101-CC Reconsideration Report on DIR-2010-30.pdf COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 15, 2011
Subject
Reconsideration petition for a City Council denial of an appeal of an approved parking pad to be
located at a duplex located at 965-967 Miller Avenue.
Recommended Action
Conduct a hearing on a petition for reconsideration regarding the City Council’s decision on the
duplex parking pad at 965-967 Miller Avenue.
Adopt the draft resolution, Denying the Petition of Erwin Wolf seeking Council reconsideration
of its decision to approve the duplex parking pad at 965-967 Miller Avenue (See Attachment A).
Description
Petition to reconsider a City Council decision to deny an appeal of a Director’s Minor
Modification Approval to allow a parking pad in front of a duplex located at 965-967 Miller
Avenue.
Discussion
Background
The following is a summary of the various events that occurred regarding this project leading up
to the reconsideration request:
Sept. 23, 2010 Community Development Director approved the duplex parking pad with a
Director’s Minor Modification, DIR-2010-30 (Attachment B).
Oct. 5, 2010 Project approval appealed by adjacent property owner Erwin Wolf
(Attachment C).
Dec. 14, 2010 Appeal heard by Planning Commission who recommended approval of the
appeal on a 3-2-0 vote (Attachment D, E, & F).
Jan. 4, 2011 Appeal heard by City Council, who denied the appeal on a 5-0 vote
(Attachment G, H).
Jan. 18, 2011 Appellant Erwin Wolf files petition for reconsideration (Attachment I).
Basis for the Reconsideration
The City’s Municipal Code, section 2.08.096, provides procedures for interested parties to
petition the City Council to reconsider its decisions. A petition for reconsideration shall specify
in detail each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any
particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes that particular omitted ground or
grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for
reconsideration are limited to the following:
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.
The petition for reconsideration consists of one page. Reconsideration of this item constitutes
the third full hearing of this matter conducted by the City. The petitioner has made claims for
reconsideration under the above referenced criteria #5b and #5c. The City’s findings of fact on
each of these criteria are delineated below.
Finding: With respect to grounds 5b and 5c, the petitioner has not provided any proof of facts
that demonstrate the Council abused its discretion by 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.
Petition Response
The petitioner alleges that there are errors in
the City staff report:
1) Staff states there are numerous Miller
Avenue duplexes with parking in the
front setback. However, there is only
one other set of Miller Ave. duplexes
like this one with the parking in the
rear. In both cases, there are no parking
pads in the landscaped front setback.
Driveways of other duplexes are not
front setbacks. This proposed pad
would be the only one on the front
setback.
2) The assumption that no
vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle accidents
happened is that this design is safe- is
1) There are 32 duplexes that front on Miller
Avenue between Atherwood Avenue &
Bollinger Road. 28 duplexes have direct
garage access to Miller Avenue or a side
street and four duplexes have parking in the
rear. The petitioner misunderstands what a
front setback means, which is a designated
building setback from a front property line,
regardless if that front setback area is used
for landscaping, driveways or parking.
2) It is a fact that there have been no reported
accidents of vehicles backing into
pedestrians or bicyclists along this stretch
of Miller Avenue over the last 5 years.
Most single-family and two-family
residential houses in Cupertino require
wrong.
3) Duplexes with garages that front Miller
Avenue have cars that park much closer
to the garage door, leaving ample room
for safe passage. The proposed pad
with car parked therein would totally
obstruct the view of the sidewalk and of
any pedestrian or bicyclist for vehicles
exiting from the driveway.
vehicles to back into the public street.
Based on the statistics and the proposed
design, staff noted that the project didn’t
appear to create a significant safety risk.
3) At its January 4, 2011 hearing, the City
Council lengthened the parking pad by
incorporating the abutting pedestrian path,
increasing its length from 17 feet to about
21feet. The longer length meets City
standards for parking stall length. The
parking pad would not hang over the public
sidewalk. It is illegal for a parked vehicle
to park over a public sidewalk.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director;
Carol Korade, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
A. City Council draft Resolution and Exhibit 1
B. Director’s Minor Modification Approval dated Sept. 23, 2010
C. Appeal by Erwin Wolf dated Oct. 5, 2010
D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated Dec. 14, 2010
E. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of Dec. 14, 2010
F. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6619
G. City Council Staff Report dated Jan. 4, 2011
H. City Council Meeting Action Minutes of Jan. 4, 2011
I. Petition for Reconsideration filed Jan. 18, 2011