The URL can be used to link to this page

.03 MCA-2011-02 City of Cupertino OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' � CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVEN UE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT I N O (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 •�1vuling�cupertino.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 Agenda Date: March 22, 2011 Application: CP-2011-02/MCA-2011-02 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: Citywide Application Summary: Ordinance amendments to various chapters of Title 19, Zoning, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, including the addition of new chapters, to simplify the development permit process and improve readability. RECOMMENDATION Staff recornmends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council: • Amendments to the Municipal Code in conformance with the list of changes recommended to the permit process (see Attachment 1) and • Adoption of a public engagement policy (see Attachment 2) BACKGROUND In 2009, the Matrix Consulting Group prepared a report on the City's development permit process encompassing Building, Planning and Public Works Departments. Staff presented recommendations to the Planning Commission in April and May 2010 based on the Matrix Report. The Planning Commissiori s recommendations were presented to the City Council on May 18, 2010 where the Council directed staff to conduct additional notification and outreach. Staff mailed 5,300 notices to past permit seekers and conducted two group workshops. The group workshops, facilitated by Mr. Ken Rodriguez, were held on July 28, 2010 and y September 8, 2010. Staff presented recommendations based on feedback from the - workshops to the Planning Commission on November 9, 2010. The Planning Commission agreed to forward the recommendations and provided some additional comments related to the R1 (Single-Family Residential) ordinance for the Council's consideration and direction. On February 15, 2011, the City Council reviewed the proposed ordinance amendments and directed staff to initiate the formal ordinance amendment process with minor 3-1 MCA-2011-02/CP-2010-01 Municipal Code Amendments March 22, 2011 Page 2 revisions. The Council also directed staff to begin a limited review of the R1 (Single- Family Residential) ordinance as a separate project. DISCUSSION The Council agreed with most of the Planning Commission's recommendations with some minor revisions as noted below. A. Simplifying A�proval Authorit�(Municipal Code Amendments): • The City Council should review all projects that are "outside the box" of regulations - i.e. those that require a change to the General Plan, Zoning, and Ordinance and involve the preparation of an Environment Impact Report (EIR). Such type of projects and Tentative Maps are required to be reviewed by the City Council per State law. • Projects that fit "within the "box" of existing General Plan, zoning and other City regulations and those that are eligible to use the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) infill exemption (Section 15332 of Categorical Exemptions of CEQA) should be approved at the Planning Commission level. o Revision - the Council will review projects with more than 50 units, 50,000 square feet of commercial space and 100,000 square feet of office/industrial space. • Projects that are small, do not cause impacts, are exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and would have no environmental impacts should be reviewed by staff. Projects that typically are exempt under CEQA include new construction with six units or less and 10,000 square feet or less of new non- residential development or additions, fa�ade improvements, site improvements including landscaping, replacement or reconstruction of non-residential buildings, etc. Single-family homes and other minor permits could still be approved at staff level per the current ordinance. Attachment 3 shows with strikeouts and underlines changes made to capture all application types and to ensure consistency with CEQA thresholds. Other Amendments to be included in the Development Permit Process Amendments: These include the following items. Some of these have been discussed previously while others are recommended to clarify ordinance requirements: 1. Increase the period for one-time extensions from one to two years. 