CC 04-20-81
.
~ !'..
.
.
,
J-'.
,
":",",'
",,1'"-;;
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF (;A¡,Uuil4~
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Telephone: (408) 252-4505
KINUTES OF THE JtEGtJLü :ŒETING OP THE CITY COUNCIL
HELD ON APRIL 20, 1981 DI THE CONFERERCE RO<M, CITY BALL
Wl'&IO".I.JIU, CALIJOMIA
Mayor Rogers called the _etina to order in the Conference Room at 6:30
p.lI.
Counc. Present: Gatto. Johnson, Plungy, Sparks, Mayor Rogers
Staff Present: City Manager Quinlan
Deputy City Clerk Gaapagna-Blaise
Director of Public WOrks Viskovich
Director of Planning and Development Sisk
Director of Pinance Snyder
Director of Parks and Recreation Dowling
Assistant to tbe City Manager Brown
City Attorney Kilian
City Clerk Cornelius
CDBG Coordinator Bendee
Housing Rehabilitation Coordinator Caro
STAFF REPORTS
1. Oral reports by staff 1DeIDbers and submission of written reports.
It vas moved by Counc. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Sparks and passed unan-
imously to &pprove the concept of participating in the County animal
control program. Cupertino's ordinanr.e viii be smend2d when the County
ordinance is updsted. County authorities viII be notified.
City Manager Quinlan presented Council, .t:, an update on the Sheriff's
contract.
By general consensus. Council agreed to support the proposed legislation
that Senator O'Keefe is proposing regarding the lease of a port:on of the
Freeway 85 corridor right-of-way from the State for 99 years. The City
~anager will obtain a copy of the bill including the dea¿line date and
inform Council when it is available.
Council approved by consensus the application for an alcoholic beverage
license in the name of Cupertino ~ursery.
Council took the following actions regarding recommendations from the
League of California Cities Committee on Administrative Services:
Approve consolidation of general law cities elections with statewide
elections.
Oppose poli~y for retention of city records.
Support CATV work progr.,m.
-.t.',
GC-536
Page 1
A.,i_l con trol
Sherif f ' s
contract
Legi..lat ion
re lease of
85 corridor
Cupertino :iur-
sery licenst::
Lce recommenda
tions re legis
lation
..
.~
Central Fire
District
Energy
Commission
Hillside
Specific Plan
:~ Drive-
....gns
Billboard
removed
HCD guide-
l'
>","'.
KINUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Pending Leg~slation - Support SB 346, City Council Vacancies; Support
AS 31, Au.Jits of Local Government Caapaigns; Oppose AS 729, Public
Records Act; No position, AS 460, BIngo - HobilholDe Parks; Oppose AS
768, Csapaign Contributions; Oppose 58 519, Council Hembers - Numbered
Seats; Defer AS 350, Perllanent Absentee Ballot; Oppose AS 927 subject
to ~ndment, Recall.
A report from Hr. J. P. Van Saabeck vas presented to Council regarding
the contract with the Central Fire District.
City Clerk's Report
Cit) Clerk Cornelius reported that fourteen applicants had expressed
a desire to be considered for appointment to the n.,.,ly formed Energy
Commission. The time for interviews was set for 7:00 p.m., April 27,
1981.
Director of Plsnning and Development Sisk asked Council for approval of
a lercer addressed to the City of Saratoga concerning the Northwest
Hillside Specific Plan, expressing Cupertino's concerns sbout east/west
connection in the Prospect Road area. Council agreed by consensus
to have the Mayor sign the letter.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk brought to the Council's
attention the illegal signs that sre displayed at the Pt~to Drive-
Up business. Hr. Sisk said he had notified Hr. Bunker vith a letter
giving him 30 days to cOllply with the use permit and has had no
response. He asked that Council take some action. It vas moved by
Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Johnson and passed unanimously t~ send
a Hinute Order to the Plannicg eo.mission regarding non-conforming
signs at Photo Drive-Up.
It was moved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Sparks and passed
unanimously tj authorize the City Attorney to cite Photo Drive-Up
on a weekly basis for failure to comply to conditions of the ~ign
ordinance.
Director of Planning and Developm~nt Sisk reported that a 20 x 40'
billboard had been erected 0n Bollinger Road and Highway 9 and has
now been taken down because of its illegality and lack of permit.
Mr. Sisk also reported that Pollack and Pollack has awarded a contract
to San Jose Fence Co. to erect a fence and landscaping is to start
in a few days.
2. Request for approval for new program guidelines, Housing Rehabilita-
tion Prog~am, and extending pro~ram to ~ancho Rinconada area.
CDBG Coordinator Hendee introduced Robert Care, Housing Rehiabilitation
Coordinator, to Council. She asked Council to approve the new Program
Guidel ines for the Hous ing Rehabil itat ion Program and approve the
.
.
.
KINUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 ern COONCIL MEETING
designation of Rancho Rinconacla _ a new target area. She stated that
funding CMl8S from the Co~ty Developlll!Dt Block Grant. It was IIOvsd
by Counc. Plungy. seconded by C-. Sparks and pas..ed unanilllOU&ly to ap-
prove the guidelines.. pr___.
Director of Parks and Recr..t~ Davling reported that the May 2 dedica-
tion of Varian Park MS been ~lt9Oued until June. Council vill be
notified as to the exact date.
Counc. Plungy asked Mr. Dovl1l18 aI»out the Paries aM Recreation Co_ission
l11nutes. He asked if Coœcil rill be infoned about the updating of
Linda Vista Park. Mr. Dóvl1l1J _"ad Couni:il theY would.
Mayor Rogers requested Council co postpone the Legislative Review
Co..ittee and Council reports ..~~l later in the aeeting because of the
t1ae factor.
3. Proposed revised budget schedale.
Council agr~ed to the budget ca1....r pertaining to the 1981-82 budget.
The t~ntative dates sre as follo.s:
April 27 - Council/Staff 8tudy ....ion to develop policy guidelines for
prograa activite8. Also an EzecâJ.ve Session to e8tablish employee
negotiation guidelines.
May 18 - Return to City Council a report of affected changes snd priori-
ties established at the Council/SEaff study session.
June 13 or July 27 or August 10 - These slternate dates are proposed to
evaluate the impact of the State"s budget ~n Cupertino's allocation pri-
'rities. The particular date would be picked based on the State's bud-
get adoption.
SepteDber 14 - Budget session to review the 1981-82 proposed City budget.
September 21 - Public hearing on &evenue Sharing and adoption of the
proposed budget.
At 7:30 the meeting was adjourned. Mayor Rogers reconvened th~ meeting
in Council Chamber at 7:35 p.m.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Counc. Present: Gatto, Johnson. Plungy, Sparks, Mayor Rogers
CC-536
Page 3
Varian Park
dedic.ation
Monta Vista
Par'-
Budget
schedule
~:
Sparks i!lected
Mar......:
.
G aCto elected
Mayor Pro-Tem
.
;>'~;";.J;.", ;'j~.':7"'''''..~~.rr,;':rf"
KIlIUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Staff Present: City Manager Quinlan
Deputy City Clerk Blaise
Director of Public Works Viskovich
Director of Planning and Development Sisk
Director of Fiaance Snyder
Assistant to the City Kanager Brown
CitY Clerk Cornelius
City Attorney I1lian
CDBG Coordinator Bendee
SELECTION OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRo-TEMPORE
Mayor Rogers proposed a aotion to elect a new mayor.
It vas IDOved by Counc. Pl~, seconded by Counc. Gatto and passed
unanimously to DOminate Counc. Sparks for lfayor.
It vas aoved by Counc. Johnson, seconded by Counc. Plungy and passed
unanimously Co close tho< noainations.
It vas moved by Counc. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Gatto and passed
unanimously to elect Counc. Sparks to the position of Mayor.
It vas moved by Counc. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Johnson and passed
unanimously to nominate Counc. Gatto 88 Mayor Pro-Tempore.
It vas moved by Counc. Rogers, seconded by Counc. Johnson and passed
unanimously to close the n~Ainations.
It was moved by Counc. Plur.¡y, seconded by Counc. Johnson and passed
unanimously to elect Counc. Gatto to the position of Mayor Pro-Tempor~.
CONSENT CALEND.\R
9. Resolution No. 5620: "A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino Allowing Certain Claims and Demands Payable
in the Amounts and from the Funds as Hereinafter Described for
Salaries and Wages for the Period Ending April 7, 1581."
10. Resolution No. 5605: "A Resolutio.. of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino Allowing Certain Claims and Demands Payable in
the Amounts and from the Funds as Hereinafter Described for General
and Hiscellaneous Expenditures for the Period Ending April 7, 1981."
11. Resolution No. 5606: "A ResC'lution of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino Approving Contract Chan&e Order No. 1 for Reconstruction
of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks, Project 81-20."
12. Resolution No. 5607: "A Resolution of the City Coun·:il of the City
of Cupertino Authorizing Execution of Water Facilities Agreement
between the City of Cupertino and West Valley Construction CotDpany.
Inc."
,:.1'
"..''''-;'.'-'\1.''',,:'1,7'
..-.~.,.
.
KUtUTIIS OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 CITY COUJICIL HEIT1BG
13. Resolution Ro. 5608: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino DeclAring its IateDtion to Ordar Vacation of a Portion
of Olive Aveaue, Located betweeD Isper1al Aveaue and Puadena Aveuue
Retaining Portions as Public Utility Iaa_t, Sanitary S«ver Ea..-
..nt, Landscape !aa_t, Pedestrian aad Bicycle Eaa_t; u Pro-
vided h Section 8320 Et Seq. of tbe Streets and RisJ!vaya Code of th
State of Cal1fornis, Fixing Ti_ and nace for Public Bearing and
Providing for Notice Thereof."
14. Resolution 110. 5600: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino Approving t!1e Final !fap snd Iaprov_nt Plana of Tract
No. 6794 Located at the Northeast CorDSI' of Foot!!!Ü lIoulnard and
McClellan Road; Developer, Martin-Beyes, Inc.; Accepting Certain
Easements; Authorizing Signing of Fiaal Map and IlIprov_t Plana;
Authorizing the Execution of Agre_t ia Coanection Therewith."
15. Request fro. City Attorney for authorization to attend aeeting and
appropriation of $250.
.
16. Resolution 110. 5601: "A Resolution of the City Council of th~~ity
of Cupertino Making its Order Describing the Boundarie8 Desig.1ated
as 'Alcazar AVeßue 80-49' to be Annexed to the City and Orc'ering
Annexation to tbe City, ApproxiaateIy 1.05 Acres Located on the
South Side of AIcszar Avenue betvt'en Orsnr;e Avenue and Byrne Avenue.'
17. Removed
18. Minutes of regular meeting of April 6, 1981. (CC-535)
It was moved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Johnson and p'<Ssed unan-
imously to approve the Consent Calendar vith Resolution No. 5601 smended
to read .4 acres instead of 1.05 acres.
ORAL COHHUNICATIONS
19. Hr. Walter Ward, 10050 N. Wolfe Road, Vallco Park, requested that
some of the bond monies that the City is holding be 0ffset and that mon-
ies could be refunded to Vallco Park in l:!.eu of t.aving another cash de-
posit or certificate of de~)sit or letter of credit.
City Attorney Kilian was a~reeable LO the request; however. he stated he
would like the approval of the bond by Council with possibly a letter
from Wilso~, Jones office.
