Loading...
101-Draft minutes.pdf DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL SUCCESSOR TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Special Meeting Tuesday, August 7, 2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROLL CALL At 4:00 p.m. Mayor Mark Santoro called the special meeting to order in the Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Present: Mayor Mark Santoro, Vice-Mayor Orrin Mahoney (4:06 p.m.), and Council members Barry Chang (4:03 p.m.), Rod Sinks, and Gilbert Wong. Absent: none. STUDY SESSION 1. Subject: Study Session on Litter Reduction Plan, including potential bans on Single-use Carryout Bags and Polystyrene Foam Food Containers Recommended Action: Direct staff to agendize an item for a City Council meeting in January 2013 to consider a single-use carryout bag ban ordinance Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint, an email from Allison Chan listing the 30 Bay Area jurisdictions that have polystyrene foam (EPS) food ware bans, and an email from Lola Kashyap supporting a ban on single-use plastic bags. Director of Public Works Director Timm Borden reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation. Dean Peterson, San Mateo County Environmental Health Director explained that non-profit groups such as Good Will and Salvation Army were exempted from a plastic bag ban because they didn’t want to put an added burden on the shoppers or the facility. He noted that some stores were already charging for their bags and many people who shop there bring in their own bags. He also explained that restaurants were excluded because of a public health concern for cross-contamination. He noted that they will study this issue further. Allison Chan spoke on behalf of Save the Bay urging Council to agendize an ordinance regarding banning both plastic and expanded polystyrene food containers. She explained that roughly one million bags end up in the bay every year. She noted that she is glad to see Cupertino and other Santa Clara County cities participating in the regional EIR effort in San Mateo. She said that polystyrene food containers create a litter issue as well noting that San Tuesday, August 7, 2012 Cupertino City Council Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Jose recently cleaned out a trash capture device from the storm drain and found that most of the floatable debris was from polystyrene food ware. She noted that there is only a small margin of cost for restaurants to use alternatives to polystyrene containers and recent phone calls to 8 cities that currently have a ban in place mentioned no hardships on their restaurants. Phil Pflager said that he became concerned about this issue when he saw the movie “Bag It.” He said he plans to show the movie in the future and invite Council to see it. He said that people would definitely want to ban plastic bags after viewing the movie. He noted that the Monterey Bay Aquarium has information on animals injured by eating plastic bags. Jennifer Griffin said that of course we want to make sure that garbage and debris doesn’t end up in our creeks, the bay, or the storm drains. She said has always reused her plastic bags many times over and resents that people would only use them once. She noted that plastic takes a lot of energy to use and break down and that people need to reuse them. She said she wanted to be sure that handicapped people wouldn’t be charged for bags. Gary Latshaw, representing Cool Cities in Cupertino and the Sierra Club, encouraged Council to take the most aggressive means possible for banning bags noting that we have a responsibility for future generations. Anne Pflager said that humans will have to change their relationship with the environment and realize that plastic is causing harm from production to disposal. She noted that use of reusable bags is hard to get used to but that it’s just a change in attitude. She said that communities need to lead the way. Laura Kasa, Executive Director of Save Our Shores, said she coordinates 250 creek, river, and beach cleanups every year preventing 30 pounds of trash from going into the ocean. She explained that the group has five years of data showing the prevention of 30,000 plastic bags and 46,000 pieces of Styrofoam from going into the ocean. She said that bans do work. She explained that Santa Cruz County passed a plastic ban in March and has seen a 50% decrease in Styrofoam containers on the beaches in Santa Cruz and the other 50% is still there is because the inland areas haven’t yet put a ban in place. She said that before the ban went into effect, she sat outside the Safeway store noting that 10% of the people were not taking a bag or bringing their own bag and after the ban, it grew to 85% which shows that the .10 per bag charge helps with the goal of bringing your own bag. She said that the group has a bag giveaway for those who can’t afford a bag and puts murals up on the stores reminding people to bring their own bags. Mayor Santoro asked if staff would get the ordinance language from the Santa Cruz plastic bag ban. Javier Gonzalez from California Restaurant Association said that the use of reusable bags by patrons increases the owners’ liability