PC Packet 3-8-16CITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:45 PM
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Draft Minutes of February 23, 2016
Recommended Action: approve or modify the Draft Minutes of February 23, 2016
Draft Minutes of February 23, 2016
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission
on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most
cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to
a matter not on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
2.Consider an appeal of Two-Story Permit (R-2015-38) to allow the construction of
a new 2,775 square foot single-family residence. (Application No. R-2015-38;
Applicant: Mike Chen (Patel Residence); Appellant: Biren Shah; Location: 18780
Tilson Avenue; APN: 375-17-036)
Recommended Action: Deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development
Director’s decision to approve the project per the draft resolution
Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO
March 8, 2016Planning Commission AGENDA
Staff Report
1- Draft Resolution
2 - Plan Set
3 - Two-Story Permit Action Letter
4 - Appellant's Letter
5 - Comment Letter
3.Subject: Use Permit for a separate bar at a proposed restaurant located in the
Ninteen800 (formerly Rosebowl) Mixed Use Development. (Application No .(s):
U-2015-10; Applicant(s): Alex Miramar (Doppio Zero Pizzeria); Location: 10088
N. Wolfe Road, #120; APN: 316-20-108)
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the Use Permit (U-2015-10) to allow the operation of the separate bar in accordance
with the draft resolution
Staff Report
1- Draft Resolution
2 - Plan Set
3 - Business Description
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
ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO
March 8, 2016Planning Commission AGENDA
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior
to, the public hearing. In the event an action taken by the planning Commission is
deemed objectionable, the matter may be officially appealed to the City Council in
writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Commission’s decision. Said appeal
is filed with the City Clerk (Ordinance 632).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning
to attend the next Planning Commission meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or
has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at
408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon
request, in advance, by a person with a disability, Planning Commission meeting
agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made
available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an
assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission after
publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the Community
Development Department located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal
business hours and in Planning packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page
on the Cupertino web site.
Members of the public are entitled to address the Planning Commission concerning any
item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during
consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on any issue
that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the
Commission, and deliver it to the City Staff prior to discussion of the item. When you
are called, proceed to the podium and the Chair will recognize you. If you wish to
address the Planning Commission on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so
by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure
described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Please note
that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10
minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes.
For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items
on the agenda, contact the Planning Department at (408) 777 3308 or
planning@cupertino.org.
Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. FEBRUARY 23,2016
TUESDAY
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The regular Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2016, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. byChairperson Winnie Lee.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chairperson:Winnie Lee
Vice Chairperson: Alan Takahashi
Commissioner:Don Sun
Commissioner: Geoff Paulsen
Commissioner: Margaret Gong
Staff Present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava
Assistant Planner: Ellen Yau
Consulting Attorney: Colleen Winchester
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS:
Election of New Chairperson, Vice Chair and Committee Appointments:
MOTION:Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 4-0-1
(Com. Takahashi abstain) to elect Com. Takahashi as new Chairperson
MOTION:Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Paulsen, and unanimously carried 4-0-1
(Com. Gong abstain) to elect Com. Gong as Vice Chairperson
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:
Environmental Review Committee (ERC):Current Chairperson serves on ERC, one alternate needed;
meets at 9:30 a.m. 1st and 3rd Thursday of each month. Chair Takahashi will serve on ERC; Com. Lee
will serve as alternate.
Design Review Committee: meets 1st and 3rd Thursday, 5 p.m. Conf. Rm. C; Chair Takahashi and Com.
Paulsen; Vice Chair Gong will serve as alternate.
Economic Development Committee: meets quarterly, second Wednesday, 10 a.m. Vice Chair Gong
will serve as rep., alternate will be Com. Sun.
Cupertino Planning Commission February 23, 20162
Housing Commission: meets second Thursday, 3x to 4xper year 9 a.m. Com. Paulsen will serve as
rep., Com. Lee will serve as alternate.
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting:
February3: Com. Paulsen
March 2: Com. Lee Aug. 3: Com. Lee
April 6:Vice Chair Gong Sept. 7: Vice Chair Gong
May 4: Chair Takahashi Oct. 5: Chair Takahashi
June 1: Com. Sun Nov. 2: Com. Sun
July 1: Com. Paulsen Dec. 7: Com. Paulsen
Chair Takahashi resumed chairing the meeting.
1.APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the February 9, 2016 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion:Motion by Vice Chair Gong, second by Com.Sun, and unanimously
carried 4-0-1(Vice Chair Takahashi abstained) to approve the minutesof the
February 9, 2016 Planning Commission meeting aspresented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
2.R-2015-08, RM-2015-08 Appeal of a Director’s approval of a two story permit
Jing Quan (Kingkay to allow construction of a new 5,140 sq. ft. single
Capital, LLC)family residence and a Minor Residential Permit to
Matthew or Angela allow a second story balcony on the new residence.
Miller
21900 Oakview Lane
Ellen Yau, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the application for appealof the administrative approval of R-2015-08 and RM-20108
located at 21900 Oakview Lane for a new 5,140 sq. ft. single family residence and second story
balcony facing the rear of the property, as outlined in the staff report. She reviewed the permit
process, and basis of Appeal Nos. 1 through 24 detailed in the slide presentation.The staff report also
contained staff responses to the appellant’s basis of appeal.
Staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision to
approvethe project inaccordance with the draft resolutions.
Staff answered Commissioners’ questions about how staff was working with the neighborhoodand
Applicant from the beginning to the present stage of the application.
Com. Sun stated that there are some people who feel there is a lack of efficiency in working with the
Cupertino Planning Commission February 23, 20163
neighbors. How much neighborhood involvement has there been and how much work has been done
to meet the other neighbors’ requirements? Staff said they have worked with the applicant in
modifying their design; the applicant came in with a very complete application in meeting staff’s
requirements and staff proposed various design elements to acquiesce someof the concerns
addressed. Relative to the permit process, if a two-story homemeets the prescriptiverequirements of
the R1ordinance there is very little discretion that city staff has in termsof design features and
elements as long as they meet those requirements and they meet the findings in those sections cited
for these two permits; then staff has to issue the permit because those requirements are met. If it were
a two-story designed review home there would be a lot more discretion in terms of design of the
home, but as it stands, for this particular permit they met every prescriptive regulation and therewas
very little leeway with that.
The two-story permit is allowed for any two-story additions or new proposed second story. A minor
residential permit is simply for thesecond story balcony. If the applicant didn’t propose a second
story balcony, theywould not have to do a minor residential permit. The minor residential permit
also covers other additions that are not being requested by the applicant.
Matthew and Angela Miller, 21884 Oakview Lane, Appellants:
Said they had a lot of shade in their swim pool from the pine trees at the side of the house; the Cyprus
trees not only shade the swim pool but also their solar panelswhich heat the pool. The Cyprus tree
at the side of the house also shades their vegetable garden. There is also a lot of duston the cars and
in the swim pool. If more trees have to be planted for privacy, it will be more detrimental to shading
the pool and the solar panels. In order to alleviate the visual intrusion, if more trees are planted there
will be more shade on the solar panels. He said he was considering solar voltaic panels for the roof,
but was advised that if the height of the proposed house is higher, it may interfere with the roof solar
panels.
She said if the proposed house was built it would result in more shade on their home and result in
their home being colder, forcing them to use more electrical heat in their home during the winter. She
said that fifteen neighbors have signed a protest of the application. Several years ago the city
approved a dozen homesbehind them which eliminated their privacy because the homes looked
directly into their yard; one of the neighbors removed their pool because they lost all their privacy
with the new homes.
They presented architectural drawings of the proposed construction, and stated they felt it was not
harmonious with the neighborhood. They said they did not feel it was fair that they should have to
give up their privacy and use of their pool after 42 years; the proposed home could be smaller and it
could be built so asnot to have such a negative impact on the homes already there.
George Quan, 21900 Oakview Lane; Applicant:
(Did not speak)
Ina Lui, property owner:
Said theypurchased the property in March 2014; the design of the house follows the city code
completely;theyhave been working diligently with their architect and city planners to ensure their
new plan will not negatively affect their next door neighbors. She said some of the appellants’ letter
contains irrelevant information, including Indian cemetery yard and some suspicious behavior about
previous owners; swim pool, solar panels, privacy and visual impact, harmonic community and why a
two-story house. She said she would explain and analyze the points individually; hopefully the
explanation would eliminate the neighbors’ confusion and worries. She presented informationabout
shading of the pool at different times of the day; shading from the solar panelsat various times;
privacy and the visual impact. The new house fits inexactly the same space as the existing house;
they tried very hard to maximize the setbacks to protect the neighbor’s privacy as well as their own.
The second floor is much smaller than the first floor in order to give the neighbors maximum privacy.
Cupertino Planning Commission February 23, 20164
The two-story house is a magnificent Spanish style masterpiece, they have worked doing
modifications to meet their plans and also follow the city code. It is not a pollution view; theyspent
extra money to make the model in order to show the Commissionand neighbors. The house will
bring extra value to thecommunity; it is in harmony with the community. She showed a Googlemap
that illustrated the neighborhood homes, illustrating where there are many two-story homes. Said she
felt people should be open to accept difference as long as the difference fits the community and
follows the city code. There are three adjoining neighbors on the street; the neighbor across the street
fully supports the new house plan and feels that the new home would add value to the community and
his new home. Their choice for a second story is a two-story home that will provide more space for
her children to play in the yard freely. She said she respects the life style of her neighbors and feels
that their life style should also be respected. She concluded that the neighbor’s swim pool will not be
affected by the two-story home; she said they followed the city code and don’t believe changing the
current two-story design to a one-story house is a reasonablerequest. Their new home will
undoubtedly be a positive addition to the community.
Jin Quan, Project Architect:
Said that they hiredprofessionals to do the shadow studyand the new two-story house will not impact
the swim pool. One of the neighbors is willing to cut a large tree to allow the Miller family to have
more sunshine in their yard.
Chairperson Takahashi opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Said it is upsetting when a neighborhood goes through transition such as the current issue. Cupertino
had storypolesup untilabout three years ago and if they still existed, she felt itwould have calmed
down many questions from the neighbors. The storypoleswould have been up and all the neighbors
and homeowners would beable to see where the tops of the rosepeaks were, edge of the balcony was,
see where the light would be falling into the different yards. Said she felt the city should still have
storypoles; don’t know why they were pulled from the ordinance. Said she lives on 5500 sq. ft. lot
where most of the homes are 5000; theyhad a two-story go in a street and a half away; you can see
the back balcony from her living room windows because it is an Eichler home; theyhad storypoles,
that house was built about 7 yearsand by having those storypolesgo up before the house
construction, and it is a common two-story designed bya builder who builds many homes in
Cupertino; theback balcony can beseen from her livingroom window and because theyhad the
storypoles, theyhad 6 neighbors concerned about the balcony and the size of the home. Because they
had the storypoles they were able to see how tall the house was, everybody’s heights from it andit
helped a great deal. She said she felt they should bringstorypoles back; why there isnot a second
story setback on the big tall wall, supposed to be set back on all four walls and why is that 19 foot
wall there; they are trying not to have vertical routings? That is why there is a second story setback
ordinance; why is that wall not set back? Also thechimney doesn’t have to be as tall. Storypoles
would calm a lot of issues.
