Exhibit CC 02-15-2011 Item No. 16 Reconsideration of Denial of Appeal of Director's Approval, DIR-2010-30 c.0 . 2115
v: ),(1,.1 1 FAH --,----;„
_ „ .. ,. E. ..,,,,,, a I _ r i k — „\V„
PAZ i
'% A I c N
CUPER
Reconsideration of Denial of Appeal of
Director's Approval, DIR- 2010 -30
Petitioner: Irwin Wolf
Applicant: Linda Shen -Jung
Project Location: 965 -967 Miller Avenue
Project Scope:
Replacement of an 11 foot by 17 foot turf area with
pervious stone pavers in the front setback of an existing
duplex for additional parking & improved vehicle
maneuverability
Sep. 23, 2010 - Project approved by Com. Development Director
Oct. 5, 2010 - Project appealed
Dec. 14, 2010 - Planning Commission recommended approval
of the appeal (3-2-0)
Jan. 4, 2011 - City Council denied the appeal (5 -0)
Jan. 18, 2011 - Appellant petitions for reconsideration.
Grounds for Reconsideration
under CMC 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.
1
Grounds for Reconsideration
under CMC Section 2.08.096 (contd.)
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.
Basis of Reconsideration
Petition Response
1) The petitioner alleges that there are The petitioner misunderstands what a
errors in the City staff report. He states front setback means, which is a building
that staff said there are numerous setback from the front property line,
duplexes with parking in the front setback. regardless if it is used for parking,
Driveways of these duplexes are not front landscaping or driveway. There are 32
setbacks, unlike the four duplexes with duplexes in this area: 28 have direct
parking in the garage access to a street and 4 have
rear and landscaping in the front. parking toward the rear.
2
Basis of Reconsideration (Contd)
Petition Response
2) The assumption that no It is fact that there have been no reported
vehicle /pedestrian/ bicycle accidents accidents of vehicles backing into
happened is that this design is safe- is pedestrians and bicyclists along this
wrong. segment of Miller Avenue over the last 5
years. Most single - family & two - family
residences in Cupertino require vehicles to
back into the public street. Based on the
data and design, staff noted that the project
didn't appear to create a significant safety
risk.
Basis of Reconsideration (Contd)
Petition Response
3) Duplexes with garages that front Miller At its January 4, 2011 hearing, the City
Avenue have cars that park much closer to Council lengthened the parking pad by
the garage door, leaving ample room for safe including the abutting pedestrian path,
passage. The proposed pad with car parked increasing its length from 17 feet to about
therein would totally obstruct the view of 21 feet. The longer length meets City
the sidewalk and of any pedestrian or standards for parking stall length. The pad
bicyclist for vehicles exiting from the would not overhang the public sidewalk. It
driveway. is illegal for a parked vehicle to park over a
public sidewalk.
3
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council deny the
petition for reconsideration for DIR- 2010 -30
per the draft resolution .
4