Mr. Ward agreed to ....·n·k with the City on the transfer.
PVBLIC HEARINGS
.
20. Appeal of certain conditionq of Application 31-U-67 (Revised) filed
on bef,alf of Key Chevrolet. (Continued from mèeting of February 2,
1981. )
CC-S36
Page 5
Consent Calen-
dar approved
Vallco bond
CIOnies
-:
.
Public hear-
ing closed
"67 (Rev.)
a""al denied
KINUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
29. Application HC-5l,299.l - Key Chevrolet (Paul Weiss) requesting
approval for the installation of steel bollards along the southerly
per1aeter of an aut~bile aales facility. Said property is located
Mt the Dort~eaat corner of ~tevena Creek Boulevard and Stelling
aGad, in a General c~cial zoning district.
Robert Oliver of Mark TboID8a & Co., Inc. was appealing on behalf of
Hr. Weiss of r..y Chevrol..c. Be spoke on lancJscaping al'd fencing which
the Planning Coaadssion had approved. He proposed putting up a fence
on property line and u:i.1taining landscaping but not for 15 ft. on
the frontage area. Becanse r..y Chevrolet is zoned c01lDercial and nearby
property is residential, the difference in zoning has a big diff~rence
in landscaping (Condition 16, PlaPn1ng Commisaion Resolution NO. 2166).
Counc. Rogers questioned Director of Planning and Development Sbk
regarding the Planning Oøaa1aaion a1nutes whicb state that tbe original
rec~endation fr08 ataff was for 25 ft. and Planning Co..tssion reduced
it to 15 ft. and now the applicant wants less than that.
Counc. Johnson asked Hr. S!iok why staff recmaended 25 ft.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk replied thst it was a common
requiremen., but the eo.a1saion deterained that 15 ft. would be appro-
priate.
Hr. Ward repled to Counc. Gatto's queation regarding the fence. He
said it vas for security and would be locked at night with barbed wire
at the top. Mr. Ward said Mr. Weiss shoved him pictur~ of the barbed
wlr~ cut and the loss of another car. They would have to work out an
arcangement vith the Sheriff's Department for a key to the locked gate.
He vent on to say that the addendum request for a bus shelter, in his
opinion, had been resolved. The County had installed a shelter vhich
did not require an easement frOlD the property owner as it is on City
property. Direccor of Public Works Viskovich did inform Council that
the bus shelter is only temporar).
Mayor 3parks asked Hr. Ward if he would like to continue the proposal
of the bus shelter for a few more lIeetings. Hr. Ward was agreeable.
Mrs. Barbara Weiss of Key Chevrolet informpd Council that the Shell
gas station refused the bus shelter on their property so Key Chevrolet
was the site provosed.
It vas moved by Counc. Gatto. seconded by Counc. Plungy and passed
unanimously to close the public hearing.
It was moved by Coune. PJungy, seconded by Counc. Gatto and passed
unanimously to deny the appeal to remove Item 20 from Planning
Commission Resolutio~ No. 2166.
.
KIRUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Hr. Ward asked Council for a deferral 80 a new plan could be suhllitted
concerning the steel bollards.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk said that at the present time
the existiog boIlards are illegal and tt.e is a factor in correcting
it.
City Attorney Kilian sdvised the Council that a time liait of six months
is agreeable before the City enforces the situation.
It was moved by Cow.c. Gatto, seconded Þy Counc. Rogers and passed vith
Counc. Johnson dissen~ing that the applicant have until September 2 to
cOllply to the condit10n and submit a plan but in the interill the existing
bollards are to be cut and painted green.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
21. Consideration of modification of existing policies for improving
public streets and utilitiea along frontages of single family lots
(continued trOll lIeeting of April 6, 1981).
.
(a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1094: "An Ordinance of the City
of Cupe~tino Amending Chap~er 14.04 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code Relating to Street IDaproveaents."
Director of Public WOrks Viskovich explained to Council the reasoning
behind the revision of Ordinance No. 1094. He reviewed three cate-
gories. Category 1 would be about 90% of the Ci~y and would be filling i
luts to continue the same im?rovements. ~t the time of the tuilding perm t
issuance the improvements would be installed vith no deferred agreementa.
Category 2 1mprovellents could he required immediately or ¿eferred agree-
ments collected on the basis of a master plan and has to be developed in
order to implement a partial improvement of the stree~ or deferred agree-
ments would continue to be collected until a viable project can be
undertaken. Category 3, an area where no development is occ~rring in
the future so a collection of a fee in lieu of an interim improvement
vould alloy the City to build up a trust fund to overlay certain streets
and develop drainage.
There was much discussion on which areas the categories would fit and
Director of Public works Viskovich went into flexib~lity, curb and
gutters and improvements.
John Kolski, 10530 Santa Lucia Road, questioned the difference between
Categories I and 2 in rural areas and specifically Santa Lucia Road.
.
Hr. Viskovich stated that the selection of streets for the various cate-
gories would be brought before Council. Cat~gory I would be areas al-
ready developed that have curb and gutters, si~!Valks. electroliers. but
might have one or two lots undeveloped. When the lot is deve10~ed they
could put in installed improvements. Category 2 would be up~n revie~ of
the street length, how many lots are un1mproveà - if 60% are still U:l-
developed or if the City has deferred agreements ~ when the new ¿eve lop-
ments come in the City would have an excess of 60% deferred agreements.
If we look at a street and we s~e 20 lots and there's a potential of
only one or tvo being developed, there's no chance of getting 60% that
vould fall in ~ategory 3, he sai~.
I
CC-536
Page 7
ltey Chevrolet,
HC-5l,299.1
.~
Publ ic hear-
ing closed
First reading
of Ord. 1094
.
Public hear-
ing clo"ed
Res. No. 5602
adopted
.
KIIIIJTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 I~ITY COUlfCtL MEETING
Ron Jones, 10205 Scenic Boulevard, vas incorporated into Cupertino ae
of last year. Be told Council he vae in the County when he started
building his hoae and is concerned now that he has to eoaply with the
City and spend aGre aGney than he anticipnte~ for street iaprov.-ents
and objects to borrowing money for that i~prJvelDent.
Mr. Viskovich said that Scenic Boulevard would have to be reviewed
by the City Engineers.
It vas IIIOved by Coune. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Johuson and paaaed
unanimously to close the public hearing.
It was moved by Counc. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Gatto and passed
unanimocsly to read Ordinance No. 1094 by title only and the City Clerk's
reading to constitute the first reading.
22. Consideration of annexation of area de8ignated "Olive Avenue
80-47".
(a) Resolution No. 5602: "A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Cupertino Making its Order Describing the Boundaries
Designated as 'Olive Avenue 80-47' to be Annexed to the City
and Ordering Annexation to the City, Approximately 1.64 Acres
Hare or Less."
City Clerk Cornelius told Couucil the City Clerk's offic~ had received
no written protests on the snnexatiou.
It was !:lOved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Plungy and passed
unanimously to close the public hearing.
It was moved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Rogers and passed
unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 5602.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
23. Ai'plicatlons 24-U-80 and 17-tH-80 of Shutts & Schwimmer: Consider
an ~~e~~ment(s) to use permit and tentative map to provide alter-
native means of vehicular access to a previously approved thre.
unit residentiAl develop"ent. The modification may result in a
deletion of one lot and/or reconfiguration of th~ subdivision
and use perait site plan. Environmental Review: The project is
categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject
property is locat"d on the corth side of Orogrande Place approxi·'
mately 450 ft. westerly of Stelling Road in a P (Planned Develop-
ment vith single-family intent) zoning district. Recommended
for approval.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk said the Commission is recom-
mending that they be allowed to delete the emergency access road but
are keeping the bike pedestrian path.
Barr) Scott, 22093 Ba~ley Court, sald ASAC told him to delete the bike
path and keep the area natural. The pri/ate drive has an essement for the
adjoining property owner to use the driv" but not the public. he said.
.
.
.
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
It vas -.ed by Counc. Gatto. seconded by Counc. Rogers and passed unan-
imously to approve Applications 24-U-80 and l7-TK-80 per Pl3nning Comads-
sion Resolution No. 2189.
24. App11cation 27-U-79 (Revised) of Kørius E. Nelsen: Use Permit to
operac.e a sandwich shop/delicstessen (with take-out business) occu-
pyias approxiaately 850 sq. ft. within the 7,700 sq. It, Doty-Nelsen
office building presently under construction and Environmental Re-
view: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a Nega-
tive Declaration. The subject property is located on the northeast
cor..er of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mann Drive vi thin the Konta
Vista neighborhood. The property is zoned P (Planned Development
with cowaercial and incidental industrial and/or residential intent)
Rec_ nded for approvsl.
Director of Planning and Dev~lopment Sisk reviewed the application.
It was IDOVed by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Rogers and passed unan-
imously to crant a Negative Declaration for Application 27-U-79 (Revised)
It vas moved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Plungy and passed unan-
imously to a?prove Application 27-U-79 (Revised) per Planning Commission
Resolution 50. 2194.
25. Application 2-TK-8l of Monta Vista Properties: Tentative Map to sub
divide .22 b-OSS acres into two parcels equaling 3,600 sq. ft. each,
to ac~dste two attached single-fsmily homes and Environmental
Review: The project was previously assessed, hence, no óction is
required. The subject property is located on the south side of
Steveua Creek Boulevard approximately 200 ft. easterly of Byrne
Avenue in a P lPlanned Development with residential intent) zoning
district. Recommended for approval.
Council had bO objection to this application.
It was moved by Coun<. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Rogers and passed unan-
imously to approve Application 2-TK-8l per Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2195.
ARCHITECTLrulL AND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS
26. None
ITEMS REMOVEJ FROH CONSENT CALENDAR
17. Hinute9 of adjourned regular meeting of April 4, 1981. (CC-534)
It was moved by Counc. Rogers, seconded by Counc. Gatto and passed unan-
imously to a?prove the minutes of th~ April 4, 1981 City Council meeting
as amended.. Item 1 should read " . . .. seconded by Counc.. Johnson. .. . II
instead of I... .. .. sel.':onded by Counc. Jackson. . .."..
CC-536
Page 9
24-U-80 anci
l7-TK-80
approved
ØegaLive Dec.
for 27-U-79
(Revised)
27-U-79 (Rev.)
approved
2-TK-81
approved
April 4 min-
utes approved
as corrected
~36
pWlO
.
Participation
in human ser-
vices programs
.
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
28. Establiøhing policy regarding City funding of humsn service organ-
izations.
Jane Rauchbrown, 1525 Husted Avenue, San Jose, coordinator of Operation
Brown Bag, waø aøked to come before Council for supplemental funding.
Assistant to the City Manager Brown said that at the laøt City Council
lIeeting, staff presented a recommended policy for funding huaan services
which was postponed for consideration at this meeting. If Council
finds it is appropriste for City government to fund these services, she
recommends the folloving program. All applicants who desire funding
from the City participate in a formal application process in which
established criteria ~ould be applied to the project or program that
requests funding. The criteria suggested that the pro?"sal is needed
and is not a duplication of services and is complimentary to City goals.
The orgsn1zation snd the pro~r8ID should demonstrate an sbility to
provide the service they are requesting. The proposal content should
be reasonable, realisitic and desirable and the service provided at s
reasonable cost. She also suggested that funding by the City would
only be provided as seed money for any new or expanded programs
and that anyone project vould not receive funding for a longer period
of time than 24 months. Human services funding comeS from a portion
of the Revenue Sharing Funds received by the City - thst proportion
would be determined by City Council. Staff is recommending that the
human services which are requesting funding are p~oviding information
and validation to the people of Cupertino. Ms. Brown went on to say
that the City has used County money and the needs were set up as money
vas available. She vent over the programs that the City had sponsored.
City Hanager Quinlan encouraged Council to adopt a policy and set up
an amount of money and let applicants apply and Council CLuld determine
how much money the City vould give each applicant; this would be in
addition to the programs that the City is supporting now.
Assistant to the City Hanager
is that all programs who wish
of the City Council.
Brown told Council that the recommendation
funding would compete equally in front
Counc. Gatto said he feels that the City should get involved in human
services and establish an amount of money and procedures.
Counc. Plungy expressed his concern about seed money.
It was moved by r.ounc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Plungy and passed
unanimously that the City take up the policy to participate in human
services.
Mayor Sparks suggested forming a committee to have a format established
for guidelines.
By consensus, Council sugges~ed taking seed money DIll úf the recoUll1enda-
tion.
·
·
·
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
It vas moved by Counc. Rogers, seconded by Counc. Johnaon and passed
unanimously that a preamble be dr/eloped by ataff uaing the aix Arabic
numbers and the Mayor appoint a colDlD1ttee to work vith the City Manager
and Assistant to the City Manager and Director of Parka snd Recreation
Dowling and the committee would look at the evaluation itema listed under
Item I and approve III and IV as they are written and eliminate II.
Mayor Sparks appointed Councilmembers Johnson and Plungy to the committee
City Manager Quinlan reminded Council that the projected time before sny-
one could spply would probably be around October.
Nanci Magoun, 855 Brookgrove Lane, spoke in favor of the Ombudsman
Prograll.
Vivian Nelson, 20800 Homestead Road, also asked for support of the 0m-
budsman program.
NEW BUSIN!;SS
30. Appointment of City suditors.
(a>
Resolution No. 5604: "A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Cupertiuo Authorizing Execution of Agreellent vith Main
HurdlD8n & Cranstoun for Audit Services."
It was moved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Plungy and psssed unan-
imously to adopt Resolution No. 5604.
31. Report on bid opening for Metal Beam Guard Railing Restorstion. Pro-
ject 81-23, snd award of contract.
It vas moved by Counc. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Johnson snd passed unan
imously to award the contract for Hetal Beam Guard Railing Restoration,
Project 81-23, to Chrisp Co. for their low bid of $4,46j.
32. Request for appropriatìu~s for sidewalk installation along Rainbow
Drive.
It was moved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Rogers and passed unan-
imously to approve appropriation úf $50,000 for sidewalk installation
along Rainbow Drive and other locations consistent with the Five Year
Capital Improvement Plan.
34. Consideration of a master sidewalk plan for Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk brought Council up to date on
the consideration of a master sidewalk plan for Stevens Creek Boulevard.
He stated it wss more of a matter of conformity.
It was moved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Rogers and passed unan-
imously to accept the recommendation and have ASAC review the d2sign and
return to City Council with their recommendation.
CC-536
Page 11
Comittee
appointed re
hUll8n services
Res. No. 5604
adopted
Contract to
Chrisp Co.
Appropriat ion
for sidewalk
installation
A5AC to review
sidewalk plan
Slìli36
912
Park Plaza
development
.
First reading
,f Ord. 1108,
fireworks
First reading
of Ord. 1109
lGC referral
r~terjUriS-
d onal
ac on8
.;1~i;:üTr";·
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 CITY COUCNIL MEETING
It was !lOVed by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Plungy and pa..ed
unanimously that Park Plaza not delay their development but work with
the City on the sidewalk issue.
RECESS: 9:55-10:10 p...
33. Report on state lsvs pertaininø to sale and use nf fireworks
snd setting of City policy.
(a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1108: "An OrdinaDA:e of the
City of Cupertino Aaending Chapter 10.24 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code Relating to the Sale, Use and/or Discharøe
of Fireworks within the City."
(b) Firat reading of Ordinance No. 1109: "An Ordinance of the
City of Cupertino Repealing Section 16.40.090 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code."
City Attorney Kilian brought Council up to date on the ordinances he
had prepared and the lave pertaining to the sale and use of fireworks.
He said that this ordinance is basically the same as wss adopted last
year vith the allowance of 12 applications for fireworks stands. These
ordinances will regulate the sale, and this option is one that the
City has until the courts decide on banning both sale and use.
Dennis Whitaker, 20622 Cheryl Drive, representing the Optimist and
Jaycees, suggested thst the City coordinat~ with Central Fire District
before making a decision.
It was moved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Rogers snd passed
unanimously to read Ordinsnce No. 1108 by title only and the City Clerk's
reading to constitute the first reading.
It was moved by Counc. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Gatto and passed
unanimously to read Ordinance No. 1109 by title only and the City Clerk's
reading to constitute the first reading,
Connc. Pl,mgy wanted to go on record that he was opposed to the sale of
fireworks.
35. Referral from the Inter-Governmental Council regarding notification
of proposed project/action that may have interjurisdictional
impacts.
Counc. Rogers
Council was.
cotmllunication
explained what the referral from Inter-Governmental
She explained it vas a further increase in inter-city
for non-adjacent cities.
It was moved by Counc. Rogers, seconded by Counc. Johnson and passed
unanimously to approve the referral from the Inter-Governmental Council
regarding notification of proposed project/action that m~y have inter-
jurisdictional impacts.
.
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
36. Request from Kivanis Club for vaiver of fees for use of Monta Vista
Coamunity Center.
