PC Packet 11-25-2014CITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:45 PM
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Draft Minutes of the 10-28-2014 meeting
Recommended Action: approve or modify draft minutes
Draft Minutes 10-28-14
2.Subject: Draft Minutes of the 11-6-2014 meeting
Recommended Action: approve or modify draft minutes
Draft Minutes 11-06-14
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
3.Subject: Hillside Exception and Tree Removal - Rainbow Dr
Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO
November 25, 2014Planning Commission AGENDA
Recommended Action: recommend approval per the draft resolutions
recommend approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Description:
Application No(s).: EXC-2014-09, TR-2014-42 (EA-2014-07)
Applicant(s): Daryl Harris (Yao/Li residence)
Location: 21730 Rainbow Dr
Hillside Exception to allow the development of a 5,213 square foot single family
residence with a 1,412 square foot basement on slopes greater than 30%;
Tree Removal permit to allow the removal of three specimen size Coast Live Oaks
Postponed from the October 28, 2014 meeting
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Staff Report
1 - Draft Reso EXC-2014-09
2 - Draft Reso TR-2014-42
3 - Architectural Rendering 21730 Rainbow Drive
4 - Exterior Materials Board
5 - Ting Geotechnical Investigation
6 - Buckley Geologic Hazards Eval
7 - Cotton Shires Geologist Letter
8 - Tract Map No 5990
9 - Richard Smith Arborist Report
10 - Mike Bench City Arborist Report
11 - Initial Study, ERC Rec
12 - Plan Set 21730 Rainbow Drive
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
4.Subject: Director's Report
Recommended Action: accept report
Director's Report
Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO
November 25, 2014Planning Commission AGENDA
ADJOURNMENT
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 OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. OCTOBER 28, 2014 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of October 28, 2014 was called to order at 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 unanimously carried 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 carried 4-0-1, Com.
Takahashi abstained; to approve the October 20, 2014 Planning Commission
meeting as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Noted communication relative to the recent accident on McClellan Road, regarding request for
curfew for big rig trucks on the road during school commute hours 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 the October14 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. The public 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 supe rintendent, when the
schools are not supposed to be factored into the decisions made. The citizens do not feel that the
process includes 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. The General Plan
recognizes Cupertino’s oldest Victorian era farmhouse 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 the home
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 faci lity 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 supports the project.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the use permit for the separate ba r facility
per the draft resolution.
Staff said that no neighbors have submitted any comments relative to the application. The project
falls under the 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 a number of jurisdictions throughout Northern 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 re moved 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 okay by 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 sho p,
because the parking lot is too crowded and 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 parking and 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 was successful. He
noted that when he left the parking lot at 6 p.m. there was still plenty of parking available.
Cupertino Planning Commission October 28, 2014
4
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Lee:
Said she was not comfortable with the wine bar being located across the street from DeAnza College.
She said she felt there are many students that go across the street to study in that area; 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 Vice Chair 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 Vice Chair Lee’s view of the project.
Com. Sun:
Said he has 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’s concerns 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 alcoholism would have
when going to the supermarket and being faced with the smell of alcohol and having temptations .
With Paul and Eddy’s bar it 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 providing a wine bar at Whole Foods stores fits
their culture. How many Whole Food Stores and what percentage provides onsite liquor?
Scott Sherman:
Said he was not certain about the percentage but they have quite a 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 added that there will be areas both inside and outside of the store where it will be posted that no
alcohol can be consumed in those designated 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 Meeting With 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
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
7:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 6, 2014 THURSDAY
QUINLAN CENTER, CUPERTINO ROOM
The Special Planning Commission meeting of November 6, 2014 was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the
Quinlan Center, Cupertino Room, 10185 N. Stelling Road, Cupertino, CA.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Commissioner: Margaret Gong
Commissioner: Don Sun
Commissioner: Alan Takahashi
Staff present: Asst. Director of Community Development: Gary Chao
Assistant City Manager: Aarti Shrivastava
various Staff members of the Community Development Department
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
1) Opportunity of Commission to attend Community Workshop on Traffic Safety
The Commissioners participated in the workshop hosted by Council and Staff. Multiple issues were
discussed including pedestrian and bicycle safety in all parts of the City with an emphasis on the Lincoln,
Kennedy and Monta Vista schools area.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the special November 10, 2014 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45
p.m. in the Cupertino City Hall, Room 100.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Beth Ebben
Beth Ebben, Administrative Clerk
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: November 25, 2014
Application: EXC-2014-09, TR-2014-42, (EA-2014-07)
Applicant: Daryl Harris
Property Owner: Jonathan Yao, Cathy Li
Property Location: 21730 Rainbow Drive (APN 366-37-007)
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Residential Hillside Exception to allow the development of a new 5,213 square-foot single-
family residence with a 1,412 square foot basement on slopes greater than 30%.
