PC 05-17-73 � t,���� at� cLT;-a.�?�1�;�, =>rn�r;. c;F cHr,���ol���r�°� ?�c--�_o�
1+�3C1�� Tor_�re A , C;up�.rtino , C<31ii_or.t�ia. Pa�� 1.
Telephone. 252--4505 �
•i?:NU'L't;S 0�? T:;E ::1DJCIU�Z�iri; K��IiUL-,}{ ..�.:?T =�`yG 0�� T;IF �'Lf�NiI:_::v'':� CU��`:��ST��N
I�LI.11 QN :'-'�:� 1.7, 19/3, �;:1 TI'E L�:�iL1R'Y' COi:I?`r?F:r'Tv'CE �:��,'�, C�TY r��".LL,
GU,.�i.Z�l�l\�� .r '
11�P_tlil� ?i1� ^.$1.1'c.?Ct t0 OYCIGI $t 7 o�4Z �e__. �j�,V:_CE' ����"E�iE.'.
ROLL CALL
�.CT^'�Tl. prf'.5�:'it: � v�?tt0 � �iE'.1tiS � ��1Ci'_—Ci1�3:1T';1?�'tl �) �� :e2fc�
Com�. absent: Ada���s, Chair:�a.n iuth�._�uth
Staff present: Dir�ct�r of Fl.a.n.rring a.zd De.�elopraent S_�_sk
Associate Plan_�er Co�-�an
Ass�stant C r.ttorne� Terry
Eccr.o:��� c C�nsul+�ants :xr.oll and 1,ev,�
FUI�LIC HE?,RING : '
l. C:�TY OF CUPERT�1�0: Pun'.__�c �7ear i.�:4 to consid:�r 1y73
Cc�_~:prehe�7_s�ve ;�e;.eral F� an
nTr .�lrriold observe:i tPis r:�aet�_r�; ��;a a to con�� �de:r. res;.dent.�a al ter-
natives i-or lo�oer foorhills. There are three ty��es of land to be
convi�ered : ilat, rcllin� h� 11�; and steeper h:il � s.
� Info�-_1ati�;'n sheets were distrib�at.ed shc�ving ci.ass?_ricaticn oi a.reas
�i1 10��12Y ; oothills y Sll?'i'S18.TV Stc'ii.',�1PEI7'�5 O:1 S�ECi.iiCStiO_? �� YESl:�c^Lt—
tia_l altetnatives for io�aer footh:_1_ls and tasics to com�»�te �and use
selection. Under each of these cate�or�Qs :aere �repaxecl quest�ons
and su�gestions to help the co-�ii..ssiori in their discussion.
�sor th�se ,.��embers in the audience �aho were attending for the iirst
time, he very quickly reviewed ;�rhat had been cons�dered in previous
neetings. •
�?n aud�ence member quest�.oned classificat�on of areas. Vice-Chs.�rm�n .
0'Keefe explaiaed this was an initiai �.�rocedure, not a fixed iud�,,nerLt,
and asked t'ae gentle�?an to include this in discussion of particular
area to cahich he was speaking.
A'Ir. ArnoZd thea pointe.d out that cityt��ide eva?uation wili sh��ti aay •
C�li ferences iI1 res=id ' , '�ltic'll. density C�Tll.l. T'iOt �JE'_ S1�;rii=�C�317� 1I1 te7'ut>
of ir:.pact on school i�.nances; l��ss definite asst�mptio�� ab���.t c�.tyw�.d2
finances bE'C3ll�E: Of: �?�it�CtCl int.erest 3�011L 3�(�l�lOI1�31. COS�S cSS:�.la�r'u �
with �ootnill de��elo; :��ent (furt:�cr studq :�: ill be ma� e on thzs bc�for�
a
i �
�
PC-100 MINUTES OF ADJOURNED PLANNING CO:�IISSI�N MEETING, MAY 17, 1973 '
Page 2
a def init ive stat��nent can be �ade; amount of traf f ic generated city-�aide
�rom foethiils alternative level, other than 2500, will probably be
ins�gnificant and perfiaps even at the 2,500. Therefore, the determining
factor for the decision about the foothills will be the effect the
development will have on cnaracter oi the City. Tnere may be a neighbor-
hood traf f ic i.mpact .
