CC Resolution No. 00-095RESOLUTION NO. 00-095
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE
PETITION OF STEVEN D. HOFFMAN SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS
DETERMINATION DENYING HIS APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE
CITY MANAGER REGARDING THE USE OF A CITY PARK PARKING LOT FOR PICK-
LIP AND DELIVERY OF CHILDREN UTILIZING THE CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT DAY CARE CENTER
Whereas, the City of Cupertino owns and operates a public park known as Varian Park, including
an adjacent parking lot which serves the park; and
Whereas, the Cupertino Union School District owns and operates a school facility known as
Stevens Creek Elementary School which is adjacent to Varian Park; and
Whereas, on said school site the Cupertino Union School District through its non-profit provider,
the YMCA, operates a student day care center pursuant to the authority of section 8469 et
al. of the California Education Code which both authorizes and requires the appropriation
of space in newly modernized elementary schools for school care programs; and
Whereas, both Varian Park and the school property are served by a public street known as Varian
Way which extends from Ainsworth Drive and which dead ends into the Varian Park
parking lot; and
Whereas, many parents of children who attend the school's day care center utilize, during limited
hours the Varian Park parking lot for the purpose of dropping off and picking up their
children to and fi.om the day care center; also a small number of employees of the day
care center utilize the Varian Park parking lot for limited time parking; and
Whereas, Steven D. Hoffman is one owner of a single-family residence located at 22230 Varian
Way directly across the street fi.om the school property. To the east of Mr. Hoffman's
property is Varian Park; and
Whereas, on April 22, 1999, Mr. Hoffman requested in a letter addressed to the City's public
works director that the City take "enforcement action to stop illegal traffic and use of the
park parking lot"; and
Whereas, Public Works Director Viskovich both orally, and in writing through the City
Attorney's office, informed Mr. Hoffman that he intended to take no further action with
respect to his request; and
Whereas, pursuant to section 1.16.020 of the City's ordinance code, Mr. Hoffman appealed Mr.
Viskovich's determination to the Cupertino City Manager, Donald Brown; and
Whereas, on October 11, 1999, the City Manager denied Mr. Ho ffman's appeal in writing; and
Whereas, on October 19, 1999, Mr. Hoffinan appealed the City Manager's decision to the City
Council; and
Whereas, on November 15, 1999, the City Council heard Mr. Hoffman's appeal and continued
the appeal heating to January 3, 2000 in order to consider the written evidence presented
by Mr. Hoffman, city staff, representatives of both the Cupertino Union School District
and the YMCA as well as other members of the public; and
Whereas, the City Council after further hearing on January 3, 2000 denied Mr. Hoffman's
appeal; and
Whereas, Mr. Hoffman has requested that the council reconsider his petition under the provisions
of section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code; and
Whereas, the City Council hearing date set for February 2, 2000 to consider Mr. Hoffman's
request was continued to March 20, 2000 by mutual agreement; and
Whereas, the City Council has considered all the relevant evidence presented by the parties at all
heatings, including evidence presented at the March 20* reconsideration hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1)
Mr. Hoffman's Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's determination of
January 3, 2000 is DENIED.
2) In making its determination, the City Council adopts the following specific findings:
a) Based upon parking and traffic studies conducted by the City, the current use of
the Vadan Park parking lot by some parents as a pick-up and delivery point for children
walking to and from the day care center as well as the minimal use of the parking lot for a
small number of day care employees do not unreasonably adversely affect the availability
of adequate parking for park activities.
b) The current use by some parents in using the Varian Park parking lot as a pick-up
and delivery point for children walking to and from the day care center does not
constitute an illegal use of park property by the Cupertino Union School District or the
YMCA inasmuch as this activity is beyond the reasonable or practical control of those
agencies. Therefore, neither agency is required to apply to the City for any type of permit
for this type or level of parking at Vax/an Park. This finding does not preclude the City
requiring the School District to apply for permits to use the City's parking lot should the
intensity of use by day care employees and contractors be increased in the future.
c) The use of the park parking lot for the above-described purposes does not violate
Chapter 19.68.030E of the City's ordinance code inasmuch, parking lot facilities need
only be sufficient "as necessary for park usage." Mr. Hoffman has failed to demonstrate
that park usage has been adversely impacted in anyway by the above-described ancillary
uses.
d) While it is true that at certain times of the day, there is substantial traffic and
congestion on Varian Way, any prohibition of the use of the Varian Way parking lot for
pick-up and delivery of children to and from the day care center would create more
congestion on Varian Way directly in front of Mr. Hoffman's home and the homes of his
neighbors thereby creating more serious traffic impacts in the area.
3)
With respect to Mr. Hoffman's ten page petition for rehearing, the City Council adopts
the specific responses to the petition attached to this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 20th day of March,
2000 by the following vote:
Vote
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Bumett, Chang, James, Lowenthal, Statton
None
None
None
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk ~/ Mayor, City of Cupertino
RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR REHEARING
Allegations Response
Paragraph 1.~(I) Since the appeal to the Council involved a de-novo
City Manager's letter hearing, the City Manager's determination is moot except
miseharacterizes the insofar as it provides evidence to support the City
nature extent of use of Council's decision. The Council based upon its own
the park view of the evidence submitted properly determined the
nature and extent of use of the park.
Paragraph 1.a.(2) The City Council has relied on the testimony of its Public
The traffic studies do not Works Director Bert Viskovich in this regard, including
support the conclusion, his most recent staff report. Mr. Hoffman has not
introduced any relevant parking studies which contradict
those conducted by Mr. Viskovich. Mr. Hoffman did
present a study oftraffc volumes along Vax/an Way.