Tree Removal Request to allow the removal and replacement of three (3) Coast Live Oak trees
each exceeding 10-inches in diameter.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission approve:
A mitigated negative declaration for the project (EA-2014-07),
The Residential Hillside Exception (EXC-2014-09) per the draft resolution (see Attachment
1), and
The Tree Removal Request (TR-2014-42) per the draft resolution (see Attachment 2)
PROJECT DATA:
Project Feature Ordinance
Requirement
Proposal Consistency
with City
Ordinance
Residential Building Square Footage
Total Proposed Building Area 5,322 sq. ft. max. 5,213 sq. ft.
Yes
Garage (2-car) 441 sq. ft. min. 498 sq. ft. Yes
Living Area (1st floor) n/a 2,347 sq. ft. Yes
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org
3.
EXC-2014-09, TR-2014-42 (EA-2014-07) Yao/Li Residence November 25, 2014
Project Feature Ordinance
Requirement
Proposal Consistency
with City
Ordinance
Setbacks 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor
Front 10’ min.
(grade
>20%)
25’min. 67’ 79’ Yes
Sides 10’ min. 15’ min. 203’ 203’ Yes
Rear 20’ min. 25’ min. 42’ min. 42’ min. Yes
Other Requirements
Building Height 30’ max. 25.5’ Yes
Slope Exception required
for > 500 square feet
of development on
slopes of 30% or
more.
Onsite topography varies
from 32% to 58% slope.
Yes, with
exception
requested for
development
on slope.
Grading Quantity in cubic
yards
2,500 cubic yards
max.
2,245 cubic yards Yes
Parking 6 spaces min. 6 spaces Yes
BACKGROUND:
Project Site & Development Requests
The lot is vacant and surrounded by hillside single-family residences to the north, east, south
and west. The lot is a steeply angled, north-facing slope, ranging with a 32% to 58% gradient,
completely covered with vegetation, consisting of scattered clusters of Coast Live Oaks but
mainly shrubs: Coyote Brush, Poison Oak and Chamise.
The property is accessed via a curvilinear private driveway that is an extension of the westerly
terminus of Rainbow Drive. The Planning Commission approved hillside exceptions for two
new hillside residences at 21740 & 21750 Rainbow Drive a couple of years ago. 21750 Rainbow
is built and 21740 is under construction.
The applicant, Daryl Harris of RH Associates is requesting two City approvals:
1) A Hillside Exception to allow the development of a new, 5,213 square foot, single-family
residence on a slope greater than 30% in a RHS zoning district, and
2) A Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of three (3) Coast Live Oaks
10 inches or more in trunk diameter that will be affected by the residential development and
grading.
EXC-2014-09, TR-2014-42 (EA-2014-07) Yao/Li Residence November 25, 2014
Residence Description
The proposed residence is located in the middle of the lot separated from several clusters of oak
trees. The residence site is accessed via a proposed driveway that bisects two clusters of oaks.
The proposed driveway must generally follow the contours of the land to limit its steepness and
in order to comply with Fire Department standards for emergency accessibility to the residence.
The large driveway pad at the end of the driveway is required to provide sufficient flat area for
onsite parking spaces and a required fire truck turnaround. These functional areas are not
allowed to overlap and contribute towards a significant amount of the site grading proposed.
Due to the sloping conditions, a pier and grade beam foundation is required. There is an
excavated, below natural grade, basement and two floors of living space. Grading cuts for the
development foot print necessitate both down slope and up slope retaining walls. The
applicant has worked with staff to push the residence into the hill to the maximum extent
possible to minimize the height of the front yard, downhill facing retaining wall to 5’ -7.5’
(Attachment 3). The tall, tiered rear yard retaining walls (maximum aggregated height of 20’)
are proposed to stabilize the upslope of the project site and will be largely screened from public
views by the two-story residence. A small graded yard area with swimming pool is also
depicted in the site plan.