V�ce-Chairman 0'Keefe then opened the discussion. � -
Comm. Gatto noted the problem of having all three categories of•land . .
in each parcel. He suggested tne hill area be given some type of
PD overlay or hill zone designation with each garcel examined or. the
topography, rather than trying to designate an overall density.
Comm. Nellis agreed. She felt a very sophisticated approach to the
hills nust be taken so there �aill be flexibility in dealing ?aith the
unusual topography of each parcel. �,
Mr. Arnold pointed out'a clear idea of objectives is needed. The
character of neighUorhood will not be the �mportant factor it c.�as
, in studying the Valley floor.
It G�as agreed to consider the hillside area as a whole rather than�
as parcels.
. Com�. Gatto suggested density pattern should be lower than in Valley
f?oor and density pattern should he related to steegness of h�L�; the
steeper the hill, tYie lower the density.
Comr�. Nellis agreed, saying the hills should remain as natural ns possible
w�ith a rural type character and minimal roads. Natural vegetaticn should
be retained with creeks rece�v�ng special attent�on. She questioned slope
density formula, fee?ing it doesn't really relate to land usage. The
� formula might indicate there isn't enough area for house when �n �eality
there is a natural site.
Comm. Gatto d�sagreed, saying it does take into account unique spots on
parcel and also allows person with smaller piece of land U�ith less of a
' 'slope to build same 3ensity.
A discussion of slcpe density for�ula �ollocaed, with rir. Cot•�an c3escribing
how it is applied.
A�e?nber in the aud�ence suggested three things should be considered;
(1) slcpe density (2) ability to get to the parcel (3) utility
situation. �
� : �.
` MINUTES OF THE ADJOL'P.NED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, :1AY 17, 1973 PC-100
. Page 3
� Comm. Nellis said there were certain things to be considered even
before applying slope density; it had to be accessible and certain
_ criterion had to �e set forth as to what would be accepted as to
roadways. Grade lines should be looked at very carefully.
Mr. Arnold made a suggestion he felt might help the commission. He
suggested the commission assume the City o�caned the foothills. He
felt what the commission would like to see as an objective was a
very highly conCrolled single-family residential development, maybe
cluster, caith no damage to the foothills. He pointed out there is
a radical ditference in looking at the situation from a private �
jurisdicCion viewpoint and looking at it from a public jurisdiction
viewpoint. The ob�ective was not difficult; the implementation k�as. ,
In order to allow innovation and still allow "si.milar treatment for
similar parcels", there would have to be some implementation i:o
overcome uniform criteria.
ComLn. Ne7.lis suggested lots that meet Iegal size requirements .
be allowed tio build a single-family residence, except Inspiration
Heights. Mr. Stokes questioned the validity of treating each
property �he same. After discussion it was ascertained that what
was meant was that each application would �be judged on its merits
if it met certain legal requirements.
Mr. Levy noted an interesting point that had seemingly evolved:
are the foothills nice if everyone gets to build a single-family
lot or is it better Co have most people not building and those
who have large lots with flat areas build clusters?
In speaking of clustering, Comm. Nellis compared a town house
, clu�ter approach with clustering single-family homes in tighter •
arra[y. Spreading out over property gives an entirely different
visual effect. '
A member in the audience said he felt building proposals should be
brought the Planning Commission for approval and not pinned down in ,
the General Plan. '
Vice-Chairman 0'�eef e summarized four ob�ectives discussed so far:
(1) Lo�oer density than on Valley floor with slope' being �ajor con- •
sideration of density, (2) minimal grading, (3) maintaining natural .
vegetation and roads, and (4) consideririg utilities.
