CC Resolution No. 3622
RESOLUTION NO. 3622
RESOLUTION OF
RELATING TO
CEIVED FROH
THE PUBLIC
PERTAINING
CONCERNING
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
WRITTEN COM}lliNTS A~~ CO~~ruNICATIONS RE-
PUBLIC AGENCIES AND OTHERS SUBSEQUE~! TO
HEARING ON THE ENVIRO¡"'}IENTAL IHPACT REPORT
TO THE AHENDHENT OF THE 1964 GENERAL PLAN
THE LAIm USE ELBIENT FOR THE CORE AREA, AIm
REAFFIRHING SAID A}IE~~HENT
WHEREAS, the City Council on December 19, 1973, held a public hearing
with respect to the final Environmental Impact Report pertaining to the pro-
posed amendment to the 1964 General Plan concerning the land use element for
the Core Area; and
WHEREAS, although a copy of the Environmental Impact Report was delivered
to all public agencies having any interest in the matter, and a Notice of Com-
pletion of the draft Environmental Impact Report and of the public hearing to
be held with respect thereto had been given by the City, in accordance with the
requirements of its Environmental Assessment Procedure (Local Guidelines),
no written comments from any of said agencies or other persons or organizations
had been received by the time of said public hearing (although the Santa Clara
County Flood Control and Water District and the State Department of Transporta-
tion had contacted the City prior thereto); and
WHEREAS, the City Council had previously enacted an urgency ordinance
halting all development upon many parcels of land within the Core Area of the
City, pending the adoption of an amendment to the 1964 General Plan relating
thereto and the implementation thereof by the enactment of appropriate zoning
ordinances, which urgency ordinance had been extended twice, and could not be
extended beyond June 17, 1974; and
WHEREAS, in order to meet the State mandated requirements relating to the
conformance of zoning to the General Plan, it was essential that the amendment
to the 1964 General Plan concerning the land use element of the Core Area be
adopted at the earliest possible time; and
WHEREAS, the City staff and consultants, througho~~ the lengthy' hearings
held by the Planning Commission and the City Council with respect to said amend-
ment to the 1964 General Plan, had been in close contact with many of the public
agencies having jurisdiction or interest in the matter, including, but not limited
to, the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water District and the State De-
partment of Transportation; and
WHEREAS, the general public had participated extensively in the lengthy
public hearings held by the Planning Commission and the City Council with re-
spect to said amendment to the 1964 General Plan, which hearings gave substantial
attention to environmental factors, and had also participated in the public
hearing with respect to the Environmental Impact Report, at which ptwlic hearing
the City staff and consultants summarized the Environmental Impact Report and
answered questions of the City Council and the public with respect thereto;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council, accordingly, after the close of the public hearing
with respect to the Environmental Imapct Report on December 19, 1973, considered
the Environmental Impact Report, found that the proposed amendment to the 1964
General Plan would have a significant effect upon the environment, adopted
Resolution No. 3592, entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino Adopting an Amendment to the 1964 General Plan Considering the Land
Use Element for the Core Area", and directed the Clerk to file a Notice of
Determination as provided by law; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to December 19, 1973, the City has been in communication
with, and received written comments from, some public agencies and other persons
and organizations with respect to the Environmental Impact Report, and the City
staff and consultants have reviewed and commented upon said communications and
written comments, all as set forth in the materials attached hereto, marked
Exhibit "A-l" through Exhibit "A-ll", and made a part hereof by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after reviewing the attached materials and glvlng
careful consideration to the comments made and the responses of the City staff
and consultants to said comments, now finds that its decision to adopt said Res-
olution No. 3592 would not have been any different had said information been
available to the City Council at the public hearing with respect to the En-
vironmental Impact Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cuper-
tino hereby reaffirms its adoption of Resolution No. 3592, heretofore adopted
by it on December 19, 1973, and orders the Clerk to file a copy of this Reso-
lution, together with the attached materials, with the Environmental Impact
Report.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino this 4th day of March, 1974, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmen - Frolich, Jackson, Meyers, Sparks, Irwin
NOES:
Councilmen - None
i""
J' .
