Loading...
CC 07-19-99 ~N~ES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ SPECIAL MEETING CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION ~ SPECIAL MEETING Monday, July 19, 1999 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:00 p.m. Mayor Dean called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor Wally Dean, Vice-Mayor John Statton, and Council members Don BurneR, Michael Chang, and Sandra James. Council members absent none. Redevelopment Agency members present: Chairperson Wally Dean, Vice-Chairperson John Statton, and members Don Bumett, Michael Chang, and Sandra James. Agency members absent none. Planning Commission members present: Chairperson David Doyle, Vice-Chairperson Andrea Harris, and Commissioners Charles Corr, Patrick Kwok, and Jerry Stevens. Staff present: City Manager Don Brown, City Attorney Charles Kilian, AdministratiVe Services Director Carol Atwood, Community Development Director Bob Cowan, Parks and Recreation Director Steve Dowrmg, Public Works Director Bert Viskovieh, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. PROPOSED CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT 1. Joint meeting of the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, and Planning Commission to consider a redevelopment project at Vallco Fashion Park: (a) Overview of redevelopment process and briefing concerning proposed Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project The City Manager gave an overview of the project to redevelop Vallco Mall, which has fallen on hard times. In 1987 the city first formed a Redevelopment Agency for Rancho Rinconada and the Vallco Mall, but those projects were never undertaken. Tonight the Redevelopment Agency (consisting of the same membership as the City Council) will implement the Vallco project. Ms. Martha Packard, representing the redevelopment consultant Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. She said that the redevelopment process will take about eight Page :2 Cupertino City Council July months and there will be a sm/es of actions, documents, legal notices, an cnvimnmental impact report, open discussions with taxing agencies, etc. The first step tonight will be the designation of the survey area. Then the Planning Commission will adopt the prehminary plan. The Redevelopment Agency will receive and approve the preliminary plan, and designate the project area and base year. Although the redevelopment project must be in place by July 2000, they anticipatc it will be completcd by February. The Redcvelopment Agency will receive the preliminary report, draft EIR, and draft plan in October. This is an open and public process, and the public is invited to comment. (b) Introduction of representatives of the SG Cupertino LLC, Vallco Fashion Park propcrty owner. Mr. Tim Kelly, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., gave a brief slide presentation and distributed copies of the info~f~-,ation. The briefing covered the history of thc center, discussed thc overall economic decline of the center, including obsolcscence, decline in market conditions, declining sales, high vacancy levels, low lease rates, complications in ownership patterns, and thc shopping center's position in the market. Mr. Jim Abilene represented the Richard E. Jacobs group, which is the developer and owner of Vallco. He said the Jacobs Gwup is headed by Richard Jones, and is the largest privately-owned shopping center company in the country, with 280 people on staff. It is also active in the hotel industry, and owns 47 million square feet of commercial space. The company has been so successful because they continue to adapt to changes in the market and retail landscape. Mr. Abilene said they will keep upgrading the merchandising mix at Vallco, and renovating the Macy's store was one of the first steps. Next will be the addition of another fashion department store, and the Jacobs Group hopes to conclude negotiations with Dillard's soon. Also planned is a new entertaiment anchor, such as a multiplex theater, as well as improved food offerings and a new food court. (c) Receipt of advice concerning the conflict disclosure requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law Ms. Nicki Murphy represented Murphy & McNay, legal counsel. She pointed out the conflict disclosure requirements of California community redevelopment law, which were included in the backup materials. Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency meetings recessed and City Council remained in session. ,luly 19, 1/)99 Cupertino City Council Page ~ 2. City Council took the following actions: (a) Approved and authorized execution of an agreement for payment of costs between the City, the Agency, and the JO Cupertino LLC, Resolution No. 99-209. Statton moved and Chang seconded to adopt City Council Resolution No. 99-209. Motion carried 5-0. Co) Approved and authorized execution of an agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., Resolution No. 99-210. James moved and Statton seconded to adopt City Council Resolution No. 99-210. Motion carried 5-0. (c) Approved and authorized execution of cooperation agreement between the City and the Agnney, Resolution No. 99-211. Chang moved and James seconded to adopt City Council Resolution No. 99-211. Motion carried 5-0. (d) Designated the Redevelopment Survey Area, Resolution No. 99-212. Bumett moved and Chang seconded to adopt City Council Resolution No. 99-212. Motion carried 5-0. City Council meeting recessed and the Planning Commission reconvened. 