CC 05-01-95 CC-901
lVIINUTES
Cupertino City Council
Regular Meeting
May 1, 1995
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:45 p.m., Dean called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Council members present: John Bautista, Don Burnett, Barbara Koppel, Lauralee
Sorensen, and Wally Dean. Council members absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager Don Brown, City Clerk Kimberly Smith; Administrative
Services Director Carol Atwood; Community Development Director Bob Cowan; City
Attorney Charles Kilian; Public Infosmation Officer Donna Krey; Public Works Director
Bert Viskovich; and Plarmer II Vera Gil.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS - None.
POSTPONEMENTS - None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. E. J. Conens, 10480 Pineville, complained of the number of handbills and flyers that
were let~ on his property. He said that when he reported the problem to Code
Enforcement, he was instructed to call 911, but that he felt that was an abuse of the 911
system. He asked that Council locate the businesses that were leaving the handbills and
require them to get a business license. The Administrative Services Director took copies
of the handbills which Mr. Conens had received and said that she would follow up with
the Code Enforcement staff.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Burnett requested that Item No. 10 be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Koppol moved
that Items No. 1 through 9 on the Consent Calendar be approved as recommended by
staff. Sorensen seconded and the motion carried 5-0.
1. Resolution No. 9327: Accounts Payable, April 14, 1995.
2. Resolution No. 9328: Accounts Payable, April 21, 1995.
3. Resolution No. 9329: Payroll, April 21, 1995.
May 1, 1995 Cupertino City Council Page 2
4. Res. No. 9330: Setting date for consideration of annexing area designated
"Stevens Creek 95-01", locat~l on thc south side of Stevens Creek Blvd. between
Tantau Avenue and Finch Avenue; approximately 1.35 acre, First Development
Corp. (APNs 375-07-2 and -3)
5. Monthly Treasurer's and Budget Rq~ort - March, 1995.
6. Approval ofthe mlnutes of April 17, 1995.
7. Resolution No. 9331: Approving change order No. 18 for Cupertino Nine School
Site Improvements, Project 93-9106.
8. Review of Alcoholic Beverage Control license for DMS Liquors, 7335 Bollinger
Road, #F, Cupertino, California, person-to-person transfer.
9. Application No. 3-ASA-95 - Curtiss and Barbara Komen, 11218 Stauffer Lane -
Architectural review for a single-family home located in a planned development.
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: Bautiste, Bumett, Koppel, Sorensen, Dean
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
~" ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
10. Application No. 32-U-85 (Modified) - The Forum at Rancho San Antonio -
Request for a one-year extension for a use permit approval to allow the skilled
nursing facility and personal care facility to be constructed in two phases in
accordance with Condition No. 26 of Application 32-U-85; the property is located
at 23500 Cristo Rey Drive.
Buruett discussed an overhead transparency of the Forum development as
discussed in Item No. 10 and said he wanted to call to the Council's attention that
there would be more construction to come as a part of the Diocese development.
Koppel moved to approve Item No. 10 as recommended by staff. Bautista
seconded and the motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11. Application $1,165 and 23-EA-94, City of Cupertino - Citywide. Amendment to
various sections of Chapter 19.56, General Commercial Zones, of the Cupertino
Municipal Code. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
recommended the granting of a Negative Declaration. Recommended for
approval.
May 1, 1995 Cupertino City Council Page 3
The Community Development Di~ctor reviewed the staff report and highlighted
page 11-21 of the packet titled, "Rationale for Elimination of Use Permit Control
for Various Land Use Activities". He then reviewed the dra~ ordinance.
The council members discussed items for further consideration including the
following: (1)On page 11-5, change the word "majority" to "at least 50% of
business floor space"; (2) Require any activities which may pose a problem to the
surrounding neighborhood to get a use p¢i~,it or require positive protections, such
as an 8 foot wall; (3) Add a definition of wholesale.
Mr. Don Frolich, 22276 Hartman Drive, objected to the use of compact parking
spaces because many new cars that are termed "compact" are too large for a
compact space. Mr. Frolich also asked that accommodations be made to allow a
business such as a family car wash located at the BP Gas station.
