Loading...
1976 Hill Area - 420.37CUPERTINO 1976 HILL AREA GENERAL PLAN 420.37 dad 2. The entire area bounded by Stelling Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Alves Drive_znd-the City park -site, containing approximately 13 acres, shall be planned as one unit with an overall. plan to be _reviewed at the rezoning stage. 3...Density and land use intensity transfers may be appropriate when a developmental proposal encompasses a special community goal such as the preservation of historic buildings or similar facilities. 4. Design of any project shall properly consider the adjoining public park and shall be designed,in a manner compatible therewith. 5. Recreational activities proposed within this area shall be primarily outdoor in nature. -2- ft TABLE OF CO�Z."�1".'S Section I (Statement of Purpose) ................................ Page 1 Section II (Discussion of Slope) ................................ Pages 1-3 11 Section III (Description of Slope -Density ro =ulas............... Pages 4-8 Section IV (:Model Slope -Density Analysis ........................ Pages 9-15 ?.il_ Z�' ea general ?lar. Appe^.d-Y S'looe-Density Formulas Sectio; 1. ?--,-oese cf This Document anis document has been prepared with the intent of acquainting the general reader Glit:l the slope -density approach to determining the intensity of residential development. The slope -density approach was incorporated in the hillside plan in order to develop an equitable means of assigning dwelling unit credit to property owners. in addition to offering the advantage of equal treatment for property owners, the slope -density formula can also be designed to reflect judgments regarding aesthetics and other factors into a mathematical model which deter—;^es the number of units per acre on a given piece of property based upon the average steepness of the land. Generally speaking, the steeper the average slope of the property, the fewer the number of units which will be permitted. Although the slope -density formula can be used as an effective means to control development intensity, the formula itself cannot determine the ideal development pattern. The formula determines only the total number of dwelling units, allow- able on the property, based upon the average slope; it does not determine the optimum location of those units on the property. Exogenous factors not regulated by the slope -density formula such as grading, tree removal, or other environmental factors would be regulated by other means. The slope -density formulas do nct represent by themselves a complete safeguard against development detrimental to the environment; but, together with other conservation measures, they are considered a valuable planning device. Section Discussion of "Slone" Steepness of terrain can be defined in several ways: As the relationship between the sides of the triangle representing a vertical section of a hill, or as the angle between the terrain and the horizontal plain, to name two. Unfortunately, the definitions of the terms "slope", "grade", "gradient", "batter", and of the expression "the sloe is 1 to ..." are not well known or uniformly applied causing much confusion. For purposes of this section, the concept of steepness of terrain will be defined and discussed as a "percentage of slope". "Percent of slope" is defined as a measurement of steepness of slope which is the ratio between vertical and horizontal distances expressed in percent. As illustrated below, a 50Z slope is one which rises vertically 5 ft. in a 10 ft. hor-izcatal distance. 141/ — 4.1 ci -1- / M, Hill Area General Plar. Appendix A Slope -Density Formulas One of the most common confusions of terminology relative to terrain steepness is the synonymous usage of "percent of grade" and "degree of grade". However, as the illustration below indicates, as percent of grade increase, land becomes steeper at a decreasing rate. The present slope -density formulas specified by the City of Cupertino require more land for development as the rate of percent of grade increases. Thus, the relationship between percent of grade and degree of grade is inverse rather than corresponding. o is V go x+ 3r � o0 21 � go 40 r? $0 15 U c �o 0 0 To more accurately assess the impact of steepness of.terrain on the feasibility of residential development, it might be helpful to examine some of phenomenon commonly associated with increasing percentages of slope steepness.) 11 1. William Spangle & Associates Slope Density Study - Phase I. (Published October, 19 - William Spangle and Associates was retained by County to assist the effort of Planning Policy Committee relative to Santa Cruz Mountain Study and Montebello Ridge Study. 2i__, --aa Ge neral Plan AvDe.ndis A Slope -Density Formulas ?ercent of Slope Descr_rtion of Slope Problems 0-5X Relative level land. Little or no development problems due to steepness of slope. 5-15X Minimum slope problems increasing to significant slope problems at 157.. 15% is the maximum grade often considered desirable on subdivision streets. Above 15%, roads must run diagonally to, rather than at right angles to contours increasing the amount of cut and fill. For example, the lower segment of San Juan Road in the Cupertino foothills averages 202 in grade. 15-30,*.' Slope becomes a very significant factor in development at this steepness. Development of level building sites requires extensive cut and fill in this slope category and the design of individual houses to fit terrain becomes important. 30-502 Slope is extremely critical in this range. Allowable steepness of cut and fill slopes approach or coincide with natural slopes resulting in very large cuts and fills under conventional development. In some cases, fill will not hold on these slopes unless special retaining devices are used. Because of the grading problems associated with this category, individual homes should be placed on natural building sites where they occur, or buildings should be designed to fit the particular site. 502+ Almost any development can result in extreme disturbances in this slope category. Except in the most stable native material special retaining devices may be needed. Hill Area General Plan Appendix A Slope -Density Formulas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Section Three: Description of Store -Density Formulas I) The "Foothill Modified" Formula d = 1.85 + 1.65 cos J(s-5) X 4.5} 5� s 4 The "Foothill Modified" formula is designed for application to those properties in the "Fringe" of the Hillside study area with average slopes less than 10%. The formula assumes availability of municipal services. Beginning at credit of 3.5 dwelling units/gr. acre, the formula follows a cosine curve of decreasing density credit with increase of slope, achieving a constant above 43Z average slope. II) The "Foothill Modified 1/2 Acre" Formula d - 1.85 + 1.65 cos { (s-5) X 4.53 225s144 This formula is applied in the Urban Service Area to those properties where a full range of municipal utility services are available. The fcrmula begins at density of 1/2 acre per dwelling unit which holds constant at 22% average slope. From 22% to 43% average slope, the formula follows a cosine curve of decreasing density credit with increasing slope. The density credit above 437. average slope remains constant at 0.20 dwelling units/gr. acre. III. The "Semi -Rural 5 Acre" Formula d - 0.43 + 0.23 cos (s X 3.4) The Semi -Rural Formula is intended for analysis of properties within the upper reaches of Regnart Canyon where a full range of urban services is not available. The formula begins at a density 0.66 dwelling units per acre and follows a regular cosine curve 42% average slope. Above 42% average slope, the formula holds a constant density credit of 0.20 dwelling units per gross acre. IV. The "County III" Formula d - 0.475 - 0.0075(s) 10<— s4_50 This formula is applied to those properties described on Exhibit C-1 which lie outside of the Urban Service Area where no municipal utility services are provided. The formula is of the "polygonal" type, with a constant of 0.40 dwelling unit per gross acre from 0-10o average slope, a declining dwelling unit credit from 10%-50% average slope and a constant dwelling unit credit of 0.10 dwelling units per acre for properties above 50% average slope. --OF-CUPEP71N -- tOF?E-DENS I IY= FORMU 4.5 ' r 4.0 3.0 +.._ a c 2.5 CL M o � m c 2. m i 1.5 �--- 1.0 "d x.43. L' r—cds s z . , 0.5 --C wnty 3 � -- 10 20 30 40 50 60 Slope -Density Formula: "Foothill Modified" 1.85 + 1.65 cos I (s-5) X 4.83 5 < s < 44 ___ -- ----- ------------------- Slope Density Gr.acres Average D.U.per per D.U. lot area gr.sq.ft. gr.acre 1/d 43,560/d s d 0-5 3.500 0.285 12,445 6 3.494 0.286 12,467 7 3.477 0.288 12,528 8 3.448 0.290 12,633 9 3.408 0.293 12,781 10 3.357 0.298 12,975 11 3.296 0.303 13,868 12 3.224 0.310 13,511 _ 13 3.143 0.318 13,868 14 3.053 0.328 14,267 15 2.954 0.339 14,746 16 2.848 0.351 15,294 17 2.734 0.366 15,932 18 2.614 0.383 16,664 19 2.489 0.402 17,501 20 2.360 0.424 18,457 21 2.227 0.449 19,559 22 2.000 0.500 21,780 23 1.954 0.512 22,292 24 1.815 0.551 24,000 25 1.678 0.596 25,959 26 1.541 0.649 28,267 27 1.406 0.711 30,981 28 1.275 0.784 34,164 29 1.147 0.872 37,977 30 1.025 0.976 42,497 31 0.908 1.101 47,973 32 0.798 1.253 55,209 33 0.696 1.437 62,586 34 0.601 1.664 72,479 35 0.515 1.942 84,582 36 0.439 2.278 99,225 37 0.372 2.688 117,096 38 0.315 3.175 138,285 39 0.270 3.698 161,081 40 0.236 4.240 184,576 41 0.213 4.694 204,507 42 0.201 4.980 216,716 43 0.200 5.000 217,800 —6— Slope -Density Formula: "Foothill Modified Acre" d 1.85 + 1.65 cos �Cs-5) R 4.8� 5 s 44 --------------------------------------------------- ' Slope Density Gr.acres Average D.U.per per D.U. lot area gr.acre gr.sq.ft. s d 1/d 43,560/d 1 0-22 2.000 0.500 21,780 ' 23 1.954 0.512 22,292 2,4 .1.815 0.551 24,000 25_1.678 0.596 25,959 ' 26 1.541 0.649 28,267 27 1.406 0.711 30,981 28 1.275 0.784 34,164 29- 1.147 0.872 37,977 ' 30 1.025 0.976 42,497 31 0.908 1.101 47,973 32 0.798 1.253 55,209 ' 33 0.696 1.437 62,586 34 0.601 1.664 72,479 35 0.515 1.942 84,582 lb 36 0.439 2.278 99,225 37 0.372 2.688 117,096 38 0.315 3.175 138,285 ' 39 0.270 3.698 ].61;081 40 0.236 4.240 184,576 41 0.213 4.694 204,507 ' 42 0.201 4,980. 216,716 43 0.200 5,000 217,800 1 1 1 , ' -7- Slope Density Formula: "Semi -Rural - 5 Ac" 0.43 + 0.23 cos (s x 4.0) OGs /_45 ' Slope Density Gr.acres Average Slope Density Gr.acres Average z D.U.per per D.U. lot area 2 _D.U.per per D.U. lot area gr.acre gr.sq.ft. gr.acre gr.sa.ft. ' s d 1/d 43,560/d- s d 1/d 43,560/d 1 r 5 .660 1.515 66000 30 .315 3.175 138285 ' 6 .640 1.562 68050 31 .301 3.318 144532 7 .633 1.579 68806 32 .238 3.467 151041 8 .625 1.599 69690 33 .276 3.622 15776E ' 9 .616 1.623 70705. 34 .265 3.779 164655 10 .606 1.649 71858 35 2.54 3.939 171624 11 .595 73154 36 .244 4.099 178582 ' 12 .584 .1.679 1.712 74601 37 234 4.256 185401 13 .572 1.749 76206 38 .227 4.407 191960 14 .559 1.789 77924 39 .219 4.548 198103 '15 .545 1.835 79926 40 .214 4.675 203679 16 .531 1.884 82060 41 .208 4.787 209423 17 .516 1.937 84392 42 .205 4.877 212460 18 .501 1.996 86933 43 .202 4.944 215389 19 .486 2.059 89695 44 .201 4.986 217196 20 .469 2.128 92692 45 .200 5.000 217800 21 .454 2.202 95938 46 ? .22 .438 2.282 99445 23 .422 2.369 103229 24 .406 2.463 107301 ' 25 .390 2.564 111674 26 .374 2.671 116359 ' 27 28 .359 .343 2.786 2.908 121362 126686 29 .329 3.038 132330 1 r Slope Density Formula: Santa Clara County #3 d = 0.475 - 0.0075s 0Cs<50 Slope Density Average 7. D.U.per lot area gross acre sq.ft. S d 43,560/d 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.3925 0.:,850 0.3775 0.3700 0.3625 0.3550 0.3475 0.3400 0.3325 0.3250 0.3175 0.3100 0.3025 0.2950 108,900 108,900 108,900 108,900 108,900 108,900 108,900 108,900 108,900 108,900 108 , 900 111,000 113 100 115,400 117,700 120,200 122,700 125,400 128,100 131,000 134,000 137,200 140,500 144,000 147,700 MM Slope Density z D.U.per gross acre s d 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 over 50 0.2875 0.2800 0.2725 0.2650 0.2575 0.2500 0.2425 0.2350 0.2275 0.2200 0.2125 0.2050 0.1975 0.1900 0.1825 0.1750 0.1675 0.1600 0.1525 0.1450 0.1375 0.1300 0.1225 0.1150 0.1075 0.1000 0.1000 Average lot area sq. ft. 43,560/d 151,500 155,600 159,900 164,400 169,200 174,200 179,600 185,400 191,500 198,000 205,00 212,500 220,600 229,300 238,700 248,900 260,100 272,300 285,600 300,400 316,800 335,100 355,600 378,600 405 2.00 435,600 435,600 I Hill Area General T lan Appendix A Slope -Density Formulas Section 4: How to Conduct a Slope -Density Analysis ('yap Wheel Method) ' The computation of density using a slope -density formula is relatively simple once the basic concepts are understood. This section of Appendix A describes the basic concepts in order to enable individuals to determine density. The Citv Planning staff will provide technical assistance; however, it is the responsibility of the owner or potential developer to provide accurate map materials used in the slope - density investigation for a specific property. ' The City has map material which is accurate enough to provide an approximate slope - density evaluation. Accurate information needed to evaluate a specific development proposal must be provided by the owner or developer. ' Step One: Selection of Map Material ' To begin any slope -density investigation, it is important to select the proper mapping material.. Maps on which measurements are made must be no smaller in scale ' than 1" - 200'. (1 s 2400) All maps must be.of the topographical type with contour intervals not less than 10 ft. If the map wheel method is used for measuring contours, or if a polar planimeter is used for measurement of an area, maps on which such measurements are made must not be smaller in scale than 1" 50' (1 t 600); these maps may be enlarged from maps in a scale not less than 1" 200'. Enlargement of maps in smaller scale than 1" = 200', or interpolation of contours is not permitted. Step Two: Layout of Standard Grid System The property for which area and slope are to be measured is divided into a network t of "cells" constructed from a grid system spaced at 200 ft. intervals. In order to ensure a common reference point and to prevent the practice of "gerrymandering" the grid system to distort the average slope of the property, the grid system must be oriented parallel to the grid system utilized by Santa Clara County's 1" = 500' ' . scale map series.. Figure 1 illustrates a hypothetical property divided into cells by a 200 ft. grid ' network. It is perhaps easiest to construct the 200' x 200' cells by beginning at an intersectionpoint of perpendicular County grid lines ("Q" in Figure 1) and then measuring 200 ft. intervals along the two County grid lines until the entire ' property is covered with a network. After the grid lines have been laid out, it is helpful to number each 200 ft. square cell or part thereof. Whenever the grid lines divide the property into parts less than approximately 20,000 sq. ft., such ' areas shall be combined with each other or with other areas so that a number of parts ' -10- Hill Area General Plan Appendix A Slope -Density Formulas are formed with the areas approximately between 20,000 and 60,000 sq. ft. Cells formed by combining several subareas should be given a single number and should be shown on the map with "hooks" to indicate grouping (see area 2 on Figure 1). At this point, the investigator should obtain a copy of the "Slope -Density Grid Method Worksheet", Figure 2 of this document. Under Column A (land unit), each line should be numbered down the page to correspond with the total number of cells on the property. (Figure 2) STaXXa caro ceu I oauuTY kaio LINE Moa ( tit®�ie pg.apmfY 1 3 5 �� / COM005�TE ,� � ritu0 °GELL" 4 S iu1Yt.SEcMu Pf. . Orof �4w uue'g" \\ FIGURE 1 Sten Three: Measurement of Area and Contour Length With the map material properly prepared in Steps One and Two, we can now begin the actual mechanics of the slope -density analysis. The first task is to ascertain the acreage of the subject property. This acreage figure is obtained by measuring the area of each numbered cell divided by the 200 ft. grid, and then summing the results of the individual measurements. Since the standard grid cell measures 200' x 200', it is only necessary to measure the area of any non-standard size cell. Referring once again to the worksheet, as each cell is calculated for area, the results should be entered in Column B (ani Column C optional). see Figure 2. -11- -12- onnommommo oil o-il-E.-Iiiiiiiiiiiiil'so MENOMONEE limi-illillilill RUN IN -12- I.e Hill Area General Plan Appendix A Slope -Density Formulas Irregularly shaped cells may be measured for area quickly and accurately by means of a polar planimeter. This device is analog instrument which traces the perimeter of an area to be measured and gives the size in actual square inches. This measure- ment is then multiplied by the square of the scale of the map being used. For example, 1" - 200', the square of 200 ft. means 1" equals 40,000 sq. ft. The total square footage of each cell can then be converted to acreage by dividing by 43,560 ' sq. ft. More detailed instruction in the use of the planimeter may be obtained from the City Planning Department. ' Areas of irregular shape can also be measured by dividing each part into triangles, for which the areas are determined by the formula A = base x height t 2, if a planimeter is not available. ' Having now determined the area of each cell, one must now proceed to measure the contour lengths of the property. Contour length and interval are both vital factors in calculating the average slope of the land. Each contour of a specified interval is measured separately within each standard cell or other numbered zone for which the area has been calculated. . The map wheel (Figure 3) is set at ' "zero" and is then run along the entire length of a contour within the boundary of the cell, lifted and placed on the next contour (without l40 resetting the wheel to zero) and so forth until the total length of contours of the specified interval ' within the individual cell is determined. The map wheel will display a figure in linear inches ' traveled. This figure shown on the dial should then be multiplied by t the map scale. (Example: map wheel ' reads 141 inches, map scale is 1" = 501. Contour length = 14.5 x 50 - 750'). The results should ' then be entered on the proper line FIGURE 3 of Column D (Figure 2). USING THE MAP WHEEL 1 1 SteD Four: Calculation of Averaze Slope Knowing the total length of contours, the contour interval, and the numbered cell, one may now calculate the average slope of the land. the two formulas below may be used to calculate average slope: S = 0.0023 I� A I 1 -13- area of each Either of ' Hill Area General Plan - Appendix A Slope -Density Formulas --------------------------------------------------------------- S - average slope of ground in percent I - contour interval in feet ' L -,combined length in feet of all contours on parcel A - area of parcel in acres ' The value 0.0023 is 1 sq. ft. expressed as a percent of an acre: 1 sq. ft. - 0.0023 ac. ' 43,560 ' S=IxLx100 A S average slope of ground in percent I = contour intervaling feet L - combined length in feet of all contours on parcel ' A - area of parcel and square feet The results should be entered on the appropriate line of Column E of the worksheet. 1 ' SteD Five: Determination of Dwelling Unit Credit With the average slope of the cell now determined, one can calculate the dwelling ' unit credit per cell by obtaining a factor from the appropriate slope -density table (Section 3 of this document) then multiplying that factor by the area of the cell in acres. Refer to Figure 4 to ascertain which formula applies to the proeprty ' under investigation. The formula factor is found by.first reading the table column "s" (slope) until reaching the figure corresponding to the average slope of the cell being studied; next, one reads horizontally to the "d" column (density ' D.U./gr. ac.). This factor should be entered in Column F of the worksheet. The factor in Column F is now multiplied by the acreage in Column B and the result entered under the appropriate slope -density formula title.(Column.G, H, I or J). Step Six: Summation of Results When all cells in the parcel have been analyzed in the manner previously described, total for various components of the data may be derived and entered into the two bottom rows of the worksheet. Columns B, C (if used), and D should be summed 1 -15- ' The concept of "rounding" decimal fractions of total dwelling unit credit to the next highest whole number has been approved by the City Council. However, specific policies on the actual methodology of rounding will be established by ' ordinance at a future date. Note: ' Special instructions for slope -density calculation methods employing an electronic computer are also available from the Planning Department. 1 1 I 1 -16- Hill Asea General Plan Appendix A Slope -Density Formulas at the bottom of the sheet. A mathematical average may be calculated for Column E. Columns G through J should be summed at the bottom of the pate. The totals shown at the bottom of Columns G through J represent the total number of dwelling units permitted on that property, based on the average slope. These totals should be carried out to a minimum of two decimal places. ' SAecial Note: !'Rounding" of Dwelling Unit Credit Results ' The concept of "rounding" decimal fractions of total dwelling unit credit to the next highest whole number has been approved by the City Council. However, specific policies on the actual methodology of rounding will be established by ' ordinance at a future date. Note: ' Special instructions for slope -density calculation methods employing an electronic computer are also available from the Planning Department. 1 1 I 1 -16- RESOLUTION NO. 4192 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1964 GENERAL PLAN CONCERNING THE LAND USE ELEMENT FOR HILLSIDE AREA WHEREAS, the City Council as a part of the comprehensive General Plan study, has reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Commission and has held public hearings involving many citizens and hours of discussion, and WHEREAS, the City Council has concluded its deliberation relative to the "Hillside Area" of the community, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the City Council hereby adopts an amendment to the 1964 General Plan concerning the Land Use Element for the "Hillside Area" as set forth in Exhibit C-1 and C-2 with Appendices A and B, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to endorse said adoption as provided for on Exhibit C-1. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 22nd day of June, 1976, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: Frolich, Jackson, Meyers NOES: None ABSENT: Nellis, O'Keefe ABSTAIN: None APPROVED: /s/ Robert W. Meyers Mayor, City of Cupertino ATTEST: /s/ Ellen Pagnini Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 4191 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE HILLSIDE AREA AS TO ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCALLY ADOPTED GUIDELINES WHEREAS, at a public hearing held this date the City Council has reviewed and considered the contents on the final Environmental Impact Report as a part of the decision making process concerning the proposed general plan amend- ment for the hillside area; and WHEREAS, upon conclusion of said review, the Council has found the final Environmental Impact Report to be in complete compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State and locally adopted guidelines for the implementation of said Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino does hereby certify the final Environmental Impact Report of which copy of the approved minutes of this meeting shall become a part thereof and further directs the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of Santa Clara County setting forth the following inforcation: a. The project is described as an amendment to the 1964 general plan involving the hillside portion of the community. b. The City Council does hereby adopt the general plan amendment thereby approving the project. C. The project will have a significant impact on the environment. d. An environmental impact report has been prepared for the project. e. A statement of overriding considerations, namely that the overall re- duction of zoning density as provided by this plan will have a beneficial overall effect on the environment. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 22nd day of June, 1976, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: Frolich, Jackson, Meyers NOES: None ABSENT: Nellis, O'Keefe ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Ellen Pagnini Deputy City Clerk /s/ Robert W. Meyers Mayor, City of Cupertino 81,003.22 RESOLUTION NO. 1548 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1964 GENERAL PLAN CONCERNING THE LAND USE ELEMENT FOR THE HILLSIDE AREA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission as a part of the comprehensive General Plan study has concluded its deliberation relative to the Hillside Area of the Community, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission forwarded its adopted plan to the City Council on September 22, 1975, and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a review of said plan and made a number of changes to said plan regarding format and geographical application of slope density formulas and general policy statements, and WHEREAS, the City Council referred said revised Hillside Plan to the Planning Commission for a report pertaining to said changes, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that although the Planning Commission finds that the inclusion of the Foothill Modified Formula for properties within the 0 - 10% slope range unnecessarily adds complexity to the plan: 1. The Planning Commission hereby approves an amendment to the 1964 General Plan land use element "Hillside Area", as set forth in Exhibit C-1 and C-2, with Appendices A and B, attached hereto and made a �• part hereof. 2. The Planning Commission authorizes the Planning Commission Chairman to endorse said approval as provided for on Exhibit C-1. 3. That the Planning Commission further transmits the approved documents to the City Council for their consideration and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June, 1976, at an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cooper, Gatto, Koenitzer, Woodward, Chairman Adams NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Victor J. Adams James H. Sisk Victor J. Adams, Chairman Planning Director Planning Commission `w N CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND STANDARDS OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE HILLSIDE GENERAL PLAN AREA OF THE to GENERAL PLAN REVISION EXHIBIT C-2 Aw 0, STABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Planning Methodology 1 Hillside Goals 6 Description of Plan Alternatives 7 Evaluation of Alternatives 10 Low Density Alternative 12 County Plan (PPC) 16 City Plan 20 City/County Plan 24 Maximum Density Plan 27 Special Evaluation Process: Regnart Canyon and Inspiration Heights 31' • Regnart Canyon 31 Inspiration Height 39 Energy and Air Quality Evaluation 45 Economic Assessment 46 Summary Evaluation 47 Environmental Input Analysis of Optimum Plan Alternative 49 Policy Development: Clarification of Objectives and 51 Mitigations of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Public Comments and City Response Section 58 - Organizations and Persons Contacted 71 Hillside General Plan Map 72 Ll i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 • Dwelling Units and D.U. per Acre in Hill Study Area 8 ii LIST OF FIGURES Pie 2 4 32 35 36 37 38 40 43 44 48 Figure 1 Geographical Sub Areas 2 Hill Area General Plan Evaluation Matrix (Blank) 3 Hillside General Plan: Regnart/Lindy Canyon Dwelling Unit Cost Study 4 Hypothetical Development Plan: Foothill Residential 5 Hypothetical Development Plan: Semi -Rural 6 Hypothetical Development Plan: Semi -Rural B 7 Hypothetical Development Plan: Semi -Rural A 8 Hillside General Plan: Upper Regnart Canyon Dwelling Unit Cost Study 9', Hypothetical Development Plan for Regnart Lanyon Area based upon Semi -Rural 5 acre slope density formula 10 Hypothetical Development Plan for Inspiration Heights based upon 1/2 acre Foothill Modified slope density formula 11 Figure 5 Evaluation Matrix (Filled in) • iii Pie 2 4 32 35 36 37 38 40 43 44 48 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONTENT REQUIREMENTS l� As provided by Section 15148 of the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines, the Environmental Impact Report Content Requirements have been incorporated into the Hillside General Plan Document. The required content points are addressed in the following sections of the base plan document labeled Exhibit C-2, the physical plan map labeled Exhibit C-1, and Appendices A and B. 1. Description of Project. The project is described in .the "Planning Methodology" section of Exhibit C-2 and the physical plan labeled Exhibit C-1. 2. Description of Environmental Setting. The environmental setting is described in Appendix B. 3. Environmental Impact. The general plan document contains an environmental impact assessment of, six, plan alternatives. The technical base for the evaluation of each plan is contained in Appendix B. The evaluation of each alternative in terms of the impact on community services,.environmental resources, and natural risks to human life and property is contained in the Evaluation of Alternatives section of Exhibit C-2. The following analytical elements of the EIR process are contained within the "Environmental Impact Analysis of Optimum Plan Alternative" section of Exhibit C-2. a. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented. b. The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environ- ment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. c. Any irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. d. The growth -inducing impact of the proposed action. 4. Alternatives to the Proposed Action. Slx separate general plan alternatives ranging from low density to maximum density were evaluated. State law requires the City to prepare and implement a general plan and as such the EIR requirement to evaluate "no project" is not relevant to the EIR process for a general plan project. 5. Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Impact. This particular EIR content requirement is embodied in the "Policy Development: Clari- fication of Objectives and Mitigation of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts" section of Exhibit C-2. 6. Organizations and Persons Contacted. This EIR content requirement is contained within Exhibit C-2. iv Hill -Area -General Plan INTRODUCTION This exhibit accompanies the General Plan Land Use.map labeled Exhibit C-1 which is the approved General Plan Land Use map describing land use types and intensities for the geographical area of the City known as the "Upper Hills and Lower Foothills". The hillside area comprises approximately 16 square miles of the City of Cupertino's sphere of influence. Figure 1 describes the boundary of the upper and lower foothills in relationship to the Core Area and the Valley Floor Infilling areas which were reviewed under separate General Plan evaluations. Planning Methodology The hillside element of the General Plan represents the final phase of the City of Cupertino's General Plan Land Use Revision Program. The first phase labeled "Core Plan" contains land use plans and policies involving approximately 900 acres of land generally located adjacent to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. north of Stevens Creek Blvd. land adjacent to Stevens Creek Blvd. east of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Rd., and Vallco Park. The Core Plan was adopted on December 19, 1973. The second phase labeled the "Valley Floor Infilling Plan" contains land use plans and policies involving approximately 330 acres of vacant and semi -vacant land in the relatively flat urbanized land area surrounding the core. Approximately 116 acres of land in close • proximity to the reach of Stevens Creek from Stevens Creek Boulevard to the southern boundary of Deep Cliff Golf Course was splintered from the Valley Floor Infilling Plan and evaluated separately. The plan labeled the "Stevens Creek Flood Plain" was adopted on January 6, 1975. ok The Core, Valley Floor Infilling and the Stevens Creek Flood Plain plans are primarily land use revisions to the General Plan. The planning methodology utilized in the Lower Foothills, Upper Hills phase of the land use amendment is more comprehensive than the previously adopted phases both in terms of the incorporation of additional content requirements of the State mandated general plan elements and in terms of incorporation of the Environmental Impact Review process. Although the California Environmental Quality Act does not necessarily require concurrent preparation of the General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, planning agencies throughout the State are now beginning to recognize that the environmental impact procedure must be incorporated into the general plan process in order to properly evaluate alternative plans and develop mitigation measures (policies) to offset negative aspects of the most advantageous plan. In addition to the advantage of having a more valid general plan, the incorporation of the EIR process into the General Plan process is advantageous for both land users and the City because the Environmental Impact process for individual projects can be theoretically simplified and made more accurate. -1- epi►�a� t � �I � I I. 1111 JI . /ofram®r � M � ' - �� ✓ :v � i �r � 't . :� � i 1q�:, /i �ri r�- , •:� � L � ^ i- A,...er� ."'T+1��„�. , •-- -�� : - ti �s, .� � �b a�'`��,rI�Q+ ,;�,,•..�.�: r. �(f�fi�.� t%a , `:a �. . d -i "lf'f,=��lli!"f ..,M1 4 ..,. -- _ An_I(_ •�G Hill Area General Plan rIn order to meet the objective of combining the General Plan process with the Environmental Impact Review process, a planning process was developed which heavily emphasized the evaluation of alternative plans. (The reason being that the alterna- tive plan evaluation is a fundamental analytical element of the EIR process.) The planning process developed for the lower foothills and the upper hills phase of the General Plan Land Use Element contains four basic steps: the input or goals step; the specification or description of alternatives step; the evaluation step; and the implementation or policy formulation step. The input step is the information base from which the City Council, Planning Commission, staff and citizens draw upon to evaluate various plan alternatives. The input phase included the community goals, citizen comments, and the technical base describing various community developments, natural resource, and natural hazard factors which are presented in Appendix B in the form of constraint maps and text. The specification of alternative steps represents the definition of three separate realistic alternatives for development within the foothills. The term realistic is extremely important in the sense that in an academic sense there is an unlimited range of choice. From a practical point of view, however, the choices must be narrowed to a number that is 'viable" from a community economic and public attitu- dinal point of view. Those alternatives that are not realistic, (i.e. public purchase of the entire sphere of influence) would quickly be removed from a viable • status. _. The evaluation phase includes a matrix approach which allowed the Council, Commission and staff to subjectively evaluate each development alternative, based upon the aforementioned community development, natural resource, and natural hazard factors contained within the input information base. The implementation phase is the process which determines those policies that can best be utilized to mitigate the adverse impact of each of the General Plan alternatives. Figure 2 describes the evaluation matrix. The three plan alternatives are denoted on the vertical axis of the matrix listed under plan specification while the community development, natural resource, and natural hazard evaluation factors are listed on the horizontal axis listed under plan evaluation column. The matrix describes the interaction of each plan alternative with the plan evaluation factors. In essence, Figure 2 serves as a "score card" to enable the decision maker to evaluate each interaction. The plus symbol indicates a positive interaction, the minus sign a negative interaction and the zero a neutral interaction. The community development, environmental resource and natural hazard factors denoted by an asterisk have a role in assessing the relative impact of each of the alter- native general plans in terms of density. Tffe remaining factors help assess the relative impact of alternative development patterns and as such, will be most useful at the more detailed zoning approval process. It should be stressed that the weight given each factor is subjective, inasmuch as quantitative approach was not taken to assign priorities to each factor. It is not practical at this point to quantify and weigh each factor so as to enable a decision -maker to objectively judge whether 'i one evaluation factor is more important than others. -3- -4- 0 U a J J O IL Q N �O Fa FIRE HAZARD z< z= FLOOD HAZARD GEOLOGICAL INSTABILITY VEGETATION WILDLIFE 0 JUJ gaz WATER RESOURCE Z G ? a s UNIQUE OPEN SPACE n Q =Q MINERAL W • ARABLE LAND • AIR QUALITY HOUSING OPPORTUNITY fit- z HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE ;a SCHOOL 8 PARK CAPACITY ?W o� •UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE Ua • CIRCULATION LAND USE (CHARACTER) z wE J Q ` } E a Z �Z 2} z U Q - o NF-� teaO 7V5 ao 5 v >�z ra. W 0 .BO H co CA G y v O Z O W H aU. m cl''lo m JOOcr z W _ O -4- Hill Area General Plan During the course of the staff and public hearings, it was determined that the information base contained within this document does not have a high enough level of detail from which to fully assess the environmental con- sequences of individual developments within the hillside area. Hence, the Planning Commission and City Council determined that the ideal approach would be to utilize a two-step plan amendment. The first step will result in a general plan amendment with a level of detail similar to that of the Core and Infilling Plans. The amendment will contain enough information to enable the Commission and Council to fully assess traffic and air quality impacts and grossly assess other environmental impacts. The plan will enable the City to guide land devel- opment; however, there may not be enough detail to allow each and every individual development to proceed without an Environmental Impact Report. The second step will entail a plan revision that will incorporate all of the geographical phases of the land use amendment (Core, Infilling, Stevens Creek Flood Plain and Hillsides) into a single document. The scope of the plan review will be broadened to include other general plan elements that must be completed such as seismic safety, public safety, scenic highways and noise as well as an update of other elements already adopted by the City. The second level will contain enough detail to most probably delete the requirements for Environmental Impact Reports for individual projects unless the project itself involves a unique environmental problem such as a quarrying operation. Input - Community Hillside Goals Citizen Comments and Technical Information Base The information base utilized by the Planning Commission and City Council in formulating the hillside plan included hillside goals developed by the 1972 Citizen Goals Committee, as amplified by the Planning Commission and City Council, by citizen input generated during the numerous hillside General Plan hearings and by the technical information base incorporated in this document as Appendix B. -5- Hill Area General Plan \0 Community Hillside Goals The community's goals for utilization of the hillsides serves as the fundamental measuring stick by which the Commission and Council evaluated various General Plan alternatives. A broad based citizens goals effort was started in August of 1970, which culminated in the adoption of a goals statement by the City Council in March of 1972. The Committee's initial charge was to provide direct citizen input into the General Plan Revision. During the course of the hillside General Plan Revision hearings, beginning in late 1972 and terminating in the Summer of 1976, the community goals statement regarding hillside land use was modified to a certain degree to reflect new information. The hillside goals adopted in conjunction with this document are as follows: GOALS FOR THE HILLSIDES GOAL I: TO MAINTAIN NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HILL AREAS BY PROVIDING FOR LOW INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITIES. Subgoal: The predominant hillside land use shall be low intensity residential development. Other permitted land uses are mineral extraction and ancillary industrical processing as designated on Exhibit C, public open space and parks, private recreation uses, and agricultural uses. L16Subgoal: Residential development within the hillside shall be regulated by performance standards related to slope steepness, proximity of existing utility and transit services and roadways, vegetative cover, geologic risk, and other environmental factors. Subgoal: Developers and governmental jurisdictions shall be encouraged to provide for permanent open space within or adjacent to hillside .developments. GOAL II: THE REGULATORY TOOLS USED THROUGHOUT THE HILLSIDES SHALL BE APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL CATEGORIES OF PROPERTY. FOR PURPOSES OF EQUAL TREATMENT, THE REGULATORY TOOLS SHALL BE RELATED TO PERFOR- MANCE STANDARDS, ONE OF WHICH IS SLOPE STEEPNESS. GOAL III: PROVISION SHALL BE MADE WITHIN THE HILLSIDE AREA FOR LAND USE REGULATIONS TO ENCOURAGE HOUSING CHOICE. GOAL IV: THE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE HILL AREA WILL BE SUCH THAT IT WILL NOT CREATE A FISCAL LIABILITY FOR EXISTING RESIDENTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. -6- Hill Area General Plan * Description of Alternatives The City Council and Planning Commission evaluated five basic land use alternatives. In order of decreasing land use intensity, they were Maximum Plan, City/County Plan, City Plan, County Plan, and Very Low Density Plan.l• The adopted General Plan reflects the City/County Plan option with a different density based on a slope density formula developed during the City Council hearings. The proposed land use type for each alternative is the same -- residential. The alternatives differ only in the density of the residential areas. With the exception of the existing zoning alternative, each alternative contains an assumption that dwelling unit intensity will be regulated by slope density formula. Table 1 summarizes the total number of dwelling units that would be permissible under each of the five original land use alternatives and the adopted General Plan. The table also contains a column describing the existing number of dwelling units within each subarea of the Urban Service Area and the area outside of the Urban Service Area. Each land use alternative assumes a separate land use intensity policy for the land areas within the Urban Service Area and the land areas outside of the Urban Service Area. The Urban Service Area boundary is delineated on Figure 1• The Urban Service Area line is also denoted on the General Plan map labeled Exhibit C-1. Very Low Density Plan This plan alternative was included to evaluate a planning concept of restricted development within the foothills. The plan alternative can be considered as a no -growth policy for the foothill area of the City. A literal no -growth policy was omitted from the point of view that it would be unreasonable to expect land owners to be restricted.to open space uses inasmuch as the principal form of open space use, i.e., agriculture is not economically viable. The land use intensity for the Urban Service Area segment of the plan would be ruled by slope density formula varying from one dwelling unit per five acres to zero units at a 65% slope. The dwelling unit intensity within the area outside of the Urban Service Area would be regulated by a slope density formula varying from one dwelling unit per 20 acres to zero units at 65% slope with an average of one dwelling unit per 80 acres. As indicated by Table 1, the very low density plan alternative would result in an increase of 206 dwelling units. County PPC Plan The County PPC Plan refers to the Santa Clara County Planning Policy Committee's Plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors upon conclusion of the Monte- bello Ridge Study. The density within the Urban. Service Area would be regulated by the County's adopted slope density formula for areas with water and sewer service (from 1.0 to 5 acres per dwelling unit with an average of about 0.6 dwelling units per acre)_. The dwelling unit intensity for the area outside of the _. Footnote 1. The word City in City/County Plan and City Plan refers to plans which incor- porate the Planning Commission's original recommended Foothill Formula. The formula began at 4.4 units per acre at 0% slope and reached 0 units per acre at 66% slope. -7- 1• N ? � E U y ti V u 6 i T Y Y ] d C Y Y 9 T w V Y 4 S p • p `^J O V 11 E O Y 1\ i y w n • ti w Y ` V m • C 4 Y W u • y y " Y Y V Y L O 6 C y u S y O m d O O Y Y 'E1 O +4 u p 4 0. 