CC 04-27-82
·
·
·
.
CITY or CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
;elephone: (408) 252-4505
MINUTES or TRI! ADJOURNED REGULAR KEETItlG or TBE CITY COUNCIL
HELD ON APRIL 27, 1982 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL
CUPERTINO, CALIFoa.>¡IA
Mayor Sparks called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in Counc~l
Chamber of City RaIl.
ROLL CALL
Counc. Present: Gatto, Johnson, Plungy, Rogers, Kayor Sparks
Staff ?resent: City ~nager Quinlar
City Clerk Cornelius
Director of Public Works Viskovich
Director of Planning.and Development Sisk
Director of Parks and Recreation Dowling
Assistant Planning Director Cowan
City Attorney Kilian
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment (l-GPA-80): Consider3tion
of a comprehensive amendment of the City of Cupertino General Plan
and a Specific Plan for Stevens Cree~ Boulevard Planning Area.
Kayor Sparks introduced the topic of discussion and stated that the
purpose of the evening's meeting was to direct the scope of the
Planning Commission.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the land use map for those
present and the four alternatives as developed by staff. Those alterna-
tives &~e decreased intensity, existing intensity, inte~diate inten-
sity, and increased intensity.
Council discussed each item included in the
General Plan Amendment dated April 22, 1982.
lowing actions werp taken:
Work Program for the Pend in
By condensus, the fol-
l. Geographical "cope - C~r~ Area, Seven Spring Ranch, Mariani Packing
Plant.
2. The Planning Commission review the four options and made recom-
mendations to Council: submit all options to Council including
Planning C~mmission preferred cption. Have all data availahle,
include potential impacts and mitigating measures.
3. Inp_t Citizens Goals Report into the General Plan Revie~.
CC-568
Page 1
_6~
,
MINUTES OF 1'HE APRIL 27, 1982 CITY COUNCIL KEE'lING
4. Cm.sider residential as a permitted use in the Core Area and
Vallco Park.
,
.
5. Consider height 0> buildings in the study.
6. Do not make a Town Center focal point concept pact of the General
Plan effort.
7. Deletion of trips may be considered in the review, as may control
of land use intensity and the possibility of building fora and
intensity triggering different requirements; i.e., underground
parking.
8. ~ffects of different types of food and drink establishments
shall be evaluated. To be included in said evaluation are cost
of Sheriff's services and effect on adjacent neighborhoods.
Staff will check with the League of California Cities to see
if categories have been established for types of establishments.
The Economic Consultant is to be asked if there is a relation-
ship between the type of office in the area and the t~'pe of
retaurant coming in; if so, what is it?
9. The plan is to ~onsider other measures of residentIal inensity
besides dwelling unit per acre.
.
O. Hodification or deletion of BMR and the Con. ' Gonversion policies
should ~e addressed.
1, Consider in-lieu fees for non-residential development.
2. Council directed staff to clarify stateme~ts in item Dl, page
6 of the April 22, 1982 staff reort regarding Work Program for
the pending Generql Plan Amendment.
3. Council directed that cost fqc:ors, existing traffic, the Impact
(if any) of options and minimum level of service with each alter-
native being considered in regard to the Circulation Element.
Provide information for D level and for maintaining present
lev~l if above D.
4. Provide information for and consider cost ~nd other aspects
of partial implementation of a roadway in the 85 corridor.
5. Consider initial and maintenance costs, types of financing
and future need of open space for organized youth sports.
6. Evaluate additional police and fire services when n~cessary.
.
7. Planning Commission is to provide Council w1tn alternative and
items B-I, 2, 3 (not in depth), 5; C-3 (policy only), D, E
(not specific sites), and F per staff report initially. Council
will consider these items concurrently with the CommissiJn's
hearings on the balance of items to be considered.
·
MINUTES or 1'HE APRIL 27, 1982 CITY COUNeR MEETING
Mr. Paul Rogan, r.presenting Mariani Properties, requested that the
I Ksr1cni Packing Plant site be studied for alternate uses.
,
John Rakich, 11835 Upland Way, inquired about the motivation behind
trying to achieve a jobs/housing balance. He vas informed it vas re-
required by State law.
Bill Levis, 7573 Bollinger, addressed disclepancies between definitions
of vsrious design lev..ls of traffic. He asked if the study is limited
to the Core Area and &even Springs, will it reflect the aggregate
count at buildout? He vas informed it would.
Rosemary Callahan, 19954 Iflleaton, asked about the present level of
serv~ce at Stev~. s Creek Boule~ard intersections. She also stated
that she felt the present Four Phase building is a high rise and any-
thing higher would be objectionable.
Ray Shannon, 1157 Yorkshire Drive, inquired about figures used in
traffic calculations. He was informed the City uses 1,950, rather
than the 1,800 used elsewhere.
Council directed the Director of Public Works to report back r£garding
the status of the intersection of Rainbow Drive and De Anza Boulevard.
·
The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the General
Plan on May 12, 1982.
Council announced that the meeting scheduled for April 28, 1982 was
cancelled. .
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
_~ t12d;,.)
City c~
·
CC-568
Page 3
Rainbow/De Anza
intersection
General Plan
public hearing