Virginia Tamblyn, 19721 Bixby Drive, said that the ordinance needs more review
because it damages the neighborhoods by shifting contracting from a conditional
use to a permitted use. It makes it less likely that the neighborhood residents
would know about changes, and it appears that light industrial will be allowed
next to residential zones. She suggested that the noise ordinance be changed to
regulate non-stationary noise. She said that setbacks are critical, and instead of
12-15 foot setbacks, they should be at least 50 feet. She also asked that hours of
operation be more restrictive.
Mr. John Statton, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, supported
the ordinance as presented and said that it provides a strong performance criteria,
yet allows flexibility for new businesses in the permitting process.
Nancy Bumett, 729 Stendhal Lane, representing Cupertinians Urging Restraint in
Building (CURB), read a statement and presented copies to City Council. The
statement said that CURB recommends the proposal be discussed on a
preliminary basis and then continued for first reading at a later date. Since there
are new sections, it is important to allow time for further study. Although the
Chamber of Commerce has been involved throughout the process, residents have
not had that privilege. She also submitted a list of concerns regarding the changes
in the ordinance from a resident's standpoint.
Mr. Eugene Adrian, 20408 Clay Street, said he was concerned with the definition
of retail business on 50% of the space. He suggested that if retail business is not
100% of the space, the application should go through a conditional use permit.
Noise stanaArds would only apply to new construction for a use peiii~it and the
current residents do not have the benefit of 8 foot walls so that should also be
addressed.
Mr. James Jackson, the attorney representing The Plumbing Bank, said that they
supported the ordinance and felt it is a reasonable effort. He believed that issues
involved with The Plumbing Bank can be resolved after further discussion with
staff.
May I, 1995 Cupertino City Council Page 4
Bautista asked that noise rules and criteria be included as a performance standard
and said he was not comfortable with a 50% retail standard, but wanted further
study. Koppel said that CURB suggested going back to thc Planning
Commission. Bumctt said that the Planning Commission had already met on this
item and spent a lot of time on it and hc was comfortable with staff incorporating
the Council's suggestions to modify the ordinance. The Community
Development Director reviewed the consensus items.
Sorensen moved to continue this item for one month. Bautista seconded and the
motion carried 5-0.
Council concurred to direct staff to modify the ordinance as follows: (1) list
performance standards in the same section as site development regulations and
combine similar functions. (2) Remove unlabeled paragraphs on page 11-5. (3)
Provide options regarding use permits and non-use p~xmits for certain categories
of uses; (4) Consider other outside activities that might be appropriate (such as a
family-owned car wash service on the site of an existing gas station).
12. Applications 3-U-95, 3-Z-83 (Mod.) and 5-EA-95, Central Fire Protection
District, Vista and Randy Drive north of Stevens Creek Blvd. Use Permit to
replace and expand an existing fire station on an adjacent parcel. Modification of
Stevens Creek Blvd. Conceptual Zoning Plan to allow a 13 foot 6 in. setback.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission recommended the
granting of a Negative Declaration. Recommended for denial. (Continued from
A~l 3, 1995.)
Thc Community Development Director reviewed the staff report. The City
Manager referred to a mailer that had been distributed on this topic titled,
"They're Moving Our Fire Station Away From Us?..." He explained it was not
part of the city's information, but came from a homeowners association in
opposition to the fire station. The flyer may have needlessly alarmed residents by
inferring that the station would be moved away, but that is not a fair
representation. The act~al proposal is to move the fire station a few hundred feet.
The Community Development Director contrasted the old and new plans
submitted for the fire station site. Bautista referred to the flyer and said it had
been blatant misinfo~,,,ation which promoted fear and anger and the community
should be assured that Council will make sure there are no reductions in fire
safety.
Chief Doug Sporleder, Central Fire District, discussed why the station needed to
be rebuilt and why the site was chosen. He explained the benefits of the proposed
location and how the preemptors were used to control traffic signals for the
engines to pull out, and to pull back in after a call. This situation in particular
created a safety hazard and there had been numerous close calls. He explained
that after the site had been selected and they were unable to purchase it, they filed
for condemnation and got the project into the city's permit process. They then
May l, !/)0f Cupertino City Council Page f
met with the neighbors and considered other sites, but none had acceptable
configurations or response tiracs.