6 Y • 4 C W • .a S Y T 4 N Y O u Y K V u O O C y. v1 ry N m o m y u > V Y Y O y Y u C N y p O O 4 p � o p o • • .� a "� w N • yti e.� p w 6 y m 6 C u p V ] e � • S C C v C O p 6 Y p y y m Y m ] •4 ] m C m m y L p .y ti m O C m Y j L m O q ] w T Y C 4 • Y ti • c m y i u w w m C U L Y u •1 u• ..Oi w eo L (1\V C Y y m U Y 9 C•_0 o \ 6 •+ O Y Y y y m O 9 6u y V M ] S Y • y w u � � C u • L V • E ] Y O e D 0 D Y In y y w • Y Y J • Y Y 9 Y Y Y Y • p r O �. u ] p O •y O• Y y M e Y 0 e c Yl C e K U O mr 0.N I m n n ^ G c L n h r• O N � L O a h .Ei K u N N p] 1` 3 • y • � C 9 Y m � 0. Y y • 1 M h m J n b •" o ���. e o e u O U .y Y C M i O u W Y O 9 C T'4 u C d n m p N m N O T � Y L C U O O O 0. u Y � w u ,y C w C y ti • C 1 p O y u ] v K L M r+ waw m a • mw.. n O c@ O L O m b N O 4 '•� ] O O O UY. O U 7 U v Y y � u 6 C O 9 m Y u Y y a G a •+ ti N �p ti N O Y O ee' N n � s � m y O y ] N � � C NI m r ti e P u M n ry n v e O a N b O h � N V 6 Yti �00d m N. T Ply O P a Y V Y V 0 y YI C y N m M Y W W y C U W V W m N C to Z N S W O N O Y t O U O N ? � E U y ti V u 6 i T Y Y ] d C Y Y 9 T w V Y 4 S p • p `^J O V 11 E O Y 1\ i y w n • ti w Y ` V m • C 4 Y W u • y y " Y Y V Y L O 6 C y u S y O m d O O Y Y 'E1 O +4 u p 4 0. 6 Y • 4 C W • .a S Y T 4 N Y O u Y K V u O O C y. v1 ry N m o m y u > V Y Y O y Y u C N y p O O 4 p � o p o • • .� a "� w N • yti e.� p w 6 y m 6 C u p V ] e � • S C C v C O p 6 Y p y y m Y m ] •4 ] m C m m y L p .y ti m O C m Y j L m O q ] w T Y C 4 • Y ti • c m y i u w w m C U L Y u •1 u• ..Oi w eo L (1\V C Y y m U Y 9 C•_0 o \ 6 •+ O Y Y y y m O 9 6u y V M ] S Y • y w u � � C u • L V • E ] Y O e D 0 D Y In y y w • Y Y J • Y Y 9 Y Y Y Y • p r O �. u ] p O •y O• Y y M e Y 0 e c Yl C e K U O Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) (• Urban Service Area is regulated by £he -County's adopted slope density formula for areas without water and sewer service (from 2.5 to 10 acres per dwelling unit) and rural residential areas in Montebello Ridge. Other areas were labeled long-term open space and permanent open space permitting one dwelling unit pev ten acres. The average intensity for the area outside of the Urban Service Area is estimated at about one dwelling;,. unit per ten acres. The County PPC plan would result in an increase of 1405 dwelling units. City Plan The City Plan incorporates a slope density formula that was developed by the Planning Commission to create a land use intensity transition between the valley floor dwelling unit densities.and the dwelling unit intensities that would be appropriate for areas with a 10% slope or greater. Within the Urban Service Area, density is to be regulated by a slope density formula varying from 4.4 dwelling units per acre to 0 density in areas with an average slope of 65% and over, with an average of approximately 1.5 dwelling units per acre. The character of develop- ment will vary from nearly the density of a standard subdivision on a relatively flat area of the City to hillside areas with lots of an acre size and greater. In the area outside of the Urban Service Area, density will be regulated by slope density formula varying from one dwelling unit • per five acres to zero dwelling units at a percentage of slope of 65% and over. An average of about one dwelling unit per 20 acres is estimated. The City Plan would result in an increase of 1838 dwelling units. City/County Plan (Foothill Formula) The subject Plan was developed to evaluate a plan incorporating the City Plan for the Urban Service Area and the County Plan for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. The plan assumes that the land areas within the Urban Service Area would develop as proposed by the City Plan in the Urban Service Area while properties outside the Urban Service Area would develop under the land use regulations imposed by the County. The plan assumes that the County would not alter its plans for Montebello Ridge to conform with the City Plan if adopted. The density in the Urban Service Area would be regulated by a formula identical to that proposed by the City Plan which is 4.4 units per acre at 0%< slope to zero density in areas of 65% and over. The land area outside of the Urban Service Area would be regulated by the slope density formula proposed in the County Plan which is the County's adopted slope density formula for areas without water and sewer which equates to 2.5 to 10 acres per dwelling unit based on slope steepness. The City/County Plan would result in the development of 2238 dwelling units. City/County Plan (1/2 Acre Foothill Modified) The subject plan represents the plan adopted by City Council. The plan incorporates the Montebello Ridge Plan for the Area outside of the Urban Service Area. The area inside of the Urban Service Area is regulated by three slope density formulas. The Regnart Canyon Area is regulated by a "Semi -Rural" formula beginning at .66 of a dwelling unit per gross acre and Im Hill Area General Plan (cont'd) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- i reaching a constant of .2 of a dwelling unit per gross acre at 45% slope or greater; a 1/2 acre Foothill Modified formula for fringe properties containing an average slope of 10% or greater beginning at 2 dwelling unit per gross acre between the slope percentage range of 0-22% and reaching a constant of .2 of a dwelling unit per gross acre at 43% slope or greater and a Foothill Modified formula for.properties contiguous to the valley floor and having an average slope of 10% or less. The Foothill Modified formula begins at 3.5 dwelling units per acre and reaches a constant of .2 of a dwelling unit per acre at 43% slope or greater. The City/County Plan based upon the 1/2 acre Foothill Modified Plan results in the potential development of 1994 dwelling units. Maximum Plan The purpose of the Maximum Plan alternative is to evaluate the impact of potential developments as regulated by existing City and County zoning within the study area. To make the plan alternative more realistic, the plan incorporates an assumption that the existing Church property (surplus land) and Seven Springs Ranch, which are currently zoned "Exclusive agricultural" would be allowed to develop at 4.4 units per gross acre. The total number of dwelling units that would be permitted, based upon existing City and County zoning and based upon the assumption that the Church property and Seven Springs Ranch would be developed at a range of • 4.4 units per acre, is 3555 units. Evaluation of Alternatives The Evaluation of Alternatives section analyzes the interaction of each General Plan Land Use alternative (excepting City/County Plan 1/2 acre modified) with the 16 evaluation factors listed horizontally under the Plan Evaluation section of Figure 2. In some cases, a detailed analysis of each interaction is included and in other cases a very minimal state- ment is included depending upon the degree of information available and the degree of significance of the interaction: At the conclusion of each plan/factor analysis, a statement is made regarding the positive, negative or neutral effect of each interaction in terms of the City's adopted community goals for the hillsides. Positive, negative and neutral interaction symbols are then posted on the matrix chart. In some cases, the plan alternative/factor analysis is different for the area within the Urban Service Area and the area outside of the Urban Service Area because of the differing slope density approach for each geographical area under each plan alternative. In cases where the plan alternative affects the Urban Service Area and area outside the Urban Service Area differently, a slant is placed through the box and each plan interaction is evaluated individually. It should be stressed that with the possible exception of circulation, utility infrastructure, and school and park capacity, the evaluation of each interaction is subjective. As stated earlier, it is quite difficult to qualtify the impacts of each plan on the evaluation factors listed on Figure 2. • The City/County Plan (1/2 acre modified) is a derivitive of the City/County Foothill Modified Plan and accordingly a separate description of each evaluation factor interaction was not prepared. A detailed evaluation of traffic and economic reports that potentially could result from implements- _10- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd) 1• -------------------- tion of the derivitive plan was prepared and is contained+in,:Appendix B. • The evaluation process depends upon a good understanding of the plan alternative as it relates to each of the factors described on Figure 2. The description of each alternative is contained within the Identification of Alternatives section of this document and the evaluation factors are described fully in Appendix B. -11- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) �w Evaluation of Very Low Density Alternative The very low density alternative represents the least intensive land use plan for the hillsides. Analysis for each of the interactions of the plan alternative with the evaluation factors is contained below: Land Use Character(s) Within the Urban Service Area, the residential development of 5 acres plus per dwelling unit depending upon slope steepness will result in 'a development pattern that could be characterized as semi -rural. This development would reflect the goals for low intensity development within the foothills, however, there would be an abrupt change in the land development pattern within the fringe area. The application of the plan alternative in the area outside of the Urban Service Area would increase the total number of units from an existing level of 50 to 138 on 1,117 acres. In essence, the implement- ation of the -plan would maintain the existing character of the upper foothills. on the whole, the low density plan would represent a positive influence ,• on the character of the hillside, as related to the adopted community hillside goals. L+I, Circulation The implementation of the very low density plan would- not significantly increase the total lane demand for the arterial and collector streets within the street system west of future Freeway 85. Under this alternative, the interchange at Foothill Boulevard and Route 280 Freeway, which is the most critical roadway element in the study area, would not have to be modified. The interaction is considered positive. Utility Infrastructure The implementation of the very low density plan alternative would result in surplus capacity for land areas within the infilling and core area portions of the community, particularly, the potential industrial areas within Vallco Park and North Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road planning areas. The interaction is considered positive. School and Park Capacity It is assumed that in the case of all five general plan alternatives that, schools within the Cupertino Elementary School District will have • enough capacity upon full development provided that the demand is equalized throughout all schools in the district through bussing or through alignment of attendance area boundaries. This assumption assumes that the neighborhood school concept would not be maintained within the foothill fringe area but rather that school children would -12- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) Sbe bussed to other schools with surplus capacity. It is assumed that the semi -rural character of the development would increase make neighborhood parks unnecessary., ilowever, any population will increase the demand•for capacity of parks serving the entire City, such as the Memorial Park. The Very Low Density Alternative minimizes this demand, and is favorable from this point of view. Historical Significance The Very Low Density Plan will decrease development pressure on sites which have historical significance. The -interaction is.considered positive. Housing Opportunity Based upon the analysis contained within Appendix B, a Very Low Density Alternative Plan represents no potential for the construction of low to moderate income housing within the foothills. The interaction is con- sidered negative. • Air Ouality Complete data is not available at the present time. Preliminary investi- s� gation indicates that low densi'y plan will not significantly result in an increase in air pollution both in terms of the regional air shed nor in terms of specific hotspots directly related to automotive traffic. The interaction is considered neutral. Arable Land Based upon the analysis contained within Appendix B, there is little opportunity for economically viable row crop farming or for an orchard operation within the City's Urban Service Area. The Very Low Density Plan will, however, offer an opportunity for quasi -agricultural ll leuses such as horse stabling and home farming and as such, ome Class 2 soils within the urban fringe,primarily the Seven Springs Ranch, to be kept in a limited form of agricultural use. The interaction is considered positive for both the area within and use., of the Urban Service Area. tMineral Resource ■ The Very Low Density Alternative will decrease the pressure for residentia: development in areas which have potential mineral resource capabilities. r • Specifically, the mineral deposits west of and north of Stevens Creek ` Reservoir within the upper foothills. The interaction is considered positive. iJ _ -13- _ Hill Area Ceneral Plan (cont'd.) Unicue Oben Space The Very Low Density Plan will reduce development pressures on ridgetops, creek canyons and ravines, and other unique open space areas and as such, the interaction is considered positive. Water Resource Neither of the five alternative plans proposes a high enough density to decrease the water shed capability of the study area nor will the density alternatives put pressure on existing scream .beds which serve to percolate run-off water and water stored behind Stevens Creek Reservoir into the underground water table. The interaction is con- sidered neutral. Wildlife The Low Density Alternative results in a minimal development• and as such, will minimize the importation of domestic animals such as dogs and cats which affect wildlife andwill minimize the extent. of property line fencing which restrict habitats of animals. The interaction is considered positive within and outside of the Urban Service Area. Vegetation The Very Loy Density Plan Alternative would result in a minimal disruption of existing vegetation. The interaction is considered positive for both the Urban Service Area and outside Urban Service Area. Ceological Instability The Low Density Plan Alternative will cause a minimum amount of grading and will therefore not contribute greatly to the geologic instability of the Urban Service Area and the Non -Urban Service Area. The lower the density, the easier it is to locate building sites and roads in areas of least hazard. The interaction is con- sidered neutral for both the Urban Service Area and Non -Urban Service Area. Flood Hazard Information obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Water District indicates that there is flood risk. potential only on Stevens Creek and certain limited portions of Permanente Creek. Residential develop- ment can be restricted from limited flood areas. The interaction is considered neutral for both the Urban Service Area and Non -Urban Service Area. Fire Hazard . The Urban Service Area is primarily located in an area designated as a moderate fire hazard while the area outside of the Urban Service Area Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) is predominantly located in high fire hazard area. Based upon work conducted by the County Planning Department in connection with the public safety element, the Very Low Density Plan does not greatly increase the fire risk because of the low number of potential resi- dents within the Urban Service Area and outside of 'the Urban Service Area and additionally doe's not require vegetation removal to protect residential structures from fire risk. Therefore, the interaction for both the Urban Service Area and Non -Urban Service Area is considered neutral. -15- Hill Arca Ceneral Plan (cont'd.) FesV Evaluation of County Plan (PPC Montebello Ridge Study) The County PPC Plan alternative results in low density for the Urban Service Area, compared to the usual type of urban development. Outside the Urban Service Area it results in a relatively low density per acre but still a major increase in dwelling units above the present number. An analysis. of each of the interactions of the plan alternative with the evaluation factors is contained below: Land Use (Character) Residential development of 5 to 1 acres per unit depending upon slope steepness within the Urban Service Area will result in a development pattern that could be characterized as semi -rural. Semi -rural develop= meat would reflect the goals for low intensity development within the foothills; however, the land use pattern would represent an abrupt transition between existing development in the fringe and hillside . development in terms of potential.house values. The application of the plan alternative in the area outside the Urban Service Area would significantly increase the total number of dwelling units from 50 to 833 and as such would alter the hillside character from its present somewhat primitive appearing state to that of semi - rural development. In terms of the community goals to maintain a low intensity rusidential character the interaction is considered positive for the Urban Service Area and negative for the area outside of the Urban Service -Area. ' Circulation The implementation of the County Plan would result in minimal traffic increases within the traffic circulation system west of 85 Freeway. The Plan would require the rebuilding of Freeway 280 at Foothill Boulevard interchange to provide 8 lanes (with B service level) in the underpass, or to make a moderate reconstruction to provide 6 lanes and tolerate D -E service level (high congestion to near breakdown). The implementa- tion of the plan alternative would also increase the number of units within the Montebello Ridge area and thus create pressure to rebuild Montebello Road -and portions of Stevens Canyon Road. The interaction is considered neutral. Utility Infrastructure Implementation of the County Plan would result in surplus sewer capacity for land areas within the Infilling and Coie Area portions of the community, particularly the industrial areas within Vallco Park and North Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road planning areas. The plan alternative would require a minimal additional capacity in water supply for land areas within the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered positive. -16- Hill Area General Plan (cont d.) School and Park Capacity_ It is assumed that in the case of all five General Plan alternatives .that schools within the Fremont Union High School District will have enough capacity upon full development provided that the demand is equalized throughout all.schools in the district through -bussing or through realignment of attendance area boundaries. This assumption assumes that the.neighborhood school concept would not be maintained within the foothill fringe but rather that the school children would be bussed to other schools with surplus capacity. Parks It is assumed that the semi -rural character of the development would make neighborhood parks unnecessary. However, any population increase will increase the demand for capacity of parks serving the entire City, such as the !Memorial Park. The relatively low overall population increase in the County Plan makes this alternative relatively favorable in this respect. Historical Significance • The County plan density will place development pressure on historical sites but not to a significant degree. The interaction is considered (.a neutral. Housing Opportunity The County plan provides no potential for the construction of low to moderate income housing within the foothills.