ABSENT:
Councilmen - None
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
- 2 -
- .
:¿-7..3
STATE OF CAlIFORN!A-BUSINESS AND TRAN$POk,ATI0N AGENCY
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
December 12, 1973
Ç-/L-b
£/Q
CÒ"-8 ðŒ4
~
~
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 3366 RINCON ANNEX
SAN FRANCISCO 94119
04-SC1-Gen
FLANNING COWtí/;)0IUN
DEC 1 2 1973
Mr. James H. Sisk
Planning Director
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mr. Sisk:
We received on December 10, 1973, a copy Draft Environmental
Impact Report for Proposed Amendment to General Plan - Land
Use Element "Core Area," which was transmitted with your
letter of December 4, 1973.
It appears that we will be unable to complete an adequate
review of the Report within the 10-day period beginning
December 4, 1973. Therefore, it is requested that the time
for review be extended to the maximum possible that circum-
stances will permit.
Very truly yours,
T. R. LAMMERS
District Director
By ;l.j /Jtd/ ~
L. J. MILLER
Systems Program Engineer
¡"'to
,."
§: 5' -1 - I ~4J
1
~!bI-tN 'Ç-Lé I¥'N'I ¡0 ç;-
"EXHIBIT A-I"
d~~~
1:~~ Iz/"'113
P-»L ~ ~
~17]
--LL
SANTACLARACO'UNTY
FLOOO CONTROL
.~~"'~
WATER DISTRICT
rl, 0 0 ~, :q
-<-73.
5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY . SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 . (408\ 265-261\0
December 17, 1973
PLANNING COMfvll;';:>luN
DEC 1 7 1973
Mr. James H. Sisk
Planning Director
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Dear Mr. Sisk:
In response to your transmittal letter of December 4, 1973, we are
reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Proposed Amend-
ment to General Plan Land Use Element "Core Area".
We regret that we will not be able to complete our review within the ten
days' period noted in your letter and hereby request an extension of this
period. We will submit our comments as soon as possible and no later
than December 28,1973.
Sincerely yours,
L2z0"~{f ~
David K. Gill
Advanced Planning Manager
:'"
,r.'!
"EXHIBIT A-2"
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
71)o03.~1
~-73
Cit\1 of C«perth1o
TO:
Jim Sisk, Director of Planning
18, 1973
DATE:4ar~r
Bert J. Viskovich, Director of Public Works ,~L-)
SUBJECT: ENVIRONHENTAL IMPACT REPORT - FLOOD CONTROL RESPONSE
FROM:
1. Verbatim or Summary Account of Comments received from Flood Control.
in their letter of December 17, 1973
"In response to your transmittal letter of December 4, 1973 we are
reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Proposed
Amendment to General Plan Land Use Element "Core Area".
"We regret that we will not be able to complete our review within the
ten days' period noted in your letter and hereby request an exten-
sion of this period. We will submit our comments as soon as possible
and no later than December 28, 1973."
2. Disposition of Significant Issues Raised by the Comments
Contact was made with John Richardson of Flood Control regarding the
extension requested in the letter of December 17, 1973. It was agreed
that because of the short timetable involved that the comments would
be forthcoming, but that Flood Control at this time does not see any
great concerns that cannot be handled at the time the individual
project is before the City and the draft Environmental Impact Report
is written.
It is felt that the comments from Flood Control would be more pertinent
when the EIR is addressing itself to a 'specifi~ project where building
to land ratios, asphalt areas, building use and so forth are more
precise. Therefore, Flood Control at this time is not requesting
that the public hearing on the EIR be delayed, but that it will respond
at a later date and will comment on succeeding projects that will be
before the City in the core area.
BV: cj g
"EXHIBIT A-3"
" .
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
¡:LANN¡ìJG COMi'y,/)·~:vi~ @
P. O. BOX 3366 RINCON ANNEX
SAN FRANCISCO 94119
JAU ~í 1974
January 8, 1974
04-S0l-280
04-SCl-85
Mr. James H. Sisk
Planning Director
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mr. Sisk:
This is in response to your referral of Draft Environmental
Impact Report - Pro?osed Amendment to General Plan - Land Use
Element "Core Area. I
It is noted that the Report refers to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
as "Highway 9." This road is State Highway Route 85.
