Loading...
CC 07-06-98 MINUTES Cupertino City Council Regular Meeting Monday, July 6, 1998 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Chang called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor Michael Chang, Vice-Mayor Wally Dean, Councilmembers Don BurneR, Sandra James, and John Statton. Council members absent: None. Staff present: Acting City Manager/Public Works Director Bert Viskovich; City Clerk Kimberly Smith; City Attorney Charles Kilian; Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood; Community Development Director Bob Cowan; Parks and Recreation Director Steve Dowling; and Public Information Officer Donna Krey. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS - None. POSTPONEMENTS - None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Laima Baltusis, Cupertino resident, said she had previously sent Council a letter regarding the two-story house which overlooks her back yard. She showed a photograph of the house, which had four windows facing the yard, and said she was concerned about the loss of privacy. Chang said that Council is working to revise the single family residence ordinance to address these kinds of concerns, and they are trying to speed up the process, but unfortunately it would occur too late to prevent the situation at her home. Bumett said he sympathized because a similar situation happened at his home, and he recommended a tree variety he had used which was fast growing and provided excellent screening. CONSENT CALENDAR Dean moved to adopt the items on the Consent Calendar as presented, with the exception of Nos. 6, 11, and 12 which were pulled for further discussion. James seconded and the motion carded 5-0. 1. Resolution No. 98-167: Accounts payable, June 12, 1998. 2. Resolution No. 98-168: Accounts payable, June 19, 1998. July 6, 1998 Cuper//no City Council Page 3. Resolution No. 98-169: Accounts payable, June 26, 1998. 4. Resolution No. 98-170: Payroll, June 12, 1998. 5. ResolufionNo. 98-171: Payroll, June 26, 1998. 7. Minutes of regular adjourned meeting of May 27 and regular meetings of June 1 and June 15. 8. Review of application for Alcoholic Beverage Commission permit: Clarke's Charcoal Broiler, 20950 Stevens Creek Blvd. 9. Acceptance of municipal improvements: Shui Lain Lo, 10101 Orange Avenue, APN 357-16- 096; E & H First Family LP (Emily Chen), 21901 Dolores Avenue, APN 357-14-027. (No documentation needed). 10. Resolution No. 98-172: Approving change order No. 3, Blue Pheasant Restroom Renovation, Project Number 98-102. 13. Resolution No. 98-175: Authorizing execution of contract with Blackberry Farm Golf Course Pro, JeffPiserchio. 14. Resolution No. 98-176: Authorizing execution of improvement agreement between the City and Tony Amir Jarrami and Juliet Cezar, APN 326-50-003, 10010 Carmen Road. 15. Resolution No. 98-177: Accepting quitclaim deed and authorization of underground water rights from Tony Amir Jarrami and Juliet Cezar, APN 326-50-003, 10010 Ca,men Road. 16. Resolution No. 98-178: Authorizing grant of easement for rOadway purposes from Tony Amir Jarrami and Juliet Cezar, APN 326-50-003, 10010 Carmen Road. 17. Resolution No. 98-179: Authorizing grant of easement for roadway purposes from Qingyu Li and Xianing Zhu, APN 342-16-040, 10554 Santa Lucia Road. 18. Resolution No. 98-180: Accepting quitclaim deed and authorization of underground water rights from Qingyu Li and Xianing Zhu, APN 342-16-040, 10554 Santa Lucia Road. 19. Resolution No. 98-181: Authorizing execution of improvement agreement between the City and Developer Qingyu Li and Xianing Zhu, APN 342-16-040, 10554 Santa Lucia Road. 20. Resolution No. 98-182: Authorizing grant of easement for sidewalk purposes from Roberto Tam and Cathy Tam, APN 369-39-015, 20425 Silverado Avenue. 21. Resolution No. 98-183: Accepting quitclaim deed and authorization of underground water rights from Craig K. Slayter and Lori L. Slayter, 10315 Stoneydaie Drive. luly 6, 199g Cupertino City Council Page 3 Vote Councilmembers Ayes: Burnett, Chang, Dean, James, and Statton Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Monthly Treasurer's and Budget Report- May 1998. Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood explained that the property tax income is 38% below budget because the city has not yet received the funds from the County, which collects those taxes on the city's behalf. The next monthly report will show those funds. 11. Resolution No. 98-173: Authorizing execution of agreement for construction and maintenance of median island landscaping on Stevens Creek Boulevard between Tantau and Stern Avenues. Public Works Director Bert Viskovich said that the city will maintain a share in construction and maintenance with the City of Santa Clara. 12. Resolution No. 98-174: Adoption of Annual Goal for Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. Viskovich said that this is a requirement for grants received from the federal government, but is prohibited at the state level. James moved to approve item Nos. 6, 11 and 12. Bumett seconded and the motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HF, ARINGS 22. Resolution No. 98-184: Conducting an annual review of the storm drainage service charge. No increase recommended. Public Works Director Bert Viskovich reviewed the staff report. Chang opened the public hearing. There were no speakers and the public heating was closed. .