CC 04-19-82
'.
, .
,
.'
.
.
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CAL.IFORNIA
10300 Tocre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Tel~phone: (408) 252-4505
KINUTES I)r THE RE:;uLAR KEE'lING or THE CITY COUNCIL.
HELD úN APRIL 19, 1982 IN 1'HE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Mayor Sparks called the meeting to order at 6:47 p.m. in the Council
Chamber, City RaIl.
SALUTE TO 1'HE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Counc. Present:
Counc. Absent:
Gatto, Johnson, Plun~y, Mayor Sparks
Rogers
Staff Present:
City Manager Quinlan
Çity Ci£rk Cornelius
Director of Planning and Development Sisk
Director of Parks and Recreation Dowling
Assistant City Engineer Whitten
City Atlorney Kilian
Assistant Planning Director Cowan (8:00 p.m.)
At the request of the City Attorney, it was moved by Counc. Plungy,
s..conded by Counc. Johnson and passed unanimously to authorize reim-
bursement of the Horthbrook Property & Casualty Co. in the amount ~f
$224 upon signing of a release. This pertains to claims filed by
Alfred D. Abshire and Elizabeth J. Frisz.
STA!'F REPORTS
2. Report regarding possible use of a contract employee for prepara-
tion of soils reports.
By consensus, Council continued this item to the meeting of May 3,
1982.
3. Report regarding legal publi~ations for the City of Cupertino.
The repJrt was accepted.
4. Report regarding distribution of housing needs by income as
submitted by ABAC.
The report was acc~pted.
COûNCIL REPORTS
çounc. Catto, LCC Transportation Committee - Cou~c. Gatto reportzd
that the LCC Transportation Committee took the follo~ing action on
pending legislation. SB 1355, &upport; AB 255l, support; SB 133l,
support; SB l539, oppose; AS 2697. oppose; AB 31 '. support; SB 1711,
tabled; SB 1934, support; SB IJ53, support; SB 1925, support. The
City Clerk was requested to get a copt of SB 1925 (Foran).
CC-567
Page 1
Abshire a"d
Frisz claims
Preparation
of soils re-
ports
LCC Trans-
p('rtation Com.
action on
legislat ion
_7
.slattve
Review Com-
mittee actions
.
Planting of
cherry trees
.
MINUTES or 1'HE Al'RIL 19, 1982 CITY COUNCIL JlBBTING
Counc. Johnson, Legislative Review C01Dittee - It vas 1IOV8d by
Counc. Johnson, seconde~ by Counc. Gatto and passed unanimously to
take the following positions on pending legislation:
Oppose
AS 3492 (Bosc~), Updating the Present Stat. Energy Law Requir..-nta.
58 1651 (Russellj, SB 1667 (Davis) and SB 2634 (rarr), Amendin. Civic
Center Act and School racility Changes.
AS 2447 (Greene), Revisions to the Communi.y Redevelopment Lsw.
AB 3011 (Torr~a), Workers' Comepnsation: Cancer Presumptions.
Budget Item 8350, Workp.rs' Comepnsation Mandated Cost Reimbursements.
ACA 85 (Pknnigan), Restricted Benefit Assessaent Tax Zones.
AB 2480 (Nolan), Handatory Issuance of Concealed Weapon Permits
(unnecessary).
SB l786 (Foran), Tentative
,division Map.
Support
AS 2551 (Young), Transportation Funding.
AS 3433 (Kapiloff), Waste.
SB 500 (Beverly), Joint and Sev~ral Liabiiity.
AS 3564 (Roos), Use of Benefit Assessments for Public Improvement
Financing.
The City Clerk was directed to get a copy of SB 2037.
Counc. Plungy reported that the planting "f Cherry tree~ in Memorial
Park shall take pl~ce In November, 1983 as part of the fifth anniversary
of Cupertino's Sister City Program with Toyokawa.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Counc. Plungy removed items 12 and 15.
ls, Application HC-Sl,382.2 - Good Samaritan United Methodist Church
rc esting architectural, site, lighting, landscaping, and signing
'¿vroval for an 8,000 sq. ft. addition to an existing church.
