Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-02-1988 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: March 2, 1988 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Peterson, Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, Hlava, Moyles present at 7:30 P.M, 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: None. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval. of Minutes: Meeting of February 17, 1988 CLEVENGEPqHLAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 1988, AS PRESENTED. Passed 5-0, B. Approval of Warrant List: HALVA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 26, 1988. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, February 24, 1988, - Noted and riled. B. Heritage Preservation Commission Actions, February 3, 1988, - Noted and filed. C. Library Commission Minutes, February 24, 1988,. Noted and filed. D, Public Safety Commission Minutes, February 8, 1988, - Noted and filed. E; CATV Policy Access Board Minutes, February 16, 1988, - Noted and filed. F. Proclamation on AAUW Week G. Authorization for City Councilmember to attend Planning Workshop in Anaheim, March 9-11, 1988, with reasonable and necessary expenses H. Authorization for Recreation Director to attend League of California Cities Annual Community Services Conference, San Diego, April 20-22, 1988, with reasonable and necessaxy expenses I. Ordinance 71.36 changing cable telei, ision regulations to increase franchise fee and to lower density standards for neighborhoods which must be offered service (second reading and adoption) J.Caah and Investment Report - January 1988 HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR WITH SPECIAL NOTATION 0F THE PROCLAMATION ON AAUW WEEK. Passed 5-0. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR II - CLAIMS: A. Claim for equitable indemnity submitted by Lisac in connection with approval procedures for construction at 21054 Comer Drive HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY CLAIM SUBMF'FTED BY LISAC. Passed 5-0, MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page MARCH 2, 1988 5.COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Comn'~ssions - Mr. George K. Godlewski, 20773 Gilmore Drive, Saratoga, objected to newly posted signs stating that Pierce Rd. was unsafe for cycling; such was ill founded and unsupport- ed by facts. Furthermore, the City was put in a position of sanctioning reckless driving. - Mr. Bert Martell, 14420 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, stated that he wished to address Consent Calendar Item D., Public Safety Commission Minutes; his letter to the Com- mission had not been listed in Written Communications. Letter was read into the record. B. Wrftten Communications from the Public 1)'Odd Fellows Home, 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Aumo z Passed. ,.. 2)Kath]een Olson, 18967 Sara Park Circle and Margaret Reynolds~ 18946 Sara Park Circle, concerning age restriction on Saratoga Parkside complex 3) Margaret Reynolds, 18946 Sara Park Circle, similar to above CLEVENGER/HALVA MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE SENDING OF DRAFT REPLIES TO MS. OLSON AND MS. REYNOLDS. Passed 5-0. 4) Addie Duse], Saratoga High School FTA~ requesting fee waiver for sign CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF WAIVING PERMIT FEE. Passed 5-0. 5) Vasi]ios A. Bilion~s, 18789 Devon Ave., protesting permit for restaurant/bar CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO REFER-TO PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN COMMERCIAL DISTR/CT ZONING REVIEW. Passed 5-0. 6)Margaret Coffeng, 12960 Paramount Drive, objecting to actions of Sheriffs Department in connection with youths trespassing on winery property HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED TO REFER TO STAFF FOR REPORT. Passed 5-0. 7).Grand Jury Request for informal]on on Disaster Hans for earthquake and toxic gas threats CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PROVLDE INFORMATION · REQUESTED. Passed 5-0. Mayor Peterson proceeded to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS ..... ; A. Appeal of denial of modifications to approved plans to relocate house and garage, modify roof pitch, revise rear elevation and install landscaping for a new two-story home in the R-]- 10,000 zoning district (Appellant/Applicant, Barnett and Cunningham) (DR-87-048.]) Continued to March 16, 1988. B. Agreements with Ca]trans and Traffic Authority. Mayor Peterson introduced a slide presentation prepared for the Public Hearing and discussed the two components of Agreement with Caltrans and the Traffic Authority, namely, the Freeway. Agreement itself and the performance Agreement. CounciLmember Clevenger reviewed the history and role of the Policy Advisory Board (PAll);. the primary task of the Board was to determine the type of facility to be built in the corridor. She reviewed the various alternatives considered, rejected and adopted. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page MARCH 2, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Moyles identified key individuals and documents relied upon m arriving at the Freeway Agreement; he showed the allocation of funds under Measure A Strategic Plan. Councilmember Hlava reviewed negotiations betweer/Cal Trans, Santa Clara Traffic Authority and the City; the negotiating team believed that the best possible agreement had been reached. An illustration entified "Route 85 Corridor Study/Diagram of Alternatives" was presented. Mayor Peterson reviewed the Barton- AseI-aran Traffic Study for Route 85 ~d the components used to measure traffic impacts; he compared levels of service with and without an interchange. Councilmember Anderson summarized the DEIS Initial Design Position and the Negotiated Design Position. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Bil~laney, 14663 Quito Rd., Saratoga, commended th~ Council for their efforts in reaching an agreement even though he disagreed with the decision to build Route 85; he cautioned about "other forces" at work to disledge them from their position of no interchanges. Mr. Frank Cage, President, Good Government Group, summarized their position as follows: Urged the Council to adopt the Freeway Agreement in order to consolidate gains obtained through negotiation, namely, depression of the freeway and other design features Urged that a referendum to be placed on the ballot addressing an interchange in Saratoga Recommended an interchange at Saratoga Ave, a position held for the past two years -- Mr. Jack Christian, Highway 85 Task Force Member, eomplixrented (3ounce3.': and Manager for the Freeway Agreement; however, the Task Force favored interchanges. Mr. Jim Cantori, President of Ponderosa Home Owners Association in San Jose, noted that a position of no interchanges pushed to the extreme would result in no interchanges at all; he questioned whether Saratogans wished to pay for a freeway they could not access and noted the resulting traffic hazards, lack of emergency access and the increased cost of installing inter- changes at a later date. San Jose applauded the decision to negotiate depression of Route 85. -- Mr. Dan Lopez, 13581 Saratoga Vista Ave, Saratoga, thought the Banon-Ascb. man Traffic Study valid and reliable. He voted for a freeway with accessibility and now felt betrayed; he urged the Council to reconsider its position on interchanges and to consider placing this issue on the ballot. Petitions were presented : Ms. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, Saratoga, corm-nented as follows: hdividuais, both pro and con, had signed petitions favoring no interchanges in Saratoga; - Noted differences between resident's understanding of Measure B and current Agreement · The question of interchanges had been left to individual cities to resolve; if such were now being negotiated, maybe the entire Agreement should be reconsidered Cited traffic impacts to City streets from installation of interchanges with metered on-ramps Cited T 2000 Report recommendation on Lawrence Expressway/connecting interchange . Mr. J. Getes, 13917 Lindy Ave., Saratoga, presented a petition and commented: Measure B did not address the question of interchanges; Noted the discrepancy of having a freeway without interchanges People he spoke to were incredulous that no interchanges were being considered Noted concem regarding the impact to neighboring communities from such a policy Asked that an initiative be placed on the June ballot addressing the question of interchanges Mr. Max Rasmussen, 20650 Woodwood Ct., Saratoga, presented a petition and commented: Commended the Council for the work done on negotiating the Freeway Agreement - People he spoke to were incredulous that no interchanges were being considered Majority were not favorable to the Council's policy of no interchanges Installation of interchanges at a later date would be unlikely since funds would not be available if such were not built during the initial consauction with higher costs and traffic disruption resulting Urged that an interchange be installed at Sarat6ga Ave. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 MARCH 2, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING Continued Mr. Harvey Orndofff, 18944 Bonnet Way, Saratoga, noted issues previously not addressed: Potential hazards of high voltage power lines on Bonnet Way; costs of undergrounding Sounddecibel levels should be mitigated in accordance with Saratoga's higher standards Unidentified speaker questioned the number of interchanges in adjacent cities and what the City would do in case of a disaster if there were no interchanges. Mr.Shelley Williums~ 11951 Brookridge Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Thanked the Council for efforts negotiating an agreement · Requested that the Council reconsider its policy of no interchange Environmental Impact Review (EIR) recommended three interchanges for Saratoga to pre- vent traffic gridlock; he was favorable to the installation of all three interchanges Saratoga Ave. had suitable facilities adjacent to the intersection; such was a logical choice Invited the Council to place the issue on the June ballot Ms. Joan Hershka~'itz, Chairperson, Protect Oar Envh'onment, commented as follows: Commended the Council for the concessions negotiated despite her opposition to Route 85 Noted that the Council's position of no interchanges had been developing since 1984 Presented several petitions and letters objecting to one or all interchanges in the City Barton-/~chman Traffic Study showed that a Saratoga Ave. interchange did not signi~- cantly reduce traffic on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and increased such on Saratoga Ave. - Urged the Council to maintain its position; reconsiderat'ion of one element required re. consideration of the entire agreement Mr. Bruce Tanner, 13620 Ferncrest Ct., Saratoga; commented as follows: Commended the Council for the agreement negotiated, especially no interchange policy .~ Asked that maximum efforts be taken in dust control measures Mr. Don Cart, Merribrook Ct., Saratoga, was in favor of the freeway and the interchanges. Mr. Monty Boisen, 13896 Lindy Ave., Saratoga: Commended the Council for efforts in negotiating the Freeway Agreement Presented petitions favoring interchanges Cited the Bar~on-Aschman Traffxc Study Summary, noting that the no interchange policy was one of the least beneficial aitematives for the City Asked the Council to reconsider its position on interchanges; if Such were unacceptable, he asked that an initiative be placed on the June ballot Mr. Calvin Judd, 18855 Cox Ave., Saratoga, read into the record a letter of residents of Saratoga Court Apartments, February 23, 1988, favoring interchanges in the City. Ms. Diane Linnow, Saratoga, spoke to the safety of children 'of Saratoga. She moved to here due to its lack of easy access; the increased crime rate surrounding interchange areas was cited. ..~ Ms. Patty Sitney, 19404 Vineyard Ln.,Saratoga, stated that over 300 people lived at the :.~ Vineyards of Saratoga; she noted current traffic hazards. ~', .' Ms. Susan Wright, Saratoga, cited previously presented petitions and letters addressing the .............. environmental impac. ts that would result from an interchange at Quito Rd. Mr. Russ Crowther, Saratoga, commented as follows: Commended the Council on the work done on the proposed Freeway Agreement Transportation problems were not adequately addressed in the proposed light raft system High speed wains were required; such could not be placed in the median provided Minimizing costs was not the proper focus for Saratoga where land values were high Air pollution was also a problem for areas adjacent to freeways Proposed that the freeway in Saratoga be undergrounded despite the cost involved Land above the freeway could be used for recreational and perhaps, residential use Asked that a referendum be plaeed on the ballot to over turn decisions already made Mr. Ralph Wood, 19661 Junipero Way, Saratoga, was strongly in favor of the freeway as well as all three interchanges; improved traffic would result with all three interchanges in place. He appealed to the Coanci!'s sense of fairness to place the issue of interchanges on the ballot. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 ' - MARCH 2, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING Continued Mr. Gilbert Elian, Ronnie Way, Saratoga, favored the freeway with interchanges; he noted his strong interest in environmental issues and could not see how freeway access would threaten the environment. He questioned the purpose of a freeway without access; the question was "how many interchanges?" A referendum should decide the issue if doubt remained. Mr. Roy Me Closky, 12563 Can~bfidge Dr., Saratoga~ commented as follows: Noted that outside interference prevailed over the grass roots opposition to Route 85 Noted respect for efforts of the Council in reaching what they considered best for the City However, the proposed Freeway Agreement fell far short of promises made and deviated greafiy from what the voters approved by a narrow margin in 1986 Felt that, despite testimony, there was no doubt that everyone agreed to no interchanges Mr. Ray Brigs, Saratoga, reviewed Mr. Delaney's Memo addressing the traffic flow and inter- changes; he asked that the Council continue its policy of no interchanges in Saratoga. Mr. Frank Brunner, 20653 Woodland Ct., Saratoga, knew for 20 years that a freeway would be built; he objected to insinuations that companies donated money to sway the vote and favored a freeway with interchanges. Traffic hazards on Hwy. 9 were cited. Mr.Pete Menlock, Saratoga Vineyards, commented as follows: Congratulated the Council on the work completed Noted the proximity of the Vineyards to the freeway and cited a 30% loss in property value Cited the at-grade freeway by the Vineyards; now an interchange was being considered Noted the existing traffic hazards Asked that the Council maintain its position of no interchanges Ms.Marlene Duffre, Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, presented a petition and commented: Noted her strong support of the proposed Freeway Agreement Questioned why authors of Measure B would design the freeway; such should be designed by those in favor of the freeway The people of Saratoga would like the opportunity to address the question of interchanges Mr. Frank Beujanah, Saratoga, presented a petition and commented as follows: Saratoga had heavier traffic than Palo Alto (former residence) which had intemhanges There was no eVidence that interchanges in and of themselves, increased traffic Without interchanges, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd./Rainbow Dr. would be the only access Such would create a greater traffic overload than any other alternative being considered Questioned whether the Council accurately represented the desires of Saratoga residents Asked that a measure be placed on the ballot Mr. Peter Joachim, 14287 Okanogan Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Suggested consideration of the impact on travelling in Saratoga without interchanges LOs Gatos also threatened not to have an interchange--further impacting the situation Travelling through adjacent cities did not make any sense Asked that the Council not listen only to a vocal minority Mr. Klaus Pache, Plumed Horse Restaurant, commented as follows: Was strongly in favor of the freeway with interchanges ' '- Noted businesses failures in Saratoga; example of vacant prime locations were cited ' .... '. 80% of his clientele came from outside the City of Saratoga In the past, business had not been encouraged or supported by the City Unidentified speaker, 19765 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, coramented as follows: Selected a home that would be close to Route 85 Strongly supported the freeway and interchanges; cited traffic gridlocks Asked that the Council reassess its position on the no interchange policy Mr.Tom Synder, 20602 Ja caranda Ct. Saratoga, commented as follows: The no interchange policy would further impact the adjacent interchanges Cited traffic accidents involving his wife and his son; family impacts should outweigh environmental impacts Felt strongly that interchanges in Saratoga were necessary MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 MARCH 2~ 1988 PUBLIC HEARING Continued Ms. Chefiel Jensen, 'Quito Rd., Saratoga, addressed the following ~ssues: The proposed contract did not specify no interchanges, height or extent of the freeway Questioned the cost; contributions given by private individuals and companies cited Ms.Jean Leonard, Saratoga, commented as follows: Favored the no interchange policy, especially at Quito Rd. Stated that this policy was made known to Saratogans over the past few years Cited traffic hazards for children. Ms. Ann Louden, 2111'0 Sullivan Way, Saratoga, commented as follows: Petitions she submitted were unanimous in support of the Council's efforts to secure an acceptable solution to the current traffic problems - Respectfully requested that the Council reconsider its position on no interchange policy: to facilitate access to Saratoga by Saratogans and to promote a spirit of cooperation with .. neighboring communities so they are not burdened by Samtogans driving on their streets Ms. Elaine Shaw noted her childhood memories of Saratoga. She suggested consideration of mitigations of the fleeway; the example of Seattle's Freeway Park was cited. Mr. Bill Not. z, 18276 Purdue Dr., Saratoga, noted opposition to interchanges, especially at Quito'Rd; Barton- b.s~ Traffic Study cited. Ms. Karen Dowdy, Brook Ln., Saratoga, presented a petition and commented: Commended the Council's support of the freeway agreement Questioned its stance on no interchanges in Saratoga Neither Measure B nor the ballot arguments contained reference to such a policy - The concept of a freeway presupposed access -' The Council strained credibility in its effort to maintain a policy of no interchanges She received unanimous support in her area for interchanges Saratoga need to accept responsibility for it's own u-affic and not impact adjacent cities ff the Council could not revise the no interchange policy, then place such on the ballot Mr. Mel Peterson, President, Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber had supported a fredway with interchanges since June 1986; Chamber members polled in the'previous week overwhelmingly supported having an interchange in Saratoga. Mr. Dale Dowdy, Brook Ln., Santoga, presented a petition and commented as follows: Commended Councilmembers in mitigating noise and pollution impacts of a fleeway A policy of no interchanges was not in the best interest of Santoga nor the Valley Traffic Was coming from Santoga itself; residents had a fight of access to the freeway Many residents did not know that they had voted for a freeway with no interchanges . - Asked that a reconsideration of this issue forestall the signing of the Freeway Agreement · Mr. J. Earlings, 2098 Chateau Dr., Santoga Ave., Santoga, commented as follows: Objected to innuendos regarding political contributions and noted that. contributors to Citizens for a Better Environment were not revealed Contributing companies had an interest in getting employees to and from work Such companies had been supportive of cultural and artistic endeavors in the community Ms.Nancy Gemello, Saratoga, commented as follows: Opposed the freeway and interchanges Thanked the Council for efforts to protect the Creek Purchased her home due to the low crime rate in Saratoga; interchanges promoted crime Favored further investigation into public transit options Ms. Ann Montane, Santoga, commented as follows: Stated for the record that she was against interchanges in Saratoga Moved to Saratoga in pan, because there was no easy access to the City Access would increase the crime rate, local traffic and noise Commended the Council for Freeway Agreement, especially the no interchange policy Mr. Joe Parker, Vineyards, Saratoga, noted impacts of an at grade freeway adjacent to this site; furthermore, an interehang..e on Saratoga Ave. would further impact thLs site-such was unfair. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 MARCH 2, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING Continued Mr. Leonards, Saratoga, noted that while Route 85 could not be stopped, installation of inter- changes would create the same problems he had commuting to work twenty five years ago. He ' ~rland~ the Council for theft stand on no interchapges. Ms. Connie Cast, Via Real Dr., Saratoga, presented a letter and commented as follows:' Stated for the record that her family opposed the freeway from the beginning Corridor was not wide enough to accommodate six traffic lanes and a light rail system · Compared former proposals with the current proposal; visual, traffic impacts noted Asked that Saratoga's principles not be cornpromised forthe development of south county Any compromises made should be done with the least impact 'to Saratoga Unidentified speaker favored interchanges; a freeway with no interchanges did not make sense. Mr. Jim Bosely, Seaton Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: Why was a freeway necessary? Such was inevitable unless growth was to be stopped How to best handle such? He commended the Council on the mitigations already obtained Asked that the Council seriously reconsider its position of nO intemhanges Ms. Margarite Chapman, Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: 80% of people on Big Basin Way interviewed by her, favored interchanges People interviewed stated that a freeway without interchanges didn't make sense - People overwhelmingly in favor of all three interchanges Mr. Scott Harrington, Roble Ct, Saratoga, stated that a freeway without interchanges made no sense; interchanges were necessary for the safety and convenience of people of the City. Ms. Diana Parham favored the no interchange policy; she compared growth impacts between Walnut Creek, which has interchanges, and Lafayette, CA, which does not. Ms. Yelcha Galich, Saratoga, was favorable to a fully depressed freeway. Mr. David Franklin, Saratoga, noted that a Master Plan had showed three exists; he questioned those who now opposed such. He cited traffic and safety impacts to Saratoga. Mr. Mike Steppovich, 19557 Arden Ct., Saratoga, reviewed history of Miller A~e. and noted' that financial compensation had been given to property owners adjacent to the freeway cordder. Saratogans had to have access to the freeway. Mi'. Harvey Davis, Saratoga, stated that interchanges would increase traffic, noise, pollution. Ms.Nancy Mc Cartington, CanyOn View Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Cited the differences a freeway made to the City of Mountain View - Freeway would promote development and cut the City in half; in addition, the freeway. would be at capacity as soon as it was built Felt that the projected 48% increase in traffic on Saratoga Ave. would not be coming from Saratoga; such would funnel into Lawrence Expressway impacting current commuters . .:,. Ms. Rosemary Woodruff, Saratoga, commented as follows: ...... Voted no on Measure B, never dreaming that the fleeway would not be accessible Residents passed the Measure and would be paying for such without access to the freeway Knowledge of the freeway existed for the past 25 years Asked that the Council reconsider their position on interchanges Ms. Lynn Bergman, Saratoga, cited existing traffic hazards in trying to make a left hand turn on Saratoga Ave; she opposed an interchange on Saratoga Ave., citing increased traffic. Mr. Gentry Waide, Old Tree Way, Saratoga, cited traffic hazards for children and noted efforts to get commuter traffic off of City sweets; the fleeway with interchanges was needed. Ms. Sylvia Wallen, Saratoga, commented as follows: Stated that she knew a fleeway would be built in Saratoga Understood Measure B did not include interchanges Cited impacts of a fleeway on cities in general and traffic impacts for Saratoga Ave. Asked tidal if a referendum were conducted, all three interchanges be considered MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 MARCH 2, 1988 PUBLIC'HEARING Continued ML Miles Rankin commented as followed: Noted his opposition to the freeway and to interchanges Stated that the nearest exit was only a quarter mile from City limits - Cited increased traffic impacts from interchanges The freeway in adjacent cities did not go through the city center as it would in Saratoga Real Estate values would decline Mr. Brendon O Donnell, Monta Vista Dr., Saratoga, conunented as follows: The above grade of the freeway at Saratoga Ave. would result in a considerable increase in noise and air pollution; bringing the freeway above grade was unnecessary Saratoga Creek could be brought over the freeway with Some drainage into Wildcat Creek The hydrol0gist's report was tentative; the Council should obtain an independent report Mr. Phil Stokes, Saratoga, stated that he was happy with the Freeway Agreement. 'With respect to a referendum on interchanges, he noted the following: A referendum would open the entire Freeway Agreement up for reconsideration ' Noted negotiations already completed and questioned whether such would be in jeopardy Mr. Scott Jameson, 18581 Paseo Lado, SaratOga, stated that reopening negotiations of the Freeway Agreement would cloud the issue; Agreement was good and he favored its acceptance Ms. Cheryl Sehwitenctoft, Saratoga, was opposed to an interchange at Saratoga Ave. Mr. Richard Brown, 12877 Glen Brae Dr., Saratoga, favored no interchanges. He did not hear anything. to change his position and did not have a problem commuting to Sunnyvale. Mr, Mike Bullock, Cupertino, commented as follows: If Route 85 Freeway Agreement were signed, San Jose Zoning would allow development of 11,000 homes; existing Reports had not taken such development into account · Route 85 would not then provide traffic relief; if all these new commuters drove north, 22 additional lanes (11 each way) would be required Supported the no interchange policy; if Saratoga stood fro-n, Los Gatos would not approve the Agreement and the freeway would not be built; 'the entire Valley would benefit Advised of the pending lawsuit challenging the Route 85 Environmental Impact Report; he asked the Council to join Protect Our Environment in this lawsuit Mr. Bryon Hart, 18743 Caberect Dr., Saratoga, favored interchanges in the City. Mr. Victor Rose, Saratoga Oaks, noted the importance of the issue of interchanges and asked for an explanation 0fwhy the matter should not be placed on the ballot. ~Vlr. Joseph Rodriguez, Saratoga, ~ommented as follows: , - Commended the Council on efforts to reach a Freeway Agreement A no interchange policy would severely impact Saratoga-Surmyvale RdJRainbow Dr. exit Asked for consideration of this issue on a ballot measure Mr. Riot va~ de Haut, Saratoga, favored no interchange policy; such allowed City streets to be used by residents. However, if allowed, he favored three interchanges to avoid gridlock. Mr. Dutch Shulty, Ricconada Hills Association, noted the concern of over 1,000 residents of environmental impact of a Quito Rd. interchange; he cited their letter of January 29, 1988. Mr. Robert G. Wilson, Saratoga, commented as follows: Was opposed to the proposed Freeway Agreement Questioned the lack of definition of specifics, lack of description Cited a negative personal example of dealing with Cal Trans Mr. Steward Hopkins noted that the freeway would divide community resources ~n two, espec- ially Congress Springs Park; he asked for pedestrian access in Saratoga Creek/Cox Ave, area. ANDERSON/HLAVA MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:06 P.M. Passed 5-0 Break: 11:08- II:IS P.M. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page MARCH 2, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING Continued HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE THE FREEWAY AGREEMENT. Councilmember Hlava felt that proposed Freeway Agreement was the best solution possible. Whenever controversial issues arose, she considered the impact of such on future residents and expressed the hope that the Freeway would be viewed in the future as a facility beautifully landscaped with adequate mitigations. With respect to specific concerns raised by the public, the Council had considered the issues and mitigations; however, but no public forum allowed presentation of all the detailed information. She stated that it was time to construct the facility; there was no doubt that the freeway would be built. The sooner construction begun, the more likely that desired mitigations would be' provided. Cal Trans did not have the authority to purchase the additional right-of-way needed until the Agreements were signed. She noted the divisiveness of the issue and cited concern that having come to a conclusion on Route 85, the same divisions existed. While the freeway physically divided the community, the twenty five years of debate over the freeway was even more divisive. She asked that these issues be put behind the community, build the freeway - and let the community move forward. With respect to interchanges, she noted the following issues: limited financial resources available, the extensive and prohibitive mitigations required at Quito Rd. and the lack of funding for a Prospect Ave. interchange. Thus, the only remaining issue was whether to put an interchange at Saratoga Ave. She was not favorable to such; the benefits were questionable and the traffic impacts significantZ Secondly, without an interchange, there was the ability to do extensive landscaping and soundwalls in the area designated for freeway ramps; with an interchange, the at-grade facility would back up to The Vineyards, the senior citizen complex at' Paul Masson and single-family residences. Soundwalls, in such a situation would be 14-16 ft. in height. Such could not be mitigated and was incompatible with Saratoga. She concluded that the agreement negotiated was the best one possible. Councilmember Anderson noted that while there were some considerations she wished were included, the Agreement negotiated was the best possible solution for Saratoga. She noted the following points: Many more concessions on depression were secured than ever expected when negotiations began; she recommended the profile presented - A 46 ft. median: such was a compromise to the City of Los Gatos and allowed consensus Soundwalls would be constructed throughout the corridor Saratoga was the leader in asking for a ban on trucks; such was critical for a freeway which traversed city neighborhoods Conse~nsus reached that Route 85 would not open until completed between 280 to 17 Ban on night construction had been secured She felt strongly that there should'be no interchanges in Saratoga and concurred with Council- , member Hlava on this issue. Saratoga did not have commercial areas adjacent to the proposed interchanges and statistics noted the increased crime rates near interchanges. Resulting traffic impacts to City streets were not justified. A Freeway Agreement was appropriately negotiated · by the City Council; subjecting this Agreement to the ballot would open the entire Agreement for renegotiation, point by point. Negotiations with Cal Trans and the Traffic Authority were not completed by ballot measures. Councilmember Moyles noted the significance of decisions made in Saratoga to the region as a. whole; he had advocated that Saratoga become a participant in the pro-freeway movement because such was good for Santa Clara County as well as the City. His analysis of the Freeway turned on such a perspective. He noted the history of this Agreement and added that Saratogans wanted the freeway--not just outside influences as charged. He noted that the electorate was in favor of Route 85 and concurred with the statement that those who were favorable to the freeway should design it. He was favorable to the Freeway Agreement and noted that Route 85 was taking the greater share of Measure A dollars; such was not an easy decision for the Traffic Authority. However, in constructing a freeway with exacting environmental demands for a community sensitive to such spoke well for those who negotiated the Agreement. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 MARCH 2, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING Continued He felt that the Barton-Aschman Traffic Study was not conclusive and allowed for. serious disagreement regarding interpretation of interchanges in Saratoga; there was a substantial argu- · ment in that an interchange improved Saratoga at little or no cost. It was beyond dispute that a Saratoga Ave. interchange would significantly increaie traffic;, however, the Level of Service Analysis indicated that such was unaffected by the increased traffic. If there were no inter: changes in the City, most Saratogans would access ROute 85 in Cupertino--an E or F Level Of Service. Such statistics were not available when policy was developed several years ago. Thus, he questioned the decision to have no intemhanges in Saratoga. Councilmember Moyles had no question about the Freeway Agreement itself; such