for cross-contamination because food isn’t prepackaged and it can leak. He noted that paper bags aren’t always the most practical choice for restaurants and plastic bags are superior in protecting against accidental spills and leaks during transport and come in different sizes unlike paper bags. He urged Council to exempt restaurants from a plastic bag ban due to this cross-contamination issue. Regarding a Tuesday, August 7, 2012 Cupertino City Council Successor to the Redevelopment Agency potential ban on Polystyrene food containers, he said that this was not the appropriate time to make an increased burden on businesses since the economy is still suffering. He noted that operating costs would rise and a ban would force restaurants to purchase other alternatives that don’t work as well. Ryan Kenny with the American Chemistry Council said that the Water Board had concern over the methodology reached for the litter reduction credits and that those credits are still under review and haven’t yet been approved for either a plastic or polystyrene food service product ban. He pointed out that the footnote at the bottom of the first page of the staff report noted that final crediting for litter reduction actions may ultimately differ from the present assigned value. He also noted that the litter characterization slide from the PowerPoint presentation showed that 7% was from Styrofoam but failed to mention if that was non-food pieces or food service pieces. He explained that San Francisco did a litter audit before and after their ban and found that polystyrene food service containers was less than 1% of the overall litter composition on the streets. They also found a 36% reduction in polystyrene food service container use after the ban but there was a corresponding increase of coated cardboard products. So, based upon this data, there was no litter reduction since one type of product was replaced with another. He also noted that the company World Centric, mentioned earlier as a place to purchase alternative food containers notes on their website that their products are all made oversees so there is a price for alternative products due to shipping and manufacturing costs making polystyrene one of the cheapest products to buy for food service. He said that the American Chemistry Council position is that any policy focused on litter reduction should incorporate all material types and not just single out one material type such as polystyrene food service containers. John Zirelli, General Manager for Recology said that their position would be to support a plastic bag ban but phase it in over 3-4 years. He noted that a ban would be a large impact to the businesses and restaurants in Cupertino and that the economy is still a bit bumpy. He explained that they have a recycling processor that recycles plastic bags if they are bunched together in a resident’s recycle bin. Individual bags clog up the machine and it becomes labor intensive to remove them and the bags are likely destroyed and not able to be recycled at that point. He noted that polystyren e in theory is recyclable but it is a bulky material, their processor doesn’t recycle it, and it contaminates the load by breaking up into bits and pieces, reducing the value of the other recyclables. He said that the San Francisco plant is able to recycle it better if it comes in clean and in big pieces, but it is not recyclable at all if contaminated by food. He explained that the Styrofoam then gets land-filled. Answering a question from Council, he noted that the revenue from recycling plastic bags doesn’t cover the cost of picking them up. Dean Peterson from San Mateo said that the EIR took a look at five main areas of CEQA: air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology & water quality, and utilities & system services. Of those, the impact to the environment is beneficial from three of them if the proposed ordinance were passed and implemented region-wide. The remaining two were not significant and no mitigation was needed. The EIR reconfirmed their anticipation that by encouraging reusable bags, banning plastic bags, and charging for paper, a ban would be beneficial to the environment. He explained that they are going with the alternative to not include restaurants and to only ban plastic and charge for paper. He Tuesday, August 7, 2012 Cupertino City Council Successor to the Redevelopment Agency explained that the issue on potentially charging for plastic bags was preempted by State law in the Public Resources Code which exempts local cities for charging for plastic. He went on to explain that the proposed ordinance ban defines what a single-use plastic bag is noting that there are plastic bags that are thicker that are considered to be a reusable bag and cities could charge a minimum amount for those bags. Mr. Peterson answered questions from Council regarding if polystyrene is bad for one’s health. He responded that the Federal EPA and FDA have determined that polystyrene when heated in the microwave has the potential to put styrene into the food and styrene is a potential carcinogen. Plastic in and of itself doesn’t have a lot of health data and there are a lot of good plastic