--The-interaction-is-con- sidered negative. Air Quality Complete data is not available at the present time. Preliminary investiga- tion indicates that the County plan would not significantly result in an increase in air pollution both in terms of the regional air shed nor in terms of specific hot spots directly related to automotive traffic. The interaction is considered neutral. Arable Land There is little opportunity for economically viable row crop farming or for an orchard operation within the City's Urban Service Area. The County plan with a density of S to 1 acres per unit based upon slope steepness will, however, provide a limited opportunity for quasi - agricultural uses such as horse stabling and home farming within the Urban Service Area. The County plan proposes densities for areas outside of the Urban Service Area that would diminish the potential use of lands for quasi -agricultural uses. The interaction is considered positive for the Urban Service Area and negative for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. n -17- i Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) Mineral Resources The County plan proposes that lands currently having mineral resources be utilized by firms in the extractive industry and as such, the inter- action is positive. Unique Open Space The County plan provides for low intensity residential development within the Urban Service Area while it provides for relatively higher intensities for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. The inter- action is considered positive for the Urban Service Area and negative for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. Water Resources Neither of the five alternative plans propose a high enough density to decrease the watershed capability of the study area nor will the density alternative put development pressure on the existing stream beds which serve to percolate run-off water into the underground water table.. The interaction is considered neutral. Wildlife Environmental Impact Report studies involving properties within the fringe areas of the Urban,Service Area indicate that wildlife is poorly represented in the two areas on the fringe. -Since the majority of the properties within the Urban Service Area are bordered by urban develop- ment, it is assumed that the analyses made in the two previously prepared EIR's can likewise be applied to the entire Urban Service Area with the exception of the upper reaches of Regnart Canyon. and Lindy Canyon. The implementation of the County plan for the area outside of the Urban Service Area would most probably result in the introduction of domesticated animals such as dogs and cats which affect wildlife and also the intro- duction of fence lines and property lines that would restrict the range of animals. The interaction is .considered neutral for the Urban Service Area and negative ,for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. Vegetation The County plan would result in a minimal disruption of existing vegeta- tion within the Urban Service Area and area outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered neutral for the Urban Service Area and the area outside of the Urban Service Area. Geological Instability The County plan alternative will result in minimal grading and minimal exposure to risk within the Urban Service Area while increasing grading operations and eminent exposure to risk outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered neutral for the Urban Service Area and negative for the non -Urban Service Area. -18-. Hill Area General Plan (contd.). Flood Hazard Information obtained from Santa Clara Valley Water District indicates that there is flood risk potential only on Stevens Creek and certain limited portions of Permanente Creek. Residential development can be restricted from noted flood areas in both Creeks. The interaction is considered neutral for both the Urban Service Area and the non -Urban Service Area. Fire Hazard The Urban Service Area is primarily located in an area designated as a moderate fire hazard while the area outside the Urban Service Area is predominantly located in a high fire hazard area. The County plan would not significantly increase the fire risk within the Urban Service Area, however, the plan would create a relatively higher risk for areas outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered neutral for the Urban Service Area and negative for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. -19- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) The Commission's Tentative Slope Density Formula (City Plan) The City Plan alternative results in relatively high intensity for the flat transitional properties and low intensity for the portion of the Urban Service Area with 10% average slopes or greater. The plan proposes lower intensity for areas outside of the Urban Service Area than the County Plan. Analysis of each of the interactions of the plan alternative with the'evaluation factors is contained below. Land Use (Character) - The implementation of the City Plan would result in a development pattern that would form a transition between the valley floor densites and hillside densities for those properties which are on the valley floor/hillside fringe. The plan provides for residential densities outside of the Urban Service Area that would essentially retain the rural character of the hillsides. The -interaction for the Urban Service Area is considered positive while the interaction for the area outside of the Urban Service Area is considered neutral. Circulation The implementation of the City Plan would result in minimal traffic increases within the traffic circulation system west of Route 85 Freeway. The plan will require the rebuilding of the interchange at Freeway 280 at Foothill Boulevard to provide eight lanes (with B -C service level), or to make a moderate reconstruction to provide six lanes and tolerate E -F service level (near breakdown to breakdown). The implementation of the plan would reduce the total number of units within the Montebello Ridge area as opposed to the County plan -and thus -would -decrease .pressure to.rebuild Montebello Road and portions of Stevens Canyon. The interaction is considered neutral. Utility Infrastructure The implementation of the City Plan would result in a limited surplus sewer capacity for land areas within the infilling and core area portions of the community particularly the industrial areas within Vallco Park and north Saratoga -Sunnyvale. Road planning areas. The plan alternative would require moderate additional water storage needs for land areas within the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered positive. School and Park Capacity it is assumed that in the case of all five general plan alternatives that schools within the Cupertino Elementary School District will have enough capacity upon full development provided that the demand is equalized throughout all schools in the district through bussing or through alignment of attendance area boundaries. This assumption assumes that the neighbor- hood school concept would not be maintained within the foothill fringe area but rather that school children would be bussed to other schools with surplus capacity. Additional schools may be needed on the Catholic Church -20- �} 'Hill Arca General Plan (cont'd.) j ----- L.. �• and Seven Springs properties if the neighborhood school concept is favored. It is assumed. -that the character of the development would make neighbor- hood parks unnecessary. However, any population increase will increase the demand for capacity of parks serving the entire City such as Memorial Park. The greater overall population increase in the City Plan compared to the County Plan makes this alternative less favorable in this report. The interaction is considered neutral. -Historical Significance The City Plan density will place development pressure on historical sites but not to a significant degree. The interaction is considered neutral. Housing Opportunity The City Plan provides some potential for the construction of low to moderate income housing within the foothills assuming that the City would approve density bonuses and/or the City -would approve each individual development with a condition that would require developers to provide a certain percentage of units at a low or moderate income house level with the units to be subsidized by higher prices on the non -low to moderate income units. This type of program would be feasible environmentally, !• only within the flatter portions of the Urban Service Area. The inter- action is considered neutral. Air Quality Complete data is not available at the present time. Preliminary investi- gation indicates that the County Plan would not -significantly result in an increase in air pollution in terms of the regional air shed nor in terms of .specific hotspots directly related to automotive traffic. The interaction is considered nettral. Arable Land The City Plan would offer no opportunity for limited agricultural or quasi - agricultural uses within the lower foothills. However, the plan would offer some. opportunity for quasi -agricultural uses within the area outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is.considered negative for the area within the Urban Service Area ,and neutral for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. Mineral The City plan proposes • utilized for extractive 1 positive. that lands currently having mineral sources be industrial uses and as such, the interaction is -21- Hill Arca General Plan (cont'd.) Unique Open Space The City plan.provides for relatively higher intensities within the Urban Service Area and as such, the development could adversely affect the unique open space areas within the Urban Service Area, particularly ridgetops. The relatively low intensity land use outside the Urban Service Area would protect existing natural land features. The inter- action is considered negative for the Urban Service Area and neutral for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. Water Resource The plan will not decrease the watershed capability of the study area nor will it place development pressure on existing stream beds which serve to percolate run-off water into the underground water table. The interaction is considered neutral. Wildlife Implementation of the City plan within the Urban Service Area would most likely continue the present trend of decreasing habitat of wild- life while the plan would have a minimal to moderate impact on the area outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered negative for the area within the Urban Service Area and neutral for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. Vegetation The implementation of the City plan would most probably result in a disruption of the native vegetation and introduction of exotic plants which may compete with the native vegetation within the Urban Service Area. The alternative would have a minimal effect upon vegetation outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered negative for the Urban Service Area and neutral for the area outside. of the Urban Service Area. Geologic Instability The City plan will result in moderate grading and moderate exposure to risk within the Urban Service Area while a minimal grading operation and residential exposure to risk outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered negative for the Urban Service Area and neutral for the non -Urban Service Area. Flood Hazard Information obtained from Santa Clara Valley Water District indicates that there is flood risk potential only on Stevens Creek and a limited segment of Permanente Creek. Residential development can be restricted from the noted flood areas on both Creeks and as such, a neutral interaction is considered for both the Urban Service Area and the non -Urban Service Area. -22- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) Fire Hazard The Urban Service Area is primarily located in an area designated as a moderate fire hazard while the area outside of the Urban Service Area is predominately located in a high fire hazard araa...... The City plan would not significantly increase the fire risk within the Urban Service Area because the areas of high density within the Urban Service Area are located in relatively flat areas that have little or no vegetation. The City plan would provide a moderate increase in the fire risk of the area outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered neutral for the Urban Service Area and neutral for the area outside of 3�t�! the Urban Service Area. -23- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) ------------------------------ City/County Plan The City/County Plan represents a compromise between the County PPC Plan and the City's tentatively adopted slope density plan. The plan improves the density provision contained within the City Plan for the Urban Service Area and the density provision contained within the County Plan for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. Analysis of each interaction of the plan alternative with the evaluation factors is contained below. Land Use (Character) The City/County Plan results in a moderate density approach within the Urban Service Area and a relatively high density approach within the non -Urban Service Area. In terms of the community goal to main- tain a low intensity residential character in the foothills, the interaction is considered positive for the area within the Urban Service Area and negative within the non -Urban Service ,Area. Circulation The implementation of the City/County Plan would increase congestion within the circulation system of the City west of Freeway Route 85. The plan would necessitate the rebuilding of the freeway interchange Asat Freeway Route 2010 and Foothil'. Boulevard and further would result in a C level service at eight lanes at said interchange. The plan would require the construction of six lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard through Old Monta Vista if a B level of service were desired or if four lanes are built, a service level of D E would result. The'interaction is considered negative. Utility Infrastructure The implementation of the City/County Plan would result in a limited surplus sewer capacity for land areas within the infilling and core area portions of the community,particularly the industrial areas within Vallco Park and North Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road planning areas. The plan alternative would require moderate additional water storage needs for land areas within the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered positive. School and Park Capacity It is assumed that in the case of all five general plan alternatives that schools within the Cupertino Elementary School District will have enough capacity upon full development provided that the demand is equalized throughout all schools in the district through bussing or through alignment of attendance area boundaries. This assumption assumes that the neighborhood school concept would not be maintained •�• within the foothill fringe area but rather that school children would be bussed to other schools with surplus capacity. Additional schools may be needed on the Catholic Church and Seven Springs Ranch properties if the neighborhood school concept is favored. -24-- • Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) It is assumed that the character of the development would make neighbor- hood parks unnecessary. However, any population increase will increase the demand for capacity of parks serving the entire City such as Memorial Park. The greater overall population increase in the City Plan compared to the County Plan makes this alternative less favorable in this respect. The interaction is considered neutral. Historical Sienificance The City/County Plan will place development pressure on historical sites but not to a significant degree where historical sites would be endangered through normal development. The interaction is considered neutral. Housing Opportunity The City/County Plan provides some potential for development of housing for low to moderate income housing, based upon the adoption of a policy to allow density incentives and/or a program to.allow a price shift onto non -privately subsidized units. The interaction is considered neutral. Air Quality Complete data is not available at the present time. Preliminary investigation indicates that the City/County Plan would not signifi- cantly result in an increase in air pollution both in terms of the regional air shed nor in terms of specific hotspots directly related. to automotive traffic. The interaction is considered neutral. Arable Land The City/County Plan would decrease the potential for quasi -agricultural and home agricultural uses within the Urban Service Area and the non - Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered negative for the Urban Service Area and neutral for the non -Urban Service Area. Mineral Resources The City/County Plan proposes that lands currently with mineral resources be utilized for extractive industry and as such, the interaction is positive. Unique Open Space The City/County Plan would place pressure on unique open space areas within and out of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered negative for both the Urban Service Area and the non -Urban Service Area. -25- 1 Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Water Resources The City/County Plan will not significantly affect the water shed capability of the study area nor will the density alternative neces- sarily place development pressure on existing stream beds which serve to percolate run-off water into the underground water table. The interaction is considered neutral. �I • Wildlife The implementation.of the City/County Plan will further decrease the wildlife habitat areas within and outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered negative for both the Urban Service Area and non -Urban Service Area. Vegetation The City/Ccunty Plan would result in disruption of native vegetation within the Urban Service Area and a moderate disruption outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered negative within the Urban Service Area and neutral outside of the Urban Service Area. Geologic Instability The City/County Plan will result in moderate grading within and outside of the Urban Service Area and will result in densities resulting in a moderate risk for both the Urban Ser. -ice Area and non -Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered negative for both the Urban Service Area and non -Urban Service Area. Flood Hazard The City/County Plan will nog necessarily require that development occur within potential flood hazard areas of Stevens Creek and limited segments of Permanente Creek. The interaction is considered neutral for both the Urban Service Area and non -Urban Service Area. Fire Hazard The Urban Service Area is primarily located in an area designated as a moderate fire hazard while the area outside of the Urban Service Area is predominately located in a high fire hazard area. The City/County Plan would not significantly increase the fire risk within the Urban Service Area, however, the Plan would create a relatively higher risk for areas outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is con- sidered neutral for the Urban Service Area and negative for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. -26- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) Maximum Density Alternative The maximum density alternative represents development of the study area based upon the following assumptions: Within the Urban Service Area and within City limits existing zoning, permitting from 1 to 16 dwelling units per acre; within the Urban Service Area but at present under County juris- diction 4.4 dwelling units per acre on the Catholic Church and Seven Springs properties, otherwise one dwelling unit per net acre (0.8 per gross acre); outside the Urban Service Area the same density as the County PPC Plan, that is, a slope density formula ranging from 0.4 to 0.1 dwelling units per acre in "residential" areas and 0.1 dwelling units per acre in "open space" areas. Land Use (Charac The maximum density plan would result in residential densities on specific properties that would be adverse to the community hillside goals. The properties are located in prominent positions within the urban fringe and as such, would establish a residential character that is essentially higher than that which presently exists within the Urban Service Area fringe. The specific areas are westerly of Foothill Boulevard. As provided for in the County's Open Space Urban Development Open Space Plan, significant portion of the exclusive agricultural zoning in the non -Urban Service Area could be redesignated to the Co::nty's slope density formulas. The maximum density plan interaction wiih•charauter is negative within. the Urban Ser,.ice.Area and negative outside of the Urban Service Area. Circulation The maximum plan would significantly increase the lane requirements for Stevens Creek Boulevard through Old Monta Vista and Foothill Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and 280 Freeway. The number of lanes for the Old Monta Vista of Stevens Creek would be six lanes at an A level of service of four lanes at D -E level (high congestion to neat breakdown). The section of Foothill Boulevard immediately north of Stevens Creek Boulevard would require eight lanes at B level of service or six lanes at a D -E level. The section of Foothill Boulevard near the intersection of 280 would require ten lanes of B -C level or eight lanes at D -E level. The interaction is considered negative. , Utility Infrastructure The implementation of the maximum plan would result in residential development that would utilize the full capacity or slightly overtax the existing capacity of trunk lines in the western segment of the community. Because of certain unknowns, regarding development within -27- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) the central portion of the community and Vallco Park industrial areas, the exact capacity of the western trunk lines cannot be determined. The development of the maximum plan would result in decreasing any surplus capacity which might remain in the entire system for future high water using industrial uses within the core area. The•implementation of the maximum plan would require additional water storage capacity, however, additionaI'capacity can be achieved through programmed improvements that would be paid by new water- service aterservice patrons. The interaction is considered neutral. School and Park Capacity It is assumed that in the case of all five general plan alternatives that schools within the Cupertino Elementary School District will have enough capacity upon full development provided that the demand is equalized throughout all schools in the district through bussing or through alignment of attendance area boundaries. This assumption assumes that the neighborhood school concept would not be maintained within the foothill fringe area but rather that school children would be bussed to other schools with surplus capacity. Additional schools may be needed on the Catholic Church and Seven Springs Ranch properties— if the neighborhood school concept is favored. Historical Significance A maximum density plan will place development pressures on or near places of historical significance, however, itis anticipated that development plans can be reviewed and approved in a manner to preserve appropriately designated historical landmarks. The interaction is considered neutral. Housing Opportunity The maximum.density plan provides an opportunity to provide a greater range of housing choice within the hillside area of the City. The interaction is considered positive. Air Quality Complete data is not available at the present time. Cursory review would tend to indicate that automotive traffic or stationary sources. from home heating units would not significantly affect the local air shed. However, the increase in traffic congestion on key spots within Stevens Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard may create carbon monoxide hotspots for certain residential areas adjacent to said roadways. Due to a lack of data, the interaction is considered being neutral. 