Loading...
CC 02-03-69 CITY OF CUPERTINO, State of California 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Phone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL HELD FEBRUARY 3, 1969 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA CC-3 The meeting was called to order at 8:03 p.m. by Vice Mayor Dempster, who call to order subsequently led the assemblage in the flag salute. flag salute Councilmen present: Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes. Absent: Coun- cilman Noel. Also present: City Manager Storm; City Attorney Anderson; City Clerk-Finance Director Ryder; Director of Public Works Finney; City Engineer Boyd; Senior Planner'Laurin; Assistant Planner Engj Chief Building Inspector Benevich; Director of Parks and Recreation Parham; Recording Secretary Lucie M. Matzley. Councilman Stokes moved, Councilman Beaven seconded and it was passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the January 20, 1969 meeting. City Clerk Ryder advised the Councilmen that he was in receipt of the following written communications: 1. Letter from Mrs. Frank L. Jarrett requesting a clarification of the motion made by Councilman Stokes in connection with the approval of Application 24-u-68; 2. Letter from Louis B. Lucas requesting a discussion and cla- rification of this same motion. The letter also requested permission to express the collective opinions of the residents to the disputed motion and minutes. City Clerk Ryder also advised the Councilmen that the applicant for Application 25-Z-68 to be hpard under "Public Hearings" had called to say that he was ill and unable to attend this meeting. Mr. O'Gara had requested a continuance of the public hearing should any problems arise during same so that he would be permitted to attend the meeting on March 3, 1969 and answer questions. Mr. Lucas of 20669 Scofield Drive addressed the Council after having been permitted to do so by Vice-Mayor Dempster. According to Mr. Lucas, the Scofield Drive residents were confused as to the wording of the motion made by Councilman Stokes in connection with Application 24-u-68 and had asked to listen to the tape of that meeting. Since for some unknown reason the tape recorder had not recorded a single word of the entire meeting, the residents only had the written newspaper articles on which to substantiate their position, articles which are in conflict with the adopted minutes of the January 6, 1969 meeting. Mr. Lucas read the articles as printed by the San Jose Mercury-News and the Cupertino Courier. Vice-Mayor Dempster requested that the applicable portion of the January 6,1969 meeting be read by the Recording Secretary from her shorthand notes. roll call minutes approved written communications oral c ommuni cat ion clarification of minutes requested shorthand notes read page 2 council- man re- states intent attorney's statement talks on use of tape planning A. matter combined present- at ion staff report l-v-69 an 29-TM-68 approved dis- cussion present- ation Minutes of the City Council February 3, 1969 CC-3 Oral Communications cont'd After the reading, Councilman Stokes said that he believed that this was what he had said and that, in his opinion, the controversy stemmed from the wording " . 0 in front of the house. . Ii or " . . front ing on Scofield Dr:lve. " Councilman Stokes said that, regardless of how the adopted minutes read, his intent had been that the appearance of the house should be that of a residence and in keeping with a residential neighborhood; but it had not been his intention to keep the applicant from painting his building. City Attorney Anderson stated that the minutes had been approved, and to change them in any way would constitute a felony unless reopened by the Council, which case had not been done. Also, that the interpretation of any minutes is an administrative responsibility and would be brought to the City Council's attention for clarification only if any questions should arise. There ensued further discussion on the purpose, availability and use of the tape during which Councilman Beaven expressed his opinion that to permit a non-recording situation to occur was unprofessional on the part of the City Clerk, which statement was contested. Report of Commissions Planning Commission Councilman Stokes moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously to combine discussions of Applications l-v-69 and 29-TM-68. Planning Commission Chairman Frolich explained that a condition had been placed upon the approval of the variance by which a property division needed to be accompanied by a Tentative Map. City Engineer Boyd reported that he had nothing to add to the discussion of Item A., the Variance, and that Item