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