CC Resolution No. 05-135
RESOLUTION NO. 05-135
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE
PETITION OF GREGG BUNKER SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS
DETERMINATION DENYING HIS APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. M-2005-0l AND MODIFICATION A CONDITION OF
APPROVAL AND COUNCIL'S FURTHER MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITION
Whereas, applicant Gregg BW1ker is the owner of real property located atl375 South De Anza
Blvd., Cupertino, California, commonly known as the "Wolf Camera" site; and
Whereas, there is an existing easement on the subject property in favor of an adjoining property
owned by the Yamagami Trust for "ingress, egress and parking;" and
Whereas, on July 14,2003, the Planning Commission approved six new condominium units
toward the rear of the project site and approximately 1,825 square feet of new retail space on the
existing Wolf Camera building (U-2003-03); and
Whereas, one of the conditions (Condition #13) of the project required the applicant to stripe 20
stalls on the adjacent commercial property (Yamagami Nursery) to address the incidental parking
rights claimed by the adjacent property owner (Yamagami Trust); and
Whereas, at the Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 2005 and April 26, 2005, the
applicant requested that this condition be deleted; and
Whereas, instead of deleting the condition, the Commission modified the condition by deleting
the requirement to pave the extra 20 parking stalls and instead required the applicant to work
with the adjacent commercial property owner to clarify the parking easement language by
obtaining a written confirmation from the Yamagami Trust (or representatives thereof) that they
have no objections to the project as planned, specifically relating to incidental parking rights.
Whereas, on June 7, 2005, the applicant appealed the Commission's decision to the City
Council; and
Whereas, the City Council considered and denied the applicant's appeal and further modified
condition #13 to the following:
A building permit will not be issued on the rear site unless the applicant meets one of these
conditions:
(1) Has an agreement with the neighboring property owner regarding the location of the
easements; or
(2) Provides the city a judgment from a court saying there is no easement in favor of the
neighboring property on the back parcel; or
(3) Presents the city with a written policy of title insurance by a reputable title company in
an amount determined by the City Attorney to be adequate to insure the city that there is
no easement; and
Whereas, Mr. Bunker has requested that the City Council reconsider his petition under the
provisions of section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code; and
Resolution No. 05-135
2
Whereas, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all
hearings, including evidence presented at the August 16, 2005, reconsideration hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The applicant'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 applicant 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 § 2.08.096B(I).)
3. The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the applicant at any prior
city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(2).)
4. The City Council has proceeded entirely within its jurisdiction regarding the application
for modification ofthe conditional use permit. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(3).)
5. The applicant has failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a
fair hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(4).)
6. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the City the City Council abused its
discretion regarding the application for modification of the conditional use permit. (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 off act in that the modification of
condition # 13 requiring that the applicant obtain an agreement from the neighboring property
owner, a judgment of Quiet Title, or a policy of title insuring the City regarding the effect of a
parking easement encumbering his property is necessary to avoid detriment and injury to the
neighboring property, and is necessary to avoid detriment to the public health, safety and
welfare. (See Municipal Code § 19.124.070.)
c. The findings off act related to the City Council's decision were supported by
substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.
7. The specific allegations contained in the applicant's petition for reconsideration are
refuted by specific City Council findings which are attached to this resolution and incorporated
herein.
8. The applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's determination of June
7,2005 is DENIED
Resolution No. 05-135
3
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this
16th day of August 2005, by the following vote:
Vote
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Lowenthal, Sandoval, Wang, James
None
Kwok
None
Ci~~
APPRt
j~,
ATTEST