Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
General Plan 1973T O-W N C E N T E R P L A N
SECOND DRAFT
12/27/13
Prepared.b:y'
City ,of Cupertino.
Planning Department,
TOWN CENTER PLAN
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to specify policies for the development of
properties within the area known as the Town Center. The Town Center consists
of approximately 103 acres, generally bordered by Stevens Creek Blvd. to the
north, Blaney Ave. to the east, Pacifica Drive to, -the south, and Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Rd. to the.westa
During the 1973 general plan hearings involving land use in the Core_ Area., a
determination was made by the Planning Commission and City Council, that the
Town Center will play a major role in the creation of community identity for
Cupertino. The Town Center is. designated. !as.- a _communty,7f6cal-,poJntfqr;
Cupertino because of its geographical location in the center of Cupertino°s
commercial district, because of its proximity to the intersection of Stevens
Creek Blvd. and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Rd.., long considered as the historical
crossroads of the community, and because of its existing and/or proposed
mixture of civic, office, specialized retailing, and residential uses. In a
sense, the mixture of uses will enable the Town Center to function as a
"traditional downtown" for Cupertino,,,,.
Although the Town Center is primarily directed towards the satisfaction of
community needs, it is recognized that the high quality of development mani-
fested by quality design and specialized uses will attract trade'from.surround-
ing communities and as such, the Town. Center will serve a geographical area
much larger than the corporatelimits of the City.
The goal of the Town Center Plan is to provide a community focal point for
the citizens of Cupertino by the creation of an urban environment which reflects
-1-
the City's historical past, enhances its cultural development and provides
for its civic, specialized business, and professional service needs. In order
to achieve this goal, the following objectives are woven into the.fabric of
the plan.
to There shall be a mixture of commercial, office, and quasi -public
residential uses within the Town. Center. Public -oriented industrial
uses may -be allowed. The public -oriented industrial use is one in
which the general public participates by viewing the industrial
process and is able to directly purchase the product manufactured
or created.on the site. Examples are art and craft"activities which
involve processes normally classified as industrial in nature.
20 The uses within the area of Town Center north of Rodrigues Ave. will
be integrated in the highest degree possible. For example, residential
and commercial uses can be located within one structure.
3. Future development within the area of -Town Center north of Rodrigues
Ave.. shall reflect the building designs and materials utilized for
development within -,the -area of the Town Center south of Rodrigues Ave..;
Development(s) in the northern section:aof the Town Center shag incorporate.
public walkways and plazas to encourage pedestrian interaction among uses
and to -integrate development north of Rodrigues with existing development
south of Rodrigues. A pedestrian/bicycle ov,ercrossing shall be con-
structed over Torre Avenue between its present terminus at the inter-
section of Rodrigues Ave. to its intersection. with Stevens Creek Blvd.
4e Property owners within the northern half of the Town Center (northerly of
Rodrigues Ave.) shall be encouraged to reaffirm their earlier commitment
to the City to develop under a unified development plan. Encouragement
shall be offered in the form of land use intensity incentives..
-2-
5. There are only a few isolated undeveloped properties left in the.
southern portion of the Town Center (south of Rodrigues). The
necessity for them to develop under a single unified plan is not as
great as for the northern section of the Town Center. Individual
developments will be evaluated to.insure that common..desgn elements
are incorporated including establishment of common vehicular and
pedestrian linkages.
Background
The Town Center concept can be traced back to the original Planned
Community District rezoning of the 103-acre area in 1962a The property
owners involved submitted a Master Plan for the area which included govern-
mentaloffices, professional offices, a commercial shopping center, and
medium density residential development. Development has occurred within the
Town Center which is in keeping with the land use intent of the original plan;
however, changes have.been made with regard to location of land uses, building
design and vehicular circulation.
The boundaries for the 1973 revision -,-.of the Town Center Plan are riearly zden,t cal
to th.e,original planned development. Exhibit 1 outlines the planning area to
be included in this study.
Existing Uses
The area involved in the Plan is in various stages of development. Approxi-
mately 5..6 acres are used for City Hall and the Library. existing professional
office buildings and those under construction occupy 10.52 acres, most of which
are medical offices. Two banks are located on the northeast and southeast
corners of Rodrigues Ave. and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Rd. Both banks are.relatively
new and very complementary to the Town Center area. Within the 52 acres north
-3-
of Rodrigues Ave.., there are older commercial establishments bordering the
intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd,. and Saratoga --Sunnyvale Rd. The Cali Mill
occupies the balance of the corner. The remaining land is in orchard or a
vacant status. An area south of the existing professional office on the
northwest corner of Torre Avenue and Pacifica Drive has been subdivided into
five lots. Three of these have been sold and received use permits and archi-
tectural approval for development. The land use map (Exhibit 2) identifies
the existing uses more clearly.
The Development Plan.
As stated in: the'introduction, the purpose of the Town Center Plan is to
specify policies for the development of the area known as.the Town Center.
This plan will be made an attachment to a City -initiated planned develop-
men.t zoning district. The Town Center boundary is described by Exhibit to
The planned development zoning ordinance stipualtes that a planned -develop®
ment,.zoning application shall be accompanied by a Conceptual Development Plan
containing the following information:
Ao Net property size.
Bo The proposed public and private street system including a general
description of ingress and egress points and median. channelizatione
Ca A general description of proposed uses with a statement describing
how the development proposal will conform to the land use types and
intensities for the development boundary as stipulated on the General
Plan or a specific plan.
Do A map or maps describing topographic, unique vegetative, or hazardous
areas within the plan boundary.
E. A map or maps of proposed landscaped area,including a description of.
-4-
•
r
A
7
I.
�f
-Irk i
Aj
Aj
zeln.
17
WOO
_ t
., T• j t
i 1.i. Arc `l!rl�' _ �"1.i4, 'G`w • �� � .. -� i'T7'..' '!—� - - _.1—_1__ � � '� 4 -
'C!- N. u
z.
y t '
(/J�`• ,� r 'sy °��� t � � . 'n t � cam;-- �? t
F
DR ..
27
j -L ,,
1 L-7,11
{
11i�aali mInvulm'ea�es�t®aaena�e�
J
� 't. .. ;..,, �.. .ti.+�.r, •..'.. � ...< �` i+' ,4...+... ` !, \r 1Y � .Y1 �..~ 'P°'+v..G
r
i
the relationship of.the Conceptual Development Plan to streets
designated on the General Plan or specific plan for a -uniform
street landscaping program.
The above plan content requirements are minimum and in some cases may not
be appl cable9,particularly for a City -initiated planned development application.
Both the, Plannng,Commission and'City Council determinedthat the.'mixture.of
s5-
uses proposed in Town Center North and the proposed intensity of uses requires
that a common.development plan be developed and adhered.to by property owners..
It' would be extremely difficult, to integrate uses and 'control.vehicular traffic
if a common..plan...is.not adopted and adhered to by owners.
The few remaining undeveloped parcels- in Town Center. South are _.surIrop-nded by,.
either existing development.or development that has undergone planning approval -
by the City.and as such, it is not necessary for the City to entice property
owners to develop in:conformance.with''_a uniform plan.
In 'order to develop a common. plan .in Town Center North, it is . nec.essar_y that
owners file a joint use.permito The joint use permit application would bind,
each owner to an approved definitive development ,plan 9 the contents' of which
are specified in -City of Cupertino P (Planned.Development). Ordinance;'
From a pract-ical point o.f view9.,the Town.C"en.ter Plan must.recognize the -.
fragmented ownership pattern within the Down Center. particularly Town_ Center:
North. In view of ,thelegal,_ position adopted by the,,City which st;ipulates:.,
that individual owners must`be given an option to.:develop: individually if:
.an agreement -cannot be reached among owners to develop under a unified` plan 9
the :Town `Center Plan must ,present. an alternative.pla.nning.solution'based, upon
..
an assumption that owners will develop individually.
conceptual development plan based upon an assumption that individual property
owners will plan and, develop their ,properties jointly, Town Center North,,
Alternative B9 is a conceptual plan,with an assvmption.:.that-indivzd.ual property
owners will develop individuallywithout benefit of an.overall plan.
TOWN CENTER NORTH,: :Alternative A
Net ,,Size .of Developable .Area.
The ;area,;defined 'as": Town.. Cen.'ter North contains approximately 60 a 2 net acres.
The 6'0 e 2-acre figure includes the 10 of -acre ?Lake ` Biltmore. Apartments which 9 ,
although, within the original Town. Center boundary., was not included in. the
General -Plan deliberations involving the Town Center. The Planning. Commission
and City..Council deliberations -concerning the Town Center involved only 50±
acres. With the exception of, the Lake.Biltmo.re,Apartments and. the Northern
California Savings facility at .the northeast cornier of Rodrigues Avenue and
Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, th'e Town Center.Nor.tli is -either>undeveloped or
marginally developed. Marginal development In this, nstance.r.efers to,.
existing light industrial, and strip comner.cial.uses within the,sou:theast
quadrant .of Stevens Creek Boulevard ,and.Sa:ratoga;®S.unnyvale Road. Neither use"
is in `conformance with the intent of the Town.,.Center:Plan
j
Perm:it.ted::Uses., and _Intensity of Use
Town Center North shall contain a mixture of uses with no use :predoininatzngo,,
The mixture shall be comprised.'of commercial9 office and-re"idential;useso
Industrial -oriented uses may be permitted provided each specific use is
public -oriented, meaning that the public.participates by viewi_ng..the industrial
f
process and'is able.to directly purchase the product manufactured or created; on
the site.. As alluded to in the introductory remarks"of"the."Plan, the Town Center,
is to.func.tion as a community focal point... characterized by building and site
i
designs that reflect existing development.in the Town Center and.charact'er.ize'd
i
by the scale of the development contained, within the Center. The term "scales"
in this instance refers not'.only.to the size.,shape :and bulk.of the buildings"
i.l
I
but also the inten.sity:of uses and the market area which the Town. Center is to
serve.
The determination has been made that Vailco Park will serve.as...a regional focal
point:in.terms of:shopp n.g9 corporate and professional off ice.uses9 and.indu.stri-al
uses.'. The Town:.Center is intended primarily to serve the,,needs.o.f -the.citizens`
of the Cupertino planningarea, although it..is recognized that -the Town Center
will contain a.mix,of specialized uses .which could contain some uses which
will have a market area regional in, scope. The intent is not,to provide neighbor -,-
hood conven.ieice.act vities such as supermarkets or -general retail type drug-
stores nor regional orientated major.depar.tment.storeso It is anticipated that
a specialty food market/delicatessen anal/or pharmacy can be accommodated within
the commercial segment of the developmeint to serve the residents within the
Town Center and yet still-preservethe; intimate character -of adjacent smaller
shops. The following is a list of the type of shops and services that can be
complementary to -the commercial segment .of the Town Center. This list is_ not
all inclusive but rather a guideline
Intensity of Use
The intensity of use within the North Town. Center will be dependent upon perm
formance .standards relative to builidng height,landscaping and parking require-
ments; and,, most critically, traffic generation of the uses. The design -
orientated performance :standards will be discussed under.-the.design standard
segment of this document.
Relative to traffic, ,the- :intensity of land use within Town Center .:North, 'shal. be
limited, based Upon. a peak hour. 'trip®end generation -factor as may. be determined
by the Director of Public.Works.to`m:aintain the traffic carrying capacity on
Stevens Creek Boulevard at level of service B or C, with a maximum of eight
travel lanes.
Thenetresidential density shall not ,exceed abo.ve.16_units per acre except
that higher residential densiti6s.may be permitted if the.increase ,in density
results.�in,.the implementation of a community®wide social goal:of :the community.;
II
,F II
Proposed.Public and.Private Street System
The existing, public street system `,serving _the, Toim Center North consists of
i
two major arterials;and_two_ connector streets. The two arterials are Stevens
Creek Boulevard, which is the major eas;t]west.arter al _serving the>central section
of the Santa Clara Valley,.and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road:, which is'the major north[.
south connector street serving the West Valley. The connector streets are
Blaney Avenue, which is a north/south residential...connect.o,r and,Rodrigues
j
Avenue, which connects Saratoga;pSunnyvale.Road with. -Blaney Avenue:Rodrigues
Avenue Bisects:the Town Center and is used as the dividing line defining Town
tenter North and Town Center South.
The Core Area General Plan Amendment mada.the determinationthatthe ultimate
right-of-way width.of Stevens Creek Boulevard is not to,be widened fromlits
present right-of-way width of 120 feet. The present configuration of Stevens
Creek Boulevard is three travel lanes and,a parting,lane in each directors,,. with
a 16-foot wide median. and '10®feet wide parkways. Based upon -traffic projections,
developed in connection -:with the Core... Plan,. Stevens, Creek.,Boulevard'will eventually
change,..in: configuration to four travel:lanes. in each direction,resulting.in the.
elimination of theparkinglanes. The change in configurationmay also result.
in the narrowing the width of the median strip
ro o e that bic clin paths
The Core Area General Plan Amendment additionall s s
Y P P. _y g p
be installed adjacent to Stevens Creek Boulevard ar_d.Saratoga®Sunnyvale Road.
In order to accommodate the need for 'bicycle movements, i.t will be necessary to
insure that. bicycle paths be constructed on private ro ert with easement
b i )
' Y P _P P P_. Y
outside of the current right-of-way designation for Stevens:Creek Boulevard.
- i
The Core -Plan prov des;for street beautification programs for Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, which stipulate that`50-foot'.buffer
areas from curb;to edge of landscaped plant:in.g areas ,be provided to allow for j
I
the installation of .generous landscapin.g,and bcycle.pathso j
Saratoga®Sunnyvale-Road,will eventually increase its number of travel lanes,,
from four to eight if the traffic generation estimates developed in connection -
with the Core,.Plan are realized.> Future development within Town Center.Nor.th
must provide `addtonal...right�ofmway beginning from Rodrigues -Avenue to''Stevens;
Creek Boulevard, . to effectuate a transition: from an ezglitR.lane roadway-;aouth`of
Rodrigues Avenue to an eight -lane roadway with turning lanes at the.intersection.
Bicycle paths shall be constructedwithin an easement located'within:the required
fifty-foot.landscaped area adjacent to Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road..
A public ;street shall:be.constructed` through Town Center.:North;9.connecting.the
intersection -of Rodrigues, Avenue and Torre Avenue to the ,intersection of Stevens
Creek Boulevard.'and,Vista Drive... The exact right-of-way width and the exact
alighment through Town.Cen.ter North shall be determined at such time as a
definitive development.plan'is submitted in conjunction with,a use permit
application. The .Torre Avenue extension through: Town. Center North shall,be'
designed In a manner so as ,to provide,for a grade separation for bicycle and
pedestrian;.movements between the two bisected segments.of the Town Center North..
The section.of Rodrigues Avenue from Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road to Blaney Avenue
is presently constructed. There are no proposed.changes in;.the configuration ,of
said roadway.
Curb cuts, .from the two arterial roadways and the two private streets into; the
Town Center North property shall be kept to an absolute minimum. The term
"absolute minimum1° in this instance: means that there shall be a one curb -cut
break:between Rodrigues Avenue and Stevens,Cr.eek Boulevard on Saratoga -Sunnyvale
Road, and one curb -cut break between Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and. the.proposed
Torre Avenue -extension on Stevens Creek Boulevard. There can be an. -additional
curb -cut from Torre Avenue extension to the east boundary line of Town Center
North on Stevens,,Creek Boulevard. Curb cuts on connecto.r..streets within 'Town
Center shall be evaluated atthetime of use permit submission.
-12-
It is the current thinking of the Engineering Department that there will be
no median breaks on Saratoga-:Sunn vale Road between Rodrigues Avenue and Stevens
Creek Boulevard. The only median break on .,Stevens Creek.,Boulevard, between
Saratoga -.Sunnyvale Road and ..,the -east boundary of. the Town Center., shall be
the intersection of Torre. Avenue extension with Stevens.Creek Boulevard.
Unique Topographic or,Vegetat,ive,iFeatures
The.Town Center Northisa relatively flat area,. Grading will be required within
the normal': course of' construction.. However', no'ma j:or .land .,forms will -be modified
or -eliminated.
The existing vegetation.on the site is composed ma.inly.of orchard treesit
may be possible for some trees to be; mdi . ntained,, so as -..to. retain a sense of the
past for this community. In this sense, some trees could be incorporated into
the landscapeldesign of the Center in the form of a token -orchard, The retention, -!
of fruit trees is suggestive only,, and not.:a requirement.
Design Elements
The Town',Center., in.conjuncti.on with�the crossroads of'Saratoga,-Su ale Road
and Stevens Creek Boulevard, :represa."t a key node for the City of Cupertino'.
In order to create the necessary visual integration of this intersection with,
the Town Center, the City.Qouncil determined that an -open space ,plaza will be,,
created on the two norther corners of the intersection.. The Town, Center Plan
will further add to the plaza effect by providing,,,.a third corner,of open space
in the intersection.
The Town -Center Plan shall be designed in amanner to visually and functionally
_13-
integrate.the Civic Center buildings with development north of Rodrigues Avenue.
This can, be accomplished ' by the installation of a mina. -plaza ,at the intersection
of Torre Avenue and Rodrigues Avenue, the development of a major entrance point
orientated: to. City Hall andjor.other design techniques.
The architectural design for the Town Center should reflect design elements
established for existing development within Town Center :Southo.:.In keeping with'
the, concept .of community versus regional scale of -development:, it 'is. desired
that an openf:pedestrian mall.be created rather- than.an..enclo:sed mall. The
openness is necessary to create an outdoor feeling.:f.or the plaza's and
pedestrian corridor, as well as for accommodating the.free flow of activities
throughout the 'commercial center and the residential areas.
In keeping with the concept.of.a c'ommun-ty"oriented Town Center, .public open areas
lake plazas,. green space and fountains should be available,.throughout the Center,
for both passive and, active re6reation° Separation.of pedestrian and vehicular
traffic is also essential fora "people®ors ented'° ' development j
r
Specific guidelines for implementing these concepts,.are°:.as follows -
Site
1. The site plan shall visually and functionally lixk.City Hall with the open
space plazas and the major entrances of .development within Town Center,Northo
2. Bike .and- `pedestrian paths should ,be separate from vehicular movem.en:t, and
should be located adjacent to the major street frontages anal along Torre'
Avenue.
®14m
3. The commercial uses should be oriented to outdoor plaza,(s)9 rather than
an air-conditioned mall.
4a The use of plat ., fountains-, green space and,varying.grade levels should
be incorporated in both the commercial and res den:tial�areas,.of :the site.
Landscaping and Par, -king
to The landscaping area adjacent to Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road ,and Stevens Creek
Boulevard shall not be less than,50 feet wide and, shall provide for separate
bicycle and pedestrian paths,°
2 The use ,of' landscaped islands within the parking: area should be:emphasized
and included where -ever possible
3< Park ng.,shall be screened from the street through meansof-undergrounding9,
partial underground n.g ;or landscaping. The purpose of the parking;lot,
treatment will be to'avoid the "sea of asphalt" effect usually.,accompanying
commercial and/or industrial developments.
Architecture,
to tuilding-design and materials .should reflect existing development within
Town: Center South.
20 variety in _he ghats of the buirldings will be permitted with a- maximum of
-four 'stories The taller buildings should be situated :on the site, so
that they will not dwarf the Civic Center and the surrounding single-family
residences. This maybe accomplishedby placing the.taller. buildings near-
Signing
1. One shopping center _.sign will be allowed.on Stevens<_Creek Boulevard and
Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. The signs should be .either low profile ,or
incorporated` ,into the entrances to ,the Center., through means of an archway o.r.
theme structure. The Center will essentially be self®identify in.g. due to its
size.
20 Signing for the:shops.syhall be,minimal, and in keeping_ -with the architecture
ofthe
3. Freer®standing -banks: or restaurants.;' will be :allowed -wall signs only, rather
than individual: ground signs.,
Summary . Policy 'Statement::for Town Center North
1e Town.Center North shall .be developed with a mixture of uses, with.no one
4. The building and site design of the Town Center shall be regulated by the
gu.idelines.listed.in.the body of.the Town Center North segment, of this plan.
-16-
TOWN CENTER NORTH. Alternative B
Town Center. --_,North,, Alternative B9 is a conceptual development :plan which
outlines development.pol ci.es including in tensity.standards;and design
gu delines.for development based upon the premise that owners.will-develop
individually without benef i,t of an overall definitive plan.,
As stated earlier an ;this document9.the Plann1ng Commission and City Council
based their land'use decision for the Town Center North'. on an, assumption
that individual owners will plan and develop their .lands, jointly. The,
adopted.General Plan document states,, ".the land.use designation (;for the
Town Center) ;provides for a planned urban, -.center with a mixture of
commercial/residential`uses_based upon an overall plan -for the"area"o
In .essence then 9 if a joint use permit ;application is , not filed `by all owners
in. Town Center North and ,as a result individual property owners develop with®
o't ° the ;b.enefit of an overall , design-- plan. the positive impact of the, Town.
enter -.:.Plan as; perceived by .the Plai.n:ing Commission.: and City;, Coun:ci l will
-.
not be realized.- As such, the :,development of individual prop erties' at: the,
intensity tiia:t.would be allowed under joint development may -in fact have a
negative impact on the City.
and parking areas !from .the: living areas and create. a more .livable environment.
Additionally, a large .development area will offer the land planner and
architect more flexibi.lity,::to design internal traffic circulation system in
a way to mitigate pot"ential traffic conflict points. For example, if the
Town Center North,is`.developed under, one plan,curb.cuts:could be reduced
to a "bare.minimum:whereas if individual developments occur, there will be a.
series _of curb cuts on Stevens Creek :Boulevard anal .:Saratoga -®Sun ; ale Road
which will . affect 'the traffic carrying ,capacity of the . roadways a In addition
to the funct%onal;'-:.advantAges.:of,developing in large blocks of land, architects
.and land;: planners. `have greater .building .design. and site. "design flexibility
and.. as such 9 ;the .development of. ;a 50-acre: PUD _even a„ relatively 'high intensity
would probably -he more .aes-thetically.: pleasing :than. a series of 5 to 10
developments built at'a relatively low intensity.
The remaining,"sectionofthis plan.alterxative will develop design guidelines
and:intensity.standards based upon. the, content requirements for a,definitive`.
plan as`stipulated in the P (Planned Development) Ordinance.
Net..:. Size and ,:Developable Area
The ;net acreage 'of. Town Center North is 6002 acres which includes the l0..l
acre Lake Biltmore Apartments.
®18-
the list of commercial uses described earlierinthis:document.within the
plan entitled.°`Town Center North, Alternative A'. shall be applicable'.
Intensity of :Use
Because the original.Town Center concept is.lo.st if: praperty.owners,in Town
Center:Nor.th.:develop individually, each individual-prop;erty owner%,shal.l be
allowed an.Intensi.ty equal to the intensities -allowed -:other landowners on
Stevens Creek Boulevard and"Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The intensity level
established for.properties.that fronton,Saratoga-®Sunnyvale.Road, north.of
Alves Drive,.: is 16.trip ends per acre at the peakhour. Although not
specified in the 'Core :Area, Plan, ,the .maximum trip end intensity for -Stevens
Creek Boulevard is also 16 trip" 'ends, per acrep,, The .l6 trip end ' figure for
Stevens Creek Boulevard is based' -upon the retention of a. maximum, section of
eight travel;,lanes
The development intensity allowed owners in, the Town -Center based, onv the
assumption th:"ey would develop under a jointly approved plan could be
significantly-, higher than 16 tr,ip ends. -:per acre specified ado ve o, ,. Although
not specifically -stated within the Town Center North, Alternative -A, nor the
General Plan Core Area revision,;: an;'.intensity.of. 32 trip .ends pe.r,acre would
be possible based on an overall plan. o Although the 32 , trip; end .per acre:>at
the peak hour designation theoretically overloads -Stevens.. Creek'Boulevard.
and -Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road to some degree, the City:determined that ;the
positive impact of a uniformly developed Town Center will .attain .,a social
goal for the community'since it will. strengthen the. Town Center and'make;,it
a viable focal point for the community. The higher trp.end'.intensit,y could
be 'mitigated byvirtue of the overall.plan whereas. an .individual ':plan :for each ..
-19-
property.could no:t mitigate a higher.trip.en:d.int.ensity.o The mitigation
measures in this case would be a development of consolidated ingress -and.
egress points -onto -the mayor streets and a better control -of the;type:of uses
within the overall plan
It is realized that :it may be &-unique hardship'to require;absoh te.cooperation
among all ,property. owners within Town Center North and .as such, there should
be provision to allow the Planning Commission and.City.;Counc.il to approve an
individualized .trip_ end..intensity:performance standard .based upon: the.degree
,to which cooperation is,obtained'among all the owners. For example, if.the.
easterly most property owner refuses,,to cooperate with the..rest'of the owners
within Town, Center :North and as 'a rexult,,,, they_ Cit.y:° imposed the 16 trip end per -
acre standard on all'.property.owners., the City would miss�.the opportunity.to
achieve its -goad of developing a.viable-Town-Center.. .In..this instance, the_
deletion ofone particular property o '10,er,.,wou:ld n.ot have a completely'
debilitating effect on the overall.developm.ent of the Town Center'. However,
as another example9,if two.or.three of the owners r.efusedto_cooperate, it.
would have a derogatory impact on the.overall Town.Cen.ter.concept and -as such,
the overall intensity should be reduced for each owner within the.:Towne Center,''
The ratio of intensity to degree of' owner cooperation will`be determined by
the Planning 'Comm ssion.aand City Council at. the time,a development proposal is -
-20-
line for Torre Avenue.to conform:to'the new alignment. As individual
properties,develop, appropriate dedications will.have.to be made'b:ased=.upon
said plan line Inasmuch as an overall Town .Center Development;Plan.is not:
possible-under`an individual development approach.9.the.Torre Avenue pedestrian
and bicycle crossing is not required.
Since each':property'owner.-is allowed to develop individually, each property can
have: a.curb'_cut.;on.the major arterials and./or.the internal collec:tor'streets
The number of individual -curb cuts shall..be regulated by requiring curb cuts
to straddle.- property lines to enable: two owners to utilize one curb cut.
Additionally, curb cuts are to be approved on an in.terum.bass As each
individual: property develops, the site plan design will be evaluated so as
to enable individual.properties to interrelate in order to create a uniform
internal traf'fic;systemo The system of cross -easements will be developed in
conjunction with each development plan approval.. .A 50-foot landscaped: setback
will be required.on Stevens. Creek Boulevard and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road so 'as
to provide.for'landscaping beautification and;a bicycle pathway,
Desgn....Element:
The 'development plan for each individual property shall be. evaluated.;n.order
to determine the degree to which it -interrelates with other:propert es within
Town Center North in terms of internal traffic circulation, pedestrian
circulation and building design. In, this sense., the initial -development will
be a key element in the completion of ;the Town Center. Am
shall.
developed within the immediate corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard ,and'Saratoga=
Sunnyvale Road in order t0"complement the .open space plazas, proposed for the
-21-
northwest _and northeast corners .of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Saratoga®
Sunnyvale Road. The design of .individual buildings.withzn.th`e Town Center
North, -shall .reflect: the design elements of buildings and .developments
currently constructed within Tows. Center Soatho
TOWN CENTER .SOUTH
Net Size..of Developable Area.
Excluding public stree.ts9-approximately 33.10 acres are within the area,--
defined as Town Center South. Of the.33 -10 acres, approximately 17a.90 acres
are developed9,12,.85 acres -.are undeveloped, and 2035 acreshave received final
use permit and Architectural and Site Control ap:provaL and are awaiting
cons6ruction.
Public and -.Private.. Street'System
The public street system for Town.Center South was approved and developed in
conjunction with the improvement for subdivision Tract No. 3743
The Town Center South is served internally.by -Pacifica Drive, Torre Avenue,
and Rodrigues Avenue, ;;all . of which have a 60-foot',r.i_ght-of-way. with: a 40-foot
two -travel lane, two -parking lane travelwayo Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road is
adjacent to the western boundary line of the study area. It is.antic paced
that at :full development.Saratoga:.-Sunnyvale Road will: be an,e%ght-lane-thorough,
fare with a landscaped median strip.
South. In order to internalize vehicular movements :by persons moving from
use to use within the main block .of land bounded by Sa.ratoga-Sunnyvale Road,
Rodrigues,.Torre and Pacifica., all future development with n.this section will
provide for vehicular linkages to adjoining properties. This policy was
implemented in conjunction with the approval of the Brian Terrace development
in;1972 at which time a.condition of approval was`attached,.requiring cross -
easements to enable internal ',driveways to link with existing and future
cnntiguous'developments"to the west and north.
In order to increase the -traffic carrying ,capacity of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road
and retain::continuity in landscaping design for ,development adjacent to
Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road,. curb cuts for individual uses shall be prohibited.
Ingress:: and egress. from .remaining undeveloped Town Center. properties .to
Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road shall.be consolidated into existing access.dr:iveways or
into no more than one additional access poina if deemed to be.nec:essary by the
City -
There. hall be no median break in Saratoga®Sunnyvale, Road between Rodrigues
Avenue and Pacifica Drive other than Town Center Lane. Town -Center Lane may
be closed in the future. depending;.upon;:turning':stor age ILne requirements for
the intersection: of Rodrigues; Avenue and Saratoga --Sunnyvale Road.
There shall be no set policy with respect to the number of curb cuts on the
internal public streets of the Town Center;, however, they should be kept to a
minimum .to minimize.pedestrian/vehiculartraff is conflicts and the break in
landscaping continuity.
-24-
The circulation system for future development within Town Center ..South shall
be designed to interconnect pedestrian and, bicycle paths both within and
without the.specific project area.
Permitted -Uses and:-lntensity:of Use
The VCore.,Plan.`.. Element.of the General Plan-master-planned.the remaining
.undeveloped portion of Town Center. South for prof:essional.office9 quasi -public
and're.lated general commercial uses.- Present City ordinances. define professional
uses as administrative and executive offices pertaining to.management of office
operations; professional offices pertaining to the practice of professions and
arts;, and -research laboratories. Related, commercial.uses have been interpreted
to mean service -oriented: businesses: such as banks.; insurance and real estate
agencies, travel agencies, prescription drugs, advertising bureaus, credit
reporting, accounting9:`and similar consulting agenei,es`9.,anl stenographic and
duplication services.
The above 'use's •and other uses in which the Planning:Commission and/or ;City
Council deem to be professional and:rela.ted,.commercial uses shall :be permitted
within Town Center South.
During its meeting of June 59 1972, the.City Council adopted Desi.gn'Guideline.s
for Town Center South. The Design Guidelines require landscaping,areas ,to
screen automobiles, restrict'building.height to forty (4.0) feet and.;.require
diversification in building locations to break up.continuous off-street_parki:ng
lots., The forty (40) foot height limitation and the landscaping requirement
precludes intensive°development within Town Center.Southo The intent of'the
-25-
Design Guidelines is to ensure that the existing pattern:,and intensity -of
development in Town Center South is continued on undeveloped properties.,
The -.June 5, 1972 Design<Guidelin;es are incorporated into this document.
Topographic, Unique9.Vegetatzve;or Hazardous .Areas,.within:.the.Plan Boundary
The terrain within the Town Center South houndary.is relatively flat and as
such, there are no distinguishing topographic features,.
The eastern.. boundary of the Study.Area is adjacent to the `Regnart Creek Flood
Channel. There is an opportunity to integrate the channel into future civic
.center developnent:includng, but not limited to, ;the development of a
parallel bike path.which could connect,the'civ.c center.to,Wilson Park School.,
east.of Blaney;Avenue- The bicycle path proposal;.will be evaluated in more
detail duringfuture dircu.lation and open space.:element ,hearings, of the General
Plana
There are no unique vegetative features or hazardous areas within Town Center "South;°
not been adopted to this date; however, subsequent development within Town
Center South shall be evaluated relative to future needs for bicycle paths:
and uniform landscaping.
w-26-
Summary, Policy Statement for Town Center ' South
to Quasi -Public, professional offices and related commercial uses shall be
permitted. In the context. of this plan, the term,"professional" means
administrative and. executive offices pertaining to the.practic ng of
professions and arts.,and research laboratories.; Related commercial uses
are 'sery ce-or.. ented bus?nesses such as banks, insurance and real estate
agencies,.travel agencies, advertising bureaus, credit reporting:;.accounting
and similar consulting agencies, and stenographic and duplication services.,
2. The intensity of use shall be regulated by design standards; specifically,
a forth (40). foot height limitation, a minimum twenty-five (25) foot
landscaping setback area measured.` -from property..lines adjacent _to public
streets, and applicable off-street parking requir.ementso.;The peak hour
trip end performance standard is not applicable to :Town Center -South..
3e Ingress and egress points to properties:fronting on public;,roa.ds shall be
strictly regulated. The control of access points on Saratoga -Sunnyvale
Road is particularly important and, as such., only one additional curb cut
will lie allowed between Pacifica Drive and the. -existing southerly0mos.t
curb-.. cut between.R.odrigues Avenue and.Pacifica Drive.
4. There will be no -median break in Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road.between Rodrigues
Avenue and Pacifica Drive other than Town Center Lane. Town Center 'Lane
may be closedin the future, depending .upon::turning,storag.e bane requirements
for the intersection of Rodrigues. Avenue and.Saratoga-Sunnyvale Roado:
-27-
5. Future:` developments.shall provide for vehicular., including;bicycle9=?arid
pedestrian movements to interconnect adjoining developments..
6. Building and site -design shall reflect existing development within Town
Centex South. Public walkways shall be incorporated into each development.
plan.
-28-
0
City of Cu-perfivio
TO: The Honorable ' Mayor and Members
of the City Council
FROM James',H. Sisk, Planning Director
DATE.:,December 11, ,19.73
SUBJECT: Continued Review of'General Plan Amendment Concerning Cote Area
As a result of the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting of,November 28,
the Core,A . rea land use recommendations have been resolved with the exception of
the following areas:
1. OPEN SPACE AREA.AT.THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF STEVENSCREEK-BLVD.-& HIGHWAY 9
The question of whether or not the open space area will extend easterly to
Vista Drive.
20 THE VACANT PROPERTY ON THE SQUTHERLY . SIDE.:, 0F. STEVENS CREEK. BLVD, ADJACENT.
AINI -Y -17":, ACRES.'---
T6PORTAL AVENUE.CONT NG APPROXIMktEh,
.3e THE NORTHWEST CORNER: OF THE INTERSECTION OF STELLING ROAD AND STEVENS CREEK
to.ULEVARD-
The underlying residential density of the proposed park site as well as the
remaining residential property in this area has not been decided.
4.SARATQQASUNNYVALE ROAD -EAST AND WEST SIDES
Question arose at the last,meeting.concerning the Crossroads.Assessmefi-t
-. -
District and what effect the land use des ignat ion,'which sets forthacon-
straintr'elative to traffic generation wouldhave sh6 wnohi..the -.-fffiatk .va uq,
of those' properties.
Upon resolution of these issues, a final document will be prepared 'for -re review
ew
in conjunction with the draft Environmental Impact Report.
JHS.fr
Cit% of Cup e rtfHo
TO: The Honorable ,Mayo.r and Members
of .the City Council. DATE: .December 79. 1973
FROM: James'Ha Sisk,, Planning Director
SUBJECT: EIR - General Plan Land Use Element Core Area
Public Hearing on the Environmental Impact Repart - Qaner;4f 01��
Land Use Element - Core`Area has been scheduled for December 190`
, CIN ofcu''peravia
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members
of the Planning Commission
FROM: James He Sisk,, Planning Director
.SI,UI BJECT: First Draft of the Town Center Plan
IDATIE: December 3, 1973
Attached is the first draft of the TOVYn Cent;evi --p 1, an
TOWN CENTER PLAN
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to specify policies for the devel-
opment of lands within the area knownasthe Town Center. The
Town Center generally encompasses the area b;o;rd.e.red by Stevens Greek
Boulevard, Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road., Pacifica Drive and. Blaney Avenue.
-1-
its cultural development and provides for its civic; specialized
business and professional service needs. In order to achieve this
goal, the following objectives are woven into the fabric of,the
plan -
to There shall be a balance of commercial, office, and
residential uses with no one use predomiMatinge Pub
lit -oriented industrial uses shall be allowed. The
public -oriented industrial use is one in which th,.e
gen:era:l public participates by viewing the industrial
process and is able to directly purchase the product
manufactured or created on thesite° Examples are art
and craft activities which involve processes normally
classified as industrial in natured
2'2 The uses within the Town Center will be integrated in
the highest degree possible. For example, residential
and commercial uses can be located within one structure_
3. Building and site design shall reflect the City°s early
California heritage. Public plazas and walkways shall
be incorporated into the plan.
40 (cont°d>)
Vehicular ingress and egress points for vehicular move-
ment onto major streets will be rigidly controlled. Pub-
lic walkways shall interconnect uses within the Town Cen:te-r,
in such a manner to visually and functionally interrelate
buildings and activities.
Background
The Town Center concept can be traced back to the original Planned
Community.D stri,et rezoning of the 103-acre area in 1962. The.
property owners involved submitted a,Mast.er Plan'for the area which
included.:governmental offices, professional offices, a.commercial
shopping center, and medium density .residential . development o , .. De;-
v,elopment h.as'occ,urred within the Town Center which is in keeping
with the land., use intent of the original plans however, changes have,
been.;,made, with. regard' to: location of land uses, building design and
vehicular circulation.
The boundaries lar" the 1973 revision of the Torn Center Plan are
Identical to the original' planned development. Exhibit 1 outlines
M
are located on the northeast and southeast corners of Rodrigues
Avenue and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. Both banks are relatively
new and very complementary to the Town Center area. Within the
52 acres north of Rodrigues Avenue, there are older commercial
establishments bordering the intersection of Stevens Creek Boule-
vard and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road The Cali.Mil"l occupies the
balance of the corner. The remaining land is in orchard or a va-
cant status. An area south of the existing professional office on
the northwestcorner of Torre Avenue and Pacifica Drive has been
subdivided into five lots. Three of these have been sold and re-
ceived use permits and architectural approval for developments
The land use map (Exhibit 2) identi-fies the existing uses more
clearly.
The Develo-pment Plan
As stated in the introduction, the purpose.of the Town Center Plan
is to sp>ecify policies for the development of the area known as -
the Town Center This plan wills made an. attachment to a City-
initiated planned development zoning district. The Town Center
boundary is described by Exhibit to
The planned development zoning ordinance stipulates that a planned
development zoning application shall be accompanied by a Conceptual
Development Plan containing the following information.
A.' Net property size.
Bo The proposed public and private street system including
a general description of ingress and egress points and
median chan.nelizationo
Co A general description of proposed uses with a statement
describing how the,development propo,s.al will conform to
the land use types.and intensities for the development
boundary as stipulated on the General. Plan or a specific
plan.
De A map ,or maps describing topographic9 unique vegetative,
or -hazardous areas within the plan boundary.
E. A description of proposed landscaped area including a
description of the relationship of the Conceptual Develop
meat Plan to streets designated on the Qereral Plan or
specific plan for a uniform street landscaping program.
The above plan content requirements are minimum and in some cases
may not be applicable, particularly for a City -initiated planned
development application.
From a .practical point of view, the Town Center Plan 'can _be subdi-
vided into two subplans with Rodrigues Avenue serving as a dividing
line. For the purpose of this document, the Town Center area north
of Rodrigues shall be designated as Town Center North and conversely,
the area south of Rodrigues is labelled Town. Center Sb-uth> The
rationale for the division stems from determination that the devel-
opment pattern and uses for Town Center. S&uthare established, while
Town Center North is undeveloped. The Town Center Plan will present'
separate development policies for each area;' however, the plan will'
speak to the integration of both subareas from a design point.
-5-
A No ad-ditional public streets are necessary to serve development
in.Town Center South. In order to internalize vehicular movements
by persons moving from use to use within the main block of land
bounded by Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, Rodrigues, Torre and Pacifica,
all future development within this section will provide for vehic
u.lar linkages to adjoining properties. This policy wasimplemented
in conjunction with the approval of the Brian. Terrace development
in 1972 at which time a condition of approval was attached, requir-
ing cross -easements to enable internal driveways to link with exist®
ing anId future contiguous developments to the west and north.
In order to increase the traffic carrying capacity of .Saratoga
Sunnyvale Road and retain continuity in landscaping design for de-
velopment adjacent to Saratoga -Sunnyvale Roadp curb cuts for indiv-
idual uses shall be prohibited.
Ingress and egress from remaining undeveloped Town Center properties-
to Saratoga -Sunnyvale -Road shall be consolidated into existing access
driveways o`r into no more than one additional access point
There shall be no median break in Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road between
Rodrigues Avenue and Pacifica Drive.
There shall he no set policy with respect to the number of.,curb cuts
on the internal public streets of the Town Center; however,, they
should be kept to a minimum to minimize-pedestrian/vehicular traffic
conf"licts'and the break in landscaping continuity.
-7-
The circulation system for future development within Town Center
South shall be designed to interconnect pedestrian and bicycle
paths both within and without of the specific project area
Permitted.Uses and Intensity of Use
The 9°Core Plan°1 Element:of the General Plan master -planned -the re-
maining undeveloped portion of Town Center South; for professional
office and related general commercial uses. Present City ordinances
define professional uses as administrative and executive offices per-
taining to management'of office opera`tions9 professional offices,per-
taining to t`he.pract ce of profes:sions and arts; and research labora-
tories Related commercial uses have been interpreted to mean ser
vice -oriented businesses. such as banks_., insurance and real estate
agencies,, travel'. agencies,, advertising bureaus, credit reporting,
accounting, and similar consulting agencies, and: S�t;,exibgiraphic and
duplication services.
The above uses and other uses in which the Planning -Commission and/-
or City CdU' ncil. deem. to be professional and related commercial uses
shall be permitted within Town Center Souther
During zits meeting of June 5, 1972, the City Council adopted Design
Guidelines .for Town Center South. The Design Guidelines require
landscaping areas to screen. a:utomo:biles-, restrict building heigh-t.
to forty (40) .feet and require diversification in building locations
to break up continuous off-street parking lots. The forty (40) foot
height limitation and the landscaping requirement precludes intensive,
development within Town Center South. The intent of the Design
Guidelines is to ensure that the existing pattern and intensity
of development in. Town Center South is continued on undeveloped
properties. The June 5, 1912 Design GUidelines are are 'incorpor-
ated into this document.
Topograph;ic,, Unique, Vegetative or Hazardous. Areas. Within the
P-lan. Boundary
The terrain within the Town Center South boundary is relatively
flat and, as such,, there are no distinguishing topographic features.
The eastern boundary of the Study Area is adjacent to the;Regnart
Creek Flood Channels There is an opportunity to integrate the
channel into future civic center development including, but not
limited to, the development of a parallel bike path which could
commit the civic center to. Wilson Park School, east of Blaney
Avenue. The bicycle path. proposal will be evaluated in more detail
during future circulation and open space element hearings of the
General Plan.
There are no unique vegetative features orhazardous areas within
Town Center South.
Said beautification plan has not been adopted to this date; how-
ever, subsequent development within Town Center South shall be
evaluated relative to future needs for bicycle paths and uniform
landscaping.
Summary Policy Statement for Town Center South
L. Professional and related commercial uses shall be permitted.
In the context of this plan, the term "professional" means
administrative and executive offices pertaining to the prat-
20
91
ti°cing of professions and arts, and research laboratories.
Related commercial uses are service oriented businesses such
as banks, insurance and real estate agencies, travel agencies,
advertising bureaus, credit reporting, accounting and. similar
consulting aggncies, and stenographic and; duplication services.
The intensity of use shall be regulated by design st.andards'
specifically, a forty (40) foot height limitation,;a;:minimum
twenty-five (25) foot. landscaping setback area meas�xred from:
property lines adjacent to public streets, and applicable off_
street parking requirements. The peak hour trip end perform
ance.standard is not applicable to Town Center South.
Ingress and egress points to properties fronting on public
roadsshall be strictly regulated. The control' of access
points can Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road is particularly important
and, as such, only one additional curb cut.will be allowed
_10-
between Pacifica Drive and the existing southerly -most curb
cut between Rodrigues Avenue and Pacifica Drive.
There will be no median break in Saratoga-Sunnyvale.Road.be-
tween Rodrigues Avenue and Pacifica Drive other than Town..
Center Lane. Town Center Lane may be closed in the future,
depending upon turning storage lane requirements for the.
intersection of Rodrigues Avenue and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road.
5e Future developments shall provide -for vehicular, including
bicycle, and pedestrian movements to interconnect aajoin3.ng
developments.
�e Building and site design shall reflect the City°s early
California heritage. Publid-walkways shall be incorporated.
_ i'nto : the plan.
- TOWN, CENTER NORTH
Net Size of Developable Area
The area defined as Town Center North contains.approximately
60.2 net acres, The 60>2®acre figure includes, the 10o1-acre
Lake Biltmore Apartments which, although within the orig:.inal Town
Center boundary, was not incluaed.in the General Plan -de -libera-
tions involving the Town Center. The Planning Commission and City
Council deliberations concerning the Town Centerinvolved only
50`'` acres. With the exception of the Lake Biltmore Apartments
and the.Northern California Savings facility at the northeast cor-
ner of Rodrigues Avenue and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, the Town Center
North is either undeveloped or marginally developed. Marginal de-
velopment in this instance refers to existing light industrial and
strip commercial uses within the southeast quadrant of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Saratoga-Sunnyval:e,Road Neither use is in comformance
with the intent of the Town.C'enter Plan.
Permitted Uses and Intensity of Use
Town Center North shall contain a mixture of uses with no use pre
deominating The mixture shall be comprised of commercial, office
and residential uses. Industrial -oriented: uses. shall be permitted
provided each specific, use is public -oriented, meaning that;the
public participates by viewing the industrial process and is able.
to directly purchase the product -manufactured or created on the
site.
-12-
As alluded to in the introductory remarks of the Plan, the Town
Center is to function as a community focal point, characterized
by building and site designs that reflect,the City°s early Calif-
ornia heritage and characterized by the scale of the development
contained within the Center. The term 9°sca:le" in this instance
refers not only to th.e size, shape and bulk of the buildings but
also the intensity of uses and the market area which the Town Center
is to serves
The -determination has been made that V'allco Park will serve as.a
regional focal point in terms of shopping., corporate and piofes.
signal office uses, and industrial uses. The Town Center is inten-
ded to primarily serve the needs;of the citizens of the Cupertino
Planning area, although it is recognized that the Town Center will
contain a mix of specialized..used which could contain some uses
which will have a market area regional in: scope The intent is :not
to provide neighborhood convenience activities such as supermarkets
or general retail type drug stores. -It is anticipated that:a spec-
ialty food market/delicatesse.n and/o.r pharmacy can be accommodated
within the commercial segment of the development to serve the resi-
dents within the Town. Center and yet still preserve the intimate
character of adjacent smaller shops. The following is a list of
the -,,type of shops and: services that can'be complementary
,.to the
commercial segment of the.Town Centeno This list is not all0inclu
s ve but rather a gu deiin_.eo
,r
Apparel shops
Variety shores
Jewelry stores,.gft shops
Art shops
Stationery shops
Florists
Music shops
Candy stores
offices
Community rooms
Restaurants
Liquo.rff stores
Cocktail lounge
Soda fountain
Artisans
Hobby shops
Shoe s t o r,e,s -
Beauty salons
Barber shops
Yardage stores
Camera shops
Bakeries
Cleaners
Market
Photography studios
Pha'rma:cy.. ,
Theater.
Financial institutions
Delicatessen
Print and Frame shops
Intensity of Use.
The intensity of use within. the North Town Center will be dependent.
upon performance standards relative to building height, land"scaping`
and parking regnirements;.and, most critically, traffic generation
of the uses. The design -orientated performance standards will be
discussed under the design standard segment of this document
Relative to traffic, the intensity of land use within Town Center
North ;shall be limited, based upon a. peak hour trip -end generation
factor as maybe determined by the Director of Public Works to
maintain.the traffic carrying capacity.on Stevens Creek Boulevard
at level of service B or C, with a maximum of eight travel lanes
The net residential density shall not proceed above 16 units per
acre except that residential density may be permitted if the in-
crease in density results in the implementation of a social goal
of the community.
-14-
Proposed Public and Private Street System
The existing public street system serving the Town Center North
consists of two major arterials and two.con.nector streets. The
two arterials are Stevens Creek Boulevard, which is the major east/
west arterial serving the central section of the Santa Clara.Valley9
and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, which is the major north -/south connect-
or street serving the West Valley. The connector streets are
Blaney Avenue., which is a north/south residential connector street,
and Rodrigues Avenue, which connects Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road with
Blaney Avenue Rodrigues. Avenue bisects the Town Center and is.
used as the dividing line defining Town Center North and'Town. Center
South.
The Core Plan made the determination that the. ultimate right-of-way
width ofStevens Creek Boulevard is not to be widened from its
present 'r gh.t-of-wa.y width of 120 feet. The present, configuration
of Stevens Creed Boulevard is three travel lanes and a parking lane
in each da:rection, with.a 16-foot wide median and 10-feet wide
parkways. Based upon traffic projections developed in connection
with.. 'the Core Plan, Stevens Creek Boulevard will eventually ,change
in configuration to four travel lanes in each: direction, resulting
in the elimination of the parking lanes. The change in configura-
tion may also result in the narrowing the width of the median strip
The Core Plan additionally proposes that bicycling paths be instal-
led adjacent to Stevens Creek Boulevard and. Saratoga-Sunnyval.e.Roado
Tn,.order to ac.eommodate the need for bicycle movements, it will be
--15-
necessary to insure that bicycle paths be constructed on private
property (with easement). outside of the -current right-of-way desig-
nation for Stevens'Creek Boulevard.
The Core Plan provides.for street beautification programs for Stev-
ens Creek Baulevard.'and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, which stipulate,-:
that 56-foot buffer areas from curb to edge of landscaped planting
areas'be provided to allow for the installation of generous lafids-
caping and bcyle paths.
Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road will eventually increase its number of
travel lanes from six to eight if the traffic generation estimates
developed in connection with the Core Plan are realzedo Future
development. within Town Center North must provide additional right-
of-way beginning from Rodrigues Avenue to Stevens Creek B'oulevard,9.
t.o,effectuate a transition from a modified sub=-atandard eight -Lane
roadway south of Rodrigues Avenue, to a fully improved eight -lane
roadway beginning north of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Bicycle paths
shell be constructed within an easement located within the required
fifty -foot landscaped area adjacent to Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road.
A public street shall be constructed through Town Center North,
connecting the intersection of Rodrigues Avenue and Torre Avenue
to the intersection of.Stevens Creek Boulevard and either Vista Or
the proposed Torre Avenue extension, as proposed by the adopted
.Torre Avenue plan line The exact right-of-way width and the exact
_.alignment shall be determined at such time as a definitive develop-
-16-
o .
.,plan is submitted in conjunction witha use permit application.
The Torre Avenue extension through Town Center North shall be de-
signed in a.i.;.manner so as to provide for a grade separation for
bicycle and pedestrian movements
of the Town Center North.
between the two bisected>.segments
The section of Rodrigues Avenue from Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road to
Blaney Avenue is presently constructed.. There are no proposed <.'.
changes in the configuration of said roadway.
Curb cuts from the two arterial roadways and the two private streets
into the Town.Center North property shall be kept to an absolute
minimum. The. term "absolute minimum" in this instance means that
there shall be a one_curb-cu.t break between Rodrigues Avenue and
Stevens Creek Boulevard on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, and one curb -
cut break between Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and the proposed.Torre
Avenue extension on Stevens Creek Boulevard There can be an
auu:LLiona.L curo-cut rrom Torre Avenue extension to the east boundary
line of,Town Center North on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Curb cuts on
connector streets within Town Center shall be evaluated at the time ,.
of use perms* submission.
It is- the current thinking of the Engineering Department that there
will be no median breaks on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road between Rodri.g,ues'
Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The only median break on Stevens
Creek Boulevard, between Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and the east'`bouncia,ry
of the Town Center, shall be the intersection of Torre Avenue eaten
sign with Stevens Creek Boulevard.
-17-
Unique Topographic or Vegetative Features
The Town Center North is a relatively flat area.
required within the.normal course of construction.
Grading will be
However, no
major topographic features will be modified or eliminated.
The existing vegetati'on�on the site is composed mainly of orchard
trees. It may be possible for some trees to be maintained so as
to retain,a sense of the past for this commu;nityo In this sense,
some trees ;could be incorporated into the landscape design;
of.. the Center in the form of a token orchard. The retention of
fruit trees is suggestive onlyand not a requirement.
Design Elements
The Town Center, in conjunction with the crossroads of Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard, represents a key node
for the City of Cupertino. In order to create the necessary visual
integration of .this intersection with the Town Center, the, City
Council determined that an open space plaza will be created on the
two northern corners of ;the_..intersectione The Town Center Plan
will further add to the plaza effect by providing a.third'corner
of open space with a diagonal pedestrian corridor leading to City
Hallo THis will create both a visual and functional tie between
the(admin strative and professional offices of the City with the
major commercial center of town.
The architectural design for the Town Center should reflect ele
men.ts related to the City°s early California heritage, as well -as,
®l�-
G
design elements established for existing buildings within Town
Center South. In keeping with the City's California heritage,
it is desired that an open pedestrian mall be created rather than.
an enclosed mall. The openness is necessary for the visual effect
of the Plaza and pedestrian corridor, as.well as for accommodating
th.e free flow 'ofactivitiesthroughout the commercial center and
the residential areas.
In keeping with the concept of a community -oriented Town Center,
public open areas like .plazas, green space and fountains should be
available throughout the Center for both :passive and active .:recrea-
tion. _ Separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic is also essen-
tial for a people -oriented development.
Specific guidelines for implementing these concepts are as follows:
Sate
le A diagonal visual and pedestrian: corridor should be provided
that will Link the City Hall with .the open space plazas at the
intersection o.f Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Stevens Creek 'Boule-
vard.
2e Bike and pedestrian paths should be separate from vehicular
movemel nt,,.and should be. located adjacent to the major street
frontages:and along. Terre Avenue.
o The commercial area should be oriented to outdoor plaza(s),
rattier.than an air-conditioned mall,
4a The use of plazas, fountains, green.space and varying grade
levels should be incorporated in both, the commercial and resi
-1�- .
4e (coast°do)
dential areas .of the site.
Landscaping and Parking
to The landscaping area adjacent to Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and
9teven.s Creek Boulevard shall not be less than 50 feet wide
and shall provide for separate bicycle and pedestrian paths.
20 The use of. lanscaped islands within the parking area should be
emphasized and included where -ever possible.
3 o Parking shouldbe screened, from the street through means of
partial undergrounding or landscaping.
The purpose of the parking lot treatment will be to avoid
the "sea of asphalt" effect usually accomp,anyin.g. commercial
and/or industrial developments._
Architecture
.lo Building design and materials.should reflect the early heritage
of California.
20 Variety ,n heights.of the buildings will be permitted with a
maximum of -four stories. The tallerbuildings should be situ-
ated on the site .sty that they will not dwarf the Civic Center
and the surrounding single-family residences. This may be ac-
complished by placing the taller buildings near the center of
the developm.ant and the shorter ones along the periphery.
3.0 Terraces and balconies should be.used to break up the multi_
level effect and keep the buildings within a human perspective.
-20-
O
D
Q,
3 (cont Ida�
These terraces will also provide vantage points for viewing
the plaza activities.
Signing
to One shopping center sign will be allowed on Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. The signs should be
either low profile or incorporated into the entrances,.. to the
Center th-rough means of an archway or theme structure. The
Center will essentially be self -identifying due to its size.
2. S ;gn ng for the shops shall he 'dniform, minimal, and in keep-
ing,`with the architecture of the buildings
3> Free-standing banks or restaurants will be allowed wall signs
only, rather than individual ground signs
Summary Policy Statement for Town. Center North
le Town Center North.shalal be developed with a mi,xture of uses,
with no one use predominating.
20 The_..intensity of'uses within Town. Center North shall be depen®.
dent upon the traffic -carrying capacity of Stevens Creek Boule-
vardo Residential density shall be limited to a maximum of
lb units per acres However, a.project with a higher density
shall be permitted if the increase in density results in the
implementation of a social goal of the community.
a A pubic street shall be constructed through Town Center North
connecting the intersection of Torre Avenue and Rodrigues Aveiftu :
with '`Stevens Creek Boulevard at the intersection of Stevens
-21-
30 (Cont'd.
Creek -and Vista or Stevens Creek and Torre Avenne,_^as proposed
on the adopted Torre Avenue Plan Line.
4> ''he building and site design of the,Town Center shall be regu-
lated by the guidelines listed in the body of the Town Center
North segment of this plans
12/3/73
-22-
s
REPORT. -07,,pL NNING COMMISSION CONCERNING R.EU TAT OF CORD AZE;A
GENERAL PLAN;` AMENDMENT A$'REkE,RR.BD BX' CTTX COUNCIL:. ON QCTOBE 2 319 1973
NoWquber 26, 1973
As:. -a result of the 'City:Counciles action on'October 31p 1973., wherein
the Council: ,after .many months .of, review .of. ;the "Planning .Commission p.s. 'recommenda-
tion relative to the propose.d.".amendmen,t.to :the general plan concern%rig the core:
area, certain .chang.est. and..add;i:tions have ..been set-,fortfiby the.: Coungilo As:
required by State law, the core area amendment has. been referred to .:the
Planning Commission for its report... The Commission, after meetingoinCly with
the City Council on November. 6.,.1973,.has .met :on.November:l2, November 19, and
November 261:to consider the ramifications, of the proposed changes and, additions
to the, core. area:. amendm.en;t by the. City Council.T.her,efore, the.follow ng
represents ahe Commissionp""s report and.the results, of their discussions con-
cerning the proposal-, The intent of this report is to..summarize the actions
taken by the Planning.'Commission concerning the core"area amendment and not.
to summarize the various positions of the individual"Commissioners that were
stated:`relative to .the various: issues of'the proposed"amendment. The summary
statements of th.e,actions`.taken do represent the consensus .of the entire
Commission.through unanimous or majority votea
Core Area Discussion Planning Commission Meeting - November 12
Northea t and North�e t Corners - Sarato a-Sunn ale Rd,, and Stevens Creek
Blvd.
