CC 03-21-2023 Item No. 7. Petition for Reconsideration Sign Exception_ Updated Staff Presentation20565 Valley Green Drive
Sign Exception
EXC-2022-003
Subject
●Consider petition for reconsideration
regarding the City Council decision of
February 7, 2023, to uphold the appeal of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6962
in part, approve one of the two requested
freeway-oriented signs, and deny the
requested sign exception.
●Applicant: David Ford (All Sign Services)
●Petitioner: Rhoda Fry
Background
●Council on February 7, 2023 upheld the
appeal of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 6962 in part, approved one of the two
requested freeway-oriented signs, and
denied the requested sign exception.
●On February 17, 2023 Rhoda Fry submitted a
Petition for Reconsideration for Council’s
decision.
City Council Reconsideration
●CMC Section 2.08.096 authorizes any interested person to
petition the City Council to reconsider any adjudicatory
decision made by the Council.
●A petition for reconsideration must “specify, in detail,
each ground for reconsideration.” (CMC §2.08.096(B).)
Grounds 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.
●Petitioner cites a Public Storage blog post, without
explaining why post is relevant to interpretation of Sign
Ordinance.
●Staff recommends denying reconsideration on this
ground as:
●Presents arguments and evidence that were available at time
of Planning Commission and City Council hearings; and
●Offers no explanation as to why such evidence could not
have been introduced at time of those hearings.
Grounds for Reconsideration -2
An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly
excluded at any prior city hearing.
●Petitioner argues that evidence was improperly excluded
from hearing, citing various evidence that was allegedly
not presented to Council.
●Staff recommends denying reconsideration on this
ground as:
●No evidence was excluded from the hearing.
●The failure of an interested party to submit
evidence that could have been produced at prior
hearing is not a basis for reconsideration.
Grounds for Reconsideration -3
Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council
proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction.
●Petitioner argues that City Council proceeded without or in
excess of its jurisdiction, citing an undefined “validation
from Caltrans.”
●Staff recommends denying reconsideration on this ground
as Council has jurisdiction to review the Planning
Commission’s decision and affirm, modify, or reverse it.
Grounds for Reconsideration -4
Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed
to provide a fair hearing.
●Petitioner argues that Council failed to provide a fair
hearing, citing discussion of the Sign Ordinance by City
staff.
●Staff recommends denying reconsideration on this ground
as there is no evidence that any interested party:
●Was deprived of opportunity to present evidence; or
●The hearing did not meet standards of procedural
fairness, including notice and an opportunity to be
heard.
Grounds for Reconsideration -5
Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City
Council abused its discretion by:
-Not preceding in a manner required by law;
and/or
-Rendering a decision which was not
supported by findings of fact; and/or
-Rendering a decision in which the findings of
fact were not supported by the evidence.
Grounds for Reconsideration -5
(cont.)
●Petitioner argues that Council abused its discretion
because a Councilmember compared the Public
Storage sign to the Cupertino Hotel sign.
●Staff recommends denying reconsideration on this
ground as petition does not explain why this comparison
undermines constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Staff Report -Errata
Revision to Staff Report, Page 2, Paragraph 4:
First, the petition argues that reconsideration is warranted
because there is no relevant evidence, which, in the
exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been
produced at any earlier City hearing….
Recommended Action
That the City Council conduct a public
hearing and adopt Resolution No.23-
XXXX (Attachment A)denying the
petition for reconsideration.