CC 01-21-63SARA TO?l- SMOALI HW
CITY OF C V P S R T I N 0
AL 2 -4505
m W= FOR THE %- 'JIAR MEET130 OF THE CITY COUNCIL - Janoaty 21, 1963
10321 So. Saratoga- 9annyvale Road
8.00 P.N.
s&W= TO T3E FIAo
Present r
Absent:
1
Henetti
- Dempster arrived 8130;
leash arrived BIDI . _.
City Attoitsys City 15hg or
.City, 0 and seconded by onodilrn Jewett
ft.", t�Ortry city Clerk la tar abooms of
XBOM OF TIM PR MOW A�= - January 7. January 10, 1963
It was moved by Councilman Jamett and seconded by Osmcdlman Salch
So minutes of January T and Janukr7 10 to approved as sabaitted.
! OF ITZ PLANNING C>COUMION (See Planning Commission
manatee of January 14, 1963)
Cbai.aan Snyder reported that the Planning Commission recommended
the approval of the Civic Center Site. The Commission expressed its
disapyslutment in such a small attendanoe at a meeting which was well
pubilelyed, and also in the lack of interest in selection of the site.
!be Commission met with Mr. Fenley from the Cupertino Elementary
School District. ?ormul.as for selection of school sites were discussed,
and a meeting was arranged for January 31, at which time Mr.Penley will
present a planning district map. When questioned about the Marlani
parcel, Chairman Snyder replied that he didn't imow if there was any
posal.bIlity of clAnging that site, but that !!r. Fenley expressed his
wl :Ilnypess to gc over in detail the distrlct's Master Plan with the
Comodasion.
Mr. Volker met with the Flaming Commission on Tuesday, January
15, and presented existing facil11-ies maps, lie also gave a report on
the following:
and Local T1-7tations and Problems
Bark and Recreation Standards
pool Enrollments
An analysis of the data presented to date will be made at the
Febraary 13 meet!-_.
No oral communications
A :enter from the National Council of Christians and
Jews, Inc., reques" a proclamation of Brotherhood Week
February 17 through 24, 1963.
PUBUC HPAPJNCS:
Mason Brothers: Applieation 70 -Z -62 to rezone 11.5 acres from
R -1:5 -2 to R -1; south side of Rodrigues Avenue. Recommended
by Plan nirg Commission Absolution 123.
It was moved by Councilman Stich, and seconded by Councilman Pinch
that the hearing be closed. abtion carried 4 -0.
-1-
it use moved by Councilmen Saich, and secondM by CO=CilKtt
Jere!t that the City Attorney be instructed to draw up an ordinance
for re=08 M 11.5 acres as recommended by Planning Comiselon !resolution
123.
JEMS: Councilmen: Finch, Jewett, Saich, Benetti
DAYS: Councilmen: None
AMM:Councilman: Dempster
1 ", ,;, x6j, I ii ;4 ro
U24 AMM Df.e' s AM RESOLD3IM I= ADOPTION:
* Ordinance 002(0) s a�yaauit� Ordina:rce. Ne.. , _ _ ,�# ) and
14. Apaidim Ordinance .• Adding the C3a�tion
P •Planned CoWMWdty tgt; (PC -H). second Phad1ns.
Lroved by 00m612iein Jerett and seconded'by Cbuooilaan
flit Ordinance 002(o) be 4WOd. by title only. Motlos- Aanded 4-0.
was moved by oo:mcilnan Jewett and seconded by Comallaan
Push that Ordinance 002(o) be enacted.
A'K3: Councilmen: Pinch, Jewett, Saich, Benetti
MM: Councilmen: Now
ABMW: Councilmen: Dompster
MOTION CARRIED 4 -0
B. Ordinance 224: Approving the Annexation of Certain Con-
tiguous Uninhabited Territory Designated "Eaton 62 -1
Revised ". Second Reading.
It was moved by Councilman Jewett and seconded by Councilman Saich
that Orddnance 224 be read by title only. Notion carried 4 -0.
It was moved by Councilman Jewett, and seconded by Councilman
Saleb that Ordinance 224 be enacted.
AYES: Councilmen: Pinch, Jewett, Saich, Benettd
SAYS: Councilmen: None
AGSM: Councilmen: Dempster
wrION CARR= 4 -0
VIII HYING BILIS
A. REsOumoNS 694 & 695
It was moved by Councilman Finch and seconded by Co mcilmn
Jewett that Resolution 694 be app -o•nd.
AYES: Councilmen: Finch, Jewett, Saich, Banotti
LAYS: Councilmen: Yore
ABSENT: Councilmen: Deaoster
MOTION CARRIED 4 -0
It was moved by Councilman Finch and seconded by Councilman
Saich that Resolution 695 be approved.