-. James moved to adopt Resolution No. 98-184 and directed that the City continue collecting the assessment of fees for storm drain proposes at the existing rate on the property tax bill for FY 1998-99. Burner seconded and the motion carried 5-0. July 6, 199g Cupert/no City Council Page 23. Applications 7-Z-98, 2-TM-98 and 18-EA-98 - Emily Chcm- Temative map to subdivide .9 acre located at 10345 Tula Lane into four lots and rezoning of the property from RI-10 zone to RI zone. Environmental determination: Negative Declaration recommended. Recommended for approval. (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1795: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Rezoning a Parcel Located at 10345 Tula Lane from RI-10 to R1-7.5 (Application 7-Z-98)." Community Development Director Bob Cowan reviewed the staff report. Chang opened the public hearing. Emily Chert, applicant, said that the project is relatively simple and will be consistent with the neighborhood. The project can have access from the street or from the flag lots, whichever the Council prefers. Property owners typically want a gate to protect children from the main street. She discussed ways to design the houses so the sides of the houses look more like the entrance, and that they would work with future owners on setbacks and tree preservation. Burnett asked about the status of the lot line and fence location, since a concern had been raised by a resident during the Planning Commission hearing. Cowan said that it was - considered to be a private matter between the residents. Chen explained that she had been working with those residents and the issue would be resolved. Discussion followed regarding the options for vehicle access and how it would affect the look and feel of the four homes in question. James preferred that the houses face the street to maintain a neighborhood feel, and said there were many complaints about a project on Stelling where the backs of the houses were toward the street. Burnett was in favor of reducing the amount of paving, and Dean, Statton and Chang preferred a courtyard orientation. Chang asked that the record reflect his recommendation that this development be modeled after the property to the north, which was a vep. v nice-looking neighborhood. James moved for the Planning Commission recommendation, and the motion failed for lack of a second. Burnett moved to approve Application 7-Z-98 per Planning Commission Resolution No. 4932, with access from a central driveway and reciprocal access for Parcels A and B, and no gate at the entrance. The motion carded 4-1 with James voting no. Bumett moved to grant a Negative Declaration. Statton seconded and the motion carried 4-1 with James voting no. Cupertino City Council Page 5 The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Bumett moved and Statton seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Motion carried 4-1 with James voting no. 24. Public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Application 8- U-94 (Minor Amendment), Citation Homes Central. The application requested a minor modification of the use peimit to allow installation of an electrical gate at the apartment entrance located at De Anza Boulevard and Via Paviso. (Don Burnett, appellant.) Council received two hand-outs. The first was a letter and attachments from Avery Construction Company dated July 2 regarding the importance of security gates. The second was a letter from Lyon Management Group, Inc, dated July 2, recommending security gates for the Aviare apartment community. Community Development Director Bob Cowan reviewed the staff report. He said this is an appeal to allow a second set of gates for the Aviare apari~uents. Council did approve a gate on the Homestead Road frontage as a result of requests from residents of the Corsica and Portofmo neighborhoods to control access to the site because of conflicts with the driveway. He reviewed discussions with police and fire representatives, who recognize that it does slow down emergency response time and they asked that there be a standard procedure for opening the gates. There are options such as a Knox box, used by the fire department, or radio frequencies used by the sheriff's officers. Cowan said that staff had recommended denial because the general plan policy discourages gates. The Planning Commission recommended that the general plan be opened to reconsider this policy and be more specific about when gates are appropriate. For example, gates would almost certainly be allowed for parking garages. The Planning Commission interpretation of the general plan is that the question of security gates applies to the vast neighborhoods, and not to individual projects within the neighborhood. Mr. Pong Ng, representing Citation Homes, reviewed the letter from Lyon Management Group, Inc. He explained that the property would be surrounded on three sides by off ramps or commercial properties. This is a unique setting in the neighborhood, and there is already one gate on the Homestead side. They are separated from the contiguous single-family neighborhood by a solid sound wall, and a turnaround would be provided for cars which have entered the development in error. The gate will remain open during business hours. In addition to the gate, there will be an open pedestrian pathway similar to that on Homestead. Mr. Ng said they concerned as for the quality of life of their tenants who have made repeated requests for a gate. Not only would it give the tenants a greater sense of security, but there is also the question of equity and fairness. Council has allowed gates in other projects developed before and after this one. If the market should take a downturn, they would be at disadvantage to not have a gated community in order to be competitive with other similar apartment complexes. Burner asked if Mr. Ng remembered that it was - specifically stated in the approval process this was not to be a gated entrance. Mr. Ng acknowledged that was the case. My 6, 199t~ Cuped'mo City Council Page Chang asked if the other gate kept the pedestrian entrance locked. Mr. Ng said it is usually open. He agreed with Chang that it is not much of a deterrent to people who make walk in to rob the apartments, but it is a deterrent to people who would jump in a car to flee the scene. Burner said that Cupertino has a very low crime rate. People are not living in a climate of fear, and many people leave their garage doors open with valuables inside. He did not feel gates were necessary. They can create delays in emergencies - the security provided is questionable because it is easy to enter a project by following another car through the gate, and code numbers quickly become passed from person to person. He was also concerned about the potential for breakdown of an electro-mechanical device potentially blocking access to a development. Burner reviewed the history of the Forge community, which was also approved without security gates on a 3-2 vote. They asked for a change to move the development five feet closer to Homestead and to put in security gates. Council did not approve the move, but allowed the gate on a 3-2 vote. This is now a different council. James said that regardless of how safe people feel, security gates can be a selling feature for an apartment. She felt it would be appropriate to take another look at the policy. Statton said that he did not like gates because they created a feeling of psychological isolation. It sends the wrong message and over time that message tends to become a reality. He felt that communities should be built in a way that's open, to maintain the connection with people. He acknowledged that there were some competitive advantages given to gated developments. If he heard that the project was being hurt because other complexes in the area had gates, he would reconsider, but he did not feel gates were needed in this community. Dean said this is a difficult decision- out on Homestead there is a large complex, the Bella Vista with no gates. Right across the street is the Vidovich project with gates. This particular project is very close to the freeway offramp and for that reason he was willing to consider the gates. There has been no ironclad policy and the decisions mixed, and he could not find an example to deny the applicant's request based upon previous council decisions. Also, the proximity to the freeway must be considered. Chang said that he had not heard enough to make him vote against the policies of the general plan. There is already one gate on this project, and he did not see a compelling reason to install another one. There may be psychological reasons, but it's not enough to make him vote for it. He said this "one-size-fits-all policy" for gates may need to be changed. James said that perhaps there is a need for both open and gated developments. Single women, the elderly, and the physically challenged may prefer them because it feels more secure. She felt the market should drive the final decision. Burner moved to uphold the appeal and deny the request for the gate. Statton seconded and the motion carried 3-2, with Dean and James voting no. James moved to adopt a minute Ju/y 6, 19 }g Cupertino City Council Page 7 order directing the Planning Commission to open up a general plan discussion regarding criteria for gates consideration and refinement of that policy (No. 2-33). Statton seconded, and the motion carded 5-0. Chang indicated that Citation could have its request reheard as part of the Planning Commission's deliberations regarding a change in Policy 2-33. 25. Public hearing to consider amending Chapters 9.22 and 1.09 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to establish property maintenance standards and enforcement procedures: (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1793: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Adding Chapter 9.22 to the Cupertino Municipal Code for the Purpose of Establishing Minimum Standards for the Maintenance of All Building Exteriors, Premises and Vacant Land." Co) First reading of Ordimmce No. 1794: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, Amending Chapter 1.09 of the Cupertino Municipal Code for the Propose of Conforming the Provisions of the Code to be Consistent with Present City Practices and to be Consistent with New Sections of the Code." Community Development Director Bob Cowan reviewed the staff report. Discussion followed regarding the timing from the original complaint to when the matter may be brought to the City Council. Cowan explained that it depends upon the type of violation, but the Code Enforcement Officers are given some discretion because the goal is to get them to comply. City Attorney Chuck Kilian said the Franchise Tax Board is notified once Council has determined there is a nuisance. Ms. Ann Anger, 10185 Empire Avenue, said she was very pleased with the results of this process. She asked that Code Enforcement be given more authority, and said that the phrase "minimum standard" is inadequate, a violation should be a violation. She said that enforcement of this new ordinance is the key. Statton said his only concern was his desire to move through the process quickly. Kilian explained that timing depends upon the type of violation, but the Code Enforcement Officers are given some discretion because the goal is to get compliance. Cowan said that Council would receive quarterly reports from Code Enforcement on these activities. The City Clerk read the titles of the ordinances. Bumett moved and Dean seconded to read the ordinances by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Motion carded 5-0. 