PC Packet 11-10-2014
CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino Planning
Commission is hereby called for Monday, November 10 2014, commencing at 6:45 p.m.
in Room 100(EOC), 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Said special meeting
shall be for the purpose of a public hearing.
Dated: November 5, 2014
/s/Beth Ebben
Beth Ebben
Administrative Clerk
************************************************************************
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) ss. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
CITY OF CUPERTINO )
I, Beth Ebben, being first duly sworn, depose and say:
That I am the duly appointed Administrative Clerk of the Community Development
Department of the City of Cupertino and that on Nov 5, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., I caused the
above Notice to be posted on the bulletin board, 10300 Tore Ave., Cupertino, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this 5th day of November , 2014
/s/Beth Ebben
Beth Ebben
Administrative Clerk
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
Monday, November 10, 2014
10300 Torre Ave, Room 100/EOC
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:45 PM
Special Meeting
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Draft Minutes of 10-28-2014
Recommended Action: approve or midify draft minutes of 10-28-2014
Draft Minutes
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
2.Subject: Cancellation of the 12/23 meeting
Recommended Action: cancel the 12/23 meeting
meeting cancellation memo
PUBLIC HEARING
3.Subject: Appeal of a Two-Story Permit approval
Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO
November 10, 2014Planning Commission AGENDA
Recommended Action: recommend that the Planning Commission deny the appeal
and uphold the Director's decision
Description:
Application No(s).: R-2014-13
Applicant(s): Hamed Balazadeh (Jalili residence)
Appellant(s): Amitava Biswas, Patricia Kornesczuk
Location: 10558 Sterling Bouelvard
Appeal of an approval of a Two-Story Permit by the Direcor of Community
Development to allow the construction of a new 3,277 square foot single family
residence
Planning Commission decision final unless appealled
Staff Report
1 - Draft Resolution R-2014-13
2 - R-2014-13 Aproval Letter 9-23-14
3 - Appellant's Letter
4 - Plan Set
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
November 10, 2014Planning 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).
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.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special
assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408 777 3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the
meeting. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Department after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning Department
located at 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours.
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 OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING
DRAFTMINUTES
6:45P.M. OCTOBER 28, 2014 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting ofOctober 28, 2014 was called to orderat 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson:Paul Brophy
Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Margaret Gong
Commissioner:Don Sun
Commissioner: Alan Takahashi
Staff Present: Assistant City Manager: Aarti Shrivastava
Assistant Director of Community Development: Gary Chao
Assistant City Attorney: Colleen Winchester
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. Draft minutes of October 14, 2014 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion:Motion by Com. Takahashi, second by Com. Sun, and unanimouslycarried 5-0-0
to approve the October 14, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as presented.
2.Draft minutes of October 20, 2014 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion:Motion by Com. Sun, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried4-0-1, Com.
Takahashi abstained; to approve theOctober 20, 2014 Planning Commission
meeting as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Noted communication relative to the recent accident on McClellan Road, regarding request for
curfew forbig rig trucks on the road during school commutehours in Cupertino
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Request that Item No. 4, Hillside Exception and Tree Removal on Rainbow Drive be continued until
November 25, 2014
Cupertino Planning Commission October 28, 2014
2
MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Vice Chair Lee, and unanimously carried
5-0-0 to continue Application EXC-2014-09, TR-2014-42, EA-2014-07(Item 4)
to the November 25, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Dr. Darrel Lum, representing CCC:
Said he was unable to attend theOctober14 and 20, 2014 Planning Commission meetings, at which
time Com. Sun questioned why there wasn’t more public attendance for the General Plan Amendment
and Housing Development topics. He said the reasons discussed were valid; however, another reason
is that the public does not trust the process because it hasn’t been very responsive to their interests;
and he was not sure how to get more public interest. Thepublic has no inclination to spend a great
deal of time at the Planning Commission or City Council meetings when they feel they are not really
being heard. He said Com. Sun mentioned there were a lot of vacant seats at the meeting.
