Loading...
CC 02-18-97 CC=939 MINUTI/S Cupertino City Council Re~lar Adjourned Meetin~ February 18, 1997 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Bautista called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor John Bautista, Councilmembers Don Burners, Michael Chang, and Wally Dean. Council members absent: Vice-Mayor Lauralee Sorensen. Staffpresent: City Manager Don Brown; City Clerk Kimberly Smith; City Attorney Charles Kilian; Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray; Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood; Community Development Director Bob Cowan; Planner II Michele Bjurman; Parks and Recreation Director Steve Dowling; Public Information Officer Donna Krey; and Public Works Director Bert Viskovich. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS None. POSTPONEMENTS None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Wemer Ganz~ 1015 Lanark Court, Sunnyvale, felt the traffic at the intersection of Wolfe and Pruneridge is already bad, and will be made worse after the new housing development is completed. He suggested that staff or a consultant do a study to find ways to mitigate the problem. He also suggested that the Council ask the voters if they are doing the right thing by allowing so much high-density construction. February I 8, 1997 Cupertino City Council Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR Dean moved to adopt the items on the Consent Calendar as presented. Bumett seconded and the motion carried 4-0, with §orensen absent. 1. Resolution No. 9785: Accounts Payable, Jam]ary 31, 1997. 2. Resolution No. 9786: Accounts Payable, February 7, 1997. 3. Resolution No. 9787: Payroll, February 7, 1997. 4. Approval of minutes of February 3, 1997, regular meeting. 5. Resolution No. 9788: Setting date for consideration of annexing area designated "Miller Avenue 96-10"; west side of Miller Avenue between Calle de Barcelona and Phil Lane, approximately 2.284 acres, Rehn, Skranune, McKeman, Sandberg and City of Cupertino (APNs 369-15-001, -003, -004, -005, -006, -007 and -008). 6. Resolution No. 9789: Setting date for consideration of annexing area designated "Almaden Avenue 96-15", property located on the south side of Almaden Avenue between Byrne Avenue and Orange Avenue, approximately 0.16 acre, Beedle (APN 357- _ 15-027). 7. Resolution No. 9790: Accepting quitclaim deed bom Lily Chang, 10036 Peninsula Avenue, APN 326-25-018. 8. Resolution No. 9791: Adopting Caltrans Standard Specifications and Plans. 9. Resolution No. 9792: Approving change order No. 2 for Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks, Project No. 96-104. 10. Resolution No. 9793: Approving parcel map, plans and agreement for E & H Third Family Limited Partnership, 10480 South Stelling Road. 11. Resolution No. 9794: Authorizing execution of a deferred annexation agreement with County of Santa Clara and California Water Service Company for parcel of land at Cristo Rey Drive. Pe~r. ary 1 ~, 1007 Cupertino City Council Page - 12. Review of application for Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses for Seven Eleven, 10041 North Blaney Avenue. Vote Councilmembers Ayes: Bautista, Bumett, Chang, and Dean Noes: None. Absent: Sorensen. Abstain: None. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. Consideration of historic preservation ordinance. Recommended for approval. Environmental determination: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. (Continued from the meeting of January 21, 1997.) (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1751: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Adding Chapter 19.82, Historic Preservation Regulations, to the Cupertino Municipal Code." Planner Michele Bjurman reviewed the staff report and reviewed the seve. n discussion items specified in that report. She explained that a majority of Planning Commissioners recommended approval of Alternative No. 1, the Historic Preservation Ordinance included in the packet. A minority of Commissioners Recommended Alternative No. 2, which carries out the protection phase of the ordinance by identifying the procedure for designation of and modification to historic resources. Bjta'man said that it is recognized there will be an economic impact on property owners, but the ordinance is to protect these historic sites for the appreciation of the community as a whole. She'explained how the inventory would be conducted. Father Michael Mitchell, Vicar General representing the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, handed out a copy of his statement. He said that they oppose both aitematives because of the city's use of police power over private property without the owner's consent. The general plan calls for partnership between property owners and the city, and that has not been achieved. There has been no evidence that any historic site has been unnecessarily destroyed or impaired. Further, the burden should be upon the city to prove that the property is of historical merit. He asked why the Planning Commission struck from the list ail of the landmarks which were City properties. He suggested some amended language for both alternatives to define the interim term. l~e/~t~,Rry I g, / 007 Cupe~no City Councll Page 4 .- Ms. M~ Lou Lyon, representing ~e S~m Cica Co~ Hism~c~ Heritage Co~ission, sad ~t shce 1960 ~e~ ~ve ~en ~y ~stodc~ pm~es w~ch should ~ve b~n prot~ted but ~ey were not. She was h favor of ~e ord~ce, ~d s~d ~t it ~11 never be fme-~ed enou~ to salt eve~body. ~e ~so~ co--lace ~11 be s~cient to h~e ~y exceptions to ~e process. Ms. Sh~on Bl~e, spe~hg on ~f of ~e Cupe~o Hism~c~ Socie~, s~d ~t ~ey were ~ked by ~e CiF ~ provide ~e list of ~s~fic~ sites ~d ~e ~ o~ers ~t shoed probably be ~cluded ~ well. ~e ~viso~ co~i~ ~11 d~ide which p~, if ~y, is of ~stofic~ si~ific~ce. She s~d ~ey were ~ favor of a ~fic~ ord~ce, ~d ~ adviso~ co~i~ee to ~ew ~d idenfi~ bdl~ngs ~d sites which shodd be ~cluded on ~e list. ~e coerce shoed be comprised of individ~s ~out a co~i~ of ht~est, plus o~ers who wo~d ~ceive economic benefit ~d individ~s ~ ex~se about ~sto~c~ places. ~e should ~so be f~ci~ ~d provided to ~p~ted o~em. Ms. BI,ne s~d ~t her pemo~ opi~on w~ ~t ~e pl~ng co~ission propos~ is o~y ~f ~e job. ~. Don We~ood, 10090 Hille~ Road, s~d ~t ~e or--ce does not match ~e ci~'s sm~d problem of ~g to protect ~stofic~ sites ~m d~olifion. He sugges~d ~ ~ended demolition process i~teM. Also, no~g ~ ~en done to ~eliora~ resections on people's homes, inside ~d out. He s~d ~s leaer ~om Octob~ outlined ~s suggestions in mom de~l. ~. George Mo~, 19985 Price Avenue, s~d ~t ~e were si~fic~t pmbl~s ~ · e ord~ce. He op~sed it became it w~ ~ co,itt ~ ~e gener~ pl~ sta~ment ~at ~e ciF would ~de~e ~ active p~shp ~d reMbilim~ b~l&ngs for public or semi-pfivam occup~cy. ~e process must ~clude pm~ om~ consent became ~e~ ~ private residences ~volved. He refe~d co~cil to ~e le~er of J~ 9 about &e ordi~ce's ~pact on ~e v~ues of ~stodc~ prope~. ~ is no ch~ce on ~y incm~e ~ v~ue, ~ess ~em is a hstofic &sfficted created. ~s or&~ce wo~d be a f~ci~ dis~ter to homeom~s wo~d wo~d lose $50,000-$100,000 of ~e v~ue of ~eir pmpe~. ~. Nick O~ins~, a Cu~no ~sidem, s~d he opposed ~e o~ce. He om~ ~ Eic~er home, whch w~ not c~enfly on ~e list bm ~e~ had ~en ~scussions about includ~g ~m too. He s~ed ~e sine mneems as ~e p~om spe~s ~d agreed ·em wo~d be a l~ge cost m ~e prope~ omem. ~. Pat Alle~ 10191 Vis~ ~ve, s~d ~t m~y prope~es on &e list ~ve no ~stofic~ ~chitec~ v~ue ~d we~ o~y ~cluded became a ~stofic pemon lived &e~ at one time, ~d ~ey were us~ly of ~lafively s~l ~po~ce to ~e ~sto~ of ~e Uffi~d Sm~s. He w~ p~c~ly concerned ~ ~e abiliF ~ re~ate bo~ ~e e~edor ~d inmfior of ~e homes. At 7:40 p.m. ~e public he,rig m closed. February 1R, 10/)7 Cupertino City Council Page Dean felt that significant concerns had been raised by the speakers, including the need for owner consent, lack of a partnership between city and owners, potential fi~ancial impacts, and the need for a change in the demolition permit process. It appears to be the rights of homeowners versus historical importance. Burner shared Dean's concerns and felt that there was not much difference from the original proposal to the new ordinance. Cupertino would never have the resources to establish a historic district. He felt the proper approach would be to pick out the properties that are really of historical value, then see what the city and the owner can accomplish together. The people who own the homes have already proven to be the best protectors of those properties, and owner consent is essential in any approach to historical preservation. Chang said that the community's history was important but the city must use caution precisely because many of these homes are on private property. The city must not provide a public benefit at the expense of private owners. He suggested that the list be reviewed, separated into public and private, and the burden should be on the city to show that the property is truly historical. Bantista said he was in general agreement with the council members. They need to _ categorize the list and see if there is historical value and whether there would be a loss to the community if the property were destroyed. Some of the buildings are already protected through other means, and he liked Mr. Westwood's suggestion about a demolition permit process. Discussion followed regarding the appropriate makeup of the advisory committee and what the next steps should be. Council directed staffto reschedule this item for March 3, at which time statT will provide recommendations regarding the structure and charter of an ad hoc Historical Advisory Committee. Staff will also provide a draft ordinance requiting a review process for a period of one year for demolition of any property on the list of historical structures. The ordinance shall include a provision to allow property owners to appeal the decision resulting from the review process. 14. Application Nos. 2-Z-97 and 4-EA-97 - City of Cupertino - Prezoning the following parcels to RI-10:20711 Hanford Drive, 21123 orenola Drive, 20710 Dunbar Drive, 10494 Ann Arbor Avenue, 20973 G-reenleaf Drive, 21141 orenola Drive, 10495 Ann Arbor Avenue, 20861 Greenleaf Drive, 20833 Greenleaf Drive, 20889 G-reenleaf Drive, 10351 N. Stelling Road. Environmental Detemdnation: The Planning Commission recommends the grunting of a negative declaration. Recommended for denial. - (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1752: "An Ordinance of the City Council Of the City Of Cupertino Amending Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to FeBruary ! g, 1997 Cupertino City Council Page 6 - Prezone Property Totaling 2.6 Net Acres and Located in the Cupertino Urban Service Area at 20711 Hartford Drive, 21123 Grenola Drive, 20710 Dunbar Drive, 10494 Ann Arbor Avenue, 20973 G-reeuleaf Drive, 21141 G-renola Drive, 10495 Ann Arbor Avenue, 20861 G-reeuleaf Drive, 20833 G-reenleaf Drive, 20889 Greeuleaf Drive and 10351 N. Stelling Road to R 1-10 (Application 2-Z-97)." Community Development Director Bob Cowan reviewed the staff report. Mr. Lester Bowers, 21181 Hazelbrook Drive, said the long-time residents had two concerns. One was the frequent calls from major developers looking for property where they could demolish existing homes and rebuild, and that is rapidly changing the character of the neighborhood. Also, many of the homeowners are opposed to being incorporated into the city. Mr. Gerald Ducey, 10345 Ann Arbor Avenue, said that the property owners had twice voted not to be annexed to the city. It may or may not be a good time to do so now. He requested a public hearing be held to allow all of the Garden Gate residents to have input, since they did not get notice regarding the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Joseph Cenna, 20945 Greenleaf Drive, was opposed to the prezoning because it would set a dortgerous precedent. He also was in favor of a public hearing, and said that more stringent guidelines may restrict the amount of development and that would keep him from recouping his investment. Cowan explained that if a building is demolished the city may choose to annex it at that time; but if a property owner merely makes modifications to a building, they do so under the county guidelines, and may choose to annex on their own. If the city prezones the entire area, there would be no cost to the property owner when they annex. Council members discussed the options available to the city and residents. The City Manager said that those options would be explained at the public hearing and would include doing nothing, prezoning the property, or annexing all of it if the community is in favor. Prezoning may benefit the residents without any cost to them. There was consensus by Council that in the interim between now and the public hearing, if a