AYES: Councilmen: Finch, Jewett, Saich. Benetti
SAYS: Councilmen: None
ABSENT: Councilmen: Dempster
MOTION CARRIED 4 -0
IZ mSPORT OF OFFICERS AND MWEESSIONERS:
A. REPORT OF CITY TRE►SUM
Do further report
D. REPORT OF CITY MA394M
i
Up City Nanager rep0y4d4 plat he hod received a latter from
ar- -
�3�.,
Mr. Webaelson regarding ant°'repairing on the streets in Idlewild. An
officer was sent to investigate; a report will be fortheoming.
A resolution has been submitted to the Division of Highways on
Holft Road. Their engineers will be available the week of January 28
to dlseues this with Council or a representative. The meeting will be
help In San Francisco.
"a City Manager was authorized by Council to attend the meeting.
'!he City Manager
had RW- ha►offiodal report that the Board of SupEr-
Led turned down 'the Gity's-re9wst for fencing the Megntrt ditch.
etad Lhat.Mrs...IMbrOer and, any others who had complai.nsd about
C. MBFORT OF Cm =in=
`�- aterm_sltwYA n><.lei>Yl T!p?VVeAentII (File Qiu� +2-Z•
2.
"a 81,1011.1 1 pts'oonatrueted in conjunction with the
Stevens Creek Boulevard between � d
enRandy lam and Blaney Avenue
have been inspected by this office. Improvements were found
satisfactory.
It was moved by Councilman Saich and seconded by Councilman
Dempster that the recommendation on the Savio Thomas improvements
be approved. Motion carried 5 -0.
D. REPORT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
The City Attorney had prepared - Resolution 696, supporting an
increase of highway user taxes of one cent. Sixty -five per cent of
the revenue would go to the City.
It was moved by Councilman Saich, and seconded by Councilman Finch
that Resolution 696 be adopted and sent to the principals involved.
AYES- Councilmen: Dempster, Finch, Jewett, Saich, Benetti
HAYS: Councilmen: None
ABSENT: Councilmen: Mone
NOTION CARRIED: 5-0
Resolution 697, providing that the prc,.erty annexed in Pruneridge
116-6 should be developed within two years, or :.e de- annexed, was also
prepared per the applicant's request.
It was moved by Councilman Finch, and seconded by Councilman Jewett
that Resolution 697 be adopted.
AYES: Councilmen: Dempster, Finch, Jewett, Saich, Benetti
NAYS: Councilmen: None
ABSENT: Councilmen: None
YATION CARRIED: 5-0
The City Attorney also received consents on P- mmeridge 162 -6. It
was moved by Councilman Dempster and seconded by Couiwilmac.Iiaich that
the documents received by the City Attorney be made Fart of the record.
Notion carried 5 -0.
X UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. County Water Commission
The Mayor reported on the proposed plan of Sunnyvale whereby
cities not participating in tie county water p -an pay only a share of
use tax. For example, cities tatting half t.icir water from underground
would pay half the fee.
B. Proud Homes, Inc. (Fontainbleu): Requesting fu^ther review
of Ordinance 216, requiring assessment toward Wolfe Rd. bridge;
also, Ordinance 208 pertaining to Les-Tom apartments (Report)
The City Engineer reported that the County had changed the deiien
-3-
of the bridge, but it was doubtful if there could be more than a $400.00
reduction. The report will be presented at the February 4 meeting.
It was moved by Councilman Finch and seconded by Councilman
>' Dempstar that Proud How a and Les -Tom requests be postponed until the
FebzuuT 4 meeting. Motion carried 5 -0.
HEMS: 8:45
RECONVENE: 8: 55
C. MiLaIt lboms b Co.: Cb&Oking h Inspection- a in cor4w-
tion ftth Portal Plafa: Mobil 011, H►7wocd t.
fiere was no representative present from' MDti�_
e" tM. resting we sent to Mobil Oil, and aekwwl r
Use.
Mr. dwrgs Iamaofor,.from lbrt4lF1asa, objected total apan
of imepeetlon a'I ate, also the fact that -he *ii i gp6t a bro4k-
I of boors spent, per job fMm Mr. F}em1nB. City.Vpgineer. .Xr.
riaoka objected to the 0�Cese tee of 444o. City was $1190
for curbs, gutters and sideva2ks.
Mr. Ward Crump, from Haywood Terrace, pointed out that he was not
objecting to payment of a proper fee. He stated that he is willing and
able to pay all proper charges against the subdivision. In order to have
a basis on which to compare the charges, he called various cities roegrby
to determine their charges for similar inspections.
Santa Clara cha? es a flat fee of 31%, also Los Altos. The City
of Sunnyvale charges 3R, in addition they charge a re- inspection fee
of $6.50 per hour If they have to provide an inspector nights or weekends.
The City of San Jose has a uated fee of 5% under $20,000, 4lb for
120,000 to ,000, 4% ever 5OW. Santa Clara County chargea_4};i to
20,000, 3 between $20,000 and $50,000, 2J% over $50,000. It would
then appear that the average charge 13 -about 31%• Cupertino has a flat
fee of 3J%. This would indicate this to be a normal fee expected to
cover inspection charges.
Haywood paid $2875 when the original agreement was drawn. This
In in excess of 31'p. As work. progressed, a letter dated August 17 was
received from the former City Engineer that the original deposit was
used up, and another $1500 was requested, making a total of It.4375 which
would be 61,%, or close to double what is usually expected. Mr. rump
stated that he was unable to figure out why they were charged twice the
amount expected.
Mr. Fleming, former City Engineer, from Mark Thomas & Co, stated
that he took exception to Mr. Ya:saoka's remark that he was unable to get
a cost breakdown upon request. Mr. Yamaoka received a letter showing
time spent in field and office; be has also been invited to come to
the office to inspect time cards.
At the time oe the inspection on the above mentioned developments,
the City of Cupertino charged 5$ on $15,000 or under; 4% for over
$15,000: 5% on commercial under $15,000; 6% over $15,OCO. Baywood
figured 2.974; Haywood Terrace 4.38%; River Crest 5.TO %. averaging
4.20%. This is very close to what the City is currently charging.
Mr. Yamacka's bond amount was $19,200, total amount $55,200, a
2.16% figure on the total amount.
When the site was purchased from Rousseau for the Mobil Oil
station, the buyer and seller were not in agreement who should improve
Strrens Creek Rd. A bond was posted by Mobile 011 of $1,000. Their
$825 fee was 4.66.
The City Attorney reviewed the City's position on this matter. A
schedule of fees was submitted by dark Thomas & Co. on January 8, 1958.
Thereupon the City prepared Resolution 70 establishing $100 per month
for consulting services, incorporating the terms of that letter. That
letter has been the document covering the relationship between developers
and the engineer.
The Mayor asked how the City figured in the picture of collecting
fees.
The City Attorney read ...parts of Otdinnxee Aeh •utnned the
t between the Qeveloper and the city. If the sybtivider failed
�O pq, Lha City Wall appropriate finds for reimbursement Of the awnear.
tdedivnce 47 is dated February 3, 1958.
Mr, plowing pointed out that he was not asking that the City pa'
_
the fame from tthhae developer. Mr. Mr. FFlemingtpassed o�hifs report oh theL
these developer's Inspection fees.
COW
it on site leprovpmMMts bad bdPrIn6
s.,• 1� LOr takes Caia� Qt. t1lR1. i1�er
a ef. �tnY Sopaovelisrit�, d ih�la'Qvgmsnts
be .I on Aasa.
u , -, tar is
_ L_�.v .._ •
• 12
reams Q in ix+sewr- •taut he Mould ddt ad ' a d' is
He aslohYd Ne. 1JSOtar�6 about big claim that he maw mcoey
dn't coordlmate has mock with bin.
'tea Mayor asked that personalities be left out'of the discussion.
Mr. Naming was asleep how bond amounts were estimated.
•, pleminp,e *.'rice uses a chart $howlnn�� pipe, pavement, etc':;
costs. They try to have a bond posted 5 to 117J1 higher than eatlmted
job because of dner:.ssing costs.
Mr. Marburg, 168 H. Jackson st., San Jose, architect who accompan-
led Mr. Yamoka, asked if the City's fee for plan check included on site
wort. He pointed out that any charges made for on site checking are
charges made to the City, since they have been collected from the develop-
er. He felt this might account for the overlap pointed out by Mr.
$1999 for The total site work
of $8,489.$62000 fornonisitee,
Yamaoks istcha
Actual
ed $1190, then W89, and is much hi1ggher thanf Mr.
Oft site is $849, and on site is paid for by the Building Department.
On this basis, Mr. Marburg finds Mr. Yamaoka's fee excessively high.
Mr. Crump had a few comments about Mr. Fleming's report. The
original Baywood showed 2.97%. Mr. Fleming stated that if there was
anything in excess charged it was refunded. He asked if anything was
refunded on Baywood. Mr. Fleming's figures on Baywood Terrace are very
misleading. $2974.07 is the total shown for plan checking and dnapec-
t.ion. He referred to Mr. Fleming's letter of February 27, 1962 in
which an additional $1500 me requested to complete inspections after
the ;2875 deposit4d originally. Mr. Fleming shows $2500, not y28j5,
al request from Mr. Fleming Mr. deposited. p the the
from the City. addition-
al The
City Is now doing the remaining inspection, therefore the $2974.07 as
shorn Is nowhere near the total inspection fee.
Mr. Crump continued. Last summer when putting improvements in
Baywood Terrace, there was a Mark Thomas inspector hanging around,
When asked what he was doing, he replied "inspecting ". When asked why
he was hanging around, he said there wasn't much doing in the city, and
he hffid to fill in his time somewhere. A few days later Mr. Crump got
the ;1500 bill, and asked the City for relief. Mr. Crump discussed
this with the inspector last reek, and he said that he lad been mis.
Interpreted, that he meant that he-had more time to spend on the Baywood
job at that time than before. Mr. - Crump - felt certain he paid for time
when the engineer had nothing else to do, and he stated he is not willing
to pay for time for a man to stand around his construction shack drinking
coffee.
.11e Mayor felt that the City's feeo should be reviewed. The former
City RagIneer has been accused of charging exhorbitant fees. The fees
should be refigured to see if they are correct per the resolution.
Mr. Fleming ,rngwered Mr. C rump's charges:
1. Mr. Cramp asked about the refund. I don't know what happens
"5-
w
to the fees. -This is hOndled by the City. C7-Y records will also
thaw the exact amount of the deposiw.
2. Regardipg the inspector. I wasn't there, but was told about
the conversation. The r
so" time that one day to spend at Bad tion was that he had
od
3. City records will show what Mr. Crump paid, $2500 or $M5•
#. we babe M do ;thspeation Nock for a flat fee.
9i 40 the omid et4ineert•�a daparhbht now. they
orate a' wtu,' so can establi a fee. Ti
charges a on a per diem br2de.
" & i t* Naa _&Aftg the. time win
. dY1t uift a on sfcie'.
Ohara called in to ftf4V.,O on -site
a4. Kazin ge did not know bW ti. fee Was
a0s on the':
Kra Yamsoka asked it dsMiopars were at the mercy of the city when
!brae is no flat fee not for 1napeotions. He said: "without a set fee
I an ride open to this system."
The Mayor stated that the figurss used by the engineer were those
used by the City Engineering Department. So the quarrel is between the
developer and the City. The fees should be re- examined and a report made
back to the City Council.
Councilman Jewett concurred. but felt that the City Engine: should
not be made a referee in this case.
The Mayor said that was not his inte,tion. J-�fo,,tunately, he
stated, Council is the referee.
It was moved by Councilman Finch that the City Manager be authori-
zed to review the challenge by Portal Plaza, Mobil 011 and Haywood
Terrace in relation to charges set forth in the ordinance in effect at
the time of their agreement and report to Cou::cil. Seconded by Mayor
14, -ti.
AYES: Councilmen: Dempster, Finch, Saich, Jewett, Benetti
NAYS: Councilmen: None
ABSENT: Councilmen: None
MOTION CARRIED 5-0
It was pointed out by Councilman Finch that he felt M67 k Thomas
should also have an opportunity to report any extra costs involved which
might not be covered by the ordinance.
Mr. Yamaoka had an additional request to na..ke. He was required
to dedicate land to the city up to the center of the road. Because of
the Inspection fees unpaid, the City refused to accept the land, there-
fore he is still being taxed for it. If the City accepts the dedication
during ianuary, Mr. Yamnoka will be reimbursed. It was Mr. Yamaoka's
req`aest th?t. the City accept the dedication.
The City Attorney stated that a resolution is required. It could
be accepted on the condition that the dedication is accepted by the
City Engineer.
It was moved by Councilman Dempster, and seconded by Councilman
Jewett that Resolution 670, accepting improvenents and dedication of
Portal Plaza, subject to approval of the City L:g.lneer, be adopted.
AYES: C -.ancilmen: Dempster, Jewett, S_ich, Benetti
NAYS: Councilman: None
ABSENT: Councilmen: Finch
MOTION CARRIED: L -o
D. Miscellaneous
T
It was moved by amnollmma Jewett, seconded by Councilman Salch
w
that the Proclamation naming robr xan carried � February 24 Brotherhood
Week Be sip by mayor.
r • r..
No new business
XII AWOUHIaGM
Zt was saved by Councilman Dempster snd seconded by Councilman
Jemett that the meeting be adjourned. All in ravor 4 -0.
Meeting adjourned 10:45
ATTM:
d-a...l�- ....y�
wrence in,� Yri.si � e
e John 0. Benetti
Mayor
-7-