3. Planning Commission selects Project Area Boundaries and approves Preliminary Plan for Project, Planning Commission Resolution No. 5054. Corr moved and Kwok seconded to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5054. The motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission adjourned. City Council remained in recess, and the Redevelopment Agency convened. 4. Redevelopment Agency took the following actions: (a) Adopted Bylaws and appointed officers, Resolution No. RA-99-01. lames moved and Bumett seconded to adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 99-01. The motion carried 5-0. (b) Adopted Personnel Rules, Resolution No. RA-99-02. lames moved and Burnett seconded to adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 99-02. The motion carried 5-0. (e) Adopted Environmental Review Procedures, Resolution No. RA-99-03. James moved and Bumett seconded to adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 99-03. The motion carried 5-0. (d) Approved and authorized execution of cooperation agreement between the City and the Agency, Resolution No. RA-99-04. lames moved and Bumett seconded to adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 99-04. The motion carried 5-0. Page ,i Cupertino City Council luly 1~), l!)!)~ .~ (e) Designated a newspaper of general circulation for official notices, Resolution No. RA-99-05. James moved and Burner seconded to adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 99-04. The motion carried 5-0. (f) Adopted Conflict of Interest Code, Resolution No. RA-99-06. James moved and Burner seconded to adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 99-05. The motion carried 5-0. (g) Authorized amended filings with the Secretary of State and County Clerk for the roster of public agencies, Resolution No. RA-99-07. James moved and Burner seconded to adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 99-06. The motion carried 5-0. (h) Approved and authorized execution of Agreement for Payment of Costs between the City, the Agency, and the JG Cupertino LLC, Resolution No. RA-99-08. James moved and Burner seconded to adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 99-07. The motion carried 5-0. (i) Accepted the Preliminary Plan and authorized the transmittal of info~mation to the taxing officials/entities, Resolution No. RA-99-08. James moved and Burnett seconded to adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 99-09. The motion carried 5-0. RECESS At 6:43 p.m. the Redevelopment Agency adjourned. City Council reconvened at 6:48 p.m. to complete its regular agenda. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS - None POSTPONEMENTS Item No. 17, regarding the vacation of a portion of a public utility easement on Regnart Road, was continued to August 16. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Floyd Meyer, 10186 Westacres Drive, discussed traffic citations that were issued on Kim and Bollinger Roads. He said he was concerned that the money from traffic citations was being misdirected. July 1!), ! Cupertino City Council Page CONSENT CALENDAR Bumett moved to approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Statton seconded and the motion carried $-0. 5. Accounts payable: (a) June 30, 1999, Resolution No. 99-231 Co) July 2, 1999, Resolution No. 99-213 (c) July 9, 1999, Resolution No. 99-214 6. Payroll: July 9, 1999, Resolution No. 99-215 7. Minutes: July 6, 1999, regular meeting. 8. Making determinations and approving the reorganization of territol~ designated "Imperial Avenue 99-07% approximately 0.457 acre located on the east side of Imperial Avenue between Olive Avenue and Alcazar Avenue; Yeh (APN 357-19-049), Resolution No. 99- 216 9. Recommendation from Telecommunications Commission approving public access grant. 10. Improvement agreements: '-- (a) Sonia and Surinder Singh, 10633 Johansen Drive, APN 375-37-059, Resolution No. 99-217 Co) Zankich Construction, Inc., a California Co~poration, 10181 Forest Ave., APN 316-33-131, Resolution No. 99-218 (c) Y R Dev., LLC, a California Limited Liability Co., 10675 Santa Lucia Rd., APN 342-17-055, Resolution No. 99-219 (d) Thomas J. Hutton & Paula L. Hutton, 22820 San Juan Rd., APN 342-21-025, Resolution No. 99-220 11. Easements: (a) Y R Dev, LLC, a California Limited Liability Co., 10675 Santa Lucia Rd., APN 342-17-055, Resolution No. 99-221 (b) Masters Capital, LLC, a California Limited Liability Co., 10181 Forest Avenue, APN 316-33-131, Resolution No. 99-222 (c) Public utilities, Thomas J. Hutton & Paula L. Hutton, 22820 San Juan Rd., APN 342-21-025, Resolution No. 99-223 Page 6 ( upertlno elty Council July 12. Quitclaim: (a) Y R Dev, LLC, a California Limited Liability Co., 10675 Santa Lucia Rd., APN 342-17-055, Resolution No. 99-224 (b) Thomas J. Hutton and Paula L. Hutton, 22820 San Juan Rd., APN 342-21-025, Resolution No. 99-225 13. Support for the High-Speed Rail to serve Santa Clara County, Resolution No. 99-226. (This item was not printed in the packet, but was handed out at the meeting). 