The building colors and roof material depicted in the plan set complies with RHS design
standards, which require muted vegetative or earth tones with low light reflectance values of 60
or less (Attachment 4).
DISCUSSION:
Prominent Ridgelines Analysis
An RHS-Ordinance identified prominent ridgeline exists upslope of this lot following the
Pacific, Gas & Electric (PG&E) power transmission corridor. The house is sited in a manner that
its highest roof ridgelines do not encroach into a 15% sight line from that ridgeline in
accordance with RHS development standards.
Exception for Development on Slopes Greater Than 30%
The Residential Hillside Ordinance (RHS) prohibits any structures or improvements over 500
square feet in area on slopes greater than 30% unless an exception is granted. The intent of this
rule is to minimize and discourage unnecessary hillside grading activities and visual
disturbances. However, if the project/property presents unique circumstances or hardships
(typically physical/topographic challenges), then the City may consider an exception provided
that the project is designed to minimize the extent of the exception and impacts to the surround
hillside. The siting and design of the house minimizes the removal of the oak trees and reduces
the visibility of the retaining walls necessary to develop the property in a safe manner. The City
has historically granted exceptions to allow reasonable development of steeper hillside
properties planned for residential use.
The entire property is steeply sloped with slopes ranging from 32% to 58%. The property
cannot be developed without a hillside exception request. With the exception of the proposed
EXC-2014-09, TR-2014-42 (EA-2014-07) Yao/Li Residence November 25, 2014
development on a slope over 30%, the proposed home complies with all other aspects of the
RHS- Hillside Zoning Ordinance.
Geological Review
A geotechnical investigation for the project has been prepared by Wayne Ting & Associates
(Attachment 5) and a Geologic Hazard Evaluation by Buckley Engineering Assocates, Inc.
(Attachment 6). Both reports were reviewed by the City Geologist (Attachment 7). The City
Geologist concluded that sufficient information has been presented to demonstrate the
geotechnical feasibility of the proposed residence and recommends approval of the hillside
exception from a geologic and geotechnical standpoint. The applicant has also worked with
both the City Geologist and Public Works Department to design the drainage system for the site
using a large, underground storm water detention tank to store peak storm flows, which are
later release to storm drainage facilities after the peak period. This type of drainage system has
been approved and constructed in other recent hillside construction projects and will be
reviewed and approved by Public Works staff. Based on the City Geologist recommendation,
the site grading will only be performed during the dry summer/fall months. The
recommendations of the private engineers and the City Geologist have been incorporated as a
condition in the approval resolution.
Trail Considerations
In 1979, City approval of the Rainbow’s End subdivision (Tract No. 5990) included the
dedication of a pedestrian and equestrian easement of 40-feet in width from the Rainbow Drive
cul-de-sac following a private driveway for 260 feet before it connected to a 20-foot wide
easement that ran through 21730 and 21720 Rainbow Drive to the Fremont Older Open Space
Preserve owned by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The access easement
through these private lots was never improved or used (Attachment 8). Pedestrian access along
this dedicated route is problematic due to the steep topography along portions of the easement.
In the meantime, open space preserve users created an alternative access, essentially an
informal trail, through 21730 and 21740 Rainbow Drive to access the Fremont Older Preserve as
depicted in the aerial photo below. This informal neighborhood trail has been in existence for at
least two decades and is avidly used by local residents to access Fremont Older Preserve.
EXC-2014-09, TR-2014-42 (EA-2014-07) Yao/Li Residence November 25, 2014
Year 2000 Aerial Photograph of Property and Environs Depicting Informal Trail
As part of this project, the property owner has agreed to move the existing pedestrian and
equestrian easement to a more accessible area in exchange for City abandonment of the current
easement and the creation of a pedestrian access easement through the rear of his property
which would connect to other informal trails across adjacent property ultimately terminating at
the Fremont Older Preserve. This would include an easement along the front of this property
connecting to the pedestrian easement across the property.