2. Establish expiration date for Director's Minor Modification applications at two years similar to the approvals for Condition Use Permit and Planned Development Permits. 3. Allow Design Review Committee (DRC) decisions to be appealed to the City Council instead of the Planning Commission since the DRC is a Planning Commission subcommittee. The City Attorney has raised a due process issue. This change will involve changes to the Planning Commission Chapter in Title 2. 3-2 MCA-2011-02/CP-2010-01 Municipal Code Amendments March 22, 2011 Page 3 4. Inclusion of regulations that are currently not codified for the Planned Office (OP) and Planned Industrial Park (MP) Zones. These regulations were inadvertently rescinded during a zoning ordinance update in 1991 (per Ordinance 1601). However, these zoning districts are still in existence and the pattern and practice has been to use these standards in Ordinance 002(x) for these zones (see attachment 4). This effort would codify these regulations with no changes to the content. 5. Consolidate, clarify and eliminate duplicate definitions. 6. Improve readability by adding tables and eliminating redundant/ duplicate language. 7. Add a new chapter for administrative requirements and procedures to improve readability. 8. Refer time periods for hearings and appeals to State Law and make them consistent throughout the ordinance. 9. Reconcile the level of approval for recycling facilities with the proposed ordinance amendments (see Attachment 1). B. Communication (Public Engagement Policy): The Council agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendations with regard to a new public engagexnent policy. The Council also discussed, but did not make a decision on reducing the noticing radii for minor GPA, Zoning Map and Zoning Regulations Amendment projects from 1000 feet to 500 feet. Staff is proposing amending the noticing radii to clarify the intent of the noticing policy. The 300' radius noticing will remain as the minimum noticing radius. For projects that reach the "Collaborate" or "Team Up" thresholds, noticing radii will be increased to 500 feet or 1000 feet as applicable. This ensures that the noticing follows the intent of the policy and also addresses Council comments. These amendments have been shown in strikeouts and underlines in Attachment 5. Additionally, there are some changes proposed by staff to correctly reflect CEQA thresholds. These too have been shown in strikeouts and underlines. The Council also amended the level at which projects would be moved to the "Collaborate" level of engagement. o Revision - Projects with > 25 residential units, 25,000 square feet of commercial and 50,000 square feet of office/industrial/non-residential shall be processed at the Collaborate level of , " engagement. The Planning Commission had previously recommended that projects zvith >15` units, 25,000 square feet of commercial and 50,000 square feet of office/industrial/non- residential be processed at the Collaborate level. Limited R1 Ordinance Amendments: The City Council also directed staff to initiate a limited review of the R1 Ordinance, including but not limited to the design review process and the requirements for story poles and public notification. Since additional public communication and outreach are 3-3 MCA-2011-02/CP-2010-01 Municipal Code Amendments March 22, 2011 Page 4 required for the R1 Ordinance review, a separate process will be initiated at a later date in late summer/early fall of 2011. This project will be combined with the project to review regulations for R11ots with a slope of between 15% and 30%. C. Improving Readability and Consistenc� In order to improve consistency between various City documents and improve readability of documents, staff will work on making older documents consistent with the General Plan and update them with new graphics as time permits. No amendments are proposed to the plans as part of this project. NEXT STEPS: After the Planning Commission recommendation, staff will present specific ordinance changes and the Public Engagement Policy to the Council for adoption. The schedule for the R1 Ordinance review is tentatively scheduled to begin in mid-2011. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: � �— - � �hao � City Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS 1. Model Resolution -"Municipal Code Amendments to various chapters of Title 19, Zoning, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, including the addition of new chapters, to simplify the development permit process and improve readability." 