Loading...
CC 02-16-99 MINUTES Cup~tlno City Council Regular Adjourned Meeting Tuesday, February 16, 1999 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:50 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 Burnett, Michael Chang, and Sandra James. Council members absent: None. 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 Dowling, Public Works Director Bert Viskovich, Planner Michele Bjurrnan, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS Students from Monta Vista High School introduced "Sparky the Robot", their entry in a national competition in robotics which will be held at Moffett Field on February 26-27. Mayor Dean presented them with a certificate of recognition for their participation in this competition. Mayor Dean presented City Manager Donald Brown with the League of California Cities Award for the Advancement of Diversity. Mr. Brown said that although the award is presented to a city manager, it really is an acknowledgement of the efforts of the community, council, business leaders, and students to make this a welcoming community. Council member lames acknowledged her friend Alisha, a student at Sedgewick School. POSTPONEMENTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Richard Weaver, 21426 Rumford Dr., suggested that the community room function now located in the library be assigned to the new senior center when that is constructed. February 16, I999 . Cupertflao City Council Page CONSENT CALENDAR James moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented. Chang seconded and the motion carded 5-0. 1. Accounts payable: (a) January 29, 1999, Resolution No. 99-045 Co) February 5, 1999, Resolution No. 99-046 2. Payroll: February 5, 1999, Resolution No. 99-047. 3. Minutes: February 1, 1999, regular meeting. 4. Recommendation from Telecommunications Commission to award educational grant to Fremont Union High School District for project at Cupertino. High School. 5. Making determinations and approving the reorganization of territory designated "Byme Avenue 98-10," approximately 0.149 acre located on the west side of Byrne Avenue between McClellan mad and Dolores Avenue; Perez (APN 357-12-040), Resolution No. 99-048. - 6. Setting date for consideration of reorganization of area designated "Byme Avenue 98- 12," property located on the west side of Byme Avenue between San Fernando Avenue and Alcazar Avenue, approximately 0.378 acre, Christ (APN 357-12-028), Resolution No. 99-049. 7. Accepting contract change orders: (a) No. 1, Medians and Roadside Landscape Improvements at various locations: Stevens Creek Boulevard, Miller Avenue, Foothill Boulevard, Project 98-108, Robert A. Bothman, Inc., Resolution No. 99-050 (b) No. 2, Stevens Canyon Road Stomi Drain & Retaining Walls, Project 98-110, Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Resolution No. 99-051 (c) No. l, Pavement Restoration, Project 98-103, O'Grady Paving, Inc., Resolution No. 99-052 8. Acceptance of city projects perfot,,xed under contract: Stevens Canyon Road Storm Drain & Retaining Walls, Project 98-110, Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction. 9. Acceptance of municipal improvements: (a) Joseph Kovalik, 10352 North Stelling, APN 326-31-009 (b) Big Guy, Inc., 10399 Byme Avenue, APN 357-12-032 February 16, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page 3 10. Quitclakn deeds: (a) Alan K. Yuen and Meekie Y. Cheung, 22277 Crescent Road, APN 326-16-084, Resolution No. 99-053 (b) Shyh-Hung Yinn, 10330 Imperial Ave., APN 357-19-051, Resolution No. 99- 054 (c) Richard Joseph Perez and Grace Perez, 10485 Byrne Ave., APN 357-12-040, Resolution No. 99-055 11. Improvement agreements: (a) Alan K. Yuen and Meekie Y. Cheung, 22277 Crescent Road, APN 326-16-084, Resolution No. 99-056 Co) Shyh-Hung Yinn, 10330 Imperial Ave., APN 357-19-051, Resolution No. 99- 057 (c) Richard Joseph Perez and Grace Perez, 10485 Byrne Ave., APN 357-12-040, Resolution No. 99-058 12. Grant of roadway easements: (a) Shyh-Hung Yinn, 10330 Imperial Ave., APN 357-19-051, Resolution No. 99- 059 CO) Richard Joseph Perez and Grace Perez, 10485 Byme Ave., APN 357-12-040, Resolution No. 99-060 13. Calling a public hearing to create underground utility district, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Resolution No. 99-061. Vote Councilmembers Ayes: BurneR, Chang, Dean, James, and Statton Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC NF, ARINGS 14. RI Ordinance, Application 11-Z-97, Public hearing to consider an amendment to the single-family residential ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter 19.28, regarding building mass, setback and height. Negative Declaration is recommended and the item is recommended for approval. (Continued from February 1, 1999). (a) First reading of Ord~i,ance No. 180.8, "An Ordinance of the city Council of the ..- City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 19.28, Single Family Residential Zones, of the Cupertino Municipal Code." February 16, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page -- Planner Michele Bjurman reviewed the staff report. Statton said that he recommended a threshold FAR of .35, after which an application would be reviewed by the new architectural review body. Bjurman said that the design review would cost about $?