. In addition, the letter also indicated that a full set of plans of the proposed project would be availablefor reviewupon request, also in conformance with the requirements of the Municipal Code. 21.“We also want some studies to be done by the owner or by the city from the soil erosion and contamination from this property, since the septic tank has been liking for many years and the suspicious previous owner this property has dump some kind of products not identify in the soil and had a not permit construction in the side the house where he uses to stuck many chemical products.” The applicant will remove the existing septic tank and connect to existing sewer systems. The removal ofseptic tanks isunder the authority of the Santa Clara County Environmental Health Departmentwhich will review the proposed removal for compliance with their requirements. As with any building permit, the applicant will be required to provide documentation of having received these permits to Cupertino’s Building Division prior to permit issuance. 22.“We also want alert the city and the new owner this new project in the pass this land was an old indian cemetery. Many years ago when the house at 21901 Oakview Lane (in front of this new project) was remodel the construction was stopped for many days because was found indian bones in this site. The indian tribe needs to give permission for these bones be removed from that site. Delay the remodel for many days.” Building records do not indicate stopped work due to Native American remains found on sitefor any remodel projects at 21901 Oakview Lane. R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit As a matter of course, should Native American remains be found, the City has to be notified and there are special procedures for handling any remains or burial sites found. These are implemented through the Building Department during the construction period. 23.“It is not fair we spent $182.00 to appeal this decision when we had a miss information from the planning department about the way this is done. The date this project was going to be decided, the appeal process be charged neverwas explain ton us. We didn’t even knew until we received a e-mail from the assistant from this project our concerns will be not consider before the appeal since the planning commissiondidn’t see the plan before appeal.” See response #13.The appeal process and requirements are codified in the Municipal Code. Aside from staff voluntarily notifying the concerned neighbors and appellant with the status of the project prior to a decision on the project, the comment period letter datedDecember 8, 2015 statesthat the project would receive “approval by the Director of Community Development” and that “any interested party may appeal the decision of the Director within fourteen (14)days of the mailing of the notice of decision.” The notice of the decision letter dated January 6, 2016 was also sent to all persons who commented on the project as required by the Municipal Code and the same language was reiterated. 24.“In this time of water short supply we don’t need big constructions where will spend more water in trees, gardens which don’t produce anything and more space to clean with water.” The City has established restrictions on water usage around the city in Chapter15.32 and landscaping water usage in Chapter14.15of the Cupertino Municipal Code. In addition, the California Building Code has codified requirements about the types of fixtures and other such requirements to limit the amount of water used within the project. The applicant will be required to comply with all current California Building Code requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project: Notice of Public Hearing, Site Signage & Legal Ad Agenda 9 public hearing notices mailed to property owners adjacent to the project site (19days prior to hearing) Legal ad placed in newspaper (at least 10 days prior to hearing) Site Signage (City-provided appeal signage placed on site 12 days prior to hearing) Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board (one week prior to hearing) Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site (one week prior to hearing) PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT The appeal is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 – 65964). The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act. Project Received: March20, 2015; Deemed Incomplete: April 16, 2015 Project Resubmittal: July 1, 2015; Deemed Incomplete: July 23, 2015 Project Resubmittal: September 20, 2015; Deemed Incomplete: September 21, 2015 Project Resubmittal: October 26, 2015; Deemed Complete: October 30, 2015 NEXT STEPS AND CONCLUSION The Planning Commission’s decision on this project is final unless appealed within 14 days of the decision.If appealed, the City Council will hear the final appeal on this project. Since the proposed project complies with all aspects of the R-1 Ordinance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director's decision to approve the Two-Story and Minor Residential Permits. Prepared by: Ellen Yau, Assistant Planner Reviewed by:Approved by: /s/Piu Ghosh /s/Aarti Shrivastava Piu Ghosh Aarti Shrivastava Principal Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1 –Draft Resolutionfor R-2015-08 2 –Draft Resolution for RM-2015-08 3–Plan Set R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit 4 –Two-Story and Minor Residential Permits (R-2015-08 and RM-2015-08) action letter dated January 8, 2016 5–Appellant’s letterand images R-2015-08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT’S DECISION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 5,140 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 21900 OAKVIEW LANE SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.:R-2015-08 Applicant:WEC & Assoc. (Kingkay Capital, LLC) Appellant:Matthew and Angela Miller, 21884Oakview Lane Location:21900 Oakview Lane. (APN 326-19-105) SECTION II: FINDINGSFOR A TWO STORY PERMIT: WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for a Two-Story Permit as described in Section I of this Resolution; WHEREAS, the necessary notices were given andthe comment period for the application was provided