This chapter provides procedures for securing revocation or modification of previously approved permits and entitlements.

(Ord. 2043 § 1(part), 2004; Ord. No. 2293, § 1(Exh. B), 5-2-2023)

A.

Notice of noncompliance. The community development director may issue a notice of noncompliance for any failure to comply with a condition of a permit or for failure to comply with any code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute of the city, State, or Federal governments, or if the use creates a nuisance.

B.

Failure to comply with notice. If the noncompliance or nuisance is not abated, corrected, or rectified, in compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 6.10 (Nuisance Abatement and Property Maintenance Regulations) within the time specified in the notice, the community development director may set a date for a public hearing.

C.

Appropriate decision-making body. The decision-making body that originally approved the permit may hold a public hearing to revoke or modify any permit granted in compliance with the provisions of this Zoning Code.

D.

Ten days before hearing. Notice shall be delivered in writing to the applicant and owner of the property for which the permit was granted at least ten days before the public hearing.

E.

Deemed delivered. Notice shall be deemed delivered two days after being mailed, first class, to the owner as shown on the last equalized assessment roll adopted by the County of Santa Clara and to the project applicant, where the applicant is not the owner of the subject property.

F.

Stay on further approvals. Should the community development director convene a public hearing pursuant to this chapter for a property located within an overlay combining zoning district subject to a master use permit authorized by section 21.14.030.C (Master use permit), no further land use approvals shall be granted until all proceedings under this chapter have concluded or the instigating violation has been resolved.

(Ord. 2043 § 1(part), 2004).

(Ord. No. 2213, § 22, 11-1-2016)

A permit may be revoked by the decision-making body that originally approved the permit, or the decision-making body currently authorized to grant such a permit, if any one of the following findings can be made:

A.

Circumstances under which the permit was granted have been changed by the city or applicant to a degree that one or more of the findings contained in the original permit can no longer be made in a positive manner, and/or the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or welfare require the revocation;

B.

The permit was issued, in whole or in part, on the basis of a misrepresentation or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit;

C.

One or more of the conditions of the permit have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated;

D.

The improvement authorized in compliance with the permit is in violation of a code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute of the city, State, or Federal governments; or

E.

The improvement or use allowed by the permit has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance, as determined by the decision-making body.

(Ord. 2043 § 1(part), 2004; Ord. No. 2293, § 1(Exh. B), 5-2-2023)

A.

Effect of Modification.

1.

The city's action to modify a permit, rather then to revoke it, shall have the effect of changing the operational aspects of the permit.

2.

The changes may include the operational aspects related to buffers, duration of the permit, hours of operation, landscaping and maintenance, lighting, noise, odors, parking, performance guarantees, property maintenance, signs, surfacing, traffic circulation, and similar aspects.

B.

Required findings. A land use permit and any of its conditions of approval may be modified by the decision-making body that originally approved the permit, without the consent of the property owner or operator, if the decision-making body first determines that:

1.

Circumstances under which the permit was granted have been changed by the applicant to a degree that one or more of the findings contained in the original permit can no longer be made in a positive manner, and the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or welfare require the modification;

2.

The permit was issued, in whole or in part, on the basis of a misrepresentation or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit;

3.

One or more of the conditions of the permit have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated;

4.

The improvement authorized in compliance with the permit is in violation of a code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute of the city, State, or Federal governments; or

5.

The improvement or use allowed by the permit has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance, as determined by the decision-making body.

(Ord. 2043 § 1(part), 2004)

A variance may be revoked or modified by the decision-making body which originally approved the application, if any one of the following findings can be made.

A.

Findings for revocation.

1.

Special circumstances applicable to the property upon which the variance was granted have been changed by the applicant to a degree that one or more of the findings contained in the original approval can no longer be made in a positive manner, and the grantee has not substantially exercised the rights granted by the approval;

2.

The variance was issued, in whole or in part, on the basis of a misrepresentation or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the Variance; or

3.

One or more of the conditions of the variance have not been met, or have been violated, and the grantee has not substantially exercised the rights granted by the approval.

B.

Findings for modification.

1.

Special circumstances applicable to the property upon which the variance was granted have been changed by the applicant to a degree that one or more of the findings contained in the original approval can no longer be made in a positive manner, and the grantee has substantially exercised the rights granted by the approval;

2.

One or more of the conditions of the variance have not been met, or have been violated, and the grantee has substantially exercised the rights granted by the approval; or

3.

The conditions of approval are found to be inadequate to mitigate the impacts of the project allowed by the variance.

(Ord. 2043 § 1 (part), 2004).