In reviewing the Report, we found that the absence of traffic
volume data precluded a definitive evaluation of impact on State
highway traffic conditions.
Section IV - Appendix includes a memorandum dated October 16, 1973,
from Director of Public Works Bert J. Viskovich to the Mayor,
City Council and City Manager, which contains a reference to
"the collector distribution system." We presume that this refers
to the system proposed by DeLeuw Cather and Cbmpany, which we
reviewed about 6 months ago. Our comments on that system are
set forth in Mr. T. R. Lammers' letter of July 23, 1973.
The memorandum mentioned lists highway improvements needed at
various stages of development of Vallco Park, including modi-
fication of Wolfe Road Interchange and development of Tantau
Overcrossing, both on Interstate Route 280. It should be under-
stood that it is not feasible for the Department of Transportation
to make commitments regarding type and timing of such improvements
in the light of continuing erosion of State highway financing
capability through the combined effects of inflation and decreasing
revenue.
"Exhibit A-4"
1
-2-.
It is suggested that consideration be given either to staging
development of the area in a way that will be compatible with
the State's ability to finance needed State highway improvements
or. to some alternate method of financing such improvements as
needed, so that traffic conditions will not have a degrading
effect on the environment.
Very truly yours,
T. R. LAMMERS
Distr' t~~
D. E. CONNOLLY
Chief, Program Management
?
:'~
".':
Cihl of CupcrtiJ10
TO: '
James H. Sisk, Director of Planning and Deve~lopment
ATE: January 10, 1974
Bert J. Viskovich, Director of Public Works
!
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONNENTAL 1I1PACT REPORT - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
GENERAL PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT "CORE AREA"
FROM""
1. Verbatim or Summary Account of Comments received from the Department of Trans-
portation in their letter of January 8, 1974
"This is in response to your referral of Draft Environmental Impact Report -
Proposed Amendment to General Plan - Land Use Element "Core Area."
"It is noted that the Report refers to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road as "Highway 9."
This road is State Highway Route 85.
"In reviewing the Report, we found that the absence of traffic volume data
precluded a definitive evaluation of impact on State highway traffic conditions.
"Section IV - Appendix includes a memorandum dated October 16, 1973, from
Director of Public Works Bert J. Viskovich to the Mayor, City Council and City
Manager, which contains a reference to· II the collector dis tribution sys tem. II
We presume that this refers to the system proposed by DeLeuw Cather and Company,
which we reviewed about 6 months ago. Our comments on that system are set forth
in Mr. T. R. Lammers' letter of July 23, 1973.
liThe memorandum mentioned lists highway imJ?rovements needed at various stages
of development of Vallco Park, including modification of Wolfe Road Interchange
and development of Tantau Overcrossing, both on Interstate Route 280. It should
be understood that it is not feasible for the Departme~t of Transportation to
make commitments regarding type and timing of such improvements in the light of
continuing erosion of State highway financing capability through the combined
effects of inflation and decreasing revenue.
"It is suggested that consideration be given either to staging development of
the area in a way that ,<Till be compatible with the State's ability to finance
needed State highway improvements or to some alternate method of financing such
improvements as needed, so that traffic conditions will not have a degrading
effec t on the environment."
"EXHIBIT A-5"
James H. Sisk
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page 2
Jan. 10, 1974
2. Disposition of Significant Issues Raised by the Comments
In response to the Department of Transportation's reply, I wish to make the
following comments:
In their letter they note that Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road has been mentioned as
"Highway 9." The State designates this highway as "Route 85." During the
deliberations of the General Plan the two names were always used interchange-
ably, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Highway 9. "Route 85" was not used in
order not to confuse the already built Route 85 to Stevens Creek Boulevard
with Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.
The memo that the State refers to in their letter is the memo written to the
City Council on the construction staging for Vall co Park. The memo was
written in such a manner to incorporate the comments received from Mr. T. R.
