Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution No. 2026-03CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-03 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A HILLSIDE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR THE CUMULATIVE DISTURBANCE EXCEEDING 500 SQUARE FEET ON SLOPES GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 30% LOCATED AT 22068 SAN FERNANDO COURT (A.P.N. 35712 012) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: EXC-2025 007 Applicant: David Kuoppamaki Location: 22068 San Fernando Court; APN: 35712 012 SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A HILLSIDE EXCEPTION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Hillside Exception as 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, on February 24, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony on the Project and reviewed and considered the information contained in the staff report pertaining to the Project, all other pertinent documents, and all written and oral statements received by the Planning Commission at or prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission must make all of the following findings as follows, with regard to this application, that: 1. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to public health and safety; 2. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic; Resolution No. 2026-03 EXC-2025-007 February 24, 2026 Page 2 3. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development; 4. The proposed development requires an exception which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel; 5. All alternative locations for development on the parcel have been considered and have been found to create greater environmental impacts than the location of the proposed development; 6. The proposed development does not consist of structures on or near known geological or environmental hazards which have been determined by expert testimony to be unsafe or hazardous to structures or persons residing therein (See General Plan Policy 2-49); 7. The proposed development includes grading and drainage plans which will ensure that erosion and scarring of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of roads, housing sites, and improvements will be minimized (See General Plan Policies 2-53, 2-54 and 2-57); 8. The proposed development does not consist of structures which would disrupt the natural silhouette of ridgelines as viewed from established vantage points on the valley floor unless either: a. The location of a structure on a ridgeline is necessary to avoid greater negative environmental impacts; or b. The structure could not otherwise be physically located on the parcel and the size of the structure is the minimum which is necessary to allow for a reasonable use of the parcel (See General Plan Policies 2-46, 2-47 and 2-48); 9. The proposed development consists of structures incorporating designs, colors, materials, and outdoor lighting which blend with the natural hillside environment and which are designed in such a manner as to reduce the effective visible mass, including building height, as much as possible without creating other negative environmental impacts (See General Plan Policies 2-46, 2-50, 2-51 and 2-52); 10. The proposed development is located on the parcel as far as possible from public open space preserves or parks (if visible there from), riparian corridors, and wildlife habitats unless such location will create other, more negative environmental impacts (See General Plan Policies 2-55, 5-14 and 5-28); 11. The proposed development includes a landscape plan, which retains as many specimen trees as possible, which utilizes drought -tolerant native plants and Resolution No. 2026-03 EXC-2025-007 February 24, 2026 Page 3 ground covers consistent with nearby vegetation, and which minimizes lawn areas (See General Plan Policies 2-54, 5-15 and 5-16); 12. The proposed development confines solid fencing to the areas near a structure rather than around the entire site (See General Plan Policy 5-17); and 13. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the purposes of this chapter as described in Section 19.40.010. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to make all of the findings listed above, specifically, the Commission was unable to make the following findings: The proposed development requires an exception which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel; The proposal proposed the creation of an approximately 1,100 -square -foot flat yard area within the rear 40 feet of the property. As the rear 40 feet of the parcel is steep, with an average slope of 59%, development in the rear 40 feet of the property that would affect more than 500 square feet of the slope (e.g. any grading for a home, structure, or yard in an area over 500 square feet) would require a Hillside Exception. The Planning Commission noted that the applicant purchased property with a significant slope and is proposing to construct a home that maximizes the floor area ratio of the property on the flat portions of property. The applicant has not attempted to reduce development on the property and should not anticipate the same development potential on the subject lot as a lot without a slope. The applicant has an option to incorporate 500 square feet of flat yard area allowed without a Hillside Exception by the Residential Hillside Ordinance, into the project. and, therefore, finds that the modification is not the least required to accomplish reasonable use of the parcel. 2. All alternative locations for development on the parcel have been considered and have been found to create greater environmental impacts than the location of the proposed development; The applicant did not demonstrate that alternative locations were considered for the development on the parcel. However, since the home proposed in conjunction with this development is at the maximum development potential for the lot on the flattest portions of the property, the applicant could consider redesigning the residence to allow for more rear yard space on the existing flat portion of the lot. 14. The proposed development includes grading and drainage plans which will ensure that erosion and scarring of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of roads, housing sites, and improvements will be minimized; Resolution No. 2026-03 EXC-2025-007 February 24, 2026 Page 4 The proposed development proposed the maximum grading possible to accommodate the maximum allowable flat yard area and, therefore, the grading and drainage plans did not ensure that erosion and scarring of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of the proposed improvements related to the flat yard area would be minimized. 15. The proposed development is located on the parcel as far as possible from public open space preserves or parks (if visible therefrom), riparian corridors, and wildlife habitats unless such location will create other, more negative environmental impacts; The property shares a property line with City owned property where Blackberry Farm, McClellan Ranch Park and Stevens Creek Trail are located. The proposed improvements were located closer to this shared property line and may have been visible from certain vantage points along a nearby portion of the trail. The improvements also contemplated removal of several trees which could have affected the views from these open space areas. Additionally, the proposed improvements were located closest to the westerly property line, which is abutting a riparian corridor. Therefore, they were not proposed as far as possible from the riparian corridor. 16. The proposed development includes a landscape plan, which retains as many specimen trees as possible, which utilizes drought -tolerant native plants and ground covers consistent with nearby vegetation, and which minimizes lawn areas (See General Plan Policies 2-54, 5-15 and 5-16); The proposal involved the removal of 5 Specimen Trees. However, since the proposal was to maximize potentially allowable flat yard area, it considered the removal of all except two Specimen trees in the backyard. The project would have been conditioned to provide drought -tolerant native plants and ground covers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. After careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Planning Commission hereby denies the application for a Hillside Exception, Application no. EXC-2025-007. 2. The conclusions and sub -conclusions upon which the findings specified in this resolution are based, including those contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. EXC-2025-007 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of February 24, 2026, are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are included herein by reference as findings. Resolution No. 2026-03 EXC-2025-007 February 24, 2026 Page 5 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 2026, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kosolcharoen, Fung, and Lindskog NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Scharf and Rao ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ATTEST: APPROVED: Piu Ghosh Tracy Kosolcharoen Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission