Loading...
CC 07-15-96.... CC-927 MINUTES Cupertino City Council Regular Meeting July 15, 1996 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Burnett called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers of Cupertino City Hall, 10300 Tone Avenue, at 6:46 p.m., and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Council members present: John Bautista, Michael Chang, Wally Dean, Lauralcc Sorensen, and Mayor Don Burnett. Council members absent: None. Staff present: City Manager Don Brown; Deputy City Clerk Roberta Wolfe; City Attorney Charles Kilian; Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood; Parks and Recreation Director Steve Dowling; Community Development Director Cowan; Accountant Jesse Takahashi; and Public Works Director Bert Viskovich. ' CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS Mayor Burner presented Nicol Lea, chair of the July 4 Committee, with a gii~ of appreciation for the Committee's efforts. Ms. Lea reported on the success of this year's event. Over $34,000 was raised through donations by individuals and organizations, including $1,617.92 donated "at the door." She thanked members of the committee and Parks and Recreation staff. Sorensen thanked Ms. Lea for spearheading the event and Lynn Hanson who organized the children's parade. Ms. Lea asked that Council "roll over" the $15,000 to next year; she was informed that it was in the budget. Burner commended Sorensen and Chang for their fundraising efforts. Dean referred to an e-mail message from Nadine Grant, member of the 4th of July Committee. She requested that the $15,000 that was in reserve be put in the 1997 4th of July trust fund. Burnett paid tribute to Nick Lazaneo, Cupertino Mayor in 1961-62, who recently passed away. POSTPONEMENTS - None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None. July 15, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mark Sherwood, 19930-C, Olivewood Street, representing the Westwood Townhouse Tenant Union, said they had generated visibility for their group and as a result had reached an agreement with Mr. Gregorson of Westwood Investors. However, he said the agreement is only good as long as they own the property. Owners still do not feel secure. He said they are not proposing rent control but are requesting support from the Council in terms of a mediation or arbitration avenue for tenants in Cupertino. He said they are seeking the following: 1. A limit on rent increases per annum tied to a cap related to the current market value; 2. A vehicle to enfome existing building, health and safety codes; 3. A method of mediation and binding arbitration for disagreement. He said they had tried other avenues, including Project Sentinel, but they were useless. Local laws all favor the landlord. There are laws in place for health, safety and building code violations, but not for issues relating to such things as rotting carpet, water damage and unsafe conditions that are borderline code violations. He said they are seeking a tenant fights initiative that protects existing tenants from abusive increases and provides an avenue, other than civil law, when they have a problem that cannot be resolved with the landlord. He invited them to the next Union meeting on July 31 and said other members of the Union were in the audience. He requested individual meetings with each Councilmember and presented a petition with several hundred signatures. Susan Allen, 10649-B Maplewood Road, said there is the prevailing idea that renters do not vote. She said some of them do and their group is also authorized to register voters. She said they still need Council's help. Their situation is still precarious in that the landlord could sell and they would have to start all over. She said they would like to have a mediation service. Cynthia Cruise, 10668A Maplewood Road, said there were two issues she had tried to get resolved and had worked within the system, including Westwood management and Project Sentinel. She said there is no place else for them to go and they need a tenants rights initiative. She asked for Council's assistance. Bumett requested that staff look at the petition and bring back recommendations to Council. Floyd Meyer objected to not being allowed to speak under the Ceremonial Matters-Presentations portion of the agenda and said he had received no reply to his letter to County juvenile authorities. He assured Council that he was making progress at clearing up the abandoned vehicles on his property and would then have more time to work with them on other issues. He suggested that if the 4th of July Committee has money left, they purchase dustproof flag covers so that the flag can be honored ail the time instead of just once a year. He requested that staff inform him in writing how to use the speaker cards and also look'into the issue of the City's first Code Enforcement officer being paid with Federal funds. July 15, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 3 CONSENT CALENDAR Sorensen moved to approve the Consent Calendar items as presented. Chang seconded and the motion carried 5-0. 1. Resolution No. 9657: Payroll, June 28, 1996. 2. Resolution No. 9658: Accounts payable, June 28, 1996 3. Resolution No. 9659: Accounts payable, June 19, 1996. 4. Approval of July 1, 1996 minutes. 5. Resolution No. 9660: Making determinations and approving the annexation of territory designated "Dolores Avenue 96-03", approximately 0.456 acre located on the north side of Dolores Avenue between Orange Avenue and Byrne Avenue; Cole (APN 357-14-027). 6. Review of application for Alcoholic Beverage Control license for El Molino Taco Grill, 19656 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite C. (Transfer to new owner.) 7. Resolution No. 9661: Authorizing execution of agreement for Tract 8840, Cupertino City Center Apts. II, Torre Avenue. 8. Resolution No. 9662: Approving a cost of living adjustment in service rates charges by Los Altos Garbage Company for collection and disposal of refuse. 9. Request from Cupertino Lions Club for waiver of use fees for two annual fund raising' events held at Blackberry Farm. 10. Resolution No. 9663: Rescinding Resolution No. 9218 and adopting the Conflict of Interest Code of the City of Cupertino for officials and designated employees. 10a. Monthly Treasurer's and Budget Report for May, 1996. Vote Members of the City Council AYES: Bautista, Burnett, Chang, Dean, and Sorensen. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR - None. July 15, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 4 - PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Consideration of an appeal of Planning Commission approval of Application 9-ASA-96, Paul Weiss, filed by Mayor Don Burnett. The application requests a sign peru-lit exception to exceed the number of signs allowed in Chapter 17.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code and allow additional ground and pole building signs to advertise the combined General Motors (Chevrolet) and Chrysler Corporation dealership located at 10955 B Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report. He pointed out a diagram that was a composite of elements of the sign program that have been reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission. He said Mr. Davidson was not present at this meeting but had indicated to him that he is generally satisfied with the letter of understanding between the Mayor and himself. Cowan said the signs directing customers from Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road into the site need to be discussed. He pointed out the staff's response which modified the Planning Commission approval. Mayor Bumett opened the public heating at 7:12 p.m. Alan Ford, representing Chrysler Corporation, said he was at the Planning Commission meeting and had submitted the original drawings for the applicant. He indicated that he _ was there to answer technical questions. He asked for a copy of the letter of understanding. Mr. Ford said the purpose of the bunting signs is to attract the eye. This is especially hard for a dealer who is away from other dealers and he thinks what Mr. Davidson is trying to accomplish is to make people aware he is there. The bunting serves several purposes in that it is the patriotic look and repeats several times in order to get the message across. Chang said he thought there are ways to make the point without overkill in terms of signage and suggested that somehow the image can be conveyed that this is a quality city and quality dealership. Cowan reviewed the 7 points addressed in the appeal letter and said everything except the ground-mounted directional signs have either been removed or are covered in Resolution 4712 of the Planning Commission. Bumett said Mr. Davidson had asked if he could keep the ground-mounted signs as they are until modifications require replacement of them. Bumett said he will recommend that on the condition that when they are replaced, they will be replaced with signs that meet the requirements in the ordinance for directional signs. Dean and Sorensen expressed concern about limiting the ability of businesses to attract customers. Sorensen said she would like to revisit the issue if revenues from the business decrease. Ju/y 15, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Sorensen moved to approve the sign prograna per Planning Commission Resolution 4712 with Condition C modified to allow the directional signs to remain until they are modified. In addition, staff will report back to Council in six months regarding the level of sales activities. Chang seconded and the motion carried 5-0. 12. Consideration of a report on delinquent garbage charges from Los Altos Garbage Company; and placing liens on properties described in the report to cover the delinquent charges and administrative costs. (a) Resolution No. 9664: Approving property lien for delinquent garbage charges. The Accountant reviewed the staff report and answered questions regarding the small amounts of the some of the charges and the notification process. The Director of Administrative Services said that Los Altos Garbage Company (LAG-CO) tries to collect before they send the list to the City, then the City makes an additional effort to collect. She said that next year's list should only include the charges from one year. The Mayor opened the public hearing. No individuals wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. Dean moved to adopt Resolution No. 9664 approving property liens. Sorensen seconded and the motion carded 5-0. PLANNING APPLICATIONS 13. Application 5-U-96, Sobrato Development Company, requesting approval of a use permit to add 24,000 sq. ft. to an existing building and modify the existing landscaping and parking lot. Located at 19310 Pruneridge Avenue. Environmental detemlination: Negative declaration recommended. Recommended for approval. The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report and showed the location of the addition on a map. Phil Taylor, Director of Marketing for Sobrato Development, said they support the Planning Commission recommendation. With respect to amenity space, it is clearly defined in the Development Intensity Manual which states (1) that it does not generate additional employees, (2) it isn't necessary for the building to function, and (3) it results in a more attractive environment for people within the building. He felt the addition met that definition. In regard to the previous amenity space, he said both buildings were completely gutted and the rest is office space. Cowan informed Council that if the amenity space is not included, they are still okay from a floor-area-ratio point of view. July 15, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 6 Sorensen moved to grant a Negative