containers that are microwavable. He responded to a question regarding how quickly a plastic bag degrades vs. polystyrene and said that both polystyrene and plastic gets into the air and blows around but polystyrene can become wetted easily, glomming onto the soil and degrading a bit quicker that plastic. He said that the goal is to find ways to be more sustainable and single-use items are not a sustainable way to live. Jim Cargill from Rio Adobe Restaurant said that they switched to a sugar-cane product rather than polystyrene and it’s only .50 cents more than polystyrene. He said that he uses plastic bags that fit the container and has reduced the use of the bags by asking a customer if they need a bag; they usually say no. He noted that education is the key. He does share a concern with sanitation if people were to bring their own bag and the food container goes in there, but it is a low concern for him. He said that the ban would force the use of more alternative containers which in turn would become more available, and the cost of those containers would go down. Council directed staff to bring back a plastic bag ban ordinance in January, or sooner if possible, and a polystyrene ban ordinance for consideration and provide additional information on how a polystyrene ban may impact the restaurant community. Staff will also bring for Council’s consideration an anti-littering ordinance including signage and education components. Staff will provide to Council the annual cost for inlet screens (grates) and additional street sweeping. CLOSED SESSION 2. Subject: Conference with legal counsel – anticipated litigation; significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov’t Code 54956.9(b): (one case) At 6:12 p.m. Council recessed to a closed session, and reconvened in open session at 6:45 p.m. Mayor Santoro announced that Council received briefing from legal counsel and no action was taken. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Mark Santoro called the special meeting back to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Tuesday, August 7, 2012 Cupertino City Council Successor to the Redevelopment Agency ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Mark Santoro, Vice-Mayor Orrin Mahoney, and Council members Barry Chang, Rod Sinks, and Gilbert Wong. Absent: none. CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS Mayor Santoro added a presentation of a check to the City from the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department. Sheriff Laurie Smith explained that the cost of law enforcement services for Cupertino is one of the lowest in the County. This fiscal year they came under budget by almost $500,000 and Cupertino is receiving a reimbursement on the amount paid for law enforcement services. 3. Subject: Presentation of proclamation to Maya Varma for winning awards at the California State Science Fair Recommended Action: Present proclamation Mayor Santoro presented the proclamation to Maya Varma who is an 8th grader at Lawson. She won a scholarship at the 61st Annual California State Science Fair. Her project focused on diabetes and neurovascular complications of the disease Miss Varma thanked Council and said she created a portable foot neuropathy analyzer device that can be used to detect early neuropathy in diabetes patients. POSTPONEMENTS Wong moved and Mahoney seconded to postpone Item No. 16 to a date uncertain. The motion carried unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR Wong moved and Mahoney seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as recommended, with the exception of Item No. 16 which was postponed and Item No. 18 which was pulled for discussion. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. 4. Subject: July 3 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve minutes 5. Subject: June 26 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve minutes 6. Subject: Accounts payable for period ending June 29, 2012 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-079 Tuesday, August 7, 2012 Cupertino City Council Successor to the Redevelopment Agency 7. Subject: Accounts payable for period ending July 6, 2012 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-080 8. Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending July 13, 2012 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-081 9. Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending July 20, 2012 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-082 10. Subject: Mid-Year Budget adjustment #2 Recommended Action: Approve adjustment 11. Subject: Update department head housing policy Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-083 Written communications for this item included an amended resolution. 12. Subject: Alcohol Beverage License, Shanghai Dim Sim Inc., 19066 Stevens Creek Boulevard Recommended Action: Approve application for On-Sale Beer and Wine (41) 13. Subject: Alcohol Beverage License, Vikhar, Inc, 1699 S De Anza Boulevard Recommended Action: Approve application for Off-sale Beer and Wine (20) 14. Subject: Treasurer’s Investment and Budget Report for Quarter Ending June 2012 Recommended Action: Accept the report 15. Subject: Approve destruction of records from the Human Resources and City Clerk departments Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-084 16. Subject: First amendment Insight agreement Recommended Action: Authorize agreement Under postponements, this item was continued to a date uncertain. 