2. Model Resolution - Public Engagement Policy 3. Approval thresholds - Strikethrough and underline 4. Ordinance 002(x) - An Ordinance of the City of Cupertino Regulating Planned Office (OP) zones and Planned Industrial Park (MP) zones. 5. Noticing requirements - Strikethrough and underline G: � Planning � PDREPORT � pc CP reports � 2010 CPreport � CP-2010-01 PC 03-22-11.doc 3-4 ATTACHMENT 1 MCA-2011-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CTTY COUNCIL APPROVE MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS TO VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF NEW CHAPTERS, TO SIMPLIFY THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS AND IMPROVE READABILITY The Plannulg Commission recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Cupertino Municipal Code as shown below: 1. Amend thresholds of approval for projects as shown on page 2. 2. Increase the period for one-time extensions from one to two years. 3. Establish expiration date for Director's Minor Modification applications at two years. 4. Allow Design Review Corninittee (DRC) decisions to be appealed to the City Council instead of Planniiig Coinmission. 5. Inclusion of regulations that are currently not codified for the Planned Office (OP) and I'lanned Indust�ial Park (MP) zones. 6. Consolidate, clarify and eliminate duplicate definitions. , 7. Improve readability by adding tables and eliminating redundant/duplicate language. 8. Add a new chapter for administrative requirements and procedures to improve readability. . 9. Refer time periods for hearings and appeals to State Law and make them consistent throughout the ordinance. 10. Reconcile the level of approval for recycling facilities with the proposed ordulance amendments. 11. Amend other Chapters as needed to maintain consistency with the changes proposed above. PASSED AND APPROVED this 22nd day of March 2011, at a Regular Meeting of the Plaruzing Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Aarti Shrivastava Winnie Lee, Chair Director of Community Development Planning Commission � 3-5 - Page 2 Amendments to Approvnl Authority Pro ject Type 1 Approvnl Authority 2 5" General Plan Amendment - Major 3 CC General Plan Amendment - Minor 4 CC � Zonin Amendments (> 5 acres) CC � �, Zonin Ma and Re ulations Amendments (1-5 acres) CC Zonin Ma and Re ulntions Amendments (<_ 1 acre) CC � Zonin Amendments - Minor CC Tentative Ma (>_ 5 arcels) CC Parcel Ma (< 5 arcels) Admin. _ ,��.��..:, Develo ment A reement CC ,��::. . Planned Development Permit - Ma jor 3 PC/CC 5 ,�.��:- . Planned Development Permit - Minor 4 Admin. Condition4l Use Permit - Ma jor 3 Admin./PC/CC' Conditional Use Permit - Minor 4 Admin./PC/CC' �:,, Architectural and Site Approval - Major 3 PC ��,.� Architectural and Site Approval - Minor 4 Admin. .�::� Ma'or Amendment PC Yard Inter retation Admin.� Vnriance/Exception - PC/CC PC/CC' Varic►nce/Exce tion - Admin Admin. Sign Exceptions Admin./PC' Parking Exceptions Admin./DRC' :,� Fence Exce tions DRC R1 Exce tions DRC �s:��; , RlOrdinance ermits Admin. .�� Tree Removal � Admin./PC' ��:�a Recycling Facilities Admin./PC 6 _••Yp'WiO�ti::� Extensions Admin. ...��,� NOTES: 1. Projects with combined applications shnll be processed at the highest level of npproval. 2. Projects where EIR required approved by City Council. 3. Major: greater than 10,000 s.f. commercial/office/industrial/non-residential; six residential units. 4. Minor: less than equal to 10,000 sq.ft. commercial/office/industrial/non-residential; six residentiul 5. City Council review for projects > 50,000 s.f. commercinl; 100,000 s.f. office/industrial/non- residential; 50 residential units. 7. Approvnl Authority determined by relevant Ordinnnce. 8. Type of permit (DIR, ASA, CUP) determined by Ordinance. 3-6 � ATTACHMENT 2 MCA-2011-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS The Plaruzing Coinmission recommends adoption of a PuUlic Engagement Policy as shown in Exhibit A. PASSED AND APPROVED this 22nd day of March 2011, at a Regular Meeting of the Plaiuling Coinmission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: ., Aarti Shrivastava Winnie Lee, Chair Director of Community Development Planning Coirunission 3-7 Cupertino Public Engagement Process - ACT �. �� a b � � � ��: � �� `. ..............