CC Resolution No. 02-072RESOLUTION NO. 02-072
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DENYING THE PETITION OF GARY SCHMIDT SEEKING COUNCIL
RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DETERMINATION DENYING HIS APPEAL
AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING AN EXTENSION OF A USE PERMIT FOR VEHICLE STORAGE AT
APN 369-03-004 LOCATED AT OR ABOUT 10071 S. BLANEY AVENUE,
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA.
Whereas, applicant Gary Schmidt is an owner of property located at 10071 S. Blaney
Avenue, Cupertino, California (APN 369-03-004); and
Whereas, in February 1999, the applicant received a temporary use permit from the
Cupertino Director of Community Development to store vehicles on said property
for six months; and
Whereas, in August 1999, because a temporary use permit cannot be extended, the
applicant received a use permit from the Planning Commission for a one-year
period from September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2000; and
Whereas, in 2000 the Planning Commission granted a one year extension to the use
permit to August 31,2001 requiring the applicant to apply for a new permit
should he seek to continue vehicle storage on the property; and
Whereas, on August 16, 2001, the applicant applied to extend the use permit for another
year, but requested two postponements until October 2001; and
Whereas, on October 22, 2001, the Planning Commission denied the application for a use
permit finding that the use was not in conformance with the General Plan and
Heart of the City Plan of the City of Cupertino; and
Whereas, applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council on
January 7, 2002; and
Whereas, the City Council, after hearing Mr. Schmidt's appeal, denied the appeal; and
Whereas, Mr. Schmidt has requested that the City Council reconsider his petition under
the provisions of section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code; and
Whereas, the City Council has considered all the relevant evidence presented by the
parties at alt hearings, including evidence presented at the April 15, 2002,
reconsideration hearing;
Resolution No. 02-072 2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS;
The applicant's Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face. Council adopts
the Analysis of Defects in Petition for Rehearing attached to this Resolution and
incorporates it herein by reference.
Notwithstanding the above, after full consideration, Mr. Schmidt's Petition for
Reconsideration of the City Council's determination of January 7, 2002 is
DENIED.
3. In making its determination, the City Council adopts the following specific
findings:
a.)
The conditional use is not in conformance with the City's long-term land
use plan for the Stevens Creek Heart of the City area as "a community
focal point that expresses the character of Cupertino through a diversity of
uses, serving City residents and scaled for pedestrians." General Plan
Policy 2-2.
b.)
The conditional use was originally intended to be a temporary use. The
continuation of this conditional use, which has now been extended for
three years, has created an inequity, since similar requests for outdoor
storage by other landowners are discouraged as incompatible with the
surrounding commercial and residential sites.
c.)
The original use permit was issued for a temporary purpose, which no
longer exists. While proposing to be an extension of the existing permit,
this application has a changed purpose, so that the applicant can complete
plans for the development of the property. However, he does not have
control of the property to develop it.
d.)
What began as a six- month temporary use has evolved into a long- term
use. As such, the improvements on the property do not meet the
requirements of the Municipal Code for the specified use.
e.)
A 1988 development agreement on this property has only been completed
through Phase 1. Phase 2 has not yet been built. Continuation of the
commercial business of vehicle storage as an alternative use on this
property discourages its redevelopment, which does not further the City's
goals for the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
f.)
The use of property along Stevens Creek Blvd. for vehicle storage has a
detrimental affect on the adjoining properties in that fencing off large
parcels of property in the Heart of the City area for a restricted passive use
interferes with the continuity and the general ambiance of the area.
Resolution No. 02-072 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of
April 2002 by the following vote:
Vote
Members of the City Council
AYES: Lowenthal, Chang, James, Sandoval
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAiN: Kwok
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Mayor, City of Cupertino
ANALYSIS OF DEFECTS IN PETmON FOR REHEARING
Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states:
"A patition for reconsideration shall specify, in detail, each and every ~round for
reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds
for consideration, 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 demon~uate 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.
$. Proof of facts which demon~h~e that the City Council abused its discretion
by:
a. Not proceeding 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 f~ct were not supported
by the evidence."
Petition Defect
As an "offer of new relevant evidence" Petitioner fails to specify how this evidence
petitioner offers a videotape of the City is new.
Council public hearing of January 7, 2002.
Petitioner cites statements made by Steve Petitioner does not specify what the
Pinsecki" in reference to the General and statements were, his specific objection or
Specific Plans. agreement, or how this evidence is new and
relevant.
As an additional offer of new relevant Petitioner does not explain the relevance of
evidence, petitioner references a group of these photos as they relate to the
undated, unidentified photos depicting cars conditional use of the property for storage
parked in the vicinity of the subject site. of vehicles
As "proof of facts which demonstrate that
the City Council proceeded without, or in
excess of its jurisdiction" petitioner says
that Mr. Piuecki failed to acknowledge
section 1.01.020B(3) of the Heart of the
City Plan
The Heart of the City Plan was equally
available to Petitioner and he failed to
mention section 1.01.020B(3) at the appeal
hearing. Petitioner fails to state how this
demonstrates that the Council proceeded
without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction.
Petitioner st~es that section 1.01.020B(3)
"specifically relegates by reference the
specific requested use as an allowable use
within the subject area designated under
'Heart of the City' Specific Plan."
As proof that the City Council failed to
~rovide a fair hearing petitioner states that
"...the City Council attempted an
inappropriate and/or illegal act upon the
applicant that may constitute a taking in
that the council declared that it would be
willing to find that the requested use would
and/or could be found to be acceptable if
and only if the applicant were to relinquish
and/or substantially diminish rights and
therefore value he has (or indeed is one of
several parties in possession of) in another
use permit." [sic]
Petitioner states "Specifically, the Council
stated that if Mr. Schmidt would be willing
to reduce to one year the right to a
development which is vested and runs with
the land with no time period limitation they
would then find the application acceptable.
This act may violate the applicants due
process and civil fights."
Petitioner states that the Council abused its
discretion by not proceeding in a manner
required by law.
Petitioner states that the Council decision
was not supported by findings of fact.
This statement is unintelligible. However,
;ection 1.01.020B(3) states, under Land
Use, Conditional Uses, "Other Conditional
Uses - as specified in the City's General
Commercial (CG) Zoning district." The
City's CG zoning ordinance lists a variety
of permitted uses and conditional uses.
Section 19.56.040 says, "The following
uses may be c0nditionallv allowed in the
CG zoning district, subject to issuance ora
conditional use permit. "(Underline added
for emphasis.) This seems to indicate,
contrary to petitioner's inference, that the
City Council proceeded entirely within its
urisdiction.
This statement is unintellisible. It appears
to refer to a councilmember's question to
Mr. Schmidt regarding whether he was
willing to negotiate on the open-ended time
limit on the parcel development agreement.
Mr. Schmidt, not the City Council, insisted
upon connecting the history of the
development of the entire parcel to this
application. A council member suggesting
a possible %vin-win~' scenario is neither
inappropriate nor illegal. It certainly does
not constitute proof of an unfair hearing.
As stated above, the Council made no such
statement.
Petitioner makes no reference to any law
other than a general referencing of the
exhibits included with his petition for
reconsideration.
Petitioner cites no facts other than a general
referencing of the exhibits included with
his petition for reconsideration
Petitioner states that the Council decision
was not supported by the evidence.
~etitioner cites no evidence other than a
general referencing of the exhibits included
with his petition for reconsideration