Many years ago there was a meeting with standing room only audience and the City Council planned
to adjourn the meeting because of the late hour to the next day at 3 p.m. Many of the audience
objected because they said they had to work the next day; the school superintendant was at the
following meeting and most of the meeting was spent listening to the school superintendent, when the
schools are not supposed to be factored into the decisions made. The citizens do not feel that the
processincludes them, and as a result they don’t attend the meetings. He said he felt the process had
to be improved to respond to the public’s comments and interests. The Commission may decide not
to go along with their comments, but they don’t feel that the Commission is responding to their
comments at all. The process just doesn’t work.
Rhoda Fry, resident:
Said that 15 years ago they were given the opportunity for an historical interpretive center adjacent to
a trail at Rancho San Antonio, the Hammond Snider House, which was sold to the Cupertino
Historical Society by the Catholic Diocese during the development of Oak Valley. TheGeneral Plan
recognizes Cupertino’s oldest Victorian erafarmhouse as a historical resource that must meet specific
standards. For years the house was lovingly maintained by a caretaker; it is now vacant and suffering
from willful neglect. According to city records the quarry next door had to either install improved
pollution controls or insure the home’s vacancy. Rather than installing pollution controls which
would have protected the health of the family in the house, the cement company is leasing thehome
from the Historical Society. Through 15 years of ownership the Historical Society has been unable to
live up to its fiduciary duty and plans. How could the city allow this to happen? There has been talk
about moving the house to McClellan Ranch, but the history is in the site. Perhaps the Cupertino
Historical Society should turn over the house, land and earmarked funds to the city of Cupertino
before the Hammond Snider house either falls down or burns down. Please do something before it is
too late.
Com. Sun said he had visited the home site recently.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
3.U-2014-06 Use Permit to allow an interior bar within an existing
Dwane Kennedy grocery store. Planning Commission decision final
(Whole Foods)unless appealed.
20955 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Cupertino Planning Commission October 28, 2014
3
Staff presented the application for a use permit to allow an interior bar within the existing Whole
Foods grocery store. Under the CG Ordinance, eating establishments with a separate bar facility are
required to have a conditional use permit. He reviewed the surrounding facilities and uses adjacent to
the grocery store. Whole Foods does have an ABC license to have onsite sale and offsite
consumption of a full range of alcoholic beverages; the bar hours of operation are consistent with the
grocery store hours 8 to 10 p.m. within the existing indoor café and bar area and the existing 84
outdoor patio seats. Alcohol is limited to beer and wine service and no wait service is provided.
Parking standards for the site conform to the Municipal Code parking standards. The Sheriff’s
Department has reviewed the security and business plan and supportsthe project.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the use permit for the separate bar facility
per the draft resolution.
Staff said that no neighbors have submitted any comments relative to the application. The project
falls underthe CEQA categorical exemption category as it exists within an existing structure and
adding a service to something that already exists. It is exempt from an environmental analysis as it is
not subject to any environmental impacts.
Dwane Kennedy, Land Use Consultant, Whole Foods:
Said they do similar projects in anumber of jurisdictions throughoutNorthern California.
Scott Sherman, Cupertino Whole Foods Store Team Leader:
He explained the ABC license types. In 2007 a Type 41 license was issued and it was operational,
and in the last year or two the company changed the market bistro; they removed that service and all
that has to be done is to reactivate it. It has already been applied for and once the Planning
Commission grants the approval and the Commission clears the appeal period, they will go ahead and
reanimate the Type 41 license.He said they were anxious to be operational and that should occur
within a week after they clear the appeal period. A sign will be posted on the premises that will
indicate that alcoholic drinks are not permitted outside of a specified area.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Rhoda Fry, resident:
Said she read that parking was okayby the numbers, but as a Whole Foods customer she questioned
that. She said that many times she has gone to the Whole Foods store and won’t stay there to shop,
because the parking lot is too crowdedand she is concerned that people will stay longer. She said
there will be more parking demands; she said she knows from personal experience that there are
pedestrian safety issues; one can end up walking among cars and it is very tight in the parking lot.