However, the issue is the availability of parking for
park usage and not general traffic along a public street.
Paragraph 1.a.(3) See the testimony and report of Bert Viskovich to the
The facts do not supportcontrary.
the conclusion that the
day care center does not
adversely affect the
availability of the parking
lot for park activities.
Paragraph 1.a~(4) See findings b and c of this Resolution.
Municipal Code Section
19.68.030E together with
other provisions do not
allow such parking by the
District without an
application nor does it
stand for the proposition
that parking facilities
need only be sufficient to
serve the park.
Paragraph 1.b.(2)
a) Besides pick-up and Other than a few parking stalls used by some day care
delivery of children, staff, there has been presented no evidence of other usage.
some of the parking lot is The City Council fmds that a small number of staff using
used for other day care the parking lot is de minimis. (See fmding b in the
center purposes. Resolution)
b) The parking lot is See above response
used for day care
purposes other than pick-
up and delivery of
;tudents.
c) The City has not This is a hue statement. The City has no plans to attempt
attempted to stop parents to stop parents from dropping off and picking up children
from temporarily parkingto and from the day care center by parking in the park
in the park parking lot parking lot. No alternatives, public hearings, or
nor have there been applications by the District are required.
presented any
alternatives, no public
hearings have been held,
or any application filed
by the District.
d) The existing Joint Use The City Council disagrees with this statement; however,
and Maintenance more importantly, the statement is irrelevant since the
Agreement between the City Council did not use this evidence as a basis for its
City and the District decision.
recognizes the day care
center, it does not
specifically recognize the
use of the park parking
'lot. Therefore,
prohibiting parent
parking does not violate
the "spirit" oftha
agreement.
Paragraph 2.a. City staff have reviewed alternatives with respect to both
The City has refused to parking and the traffic congestion on Varian Way and
consider alternatives have concluded that, at the present time, no change in the
which would mitigate thepresent parking situation is warranted. The City Council
effects complained of byagrees with staff determination.
Petitioner.
3
Paragraph 3.a None is required.
There is no application (see finding b of the City Council Resolution)
by the School District to
use the park parking lot
m connection with the
day care use.
Paragraph 3.c Incorporation of responses
Incorporation of facts and
reasons
Paragraph 4 Petitioner has had abundant time. The first hearing by the
Petitioner was not City Manager was scheduled on August 17, 1999, but was
provided sufficient timerescheduled to September 2, 1999, at Petitioner's request.
to fully explain or submit At the said hearing, Petitioner submitted a bound volume
facts concerning the containing approximately fifty pages of material. At the
appeal, appeal hearing, by the City Council on November 15,
1999, Petitioner submitted the same volume plus other
documents. The hearing was continued to January 3,
2000 to allow Petitioner to submit other documents.
As part of his rehearing petition, Petitioner had the
opportunity to submit additional evidence, but did not do
so. Petitioner was given substantial time to explain or
mbmit facts to the City Council. In addition, Petitioner
has failed to inform the City Council of what specific
evidence he now wishes to introduce which he could not
have introduced at earlier proceedings.
Paragraph 4.b Petitioner fails to state specifically what rule or regulation
The City failed to abidewas not followed by the City concerning the Petitioner's
by and allow Petitioner to appeal.
comply with its own
procedure.
Paragraph 4.c No such application is required.
The City aceapted
evidence on continuation
of day care use of the
parking lot without
application for
permission to use it by
the YMCA or the
District.
5
Paragraph 4.i The City Council disagrees with the assertion that the
The City ignored the fact District attempted to "circumvent the law."
that the District
attempted to circumvent
the law and failed to
apply to the City for
permission and therefore
the District has "unclean
Paragraph 4.j The City Council disagrees. See this Resolution.
The Council failed to
fred whether there was a
violation law and failed
to set forth findings of
fact or eonclusious of
law.
Paragraph 4.k Petitioner fails to specify what evidence was not made
The City failed to available to him. Petitioner fails to establish that at any
provide Petitioner with previous hearing, he requested any additional information
all of the evidence or requested additional time to respond to any such
submitted or considered evidence.
and failed to allow
Petitioner to address such
facts and evidence.
Paragraph 4.1 This assertion is not germane to Petitioner's appeal.
Facts were presented Violations of park rules are prosecuted by the City in the
showing improper use of normal course of its code enforcement program.
the park well after dark
and as late as midnight
and beyond Monday and
Friday, in violation of
park's roles.
Paragraph 4.m No rebuttal was requested by either Petitioner or his
No time was allowed for attorney.
rebuttal to the remarks of
Charles Corr.
Paragraph 8 Irrelevant to this proceeding.
The City ignored the
evidence that the District
previously promised to
give the neighbors notice
and opportunity to be
heard prior to installing, a
second day care building,
but failed to do so.
Paragraph 9 Petitioner fails to specify the basis for this assertion.
The City's ruling violates
the equal protection
clause of the state and
federal constitution,
Paragraph 10 Petitioner has cited no legal authority for this novel
The City's ruling violates theory.
due process because it
constitutes a "taking" of
Petitioner's property.
Paragraph 11 To determine the validity of the City appeal, the City
The City ignored the Council is not required to make a f'mding one way or the
issue of whether there other regarding these assertions.
would have been any
available alternatives had
the District applied for a
permit ....
Paragraph 12 See prior responses.
The City Municipal Code
has been dearly violated.
Paragraph 13 See prior responses.
Each ground for denial is
not supported.
Paragraph 14 In the context of this appeal, the Petitioner has the burden
Petitioner does not haveof proving his assertions.
the burden of proof to
establish the City's
obligation.
9