14. State-Local Transportation Partnership Program Agreeiiicnt No. SLTPP-5318 and Program Supplement Agreement No. 001, Resolution No. 99-228. 15. Annual rate adjustment and revisions for Los Altos Garbage Co., Resolution No. 99-229. 16. Setting date for consideration of reorganization of area designated "San Femando Avenue 99-08", property located on the west side of San Fernando Avenue between San Fernando Avenue and San Fernando Court; approx'unately 0.207 acre, Klm (APN 357-12-003), Resolution No. 99-230. (Public hearing date set for August 16). Vote Councilmembers Ayes: Burnett, Chang, Dean, James, and Statton Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 17. Ordering vacation of a portion of a public utility easement, 22362 Regnart Road. Resolution No. 99-227. This item was continued to August 16 at the request of staff. July 19, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page ~ 18. Public hearing to consider an appeal of Planning Commission approval of Application 4- ASA-99. The application requests architectural and site approval to allow the construction of first and second story additions to an existing one-story duplex located at 10333 Degas Court. The appeal was filed by Erh-Kong and Ding-Wei Chieh. Continued from July 6, 1999. Mr. Brh-Kong Chieh, applicant, discussed his objectives and distributed a written copy. These items included: adding sufficient bedrooms and bathrooms to meet the needs of his in-laws and children; adding on to the owners unit because it has the largest backyard; minimizing any disturbance to unit B, where his parents arc living; controlling construction costs; and maintaining the integrity of the duplex by keeping the layout and structures well-defined. Many neighbors were opposed to thc construction because they believed the addition was being put up illegally, plus they were concerned about privacy. Hc provided a timeline showing the activities that had taken place since December of 1998, mentioned the attempts to work with the neighbors to reach a compromise, and mentioned the design changes that were made as a result of architectural and site reviews. He discussed his responses to the alternatives suggested by his neighbors. One suggestion was to build only a one-story addition in the courtyard area, but that would destroy the yards for both units, and would not add enough space or provide sufficient lighting, ventilation, and drainage. Another suggestion was to consolidate units A and B and create a new second-story unit over the garage. However, Mr. Chieh said his parents are elderly and have some health conditions, and it is unreasonable to expect them to move into a second-story dwelling. A third suggestion was to move his parents to thc existing unit A and build a larger dwelling out of unit B with in a new second-story addition. The committee rejected this alternative because it would shift the building and reduce thc setback. Also, Mr. Chieh wants to expand on the owner's unit because it has a larger yard and more privacy. This alternative would provide only 95 sqv~e feet of additional area. Mr. Rich Abdalah, the attorney representing Mr. Chieh, said that this is not a tree flag lot. Although there arc six lots that would be affected by changes to this property, there are other houses in the area in a similar situation. Mr. Abdaiah said that compared with another two-story home on the same block, Mr. Chieh's proposal would have a lower floor area ratio (FAR), fewer windows, greater setbacks, lower height, and overall much lower intensity and size. Mr. Abdalah reviewed the steps the Chiehs have taken, which included complying with R-1 offsets, reducing the wall height, changing the slope to the ceilings, changing window types and sizes, using obscured glass or awnings in some windows, and agreeing to additional tree plantings, although they prefer not to place the trees right next to the house. Mr. Owen Byrd, representing appellants Henry and Nancy Adelman, said that height is a critical element in the findings, and the building height will be detrimental in this proposed location. Loss of privacy will create loss of sunlight, increase the amount of artificial light at night, and increase noise, all of which will lead to loss of property value and a reduction in the quality of life. Mr. Byrd said that the project would create an Page g L' upertlno City Council July abrupt change in building scale and an abrupt transition in height and bulk. He said that this is a flag lot that impacts 12 