Lammers of his letter of July 23, 1973 indicating that the collector-distributor
road was not acceptable to the State. Therefore the memo does take that into
consideration by elaborating on this point in Stage IV of the memo indicating
that without the collector-distributor road, 55 acres of Vallco Park would
have to remain undeveloped until such time as a very low density land use,
alternate modes of transportation, or alternate methods of the collector-
distributor road system may be realized.
Their response also addresses itself to the improvements required for develop-
ment of Vall co Park such as the widening of Wolfe Road, modification of the
Wolfe Road interchange, and the development of Tantau overcrossing. The memo
at no time committed the State to any certain dates as to when the State would
have to construct the Tantau overcrossing and the modification of the inter-
change at Wolfe Road and Route 280. It merely stated that before developments
could occur, these improvements must be completed. Vallco Park development has
been staged in order to allow the improvements to be installed over a period of
time. There were also discussions pertaining to the developer possibly funding
or participating in some manner to install the improvements if Vallco Park found
it necessary to have these improvements done before the State was able to fund
them. The whole phasing for Vallco Park is based on traffic conditions that
were analyzed during the discussions of the amendment tQ the General Plan Land
Use Element, Core Area. ' .,.
mb
'::ITY OF SAN JOSE
CALI~ORNIA
January 28, 1974
~'U-Ii ~lr'!'\(\ (II'" ,'~ f"
r \1'/ 'iihl.:J L ')ì"¡¡\'¡).)~1 ~
"'1
' ) ',':.
..L .'
CITY PLANNING
Mr. James H, Sisk
Planning Director
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Dear~
This letter is in response to your request for
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report:
Proposed Amendment to the General Plan: Land Use
Element Core Area,
Our main concern about the subject proposal is
the traffic impacts, particularly as they affect San
Jose. We note that Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road are proposed for eight (8)
lanes each through the project area. It should be
pointed out that six lanes is the ultimate planned
width of these roads as they pass through San Jose.
We note, also, that Wolfe Road is planned for
eight (8) lanes north of Stevens Creek Boulevard,
and that Miller Avenue is planned for fdúr (4) lanes
south of Stevens Creek to Bollinger Road. Little
mention of the resultant impact on San Jose neighbor-
hoods is made in the report. Miller Avenue is currently
two lanes from the city limits to Prospect Road, and
improvement to four (4) lanes is not anticipated with-
in the next twenty years. We are concerned about the
potential traffic overload and resultant air pollution
the proposed developments will generate in the Miller
Avenue area.
"EXHIBIT A-6"
Cori«..-s to:
C; +J Mer"
D l '('. 0 'r P«.b,WI<,
I I
,!\"
- 2 -
Please contact Mr. Lee Beardall (277-4000, Ext.
5175) if additional information is needed.
Very truly yours,
~
Sanford Getreu
Director of Planning
SG: WLB: sh
;""
,I.'
Cit'1 of C\fpcrti»o
TO:
Jim Sisk, Director of Planning
FROM:
Bert J. Viskovich,
S~TE: February
Director of Public work;; I
27, 1974
SUBJECT:
GENERAL PL&~ EIR RESPONSE
1. Verbatim or Summary Account of Comments received from the City of San
Jose in their letter of January 28, 1974
"This letter is in response to your request for comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report: Proposed Amendment to the General Plan:
Land Use Element Core Area.
"Our main concern about the subj ect proposal is the traffic impacts, parti-
cularly as they affect San Jose. We note that Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road are proposed for eight (3) lanes each through the
project area. It should be pointed out that six lanes is the u~timate planned
width of these roads as they pass through San Jose.
"We note, also, that Wolfe Road is planned for eight (8) lanes north of
Stevens Creek Boulevard, and that Miller Avenue is planned for four (4)
lanes south of Stevens Creek to Bollinger Road. Little mention of the resul-
tant impact on San Jose neighborhoods is made in the report. }tiller Avenue
is currently two lanes from the city limits to Prospect Road, and improvement
to four (4) lanes is not anticipated within the next twenty years. We are
concerned about the potential traffic cverload and resultant air pollution
the proposed developments will generate in the Miller Avenue area.
