Loading...
CC Resolution No. 11-021 Deny Petition of Erwin Wolf, Reconsideration of Appeal of DIR-2010-30, Modification to Allow Parking Pad at 965-967 Miller Avenue RESOLUTION NO. 11 -021 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF ERWIN WOLF SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF DIR- 2010 -30, A DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A PARKING PAD IN FRONT OF A DUPLEX AT 965 -967 MILLER AVENUE WHEREAS, on January 4, 2011, the Cupertino City Council received a staff report and recommendation to deny an appeal of a Director's Minor Modification approval of a parking pad in front of an existing duplex at 965 -967 Miller Avenue. WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council held a public hearing and at the conclusion of the hearing denied the appeal filed by Erwin Wolf on a 5 -0 vote at its meeting of January 4, 2011 WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council's decision was within its discretion and made at a properly noticed public meeting. WHEREAS, Erwin Wolf requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's municipal code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the February 15, 2011 reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The petitioners' Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer proof of facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096. 2. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by denying the appeal of a Director's approval (file no. DIR- 2010 -30) of a parking pad for an existing duplex at 965 -967 Miller Avenue. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096(B)(5).) Specifically, the City Council determines that: a. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact attached as Exhibit 1. b. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 3. The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision of January 4, 2011 on item 10 is DENIED, thereby affirming the original decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15 day of February, 2011 by the following vote: Resolution No. 11 -021 Vote Members of the City Council AYES: Wong, Santoro, Chang, Mahoney, Wang NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: APPROVED: j i 1- 7 City Clerk Mayor, City of Cuperti Resolution No. 11 -021 EXHIBIT 1 CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states: "A petition for reconsideration shall specify in detail each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a) Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and /or b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and /or c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence." Original Petition The petition for reconsideration consists of one page. Reconsideration of this item constitutes the third full hearing of this matter conducted by the City. The petitioner has made claims for reconsideration under the above referenced criteria #5b and #5c. The City's findings of fact on each of these criteria are set forth below. Finding: With respect to grounds 5b and 5c, the petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council abused its discretion by rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact, or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Petition Response The petitioner alleges that there are errors 1) There are 32 duplexes that front on Miller in the City staff report: Avenue between Atherwood Avenue & 1) Staff states there are numerous Miller Bollinger Road. 28 duplexes have direct Avenue duplexes with parking in the garage access to Miller Avenue or a side front setback. However, there is only street and four duplexes have parking in the one other set of Miller Ave. duplexes rear. The petitioner misunderstands what a like this one with the parking in the front setback means, which is a designated rear. In both cases, there are no parking building setback from a front property line, pads in the landscaped front setback. regardless if that front setback area is used Driveways of other duplexes are not for landscaping, driveways or parking. Resolution No. 11 -021 front setbacks. This proposed pad 2) It is a fact that there have been no reported would be the only one on the front accidents of vehicles backing into setback. pedestrians or bicyclists along this stretch 2) The assumption that no of Miller Avenue over the last 5 years. vehicle /pedestrian/bicycle accidents Most single - family and two - family happened is that this design is safe- is residential houses in Cupertino require wrong. vehicles to back into the public street. 3) Duplexes with garages that front Miller Based on the statistics and typical designs, Avenue have cars that park much closer staff noted that the project didn't appear to to the garage door, leaving ample room create a significant safety risk. for safe passage. The proposed pad 3) At its January 4, 2011 hearing, the City with car parked therein would totally Council lengthened the parking pad by obstruct the view of the sidewalk and of incorporating the abutting pedestrian path, any pedestrian or bicyclist for vehicles increasing its length from 17 feet to about exiting from the driveway. 21 feet. The longer length meets City standards for parking stall length. The parking pad would not hang over the public sidewalk. It is illegal for a parked vehicle to Bark over a . ublic sidewalk.