Loading...
01-04-11 Bookmarked Packet.pdfTable of Contents Agenda 3 Accounts Payable for period ending December 17, 2010 Draft Resolution 9 Payroll for period ending December 22, 2010 Draft Resolution 22 Alcoholic Beverage License, Togos Sandwiches, 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 314 (Oaks Shopping Center) Staff Report 23 Application for Alcoholic Beverage License 24 Alcoholic Beverage License, Flight Wine & Food, 20333 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Cafe Torre) Staff Report 25 Application for Alcoholic Beverage License 26 Alcoholic Beverage License, One Eyed Spirits, 19200 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 200 Staff Report 28 Application for Alcoholic Beverage License 29 Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Vivekanand Karnataki and Deepti Naik, 10122 Bret Avenue Resolution 34 Quitclaim Deed 35 Map 39 Municipal Improvements, Kelly Gordon Development Corp., 10231 Amelia Court Staff Report 40 Map 41 Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility on Results Way Staff Report 42 A. Council appeal staff report dated 11/1/10 45 B. City Council Meeting Minutes from 11/1/10 53 C. Letter from property owner Embarcadero Capital Partners to AT&T dated 12/3/10 57 D. Email from property owner ECI Two Results, LLC to City & AT&T dated 12/16/10 58 E. Letter to Applicant and PC Res. #6604 63 F. PC Meeting Minutes from 9/14/10 72 G. PC Staff Report dated 9/14/10 88 H. Appeal of U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 & TR-2010-31 dated 9/28/10 111 I. SCC Sheriff's Letter dated 6/23/10 124 J. Photosimulations of monopine (3)125 K. AT&T Facility Alternate Sites Aerial Map 128 L. Communications from TIC Commissioners 129 1 M. Public Correspondence 131 N. AT&T Mobility Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN3242A/Results Way, Cupertino, California/Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated 10/26/10 250 O. Existing and Proposed Coverage Maps 255 P. Planning Commission-approved Plan Set 257 Appeal of the Director's decision allowing a parking pad to be located at a duplex located at 967 Miller Avenue staff report 264 A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6619 267 B. Director's Minor Modification DIR-2010-30 dated 9/23/10 269 C. Appeal Petition for DIR-2010-30 dated 10/5/10 274 D. Planning Commission Staff Report for Appeal of DIR- 2010-30 dated 12/14/10 276 Application for modification of an existing mixed-use development (M-2010-08)located at 19501-19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Metropolitan) Staff Report 278 A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6620 281 B. City Council Action Letter of October 7, 2010 283 C. Applicant's Justification Letter 287 D. Draft Parking License Agreement for Building A 289 E. Draft Parking License Agreement for Building B 316 F. Planning Commission staff report of December 14, 2010 344 G. Declaration of Restrictive Covenant for Building A 347 H. Declaration of Restrictive Covenant for Building B 352 Planned Development Ordinance Staff Report 357 A. Ordinance No. 10-XXXX 360 B. PC Model Reso 374 C. PC Staff Report of 11-9-10 375 D. Draft PC Minutes of 11-9-10 378 E. Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 19.48, Planned Development (P) Zones 380 F. Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 19.72, Private Recreation (FP) Zone 386 G. Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 19.124, Planned Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance 388 H. Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 20.04, Specific Plans 395 2 AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR MEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber Tuesday, January 4, 2011 6:45 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION CEREMONIAL MATTERS – PRESENTATIONS 1. Subject: Proclamation for FIRST 5 for their important work in children’s health and well- being Recommended Action: Present proclamation Page: No written materials in packet POSTPONEMENTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. 6:50 (10) 7:00 (10) 3 Tuesday, January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 2. Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending December 17, 2010 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-001 Draft Resolution Page: 3. Subject: Payroll for period ending December 22, 2010 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-002 Draft Resolution Page: 4. Subject: Alcoholic Beverage License, Togos Sandwiches, 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 314 (Oaks Shopping Center) Recommended Action: Approve application for on sale beer Staff Report Application for Alcoholic Beverage License Page: 5. Subject: Alcoholic Beverage License, Flight Wine & Food, 20333 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Cafe Torre) Recommended Action: Approve application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place Staff Report Application for Alcoholic Beverage License Page: 6. Subject: Alcoholic Beverage License, One Eyed Spirits, 19200 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 200 Recommended Action: Approve application for Distilled Spirits Importer and Wholesaler Staff Report Application for Alcoholic Beverage License Page: 7. Subject: Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Vivekanand Karnataki and Deepti Naik, 10122 Bret Avenue Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-003 Description: The property owners of this residential development agree to grant to the City the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property Resolution Quitclaim Deed Map Page: 7:10 (10) 4 Tuesday, January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 8. Subject: Municipal Improvements, Kelly Gordon Development Corp., 10231 Amelia Court Recommended Action: Accept Municipal Improvements Description: Municipal improvements include sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway approach, paving and new utility services Staff Report Map Page: ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Subject: Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility on Results Way Recommended Action: Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission approval for a personal wireless service facility at the existing Results Way office park Description: Application Nos: U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31; Applicant: Dave Yocke (AT&T); Appellants: Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin; Address: Results Way (rear parking lot); APN: 357-20-042; Application Summary: Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a personal wireless service facility consisting of twelve panel antennas to be mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base equipment to be located at the existing Results Way office park Staff Report A. Council appeal staff report dated 11/1/10 B. City Council Meeting Minutes from 11/1/10 C. Letter from property owner Embarcadero Capital Partners to AT&T dated 12/3/10 D. Email from property owner ECI Two Results, LLC to City & AT&T dated 12/16/10 E. Letter to Applicant and PC Res. #6604 F. PC Meeting Minutes from 9/14/10 G. PC Staff Report dated 9/14/10 H. Appeal of U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 & TR-2010-31 dated 9/28/10 I. SCC Sheriff's Letter dated 6/23/10 J. Photosimulations of monopine (3) K. AT&T Facility Alternate Sites Aerial Map L. Communications from TIC Commissioners M. Public Correspondence N. AT&T Mobility Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN3242A/Results Way, Cupertino, California/Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated 10/26/10 O. Existing and Proposed Coverage Maps P. Planning Commission-approved Plan Set Page: 7:20 (120) 5 Tuesday, January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 10. Subject: Appeal of the Director's decision allowing a parking pad to be located at a duplex located at 967 Miller Avenue Recommended Action: Consider the appeal Description: Application: DIR-2010-30; Appellant: Erwin Wolf; Applicant: Linda Shen- Jung (GLSAA, LLC); Location: 965-967 Miller Avenue; APN: 369-19-052; Application Summary: Appeal of a Director’s Minor Modification decision to allow paving in the front yard of an existing duplex for the purpose of a parking stall at 965-967 Miller Avenue staff report A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6619 B. Director's Minor Modification DIR-2010-30 dated 9/23/10 C. Appeal Petition for DIR-2010-30 dated 10/5/10 D. Planning Commission Staff Report for Appeal of DIR-2010-30 dated 12/14/10 Page: 11. Subject: Application for modification of an existing mixed-use development (M-2010-08) located at 19501-19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Metropolitan) Recommended Action: Consider a Modification (M-2010-08) to the Use Permit for the Metropolitan mixed-use development Description: Applications: M-2010-03, EXC-2010-03, TM-2010-03 (EA-2010-04); Applicant: Jane Vaughan (Cupertino Housing Partners, LLC); Location: 19501, 19503, 19505, 19507 Stevens Creek Blvd (Metropolitan); APN: 316-49-111 and 316-49-112; Application Summary: Amendment (M-2010-08) to a Modification application (M-2010-03) of a previously-approved Use Permit (U-2003-04) to amend Condition No. 2 (Parking) to allow the parking requirements to be incorporated into an appropriate alternate legal document as deemed acceptable to the City Attorney and Director of Community Development in lieu of the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) Staff Report A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6620 B. City Council Action Letter of October 7, 2010 C. Applicant's Justification Letter D. Draft Parking License Agreement for Building A E. Draft Parking License Agreement for Building B F. Planning Commission staff report of December 14, 2010 G. Declaration of Restrictive Covenant for Building A H. Declaration of Restrictive Covenant for Building B Page: 9:20 (60) 10:20 (20) 6 Tuesday, January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 12. Subject: Planned Development Ordinance Recommended Action: Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 11-2073 Description: Application: MCA-2010-06; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide; Application Summary: Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.48 (Planned Development) to be consistent with the 2010 Housing Element; "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 19.48 (Planned Development) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to be consistent with the 2010 Housing Element" Staff Report A. Ordinance No. 10-XXXX B. PC Model Reso C. PC Staff Report of 11-9-10 D. Draft PC Minutes of 11-9-10 E. Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 19.48, Planned Development (P) Zones F. Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 19.72, Private Recreation (FP) Zone G. Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 19.124, Planned Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance H. Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 20.04, Specific Plans Page: UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 13. Subject: Council assignments for local and regional organizations and agencies Recommended Action: Select assignments Page: No written materials in packet ORDINANCES STAFF REPORTS COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT 10:40 (20) 11:00 (10) 11:10 7 Tuesday, January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Canceled for lack of business. The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council’s decision with respect to quasi-judicial actions, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city clerk within ten days after the council’s decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal ordinance code §2.08.096. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: January 4, 2011 Subject Alcoholic Beverage License, Togo’s Sandwiches, 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 314 (Oaks Shopping Center). Recommended Action Approve application for On-Sale Beer. Description Name of Business: Togo’s Sandwiches Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 314 Type of Business: Restaurant Type of License: On-Sale Beer (40) Reason for Application: Original & Annual Fees, State & Federal Fingerprints Discussion There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use and staff has no objection to the issuance of the license. License Type 40 authorizes the sale of beer for consumption on the premises where sold. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Traci Caton, Planning Department Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachment: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org 23 24 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: January 4, 2011 Subject Alcoholic Beverage License, Flight Wine & Food, 20333 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Café Torre). Recommended Action Approve application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place. Description Name of Business: Flight Wine & Food Location: 20333 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Café Torre) Type of Business: Restaurant Type of License: On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place (41) Reason for Application: Original & Annual Fees Discussion There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use and staff has no objection to the issuance of the license. License Type 41 authorizes the sale of beer & wine for consumption on the premises where sold. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Traci Caton, Planning Department Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachment: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org 25 26 27 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: January 4, 2011 Subject Alcoholic Beverage License, One Eyed Spirits, 19200 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 200. Recommended Action Approve application for Distilled Spirits Importer & Wholesaler. Description Name of Business: One Eyed Spirits Location: 19200 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 200 Type of Business: Restaurant Type of License: Distilled Spirits Importer & Wholesaler (12, 18) Reason for Application: Original & Annual Fees, State & Federal Fingerprints Discussion There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use and staff has no objection to the issuance of the license. License Types 12 and 18 are non-retail licenses. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Traci Caton, Planning Department Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachment: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org 28 29 30 31 32 33 RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS, VIVEKANAND KARNATAKI AND DEEPTI NAIK, 10122 BRET AVENUE, APN 375-11-040 WHEREAS, Vivekanand Karnataki and Deepti Naik, have executed a “Quitclaim Deed and Authorization”, which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all rights in and authorizing the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to extract water from the underground basin, underlying that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described as follows: All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino accept said “Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” so tendered; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said “Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of January, 2011, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 34 35 36 37 38 18904 18892 1 8 8 8 018921 18911 18901 18891 1 8 8 8 1 1 8 8 7 1 1 8 8 6 1 1884118831188211881110278 10292 10306 10320 10250 10264 10334 10348 10362 10376 10380 10394 10408 10422 10251 10265 10279 10293 10307 10321 10335 10349 10363 10377 10381 10395 10409 10423 10135 10149 1 8 8 6 8 10163 10177 10191 10205 10219 189451891510134 10148 10162 10176 10190 10204 10218 188511 8 8 5 6 1 8 8 4 4 18832188201880818916 10292 10306 10320 10334 10348 10362 10376 10380 10394 10408 10422 10134 10148 10162 10176 10190 10204 10218 10264 10278 18901 18891 18921 104441042010380 10370 10360 10350 10340 10330 10320 10310 10290 10325 10315 10305 10295 10285 102751896418940 18831188211881118896 18884 18872 1 8 8 6 0 1 8 8 4 8 1 8 8 3 6 1 8 8 2 4 1 8 8 4 1 190401881218881 18871 1 8 8 6 1 1 8 8 5 1 10373 10325 10319 10313 1 0 3 0 7 1 0 3 0 1 102951040110411 10391 10370 10366 10360 10356 10350 1041610412104081 0 4 0 4 10400 10396 10392 10388 10382 1037610379 10367 10361 10355 10349 10343 10337 10331 10285 10330 10385 10300 10435 10425 10415 10405 10395 10385 10375 10365 10355 10345 10335 10280 10390 10305 10315 10325 10390 10400 10410 10420 10430 10265 10275 10285 10295 10140 10150 10160 10170 10180 10190 10200 10210 10231 10270 10280 10290 10300 10310 10320 10330 10340 10350 10360 10370 10380 10335 10345 10355 10365 10375 10385 10395 10405 10415 10425 10141 10151 10161 10171 10181 10191 10201 10211 10221 10240 190561904218948189561896418970189861900019014190281881518881188711886118851188411883110435 10425 10415 10405 10395 103851892010310 10383 1896510375 10365 10355 10345 10335 10325 10315 10305 10295 10276 JUDYBRETSTERNLOREE TILSON A R A T A MORETTIMENHART¯ Subject: Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Vivekanand Karnataki and Deepti Naik, 10122Bret Avenue. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-_____. Description: The property owners of this residential development agree to grant to the City the right to extract water fromthe basin under the overlying property. 