26. Application 8-Z-98 - Scofield Drive Rezoning - Public hearing to consider rezoning of 26 parcels from RI-10 zone to Rl-10i (single story with a use permit for a second story) zone. The parcels are located on Scofield Drive, between De Anza Boulevard and Western Drive. Environmental dete~ii-dnation: Negative Declaration recommended. Recommended for denial. July 6, 199g Cupertino City Council Page Community Development Director Bob Cowan reviewed the staff report. Chang opened the public hearing. Cowan explained that the Scofield Drive neighborhood had initially subrnitt~d a petition for an Rl-10i zone, which was signed by 19 out of 26 property owners. The Planning Commission initiated a hearing to consider this request which would result in single story homes only, unless a use permit is filed. Between the time of the initial petition the neighborhood meeting, the neighborhood sentiment changed to opposition. In the future, if there is a request from a neighborhood to seek to change in zoning, staffwill hold the neighborhood meeting before a public hearing is scheduled so that property owners fully understand the options. Given the current lack of support, the Planning Commission recommends denial. Staff will prepare a policy to determine at what point the city would initiate a hearing on similar requests. Mr. Brian Miller, 20584 Scofield Drive, said this has been a time-consuming process, involving four trips to Planning Commission or Council meetings. The property owners changed their minds after the neighborhood meeting, when they better understood the definition of the proposed zoning He felt that the original proposal had been "sold" to them, and he felt that this is a very subjective zoning which does.not belong in the city. He asked that council deny the proposal. Mr. Oregg Manurin, 20725 Sunrise Drive, said he lived on property adjacent to the Scofield homes and he would have appreciated being informed about the proposal because it would directly affect the prices in his neighborhood as well. Since there was no notification given it created a lot of tension in the neighborhood. The people on Scofield knew what was happening, but no one else did. It would have been better to discuss it as the community before it got to the public hearing process. The neighbors are concerned about continuity in the neighborhood such as including street trees and other foliage privacy issues. Mr. Orland Larson, 20613 Scofield Drive, said he was one of the original petitioners. He was concerned about privacy and the q~ality of life, and the character of the neighborhood is an issue, because it was not originally designed for two-story homes. He agreed that this should have been addressed at the neighborhood meeting before the public hearing was scheduled. Mr. Larson showed some slides of the large homes in the area to he asked if it would be possible to put a moratorium on building second-story homes in the neighborhood, at least until the new architectural guidelines have been developed. He said he respects the eoncerus of his neighbors and holds no ill feelings, and it would be good for the city to address the issue of large houses on a city-wide basis. Mr. Victor Lee, 20683 Scofield Drive, said his home backs up to the Mervyn's shopping center. He was opposed to the petition because he wanted to retain a large open area on his -- lot as a play area, and which includes a pool and swing set. If a two-story home were prohibited, in order to expand he would have to eliminate some of those luxury items. Mr. Lee said that there were definitely property value concerns, especially regarding a particular house on this block, where there were no buyers after the zoning issue became known. He said he was concerned about privacy issues as well, but he believed his neighbors would be thoughtful enough not to intrude. When he asked his neighbors about his plans to add a second-story, the neighbors across the street said "the higher the better," because than it would block out their view of Mervyn's. The Council members agreed that this was a very important and complex issue balancing property rights versus privacy rights and impact on the neighborhood in temis of scale and neighborhood character. It was clear that in this case the neighborhood did not want this zoning, but the process had been very valuable in raising questions that should be addressed in the new architectural guidelines. Burner moved to adopt a Negative Declaration. Statton seconded, and the motion carried 5-1. Bumett moved to deny the application per Planning Commission resolution number 4936. James seconded, and the motion carried 5-1. Cowan said that the new R-1 ordinance will probably be heard by the Planning Commission in September, which will give them time to hire an architectural adviser. Council may not see the new ordinance until November· He will be working in the meantime with the Planning Commission to try to speed up the process by splitting it into subjective and objective components. 27. Application 9-Z-98 - Hibiscus Rezoning - Public hearing to consider rezoning of 19 parcels fxom RI-10 zone to Rl-10i (single story with a use permit for a second story) zone. The parcels are located on Hibiscus Drive and Hibiscus Court. Environmental determination: Negative Declaration recommended. Recommended for denial. Community Development Director Bob Cowan reviewed the staff report and said that the residents of this neighborhood went through a similar experience as the Scofield residents in the previous item. Originally the neighborhood was interested in the rezoning request but now the majority of property owners are opposed. Mr. Jim Leonard, 22042 Hisbiscus Drive, said that the Scofield Drive speakers made all points that apply to this neighborhood. These property owners want the freedom to do with · their property what the law now allows. He said that a man went around with a petition and didn't fully explained the proposal. Mr. Leonard said that he himself circulated a second petition and a copy of the zoning ordinance. Once the property owners realized what the proposal was, they were no longer in favor. This is a clearly defmed neighborhood so there is no question about where a neighborhood line is. There is overwhelming support to reject this rezoning. Mr. Michael Scary, 22061 Hibiscus Drive, said there is something wrong with the process that would allow someone to cimulate a petition and give false infom~ation. It has created some very strong ill feelings among the neighbors. 1u/y 6, 199 Cupergno City Council Page lO Burnett moved to grant a Negative Declaration. James seconded and the motion carried 5-0. Burner moved to deny the application per Planning Commission Resolution No. 4937. James seconded and the motion carded 5-0. PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None. NEW BUSINESS 28. Acceptance of bid and award of contract for Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters, and Sidewalks, Project 98-107. Public Works Director Bert Viskovich reviewed the staff report. Dean moved to award the project to Tally's Enterprises in the mount of $163,340.00, based on the lowest bid received; and to authorize a 10% contingency. James seconded and the motion carried 5-0. 29. Acceptance of bid and award of contract for Medians and Roadsides Landscape Improvements, Project 98-108. Public Works Director Bert Viskovich reviewed the staff report. Dean moved to reject the bid and re-advertise. James seconded and the motion carried 5-0. 30. Approval of commercial recycling program to restructure current rate and provide an outreach program to assist and promote commercial recycling. Public Works Director Bert Viskovich reviewed the staff report and described how the outreach program would work on an individual basis with companies in Cupertino to facilitate their recycling programs. Council members suggested that an annual award program be considered, that staff work with the Chamber of Commerce to promote the program to businesses, and that a letter from Council be sent out to all businesses in support of the recycling effort and how it can help the business community. Dean moved to approve the commercial recycling program by: a) approving the restructuring of the rates; b) Authorizing the expenditure of this program as outlined in the report; c) scheduling rates to go into effect October 1, 1998; and d) reconciling with Los Altos Oarbage Company the actual attrition amount. Statton seconded and the motion carded 5-0. July 6, 1991/ Cupertino City Council Page 11 ORDINANCES 31. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1786: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending the Heart of the City Specific Plan to Provide for an Exception Process for Design Standards." 32. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1787: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 2.32 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to Enable the Creation of a Planning Commission Subcommittee for Design review." 33. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1788: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 16.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to Change Public Noticing Requirements for Fence Exceptions." 34. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1789: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 17.44 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to Change Public Noticing Requirements for Sign Exceptions." 35. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1790: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to Change Public Noticing Requirements for Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects." 36. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1791: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 19.134 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to Change Public Noticing Requirements for the Architectural and Site Review Process." 37. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1792: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 2.16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, City Council--Salaries." The City Clerk read the title of each of the ordinances. Bumett moved and James seconded to read the ordinances by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0. Burner moved and James seconded to enact Ordinance Nos. 1786-1792. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF REPORTS - None. COUNCIL REPORTS All of the council members commended staff and the committee on the July 4 activities. Burner said that on Thursday interviews will begin for an architect for the Senior Center expansion. July 6, 1998 Cupertino City Council Page 12 James reported that she had attended the opening of the Joy Luck Place restaurant, which will be a nice addition to the community, and the Pacific Bell presentation at Santa Barbara Grill. Statton suggested that the audience chairs in the council chambers be upgraded, since they were uncomfortable, and made it difficult for speakers to reach the podium. CLOSED SESSION - None. At 9:25 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. Kimberly Si, hith City Clerk