2M Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) Arable Land The maximum density plan would preclude quasi -agricultural and home agricultural activities within the Urban Service Area. The agricultural zoning designation for the significant portion of the area outside of..... the Urban Service Area would change from agricultural to a residential designation. The interaction is considered negative for,the Urban Service Area and negative for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. Mineral Resources The zoning districts within the mineral resource areas of the non -Urban Service segments of the planning area are currently zoned exclusive agricultural which permits mineral extraction. As such, the interaction is considered positive. Unique Open Space The maximum density plan would place considerable development pressure on'areas within the Urban Service Area and conversely would tend to decrease unique open space areas outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered negative for the Urban Service Area and negative for the non -Urban Service Area. Water Resources Neither of the five alternative plans propose_a density that would decrease the water shed capability of the study area nor would the density alternatives put development pressure on existing stream beds which serve to percolate run-off water into the underground water table. The interaction is considered neutral. Wil dl if e The maximum density plan will adversely affect wildlife habitats within the Urban Service Area. The plan will have an adverse affect on wildlife habitats within the area outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered negative for the area inside of the Urban Service Area and negative for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. Vegetation The maximum density plan will disrupt native vegetation within the Urban Service Area particularly areas zoned for 16 units per acre apartment developments. The plan would result in some disruption of existing vegetation within the area outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered negative for the Urban Service Area and neutral for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. -29- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) Geologic Instability • The maximum density plan could result in significant amount of grading and disruption of the natural terrain within the steeper portions of the Urban Service Area and as such..could create a high risk factor for future residences within the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered negative within the Urban Service Area and negative outside of the Urban Service Area.. Flood Hazard The. maximum density plan will result in a significant number of dwelling units within the Urban Service Area. However, the develop- ment pattern can be arranged to avoid potential flood risk areas on Stevens Creek and certain reaches of Permanente Creek. The stream beds outside of the Urban Service Area can contain the 200 year event and as such. flood risk is considered minimal in those areas. The interaction is considered neutral for the land area outside of the Urban. Service Area and inside the Urban Service Area. Fire hazard The Urban Service Arcs is located in an area designated as a moderate fire hazard while the area outside of the Urban Service Area is pre- dominately located in the high fire hazard area. The significantly _; • higher number of units that would be allowed within the steeper portions of the Urban Service Area could create a high fire risk hazard. It would not be experienced in the other four plan alternatives. The maximum density -plan would also result in an increased risk for areas outside of the Urban Service Area. The interaction is considered negative for the Urban Service Area and negative for the area outside of the Urban Service Area. -30- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd) 0 Special Evaluation Process: Regnart Canyon and Inspiration Heights During the course of the General Plan review, the Planning Commission and City Council determined that Regnart Canyon and Inspiration Heights were unique areas requiring special consideration. Both geographical areas were evaluated based upon the factors described on Figure 2 as well as a market feasibility study based upon the application of various slope density formulas and road improvement standards. Regnart Canvon Regnart Canyon is picturesque canyon containing the headwaters of Regnart Creek. The Canyon is served by a very narrow semi -improved road which parallels a rich riparian environment adjacent to the Regnart Creek bed. The property is divided into 26 ownerships with properties ranging in size from one acre to 75 acres. A few land owners hold more than one parcel. Two property owners own an aggregate total of 75 acres each. There are 17 existing dwellings within the Canyon. A resident group prepared a plan labeled "The People's Canyon Plan" to set forth goals and objectives for development within the Canyon. The document stresses the desire for low intensity development with minimal public improvement requirements. As a result of the concerns expressed by individuals living within the Canyon, •a cost study was prepared to evaluate the land improvement and building _ improve,ent costs that would result based upon the application of varying slope density formulas and improvement standards within the Canyon. The purpose of -the study was to determine whether the resultant development would be feasible in terms of the market place. Figure 3 labeled "The Hillside General Plan - Regnart/Lindy Canyon Dwelling Unit Cost Study" describes costs that could be expected based upon the application of four slope density formu- las within the Canyon. The assumptions utilized in the cost -analysis are listed on the back of Figure 3. Figures '4 through 7 describe hypothetical development plans based upon the application of four slope density formulas. The cost estimates were based upon the four plans. The staff assumed that for each density alternative, public utility improvements such as a complete water system and sanitary sewer system would be utilized as opposed to private improvements such as well water and septic tanks. The public improvements were chosen because of the long-term public benefit. As evidenced by Figure 3 the total land improvement costs and dwelling unit did not deviate significantly between the most liberal formula - the Foothill Formula, resulting in 138 units, and the most restrictive formula Semi -Rural A which involves 43 units. The cost study information enabled the City Council to make the finding that a relatively restrictive slope density could be imposed within the upper reaches of Regnart Canyon that could both satisfy the desire of the existing residents to maintain a low intensity rural character and yet still result in development that is feasible in the market place. As an outgrowth of the cost study, the decision was made to adopt a Semi -Rural type formula that began at .66 units per acre and reached a constant density factor at 5 acres per unit at 55 slope. The study also resulted in the adoption of road standards that designed to retain the rural character of the area, reduce costs to the greatest degree possible and provide for essential public services. The development standards are included in General Policy No. 3 listed within this document. -31- HILLSIDE GENERAL PIAN Regnart/Lindy Canyon Dwelling Unit Cost Study Figure 3 * Individual Costs Included In Total Land and Public Improvement Cost Column 1. The per unit cost of public utlll.Ly improvement coats docs not contain Che on-site utility cost (cost of extending utilities from public right of wy to house) nor the uclllty inspection and installation fees. Therefore, the public utility costa appear lower than Elie private land improvement costs ul a per unit basis. The public utility costs were used In the total land and public Improvement cost column because the relative costs would not be widely different and public improvements are mure advantageous from a public health and long term operational and maintenance cost point of view. Public Public utility Private Land Private Land HaJor Total Lan an Building Total Cost Per Road Improvement Coate 1 Improvement Coats Driveway Fees Public Improv Dwelling Unit Coate Costs went Coate (Lund improvement 6 Building Costs) Alternative - — Formulas Utilities Utilities M (Assumingu Public w.`•i Imp rovemenln)1 H Water Electric Cas Sever I Septic Rural Well Water Storage Tank Cas for Fire • • • • • Protection it 011 UC.• Foothill w w s Y Formula o h A '• "• .1 .1 .wi tl w .+ m p .�+ +1 .1 m o� oI o\' o�p oI I a >Y ? e & o N 13E Units V M1 w1 `t N N N .1 •a o P V ✓t O 'J Y O q O q O O O wl •p .� p •p Acre/DU - 3.7 ^ V V^ ^ 1'1 d N V •a \ N .Y .Y b OL O m N w1 O Y O N O N O c o V ~ jAver. N .-1 N O N. O al O . Y O• O O n r4 N (1 ry •i a� �Y .i ^ J N rl r'1 i N •D 1.1 ^ '^ •i J N Semi -Rural (PC Recommendation) p P •' .oi •' •' ti mu Htl w U ti O\ O O P O J .� O P P Y Y p 4 Y "1 O wl 75 Unite oO o\ o\ o\ on o\ Y .^J Y w P Nu O o 0 0 0 ^ v?v+ 0O `a 00 o c 0 0 0 0\ 0O �s o Y o tl o tl 0o tl N o0 0O w' ': •"� Aver. Acre/DU - 5.0 O •G O •a O NO o o w n O �°° N VI N y O O O N• d N O_ Y O ✓1 O' N O Y1 _ P rl 1'1 V •i N OJ Y N Serol -Rural N "A" � u u « u u m •• ti w'1\ o p p p O ri 47 Units 'Y ^ P N O O� H O Y Y Y .-qJ Y \ Y"• O Aver. Acre/DU - 8.75 • •�l •q ^ N ••1 m m N^ O P\ •q n •a O i O • O q J1 O q O O w O Y o O C O �p p V O• ^I ^ m O .p �'1 ^ •p tY N N V ^ T N N O Y 0 Jl g O N ✓• V - W V .i O � N N V •m •'• N •Y N^ rl N N 'Y r-1 1.1 r) ry 0 Semi -Rural �.D�r i1 .• tl •' .• •' .• .1 u .� .w1 •• .• " .1 •' .• 0 \0Pl q O\N.P a OOO• u tl OO.i \nJ1 � q w p q q u q OOaV O •VI.VO 0O 0 63 Units 01 Ck Y ,0om Op Aver. Acre/UU 6.00 vtll1 NnoP w 0 o ^P aD O O m ,ry\^P� w r�i ,o * Individual Costs Included In Total Land and Public Improvement Cost Column 1. The per unit cost of public utlll.Ly improvement coats docs not contain Che on-site utility cost (cost of extending utilities from public right of wy to house) nor the uclllty inspection and installation fees. Therefore, the public utility costa appear lower than Elie private land improvement costs ul a per unit basis. The public utility costs were used In the total land and public Improvement cost column because the relative costs would not be widely different and public improvements are mure advantageous from a public health and long term operational and maintenance cost point of view. 111 og C ti (D M. ASSUMPTIONS A. Public Land Improvement Costa Road; 1) Existing streets are inadequate. Assumed that nil existing streets must be reconstructed. 2) A driveway serving s single dwelling shall be e minimum of 12 ft. of paved width. 7) A private street (driveway) shall be a minimum Of 18 ft. of paved width and shall not serve more than ft,, dwellings. 4) Cul de once and minor streets serving no more than ten dwellings shall have a minimum paved width of twenty ft. 5) Collector streets serving more than ten dwellings shall have a minimum paved width of 24 feet.. 6) The cost estimates for street construction Includes monies for either curb and gutter or drainage swalee. It le assumed that the cost of curb slid gutter and drainage svalea In , tiro same. 7) Driveways or private streets 811411 be no:more than 1,000 feet in length. Oaten 1) The eaistieg water mains In tine semi -developed area of Regnart Canyon are inadequate for fire flow. All mains will be replaced. 2) The cost of an additional water tank of the appropriate else for each density alternative for required fire flow was Included In the cost entlmate. J) Additional pumping facilities required to lift the water to the new tank site were Included In the cost of tine water. Electrics 1) It was assumed that the existing P.C.6E. electrical distribution lines In the study area are Inadequate and would have to be replaced. 2) The cost for telephone distribution lines to Included In the cost of overhead and underground electrical distribution facilities. Cao! 1) There are no existing natural gas distribution lines 1n the study area. Seweres 1) There are no existing sanitary sewer lines in the study area. 8. Private Lend Improvement Costs Septic tanksl) It to assumed that the sort conditions are suitable for Lite Installation of a septic tank and drain field for all densities except that provided by the foothill formula. 2) The coats shown are for the initial Installation and does not Include long term maintenance costa. 1) A septic tank should not be considered as a permanent solution for water disposal because of possible ground water contamination. Rural goes 1) Cost estimate abown.iincludes Installation and tank costs. Propane to more expensive that, natural gas and therefore the long term operational costa of a rural gee system 1e more expensive. Nelit I) It to assumed that adequate ground water In available for pumping at d depth between 100 - 700 feet. 2) Over a long-term basis, It to possible for the ground water table to be pumped down which would necessitate redrllling wells to a greater depth. -1- 7 I J) Tile operating and maintenance cents, and ground 0. Building coat! 1) The building coat for tach alternative water pumping charges by the water district to based upon the following neeumpdons: "an,ocla ted with a well to not: Included. bvelling sire x cont/sq. ft. Water storage 2900 x TG 104,400 • for fire protection!_ I) If water mains are not avnlfable for adequate fire protection, each dwelling must have a well - And a minimum of 5,000 gsllona of water storage. 2) The building cost for on -nate utilities 2) Although tnaarnnce compnnies ore selling fire Involves connection cents for public lend insurance to this area on A ISO class rating of 4 Improvements. the study area to In fact rated .as a Claan B. Insurance may, at any time, decide 6. Major teent This colt," Includes the major development fees j The companies to utilize a Class B rating which will Rab- including storm drain area fees, sanitary sewer Rtontlnity Increase the innurance costa. To area fees, and geologic repor b 1 reduce rite study area to a Clean 4 requires ' ►. Tokol! lite total comumn inclatde6 tile least costly hood i i w the Installation of adequate water mains anJ t and build Ing spproecI for ent A 1 storage fdclhttes. the Iniment . cos the initial coat@ of the public Improvement toots I Urtvevayel 1) Since tite minimum driveway width le 12 ft And aro cheaper than the private land improvement the maximum, In 16 ft., a width of 15 ft. was costil for each dlternative, Accordingly, the used to detetmlhe dtivevay coats. An -average total coats teflect the least costly public land drlveviy length per duelling who based upon Improvement took@ outlined on the coat evaluation measuring total driveway length on each thart. density alternAtive plan. C. Unimproved land! 1) Unimproved lend ,It is boned on utlllty. C.enerelly, value to based upon number of _ permitted building slten: Uwove% a larger lot site for each duelling unit will alightly Incteane lend cost per unit. r 00 G H D w -2- o -op (a'd QG�gP47�pJ pp C b d� ILJ d:p'gppGp a4cJPl�li Q - o .ddbf?, �'\Q' _�_ �A\, r/ f/,��1 ' `, / o O p� P �i� q���l, — -i_ 4�� 1��� �i� j. �.�� �._ �v��Afid+��., �I;�/� J ✓I ��� �t�= - �� ����' 1 „� -- ������ �� ci -c'3 Q'(� r ��_,� '�' �� -� ! ;�/ v lil�vA.. i.. ��I� l��ll�:���� �' i/��J) r ��V� 1 �� -- ✓. � �� '� .� � ��. L`]C��Jd pV �� (, ' - tl I (M PE � I�T�ICTI�`• �N�A♦��. OPTION F W�� ,y/�/1r C -- -NF1 1/ ��� �,- , y C,' IRE ACCESS RCCO _35/( GD 1 ALTvri'iATIVFa AiOES r STREETS NETWORK. IF OPi M 2B b • ll �/ �1� �� � � - - -: //� .��.. rit ���r �wwtc#.F r♦R aiwt� � — ;. � f � ' jr IV I \ HYPOTHETICAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ® OLS_9 Of FOR REGNART CANYON AREAr_ cupertn�o GENERAL PLAN STUDY FIGURE 4�� / V40':o u Bosed on Jhe a��,��,,,,`</ s/ope density fo�mu% depar[men[ 0 .e .- , - •. ,: , ; . � , , - � - ,rte-_ _ :r������o��eitv�.. HYPOTHETICAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN �� FOR REGNART CANYON AREA EFGURE 5 Based on /he w77, 's/ope-density formub cupes�icn GENERAL PLAN STUDY planning deparunenl • • • CD - : 6 Q � gI1PPP C? � Q 2 � � o�/� � II• ' 1)II � /1 � _ a a �yi iQ Q d b LTl El f?;r - ij X__ '� 3o6g4C5 �'IQ Q\� a'� 41ppFj'I I:' - 11���F �v' J h Q rr qP , d I `s qaQ � '�?�' � � `: � � ' �\ \e ;';r c •_ _ ,, �, � Q 1. ,,.,.,.�.,.�.,•�,�, is � / dL, J� d ° d' Q �'d�°,.q , 0 \ - ...; \ �. � \;: - )�'- ,.,."'..``'��'� ,...\� ��.;..�.1- .. l c. 9''�" � F al .. ''••.� (LPL C p ZJ I �7a CJQPp Q e ,. •� � AAS, � fir,'(. ��, v. 1 � �;awr 1 0 w v, J 1 j if oe l \ s�ana...uu ........ •im o HYPOTHETICAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REGNART CANYON AREA FIGURE 6 Bosed Cn the slope-defMly formub o�y of CUpefi1110 pianno,o_ GENERAL PLAN STUDY department Q'dIu 6 Q k1PPl P p �] UM d 6 pd 9 : p6di P' p LIJU a gr -� �• Nu � I (/fit rf� til � 1 ���. �'��f/� ,I, ,�j. •� ��� .. � �� � � ��i _ %�.� � �_,. \ r /.r/�,__ � / •. \� i � I /) • °may ,.�r`V g��RV � Js ._ vti� 4'1 I iaLL 1 i � . v�Vt 1�//'I ,i � r' w \ A , / - . �•. _ - �•-' -� 'f�11 �� � �_, I z.z, i� � � it �\.�• \I N /• 9 .I.111.`1.W.lI(CI. W.l.1.rYr.1. W11.1•• r �� % � � /A �VJ A� �� i il�i� v�_�s� r -r ��- r � r/y/ f -�Q �1 � i f S \\ � � r" � ■ r _ / \ � -� r � / 1 � "�� -- `� �.-� � - it r _ y1.-- =� _.JUW.r�au aur.ui.uuia.r.ry.r.r.uW rn• � _" � v � � �� 1 I � � �� rU � � r VvA �� �� v .� —'��� _ - il���� -- � � A � � � � v � � IJ �' L, ■ i � =\y_. \ , �\I>' .. � ', c L y 1 1 \' =% I flr� J%�; I �f i �.. y \ `•r' �} - ��` � - �=�` � �_ �—_ r - � . ll r \� � \ I t .L r f n k' ,• � u 1%4 y ��/-/^��� /�\� ._y ,� _ � \ \1\� y{I.� - '� - ��i• .\ i - ._�. . 1�.. ': .l��f � �,.�r.,f- -mit \,%i- �a '. _ -=--�z �ti,� --�-�� ■ F. ''� �� .�%lam \�.�. •� k� 1 �l 1 t. \\ �� \, _` `�`'. / N / - —� 1'� 1_� '\ F "�'�r.!'1,� 1l a �ti��.�"`^' r'r. �F - �f� c e �;� 9�'��\ \7\1 �\\,) �f �� ✓V / _% .I, I r �� ►, ms's\ r,'�a��-� 're - 3�.a�-��iit..�-�\,.. - .rte �� ����))� � — - �� - 1. .R Ti....... $..... C^.