39 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: January 4, 2011 Subject Municipal Improvements, Kelly Gordon Development Corp., 10231 Amelia Court. Recommended Action Accept Municipal Improvements. Discussion The applicant has completed City-specified improvements in the City right-of-way including sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway approach, paving and new utility services as required by the improvement agreement with the City. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Chad Mosley, Associate Civil Engineer Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: 40 100451008010081 10106 10 1 4 6 1024910259 10 2 9 9 22260222721 0 2 3 7 10026 2 2 1 2 6 2 2 1 5 6 22176 2 2 1 5 7 2 2 1 1 6 22086220662204710104 10106 2206510075 10045 10035 1002510125 223142225510059 10060 10188 101781013810139 10126 10146 10150 10180 10111 10145 1017110161 10148 2222522273 10120 22328223342232222237222452221610079 1 0 3 1 9 10349 10208 10198 10149 10159 10169 10179 10189 2209522105221152212510236 1030110269 1023510332 10316 10300 10284 10268 10252 1 0 2 3 8 2209622106223502236210040 10038 222812228810146 10154 10170 2226810171 10151 10201 10185 10076 10046 10056 10036 10047 10055 1007510208 22067221172213722085 22115 2210422084220342205410116 22320 10133 10221 10211 10201 10191 10181 10143 10140 10150 10190 223492231122330 10069 10059 1003922008 10109 10089 1004910079 22021221452216810030 10010 10040 10060 22009221882218910081 10061 10041 10301 10281 10261 10241 10221 10211 10201 10191 10181 10171 10161 10151 10141 10131 10121 10111 10170 10160 10150 10140 10080 10090 10100 10110 10120 22207222062221122213 22210 222082221522364 10125 10135 10145 10165 10072 10060 10111 100101003710017 10027 1004710057 10077 10101 10070 10062 10032 10030 10022 10020 10012 10115 221001 0 3 2 5 1 0 3 3 5 10315 10 3 0 1 10 2 8 1 1 0 2 6 1 1 0 2 4 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 9 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 2 4 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 0 2 8 0 10300 10310 101811018510187 22050222872230910288 102771028710297102672223022250102571024710161 10148 2228910200 2229910118 1010710109 10111 10110 10108 10070 10255 2229110162 10085 10164 10030 221202209322103221132212322278223161032710307103172224022399 10033 22321223332237110141 10 1 6 0 10130 1011510195101051010010090 10070 10131 10151 10073 10091 10123 2227710171 2229110050 2234022347223332231110055 10010 10036 10158 10168 2227910136 10126 10231 1023910239 PHAR LAPS T E V E N S C R E E KHILLCRESTCUPERTINO SCENICCARMENCASSSTONYDALEAMELIAD E A NCRESCENT CRE S T ONVISTA K N OLL AINSWORTHVARIAN ORCHARD BELLEVUE H O O H O O OAKDELL CLEARCREEK CARMEN. Subject: Municipal Improvements, Kelly Gordon Development Corp., 10231 Amelia Court Recommended Action: Accept Municipal Improvements. 41 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: January 4, 2011 Subject Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal of the Planning Commission’s September 14, 2010 approval, based upon the referenced attachments and the record of this proceeding. This will permit the Applicant to construct a personal wireless service facility consisting of twelve panel antennas to be mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base equipment to be located at the existing Results Way office park. Description Appeal of the following Planning Commission Approvals: Use Permit (U-2010-03) request to allow a personal wireless service facility, consisting of twelve panel antennas mounted on a 74-foot tall monopine and associated base equipment located at the Results Way office park. Height Exception (EXC-2010-04) request to allow antennas to be mounted on a monopine at a height of 67 feet or less where 55 feet is allowed. Tree Removal (TR-2010-31) request to allow the removal and replacement of four Coastal Redwood trees associated with the proposed personal wireless service facility. Property Location: Results Way (rear parking lot)/ APN 357-20-042 Applicant: Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (for AT&T Mobility) Appellant: Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC Discussion Background On November 1, 2010, the City Council heard an appeal of an AT&T personal wireless service facility designed to look like a tree at the Results Way Office Park (Attachment A- Council Appeal staff report dated November 1, 2010). Discussion and testimony during the meeting can be reviewed in the City Council meeting minutes (Attachment B). The City Council directed that the applicant and property owner consider an alternate site for the personal wireless service facility located off the Results Way driveway entry behind Buildings No. 1 & 2 at the entrance of 42 the office campus. With the applicant’s consent, the hearing was continued indefinitely to give the property owner and applicant time to evaluate the alternate site. The applicant and property owner have completed their evaluation of the alternate site, with the applicant suggesting several different facility designs for the location. The property owner reviewed the site and designs over the last month and has rejected the alternate location as a site for a personal wireless service facility (Attachment C). Other alternative sites have been suggested on the three properties that compose the Results Way Office Park (Attachment K). These alternate sites have been discussed at the public hearings, neighborhood meeting and in the staff reports (Attachments A & G). The property owner has reviewed these alternates and feels at this time that the only feasible site is the site proposed by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission (Attachment C & D). Other off-site alternate sites have been discussed in the Planning Commission and City Council staff reports (Attachments A & G). The Planning Commission reviewed and approved this project on September 14, 2010 (4-1 vote; Miller voting no) (Attachments E-resolution, F-hearing minutes, G-Commission staff report, M- public correspondence & P- approved plan set) and its approval was appealed by three residents on September 28, 2010 (Attachment H). The primary concerns raised by the project opponents at the September 14, 2010 Commission hearing related to perceived hazards of radio frequency energy. However, a radio frequency study determined that the cumulative radio frequency exposure (existing and proposed emissions) were well below federal safety standards. Federal law prohibits cities from making wireless facility decisions based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions that meet federal standards. Responses to Appeal Points The appeal points are described with staff comments in Attachment A- Council Appeal staff report dated 11/1/10. Height Exception The Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance restricts the maximum height of a personal wireless service facility to 55 feet, except in situations where the facility is mounted on a tall building where the wireless facility may be ten feet taller than the building. In all other antenna mounting situations, such as a monopole (treepole), utility pole or utility tower, where the applicant desires to mount the antennas above the 55 feet height limit, he/she must apply for a height exception that may be granted by the Planning Commission. The height exception is reviewed and may be approved at a public hearing if there are practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this ordinance from strict application of the regulations. The exception also must not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements, not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, and not create a hazardous condition for pedestrians or vehicle traffic. 43 Staff has reviewed the Planning Commission’s actions on wireless facility height exception requests. To date, the Commission has approved ten height exceptions and denied one. The height exception approvals range from 60 feet to 158 feet. In the one case where the Planning Commission denied the height exception, the decision was appealed by the applicant, but later withdrawn when the applicant discovered development conflict issues with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Planning Commission findings for the approval of the project height exception can be found in Resolution No. 6605 (Attachment E). _____________________________________ Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner & Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A. Council appeal staff report dated 11/1/10 B. City Council Meeting Minutes from 11/1/10 C. Letter from property owner ECI Two Results, LLC to AT&T dated 12/3/10 D. Email from property owner ECI Two Results, LLC to City & AT&T dated 12/16/10 E. Letter to Applicant & Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6604, 6605 & 6606 F. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from 9/14/10 G. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/14/10 H. Appeal of U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 and TR-2010-31 dated 9/28/10 I. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Letter dated 6/23/10 J. Photosimulations of monopine (3) K. AT&T Facility Alternate Sites Aerial Map L. Communications from TIC Commissioners M. Public Correspondence: Emails and Letters N. AT&T Mobility Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN3242A)/Results Way, Cupertino, California/Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated 10/26/10 O. Existing and Proposed Coverage Maps P. Planning Commission-approved Plan Set 44 Attachment A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. ____ Meeting Date: November 1, 2010 Subject Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility Recommendation Deny an appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a personal wireless service facility consisting of twelve panel antennas to be mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base equipment to be located at the existing Results Way office park Description Appeal of the following Planning Commission Approvals: Use Permit (U-2010-03) request to allow a personal wireless service facility, consisting of twelve panel antennas mounted on a 74-foot tall monopine and associated base equipment located at the Results Way office park. Height Exception (EXC-2010-04) request to allow antennas to be mounted on a monopine at a height of 67 feet or less where 55 feet is allowed. Tree Removal (TR-2010-31) request to allow the removal and replacement of four Coastal Redwood trees associated with the proposed personal wireless service facility. Property Location: Results Way (rear parking lot)/ APN 357-20-042 Applicant: Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (for AT&T Mobility) Appellant: Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC Background On September 14, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved (4-1 vote; Miller voting no) a proposal for a 74-foot tall AT&T wireless service monopine located in the northwest corner of the parking lot at the Results Way office park (Attachments B-resolution, C-hearing minutes, D- Commission staff report & L- approved plan set) The Commission noted that most of residents’ concerns related to perceived hazards of RF energy, and a radio frequency study determined that the 45 2 cumulative radio frequency exposure (existing and proposed emissions) were well below federal safety standards. The commissioners noted that federal law prohibits cities from making wireless facility decisions based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions that met federal standards. Generally, the Commissioners felt that the monopine was well-designed and given its location and context, the facility would not be visually obtrusive. Commissioner Miller voted no on the project. He felt the monopine was too visible at the proposed location, being over twice the height of the existing trees. The Planning Commission hearing was well attended and comments were received from both supporters, as well as those who opposed the project. Please see Attachment I for the numerous emails and letters received. For a detailed Planning Commission hearing discussion, please refer to the September 14, 2010 Commission meeting minutes (Attachment C). The Planning Commission decision was appealed by three residents on September 28, 2010 (Attachment A – Appeal Request). Discussion The basis of the appeal is described below followed by staff comments in italics. Where the applicant has provided the response, at the request of staff, the comments are so noted: 1. The application does not meet the minimum aesthetic requirement established in City of Cupertino’s Wireless Facilities Master Plan. Appeal Point 1(a): It violates the following policy: Policy 6-1: Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive impacts as viewed from the public right-of-way and from residential neighborhoods. “The artificial tree will be highly visible especially from nearby residents and pedestrians, passersby and commuters who traverse Bubb Road and McClellan Road.” Staff Response: The Glossary of the City’s Wireless Master Plan (p. 38) describes a visually “intrusive” impact as a wireless facility “that visually contrasts with its surroundings to the point of conflicting with it, but not to the extent of visually dominating the surroundings.” The project does not visually contradict its surroundings as it has been camouflaged as a tree and it is sited in a large landscape strip with other trees of similar shape. The Facilities Master Plan Siting and Design Guidelines for Lattice Towers and Monopoles recommends that: “Intrusive and Obtrusive monopoles should be camouflaged as artificial trees. Since such artificial trees appear more authentic when placed next to real trees, the planting of larger trees near the monopole may be a project requirement.” The project is already sited in a wide landscape berm with other trees of similar form (Coastal Redwoods). The Planning Commission approval included the rehabilitation of the irrigation system and the planting of three 24” box Coastal Redwoods in the northwest corner of the property. Trees planted in this location would have the most beneficial effect in screening views of the project for nearby Astoria residents. 46 3 The monopine is most visible in the vicinity of Imperial Avenue and Olive Avenue. It has limited visibility to McClellan Road as it is separated by over 1,400 feet of landscaping with tall, mature trees and over 650 feet of intervening landscaping and buildings to Bubb Road. Appeal Point 1(b): It violates the following policy: Policy 6-2: Personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit harmoniously with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood. The proposed 74’ tall cellular phone tower will be significantly taller than its surrounding buildings. Existing surrounding structures do not exceed 30 feet; the proposed monopole will be more than 40 feet taller than existing structures. The proposed tower will be an eyesore, as it is significantly taller. Existing landscaping has a height similar to the surrounding buildings of approximately 30 feet. Staff Response: It is more appropriate to make height comparisons between the proposed monopine with the existing vegetation, rather than the buildings. The project lot is large and the topography varies. While the redwood trees (25-35 feet tall) immediately around the monopine (74 feet) are much shorter, the closest building is 265 feet away and is on a grade 10 feet higher than the proposed facility. Ideally to make the monopine blend better with the surrounding, it should be located near those existing trees of comparable height in the landscape strip; however, those taller trees directly abut residences and the 75-foot setback requirement between a wireless facility and a residential property line could not be met. The 74-foot height for the monopine is needed for two reasons: 1) The monopine must be tall enough to see over the buildings in order to provide cell coverage to residential neighborhoods and schools south of the project site; and 2) Provide an opportunity for another wireless carrier to collocation its antennas on the monopine. The City requires wireless carriers to consider collocation opportunities when they propose new monopoles in order to reduce the proliferation of new wireless facilities and if it will reduce the visual intrusiveness of having more new facilities in the area. Given the difficulty of finding suitable wireless facility sites in this area and the fact that two other wireless carriers are looking for a Monta Vista location, makes this monopine a strong candidate for collocation. AT&T has indicated to staff that the 74-foot height is the minimum height needed for the carrier to meet its coverage objectives for the area, regardless if whether the collocation of antennas is permitted in the future or not. Appeal Point 1(c ): It violates the following policy: Policy 6-3: Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their surroundings so that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their surroundings. It does not blend in with the current landscape. Existing landscapes have height similar to the 47 4 surrounding buildings, of approximately 30 feet….The proposed cell tower will be significantly taller, does not visually integrated, and does not enhance the natural appearance. Current Cupertino City Ordinance – and specifically the Monta Vista neighborhood – does not allow structures or buildings exceeding 30 feet. Staff Response: The difference in height between the monopine and surrounding structures has been answered in the previous response. The Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (CMC Section 19.108, Attachment G) permits a maximum structure height of 55 feet. Taller structure heights may be allowed with a height exception approval. New wireless facilities with similar heights have been approved by the City in the past. The wireless facility has been designed to be compatible with its surroundings with faux bark, branching limbs and needle covers on the antennas to hide the antennas (Attachment F- photosimulations). Additional conditions were approved by the Planning Commission to give the monopine a more natural appearance. They include mottling the green color of the artificial needles and shaping and adding branching to give it a more natural appearance. Another condition requires the applicant to perform regular maintenance to maintain the appearance of the monopine. 2. The application does not meet the safety requirement established in the City of Cupertino’s Wireless Facilities Master Plan. It violates the following policies: Policy 7-1: The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radio frequency radiation assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in reasonably close proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC Guidelines. Policy 7-2: The City shall require a radio frequency radiation assessment for all co-located antennas. (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding the FCC Guidelines). The radio frequency radiation study done by Hammett & Edison, Inc. Consulting Engineers, dated August 20, 2010 is outdated and was based on twelve antennas mounted at an effective height about 65 feet above ground. A new study should be done based on the bottom elevation (about 56’ above ground) of the lower tier of the antennas proposed and also the bottom elevation of future antennas proposed at lower elevations. A radio frequency radiation study should be done to calculate the combined emission by all carriers and sources at the proposed location and future towers planned by AT&T and other carriers. AT&T has not established the need for twelve antennas for this application. In last year’s application, AT&T had proposed six antennas. The City should not approve more antennas than actually needed to improve coverage. Staff Response: A last minute design change lowered the height of six of the twelve proposed antennas from 65 feet to 56 feet. An updated radio frequency study for the revised 12-antenna design (Attachment J) with the lowered tier of antennas demonstrates that the radio frequency energy exposure plus the contribution from the existing, next door, Sprint-Nextel personal wireless service facility is still well within the Federal safety standard. The maximum calculated cumulative level of radio frequency emissions at ground is 0.73% of the maximum permissible exposure (MPE). 48 5 At the second floor elevation of any nearby residence, the exposure is 0.92% of the MPE. On the rooftop of any nearby non-residential building, the exposure is estimated to be 2.4% of the MPE. According to the applicant, the number of antennas has changed from the initial six requested in the 2009 application to the 12 requested as part of this application because it would allow AT&T the flexibility to add additional antennas as new technology is deployed. The proposed 12 antennas have been included on all drawings, photo-simulations, project descriptions and in the City staff report. Furthermore the Hammett & Edison radio frequency energy report based its analyses and conclusions of the facility utilizing all 12 antennas operating at maximum power levels. Also, as stated in the Planning Commission staff report, staff will require a new radio frequency energy study when a future antenna collocation proposal is made. Staff normally requires a new radio frequency study whenever an antenna collocation occurs, but the City Council may add it as a requirement to its action on the appeal. 3. Planning commissioners, city staffs and residents have never seen a correct coverage map based on the proposed location. An updated coverage map with the proposed monopole correctly placed on the mentioned site should be studied and reviewed. The City should not approve a wireless facility application without even seeing a correct coverage map based on actual proposed location. Three different coverage maps have been available: • The first coverage map included with the Planning Commission staff report shows the proposed facility near the intersection of Imperial Avenue and McClellan Road. If the facility is incorrectly placed on the map, then the proposed coverage area is likely wrong too. • The second coverage map from AT&T’s website (www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/, with zip code 95014) shows good coverage for most of Monta Vista. • The third coverage map was presented by AT&T’s representative at the September 14, 2010 Planning Commission Hearing shows that at the proposed facility site that there is no/limited coverage. Staff Response: Please see Attachment K for the updated coverage maps (showing existing and proposed coverage) with the location of the facility accurately depicted. The applicant states that its website (www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer) coverage maps were developed to allow existing and potential AT&T customers the ability to view the general level of coverage in a geographic area. AT&T included a statement on the website to ensure viewers understand the limitations of the website, noting that actual coverage area may differ substantially from map graphics, and coverage may be affected by such things as terrain, weather, foliage, buildings and other construction, signal strength, customer equipment and other factors. AT&T also noted that the maps shown on the AT&T web page are intended for use for the general public and are not as detailed as the radio frequency engineering maps submitted to the city and discussed at the planning commission public hearing. The radio frequency coverage maps are based on data taken in the field and sophisticated computer programs and models that provide a graphical representation of existing coverage as well as coverage if the proposed facility is built. Wireless 49 6 networks are dynamic and their performance is influenced by a number of factors including the geography of the surrounding area, heights of existing trees and buildings, locations of surrounding sites and the number of users accessing the network. The level of coverage in a geographic area served by a wireless facility is also impacted by these factors. 4. It was mentioned at the Planning Commission hearing that at times cell coverage was good in Monta Vista. It was also mentioned that there was a significant degradation in coverage especially during after-school hours and after-work hours when many parents are calling their children. More than 4,400 students plus teachers and administrators arrive at school and are dismissed within a 30-60 minutes interval. Given this, if this is the problem, then capacity issues may be misconstrued as “poor coverage.” This issue still needs to be explored and discussed. The need for the facility is not clear-cut, perhaps other alternatives can resolve this issue. Staff response: The applicant states that the level of coverage in a geographic area served by a wireless facility is impacted by numerous factors, including the geography of the surrounding area, heights of existing trees and buildings, locations of surrounding (wireless facility) sites and the number of users accessing that facility at any given time. For instance, sites located near freeways usually have peak times that correspond to the peak traffic hours on the freeway. As traffic increases on the freeway, more people in the same geographic area are attempting to make calls and once the wireless network reaches capacity, no more calls can be initiated and existing calls may be dropped. So, even though there may be “coverage” in an area, the level of service may be lower than expected due to an increase in network traffic. Staff notes that the 2007 Technology, Information and Communications Commission survey of cell phone users in Cupertino documented that the Monta Vista/Kennedy Schools/Bubb Road/McClellan Road area was the number one poor cell phone coverage area in Cupertino Staff also believes that the perception of “good” cell phone coverage has also evolved over the years. Historically, consumers used cell phones when they were mobile (i.e. outdoors). Nowadays, consumers expect their cell phones to operate at work and at home (i.e. in buildings). In general, low-power radio signals are inadequate to provide good in-building coverage and wireless networks must be built-up and expanded in order to provide better in-building cell phone coverage. 5. Alternative locations and structures should expand to larger areas. Since the proposed location will not improve coverage effectively, it is necessary to study alternative locations, at nearby parks, near freeways and existing office buildings. It is also clear that a smaller structure, such as roof-mounted antennas at the center of coverage gap may suffice in improving the coverage in this area, instead of the 74-foot tall treepole. Half of Monta Vista area has good coverage, namely from Sprint-Nextel & Verizon Wireless, and yet there is no Sprint or Verizon cell phone tower near the residential area. Why is a 74-foot tall monopole the only viable solution to improve AT&T coverage? Had AT&T really explored all alternatives? Can roof-mounted antennas serve as a potential solution? 50 7 Staff Response: Sprint-Nextel’s wireless facility is located on Imperial Avenue next door to the Astoria Townhomes; the closest Verizon Wireless site is on the De Anza College campus. Staff has summarized AT&T’s and city staff’s 5-year search and evaluation for a suitable Monta Vista wireless facility site in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment D). As part of their due diligence, AT&T also approached other property owners in the general area including, the following: Potential Co-Location Opportunity: • 10420 Bubb Road, Cupertino – The property owner and AT&T were not interested in pursuing a lease due to lack of room for a facility. Other Alternative Locations Explored: • Monta Vista High School - The project was subsequently approved by the city however, due to concerns raised by parents and neighbors, the school board declined to enter into a lease agreement to permit the facility to be constructed. At that time, suggestions were made by opponents of the project and city staff to move the location of the facility out of the residentially-zoned areas and look at commercial properties to the northeast that had sufficient space to accommodate the proposed use. • 21495 McClellan Road, Cupertino –The property owner and AT&T were not interested in lease due to lack of room for a facility. • Industrial Areas to the East-These were reviewed and had no available space (without taking up parking spaces) or were too close to the freeway where AT&T currently has coverage from existing facilities to the northeast and southeast. • Utility Poles – these are used in extreme locations where a standard wireless facility cannot be built (steep hillsides, public right-of-way, etc.). If utility poles are used, height is compromised and it would take multiple facilities to obtain the same coverage that one standard facility (such as the one proposed) can obtain. • Sites on Results Way - The applicant submitted an application to the city in 2008 to place the proposed facility near the southwest corner of the office park. This initial site was rejected by staff, so the applicant sought an alternate location in the rear parking lot landscape strip near the building. This site was reviewed at a Planning Commission hearing but the application was ultimately withdrawn because of conflicts with a utility easement. A third location on the property was proposed by the applicant in June 2010 (current proposal). Due to future development plans on the subject property and proximity to existing utility easements and overhead power lines, the current location was ultimately selected as a compromise location that met the requirements of the city while allowing AT&T to meet most of the original coverage objectives. 51 8 Staff notes that the Results Way Office Park consists of three separate parcels. The entire focus of the current application has been on the rear parcel that is furthest away from McClellan Road. Most other alternative sites on the properties were not feasible because of the property owner’s approved redevelopment plans, utility easements and closer proximity to residential properties. Selection of an alternative site on the other two parcels would require a separate City review. Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments A. Appeal of U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 and TR-2010-31 dated 9/28/10 B. Letter to Applicant & Planning Commission Resolution No. 6604 C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from 9/14/10 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/14/10 E. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Letter dated 6/23/10 F. Photosimulations of monopine (3) G. AT&T Facility Alternate Sites Aerial Map H. Communications from TIC Commissioners I. Public Correspondence: Emails and Letters J. AT&T Mobility Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN3242A)/Results Way, Cupertino, California/Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated 10/26/10 K. Existing and Proposed Coverage Maps (updated) L. Planning Commission-approved Plan Set 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: January 4, 2011 Subject Appeal of a Director's Approval to allow a paved parking stall in the front yard of an existing duplex. Recommended Action Uphold appeal (See Attachment A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6619) Description Application: DIR-2010-30 Appeal Applicant: Linda Shen-Jung (GLSAA, LLC) Appellant: Erwin Wolf Location: 965-967 Miller Avenue, APN 369-19-052 Application Summary: Appeal of a Director's Minor Modification to allow paving in the front yard of an existing duplex for the purpose of a parking space. Discussion Background On September 23, 2010, the Director of Community Development approved a Director’s Minor Modification to allow the replacement of an 11 foot by 17 foot turf area with pervious stone pavers in the front setback for parking purposes for an existing duplex (Attachment B). The approval was appealed on October 5, 2010 by Mr. Erwin Wolf who owns the adjacent duplex to the north (957-959 Miller Avenue – see Attachment C). His duplex shares a common driveway with the applicant’s duplex. According to the applicant, the paved area will not only provide additional parking on the property, but will improve maneuverability for residents of both duplexes, allowing vehicles to enter and exit at the same time, and allow vehicles to turn around and head into traffic. Planning Commission On December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission heard the appeal and recommended that the Council uphold the appeal (i.e., deny the Director’s Approval) on a 3-2 vote (Vice-Chair Lee & Kaneda voting no – see Attachment D). The draft Commission meeting minutes will be available at the Council hearing. The Planning Commission discussed the following issues at the hearing: 264 · The safety (to pedestrians and bicyclists) of having a vehicle parked in the front setback next to a driveway · Potentially modifying the size and the orientation of the paved area relative to its functions as a parking stall and as a vehicle turnout and turnaround · The necessity of having a vehicle turnaround since one already exists at the garages · The necessity of having an additional parking stall since there is available street parking · The precedent and desirability of allowing parking/paving in the landscaped front setback of this duplex The dissenting Commissioners who did not support the appeal felt that parking in the front setback did not pose a significant safety risk because: · There were numerous other duplexes on Miller with front setback parking. · There were numerous examples of front setback landscaping that obstructs motorist’s views of the sidewalk. · There are no reported accidents of motorists backing into pedestrians or bicyclists. · Any remaining risk could be avoided by redesigning and reorienting the paved area. Appellant Concerns The concerns and comments expressed by the appellant are summarized below (Responses are provided in italics): · Safety – It is difficult to exit driveway into busy Miller Avenue, especially for elderly tenants. With the proposed change and a car parked in the space, it is impossible to see the sidewalk foot and bicycle traffic. Accidents will happen. Response: There are numerous duplexes on Miller Avenue with parking in the front setback area. There have been no reports of vehicular/pedestrian/bicyclist accidents in this area because of vehicle parking in the front setback. Having a car parked at the proposed area is no different from the cars parked on the numerous driveways in front of other existing duplexes in the immediate neighborhood. · Proposed parking does not belong in setback area without direct access and it degrades the appearance of the properties. Response: The duplex design has a larger than normal landscaped front setback. The parking stall takes up 22% of the landscaped front and has direct access to the driveway. Parking is not prohibited in the front setback area and the paved area will improve the maneuverability of vehicles on the lot. Pervious pavers will retain onsite storm water runoff. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6619 265 B. Director’s Minor Modification Approval, DIR-2010-30 C. Appeal Petition from Erwin Wolf for DIR-2010-30 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 14, 2010 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: January 4, 2011 Subject Application for modification of an existing mixed-use development (M-2010-08) located at 19501-19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Metropolitan). Recommended Action Consider a Modification (M-2010-08) to the Use Permit for the Metropolitan mixed-use development. Description Applications: M-2010-08 Applicant: Jane Vaughan (Cupertino Housing Partners, LLC) & Jenny Cheung Location: 19501 - 19507 Stevens Creek Blvd (Metropolitan), APN: 316-49-999 Application Summary: Amendment (M-2010-08) to a Modification application (M-2010-03) of a previously approved Use Permit (U-2003-04) to amend Condition No. 2 (Parking) to allow the parking requirements to be incorporated into an appropriate alternate legal document in lieu of the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). Background On December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission recommended approval (Please see Attachment A, Planning Commission Resolution No. 6620) of the amendment (M-2010-08) as requested by the applicant on a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Lee vote no) with the additional friendly amendment to add Jenny Cheung, the new property owner of 19505 Stevens Creek Boulevard (retail building A), as an applicant, in addition to Jane Vaughan, representing Cupertino Housing Partners who is the owner of the other retail building at 19501 Stevens Creek Boulevard (retail building B). The Commissioner who dissented did not provide an explanation for the vote. On October 5, 2010, the City Council approved a Modification (M-2010-03) to a previously approved Use Permit (U-2003-04) and Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan (EXC- 2010-03) to allow the following: 1. Up to 40% of the total retail space as non-retail restricted to Building B (19501 Stevens Creek Boulevard); and 278 2. Allow medical use as a non-retail use, with staff to work with the applicant to determine the correct parking count for surface parking and underground parking to accommodate medical use. One of the conditions (Condition No. 2) associated with M-2010-03 also requires that the CC&Rs of the development be amended and recorded to require employees of the retail commercial uses to park in the existing available and unused parking spaces in the underground parking garage, and that such parking must be striped for retail use only (Please see Attachment B, City Council Action Letter dated October 7, 2010 for additional details). Discussion The applicants, including both property owners of the retail buildings, are requesting approval of the modification (See Attachment C, Applicant’s Justification Letter) to amend the parking condition (Condition No. 2) to allow an alternate legal document, a Parking License Agreement (See Attachments D and E, Draft Parking License Agreements for both retail buildings located at 19501 and 19505 Stevens Creek Boulevard) to be recorded that memorializes the parking requirements, rather than the CC&Rs. The proposed changes to Condition No. 2 are outlined in the December 14, 2010 Planning Commission staff report (See Attachment F). The reasons for the request include: 1. Changing the CC&Rs is difficult because it would require approval of all 107 residential owners and their lenders as members of the homeowners’ association. 2. The underground shared parking arrangement is controlled via an easement, not by the CC&Rs. The City Attorney and staff have reviewed and support the draft Parking License Agreements to fulfill the requirements of the proposed amended condition. As recommended by the City Attorney, a condition was added (Condition No. 3) requiring the property owner to provide advance notice of proposed changes to the agreements, as well as a copy of any document recorded in the future related to parking. The applicant has this language addressing this requirement into the draft Parking License Agreements which will subsequently be recorded if the Council approves this modification. Follow up on the Department of Real Estate Notification Condition As part of the conditions of approval for M-2010-03, the Council required the applicant to work with staff to reconcile paperwork that notifies the Department of Real Estate that the City recognizes there are only two retail condominium units, consisting of the retail building A and building B. The applicant has submitted draft Declarations of Restrictive Covenants (See Attachments G and H), one for each building, that the applicant will record and send to the Department of Real Estate with a cover letter to clarify that separate retail spaces in each retail building cannot be 279 owned by different property owners since each retail building is considered one condominium unit. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner and Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6620 B. City Council Action Letter of October 7, 2010 C. Applicant’s Justification Letter D. Draft Parking License Agreement for Building A E. Draft Parking License Agreement for Building B F. Planning Commission staff report of December 14, 2010 G. Declaration of Restrictive Covenant for Building A H. Declaration of Restrictive Covenant for Building B 280 ATTACHMENT A M-2010-08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6620 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A MODIFICATION APPLICATION (M-2010-03) OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT (U-2003-04) TO AMEND LANGUAGE IN A PARKING CONDITION FOR RETAIL SPACES AT 19501-19507 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (METROPOLITAN) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: M-2010-08 Applicant: Jane Vaughan (Cupertino Housing Partners, LLC) and Jenny Cheung Location: 19501- 19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN 316-49-999) SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an amendment to a Modification application (M-2010-03) of a previously approved Use Permit (U-2003-04), as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to this application: a) The proposed project, at the proposed location, 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; b) The proposed project will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the amendment to the modification of the use permit is hereby recommended for approval subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL All prior modification and use permit conditions of approval (M-2010-03 and U-2003-04) shall remain in effect unless superseded by or in conflict with the conditions of approval herein. 2. PARKING Employees of the commercial spaces shall be required to park in the existing available and unused parking spaces in the underground parking garage of Building B that were originally designed for use by the office complex. No more than seven (7) of these spaces may be used to accommodate 281 Resolution No. 6620 M-2010-08 December 14, 2010 Page 2 employee parking for the commercial spaces with the provision that such parking spaces are to be striped for commercial employee parking only to ensure that the surface parking is made available to customers of the commercial uses only, and that these requirements will be incorporated into an appropriate legal document as deemed acceptable by the City Attorney and Director of Community Development. 3. ADVANCE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS Advance notice of any proposed changes to the Parking License Agreement or any alternate legal document related to parking shall be submitted to the City for review prior to recordation on the property. The applicant and any subsequent property owners shall be required to provide the City with a copy of any document recorded in the future related to parking. 4. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application M-2010-08, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 14, 2010 and are incorporated by reference herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of December 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Brophy, Miller, Kaneda, Giefer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair City Planner Planning Commission G: /Planning/PDREPORT/RES/2010/M-2010-08 res.doc 282 CUPERTINO October 7 , 2010 Jane Vaughan OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE· CUPERTINO , CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE : (408) 777-3223' FAX : (408) 777-3366 Cupertino Housing Partners, LLC c/o Menlo Equitie s 490 California Ave., 4th Floor Palo Alto , CA 94306 Re : Modification of an existing mixed-use development located at 19501-19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Metropolitan) Dear Ms. Vaughan : At its October 5, 2010 meeting , the Cupertino City Council made the following action: • Approved a negative declaration • Approved modification to the use permit (M-2010-03) and exception to the Heart of the City Plan (EXC-2010-03) with the following conditions: o To allow up to 40% of the total re tail space as non-retail re stricted to building B o If the non-retail is a medical use , the applicant and City staff will work together to determine the correct parking count for surface parking and underground parking • Denied the tentative map (TM-201 0-03) and directed the applicant to work with staff to reconcile the Department of Real Estate paperwork with the original approval , which gave them two retail condos The modification to the use permit conditions are as follows unless amended above: SECTION III : CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOP MENT DEPT. 1. MODIFICATION TO USES ALLOWED a. Non-retail commercial uses may occupy a maximum of 60% (3 of the 5 ex is ting tenant spaces) of the 6 ,400 square foot retail space along Stevens Creek Boulevard and shall be limited to Building B . Building A (the remaining 40% of the commercial space) shall remain for retail uses only. b. No more than two of the non-retail units in Building B (40% of the total retail space) sha ll be permitted to be occupied by medical office use; the remaining unit in Building B may be occupied by a non-retail use as long as the parking requirements can be m et. 283 c . Non-retail commercial units shall have the flexibility to also be used for retail commercial uses. 2. PARKING E mployees of the commercial spaces shall be required to park in the existing available and unused parking spaces in the underground parking garage of Building B that were originally designed for use by the office complex . No more than seven (7) of these spaces may be used to accommodate employee parking for the commercial spaces with the provision that such parking spaces are to be striped for commercial employee parking only to ensure that the surface parking is made available to customers of the commercial uses only , and that these requirements will be incorporated into the CC&Rs. 3 . COVENANT RECORDATION A covenant shall be submitted for review and approval by the City and shall be recorded on the property , stating that this property is under a Planned Development Zone of the City of Cupertino . Purchasers of the property are advised to check with the City of Cupertino to find out the specific restrictions under the Planned Development Zone and related permits . The covenant shall be recorded prior to issuance of final occupancy of the vacant tenant space . 4. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICA nONS , RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees , dedication requirements , reservation requirements , and other exactions . Pursuant to Government C ode Section 66020( d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees , and a description of the dedications , reservations , and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees , dedications , reservations , and other exactions , pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 , you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions . That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application M-2010-03 , a s set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 28 , 2010 and are incorporated by reference herein. 284 The Exception to the Heart of the City conditions are as follows unless amended above: SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT . 4. EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN a. Non-retail commercial uses may occupy a maximum of 60% (3 of the 5 eXIstmg tenant spaces) of the store frontage of the 6 ,400 square foot retail space along Stevens Creek Boulevard and shall be limited to Building B. Building A (the remaining 40 % of the commercial space) shall remain for retail uses only. b. Non-retail commercial units shall have the flexibility to also be used for retail commercial uses. 2 . NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements , and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020( d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications , reservations , and other exactions . You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees , dedications , reservations , and other exactions , pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 , you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions . That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application EXC-20 1 0-03 , as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 28 , 2010 and are incorporated by re ference herein. Please review conditions carefully. If you have any questions regarding the conditions of approval, please contact the Department of Community Development at 408-777-3308 for clarification. Failure to incorporate conditions into your plan set will result in delays at the plan checking stage. If development conditions require tree preservations, do not clear the site until required tree protection devices are installed. The conditions of project approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(J), these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If 285 you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barredfrom later challenging such exactions. Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council's decision in this matter, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city clerk within ten days after the council's decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal ordinance code §2. 08. 096. This le tter will serve as your final Use Permit. Sincerely : ~aL'Ji- Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Community Development 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: January 4, 2010 Subject Municipal Code Amendment to Chapters 19.48 (Planned Development (P) Zones), Chapter 19.72 (Private Recreation (FP) Zones), Chapter 19.124 (Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances) and Chapter 20.04 (Specific Plans) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to be consistent with the 2007-2014 Housing Element. Recommended Action Planning Commission recommends that the City Council conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 10-XXXX: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending the Cupertino Municipal Code” (MCA-2010-06) (see Attachment A). Description Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.48 (Planned Development (P) Ordinance), Chapter 19.72 (Private Recreation (PF) Zone Ordinance), Chapter 19.124 (Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances Ordinance) and Chapter 20.04 (Specific Plans Ordinance) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to be consistent with the 2007-2014 Housing Element. Discussion On April 6, 2010, the City Council adopted the 2007 – 2014 Housing Element with associated Municipal Code Amendments. Through a recent review of the Zoning Ordinance, staff has identified the need for additional amendments to the following Municipal Code sections for consistency with the approved Housing Element: 1. Chapter 19.48 (Planned Development (P) Zones), 2. Chapter 19.72 (Private Recreation (FP) Zone), 3. Chapter 19.124 (Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances) 4. Chapter 20.04 (Specific Plans). Amendment Categories The proposed changes to the ordinance can be classified into three main categories: 1. Conformance/consistency with: a. The Housing Element and b. Other chapters of the Zoning Ordinance 2. Improving general readability 357 3. Eliminating redundancies/discrepancies Text boxes have been placed adjacent to the revised ordinance language for ease of reference (See Attachment A, Exhibit 1). Please refer to the attached November 9, 2010 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment B) for the specific discussions of the ordinance amendments. Amendment Details Chapter 19.48 - Planned Development (P) Zones Consistent with the Housing Element, ordinance language is changed to clarify that developments in Planned Development Zones may be approved with the issuance of a Planned Development Permit as opposed to a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, since the planned development permit process is described in Chapter 19.124 (Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances), information related to processing a planned development permit has been moved from Chapter 19.48 (Planned Development (P) Zones) to Chapter 19.124. This is being proposed to improve readability and eliminate repetitions in the Zoning Code. No amendments are proposed to the process. Chapter 19.124 – Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances The application requirements, processing, approval authority and findings for the issuance of a planned development permit, conditional use permit or a variance are prescribed in Chapter 19.124. This section has been re-arranged to enhance readability and clarify requirements for each permit type. The City Attorney has additionally recommended changes to the findings for variances in order to be consistent with State Law. These have been incorporated into the draft ordinance. Chapter 19.72 – Private Recreation (FP) Zones The Private Recreation Ordinance currently refers to Chapter 19.48 for developments requiring Conditional Use Permits. The revision in this section moves the reference to Chapter 19.124 (Planned Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Variance). Chapter 20.04 – Specific Plans Chapter 20.04 currently states that zoning districts that are governed by a specific plan must be designated Planned Development (PD). The City’s Zoning Map does not have a PD designation. This reference has been corrected to state that such zones must be designated as Planned Development (P) zoning districts consistent with Chapter 19.48 and Chapter 19.124. Planning Commission On November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance changes and unanimously recommended that the Council adopt the modification as proposed. Environmental Consideration The proposed ordinance amendments are CEQA Exempt under the General Rule Exemption (Section 15601(b)(3)). This exemption is allowed for projects where it can be seen with certainty 358 that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Gary Chao, City Planner Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A. Ordinance No. 10-XXXX B. Planning Commission Model Resolution C. Planning Commission Staff Report, November 9, 2010 D. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, November 9, 2010 E. Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 19.48, Planned Development (P) Zones F. Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 19.72, Private Recreation (FP) Zone G. Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 19.124, Planned Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance H. Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 20.04, Specific Plans 359 ATTACHMENT A 1 Ordinance No. 10.XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING TO CHAPTER 19.48 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (P) ZONES), CHAPTER 19.72 (PRIVATE RECREATION (FP) ZONE), CHAPTER 19.124 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES) AND CHAPTER 20.04 (SPECIFIC PLANS) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE 2010 HOUSING ELEMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Statement of Purpose. This ordinance amendment clarifies language regarding storage and parking of vehicles. Section 2. Code Amendment. 1. Chapter 19.48, entitled “Planned Development (P) Zones,” of the Cupertino Municipal Code, is amended to read as shown in Exhibit 1; 2. Sections 19.72.040 and 19.72.050 in Chapter 19.72, entitled “Private Recreation (FP) Zone,” of the Cupertino Municipal Code are amended, to read as shown in Exhibit 2; 3. Chapter 19.124, entitled “Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances,” of the Cupertino Municipal Code is amended, to read as shown in Exhibit 3; and 4. Section 20.04.040 in Chapter 20.04, entitled “Specifics Plans,” of the Cupertino Municipal Code is amended, to read as shown in Exhibit 4. Section 3. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsection, sentence clause, phrases or portions be declared valid or unconstitutional. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937. 360 2 Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. Section 6. CEQA. Because this ordinance makes purely procedural changes, and improvements to readability, this ordinance is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(c)(3). Section 7. Continuity. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as amendments of the earlier provisions. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the ____ day of ___________ 2011 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on this ____ of __________ 2011 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 361 EXHIBIT 1 1 CHAPTER 19.48: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (P) ZONES Section 19.48.010 Purpose. 19.48.020 Applicability of regulations. 19.48.030 Establishment of districts–Permitted and conditional uses. 19.48.040 Zoning or Prezoning. 19.48.050 Planned Development Permit. 19.48.010 Purpose. A. The planned development (P) zoning district is intended to provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the City that is uniquely suited for planned coordination of land uses and to provide for a greater flexibility of land use intensity and design because of accessibility, ownership patterns, topographical considerations, and community design objectives. B. The planned development zoning district is specifically intended to encourage variety in the development pattern of the community; to promote a more desirable living environment; to encourage creative approaches in land development; to provide a means of reducing the amount of improvements required in development through better design and land planning, to conserve natural features, to facilitate a more aesthetic and efficient use of open spaces, and to encourage the creation of public or private common open space. 19.48.020 Applicability of Regulations. No building, structure or land shall be used and no building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally altered, or demolished, in any planned development zoning district, except in accordance with the provisions set forth in this chapter. 19.48.030 Establishment of Districts–Permitted and Conditional Uses. A. Planned development zoning districts may be established, modified or removed from the zoning map, and the regulations applicable to any planned development district may be established, modified or deleted in accord with the procedures described in this chapter. B. All P districts shall be identified on the zoning map with the letter coding “P” followed by a specific reference to the general type of use allowed in the particular planning development zoning district. For example, a planned development zoning district in which the uses are to be general commercial in nature, would be designated “P (CG).” A planned development zoning district in which the uses are intended to be a mix of general commercial and residential would be designated “P (CG/Res).” C. Permitted uses in a P zoning district shall consist of all uses which are permitted in the zoning district which constitutes the designation following the letter 362 2 coding “P.” For example, the permitted uses in a P (CG) zoning district are the same uses which are permitted in a CG zoning district. D. Conditional uses in a P zoning district shall consist of all uses which require the issuance of a conditional use permit in the zoning district which constitutes the designation following the letter coding “P.” For example, the conditional uses in a P (CG) zoning district are the same uses which require a conditional use permit in CG zoning district. Each conditional use in a P zoning district requires a separate conditional use permit. E. The general category of uses in a P zone shall be defined at the time of the conceptual plan, and shall be consistent with the adopted General Plan relative to the property in the application. The development standards and regulations of the permitted and conditional uses shall be established in conjunction with the approval of the conceptual and definitive plans. 19.48.040 Zoning or Prezoning. A. Application - The applicant for a P zoning district shall, at the time of the application, submit to the Director of Community Development a conceptual development plan, which will include a general description of the proposed uses, the proposed traffic-circulation system, a topographical map of the site and the neighboring properties, a landscaping plan, and any other information required by the Director of Community Development, the Planning Commission, or the City Council. The Director of Community Development shall provide the applicant with a detailed list of information required for a conceptual development plan. B. Process and Review Authority – 1. Applications for the zoning, prezoning or rezoning of property shall be processed in the manner prescribed in Chapter 19.120 -, Amendments to the Zoning Maps or Zoning Regulations. 2. Upon final approval of the application, the City Council shall enact an ordinance zoning or prezoning the subject property or properties as a planned development zone, incorporating within such ordinance the conceptual plan and conditions of approval. C. Findings – No such ordinance may be adopted unless, in addition to making the findings required by Chapter 19.120, Amendments to the Zoning Maps or Zoning Regulations Ordinance,, the following findings are made: 1. That the conceptual development plan attached to the application is consistent with both the General Plan and any underlying zoning designation which regulates the site; 2. That the conceptual development plan provides for an organized and unified system of land uses and land use intensities which would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; 363 3 3. That the conceptual development plan for a residential use ensures that the proposed development provides adequate active and passive oriented open space within the development to satisfy the needs of future residents and, further, that the proposed development provides adequate landscaping that will function in a manner which will enhance the individual development and the community as a whole; 4. That the conceptual development plan ensures that the location of the site with respect to major thoroughfares and uses outside the zone would not create undue and unreasonable traffic congestion in the area; 5. That the conceptual development plan makes provisions for adequate parking, waste disposal and undergrounding of utilities. D. Modifications - Any modification of the conceptual plan requires the submission of a rezoning application. 19.48.050. Planned Development Permit. A. Process and Review Authority - Prior to any development within a planned development zoning district, the applicant must obtain a planned development permit approving the development pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.124, Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances. B. Combined Applications - Nothing in this chapter is intended to prohibit a combined application for zoning and planned development permit to be considered at the same public hearing. Combined applications shall be processed and reviewed as provided by Section 19.04.090, Combined Application for Land Use Entitlements. 364 EXHIBIT 2 4 CHAPTER 19.72: PRIVATE RECREATION (FP) ZONE 19.72.040 Conditional Uses–Use Permit Required. The following uses may be permitted in private recreation (FP) zones, subject to the securing of a conditional use permit in each separate case. At the inception of a rezoning to the FP classification, such rezoning shall be accompanied by a simultaneous request for use permit approval. The use permit review procedure shall be as described in Chapter 19.124, Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances. A. Outdoor Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit Issued by the Planning Commission: 1. Equestrian center including riding academies, stables and horse rental, 2. Practice range for archery or firearms, 3. Golf course with or without driving range, 4. Swim and racquet club, 5. Swimming, diving or related sports center, 6. Picnic areas, 7. Racquet sports center for tennis, racquetball, badminton and similar activities, 8. Specialty outdoor activity center encompassing one or more of the following or similar uses: a. Roller skating, b. Skateboarding, c. Lawn bowling, bocce ball, d. Miniature golf, e. Waterslide, 9. Commercial athletic field for one or more of the following or similar uses: a. Baseball, softball or batting cage training, b. Football, c. Soccer, d. Volleyball, e. Field hockey, f. Basketball, 10. Amusement parks with or without rides or live entertainment, 365 5 11. Bicycle motocross course/go-cart track or similar specialty raceway, but excluding facilities for racing of automobiles or motorcycles, 12. Air sports field for hang gliding, ultralight aircraft or ballooning, but excluding common carrier passenger aircraft service, 13. Other outdoor recreation uses which are found by the City Council or Planning Commission to be of similar intensity and characteristics of use to those enumerated in this subdivision; B. Indoor Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit Issued by the Planning Commission: 1. Museums and galleries, 2. Theaters for film, stage or music entertainment, 3. Specialty indoor activity center encompassing one or more of the following or similar uses: a. Bowling, b. Video games, c. Pool, billiards, d. Martial arts, e. Ice or roller skating rink, 4. Personal fitness or sports training center with primary location of facilities and equipment enclosed within a structure, 5. Dancehall or facility for dance instruction, 6. Other indoor recreation uses which are found by the City Council or Planning Commission to be of similar intensity and characteristics of use to those enumerated in this subsection. 366 EXHIBIT 3 6 CHAPTER 19.124: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES Section 19.124.010 Authority of the Director of Community Development. 19.124.020 Application for planned development permit. 19.124.030 Application for conditional use permit or variance. 19.124.040 Action by the Director. 19.124.050 Notice of public hearing. 19.124.060 Action by the Planning Commission. 19.124.070 Action by the City Council. 19.124.080 Planned development permit and conditional use permit–Findings and conditions. 19.124.090 Variance–Findings and conditions. 19.124.100 Effective date. 19.124.110 Expiration, extension and revocation. 19.124.120 Expansion of planned development or conditional uses. 19.124.130 Change of use. 19.124.140 Concurrent applications. 19.124.010 Authority of the Director of Community Development. Subject to the provisions of this chapter and general purpose and intent of this title, the Director of Community Development may grant the following: A. Any development permits which are authorized to be issued by the Director pursuant to any provision of this title. All other planned development permits and conditional use permits shall be issued by either the Planning Commission or the City Council, as provided by this title; B. A variance from the site development regulations and parking and loading regulations (except those handicapped parking regulations mandated by State law) applicable within any district established by this title; C. A variance from the special conditions that apply to site development and parking and loading regulations (including conditions attached to planned developments) applicable within any district established by this title. D. A request for reasonable accommodation made by any person with a disability, when the strict application of the provisions within residential districts, act as a barrier to fair housing opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50. 367 7 19.124.020 Application for Planned Development Permit A. An application for a planned development permit, may be made by the owner of record, or his agent, of property for which the planned development is sought. B. Application shall be made to the Director, on a form provided by the City, and shall contain the following: 1. A description and map showing the location of the property for which the permit is sought; 2. A definitive development plan, consistent with the conceptual development plan and conditions of approval of the zoning, for the entire property; 3. Architectural drawings of the proposed development; 4. Maps showing the locations of buildings; 5. Renderings showing building heights and square footages; 6. Maps showing the precise location of roads, streets, alleys and access points; 7. A traffic analysis; and 8. A construction plan, 9. Such additional information as the Director may deem pertinent and essential to the application. C. Application shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed by City Council resolution, no part of which shall be returnable to the applicant. 19.124.030 Application for Conditional Use Permit or Variance. In addition to all information required pursuant to Section 19.124.020, Application for Planned Development Permit, the following information shall be provided: A. If the application is for a conditional use permit, plans and/or descriptions of existing and proposed uses of the property, and describing in detail the nature of the use proposal to be conducted on the property; B. If the application is for a variance, plans and/or descriptions of existing and proposed construction on the property involved, together with a statement of the circumstances which justify the various applications. 