Mr. Glen Bower, project architect, discussed their design Eoais. The goals
included internal building functionality, site design functionality and the
integration of the building into the surroundint neithborhood. He said that
landscaping would be used to both soften the building and create a buffer between
it and surrounding properties.
Mr. Mike Rock, Director of Business Services for Central Fire District, compared
run times for all Code 2 and Code 3 calls at the current location and estimated run
times for the proposed .locations. Runs to the east would increase by
approximately 13 seconds; runs to the west would decrease by approximately five
seconds and the overall weighted average would be an increase of three seconds,
or a nm time of 4.12 minutes compared to a goal of five minutes. He explained
that the preemptors have a great impact on the city's traffw control system and
force it out of synchronization for 12-15 minutes each time they arc used.
Because of the configuration of the existing station, they are used every time the
engine exits the building. The new proposal would eliminate all preemptions
when the engine tums to the right and they would only need to use the preemptors
on left tums when the light was against their direction of travel. Chief Sporleder
said that the barrier at Vista Drive will be modified to allow access for engines,
but would still preserve the protection of the neighborhood.
At 9:40 p.m., Council recessed. At 9:50 p.m., Council reconvened.
Mr. Dorm Kinne, 20260 Reinall Place, said that he was the president of the
homeowners association, and referred to the letter of April 27 from Ross and
Marie Quinn which Council members had received that evening. He spoke in
opposition to this version of the fire station plan and said that they had not yet
proved the need to move the station off of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The new
proposal would impact businesses and residents. A better solution would be to
keep the station on Stevens Creek because there are better uses of the remaining
sites. He also said there would be noise impacts on the residents. He referred to
Section 6.14 and 6.16 of the General Plan which says that the goal of the fire
service is to reduce response time. The homeowners association felt that for 45%
of the population, it is a material increase in response time, and their own
calculations show a 24-second increase. He said that although the fire district had
changed the fatal flaws from the first plan into features, they have not yet fully
explored viable alternatives.
Koppel said that she had attended the meeting with Mr. Kinne and Chief
Sporleder and she believed the homeowners association supported the "flip-flop"
of the apparatus mom away from the residential areas. Mr. Kinne said that this
was not their proposal.
Wanda Scheuck, 20182 Joseph Circle, opposed the proposed plan. She said she
was not against a new rue station, but wanted a fair evaluation of all alternatives.
May I, I~?~75 Cu~rffno City Council Page 6
She expressed concern about response time, traffic safety, and noise impacts. She
discussed the increased distance which the vehicles would have to travel and that
would increase response time to westbound areas by nine seconds and to
eastbound areas by 24 seconds. She also said that it would be dangerous to have
the fire truck exit on a residential street. Also, the current sound study contained
discrepancies, was incomplete, and does not specify how the fire department will
comply with requirements.
The Community Development Director explained that conditions of approval
would force the fire district to comply with the city's noise ordinance, except for
emergency equipment, and it would be easy to enforce a day-in, day-out noise
problem.
Nancy Burnett, representing Cupertinians Urging Restraint in Building (CURB),
expressed opposition to the project. She said it would add to existing response
time and would disrupt the quality of life of the neighbors. CURB recognized the
need for a new and expanded station, but the response time was still an issue. She
said the 1993 General Plan says a major goal is to reduce response time. The
environmental review checklist, health and safety section, does not even include
emergency response time in the list. The Environmental Impact Report for the
General Plan says effects on response time could be compounded by traffic
congestion and that the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard could be delayed
beyond minimum stanclords.
(}aye Fischer, 20263 Cartwright Way, said she lived at Vista Gardens and she
apologized for the flyer. She did not see it before it was mailed. She clarified that
all proposals before Council were proposed by the Central Fire Di~ix'~ct. They had
addressed all the fatal flaws except for safety and felt that individ~als walking or
driving on Vista Drive would be even more surprised by the emergence of fire
trucks there than on Stevens Creek Boulevard. She said there would be an impact
on existing business. For example, there is a car carrier parked on Vista and it
would have a greater impact on the business if they were not able to unload the
Rolf Meyer, 1588 Bellcville Court, Surmyvalc, representing Wynette Place
Homeowners Association, said they were happy with the current location and
wanted the station to remain there. If he bad lc~ovm the station would relocate
across from bis home, he would not have purchased it. The master bedroom will
face the station and there will o~Jy be 90 feet fi'om the bed to the station entrance.
