Loading...
101-August 3 draft minutes.pdf DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 3, 2010 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Kris Wang called the regular meeting to order in the Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Kris Wang, Vice-Mayor Gilbert Wong, and Council members Barry Chang, Orrin Mahoney, and Mark Santoro. Absent: none. CLOSED SESSION - None CEREMONIAL MATTERS – PRESENTATIONS 1. Subject: Proclamations for participants in Cupertino Library robotics mini-camp. Recommended Action: Present proclamation. Description: Proclamations for Lynbrook High School and Miller Middle School Lego Robotics Club, the Cupertino Library and the Friends of the Cupertino Library. Action: Mayor Wang presented the proclamations. Kathy Stakey – Friends of the Library, a representative from the Cupertino Library and representatives from both schools were thanked by the city for their participation in this project. One of the students from Lynbrook explained that this robotics mini-camp emphasized math and science, and he gave a brief history of the robotics club. On behalf of the group he thanked everyone involved in creating this summer camp. POSTPONEMENTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS City Clerk Kimberly Smith distributed the following written communications: • Item No. 11, copy of the staff’s power point presentation and emails from neighbors opposing the antenna placement August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Lin Jiang addressed the Council about receiving notice of a nonconforming use related to an electronic gate. He had the electronic gates removed but City Planner Piu Ghosh insisted that the height of the fences be reduced as well. Mr. Jiang noted that there were about 26 other cases of nonconforming uses on which no action was being taken and he believed he was being singled out and not treated fairly. Redevelopment Manager Kelly Kline stated that they were following up on all of the other non-conforming properties in the order they were received. Mr. Jiang happened to be the first one received but all of the others had been notified and staff was working with everyone letting them know what options were available. The Council concurred to agendize this for further discussion. Cathy Helgerson stated that she was now involved in a misdemeanor filed against her for trespassing at the Stevens Creek Quarry. She referred to a letter from Public Works Director Ralph Qualls in the police report and suggested the city was taking sides in this lawsuit. She asked if the city was supporting Stevens Creek Quarry because the City was using that site for compost storage. Furthermore, she stated that the compost area was open to residents and she had a right to be there. Public Affairs and Technology Director Rick Kitson stated that while they could not comment on the specific nature of the criminal complaint, it was important to note that his department worked with public works on solid waste and recycling issues. Recology placed already composted, processed material in a pile that was free to residents. The compost was distributed through a contract employee hired by the city. It was not on City property but it was a city service. City Attorney Carol Korade stated that, in regard to the letter from the Public Works Director, the City Manager had the authority to delegate derivative authority such as warning letters, code enforcement, etc. to implement Council policy. CONSENT CALENDAR Wong moved and Mahoney seconded to approve the items 2-4 and 10, on the Consent Calendar as recommended. Item Nos. 5-9 were pulled for discussion. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. 2. Subject: Accounts Payable period ending July 16, 2010. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-143. Attachments: Draft Resolution 3. Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending July 23, 2010. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-144. Attachments: Draft Resolution 4. Subject: Payroll for period ending July 23, 2010. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-145. Attachments: Draft Resolution 10. Subject: Request for extensions of a previously approved hotel proposed for 10165 N De Anza Blvd. August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 3 Recommended Action: Approve extensions. Description: Request for a one year extension to a previously approved 5-story hotel and parking structure, EXT-2010-04, EXT-2010-05, EXT-2010-06, (APN 326-34-057), Dipesh Gupta/Ebrahim Kaabipour. Attachments: Staff Report Attachments: Approval letter to applicant, dated January 23, 2009 Attachments: Letter from Applicant, dated July 7, 2010 Attachments: Approved Plan Sets, dated January 20, 2009 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to approve items Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8 and 9, listed below. The motion carried unanimously. 5. Subject: Accept quitclaim deed and authorization for underground water rights at 10385 Calvert Drive. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-146. Description: First LJ of Cupertino, LLC, APN 375-17-027. Attachments: Resolution Attachments: Quitclaim Deed Attachments: Map 6. Subject: Accept quitclaim deed and authorization for underground water rights at 10395 Calvert Drive. Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution No. 10-147. Description: First LJ of Cupertino, LLC, APN 375-17-028. Attachments: Resolution Attachments: Quitclaim Deed Attachments: Map 7. Accept quitclaim deed and authorization for underground rights at 10355 Calvert Drive. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-148. Description: First LJ of Cupertino, LLC, APN 375-17-024. Attachments: Resolution Attachments: Quitclaim Deed Attachments: Map August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 4 8. Subject: Accept quitclaim deed and authorization for underground water rights at 10140 Lockwood Drive. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-149. Description: Madhukar Govindaraju and Chaya Murthy Govindaraju, APN 342-14-112. Attachments: Resolution Attachments: Quitclaim Deed Attachments: Map Cathy Helgerson raised concerns about Items 5 – 8 regarding underground water rights. She believed if someone wanted to sell their rights that should be allowed, but they should not be required to do so. Furthermore, contamination of wells and reservoirs was an ongoing issue that needed to be resolved. 9. Subject: Intent to vacate a portion of City right of way on Stevens Canyon Road at 22605 Ricardo Road. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-150. Description: Applicant is Harold “Bud” Barclay. Attachments: Staff Report Attachments: Resolution Attachments: Map Cathy Helgerson said she believed the City should maintain this portion of land and not give it back to the owner because it had not been maintained and there was quite a bit of overgrown foliage. City Manager Dave Knapp explained that the City had originally required the owner to give up this land in case the City needed it for right-of-way. However, they had determined that the land was not needed and the City was giving it back to the owner, except for five feet which would be retained for a pedestrian trail. Assistant Public Works Director Glen Goepfert commented that it was impractical to keep more than five feet. To put a wider pedestrian area in trees would have to be removed and it would have to go through existing houses. This action simply lined up the trail with the two houses to the north. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Subject: Appeal of a WiMax antenna at West Valley Presbyterian Church. Recommended Action: Consider denial of the appeal. Description: This is an appeal of an approved WiMax antenna to be concealed in a cupola on the roof top of the church, DIR-2010-05, 6191 Bollinger Road (APN 375-41-007), Bradley Head for Clearwire/West Valley Presbyterian Church. Attachments: Staff Report August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Attachments: Planning Commission Resolution 6602 Attachments: Planning Commission Staff report, dated July 27, 2010 Attachments: Petition from Appellant Attachments: Email from Wenjie Li, dated July 23, 2010 Senior Planner Colin Jung reviewed the project and noted that the Planning Commission suggested additional post-construction radio frequency monitoring to address some of the residents’ concerns. He said the basis of the appeal was the cupola design, the placement of the proposed WiMax antenna, and that the equation in the original application (radio frequency study) was wrong. There were also concerns about inadequate noticing and the potential negative health effects of WiMax energy close to schools and residences. Mr. Jung stated that federal law prohibited the city from making decisions on personal wireless service facilities based on the health and/or environmental effects if it met federal safety standards, and this project met did. Also, review must be limited to project design issues and there were none with this project. He noted that the project was consistent with the city’s wireless facilities master plan and the wireless communications facilities ordinance; cupolas were a common architectural feature of churches; and the equation in the radio frequency study was correct and had been taken from FCC Technical Bulletin No. 65. Peter Friedland, Vice-Chairman of the Telecommunication and Information and Communications Commission (TICC), explained that the commission provided input on the safety and aesthetics of cellular facility projects. Regarding the safety aspect, he noted that this was fourth generation technology to provide wireless signals and the WiMax antennas provided a conservative amount of radio frequency power. He said that Clearwire took the aesthetics issue seriously and had taken steps to hide the antenna. He noted that there was a desire from residents to have viable alternatives for high speed internet service, and WiMax technology allowed the user to have internet access wherever they went, and would need approximately 6-10 antennas in Cupertino to provide WiMax throughout the City. He said that the TICC recommended denying the appeal. Kevin Wong, representing Clearwire, explained that for capacity and technology the site distance between antennas should be one mile. There were currently already eight sites approved in the city, but