Part of this easement effort will involve a summary vacation of the existing 20-foot wide
pedestrian/equestrian easement that runs across the property frontage in exchange for a
pedestrian/public access easement that continues along the driveway to the trail access point
and across the rear of the property. Further, the applicant will need to realign the existing
informal trail so that it does not overlap with the newly proposed driveway to the residence.
This will involve additional grading and improvements to facilitate this new trail alignment so
that access can be maintained across the trail. Ultimate use of the trail will require the
21740
21750
21717
21720
21710
21730
RA
I
N
B
O
W
RA
I
N
B
O
W
RA
I
N
B
O
W
RA
I
N
B
O
W
RA
I
N
B
O
W
Fremont Older Open Space Preserve
Subject Property Existing Informal Trail
EXC-2014-09, TR-2014-42 (EA-2014-07) Yao/Li Residence November 25, 2014
cooperation of adjacent landowners as hikers will need to cross their properties in order to
access the Fremont Older Preserve. Adjacent, affected property owners have verbally agreed to
facilitate access to the trail across applicant's property that ultimately leads to the Preserve.
Conditions have been added to the Hillside Exception resolution to memorialize the exchange
of pedestrian easements and development of trail access to Fremont Older Open Space
Preserve.
Tree Removal Request
A tree report was prepared by the applicant’s arborist and revised on September 2014. There are
a total of 33 oaks on the property. The applicant has requested the removal of three specimen
size oaks to facilitate the development of the residence. The noted trees are numbered: 12, 22 &
33. The City Arborist and staff have reviewed the report and in the City Arborist’s comments
(Attachment 10), trees no. 12 and 22 do not require tree removal permission from the City
because the former is a large shrub and the latter is an under-ordinance-size Coast Live Oak.
Based on the City Arborist’s observations and recommendations, staff is recommending the
removal of specimen size oaks #6 and #30, in addition to #33 as presented in the table below:
Tree No. Tree Diameter (in.) Staff Recommendation Comments
6 17.7”/16.8” Allow removal. Can’t achieve buffer. Retaining
walls & storm line trenching too
close.
30 26.6” Allow removal Retaining walls encroach too
closely to tree trunk.
33 23.1” Allow removal Too close to driveway and
grading.
Staff believes the other specimen size oaks near the construction area can be protected by minor
realignments of the entry driveway and routing the storm drainage lines and relocating the
water detention tank outside of the dripline of the protected oaks. Note that City Arborist’s
recommendations have been incorporated into the conditions of the tree removal resolution.
Based on their trunk diameters, the following replacement mitigation is required for the
removed trees.
Tree Replacement Requirements for Removed Oak Trees
Tree No. Tree Diameter (in.) Oak Tree Replacement Requirement
6 17.7”/16.8” 2, 24-inch box oaks
30 26.6” 2, 24-inch box oaks
33 23.1” 2, 24-inch box oaks
EXC-2014-09, TR-2014-42 (EA-2014-07) Yao/Li Residence November 25, 2014
Staff is recommending the higher quantity of smaller box trees, that is, a total of 6, 24-inch box
oaks, rather than, a few of the 36-inch box oaks because of the need to screen grading cuts and
retaining walls from public visibility and potential screening of the trail from the residence.
ERC/Environmental Considerations
The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the proposal on October 16, 2014, and
recommended the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration for the project. The Committee
recommended that the Planning Commission evaluate the placement of a trail across the
property to the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, by swapping an unused, onsite, existing
trail easement for a newly created trail easement along an existing informal trail or a
realignment of the trail. Geotechnical concerns would be mitigated by following the
recommendations of the City Geologist.
Permit Streamlining Considerations
In accordance with the state Permit Streamlining Act, the application was filed on July 30, 2014
and an incomplete letter was mailed by the City on August 29, 2014 within the 30-day deadline.
Applicant responded to all comments and the application was deemed complete on October 2,
2014. The Environmental Review Committee determined a mitigated negative declaration was
warranted on the project on October 16, 2014. If the Planning Commission acts on the
application tonight, it would be within the statutory deadline of December 16, 2014.
Hillside Exception Findings
To approve the hillside exception, the Planning Commission must make the findings below.
