PC 05-12-82
CITY OF ClIPEHT1NO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
J0300 Torr0 AV(>rlI1e. Cllpertin{), CA 95014
Telephone: (408) 252-4505
,
HINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNEb MEEhNG OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON MAY 12, 1982 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
PC-384
Page 1
The meeting was coiled to order at 7:33 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Adams
in tile Council Chamber, City Hall.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Cc)mmissi()ners PreseIlt:
Commissioners Ahsent:
Adams. Binneweg, Blaine (8:25 p.m.), Koenitzer
Chairperson Claudy
Staff Present:
Direct.or of Planning and Development Sisk
City Clerk Cornelius
Assistant Planning Director Cowan
Director of Public Works Viskovich
Associate Planner Piasecki
\{R ITTEN COMMUN ICATlONS:
tile pubJ_ic ¡learing.
To be considered part of the testimony for
ORAL CO~1MUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. fi.pplicntion I-CPA-SO of City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment
to consider a comprehensive amendment of the City of Cupertino·
C;enera] PIon and a Specific Plan for the Stevens Creek Boulevard
Planning Area. The General Plan Amendment will concentrate on land
lIse, Lr¿lffic circlIJation, hOtlSing and ecoIlomic issues whicl1 affect
¡..iiE.' entire cnmmuníty. The Stevens Creek Boulevard Specific Plan
will con(:entraLe on the development of a more detailed land lise,
cirCtllalion and urban design plan [or properties which abut the
rench ()f StevcllS Creek BOIJlevard betwecn Stelling Road on the
west ~¡l(¡ Stern Avenue on the east. First Hearing.
^SSiSt31lt P];-¡nning Director Cowan introduced consultants, Mr. Duncan
FlI]JC:'r of Q!JCSl(lr ^ssncjnU~s nl1d Nr. David lJowall of Lanù Economics
Croup. H('reviewcd the zoning map for the City of Cupertino showing
npproximau'ly 1,300 acres undeveloped at this time, the majority of
which is I¡il JsÜle land. In the core area, 195 acres arc undeveloped;
26 <1cres 3re currently being developed. He also reviewed the General"
Plan Flow Chart with the Commission.
Commission inquired as to wÌJat is moderate income considered and was
informed it is 80% of the median income.
pc- 38/,
Page 2
HTNUTf\S OF TIlE MAY 12, 1982 PLANN1NC COMHISSION HEETING
^sSocL:1lc. P.1anner Piasecki stated that it was important to consider
fiscal rcspc)osil.ity - will. landtuse cover the cost of services or
even bring in more revenues? , .', "
Mr. Fuller reviewed the economic anal.ysis flow diagram and presented
har charts shmvlng percentage increases of additional construction
allowed under each alternative" being considered.
(City Clerk's Note: Com. Blaine arrived at 8:25 p.m.)
He presented a summary of the four plans for commercial, office,
industrial and residential use. He felt that office space was the
most viable alternative. lie also stated that the present economic
forecasts for the Santa Clara Valley were favorable.
Hr. Down 1.1 revic\.;red the approaches used in the study showing costs
and revenues for the City with each scenario. He recommended that
the City involve the private sector and develop a task force to look
at servi(~eimplicdtion of each alternative as well as how the City
would finance growttl and infrastructure.
Com. Koenitzer stated the blue collar workers were not represented
in the income classifications.
Com. B13ine inqlJired as to how the vaJue of tIle land was figured
and suggested that in the housing aspect perh;lps the percentages of
dmvn payments, etc., should be refigured. She also inquired as to
condo costs.
By consenSllS, the Commission stated that the next public hearing
pertaining to tbe General Plan would be held on Wednesday, May.26, 1982.
.
Nr. Tony hThite, 20061 Forest Avenue, addressed the Commission regarding
office space. lie stated that marlY companies plan to move manufacturing
out of the state £lnci convert their present facilities to offices and
research 311d dcvel(Jpment. He inquired as to how scho()ls received
revenues and w¿}s informed it was via state ADA subventions.
Mr. Morrit S11Ðr, 1632 Union Street, San Franciscc), Terranomics,
requested e1i.min£ltion of the trip end restraint and stated the
()pinion th¿Jl Town Center Sh011Jd be a residential project. He
felt that additional commercial around Vallco would be appropriate.
He also felt that Town Center could accommodate lower scaled offices.
Lucy Tyler from Midpcninsula Citizens for Fair
stating tJH~ gruup1s position into the record.
flcxih1c BMR }Jrogram applied t<J all develc)pers
She also recommended the keeping of rentals.
Housing read a letter
She stated that a more
. .
would be appropriate.
Sharnn Rintala, Cupertino, suggested that developers keep the BMR
units for renters for a certain period of time and that the BMR Program
'be adjusted to provide for this.
HlNUTES OF THE MAY 12, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-384
Page 3
Harold Johnson, 10511 Larry Way, addressed Council regarding the BMR
Program. He stated that he has lived in Cuperti,no 26 years. He' would
no longer be able to afford to ptl~chas~. a home in Cupertino, and how
could the government justify moving sômeone in next to him under the
BMR Progrnm and the taxpayer picking up the tab. He felt that govern-
ment should not he involved in private enterprise.
RECESS: 9:35-9:45 p.m.
Wes Phillips, 20739 Scofield Drive, addressed the Commission regarding
tile financial requirements to buy a home and the amount of available
jobs in t'he area. He asked how many people who live here work here.
Dr. Jc)e Br()WTI, 20985 Pepper Tree Lane, expressed interest in North
De An7.3 Boulevard development. He stated that there was a tendency
to concentrate on llnderdeveloped land.
Hr. \.Jalter v-Jard, Valleo, expressed the opinion that the concerns re-
garding density were overbuilt. He recommended between intermediate an
maximum density at Valleo.
Tony Hhite staled 11" did not like high rise buildings (I.e. Four Phase).
He felt that the people were not made aware of the Four Phase building
prior to its construction. Mr. White was informed that this type of
matter would be discllssed on May 24 during the hearing regarding the
Community Character aspect of the General Plan.
haurice O'Shea requested that a specific tí.me be set for public testi-
mony regard.ing Community Character. The Commissim:t informed him that
tllis WOll].d be very [lifficult, if not impossible to do as tllere is no
way to know how long the public hearing would take. At the end at
consideration of each element, the public would have the opportunij:y
to comment. The elements are Traffic, Housing, Communtiy Character, an
Land Use.
Mr. Hhite informed the Commission that he almost did not come to the
meeting ;)s he did ¡l()t feel he would llave the [)pportllnity to speak.
He was informed that public testimony would be taken after staff presen
tation and ¿1HY questions from the Commission on each element.
It WDS moved hy Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed
with Com. CLHHJy ,lhsl'nt to approve the minutes of the April 26, 1982
Planning Commission meeting as submitted.
April 26
minutes
approved
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Á4~ (~~
City Clerk