�''°1 fug " • IGENERAL PLAN Hill Area General Plan (cont'd) i�.Figure 8 labeled "Regnart Canyon Dwelling Unit Cost Study" was completed to determine cost impacts that would result from public acquisition of 80 acres of land on the north rim of the Canyon. The study was conducted to determine whether or not a deletion of 80 acres from the development base would reduce the total number of dwelling units permissible thereby resulting in a higher dwelling unit cost per unit thereby making the Semi -Rural Formula with.a 5 acre "cut-off" infeasible in the market place. The study evaluated the total dwelling unit cost based upon the 80 acres being within the development base and out of the development base and further with the cost spread to potential new homes and new and existing homes. The cost study further assumed that there would be individual septic tank systems, private rural gas supply and minimal road standards. However, the study assumed that the water system would be designed for adequate fire protection purposes. The study concluded that the Semi -Rural 5 acre Formula would be feasible in the market place should the Midpeninsula Regional Park District acquire 80 acres within Regnart Canyon. The cost figures described in Figure 8 are based upon a hypothetical develop- ment plan labeled Figure 9. 40 Inspiration Heights The Inspiration Heights area is unique because the area is subdivided by two 1917 subdivision maps. The Inspiration Heights area that was evaluated includes area to the west of Santa Lucia Road and southerly of Alcalde Road. However, particular emphasis was placed on the undeveloped portions of the subdivision located to the south of San Juan Road. The Planning Commission and City Council concluded that the 1917 subdivision design in inconsistent with the hillside land use policies of the City and that the majority of the designated streets cannot be constructed based upon the road standards required for emergency services. It was found, for example, that some portions of roadway have a 50% grade which makes the construction of the road infeasible from an engineering point of view. A policy was therefore adopted which invalidates the paper streets and paper lots as designated by the 1917 maps. The allowable dwelling unit intensity is based upon the application of the Half -Acre Foothill Modified Formula on each Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel as shown in the 1975-76 Assessor's Roll. Figure 10 describes the ownership pattern and ideal road pattern to serve the area and the number of units that would result upon implementation of the General Plan. -39- I. c `c o c Z5T'TC� 9ES'S91 05i19911 9(9'791 c na/zos'LT M/989' TT OOS' 7 005' 7 009'V I ZSL'99 9CT'19 054'C9 9LZ'09 � U n 007'701007'70T 000'0[ 007'70T 007'70T i OSL'7 SI 034'71 oSC 7T a: e �z F 009'77Z 009'97Z u m O na/zos'LT M/989' TT OOS' 7 005' 7 009'V w ¢ E ZSL'99 9CT'19 054'C9 9LZ'09 � U n I 000 -OC 000'0[ 000,0C 000'0£ i OSL'7 SI 034'71 oSC 7T a: e �z F 009'77Z 009'97Z L P. d C m u na/zos'LT M/989' TT OOS' 7 005' 7 009'V S v U m u m L 090'Of9 090'Of9 026'281 OZ6'29C C m y o` c4 r I 000 -OC 000'0[ 000,0C 000'0£ i OSL'7 SI 034'71 oSC 7T OS1471 e �z F 009'77Z 009'97Z 009'74Z � m v ¢ ¢ d > 6 i Oa5' L 0051L OWL OWL O �+ m m Y y O m , C C i Ina/7T7'T = ^ L na/199'T na/ZCT'T na/94011 u — i i = c 000'2 000'z 00012 000'2 r.0 C ti x d U C D 3 V na/tET'9 'na/766'( na/0e019 L v d E Y R 09z'SZE 09z'SZL 02 C'TC7 u u e o d N n N LY m N f/1 r uoTzjsTnb3M ad9A: m�� v d @ 000.1 000•T 000*T 000'T y y u OOZ'£ 002'E 002'[ OOZ'C N OSO'T 05011 OSO'T 050'T C , —40— Y < - .. > u u c — > u m C n w m o w •. v - — x m • Y u u d Y 4 C C •J pvr d u.r ••+ E ! i a U L V i Y L m J R ¢ ^ y = Y c d — •+ m E 0 ¢L•� w ¢ = 3 L L u u u m L J C 6 6u u c x w y u ¢ V Y+ -• c L u c c a Y c GAS m +Ci U i i R Y L Y d d Y'R ¢L 6N c o m L Y E- m 3 c u m J Y- 3 Y L a z o i m L Y 6 Y C S y Y ¢ C y Y 6 J R R L u c R m an d w 4 Y C u L r Y O Y L ^ y Y C 7 w O `S u•J � u � C Y Y �• ��m .C.ti y.r � c u n • i m C E m Y m C S ¢ ¢Y u e E w w -• i c [ L -. L e u x u C U b C O E Y O > m N Y O C 4 Y C L N Y Y t •J Y E u a E Y m L u L m u m A d o V - m >• J 1 4 m u •m i ¢ u Y Y Y ¢ b C u ¢ P. a 6 6 m ti V 3 C y Y U W K CI L d 6 O 9 9 m . e m S u r E u q u u U o U � u c fa. � .•• na/zos'LT M/989' TT OG/005'7T as/9Zo77T R u m L 090'Of9 090'Of9 026'281 OZ6'29C Y na/0029 na/8197 na/990'5 as/OLa'E i i i e �z 009'77Z 009'97Z 009'74Z 009`7LZ v ¢ ¢ d > 6 i d Y U O �+ m Y y O m i Ina/7T7'T = ^ L na/199'T na/ZCT'T na/94011 u — u ^ 000'09 000`09 007'9( 007'91 L YI x d U xd na/sfo'6 na/tET'9 'na/766'( na/0e019 L v wi R 09z'SZE 09z'SZL 02 C'TC7 OZC'Tf7 —40— Y < - .. > u u c — > u m C n w m o w •. v - — x m • Y u u d Y 4 C C •J pvr d u.r ••+ E ! i a U L V i Y L m J R ¢ ^ y = Y c d — •+ m E 0 ¢L•� w ¢ = 3 L L u u u m L J C 6 6u u c x w y u ¢ V Y+ -• c L u c c a Y c GAS m +Ci U i i R Y L Y d d Y'R ¢L 6N c o m L Y E- m 3 c u m J Y- 3 Y L a z o i m L Y 6 Y C S y Y ¢ C y Y 6 J R R L u c R m an d w 4 Y C u L r Y O Y L ^ y Y C 7 w O `S u•J � u � C Y Y �• ��m .C.ti y.r � c u n • i m C E m Y m C S ¢ ¢Y u e E w w -• i c [ L -. L e u x u C U b C O E Y O > m N Y O C 4 Y C L N Y Y t •J Y E u a E Y m L u L m u m A d o V - m >• J 1 4 m u •m i ¢ u Y Y Y ¢ b C u ¢ P. a 6 6 m ti V 3 C y Y U W K CI L d 6 O 9 9 m . e m S u r E u q u u U o U � u c fa. � .•• r n u m i i i v ¢ ¢ i d Y U d m Y y O m i L d x d U xd •+L` Z � Z Y: Z N n N N m N f/1 r uoTzjsTnb3M ad9A: ao,7TmTnbzy aaIrii —40— Y < - .. > u u c — > u m C n w m o w •. v - — x m • Y u u d Y 4 C C •J pvr d u.r ••+ E ! i a U L V i Y L m J R ¢ ^ y = Y c d — •+ m E 0 ¢L•� w ¢ = 3 L L u u u m L J C 6 6u u c x w y u ¢ V Y+ -• c L u c c a Y c GAS m +Ci U i i R Y L Y d d Y'R ¢L 6N c o m L Y E- m 3 c u m J Y- 3 Y L a z o i m L Y 6 Y C S y Y ¢ C y Y 6 J R R L u c R m an d w 4 Y C u L r Y O Y L ^ y Y C 7 w O `S u•J � u � C Y Y �• ��m .C.ti y.r � c u n • i m C E m Y m C S ¢ ¢Y u e E w w -• i c [ L -. L e u x u C U b C O E Y O > m N Y O C 4 Y C L N Y Y t •J Y E u a E Y m L u L m u m A d o V - m >• J 1 4 m u •m i ¢ u Y Y Y ¢ b C u ¢ P. a 6 6 m ti V 3 C y Y U W K CI L d 6 O 9 9 m . e m S u r E u q u u U o U � u c fa. � .•• r n u Figure 8 Y d r d L ¢ u m 7 p w U ¢ d c C u C C C L S • L 1 2 d w n 3 � w 6 L y n Y 1 a = c n e c u b • m - C C q R m C� m ¢. d L L u a e b] y c c Y - r Y Y 2 r U ••i r L P G �O t C wL m r r U 00 O r u C S - O .-I C U 6 r O �•�. % a m r d Y Y S m Y C U Y d ¢ ^ L U O d L O L C L L U O C m L r C E C O Y C ¢ R¢ L 4 C L d r Y> r r O 3 m U Y U T L 6 u r d U Y L u o m Ol N c U W 0 E c O O L Y U u L C C Y V 6 w Y¢ m y) ) J J 7 r W r 4I r m J U E J Tr m S V m ] U O m 0 S d �• R r S O r r S w q U V O r w j� ti S r•I E u R r N ^•I S r r N Y .••. m rt q � Y u m d E � � -• b C 3 Y C y y R q / IJ• Z� m \ r C. ..1 y r C 4 P. n i R Y u 1 Ji � I 1 C d L % C _• d 4 rU C q W L a m R M W y O S n+ al N w V> N Y y % Y r L � •Y N S d 4 C C S U r L U F• C L S 4 7 r N u C • V i G — S C u V u 2 C S N W Z r 6 u Y ) L! L P, d D C Y Y Y> m C Y Y y W C C C O 3 i' u .Y P. S ¢ m T Q C Y e a e E d> C� E ; E C y 2 S P. j i c V% C S r C E U w > d V .-I Y S R. � q •p u S m r L > L r 0 Y> j d m S E V U 1. Y u C Y T q ¢ Y q m T L S V S v1 r � L r ¢ 4 m g L ] m u v Oi T S .L.� E 6 w G m .qr 9 q n r L W r O m 3 S u 3 a w. .+ O 4 m .. O r w d i d r mr d¢C ¢ U R U r r V _ U d] u y m C CG Z C C 6 C S d d •• C q J r O ¢ —i. ^+ - ' .+ > .. u C u % q V H L .• r r` O m r d r T l m i O S ] R 6> r r d OG C C m 6 u J L u O y C S E U V u y ) L q V S ep .. u ¢ N V T V V V 4 d m E ¢ C 9 m y j U C u a u— ••. d L L m % � c y m J r ry L ¢ - O 1 C -41- Figure 8 feet from main distt16nt1on lines and public roads. Unimproved land: 1) Unimproved land cost is based on utility. Generally, value is based upon number of permitted hullding sites. llowever, a larger lot size for encb dwelling unit will. alightly Increase land cost per unit. Ifajor fees: 1) TWO column includes the major development fees Including storm drain area fees and geologic and soils report. The staff will reevaluateapplicability of fees to'low:density hillside development. General noten: 1) The road costs do not include soft roam such as engineering and financing. It is assumed that land dedications' for geguart goad will be granted by adjoining owners without cost. 2) The road nod utility estimates were based upon recent cost estimates by its City and private utility companies. 1'he costs reflect Improvement 1 built to City specifications. r N 1 7) Per unit costs are average costs based upon hypothltical development plan prepared by staff. h1 F'• OC C H N -2- • C� is Ela �Qap� O�COib da vll3• 31 —J, a Exisfig Gravel Road (To Be Pored) 1 x .-'\\ -/ - • • r"ioposed Pwec Road 1 -Phillips, YMCP, and Clonor Property Hypothetical Lwelling Aw •.• >� ��- — —� A_ L___HYPOTHETICAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR !TA!T�ANYON AREA Based -dy MI -RURAL Sac. - - - - - - - - -- - airy of oopertino GENERAL PLAN IGI�RF_ 9 0 HYPOTHETICAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR INSPIRATION HEIGHTS Based on the slope -density 1/2oc. FOOTHILL MODIFIED - � a C— Oily of capertino 0 y } - c Study Area ._..._..__.----. -- a \ Roperty 0"rship Boundary posed Roods Existing Dwellings aHypothetkal Dwellings GENERAL PLAN FIGURE 10 I - U :d j �� o `Il 0" j O" p .p Q I � �II�Q'QaLoa �0 o P _ P1_ o i P �Qq13 ON I n �� f p 45 o 0 Q a ❑ - ❑ a 0I � ❑ (�L7/ � � � r � ,l ��� ",II � ��/ � �� _ � �� a�—o °o .0, o '// \ °ti .�r� sl ❑ ",, gyp. C', 1.1 °.. — 00 I �I� ] a a 0 00 O Q o �/ Q v1. 0 �`�oO0000 0 flood' qII o:❑ 6 dOp °°� E)oo p ❑ I 00 d 0,o ❑ al=l o o ., ❑ r� 0 aI;�_ — 000000 I o 0 C:].[:) oo ri �— 0000000 .o FII SII A op000ao❑ _ L6-1 o� I I Iel o ���OEZJC=l��i fni _ I� 04 0000po��•: � ', i°..- _,O .� li / • .I'I _ [� I��j Fx /j�3 \�i P (f3+"y f„��p'�9� j�ai�`g?`� �s s ���r �� � \� �� \ ,'.\� �` no W ON 1 _l"l_ _ _—✓ /� lib. �`�gR �7rt ` - - V �1. � ', rrq � I :ter:- �,�?. a° g ,,,�.® c ��..,�J �g... i � 1 tt?•= '`'.� �= - _. / a � r"^y� u' . '� I +ff! s ��s a{ " t # ✓ a smw o..A _ . / � �ii i Y!% •� � �/-\e I I 1 \�Y: � \ \ ..\ \ \ • HYPOTHETICAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PrIIIJ Of C FOR INSPIRATION HEIGHTS C� GENERA a.�,�.� 2a. Fom «Eo [Leo upertino C I PLAN Hill Area General Plan (cont'd) -------------------------------- Air Quality and Energy Consumption Evaluations I �• I The Planning Commission evaluated the impact of the alternative plans on the utilization of energy as well as the impact of alternative development plans on air quality within the hillside region. An analysis of both factors was conducted by Dr. D. J. Myronuk. The written reports are contained with the technical Appendix B attached to this document. Because of the relatively close similarity of each alternative to each other, the energy section concludes that it is extremely difficult to quantify the five hill alternatives as to their relative energy consumption. The energy section does, however, describe the total energy requirement for each plan alternative based upon certain assumptions. As expected, the higher density alternatives will result in increased energy consumption. Based on the assumption that lower density plans would be characterized by more expensive and larger units and based upon the fact that the transportation energy estimates were based upon the proximity of dwelling units to Freeway 280, the total energy per unit decreases as densities increase to a limited degree. The final paragraph -of the energy section emphasizes that the energy impact of development "is more realistically approached not by how many residences are built but simply how they are built." Air Quality The air quality technical appendix indicates that "it is very unlikely any Federal or State standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons or particulaTes • will be exceeded.or appreciably.accumulated on site except for high localized short duration expisodes when particulate borne by wind is deposited on the ground." The ' contaminant level increases from the very low density alternative to the maximum density alternative. However, the report emphasizes that the localized air quality impact of each alternative in terms of roadside concentrations of contaminant is dependent not only on the density level but the resultant road developmer t projected by the City. Table AQ -3 of the air quality section outlines the roadside ` concentrations of carbon monoxide for the 14 traffic evaluation points studied in the traffic section of Appendix B. The no -growth alternative indicates a ` relatively high concentration of carbon monoxide for Stations L, J, G, K and G Gbecause of the assumption that under the no -growth alternative, the City will not be in a position to fund the capital improvements to upgrade the road network in response to increased through traffic that has neither origin nor destination in the area. As such, increased congestion will occur. The increased congestion will result in increased idle time and idle -mode emissions. The air quality section can be summarized -by stating that the five plan alternatives do not alter f the ambient air quality within the hill area of Santa Clara Valley, however, the j degree of road improvements can significantly affect the concentrations of pollutants in close proximity to the travel lanes. CAs a conclusion, it may be stated that development in the hill area, within the limits studied here, has little impact on air quality and energy consumption. Rather, it is the total number.of people and automobiles in the Santa Clara Valley that is significant and the manner in which conservation measures are incorporated into home construction and roadway improvements are made to reduce congestion. -45- Hill -Area -General Plan (cont'd) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Economic Impact Assessment of City/County Plan (1/2 acre Foothill modified formula) The following assessment of economic impact resulting from implementation of the City/County Plan (1/2 acre Foothill Modified formula) is based upon the assumptions formulated in Appendix B, Section 16, of this document. Estimates of the fiscal impact indicate that the anticipated local revenues from the 1,809 dwelling units under the plan will approximately cover the costs of municipal services associated with the development. This assessment is based on the relatively high expected market value per unit associated with the new formula ($90,000+) and the correspondingly high property taxes per unit. Additionally, the staff estimates that while costs of community and neighborhood park development, acquisition and maintenance were based upon rates for valley floor parks; the future parks will be of a less intense character and hence require significantly less costly development and maintenance. A second and equally important category of economic impact assessment includes the expected employment and housing opportunities which may be generated by new development. Based upon the preliminary assessment, it can be expected that a total of 820 service-oriented job opportunities plus 120 non -durable trade employment opportunities will be created as a result of the increased population associated with the development in the hillsides. The beneficiaries of the total 940 long-term job opportunities will not necessarily be located in the Cupertino area. Short-term employment opportunities were expected to be only minimal as the anticipated build -out period may take from 10 to 20+ years. The construction trades, which are the primary beneficiaries of short-term employment opportunities, can only expect a minimum increase in demand for their services in any one year. The housing opportunities associated with the hillside plan will result in a direct increase in the supply of high priced units and only indirectly will benefit low,moderate and median income families through what is commonly known as the "filtering process". That is, as higher income families move to the new hillside dwelling units, upper moderate income families will buy into their homes and subsequently through filtering some additional homes will be made available at the median and low income levels. However, the benefit will be only of a marginal nature and can be expected to reinforce the existing income concentration patterns existing in Santa Clara County. -46- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd) • Summary/Evaluation: The Most Optimum Alternative The evaluation matrix "scorecard" tends to favor the Very Low Density Plan in terms of all three of the evaluation factor categories. The conclusion is natural inasmuch as it is generally true that the fewer the number of individuals within the study area the less impact on natural resources, the less exposure to•natural hazards and the least demand on governmental servic- ing requirements. The Commission and City Council found, however, that the community goals for the City must be kept in balance when reviewing alterna- tive plans for hillside development. Although the Very Low Density Plan most directly reflects the goal to maintain the natural characteristics of the hill area, the Plan, on the other hand has a negative effect upon the goal of the City to remain a balanced community; one which provides a choice of housing within the community. The task then was to adopt a Plan which tended to balance the two overall community goals. With that objective in mind, the Very Low Density alternative and the Maximum Density alternative were rejected because they represented an extreme position at either end of the spectrum. The three remaining plans, the County Plan, the City Plan and the City/County Plan are similar in many respects. Neither plan alternative will require drastic road improvement beyond that which would normally be required to serve development growth in other portions of the community and the County as a whole (commute traffic) nor would either of the three alternatives drastically affect the sewer capacity or the ability of the public and private water agencies to serve residents with moderate • capital improvements. Although the three plan approaches are similar, the Commission and City Council determined that the City/County Plan approach, modified by the application of the Foothill Modified, the Foothill Modified One -Half Acre, and Semi -Rural 5 Acre Formulas, more clearly satisfy the need to :maintain the natural characteristics of the hill area and provide for a balanced community via a greater range of housing type. The plan proposes relatively low densities on the flatter fringe properties such as the Seven Springs Ranch and "Catholic Church" properties which will result in a more rural atmosphere in the land areas adjacent to the foothills. The modified City/County Plan will result in low densities for the more environmentally sensitive steeper hillsides within the Urban Service Area. The City/County Plan recognizes the Santa Clara County Planning Policy Committee's Montebello Ridge Plan for the areas outside of the Urban Service Area. Said plans were forwarded to the County Board of Supervisors with a favorable recommendation from the City Council. The plan was subsequently adopted by the Board in September of 1974. -47- i w. DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN PLAN POLICY INFORMATION SPECIFICATION EVALUATION FORMULATION BASE COMMUNITY NATURAL NATURAL DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES HAZARDS i r O 0 o N 0 � z � Z 0o Z n 0 (3 n _ii nv Q m. A m; m m z p o m 0 Z N 0 6 n m z m m E r - g z 00 y in r'� 0 VERY LOWt + + + -0 i' 0 ` i O %o DENSITY + + 0 -COUNTY PLAN- Y + 0 o o o Ppc O+ f- O— O + O O MONTEBELLO RIDGE ST — - COMfAISSION'S TENTATIVE +1 0 00 O O 0 O S/D FORMULAS O O 0 O CITY/COUNTYf- 0 0 0 0 0 t 0— Q PLAN - — — U — — MAXIMUM- _ O OL O + O z DENSITY — — _ O — TAREA REA WITHIN © POSITIVE INTERACTION •FACTORS WHICH DETERMINE LAND USE INTENSITY FIGURERBAN SERVICE Q NEGATIVE EM NEUTRALUTSIDE URBAN ERVICE AREA Hill Area General Plan (cont'd) SEnvironmental Impact Analysis of Optimum Plan Alternative Although the Modified City/County Plan is the most optimum of the plans evaluated in the study, the plan will provide for eventual urban development that could result in environmental problems. The remaining section of this document will analyze the adverse environmental effects which can be expected to result from eventual development based upon the plan; will discuss the short term and long term uses of the environment; will discuss the growth inducing impact of the plan as it relates to the region, and will describe mitigation measures to minimize impacts which can be avoided. Adverse Environmental Effects The adoption of the modified City/County Plan General Plan Alternative will result in development which will have adverse impacts. 