Staff comments are in italics:
1. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the
area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety.
Staff Comments: The development will comply with planning, building, public works and fire
department regulations to protect public health and safety.
2. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or
vehicular traffic.
Staff Comments: The development is setback from the common driveway and does not create a
hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicles.
3. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are
available to serve the development.
Staff Comments: The residence will have access to Rainbow Drive and all utilities are located in
the abutting private street.
4. The proposed development requires an exception, which involves the least modification
of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary
to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel.
EXC-2014-09, TR-2014-42 (EA-2014-07) Yao/Li Residence November 25, 2014
Staff Comments: The exception for development on slopes greater than 30% is the only exception
required. Due to the steep slopes of the property, it cannot be developed with a residence unless an
exception is granted. The development otherwise meets all other RHS development standards.
5. All alternative locations for development on the parcel have been considered and have
been found to create greater environmental impacts than the location of the proposed
development.
Staff Comments: The project is located in the middle of the lot that avoids encroaching on a
prominent ridgeline and minimizes the number of oaks that must be removed. Other driveway
alignments will cause more grading and need retaining walls.
6. The proposed development does not consist of structures on or near known geological
or environmental hazards that have been determined by expert testimony to be unsafe
or hazardous to structures or persons residing therein.
Staff Comments: Geologic studies demonstrate the lack of unmitigable geologic hazards.
7. The proposed development includes grading and drainage plans that will ensure that
erosion and scarring of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of the housing site
and improvements will be minimized.
Staff Comments: Proposed grading will minimize visible retaining walls and drainage plans will
minimize the introduction of storm flows into steep, hillside soils.
8. The proposed development consists of structures incorporating designs, colors,
materials, and outdoor lighting which blend with the n atural hillside environment and
which are designed in such a manner as to reduce the effective visible mass, including
building height, as much as possible without creating other negative environmental
impacts.
Staff Comments: Grading design will minimize visible retaining walls. Building materials and
colors will meet RHS design standards.
9. The proposed development is located on the parcel as far as possible from public open
space preserves or parks (if visible therefrom), riparian corridors, and wildlife habitats
unless such location will create other, more negative environmental impacts.
Staff Comments: The proposed residence will not be visible from the nearby public open space
preserve.
10. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and
with the purposes of this chapter as described in Section 19.40.010.
Staff Comments: The development is consistent with the RHS zoning ordinance which
implements the General Plan’s hillside protection policies.
EXC-2014-09, TR-2014-42 (EA-2014-07) Yao/Li Residence November 25, 2014
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Associate Planner
Reviewed by Approved by
/s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
Assist. Dir. of Community Development Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1- Draft Resolution for EXC-2014-09
2- Draft Resolution for TR-2014-42
3- Rendering of Residence, street view
4- Exterior Materials Board
5- Geotechnical Investigation/Proposed Yao Single-Family Structure/21730 Rainbow
Drive/Cupertino, CA 95030 prepared by Wayne Ting and Associates, Inc. and dated March
2013.
6- Geologic Hazard Evaluation for a Proposed Residence/21717 Rainbow Drive/Cupertino,
California Prepared for Mr. Wang Ting/Wayne Ting & Associates, Inc./Prepared by Buckely
Engineering Associates, Inc. and dated March 14, 2013
7- Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review/Yao, Proposed New Residence/21730 Rainbow Drive
prepared by Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. and dated August 8, 2014.
8- Rainbow’s End Final Subdivision Map, Tract No. 5990
9- Tree/Site Inventory prepared by Richard Smith, Certified Arborist, dated revised 9/22/14
10- A Review of Proposed Construction/21730 Rainbow Dr. by Michael Bench, City Arborist
Dated October 16 & 28, 2014
11- Initial Study, ERC Recommendation
12- Plan set
EXC-2014-09
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A HILLSIDE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW 5,213 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 1,412 SQUARE
FOOT BASEMENT ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 30% AT 21730 RAINBOW DRIVE
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: EXC-2014-09 (EA-2014-07)
Applicant: Daryl Harris
Location: 21730 Rainbow Drive, APN# 366-37-007
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Hillside
Exception, as described on Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the
City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support this application, and has
satisfied the following requirements:
1. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor
be detrimental to the public health and safety. The development will comply with planning,
building, public works and fire department regulations to protect public health and safety.
2. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular
traffic. The development is setback from the common driveway and does not create a
hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicles.
3. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available
to serve the development. The residence will have access to Rainbow Drive and all utilities
are located in the abutting driveway.
4. The proposed development requires an exception, which involves the least modification of, or
deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to
accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. The exception for development on slopes greater
than 30% is the only exception required. The development otherwise meets all other RHS
development standards.
5. All alternative locations for development on the parcel have been considered and have been
found to create greater environmental impacts than the location of the proposed development
which is located in the middle of the lot that avoids encroaching on a prominent ridgeline and
Draft Resolution EXC-2014-09 November 25, 2014
===========================================================================
minimizes the number of oaks that must be removed. Other driveway alignments will cause
more grading and need retaining walls.
6. The proposed development does not consist of structures on or near known geological or
environmental hazards that have been determined by expert testimony to be unsafe or
hazardous to structures or persons residing therein. Geologic studies demonstrate the lack of
unmitigable geologic hazards.
7. The proposed development includes grading and drainage plans that will ensure that erosion
and scarring of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of the housing site and
improvements will be minimized. Proposed grading will minimize visible retaining walls
and drainage plans will minimize the introduction of storm flows into steep, hillside soils.
8. The proposed development consists of structures incorporating designs, colors, materials,
and outdoor lighting which blend with the natural hillside environment and which are
designed in such a manner as to reduce the effective visible mass, including building height,
as much as possible without creating other negative environmental impacts. Grading design
will minimize visible retaining walls. Building materials and colors will meet RHS design
standards.
9. The proposed development is located on the parcel as far as possible from public open space
preserves or parks (if visible therefrom), riparian corridors, and wildlife habitats unless such
location will create other, more negative environmental impacts. The proposed residence
will not be visible from the nearby public open space preserve.
10. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the
purposes of this chapter as described in Section 19.40.010. The development is consistent
with the RHS zoning ordinance which implements the General Plan’s hillside protection
policies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, Environmental Review Committee recommendation,
maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Commission finds that
the project with mitigations incorporated will not have a significant environmental impact and adopts a
mitigated negative declaration with a mitigation monitoring report (file no. EA -2014-07) and application
no. EXC-2014-09 is hereby approved; 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 EXC -2014-09, as set forth in the
Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 25, 2014 and are incorporated by reference
herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set titled: “A PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR:/ JONATHAN YAO &
CATHY LI/ 21730 RAINBOW DRIVE CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA” dated July 2014, and consisting
of 16 sheets labeled A1 through A9, C.0 and C-1 through C-6 except as may be amended by the
conditions contained in this resolution.
Draft Resolution EXC-2014-09 November 25, 2014
===========================================================================
2. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS, LANDSCAPING
Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material,
architectural treatments and/or embellishments, lighting, retaining walls and landscaping) shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building
permits for compliance to RHS zoning and other relevant regulations. Any exterior changes
determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a
modification approval with neighborhood input.
3. 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.
4. GENERAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
The applicant’s project is granted a General Plan Development Allocation of one dwelling unit from
the Other Residential Neighborhoods allocation pool.
5. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall determine in consultation with staff whether
a full landscape project submittal per section 14.15.040 of the Landscaping Ordinance is warranted.
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.
6. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT
In conjunction with any required landscape project submittal, a landscape installation audit shall be
conducted by a certified landscape professional after the landscaping and irrigation system have
been installed. The findings of the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation
report.
The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the
landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design
plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that
causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule.
The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The landscape and
irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and ir rigation design plan and
complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.”
7. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
In conjunction with any required landscape project submittal, a maintenance schedule shall be
established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either
Draft Resolution EXC-2014-09 November 25, 2014
===========================================================================
with the landscape application package, with the landscape installation report, or any time before the
landscape installation report is submitted.
a) Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period and
water requirements for established landscapes.
b) Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure
testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de-thatching turf areas;
replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and
removing obstructions to emission devices.
c) Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size -
adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall either
be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, n utrients, pest control or other
factors as recommended by a landscaping professional.
8. PERMIT EXPIRATION
The subject hillside exception approval shall expire two (2) years from the date of approval if not
used.