Catherine D. Quihuis, 21836 Oakview Lane:
Illustrated views of her back yard from her surrounding neighbors’ homes; their windows peer down
into her back yard, leaving her with no backyard privacy. When her neighbor remodeled she was
forced to bring in cleaners many times to clean up the dust and rubble from the neighbor’s remodel
job. The neighbors will be negatively impacted as well as the residents of the new home as the
neighbors will be able to look into their home also.
Cupertino Planning Commission February 23, 20165
Roy Hampton and Yvonne Hampton, 21821 Oakview Lane:
Said theyhave added onto their home twice; each time they added on they visited their neighbors,
showed them the plans, got their comments, and addressedany issues. No one was unhappy with
what was done; great care was taken on their part to blend in with the neighbors and not be
objectionable to neighbors. He said he felt the proposed house was intrusive, too large and should be
modified. She said she was waveringsomewhat because of the setback from the pool, and felt that if
windows were built a little higher, people will be less worried about being looked at. Planting trees
for privacy may become a nightmare in the future. The setback from the Miller house would at least
mitigate the privacy because you can’t look down at an angle.
Jeanette Paulsen, 20917 Oakview Lane:
Said she felt the storypoles were important; their home sits 4 feet below the proposed structure. Not
only are they dealing with the height, but have another 3 or 4 feet which would make it 29 feet. They
have a 450 year old Oak tree; therewill be no sun at 8:30 a.m. for several months if the home is built.
Said she felt a one-story home would be the best solution; trees used for privacy get cut down or die,
obscure windows get removed.
Jan Kucera Jr., 21917 Oakview Lane, (retired engineer):
Referred to drawings, which addressed the scale and design; 95%of the homes in the area are single
story; the two-story homes are homes that have been added onto, not originally two-story homes.
Only one two-story home built in the 90s pre the new release plan; that home today would not have
met the specifications, it is the big monster home on 21837. Thereis only one two-story home on
that block; what was shown were additions. Said it was to scale, he hired a professional architect and
he had Google maps and everything is precisely to scale. If you design a home that looks 13 feet high
next to it and you are designing a home that 25 ft. 4 ins. Is that to scale and design of the
neighborhood; the answer is No, so theproposed home is almost doublein scaled height, so youtell
someone I am going to designthis home doubled the scale height of the neighborhood; that is
something else, but if the ordinance says, Section19.28… it says build homes to scale and height
design.
Said the culde sac in front has a home with 7 windows looking onto his front porch, no privacy
mitigation possible, you can’t plant enough trees to mitigate it; his wife likes to sit on the front porch
and has no privacy. He continued to point out the negative impactthe new home would have onhis
property which has been there more than 24 years.
Peiyuan Zhou, resident:
Said harmony is necessary in a neighborhood, people greet each other; however the new neighbor
does not have eye contact with speaker, shake hands, etc. The proposed large home is a negative
impact on the neighborhood; it is hugein size but is an interruptionof other people’s privacy; more
importantly it pits one neighbor against others, ignores the other neighbors’ best interests; the owner’s
attitude is indifference. Looking at the size, they satisfied every building code but in the heart, said
he believedthe same building code covers the small lot and relative large lot; this is a large lot. The
setback is not proportional to the neighbor’s house and people living there don’t expect 5 feet setback
about 19 feet wall that is just the way it is.
Said he did not believe this house satisfies the building code, or the heart of the people who set down
and maintain the building code including all the people in the audience. It is one neighbor against the
other, there is no harmony.
Female Speaker; no name given:
Said she felt the applicants were good people, trying to make things work in a very divisive situation.
She hopedthey would not think that they are going to be their enemy should they build their home.
Cupertino Planning Commission February 23, 20166
They would argue about all theminutia; she would like them to come down to the corner house and
say hi, we are going to try and settle this okay.
Chairperson Takahashi closed the public hearing.
(Questions for the appellant)
Com. Paulsen:
Said he had an interest in trees and managed a forest in No. California; asked if the appellant had
spoken
with a landscape architect about a different species. The Italian Cypress creates a wall; there is a wall
of them on Homestead Road east of DeAnza Blvd. which have grown tall and gangly.
Appellant:
Said the trees are on the applicant’s property. It is a wall in the back and in the front.
Mr. Miller:
Noted that droppings from trees fall into their pool. Said they tried to mitigate the Cyprus tree with
the former owner; the problem existed before the new owner.
Com. Sun:
Said he talked to Mr. Miller recently; he confirmed that Mr. Miller was opposed to the second story.
One issue is the shade caston the pool; said he didn’t think the solar could be blocked from the
second story.
Mr. Miller:
Said according to his neighbor’s calculation and software he used, it will.
Com. Sun:
Said his observation was that it looked somewhat suspicious. Everyone has property rights, the
neighbor meets all the city requirements; they will probably respect both rights, yours and theirs.
What is the reasonable measurement or solution from your side can you propose to the applicant?
Mr. Miller:
Don’t build a two-storyhome; keep it one-story.Perhaps a two-story with more setback. As
designed now it is an intrusion on us and on my neighbors to the west.
Com. Sun:
From your side what do you think is the most reasonable measurement your neighborcan accept
and theother property owners?
Mr. Miller:
The main thingis the visual intrusion and I don’t see how you can mitigate it with planting trees.
Com. Sun:
In the past the privacyissuewas solved with increasing the height of the fence or planting trees; but
in your case you don’t want the trees; you have to think about what the solution is; we have an open
mind to listen to your proposal. The Planning Commission used to deal a lot with privacyissues;
would either the increase in the height of the fence or plant trees there but for your case you don’t
want the trees; you have to think about the solution.
Cupertino Planning Commission February 23, 20167
Mr. Miller:
The balcony is a problem with the privacy; instead of having to be 5 feet it is only 4 feet.
Com. Sun:
For the fundamental if we went through the applicant’splan or their structure we have to have some
legal ground toturn them down; they don’t have any exception yet. We cannot go too far, we try to
find a compromise.
Mrs. Miller:
Said they could not compromise with the privacy issue in the back; andthere will be more privacy
issues if the proposed house is built.
She said they have the right to sue the Planning Commissionand owner for damages to their home; if
they win, the second floor would be demolished. She said they don’t want to have to resort to a
lawsuit.
Chair Takahashi:
From the standpoint of the legal interpretation the R1 ordinance is the main elementinterpretation
with regard to all the other things. The points that many neighbors are making in terms of harmonious
and scalethatis probably the issue that people are having the most heartache with. Said they heard
enough in terms of that element and understand.
(Questions for the applicant)
Vice Chair Gong:
Said it appeared that there is a lot of disharmony with some of the neighbors and there are other
neighbors who are more sympathetic. Asked what efforts he hasmade to communicate to meet with
the neighbors to be neighborly. Did you meet with them prior to submitting the plans; did you talk
with them, did you have any conversations with them prior to hearing from the city?
Applicant:
Said they did not talk to neighbors prior to submitting plans or hearing from the city. They heard
there were complaints from the neighbors and they went to discuss with both left and right neighbors
and made some offers to Miller’s familyandwent to their homeone week after hearinga comment
from the city that they were concerned about the trees and shade. They visited the neighbor and
discussed concerns about the trees and the shade issue. Said he offered to cut the trees as they
requested; and made a plan change and requested his architect to draw up new plans. There is one
tree that they feel could block the privacy and could also block the sunshine; an offer was made to
decide upon the demolition period;whether they are satisfied withthe trees or they want to remove
the treesis their call.
Chair Takahashi:
What were the changes made to the plans based on that discussion?
Applicant:
The plans were changedto remove the front 4 trees and the back 4trees; nothing with the structure.
Ina Lui (applicant’s wife)
Said they made changes for the balcony; there is a small opening along Millers’ side; changing that
wall to 5 feethigh so basicallythe wall is that high, from balcony floor to popup the opening; the
bottom of the openingis 5 feet,previously it was 4 feet. Also they have another window at the living
Cupertino Planning Commission February 23, 20168
room facing Millers’ house but that window is two storieshigh. Nobody really can see it when they
stay in the room. Clarified that the existing house is only next to Millers’ house; it is only 5 feet.
Applicant:
Also went to their house on the weekend to discuss some of their concerns about privacy; and we
offered that we could remove some of thewindows if they are concerned, like the windows in the
main bathroom facing their backyard and windows in the front facing their property. We offered that
protectingtheir privacy; I cannot remove those, but they disagreed, they didn’t accept my offer so we
offered to remove two windows if they had privacy concerns but they don’t agree with that.
Applicant:
Said he did not meet with Mr. Zhou, the Hamptons or neighbor across the street.
Ina Lui:
Pointed out that they were not currently living in the houseas their children attend school in another
area. It is unfortunate they do not have a lot of time to meet with the neighborhood, however, they
are trying to come to the community a couple of times; she agreedwith the across neighbors that the
community is not onlymade up by house, more importantly by people; by practicing empathy. Her
husband persuaded her to take off the trees in order to provide more privacy to the neighbor. She
emphasized that the privacy is mutual;they also have privacy concerns. If they take away the trees
they are sacrificing their privacy in order to meet their requirements; she said she wanted this
sacrifice cherished and being seen.
Com. Sun:
Said he didn’t know timeline for construction; these cases cause tension in the community. Said he
didn’t feel comfortable causing upset in the community; asked if there was any chance working with
their architect and neighbors doing some mitigation work; recommend doing some construction to
reduce the dust, noises, etc. and have someopportunity working with the neighbors. Cupertino tries
to build harmony here, they tryto blend all people together.
Com. Lee:
Asked Commissioners not to speak on behalf of the entire Commission, but to speak for themselves.
Staff:
Said it has been zoned R1 since the 1950s when the first tentative map was approved for the project.
Com. Lee:
No questions.
Com. Lee:
Disclosed that she went to the site recently and spoke with some of the west side and eastside
neighbors and heard their concerns. Cupertino as a group welcomes, understandsand respectsthe
fact there is a blend of different sorts of people who have been there for 30 years or more and others
who are newcomers;and she likesthe fact that they understand as a communitythat, and that the
ordinanceembraces the fact that many of its houses and neighborhoods are limiting their useful life
now. Some houses are ready for remodel or to be demolished so this house is ready for some
improvements, and that is respected as a community, and the ordinance respects that too.
Said she would vote to uphold the Director’s decision because the house design is fine andmeets the
requirements; the applicant has put forward something reasonable and she would vote to uphold it for
that reason.
Cupertino Planning Commission February 23, 20169
Com. Paulsen:
Said he concurred with Com. Lee to uphold the Director’s decision to allow the house to be built.
Thirty years ago he and his wife moved into the oldest subdivision in Cupertino, 65 years old, one-
story and were the first to build up, building a smaller second story. They knew their neighbors and
talked to them beforehand and had a longer process with no problems. At the other end of the street,
people started building larger houses and it precipitated discussions which lasted almost a year to
rezone the street to a specific kind of zoning. As a result of the process there were some hard feelings
which was unfortunate. He encouraged the homeowners to talk to each other and build a sense of
community, as it is one of the things that makes a home rich and satisfying. There are mediation
services available to resolve differences, but he said he was hopeful they could pull together as a
neighborhood. Change is difficult; he encouraged them to pull together as a neighborhood and keep
the neighborhood spirit.