Said she knows the numbers work but hoped they would look at the soft side as well. She said it
seems that a lot of projects that are approved in Cupertino tend to be under-parked.
Scott Sherman:
Said they are always concerned about parkingand have only run out of spaces on the Wednesday
before Thanksgiving; and store team members go out to the parking lot and direct traffic. He said
problems arise when people drive in off Stevens Creek and want to immediately park in that area.
There is plenty of parking; they have conducted frequent audits because some customers voice their
concerns; there is a lot of parking on the produce side of the store and they are trying to find a way to
better educate their customers by getting them to pull in a little further down. He suggested the
Stelling Rd. entrance to pull in; audience members said that was the entrance they used.
Mr. Sherman said that the conditional use permit for the food truck operation wassuccessful. He
noted that when he left the parking lot at 6 p.m. there was still plenty of parkingavailable.
Cupertino Planning Commission October 28, 2014
4
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Lee:
Said she was notcomfortable with thewine bar beinglocatedacrossthe street from DeAnza College.
She said she felt there are many students that go across the street tostudy in thatarea; also to Panera
Bread where they go for a couple of hours to study. It may be good for some communities, but the
location of a bar area and a study area might be disruptive to students. Cupertino is an affluent area
and has very high achieving students who may feel depressed sometimes. Said she felt students
should look to other ways of relieving stress, not drugs or alcohol.
She said it was not an unreasonable application; and she would probably be in the minority, but she
did not feel comfortable supporting the project.
Chair Brophy:
Relative to ViceChair Lee’s comments, he said his guess would be that the wine bar is likely less of
an issue; it is not like Paul and Eddy’s bar across the street. Said it is a good point for them to
consider but he felt he was not overly concerned about how the wine bar fits into the overall operation
of Whole Foods. He said he understood ViceChair Lee’s view of the project.
Com. Sun:
Said hehas given the wine bar project a great deal of thought, whether it is appropriate for Whole
Foods Market to have a wine bar on their premises. When considering the Elephant Bar application,
he said he voted No on the project, but the Whole Foods operating hours end at 10 p.m. which is a
safe hour. Whole Foods has an excellent business model and a good reputation. He said he
understood Vice Chair Lee’sconcerns about having a wine bar located across from DeAnza College,
and while he sympathized with her position on the project, he was going to support it.
Vice Chair Lee:
Said one of her main concerns is the difficulty someone recovering from alcoholismwould have
when going to the supermarket and being faced with the smell of alcohol and having temptations.
With Paul and Eddy’sbarit is a separate location, with Islands Bar they will just avoid it, but for
Whole Foods it is a grocery store.
Com. Sun:
Said that Whole Foods has the mission to deliver organic food and provide house food to the public
which is their logo. He asked the store manager if providinga wine bar at Whole Foods stores fits
their culture. How many WholeFood Storesand what percentageprovidesonsiteliquor?
Scott Sherman:
Said he was not certain about the percentage but they have quitea few stores in No. California; the
Alameda Store near the Sharks Tank in San Jose is going to have a micro brewery and a beer garden
also. He said Whole Foods doesn’t preach or dictate what people should eat; they provide healthy
choices for customers. They will also have other seating in the store; they currently have seating in
the front of the store and outside the front of the store; there will be plenty of areas for them to sit.
He addedthat there will be areas both inside and outside of the store where it will be posted that no
alcohol can be consumed in thosedesignated areas.
Motion:Motion by Com.Takahashi, second by Com. Gong and carried 4-0-1, Vice Chair Lee
voted No; to approve the conditional use permit Application U-2014-06 for the
consumption of alcohol on the premises.