The church is current',y 7,500 sq. ft. The subject property is
located on the southeast corner of Homestead Roa4 and Linnet
Lane. Recommended t0r approval.
Condition No. 17 ",ao amende" to read, "The landscape strip fronting
on nomestead Road shall be Lmds...aped with shrubs and trees as approv,ed
by staff."
.
.
,
MINUTES OF 1'HE APRIL 19, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
It was moved by Counc. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Johnson and passed
unanimously to approve t~e Consent Calendar except for It~ 12.
lO. Resolution No. 5849: "A Resolution of the City Council of t~~
City of Cupertino Allowing Certain Claims and Demands Payable
in the Amounts and from the Funds as Herei~after Described for
Salaries and Wages for the Payroll Period 1':nding April 6, 1982."
ll. Resolution No. 5847: "A Resolution of the City Councilor the Cit
of Cupertino Allowing Certain Claims and Demands Payable :In the
Amounts and from the runds as Hereinafter Described for General
and Miscellaneous Expenditures for the Period Ending April 2,
1982."
l2. Removed.
l3. Resolution No. 585l: "A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino Authorizing Execution of Release of Deferred
Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Mario Barbieri Et Al.;
Northwest Corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vista Drive."
l4. Resolution No. 5852: "A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino Accepting Dedication of Development Righta from
_obert Nellis and Kathy NeJlis; Tract No. 6310, Lot 24; Regnørt
Road."
l5, Application H~-~I,383.2 - Good Samaritan United Methodist Church
requesting architectural, site, lighting, landscaping, and signing
approval for an 8,000 sq. ft. addition to an existing church.
The church is currently 7,500 sq. ft. The subject property is
located on the southeast corner of Homestead Road and Linnet Lane.
Recommended for approval.
l6. Request for waiver of business license fees - Minor Sports Founda-
tion.
17. Resolution No. 5853: "A Resolution of the City Council of th~
City of Cupertino Approving Contract Change Order No, 3 f0r Annual
Overlay Project 82-0l.
l8. Minutes of the regular City Council meeting of April 5, 1982.
(CC-566)
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :
Gatto, Johnson, Plungy, Sparks
None
Rogers
None
12. Resolution No. ~850: "A R..solution 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
Ceneral and Miscellaneous ~xpenditures for the Period Ending April
9, 1982."
The amount for Check No. 45834 was amended to $24.48. It was moved
by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Plungy and passed unanimously to
adopt Resolution No. 5850 as amended.
CC-567
Page 3
Approval of
Consent Calen-
dar
Res. No. ';850
appr:wed ~s
ai!lended
.6r
.
Public hearing
closed
Closure of
Byrne at SCB
approved
.
MLWTES OF THE APRIL 19, 1982 CITY COUNCIL K£ETING
ORAL COMKUIIICATIONS
19. Proclamation - Declaring Friday, April 30, 1982 aa ~ike to Work
Day.
20. Proclamation - Declaring May 1-7, 1982 as Respect for Law
Week.
The City Clerk was directed to forward the proclamations to the
appropriate parties.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2l. Consideration of immediate closure of Byrne Avenue from direct
access to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Hrs. Stone of Byrne Avenue inf~rmed Council that it would be an
inconvenience if Byrne Avenue were closed.
Hr. Barry Garrison, lO¡_~ Byrne Avenue, inquired about access to
Blackberry ran if Byrne Avenue were closed. Be stated that cars
were bumper-to-bumper now.
Mr. Ron Schmal, l0263 Byrne Avenue, stated that Byrne should be
closed permanently.
Cathy Griese, l0140 Byrne Avenue, stated that there were 3 lot of
blind corners on the street and informed Council she was neither
for nor r.~ain8t the closure but was concerned.
Hike Cooper Hart, lOl15 Byrne Avenue, spoke in favor of toe closure.
He ~hanked Terry Brown for Hr. Brown's offer of financial assistance
in closure of tbe street and asked when it would be clo~,d.
John Vincent, 21930 Stevens Creek Boulevarci, told Council that he
ha4 purchased his house based on knowing that Byrne would be closed.
In regard to Blackberry Fal~ traffic, he suggest cd a sign directing
traffic along Bubb to McClellan to Byrne.
