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 construction of a new 9,200-square-foot single-family residence with attached garages, a detached accessory dwelling unit with an attached indoor basketball court, and site improvements including a driveway and septic system. (LA)

The document outlines an appeal regarding the Planning Commission's decision to deny a concurrent land use application for Design Review and Grading Approval for a proposed 9,200-square-foot single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit at 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino. The appeal was filed by Jeff and Melissa Waters after the Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Administrator's denial due to various compliance issues. The Board of Supervisors is recommended to deny the appeal and uphold the previous decisions, citing the inability to meet required findings for approval.

Key points

• The appeal concerns a land use application for a single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit.
• The Planning Commission denied the appeal on December 18, 2025, citing non-compliance with required findings.
• The project includes a 9,200-square-foot residence, a detached accessory dwelling unit, and site improvements.
• The Zoning Administrator initially denied the application on November 5, 2021, due to issues with building form, grading, and wastewater treatment.
• The Board of Supervisors is considering whether to deny or grant the appeal.

Limitations

• The document does not provide specific dates for all events mentioned, only some.
• There are unresolved placeholders in the text that affect the completeness of the summary.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.

This document is an appeal submitted by Jeff and Melissa Waters regarding the denial of their project application by the Planning Commission on December 18, 2025. The appeal argues that the denial lacks substantial evidence and violates the Waters' rights to due process and equal protection under the law. The Waters claim that their project should be deemed approved under the Permit Streamlining Act and request the Board of Supervisors to vacate the Planning Commission's denial, declare the application approved, and clarify that all obligations have been satisfied.

Key points

• The appeal is against the Planning Commission's decision to deny Application No. PLN20-124-APL2.
• The Waters have faced significant delays and costs, estimated between $4-8 million, over five years.
• The appeal argues that the Planning Commission's denial is an abuse of discretion and not supported by substantial evidence.
• The Waters claim their project is deemed approved under the Permit Streamlining Act.
• The appeal requests the Board to vacate the denial, declare the application approved, and clarify the applicant's obligations.

Limitations

• The document appears to be a draft as it includes references to enclosures and prior communications without providing complete context.
• There are unresolved placeholders such as the specific details of the appeal and the exact nature of the Planning Commission's errors.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.

This attachment includes responses to appeal items related to the Planning Commission's denial of the Waters' Project application. The document outlines various appeal items and corresponding responses from the Department of Planning and Development, addressing claims made by the appellants regarding procedural issues, water service, design guidelines, and the basis for the Commission's denial. The responses emphasize adherence to applicable laws and evidence supporting the Commission's decisions.

Key points

• The appeal is filed by Jeff and Melissa Water against the Planning Commission's decision to deny their Project application.
• The Planning Commission's denial was based on substantial evidence and adherence to the Permit Streamlining Act.
• The appellants claim that the denial constitutes an abuse of discretion and violates their rights to due process.
• Water service was deemed a non-issue, with the Planning Commission stating that the project could proceed without a definitive water service agreement.
• The responses clarify that the project was denied due to failure to meet specific design review and grading approval findings.

Limitations

• The text includes unresolved placeholders and bracketed sections that affect the completeness of the summary.
• The document appears to be a draft, as indicated by the structure and language used.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

This document is a transcript of a Planning Commission meeting held on December 18, 2025, regarding an appeal of the Waters Family Trust Application. The appeal concerns a decision made by the zoning administrator to deny a concurrent land use application for design review and grading approval. The meeting included discussions on the project's compliance with zoning regulations, design issues, and water system capacity. The Commission has received input from staff and public comments, and staff recommends denying the appeal based on unresolved issues related to water compliance and design integration with the hillside.

Key points

• The meeting was held on December 18, 2025, to discuss the Waters Family Trust Application appeal.
• The appeal concerns the denial of a concurrent land use application for design review and grading approval.
• The appellant is Cove Britton, owner of the Waters Family Trust, with the property located at 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino.
• The project includes a 9,200-square-foot single-family residence, a detached ADU, and various amenities.
• Staff has raised concerns about the project's water system compliance and design integration with the hillside.
• The Commission has received public comments and staff recommends denying the appeal.

Limitations

• The document is a transcript and may contain incomplete or truncated sections.
• Some details regarding specific dates, votes, or outcomes are not provided in the text.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.