Cupertino Planning Commission October 28, 2014
5
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee:
Chair Brophy reported at the meeting the Hillside Exception and Tree Removal application which
was continued to November 25th was discussed.
Housing Commission: No report.
Mayor’s Monthly MeetingWith Commissioners: No report.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Written report submitted.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned to the next Planning Commission meeting on November 10, 2014
at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
Date:11/04/2014
To:Planning Commissionmembers
From: Beth Ebben
RE:cancellation of the December 23, 2014 meeting
Please consider the cancellation of the December 23, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.
City Hall will be closed from December 24, 2014 through January 1, 2015. As such, any
legislative decision made at the meeting on the 23rd, would not receive its proper follow up until
January 2, 2015.
The City Council has cancelled their first meeting in January (January 6, 2015). The first
Planning Commission meeting of the new year is scheduled for January 13, 2015.
◄ Nov 2014 ~ December 2014 ~Jan 2015 ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2
City Council
meeting
3 4 5 6
7 8 9
Planning
Commission
meeting
10 11 12 13
14 15 16
City Council
meeting
17 18 19 20
21 22 23
Planning
Commission
meeting
24
HOLIDAY
City Hall closed
25
HOLIDAY
City Hall closed
26
City Hall closed
27
28 29
City Hall closed
30
City Hall closed
31
HOLIDAY
City Hall closed
Notes:
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date:November 10, 2014
Application:R-2014-13
Applicant:Mohsen Jalili, 10355 Stern Ave.
Appellant:Amitava Biswas, 10550 Sterling Blvd.
Patricia Kornesczuk, 10566 Sterling Blvd.
Location:10558 Sterling Blvd.(APN 375-23-030)
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Consider an appeal of Two-Story Permit (R-2014-13) to allowthe construction of a new 2,872 square foot
single-family residence.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commissiondeny the appeal and uphold the Community
Development Director’sdecision to approve the projectin accordance with the draft resolution.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan designation Low Density (1-6 DU/Gr. Ac.) Rancho Rinconada
Zoning designation R1-7.5
Environmental review Categorically Exempt from CEQA
Gross lot area 8,623 square feet
Net lot area 6,383 square feet
Project consistency with:
General Plan Yes
Zoning Yes
Allowed Proposed
Lot coverage 2,872 square feet (45%)2,242 square feet (35.1%)
FAR 2,872 square feet (45%)2,872 square feet (45%)
Height 28’ 24’ –2”
Setbacks:First Floor Second Floor First Floor Second Floor
Side Combined 15’Combined 25’Combined 15’5”30’
Front 20’25’20’25’
Rear 20’25’+/-75’+/-80’
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org
R-2014-13 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit November 10, 2014
BACKGROUND:
Proposed Project
On April 30, 2014, Mohsen Jaliliapplied for a Two-Story Permitto allow a new 2,872 square foot single-
family residence located at 10558 Sterling Boulevard. The project property is located in a standard R1
zoning district thatpermits two-story homes up to 28 feet in height. The project is consistent with all
aspects of the Single-Family Residential (R1)Ordinance and other pertinent City ordinances. In addition,
the project is not subject to design review requirements sincethe proposed second floor is less than 66%
of the square footage of the first floor and provides at least15-footside yard setbacks on either side of
the second floor.
During the public review period, AmitavaBiswas, theproperty ownerto the north of the proposed
project, expressed the followingconcerns on the project:
The compatibility of the proposed two-story residence in a predominantly single-story neighborhood
The apparent bulk, mass, and height of the residence
Light and air impacts
After considering the neighbor’sconcerns, the applicant offered to eliminate privacy plantingalong the
northern (left) property lineto minimize shading the neighbor’s property.
The project was approved by the Community Development Director on September23, 2014. Amitava
Biswas, the property owner to the north and Patricia Kornesczuk, the property owner to the southof the
project site, appealed the Director’s approval on October 6, 2014.
DISCUSSION:
Basis of the Appeal
The appellant'sbasis of appeal issummarized below. Where appropriate, staff'sresponses are in italics.
