No preview available
CC 08-18-2020 Item No. 12 Petition for Reconsideration RM-2017-39_Staff PresentationAugust 18, 2020 Petition for Reconsideration RM-2017-39 CC 08-18-2020 Item No. 12 Project Description ●Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council decision on April 21, 2020 to deny an appeal and uphold the approval of a Minor Residential Permit (RM-2017-39) to allow a second-story balcony. Vicinity Map Subject Property: 21865 San Fernando Ave. Appellants: 21875 & 21861 San Fernando Ave. Grounds for Reconsideration Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 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 preceding 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. Petition Staff Response Original project proposal was previously excluded from staff report. Original project proposal does not constitute relevant evidence for the appeal as it was not approved by the City. Correspondence as evidence provided (see petition and staff report). No new evidence provided as this correspondence was presented and considered at previous City hearings. Excerpts from City of Cupertino General Plan provided (see petition and staff report). No explanation provided for: (1) how this evidence is relevant to project and (2) why this evidence could not have been produced at a previous City hearing. Basis for Reconsideration # 1 An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. Basis for Reconsideration #1- City Finding ●The petitioners have offered no new relevant evidence that could not have been produced at any earlier City hearing. Petition Staff Response Evidence provided, listed in the Petition and staff report, was not addressed. No relevant evidence provided that was excluded from any public hearing as all evidence was either submitted by staff or petitioners to Planning Commission and City Council. The hearing bodies discussed evidence presented, made modifications to project, and determined that project meets the findings of the R-1 Ordinance. Basis for Reconsideration # 2 An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. Basis for Reconsideration #2- City Finding ●The petitioners have offered no relevant evidence that was improperly excluded at any prior City meeting, nor have the petitioners proven that evidence was previously excluded by City Council. Petition Staff Response Staff made false and misleading comments about project events; and City Council was asked to read staff’s draft resolution, which impacted their decisions. Materials presented to Council provided a factual account of the project. Furthermore, Council heard and considered presentations from all parties before making a decision. Staff and City Council were not aware of approved balcony width. Only depth of balcony was included in Council’s motion to modify project. Basis for Reconsideration #3 Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. Petition Staff Response City Council appeal hearing had a court feeling and property owner/applicant were supported by City. The appeal hearing was conducted in manner required by the Municipal Code. City did not provide evidence on how the design: (1) fits with the General Plan, (2) is harmonious with the general neighborhood and (3) meets the requirements of the guidelines. All issues were addressed in staff reports and resolutions presented to City Council and Planning Commission. Approval bodies considered all evidence prior to denying the appeal. Basis for Reconsideration #3 Continued Basis for Reconsideration #3- City Finding ●The petitioners have not provided any proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. Petition Staff Response Majority of the hearing time was spent researching and clarifying City Council’s authority to change the plans, which did not leave time for evaluation of the project. Hearing conducted in manner required by law. City Attorney clarified Council’s discretion and Council deliberated on project’s potential impacts, made amendments to project, and rendered decision. Basis for Reconsideration #4 Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a)Not preceding 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 Petition Staff Response Staff’s personal opinions were involved by saying that the residential addition will not become a short-term rental. Report did not state whether or not the addition would become an STR unit in the future. It clarified that City currently has regulations regarding STR activities and is in the process of adopting an STR Ordinance. Petitioners were unable to provide further explanation, defend, or clarify information at City Council appeal hearing. Appellants and applicants were permitted 10 minutes to address the Council, consistent with the City’s procedures for public hearings. Mayor also allowed petitioner Cindy Fang an additional 3 minutes to respond and provide clarification. Basis for Reconsideration # 4 Continued Basis for Reconsideration #4- City Finding ●The petitioners have not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council abused its discretion by not preceding in a manner required by law, 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. Conclusion ●The Petition for Reconsideration does not meet the requirements of the Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 Recommendation That the City Council: ●Deny the Petition for Reconsideration; and ●Uphold the April 21, 2020 City Council decision August 18, 2020 Reconsideration Hearing RM-2017-39 Project Description ●Reconsideration Hearing of the City Council decision on April 21, 2020 to deny an appeal and uphold the approval of a Minor Residential Permit (RM -2017-39) to allow a second-story balcony. Vicinity Map Subject Property: 21865 San Fernando Ave. Appellants: 21875 & 21861 San Fernando Ave. Project Timeline 11/11/17 2/21/18 5/1/19 –5/15/19 6/24/19 6/25/19 7/10/19 11/12/19 11/26/19 4/21/20 5/4/20Planning Staff receives letter of opposition Project Timeline 11/11/17 2/21/18 5/1/19 –5/15/19 6/24/19 6/25/19 7/10/19 11/12/19 11/26/19 4/21/20 5/4/20 Applicant Submits 1st Major Project Revisions Project Timeline 11/11/17 2/21/18 5/1/19 –5/15/19 6/24/19 6/25/19 7/10/19 11/12/19 11/26/19 4/21/20 5/4/20Project Comment Period Project Timeline 11/11/17 2/21/18 5/1/19 –5/15/19 6/24/19 6/25/19 7/10/19 11/12/19 11/26/19 4/21/20 5/4/20 Applicant submits second major project revisions Project Timeline 11/11/17 2/21/18 5/1/19 –5/15/19 6/24/19 6/25/19 7/10/19 11/12/19 11/26/19 4/21/20 5/4/20Director approves project per R-1 Ordinance Project Timeline 11/11/17 2/21/18 5/1/19 –5/15/19 6/24/19 6/25/19 7/10/19 11/12/19 11/26/19 4/21/20 5/4/20 Appeal filed to PC for R-2017-33 & RM-2017-39 Project Timeline 11/11/17 2/21/18 5/1/19 –5/15/19 6/24/19 6/25/19 7/10/19 11/12/19 11/26/19 4/21/20 5/4/20PC denies the appeal & upholds the Director’s decision Project Timeline 11/11/17 2/21/18 5/1/19 –5/15/19 6/24/19 6/25/19 7/10/19 11/12/19 11/26/19 4/21/20 5/4/20 Appeal filed to CC for RM-2017-39 Project Timeline 11/11/17 2/21/18 5/1/19 –5/15/19 6/24/19 6/25/19 7/10/19 11/12/19 11/26/19 4/21/20 5/4/20CC denies the appeal & upholds PC’s decision Project Timeline 11/11/17 2/21/18 5/1/19 –5/15/19 6/24/19 6/25/19 7/10/19 11/12/19 11/26/19 4/21/20 5/4/20 Petition for Reconsideration filed for RM-2017-39 Project Timeline 11/11/17 2/21/18 5/1/19 –5/15/19 6/24/19 6/25/19 7/10/19 11/12/19 11/26/19 4/21/20 5/4/20 8/18/20 CC Reconsideration Hearing Project Appeal Hearings Planning Commission –November 12, 2019 ●Project met all CMC Section 19.28.140(A ) findings ●Additional Conditions: ●Alternative privacy plantings &48” balcony railing City Council –April 21, 2020 ●Project met all CMC Section 19.28.140(A) findings ●Additional Condition: ●Balcony depth reduced to 12’ Recommendation That the City Council: ●Deny the Petition for Reconsideration; and ●Uphold the April 21, 2020 City Council decision