declaration. Bautista seconded and the motion carried 5-0. Soreusen moved to approve the application per Planning Commission Resolution No. 4725. Bautista seconded and the motion carded 5-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None. NEW BUSINESS 14. Interpretation of conditions of approval for the 196-unit "Forge Apartment" project located on Homestead Road west of DeAnza Boulevard regarding the construction of "sound walls." The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report. He said the applicant has elected to install a pre-east masonry wall on the west side of the project and a permit is pending for that. If Council is of the opinion that masortry is required for all sides, Council can make a finding that masonry is the appropriate material based on the fact that the applicant has already selected masonry for one side. Absent that finding the record is dear that any material that meets the needs of attenuating sound would be acceptable. He _ explained that material appropriate to mitigate potential noise from the site would have the appropriate density and air tightness. A masonry wall is used more often because it is more easily maintained, but it is technically possible to have a wooden sound wall. The wall would have to be designed by an acoustical engineer and would have to demonstrate the degree of attenuation required. The City has a standard condition requiring an 8 ft. masonry wall between commemial retail properties and residential. He had told the applicant that he should design a wood wall that meets the same attenuation properties as an 8 ft. high masonry wall. However, the issue tonight is what was Council's intent when the condition was approved. Cowan said staff had reviewed the video tapes and could find no reference to the words "masonry" or "wood", but there was reference to "sound walls." John Vidovich, developer, addressed the issue of masonry versus wood and said when he testified before Council previously his concern was for security on the west side which is why he wanted a masonry wall there. He said he will build a first-class project and wants to provide security. His experience with the issue of masonry versus wood sound walls was in the Town of Los Altos where they required sound attenuating wall. A lot of the fencing is wood. It is architecturally well done and as good or better at sound attenuation as masonry. He said when he has met with the neighbors he had always insisted on having the wood wall. It is more attractive and gives a better flavor for Cupertino. Countrywood is a similar project. He said having a wood wall gives a neighborhood feeling but an 8 ft. masonry wall is like a prison. The cost difference is not great and he - wished he did not have to use masonry on the.Sunnyvale side. He said he felt strongly that the wood wall is better for the City and will make his project better. He said he did July 15, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 7 not feel the condition could be changed now. In answer to questions, he said the wall has not yet been designed and he would be glad to design it with the Countrywood people if they wish. Cowan said Council would not not~ually have review of the architecture of the wail. His own review would be limited to the technicai aspects of the sound attenuation. A registered engineer would have to confirm that the wall would provide the same sound attenuation as a 4-inch masonry wall. Lynore Slaten, 20552 Shady Oak Lane, President, Board of Directors, Cupertino Countrywood, said there are 106 townhomes in Countrywood. They understood that there would be a masonry sound wall on the west, north and east sides. They invited the developer to attend their annual meeting to present the project. At that meeting Jim Sisk made the presentation and told them the developer would provide "as tall a masonry wall as the City will allow us to build around the perimeter of our property line." Mr. Vidovich spoke on several occasions about how he wanted to get along with his neighbors and build a quality project. She said they believe he intended to build the masonry wall. At the Planning Commission meeting on January 3, 1995 the site plan was marked to show an 8 ft. sound wall and condition 14 was added to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4584 of Application 9-U-94, stating that the perimeter barrier was to be "constructed of a material appropriate to mitigate potential noise from the site." She _ pointed out that the February 21 minutes were incorrect because they refer to fences and the word fence was not used at that meeting. The approved site plan, Exhibit E, shows three sides of the perimeter in a dark line and the words "8 ft. sound wall." Because of this history the Countrywood residents and other surrounding neighbors believed that the intent was to install a masonry wall. She said they had talked to former Councilmember Koppel who said she thought the intent was for a masonry wall. Ms. Slaten said because of the need for sound abatement, privacy, safety, exhaust mitigation and security, they believe that an 8 ft. masonry wail was intended all aiong by the City Council. She said from her point of view a masonry wall would protect them better from people driving through the wail, from exhaust fumes, and noise from cars and trash collection. Naren Kaita, 586 La Conner Drive, Sunnyvale, said he was representing homeowners to the north oftbe project. He said he agreed with Mr. Vidovich in many ways that a wood fence is great, but the density, setbacks, noise levels and shrubbery in Los Altos are very different than they are here. He said he had attended most of the meetings and understood there would be masonry walls. Having two different matefiais would not convey the continuity of the project and would not look good. Vidovich said he felt very strongly about the wood fence because it would