The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 04-01-2026 Item No. 4. Petitions for Reconsideration Mary Ave Villas_Staff PresentationCC 04-01-2026 #4 Petitions for Reconsideration Mary Ave Villas Presentation PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION MARY AVENUE VILLAS PROJECT Michelle Hernandez Deputy City Attorney (1) DENYING A PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND AFFIRMING ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 3, 2026 and (2) DENYING A PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND AFFIRMING ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 3, 2026 Two resolutions for consideration today Addresses reconsideration of Council actions (Petition 1): (i)Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application No. ASA- 2025-006, (ii)Preliminary CEQA Exemption Determination, and (iii)the Disposition and Development Agreement BACKGROUND –FEBRUARY 3, 2026 RESOLUTION Under CMC 2.08.096, reconsideration limited to the following: 1. New relevant evidence 2. Evidence improperly excluded at prior city hearing 3. Proof that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction 4. Proof that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing 5. Proof that the City Council abused its discretion by: (a) Not preceding in a manner required by law; (b) Rendering a decision not supported by findings of fact; (c) Rendering a decision not supported by the evidence GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION ASA Permit and Preliminary CEQA Exemption Determination -adjudicatory actions subject to reconsideration Disposition and Development Agreement -legislative actions not subject to reconsideration ADJUDICATORY AND LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS CLAIM: External commentary by Krupka Consulting; documentation submitted February 10, 2026; and the City’s Planning Commission agenda published on February 10, 2026 RESPONSE: Minutes reflect that Paul Krupka presented and discussed his findings; part of the record before the City Council; and do not constitute “new evidence.” Documentation on February 10th not related to actions before City Council on February 3, 2026. Items listed on Planning Commission agenda not before City Council on February 3, 2026 Ground 1: New relevant evidence CLAIM: Impaired ability to present exhibits; insufficient public access to the complete plan set; failure to provide the final/amended versions of key approval documents RESPONSE: Public afforded their allotted time. The plan set and supporting technical materials made available. Agenda compliant with Government Code, section 54954.2(a)(1)(A). Members of public afforded opportunity to comment, per Government Code, section 54954.3(a)(1). At no time was petitioner prevented from offering evidence or arguments Ground 2: Evidence improperly excluded Total time 59:47, 27 speakers on February 3, 2026 meeting re Mary Avenue Development Total time 1:09:30, 26 speakers on December 2, 2025 Study Session – Mary Avenue Project Time Expended on Public Comment CLAIM: Sequencing/jurisdictional defect; approval predicated on future right-of-way vacation and public property disposition; and Public Land Disposition via Disposition and Development Agreement not compliant RESPONSE: Analysis related to sequencing provided in Staff Report for December 2, 2025 Study Session. Additional info related to sequencing in Supplemental Report for February 3rd meeting. Disposition and Development Agreement conditions implementation on subsequent approvals Ground 3: Proceeding without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction CLAIM: Amendments adopted without public review; inconsistent bases presented to the public and decisionmakers; post hoc process to retrofit findings. Conflict of interest/ bias, due process violations, and attacks on counsel’s ethics and credibility RESPONSE: Applicable CEQA treatment for each relevant approval. Agenda provides participation and comment per GC section 54954.3(b)(1). Minutes and Transcript reflects City Council considered Petitioner correspondence. Councilmembers’ statements reflect their evaluation of the arguments presented in the record Ground 4: Failure to provide a fair hearing CLAIM: Invalid reliance on CEQA exemption and improper segmentation. Required findings not made for vacation; constraints on Public subsidies/Gifts of public funds. Findings inadequate re public health, safety, or welfare. RESPONSE: Parking, traffic, and other project-specific conditions extensively considered, including August 12, 2025 info memo, and November 13, 2025 traffic study. No evidence demonstrating a lack of support for the legal adequacy or proportional public benefit of the financial contributions provided by the City. The CEQA documentation included in the February 3 Staff Report. Disposition and Development Agreement contemplates and conditioned on subsequent