residences, and will stand out among the single-stozy residences. Also, the landscaping is an issue because it does not meet PG&E regulations. When applying the R-1 requirements as the Planning Commission specified, there are no second-story setbacks, thc stairwell is too high, and second-story walls are not set back enough from first-story walls. This project will become a ']-bedroom duplex, and there may be traffic impacts in the future. Mr. Byrd said he did not think Council could make the findings to uphold the appeal. He referred to a chart in his materials which contrasted this project to the others in the area, as well as a diagram highlighting the neighbors that were in opposition to this pwject. He also pointed out a discrepancy on thc elevations regarding wall height of the first story, and noted that thc landscape condition should be corrected to say that a tree should be planted in the cone of vision for bedroom No. 2, not No. 4. If this project is approved, the Adelmans request additional privacy mediation, including the 35 percent rule square footage rule as specified by the Planning Commission, so this project should be no greater than 654 square feet, staff's calculation was incorrect. Thc Adelmans also request a 4-foot setback on all of thc second-story walls and reduction of the roof height to 21 feet, used fixed or reverse awnings and obscure glass for bathroom windows and the window for bedroom No. 2 on the Adclmans' side of the house, and require 2 20-foot-tall specimen trees adjacent to the project instead of 15-gallon shrubs on the property l'me. Mr. Byrd distributed a list showing thc appellants' requests, copies of the photographs he used in his presentation, and a statement titled "Declaration ofKevin F. Cody" which was executed July 15, 1999. Mr. Donald Leonard, 22861 Medina Lane, said he and his wife are opposed to the project as currently configured. Such high-rise construction around what is essentially a flag lot will create a dangerous precedent that will impact the neighborhood by depressing property values and impacting the quality of life. They are particularly concerned about the height, but also about the lack of due process. He asked why there was no architectural and site review before construction was permitted, and why appropriate notice procedures were not followed. Mr. Roger Anderson, 10334A E1 Prado, said that he supported the Adelmans' position. The neighbors were very upset because they were not informed about the development nor given sufficient time to respond, so they instead had to come to these appeal hearings. Community Development Director Robert Cowan said the fact that notice was not given was because of an ezzor on the part of one of the planners. He explained that staff processes 300-400 applications a year, and sometimes mistakes happen. In this case it was an oversight on the part of the planner who did not realize the project was a duplex. It is an unfortunate situation, and occasionally it happens, but procedures are in place for that not to occur. Cowan also noted that page 18-45 of the back-up materials illustrates the 50% square footage provisions. Mrs. Sharon Leonard, 22861 Medina Lane, said that she opposed the project for the reasons already stated. 'uly 19, 1999 Cupertino City Council ?age Mr. Earl Morgan, Cupertino resident, said that he loved the sense of community in Cupertino, but the changes proposed by the Chiehs do not feel right. If he were making plans to change his home and had six neighbors who were opposed to those plans, he would listen to their input. M_rs. Nancy Adelman said that in her property is on the west side of the Chieh home. She is very frustrated that she and her husband were not infoxmed about the ordinance that covered this project, and they should have been entitled to an architectural and site review. If they could have met with the applicants at the beginning and negotiated some of these items, by now the house probably would have been built. In the interim, there has been a lot of neighborhood opposition to second-story construction, which has resulted from difficulties in trying to negotiate with the Chiehs. She also felt that sh~ had been mistreated by the planning staff and was told she was not cooperating. The problem originated with the error on the part of the city and they have not handled it properly. She suggested that they try to negotiate this matter a little further, and if that is not successful they would turn to a facilitator or mediator out of the city. Ms. Joan Del Secco, resident of Degas Court, said she did not understand why this addition, which was only partly constructed, could not be removed. She had been told it could not be removed, and the lawyers have told that to the commissioners, but she has been unable to locate that law. Also, whether this was a duplex or not,.the neighbors should have been notified. This new construction will block out the sky and remove all privacy. Mr. Emil Kolev, 10349A El Prado Way, said that he and his wife feel