B. was a: simple Tentative Map, two-lot split with only a possible problem as relates to fire department standards. Counci~ Stokes moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously to approve Applications I-v-69 and 29-TM-68 with the conditions as placed upon each by the Planning Commission under Resolutions No.599 and No. 600, respectively. Application l-TM-69 was discussed. Staff reported that a Tentative Map would need to be furnished but that everything else was in order. Mr. Dexter Algrin of Sutter Hill Development Corporation made the present- ation and stated that this map reflected four lots; lot 3 being planned for construction of a market, lot 1¡;"s1t.owed an existing service station, and that he could not relate any information on lots 1 and 2 because he did not know. Minutes of the city Council February 3, 1969 Planning Commission cont'd Councilman Stokes voiced his concern about not knowing exactly what was planned for two empty lots that adjoin an existing service station, as the entire property could be utilized for automotive services. He wished to discuss the"entire development plan before taking any piece-meal action. The applicant volunteered to get the information relative to lots 1 and 2, and stated that; he would be agreeable to a continuance of this matter until the information is obtained. Councilman Stokes moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously to continue the matter for two weeks. Application 28-u-67 was discussed. Staff reported that no changes from the previous plans had been made; there were no objections. Councilman Stokes moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously to approve Application 28-u-67, Senior Planner Laurin explained that Application 22-U-67 had been passed by the Planning Commission at their October 28, 1968 meeting but had never been listed on the Council agenda and, thus, had never been officially approved, The application was briefly discussed, Councilman Stokes moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously to approve Application 22-U-67. B. Architectural and Site Control H Control Chairman Small presented the minutes of the January 22, 1969 meeting, and briefly disc~ssed each application. It was felt that, to require the representative of Application 394-HC-69 to comply with the recently adopted Ordinance for parking stall widths might impose a hardship upon the applicant. City Attorney Anderson cautioned that the law requires that for a building permit to be issued a structure must be in total compliance to all Ordinances of the City. Thus, the City Council would either have to grant an exception to their own rules, or insist upon compliance. City Engineer Boyd stated that the dedication of land for street im- provements was insufficient and that proper widths would be required, Also, that the number of parking stalls was sufficient but that the size and configuration differs from those requested in the City's Ordinance, even though the differences are minor. City Manager Storm explained that, when the first unit was approved, the City had permitted the street separation to remain at forty feet and that, in his opinion, status quo should prevail. CC-3 page 3 concern expressed l-TM-69 cont inued staff report 28-u-67 approved explanat ion by staff 22-U-67 approved h control present- ation discussions on 394-HC-69 staff report manager's opinion page 4 394-HC-69 approved with conditions present- ation 322-HC-~8 approved h control minutes approved parks Minutes of the City Council February 3, 1969 CC-3 H Control cont'd After additional discussion on the subject and after City Engineer Boyd had asked that, should the Council grant an exception, this be specifically stated for the staff's direction, Councilman Fitzgerald moved to approve Application 394-HC-69 with the stipulation that the supporting posts of the garages be moved as sttpulated by the City Engineer to afford a proper turning radius, and with the recommended setback on Stelling Road as per the City Engineer's requirements. Councilman Stokes seconded and it was passed unanimously. When Application 322-HC-68 was discussed, Mr. Michael McGuire, the Zone Manager for Southland Corporation, explained the proposed sign for the 7-Eleven store on Blaney Avenue. Questions were asked if the sign could be moved to the southerly property line. Mr. McGuire stated that if this portion of the site was now owned by his company, the sign could be moved, if this was the desire of the Council. Councilman Stokes moved for approval of Application 322-HC-68 with the sign to be installed adjacent to the southerly boundary line, and if this was not possible, the applicant shall return to the City Council. Councilman Beaven seconded and it was passed unanimously. Application 365-HC-68 was briefly discussed. Councilman Stokes moved for approval of H Control minutes of January 22, 1969 exclusive of and subject to the other preceding actions. Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously. C. Parks and Recreation Commission no report There had been no meeting of this Commission; there were no minutes. 26-z-68 appeal legend abstain request staff report property defined Public Hearings A. Appeal by Edgar Self from the denial of the Planning Commission action of January 13, 1969 re Application 26-z-68; granting of a prezoning from County residential single-family (RI-IO) zone to General Commercial (CG) zone. Councilman Stokes made the statement that he was the civil engineer for this project and requested permission to abstain from all discussions and actions which was granted. Senior Planner Laurin reported that the subject lot was very small and narrow and its development would constitute spot zoning as the existing zoning was non-conforming commercial business with an existing, run-down gasoline pump on the property. Mr. Fred Rhodes, representing the owner and applicant, explained that this piece of property was situated within the County of Santa Clara but that annexation proceedings to the City of Cupertino had been initiated. Also, that at the meeting of the Planning Commission where the application was denied only a very small sketch had been presented which was now substituted by a large scale drawing. Minutes of the City Council February 3, 1969 Appeal of Applco 26-z-68 denial cont'd Mro Rhodes related that the Planning Commission has asked about the possibility of combining this small lot with some adjoining small lots for a plottage to better develop the acreage available. Mr. Rhodes explained that he had been in contact with the adjoining owners but that none of them wanted to sell or combine the properties until a definite commercial use has been established and approvedo When Vice-Mayor Dempster called for audience comments, Mr. Ro D. Kennitzer of Pharlap Drive asked questions relative to sufficient traffic lanes provisions, which questions were answereè by staff in the affirmative. Mr. Don Gaubatz of 10033 Hillcrest Road stated that the present zoning had been established ,in 1965 and that it was the only non-residential use between stevens Creek Boulevard and Highway 2800 According to Mro Gaubatz, an approval of the zoning would permit the deterioration of the present use to continue. Mr. Bernard Ponsiegi of 22350 Cupertino Road brought out the fact that a four-acre shopping center was planned for the immediate vicinity, and questioned if a small neighborhood commercial area could stand the competition for long 0 Councilman Beaven moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously to close the public hearing. Councilman Beaven said that, in his opinion, this area would lend itself to small homes or apartment house construction and could be developed so that it would become an attractive portion of the Cityo Councilman Beaven also stated that the PlanzdngCommission had denied the application and that he could not disagree with themo Councilmen Dempster and Fitzgerald disagreed stating that, from all indications, this development would improve the area to a great extent. Councilman Fitzgerald moved to approve Application 26-z-68, subject to the conditions of dedication to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and all other normal conditions. Councilman Dempster seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Dempster and Fitzgerald Noes: Councilman Beaven Abstain: Councilman Stokes Absent: Councilman Noel B. Ordinance No. 424: Application 27-Z-68 filed by Manuel Marchant for rezoning of property from Rl-20, Al-43 and Rl-7.5 zone to RI-IO zone; approximately 10224 acres located north side of Lindy Lane, about lOO feet west of Terra Bella Drive. Mr. "Tom Hendera=, CiVi1.' Engineer, presented the application and ex- plained that this parcel of land had three different zonings on it; Rl-7.5, Rl-43 and Rl-20, and that the applicant was desirous of ob- taining a zoning of Rl-20 for the entire parcel. CC-3 page 5 plottage explained audience comments poh. closed councilman's statements councilmen disagree 26-z-68 approved Ord. 424 legend present- at ion page 6 no report p. h. closed Ord. 424 first reading recess Ord. 425 legend staff report council comments staff defines parcel staff comments Minutes of the City Council February 3, 1969 Ord. No. 424 cont'd CC-3 Staff reported no problems; there were no audience comments. Councilman Stokes moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously to close