CC 02-06-2024 Item No. 7. Second Reading of Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.76_Suupplemental Report1
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: February 6, 2024
Agenda Item #7
Subject
Second reading of Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.76 to allow privately operated
educational uses and privately operated public serving uses in the BA zoning district.
(Application No. MCA‐2023‐003; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: BA‐zoned (Public
Building) properties in Cupertino)
Recommended Action
Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 23‐2253: “An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino to amend Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.76 (Table
19.76.030) to allow privately operated educational uses and privately operated public
serving uses in the BA zoning district”.
Background:
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.
Q1: Please provide a list of the 23 BA sites (address and parcel number) and a map. (Chao)
Staff response: A list of sites is attached.
Q2: What are the two sites not listed in the Zoning Map? (Chao)
Staff response: Please see Attachment B for a list of BA zoned sites.
Q3: Please provide a link to the current zoning map and how use GIS to look up these BA
sites (Chao)
Staff response: An interactive, online version of the City’s current zoning map is available at
cupertino.gov/municode. Once on this page, visitors will select “MAP” in the upper right hand
corner. Users may then search for individual properties or look through the various layers using the
“Layers” tab on the left hand column. This map also has a feature called ʺFilters” which allows
visitors to search for multiple properties based on identified criteria, including specific zoning
categories. The table shown in Attachment B was generated using this feature.
Q4: Explain why all BA sites need to be re‐zoned when the immediate issue is only the
Regnart Elementary site. This question was answered in the Dec 5 meeting. This is a
2
common question from the public. A written answer is preferred on why we cannot
make this exception on a case‐by‐case basis. (Chao)
Staff response: The proposed text amendment clarifies the Zoning Ordinance to allow for privately
owned, publicly serving uses on BA‐zoned property with a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed
amendment is consistent with historical City permitting practices and supports the reuse of surplus,
public owned land for public serving uses. As is the case with the Tessellations School, private school
use of surplus public school property would be accommodated by the Zoning Ordinance amendment.
The limited clarification of zoning for all BA‐zoned parcels supports this type of reuse and avoids
case‐by‐case spot zoning, which is a disfavored practice.
Q5: From the discussion of the Dec 5 meeting, there is a council consensus that the
ʺprivately operated public serving usesʺ is not ANY such public serving uses. The
public serving uses should be in line with the existing public operated uses. Could you
please clarity that in writing? (Chao)
Staff response: The allowed uses in the BA zone will not be changed through the approval of the text
amendment. The text amendment allows private operators to perform public services that would have
previously been permitted, such as schools or libraries, in the BA zoning district through the approval
of a Conditional Use Permit, reviewed by the Planning Commission. The approval of a privately
operated use will be contingent upon the Conditional Use Permit findings, including that the
proposed use will not be “detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.”
Q6: ʺCan you also clarify what is the current allowed use of the BA zoned properties prior
to this change and why this change is necessary.ʺ This is a common confusion by the
public. Please provide a clear answer on what was the previously allowed use and
what would be the new use. Why it is necessary to change the allowed use for ALL
BA zoned properties? (Chao)
Staff response: Please see Attachment B for a list of BA zoned sites’ existing uses. All of them are
either schools or city/county facilities such as city hall, county fire, or utilities. Each of these sites is
currently permitted to operate the following, without the need for a Planning Entitlement:
Buildings and other uses on land owned or utilized by a federal, State, county, or city
government or authority, or by a special district created for public purposes under the
laws of the State of California.
Q7: Santosh: ʺAlso specifically is the Cupertino Sports Center zoned BA. What is the
current allowed use and what will be the permitted use of CSC after this changeʺ.
(Chao)
Staff response: The Cupertino Sports Center is not a BA zoned property and therefore will not be
impacted by this text amendment.
Q8: There was a similar question regarding properties owned by De Anza College. Are all
properties owned by De Anza College zoned BA? What would be the change in the
3
allowed use? (Chao)
Staff response: For those properties currently zoned BA, including the De Anza College site, the
allowed uses will remain the same with the new conditional allowance for those uses to be operated
by a private entity.
Q9: It is likely that De Anza College might consider adding staff/student housing on site.
My understanding is that they do not require any rezoning from the city for such use.
But I might be wrong. Please clarify. (Chao)
Staff response: Potential future uses that are not permitted or conditionally permitted under the
proposed text amendment are not being considered as part of this item.
Q10: Some public entity has leased public property to private entity for an extended period
of time, like 50 years or 99 years. Naturally, the public is concerned of the scope of
impact when BA zoned properties allow ʺprivately operated public serving usesʺ,
when itʹs unclear what uses are considered ʺpublic serving usesʺ. For example, a
shopping mall serves the public too, does it not? (Chao)
Staff response: While not explicitly defined through the City’s Code, the term “public serving uses”
may be best related to “public services” which will often include uses like schools, libraries,
courthouses, public utilities, and other uses which are seen as being operated for the benefit of the
public at large. Shopping malls, which are classified as commercial uses, although they may be
accessible to the public, are provided for private benefit and, therefore, would not qualify as a public
serving use. The proposed text amendment requires that the privately operated, public serving uses
be first approved by the Planning Commission who may determine that a proposed use is not
considered “public serving.”
Q11: How about the sites owned by PG&E and other public agencies? What sites are there?
I am aware of one site on North Blaney, but there might be other sites. (Chao)
Staff response: Please see Supplemental 1 Attachment B for a list of PG&E’s BA zoned sites with
parcel numbers.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. Attachment A ‐ Draft Ordinance No. 23‐2253
Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1:
B. Supplemental 1 Attachment B – Table of BA Zoned Sites