9. ACCURACY OF 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.
10. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall arrange for a pre-construction
meeting with the pertinent departments (Building, Planning, and Public Works) to review the
prepared construction management plan, to ensure that construction complies with the conditions of
approval, staging of construction equipment is appropriate, tree protection measures are in place,
public access routes are defined, and noise and dust control measures are established.
11. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT
Applicant shall submit an annotated response to all of these conditions of approval with his building
permit submittal.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
12. GRADING PLAN
Conceptual Grading and Drainage plans will need to be modified at the Building Permit stage to
satisfy Public Works’ preliminary comments regarding proposed storm drain systems.
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of
the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact
Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
13. DRAINAGE
The proposed infiltration system shown on sheet C-3 is not recommended for hillside projects unless
the project geotechnical engineer provides a stamped and signed report with recommendations for
installation, and the City’s geotechnical engineer reviews and approves the recommendations. The
Draft Resolution EXC-2014-09 November 25, 2014
===========================================================================
report must include an evaluation of the existing soils and the proposed device with
recommendations, and letter stating that the Civil Plans have been reviewed and are consistent with
their recommendations. Consider an alternative retention system with facilities that meter storm
runoff to a level consistent with the pre-project condition. Storm drainage lines and other
constructed drainage features shall be sited to avoid crossing the canopy driplines of the protected
oak trees.
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology and pre- and post-
development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water
control measures are to be constructed or renovated.
14. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board,
for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street
improvement plans.
15. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
Developer shall provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan
should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes
shall be stated on the plans.
16. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
Developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and
other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected
utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Developer shall submit detailed
plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the
affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
17. ABOVE GROUND EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURES
Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground
vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and
the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment.
Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be
screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street
areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be
located in the front or side building setback area.
18. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing
for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park
dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed pr ior to
issuance of construction permits
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,788.00 or 6%)
b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,618.00 or 6%)
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00
Draft Resolution EXC-2014-09 November 25, 2014
===========================================================================
d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ TBD
e. Power Cost: **
f. Park Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($28,875)
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC
Bonds:
Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City
Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final
map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at
that time will reflect the then current fee schedule.
19. WORK SCHEDULE
Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for all
grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project.
20. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to final
occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for any non-standard
appurtenances in the public right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk, pavers,
and street lights.
21. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS
Developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse
truck access for the proposed development.
22. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new building construction to the approval of the City.
23. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department
prior to issuance of building permits. Clearance should include written approval of the location of
any proposed Water Backflow Preventers, Fire Department Connections and Fire Hydrants (typically
Backflow Preventers should be located on private property adjacent to the public right of way, and
fire department connections must be located within 100’ of a Fire Hydrant).
24. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as
needed.
25. SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY CLEARANCE
Provide San Jose Water Service Company approval for water connection, service capability and
location and layout of water lines and backflow preventers before issuance of a building permit
approval.
Draft Resolution EXC-2014-09 November 25, 2014
===========================================================================
26. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
Developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and
shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water Services Company for water service to the subject
development.
27. DEDICATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS
Developer shall “quit claim” to the City all rights to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the
underground basin or any underground strata in the Santa Clara Valley.
28. SANITARY DISTRICT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to
issuance of building permits.
29. UTILITY EASEMENTS
Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG&E, AT&T, and
California Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of
building permits.
30. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the
developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation
of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance.
31. C.3 REQUIREMENTS
Complete a Project Impervious Surface Data and LID Feasibility Form.
C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 10,000 S.F. or more
of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). The developer shall reserve a
minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development measures,
for storm water treatment, on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan,
that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer.
The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water
treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be designed per approved numeric sizing
criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water
Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and
maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required. All storm water management plans are required
to obtain certification from a City approved third party reviewer.
32. WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTERS
Domestic and Fire Water Backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment shall be
placed away from the public right of way and site driveways to a location approved by the
Cupertino Planning Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department and the water company.
