Loading...
CC 11-04-96' · CC-933 MINUTES Cupertino City Council Regular Adjourned Meeting November 4, 1996 CLOSED SESSION At 6:10 p.m. Mayor Burner called the meeting to order in Conference Room A of Cupertino City Hall to hold a closed session regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - City of Cupertino v. Dean Witter Reynolds, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. CV746356. RECESS At 6:53 p.m. the Council recessed, and reconvened at 6:55 p.m. in the City Council chambers. The City Attorney announced that staffwas directed to proceed with communications with the opposing party as discussed in the dosed session, but that no action was taken. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Bumett called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: John Bautista, Michael Chang, Wally Dean, Lauralee Sorensen and Mayor Don BurneR. Council members absent: None. Staffpresent: City Manager Don Brown; City Clerk Kimberly Smith; City Attorney Charles Kilian; Administrative Services Director Cam} Atwood; Community Development Director Bob Cowan; Parks and Recreation Director Steve Dowling; Public Information Officer Donna Krey; Public Works Director Bert Viskovich; and Building Official Joe Antonucci. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS Mayor Bumett presented proclamations supporting Optimist International's Youth Appreciation Week November 3-9, 1996. The proclamation were received by Mr. Bob Malone, President of the De Anza Optimists. He invited everyone to the Youth Appreciation Dinner to beheld at the community center. Mayor Burnett presented a proclamation to Public Dialogue Consortium supporting "Cultural Richness and Community Safety Week", November 17-23, 1996. Mr. Ralph Banks, representing the Consortium, received the proclamation and invited everyone to the town hall meeting regarding cultural richness and community safety, to be held at the community center on November 20. POSTPONEMENTS November 4, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page ~ Sorensen moved to continue Item 13 to December 2, 1996, and continuance of Item 14 to November 18, 1996, as requested by staff. Dean seconded and the motion carried 5-0. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Walter Robb, President of Whole Foods Market, thanked the City of Cupertino for their assistance and support through the process of relocating to their new building. He indicated that a tray of vegetables, fruit and cheese had been delivered for their refreshment. Mr. Mark Blaszczyk, 7453 Kingsbury Place, asked that Council consider removing the multi- way stop signs at the intersections along Stelling at Huntridge and Orien, since the local traffic levels dropped al[er Highway 85 was opened. If the purpose is speed control, it would be better to do that with police enforcement. The Public Works Director explained that any change would require community support via a petition, to be followed by a public hearing, since the stop signs were initially put in at the request of the local community. Mr. Blaszczyk said he would be willing to pursue the matter. CONSENT CALENDAR Bautista moved to approve the consent calendar as presented. Dean seconded and the motion carried 5-0. 1. Resolution No. 9722: Accounts Payable, October 18, 1996. 2. Resolution No. 9723: Accounts Payable, October 25, 1996. 3. Resolution No. 9724: Payroll, October 18, 1996. 4. Minutes of the October 21 regular and October 26 adjourned regular meetings. 5. Approval of Fine Arts Commission recommendation for the award of Fall, 1996, fmc 6. Monthly Treasurer's and Budget Report, September 1996. 7. Resolution No. 9725: Authorizing execution of lease of Sports Center by Acceleration of Cupertino, Ather Sports. 8. Resolution No. 9726: Accepting quitclaim deed from Santa Clara County Central Fire .- Protection District, APN 342-14-120, 22620 Stevens Creek Boulevard. 9. Resolution No. 9727: Authorizing execution of improvement agreement for Monta Vista Fire District, APN 342-14-120, 22620 Stevens Creek Boulevard. November 4, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 10. Review of application for Alcoholic Beverage Control license for Unocal Fastbreak, 20755 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Vote Councilmembers Ayes: BurneR, Bautista, Chang, Dean, and Sorensen Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. PUBLIC HI~.ARINGS 11. Public hearing to consider amending Section 16.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to require class A roofing for all residential alxactures. (Continued from the meeting of October 7, 1996.) (a) Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1742: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Requiring That All New and Replacement - Roofmg For Dwellings Shall Be of a "Class A" Fire Retardant Material." The Conununity Development Director reviewed the staff report and highlighted the differences in cost which had been identified for class A or B, including design costs and seismic costs. It is a trade-off between the perception of additional safety in the community versus choice and cost for the homeowner. Staff estimated that 90% of the homes would require structural changes in order to support the weight of Class A roof materials that weight over 7.5 lbs./sq, ft. The Community Development Director explained that their estimates were based on single family homes built in the 1970's and · none of those would require any modification for a Class B roof. Mr. Manny Muniz, representing the McMullen Company, Inc., said that the Class A roof may not be the