Loading...
CC 12-16-80 . . . CITY or CIIPDTlNO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL HELD ON DECEMBER 16, 1980 lB THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CI'rY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA CC-524 Page I ROLL CALL Counc. Present: Gatto, Johnson, Plungy, Sparks, Mayor Rogers Staff Present: City Manager Quinlan Deputy City Clerk Campagna-Blaise Director of Public Works Viskovich Director of Planning and Development Sisk Aseistant Planning Director Cowan This meeting was called by Council to review the General Plan Status Repo submit~ed by the Plann1ßg Commission: Traffic data and alternate options. Mayor Rogers addressed the audience and said she would welcome their opin ions after staff'. presentation and although this was not a legal public hearing, it was to give the Planning Commission direction. City Manager Quinlan told Council that Mr. Sisk would report on the Gen- eral Plan Status and bring them ~p to date on the COmmission's recommenda tions. Mr. Viskovich would then report on the Transportation Plan Circu- lation Element which would then give Council time to question staff if they felt further meetings were needed. Mr. Sisk used the overhead projector and went over briefly the report from the Planning Commission (Consensus Positions regarding I-GPA-80 - attachment A). The Planning Commission approached the GPA in two steps. He explained briefly about Land Use, Circulation Elements and the Parks PI n (AB 859 - Surplus School Property). Mr. Sisk urged Council to look at alternate plans, i.e., land use changes and circulation changes. He re- ferred to the Environmental Impact Report which is being prepared by staff and said it should be completed by February. He said the intent of this meeting was to bring Council up to date and get some direction. Mr. Viskovich exhibited a chart relating to traffic vol~me - 1975 to 1990 projected average daily trIps in the County. He point"d out through different zones the job and housing patterns and the need in the County fo an access between these zones. He presented a positive factor: St..;vens Creek Boulevard to 101 will shift traffic from other majür arterials onto 85 and presented a negative factor: Highway 85 is the lowest priority in the County. Counc. Sparks asked about Bond Issues for expessways. Mr. Quinlan replied that we could have a Revenue Bond Election in which monies would be advanced and then paid off by revenues assuming the County was in a position to commit those revenues. &24 ~2 . . MINUTES OF TIlE DECEMBER 16, 1980 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Coonc. Plungy asked a!xlut Federal funding. Mr. Viskovich replied there is Federal Aid Urban av:ilable but said because Highway 85 is low priority it seemed unlikely. In Phase III of the GPA Mr. Viskovich said there were political factors such as the CalTrans Administration philosophy of building freeways, therefore We~t Valley cities Highway 85 could be threatened as a continuous route. He went into the financial aspects of 85 and went into acme negative and positive aspects on the outcome of the ElS report. Be aaid that in case the State abandons 85 is Council prepared with an alternate plan. At the local level he stressed traffic volume and residence study and the capacity of the roads. If De Anza was the major carrier and Rainbow and Prospect were closed and an express- way was built then that would attract more cars. If there was a 4 or 6 lsne freeway, that would benefit the through cODlDuter; howe'ver, he said to overbuild based on projection (1990) would be the le68t beneficial to the community because of limited access. One alternative would be to establish a major roadway in the western part of the City with restrictions at De Anza to Prospect or a 4 lane intersection at grade which would allow an access for residents and utilize the extension. He spoke of a positive and negative aspect of a 2 lane road including the cost factor. Council at this time questioned him on different alternatives and asked for clarificatio~ on some poincs. Mr. Viskovich stressed again the need for alternative plans in case the land is sold. He said he felt it was important for the City to push for the additional 2 lanes on 280 80 traffic can be kept theL'e and then steer the traffic to De Anza. He explained alternatives of a 2-4-6 lane freeway with land purchase of open space. As to the cost factor, a grade separation would add greatly to the cost. After a brief recess, Mayor Rogers asked the audience for their views. Alf Modine, 10385 Prune Tree Lane, spoke in favor of Highway 85 and encouraged Council that the sooner 85 is completed the lower the dollar factor will be because of inflation. Mike Bullock, 21831 Hermosa Avenue, expressed concern on air pollution and the noise level. He felt that any type of roadway or expressway would bring 4 times the traffic through the City. He handed out some literature from the Secretary of Transportation pertaining:o free parking as an alternative. He also spoke on density an~ light rail. Maurice O'Shea of Clay Street spoke of gag consumption and the effects to the community. He is in favor of getting people to and from work quickly. He suggested that the City could make a proposal to the State in effect of zoning the corridor to 100 acres per use mini~um with a secondary cse as a transpDrtation corridor and any subsequent sale would have to contend with that. Ken Kelly, DeLaFarge Street, stressed that there was no attempt made to go to the voters concerning Highway 85 and emphasized that public opinion was needed. Paul Sonnenblick. 