Resolution 1979- 03
----=-
.
.
~-
RESOLUTION NO. 79-3
RESOLUTION 'oF/THE CITY OF GILROY IN OPPOSITION TO
PORTIONS OF THE CURRENT DRAFT (dated November 1978)
OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY CORRIDOR EVALUATION STUDY
1mEPBAS, the Gilroy City Council has studied the above-titled
report in detail; and
1mEREAS, the Council has the following specific concerns in
regard to this study:
(1) Alternate II - Reduce Commute. Would be acceptable if
more emphasis was placed upon industrial and commercial development
in the South County rather than just San Jose.
(2) The proposed Edenvale Industrial Complex (vicinity of
Ford Road, San Jose) will siphon off potential industry that might
otherwise locate in the South County. That location would further
compound an existing traffic overburden on Route 101 at Ford Road.
Due to the County's twenty (20) acre residential lot restric-
tion in the South County, the majority of residential development will
occur in the two (2) South County cities. San Jose's freeze on the
Coyote area further compounds this preserve for additional South County
residential units. It would be an unfair burden to force the housing
to serve the Edenvale complex upon the South County as the Study cur-
rent1y would facilitate.
Gilroy prefers to develop by balancing local jobs; i.e., com-
mercial and industry, to additional local housing needs. We believe
that such balancing will substantially reduce the commute traffic in
Santa Clara County. The Study does not provide for this energy con-
servation effort.
(3) Other than an increase in the number (750) of buses, very
little transportation benefit is provided to the South County. A
nominal amount ($4 - 6 Million) for a safety project on Route 152
(Pacheco Pass Highway) is recommended in the Study rather than the
complete development of a needed four-lane facility. The Study's
position is that there just aren't enough transportation dollars avail-
RESOLUTION NO. 79-3
-
::iCe
"-
.
.
"'.
able through 1990, to go beyond this provision.
It should be pointed out that Route 152 is a regional need -
not just a Santa Clara County problem. That a consolidated effort
(ABAG, MTC, and local governments) should be made to obtain additional
State, Federal (Bureau of Reclamation), and County (Santa Clara, San
Benito, and Merced) funds for this project. Further, a cooperative
effort by the Bureau of Reclamation (San Felipe Project) and the State
Department of Transportation may potentially result in a substantial
savings by using the water project spoils for highway fill material.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that until the above issues are resolved,
the Gilroy City Council opposes the present draft of the Santa Clara
Valley Corridor Evaluation Study.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of January, 1979, by the
following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: CHILDERS, CUNNINGH&~, HUGHAN, LINK,
PATE, STOUT and GOODRICH
COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
~6!4~
Mayor
ATTEST:
..
.
~-
.
.
.".
I, SUSANNE E. STEIN~'1ETZ. City Clerk of the City of Gilroy,
do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 79-3 is an
original resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of
Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Counc il held on the 15th
day of January , 19.!!.... at which meeting a quorum was
present.
IN WITNESS ~JHEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
the Official Seal of the City of Gilroy. this 18th day of
January
I 192.