as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino; WHEREAS, the City was able to make the findings required under Section 19.28.140(B) and the application was approved with conditions onJanuary8, 2016; and WHEREAS, the notice of decision was mailed to the appropriate parties, including the applicant and any person who contacted City staff with comments during the comment period, notifying them about the possibility of appealing a project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal for the Community Development Director’s approval of theTwo-Story Permit; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinanceof the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the appeal; and Draft Resolution R-2015-08 February 23, 2016 WHEREAS, the appellant has not met the burden of proof required to support said appeal; and WHEREAS, the project is determined to becategorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: a)The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. The project is consistent with the regulations and intent of the Cupertino General Plan and Single-Family Residential (R-1) Ordinance. The project complies with all established and required setbacks, floor area ratio limitations, privacy protection planting requirements and other Municipal Code requirements. In addition, the proposed development meets all prescriptive development requirements of the Parking, Landscape, and Fence ordinances; and the two-story non-discretionary permit procedural requirementsin the R-1 ordinance. b)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. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare as the projects is located withinthe R1-10(Single Family Residential) zoning district, and will be compatible with the surrounding uses of the neighborhood.The purpose of the R-1 ordinance is to provide light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels, ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within the neighborhood and reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the communitythrough setbacks, daylight plane and privacy planting requirements, and other prescriptive requirements incorporated within the R-1 Ordinance. The neighborhood is in transition and there isahealthy mix of single-story and two-story homesin the general areamaking the proposed project compatible with the neighborhood. c)The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. The proposed project is located in a residential area consisting of single-family homeswith a mix of single-story and two-story homes. There are threeother two-story homes on the street and several other newer and older two-story homes in the general neighborhood.Overall,the proposed project maintains the single-family home scale found compatible with the general neighborhood. Draft Resolution R-2015-08 February 23, 2016 d)Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. Any potential adverse impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated through the privacy protection plantings and installation of a front-yard tree as required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2thereof,the appeal of an application for a Two-Story Permit, Application no. R-2015-08isherebydenied and the Director of Community Development’s approval of the Two-Story Permit is upheld;and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no.R-2015-08as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting ofFebruary 23, 2016, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1.APPROVED PROJECT This approval is based on a plan set entitled, “New Residence 21900 Oakview Lane, Cupertino CA” consisting of eleven sheets labeled “A.1 to A.10 and a topographic survey”, dated “Received January 6, 2016” except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2.ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the building plans. 3.ACCURACY OF THE PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidatethis approval and may require additional review. 4.CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file no. RM-2015-08shall be applicable to this approval. Draft Resolution R-2015-08 February 23, 2016 5.COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC WORKS CONFIRMATION FORM The project shall comply with the requirements indicated on the Public Works Confirmation form, including, but not limited to, dedications, easements, off-site improvements, undergrounding of utilities, all necessary agreements, and utility installations/relocations as deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works and required for public health and safety. The Public Works Confirmation is a preliminary review, and is not an exhaustive review of the subject development. Additional requirements may be established and implemented during the construction permitting process. The project construction plans shall address these requirements with the construction permit submittal, and all required improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to final occupancy. 6.GEOTECHNICAL PLAN REVIEW The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test, and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans to ensure that their recommendations have been incorporated. The Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted to the City for review by the City staff prior to issuance of permits. 7.GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The following shall specifically be performed: The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall inspect all foundation excavations to ensure that the subsurface conditions are as anticipated, and that footings are embedded sufficiently into competent earthmaterials. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final project approval. 8.PRIVACY PLANTING The neighbors on the east side stated they will waive the privacy tree requirement in order to gain sun exposure to their property, therefore those privacy plantings are not indicated on the plans. Prior tobuilding permitissuance, the applicant shall submit the waiver and the final privacy-planting plan (of all required privacy planting) for review and approval from the Planning Division. The variety, size, and planting distance shall be consistent with the City’s requirements.Should a waiver not be obtained, the Draft Resolution R-2015-08 February 23, 2016 applicant shall plant all required privacy planting in compliance with the R-1 Ordinance. 