Public hearing to consider appeal of the December 18, 2025, decision of the Planning Commission to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny a concurrent land use application, consisting of Design Review and Grading Approval. Appellant: Jeff and Melissa Waters. Applicant: Cove Britton. Owner: The Waters Family Trust. Property Address/Location: 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino, Assessor's Parcel No. 351-42-004. Zoning: HS-d1. Supervisorial District: Five. File No.: PLN20-124-APL3. (LA)
This document is a hearing printout regarding an appeal of a Planning Commission decision related to a land use application at Peacock Court. The appeal is from Jeff and Melissa Waters against a decision made on December 18, 2025, which upheld the Zoning Administrator's denial of their application for Design Review and Grading Approval. The document outlines the recommended actions for the public hearing and includes details about the property and involved parties.
Key points
Public hearing to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision.
Appellant: Jeff and Melissa Waters.
Applicant: Cove Britton.
Owner: The Waters Family Trust.
Property Address: 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino.
Zoning: HS-d1.
Supervisorial District: Five.
File No.: PLN20-124-APL3.
Recommended actions include opening and closing the public hearing.
Limitations
The document contains a placeholder for the date of the hearing.
The document does not specify the exact dollar amounts or outcomes of the appeal.
Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.
Extracted text preview · 1,636 chars
County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development 128143 DATE: June 23, 2026 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Jacqueline R. Onciano, Director, Dept. of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Public Hearing Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision of Peacock Court RECOMMENDED ACTION Public hearing to consider appeal of the December 18, 2025, decision of the Planning Commission to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny a concurrent land use application, consisting of Design Review and Grading Approval. Appellant: Jeff and Melissa Waters. Applicant: Cove Britton. Owner: The Waters Family Trust. Property Address/Location: 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino, Assessor's Parcel No. 351-42-004. Zoning: HS-d1. Supervisorial District: Five. File No.: PLN20-124-APL3. (LA) i. Open public hearing and receive testimony. ii. Close public hearing. Please refer to Legislative File 128487. LINKS: • Linked From: 128487 : Consider recommendations relating to the appeal of the December 18, 2025 decision by the Planning Commission to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny a concurrent land use application, consisting of Design Review and Grading Approval that includes...
The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.
This document is a notice of a public hearing scheduled by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors for June 23, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The hearing will address an appeal regarding a land use application for a new single-family residence and associated structures at 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino. The notice includes details on how to participate in the hearing, both in person and remotely, and provides contact information for written communications.
Key points
Public hearing scheduled for June 23, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
Hearing addresses an appeal of a Planning Commission decision regarding a land use application.
Project includes construction of a 9,200-square-foot single-family residence, an ADU, and site improvements.
Appellant: Jeff and Melissa Waters; Applicant: Cove Britton; Owner: The Waters Family Trust.
Public can participate in person or remotely via video conference or telephone.
Written communications should be sent to the Clerk of the Board prior to the hearing.
Limitations
The document appears to be a draft as it includes placeholders and lacks final confirmation details.
The publication date mentioned is 05/29/2026, which may not align with the actual hearing date.
Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.
Extracted text preview · 4,340 chars
SAN JOSE POST-RECORD Mailing Address : 2175 THE ALAMEDA #103, SAN JOSE, CA 95126 Telephone (408) 287-4866 / Fax (408) 287-2544 Visit us @ www.LegalAdstore.com LENA PALACIOS SANTA CLARA CO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 70 W HEDDING ST 10TH FL EAST WNG SAN JOSE, CA 95110 COPY OF NOTICE Notice Type: GOV GOVERNMENT LEGAL NOTICE Ad Description Public Hearing To the right is a copy of the notice you sent to us for publication in the SAN JOSE POST-RECORD. Thank you for using our newspaper. Please read this notice carefully and call us with any corrections. The Proof of Publication will be filed with the County Clerk, if required, and mailed to you after the last date below. Publication date(s) for this notice is (are): 05/29/2026 An invoice will be sent after the last date of publication. If you prepaid this order in full, you will not receive an invoice. Daily Journal Corporation Serving your legal advertising needs throughout California. SAN JOSE POST-RECORD, SAN JOSE BUSINESS JOURNAL, RIVERSIDE DAILY COMMERCE, LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL, LOS ANGELES ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER, SANTA ANA SAN FRANCISCO DAILY JOURNAL, SAN FRANCISCO THE DAILY RECORDER, SACRAMENTO THE DAILY TRANSCRIPT,...