"Please contact Mr. Lee Beardall (277-4000, Ext. 5ÚS) if additional informa-
tion is needed."
2. Disposition of Significant Issues Raised by the Comments
In response to the above comments, the following is a reply.
It is indicated that San Jose's ultimate plan widths for Stevens Creek Boule-
vard and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road are six lanes. The Draft Environmental
Impact Report does indicate that within the core area of Cupertino the lane
requirements for both Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard will
be eight lanes. The City, during its deliberations on the General Plan,
utilized the State's 1995 traffic model to arrive at peak hour through traffic
that would be experienced in the year 1995. The calculations indicated that
"EXHIBIT A-7"
Jim Sisk
-2-
February 27, 1974
without any further development on adjoining properties along Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard that Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
would require 5.3 lanes of through traffic, while Stevens Creek Boulevard
would require 6.5 lanes for same traffic. The plan that was adopted by
the City generated an additional three lanes on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
and an additional increase of 1.5 lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The above would, therefore, indicate that the 6 lanes as planned for
San Jose in their area could not be met in Cupertino in view of the above.
Vo1wrres during the peak hour projected for 1995 will exceed the 6 lanes even
if any further development in the core area were completely curtailed.
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road south of Stevens Creek Boulevard depends làrgely on
the construction of Route 85. Projections have been made with the assistance
of the Department of Transportation to arrive at volumes that would be
generated by 1980 if the extension did not get constructed. The volumes
that would be expected would require a minimum of ten lanes on Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. It is strongly felt that the EIR and
the General Plan addressed itself very thoroughly on the volumes of traffic
that would be expected on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The lane requirements are largely attributed to the commuter traffic that the
City of Cupertino has no control of.
The statement that }!iller Avenue is currently two lanes from the city limits
to Prospect Road, and improvements to four lanes is not anticipated within
the next twenty years, a field check of }til1er Avenue does indicate that
approximately three-quarters of said street between Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Bollinger Road is already striped for four lanes. The section which is
two lanes is a portion of county and a portion of undeveloped property within
the City of San Jose which would be widened to the four lanes once developed.
The calculations used to arrive at the four lanes for l1iller Avenue in the
General Plan deliberations and the Draft Environmental Impact Report was
based on volumes anticipated in 1995. This would indicate that the four
lane requirement would not be exceeded,and that most likely could come about
at the same time as the City of San Jose has projected that Miller Avenue
would carry the four lane volumes on Miller Avenue.
; ~,
.f . .
BV:cjg
f
!
;¿ -f { f{'-?-3
I;; . (2/,EtZ),II/Ù
SIER~'\A CLUB
LOS GATOS <AR .
,_ A TOGA. CUPERTINO
I SS'/I /Z:rc..)C ~',) \'..', MONT(E. SERENO - GROUP
7 J-1/_fl7,:/) /4.(., '/.5"70
1./.;'1/73 /~~':'-~0 ..
,> ' ........" -...,
,/ c-:J " .
.........../ In, '\ ,\
~ 0 .; \:
- ~ ~.'~- 'r--. \
r::. -- ~ ,", :'-~. ;
~...\ í,.J, ~, I .
\ -..... .
/'. vJ
C-I¡ (l~'/VC; 1/.
,lJvG
ré3//d3(VEC/
./
-J he 7) I / L . - ./
'/M . T z?7/VR¡yV,I11C-v,f/1/
Ce/VéK'P J !ìJ'v' //C~<èE /Ù0J ~I
C7 0-/ (''1<,¿/~-J.//~'()
e;¿ 0/1/ -/)ÐAL {;~',v6y.:;/
J-
J /'Y'~L I
hr:.s-+
~. .