It vas 80ved by Counc. Rogers, seconded by Counc. Gatto and passed unan-
imously to adopt the stsff recoaaendation waiving facility use fees and
business license fee, but to eliainate the $100 deposit.
37. General Plan Statue Repo~~ - Req....t for appropriations for consul-
tants.
It vas moved by Counc. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Gatto and passed unan-
imously to accept the staff recommendation for appropriations for
consultants. Counc. Gatto asked Director of Plaaning and Development
Sisk how soon the General Plan report would be ready and Mr. Sisk replied
it vould be some tilDe in August.
38. Resolution No. 5609: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino Authorizing the Execution of Agreement betveen the City
of Cupertino and the State of California for Maintenance of State
Highvsy in the City of Cupertino - De Anza Boulevard."
CC-536
Psge 13
Use of ~.onta
V is ta Coamun-
ity Center by
Kiwanis
Appropristions
for consultant
re General
Plan Status
Report
It wss moved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Johnson and psssed unan- Res. No. 5609
imously to adopt Resolution No. 5609. adopted
. WRITTEN COKMI/NICATIONS
39. Communication frOlD West Valley Multi-Modal Transportation Corridor
Task Force requesting that Council proclaim a formal moratorium on
urban developllent within the presently defined West Valley Trans-
portation Corridor.
It wa~ moved by Counc. Rogers, seconded by Coanc. Plungy and passed unan-
imously thst the City Manager prepare a letter to sll the people who
have a concern explaining that the City is not opposed to the concept but
merely nov is not the tÍlDe to proclaÍID a moratorium.
ORDINANCES
40. Second reading of Ordinance No. 1103: "An Ordinance of the City of
Cupertino Amending Section I of Ordinance No. 2 by Rezoning Approxi-
mately 1.25 Acres from CG and RI-IO Zones to P Zone; Located Approxi
mately 150 Ft. South of Stevens Creek Boulevard and 280 Ft. East of
Stell ing Road."
It was moved by Counc. ?lungy, seconded by Counc. Rogers and passed unan-
imously to read Ordinance No. 1103 by title only and the City Clerk's
reading to constitute the second reading.
.
City Attorney Kilian told Council that Mr. Robert Childs had written Coun 11
that he h~d some new information and he was being represented by his
attorney, Hr. Fox, who would like to address Council. Mr. Kilian gave
Council their options. Council has the authority to adopt the zoning
ordinance and has the authority not to reopen the use permit hearir.gs
or Council can reopen the use permit and zoning hearings providing
West Valley
Corridor
moratorium
Second reading
of Ord. 1103
Cc-536
..ge 14
.
.
MINUTES OP THE APRIL 20, 1981 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CouncU. cause the application to be readvertieed and tha _tter ba heard
again before the Planning Comisa1on. Because this is new evidence, the
Plannins eo-1asion would have to bear it. To do that, be aaid. the evidence
bas to b. relevant to tbe 1..118 of the use per1lit and zoninl and the new
evidence could not have been presented at the Planning C~asion or City
Council _etin... Council can allow the rehearing on the usa perllit and Approve
the zODin. at this time but to open the usa permit hearing. it .uat be
readvartiaed and aent back tu the Planning Commission.
Counc. Johnson asked City Attorney It1lian that if Council hears the nev evidence
if tbat would automatically say Council is opening the Public Bearing.
City Attorney It1lian replied that in bis opinion Council could not hear tbe
evidence.
Mayor Sparks asked if Council could bear the attorney speak.
City Attorney Kilian replied that he told Mr. Pox that if the Council desired
they could hear argument against the passage of the ordinance and hear questions
about it but could not present 'lev evidence. What had been presented tonight
in the written foI'll is not sufficient to reopen the hearina. but Council could
hear vhat they vould present by way of new evidence if they were allowed. but
it vould be liaited.
Mayor Sparks asked if they could hear what they want to present under General
Audience Request.
City Attorney It1lian said they could or could hear it now.
Mayor Sparks entertained a IiOtion to !.ear Hr. Fox under General Audience Request.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Counc. Rogers asked sgain for clarification.
City Attorney Kilian again said no new evidence could be presented by way of
testimony or documents. Arguments against or for the ordinance could be
presented but the Public Rearing vould have to be reopened if you accept
hearing evidence.
Counc. Rogers asked if it vas opened up would Council be doing it blind and
vhat vould hsppen if it really vssn't new and extraordlRary evidençe.
City Attorney Kilian replied that people have always agreed or disagreed with
ordinances by way of arguments, but if new evidence is attempted, the other
side, if they thought the public hearing vas closed, would be entitled to
new notice and hearing before the Planning Commis~ion.
Mayor Sparks said in his opinion, Council could approve the zoning and hear Hr.
¡¡'ox under General Audience Request and open up the Public nearing because they
were talking about use permit vhich is different froM zoning.
City At torney Kilian said the Pub lic nearing could not be opened vi thout renot ice.
Council could hear his argument because it is on the agenda against the adoption
of the ordinance. but he didn't think he could present new evidenc~ tonight
either about zoning or the use permit,
KINUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
.
Counc. Plungy said that because the letter was written 00. the 17th
they IIUSt have had some evidence so something should have been present d
in vriting rather than go through this now with the possibility that
Council could discuss, unless Council vanted to reopen the Publ~c
Hesring,and just hear arguing for or against the ordinance and he was
sure how Mr. Childs stands on the ordinance. Th~refore, he said, he
would rather enact the ordinance and n"t open up the Public Bearing.
It was moved by Counc. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Johnson and passed
with Councl1M111bers Rogers and Gatto dissenting to ensct Ordinance No.
1103. Mayor Rogers dissented because of the procedure used at this
tille, but expressed agreement with the rezoning.