approvals. Ground 5: Abuse of discretion Petition 1 failed to satisfy any of the grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096. No new or improperly excluded evidence; no procedural errors or improper actions Disposition and Development Agreement not adjudicatory action; not subject to reconsideration; and any request for reconsideration denied on that basis CONCLUSION -FEBRUARY 3, 2026 RESOLUTION Addresses reconsideration of Council actions (Petition 2): (i) Resolution No. 26-024 vacating the public right-of-way along Mary Avenue (ii) CEQA exemption determination (iii) Resolution No. 26-025 declaring the Project site exempt surplus land pursuant to the Surplus Land Act BACKGROUND -MARCH 3, 2026 RESOLUTION No claim raised Ground 1: New Relevant Evidence CLAIM: Procedures materially constrained presenting documentary and visual evidence RESPONSE: Agenda sets forth the terms to participate and comment in accordance with Government Code, section 54954.3(b)(1). At no time was petitioner prevented from offering evidence or arguments Ground 2: Evidence improperly excluded Total time 18:28, 16 speakers on Resolution Vacating Public Right of Way at March 3, 2026 meeting re Mary Avenue Development Total time 12:51, 11 speakers on Exempt Surplus Land at March 3, 2026 meeting re Mary Avenue Development Time Expended on Public Comment CLAIM: The March 3 actions cannot cure or retroactively validate jurisdictional defects because City unlawfully committed itself through February 3 approvals; sequence of Surplus Land Act declaration RESPONSE: No evidence that City proceeded without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction or that City’s actions were inconsistent with applicable law; no evidence re Surplus Land Act sequencing improper; Vacation not adjudicatory action Ground 3: Proceeding without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction CLAIM: No recusal of Councilmember with a disqualifying conflict of interest; restrictions impaired presenting responsive evidence RESPONSE: No evidence of bias or disqualifying conflict of interest. Agenda provides participation and comment per Government Code, section 54954.3(b)(1) Ground 4: Failure to provide a fair hearing CLAIM: Invalid reliance on CEQA exemption and improper segmentation. Failure to follow Streets and Highways Code §8324(b), Surplus Land Act / public disposition requirements. Resolution No. 26-025, section 3 improperly bootstraps determination. No finding re Vacation; CEQA finding contradicted by Krupka RESPONSE: Environmental determinations and CEQA analysis appropriately made; no evidence supporting claim of unlawful predetermination or improper sequencing. The March 3 Staff Report, the staff’s oral and PowerPoint presentation and the minutes included in record determination regarding the SLA Declaration. Extensive consideration including August 12, 2025 info memo, November 13, 2025 traffic study. CEQA analysis in February 3 Staff Report. Ground 5: Abuse of discretion Petition 2 failed to satisfy any of the grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096. No new or improperly excluded evidence; no procedural errors or improper actions Vacation not adjudicatory action; not subject to reconsideration; and any request for reconsideration denied on that basis as well. CONCLUSION –MARCH 3, 2026 RESOLUTION Subject: Conduct public hearing pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096 to hear Petitions for Reconsideration filed on behalf of the Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety, including: (1) Petition for Reconsideration, dated February 27, 2026, pertaining to actions taken at the February 3, 2026 City Council meeting pursuant to the Mary Avenue Villas Project, including (i) CEQA Exemption Determination, (ii) Resolution No 26-016, regarding Architectural and Site Approval Permit, and (iii) Resolution No. 26-018, regarding the Disposition and Development Agreement; and (2) Petition for Reconsideration, dated March 13, 2026, pertaining to actions taken at the March 3, 2026 City Council meeting pursuant to the Mary Avenue Villas Project, including (i) Resolution No. 26-024, regarding the vacation of public right-of-way, and (ii) Resolution No. 26-025, regarding the surplus land act exemption. Recommended Action: 1. Find that the Petition for Reconsideration, dated February 27, 2026, pertaining to actions taken at the February 3, 2026 City Council meeting, failed to satisfy any of the grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096; and 2. Find that Petition for Reconsideration, dated March 13, 2026, pertaining to actions taken at the March 3, 2026 City Council meeting, failed to satisfy any of the grounds for reconsideration required pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096; and 3. Adopt Draft Resolution No. 26-032 (Attachment 3); and 4. Adopt Draft Resolution No. 26-033 (Attachment 4) Recommended Action