Loading...
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"