most cost-effective solution for the entire community, and in some cases may create financial hardships. He suggested a minimum of Class B with Class A required in the wildland areas which are at most risk. Mr. Doug Biachoff,..representing .the National Tile Roofing.Manufacturers Association, offered to answer any questions council had about construction and materials costs, and said that a light-weight tile roof can be a very cost-effective solution. He reviewed costs for light-weight tile and said if it were below the weight limit there is no cost for seismic issues. Mr. Len Moresi, 4601 Fairview, Hollister, felt the charts on page 5 of the staff report was excessively inflated, and felt that the information that Mr. Bums provided at an earlier meeting was more accurate. He had done re-roofs on 15 homes and only 3 of those needed strengthening, at a cost of $500-$800. November 4, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 4 Mr. Robert Burns, representing the Committee for Firesafe Dwellings, said that thc staff's estimate of cost for structural analysis is accurate for engineered structures, but would not apply to single-family homes which are wood-framed ~tractures. These kinds of structures, regardless of type of roof, withstood the Whittier, Northridge, and Loma Prieta earthquakes very well, except when roofing had not been installed accord'rog to specification. Most of the Type A roofing materials fall under the trigger point for engineering analysis for a heavier roof. The Building Official explained a chart which showed the differences between Class A, B, and C roof materials. He added that they did not base their cost estimates on engineered houses, but on houses constructed in the 70s which had no wood on the outside, if you add extra weight over 7 1/2 lbs./sq, foot. there is a danger of the house collapsing during seismic movement. Massoud Modjtebedi engineering consultant to the city, explained that 18-20% of dead weight added to the roof converts into a seismic load at the roof level, and it tends to deflect the building more than it was designed to handle, so a qualified engineer must inspect and continual that it is a conventionally-flamed building and meets all the requirements of perimeter sheathing and interior bracing. Bautista said he was not convinced that they would be able to eliminate the seismic failures with the extra load without structural modifications, so there would be significantly increased costs for the homeowner without a significant benefit. He was in favor of requiring a Class B roof. Sorensen said she had been a real proponent of Class A, but after reviewing the information presented tonight she would vote in favor of Class B because of the costs of structural modifications for Class A. If that were required it may result in a lot of people waiting to repair their roofs. She said consideration should be given to the hillside areas, which must have Class A, and how far down into the city the hillside designation should apply Chang said he was originally a strong supporter of Class A because of the safety, but that must be weighed against choice and cost. He would support Class B. Bumett said he still had one concern about the aging characteristics of fire retardant roofs, but the longest data available is only 10 years old. He congratulated staff on their approach which will result in not worsening earthquake safety, when upgrading the roof. He felt there were enough options under 7 1/2 pounds to provide people with adequate choices but he understood that Class B seems to be the right compromise at this time. The Community Development Director said that staff could come back at a later date - with a map showing the boundaries of the Class A designations in the foothill area. Burner asked about the feasibility of requiring Class A on new construction. The Community Development Director said that is much more cost-effective. Dean said it would be somewhat hypocritical since the push is to try to keep affordable housing, and November 4, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 5 that will be just one more factor. The Community Development Director said there would be no upgrades required so the marginal cost would be relatively minor. The City Attorney clarified that "new construction" refers to projects that are not in process. Staff was directed to amend the ordinance to (1) Require Class B roofing on ail re-roof projects; (2) Require Class A roofing on all new dwellings for which building permits are issued after March 1 of 1997; (3) Change the effective date to March 1, 1997, to allow the state adequate time to review findings; and (4) Bring the amended ordinance back to Council for first reading at the next meeting. 12. Public hearing to consider an appeal of Planning Commission approval of Application 6- U-96, Hossain E. Khaziri. The application requested a use pemlit to demolish an abandoned service station and construct a 1,500 sq. ft. service station and car wash at 10002 DeAnza Boulevard. (Councilmember John Bautista, appellant) (Continued from the meeting of October 21, 1996.) The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report and confiiiiied that there is an ingress/egress easement across the eastern edge of the property which benefits the property to the north and east, so the plan submitted at the last meeting is not workable. Mr. Mike Kba~iri, 10002 DeAnza Boulevard, said that they were not aware of the easement at the time the contract was entered but the title company has since confirmed it. He showed some modified plans for the gas station which no longer had a car wash on the premises, and which allows for an 8-foot buffer between this project and the easement. He said if there is support for this project he will be happy to work with staff on any modifications. Mr. John Statton, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, noted that this site has historically been a gas station. It currently is a very ugly site and the applicant has brought forth an attractive proposai. The easement further limits the possible uses of this site, but if one were found it would increase the traffic impact. He urged support for the project. Mr. Michael Aminian, representing Century Medallion Realty, said they had cont~_~ed Mr. Boyce's office to see if they would negotiate a purchase of the property or sell the easement, but no agreement was reached. He produced a copy of a fax from Mr. Bruce McLean confirming that the property has been for saie for four years. The best use for this property is a gas station, especially considering the restrictions imposed by the easement ............ Ms. Ann Anger said she was opposed to another gas station at this location. She understood that it would be a sales tax generator, but this location needs something to beautify the city. Bautista said that council should stick to the specific plan for Stevens Creek Boulevard which cails for a point of interest on this intersection. When that plan is implemented overall it will help to increase sales tax revenue. The city is 95% built-out and there are not a lot of oppommities to create the identify that council wants. It is clear from the November 4, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 6 General Plan and Specific Plan that there was meant to be a point of interest. That is not just a waterfall, and a car wash and gas station do not fit the criteria of the plan. He said he would vote to uphold the appeal and look for other ways to develop this property consistent with the way council wants the city to be identified. Dean said that concept was admirable, but the reality is that there is just one parcel of only 16,000 square feet. In order to buy it, the burden of liability would be on the city. He felt the gas station was an acceptable use there. Sorensen agreed with Bautista that council should stick to the specific plan which designates a point of interest at this location. She suggested that it be discussed by the Economic Development Committee. Chang said they all want a Cupertino they could be proud of, and what exists right now did not make him very proud. Other residents have expressed the same opinion. To say no to a gas station now would allow this to remain one of the ugliest points in the city. He was more concerned about the look of the building. A gas station on a comer is very obvious so does not need a lot of advertising. He suggested making the gas station design as inconspicuous as possible, and very non-traditional. That could satisfy the criteria of a place of interest. Bumett said he was glad the car wash had been eliminated, and he agreed with comments '-- by Dean and Chang. It would be possible to make this a very attractive feature and meet the design standards of the Stevens Creek Plan. He said he would vote to deny the use without prejudice and direct the applicant to submit a new application. Chang agreed, and said he thought it should also be considered by the Economic Development Committee. The City Manager said that sometimes urban planning requires a lot of patience to wait for more than is available at the time. There has been interest shown in this comer in the past. The specific plan says the crossroads intersection should be developed with a distinct signature to mark its city prominence. Such improvements may include the siting of landmark buildings, street monuments or other public artwork, landscaping and special pavement. If the council finds that a gas station meets that criteria they should encourage the applicant, but he did not feel that it does. Bautista said the committee had not been active for almost a month on this issue because it was a pending project .and it. would.have been a..violation of the-public hearing rules. They have not exhausted their efforts and it's premature to decide there is no other viable use for this property. He said that the Economic Development Committee would move swiftly to look at alternative uses for the site and to work with the applicant if he wishes, and report back on January 21. Chang moved to (1) Deny the use permit on technical grounds without prejudice (uphold appeal); (2) Direct the applicant to submit a new application to the Planning Commission that incorporates the 20-foot easement, which may be a gas station or some other November 4, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 7 _ proposal; and (3) Authorize staff to waive application fees other'than direct advertising and mailing costs. Dean seconded and the motion carried 4-1 with Sorensen voting no. Bautista said that the Economic Development Committee would move swiftly to look at alternative uses for the site and to work with. the applicant if he wishes, and report back on January 21. Council members concurred. 13. Applications 4-GPA-96 and 23-EA-96 - City of Cupertino - General Plan amendment to the land use and homing elements to redistribute residential potential among the planning districts and the undesignated classification. Environmental Detemiination: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. Recommended for approval. (Continued from the meeting of October 7, 1996; staff requests continuance to December 2, 1996.) Under "Postponements" this item was continued to December 2. 