••• � BAS�C Pt2Ii�lCIPLES aF �UBLIC � � r � Ef��1��MENT � �❖ A participation process must ensure � ■ ■ that a pa r tici p a n t' s ti m e i s w e l l s p e n t. � �: ■ �❖ A participation process must be � `�` ■ focused and participants' needs should ■ � be f ull aired and considered. ■ f� i . Y ❖ Pro�ect and participation expectations � ■ � ,� must be clear from the start � � � i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ • ♦ Pro jec fi 1"y pe'� Pu b lic Engagemen t Po licy ( A C T) Advise Colfaborate `�'eam Up Genera) Plan Amendment - Ma'or 3 ✓ � General Plan Amendment - Minor 4 � ✓ Zonin Amendment (_>1 acres) ✓ r/ e/ Zoning Amendment (< 1 acre and Minor) ✓ Tentative Ma (>_ 5 arcels) ✓ Parce) Ma (< 5 parcels) o/ Planned Develo ment Permit - Ma'or ✓ ✓ Planned Develo ment Permit - Minor ✓ Conditional Use Permit - Ma jor ✓ �/ Conditional Use Permit - Minor ✓ Architecturn) and Site A roval - Ma'or ✓ �,i Architectura) and Site A rovnl - Minor �� Ma'or Amendment ✓ Variance/Exce tion ✓ Minor npprovals ✓ * This is not a complete list of all applications. See attached f or complete listing. 1 Collaborate: > 25 units, 25,000 sq. ft. retQil/commercial; 50,000 sq, ft. office/industrial/non-residential 2 Tenm Up: projects with EIR's 3 Major: > 10,000 sq.ft commercinl/office/industrial/non six residentinl units. 4 Minor: <_ 10,000 sq.ft. commercial/office/industrinl/non-residential; six residentinl units. 3-8 � � _, � ... .. _ . ,. _ � _ i ,,.: - Ex Hz BzT A ❖ Inf orm the publ ic •:• Legn) advertisements ❖ Listen to and consider concerns in ❖ LegQl notices �; the decision. ❖ Public hearings �❖ E n h a n c e o u t r e n c h a n d i n f o r m a t i o n �:• N e w sp np e r n d s/ C up e r t i n o S c e n e ( n s <t dissemination. needed ❖ Website ❖ Site si nn e �❖ Work with the public to ensure -:� For projects > 25 units; 25,004 sq. ft. � t h a t c o n c e r n s a n d s o l u t i o n s a r e r e t a i l/ c o m m e r c i a l; 5 0, 0 0 0 sq. f t. � incorporated in the report to office/industrial/non-residential � decision-makers. ❖ Neiqhborhood notice (500' min.) _ _ �j -:• Neiqhborhood meetinqs �❖ Look to the public for input in •:• For pro jects with EIR's f o r m u l a t i n g p r o j e c t a l t e r n a t i v e s •3 __.____. __r C i t y- w i d e p o s t c a r d s � a n d s o l u t i o n s f o r d e c i s i o n- m a k e r s ❖ F o c u s r o u s/ W o r k s h o p s � 9 p F.. to consider. f k r . i�_ j ,, .� � LEVELS QF Ef��A�E�IIENT ��243ECT C�NT�XT � t� � v cv ...� 0 � L ._°, � � � � � Collabornte Team Up (Neighborhood) (City-wide/Area-wide) Advise Collaborate (Ad jacent/Radius) (Neighborhood) �acv C�rr�rnurtif� �rrtpac� H�gh PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT POLICY Page 2 �.� . Noticing rodius (unless Public Engagement Policy (ACT) 1 e Project Type requiring Colinborate Collabornte Tenm Up 4 or Team Up npproach) Advise (min. 500' radius (min. 1000' radius/ One Genernl Plnn Amendment - Major 2 300' 3 � �� General Plan Amendment - Minor 5 300' 3 ✓ �6 fZoning Amendment (> 5 acres) 300' 3 ✓ `�° ` �a �Zoning Amendment (1-5 acres) 300' 3 ✓ ` �6 `�'. iZoning Amendment (< 1 acre) 300' 3 � ; Zoning Amendment - Minor 300' ✓ �Tentative Map (>_ 5 parcels) 300' 3 � � ...� �Parcel Map (< 5 pnrcels) 300' ✓ __...�..�� w...,.�..W. �Development Agreement 300' 3 � � ��. gPlanned Development Permit - Major Z 300' 3 ✓ �6 � � �Plnnned Development Permit - Minor 4 300' ✓ �� Conditional Use Permit - Major Z 300' 3 '� '�6 �.�. �.�:.�. �Conditional Use Permit - Minor 4 300' ✓ k � ; � � �Architecturnl and Site Approval - Major 2 Adjacent/1000' � � � � � �4 �Architecturnl and Site Approvol - Minor 4 Adjacent ✓ �� Major Amendment 300' ✓ �� s Yurd Interpretation Adjacent ✓ � � s � � Variance/Exception - PC/CC 300' ✓ 6 ,.�.....,._,�: � Variance/Exception - DIR 300' ✓ �� € � Sign Exceptions Adjacent/300' e � �� Parking Exceptions 300' ✓ � � ' Fence Exceptions Adjncent ✓ R1 Exceptions 300' ✓ �R1 Ordinance permits Adjacent/300' 9 `� �Tree Removnl 300' ✓ '_, Extensions None ✓ NOTES: 1. Projects with combined applications shall be processed nt the highest level of requirement. 2. Major: greater than 10,000 s.f. commercial/office/industrial/non-residential; six residential units. 3. Noticing radii increased as required by the level of engagement determined per the Public Engagement Policy. 