9.PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance, for all windows with views into neighboring yards and a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor.The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director ofCommunity Development.Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. 10.LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL: The applicant shall submit a full landscape project submittal, per sections 490.1, 492.1, and 492.3 of the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, for projects with landscape area more than 500 square feet;the applicant shall submit either a full landscape project submittal or submit the Prescriptive Compliance Checklist per Appendix D of theDepartment of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for projects with landscape area more than 500 square feet and less than 2,500 square feet. The Landscape Documentation Package or Prescriptive Compliance Checklist shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 11.CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 12.EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material, architectural treatments and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans.Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a minor modification approval with neighborhood input. 13.INDEMNIFICATION Except as otherwise prohibitedby law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council,andits officers, employees and agents (collectively,the Draft Resolution R-2015-08 February 23, 2016 “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party againstone or more of theindemnified partiesor one or more of the indemnified partiesand the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actualattorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Theapplicant shall paysuch attorneys’ fees and costswithin 30 daysfollowingreceipt of invoices from City. Suchattorneys’ fees and costsshall include amountspaid to counsel not otherwise employed as City staff and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. 14.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER 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 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 Government Code Section 66020(a), 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 from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this23rd dayofFebruary, 2016, Regular 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: ATTEST:APPROVED: ________________ Piu Ghosh Winnie Lee PrincipalPlanner Chair, Planning Commission RM-2015-08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT’S DECISION TO ALLOWTHE CONSTRUCTION OF ASECOND- STORY BALCONY ON THE NEW RESIDENCEAT 21900 OAKVIEW LANE SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.:RM-2015-08 Applicant:WEC & Assoc. (Kingkay Capital, LLC) Appellant:Matthew and Angela Miller, 21884Oakview Lane Location:21900 Oakview Lane. (APN 326-19-105) SECTION II: FINDINGSFOR A MINOR RESIDENTIALPERMIT: WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for a Minor ResidentialPermit as described in Section I of this Resolution; WHEREAS, the necessary notices were given and the comment period for the application was provided as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino; WHEREAS, the City was able to make the findings required under Section 19.28.140 (A) and the application was approved with conditions on January 8, 2016; and WHEREAS, the notice of decision was mailed to the appropriate parties, including the applicant and any person who contacted City staff with comments during the comment period,notifying them about the possibility of appealing a project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal for the Community Development Director’s approval of theMinor Residential Permit; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinanceof the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the appeal; and Draft Resolution RM-2015-08 February 23, 2016 WHEREAS, the appellant has not met the burden of proof required to support said appeal; and WHEREAS, the project is determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: a)The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. The project is consistent with the regulations and intent of the Cupertino General Plan and Single-Family Residential (R-1) Ordinance. The project complies with all established and required setbacks, privacy protection planting requirements and other Municipal Code requirements. In addition, the second story balcony and privacy protectionrequirements of the R-1 Ordinanceare met. b)The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that isdetrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property improvementsin the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare as the projects is located within the R1-10(Single Family Residential) zoning district, and will be compatible with the surrounding uses of the neighborhood.The purposeof the R-1 ordinance is to provide light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels, ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within the neighborhood and reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community through prescriptive requirements incorporated in the R-1 ordinance. The neighborhood is in transition and there is a healthy mix of single story and two story homes in the general area making the proposed project compatible with the neighborhood. c)The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. The proposed project is located in a residential area consisting of single-family homeswith a mix of single-story and two-story homes. The proposed projectmaintains the single-family home scale found compatible with the general neighborhood. Draft Resolution RM-2015-08 February 23, 2016 d)Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. Any potential adverse impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated through the privacy protection plantings required to reasonably obscure the viewsheds of the second story balcony. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2thereof,the appeal of an application for a Minor ResidentialPermit, Application no. RM-2015-08is herebydenied and the Director of Community Development’s approval of the Minor ResidentialPermit is upheld;and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no.RM-2015-08as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting ofFebruary 23, 2016, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1.APPROVED PROJECT This approval is based on a plan setentitled, “New Residence 21900 Oakview Lane, Cupertino CA” consisting of eleven sheets labeled “A.1 to A.10 and a topographic survey”, dated “Received January 6, 2016” except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2.ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the building plans. 3.ACCURACY OF THE PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited toproperty boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. Draft Resolution RM-2015-08 February 23, 2016 4.CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file no. R-2015-08shall be applicable to this approval. 5.COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC WORKS CONFIRMATION FORM The project shall comply with the requirements indicated on the Public Works Confirmation form, including, but not limited to, dedications, easements, off-site improvements, undergrounding of utilities, all necessary agreements, and utility installations/relocations as deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works and required for public health and safety. The Public Works Confirmation is a preliminary review, and is not an exhaustive review of the subject development. Additional requirements may be established and implemented during the construction permitting process. The project construction plans shall address these requirements with the construction permit submittal, and all required improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to final occupancy. 6.GEOTECHNICAL PLAN REVIEW The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test, and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans to ensure that their recommendations have been incorporated. The Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted to the City for review by the City staff prior to issuance of permits. 7.GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarilybe limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The following shall specifically be performed: The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall inspect all foundation excavations to ensure that the subsurface conditions are as anticipated, and that footings are embedded sufficiently into competent earth materials. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final project approval. 8.PRIVACY PLANTING The neighbors on the east side stated they will waive the privacy tree requirement in order to gain sun exposure to their property, therefore those privacy plantings are not indicated on the plans. Prior tobuilding permitissuance, the applicant shall submit the Draft Resolution RM-2015-08 February 23, 2016 waiver and the final privacy-planting plan (of all required privacy planting) for review and approval from the Planning Division. The variety, size, and planting distance shall be consistent with the City’s requirements.Should a waiver not be obtained, the applicant shall plant all required privacy planting in compliance with the R-1 Ordinance. 9.PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance, for all windows with views into neighboring yards and a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor.The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development.Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. 10.LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL: The applicant shall submit a full landscape project submittal, per sections 490.1, 492.1, and 492.3 of the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, for projects with landscape area more than 500 square feet;the applicant shall submit either a full landscape project submittal or submit the Prescriptive Compliance Checklist per Appendix D of theDepartment of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for projects with landscape area more than 500 square feet and less than 2,500 square feet. The Landscape Documentation Package or Prescriptive Compliance Checklist shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 11.CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additionalconditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 12.EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material, architectural treatments and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans.Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a minor modification approval with neighborhood input. Draft Resolution RM-2015-08 February 23, 2016 13.INDEMNIFICATION Except as otherwise prohibitedby law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council,andits officers, employees and agents (collectively,the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party againstone or more oftheindemnified partiesor one or more of the indemnified partiesand the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actualattorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Theapplicant shall paysuch attorneys’ fees and costswithin 30 daysfollowingreceipt of invoices from City. Suchattorneys’ fees and costsshall include amountspaid to counsel not otherwise employed as City staff and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. 14.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER 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 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 Government Code Section 66020(a), 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 from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTEDthis23rd dayofFebruary, 2016, Regular 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: ATTEST:APPROVED: ________________ Piu Ghosh Winnie Lee PrincipalPlanner Chair, Planning Commission