1.“The site is prone to seismic risks as mentioned in the seismic hazard report, and this oversized
building construction poses risk to adjacent properties, during construction and after that.”
As part of the formal planning application,the applicant was required to prepare aSoils and Foundation
Investigation providinggeotechnical design recommendations for the developmentappropriate for the identified
site conditions. This report was peer reviewed by the City’s consulting geologist who provided additional
recommendations to further mitigate any risks associated with the construction of a new two-story home. These
recommendations have been added as conditions of approval in the draft resolution. During the building plan
check stage, the proposed home will be reviewed against relevant building codes and the recommended
geotechnical measures prescribed by the project geotechnical engineer and the City’s geologist.
2.“The section 19.28.110 Single Family Residential Design Guidelines and Principals of R1, clearly
states that; “The mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant
neighborhood pattern. New construction should not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale
with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights,
and entry feature heights."”
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 achieved by having developments adhere to a set of specific
R-2014-13 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit November 10, 2014
development parameters (i.e., maximum lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height, building setbacks) to
curtail development intensity to a level generally accepted by the community.
The proposed project conforms to all aspects of the R1 Ordinance. Additionally, the proposed two-story home is
not the only two-story home in the neighborhood. The proposed project consists of a Mediterranean style
similar to the existing two-story homes in the neighborhood on Sterling Blvd.and Cynthia Ave. Further, the
project is compatible in terms of mass and bulk with other two-story homes on Sterling Blvd., Gascoigne Dr.,
Barnhart Ave.,and Cynthia Ave. While the proposed project maybe larger than some of the original one-story,
ranch-style tract homes in the area that were built in the 1960s, it is modestly designed and no larger than most
of the recently approved two-story residences in Cupertino.
3.“Section 19.28.070, pg. 10, of R1 Regulations implies protection of solar rights of the neighbors. The
insufficient setback of the top story does infringe upon the rights of the 10550 Sterling Blvd.”
The proposed home conforms tothe prescriptive building envelope, height and setback requirementsof the
City’s R1 Ordinance. The proposed combined 15’5”first floor side yardand 30’second floor side yard setbacks
provide ample clearance and distances from neighboring homes consistent with the intent ofthe R1 Ordinance.
Additionally, theproposedtotal building height of 24 feet is under the total allowed building height of 28 feet.
4.“The contractor/developer has failed to follow normal and customary procedure and those
authorized by City Code. In thisregard, the contractor/developer attempted to have us sign a
“waiver” without submitting a full sized set of plans for our review”
The appellant is referring to the privacy-plantingwaiver as prescribed by the R1 Ordinance. The applicant was
sensitive tothe appellant’s concerns regarding shading impacts and has offered to eliminate privacy planting
from the project, which requires a waiver to be signed byboth parties. Since the appellant has not signed the
waiver, privacy planting will still be requiredas part of this project.
5.“We have not received documents or response addressing my objects or proposed resolutions; we
have not received notice of hearings addressing those objections.”
Two-Story Permits are approved at an administrative level and do not require a public hearing. The concerns
raised by the appellant were considered by the Community DevelopmentDirector prior to approving the
project and were noted in the administrative recordand action letter. Prior to approval, staffcorresponded with
the appellant and the concerns from the appellant have reviewed and considered by the applicant.
6.“The City has failed to comply with its own procedural requirements by providing adequate notice
and opportunity to be heard and allowing affected neighborsto participate in a meaningful way”
a.“failed to provide notice of hearings and notice of decisions, including the decision of the
Director of Community Development on September 23, 2014 to all the neighbors.”
The action letter was sent out on September 23, 2014 and a copy of the action letter was emailed to the
concerned neighbor on October 6, 2014. Neighbors that express concern and/orsend in comments
during the public noticeperiod are sent a copy of the action letter.In addition to the action letterand
public notice letter, the applicant posteda notice board on the site during the two week public comment
period,prior to the CommunityDevelopmentDirector’s decision.
