CC Resolution No. 06-098
RESOLUTION NO. 06-098
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE
PETITIONS OF KEITH E. MURPHY FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITS APPROVAL OF
THE TOLL BROS. APPLICATION NO. U-2005-15, USE PERMIT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 115,600 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER, UP
TO 380 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A 3.5 ACRE CONTIGUOUS PUBLIC PARK TO BE
LOCATED ON STEVENS CREEK BLVD. AT FINCH, IN CUPERTINO, APPLICATION NO.
TM-2005-04, A TENTATIVE MAP, AND APPLICATION NO. EA -2005-17
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Whereas, Toll Bros. applied for a Use Permit, Application No. U-2005-l5, for the construction
of a mixed-use development consisting of approximately 115,600 square feet of commercial
shopping center, up to 380 residential units and a 3.5-acre contiguous public park to be located
on Stevens Creek Blvd. at Finch, in Cupertino, a tentative map, Application No. TM-2005-04,
and, a mitigated negative declaration, application no. EA-2005-17; and
Whereas, the applications were approved by the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting
on March 21, 2006 after hearing testimony; and
Whereas, Keith E. Murphy petitioned the City Council for reconsideration of its decision under
the provisions of section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code; and
Whereas, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all
hearings, including evidence presented at the May 16, 2006, reconsideration hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The petitioner's Reconsideration Petition is defective in that it does not offer proof of
facts as required by Municipal Code section 2.08.096.
2. The petitioner has made no offer of new relevant evidence that, in the exercise of
reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. (See Municipal
Code § 2.08.096B(l).)
3. The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioner at any prior
city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(2).)
4. The City Council has proceeded entirely within its jurisdiction regarding the application
for a use permit, tentative map and negative declaration. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(3).)
5. The petitioner has failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a
fair hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(4).)
6. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion
regarding the application for a use permit. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(5).) Specifically,
the City Council determines that:
a. The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law.
Resolution No. 06-098
b. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact.
c. The findings offact related to the City Council's decision were supported by
substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.
2
7. The specific allegations contained in the petition for reconsideration are refuted by
specific City Council findings, which are attached to this resolution and incorporated herein.
8. The petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's determination of
March 21, 2006 is DENIED
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16th day of May 2006, by the following vote:
Vote
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Lowenthal, Wang, Kwok, Sandoval
None
Mahoney
None
ATTEST
~ ~
City Clerk ~
APPROVED:
~~iJ{
Mayor, City of Cupertino