;( CŸ"C/'.!.. -!- CJ tV -I;{ E"
¡:,,, it,:) -f,{¿ +ú-l -h c/o AN
?~tl/, - / /;.5 ¿,,-rlS &o=/kn/I-
tv/! / ~'/h.u /U.i!C. k/i<:J
I SEe -//'P.-f ,;Æ'u"-. VI< /,w,Jn (;'''- so",6
)fl,,,J,,,,!,,":)' ---¡- -1o/'e -/)6 C'7 ,",II N¡V,fèE ,l-
I" /,c: / fl ,v .1,- 'N;' Eel ,~, / /, /f j" 'fj" "'(': ~ h O{ ,,-r -j,"E J
i'v!" ,/, l,v /"'""'- r 9' ,,,,f- SA)' 5 ,I j/J I- )"'36' S C/9~/,4" J(',,/
-I ic;; /1"'11/1<:.-1 0 +- !tIt(. jÆ-,/!vJ-.fcYV'.
-:L do /I Iso sCE ó,JE MV'''''- -f~JI- ,~,I/, -//,,,,
c/£ Ilk,! /.,5p./ /S ,"c,-I- ¡/C"'7 /,?'I1e INf.{,~",,/
'" J,_C'<J,Iv ",/1S'5 !rrlNS'+ /v j-/'¿ 6"- ,--/- ¥,c'nKJ
As"," , c/'J' j,,,, ':Y " ,,,; ",-- -/-- ,j" s !/} ,"J'K j ~'<:...
"EX
HIBIT A-8"
//7 /7
'----"
/ COI"""6v'C/ -/)6
4/\/t/ -/ ~~b /7hVCE C'?'S
SIERRA CLUB
LOS GATOS, SARATOGA. CUPERTINO. MONTE SERENO GROUP
£p/J rêJ~i/~-J'l"tVJ'
bE INV/ú!r,/-·ru¡v' o-t-
ctV A~ ~/ /u-l-¡O'.v tvhlc~ ('()J!cl
-I-Ác " COI""/,k,>,- ~),/'L S~,',(C(~1 /7/d~,¡.JiCrJ
é -// E<-f- e:</V ])c:c.. / S;A /973.
-Ihlt!- CHrv¡E 1/../10
/ +L.,Jc ;''''7 ,"1-1(ls C",," .JG d/Vc: -J., /Oj6\/
-rÁ6 /'Y/J'j'- 0-/ /f,<- ß//./'-~v, //E C1' d l'1'c^""ve
CAtV ~ /::-c '¡/'E )CA) A:J41A! f:; ):In'vlé17 A /11/1.5:,1'
..-ir~,vs, f Jf:cf",1/ ;i!, ,hE bK', :L =J en/v ,lvI,;;/;;
¡!",v" I""" ',""VJ -Cz MS5 )Æ'I,,,,,-f -/0 '¡/'E tv'""'" I
C ",vlE"--. -y;{ú t /I"" ~;'f"E -f Ù .(,,0" úf b ".5
_/ J. D.-'-)' í -I -;/- L1 /~jjf */I,II/jl-l SYj~;:¡"'l
;;'?/VS 17' /7 --¡ (t:.J /1 ~ n (;, ./
/'''/'"/{/ 71<3 /VÛv //},vß -Jo -/hE J':}/'"A'7J .,L
! / I j - . .rE' ,j Só {·/~ .()/?., j-??/JJS j,;¿,¡.L-'J..¡-j
to /-1 C. .~ l/v L-'U/vé~c CntV /) C ¿h, C,' (f../ ' '
/1,v,/ 7J.!:é ).,~cS l,/,{bV J"S ;lee!s So 6,1 J'ê~/';€
0'Nj c!ovE o/-è J"5' MJ"~'J c",""" ,~;¿ e./lc+
Cu¡,oeJ,w, <ovie! hE /-&/'1 .Iv ;"6<,,--1- +/'E ÐvG':'J./
C( /5 IS J. -fcu v lei /f/S (> /'<"" Lies 5?£CII-f/ j;J/Jd 1:; /VI
Ii «j.J S ,(o~ /1)(,JJ'5 -j,')-V,!;,-I- /ìrlV{1 ¡.... I ,- ,I _ VI
I ¿L l.J.. C::- -rl¡ç /vE¿c
.-f~/~ C.,¿ Ic.vÚv6' /',)f1~d(I.N'J" y;{¿ C-;(7' Cov/C:/ D J_
.. / p')1'1v7c
SiERRA CLUB
LOS GATOS. SARATOGA. CUPERTINO. MONTE SERENO GROUP
CI1I¿ 7ovl:J
/11-11( J /IÂ. UU.