33. EXCHANGE OF PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT AREAS
Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall apply to the City for a summary vacation of
the 20-foot wide pedestrian/equestrian easement along the front of the property. In exchange for
Draft Resolution EXC-2014-09 November 25, 2014
===========================================================================
this summary vacation of easement, the property owner shall simultaneously dedicate a new 20 -
foot wide pedestrian easement near the rear and side property lines and a connecting pedestrian
easement along the improved driveway with the objective of facilitating pedestrian access to the
lands of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
34. MAINTAINING OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
The property owner shall maintain pedestrian access through the property toward the lands of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for the life of this Hillside Exception Approval.
Access can be provided either through maintaining the existing informal trail on the property or
developing a new trail alignment on the property.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of November 2014, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Gary Chao, Assistant Director Paul Brophy, Chair
Community Development Department Planning Commission
G:Planning/PDREPORT/RES/2014/EXC-2014-09 res
TR-2014-42
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF THREE PROTECTED TREES: A 17.7”/16.8”, 26.6” AND 23.1”
DIAMETER COAST LIVE OAKS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE
FAMILY HILLSIDE RESIDENCE AT 21730 RAINBOW DRIVE (APN: 366-37-007)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: TR-2014-42
Applicant: Daryl Harris
Property Owner: Jonathan Yao & Cathy Li
Location: 21730 Rainbow Drive (APN: 366-37-007)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for tree removal, as
described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of
the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regard to this application:
1. That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting the
use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated
property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there
are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this
matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof,:
The application for a Tree Removal Permit, Application No. TR-2014-42, is hereby approved, 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. TR-2014-42 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning
Commission Meeting of November 25, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the arborist report titled: “A Review of Proposed Construction/ 21730 Rainbow
Drive/ APN 366-37-007/ Cupertino, California” dated October 16 and 28, 2014, consisting of 6 pages,
prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist, except as may be amended by conditions in this
resolution. Trees approved for removal are depicted on the Tree Map Site Plan prepared by Michael L.
Bench and numbered on the map: 6, 30, and 33.
Draft Resolution TR-2014-42 November 25, 2014
2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file no. EXC-2014-09 shall be applicable to this approval.
3. TREE REPLACEMENT
For each of the oaks referenced above approved for removal, the applicant shall plant two 24-inch box
Coast Live Oaks. Replacement locations shall be approved by the Community Development Director
with the primary objective to screen the front retaining walls from public street views and secondarily,
views of the proposed trail from the proposed residence.
4. TREE PROTECTION
Prior to building permit issuance, the development plans shall be revised to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development to create greater buffering distance between the protected trees
along the driveway and residential improvements. This should include a slight realignment of the
driveway to better protect upslope oaks, and the siting of storm flow lines and other constructed
drainage features to avoid the canopy driplines of the protect oaks. Tree protection fencing shall be
erected to protect oaks slated for protection from construction activities. The tree protection measures
shall be placed in the construction plan set. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees
mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy.
5. 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.
6. PERMIT EXPIRATION
The subject tree removal permit approval shall expire two (2) years from the date of approval if not
used.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of November 2014, at a 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, Assistant Director Paul Brophy, Chair
Community Development Dept. Planning Commission
Subject: Report of the Community Development Assistant Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Municipal Code Amendment to the Tree Ordinance Update
The City Council approved the Tree Ordinance Amendment (MCA-2013-01) and
conducted the first reading on November 18th, 2014. The Council made the following
modification to the Ordinance:
Clarify notice and posting requirements for mature specimen tress less than twenty -
four inches DBH in R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 zoning districts.
In all zoning districts, where the planting of on-site replacement tree(s) is
physically infeasible, the required in-lieu fee shall be equivalent to the cost of
labor materials.
Add a tree removal permit finding specimen trees between 13 inches and 24
inches DBH within R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 zoning districts.
At the Second Reading of the ordinance, additional consideration for the listing of
the Laurel Bay on the specimen tree list may include one of the following:
-Keep it on list (no change)
-Remove from the list
-Replace with London Plane tree
-Replace with other species
Hyatt House Hotel Development Project
On November 18, 2014 the City Council considered and denied the petition to reconsider
the City Council’s approval of the Hyatt House Hotel Development Proj ect.
General Plan Amendment and Housing Element
The City Council is scheduled to consider the General Plan Amendment and
Housing Element on December 2, 2014. Please refer to the following website for any
additional details: www.cupertinogpa.org
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org