It was moved by Cour.c. Johnson, secondp', by Coune. Plungy and
passed unanimously tn close the public hearing.
It wa, moved by Counc. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Johnson anù passed
unantmously to approve the permanent closure of Byrne Avenue and
2.ppr.'prtate $38,000 from the General Fund for implementation of the
project.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
'2. ApplIcation 26-TM-81 of Lawrance C. Mayerle: fentative Map
to consolidate and adjust the lot lines of si~ parcels consisting
of approximately 1.5 acres into three parcels ranging in size
from 18,000 sq. ft. to 26,650 sq. ft. and Environmental Review:
The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a Negative
.
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 19, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETINC
22. (continued)
Declaration. The subject property is located on the north side
of Mercedes Road, approximately 500 ft. west of Cordova Road and
on the west side of San Felipe Road approximately 230 ft. south ~f
Alcalde Road in a Rl-IO (Residential Single-family, lO,OOO sq. ft.
minimum lot size) zoning district and RHS (Residential, Hillside
Development) zone. Recommended for approval.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk reviewed the application with
Counc i1.
City Attorney Kilian informed Council that certain issues with regard
to the lot line and the cul-de-sac are under litigation and the City
of Cupertino is a defendant in the case i~ respect to the cul-de-sac
area. However, he stated he haJ no problems with ~llowing a tentative
map conditioned upon these two issues being resolved prior to recorda-
tion of the final map despite the fact that the City is a defendant in
the case. (*A partial tra~script is attached.)
.
Mr. George Tobin, 246 W. Main, Los Gatos, attorney for the applicant,
stated that since the litigation had been instituted he had been in
constant communication with Mr. Kilian regarding progress or lack of
it, He further stated that the lot line aójustment between Mayerle
and Pisano is miniscule and is only about four ft. on the westerly
hase of a triangle. He further stated that the litigation involves
a prescriptive easement which comes down through Mayerle's pro\,erty
and across the corner of Pisano's lot no. 1 in about 15 ft. He stated
that it was used by both Noland and the hayerles and had been used
by their predecessors for years. He infor,,"~d Council that ,Ie had been
on the site with ~he Uirector of Public Works and Mr. Pisano and his
attorney and tried to resolve the problem. He further stated that Mr.
Whaley was also pres~nt because his s\lbdivision was then under consider
ation. Mr. Whaley's subdivision was a lot split of the Nolan property
into three parcels. Mr. Tobin stated that he felt at the time there
WßS an on-site agreement as to the location of the cul-de-sac. It was
his understanding that the drawing for the cul-de-sac for the Whaley
lot split of Nolan's property has been approved by the Department of
Public Works and will be the sam~ location as that involved in respect
to the utilization by th~ Mayerles, above the 25 ft. corridor, as a
means of access to San Felipe Road. The problem was compounded when
he requested that the agreement be i~plemented by Mr. Pisano. Mr.
Tobin stated that he had sent the papers to the City Attorney and to
Mr. Pisano's attorney, and the agreement would involve the è~dication
by Mr, Pisano of a small section of the corner of the cul-de-sac, the
relocation of the curb and gutter. and the moving of a PG&E an..} tele-
phone undergrounding box. Mr. Tobin stated th?t he was informed that
Hr. Pisano was in favor of everything but would not spend any mo~~y.
Hr. Tobin also suggested to Mr. Pi3ano'~ attorney that a lot line
adjustment be made for lot I a..J that he felt the adjustment could
be done ariministratively to show that the southeast corner of t~c lvt
is a portion of a segment of a cul-de-sJc. Mr. Tobin expres~ed the
belief that prior to final map time the issues could be resolved.
However, he stated that the response he had received from ~Ir. Pisano
was that he would not do anything that will cost him money or would
.
CC-567
Page 5
CC-567
.6
MINUTES or THE APRIL 19, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
require an application to the City of Cupertino. If the issues could
not be resolved prior to recordation of the final map, he felt that
perhaps s~ adjustment of the location of the cul-de-sac in the
southerly direction might have to be affected and he did not see how
that would really affect any of the subdivisions. It vas ~ete~ined
that it would make a difference on Mr. Whaley'~ setback on certain
building sites.