The document appears to be a draft detailing project plans for a new residential construction at Peacock Court, Cupertino, CA. It includes specifications for a two-story residence with a basement, a garage, and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The plans comply with various California building codes and include details on site conditions, engineering, and fire protection requirements.

Key points

• Project involves a new 8,094 SF two-story residence with a lower floor basement.
• Includes a 1,198 SF ADU/cottage and a basketball half-court.
• Construction complies with the 2019 California Residential Code and other relevant codes.
• Site is located in a FEMA flood zone and a wildland-urban interface fire area.
• Fire sprinklers will be installed as a deferred submittal.

Limitations

• The document is a draft and may not contain finalized information.
• Some sections are truncated or incomplete, affecting the completeness of the summary.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.

This document outlines updated findings for Design Review and Grading Approval related to a project, detailing changes made to the design and grading plans. The Planning Commission previously directed the applicant to resolve outstanding issues, leading to revisions in grading fill quantities and design elements. The findings assess the project's compliance with design review criteria, compatibility with the natural environment, neighborhood, zoning regulations, and general plan guidelines. While some issues have been addressed, concerns remain regarding visual impacts and building form.

Key points

• The Planning Commission continued the item on April 25, 2024, directing resolution of outstanding design issues.
• Revised plans were submitted on July 3, 2024, and September 16, 2024.
• Grading fill quantities were reduced from 1,465 cubic yards to 767 cubic yards.
• The proposed design includes an attached 3,000 square foot concrete deck situated twelve feet above natural grade.
• The project does not fully comply with design review guidelines, particularly regarding building form and visual integration with the hillside.
• The proposed development is deemed intrusive compared to existing neighborhood homes.
• The project complies with applicable zoning district regulations and setbacks.

Limitations

• The document appears to be a draft as it contains unresolved issues and ongoing assessments.
• Specific dates and details regarding the Planning Commission's decisions are not fully provided.
• Some sections of the text are truncated, leading to incomplete information.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.

This document appears to be a draft of an attachment related to a land use application for a new single-family residence at 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino. The project includes a 9,200-square-foot residence, attached garages, a chapel, and a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) with an indoor basketball court. It outlines the project's exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and provides preliminary conditions of approval for design review and grading approval. The document includes various conditions that must be met prior to development, including landscaping, drainage, and construction requirements.

Key points

• Project location: 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino.
• Project includes a 9,200-square-foot single-family residence, attached garages, a chapel, and an ADU with an indoor basketball court.
• Exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 Class (3)(a) for new single-family residences.
• Grading quantities: 614 cubic yards of cut and 767 cubic yards of fill, with a maximum depth of 12 feet.
• Conditions of approval include requirements for landscaping, drainage, and construction practices.

Limitations

• The document appears to be a draft and may not contain finalized information.
• Some sections are truncated, leading to incomplete information.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The document is a Policies and Findings Matrix that outlines various policies and guidelines related to design review, grading, and hillside development in Santa Clara County. It emphasizes the importance of preserving scenic resources, minimizing visual impacts, and ensuring that development is compatible with the natural environment. Key areas covered include design review requirements, grading standards, and guidelines for hillside development, including considerations for site design, building form, and landscaping.

Key points

• Design Review Guidelines apply to primary viewshed areas visible from the valley floor.
• Grading and terrain alteration should conserve the natural landscape and minimize erosion impacts.
• Grading approval must be concurrent with other land use authorizations.
• Structures should be designed to respect existing natural features and minimize visual impacts.
• The scenic qualities of the environment should be preserved and enhanced.
• Development should avoid encroachment into sensitive biological and cultural resources.
• Roads and driveways should contour to avoid excessive cuts and fills.

Limitations

• The text contains unresolved placeholders and incomplete sections.
• Some statements are unclear regarding the impacts of proposed sites on natural resources.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The document titled 'Guidelines for Grading and Hillside Development' was adopted by the County of Santa Clara's Board of Supervisors on March 12, 2013. It serves as a handbook to provide clarity and guidance regarding policies and findings for hillside development and grading. The guidelines aim to assist landowners and professionals in designing hillside projects while addressing environmental concerns such as slope stability, soil erosion, and visual impacts. The document outlines various policies from the General Plan and the County Ordinance Code that govern grading activities, emphasizing the need for minimal disturbance to the natural landscape and adherence to safety standards.

Key points

• The guidelines were adopted on March 12, 2013.
• They provide clarity on policies for hillside development and grading.
• The document addresses environmental concerns like slope stability and soil erosion.
• It emphasizes minimal disturbance to the natural landscape.
• Grading approval is a discretionary land use approval issued by the Department of Planning and Development.

Limitations

• The text appears to be truncated, missing some sections and guidelines.
• Some placeholders and unresolved sections are present, affecting the completeness of the summary.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The document outlines the Design Review Guidelines for Santa Clara County, approved on February 9, 1999, by the Board of Supervisors. It aims to minimize visual impacts of development, particularly in hillside areas and along scenic roads. The guidelines emphasize site design, building form, color and materials, landscaping, and outdoor lighting to maintain the natural character of the environment. Procedural guidelines for design review hearings and application requirements are also included.

Key points

• The guidelines are intended to reduce visual impacts of development.
• They provide a framework for landowners and architects regarding acceptable development in hillside areas.
• The primary goal is to maintain the natural character of hillsides and scenic roads.
• Specific objectives include minimizing visibility of structures, retaining natural topography and vegetation, and ensuring appropriate landscaping.
• Procedural guidelines detail the design review process, including hearing notices and application requirements.

Limitations

• The document does not specify any unresolved placeholders or incomplete sections.
• The text does not provide specific dates beyond the approval date or any financial details.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.

This document appears to be a draft regarding the Water Will-Serve Letter and Environmental Health issues related to water supply compliance for the Peacock Court Mutual Water Company. It includes a memo from the Department of Environmental Health outlining regulatory oversight, current connections, and compliance issues. The memo indicates that the water system currently serves 11 connections and has committed to a 12th, but is at risk of exceeding the capacity for a State Small Water System, which could necessitate transitioning to a Public Water System. There are ongoing concerns regarding compliance with water quality testing and communication with the regulatory agency.

Key points

• The Water Will-Serve Letter was submitted by the applicant on September 18, 2024.
• The Department of Environmental Health oversees the Peacock Court Mutual Water Company, which serves 11 connections and has committed to a 12th.
• The water system is currently in violation of County Code due to failure to submit required water quality lab results.
• There are concerns about public health due to the lack of oversight as the water system expands.
• The current proposal for additional dwellings may push the population served beyond the threshold for a State Small Water System.

Limitations

• The document contains unresolved placeholders and incomplete sections.
• Specific dates and details regarding compliance actions are not fully provided.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.

Attachment K provides Neighborhood Development Data related to the appeal of Design Review and Grading Approval. It includes a table with details on various lots, including their year of development, total floor area, number of stories, and first and second floor areas. The data is verified with approved building permit plans on County records.

Key points

• Attachment K relates to the appeal of Design Review and Grading Approval.
• The document includes a table with data for lots numbered 1 to 12.
• Years of development for the lots range from 1950 to 1998.
• Total floor areas for the lots vary, with some listed as vacant.
• Data is verified with approved building permit plans on County records.

Limitations

• The document appears to be a draft due to the presence of incomplete sections.
• Some fields in the table are missing values, such as total floor area for certain lots.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The document appears to contain a Reverse Viewshed Analysis, but the content is insufficient to provide a detailed summary.

Limitations

• The text is sparse and does not provide substantial information about the analysis.
• There are unresolved placeholders and formatting issues present.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.

This document is a staff report for the Zoning Administration hearing scheduled on November 4, 2021, regarding an appeal of a Design Review and Grading Approval for a new single-family residence at 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino. The report outlines the project details, including the proposed construction of a 10,753-square-foot residence, grading activities, and the appeal process that led to the application being deemed complete. The staff recommends denying the application based on findings related to environmental impacts and compliance with zoning regulations.

Key points

• The project involves a concurrent land use application for a Design Review (Tier II) and Grading Approval for a new single-family residence.
• The proposed residence is 10,753 square feet with associated site improvements including a chapel, ADU, pool, and septic system.
• Grading consists of 1,425 cubic yards of cut and 1,937 cubic yards of fill.
• The application was deemed incomplete on March 23, 2021, but was later deemed complete by operation of law on March 18, 2021, following an appeal.
• The staff recommends accepting a Statutory Exemption under CEQA and denying the application based on findings of fact.
• The report includes multiple attachments, including plans, a geotechnical report, and an incomplete letter.