property owner wants to develop the property, they can voluntarily build the structure to city standards and proceed immediately (purs~ar~t to concurrence by the county), or they can rezone, annex, and then be delayed until the building pe~ii-dt is issued. In the meantime, Council will not proceed with prezordng these 11 lots but will keep the annexation agreements in place subject to future decisions. Chang moved to uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny the application to prezone these parcels. Dean seconded, and the motion carried 4-0 with Sorensen absent. No action was taken on the ordinance or negative declaration. Cowan noted that this - entire issue will be presented to the community again at a public hearing and will then go back to the Planning Commission. l~e/~r-ary /~, 100~ (~upertJno City Council Page 7 PLANNING APPLICATIONS None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS 15. Review of bids and award of contract for Creekside Park Improvements, Project 96-9208. The Public Works Director reviewed the staff report and recommended that the contract be awarded to B & B Concrete Construction, excluding alternate items B & C; approve a 5% contingency; and authorize negotiation for the field drainage system in an mount not to exceed $135,000, which is in addition to the award amount. Mr. Michael Leonard, representing B & B Landscape Contractors, Inc., said his firm was the second lowest bidder. He pointed out that Council had adopted the Caltrans Standard Specifications and Plans earlier in the evening on the consent agenda. Those require that any subcontractor that will perform more than 1/2 of one percent of the project or $10,000 must be named. B&B Concrete did not name contractors for electrical, underground or drainage, engineering, or bridge installation. They show "General Contracting" as the company that will construct the building but that company is not licensed. He asked that B & B Concrete be disqualified for unfair bidding practices. The Public Works Director said that the contractor is licensed under James Bass, General Contractor, but letterhead just shows General Contracting. Where subcontractors are not listed, he is licensed to do that work and is now the contractor of record for that work. Staff was directed to return this item to Council on March 3 to allow time for the City Attorney to review the bid selection process. 16. Discussion of 1997 Planning Commission Work Program. Council concurred to accept the work program as presented, and to change the title of C-4 from the Tier 2 system to "Review Non-Residential Land Use Policy." ORDINANCES 17. Second reading and enactment Ordinance No. 1750: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code by '- Rezoning a Ten Acre Parcel Located at 10741 North Wolfe Road and 19590 Pruneridge Febn sw 12, 1997 (~upertino (~ily (~ouncil Page Avenue from Planned (Commercial, Office, Recreation) Zone to Planned (Residential/Commercial) Zone (Application 6-Z-96 - Sandhill Properties)." The City Clerk distributed a revised copy which reflected the changes made at the first reading. One change was to amend the description of the zoning from Planned Residential/Hotel to Hotel. Also, a sentence was added saying that "the Planned Development zone shall incorporate the conditions of approval for Application No. 6-Z- 96, as enumerated in the City Clerk's letter." The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Bumett moved and Chang seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Motion carried 3-1, with Dean voting no and Sorensen absent. Burnett moved and Chang seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1750. Motion carried 3-1 with Dean voting no and Sorensen absent. STAFF REPORTS The City Manager said that invitations to the community training and teambuilding session on February 28 and March 1 have been sent out. To date there are 54 responses, and 31 individuals plan to attend. He asked the City Council members to take the list of the people who have not yet RSVP'd and follow up by telephone. COUNCIL REPORTS None. ADJOURN At 9:30 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to 6:00 p.m., Monday, March 3, for interviews of applicants and appointment to Parks and Recreation Commission. Kimber~TS--~ith City Clerk