$0 per application, and she reviewed the staff recommendation on page 3 of the staff report, which was a blended discretionary and ministerial approach. She also highlighted some wording changes suggested by Don Bumett and Nancy Bumett that would clarify other portions of the single-family ordinance. Mark Srebnik, consulting architect, highlighted some slides showing computer- modified photographs simulating recent construction and how it would be affected if built under the proposed ordinance. Mr. Leslie Bumell, 21466 Holly Oak Dr., read the original wording of the R1 ordinance, which was intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings. His concerns were about massive structures and the impacts on neighboring buildings. He showed slides comparing homes on the Linda Vista Ave. and Monte Ct. and he was in favor of the design review committee. -- Mr. Leland Keys, 7885 Festival Dr., said this new ordinance does not take into consideration the privacy of neighbors of second-story additions. He first became aware of remodeling next-door when he heard the noise of construction. He was told by the city on two occasions there were no plans available or permits issued, and staff did not return his calls as promised. Some time later, he found out a second-story addition would be built, and was then able to view the plans. There will be five windows that will look directly into his yard and bedroom. Planting trees for privacy protection is not sufficient, and there is not enough room for them against the fence. He said he did not want windows on his side of the house and mentioned other recent developments in the city that had made that accommodation. He said that this is a gross denial of neighbors' rights and is not acceptable. Bob Cowan said the plans may have been in some kind of plan check process and the inspector did not know about them, but he was concerned that Mr. Keys was not called back. As the ordinance now stands, it is strictly ministerial and there is no public notification or public input.. Privacy protection via landscaping was approved last October, and the plan checker is supposed to make sure that the landscaping will fit in the available space. Burner added that the other houses Mr. Keys mentioned were either in planned development zones or in a neighborhood which was zoned for single story homes by a petition of the neighbors. February 16, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Mr. Marc Auerbach, 18860 Bamhart Ave., supported thc changes to the RI zoning as proposed. He did not feel it is the demand for large living quarters that is fueFmg the demand, but the mistaken view as to what will gain the most economic advantage. There are many examples in the Bay Area where large homes sell for less and smaller homes sell for more strictly based on location. For that reason, it is important to retain the integrity of their neighborhoods, preserve and enhance the identity of the area, insure provision of light and air, and keep a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of homes. Mr. Bob Schwenke, 12265 View Oak Dr., Saratoga, highlighted a letter he had delivered for council earlier. He felt most of the problems could be dealt with by addressing the volume of the structure. He discussed a schedule of volume calculations, and said he was in favor of architectural control committee that was professionally staffed. Ms. Mabel McFarland, 10567 John Way, thanked the council, commission and staff for their work on this project. She referred to her letter of support for this ordinance and a sliding-scale FAR, and said she also supported Councilman Statton's proposal. Large homes built in established neighborhoods do have negative impacts on the quality of life. Mr. Dick Childress, 5630 Starboard Dr., said it is difficult to legislate a fixed set of numbers and compatibility with a neighborhood. If council had required that the Monta Vista neighborhood remain status quo, they would still be 900 square foot "chicken coops" on 25-foot wide lots. In some areas, large homes are not appropriate; but in others, they are okay if the area is ready to upgrade. He discussed his experience as a developer working with architectural review committeos. He said it is a very subjective thing and can be very time-consuming. He suggested a fixed criteria for developing houses. He also urged that the city not include garage space in the FA.Rs. Ms. Samantha Van Epps, a resident of John Way, agreed with reaiarks made by Mabel McFarland. She referred to house on Rainbow Dr. and said that even if the mass were reduced, it still wouldn't fit into the neighborhood. These zoning changes were triggered by the distress of the people who were next door to new houses that didn't match the local architecture. Mr. Mark Bums, representing the Peninsula-West Valley Association of Realtors, said the problem that keeps coming up is that of large homes built in existing neighborhoods of single-story houses on small lots. Perhaps the zoning modifications should only apply to properties smaller than 7500 square feet. He was also in favor of not including garages in FARs, because people get around that by constructing carports _ instead and that does not benefit the neighborhood. February 16, I999 Cupert/no City Council Page 6 Mr. Steve Smith, 937 Brookgrove Ln., said he chose to move out of Rancho Rinconada into the Fairgrove neighborhood because of all the changes that had been taking place, in particular a large house constructed next to his. He supported the change to the R1 ordinance and a review board. Even though it will be more burdensome on the developer and more time consuming, the neighbors must live with the new addition' to their neighborhood from that time on, perhaps for the rest of their lives. Ms. Catherine Thaler, 