During this meeting_a number of areas within the core area were discussed.
Hotaever, the; cons,ensus..vote resulting from these discussions was related to
the open.space designations at the intersection of Saratoga'Sunnyvale,Road and
SteVan;s Creek Blvd. on the Plannin Commissi Q
g on s original recommendation to: the
City Council. It was generally concluded that perhaps the Counr; �. „n-
Core Area Discussion - Planning.Gommission Meeting -November 19
Stevens Creek Blvd from Saratoga-Sunnvvale Rd to the easterly City limits
The following major points arose from this'discussibh
la It was generally concluded that the original proposal ;of.residential
land uses along Stevens Creek Blvd. between the regional shopping
facility and the Towr1 Center represents a.desirable Linkage of the
two major facilities.However, after discussion it was additionally.
concluded that due :to problems of existing uses.,, primarily along -the
northerly frontage of.S"tevens Creek Blvde,.that perhaps th.e possibi
lity of realizing a total residential link would be somewhat remote.
20 Additionally, the issue of the feasabilty of the entire properties
fronting upon Stevens`: Creek Blvd., both .n.ortherly, and southerly of
the roadway;, being developed as commercial activities=;with intensity
constraints,arose. It was generally thought that realistically the
frontages may be developed' with the remaining areas being devoted to
some other type of lands'ea
3. Concerning the southerly side of Stevens Creek Blvd. i� the vicinity
of'Portal Avenue with approximately,17 a'cres.of vacant property, the
opportunity.;exists to introduce a residentialuse into the strip
linking the Town.Center.arid Regional Shopping,facility; that the
property. ,is .of a size that can 'be designed in a proper manner' from
a residential ;standpoint and 'thus eliminate .the commercial strip
appearance of Stevens Creek Blvd. in.thus area. The remaining
properties adjacent ,to Stevens. Creek Blvd. are to remain in a
commercial/.residential land use mix. -
4o That any future development adjacent to Stevens -Creek Blvd., either
commercial or residential, would be subjected to ordinances setting
forth the following typesof performance standards°.
a> Traffic -riot to exceed 8 lanes
b Building coverage
ce Building height
d, Building setback'
ear Con:�trolsnofr#6 ise<.;aridllight emission
f'a Sign controls
ga Air quality controls
Planning. Commission Position and -Recommendation.
That
-the.land use designation be commercial/residential with -a:
density. range of -from 4 to 12 dwelling units ,per acre,. excepting,
the 17± acres
adjacent 'to Portal Avenue, which would be designated as resdental.with a
rden:s:ity range of from 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre.
_2-
Core Area Discussion.- Planning Commission. Meeting, November 26
,Town Center
A representative of the property owners informally discussed.;a.'proposal
for the development of this area. The intent of this discussion was to request
general' opinions from the'Planning Commission as to whether or not 'the'.propo
sal,.
was in°keep;ing'with their'`concept of the Town Center area The result was that
the Commission ;saw the proposal as.not in keeping with the, concep t.of a community-
oriented Town Cen.ter area; with'an.integration of.residential and commercial land
uses; than zuorespecifically the proposal represented'a mini -regional shopping
center..at the intersectio:i'of'Stevens Creek Blvd- and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Rdo
with apartment development in the remaining area.
The following`issues arose as a result.of Council@s.proposale
le The question of allowing an industrial land.use within the mixed
commercial/residential designation. As.a result of this discussion.
the Commission defined the industrial land use as not being; one of..
major employment but rather industrial.activities.that could be'
-associated with handcrafting.such'as pot ery making., leather goods9
and similar uses9 and:that ordinances and'more precise plans would
be.developed implementing the community -oriented Town Center area;
20. Intensity limitations based upon 25 tripends per acre;
31. Requiring integration of residential and commercial land uses;
4. Residential land uses are to be within a.density,range of.4:,to 12
dwelling units per acre, unless a communi.tywide social `goal is
achieved as-a'part of the development.
Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road - East and West Sides (Highway 9j
Commission concurs with the designation set forth.by the City_Councilo
Additionally; the Commission proposes .to limit the residential:densities to
4 to lb dwelling units per.acres'and further that as apart of preparing
implementing:'ordinances9.provisions will be made -to eliminate the stripping
effect of commercial or industrial activities adjacent:to.Highway,9:and that
performance standards will be considered relative to the following -
to Traffic not exceeding 8 lanes
2.. Building coverage
3o Building height
C Building setback
5 Controls'.of noise and light emissions
6. Signs
7o Air quality
Recreational/Entertainment Land Use..Designation Located Westerly of Wolfe Rdo9
Southerly of the.Exlsting Vallco Village Shopping Center
The result of that discussion was a vote by the Planning Commission; to
recommend the redesignation of that area .to professional office/industrial and:
provide as an overall,poli.,cy statement of the core area amendment that
recreational -oriented facilities. could become -a part of professional
office/industrial lands subject to the appropriate approvals of the
City.
Southeast Corner of the Intersection -,of Homestead. Rd. and.Stelling Rd.
The Commission concurIz s in the land use designation of recreational/
entertainment. However, it does recommend that an .underlying policy statement
provide for residential land uses of a dens;;ity not to exceed 12 to 16 dwelling
units per acres
Northwest Corner of :;the Intersection of Stelling Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd.
The Commission recommends that the corner de d gnation of open space uses . as
originally" -proposed be designated oin the general'plan..as the primary land use
with the inteut being that the City will, if at allpossible, purchase.the
property for park'purposes< It is further understood that an underlying
residential land use should „be stated in the' event the purchase of the
property cannot be realized in a reasonableperiod oftimeo Further, the
Commission is.r.ecomm.ending that the residential land,use density for this
area provide for a range of from 4 to'12 dwelling units per acre.
-4-
\ S
\ F
1
" SCHEDULE FOR. COMPLETION OF CORE AREA.
Phase I m City Council transmits Core Area Recommendations to Planning Commission.
A. Council Tasks
to _Decide land'use and densities on
Stelling and,Stevens Creek.
Zaich
Christensen
Homestead and Highway 9
Northwest Corner
Mariam Plant
Remainder of Vallco
Stevens Creek -Highway 9 to Tant_au
Other existing built�up'areas
-2, Review completed land use choices and policy statements
3. Transmit land use choices and policy statements to Planning Commission
_B`o Staff Tasks
1. Prepare information for,,.Coun`c1, on land use. choices
2. Prepare draft policy statements
3. Prepare -final core area "package" P maps and policy statements
Co Timing
to Objective ® Council transmits core area recommendations to Planning Commission.
week of Oct 29- Nov. 2
20 Council finishes land use decisions on Oct. 17 or holds additional, meetings;
before Oct. ' 29.
3. Staff needs approximately one week to prepare final "package"
4. Council may have to hold 2 meetings week of Oct. 29-Nov. 2.
Phase II - Planning Commission Reviews Core Area Recommendations
A. Commission Tasks
1. Review land use choices and policy statements
2.. Review and adopt new zoning ordinances
3. Review draft EIR
4. Return Plan with comment to Council
B. Staff Tasks
1. Assist Commission in review of Core Area
2. Prepare zoning ordinances
3. Prepare draft EIR
C. Timing
I.- Objective = Commission completes review of Core Area Plan week of Nov, 26-30
2, Commission receives Core Area Plan no later than Nov, 6
3. Commission receives draft EIR by Nov,
Phase III Council Adopts Core Area Plan
A, Council Tasks
1. Review and adopt zoning ordinances
{ 2. Review and public hearing on EIR
3. Final adoption of Core Area Plan
Y
B. Staff Tasks
1. Collect and review EIR comments
2. Prepare final EIR
C. Timing
1. EIR requires 15 days minimum between publication of draft EIR and
adoption of final EIR. 15 days can be between Nov, 28-30 and
Dec. 13-15.
2. December 18 is a Tuesday; December 13 is a Thursday
PHASE I ;PHASE II
PHASE 'III
Oct. Oct. Oct. -Nov> Nov. Novo Nov. Novo Deco Deco Deco
15-19 22-2.4 �9— 2 5-9 12-16 19-23 26-30 3-7 10-14 17=21
Council decides Core
XXXXXXX
p
0
p
h
Staff writes up Core
XXX
XXXXXXXXX
g
0
�
h
Council reviews Core
p
KXXXXXXXXXI
°
- 0
0
Commission reviews Core
kXXXX
0
XXXXX
XXXXXXX
p
D
V
0
Staff prepares ordinances
xxxxxxxxxxkxxxxcxxxxxx0
o
D
Commission reviews
o
adopts ordinances
XXXXXX
XXXXXXX
D
XXXXXX
EIR preparers
D
D
�
EIR reviewed
�
B
D
XXXXXX p
Final Commission comments
°
p
XXX.XXXD
EIR- review by Staff
D
XXXXX
V
XXXXX
Final Council action
D
XXXXX
XXXXX
lm, Completion of the CoreArea Plan. by December 18th
means that no,other General Plan work can be con-
ducted until After January 1st o
2.Staff' time requirements to complete staff tasks
in Core Area schedule means that regular workload
tasks will have to be deferred as much as possible
3 The method for developing an EIR on the Core Area
Plan has not been finally resolved.
NOVEMBER
5
6
7
S
9
Day
¢
¢ ¢
Evening
CC - Reg, Mtg,
C C IPC - Gen 91 Plan
PC - Gen ° 1 Plan
Day
12
13
14
15
16
Evening
PC Reg, Mtga
PC - Gen°1 Plan
Day
19
20
21
22
23
Evening
CC- Reg, Mtg.
PC - Gen ° 1 Plan,
TNANKSGTVIN
---- ,:----. --,-
a
II
c
4
6
-...
`�
�:
�, r
c,
J 5
d :w.
mp c /AZt
a—.
De
r
pew
, Aka,' fxz> i OCR -
Ile
f
132 - ,
,7 1— d
3h +- �40�2-
,. � .a.x '�'iac• s.v:n �... ,�Ars-n.,s�.., mn-. ,,x;.- `m""'� �'w�.:-u.�.:,.
=^Ma-rw' ' . � � 'il^. �'"
-c � �. v T
'yam' - Y�,�, •�w.4 .a.'neur.�3' :� . �ari.�v-rtv . r^��: 3 ^��hx:.3�vS�+�"^f� �mcev�CDY'Y�"/t �3[�9wc�_..Sit.uMk'+lJ� �-rti-z1.AnMca'Yi..��cx.�.....:
W y y'i
Lo3'q �y
A
- if
g
SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF CORE AREA
w..
OCTOBER
15
16
17
18
1
i
Day
.Evening
CC - Regular
CC - Gen°1 Plan
CC Gen°1 Plan
Meeting
-: Day
23'
24
25
26
22
Convention
Convention
Convention
Evening
tY
NOVEMBER
Day
29:
30
31
Novo 1 ..
2
Evening
PC - Rego Mtgo
CC - Gen°l Plan
CC/PC - General
Plan
Flood Plan
o
Cit'4 of Owperti"o
The Honorable Chairman and. Me.mb.ers
TO: of the Planning Commission DATE: Novemb er 1 1 93 3
FROM: James H. Sisk, Planning Director
SUBJECT: city Council I Adoption of Resolution 3569 and Referral
of -Core Area Plan to Planning Commission
Attached is a copy:of the subject City Council Res.olu-
tion as adopted -at the Council meeting -of October 31.
,This: resolution, with attached exhibits, t-,,-.p,resents
'
the City Council's -'tentative de'ci,siqns relative to the
Core.,Area portion of.the General Plan Review. As you,
may recall, a joint session of the Planning Commission
been d ember 6, to
and, City ,Council has scheduled.: he dq,l e, for V.-
b,egin. the Planning,ICommIssions evaluation .the wo-tk
undert . aken in the,C,ore Area,.b-'Y, the City Council. The
lath .pr I o vi-des, that the Planning - Commission shall review
and :report.back to the, Cit' Coun cil relative to any
changes and/or additions to a recommended General Plan
or element Cher .of .
Enclosures'
Detailed De.scriTtIon. &, .Standards 'of. Land-;.-Usel:-Desiguations
Resolution No..,3569
Construction Phasing for Valloo, Park
Map
RESOLUTION NO. 3569
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. CITY OF CUPERTINO-TENTATIVELY
APPROVING AND REFERRING TO THE PLANNING CO ,!MISSION AN. AMENDMENT TO THE
1964 GENERAL PLAN CONCERNING THE LAND USE ELEMENT FOR THE CORE AREA
WHEREAS, the City Council, as a part of the comprehensive General
Plan study, has tentatively approved lard use designations for the Core
Area of the Community; and
WHEREAS, the tentative approval made changes and/or additions to
the amendment as approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1183
adopted on July 13, 1973.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
to That the City Council hereby tentatively approves an amendment
to the 1964 General Plan land use element "Core Area as set
forth in Exhibit A and A-1 attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
20 That the City Council, as provided by Section 65356 of the
Government Code, does hereby refer the proposed changes and/or
additions to the Planning commission for its report.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned meeting of the City Council of,
the City of Cupertino this 31st day of October, 1973 by -the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmen - Frolich, Jackson, Meyers, Sparks, Irwin
NOES: Councilmen - None
ABSENT: Councilmen - None
ATTEST: APPROVED:
WithWm. E. cyder E. Irwin
tino
City derk Mayor, City of Cuper
_1_
October 31, 1973
DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND STANDARDS OF LAND- USE DESIGNATIONS
WITHIN THE CORE AREA'
AS. APP.RO,UED. BY:'.:THE:�::CITY;'COUNCIL
.EXHIB'IT A=l '
This exhibit accompanies the map labelled Exhibit A which shows the
City Council recommendations for General Plan land use designations.wthin.
the Core Area. This exhibit summarizes the standards and, policy statements
which the City Council approves as an elaboration and explanation of the
recommended land uses. An.additional objective of this exhibit is to focus
on the explanation of land use recommendations which differ from the Planning
Commission recommendations;°
Statement of Certain General Findings
1. Residential development in any portion of the Core Area may include
densities which exceed present City maximums if such development meets
a special communitywide social goal.
20 Residential density may in the future be related to bedroom density.
The staff shall examine methods of implementing this proposal.
3. Appropriate ordinances will be prepared setting forth the procedure by
which the City will evaluate planned development with mixtures of land
uses in order to obtain the desired traffic generating factor.
Northwest Corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road
This area i.s designated as planned residential development 12 to 16
dwelling units per acre.
Boulevard and Stelling Road should be utilized"as future community park lands.
.The Council concluded that the use of this property as are add.tien to Memorial
Park would be desirable. However, the Council felt that,designation of a
specific park site. should not be first addressed in a general planning context.
Therefore an underlying land use was placed upon the property -in order that.
the owner would be ,able: to utilize the property for private purposes if the
City were not able to, in the future, acquire the land.
Southwest : and _Southeast Corners of the Intersection. of Homestead :Road
and Stell ng'Road
The area designated as commercial shall bedeveloped with general
commercial uses. The area designated as recreational/entertainment shall
be developed primarily as a recreational area with related entertainment.
and `commercial activities.,
The City Council approves of a recreational use on the designated
area. The Council feels, on advice from the City Attorney, that an
ordinance can be developed to restrict potential, uses to recreational
uses. The Council is aware that care will have to be exercised in restrict
ing'the "related" commercial uses which can accompany the primary recreational.
Northwest, Southwest and Southeast Quadrants of the Intersection of Homestead
Road and"Sara.toga-Sunnyvale Road
A portion of the northwest quadrant of this intersection is designated
for agricultural uses recognizing an existing exclusive agricultural use
on the property. The remainder of the area is designated as planned
residential uses with a density of 12 to 16 dwelling units per acre except
for the existing service station which will remain commercial and the exist
ing Ira:-ernal lodge which will be designated quasi -public.,
-2-
I
The'.area'in the southwest quadrant designated. as general commercial
shall be developed with general commercial uses,. A portion of this quadrant
is designated:as agricultural -and is in recognition of an -existing exclusive
agricultural.use on that portion of the property.
The area within the,southeast,quadrantI.shall.be developed as a planned
residential development with a density of between 4 and 12 dwelling units
per acre.
Wes.terl Side of_Hi.ghwa .9 :Between Stevens,. Creek Blvd. and Interstate
Freeway Rou"te 280' and Easterly Side of Highway `9 Between Existing Quasi-
public Cfiu.rch Site and Interstate Fr6t iy ,Route 280
The land -use designation of commercial between Stevens Creek Blvd. and
Alves Drive on the westerly side of Highway 9 provides for the development
of that -area in commercial activities. From.Alves"Drive northerly to
Freeway Route 280 on the westerly side and from the quasi -public church
site on the easterly side .northerly to Freeway Route;280 provides for a
mixture of land .uses of commercial, commercial/residential/industrial, and
industrial and residential. These land use designations are accompanied by
three conditions:
10 A traffic intensity performance standard;
20 Uniform aesthetic treatment performance standards
3. A performance standard to allow individual development of parcels.
The intent of -the performance standards is to accomplish community
objectives which became known in the general plan revision process a Those
objectives are, as follows.
1. Allow the development of properties within this area in a manner
-3-
The traffic intensity perf0thance standard will limit land uses within
this area to those uses that produce maximum average of l6 one-way peak
hour trips per acre so as to as that no traffic laod will be created
that will exceed the capacity of Highway 9_at eight lanes The peak hour
shall be, that 60-minute period .of time wherein the highest n'unber'`of
vehicular trips occur for the ..specif.i:c street involved.
The intent of the uniform aesthetic treatment performance standard is
to guarantee that the development of Highway 9:, in mixed uses under separate
ownership will not interfere with the community°p desire to have a uniform
and high quality aesthetic.treatment to both sides of Highway 90
The third performance standard which will alrlow individual development
of parcels as long as they do not have an adverse impact on neighboring
parcels is intended to balance the planning requirements for.the Highway 9
area with the ability of individual landowners to proceed without requiring
formal interrelationships with their neighbors.
The major implementation requirement for the traffic intensity
performance standard will<be for the City to develop a procedure for
determining the peak hour traffic impact of various land uses
In. order to implement a uniform treatment standard, the following
guidelines are set forth as beginning statements for said guidelines.
They are, as follows:
1e A 50-fte landscaped buffer area beginning at the curb line shall
be maintained along the entire frontage of Highway 9. This buffer
area to be unobstructed by building and parking facilities.
2. Limited vehicular access shall be provided on Highway 90
-4-
3. Compatible architectural building -sign designs shall be required.
ed: at -the z.onii g` and/or 'precise planned
A procedure shall be develop
level''..to-lad.Judicate whether an individual developer can proceed without.
having" an adverse impact upon'.his nd-ighbore
Thi. :,Council.recognizes that the:ldnd.uses adjacent to Highway 9'are not
identical. These recommendations reflect the fact that.planning criteria in
addition to traffic intensity performance standards were used in reaching a
final determinations The major planning criteria inreaching said deter-
mination are, as follows'
le The size of the vacantparcelson the east side of Highway 9 are
appropriate for planning a land use mix with a substantial residential
component.
2. It is the intent of the Council to preserve and enhance the existing
commercial development on the west side of Highway 9e In view of
the limited additional amount of commercial activity desired in
Cupertino, the west side parcels w.ere�nselected for land use mixtures
including commercial developments
The City Council recommends land use designations in this area which
differ from the Planning Commission recommendations. There are four principal
reasons:
le The Council wishes to maintain and enhance existing commercial uses.
2. The Council evaluates extensive high density residential development.
negatively in .terms of character of the City.
3o The Council evaluates either total single-family residential develop-
ment or single-family residential development immediately adjacent to
Highway 9 negatively in terms of
ae neighborhood impacts
-5-
bo the fiscal impacts of attempting to reduce negative neighborhood
impacts.
4. The Council evaluates mixed.uses including commercial and industrial
development positively on the character of the City if they are in
accordance with the performance standards stated above.
The Council agrees with the objective of the Planning Commission to place
restrictions on the intensity of development in this area and to insure high
aesthetic standards for Highway 90
TOWN CENTER (Southeast Quadrant of the In
ana Saratoga-Sunnvval.e.Road)
�rsection of Suez
Boulevard
This land use designation provides for a planned urban center with a
mixture of land uses of commercial/residential/industrial.based upon an
overall plan for the area. It is intended that no one particular use will
be predominant. It is important that the planned urban center be a mixed use
area speaking to community -oriented uses of a unique character which will
provide for a variety of social and cultural activities and specialized
merchandise..
Sunnyvale -Saratoga Road (South -of Town Center)
The land area designated as professional office with related commercial.
and quasi -public uses and the area designated commercial represents an infilling
within the existing land use pattern in the area.
It should be noted that the area southerly of the existing city library
site has been changed by the Council to the professional office designation
as opposed to quasi -public as recommended by the Planning Commission. It
is the Council°s opinion that the land use designation from a general plan
M
standpoint should portray a private.use for the property in the absence of
specific .City plans to purchase the property.
North Suede :of, Stevens Creek Boulevard Between Highway.9 and Portal Avenue and
South Side of Stevens Creek Boulevard From the Town Center to the Easterly
City Limits.,,
The land use designation on the General Plani:s f'or planned development
limited intensity commercial_ use. It is intended that ordinances will be
prepared speaking directly to'an intensity of commercial use which wll
lessen the traffic impact of.those uses on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The
ordinance will enumerate specific uses in, order to.accomplish this. The
ordinances shall be drawn to meet the objective of
to Limiting traffic on Stevens Creek to a maximum of 8 lanes;
2. Developing aesthetic standards for Stevens Creek Boulevard
including limitation of access.
Existing commercial activities within this area shall be recognized
and thus shall not become nonconforming uses.
VALLCO PARK
The area designated as planned regional shopping center within Va11co
PaxIk is to be utilized as a site for a regional shopping center with the
total square feet not to exceed approximately one million square feet! Tliis.
is to include the square footage of the existing Sears facility. The area
des;igna,ted as commercial within the southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road anal
Pruneridge Avenue is to be,utilized for expansion of the Hilton Hotel site
as approved by the Planning Commission and City Council The commercial
area at the southwest corner of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Homestead
Road is in recognition of the existing Vallco Village Shopping Center.
-7-
'i
Southerly thereofis an area designated a& recreational/entertainment. This
area is to be set aside for.recreational/entertainmen.t type -uses providing.
a service to the hotel and other industrial office. activities within Vallco
Park. The remaining acreages within Vallco Park, including the recreational/
entertainment area discussed above.9 are to be developed in accordance with
the provisions of the attached memo "Construction Phasing for Vallco Park"a
This memo is a revision of an earlier memo prepared for the Planning Commission
and retains the original objectives of the Planning Commission..
P
10/30/73
DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND STANDARDS OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS-
WITHIN THE CORE AREA
AS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
EXHIBIT A-1
This exhibit accompanies. the -map labelled Exhibit A which shows the
City Council recommendations 'for General Plan land use designations within
the Core Area. This exhibit summarizes the standards and policy statements
which the City Council approves as an elaboration and explanation of the
recommended lan.d'uses. An•additional objective of this exhibit is to focus
on the explanation of land use recommendations which differ from the Planning
Commission recommendations.
Northwest Corner of:-Stevens;Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road
This area is designated as residential 12 to 16 dwelling units per acre.
The discussion before the City Council involved the question as to whether
or not the approximately 12-acre parcel fronting on Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Stelling Road should be utilized as future community park lands. The
Council concluded that the, use of this property as an addition to Memorial
Park would be desirable. However, the Council felt that designation of a
specific park site should not be first addressed in a general planning contexts
Therefore an underlying land use was placed upon the property in order that..
the owner would be able to utilize the property for,- private purposes if the
City were not able to, in the future, acquire the land.
-1-
Southwest and Southeast Corners of the Intersection: of Home�'tead Road
and S�telling Road
The area designated as commercial shall be 'developed with general
commercial uses. Tle area.designated as recreation.al/entertainmen-t
shall be developed primarily as a recreational area with related
entertainment. and commercial activities.
The City Council approves of a recreational use on the designated area.
The Council'fee ls, on advice from the City A.ttorney9 that an ordinance can
be developed to restrict potential uses to recreational uses. The Council
is aware that,care will have to be exercised in restricting the "related"
commercial.uses which can accompany the primary recreational.
Southwest. and Southe
luadrants of the Intersection of Homestead
A.porti.on of the northwest quadrant of this intersection is designated
for agricultural uses recognizing,an existing exclusive agricultural use
on the property. The remainder of the area is designated as a planned
mixture of commercial and residential uses. This mixed commercial and
residential land use designation is to be related to a traffic intensity
performance standard. This intensity is to be a maximum of 16 tripends
per acre at the peak hour. The intent is that Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road
shall be limited in size to a maximum of eight lanes. Appropriate ordinances
will be prepared setting forth the procedure by which the. City will evaluate
the planned development and appropriate mixture of land uses on this property
in; order to obtain the desired generating factor.
The -area in the southwest quadrant designated as general commercial shall'
be developed with general commercial uses A portio-m of this quadrant is
-2-
designated as agricultural and is in recognition of an existing exclusive
agricultural use on that portion of the property.
The area within the southeast quadrant shall be developed at a residential
density of between and 12 dwelling units per acres
Westerly.Side of Highway:, Between Stevens Creek Blvd and Interstate Freeway
Route 280 and Easterly Side, Of.Highway 9 Between Existing Quasi®Public Church
Site and Interstate Freeway Rii t-P'.9AO
The land use designation of commercial between Stevens Creek Blvd. and
Alves Drive on the westerly side of Highway 9 provides for the development of
that area in commercial activities. From Alves Drive northerly to Freeway
Route 280 on the westerly side and from the Quasi -Public church site on the
easterly side northerly to Freeway Route 280 provides for a mixture of land
uses of .commercial, commercial/residential/industrial, and industrial and
residential. These land use designations are accompanied by three conditions:
la A traffic intensity performance standard;
26 Uniform aesthetic treatment performance standard;
3e A performance standard to allow individual development of parcels.
The intent of the performance standards is to accomplish community objectives
which became known in the general plan revision process. Those objectives are;
as follows:
1. Allow the development of properties within this. area in'a manner that the
traffic generated does not create a high intensity traffic node.
2e Protect the City from uncertainty of, Freeway Route_85 being constructed.
The traffic intensity performance standard will limit land uses within this
area 'to those uses that produce maximum average of 15 peak hour trips per
acre so as to assure that no traffic load will be created that will exceed
-3-
the capacity of Highway 9.at eight lanes.
The intent of the uniform aesthetic treatment performance standard is to
guarantee that the development of Highway 9 in mixed uses under separate
ownership will not interfere with the community's desire to have a uniform
and high quality aesthetic treatment to both sides of Highway 90
The third performance standard which will allow individual development
of parcels as long as they do not have an .adverse impact on neighboring
parcels is `intended to balance the planning requirements for the Highway :9
area with the ability of individual landowners to proceed without requiring
formal.interrelationships with their neighbors.
The major implementation requirement for the traffic intensity performance
standard will be for the City to develop a'procedure for determining the peak
hour traffic impact of various land uses.
In order to implement a.:=iform treatment standard, the following guide-
lines -are.set forth as beginning statements for said guidelines. They are,.
as follows o
la A 5"0-f`to landscaped buffer area shall be maintained along the entire
frontage of Highway 9, at a distance of 50 feet to be unobstructed by
building and parking facilities.
2e Limited vehicular access shall be provided on Highway 90
3. Compatible architectural building -sign designs shall be required.
A procedure shall be developed at the zoning and/or precise planned level
to.adjudicate whether an individual developer can proceed without having
an' adverse impact upon his neighbor.
-4-
This Council recognizes that the land uses adjacent to Highway 9 are not
identical. These recommendations reflect the fact that planning criteria
in addition to traffic intensity performance standards were used in reaching
a final determination. The major planning criteria in reaching said deter-
mination are as follows:
1. The size of the vacant parcels on the east side of Highway 9 are
appropriate for planning a land use mix with a substantial residential
component.
20 2t is the intent of the Council to preserve and enhance the existing
commercial development.on.the west,side of Highway 9. In view of the
limited additional amount of commercial activity desired in Cupertino,
the west side parcels were selected for land use' mixtures including
commercial development.°
The City Council recommends land use designations in this area which
differ from the Planning Commission recommendations. There are four
principal reasons:
10 The Council wishes to maintain and enhance existing commercial uses.
20 The Council evaluates extensive high density residential development
negatively in terms of character of the City.
3> The. Council evaluates single-family residential development adjacent
to Highway 9 negatively in terms.of
ae neighborhood impacts
bo the fiscal impacts of attempting to reduce negative neighborhood
impacts.
4.. The Council evaluates mixed uses including commercial and industrial
development positively on the character of the City if they are in
accordance with the performance standards stated above.
-5-
A
The Council agrees with the objective of the Planning Commission to
place restrictions.on the intensity of development in this area and to
insure high aesthatic.standards for Highway 90
TOWN CENTER (Southeast Quadrant of the :Intersection of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Sararto;ga-Sunnyvale Road)
This land use designation provides for a planned urban center with
a mixture of land uses of commercial/residential/industrial based upon
an overall plan for the area, It is intended that no one particular use
will be predominant, It is important that the planned urban center be a
mixed use area speaking to community=oriented uses of aFufiique character
which will provide for a variety of social and cultural activities and
.specialized merchandise Residential development in the planned urban
center may include -densities -which exceed present City.maximums if such
development meets a special.communitywide social goal.
Sunnyvale -Saratoga Road (South of Town Center)
The land area designated.a's professional office with related commercial
and quasi -public uses and the -a.rea designated commercial. represents. an in
filling within the existing land use pattern in: the area.
It should be noted that the area sou-therly,of the existing city. library
site has been changed by the Council to the professional office designation.
as: -opposed to quasi -public as recommended by..the Planning Commissions it
is the Council°s opinion that the land use designation from a General Plan
standpoint should portray -a private use for the property in the absence of
specific City plans to purchase the property.
North Side of Stevens. Creek Boulevard.B'etween Hi hwa 9 and Eortal A�
Stau th.S1t-,,Of Stevens Creek. Boulevard From:.the`Town Center "to the :Ea
Citv Limits
and
The land area designation on the General Plan is_for.commercial use.
It is intended that ordinances will be .prepared'speaking directly to an
intensity of commercial use which will lessen:. the traffic impact of those.
uses on. Stevens Creek Boulevard. The ordinance will enumerate specific
uses in order to accomplish this. The ordinances shall be drawn to meet
the objective of
1. Limiting traffic on Stevens Creek;.to a maximum of 8 lanes;
2< Developing aesthetic standards for Stevens Creek Boulevard
including limitation of access.
Existing commercial activities within: this area shall be recognized
and thus shall not become nonconforming, uses.
VALLCO PARK
The area designated as planned regional shopping center within Vallco
Park is to be utilized as a site for a regional shopping center with the
total square feet not to exceed approximately one million square feet. This
is to include the square footage of the existing Sears facility. The area
designated as commercial within .the southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road and
Pxu.neridge Avenue is to be utilized for expansion of the Hilton Hotel site
as approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The commercial
area at the southwest corner of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Homestead
Road is in recognition of the existing Vallco Village Shopping Center.
Southerly thereof is an area designated as residential/entertainment. This
area is to be set aside for-recreational/entertainment type uses providing
a, service to the hotel and other industrial office activities within Vallco
-7-
Park.. The remaining acreages within Vallco Park, including the recreational/
entertainment area discussed above, are to be developed in accordance with
the provisions of the attached memo "Construction Phasing for Vallco Park".
This memo is'a revision of an earlier memo prepared for the Planning Commission
and retains the original objectives of the Planning Commission.
TO, Keith Irwin
FROW SL
SUBJECT, City Council Review of.Core ,Area Recommendations:on.October 31, 1973
1. I see three areas which the Council may want to review'`in the_meetang of
October 31, 1973. These are:
(1) Policy statements related to the Stevens Creek land use recom-
mendations,
(2) Policy statements related -to -the Saich recommendations,
(3) The land use recommendation on the northwest corner of Homestead
and Highway 9
2. Jim has included language in the Stevens Creek policy statements.on two
points that were not unanimously approved by the Council. These are
(1) a policy statement attempting to limit the traffic on Stevens Creek
to 8 lanes and-(2) a policy statement calling for an aesthetic standard
and access -limitation. These two Policy statements would make the treat-
ment of Stevens Creek more cons istent°,with the approach. on Highway 9. On
the other hand, these two policy objectives may be more difficult to attain
and more restraining on owners on;Stevens Creek.
3. AsI understand the Saich decision, the Council .felt that no new park
should be shown on the plan: unless it had been recommended bythe'CIP com-
mittee or others. There was a somewhat similar case south of -,the Town Center
- where the city is considering purchase of a'parcel. The Planning Commission
liad recommended a quasi -public designation and the -Council recommen ded a
professional -office use.
IM
The issue is•whether or not the Council should designate land for public use
before a specific offer to'purchase-is 'made. 1 know there'is'some disagree-
ment among staff. Council,:Commission, and City Attorney, At some point
before the General Plan is adopted, this issue should`probably'be resolved.
4.. The Council array wish to review their°recommendation of commercial land use
on the northwest corner of Homestead and Highway 9.
(a) The predominant planned use for°the area is -residential and agricultural.
(b,) There is vacant commercial acreage,n the same area adjacent to an
existing center.
CO. The intersection is projected to have congestion problems,
(d) The standard of 16 peak hour trip ends -if applied -to areas outside
of the 280 to Stevens Creek area on Highway`9 involves some danger
to the objective of limiting Highway to 8 lanes. In addition, the
reasons applied to the 'big Highway 9 area-and'the Stevens Creek area
may not be automatically applicable to all areas .in the city,
TO; The Honorable Chairman and Members
of the Planning Commission DATE: October 26, 1973
FROM: James Ha Sisk, Planning Director
SUBJECT: General Plan Study --Stevens Creek Flood Plain
The purpose of this memo is :to summarize the Planning Commission
meeting of October ll, 19739;,to. state - issues that have evolved from
the flood plain discussions.thu's'far- and to make'a staff recommenda-
tion for the adoption of a Flood Plain Management Policy.
During the October 11, 1973 meeting,`a rep..resenta.tve from the Flood
Control District outlined four alternative flood plain management
programs for.t.he section of S-tev:ens Creek between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Stevens Creek Reservoir° The alternatives were.*
(a) A rock -lined trapezoidal channel
(b) A modified flood plain
(c) The _natural flood, plain
(d) The reconstruction of Stevens Cre k Bou,levard to construct
a small check -;dam to develop,a retarding basin to reduce
downstream peak flc5ts
The.rock lane -trap.ezbidal channel. ,has not been a popular approach
-1-
General Flan . Stu.dy Stevens Creek 'Flood Plain Octob:ex 26 1973
a number of property owners , took:. issv,e with... the development and imple
men:tation of a Ylood,' Plain Management Program: fox Stevens Creek,. The
primary ;issues raised by property, , owners dealt `with the .reasonable-
ness of the engineering, fin.d.inggswitT respect to the definition of a
natural flood plain line based upear even and secondly, the
property owners gook issue with"the 1:egality of .a public jur sdintion
restricting uses within a defined floodplain°. Both.these issues have
been discussed by.
representatives of the Floo&.Con:trol District, the
City Attorney and by attorneys. representing property .owners'° The staff
has no adMsonal commcnts``to make with regard ;to the engineering method
°logy utilized to determine or define a particular design, flood. As
stated"by a representative from ';the .Flood Control. -District, the Flood
Control District uses a universally accepted engineering method in
determini.n.g' flood potential..With regard `to the legal points, the
Cupertino City Attorney has given. an opinion that flood plain zoning
is a valid and necessary exercise of the police pgwer. in order to
protect _public health and safety. As a point of background, it.should
be stated that a number of State laws speak to -the necessity for cities
to develop a Flood Plain Management Program for waterways subject to
flooding. Government Code Section 65302(e) and 65560 'et seq requires
an open space element in all city and countygeneral plans. Section
65560 of the Government Code defines four basic categories.of open
space uses. Category Four is labelled Open. Space for Public Health
and Safety. It involves the_r4 lation of open space areas which
"require special management or regulation because of hazardous or
special conditions such as earthquake, fault zones, unstable soil
areas, flood plains (emphasi;s;added), watersheds, areas presenting
high fire risks, areas required for the protection of water quality
and water reservoirs and areas required for protection and enhance
ment' of air quality".
The -Open. Space Element requirement is somewhat unique in a sense.
that Section'65910 requires that open space zoning ordinances be
adopted.by December 31, 1973:and further Section 65567 states that
no building permit may.'be issued nor subdivision map approved and no
open space zoning ordinance; adopted unless. the proposed construction,
subdivision or ordinance -is consistent with the local open space plan.
The development of a Flood P1ain,Zoning Ordinance will help to satisfy
the requirements stipulated in 'Section 65910.
Government Code Section. 65302(d) requires the inclusion of a;conserva-
tion.element in all city and county general plans. Section 65302(d)
is as follows -
(A General Plan shall include)
"A conservation element .for. the conservation, development
and utilization of ;natural -, .e.96i r.ces including, water . and Its.
hydraulic force, forests',, ,'soils, rivers . and other waters,
harbors, fisheries, wd'Uldlife, minerals and other natural resources.
-2-
General Plan Study Stevens. Creek.Flood Plain pctoher 26, 1973
---------------------
That portion of -.the conservation element including waters shall
be developed in coordination with any county -wide water agency and
with all district and city water agencies which have been developed;
served,'con:trolled or conserved water fo.r any purpose for the county
or city or for which the plan is preparede The conservation element
mayalso cover
(a) - The reclamation of land and. waters
(b)- Flood control ;.(emphasis added)
(c) Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other
waters
(d') Regu1
areas
plan:
and other
rva.tion
(e) Prevention; control and correction of the erosion of soils,
beaches and shores
(f)Protection of watersheds
(g) The location., quantity and quality of the rock, sand and gravel
resources.
Clearly the Conservation Elemont,focu.ses its attention for the planned
management and utilization of water resources. The development of Flood
Plain Zoning is a vital tool`;for'the"implementation of the Conservation
Element.
Government Code- Sectioi 65362(V) requires that cities and counties adopt
a seismic safety element. 'Section 6530.2(f) reads as follows:
(The,General Plan shall include)
"A Seismic Safety Element .consisting of an identification and
appraisal of seismic hazards such as susceptibility to surface
ruptures from>faulting to ground shaking to ground failures or to
the effects of seismically induced waves such as tsunamis and sciehes->"
The element concerns itself-`lwith determining the implication of the failure
of dams due to shaking, fault displacement or overtopping from scches`or
massive landsliding into the reservoir. During the September 24th meeting
;a representative from the Fload C t 1 D'
on ro istrict stated that Flood Control
District is now required by law to prepare inundation maps which,describe:
>the effect of instantaneous failure of reservoirs withinthecounty. A
reliminary inundation.:map has been prepared for Stevens Creek.,Resery or
which encompasses an area larger in scope than that designated- by the
Mi
General Plan Study - Stevens Creek Flood Plain October 26, 1973
------------------------------
designated floodway for the 100-year event.. The.incorporation.of the
final inundation map will be :made an exhibit to the: seismic safety
element once adopted. The possibility of an instantaneou.s.f allure of
Stevens Creek Reservoir is remotes however, the possib:zlity of overtopping
ofthe.•,;reservoir from a massive landslide into the reservoir is entirely
possible. "A:recent report, prepared by the State Division 'of -Mines and
Geology 1n connection ;with the Montebello, Ridge Sturdy points to the danger
of landslides into Stevens Creek Reservoir and. recommends that the City of
Cupertino arid, Cou.n,ty adopt flood plain: regulations to prevent construction
in natural flood plains a.
In addition to the general plan elements9 the"Cobey"AlquUs°:Flood. Plain
Management Act. of 1967'.(Water Code.Section 8400 et sego) encourages local
regulation of flood plain areasb The Cobey Alquiat,•.b.ill.coxit.ains.a declara®
tion by the Legislature that flooding is 'a si'.gnificant`problem and that
the public.interest necessitates sound developinentpolicles in .flood plains.
The primary responsibility:for flood':plain regal."bons°rests with local
governments. The bill states "that the State shall not pay any, of the cost
of land; easements, rights`' of way associated With 'a flood control project`
as set forth in the pro�eet repor"t�of•the federal agency unless flood plain
regulations for the designated floodway area adopted in`accordance with the
requirements of this chapter° The bill states li
that if a local governmental
agency fails;.. to adopt adequate flood plain regulations;;. the local flood
control agency is.empowered: to adopt,`regulations wh"A have the.same effect.
as those adopted -by the local governmental agency In'other words, .f"the
City of Cupertino.does.not act with respect to the::development of flood
plain regulations for Stevens Creek, the Santa Clara County Flood Control
District would have the power to adopt and enforce regulations,
I
Clearly, there is a substantial amount of statutory law which requires
the City of Cupertino to develop Flood Plain Management regulations. The
leading. question relates.to the degree of land use regulation. As stated
earlier, the Flood. Plain Management Program alternatives have been narrowed
to two—
General Plan Study - Stevens Creek Flood Plain October 26, 1973
------------------------
----------------------------------------------
approach in the -sense that the golf course owner.s.would be denied equal
protection of the law. In the opinion of tYie City Attorney, the land use
regulations -for flood plain should meet the constitutional requirement
that regulations must treat similarly, situated individuals equally in
drawing boundary lines, administering regulations and enforcing regulations.
In -view of the City Attorneys position--and'in view of the fact that in
the staff°s opinion, the natural f.lood'p'l.ain approach-is.reasonable,. it
is stronglyrecommended that the City'Planning.Commission adopt the
position of approving a natural f lood.plain management program.:
As requested during .the October'll9'1973 meeting -,.,. examples of flood.
plain ordinances adopted :by various j urisdictions are enclosed within,
the packet — Once your body,adopts, a policy position, with.respect.to the
natural and.modif ied flood plain concepts, the staff will present an
initial draft of a.Flood Plain Zoning Ordinance as well as a statement
containing a specific land use plan and summary policy statements
Enclosures;
Examples of Flood Plain Ordinances
-5-
TO: The :H'ono.r`.able- Mayor and Members
of the City Council DATE: October 16, 1973
FROM iames ." Sisk `Planning. Director
.SUBJECT: General Plan Review _ Remainder of Core Area
It lias been expressed by various ,Council members that within the next
two public hearings an attempt.will.be made to resolve the remainder
of the CoIre 'Area plan. The remaining areas of decisionmaking are,
a's follows
to The Northwest quadrant of.Stevens Creek/Stelling
(Saich and Christensen property)
20 The Northwest corner.of Homestead Rd. and Saratoga --Sunnyvale
Rd o (:Billa�ralla):
3o The Southwest corner of Homestead =Rd•a and' _Saratoga -Sunnyvale
Rd. (Mariam)
4o The Vallco Park (excluding the regional sho.,ppng_center site
5.o Stevens Creek:Bivd:o on the north side ;from Hwy. 9 to Blaney Ave.;
south side from Blaney Ave. to Finch Ave
There has been considerable staff discussion coiie'erning the best method
of approaching the remaining areas. It has generally been concluded that
inasmuch as'the. Council has reviewed some of these.properties previously
that those 'areas: should. first' be -undertaken. and eliminated so that the
staff can be working op policy statements for as much of th-e general "
plan as possible. It is 'envisioned that the Stevens Creek:,Blvd. frontages
will be the more difficult portion of the unresolved issues and ..tlierefo.re,
it is suggested that this area be considered last and with.the:decision
on that area., the Core Area;, can be culminated. Therefore, the above
listing is a suggested order of discussion. -
The following paragraphs will consider each of the areas with information
as.. to .size of. property, Planning Commission recommendation and general
5aicn.tamil.y9 existing zoning is P (.Planned Development: with
-1- ,
General plan Review r Remainder of Core Area October 16, 1973
-----------------
commercial.-intent). The.proposed. general .plan ;amendment as
recommended by.the Planning Commission indicated this area as
future park usage. In essence, an additiontoMemorial Park
located to the west.
The second parcel.located.in.a northerly direction is owned.
by the Christensenso It contains approximately 2102 acres
and, is presently zoned R3-2o2 (16 dweling'units per acre).
The Planning Commission recommendat onIis to change the general
plan designation to residential 4 to lVdwelling units per acre.
This matter was briefly discussed by the City Council, During
that discussion one basic decision was :made concerning the Saich
parcel, that decision being that the property was not to be used
for commercial purposes, There were expressions that perhaps
future land use of the property depending on the outcome of the
bond election would be residential in characters However, no
decision was made concerning the density to be -applied to the
property. Regarding the Christensen parcel., the Council generally
concluded -that it would .remain in.residential use. Again, no
final decision was made relative .to density.
20 Northwest corner of the intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale
Rd, &,_Homestead Rd.
This property is presently zoned for general commercial use
and an Al-43 (Agricultural, single-family).. Present. land
uses involve a service station at the intersection, a
fraternal lodge and the remainder of the property.- ing
vacant.° The overall size of the property is 9.8 acres of which
8.5 is vacant. The Planning Commission: recommendation on -this
parcel is for residential land use with a density of 12 to 16
dwelling units per acre.
3. Southwest.corner of the intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Rd
and Homestead Rd.
This property contains approximately 19 acres .with the 'present
land use being an apricot processing plant. It is presently
within Cotnty jurisdiction and zoned for: industrial use. The
Planning Commission recommendation is to designate the proposed
land use as being residential from 4 to 12 dwelling units per
acre. There has been brief discussion before the.City Council
concerning the ultimate use of this property. However, no
determinations have been made.
.4a. The Vallco Park area excludingthe regional shopping center site
This will represent the first discussion of the r_e indining, portions,.
of Vallco Park before the City Council. As, you will.note., the
Planning Commission designated the remaining portions of Vallco
Park in the following. manner. That area at the. southwest corner
of the intersection of Wolfe Rd, and. Homestead. Rd. which is
presently being utilized for commercial purposes (Vallco Village.
Shopping Center) has been designated on the. general plan for
�2-
General-Plan...Rev.iew - Remainde.r. of Coxe .Area ..October 16, 1973
ems-. --Amy -.-.-e..-
50
commercial purposes. The:property; at. the :southeast. ,corner: of
the intersection of . Prtineridge: and `Wolfe Rd.o has been. dIesig-
n.ated as commercia'1 ,pr.imar ly.'for the construction of a 'H:ilton.,
Hotel facility, which has:` been approved. by the- City..,The
remaining acreages withinVallco Park. -are designatedas planned
industrial/office park pr`ovicling f.or.the.deve-1 merit of that
area in a manner that is,phased relative to: the development of
future roadway, improvements and traff.ie handling capabilities
of the area. The intent was to. -limit futureadevelopment one
this,,iacreagecd-un.t.il, snew. -methods. are developed' for handling the
traffic which would be generated.
As a part of this recommendation to .the:.City Council, the
Public Works Director was.:requested to- :develop a memo which
sets forth in detail : the -.-required roadway improvements
recommende& by.the.Planni;ng Commission:.for the s-taging.of
the different portions of the property.; This memo is attached
for your information and.review at this time.
Stevens Creek -Blvd. - Saratoga -Sunnyvale Rd. easterly to
Blaney Ave.
North side -
(1) Saratoga -Sunnyvale Rda tn,.V sta Drive
(a)
This -.area has been briefly discussed by the City
Council on a couple:of different occasions, It;
involves approximately 6 a'75 'acres. which is
predominantly zoned for commer.cial.purpo.ses and
does exhibit a.number of smaller owners.hips.wi.th.'
frontage on Stevens Creek Blvd. The Planning
Commission recommendation in this.area_is for
public acquisition and maintenanceofthe area in
some` -type of open space. Upon final review of.
this -area by -the Planning Commission, it was
determined that due to the fractionalized owner-
ship, the small individual lot configuration in
this area that future development. -for commercial
purposes could not be accomplished in a manner
that would be complimentary to future plans for
the Town Center area and therefore,, their reeom
mendation fo.r.public acqui-s ton of the area. In
addition to this area fronting on Stevens Creek
Blvd. approximately 7o6,acres of property extends,.
northerly on the westerly side of Vista'Drvea T,h.is
property presently exhibits zoning for R1-10-(single.-
family use). The Planning,Commission has recommended
that the area be utilized.for 4 to 12 units per acre,
judging this property on.adjacen.t residential develop
ment which,:is primarily dup.lexa
i
General Plan Review - Remainder of Core Area, October 16, 1973
(2)
Vista Dtiye to ,Randy° Lane
This block contains ;approximately .3 o 02. -acres and is
presently zone& for: -general commer.cial.u.se.o .. Land
uses in the area. are;, represented -.,by an, existing
automobile sales,,facility, afire station and. a
building supply: commercial bus:iriesso The recommenda-
tion in this area is from 4:.to 12 dwelling units per
acre.
(3)
Randy Lane to Blaney Ave.
This area represents approximately acres zoned
both general commercial and. R3.(mulitple-family)a
Of that 7 acres; approximately.3 acres.are presently
developed for.commercial_purposes.
(4)
Blaney Ave. to Portal Ave.
This block contains.rough-ly 8a6 acres:of which 3A
acres are presently developed. Zoning. in the area
is represen'ted.by approximately 3083 acres commercial
with 4.85 acres being presently zoned for multi -family
1.:6.dwe1ling units per acre. The developed portions o.f
the property are developed for commercial purposes.
(b) South side -
(1)
Blaney Ave. to Portal Ave.
This block contains approximately 9.4 acres of.which
7.4 are zoned for commercial purposes and.1.9 zoned
for R3 (multi -family 16 dwelling units to the acre).
Existing development in this, area is represented by
a restaurant and, .service station totaling 2,.7 acres,,
The Planning' Commission's recommendation in -this
area :is for residential 4 to 12 dwelling units per
acre.
(2) Portal Ave. easterly,.to existing Mayfair Market`
Shopping Center
This area contains approximately 96.7 acres being
totally.zoned .for general commercial use.. The
property is undeveloped at this time. The Planning
Commission's recommendation is that the.property.be
designated as residential 4 to 12`dwelling units
per acre.
(3) Miller Ave easterly to Finch Ave.
The.property contains approximately T,.9 acres and
i.s.vacant with the exception of an existin.g.:.service
-4-
General Plan .Review_ Remainder of Coxe Area, Octobex. 16, 1973
-----------------------
station located.':at,the intersection. of Miller and
Stevens Creek Blvd ,-wh.ch contains approximately
4 acres. EXI'Ozng. 20'ing for. the .:,entire site is
general commercao The Plannng;Commiss.ion':s
recommend ation;"is r6siden.tial.4 to 12 dwelling
units per acre.: .
The following.' statements-'repr:esent the major findings .relative .to the
Planning Commission's deaterminatibn. of land use adjacent to Stevens
Creek Blvd.
JHS e fx
1. The impact on.the character of the .City and.on surrounding.
neighborhoods'fromlow,,intensity uses is positive.
20 The analysis of additional strip commercial development
showed that it produces,'�overall negative impacts.
(a) The impact on the character of the City and on
surrounding neighborhoods is negative.
(b) Traffic impacts are more negative than for agglomerated
commercial.
(c) Commercial needs of Cupertino residents aresatisfied
by existing and proposed,commercial development, located
in the City of Cupertino, and existing and .potential
commercial development in the surrounding region.
(d) The positive fiscal impacts are not sufficient to out
weigh the negative impacts aboveti':
3a The existing strip commercial development does not produce
posit° ve.. impacts,and shouldnot be .part of the long run land
use pattern in Cupertino.
-5-
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT October 11, 1973
COUNCIL HIGHWAY 9 PROPOSAL
Total Acreage in Core 90,8
Commercial 242
Developed 112
Pending 21.
Undeveloped 109
Planned Office/Industrial 307
Developed 113
Undeveloped 194
Conventional Office 15
Commercial/Industrial 55
Developed
Undeveloped
Industrial/Residential 75
Developed* 6
Undeveloped 69
Residential 159
Williamson
Public and Quasi -Public 34
Park 21
Includes Faulk property, Arco'Service Station and Cupertino Nursery.
Other commercial uses considered as marginal and sus.ceptib,le to
redevelopment
Ciu4 of CuperflHo
TO: The Honorable Chairmari and Members
of the Planning Cbmmis:sio 11 n DATE: October 1019 1973,
FROM: James H. Sisk, P lanning Director
SUBJECT: General Plan Program --:Stevens Creek Flood Plain
During1the.September 24, 19,73 Planning Commission meeting,, a number of.
questibns,were raised by membersi, of the audience, rel-ative to flood
p1iinxegulations. The questions can be aggregated into three broad
Y
categories'
1)..Ihe credibility of. the Flood Control District?s engineering findings -
with respect to the natural flood,plain line.
The legal aspects of flood plain zoning.
3) The question of development of,alternativ,e flood plain management
solutions.
During the October.11, 1973 meeting, representatives from the Flood
C,ontrol.District will be pres,ent at the meeting to again. discuss, the
technicdl_as pietts of d,etermining:a design fl.obd:and the designation of
a flo od managementI * system to contain the design flood.
The .,Flood..Control reptasentativ es will also discuss three alternative
.
Flood Plain Ma.-nagemeat solutions for Stevens, Creek., Because of the time
cons traint. placed upon Flood, control, the evaluations will besomewhat
general in nature. The alternatives which will be discussed are as
follows -
the Natural Flood Plain = The�-Natu'raI Flood Plain would involve the
delineation of a "designated floodw (see footnote - 1.) whichwould
involve. lands adjacent to the channel of S t eveiis Creek which ha.s.b.een
or may be covered by. flood ,owater in the event of a 1001-year storm
,:
11.
2) Mod -if ied Flood Plain This particular project would entail .%the,
.delineation of a designated i8.odw,ay which. would involve the
retention of the natural str6ambb&�.l- of Stevens Creek with a natu-itlf
either
appearing series of:, levees, on -e 'ither side of the creekbed w#h#,5,
to 200 feet on either side of the streambed.
3) Development of an Excavated and Rock or Concrete Line: Channel :r,
1. Refer to attached definitions sheet.
General Plan Program 9- Stevens Creek Flood Plain October 10, 1973
right of way with an improved: structure to carry flood water.
Based 'upon recent policies adopted bj- the Flood Control,Distri.ct and
implicit policies.of the .City_,:,of Cupertino, it would appear extremely
type
unlikely that this , of ,.improvement would be approved; however; it
will be presented,by the Flood Control. District -to demonstrate its
cost and environmental impact.
4), Flood 'Water Retention.Basin This alternative.relates to future
Alternatives for the.Development of a Flood.Plain Management Program.
for the creek area north of Stevens.Creek Boulevard.. The alternative
entails the development of a check dam at the Stevens.Creek Boulevard
crossing of Stevens Creek. In brief, the proposal would be to develop
an elevated roadbed -for Stevens Creek.Boulevard`which.wo.uld serve as a
-check dam to restrict control 'the amount of water flowing down.Stevens
Creek north of Stevens Creek Boulevard in the event .of a 100-year
event. Representatives froml.th6.Flood Control.District have not had
the opportunity to caref.u:lly"evalu.ate this alternative and as such,
only 'a very general description. drill be presented during the October.
1.1th'meeting. The, alternative may become extremely.viable depending
upon the cost estimates for the Flood Plain.. Management Program for
north of Stevens Creek Boulevard if this particular alternative: is
used, the natural flood plain,f or south of.Stevens Creek Boulevard
could be enlarged over that which was described during the September
24th meeting. It has not been determined at this point in time
whether the Flood Control District would be required to acquire all
those properties which potentially could be flooded if in the event,
a check dam were to be installed on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
.'Legal Implications
The Assistant City Attorney,w'ill,be prepared to discuss the legal aspects
of Flood'Plain Zoning in .the context of the Stevens Creek Flood Plain
Management Programs
Land Use Information
A colored land use and zoning map will be available at, the meeting to
describe the present uses and zoning within the Natural,Stevens Creek
Flood Plains
A 200-scale map is attached to describe the natural flood plain from
Stevens Creek Boulevard south to the Reservoir.
The map is an adaptation from the County Flood Control Distract map.
and as such, the flood°plain line may deviate five feet+ from the line
describe& on the district's map. The map lists the major property owners
who may b,e affected by a Flood Plain Management Program.
Enclosures,
Definitions Sheet
200-scale map (2 sheets)
Santa Clara Co. Flood.'Control & Water District Resolution NO.72-59
-2-
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members
of the Planning Commission,, DATE: October 8, 1973
FROM James H. Sisk, PlanningDirector
SUBJECT: General Plan Program = Park Land Needs Relative to the Land Use,
Element
The purpose of this memo is to analyze the existing and potential
neighborhood and community park.needs of the community in terms of
the land use element.of the general plan. The memo will analyze
the amount of land needed for neighborhood and community parks for
the existing population level of the City as well as future population
base of the City based upon the preliminary.: land use decisions made by
the Planning_ Commission. In. the context of the memo, the term "Cityt1
refers to the Urban Service Areao
Before beginning the discussion, it is necessary to describe certain.
assumptions made by; the staff and define terms;: and produce demographic
and park related land use base data,,2.
Assumptions-
to That the community park acreage standard of 5e5 acres per 1,0616
people (3 acres pe.r 1,000 neighborhood; 2'<5 acres per 1,000
community) is valid
20 That for the purposes of the general plan study,, the County
population base within the Urban Service Area is to'be-included
in the park need determination.
3. That the average number of persons; per dwelling units 3.02 at
p"resent :biit=.may.be reduced ztie t6y=12, ;.'based :;:i�poi7. Census
Bureau population ,,growth;. trend, analysa.o
4o That the concept of joint use'of school sites is valid but that
the degree to which school sites can b;e counted towards meeting
the neighborhood and community park needs of the community has
to be determined°
5. That areas of new growth supply its own park land via a park
dedication ordinance.
General Plan Program - Park Land Needs October 8, 1973
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of Terms:
1.. Open Space - The adopted Open Space Element contains an all
encompassing definition. In'order to be brief, the definition
as 'contained in Section. 65550 of the Government Code is sub-
mitted. "Open'"space land is any parcel.or area of land or
water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open
space use as herein defined and which is designated in a local,
regional or state open space plan as any of the following:
Natural resource land.