was a good agreement and should be consolidated. While he would not consider subjecting the Agreement to a referendum, he did not object to voter input on interchanges, especially when the contr~ersy was as severe as this one was. Finally, he advised those pursuing a lawsuit that delay of the project would cost funds set aside· for mitigation measures. Councilmember Clevenger noted the range of opinions expressed at the Hearing. With respect to interchanges, there seemed to be no good choices; .existing traffic impacts on Saratoga Ave. were cited. She noted the potential, significant increase on Saratoga Ave. in exchange for a. minimal 8% decrease in traffic on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd; such was not an acceptable trade- off. Saratoga was an urban area with traffic; one road would not make a substantial difference. She was concerned that the controversy over interchanges pitted one portion of the City against ~ another. She also was disappointed that the freeway would not be depressed at Saratoga Ave; however, every effort had been made to secure this mitigation. An at grade freeway required 14-16 ft. soundwalls; installing an interchange at Saratoga Ave. would not be equitable. In addition, there existed schools with safety concems and a senior complex. The City could not ~ afford m inundate City Streets with traffic in order to save commuters a few minutes of time. She stated that the Council, with the interests of the City as a whole, designed the freeway. She was.not favorable to placing any part of the agreement on the ballot. Mayor Peterson was favorable to the Freeway Agreement and noted the proximity of his home to the Route 85 corridor. His political campaign was based on a pro-freeway agreement with no interchanges, pending the traffic studies. The Barton-Aschman Traffic Study demonstrated that there were significant trade-offs for a Saratoga Ave. interchange, namely; that this · intersection was in the middle of a residential axea. The opposing factor was that having no intemhange at Saratoga Ave. would result in traffic impacts to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. He felt that pending further information from the voters themselves, he perhaps favored a no interchange position at this location; level of service would not deteriorate and traffic would be removed from City streets. He was favorable to consideration of submitting the issue of inter- changes to the voters. Mayor Peterson called for a vote on the Motion. Passed 5-0. " Mayor Petersonretttrned to Old Business. ; 6. OLD BUSINESS: None 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. Resolution 85-9.76 adding Part-time Permanent C'ustodial Aide to Personnel Roster CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 85-9.76 AUTHORIZ- ING AN ADDITION TO THE PERMANENT POSITIONS IN CITY SERVICE. Passed 5-0. · B. Proposed Guard Rail Installation on Prospect Road easterly of MEIer Avenue In response to Councilmember Hlava's question, the City Engineer assured her that the question of Greenbriar intersection had been reported to the Public Safety Commission and was being investigated by Staff. - HLAVA/CLEVENGER MO~E.D TO AUTHORIZE TIlE INSTALLATION OF APPROX- IMATELY 170 LINEAL FEET OF GUARD RAIL'ALONG SOUTHERLY SIDE OF PROSPECT RD. EASTERLY OF IVlILLER AVE. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page MARCH 2, 1988 NEW BUSINESS Continued C. Publicity on Upcoming Hearings MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE PUBLICITY AS RECOMMENDED. Councilmember Hlava asked that with regard to the upcoming hearing on the proposed tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract located at 22631 Mr. Eden Rd. (APN 503- 12-024, 025) (Cocciardi, Applicant) those who previously testified at the Measure A. Moratorium Hearing and subdivision hearing be notified of the pending hearing. The City Attorney reviewed requirements for noticing a hearing on a Wi/liamson Act Contract. I--ILAVA/MOYLES MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE NOTICING OF IN- DIVIDUALS WHO TESTIFIED AT PREVIOUS HEARINGS ON TH~S ITEM. Passed 5-0. D. DUI Report on First Year Operations The City Manager and the Community Services Director wished to review other systems assessing traffic accidents; Staff would report back to the Council in a timely manner. Councilmember Hlava suggested consideration of this Item at budgeting hearings. 9. · CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers - None B. Selection of Representative and Alternate for ABAG General Assembly Mayor Peterson selected as Representative and Vice Mayor Andorson as/x3.ternato. , ADJOURNMENT: The meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 12:20 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. on March 8, 1988 for a Study Session on Parking District No. 3. Respectfully submitted, · Carol A. Probst-Caughey Recording Secretary-