Com. Sun:
Said it was a frustratingdecision; he concurred with last speaker. Said he was hopeful that the
applicant couldreach out to his neighbors because the Planning Commission really cannot do much
about the particular case; the applicant has done a lot of work, but can do more. After meeting, they
can reach out to their neighbor and make some offer before moving in; do something for the
neighbors and have a more positive attitude in working with them. He said it would be beneficial and
set a good tone if the applicant and architect could work with the neighbors to create a good rapport.
If they could do more work before signing the permit it would probably help the community to work
together. He said he concurred with his colleagues to deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s
decision per the draft resolutions.
Vice ChairGong:
Asked the staff and city attorney to articulate the scope of the Planning Commission’s duties and
responsibilities in the particular situation.
City Attorney:
In the Planning Commission’s role in hearing the appeal, what they are looking at is whether or not
this particular design and this particular application meets the criteria set forth in the Code, and when
the design andcriteriameet the requirements set forth in the Code, it is very difficult to make the
findings that it doesn’t. In order to deny or grant the appeal and deny the application, findings need to
be made as to why this particular project doesn’t meet the requirements of the Code. What you are
doing now is you are either adopting a resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s
hearing, or you would be granting the appeal and denying the application; but then you need to go on
and make the findings as to whythis particular project doesn’t meet the criteria of the Code.
Vice Chair Gong:
Said with those parameters as stated, there are no findings to grant the appeal.
Chairperson Takahashi:
Said in the community there are a lot of older neighborhoods, the city term being “in transition”, i.e.,
a lot of new owners buying an old house, demolishing it and typically building the largest house
possible on the lot, which has happened. They have used 99.9% of the allowable footprint on the lot,
maximizing it. It is seen periodically from the standpoint of the neighbors who have been in this
community for a longer period of time and are typically in the smaller, older homes that they are
suddenly facing a pink elephant. Said it was a case from his perspective with the applicant by
continuing to move forward the way you are moving forward. A speaker made a point about privacy,
shade, and theother things. Said as he looked at the site, hetried tolook up solar angles at different
Cupertino Planning Commission February 23, 201610
times of the yearand do hisassessment; but didn’t think shade is really a huge issue; but understood
where the applicant was comingfrom given the pool is on that side of the property.
As an applicant you are buildingthis house and youare going to be livingin this neighborhood
presumablyfor a long time; and you are moving in under circumstances of tension; there is going to
be an immediate resentment as soon as that house is built and the Commission is in a position
struggling to find findings to deny this. Said he saw it as problematic from the standpoint of howthe
neighborhood moves forward;to Com. Paulsen’s point people may refuse to talk to each other in the
neighborhood.
Looking at the plans in terms of the setbacks, if the house went back farther, that could potentially
mitigate some of the privacy concerns, the insistence of a balcony is always a point of tension with
neighbors. Any elements, removing the trees is a good first step, but elements that address the
concerns as best as reasonable would be helpful. To the applicant’s benefit he said he believed all
their windows that are facing the Kacera front porch all look pretty high, they are not view windows
where they are low enough wherethey are going to looking down. Saidwhile there are a lot of
windows there, he did not think there is a privacy issue. Said he saw the points on both sides, but not
enough to find that this compliant applicant should be denied. He encouraged them to try to work
together to have some level of understanding.
Vice ChairGong:
Said it was unfortunate that the applicant did not live in the neighborhood; their potential future
neighbors don’t know them; and it does not sound like either side has made a great effort to get to
know each other as people first. She said it was not at the PlanningCommission’s responsibility and
level of duty that would solve what is happening. She commented that the applicant and current
neighbors will have to live together in the same neighborhood.
Com. Paulsen:
Commented to staff, in general inthese transition neighborhoods, how much thought has been given
to looking at revisions to the R1 ordinance, with regard toheight? People building new homes want
10 foot ceilings vs. 8 foot ceilings; theywant large structures. It seems to be coming up more
frequently because the situation of our city. Has there been any consideration to looking at a revised
R1?
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said the R1 code has been revised four times since 2005 and the Council has made the decisions in
terms of what the requirements are for processing, what the requirements are for guidelines, and what
they can and cannot impose on projects. With regard to the height of the single story portion which is
where most people get their high volume, theycould justhave to meet the daylight planeand that was
adjusted in 2005. If it is on the work program at least staff will bring that up; it has not come up;the
last time that the R1 ordinance was updated was 2012; but they don’t have the discretion unless it is a
design review house. They can make recommendations but cannot require.
Com. Paulsen:
Said he was surprised that a number of the audience members were not aware that every house on
their streets could be built as a two-story house. He suggested a city public information campaign to
ask the residents citywide to look at their zoning, find out what can be built in their neighborhood
and if they have a problem with it, get together as a neighborhood and have a dialogue with the city
about that before the plans are drawn. He said the currentcase is pretty much compliant but it is
unfortunate that itcaught people by surprise.
Cupertino Planning Commission February 23, 201611
Com. Sun:
Suggested to city staff that in the future when a new resident moves into the city, help them to work
with the neighbors, understand the Code, reach the community about plans and issues, and work
things out, which would help cut down on problems they might encounter down the road and avoid
difficult situations such as the appeal.
MOTION:Motion by Com. Lee, second byCom. Paulsen, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to deny
the appeal and uphold the Director’s decisionto approve Applications R-2015-08 and
RM-2015-08 per the draft resolutions.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting.
Housing Commission: No meeting.
Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meeting.
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to next Planning Commission meeting on March 8, 2016, beginning at
6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date:March 8, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consider an appeal of Two-Story Permit (R-2015-38) to allowthe construction of a new
2,775-square-foot single-family residence.(ApplicationNo. R-2015-38; Applicant: Mike
Chen (Patel Residence); Appellant: Biren Shah; Location:18780 Tilson Avenue; APN: 375-
17-036)
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(Attachment 1).
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan designation Low Density (1-6 DU/Ac.)
Zoning designation R1-5
Environmental review Categorically Exemptfrom CEQA
Net lot area 6,169square feet
Project consistency with:
General Plan Yes
Zoning Yes
Allowed Proposed
Lot coverage 3,084 square feet (45%+ 5% for
eaves/roof overhangs and
covered patios)
2,735 square feet (44.33%)
FAR 2,776square feet (45%)2,775 square feet (44.98%)
Height 28’ 24’ –8”
Setbacks:First Floor Second Floor First Floor Second Floor
Side 5’& 5’Combined 25’5’ & 5’15’& 15’
Front 20’25’20’–8”26’–4”
Rear 20’25’34’–9”46’–3”
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org
R-2015-38 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit March 8, 2016
BACKGROUND:
On September 24, 2015, the applicant, Mike Chen,applied for aTwo-Story Permitto allow
a new 2,775-square-foot single-family residence located at 18780 Tilson Avenue(see
Attachment 2). The project property is located inthe R1-5zoning district thatpermits two-
story homes with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 45%,up to 28 feet in height. The
applicant is not proposing to have any outdoor sheds etc., which would increase the FAR
beyond 45%. 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 reviewsince the proposed second floor is less than 66% of the square footage of the
first floor and provides at leasta 15-footside yard setbacks on the second floor.
During the public review period, Biren Shah, theproperty ownerto thesouthof the
proposedproject, expressed concerns aboutprivacy impacts from two windows proposed
atthe rear of the house.After considering the neighbor’s concerns, the applicant offered to
reduce the size of one of the windowsand raised the sill height of that window to fivefeet
to minimize privacy impacts.
The project was approved by the Community Development Director on December 17, 2015
with the reduced size and the higher window sill(see Attachment 3).The last day to appeal
the project wasDecember 31, 2015.However, this date was extended toJanuary 6, 2016 due
to the City Hall closure from December 24, 2015 through January 3, 2016. Biren Shah, the
property owner to the southappealed the approvalof the Two-Story Permiton January6,
2016(see Attachment 4).
DISCUSSION:
Basis of the Appeal
The appellant'sbasis of appeal issummarized below. Where appropriate, staff'sresponses
are in italics.
1.“There are two large windows on the second floor as mentioned on South Elevation.
These two windows are so large that it will put my entire family room and living rooms
and my family at risk from privacy point of view. For 2nd story windows on the south
facing side, please make the master bedroom window sizeof 4ft x 4ft or 4ft x 4ft 6in.”
One of the principal purposes of the R1 Ordinance is to ensure a reasonable level of privacy to
individual residential parcels. This is achieved by having developments adhere to a set of specific
development parameters incorporated in the R1 Ordinance such as requiring larger second-story
setbacks(25 feet)than first-story setbacks(20 feet,whichmay be reduced to 10 feet under some
circumstances) andrequiring privacy planting if the windowsmeet any of the following criteria:
R-2015-38 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit March 8, 2016
Have a sill heightbelow five feet sill height or
Are not obscure, non-openable
Do not have permanent exterior louvers up to a height of five feet above the second floor
Are not non-operable and obscure up to a height of five feet above the second floor.
The intent of the privacy protection planting requirement is to plant trees and/or shrubs that
would provide substantial screening within three years of planting.
The second floorsetback of the proposed project is 46 feet 3 inches from the rear property line
where the allowed rear setback is 25 feet. The applicant is also planting adequate privacy
planting trees in conformance with the R1 ordinance. The proposed project conforms to all
aspects of the R1 Ordinance. Additionally, the bedroomwindows must meet the requirements of
the building code for egress. The maximum sill height may not be more than 44inchesfrom the
floorand must have minimum opening requirements-both of which the proposed window
complies with.
2.“There are two large windows on the second floor as mentioned on South Elevation.
Please make the master bathroom window 6ft from finished floor with maximum
length 3ft with obscured glass.”
Additionally, prior to project approval, the applicant considered the concerns raised from the
neighbors during comment period and voluntarily elected to reducethe size of the bathroom
window from five feet byfour feetwith a sill heightof four feetto five feetby two feet ten inches
and raised the sill height to five feet to address the appellant’s concerns.As previously
mentioned, the R1 Ordinance exempts privacy screening to be planted for windows with a sill
height above five feet.A condition of approval requires the applicant to modify the privacy
planting plan, subject to review andapproval of staff, prior to issuance of building permits in
order to ensure that the privacy protection requirements are met orthe option of increasing the
sill height of the window in order to not have to plant privacy trees and/or shrubs for this
window.This change in the size of the window continues to comply with the R1 ordinance.
3.“Please move bathroom window to west elevation.”
This request was also discussed duringthe comment period for the Two-Story permit between
the appellant and the property owner.By re-locating a window, the proposed project would
potentially create new impacts for the neighbor to the west. Any changes to the location of
windows would require a separate permit (likely a Director’s Minor Modification)with
additional re-noticing and comment period. However, the applicant decided not to make changes
in order to ensure new privacy concerns were not generated dueto the relocation of a window to
an elevation which is setback only 15 feet from the property line.
R-2015-38 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit March 8, 2016
4.“My entire familyroom and kitchen windows are facing the proposed two story house.
I do not want my neighbor to see all day and all night into my family room and kitchen
from their second story windows. It’s a huge privacy issue and risk. I’m not sure trees
would provide necessary cover.”
The proposed project adheres to the requirements for privacy plantings. Additionally, the
proposed windows are located 46feet3inchesfrom the rear property line and approximately 70
feetfrom the closestbuilding wall lineof the appellant’s property. In addition,as previously
indicated,privacy plantings will be planted in the rear yard for all windows with a sill height of
fivefeet and under.
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, Site Signage & Legal Ad Agenda
Ninepublic 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)
Site Signage (placed on site prior to initial noticing
for the Two Story Permit and remains on site)
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)
Prior to staff report publication, staff also received an email from an adjacent neighbor who
also raised concerns about the two windows atthe rear elevation and the assertion that
they signeda privacy planting waiver without being provided information about the
second-story windows (see Attachment 5). This address was included in the notification
about the proposedtwo story home with the Two-Story Permit application (including a site
plan and elevation drawings) and the subsequent appeal.
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT
The appeal is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 –
65964). The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act.
ProjectReceived: September 24, 2015
Deemed Complete: October 7, 2015
R-2015-38 Appeal of a Two-Story Permit March 8, 2016
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.
Prepared by: Sarah Filipe, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by:Approved by:
/s/Ben Fu /s/Aarti Shrivastava
Benjamin Fu Aarti Shrivastava
Assistant Directorof Community Development Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1 -Draft Resolution
2–Plan Set
3 –Two-Story Permit (R-2015-38) action letter dated December 17, 2015
4-Appellant’s letter
5–Complaint letter
R-2015-38
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT’S DECISION TO ALLOWTHE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,775
SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCEAT 18780 TILSON AVENUE
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:R-2015-38
Applicant:Mike Chen (Patel Residence)
Appellant:Biren Shah, 18781 Barnhart Ave.
Location:18780 Tilson Ave. (APN 375-17-036)
SECTION II: FINDINGSFOR A TWO STORY PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for a Two-Story Permit as
described in Section I of this Resolution;
WHEREAS, the necessary notices were given and the comment period forthe application
was provided as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino;
WHEREAS, the City was able to make the findings required under Section 19.28.140B and
the application was approved with conditions on December 17, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the notice of decision was mailed to the appropriate parties notifying them
about the possibility of appealing a project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal for the
Community Development Director’s approval of theTwo-Story Permit; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural
Ordinanceof the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one
public hearing in regard to the appeal; and
Draft Resolution R-2015-38 March 8, 2016
WHEREAS, the appellant has not met the burden of proof required to support said appeal;
and
WHEREAS, the project is determined to be categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application:
a)The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans,
zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title.
The project is consistent with the regulations and intent of the Cupertino General Plan and
Single-Family Residential (R1) Ordinance. The project complies with all established and
required setbacks, privacy protection planting requirements and other Municipal Code
requirements. In addition, The proposed development meets all prescriptive development
requirements of the Parking, Landscape, and Fence ordinances; and the two-story non-
discretionary permit procedural requirementsin the R1 ordinance.
b)The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare.
The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to
property improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare as the projects is located within the R1-5 (Single Family Residential) zoning district, and
will be compatible with the surrounding uses of the neighborhood.The purpose of the R1
ordinance is to provide light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential
parcels, ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within the neighborhood
and reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the communitythrough prescriptive
requirements incorporated in the R1 ordinance. The neighborhood is in transition and there is
healthy mix of single story and two story homes making the proposed project compatible with the
neighborhood.
c)The proposed project is harmoniousin scale and design with the general neighborhood.
The proposed project is located in a residential area consisting of single family homeswith a mix
of single story and two story homes. The proposed project maintains the single family home scale
found compatible with the general neighborhood.
d)Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated.
Any potential adverse impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated through
the privacy protection plantings and installation of a front-yard tree as required.
Draft Resolution R-2015-38 March 8, 2016
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution
beginning on PAGE 2thereof,the appeal of an application for a Two-Story Permit,
Application no. R-2015-38is herebydenied and the Director of Community Development’s
approval of the Two-Story Permit is upheld;and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application
no.R-2015-38as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting ofMarch 8, 2016,
and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1.APPROVED PROJECT
This approval is based on a plan set entitled, “Patel Residence, 18780 Tilson Ave.,
Cupertino, Ca. 95014”consisting of sixsheets labeled “A-1.0 to A-4.0 and C.0 (a
Topographic Survey Map)” 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.
4.PRIVACY PLANTING
The final privacy-planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Division prior to issuance of building permits. The variety, size, planting distance shall
be consistent with the City’s requirements.
5.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
Draft Resolution R-2015-38 March 8, 2016
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.
6.LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL:
The applicant shall submit a full landscape project submittal, per sections 490.1, 492.1,
and 492.3 of the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance, for projects with landscape area more than 500 square feet;the applicant
shall submit either a full landscape project submittal or submit the Prescriptive
Compliance Checklist per Appendix D of theDepartment of Water Resources Model
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for projects with landscape area more than 500
square feet and less than 2,500 square feet. The Landscape Documentation Package or
Prescriptive Compliance Checklist shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of
the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.
7.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.
8.EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS
Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior
color, material, architectural treatments and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building
permits.The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the
original approved plans.Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the
Director of Community Development shall require a minor modification approval with
neighborhood input.
9.INDEMNIFICATION
Except as otherwise prohibitedby law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless
the City, its City Council,andits officers, employees and agents (collectively,the
“indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a
third party againstone or more of theindemnified partiesor one or more of the
indemnified partiesand the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any
permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation)
reimbursing the City its actualattorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the
litigation. Theapplicant shall paysuch attorneys’ fees and costswithin 30
daysfollowingreceipt of invoices from City. Suchattorneys’ fees and costsshall include
Draft Resolution R-2015-38 March 8, 2016
amountspaid to counsel not otherwise employed as City staff and shall include City
Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs
directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City.
10.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 periodin 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 this8th dayofMarch, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
______
Benjamin Fu Alan Takahashi
Assist. Dir. of Community Dvelopment Chair, Planning Commission
v
JUN.22/'15
Jw.DE cN aEVRw
4- u Ma io t 5
2+1' x FIO'T) d'
Ssp./)t 15
v Y • Y •
r • 1 • • • • • Y
r W • • Y ' • • r r
1 A • • r • '
r
r • • •,
v • a . •
r . . r.
N,TMJ I.AYI N,r`i•.%*` • Z
1 i 4Q sf +s . . .
y . . . . . r--".T ...._...
y.,. . . . .. . . n
y k
r . . . i. . . .
p/,//.p.y/. . . . yI ry iY Z R/Vf VR f1P'1\ ' • ' TVV
PATE RESIDENCE
Z . ,- . . +. . . • jM. ._,. ` .. . . Y
i. y; ,:•r,Jy,.,. '•
4
r`..
o :
i, ':i i 1.f :j• t 7
a: , ,J .
y;r L' .f.'a' •,.J) r..>' ,''t,N•
m 'v` ;,,
i.« ;}:
0 O L.O
o
y. ,+,' `
t.
I
4 3'
p C G O 1 Oo Q g 0 l 4 x,. .
9
X :.:
v `'
N J
t J
j2—0/,5`—,3 3__z N ,
Q i' .,; •.c W N
V N Ys : a o '
a .-. r, !t Zlia W
i` R . _ ._...__. _ =_._ _ _....._..,... y
g a Q
f.,, F ; f _-- t 5'........... v '
o Q A z ziO
N o
i'n`';
J `:
N N „a v, @
e.... ..., ....
y.).a,..,,e .
o =::, 2nd Fioor sY f j Q U Y
Q P7 , U Q E
N w x s
o 3 1 St\v
a
Z ,r, Fioor
1. Q ^ n w
POIICMDRAWINGINDEXPROJECTDATA.
0. APN 375-17-036 18780 TILSON AVE.
1, LOT SIZE: 6,169 SF
A-1.0 SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN 2. ZONING: R1-5, (2ND FLOOR SET BACK: 15ft MIN.) A-1.1 DEMOLITION PLAN 3. CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-8(W/ FlRE SPRiNKLER) 3A-2.0 FLOOR PLANS W
A-3.0 ELEVATIONS
OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3/U
ppIVACYSCR[ENINOMATERIFu,$
Z
4. BLDG COOES: 2013 California Residential Codse
A-4.0 SECTIONS&ROOF pLAN g,p qREq; ST
2ND FL. AREA: 883 SF A a,,, „'1 l,a,b
C-0.0 SURVAY MAP 472 SF B MMN nanra e.A psesk 30 a 5 e
c.NnaNn v m.-rorn naa zaxs ,a
o uaawmsPaYe m.na.. wa o s e
L CYMI IIIO'anCemP.C/Il rx 3D' 00 20'
MYW MeMa 70 7b /4 K
S C 0 P E 0 F W 0 R K S•
O NpnMl e a Mwe•MNyn Mqdb a
PORCH 34+388): 422 SF E ilr mWmun gze s ql M 2N OeM mmum sN mnn a e,gn pN'Aw h/n 1 '+ x
Qi
1 ST FL. 24" EAVE AREA 421 SF W S
l.EX.BU I LA I NG S AND I MPRO VEM E N T TO REM V E(UND ER S EPA RA T E g• 2 N 0 L. T S T Fl-. A R E P R AT I O: A 8''C 4 6.g 7 Z
n m E' 0 10 ` i;+ ++++wC,aiun 167o e i 4 i + t t N a
PERMI'I').7 LOT COVERAG • 2,735(B+C+E+F 6 189 44.337 D^^^^m°°°^.^ , ° 8
nFlp ++ ++
V d-
8: FAR; 2,775 / 6 169 44.987G
s5""DeN1""'.'" ° " °
r ream r c,...nrw av ma +v2.PROP O S ED A NEW SING LE F ANIIL Y DWELL I N G W/ATT A C HED G A RA GE, o r n,°,u,s„u m-.,w,w a a a +o P A
9. FRONT YARD IMPERVIOUS AREA RATIO: W+ "a 'o PERv1 US) ;; ' t`'+ +++ +++ W ' 0
35.617i (SEE FRONT YARD CALS)
ti'
TM mlNTum d,ru vze M 0 16 Yvion m mun ma n.r c s r,q irp M9m. i + + i + + y +
10.EX. HOUSE (1078 SF') c GARAGE(27S SF (1952 BUiI
t++ .`
60, 0pyrpncmemouiyumeyoeseprdeopwdeyu» 4 t } t
ervious Surface Notes: VI I 1 VVIt7l'K11. Jh!'Q T.Q Qf IQ q mpprwe a anerp Tenles biYlf on I e
N
y++
i + R ,P HEiMUMawvicem.eoaeenMaLrascaoenrwYaw qme'e,eme pK aw u C, w V
g
9
L a
s e„n..vab.e'c+v m aYr am,,tirw.re
X. 0
nagnt sptid{ena 9rcw
J
TM/a ptlPwiaenPuttlpMl lta3 M
dce r
D
red to iristall one of more of t}le followui d ei measures;
THE DEAOUNE FOR,THE SUBMISSION OF PUBUC COMMENTS v a p
e un ff Z
N
all detached
f
Te fa
o homee
hiCh C'eate or re lece z,5oo ef or more ot tous surface N ELEC. COPY OF THE PtANS IS AVAlLABLE BY REQUEST.
F+
g `@
SHALL BE TWO WEEKS AFTER THE DATE OF THE NOTiCE W b. Dired roof runoff intp tistems or reln barrels for reuse;
PD p ,. 28 20. C C. Dir ct ruru ff fromlldewalks,wallcways,and/or patios cmto vegetatrd areas; y1 1801, DESCRiPT10N
d. DireCt runoff from driveways attd/or uncovered parking lote onto vegetdted areas. F.Gjw»'„
e• Constntd sidewalks,walkways and/or parioe with pern eable 6urfac s TURF AREA P
r•"""` Q,,, w
P.wtrric ae p O
t,ands ape and s te work noce:
VINICITY MAP Puwrnrc nRen SpN
Pv a °° V1, The property owner shall recotd a covenant on the property
for the new and existing ptivacy trees and the required e&
front yard tree.
2,Following completion of construction,an af'adavit from an GRAVEL(oN COMPAG7ED 9qL) SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN vr••
sISA-certified arborist shall be provided confirming that the PAVINp AREA(PERVIOUS)
new trces have been planted properly and according to plan, 9 .. 1 1 L
and that the existing trees to remain are in good health. 2'X2'X2' CONC. STONE(Spi11 PERVI ) r::,
3, A planning Division nspection s required to verify extenor N
materisl/finishes,trees,lattdseaping and site work. b J:.,,.,,,,M.,r,, CpNC. PAVINO
NOTES:
Mc
OTiNai'""
1. Qdqreen d dclist hdl be d d as a part of eon tructi dpcuments.AS No1 D
n n,,,n, 2. Prlor to (s uance of b P it, the lond cape 1NetK-Effici ncy Checkilft in
Appe dix A Of Chr tK 14.15 wtp need t0 be filled out•
n,qeOfAV
w a w.o.••.•s a...r s .. ..s 3. l,a ding In ide yord shall Ot exceed 1S' abow the finiah qrode.
Q „, ,,,,,r . . w
4. Prlor to rance of flnal occuponcy. th property ow er aho11 record a
a eo ant hatrictinp the futur nclosur pf porCh,
O yd 1uqpN Av m
R Q p """"' """' • " " th Okector of Community Developm nt moy waive th• iront y ord tree bas d on a rport
0 ,,,„, „ ,, irom on int rnationa ly-c t(iled orborist citN Q conAiet wfth exlstik q matur tree canoptes r . Oonit or in th public riqht-of-way.
a
N.87'39'S3"W. r.''. .
50.30' z
uo./s2/,s
o'' d`g` 13-9" ai.o ar w x
o''a
4
G °' ' ,,o• 23'-3" s o•/>>/'sIG,k 9
d1+ 4
G •}
p'h' 1
10,
i
oti
oti' •------- 20'-3"
ih
Q'
9 p'1'' 1
1. .1l,
i 0 i
i
o Q' t7' 8; 322 sf
1 a'
ro1
i p
4 Cy O r,+.`r`r`.•r`r`r`•r•.•r•r•r,,+,.
N r . . . + . .. . . . . . . • . . . .JAWZZI ,
s
r • • • • • v • Y • r
1 k , N O r/
SY
I i _q'" ti°°v 1
Go.. v,
A• NATURAL LAWN••• 6i ,11 FG'Sp
M
r •' r . • • • • r . .ti
o ,,
ti' 1 42 sf. . . . . . F,
32'-»
2. . . .. . . . .
u .
C'J
v • . v r . . • . .
r . . • . . • . . • . • • . •
r . r • • • • • • • . • • . • • .i O W • v • • • • r . • • + • • •
I v • • • • • • . •
k 0-9• a
LANDSCAPE AREA CALS: I
oti' 12'-3"
I
i
Hi, o ti• SECTION AREA z ,o
o
A 1242 Q z o
ZND FLOOR AREA CALCULATION: e
1 ST FLOOR AREA CALCULATION.
LAVI V AREA 242 s.F.C ; 1878 ON AVENUE 1 8=1 -0 1/8=1 0 N p Q
i FF= 103.50
ry 8 32Z
a
w
k
P
i`'` '' .:._.. ..-_: •...:----. FLOOR PLAN AREA CALCULATION• i C 1fi8 Q <
o d''r N
G Ex9
e '!'l.6? 3XL V W 4
6
e SECTION DIMENSIONS AREA pr o
x 4 a f
i
n
ti,Q d t ' l / '/A 13.76X4.0 E 1 x :
o
p" ,.. , G P....R....w_._._ 83 55.73 c.: Q W
9`1 • ' y
ry
f"` ;r, x f 1
8
0 o,
a : 1 d( 8 20.35 39.5 Sp0.14 40
C e a f-
O 90,.o r,._a.-..,......__,o......_.,..r„
C 10.75X2.2s 28.46 CO
o .
t •.
o
p.. o•,',., o W Z
N o 6 r7 2nd FLOOR AREA 883 S.F, N PLANTING AREA 804 S.F.
o ' N
6 Z 0 1SX23.33 350 TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA
Z
o o Fo 4 ory E 17Xt 2 203.88
v . •ec' .. ' I, Y G 4 ,,.,,,F?., awro.. -.,,_
F
o'+ `5 o'`• h c'` r ,;
1: f 3°t,;; n 23.25X33.083 769.08
G 1 p kJ; 4 i a r
J (>r,J Sii.1 I i Y'S A f l w i -i 1
l '
G• ,
p • " • C+p'• z d
1•4 G i!
r'., i wh Ilt A f1. 1 5u
V
o o. o .. ' .. ,.
o' w , ,,; 32.?5X16.S 540.12F
i lf ' r i! iM . ;t f J t
AREA = 6 169 SQ.FT. I k
r ,
kti I i 1,;i F.`4 f'I 1 Z.ZsX2.17 28.55
6
G.. t:
y
1'?,4',d c5 F+
6 I.
f
t':
j y* ,. ; 1st fL00R AREA l,892 S.F.V
eo . , e oo 1,;; I •_ 1.1.
1
i'F 4.KDIh t.wtrlrr`•
r
r: "
D '•' ':. ,
o`' , i'
4(
t TOTAL FLOOR AREA Q,775 S.F.
I y'
k' +• . '
oo
R`
26p
o1- '
r
f y oo
d
7
f,, v
I •.•• .. . '! ;,+ 24'TREE ' ,1.
V
O t + + t
A• .-. •. a Y
r,e
I'
D• .
rI ww ww
V:'T fYNf
FRONT YARD PA G GALS. Oa + a + .
K M1O 120N Front Yard Area•
4=
f + + + + A
o....
utw.'"
a
s.3 x 2 s . •f q
AR7if1C1AL LA 14 + +
M-iJt + + O ' ' q0. 1,Atw m ry oa,wa a,oyendon.wna aor.h.q ren w,u a,d m.lman,Ar e.ch
d t t + +
O `
w.S1ElPIi9W11/NUCtIQI/IIQArtMYG11'O MIl/'j Paver(per ) sa:d+wh..oiralrlArmxal riwa(lhsutMi InxKeuna(CiCLlwY4 aneeMpraathRnlneatwuetimnalvqy.Thai7t'liie bWa Ck.3DYep WV Ar
i + i i i + i i iII11E/IN dYtl}eNfO(IAODUIt11141MIPId11 l11CI111Y1,SGwI1b(W IINIWLufulRftlW} 415'2.7t14+9.5+29+59+2.s rj42 t + ; ; a + a a O W
M
Z,AII paecahe(Ml1 ba in plsa prior to aa rewiwm+rM ntr+Y Ma work wd rwiwln phor u ul attaAu oontruWon rotlN[9 m Ae I f
26
a t
cQ' •---''' TREE FENCE W b°^°^'"°" Impervious are: 0 sf t + ` +
R, Prwocbw Gn mn tw«.a a b)nwt 7 c airy vnibMy wr/M.n a.c vee palennn.p Mtcd m a c faroo rvRY 4()i
M
8-4 rwtMiwch r aweocprlyvrswwwkyq rw wka aeauwna0u4r ofrnwKy-ors(ulteM,sr Paving ratlo at Front Yard:8 j
r
h)Aall iMd`Tne
I 1+1 '-i v
rnkcaw.n;Kaoax'.
I 0/ 1 060 Q'64,tl snw s.h pawaierawbwlfwed yrid,y mbeixrull d wln i ulawlfa k diriNv ul'draiMruaia.
2.a• i G).r,...-•
W
3.tn WwYm Ioro pn loctoA ra tat da ra tlw MnniaOtMorcR M Y endoa owMuc'we al tl a io y be M da of 4+c akuWiun aqpprna l cY oQ a wtivlq.tlrc od trNolm Q waeaunqoe ll ptoloet Illc IIa w1Yi l'i4"hm Eor Noiobd w IMw n a Mw
bY
n q t M MK dtau IM Irs Th iMwt it Y rnqci f4 trridt nf IM u ir nwinu w cwaiu conun l hryc coo ctbn N IeY+poac i
Q 1j M,.,.6.MYn I 10.«r No aw.rto w pwwawa a!n.w I.k iwadc/!or r i aaiwrratloe or vWe mrn4lr ccux 4Wl dao q aa+wiae a
r
M drw litr u I M pl ud'll Mhf II N IIMd 0 IF OfiIfHl fUlll l Dq((M''(MM CNA M. I
IY w
7. i CIar N-vuldr» 7tandc,hdxdny.uteYou IMrN ncr,ysl n.dL ahaw,npw1. Otol:542 N v
r.Wipnee Mn d D(ciape iarrtA llbeckmeAanba
cawnlw Lt s ca ynr iMYtt ds Ayoil Yd ot dbwYd b A6M iN0 tlN otiUtll roal LIY a(1 qatabA bbG Q.% 4'1 •
OMTraAaMwi.n b cMwa, wuseN iwun.hu1 eo nc Maa o ry pdoGed meedpr,wirM a oh p oihcr Orr tlwc M w
9.Vddmlor 7Y A{r.hi wliarYr r64r aorCuutlnn ryuipaal u flk w prkiry 11 Mke p4oe wi M n ihs aitk l mr x»d x y pmlaAed 2 O I r".
y~
C
n.e ulkv h.oe er;Mi,c wnia wwiw»
9.5 efDemo(i t i o n n • ' • 1 D Na Mrvr yu.M isprdie D p 1p NW tu auctti trwMu,t d Iw MI k4ara wu v ur.iW Ipr u qu,a wqea caupra ww v 0 mxl haMtr,dwll bv dlaMod Ui1d LAe hp law uf xY IRuIaWJ 4w w anY aM ualu au O"1/8=1 -0
i.c.a caw s:N.w.w aui n.r...,,r,m i w tcne.i..r.w o n.t r.a+d.,, Notes:t. all. improvement dt bldg shall be removed. b q w dwdw e+b.n Mllwotr.