14, Applications 14-U-96, 5-Z-96 and 21-EA-96, Thompson Residential Co. (Tandem Computers, property owner) - Use Permit to construct 348 aparh~ent units on 14 acres and rezone the property from Planned Industrial Zone P (MP) to Planned Residential P (Il.ES). The project is located at 10750 Wolfe Road. Environmental Deten'o_ination: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. Recommended for approval. (Continued from the meeting of October 7; staff requests -- continuance to November 18, 1996.) Under "Postponements" this item was continued to November 18. 15. Applications 8-Z-96, 18-U-96, 6-TM-96 and 26~EA-96 - Chalet Woods, Inc. - Zoning amendment to rezone a .66 acre parcel from R1-6 to P(RES); use permit to construct 5 single-family detached residences on a .66 acre parcel in a Planned Development Zoning District; tentative map to subdivide a .66 acre parcel into 5 lots. The project is located at 1187 Gardenside Lane. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. Recommended for denial. (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1746: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code By Rezoning a Parcel Located at 1187 Gardenside Lane From R1-6 to POLES) - (Application 8-Z-96)." The council members had.rexxived a letter..dated Nov..4, 1996, .from Mr. James Jackson. The applicants propose to reduce the size of the five houses to an F.A.R. of .45, work with the neighbor to the west to eliminate the windows on that side of the house and setting back the second story, and providing a 6-foot fence, as well as changes to street trees and parking strip as requested by another neighbor. The Community Development · - Director reviewed the staff report. Mr. Jim Jackson, representing the applicant, said its important that the council stick with the General Plan, and this project falls within the lower limits currently in that document. Reduction of one unit would take it below the 5 units per acre set forth in the General November 4, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page g Plan. Another issue besides density is one of massiveness, and reducing the F.A.R. will address that. One of the advantages of the PD zoning is that it allows additional rules such as lowering the F.A.R. which could not be done in conventional R-l-6. He asked for approval of the zoning and tentative map, and they would work with staff and the Planning Commission for more review on the use permits. Mr. Mark Blaszczyk, who lives across the street on 7453 Kingsbury Place, said he would prefer that there not be a change in zoning. He liked the appearance of the homes, but density and parking problems were a concern. He said that larger street trees can help to put the larger homes in perspective, and enlarging the park strip will better support the larger trees. He felt that a sycamore would be a good choice for that area. Chang was satisfied with five units and the reduction in F.A.R. is a good solution. Baufista said he felt they should stick with R-1 as much as possible, but the General Plan says 5-10 units per acre and the applicant has come in at the Iow end of that range. If all the other R-1 guidelines were followed, they should use the PD designation to address the other issues that were discussed by the neighbors. He said he was reluctantly supportive. He also noted that there have been many cases of these projects where it is zoned R-1 and the General Plan designation has a greater zoning. He asked how many more of these situations exist in the city. The Community Development Director said that staff could investigate that. In this case there's only a marginal difference between the zoning and - the designation. Sorensen said tlmt she would support the 5-10 units per acre with an F.A.R. of.45 Burner said that there is a planned-development home in his back yard and that is the reason why there are no second story windows facing his home, and that's a real advantage of going with that designation. Chang moved for approval subject to R-1 standards where possible and refer the use permit and tentative map back to the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director said that Bautista had also mentioned privacy protection, so in that case the motion would be R-1 except privacy protection, and then that would be the guidance in the ordinance. It would be zoned PD, R-1 standards, with a statement that the use pemlit and tentative map would have privacy protection incorporated into the plans for the benefit of the adjoining neighbors. Bautista said there were also issues of trees and parkway standards. The City Manager said there may be a conflict between an R-1 standard, strictly applied, and the PD zone, so he clarified that council wanted a project that looked like an R-1 development but wanted the best project. Bantista said his purpose was to insure conformation to R-1 standards particularly with respect to floor area ratios, setbacks, and building heights, then adding to that an additional condition that they resolve the privacy issues including the fence and setbacks, and the parking strip and landscaping. November 4, 1996 Cupertino Cit Council Page Chang restated his motion to address individual items. He first moved to approve a negative declaration. Bautista seconded, and the motion carried 5-0. Chang moved to approve the zoning application with the property zoned as Planned Development, to allow five units, and to include the conditions that the F.A.R., setbacks, and building heights conform to R-1 standards and that