The City Attorney stated that he felt if there were no judgment of
prescriptive easement or any settlement reached ultimdtely the City
may have to condemn that small parcel. Mr. Tobin said that is possible
but he hoped that it would not be necessary.
Counc. Gatto a~ked if the cul-de-sac in that configuration were on the
Fisano subdivision. Mr. Tobin informed him it was not, The improved
strret on the Pisano subdivision ends just as p dead ~nd street
eighteen ft. wide with no bulb. The cul-de-sac was made a requiremen:
when Warren Whaley filed his application for the division of the Nolan
property.
Counc. Gatto ststed that since it is not part of the Pisano map, it
was really a request for Mr. Pisano to participate.
.
Mr. Tobin inforœed Council that he had talked with t~~ Cit.y Attorr.ey
and the impression was that when someone develops, contributions
will be required under the street improvement ordinance.
Counc. Gatto suggested that since Mr. Pisano is not going to particioate
and there is no way to force his participation, perhaps the City ou~ht
to re-evaluate the shape of the ~ul-de-sac.
The City AttornßY statcd that this is a tentatile map and if Council wished
to change the cul-de-sac the proposed tentative map could be amenóed
and Council could seek a change from Mr. Whaley who has already had
his application approved.
Counc. Gatto asked 3taff what the thinking was When Mr. Pisano's
application was approved and no cul-de-sac was required or requested.
.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten stated that he did not feel that
there was ever a questi~n of wh~ther or not there would be a cul-de-sac,
but ther~ seemed to be some disagreement at that point on where the
cul-Ge-sac was thought to be when Mr. Pisano developed. He stated
that the plans were approved by the Department of Public Works
without the short radius starting on the first lot of Mr. Pisano.
The curb and gULter ran straight through. He further stated that
there was always the intention of having a full bulb there. It
was just a question of whe.c that radius started. He further stated
that in discussions the Director of Pu' lic Works and he had with
Mr. Mayerle and others in the field, there is still some disagreement
as to what everyone thought at th~ t~me Mr. Pisano's development
was approved.
CC-567
P.7
Negative Dec.
for 26-TK-8l
26-TM-81
approved
.
Second reading
of Ord. 1168
cont inued
6-TM-82
awved
KINUTES or 1'HE APRIL 19, 1982 CITY COUNCIL KEE'lING
Counc. Gatto asked if with the Whaley application staff did not recog-
nize that the sll8ll triangle fell on Mr. Pisano's land. Mr. Whitten
said that staff did realize it. He further stated that the condition
on Hr. Whaley's IISp which is approved and the condition on Hr. Mayerle's
which is before Council tonight is that the firct one who records
his map will fully improve the cul-de-sac, and if that requires the
developer to pay the City to cond.-n that sll8ll triangle, then he
viII have to do that.
It was determined that the triangle vas approximately 30 sq. ft.
Mr. Tobin stated that everything south of Mr. Mayerle's line on the
flag lot, all the portion of San Felipe road from there to Mercedes
was abandoned by the County before the City was incorporate~. San
relipe Road as such did not exist beyond Mr. Mayerle's property and
Mr. Nolan's property because it was officially abandoned by the
County of Santa Clara.
It was moved by Counc. Johnson, seconded by Counc. Plungy and passed
unanimously to grant a Negative Declaratiml for Application 26-tM-8l.
It was moved by Counc. Johnson, &~conded by Counc. Gatto and passed
unanimously to app~ove Application 26-TM-8l per Planning ComMission
Resolution No. 2297.
By consensus Council took Item 37 out of order.
ORDINANCES
37. Second reading of Ordinance No. l168: "An Ordinance of the City
of Cupertino Amending Chapter l6.40 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code by Adding Section~ 16.40.l65 and l6.40.l66 Regarding Smoke
Detection Systéms and Section 16.40.180 Regarding Penalties
for Violations."
This item was continued to the May 3, 1982 City Council meeting.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS (continued)
23. Application 6-TK-82 of Cupertino Commercial Development:
Tentative Map to allow subdivision of a 9,700 sq. ft. commercial/
office building into eight office condominium units and Environ-
mental Review: The project was previously assessed, hence, no
action is required. The subject property is located on the
northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Hig;:"ay 85 at
the termin~tion of Alhambra Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue in a
P (Planned Development with Neighborhood Commercial Intent)
zoning district. Recommended for approval,
It was moved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Plungy and passed
unanimously to approve Application 6-TK-82 per Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2298.