1 z,M,owvwui tir:r+u iiq.r pMl4 cmenw a alw impwr w»Mwwly drq I pMal wfYMn M Ilniu oCIM wnfa t roa xaw a/ 4
L AN AP
ntroctor/ owner shall ep ly a eeporate demo. permit P,„„,y yy y.d Yy Uwpuhha ru I DSC E AREA CALS o1/P 1'-piandobtainJ . I1 1lu t hvn AM ooM 1ro inclw a Irvw in Jiaumq wl Kh pr a pwsd i iwdt d uan Ayy a a her aavMim/NIJ bc wt og'y ve
wnh n YMxryrw vlwn Mr+d wr an lir vR alwil.a arnl M1w(w!^I wi.l iw I w.i'v l wl e.rw
1 O O 1 O 2 3 014.All zbUc kkw i ii 6 1;ICIYII;OpoR,Itfa 4!f I.tar fix wbli ac cee.ui Icr k•a.c:,pa.ih4d Dy ihp p hYc WqFu pt
i =TA N
F'NT YARD PAV'G CALS: a r
i REVISED Slt3 '
CI I Yc)NCUPLR 17N0
nrvaov nnY:" nA1:3 3.a•aS'!'AtiDAItU ULI'All.S c'r w
i
r v B er
I
JUN./22/'15
PREUM.DESIGN REVIEW
Aug./22/'15
PRELIM.DESICN REVIEW 2
I Sep./11/'15
DESIGN REVIEW
11/11/'15
I DESIGN REVIEW COM ENTS
38 _ 3>> 5 B 4
I / IT— — — r u
i o 38'-3
IXI IXI IXI I o
I I L I L I
I I 15'-0" 9'-6" 13'-9"
L
di,,
d
i
x' ,
i PORCH
l Z I13'-9"
20'-3'
6'-6"
I f/W ° EF. I v'a,lay S P,
4,
I I I I
I5- I
o
I° . KIT. * JIIJI
o a
j
i 4-o" NOOK FAMILY RM. I z Q oI3 z w
I I J a -
i C _ > 0
I I I
X -
I L—
BR. z - <
i i y Q
i
I
N ;
I a ¢ ¢
Q 'UIDININGR . o Y
I i
M.BATH I o U 0. v
C :
I
I I 14'-3"
v ¢ cD
N C I 2 a s 2 a rys wIW
I
LIVING RM. I ii Iii
WH
I
i
i
n P I
I 4-11"
BA. #2 I I
o F
G
A-A
I
I _4
I
A= I. A_A
I
I 3-3 8
4
4
II
uNEN
I I I
I I
I
I I N M.C.
I BA. #
I
I
PORCH i Z d-
i
I
I
I i GARAGE Q
i
a
o _ o o
i
U'
i
W
BR. 2 I 2ND LOOR 7,-6 O O
i Q
BR. #3 i I i O '
i N i
I 9 i i p o o
w.,
i 9' 6"
I BR. #1 i
C1, U
J
I
V
I 4
20'-6"zz-3
I
4 I
a ii S — IIf L R PLANr s ii4 i o• 1 T L R P L A N s ii4•=i--o•
M
alEca., N
a
AS NOTED
I C 7— /.
N
1f 0 10 0 30
r
A 2. 0
i
m
JUN./22/'15
R I 1
n PREl1M.D61GN REVIEW
L Aug./22/'15
10 4 6 4 W u n cl e r l i c h D r i
PREUM.DESIGN REVIEW 2
Sep./11/'15
DESIGN REVIEW
2
ELEVATI N NOTES 15
Ol ROOF: CONC. TILE ROOF('EAGLE ROOFING'ESR1900-ICC OR APPRO. EQ.) DESIGN REVIEW COM ENTS
ACCENT WALL ON (2)30 LB BLDG FELT OVER PLYWOOD SHEATING.
@FRONT FACADE
O 5" 26 GA. G.I. PROFILE GUTTER ON 2X8 S4S SURFACE FASCIA BOARD
o a WITH DOWNSPOUT AT PROPER LOCATIONS(ALL ROOF DRAINS SHALL
A , ' 9 <-,. BE DRAINED TO STREET DIRECTLY)
12 12 3' I c``.
O DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOWS(TYP.), 2"RECESSED iN 2X6 WALL.3,5
1
5 I CUSTOM SOLID CORE DOORS.
C L g r a -` ' xN _ v , ;, w O 3-COAT CEMENT PLASTER IN 17 GA. STUCCO NETIING ON 2 LAYERS
t ,; GRADE'D'BLDG PAPER. (WITH 26 GA. G.I. 'Z' FLASHING AT TOP
I b
F''b `"
EDGE OF BLDG PAPER).
s `i r
I
O o O STUCCO SILL OR 1RIM. bi,i,ds ,i.cF€sx.irs.r'r P.evA^" o
o v sf + O SCREEN VENT WITH 1/4" WIRED MESH (TYP.) N i
I I 9 r,f. N aj
5' a i;'` O WEEP SCREED(TYP.) c' p fi .
t M h. zOIIF/
1Q
y ,/ w' ' S• AW I fS ¢ Zr y 'i O CULTURED STONE
d w
k-=,ol-gf a .5''r ,/ ,<- ,r .p §
r''l Jai '`r h x /". ` "^ri'`vrr / ko' r;C P'
Y r''` " ` ,,, STUCCO COLUMN
i'' ' 1 t FL, 103,50 F<< `; r" .; , >
i <,-'"` 5 s Il DIRECT VENT FIREPLACE
Note: a
An ro osed chaan es to the a roved colors and materials
J
EX, GRADE 4 9
Y P P PP J
N R T H E L E V A T I N e S 1/4•--o• on tn s sub;t Shal be r W a by th c ty of cupert no
Planning Division prior to installation/application. o
W M
z c 10 0 10 0 30 Q
U a j ov
iz R z°, z
a n w ,
s:.:a5-- y'..,,:,.:W.,_. 51J1 ink'a"'47D R I 3 /' ... ' ' c — V o < v E
a
6:;C...t.8E"`"-••---a ' 'i ir'P"i.Tui o
I ; .:. o V r :7
C'w4 1..''-------- I
I — — —
C F
S
f
E
i"
t', 'w..,.., 1-, fl.i .. .
X .F!Vi Q7
G V oC N
i L'7iU -_`i. ,.'
r `"`
y' I Q `_'' '.' F- L-.]
1 , I
I
3'^"„ `'\.4 r ...
J ..
6
N
t f ,`` /
3
1 a
3 , ,., i "`' 15Tt`"4f U E h., , `'!'
N _
I _ — — M _
Fi !Y
z
i ,., ,
v
µTr'
IS. 3 t:"`
c:_.
a
f i l
I i.2 tV.v..
s'._."
f!' f.
r !' .
Vo^.. y ..,.
Y
E '.3-V iw:.>
3 .
F k L X 7v iGo".Y,..
f St i'v:i6'
h' ,_,,,..._.....,
7
i`
t TY'fi"_ v.'
i?"':
01 vC'!
aF.T r.rL'i.
0 4'tsG',.C3 r 1:
8----•-- f ;,-;•5'
o 3!s',!2-- ., , , 2 tc.1."7 S7"d+.'"a Q CiC..`ya.' Y/r
s I ".,"'•, ' i 4k7""J C.AB-?"=_N:'i7i;:'':t3C
3J i f
Q sr'';.1°`"" ;.. ,
ti, P G'a Gi.,4a5LLjrr
i
J 5,
z T P,!t??1`[.1. ETAI. u..:s;,=_ua T'P.JII D t i!F EA[R DET I s:-,_e° S U T H E L E V A T I N s: 1 4•---o• p
w YOii d
tt,}. it 1 '\ , 1_
Z
U
QQO i. `
w
pE+ p
a r---
s. o,
s o i w a.0 u.ap---- ,
I,....,
c; aa.
oc n f I s;;:_c p
e—i r
s- cA&I+C,8=
i i y:'pc.':it:
J::
I
a S 1l.
AtiT- .-`
y-` _ - x,
c.:
A, =^ i i'\ vv.
v r { ,! ,
MC f
ca S ``!\/,1
MC i
i
t a.
iE l _ \„/„'
v AS
NOTED X r,t, 1 n
ecxe AS
NOTED
t___ ..._..... .. ...... r.
n xb KR G 5`,
ID STCD(_ sxb W7JD S':..'
r----
1 ixd'RI"9"{=
R5
T
l CaSEr'L!Y'U'
NDCLJ
GGSB o A— .
0 E A S T E E/A T I N L UVER D
R S 1/4'=1'-p MP, GL.
DR, TYP.WINDOW JAMB DETAIL SCALE:3"-"-
u" aF a
v
JUN./24/'1 S
1 1,OL'6K RE,M
Auy./22/'1S
JY.O a+n l[w
Sep, 1) 1S
Eyy
vi
I .i--------------i i—_..----!__.
J 6„J T
I
V
n IDHLEAVE 4/12 ny r,,
i Iia,
I u "
1--------- ------ _,
I I
I a
ELEC. METER j J
W E S T E L E/A T I N s v•i--o• I g
C. N
I I \/ z 0.Q'
I i zIa w
lJ//
I Q .]
pp
i+a.!r;....
a !`/
V 4F-..........e......,....
I Q I C" ? O
t r 4/12 I 0 ° z Q
C it f - -........,:.u..V.._... .....__..._... _
2 I N 6a °° LBA.
w ra al {P _..-s Y:-.s . a o X
r i N i v < c
Ca7 CL ( rv O I I
F„ '""
l.su...._,_e... ,,..
a.. ......- V o o (
q
I \ Af''•,r:1 I I I T OL i ;, %
i i Q r' Vi W
I
N N
11 a D I
I
I Il i I
LIVING RM. O1 UUND. UTILITY I I I
A
I I
I I
3' CONC. ! CRAWL SPACE r— —___.--.i W
sEcTIaN A a 5, ,4.. -_0• I I ;
i a i i w •
4/2 I , a j
i 0 i iIi
y------L- V
z
Qoo
I
o r
a o W
M. BR. W.I.C. CLO BR' 2
I O 00
I 4/12 1
p a V
L_J
aw wh
MC
A1C
FAMILY RM. DINING RM.