Comm. Nellis said there were two more areas the commission should �
deal with; clustering versus single-family�and opei► space in hi�her
hills.
�
4 -
1
�C-100 MINUTES OF THE EIDJOURNED PLANNING COPIMISSION MEE'rING, MAY 17 , 1973
i'age 4 •
k�egarding noen srace, Comm. Gatto said his �reference would be- to leave tne
are� general.ly i.n pr=vate �ector an.d allow lo�a.l�ve1 resident�al developnent
to take place. Vice�-Chai�:an 0'Keefe noted open space is most usabl.e �ahen
it is combined w� th so:r.e dev�lopment . A�e*^ber � n tiie audience expressed
her op�nion t�at scattered development presents a higher dan�er riretaise.
Advantages and disadvantages of scattered development �aere discussed.
Corim. Nellis expressed her feeling that living in the hills is a unique
way of life and �aould like to see the hills left in private sectors so
others could have this experience. • '
In answer to a query from the audience. Vice-Chairman 0'Keef� s2id the
PPC �aas being referred to and would have a significant ir:pact on dec�sions
made.
Another query c�ncerned the question of open space be�_ng considered as
keeping the entire hill open as opposed to any develo;,ment; could fihe
City consider all the hills as open space area realistically? �:r. Terry
said it was a policy deterr.lination to be made b5 Cit�- Council; this taas
a plannin� Trocedure and that was one alterr.ative being considered. He
added open spaca is an area ot land ��ahich essent�_ally precludes any
develop:ner.t �ahich necessarily i.mplies acquisiticn. Mr. Arnold then. said
that very prel �minary studies shot�� the City coul.d acqui the foothills
for less �han cos� of present Cap�tal Improvement Program. If f iscaJ.
cr_teria ?s only concern, this might be soraething to be censidered.
Another me1nber in the audience saoke to her enjo��ment of living �n the
hills and her prefere :r_e for �rivate ownership. Private o;anership was
an ad�:anta�e giving protection and maintenance te tne hills.
An audience :;Ze:mber then expressed his dcubts that the Plar.ning Cor_u�zission •
was actin� in thQ best inter�sts of the citizens of Cupertino.
Vice•-Chairman 0'Ke�fe noted the objactives had been discussed. rather
thoroughly, co_�menrs heard, and he suggested moving on to deal t�ith
specific parcels cn General Plan.
A suggestien ,aas made Chat �ahatever criterions �;;ere established �aould
cover the entire hill area; o�,mership parcels �•TO�Id fall under the same
criteria and be eL-aluated the sa?-�e. Some crlter_ia *.night be slope
density and access.
Comm. Nell.is commented thaC Seven Springs Ranch and Voss proper.ty are
si���ilar to each other, out different from the hi.11. ar2a.
A discussLon on rtethods of arriving at slope der.sity then ensued.
�.
i`1�:IUTES OI' TIIE i�DJOURNED FLANIvING CO�.`�'`iISSION M?:ETIi�1G, ;1AY 17 , 1973 PC-100
P,age 5
Co.-am. Gatto �aanted to clear up what he felt were misunderstandings
of the audi_ence. (1) No set character ot development has been
established y�t, either cluster or sin�le-ia::�ily ]_ots. (2) Slope
density forr.�ula can be applied in �nany ��:ays. He then gave different
means of using the formula.
• .�
After discussion, Comm. Nellis said she felr a miniL:?u� should Ue set.
C�mm. Gatto then set f_orth a recom�nendati.on Lor the nill area as �-
whole. He str•essed these figures �•Jere strictly for a working
saznple:
Slope Density of 0 to 5% 4 units per acre
5 to 10% 2 units per acre
10 to 20% 1 u�it per acre
20 to 40% 1 unit per 2 acres
abave i unit per 3 acres
i�1r. Cowan �aas asked if this was feasible. • F�e said he c�ould make a
chart and see ho�l it worked out .,:ie r.oted i* �•�as a lin.eal_ rel�t�_on-
ship and felt it would probably work out closeiy to PPC recorL�enda- '
tions.