19.124.040 Action by the Director. A. Unless otherwise provided by Section 19.04.090, Combined Application for Land Use Entitlements, the following actions shall be taken by the Director to process an application for a planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance: 1. Upon receipt of a complete application for a planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance, the Director shall, within thirty days from the date the application is deemed by the Director to be complete, set a date for a public hearing upon the matter at a regular or special meeting of the Planning Commission, 368 8 unless the application is diverted for administrative approval, pursuant to Chapter 19.132, Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects. The public hearing shall commence within sixty days of the date it is set. If the application is for a planned development permit for an individual single-story or two-story single family residence that directly incorporates Chapter 19.28 (Single Family Residential (R1) Zones) standards, the Director shall divert the application to be processed as set forth in Chapter 19.134, Architectural and Site Review, for approval by the Design Review Committee. B. The Director shall endeavor to forward a written report to the City Council and Planning Commission of the action he/she has taken on each application for planned development permit, conditional use permits and variances. 19.124.050 Notice of Public Hearing. Notice of any public hearing under this chapter shall be given in the same manner as provided in Chapter 19.120, Amendments to the Zoning Maps and Zoning Regulations, of this title. 19.124.060 Decision after Hearing. A. At the time and place set for hearing, the Director, Planning Commission or City Council, as the case may be, shall hear evidence for or against such application. Within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the hearing, the Director, Commission or Council shall make findings and shall render a decision on the application which is supported by the evidence contained in the application or presented at the hearing. B. In the event that the decision by the Director, or the Commission, is a final one, then such decision is subject to the appeal procedures contained in Chapter 19.136, Appeals. 19.124.070. Action by the Planning Commission. A. For planned development permits, the Planning Commission is the final decision making body if the application is for new development of less than five thousand square feet of commercial or less than ten thousand square feet for industrial and/or office use, or less than eight residential units. For all other planned development permit applications, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council. B. For all permits subject to this Chapter except those regulated by subsection A of this section 19.124.070, the review process shall be as specified in the Chapter of this code that specifies the zoning classification that applies to the property in question. C. The Director shall endeavor to forward a written report describing Planning Commission decisions to the City Council within five calendar days from the date of the decision. If a Planning Commission decision is advisory to the City Council, the Director shall endeavor to forward the Planning Commission’s recommendations and findings to the City Council within fifteen days of the Commission’s decision. 369 9 19.124.070 Action by the City Council. Upon receipt of a recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 19.124.080 Planned Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit–Findings and Conditions. A. The decision maker may grant a planned development permit or a conditional use permit only if all of the following findings are made: 1. The proposed development and/or use, at the proposed location, 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; 2. The proposed development and/or use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan, underlying zoning regulations, and the purpose of this title. B. The decision maker may impose with reasonable conditions or restrictions as he deems necessary to secure the purpose of this title and to assure operation of the development and/or use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the general vicinity. C. Permits are approved for a two-year period or a longer period of time to be determined by the decision-making body. 19.124.090 Variance–Findings and Conditions. A. The Director may grant a variance from the site development regulations, the parking and loading regulations or the special requirements of this title applicable within any district, if the Director finds: 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property (including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings) that do not apply generally to property in the same district; 2. The special circumstances applicable to the property deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 3. The issuance of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning in which such property is situated. 4. The variance is not being issued for the purpose of allowing a use that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of the property. 5. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. 370 10 19.124.100 Effective Date. A planned development permit, conditional use or variance shall take effect ten working days following the mailing of the notice of decision, unless an appeal is filed as provided in Chapter 19.136, Appeals. 19.124.110 Expiration, Extension and Revocation. A. Expiration. 1. A planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance which has not been used within two years following its issuance, shall become null and void and of no effect, unless a shorter or longer time period is specifically prescribed in the conditions of such permit or variance. A permit or variance shall be deemed to be "used" when actual substantial and continuous activity has taken place upon the land subject to the permit or variance or, in the event of the erection of a structure or structures, when sufficient building activity has occurred and continues to occur in a diligent manner. 2. Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section, if the use for which a conditional use permit was granted and utilized has ceased or has been suspended for one year or more, said permit becomes null and void. 3. Unless a variance has expired pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, it shall continue to exist for the life of the existing structure or such structure as may be constructed pursuant to the variance approval unless a different time period is specified in its issuance. A variance from the parking and loading regulations shall be valid only during the period of continuous operations of the use and/or structure for which the variance was issued. B. Extensions. The decision maker granting the original planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance may, without public hearing, extend the time for the use of such permit or variance for a maximum of one year only, upon application filed by the applicant with the Director prior to expiration. Upon timely filing of an extension request with the Director, the time for which a permit or variance must be used shall be automatically extended until the request is heard by the decision maker. C. Revocation. In any case where, in the judgment of the Director, substantial evidence indicates that the conditions of a planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance have not been implemented, or where the permit or variance is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, the Director shall set a date for a public hearing before the decision maker granting the original permit or variance, and notice a public hearing in accordance with Section 19.124.050, Notice of Public Hearing, of this code. 371 11 19.124.120 Expansion or Modification of Planned Development or Conditional Use Permits. A. Any significant expansion in building size on site area of a planned development or any significant increase of a conditional use shall necessitate the issuance of a new planned development permit or conditional use permit for the expansion in accord with the provisions of this chapter. B. Any modification to a previously approved planned development permit shall require an application for a modification to the original permit and shall be processed pursuant to the requirements of this Chapter, unless the application is diverted for administrative approval, pursuant to Chapter 19.132, Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects. C. No applications for a planned development permit or conditional use permit shall be necessary for existing uses which were lawful conforming permitted uses and which were rendered conditional by reason of rezoning or change to this title, provided that any expansion in the building site or site area of such use shall be subject to the issuance of a planned development permit or conditional use permit in accord with this chapter. 19.124.130 Change of Use. 1. A change from a conditional use or a permitted use to another permitted use requires a modification of the planned development permit, unless the proposed use does not change the general appearance of the project and does not change how the property interacts with neighboring properties. 2. A change from a permitted use or a conditionally permitted use to a different conditional use requires the issuance of separate conditional use permit. 19.124.140 Concurrent Applications. Notwithstanding any provision in this title to the contrary, any application for a planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance which would normally be issued by the Director of Community Development or the Planning Commission may, at the discretion of the Director, be processed concurrently with applications for General Plan amendments, zoning changes, subdivision maps or other approvals which require City Council approval. 372 EXHIBIT 4 12 CHAPTER 20.04: SPECIFIC PLANS 20.04.040 Zoning District Applicable to a Specific Plan. All areas governed by a specific plan shall be zoned as a planned development (P) zoning district under Chapter 19.48 of the City’s Ordinance Code and all regulations governing land use approvals in a planned development zone shall be applicable to specific plans. A proposal for specific plan may be combined with any application for land use entitlements in the City’s planned development zoning districts. 373 ATTACHMENT B MCA-2010-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6618 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 19.48 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (P) ZONES), CHAPTER 19.72 (PRIVATE RECREATION (FP) ZONE), CHAPTER 19.124 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES) AND CHAPTER 20.04 (SPECIFIC PLANS) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE 2010 HOUSING ELEMENT. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Cupertino Municipal Code as shown in Attachment A of the January 4, 2010 City Council staff report. PASSED AND APPROVED this 9h day of November 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Brophy, Vice Chair lee, Miller, Kaneda, Giefer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: Aarti Shrivastava Paul Brophy, Chair Director of Community Development Planning Commission 374 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: November 9, 2010 Application: MCA-2010-06 Applicant: City of Cupertino Application Summary: Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.48 (Planned Development (P) Ordinance), Chapter 19.72 (Private Recreation (PF) Zone Ordinance), Chapter 19.124 (Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances Ordinance) and Chapter 20.04 (Specific Plans Ordinance) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to be consistent with the 2007-2014 Housing Element. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance (see Attachment A). BACKGROUND: On April 6, 2010, the City Council adopted the 2007 – 2014 Housing Element with associated Municipal Code Amendments. Through a recent review of the Zoning Ordinance, staff has identified the need for additional amendments to the following Municipal Code sections for consistency with the approved Housing Element: 1. Chapter 19.48 (Planned Development (P) Zones), 2. Chapter 19.72 (Private Recreation (PF) Zone), 3. Chapter 19.124 (Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances) 4. Chapter 20.04 (Specific Plans). DISCUSSION: Amendment Categories The proposed changes to the ordinance can be classified into three main categories: 1. Conformance/consistency with: a. The Housing Element and b. Other chapters of the Zoning Ordinance 375 MCA-2010-06 Planned Development Permit Amendments October 26, 2010 Page 2 2. Improving general readability 3. Eliminating redundancies/discrepancies Text boxes have been placed adjacent to the revised ordinance language for ease of reference (See Attachment B). Amendment Details Chapter 19.48 - Planned Development (P) Zones Consistent with the Housing Element, ordinance language is changed to clarify that developments in Planned Development Zones may be approved with the issuance of a Planned Development Permit as opposed to a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, since the planned development permit process is described in Chapter 19.124 (Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances), information related to processing a planned development permit has been moved from Chapter 19.48 (Planned Development (P) Zones) to Chapter 19.124. This is being proposed to improve readability and eliminate repetitions in the Zoning Code. No amendments are proposed to the process. Chapter 19.124 – Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances The application requirements, processing, approval authority and findings for the issuance of a planned development permit, conditional use permit or a variance are prescribed in Chapter 19.124. This section has been re-arranged to enhance readability and clarify requirements for each permit type. The City Attorney has additionally recommended changes to the findings for variances in order to be consistent with State Law. These have been incorporated into the draft ordinance. The dates pertaining to processing of applications and scheduling hearings vary between different chapters of the Zoning Code and may not be consistent with the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act. However, we have confirmed with the City Attorney that all applications are processed pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act since State Law prevails over any inconsistencies between State Law and the City’s Municipal Code. Staff recommends correcting these inconsistencies with the amendments that are anticipated as part of the Development Permit Process Review. Chapter 19.72 – Private Recreation (FP) Zones The Private Recreation Ordinance currently refers to Chapter 19.48 for developments requiring Conditional Use Permits. The revision in this section moves the reference to Chapter 19.124 (Planned Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Variance). Chapter 20.04 – Specific Plans Chapter 20.04 currently states that zoning districts that are governed by a specific plan must be designated Planned Development (PD). The City’s Zoning Map does not have a 376 MCA-2010-06 Planned Development Permit Amendments October 26, 2010 Page 3 PD designation. This reference has been corrected to state that such zones must be designated as Planned Development (P) zoning districts consistent with Chapter 19.48 and Chapter 19.124. Environmental Consideration The proposed ordinance amendments are CEQA Exempt under the General Rule Exemption (Section 15601(b)(3)). This exemption is allowed for projects where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: ______________________________ ___________________________ Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava City Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 Model Resolution (with Exhibit A, Attachment A, B, C and D) Attachment 2 Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 19.48, Planned Development (P) Zones, Attachment 3 Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 19.72, Private Recreation (FP) Zone, Attachment 4 Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 19.124, Planned Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance, and Attachment 5 Strikethrough version of proposed amendments to Chapter 20.04, Specific Plans. 377 378 379 ATTACHMENT E CHAPTER 19.48: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (P) ZONES Section 19.48.010 Purpose. 19.48.020 Applicability of regulations. 19.48.030 Establishment of districts–Permitted and conditional uses. 19.48.040 Zoning or Prezoning. Conceptual development plans. 19.48.050 Action by the Planning Commission. 19.48.060 Zoning or prezoning–Action by the City Council. 19.48.070 19.48.050 Use Permit Required--Definitive Development PlanPlanned Development Permit 19.48.080 Action by the Design Review Committee. 19.48.090 Action by the Planning Commission. 19.48.100 Conditional use permit–Action by the City Council. 