the public hearing. CounciJman Stokes moved that Ordinance No. 424 be read by title only and that the Vice Mayor's reading of same constitutes a first reading. Councilman Beaven seconded and it was passed unanimously. Vice Mayor Dempster called a recess at 10,00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at lO:lO p.m. C. Ordinance No. 425, Application 25-Z-68 filed by J. and M. Penna, Alice Neil, James O'Gara Jr., James McGuire, Kenneth and Arlyne Craighead; pre zoning of property from County residential single- family (RI-lO) zone to General Commercial (CG) zone. Approxi- mately 4 acres located east of Foothill Boulevard, west of Palo Vista Road, south of Belle'~e Avenue, north of Ramona Avenue. City Engineer Boyd reported that this four-acre rezoning application covered the same parcels included in the Annexation designated "Bellevue 68-8" on the agenda; ~lrther, that a plat of this area is attached to Resolution No. 1739. Councilman Fitzgerald commended the fact that several owners got together in a plottage to insure a more effective development, but Councilman Stokes cautioned that this method did not insure that the entire area will be developed as one property. Councilman Dempster felt that perhaps the City should have an Ordinance to prevent a piece-meal development of a parceL Senior Planner Laurin stated that this parcel was already piece-meal and that it might be in the best interest of the City if a Planning Commission requirement could be imposed upon the applicants to force them to negotiate a complete development; however, the General Commercial zoning does not impose any such conditions. It was Mr. Laurin's statement that the applicants could not do anything unless a plan has been submitted to the Planning Commissioo and, subsequently, to the CUy Council for approvaL Senior Planner Laurin then explained the surrounding uses of the map in detail. City Engineer Boyd, in response to comments on merger of these lots, stated that there were a number of absentee owners involved whose interests were represented by powers of attorney. Councilman Beaven stated that he could not understaod the apparent approving mood of his fellow Councilmen on matters such as this, as the City Council councilman continues to allow patches of commercial usage to be established, which states method was doing a great disservice to the City, and that these absentee viewpoints owners rarely care what happens to the land so long as it is profitable for the owner. He felt that someday this could become a beautiful area and if this type of zoning was allowed to happen he would be disappointed not only in the quality of the area but also in the quality of the decisions of this Council. Minutes of the Clty Council February 3, 1969 Ordinance 425 contid Councilman Dempster disagreed with Councilman Beaven, stating that the Council was aware of all possible shortcomings but that no one would reasonably expect to live in this area as it generated noise and traffic hazards for miles aroun,L Also, that what exists in this area at the present time is not good àt1d can only be improvêdo Councilman Dempster also disagreed with Councilman Beaven that a commercial use was automatically considered bad and that there was a place in the community for commercial to assure proper balanceo Councilman Stokes disagreed with the apparent non-involvement of absentee owners and stated that half of Cupertino would not have been developed if owners of certain large developments had been required to live within Cupertino, Also that, in his opinion, commercial uses should be brought to the vicinities in which people live so that they are accommodated, Vice Mayor Dempster called for audience comments, Mr'o Bernard Ponsiegi and Mr, R. Do Kennitzer both made statements relative to the existing commercial use of the area, Councilman Stokes moved, Councilman Beaven seconded and it was passed unanimously to close the public hearing. Councilman Stokes moved that Ordinance No. 425 be read by title only and that the Vice Mayor's reading of same constitutes a first reading, with the condition that a Tentative Map be filed prior to the develop- ment of any portion of the property. Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed 3 ~ 1, with Councilman Beaven voicing the "No" vote. Ordinances Ordinances No, 424 and No, 425, Items 10 and 2, on the listed agenda, had previously been disposed of, 3, Ordinance No, 329(a), amending Ordinance No, 329 by including therein an area previously excluded from the requirement for the installaõion of underground utilities in a certain portion of the City known as "Vallco Park", Councilman Fitzgerald moved that the Ordinance be read by title only that the Vice Mayor's reading of same constitutes a first reading, Councilman Beaven seconded and it was passed unanimously, CC-3 page 7 councilman disagrees with views absentee owners defended audience comments po h, closed Ordo 425 first reading previous disposition Ord, 329(a) legend and Ordo 329(a) first reading No. III, to be known and cited as the Business Licensing Code, Ord. No, III providing for the continued licensing of businesses, trades, legend professions and other activities whether or not conducted for profit; establishing schedules for taxes and fees; prescribing penalties for violation thereof; and repealing all conflicting Ordinances and provisions thereof. (First Reading) 4, This Ordinance was introduced by City Attorney Anderson who stated that this was a consolidation of exisõing Ordinances on the subject and an up-dating of some provisions to include the effect of recent legislation and Court decisions, attorney explains purpose page 8 Ord. III first reading directive Res. l738 L adopted Res. 1739 2. adopted Res. 1740 3. adopted Res. 1741 4. adopted Res. 1742 5. adopted Minutes of the City CouncH February 3, 1969 CC-3 Ord, No. III cont'd Councilman Fitzgerald moved that Ordinance No. III be read by title only and that the Vice Mayor's reading of same constitutes a first reading. Councilman Beaven seconded and it was pa6sed unanimously. Vice Mayor Dempster advised Dr. Brown he could obtain a copy of this Ordinance for his information so that dLcussion of hiB application for a reduction in the business license fee could be undertaken at the next meeting" Resolutions No. 1738; accepting Quitclaim Deed from A.R. and Betty J. Woolworth Councilman Fitzgerald moved for adoption, Councilman Stokes seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes Noes: None Absent: Councilman Noel No. 1739. Annexation "Bellevue 68,-8"" Councilman Stokes moved for adoption, Council~man Fitzgerald seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes Noes: None Absent: Councilman Noel No. 1740: Annexation "Maynard 68~'7", Councilman Stokes moved for adoption, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes Noes: None Absent: Councilman Noel No. 1'741: approval of payroll for the period ending January 31, 1969 City Treasurer Fitzgerald presented the payroll. Councilman Stokes moved for adoption, Councilman Beaven seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes Noes: None Absent: Councilman Noel No. 1742: approving miscellaneous and general expenditures. City Treasurer Fitzgerald presented the 1I8t of' expenditures. Councilman Stokes moved for adoption, Councilman Beaven seconded. Ayes; Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes Noes: None Absent: Councilman Noel Minutes of the City Council February 3, 1969 Resolutions cont~d 6. No, l743~ accepting dedication of real property for roadway purposes from Manuel Marchant Councilman Stokes moved for adoption, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes Noes: None Absent: Councilman Noel 7, No, 1744: accepting dedication of real property for roadway purposes from Joseph Camarda. Councilman Stokes moved for adoption, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes Noes: None Absent: Councilman Noel 8. No. 1745: accepting dedication of real property for roadway from Takeyuki Toma. Councilman Stokes moved for adoption, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes Noes: None Absent: Cpuncilman Noel CC-3 page 9 Res. l743 adopted Res" 1744 adopted Res. 1745 adopted No. 1746: approving final plan for the improvement of frontage Res. 1746 on west side of Highway 85, south of Junipero Serra Freeway; authorizing the City Engineer to sign the final plan and autho- rizing execution of the agreement in connection therewith, 9, Councilman Stokes moved for adoption, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes Noes: None Absent: Councilman Noel adopted 10. No. 1747: approving final plan for the improvement of frontage Res. 17~7 on west side of Randy Lane, south of Forest Avenue; autho- rizing the City Engineer to sign the final plan and authorizing execution of the agreement in connection therewith, Councilman Stokes moved for adoption, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes Noes: None Absent: Councilman Noel 11. No, 1748: instructing the Water Department Fiscal Agent to transfer surplus funds to the City Treasurer. adopted Res. 1748 City Manager StOJ!'lll explained the necessity for this Resolution. Council- adopted man Fitzgerald moved for adoption, Councilman Stokes seconded, Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes Noes: None Absent: Councilman Noel page lO Minutes of the City Council February 3, 1969 CC-3 no unf.bus.There