not necessarily built. He explained that these antennas cannot be used by other carriers, they are designed to be used at a certain frequency range, but the location could be shared if there was sufficient space. Rajet Mathur, representing the engineering consulting firm of Hammet and Edison, Inc., engineering consulting firm, noted that a Nextel antenna might have 2 to 3 times the power of this site, and an AT&T antenna might have 4-5 times the power. He also noted that if a person was standing 100 feet from this installation the compared use of a cell phone would be approximately 1000 times more power. However, it was not an exact comparison because with a cell phone only part of the body was exposed. Michael Lance, President of West Valley Presbyterian Church, stated their board had made three changes to the contract with Clearwire: 1) A radio frequency study must be done before and after the site went up; 2) A radio frequency study must be done every three years; and 3) if Clearwire wanted to change equipment to increase power, the Church must sign off on the August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 6 request through their Board to make sure it was appropriate, and the matter would also have to go back to the Planning Commission. Ione Yuen, appellant, commented on the fact that they could not address health issues due to the FCC rules. However, although design was not the issue, the residents would see it and know what the cupola was hiding. She did not concur with the safety issues raised by the Sheriff’s Department in regard to communication, because the residents had no cell phone communication issues in their neighborhood. Mrs. Yuen also noted that they had heard of the application in May but only had until June to reply. They had unsuccessfully attempted at that time to meet with church representatives. Therefore they had appealed and subsequently submitted a petition signed by 195 residents against the installation of this antenna. She commented that notices for the original application had gone to property owners but not necessarily residents. Norman Yuen, appellant, expressed his concern about this WiMax installation. He had previous career experience as a senior engineer at a WiMax company so he was knowledgeable about the system. He said it was different from cell phone antennas because generated power 24 hours a day and was not limited by the number of users. He supported WiMax but believed this antenna was too close to residences. He was also concerned that no studies had been done on this new WiMax technology and he wanted monitoring done more than every three years. Andy Radle, member of the Technology, Information and Communications Commission (TICC), explained that the TICC got involved because of the City survey done a couple of years ago that indicated residents’ concerns about poor cell phone coverage and wireless network access in the city. The area involved in this application was one of the indicated weak spots. Stuart Chessen expressed his support for this application. He stated that he lived across from a cell phone tower and his property values had not decreased. There was currently poor reception in the City and resulting safety issues. He noted that the City had to relocate its emergency operations center because they could not get cell phone coverage. Winnie Lee, Planning Commissioner, stated that she was speaking this evening as a private citizen. She said that she was a dentist and commented on the levels of radiation in her field. She noted that there were different levels of radiation and very little in consumer products. The following individuals spoke in opposition to this project: Eric Wu, Beigi Gu, Ron Miller (not present but submitted written comments), Bob Ulicki, Rajesh Rao, Mathur Vinjamury, Long Li, Tom Tofish, Aioub Hashemi, Keith Murphy, Dean Nobunaga, Simon Yeh, Michael Guan, Cathy Helgerson, Titan Gu, Anshu Nadkarni, Jennifer Dey, Daniel Zhu and Art Nagaragan. They raised the following issues: the antenna was located too close to residences; it was not aesthetically compatible; there would be insufficient monitoring; there had been inadequate notification; there would be a negative impact on property values; there was not an impact study on project; and there was a lack of consistency because other antenna applications had been denied; it was not in compliance with height regulations; and there would be health issues including radiation pollution and negative psychological effects. August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 7 Senior Planner Colin Jung commented that this project was in compliance with the General Plan and Heart of the City. It provided better communications coverage which resulted in increased safety in the city. He stated that staff followed public noticing rules established by the city and in this case property owners within a 1,000 foot radius were notified. Property owners were responsible for notifying their tenants/renters. Public Information Officer Rick Kitson referred to the survey done by the TICC and staff that resulted in many comments about the levels of frustration in the city regarding cell phone coverage. Additionally he