increase property vaiues. He said he was very cognizant of the condition and never promised a masonry fence. The intent was always to build a wood fence on the two sides. He said he thought the record was clear and he did not think Council could legally or fairly require - him to do this. He said he would work with the City on anything that makes this wall July 15, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 8 more aesthetically pleasing, as that is his goal. He did not think the security or solidness of a concrete wall would be needed in Cupertino. Jim Sisk, representing the applicant, said he did not remember promising the neighbors there would be a masonry wall. Following discussion of the characteristics of wood vs. masonry as far as security and sound attenuation, the City Attorney said it was his view that if Council wished to be open to materials other than masonry wall, which is in his view the dear meaning of Condition 14, that is one decision. If the Council wishes to consider only a masonry wall for the remaining two sides of the project, they can do so not by changing the condition, but by saying this is a planned development which by definition would have commonality of design in architecture and aesthetics. If they want a masonry wall there all they have to say is that the applicant has elected to start with a masonry wall on the one side and staff is directed to say there will be a masonry wall on all sides. Councilmembers Dean, Sorensen and Bautista agreed that they would like to look at designs for both masonry and wood sound walls in terms of sound and security. The City Attorney said if this was the wish of the majority of Council it would involve a modification to Condition 14 to say that the type of materials of the 8 ft. fencing or wall will be reviewed by the Council prior to its implementation. He asked if Council wanted to send it to the Planning Commission. Burner stated that he visualized a masonry wall during the previous discussion and felt it was very difficult to make a wood wall effective. He said he believed that the fact that they started a masop_ry wall is a good indication that is what was intended. Clearly, the residents feel they were promised a masonry wall and that is what he would support. Chang said he thought most people would think of masonry with the word "wall." Second, a masonry wall might have been offered to the neighbors. Third, it is obvious that a masonry wall is not out of the question because it is already being built in the project. Last, he thought it would be very neighborly of the developer to accommodate the neighbors for the same reasons they are doing it on the west side. They could camouflage it with wood siding if they wished. Baufista said he thought the issue was whether the wood fence can meet the standard of safety and sound attenuation and thought it would require expert testimony. He said it would involve more time and expense. He said he would be willing to challenge the applicant to provide a wood wall that meets the criteria of strength, durability, sound attenuation and safety provided by a masonry wall. The City Attorney asked Council if it was sufficient for them for staff to review the information with an appeal to them or would they want the full de novo hearing. Bautista suggested that they ask the applicant. July 15, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 9 Vidovich said they intend to provide the design for a wood wail and an acoustical expert will provide written information to staffthat is subject to verification. He said he thought everyone would be happier with the wood wall and he was willing to change to wood on ail three sides. Burner expressed concern about the wall's resistance to projectiles. The City Attorney said Council could direct staff to receive the information and either forward it first to the Planning Commission for hearing and ultimately to the City Council, or make the decision themselves, subject to appeal through both Planning Commission and City Council. Bautista moved that Condition 14 be reviewed by the Planning Commission with the criteria of sound attenuation and safety compared between wood and masonry and ask applicant to provide the necessary infognxation. The review will include three sides of the property. Sorensen seconded and the motion carried 4-1 with Burner voting no. 15. Review of bids and award of contract for Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters, and Sidewalks, Project 96-104. The Public.Works Director reviewed the staff report. Dean moved to award the project to Tally's Enterprises in the amount of $136,904.00 based on the lowest bid; and to authorize a 10% contingency of $13,700.00 for a total project of $150,604.00. Sorensen seconded and the motion carried 5-0. 16. Designation of voting representative and alternate for League of California Cities Annual Conference. Council members concurred to designate Mayor Bumett as the voting representative and Vice Mayor Bautista as the alternate. Councilmember Chang indicated he would be available as an alternate as well. 17. Discussion of environmental impact report for air cargo operations at Moffett Field. The Community Development Director reviewed the staff's recommendation which is to request additional rudimentary information to be analyzed prior to a determination that no significant environmental impacts will result from the proposed air cargo operation. He said this is a federal project, so the City could ask for political leverage at most. Ken Munechika, Director for Moffett Federal Airfield, said that staff's list included items they can address. He anticipated that flights could approach over the Bay 98% of the time, based on 49 years of weather data. Also, they have put in a new approach that makes the Bay approach more feasible. This has already been instituted from 11:00 p.m. luly 15, 1OO6 