Agricultural land
Recreation land
Scenic land
Watershed or ground water recharge land
Wildlife habitat"
2e Park - A park is recreation land which is actively used for
recreation purposes and open to the public for such .purposes
with or without charge. The City of Cupertino°s adopted open
space element includes two categories of such lands- (Definitions
obtained from Open Space Element)
(a) Neighborhood Park - A park primarily aimed to meet:the:.,_needs
of children of elementary school age. Should be available at
most within a half mile of walking distance without crossing
a major traffic arterial. If possible,. should be adjacent to
elementary schools in order to facilitate joint programs and
to minimize the needs for land. A neighborhood park should
have an area of at least five acres.
(b) Community Park - A park intendedprimarily for'children of
high school age and for: adults. -Parks should be within
bicycling distance from every home preferably within one
mile and encompass playfield activities such as tennis courts,
swim pool (unless provided by adjacent high school), community
center, multi -purpose courts, et cetera. The optimum land area
for a community park is twenty acres.
(Note: The City°s Open Space Element also defined undeveloped
or partly developed "natural",pu.blic parks or open
space areas, which are basically located in undeveloped
areas and are used for activities which require exten-
sive amounts of natural open space. The adopted element
defined these two type of parks as "citywide parks" and
°oopen space areas" ' and P1regional county parks". For the
purposes of the land use element, the "citywide open
-2-
General Plan Program - Park Land Needs October 8; 1973
space" type park and a regional county park are not
included within the 505 neighborhood and community
park standard.. This is a point which individual
members of the Commission may want to discuss further.)
3o Joint School/Park Usage Concept - The :joint school use/park use con-
cept -refers to a program approved b y the City of Cupertino and the
Cupertino Elementary SchoolDistrict and/or the Fremont Union High
School District to.util ze,s_choolgrounds:Jointly for educational
purposes and park purposes. Park improvements would generally be
made'by the City an.d'the maintenance would be undertaken by a
cooperative agreements
Data base*
Description 'of Existing Population and Potential General Plan P.opu.la-
tion Holding Capacity and Inventory of Present Park Land and School
Site Acreage
Figure 1
Figure 2
EXISTING DWELLING UNIT COUNT AND POPULATION
Dwelling Units (I xistrig_and under construction July 19 1973)
11990City and County Urban Service Area
7860 City
322.0 County island (incl. Rancho Rinconada)
Population (3.2 Average Number bf persoris,z°per."D oU o )
35460 City and County Urban Service Area (July, 19 19T3)
25150 - City
1031.0, County island (incl. Rancho Rinconada)
OTENTIAL DWELLING UNIT COUNT.AND POPULATION FOR EXISTING AND
&IVTT T TTTn TTT A nn A . /rlrl. r. A�7TT- V-n- -rn 1+_— i - il \
Dwelling Units
Low Alternative
High Alternative
Existing
11080
Existing
11080
Proposed
640
Proposed
1.510
11720.
12s9o'
Population (3.2
Average Number:
of..Persoris
Existing
35460
Existing
35460'
Proposed
'2040
Proposed
830;.
^375'00
G0.2.90`
-3_
®'
General Plan Program - Park Land Needs
---------------------------------------------
Figure 3 POTENTIAL DWELLING UNIT CdUNT AND P
INFI.LLING, AND CORE AR2A. N URBAN S
NOT INCL.)
Dwelling Units
Low Alternative ..
Existing 11080
Proposed 20.70'"-
1315,0
October 8, 1973
----------------
FOR EXI
High Alternative
Existing 11080,
Proposed 4710
158�50`
Population
Low Alternative High Alternative
Existing 35460 Existing 3546.0
Proposed`.- 6620 Proposed 1. 15Z60
4208,0' 50720
Figure 4 EXISTING CITY -OWNED NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARK LANDS
Neighborhood Parks Community Parks
Portal 4;1 Memorial 15.0
Wilson 5.2 Horse Ranch 16.0
Somerset 3.3-Damico
Linda Vista 11.0 Extension
Stevens Creek 6.3 Owned by
Mon.ta Vista 4.2 Flood Control 2<9
34.1 33p9.
Figure 5
Neighborhood Parks
Portal 5.5
.Stevens Creek -4.6
Morita Vista 4.1
14.2
Figure 6 POTENTIAL SCHOOL/PARK USAGE IN CITY
Neighborhood
Parks
Portal
1a9
Wilson:
6<8
Stevens Creek
1.0
Collins
4.2
Faria
7.2
- Eaton
6.7
Lincoln
6.4
Garden Gate
"6 0.
•.:4002
-4-
Community Parks
DeAnza
Tennis Courts 1.1
1a1.
Community Parks
Cupertino High 16.6
Monta Vista'
High,
General Plan. Program - Park Land Needs October 8; 1973
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 7 POTENTIAL SCHOOL/PARK USAGE :IN URBAN SERVICE AREA (INCLo
REGNART SCHOOL)
Neighborhood Park Community Parks.
Older 60
Kennedy
8-Homestead High N/A
Regnart 5.0
Sedgewick 645; N/A
31a5
Figure 8 POTENTIAL DIRECT PARK.ACQUISITION AS IDENTIFIED BY OPEN SPACE
'F'iT'GU 'NTT AWT'n 'l+n'Dv n-r, ATT
Figure 9 PRIV.
Neighborhood Parks
OPEN SPACE IN.,LARGE
DIT)
Neighborhood Parks
7.4
APARTMENT:_,OR
Figure 10 QUASI -PUBLIC OPEN SPACE'
Neighborhood Parks
Rancho Aincon.ada District 2.9
2.9
Discussion:
Community Parks
12 (Saich property)
USE DEVELOPMENTS
Community Parks
Community Parks
Utilizing the information contained in Figures 1-10 above., the,following.
analysis made of the current park to population situation in Cupertino.
The current 359-46D population level for the Urban Service Area requires
.res`be provided for neighborhood park needs and 89'acres be
r community park needs As -indicated by Figure 4, the City_
wn.s 34.1 1 acres of neighborhood parks :a1.nd 33 a'9" ..acres> of
arks. As such the City is currently : ,'eficient Ain. meet ing
rhoad park .needs by 72.._acr.es and community park needs by 55°`acres.
Table 1
OPULATION RATIO BASED UPON ,CURRENT 1973 URBAN SERVICE
AREA UTILIZING ONLY CITY -OWNED PARK LAND
Neighborhood Parks
Existing demand 105 acres
Existing supply 34 acres (figures
rounded)
72 acres deficient
Community Parks
-5-
General Plan Program - Park Land Needs October 8, 1973
If the Planning Commission and the City Council fully accept the joint
park school concept and give full."credit for the acreages described in
Figures::=5, 6'and 7 of the Data Base; the existing park to population
ratio would be improved as-shown''or� ,the gable,-belo%ro
Table 2
Neighborhood Parks
Existing demand
Existing supply
City -owned
Joint school use
106 acres.
34
86.
120
Community Parks.
89 acres
33.9
32.7
66.6
14 acres. surplus 22.4 acres deficient
Table 3
Neighborhood Parks Community Parks
Existing demand 106 acres 89 acres
Existing supply
City -owned 34 33.9
Joint School 876 32.7
Private 6pen Space 7.4
Saich Property
(Core Plan) 12
General Plan Program - Park Land Needs October 8, 1973
park needs. Taking the analysis one step further, if the demand level
was raised to reflect the infilling population and the park supply
factors wer-.e, the same as that described in. Table, 3,., the. C%ty would have a.
,surplus �� nea'ghbozhood: park. and_" al:ref ciency-U.- ..commun ty . arks'�&8_
shown b.el:ow r
Table 4
POPULATION WITTY
Neighborhood Parks
Low High
Alternative Alternative
ING
3
Community Parks
Low High
Alternative Alternative
Demand,
112.5
121
94
101
Supply
127.4
127_.4
78a6
7806
Surphus,
,14,_9
6.0;4:
Deficiency 15.4
2204
Tables 1 through'"!4 and the accgmpanying text describe the park situation
relative to existing park demand
park supply and the ;poten.tial park
demand assuming that one, the Plan "Wing. Commissonos-recommendation for
infilling.`is adopted., and., two, that the Planning Commission and City
Council give full credit fora joint s"chool/park land usage and half'
credit for-1 private open space.. The assumption is also made that the
City purchases the'twelve acre-Saich property specified by the Planning
Commission in connection: with the core plane
In its analyzing the park supply, and demand situation for the Urban
Service Area including the core a
tion. that the City Council will a
will fully or partly require new
own park acreage needs. This As
of large potential developments s'
Catholic'Church property and -'he'
It is assumed that these property
either in the form of dedicatzon.,,>
provision of private open. space wl
aicombination of both public and']
is born out, the park land to pop
holding capacity of the General P`
Table 50
ea, :the: staff has.made-a basic assump-
opt a park dedication ordinance which
esidents to directly provide for_^. their
mption is particularly valid,in the case
ch as the Seven Springs Ranch, the
or.e.Areasbn Saratoga -Sunnyvale. Road,
s, if developed, will provide park needs
,f land for public park purposes or the
ich could be counted as 50% value or
rivate open space, If this assumption
lation for the City 'based upon, the
an would be as follows as described .in.
-7
Table 5
Neighborhood Parks Community Parks
Low High Low _. , ;;r High
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
Demand 126.2 152.1 105.2 126.8.
supply
Table 3
figures 127 0 4 127 <4`` 78.6 78.6
Dedication
of land by
new growth 19.1 45g0 15.9 37.5
Total Supplyl46o5 .172-04 9405 116.1
Surplus-:;.cr 20`0:;3' 2G0- Deficiencgr 10`0,7 1007
The park demand row within>,Table.5 reflects a,'population base which was
-
determined by the 3.2 average 'c1trell�sig .un` t :size o c. :If an average dwelling, _
unit size factor of 209 ll persons :per c�.*eng..unit_,:%s _ut::lized to measu e. the
park n6edsi for. the future holding capacity of the City exluding the foot
hills, the parks tuation'would:be reflected as described by Table 6. The
park supply figure in Tabae 6 reflects a park dedication formula, utilizing
a 209 average drae{ling'uni_t.aizeo
-8�
Table 6
Neighborhood Parks Community Parks
Low High Low
Alternative Alternative Alternative
Demand 1.14 138 95
Supply
Table 3 127;,A 12Tg4,
Dedication
of land by
High
Alternative
115
78.6 78.. 6 .
new growth 17.3 40.8 14.4
Total Supply 144,7 168a2. 93
112.6
34.0
Surpl'rs 30.7 30 0 2 Deficiency 2.0 2.4
The discussion thus far has centered,:on a quantitative description of .the
City's existing and potential park acreage su-ply and existing and potential
population figure. The underlying assumptions.of the analysis listed on page.
one are more qualitative in nature and should be,carefull.y evaluated'by
the 'Commission and Council in order to more precisely understand the City`s
park situation.
The first assumption is that 5.5 acre per 1,000 park acreage:to population
is valid. Durin,g.the hearings involving. the 1972 open space, amendment, the
Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the 5.5 acre
standard as it applied to the City ;of Cupertino and determined that the
standard was valid for a city similar to Cupertino in terms of land use and
density.
The second major assumption used in the quantitative analysis of the ,park
situation in Cupertino relates to the joint school.use.concepto In the 1972
open; spate amendment, the concept of the joint school/_park usage was incor-
porated into the element. The question that remains is,How much credit can
be given to the use of a schoolgroundl As was pointed out in an earlier
Planning Commission meeting;, some of ?the school sites are quitesmalland
restricted and as such, it can be reasonably expected that the school will
heavily utilize what open spaceit has on the schoolgrounds for its own.
internal use. On the other hand, there are some schools.within the system
which have a great deal.of space which could be jointly used.
Another issue which should be resolved is the question,.of credit for private
open space within large developments; Both neighborhood parks and community
General Plan Program -Park Land Needs _ October 8, 1973'
parks are recreation areas which: are designed for passive and active
recreation use. In the majority.of large` -apartment and condomin um.:ttown-
house developments within the City,.provision is.made for private internalized
recreation f-aciliaesa The staff inveentoried the larger developments within
Cupertino and ascertained that approximately 14 acres could be counted for
private recreation space which is sim:ilar'in nature to the typre of facilities
provided by public9 neighborhood anal community parks Inasmuch as the space
within: the private developments is restricted in terms'fof the general public,
the staff :as well as the staffs of.other cities within the State have deter-
mined that a 50% credit of private,s,pace toward meeting community park needs
is valid. A great many cities that ut"i`lizef a park ded-ication ordinance
allow 50% credit for .private open space. On the surface this concept appears
to be valid° Certainly, it can be argued that private :space similar to that
provided by Northpoint or the Glenoaks apartment project contributes greatly
to .the recreation -needs of the residents which live within those particular'
developments. Astin the case of',credlit for schoolground use, each individual
installation has to be'evaluated separately to determine whether or not full
credit or half credit should be.,givena As an example; the private usable
open space within the DeAnza condominium project on Stevens Creek Blvd. is
located within the hillside area and as such is a natural open space area;
This open space serves relatively little'value;as .a neighborhood or community
parka On the other hand, the three plus acre community facility within. the
Northpoint development can be used actively and passively by residents.and
as such, is comparable to the type of.activities provided in a public park.
The concept of half credit ':for private open space :should be resolved because,:-'::
the City Council is currently considering a park dedication ordinance which
allows for 50% credit for private open space.,
The Director: of Parks and Recreation will be available during the October 8,
1973 meeting to. discuss the -joint school use park standard, and credit for
private open space issues from his departments point of view.
�1.0._
ALTERNATIVE
TRAFFIC IMPACT -FROM HWY. 9 LAND USES
LANES NEEDED
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Add'lo
Pres.-ent
One
Present
Aesthetic
One
Grade
Trip
Design.
Way
Design
Treatment.
Way
Separation
Ends
1985 1995
i
Through Traffic
i
i
6.3 i 5.3
i
Residential
r
i
S<Co...Hs Congo
-Some -Congo
Some Congo
t
280 Con.g>
Congestion;
Good.
10 DU/Acre"
1000
705 i 6,5
H Congo
Congestion
.Some Cong;>
Industrial
3540
i
i
11.3 10.3
5 or 6
S.C.
Some Congo
"
Lanes
280
Congestion.
If
i
s
H
Congestion
If
Mix
2120
i
i
9.3 i 8.3
4 or 5
S.C.
If
Some Congo
Lanes
280
"
Good
i
i
i
i
H
"
Some Congo
10/3/73
ROAD COSTS FOR HWY. 9 LAND USE EVALUATION
---------- PROJECT ------
-------TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
CITY COSTS FOR HWY.. 9
---
Right-
_
of -Way-..
Improvements Total
Residential Industrial Mixed
Hwy. 9 - 4-6 Lanes
519,200
397,600
190419800
6-8 Lanes
980,000
84.5 900
2,035,900
Torre + Overpass
1,825000
�.1,4251000
3,250.,000
Hwy. 9.- Torre
One -Way
8 Lanes
3,0519680
2,229,030
6,019s110.,
10 Zan.e(s
3,745 440:
29.485,47.0,
790419310
12,Lanes
4,;2389;320
297519094
7.90.1 814
Hwyo9 - S.C,Intersection
"Football"
1,390,000
401950:0
2,635,500
Grade Separation
1,350,000
3,000,000
4,9709000
Hwy. 9 - Buffer Strip
1,360,000
309,200
19832,200
10/3/73
2
TRAFFIC IMPACT FROM ,HWAY 9 LAND USES
AT.TVPNATTUF Arlri v 1
T.ANFS NFFnRn
LEVEL OF SERVICE - 1995
-
Trip
Present Design
One -Way
Present
9PFootball"
One-Way
Grade
---------
Ends
-
-Loop--
-_-Design
_
--- ------
---Loop s
Separation
------- 995-
Through
traffic
6.3 5.3
Residential
t
i
i
SC Hi.Conge
10 DU/Acre
1000
7.5 6.5
280 CongA
H Congo
Industrial
3540
11.3 10.3
5 or 6
Sc
Some Conga
Lanes
280
Congestion
H.
Congestion
Mix
2120
i
9.3 8.3
4 or 5
SC
Some Cong>
Lanes
280
Good
f
i
H
Some Cong,
9/26/73
i
i
i
i
Through traffic
Residential (4-10 DU/acre)
Mix
Residential
Commercial
Y L
6.5 66 acres undeveloped
6.8 - 7.2 Based on Planning Como
(703) recommendation
8.0 Not to exceed an average
of 16 trips/acre over
entire 66 acres
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
Pro'ect
Right -of-
Way
Existing
Buildings
Improve-
ments
Total
Saratoga -Sunnyvale Rd.
6 Lanes
51952.00
125,000
397,600
1,041,800
8 Lanes
980,000
210,000
845,900
2,035,900
Buffer Strip
151360,000
163,000
309,200
1,832,200
Torre and Overpass
1,825,000
1,425,000
3,250,000
Saratoga -Sunnyvale Rd.
and Torre One Way
8 Lanes
3,051,680
812,400
2,229,030
65019,110
10 Lanes
3,7452440
812,400
2,485,470
7,041,310
12 Lanes
4,238,320
912,400
2,751,094
7,901,814
Intersection of
Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road
and Stevens Creek Blvd. -
Alternate 1
Football
1,390,000
844,000
401,500
2,635,500
Alternate 2
Football
2,110,000
1,151,000
521,000
3,782,000
Diamond
1,350,`000
620,000Y
3,000,000
4,970,000
Sept.ri 26, 1973
trict 1995
Loop
"Football" CITY IINSWLEMENTATION
----------------------
— __ _ .--
-----------...�T--- -- — ----� . — ------ —_ — — .---
b .5
+ Buf f ex
Assessment Dis:trct
Non -Conforming Use.=
10.3
-
Wicking among owners
Non -conforming uses
Making residential
work .
8,3o
t
i
C*4 of Cuperfi"o
TO: James H. Sisk, Planning Director
DATE: September 26, 1973
FROM: Robert S. Cowan, Associate Planner
SUBJECT. Discussion Outline 'Relative to the Development of Ordinances
to Regulate CommercialLand. Use and Protect Open Space La- d
In'order to satisfy the State requiremen I t, to make zoning in conformance'.
with the General Plan by January llp 1974;. we are going to have.toldevelop
new ordinances to regulate different types of -commercial, land ses,.a.new
ordinance to implement the T-1, e-',Aensity land use. designation and ordi-
nances to implement the City's open en space element.
In terms of priority it would appear that inasmuch as the commercial interim
zone ne expires on December 18 that 'Zoning ordinances to implement commercial
land use changes should receive the highest priority followed by open space
ordinances. It is extremelyimportant that open space ordinances be adopted
by January 1, 1974 because of the State legislation that prohibits :cities
from issuing building per if open space ordinances are not adopted. by
January 1, 1974. It is sugg-'ested.th 1. t commercial land use regulations
be given highest priority fol space ordinances and thirdly,
by ordinances regulating residential use.
Regulation of Commercial Development
Problems and Issues
It appears to me that the primary concern expressed by the City with
regard to commercial development relates to the question of character
-1-
Discussion Outline Relative to the Development of Ordinances
to Regulate Commercial Land Use and Protect Open. Space Land
Conservation Resources 9/26/73
-- _----- ------------------------,----,,--------
of the City.and to intensity of development. It is recognized.that both
of these concerns are interrelated. It would appear thenthat new
Ordinances adopted by the City should address themselves to the,
morphology; -.of commercial development; that is, theyLrsho ld oddress?.r f
the form that commercial development takes and number two,; they should
address themselves to the intensity of development that occurs in each
specific category of commercial development. It is often said that
form follows function and thus, it may be possible to categorize
commercial land use by the function that it plays in the market place.
In the context of Cupertino`s urbanization pattern, there are:two basic
forms of commercial development°. Number one,- there is the planned
center or agglomerated type of development in which individual stores
are owned and developed utilizi ga4 '61 t-I plan:.,- and: two, there is the
strip commercial development in which individual ownerships fronting
on major roads are developed 'singularly without a plan.
Within the category of centered type of development,_ there are at least
three categories that_can'be identified based upon the intensity of use
and the function of the center within the market places
la Super -regional shopping center
A super -regional shopping center is defined as a center having three
or more full line department stores and a total area of over' one
million square feet. In terms of its function in the market place
a -super -regional shopping center provides a full range of sales and
services wthf:'the primary emphasis upon mass appeal shopping and
specialty goods.
-2-
Discussion Outline Relative to the Development of Ordinances.
to Regulate Commercial Land Use and Protect Open Space Land
Conservation Resources 9/26/73
2; Regional.Shopping Center
A regional shopping center is a center with 300,000 square feet or
3
40
more which provides a full range of sale, of retail activities and
personal services with again primary:.emphasis upon mass appeal
shopping and specialty goods. Often convenience goods outlets,
in the form of supermarkets are includedwithin the center.
Community Shopping Center
.Inr.t,exmsiof sizes a-.commun.ittyc shopp,zng cei�.t:er.: contains between
60,,000 to 300,000 square feet. Community shopping centers provide
goods and services that can be categorized as mass appeal shopping,
convenience goods and to a certain degree, specialty shops.
Neighborhood Shopping Center
A neighborhood shopping center ranges in size between 20,000-and
60,000 square feet. A neeighborhood shopping center is orientated
to convenience goods shopping..
Strip Commercial Development
Strip commercial development is the unplanned commercial development
of •properties fronang;_on thoroughfares. The primary characteristics
of.this type of development are single, individually designed stores
with individual parking facilities fronting on major streets. In the
context of Cupertino°s planning area, strip commercial development
can consist of planned centers. In other words, a strip commercial
thoroughfare may be characterized by a series of smaller, planned
shopping centers and thus, a differentiation has to be made. The
-3-
Discussion Outline Relative to the Development of Ordinances
to 'Regulate Commercial Land Use and Protect Open Space Land
Conservation Resources 9/26/73
frontages on Highway 9 between Bollinger anal Stevens Creek can clearly
be defined -as a series of small; independent stores that are individually
designed and owned. The area on Stevens Creek between Vista and the east
City limits are a series of smaller community and neighborhood centers
that are stripped along the road. Examples are the Barclay Center, the
Mayfair Market Center, the Portal Plaza and the small Blaney Center.
The control over planned centers on a strip is one basically of
regulating the location of -neighborhood centers whereas in areas where
the strip is characterized as a series of small independent stores, a
new and separate ordinance must be defined to regulate the development.
The predominant activity in strip areas is the merchandising of limited
appeal, specialty type sales and services,
6'a� Specialty Centers
There are at least four centersin .town that either are or will be
designated as a specialty center. Examples are the Barclay Center,
the S.H.A.R<E> Center, the DeAnza Center (Falk), the Oaks Center
at Mary Ave., and the Town Center. The abovementione.d centers are,or
will be unique in the sense that they are planned: centers that don°t
fit into the special categories outlined above for regional, community
and neighborhood centers. The activities contained within the above
mentioned specialty centers either relate to an agglomeration of
service=orientated businesses or a mixture of commerci.al,..professional
and possibly residential -type -activities° The City will have to address
the land use regulation problem for these type of centers with a
specialized ordinance or a specialized application .of the land
development ordinance.
-4-
Discussi:.on Outline Relative to the Development.of Ordinances
to Regulate -Commercial Land Use and -Protect Open Space Land
Conservation Resourcea 9/26/73
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary o
It is suggested that the: City, develop.a specialized zoning ordinance so as
to regulate. neighborhood comrimercial,activities, community commercial
activities and an.cordinance to regulate a mixed, professional office and
related commercial -type center such as the Barclays and the S.HoA.R.E.
activity. It is suggested that we study the possibility of c(1)9, either
adopting a..specialized ordinance for the Town.. Center type activity and
the regonal_zshopping center type activity or (2),.. that the staff evaluate
the possibility of adopting policy statements of the part- of the General
Plan that speak ,to these activities ,foll-owed by an application of the
Planned Development 2�oning- ordinance.,
ado,
ptiori td. `=amp,lement
Of the 7 ordinances specifically listed., only.the Park Dedication Ordinance
is in draft form and in the public hearing proses.
The Mood plain zoning ordinance is presently being drafted
24, .1.972
.p
�':I) CONSI Ul"A'I'10'v
C[l�r rj;-0_ T *,�.t?�1I^-I'Ll�iv._a .n?-1, y SPACE+tr_-:y^-- ' .._ _----_-...--..... -----_-- -----
I`IPLEI IENTATION
The open space, recreation and conservation programs will be im. plemente.d via
two prirary apl;roachcs - lard acquisition acid land use re ;elation. TIlE'
Citystaff is currently 1.orking on bud ctary prof, rams and the, Parks and
Recreation Commission is studying the feasibility of a park- bond election.
The following ordinances and other" regulations" are now bein`;
draf ted or are
intended to be drafted in the near •future by the Planning Department cf the
City of Cupertino.
1, Park Dedication Ordinance
In 19G5, the Ouiniby Act (AB1150} ,was enacted by rlsetot dcdicateate slandze
enabling cities to require reside��tal subdlvzde
Various
on or payment in fees as a conciition to approval of a r,ap: y
homebuilder associations filed suit to detc1-mine the constituti onalitY
Of the law. ld the
In 1971" '_he State ,u re -me Court uPtedismi sedT,an On
October 19, 1971, the United St a `s Supreme e Co. r ice
of the State Courts decision "for -want of a substuntial l eueral n�
tion"
i ta:lf is present preparing
lrs view• of the Court decisioljs, the. City s
� - l.y p'"�P"
F The enabt:irlg legisl_atio�i -r'e �:.i.l-,_e the 'adoption of
a draft ordinance. `' park .yed'.a c'- ' on Ordinance.
a Recre :ti_on I.Icment nrio-r to ena._ct� °nt of
..
,tion ' ! -m-2nL tTi1.1_ full —1-1 this
The ��..ntE'�1i 0-Pan S ):1Ce and GOi! 'L'�%�
requirF_'mout .
2. Flood Plain Zoning.
On June 20, 1972. the Board of Directors or the Santa Clara County
iT G
1T?lution o. :
t adopted Disi
Flood Control:and ?Aerd1i1 flood plait
1E�3r,
SlifinphiloS01)Ily
represents a
`oi Ca lr'�3iide
TIlE re;Ultltlon IjroviJes.encou,-ujc'lent an,
aSS1StaI1_c.
Geunty to adopt enc'l? 11nG z01'_]_1=^ ordinances to c--' c) 1 S'.l flood CUd 1)1F':tTl
r_f rom a OPl;'C�ii_3tion of
Zones. TI1L J e is t1ii a SI11�_ � "Lll emphasl�
ood control i:,lptove lenLs to d i--col.lz:a�.e:•:1F nt of
development via fl)1 `sins.
developin(alit in order to use i1-�'��tral flood I
Cc L
The City is currentl.}T lyorkin Frith thenFloodr�enoin lthe�St.ecensoCreek
meet: this end. flood control engineers ar.c. a' flood plain zoning
Flood Plain while the City . s tafi: is pre -
Flood _n? a
ordinance. Two approaches arc bcin ; e��i1u 1t F�'d , One Utilizes a
speci.f is land use zorc vhich :.oecifics u'4vL`, LtI1 in the i cahtl��
flood p13;il
'L:3n 1 i —1 1, t�rt'�3C1 '::ti l (`iA prul:3 Jlt�
the second a t)pi'onc11 llt'__11.'L�:: Z j3.
b;� the Flood
specific uses w1th.111 a -flood plain boua(1-ry cle-.s od
Control District,
-23-
a 9'f 'L
Ct F-,_.._____-______
i- ", . p , , ';i D CO"''"I1Ii;r"•'}'IOT; t �,LIff;P�T
,__T_-T, I1--I +CT,________ �__-_____.
__.....____..-_-.____________
, �
3,
Recrea.tio I Use `�onir
� �• '��.,..icizlttu aljl?ecreatianal)
The staff is reevaluating the ex s .,tines A.-u �
-
zone which ti:nich praviaes for recreat�an3l land uses in the City. The exist
does, however,
ing law is limited in scope and vague. The ordinance
that certain lands
serve as a spring board for legislation requiring
be designated for privately owged recreational uses,
Agricultural Zoning
The existing• A and Al ordinance will be reviewed in the near future.
The existing ordinances are basically sound needing only minor re --
is designed to
visions related to animal control. The A zone, which
in conjunction. with re-
regulate exclusive LEricultura.l uses, is used
this
quests for ;•lilliamson Act contracts. ',lore extensive use of
agriculturally praduc--
zoning district should be made in the remaining
tive lands in the hill area of the City.
5,
Tlatural Resource Zoni n�
The staff r as prelir i narily discussed the possibility of establishing
C
a r
type zone which would create a zoning district t p ote
an overlay
vegetative features w:nich contribute to ground ;r ter reten-L-ion and
which
so-Ll stabilization. This zone would be applied in canyon areas
could -be susce-ptible to road construction.-
h.
seis"ic Safety Zoning
St .ate lair requires each genera'purpose governmental agency to adopt
a Seismic Safety Element.
The specific zoning ordir_ance rr'nich wi 11 regulate land use will be
the
pre -pared in conjunction with the adoption of the final report of
with
�= r• ordinance -would have tlo be prej a.red
mhe
P.iontebello Ridge Stud, y-'
be inter -
'
� to
input from consulting engineering geologists and would have
_� C 'iirision ordinance,
related with the City s gra,din,� and suba
7.
Scenic Hi h:•r:zr
State 131,, requires .each general r�urpose go,rer- iiental agency to adapt a.
Scenic Roads Element.
• !.i should
A Scenic Road zoninc- ordinance will be proposed in his 7 er arch . I h izld
Ridg.e Road
be noted that Stevens Canyon Road, i.'t . Eder. Road and Itontebello
are zoned scenic high,•ray iri the County juri.s l,.ction<
-24-
SUBJtCT Evaluation of September 24 P 1973 Planning Commission Hearing on the
Stevens Creek Flood, Plai n
Ar-e-- - - -,- - _ - . -------------®---------
During the September 2.4., 1973 meeting, I jotted down some notes regarding
the types of questions that were most frequently asked'by what was apparently a.
property owner represented crowd. I have aggregated the questions into three broad
categories.
(l) Property owners seem to question t,he'accura,cy of the Flood Control's engineering;.
findings,,with respectto the natural flood plain line.
(2) Property owners� more specifically attorneys representing property owners
ibmw i the legal question as to the .taking of` property"' vis:=::a vis the flood plain
zones
(3) There was concern expressed by property owners that alternative flood plain.
`management solutions were not properly addressed.
Accuracy of. Findings
As was expected, the most frequent question asked to both the Commission and the
Flood.,Control District representatives related to the engineering t_echnique'.used:
to determine the, natural flood plain. .. Louis. Stocklemeir, who owns land within the,
natural flood plain ,just. immediately south''of Stevens Creek Boulevard, presented- a
0
Representatiyea fj;= the Flood Control Dis;tr:ict emphasized that the techniques that
they used for determine what. they teruled "the one -hundred year eye -At" were based on
a mathematical ?model and as nuch9 it would. be possible_ to not :have: a one -hundred
year flood within three hundred years then have three in a row the next two yearsa
Another owner stated that 1973 was.the., year on record and there wasno
evidence of any flooding orpotential flood on, Stevens Creek. Although not
mentioned at the -meeti.ng*, the Flood Control District shou-ld have.stressed that
the rain fall pattern during 1973 was dispersed over time.and.as.such, ground
water had ;a chance .to percolate. During :the, subsequent,.session9,.it is suggested
that the Flood Control District representatives describe.what would happen if the
ground could no longer absorb.runo,ff and an intensive storm lasting over a long
period developed.
The next question 'raised by, two .other .property owners ?_ PU u :41P, o incons.istenc' es,
lf,
with respect to'previous FloodControl: decisions regarding. approved''dev:elopments``
According 'to testimony, the Flood Control District .in conjunction with the City,
Engineering Department had approved Flood Control measures for.the Ward Crump
property, the .Horse Ranch property and the Oakde1l Ranch:.prop.erty north of
Stevens Creek in which a natural channel would -handle future.flood con ditions°
It isdoubtfulthat the Flood Control District'had recommended approval of these
particular,developments with ;the idea thatthe existing channel could remain
within a natural state. More likely the Flood -Control District approved the.
aforementioned developments with the understanding that at some point in the future
a concrete trapezoidal`_ -channel would.be built within a.slightly realigned channel
This type of ,. phll=osophy . -.no longer preyaLjs. wa thin the Mood Control District for
reason of economics as well, as envir,on�n.en:tal. concerns. T:he. staff w ll;haye to
review the .files of the .af orementioned : develo�nn:ents and respond to those comments
before the next meeting
-2-
Legal. Question
Two of the xoperty, owners. o. iing land .w th,;n the flood plain s.outl of Stevens Creek
Boulevard were repreeented Ti:y. attorneys, who. presented the case. that'the adoption of
a Ilood plain zoning ordinane e wor ld in fact be, a confiscati.on;of property rights
or a taking of property without compensation. The attorneys are apparently`,basing
their case on: •a premise that the City is interested in flood plain management not
from the point of view of protecting the healthi, safety and:public welfare of
existing and potential residenTi but rather. -that the City is interested:in flood
plain man.agemen.t to provide open space. Prior -to the next meeting, I suppose we
should ask the City Attorneys office to prepare a statement regarding :the 1eg'al
basis for flood plain zoning and we should.more-clearly state ,in our own: staff
report .the purpose for the flood plain management program. I believe that it should
be stressed that the primary purpose is to prot.ect:..future residents from the risk
of flooding ,and that.a spin-off to benefit could be the provision of open space in
the community..
Evaluat.ion.of Alternatives
The hearing closed with a general discussion of.the need to.p.rovide alternative
solutions to the Flood Plain Management program.for the.Steven.s Creek.. It is
important that this be done perhaps utilizing the Levy/Arnold planning and evaluation
technique to propertyevaluate each alternative..., The Flood Control District has
indicated that it would take at .least two weeks; to specify three alternative. solutions
to the prob�._g We should :.meet with.,the Mood Control District to discuss the planning.
and evaluation approach, -
d
a �
TENTATIVE WORK OUTLINE-7 Stevens Creek, Flood Plain Sepent of Land Use
and peen Space/Conservat:jlgn Element
I. Credibility of.engineering findings,
A. Letter from Flood Control:present ng.technical basis of determining
National Flood Plain.
1< Description of drainage basin.
2. Definition of 100-year event, 50--year event,, etc
a,. Rationale for use of 100-yeas -event.
3. Explanation for lack of flooding in last 75 years.
II. Legal Question
A. Letter from City Attorney descriging legal basis for Flood Plain Zoning.
1, Colby/Alquist Flood Plain Management Act
B. Development of Model Flood Plain Zoning Ordinance.
III. Evaluation:of Alternatives
Ao Development of Flood Plain Management Alternatives for Stevens 'Creek.
1. Natu.ral'.::Flood Plain
20 Modified Natural Flood.Plain (300v Min.).,
3 More restricted bermed channel.
4. Excavated channel.
5 Combination of alternatives.
B < Development of?to 'evaluate alternatives.
1. Specification,
20. Evaluation,
3. Implementation.
1■
ASSESSED VALUATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL
Commercial in Core Area
La 6,584,004 Ia 4,317,589
Other Commercial
L. 1,587,292 Io 1,664,069
Vallco Park Industrial/Office
L. 2,746,890 Io 2,856,38'7
West Valley Industrial Park
L. 635,746 Ia 1,167,820
Total Commercial:
Total Industrial:
Total. Commercial & Industrial
L. 89171,296
La 3,,3829636
11,553,932
Ia 5,981,658
Ia 2,831,889
8,813,547
TRAFFIC IMPACT FROM HIGHWAY 9 LAND USES
T-RUP..T. nF gFRVTCE - 1995
ALTERNATIVE
Aaa - i
Trip
.Vti.ivuo
Present
LL,L
Design
One -Way
Present
°1Football99
One -Way.,
Grade
Ends
Loop
Design
-----------
----
---Loop ---_---_
Separation
-
1985 1995 -
Through
Through
i
j
traffic
6.3
5.3
Residential
r
i
SC HioCongo
10 DU/Acre
1000
7.5
1 6.5
280 Kong:
i
H Congo
11.3
i
i
1 10.3
5 or 6
SC
Some Congo
Industrial
3540
i
Lanes
280
Gongestion
H
Congestion
Mix
2120
9.3.
i
8.3
4 or 5
SC
Some Cong<
Lanes
280
Good
i
i
i
H
Some Congo
9/26/73
,
i
i
1
i
i
CORE AREA DECISIONS
ALTERNATIVES I
EVALUATION
IMPLEMENTATION
Character
.,
of
Aggregate
Distri-
Fiscal
Traffic
City
Iiftpact8
bution
Planned Development
Ordinance .Inducing
50 acres
desired uses
mixed uses
otype of commercial
.type of other uses
Agreement of separate
owners
Split Development
Ordinance inducing
-acres commercial
desired commercial uses
-acres residential
Plann.ed_Develbpment
Ordinance inducing
50.acres
desired commercial uses
RegionalFashion
Agreement of separate
Plaza
owner's
Cit'4 of Cupertimo
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members . 1 11, 1973
of the City Council DATE: September
FROM: James H. Sisk,.Planning Director
SUBJECT, Continued Review.* of Town Center - General Plan Study.
During the last City Councilmeeting wherein the majority of the
discussionwas related to the Town Center recommendations of the
Planning Commission,: the Council requested that additional informa-
ti9n_bdPt6sented concerning alternate methods of land use.design,a
tion on: theGeneral_ Plan for the" Town Center as well as considers-
tions of appropriate policy statementsto.,ref.1-ect the intended land
uses,within this general.plan designation. The policy statements
wou
ld Ad then become guidelinesfor future ordinance e draftina and
ultimately actual zoning, of the Town Center property.
Perhaps as a point of "departure A brief, review of the Planning
Commission determination related', to... the], Town,. Center area is
necessary.&f the own,
directly tly Cent:er area in
.When speaking dire_
this -'re ort, it is directed toward those 'properties located
northerly of Rodrigues Ave., being; owned by the Cali family.,;
l
Northern I California Savings and Loan Association and the Ch-dkl and
Torre families. The Planning Cbmmission'up°onlarriving at.a first
decision concerning theregional. shopping center site directed its
attention to,the Town Center 'areaandlimmediately established.this
area to be one..of high priority re ative to additional. commercial
activity within the City of d" "" i tl qper ino. ,This Priority undoubtedly
being established due to the,xelationship ,of the prope-tty to the
existin :tCi_vir_ Center. It further: !stated by the,Commission
g.
that Center area was to b. e a very special place as to
mod'e"of_.: d'evel',opment. It would create an. area of community identity
and orientation as . opposed to a regional.shopping center which
would:;,b'0!4>,place of regional conseque,nce. Therefore, the. land
us e desDgnation of Town.Centeras presented by the Planning
id defined statements which set
:Commiss. is further defi d b y,policy s�t
forltfi,:thatthe entire -:5q4_-,,acrei1area is to be a planned diWel6pmen—t
with a commercial intensity of"approximately 250,000 square feet
of floor area and that the:!�temdininR area provide for a mixture of
residential uses with-dens;itids:between 4 to 12 dwelling units per
acre. It was further stated.thatthe commercial square footage is
to be developed in a community -oriented way with a unique character
providing fora variety of social and cultural activities and
specialized merchandise. Obviously of basic importance to the
Plannin g Commission inasmuch as approximately 50 acres of-undev—elope,..
property exists.in the center of the community adjacent to the Civic
-1-
Continued Review of Town Center - General Plan Study Sept. 11, 1973
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Center is the desire for an overall,plan on the property, thus, prohibit-
ing individual owners to sell and -;develop those properties in a manner
that would not be in concert with the overall plan. This is certainly
one of the paramount questions.before the City Council as to their
Inmate decision in.the Town;Center area and certainly as you will
recall from the last Council meeting,.. very important point was raised.
by property owners within that area' as'.to their abilities to act.
individually and not be dependent tarpon other property owners.
The following,,paragraph briefly summarizes the beginning policy statements
as set forth.by the City Council at the meeting of. September 13, 1973,.
Generally, the Council set fbr.th the following.
1e The commercial activity within the Town Center area should not
necessarily be limited to 250,000 sq.' fto but certainly should not
be 500,000 sq. ft. as proposed by the property owners.
20 That development within the Town Center should not include major
department stores.
3e That an overall plan for the entire 50+ acres would be required.
4. The question arose as to'the..desirability of additional access
ftom;.Stevens Creek Blvd. southerly into the Town Center, this
being the question of the extension of Torre Avenue or the
provision for an additional street which might intersect with
Vista Drive .or Randy Lane. Concerns have been expressed that
the resolution of -the -exact -location of a : future roadway --:extend-
ing southerly from Stevens Creek into the.Town Center.cann.ot be
made until decisions have been made northerly of Stevens Creek
Blvd. asto any roadways. :extending to Stevens Creek Blvd, that
might properly intersect.with 'access into the Town Center, area-.
it would seem, ::however, that `if the Council` finds t- .desirable'
to not, finalize `a roadway,: oo,c on,
'due to the concerns -of an
overall plan for the site,and the provisions for roadways within
an overall planning context that at this point as a policy state-
ment, it may be appropriate to merely 'state that access should be
provided to the Town Center area southerly from Stevens Creek.
5o The question arose as to density determinations for related
residential uses as apart of. an overall plan for the Town. Center
area and further that at this point in time:perhaps not only
residential uses could be 'considered as being compatible uses
within a Town Center area. Regarding residential densities it
was 'expressed that in order to encourage -an'overall plan within
the 50+ acre area that increases in residential densities might
be in order, that ranges in excess of - 20 to 25 dwelling units
per acre may not be inappropriate. Generally..,s.peakin.g, in the
c.ontex of an overall plan for the entire area, higher-densty
xang;es could work in a proper..manner However, it would be
extremely important. that as apart of policy statements relative
to residential densities that they be clearly defined. as to the
-2-
Continued Review of Town Center _ General Plan Study. Sept. 11, 1973
modes of development desired. The Planning Commission when review-
ing this portion of.the plan and stipulating 4 to 12 dwelling unit
per acre density was able 'to visualize, based on previous residential
density such as the, Glenbrook Apartments, the general mode of develop-
ment that would be utilized. When increasing densities; it is
important.to recognize the possibility of multi -story construction, sub-
terran.ean parking and things of that nature.
Discussion has been held,with the City'Attorney°s office in an attempt to
determine the legal implications of a Town Center designation with an
accompanying set of policy statements sett"ing.forth the nature of the
Town Center development and requiring that uses would not be permitted
on any portion of the 50+ acres until an overall plan,fox'the property
had been approved by the.City. The result of .those discussions indicate
that the City does have'the legal authority to adopt ordinances based
upon general planning decisions and policy statements that would implement
such a Town. Center proposal.
An alternate approach to the 'Town Center development would .be based on
separate deIvelopment'on individual blocks of land. One division of the
properties would involve'exten'sign of Torre Avenue in a northerly direc-
tion to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Properties -to the west of the road
(Cali and part of Northern California Savings and Loan) would be the
Town Center, commercial site and the use 'for 'the properties to the east
of the road would have.toc°be deciedo I"tis important in any Town
Center development that"rthe Northern California Savings and Loan property
be incorporatedin an overall plan,,that provides a link to the existing
Core`Center-area.
u
-3-
T0: The Honorable Chairman and Members
of the Planning Commission DATE: September 10, 1973
FROM: James Ho Sisk; Planning Director
SUBJECT: Neighborhood.Shop ping Center Potential for Quadrant of Inter-
section of Foothill Blvd. and ,Stevens Creek Blvd.
Attached please find maps descri.bin.g the boundary, acreage, commercial/
non-commercial zoning, developed%non.-developed., status of potential
neighborhood shopping center :si esfor 'the subject intersection:.
The ,shaded areas are zoned commercially either in the City or the
Countyo Unshaded areas are zoned for non-commercial purposes.
The diagonal cross -hatched areas denote areas which are undeveloped'o
Att;,.
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members
of the Planning .Commission DATE: September 7, 1973
FROM: James He Sisk.. Planning Director
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Review of Stevens Creek Flood Plain -
General Plan Study
Throughout the General Plan study .the Planning Department :has indicated
that discussions will'be held with -:the Santa Clara County Flood., Control
District and that. the .Commission will directly become`involved in those
discussions rela`tive:'to the disposition of,the Stevens Creek area.
A preliminary meeting has been held with the Flood Control District :in
an attempt to generate the necessary information which will be needed
by the .Planning, Commission in reviewing this area. It was: concluded as.;
a result of that meeting that the Flood Control and Plann:i.n.g Department
can be.'ready; by the Planning Commission meeting of September 24e, It is
intended that at the meeting the. discussion would be directed toward.
the flood plain .'area southerly of Stevens Creek Blvd' ',No doubt. as a part
of the flood plain discussion 'the Commission andCouncil will become
involved'in the developed.'areas located northerly of Stevens Creek Blvd.
However, this is. separate issue frcim.that which :is represented by the
natural areas of the flood. plain located southerly of Stevens Creek Blvd
to the Reservoir.
The Flood Control District has indi;cated;,that the area north of Stevens
Creek Blvd. does represent a=pdrticular'problem,inasmuch asa number of
residen.ce;s are built within fl at ex .sting flood plain.. Therefore, it is
intended that in conjunction faith the Public,W,orks Dept. the Flood_Control
District would first :want to conduct neighborhood meetings `within,. that
area to discuss alternate methods" of flg6; p•ro ection, This is,. something
that will be conducted prior, to f6rmal Z1,Scuss,ions before .the Planning
Commission and it is being mentioned at 'this. time as. a matter; of information
so that you may be aware of other activities ' that are -taking place .-within.-'the.
Cupertino planning area.
Of-4 of Cupertimo
TO: The :Honorable Chairman. and Member"s
of the Planning Commission DATE: September 7, 1973
FROM: .Tames He Sisk;' Planning Director
SUBJECT: Evaluation of :Neighborhood Commercial Land Use
Enclosed..is information generated by the Planning Department and
economic consultants concerning the subject evaluation. This informa
Lion represents a survey of existing supermarket facilities :within
the Cupertino area, a listing of neighborhood populations existing in
1973 aswell as that proposed by the various` land use 'decisions. of
high and,lo4 alternatives made by the Planning Commission.
As you; will note from the neighborhood population calculations are
id,entified`geographicallyo
As a, matter of information, neighborhood 55 is the Seven Springs
Ranch area..
Also attached is a map locating the various .shopping facilities within
the Cupertino.ar.eaa This., map is keyed to the attached listing of .major
grocery stores within the areaz..P
The following evaluation information has been supplied by the economic
consultant in ah attempt to assist you in beginning the discussion as
to the evaluation of neighborhood commercial.land use.
Evaluation: of neighborhood commercial land use
l :The evaluation items are the same ones that have been discussed for
residential development -- Fiscal, Traffic, Character of Neighborhood
with one important addition -- "Need" or "Convenience".
Character of
Neighborhood Fiscal Traffic"Need'.'
-1-
Evaluation of Neighborhood Commercial Land Use September 7, 1973
Most of the information that was requested by the Commission relates to an
analysis of the "noed":f or neighborhood commercial in the sense of whether
there are people who would,patronize new facilities.
2. Good estimates for the analysis .of. a new grocery store.are
Size 20,000 - 2.5,00G sq. ft.
Sales/Sq,a Ft. $11,5 $'125 / year
Total :Sales"` $29300,000 - $3,125,000'
Grocery Store
Purchase/per capita $600/yeas
Number'of people
needed to patronize
new store 3BO - 5000'
A presentation on she evaluation -of new neighborhood commercial land
use:M
' wi1� be made on onday ng'h:t a
Enclosures. -
Survey of Existing":Supermarket Facilities
Listing of;Neighborhood Populations in 1973
Map Locating Supermarket Facilities
-2-
8/30/73
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS RELATED TO 1973
GENERAL PLAN
I'N"OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
N-eighborhood
Park
School Site
# Name
Acreage
Acreage
Total
21 Portal
4.1
5.5
9.6
22 Wilson
5.2
61 Somerset
3.3
3.3
63 Linda Vista
11.0
11.0
71 Stevens Creek
6.3-
4.6
10.9
82 Monta Vista
402,
4.1
8.3
34.1
14.2
48>3
School site acreages have been recently
rem.easured and differ slightly
from previous calculationso
OTHER EXISTING DEVELOPED SCHOOL
SITES
21 Portal
1.9
22 Wilson
6.8
31 Collins",4.2
42 Faria
702
Lincoln.
6.4
71 Stevens Creek
1.0
Eaton
6. 7
Kennedy
8.0
Regnart
5.0
47.2
Major question is to deckde whether these
sites should be
included in
Open Space Element.
PRIVATE (in apartment - c,om.pleXes)
{
ALTERNATIVES.
FISCAL
OTHER;. -IMPACTS _
Town
Commercial r
Aesthetics,
Center
Use Total Lana
Environmental Impacts,
- Hi 9
Mariani
V.allco ,
(s f t-o)
Only Use
Character of Cite_
CSC-280
4 New Stores
Residential
250,000
$I..OM ,
Large:Phys al;Imag-e�
9+Torre
Node on Hi 9
3 New Stores
Residential
250, 000
a 9M
Low.• Profile Physical
_
I.mag'e
=
2 New Stores-
Residential
066.
e 7M
8e=2+Terre,
Residential
4 New Stores
250,000
la'OM _..,• ;.,
Large Physical:;Image/
6a5+
Low Intensity on
.._
Hi 9
_
Residential
;3 New Stores
250,000
o9M
Low. Profile Phys-:6a1
Image
Residential
2New S tores
25 ,000
e 7M
6 0 5+,
Residential
Residential'
2.509000..
a 2M
Low Intens ;ty Through.
6, 5.k,'
out City
Residential
Residential
520,000
a.35M�- :_
Regional Nodet Hi -9--,
7.1+ j - .
Stevens: Creed
5,20, 000 .
a 35M-
Depend . on Mar anzR`
_.
Vallco ,Lq' d U es
:.,
81,003
819025a65
81,059.1
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members
of the Planning Commission DATE: August 1.0, 1973
FROM. Robert So Cowan, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Land Use Alternatives for the Seven Springs Ranch
During the meeting .of August 2, 1973, your body requested the planning
staff -to prepare a report describing the potential impact of the newly
adopted Santa Clara. County Conservation Element.with respect to the
Seven Springs Ranch and additionally requested that the staff clarify
the soil types within. the Seven,Springs Ranch The purpose of this
report will be to.discuss the aforementioned subject areas and in addition
discuss the implication of various land use alternatives relative to .the
SevenSpringsRancho The evaluation of various land..use alternatives for
the -Seven Springs=Ranch.is complex in the sense that three general purpose
governmental entities have or will have jurisdiction over the property.
The three jurisdictions are the County of Santa Clara9 the City of Saratoga.,
and the City of`Cupertinoa In addition to the general purpose governmental
agencies, the Mid -.Peninsula Regional. Park District has expressed concern
with regard to the ultimate development of the property, as yell as two
quasi -governmental agencies, specifically the Planning Policy Committee's
Urban.Development/Open Space Subcommittee and the Hillside Subcommittee,
Addi:tio'hal.jy the Local Agency Formation Commission will be directly
involved,with the ultimate land use.determination of the property in the
sense that they will evaluate any annexation applications:submitted.by
the applicant to either the City of Cupertino or the City of Saratoga'.
Description .of the Site .and Neighbdririg,-Area.:]
The Seven Springs Ranch is located in the northwest quadrant of Stelling
Road and Prospect Road. The property consists of approximately. 255 acres
of which 113 acres are relatively flat and the remaining 142 arees hilly.
The area bordering the Seven Springs Ranch to the north directly across
Rainbow is a single-family residential development within the City of San
Jose. The land area directly to the east of the Seven Springs;Ran;ch
across Stelling Road is also a developed single-family area within the
City of San Jose, The land area to the south of Prospect which forms the
southern border of the property is..withn, County jurisdiction, and within
the City, of,Saratogaas sphere of influence. The westerly segment of the
Seven S.pr.ixigs Ranch is bordered-by
;the Regnart Canyon environs and is
within;City and County jurisdictiono
.P,hysiograp.hic Characteristics
Land Use Alternatives for the Seven Springs Ranch August 10, 1973
Ridge -area indicates that a fault trace bisects the western section
of the property. The. study goes on to state that the upper hill portion
of the property has a relatively poorer stability rating.. The,staff has
made a preliminary slope analysis,of the upper portion of the property
and.f'ound the average slope to be 35%. Utilizing a 1-5 acre slope
density formula will result in a requirement for 2.14 acres per unit.
A sow s; report entitled B°Soils of Santa Clara ;County1P? prepared by the
ted States Department ;of Agrcultur:e9.Sol Conservation Service,
has classified three basic soil types''for the, lower portion of the
Seven > Springs Rancho One classif.cat�:on is Type IIs'49 which means- that
the land is Class II soil withp9.some limitations°° a a major problem
and a secondary problem :'of "coarse texturesB1''o The second classif.i'cation:
is Type IIIc4, which ,!means: Class III soil with -a mayor problem of
°erosion°° and secondary problem of: °°coarse; texturesP° o. The third classi-
fication if. IIIs3,; which meansc°: Class III soil ,with a major problem of
"soillimitation" and a secondary problem of. 'slowly -perm able subsoilsP.
The majority of the upper portion of the ' Seven Springs Ranch is classified
Type IVe5, which means Class IV soil with "erosion°1 as a major problem and
°Bfine,soil textures°``as .:secondary problem. As indicated during the Aug.,
2 meeting, the County of Santa:Clara .Planning Dept. designated the" �enti�re
lower portion of the Seven Springs Ranch as_:Class 1'and 2 agricultural
lands A segment of the County's'map 'is attached to this report. Add -.
,tionallyP-a staff prepared 'map is attached to describe the soil class ®
fication as delineated by the aforementioned "Soils of Santa Clara CountyP°
reports
Existing Zoning and Land Use
The entire Seven Springs. Ranch is currently>witlin County,.;juri"sdict on.
It is zoned A (Exclusive Agricultu.re)o In .conjunction with,.the exclusive
agricultural zoning, the property owner has contracted with the County'`
under the California Land Conservation Act. The contract is still in.
` ..fect since it was .renewed during the last renewable period.The lower
portion of the property is currently being. utilized for agricultural
purposes"with the eastern portion of the property being utilized as
orchard land and the northwesterly portion of the property being utilized
as :a commercial wholesale nursery.
PresentP:o.sitions of Various Governmental Agencies Relative to Land Uses
for the Seven Springs Ranch
As stated earlier there are a number of governmental agencies and'quasi
governmental agencies that are concerned about alternative land use
designations for the Seven Springs Rancho Submitted below are brief
descriptions of the involvement of these various governmental enti`t'ieso
Santa°'Clara County
As mentioned before: Seven Springs Ranch is under the.Cal fornia Land
Conservation Contracts Under the terms of,the Act;, a contract with a,
local: jurisdiction is automatically renewed each year for a 10-year
�2-
■
Land Use Alternatives for the Seven
------------------------------------------------------------
Springs Ranch
August
109 1973
period unless the applicant.)desires
to petition to
cancel the
contract.
m3®
Land Use Alternatives for the Seven Springs Ranch August 10, 1973
------------------------------
City of Saratoa
Land Use Alternatives for the Seven Springs Ranch August 1:0, 1973
Mid,.P:eninsu.la 1Zegonal `P:axli District
-5-
Land Use Alternatives for the Seven:;: Springs Ranch August 10, 1973
indicated in ,the alternatives. The urban development described for
Seven Springs Ranch ;.by,.Alternative k wi as residential at 1-5 acres per
unit. Twoof the oher,,planshda10-shtsownthe:-.area suitable for
density.flexibility,:meanszng a higher,; density of development through
clustering or other planned development means.
The other Planning Policy Committee which ,i's ,involved, in land use
alternatives for the Seven Spring:s'Ran.ch is the Urban Development/Open
Space Subcommittee. =The Urban beveiopm:At'/Open Space`"plan was adopted
by the Planning Policy Committee :in "April. of` 1973,o The intent of the
document was to delineate:areas mn -the County= for urban development
and open. space and set up-pol cy gu.idelines'for:''the local governments
d h
an t :e County The urhan , service` area .and' spheres of -influence for
the various fur sdic..tions were taken onto account in the preparation
of the' final plan.
Relative to Seven Springs Ranch9 the Urban Development/Open Space
Plan indicates both future development and open ;spaces 'The lower
portion of: the :Ranch `,whieh is:.:contiguous to urban development, is shown
w i thin tupettino'4s -Urban 'Service Area which allows for urban .;expans'ion.
The tipper portion of the Ranch, which is outside of the City°s Urban
Service Area, is indicated.for long-term open sgace'in the form of
razin g g,, watershed protettion9'mountain vegetation and wildlife protec-
tion,"etca, allowing'a very low -density rural residential.useo
LAFCO
The Local Agency Formation Commission is a State -mandated Commission
which ;eXists within all counties of the State and which has ..primary
responsibility for reviewing and approving ann.exations' of land to a
city or a special district.As such, LAFCO has a great. deal of power,
and authority to regulate the growth of jurisdictions':within a county.
In December of 1971,.`the Santa Clara County.LAFCO adopted a policy,
document with respect to..con:trol of development within Santa Clara
County. The essential element of the urban °developmen`t;;policy is the
ad"option of the urban service area .concept,; The `concept` en, s a
program by which each of the fifteen' cities within the County defines
its present urbanization. a.nd a segment of undeveloped land within its
fringe which will suffice "for urban expansion for a. given 5-year period.