privacy protection for neighbor to the west and the landscaping, parking and fence as suggested in the applicant's letter. Bautista seconded. Mr. Jim Jackson said that the architect indicates there may be a problem with the sideyard setback conforming to the R-1 zone. Dean said that all of the setbacks are crucial. If it cannot be built to meet R-1 standards, maybe they should look at four lots instead of five. Bautista concurred. Mr. Fazekas, the project architect, said they would like to keep the side-yard setback as is for lots 3, 4 and $. On lots 1 and 2 there is an opportunity to have the S and 10-foot sideyard setback. They could meet the 10-foot sideyard setbacks even with the surcharge but that would limit the design, and they would not be able to have the 18-foot second- floor setback for the neighbor on the left. Council members agreed that they would like to see a more precise plan before deciding upon the zoning. Bautista said if the resulting design looks 2-dimensional, he would prefer four homes. The City Attorney said that alternate plans can be presented to the Planning Commission. Chang withdrew his motion to approve the zoning application, with the approval of Bautista. Chang moved to send all the applications back to the Planning Commission with the direction that this project (1) Shall be zoned Planned Development; (2) Shall consist of five units; (3) Shail conform to R-1 standards for F.A.R., setbacks, building heights; (4) Shall include conditions suggested regarding privacy protection, landscaping, parking strip, and fence. Bautista said he would like to amend the motion that Council has no preference whether · there.are four or. five units, as.long as .it confirmed to R-1..Chang.said he felt comfortable with five units and PD zoning, and developer should work around that as much as possible. After further discussion it was noted that four units would not require a Planned Development designation on the zoning, which was desirable in this case. Bautista seconded Chang's motion without amendment. The motion carried $-0. PLANNING APPLICATIONS None. November 4, 1906 Cupertino City Council Page 10 UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS 16. Final budget adjustments, fiscal year 1995-96. The Administrative Services Director di~ix'Lbuted an amended page 3 of the report and highlighted the recommended adjustments. Sorensen moved to approve the final budget adjustments as reflected in the staff report. Chang seconded and the motion carded 5-0. 17. Consideration of canceling December 16 meeting. Dean moved to cancel the second meeting in December. Chang seconded and the motion carded 5-0. 18. Request from Counciimember Dean to consider Cupertino election reform. -- Dean reviewed his memorandum to Council regarding campaign signs, term limits, and campaign financing refot-ih. He recommended the following actions: (I) That Council consider mending the sign ordinance to ban signs in the public fight-of-way, possibly consider fines for violations; (2) That Council consider campaign financing reform to limit funding, prohibit non-deficit spending and require full disclosure; and (3) That Council put an initiative on the 1997 ballot to limit council members to two The City Attorney said the only effective way to prohibit political signs would be to prohibit ail signs in the fight-of-way because otherwise it becomes an infringement on the first amendment. There's no problem legally adopting something similar to the City of Santa Clara. He would exempt directionai and certain government signs, but advertising signs could be prohibited. Regarding term limits, in 1990 the voters adopted an advisory measure to set a two-term limit with a two-year hiatus. Those provisions could be changed, but he would recommend against a life-time step-down. The City Attorney said that campaign financing reform is a more complicated process, and may be impacted by Propositions 208 and 212, which are up for a vote the next day. The City of Santa Clara has something~similar, and it .does require .that there be an independent commission fo~tiied to evaiuate ail the claims that would be made around election time. It would involve the Attorney's office and staff to be liaison to the committee. He said he would provide a written opinion outlining some of the details. The City Attorney said he would provide a copy of the sign ordinance from Santa Clara as well as the current Cupertino advisory measure about city council tcu~ limits. He said that he would prepare a comprehensive opinion on campaign f'l~ancing and report back to City Council within 30 days on that item. '. November 4, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 11 _ 19. Confuiiiation of date of November 13 for election and sweating-in of new Mayor and Vice Mayor. Council concurred to schedule the ceremony for November 13 at 6:00 p.m. ORDINANCES None. STAFF REPORTS None. COUNCIL REPORTS None. CLOSED SESSION At 10:00 p.m. Council recessed to a closed session in Conference Room A to discuss negotiations for purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property pursuant to Governraent Code Section 54956.8 - Purchase of property located at 21979 San Femando Avenue. At 10:35 p.m. Council reconvened. The City Attorney announced that City Council had directed staffto proceed as discussed in closed session, and that no action had been taken. ADJOURNMENT At 10:35 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to Wednesday, Nov. 13, at 6:00 p.m. for election of mayor and vice-mayor. (Note: the meeting time was later changed to 6:30 p.m.) City Clerk