10116 Stem Ave., said she was in favor of the ordinance, but did not feel that trees would solve thc privacy problem. Thc side setbacks are too small to allow emergency access if trees are added. She anticipated problems with maintenance and replacement of landscaping required by the ordinance. She also discussed problems with houses that have very high foundations, and asked if it would be addressed in this ordinance or in another section of the code. Mr. Brian Kelly, Kelly Gordon Development, referred to a letter he had delivered for council earlier in the day. He supported the architectural modifications as recommended by the Planning Commission, but opposed the imposition of those in conjunction with a reduction in the FAR. He said that land values will remain constant, or increase. If the FAR is reduced, the consumer in Cupertino will be getting a lot less for his money. -- Mr. Larry Mattheakis, a resident of Cupertino, was in favor of adopting the sliding scalc FAR. Council is fretting about the rights of a very small fraction of the city's homeowners, and property values are dete,~ined by many other factors such as schools, neighborhoods, etc. He asked that council respect the thousands of residents who wish to see their privacy and their quality of life preserved. Mr. John Mracek said only a fiat FAR should be used. He said the design review committee has some merit, and discussed the potential membership of that group. He asked that Council make their decision as soon as possible. Ms. Linda Roy, a Cupertino resident, pointed out a recent article in the newspaper regarding a couple trying to build a new home in Santa Clara who are now going through the fifth revision of their house plans because of objections by the neighbors. She felt a design review committee staff by professionals was the right approach. Ms. David Clough, 1031? Mira Vista Rd., said that he previously had a view from his yard of the sunset over the western hills. Today there is a monstrous home being built there, blocking the view of the hills and with windows facing into his back yard. Views and light are important parts of the landscape and part of the property asset. The foundation of the new house also sits about 5 feet higher than the house that was torn down. Mr. Orly Larson, 20613 Scofield Dr., supported the ordinance. He said that quality of life is what is at issue here. /:ebruary l~, 1999 Cupert/no Ci/y Council Page The City Clerk noted the following written communications which had been received aider the packet was printed: A letter from Stephen and Merete Wetlesen, urg/ng that council enact the strictest possible ordinance; a letter from Bryan and Susan Lanser, opposing the ordinance which would reduce the current FAR and supporting the formation of an architectural review board; and a letter from V,R. McFarland, supporting minlmi~.ing second stories and supporting the .35 FAR threshold. The following individuals had submitted these letters, but also spoke during the public hearing: Brian J. Kelly of Kelly Gordon Development, offering suggestions for architectural amendments and stating that an FAR of .35 is too drastic; and Robert Schwenke, suggesting alternatives regarding prescriptive design criteria, thresholds and criteria for discretionary review, and review procedures. Ms. Maxine t~rl'md, 10191 Lebanon Dr., said she bought that home because it has a large lot and there weren't a lot of regulations about the size of the house. One major issue to be addressed is privacy mitigation, and asked why there aren't restrictions about second-story windows. She pointed out that if they were to build a one-story house, it would be inconsistent with the existing neighborhood, so these new regulations must factor in those kinds of things. She was concerned that the design rcview process would be very subjective. She asked that council provide a long pipeline for people who are in the planning pwcess since the new regulations have not been available for review. Burnett said the simulated photographs showed that the proposed changes will help, but they are not adequate to provide the kind of control that is needed to protect the neighborhoods. He proposed adopting the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission and thought the .35 FAR was a good threshold number for triggering architectural review. He said there is no substitute for having people in the decisions on choices. There needs to be professional people on the committee, and it is important that the neighbors have input but cannot dictate the design. He noted a couple of changes to the ordinance suggested by Nancy Bumett and asked the COuncil to consider those as well. Statton said he agreed with a comment by council member James that the city is going too far in a quantitative manner and not far enough in a qualitative manner. He wanted to sec four goals addressed: (1) Creating harmonious homes in scale and design in the neighborhoods; (2) Allowing a continued evolution of the city's housing stock; (3) Creating a speedy development process for thc property owners; and (4) Creating an opportunity for neighbors to have the input into the development process. He proposed a threshold I~AR of 35. Below that threshold, it would be a ministerial process, and above .35 it would require some community input and an opportunity for negotiating the design on a neighbor-to-neighbor basis. February 16, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page Statton felt a more informal process is best, with professional people on