17. Subject: Adopt a resolution granting an easement to Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) for utility purposes on the parcel of land at the north end of the Don Burnett Bridge Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-085 18. Subject: Appointment of City Manager and approval of employment contract Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-086 This item was discussed after Item No. 24. David Brandt introduced himself as the new City Manager of Cupertino. He said that he was born in Cupertino and graduated from high school in Oakland. He started his career as a Tuesday, August 7, 2012 Cupertino City Council Successor to the Redevelopment Agency County planner for Santa Clara. He then went to law school and was appointed as the Assistant City Attorney for Alameda. He then became the Assistant City Manager in Alameda and most recently is the City Manager for Redmond, OR. He said he is delighted to be new City Manager and excited about projects in the Cupertino community. Mark Matsumoto from the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce welcomed Mr. Brandt to the City. Wong moved and Sinks seconded to approve the City Manager employment contract. The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Santoro noted that Mr. Brandt’s start date will be Sept. 10 and Interim City Manager Amy Chan’s last day will be Sept. 11. 19. Subject: Municipal Improvements, 10207 Orange Avenue Recommended Action: Accept Municipal Improvements Description: The work included driveway approach, sidewalk and curb & gutter improvements in the City right-of-way 20. Subject: Improvement Agreement, Jatin Parikh and Jayesh Parikh, 10571 San Leandro Avenue, APN: 357-05-073 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-087 Description: Through the improvement agreement with the City, the applicants for a building permit for a single-family residential development will be obligated to bond and construct city-specified street improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway approach along the frontage of their building site 21. Subject: City Project, Blackberry Farm Infrastructure Upgrade Project, Project No. 2010- 9135 Recommended Action: Accept Project No. 2010-9135 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 22. Subject: Second reading amending Cupertino Municipal Code 2.28.040(D) regarding the City Manager duties, removing the City Council closed hearing option for Department Directors Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 12-2097: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 2.28.040(D) regarding the City Manager duties, removing the City Council closed hearing option for Department Directors" City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of Ordinance No. 12-2097. Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks and Wong. Noes: None. Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to enact Ordinance No. 12-2097. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Tuesday, August 7, 2012 Cupertino City Council Successor to the Redevelopment Agency PUBLIC HEARINGS 23. Subject: Political signs in the right-of-way Recommended Action: Approve application MCA-2012-01 Description: Application: MCA-2012-01; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide; Municipal Code Amendment to a portion of Chapter 19.104, Signs, of the City’s Municipal Code regarding political signs placed in the right-of-way Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint and an email from Susan Sievert regarding placing multiple campaign signs. Associate Planner Piu Ghosh reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation. She noted that a minor correction was made to the ordinance revising the third bullet point in Section 19.104.250 (C), page 203 of the packet, to remove the words, “adjacent to a sidewalk.” Mayor Santoro opened the public hearing. Seeing no speaker cards, Mayor Santoro closed the public hearing. Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to approve application MCA-2012-01 with the following amendments. The motion carried unanimously. • Allow political signs in the park strip in the public right-of-way only in residential zones with adjacent property owner or resident consent • Political signs placed without consent in the park strip may be removed and disposed of by the adjacent property owner or resident • Modify the definition of “signs of de minimus value” to exclude political signs • Change enforcement process to: o Provide two (2) business days for correction of violation o Hold signs for 20 days Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to adopt Resolution No. 12-089 amending the fee schedule to add a fee regarding a new sign recovery fee for political signs at $3 per sign to be assessed when a political sign is retrieved. The revised fee schedule will go into effect on October 6, 2012. The motion carried