Desk Itemsm AV
DES,x ITEMS
DES�
R�E
,
f IE
Desk Item #1
Men Yau
Ellen,
How can the Larry Way neighbors file their strongest objections to a rear -facing balcony? Is there a template for such a thing?
Also during construction will the neighbor set up a construction 'fence between our properties as the fence is currently missing a lot of
sections?
t
Thanks
Jay
On Tuesday, July 2,2019,5:08:07 PM PDT, Ellen Yau <EllenY@cupertino.org> wrote:
Good afternoon Jay,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the project at 10713 Larry Way. In order to mitigate privacy impacts due to
development, the City has established mitigation measures in our Municipal Code and the property owner has provided
the required privacy planting that is compliant with Code.
If you are. available I would be more than happy to schedule a time to show you the plan set and answer any other
additional questions that you may have.
From: Jay [mailto:sspal cr yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 4:14 PM
To: Ellen Yau <EllenY cr cupertino.org>
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning a cupertino.org>
Subject: Application No. R-2019-03
1
Ellen,
My neighbor has applied for a permit to build a new home. I see that there is a rear -facing balcony. How is he planning to mitigate the
privacy issues due to the balcony?
Thanks
Jay
10699 Larry Way
"Total Control Panel
To: ellenv,c cupertino.org Remove this sender from my allow list
From: sspal@yahoo.com
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
Loem
Desk Items
Flom Yau
From:
Charles Eaneff <ceaneff@comcast.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, July 10, 2019 8:25 PM
To:
Ellen Yau
Cc:
lorraine eaneff
Subject:
10713 Larry Way
Ms. Yau,
A brand new home at 10713 Larry Way is exciting and welcome. Many of us workeddiligently with
the City to craft zoning for Larry and Randy Way and I would like to ensure that this home complies
with the spirit of that zoning. With regard to the second floor deck, it is a wonderful edea as long as
the side walls,comply with the height requirement for second story windows overlooking neighbors, 5'
minimum height. This does not completely protect the side neighbors from visual intrusion, however
combined with the minimum 12' talo trees, it is consistent with the spirit of the joint decision of the
Planning Department and Neighborhood in crafting this ordinance. Visual intrusion of maximum sized
homes such as this proposal was the subject of extensive discussion between Planning and
Neighborhood; I would like to call attention to footnote 2 regarding R1 -a side elevations where
nonconformance is acceptable only if there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. Visual
intrusion of the neighbors with less than a 5' sidewall is both an adverse impact and fundamentally
inconsistent with'the decisions made by Planning in partnersh.ip with the neighborhood. A 5' sidewall
allows constructionand use of an outdoor deck and is consistent with the discussions in establishing
the R1 -a Zone. I share this, concern with you as changes have had to be made to current
construction on Randy Way when solid side walls were found to be less than 5'.
I am not a side neighbor to this home, however as these wonderful decks become more common, it
important that the spirit of the -a Zoning is maintained with the welcome new construction in the
neighborhood.
Thank you for your attention, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions,
Charles Eaneff
10698 Larry Wary
408 480-5015
6. In the R1 -a zone, windows on the side elevations should 2:
a. Be fixed and obscured to a height of five feet above the second floor,
b. Have permanent exterior louvers to a height of five feet above the second
floor, or
c. Have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's
privacy.
2 Nonconformance with the design guidelines an the Rima zone shall be
considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no ads erse
impacts from the proposed prroject.
1
b. The Planning Division shall maintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and
shrubs. The list includes allowed plant species, minimum size of trees and shrubs,
expected canopy or spread size, and planting distance between trees.
i. In the R1 -a zone, the minimum height of privacy trees at the time of planting
shall be twelve feet.
ii. In the R1 -a zone, privacy planting shall have a minimum setback from the
property line equivalent to one-quarter of the spread noted on the City list.
c. The trees and/or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy
permit.
Minimum setbacks for second story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similarly
unenclosed features. Second story decks may only be located on the front and rear of
the house. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighboring
residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit in accordance
with Chapter 19.12, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of
this permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address
privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of
an outdoor deck.
Total Control Panel Login
To: ellenvCd,cupertino_ore Message Score: 1 High (60): Pi
From: ceaneff@comcast.net My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Po,,
Low (90): P ;z:
Block this sender Custom (55):
Block comcast.net
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
Desk Item
Ellen Yap
From: Charles Eaneff_ <Chuck@riskadapted.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 8:13 PM
To: Benjamin Fu
Cc: Ellen Yau; lorraine eaneff, Charles Eaneff
Subject: 10713 Larry Way
Director Fu,
The neighborhood worked hand in hand with the City to ensure that in transitioning from an
agricultural zone to R1 -a that aspects of semi -rural living were Imaintained. The totality of the R1 -a.
Zoning makes it clear that privacy was/is a significant concern, and one in which protections to.
privacy above that of R1 were established. Many if not most of the R1 -a differences with R1 have
privacy as a central theme. Staff insured the neighbors that no adverse privacy. impacts would be
allowed, and "no adverse impacts from the proposed project language is included in R1 -a. It
appears that 10727 intends to mitigate their adverse impact on South neighbors by planting, and not
to mitigate the visual intrusion on the North side. While this may be acceptable. in R1, if you look at
the totality of R1 -a and speak with staff or neighbors who worked on the creation of R1 -a, it should
become clear that the balcony, with zero sill height and see through rails, is an adverse impact to the
neighborhood inconsistent with the spirit and letter of R1 -a, admittedly a. difficult Code to parse for
the Consultants. The totality of the Code, and "shall" language regarding R1 -a nonconformance
seems to make it clear that only when there are "no adverse impacts" may the project move
forward. The proposed planting "mitigation" of such adverse impact is not a mitigation, and is in fact
currently mandated ("In the RI -a zone, the minimum height of privacy trees at the time of planting
shall be twelve feet.....ln the R1 -a zone, privacy planting shall. have a minimum setback from the
property line equivalent to one-quarter of the spread....).
While I am not a neighbor to the North or South, having worked with the City in crafting this Zone, it
seems clear that unless the North and South sill heights are 5, there is an adverse impact that may
not be waived by individual neighbors ("Nonconformance with the design guidelines in the R1 -a zone`.
shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the
proposed project.") The large lots and semi -rural nature of this neighborhood helps define this'
neighborhood, where,.sharing of fruits and vegetables is common and privacy respected. It is my
sincere hope that the new neighbor respects his neighbor's privacy and amends the balcony side
fencing (open to the floor),.which allows a view of their neighbor's entire backyard except for
approximately 6' immediately adjacent their shared fence, to a 5' sill. It has been my expectation
based on prior work with the City that the City will not allow a visual field from the second floor without
any sill height at all to be built in R1 -a. R1 -a even has landscape provisions for privacy across the
street! The see through balcony side rails are not consistent with that code.
Absent the visual intrusion adverse impact from the second story deck, the house appears to be a
grand addition to the neighborhood and a fitting replacement for a former Mayor's home.
Chuck Eaneff
408 480-5015
Chuck@RiskAdapted.com
(Threat x Vulnerability x Consequence) - CapabilityTimeliness= Risk
7 otal Control Panel
To: ellen -rt u;cLipeiiino.org Message Score: 15 High (60):
From: chuck(oriskadapted.com My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): P i>
Low (90):
Block this sender Custom (55): 134,x,
Block riskadapted.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
Login