staff, and some community representation. Meetings should be during the evening to make it easier for neighbors to participate. He suggested that staff put together the criteria to be used for design review, and urged that council put checks on the process by revisiting it in a year or so. Statt0n said that a second-story addition would be a good trigger, but perhaps all larger homes on smaller lots may need to go through thc process. He was hoping it would reduce the number of honses to thc reviewed to eight or nine a month, which would be manageable mount. James said she is delighted that council is considering architectural review. She felt that the simulations show that ministerial changes alone cannot solve the situation. She received a lot of feedback f~om the community which lives overwhelmingly in favor of architectural review, as well as a combination of some parameters set up ahead of time and a more subjective review to find creative architectural solutions. Sames said she would strongly lobby for a professional architect to be on call, as well as community representation. Neighbors would not be able to veto the decision, but dialogue is very important. There should also be some thought given to whether an elected official should serve on the review committee. James supported Statton's suggestion about a .35 FAR, and agreed with a comment by a previous speaker that this process will be a small price to pay. Many people will live in their neighborhood for a hfetime and changes to the neighborhood will affect the quality of their day-to- - day life. Chang said the issue has been reiterated many times: how can council balance the rights of the community versus the rights of the individual property owner? He reviewed the three components that had been proposed to address these problems. The first component was landscaping and site control. The second component, now under discussion, is architectural design. The third component will have to do with streetscaping. None of these are perfect solutions. He expressed his concern about the FAR proposal. Only a small number of people in the community are creating the situation, but council's solution will affect everyone in the community. Also, if the FAR is changed, how this council should detewfine the magic number. He suggested that they take a more moderate approach and set the FAR at .38 or .40, because it can always be modified again. Council is trying to solve the pwblem, but at this point, no one knows which is the right tool to do that. Chang was concerned that this process will pit neighbor against neighbor, especially because these aesthetic issues are very subjective. The good thing is that this review process is not mandatory, and is only necessary if the home will be above the threshold FAR. Dean said that comparing the square-foot costs of homes in Cupertino versus homes in neighboring communities tipped the scale for him. The more he considers a lowered FAR, the better it sounds. The other issue is the privacy problems created by second stories. Council had talked about formula of 65 percent to 35 percent as a ratio of first floor footage to second floor footage. That makes sense because it creates setbacks February ! 6, ! 999 Cupertino City Council Page 9 and reduces the intrusion on the neighbors. He was also interested in the idea of basements as a means of increasing square footage. Dean said that he was opposed to the architectural review concept because Cupertino had already tried that approach once. He felt the house size issue would remain a problem because the committee would never say an absolute no. Mayor Dean took a straw vote on the following items: 1. A majority were in favor of a FAR threshold of 35 percent. Chang said he would prefer a FAR threshold of 38 to 40 percent. 2. Council unanimously agreed to accept all planning commission recommendations regarding design such as height restrictions, setbacks, articulation, ceiling height, etc., with the exception of the ratio of first floor footage to second floor footage. Instead, council unanimously supported the 65 percent / 35pereent proportional ratio. 3. The pipeline time frame will be 60 days from the day of enactment of the ordinance. Discussion followed regarding the composition of the review committee. Bumett said -- he did not think the committee should include a council member, but a member of the planning commission would be acceptable. Applicants would always have a right to appeal the review board's decision to the planning commission and the council. It was agreed that an architect would be hired under contract to function as a consultant for the architectural review committee. Council directed staff to survey other communities with similar architectural review boards, and report back to the council regarding which procedures have worked well and which haven't worked well. In particular, they were interested in committee composition, review criteria, and the processes that are used, such as how neighborhoods are notified, the timeline for review, etc. Council concurred that an item undergoing this new design process, if appealed, would go from the review board to the Planning Commission first, and then on to the City Council if necessary. Staff was also directed to include the changes as suggested by Nancy Bumett. This item was continued to March 1, 1999. 