The noise and flashing lights will affect them all day. He was particularly
concerned about equipment testing at 8:00 a.m.
Ted Lavine, 706 Stendbal Lane, said he opposed relocation because of increased
response time to Fairgrove. They already have a longer response time in an area
with greater fire risk.
Mavis Smith, 22734 Majestic Oak Way, spoke in favor of the proposal. She said
she had made seven emergency calls and in every instance, the firefighters
May 1, 1995 Cupertino City Council Page 7
showed professional skill in a calm and reassuring manner. She thanked them and
said she believed they are the best qualified to know what is the best confxguration
for the site.
Earl Pennington, 10109 Randy Lane, spoke in favor of the proposal. He said he
grew up near the proposed location and his mother lives there still and owns two
of the affected residences. He urged Council to do what is best for the
community, although it may not be best for everyone here tonight. He did not like
the original plan, but felt that the fire district had now addressed the issues.
John Statton, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, said that they
support the fire station. The business community relies on the quality of service
and an upgrade is necessary. This would be a safer site and the differences in
response time are relatively negligible. Also, condemning other buildings would
be required for a different layout and would make it cost-prohibitive.
Barbara Rogers, resident of Cupertino, said one reason cities incol~orate is to
make land use decisions, which include public safety. Fire personnel are expected
to live there 24 hours a day while on call, in very crowded conditions. The
Central Fire District has achieved improvement in the plan without badly
damaging the neighborhood. She said that she had lived near a fire station in the
past and found that it was not as intrusive as might be expected.
Dean asked Chief Sporleder to 'address the following: The criteria for selecting
the current location; concerns regarding noise and lights during evening
departures; and pedestrians and children playing on the street during daytime
departures.
Chief Sporleder explained that the fire apparatus move onto the apron and wait for
the right-of-way regardless of whether it is day or night. They currently have
pedestrians walking in front of the station and it has not posed a safety problem.
They will continue to operate a safe station. At night, the lights and sirens are
used only to request the right-of-way. The siren does not have to go on, although
the red lights are typically turned on when leaving the station which takes a
couple of seconds. He said that he had discussed the decision process and site
selection at the beginning of thc meeting, but would have their attorney explain
why they did not extend their plans to include the area of the Mercedes dealership.
Sandy Sloan, attorney with Jackson, Tufts, Cole and Black, said they studied the
new station on Stevens Creek Boulevard many times and there were two major
problems. One is the danger that the station employees feel when pulling out
across six lanes, and the second issue is the impact on existing businesses.
Condemnation is a serious step to take and it is much more serious if the pwperty
is occupied. The location which was condemned is officially vacant. The
Mereedes dealership property also includes a detail shop. She noted that the car
carriers parked in back are not with a legitimate business and they have been sent
a violation notice. To take the exisfmg business, the fire district must pay for land
and the disruption of business, and must assist with relocation and its costs. All
~¥fay I, I00~ (]upert/no City Council Page ~
_ of the neighbors' suggested proposals took a lot more space and would impact the
storage of the Mercedes dealer and the detailer's structures. These alternative
plans of the neighbors would cause severance damages to be incurred. She noted
that this property has been used for commercial purposes for over 20 years and the
new Stevens Creek Boulevard plan includes a mix of uses. She said there were
other fatal flaws in the neighbors' plans other than condemnation issues. She
reviewed an overhead of one of the neighborhood's proposals which had been
annotated with other items of concern. Bautista asked what would be the
difference in the cost of condemnation in the neighbors' plan versus the proposed
new plan. The attorney replied that it would be at least a 30% increase or about
$.5 million.
Bumett discussed response times issues and said that delays in response time were
not uniform and depended on traffic. It is a value judgment that Council will have
to make. The biggest difference is that one plan has an intersection with a signal
light and the other one doesn't. The homeowners association had been consistent
in proposing a certain design and he did not see a fundamental reason why it did
more d~mage to the businesses, so that he believed the neighborhood's plan could
be made to work.