Mr. I.evy noted Staff could work out mechanics; the important thing
was to find a way to group the property so that it made sense to the
commission. He suggested what made Voss and Seven Sprin�s dif_�er_er_t
was not just because they were flat, but becaus� of d�iferent
_ surroundings.
A member in the audience suggested another cr�tericn shoulc� be was
hocv close the parcel was to existing urban areas.
Another gentleman in the audience said he had suggested several tinies
t each parcel in effecc should be looked at on an individuai
basis as one of the alternatives. He cited.an instance Lti�hich he
felt substantiated this suggestion.
At 9:32 P.M., Vice -Chairman 0'Keefe announced a recess �aith the
meeting reconv�ning at 9:52 P.P�I. • '
Air. Roger Cruwys, architect, presented a tentative usage lor the
Kaiser quarry site. iie pointed c��t there �aould be no development .
on ridges or hillside. The buildin�,s woulci be probabl.y 3 stories
with parkir�g under�round. Since they �aould be on the floor of tiie �
quarry, they would not be visible fror.l Valley �loor. 400 t.inits
�4ould be needed for this proposal to be econornically feasible. He
�
spoke of t;�e pessibil�ty oi their dedic^ti�� a p^rt��n ef th� l�nd
as an extension of Linda Vista Park. k'ith r�,;ard to t.ra�?�zc being
•
� .
�
YC-100 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED PLANNING COM��IISSLON ME�TING, I�.AY 17, 1973
Page 6 . .
�enerated , Uc�n,ting oc;t it w�u1d be an adult tyi � co:^snunity so there
�roul3 be less t�aff:i�. ?�e said tlie community wculd have its �;on security.
There would be a�uarded gate at tlie one access. Iie stressed his feeling
that a General P1an had to be viable enough to allo�•� flexibiiity.
Comm. Gatto said the rPal problem was how to apply an overall zoning
criteri_a to an area and still allow for analysis of particular garcels. .
He comz:lented that f�r every population level created in the hills there
is a different effect on the Valley floor.
Mr. Levy pointeci out there is no mechanical formula that will change
the community's mind abaut �ahat uses are acceptable on flat lands or
the hills.
Comm. Nellis asked c.�ze Staff to duplicate an art�cle she had on possible
ways of modifying slope density which gave incentives for what a community
��ght want to achieve. _,
Aiter considerable d�scussion, Co�un. Gatto said he £e1t the mechanics
and consideration of accessibility to certain serv�_ces, geological ,
hazards, etc. were critical and technical enough to dese Staff study,
�r . Arnold said he f e1t ���hat the cor.�mission was sa}�in� was that they
�ti*anted low dens�ty residential in the foothills �4•ith no da�:.a;;e to the
� Fo����ills. It �aas ho�v to iraplement this that was stumYino them.
� Com�:�� Nellis agreed, saying sne felt Starf ?nput ��Tas necessary to s�io�.�T
�ahat it would mea_i in the .number of d:•�elling units to talce the apprcach
or L:uk:ting 4.4 units on tT.�o flat parcels and apnlying �3ens�ty forr:iula
for hil� area.
After lenbthy discussion, Mr. Arnold suggested perha?s what taas neecled
to have a landscap� architect lay eut the lov�er foothills; to sho�v
whar 1,000 cr 2 density ��ou1d mean to ioothills.
Cor,un. Gatto ther. spolce or. two approaches; the pri-�ate sector and the
, public ownershi�. The ideal situat�on under priTrate sector could only
come abeut by control which is a very coinplex matter.
Ms. Plancy Salian said she felt it came back to a numbers situatian; hora
many people �JOUld be considered a reasonable amour_t to put u� ir� a
cer�ain area, i•sr. Arnold said ti�e density infor-_:ation Lor �oothil7_s
was n�t just people; it u�as a physical concept also.
:�fter anotner lengthy discussioa, Vice-Chairman 0'Kee.fe sa�d sa:�e
decisior. in ter::s of direction or some conclusicLi in terms o{ number_s
should be made. •
The corl:�issicn tliEn di_scussed tahether Se��e� �E���i�.gs Ranch �:ro��ert�a and
Voss property �h�uld be included in lo,;er toath:�lls or treateci se�arately.
It �,aas Cheir decision to remove Voss Prope�rv and SeY�n� S��rin,;s �;rcoerty
fror:l the lo��aer foothills and ir.clude them �_t;�dFr i�iat (� to S% sl�re) .
e � •
�iINU'TES OF TiiE ��11.JOliR��1i.D PLA:�I�IING GO?�IISSION ,•�;ETTNG, T1AY ]_7, 197� UC-100
� Page 7
In d:iscussing P?C f��ur.e of 943, the r_o;��issi•�n a�reed this wa;
a �-ealistic fi �;ure. Cc:^::1. Tiellis felr �taff s:�ould �e�er� to Llanr.in-
� Cor.:;;ission on sJ_ope density f:�r�aulas and dirter.enL ao^roaches.
.lnother coticer:z �.�as ilex-.bi_1 -tt� to e.�te.rtain itlr.ovative a�pr.�ac:�es
to hi.11side and Statt �•:as asiced to give Planr.�ii5 Com-iission some
idea h�w this r:l; ;ht �e a�aproached , inc�ud'_nb slope de;lsit;� bonus.
Comm. Gatto sug�ested establ�shing cr�C�ria and the:� analyre each ;
parcel acco:din� to that criteria. :e felt th'_s :��ould reLain
. flexibility anc� innovat =��e design poter.tials.
Cornr�. Nellis e:cpressed three points: (1) She �:Tanted tc allo;•� for
the possibility c` peonle bu,_l�ing one nouse on :�ar�e lot - acre
plus - becaus� s}ie sa��� th� .Zeed for this '_tiin� oi develop-nent.
(2) Sh� did r.ot e�;clu3e clt�s�er approacti if property le. t itself "
to this de�:�elcp-_ent. (3) Sl�e d�d have a prcble-� cer.s�derin�
mass'_ve buildi-�:; as bein;� in character of hill.s. ?:a�ser proaosal
was d_�feren� - wn t:iat it �.�as do�:-n i,i Che bo�.�l �:-hich ;:*ouid not
interrere ���ith surrou�ding hill area er destroy character since
it was in an is�lated spot.
In anst�Yer to a �uer;�, Co�:uiz. ..atto sa�..d advanta�es of clust�.rzn� .
t•�oul_u bz to r:i:�:raize serv�ces , se ��=�r a:zd roadways, reducin�
a�ou�it or i:�prav�:nent to hillside; �a�_�Ztain e:cistin� character
of hill; t2kin� advaatage of mos� buildabie area in prorerty
without CIeVE'-10?lI'� e?l �)aYCEl � bE:lI?c a�l� t0 C�2'J�lOD ?:OYe
sct�.nic areas i�.z parcel; �nd geological au��°anta�;e.
In discuss�n7 future r:l�et.ing date, �ir.. Arnold ex?laine3 to r_he
menhers of t:.e audience ,�:hat ��as *n°a:�L by core a stud�
Cer,��n. Gatto oni:�`�? t:��.t sc :e areas �iytit �e ia.tecrated betTVeen
co.;sr.ercial and resident�al a�d aublic servic�s u:�;�e- pl�:,ned
< zonir.g. A gentle-an i�i the audieace 5p�ne a�ainst p_yra,_id zon:n
. It �aas ;zoved, secon��ed and carried that the r:l�et�n� ,�ou1d adjourn
to Thursday ,..ay 24 , 1°73 at 7:30 F.`T. �Ie^t in�; adj curn�d at 11 : ZS P`i.
APPROVED: .
/s/ John W. Buthenuth
Chairman
' ATTEST:
/s/ Wm. E. Ryder
Ca.ty Clexk �
i