Loading...
Exhibit CC 06-21-2016 Item No. 14 Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Reconsideration R-2015-08 and RM-2015-08 Address:21900 Oakview Lane Petitioners:Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller; and Jan Kucera Jr. Applicant:WEC & Associates (Kingkay Capital, LLC) Vicinity Map HOMESTEAD ROAD STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD DE A N Z A B L V D ST E L L I N G R O A D Vicinity Map OAKVIEW LANE GARDENVIEW LANE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD MA N N D R I V E PH A R L A P D R I V E Project Summary Demolish single-story residence Construct new two-story residence with rear-facing second story balcony Permit Process Jan. 8, 2016: R and RM permits approved administratively. Jan 21, 2016: Property owners of 21884 Oakview Lane (Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller) appeal approval. Feb. 23, 2016: Planning Commission denies appeal and upholds decision on a 5-0 vote. Feb. 24, 2016: Property owner of 21917 Oakview Lane (Jan Kucera Jr.) appeals Planning Commission decision. Permit Process Mar. 1, 2016: Property owners of 21884 Oakview Lane (Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller) appeals Planning Commission decision. Apr. 19, 2016: City Council denies appeal and upholds decision on a 4-0 vote (Paul abstaining). Apr. 29, 2016: Property owners of 21884 Oakview Lane (Millers) petition for reconsideration. May 2, 2016: Property owners of 21917 Oakview Lane (Kucera) petition for reconsideration. Grounds for Reconsideration Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.096 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: 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. Millers’ Basis for Reconsideration Petition City’s Response The petitioners state that they have new evidence that the house should not be built. The petitioners did not provide any new relevant evidence in their petition for City review and did not specify the particular ground 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. Millers’ Basis for Reconsideration Petition City’s Response The petitioners state that their computer malfunctioned and were not allowed to show evidence. The petitioners did not provide the evidence they claim were improperly excluded at previous city hearings in this petition, nor have the petitioners proven that any relevant evidence was excluded by the City Council. 2.An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. Millers’ Basis for Reconsideration Petition City’s Response The petitioners state that staff and the City Council have not shown how solar ordinances do or do not apply. The City Council responded to and requested information from the applicant, the petitioners, Planning staff, and the City Attorney prior to rendering their decision which is within their authority and jurisdiction. 3.Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction. Millers’ Basis for Reconsideration Petition City’s Response The petitioners state that the City Council did not allow them to present all of their computer data that supported their appeal. The petitioners were given 10 minutes for their appellant statement, consistent with established time limits that apply to all appellants. The petitioners do not provide facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 4.Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. Millers’ Basis for Reconsideration Petition City’s Response The petitioners state that City staff was not 100% sure about the applicability of solar ordinances. The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law and rendered a decision supported by written material and testimony.As stated by staff at the public hearing, there is no solar-related ordinance or law that applies to this project. 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. Kucera’s Basis for Reconsideration Petition City’s Response The petitioner claims that the 28 ft. height limit (Cupertino Municipal Code [CMC] Section 19.28.070 (J)) is clearly being violated in reference to his property at 21917 Oakview Lane. Building height was discussed at both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings and is highlighted in both staff reports. Furthermore, the proposed building height is 25 feet 4 inches and within the maximum 28 feet total building height regulation for R-1 properties. 1.An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. Kucera’s Basis for Reconsideration Petition City’s Response The petitioner states that he ran out of time in his 10-minute presentation to show that the proposed building was violating the 28 ft. height limit with respect to his property. The petitioner does not provide relevant evidence that was excluded from any hearing as building height regulations were discussed at Planning Commission and City Council hearings and the project was found to be within the allowance as permitted by CMC 19.28.070 (J). 2.An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. Kucera’s Basis for Reconsideration Petition City’s Response The petitioner states that the facts show that the proposed house is not harmonious in scale and design with the neighborhood. He claims that this clearly violates the code and that a jury of peers will agree with these facts. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council considered and discussed the findings for both the Two -Story and Minor Residential permit and acted upon the project accordingly and within their jurisdiction. 3.Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction. Kucera’s Basis for Reconsideration Petition City’s Response The petitioner states that the City Council ignored the fact that the developer maximized the proposed building size within one sq. ft. of the allowed square footage. The petitioner acknowledges that the project is within the square footage allowance as set forth in the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC 19.28.070 (B)) and opinions regarding square footage of homes do not demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 4.Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. Kucera’s Basis for Reconsideration Petition City’s Response The petitioner states that neighboring property owners signed a petition against the two-story home and that the City Council is ignoring the concerns of these owners and favoring a non-voting developer. The City Council conducted the hearing in a manner required by law and rendered a decision based on the established regulations in the Cupertino Municipal Code. 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. Recommendation Adopt Resolution No.16-069 denying the petition,which does not meet the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC)Section 2.08.96.