1. The long-term implementation of the General Plan will require the expenditures of public monies to modify the Foothill Boulevard/Route 280 Freeway interchange or modify the existing interchange to provide moderate reconstruction to provide six lanes and D to C level of service. Although other traffic arteries.within the western part of town would have to be modified, the modification would be primarily prompted by increased • commute traffic and is not directly attributable to new development as a result of the implementation of the Hillside General Plan. The implementation of the General Plan will create traffic which will have secondary impacts associated with slightly increased air pollution. Detailed data regarding air quality can be found within Appendix B. 2. Implementation of the Hillside General Plan would result in the development of 75 acres of prime agricultural land (Class 2 soil) and 165 acres of Class 3 soil which has limited capacity for agricultural use. The Commission found that agricultural use per se is not economically viable because of competition from South County and to a greater extent competition from other agricultural sections of the State. However, the Commission found that the agricultural areas could be used for quasi -agricultural uses such as horse stabling and other recreational uses. 3. The development of approximately 1994 dwelling units in the Urban Service Area and area outside Urban Service Area on approximately 9,400 acres will decrease the vegetative cover, particularly in the Urban Service Area, and as such will decrease the habitats of a number of animal species. The removal of vegetative cover will not be significant in terms of a potential effect on water quantity and quality if erosion control measures are implemented. -49- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) ----------------------- y4. The implementation of the General Plan will result in development that will subject people to geologic, fire,and to a lesser extent, flood risk. It should be stressed that the General Plan established land use intensities for development that will occur over an unknown time frame. In recognition of the unique timing aspect of the subject project, the impacts discussed in detail in Appendix B and described in general in the above section describe the cumulative impact of the number of developments that will occur over time. The purpose of a General Plan review is to assess the long range implications of alternative development proposals for the geographical planning area. The General Plan is not a static document but one that is constantly evaluated over time to reflect new community -wide goals and other factors which determine the development pattern for a particular planning area. Growth Inducing Impact of the Plan The function of the General Plan is to define the ultimate development intensity . of the community for a future time frame. In this sense, the General Plan, when implemented through private and public land development will induce growth. It should be recognized, however, that the General Plan in this instance provides for land use types and intensities that will have a lesser environmental impact than were development to occur based upon existing land use planning. Thus, in relative terms, the implementation of the General Plan would result in less growth than that currently allowed by virtue of the existing General Plan and City zoning districts within the study area. Final Environmental Impact Report As required by the environmental assessment procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on March 27, 1973, as amended, a verbatium account of comments received from the general public and other public agencies concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Report together with appropriate responses, is attached to this document. The public comments and responses section begins on page 58 of this document. The minutes of the public hearings are available for review in the City office. -50- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd) iPolicy Development: Clarification of Objectives and Mitigation of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The following policies are incorporated into the General Plan to clarify the intent of the physical plan and to respond to unavoidable adverse impacts that will occur when development takes place based on the plan. General Hillside Policies 1. The upper hills and lower foothills as delineated on Figure 1 may be developed with low intensity residential use with the dwelling unit intensity to be based upon the application of a slope density formula as described in Appendix A. Limited commercial/professional office uses may be permitted within a Planned Development if said uses directly serve the residents located within a Planned Community. Existing quarrying opera- tions or other industrial operations that directly relate to a natural resource located within the hillside may be permitted subject to the appropriate development review process. Quasi - public facilities may be developed subject to the appropriate development review process. , The public acquisition of open space outside the City's urban service area is in conformity with the City's General Plan. Public • acquisition of open space inside the urban service area is encouraged as generally being in conformity with the General Plan but shall be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure that such acquisition does not conflict with another defined General Plan Policy. Additionally, the hillside area may be used for agricultural and other low intensity public and private open space and rec- reation uses. 2. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted on a specific property shall be determined through the application of the slope density formulas described on the plan and in Appendix A. A hillside zoning ordinance shall be developed to establish criteria which will be utilized to further determine the per- mitted number of dwelling units. Said criteria shall include such items as geologic stability, vegetation, hazards related to fire and flooding, aesthetics relative to grading, degree of accessability to roads, and distance between homes. 3. Development of hillside properties located in close proximity to the urban fringe shall utilize the development standards described in the subdivision ordinance. In order to preserve and maintain the rural character of semi -rural areas in the hillsides, such as Regnart Canyon, public and private improvements shall be installed in accordance with the following minimum standards. A semi -rural area is defined as an area with an average lot size -of 2.5 acres or greater per dwelling. -51- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd) Roads a) Major roadways serving as collectors shall have a minimum travelled - way width of twenty-four (24) feet. However, this may be reduced b)0toavoid natural features such as topography, vegetation, et cetera. Minor roadways, cul-de-sacs and roadways serving ten (10) or less dwelling units shall have twenty (20) feet in travelled -way width with lessening of that width permitted in consideration of natural features of the area. 'c) Private roads serving five (5) or less dwelling units shall have a minimum of eighteen (18) feet of travelled -way width. Surface shall `consist of a minimum of oil and screening and the slope shall not exceed fifteen per -cent (15X): Grades exceeding fifteen per cent (15X) and not greater than twenty per cent (20X) for a maximum of three hundred (300) feet shall have a minimum of asphalt or concrete surface. d) .Driveways serving individual dwelling units shall have a minimum of -travelled -way width of twelve (12) feet with passing turnouts as 'required. e). Curb and gutter will not be required. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to roadways to contain runoff. f)- Formal sidewalks will not be required. However, pedestrian and equestrian trails may be required where terrain permits. Utilities g)'` Gas - Public facility will not be required in lieu of other private methods such as propane, oil, electric, and new inovative systems. fh). Electric - Overhead lines will be allowed with natural setting + utilized as screening technique. Undergrounding will be required i from source to structure. j i) Telephone - Lines will follow the same required as for electrical. i ;j) Street Lighting - Will not be required. Safety lighting may be necessary if safety hazards can be shown. Q Water - Approved and accepted water system by the City. Private individual wells will not be accepted. 1) Sewer - Individual sanitary system approved by the County Health Department will be permitted. m) Storm System - Adequate Storm facilities shall be provided to control erosion, dissipate high velocity due to slopes, and to properly channel water to Regnart Creek. q x -52- T Hill Area General Plan (cont'd) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. In order to promote harmonious development, parceling of properties without an approved development plan shall not be allowed. _ This policy does not apply if the subdivider can _ demonstrate that the parceling will not adversely: -.affect -road -.and utility planning nor result in a development pattern which conflicts with environmental goals outlined in the General Plan. 5. Residential development in the hillside area of the General Plan may include density bonuses if such development meets a special community- wide housing goal and increase in density will not adversely affect the traffic carrying capacity of local streets or the capacity of other public services. 6. Certain properties or groups of properties may be more sensitive to development than others due to.physical characteristics and as such, the City may require that the property be rezoned to a Planned Development district in a case of a.mixture of residential types or single-family residential development. 7. As a general rule,,lots of record, legally created by the County or City subdivision approval process prior.to the date -of approval of this document can be utilized'as a single-family building site, even though the application of slope density formulas, as defined in Exhibit C, would prohibit development. The above statement does not, apply to substantially vacant, non -improved, small lot subdivisions that were recorded years ago without adequate field investigations and improvement plans. With respect to such subdivisions, lots of record can be utilized as a single-family building site, even though the application of slope density formulas, as defined in Exhibit C-1, would prohibit development, under any one of the following circumstances: (a) Where the owner of a lot either owns, or thereafter acquires, contiguous land which can be and is combined with such lot, by the filing of a new map, to create a new lot or lots which conforms to the slope density formulas, as defined in Exhibit C-1; or (b) Where a lot was under one ownership on the date of approval of this document, and provided the owner of such lot has not owned or purchased any contiguous land since the approval of this document which would allow him to meet the requirements of sub -paragraph (a), aboveNM 8. The minim7.,m lot size shall be established upon development plan approval and tentative map approval after consideration of grading, access, and natural features of the site. `• 9. Zoning districts that were enacted based upon the Planning Commission Hillside General Plan recommendation shall remain valid even though the density provisions of said zoning districts are inconsistent with the slope density formulas described in Appendix A of this document. Said zoning districts are: -53- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd) File number 4-Z-75 13-Z-74 28-Z-74 2-Z-76 Applicant Lamont Williams San Carlos Homes Herman City of Cupertino 10. The 735+ acre "Catholic Church" property is designated for residential purposes with the land use intensity to be based upon the slope density formulas described in Appendix A and Exhibit C-1. Since the extent of surplus land (land available for development) is not known, the land area designated for development on Exhibit C-1 is general. In no case shall the total number of dwellings constructed in the property exceed 400. As stated in Policy 1, the use of all or part of the subject property as an open space or urban park use is encouraged. 11. The Montebello Ridge Plan adopted by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors on September 11, 1974 is here by incorporated and applied to the planning area outside of the Urban Service Area. -54- Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) .r� '�'• Specific Hillside Policies The following policies are site specific. They are intended to regulate development in a manner to mitigate environmental impacts associated with individual hillside developments. <- 1. Building sites and -driveways shall avoid significant trees. Develop- ment should be concentrated on portions of the property which have limited natural vegetation. 2. Public rights of way shall be designed to avoid significant trees and natural creek settings. Implementation of this policy may require shifting. of the right of way from common property lines. 3. Non hazardous indigenous vegetation shall be utilized to stabilize graded areas or to replace vegetation removed in conjunction with necessary building site and road improvements.. Said landscaping shall be maintained. until well established. Non indigenous vegetation may be utilized if permanently irrigated. '4. In the case of properties located adjacent to public open space preserves and parks, public rights of way, private driveways and building sites shall be removed as far as possible from said open space and parkland so as to enhance their natural open space character and protect vegetation and animal resources. `-• 5. In order to protect the habitat of wildlife, properties within the Urban Service Area containing two acres or greater and properties outside of the Urban Service Area shall not_be fenced in a manner to preclude animal migration. 6. Unique land features such as prominent ridge tops and stream beds shall be retained when property is developed. In cases where a significant proportion of the property is characterized by a unique land feature as described in Appendix B, the City may require that development be requlated by the Planned Development or Residential Cluster Zoning District. Said zoning districts will permit -a development design team to plan the property in a manner which would enhance the unique land form resource. As a general rule, prominent ridge tops shall not be used for the placement of streetsand buildings. In cases where it is necessary to place roadways on top of ridge lines, grading for said roadways will not be visible from the valley floor. Houses located on or near ridge tops shall be located in it manner so as not to be silhouetted against the skyline as viewed from the valley floor. 7. Habitable structures shall be prohibited from locating within a 100 -year flood plain as'defined by the City of Cupertino based upon data from the - Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Planning Commission may require a separate hydrologic investigation to insure that development adjacent -55- 'II111 Area General Plan '(cont'd.) to tributary streams serving the Stevens Creek Canyon watershed and other watersheds would not present a risk to life and property. Specific policies regarding development of property that contains land designated as flood prone are as follows: a. In no case shall structures designed for forced human habitation such as dwelling units be allowed in the natural flood plain as defined by the General Plan -based upon data submitted by the Santa Clara Valley hater District. Swimming pools, unfenced volleyball courts, picnic tables and similar recreation uses common to a commercial/recreational use and residential develop- ment can be constructed within the natural flood plain. b. The maximum number of dwelling units allowed on each property or group of properties consolidated into one development will be based upon the appropriate slope density formula as described in Appendix A and the General Plan exhibit. e. The land area within the natural flood plain can be credited with an amount not to exceed one dwelling unit per gross acre to deter- m;.ne the total number of dwelling units permitted on each property or group of properties consolidated into one development. In the event a development outside of the natural flood plain receives the credit of one dwelling unit per acre, the overall density of that development shall not exceed six dwelling units per gross �• acre. This policy will preclude a situation whereby a relatively small property will obtain a high density status as a result of one dwelling unit per acre density credit from a relatively large area within the flood plain. The total number of units allowed on the property or group of properties consolidated into a single develop- ment plan will be based upon the ability of the applicant and his professional design team to integrate the development into the natural environment of Stevens Creek and adjacent residential neighborhoods. d. Public and quasi -public land uses and agricultural land uses shall be allowed within the natural flood plain after particular use is reviewed in conjunction with a specific zoning and/or use permit application. 8, A geologic investigation shall be required for each potential residential development prior to approval of a subdivision or an individual building site. Said investigation shall result in a geologic report evaluating the stability of the proposed building sites with respect to slope stability and seismic hazards. The report shall address itself to the following areas of specific concern: a) A general statement of the geologic setting of the site with respect to known faults and landslides. b) The location of the site with respect to mapped traces of the Berrocal, Monta Vista, and San Andreas faults. (See Sorg and McLaughlin, 1975) -56-- e Hill Area General Plan (cont'd.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) In the event that a proposed site is within Z mile of one of these fault traces, an investigation must be conducted to establish that structures will not be placed across an active rupture surface. The method of investigation, and its duration, should be described. , c) Evaluation of the site in.terms of potential for slope failure, particularly with respect to effects from grading activity. d) An explicit statement of recommendations, to include any mitigation measures designed to reduce levels of risk resulting from geologic hazards. An evaluation of the data submitted may require significant modifications to the land use proposal such as reduction in density and/or relocation Of units to a more advantageous portion of the property. -57- • PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CITY RESPONSE SECTION The following letters were received by the City during the review period for the draft Environmental Impact Report: 1. Letter from Richard R. Thaxton, Battalion Chief - CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2. Letter from John E. Fleming - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT 3. Letter from B. C. Bachtold, Deputy District Director - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4. Letter from Frank Farran - SANTA CLARA VALLEY AUDUBON SOCIETY 5. Letter from Dr. Bernard H. Goldner, Environmental Specialist - S.C.VALLEY WATER DISTR A City response to each letter follows. City Response to Public Comments Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hillside General Plan Draft EIR Letter of September 29, 1975, Central Fire Protection District City Response to Public Comments Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hillside General Plan Draft EIR Letter of October 1, 1975, Cupertino Sanitary District City Response to Public Comments Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hillside General Plan Draft EIR Letter of September 23, 1975, California • Transportation Department City Response to Public Comments Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hillside General Plan Draft EIR Letter of September 29, 1975, Frank Farren I• City Response to Public Comments Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Report to the Hillside General Plan Draft EIR Letter of October 2, 1975, Santa Clara Valley Water District Response to comments regarding draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hillside General Plan Draft EIR Letter of September 29, 1975, Frank Farran 0 1 CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT J3071 DRIFTWOOD DRIVE SAN JOSE, CA. 95128 SINCE 1947 408.378-4010 29 September 1975 L RKT : j g • -59- Mr. James Sisk Planning Director City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mr. Sisk: The Central Fire Protection District has reviewed the City of Cupertino's Hillside General Plan draft of the Environmental Impact Report. The District is in general agreement with the Environ- mental Impact Report. The Fire District does not, at this time, have any additional input, but at such time that the hillside standards are developed, would have considerable input in respect to access and water supply for fire protection. rte. Very truly yours,) Richard K. Thaxton Battalion Chief RKT : j g • -59- DISTRICT MANADER-ENOINECR •MARK THOMAS L CO. INC. JOHN E. FLEMING 20065 STEVENR CREEK GLVD. CUPEI ,NO. Ce. 85014 (4138) 253-70`71 DISTRICT COUNSEL PHILIP D. ASSAF 630 N. SAN MATED DRry P. D. BOX 152 BAN MATED. CA. $4401 (415) 342-3523 CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT BANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF DIRECTORS CURTIS S. HARRISON, PRET. EDWARD J. HAHAMIAN. SEC. DR. JOS. F. BROWN ROY M. RUSHTON MAURICE F. LA BRIE October 1, 1975 File: CuSD MOP City of Cupertino Planning Department Mr. James H. Sisk Planning Director City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Dear Mr. Sisk: We are in receipt of the City of Cupertino's Hillside General Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, and have reviewed the material as it relates to the District's sanitary sewerage facilities. In 1964 the District published a study entitled, "Report on the Revised Master C• Sewer Plan for the Cupertino Sanitary District, Santa.Clara County". The sewerage system was designed on the basis of material then available from the Planning Departments of the County, Cities of Cupertino, Saratoga, San Jose and Los Altos. Since 1964 many studies and General Plan preparations have taken place and we have been in contact periodi- cally with the various agencies to see if we needed to make any material change in our Master Plan. The "Summary Evaluation" in the Cupertino Hillside General Plan points out that the County Plan, the City Plan and the City/County Plan are similar in land use or densities. The District's 1964 Master Sewer Plan provides adequate facilities for any of these alternatives. Although the 1964 Master Sewer Plan anticipated one acre lots in the Hillside area the High Density Alternative would require a careful review of