noted that AT&T and Comcast were now provided under a state franchise and were no longer required to cover more than half the city. WiMax was an alternative for providing broadband service to residents. City Attorney Carol Korade referred to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which stated that health and safety concerns could not be used as criteria if the project was below FCC standards. The act also required that even with an aesthetic determination, Council would have to show findings in evidence that the proposed antenna was not necessary to close a significant gap in coverage and that there were alternative locations for such a facility. Furthermore, it needed to be more than conjecture and Council would have to make factual testimony on these findings in the record. Chang moved to postpone discussion of this appeal item for two weeks. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Mahoney moved and Santoro seconded to deny the appeal and modify the director’s conditions of approval to require radio frequency (RF) energy testing by a third party, paid for by the applicant, at project installation, six months, one year and three year increments. Test results shall be reported to the city in writing. If RF energy exposures exceeded present FCC exposure standards and any future modifications thereof, the test results shall be reported to the FCC for enforcement action, the Director’s approval will be withdrawn and appropriate city action will be taken. To ensure resident’s legitimate concerns are addressed, the applicant shall post a company telephone hotline number on the base equipment enclosure. Councilmember Chang stated for the record: “I will vote no on it, not because I am against your company, but it doesn’t mean I have to roll over all the public opinion of the residents who are concerned about it. I’m not concerned about, but that doesn’t mean as a City Councilmember I shouldn’t listen to constituents. I have no problem with cell tower where I live. In this case I feel City Council not listening to the constituents’ concerns and doing the right thing, so I’m going to vote no.” Vice Mayor Wong concurred with Councilmember Chang’s statement. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None NEW BUSINESS August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 8 12. Subject: Approve assessment of fees on private parcels for the annual weed abatement program. Recommended Action: Conduct a hearing and adopt Resolution No. 10-151. Attachments: Staff Report Attachments: Assessment Report Janet Lowy stated that she had received the notice to abate but it was a particularly rainy season and due to the expense of removing a large tree that had fallen on her property she did not have the funds to do the abatement. She did not realize that she could have contacted the county, explained her situation and received an extension. She had now taken care of the abatement, had pictures of her property and was requesting an extension. Virginia DuRosario stated that she had received the notice to abate and within two weeks she had taken care of the abatement. However, she was disputing the $298 fee as she did not feel she was given the opportunity for a second inspection. Her children had asthma so she was always aware of the need to remove the weeds. Another speaker said that he had removed the weeds on his property as soon as he had received the notice. However, he was on permanent disability and his memory was very poor so he was unclear when he actually cleared the weeds. He had not understood there was a deadline. Councilmember Santoro reiterated his suggestion that the deadline be later to help owners get through the rainy season. Vice Mayor Wong stated that he was not questioning what the residents or the contractor were saying but there was a concern that the county has to resolve. He added that you could receive the notice, do the abatement and then due a heavy rainy season the weeds could grow back before the next inspection. It was the responsibility of the owner to monitor his property but unfortunately they could get caught in the middle. The representative from the County stated that 221 properties in Cupertino were sent notices, and of those, 39 failed inspection but only 8 required abatement by the County. He outlined the process regarding weed abatement noticing and stated that the $298 fee was being charged because the owner was not in compliance at the time of the inspection. Council had authorized the collection of these fees, which imposed to recover costs incurred by the County. He further noted that the deadline for abatement was April 15 but this year due to the rains no inspections took place in Cupertino before May 4. Furthermore, the notice sent to the owners clearly stated that if they failed the initial inspection they would have to pay the $298 fee. He stated that the notice included the name of the inspector and a contact number if anyone needed clarification. This year they had received several requests for extensions and these inspections had been postponed. He also commented that next year the county would be sending an additional notice to all property owners in their thirteen