·
MINUTES OF 1'HE APRIL 19, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
24. Ap~¡1cations 7-TK-82 and l-V-82 of Michael Lynch: Tentative
~ap to conøolidate three parcels consisting of approxt.ateIy .4
.f an sere into one parcel, Variance from Section 118.5 of the
l.ight Industrial Zoning Ordinance to permit a building height of
16.5 ft. on the property line in lieu of the 20 ft, maximum
allowed by ordinance and Envirmtmental Review: The project is
categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject
property is located on the east side of Imperial Avenue at the
intersection of Olive Avenue (Approximately 300 rt. South of
Lomita Avenue) in a Light Industrial zoning district. Tentative
Hap application recommended for approval. Variance application
recommended for denial.
(a) Resolution No. 5854: "A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Cupertino Granting a Variance to Michael Lynch
-from Section ll8.5 of the Light Industrial Zoning Ordinance
to Permit a Building Height of 26.5 Ft. on the Property
Line in Lteu of the 20 Ft. Maximum Allowed by Ordinarce,
Located on the East Side of Imperial Avenue at the Inter-
section of Olive Avenue (Approximately 300 Ft. South of
Lomita Aven'~") in a Light Industrial Zoning District."
·
Director of Planning and Development Sisk revived the application
with Council.
Mr. Ellis Jacobs, architect, stated that he felt the height restric-
tion under question was meant for cases when the building would be
surrounded by residential. This particular building would be sur-
rounded by industrial. He stated that he felt the building layout
was the only one which would allow adequate truck access for the busi-
ness and believed that the proposed design would enhance Cupertino
and Manta Vista.
Mr. Michael Lynch, applicant, felt that the cost of construction was
also an unnecessary hardship. He informed Council that ~is partic-
ular business would have little traffic impact o~ the City.
It was moved by Counc. Johnson, seconded by Counc. Gatto and passed
with Counc, Sparks dissenting to approve Application 7-1M-82 per
Plannirg Commission Resolution No. 2300.
It was moved by Counc. Johnson, seconded by Counc. Gatto and passed
with Counc. Sparks dissenting to deny Application I-V-82.
(City Clerk's Note: Assistant Planning Director Cowan arrived at
8:00 p.m.)
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS
·
25. None
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
26. Action on Items 12 and IS was taken under CONSENT CALENDAR,
CC-567
Page 8
7-1M-82
approved
l-V-82
denied
.6~
BMR require-
ments for Due
d'l0pment
Condominium
conversions
Solid waste
presentation
Settlement
with Durand/
Franko rati-
f.
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 19, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
UNrINISRED BUSINESS
28. Memo regarding the General Plan from Councilmember John Gatto.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the General Plan rlow
Chart with Council and requested that Council approve a date for a
General Plan public hearing at the Planning Commission.
Council requested that the staff flow chart/work plan of the General
Plan and the memo submitted by Counc. Gatto be consolidated for the
April 27 meeting and requested that the Planning Commission conduct
a hearing of the General Plan during the week of May 10, 1982.
29. Request from Jules Due for waiver of Below Market Rate require-
ments.
Janet Wright from the Kidpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing stated
that the organizatimt was in favor of the BKR Program and felt it
should be appli~d as broadly as possible. She submitted a letter
from the crganization for the record.
It was moved by Counc. Plungy, seconded by Counc. Johnson and passed
unanimously, in regard to the BMR requirement f~r the Due Wildflower
Way development, to authoriz~ the increase of sales prices of the
BKR unit to l20% of the median level and use of the sales price
calculation currently in effect. This would result in a sales price
of $92,752 and a qualifying income level of $33,826 to $39,900.
30. Condominium conversion arlditions to General Plan and conversion
ordinance - letter from Davis, Young and Mendelson.
It. was moved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Johnson and passed
unanimously to request that the issue of condominium conversions b~
added to the agenda for the April 27, 1982 meeting.
RECESS: 8:35-8:47 p.m.