trunk line capacities. If this Alternative is selected and more details are available we would need some time to make a closer evaluation and additional comments relating to the sewer system. We currently have an additional Interceptor under construction through Santa Clara to the San Jose -Santa Clara Treatment Plant. The District currently awns an 8.0 MGD capacity in the Plant and in addition is pur- chasing the same capacity in the Advance Waste Treatment Phase now out to bid. All of these activities were anticipated and recommended in the District's 1964 Report. N .f Mr. James H. Sisk, Planning Director (• October 1., 1975 Page 2 All District studies and plans have conformed to the Regional and State Water Quality Control Boards' , "San Francisco Bay Basin Plan" and the South Bay Dischargers, "Water Quality Management Plan for South San Francisco Bay". The City of Cupertino's Hillside General Plan will not affect the basic design of the District's system or the Regional system. Thank you for coordinating your planning activities with all interested parties and if we can be of any further assistance please let me know. JEF/ds cc: Cupertino Sanitary District Board of Directors Counsel Assaf c� -61- Yours very truly, MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. District Manager -Engineer / Imo, John E. Flemin STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Go•.roor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 3366 RINCON ANNEX F i SAN FRANCISCO 94119 51 557.180 1LI1 .1; September 23, 1975 04 -SCI -85/280 Mr. James H. Sisk Planning Director City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue `j Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mr. Sisk: 1r ' r This is in response to your referral of a preliminary general plan for the Cupertino hillsides and related environmental impact report. • We have reviewed these documents in a general way without attempting to verify details and have concluded that they are adequate insofar as functions and responsibilities of the Department of Transportation are concerned. However, it is suggested that mention (Page. 39) of the necessity of expending public monies to modify the Foothill Boulevard - Route 280 Interchange be amplified to..include a better identification of the source of such monies. The current outlook for future availability of State highway funds for t i such projects is dim due to continuing diminution through the combined effects of reducing revenue and increasing costs. Very truly yours, T. R. LAMMERS Dist ict rector By B..C. BACHTOLD Deputy District Director -62- TO: • FROM: Robert Cowan, Assistant Planning Director Frank Farran September 29, 1975 SUBJECT: Review of Cupertino Hillside General Plan Environmental Impact Report Per your request, I have reviewed the Cupertino Hillside General Plan EIR as a representative of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society of which I am a former director. I have been authorized by the president of the organization to act in this capacity. In addition, I have made some other comments which stem from 20 years experience in various phases of mechanical engineering as well as a lifetime familiarity with problems associated with development in rural areas of California. The two categories of comments are listed separately. My overall impression of the document is that it is a thorough, competent piece of work. My only general criticism is that the people, or at least organization, �- who prepared the document be given credit on the title page. The following comments in regard to the main document are all made in my capacity as a representative of the Audubon Society: Page 13, 'Wildlife" - There are other ways in which development puts pressure on wildlife. The most important factor is that habitat is eliminated. Other effects are that many shy animals are driven off • simply because they are afraid of man. Automobile traffic is most destructive of wildlife, particularly slow moving creatures and nocturnal animals which are blinded by lights. The presence of development results in conflicts between man and wildlife which are normally resolved to the detriment of the animal. As an example, the usual human response to a wild animal which raids a garden is to..kill-the..animal. Creatures -such as harmless:.and=beneficial snakes are systematically killed by many rural homeowners simply out of .ignorance. One of the major negative effects of structures on birds '1 is that the birds are killed by flying into windows. This is 7, -� particularly true when the building is in the woods and the windows large and in the shade. The above comments, of course, apply to the 'Wildlife" paragraphs contained.with the discussion of the other four plans considered. Page 30, 6th Daragraph down - In a rural area utility poles and over- head wires generally have a positive effect on wildlife, particularly birds. Many birds from large Redtailed Hawks to tiny Goldfinches have a decided preference for utility poles and wires as perches. Page 37, Summary/Evaluation - In any choice such as the one at hand, the Audubon Society would generally favor the Very Low Density Plan. 0 . -63- ry Review of Cupertino Hillside General Plan Environmental Impact Report Sept. 29, 1975 �• The following comments in regard to Appendix B are made in my capacity as a representative of the Audubon Society: Page 152 - This listing of birds is really too general to be of much value. There are several, and in some cases may, species of Owls, Hummingbirds, Flycatchers, Swallows, Jays, Wrens, Finches, Blackbirds and Sparrows which are found in the Voss Avenue area at one time of year or another. Each species within a group has its own discrete habitat requirements. For example, Song Sparrows are only found around the pond. Fox Sparrows are found in the brush. Page 188, 2nd paragraph - See comments in regard to Page 30 of the main document. The following comments in regard to Appendix B are made on the basis of my engineering experience or a lifetime familiarity with development in rural areas of California. (^ Page 64 - Since water doesn't run uphill unless it is in a confined channel under pressure, the presence of any appreciable amount of year around ground water on the ridgetops seems unlikely. . In such areas it would appear that until.such time as water is pumped up from the valley, development will be limited by the water supply not the slope density formula. • Page 178 - Sunset Magazine has published some excellent articles on the flamability of vegetation based on experience in California fires. An automatic sprinkler system located along the ridge line of the roof is a good investment in a rural house.' Page 182 - As noted above, ridgetop houses will probably have a problem obtaining water. The most likely immediate solution-vould-appear to -be to develop sources in the canyons and pump the water to the ridges. The consumption of energy for pumping would be appreciable. A very rough calculation was made assuming 800 gallons per day is raised 500 feet by a pumping system with an overall efficiency of 25%. This would add about 4.8 kilowatt hours to the daily household electrical budget of 18.6 kilowatt hours, an increase of over 25%. Page 186, Paragraph 4 - Solar water heaters are certainly feasible. When I was a small child in California in the late 1920's, we had a solar water heater on a mountain house. However, if one is planned in an earthquake area, the house should'be designed to resist the additional loads resulting during an earthquake from a large mass of water on the roof. Page 190 - Something over half of. the electricity produced by PG&E is generated by oil or gas fired steam plants. Since many BTU's worth of fuel must be burned in the power station to produce a BTU of electrical heat in the home, gas applicances represent a more efficient use of ( energy than electrical applicances. This should be mentioned. When all power generation is hydroelectric, geothermal or nuclear and reserves of gas and oil are about gone, the argument for gas will no longer hold. -64- Review of Cupertino Hillside General Plan Environmental Impact Report Sept. 29, 1975 -------------------------- —------------- --------------------------------------------- •Pape 181 last paragraph and Page 182, middle of page - The use of the unit "kilowatts" is incorrect. "Kilowatts" is a measure of power on rate of consumption of energy. The term here should be "kilowatt hours" which is a unit of energy as is BTU or therms. It is "kilowatt hours" of electricity and "therms" of gas used that the homeowner is billed for each month. The above comments not withstanding, it is my feeling that Dr. Myronuk provided a thorough, accurate analysis of the energy problem. • -65- Santa Clara Valley Water District • 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY /) SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 �+ 1• October 2, 1975 Mr. James H. Sisk Planning Director City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Dear Mr. Sisk: Subject: Draft EIR on City of Cupertino Hillside General Plan We have reviewed the subject EIR with the following comments: 1. The effects of hillside development on the hydrology of the various creeks and streams were not mentioned. The measures to mitigate these effects should be addressed. 2. The method of wastewater disposal to be used in the lower density areas was not indicated. If septic tanks or similar systems are used, the impacts are significant and should be addressed. 3. Page 158. Section 16.08.080b. We recommend that the geological or flood, hazard should be reviewed by a geologist rather than a civil engineer. Thank you. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Sincerely yours, A- Dr. Bernard H. Goldner Environmental Specialist Environmental Assessment Division City Resoons '• for the Hill Fire Protect n District omments Regarding Plan Draft EIR Let 29 t Report The Central Fire Protection District will have input into the City's subsequent amendment of the grading and subdivision ordinances and the future development of the hillside residential zoning district. These ordinances will address detailed development standards such as driveway widths, percent- age of grade on driveway slopes, water storage on individual homesites, etc. City Response to Public Comments Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hillside General Plan Draft EIR Letter of October 1 1975, Cupertino Sanitary District The District points out that the recommended City Plan alternative can be serviced by the District. However, the Maximum Plan alternative which essentially entails development at the level of intensity provided for by existing zoning districts would require a more careful review of trunk line capacities. The General Plan/Environmental Impact Report states that the District may have the capacity to serve the maximum alternative, however, given the uncertainties regarding specific developments within the Core and Infilling Area, the maximum plan should not be accepted unless a detailed study of the capacity of sewer system is made. City Response to Public Comments Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hillside General Plan Draft EIR Letter of September 23, 1975, Californ Transportation Department Cal -Trans comment refers to the "adverse environmental effects" section of Exhibit C-2 on Page 39. The implementation of the City Plan will require a complete modification of the Foothill Boulevard Route'280 interchange Yo retain.a B-6 level of service at eight lanes or a limited modification to the existing interchange to provide the 6-F level at six lanes. Cal -Trans is concerned about the lack of detail regarding the source of public monies that would be utilized to modify the interchange. At this time, it is not possible to identify -he amount of monies involved or the source. The staff will subait a policy recommendation to the City Council requiring specific developments to contribute monies into a pool to make key improvements such as the subject interchange and other key high cost street oriented construction projects. City ReSDonse to Public Comments Regarding Draft Environmental Impact xeport for the Hillside General Plan Draft EIR Letter of September 29, 1975, Frank Farren Page 13 - Wildlife Mr. Farre s comment substantiates the EIR's statement that construction of housing units within the foothills adversely affects wildlife because of • the introduction of domestic animals. Mr. Farren lists other ways in which residential development adversely affects wildlife. -67- Page 30, 6th paragraph Comment reflects the opinion of the writer. Page 37 - Summary/Evaluation The Hillside Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Summary/Evaluation concludes that from a strictly environmental point of view the very Low Density Plan is optimum. The evaluation section goes on, however, to say that the choice of the City Plan represents a balancing of the need to maintain the natural, environment and to provide a balanced community via greater housing choice. Page 152 From the Audubon Society's point of view, the General Plan/EIR section on wildlife is probably too general to be of much value. From the General Plan point of view, however, the City staff is most interested in determining whether broad species would be generally affected by urban development, parti- cularly species that are on the endangered list. Page 188 - Second Paragraph No comment. Page 64 l• Currently there are no studies available which define the availability of ., ground water for domestic use within the hillsides. The County Planning Department has requested funding to conduct such a study but as of this date no monies have been appropriated. Most likely development requests in the upper reaches of the hill area within the Urban Service Area and the area outside the Urban Service Area and the area -outside the Urban Service Area will -be -evaluated on a case by case basis -relative to the availability of .water. Page 178 No comment. Page 182 The staff response to comments relating to Pages 182, 186, 190 and 181 are contained in a separate memo to James H. Sisk from Dr. Myronuk. City Response to Public Comments Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Report to the Hillside General Plan Draft EIR Letter of October 2, 1975, Santa Clara Valley Water District Comment No. 1 A specific section on hydrology was.not incorporated into the Draft EIR • because of the opinion by the staff that the low density nature of development embodied in each of five General Plan alternatives would not increase the run-off co -efficient within the hillsides to a degree that would be perceivable. It is recognized, however, that specific development, plans within the hillsides could alter the water -carrying capacity of a particular stream due to the installations of culverts or through other grading operations. -68- Cogent No. 2 Dwelling units constructed outside of the Urban Service Area will be served . by individual septic tanks or similar systems. Potentially septic tanks could be constructed within the Urban Service Area should property owners/ developers opt to construct under the semi -rural formula approach. The Santa Clara Valley Water District's concern over septic tanks is appreciated. The hillside areas of Cupertino form a watershed which serves Stevens Creek Reservoir which is designed primarily for water conservation. Effluent from poorly constructed or poorly maintained septic tanks will eventually leach into the streambeds and thus into the reservoir. Presently, there is no research methodology available to define the dwelling unit density threshold for development under septic tank systeip in a manner which would preserve water quality. To generalize, the utiliz- ation of septic tank systems will have an adverse impact on water quality; how- ever; it is not possible to determine the degree of that impact under the present technologies available. To continue the generalization, the lower the density the less serious the adverse impact. r Com`ent No. 3 The staff concurs with the recommendation of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The seismic risk should be evaluated by a registered engineering geologist as opposed to a civil engineer. However, in the opinion of the staff, flood hazard can be evaluated by a registered civil engineer. The staff will recommend a revision of Section 16.08.080B at such time as the entire grading ordinance is reviewed. MM October 3, 1975 To: James H. Sisk From: D. J. Myronuk Subject: Response to comments regarding draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hillside General Plan Draft EIR Letter of September 29, 1975, Frank Farren With regard to increased water pumping costs for the Hill area residences, the estimated daily energy usage of 18.5 kilowatt hours includes an additional 3 kilowatt electrical energy burden to provide the additional pump work. For a . specific location, Mr. Farren provides an estimate of an additional 4.8 kilo- watt for a.daily household use of 800 gallons. I agree with his numbers in this specific, one -residence case compared to a residence on the Valley Floor. However, in context with the entire area, where many residences will be located at elevations with a range of altitudes less than 500 feet as well as higher than 500 feet, a series of water accumulation reservoirs will probably be set up with local distribution lines to accommodate the residential and fire-' service needs.. For these larger scale water -pumping operations, I estimated a lower average electrical energy burden (3 kilowatt per residence). This. number was then used in part to augment the average Valley household usage figure. Mr. Farren correctly points out the savings of energy when natural gas is used directly in the residence compared to burning the gas in power plants to produce electricity. Of the fuels (coal, oil, gas), used to produce y electricity, 2/3 of their energy content is wasted, 1/3 is available as electrical energy delivered to the user. Further inefficiencies in electrical appliances waste even more energy. In the limit it is reasonable to foresee the use of small, diesel -powered "generator -water heater -space heater and cooler" ,units :each servicing a- group of 20 to .30 .houses..or.:a .commercial business center. Although the diesel engine is still only about 30% efficient in opera- tion to produce electrical energy, and locally 2/3 of the energy content of the fuel is rejected as waste heat in the engine coolant, and exhaust gases, we can recover and utilize about 80% or more of this waste heat, to adequately heat our buildings, our water and even operate air coolers. (Reference E-2) Noise or emissions control for such units pose no problems. Eventual depletion of oil and gas reserves is expected. Additional energy sources, coal, solar and nuclear, should certainly be adequate to basically. satisfy the energy needs of the world while fusion reactors are being developed over the next 25 to 50 years. Solar water heaters have been successfully used for simple heating tasks for many years now. Yet until the average person is "energy -educated" by choice in the case of concerned citizens or by urger .neces- sity when the supplies run short or are rationed, the average individual still regards solar collectors as somewhat of a novelty and as such, general public utilization will be limited for the near future. • Mr. Farren is quite correct in pointing out the inadvertent use of the power term "kilowatt" when the proper term for energy as it is .sold is "kilowatt hour" J In transcribing estimated results to the final text, I accidentally left out the time element of the units. In conclusion I would like to thank Mr. Farren for his sincere concern for energy conservation. 70- Hill Area General Plan Organizations and Persons Contacted Primary Consultants Traffic: Donald K. Goodrich, Consulting Engineer Energy'and Air Quality: Donald J. Myronuk, Ph.D. Organizations California Department of Resources, Division of Mines and Geology Tom Rogers Central Fire District Chief John Cornelius Chief 'Richard Thaxton Cupertino Sanitary District ' William McBee Cupertino Union School District Frank Brunetti Jerd Ferraiuolo Mid -Peninsula Regional Park District Herbert Grench Santa Clara County Gilbert Fayette Arthur Ogilivie Santa Clara Valley Water District John Richardson Stanley Wo et/ Tilomas Iwamura Individuals Jeanne Ryder: Cupertino Historical Society Shana McArthur: California History Center, De Ania College Louis Stocklmeir: City of Cupertino Historian •. . Aaron Gallup: California Park and Recreation Department Ed Kaitz: Ditz Crane Development Company ' William W. Crowell: Inwood Corporation Mark Cohen: City of Palo Alto Planning Department Peter Lert: County Director, Agricultural Extension, University of California, Riverside .Bert Viskovich: Director of Public Works Travis Whitten: Assistant City Engineer . Merle Butler: Director of Parks and Recreation Bill Ryder: Director of Administrative Services -71- .0 CITY OF CUPERTINO City Council Robert W. Meyers, Mayor Councilperson Donald A. Frolich Councilperson Kathy E. Nellis Councilperson James E. Jackson Councilperson Daniel P. O'Keefe Robert W. Quinlan City Manager Planning -Commission Victor J. Adams Chairman Commissioner Judith A. Cooper Commissioner R. D. Koenitzer Commissioner John M. Gatto Commissioner J. Donald Woodward James H. Sisk Planning Director Planning Staff Robert S. Cowan, Assistant Planning Director (Project Director) Adde Laurin, Associate Planner (retired) Toby R. Kramer, Assistant Planner (resigned) Steve T. Piasecki, Assistant Planner Mark N. Caughey, Sr. Planning Technician Graphics: Tom J. Gilbertson Linda J. Prat