that good progress has been made to date, although not all concerns have yet been addressed. The reinaining issues include the roofline, second-story offset, the west bedroom window, landscaping on the west side, retaining wall, inconsistent elevation drawings, and the need for review of the floor area ratio. He suggested a walk-through be required when the framing is finished to ensure compliance with the conditions. Ms. Jennifer Schoot said that Ms. Del Secco said that they had obtained 110 signatures opposing this project, and did not understand how those can be ignored. Ms. Schoot said she lives directly behind the property in question. She has only one bedroom window that faces in this direction, and this new construction will block all of the light and views from the bedroom and kitchen. Mr. Abdalah said that the photograph provided by the Adelmans does not reflect the current proposal, which will be two feet lower. Also, PG&E says that there would not be a problem about changing the tree location in their easement. He said the Chiehs are doing the best they can to address the neighbors' concv~ns in good faith. He agreed that the east elevation is incorrect, and the landscaping condition should be amended to say that a tree should be planted in the vision cone outside bedroom No. 2, not No. 4. Page 10 Cupertino City Council July 19, 199~) The City Manager said that there is no good excuse for the stafferror on this project, and thc city staff understands that. They are not trying to cover up or minimize the error, but have pointed out the problem and dealt with it. They feel very bad that the neighborhood has had to go through this, and they feel extremely bad for the Chiehs, who have acted in good faith and did everything they were supposed to do under the law, and what staff told them to do. Staff accepts full responsibility for the mistake. Bumett said that the neighbors may be interested in getting an RI(i) designation for the neighborhood to restrict second stories. He said the new guidelines are much more restrictive, and they have been incorporated into this plan even though it was a requirement. This project is not inconsistent with other development in the city. The Chiehs have made considerable changes, and spent a considerable amount of money. The protection they are offering to the neighbors is as good as any single-family home would get. Burnett said he was concerned about the privacy issue and didn't think landscaping was a sufficient solution. He felt that obscure glass or louvers should be used in all windows looking into the yard. Statton said he would echo many of the points that Bumett raised. This comes down to a property owners' rights issue, and how to balance the rights of neighbors and property owners. The applicant has addressed privacy issues as much as possible. He agreed with' council member Burnett that simply planting trees is not enough to protect privacy. A higher sill level or obscure glass is also necessary. If trees are to be used, he felt they should be at least 35-inch box trees, in conjunction with window reconfiguration. James offered her apologies for the mistake, and offered the city's community liaison group, including Community Resource Officer Steve Angus, to continue dialogue in the neighborhood to heal some of the bad feelings. She said that many of the councilmembers came to view the property in question, including herself. She empathized because she also lost her view after 35 years, and had to learn to live with it, because pwperty rights must be weighed against the rights of the community. Chang apologized to both parties and said he understood that this is an emotional issue, and it is one that occurs in the community over and over again. He agreed with the suggestion for more changes to the windows and 35-inch box trees. Discussion followed regarding appropriate tree sizes, locations, and how they help to soften the look of the building. Cowan said that at least one window must be of a type that can be opened and used as an emergency exit. Burner felt that all windows should be treated with one of the approved privacy methods. He suggested that the two neighboring property owners negotiate the location of the trees as well as selecting the appropriate window privacy solutions from the ordinance, such as louvers. Cowan said that the ordinance now specifies minimum requirements, such as a certain number of trees. If the neighbors can negotiate someth'mg different between them, then that is acceptable. Cupertino City Council Page 11 Burnett moved to deny both appeals. James seconded and the motion carried 5-0. Burner moved to approve the application with the following modifications. · Accept the conditions and findings recommended by the Planning Commission. · Require that all second-story windows shall be treated to protect privacy and that trees be planted in accordance with the city's privacy ordinance. Statton seconded the motion. James offered an amendment to require that the cone of vision shall be expanded to include the entire yard and a sufficient number of trees shall be planted to screen that cone of vision in accordance with the city's privacy ordinance. Burner accepted the amendment, and the motion carried 5-0. Cowan asked for clarification on the window treatments, and whether it applied to the windows facing east. Burner said that those windows look into someone cls¢'s back yard, and he would stay with the requireii~ent for all second-story windows to be treated to protect privacy. The Planning Commission recommendation regarding landscaping was corrected to refer to bedroom #2. Burner made the following findings: · The project at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property in the vicinity. · The project will not cause a reduction in the Adelmans' property value. · The project does not propose an abrupt change in building scale. · The design of this new project in an existing residential neighborhood will not adversely affect in a manner that is more detrimental than in any other home in the community. · These findings include the incorporation of staff responses as shown in the staff report of Suly 19, and constitute sub-conclusions which support the findings (Note: see related topic under Closed Session later in these m'mutes) 19. Public hearing regarding dermquent accounts with Los Altos Garbage Company. There were no speakers, and the public hearing was closed. Burner moved to receive the infomxafion, note the changes requested by Los Altos Garbage Company, and direct staff to proceed to lien the properties after staff has reviewed the list and verified that all individuals were properly notified. James seconded and the motion carried 5-0. PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS Page 12 /~upertlno City Counell July 10, 1000 20. Request from Valley Transportation Authority to increase its number of bus shelters with advertising. Public Works Director Bert Viskovich reviewed the staff report, and explained that the revenue from the advertising is used to pay for the cost of installation and maintenance of the bus shelters. He noted that the Transportation Authority has promised to adhere to thc maintenance schedule, and encourages the city to contact them at any time if additional maintenance or graffiti-removal is needed. Chang moved to approve phase three elements of the bus shelter program that includes nine additional "domed" shelters being installed. Three will be non-advertising. Burner seconded and the motion carried 4-1 with Statton voting no. ORDINANCES 21. Second reading of Ordinance 1831, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 19.80 (Accessory Structure)." 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 5-0. Burner moved and Statton seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1831. Motion carried 5-0. 22. Second reading of Ordinance 1832, "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 the ordinance. Burner moved and James seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0. Bumett moved and James seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1832. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF REPORTS - None July 19, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page COUNCIL REPORTS Vice-Mayor Statton reported that there may be a need for more bus shelters in front of De Anza College, and he suggested that the Transportation Authority consider that. Councilmember Burnett reported that the ABAG Board of Directors will rest the housing requirements in the Bay Area, and there will be no consideration given for how well the city met the previous requirements. He voted against the proposition. The written proposition will be available at a later time. Councilmember Chang reported that he attended the Foothill/De Anza College reception. They will place a bond measure on the ballot this November, and are looking for support for that measure. Councilmember James reported that the Youth Leadership program will start in September, and it will teach students about local government, environmental issues, and communication skills. She said that she spoke with Mr. Carl Guardino of Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group about affordable housing and their housing trust project, and there may be an opportunity to work together. James said that the council was invited to a reception on August 12 to welcome E Online Inc. CLOSED SESSION At 9:35 p.m. Council recessed to a closed session to discuss significant exposure to litigation, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9Co)(1): Mr. Henry Adelman and Dr. Nancy Adelman. At 9:40 p.m. Council reconvened. The City Attorney announced that council directed the Chief Building Official to lift the stop work order on the project by Erh-Kong and Ding-Wei Chieh (4-ASA-99) at this time, on the condition that the Chiehs execute a release acceptable to the City Attorney, as described in closed session. AD,IOURNMENT At 9:40 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. City Clerk