CC 01-10-620321 sJ. 3ARAT0OA- VjM-r0jZ ROAD AL 2-45(-r
® C ITT Y 0 P C n 1 S R T I N 0
V D. . -1 , I _ J1 ��
1' VU=3FOOR T!ig ADjOU,&LM0 RW -jLP,g KEu -,IN3 Op +TS' CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 10, 19� '
Place: 10321 So. Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Tlmei 7:00 P.M.
,- Present: Jewett, Paieh, Benetti
Absent: Dempster; Finch
�tfiseni: I .
691: 6lving 9lotiee o! the Proposed Annexation Of C""ID
Territory, DetiVWtIvg it jW the llama of 'FrtuwwIfte 2, '62-7
'CIS City Clark rand the petitiOn. 4'hs Vetition is signed by owner's of
not lets than one - fourth of the land in the territory described in the petitl%
MA la"-thsrn twelve registered votere,reside within the territory. The
petitide was found to be in order.
It me moved by Councilman Saich and seconded by Councilman Jewett that
Resolution 691 be adopter:. Motion carried 3 -0.
7sII "M i1OM, Jj,.: Seeking Review of Ordinance 216 re: Wolfe Rd.
Bridge; also Ordinance 206, Les -Tom assasrinert for Wolfe Rd. Bridge
(Recommendation of City Nanager and City Engirecr).
After reviewing the aescsamente arid alterrtionz in the design of the
bridge, The City Manager and City Engineer recommand an assessment of $23.75
per unit.
Mr. Jim Lipsholz, 1617 E. Santa Clara, San Joss spoke in behalf of
Fontainbleu. The developer has feun3 many untferca:e :) expenses, nuch as a
channel realignment, dedicating property to flex: control to mention a
few. The developer feels they are paying efer 20¢ cf the cost of the bridge .
And feels this exceeilasly high. Mr. L:pzho :.: statai that he expressed
Mir. Fama's view on the matter a:t well ac le'a cwn. There are 123 units in the
PontainDlua development, and 120 in the 7rn Tom ,ieca7ci:,nent.
Councilman Saich f ^lt that a relucti.ca fun +m hr-^ to $- -2.'T5 was quite a
large one, and a favor --ble • <.oaIng *ant tluroogh, the fee
was $50, and I feel the ai�ust�d fe.: Sa
Councllman Jewct- wondered what Mr. Lipah lz considered a fair price,
and what the cost of the bridge weld he.
The City Ernginear had figured the cost of the bridge to be around
$30,Cd0. The developer's estimate was the san :!.
When Mr. Lipsholz pectinded the Council thnt the orlginil estimrle of
cost of the bridge was $50,000, the fee was $50, but there really wasn't
a reduction, since now the eatimated cost was yit',OW; the Mayer poirted o- t
that the proportionate where was the same.
The portion of the bridge we should s.'ure is the Sneation, not the Cott
of the bridge, replied Mr. Lipahelz.
Councilman Jewett again asked if the developer vas willing to make a
proposal of their fair share, percentage wise o:• in collars :nd cents.
Mr. Lipsholz , speaking for himaelf a!d R.', t :-3ma, sLggented 10%, betw•. :e:
the two developers, or $3,300 which would .a paid ime�Axdlately.
Mayor Benettl then statrd his tho%Whez in th.� rstter, When the two
developers came before the oit:y t :aY agree' r' ':Jy ti-e $50, then asked that
the figure be reviewe.:. Whsn th -r uce —i ofl'c —1 It -:0 to 33,5 reduction, �
bp+ ause oar wevised engineering fiau'e. :,tiuen nror,nrrla o ^ is the rrgument. a.._ n
Mayor statad that he is not in favor of negoti.,tinS a figure which Council
considers fair.
The developer asked if the Mayor cenaidered Gtr. lama's and Fontainblcu'
utilitj o! the bridge to be cJIL.
v ,: k .lz
The AW7= mlied T_, asking if they felt this Fas fair when they first
ca7B to tWj ,City for t=dr$.
Mr. I.lps°n' -z ex until ld thdt the tt�� they did Vas 'e to Ktheefor ttheir tll cha: e
cf the pnapmrty, to
protest. .
Mr. MAMph Ramona, who represented Mr. Baas on the original application,
added s !W Words. He notified Mr. Seem of the :i,-ura at the time of the
original. tion. IL. Bass studied It, &DI indicated the "iigarD of $25
3e Wald sot too a stud was Indicated to ascertain the validity or the feet -
Si She develop"' I on this fee and know full Well whr•.
the purchased tbat it �. If their engineers and ours agrees
With the bridge, then at thinit there is a Point for argument.
.,+ or no units. We bode to build
We could Jaild•,o.1lodt,
123 Ind ore asa�aant an &;VW� mit basis isn't sound. Ysrhaps
an as eaa acreage Would be *DOW hmd.
Jewett: I'd hike te, gem a report of which properties are
going to 11lsveloped, so ae will bmaa boa to derive the cost of the shares.
The exist2MS properties should have VmW their share, but unfortunately, they
are getout a free ride. I+s not in tlawor of two developers paying for
something list frill benefit so can'/.
The City Manager stated that the City will pay the balance of the bridge
coat, and fast the fu:-1]s will come fiem gas tax.
The developer askel that the biilding derma:+ 5. issued immediately,
rather them wait until the results of fartlk r aturty of the f.:e.
It rim moved by Councilman Jewett, ani tsconCei by Councilmen Saich that
?ontainblem and Les Tom Enterprises be a :lewe�; Lo ta:ce out building permits
;anoary 21, in lieu of decision made by Council vh:en assesment figure to
.esolved. lotion carried 3 -0.
Mayon Benet.i: I concur with yen in part, re
but since Council wasn't wa
::te coat or the bridge, an arbitrary figure wac p =:ked. However. I do not
agree that_ this figure should be ooer V' argot +.at+cn. The developers' agreed
:J their proportionate share, and '- thir_t- we :told to a gentlemen's
azreement- I belies_ t:r City is eoing tuOr :.iu1 of $25,CCL cc• £27,000.
_he developer who deve:o;a on a part:rr' ar street ,!�ys for the necessary
:=provemen". and this is the case here.
The City Manager a-d City Ragirrer till pres_r: their report at the
- anuary 21 meeting.
Councilman Saic!:ct•lected to uslW all the 611 tax money In one area.
-__ felt tberm might be another need 3c-t as great.
=V I84 -701 ENTEPPR /=FS: Application for Architectural & Site APProval: •
Iots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 10, 19 of Tract 3277; Triplex L'nita on P. -3 -11;
Wolfo Hoed opposite Cupertino High School on Calabar-as Creek. (APpi•
59-a and Z-62 ) Recommended by S- l:ontral.
Spos&I g for the applicant, Mr. Ranora points', out the •:losed 4 -plex
. aeport, also the la- Ascaping, to be completes at t ?me of building.
Commdmsloner Small explpinod that the ]ands.:apirg clsu�e is Sncluded
to keep tae property fie deteriorating for lac: of an owner.
It via moved by Ccurci_mtn Jewett and ✓econ'_ \t bg •Councilms -11 tt ttr.t
the H Coaaaol recommcniation b: approved. Motion carrtetl 3 -0.
P WAZi Y. ALI OD- St•Plicatiun for Archlte ^.t.,,ai & Sito AFproval: I.ot li
Tract 2527, La C.-esta; Alpine LsSve. (Apfl. .o A % S -62, Recommended
by 34batrol.
it rr moved by Councilman Saleb and e(-COnded by councilman Jewett that
Applicatlmi 6LM a S-62 be approved as rwOo=e.)A-,d bf I; Cratrol. Motion
carried 3.0.
VI MISNOWA NOQ3
1 „ .. �ttorztey rand HM .. -693. He stated t►at two loops of a
gloverleaf are now :xluded in the )torte 2;9 is *.ersection at tiplfe Boat',
the ,City has r- ;o--mended a full eloacr.
It as moved by Councilmn Sash and s<: c:ri,:d bn Councilman Jewett that
Resolution F93 be adopted. Motloa carried 3 -0•
mt City Attorney dincunned the formal agreement between Fremont Union
School District and the City on the storm drain. 'The district has asked for
a cree3tt of $1,380 for :Wrovcmeata, Should ire Improvements not be completF-
by 1g's.the looney is to be refunemed. Tye City Manage: pointed out that thii
is E to a request for an extension of tine. This is so stated in the
a The City Attorney r@&Bd ended the agreement lo! approval,
moved Lf Council wstr Jimijojits and seconded by COWf4172100M Balch that
the and the Nayor be aeMbcoHsed to sign the agsse•mat with Fremont
aehool. motion Q81'P — 3-0.
YII 1
It i<a sovad by Councilman Jewett and seconded by CoLneilaeLn Saich
that tie treating be adjourned. Meeting adjourned 8,10 p. a.
•
ATt=z
i t _
Lawrence _ Martin, _ -.y Clerk __.
n
L
/e Jc!r. -z 0. Rnnetti
,r-