19.48.110 Modifications of the definitive development plan. 19.48.010 Purpose. A. The planned development (P) zoning district is intended to provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the City that is uniquely suited for planned coordination of land uses and to provide for a greater flexibility of land use intensity and design because of accessibility, ownership patterns, topographical considerations, and community design objectives. B. The planned development zoning district is specifically intended to encourage variety in the development pattern of the community; to promote a more desirable living environment; to encourage creative approaches in land development; to provide a means of reducing the amount of improvements required in development through better design and land planning, to conserve natural features, to facilitate a more aesthetic and efficient use of open spaces, and to encourage the creation of public or private common open space. (Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.48.020 Applicability of Regulations. No building, structure or land shall be used and no building or structure shall be erected, enlarged or structurally altered, or demolished, in any planned development zoning district, except in accordance with the provisions set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) Readability 380 19.48.030 Establishment of Districts–Permitted and Conditional Uses. A. Planned development zoning districts may be established, modified or removed from the zoning map, and the regulations applicable to any planned development district may be established, modified or deleted in accord with the procedures described in this chapter. B. All P districts shall be identified on the zoning map with the letter coding “P” followed by a specific reference to the general type of use allowed in the particular planning development zoning district. For example, a planned development zoning district in which the uses are to be general commercial in nature, would be designated “P (CG).” A planned development zoning district in which the uses are intended to be a mix of general commercial and residential would be designated “P (CG/Res).” C. Permitted uses in a P zoning district shall consist of all uses which are permitted in the zoning district which constitutes the designation following the letter coding “P.” For example, the permitted uses in a P (CG) zoning district are the same uses which are permitted in a CG zoning district. D. Conditional uses in a P zoning district shall consist of all uses which require the issuance of a conditional use permit in the zoning district which constitutes the designation following the letter coding “P.” For example, the conditional uses in a P (CG) zoning district are the same uses which require a conditional use permit in CG zoning district. Each conditional use in a P zoning district requires a separate conditional use permit. E. The general category of uses in a P zone shall be defined at the time of the conceptual plan, and shall be consistent with the adopted General Plan relative to the property in the application. The development standards and regulations of the permitted and conditional uses shall be established in conjunction with the approval of the conceptual and definitive plans. (Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.48.040 Conceptual Development PlansZoning or Prezoning . A. Application - The applicant for a P zoning district shall, at the time of the application, submit to the Director of Community Development a conceptual development plan, which will include a general description of the proposed uses, the proposed traffic-circulation system, a topographical map of the site and the neighboring properties, a landscaping plan, and any other information required by the Director of Community Development, the Planning Commission, or the City Council. The Director of Community Development shall provide the applicant with a detailed list of information required for a conceptual development plan. (Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) B. Process and Review Authority – 1. Applications for the zoning, prezoning or rezoning of property shall be Readability Consistency 381 processed in the manner prescribed byin Chapter 19.120 -, Amendments to the Zoning Maps or Zoning Regulations. 2. Upon final approval of the application, the City Council shall enact an ordinance zoning or prezoning the subject property or properties as a planned development zone, incorporating within such ordinance the conceptual plan and conditions of approval. C. Findings - No such ordinance may be adopted unless, Iin addition to making the findings required by of Chapter 19.120, Amendments to the Zoning Maps or Zoning Regulations Ordinance, of this Code, the City Council makes the following findings and determinations shall be made are made: 19.48.050 Action by the Planning Commission. A. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on any application for zoning or prezoning property initiated pursuant to this chapter in the same manner as prescribed by Chapter 19.120 of this Code and by state law for the zoning, prezoning or rezoning of property. B. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 19.120 regarding zoning of property, the Planning Commission shall review and consider all materials submitted by the applicant pursuant to this chapter, and shall prepare and recommend to the City Council, as appropriate, the specific conditions of approval, and state the reasons for the recommendation. C. If the recommendation is one for approval of the application, the following findings and determinations must be made by the Planning Commission: 1. That the conceptual development plan attached to the application is consistent with both the General Plan and any specific plan underlying zoning designation which regulates the site; 2. That the conceptual development plan provides for an organized and unified system of land uses and land use intensities which would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; 3. That a the conceptual development plan for a residential use insures ensures that the proposed development provides adequate active and passive oriented open space within the development to satisfy the needs of future residents and, further, that the proposed development provides adequate landscaping that will function in a manner which will enhance the individual development and the community as a whole; 4. That the conceptual development plan ensures that the location of the site with respect to major thoroughfares and uses outside the zone would not create undue and unreasonable traffic congestion in the area; 5. That the conceptual development plan makes provisions for adequate parking, waste disposal and undergrounding of utilities. (Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) Readability Refer to Chapter 19.120 Consistency Readability 382 19.48.060 Zoning or Prezoning–Action by the City Council. A. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall hold a public hearing pursuant to the procedures described in Chapter 19.116 of this Code and pursuant to State law, to consider the recommendation. The City Council may approve, modify, or disapprove a recommendation of the Planning Commission; provided, that any modification of the proposed application, which was not considered by the Planning Commission, shall first be referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation (which does not require the holding of a public hearing). B. Failure of the Planning Commission to issue a report and recommendation on the proposed modification within forty days after referral, or such longer period as may be prescribed by the City Council, shall be deemed to be an approval of the proposed modification. C. Upon final approval of the application, the City Council shall enact an ordinance zoning or prezoning the subject property or properties as a planned development zone, incorporating within such ordinance the conceptual plan and conditions of approval. D. Modifications - Any modification of the conceptual plan requires the submission of a rezoning application. (Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.48.07019.48.050. Use Permit Required--Definitive Development Plan. Planned Development Permit. A. Process and Review Authority - Prior to any development within a planned development zoning district, the applicant must obtain a conditional useplanned development permit approving the development pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.124, Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances Ordinance, of this Code., issued by the Planning Commission, except that in the event that the application is for new development of five thousand square feet or more of commercial or ten thousand square feet or more for industrial and/or office use, or eight or greater residential units, the conditional use permit may only be issued by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. B. Any application for a conditional use permit shall be accompanied by a definitive development plan which shall include architectural drawings of the proposed development, maps showing the locations of buildings, renderings showing building heights and square footages, maps showing the precise location of roads, streets, alleys and access points, a traffic analysis, a construction plan, and any other information required by the Director of Community Development, Planning Commission or City Council. The Director of Community Development shall provide the applicant with a detailed list of information required for a definitive development plan. Refer to Chapter 19.120 Moved to Chapter 19.124 383 C. A definitive development plan shall encompass the entire property, unless, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, the implementation of a definitive plan for a portion of the site will not delay, hinder or otherwise be in conflict with the implementation of the conceptual development plan for the remainder of the site.DB. Combined Applications - Nothing in this chapter is intended to prohibit a combined application for zoning and use planned development permit to be considered at the same public hearing. However, the applicant, in that event, shall prepare both a conceptual development plan and a definitive development plan for consideration. In the event, the cCombined applications includes a use permit which is reviewed by the Director of Community Development, the combined application shall be processed and reviewed as provided by Section 19.04.090, Combined Application for Land Use Entitlements. (Ord. 1656, § 2, 1994; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.48.080 Action by the Design Review Committee. Individual single-family homes in a planned development residential zoning district or two-story, single-family homes that directly incorporate R-1 (Chapter 19.28) ordinance standards, shall be approved, modified or denied by the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Chapter 2.90. (Ord. 1844, § 1 (part), 2000) 19.48.090 Action by the Planning Commission. A. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on any application for a conditional use permit issued under the provisions of this chapter in the same manner as prescribed in Chapter 19.124 of this Code. B. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 19.124 regarding the issuance of conditional use permits, the Planning Commission shall review and consider all materials submitted by the applicant, and in cases where it is the decisionmaker, may approve or deny the application. Any such approval shall contain specific conditions of approval and shall include all necessary findings and reasons for the approval. Any final decision by the Planning Commission under this section is subject to appeal to City Council pursuant to Chapter 19.136. C. With respect to any action by the Planning Commission which constitutes a recommendation to the City Council, the recommendation shall contain, as appropriate, the specific conditions for approval, and the reason for the recommendations based upon the required findings for the granting of any use permit under Chapter 19.124, as well as a determination that the definitive development plan is consistent with the conceptual development plan. (Ord. 1844, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.48.100 Conditional use permit--Action by the City Council. Upon receipt of a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council Moved to Chapter 19.124 Moved to Chapter 19.124 384 shall hold a public hearing pursuant to the procedures described in Chapter 19.124 of this Code to consider the recommendation. The City Council may approve, modify, or disapprove a recommendation of the Planning Commission., provided that any modification of the proposed application, which was not considered by the Planning Commission, shall first be referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation (which does not require the holding of a public hearing). (Ord. 1844, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.48.110 Modifications of the Definitive Development Plan. A. Minor Modifications. In the event that the applicant or subsequent property owner wishes to make a minor alteration, change or amendment of the approved definitive development plan, he shall submit a written request to the Director of Community Development, together with a proposed revised definitive development plan. If the Director determines that the modification does not result in a change in the general appearance or function of the project, he may approve the modification in a manner specified in Chapter 19.132. B. Other Modifications. If the Director of Community Development determines that a proposed modification to a definitive development is not minor, then the applicant must seek an amendment to the underlying conditional permit by the Planning Commission, except that in the event that the modification is for new development of five thousand square feet or more of commercial or ten thousand square feet or more for industrial and/or office use, or eight or greater residential units, the conditional use permit may only be issued by the City Council upon hearing and recommendation of the Planning Commission. C. Change of Use. 1. A change from a conditional use or a permitted use to another permitted use within a P zoning district does not require a modification of the definitive plan unless the change of use will also change the general appearance or change how the definitive development plan functions vis-a-vis neighboring properties. 2. A change from a permitted use to a conditional use requires the issuance of separate conditional use permit by the City body which would ordinarily consider such a permit in other zones within the City. (Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1715, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) Moved to Chapter 19.124 385 ATTACHMENT F CHAPTER 19.72: PRIVATE RECREATION (FP) ZONE 19.72.040 Conditional Uses–Use Permit Required. The following uses may be permitted in private recreation (FP) zones, subject to the securing of a conditional use permit in each separate case. At the inception of a rezoning to the FP classification, such rezoning shall be accompanied by a simultaneous request for use permit approval. The use permit review procedure shall be similar to that followed for use permits in the planned development zone, as described in Chapter 19.48 19.124, Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances,.: A. Outdoor Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit Issued by the Planning Commission: 1. Equestrian center including riding academies, stables and horse rental, 2. Practice range for archery or firearms, 3. Golf course with or without driving range, 4. Swim and racquet club, 5. Swimming, diving or related sports center, 6. Picnic areas, 7. Racquet sports center for tennis, racquetball, badminton and similar activities, 8. Specialty outdoor activity center encompassing one or more of the following or similar uses: a. Roller skating, b. Skateboarding, c. Lawn bowling, bocce ball, d. Miniature golf, e. Waterslide, 9. Commercial athletic field for one or more of the following or similar uses: a. Baseball, softball or batting cage training, b. Football, c. Soccer, d. Volleyball, e. Field hockey, f. Basketball, 10. Amusement parks with or without rides or live entertainment, Consistency 386 11. Bicycle motocross course/go-cart track or similar specialty raceway, but excluding facilities for racing of automobiles or motorcycles, 12. Air sports field for hang gliding, ultralight aircraft or ballooning, but excluding common carrier passenger aircraft service, 13. Other outdoor recreation uses which are found by the City Council or Planning Commission to be of similar intensity and characteristics of use to those enumerated in this subdivision; B. Indoor Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit Issued by the Planning Commission: 1. Museums and galleries, 2. Theaters for film, stage or music entertainment, 3. Specialty indoor activity center encompassing one or more of the following or similar uses: a. Bowling, b. Video games, c. Pool, billiards, d. Martial arts, e. Ice or roller skating rink, 4. Personal fitness or sports training center with primary location of facilities and equipment enclosed within a structure, 5. Dancehall or facility for dance instruction, 6. Other indoor recreation uses which are found by the City Council or Planning Commission to be of similar intensity and characteristics of use to those enumerated in this subsection. (Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 387 ATTACHMENT G CHAPTER 19.124: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES Section 19.124.010 Authority of the Director of Community Development. 