.-Ä -I j <0:
/iN)
A~b~ w,/h ~ê-~Æ/
Cre)/'-. ,Í;NEJ [;Z CN,- 7&/S.
7Æe: C7 cd' C--yer¿-h,V(\ h//5 ~¡C J/J"-CE'
. hC"¡1(,~
¿,vlfh
-/'0 /l(/'-"~'C/G "L} 'y'[JIC'-¡'H-J ".sJey'/1/'J CGJc,'Z_
I-Ilk é~'&1<¿k'VLê cv./ -//'c Cu::... /l/1,é-1
/ / / Ij I -/-/,o- r:"",C'í/' C,::'J./s ;)1'1.[,1
-1"/71-1-/ t-VL\vIC ""1E.¿T 'I /co L:.r·t~'J/ -
7"' -L ~./ WDt"l/ ~lvE /1(0/((:"
C/V¡//("(/11Ú-;" .
O/L.·E
hé0 -li~,
( / I ~ /J ¡¡fr; ¿I /V)(),{CC /JD'/Jk
rD¿M1 -{ð':c //J'~{ :'Cr-I/,I:;J .Y /
..;,() -lh/1-J .,¡:)¿/ tojj (lame -(:'.~ -;-)c SVi'h,/"j//iY
/lM/ bl()"j ;/ /IS /I,?/;¡'''' -/" v'"le,
S¡VCU2E 7
,)),'L /}'7?:;/^, " Jz-
Ch/JtI":'Jl1IìAJ
Cit\i of Cupcrti",o
TO: .
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council and the City Manager
DATE: March I, 1974
FROM:
James H. Sisk, Planning Director and and Bert J, Viskovich
Environmental Review Committee Member Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO SIERRA CLUB COHHENTS -
GENERAL PLtu~ EIR CORE AREA
1. Verbatim or Summary Account of Comments Received from the Sierra Club
Their Letter of December 24, 1973
"I do also see one major fault with the EIR and that is that very little
attention is given to mass transit. In the EIR it speaks of some days
being over the standard for EPA regulations on Air Pollution which could
be in violation of the "Complex Air Sources" provision that came into effect
on Dec. 15th 1973. I think many things can be done to lessen the impact of
Air Pollution. The City of Cupertino can take the lead again by providing
a mass transit section to the EIR. It can put into plans provisions for
mass transit to the Regional Center. This can take the form of bus transit
at first the a light transit system proposal. The new lanes to the high-
ways & roads involved can be used solely for mass transit and bike lanes.
When gas gets so high people can't drive or gas rationing comes into effect
Cupertino could be ready to meet the energy crisis. It could also provide
special parking areas for mass transit and reduce the need for extensive
parking. The City could promote car pooling to the area with special parking
areas and car lanes for car pools.
"The City of Cupertino has the chance here to provide a regional shopping
center with little dependence on the car and one that would meet the Energy
Crisis and help the Environment. It would have mote room for landscaping to
attract more people so that they could come for the surroundings and enjoy
it as a place to visit."
2. Disposition of Significant Issues Raised by the Co~~ents
Throughout the general plan hearings, a great deal of discussion was put
forth relative to mass transit possibilities. A representative of the tran-
sit district, James T. Pott, Assistant Executive Officer, gave testimony
before the City Council concerning this matter. It has generally been con-
cluded/by the City)that mass transit is a regional or at least a sub-regional
issue and the City will continue to support and work with the existing county-
wide transit district.
"EXHIBIT A-9"
Sierra Club Comments
Gen. Plan ErR Core Area
March 1, 1974
Page 2
Concerning the general plan decision of the location of major facilities
such as the regional shopping center, it was generally felt that the Vallco
Park area, with a high employment density, could possibly be an ideal
station on an inter-city trdnsportation facility. It was further concluded that
in considering individual projects of any magnitude, provisions for transit
facilities should be incorporated in these projects. In placing the regional
shopping center in Vallco Park, developers have committed to the City a sum
of approximately $67,000.00 annually for twenty years that is to be used towards
mass transit or other environmentally related activities to be determined by
the City. It is the intent that these issues as related to the particular
project will be further reviewed as a part of the environmental impact report
for the project.