Koppel said that she tried to support the neighborhoods in any situation she could,
but that she did not always get her first choice. Koppel moved to approve the
Planning Commission's recommendation. Bautista seconded and said that a lot of
the concerns had been addressed. The noise ordinance will help and the response
time difference is not significant enough from his point of view to tell the fire
department how to manage their business. The risk of condemnation costs and
the savings can be passed on to the fire district to reduce response time in other
ways.
Soreusen thanked the public for their input and their politeness. She said there
was no argument a new station is needed. The fire district had made
accommodations for the neighborhood and there was a dangerous situation when
the trucks pulled into traffic on Stevens Creek Boulevard. She agreed that
response time is a value jud~aent and that her concern was for public safety. She
noted that since the land is legally vacant, the cost is not so great and for that
reason she would support the pwject.
Dean said he was struck by the amount of support for the fire teams on the site.
He said he was disappointed that he did not know about the mail-out. Many
people had lef~ messages on his answering machine expressing concern that the
station would be taken away. He said he would support the proposal and asked
that Koppel revise her motion to adopt the negative declaration first.
Koppel agreed and moved to grant a negative declaration. Bautista seconded and
the motion carried 4-1 with Burner voting no.
May I, 1995 Cuperffno City Council Page 9
_ Koppel moved to approve the application per Planning Commission
reconunendation with the subconclusions and findings listed in the staff report.
Bantista seconded and the motion carried 4-1 with Bumett voting no.
The Community Development Director explained that the ordinance modification
was not needed in this case and should be withdrawn from the agenda. Council
concurred.
NEW BUSINESS
13. Request from Pacific Autism Center for Education to assume Community
Development Block Grant loan from Spark Foundation.
Planner Vera Gil reviewed the staff report.
Sorensen moved to allow PACE to assume the three Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) loans. Should the terms of the loans need to be re-
negotiated, the city loan committee will recommend new terms to the Council.
Koppel seconded and the motion carried 5-0.
14. Review of bids and award of contract for Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road Interconnect
Extension from Bollinger Road to Prospect Road, Project 120-9502-953.
(Continued from April 17, 1995.)
The Public Works Director reviewed the staff report.
Koppel moved that Council award the contract to G.A.B. Construction, Inc. in the
amount of $25,830 and approve a 10% contingency of $2,600 for a total project of
$28,430. Sorensen seconded and the motion carried 5-0.
15. Review of bids and award of contract for Handicap Ramps with Wheelchair
Detectors, on Stevens Creek Blvd. at Stelling Road and at Mary Avenue and
Stelling Road at Peppertree Lane, Project 95-107.
The Public Works Director reviewed the staff report.
Bumett moved that Council appropriate $47,450 from city Gas Tax funds and
award the contract to G.A.B. Construction, Inc. in the amount of $43,150 and
approve a 10% contingency of $4,300. Sorensen seconded and the motion carried
5-0.
16. Review of bids and award of contract for DeAnza Boulevard Overcrossing-
Widening, Project 94-9429.
The Public Works Director reviewed the staff report.
Koppel moved that Council take the following action: (1) award the project to
RGW Construction, Inc. based on the lowest bid received in the amount of
May 1, ! 99:5 Cupertino City Council Page 10
$2,152,676.50 and authorize a 5% contingency of $108,000 for a total for this
phase of $2,260,676.50; (2) authorize the Public Works Director to enter into a
contract ~with APC International, Inc. for management and inspection services for
approximately $80,000; (3) authorize expenditure of approximately $90,000 for
testing and design consultation review; and (4) appropriate $1.9 million from the
Federal Grant Revenue Fund (120 ~.~.~..500) and transfer to project account
number 120-9429-953: and the residual from the Aid and Consixaction Fund
(110-460-200) to the project account. The total project cost will be approximately
$2,430,676.50. Bumett seconded and the motion carried 5-0.
17. Review of bids and award of contract for Recon,traction of Curbs, Gutters, and
Sidewalks, Project 95-105.
The Public Works Director reviewed the staff report.
Koppel moved that Council award the contract to Tally's Enterprises based on the
lowest bid in the amount of $91,016.40 and to authorize a 10% contingency of
$9,100 for a total project of $100,116.00. Bumett seconded and the motion
carried 5-0.
18. Consideration to authorize fourth-quarter basic cable rote increase for Cupertino
subscribers in TCI-San Jose system.