Limitations

• The document appears to be a draft as it includes incomplete sections and unresolved placeholders.
• Specific details regarding the appeal process and the Planning Commission's decision are truncated.
• The document does not provide specific dates for all events mentioned, only some.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.

This document is a Zoning Administrator Denial Letter addressed to Melissa and Jefferey Waters regarding their appeal of a Design Review and Grading Approval application. The application was denied on November 5, 2021, and the final action date for filing an appeal is November 22, 2021. The letter provides instructions on how to file an appeal, including deadlines and contact information for assistance.

Key points

• The letter is addressed to Melissa and Jefferey Waters.
• The file number for the matter is PLN20-124.
• The subject of the letter is Design Review (Tier II) and Grading Approval.
• The site location is Peacock Court (APN: 351-42-004).
• The final action date for filing an appeal is November 22, 2021.
• The appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after the final action date.
• The appeal can be filed in person or online, with specific instructions provided.

Limitations

• The document appears to be a draft due to the presence of placeholder text and formatting issues.
• There are unresolved placeholders, such as the appeal fee and additional information requirements.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.

This document is the Appellant's Statement for an appeal regarding Design Review and Grading Approval.

Key points

• Attachment O is titled 'Appellant's Statement for Appeal'.
• The appeal concerns Design Review and Grading Approval.
• The date mentioned is June 23, 2026.

Limitations

• The document appears to be a draft due to the lack of detailed content.
• There are unresolved placeholders and blank fields.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.

This document outlines the timeline and correspondences between the applicant and staff regarding the resubmittal of a project after it was deemed complete. Key dates include a request for a resubmittal meeting on September 9, 2021, and various communications between the applicant and planning staff regarding requirements and deadlines. The document also details the applicant's claims and responses from the planning department regarding the resubmittal process and the project's status.

Key points

• The applicant requested a resubmittal meeting on September 9, 2021.
• A resubmittal meeting was scheduled for September 15, 2021.
• The applicant's partner confirmed during the meeting that they would not resubmit the project at that time.
• On September 21, 2021, the planning director informed the applicant that a Master Application would not be required after an internal discussion.
• The applicant claimed they were not given an opportunity to resubmit and questioned the process.
• The planning director provided a timeline and confirmed the end date of a 90-day extension as November 7, 2021.
• The project was scheduled for a Zoning Administration Hearing on November 4, 2021.

Limitations

• The document appears to be a draft as it contains incomplete sections and unresolved placeholders.
• Specific dates and details regarding the final outcomes of the project are not provided.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

The source text indicates this attachment appears to be a draft document.

This document appears to be a draft detailing the timeline and correspondence related to the appeal of a Design Review and Grading Approval application for a project at 0 Peacock Court, Cupertino, CA. It outlines various meetings, letters, and submissions between the applicant and the County's Department of Planning and Development from February 24, 2022, through December 2025, including unresolved issues and responses from both parties.

Key points

• The appeal hearing was continued on February 24, 2022.
• Meetings between the applicant and the Department occurred on March 22, 2022, May 10, 2023, and August 30, 2023.
• The applicant submitted additional documents on June 16, 2023, and again on July 3, 2024.
• The Planning Commission voted to deny the appeal on December 18, 2025.
• The applicant's team requested a return to the Planning Commission for action on December 6, 2023.
• The applicant submitted additional documents on September 16, 2024, and a water 'will-serve' letter was submitted on September 18, 2024.
• The document includes ongoing unresolved issues related to visibility and design standards.

Limitations

• The document contains unresolved placeholders and incomplete sections.
• Some dates and specific details regarding the appeal process may be missing or unclear.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.

This memorandum from the Department of Planning and Development provides guidance for modifying a proposed project related to the appeal of the Planning Commission decision for Peacock Court. It outlines recommendations for the primary residence's building form, massing, and deck design to align with zoning standards. The memorandum suggests that the Board of Supervisors direct the applicant to submit revised plans by August 31, 2026, and recommends continuing the hearing to November 3, 2026.

Key points

• The memorandum is addressed to the Board of Supervisors and the County Executive.
• It provides guidance on modifying a project to meet zoning standards and design guidelines.
• Recommendations include changes to the primary residence's building form and deck design.
• The applicant is advised to submit modified plans by August 31, 2026.
• The hearing is recommended to be continued to November 3, 2026.

Limitations

• The document contains placeholders and unfilled options that affect the completeness of the summary.
• Specific details regarding the appeal process and project specifics are not provided.

Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.