jurisdictions. This notice would be sent three to four weeks prior to the deadline reminding owners that the abatement needed to be done. Santoro moved and Wong seconded to adopt the resolution putting a lien assessment on the properties to recover the cost of weed abatement and to waive the fees for properties 11, 26 and 33 as listed on the assessment report. Motion carried unanimously. August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 9 13. Subject: Letter on status of county reclamation violations at Lehigh. Recommended Action: Authorize mayor to sign letter. Description: Letter to County Planning Department regarding the status of East Materials Storage Area Reclamation Plan Amendment intended to address the Notices of Violation (NOVs) issued by the County in 2006 and 2008. Attachments: Draft letter to county re: NOVs City Manager Dave Knapp stated that the draft letter for the mayor to sign was triggered by the July 20 study session on the Lehigh Cement Plant, when two Council Members had asked that a letter be sent to the county requesting a status report on the related notices of violation, enforcement actions and any related issues. Cathy Helgerson stated that she would like to see more detailed information in the letter including the results of the soil testing. Furthermore she suggested that the County’s environmental group be copied on the letter. Bill Almon, representing Quarry No, showed aerial photos taken last week of the Lehigh Plant. He stated that this was an issue of health and enforcement. The County had issued notices of violation but there had been no enforcement and the plant had been allowed to continue expansion. He suggested adding a resolution to the letter that would urge the Board of Supervisors to abide by the regulations and procedures currently in place and halt any further expansion until an environmental impact report was in place. In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Almon stated that he lived in Los Altos Hills and the Council there had agreed to send a letter to BAAQMD. Ignatius Ding noted that the County issued a notice of violation but took no enforcement action because they did not feel there was any urgency. He also noted that the 1985 reclamation plan had not been carried out. He suggested that other neighboring cities be copied on the Mayor’s letter. David Fung stated that this was an issue of violations, enforcement and compliance. Lehigh had a pattern of violations and was not in compliance with the law. The people and environment should be protected and the violations should be corrected. He supported sending the letter. Councilmember Mahoney was in favor of including a statement that the Council was disappointed in the current level of enforcement and the fact that there had been no record of fines. Councilmember Santoro suggested adding wording that the Council would also encourage better follow up and stricter enforcement to correct the notices of violation. Vice Mayor Wong commented that a joint letter from all adjoining cities would have more impact. Councilmember Chang presented an overview of the notices of violation that had been issued and the lack of compliance by Lehigh. He questioned whether additional study sessions should be scheduled with BAAQMD and EPA to further discuss the status of these issues. Councilmember Chang did not think the letter as drafted was strong enough. August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 10 Mahoney moved and Santoro seconded to authorize the Mayor to sign the letter, amended to add these words to the end of the second paragraph: “The Council encouraged better follow- up and strict enforcement of notices of violation.” Chang moved to amend the motion to include the amendment that the County can not issue an expansion permit without Lehigh having a valid Title V permit. The motion failed due to lack of a second. The original motion passed unanimously. 14. Subject: Adopt ordinance prohibiting the feeding of birds in City parks. Recommended Action: Conduct first reading of Ordinance 10-2066. Description: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino adopting Section 13.04.130 P of the Cupertino Municipal Code prohibiting the feeding of birds in City parks. Attachments: Staff Report Attachments: Draft Ordinance Attachments: Flyer Parks and Recreation Director Mark Linder reviewed the staff report. He noted that park users raised this issue over a year ago, and it was a health issue for both park users and for the birds. Staff had reviewed possible options with the Parks and Recreation Commission and the result had been the proposed ordinance before Council. However it had been brought to their attention that the ordinance as proposed would negatively affect the Audubon Society’s bird feeding and the 4H feeding of chickens. Staff suggested limiting the ordinance to waterfowl at Memorial Park, and also recommended waiving the fine for the first offense. Barbara Banfield, Naturalist at McClellan Ranch Park, commented that the major source of food for the geese was the grass. In response to Council comments about possibly removing the grass and/or the pond, she stated that a total redesign of Memorial Park could be