The Public Information Officer reviewed the staff report. She explained that the
fourth quarter increase would be an increase of 27 cents per month for
approximately 1,700 cable customers. She said that TCI is authorized by the
FCC, though not required, to adjust basic and expanded basic rates every 90 days.
This fourth-q-after rate increase refers to the period of October I to December 31,
1994. She explained that the city had appealed to the FCC asking for an end to
quarterly rate adjustments. However, after reviewing the forms, city staff and
representatives from the Cable Television Advisory Committee found them
consistent with FCC standards. Since TCI can substantiate its claimed extemai
costs, under federal regulations the city must approve its rate request.
Council members discussed their concern about q~_~arterly rate increases and the
poor q~_mlity of television reception and of customer service by TCI.
Kathy Noe, representing TCI, explained that this increase was a pass-through of
the December 1994 costs. The second- and third-quarter increases of 1994 were
on one cent. These increases are based on programming contracts. She said they
had been working with the city on a contract for about 3-I/2 years and plan to
have it signed by October 13.
Koppel said that the quality was "the pits" and that customer service was not
adequate. She said she could not approve this. Buruett said that this was a 3%
quarterly increase and if he did not want to have access to the City Channel he
would pull the plug.
May I, 1995 Cuper~no City Council Page 11
Ms. Noe said that although Council had been approving q, arterly increases, TCI
would be accumulating those and applying a single rate increase in ~July. There is
also investigation, at their corporate level, whether they should go to annual
increases.
Mr. Mike Wincn, chairman of the Cable Television Advisory Committee, said
that TCI is passing on increases that they receive. He agreed that the q, ality is
terrible, but customer service has improved. He explained that although the
advisory committee tracks the increase and double checks the calculations, they
cannot tell where TCI is getting the numbers from so it is difficult for them to say
whether the increase is justified.
Koppel moved not to authorize the fourth-quarter basic cable rote increase for
Cupertino subscribers and the TCI~San Jose system. She said that she wanted to
send a strong message to TCI that if they want Council's support while .they raise
rates, they must address reception and customer selvice issues. Bautista seconded
and the motion carried 5-0.
19. Consideration of request for waiver of Rule No. C3 of Resolution No. 8828,
attendance at commission meetings, submitted by Laird Huntsman, Cable
Television Advisory Committee.
The City Clerk reviewed the staff report and explained that although Mr.
Huntsman had missed three consecutive meetings, he was requesting a waiver of
the attendance provisions. He had submitted a letter explaining that his work-
related travel bas abated and he will be able to attend the rest of the meetings.
Koppel moved to waive Rule No. C3. Sorensen seconded and the motion carried
20. Application No. 9-U-94 - Forge/Homestead - Architectural review and
recommendation from the Planning Commission for an administrative approval of
a minor change in a project in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code; project is located at 20691 Homestead Road.
Dean said that items 20 through 22 were related items and suggested that the
agenda be reordered to discuss item 21 first. Koppel said that she would not make
a decision upon the offer of a grant until the project had been voted upon because
she felt it was important to keep the two issues separated. Koppel moved to retain
the agenda order. Burner seconded, and the motion carried 3-2 with Dean and
Sorensen voting no.
The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report for item number
20.
John Vidovich, applicant, said the project had been redesigned so that there was
no longer a building split between 2 and 3 stories. The modified building is 3
stories, which is an increase on the perimeter, but it is a better design. It was
May I, 19{)5 Cupertino City Council Page 12
_. approved by the Planning Commission unanimously. It has staff approval and
normally would not come back before Council. He said he did make a
commitment to do something for the schools. Mr. Vidovich offered to make
another architectural change to the third story so that the entire perimeter would
be two stories, which would be a reduction to 196 units. He would accept this
although it was less than the minimum number of units required.
The City Attorney clarified that the applicant is requesting an amendment to the
application of Item 20 to delete 8 units from the perimeter, thereby creating two
story units throughout. The decision before the Council on that item is whether to
approve it, and that is conditioned upon Council's ultimate decision of the second
reading of the zone change ordinance.
Burnett said he had no problems with the cban_ge.