This document is an Affidavit of Mailing by Lena Palacios, a Deputy Clerk in Santa Clara County, California. It states that a Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to property owners as per a mailing list provided by the Department of Planning and Development. The mailing occurred on May 27, 2026, and pertains to an appeal regarding a land use application for a new single-family residence and associated structures at 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino. The affidavit confirms compliance with mailing practices and is executed under penalty of perjury.
Key points
Affidavit of Mailing by Lena Palacios, Deputy Clerk.
Mailing address: 70 West Hedding Street, 10th Floor, East Wing, San Jose, California.
Notice of Public Hearing mailed to property owners on May 27, 2026.
Concerned appeal regarding a land use application for a new single-family residence.
Property address: 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino.
Mailing list provided by the Department of Planning and Development.
Affidavit executed under penalty of perjury.
Limitations
The mailing list referenced is not included in the document.
The document contains placeholders such as 'attached mailing list' which are not filled in.
Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.
Extracted text preview · 2,487 chars
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I, Lena Palacios, am now and at all times herein mentioned have been over the age of eighteen years, employed in Santa Clara County, California; that my business address is 70 West Hedding Street, 10th Floor, East Wing, San Jose, California 95110-1770. I am readily familiar with the County”s business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I served a COPY OF THE ATTACHED Notice of Public Hearing by mailing said copy to the addresses shown on the *attached mailing list*. This mailing list has been provided by the Department of Planning and Development and lists the owners of property who are entitled to Notice of Hearing. Each Notice was then taped, with postage fully prepaid thereon, on May 27, 2026, and placed for collection and mailing at my place of business following ordinary business practices. Said correspondence will be deposited with the United States Postal Service at San Jose, California, on the above-referenced date in the ordinary course of business; there is delivery service by United States mail at the place so addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the...
The document contains public comments regarding the Waters Project, which is under review by the Board. Cove Britton questions the application of Policy R-GD-35 in evaluating the project, highlighting a lack of clarity on what modifications would make it approvable. Louise Vance expresses concern about the unclear path to approval for the Waters property, emphasizing the need for transparency in the land use process. Janelle Kroenung and Jim Sonne both support the project, stressing that it complies with County policies and urging the Board to grant the appeal.
Key points
Cove Britton questions how Policy R-GD-35 was applied to the Waters Project and seeks clarity on what modifications would lead to approval.
Louise Vance highlights the need for property owners to understand the standards and modifications required for project approval.
Janelle Kroenung and Jim Sonne express support for the Waters Project, asserting it meets County standards and urging the Board to grant the appeal.
Limitations
The text does not provide specific details about the Waters Project or the exact nature of the modifications being requested.
There are unresolved placeholders such as email addresses and phone numbers that could not be summarized.
Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.
Extracted text preview · 6,383 chars
BoardOperations From: Sent: To: Subject: Cove Britton Friday, June 19, 2026 6:03 PM BoardOperations [EXTERNAL] Waters Item 8 June 23, 2026 Dear Members of the Board: I respectfully ask you to consider two questions. Policy R-GD-35 requires the County to consider distance from the valley floor, vegetation, intervening slopes, and other factors that mitigate visual impacts from hillside development. Throughout five years of review, I repeatedly asked how that policy was applied to this project. I never received an answer. Instead, the discussion increasingly focused on subjective personal preferences without explaining how those features were evaluated under Policy 35. Notably, the only Planning Commissioner who personally attempted to evaluate the project from the valley floor reported that he could not see it, even with story poles installed. This project was revised repeatedly over five years. It went through multiple hearings, multiple continuances, substantial design revisions, and more than a year focused on a water issue that Staff now acknowledges was not a basis for denial. At this point in the process, it is especially important to ask: What specific modification would...