Each;year the five years' worth of"land is evaluated by LAFCO to
determine whether additional- land should be placed within .the urban.
service.area boundary ®lice a city adopts this urban: service area
boundary ZAFCO will `;not approve an annexation which is outside f th
bo.undary'� and as such., LAFCO is in a position to prohibit leapfrog
d:evelopmento
In addition to urban service areas, LAFCOs development,policy includes
three other broad definitions. One is labeled,Urban Transition Area,
which consists of vacant. or agricultural land adjacent: to, -urban service
areas which are neither programmed.for public facilities nor utility
=I
-6-
Sim
Land Use Alternatives for the Seven Springs Ranch August 10, 1973
extensions. Land within this category....would most likely be used for
urban expansion within five to fifteen:ye'arso...The next broad category
s.non-urban open space..areas, which include land which has value for
parks -and., recreation: purposes, conservation.of land". and other natural
resou.rce.si historic or scenic purposes: o, agriculture, It is further'
divided zn.to two broad ca.tegories,.long®term'and,permanent Long-term
open space includes lands which are either "suitable,for.urbanization but
will ;i%ot .be needed for development for,`at least fifteen years or land
which may eventually become permanent open space. .The second category
is permanent open space and this category'Wouia include publicly -owned
lands which would remain undeveloped,. ncluding parks, utility corridors,
water areas and flood channels.
The last broad category .is Urban Open Space Areas. Urban.Cpen Space Areas
include, land within 'the.ur6an service area which. has value for parks and
recreationpurposes. conservation of land an:d:"other natural resources,
historic': -or scenic purposes. This includes'_publicly-owned land, such as
parks 9 utility corridors.9 water areas and flood control channels9 this
also ncluaes certain privately -owned lands,upon.;which development.should
be permanently prohibited for reasons of public health, safety and welfare
such as land slide area's,, earthquake Hazard "area , and airport `f light path
zones
TheL Seven.S.p.rings Ranch s currently within the Urban Service .Area as
adopted. by,LAFC on March 7.9 19730: 1n:essen.ce then,;the.City has
categorized Seven Springs Ranch as an area for=future urban expansion
within the :next_, five years . ` This classif icatzon. 'zs somewhat"o.pposed to
the position of designating the Seven Springs Ranch for a long,®term.agri-
cultural use. Utilizing"the''dLbfinitioris and policy statements contained'
in the LAFCO guidelines. theonly gray the. Seven - Springs Ranch could be
designated as agricultural land and still be retained within the Urban.
Service Area would b-.e to .classify the Seven Springs,Ranch as an urban
open space area using the rationale that the agricultural preservation
represents a conservation.of"land and other natural resources, as stated
in the tAFCO def inn tioii' for an Urban Open Space 'Area. The more ' ideal
classfication`fo:r the Seven Springs .Ranch, should the City determine
:that it remain in agricultural land use, would be'to classify the land
as either an -urban transition area or a non -urban open space ,area.. This
classification would not eliminate development potential '.for the property
but would merely place the property in a long term holding classification.
untilsuch time as the .City needed it for urban deve:lopmento
LAFCO policy also affects the. Seven Springs Ranch in another manner,
it is,"the policy of LAFCC to require the annexation of an unincorporated
p.roperfty to, a city if the property', owner also seeks annexation. of his
r y, p district, which pro�rides urban services to the
o ert to a s ecial dzstri
property o A portion of the, Seven` `Springs Ranch is: currently within the
Cupertino -.Sanitation District, however, a significant portion of the
flat s'eIgift eh of the Seven Springs Ranch is outside of the sanitation
district,: thus', if LAFCO'were-to aVic7e,`by its policy, the southern port on
of the flat segment of Seven`,„Springs Ranch could not be annexed to the
Cupertino Sanitation: District unless a -joint annexation request is filed
with the 'City of .Cupertino. This particular policy again reflects LAFCO°s
i
Land Use Alternatives for the Seven Springs Ranch August 10, 1973
v v cer
_ o c� '.UQ.OU� OOO�OO` '
v p .. o o ° 0 0 ° OOO On'O O0 ..°9" �► u
p 0°p ° °4�y�0 pO0 OQOO C�r ...: .r
+ j s Shp o 0 o d 0 0 °. p 0 `���eOQ00 0000OUC m® do i O•
t 3
p 000 0 0 0, O o 0 0 ° 0 0°°0 Q00 0000000 O - _...
o0 0 .52II� O-d 0 °
,F t +�'•{.. ... ti. - cl
Q pO �,/'� p° °p ..gyp QOr �(YQ
Cn DO
i?"d.co..0 O `o�i° _� o ° O ° 0a cQ.O�' i 0
j" �„ ,.:- ""' .,.`, - ---'` _ .,,,�.. "�;. 1 \: C;.-.a•- O p 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 ., Q G d ffi� 0 J00c) OOOO
° 0 p 0 ° 0 0 4�r © O - ® B QQ OOO O :.',., .;...:, .
...,. -:.. _�:' "'°>"�,.rt' `"�.. jr` C•' aw-' ( .wr ,.0.0 ° 0 O 0 '0 O O o . r'�'Yw ' �3' �4` "�`'iQQ�' i� �!t..Q Ooc O.OUQ OOQ"'i•.'.'.•.;:'.• `1
J�
.-..,..'
Oc)
s9 �# 1 f` `. vim ¢ °0900°- °° 0' 9 E� QOOO O DOOOQOpoQO0OQp0 00 Or,- °
s G C== Ile
`'� o Oo 0 p p p1/rgi�- i �0()0 000 OOQ� 00,E 0Or p
°o 0 0 SCyCO" $QY�.'�•d`�2 "? •- Q�y^ �U
0 O � i s o �� vO _ �,0 o vr�0 .
! o p q yam} p _ QQ O Q OO
0- o �° 0 Oip UQQ OUQ OOQ UO
° oP 4 ° o °- ._'p.� �000 QOOp OOOQOp
•-, a - Qs
O O n n
\.. O UQU ._..
II f °
7 4s 0 0 0 °0 ^ �Qn OQOl U
°p'O 0oP00 G O �'g 7QQ c7G QQQC .:
0
00 00 °°0°00.0..,,.000°°0 0 0 o O 000, -oo
0°poop 0°00,° °°° o OoFo p o O a o o av 0p0`. c° ou°o
�.. /�' ~ '. .1 •i / 00 0 0�j _Oi �0� a ° 0 0. of Oct°
{` i " .._ -� it i L t. .-' - i .-vy '. , _7 0 0 ° 0 0 0 p o O �OO 0 0- ° ^ C C O 0 .
�o °°G. O °O°O - 0� C 0
O 0 P p 0 0 L -.. a
?, 0 ° �... ° 0 0 ° o
3Qt✓%d?�a_`p`�'o oP< o Po00000 00 00 po,OG ° 0ooa OQpo oOOo 0
O
0
0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 °° °0 0 0 0° O O
oo0bp00° OoOp0p00o0 0°OooO ".0rv^ pyoq 0 a 0
O O O P 0 c 0 p. d 0 p 0 0 ,c 0 0 0 ° 0 0° 0 0 0 0 00
0 ° 0
° 0, n O ° 0 0 0 00 0 000 C O
o p 0 0 0 o o P -p o° 0 00 0 p o c o 0 0'
0 6 ° p O p C p 0 0 p
0 duo U° O o°°oo 0 0 0 0 0op00 ° 0 0o°000 Q o �.
0 0 O 0 oO ° O c O° 0 0 ° p o 0 -^, o p o o O O 0 0 0 q• p pC O p O o 0 0 0 q
• ,rF•! O L (t^; p p 0...._ .'d • O° O O Oo 00 ° 0° o 0 0 0 0 0 • P o 0 °0 0 O o ', fir'` o° 0 0,00 ° o p O p O o 0° `. o o •,.O o P
'10oo P000p 000 OC 00°0o00 0 00 0°0 0POo...0°00°000.°°0 °°O.0 C,CC
P it i` p p p O O pQO _ ° O D P G° ° O ° L
o 0 0 0.. :§oC { p ,G� 0-2, �3 O p o o p 0 O o O ° p o O �'p° 0 p• o p c
-^ t7 0 U 6 O O P. p 0 0 p o O
F tni°it :fig., 00 °0°0 0 p °O'00o0 0 ;'O000 0 .°°O 0 da0 'o p aoC, o 0 0
Q,.Oo O,d �.�p0p0 °00°o0Oo0 0.0000°O P00 0.p� OaOp0 °O°°0•000�-.00 0°
+�� Oo P o O O 0`0 00
0'p °. p o0° OPo 0 0 0� - _ p,o0 0 0° 00 0 9''° 0 0 0 0° o ° o
is ;P 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 P ° ° o
!:,.. ,..._ D 0 v ;0 '' 0° ` o 0 0 �° 0 0 O D 0 p 0
° jo 0 0 _ ° :-o' ° 0 0 ° },� o,.. 0 ° `ii4'wpitU�`e° p .
0 0 0 °o o° o
o ° p J,,: p0�,t,oa_ ` ° 0:.0 ° 0 0 0 �0 �: 0 00 0 °.0 0- p O.op p 0,
-< fc-o -_. �. �Gv ¢:.-.0 � 0 ° 1 p0 ° . o 0 o oO Q P, ° �,,... p p O .•0,, ° 0 °0 0 0 0 0 ° .0'° 0 0 ° o a0 . ° p o p
-.., tl a 0 0 0 0 t °.= 0<'..0' 0 p ° 0.0 0 ' ° 0 0 °.0 0 O
0 o 0 o p0 o OOo00o,^oDo o O '.d o,°00 00 poop ° °° o°°°° po 000°°0 0 °o° 000.°°�o�_c
0
oO 0 IOQ. p o0 oo.oO°0 °o- ao 0 0 0 0 ° �o o-.0 0
J.,O °0 0 p0o .0 ro`o 0 0 0 O o o° oQ 0 ° o P°° 0 p° p °, 0 0 0 0 °° °° ° °
.40 0 0@ 0 0° °O 0 0° 0 0° o c 00 o O Q n" o d o O 0 °. ° 0 0 0 o o ° 0° 0 0 0. p 0° 0 0 0 0 °0 0 "0 ° 0 0° 0,
0•'60--:J.o o.OQ00°po°D0°.00a�c °°j.0O.0.000.00000..b°°;O o°O0°00°o0 °O 0•Q O°o ;00 0...oO
y� o s 0.° ° P
0-0 0 O,.p° -
0 O 0 ° O c 0 ° O o p P i c o ° 0° 0; 0 0° 0 0'..0'!0°;� 0- o 0., 0 0 0 0 °
'`9� 0 O0 o Oo. °O oU0 O pOOoDo jOo° 0 0 P c O f°
+CS+"s- + O o 0 o a V _0 0 0 c oc o 0 0- 0 °O 0 O 0 °�° 0 °r 0 Joa
p Cp P 0 0'.° 0 0 <.t,� °O..•0 0°°-.,P ° O 0 0 0 0 -;'p 0 0'0 °: 00 0 o. 0. 0 p 0 p 0 °" 0
-L ` ;,d0.0_.0 0 p _°_0 p oP ,n oP. c- .0 0 0' 0° p0 0 0 Oo o °O- -o°O-O. O. 0 00 00 0�. +.,.�#t•"[.
t;l 00.0° �..o°oe ° p 0..o°Op ° °P..,o° 0 0 ° gO.O p°�.p ° 0 0Oi0 o00°OppP o0 0opo0 000 0
L - •qy 0 0 0° o---..0 0°° p° 0 0 0 :a p C O o O° ° 0 p o 0 0 0 O 0 o' o O 0':
s 0 p 0 p G' O o ° n 0 C' O C- 0 C, o 0 °F'°'.. o'. P O �"• . 0' 0 0 ° O 0 o O 0 p
/ y 0 p o O- ^ 0 ° 0 0 p o p; )p.0 0 o O
° 0 0° 'Po o°° 0 C O v° 0 00 00.;0 r- -.- .o 0 0 Op 0 ° O 0 0 0 0 p �o .�
O p:.� ° 0 0 0 0 P 'O p O 0° 0 0 d
0 o c o poop -0 °prop p090 o pjQD°p°gip° y
o p D a0 D a n yo0„ 00....__� �_a .p c 0 c o 0 C o 0 0 0-0
0 O ( 0 °° O 0 0 4�0 p�.._ o° O O 0 0 O. 0 OID ° , 0,'P� O ti�
_ 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0, 0 p o- a.
� o +�
0©,00 o Oo cono �PQoOo 0 0 0°°QV OOo 000 00 00
° 0.. 0 - J o' `0 ° d'_..0 0 0 ° -0.- n <J o ° 0 Q .0�0 O o iI`n--'••
c rc p -o c o c .0 0 o 0 ,.0•....� �° 0 o o o° O 0� o 0 ,o ° o
h ° o ° 00°0 OO°pOp00000GocL o 000;000 0 6.6° oo-;$p°0,�000 oL
O :., o 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 O 0. 0 p O O .,tt.. o ° 0 O•. p 0 0 0 0 0 0 O p.. p 0 p0' ;tO ° 0 0 0 0. I o 0 0 O ° O a
0:. 0 O o °. 0 p o o C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i o O o p o O o 0 .0 44 p o o. 0 0
xp° oO d o� ° 0 0 Oo0 ao0 o c 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 p D•0O,° prop 0.00°o O Apo °� 0 ° 00 o'oC vU
q i O 0° 0 0 0 0 0 p °:.o O- )° '0 - 0, 0 0 D o 0 p. p o 0 ° o O 0' 0.Q:°0 ° p 0 p
CCp ? MOB°00000 0.000OYG p.o-oo0 00,00o O°0.�0p O.o''po.o fl0-•�-°.-�o 000go°00
'o o0 0 00 p 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 ° P
:ap 0 O 0.0 0 pop p o p p 0 o O o, 0. 00 - 0 0 0 0 0. p 0 0 0 p 0 0 0
�'00.pQ O0 0000° QOo O.O .Q pO.:.00°0.000°°QOp00000 OOo o •p.0 °00°00 o-0 p0c
0 o O 0 o i O O 0-0 ° 0 0
Oo ODp0o0o opa od-Oo00 c° o do° o.�_. '.0'oO` dPpoO °o°,�
$... . - .. o. 00 G o p�c d 0 °-O 0 0... j- p 'O a
o°' o O �O p p° ° p0 ° o o O d 0 0_0 0 0 0 0 0° 0°° 00 °o p 0° 0 pTE}',
9
-Oc _ se Opea�V ° .`� 0 d O 0 0 0 0. O 0
Opogp00° 0 0 0 cO 0 0°.0000`
A. ay Ii0 o O 0 „
0 0 0' o ° o o d! 0 P p o
p 0 , ° 0b o O ° o ° o' °�o 0 0 0
O o C.op J%.0 o p° p p0 0 0
C�
0 O P 3" ° 0 0O U o On .-.
0 00
� ,.:i .'A"-.: � z2-_"—.k •= - e - c ._ _ IdPrvcy4P s ., � � i`h ',; \ o a-t (` "1'1,,,•:
.. tea. 'SX'. - _ '. jam•:. . � } Aa �leew ° 1 C_� _ _... • »oar
zm
__.. .': i _Ito "• 1
E N 7 n..^F 'jrsir0 • Fi• 7 R 1. . �� Li 6r ge BfObsO�e
urb �%, ".fir` ti . c ssss- . �./ � ib ! i E3 i �6Ge -4 -ro •� _ .�' �. $'1 .__T..,I -
rvile
pARK areal
4-lL F il'FK x:
3'135
9- 2.
4
:5 1 — L ©- 1 Cv I — — 2 II �iS � ra.
3�+ r J3GrCc-�-l12S YF
� tr• ; �,� \ � �-^�-5� �.,. .�(olo-2z�'R 3<0(.-$-2 l- \ �/^ _ - ,�SQ>1
3410 -t , 2 - -
^ — �6
r_'✓66
22
v�
1 . BY•
351
1 /o; •' ) - zo p PARR W
t,.
e i
i 36 6 - 2. 9
ra�(
7 I
N
n -- - - gyp_.___. _-- - � - - .- 1 •"
w sphere ►+. ; a �� E- s-� H �, r
i Uf
a .V
uenc �66 _�o_'P
Comp ' fy�> �✓lJ3- ll ? G I _ �I J
Sytomore N, i1 1J
E N .5 b R E E' K\�`3Gs S—g I
r :
Of Cuperti-no
Status Report on Hillside Work August 10, 1973
■
The Comarc design systems C2 Plot
F package has.the capability of produc-
ing a variety of land planning tools
commonly used by architects, civil
engineers, landscape architects, and
related design professionals. This pro-
gram efficiently and economically
K extends the technical capabilities.of
the computer to persons and firms
engaged in the business of land plan-
ning. Among the products available
from C2 Plot are cut/fill analysis,
contour maps, cross sections, drain-
age maps, slope maps, grid perspec-
tives and presentation perspectives.
The advantages of C2 Plot are
numerous. Drawings and calculations
which used to consume many man
hours can now be rapidly produced
by machine at less cost. Not only
does this provide quick, accurate and
inexpensive planning tools, but simul-
taneously frees members of your
staff to perform other tasks.
The first step in utilizing C2 Plot is
the establishment of data files. The
customer can provide Comarc with
maps showing the existing and pro-
posed grades. By use of a machine
An Application
®ffered By ®'
- _ .
MSHA'RE
called a digitizer, the Comarc opera-
tor simply traces the contour lines
of the, map, to ;produce data for use ,
by the computer. Comarc personnel
will generate the data and enter it
into the computer.Or, if the custom-
er has a computer terminal in his
office and wishes to enter the data
himself, he can do so using a pre-
scribed process.
A basic set of calculations that will
almost always be done in site, plan-
ning is cut/fill. These can be done at
a great savings in time and money'
using C2 Plot. On the data are in.
the machine, the cut/fill cal culation;-=—
and map canbeproduced in minutes,
at a substantial savings over planim-
eter,methods. It is also 'of interest to
note that all of the data -necessary to
produce the plots and calculations
shown in this brochure are in the
machine at that point.
With this in mind, it is advantageous
to input the data on the existing site
prior to starting the planning process.
It is then possible to produce valuable
planning tools without' incurring extra
costs for data entry.
Information on each of the land plan-
ning tools available from the C2 Plot
program are explained in this brochure.
Contour Maps
Contour maps can be plotted from the data
with a variety of scales and contour intervals.
These maps can be of the existing site or
reflect suggested grading.
30
r
25
20 F U
IS \O I\
to
5 1
5 10 15 20 30 35 40
SCRLE I iv _2l5 2k Cvnkvur ZvF.r..l __ 30 /k
Before Grading
5 to IS 20 25 3n 35 40
SC RLE Iry =2,5 yF Cevkvur IvF.r,.1 =30 fk
After Grading
Cut/Fill Analysis
•---------•---------•---------•---------•----------
.J9
464.19
464.39
461.69
461.69
455.
-C2PLO
C2 Plot will perform complete cut/fill
2?3F
237F
?37F
217F
129E
CCPLOT A LAND PLOTTING PROGRAM
calculations. Each time you regrade the
q�
44A.72
447,91
446.40
444.68
444.
VEkS10N 2.05
site, the program can calculate the cubic
•---------•---------•---------•---------•---------•
yards of cut, the cubic yards of fill, and the
,19
464.39
6
44,39
464.39
457.19
445.
COMAhC DESIGN SYSTEMS SAN FRANCISCO (415) 392-5260
AGHICULTURE bUILDING, E•MBARCADEIRO AT MISSION 94105
net cut or fill. The program will also provide
2'1F
234E
230F
166E
61F
a map of the site showing the cut/fill quan-
.11
449.24
44k.21
446,97
445.56
444.
(1) WOULD YOU LIKE INSTRUCTIONS ? 10
tities in each grid cell as well as the elevations
•--------
7z
---------------------
40, 39
464, 39
---------•--------
458.92
44F ,,27
443.
(2) WHAT NEXT? (I Fdh 1NSTkUCilON S> CF
(80) NAMES OF BEFORE, AFTER FILES? OAACHEEAI,OAKCREEK2
at each grid point as shown here. The inter
0
81) SHRINK FACTO k, SWELL FAC 70 H. (1.0 FOR NONE)? .8 1.0
rogation at the right shows the conversation
?�7F
224F
:
169F
63F
:
:
COMPUTING - STAND bY.
that occurs when the user is running cut/fill
•B
449.°1
44R.19
447.17
445.63
444.
analysis on his own terminal. The under
,79
464.AS
461.71
451.1h
444,00
444,
TOTAL GUT 257265 YARDS
TOTAL FILL= 422226 YARDS
scored copy is the sole input required of the
:
2?6F
179F
•
76F
417'
23C
NET FILL a 164962 TAhDS
operator. This example also shows the
.00
449.41
448.00
446.13
444.54
444.
<ET WOULD YOU LIKE A C,F49NAP? Y.tS
information supplied to the user, regardless
P P 9
•
•
•
•
•
(83) WOAD YOU LIKE A LIST OF WUA4IITES OF
of whether Comarc runs the program or it is
,79
463.2P
453.18
443.96
443.11
441.
CUT 0k FILL IN EACH GRID? YES
1
(84) OUTPUT OPTION, (1) TERMINAL (2) OUTPUT FILE ? -
run on your own terminal.
n5F
P4F
9c
s6c
64c
.00
450.00
448.3P
44P.P4
447.A1
446.
Drainage Maps 311 E �E 30
To obtain a drainage map, simply specify
the scale you require, and the program will 25 25
plot it. The map consists of a series of arrows
showing the direction of flow, and symbols 0- 20
which denote ridge tops and areas where
water will collect. 5� 5
to f to
5 to IS 20 i5 30 35 40
SCRLE 1
Before Grading
Slope Maps 30
To obtain a slope map, specify a series of
percentage slope ranges, e.g. A=0-5%, 25
B=5-10%, etc. The program then plots a map,
at any scale, which outlines the areas which 0
fall into the specified slope ranges. The pro-
gram also calculates the number of acres
in each range as shown below.
W
S 10 IS 20 '1 30 35 40
SYMBOL RANGE(PEKCENI) Pbl,A(ACKES) I OF S1 I
A 0 - 5 .9 1.2
b 5 - 10 6.7 9.2
C I - 15 9.1 12.4
U I5 - 25 16.2 22.2
E 25 - 40 18 .5 25.3
F 40 - IOUO 21.7 29.7
Before Grading
5 0
51RLC Ern _2T5 yk
After Grading
30 E ➢ C
EFE
C CD
C SC➢ E
CDR 6 E
25 2631 F ED
C6 6
E E
D 6C 6
C C6 RISR
20 6 C BCD
6 DE
C DCE E E:DD
IF
15 ➢
R
6
E R6
E 6R 6 C
to ➢ ➢ 6cD6
RBC
FE EC6
.M C ➢
5 fE ➢ ^E
5
10
IS
SYMBOL
kANGE(PEKENT)
A
0 -
5
b
5 -
10
C
10 -
15
U
15 -
25
E
25 -
40
F
40 -
Iu00
After Grading
ED
15 0
DE
R
D
E
F➢ E�
R
20 25 30 35 40
AkEA(ACKES) 1 OF SITE
4.7 6.4
6.9 9.5
6.2 9.5
11.7 16.0
IEl 24.7
21.1 34.8
Cross Sections
C2 Plot can produce a cross-section between
any two points on the land surface.
Grid Perspectives
Grid perspectives are another possibility of
C2 Plot. The land surface of these plots con-
sists of the same x-y grid used when entering
the elevations, plotted as a perspective. These
drawings are helpful for planning purposes,
as it is possible to locate specific coordinates
on the land surface.
Presentation Perspectives
With C2 Plot it is possible to produce pre-
sentation perspectives. The site can be repre-
sented from any angle or from eye level.
This perspective technique is highly desirable
as it provides a perspective with a finished
+ rendering quality. An example of presenta-
tion perspectives is shown on the front
cover.
The following is an example of the work flow
through a 90 acre project. The map scale used
is 1 "=80' and the grid size is'/2".
The costs shown under option A cover Co-
marc providing digitizing, processing and
plotting.Option B covers the computer
costs of a user entering the data through his
own terminal and doing the processing and
plotting on a time sharing system utilizing
the C2 Plot package. Remember to include
in-house professional time in evaluating
Option B. Since each site will vary consider-
ably, the costs shown here cannot be directly
related to other projects.
loso
lls
silo
a 215 5511 025 Ilan- 1315
SERLE"=215 fE
I
Before Grading
mso
lls
son
0 2l5 Ssa o25 nou 1915
SERLE I.in_2l5 fE
After Grading
FmEmEinn= 22 ElevzHan= 20 EievaEian mulEiplier= 1.20
STEP I
Digitize Map of Existing Topo
Using a digitizer or manual methods, the
contour data is recorded from the map of
the existing site and read into the computer.
Option A $100 Option B $72
Produce A Slope Map & Summary
The planner specifies the percent of slope
categories which he wishes to use and the
scale of the map which is to be drawn. The
cost shown includes calculations and plotting.
Option A $75 Option B $40
Produce a Drainage Map
The planner specifies the map scale and a
drainage map is plotted.
Option A $100 Option B $55
Plot Sections
Any number of sections through the site can
be plotted at any scale. In this example, 4
were produced at 20 scale.
Option A $40 Option B $24
Produce Perspectives
Perspectives can be drawn from any angle of
view using either a presentation or grid tech-
nique. In this example, 3 large perspectives
were plotted showing 3 different views of
the site.
Option A $225 Option B $150
At this point- the planner has a good set of
site analysis with whichto start his planning.
The total costs for Step 1 are:
Option A $540 Option B $341
(Continued)
STEP 2
Digitize Grading Plan
Once the grading plan has been drawn up, the
data from it is entered into the computer.
When Comarc is doing the digitizing the grad-
ing plans can be made up of either contours
or spot elevations. Comarc also has special
routines for working with sub -divisions,
roads and pads.
Option A $85 Option B $72
Calculate Cut/Fill Quantities
The cut/fill quantities for the entire site are
calculated. Also, a map of the site showing
the cut/fill quantities in each grid cell as well
as the elevations at each grid point, is
produced.
Option A $50 Option B $64
Plot Sections
In this example, 4 sections were drawn
through the graded site which correspond
with the sections produced earlier.
Option A $40 Option B $24
Produce a Drainage Map
This will reflect any drainage problems
created by the grading scheme.
Option A $100 Option B $55
Sample Interrogation
This sample interrogation shows the infor-
mation required of the operator to run a C2
Plot from his own terminal. After indicating
the desire to run C2 Plot, the operator is
led through a series of questions which re-
quest the required input. The underscored
copy shows the simplicity of this input.
Note the question offering the choice of
options available from C2 Plot. There is no
requirement for knowledge of computers on
the part of the operator, as the interrogation
is completely conversational. The after grad-
ing grid perspective shown on the previous
page was produced from this run.
Plot a Perspective
One perspective of the graded site was
produced.
Option A $75 Option B $50
This is the total cost of Step 2. If the analysis
run during this step showed the grading
scheme to be satisfactory, the processing
could stop here.
The total costs for Step 2 are:
Option A $350 Option B $265
STEP 3
Adjust Grading
In most cases, the initial cut/fill calculations
show an imbalance and some adjustment is
required. If this adjustment is not major, it
can be done without going back to the
digitizer.
Option A $45 Option B $40
Calculate Cut/Fill Quantities
A new set of cut/fill quantities were calcu-
lated and a new map produced.
Option A $50 Option B $64
-UPP1 LIT
Plot Perspectives
Three new perspectives were produced to be
used in presentations.
Option A $225 Option B $150
The total costs for Step 3 are:
Option A $320 Option B $254
Total Cost for Steps 1, 2 & 3.
Option A $1210 Option B $860
For $860-$1210 the cut/fill quantities for
the entire site were calculated twice, seven
perspectives, two drainage maps, a slope map,
and eight cross sections were produced. Of
course the planner can choose the plots and
calculations he needs on any given project,
and the costs will vary accordingly. It is also
possible to use a combination of Options A,
and B.
C2PLOT A LAND PLOTTING PROGRAM
VERSION 2.05
COMAkC DESIGN SYSTEMS SAN FRANCISCO (415) 392-5268
AGRICULTURE BUILDING, EMBARCADERO Al MISSION 94105
(1) WOULL YOU LIKE INSTkUCTIONS ? NO
(2) WHAT .NEXT? (I FOR INSTRUCTIONS) I
OPTION . . . . . MEAN:
NF
CREATE NEW DATA FILE
OF
WOW( WITH OLD FILE
CF
CUT & FILL ANALYSIS
CO
CONTOUR MAP
SE
SECTION
SP
SHADED PERSPECTIVE
GR
GRID PERSPE!,TI VE
SL
SLOPE MAP
Dk
URAINAGE MAP
61
QUIT
(2) WHAT NEXT? (I FOR INSTRUCTIONS) Gk
(30) NAME OF SITE DATA FILE? OAKCREEI(2
LEFT X= 0 RIGHT X= 2050 FRONT Y= 0 HEAR Y= 1550
(50) PLOTTER SPEED: (1) 10 CPS (2) 30 CPS ? 2
(51) HEIGHT OF PLOTTEk PAPER (IiN)? 34
(52) PLOTTER KESOLUII,)N IN MILS: (1) 2.5 (2) 5.0 (3) 10.0 ? 1
(53) OUTPUT OPTION: (1) TO PLOTTER (2) TO FILE TO BE PLOTTED LATER ? 1
(55) ANGLES OF VIEW: mOTATION,ELEVATION ? 20 20
(56) VERTICAL SCALE MLL T1PLIEk? 1.5
(57) SIZE OPTION: (1) SINGLE SHEET (2) FULL SIZE ? 2
(75) INITIALIZE PEN AT LOWER LEFT CORNER OF PAPER.
DEPRESS CARRIAGE RETURN TO BEGIN PLOT.
The Agriculture Building Embarcadero at Mission San Francisco, California 94105 415-392-5268
C,O'.1AUNITY Sl.;.►:VIC1:S 1'0iZ`FAT1ON SUP)C01-i,1iT'jT-,E GOALS
f
PRELIMINARY' FINAL GOALS
May 1911
COIl"}11.ittee Members
'! Fred Roettger,
Chairman
1. Michael Cornblith
W. A. i11cPhec
Ann Cuny. .
Alt Modine .
Bob Dutvh
Robert L. Mloore
Ron Foreman .
MIrs < l lan 11anish
Bob Gonzalez
John Parhaia
jS i:ePhany Gooch
Frances Plec
Virginia Hamilton
Richard J. Sc--herer
Ronald J. Haskell
Sharon Shay
Robert A. HirschfeldIr_
s . N"ari`", n. Short
Ken Holladay
Dallas J. Smith
Robert C.. Kamen,
Mrs. Robert Strite'
Robert C. Kleenne
John SuC`
John Kobis
Jiidii.h A. Te-i,broc:
Alan L. Lasnover
John Tinde*I
Will IV. Lester
Ann Weihe:r
Richard L i.nne weh
Mary Ann Youmans
Ifr,
ar y Maxwell axV<ell
ti
4
A RCA
Gross Acres: 7.7 ' s ��%n`:.
Location: The study area is located westerly of Finch Avenue approximately
1,500 ft. south of Stevens Creek Boulevard and located generally between
Sorenson Avenue and Celle De Barcelona., The Bethel Lutheran Church and the /, eauaaaaasa
single-family residences fronting on Calle De Barcelona are not within the , 7 {� •� - ��-
study area property ownership. The property is divided into approximately e•�"•�i •`
six lots of record. 1p
Z- �w .
Zoning Descriptions The study area is comprised of two zoning districts. H' �e"ooc , $� Hic
With the exception of one 2.6 acre parcel which is zoned professional office
the study area is zoned R1-10. The property to the north.ofthe study area
is zoned RI-10.and is occupied ba church The property -to the east is
zoned BA and is occupied by the Cupertino .High School. The properties to
P cd .; arcCldnb'1:
the south are R1-7.5 lots and the properties to the west.consist of multiple-� ---
family zoning. P-3-58-
Land Use Descriptions Beginning from the north part of the study area,
the roperties are occupied by developed Rl houses on large lots. The 2.6
P /_ AID LJ St.
acre property which was previously mentioned as being zoned professional
office is presently utilized as orchard land with one single-family
house and associated agricultrual buildings." The land immediately adjacent -P;
to the orchard land is zoned R1-10,.however, is used by the. West Valley
Nursery as 'a commercial nursery: The properties to the north of the study °
area is utilized by the Bethel Lutheran Church. The land area to the
east is occupied by the Cupertino High School., The land area to the
south of the study area is within the City of San;Jose and are developed {•`
RI houses. The properties to the west of the study area are a mixture of
.multiple family dwelling unit types. More specifically, the multiple "m -
rA r t.-o 4rt'
family units on Greenwood Drive and Greenwood Court are relatively small •- �'rfgpa
.lot triplex developments, while the apartment project to the north of
Greenwood.Drive the Fontainbleu Apartments) is a large multi-family
project,..the density of 12 per acre. The study area is approximately
1,000 ft. southerly of the commercial land use on Stevens Creek Boulevard. L '' seaan®ease
Physiographic Cha,acteristics: The property involved is flat and there ��, o;•< t
does not appear to be any phypiographic constraints pertaining to this.:
development.
! �r
Special Comments: With the exception of single-family lots on
Calle De Barcelona and the.Bethel Church, the entire
block between Stevens Creek Boulevard, Calle De Barcelona
MVI
and Finch and Miller is utilized by apartment and -1 "I dLTIJ CAL
commercial uses. The West Valley Nursery is a legal '
non -conforming use and may remain so, for some point in ca ,
time. oo ' t/El
�4�IM� RLf1�l,�
Residential Land Use Element Profile Sheet (continued) Area #2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Comments: All of the properties involved in the application directly front on
either Rodrigues Avenue or Blaney Avenue. Approximately four lots, west of Blaney'Avenue,
are served by a private driveway which parallels the Regnart:Creek Channel. The large
single-family lots. on the east side of Blaney Avenue are developed, however,,two of the .
homes are somewhat in a state of disrepair. There is a pedestrian.easement which
connects Wilson School and Wilson Hart to Blaney Avenue that runs adjacent tQ�the Flood Control
Channel. The staff has preliminarily discussed the possiblity of extending a walkway
easement from the Civic Center to Wilson Park. In previous discussions, involving the
property westerly of Blaney Avenue,'the Planning Commission determined that a planned
approach towards its development would be appropriate inasmuch as the property is adjacent
to the Town Center.
� II
-2-
;C
CUPFRTI NO
FLAN F RCS C=7RAI
LAW) USA L LOMEN.t
Gross Acres: 13.2
Location: The study area is located westerly and easterly of
Blaney Avenue, southerly of Price Avenue and Rodrigues Avenue rM�and northerly of the Regnart Flood Control Channel ; i T;I1
OwnershipPattern: The stud area is fragmented into approximately
Y �
13 lots of record which range in size from 8,5.00 sq. ft. to 2+ acres.
The extreme westerly portion of the studyarea is within the Town 9 �,4a¢t9999999,4,99994199 L2flti
Center Planned Development and as such, the uses that can be approved vll ELE.$NT,R,
_�,,,�t. ,aaa/naauu/u19ae'-
for .the property are regulated by use permit control. sc;ool
aL, ,a ro�r,��
((yn 494a�vn¢araa
Zoning Description: The properties within the study area westerly iiY• � � �,,-� .L;:
of Blaney Avenue are zoned a mixture of R1-7.5, R1-10, R2-4.25 and
4 Planned Development with a multiple family intent. The properties
in the study area easterly of Blaney Avenue between Price Avenue and
Regnart' Channel are zoned R1-10. The properties north of the study
area and west of Blaney Avenue are within the Town Center Plan and
are zoned Planned Development with multiple family intent. The LAND U S V_—
lands to the north of the study area easterly of Blaney Avenue':' ;
I are zoned R1-10 and R1-7.5 The area to the east of the study
area is zoned BA (Public Building) and is occupied by the Wilson
Elementary School. The properties to the south of the study.area
across Regnart Channel are zoned R1-10 easterly of Blaney Avenues'
and R1-.7.5 westerly of Blaney Avenue. The properties to the west—
=J e1LF
of .the -study yea are within the Town Center and are zoned BA (Public / 8,g9�QmQ9911999999499499 �
Building)- (City Hall) and P (Planned Development with multiple. family _/ I ELE. NT' E
0a,9/ 11191191119aa,ae
5 •y OOI
Intent) . rnu�( �n Y� C Ch �Yo
]f
Land Use Description: The lands northerly of : the western f �s y� ,`
most art of the stud area are undeveloped. The land ��" 1 s.m"r.g
p Y p _ 11'`i
to the east of the undeveloped parcel is developed as, tL �! �p v
a 155 unit multiple family apartment project (Lake ¢ Gi.1LTL.�A,_
Biltmore Apartments). The lands northerly.of Price
Avenue, fronting on Blaney Avenue, are developed single- co
family homes on lots ranging in size from 14,336 sq. ft. 211 OFL_ ,p VA T`--
to 23,968 sq. ft. As mentioned previously, the .
property easterly of the study area is occupied by
an elementary school and a City park beyond. The lands
to the south of the study area are fully developed
single-family subdivisions. JUbUSTQAL,
Physiographic Characteristics: The study area is flat and there:are no physiographic constraints towards their
development.
61 TY Of 6_upe� Q11 "t(D ,
. SlD Ps -PAL LAP4b VS is tvt �tT
Gross Acres:.14.92 _ ��� { �,;i
Location: The subject area is formed at the southwest 1-�.� fit.
corner of the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd. and '- . 'j,+ . 195 4 T
Scenic Blvd. Janice Avenue runs along the southern
border with the western boundary being the lots west of j,, a _ �. gyp. �% -�•�
Carmen Road. There are no clear physical features that ?9ga -�
.. R 3 t
define the boundaries of this section'`to the west. -•
Ownership: There are many small.parcels involved in this '• r 4. _-�
area with the largest being just over an acre. Most of ,'' 49?5
<_ cs sue.
_ -
the lots are deep leaving. an unattended rear yard area. ' �= � '� , � `'�t
•+ 't 4'fti �j.
Zoning Description: The bulk of the study area Is within '.0 - t,L_s } ` -,o •g
the County's'jurisdiction which has a zoning designationof R1-10 'single-family homes. This area is part .of a Yp`}
larger County island that would be annexed to the City
as development occurred. There is one section of the ,rt,
area, the northeastern corner, which is in the City now
and is zoned R3-2.2., 'the surrounding property is zoned
for residential as well. The eastern boundary is R1-7.5'- ='` aF. *'' `��'-•.'��
in :e City, those properties surrouding the rest of the
study area are in the County and zoned R1-10° I AM U
Land Use Description: The study area; as well as the —
other residential property surrounding it,,is developed for 195y
the most part. There are scattered vacant lots in mixed
stages of upkeep. Some of the homes are large while others
are smaller and not that well kept. The land to the east ` Pa?''• -
is vacant orchard land, the land to the west is vacant alsuo: m
Although the area is zoned for R1-10, not all the lots
correspond to the appropriate square footage,, Many are much •,r _ 1
larger and may be involved in further lot divisions if this
CMql
zoning category were to remain.
�Y• T
PhZsiographic Characteristics: The land area to the west
of Carmen Road is relatively flat and the area ;to the east
of the lots which front on Carmen Road drops rather
abruptly down to Scenic Blvd. I �' ;Z1'
altered depending upon the ultimate vertical and horizontal •� ""
alignment of .Stevens Creek Blvd y Preliminar work on the r ;r_'� �; .-
�ecial Comments: Access to the neighborhood may be
Stevens Creek realignment indicates that theCarmen- 'y
Road/Stevens Creek Blvd. intersection will be closed
off as well as the Scenic Blvd./Stevens Creek Blvd. Q
int section. Access into the,neighborhood will be
via> ,ellvue and Janice Avenues and Scenic Blvd CAM tv i L ! f��S —TZL � L
C,- SST
-I-
T14V
--
-AMD USA
o
L= r_
Course
Y �
0
•f
C 1 TY Of� (,_�UPFIQ_i1 kt
R5S9DP_A-QAL. LAk(b VS
Cross Acres: 17.50
Location: The .property is located southeast of Stevens
Canyon Road. It is bounded by Deep Cliff Golf Course
on the east and Riverside Drive to the north. The '
western boundary is the residences along Miramont St. and
the continuation of Stevens Creek._
Ownership Pattern: The study area is split into two
parcels however, they are both under one ownership.
Zoning; Description:. The entire property is zoned for
recreational/agriculture, The areas to the north along
Riverside Drive and De Anza Circle are 'zoned for R1-7.5
single-family homes. Deep Cliff' Golf ,Course has a
zoning designation of Al-43 or residential/agriculture 1 `
with a one acre lot minimum. The property to the north- / .m
west is in the County's jurisdiction and is zoned for
R1-10. The southeast section is also under the AI-43 '
ring.
Land Use Description: The subject area is almost entirel
vacant aside from a stable on the lower portion. The
areas .bordering the northern section of the site are
developed in single-family homes. The golf course to they/ e"
east is operational. The areas to the crest are still in *-
large lots with a few :houses on them while the south-
west corner its vacant land bordering the creek.
Physiographic Characteristics: The extreme northern ylO'
section of the property is characterized by steep
terrain which abruptly falls from the adjoining RI
neighborhood to the north. The central portion of the
site is relatively flat and remains flat until a point
r: r
approximately opposite the intersection of Miramonte and
Ricardo Roads. . At that point the site climbs abruptly
to a plateau that extends to the southern portion of the
property. The property has been reviewed by a soils
engineer and a geologist in connection with a proposed
development and no significant physiographic development
constraints were found with the exception of a small
portion of the property on the extreme northeast bound-
ary which is within the natural flood plain limits as 1
Q )bF_M'_RAL AGP_V.0 r_TORA t_ o
I
61 TY Or
T-SBDe_K00AL �LAMb v5CS5 F -LF- tP/,�r
�uT
t,
Gross Acres°° + 60
s� s,i �.
Location: The study area is bounded by Foothill Blvd. r� `
to the east and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks
to the west. Stevens Creek Boulevard runs to the s; '�rre,
south as well as the townhouse development known as
.Westridge. The northern border is Los Altos and Starling
\.
Ownership Pattern: the area is under -numerous owner- _°__ * •° •; , o c
ships; however, there are a few five and ten acre `�`• ••�-
parcels which are still large enough for planning • 'Dg'�+A
purposes.
n Description: The entire northerly section of
Zoning P
the property which is north of Poppy Drive is zoned:
for R3=2.2 multifamily homes. The portion south of "'°'•� ` s�.4 ,,`" o.
that is under County jurisdiction and is zoned for / Iff }�a�
RI-10, this would also include the P.G. & E e . subre- A,4 pfs
station. The western leg of the study area is
County for Al-40. The western border �K I• =� `ft``- 1� �'Il s,1r_
a .d in the C y "' ... I-�• , �-" ;: � r �,
i, the Church property in the Count- which is
zoned for agriculture. The area to the east is \ e(/(. • . , 91�i ,S'J' a`. `°7i ��. •—y:, l �:
zoned R3-2.2,for multi -family homes. The southern
boundary is zoned for Rl-C 2.9 which is a cluster�� OS
development.
Land Use Description: The entire study area is
vacant aside from the subdivision on Poppy Drive, �
this is developed in single-family homes. There
is also a P.G. & E. substation which is part of
the larger one across the railroad, -,tracks on the
on the eastern. ---
church property. The property 'I((\
-side of Foothill Boulevard is a relatively new -
apartment complex bordered by La Cres'ta Income P
Estates. The southern property is the Westridge
townhouses and the'De Anza Oaks development. /
The church property to the west and north is
still undeveloped hill area.
r-••'' ��6.✓�4�11��' .. /-`l."�1\.��U l� I llG.. ($ N S i 3 l is Y �l a... �` e a s,
L:(J 1`! t l.vtc'r f�z I A L fZtAVAI
-1-
Residential Land Use Element Profile Sheet (continued) Area,#18A
Pi ..iographic Characteristics: Heney Creek traverses thru the study area beginning from the
De Anza Oaks Condominium development to the boundary of the study area., The
northern portion o€ the study area is quite hilly and is heavily wooded by native oaks..
The southern segment of the study area immediately adjacent to the P.G. & Ea substation
facility is relatively flat. the City has no'record of any geological review of the
property.
Special. Comments: The City's adopted Open Space Element designates a park chain concept for
the land areas immediately adjacent to Heney Creek. It would be expected that as development
occurs within the area that this park chain concept would be honored.and inter grated into
the future development. It '.is also anticipated that development within the study area would
be heavily influenced by the ultimateapproved development pattern and intensity'for the
adjoining Catholic Church property.
W
Ty oj:� CU JJDFRT') NO
bGkMAL®
. k1D USA L UEMeL t
Pit
Gross Acres: 13.5 E6E ❑^..�,a.a; .-
Location: East of Stelling Road between McClellan Road and Pepper- In
tree Lane, straddling Tula Lane.
30
OwnershipPattern: The area is divided into 15 recorded
parcels,.The largest. is 3 acres while most of the rest are one acre or less. F.' 1133 Lyi SAe°'
X
Zoning Analysis:. The entire study .area is designated as R1-10. The
surrounding area is zoned for residential with varying degrees of
density. To the west, the property is zoned for R1-10ag, south of
McClellan Road, the parcels are R1-10.and to the north and east are $ j `IC^=i
R1-7°5 Faria School is just.north of Peppertree Lane and De Anza ;,
College is west of McClellan Road°
I
Land Use Description: The study area is a mixture of uses. Most of ?! �• 5
the lots have a single-family home on them in addition to various A
junkyards, auto repair yards and orchards. Tula Lane is a dirt
driveway that leads to the rear lots Sola Drive deadends into the L—AND us P_
3 acre parcel that is a mixture of auto repair and orchard.
The area to the north and east is developed as single-family and is (J ' LA /
in good condition. The homes to the west facing Stelling Road arc '. ❑ '''''"'°
well kept. Also, across McClellan Road to the south, there is a
church and orchard as well as a few single-family homes. ] 1�.� _ s�•a
Physiographic Characteristics. The study area is relatively flat"
m
with no onsite physical constraints that would hamper development. J r t"
Special Considerations: Access into the lots.is essential. Any
intensity of development would necessitate the improvement of Tula
Lane and the possible extension of Sol:a Drive., This area is also
close to De Anza College and development should be compatible to
this use.,
u ao
a
t —
°rl SlbiaN 711AL ' •, ALr%1LUL7)Z6LL
010
0o Li]✓a�:e �Pr� •
s`� 1-'JbUSTZfAL,
9 TY OF' CUPFRT 1 NO May 9, 1973
6F:;. M E 2A 1..._ FLAN PROC:: AM .
1 R 1J1�lV 11Y(� ON I 1{ �
,_ - Q � Y,,• � •1 •'u ` ,ice: /d+7 ,P
Gross Acres, 5.5
Location: Adjacent to and northerly of Stevens
Creek Boulevard approximately 100 feet east of
Phar Lap Drive. ° (5 w ietitH
Ownership Pattern: The study area is in single a
ownership. . -
•e:
Zoning Analysis: The area involved.is,zoned R1-10
The area is contiguous to developed single-family °y
c 4: o o vaaoo + L • •
lots on the west, north and partially on the east.
The area is adjacent to an undeveloped portion of '0000aoa 1. +._I
ooDmd0 •��
a commercial center zoned CN in the Count y• RI '• o D D D f, �� q:e
and "exclusive agricultural" County zoning districts �� 't.• 60
border the study area to the south across Stevens, -
".•� p°�?
Creek "Boulevard, LANE)
t _ --- ` --- It12od�ur�r 0PI i )
Land Use Analysis: At least two single-family )
residential units and a corral facility are
located on the area involved., The area is
bordered by a fully developed Rl tract on the west;.$. ,• ` R0/ e: nt 9
north and partially on the east. The area , y:
T,4! 59
additionally borders a shopping center to the. & % eJ
east which has additional room for expansion on '� P vi L•
the westerly portion of the property. a rW
Physiographic,Characteristics: The property is
located adjacent to the east bank of the .Stevens ! 16 PIS " _ =
Creek Flood Plain. The land itself is not within - p b�"'
the designated natural flood plain,
Special Comments: Should carefully consider
vehicular access when evaluating potential uses on 47
�oa000 �
site. o p o v o ;ot ," I •.• b• �_
ooQ Qo °,
ego •' � !.+ o •°e�Y ® ,
.. 40.
RESIbGWi7&L A ZICULT!»AL
®a' OF9N SPA
i
Lbt�Itll�RL.lA
6
CITY 015* CUPE1QTlN0
&I� N E 2 L -FLAN PRO&RA' A6
LMM (.JSI ELOMCN
P201::i L-
Gross 'Acres: 10e4 -T- .{'P'
r„
Location: North side of McClellan Road just east of
Orange Avenue
Ownership Pattern: The area is broken up into four parcels, each 4_'�
under separate ownership. The largest is. five acres, two of the. es stl ®HH DHa.11
others are 1.65 and 2.60 acres while the fourth is less than.
10,000 sq. ft, a,t
t.. Y 1+J
Zoning Analysis: The study area is under one zoning regulation �A �•m ROAD
�:. aaaBn.e�HBaaaHHa�.aaasa
which is''R1-10ag. The area is adjacent to West Valley Industrial :.
Park to the west and across the street from Monta Vista High
School and Lincoln Elementary School. The area to the north is EIEMESVIARY
part of Monta Vista. The General Plan indicates residential ���i4 SCHOOL
at a density of 5.8 DU/acre. j
Land Use Description: The study area is currently being utilized
for greenhouses and orchard. There is one house on the property.
The area to the north, in Monta Vista, is composed of a'variety
of houses and vacant parcels that are in varying degrees of
repair. To the west, the industrial ,lot is currently under
a�
construction, Measurex. The two schools to the south are �e,oh. ad. Q
relatively new.
Physiographic Characteristics: The area is relatively flat and
should not pose any problem for development.
. r -
Special Considerations:. Since this area i6 surrounded on two I ,�dHaB�IIHHamH r -_
sides -by rather active land uses, the development on the site
should be adequately protected from them, or be >compatible with
these uses, McClellan Road is also a major bike route in the
City and there should be adequate room provided for this use Reh°
v' - _ •.$'ggannanaIIs$:IIaE&Bki�FE-G
along the area's frontage.
ELEMENTARY
��LPIOO4— SCHOOL
i I
1
4
F.
CITY 01�7. CUPFRTIND
RA
ll7t t
Yr� 'r 7
..1
°• 4 r9�4�. dd pp
Gross Acres c 12.7 I s
a.915 Chic-,.ua p
Location: The property involved is.located adjacent
to and southerly of Stevens Creek Boulevard immediatel`
west of Blackberry Farm, L D c
i- TAM
- - o
Ownership Pattern: The subject area is divided intoC.v
25± recorded parcels of which approximately 24 are T°`���
in one ownership. The majority of the`lots were �s �d
created in conjunction with a subdivision which was
recorded in 1917-The average lot size is approxi- p .O Ie5 . C>
mately 10,000 sq. ft.
- m CSi' c'!5>
Chiquita and Querida Courts are unimproved paper
streets,
©© er
Zoning Description: The .subject area , is comprised
of three residential zoning districts. Approximately
408 acres is zoned R1-10 and approximately 7.9 'acres �y
is zoned Rl-7.5 . V .
The property to the north across Stevens .Creek'
Boulevard is zoned .A "Exclusive Agriculture"
(Blackberry Farm) in County jurisdiction, the property_
to the south is zoned R1-10 in Count jurisdiction,
Y j 9
the property to the west is zoned R1-10' in County / o
�j
jurisdiction. �� �� • e� `5�
a
v Chl,!vid fj G r
Land Use Description: The subject area is primarily a o
undeveloped. There are two residential structures TOE
yT oBd
within the study area adjacent to Stevens.Creek and
©o o�
Stevens Creek Boulevard. T �-• _� ��• d,
The Rl zoned property to the north across Stevens T C7aertC� `G� `� ©e ''.;
Creek Boulevard is a relatively new 7,500 sq, ft . lot -' � ' ®
subdivision (Oakdell Ranch) , The - "Exclusive Agri.-R®�,rr�clry a
culture property to the east '(Blackberry Farm) is O o.` &P � &
developed as `a golf course. The R1 zoned property ©'' a
o 0 0 o b m
� JUTOOAL
od GO1�4t� +�C t L, VA TOFII;-� 5,PhfZEJ .4
'
6AMMePZ lAL—
IPdbUST UAL,
i
Residential Land Use Element Profile Sheet (continued) Area 119
------ --- -- -----.. ---C`^'^ ..--Zr.n--'+v.n--------------------------------------
Land Use Description Ccontinued)
to the south is residential chaxacterized by scattered development.
The Rl zoned property to the west across Scenic Boulevard is primary developed.
Physiographic Characteristics; Approximately four acres of the study area is within
the natural Stevens Creek Flood Plain as defined by the Flood Control and Water District.
The east boundary of the study area directly borders Stevens Creek.
With the exception of a few lots in the southern section, the study area is flat.
Special Characteristics: The juxtaposition of the property relative to Stevens Creek
and the approved concept for the Stevens Creek Park Chain will, have a direct influence
on the development pattern of the property.
The future realignment and widening program of .Stevens Creek Boulevard will have a
direct influence on the intensity of development in the study area in the sense that
Scenic Boulevard may be cutoff from access to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Without
direct access to Stevens Creek Boulevard, traffic generated by development within the
study area would have to utilize existing single-family tracts to. gain ,access to
McClellan Road, Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard.
-2-
C)TY OP
6F N C� t\ A L FLAN P RO1:�7RA1 X 1
May 9, 1973
l l� ie�7l
ON 1 I X�,
�t�j �� ¢�.
LAID U J !_./ E L 6:/ Me KC(
vv v W.
ARGA
�
ov
oo•
10
a
ti
'
0 �
�
d�
�
/G'
B p �•
u6
Gross Acres: 11.6
Location: At the eastern terminus of Palm Avenue
0
Ownership Pattern: The study area is in single
r.��a
000
ownership.
pow o
Zoning Analysis: The area involved is zonedw
A
R1C-6. In 1969 a 64 unit residential cluster
IT
i
project was approved. The tentative map has
expired. The property to the west is zoned R1-10
in the County. The land to the northeast is
tL
i
zoned A, "exclusive agricultural" (Blackberry
is d Al-43
p• D�
I
zone Farm) . The land to the southeast
�}
,•.
and R1C-7'e.5 (Damico property) and the property
to the south is zoned R1C-7.5 however, it is
owned by the City (Horse Ranch).
LAND S�
" Land Use -Analysis. The Rl area to the west is-
�
.i � o d o0 0 0 0 ��o
an older County area which is nearly fully
®_
cs
� ��
x.
developed. The. property to the north is the
Blackberry Farm facility and is used for
commercial/recreational uses. The property
)
-
P
:':
©e oc o 0�-.-
�.
a
immediately to the east across Stevens Creek
is orchard land which will be purchased by the
-
Flood Control District in connection with the
recently approved Mackay,Homes development.
o o
The Horse Ranch Park is directly across StevensCreek
to to the south.
-
s
�'
733?
¢•gyp,
o a
O C Om
�
.
Physio raphic Considerations: The property is
g
.;;. ,
cv. el
d
%
adjacent to Stevens Creek; hgwever,,due to a
the property,
land fill operation, the majority of
is not within the natural flood plain as defined
by Flood Control. A portion of property on the
west has quite steep terrain.
s
Special Comments: The use of the property shouau.
N
`'•' ,o�s-0
relate to Stevens Creek Park Chain and possible
acquisition of Blackberry Farm for golf course.
-
expansion.
:oY?�<.st��ntti
n �_P� r�tr-r�9x�As
-1-
_0TY 015' 'CUPPQT
LAID U S r-, ECG 2NI
APC
Gross Acres: 17.4 Net Acres: 15.7
Location: The south side of Stevens Creek®lRIG-
Boulevard encompassing the area between " _ r . ,
Blaney Avenue and East Estates Drivee
@{#itaDRUB a9ftffH-IM11"I I I 416Fit9'H8' tl2JHFt�S68a�4@IInB
Ownership Pattern: There are seven parcels
in the study area. The largest is east of 1 SHOPPING
Portal Avenue and is 9.7 acres. West of
Portal Avenue the largest site is 4.04 acres =�'.: ,H@H8 Ilm ®HapE"
while the rest are smaller than an acre. f'
4t Hp.H@H9H0 0 H,HHH H�JdOH B96pSHIlC�
No single ownership dominates the study area +�z; r.� • - a r ? E ` Y��
Zoning.Analysis: Mont of the areaunderr m�, a.:� 1. f .y %` i_ •''.
consideration is zoned General Commercial.
The exception is two R3-2.2 parcels in the
western portion of the area.
The southern boundary is zoned for R1-7.5 IlrsHHH eff �HaH�HH��H ��sH�reH�HHrgHHHHaa®
single-family homes. To the north across
Stevens.Creek Boulevard, the property is -�SHOPPING
zoned for''General Commercial as well as the 6 9 -9 CENTER Q
eastern and western boundary of the study g @ . H H� MHEI. '
area. The small portion of residential rr { ���;
H098�H�HH 88HHH8g00Il H@H®@BHH�•
along the west is R3-2.2 which is a continuation °°� '' *s s `g' / •;' T 1t"
`'' } ~c 4
of the R3-.2 area - ' �} � )�'
2under discussion.
Land Use Analysis: The majority of the area
in question is vacant right now. There is a
restaurant on the western border with a parking
lot in the rear.
The commercial across the street is a miscellaneous
shopping center and other strip commercial type
activities.
The single-family homes to the south are relatively new
and well maintained. The corner of Blaney Avenue and
Stevens Creek Boulevard has a discount service station. ea LDIVUIMAL
Physiographic Characteristics: The.area is flat and would El vA(-AkL
pose no problems for development.
r i
C)TY 0F_ CUPFRT] N
6E t �b !� t�..A L F-LAN F C(- 7RA► �c May 9, 1973.
RES 1 bG Q-PA C_
LAID U S r-, EL ,
F'RDI::l L_E SN e[=
A R CA #12
Gross Acres: 190.9
Location: The area straddles the east and west roe++©' i s •' �' ' ' r e r
side of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road extending just 4- -�G;r _ny� �1
north of Homestead Road, south to Alves Drive.
1 J :
Ownership Pattern: The east side of the street
is primarily owned by the Mariani family, 67�%j%f9
�i '
acres being the .site for the proposed regional c ` •; t `jlP°yfSS/
shopping center • The west side is under.
q,
numerous ownerships with a few large parcelsSi i �� /% =J.