Counc. Gatto asked City Attorney Kilian under whst form could new
evidence be introduced afte~ the hearing has been closed and at vhich
point the Co~cil could make a decision vhether it vas appropriste to
reopen the hearing.
.
City Attorney replied that he viewed the letter request as a hearing
of the use permit. If this vas so, he said, then the bssis for re-
opening the ~earing should be specified and what the intention is,
hOW it is related to the use permit, granting or denial, and why the
evidence could not be presented at the oriana! hearing. This could
open OF the Public Bearing for reconsideration, he said. Then every-
one who was involved would have to be notified to ,·elout the new
evidence. Be vent on to say that one of the Councilmembers who made a
IDOtion in the affirwøtive eould make a motion to reconsider. Mayor
Sparks sU88ested finishing the.second reading of the ordinance under
Non-Agenda Business, General Audience when a motion could be made.
41. Second reading of Ordinance No. 1104: "An Ordinance of the City
of Cupertino Amending Section 1 of Ordinsnce No. 2 by pre zoning
Approximately .3 Gross Acre from Santa Clsra County HL Zone to
City of Cupertino HL Zone; Located on the South Side of Lbaita
Avenue Approximately 60 Ft. Westerly of Imperial Avenue in the
Honta Vista Neighborhood."
It vas ðOved by Counc. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Gatto and p~ssed
unanimously to read Ordinance No. Il04 by title only and the City
Clerk's reading to constitute the second reading.
It was moved by Counc. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Johnson and passed
unanimously to enact OrdinancL N . Il04.
42. Second reading of Ordiance No. 1105: "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino Authorizing an Amendment to the
Contract between the City Council and Board of Administration of
the California Public Employees' Retirement Syste"'."
It was moved by Counc. Plungy. seconded by Counc. Gatto and passed
unanimously to resd Ordinance No. lIOS by title only and the City
Clerk's reading to constitute the second reading.
.
It was moved by Counc. PlungYt seconded by Counc. Gatto and passed
unanimously to enact Ordinance No. lIDS.
CC-S36
Page 15
Ord. No. 1103
enacted
Second read-
ing of Ord.
1104
Ord. No. 1104
enacted
Second read-
ing of Ord.
1105
Ord. No. 1105
enacted
'CC-!>1~
Page 16
.
Second read
ing of Ord.
1106
Ord. No.
1106 ensct..
.
.
Kt11\ftU 0' m mJ.t 2.0, l~ßl CIon CO\1ltCn. \4Un1C
43. Second readJng of Ordinance No. 1106: "An Ordinance of tlte City of
Cupertino Repealing Chapur 2.64 of the Cupertino Municipal Code...
It vas IDOVad by Counc. Plunn, seconded by Counc. Gatto and paøsad unanimously
to read Ordiøaøce Ro. 1106 ~y title only and the Ci.y Clerk's reaJiug to
constitute the second reading.
It v.. IIIOVed by Counc. Plungy, s..conded by Counc. Gstto and passed unanimously
to enace Ordinance No. 1106.
RESOLUrIONS
44. Non..
NON-AGENnA BUSY-TESS
45. Recogn~~ion by Kayar of special requests.
(a> General Audience.
City Attorney Kilian advised Council they could not hear any evidence with-
out opening a use permit hear':'og but could hear vhat the evidence was by an
offer to prove.
Hr. J8YeS Fox, 2755 Campus Drive, San Mateo, spoke in behalf of Mr. Childs.
He answered Counc. Plungy's question on why this evidence couldn't have
been presented in writiug. He informed Council that they do not have some
of the information they need but what information he has should be of grave
concern to the Council.
City Attorney KtJtan stated that in order to protect the City legally vith
respect to the applicanf's rights, he would request through the Council
that Hr. Fox specify in IIIOre detail exactly what the new evidence is
snd how it relates tQ the granting of the us~ permit and why it wasr.'t
presented at t~e adadnistrative hearing bpfore Council decided the issue
of whether to have it reheard at the Plsnn~ng Commission hesrin". The
evidence should have been in vritten fo~, he said, but Counci. could
hear it orally if they choose.
Hr. Fox said he would present to the Council what evidence they did have
in vriting the next day, but would like to speak on it also. His ccncern
was that there ~as grave r.oncern over a potential gift of public funds
and hew it re1a~es specifically to the project approved at the use permit
stage. They have an appraisal on the land and have one ~ppraisal only,
although there vere five performed. F~ couldn't, st this date, obtain
cop1es of the first four appraisals. There is a staff report from Hr.
Piasecki, thst in his opinion, appears that the last appraisal may be
higher than the fair.-Jll8rket value of what the land is worth. The appraisal
specified a value of 25,000 per unit, the original proposal was for 23
units snd ·lte appraised value would be 625,000. The use p'~it was approved
vas 24 units and would be appraised at 600,000 and the 1<... . is contrscted
to be purchased for the appraisal of 6l9,OOO. It was his contention that
obviously talking about tl.e use permit stage is l:nportant, that is vh"re
the project gets starteu. If, in fact, the land has been overvalued, for
sOße reason, it could be a little DOre than coinciden~e, that the seller
of the land is also contracted to be the construction man on the job anð he
.
KINUTEt: OF THE Al'RIL 20, 1981 CITY COUHCIL MEETING
believes that the funds that have been paid and the project may very well
constitute a gift of public funds in violation of the State Constitution.
He urged the Council that rather than get locked into a position they
may regrat, to reconsider the project aod consider the evidence. Why they
did not have this inforaaiton, he said, was when they started researching
the appraisals, they went to the Planning Department and attemþted to
sea~ch City Hall files and found only the last appraisal. The City itself
had purchased all five appra1~.;:i'.: but for some reason Community Housing
Developers had only seen fit ~o sublllit the last appraisal which Mr. Fox
had reason to believø contains the highest ap~raisal. He doesn't know
vhere the other appraisals were. This, he tlought, was an offer of proof.