unanimously. City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of Ordinance No. 12-2098. Chang moved and Mahoney seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks and Wong. Noes: None. Tuesday, August 7, 2012 Cupertino City Council Successor to the Redevelopment Agency ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 24. Subject: Hearing to approve assessment of fees for annual weed abatement program (private parcels) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-088 Written communications for this item included an email from John Dozier regarding a weed abatement notice that was sent to his clients, John and Karen Knopp. City Clerk Grace Schmidt reviewed the staff report. Karunakar Singamreddy said that he bought the property last year and was assessed an amount that isn’t correct. Moe Kumre, Agriculture & Environmental Management Program Coordinator said that the County sends out a packet explaining the program and includes contact information. The County sends an additional courtesy notice in April noting that the deadline is approaching at the end of the month. The County does inspections and if a property fails an inspection there is an initial fee assessed of $250 and notice is sent to the owner to resolve the matter within a certain number of days or the County will perform the work themselves and assess a lien. Mr. Kumre said notice was sent to Mr. Singamreddy’s property explaining that this was an assessment for last year. When a property is sold, the previous owner is supposed to disclose any issues with the property such as weeds. Paul Kalra said that last Friday he received a letter in the mail about the assessment hearing and spoke to Mr. Kumre this morning. He noted that he had recently bought the property and was working on removing the weeds. He showed the Council before and after pictures of the weed removal. He said he was upset that someone came onto his property to do work and charge him for it. He also said his name wasn’t on the assessment list. Mr. Kumre said that the previous owner of this property signed the notice in December saying he would take care of the weeds. The owner then subdivided and sold the land as three separate properties. When the County inspected the property on June 1, they didn’t yet have the information that the property had been subdivided. The inspection failed and notice was sent to the original owner explaining the failed inspection and that the weeds must be removed or a lien would be assessed. On June 25, the contractor took pictures showing that the weeds were still high, did the work, and took more pictures showing the weeds had been cut. As of today, the property is under construction, there are no weeds on the property and there is no fire threat at this point. Since the work was done evenly across the parcels, they took the entire fee and divided it by three parcels. Mr. Kumre reiterated that it is the responsibility of the previous owner to disclose that the property is on the weed abatement program. Janice Hoctor said that she had contacted the mayor to discuss her experience with the weed abatement program. She said she was notified about the weed issue and talked to Mr. Kumre, but she assumed the inspection was going to be closer to the time when the weeds were cut. She said that the weeds grew back and they were going to be cut again mid-June when she Tuesday, August 7, 2012 Cupertino City Council Successor to the Redevelopment Agency received notice of the failed inspection. She also said the dates were confusing and incorrect in the notices that she received. Mr. Kumre explained that weeds have to be cut by the deadline and maintained throughout fire season. They pushed back the inspections to allow property owners to take care of the weeds due to the early rains and they inspected late May/early June this year. This property owner was being charged only for a failed inspection. He explained that the date was correct on the required, initial notice, but there was a typographical error on the second notice noting an incorrect date, but this was only a courtesy notice. In response to a question from Council Mr. Kumre said that the County can’t legally make a profit. A majority of the Council concurred to not waive fees for the new property owners noting that it is a civil matter between the previous owner and the new owner regarding the need to disclose any weed issues on the property. Wong moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 12-088 with an amendment to waive the fee of $250 for parcel No. 326-43-045, property owners Janice and Kerry Hoctor. The motion carried unanimously. REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events. ADJOURNMENT At 9:16 the meeting was adjourned to August 21 at 4:00 p.m. for a study session regarding the Civic Center Master Plan. SUCCESSOR TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Canceled for lack of business. ___________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet. Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99 and are available at your convenience at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click Archived Webcast. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364.