undertaken but costs of such a project were unknown. Darcy Paul, Parks and Recreation Commission, commented on several solutions that the Commission had considered. Signage had been placed in the park advising park users to not feed the animals. The spraying of a non-toxic material on the grass had been considered but it was costly to apply and there was no guarantee it would work. Furthermore, the park would have to be closed when it was applied and protective gear would have to be worn by those spraying. While it was a non-toxic material in the grass it could be an irritant to eyes and nose when in the air. He noted that some communities had used dogs to chase the geese off but there was the concern of loose dogs in the park. The Commission had recommended approval of the proposed ordinance with one Commissioner dissenting because of how the fines were structured. August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 11 Stuart Chessen suggested that fines were necessary for those who would not listen. The current signage was difficult to see as it was in the trees. He suggested that volunteers help enforce the issue. Council discussed options regarding the fine structure and whether better signage as a first step would address the problem, or whether fines were necessary to emphasize the consequences of feeding the animals. Councilmember Santoro moved and Vice Mayor Wong seconded to adopt a sign program, to direct staff to place multiple language signs listing the reasons not to feed the geese near water locations where the geese congregated, and to report back to Council six months after the signs were installed. Motion carried unanimously. 15. Designate an alternate board member for the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Agency (SVRIA). Recommended Action: Select representative from Council. Attachments: Staff Report Action: Mahoney moved and Santoro seconded to designate Mayor Wang the alternate board member for the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Agency. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCES 16. Subject: Amend the Cupertino Municipal Code relating to designated bicycle lanes and routes. Recommended Action: Conduct second readings and enact Ordinance Nos. 10-2063 and 10- 2064. Description: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Section 11.08.250 of the Cupertino Municipal Code relating to designated bicycle lanes"; and "An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Section 11.08.260 of the Cupertino Municipal Code relating to designated bicycle routes". Attachments: Staff Report Attachments: Ordinance No. 10-2063 Attachments: Ordinance No. 10-2064 Action: Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to read the ordinances by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang and Wong. Noes: None. Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to read the ordinances by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang and Wong. Noes: None. STAFF REPORTS City Clerk Kimberly Smith reported that Agenda Manager, a new software tool, had been used for the first time in the preparation of the packet for this Council meeting. She explained that in this first phase, the reports remained in digital form from creation through review and approval, August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 12 which reduced the amount of paper used. The second phase will streamline the process for loading that information into the city’s archives, and the third phase streamline how the staff reports were linked to the meeting video. She explained the new numbering sequence and the addition of a table of contents which listed all the attachments. Council discussed this new software and the benefits it provided. They wished to continue receiving a paper copy of the packet, with items divided by tabs. COUNCIL REPORTS Council reported on the following successful events: Community Congress, Global Elegance and Relay for Life. Vice Mayor Wong commented on a statement made by a Councilmember at the last meeting suggesting that he may have violated the Brown Act. He was not in attendance at the meeting and believed if such statements were made about him they should be made in his presence. City Attorney Carol Korade added that there had been no Brown Act violation. She explained that Vice Mayor Wong asked to be the delegate to the League of California Cities conference, and because he was absent from the Council meeting he sent his request via email, which was in the packet as part of the public record. City Manager Dave Knapp added that one Council Member sending an email to all Council Members was not a violation of the Brown Act. It may have been a violation only if two or more Council Members had responded to such an email. ADJOURNMENT Subject: Commission presentations to City Council on August 17. Recommended Action: Adjourn to Tuesday, August 17, 5:00 p.m., at the Quinlan Community Center, 10185 North Stelling Road. Action: At 1:58 a.m., the meeting was adjourned to August 17 at 5:00 p.m. ____________________________ Kimberly Smith, 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. August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 13