15. Amend Heritage Tree Ordinance, application 36-EA-98, City of Cupertino, consideration of an amendment to Chapter 14.18 (Heritage and Specimen Trees) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to reflect R1 changes related to privacy. The project is located citywide. A Negative Declaration is recommended, and the item is recommended for approval. (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1810: "An Ordinance of The City Council of The City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 14.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regarding Heritage and Specimen Trees." February 16, 1999 (~upert[no City Council Page 10 The City Attorney announced that there would be a minor wording change that would be reflected in the second reading. Community Development Director Bob Cowan reviewed the staff report. Burnett moved to grant a Negative Declaration. James seconded and the motion carried 5-0. Statton moved to approve the application per Planning Commission Resolution No. 5008. James seconded and the motion carried 5-0. The city clerk read the title of the ordinance. Burnctt moved and James seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that thc city clerk's reading would constitute thc first reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0. 15. Amend Accessory Structure and Second Dwelling Unit ordinances, 35-EA-98, City of Cupertino, consideration of modifications, to Chapter 19.80 Accessory Buildings/Structures and Chapter 19.84 Second Dwelling Unit Ordinances related to privacy protection measures. The project is located citywide. A Negative Declaration is recommended, and this item is recommended for approval. (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1811: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 19.80 (Accessory Structure) and 19.84 (Second Dwelling Unit) of the Cupertino Municipal Code." Community Development Director Bob Cowan reviewcd the staff report and said this ordinance clarifies the definition of a detached building. Burnett moved to grant a Negative Declaration. Statton seconded and the motion carried 5-0. Burner moved to approve the application per Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5006. James seconded and the motion carried 5-0. The city clerk read the title of the ordinance. Bumett moved and James 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. 17. Streamline the procedure regarding conditional use permits and variances, amendments to Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, 39-ASA-98, 41-EA-98. A Negative Declaration is reconunended, and this item is recommended for approval. (a) First reading of ordinance No. 1812: "Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending the City's Ordinance Code to Streamline the Procedure Regarding Condition Use Peimits and Variances." February 16, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page 11 Community Development Director Bob Cowan reviewed the staff report and said that in order to streamline the pwcess, the city attorney has suggested the need for a public hearing be eliminated for conditional use peuuits and variances. The wording of the ordinance would be amended to state that the use permit or variance will simply expire after two years unless it has been used. Burner moved to grant a Negative Declaration. James seconded and the motion carried 5-0. Burner moved to approve the application per Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5005. James seconded and the motion carried 5-0. The city clerk read the title of the ordinance. Burnett moved and lames 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. PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 18. Review of bids and award of contract for Traffic Signal Project, Stevens Creek Boulevard at Saich Way, Federal Aid Project No. STPLHG-5318 (007). Continued to March 1, 1999. 19. Review of bids and award of contract for Homestead Road Arterial Management Project, Federal Aid Project No. STPLHG-5318 (006). Continued to March 1, 1999. 20. Review the Teen Task Force Final Report of the Public Dialogue process. Parks and Recreation Director Steve Dowling reviewed the staff report. Mr. Barnett Pearce and Mr. Ralph Banks of the Public Dialogue Consortium and Mr. Macy Armstrong, Teen Facilitator, reviewed slides that highlighted the information in thc staff report. Statton moved to approve the Teen Needs Assessment Final Report and implement an ad hoc committee to be comprised of five teens (one f~om each school in Cupertino), one council member, one parks and recreation commissioner, two staff members, and six other members from the existing Teen Task Force Advisory Council (which includes school officials, law enforcement, and service providers). James seconded and the motion carried 5-0. February 16, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page 12 ORDINANCES - None STAFF REPORTS - None COUNCIL REPORTS Bumett reported that the Santa Clara County Committee on Housing and Community Block Grants (CDBG) had reviewed all the upcoming affordable housing projects, including Cupertino's pwposal, and it stands a good chance of receiving funding. City Manager Don Brown reviewcd thc recommendations of the Legislative Review Committee: (1) Oppose ABS3, regarding home-based business licensing; and (2) Support SB 10, regarding repair of storm damage to streets and highways. Statton moved to adopt the recommendations of the committee. Bumett seconded and the motion carried 5-0. CLOSED SESSION - None ADJOURNMENT At 10:05 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to 5:30 p.m., Monday, March 1, 1999, conference room A, for interviews and appointment to the Public Safety Commission. City Clerk