was no unfinished business. new bus iness contri- but ion requested contri- but ion OKed inform- ation needed matter referred treasurer A. placement of funds manager library report attorney New Business A. City contribution toward a sllrvey for n r:ounty convention- sports center. City Manager Storm explained that the ctty' was being asked to contribute $252 toward the financing of the survey and that only two cities within the County had no't contributed to date. The City of' Mountain View, one of those without contribution, had on]y objected to the method of dis- bursing the collec'ted funds and had requested that they be deposited with a County agency rather than the Committee. Councilman Beaven moved, Cocmcilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously to approve $252 as contribution 'to;rarð the survey with the proviso that 'the funds be collected and disbursed by a County agency and not by a committee of private citizens. City Manager Storm reported 'that the Planning Policy Commtttee had asked for the City's indication of whether they wished to actively participate in the County housing program. Councilman Stokes moved to refer this matter to the City Manager for a report at the next meet. ing as to the exact ,,:tshes 0': the Authority. Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously. Report of Officers City Treasurer City Treasurer Fitzgera.ld reported 'that bids had been submitted for the placement of $300,000 of 8UI'plus funds. He moved that $100,000 each be placed with Bank of America, First Valley Bank and Wells Fargo Bank. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stoke6 and pðssed \)nanimously. B. City Manager City Manager Storm supplemented his '<ritten report by stating that 10e had been in touch with Mr. Farrier, the County Librarian, who had 8Dolo- gized for the continuous delays in the submission of the plans to Sacramentoc Mro Storm said he would again 'try to get in touch with all concerned parties and try to expedite this project. C. City Attorney Attorney Anderson reported that he >Te.S preparinc; "r answer to the brief brief pre- filed in Appellate Court by the County Landscape Associatio!1's litigetion and paration appeal in connection with 'the divider stri" on Stevens Creek BoulevaJ'd 0 no oral reports The Departments of Public Work$, City Engineer, Ple,nning, Building ard Parks and Recreation had submitted written depa.rtmentel reports, there were no oral additionso Minutes of the City Council February 3, 1969 Report of Officers cont'd 1. City Clerk - Finance Director Finance Director Ryder stated that the calendars that the bulk mailing permit had to be prepaid. to draw the warrant payable to the United States exact amount had not yet been determined. were being mailed and He requested permission Postmaster but the CC-3 page 11 city clerk bulk mailing process explained Councilman Stokes moved, Councilman Beaven seconded and it was passed warrant unanimously to give minute order approval to the drawing of the requested authorized warrant to be signed by the City Treasurer and the City Clerk. City Engineer Boyd reported that there existed an application for a Tentative Map on the Simms property which had been passed by the Planning Commission but could not be approved because of a Flood Control District edict on a right of way. Mr. Boyd reiterated that he had been appointed, together with Councilman Dempster and City Manager Storm, to contact the Flood Control District to arbitrate the right of way requirement. At a subsequent meeting with the applicant, Mr. Ward Crump, Mr. Crump had indicated that, even with possible compromises, the site would be un- developable as the lots had been laid out very tightly and could not absorb additional restrictions. City Attorney Anderson advised that the Ordinance requires the City Council to dispose of a Tentative Map by either its acceptance or its denial with reasons for the denial stated, in this instance the unaccept- ability of requirements imposed by the Flood Control District. problematic flood control district edict reported advice on legal method Councilman Stokes moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed matter unanimously to continue this matter to the next meeting for further study continued and a report. Councilman Stokes moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously to authorize the City Manager's attendance at the February 25th through 28th, 1969 Spring meeting of City Managers in Monterey. Councilman Stokes moved for adjournment, Councilman Beaven seconded and it was passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Cr¿u, ~~~~ Mayor, City of Cupertino ,¿f:{2- attendance authorized adjournment