05
1.24 MB
Presentation from Nossaman, LLC relating to Appeal of Planning Commission December 18, 2025 Decision regarding Concurrent Land Use Application
The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.
This document discusses an appeal related to a decision made by the Planning Commission on December 18, 2025, regarding a Concurrent Land Use Application for a property located at 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino. The appeal is presented by John Flynn from Nossaman LLP. It argues that the County's failure to make a timely decision under the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) results in automatic project approval. The document also addresses the definition of administrative appeals as per County Code, asserting that the current appeal does not qualify for the PSA exemption, leading to the conclusion that the project is approved by operation of law.
Key points
The appeal concerns a decision made by the Planning Commission on December 18, 2025.
The property in question is located at 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino, with APN No. 351-42-004.
The County's CEQA determination was made by April 25, 2024, necessitating a final decision by June 24, 2024, under the PSA.
No decision was made by the deadline, leading to automatic approval of the project under the PSA.
The appeal is filed by the applicant, not the Planning Director, which is a key point in the argument against the PSA exemption.
Limitations
The document appears to be a draft as it contains incomplete sections and lacks finalization details.
There are unresolved placeholders and missing information regarding specific dates and decisions.
Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.
Extracted text preview · 1,261 chars
Santa Clara Board of Supervisors Agenda Item #8 Waters’ Appeal of Planning Commission’s Dec. 18, 2025 Decision re Concurrent Land Use Application Address: 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino, APN No. 351-42-004 John Flynn | Nossaman LLP nossaman.com Per County’s letter dated November 18, 2025, County CEQA determination made April 25, 2024 at the latest. Therefore, the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) required final decision by June 24, 2024. No decision made until December 18, 2025. The Project is deemed approved automatically under PSA if the deadline is missed. 2 Staff contends they complied because Government Code section 65922 of the Permit Streamlining Act exempts “administrative appeals” from PSA limits. 3 The Permit Streamlining Act does not define administrative appeals, but the County Code does: “An administrative appeal is an appeal filed by the Planning Director within 20 calendar days after any decision of the Planning Commission.” (County Code, § 5.30.040.) 4 The appeal at hand is an appeal by applicant, not by Planning Director. (Staff has not even addressed this decisive point.) Therefore, the PSA exemption for administrative appeals does not apply to the County of Santa...
06
2.25 MB
Presentation from Matson Britton Architects relating to Appeal of Planning Commission December 18, 2025 Decision regarding Concurrent Land Use Application
The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.
The document appears to be a presentation related to the appeal of a Planning Commission decision regarding a concurrent land use application for the Waters Residence located on Peacock Ct. The presentation discusses compliance with design guidelines, including elevation approvals and building height specifications. It includes visual representations and diagrams to support the claims of compliance with the guidelines.
Key points
The hearing date for the appeal is June 23, 2026.
The presentation includes a discussion of Policy R-GD 35 regarding visual impact mitigation for hillside development.
The North, South, and East elevations have been approved by staff as compliant with guidelines.
The West elevation faces away from the valley floor and is highlighted in yellow.
Guideline 11 suggests a tiered design for buildings on steep slopes to reduce visual bulk.
The document includes photorealistic renderings and diagrams to illustrate compliance with design guidelines.
The height limit for the project is 35 feet, with various building heights listed.
Limitations
The document does not provide specific details about the appeal process or the Planning Commission's original decision.
There are unresolved placeholders and missing information regarding the specific dates and outcomes of the appeal.
Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.