E
ws No p
Raa PLAN
AS NOTID
N
j A-- 4. 0SECTIN '11 SI 1/4 a1—'
I
i
AC ASPHALi CONCREfE
e""°'"ER pATELiBwBACKOFMGII(
i
a CATCH
SIDENCECMPCORRUGATEDIAETALPIPE
CO CLEAN pUT
i CRN CROWN
DW DRIVEWAY
EC EDGE OF CONCREfE
EM ELECTRIC MEfER
EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT
FcoR FENCE CORNER 18780 TILSON AVENUE
FD FOUND jp]TINO,CA
FlNISHW FLOOR APN:375-17-036,375-17-037owurN87'39'53"W. 50.30' FlRE HYORM T
o.F C'oS' E ti' FW FRONT OF WALK
o" p,y, 6> /, - ______ ,__
G GROUND
a^ o i oy' o GC G4RACE CORNER
o +oti' 6`' , ' o GF G4RAGE fACE T
y'` 9'fREE
oti' t4 o o I CFC CROUND AT FENC
N
W E Cp•
G ry$
6 i
o
JP `°y
GM GAS MEfER
i g`' ti5 i HCR HANDICAP MMP A•t 0 C 1 A T•
r'—--—.__, INV INVERT
o s 0 2o I o'
6 P R
1b23M1DDLEFIELDRD#658o
otip
doirrr PqE
ti I c uP ov our pALO AL70, CA 94306
PC PROPERIY CORNERdpu
G j
o
G 6
o/H OVERHEAD
TFL; (650,823-6466
h i' + +°
ti
Rw aEraNn c wu.FAX; (650 887•1294
F ti p N SL STREET UGHT
1p'L oti JACU221
I
SSCO SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUf
dy SSMH SANITlJ Y SEWER MANHOLE
A1 ` '1°' i SDAIH STORM ORNN MANHOLE
GD y'
p ry
T8C TOP 8Aq(ROLIED CURB
Oti o 6 TC TOP OF CURB
p , G o
ry
i TQE TOE Of BMIK1I0TPTOPOFPAVEMENT
c 1 i G TRC TOP OF ROLLED CURB
TW TOP OF WALL
U/G UNDERCROUND
I DEC
WV
WAERIED
Y PIPE
F, ' a I WM WATER METER 80X
1° CN- CABLE TELEVISiON LIN
i E- EIECTRICAI IJNE
G- G4S LINE
I
1 /01 .,o p'L i SS- SANITARY SEIYER LWE
LICEN9t?9TAMP3 ATJb S)GNATURFT- ORLEPH ORAM 1 LE1NE
W- WATER LNrE
18780 TILSON AVENUE i Q
BA OFBEAFWJ(F1YJ I
I
I EXISTINC MOUSE O ANp SG
I
O FF y 1 OZ.S5 I i LINE
OB
F WUNDERL CH DRIVE,AS SHOWN ON w
2•
A '
iHAT CERTAIN AIAP FI EO W THE OFFICE OF ' ',
I G
k
THE RECORDER OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, L
I
STATE Of GUFORNIA,IN 800K 40 OF M PS
I o`
0 G
i AT PAGE 30,WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF
l
L 0?J5 '
I 2 oe 0 U BEARINGS$HOWN ON THIS MAP.
J`
a
j SS °
ryo
GL.y9
CAL1F'
o, BI S{1T I 1 D° ,
o }`
ry 3 I
W I iBN ELEV 100.00(ASSUNED)
I I
p
1p 10,
t
o,
Qo,O oQ°°
j
6
i
199UED
I O
j `
1 N 6
m E•
No. De orytlon D k
I Z
O e o },oti O
O _
L> ,°
i,
o
UNDERGROUND UT1UTlE5, SHOWN PER
l o c` o o ,ti SURFACE EVIDENCE AND RECORD MAPS.
f y y1 r w9 MAY BE D FERENT THAN AS$HOWN.
F
A'
a YA W
w...x_. _./.....,.-.......r..., ._...._:..,.».,..,_.,.
G ,
4,'S 4., ,
6
101
D
o,
h '
GO a` ' SERNCE
EALERTA(
USA)1-e00-
842G-
244 4
D , G O, +1
1
r 1? _ . _ _ AREA = 6,169tSQ.F7. 1... .
D iI ,', ;,_ '. l`Q-
y•'
ls FG 6 a Q 7°j • 6
4G
1p
J° p
y
1.UfAAJREMENT OF BUILDINC LINE IS 70
Y,dm,..- o °
s t oD q +Go` o'` ,. THE FACE OF STUCCO OR SIDING
r cJ;:.
O `'
S yq F t s j:.t
G`ya
D
e
O
22 TREE O IC 8 ZD S
P'
p
Rz26•
0'!'' c,q
I 1"•10'
o,
t•
3 , , co
I I D • ° M
5 24'TREE O
Mry
G k5 I 7
i
1on+
oo
D ,,
SSCo pG,
l0078
I o I
CP
st eer rm,e,
e
G(P
I 1,
E`cQ' OI n"1 1
I
N
o°
eo
f-- o, TOPOGRAPHICa.
I EE SURVEY
Q'
1 r PVM'S
I 1 DD.O Q-
O
i S}iEET N0.
I i y
O
1 S
C.0
December 17, 2015
HMC Associates, LLP
Attn: Mike Chen
12280 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd #209
Saratoga, C a. 95070
SUBJECT: TWO STORY PERMIT ACTION LETTER – Application s R-2015-38
This letter confirms the decision of the Director of Community Development, given on December 17,
2015; approving a Two-Story Permit (R-2015-38) to allow the construction of a new 2,775 square foot,
two-story single family residence located at 18780 Tilson Avenue, with the following conditions:
1. APPROVED PROJECT
This approval is based on a plan set entitled, “Patel Residence, 18780 Tilson Ave., Cupertino, Ca.
95014” consisting of six sheets labeled “A-1.0 to A-4.0 and C.0 (a Topographic Survey Map)” except
as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. ANNOTATION OF THE CON DITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the building plans.
3. ACCURACY OF THE PROJ ECT 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.
4. PRIVACY PLANTING
The final privacy-planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to
issuance of building permits. The variety, size, planting distance shall be consistent with the City’s
requirements.
5. 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.
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org
Two -Story Permit Action Letter Page 2
R-2015-38
6. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SU BMITTAL:
T he applicant shall submit a full landscape project submittal , per sections 490.1, 492.1, and 492.3 of
the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, for projects with
landscape area more than 500 square feet ; the applicant shall submit either a full landscape project
submittal or submit the Prescriptive Compliance Checklist per Appendix D of the Department of
Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for projects with landscape area more
than 500 square feet and less than 2,500 square feet . The Landscape Documentation Package or
Prescriptive Compliance Checklist shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director
of Community Developmen t prior to issuance of building permits.
7. 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 misrepresentati on of any
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
8. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS
Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material,
architectural treatments and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The final building exterior plan
shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Any ex terior changes
determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a minor
modification approval with neighborhood input.
9. INDEMNIFICATION
Except as otherwise prohibited by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
City Council, and its officers, employees and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from
and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against one or more of
the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set
aside, or void this Resolution or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including
(without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of
the litigation. The applicant shall pay such attorneys’ fees and costs within 30 days following receipt
of invoices from City. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to counsel not
otherwise employed as City staff and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other
City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City.
10. 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), h as 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.
Please note that if this permit is not vested within a year, it shall expire on December 17, 2016.
Two -Story Permit Action Letter Page 3
R-2015-38
Staff received comments from three adjacent neighbors during the comment period identifying concerns
related to the potential privacy impacts of the second-story windows on the norther n , southern and
western elevation. To resolve the concerns, staff reviewed the plan sets with one neighbor by clarifying
that the windows affecting their property are measured at 5’ from finished floor and would not require
privacy plantings and the property owners of 18780 Tilson Avenue personally addressed the other two
neighbors by proposing to add wall accents to the two front second story windows and to reduce the
sizes of the two rear second story windows.
The architect modified the plan set to include wall accents to the two front second story windows to give
the windows a recessed look to the satisfaction of the affected neighbor. Since these wall accents are
architectural features, these accent additions did not affect the floor area calculation. Additionally, the
architect reduced the bathroom window to 2’10” x 5’ and increased the sill height from finished floor to
5’. Due to building code regulations governing emergency egress, the bedroom window could not be
reduced in size. All privacy plantings will still b e in place for all windows with sill heights below 5’ from
finished floor .
Staff has made all the findings that are required for approval of a Two -Story Permit as required and no
additional conditions were placed as a condition for appro val by Cupertino's Municipal Code, Cha pter
19.28.140 (B).
1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances
and the purposes of this title.
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as the project is within the Low
Density land use area. There are no applicable specific plans that affect the project. The
project has been found to be consistent with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code
Chapter 19.28 Single Family (R-1) Residential.
2. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or inju rious to
property improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare as the projects is located within the R1 -5 (Single Family Residential) zoning district,
and will be compatible with the surrounding uses of the neighborhood.
3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood.
The proposed project is located in a residential area consisting of single family homes. The
proposed project maintains the single family home scale found compatible with the general
neighborhood.
4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated.
Any potential adverse impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated
through the privacy protection plantings a nd installation of a front -yard tree as required.
Also, please note that an appeal of this decision can be made within 14 calendar days from the date of
this letter. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing, which will be scheduled befo re
the Planning Commission.
Two -Story Permit Action Letter Page 4
R-2015-38
Sincerely,
Sarah Filipe
Assistant Planner
City of Cupertino
Enclosures:
Approved Plan Set
CC: Urja Patel, 18780 Tilson Ave , Cupertino Ca 95014
Megan Sun, 18785 Tilson Ave, Cupertino Ca 95014
Samit Pal, 10 464 Wunderlich Dr, Cupertino Ca 95014
Biren Shah, 18781 Barnhart Ave, Cupertino Ca 95014
1
Sarah Filipe
From:chang kim <24hrdrainpro@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 01, 2016 9:32 PM
To:Piu Ghosh
Cc:Sarah Filipe; 24hrdrainpro@gmail.com
Subject:18781 Tilson Ave -- appeal - huge windows
Hi Piu,
My name is Steve Kim and I live on 18771 Barnhart Ave.
Our neighbor, Urja Patel & Ajay, who live on 18781 Tilson Ave came to our house and explained to us that
their "plum tree is dying & they want to cut it and all the neighbor has signed the waiver" and ask us to sign the
waiver too. My wife signed the waver paper based on their words and being a good neighbor. But purposely
they didn't mention anything about the window sizes of second story building they are planning to build and
hence they got our signature based on false information. We have privacy concerns IF they are planning to
have huge windows.
We have seen their two story building plan and we would like to appeal the decision because their Master
Bedroom window size is huge (8 feet x 4 feet 6 inches) and THEY MUST REDUCE THE SIZE of the window
to resolve our privacy concerns.
We would like planning commission to consider this concern during the appeal process and public hearing
which is scheduled on 9th Feb.
We will try our best to attend the meeting in person but if we can not for any reason, we would like to make
sure these concerns are considered and our neighbor, Urja Patel, reduces the size of master bedroom window to
address our privacy concerns.
Thanks,
Steve
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date:March 8, 2016
SUBJECT
Use Permitfor a separate bar at a proposed restaurant located in the Ninteen800 (formerly
Rosebowl) Mixed Use Development. (Application No.(s): U-2015-10; Applicant(s): Alex
Miramar(Doppio Zero Pizzeria); Location: 10088 N. Wolfe Road, #120; APN: 316-20-108)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commissionapprovethe UsePermit (U-2015-09) to allow
the operation of the separate bar in accordance with the draft resolution.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation:Commercial/Residential
Zoning Designation:P(CG, OP, Res)
Special Area:South Vallco Park Gateway within the Heart of the City
Special Area
Commercial Building Area:45,004 square feet
Restaurant Area:2,841 square feet
Number of Employees:12
Parking Spaces
Required:33 (see parking discussion for details)
Available:33
Hours of Operation:
Sunday –Saturday 11am –11pm
Project Consistency with:
General Plan:Yes
Zoning:Yes
Environmental Assessment:Categorically Exempt
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
U-2015-10 Doppio Zero Pizzeria March 8, 2016
BACKGROUND:
Previous City Approvals
The City Council approved the Nineteen800 Mixed Use Developmentin October 2004 (Permit
No.s: U-2004-10, ASA-2005-03, and TM-2006-08).Constructionon thedevelopment was
completed in October 2015 and several tenantsare currentlyinoperation.
Existing Center and Surroundings
The project site is located within the South Vallco ParkGateway within the Heart of the City
Special Area, on the southeast corner of N.Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway. To the west of the
site is Vallco Mall, former Searsand Bay Club; future Main Street project to the east; Vallco
Mall/JC Penneyand office buildings to the north; and a residential mixed use development
(Metropolitan)and an office complex to the south. The nearest single-family residential
property is approximately 830feet away from the site.
DISCUSSION:
Application Request
The applicant, Alex Miramar, representing Doppio Zero, is requesting a Use Permit to
incorporate a separate bar within the restaurant. The General Commercial (CG) Ordinance
requires that the Planning Commission review and approve requests for separate bar facilities.
OperationalDetails
Doppio Zerois a sit-down restaurant that offers lunch and dinner options to customers. The
proposed floor plan includes a separate bar areaintegrated within the restaurant.The proposed
hours of operation are 11:00am to 11:00pmdaily. The applicant proposes to have 70table seats,
eightbar seats and a maximum of12employees per shift. See attachment 3for the business plan
provided by the applicant.
Proximity to Residential Use
The new restaurant will be located in the South Vallco Park Gateway within the Heart of the
City Special Area which is envisioned to serve as a gathering place that supports the creation of
a Main Street style environment with a downtown feel. The vision for the area and project site
encourages regional commercial offices and an entertainment center with daytime and
nighttime entertainmentactivities, with supportive residential development.
The closest single-family residential property is located approximately 830 feet to the west and a
residential mixed use development is located directly to the south. The residential portion of the
project has separate pedestrian and parking entrances from the retail portion of the project and
the applicant has incorporated adequate measuresinto the operations to ensure that there is
adequate buffering from the residencesand residentsabove, including installation of an odor
abatement system. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to impact the residential units within
the project or the nearby residential neighborhoods.
U-2015-10 Doppio Zero Pizzeria March 8, 2016
Security
The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s office has reviewed the projectincluding the restaurant’s
proposed security planand does not foresee any security concerns or negative impacts to the
surrounding neighborhood. A condition of approval has been added to require the property
owner to address security concernsto the satisfaction of the Cityin the event that they arise,
and pay for additional Sheriff’s enforcement time if required.
Parking
The project wide parking supply was reviewed and approved by the City Council in October
2004. The following table summarizes the parking provided for the Nineteen800 development,
including the proposed restaurant:
Other Department/Agency Review
The City’s Public Works Department, Building Division, and the Santa Clara County Fire
Departmenthave reviewed the project and have no objectionsto the proposed plans.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The use permit is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per section 15301(Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelinesbecause the proposed use occurs
within an existing facility and minor alterations will be made within an urban, developed
environment.
Required Parking Ratio Parking Required
Existing Food Uses within
development
1 space/4 seats + 1 space/employee +
1 space/3 seats (bar)
120.45
Vacant Commercial Areas
(33,848sq. ft.)
1 space/250 sq. ft. 135.39
Doppio Zero Pizzeria:
70 indoor seats 1 space/4 seats 17.5
8 bar seats 1 space/3 seats 2.67
12 employees/shift 1 space/employee 12
Doppio Zero Pizzeria Total:32.17
Total Parking Required:320.18
Total Parking Provided:475
Total Parking Surplus:154.82
U-2015-10 Doppio Zero Pizzeria March 8, 2016
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project:
Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice & Legal Ad Agenda
Site Signage (14 days prior to the hearing)
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
Notices mailed to property owners adjacent to
the project site (300 foot)
(10 days prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (five daysprior to the
hearing)
Postedon the City of Cupertino’s
Web site (five daysprior to the
hearing)
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT
This project is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 –65964).
The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act.
Project Received: December 7, 2015
Deemed Incomplete:January 7, 2016
Deemed Complete:January 19, 2016
Since this project is Categorically Exempt, the City has 60 days (until April 9, 2016) to make a
decision on the project. ThePlanning Commission’s decision on this project is final unless
appealed within 14 calendar days of the decision.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the project since the project and conditions of approval address all
concerns relatedto the proposed developmentand all of the findings for approval of the
proposed project, consistent with Chapter 19.168 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, may be
made.
Prepared by: Kaitie Meador, Assistant Planner
Reviewedand Approvedby:
/s/Ben Fu
Benjamin Fu
Assistant Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS:
1 –DraftResolution
2–Plan Set
3–Business Description
U-2015-10
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A USE PERMITTO ALLOW A SEPERATEBAR AT A PROPOSED
RESTAURANTLOCATED IN A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 10088 N WOLFE ROAD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:U-2015-10
Applicant:Alex Miramar(Doppio Zero Pizzeria)
Location:10088 N. Wolfe Road#120
SECTION II: FINDINGSFOR DEVELOPMENTPERMIT:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of theCity of Cupertino received an application for a
Conditional UsePermitas described in Section I.of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance
of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in
regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the project is determined to be categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application:
1.The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, andwill not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience;
The proposed location of the restaurantiswithin the South Vallco Park Gateway within the Heart of the
City SpecialArea which encourages daytime and nighttime entertainment activities. Additionally, the
closestsingle-family residential propertyis located approximately 830 feet from the proposed restaurant.
To further mitigate impacts,the applicant shall incorporate adequate measures into the operations to
ensure that there is adequate bufferingfrom residences including installation of an odor abatement
system. Adequate security measures are incorporated into the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed
use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
2.The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino
Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
Draft Resolution U-2015-10 March 8, 2016
The conditions of approval of the project ensure that the proposed restaurant use will be conducted in a
manner in accord with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.The restaurant proposes to operate
in a Zoning District that allows this use and will remain open between 11:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
Therefore, additional review for late night operationsis not required at this time. Adequate parking is
beingprovided for the proposed use. Outdoor seating is not proposed at this time.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration ofthe 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 Use Permit, Application no. U-2015-10is herebyrecommended for approval
andthat the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are
based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. U-2015-10as set forth
in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of March 8, 2016, and are incorporated by reference
as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
1.APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received Janurary 12, 2016consisting of 3
sheets, labeledA-0, A-1, and A-2entitled, “Doppio Zero Pizzeria, 10088 N. Wolfe Road, Suite
120, Cupertino” drawn by Miramar Design; except as may be amended by conditions in this
resolution.
2.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.
3.ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page
of the building plans.
4.EXPIRATION
If the use for which this conditional use permit is granted and utilized has ceased or has been
suspended for twoyear or more, this permit shall be deemed expired and a new use permit
application must be applied for and obtained.
5.OPERATIONS
a.The restaurant shall be operated within the area delineated on the site plan exhibit.
Draft Resolution U-2015-10 March 8, 2016
b.The allowed hours of operation are 11:00am to 11:00pmdaily. Including employeecleanup
hours.
c.Changes to the bar/restaurantoperations determined to be minor shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development.
6.OUTDOOR SEATING & PATIO AREA
No outdoor patio area or seating is approved as part of this application. Additional
review and approval will be requiredby the Director of Commnetiy Development prior
to installation of outdoor patio areas or seating. All patio areas and seating shall be
consistent with the General Commerical Ordinance and the Nineteen800 Retail Design
Guidelines.
7.MODIFICATION OF RESTURANT OPERATIONS
The Director of Community Development is empowered to makeor allowadjustments to the
operation of the restaurantto address any documented problem or nuisance situation that may
occuror changes proposed by the restaurant operator that are determined to be minor.
8.REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT
The Director may initiate proceedings for revocation of the Use Permit in any case where, in
the judgment of the Director:
a.Substantial evidence indicates that the conditions of the conditional use permit have not
been implemented, or
b.Complaints are received related to the tenantunder this use permit, and the complaints are
not immediately addressed by the property management and/or the tenant, or
c.Where the permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare, in accord with the requirements of the municipal code.
9.LAW ENFORMENT SUPPORT
The property owner shall address security concerns in the event that they arise to the
satisfaction of the City. The property owner shall pay for any additional Sheriff enforcement
time resulting from documented incidents in the development at the City’s contracted hourly
rate with the Sheriff Department at the time of the incident.
The City reserves the right to require additional security patrols and/or other measures as
prescribed by the Sheriff’s Office or Code Enforcement.
10.BUSINESS LICENSE
The business ownershall obtain a City of Cupertino business licenseprior to building permit
issuance.
11.STOREFRONT WINDOWDETAILS
The storefront windows shall be kept open and transparent to the greatest extent possible. The
final floor plan, storefront design and window display shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.
Draft Resolution U-2015-10 March 8, 2016
12.SIGNAGE
Signage is not approved withthis use permit application. Signage shall conform to the City
Sign Code.
13.RESTAURANT ODOR ABATEMENT
Applicant shall installanodor abatement system to reduce odor impacts from the restaurant to
the adjacent community. The odor abatement system shall be installed prior to final occupancy.
Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development
prior to issuance of building permits.
14.MECHANICAL AND OTHER EQUIPMENT SCREENING
To the extent possible, unless demonstrated otherwise, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development, all mechanical and other equipment shall be placed in areas not
visible from the public street areas. In the event that it is not possible to locate such equipment
away from the public street areas, all mechanical and other equipment on the building or on
the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining
developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The
height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is
designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.
15.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.
16.INDEMNIFICATION
Except as otherwise prohibitedby law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its City Council,andits officers, employees and agents (collectively,the “indemnified
parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party
againstone or more of theindemnified partiesor one or more of the indemnified partiesand
the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any permit or approval authorized
hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actualattorneys’
fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Theapplicant shall paysuch attorneys’ fees
and costswithin 30 daysfollowingreceipt of invoices from City. Suchattorneys’ fees and
costsshall include amountspaid to counsel not otherwise employed as City staff and shall
include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any
costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City.
17.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 Conditionsconstitute written notice of a statement of the amount of
such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are
Draft Resolution U-2015-10 March 8, 2016
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.
SECTION IV: CEQA REVIEW
The project was determined to be categorically exempt in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seqper Section
15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because it relates to interior improvements
to an existing facility in a development, urban environment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8thday ofMarch,2016,Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
Benjamin Fu Alan Takahashi
Assist. Dir. of Community Development Chair, Planning Commission
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date:Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Environmental Review Committee Recommendation:
The City Council accepted the Planning Commission’s recommendation to appoint Alan
Takahashi to the Environmental Review Committee at the March 1, 2016 meeting.
Certification of Sufficiency for the Initiative petition submitted by Cupertino Residents for
Sensible Zoning Action Committee:
Atthe March 1, 2016 meeting, the City Council received the Certification of Sufficiency for
the Initiative Petition submitted by Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action
Committee. The Council called for a special meeting the last week in March to receive the
report and make a decision regarding the petition.
Planning Commission Work Program:
Please bring ideas for the Planning Commission’s 2016-2017 work programto be discussed
at the next Planning Commission meeting
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITYHALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org