The URL can be used to link to this page

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