R-2014-13 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit November 10, 2014
b.“failed to provide material information about the seismic risks”
Information on the seismic risks is available to the public at City Hall. A copy of the Soils and
Foundation Investigation prepared by the projects geotechnical engineer was sent to the concerned
neighbor upon request during the comment period.A copy of the City’s Geotechnical Peer Review
which outlines mitigations measures for the site was included with the Soils and Foundation
Investigation.The mitigation measures are also included as conditions of approval in the action letter.
c.The city did not provide the complete plan dated September5, 2014.
Complete plan sets are available to the public for review at City Hall. PDF copies of the complete plan
set are available by email upon request. The project site planand elevations were mailed to all the
adjacent neighbors during the comment period. A copy of the Soils and Foundation Investigation and
Geotechnical Peer Review was emailed to the concerned neighbor during the comment period upon
request.
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.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project:
Notice of Public Hearing and Intent & Legal Ad Agenda
7 public hearing notices mailed to property
owners adjacent to the project site (10 days
prior to the hearing)
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice bulletin
board (one week prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site (one
week prior to the hearing)
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT
The appeal is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 –65964). The City
has complied with thedeadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act.
ProjectReceived: April 30, 2014
Deemed Incomplete:May 30, 2014
Deemed Complete: June 10, 2014
The Planning Commission’s decision on this project is final unless appealed within 14 days of the
decision.
CONCLUSION
Since the proposed project complies with all aspects of the R1 Ordinance, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director's decision to
approve the Two-Story Permit.
R-2014-13 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit November 10, 2014
Prepared by: Kaitie Groeneweg, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by:Approved by:
/s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
Assistant Community Development Director Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1 -Draft Resolution
2–Two-Story Permit (R-2014-13) action letter dated September 23, 2014
4-Appellant’s letter
5-Plan Set
R-2014-13
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINODENYING AN
APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S
DECISION TO ALLOWTHE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,872 SQAURE FOOT SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCEAT 10558 STERLINGBOULIVARD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:R-2014-13
Applicant:Mohsen Jalili, 10355 Stern Ave.
Appellant:Amitava Biswas, 10550 Sterling Blvd.
Patricia Kornesczuk, 10566 Sterling Blvd.
Location:10558Sterling Blvd.(APN 375-23-030)
SECTION II: FINDINGSFOR A DIRECTOR’S MINOR MODIFICATION:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal for the Community
Development Director’sapproval of a Two-Story Permitas described in Section I.of this Resolution;
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
WHEREAS, the appellant has not met the burden of proof required to support said appeal; 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 regulationsand intent of the Cupertino General Plan and Single-Family
Residential (R1) Ordinance. The proposed development meets all prescriptive development requirements of the
R1, Parking, Landscape, and Fence ordinances; and the two-story non-discretionary permit procedural
requirements.
b)The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental orinjurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
The project will not result in conditions that are detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The proposed project is consistent
with the R1 Ordinance regulations and the applicant has provided supplemental Geotechnical reports to
further ensure that the proposed development is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
Draft Resolution R-2014-13 November 10, 2014
c)The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood.
The proposed project conforms to all aspects of the R1 Ordinance. The purposeof the R1 Ordinance is to
ensure a reasonablelevel of compatibility in scale of structures within a residential neighborhood. This is
achieved by having developments adhere to a set of specific development parameters (i.e., maximum lot
coverage, floor area ratio, building height, building setbacks) to curtail development intensity to a level
generally accepted by the community. Additionally, the proposed two-story home is not the only two-story
home in the neighborhood. The proposed project consists of a Mediterranean style similar to the existing two-
story homes in the neighborhood on Sterling Blvd.and Cynthia Ave. Further, the project is compatible in
terms of mass and bulk with other two-story homes on Sterling Blvd., Gascoigne Dr. and Cynthia Ave. While
the proposed project maybe larger than some of the original one-story, ranch-style tract homes in the area that
were built in the 1960s, it is modestly designed and no larger than most of the recently approved two-story
residences in Cupertino.
d)Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated.