Extracted text preview · 1,998 chars
Board of Supervisors Hearing Waters Residence - Peacock Ct. APN: 351-42-004 HEARING DATE: JUNE 23rd, 2026 31 Policy R-GD 35: In applying and implementing Deisgn Review requirements, the County shall also take into account such factors as distance from the valley floor, existing vegetation, intervening slopes and hillsides, and other factors that tend to mitigate visual impact of hillside development. SITE This photograph was taken from the roof of a 3-story parking garage located in the valley floor, with a 56 mm lens which roughly approximates the visual acuity of the human eye. 32 North Elevationcomplies per staff ✓ The North, South, and East elevations (highlighted in blue) have already been approved by staff as compliant Direction of with guidelines. The West elevation, highlighted here in valley yellow, faces away from the valley floor. floor East Elevation / Direction of valley floor complies per staff ✓ West Elevation complies with guidelines South Elevationcomplies per staff ✓ 33 Guideline 11: New buildings located on steeper slopes that are visually prominent should incorporate a tiered design approach in order to reduce building massing and visual bulk. Design methods...
The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.
Cove Britton expresses concerns regarding a supplemental memorandum related to the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on the Peacock Court project. The memorandum suggests substantial redesign and a continuation of the project review until November. Britton requests additional time to present at the upcoming hearing to address the new issues raised in the memorandum, which he feels lack clarity on public benefit and measurable outcomes.
Key points
Cove Britton received a supplemental memorandum recommending redesign of the Peacock Court project.
The memorandum suggests a continuation of the project review until November.
Britton requests additional presentation time at the hearing to discuss the new issues raised.
Concerns are raised about the lack of clarity on public benefit from the proposed changes.
Limitations
The text contains unresolved placeholders such as names and contact information.
The document appears to be a draft, as indicated by the informal communication style and lack of finality.
Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.
Extracted text preview · 3,944 chars
BoardOperations From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Cove Britton Monday, June 22, 2026 9:03 PM Gomez, Clarissa; Purpura, Tina; BoardOperations ; ; Pianca, Elizabeth; David J. Miller; Onciano, Jacqueline [EXTERNAL] Re: Supplemental Memo - Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision of Peacock Court (PLN20-124-APL3), Agenda Item No. 8 Supervisors: After business hours this evening, staff circulated a supplemental memorandum recommending substantial redesign of the project and a further continuation until November. As you might imagine, having had little or no time to consider this new memorandum, we cannot on such short notice state a position on the proposed continuance, whether to object or to agree. Either way, we reserve all rights under the Permit Streamlining Act, and any redesign along the lines proposed by Staff, the parties must agree, will not constitute submission of a new application. The memorandum is significant because it appears to acknowledge that the project is capable of approval. That by itself is reason for cautious optimism. Nevertheless, some essential observations are in order. The newly proposed changes are not tied to any identified zoning violation, subdivision...
This document is a Request to Speak form intended for public use, allowing individuals to address the Board, Committee, or Commission. It is a public record subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and may be included in meeting materials on the County website. The form includes options for individuals to indicate their stance on issues (for, against, neutral) and provides space for written comments if they do not wish to speak orally.
Key points
The document is a public record under the California Public Records Act.
It may be added to meeting materials on the County website.
Individuals can indicate their stance on issues (for, against, neutral).
There is an option for written comments for the record.
Limitations
The document contains many placeholders and incomplete sections.
Specific names, dates, and agenda item numbers are missing or not filled in.
Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.
Extracted text preview · 3,000 chars
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM This document is a public record, subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. This document may also be added to the meeting materials posted on the County website. If you wish to address the Board, Committee, or Commission, please fill out this form and place it in the container provided. we (lz/2e For Issue [] AGENDA ITEM No. Against Issue [] NAMEe OPTIONAL) X Written comments for the record only Neutral [] Jo_o Decline to state [] PLEASE PRINT 6 . v )F[]]]Jp[])N] ()DE])NJ[\[_). PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY [[)}},, ()[)][_) PLEASE PRINT If you want to provide written commentsfor the record only, and you do NOT wish to address the Board, Committee, or Commission orally, please write comyents below. s92 Rv nuns D REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM This document is a public record, subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. This document may alsobe added to the meeting materials posted on the County website. lf you wish to address the Board, Committee, or Commission, please fill out this form and place it in the container provided. ArEe. Ms, 3,20G For Issue [] NAME (OPTIONAL): Against Issue l AGENDA ITEM NO. D □ Neutral [ 10' » •...