31. Presentation by Hr. Tom Henderson, Manager, No. Santa Clara
County Solid Waste Management Program.
Mr. Henderson presented Council with slides showing his recent tour
of solid waste management plants and transfer stations.
32. Ratification of settlement: City of Cupertino v. Ryan B. Durand
and Robert Franko.
It was moved by Counc. Plungy, s~conded by Counc. Johnson and passed
unanimously to ratify the settlement in regard to the City of Cuper-
tino v. Ryan B. Durand and Rober~ Franko. Mr. Franko has paid the
sum of $700 and the remaining amount is to be collected from the co-
defendant.
·
MINUTES OF 1'HE APRIL 19, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
33. Request from the Braegen Corporation for 8-month extension of \lFoe
of four modular trailers.
It was moved by Counc. Johnson, seconded by Counc. Gatto and pasaed
unanimousl¡ to continue this item to the meeting of May 3, 1982,
34. Guide to the operation of local cable TV in Cupertino for
approval.
(a) Resolution No. 5855: "A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Cupertino Approving 'Guide to the Operation of
Local Cable Television in Cupertino'."
By consensus, consideration of adoption of th.. guide to the operation
of local cable TV in Cupertino was continued to the meeting of Kay 3,
1982.
35. Appropriation of funds for removal of storm-damageå trees.
It was moved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. Johnson and passed
unanimously to appropriate $4,100 frma the General Fund for the re-
moval of storm-damaged trees.
·
At 9:35 p.m. Council adjourned co the an'lual meeting of the Board of
Directors of tne Cuperti~o Scene. Director of Parks and Recreation
Dowling informed the board that the annual meeting was required for
election of officers. He recommende~ that since the date of the
General Election had been changed, perl.'ips they would like to post-
pone electon of officers.
It was moved by Counc. Johnson, ~econded by Counc. Plungy and passed
unanimously to continue the meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Cupertino Scene to the first meeting after the June election.
At 9:36 p.m., Council reconvened and adjourned to April 27, 1982 at
7:00 p.m. for General Plan public hearings.
A~
City Clerk
·
CC-567
Page 10
Braegen re-
quest con-
tinued
Approval of
cable TV
guide contin-
ued
Aporopriation
for removal
o~ treees
Cupertino
Scene board
meeting con-
tinued
--..~q -..
Apdl 19, 1992
These issues with regard to the lot line and the cul-de-
sac are under litigation and the City of Cupertino is a
defendant in t~is case in respect to the cul-de-sac area.
I have no problem with allowin~ a tentative map condit-
ioned upon these two issues being resolved prior to
recordation of the final map despite the fact tha~ the
City is a defendant in the case.
·
Item 22. Application 26-TH-Sl, Hayerle
Kilian:
Tobin:
·
·
Since this litigation has been instituted, I have been in
constant communication with Mr. Kilian re~arding progress
or lack of it. The lot line sdjustment between Hayerle
an~ Pisano, which is the little sliver, is miniscule.
It's only about 4 ft. on the westerly base of that triangl
Some time ago - the litigation involves a prescriptive
easement which (Jim Sisk points) comes down throu~h
Hayerle's anrl across the corner of Pisano's lot I, is
about 15 ft. That was used by both Nolan and Mayerles
and their predecessor's for years. We went out on the sit
with the Director of Public Works and Hr. Pi~ano ~nd his
attorney tried to resolve thia problem. Incidentally, Hr.
Whaleq was there, too because his subdivision was then
under' considerztion; that is, a lot split of Nolan's
property into three parcels.