19.124.020 Application for planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance. 19.124.030 Application for conditional use permit or variance. 19.124.03019.124.040 Action by the Director. 19.124.04019.124.050 Notice of public hearing. 19.124.05019.124.060 Decision after hearingAction by the Planning Commission. 19.124.06019.124.070 Action by the City Council. 19.124.07019.124.080 Planned development permit and conditional use permit– Findings and conditions. 19.124.08019.124.090 Variance–Findings and conditions. 19.124.09019.124.100 Effective date. 19.124.10019.124.110 Expiration, extension and revocation. 19.124.11019.124.120 Expansion of planned development or conditional uses. 19.124.120 Reports.19.124.130 Change of use. 19.124.13019.124.140 Concurrent applications. 19.124.010 Authority of the Director of Community Development. Subject to the provisions of this chapter and general purpose and intent of this title, the Director of Community Development may grant the following: A. Any development permits which are authorized to be issued by the Director pursuant to any provision of this title. All other planned development permits and conditional use permits shall be issued by either the Planning Commission or the City Council, as provided by this title; B. A variance from the site development regulations and parking and loading regulations (except those handicapped parking regulations mandated by State law) applicable within any district established by this title; C. A variance from the special conditions that apply to site development and parking and loading regulations (including conditions attached to planned developments) applicable within any district established by this title. D. A request for reasonable accommodation made by any person with a disability, when the strict application of the provisions within residential districts, act as a barrier to fair housing opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50. 388 (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.124.020 Application for Planned Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit or Variance. A. An application for a planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance may be made by the owner of record, or his agent, of property for which the planned development, conditional use permit or variance is sought. B. Application shall be made to the Director, on a form provided by the City, and shall contain the following: 1. A description and map showing the location of the property for which the permit or variance is sought; 2. A definitive development plan, consistent with the conceptual development plan and conditions of approval of the zoning, for the entire property; 3. Architectural drawings of the proposed development; 4. Maps showing the locations of buildings; 5. Renderings showing building heights and square footages; 6. Maps showing the precise location of roads, streets, alleys and access points; 7. A traffic analysis; and 8. A construction plan, 2. If the application is for a planned development permit and/or a conditional use permit, plans and/or descriptions of existing and proposed uses of the property, and describing in detail the nature of the use proposal to be conducted on the property; 3. If the application is for a variance, plans and/or descriptions of existing and proposed construction on the property involved, together with a statement of the circumstances which justify the various applications; 49. Such additional information as the Director may deem pertinent and essential to the application. C. Application for planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed by City Council resolution, no part of which shall be returnable to the applicant. (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.124.030 Application for Conditional Use Permit or Variance. In addition to all information required pursuant to Section 19.124.020, Application for Planned Development Permit, the following information shall be provided: A. If the application is for a conditional use permit, plans and/or descriptions of existing and proposed uses of the property, and describing in detail the nature of the use proposal to be conducted on the property; Readability/Moved from Chapter 19.48 Readability Moved to Section 19.124.030 389 B. If the application is for a variance, plans and/or descriptions of existing and proposed construction on the property involved, together with a statement of the circumstances which justify the various applications. (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.124.03019.124.040 Action by the Director. A. Unless otherwise provided by Section 19.04.090, Combined application for land use entitlements, regarding combined applications, the following actions shall be taken by the Director to process an application for a planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance: 1. Upon receipt of a complete application for a planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance, the Director shall, within thirty days from the date the application is deemed by him the Director to be complete, set a date for a public hearing upon the matter either before or at a regular or special meeting of the Planning Commission, as the case may be, unless the application is diverted for administrative approval, pursuant to Section 19.132.030 Chapter 19.132, Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects. The public hearing shall commence within sixty days of the date it is set. (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 1656, § 3, 1994; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 2. If the application is for a planned development permit for an individual single- story or two-story single family residence that directly incorporates Chapter 19.28 (Single Family Residential (R1) Zones) standards, the Director shall divert the application to be processed as set forth in Chapter 19.134, Architectural and Site Review, for approval by the Design Review Committee. B. The Director shall endeavor to forward a written report to the City Council and Planning Commission of the action he/she has taken on each application for planned development permit, conditional use permits and variances. 19.124.04019.124.050 Notice of Public Hearing. Notice of any public hearing under this chapter shall be given in the same manner as provided in Chapter 19.120, Amendments to the Zoning Maps and Zoning Regulations, of this title. (Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.124.05019.124.060 Decision after Hearing. A. At the time and place set for hearing, the Director, Planning Commission or City Council, as the case may be, shall hear evidence for or against such application. Within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the hearing, the Director, or Commission or Council shall make findings and shall render a decision on the application which is supported by the evidence contained in the application or presented at the hearing. B. In the event that the decision by the Director, or the Commission, is a final one, Moved from Section 19.48.120 oved to Section 19.124.070 Consistency 390 then such decision is subject to the appeal procedures contained in Chapter 19.136, Appeals. In the event that a Planning Commission decision is advisory to the City Council, its recommendations together with the findings, shall be forwarded to the City Council within fifteen days thereof. (Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.124.070. Action by the Planning Commission. A. For planned development permits, the Planning Commission is the final decision making body if the application is for new development of less than five thousand square feet of commercial or less than ten thousand square feet for industrial and/or office use, or less than eight residential units. For all other planned development permit applications, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council. B. For all permits subject to this Chapter except those regulated by subsection A of this section 19.124.070, the review process shall be as specified in the Chapter of this code that specifies the zoning classification that applies to the property in question. C. The Director shall endeavor to forward a written report describing Planning Commission decisions to the City Council within five calendar days from the date of the decision. If a Planning Commission decision is advisory to the City Council, the Director shall endeavor to forward the Planning Commission’s recommendations and findings to the City Council within fifteen days of the Commission’s decision. 19.124.070 Action by the City Council. Upon receipt of a recommendation of the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 19.124.050, the City Council may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission. (Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.124.07019.124.080 Planned Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit– Findings and Conditions. A. The decision maker may grant a planned development permit or a conditional use permit only if all of the following findings are made: 1. The proposed development and/or use, at the proposed location, 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; 2. The proposed development and/or use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan, underlying zoning regulations, and the purpose of this title. B. The decision maker may impose with reasonable conditions or restrictions as he deems necessary to secure the purpose of this title and to assure operation of the development and/or use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on Moved from Chapter 19.48 Moved from Section 19.124.120 391 adjoining properties and in the general vicinity. C. Permits are approved for a two-year period or a longer period of time to be determined by the decision-making body. (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.124.08019.124.090 Variance–Findings and Conditions. A. The Director may grant a variance from the site development regulations, the parking and loading regulations or the special requirements of this title applicable within any district, if the Director finds: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property (including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings) involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; 2. The special circumstances applicable to the property deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 3. The issuance of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning in which such property is situated. 4. The variance is not being issued for the purpose of allowing a use that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of the property. The granting of the application is necessary, for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; 35. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. (Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.124.09019.124.100 Effective Date. A planned development permit, conditional use or variance shall take effect ten working days following the mailing of the notice of decision, unless an appeal is filed as provided in Chapter 19.13219.136, Appeals. (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.124.10019.124.110 Expiration, Extension and Revocation. A. Expiration. 1. A planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance which has not been used within two years following its issuance, shall become null and void and Correction Consistency with State Law 392 of no effect, unless a shorter or longer time period is specifically prescribed in the conditions of such permit or variance. A permit or variance shall be deemed to be "used" when actual substantial and continuous activity has taken place upon the land subject to the permit or variance or, in the event of the erection of a structure or structures, when sufficient building activity has occurred and continues to occur in a diligent manner. 2. Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section, if the use for which a conditional use permit was granted and utilized has ceased or has been suspended for one year or more, said permit becomes null and void. 3. Unless a variance has expired pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, it shall continue to exist for the life of the existing structure or such structure as may be constructed pursuant to the variance approval unless a different time period is specified in its issuance. A variance from the parking and loading regulations shall be valid only during the period of continuous operations of the use and/or structure for which the variance was issued. B. Extensions. The decision maker granting the original planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance may, without public hearing, extend the time for the use of such permit or variance for a maximum of one year only, upon application filed by the applicant with the Director prior to expiration. Upon timely filing of an extension request with the Director, the time for which a permit or variance must be used shall be automatically extended until the request is heard by the decision maker. C. Revocation. In any case where, in the judgment of the Director, substantial evidence indicates that the conditions of a planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance have not been implemented, or where the permit or variance is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, the Director shall set a date for a public hearing before the decision maker granting the original permit or variance, and notice a public hearing in accordance with Section 19.124.04019.124.050, Notice of Public Hearing, of this code. (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 1812, § 1, 1999; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601 Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.124.11019.124.120 Expansion or Modification of Planned Development or Conditional Use Permits. A. Any significant expansion in building size on site area of a planned development or any significant increase of a conditional use shall necessitate the issuance of a new planned development permit or conditional use permit for the expansion in accord with the provisions of this chapter. B. Any modification to a previously approved planned development permit shall require an application for a modification to the original permit and shall be processed pursuant to the requirements of this Chapter, unless the application is Moved from Chapter 19.48 393 diverted for administrative approval, pursuant to Chapter 19.132, Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects. C. No applications for a planned development permit or conditional use permit shall be necessary for existing uses which were lawful conforming permitted uses and which were rendered conditional by reason of rezoning or change to this title, provided that any expansion in the building site or site area of such use shall be subject to the issuance of a planned development permit or conditional use permit in accord with this chapter. 19.124.120 Reports. The Director of Community Development shall make written reports to the City Council and Planning Commission of the action he/she has taken on each application for planned development permit, conditional use permits and variances. A written report describing Planning Commission decisions shall be forwarded to the City Council within five calendar days from the date of the decision. (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.124.130 Change of Use. 1. A change from a conditional use or a permitted use to another permitted use requires a modification of the planned development permit, unless the proposed use does not change the general appearance of the project and does not change how the property interacts with neighboring properties. . 2. A change from a permitted use or a conditionally permitted use to a different conditional use requires the issuance of separate conditional use permit. (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.124.140 Concurrent Applications. Notwithstanding any provision in this title to the contrary, any application for a planned development permit, conditional use permit or variance which would normally be issued by the Director of Community Development or the Planning Commission may, at the discretion of the Director, be processed concurrently with applications for General Plan amendments, zoning changes, subdivision maps or other approvals which require City Council approval. (Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) Moved from Chapter 19.48 Moved to Sections 19.124.040 and 19.124.070 394 ATTACHMENT H CHAPTER 20.04: SPECIFIC PLANS 20.04.040 Zoning District Applicable to a Specific Plan. All areas governed by a specific plan shall be zoned as a planned development (PD) zoning district under Chapter 19.48 of the City’s Ordinance Code and all regulations governing land use approvals in a planned development zone shall be applicable to specific plans. A proposal for specific plan may be combined with any application for land use entitlements under in the City’s planned development zonezoning districts. Consistency/Readability 395