City Attorney Kilian asked if these items vere proven how would it relste
to the passage or non-passage of the use permit vhich is a planning
d. cision.
.
Mr. Fox answered that the planning decision is to implement a specific
project. That specific project is to provide housing for low and modcr-
erate incOllle individuals on a rental basis which is subsidized by BUD
funda. The City is the conduit for BUD funds. The City is attempting
to remian detached from the develo~nt proposed by CUD but is, indeed
involved because the City is the body that must approve the dispersal of
those funds and so the zoning and use permit go to¡øther vith the approval
of a project. He vent on to say thet the other obvious issue which r_in
to be resolved is a potential violation of ArticlL 34 of .he Stste Constit
ution (Low and Hoderste Income ~ousing) which requires a referendum on
subsidized housing.
City Attorney Kilian stated thst in his opinion the new information vas
not relevRnt to the granting or denial of the use permit and there must
be very specific findings vhich must be made in the gr6nt~~ð or denial
and the vay the funding ia accomplished is not relevant to those planning
decisions, so therefore, the Council need not open the Public Hearing
at either Planning Commission or City Council level. If so, renotice
vould be in order.
It vas moved by Counc, Plungy, seconded ~y Counc. Johnson and passed
unanimously to accept the City Attorney's recommendation and not reopen
the Public Hearing.
COUNCIL REPORTS
It vas moved by Counc. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Rogers and passed
unanimously that Hayor Sparks be appointed as City representative to the
Inter-Governmental Council committees including the Airport Land Use,
City Selection and Solid ~aste Hanagement. Council Gatto was appetnted
as alternate.
.
City Clerk's Note: M~yor Sparks left the Council Chr.6ber.
Legislative Review Committee: Counc. Johnson reported on the Legislative
Review Committee and presented only the positions different from the
League's. The Committee supported the League's opposition to AB 1691,
Concealed Firearms Permits.
00-536
Pe.. 17
Legislative
Review Comm.
recommenda-
tions
CC-536
Page ]8
.
.
Close~
Sessi.....n
.
HINIITES OF tilE APRIL 20, 1981 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Counc. Rogers expressed her opposition to the Legislative Review Committee's
recommendation regarding AS 1691. She suggested that Council wait for
the Mayor to return before taking action.
It was lDOVed by COUDC. ~lungy, seconded by Counc. Johnson snd passed
unanimously by those present to accept the balsnce of the recommenda-
tions of the Legislative Review Committee, as follows:
Support SB 152 (Sales Tax Increment Financing for Redevelopment Agencies),
SB 555 (Loc"l Agency Indebtedness Fund Extended), SB 121 (Raise Interest
Rate LiDl1tation on Local Agency Bonds frOlD 10 to 12 Percent). AS 1113
(Restricts Authority of LAFCO to Disapprove City-Initiated Ialar.d
Annexations), SB 215 (State-Local Street and Highway Financing) and
SB 788 (California Super Fund for Control of Hazardous Materials).
Oppose SB 630 (Reatri~t Fees), AS 1192 (Municipal Debt Advisory Committee
Established), AS 1137 (Growth Management Ordinances Not Applicable to
Low and Moderate Cost BOd3ing), SB 801 (Billboard Removal Koratoriua
Extension), AS 950 (State Bighway Financing), AS 1721, (Collective Bar-
gaining/Binding Arbitration), SB 469 (Collective Bargaining). AS 1618
(Allocation of Mortgage Revenue Bonds Targeted to Low Incoae Families),
AS 1819 (State Grants Denied to Cities with Rent Control), AS 665, unless
amended (General Læw City Authority to Issu~ Revenue Bonds to Finance
Multi-Family Rental Bousing), AS 1352 (Ambiguous Bousing Cost Fsctor
to be Considered in Subdivision Improvements).
No Position on AS 1854 (Alcoholic Beverages. Bsn on Sale Hear Univer-
sities and Other Public Areas).
Obtain copy of AS 1693 (Age~cy Shop - refer to Assistant to the City
Manager), A! 1269 (Collectiv~ Bargaining) and AS 941 (Lesgue-Sponsored
Bill to Clean Up AS 2320 Re: Single-Permit Processing).
City Clerk's Note: Mayor Sparks returned to Council Chamber.
Counc, Johnson presented the content of AS 1691 and referred to AB 1323
which had been passed but vas vPt&ed by the Governor.
Counc. Rogers sroke in favor of the bill (AB 1691) and opposition of the
League's stand.
It was moved by Counc. Plungy and seconded by Counc. Johnson to support
the League's position (oppose> on AB 1691. The MOtion was defeated vith
Councilmembers Gatto, Rogers and Sparks dissenting.
It was moved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Rogers and passed vith
Counc. Plungy and Counc. Johnson dissenting, that CouncIl take no position.
The oeeting was aijourned to a closed session to discusss per~onn~l
matters. The aeeting was reconvened in open session.
City Attorney Kilian reported that vith respect to the upcoßing labor
negoti~tions. should the negotiations continue beyond July I, 1981 wIth
the terms of the contract, there will be no retroactive psy from the date
of actual settlement back to July 1. It was moved by Counc. Plungy
e
.
.
.
K111UT~S OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 CITY COUJIICIL MEETD!G
seconded by Counc. Gatto and passed unanilDOusly to approve and SUp}ort
the City Attorney's position resarding retrosctivity.
At 11:30 p..., it .... EYed by Counc. Gatto, ..econded by Counc. Johnson
and passed unanilllOualy to adjourn to April 27, 1981 for a budget review
session and interviews for the newly formed Energy Commission scheduled
for 7:00 p...
c7?~.._.ø.,~
eputy City art( ,
CC-536
Page 19