Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
102-A. City Council Draft Resolution & Exhibit 1.pdf
ATTACHMENTA RESOLUTIONNO. 11-___ ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOF THECITYOFCUPERTINO DENYING THEPETITIONOF ERWINWOLFSEEKINGCOUNCILRECONSIDERATION OFITSDECISION TODENYANAPPEALOFDIR-2010-30,ADIRECTOR’SMINOR MODIFICATIONTOALLOWAPARKINGPADINFRONTOFADUPLEXAT 965-967 MILLERAVENUE WHEREAS, onJanuary 4, 2011, theCupertinoCityCouncilreceiveda staffreportand recommendationto denyanappeal ofaDirector’s Minor Modificationapproval ofa parking padinfront ofanexisting duplexat 965-967 MillerAvenue. WHEREAS,theCupertinoCityCouncil helda public hearingandattheconclusion ofthe hearing deniedtheappealfiledby ErwinWolf on a 5-0 voteatitsmeetingofJanuary 4, 2011 . WHEREAS,theCupertinoCityCouncil'sdecisionwaswithinits discretionandmadeat a properly noticed publicmeeting. WHEREAS, ErwinWolfrequestedthattheCityCouncilreconsiderits decision underthe provisions ofSection 2.08.096 oftheCity'smunicipalcode;and WHEREAS,theCityCouncil hasconsideredallrelevantevidencepresentedbythe partiesatall hearings,includingevidencepresentedattheFebruary 15, 2011reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE,ITISHEREBYRESOLVEDASFOLLOWS: 1.The petitioners'ReconsiderationPetitionis defective on itsfaceinthatit does not offer proof offactsasrequiredby MunicipalCodeSection 2.08.096. 2.The petitioners havefailedto demonstratethattheCityCouncilabusedits discretion by denyingtheappeal ofaDirector’sapproval(file no. DIR-2010-30) ofaparkingpad foranexisting duplexat 965-967 MillerAvenue.(See MunicipalCode § 2.08.096(B)(5).) Specifically,theCityCouncil determinesthat: a.TheCityCouncil'sdecisionis supportedbyfindings offactattachedas Exhibit 1. b.ThefindingsoffactrelatedtotheCityCouncil'sdecisionwere supportedby substantialevidenceintherecord of proceedings. 3.The petitioners'PetitionforReconsideration oftheCityCouncil's decision ofJanuary 4, 2011 on item __ isDENIED,therebyaffirmingthe original decision. PASSEDANDADOPTEDataregularmeeting oftheCityCouncil oftheCity of th Cupertinothis 15 dayofFebruary 2011, bythefollowing vote: VoteMembers oftheCityCouncil AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ___________________________________________ CityClerkMayor,City ofCupertino EXHIBIT 1 CITYCOUNCILFINDINGS INRESPONSETOPETITIONFORRECONSIDERATION Cupertino MunicipalCode section 2.08.096 states: “A petitionforreconsideration shall specifyin detaileachandeverygroundforreconsideration. Failureofa petitionto specifyanyparticularground or groundsforreconsideration precludes that particular omittedground or groundsfrom beingraised orlitigatedinasubsequentjudicial proceeding. The groundsforreconsiderationarelimitedtothefollowing: 1)An offer of newrelevantevidencewhich,intheexercise ofreasonable diligence,could not have beenproducedatanyearliercityhearing. 2)An offer ofrelevantevidencewhichwasimproperlyexcludedatany priorcity hearing. 3)Proof offactswhich demonstratethattheCityCouncil proceededwithout, orinexcess of itsjurisdiction. 4)Proof offactswhich demonstratethattheCityCouncilfailedto provideafair hearing. 5)Proof offactswhich demonstratethattheCityCouncilabusedits discretionby: a)Not proceedinginamannerrequiredbylaw;and/or b)Renderinga decisionwhichwas not supportedbyfindings offact;and/or c)Renderinga decisioninwhichthefindingsoffactwere not supportedbythe evidence.” OriginalPetition The petitionforreconsiderationconsists of one page.Reconsideration ofthisitemconstitutes thethirdfull hearing ofthismatterconductedbytheCity. Thepetitioner hasmadeclaimsfor reconsideration undertheabovereferencedcriteria #5b and #5c. TheCity’sfindings offact on each ofthesecriteriaaresetforth below. Finding:Withrespecttogrounds 5band 5c,thepetitioner has not providedanyproof of factsthat demonstratetheCouncilabusedits discretionbyrenderinga decisionwhichwas not supportedbyfindings offact, orrenderingadecisioninwhichthefindings offactwere not supportedbytheevidence. PetitionResponse The petitionerallegesthatthereareerrors1) Thereare 32 duplexesthatfront on Miller intheCity staffreport: Avenue betweenAtherwoodAvenue& 1)Staff statesthereare numerous MillerBollingerRoad. 28 duplexes have direct Avenue duplexeswith parkinginthe garageaccessto MillerAvenue ora side front setback.However,thereis onlystreetandfour duplexes have parkinginthe one other set of MillerAve. duplexes rear. The petitionermisunderstandswhata likethis onewiththe parkinginthefront setbackmeans,whichisa designated rear.In bothcases,thereare no parking building setbackfromafront propertyline, padsinthelandscapedfront setback.regardlessifthatfront setbackareais used Drivewaysof other duplexesare notforlandscaping,driveways orparking. front setbacks. This proposed pad2)Itisafactthatthere have been no reported accidents ofvehicles backinginto would bethe only one onthefront setback.pedestrians or bicyclistsalongthis stretch 2)Theassumptionthat no of MillerAvenue overthelast 5years. vehicle/pedestrian/bicycleaccidentsMost single-familyandtwo-family happenedisthatthis designis safe-isresidential housesinCupertinorequire wrong.vehiclesto backintothepublic street. 3)Duplexeswithgaragesthatfront MillerBased on the statisticsandtypicaldesigns, Avenue havecarsthat parkmuchcloserstaff notedthatthe project didn’tappearto tothegarage door,leavingampleroomcreatea significant safetyrisk. for safe passage. The proposed pad3)AtitsJanuary 4, 2011 hearing,theCity withcar parkedthereinwouldtotallyCouncillengthenedtheparkingpadby obstructthe view ofthesidewalkand ofincorporatingtheabutting pedestrian path, anypedestrianor bicyclistfor vehiclesincreasingitslengthfrom 17 feettoabout exitingfromthe driveway.21feet. ThelongerlengthmeetsCity standardsforparking stalllength. The parkingpadwould not hang overthe public sidewalk.Itisillegalfora parkedvehicle to park overa public sidewalk.