4. All EIRs to be processed at Tenm Up level. 5. Minor: less than or equnl to 10,000 sq.ft. commercial/office/industrial/non-residential; six residential units. 6. Collaborate Level: >25 units; 25,000 square feet retail/commercial; 50,000 office/industrial. 7. 1000' requirement for wireless and personal,��ommunications facilities. 8. 300' noticing for Readerboard and Freewny Oriented signs. 9. Radius determined by Ordinance for each type of permit. � of 9 ATTACHMENT 3 Project Type 1 CC/PC/Admin. 2 General Plan Amendment - Major CC General Plan Amendment - Minor CC Zonin Amendment (>5 acres) CC Zoning Amendment (1-5 acres) CC Zonin Amendment (< 1 acre) CC Zonin Amendment - Minor CC Tentative MQ (>_ 5 arcels) CC Parcel Ma (< 5 arcels) RE Admin. Develo ment A reement CC Planned Development Permit - Major 3 . � PC/CC 5 Planned Development Permit - Minor 4 R� Admin. Conditional Use Permit - Major 3 PC/Admin.' Conditional Use Permit - Minor 4 PC/Admin.' Architectural and Site Approval �R�} - Major 3 PC Architectural and Site Approval {�9� �+� - Minor 4 � Admin. Ma�or Amendment PC/C� Yard Inter retation RG Admin. Variance/Exception - PC/CC PC/CC' Variance/Exce tion - DIR Admin. Sign Exceptions �R6 Admin./PC' Parking Exceptions Admin./DRC�R6-' Fence Exce tions DRC �- R1 Exce tions DRC RlOrdinance ermits Admin. Tree Removal Admin./PC' Recycli� Fncilities Admin./PC 8 Extensions C-�RG Admin. NOTES: 1. Projects with combined applications shnll be processed at the highest level of requirement. 2. All EIRs to be processed ut Team Up level and approved by City Council. 3. Ma jor: greater thnn 10,000 s.f. commercial/office/industrial/non-residentinl; six residential units. 4. Minor (CEQA Exempt) <, . ; 10,000 sq.ft. commercial/office/industrial non- 5. City Counci) review for projects > 50,000 s.f. commercial; 100,000 s.f. office/industrial/non- residential; 50 residentinl units. 6. Collaborate Level: greater than eqbe�-25 units; 25,000 square feet retail/commercial; 50,000 office/industrial. Min. noticing radius - 500'. 7. Approval Authority determined by relevnnt Ordinance. 8. Type of permit (DIR, ASA, CUP) determined by Ordinc►nce. 3-10 PROPOSED NOTICING POLICY ATTACHMENT 4 Proposed Noticing rndius Public Engngement Policy (AGT) 1 � (unless requiring Team Up 4 � Collaborate or Team U Collnborate � Pro ject Type p (min.; 1000 ; npproach) Advise (min. 500' � rndius noticing) radius/One City- � wide notice) iGeneral Plan Amendment - Major 3pp' 3 �ggA' ✓ - General Plnn Amendment - Minor 300' 3 �BAA' � `� Zoning Amendment (>5 acres) 300' 3 �99� � `� ``�{ Zoning Amendment (1-5 acres)4 300' 3 �ggg' ✓ ` �6 '`�4 Zoning Amendment (< 1 acre) 300' 3 �A�• � '� "� Zoning Amendment - Minor 300' ✓ Tentative Map (>_ 5 parcels) 300' 3 ✓ '� "�' �Parcel Ma (< 5 nrcels) 300' ✓ � �Development Agreement 300'3 ✓ _ ""�'�`� � '�' _ ✓ _.__ � .� _ _ � � : sPlnnned Development Permit - Major 2 300' 3 � 5 a �Planned Development Permit - Minor 4 300' ✓ � M �� Conditional Use Permit - Major b z 300' 3 �A9' '� �� ss � � "�'' Conditionnl Use Permit - Minor 6 4 300' ✓ Architecturnl and Site Approval {�C-� - Maior ? Adjncent/1000' � `� �`�� "�� Architectural and Site Approval EBRE-� EA�t+r+� - Minor 4 Adjocent ✓ Major Amendment 300' ✓ � 's - � �Ynrd Interpretation Adjacent ✓ Variance/Exception - PC/CC 300' �A9' ✓ � � �� 3Variance/Exception - DIR 300' ✓ � Sign Exceptions Ad jacent/300' e � � �Fence Exceptions Adjacent ✓ !R1 Exceptions 300' ✓ � R1 Ordinnnce permits Adjacent/300' 9 `� Tree Removal 300' ✓ Extensions None ✓ �� _..�.._.�...� NOTES: 1. Projects with combined applications shall be processed at the highest level of requirement. 2. Major > greater than , . ; 10,000 sq.ft. commercial/office/industrial non-residentinl; eigk# six residential units. 3 Noticinq radii increased as recuired by the level of enooqement determined per the Public Enqaoement Policy. 4. All EIRs to be processed at Team Up level and approved by City Council. 5. Minor (CEQA Exempt) < less than or equul to , . ; 10,000 sq.ft. commercinl/office/industrial non-residential; eigi+* six residential units. 6. Collaborate Level - greater than 25 units; 25,000 square feet retail/commercial; 50,000 office/industriai'� Min. noticing radius - 500'. 7. 1000' requirement for wireless and personal communications facilities. 8. 300' noticing for Readerbonrd and Freeway Oriented signs. 9 Radius determined bv Ordinance for ecch tYpe of vermit. 3� of 1 1