''' j
F c 45 � .ffi+• x85c' e(`.1aX X�C�i 'i R..' � s A
still intact like the Mini Mall and the. Pepper- ;.i;dy{�,•�
tree Center.
�---- --ram
Zoning Analysis: The area is a mixture of
general commercial and residential with:a few
a
r'
properties as agricultural and light industrial
Commercial zoningdominates the stud area with cf
y
R3 and Rl areas along the lower westernhalf of a-
. the property. The surrounding property is zoned r y�. 4 -' �1--
and developed as residential. Most of the zonint ;.,in
is for R1-7.5 with R3 to the .northwest (Villa
Serra and Valley Green) R1C-7.5 townhouses "i' g� ,�, 12 ao„o
are to the eastofthe industrial building.;..g
Along the southern boundary there is general -„• t
commercial zoning. A zoning map of the core
area is attached. a COLLiHF prr S+
Land Use Analysis: Most of the current uses in
The subject area are marginal meaning they are
run down or non -conforming. The area surround- r.
ing it, however, is almost fully developed.
To the east, the single-family homes are in
good shape and fairly new. Northpoint to the
east of the Mariani Packing J Plante is just
O
being built,
The apartments to the west are in excellent
condition as are the homes south of them. Th.e�
commercial property to the south of the areahas recently been - approved for a car wash, E71FRS1B�P� Iii� ���ILULTt3eAL
Bob ° s Big Boy and some future buildings-. On
the east side of the southern boundary, there"
is a church facility that is still functioning. oo �Q �L(AL
VALET,_
MGAL- ; .
C)TY OF- CUPFRT) NO
l PLAID USE--, ELOMC—(Cc
A RGA
ND VSEE-
.. ri� (�?4�?itv.�c>'�u5eteii&�'1�F4' ,'�nr Frve 7•Y 65 .4�(!
Collins Junior High School is to the east of the
wt"°+i ucy r q
Mariann property.. and is being used by the school -�' °' - � `•+
and as' administrative offices for the district.
H0. E.9 TEGD
Ph siographic Considerations: The entire area
is relatively flat. �i ! b, v '� /.% 1 wcus • k aF z tj+a'
Special Comments:. This area is bisected by the pdIyA=
major north south route from Sunnyvale to Saratogar:
and for this reason land uses on these .sites A„ ,;.
should be compatible with the activity. This
area is also the core of the City and one of tae
four major entrances into it. ,y�,�'t t'3r� ;j. '����r•.; i
'itf."Jytr tiA.i'�.;'a\'>7D\Y.p Monan. u.yt4 ♦ jh
- Ga xp d4��ssa 'fr i o "+y
r sir A��'�L ✓ '� .�� •n , Cbw,+`ggs
. ,1< r• LLL. �d L11 :� itl� y� rYNO�. '.�'F'
COLLINS
9Cw C ;12
. _ o•ti e.°.�w..4 �•� �3 °� i� .. a (� i _, # mot.?
T.
.
-'i+ Ea'�i` `
°rp 2es I eWnAL A&?-1Z-1JM)PAL
101, 1 D10M �ZC (AL VA
J;.T/ OF CUPFRTINO
6F 1 W E2A L ) �N FROC::�,RAM
May 9; 19�3
LAID U S-C-, ELOMENCI
A R Chi #13
Gross Acres: 52.3 Net Acres: 49.7VWW,Uzi
Location Southeast quadrant of Stevens Creek Boule-
,vard and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road.
:a
Ownership'Patterno The study area is in multiple ' Y
ownership with individual property sizes ranging from
below one acre to'l0i acres. Approximately 25 acres 0ti�•
on the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Saratoga- t='' 4
Sunnyvale Road is owned by various members of the
same family (Cali Family) °' j` ' `'� % BEM
4,SCJ
IT
Zoning Description: The area is the northern half of
the Town Center plan which originally consisted of 'T uonAgr
103 acres.
A zoning map of the Town Center area is attached... As
f v J
evidenced by the map;, the northern half of the Town y J
Center is presently zoned Planned Development wi h
commercial and multiple family intent. (Rodrigues �.
Avenue is dividing line between north and south
section of Town Center.)
The land area to the north which is, highly fragmented
'in terms of ownership is zoned General Commercial,
the land area to the east consists of two zoning
districts - General Commercial fronting on Stevens
is �.® �WIL5
Creek Boulevard, R3 south of the commercial to _ ELEM
Rodrigues Avenue and R1 south of Rodrigues Avenue to i y
the Regnart Creek Flood Control Channel The R3 .°," ,TERonA ly :�,
mentioned above is part of the Town Center which `a�
was recently developed into a 155 unit apartment
development. ----
((7' �-qq-��-✓rr•��w t�''j''� ( � �q - - /yam y , t / �`r, �i'� �
vgr l . R es l b e nAL r � �'4 & t'wI.6� 6J 6�a {J Raf" L
The land area to the south consists of professional =,-::;
offices and the Civic Center. The land area
immediately to the west across Saratoga -Sunnyvale. Ioa. LQ[(�L
Road is zoned General Commercial, oo Q?� G�p� d U� `71
Land Use Description: The land within the study
area is for the most part undeveloped. The
commercial land uses on the corner of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road are marginal. WDUSTPUA ,
-1-
-
2.
y C�
Residential Land Use Element Profile Sheet (continued) Area #13
Land Use Description (coAtiriued)
The Cali Grain Mill, consisting of 5 or b acres, is a non -conforming industrial use.
r
The commercially zoned area to the north consists of 'a mixture of uses ranging. from.
R1 to two story professional office/commercial'structures.A number of single-family
structures have been converted to professional office uses. A number of parcels are
vacant.
The commercial zoned properties to the east of the study area consist of restaurant
uses. As previously mentioned, the multiple family zone is developed and the R1 area
immediately south of Rodrigues Avenue is undeveloped or marginally developed. The
area within the Town Center south of Rodrigues Avenue is primarily developed The
Chrisman office complex, approved last year across`from City Hall. is currently under
construction.
The commercial area across Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road from the study area is an older
strip commercial area which is fully developed.
Ph sio ra hic Conditions: The stud area is relatively flat. There•are no known. -
Y Y Y g P •
physiographic constraints which would preclude urban development.
Special Comments. Last.July, the City Council adopted a policy reaffirming the
utilization of'a planned development approach for the development within the
Town Center north of Rodrigues Avenue. The policy precludes commercial development
of the remaining land within the:Town Center.
The Torre Avenue Plan Line, if implemented via the installation of improvements, will
influence'the.development pattern of.the_study area in the sense that the 52+ acres .
will be functionally divided.
Development within the study area should relate to the Civic Center in terms of
building design and, to a`certain degree, use or intensity of use. it is doubtful
that conventional R1 development is a compatible use in the Town Center.
r
-2-
4
CITYC)TY Of CUPSRTNO
6F�N U ZA L FLAN PR06vRA • be
LAW) USA CLG1 C—N ( May 9, 1973 p
PP,DR L_E
A RGA #14
Gross.Acres, 33.7 Net Acres, 29.56 p
Location: Northwest quadrant of Stevens Creek Boulevard �e
and Stelling Road, r
Ownership Pattern: The study area consists of two ownerships
of 12.5f and 17 acres. The sheet labeled future street is
dedicated but unimproved. Ft
Zoning Analysis: The 12.5 Planned Development property CE
P Y
located directly on the corner is zoned Planned Development /
with commercial intent. The 17 acre property located to the
rear is zoned R3-2.2 da (Development Plan required).. For the sri
f h'
1
r'
2
,y
a
f �^1 b�
Future tstr®at
•
i
purpose o t is analysis, the 4.2 acres designated on the �---- .
City°s open space plan for the future expansion of Memorial
Park is excluded from the R3 da property. :1
The properties to the west of the subject area is zoned BA C LEG
P P d , ' � '
COLLEGE
public park and R3 (aforementioned park extension property).
The property to the north of the subject properties are zoned -
R1-10 in County jurisdiction. The properties to the east be-
tween the northerly extension of the property to Alves Drive�� _V
17
Iv
are P.1-10 in the County and City jurisdiction, A BQ (church.)
zone extends southerly of Alves Drive which in turn is ''s �.h `Q� �, o Tc• �:
adjacent to CG zoning which extends to Stevens Creek Boule-
vard. Y• .
r _�
The De Anza College Campus adjoins the subject study area to
the south.
Land Use Description: The properties within the study area -
are presently in orchard use. The adjoining park site to the
west is undeveloped. The residential proPerties to the north
and east are developed. The commercial property directly to
the east on the northeast corner of Stelling Road and Stevens
1
Creek Boulevard is relatively undeveloped:.
fFuture, street '
Park
Physiographic Characteristics: The property is flat and there -- =1 '•
are no known onsite physical development constraints.
��� � I cl•¢1t�Ci•!
9r 12es b ewnAL A &ZI GULTUFUTURE X \
CENTRAL' /
00 GDAI UI%i?C [AL
00
00
lft�lEkL•iAl� �--�—
WbUSTi IAL, .10 DE ANZA
COLLEGE,
cl-Ty. Oj:� CUPFRTIND
/may\ A M
LAk1 LJ 5 I= LG i i
PP,D 6 1 L-e - J 6 1 Lam/ 6:�� f�.% �\11�:.:-� P;J q •iJ�' F ,� IV�.::� J ��\ \ i j t.;r
ARC #15A. 15B l
,�I0..
V J �L
Gross Acres: 255 > y ,/`. `7 ,i�f�+
•,rI
Locations The study area is within the �'`' E R#v
northwest quadrant of Prospect Road and
Stelling Road... ®� y ;$*ti', '� pp%%/j `'•; `
Ownership Pattern: The property involved �t°• • „'� JJ
~s• .! a r..- •\ +icy.
is divided into approximately 14 recorded, 1
parcels. All of which are in single
ownership. Approximately 70 acres located i
�f �y
within the southwest portion of the n J.
is within the City of Sarato a's , i t5 C
property Y . g ,r
sphere -of influence° a
Zoning Descriptions The study area is41
_1' -t• s i'
zoned A Exclusive Agriculture" in Count u
g Y ) �
jurisdiction. The property owner has
'urisd P Y
I:
entered into a land conservation contract
Count in connection with the '=
With the •,
A zoning.
The land area to the north of the study •�� —�,• L
area across Rainbow Drive is zoned Rl}.r
in the City of 'San Jose the land area to /
the east, across railroad tracks, is zoned-
Rl in City of San Jose, the land area to th�
southeast of the study area (Maria Lane
r
and easterly of Maria .Lane) is in Saratoga a �-` - ;:,..•,. 2eS1b aAJTI;~ �ALs2lLUt.�TJCAle.
and is zoned R1-40, the area to the south �---
west of Maria Lane is in County jurisdiction
and is zoned. Al-40 and A "Exclusive Agri- o°o , L D;tdC {��, ' VA
culture", the land area to the west is zoned OP DPa�i
Al-43 in City of Cupertino's jurisdiction and 6
Al-40, CbP�Mcf/�
Land.Use Descriptions With the exception of,a {
few lots adjacent to Stelling Road, the R1 zoned x^ l@. bUSTRIAL,
land to the. north and east is developed. The
land area to the south is partially developed.
The attached land use map indicates those areas
which have been divided into residential lots.
The land adjacent to the southwest corner of
the property is the Older Ranch which has been
discussed by -the Commission and Council in
connection with a proposed land acquisition by
( the Regional Park District.
_l0 i
+
._.. _.... .. .. :.... .. .. ...-...._-__._..tea.-. .. CUPFRT)NO
rrry OF�
�F::-, N E 12A L FLAN FRPC::�,RAM
LAID IJ S E,L GM'S M 7
A RGA #15A, 15B (continued)
Description
Land Use continued
i P (continued)
LAMD USA
The land areas to the west are in the o
Regnart Canyon environs and are un-
r-
developed. The Upland Way area adjacent i �`�-`" ,, . ���
to the northwest corner of the stud — f�G�7 I}
area is developed. ::� `' Jt`. yJ
J /may Physio graphic Considerations: The
�-. t, j ,��
stud area contains 255t acres of which 4
approximately 110 -.115 are flat. The
relative slope/stabiliftv':rriar, prepared ' eT
by the PPC Hills? de•'s-taff indicates
a fault trace bisects the western t�
n
section of the proeprty. The map �. ,�� ., ?R,�1 d i 65A
additionally describes some "poor" - i �, . `f %•'; ,r -
areas within the western segment of
the property which are probably ancient
landslides. i{� 1 ��• �.
Special Comments:. A number of exogenous ;fir
!�.
r r�
factors influence land use planning for
the study area. k�'; t `
Approximately 70 acres are within the
City of Saratoga sphere of influence. f'�tr �`�•
If the property is developed, the City
of Saratoga will necessarily- be involved
in the land use decision.,
The property owner has contracted withI
the County to keep his property.in-
exclusive agricultural uses under the
provisions of the Williamson Bill. If
the property is to develop, it must be
developed in Cupertino (and Saratoga if
sphere boundary is not adjusted) and the
contract automatically transfers to the
City.
The property may be involved in .future land 017?5_1
es ba114_nAL A&_ILULTOuse decisions in theRegnartCanyon area
with respect to road patterns if .Regnart E
.Canyon develops. GD1ll�{r�(�2Ci� �/A-
po
M®P ®Pu SRC s
-2-
�, WDUS7Z?AL
I
! C PFRT NO
(� 1 `l E 2A L PLAN PROCz;,R 1M : May 10; 1973
,,551�GktTA L�
LAk1G O SC, L;�; �i ( ON 1?--N C-.,-
s.HeL-- I
A R L:7116A
Gross Acres: 128w�j� `17 p
Location: The study area is located southerly of j O p p
Linda Vista Park and Dee Cliff Golf Course and is ,'do�067o
located at the western terminus of Lindy Lane.
Ownership Pattern: There are ten property holdings
"� GrevuP P,,
within the study areas Approximately 80 of the
�--
acres within the study area are owned by Kaiser
Permanente. The bulk of the remaining property
!
��
within the study area consists of two large holdings
26 acres 12 The
one, and another, acres. remaining
holdings the range in
smaller within study area
size of 1 acre to 5 acres.
_
Zoning Description: The northern and western 80
acres within the study area is owned by Kaiser
�uSO
e-
Permanete and is zon d.A — 3II�
l 4 in City jurisdiction.
- _— G.S-.RE41ATT RUI '��-•�•� il.
~`
The balance of the property within the study area
is within County jurisdiction and is zoned
_
primarily "A" "Exclusive Agriculturet°, There are
four 1 .to 2 acre lots at the western terminus of
Lindy Lane which are zoned Al-40 in the County
® B� ea Leo ea ' ,�.1
i
1 acre development. They>,�ga
permitting residential
land area to the north of the study area is
®6 o''Ae�
A Ii`�
5���
zoned Al-43 (Deep Cliff Golf Course and Linda
� ®Q ®B V f
Vista Park) . The area to the east of the
e.�GgaB
Orbs O •'. ��' �'+�
b
study area is zoned R1-7.5, R1-22 and R1-10
City ° The to, the the study
+ =a.,• ,rJ�
° o 11 o
in the area south of
®:®Dv
area is zoned Al-43 and the area to the west of
the study area is zoned Al-43.
® e
•
Land Use Description: The study area is bounded
GI P,i—
by the Deep Cliff Golf Course and City Linda Vista
Park to the north. These are developed private and
\=°°
public recreation uses. The single-family zoned
area to the east is fully developed with the.ex-
ception of one two lots. The Al-43 area to the
T ��• ' _r
or
south is in the Regnart Canyon environs and is
relatively undeveloped. The Al-43 area to the
- -
west is owned by Kaiser Permanente and is undeveloped.__
-- -
UND�a 1=lSaailpLLJ6T0�
n
wG^�
USO Gil •REG RT RMI
vAC70
_
°
i
IMI)USt'QAL,
Residential Land Use Element Profile Sheet (continued) Area #16A
Physiographic Characteristics: The relative slope stability, map prepared by the State
Division of MinesandGeology for the Montebello Ridge Study indicates that the western
portion of the study a -ea is relatively speaking the least stable of .the lands within
the Montebello Study Area. A development proposal in. the westarn portion of the area
would require extensive detailed geological reviews prior to development approval. The
_average slope of the study area is 43.70%. This average slope is the steepest of the
six study areas that have been identified .by the City in connection with its hillside
work.
Special Comments: The topography of the study area helps to frame the entrance to Stevens
Canyon and the upper foothills beyond. In this sense, the study area is,a focal point of
the community. The study area borders the Stevens Creek Park Chain and depending upon the
ultimate disposition of Deep Cliff Golf Course, the. Stevens Creek Park Chain may involve
a portion of the study area. In connection with an earlier tentativeinap and zoning
request to divide a.portion of the property into 12 acre lots, it was the Planning Commission's
feeling that this section of the City would be ideal to locate horse trails and equestrian
trails.because of its proximity to.Stevens Creek and existing City park facilities. The
Kaiser Permanente.owned segment of the study area has been proposed in the Open Space
Element for open space purposes.
2
CITY Off- CUPERTINO
GEMI:RL A L FLA1 V PROGRAM
RP_Sl l»KALr LAMB USA ELF- M EM 1,
P 20h l LE 'EH Er ----.Tr
AREA(continued)
LAKE U3
east and southeast are within i " 1�t
the Seven .Springs Ranch and is - i �` \_ t + J f
zoned A "Exclusive' Agriculture" :� I • ^J` `` �` ° t'° p b ,_
t�
in: County jurisdiction. The � s �. i ,.;-. , 3•
77
study area is additionally r -
�, ,a
bounded by the Garrod Ranch'
-
_*_•�°°
directly to the south which is
in an exclusive agricultural
zone. The properties to the
west are in an Al-40 zone in ~
the County.
1
Land Use Description: With the ; 5�
exception of 13 homesites, the
study area is undeveloped in 119���+c�@e'�
terms of residential development. 8 - -
In terms of non-residential
development, there are some legal r o "� - °'
S
non -conforming horse stabling
operations within the canyon - J ®-------.@ae®@©a@@a©
study area primarily adjacent to
the Regnart Creek itself .
Additionally, there is a private
cable television receiving antenna."
site on the eastern rim of the
canyon. With the exception of the
Candy Rock Subdivision, the
properties to the north are
1 '.��
undeveloped. The Seven Springs
Older Ranch and Garrod Ranch to
the east and south are undeveloped in terms of
residential development, however, the northern RESIbeWnAL A&P_iniL_To
segment of the flatter portion of the Seven
Springs Ranch is being utilized as a commercial -
wholesale nursery and the Garrod Ranch is being VA(AMIr-•
utilized for agricultural -recreational purposes. OPT- SP.1G�C
The properties to the west are undevelopedand ��r
comprise a watershed area which flows into the �%%/,� LfaMMeIC.LJ- AL_
Stevens Canyon and Reservoir.
_ 2-
9
CITE DF` CUPERTINO
6EfVERAL PLf\N PROGRAM
REsJ��F_uMAL- LAKIa use. ELF-MEM
PPfii=i1 1::: � �1-I1::::.r_T
66B
,J
Gross Acres: 378-
- �R� i•� Biel •4: �i.t yr1 e -1 -J( f '-
Location: The study area is located
in the southwest section of he City ) _
at the western terminus of the •a9 , m i ;°9'� ~ '} iY '' �' t' .
publicly..owned and maintained segment •; l a
AQ®y B{�0�-&00HHHft�0-0-080080H0B08H6i.�HpB0H.0P'fli��elFk® _'
of Regnant Road. The study area is . =As• ::=�s;=.y ��%�:.
bounded by the Seven Springs Ranch
property to the east and south and
the Candy Rock Subdivision and Lindy
Can on stud area to the north: The �
Stevens Creek Reservoir environs bon- ; •' j� r` , ~ ;.. '': ,•'�'
ders the property to the west. AAp��_�t�i. `
Ownership Pattern: The County Assessors \ • ° •' al'r _��
.map indicates that there are approxi-
mately 41 ownerships within the study 1 : �: '�• d
•m �,P •s
area. It is estimated that approximately, , •Y o f
five or six parcels are illegal divisi .m << , • f
•, ; ® i. ' tip'
The property ownerships range in size i J
__
es to °7 of an - -- --w
0 acres Q 8 { ®e ®eQ
of approximately B •ftQ ••.'�
acre. There are approximately 18.parcels •� ' ° ''�' 4
which are below 5 acres in size.
Three
of these parcels are served by Upland /
Way. With the exception of the Upland
Way parcels, the 'smaller parcels are • uaaBg�� °��°� ' r� -T_
located in close proximity to Regnart a, �.' ° _ "-~�•�:r� ��
Road which is located in the floor of
the canyon itself.
Zoning Description: The study area is\
within City and County jurisdiction.--
h C d t'on are
The properties within t e ity Jul
is is i
zoned Al-43 with the exception of approximately -10 u r R[;_�SIbe (TIkL
acres at the western terminus of Rainbow Drive.
The properties within the County jurisdictionare GDR�����CifL
zoned Al-40 which is very similar to the City'
s 0 LAP �P VA: A1V-'
Al-43 zoning classification. The properties to the 00
north of the study area are within County and City'
jurisdiction. The property to the northwest is
zoned A "Exclusive Agriculture" in the County
jurisdiction while the property to the northeast l�®�����
is the CandyRock Subdivision which is within City
jurisdiction and zoned R1-10. The property to the
Residential Land Use Element Profile Sheet (continued) Area No. 16B;
Physiographic Characteristics: The relative slope stability map prepared by the State
Division of Mines and Geology for, the Montebello Ridge Study. indicates that a significant
portion of the Regnart Canyon area is unstable. This fact indicates that development
intensity should be limited and that geologic and soil stability engineering work be
mandatory for all development that occurs within the Canyon. The average slope of the
study area is 39.14%which would limit the number of :units within the study area to 138
if a 1 to 5 acre per unit slope density formula is applied.
Special Comments: Based upon conversations with Central Fire District and the.County
Fire Marshal, development within the Regnart Canyon on the scale of 138 units or greater
would require the construction of a secondary access road which would link Regnart Road
with Prospect Road or to link Regnart-Road with Lindy Canyon Road to the north. Thus,
P
although the Regnart Canyon area could be developed independently of adjoining study
areas in terms of sanitary systems and water systems, it would appear that relatively
intensive development within the Regnart Canyon would be dependent upon the interconnection
between the Regnart Canyon area and the Seven 'Springs area to the south or the Lindy
Canyon area to the north in terms of road access.
I..
I
-3-
l del' i_...m d-,.JAN P Rl.J'( :i AN CU
May 10 , 1973 ,
f R-S 4 b G KMA L_ -
LAID USA ELGMeNrlON I
-
17A
Gross Acres: 39 •� `�t� ` y Y ' g r 4
Location: The study area is located
northerly of and southerly of the western ° J do@'�-�rq ^` ELEMENTARY
sd"oot/
terminus of Voss Avenue, a' ppy,
Ownershi ,Pattern: The study area is `'� rAo
divided into three ownerships. The subarea
�.
north of Voss Avenue is approximately 13
acres, the subarea south of gloss Avenue is o /.
comprised of a 22+ acre + p property and a 4_ I �
acre parcel which is part of a large r q ,pep@ _mil
holding of the Kaiser Permanente Corporation.
Zoning and Land Use Descrip.ti.one The area a:
is comprised of three zoning districts
which are defined on the attached zoning map:; %�• ��•_-` r ;� '� �, r-, 1
The 13+ acre property north of Voss Avenue
was involved in a City initiated zoning _ .. .:•.
action to rezone the property from R3-2.2
to Al-43. The ordinance was introduced by �q
theCitY Council, however, th
e second reading
,
UND
(enactment) was continued pending the outcome
of the Montebello Ridge Study. 1
� ., a F�
The 'land area to the north of the study area Lis zoned and partially developed as a
residential cluster (8,300 'sq'. ft per unit) lf�ULTT• •fc°b�� wo n ° e�° 5 0;
project. The area to the east of the project
area is a zoned :and developed duplex area. y% s! E`E'"'E"TARP
The area to the south of the study area is J/r Xa �,�.' sq"oo
a partially developed R1-10 area in'Co' ty- ,`• � I% PACK
jurisdiction. The area to the west is owned i __—
by Kaiser Permanente, is .undeveloped and is z` :_) b .�((rt.
zoned Al-43 in the City and "A" "Exclusive
Agriculture" in the County.
1 +r s
� l
Mg7,,-, .6..OWWL76 I AL '4! A 6.A:tib a' ` E .
MEAr_1AL_ OFr- ICE
WDUSTZtALm -i
Residential Land Use Element Profile -Sheet (continued) Area #17A
physiographic Conditions: The average slope expressed in degree of steepness for the
study area is 28.4%. The relative slope stability map prepared by the State Division of
Mines and Geology in connection with the Planning. Policy Committee's Hillside Study
indicates thata north/south fault ,trace bisects the western section of the study area.
If the fault trace is verified by further, more precise geologic investigation,, the land
use intensity or land use development pattern will be affected.
Special Comments: The study area is directly involved in the City's Open Space/Conservation
Element. Said element proposes that at>.said.time development is proposed within the study
area, the development rights to the upper portion of individual properties be.dedicated to
the City in order to'promote an open space trail system.
I
-2-
O-Ty Oj:� CUPFRTI-NO
l l� 2A L FLAN N PF1065,RAM
May Z0, 3973
C.S 1 b G WRA L_
LAk1[ U Se E, LOMeNC(
ARt��• #17B'.�
Gross Acres: 92� L°
Location: The study area is bounded by Alcalde„
Road to the north, Mercedes Road, Cordova Road, �� %/-tom�
San Juan Road and Stevens Canyon Road on the east, a� irb
by a section- line running parallel to and approxi-
mately 100 feet south of Ricardo Road on the
south, and by a section line on the west. •' w,�'�`�` err
• vtr bt`�,�J
�.t y
Ownership Pattern: The study area involves the •�§., ��� •'�,�,� �' � ±�--
western section of the old Inspiration Heights f
_subdivision .which was recorded in the early 1900 s.
The original map consisted of lots ranging from�m1
size of 10,000 sq, ft. to 2 to 3 acres. There has%
been some lot assembly in the western portion of
the study area which .has resulted in some owner-
ships of five to eight acres in size. There are \ _ -
' '!�c tlo � Rd. '
approximately 207 individual lots within the study i
area. A
Zoning Description' With the exception of approxi
o
mately three acres owned: by the Catholic Church '
(Marianist Province of the Pacific) the entireLAND
V
study area is within a R1-10 zoning district. The
N
study area is bounded on the north by an Al-10 J/ �'//''
zoning district in the City, bounded on the east�-
�a
by a R2 duplex zoning district within the County f21
and a Rl zoning district in the City and the County.`
b an Al 43 �,i/ 'o- 'a
e stud area is hounded on the south , _ ;_, , .,. ..:
The yy - �. �
zoning district which is within City jurisdiction
and the properties bounded on the west by an Al-43 '/ ,r N ,f,••
zoning district in the City.
Land Use Analysis: The Al-10 zoning district with- i
in the City located on the northerly boundary of '' ' 1 ,:dam• "�.k'
the City area is undeveloped at this time. It is ) ✓ `:7� r
being used to pasture horses. The duplex zoning��-
area to the east within the County is presently;
developed as a Rl area. There is little evidence 1, '
that the single-family residences are being con-� _
r. OLTOZAL
Ff/Ap
�.: po �✓(VL'�iG.. [L�. t/7dr T_�
°oo L���Sl SPA
' -ls
1 LID USM?AgL, '
Residential Land Use Element Profile Sheet (continued) Area #17B
verted to duplex uses. The RI area on the, southeastern boundary of the site is developed,
The Al-43 zoned area to the south and west is owned by.the Kaiser Permanente'Company and
is undeveloped.
Physiographic Characteristics: The average slope of the study area is 34.7%. The
relative slope stability map prepared by the State DivisionofMines and Geology in
connection with the Montebello Ridge Study indicates that the area is relatively stable,
for development. There is fault trace which involves the northeasterly tip of the study
area, however, it is beneath the property already developed,
Special Comments: As stated previously, the study area is divided into small lots created
in conjunctionwith an old subdivision map. The western portion of the study area is
served by paper streets, that is to say streets that are described on the approved sub-
division map, however, are unimproved. There is some question by the staff as to whether
the streets can be improved in the location. shown on the subdivision map `due ,to topographical
considerations: Because the lots have been sold to individual purchasers, the City may
have to recognize the validity,of the original map and allow development to occur on the
lots as approved. In a few cases, illegal land divisions and assemblies,.occurred in the
area. The City may have the opportunity to readjust lot line configurations and road
patterns and perhaps lot sizes by virtue of the fact that new 'parcel maps and new sub-
division maps will have to be recorded to rectify the illegal divisions.
-2-
c _
CITY 0�CUPFRTINO
6�N C�tomAL FLAN PRE' OC77R 1M '
Gross Acreage: 728 acres. i ' •: �i\\m
s K• .;� --
Location: The study area is _ _ •'�� g�=, `// - -� e� �;:
located southerly of 280
�- , � w,y • �• n I I =: .r /� J °
westerly of Foothill Boulevard
and northerly of the western $ ; �� '` jd
terminus o � f Stevens.Cree - .. k B yard Theeast
t boundary of the 0�' -'i= �•. 1 �.
m
property is the Southern Pacific®® ";
Railroad spur. Generally # �® - --- �` : •�!. % j i
speaking, the properties are
within the extreme northwest ®mm� 1 , • • ©,'r,�
part of the City.
Property Ownership
� r
�m S ;
��.
The study . area is
in one ownership.
Zoning Description
O�t� e
1 1
The study -area is
within County jurisdiction and
is zoned A "Exclusive Agriculture"'.
Am
The property is bounded by 280sFreeway on the north. The
'
properties northly of 280 Freeway y �d'
are within the City of Los Altos t
and are zoned for. single-family ;, N V f ' 9
residential use. The properties
to the east across the Southern �,` i� „j
Pacific Railroad spur are zoned a ���1DlfTi�L" hrs�ILULTt)
mixture of residential"uses. The most ,
IZA
northerly property to the east is within
the City of Los Altos and is zoned for oe GD�
single-family purposes, however, a use ' oc OM ,LiAL A
�p L �.
permit was granted for a pet cemetery.
The properties southerly of the Los Altos
area are zoned R3 consisting of about
twenty acres and Rl-•10 in the County. The
properties to the south of the study area are WbUSMAG
zoned Al-40 in the County and A "Exclusive
Agriculture". The properties are owned by the
Kaiser Permanente Corporation. The properties
to the west are in County jurisdiction and are
zoned A and Al-40.
-1-
• i
C*U PF- 2 T 1,N 0
rf�.N1 v SAL FLAN PROM AM
Rt S� AL-
A R CA #1'8B &�118C continued)
Use Analysis: Since the a - ;� \� �,' i' ti • i(
Land U—
area is 'owned b the / > .�-. . , _ ;(, -. -.\''a.. ,• � `
study. y \ '; _ . � �:• _. ..,,. --, r
Catho::� c church, there are some. -- .,-T.� ��
institutional uses on the property. �0. `
�i
consisting of about 4.5 acres for. g
a cemetery, about 59 acres for an—`,.\'� 0 ���~ C �'V!
° \
the St Joseph's Seminary and,..�m
29 acres forthesed
uaonka011
study
mo 0®Q ` L';� °A•°°O� �\. �� \ (i
prepared in conjunction with the
Sphere of Influence and Urban
Service Area presentations be- �- o dm aD''IIII'i89nepn.-O _sue'
m
r i=
fore LAFCO approximate
365 acres are avail-
able for develop-
meet within the e ® 1%
relatively flat
portions of the m r ®m
church. (Lands pro
posed for open space �f
purposes on open
space plan are in -
a ra
cluded in 365 acre figure).The
land area north of the church
property across Route 280 Freewa+ _
e $8$8 a r
is presently developed as Rl homes.
The area to the east of the study
area, betweenthe study area
boundary and Foothill Boulevard,
consists of a mixture of developed and a .,
undeveloped areas. There are some developed
single-family-lots.adjacent to.Poppy'Drive in
County jurisdiction and there is a 136-unit
townhouse project in the City of Cupe,tin.o. Those � �Z�S1bI�NfTA. ��� :''`.`�ae�-ire_ial ��1-t'•
are the primary developed uses easte.Tly of the church'
-
property. A 211-unit townhouse project in the City
of Cupertino and the Kaiser Permanete Plant facility "in ,
County jurisdiction exists to the south of the study area
The westerly lands are undeveloped.
I
s
Residential Land Use Element Profile Sheet (continued) Areas #18B & 18C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physiographic Characteristics: The land form for. tha 18B segment of the study area
is characterized by rollingterrain with an average slope steepness of about 9.6%.
The segment.lab.eled.18C consists of 275 acres and has an average slope pf 35%o The
property is bisected by Pernanente Creek which flows through theKa..iser Permanente
property and through the church property in_the northwest direction. Based upon
preliminary geologic investigation by both the State Division of Mines and Geology
and a private consultant firm hired by the church, there is a fault trace which
parallels the creek. Development plans submitted for the property, if it is to be
developed, would have to recognize this fault traces As the fault trace was identified
on the open space element as a lineal park.
Special Comments:` The property is currently -served by two vehicular accesses. One,
in the northeast portion of the property that"is,known as Maryknoll Drive which forms
an intersection with Foothill Boulevard and Starling Drive and the other is St.. Joseph's
Avenue which serves the northwest portion of the property. Because' St.Joseph''s-Avenue
winds through a single-family residential neighborhood' in Los Altos, the road has been
played downasa major access into the site., As such, the major accesses would be the
Maryknoll-.Road access and the possibility of a future access which would. connect with
Stevens creek Boulevard opposite the n,e Anza Oaks'development. The fault trace and
j creek mentioned above should be.incorporated into a park system,
l
-3-
CITY DF� CURERTNO
LAID
A R #19 _
Gross Acres. 14.7 Net Acres: 13.4 od a,o / e � I � L:" _''i
1' aj F 8• � � � •.� e c� •P 44 � G•r' C �.i�
Location: South side of Homestead Road on the east and west�-
side of Stelling Road.
�. � Rio =•� �.� ,_,�=—�-�
Ownership Pattern:. The west side of ;Stelling Road. is almost i L
entirely under a one family ownership although there are six 400. a I g 'h • s i
parcels. The east side is under five different 'ownerships
most of which are corporations of some kind. The parcel sizes r1 ,a_� �' a a•
are each under two acres.
> 4$�nv9uvnvann •
Zoning .Analysis: The two study areas are presently zoned tt.: r•
commercial. The surrounding area, however, is.mostly zoned
and developed already as R3-2.2. To the north is Sunnyvale.
On the west side of Hollenbeck, there is a'neighborhood shopping
center while the east side is apartments.' To the south of the
p 1 L s
western area, there is BQ zoning while the east side is zoned
R3-2.2 .
Land Use. Description: Most of the surrounding area has:already Lr�9l�dJ Us
been built up. The -.neighborhood center to the north has a
supermarket and other compatible services There is a gas
station -on that corner as well as on the southwest corner of $ ggg• A""' ' r i '
Stelling Road and Homestead Road which is part of the study
area.', The Villa Serra Apartments almost surrounds the: southeast i E.t•'•'
Marcel with the exception of a small apartment complex to the 104
a
b
east. Likewise, there is a development of fourplexes along
the western border of our area.
_ a '1. •� 2C ' I
The church to the south occupies most of the BQ area. There is ,' ;; . ;UN,PERO
a P.G. & E. facility to the west which borders the 'study area.
Physiographic Characteristics: The land is relatively flat and { TA a I i:• a� d.� should not not cause any problems for development.
Special Comments a These two areas have had a few applications p o > •- •at _ -
for use permits that were approved but never built. The
�• ,¢.
eastern section had plans for a neighborhood shopping
center which included a market, drive-in restaurant and e r' Res 16e:04 AI '' La IGULTl3CAL
gas station. The western area had an approved permit
for a diving and swimming facility. These applications as C7��i4C!/kL
were in 1971 and have since expired. oo VALA&T=`
e
p
Clio' of: CUPPQT)ND
Pt-S 1 b G WRA. -
LAkD .use ELG:MS 0
%Gf'e m� #21A G .91 B ,_50077-IW5T QUAA. o
-
Gross Acres: 24..4 Net Acres, 2.14
• m z i
Location: The intersection of Foothill Boulevard and tit®3 +, Q ;x; is cry
Stevens. Creek Boulevard including the northwest, northeast
and southwest quadrants. It extends south to Janis Avenue IL 114 \
and slightly further north of Cupertino Road. -
+ '. mi -
Ownership Pattern:. The area is fragmented into many small
�*
parcels most of which are under an acre, There is no ,+.
dominating ownership group. -—�_
_ +
Zoning Analysis° The majority of the study area is in ! �.g°�. Rpmonc Ave
the County within the City's Sphere of Influence, The g \a9Je ,q
southeast quadrant to Ramona Avenue is in the City and g o.s ItHj[9999D99$H8998§9
is zoned for commercial. t " '� 'hcho Z'
sr: '
The northwest corner is in the Count and zoned nei hbor-
Y g. a ,••• i -- f
hood commercial. except for the corners at the inter AENTARv
section, the rest of the area is zoned residential. This -- ^ W.flnur
includes the area east of Palo Vista and the triangle
between Palo Vista and Foothill Boulevard.
The surrounding area on the southeast, south and west
side are zoned for R1-10 in the County. The northwest
area has an RIC development. North of Cupertino Road
there is a BQ zone.,
Land Use Description: Most of the study area is vacant oIIi9 ".� }III,. crop
' -
land right now. On the two•southern-corners of Stevens —
Creek Boulevard, there are gas•stations, a third corner
has a bar. There are a few scattered houses in the area 21A
but for the most part it is vacant.
. 6$9•$8.:a 89II99B9II 8888�&98�'��
`The area is also plagued with . a disease called "paper ® --• 8aT� `A
streets". Palo Vista does not extend north of Stevens
Creek Boulevard, Ramona Avenue does not exist nor does
the driveway north of that.Mons --
e
-1
-1-
Ja'n m• 'u'v
I9fI8R-8@999699.90$8 r—.-- + —f
B -
Gross Aeresro 38
Location:, The study area is bounded by Foothill Boulevard and Hillcrest
Road on the west,.by Cupertino Road, Crescent Road on the north, by Stevens
Creek on the east, and by Stevens Creek Boulevard on the south. There are
approximately 110 lots of rec"ord within the study area. -
Zoning Description: With the exception of a small crescent=shaped property
at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Cupertino Road and a small
triangular -shaped piece of property at. 'the northwest corner -of Cupertino
Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard., which* are zoned commercial, the"entire
study area is zoned for single-family residential uses. Of the single-
family residential zoned property, approximately 1.8:'acres are zoned R1=7.5,
the remaining properties being zoned R+1-10, either in County or City juris
diction. The R1-7.5 zoned properties are located on Hillcrest Road.
C
i
0 1
ELEMEt4Ti9RY �ti
- "
o L _
iR
C•
4 •' t-
�.
i
J
IFi�TPlL-;2E< o
i l4� CJ S^E V 4
' .. -, lr961 ,. � •: �,.,�¢ N�rr .are �° r
arc. —
i �L47r`2:; -f r93a
AL M V.ALAid
'�'So'�� L.Gs1/i (M1f �� eRI L:, da�CcF.t �',•Y�" ! F:l l? U`�'[�. � J� L ".
6
Residential Land Use Element Profile.Sheet (continued) Area B
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Description: The properties fronting directly on old Cupertino
Road and the land area bounded by the horseshoe -shaped Crescent Road and
Cupertino Road are basically developed, although there are a few rather
large'lots which could be redivided. The Hillcrest Road area is_suscep-
tible to further development as well as the area east of Crescent Road,
between Crescent Road and Stevens Creek. Additionally, there.are a few
vacant lots on Stevens Creek Boulevard'front_age, Just opposite the inter-
section of Stevens Creek and Palo Vista Road. On the whole, the housing
units within the study area are substantial and well maintained.
Physiographic Characteristics Properties fronting on Hillcrest Road and.
on the westerly side of the Crescent Road loop are located on hillside ter-
rain. The rest of the study area and by far the majority of the.area is
located on flat level terrain.
Special Comments: The study area will be directly affected by the future
vertical and horizontal. realignment of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The City
staff has reviewed the traffic circulation pattern for the neighborhood,
in 'conjunction with the Stevens Creek School park site access problem
and has tentatively determined that°the ideal solution would be t.o acquire
Tight -of -way and connect the neighborhood to•Stevens.Creek Boulevard at
a point opposite the present intersection of Stevens Creek and Palo Vista.
This connection would entail the condemnation of .one parcel of -land con-
taining the house and one vacant parcel of land. This particular facet
will be discussed -in detail during the Stevens Creek plan live hearings.
The primary discussion point with regard
to the General Plan, as it applies to
this area, is the question LAID
of 10,.000 sq. ft. lots vs. \if 1 I •t,v r rE'y i
7,500 sq. ft. lots. The
9
neighborhood is semi —rural % ;jA a ELEMENTARR 2.
in nature now, both in terms fl� �u�o�._ _- LNOOL 7F z� zc
of the types of streets that y
are built within the area,
the existing 10,000 sq. ft. +
lot sizes and the number of -
horses which are kept in the r T - j 74R9
area at present. The ultimate�aro�,tt Fu7LRr~
development of the northeast STr_V ..J
corner of Stevens Creek Bou- &.
levard and Foothill Boulevard 4" �6q �7n'
should be discussed in depth.
During a former hearing the
Commission briefly discussed %x�� Gzr V U«
the possibility of land area���
being utilized for residen-
t
tial purposes. However, a
. ...,.
density range was not. spoken ; ock 6�•:q r°_ 38,, frII• p
to. 6-
-2-
LITU 6F LV F'C---QT[1 IO
,/ ff�AL PLAN n(=ZAM
laSIDf_-2 M17AL LANE use EaLsmf-Kq-
AeEA
c 6NIA16
4:Q :r T
Gross. Acres ; lg 4 ' r�,
t ., soar
Location: The studyarea is bounded:by AlcaldeTP
to the north, Foothill Boulevard to the'.east and
'Santa Lucia on the south and west. Study area
is bisected by Merriman Road. Study area is di-
vided into approximately 80 lots of record. {
Zoning Description: The Alcalde Road frontage
and a single corner lot at the intersection of
Merriman and Santa Lucia is within City juris-
dication and is zoned for duplex uses. The. re
maining land in County jurisdiction is also zoned -
for duplex uses, with the exception of a parcel
fronting on Stevens Canyon Road,; which is zoned
commercially. The area to the north of Alcalde .,
� Road outside of the City area is zoned for a mix-
ture of single-family and exclusive agricultural, l
uses. The properties to the east of Stevens Can
yon' Road are zoned for a mixture of single-family, F
commercial, and apartment uses in City jurisdic-
tion. Property to the south of the study area,
south of Santa Lucia and west of Santa Lucia is
zoned for residential single-family purposes,
Land Use Description: With the exception of v (LJND?i2 GoraSr.
scattered lots, the entire study area is devel is a _~ Re
oped< The largest block of undeveloped lots is
at the southwest corner of Alcalde and Foothill
Boulevard. The property consists of approxi-
mately four lots. The frontage of Alcalde Road
has been developed with duplex uses. Other than
that there are few duplex uses within the area.
a P v
On July 31st, a member of the staff made a quick -
windshield survey of the area to get a feel for
�..
b-
'i
the number of duplex uses within the area. Based.. - i
5 -
c
upon the quick windshield survey, there are ap-
proximately
P q y -�•� • '••� � L' �
8 to 10 duplex structures within the „
study area. Although it was difficult to ascer '
tain boundary lines of lots, it did appear that
there are some instances of two or more houses'
per lot which, in a sense, could be classified as �:•r. {
a duplex development. The single-family zoned:,
area to the north of Alcalde Road is developed
G ' C
with single-family uses. The properties to the ••• r-�o,;,.,
east of Stevens Canyon Road and Foothill Boule- L? -L
vard,;_from Santa Paula to St. Andrews, AL�{LULNiZ AL
are basically undeveloped. There is an .'1: 1Zr,�SIMATIAL
existing residential structure being ',oMMP_WAL Qv vAILMT
�L " eMDtn fRiA L
' m1-
Residential Land Use Element Profile Sheet,(continued)-Area C
--------------------------------------------------------------------
used as a bar between Santa Paula to McClellan.which is.marginal in
nature and is zoned for single-family purposes. The landarea east
of Stevens Canyon from St. Andrews to Riverside is developed within
the. City as apartments The area to the west and south -of Santa Lucia
is within County. jurisdiction and i.s developed as R1' homes.
Physiographic Characteristics, The study area can primarily be classi-
fied.as level terrain, although there are .some very subtle slopes in
the western half of the ;study area, between Merriman Road and Santa
Lucia.
Special Comments: The primary area of discussion with regard to study
area is the question of continuing the duplex type zoning.:in the area
or rezoning the area to a single-family classification to conform to
the existing development pattern within the 'study area. There are
three new duplex units on the south side of Alcalde Road and two rela-
tively.new duplex structures on the east side of Santa Lucia midway be-
tween`Mercedes and Merriman.
F
1
t
LIT Y DF__ LUf'E_F`JN.0
46i0,�F,- AL PLAN LPL JNNA
Z IaS i D (25 NVA L L���(b US L .fit i�t
Gross Acres: 9
rA&." L
Location: The study area is located westerly<ti•1��\ j .
of and easterly of Rae Lane, bounded by McClel, t.;:c �§4y e / �� % 1
Tan Road on the north and the Cupertino Swim
and Racquet Club and the intersection of Hy an- �1�-- tt8 C `� � .�.� ;�' `""�" • �
nisport and Linda Vista on the south. A\
Ownership Pattern: There are approximately 9
recorded parcels within the stud area ran�''R
p Y 9 g- \ �V.
ing in size between .48 acre and 1.4 acres. ��:' { •',�
Zoning Description: The individual properties'
within the study area are within County and
City jurisdiction. The properties within City
jurisdiction are zoned Al-43,'which is an agri-
_r
cultural/residential zone, requiring one -acre
minimums per residential dwelling unit. Prop'_'
erties within the County jurisdiction are.zoned
Al-40, which is similar to the City`s Al-43 zone.
The area directly to the north of .the study area
is zoned RIC-7.5. The -area to thenorthbeyond
the RIC zone across McClellan.Road is the Horse 4A114S
Ranch Park. The area to the east is zoned Rl-
7.5, The area to the south is zoned R1-7.5° ��;
The area to the ixest is the Deep Gliffe Golf E
+t
Course and is zoned Al-43°
Description. �
r
Land Use scri do The west side of Rae Lane
consists of single-family homes on large lots
single-family homes
ages, fronting on M4
age facility that f:
the southern portiox
area to the north o'
the Horse Ranch Part
single-family zoned
is developed. The
area is adjacent to
Racquet Club. The I
is developed as a gc
relatively `'smaller acre
i
Man Road, and a stor-
:s on Rae Lane toward
e
thstud area. The
ie study area again is\\l\
Lich is undeveloped. The
�a to the east and south
:kern portion of the study 1,'; �l•
Cupertino Swim and
F3zone to the west
course,
iAL
{ l Al C`l35'17Z.1 �t L. i
a
i
Residential Land Use Element Profile Sheet (continued) Area ----=--------------------------------------------------------P-----
Physio'graphic Characteristics: There' are some verysubtle slopes
which slope from the south to the north.
Special Comments In July, 1973,`a tentative map was approved by
c hen implemented,will cul-de-sac ae Lane:
e 't Council whi h w i R the CZ
Y_,
The resultant loss of 'through -access to -McClellan Roadlimits poten-
tial land use intensity of the area. As mentioned earlier,.a 15-home
cluster project has been approved for the area to the northwest of
the study area, fronting on Rae Lane and McClellan. It is anticipated
that this dwelling unit intensity and pattern of development will
continue south within the study area. The staff has long advocated
the development of cluster -type projects adjacent to open space areas
within the City, in order to alleviate the walled effect of-conven
tional single-family developments adjacent to park areas It is ex-
pected that the easternside of Rae Lane'could.-be developed through
some type of conventional single-family development pattern. The
above comments notwithstanding, there maybe a possibility that low
-
intensity,
e hin
os recreational uses could be developed wi
Y� quasi -public P
i
the area, subject to use permit control. For thepurposes of the
General Plan statement, it would appear that a residential use category
should be designated for the stud area.
g Y
-2-
l
L' T Y L t" [._,_ V F - T MMI J
46.0,�E�rAL ?LAN nL.1 iV(
VsS t D f2:: M-17 k L. LA J Sr_-
r L.E. � F-.i-
Aei&A -� E Z ON / N G-j
Gross Acres : 8 0 ��'A
Location: The stud area is bounded by the \
-Cupertino Swim and Racquet Club on the north,'
Linda Vista Drive on the east and a line north- \ `
erly of the western projection of Columbus Aven-
ue to the south, and by the Deep Cliff .Golf': �`��•
Course to the west.
b5op OT
cu
Veva{a
Ownership Pattern: There are approximately 8
lots of record within the study area.
Zoning Description: The efitire study area is _ A"!
within the jurisdiction of Cupertino'. The nor
.which-are
therlymost four parcels, which are delineated ;v►\\l\\�
Park
on the zoning and land use maps as surrounding
a cul=-de-sac, are zoned R1-7.5•. The remaining
four parcels to the south are zoned Al-40. The
property directly to the north of.the subject
study area is the Cupertino.Swim and Racquet
Club, which is zoned Al-40, and a segment of a
single-family subdivision zoned:R1-7.5 The
property across the street is zoned R1-7.5.
Additionally, the properties to the south, ,front= 1-AlyD Us
in on Linda Vista Drive, are zoned R1-7.5. The
g
property to the west (Deep Cliff .Golf Course)' _L
is zoned R1-43 < DTI}'
)T} ,
Land Use Description: The subject area is a
semi -developed pocket in am.othe,rwkse fully de-.
veloped area. With the exception of the Cuper-
tino Swim and Racquet Club, which is -zoned Al-
40., all -of the surrounding areas are developed
in the manner as provided for in the zoning
classification. (In order 'to be consistent ., -.I
with the.C't zoning ordinances, h -?-�'���_;_
l y o g the Cupertino �.
Swim and Racquet Club should be reclassified \ :=
as a BQ use, rather than as an Al-40 use.)
Physiographic Characteristics: The study. area y Par^
itself is .primarily flat. Properties within
the study area are located on the
easterly bank of the Stevens Creek �';
Flood Plain and, as such, are sepa- iCSIMNTiA!_. I�Lt�1C•ULi11AL
rated by it from the Deep Cliff!. -0AiIVC-_ tlA4 v,1 U�;�•?�f.[,
Golf Course by a steep slope. � y, tMDb!, i;Q,'IA L
SAG
_1_
Residential Land Use Element Profile Sheet.(continued) Area E
Special Comments: With the exception of one of the parcels in the
cul-de-sac'd area in the north part of the study area, all of the,
properties have existing residential development.on the property.
.'Over the years an attempt has been made by a few of the' property
owners to consolidate properties in order to achieve an overall plan
I ning approach to the development of each of the ind:ivi.dual properties..
Because of the location of the existing dwelling units 'on the individ-
ual properties, a planned;,development may have to be 'filed: in order
to allow the applicants to deviate from normal City street standards,
relative to street width, and cul-de-sac lengths. Prior to the de-
ve,lopment approval of any of the properties, it would be in the best
interests of the City to take an overall look at the entire study
area to determine the most ideal development pattern. It should be
mentioned that the majority of.the properties within.,the study area
are adjacent to a 40 ft. City -owned right-of-way path which leads
from Linda.Vista Park to McClellan. Road and the City's Horse Ranch.
In the course of development approvals of properties within. the study
area, the City may; want to evaluate the possibility ofprovidingfor
another access to the 40 ft. strip In summary, although there may
be some problem with regard to development of the properties>because
of;existing single-family ,home-s within the study area, it does appear
that a residential intensity of a4-to-the-acre is. -appropriate` in
view of the fact that the study area is surrounded by existing resi-
dential development, at that intensity,
-2-
in
SS t D (,—:; P\FFA L. LA (\t USA C- d P tvq
A � .ijr- F
� ♦ r'4
Gross Acres: 11.9
Location: The study area involved is adjacent papa l
o g a
to and northerly of Lindy .Lane, directly op-
posite the Candy Rock subdivision. Generally�f:
speaking, the subject study area is .located -
behind the initial tier of dots behind Terra
Bella, Santa Teresa and Linda Vista Drives._
The enclosed zoning and land use sketch more
clearly defines the precise study area. boundary. a.�
Property Ownership Pattern: There are approxi-
mately 10 Lots of record within the study area. ;1, /
Zoning Description: With the exception of one
parcel, all of the parcels within the study
area are zoned R1-20 (20,000 sq. ft..lot mini-
mum). The lone parcel is zoned Al-43. The
area to the north is a mixture of single-family
residential zones. The lots with access from
Mt. Crest are zoned Al-43. The lot immediately
to the "`east is, zoned R1-7.5 . The lots adjacent %-AND USA
to Santa Teresa and Terra Bella Drives, to the v 3 p
east of •study area, are zoned R1-7.5. The + L
lots within the Candy Rock subdivision, to the
south,, are, zoned R1-10. Properties to the
west are within County jurisdiction and are
zoned Al-40A (Exclusive Agriculture). The
Al-40 lots are few in number and are immed'i- +gyp '/
ately adjacent to the northerly terminus of
Lindy Lane.
Land Use Description: All but two of theW.
parcels within the study area are developed '°
with single-family homes. The relatively
large single-family lots to the north of sy'•� ti"y' !�
the subject study area are fully developed
with the exception of two or three lots. ! ,✓ a
The area to the.east, adjacent to Terra
Bella Drive,.is developed. The majority
of'the lots. within the Candy Rock subdiv-
ision to the south are developed, and the
properties to the west which, again, are
Residential. Land Use Element Profile Sheet (continued) Area F
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Physiographic Characteristics: The subject study area is•located pri-
marily on the south and east slopes o.f a knoll which., together with
the Candy Rock subdivision, forms the mouth of the so-called Lindy Can-
yon. Elevations. range from a low point at 450 ft. to a -high point of
620. The staff utilized the 1-to-5-acre-per-unit slope/density for-
mula to evaluate the project, and determined that the average slope
is approximately 31.7% which, utilizing said formula, will enable 6
dwelling units to be developed within the study area.
Special Comments: With reference to the above statement, it is inter-
esting to note that the existing development within the study area is
limited. to six homes. Thus, it would appear that existing development
within the study area is ideal in terms of the slope/density formula
being espoused by the Cities of Los Gatos, Saratoga and the PPC.
Slides have been taken of the study area from Candy Rock subdivision.
The slides will enable you to see a conventional single-family devel-
opment situation that has the same number of units that would be allowed
had all properties• been evaluated as a single-uni.t with a 1-to-5 slope/
density formula. As a matter of background it should be noted that
in 1567 the zoning for the majority of the.properties was changed
from Al-43 to R1-20, which allows 2-units-per-acre. The zoning was
approved, however, with a very stringent condition. The condition
requires that prior to any further division of the properties that
a tentative map be submitted by all property owners within the area
zoned. To date, various property owners within the study area have
been unsuccessful in their attempts to pull together all of the
prop-erty owners involved in the original. rezoning request. The reason for
this stringent requirement is based upon the premise that no develop-
ment should occur within the area until adequate roads, sanitary sewers,
storm drains and other municipal improvements are built to adequately
handle additional development. The primary question with regard to
General Plan determination for the City area is: Should the study
area be classified as a hillside area and, if so, should the area be
treated equally with other hillside areas identified in the General
Plan Study, in terms of development restrictions?
August 7, 1973
SUGGESTED GENERAL PLAN DISCUSSION OUTLINE FOR
PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN HEARINGS*
I Core Area - Core Area Recommendation Submitted to City Council July 13, 1973
II Infilling Valley Floor Areas
Area 1 Finch Avenue
Area 2 - Blaney Avenue
.Area 3 - Tula Lane
Area 4 - Mary Avenue
.Area 5 -- Phar Lap Drive
Area 6 - Orange and McClellan
Area 9 - Scenic Drive
Area 10 - Riviera Road (Crump property)
Area 15A - Lower Seven Springs Ranch
Area.20 Bubb Road & McClellan Road
Area 21A - Northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. & Foothill Blvd.
Area 21B - Southeast corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. & Foothill Blvd.
Area 22 - McClellan Road and Foothill Blvd.
III Semi -developed Residential Areas
Area A - Old Monta Vista (Area delineated by Old Monta Vista General Plan Rev. 3/31/69)
Area B - Old Cupertino Road/Crescent
Area C Santa Lucia/Merriman Road
Area D'- Rae Lane
Area E Linda Vista Drive
Area F Lindy Lane
Area G - Stevens Creek Blvd. and Carmen
IV. Public Service and Neighborhood Commercial Needs for Entire Urban Service
Area
A. Park Needs.
B. School Capacity
C. Neighborhood Commercial Needs
D. Stevens Creek Park Chain
V Lower Foothills
- n
Area 15B Seven Springs Ranch
Area 16A - Lindy Canyon
Area 16B - Regnart Canyon
Area 17A - Voss Avenue
Area 17B - Inspiration Heights
Area 17C - Kester Ranch
Area 18A Church - Foothill Boulevard
Area 18B - Church - Lower
Area 18C - Church Upper
VI Upper Foothills (west of Urban Service Line)
Integrate PPC Hillside Committee work into City's General Plan work.
PPC Hillside Technical Subcommittee is currently evaluating a proposal
to conduct a cost/revenue study involving Montebello Ridge. County
Public Works Department is or will provide traffic analysis.
_ •.. _. ,_ .,,. .,.:,. ,..x :, ,�:. :,,.a; „ < r ':. : ; :;._=.� . _ ,:,.,. tr �nl;.. , -I - `:a I ''=; fi7 1ti,c�` `rFr• - - -
x ate- i . TL It\..