During the deliberations on the general plan and the review of traffic generated
by different land uses for industrial development, the City took in consideration
the staggering of working hours, car pooling, and other means of mass transpor-
tation. It is the intent of the City to continue encouraging car pooling and
staggering of hours to reduce the amount of traffic generated during the peak
hour.
JHS,BJV:sm
:'~
J' t.'
.
~..·..·.r:·. ..r'"
- ,. ".
- i ~
.... .,.~.. ~,...l
. .~.
...~
,
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Jos~~h P. Bort
RobH~ T _ Plownght
CONTRA CGSTA COlJNTY
R(~erl W Hoyer
hmes p, Kenny
MARIN COUNTY
Peter R. Arrigoni
(Vice ChaIrman)
Stephen Fr~ser
NAPA COUNTY
John F. Aquila
JchnTuleur
SAN FRMKISCO COUNTY
Josc)hl.A!ioto
Pettrhmaras
(Secretary)
SAN MATEO COUNTY
RobertS. St. Clair
Warren SteinK3mp
SANTA Cl ARA COUNTY
Victor C~ I~D
William Po. Jeli~ich
SOLA~W COUNTY
James Lemos
RlJbertScoj,eld
SONOMA COUNTY
Gerald M. f'lHnJnovlch
(Chairman)
Robel1T:leiller
BAY AREA AIR POLLUTION COr~TROL DISTRICT
February 28, 1974rlANNING COM~¡f;:';)IUN
James H. Sisk, Planning Director
Department of Planning and Development
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Draft ErR, Proposed Amendment to General Pla~Land Use
Element "Core Area"
[' ','-' 1
' ~"
",t..\,
1974
Dear Mr, Sisk:
Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation, this acknowledges
receipt on December 7, 1973, of the above-referenced Draft ErR
attached to your letter of transmittal dated December 4, 1973.
Due to the increasing volume of ErR's received by this agency,
in combination with staff manpower and time constraints¡ it
is not possible to develop written responses to all ErR s
received, Therefore, since the deadline for responding to
your ErR has passed, we do not anticipate forwarding a letter
of review. Although I recall general discussions .lith you
and the Public Works Director prior to receiving the subject
ErR, regarding the relationship between air quality and lan~
use planningjthe absence of a written response from this agency
should not be interpreted as acceptance of statements relating
to air quality, particularly since this agency is not required
by law to approve, disapprove or even to review EIR's.
Sincerely,
,Æ?,M!;k-Á- d. ~~
Ralph A, Head
Planner
RAM::ac
:""
J" .'
"EXHIBIT A-IO"
939 ELLIS STREET. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109 . (415) 7716000
LL
(ihj of ("'perth1o
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council and the City Manager
DATE: l1arch 1, 1974
FROM:
James H. Sisk, Planning Director and Environmental
Review Committee Member
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO BAY AREA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT C011}IENTS -
GENERAL PLAN EIR CORE AREA
1. Verbatim or Summary Account of Comments received from the Bay Area Air
Pollution Control District in their letter of February 28, 1974
A summary of the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District's comments sets
forth that the district, due to manpower and time constraints and the
volume of environmental impact reports being received, cannot respond to
all reports and that they are not required by law to approve or disapprove
or even review environmental impact reports received.
2. Disposition of Significant Issues Raised by the Comments
In October, 1973 the Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works
visited the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District's offices in San
Francisco to discuss environmental impact reports and their relationship
to general plan amendments. It was generally concluded as a part of this
discussion that without a regional approach to air pollution a community
such as Cupertino by itself could not in a meaningful way assess air quality
for the region. As a conclusion to the discussion with the representatives
from the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, it was stated that the
City of Cupertino would, as a part of preparing the environmental impact
report for the core area general plan amendment, employ consultants to assist
in preparing ·as meaningful a statement relative to ,a.irquality as possible.
,I'"
JHS: cjg
"EXHIBIT A-II"