11525 Homeowners Association. community feeling for a Upland Way, was rp.preeenting the West Cupertino He presented Council with a survey and stressed freeway. He explained the percentages of the survey. , . . . MINUTES OF TIlE DECEMBER 16, 1980 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Omar Chatty, 18216A Hale, Horgan Hill, said the City should aee the EIS report before selling any land. He said a light rail system could be financed by the County and State. He mentioned alternatives such aa 85 going to Prospect, a 4 lane freeway, off ramps and State and Federal funding including the excess monies the State bas for highways. John Rakich, 11835 Upland Way, agreed that the City should fight for a freeway. Harold Johnson, 10511 Larry Way, was in favor of a freeway and did not encourage a light rail or BART. He thought for safe and logical trans- portation a direct fre~way was safer than an expressway with signals. Wes Williams, 10067 Byrne Aveuue, President of the Monta Vista Homeowners Association, saw the definite need for a freeway. Ann Anger, 10185 Empire Avenue, did not agree with Mr. Viskovich's pre- sentation. She is in favor of safe traffic in the valley. She said that she felt the State was determined not to give us r:>ads so the City should meet with the legislatora and that a moratorium should be placed on the corridor in case of abandonment. Frank Mulkern, 10381 De ADza, Cballlber of Commerce, reaffirmed that the Chamber and the business community stands behind the total preservation of the 85 corridor from Stevens Creek Boulevard to 101 and favors the co cept of the moving of veh1,cles. He informed Council on the availability of partial funding through the business community. Minnie Lee, 10468 Vista Knoll Boulevard, asked Mayor Rogers what Council wanted. ~'yor Rogers explained the process of the Planning Commission, City Council and public hearings. Miss Lee suggested that a citizens committee could be formed to get more citizen input in financing and road way syst~ and environmental concerns. George Royer, 11800 Upland Way, said that Cupertino should not set a precedent for abandonment but preserve the right-of-way. He agreed with Miss Lee's suggestion of a committee for input review. Alf Modine again spoke of a light rail srudy that was made and did not recommend it because it would not solve the problem. Council agreed to talk of Highway 85 and the alternatives and to give the Planning Commission some direction. ,"unc. Gatto was in favor of preserving Highway 85 to 101. If this was .ùt possible, then there should be an access from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Prospect, which would relieve traffic through the City. He agreed wit the Planning Commission's report but suggested that instead of a 4 lane parkway, lease it as a limited access road. If the State abandons 85, the City should be ?repared to accept it at a local level and put in a road that solves the t~affic problem th~ough the western part of town. He said the City should be looking at some type of limiteu access, speCHt ically at De Anza Cûllege facility or possibly a grade separation or inte change at Stelling, CC-524 Page 3 · .2: MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 16, 1980 CITY COL'?ICIL MEETDCG Counc. Sparks asked "or. Viakovich that if the EIS report says that the 75 ft. corridoT is for li%ht rail and sells off the land, what optior. would the City have. Hr. Viskovich aaid that light rail was not discussed but they could abandon with apprcwal from the Transportation Co..tssion and put the land out to bid. Be said the City should consideT fighting that pToepect now. He warned ColD1cil that once they go with a freeway you stay with it - that'. why an alternate is important so the City would have a better chance of retaining a road if the State does decide to abandon. Counc. Sparks saiel be favors a freeway, 8 lanes if possible, even if it isn't feasible. Counc. Johnson said he thought this was a regional problem and the City Council should puraue the original concept. As fer as financing, the State should be accountable for it and he supported word for word the Planning Co..tssion's alternative for a 4 lane parkway. · Counc. Plungy did not want the roadway abandoned. We should encourage the other citiea to Teconsider the poasibility for a freeway. He sele1 he was in favor of a 4 lane expressway and that the City should acquire the land and have State legislation for 1.8 miles and ?ossibly look iDto financing with our legal department (i.e. revenue bonds). Mayor Rogera prefened a freeway from Stevens Creek Boulevard to 101 through Saratoga anel Los Gatos but if that was not possible then a roadway, 2 or more lanes, and have the right-of-way preserved. She agreed for the need of community input. A discussion followed between Mr. Viskovich and Council as to a freeway versus 4 lane limited access and what the State may propose. Mr. Quinlan referred to a survey from Mr. Sonnenblick and suggested an independent consultant be hired to report to Council. Mayor Rogers said that she thought COlmcil couldn't buy anything better than the report from staff. CQunc. Gatto reaffirmed his point of saying "limited access roadway" instead of specifically saying what points of connection or how many lanes. Counc. Plungy and Johnson agreed that time is an important factor but people would wait for a freeway. · Counc. Gatto said that Cupertino must wait for the State and the EIS report before the City could evaluate alternatives. ~lce the EIS report is complete then the City can go (1) freeway or abandon alternatives or (2) no freeway and proceed with our own plan. Mr. Viskovich said the EIS report does not speak to the mode merely to preservation or no preservation and there will be no more input into the report. The EIS report is merely a guideline to the director to deciie abandon or not abandon. . . . . MINUTES OF THE D!CUIIIER 16, 1980 CITY COUNCIL MEETIhG Mr. Quinlan sugguted the City adopt a IIIC-¡atodum to give uS tice to study abandonment. He tboJuaht this would plac. the City in a good poaition to argue in coo<-t if need be. Øe will discuss this pos&ibility with the City Attorney. Council agreed and asked Hr. Quinla" to report back with the legal op!nicn in January. Counc. Gatto again Jugpated purSu1ng alternate plans such as a moratorIum or emergency ordinance or posaible legislation to be prepared when tl.e Sta makes their <ieciaion. Coun.:il agreed to reaffirm a freeway position and prrservation of the corr dor. They were oppoaed to light rail. Mr. Sisk welcOlHd any citizen input. Hr. Quinlan suggested staff could - with Mr. Mulkern for possible alternatives on funding. Mayor Rogers said the CuPertino Scene could -be used for citizen input and forwarded to~. Siak. Council was in agreeMl1t with the consensus report of the Planning Co..tss and felt no further meetiJ188 were necessary on Higb_y 85. It was moved by Counc. JohtllJon, seconded by Counc. imous:i.y to adjourn the meeting to January 5, 1981. adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Plungy and pa3sed unan- The meeting was ~~~~,-- -;&~ CC-524 Page 5