_ . y ,....> T
,. 'i... L. )�;._.: ,_.fT. e�. �Tfr w ,. .. ,.... _. .
C.E.- -
,�.. _ , , _ {
... ,. . :.,.,._ ...,
o
.. ., .,,.,,, . ., _✓ -, .,_ L , � ., �.. : _ ., { _. �. .,, ,.,:
L:
G
7 _
3
L
!Fib-
{
d...
_ . �Y �..,.'.. II a
Ai u it
AIX
4 Lam.IXX
'k
,.,. �.;. /, .. :. ..,. :.:' .:_---. _ ,.. _. -:iL`� y .. ., i ..... .._ Vie•_ �:. , r' ,.5.- -fA.
a
tl!
. �i. � . ,' .: I � 1—♦,'--, .: �r 1- L._ �,
,..... .. �,., .. ..'"�•'1-.a..i:-, ;::,,_ f• (..'.,.or �' .., l -�.
1
M 33
r •;
rfl
1 -�� • .: .,�t �.d ...� .:.: kt� .-.,- ::!.ml \ , \' �r I - r ,_CFI _ I' ... L.:,r r a t,-L. -E
, � t ..,{ r � _I.�� , \. I._.; al. -... 1: i � .I ,I. �'.' `'', / �( oi•y t L 7 r � -
j
0
: ® , t _ "" .. ., , ._ ,� 1 <,� _ ,, .: .I._ ,..�:,..,t;-,.ram I, Cti �/. � �•.
Imo-. izrr•'-� -.
- i it 4
_ �..
� .-. , , _
.1 �,e F4.. if
"... ... ,_ r.. - -.IlL0,11
..:. _r:-i�
,
y t ,
�r
ia•� 3,- a �. �, ;% f Y fi E5
' - -., . , �\ i ` ' a. .�(.:-, �.FA«::12 �S,l r',:a._J :'. .. ✓ .�. ., Z. .,y :,: - '
`. T ,.. -- -- -- n_ �- .. _ �.. -•r('� r ._ .. �� 'r ;, r. � � _ _�_ :-,� :na?r-<, (� �f_. P3� -, 1::. r 4. �,: �, � �` ter:
t 6 Q . , ...:I w , - :. , ;: r .. -,. , . _ " � . .L11� �r �. �. 7 ti,<;_ -•�� i
1llt�� ( tat Pj:tY ,
�^ -
�
EY �r
I
"S
St
. :... � a. .tom :', .:.: .: ♦- r' 1 .. ,.. .. : .. „ "� .. ::., .. _— ( 7 i \, tii::-.. ,
SCALE =2 :i✓ r �II
. � , . , _ . , \ , ... •. _ ..: �\_`] C 3E she „= /
-
1T1� '.� ,. ;_ !. 'i,.,_ .. ✓ .,:::,._._--� � ., . .. ✓...,.-tt ��': ,iLTt�rrfL,.. -_ �:1� r�n,:i � F,@
�J
'
.GENERAL PLAN STUDY
�� AREAS
I f x rrt: 'i
SAP OF
1'7,,\� �` - ctr �..�97 �- { THE
�,1.,
,
.__.—. —_, '— - r—=--•--- --� r^� ! ., ' . �\'. , . '.; ...._. .. ,r.. ,, I � --•--i �t.,�:'�,l{ `,�:?'ti�" s�r�t-
f ! >�
.. �, {. ,. .. ...} :-:: r. .ems ;:. -. ,;::. �. ���. �:4��'•,�-%"�,` •� _
-I`�`r _"y — t �`� 'rill=�.:
>... ',
y
�. ; � �" , ��<S:' "'"-r'�F ',r DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
( 1. Rge
O,
Firma .�
X0
SHEET
Otm of Cuperti"O
s ibiL. traffic impacts have received e *.`��A
dis extensive attentlpn
land vase.alternativeswere modified by the Plannifig":`Comm'lsgionia
-1-
!a ;:attempt
The ERC
Laces
air and,,
lowo
In oTma-
nal or
core area
Environmental Assessment Procedure
General Plan Core Area Amendment July 31, 1973
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
alternatives has been and is being reviewed.
Existing zoning
Assumption Set -II.- Regional Center at Mariani
t° Regional Center at Val lco:Park
No Regional Center
A comparison of these alternatives' .'on traffic flow presents a first level.
of analysis on air and noise pollution impacts
A next level of analysis requires preparation of detailed maps showing specific
areas of noise and -air pollution impacts (perhap:s noise contour lines) by some
quantitative measure...'. This analysis has not been undertaken yet.
4. The ERC recommends the following procedure to meet the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) requirements.
ao The City.Council,should continue ao combi:ne consideration of all
environmental impacts with other information related to General Plan
revisions.
ba The City Council should review all parts of the Planning Commission
proposed amendment to 'the General Plano The City Council should 'work
toward a complete set of land uses for the.core area by: consensus votes.
.ca The 'City Council should review their completed core area proposals in
the perspective of seeing how individual decisions"fit together
de As ;part of the review of the completed core area proposals, -the City
Council -should consider whether any additional information on specific
environmental impacts is required,
ea Information on environmental. impacts including everything sufficient`
to meet the requirements of..Secti6n13, 1°:Contents of Final Environmental
Impact Report" and Section 4, 10Review of Environmental Impacts Reports"
of the Cupertino EAP should,be summarized in a separate section of the
General Plan Revision Study report,
Discussion.
The City Council has been reviewing informaC on ,on environmental impacts_through-
o.ut the public hearings, the Planning Commission did likewise and their proposed
amendment to the General Plan reflects feedback from environmental impact informa-
tion.
Since the formal'EIR information must relate to a complete set,of landuses, the
City Council cannot finally resolve EIR questions until they have a Qomplete
tentative,set of land uses: for at least the.core'area. In any event'., the Council.
will want to review individual parcels once the whole picture is before, them. The.
Planning Commission went throughsucha final review process and made land use
changes" as, a result of it.
- 2-
Environmental Assessment Procedure.-
dore Area General Plan Amendment July 31, 1973
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
While reviewing a complete set of land;,uses, the Council can decide whether;"
more information on any specific area (including specific environmental
impacts) is necessary. The staff will at'this time review the steps necessary
to get an additional level of information on'.noise and air pollution,impacts.
Extensive public hearings and public comment (oral and written ):,have,,occurred
and will continue for some time. However, the* law requires that'addtional.
publichearings and formal notice procedures be accomplished of -ter the EIR
information"is ' ritten up formally. The "ERC recommends that the "EIR inf,orma-
Lion be part of an overall General Plan,.Revision Study report. This':`should be
the most'.ef'f.icient way to proceed, since formal E'IR requirements cover much of
the information that has been considered in the General Plan Revision Stud-ya
-3-
:...VAL7JAfiTON
O,F NEI.GHB.pRHpOD COMMERCIAL
LAND .USE
r
Alternative
�
Gh�aracter z
'
Distribution
inof
.
i
a
of
Foothill Area
Neighborhood
Fiscal- � traffic
Convenience �
Impacts
f
r.
F„•
-
.
Foothill -
Stevens Crk>e
r
_
$
a
a
y
Other
Locations
x
r
asskn,-._ rir..menx.:irxxmw•
.—:at�.uaw+¢nszmsiucucx k,..rt*as�r,�^rseprravzCrse sY+^srndum_-rarx... wz9sza drs-csL�trrP erc#_��s,^.tmx,-=-,r'h rn+'a•*{�--zsY.,r`....y^- aw ..S;rs+t`i y ....a.',i?�.[*.'.tt..x..: �„=.,ii?
No Hera
i
Cb. iftli x,:c i a l
- _
._....-. r+�.:�mE�uravuc�a�rou�Me+nsnw-eawrcss.<.s�,xrx�
..�, ,�.. �.yr_a.eir,••M.;.c<r....��sr„c.�s a,.rs�iezna�+a:+�-uax?se.s;*�.r.:m.•ss:Pszrt=`+rr
v.5..v,�>�� ..;eir:..e
�3vkwer:u+�.amr.�c�,,,frs
SUGGESTED GENERAL PLAN DISCUSSION OUTLINE
70'R AUGUST 2N.D
AND SUBSEQUENT PLANNING..00i*l STQN GENERAL PLAN HEARINGS
TO: The Honorable Mayor and.Members of the
City Council
FROM • lk„
James'Ho Sisk., Planning Director
DATE: August-1, 1973
SUBJECT: -Response to Councilman Meyers Question Regarding Park Needs
Generated by Residential Units,Proposed by he. Core Element to the
General Plan
The land use element of the core area proposed approximately 272 acres of
residential land use with a series of density range of between`4-10 to
4-16-dwelling units per acre.
If each of the properties were developed., at the lowest possible range, a
total of 1,430 units would result which; using a f actor of 302 persons
per household would result in a population of 4 576+ oerson:so If all of.
the residential acres were to'be- developed - at the high range, a total of
3,260 dwelling units would be constructed -and again using. the average
household size figure of 3.2 persons per unit- 9 10,432 persons would be
within the core area. If the`.pa.r ,edication standard of 5o5'acres ;of -
neighborhood and community park land is maintaned9,a total of 25�1 acres.
would be required for low pop�u.lation range while 57 A acres. would t be
required for the high population range
The above analysis is, of course;;quite simplistic in thatin actuality,
the actual` number of acres td be used for residential will be lowered:.by
the necessary park acres required
The park area requirement for. the ;core' area is further complicated, by the
fact that the Planning Commission'has.not approved the final land Jse
determi_iiations for iinfi_11.ing valley .floor areas within the proXimity 'of
the core area and as such, it is difficult to ascertain what effect the
core area recommendations will have'upon the total park neeAs;ofllthe
community.
Evaluation of Present Park Situation°
The City presently has 3.2.5 acres.of neighborhood park land and, 31 acres
of community park .land. The recently approved Capital Improvements Program
proposes that 17.8 acres; of existing elementary school sites be developed
and used jointly for parks and schoolground'useo If the ,Council expands
this joint,'school/park use concept, potentially another 3006 acres could bell
expanded into the City.'s park system.It is expected that an agreement, can
be reached with, the Fremont High School District and the principal of the
Cupertino High.School for joint use of Cupertino High which woulo.add an
-1-
Response to Councilman Meyers Question Regarding
Park Needs Generated by Residential Units Proposed
by the Core Element to the General Plan August 1, 1973
------------------------------------------------------------------------
additional 16.6 acres to satisfy a community park need. In addition to
the City -owned park land and joint school/park use land, it is estimated
that there are approximately 7.4 acres ofclearly defined recreation -
orientated acres in private developments in Cupertino which could be
counted which would bring the total amount of acres within the City for
neighborhood park use of 88.3 acres.
On the community park side of the :ledger, approximately 47.5 acres of
park land is available assuming that 16.6 acres of the Cupertino High
School facility can be utilized by City residents for park purposes.
Thus, on the supply side, there are 88.3 acres of existing neighborhood
park acres plus 47.6 acres of existing community park acres. On the
demand side, there are 23,000 persons living within the City at .this
point in time plus 10,300 persons living within County.jurisdiction in
the Urban Service Area, which in practice utilize City park facilities,
The staff,has determined that the:Coun.ty population should be utilized
within the park assessment because of the fact that County residents are
taxpayers in terms of the elementary and high school districts and as such,
should have access to lands utilized as joint school/park uses.
The total existing population. of 33,300 people requires 99 acres of
neighborhood park and 83 acres of community park needs. .Based' on this
analysis, the existing park situation of.the City is that``the:community
is approximately 11 acres short of its goal for neighborhood.park acres
and 36acres short of its community park needs.
Relationship Between Existing and Core Area Park Needs
If the previously mentioned high and low population ranges for the core
area are placed into the analysis, the total neighborhood` and community
park need would increase to 113 acres and 94 acres respectively for the
low range and 130 and 109 acres for the high range. The core area plan
proposes 18.5 acres of additional park land,
Two charts describing the park land to population ratio situation are
attached° All figures are preliminary. Final figures will be based on
final land use determinations by Planning Commission and City Conn-cil.
The calculations are based upon the residential land use proposals in
the core area and the existing population within the City and unincorporated
area. It does not include the infilling of the valley floor and foothill
calculations.
The Public Works Director has indicated that the one-time improvement
costs for park purposes are averaging between $25,000 and $30,000 per
acre. The continual maintenance of park lands appear at.this time to
be averaging approximately $1,000 per acre..
As related to the acquisition costs for future park needs, it is difficult
to provide any meaningful 'data on at this time. Acquisition costs will
undoubtedly depend upon the City°s position in future relative to requir-
ing developers to dedicate land for park purposes or to pay fees in lieu
thereof. Also, your attention is directed to the City Manager's memo of
-2-
Response to Councilman Meyers Question: Regarding
Park Needs Generated, by Residential Units Proposed
by the Core Element to the General Plan August 1, 1973
----------------------------------------------------------------------
July 26, 1973, re. Jackie Hall°s questions which speaks about possible
acquisition of the Saich property and two proposed open space areas at
the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road.
Att.
-3-
EXISTING PARK LAND/POPULATION RATIO SITUATION
Neighborhood Parks
Community Parks
& School Land
&School Land
Existing
Demand
9909
83
(33,300 Pop,)
Existing
Supply
88.3
47>6
(11.6 Deficit)
(35.4 Deficit)
EXISTING
+ CORE PARK LAND/POPULATION RATIO
SITUATION
Neighborhood Parks
Community, Parks
�
& School Land
& School Land
s.
Potential
Demand Low
_ 113
94
(37,870
Este Pope)
Potential
Demand High
(43,730
Este Pop.)
130
109.
Potential
Supply
88.3
4706
+ 6 (Crossroads)'
+ 12.5 (Saich)
t
f
94.3
60.0
3
{
(18.7 ace deficit
low) (34 ace deficit low)
s
(45.7 ac o deficit
high) (49ace deficit high)'
2.
4
CORRECTED CHART
August 15, 1973
EXISTING PARK LAND'/.POPULATION RATIO SITUATION
Neighborhood Parks
Community Parks
&.,School Land.
& School,Land':
Existing Demand
99.9
'83
(33,300 Pop.)
Existing Supply
88.3
47.6.
(11.6 Deficit)
(35.4 Deficit)
EXISTING + CORE
PARK LAND/POPULATION RATIO
SITUATION
Neighborhood Parks
Community Parks
&: 'School 'Land' :::
& ; School Zand .
Potential Demand Low
113
94
(37,870 Est. Pope)
Potential Demand High
(43,730 Est. P6po)
130
109
Existing#:. Supply
88.3
47.6
+ 6 (Crossro.ads_Y
+ 12.5 (Saich)
Potential Supply
94.3
60a0
(Based upon Cote Area Plan)
(18.7 aca deficit
low) (34 ace deficit low)
(45 a 7 ac o deficit
high) (49 ac a deficit -high)
1973 GENERAL PLAN STATEMENT.- FILLING .IN VALLEY FLOOR
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS=
LAND'. DESIGNATIONS
POLICY''STATEMENTS.
REQUIREMENTS
-.
FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
°&CYaracter of .Neighborhood" was the
TYPE.
0 All densities within designated
0 Rezonin.g of selected
principal criterion for: designation
ranges; would have poshive
parcels
of'type and _density of`land use.
®_ A11 areas designated r:esidenti:al
impacts on character'of neighbor-_:
hood therefore choice of final .
t Preparation of
Areas were grouped an basis of .
DENSITY. a ..:
density will depend 'on other
ordinances
similarity of character. of
criteria of City of Cupertino as
neighborhood
Three density classifications.
set forth in adopted ,'ordnancesa
Interim agricultural
uses are permitted
o Principal for land use designa-
o Single-family residential not to
All properties in. a natural flood
tion was "equal treatment for
similar areas11
exceed` 404:'D Uo °s per gross- acre -
Areas 3,, --5` -9._; 10, ,15A9 17A(1)
.plain, as -designated by the,
Santa Clara ::County Flood Control,
-Use permits will be
required, for all
shall be zoned :in such a manner
developments except
® The .following,im acts. were found not
p
to`,be- substantiala
o Mixed Residential not. to exceed"
4 0.'4 to . 7 ''6 D o U o° s er g:"
P ross`acre -
preclude permanent
so as to clud anen
developnento
he
detached,- single®
family and:"duplex.
Areas 2;„`21A,: 22
a neighborhood mpact's=on school
-Use .permits will be
or sanitation district facility
Mixed Residential, not to exceed
required for all
e
capacity requlrements>
4``Y
04 to 10o0:..D..Uo" s`, per gross_ acre
Quasi -Public uses
Areas 1, `6', 20
o neighborhood traffic impacts
o Citywide traffic impacts
fiscal impacts on :school.
;.
districts and on city of .
Cupertino as per SB90
impacts on character of..City
Park needs have been .estimated,
- and are included in the, Open
Space Element of the General Plano
,3
-' Questions
Alternatives
le
Vallco - Shopping Center'(Alternatives of other use in Vallco)
. '' ..
Highway 9
A., Residential High Density (20 units acres on both.,sides)
Cost Factors
10 Costs of improvements in Vallco. Who pays?
2e Costs of improvements - Mariam a Who pays? Includes
West side .- pick up assessment district.
r
`'3"o Present assessed values and changes and effects on revenues°.
Questions
1e Does Torre Avenue go in?
2a Is there differential in unit 'u.tility cost between
industrial or commercial and residential?
2>
Va11co.- Shopping Center (Alternative of other use in Vallco)
Highway- West side - Lazaneo - South to Stevens Creek
.9
Gommercialo The remainder residential with exception of Valley Green
now developed) East side-- Mariani goes through with 10 acre
neighborhood shopping center.
t.
(Same cost factors and questions on above)
3a
Vallco - Shopping Center j
Highway 9 - West side all commercial. East side all residential.
(Same questions and cost factors)
4.
Mariani - Shopping Center
Westside - All commercial
Vallco As planned
(Same questions and cost factors)
5e
Mariani - Shopping Center
West side - Same as #4
Vallco - As planned except some residential utilized and 'eliminate
,office area
(Same'questions and cost factors)'
60 :Provide
for either location with shopping center
(Use cost factors as already determined)
7o Provide for no shopping center
i
1. The t1project" for which the adopted City of Cupertino Assessment
Procedure (EAP) is being applied is the amendment to the General
Plane Individual developments within the General Plan will still
require use of the EAP at the time of use permit application. The
adopted Cupertino EAP sets forth the difference in treatment that
major single developments (e.g. Regional Center) should receive at
the 'General Plan level and at the use permit level.
2. Based on the information developed to date, the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC) has determined that the Planning Commis,sion.proposed
amenamen:t to the General Plan and all major alternatives to the proposed
amendment which have been discussed to date will have a significant
effect on the environment.
3< The EAP (reflecting State of California Guidelines) sets forth abroad
list of'areas of environmental concern including
Traffic
Plant and Wildlife
Noise and Air Pollution
Scenic and Historical Impact
Impact on Population
Impact on Public Services
Alternatives to the Project
The intent of the General Plan study process was to include information
on:those areas as part.o.f:the General Plan review. Information has been
c
have received extensive attention and proposed land use alternatives
were modified by the Planning Commission as an attempt to mitigate
reported negative traffic impacts.
Specific questions have arisen about noise and air pollution impacts.
The ERC sees two levels of study on those questions. The first level
relates air and noise pollution impacts directly to total and peak
hour traffic flow. Information on total and peak hour traffic flow
for the following four major core area alternatives has been and is being
reviewed.
Existing zoning
Assumption Set II -,Regional Center at Mariani
Regional Center at .Vallco Park
No Regional Center
A comparison of these alternatives on traffic flow presents a first
level of analysis on air and noise pollution impacts
A next level of analysis requires preparation of detailed maps showing
specific areas of noise and air .pollution impacts (perhaps contact lines)
by some quantitative measure. This an.alys'is-`has not been undertaken yet.
4. The ERC'recommends the following procedure to meet the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) requirements.
ao The City Council should continue to combine consideration of all
environmental impacts with other information related to General
Plan revisions.
work toward a complete set of land uses for the core area by
consensus votes.
C. The City Council should review 'their completed core area
proposals in the perspective of seeing how individual decisions
fit together.
da As part of the review of the completed core area proposals, the
City Council should consider whether any additional information
on specific environmental impacts is required.
ea Information on environmental impacts including everything suffice`nt`:
to meet the requirements of Section 3,"Contents of Final Environmental
Impact Report" and Section 41"Review of'Environmental Impact Reports"
of the Cupertino EAP should be summarized in a separatesectionof
the General Plan Revision Study report.
Discussion.
The City Council has been reviewing information on environmental impacts
throughout the public hearings, the:Planning.Commission did likewise and
their proposed amendment to the General Plan reflects feedback.from
environmental impact information.
Since the formal EIR information must relate to a complete set of land
uses, --the City Council cannot finally resolve`EIR quetions until they have
a.compl.ete tentative set,of land uses for at least the core area. In any
event, the Council will want to review individual parcels once the whole
picture is before them. The Planning Commission went through such a final
.. _
-3-
9
review process and made land use changes as a result of it,.
While reviewing a complete set of land uses, the Council can decide -whether
more information on any specific area (including specific environmental
impacts) is necessary. The staff will at this time:review the steps
necessary to get an additional level: of information on noise and air
pollution impacts.
Extensive public hearings and public comment (oral and written) have
occurred and will continue for sometime. However, the law requires
that additional public hearings,and formal notice procedures be accomplished
after the EIR information is written up formally a The'ERC recommends that
the EIR information be part of an overall General .Plan Revision Study
report. This should be the most efficient way to proceed since formal
-EIR requirements cover much of the information. that has been considered
in the General Plan Revision Study.
-4-
INDUSTRIAL
RESIDENTIAL
O't��:bd'B�9ev
TO: Councilman Frolich
DATE: July, 27, 1973
FROM: Planning Director and Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Questions for staff, for my own edification (Frolich)
,t r`
Question le.. How many trips/day into DeAnza?
The'staff contacted DeAnza College to ascertain if any data had been
prepared regarding trips generated by students and faculty at the: campus..,
However,, no data was available at this time,.th,erefore as a reference,:;,'
the sixth progress report on trip ends generations research counts con
ducted by the State of California Department of ;Public Works was used ',z•
ito get a trip generating factor per student. Using_:Fobthill Coli4e as
an,example, the trips generated by each student was"1o4 '.DeAnza College
otila normal semester has 12,000 students. Therefore, the total`:tri'
generated per day at DeAnza College would be 16,800o Ano'ther.700,trip
ends ma ` be added for the faculty and e th Y administrati 'e y on.• p rsonnel o
,
This', ;then totaling 17,500 trip ends generated r by ,DeAnza -college , on any,..
one.` days
Question 20 Does traffic study, 1995, Vallco site, include.offi:ce
complex traffic?
Your, attention is directed to the enclosed attachment no. 6, which sets
forth a, chart of summary traffic, 1980-1995. You will note ;upon 'review-
ing the chart and the assumptions that in all cases in.Assumption Set 1
and'Assumption Set 2;. Other Vallco Park is indicated as being undeveloped.
The definition of Other Vallco Park is approximately 55 acres located
easterly -of Wolfe Road and southerly of Freeway Route 280. It ,is within
this'55 acres that it was ascertained that no commitment had been made
to;,Vallco Park for future development. The commitment was primarily }.
related to building permit issuance or use permit approval. The, proposed
office towers, although exhibited to the City.upon approval of the office-
structure that now exists at Stevens Creek and Wolfe_Road were not formally
approved., Therefore, the office facility is not 'a part in Assumption Set
lrand:'Assurtiption Set 2 of any of the traffic calculations. Also, as .noted
on Attachment 6, Assumption Set 3, entitled Other Vallco Industrial/Office,
does include the full development of Vallco Park in accordance with
original industrial office' -plans. In this column the multi -story office
structures are calculated as a part of the chart.
ar
i
1
To: Councilman Frolich
--------------------------------
July 27, 1973
---------------------------------
Question 3e If we developed a Pruneyard type center, and if it developed
85% of the"regional"sales with only 50% of the "regional1° floor space
(per proposal of Mr. Whitted) would traffic and other impacts be proportional
to floor area if 50% of the regional or proportional to sales,(for example,
85% of the regional)?
In order to answer the above question, inquiries were made with Palo Alto,.
San Jose, and Campbell to obtain any traffic flow data that they might
have with regard to the Pruneyard type shopping center that is proposed
to be constructed in the Town Center area. Unfortunately, none of the
cities contacted had any information that would help iif determining the
trips generated by this type of a development.
In talks with Don Goodrich,,the City's Traffic Consultant, it would
indicate that a Prune and t e of develo m t ld
y yp p en wou generate more traffic
than a regional shopping center, based on the fact that most of the stores
have parking adjacent to the front door enabling the shopper to park in
close proximity to the shop, enter, do its shopping and,then leave the -
center, thereby creating a large number of turnovers as compared
to the regional shopping center: where a shopper might spud more time at
the center, visiting more than one store. In all data prepared for the
Planning Commission and City Council, the traffic consultant used 45
trips generated per 1,000 sq. ft. of shopping area. If we are to assume
that a town and country type of development would generate 85% of a regional
if the development was 50% that of a regional shopping --center, the
-'trips generated would have to amount to 76.5 trips per 1,000 sq. ft.
The only data that was available ,' to compare this figure was the
shopping center comparison conducted by the State of California Department
of Public Works. Shopping Center with Square Footages Between 20,000 to
250,000 on an average generated 92.6 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. of shopping
area. Larger shopping centers with square footages of 250,000 to 500,000
which would be more closely in size to a Pruneyard'type`of development
generates on an average 58.8 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. This would indicate
that a town and country type,of development might create 60 trips per
1,000 sgo,ft<, which would follow that a reduction of 50% of surface
floor area might have a traffiu impact of 70 to 75%, that of a regional
shoppingcenter>
Question 4e Can Taubman go into the transit business as he proposes?
(reo PUC'- transit district competition, etc.)
The:City Attorneys office has been contacted relative to this question.
They, in turn, called the PUC for additional information. It was found
that in order for an individual to enter into this type of business, an
authority to do so would have to be issued by the PUG. It seems that the
PUG itself does not express great concern relative to this. Additionally,
Mr. Potts was contacted. He indicated that the district would want
assurances that the private system would be totally financed privately
and that the district would not be put in the position of acquisition
of the system in the future.
- 2-
Y
Too Councilman Frolich July 279 1973
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5e Who and when will make a presentation re: traffic with
- and without regional center, re: the tow columns with pink rope around
them-,. since public so far largely ignores them??
The traffic consultant is prepared to make such a presentation upon
request of the City Councils
Question 6. Re: Adams response Q. 25 - i.e. EIR on amendments to general
plan, Do we have to get EIR before we take a vote on regional shopping
center? Did we assess needs for EIR°s on general plan beforehand and have
we planned where and when we do•this, with Adam's concurrence? Do we do
one for whole G.P. amendment, or piecemeal?
The 'answer to this question depends upon the manner in which the Council
arrives at various individual decisions, as related to the whole. It is
our impression that the Council will arrive at a number of consensus votes
on the various aspects of the plan and then adopt..the amendment. There-
fore, a.consensus vote as to the center can be taken without an EIR.
-','There`.is no question that before final adoption of a general plan amend-
ment an 1°EIR" must be provided° As to assessment of the needs for an
EIR beforehand it is my opinion that the, majority of the\environmental
impacts have been properly addressed in the General Plan work to date,
there are two areas that additional work must be undertaken, they being,,,
air and noise pollution primarily related to traffic. Thiswill probably
require retention of outside assistance.
rt
-3-
Cit'4 of Cupertino
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
DATE: July 26, 1973
FROM-. James H. Sisk, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Inventory of Land Use Changes
Attached is a comprehensive inve4t,ory, of the properties involved in the core
area. The parcels are grouped according to their subarea classification and
by their assessor's parcel Au r., We have enclosed two maps -for your
refer I ence, one indicating the xsu areas I specifically evaluated in the core
area study and the other indidating:'the assessor's:, parcel numbers for the
'.
properties: n'.the core area.. The information contained on the inventory
includethe current use the '6q'iren�t,,, "Zoning, the,Geheral Plan recommendation,,
the acreage the assessed I and J:V beand' the
ie assessed improvement for each
parcel in the core.
The information for this study was obtained from the County Assessor's Office.
,The figures were compiled fr='Il`972-73and.1973-74 data. The reason for this
t, 4
imexange is due to the length -of;t1te that it took for the staff.to compile
the data and the fact that the Cbun-ty,is still in the process of bringing
their 1972-73-figures'up to da,te., 'A cross check of some I of the parcels
indicated that there was not a' significant ficant enough,difference between the
two tax years that would invalidate the inventory.
The assessed values presented are equal to 25%,of, the market value of the-e
property so by multiplying the_figures in the column by'4 you will have an
idea of the current value Of the parcel. , The COunty"S,. method. of assessmett�
as it affects individual properties . I involves a great many fdctors that, are
beyond the scope of this, reportAthestaff intendedthis inventory to serve
as a.reference to aid. in the analysis of the land us&:changes recommended by
the Planning 'ComTln 'is s ion.
MARKET VALUE
i
PR'OPOS'E"D,;.PARK, SITE.,S" IN CORE . AREA.
(Based on
`1973-1974 As,sessorB
Noxthwes,t "co.rn;er of.
Stevens Greek Bottle:VArd and Ste11i'n.g Rpad.,
Acres o
l2 0 43:4'
Lando
$417i; 9;`20,
Total o' $ '. 417 , 920
Improvements"o
0
Nor;thwest.corner of,
St, eyons Creek Boulevard and Highway 9
Acres o
2 < 77
L_aiido
$296,264
Votalo $ 33593,64
Improvements:°;
$,"39,100
North side --of - Stevens" Greek. Boulevja-kd
fzr"bin;. Highway ;9." to. Vista '
Acres o
6.a40.1
Lando
$"798"2;3.8
Tat al $1,148,636
Improvements:
$350,3.;4:8
TOTAL MARKET.VALUEo
$1,901920
Mar=ke.t V 1 u e cal;cul"at,ed by:mu"ltip''ly:ing. Assessed Value `6y 4,
TO: The Honorable Mayor and,,Members
of the 'City - CouncilDATE. July 14, ;1973
FROM. James Ho Sisk, Planning Director
III
Appraised.;Values For:
1 d f T C t Tat4-au A�enuo
South side of
Stevens Creek
Bou evar
roan own en er o
Parcel -Nos.
use
,.Acres
Land ITprovements
371®6-22
Adobe
1,05
$18,310
$ 69570
23
Nit'e Cap
1.78
259460
34.9625.;
24
Burger Pit
.278
13,000.
7,,610
25>
n
Blaey Center
o373
8�100'
16�970
`740
27
Parking lob
1016
229870
28
Custom House
1,088,
23,7010
38`9 080
29
ao 00
.618
8 060` :
590
371-8-14
7®11'type
o997
5;9990
1,500..
17
V e parking
o`516?
39750'
400:
28
Gas.
08$1
409867
89430
29
Pasta Vino
a440.
11961:0
1$971Q
31 '
V
100"
18`9800
0
32
V
1 o 10'
18 9 :800;
100
- 41
V;
4 0 04:
96,790 790;
0
42
V
o 07
18,9 000
0
40
V
9.77 '
191.9510
0,
371-34-84...>
199"850
29844
85
Mayfair
2 0 34
119 52:0
46,310
86
2898®®'
69500
Gas,
35.15Q
118„r.
Dv"o119110.
119400
'120
House , of P11
�
1;7 , 412
17,887
371®9®34
V
0'37
309225.
0
41
V
o 75 ,
1"6 340'F
0
40
V
2a71
539160
0
19
V
' l 0 2`47
219 600,
0
376®1®3
Paysl3on "
409.8
." i0'89460` ' ", "-
13"39610 . .
Total
38 O'5'18
$ 878 9.23.9'
- $ 3.34 166
j
�® Proposed.Park Acquisition Costs by Assessed Valuation
Saich. -`Northwest Corner of Stevens Creek.,Boulevard
and
-Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road
Parcel Nos.
Use
Acres
Land °
Iarovemorits
326�34-2
V
0361;
$ 99427
i
i3O
15
,-:
il>�
0353
3�,215.;
0
40
Gas Station
377
289525
1�215;
:39
Steak House:
187f,
49420'..
49350:
30
V> ..
0 311 „"
4 9 210 '
30®:. .
41
House
a 84.4..„
15,357
19.910
25
House,,
0165
49620"
1�250
27�
House �;
�0179
49�2�.:
750=
To al
2078
$ 74:056
$ 9,7Z5
t
81,003
RESOLUTION NO 1183
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 0? THE CITY 0 CUPE.RTINO
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1964 GENERAL PLAN
CONCERNING THE LAND USE ELEMENT FOR THE CORE AREA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission as a part of the comprehensive General Plan
study has concluded its deliberations relative to the Core Area of the
community,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL'IED
1. That the Planning Commission: hereby approves an amendment to the 1964 General
Plan land use element "Core Area", as set forth in Exhibit A, A-1 and A-2,
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That` -the -Planning Commission authorizes the Planning Commission Chairman
to endorse said approval as provided for on Exhibit A.
3. That the Planning Commission further transmits the approved documents to
the City Council for their considerationand adoption.
SUMMAR.X EXPLANATION OF ADOPTED LAND USEDESIGNATIONS AND STANDARDS
OF CITY'OF.CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT A-2
SUMMARY OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND CONCLUSIONS.
The following principles emerged from the'General Plan land use review
and evaluation process:
-The Highway 9 area from Steven's CreekBoulevardto I-280 should be
developed in low intensity uses.
o The Stevens Creek area from Highway 9 to Wolfe Road should be
developed in low intensity uses.
Physical improvements,(setbacks9 etc.) should be implemented to
guarantee that Highway 9,:and Stevens Creek Boulevard develop an
attractive low intensity identity for Cupertino:
An area for uniquely designed community -oriented activities should
be developed at the intersection of Highway 9 and Stevens Creek
Boulevard. This area should be surrounded by uses which will
accentuate -its focus as the, Town Center of Cupertino.
Vallco Park should continue as the regional activity node in the
City:
Sufficient fiscal resources should be developed to allow for_the
achievement of the above objectives.
Appropriate ordinances should be adopted to encourage and require
the assemblage of smaller parcels in order that they may b`e.
developed as a whole in appropriate planned development.
The major finding and key issues related to the adopted land uses designated
for. the regional shopping center, other commercial uses except neighborhood
?_ commercial and non-commercialuses have been summarized according to'the
-1-
following evaluation criteria used by the Planning Commission;.
Fiscal Impacts
Traffic
Character of City
Specific Neighborhood Impacts
Variety of Commercial Functions
Distribution of Impacts
o. Other Goals
REGIONAL CENTER
Major Finding
There are substantial positive fiscal impacts and negative traffic impacts
associated with the development of '.a regional center in Cupertino. The location
of the center in. Vallco Park as opposed to the Mariani site
O is compatible with the character of Vallco Park and will continue the
development of regionally -oriented activities in a regional activity
node.
(2) will allow the development of a low intensity character f or the
Highway 9 area between Stevens Creek and.I-280o
(3) will allow the development of a community -oriented town center focus
for Highway 9 and Stevens Creek intersection area.
The positive fiscal impacts of the center in the Vallco Park site together
with the positive impacts on the character of the City created by low intensity
development in the Highway 9 area outweigh the negative traffic impacts and are
Two possible sources of difference
in fiscal impacts between the'34ariani and 'Vallco. locations .were di.scusRed by-,
the Planning Commiss.ion.
(1) The feasibility issue--whethex there would'actually be the same
number of stores in each location --was argued by the developers..
(2) There iss-a probable difference in the -road costs associated with
each location. There Will be approximately $100,000 in annual road
costs for widening Highway 9 between -'Stevens Creek and Highway 280
which will be required whether or :not. the Regional Center develops
and would be paid for by thedeveloper if the center is located
at Mariani. If'th.e center is located at Vallco these costs will
probably be financed partially by alternate developments along.
Highway 9 and partially by the State or City.
Traffic Impact (See Attachments 6 and 7). One issue was the relative
ability. of each developer to get State support and funding for the road, inter-
cha-4izeand,overpass facilities reauired.by each center. Another issue was the
relative impact of each center site on adjoining neighborhoods. A third issue
was the extent to which the trafficimpacts were avoidable in each area.
The Planning .Con-flhission finds that:
(1) There was no substantial basis for distinguishing ation&tfie.site on
the basis of state road plans.
(2) Some traffic impacts were avoidable to the extent that very low
density land .,uses -were substituted implying that Vallco Park
would be stopped at nearly the present level of development.
OTHER COMMERCIAL
Major Finding
A. The TmmzCenter will have a positive impact on-,
(1) The character of the Cityand.goals-including unique.design, community -
oriented functions, and focal point for the community.
-3-
(2) Surrounding neighborlhood, part cularly . the' City IHal1 and -remainder
of Highway:g/Stevens` Creek intersection.
(3) City fiscal -resources.
The above positive impacts outweigh the negative traffic impacts
Bo Additional agglomerated: commercial development_outside-of the Town Center
will not produceoverall positive impacts as compared with the Town Center.
{1). There is no substantial positive impact on the character of ,City.
(2) Commercial needs of Cupertino residents are satisfied'by existing and
proposed commercial development located in. the City of Cupertino, and
existing and potential commercial development in the surrounding region.
The positive impacts on City fiscal resources from additional agglomerated
commercial development outsid.e,the Town Center are not sufficient to outweigh
the above negative impacts and negative traffic impacts.
Ca Additional strip commercial development will not produce overall positive
impacts.
(1) The impact on the character of the City and on surrounding neighborhoods
is negative.
(2) Traffic impacts are more negative than for agglomerated commercial.
(3) Commercial needs of Cupertino residents are satisfied by existing and
proposed commercial development located in the City.of Cupertino, and
existing and potential commercial development in the surrounding region.
(4) The ,positive fiscal impacts are not sufficient to outweigh the negative
impacts above.
Key Issues
One issue -was on -the -feasibility of additional.commercial''activitye. The
Planning Commission worked with the following information on feasibility,
-4-
(1) Strip and singleuse commercial development is possible . on the .
- frontage.oif.all zoned commercial;aexeag'e in. the coxe area as :of
1973 'and. would produce an additional 64 acres°:
(2) .. Addi.tion:al. agglomer.a.ted ..commercial development .is feasible up to a,.
maximum of 500, 000 sq o f t o
(3) The creation of additional stripcommercial development would partially
compete.in terms of land area and function with the -creation of addi-
tional agglomerated commercial development.
Feasibility addresses the question', "How much..additional commercial develop -
went can Cupertino get?" The principal basis for decision making was the evalua-
tion of additional commercial activity, not the feasibility of additional commer-
cial in Cupertino. In other words, in the final analysis the key question was,
"How much' additional commercial development does Cupertino want?", not the
question, "How much. commercial development can Cupertino get?" A detailed
description of:the existing and.proposed commercial development by amount and
type of function was an important input into commercial land -use decision
f-
making.
i
Another issue in the discussion of commercial.development was the distibu-
f.,
tion:of impacts —that is the elimination of some potential commercial land use'
E
would have negative'impacts on particular landowners. There was considerable
discussion on how these impacts should b,e taken into account versus the positive
impacts on the rest of the community.
NON-COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
IMaj or..Einding l:'_:
A. The impacts o.n-thelcharacter of the City from_continuing the development
of Vallco Park as a regional activity node are positive.
The fiscal impacts are slightly positive.
- 5-
The traffic impacts are potentially :sub.st:antially negative. ..The'.deta: ls,.
of the'relationship:b:etween required road improvements and further.develop--
" . ment of Yallco Park are set foxth.. in the; attached_ :.memo 0
There are negative impacts on s.pecfic.n.eighborhoods from. the continuation
of development in vallco Park, :however,.,:.,.the` positive ,fiscal. impact's.. and_ impacts
on the character of the City outweigh. -the negative impacts in.specific neighbor-
hoods subject to the implementation of a plan -to control traffic impacts. (See
Attachment 8)
Be Highway 9 - Stevens Creek to I---280
Major Finding
The impact on the character of the City and on specific neighborhoods from
low intensity uses is positive.
The impact on traffic from high intensity uses is substantially negative
The fiscal impacts from industrial/office usesi-,( xcluding road costs) are
slightly positive. The fiscal impacts from residential uses are slightly
negative (including parkcosts)°
Industrial/off ice and commercial uses of sufficiently low intensity to
create the same traffic impact as residential are either not feasible or would
have to be physically developed,in..such a manner that there would be negative
impacts on the goals for the Highway 9-area.,
All impacts of residential development compared to other land uses were
positive with the .excep°tion of a slight negative fiscal impact which was not
suffiei ent ' to outweigh the positive impacts.
Key Issues
one issue was the di aribution of impacts. There will .be negative impacts
on particular landowners from residential land -uses as compared with industrial/
office .or, commercial land'..uses on their. propextye Related to- this is the issue
of whether the City has a "commitment to particular landowners. There was
_n
-6-
considerable di.scuasi.on. about how negative IMP on .parti.culax landor�xners.. should
be weighed aga.ns.t.positive impacts on.the.rest of the community.
Another issue was the evaluation of`lbw,,,.. ntehsity uses wother than residential.
The finding- on that .issue is shown above.
C. Stevens Creek Town. Center to Wolfe Road
Major Finding
The impact -on the character of the City and on surrounding neighborhoods from
low intensity uses is positive.
The analysis of additional strip commercial development showed that it
produces -overall negative impacts.
The existing strip commercial development does not produce positive impacts
and should not:be part of the long run land use pattern in Cupertino.
Key Issues
The distribution of impacts issue was discussed. Another issue was the
ability to implement a plan for phasing out existing strip commercial development,
-7-
DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND STANDARDS -0,F LAND u$E DESICNATIQNS
WITHIN -THE CORE AREA.
EXHIBIT A--1
Northwest corner of gtevens Creek:Boul.evard and Stellin.g Road
The area designated as parks shall`be.acquir.ed by the City as an extension
to Memorial Park. The area designated as residential to be developed at a
density of 4 to 10 dwelling units per acre.
Southwest.and Southeast corners of the intersection. of Homestead Road and
Stelling Road
The area designated as commercial shall be developed with general commercial
uses. The area designated residential 12 to 16 shall be developed residentially
.:at a density of between 12 and 16 dwelling units per acre.
Northwest, Southwest and Southeast quadrants of the intersection of Homestead
Road and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road
The area designated in the northwest corner as residential 12 to 16 shall be
developed at a residential density of between 12 and 16 dwelling units per
acres
The area in the southwest corner designated as general commercial shall be
developed with general commercial uses.
The area within the southeast corner shall'be developed at a residential
density of between 4 and 12 dwelling unitsperacre.,
West and East sides of Highway 9 between Stevens Creek Blvd. and Interstate
Freewav 280
The area designated residential development-4 to 10 on either side of Highway
9 provides for the development of residential dwelling units at an intensity,
of between 4 and 10 dwelling units per acre. The site design and the setback
requirements for the frontages adjacent to Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road shall, be
-1-
in conformance with a street beautificat%on plan for Saratoga-Sunnyvale.toad
as approved.by the Architectural, and Site Control Committee, the Planning
Commission and the City council.
The area designated as commercial shall.be developed with commercial uSes.
The areas within the extreme northwest"an:d northeast corners of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Saratoga-Sunnyvale'Road designated as park land are intended
to serve as public open space. The area designated as quasi -public represents
the land owned by the Catholic Church which is to be utilized for religious
and educational purposes.
The area designated as.residential 4 to 7.6 permits a residential development
providing for 4 to 7.6 residential units per acre.
TOWN CENTER (southeast quadrant of intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd. and
Sarat6ga-Sunnyvale Road)
The area designated as.the town center should be.,a planned development with
a commercial intensity of approximately 250,000 sq. ft., of floor area and
with the remaining area providing a mixture of residential uses with land
use density of.between 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre..
The allotted commercial square footage is to be developed with community
oriented uses which are unique in character and provide for a variety of
social and cultural activities and specialized merchandise.
SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD (south of Town Center)
The land area designated as professional office and general commercial.represents
an inf illing within the existing an use pattern in the area° The -land area
designated as .quasi -public provides for the expansion of the existing civic
center facility.
-2-
...... ....
North side . o;� Stevens. Creek Blvd. between Tis,ta Dris e anal: Postal :Avenue
The land area.desgnated..xes,ident,al 4 to 12 sha:ll..be.developed.xesidentially'
witha density of'4 to 12.dwelling units. per acre.
SOUTH SIDE OF STEVENS CREEK ROULEVARD, between Town.Center and the East City
limit line
The area is designed as residential land -use, 4-12, to be developed with a
residential density of 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre. The areas denoted
as commercial shall be developed by commercial uses which are compatible to
existing commercial uses within each separate subarea as noted on the map.
Each area to be developed south of Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be developed
in a manner to conform to an approved street design plan for Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
VALLCO PARK
The area designated as regional shopping within 'Vallco Park is to be utilized.
as the site for a Regional Shopping Center, with a total square footage not
to exceed 1,600,000 sq. ft.
The area designated as commercial within the southeast quadrant of the inter-
section of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge is to be utilized for the expansion of
the Hilton Hotel site as approved by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The remaining acreages within Vallco Park are designated as 'Planned Industrial/
Office Park, providing for the development of that area in.a manner that is
relative to roadway improvements and traffic handling capacities of the area.
This provides for the monitoring of developments relative to land use intensity,
employment density.and construction phasing.
�3-
POSSIBLE OPEN SPACE ACQUISTION AS:""A 'RESULT, OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Northwest corner of Stellin:g Road aiid'
Stevens :Creek;;
Boulevard
TOTAL
Acreage `'
- 12 ,.434 J4Land' -� $.104 9 480:`
. ILL proyemerit 0
_. Owner,
Aeres:
,:Land
I proyement_
326�-29 '15 .
Robert 'Saich
9 0.;10
$79 9.20.0
i
0"
l6
John Saich
1.086
14,880
0
17
ofin Saich
024
2,400
0
'18
Robert Saich `.
0617 :
49000
0>
19
Robert.,Saich
o'617 =.
49000'
0
I
The above figures (also Page I), ar-e
the ;assessed
values f.or the
t
I
property;° .
I,
Tle .true"
value"'may b:e found by` multiplying these numbers 'by. 4a
f
i
•i
,
2,
r
POSSIBLE OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION AS A RESULT OF THE GENERAL PLAN -
Stevens Creek from Saratoga -Sunnyvale
Road to
Vista Drive
TOTAL-
Acreage.-
6.401
*Land - $199 , 522
*Improvement - ',87 �:5g
Owner
Acres
*Land
*Improvement
316-26- 6
Charles Baer
.41
$10,780
$500
17
National Life &
Accident Insurance Co.
.50'
37,412
6,067
18
Joseph Lodato
1,0,47
36,980
0
23
Lisabel Bell
.009
29300
200
24
Grace Parrish
.009
2,300.
0
25
ra rr
.37
9,690
900
27
Mildred Scott
o29
89890
13,900
28
Albert Russo
<18
4,860
17,680
32
Jo Re & Mary Dempster
ol8
4,860
37,180
34
William Kelly
o20
5,420
800
35
Pa Bo Wilson
e01
3,240
2,920
36
Brien Wilson
o223
6,630
35,580
38
Joseph Lodato
.24
69390
0
39
rr yr
o 26` .
6,820
0
40
Dempster
o18
49860
39860
316-25-12
HRM Inca
.34
9,000
0
14
Ferne Conlon
.95
209690
0
16
Mario Barbieri
.58
189400-
0
(contrdo)
Appraised Values .Ford
Vista Drive;
to Wolfe. Road on
the north siG1e.
of Stevens
Creek Boulevard
Parcel Nos.
Use
AeYes `.
Land
improvements
316®24m:5
Firehouse
County
®�®�
8.
Car Dealer
1 65
$41,510..
$ 5';P470,.
ll
Lumber
1.12 -'
9 '650
4,300>
316-23-17
28 ;
5 - 610 .
1., 780
22
Coim<_. Office:
1 7.8','',
31,240
20,490
25
Rouse
89
15,620-
1,000
26
Mouse
1 79.:`.
31 9190
l00
27
Furniture
o63
13,8.30
19,480._.
24
Gas Station
o331
32,375
13,340
32
�' 4.96"
1�1440.
300'
33
CIT Finance
R115`"
3,250
6,970
36
:;
7®ll
237
7,820
8,500
37
121
3 '500
0
31621®6
Don Burgers
o46
7,736
1,500:
29
Front °s
Y
ho7
37,570
72,580
31'Furniture
l .7 ".:
35 ,170
35 , 700
32
Don ° s Burgers.43
:
13, 270
2J, 225
33
V
7
31, 220 '
100
34
V
2069 '
46,85'0
100`
316-20-16
Portal Plaza-
2 43 _.
519920
5,527.
18
.44
32,102
Gas Station
192023
48,570.
43,600 -
27
Sears '
i 7 ,05
436 , 89:5 ' `
1, 259 , 95,2
Total
40e27
$95'8,332
$1,521,014
COMBINED SCHOOL DISTRICTS
CITY OF CUPERTINO
General Fund Total Net Before Capital Costs
Alternatives
Costs Revenues Net
Costs Revenues Capital Costs Parks Roads
Net Fiscal Impact
Regional Shopping Center -
0
$60,000
$60,000
$ 79,000
$1,032,000
'$ 953,000
Mariani Mall
-1,266,000
-1,187,000
0
Regional Shopping Center -
0
60,000
60,000
79,000
1,032,000
953,000
Vallco Park
-1,266,000
-1,187,000
Residential - Mariani
$19;000
22,000
3,000
140,000
145,000
5,000
$65,000
Industrial - Vallco Park
0
12,000
12,000
10,000
19,000
9,000
0
No Regional Shopping Center
19,000
34,000
15,000
150,000
164,000
14,000
65,000
Remainder of Core
19,000
62,000
43,000
180,000
416,000
236,000
65,000
0
$171,000
Attachment #2
ASSUMPTIONFOR CITY FISCAL IMPACT
RFGIONAT 'CENTER ;
Assessed
Value m
$l5 mz llion
Sales
$?04 �130 million
Cost.
Revenue ,
Police'"
$79 , 000 .::
Pro,perty Tax
$ 461000
Sales T4x $9 6A000:
.
$ 1�170.9000.
Other
$ 509Q .Q
Total $19032,000
$ 1;.26& 000.
MARIAN! RESIDEN.T:IAL .
Assessed
Value
- $209000 D> Uo.:<.'' .
19000 DX°s;.:
Cost
Revenue
Police e
$ 54 9000.
Proper ty Tax
$ .15 900®
Other .®
8C 9000
Sales Tax17950.0-
Su]., vent
53 900
_Total
$140,000
Other
9000
S9jl
,-;:
`$1449500
VALLCO INDUSTRIAL
' Assessed
Value
$3'millon
Cost
Revenue
Police
$10:=000
Property -Tax
Qther.
10'000
$199000
Attachment #3
Pi
Wolfe
1.1,300;000`
104,000
280 Interchange
1000,,000.:..
89,000
Tantau Overpass
75,0,9000
60,QQG*
9 - ,Stevens Crko-Bollinger
(4-6)
100'9000
8,'00'0
255'9:0&0
20,000
9 - 280 to Homestead
(4-6)
320;000
2:5,000.
(6-8)-
1109000
990'0`0
Stevens Crko - 9 to Wolfe
550000'
44,00`Q
Wolfe - Tantau
1109000,.
9,00:0
a4 Required without Regional Center
�..
IMPORTANCE OF ALTER 'VE LAND
USES TO
CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
Attachment #5
LAND USE
CONTRIBUTION TO:STATE CONTRIBUTION TO LOCAL
LOCAh''C0`NTRIBUThON FOR
.ASSESSED
TOTAL LOCAL
PROGRAM AID FOUNDATION FOUNDATION PROGRAM
ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES
`.VALUATION
TAX RATE PER
$100-A.V.
1973-74 Status quo
1$8.8 million $7.4 million
$205 million
$334 million
$3.47
1973-74 plus regional
shopping center
8.4 7.8
2.5
$3..49 "
$3.42
1973-74 plus 7,000
new homes 5.000
11.8 " 8.2 IT3,1
°°
369 °'
3051
9
new students
197327-4 plus 7,000
new homes, no new
8.0 '°
8.0 '°
2.5 °`
369 '"
3.35
students
1973-74 plus doubl-
ing industrial A.V.
8.6 °'
7.6 "
2.5
341 `-`
3e44
in Va11'co Park
1972-73 S tatia quo
4.9 Po
3 0 2. ,°__
9.4 eP
320 oQ
4.44
1972-73 plus regional
shopping .center
4 e 75 ��
3 0 35 `°
9.4 `°
335 00
4 0 3p
1972-73 plus 7,000
new homes, 5,000
6,,6
3.5 '°
11.8 °°
353 °°
4.77
new students
j'
Attachment
FISCAL YEAR
1.972=73
Expendit--ores Per A.D.A. $ 811
Average -Daily Attendance 22,900
T.o-tal Expend±.tur'es $ 18.6 million
Total Foundation :Program
Expenditures $ 8.1 million
Foundation Program Expenditures
Per A.D.A. $ :355
Total Asses.sed'Valuation $ 320 million
Local .Tax Rate Requ.i:r.ed ,for
Foundation Program $ 1.00 per` $100
A.V.
Lo.cal._Contribution to Foundation
Program $ 3a2 million
State Contribution to Foundation
Program $ 4.9 million
Additional Local Expenditures $ 10.5 million
Additional -Local Expenditures
Per A.D.A. $ 456
To.tal Assessed Valuation $ 320 million
Local Tax Rate Required for
Additional Local-Expen:ditwres $ 2094 per $100
A.V.
Local Contribution $.904 million
Ar• eawd-e Aid -
Total Local Contribution $ 1206 million
Local Tax Rate $ 3.94 per $100
for Operating A.V.
Expenditures
Local Tax Rate for $ .50
Capital Items
Total Local,Ta..x Rate $ 4.44
Additional
_
Local Expenditures
$`2e5:milli®n
Ota1 Foundation Program
-.
Expen litures
17.1
m ll.zon
n.
Ad"ditioal
Local Experid1uro-
=
.:,
Foundatzon:; Program ::Expenditures
der AoD.oA ,o
$
111
Per AaD _A�'
$ 765
Total 'Assessed Valuation -
$
334-million
Too-sled �Valuatlon
$ 334
" million
Local Tax ate Required or
Local. Tax.ate Required for
Additional
Local Expenditures
$
7"5 per $100
Found=ati®n :Proggram :
0
$ 222
er 100
P $
-Ao57o
:.
.:.
AoV
s acai 0onrabution
$
2 5 ;mi ion
Local` Contribution to Foundation
_
Program
$ 7 0:4
million -
Areawide
"
State-;Conr�bution to Foundation
Pr®grain
$ �a3
million
Total
1�oca1 �on� . Ib.ul ..ion $ .
9 0 9 million ,
Loca3
�.ax Rate for
$
2 097 per 100.._
$
Opeati�g Expenditures
AoVo
Local
Tax Rave fo.r:
Capital Items`.
a50
Total
Local"T,ax Rate
$;3047
�Attat"
nt #6
.y
1p
_d
SMMARY.TRAFFIC
1980-1995.
ASSUKPT_ION SET 1
ASSUMPTION SET 2
EXISTING
WITHOUT'AEGION
REGIONAL CENTER
REGIONAL CENTER
WITHOUT REGION
REGIONAL CENTER
REGIONAL CENTER
1973
CENTER
MARIANI
VALLCO
CENTER
M.ARIANI
V!`,LI.C.O
1.
Highway 9-Bollinger to Stevens
Creek
4
6 5,.
8
7.3
7.0
8+
7.5+
Some
High::
High
High
Near
High
2.
Highway 9-Stevens Creek
Intersection
Congestion
CongesL:on
Breakdown
Congestion
Congestion
Breakdown
Congestion
3.
Highway 9-Stevens Creek
to 280
4
6
9+ Torre
6
6.5+
9+ Torre
6.5+
Some
High
High
4.
Highway 9=280 Ramps
Congestion
Congest�:on
Congestion
Congestion /
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
5.
Stevens Creek -Highway 9
to Wolfe
6
c 6+
7+
7+
6.5
7.5
7.5
6.
Stevens Creek -Wolfe to Tantau
6
6
6.5
7.2
6.5
6.5-F
7.5
7.
Tantau
Not
Constructed
4
4
4.
4
4
4
8.
Miller Rd. -Bollinger to
Stevens Cr.
4(4)
4
4
4.5
4+
4+
4.5
Some
Some
Some
Some
Some
9.
Wolfe Rd. -Stevens Creek
Intersection
Congestion
Congest9.Ln
Congestion
Congestion+
Congestion
Congestion+
Congestion+
10.
Wolfe Rd. -Stevens Creek
to 280.
6
6
6
9
6.5
6.5
9
Some
Some
11.
:golfe Rd.-280 Ramps
Good
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
12.
Pruneridge
4
4 ..:,
4_
4
4
4
4 .
Some
Some
13.
Homestead at Wolfe Rd.
Good
Congesti->a
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Some
Some '.
High
Some
High
14.
Homestead at Highway 9
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
15.
"230 East of Wolfe Rd,
6
9+
9.2
9.2
9+
9+
9+
16.
280 Wes[ of Highway 9
6
a
9.2
9.2
9+
9+
9+ '
6-28-73
ASSU',TTION SET 3
WITHOUT .REGIONAL CENTER
OTHER VALLCO
OTHER VALLCO I:TiSTRIAL/
UNDEVELOPED OFFICE
8
Near
Breakdowm
9+ Torre
High
Congestion
7.5+
7
4
4+
Congestion
8.5+
Congestion
4
Congestion
High
Congestion
9+
5+
8.5
Near
Breakdown
9+ Torre
Sigh
Corges t ion
8
11
4
5 .
;rear
Breakdown
l0
`.: ear
Breakdown
:year
Breakdown
High
Congestion
10
10
Attachment #6 cont`do
ASSUMPTION SET #1 -
Mariani Regional Center
West of Highway 9 - 2 Commercial, 2 'Residential
Town Center -- Commercial
Stevens Creek - Residential
Vallco —Undeveloped
Other Vallco - Undeveloped
e Mariani
- Undeveloped
a , West of
Highway 9 = Undeveloped .
a Town. Center - Commercial
e Stevens
Creek - Commercial,
Vallco
- Regional Center
a Other Vallco - Undeveloped'
Mariani
_ Undeveloped
West of
Highway 9 - Undeveloprrl _
'^ )tTr_ C n'- r - , oT �r =x C al
o Stevens
Creek - Commercial
Vallco
- Undeveloped e
Other Vallco - Undeveloped
,7 f
a
Attachment #6 cont ° d o
QUESTIONS ON TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT
1. o Do objectives require unique development?
2e Can unique development be indu:ced.by ordinance?
3. Combined vs. separate devel;o:pment of parcels --
Achievement of objectives
Impacts on owners
4e Implications for remaindbr of intersection?
7-73 1
REGIONAL CENTER.
--. VALLC'O
o Mnrkani - Residential.
West of Hwy. 9
- Residential
Tenn _C-enter -
Commer6.i&
e Stevens Creek
- Commereial'
e Vall.eo Regional
Center.
Other Valleo =
I
Undevelope'd
7-7
July 16, 1973
CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM
EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
ACREAGES FOR VARIOUS USE CLASSIFICATIONS WITHIN CORE AREA
:EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
,Total Acreage in Core 908 (a) Total acreage in Core 908 (a)
Commercial
Developed
Pending
Undeveloped
Industrial
Developed
Undeveloped
Office
463 (b)
121 (c)
21 (d)
321
290 (e) ..
126
164
63(e)
Developed 20
Undevel.o:p`ed 43
66
17
9
0
908
Commercial
Developed
Pending
Undeveloped
242 (b)
112(c),_
21 (d)
109
Planned Office/Indus tr.a:l 307 (e )
Developed
113
Undeveloped
194
Conventional Office
15(e)
Developed
11
Undeveloped
4
Residential
2.72
Williamson
17
PublicandQuasi"Public
34
Park 21:
908
(a) Core Area'Map dated 6/7/73
(b)_ Includes land designated for commercial.land use in Planned Development.
(.c) The discrepancy between existing<=zoned. developed an.d.proposed General Plan developed
results from the proposed reclassification of 12 existing commercially zoned anal
developed: acres to residential uses and conversely the•redesign.ation of 3 acres of
developed but unzoned commercial. to a commercial land use.
(d) Additions to existing shopping centers.
(e) Under the proposed General Plan columns industrial and office uses in Vallco Park
are combined and designated as Plan.ned`Office/In:dustrialo The 22. acres discrepancy
between developed office and indus'trial lunder current zoning and developed ,Planned
Office/Industrial and conventional office under General Plan revision is a result
of proposal to rezone 20®aere Mar ani Packing Plant and 2-acre De Anz& Lumber Company
from industrial to residential and commercial.
July 16, 1973
CITY OF C.UPERTINO :GENERAL-PLA.N.,PROGRAM
-(Inventor`-y�.of-"Other1° Comin g=rcfal S.quare�
Foota'.ge,. in: Cupertino)
°
Noteo Commercial square foopag.e
s
figure`
are 'es"timated ba`se,d
u on a ratio
of �O,OOO sgare ;fee;t"
of commercial
floor area per net a.`cre,
of lan.da
The- net. nacre fzg:ures.'
-ar.e based upon
the: 'Gore : Area General
, P1an Amendment
adopaed "by t°he .P>lann'ing- Commission
EXIS'.TING COMMERCIAL: SQUARE ;FOOT"AGE
._.
Exis,.-ting` Without,; Sears .
G'emco
Ge
88,000
Cup'e,rtino Grossroaiis
150,000
Va11co Village
70,000
2 iv IPb ."(Hoin.estea d S qiare).
65",000
H° 9. Bollinger , to, Stevens Creek
1"50,000,
Stevens "`C"reek - `DeAnia- &6 H:° 9
11.0 9000
Steven"s `Creek `- 'H° 9 to T"antaix
14.3;000
776,000
FI1L1N
Home tead. .S;guare
60,000
Stevens `Creek - DeArza ,to Ho 9
105,000 "
H° 9 Bo11nge"r" to :Stevens ;Cre"e°k :'
9.5,000
St"evens Creek. H 9` to.''T.antau
35 9000_
295,000
REGIONAL SHOPPING .CENTERr WL:T;H, S;:EA-RS
1 6.00,000
N.EW . AGG-L.OME•RATION
Town Center.
250,000''
-TOTAL; 2.992J I000.`.
CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM
Attachment #7
PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS
n
._.Att.ach.ment # 8
r .
TO: The Honorable Chairman and
Members of the Planning Commission DATE: July 12, 1973
FROM. Director of Public Works, Bert J. Visk.ovich
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION PHASING FOR VALLCO PARK
A meeting was held to clarify some of the land use assumptions and related
traffic facility requirements with Don Goodrich, JHK, traffic consultant for
the City of Cupertino; Walter Ward, General Manager of Vallco Park;,Hans Korve
and Mike Kennedy, De "L,euw Cather and Company; and Jim Sisk and Pert Vzsicovirh,
City of Cupertino.
The following is a summary of what was discussed and mutually arrived at as
a solution for the street construction phasing of Vallco Park. The staging
would indicate the "breakpoints" when construction will be necessary. Four
categories were established in order to group the different land uses in
Vallco Park as they relate to the commitments made by the City. Attached is
a map to indicate the properties render consideration.
Cate Cary I E.�st�n; Develomen and Approved
The existing developments are facilities that already exist
in Vallco Park. The approved facilities are the Iand uses
that have been approved by the City but have not yet been
constructed The approved would be as follox%rs e
1. Hilton. Hotel - Phase 1
421 rooms and one tower' (12-1)
2. Financial Office.- Phase l
3. Westfield - Phase 1 (W-1
4e Four Phase (24)
Category II Committed
These land uses consist of areas in Vallco Park which are
termed as committed Tine parcels are as follows:
1
y p
Planning Commission
Construction'Phasing - Vallco Park
MEL
July 12, 1973
Page .2
1. Westfield - Phase 2 (W-2)
20 Watkins -Johnson (8)
3. Hewlett-Packard - Phase 2 (9-2)
4. Hewlett-Packard - Phase 3 (9-3)
5. Hilton Hotel - Phase 2 (12-2)
Category III -Regional Shopping Center (16)
Category IV - Uncommitted
The land uses under this category are the remaining portion of
Vallco Park which are termed.. uncommitted. These include the
followings
to Professional office area,
Pruneridge west of Wolfe Road (5)
2, The financial center -- Phase 2 (18-2)
.3. Southeast corner of Pruneridge and Tantau (W-3)
4. Three parcels located east of Finch
and South of #280 (20, 21, 22)
5. The northwest corner of Pruneridge
and Tantau Avenue (23)
The following is the staging of the street improvements that will be
necessary in order to support the.phasing development in Vallco Parke The
stages indicated below will represent the "point -In time" when improvements
must be completed in order to mitigate the traffic flows anticipated by
today°s standards and the data at hands
Stake _I
All of the Category I may be.constructed without any,additional
or modification of 'the existing facilities
She II
The following additional developments are anticipated to
take place by 1976-77a
Planning Commission
Construction Phasing Vallco Park
July 12 1973
Page 3 Revised)
1.
All of Category I and III
20
Hewlett-Packard - Phase Z
(347,000 square feet) (9-2)
3.
Westfield (53,000 square feet) (W--2)
The
following improvements will be required in order to
accommodate the above additions in Stage II:
to
Construct Wolfe Road to 8 lanes from Vallco Parkway
to Freeway #2800
2e
Construct Tantau overcrossing at Freeway #2809
4 lanes required.
3.
Construct Vallco Parkway to 6 lanes from Wolfe Road
to Tantau Avenue.
4<
Construct access road -west -of Sears; and Finch Avenue
from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Vallco Parkway.
01
III
StageqW
This
essentially would be to.completely develop Vallco Park with
the
exception of Category IV (which is termed "uncommitted") and
without
the collector --distributor road or any.other-comparable
road
system. The following must. be constructed:
1.
Modify Wolfe Road.overcrossing at Freeway #280 to
8 lanes.
20
Construct Wolfe Road to 8 lanes from Freeway #280 to
Pruneridge with the reservation of 10 lanes. If all the
development is realized by 1995, the 10 lanes will be
required. If, however, the development is realizedbefore
1995, there might be a question as to whether 8 or 10 lanes
are required, depending on the through traffic.tha.t will be
utilizing Wolfe Road at the time that new development occurs.
3>
Construct Wolfe'Road to eight lanes, Pruneridge to
Homestead Road.
4.
Construct homestead Road, six lanes, Wolfe to Lawrence
Expressway.
5e
Stevens Creek Boulevard will require eight lanes from
Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road to Tantau.
}
- � r
Planning Commission July 12, 1973
Construction Phasing Vallco Park Page 4
ANIL
Stage IV
At the present time without a definite commitment
from the State as to their future position on the
collector -distributor road and Stevens Creek Boulevard
at Freeway #280 Interchange modification and without
any other comparable methods of solution at this time
which would help alleviate the traffic congestion on
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road, the parcels in
Category IV will have to remain undeveloped until such
time as very low density land uses, alternate modes of
transportation, or alternate methods to the collector
distributor road system may be realized°
sm
c
o n 0
g .v ?.. ?:,: r��..t . �3�`,�- I f i���"5A m � I i � IIII�I L _ � �s � J 'I'1 � j
L.
i VALLCO PARK ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES I T,�. "'-{ 7 ' - `{ ` el!
.a..` -
.t j }
AMERICAN MICrRO. SYSTEMS,INC.
I SHELL SERVICE STATION
4 VALLOO VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER _ s < `s I - . _ _ _ -Yi ;• �'�'�+, 'q,_ `:Is -yl l +•'U 1; '" - Dc '`�'T Lr� ", � i
5 HI -RISE OFFICE BUILDINGS -TWIN I-ONERS
�
e IvLARK SYSTEMS, INC.
l l i
7 INTERSIL,INC.
9 WATKINS-JOHNSON COMPANY
9. HEW LETT- PACKARD COMPANY-CUPERTINO 1 ~
O.SEARS.ROEBUCK AND CO.
�1 —!jj✓Ji�^,
IJNPORM.ATION 57ORP\ee S'�EM9-INC.
ZHILTON HOTEL •�.i ,�\�t 1. �.I r�- -
--
N.
3 MUGf1�TENANT,iNDUSTRIAL/orplGE
CENTER
IR pf ULT1 fENANTi INrU5TRIAL�OFFICE NQ Z - �k-: I: i . "�y 1t % 4 t`IY
5MULTI -MIONT,INDUSTRIAL/bFr-10E MR,
6 PA51'-S:C>N HUB REGIONAL
7 UNICOM N°1 ¢ NeZ
5 REGIONAL FINANCIA'6 p
19 MULTI T NANTI INDUSIRIAL/CPPICE N° 5 E a LLw w ?..\i°s® �I�VP7.
`w
AFOUR- PHA.S E hi \ I_.!'
�,��,�7
A
S, w hkx }, 1 /, i w r T 4 r b
'HEWCETf=PACKAP.D COMPANY SANTA CLARA \ ; rt �j [ t ��, �o r
( HflWARD JOHNSON MOTEL.
�..r " y��„�� ? � s �( J' [ U ��'i• � j �s�; { n
V CA
Liss
JJ ItIFORMA-RON 51t"155 SY3M5fEINC.i
J �T7 p� ln. 5�r ( \ �i ✓z1111111
6UILDINC'5 COMM
-
- j')ZOJEGTED ?,UILDING - — _ . ; I 1 .. _ - _
,ra
Q Z
OV-1N.ED 6YOTHER5
l _
Q PARKING STRUCTURE - _ - +' „\ � � �' �s� w - 7
m
LIMIT OF VALLCO PARK
r
HIGH 915E EUILDINCr
a_ r,,t �`:1�IL1IIII�IIJ1�IIIII[11
r - , F". ! '1e "'.:-... ,,z, i SCHOOL
Ini p ;I`/ t i u r r
-ai
o zoo' w �' ecv' ,«�' n
�
_ _ - �, �f 1� � , ��� � �� �� . I �•� ? s � - 1 _.�j.. � Ili
20
91
1 " �, i I . J; L
III
,n\
6 T r; `v ♦� s.� a-r:1k;,....r -`+ems ,c->...�^-�',-.^ c :Iz E i:. 1{ I-.--- R a-�U 4 r, Y q. p
. ...
Director of Public Works memo dated July 122 1973 Subj: Construction Phasing for Vallco Park
7/6/73
11
SUNMA9 OF DECISZONS,:BX PLA:NNZNG CQNL`'II.SSIQN CQNCEIiNING CORE AREA
Meeting
Summary of Motion
Vote
Motion by Comma O'Keefe, second by Comm. Gatto:
6/7/73
Adopt policy or position favoring: agglomerate
development over strip development in core area.
5-0
6/20/73
Motion by Comm. W Keefe, second by Comma Gatto:
That the Commission discard the alternative which
excluded a regional'center for the City.
5-0
6/21/73
Motion by Comm. Nellis,..second: by-.G_omme Adams:
That the location of`the"regional shopping center
be shown on the General Plan map at Vallco Park
and that that location ha to 'restrict development
on balance of available space`; this to be covered
by policy statements in the General Plane
3-2
6/27/73
Motion by Comm. Adams, second by Comm. Gatto:
To recommend our General Plan 'reflect a quality
of commercial development in an agglomerated
arrangement of approximately 500,0.00 sq. fto, or
50 acres.
4-1
Motion by Chairman Bu.thenuth;, second by Comm —Adams -
That That approximately 250,000 sqo fto of other commercial
be incorporated into the Town Center complex and the
other designated commercial would be in the area:
bounded by -Stevens Creek Blvd., Highway '9, Fargo Dr.
and the existing residential to the west.
5-0
6/28/73
Motion by Comm. Nellis, second by Vice Chairman
O'Keefe:
That the east side o=f Highway'9 from Forest Ave.
extension to Fr:eeway;28.0 be considered residential
and assigned 4 units per'acree
3-1
Motion by Comm. Nellis, second by Comma Adams:
To request the City Council to consider 4 to 7e6
units per acre for the vacant property b.orderin:g
Vista Drive,
4'-0
Motion by Comm. Nellis, second by Vice Chairman
O'Keefe:
To assign 4.0 to 70.6 units per acre to the area
immediately south of Mariani property`on Highway 90 3-1
Motion by Comm. Nellis, second by Vice Chairman.
O'Keefe.
That the area south of Greenleaf Drive; west of
Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, Stevens Creek'Blvd beyond
Bandley Ave. --the area which is not developed to
the west, be designated residential/commercial mix. 3-1
-1-
1 ,r
Meeting
Summary
7/6/7.3
Summary
Vote
6/28/73 Motion by Comm. Adams, second by Nice; Chairman 0°Keefe:
That the area surrounded by Ste e ps. Creek;.=�Hi.ghtiray-, 9 1
Greenleaf: Thrive,-Beardo:n go, a280-W8- t, b.e• atea,,ifazx.ed �� =' ; 3 1
commercial/residential 3-�1
Motion by Comma Nellis, second by Comm. Gatto
That: the density for the are: surrounded ;by Highway 9,
Greenleaf Drive, Beardon. anal, 28"0 be M?0 to;.10 ;units;'
per- acre o ' ;' 4-0
Motion by Comm. Nellis,..secon.d by Comm. Gatto:
To recommend a density ,of 4a0 to 12 units per acre for
the Town Center:
Motion by Comm. Gatto, second by='Comm° Nellis;
To.assign residential use with a 4.0'to 10 density to
the Chri.stian:son property, based on the criteria as
mentioned above:
Motion by Comma Nellis;' second by Comm. Gatt.o
That the Saich property be designated as an addition
to the Memorial Parka
Amendment to Motion. by Comm. Gatto, second by
Comm. Nellis:
That this Planning Commission states.that the,.5-acre
portion (Christianson property) be deleted from the
park extension. property.
Motion by Comm. Gatto, second by Comm. Nellis:
To denote the property at the southwest corner of
Homestead Road and Stelling'Road;_as commercial.
6/30/73. Motion by Comma Nellis second by Comm'. Gatto:
To notify the City Council that the —Plan Commission
cannot complete their-studies.in time and do not feel
it appropriate to transmit a fragmented report.
Mo't%:n li-y {Comm. Nellis, s:ecund by ,Gomm. IGattfo,
That .the Ptl=ar ring -=Comm sstlo i recommen'ds..=t'od thf& Cifye
Cou cil'.=that 'the-. Li'rgency Interim=Zoning Olydolhmnc+e '
be ^exteneled unt.ia .the Planning Commzsssi°one is; nt, a
position to make land use decisions with respect
to- completion? of -:the general plan studFiesoor
p�ara t�hereof a
7/5/73 Motion by Comm. Nellis> second by Comm. Adams*
That the density be 16 units per acre zesdential.at the
southeast corner of Homestead and Stell ng Rd.
Motion by Comm. Gatto, second by Comm. -O'Keefe:
That the area north and south of Payless (Otis
Forge property) presently in the Williamson Act
be zoned agricultural.
- 2-
3-1
4-0
4-0
4-0
4-0
4-0
Meeting
7/5/73
71
3
Summary
Motion by Comm. Gat.to, second by Comm. Nellis:
That the property occupied by DeAnza Lumber
Company be.designated on the General Plan as
commercial.
Motion by Comm. 0°Keefe,,,second-by Comm. Gattoo
That the property located on.the northwest corner
of the intersection of Homestead and Highway 9,
presently zoned commercial, be designated on the
General Plan as 12-16 dwelling units per acre.
Motion by Comm. Nellis, second by Comm. O'Keefe:
That concerning the 'property at the southeast
corner of the intersection of Homestead and
Stelling Roads the density range to be,12-16
dwelling units per acre.
Motion by Comm. Nellis, second by :Comm° Adams:
That the property at the southeast corner of the
intersectionof Homestead Road, an& Highway 9
(the existing Mariani packing-,hous.e property)
be designated as residential.4-12-dwelling units
per acre.
Motion by Comm. Gatto, second;.by Comm. Adams -
That VallQo Park be designated, as a planned
industrial/office'park with'the following
exceptions`: That the regional shopping center be
shown,as commercial; the :Hilton Hotel area shall
be shownascommercial,' the Uallco.;Village area
shall be shown as cornrner_cialo` All other areas
shall be shown as industrial/:office with the
stipulation that they will -be`.'developed at an
intensity to be determined and at 'a time frame
to be.determineda-
Amendment.by Comm. Adams, second by Comm. O'Keefe:
That the.time phasing portion of the motion to read
"task phasing to be accomplished prior to develop-
ment of undeveloped properties"'.
Motion by Comm. Nellis, second by Comm. Adams -
That the property on the south side of Stevens
Creek. Boulevard from the Mayfair Market westerly
to Blaney Ave. shall be designated onthe P-eneral
Plan as residential 4-12 dwelling units per acre.
Motion. by Comm. O'Keefe, second by Comma Nellis:
That the property on the south side of Stevens
Creek Boulevard between Mil:ler-;TAvea-, and Finch
Ave. be designated on the General.Plan'as residential
planned development 4-12 dwelling units per acre.
7/6/73
Summary
Vote
3-2
4-0-1
4-1
5-0
5-0
3-2-
3-2
-3-
Meeting
Summary
7/6/73
Summary
Vote
7/5/73 Motion by Comm. Adams, second by Comm. Nellis:
On Stevens Creek Boulevard from'Blaney Avenue
westerly -to the Town Center that the area should
be designated as commercial inasmuch as it is the
in -filling of one commercial parcel. 5-0
Motion by Comma Nellils, second by Comm. Gatto:
That the property from Vista Drive proceeding easterly.._to Wolfe Road be so 6ongideted as .in=£filling
o.f. cbmm: rci al' a 2w� so designated as commercial on
the. General Plane 3-2
Motion by Comm. Gatto,.-.second by Comm. Gatto:
That the area -between Highway 9 and Vista is.
designated on the exhibit (map) as community park
and that the City seek ,to purchase it. 4-0--1
Motion by Comm. Gatto, second by -Comma O'Keefe*
That property in the Town Center south of the
Library be designated on the General Plan as
Quasi -Public use or other civic uses. 5-0
Motion by Comma Gatto, second by Comm. Nellis:
That the parcel in the Town Center north of
Pacifica and east of Highway 9 be designated
on the General Plan as Professional Offices. 5-0
Motion by Comm* Gatto, second by Comm.0°Keefe:
That the area south of Pacifica and east of Highway
9 be designated on the ''General Plan. as 4-10 dwelling
units per acre residential. 5-0
Motion by Comm. Nellis, second by Comm. Adams:
That the vacant property north of Sambo°s on
Highway 9 is an in -fill situation and shall be
designated commercial on the`General Plana 5-0
Motion by Comm. Gatto, second byy Comm. Buthe-n.uth:
That the vacant property south of-Silverado and
east of Highway 9 across from Kirwin Lane shall
be designated on the General Plan as commercial. 5-0
7/13/73
Summary
Meeting Summary `;,
Vote
7/12/73 Motion by .Comm, Ne11is., second by",Comt_."O'Keefeo
Thatthe Planning.,.Commission; takes the` position:;,
that,- west of High' ,ray 9 riot b`e shown as. additional
agglomerated, and that the new GeneraI Plan show
250,-000 sqo fto, an'd that 't.`b.e'.de'signated ,for
- the :Town Centers
3-2
Motion by. ,Commo O PKeefe:; second„ b:y Comm- Adams''o
That the area north; of Steven Creek Bivdo:between
Vista Drive and Portal Avenue shall be designated
residential PR with`a density of4 to'12 dwelling
units., per `acr;eo
4-1
Motion by Commo Gatto, second ,y,Commo.0.°Keefe. ,:
_ ,
That..; the '.proger, y.,:,b;ounded on .she south: by"S.teveris.
Creek: Blvo o , on thee:; north by iAlves Drive, .�o.n_rthe
east :by`"Highway and on the,west byBan dleysDr:o,
including rcel E,"be.1`isted..on-the.GenerailPlan
IAiid Use Map as c6 iercialo
5-0
'Amendment. of above. motion by'Commo Ne11is;.second,
by Comma 0 9Keefe :..
That 'land. kno' as , ,Shell" Gas :Station and ,Bank of
-
: >.
America,,and the strip between the gasrstaton.
and Bob °s Big Bo' estaii:rant be designated as
open space.
5-0_
Motion by Comm. Adams, second "by. Comm .; Nellis -
That the . General "Plan reflect res`ideni ai on both
sides "of Highway ,9`;for a Punned. Development type
- development with a range of A to:10 dwelling
units- per acre, to. �bel� "'cQntroed ,liy ordinance'
as the percentage of. the mix is concbtn&do' ;
4-1
Amendment of above -.motion by .`Commo' Adams, second.
by Comma Nellis-
That the portion of the above motion; .concerning.
PD be` considered a part "of the pol cy statements
4-I.
Motion by Comm. Nellia secona by Comm." Adams-
That 'the density b`e" changed from "4 0 76 `to a 'range
of 4-10 on those tiro nearby .parcels, to be
consistent with the"4djo'f, ng properties. The
same policy statement ap'p-i'es' °here°
4-1
Motion by Comma OQKeefe, second by Commo Gatto:.-
That 4 to 12 be' the density range on the north
side of Stevens. Creek Blvd., from `Vista Drive'
to Portal Avo.n:ii.P.n
4-1. ;
0
Meeting
7/12/73
7/13/73
7/13/73
Summary
Summary
Vote
Motion. by. Comm. Gatto, second by 'Comm. O'Keefe*
That this property be designated,on the General
Plan as planned professional -offices on Pacifica
between Whitney Way and,Highway-,90
5-0
Motion by -Comma Ga-tto, second by Comm. 0oKeefe,,
To remove'the-P.Do.designation,on,the land use
designations within the Core;Area.
5-0
Motion by Comma Adams, second by Comm. O'Keefe:
That the .appropriat'e ordinances should be
adopted to -incorporate axid.aequire the. assemblage
of smaller parcels in order that they may be
developed as a whole inappropriate planned
development.
5-0
Motion by Comma Gatto, .second;cby Comm. Adams:
To adopt Resolution 1183'providing the corrections
are made as spoken to this evening.
5-0
-6
CHANGE IN LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
FROM 1973'ZONING`TO 1973 GENERAL PLAN
1973.ZONING'
1973".:GENERAL PLAN
SUBAREA #1
1a
16'.:;units/acre
4-10-units/acre
lb
Commercial
Park
SUBAREA. 2
2a
Commercial._
Commercial
2b
Commercial
12-16 units/acre
SUBAREA,#3
3a
Agriculture;
Agriculture
3b
Commer.clal
12-16 units/acre
3c
Commercial
Commercial
3.d
Agriculture
Agriculture
3e-
Light industry
Commercial
3f
Industr a1 ,('Cdunty)
4-12 units/acre
AREA, #4
4a
Commercial/Residential - -1-6 units/acre
4710.un.its/acre
40
Commercial
Commercial
' 4:c.
Commercial
Park
4d
Commercial _
Park
4e
Residential/:Commercial
Quasi Public
4f `
Residenttial/Cominercial..
4-7.,e.6 units'/acre
Commercial:4-10
units/'acre
AREA #5
5a
Commercial
Commercial-_250:,.000 sq. ft./
Residential, 4-12.units:/acre
s 2
a
a
CHANGE IN LAND USE CLASSIFICATION 1973
ZONING_:TO 1973 GENERALPLAN
1973 ZONING"
1973,,GENERAL PLAN
-:::SUS-AREA 6
6a
Commercial'
Commercial
bey
Commercial
Professl0%1c�1�Q�f:fj
6c
16 Units%acre
Qdasi®pu . -1c
6d
Commercial
Professionaljoffi;ce
6e
16 Units/acre
4®10Units/acre
6f
commercial-
Commercial
SUB -AREA #7
7a
commercial/ 16 Unitslacre,
4 12: Units/acre
7b
CO%1merc1A1 / 16 Units/acre
4 12 Tnits acre
7c
Comgnerc�al/ 16 Unigs/a;cre
4 12 Units/ache
7d
Commerciall
Commercial
7e
Commercial.
Commercial
7f
Co-Mmerca:a.1/ 16 Units/acre
412.Units/acre Planned Development
79
Commercial
4m1,2 Units/acre Planned Development
7h
C®anmercal
Commercial
7a
Commercial.:
Commercial
7J
Commercial.
4-12 Units/acre
71c
Conmercal
Commercial
SUS -AREA #8
Sa '
Light Industrial
Reg"onal :Commercial
8b
_ CommercialLight
Industrial/Professional Office
FISCAL IMPACT ON CITE' YOR DLFFERENT REGIONAL CENTER SALES/SQ9 FT.
SALES/SQ. FT.
$100
90
80
70
60
SALES TAX REVENUE
$19187,000
1,070.9000
953,000
836000
7199000
NET FISCAL
INPACT
$1P074,000
957;000
840:000
723,000
606,000
1972-73 TAX.FATE FOR TXFICAL:CUFERTINO HOUSEHOLD
City of Cupertino
Cupertino Union School Distract
Fremont High School District
Foothill Community College District
Santa Clara County
County_Library
Central Fire District
Other
$0.31.
4.42
2.581
.745
2.626
.245
.752
500
Total $12.201
IS A REGIONAL .SHOPPING CENTER POSITIVE
TO THE TOTAL COMMUNITY OF CUPERTINO
to Is the information reviewed by the Planning Commission correct?
Sales Projections?
Traffic?
2. Is the information reviewed by the Planning Commission sufficient for:
dec is ionnaking.?
Additional measures of traffic?
Other -impacts?
3o What is the proper ':interpretation of the information?
Ao How to interpret the fiscal impacts?
B. How to interpret the traffic impacts?
Co How to combine fiscal and other impacts?
4. How does the.rest of the Planning Commission adopted core area General Plan
relate to the Regional Center decision?
5. How would the rest.of'the plan change in "No Center" were selected?
IS.S.UE.S IN EVALUATING -
'AL TERNAT I V E�,GLAND EU S E S
IN THE CORE AREA
to IS A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER POSITIVE TO THE TOTAL COMMUNITY OF CUPERTINO?-
IF SO, WHAT IS THE BETTER LOCATION — MARIANI OR VALLCO PARK?
3, WHAT IS THE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USES ON THE REMAINING LANDS
IN MARIANI AND VALLCO PARK AREAS?
4. WHAT IS THE EVALUATION OF STRIP VS. AGGLOMERATED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
IN REMAINING AREAS OF THE CORE?
5. WHAT IS THE CHOICE ON AMOUNT AND LOCATION OF NON —NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE CORE AREA?
6. WHAT IS,THE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USES IN REMAINING AREAS OF
THE CORE?
STEPS. -IN -ANALYSES OF::FISCAL'IMPACTS OF.ALTERNATIVE LAND USES IN CORE AREA
"
Designdtion of
Specification` of
Fiscal Analysis
Specification of
.
Initial'
:.
Region:al� .Sho, in
PP g ..
of, -Re iofal -
g
Alternative. Land Uses,
_
:Sub4. arts: of
Center`- on �=
'Shopping Center
On"" Rema �ning,
ROAD.��COSTS
Core Area
Alternative Sites
` :In......:
Sites `=in Core Area
-
Alternate Sites
Traffic
Final Estimates
Analysis
of
,
Fiscal Impacts
Market 'Feasbi"lity
o Strp 'vs o `Agglom,
for
Of : Regiozial
Commercial
Core Area .
`Shopping Center
o Delineation of
"
In CuperCino':And
,Total''Acres
_
AlternativeStes
Of Agglomerated
Respeclfzc:at-ion of
_
-.
Commercial .in
Alternate Land
Core- Area
Uses, in :Remaining
Designation of Acres
Sites in the Core.
_
for Agglomerated
Area
Commercial.
o Spe"cficati.on: of.:.
-::
_
Alternatiye:Land
Uses for Remain-.
ing,.. Sites
COMBINED SCHOOL DISTRICTS
) CITY OF CUPERTINO
General Fund Total Net Before Capital Costs
Alternatives
Costs Revenues Net
Costs Revenues Capital Costs Parks Roads
Net Fiscal Impact
Regional Shopping Center -
0
$60,000
$60,000
$ 79,000
$1,032,000
$ 953,000
- Mariani Mall
-1,266,000
-1,187,000
0
Regional Shopping Center -
0
60,000
60,000
79,000
1,032,000
953,000
Vallco Park
-1,266,000
-1,187.,000
Residential - Ma_iani
$19,000
22,000
3,000
140,000
145,000
5,000
$65,000
Industrial - Vallco Park
0
19,000
12,000
12,000
10,000
19,000
164,000
9,000
14,000
0
65,000
No Regional Shopping Center
34,000
15,000
150,000
Remainder of Core
19,000
62,000
43,000
180,000
416,000
236,000
65n000
0
$ 17I 000
,
NET FISCAL IMPACT OF GENERAL PLAN CORE AREA
ALTERNATIVES —ASSUMPTION SET II
Net Fiscal:Impact on Net Fiscal Impact
Combined School Districts on City„of Cupertino
General Plan A $ 106,000 $1,064,00`0 - $1,296;000
Regional Center at Mariani (Minus part of $115,000)
General Plan B
Regional Center at Vallco $ 106,000 $1,064,00:0 - $1,286,000
(Minus part of $115,000
and $112,000)
General Plan C
No Regional Center. $ 58,000 $ 41,000
(Minus $'8, 000 and part- of
$115,000)
Shopping Center.Only -
Mariani $ 60,000 $ 953,000 -, $1,18.7,000
(Minus part of $115,000)
Shopping Center Only :-
Uallco $ 609000 $ 953,000 - $1,187,000
(Minus ,part of $115,000
and $112,000)
Attachment #3
SUMMARY OF ROAD COSTS RELATED TO REGIONAL SHUPPING CENTER
ROAD SEGMENT TOTAL COST ANNUAL BOND COST
Torre Road
$2,500,000
$200,000
Torre Overpass
750,000
60,000
280 Interchange at 9
250,000
20,000
9 - Stevens Crke - 280 (4-6 )
1,400,000
112,000*
(6-8 )
450,000
36,000
(8-10)
Wolfe
1,300,000
104,000
280 Interch-ange
19000,000
$9,000
Tantau Overpass
750,000
60,000*
9 - Stevens Crk>-Bollinger (4-6)
100,000
8,000.
(6-8)
255,000
20, 000
9 - 280 to Homestead (4-6)
320,000
25,000`
(6-8)
110,000
9,000
Stevens Crko - 9 to. Wolfe
5505,000
44,000
Wolfe - Tantau
.110,000
9,000
Required without Regional Center
Total Foundation Program
Additional Local Expenditures $
10.5 million
Expenditures
$
8.1
million
Additional Local Expenditures
Foundation Program Expenditures
Per A.D.A.
$
456
Per A.D.A.
$
355
Total Assessed Valuation
$
320 million
T
Total Assessed Valuation
$
320
million
Local. Tax Rate Required for
Local Tax Rate Required for
Foundation Program
$
1.00 per $100
Additional .Local Expenditures
$
2.94 per $100
A.V.
A.V.
Local Contribution
$
9o4.million
Local Contribution to Foundation
Program
$
3.2
million
Areaw de Aid:
l01
State Contribution to Foundation
Program $ 4.9 million
Total Local Contribution $ 12.6 million
Local Tax Rate $ 3.94 per $100
for Operating A.V.
Expenditures
Local Tax Rate for $ .50
Capital Items
Total Local Tax Rate $ 4.44
1�J
FISCAL YEAR
1973 - 7/+
Total. Foundation Program
Additional Local Expenditures
$
2.5
million
Expenditures
$
17.1
million
Additional Local Expenditures
Foundation Program Expenditures
Per A.D.A<.
$
ill
Per A.D.A.
$
765
Total Assessed Valuation
$
334
million
Total Assessed Valuation
$
334
million
Local Tax Ratite Required for
Local Tax Rate Required for
Additional L.ocal Expenditures
$
.75
per $100
Foundation Program
$
2.22
per $100
A.V.
A.V.
Local Contribution
$
2.5
million
Local Contribution to Foundation
i Program $ 7>4 million
Areawide
o9
State Contribution to Foundation
Program
$
3.8
million
Total Local Contribution $ 9.9 million
Local Tax Rate for $ 2.97 per $100
Operating Expenditures A.v.
Local Tax Rate for
Capital Items .50
Total Loral Tax Rate $ 3.47
IMPORTANCE OF ALTEMt, .1VE LAND
USES TO
�
Attachment ,#5
CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
LAND USE CONTRIBUTION
TO STATE
CONTRIBUTION TO LOCAL
LOCA-i CONTRIBUTION FOR
ASSESSED
TOTAL LOCAL
PROGRAM AID
FOUNDATION
FOUNDATION PROGRAM
ADDYTIONAL
EXPENDITURES
VALUATION
TAY RATE PER
$106 A<V i
1973-74 Status quo
$8.8 million
$7.4 million
$2.5 million -
$334 million $3.47
1973-74 plus regional
shopping center
8.4
"
7>8
2.5
$349 °'
$3.42
1973-74 plus 7,000
new homes, 5,000
11.8
►°
862
3<1
�°
369 °°
3.51
new students
1973274 plus 7,000
new homes, no new
8e0
00
800' °°
205
a°
369 1°
3035
students
1973-74 plus doubl-
ing industrial A.V.
8.6
"
706 'P
2.5
'°
341 '°
3.44
in Vallco Park
1972-73 Status quo-
4.9
"
3.2 `°
9.4
320 It
4.44
1972-73 plus regional
shopping center
4a75
°°
3.35 °►
904
°°
335
4.30
1972-73 plus 7,000
new homes, 5,000
6^6
°°
3.5
11>8
°°
353 °0
4.77
new students
A,
jM
t
Att-achment #6
r
`
.
0
i
c
S",MARX TRAFFIC IC ` 1980-1995
ASSL')�?IOS
SET 3
WIT'HOuT :LION... C-� :=z
ASSU SPT_ION SET 1
ASSUuPTION SET 2
OiH, i'. . sLLC
EXISTING
WITHOUT REGION
RL•'CIONAL CENTER
REGIONAL CENTER
WITHOUT REGION
RECIONAL CENTER
REGIONAL CENTER
OTHER VALLCO
1973
CENTER
,LIRIANI
VALLCO
CENTER
MARIANI
VALLCO
UNDEVELOPED
CFFiCE
1.
Highway 9-Bollinger to Stevens Creek
4
6.5
8
'7.3
7.0
S+
7.5•+•
8
8.5
Some
High..
'High
High
Near
High
Near
S,ar-
2.
Hig% ay 9-Stevens Creek
Intersection
Congestion
Congestion
Breakdown
Congestion
Congestion
Breakdown
Congestion
Breakdown
Brea' -'own
3.
Highway 9-Stevens Creek
to 280
4
6
9+ Torre
6
6.5+
9+ Torre
6.5+
9+ Torre,
9+ Torre
Some
High
High
High
Eigh
4.
Highway 9-280 Ramps
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion /
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Ccngestion
5.
Stevens Creek -Highway 9
to Wolfe
6
a 6+
7+
7+
t
6.5
7.5
7.5
7.5+
8
6.
Stevens Creek -Wolfe to Tantau
6
6
6.5
7.2
6.5
6.5+
7.5
7
11
Not
7.
T a n t a u
Constructed
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
8.
Miller Rd -Bollinger to
Stevens Cr.
4(4)
4
4
4.5
4+
4+
4.5
4+
5
Some
Some
Some
Some
Some
\ear
9.
Wolfe Rd. -Stevens Creek
Intersection
Congestion
Congest, n
Congestion
Congestion+
Congestion
Congestion+
Congestion+
Congestion
Breakeov+
10.
Wolfe Rd. -Stevens Creek
to 280
6
6
6
9
6.5
6.5
9
8.5+
10
Some
Some
Near,
11.
Wolfe Rd.-280 Ramps
Good
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
•Congestion
Breakdown
12.
Pruneridge
4
4
4
4
4
4.
4
4
4
Some
Some
Near
13.
Homestead at Wolfe Rd.
Good
Congest+:•i
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Breakdown
Some
Some.
High
Some
High
High
fi>gh
14.
Homestead at Highway 9
Congestion.
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion.
Congestion
15.
230 East of Wolfe Rd.
b
9+ ..,
9.2
9.2
9+
9+
9+'
9+
10
16.
2F :Test of Highway 9
6
9 -., ,,
9.2
9.2
9+
9+
9+
S!
10
b-28-73
Attachment #6 contedo
ASSUMPTION SET #1
Mariani Regional Center
e West ,of Highway 9 - i Commercial, % Residential
a Town Center - Commercial
o Stevens Creek - Residential
o Vallco —Undeveloped
o Other Vallco - Undeveloped
o Mariani - Undeveloped
a . West of _ Highway 9 - Undeveloped -
o Town Center - Commercial
e Stevens Creek - Commercial
- e Vallco - Regional Center
o Other. Vallco - Undeveloped
e Mariani - Undeveloped
West of Hi-ghwgy 9 - Ur+develonprl
.,ri'. �'.'11` =r ~ .o, : ,., c' al.
a Stevens Creek - Commercial
o Vallco -- Undeveloped
o Other Vallco - Undeveloped
Attachment #6 cont 7d.
ASSUI,'IPTJ-ON SET #2
. Mariani - Regional Center
. West of Highway 9 2 Commercial, 2 Residential
, Town Center Commercial
. Stevens Creek - Residential
. Vallco,- Residential
. Other Vallco Undeveloped
o Mariani-- Residential
o West of Highway 9 Residential
o Town Center Commercial
D Stevens Creek - Commercial
":VAIlco -"Regiona`l Center
Other. Vallco Undeveloped
Mariani Residential
West of Highway 9 Residential*
o Town Center Commercial
Stevens.Creek - Commercial
4
Vallco Residential
o Other Vallco Undeveloped
Attachment #6 cont°d°
ASSUTIPTION SET 3
r
4
OTHER VALLCO UNDEVELOPED
Mariani - Industrial
West of Hwy. 9 - Industrial
° Town Center - Commercial
° S•tevens Creek - Commercial-
o Vallco - Industrial
Other Vallco - Undeveloped °
OTHER VALLCO INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE
e Mariani - Industrial
West of Highway 9 - Industrial
o Town Center - Commercial
Stevens Creek - Commercial
o Vallco -- Industrial
Ether V-llcc - Industrial
'Attachment #7
PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS
SHOPPING CENTER PRODUCTIVITY IN SANT,A, CLARA COUNTY
q
Taxable.Sales.by.Center.......
Sales/Sq.
Ft.
a
1968
...1969
...1970
...1971
...1972
...1969
1971.
1972
Stanford
$50M
$51M
$50M.
$53M
$64M
$63.40
$61.83
$60.71
Westgate
30
37
39
38
37
75.36
74.31
73.26
Valley Fair
39
39
38
36
35
66.55
60.93
59.82
San Antonio
32
34
34
32
33
68.41
64.29
67.34
Stevens Creek
24
25
25
25
25
67.38
67.38
67.38
Mayfield Mall
16
20
24
22
23
43.29
48.62
50.00
Almaden
0
15
17
17
16
Eastridge
0
0
0
40
74
Total
$191
$221
$227
$263
$308
Total Excluding
Almaden &
Eastridge
$191
$206
$210
$206
$208
Total Sq. Ft.
3.6M
5.1M;;
5.4M
61.38
51.56
57.03
Total Sq. Ft.
Excluding
Almaden &
3.2
3.2
3.5
64.37
64.37
59.42
Eastridge
EMERGING PRINCIPLES
The Highway 9 area from Stevens Creek Boulevard to I-280 should be
developed in low intensity uses.
e, The Stevens Creek area from Highway 9 to Wolfe Road should be
developed in low intensity uses..
o Physical improvements (setbacks, etc.) should be implemented to
guarantee that Highway 9 and, Stevens Creek Boulevard develop an
attractive low intensity identity for Cupertino.
An area for,unquely designed community -oriented activities should be
developed, at the intersection of Highway 9 and Stevens Creek Boulevard.
This area should be surrounded by'uses which will accentuate itsf.focus
as the Town Center of Cupertino
Vallco Park should continue as the regional activity node in the City-,
Sufficient fiscal resources should be developed to allow for the
achievement of the above objectives.
Appropriate ordinances ,should be adopted to encourage and require
the assemblage of <sma,ller.parcels in order that they may be
developed as a whole in appropriate planned development.
GH;ANGES IN LAND USE . DESIGNATION -&.,'IN CORE ,AREA
19Z3: Zoning :
1973.: GeneralPlan
Land Use
Acres
%
Acres -
%;:
Change
Commercial
463
51
242
27=221',
Industrial/
353
3�9
322
35
Office
Residential
66
7
272
30
+206
Quasi -Public
9 -,
1
34
4
+ 25
Park
0
0
2.1.
2
+ 21
Agricultural
17
2
17
2
0
TOTAL
968
10.0 ,.0
TOTAL - 9;08
TOO o 0
R]
Attachment #8
of Cu-perti"o
TO: The Honorable Chairman and
Members of the Planning Commission DATE: July 12, 1973
FROM: Director of Public Works, Bert J. Viskovich
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION PHASING FOR VALLCO PARK
A meeting was held to clarify some of the land use assumptions and related
traffic facility requirements with Don Goodrich, JHK, traffic consultant for
the City of Cupertino; Walter Ward, General Manager of Vallco Park; Hans Korve
and Mike Kennedy, De Leuw Cather.and Company; and Jiro. Sisk and Bert Viskovich,
City of Cupertino.
The following is a summary of what was discussed and mutually arrived at as
a solution for the street construction phasing of Vallco Parka The staging
would indicate the "breakpoints" when construction will be necessary. Four
categories were established.in order to group the different land uses in
Vallc-pPark as they relate to the commitments made.by the City. Attached is
a map to indicate the properties.under consideration.
Category I - Existing Development and Approved
The existing developments are facilities that already exist
in Vallco Park. The approved facilities are the land uses
that have been approved by the City but have not yet been
constructed. The approved would be as follows:
10 Hilton Hotel Phase 1
421 rooms and one tower (12-1)
20 Financial Office Phase 1 (18-1)
3. Westfield Phase.1 (Wm1)
4. Four Phase
Category IT ® Committed
(24)
These land uses consist of areas in Vallco Park which are
termed as committed. 'The parse] s .art as ::follows
Planning;Commission
Construction Phasing - Vallco Park
.,July 12, 1973
Page 2.
1®
Westfield Phase 2
(®2)
20
Watkins -Johnson
(8) _
3.
Hewlett-Packard, Phase 2.
-2)
4.
Hewlett-Packard 'Phase
5- -
Hilton Hotel,:e Phase 2
Category
TTT -.Regional Sh®.itg'Cotter
(16)`
Category:.:
IV. ® Uncoaiflnitted ..
The'land'uses
under this category are the.emainsng
portion of
Valco Parkh�cfi;,are :termed uncommtted:o
These-anclucle tYie`"
f ollow1mg o
lm "
Professional office 4rea.9
Prueridge west of Wolfe R®ad .
(5)
2a
The financial.c�nter - Phass:2 ::`
m
(182)
3a
Southeast corner of Pruneridge and Tantau:(W"3)
4e
Three.parcels`;located east of Finch
and ''South of ;#280"
(20., 21, 22)'
5 0
The northwest �_'cbrjj er of: Pruners d ge ,
and=Tantau Avenue
The, -:following
is the staging of..the s;tcreet i4-iovements..:,that will be
necessary in 'order to support the phassng `development iri Val Tco Parke The
stages.indicated below wiz the °°point in
tame°P tahn improvemene
must:. :be completed..< n mrder. to mi gate the traffic florrs an! t cipa ed y
today s" standards `:arid the . data a t hand
Stage I ,
All
`of the Ca'tegoy I may -be constructed w�thoizt ;any additional
or modificat on of 'the` e istgng>;facilitie`sa
Stage IT
The
following additional developments are
anticipated`to I
1976
take place by 70
,'
Planning Commission July 129 1973
Construction Phasing V'allco Fa*k Page 3 (Revised)
10
All of Category I and III
2.
Hewlett-Packard Phase 2
(347,000 square feet .
3a
Westfield (539000 square feet) (W-2)-
The
following improvements w�11;.1�.e;required in order to
accommodate the move addItaons in Stage ITo`
to
Construct Wolfe`Rtoad to'8 lanes from'vallco'Parkway
to; Freeway #2800
20
Construct Tantau overc�oss�n9 at Freeway ��280,
4 lanea required.
3®
Construct Val] co Pa�ekway to , 6 lanes from Wolfe,'Road
to Tantau Avenuee
4.
Construct access road west of Sears, =and Finch Avenue
ftom`. SteiTens Creek' Boulevard, to' �%all,co "Parkway°
Stage._ ITT
This, essentially would: be-.t& completely -develop Va;llco..Park with
the
exception. of Category TAT (which is termed a`unco ittedP°.) and,
without the ;collector-d�str:bu or road or any. other compakable
rose ,s'ystema The following_ niaas't be .constructed°
la
Modify :Wolfe Road overctross ng at Freeway #280 to
lift8.lanes.
qW
Z.
Construct Wolfe Road to 8 lanes from Freeway to.,.
Prueridge with the resevaion of.1Qlanesa If all the
'development is real�zecl by 1995 ; the '0 lanes will be
required, If9 however,, the,'developitent is realized before
1995 9 there might 'l e a que.stidn as to whether-8 or 10 lanes; :
are regained 9 ''depending: on he through. traffic :that rai11 be
_.
utilizing Wolfe Road at!the:time that. new development occurs°
3.
Construct Wolfe Road to eight .lanes, Pruneridge to
Homestead Road,;
4.
Construct Homestead Road l six lanes , Wolfe to.Lawrence
Expressway.
5.
Stevens Creek Boulevard will require eight lanes fxom ,
Saratoga -Sunnyvale Roe,a to Tantaua
h I . 1
1 '.: 'a
INE
COMBINED
M,15.
7,
, - ,
SCHOOL STR T
. -
- I
T -CITY OF CUPEP, INO
sF
F
�_J
nd
General Fund.
Total
Net Be -fore
Capital
Costs
S,
C
C'...
0-s
es
C apital ,-,,Costs,,
--s
ax k
Road S,
t, Fiscal I act:,.
MI)
Regional Shopping Center
O�
$60'.��000
$60 PI-000.
$_ 7,9,000
$1,032,000
'0'
$ 953.
Mariani Mall
-L1266, D 0
-1,187,000
0
Regional Shopping Centeit
0
60,000
6090,00
79-9 000
1,0329000
953,000
Vallco Park
-1,266 000,
- 1,187,000
3,000
140,000
145,000
5,000
$659000
ResidenMariamMaria
$19 "'QOO
22,000
-industrial Vallco Park
0
12'000
12-,000
10,000:
000
9 000,
0'
No Regional Shopping Center
19,000
349000
15,000
1509000
164,000
14,000.
651,000
Remainder of Core
19,000
629000
43,000,
180,000
416.000
2369000,
65,000
O'o
$1719000
r
----- -----
. .....
CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM.
Total Acreage: in
Core
908
908*
Commercial:::-
493
288;e*
Developed;.
120
120
Pending*;:;F
24
�4,
Urideveioped
349
144
Industrial"
270
275
Developed.
J34
123
Undeveloped
136
152
Office
60
34.
Developed
- 18
10
Undeveloped
42.
24,
Resident-tial
,. ._.
58
235
Williamson;
17
17
" . Instit :utiona:l _
9
36
" Park"
-: 0
23 :
908
90:8
*Core Area Map
Dated 6;/7/73a
**Includes land
designated
for. commercial land use in Planned Development
+ ***Additsons to
existingan centers.
- P,P�in g
,
cludes land
designated
as mixed professional
of,fzce and"light<indus.ra1
in Vallco.Parko
CHANGES
IN LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS IN CORE
AREA
1973 Zoning
19.73 General Plai.-i
Land Use
Acres
%
Acres
%
Change.
Commercial
463
51
242
27
-221
Industrial/
353
39
322
35
31
Office
Residential
66
7
272
30,
+206
Quasi -Public
9
1
34
4
25
Park
0
0
21
2
+ 21
Agricultural 17
TOTAL 908
OTHER COMMERCIAL SQUARE.FOOTAGE IN CUPERTINO
EXISTING COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
j Existing -Wthot�t Sears
G,emco
100,000
Cupertino .Cro,ssroads
1509000
Vallco Village
70,000`
Payless (Homestead Sqa)"
65,000
H o 9 - Bollinger-: to Stevens Creek
150 9.000
Stevens Creek-"'`DOAnZa to H o " 9
9!0 9 00.0
Stevens Cr`2e = Ho "9 to T' ' tau
25,0,000
875 , 000
-FILLIN-
Homestead Sq.o".
94,000
Stevens Creek - DeAnza t.o Ho .9
1359000,
•, He 9 - BO11:inger to Stevens Creek
1009000
S"tevens Creek - 'H o 9 to Tantau
1"00 9 000`
429 9 OOQ
REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER WITH
SEARS
1,6009,000
is NEW AGGLOMERATION
500.000
Town Center
West" ofH` e I' 9
1
,
Appraised Values For:
South side of Stevens
, C reek Boulevard
from Cali ° s
to Tantau Avenue
Parcel -Nos.
Acres
Land
Improvements
371-6-22
1.05
$189310
$6,570
23
1.78
259460
34,625
24
2.78.'
13,000
7,610
25
0373
8,100
16,970
27
11 '
22 g 870
740
28
D8
239700
38,0:$0
29 '
.618
8 .: O60
590
371-8-14
.997
17
.516
3,750
400
28
08181
40,867
8,430
29
.440.
10,585
0-.
3..1
1.0
18,8001
0
32
1.10
18 , 8.00
10.0
41
4a04
969790
0
42
.07
-18,00.0
0
40
9077
191,510
0
371-34-84
19,,850'
2,844
85
2.34
11,520
46,310-
86
289800
6,500
112
35,150—
0
118
096
11,110
11,400
120
17,412
179887
89
2,400,
5,150
90
91
.8 _
—
—
79
2,500
4,800
92
—
— .
371 9q 34
5;:a;:7:
30,225
0
41
40(
16,340
0
53,160
0
19
21,600
0
376-1- 3
4.9.8
108,460
1339610'?
Total
39.94
877,129
342,616
Appraised Values For:
Vista Drive to
Wolfe Road on the
north side of Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Parcel Nos.
Acres
Land
Improvements
316=24- 5
Firehouse
County
8
1.65
$41,510
$5,470
11
1.12
19,650
4,300
316-23-17
a28
5,610
1,780
22
1.78
31,240
20,490
25
.89
15,620
1,000
26
1.79
31,190
100
27
0063
13,830
19,480
24 -)
32,375
13,3140
32
1.3
11,440
300
33
3,250
6,970
36
7,820
8,500
37
34500
0
316-21—'A
046
29
1.7
31
1.7
not available so;the
acreage
32
—43
wasnot included
in the totals
33
1.7
34
2.69
316-20-16
2043
519920,
5,527
18
.441
3291`0.2'
19
2.23
48,570
43,600
27
17.05
436,'895
1,259,952
Total
31.59
$786,522
$1,390"9809
ASSUMPTION SET #1
Mariani Regional Center
West of Highway 9 - 2 Commercial, 2 Residential
Town Center - Commercial
Stevens Creek - Residential
Vallco - Undeveloped
Other Vallco - Undeveloped,
Mariani - Undeveloped
o :West of Highway 9 - Undeveloped
Town Center - Commercial
o Stevens Creek - Commercial
Vallco - Regional Center
Other Vallco Undeveloped
Mariani - Undeveloped
West of Highway 9 - Undeveloped
Town Center - Commercial
Stevens Creek - Commercial
Vallco - Undeveloped
Other Vallco - Undeveloped
ASSUMPTION SET #2
Mariani Regional Center
West of Highway 9 z Commercial, a Residential
Town Center Commercial
a Stevens Creek - Residential
Vallco - Residential
Other Vallco - Undeveloped
Marian Residential
West of Highway 9 - Residential
Town Center- Commercial
S=teven.s Creek Commercial
o Vallco - Regional Center
Other Vallco - Undeveloped'
Marian.i - Residential
West of Highway 9 Resi:dential
Town Center - Gomme-rcial
Stevens Creek - Commercial
Vallco - Residential
Other Vallco - Undeveloped
ASSUMPTION SET 3
OTHER VALLCO UNDEVELOPED
Mariani - Industrial
West of Hwy. 9 - Industrial
Town Center - Commercial
Stevens Creek - Commercial
Vallco - Industrial
Other Vallco - Undeveloped
OTHER VALLCO INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE
o Mariani — Industrial
• West of Highway-9 - Industrial
• Town Center - Commercial
Stevens Creek - Commercial
Vallco - Indus:trial
Other Vallco - Industrial
L 1
,.
^ESTED ADDITIONS TO THE 1973 GENERAL:. PLAN STATFa _,o ON: LOWER FQC?THTI`LS
_ ,
SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER KATHY NELLIS
TO THE PLANNING'.,COMMI$.SION
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
LAND USE DESIGNATIQNS
POLICY STATEMENTS.
REQUIREMENTS
-
., FOR
.-
:.IMPLEMENTATION
The ;study„of"the hillsides to
TyP e o
d a.te has concentra,ted'on.the
1.
A .;com rehen
p slve planned approach
lower foothills.,within
le Residential
to hillside development is
-`Cupertino°s sphere:of influence
20 Recreational
imperative and sha11 be developed
_.
which is, thatdefi-ned as the
3. Open Space
in order ao protect the public
urban. service area, _
. .
h ealth, safety, and welfare, and
t and enhance the beauty
theshill
.
Wlthzn th:e hill• area there .are
_
of side landscaped
two year=round creeks Steven
=Y
-
Creek and._ Permanente Creek--
�°
The 'primary land us,es.:sha11 be
which provide'scenYc beauty as
`desgried.to maintain a,suburban
well as a habitat for wildlife,
semi -rural character°
therefore, should be protected.
30
;.Architectural solutions to hillside"
o The _hill.: area is an important
development 'whi. h result in themini-
recreational resource, p ar tZ-
mum- amount of disturbance of the
cularly in he:areas of. hiking
natural terrain should be ut"ilized°
and.:equestrian trailso
Every possible consideration should
be given to the designing of structures
a Within the hills there are areas.
which are;,:harmonious with the: hill
subject to floodings and_seis'
environment.
a.ctivty
44
Those methods and means of street
design. - that wi11 meet deveYopment
needs. and.;:be most compatible with.
-pr es;ervaton ofr the. natural land==
scand topography shall be
e ncoura ed°
5
The overall density of the population
should be 1"ower than that of the valley
_.
floor- and'be related to environmental
actors. -
A coriiprehens v,e sys' em of trails ; s -d
corrdar.s `should be develo-ped..within
- •.
-
the foothill area s;o that ,the _.existing
-
ential reced anpreanmayb.
..
into "one cohesive unit of -recreational
selsm.ic act1vity
1. Why should Cupertino encourage any new commercial
development in addition to the Regional Center?
2„ What is the basis for designating different land uses
on each side of Highway 9?
3 Are there alternative ways of achieving the community's
goals on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard?
4A. Can a set of performance standards achieve the community's
goals on intensity of land use?
4Bo Can industrial, commercial or office land use meet the
community°s goals on intensity and still be feasible?
GENERAL FUND TOTAL I : CAPITAL , COSTS SURPLUSFOR
ALTE_R.NATIVES COSTS REVENUES NET TAX- RATE COSTS REVENUES NET
OTHER ADDITIONAL USES
0
ALTERNATIVES
U, E
FIS CAL IMPACTS
Net 0r Nyet Net
perat.ing, Capital Fiscal
Costs!, Co-st.'s Impacts
TRAFFIC IMPACTS CHARACTER
OF
OTHER:_1MPAGTS
AGGREGATE
DISTRIBUTION
CITY
IMPACTS
"
�.
IMP A C T._S
Districts
§
y
r
`
E
I
{
H
e
2
i
s
,
f
7
i
�
I
S
:
r
4
h
4p4
yv
1
{il
J
x
- F
i
S U,M:M:ARY
T R- A
EA?l I C'
>,. REGIONAL - -
REGIONAL
:<VI_.THOUT_REGIQNAL
SHOPPING.
CENTER.
SHOPPING
CENTER -
EXISTING
S�HOPPING:CENTER
AT MARIANI. :
AT �IALLCO PARK
1973"
1973-1980
1 80-1 -
9 5
99
1973l19'8;0
1980=1995973-1980
19'80-1995-
: 10 ;
. Highway 9 Bol linger o S t.even:s Cr eek
4
6
6.,a 5
7a5
8
6F8
7,a3
2F `
Highway 9 _,. `'Stevens .Creek lnte e tion
g y r c
Some
Some
;:.
Highly.
Highly
Approaching;
Congested'
High!,'
Con g estion:
Con es-t' onCon
g i
": gested:
Congested
Breakdown
Congested+
3
Highway 9 ,Stevens.Creek to 280
4
6
6.
9 +Torre
9�+Torre
6>
6
40
Highway 9 280 Ramps
Some
Highly
Highly.
s
5.
Stevens Creek Highway 9 to Wolfe
Congestion
Congested
Congested
Congested
Congested
"Conges.ted
Congested
6
6
6+
7
7+
7
7+
6.
Stevens Creek :Wolfea to Tantau
6
6
6
6.5
6,5
7.2
7o
Tantau
.:. _
Not,
y•
Cons true ted
4
4
4
4
4
4
8o
Miller Rd - Bollinger to Stevens Creek
4(2)
4
4
4
4
405
4.5
9F
' Wolfe Rd} - Stevens.,Creek to 280
6
6 ,,`
6
6
6
9
9:
10o
Wolfe Rd F` - 280 Ramps
Good,
Some
Some
Some
_Seime
Congested.
Congested
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
11.
Pr' eridge
4.
4
4
4
4
4
4
12
Homestead at- Wolfe RdF
Good
Some,
Some
Some
Some
Congested
Congested
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Homestead at Highway . 9
Some
Some
Some,
Highly
Highly
Some
Some
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congested
Congested
Congestion
Congestion
14..
280 - Eas c of Wolfe Rd.
8.
9+
8<a Z
9 F 2
8 0 2_.
91.2
15.
280 - West of Highway ,9
6
8
9
8:02
9F2
8;2
9.2
16 F -
Wolfe Rd,. = Stevens Creek Blvd.
17 o stead _ ,
.` Home .. H wa ..
z <e.. d
_ .
EX1S'11NG '
WITHOUT REGION
REGIONAL CENTER
REGIONAL CENTER
WITHOUT REGION
REGIONAL- CENTER
REGIONAL CENTER
'1973
CENTER
`MARI>ANI` _
VALLCO
CENTER`:`
MAR_IANI
VALLGO
i" -Boll .n ' er .�to _Stevens Creek
ghway 9 g
4 -
6 0_5
8
7 0 3
: >7 0
8+ .
7 0 5+
" ghway, 9-:Stomens Creek:
Intersection
Some,,"High
Breakdown.
High
High
Near.
High
77
ongesti`on
Coriges_ton
Congestion
Co.ngest;bn
Breakdown `°
Congestion
ghway 9:Stevens :.Creek
to 280
4
6
9+ Torre
- 6`
6e5+`
9+ Torre
605+
yghway 9-280.:Ramps
Some
Congestion
High
Congestion
Congestion
High
Congestion
Congestion
'Congestion.
_
Congestion
-even Creek=Highway 9.'
to Wolfe
66+
..°.
-7+
7+
6 0 5
7 0 5
7 0 5
tevens Creek-Taolf e to Tani au
6
6,
6.0 5
7 _2
6.5
6 0 5+
7.5
" antau
Not
=4
-4
4
4 -
4
4
Goff --u ted
filler Rd o-,Bollinger-,to
Stevens Creek
4 (4)
4
4
4 0 5
4+
4+
4.5
ylolfe Rd„ -Stevens Creek'
Intersection .'
Borne;:
Some
So` e.
Congestion+
Some
Some,"
Congestion+
.
of
-
Congestion
., t
=Congestion
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion+
Wolfe Rd. -Stevens Creek
to 28`0
' ., 6.:
:::6::
6
o
--
UTolf.e Rd.-280 Ramps
Good
Eome
Some
Congestion
Congestion
Congestion.
Congestion
Coigest;lo,n
Co,ng;est:on
pruneridge
Li
4
4
4
4
4
,
Iomestead-at - Wolfe Rd>
Good,
Some :
Some:
:Congers;tion-
Congestion
Conge"soon
Congestion
_
Congestion,:
Congestion
$omes ead- at Higahway 9
Some =
Soome
High
Some.
Conges�ti:on
High _
do
Congestion
Con es-t-1on
g
Congest.zon;,>
Congestion
Gon es.t'ion
g
Congestion
280 East of Wolfe Rd > .
6
9+ : '' :
9 ,2
9 0'2-
9.+
9+
9+
6
9,
2,
9�2
9+
9+
9+
280 West of -Highway 9
1
_
.9
,
1973 GENERAL PLAN STATEMENT: FILLING IN VALLEY FLOOR
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS POLICY STATEMENTS
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
'-'Character of. Neighborhood" was the
TYPE: 0 All densities within designated
6 Rezoning of selected
principal criterion .for designation
ranges would have positive
parcels
of type and density o_f land use.
f All areas designated residential impacts on character of neighbor-
hood, therefore, choice of final
0 Preparation of
Areas were grouped on basis of
DENSITY: density will depend on other
.ordinances
similarity of character of
criteria of City of,Cupertino as
neighborhood
,® Three density classifications: set forth in `adopted ordinances.
- Interim agricultural
uses are permitted
Principal for land use designa-
Single-family residential not to
tion was "equal treatment for
exceed 4.4 D.U.'s per acre - I
- Use permits will be
similar areas"
Areas 3, 5, 9, 10, 15A, 17A(1)
required for all
developments except
0 The following impacts were found to
Mixed Residential not to exceed
detached single -
be not substantial.
4.4 to 7.6 D.U.'s per acre -
family and duplex.
Areas 2, 21A, 22
neighborhood impacts on school
or sanitation district facility
Mixed Residential not to exceed
capacity requirements
4.4 to 10.0 D.U.'s per acre -
Areas 1, 6,20 .
neighborhood traffic impacts
Citywide traffic impacts
fiscal impacts on school
districts and on City of
Cupertino
impacts on character of City
0 Park needs have been estimated
and are included in the Open
Space Element of cthe General Plan.
FRY
1�73 GENERAL :PLAN,. STATEMENTS , LOWER; FOOTHILLS
FINDIN.G:�S � -
' ,..,LAND USE ,DE,'SIGNATIONS
Y
=® Maintenance of the pliyslcal character
TYPE' All areas designatedresidental
® Low densit
e owes foothills. ,was:- the = rinc i al.
w r.
°< e ion for the", desi` nation of. the< c e-
criterion g
`DENSITY
over ure
:. �:. , d u� ,,.::. _•�:. �, .:
_and.,:.densit _ of lan s.eso.
�:�: � : � . - , ��
of the fo1
- -den. zal is �`" ener�al
y g
-
®The`slope�density formula of the Santa
,.
classifieat�on
Priva
_,Clara, Co.0 t .•.
dense
-
�- e for the
.: was�no.t an ad -a gu:�idelzn
e=' c.�`d.e s t s .
e '' e d rml he,
� S cifi n i wil�:.b ete
;� p
�,of
`neat,
_
• �e �_
` - �d -dens-ti s
des� n:aton,.of r.e i entlal� , �
tat�e ents . an
� o 'the asis o=1zc� s m
n b
`: ;�;.:,,.. _ P�. Y,:;
�. h
t e ..in
_.: � �othzhl�s.o �� � �w:
. f�or;:the ..lower -fo. ,. ... ...
h i 'y o
; _ ��_ ord.`nanc:'es �a a do ' �ted: t C t f_
.,.._ _ ._ _,. -_. , _P. , ..._.: ,,y
ch r-.a
'� ..�: a
- C u er- vino o
its i11-
- a-ted areas :of the 1 w
.The- des,z. n
_
'
:
:.
- en.t strbar.eas of `:
oothzlls . r.•e res
.
;` - _ -
u
.,
ica1-_char.aeter;rstic's.o � , ' .�: '
common :.h s- _ _ .....:
. �.... . _ .., "'
1.-_.
® Ari deve . o
_
be consist
- Cit
;:;the '`h s.zc
,.
,. _... -.• : • ..;...ill..: .,
_ Cu er ino ;:.and 5.chool:.:DYstrcts,.:.w ..:.
P:--
- .. _.. _:: ., ,,. ;; ,,
..: _. •:,. -_:
':: oothills.
f ... , .. .
-
_ .no.--t:::be,�_sub,s. anti:a1 wiah..a :. .:
_ - •' . '�
-
st _ c..__
residential devel`:o merit ,_n.,, the 'owe �
-. P.
=
�
_
by tr'e Cit
_ foo hills° :., ..
-
� DeveTo men
P
®-: Cu .ertino. Union ,School District:' -
h'd of_
met.,°, _
t es dentzal
o: derisi .r z
°cafes that 1 w
` indz y.
tha =are c
t
....
d.'eve lo:.ment:. n. _•lower _:.-f oo th�.11s., W _ . ..:. �
:.. :- _ . , , , _ � ;: -.:- -- _:.
.;ah -. h s i.c
�e or t o
r eq •wire <additi on of on w
-
hills has
.
,..
a . roved -
0' `- two new
State of C l f ornla • •S-B 9 , ..
a 9
"Ci - C °uric
y
chools 'would. no_t`. have a substantial_=
_ -
-
- steal : m .act .on .::'school das rl.ct
E u,itable.
_ .:_.tax a...ers .:.._.
®: TheT- capacity of SanZtation `District
_
facilities would impose a restraint
zntensZv=e residen_tial '_development of:' the �
- _
_ _
- church property
_
C� � Low; density residential development
lower, foothills -;not result zn _sub
-
- _
,woould
stan.tial traffic :impacts
=
f
EMENTS TAT _ ._ � '
'
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
ATION
d ..° a or the
rest en 1 f
- -
_.:.: - _
_
3 '
� Rezoning for
g
s'el.ected
�: "
selected parcels
e basis
yen` s. ace on��th s
P
_
� in rit ria=>w
g
�
@ Preparation of
-
Ordinances
r hi. a low
r�esid:entialdevelo-
� - ,. _. :.,,• :::. P
o -
Detailed_ . rot;e.
ill be h�.enfcl to
dures fd,es;i -
e physical ne
_...,_..._... .....,
resi_nationof
,
rer_ of lower ::foothills and
-
dental densit ies
-�= ie. ement of
L1oza .fore _.the-'ach v
_
_ a
in 1ower foot-
e t "1e -.,
hills w_ll.�be
re ea
P arb
P y
e° r.ivat:e sector must
staff ;-
e ce of nt :?aith-!the ma.nt nan
o
1 character o:f the lower
_
1 o Detailedroce-
P..
nd 'be undertakn under the e t.
dares re. ":hired
q
-
roe° of ordinances as ado ted
P
r.
€
by private sec-
o.f' a ertlno.a
f
for before .
_
development
d it ill .rio.t be '.a110 e ant a
is approved
. itie
res• ental dens s esZi nat.n _ .. a.,d
g g
I
�
.
well be sti u-
e of
n.sist ent em maintenance
-
lated •
1 .characters qf; the lower foot
eared; b.. staff an P eenthe f d
,P. ....y
-
i-
the Planning ::Commission and A
to
r a'tnient of....ro ert e owners of wn
ooth111s-should be followed°
SUGGESTED ADDITIONS TO THE 1973 GENERtiL PLAN
STA.TFMENTS ON LO[IER FOOTHILLS
SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER KATHY NEL'LIS TO THE PLANNING C%24ISSION
SUIDL4RY OF FINDINGS
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
POLICY STATEMENTS
The study of the. hillsides to
Type: I..
A comprehensive planned approach
date has concentrated on the
to hillside development is
lower foothills within
1. Residential
imperative and shall be developed
Cupertino°s sphere of influence
2. Recreational
in order to protect the public
which is than defined as the
3. Open Space
health, safety, and welfare, and
urban_ service area.
to preserve and enhance the h�auty
of the hillside landscape.
Within the hill area there are
two year-round creeks --Stevens
2.
The primary lard uses shall be
Creek and. Pennanente Creek--
designed to maintain a suburban
.which provide scenic beauty as
semi-r:;ral.character.
well as a habitat for wildlife,
there ore, should be protected.
3,
Architectural solutions to hillside
develoromert- which result in the mini -
The hill area is an important
mum amount Of disturbance of the
recreational resource,'parti -
natural terrain should be utilized,
cularly, in the areas of hiking
Every possible consideration should
and equestriantrails:.
be given to the designing of structures
which are harmonious with the hill
Within the hills there are areas
envirorbnent.
subject to flooding and seismic
activity.
4.
Those methods and means of street
design that will meet development
needs and be most con:natible with
preservation of the natural land-
scape and topography shall- be
encouraged.
5.
The overall density of the population
should be lower than that of the valley
floor and. be related to environmental
factors.*
6.
A comprehensive system of trails and
corridors should be developed within
the foothill area so that she existing
and potential recreation may be linked
into one cohesive unit of recreational
facilities.
7.
Development should be severely
limited,if net prohibited, in
areas which are hazardous due to
the possibility of flooding or
seismic activity.
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
II'•iP +.EMENTATION
''N
CITY.OF CUPE"RTINO, California
COMMERCIAL ACREAGE IN CORE AREA
(Gross Acres)
DEVELOPED PARCELS
TOTAL COMMERCIAL
TOTAL INDUSTRY OR OFFICE
TOTAL CORE AREA
UNDEVELOPED PARCELS
TOTAL COMMERCIAL
TOTAL OTHER USES
TOTAL CORE AREA
190.8
99.6
290.4
415.2
281.2
696.4
0
e
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS''IN CORE AREA
1A
Regional Center.- Fiscal Impacts
The net fiscal impact of the proposed regional shopping center will
be a positive impact of approximately $1;0009000 annually.° This fiscal .
impact is based upon the,development,of,a 4-department store center.
Road costs directly associated with the center are assumed to be financed
by the developer and/or the State.
Two possible sources of difference in fiscal impactsbetween the
Mariani and Vallco locations were discussed by the Planning Commission.
(1) The feasibility issue --whether there would actually be
the same number of stores in each location --was argued
by the developers.
AOL
(2) There is a probable difference in the road costs associated
with each location. There will be approximately $1.00,000
in annual -road costs for widening Highway 9'between: Stevens
Creek and Highway 280 which will be required whether or not
the Regional Center develops and would be paid for_by the
developer if the center is located at Mariani. If the center
is located at Vallco,.these costs will probably be financed
partially by alternate developments along Highway 9 and
°partially by the State or City.
9
d
r�
Regional Center Character of the City
The location of the regional center at the Mariani site would create
a high intensity commercially -oriented focus for the Highway 9 area from
Stevens Creek to Highway 280. The location of the regional center at
Vallco would allow a much lower intensity focus for that area. In
addition, the location of the regional center at Vallco would focus the
core area around the community -oriented activities proposed for the
Town Center.
Other Commercial in Core Area
The complete development of existing commercially -zoned land in
the core area in strip commercial development is possible. Such.
development would cover 65 acres and would result in a positive fiscal
impact (excluding possible road costs) of approximately $330,0W0 annually.
There is a potential for approximately 50 acres of commercial development.
of a subregional and community -oriented type in an agglomerated form. of
development. This is equivalent to the addition of two new community
shopping centers and would result in a positive fiscal impact_of
approximately $200,000 annually. The creation of additional strip
commercial development would partially compete in terms of land area
and function with the creation of additional agglomerated commercial
development.
Non Commercial Uses in Core Area
High intensity uses (industry/office) will create most of the
traffic problems associated with the regional center. The fiscal impact
to the City (exclusive of road costs) of industrial or office development
is slightly positive.
-2-
POLICY STATEMENTS FOR THE CORE AREA
Non Commercial Uses
The development,of the Highway 9 area in predominantly residential
uses will make a positive contribution to'the,life of the residents
of Cupertino. The area of Highway 9 between the town center and
Highway 280 should be subject to stringent design controls in order
to achieve setbacks and aesthetic improvements which will be com-
patible with the residential neighborhoods in the area.
Lands presently under Williamson Act control should be permitted and .
encouraged to retain uses compatible with: the goals of the act. The.
possi.bllity of future development in.other uses is recognized; the
retention of present zoningas the General Plan (and use designation.)
allows some flexibility in determining future use.
Future development of"Vallco'Park shall be regulated by l) the
constraints imposed by traffic as reflected in the traffic studies
conducted'as part of the'General Plan review and 2) the policy
decision of the City to restrain the overall level of intensity of
development. In addition future development of Vallco Park beyond
the regional center and °°committed" use should be securely restricted
or stopped until traffic improvements, not currently possible, are
developed.
The area on Stevens Creek opposite the proposed town center has a
high priority for development which will enhance the community -
oriented focus for the Highway 9/Stevens Creek area. It lis not
possible to identify the optimal future use until plans for the town
center and Stevens Creek improvements are definite. Therefore, the
City should implement a program of acquiring properties on.Stevens
Creek between Highway 9 and Vista Drive.
The City should implementa program for the aesthetic improvement
of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 9 and Wolfe Road.
Residential uses oriented outward should be encouraged on the
south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard.
POLICY STATEMENTS 7OR THE CORE AREA
Regional Center
The Planning Commission recommends that a regional shopping center
should be sought in the Vallco Park location. There are substantial
positive fiscal impacts and negative traffic impacts associated with
the development of a regional center in Cupertino. The location of the
center in Vallco Park is compatible with the character of Vallco Park
as a regional activity node. The location of the center in Vallco Park
also allows the development of a low intensity town center oriented
focus for the Highway 9/Stevens Creek area which is a substantial -positive
for the character and identity of Cupertino as a community. The
in the Vallco Park site
positive impacts on the character of the City/together with the positive
fiscal impacts outweigh the negative traffic impacts and are the basis
for the Commission's recommendation..
Town Center
The citizens of Cupertino have a high priority for the development
of uniquely designed town center type functions at the Highway 9/Stevens
Creek intersection and recognize that strong implementation measures are
necessary to assure such development,o'
Other Commercial
The negative traffic, environmental, and aesthetic impacts of strip
commercial development versus agglomerated commercial development outweigh
the possible higher positive fiscal impacts and a policy of severely
restricting future strip commercial development is supported.
There is a benefit to the citizens of Cupertino from providing area
for the -development of specialized.communityroriented commercial activities
and the development of those activities has a high priority along with
development,of Town Center type facilities and will also.require strong
implementation procedures.
The selection of the Wiest location for approximately 50 acres of
agglomerated commercial development requires that choices be made which
may have negative impacts on individual property owners.
QUESTIONS ON CONTARISON OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS FOR REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER SITES
Are there significant differences in the traffic impacts in the immediate
vicinity of either site?
If not, is the immediate vicinity of either site a preferable location to
experience the traffic impacts?
Are there significant differences in the spillover impacts adjoining
neighborhoods from traffic in either site?
Are there any long run advantages between the two sites?
QUESTI.QNS IN :ETILUATION
OF STRIP VS. AGGLQMERATED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE CORE AREA
Are there significant differences between strip and agglomerated
commercial development in
Fiscal impacts
Traffic impacts
Impacts on character of City
Other impacts
Distribution of impacts
Are there significant differences in the evaluation of strip vs.
agglomerated in different areas of Cupertino?
On an evaluation. basis
On an equity/consistency basis
What steps are needed to develop specific land use choices and
implementation requirements?
QUESTIONS ON :EVALUATION'. pF ALTERNATIVE LAND USES
IN REMAINING AREAS OI.CORE`
Is the analysis of alternativeland use on remaining Mariani and
Vallco Park areas applicable?
What are the implications of the ,,iscus'sion of low intensity vs<
high intensity uses for land use choices in the remaining areas
of core?
Implications of discussion of commercial land uses?
1e_ Why should Cupertino encourage,an.y,.new commercial development in
addition to the regional.:center?
2e What is the basis for designating different land uses on each side
of highway 9
3. Are there alternative ways.of achieving the -community's goals' on the
north side of Stevens Creek•.B1vdo?
4Ao Can a set of performance- standards- achieve the community's goals
on intensity of land use?
4Bo Can industrial, commercial or office land use meet the community's.
goals on intensity and still be feasible?
.QUESTIONS. ON AMOUNT AND LOCATION
OF NON --NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN CORE AREA
• Should the City plan on approximately 50 acres of agglomerated commercial
development in addition to the regional. center?
• What are the priorities for locating the 50 acres?.
• What are the implementation requirements in locating 50 acres according
to priorities?
Are there additional desirable commercial activities?
How can these be provided for without negating previous choices?
QUESTIONS ON COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER
IS THERE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN...
• FISCAL IMPACTS ON THE TOTAL COMMUNITY.
• TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
• IMPACT ON CHARACTER OF THE CITY.
• IMPACTS ON SPECIFICrI NEIGHBORHOODS.
o THE ACHIEVEMENT OF COMMUNITY GOALS.
HOUSING DIVERSITY
CREATION OF TOWN CENTER
OTHER GOALS
a :OTHER IMPACTS
THE DISTRIBUTION OF IMPACTS
QUESTIONS ON COMPARISON -OF ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER
ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS IN THE IMMEDIATE
VICINITY OF EITHER SITE?
a IF NOT, IS THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF EITHER SITE A PREFERABLE LOCATION TO
EXPERIENCE THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS?
ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE SPILLOVER IMPACTS ON ADJOINING
NEIGHBORHOODS FROM TRAFFIC IN EITHER SITE?
ARE THERE ANY LONG RUN ADVANTAGES BETWEEN THE TWO SITES?
QUESTIONS ON EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ON REMAINING LANDS IN
MARIANI AND VALLCO PARK AREAS
WHAT IS THE EVALUATION OF HIGH INTENSITY USES (°INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE) VS.
LOW INTENSITY USES (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL/OPEN SPACE IN THE SHORT
RUN?
FISCAL IMPACTS
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
CHARACTER OY`CITY
OTHER IMPACTS/GOALS
DISTRIBUTION -OF IMPACTS
WHAT IS THE EVALUATION OF HIGH INTENSITY USES .VS. LOW INTENSITY USES IN
THE LONG RUN?
HOW MUCH FLEXIBILITY EXISTS FOR MIXING HIGH AND LOW INTENSITY USES?
ON AN EVLUATION BASIS?
ON AN EQUITY/CONSISTENCY BASIS?
IF THE LONG RUN CHOICE OF LAND USES DIFFERS FROM THE SHORT RUN CHO-TC�
WHAT IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS ARE APPROPRIATE?
GENERAL PLAN POLICY STATEMENTS.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
ORDINANCES
WILLIAMSON ACT
QUESTIONS ON EVALUATION
OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USES
IN REMAINING AREAS OF CORE
IS THE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USES ON REMAINING MARIANI AND VALLCO
PARK AREAS APPLICABLE?
WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE DISCUSSION OF LOW INTENSITY VS. HIGH
INTENSITY USES FOR LAND USE CHOICES IN THE REMAINING AREAS OF THE CORE?
IMPLICATIONS OF DISCUSSION OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES?
June 14, 1973
1. Highway 9 - Bollinger to Stevens Creek
20 Highway 9. - Stevens Creek Intersection
3. Highway 9`- Stevens Creek to 280
4.1 Highway 9 - 280 Ramps
5e Stevens Creek -- Highway 9 to Wolfe Road
6. Stevens Creek - Wolfe Road to Tantau
7. Tan:tau
8> Miller Road Bollinger to Stevens Creek
9. Wolfe Road` - StevensCreek to 280
10. Wolfe Road.- 280 Ramp
11. Prun:eridge
12. Homestead at Wolfe Road
13. Homestead at Highway 9
140 280 ;East of Wolfe Road
15 0 28&. West, of Highway 9
r
10 Deo sionma.kers have previously,, -,given great weight to
.the fiscal impact of alternative land use's on the school
system
2> School financing under current rules (SB 90) significantly
reduces the dependence of school financing on land use..
changes.
3e The choice among alt-ern.ative lend uses will now depend
much more heavily on factors other than school financing.
b
a
Alternative #1
Regional Shopping Center in Vallco. Park
by-1976
4 New Stores
,1o3 million additional square feet
o$80-$100 million in sales 01047-$130 million)
$15:million in additional assessed values
Other.Us:es in Ma--riani
o�
Uses in Other Sites
Alternative #2
Regional Shopping Center in Martian.
by 1976
4 New Stores
..1.3 million- square feet
o$104-$130 million in sales
e $15 million in assessed value
0-ther Uses in Vallc.o
7
Uses in Other: Sites
o�
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of
the Planning Commission
FROW James Ho Sisk, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Cupertino General Plan Program -'Hillsides
DATE: May '23, 1973
The purpose of this memo is to discuss alternative land use polices -for the
lower foo,Chills of Cupertino, specifically, those undeveloped foothill areas
east of the Urban Service line.
During the May 17 Planning Commission meeting, three primary objectives were
delineated by the Planning Commission relative to, land use in the foothills.
1. It was determined that hillsides should be maintained in as close a natural
state as possible.
26 In those areas where development is to occur, the density should be. lower
than the density on the valley floor.
3. That density should be related to the physiographic features of the land,
primarily slope steepness:.
These objectives echo previous goals and objectives adopted by the Santa -Clara
County Planning Policy Committee, the Cupertino Citizens Goals Committee;.:and
the City Council
Since there appears to be generally agreement as to the type of development
(residential) and intensity of development, (lower density than valley floor),
to refine these objectives
Cupertino General Plan Program - Hillsides May 23, 1973
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
and develop a strategy to implement the objectives. The two primary means to
implement the stated goals and objectives regarding hillside land use is to
(1) acquire hillside lands to control 14�n.d use, and (2) to develop ordinances
to regulate land use in a manner to meet the goals and objectives.
During the May 17 Planning Commission meeting, a number of issues regarding
hillside "land use alternatives were presented. The initial issue involves
the question of equity, whichwas posed by stating the principle of "similar
treatment for similar parcels". The term "siin.ilar treatment for similar
parcels" cannot be taken literally because each and every parcel in the
foothills is unique. What the principle really implies -is that the Planning
Commission should evaluate each individual parcel on a similar manner and that
proposed land use designations for each property within the foothills should be
derived by a, standard set of criteria.
The second basic issue discussed during the meeting was the question of density
ranges for lands within the lower foothills. The third basic question or issue
involved the desired development pattern within the foothills, more specifically,.
the question of conventional individual detached home development versus cluster
development.
A fourth issue and probably the most profound issue discussed during the
meeting was the question of an open space alternative for the foothills. Bob
Arnold and Steve Levy have maintained a position that the Planning Commission
should evaluate alternative development patterns on individual properties with
the idea that the land in question is owned by the City. The rationale for
this philosophy is that if it is assumed
that the land is in City ownership,
�2-
Cupertino General Plan Program - Hillsides _ May 23, 1973
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
the question of land use economics, both in terms of the public point of view
and the privateproperty owners point of view, is divorced from the considera-
tion. This type of attitude Mould allow the Commission to evaluate alternative
land uses based upon the optimum or ideal development pattern preferred by the
City. Under this philosophy, the question of real world constraints relative
to economic considerations will not come into the picture until a later stage
of the land use evaluation process.
During the May 17 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the possibility
of a "pure" open space alternative for the lower foothills; however, determined
that due to a number of reasons that the alternative was not viable. There
appeared to be a consensus that in some cases the private sector (individual
lot owners) could better.:,maintain open Ispace areas by virtue of large lot
single-family developments. The implication was not that the foothills should
be.developed in a manner similar to the neighboring cities of Saratoga and
Los Altos Hills as manifested by a proliferation of one -acre plus single=family
detached neighborhoods, but rather that alternative development patterns be
established such as clustering and large lot developments whereby private.
homeowners associations and individual owners would be in a better position
to maintain open space than the City and'thus cut down fire hazard, policing
an& maintenance problems. The concept of private versus public maintenance
of open space was not gone into deeply, however, there appeared to be a feeling,
at least on the part of the Commission, that private maintenance of the foothills,
via private low density development of the foothills, would not be adverse to the
adopted goals and policies and objectives of the City.
During the past three or four meetings of the Planning Commission, two architects_
have presented rather unique development schemes for individual properties within
-3-
Cupertino General Plan Program - Hillsides May 23, 1973
the foothills. One scheme involved the use of.attached .units that stepped
down the side of a hillsidein a cascading manner, which allowed for the
roof of each succeeding unit to serve as a patio for an upper unit. Another
proposal involved the development of an abandoned quarry with the surrounding
foothills to be kept in open ,space. Both of these developments point to the
unique characteristics of individual properties within the foothills., Bo- h.
the staff and the Commission concurring that each individualproperty within
the foothills is unique in terms of its physiographic features and in terms
of its developmental potential.
The dilemma faced by the City as expressed by Commissioner Gatto is that the
City cannot afford to determine land use on an individual case by case basis
but rather the:_City must develop land use policies based on an analysis of
alternative land.uses for the entire lower foothills. The necessity to look
at the entire foothills in terms of land use is dictated by public servicing
requirements including road systems, school and park facilities and utility
intrastructure systems and by the City's,desire to maintain a low density
residential character of the foothills. If each individual property were to
be looked at on a case by case basis, there would not be a wavy to evaluate the
accumulative affect of individual developments and as such, the City°s objectives
with regard to the character of the foothillsmight be jeopardized, as well as,
the City°s capacity to service the foothills.
The initial question relative to the establishment of a uniform set of criteria;;
for allowed uses within the foothills is that of uniform application of density
restrictions. Each of the basic subareas defined earlier in connection with the
hillsides, specifically the Catholic Church property, the Voss Avenue properties,
Inspiration Heights, the Lindy Canyon properties, the Regnart.Canyon properties
-4-
Cupertino General Flan Program
- Hillsides
May
23, 1973
and the Seven Springs Ranch are
adjacent to urban
services including
roads
and utility intrastructureo As such, each of these six subareas can be developed
independently without requiring the development of other subareas. A possible
exception might be the Regnart Canyon area, Depending upon density an addional
road access for fire fighting purposes may be required which would link Regnart
Road with the western terminus of .Prospect Road. This roadway link is.f easible
from an engineering standpoint and has been discussed preliminarily with the
City of Saratoga and with private developers both within the Regnart Canyon
and Seven Springs Older Ranch areas.
Another possible exception would be the Inspiration Heights area which is
currently divided into a number of smaller .parcels. Based upon a preliminary
investigation, of the property ownership configuration in Inspiration Heights,
there may an opportunity to evaluate the future development of the area based
upon the premise that the lot lines are not presently valid. The judgment that
the lot lines are invalid is due both to the fact that the lot lines have been
adjusted via illegal property transfers and by virtue of the fact that the lot
lines do not reflect the physiographic characteristics of the property and as
such, could not be developed in the manner as presently divided without disrupting
the environment:. -:of. the area
Inasmuch as the subareas are generally in a similar situation with respect to
its service ability, the primary physiographic characteristic which differentiates
individual subareas is the steepness of slope within each subareas and withineach
property within each subareas. Because topography.is the major.physiographic
difference between the study areas, the staff has determined that density
considerations relative to each property holding should be related to steepness
Cupertino: General Flan program - Hillsides May 23, 1973
of slope. The idea of using a slope density approach to develop a land use
intensity criteria for properties within the foothills was tentatively agreed
upon by the Commissioners during the.May 17, 1973`;hearingo Both the Commission
and staff felt that the slopedensity approach towards a regulation of residential
land use intensity would be an equitable approach towards land use regulation
which would allow each individual owner to develop his land based on a uniform
criteria. The slope density ordinance is primarily a density regulating device
which regulates density based upon a mathematical formula which relates steepness
of slope to the number of units allowed. Because of its ability to be uniformly
applied to individual property owners within the hillsides in terms of its
ability to recognize lower densities on steeper slopes and because of its
ability to be easily administered from a public"jurisdiction°s point of view,
the slope density formula has become widely used by jurisidctions with hillside
terrain in its jurisdictional boundary. Based upon its tentative acceptance,
the staff has determined that a slope density formula approach towards hillside
land use regulation should be the backbone of the City's hillside ordinance.
The remainder of the staff report will be devoted toward the development of a
hillside land use policy which utilizes a slope density formula as its base.
Slope Density Formula
The ideal approach to regulate land use :type and intensity in the lower foothills
would be to develop a mathematical formula which could somehow quantitatively
measure allowable density based upon physiographic constraints, servicing
requirements including traffic considerations and aesthetic considerations.
Cupertino General
Plan Program
- Hillsides
May 23,
1973
criteria could be
developed to
determine land use.
The problem stems
from the
lack of precise data relative to. geologic : sta:bilty, the effect of grading on
vegetation, and relative to the.t:echnique of converting value judgments con-
cerning hillside development into mathematical form. This technique has been
used on large scale land use studies on a regional or,statewide basis. However,
the technique has not been effective at a.micro scale., In the absence of a
more sophisticated approach towards determining land use for individual property
owners in the hillside, it is the staffs recommendation that the slope density
approach be utilized to determine the basic density for eachindividual property
owner within the foothills..
The slope density formula is a land use regulatory tool which regulates residential
land use intensity based upon steepness of slope. The slope density formula does
not regulate the location of units within a given area or property. Thus, while
the slope density approach is a regulatory tool which equitably determines the
number of units for individual properties within the lower foothills, the slope
density ordinance does not ensure that development will occur on individual
properties in an environmentally sound and aesthetically pleasing manner. As
such, the slope density formula must be augmented by .a;mumber of policy guides
which can regulate the location of units on individual properties Examples of
suggested policy guides will be described below :in the report.
The range of density allowed in connection with the slope density formula,::isc=
completely arbitrary in a sense that density ranges are established by subjective
criteria rather than objective criteria related to the amount of units which -could
be safely developed on a given slope. The staff has reviewed slope density ordinances
of the County of Santa Clara, the Town of Los Gatos, City of Saratoga, the Town of
Los Altos Hills and Portola Valley. Each formula starts at,a beginning minimum -lot
-7-
Cupertino General plan ,program ; Hillsides' May 23, 1973
size at one acre at`0% slope and.at-levels of appxox mately five acres at 40%
or 50% slope.
A copy of the newly adopted Santa Clara County Slope Density Formula is attached
to describe the typical chart and formula used by various agencies in the County
which have adopted slope density formulas4 A staff member will be present at the
meeting to discuss the mathematics related to slope density formulas should that
be necessary.
The slope density :formula does not have to begin at one acre of land area per
unit at 0% slope. It is apparent that other jurisdictions have adopted that
beginning point because of historical zoning patterns with respect to one acre
development. The majority of all hillside land in the West Valley is zoned for
one acre minimum development. It is assumed that each city adopt the one acre
as a basic minimum based on this historical pattern.. Although the l to 5 acre
slope density formula which has uniformally been adopted by cities in the West
Valley is arbitrary in terms of the physical capability of the land to support
development,, there has been a number of studies which have;,been conducted to
analyze residential subdivisions in foothills relative to aesthetics. In 1971,
the County of Santa Clara retained the planning consultant firm of William Spangle
and Associates to evaluate slope density formulas for possible adoption by the
County. The consultant firm has been in the forefront in the development of
slope density analysis. In connection with earlier studies and with the County
study, the consultant firm analyzed a series of .existing hillside subdivisions
within the lower :p.eninsulaa Based upon a subjective analysis of the subdivisions
by',the-Spangle Consultant Firm and by members of the Planning Policy Committee
staff.and'Committeemen, it was determined that.the subdivisions having minimal
impact ors the environment and which were the most aesthetically pleasing were
_g_
Cupertino -General plan Progxam - Hillsides May 23, 1973
----- -s.-- ----.---------- -- - ------ ----- . ,� �--
subdivisions which were developed in a range of 1 to 5'acres per lot depend-
ing upon the steepness of slope and as such, the determination was made that
the ideal range for development would be along a graph which produced a
l to 5 acre minimum development. Thus, it is readily apparent that the slope
density formula is based upon: -traditionally single-family detached subdivisions.
No attempt was made to analyze the impact of cluster developments based upon a
slope density formula.
Slides of a few of the subdivisions analyzed in connection with the study
will be available at the meeting.
Modifications to the Slope Density Formula
As stated earlier, the slope density formula does not speak to the environmental
and aesthetic concerns of foothill development by virtue of the fact that the
slope density formula does not regulate the placement of units within a, given
piece of property. Through the work in the open space element, unique land
forms and vegetative features within the foothills have been identified.
Additionally, the preservation of the foothills and strict regulation of
residential development in the foothills was a common thread which ran
throughout the Cupertino Goals Committee document. Clearly, hillside policy
adopted in connection with the land use element of the General Plan must
recognize the concerns expressed in the aforementioned documents..
The slope density formula must be modified,for example, to protect ridge tops
from concentrated development or to protect wooded.ravines from development.
The slope density formula would also have to be augmented by'a revision of
the subdivision ordinance to speak to new.techniques to eliminate excessive
road cutting and excessive roadway width.
Cupertino.General Plan Program Hillsides May 23, 1973
In 1971, the Planning Policy -Committee staff wrote a-memo*.pertaining to the
advantages.and disadvantages'.of .a.slope density formula. A.copy of that memo
is,attachedo On page nien of`the_memo, a number of modifications to the slope
density ordinance are discussed. The concept of a density bonus for project
scale is discussed which in essence states that as a development area increases
in size, a developer can take advantage of certain techniques to produce
greater amenities within the project. This is a concept which is embodied
into our own cluster and planned development ordinances. The PPC memo suggests
that developments of a certain size would be allowed a density bonus for each
additional ten acres which could be added to the project size. In the parti-
cular example used, the minimum property size to qualify for the density
bonus would be twenty acres. For each additional ten acres in size, a 10%
density bonus would be allowed. Although the staff has not had time to
anlayze what this would mean in terms of all properties within the Cupertino
foothills, it would seem apparent that in large property holdings,, a 10%
density bonus -for each ten acres over twenty acres would amount t& a substantial
increase in the density. The concept of encouraging large scale development
via a density bonus is questionable. With the exception of the Inspiration
Heights area, the majority of property holdings within the lower foothills
are relatively large and as such, the City can control the division of the
property and thus can indirectly encourage large scale development. The
County, unfortunately, allows lot splits of over forty acres without tentative
map approval. Thus, the property size incentive on the County level may be
a viable tool.
The next bonus concept discussed in the County memo pertains to open space.
The rationale under this bonus. -system would be to allow,,a bonus increase .if
open space areas are permanently preserved within the development via a
-10-
Cupe.rtinoGen.eral Plan program - Hillsides May 2.3., 1973
dedication of development rights or, a similarvehicle° The County memo
suggested that a 1% increase in.density be.allowed for. each 1% of the total
land area held in permanent open space. That type:of bonus is quite
generous. Assuming that 507.`of the land is held in open space, a potential
50% density increase could be approved. The PPC memo indicates that
theoretically this approach could double the number of units, however, it
states that in practice it would lead to considerably less than doubling
of allowable units.
The Town of Los Gatos has incorporated a similar open space bonus in its
ordinance. They allow a %% increase in density (Total DU°s per acre) for
each 17. of <=:area which is left in permanent open space. The Town of Los
Gatos' approach appears to be more realistic.`
The next incentive discussed by the County memo`is an automatic density bonus
for clustering. The memo discusses the possibility of an automatic density
bonus for clustering, however, the memo doesnot talk about the extent of
the bonus. Presumably, it would be similar to the open space bonus discussed
previously above. The main difference between the two bonus techniques would
be that the open space bonus relates to a conventional detached development
that provides for open space and the cluster would provide for a planned
development approach for hillside development.
The next density bonus technique discussed in ,the memo is a bonus for mixing
residential unit types within a given clevelo:prnento This concept was spoked
to in: the Interim Housing Element__adopted by.the;City in August. of 1972. The
County memo suggested that a developer .should be regardedin terms of a density
bonus when the price spread within a g:iv,en.d:ev.elopment is greater than 207.
-11-
Cupertino General Flan Program Hillsides May 23, 1973
between the highest and lowest.priced unit. A 1% increase in the allowable
density would be increased:.for every.1% spread within the upper and lower
price. If the City were,:_to.adopt this position, it would have to ensure that
the lower price would be at-a.level which would ensure that moderate income'
individuals could live wthin..a development, for example, if the prices goes
between $100,000 and $80,000 per unit, a developer should not be guaranteed
a density increase if for each: additional percent increase in the range below
$80,000 per unit. During the housing element discussion of a year ago, the
question was raised as to the technique of requiring a developer to provide
a range.within his particular development. The staff mentioned the possibility
of requiring the developer to participate in a federally subsidized program
to ensure that there was governmental control on the given percent of the
units within a development. In view of the present administration's policy
with respect to subsidized housing, it.is apparent this technique would not
be utilized.
The City of Palo Alto in connection, with the land development.proposal has
adopted a condition of approval on the project which requires that a price
spread be maintained throughout the project. The Palo Alto City Attorney has
determined that a conditional use permit can be utilized to not only require
conditions of approval which relate to the physical placement of buildings on
the property but conditions of approval can also be utilized to speak to
recognizedsocial concerns within the community. The developer` has:agreed,41-_
to the conditions of approval and as such, there will apparently be no Court,
test on this particular subject. Assuming that a developer can be required
to provide a price range within a development, the concept of a density bonus
-12-
Cupertino.General Plan Program - Hillsides May 23, 1973
may be a valid tool. This is a policy question which should.be discussed
during the meeting If it is deemed a:.valid approach', more detailed staff
work can be undergone to describe the concept in more detail.
Analysis of Dwelling Unit Count .arid Population Size in connection with the
Application of a Slope Density Formula.for the Lower Foothills
During the May 17, 1973 meeting, the Planning Commission came to a consensus
that the lower portion of the Seven Springs Ranch consisting of approximately
113 acres and the lower portion of the Seventh Day Adventist property on the
south side of Voss Avenue consisting of approximately 62 acres would be
excluded from the foothill study in terms of the application of the slope
density ordinance. It was determined that the flatter portions of those
particular properties were similar in nature to other f lat.portions within
the lower valley floor and as such, should be treated similarly with respect
to density al -to -cations. Assuming that the remainder of the land area within
the lower foothills would be developed at a slope density formula of 1 to 5
acres per unit, a total of 830+ units would be located within the lower
foothills. Should the lower portion of the Catholic Church property (300.
developable acres) referred to as 18B on the maps we have been using, be
developed at a greater density than that allowed by the slope density formula,
say, for example, 4.4 units per acre, an additional 940+ units would be permitted
within the foothills brie ng'-lthe,.,to.tal:dniti)count to 1770.
During the closing minutes of the May 17, 1973 meeting, the Commission asked
the staff to evaluate the foothills, in terms of.a dwelling unit count ranging
between 1,000 to 1,600.unitso Assuming that the Commission requested that
range with the idea that the lower portion of the Seven Springs Ranch and the
Seventh Day Adventist -property were excluded from the lower foothills, it is
-13-
Cupertino General Plan Program - Hillsides May 23, 1973
assumed that the Commission intended .that either a .revisedslope.density
formula be devised to vary the density::to conibrm to the range or that a.
system of bonuses be applied to effectuate the range, or that density
flexibility be evaluated for the f lat'church property.
Maps of the individual six study areas as well as a composite of the
six study areas will be presented at the meeting.
Enclosures:
Santa Clara Co. HR1 Zoning Ordinance
PPC Memo dated July 1971
_14-
POLICY DECISIONS IN CORE AREA
Strip Commercial
-Residential-Amount & Density
Low vs. High Intensity
Impacts on Community vs. Impacts on Individual. Owners
• Implementation -
Existing Uses
'liming
• Consistency in: Application of Criteria
El
CUPERT-INO GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM
SLOPE DENSITY ANALYSIS
CHART 10 1 to 5.acres per unit
slope/density
analysis applied to
gross acres,- entire
lower
foothill subarea. (Includes flat portions of subareas)
PARCEL GROSS
CONTOUR
AVERAGE
MINIMUM AREA
ALLOWABLE
ACRES
LENGTH
SLOPE
PER D/U
UNITS
18B&C
Church (total) 728
179,000
22.26%
1.44
(505e6)
Developa.bl°e 625
...
442*
17A:-
Voss Avenue 4.0.8
50,500
28040%
1072
24
17B_")
Inspiration Heights 115.6
174,500
34070%
2.12
55
16A."
Linda Vista Canyon 130.5
248,320
43.70%
3.20
41
16B
Regnant Canyon 378
678,400
40.70%
2.74
138
15A&B,
Seven Springs (total
property) 255
599700
21.53%
1042
180
Total 16.47
879
Figure obtained by. estin;ate of 'slope
CUP.ERTINO GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM
SLOPE DENSITY ANALYSIS.
Chart 20 4.4 per acre density
assumption
on lower portion of
Seven Springs Ranch, Voss Avenue,
(Seventh Day Adventist Property)
and Catholic Church
property.
Density
Allowable
Acres
Figure
Units
18B Catholic Church
(Developable
Portion)
350
4.4
1540
17A1a Voss Avenue
7th Day Adventist
property (flat
portion)
6.5
4.4
28.6
15A Seven Springs Ranch
(lower porticn)
113
4.4
497.2
Total
449
2065
TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS in looter foothill subarea assuming 4.4 units per acre on areas
listed above and 1-5 acres per unit on remaining area based upon slope density formula.
Total 2500+
Governmental
Jurisdiction
T ax R,a t e
Total Revenue
Total Cost, Net -Fiscal Imp act.
from Regional`
9- -�7
fro m-RegfonAl from Regional
Cupertino as % of
Total Budget
Shopping Center
Shopping Center Shopping
g Center
each Q overnmenta.1
each G ove,;rn.m,e,
Jurisdiction
Juri.s.dictio
Sales- tax
0.9% of
t6,-tA1 sales
$9-40,000-1,1701)000'
2.,8,601:'.��06
U
109%
100%
Property tax
$0.31/$100 A.V.
$46 000
upett no Union
-Slehool District
Fremont High
School District
Foothill Junior.
College District
Fire District
County and
County Library
Other
5-73
IF
$4.497./$100 X.V1.1.
$2.580/$100 A.V.
$0.844/$100,A.V.
$0.752/$100 A.V.
$675,000
$ 3 8 7:,.:PO 0
$126,000
$118,000
DRAFT
GENERAL PLAN.STATEMENT FOR
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ELEMENT
ON: "VALLEY FLOOR
The Planning Commission and City Council have'reviewed information and have
determined that the differences in residential densities on the parcels
designated on Map 1 will not have a'significant impact on:
Fiscal position of the following jurisdictions:.
Cupertino Union School District
Fremont High School District
Foothill Community College District
City,of Cupertino
CentralFireDistrict
Cupertino Sanitary District
Traffic and parking on major ar-terials.and on neighborhood streets,°
General character of the City of Cupertino.
The,''principle use y the 2 ann:ng Commission and City Council in classifying
the areas shown: on Map 1 was'PPsimilar densities for, similar neighborhoods".
Areas 1 5, 7 g g{'and, :1:0
,The' nei'ghborho.ods .,i:n whichuthese areas are located are predominantly;. single
family.. ,',-The allow -able' -land u-se is single-famil.y`.residential not to exceed 4.4
units per acre.
Areas,l, 2, 4 and 22
The.neighborhoods in -.which these areas are located are predominantly single-
family/multiple. The allowable land use is a density range of to
units per acre. The criterion for choosing within the density range will be
impacts on the character of the neighborhood and innovative design.
1
Areas 6, 8, 20 and 21
The neighborhoods in.which.these areas are located are mixed residential/
commercial/industrial. The allowable residential land use is.a rangeof
to units per acre.. The criterion for choosing
within --.the density range will be impacts on -the character of the neighborhood
and innovative design.
CLASSIFICATION OF AREAS
IN LOWER FOOTHILLS
Area 15a, , part, of 17a
The above areas are predominantly flat. The allowable land use is eoo
Area_15b., 16a, 16b, part of 17a., 17b, 18a and 18c
The above areas are predominantly steep -terrain with an average slope of
20.o and above. The allowable land use is ...
Area 18b
The above area is predominantly rolling :-terrain with an average slope not
exceeding 10%. The allowable land use is ...
TASK TQ `.COMPLETE LAND TJSE ,SELECTI()N `QN LOWER TOOTHIL'LS
�
SUN,INTARX: STATEMENTS ON SPECIFICATION QF -RESTDENTIAL ALTERNATIVES 701�
LOWER'FOOTHILLS
to , The principle ''similar treatment for similar;parcels°' is also critical
for specification of residential alternatives in lower foothills.
2. There are three types of land in the dower foothills (see map).
a. flan
be rolling hills
C. steeper hills,
3'. What are the.particular density ranges that are appropriate for each type
of land in the lower foothills?
4e Is cluster development preferred over single family large lot (1 acre to
5 acres) development?
ao What ddes'clus.ter development imply for property owners who might not
get the right: to build?
bo Should there be a,density bonus for well patterned cluster development
or should it be required?
5. Is .low..deisi.ty; cluster or large lot single: -family residential dievelopmnt
zn the :lower foothills >preferable to pure open 'space?
SU.MM�; Y STATEMENTS ON SPECIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVESFOR
IN FILLING ON THE VALLEY FLOOR
10 The first total specification of alternatives -for th:e parcels that make up
in_f illing on the valley floor show a low of 518: and a high of 984 new
dwelling units.
20 Differences between the alternatives in fiscal impact on the school districts
will be insignificant. Differences in fiscal impact to the city and in city-
wide traffic impacts will also be insignificant.
3. The alternatives will most likely be evaluated solely on the basis of
neighborhoodimpacts. The major neighborhood criterion will be the impact
of each alternative on the character of. -the neighborhood.
4e The Planning.Commission should.consider whether differences between the
low and high ;totals for in filling on the valley floor will affect the
character of the city,
50 ,' The rule, on" the 'specification ,of, alternatives is. "similar treatment for
similar neighborhoods". If' character of the neighborhood becomes the
majox,eva'luaton crterion9 it is cr ica for similar neighborhoods to
be 'evaluated 'similarly.
6. If the Planning Commission cannot make a clear choice among.alternatives in
each neighborhood based on.character of the.neighborhood; are there ways in:
the General Plan for allowing the private'sec.tor to decide?
TASKS TQ COMPLETE LAND USE SELECTZQN.ON VALLEY FLOOR
to Decide which neighborhoods are similar.
2. Select an allowable density for each group of similar neighborhoods
on the basis of the character of the neighborhood.
3. Draft finalGeneral Plan statements
PRELIMINARY SLOPE DENSITY ANALYSIS ON LOWER FOOTHILLS
PARCEL GROSS CONTOUR AVERAGE MINIMUM AREA
ACRES LENGTH SLOPE_ PER D/U,
1. Church (total
property)
728
179,000
.2-2e26%
A. Lower only
521
56,500
9.94%
2e
Voss Avenue
40e8
50,500
28.40%
3.
Inspiration Heights
115.6
174,500
34.70%
4.
Linda Vista Canyon.
130.5
248,320
43.70%
5.
Regnart Canyon
378
678,400
40.70%
64
Seven Springs (total
property)
255
59,700-
21.53%
A. 8 D;a x� 11 _.
142
54,0100
35 a 00%
1.44
1.10
1.72
2.12
3.20
2.74
1a42
2.14
404 Flat 113
ALLOWABLE
UNITS
505<6
473
24
55
41
138
180
66
497
563
SPECIFICATTON OF CITYWIDE RESIDENTIAL AZTERNATIVES
SPECIFICATIQN QF RES_IDENTI-L A.LTERN VF4S,
INT—TLLING ON UALLEY FLOOR
AREA
ACREAGE
ALTERNATISlES: _'
COilENTS
4
NO e .OF •UNIT
E'ER ACRE ',
= " NO`a OF .
UNITZ S:
LOW'
HIGH '< OTHER
Park
`,4,
7e7
0
13
34-_
2
•
l 3 e 2
X7e6:
_ 100
m®
3.3
303,
3
13;0 5
45 `<
Z.
_
706
1200:
4
4 q 1
31
48
4 a'4
8-10
5
505
:.. 24
50
4 `� 4
Z4
4 6
9
70'6
7
404
333
r
;�3
7 a 6
'"7,4 6
8
5a-0
38
3;
22
TOTAL
SPECIFICATION OF., RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVES
LOWER ".FOOTHILLS
AREA
ACREAGE
ALTERNATIVES"._.
COMMENTS;,.
NO. .'
NO OF' UNITS
PER ACRE
NO,. OF..
LOTaT ,..
HIGH U.
OTHER
15A
98
2e0
,.
4<4
431
_
Open,
Open
Space
15B
142.
O0
00
�.
:.
Open
=.
1Q0`
Slope
Space
12$
Densty
6A
128
00
a 524
1015"
' 13
1a2$
3033
17A®1
b0
17A-2
26
054
a54
=18A
25.
205
12aS
7.5
B
2Q®;
5
2500
1500' ; .
Open
Open
18C '`
550`
Space
Space
,
v
00
TOTAL
1652,
946 3639i
r
•
CORE AREA
AREA
ACREAGE
ALTERNATIVES
COMMENTS,
NO:a
NO o 0 t1N.Z.T
PER ACRE
NO. OF
UNITS
L014 HIGH
OTHE
10 .
16'
11
17,41
174
27 8`,
8
X1520-
12
190.0 0
520
19
52 a3
100.0
Z1000,
-71
14a
10e3
29d6 _...::
74>8�
3 7
3 50
1"000 r-:
500
4,b
210 2.
16
19
14
147. >
Z35
30,
10
,VALLCO
25.0
750
750
TOTAL
333 A
3941
4783
SPECI71CATIQN OF RESIDENTIAL . ALTERNATIVES
SUMMARY
SUBAREAS ACREAGE ALTERNATIVES COMMENTS
N0 OF `UNI:TS:
LOW HIGH ......
VALLEY
FLOOR 113.3 518 984
FOOTHILLS
EXCLUDING
CHURCH
902.0
44.6
1,,139
j
t
.CHURCH
} 75M
500
I
25500
,ORE AREA
333a1
3,941
4,783
TOTAL
2,098.4'.
5,405
9,406
-,AL SPEC IF WAI T.QN OF RESIDENTIAL. M=RNATIVES
COM IM I, *OBI Q:V --.'SUBAREA5,
0, Or -
COMBINATION OF ACREAGE...... AZLTERNATIVER...... ...... ...... .... COMMENTS
SIDSAREAS...... I .............. ........ ............
...... ......
NO.' "OFTNITS.
L OTAT HIGH
VallOy Floor
plus; foothills
e I xcltidi-ng
I
church
19015.3
......
964
.....
2,123
Valley Floor
plus foothills
including
church
19765.3
1,464
4,623
Core Area
--333.11
3,941
4,783
M
0 PING:CENTER,
RESIDENTIAL�NEIGHB`ORHOOD ;
�7EEIL
NEIGHBORHOOD
®F
TRAFFIC
1 FISCAL EFFECTS
O'��?EP
SPECIFICATION
s TRA.FFIC SCHOOL
APRIL _
JHK reot on base ,
Final wore, with staff 9
PC Meeting
Work session with
30
review. of De Leuw/BA
RQ, .A:genc- es
Staff-
schools
Staff/RQ
May
Meeting, with 21ar? ani,'
Sih-umary and Discussion
_. � t ngs
�C Nree
on
Work session on
�lall.co +Consultants
of
(2) .Staff
traffic
PC":-�- CC.. rearesenativea
Hasentanon
Review and feedback
Presentation to` +PC
PC:<Meeting
14
.- -
summary; of
spec? fi-
Presen.tat�on to. PC
.Analysis off' other
PC Meeting
l
alternatives-for.sit;es
PC..,for ITcusslon of
IrnPlemen�Preparatio2
traffic.,resu.lts on:
to l®n
or mee.;ig
ana , ysis of ,other ai ter
e
vwitli PC
June
Work on feedback; from.
PC meeting
- -
o discuss evaluation
4
PC.:meetn
of, resident
a alternative frori..
neighborhood
Point of view
Dzseuss ®n. of in—ormati
n
l
with PC'and .CC
General. Plan
-
1�8
;.
Implemantat on
Genera - an<=
25
Implementation
GENERAL `
PLAN 'STUDY
WORK '`HEDOLE
„T
APP, I L 30, 1973 ®. JU7LY 973
PO INT..®F.- VI;EW
RES .DENT IAT ®- C'I-T a L ' PC NT CF VIEW
CD_ARACTER. OF
..
NEIGHBORHOOD
OTHER,'
FIFZCATION
TRAFFIC
iFISCAL
Discussion
Feasibility
P o C o, Meeting '
considerations
Implementation
P o. C o .Meeting
Traffic analysis
Fiscal analysis
alternatives
Citywide alternative
Work sessions with
"agencies
Fiscal analysis
.Review of. results with
staf`i 9 RQ
.. :_
Preparation for ,P o.0 o
Meetin
P.C. Meeting to discus
=
Citywide impacts of
residential developmexi,
''Work on feedback from
;.
& scussion: of resi..
dential alternatives
General Plan
Implementation
General 'Plan
Implements ion
MEL
'OTHEI ., CON'1�1E C� L ?
.: OTHER.
PECIFICATION
TP1-�.I IC"
FISCAT
OTHER
Implementation
Staff
'be obhe s nul a®
saa7ysas of Inpact ;on
_glternatives
neously with other
revenues of vats®iis`
traffic analysis
kinds oz comzneclal
Saaff.9 Owners
Review by staffs) RQ
Implementation
Alternatives
final specification
2nd round fiscal
Implementation
it prob-abI await
analysis
Alternatives
analysis of regional
_..
center
Work sess?ons with
®
PC abd CC.
General Plan
Implementation
_...
General Plan
-
Implementation