And we had what I felt at the time was an on-si~e_agreemenl
as tothe location of the cul-de-sac. Now t~drawin~ for
theë-,Jí:'de-šâ'cföi'the"Whâlën.lòi: split of Nol~n's propert}
/
as I understand, has b~en approved by the Department of
Public Works and would be the same locati9n which is
involved in respect to the utilization by Hayerle's above
that 25 ft. corridor as a means of access to San Felipe
Road. The proble. suddenly got confounded when I requested
that the agreement that I thought we had be im~l~ment~d
by Pisano. I sent the papers to Chuck and I se~t thr papers
10 his attorney which would involve the dedication by
Pisano of that little section of the corner of the cul-de-
sac and the relocation of the curb and gutter and ~e has
to move a PG&E+telephone undergrounding box. I was sudd-
enly informed that Pisano is in favor of everything but
will not pay a dime. I also suggested to his attorney
that, properly, a lot line adjustment should be made for
lot I which now just ~ome5 out to a 90° intersection, so
that for lot I he would have a lot line adjustment Ihat
r'm sure could almost be done administratively to show that
the southeast corner of h~s Jot is now a portion of a
s(>gment of a cul-de-sac. I believe that before final map
time we can get these things resolved, but the thing is
that the response that I got from Pisano was - I won't do
anything - that costs me a~y money; I won't do anything
that requires an application to the City of Cupertino.
·
·
·
'(
Tobin:
(con't)
Kilian:
Tobin:
Gatto:
Tobin:
Gatto:
T"~in:
Gatto:
Kf I L,n:
Catto:
Whitten:
Ca t to:
..,~,-.. ..
Maybe between now and a final Map we can set that worked
out and if we can't perhaps they will require that some
adjust.ent of the location of the ~ul-de-sac in a southerl
direction might have to be affected and. I don't see how
thst would really affect any of the subdivisions. I don't
want to make a misrepresentation to ~ou if it would affect
Warren's (W. Whaley) front yard setback en the southeast
line. (It was deter.ined it would .ake a difference on
Mr. Whaley's setbacks on certain build ins sites) ,
It seems to me that if no judge.ent of prescriptive ease-
ment or any settle.ent is reached ulti.ately, the City may
have to conde.n that small parcel.
T~at's possible, but I hope that isn't necessary.
we can resolve this thing.
I hope
Is that cul-de-sac basically in that configuration on the
Pisano subdivision¥
No, the improved street on the Pisano subåivision ends
just as a deadend street, 18 ft. wide, no bulb.
The cul-de-sac was made a requirement when Warren Whaley
filed his application for the division of the Nolan
property.
It's not part of the Pisano map so it really falls into a
request for Pisano to participate.
1 talked to Hr. Kilian and T suspe~t whoever first develop.
that contributions will be required under your street
improvement ordinance.
If that's the proper place for the cul-de-sac and Pisano's
not going to participate and there's no way to force him
to participate, perhaps we ought to re-evaluate the shape
ef the cul-de-sac.
This is a tentative map and if you want to change the cul-
de-sac, it seems to me you have to get an amendment to
the propos~d tentative map and also seek a change from
Mr. Whaley who already has the existing cul-de-sac there.
What was the thinking when Pisano's application went throug
and no cul-de-sac was required or requested?
1 don't think there was ever a question of whether or not
there would be a cul-de-sac. There seems to be some
disagreement at this pnint on where that cul-de-sac was
t1tought to be when Pisano developed. Those plans were
approved by nur office without that short radius starting
on that first lot of Mr. Pisano's. The curb and gutter
ran straight through.
Did that reflect a full cul-de-sac of ~ome sort, Travice?
-2-
Whitten:
.
Gatto:
Whitten:
Plungy:
Tobin:
.
~
Yes, ther~ was always the intention of hay!n, a full bulb
there. It was just a questioJ of vhere thMt radius
started. In discussions that Bert and I h.d with Mr.
Mayerle and everyone in the field, ther~'s still disagree-
ment .a to what everybody thought .t the timœ Mr. Pisano's
development was approved.
Pisano, first; Whaley came in after that. Didn't you
recognize at that point that the little triangle fell on"
Pisano'. land?
Yes. The condition on Hr. Wh.ley's m.p which is approved
and the condition of Mr. Hayerle's which is bef~re you
tonight is that the first ~ne who records his msp will
f~lly improve the cul-de-sac and if that requires the
dev~loper to pay the City to condemn that small triangle,
then ~~ will h~ve to do that.
About how much land in thst triangle?
(Determined to be about 30 square feet)
Everything south of Mayerle's line on the flag lot, all
the portion of San Felipe Road from there to Mercedes was
abandoned by the County before you were incorporated. So
San Felipe Road as such did not exist b~yond Mayerlc'~
property because it was officially abandoned by the County
of Santa Clara. .
.
-3-