Bautista said he wanted to acknowledge the offer but would stick by his original
decision to request two stories throughout the entire site plan for the reasons of
traffic with the additional units and safety concerns associated with three-story
stairwells.
Sorensen moved to approve Application 9-U-94 with the deletion of 8 units.
Burner seconded. Motion failed 2-3 with Koppel, Dean and Bautista voting no.
(This item is re-opened and discussed further under Item No. 22.)
21. Consideration of acceptance of grant for Cupertino schools and libraries from
Forge/Homestead project.
Dean explained that Mr. Vidovich was proposing a grant to the schools in the
amount of $250,000, which would be efuaiarked for grades K-g, the three high
schools (Cupertino, Monta Vista, and Homestead), and De Anza College. Mr.
Vidovich concurred that the Mayor had correctly stated his offer.
Koppel asked if this proposal should be brought through the school district instead
of the City,
The City Attorney said that the agenda item is consideration of the acceptance of a
grant for the schools. If Council denied it, the developer would not be precluded
f~om dealing directly with the schools.
Burnett said that he was very unhappy about being placed in a position in which it
appears he is voting against the schools, but he did not feel this was an
appropriate way to raise funds for the schools, or for the city to do business.
Dean said that the California state school system needs help anywhere they can
get it. This developer is willing to dedicate funds to the individual schools. Since
he is trying to increase the number of units of living space in Cupertino that will
impact those schools, and he wants to donate the money, the city should accept it.
May I, 1995 Cupertino City Council Page 13
Koppel said that the issue is that the developer could work with the school district
to do the same thing. There are other needs for the city that seem to be neglected
in this, so she would not vote for it,
Dean moved that Council accept the grant. Sorensen seconded. The motion
failed to carry 2-3, with Koppel, Burnett, and Baufista voting no.
ORDINANCES
22. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1680: "An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Cupertino Approving a Zone Change of a 9.26 Acre
Parcel from A-215 to P(Rcs. 10-20), Planned Residential Development for 10-20
Units Per Gross Acre (Application 3-Z-94).' (Forge/Homestead project continued
from April 17, 1995.)
Mr. Vidovich said it appeared that Council would vote against this item, and he
was willing to revisit item No. 20 if necessary.
Dean said his original position was to accept a perimeter of two stories with three-
story units inside. His caveat was if the donation came to the schools that
configuration would be acceptable. Since the grant was not accepted by Council,
he would then accept a complex that was all two stories.
The City Attorney said that if the applicant was willing to change his plans to a
two-story site throughout, Council could refer this back to the Planning.
Commission rather than denying the request and making the applicant reapply.
Discussion followed whether Council could approve the change at this time, and
that there would be a deletion of 28 units instead of 8, which was a significant
change.
Mr. Vidovich said that such a density change would have major ramifications.
The project is conditioned with a lot of subsidized housing, and was already at the
minimum density that staff felt could be legally supported and still require that
subsidy. He asked that Council continue the item rather than change it at this
point, so the project staff could investigate the impact of the proposed changes.
Discussion followed regarding the Council's desires regarding density and
building heights. Bautista said he would accept a compromise if one of the center
buildings were three stories but the rest were two stories. That would be a
reduction to 184 units.
Mr. Vidovich said that his latest offer was even 8 units less than the minimum,
which he viewed as the threshold of a minor change, because if that was accepted
he would not need to change the plan. He would probably still be able to do
something for the schools independently of this project, although it wouldn't be as
much. He said if even fewer units were allowed, he would have to come back
with another plan. He said this project has a tremendous amount of open space,
May 1, 1995 Cupertino City Council Page 14
and having three-story buildings helps with that. They will not be visible from
thc street.
Bautista said that, Putting the height issue aside, he was willing to accept between
185 and 190 units.
Mr. Vidovi~h asked for an opportunity to redesign the project. The Community
Development Director said it may have to go back to the Planning Commission.
Bautista moved to continue the application for two weeks to revisit a modified
plan (item No. 20) to show 190 units. Sorensen seconded, and the motion carried
4-1 with Koppel voting no.
The City Attorney said that everything was continued, so that the second reading
and enactment of Ordinance No. 1685 was also continued to May 15.
23. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1685: "An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Cupertino Rezoning a .4 Acre Parcel from R1 to BA
(Public Building) (Application 2-Z-95 - City of Cupertino)." (Fire station at
22620 Stevens Creek Boulevard continued from April 17, 1995.)
The City Clerk 'read the title of the ordinance. Bumett moved and Koppel
seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading
would constitute the second reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0.
Burnett moved and Koppel seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1685. Motion
carried 5-0.
24. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1684: "An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Tire 19 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code by Rezoning Various Hillside Properties Encompassing
Approximately 105 net Acres in the Inspiration Heights Area; Located in the West
Foothills of Cupertino (Application 1-Z-95 - City of Cupertino)."
The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Burnett moved and Koppel
seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading
would constitute the second reading thereof. Motion carded 5-0.
Bumett moved and Dean seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1684. Motion carried
5-0.
STAFF REPORTS
25. Depaxhuental programs evaluation.
The Administrative Services Director distributed a list of the city's programs.
The City Manager explained that items marked by an asterisk were not mandated
nor self-funding. He explained that an evaluation form had been created which
' May 1, 1995 Cupertino Council Page 15
__ Council had earlier reviewed, and that staff would be picking some of these
programs from each depari~iient to be evaluated on the new form. He asked that
Council look over the list and indicate which programs they would like to see
evaluated.
26. Five-Year Forecast update.
The Administrative Services Director reviewed the staff report, highlighted the
fund balance trends and explained the differences between the original and current
projections. She also reviewed a chart titled, "Fund Year Trends by Fund Type"
which was included in the packet. She explained that the positive changes were
made by identifying carryover savings, identifying potential revenue
enhancements, re-evaluating staff assignments to particular funds, and reducing
expenditures. The changes were marked in bold on the fund balance trend
worksheet on page 26-2 of the packet. She said the reason that revenues were
down this year were because: (1) sales tax revenue was down; (2) the revenue
fi'om the school district ended; and (3) the city incurred additional debt on the
ELVIS debt service for the youth sports fields.
27. Report on Pemdt Streamlining effort.
The Community Development Director report on the pet-fit streamlining effort.
He explained that the new system would include an over-the-counter petfffit
process which approves minor applications within 30 minutes or less, an express
plan check process which provides a four-day turnaround in permit issuance for
medium-sized residential and commercial projects, and a standard plan check
process including 10 working days as opposed to 20 working days at the present
time. He said that this permit plan review process was developed by
representatives from city staff, the Santa Clara Valley Manufacturer's Group and
3oint Venture Silicon Valley.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Koppel said that a street vame change meeting was held. In attendance were staff from
two cities, Central Fire Protection District, and Santa Clara County Sheriff's Depmhnent,
but no members of the public attended. However, calls and letters have been two to one
in support of changing "Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road" through Cupertino to DeA~Ta
Boulevard. She said that San Jose must hold public heatings to consider the change on
their property and would probably be back in the fall. She also noted that there is a new
process to have resolutions go through the Cities' Association before they go to the
League of California Cities in order to give them extra emphasis.
Burnett said that the Water Board had met last week and there was no rate change. ABAO
had increased per diems to $100.00.
Soreusen said that she had attended two earthquake drills held in local neighborhoods last
Saturday and it was very impressive. She guessed that approximately 85% of the
neighborhood participated in one case in spite of the rain. She referred to the potential of
May 1, 1995 Cupertino City Council Page 16
. , fire deparhiients assuming EMT status and said the Emergency Medical Care Committee
had sent a recoramendation to the Board of Supervisors to keep all cities notified of the
progress of this request.
City Manager reviewed the recommendations of the Legislative Review Committee as
follows:
· Oppose SB1073 (Costa) regarding housing element
· Oppose AB771 (Aguiar) regarding subdivisions; tentative maps.
· Send follow-up letters to new committees working on ABllgl, allocation of
Proposition 172; sales tax revenue AB82, booking fee reform; and AB182, shopping
cart preemption.
Council concurred to adopt those recommendations and directed staff to send letters to
the appwpriate committees.
City Manager noted that the Sweeney bill (AB1340) had been amended to include Santa
Clam County. It would allow the city to enter binding land use agreements with counties
and could be used as a tool in hillside planning.
At 11:23 p.m., City Council concurred to adjourn.
Kimberly S~'c City Clerk