The project complies with all the prescriptive development requirements (i.e. setbacks, height, floor area ratio,
privacy screening) of the R1 Ordinance that are intended to mitigate adverse visual impacts to adjoining
properties. In addition, in response to neighbor concerns, the applicant has agreed to make voluntary revisions
to the plans to address potential impacts includingproposingto removethe privacy planting treesalong the
northern property line, pending neighbor approval.
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 application for a Two-Story Permit, Application no. R-2014-13is herebyapproved;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-2014-13as set forth in the
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting ofNovember 10, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1.APPROVED PROJECT
Thisapproval is based on a plan set entitled, “New Construction for PAB Construction, 10558
Sterling Blvd., Cupertino CA 95014” consisting of eightsheets labeled “A-0 to A-4 and T.O.”, dated
Received September 4, 2014, 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 invalidate this approval and may require additional review.
Draft Resolution R-2014-13 November 10, 2014
4.CONSTRUCTION PLAN SET REVISIONS/CLARIFICATIONS
Prior to issuance of building permits, the construction plan submittal shall include the following
information:
a)Remove the screening trees currently proposed in the water/drainage easements. This
easement area shall be kept free from all structures and landscaping.
b)Remove the screening trees along the northern property line per the request of the adjacent
property owner during the comment period.
5.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.
6.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.
7.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.
8.LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL:
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full landscape project submittal
per sections 14.15.040 A, B, C, and D of the Landscaping Ordinance if more than 2,500 square feet of
landscaping area is proposed. The Water-Efficient Design Checklist (Appendix A of Chapter 14.15),
Landscape and Irrigation Design Plans, and Water Budget Calculations shall be reviewed and
approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of
building permits.
9.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 finalbuilding
exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans.Any exterior
Draft Resolution R-2014-13 November 10, 2014
changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a
minor modification approval with neighborhood input.
10.SHORING AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PLANS
Basement shoring calculations, plans and details shall be submitted to assure that adjacent
properties are not adversely impacted by the proposed construction. Construction monitoring
plans/details shall also be submitted, and preconstruction surveys shall be considered to help
document preconstruction conditions. If the shoring calculations, plans and details are provided by
the Project Contactor, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve the geotechnical
aspects of these plans and details.
11.GEOTECHNICAL PLAN REVIEW
The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall review and approved all geotechnical aspects of the
development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design
parameters for foundations, retaining walls, and shoring) to ensure that their recommendations
have been properly incorporated.
The shoring and construction monitoring plans and geotechnical plan review shall be submitted to
the City for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. The following shall be
performed prior to final (as-built) project approval:
12.GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS
The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not be limited to: site preparation and
grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and
retaining walls prior to the placements of steel and concrete. The following shall specifically be
performed:
The geotechnical consultant shall inspect all basement foundation excavations to assure that
the subsurface conditions are as anticipated, and that footings are embedded sufficiently into
thecompetent earth materials. The Geotechnical Consultant shall monitor the basement
excavation, or if performed by the contractor, shall closely review the monitoring data to
assure the basement excavation does not adversely impact the adjacent property and/or
foundation. The Geotechnical Consultant shall prepare and submit an emergence shoring
plan to be carried out in the event that basement exaction movement is detected.
The geotechnical consultant shall inspect all foundation excavations to assure that the
subsurface conditions are as anticipated, and that footings are embedded sufficiently into
competent earth material.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and be submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final
project approval.
13.INDEMNIFICATION
Draft Resolution R-2014-13 November 10, 2014
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation.The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
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 constitutewritten 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 this10th dayofNovember, 2014, 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:
Gary Chao Paul Brophy
Assistant Dir. of Community Development Chair, Planning Commission