Cupertino City Council Page 10 to 7:00 a.m., weather and safety permitting. Permission to land is granted only if it is a or a Federally-sponsored activity. The air cargo operations proposed meet those criteria. He stated that NASA needs the money and the field is way under-utilized. Compared with 266,000 flights per year at San Jose airport, 350,0000 at San Francisco and 500,000 at Oakland, the 60,000 projected for the year 2010 is a conservative number. He said they are trying to work up to that number so they can use the field effectively. The Bay route will be used for takeoffs as well as landings. However, after 6:30 a.m. (when San Jose airport begins operations) they will switch back to normal approach and landing because they cannot fly in any patterns that conflict with planes from San Jose airport. Dean moved to request additional analysis prior to making a determination that no significant environmental impacts will result from the proposed air cargo operations. Sorensen seconded and the motion carded 5-0. The additional infom,ation requested is: 1. Provide a simulation of the proposed aircraft noise over Cupertino. 2. Provide the single event noise decibel levels for aircraft over Cupertino. 3. Expand noise contour lines out to the 50 decibel range which is the Cupertino nighttime maximum. 4. Provide the single event noise levels for both daytime (7:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.) and night time (8:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.) 5. Provide the flight pattern and the elevation of aircraft over Cupertino. 6. Provide the number per day and approximate time of all flights over Cupertino. 7. Identify the ripple affect of traffic from the air cargo operations on Highway 280 and 85. 18. First reading of Ordinance No. 1729: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Prohibiting Parking Along East Side of Portal Avenue from Stevem Creek Blvd. South, 175 Feet". The Deputy City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Sorensen moved and Dean seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Motion carded 5-0. 19. First reading of Ordinance No. 1730: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Section 11.20.020 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to Establishment of Vehicular Stop Required at Certain Intersections". The Deputy City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Sorensen moved and Dean seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0. ORDINANCES - None. July 15, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 11 STAFF REPORTS 20. Status report on anti-graffiti reward program. The Public Works Director presented the staff report and said that two more investigations are underway. Council concurred to receive the report. 21. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant: Review and conceptual approval. The City Manager gave Council two pages from the Federal Grant Proposal Guidelines and the League of California Cities bulletin showing that Cupertino qualifies for slightly under $30,000 in the Federal Law Enforcement Block Grant program. He directed their attention to page 2 of the Program Purpose Areas, and said staff would like to focus the grant request on the item, "Establishing crime prevention programs involving cooperation between community residents and law enforcement personnel to control, detect, or investigate crime or the prosecution of criminals." They are focusing on this for two reasons: 1. It is not enough money to hire law enforcement people, and 2. This is an area where we already have a program underway that could be enhanced. He said he and ._ Carol Atwood would be meeting with Capt. Bob Wilson and a member of the Public Dialogue Consortium. He said there might be a way of fitting in part of what the Consortium has begun with some training for young people, in high school and in neighborhoods, to prevent crime in neighborhoods. Council concurred to receive the report and directed staff to proceed. The City Manager said that many employees had attended a memorial service earlier in the day for Nancy Souders. He said staff would remember her as an outstanding employee and a special person. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Bumett reported as follows: (1) At the Santa Clara County Cities Association Board meeting, they discussed San Jose's ban on weapons known as "Saturday night specials." San Jose was seeking support from other cities. The general consensus was that San Jose's law is almost certain to go to court so they will wait to see the outcome of that. (2) They also discussed an ordinance presented by Patricia Williams, Los Altos Mayor, who is on the Hazardous Waste Commission. It is an effort to create a unifo,~x illegal dumping ordinance for all jurisdictions in the County. (3) He had attended a meeting where the O'Bfien Group presented a plan for the "Diocese" property. He said it was very consistent with what Council had seen as the final version, although not identical. They would like to hold a presentation before the Planning Commission and luly 15, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 12 City Council. By consensus, Council set 5:00 p.m. on August 12. (Note: The time was subsequently changed to 6:00 p.m.) The City Manager said the nature of the meeting would be informational and would give Council a chance to ask questions. It will be advertised and the public can attend. Chang said the July 4 event was excellent and he had enjoyed working with Sorensen and the committee. The committee will meet in January to discuss the approach for next year. CLOSED SESSION The Mayor announced that the closed session was not necessary. ADJOURNMENT At 8:55 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to 6:00 p.m., August 5, Conference Room A, for interviews for Fine Arts Commission. ~, ~, · Robena Wolfe Deputy City Clerk