CC Resolution No. 07-075
RESOLUTION NO. 07-075
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING
THE PETITION OF SU-JANE HAN SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF
ITS DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. TM-2006-12 AND V-2007-01, A TENTATIVE
MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A.46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO PARCELS OF 9,685 SQUARE
FEET AND 9,686 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A R!-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT
AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH, INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 60-FOOT WIDTH, FOR THE TWO PROPOSED PARCELS
Whereas, Application TM-2006-12 and V-2007-01, a tentative map to subdivide a.46 acre lot
into two parcels of9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively in a R!-7.5 zoning
district and a variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the
two proposed parcels was denied by the Planning Commission on January 23,2007; and
Whereas, the Applicant Sue-Jane Han's appeal ofthePlanning Commission decision to the City
Council on February 20,2007 was denied; and
Whereas, Sue-Jane Han has requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the
provisions of section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code; and
Whereas, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all
hearings, including evidence presented at the May I, 2007 reconsideration hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
I. The petitioner's 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 petitioner has made no offer of new relevant evidence that, in the exercise of
reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. (See Municipal
Code S 2.08.096B( I).)
3. The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioners at any prior
city hearing. (See Municipal Code S 2.08.096B(2).)
4. The City Council has proceeded entirely within its jurisdiction regarding the application
for a use permit. (See Municipal Code S 2.08.096B(3).)
5. The petitioner has failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a
fair hearing. (See Municipal Code S 2.08.096B(4).)
6. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion
regarding the application. (See Municipal Code ~ 2.08.096B(5).) Specifically, the City Council
determines that:
a. The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law.
b. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact.
c. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by
substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.
Resolution No. 07-075
2
7. The specific allegations contained in the petition for reconsideration are refuted by
specific City Council findings, as follows:
Petition Findin2
The City Council abused its discretion by Evidence offered by the Applicant was
rendering a decision in which the considered by the Council, but did not meet
findings of fact were not supported by burden required by ordinance to create
the evidence in that" we presented the substandard width lots.
evidence that the traditional subdivision
(side-by-side) was in fact consistent with
the overall neighborhood because the
substandard lot width is the predominate
pattern in the Monta Vista area. Weare
not really introducing a new pattern to
the neighborhood. Two Council members
ignored the evidence and proceeded with
their decisions without considering the
facts that were presented."
"We were not aware that one of the As long as there is a quorum, the number of
council members was absent prior to the council members present, is irreleyant.
meeting. No one had informed us that we
had a right to ask that our case be
reviewed at the next meeting when there
is full chamber."
"The City recently approved a similar Against side-by-side subdivision: Applicant
project located on McClellan Road did not meet burden for the granting of a
although the adjacent neighbors were all variance. No extraordinary conditions exist,
in flag lots. The City cited the general denial will not cause unnecessary hardship.
plan policy' A flag lot is created only
when there is no alternative.' It's clearly
stated the flag lots are less desirable and
discouraged. The City has insisted that
the property should be subdivided the
middle despite it creates a substandard
lot width. In our case, the City Council
made an inconsistent interpretation and
didn't follow the intent and spirit of
general plan policy."
8. The petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's determination of
February 20, 2007 is DENIED.
Resolution No. 07-075
3
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this I st day of May 2007, by the following vote:
Vote
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST
Members of the City Council
Wang, K wok, Mahoney
Lowenthal and Sandoval
None
None
~~
City Clerk
APPROVED: