Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DATE: January 18, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. Roll Ca!l: Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers Clevenger, Moyles, Peterson, Stutzman present at 7:35 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolution 2541 Reappointing Kolstad, Tappan and Tucker to the Planning Commission. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2541 REAPPOINTING MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 5-0. B. Administration of Oath of Office to Above. Mayor Anderson administered the Oath of Office to Commissioners Kolstad and Tucker. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Approval of Minutes: Meetings of january 4, 1989 and January 10, 1989. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 1989, AS PRESENTED. Passc~ 5-0. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 1989, AS PRESENTED. Passed 5-0. B. Approval of Warrant List: CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agcnda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 13, 1989. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Actions, January 11, 1989, - Noted and filed. B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, December 7, 1989, - Noted and filed. C. · Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, January 9, 1989, - Noted and filed. D. Informal Minutes, Finance Advisory Committee, January 11, 1989, - Noted and filed. E. Conditional Approval of Great Race to be held by Rotary Club in Saratoga, January 29, 1989. F. Approval of Settlement Agreements Rehting to Sarahills Cases: 1) Roetkin vs. Quirk 2) Landis and Sorenson vs. Saratoga G. Resolution 2542 Authorizing Application for Certified Local Government Grant for Pub- lishing the Heritage Resource Inventory H. Report on Sarahills Drive Gallery Construction - Information only. I. Financial Reports - October, November, December MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 JANUARY 18, 1989 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued J. Treasurer's Reports - October, Noven~ber, December K. Investment Reports - October, November, December L. Proclamation on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Councilmember Peterson requested removal of Consent Calendar Item E. MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE REMOVAL OF ITEM E. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Peterson invited interested joggers to challenge theTown of Los Gatos. PETERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR E. Passed 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions - None. B. Written Communications from the Public - None. 6. OLD BUSINESS: A. Median Project - Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road Southern End - Oral Report from City Manager The City Manager stated that in conversations with Cal Trans, concerns had been raised regarding the design standards for this median; he asked that this Item be Continued to February 1, 1989. Consensus reached to Continue this Item to Februar3?l, 1989. B. Audit Recommendations on Federally Assisted Programs The City Manager reviewed the Report dated January 18, 1989. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT AND DOCUMENT THOSE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED IN HIS REPORT OF jANUARy 18, 1989, TO COMPLY WITH SINGLE AUDIT ACT RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY PEAT MARWICK IN THEIR REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1987. Passed 5-0. The City Manager asked that the following Item be added to the agenda due to circumstances that occurred after the agenda was posted; Mr. Shook had received a proposed cooperation agreement between the City and the State for funding portions of the Village improvements. Until an agree- ment could be executed, project bids could not be sent out. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO PLACE AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA AS AN URGENCY tt,.~'~'~.R AS PROVIDED BY THE BROWN ACT. Per Councilmember Moyles' question, the City Attorney stated that it was his understanding that there were time constraints for reviewing the proposed cooperation agreement; he confirmed that he would be reviewing the documents in question. The Chair called for a vote on the Motion. Passed 5-0. C. Authorization for City Manager to execute an agreement between the City and the State for work on the Big Basin Way project. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT A MINUTE RESOLUTION AS FOLLOWS: RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE PROPOSED COOPERATIVE AGREE- MENT FOR EXECUTION BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR- TATION RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF CONCRETE BLOCK PAVER CROSSWALKS AS A PART OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 9 FROM 0.1 MILE WEST OF 6TH STREET TO STATE HIGI-BVAY ROUTE 85, AND DIRECTS THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PROPOSED AGREE- MENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AFTER IT IS APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AS TO FORM AND CONTENT. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 JANUARY 18, 1989 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. Publicity for Upcoming Hearing - Heritage Ordinance Revisions; Residential Design Re- view Handbook; Early Warning Fire Alarms and Garage Sprinkler Systems; Miscellaneous Amendments to Zoning Ordinance. PETERSON/STUTZMAN MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON PUBLICITY FOR AN UPCOMING HEARING. Passed 5-0. B. Annual Reviewof Investment Policy The City Manager reviewed the Report of January 18, 1989. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT INVESTMENT POLICY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY TREASURER AND THE FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BY ADDING SECTION 11I. C. RELATIONSHIP WITH INVESTMENT BROKERS. Passed 5-0. C. Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report for Paul Masson Mountain Winery (Applicant, Vinmer's International) The Planning Director reviewed the Memorandum dated January 18, 1989. Mayor Anderson cited complaints of noise from citizens living in the area of the Paul Masson Mountain Winery and asked that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) address this issue. Councilmember Clevenger noted that the issue that most concerned her was that this property was outside the sphere of influence and urban service area of the City; the issue needed to be addressed. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO AUTHORIZE SENDING THE DRAFT RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY REQUESTING ADDITIONAL STUDIES OF SARATOGA IMPACTS AND ADDING A SECTION ADDRESSING NOISE IMPACTS. Passed 5-0. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Projects for ·1989-90 Community Development Block Grant Funds Administrative Assistant King reviewed the Report to Mayor and City Council, January 13, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:02 P.M. Ms. Arlyne June, Executive Director, reviewed the Project Match Project Proposal. Ms. Cynthia McCown, Program Coordinator, reviewed the Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Marco Counties Project Proposal. Ms. Leta Friedlander, Executive Director, reviewed the Live Oak Adult Day Services Project Proposal, dated January 3, 1989. Ms. Donna Donahue, Program Director, reviewed the Long Term Care Ombudsman Project Proposal, dated January 27 1989. Ms. Lauren J. Gray, Program and Operations Manager, reviewed the Transit Assist Project Proposal, dated December 23, 1988. Mr. Paul E Bowlin, Finance Chair, reviewed the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) Project Proposal for Senior Center Operations, dated January 6, 1989. Mr. Paul E Bowlin, Finance Chair, reviewed Saratbga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) Project Proposal for Adult Day Care Center for Adult Respite Experience. Ms. Janet King-Goth, Executive Director, re'~iewed the Case Management, Senior Coordinating · Council of the Los Gatos Area Project Proposal, dated January 4, 1989. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:28 P.M. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued . Councilmember Clevenger was favorable to Staff Recommendation on allocation of HCDA funds; Council could then review requests not be funded through HCDA and consider the use of General Fund monies. Councilmember Moyles endorsed Staff Recommendation; he agreed that funding from Public Services at $22,350.00 should be allocated to the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC); requests previously granted should be funded at the same level and taken from the General Fund, Since there was inadequate HCDA funds to meet last year's commitments, he was uncomfortable increasing the allocations. Further consideration could be given at budgeting time. Councilmember Peterson favored allocation of federal funding to agencies, using General Fund monies to support Saratoga's seniors. Councilmember Stutzman stated that assistance to seniors was critical; he noted the ever increasing needs of these citizens. However, he was uncertain at this time how these commitments could be met and stated additional study was required. He favored consideration of Transit Assist and Long Term Care Ombudsman Project. Councilmember Clevenger noted that Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) Day Care would have a problem if funding were decreased from 'last year's allocation; she concurred that Transit Assist and the Long Term Care Ombudsman Project should receive consideration. The City Manager noted that the City had recently assumed the insurance costs for Transit Assist. Councilmember Peterson supported Siaff Recommendation for Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council's (SASCC) Operating Costs. He concurred with Councilmember Moyles that the entire issue be thoroughly reviewed at budgeting time. CLEVENGERAVIOYLES MOVED TO ALLOCATE $149,000.00 PER STAFF RECOMMENDA- TION AND TO FUND AGENCIES NOT FUNDED THROUGH HCDA FUNDS. BASED ON THE .AI II OCATION OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, WITH AN ADDITIONAL $10,000.00 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO BE GIVEN TO SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL (SASCC) DAY CARE. Passed 5-0. The following is a verbatim transcript of Public Hearings Item 8 B. B. Resolution Amending Route 85 Freeway Agreement to Allow an Interchange at Saratoga Avenue. Mayor Anderson: Now the way we're going to work this this evening is that Mr. Kempton is going to give us a discussion about what will take place and he will discuss some of the figures that are up here and some of the aspects of the contract. I'm going to start by saying that when we began the negotiation process, I had three items that were of interest to me and many more came up over the last two months where citizens called or where Councilmembers thought of something, and Mr. Peacock also had a couple of items that were very important to him from the standpoint of making sure that the City has everything paid for. by the Traffic Authority that is something that impacts us here in Saratoga because of the freeway and because of the interchange. My issues were child safety, I was concerned about what would happen to Saratoga if there were no interchange northbound at either Winchester or Bascom, and I wanted to make sure that any mitigations we needed would be taken care of by the Traffic Authority, and I wanted to make sure that there were. sound walls protecting the residents around the interchange that would be protecting them from the ramps themselves and not simply from the freeway as was planned originally. Mr. Peacock had some concerns in particular about sidewalks for the school children, the child safety issue and about traffic lights and the signalization that would be required by having the interchange on Saratoga Avenue. We had quite a bit of information that we needed to get from Traffic Authority and they were also busy providing information both to Cupertino and to Los Gatos in particular, so some of the information that we expected fairly early on in the negotiating process did not in fact arrive in as timely a fashion as we had hoped, and so we've worked very hard and very closely with CulTruns and Will Kempton. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued · Mayor Anderson~ continued: We've had meetings, especially recently, about once a week-- we had our last one on Monday; we've been trying our best to make sure we have everything coming to closure for this evening with the idea that this is a contract that we're going to agree to on our side and it will then be sent over to the Traffic Authority for their ratification. There is an opportunity this evening to make still more modification. There were some modifications already that had come hack in written form so we comld look at them and decide if that's really the way we wanted them written. There will be some more suggestions tonight, I can tell you already. And we will be listening to you to hear if you have anyt. hing to say that we might also want to include. But you do have to keep in mind, and it's very .Important because I think there's been confusion based on some of the things that have been going on in the community, both in the newspaper and just with citizens talking to each other--we needed to have the public hearing first, before we could sign the contract. So this public hearing date was set back in November by the City Council based on how timely we thought we would be able to get the information that we needed. So there has been no delay. This is exactly the date we had planned way back in November to have our public hearing, and we do have to have that first. Now Mr. KemptoWs going to speak first and then I understand that he's going to ask the public to please make sure they've seen all the diagrams that are both here--the ones that we have behind us are also out in the lobby so that you can go out there to look at more, and then we will open the hearing to public testimony and at that time I'm going to ask you to be brief when you come up and speak to us. rm also going to ask you to keep in mind that we're not talking about tonight whether the freeway should be built or not. We are talking about what mitigations might be important for the City Council to consider with this freeway interchange. The vote has been taken both to build the freeway and to build the interchange, and that's not really tonight's issue. So Mr. Kempton, would you start please? Mr. Kempton: Thank you Madam Mayor and members of the Council. rm Will Kempton with the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority. You've already given a brief introduction of the process and I wanted to perhaps start with an introduction of some of the people we have here that will be available to answer questions from the public during the viewing period, if you so desire and these are folks that have worked on this effort for a number of months. First of all, from the Traffic Authority, we have in addition to myself, Jim Billings who is with the Howard Needles Tannen and Bergendorf as well as David Downs from the same organization working as sub-contractors to the Bechtel program manager for the Traffic Authority. And Martin Engelman who handles the traffic angle as an employee of Bechtel working for the Traffic Authority. From CalTrans we have Paul HensIcy, supervising Transportation Engineer and the Project Mana- ger for the Route 85 freeway project, and John Buthenuth, Senior Transportation Engineer. From Bissell and Karn, the design agency that's working as a private sector consultant for the Traffic Authority in the design of the Saratoga Avenue interchange, Jim Ogrin and Mike Zabene (I hope I pronounced'that right, Mike). Barton Aschman--we have Abdul Rashid and Barton-Aschman of course, is the agency or the consulting firm that provided the traffic analysis for the City and for the corridor as we've gone through these freeway negotiations over the last year and a half. And these people will be available to work with the public out in the foyer to answer questions during the break, and also will be ~v.::.'.:.'..'.: ~ ~0 r:z~::r~.~ -'-? z:r':.'o.r ~ther questions as they may develop tonight. I wanted to take just a minute, if I could, Madam Mayor, to describe a little bit of the background to amplify on some of the things that you've said. We have been meeting diligently and I would like to, up front, express my appreciation to the negotiating team, Mayor Anderson and City Manager Harry Peacock. We on the Traffic Authority side were represented by David Moyles as part of his capacity as a member of the Traffic Authority and myself along with whoever we needed to answer the specific questions. But I think the negotiations were very forthright. I think all parties really sat down and pursued the objective, which of course was to come to this point tonight. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNC/L Page 6 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton, continued: I think we met probably about three times in December, we've had no less than three meetings in January, and, as you pointed out Madam Mayor,-the latest meeting was on the 16th. Let me, at this point, talk a little bit about where some of the neighboring cities are with the negotiations. I know this is important to you and I think there are members of the audience who would like to have a brief status report on what's happening in some of the neighboring cities. As you may know, there are five corridor cities which we will be signing freeway agreements with, and incidentally, at this point I probably should indicate that a Freeway Agreement is something that's required in law that deals with the closure of local streets. It's a fairly perfunctory document that has a number of "whereases" and "now therefore be it resolved" and then it has a map, as you well know, that is a plan view of the freeway project in a local jurisdiction and has little squiggly lines where there are going to be street closures. The point rm making is that the document is not a detailed son of document in terms of saying this is where sound walls will go, this is the kind of mitigation that will be provided but this is typically the document that CalTrans signs with local jurisdictions in terms of street closures and those issues and represents what is called a *'Freeway Agreement". Incidentally, the Freeway Agreement, in addition to the changes showing the inclusion of Saratoga Avenue interchange, has also been modified to include the ban on trucks, which is the result of legislation introduced by Assemblyman Quackenbush and passed by the legislature last year. Mayor Anderson: Would you tell us what that truck ban exactly is? Mr. Kempton: The truck ban precludes any truck over 9,000 pounds from operating on this roadway; it's a very stringent truck ban. There are other truck bans in effect in the State of California. The one that most people may be familiar with is the truck ban on Interstate 580 in the Oakland vicinity. It is possible to enforce. Oakland has had this ban in effect for a number of years and it has been effective. Mayor Anderson: How about for local deliveries? Can they use the freeways? Mr. Kempton: They will be cited if they are on this facility if they are over 9,000 pounds. Mayor Anderson: So they cannot use this facility at all? Mr. Kempton: That's correct. Mayor Anderson: OK. Counej3.nan Stutman: What is the weight of those trucks? Mr. Kempton: 9,000 pounds Counei.l.mm $L-u~:atran: Is that loaded or unloaded or... Mr. Kempton: That's typically unladen weight. Mayor Anderson: OK, thank you. Mr. Kempton: The performance agreement, however, is a special document that was created for just this purpose by the Traffic Authority and the local jurisdiction. It is a much more detailed dOeumem ~ you will find ont tonight and includes guarantees on the part of the Traffic Authority to fund specific mitigation items, set dollar-levels for landscaping, particular noise attenuation levels and that sort of thing. And it's the kind of document that the corridor cities in this community, not just Saratoga but in the Santa Clara County area, insisted on this-- they wanted, as they proceeded with the negotiations on freeway agreements. And so we created this document to provide those kind of guarantees that the Traffic Authority will not fund this project unless it's built this way. So that document, in conjunction with the freeway agreements, provides the basis for us to proceed. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton Continued: Again five corridor cities...in Cupertino we anticipate that we will have a signing ceremony on the 24th of this month, which is next Tuesday. At a meeting last night in Cupertino, the Council really came to closure on some of the issues that had been discussed there. I think that the biggest concern that the Council has had had to do with the elimination of access that the current design would provide at Stevens Creek Boulevard. Stevens Creek Boulevard is proposed for a full 'interchange, but there is a single movement going from northbound 280 to southbound 85 and off at Stevens Creek Boulevard that would be eliminated by virtue of the conflict that is created due to the construction of through-traffic on 85, or through a through-facility on 85 where you have southbound 280 traffic coming onto 85 and going south, and traffic coming from Mountain View that will be coming in such a volume that it creates a conflict that is untenable from a safety perspective and that movement has been proposed for elimination by the department. The City of Cupertino had strong concerns in that area, and I think what they're going to come down to is ask us to pursue an alternative at Mary Avenue, to see if we can't obtain environmental clearance and approval of all of the federal agencies and other agencies involved, which may be difficult since it involves some recreation land in the vicinity of Homestead High School. We are prepared to do that if that is what the City proposes for us to do. The other option would be the so-called "no access" option, which simply means the traffic that makes that movement today would have to access Stevens Creek via De Anza Boulevard or Foot- hill Boulevard. So, with that, we will have an agreement I think, in Cupertino by next Tuesday. The City of San Jose, next in line along the corridor--and incidentally, San Jose touches into the corridor in three separate locations in the vicinity of the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect, in the vicinity of Quito, and again in the vicinity south of Baseore. There are five separate agreements with the City of San Jose; four of them have been signed. The fifth is awaiting the outcome of negotiations with Los Gatos, and I'll touch on that in a moment. The City of Saratoga did sign a Freeway Agreement in March of last year. Actually was the first jurisdiction in the corridor to sign a freeway agreement and of course subsequently, there's been an election and we're here to negotiate changes to that agreement. In Campbell, Campbell has only a small part of the corridor in its iUrisdiction and it's generally in the vicinity of Pollard Road. The City of Campbell signed a Freeway Agreement in April of last year. This brings us to Los Gatos, the last of the five cities. In Los Gatos, we're at a point now where I think we see the light at the end of the tunnel and hopefully not the train coming from the other direction. But I think we're very close to a conceptual agreement for the major freeway-to-freeway interchange in that community, and I think that's been the biggest concern of the Town of Los Gatos, has been the aesthetic impact and other impacts of having a major freeway-to-freeway interchange located in their community. We've come up with a design proposal that essentially eliminates some of the high flyovers and by making some modifications, we're able to develop a design that I think they find reasonably acceptable. There still are some concerns about traffic, and one of the issues that I know this community is concerned about is the location of other local service interchanges within that overall complex, most notably at Winchester. And while the town has not made a decision on that point, one of the concepts that I think is receiving a good amount of attention from the town and the Advisory Committee that we've bo~n working with is what I call a split-diamond configuration which would have northbound and,off- ramp connectors at Winchester with access ramps to and from the south at Bascom. Let me say that again; access to and from the north at Winchester which is the movement that would impact this community if they were not provided at Winchester... Mayor Anderson: Joanne Benjamin told me just the opposite. Mr. Kempton: Well, I think the Mayor has a concern. She would like...she has expressed concerns about north ramps and has all along maintained that she would prefer to see access from the south only. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 JANUARY 18, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton Continued: I'm citing the results of the contact we've had with the community Advisory Committee, and on that Advisory Committee sits Councilmember Carlson with the town staff, again, we don't have any closure on that. But the design that appears to meet most of the concerns that have been expressed is the split- diamond concept that I'm describing, which involves a northerly connector road, that is a two-way frontage road as it were, connecting Winchester and Baseore, running parallel to the freeway, north of the freeway. And with that sort of a concept, I think we come the closest to meeting across the board 'the concerns that have been expressed by the town. But again, I don't mean to mislead you to say that the issue has been decided, because it has not. Mayor Anderson: When is their Advisory Committee final meeting? Mr. Kempton: The Advisory Committee meets again tomorrow night. We are hopeful that they will make a recommendation to the Council at that point. On that recommendation, we intend to proceed with final design,at risk~to allow us to stay on schedule. The Council is currently scheduled to hold a workshop on the 30th of January and then, although we don't have a hearing set, we are talking with the staff about the possibility of a hearing on the 13th of February at which the Council would provide conceptual approval. That would not close out the freeway agreement negotiations because Los Gatos I think would want tO hold some additional public hearings. But with the conceptual approval on the 13th, we're looking at ways in which we'll be able to go forward with the right-of-way purchase, as well as the design activities, which are the essential ingredients allowing us to stay on schedule. That's a very brief summary of the status of those negotiations. Let me know talk a little bit about the exhibits that you have behind you, and I apologize for the fact that they are small. We have a double set, as you've indicated Madam Mayor, out in the foyer. Let me start at the audience's left to the side of Mayor Anderson. The figure labeled "Route 85, Saratoga Avenue Interchange" represents a plan view of the proposed interchange, and we unfortunately end up putting these maps upside down, and there's a reason for that because CalTrans typically--I think it's a consideration of post miles--have to run from left to right, so you find that your north is down and we continually run into problem in explaining that to people because everybody expects rationally that north would be up--in this case it is not. Mayor: What's scary is I'm getting used to it now! Mr. Kempton: I have to admit that I'm used to it nowtoo and I can ' t fielure it out when it ' s right .In any event, that map also shows a number of other things. There are red lines on that map--and again we'll be able to be out there in the foyer during the break to point those out--that indicate the location of sound Walls. This was an issue with the community, as FII describe later, and we have relocated those sound walls consistent with the negotiating team's recommendations to us. In addition, we have dotted lines there that provide for a noise contour, which is 62 decibels, which is the Traffic Authority's threshold of mitigation. We cannot commit to providing for mitigation that will get the noise levels down to that level, but it is at least a threshold by which we can exceed state and federal standards. State and federal guidelines are 67 decibels--we are actually providing noise attenuation along this corridor where the threshold is expected to exceed 62 dba's-- you asked for us to provide that contour and it's indicated on there. Also the location of the mlocated railroad line is shown and the bridge structure associated with that. And we also have on that map several letters which deal with locations of cross-sections that are displayed in some of the other exhibits, that I'll go into in just a moment. That's an important map and it has a lot of information, and again, we'll have people out there to answer questions relative to that. You also asked us to provide, in addition to typical cross- sections Which are reflected in the next two displays moving from left to right, cross-sections at both Saratoga Avenue and the cross- sections, incidentally, am identified by letter which we can relate back to the map shown on the extreme left. Location B, location A, location B, location C, location D--and you can see on the next two exhibits, moving from left to right, that those are labeled by the letter and then you can correlate them back to the map on the left. You further asked for a longitudinal cross-section, which is the next two maps. what we mean by longitudinal cross-section is essentially dividing Saratoga Avenue right down the length of it and looking at what the situation would be like from that sort of an angle, as well as doing the same for the freeway and we've provided those longitudinal cross-sections in the next two displays as you move from left to right. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 JANUARY 18, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton Continued: You also asked for a grid map colored up to show differences in terms of traffic impact on Saratoga with a full interchange at Winchester vs. no Winchester. The grid map over here to the right shows that. The gray bands reflect the volumes of traffic. This is similar to a map that was displayed that we used previously in hearings to define the volumes of traffic. The gray bands represent the traffic we are projecting to be on those major arterials with an interchange at Saratoga Avenue. The red numbers represent the percentage increase of traffic that is expected on those arterials if there is no interchange at Winchester. There is an impact on the roads in the community and you can see that from that. It's not a tremendous amount of additional traffic, but there are percentage increases that I know the community is concerned about. You also asked us to provide for traffic volumes. We have done that on a sheet of paper that is available out in the lobby as well at some of these street locations. You asked for the model. The model is provided out in front and I think provides probably the best graphic representation of what the facility is going to look like. You asked for sound wall measurements because we very often talk about 10 ft. walls vs. 12 ft. walls vs. 16 ft. walls. One of the things that we are very quick to call to the attention of all local jurisdictions and the communities that are involved in these sound walls is just how high those walls are, so with the help of your staff, we've indicated on the wall over here, the respective heights of 10 ft. walls, 12 ft. walls and 14 ft. wails and 16 ft. walls. And you can imagine, if you're looking at a 16 ~. wall in your back yard that there are other considerations to take into account other than just the noise attenuation. You need to consider shadow, you need to consider the aesthetic impact of a wall of that magnitude and so thaCs why we wanted to display that for the community. The heights of the wall are also listed on the map that is labeled "Route 85, Saratoga Avenue Interchange". Most of the walls that are called for in this area are in the 12-14 ft. and in some cases 16 ft. category. Although we're showing those walls and we are indicating that they will be provided because they are required as mitigation for this project, the actual size of the wall--and I might add, the texture and the appearance of the wall--is subject to negotiation. We will be back with the community following this effort to discuss those items at an appropriate time, so that if the community wants to make some adjustments in that particular area, we certainly can talk about it at that time. Mayor Anderson: You'll provide them Sound Engineers to let them know what the difference · is in sound when you go down from 16 ft. to 14 ft. and so forth... Mr. Kempton: Yes, in fact we have that data available and can make it available to the City. The other issue that you wanted was some discussion of construction phases. These very faint maps over here provide six exhibits which demonstrate the phasing of construction, which I'm going to describe just briefly in four different segments. The first action that we must do is to build what's called a "shoo-fly" to relocate the railroad for the temporary construction. Then we need to construct a detour of Saratoga Avenue. Then we need to build the bridges that will carry the freeway over Saratoga Avenue. Then we do the street wo. rk and finally the clean-up. It's a two-and-a-half year process. We expect to get construenon underway by late 1989. The detour itself will probably be in existence for a year to a year-and-a- half while that work is accomplished. Next, Madam Mayor and members of the Council, let me briefly describe our perception of the concerns you had and then I'll get into the changes in the performance agreement. As you indicated, Madam Mayor, and the City Manager had the same concerns, we had a lot of discussion about pedestrian impacts. There will be increased traffic going along Saratoga Avenue. We know there are a lot of schools in the area, particularly as you move what I'll call south along the roadway. So we did hire a consultant to make an analysis of the pedestrian crossings and to see what...try to assess what sort of impact we would be having. As you are aware, we concluded tha, t there is not a significant amount of pedestrian traffic in this general area, but we do recognize that the volumes on the streets will be increasing by some level. Therefore there are some changes that we can make and we recommended the elimination of the crosswalk at. Lisa Marie because it's not controlled by signals, and we've also agreed, at your request, that we will provide sidewalks where they do not currently exist between Cox and Fruitvale. And that will get the pedestrians off, in some instances off of the roadway where they now have to walk to make that trip. MEETENG OF THE C1TY COUNCIL Page 10 JANUARY 18, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton Continued: Exhibit D in' the original performance agreement involved the landscaping scheme that allowed for use of the right-of-way that is provided for the ramps for some additional landscaping. We've changed that exhibit now to reflect the ramps in the Performance Agreement. You asked that there be specific language included in the performance agreement for the interchange locations themselves and actually there is a single interchange and we've clarified that and as I read the language in a few moments, I think you'll see that I've responded to that concern. You also expressed concern about construction timing. You were not onl~ concerned about the hour-control of construction, but you talked about the fact that you wanted sound walls in place before we got to certain stages of construction. We have modified the Performance Agreement to try to accommodate those concerns, and I'll cover that in a moment as well. There was a question about Saratoga Creek access and the fact that there is a Saratoga Creek Trail planned at some point in the future, and there was some concern whether or not the construction will preclude the ability to have that trail go through the creek area. We've modified the agreement to provide guarantees in that direction, so there will be space for that trail to be provided. You wanted the traffic signals interconnected between Fruitvale and Cox, and we've provided appropriate language to accommodate that. The final issue, other than the Winchester/no Winchester, which I think we've already discussed, was the sound walls at the right-of-way line. Originally the consultants that looked to see how this mitigation should be provided felt that the best way to do it would be to provide the sound walls along the main line facility. Madam Mayor, you were very concerned that there would be noise impacts associated with ramps and asked if we would look to move those sound walls outside the ramp structures and as you can see from the display there, the sound walls have been moved ac- cording to your direction and we've made appropriate modifications in the Performance Agreement. It's important to note, before I get into the final discussion on the performance agreement, that our involvement with the community doesn't just stop with these negotiations. For all of the facilities along the corridor, we're proposing, in addition to these hearings, three separate meetings--at least three meetings--with communities as we build this project, as we move forward on the Route 85 freeway project. Those meetings are essentially design meetings where we will work with the neighborhood to go over the design details and talk about specifies. One lady today was concerned about the location of lighting along the corridor. Your staff is involved in regular ongoing trend meetings which I think have been attended at least to date by your City Manager and Mr. Shook. That action is an ongoing matter. In addition to that, we will have those community meetings I'm talking about to deal with design issues, as well as a separate meeting that will deal with the noise wails, not only in terms of the prospective heights but the texture of the noise walls and answering questions about those. And finally, we'll be proposing to have construction impact meetings, and there may be more than one of these, just before we get ready to go to advertising, we'll meet with the community to discuss construction impacts, to advise them--actually it's almost...it's done usually after the time of award, because we typically have the contractor represented there so that they're able to hear some of the community concerns and can react accordingly. · So, the process doesn't stop here and I think that's important to know that it's going to be a joint effort for a good many months and even years to come. Let me just, in closing, discuss where we've made changes in the performance agreement. We've indicated in the first part of the performance agreement that this new agreement will supersede the previous agreement signed by the City on April 4th, actually signed by the City in March and approved by the Traffic Authority on April 4th. We've added a "whereas clause" to the agreement which discusses the election that took place in Saratoga and the provision for an interchange within the City's jurisdiction. We talk about this being an amended document. Item 2, we have added a couple of other, well, actually one more document to tie this in. We incorporated as part of this agreement, not only the Environmental Impact statement but the Mitigation Plan passed by the Authority which discusses the Authority's commitment for mitigation, but welve also added the Bicycle Corridor Plan as one of the documents. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 11 JANUARY 18, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton Continued: In Item 4, this deals with a location question. We've added language which says, "an interchange will be located at Saratoga Avenue only and no access to Route 85 will be provided at Quito Road and Prospect Road," and that I think is specific in terms ' of the concerns you had about location. Under Item 9, we again referenced the Bicycle Plan. You've asked that we have the language pro- viding for the creek access and we've said that the Traffic Authority agrees to provide access to the Route 85 crossing of Saratoga Creek for future City construction of a park trail through this area." The next change occurs under Item 13. This has to do with the staging of the sound wall construction. We've modified this to say that "wherever feasible, sound walls will be designated as early construction and will be constructed prior to preparation of the freeway subgrade..." (that's engineer terms for the language that you talked about in the prior to the laying of the roadway) "...sound walls in the vicinity of Saratoga Avenue will be located adjacent to freeway right-of-way where environmental requirements can be met and will be constructed prior to the Route 85 bridge construction over Saratoga Avenue. Any deviation will be subject to City approval." In the event that, for whatever reason, we would have to deviate from those commitments, we would have to come back to the City for approval. Item 14, we've changed that to say that "the traffic signals at (that used to be dealing with the Heavy Truck Ban and since the truck ban is now incorporated in the freeway agreement, we do not have to have a separate item in the performance agreement)--we now say that "traffic signals at Saratoga Avenue/Cox Avenue and Saratoga Avenue/Route 85 and Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersections will be interconnected to provide a controlled traffic flow through the interchange. Sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of Saratoga Avenue where not currently provided from Cox Avenue to Fruitvale Avenue." We've also added language that "construction noise and control during working hours will be consistent with the regulations and subject to City approval" to provide some more teeth in that language at your request. That completes the changes to the Performance Agreement, which I think do respond to the issues that were raised by the community. There are several exhibits attached to the performance agreement. The first is the profile; the second is the service treatment for the retaining walls and noise walls; attachment C is the location of the sound walls taken right out of the Mitigation Plan. And D is landscaping. All of those again relate back to the Mitigation Plan. Madam Mayor and members, that completes my presentation on the changes. Again, I want to express my appreciation to the negotiating team for its very forthright, direct approach to this process. If you have no objections, I would suggest now might be an appropriate time to take about a 10-minute break. We'll have our staff people outside to answer questions that the audience might have related to any of those exhibits and then perhaps we could reconvene back here and be prepared to answer any questions you might have. Mayor Anderson: Thank you very much. Councilmember Peterson: I have one question, Will. Do we have reduced copies of these? Mr. Kempton: No, you do not. Certainly we can make those available for distribution...further public distribution, but for tonight's presentation, there're just the Board copies. CoUncilmember Peterson: I'd like to have a reduced copy at least. Mayor Anderson: Yeah, we were all working under severe time constraints, as Mr. Kempton mentioned. From our standpoint and from his, and I think it's remarkable that we only just talked about what, a week ago?, about What it was that we wanted drawn up and he's really provided this for us. And we're very pleased and satisfied with how fast you guys work too. Mr. Kempton: Well, thanks go to the people that are here, some of the people that are here, and others back at the office, that have really worked very hard to try to be responsive. Mayor Anderson: I hope when you all go home you still have spouses. Mr. Kempton: It's questionable. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 12 JANUARY 18, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Anderson: OK, thank you very mujh. Ten-minute break and be back at approximately.. We can either start now or we can assume we all did the right thing on the City Council and you can all go home. You're not going to buy that, huh? Good thing you had your break. This is where we'd dim the lights if we knew how. Everybody went home, is that it? Will Kempton, you're not back there anymore. How come they're still back there? Somebody back there needs to be a Pied Piper and bring the gang in. Either that or we'll lock the doors and that's it. QK, Marty are you ready? Yes. Councilmember Clevenger: Madam Mayor, I would like to ask that we have a verbatim transcript of Mr. Kempton's remarks and also of any comments made by any members Of the audience and the Councilmembers of this public hearing. Mayor Anderson: That's a good idea. Mr. Kempton: Madam Mayor, if I might, it was called to my attention that I did advise you something incorrectly, and that has to do with the weight of the trucks. I think you asked a question whether it was...Dr. Stutzman asked whether it was laden--it is gross vehicle weight, and I apologize for that. I said it was unladen weight. It was called to my attention that is gross vehicle weight. Mayor Anderson: Gross vehicle weight. Mr. Kempton: 9,000 pounds Mayor Anderson: OK, thank you. And the weight of a car is what, about three? Mr. Kempton: Most of them now are in the 2,000-2,500 pounds... Mayor Anderson: Mine's three. Mr. Kempton: They're made of lighter materials today. Councilmember Stutzman: That would exclude all unladen 18-wheelers? Mr. Kempton: Yes, it would. Mayor Anderson: OK, thank you. Now are there any questions of staff before we begin the public hearing on the pan of the Council-- any questions. Councilmember Peterson: No I would just make a comment that as I walked up the aisle, two or three people said that, even with the new sound system, there were a few of us that they could not hear, so let's make sure that we have the microphone fairly to us. Mayor Anderson: I wasn't one of 'era, was I? Nah, I didn't think so. Councilmember Peterson I wouldn't touch that with a... Mayor Anderson: OK, we're going to open the public hearing. rm going to try to limit you to three minutes. I would appreciate your cooperation because there are so many of you, and we do want to hear all of you tonight. The other thing is, again, I'm going to 'repeat, the purpose of this public hearing is to discuss mitigations, it is not to discuss whether or not to build the freeway, and it is not to discuss whether or not to build the interchange. The election results are in, and Saratoga Avenue was selected and we are proceeding with the Saratoga Avenue interchange. . We would like to hear from you what your concerns are, and if there is something that you have heard that Will Kempton commented or alluded to that you'd like to make a comment about, you can do that. If there's something you think we've forgotten, we'd like to hear about that also. So, please come forward, come down to the front, those of you who wish to speak. ' Certainly. Come right to the microphone and give you name and your address and then tell us briefly what your concern is.. Mr. LeUfgen: My name is Ed Leufgen and I live at 19946 Via Madrona Court. This is the entrance that's known as Arroyo Saratoga. Now in your letter that you have printed in the paper today, you stated that you had discussed with Mr. Kempton traffic control lights. Mayor Anderson: Urn-hum. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 13 JANUARY 18, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Leufgen: Well, at the present time, trying tO get out of our complex at Via Monte and Scotland Avenue--both has the same problems--these are streets that are south of Cox Avenue and the railroad, the first two streets that you come across after you cross the railroad tracks of Via Monte and Scotland. Mayor Anderson: We know. Mr. Leufgen: You know where that area is. Now, from 4:15 in the afternoon until about 7 o'clock at night, we have one heek of a time getting out of our area to go north on Saratoga Avenue. But we do get a break if the light at Cox will give us a gap where we can sneak out as it turns to "Stop" if the traffic will help, if the traffic will abide, so we can cross, or we can get into the same token. But now with the freeway dumping, there is no stop light control for us to get out of these two streets. I would like to make recommendation that a demand light be installed at Via Monte so that we could pull up and wait a little bit and then get out and the traffic on Saratoga Avenue could continue. We don't particularly care if Saratoga Avenue has green for hours until we would like to get out. Mayor Anderson: That's true. Mr. Leufgen: This same light could be multiplied to Scotland Avenue and a controller set there, and let one light work for both streets. We wouldn't need one light at our street and one at Scotland. As people came up on Scotland, it's only a short block, it could control the light at Via Monte and turn "stop" so they could get out. That way we'd only have one light. Since the Traffic Authority is picking up the expense, it's better than having a... Mayor Anderson: Santa Claus. Mr. Leufgen: ...petition by all our area for the City to install one six months after the freeway's going. Mayor Anderson: That's a very good point. Mr. Leufgen: This is my recommendation and thank you for listening. Mayor Anderson: Thank you very much. We had talked about that. I suppose I could address that. We had talked about that in our negotiations and that's been brought up, and it's not in the contract as it's rewritten and we're going to be discussing it a little bit further because not only at your point at Via Monte and opposite at~r,.~e Way, but also we talked about'it with regard to the Vineyards and the new senior project that'll be across the street from the Vineyards--they might need a light also. Did you want to comment on that, Mr. Peacock? Mr. Peacock: I've asked Mr. Kempton to do a traffic analysis of five additional intersections along Saratoga Avenue to see whether or not, after the freeway is built, it might require additional signalization. Those five locations are Herriman, Via Monte, Mr. Leufgen: Scotland? Mayor Anderson: No, not Scotland. Mr. Leufgen: Linking those two together? Mayor Anderson: Yeah. Mn Peacock: McFarland Mayor Anderson: Westview Mr. Peacock: And Bu~k~nall. And the one that the Mayor's mentioned for Paul Masson, that one is going to be required to be installed by the development at Paul Masson, so there will be a signalized intersection at that location, both for the Vineyards and for the Masson project. Mayor 'Andersc~ . OK, could we direct the City Attorney at this point, because we're going to be making modifications possibly through the evening, so could we direct him to figure out some kind of verbiage that will cover us for this particular study? OK, thank you. Next. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 14 JANUARY 18, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ., Mr. McCullum: I'm John McCullum. I live at 19810 Merribrook Drive in Saratoga. I'm particularly concerned with the pedestrian traffic at the schools in the area there. Fruitvale is...my children attend the junior high school there and also go to the library. They have to cross Saratoga Avenue. The consultant which they hired pointed out that mostly people brought their kids in cars, which I could have told him for free, "that is true"--however, there is still a significant amount of bicycle traffic which my kids are a part of. My son was nearly killed at that intersection last year. Fortunately the Metcedes missed him and the Mercedes is now in the junk yard instead of my son-- we've already had one teacher killed at that intersection. And mind you, this is supposed to be a light pedestrian area so it should tell you how dangerous this intersection really is. I would like to see a raised crosswalk that you could walk your bicycles or pedestrian traffic up over the Saratoga Avenue so they could get to the library and to the schools there without further endangermeat. Aside from putting sidewalks in that area, but those are illegal to bicycles. And that's... Mayor Anderson: We're putting in bike lanes too, aren't we? Mr. Kempton: Yes. Mayor Anderson: Yes, bike lanes too. Not just sidewalks. Bike lanes too. Mr. McCullum: Hopefully they're wide enough... cars come pretty fast through there, particularly if they're trying to make those lights. So that'S my...I would really appreciate it if you put in that walkway there. I wouldn't want to see one of my children or anybody else's children killed there. Councilmember Peterson: Where are you suggesting the crosswalk again7 Right at Saratoga- Fruitvale? Mr. McCullum: Right at the Saratoga--at that light there. Councilmember Peterson: North or south7 Mr. McCu!ium: Preferably, I prefer it south end because I live on the south end. Mayor Anderson: Let's vote on it. No, let's not. Mr. McCullum: On the south, because that's get you to the library as well as to the junior high school without additionally cross Fruitvale Avenue and cars come down there pretty fast out of the junior high or the junior college. Mayor Anderson: I think we're going to have some people from the school speak to us tonight also, and the latest knowledge I have about that is that the school district would prefer not to have the crossover because there's no one there to monitor and make sure the kids actually use it and it takes extra time for them to go up and go over and so many of them don't. They would prefer to have a crossing guard, because that also insures that the kids will not jay-walk or jay-bike as the case may be, across Saratoga Avenue, but they may indeed go down to the crossing guard. So that's what they've actually asked for. Mr. McCullum: You'll also find that there're children moving in that area all during non-school hours because of the library plus after-school activities at the junior high. Mayor Anderson: Yes. Thank you. Are we asking the speakers to sign in? Probably it would be a good idea--thank you very much because we're going to do some follow- up after we hear the tape. We may want to get in touch with you. Plus y6ur name gets ~pelled right in the Minutes. Next person. Ms. Huston: I'm Cassandra Huston. I live at 14466 Oak Place. I'm here as the President of the Board of Trustees of the Saratoga Union School District. I would like to say that I have never . heard that recommendation about the cross-guards or the pedestrian over crossing. ' I would like to commend you for your concern about the safety of the children in Saratoga. We also have had several meetings recently about the proposal to change Redwood from a junior high school to a 6th, 7th and 8th-grade middle school. One. of the main issues that was raised [nany times was the safety issue. So the parents are very concerned. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 15 JANUARY 18, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Huston Continued: I have seen the survey just tonight that showed 112 children approximately crossing Saratoga Avenue. I think that might be slightly wrong because it stopped at 4:00 P.M. and sports are not out until 5:00 or 5:30 P.M. and most all the kids do participate in that. Nonetheless, 112 children are a significant number in any of our schools. I would like to read to you--I do have a letter... Mayor Anderson: Good. It was Michael Felice that told me that he would like to have the crossing guard there. Ms. Houston: That's Michael Felice's personal opinion. It has not been discussed at the board level. Just excerpts from this letter. "It has been brought to the attention of the Saratoga Unified School District that the construction of Highway 85 will also bring construction of a sidewalk and bike path on Saratoga Avenue between Cox and Fruitvale. We commend the Saratoga City Council and CulTruns for this safety measure. A sidewalk and bike path to Big Basin Way should also be considered, or at the very least, to Harriman Avenue. We would also like to point out that having crossing guards or a pedestrian overpass at the intersection of Fruitvale and Saratoga Avenue may be necessary to guarantee the safety of youngsters who cross to attend Redwood, Argonaut, Sacred Heart, St. Andrews and Saratoga High School. "In the future, with the beginning of construction of Highway 85, we may need to have discussions regarding interim safety measures for all students. This could mean temporary cross- ing guards or whatever is necessary to guarantee safety for the total community. We are ready to work with you. Thank you for your continued interest in the safety of our school children." And I might make a personal suggestion that all the public elementary and private elementary schools and the public high school be included in this discussion. It's my understanding that notification was not given until today in some instances. Mayor Anderson: Thank you. Councilmember Peterson: Madam Mayor, I have a question. Maybe rm the only one that's confused. rve not seen any study on pedestrian counts in this area. In your letter, you said it was low. I believe Mr. Kempton mentioned it was low. Now I hear the count of what, 112 children? Is that a day? Mayor Anderson: Um-hum. Councilmember Petersou: Is that considered low? Ms. Houston: That was actually not for the entire day. Councilmember Peterson: I mean that sounds like a lot of kids going through that intersection. Ms. Houston: I don't consider it low, but I did read in the paper this morning, I mean this afternoon, that there was not a significant number. Mayor Anderson: It was done during two peak times, isn't that correct, Mr. Kempton. It was not even an all-day count. It was done in January. It was not raining that day, at least, but it was cold. So whether it reflects the traffic count in May or not, I wouldn't have any idea... Councilmember Peterson: Just for my benefit, then, at some point in time are we going to see t[i~is si~.i/, ....i i.° ., i. ,i,:, 7;2 :i;,_~ ~., ~,:i~ '~dlat standards we're measuring this against. ff we didn't in fact, use 112...to me that sounds like an awful lot of...I would not have guessed that there were 112 children either going to...well, at that intersection. City Manager: I think just to clarify this: pedestrian counts were taken at four locations--Lisa Marie Court, Fruitvale, Sacred Heart and Harriman Avenue. The total crossings, both eastbound and westbound, were 146. Councilmember Peterson: Per day. City Manager: Yes. Mayor Anderson: During two peak times. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 16 JANUARY 18, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued City Manager: During the school-in and school.out... Mayor Anderson: Not counting sports times. There was like eight- something in the morning until nine, and then around three to four in the afternoon. City Manager: 7:15 to 9:00 A.M.. and from 2:15 to 4:00 P.M. Councilmember Peterson: So, at those four locations, peak hours only, 146. City Manager: Yes. Councilmember Peterson: So one could assume them that, on a daily basis, it's considerably higher, if you were to take a daily average. Mayor Anderson: Right. With the middle school, there's an additional grade level that'll be involved. City Manager: There were fifty-six at Fruitvale, fifty-six at Harriman, four crossing at Sacred Heart and thirty crossing at Lisa Marie Court. Mr. Kempton: Madam Mayor, for purposes of the tape, Will Kempton with the Traffic Authority. The study is as Mr. Peacock just described two-hour periods during the day and was conducted on a day when the school was in session so we were sure we were getting the school traffic. It was a cold day, but the weather I think weather-wise was acceptable in terms of not having people riding in cars because of the weather. The comparison of 146 at the four locations, 146 total at the four locations, should be taken into account along with the standards that are typically provided for the establishment of a cross walk. Which would require, at a single location, one hundred crossings per hour for two consecutive hours. That's the comparison that we're providing here and by virtue of that comparison, this is a low number. Certainly, any time you're dealing with children, there's a concern and I don't mean to imply that it's insignificant, but the comparison that we provided in this study did not appear to warrant... Councilmember Peterson: What you really ne?_A to do is to take each location separately. Mr. Kempton: We have taken each location separately. Councilmember Peterson: No, but .rather than lump this 146 together, I mean we might envision 146 kids crossing Saratoga ~Avenue to let's say Sacred Heart. Mr. Kempton: The study, Mr. Peterson, does break it down by crossing location. Councilmember Peterson: OK. Councilmember Stutzman: Now this standard that's been set up, is that just for children or is that for adults and children? Mr. Kempton: That's a general standard, I believe, Dr. Stutzman. Let me look at the traffic experts. They're nodding "yes". Mayor Anderson: And bicycles Mr. Kempton: Anybody crossing in the crosswalL it's my understanding it's viewed as a pedestrian. Mayor Anderson: OK, who would like to give testimony next? 'Mr. Carlson: I'm Harry Carlson at 19098 Myron Court, Saratoga. First, I'd like to give Mayor Anderson due credit and recognition for all the work she has done to minimize the impact of this freeway. It's greatly appreciated. I do feel...I know I want to address the basic design of the over-pass. I shared this with many people, namely the idea that the freeway has to be brought above grade or up to grade which is contrary to the Original understanding that the freeway would be below grade throughout Saratoga and then that of course Saratoga Avenue has to be depressed to go underneath the freeway. The issues that come up immediately, that by doing that you introduce hills in effect in both the freeway and in Saratoga Avenue. I think it's obvious that anytime you introduce hills in a roadway you're increasing the cost and the noise, simply because there are hills. So it's a thing to be avoided. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 17 JANUARY 18, 1988 PUBLICHEARINGS Continued Mr. Carlson Continued: The other effect'that takes place with this design is by doing this, is the need to construct the railroad bridge, which wouldn't be necessary if you left Saratoga Avenue at grade and simply moved the railroad track. You wouldn't need the bridge there. That's an expense item. It's most likely, also, if you left Saratoga Avenue at grade that you wouldn't have to move Saratoga Avenue to one side to accommodate the access there to Dagmar Street which now has to be done. So that would seem to be a simplification there. The basic idea, of course, of keeping the freeway below grade is to minimize sound. ff you were to do that with this intersection, I believe most of the sound wall construction could be eliminated because you would be below grade and therefore avoid the sound propagating to the neighborhood. There's the issue of the lighted freeway signs which will have to be placed along the fleeway. With the freeway below grade, those signs which are lighted all night would again be able to be located lower than what they will now. Now with the elevated fleeway, they will in fact illuminate the neighborhood there. Again, an inconvenience to the people living in immediately adjacent to the fleeway. So, for a variety of reasons, there I strongly recommend that the design be looked at once again. I'll give you the counter argument which has already been brought up--namely, that you have to accommodate the creek. There is a solution to the creek, as it has been used in many other places. The creek can be diverted underneath the fleeway using a technique that is common throughout the San Joaquin Valley, namely what they call an "inverted siphon" where you simply make it go down underneath and come back up again. I understand there may be some environmental issues there- but I think they're worth addressing to see if there isn't a solution here that would allow the fre~way to remain below grade as it was originally intended, as we understood when we did our voting. Mayor Anderson: Thank you very much. Mr. Kempton, would you do me a favor, because I've had several residents in the last week or two ask me about this inverted siphon. Could you address that? As you know the Saratoga Council back in '86, had a goal of achieving full depression and because of the creek, we were told we wouldn't be able to do that. We do have this come back all the time and we've had boxes over the freeway suggested and so forth, and that's been done away with. I have heard several people bring up this inverted siphon idea. Mr. Kempton: I'll do better than that, Madam Mayor. I think if I don't put him on the spot too quickly, what I'd like to do is ask Paul Hensley from CalTrans to respond to that concern. We've told you in the past about the agencies involved that have jurisdiction over the creek and have to agree to any changes in the creek bed, among those is the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which has flood control concerns. I believe the solution suggested by the gentleman would have impacts in that particular area. But, Paul, would you mind addressing this concern? Mayor Anderson: I'd also like to hear about relative costs because that keeps getting brought up also. Mr. F[ensley: Yes, I'm Paul Hensley, Supervising Transportation Engineer of the California Department of Transportation. This issue was discussed with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, who has the responsibility for flood control throughout the valley here. The soils in this area where the creeks are are highly erosive so that when storms occur, you have a lot of soil and sediment coming in. The one thing that occurs with an inverted siphon is that it tends to collect sediment inside the siphon and it fills it up; and once it fills up, it's blocked so that we would be faced with, during heavy storms, the siphon filling up with sediment, blocking the creek, the water backing up Saratoga Creek and floodin~ adjacent areas. Mayor Anderson: Now is that different from the experience you've had in the Central Valley? Is that true that you have these siphons in the Central Valley and they are successful? Mr. Itensley: I am not familiar with where they're used there. They may be used where soil conditions are such that there is no sediment in there. That 'the water will pass through. But in this area, the soil is highly erosive and we would be faced with a continual maintenance problem, that when a storm did occur, we would probably lose the capacity of the siphon during the storm and that means that it floods back upstream up the creeks and into the City of Saratoga. Mayor Anderson: We don't want a flood for sure. Is Mr. Shook here? He was. Hi. Do you know anything about those siphons? MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 18 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Shook: No, Madam Mayor, I have not ~en involved with siphons of the size that would be involved with this suggestion. But I think that Mr. HensIcy is correct that we do have a lot of sediment carried in our streams and in Saratoga Creek as well. And if not only the backing up that he speaks of, into the adjoining neighborhood, the depressed freeway once the backup had been high enough, it would flood into the freeway. ff that occurred, there would be a great deal of flooding. Mayor Anderson: ...and damage. Mr. Shook: Yes. ~ Mayor Anderson: 0K, thank you. Councilmember Stutzman: I was wondering if you could at the same time just address one other problem of potential flooding of Saratoga Avenue as it dips down under the freeway, because that'll be a receptacle, really, for water drainage from both entrance and exit· to that underpass, plus all of the access and egress roads. Now I understand that pumps would probably be provided. Mr. HensIcy: Yes, that's correct. Councilmember Stutzman: However, historically, as I remember, these' pumps have not worked too well because they're not tested periodically as they have to be--and they're only brought into play once every four or five years or so, and if you do have heavy rains and flooding, the work crews that are available are required in so many areas to address the same problem that they might not be available to service the pumps that would be required to keep this underpass on Saratoga Avenue free. I wonder if you would address that, plus the other possibility that I've heard expressed by a couple of engineers of actually diverting the creek through a steel channel over the freeway. It's a thought that I think could be looked into. My engineering friends tell me this is feasible and I was wondering ff you could answer to that. Mr. Hensley: Well, I'll answer the last one first. That would look into taking the creek over the freeway. Thoro's very few areas where we've ever done that. rm not aware of any, there may be some. One of the problems we've got with trying to take it in a channeled structure over the freeway is that we would have to go several thousand feet both upstream and downstream, and · probably mine the channel and this would have an enormous impact on the riparian and wildlife habitat in the area. This was discussed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game who we would have to get permits from to do it and they were almost adamant against it. Councilmember Stutzman: Well, I was just wondering. It seems that the Romans back in. past time used this sort of a principle. Mr. HensIcy: I don't believe they had a Fish and Game department or U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Mayor Anderson: They didn't worry about riparian habitat--they still had quite a bit left in those days. Mr. HensIcy: That's correct. On Saratoga Avenue, there would be a pumping plant installed and it would be designed to handle approximately a fifty year storm, so it would be able to handle the drainage that would come and would be sized for it. Mayor Anderson: Who would do the testing? Mr. HensIcy: Normally, when it's installed, we test it to make sure it operates. The ones we've been installing over the last few y¢7~, "'~ ~"; .",'~' ~n~ "'L'.'- ?~b!~, ..~e main. thing is the " occasions where it does come up, where there is flooding, is when we have an early storm that comes in a little ahead of time like an early snow storm and they're not expecting it. The main thing is on these over crossings, they have to get in the month ahead of when the storms would come in to make sure that the grates and the areas were kept clean of leaves. Mayor Anderson: I remember the Santa Ana Freeway about 10 years ago where the Rolls Royce went plunging under the freeway.. Mr. Hensicy: Yes. But we've had very good success in making sure that they're maintained and if something does happen, getting a crew out there as soon as we can to keep it unplugged. Mayor Anderson: So you'll be responsible then. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 19 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Hensicy: Yes. Mayor Anderson: The City is not responsible. Mr. HensIcy: In this area, wc would be. Yes. Mayor Anderson: OK, thank you very much. Who would like to give testimony next? Mr. Vincent: I'm Ed Vincent. I live at 13617 Westover Drive. I want to thank Madam Mayor and the Council for providing us an opportunity to express our concerns. The particular concern that I have has already been pretty thoroughly aired and has to do with the aesthetics of the interchange of the freeway with Saratoga Avenue. It's ironic that at one time we thought the freeway was going to be depressed and then we found that it couldn't be depressed throughout its entire length, and then we Saratogans voted to make the interchange at that location that can't be depressed. rve had an explanation as to why it cannot be depressed. And you've heard some of the results of that discussion discussed with the two previous gentlemen. I believe it can be depressed and that the problems with drainage water from Saratoga Creek can be alleviated, if not with an inverse siphon, with a pumping station and some piping at Saratoga Creek and a sediment basin at the same location. All of the pluses that come out of that are the simplicity of the interchange and the railroad tracks and some of those things, but I was more concerned about the aesthetics of the freeway in Saratoga, particularly at that location. I thank you. Mayor Anderson: Thank you. Who would like to be next? Please come forward if you want to speak. Mr. Weston: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Lou Weston and I live at 20774 Pontiac Avenue. There is much idle talk presently carried on in the name of public concern. I prefer to consider it just that--idle talk. For to think otherwise is to question the integrity of public servants. As a voter in favor of Saratoga's interchange and my vote was so cast, I also want the best contract arrangement for Saratoga despite the extra time that may be involved. Since all five Councilmembers verified the election results and then committed to carry out the will of the people, inferences that some Councilmembers are not adhering to that commitment by virtue of their efforts to negotiate the best agreement for Saratoga-such an approach on their part for the best deal, I believe, is consistent with and I further believe conforms to the will of the people. We elect individuals to the Council in the belief and conviction that they will serve all the people of Saratoga and I emphasize all. In carrying out their duties, to best serve Saratoga is included careful attention to details and in doing so in an honest and above board fashion, they should not be the subject of threats by other Councilmembers mouthing inference of a recall. Integrity in a public office is a direct reflection of the moral character of a public servant. Self-aggrandizement and personal gain from public service should not be tolerated in any society. Frankly, I deplore the fact that some play politics with the public issue that voters express their positive position on in loud and clear voice. Time and effort are needed to insure a quality interchange. When people get into their heads that they're being specially favored by the Almighty, they had better mind their P's and Q's. The public must and will be served. Thank you. Mayor Anderson: Thank you. Mr. Crowther: Russ Crowther of Norada Court. You should all have a copy of my letter. MayOr 'Anderson: Wait a minute, where is it. We do. We do. Mr. Crowther: OK. I hope that Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger and Stutzman have not been intimidated by the arm.-band~__.people's threats of recall, if the Council takes time beyond this evening to consider and evaluate freeway design issues of importance to Saratoga. Their threats are a puzzle since the Council adopted a Resolution committing the modification of the agreement for an interchange. Their claims that fast action is needed to avoid holding up progress and increasing costs are absurd, since Cupertino and Los Gatos have not yet signed freeway agreements and since the need to move the S.E railroad tracks will delay construction for a year. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 20 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Crowther Continued: These chadat;~s also know that a recall measure would be a failure because, by the time they could have a recall on the ballot, the Council will have adopted the revised freeway agreement with the basis for recall disappearing before a vote. The gnawing question is, "Why are these people so insecure when they have the Council's commitment to implement an interchange? Why would they risk such outrageous and clearly coercive threats of recall again respected Saratoga citizens? Why are they trying to stampede the Council into a quick, unevaluated decision or, in other words, what is being covered up in the freeway agreement that they do not want you to discover before you sign it?" The following .is a summary of some of the issues that may explain their callous threats: Movement of power lines near new homes: What are the fire and electromagnetic field hazards of this plan? How many Saratoga homes will have to be condemned? Why was this part of the plan not brought out in prior reviews and why weren't the impacts evaluated. . The same issue on the S.P. railroad tracks shall be moved closer to homes and I think the sound efteeLs and other sons of things related to that have not really been reviewed and there's a question: Should there be sound walls along the railroad tracks, for example; which aren't there in the current plan. The bathtub depression of Saratoga Avenue and the flood plain, which was just discussed, the current hydrology report shows a thousand-foot concrete structure downstream of the place where the creek goes under the freeway in the current plan. So, I don't understand the comments on putting the creek over the freeway. I think it could be done with steel structure safely and I don't think you need a thousand feet upstream for that purpose--you maybe need a couple hundred feet for infrastructure, not a thousand feet. So I think there's been some distortion there and I think careful evaluation might lead to different conclusions. Neighboring community freeway agreements: If Saratoga signs the agreement before Los Gatos and Cupertino, do we risk losing recourse if these agreements incorporate things that we're not in agreement with or that would be detrimental to Saratoga? Why aren't we working with these communities on an over-all plan, so that we all sign the agreements together? In view of these and other issues which have not been given adequate attention, and for example I notice that the commitment on sound is not consistent with the Saratoga General Plan; it's greater levels than our General Plan specifies and that hasn't been addressed. I think that also the public just got these things and I think it was very good of you to put copies of the agreements out in the lobby, but nobody's really had a chance to review them or comment on them. I thinkthere's a need for a study session and for the public to have a chance to review this and for more input on some of the more key issues which have not been discussed. I know there's an EIR but it does not address such things as the flooding potential at Saratoga Avenue, the power-line movement near homes, the S.E railroad track movement, and those things should be included. I specifically request that you amend the EIR to include the impacts and the evaluation in detail of the impacts of these items. I believe it would be irresponsible for you to sign the agreement tonight without giving the public more chance to interact with the Council and without getting more detail on some of the key issues affecting this very important design. Thank you. Mr. Kohler: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Willem Kohler, 2~.842 Via Regina. I also really agree with the speakers to do the best you can to make a responsible development of the freeway. And if we can get a sunken freeway, which is not in the plan I know, it would be much better. There is a precedent here, so the problem is the creek there in the hills where I live-- there is a creek there and it was not too much trouble for th¢~ developers to sink that 20 ft. deep under the filling he made and replace the creek in ~ concrete. nioe~ I think with ehgineering we can do a lot; we can'sink that creek down and rm sure it 'can be':dbne and-still have a sunken freeway. That would be a much better solution. I also have a question about the trucks on the freeway. OK, trucks are not allowed--is that just in Saratoga or along the whole stretch? Mayor Anderson: The whole corridor. It was done by state law. Quackenbush carried the bill. The whole corridor. Mr. Kohler: ,So, the trucks have a choice then. They can take... Mayor Anderson: 101--that's the choice. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 21 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kohler: Not the Saratoga roads. Ok, t~ank you. Also, it's really hard to implement this. As a matter of fact, Pierce Road --there was once an ordinance and I'm not quite sure if it's there anymore--there was an ordinance that trucks more than five tons couldn't be there. There's no implementation as I see in Saratoga because they have always been there, and I also think that after the construction of the freeway, people will be so used after two years to having these humongous trucks and tractors going in and out, they probably won't care any more for a few more trucks. But the implementation I think will be a real problem. Thank you very much. Mayor Anderson: I understand one of the reasons you don't see trucks often on 280 even though some people think there's a law about that, and there is not, is that it does have this undulating sort of feature to it, which one of you addressed about the hills. The bad news about the hills is that you may have more hills coming out of a depressed section, but the good news is that truckers don't like to use those hills either. Someone else like t° speak? Ms. Grant: Gay Grant, 19814 Merribrook Drive. I just too would like to express my dis- satisfaction with the fact that we voted, knowing it would be depressed, and then after the vote, most were in agreement, then surprise--we can't do it. And it sounds to me like a lot of people are dissatisfied with it that are voicing it, and I'm sure there are others who aren't here. And I think it should be looked into further. Plus I'd like to say "thank you" to Karen Anderson because I know she has received a lot of flack. And whether we're for it or against it, most of us--our house is our single biggest investment and we all care about our property values and I think aesthetically in every way, freeways are ugly. They stink and they're noisy, and so, even if we wanted it, hang tough, don't sign anything you don't want if you think it's going to hun us, because it'll certainly hurt all of us in our pocketbook if we sign into something that we end up being short-changed with or they say "Well, we couldn't do it and not enough funds". We've all read these horror stories of what happens. So just make sure it doesn't happen to ns. Mayor Anderson: Thank yoU. Someone else like to speak to this issue? If you want to speak to the issue, please come down forward and it'll save a little time. Ms. Jensen: Cheriel Jensen I'd like to speak to the issue, and please enter these comments on the official record of this hearing. The proposed contract before you at this time is worse than the contract that was signed in the spring. That contract was a dual contract; the dual nature of it meant that, after the Traffic Authority goes out of business in 1984, 1986... Mayor Anderson: 1994...it was passed in 1984 Unidentified Speaker provides information on the Traffic Authority from his seat. Ms. Jensen: OK, once that happens, what is left is your contract with CalTrans. In the contract with CalTrans there are no protections--none. That contract allows CalTrans to widen the freeway however they choose. It allows CalTrans to stack the freeway and make a double layer. It allows CalTrans to widen, condemn homes, take half of your backyard or maybe your whole backyard--it allows CalTrans to do whatever they please. It is no protection. The same contract has come back to you revised; those features are still in it. There are no protections, none whatever. This is a violation of the law. Every action that will result in a change to your environment is required to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report--every single one. Or an assessment or something that comes ahead of your decision. And if you are signing a contract that doesn't maintain the mitigations that you thought you were voting for in the first place, that you thought you were committing the City to, then that whole process has fallen apart and without an Environmental Impact Report for this particular design of this particular freeway that we're talkix~~ ~_bo,,t t,~d~y! ~.,h~, y,~.'r,~ d~i.~ in siEning a contract is illegal-- flat. out, illegal. The initiative petition that was brought to you did not have the signatures to qualify for a ballot measure. Ballot measure was sponsored by the Council and as such is a public action that is required to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report. There was none. The ballot measure was illegal, At this time the action following that ballot measure is still not addressed in an Environmental Impact Report, and your action tonight is illegal if you decide to sign a contract. Now let's look at the contract. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 22 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Jensea Continued: One pan of the c~tract that refers to an Environmental Impact Report is the part with the Traffic Authority, but that part refers to the draft that was presented in the summer of '87. It does not refer to the final, and therefore it is not legal. It cannot be considered legal. In fact, that draft was so thoroughly deficient that it was substantially and completely revised in November and passed as a final. It was still not an adequate report but it did not cover the conditions today. And what you're doing today is an illegal act, As a citizen, you are taking my rights and you*re tossing them out the window by committing an illegal act. And I won't stand for it and I will take some action. Mayor Anderson Thank you. Ms. Jensen: And I do have a letter. I have the Code Sections, the guidelines from CEQA which explain what you're supposed to be doing. And I have that to present to the Council. Mayor Anderson: Thank you. Is there someone else who would like to speak to the Council? Ms. Stowell: rm Mary Ann Stowell. I live at 19918 Blythe Court..At first the freeway was going to be fully depressed with no exits. Then we were told, yes, we will have exits. Now the freeway is no longer fully depressed and because this exit is located in a residential area, it has greater impact on the health and safety of all us Saratoga residents. It is only fair now to ask for a supplemental Environmental Impact Report and more research also into the diversion of the creek with the goal of keeping the freeway depressed. It seems to me from what I have heard tonight that Fish and Wildlife have more protection than human life in the area of environmental protection, environmental pollution. And rm urging the Council to be cautious and investigate all of the options thoroughly. It seems to me that there have been some possibilities that have not been brought up tonight for changing the diversion of the creek and keeping the freeway depressed and protecting the human life a little better. Mayor Anderson: Thank you. Ms. Hershkowitz, Protect Our Environment: Good evening. I wasn't planning a talk with you. As every one of you are well aware, I have opposed both Route 85 and any interchange in the City. However, regretfully, I do accept that the will of the majority. must be served. I have enough faith in the people of this city to truly believe that even the majority who voted for the freeway with an interchange would reject an ugly, noisy and poorly planned structure for our city. I urge the members of the Council not to allow themselves to be pressure into undue haste, to proceed with concern for those most severely damaged. We urge you not to roll over and play dead for San Jose, Los Gatos or CalTrans. We can't accept an "anything goes" mentality. Saratogans are now looking to you for protection and mitigation from the negative i.mpacts of Route 85 with an interchange in a residential area. Your primary concern must be our mty's needs . and the safety of the citizens, even if other cities and CalTrans find these concerns secondary. Thank you. Mayor Anderson: Thank you. Mr. Wilson: My name is Robert Wilson at 18709 Metler Court, Saratoga. Thank you, Madam Chairman, rather Mayor. This is sort of a repeat. About a year ago I made about the same statements I'm going to make now and it has to do with the freeway agreements. I stated at that time after having been surprised by what I considered very poor agreements, that the langu.age was nl;t 0roner. The entire ag~'cement lacked sufficient definition of 0roject; it did not serve the citiziis 6i' :Sarai~oga and tt ~Was open for legal challenge. In addition to that, the Traffic Authority agreement which I didn't mention before is going to be dissolved. At some time, that ITraffic Authority is going to go out of business. ~alTrans isn't going to pick up the loose ends. So there's a need for cross referencing in those documents. You can't...somebody's got to take over the responsibilities of the Traffic Authority when they are dissolved. Now we can talk about all of the quantitative depression data and lateral location data and details of the interchange design that are all missing. There's not much said about what we're going to get. There's a lot left out and a lot of the statements that lead one to a lot of questions, like how are these things going to be enforceable? That's one of them. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 23 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Wilson Continued: Why isn't there ~uf~cient definition in these documents so they can stand by themselves? Why do they have to reference an EIS that has no...is a confusing document in itself7 I discussed why aren't these documents incorporated into each other so that we have adequate protection? And then I asked myself the same question with regard to Route 85 with regard to revisions and major changes that have taken place along the entire corridor. In Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos and San Jose since the last Environmental Impact Report was written. So there is a need for another EIR or at least an amended EIR. Mayor Anderson: Bob, you have one minute. Mr. Wilson: OK. Now I got a little surprised here when I tried to get some of the details on Friday but they weren't available at 4:35 in the evening. But at 9,000 und truck--is that a semi- tractor diesel without any trailer behind it? Are we talking about that.~°Nohody defines what this is. Is it a diesel? Councilmember Petersore No, that was defined earlier. Mr. Wilson: No, he just said 9,000 pounds unladen. Mayor Anderson: Loaded. Unloaded. No, that's right loaded. Nine thousand gross pounds Mr. Wilson: Tractor, a diesel without any trailer behind it. Is that allowed on the road. Mr. Kempton: ff I recall correctly, I used to have some experience in this area and if I recall correctly, a diesel cab would only weigh somewhere in the vicinity of 15,000 pounds, so therefore this would preclude that. I must tell you I'm not absolutely certain about this figure, but obviously the intent here is that of eliminating commercial truck traffic from this roadway. Mayor Anderson: Can you come to closure please7 Mr. Wilson: I think so. I'll have to! The medhn I mean...Fve sent a document to the members of the Council to recommend these certain changes and what are they going to do with that median of 46 fi? Build Taco Bells and McDonald's down there? What is not said is very meaningful. It just says that we're going to have a median of 46' without any explanation of what's going to be done with it. Mayor Anderson: It's reserved for mass transit. I'm sorry. Other people are waiting to speak, Bob. Thank you. Mr. Wood: My name's Ralph Wood. I live at 19661 Junipero Way, relatively close to where Congress Springs Park is. 'To a certain extent, I'll be impacted in that I won't have a depressed freeway the same as the people at Saratoga Avenue. I think it'll probably be four or five feet under grade at my place, but Fd like to commend you for doing a very, very good job. And rd like you to go ahead and vote "yes" and adopt the agreement tonight. I think what we've heard tonight is a bunch of sore losers that would like to do anything they possibly could to just keep this from happening for another year. I don't think the proposal at Saratoga Avenue is the greatest, but I don't see any alternative. I think the only alternative would be to bring Saratoga Avenue 20 ft. above grade, and I don't think anybody would like that either. So I think you've done the very, very possible best thing you can d the agreement have done, and I'd like to thank you for your time and urge to vote "yes" to a opt tonight. Thank you. Mayor Anderson: Anyone else? Mr. Lindel!: Yes, my name's Jim Lindell. I live at Buckingham Court in Saratoga. Madam Mayor and Council members, this has been a difficult and important issue for you. We have just been informed this evening about many of the details of the agreement and the plan. I know you've worked very hard on this issue, but Fm recommending that you work harder yet, because I think this is historically going to be the thing that changes this city the most in quaire some time. The important thing here is we've got to consider this issue about the depression, which is I think been well expressed by other people here this evening and I won't go into it in detail, except to say that I'm in favor of restudying that issue. There's no way that, with proper engineering today, with modern materials and modern techniques we can't have the best possible freeway. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 24 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Lindell Continued: Each member of this Council has a responsibility to all the people, not just the people that were in the slight majority, but the minority that will be mostly impacted by this freeway well. actually and the interchange should receive due consideration, especially from the Councilmembers who were pro-interchange. It would be a very small quid pro quo, as is said in legal terms, to give extra consideration to the residents who are now impacted by your action along areas such as Bonnerr Way and so forth in that area. So with that, rll just u~ge you again to please...we 'know we're going to have this interchange, we know we're going to have the freeway--let's get the very, very best we possibly can. Mr. Lee: rm Jack Lee, live on Bonneu Way. For granted, this citizens vote to have a freeway but they voted to have a freeway with the understanding that it was going to be depressed. I think about the people back in the 1800 who built a railway from East, went over the Rocky Mountains, to West. And with the high tech we have now, that if you can see to have a freeway that is depressed, they can do it. And if you can build a tunnel through the ocean and roll over the mountains, why cannot do it just simple a freeway under this creek--whatever it takes. But ff you can see to have it, they'll do it with our communication, with our high teeh--just think. ff our fathers can build railroad, tunnels in ocean, why can't they build a freeway under the creek. That's all I want to say. Mayor Anderson: Thank you. Ms. Dowdy: Good evening, rm ~ren Dowdy. I live on Brook Lane and rm President of the Westbrook Improvement Association. The vast majority of Westbrook residents are in favor of the Council movin quickly and firmly to amend Saratoga's freeway agreement and include an interchange at ~aratoga Avenue. We wish to commend you, Mayor Anderson, as well as Mr. Peacock, Mr. Moyles and Mr. Kern ton on your excellent work in producing such an amendment in compliance with the wishes of ~atratoga's voters. We also commend the negotiating team for your sensitivity to mitigating the adverse effects of the freeway and the interchange. We hope that you will sign the proposed new freeway agreement tonight so that we can move forward with this R~ja~otgian' accordance with the direction which you have received twice now from the voters of Thank you very much. We really appreciate it. Ms. Parham: My name is Diana Parbarn and I am Treasurer of the Saratoga Residents' Associa- tion. Back in 1986 I did vote for the freeway. And although I was opposed to the interchange, one of the things that I expect of every single Councilmember that I elect and at one point or another, I think rye elected every one of you--maybe not at the same time--one of the things that I think you are representative of all the city and that you have an obligation, when you're taking on a 495 million dollar project in a major corporation, you don't make a decision in one month on a contract. The contract has been negotiated and mitigated over a period of time and there have been different decisions and different votes on it. It has caused the City to raise different questions, and the questions that are raised tonight have to be answered. Now it is your decision to stay here until 2 or 4 o'clock in the morning and answer every one of the questions raised of major concern. Or ff you don't, then you are, m my terms, irresponsible Councilmembers. Mayor Anderson: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this issue? 1 presume that whatever your viewpoint is its been heard already this evening by someone else then. Councilmember Peterson: I move we close the public hearing. Mayor Anderson: Somebody second that? Councilmember Cleveng~r: Mayor Anderson: A/I in favor? Councilmembers: Aye. Mayor Anderson: I would like to comment before we start with our individual commentaries that one of the things we hoped to achieve when we were working on this contract was to improve the old one as well, because we had received a great 'deal of criticism on our signing the old ' contract with some language that led people to think we were not nailing things down. as well as we might. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 25 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Anderson Continued: so we ha4e gone over this contract, Mr. Peacock and I, Mr. Toppa~ the City Attorney and I today again--he has some suggested language for places where we hadn't already suggested language, so there will probably be some changes, Mr. Kempton, and I don't think that they're changes that will be a problem for you, but they are changes that will make us a little less vulnerable to what we hear from people about, "are you sure you've got enough protection", "are you going to get what you're signing for?" One of the protections that we feel that we can build into this contract is having some of these things early in the construction phase and that way we know they're there. There are communities that have not gotten their sound walls because their sound walls went up last and the State ran out of money and they ended up on a waiting list. Sunnyvale is a good example of that right now. So one of the reasons that we put into our original contract that where feasible, sound walls would go up early--now we're looking at it saying we don't want to have it say, "where feasible"; we want to have some sort of a "drop dead" date before the roadbed's laid that those sound walls will be up. And that is our protection. And we have some other pieces of language all the way through the contract that essentially guarantee that certain kinds of things will be done by the Traffic Authority before the Traffic Authority fades out of existence. That is the way we're trying to responsibly react to the criticism we have felt in the past. So we're going to start now. Mr. Peterson would you... I'm sorry. Sure we could have some comments and questions. Are there any questions on the pan of the Council besides Mrs. Clevenger. Mrs. Clevenger wants to start. Go ahead. Councilmember C!evenger: I remember Mr. Kempton talking to some people from Los Gatos who said that they had built into their contract some way that when the Traffic Authority is no longer in business, that their contract with the Traffic Authority would be taken over by CalTrans. Do they have anything in their contract that we don't? Mr. Kempton: No they have not. We haven't gotten to the point where we're dealing with wording... In response to your question, Mrs. Clevenger, no, they do not have anything in their agreement that is not provided in this agreement. In fact they don't have any specific wording at all. We haven't gotten to that stage with the Town of Los Gatos yet. We have a fairly standard agreement that we use as a base. It is pretty much the same with all of the corridor cities; there are some modifications that are made and you're going to propose some tonight evidently that hopefully we'll be able to incorporate into this agreement. But for the most part, they are reasonably similar. In the town of Los Gatos, one member in particular has raised the same issue that some of the speakers tonight raised in desiring a tie between the Performance Agreement and the Freeway Agreement. We don't think those concerns are warranted, simply because the freeway will be completed prior to the time that the Traffic Authority goes out of business. Our current schedule calls for completion of Route 85 by the end of 1992 or the early part of 1993. The tax will remain in effect for two years beyond that date, and the Authority will be around for even longer than that. So I don't think there's going to be a problem with the Traffic Authority fading out of existence and having CalTrans left to deal with the issue. The Department does reference in a number of places in the Freeway Agreement itself the need for cooperative agreements with the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority with respect to funding. And I think that's said in the agreement at least on a couple of occasions. Our document is solely limited to the cities and the Traffic Authority and it is a commitment not to provide funding for the ~Oject unless ce[tain requirements as listed in the agreement are met. Councilmember Clevenger: Well, for instan~ here, where we have here added "an inter- change will be located at Saratoga Avenue only", page number 4 in the Performance Agreement and "no access to Route 85 will be provided at Quito Road and Prospect Road." Well, what happens when the Traffic Authority is no longer in business and we essentially have signed our agreement with the Traffic Authority; could CalTrans then come in and put an interchange at those locations? Mr. Kempton: Your Freeway Agreement with CalTrans provides for the same thing--the map that's attached to the Freeway agreement shows access only at Saratoga Avenue. The references made earlier to the fact that a double-decked freeway could be provided here or that the freeway could be widened beyond its existing boundaries is inaccurate. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 26 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton Continued: Those kinds of actions would require a change in the existing Freeway Agreement with the community. Councilmember Cievenger: I would like to point out, and I know you're aware of this, that this Council cannot bind future councils. If a future council wants to do something that we have not included, they can always make that change. So I think that in that sense, this agree~:'.~ c~uld be changed. But only with the approval of the City Council. Mr. Kempton: And the approval of the other party. Councilmember Cievenger: And the approval of the other party, which might be a little easier to get. Depending. Mayor Anderson: OK, maybe we want to have some verbiage in the... DonIt go away, by the way. I want to discuss something with you too .... some verbiage in the freeway contract as well about which interchange...as opposed to just relying on the diagram. City Manager: It's redundant. Mayor Andes;son: I don't care if it's redundant. People like that--nail things down. Makes them feel better. Mr. Peacock, you wanted to say something? City Manager: Yes, I wanted to ask Mr. Kempton a couple of questions too. There was referenced tonight that the agreements does not reference the final Environmental Impact Statement but only the draft. Is that an accurate statement or is that... Mr. Kempton: It is not. The final Environmental Impact Statement that's referenced in this document is dated July 1987 and I have a copy of it sitting right over there. It iS the final· Environmental Impact Statement. City Manager: Further in that regard, when a city does an Environmental Impact Report on a project, ultimately all of the mitigation measures are placed as conditions to the approval of that project. Where in the Freeway Agreement does it state, is there a reference that the miti~t. ior/ measures in the EIS will be carried out? Or is there a reference in the Performance Agreemenv~to that effect? Mr. Kempton: There is a reference in the Performance Agreement tying, associating ,this document to not only the environmental document but to the' Mitigation Plan, which actuilly provides for mitigation beyond that required in the environmental document. Councilmember Moyles: Paragraph Two for the Performance Agreement City Manager: I don't have mine in front of me, I gave it away .... Mr. Kempton! It reads by reference incorporates the following documentation, includes the Traffic Authority's strategic plan, the Route 85 Environmental Impact Statement and the Mitigation Plan, as well as the corridor bicycle plan. City Manager: But the Freeway Agreement With the State does not reference that EIS, does it? Mr. Kempton: Not to my knowledge, no. City Manager: Is it uncommon that it would not reference... Mr. Kempton: The d6cument that you have befdre you in terms of the Freeway Agreement--and perhaps you'd like to talk with the representatives from the State on that issue, is the standard Freeway Agreement that is provided by CaITrans for these purposes. It has been used in c0untless other situations... City Manager: Well, my concern is that it probably has been used all the way back to before there were Environmental Impact Reports...and the world has changed since then. I'd like to get a · response from CalTrans. Mayor Anderson: Why don't some of you who are likely to ask questions come down here closer too? Don't'go away, Will, for example. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 'Page 27 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Hensicy: Basically there's no reference to the EIS or the EIR in the Freeway Agreement, because when we prepare and finalize and the CTC adopts the EIR and EIS and makes a statement of findings, it commits itself to the mitigation requirements that are in the EIS and EIR and we build the project according to that, so it's never referenced in the Freeway Agreement because · there's already a commitment that has been made by resolution by the CTC. City Manager: So there is a resolution by the CTC7 Mr. HensIcy: Yes, when they adopted and approved the EIR and EIS and made notice of findings. City Manager: So we could get a copy of that sent to us, could we? Mr. liensIcy: Yes, I think you probably already have. The file EIS/EIR... City Manager: Is it included in the final portion of the final document7 Mr. liensIcy: No, these are separate documents. And there's also a record of decision made by the FHWA also regarding the mitigation and all the commitments. Mayor Anderson: OK, can you suggest a place in this Freeway Agreement where we might specify, along with the reference to the map, specify that there will not be at interchange at Ouito and Prospect. Mr. Hensicy: As long as it's not shown on the map, there will not be an interchange there. Mayor Anderson: I think we'd be more comfortable if we could just add a phrase. Where would you like to add this phrase. Mr. Hensicy: Normally we don't do it because the map shows where the interchanges are. Mayor Anderson: So we're not normal, you know. Mr. HensIcy: Well, we could propose it, but I think our attorneys would say that it would simply not be necessary. It just be restating the obvious that would be shown on the map. Mayor Anderson: OK, we're going to state the obvious. Counciimember Clevenger: Mayor Anderson, I'd like to ask Mr. HensIcy if it's possible that we can put this paragraph two in, that this agreement by reference incorporates--it that a problem in putting that in7 In the Performance Agreement, we have what documents are referenced. And I think we would be more comfortable since eventually the Traffic Authority will be out of business, if we had that in the Freeway Agreement with the State. Then we would add "incorporates the following documents" and we would have our Performance Agreement in the one that you sign plus these other things. Do you think your attorneys would have a problem with that? Mr. HensIcy: It would be a third-party agreement that we would not be party to... The Performance Agreement would be between the City and the Traffic Authority regarding funding. We would not be a party to it. Councilmember Clevenger: But we would have all of the statements there, so there wouldn't be any unknowns. HensIcy: Normally, all the fleeway agreement deals with is strictly the closing of city streets and that's normally the '~,n, %,~ ;, ae~!s wi.b; so t~bn!'~ why they've been very standard agreements-- nothing else has been ddded to them. Councilmember Clevenger: I don't know that we want to add anything else but I think incorporating the documents that have gone into this is important. That's what we've been hassling over all this time and I think it would... A lot of times things get lost and it would be good when they bring out this Freeway Agreement to know what documents went into this and what this agreement was based on. Mayor Anderson: Shouldn't this Performance Agreement be also referenced7 MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 28 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Clevenger: I mentioned that. But the one for the contract agreement wc should have the Performance Agreement in there. I think that's important because...it may not be standard, but this facility is not a standard project because it is not being funded by GaiTtans, so it's different in that respect. And I think because of that, it is important to add in there. Mr. l]ensley: We can try and see if it would be acceptable. Mayor AnderSon: I think we'll just have that written up by our City Attorney and passed onto you. Mr. Kempton: ffl could just make a comment to add to what Mr. Heusley has said, when we originally entered into this process, we proposed to CalTrans that the Freeway Agreement served essentially the purpose that's now provided by the Performance Agreement. That we in fact incorporate into the Freeway Agreement a lot more language relative to mitigation requirements and what you see primarily in the Performance Agreement. We ran into a buzz-saw with the department in that regard. Their attorneys had grave problems with that and rejected the notion of making modifications to the Freeway Agreement. And Mr. Heusley indicated that in good faith, being the cooperative fellow that he is, he will try to put language forward. rm going to give you my best counsel on this. I don't think the department is going to agree to those changes. What might be a more appropriate way to deal with this, if you feel it would provide the assurances is to seek a letter, and defer to your City Attorney on this issue, perhaps from the Director of Transportation interpreting or responding to specific concerns that you might ask of him and reflecting on what the actual document means with regard to those questions. That would provide you with some written assurances, which I think would respond to many of your concerns. And certainly in the future, could be used as a basis for even litigation, if it became necessary, to block an action from the State that you felt was in violation of the terms of the agreement. Mayor Anderson: Ok, that's fine. We'll work on it. As long as you're both here, because you're both involved in this process, I would like to have a discussion about the requirement for a Supplemental EIR/EIS vs. an assessment, which is I understand is what you had planned to do .... And the issue was raised early in the day--I spent almost two hours on the phone today, myself, talking to both the federal government and the state, and so rye kind of like to have a dialogue with you on that subject, and I did call you so you knew I was going to. bring this up. ·., Mr. Kempton: The process we're engaged in at this time is an environmental reevaluation-- looking at the changes proposed corridor-wide. We had a meeting not more than a week ago With a lot of the agencies involved, including Federal Highway Administration, CalTrans, our consultants, our legal counsel, looking at the requirements and the suggested changes in the free- way. Our preliminary conclusion is that the impacts that are generated by the changes that. are proposed are the types ofimpacts that are covered in the original environmental document. WeSre. ..... going to proceed with the evaluation process, make the appropriate documentation and then move forward with the project. Mayor Anderson: So, my understanding is that you're...these documents have different names, depending on whether it's the state or the federal government... Mr. Kempton: That's right. Mayor Anderson: The State is called a Negative Dec, is that correct7 Mr. Kempton: There are essentially three levels of environmental review: rcevaluation, re- assessment or assessment, then the Negative Declaration which is a State document (CEQA document). It's counterpart at the federal level is a Finding of No Significant Impact. Then the next stage document is an Environmental Impact Report under CEQA and an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act. They are basically the same levels of documentation, There are different requirements under the federal law than there are under the State law, primarily it relates to process and typically the review times associated with the federal process are a little bit longer. . · Mayor Anderson: Now, when I talked to the gentleman at the federal office, he tells me that this assessment that yoU're planning to do-I think you told me is about three months? Is that correct? MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 29 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton: Something on that time fralde. Mayor Anderson: And he claims that a supplement, an actual supplement, would take about eight months. Does that sound about right? Mr. Kempton: We did a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, a CEQA document for Branham Lane interchange at a location down south and I believe we were able to complete that in about four months. Mr. Moyles may correct me on that. I think it was a four-month process. Mayor Anderson: for a supplement? Mr. Kempton: Very accelerated process. Yes. Mayor Anderson: For the sake of the audience, the reason that we're doing this is the original EIS was studying three interchanges in Saratoga. Now what we're going to have is one interchange, so while the two other locations will have less traffic and there won't be any mitigation requirements, the one location will actually have heavier traffic than what we studied. So it has to be restudied. It's just a matter of what degree. From what I understand, the key word is son of substantial changes and somebody has to make that determination of whether it's substantial changes because if it is, it requires a Supplemental. Is that correct? Mr. Kempton: That's right. Iris part of the teevaluation process as Mr. HensIcy has pointed out to me, and I think it's a point we do need to make. That's part of the reevahation process to determine what level of environmental review will be required. Mayor Anderson: Now another point that both of these gentlemen made tonight to me was that in neither case were they able to do any enforcement. So in fact, it basically comes down to disclosure to the public as to whether the public would actually change its mind when it heard whatever was discovered in the process of the environmental review, Now your understanding is the same? That basically they can't enforce? They have to respond but they cannot enforce... Mr. Kempton: Well there're not the lead agency, in this case CalTrans, and the responsible agencies, which include the Federal Highway Administration and the Traffic Authority and California Transportation Commission... Mayor Anderson: And us Mr. Kempton: I don't believe you're... Mayor Anderson: They tell me we're a responsible agency Mr. Kempton: That may be. I wouldn't necessarily argue with that. I don't think you were classified as a responsible agency in the original environmental documentation, but no you're not a lead agency. Mayor Anderson: We don't want to be a lead agency. Mr. Kempton: ff those agencies make a judgment with respect to the environmental process, then you're not going to have a "watch-dog agency", typically you're not going to have a watch- dog agency stepping in and saying "No, you made the wrong judgment." If the action of those agencies is challenged through litigation or whatever, then obviously the courts will decide if the rules and regulations have been complied with. Mayor Anderson: Thank you. Any more questions? Oh she's still got a long list. Councilmember Clevenger: No, I only have two more questions. One thing that someone mentioned to me who's not here tonight and I want to ask you about it, is I think the environmental document--she even quoted the page; I think it's Chapter 5, page 6 of the original Environmental Impact Report--says that there has to be two on-ramps going onto the freeway in order to facilitate... Mayor Anderson: One for HOV and one for regular. Councilmember Clevenger: Right, one for HOV and one for regular. But coming off, there doesn't need to be two ramps. Now, is it possible that we might not need two coming off at that interchange? We could use the extra area for landscaping? MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 30 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton: Could we make that kind of design change? Mr. HensIcy: 'I'm not quite sure. Are you talking about as you come off the freeway... Councilmember Clevenger: As you come off the freeway, do you need a double lane coming off?. Mr. liensIcy: Not for HOV's. Normally where we talk about using High Occupancy Vehicles is just at on-ramps to allow them to get on first, Clevenger Clevenger: So will the exit ramp be a single lane oi' double lane? Mr. Hensicy: I believe at Saratoga, it's a single lane. As you come down near the intersection where we normally go to two lanes so we can provide for traffic... Councilmember Clevenger: Right, for the left turn lane, but coming off it'll be a single lane. Mayor Anderson: Oh, is that right? It'll be a single lane. Mr. Kempton: Let's verify that a little bit. That was John Buthenuth who works for me. Both the on and off ramps will be single lane. And the on ramp, what we'll do is use the shoulder in the future will become the HOV lane so we will not widen the ramp to provide two lanes plus the shoulder. We'll actually use the shoulder. Coun~:ilmember Clevenger: Well, that's good news. I have only one more question. And that concerns the school crossing that people have talked about. It seems to me that's the one unresolved issue. We do have--I know the City Attorney never likes me to say "dangerous"--we do have maybe a confusing intersection at Fruitvale and Saratoga Avenue. What are the possibilities for working out something for the school kids that need to cross there? Mr. Kempton: Well, what I think is we're obviously interested in trying to respond to your concerns there and that's why we funded the study to look at what the actual crossing volume.~w..as. The volumes that resulted from the study don't seem to warrant the signalization, let alone:..the pedestrian over cross, if that's what the City would prefer. I am mindful of the additional volume on that roadway and the sidewalks was an agreement that I'm willing to recommend to the Traffic Authority to help accommodate that particular aspect of it. I know in other parts of the corridor, at other locations where we have major--even much larger- scale-~interchanges, for example at 85 and 87 in the vicinity of Pearl and Chenoweth in the City of San Jose, as the result of some community concerns, will be providing crossing guards at some locations as a means of providing for additional protection. . . Mayor Anderson: We're also asking, by the way, and so are the school districts because they did call me today, for some meetings. And you had proposed these meetings anyway. So I just wanted to bring that up. There's going to be some studying with our City Manager and you and our school people, the principals of the schools that are impacted here. Mr. Kempton: Right, Mr. Moyles had also asked us to send the results of the study, and I believe that if that's not already been done, it is in the process so that it's going to those schools, and I certainly would be willing to participate in meetings with the school people to talk about the issue. Mayor Anderson: I do have one question about the EIR and the supplement and so forth. Can we legally--and I want our City Attorney to address this t00--chn we legally s'i~n dn amended Freeway Agreement before the supplemental or reassessment is done? I know we couldn't sign one before the original EIS was done. You can all take turns answering this one. Mr. Kempton: HI defer to your attorney on that. He's pointing to me. I don't...l'm not an attorney, I don't see a problem with that. The construction could not proceed until the appropriate environmental clearance had been obtained. Mayor Anderson: The ball's in your court, Hal. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 31 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued City Attorney: Well, I guess the one response I'd have to make is that the environmental determinations are the responsibility of the lead agency. I think it's appropriate for the City to reserve the right to request further mitigation measures if we don't have all of the environmental assessments hack. And I would hope that even if some amendment is signed now, if the assess- ment determines that some additional measures are required, that's still a matter of discussion. Now that is my understanding of where we stand. That while we're signing an agreement, we're basically establishing a) the existence of the interchange; b) the general configuration of that inter- change; and c) certain mitigation measures which are specified in part but not in whole. And there are various subjects yet to be discussed, some of which Mr. Kempton alluded to tonight. We have not yet, for example, discussed the height design of sound walls. We have not exhausted the discussion, I think, relevant to the signalization on some of the streets. We have not fully addressed the issue of whether additional measures are needed for school children, either walking or on bikes, crossing Saratoga Avenue at Fruitvale and whether there are any changes to that intersection that are needed. I would hope Will or someone else would correct me if I'm wrong, but I view this agreement as being the next step of a continuing process, not the final step in the overall design and mitigation measures of the freeway and since the Traffic Authority as well as CalTrans acknowledge that, once this option is selected, this is now further assessments that have to be done, whether it's an environmental assessment as opposed to a Supplemental EIR, the issue is still going to be looked at. In that regard, the dialogue is not concluded. Mayor Anderson: I do want to say one thing. Tonight we're going to basically voting on what's going into our side of this agreement anyway. It still has to go over to you to be OK'd and my recollection from before is that until that happens, the actual signature, even from our side, does not go on the paper. Isn't that correct, Mr. Peterson? When you signed the Freeway Agreement last spring, you didn't sign it on the night that we voted on it, you signed it after they had agreed to it. Councilmember Peterson: Correct. Mayor Anderson: And so, in the meantime, because that will probably take a week or so; it seems to me it was even longer before, but shouldn't take as long this time--in the meantime, I would like verification that we are acting legally by signing before the supplemental or assessment is done. City Attorney: Well, then I think the verification should come from--not to duck the issue, but I will anyway--should come from counsel for the lead agency. Because they're the ones who are responsible for the environmental reports and assessments. Mayor Anderson I want somebody to figure it out. Mr. Kempton: Well, we'll be happy to ask that question. Mayor Anderson: OF,. any other comments? Councilmember Stutzman: Mayor Anderson, I would like to apologize to the people for taking more time and perhaps recovering a few of these points, being that I didn't receive this document until late Friday night and the Council as a whole has not had an opportunity to have a study session on this, this are still a few points in this that in my mind have not been clarified and I think do deserve some response. One is in the Freeway Agreement under Item 7, where in the first paragraph, it refers to turning over control of streets of which the State, let's see, "except. for ~'p~, "oft;2- '.',hi"b it v, dnnt~cl hv State as a part of the freeway proper". And I was wondering if sonle'definition could 15e fi~ade df this regarding, for instance, Saratoga Avenue, if that's going to be depressed. From what point to what point will that be turned over to the State. That isn't defined, as I can see, in the agreement. Mr. HensIcy: Good point. Yes, what we do normally is enter into a maintenance agreement · with the local agency as the freeway is being completed and prior to opening it, delineating on a map what each agency's responsibilities were. That normally doesn't take place until construction is almost completed. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 32 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Stutzman: So Saratoga will have no idea really, how much maintenance or what part of that street will become its responsibility. Is that right? Mr. liensIcy: Generally it comes just between--we would maintain the area between the ramp intersections on either side, but what we do is enter into a formal maintenance agreement with the City outlining What each agencies' responsibilities would be. · Councilmember Stutzman: Then I did have a couple of questions on the Performance Agree- ment and one of these was this item in number 9 where it says the "Traffic Authority agrees to provide access at the Route 85 crossing of Saratoga Creek for future City construction of a park trail through this area". I found this language a little confusing. I don't know what it implies. Does that mean that there is going to be a~ park trail over the freeway? under the freeway? or where is that going? Mr. Kempton: This item was raised by your City Manager and it references a reference in the document to the Saratoga Creek Trail which runs adjacent to the creek. V~nat we are assuring by this language is that the bridge structures over the creek will be wide enough, in essence what I call long enough, to accommodate construction of a trail underneath the bridges in that area, if not over. Councilmember Stutzman: It will go under the bridge then. Mr. liensIcy: Yes. Councilmember Stutzman: Oh, well I was just wondering if that could be clarified a little better. To me it's confusing. Perhaps others understand it well. Then on paragraph 10, where it states that the "Traffic Authority is committed to promoting preservation of existing housing within the City, should surplus housing become available, the buildings will be offered to the City for disposable at its expense." What houses do they refer to? Are these houses to be condemned or... Mr. Kempton: These are homes that we purchase along the right-of-way that are...obviously in Cupertino and in Saratoga, there isn't much in the way of housing stock that would be available under this provisions. This is one of the standard sections of this agreement. In San Jose is an example where we are, where there still are a number of housing structures that will be taken for this project. The idea is to make those available first to the local jurisdiction and in the event that the localjurisdiction would choose to buy them, remove them, take them off the site and relocate them to some other site to help with the City's housing stock--that's the intent. Typically the State would just go to auction on the properties. The highest bidder fo~ the structure would get it and do with it what they chose. We're saying that since we're using our own dollars for this program, that we want to give the ~ocal jurisdictions, the cities first call on any of that available housing so that they could come and get it and move it to provide for additional housing. Mayor Anderson: In the case of tills city, Harry and I were just discussing, I think there's only one besides the Warner-Hutton house...there's the one on that corner by the Vineyards. Mn Kempton: Ithinkit'sthe Leiff estate there, yes. I believe that's all that's reining. Councilmember Stutzman: Well, then under paragraph 13, it starts out, "wherever feasible, sound walls will be designated as early construction." I wonder about including that "wherever feasible". It would seem to me this gives the builders the ability to theoretically deny any sound Wall just simply by saying "it's not feasible". Why can't we just leave that out? Mr. Kempton: We want to be very up-front with everybody on this language and we don't know at this point whether it's possible to guarantee that until we get further along into the design process. Ms. Anderson had suggested the addition of language that noise walls would be constructed prior to preparation of the freeway subgrade. Our engineers tell me that that's pretty easy to do, that we feel we could make that commitment. We're simply trying to be realistic here and that there may be some instances up and down the corridor where we're, for Whatever reason, not going to be able to do that from an engineering perspective. Very clearly, the intent is to do that. And just let me cite an example. We're beginning tO track record here, because we have construction in other cities. We committed to do this in Sunnyvale and the contractor laid out a plan which would not have required that and we stepped in and insisted that the-and CulTtans assisted in this effort--that the specifications be modified to make sure that those Sound walls were an early order of construction. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 33 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton Continued:So we mean what we say here, that we want to do this where it's possible. It's just, in terms of the "wherever feasible", which is unfortunate that we're not at a point in the design process to be able to just absolutely guarantee that. Mayor Anderson: I thought we could guarantee it prior to the road bed. Mr. Kempton: I think we can do that. If you want that in the language, then... Mayor Anderson: I want that. That's important. I'm OK about to put it in the early stage but then I want the further language to say that the "absolute deadline is prior to the laying of the..." Mr. Kempton: ...then...we've done that, so "wherever feasible" we will designate sound walls as early construction and they will be constructed prior to preparation of the freeway subgrade. That's the language... Mayor Anderson: Is "shall" better than "will"? Sometimes I hear people talk about this, you guys, you lawyers. Is "shall" better than "will?" Councilmember C!evenger: No. Mayor Anderson: Does this make any difference? Unidentified Speaker: It's the same thing. Mayor Anderson: Well, he'll fix it. It'll be terrific. Couneiimember Stutzman: I had a couple of other questions. One deals with any provisions for monitoring the air quality and the noise levels. Being that these may conceivably be in excess of what our standards are, I feel that we should have some system set up so that we know what we are dealing with at any particular point. And I would like to see something included in the agree- ment whereby a monitoring station is made available. Now I realize that we will probably not have much recourse if these standards are violated. However, it might enable us, for instance, with an increase in sound level, if these in fact are violated, that perhaps mitigation measures could be carried out. We will not know this unless we have some means of monitoring it and would it be possible to put in a monitoring station in Saratoga? It doesn't seem to me this would be very expensive to carry out and I think it Would be extremely helpful as far as those of us who live here are concerned. Mayor Anderson: I understand that there was going to be one set up at the Paul Masson site anyway; is that correct? City Attorney: My understanding is that the Paul Masson development, one of the conditions was the installation of an air quality monitoring station. Steve, is that your undcrstanding? I think that may have been one of the conditions the Planning Commission was talking about. Councilmember Stutzman: Well, I think they were going to put in something to monitor carbon monoxide. Mayor Anderson: They do the whole spectrum. Couneiimember Stutzman: Do they do the whole spectrum? City Manager: All the particulates... Councilmember Stutzman: We're assured of that, are we? City Manager: Yeah. Councilmember Stutzman: All right, how about noise levels? City Attorney: There's been no discussion about noise. Again the development plan has not yet been approved. This is an item that has been discussed and final action on the proposal has not yet been taken. But it's certainly under discussion. That was strictly air quality; there is not been discussion relative to noise. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 34 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued City Manager: Typically you would not set up a noise monitoring station because you're trying to monitor about six miles of roadway here on both sides, so what you'd be doing is taking periodic readings. You may establish a series of points where you'r.e going to go back and check, so that your base line is consistent so that you're not constantly mowrig around and monitoring the noise level at a different location each time so that you'd have some sort of track record. But that ~u!pment is relatively portable and you don't really need to set up any kind of physical facility to no mat. Councilmember Stutzman: Could we be assured of having some type of equipment available so we could do that? Mr. Kempton: I agree with Mr. PeacOck that we wouldn't be looking at a stationary monitoring system. 1 suppose you could request that upon completion of the freeway f. ac!lity that a study be conducted to determine the noise impacts or noise levels post-construcnon, post-opening the freeway. Councilmember C!evenger: WOuld that go in the Performance Agreement? Mr.' Kempton: That's a possibility. That's something we haven't gotten to at all. I don't see that being a major impediment to closing an agreement. Couneiimember Cievenger: Might as well. Counciimember Stutzman: Then I would like to ask just when the Southern Pacific is going to move its tracks if you have any...I think you said something like six months. Zs there any construction that can be begun before that time? Or does the beginning of the contractor's work depend upon the final movement of those tracks and also of those pylons that have to be changed? Mr. Kempton: Well, in terms of the project as we've g0i it proposed now, that is the first order of business, that is to provide for the shoo-fly for Southern Pacific. We would accomplish that first. Councilmember Stutzman: When do you project that would take place? ' '~'~-"'"'~ Mr. Kempton: Again, the contract is expected to be under way by the end of this calendar year or the first part of the next calendar year, so that would be very early on in the process that the shoo-fly would be constructed. · Counciimember Stutzman: In other words, it'll be about a year before actual construction '7' could be begun on the interchange? Mr. Kempton: No, not a year. Construction...the initial excavation and the construction of the detour would immediately follow that first action. It will all be a part of the single contract construction of the interchange. I believe that's how we have it staged. Mayor Anderson: First, the railroad track gets moved, then you start the diversion... Mr. Kempton: That's right. Mayor Anderson: ...of Saratoga Avenue and the excavation. Councilmember Stutzman: The point I'm trying to get at is when are the railroad tracks going to be moved? Because it doesn't seem to me that we have such tremendous haste for signing this if, in fact, it's all go. ing to be held up ..by the railroad .... ' ' Mr. Kempton: Under the current plans and current schedule, the railroad tracks would be removed approximately oni: year from now. Mayor Anderson: Mr. Kempton, I think the confusion here is that you've got some things you want to do right away which are the compelling reasons why you want the cities to sign soon. Could you explain to the audience as we long as we have them here? Mr. Kempton: Sure. Mayor Anderson: ...what these compelling things are? (Oor~pletion expected Monday, 1/30.) MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 35 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton: As I'm sure the Council is lware, you don't just throw these things together at the last moment; that the design for an interchange of this nature can take as much as nine months in advance for the final design phase to proceed. We are currently projecting to go to bid, to award for this project, in the time frame that I described. So we are at the point where we need to get into that final design process now to be able to stay with that schedule. What we don't have is much in the way of right-of-way impacts in this community. In other communities, San Jose and LOs Gatos notably, we have some severe right-of-way concerns because we need to get that right-of-way acquired and obviously must have Freeway Agreements signed in those jurisdictions to allow us to proceed with that right-of-way purchase. That's why I reiterated to you in the explanation of our status in other jurisdictions that we're looking to get that conceptual agreement at least which, we would like then to take forward and have the ability to proceed with a right-of-way purchase as well as go toward final design. That will allow us to stay on schedule. It is a concern because, just let me describe the 85/17 interchange project itself. Not the rest of the corridor--that one single major project work. We did an estimate and I think it's a conservative estimate; that for every month we delay from basically the time frame we're in right now to getting that project under way, we're talking about $500,000 a month. Now we have a very limited amount of money for this project... Mayor Anderson: That's just for that project, that's not really involving Saratoga however... Mr. Kempton: That's just for that project. That doesn't even involve the area in Saratoga, but obviously there is an impact for every other location where we're talking about delay. Mayor Anderson: So, in our case, it would be on a smaller scale however. Mr. Kempton: Well, yes, that's about a $60 million job. But the fact of the matter is that we have to have the ability to proceed here because we do want to have the dollars to provide for this mitigation; we do want to have the ability to meet the commitments that we're making here. ff we get into those kinds of delays all up and down this corridor, we're talking about the loss of tremendous sums of money, and that's of great concern to us. Mayor Anderson: Thank you. Councilmember Stutzman: Well, I have just a couple of other questions. One is: Do you have any studies which reflect on the electromagnetic field effects from high-tension wires? Now these pylons will be moved over within a matter of, I understand, about 40-60 ft. from houses where now they're located in the middle of where the freeway will actually run. Will this have any effect on those individuals that are living along, adjacent to where those things will be? Mr. Kempton: When the issue first came to our attention, specifically with respect to the eletromagnetic impact, whether or not there is a negative impact, we did provide the City with some studies that had been prepared. Some were prepared by PG&E and I think there were a couple of other studies that we made available to the City on those impacts. As I recall, and Mr. Peacock may want to correct me, I think the conclusions were fairly inconclusive in those discussions, but we did provide information, I think it was probably over a year ago. Mayor Anderson: It was well...I remember it myself, it was over a year ago. I know some of you are probably impatient, but I think somebody expressed it pretty well when they were up at the podium--we can beat this to death until 2 and sign something, or we can all go home and put this off for another two weeks. I don't think you want to put it off another two weeks, so we're going to beat it to death if we have to and we're just going to stay here until it's finished. I hope you appreciate the fact that we are doing that, and please don't be impatient with us. We have not had a study session. We have not had an opportunity, all of us together, to talk about the issues that are beiug raised tonight. We need to do it, so it either has to be tonight or some other night. And I know many of you are anxious to see us sign, so for that reason, we've chosen to do it tonight. Councilmember Stutzman: Then, there's the matter of will there be any effects from vibration of the trains as they're moved closer to the dwellings. I talked to Mr. Peacock about this and he said that hopefully roadbeds would be better than they had been in the past. But has this issue been addressed? Several people have asked me about this and I think it would be well for a public response. Mr. Kempton: I'm not aware if the issue has ben specifically addressed. I think Mr. Peacock's point is very well taken, in that we will be providing updated modern road beds for the facility and I think that the amount of traffic on that track, which is only two trains a day, would also have a positive bearing on the situation. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 36 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Stntzman: Will we be receiving some valid traffic studies on our streets? The reason I ask this and perhaps this has already addressed--I think that these are going to be very important as far as what Saratoga's going to have to do in maintenance of its streets as a result of having the freeway and having the interchange. Because, as I understand the projection of Saratoga's growth by the year 2000 will be about 4/10ths of 1% where as the traffic increase is going to be county-wide about 18-20%. So this, in turn, is going to add considerable wear to our sti'~iS :~';hiCli lye, ia Z,,i-a'~,i$,,, i,av,~ i,ol been responsible for and if we have a proper traffic assessment of what our streets are going to have to bear, I think it will help us, not only 'to plan a little better for the future what we're going to have to do in the way of allotting resources for this, and also I think that it will perhaps be to our advantage if we could make some arrangement with the State to help us fund some of this. Mr. Kempton: Well the Barton-Aschman studies, you may recall Dr. Stutzman, indicated that overall there would be a reduction in traffic on Saratoga streets looking at it from a broad perspective.by virtue of constructing the freeway, so therefore there should be some net benefit but again at what level is certainly open. We continue to refine our modeling efforts; we're looking at the design figures now and looking to the year 2010 as we look to the freeway project and the initial design that's being proposed here has been built on that basis. The year 2010. But again, the model--we've taken steps to be responsive to local jurisdictions by downloading the San Jose model and putting it into our own computer system so that we're able to do runs more efficiently and we're doing some things with the model I think to make it more accurate. I think we've certainly, not for lack of trying--you talked about valid traffic studies--I ~hink the information that we provided you to date is the best information that's available with respect to traffic forecasting. And as we continue to make refinements over the next several months, and even years, certainly that information is available. We've been very o en and responsive in providing that kind of information to all of the jurisdictions in Santa Clara ~unty. Mayor Anderson: Just a minute, you're going to be refining this traffic model. Mr. Kempton: I think it's an ongoing process. Mayor Anderson: The reason I bring it up is that when I talked to the State today, they said that an accurate traffic study was required in order to do the air quality study because part of what'the3CZ2 ' have to do is figure how many cars are going to be idling at an intersection and that sort of thing on city streets. So they said that it's required then to have an accurate traffic study and, as part of the process, you should provide... " Mr. Kempton: I think our traffic studies have been accurate. I don't have any problem' with _. them. I think the conclusions that have been drawn as a result of that information are perfectly sound. I think you might be able, with continued effort and more time and energy, be able to answer some more specific side questions. You might be able to refine a number here and there, but I am absolutely convinced, based on being involved in this along with you folks over the.last three years, that the general conclusions would not change. So I am personally confident'th'ht basically the traffic studies and the traffic data that we have produced tell a reasonably accurate story. Councilmember Stutzman: I was just kind of wondering, because it seemed to me that the first projection we had on Cox Avenue, wasn't that something like 4,000-some cars. Mayor Anderson: 3600. Councilmember Stutzman: And the last study We' had showed 13,-14,000. I mean why this big discrepancy? Mr. Kempton: The models are very often used beyond their capabilities. The models are clearly just that: models of the relationship of traffic impacts. And when you get to the point where you try to start assigning volumes, you're stretching the model perhaps to the limits of its capabilities. So what you try to do is tie it back to existing traffic. We have worked closely with all of the local jurisdictions in our traffic study efforts. When the raw model data has been produced, we've gone to Cupertino, we've gone to San Jose, we've gone to Saratoga and said to your Public Works people and your staff, "Does this make sense?" · In some instances, they've said, "Yes" and in others they've said, "No" and we've actually gone back and made adjustments. A typical example just occurred with respect to the locations you're citing, Dr. Stutzman, where we produced raw model output. We went to the city staff and to Ms. Anderson and other members of the Council and said, "Does this make sense?" They said, "No, it doesn't." We challenge these numbers. We don't think they're accurate. MEETliNG OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 37 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton Continued: We went back ;nd took two counts to correlate those numbers and, in fact, Mr. Peacock and Mayor Anderson were correct. So we adjusted for that. So therc's always an interchange of information there and we don'tjust rely on the model output. It requires some human validation and personally I think that's a positive approach. Councilmember Stutzman: I was just wondering if the ones on Cox Avenue were so far off, why are the others reliable? I mean all of our other traffic counts, are they suspect too? .~ Mr. Kempton: Well, we haven't taken original--on the original Barton-Aschman study, we did take specific counts. We did all along the corridor, we did two counts so that those numbers are reliable. We have not taken an actual count at Cox or at the other locatiqn that was... Councilmember Stutzman: Allendale was it? Mr. Kempton: Allendale, that's correct. And so, at the City's request, we did go out there and actually take a tube count, and, as is very often the case in these sorts of matters, those people that used the roads regularly have a very good sense of what goes on there. We adjusted the model output accordingly to reflect the new information. Councilmember Stutzman: I have just one little final statement and then I'll be quiet. Mayor Anderson: You promise? Councilmember Stutzman: Promise. Yeah, well I feel that we're really dealing with a very complex problem and, like all of you plus the thousands who are not present but are being represented here, I'd like to see this settled and put to rest. And I'm not trying to stall and delay the project as the fleeway and the interchange are given fact and at this point in time, I don't see that our consideration of some of the issues which are minor but vital to Saratoga will alter the construction process. I feel that our Mayor and the City Manager have done well considering the restraints placed upon their bargaining power by the recent election, and I don't feel though that this agreement is p.erfect and I realize that while perfection is impossible to achieve, that there are still some things m the agreement that we could refine and that it might be possible that we could prevent some of the problems that might occur in the foreseeable future if we deal with them now rather than later. Because once this freeway is built, that's going to be cast in concrete and steel and we're going to have to live with it and future generations, well into the next century. I think it does deserve the best consideration that we can give to it. And I know this is a very costly project, it's built with our dollars and I think it's up to us to get the very best agreement that we can get for our money. I've expressed my concerns in the questions that I've presented, and for my part, I would really feel very comfortable in having at least one study session to refine this and to put it into a little better form. I'm still not quite happy with how it is. If we could do this, I think that some of the uncomfortable feelings I have about the way this is presumably being rushed through for reasons that I don't fully understand would be settled in my mind and I would be comfortable in defending this before all of the people that I represent. Mayor Anderson: OK., yes another comment. Councilmember Clevenger: I have one more question I want to ask you and I fqrgot it because it isn't related to Saratoga Avenue. The other interchange property, at Saratoga Avenue-- what are you planning to do with that? Are you just going to landscape it? ' Mr- l~,~rnntnn: Iftlae property is already.owned by the Department of Transportation and it was purchased ivith their money, I suspect that the department will retain that. I'm not certain; they may choose to sell it over. For property that the Authority has been involved in, we don't want to have additional property and we will be looking to dispose of any property for the facility as described in the approved Freeway Agreements by all jurisdictions. So we will not be looking to hold on or to have the State retain property that we purchase with our money and State dollars that have been spent for right-of- ways may be a different and I don't know what the State would choose to do with those locations. Councilmember Peterson: Could we summarize? Mayor Anderson: ~-o ahead, do whatever you like. You can either ask questions or summarize or whichever you would prefer, or both. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 38 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Couneiimember Moyles: I want to know, before I get into my comments, if there are any other changes anybody has in mind. I will make a note about the amendments you've been contemplating. Mayor Anderson: I have a few myself. Do you want me to do 'em now or at the end? Councilmeral;e~-.l~&a~:-~g;~,~Vliy.~c~-~:i>-:;,c ~;.z. ~-~i~i all out? Mayor Anderson: I thought we should. Do you have any down there? I was going to do mine last if nobody has any down there. David, do you have any? Councilmember Moyles: I have noted that the Saratoga Avenue ? language and the Performance Agreement, Ms. Clevenger would like in the Freeway Agreement and Paragraph 2 from the Performance Agreement and she would like in the Freeway Agreement Mayor Anderson: Correct. Ok, since somebody brought up the subject 0f median, I think it was number 4 in the Performance Agreement, I see no reason why we can't specify what's supposed to happen in there, because according to the Policy Advisory Board, the median is being reserved for mass transit. As I recall, that's the exact verbiage. It's not for .light rail. It's for mass transit. Mr. Kempton: The wording is "mass transportation." Mayor Anderson: I'm sorry, it's mass transportation. That's right, it's not even transit. It could... OK, I would like that put in also. Can we... There's no problem with that. I was sure there wouldn't be. Under number 6, I wanted something in there that would indicate that the entire length of the corridor in Saratoga will have some sound walls because I have had a couple of realtors call me becaUse they've got a client with house and the buyer wants to know if they're going to have a sound wall in their backyard or not. My sense of it is, from reading the Please See Attachment So- and-So and from our discussions, that we are supposed to have that. I would like that written down. That is correct, we are having sound walls everywhere. Councilmember Clevenger: Kevin Moran Park, Congress Springs Park... :- .: -. Mr. Kempton: I believe that is correct, Mayor Anderson. The exhibit that includes the sound. ~:" wall information...if it shows that... Mayor Anderson: It shows it all the way down. Mr. Kempton: ... I wouldn't have any problem with saying it verbally. Let me just check~; Is ~:. that accurate, Mr. Billings, to your knowledge--that we're looking at sound walls over the entire length before I give away the store. Mayor Anderson: You're making notes too, isn't that correct, Hal? Well, we have the transcription too. That's right. Mr. Kempton: That's a good delineation we should make too. The winery, the development site at the Paul Masson Winery--we are not providing sound walls. That's...those are going to be provided, to my understanding, by the developer. We certainly would be willing to work with the developer so that the construction occurred concurrently. Mayor Anderson: I don'~ know whether you have a copy of this or not. However, our City Attorney has drawn up number 13 for us and I'll read this so that the audience can hear this also, which has to do with the Paul Masson site, because we do have an agreement with this developer, but the concern was that we don't know what stage of development the developer's going to be at when these sound wails need to go up. One, we don't know for sure that this developer... Pardon? Councilmember Moyles: Are you referring to the Performanee Agreement? Mayor Anderson The Performance Agreement, number 13 for the Performance Agreement. He says, you don't mean Freeway Agreement, you mean Performance Agreement here? City Attorney: Yes. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 39 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Anderson: Yes, he had to do this very quickly this afternoon. City Manager: Not only that, but it's Paul Mason's site. Mayor: I saw that. I know he didn't mean to Paul Mason. City Manager: Typing is not as good as his legal. : ~ ~ Mayor Anderson: I have a feeling he did not have a secretary available this evening. At any rate, he wants to add, "In the event the developer of the Paul Masson site has not constructed a sound wall along the freeway right-of-way adjacent to the site, as of the time other sound walls are being constructed in the vicinity of Saratoga Avenue, the Traffic Authority will construct such sound wall at no cost to the City. The City agrees to collect the cost of such sound wall from the developer of the Paul Masson site prior to the granting final development plan approval and upon receipt of payment, the City will transmit the same to Traffic Authority. Traffic Authority agrees to consider and implement additional mitigation measures as may be appropriate if traffic studies demonstrate that the interchange on Saratoga Avenue will create increased hazards for children walking or biking to and from any or all of our schools located on Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale." That was very nice. City Attorney: Those are two different subjects. The first one was dealing with the... I put the other one in there because it seemed to deal with mitigation measures. I just wonder, however, in view of tonight's discussion and the concerns that have been raised whether that second paragraph ought to be somewhat expanded in scope. We're talking not only about traffic studies, but the environmental assessment. It seems to me that some language that says in a very general way that City and Traffic Authority will consider and implement additional mitigation measures as may be appropriate based upon information disclosed in the future environmental assessments and traffic projections--or words to that effect. This paragraph I was responding to the Mayor's concern raised by the school districts as far as just taking a look at the issue and whether something is necessary. It is not the intent to commit the Authority to any particular mitigation measure because at this point nobody really knows. But I do think in order to answer the concerns of so~e of the speakers tonight have raised, how can the City act before the assessment is made and if the assessment is even 60 days down the road, there has to be some acknowledgment in this agreement. I would recommend that once you have the assessment, there's no point in doing it unless we can all react to it. And reacting to it might be in the form of some additional mitigation measures, if that assessment shows us something that we do not know at the present time as an impact that's been taken into account. Mr. Kempton: With respect to the first language regarding advanced construction of the sound walls and the Paul Masson site, I think that's consistent with action the Authority has taken elsewhere through the State's retrofit program. At least conceptually consistent. And we might want to throw some interest language in there. Presumably you would assess the developer for that cost. City Attorney: The other point, by the way, I'd like to amend that to include the signal. Mayor Anderson: Yes, definitely. City Attorney: My concern is that, if things go as projected, the Paul Masson property will be developed long before the freeway and improvements will be there. My concern though, is that you're never sure a project will be completed until it is done and the whole thing may fall apart tomorrow for all we know. And if the Paul Masson project, for whatever reasons, does not go forward, the City is still entitled to the sound wall it would have had if the developer wasn't building it. ltseems to me ~t woma ne entitlecl to the traffic signal that we would have expected if this developer had not been conditioned to install it. So I think if the Masson project goes forward, that's fine. ff it doesn't or if it's delayed for some reason beyond the freeway, I want to make sure that we're still getting these from the Traffic Authority and not relying exclusively on a private developer over whom we have absolutely no control if he decides to abandon the project. Mayor Anderson: It also gives some incentive to a future Council to make sure they get that money from some developer if it doesn't turn out to be this one. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 40 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton: Well, I hope that would be the case because I certainly would want to make sure that our interests are protected as well. And there's always the argument that future Council would say "Well, the Traffic Authority paid for it, we don't need to spend any energy to go after the developer for that." So, again, conceptually, I think it's consistent with action the Authority has taken at other locations. I would be happy to propose that to the Authority and we'll certainly run that by County Counsel to have his input as to whether or not it protects our interests. Mayor Anderson: Does that cover all...or do we have something else we need to say that would cover these other signals that you guys... Mr. Kempton: I was going to respond to that, secondarily. I don't think I have a problem with wording because, if in fact, additional environmental review requires mitigation, we will be obligated to provide for that mitigation. So, from that perspective, that doesn't trouble me. And clearly I've stated to everyone all along in this that the door doesn't close after signing of this agreement. There are no guarantees obviously, but in the event that there's a problem or another issue develops, the Authority has approached this program and the conduct of this program in a community oriented way and they...Ijust cannot see that they will.' .they may not say "yes" but at least they're going to be considering input from affected communities. So, ff I understood the wording, if my comprehension, at this late time, was accurate... Mayor Anderson: We'll give you a copy; don't you worry. Did that cover us for the traffic lights that you got are all studying on, like at Westview and Harriman and so forth and Cox and Quito? Or do we need some additional verbiage to cover that? City Attorney: The language I was suggesting was really intended to cover any and all types of mitigation, whether it's traffic lights, special treatment for school children crossing intersections or whatever, I don't think we've... We've talked about it but I don't think there's been a decision I've heard in terms of these additional measures until the reports are in. City Manager: I think we need to clarify this because, in reviewing... Mayor Anderson: You've got to get closer to the mike. City Manager: ...I'll talk into it. Mayor Anderson: OK. City Manager: In reviewing the information that we have on the traffic counts and the future projected counts, two things really jumped out at me. One of them is that there is a high probability that there will be requirement for a signal at Quito and Cox, simply because the traffic volumes at Quito and Cox will be such that that's going to be required. And I think that the Masson EIR also indicated that additional traffic that is going to be created was going to warrant that. They may be required to build part of it, if not all of it. But I think we need to clarify The second issue, Will, really deals with the Winchester interchange situation. It's very clear from the modeling that's been done that we can expect some impact on, especially Fruitvale Avenue, if there is no Winchester interchange. And with traffic volume projections are up in the 15,000 ADT range south of West Valley College, where the road goes down to one lane in each direction and in a lot of places there's no shoulder and no pedestrian facility or anything else. Fm concerned that, while we may not have to widen the roadway for the travel-way for the motorists, we may in fact, be facing a situation where it's going to be hazardous for both pedestrians and bicyclists who try to share that very narrow roadway with a major .increase in traffic volume of an almost additional 2,000 a day just because Winchester is not going't6 be there. So I would like us to try and come up with some sort of approach that addresses and recognizes that potential future traffic problem for the City. Mr. Kempton: The Traffic Authority's policy with respect to traffic mitigation is one in which we have not exceeded the State's standards. I went back and looked at the Mitigation Plan to refresh my memory on that. We have other locations along the corridor where 'cities are gearing up to ask for some fairly extensive mitigation, which we frankly, may not be able to provide given the Anthority's current policy. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 41 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC ItEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton Continued: The State again, to use the word typically, does deal with traffic impacts back to the first major intersection, as you're aware Mr. Peacock. That pretty much reflects the policy that the Authority has adopted for the mitigation of traffic impacts. Some of the things that we've discussed tonight go beyond that. I don't want to mislead you. Obviously you can incorporate in. your Performance Agreement anything that you like. rm not sure how that will be received by the Traffic Authority, or whether the Traffic Authority will be able to respond. I think we're going to have to look at the issue of traffic mitigation in a little broader perspective at the Authority level. I don't know what the results of that re-analysis will be. But I know that there are other cities that are asking for similar kinds of considerations. The Authority has been... I think their number one direction to us in the cond~ct of the mitigation for the program has been whatever we do, it's going to be equitable. And it's going to be across the board. We're not going to do something in one city that we're not prepared to do in another city. So I would have to say at this point, given the policies that I have to operate under now, I could not commit to that. Whether that policy is changed in the future and I think we're going to be asking the Authority to look at it in the very near future, that's certainly open to question. City Manager: My concern is that, if there is a Winchester interchange, the necessity for this kind of thing is marginal. But it's clear to me in looking at these numbers, that if there is no Winchester interchange, I get real concerned about what that additional traffic means. Not from the standpoint of whether or not the roadway itself can handle it, but automobiles are not the only thing that use that roadway. Mr. Kempton: Well, there is an interconnection in all of these things obviously. We have tried to approach these negotiations, city by city, and I know some people have suggested that a better approach would be a group or joint session. I don't believe that to be the case given my experience in dealing with these cities. But on the other hand, Los Gatos did take a position in its official statement adopted over a year ago that every city must have an interchange, which obviously was directed at the City of Saratoga, given your previous position on no interchanges. I think it would be perfectly appropriate to advise the Town of Los Gatos of your concern in this regard. Because the numbers do show that there is an impact; albeit it's not a great impact, there is obviously increased traffic on streets and it's more pronounced on certain streets by virtue of no Winchester. Mayor Anderson: Well, and in fact, two of their Council members running for re-election stated, which confusexl people a great deal, that if we did not take an interchange, they .would not take one at Winchester. But since those are kind of *'weasel words", they're now saying, "Well, we didn't say we would." Mr. Kempton: I don't want to say anything negative about the Town of Los Gatos, because frankly, they have been moving with some alacrity towards a solution given where we have been in the past. So rm real heartened by their position at this time. But there's a relationship here and they were vocal about the City of Saratoga's position on this issue, and clearly there's some tie there; that's all I'm saying. Councilmember Peterson: Harry, wha~tigation measures are you talking about on Fruitvale? I guess rm confused. It shows now about what? 10,000 cars a day? City Manager: Yes. Councilmember Peterson: With no Winchester, it goes to... City Manager: 15,000. Councilmember Peterson: It's 15,000 now:./ City Manager: No, it would go to fifteen. Couneiimember Peterson: Do the level of services change at any of the intersections? City Manager: Well, there's no signal, so there's no way to judge the level of service. My concern is not the roadway itself. My concern is the lack of space for people to walk, ride bicycles and so forth on a major portion of that road because there aren't any facilities there. They have to share the street with the cars and in many cases, we have no shoulder on the road... Councilmember Peterson: Well, my recollection is in fact at least half that distance does have a pathway. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 42 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued City Manager: It does. It does. Councilmember Peterson: Separated from the road. City Manager: And the Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, and I think that would be something that we would have to concerned about. Councilmember Peterson OK, at least at this point, I don't share your concerns about putting a bike path in and delaying this Freeway Agreement in any way. City Manager: Well, rm not suggesting delaying the Freeway Agreement. I thought we were here to discuss... Councilmember Peterson: Or even changing the Performance or Freeway Agreement for a bike path or pedestrian... City Manager: Well, that's up for Council vote. l just thought that if I failed to mention it, I feel that IWould not be bringing to your attention what the information tells me and what my concerns are. Councilmember Peterson: OK Mayor Anderson: How much of a problem does it present to you if we start trying to get mitigations that are due to the freeway or due to their not being an interchange at Winchester? Which are beyond what your normal scope is? Mr. Kempton: Well, just to make a judgment on existing policies and the Authority has been pretty careful about following their adopted policies because obviously we're dealing with a good many cities in the context of the program and you have to have some guidelines and I would have to say at this point, if you put those in the Performance Agreement that if the Authority chose to adhere to its existing policies, they would not agree to fund those kinds of improvements. On the other hand, you know, I'm not standing before you to say that there's no opportunity ._etare either. I think that the issue needs' to be addressed, re-addressed by the Authority. We deficit76' serious funding constraints. The property values in this county have risen on the average of a6but 22% over the last year--we did not anticipate that in our cost estimate, so we're fast lOiing contingencies money set aside to handle these kinds of unexpected sorts of activities. And one of the reasons why the schedule is so important to us ad we need to move ahead. I...again, if that's what you choose to propose... . :: Mayor Anderson:...you'll take it back. Mr. Kempton: We'll take it under advisement. Mayor Anderson: Well, let me ask you this. Besides Prospect and Quito, which were not on the initial plan anyhow, right? Mr. Kempton: That's right. Mayor Anderson: Are there any other interchanges that are going to be Omitted besides half of Winchester or all of Winchester or some part of Bascom? Are those the only two places where they're juggling around and trying to decide how much of an interchange they want to put in? Are all of them going in in San Jose that were proposed? And they only had a couple proposed in Cupertino--they're all going in? So this is sort of a unique~circumstanee. Is San Jose looking for some kind of a mitigation or anything, for this being partial in Los Gatos? Mr. Kempton: No, San Jose's position as it relates to Los Gatos is primarily at Bascom. San Jose does favor only half-interchange at Baseore with access to and from the south. That happens to be in their jurisdiction. The Town .of Los Gatos has indicated that a full interchange at that location and somebody designed this freeway so that the city limits ran right down the middle of these 'interchanges. rd like to find that person... In any e3,ent, that creates a problem. We've only included funding in the strategic plan for half-interchange at Bascom. So Winchester, we have funding for the full interchange at Winchester and something different may come out of that. The overall interchange complex is underfunded in the initial plan at 85-17. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 43 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Anderson: It is underfunded? Mr. Kempton: It 'is underfunded and we are working with CalTrans now to get the cost difference for that major interchange included in the State Transportation Improvement Program. Mayor Anderson: We'll have to have another reception for CTC, right? Mr. Kempton: Right. Mayor Anderson: California Transportation 'Commission provides interchanges sometimes, and so they came to town last year and wanted to know if I wanted an interchange and I said, "No." Very surprised. I've got to go back now and say, "I've changed my mind. I want one." Anyway, the only thing I had is something I wanted to bring up and this is really on this diagram, it's not spelled out specifically in print in terms of... We talked about there should be a policy about how far around the comer these sound walls were 'going to be that doing the ramps--we can do that later, I don't think that's important to do tonight. I was expecting the sound walls on the freeway itself to be longer than that. Because this freeway is, in fact, going to be about four feet in the air. And the ramps are going to be at grade. Is that correct? Mr. Kempton: The ramps will be... Mayor Anderson: The edge of the ramps, where.the retained wall is, that's going to be at grade. Mr. Kempton: At the start of the ramps, as they move down, they'll be below grade as they come to Saratoga Avenue. Mayor Anderson: Right. Mr. Kempton: The ramps will be fully depressed as they tie into Saratoga Avenue. Mayor Anderson: Where you're building the retaining wall, starts from grade and goes down. Mr. Kempton Correct. Mayor Anderson: So, if you had, say an 8 ft. fence, you'd still have another... your freeway is 4 ft. above the grade level, right? So essentially, it's like having sort of a 4 ft. fence above the freeway. City Manager: ...at top of slope. Mr. Kempton: That's right, they are. They're at the hinge point of the bridge structure. So, in other words, they will be... The height of those sound walls will be measured from the level of the road bed, roadway, as it goes across Saratoga Avenue. As I understand your request, you're looking to lengthen those. Mayor Anderson: Yes, I am. Mr. Kempton: If our studies show that we don't achieve the required noise levels, then we would likely consider an extension of them. This was recommended by Environmental Science, the consultant that did the analysis. As you may recall, Mayor Anderson, the original approach was to extend the sound walls all along the structure and not put sound walls on the rig.hi-of-way line. That was Environmental Science's judgment of the best way to mitigate the no~se of the freeway. You've indicated you want them on the outside of the ramps and then c. ertainlv that's not a problem. We do however want to avoid duplicating walls and the additional costs associated with them. If they're not required to mitigate sound, then I would hesitate to make the commitment that we would provide them. If the length of the walls as indicated on that diagram do not provide an appropriate level of mitigation, then we could talk about moving them further out. Mayor Anderson: Lees put something in to that effect. Although we probably have to wait until the roads open to find out for sure. Mr. Kempton: These walls are proposed on the basis of projection, so the projections exist. Mayor Anderson: But I mean you've drawn a noise contour. If we find out that's not being met by th~ configuration you have here... MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 44 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton: You should understand that we're not guaranteeing that we can meet a 62 decibel noise level. We are saying that the Traffic Authority's policy is that we will provide mitigation where the noise is projected to exceed 62 decibels. That may not get the decibel level down to 62 dba. The state and federal guidelines are 67 decibels and they will do their best to try to mitigate to that level and sometimes cannot dolt. It simply isn't cost effective. We can't build 25 ft. walls or whatever. Mayor Anderson: And people need to know that they're going to have neighborhood meetings and they're going to get to talk about how high they want their walls to be. Mr. Kempton: That's right and we will do our best to provide mitigation where the noise level is projected to exceed 62 decibels which means we'll be providing noise mitigation in areas that would not be provided under normal state and federal policies. Mayor Anderson: OK, number 13. You already had suggested the wording about re hrasing number 13 and you weren't using the word "road bed", so how did you want to word that~ Mr. Kempton: We took the engineering word, which is "freeway subgrade" which is the final level of aggregate and grading, if I'm using this correctly, before the actual pavement is laid. So it's a kind of a half-step ahead of what you had suggested. To the good side of what you had suggested. Mayor Anderson: Ok. And in the middle of the change, I'd like to have something about how there're going to be sound walls also adjacent to the freeway itself, right at the interchange. Mr. Kempton: I think we've provided that..."sound walls in the vicinity of Saratoga Avenue will be located adjacent to the freeway right-of-way where environmental requirements can be met." That's important because... Mayor Anderson: Yeah, but we also want these that you've drawn here, and that's not addressed in there. Mr. Kempton: Oh, I see what you're saying. And you want...OK. Mayor Anderson: So the ones adjacent to the freeway itself... Mr. Kempton: You want some wording to reflect those sound walls. Mayor Anderson: Yes, and then Hal had one piece of verbiage at the end of his suggestion added to the beginning of paragraph 14--"All of the following work will be performed by Traffic Authority at no cost to the City." ' .=. City Manager: That has to do With all the signals. Mayor Anderson: That's the signal work. That's right. Mr. Kempton: The signal work at those specific locations between Cox and Fruitvale and the sidewalks as well. Mayor Anderson: That's it. Mr. Kempton: That's not a problem. ~ Councilmember Stutzman: Mayor? Mayor Anderson: Yes. Councilmember Stutzman: Are we to understand that the possibility of depressing the free- way is totally ruled out? Mayor Anderson: I tell you, I've beaten the thing to death myself and this is my second time, and the second time for everybody else on this Council to be considering the depression of the freeway. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 45 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Anderson Continued: I am persodally convinced that it's not something we're going to achieve and I!m not willing to hold up the signing or the voting on the agreement tonight based on that because I've read the EIS several times, the comments from Fish and Game; I know what the costs are that are involved and I know the very strong resistance that we hit every time we bring up the subject. I just don't think we're going to get it. From my standpoint at this point, I feel like we have beaten out of this document everything that we can beat out of it, and maybe then some. We'll find out when it comes back to us. Mr. Kempton: I thought it had been beaten out of me. Mayor Anderson: That's probably true too. City Manager: He was much taller three years ago. Mayor Anderson: Is that right? Councilmember Peterson: You were six feet tall before you took this job, weren't you? Mayor Anderson: That's right. However, h~ still smiles. That's the most remarkable part about Will Kempton. He has ulcers, but he smiles. At any rate, we worked on this really hard, and I just-- Harry Peacock's been in on this and the Council's been in on this and in discussions we went around and around about this a year ago-and I know you missed that--but I can tell you that it's like going up against a brick wall when it comes to the possibility of getting it depressed and into the creek. City Manager: This is a snail-darter issue. Mayor Anderson: Mr. Peterson. Councilmember Peterson: Well, is it time to summarize? Mayor Anderson: Yes, sum. Councilmember Moyles: Could we do it paragraph by paragraph? I hear ideas without wording. I hear concepts, but... Mayor Anderson: I think this is going to be redfawn up. Right? Counciimember Peterson: I just want to summarize my comments and then wait for the motion and the votes. I haven't heard anything tonight...I've heard some things I hadn't heard before but I haven't heard anything tonight that would cause me not to vote to approve these two resolutions. We've beat to death the Supplemental EIR; depression, I'm clearly not going to bring that issue up; we've talked about trucks; the raised crosswalk--at first I thought that might be a good idea but then I under- stood that 146 was four different intersections and it seems to me that's something we're going to have to look at as this freeway situation progresses. It is a concern and I think we need to keep on top of that. The stoplights at Via Monte and Scotland probably some concern, but I think that will be also handled. I .frank!y don't understand and from my standpoint, I don't think we need any additional language vm-a-v~s the other two interchanges. There must be eight million legal documents or hundreds of millions of legal documents that have exhibits and the exhibits are a part of that legal document. Our exhibit says we're not going to have an interchange. ff you want to try to get it included in it, th~'s fide. Fm satisfied that the exhibit spells out we are not going to have those; from my standpoint, I'll vote this thing out tonight if you want to try to get that from them. I'm not at all interested in trying to put in any kind of air pollution monitoring stations; I'll leave that up to Marty. She's our representative to the Bay Area Air Quality Board or District and if they want to put one in Saratoga, thafs fine with me. I don't think we should hammer CulTruns or the Traffic Authority to do that. I'm ready to entertain a motion and move on with the next steps on this whole freeway situation. Councilmember Moyles: Before I get to my comments, I need to be clear what you're all talking about. Some of the ideas I know I don't like at all, but there are things that I might be supportive of but I just can't bring them into focus. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 46 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Moyles Continued: So the simplest thing I can suggest is that we quickly walk through the Performance Agreement and stop at the first paragraph where you have a change. Let's try to find wording and we've got an attorney and Mr. Kempton and CalTrans--let's see if we have a problem with the change or not. Paragraph 1-no changes? Mayor Anderson: Oh, yes, that's not being changed. Paragraph 2. Councilmember Moyles: That was all right wasn't it? Counciimember Clevenger?: Paragraph 2, we want to put into the Freeway Agreement. Councilmember Moyles: Yeah, but let's just go through the Performance Agreement and then the Freeway Agreement. Mayor: Do we need to add here that when we're referencing documents that we also want to reference the subsequent assessment, whatever that document's going to be called. As long as we're referencing... Are we referencing the FEIS? We're not? Yes we are. Should we also be referencing then whether it's a supplemental or assessment or whatever it's called... Couneiimember Cievenger: And the supplemental assessment? Should that be in there? Mr. Kempton: I don't think you need to do that because if there are mitigation requirements associated with that additional environmental review, we will, as I indicated earlier, be obligated to provide for them. City Attorney: You can't incorporate by reference a document that doesn't exist. This is incorporating existing documents. Mayor Anderson: All right. What is it? 37 47 5--no change at all, right? Councilmember Moyles: You tell me. You were going with changes in mind. Mayor Anderson: Wait'a minute. Four, there was a change on 14. I'm sorry. Change on 4 was that we were going to put that "the median with a 46 ft. to provide mass trans- portation ',~ City Attorney: ...was reserved... City Manager: ..."the median with the 46 ft to be reserved for mass transportation in agreement with what is shown on the plans...." Mayor Anderson: Then by the agreement of the Policy Advisory Board, that's not neWS:~ .I mean we don t have to put that in but for the sake of the audience that s the reason that s in ther~...."' Councilmember Moyles: I'd like to know why you think this is the right document to talk about that concern, since the environmental clearance presupposes that and is predicated upon that. Why add it here? Mayor Anderson: Why not? Councilmember Moyles: Well, I think you should justify it. 'There are a million things you could put in here but you wouldn't unless you have a good reason for all of them. Is there a particular purpose served by that additional language or not? What does it do? COUnciimember Clevenger: I don't think we need it in here either because... That's a future Council's prerogative to make a decision about what happen there and I think what we need to do is to say what we've agreed to now. And I don't really think we need that in there. Mayor Anderson: OK. Now, what I do want to ask before I decide whether I need it or not: If this road were to be widened at some future date, to an. eight-lane freeway, does there have to be a new Council agreement, Freeway Agreement? Mr. Kempt0n: Yes and CalTrans can verify that. Mayor Anderson: Is that correct? So it's not necessary to say what we're reserving this median for in this document? MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 47 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton: I will tell you this. While Phul is preparing to respond. That you would require, in our judgment, you require some environmental review to do that, if it were to be for just auto- mobile traffic. Because the environmental document is specific in saying that the median is preserved for future mass transportation options. You could put lanes in the median, provide rubber tire transit, an HOV bus way is an example, which would fit into that requirement. But to put in just two automobile lanes would require additional environmental review and I'll let Paul respond to whether the state would require a change. Mayor Anderson: No new amendment to the Freeway Agreement. Mr. Hensley: There would be a new environmental document required if we made any changes. The Freeway Agreement is required if city streets are closed. ff no city streets are closed, then there is no Freeway Agreement required. Mayor Anderson: OK. Councilmember Clevenger: Well, wait a minute. If this...say the road is widened to eight lanes on the side and not in that 46 ft. median, could that be... I mean would a future Council get to vote on that? Mr. HensIcy: The only time we would come to the Council for a Freeway Agreement, if local city streets were affected and closed. Councilmember Clevenger: But Pm wondering... Mr. Hensicy: There would be an environmental document done if there was a project undertaken in the future regardless of whether the road was widened, extra lanes were added in the median or mass transit was provided. Councilmember Clevenger: Is there room on the side to add more lanes? ff it's depressed, it's going to be kind of hard because it's going to require massive retaining walls if you move it over right to the side. Mr. Hensley: ff you have enough money you can do almost anything. Councilmember C!evenger: I know. Mr. Kempton: There isn't enough money. Just to respond to that. We did, at the request of another community advisory group, look at the prospect of, you know, what would happen if in the future somebody wanted to widen on the outside. Our conclusion was that it would be very difficult to do. And very costly. Councilmember Clevenger: I think that even if we sign, it's only a sixdane road in the future, I believe it would be out of our jurisdiction. I mean, even if it says six lanes in there and they put another lane in and they don't have to widen, I don't think they have to come back to us. Because we sign for now and that's in the future. Mr. Kempton: That appears to be what Paul is saying. If thcre's no additional requirement for street closures, then the State could operate in that median. And we did not, to my knowledge, on the widening of 101 in the median, I don't believe we ren,egotiated Freeway Agreements with the corridor cities. Councilmember Stutzman: Isn't the projection for 2005 that they're going to require eight lanes. Co~',.eilmem~er Clevengcr: ~7&ll, i~. may occur that in the future there are eight lanes there, but I don't think we can preclude it in this document. We're signing for six lanes now. And I think...isn't that right7 And I think we should just go ahead and leave this out. It doesn't buy us anything. Mayor Anderson: Fine. All right. We'll leave four alone. 57 6 is where I was proposing we put something in about a sound wall, that there would be sound walls all along the corridor. City Attorney: Will, do you have 6 in front of you there? Mr. Kempton: Yes, I do. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 48 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Moyles: And that was something we all figured out was going to happen anyhow. Mr. Kempton: That was going to happen from our review of the plans. City Manager: Modify Attachment C? City Attorney: Isn't this drawing a pan of the agreement in some fashion? Mr. Kempton: It is incorporated in the agreement and that's the point. City Attorney: ff the exhibit shows the location of the sound walls, then it speaks for itself to that intent. You can say it but also... City Manager: The Performance Agreement does require a revision to this exhibit because the old exhibit shows no interchange. Mr. Kempton: That's correct. City Manager: So, this map will have to become an exhibit to the Performance Agreement and the sound walls can be shown right on there. Mr. Kempton: I b~:lieve the information we provided you is revised Exhibit C--is that correct, Jim? City Attorney: The reason we added additional language pertaining to the Paul Masson is that the Exhibit we were looking at did not show a sound wall at that particular location, which is fine as long as we have the subject covered. Mayor Anderson: Is that what you have here, you show it but you say "paid for by others"-- that's OK too. That's our plan. Counciimember Moyles: Does that mean that the incorporation of the same Exhibit suffices for your purpose, or is there a sentence we want... Mayor Anderson: He says it suffices; is that right? City Manager: I think it does. But I would suggest that it would seem that this would be the appropriate place if you want to do it, to add the thing about the post-construction sound study. Mayor Anderson: Wasn't it number 67 City Attorney: Yes, "the Authority will cot/due'l: a post-construction noise study to pro. Vi. de ~:~4 actual sound pressure level baseline data for future city noise-monitoring purposes." Councilmember Clevenger: Is that agreeable to you, Dave? That sounds... Mayor Anderson: The air quality's going to be done by Paul Masson,'right. OK? Mr. Kempton: I'm going to be coming to you on Monday the 6th, Mr. Moyles. I don't see a particular problem with that. I don't see that I would view that as an impediment in my teeore- mendation to yOu. Councilmember Moyles: Do you have a pencil? Fd like to write a sentence down so I have the hard copy in front of me when we're voting. It seemed pretty brief. WoUld you mind throwing it out again. City Manager: "The Authority will conduct a post-construction noise study to provide actual sound pressure level baseline data for future city noise-monitoring purposes" and we want to say "along the freeway corridor" because otherwiSe they'll have to monitor the whole city. Qualify that, but I think the intent is obvious we're talking about a Freeway Agreement. Councilmember Clevenger: 77 Mayor Anderson: 7. No change on 7. 87 No change on 8. 97 I don't see any change on 9 other than...you're talking about changes other than what were already made here? Correct. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 49 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Moyles: Yeah, anything t~at Hal didn't type up. Will, did you ever see the text of what Mr. Topp el... Mr. Kempton: No, he read it, but I didn't... Councilmember Moyles: How about 107 Mayor Anderson: We don't need anything with 10. Councilmember Clevenger: That doesn't even apply to us. Mayor Anderson: 117 Councilmember Moyles: 11 is good. Mayor Anderson: Is this an appropriate time to include something about... No, we're fine. We're just going to have a commitment that we'll involve the schools. They did get very disturbed because they hadn't had a meeting they thought they were supposed to be have before our meeting tonight. In fact, as long as you're here Ms. Huston, would you like this meeting with the schools to be specifically including the school boards themselves? As opposed to simply the staff?. Ms. ltuston: [unheard] Mayor Anderson: You think so. Come to the mike. Ms. Buston: One of the problems with the school could be easily resolved if the sidewalks did not go from Cox in, because there are no children traveling from Cox in. They only come in from the freeway in because that's not our district out there. Councilmember Clevenger: Well, actually, Ms. Huston, I live over there and when my children went to Redwood, they did go down Cox to Saratoga Avenue to Redwood. Ms. Huston: I would say that now almost all of them go through. Councilmember Clevenger: Well, there's a field across the street I think and I... City Manager: They won't be able to go through; there's going to be a freeway there. Now they can walk across an open field, bat there will be no open field to walk across. Ms. Huston: I do think the major... I take back that part. Councilmember Clevenger: I like to think you represent all of the children in Saratoga School District. Ms. Buston: I would say though that the majority--and I'm not going to say that you should just look at the majority--but I'm saying if you're saying that's not a significant number, then in fact that is where the bulk of the problem is. Mayor Anderson: We don't have a problem with those sidewalks. We just want to know if you want to participate in the meetings. Ms. Huston: Yes. [vlayor ~nOerson: We don't even need to know that tonight but think about it, because your School Superintendent and some of the principals of the schools over here ,were not happy that they didn't get to have their meeting before we had our meeting. Ms. Huston: The public schools as opposed to the private schools .... Councilmember Moyles: Yes, the wording "affected agencies"--is that adequate? Looking at paragraph 11. Councilmember Clevenger: Mr. Moyles, I'm wondering where we are going to put in the concerns which have been raised about traffic safety, and I'm wondering if this is the proper place to put it in. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 50 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Anderson: I think the City Attorney was suggesting his own paragraph. '. City Attorney: A separate paragraph. Couneilrnernber C!evenger: A separate... OIC City Attorney: If 13 was the special mitigation measures that have already been negotiated, my suggestion would be an additional paragraph in number 13 that simply alludes to the fact that it's an ungoing process and no further mitigation measures may be necessary or words to that effect. Mayor Anderson: Ok, so we don't really need to change 11. City Attorney: I don't think so, no. Mayor Anderson: 127 We like 12. We worked hard for that. I feel like a sense of history here. 137 We're going to leave "wherever feasible"' in and however, we're going to add...how's that going to be worded at the end? Councilmember Moyles: "...and shall be constructed prior to laying of the freeway sub- grade"--<lid I get that right? That's what I put down. Mr, Kempton: We have "constructed prior to preparation of the freeway subgrade," which means the same thing. I would prefer to use language that everybody feels comfortable with here and "freeway subgrade" may not be something that you understand, but that's something that means the pre-base before you actually do the pavement, so as I said, that's really a step ahead of what I think your intent was. City Manager: I would suggest that in the f'h'st sentence above, tallc!ng about sound walls in the vicinity of Saratoga Avenue that you simply add after the word "construction," "but no later than when the subgrade for the road has been installed." Mayor Anderson: I like that better. City Manager:. And then you can go on to next sentence, which has already been changed to ' reflect the sound wall. Mayor Anderson: Actually this is reflecting the sound wall .... ;: Councilmember Moyles: But no later than what? City Manager: "than when the subgrade for the roadway is installed." Or I guess "roadbed" is a more precise engineering term. Not being an engineer, I don~t know those things. -:~, '~:!' ~'~ Mr. Kempton: I think the key point is "subgrade" which Fm told is the operable word. City Manager:.. Before the subgrade. Mayor Anderson: Before cars roll down the road. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 51 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Counciimember Moyles: OK, the italicized wording about sound walls in the vicinity of Saratoga Avenue... Mayor Anderson: That was minorly modified so that it included the sound walls adjacent to the freeway itself at Saratoga Avenue, namely these. Councilmember Moyles: OK, tell me...Number 137 Mayor Anderson: Yes 13; 14, no City Manager: You can't put that in 13 because you 'have te build the bridges before you put thesound walls on. '- Councilmember Moyles: 137 Mayor Anderson: This is located...thls is not the Eftst part of 13; it's the second part. The italicized portion. You're right, "prior to", Ok, so you're right. That was the big thing about why we wanted the sound walls up, so they'd be there for construction. In case people didn't know that I was fighting so hard for these sound walls was not just to protect residents from the ramps, but also those are the only sound walls that will be able to be up during the construction of the bridge. Councilmember Moyles: Please, a question I need to know is, are there any changes in the italicized paragraph. Mayor: So after that, then we have to say, or do we have to, or is the reference to the drawing sufficient... City Manager: They're on C. We took a picture of that back in paragraph 7, I think. Counciimember Moyles: So we can move on then to the additional wording that's not on the draft that NIt. Topple handed out. Mayor Anderson: Right. Counciimember Moyles: Will, do you have that in front of you now? Mr. Kempton: Yes I do. Councilmember Moyles: What do you think of... Mr. Kempton: I don't have any problem with the first paragraph. Again, as Eve indicated, I think that's consistent with action the Authority has taken at least conceptually in another location in the program. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 52 JANUARY 18, 1989- PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kempton Continued: The second paragraph I have a problem under existing Authority policy with the words "and implement". "Traffic AuthOrity agrees to consider additional mitigation measures that may be appropriate if traffic studies demonstrate that..." Certainly I can buy the implementation implies a commitment that the Authority could not make under its existing policy. Councilmember Moyles: This is much broader than the policy we're applying to other Free'- way Agreements and if it's adopted for Saratoga, then the whole corridor has to be re-evaluated. Is there... City Attorney: I would prefer you change the entire paragraph. however as we talked about earlier and have a more generalized statement. Concerns have b~en raised with respect to the school with the residents residing on streets that are coming in that might need or may not need some traffic control--I don't know. I think we have some general statement that says, "The Traffic Authority Will consider additional mitigation measures as may be deemed necessary on the basis of the future environmental assessments and traffic projections." Mayor Anderson: OK. Mr. Kempton: Tie the future assessment or the re-evaluation and of course as I've indicated, that should not be a problem because we would be obligated to provide for any mitigation that would be required for those processes. Councilmember Clevenger: That's part of the ongoing process, right? Mr. Kempton: That re-evaluation process is underway right now. And again, we expect that to be completed in a matter of a month or two. City Attorney: I think it's clear that we're going to be also doing further tr/fffic count refine- ments near the interchange to deal with the design of the interchange itself. There may be other things that fall out of those studies that may change, and I'm still concerned that we don't close the door on the idea that if something comes to our attention six months from now and we're back in the ba|Ipark... I know that we have an out that says that says if we don't approve the final design, that the Traffic Authority will not fund the construction and'that's really our big hammer onT.[his whole thing. So Idon't know that we really need to be overly cautious in that because we do have that in the existing agreement, that if we think something's wrong, we can alwavs refusE:to approve the final design. Until we think we're satisfied that Saratoga's problems an; going to be handled..Y.. Councilmember Moyles: What was the wording that H~I threw out in a shorter sentence moment ago? It might be a good jumping off point. City Attorney: Basically that "the Traffic Authority will consider additional mitigation measures as may be deemed ippropriate on the basis of information disclosed in future envir'6in- mental assessments .or traffic projections." CounCilmember Moyles: Anybody have all that? l'm running Way behind here. City Attorney: I said it a little differently the first time around and I'd rather that come right off the tape actually. Mayor Anderson: You want to take it off the tape? City Attorney: I mean we can dean it up but that's the... Councilmember Cievenger: I think the concern is that if there is, Mr.' Moyles, if there is no interchange at Winchester and we find out. that there's going to be so much traffic on Quito and Cox between Saratoga Avenue and Quito, that we may have to have a traffic light there, we want that...that's really because of the no interchange at Winchester and since we're trying to sign this document before we know if there's going to be one at Winchester, it seems to me that isn't being unrealistic, to keep that option open. City Attorney: To some degree you have to remember as Will has already stated, we're stating what's already legally required. ff these assessments establish some impacts that have not been taken into account, there is going to be a legal obligation to mitigate them. So to that extent, it's more in terms of having in a document something that's responding to concerns that have been raised .by some of the speakers tonight that really doesn't change the Traffic Authority's legal obliganon to mitigate impacts their future assessments may disclose. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 53 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Moyles: I had the same t~ken. Somebody shouldn't take this vague wording to mean that every adverse effect will be mitigated. There are effects that the Authority will not assume responsibility for and that's_. City Attorney: That's why... Looking at the language we said, "deemed appropriate", probably "deemed necessary" would be better wording as an impact which they are necessarily bound to mitigate. Councilmember Moyles: I think everybody should recognize that what this wording does is throw the issue back on the good faith efforts of both parties to work out an agreement later. It doesn't nail down every possible adverse effect. Councilmember Clevenger: And we can't nail that down tonight because we donIt have that information. Mayor Anderson: And we won't have all of it for several months. Councilmember Peterson: Do we have any standards that would trigger... Mayor Anderson: One of the things that you have to look at too, from the standpoint of the Traffic Authority, is that we don't have the Quito interchange as part of our initial plan and some of . the difference--in fact all of the difference that occurs inside our city limits itself from Winchester/ no Winchester would be alleviated if we had Quito. We wouldn't have the traffic coming across Cox if we had Quito interchange... Councilmember Moyles: Paragraph 14. I don't have the change; Mr. Toppel had some new wording and I don't think that was a problem for you, am I right? Mr. Kempton: No. City Attorney: The only wording was just to clarify that the Authority's paying for all of those. I think Mayor Anderson had wanted to have that put in. Mayor Anderson: That would be nice. Mr. Kempton: That's fine. Mayor Anderson: That's it. Councilmember Moyles: Ok, there were changes proposed to the Freeway Agreement and I recall hearing some real concern about whether or not the Department of Transportation is going to be cooperative in amending in any way. And rd like to talk about that for a little bit and see if we can't be a little more specific. Why do you have a~ny reservations... Mr. Kempton: Well, Mr. Moyles, you were involved in some contact with the Department related to the Freeway Agreements in this corridor and the attorneys are extremely reluctant to modify their standard Freeway Agreement in any way. They would not accept our petition early on to incorporate items that we now put in a Performance Agreement into the Freeway Agreement because they did not want to establish a precedence on a state-wide basis for including those kinds of items in the standard document. I agree with your City Attorney's analysis that, if the item is reflected in the Exhibit, that there's not a need to put forth wording in the Freeway Agreement, and I'm just giving my impression based on my contacts with CalTrans on this issue, that we're going to have trouble if we attempt to try to make changes in this standard dncnmento I hnnest!v don't believe you're buying anything additional for the City by virtue of going forward with those changes. City Manager: I think that there's a certified action by the California Transportation Com- mission on mitigation and EIS is just as good as having an agreement. Mr. Kempton: Again, I want to make the point: I think you could petition the Director of Transportation to provide some assurances and, Paul, correct me if rm wrong, I think he would answer those questions and you'd have a written response that would not require any changes to the Freeway Agreement. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 54 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Cievenger: Yeah, I think that's a good idea, given that they're probably not going to change their standard form, and that would address the concerns that this be included as pan of the document. At least, in the future if people want to look back, they'll know that we didn't just do the agreement. There was a Performance Agreement along with it. Mayor Anderson: OK. Councilmember Moyles: My feeling...if I had a comprehensive understanding of all the changes that would make you more comfortable with the Performance Agreement, my feeling is I could vote through an amended Performance Agreement: I do not want to amend the Freeway Agreement. The sum total of my experience in these issues, for what it's worth, tells me that they're right. If we don't have a Freeway Agreement, we can't start taking property in the corridor, which makes it difficult to go ahead and start doing the final design work. And as Mr. Kempton pointed out, the nature of this project is not such that you can sign an agreement one day and start digging dirt tomorrow. You need this lead time and the costs are upon us, so rd rather not invite delay or quarrel with the Department of Transportation. I think we should take it as a certainty that this amendment would cause a problem. Let's try.and address it through a letter. Why don't we try and get at these things in the manner you've suggested, amend the Performance Agreement, adopt the Freeway Agreement without changes and have the letter. Mayor Anderson: OK, so did you make a motion. Councilmember Stutzman: May I ask something? Mayor Anderson: Yes. Councilmember Stutzman: Fd like to address this to Mr. Toppel. Do we have a concern with the issues that Mrs. Jcnscn raised. City Attorney: I can't effectively respond to that because I can't.,.I didn't really understand what she was saying other than one action after another ranging from putting it on the ballotsright down to sitting here tonight and everything we did she said was illegal. I can't separate one issue from the other. The essence of her objection, aside from the references to the ballot measure and initiative measure and everything else, seems to have been that there should have been some further environmental study. I presume she meant a supplement as opposed to an assessment. Mr. Kempton has responded to that tonight. He's speaking... Well, CalTrans is the lead agency as far as I'm concerned, the lead agency takes the responsibility for making the environmental determinations, which is a judgment call, and we can respond to that, but if somebody wants to challenge it they can go into court as she apparently threatens to do. ..: rm not particularly bothered. I don't think we're sitting here acting illegally. Opinions may differ, but if the lead agency is Satisfied with their process and you're satisfied with the form of the agreement in front of you, then my recommendation would be to proceed. ff someone thinks we're acting illegally, they have their legal remedies. Councilmember Moyles: Madam Mayor, I'd like to offer a 'motion. You have in the packet, a Resolution that I proposed to the City Manager and he made some appropriate changes and I think adopting this Resolution with the clear understanding that the. amendments we've been talking about regarding the Performance Agreement are contemplated by the adoption of this Resolution--if the Resolution would fit the amended Performance Agreement just as well So I don't have a Resolution number, but H1 read it by title. My motion would be that "the City Council adopt a Resolution of the City of Saratoga approving the revised Freeway Agreement and revised Performance Agreement"... Councilmember Peterson: Second, with the understanding that we're including all the changes ~hat we've been working through. o Mayor Anderson: Any questions? Any comments? Councilmember Moyles: I do have some comments. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 55 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Anderson: Yes. Councilmember Moyles: I'd like to explain why I think we should go ahead and do this in light of some of the concerns that have been expressed by people tonight. From my perspective, I don't feel like we're rushing and I think three years ago, nearly to the day, that this hall was filled with people and the City Council adopted publicly its negotiating position on the Freeway Agreement. And I know we studied it for about a year before that, so these issues arc very familiar to me and I've heard nothing tonight that I haven't considered in great length on many previous occasions. The difficulties we're wrestling with tonight are essentially the same problems, the same judgment calls we've been working on ever since then. And I don't think further deliberation is going to improve the end result. One thing I'm certain is that it's going to cost a lot more money if we take any more time. And in the balance, I think now is the time to act. Now is the time to end the deliberation, make the decision and move on. The negotiations that the Council has conducted since the last election on this question have been difficult and I can appreciate how awkward it must have been at times for the Council majority proceed in the face of direction it no doubt felt at heart was fundamentally unwise. Nevertheless we have managed~and I think the mitigations that you've heard discussed tonight are by and large appropriate. Interconnecting the signals is an excellent idea, and Mr. Peacock deserves the credit for throwing that out. Mrs. Anderson has been very sensitive to pedestrian safety, sidewalks, bikeways. The crossing guard question, I think, is really a City responsibility, since we've over the years accepted that fully as State law has evolved, but that's something else I'm willing to entertain for the children who use these streets have increased risks and the school districts can demonstrate that we should have more guards, then the City's going to have to fund that. Sound walls, once again, the concerns of the people impacted by the interchange have been addressed. These agreements reflect those concerns. I am prepared and when we get down to the actual minutia of placing them, I'm prepared to do what the neighbors want, providing that it can be engineered and whatever they think works best. The Traffic Authority, I'm sure, will try to accommodate them. Timing of construction and the placement of the sound walls is another good idea. There are assurances that the sound walls go in soon rather than later; that's important. But I think the sum total ofall these things are aproposal that arc as good as you can do. This is reasonable--beyond that I think is unreasonable. That's why I'm prepared to vote tonight. I think we've done a good job. I'd like to thank a couple of people. I'd like to thank first of all Jay Geddes and everybody who's worked with him, because they did carry this issue throughout and I think the process has been served well. I'd like to thank the Council for responding to the mandate that was generated as a consequence of their initiative. We have been responsive and that's good. And for somebody who's not here, I'd like to thank, too. It would have been politically expedient for Joyce Hlava to refuse to put it on the ballot and from a selfish perspective, she might have doubted her judgment from time to time since June. But I hope she finds some consolation in looking at the end result and feeling that even though it didn't serve her interests well, it served the process well and there are many, many people who voted in that election who did so because she was willing to pay the price and vote on her convictions. And that's something we all admire even though we might not agree with the action she took. So I'd like to have my gratitude for that on the record. That's all. Mayor Anderson: Thank you. Is there anyone else who Would like ~o spcalk at tl:e elid here? Councilmember Stutzman: Well, I would just like to add that I would like to see this written up in final form. I think it's rather unusual to be signing a contract without having it fully prepared and written out in its final form. I know that these suggestions have been made and that modifi- cations are going to be written into it, but I would like to see this in its final form before voting on it, tonight. l~Iayor Anderson: Well, it's going to be written up and we will get copies of it before it goes out the door anyway. Correct? So if there's if there's anything it looks like we've missed, then we've got...We've got the tape. City Manager: Before we send it to the Traffic Authority, you will have achancc to do that. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 56 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Anderson: You will have a chance to do that. Councilmember Stutzman: ...before I sign it. Mayor Anderson: Well, you don't sign it. I sign it. Councilmember Moyles: The City Attorney has to approve it as to form and content. What the Resolution does is direct the Mayor to sign it, assuming the City Attorney approves the thing and says this is what you people voted on the Other night. Then it's ready to be signed. City Attorney: It's up to the Council. You have in the past when we have gone through paragraph by paragraph and there has been agreement on the specific language, you have taken a vote approving the agreement with those modifications. We have always brought the actual document back to you, not necessarily for a new approval but just so you have a record of what it looks like. It's totally up to the Council, if you want to vote tonight or have the document actually physically redfawn and brought back at your next meeting. I have no problem since the changes have been discussed in terms of exact wording. If you were to vote an approval of the Performance Agreement with those modifications, but that's up to the Council. If you want to see the revised document before you, you can do thai too. Mayor Anderson: Well, basically, we're voting on the Resolution right now anyway. Councilmember Moyles: Which directs you to sign the agreement. It does not leave you the discretion. I think if you're not comfortable, you shouldn't vote this out. I wouldn't have gone through it word by word if I didn't want to vote on it tonight. I would have said, "Just bring the whole thing back when you've got time to work on it." Mayor Anderson: And I think that you'll have the tape and the verbatim record to compare with in case you see that thoro's some mistake in the. final document that doesn't sound like what you agreed to. Councilmember Peterson: Call the question, Madam -MAY-9r · Councilmember Clovenget: I would like to make a comment._ Mayor Anderson: She gets to talk first. Councilmember Cloverigor: I think that further environmental study is not going to make any significant change in what we've agreed to. I think the concerns are mainly on traffic mitigation and the stop lights and the school safety. The way I understand from what the City Attorney a.nd from what Mr. Kempton have said, we will have an opportunity to review that once the traffic studies come back to us. So it doesn't seem to me that there is any reason...we've gone over it very carefully. I don't scc any reason to delay signing. In a sense, we have had a public hearing--a very big public hearing on this issue and that was the election in November. The interesting thing to me is that the data which has come to us tonight has not revealed anything new. Essentially it says we're going to get a 38% traffic increase on Saratoga Avenue to accomplish an 8% decrease on the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Peacock and I were talking about that this afternoon--that is pretty much what we said during the election. People have raised issues about the depression, about problems; all of these things were brought out in the election and we have heard from the public..~ l',m never going to put on any future campaign brochure a picture of the interchange at SaratOga Avenue and say I brought this to Saratoga. I~m not really proud of the interchange.' I think that what happeriod in Saratoga is that the citizens were more interested in convenience than in pieserving Saratoga, which was interest--to keep it a super residential neighborhood. But believe me, I told everybody I could during the course of my own election campaign in November and was not able to convince a majority. The numbers were overwhelming. So I think that...and I want to congratulate Mayor Anderson. I think she's done a terrific job in studying this problem...in studying this issue and bringing out so many things that need to be addressed. I think she really understands it. I'Ve kept up with the progress and talking to her and to Mr. Peacock and to studying what we got as we went along; so to me, there simply is no reason not to sign it to, night. We've addressed all the issues except for the traffic mitigations and school safety and I believe it will be several months before we know that to the extent and until we know what happens to Winchester, so that we can really refine those mitigations. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 57 JANUARY 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Anderson: Thank you. This interchange is obviously not something that I wanted either. And it was difficult to be negotiating except it did give me a certain incentive to bring hack to people who didn't want the interchange a better contract than we had before._ So I do believe that the contract that we're offering the Traffic Authority and that we are going to be signing has tightened up a lot of language and should satisfy people who were critical in the past. I know that it satisfies me that we're getting as much as can, as early as we can, so that we don't end up with any surprises in Saratoga in terms of impacts or in terms of money running out and our not being able to get sound walls--whatever the issue might be. rm happy to report to the Council, report to the citizens that I think that we did the best we could. Harry Peacock was tremendous support through all this. I was able to call on Hal Toppel for advice. I appreciate the fact that the Traffic Authority didn't try to hang us out to dry because the political situation over here was such that we had so much pressure to sign that I was concerned that we wouldn't be able to get some of the features that I was really feeling strongly about. Fortunately, in the interests of having a good relationship I guess, Will Kempton worked well with us and we were really pleased that we were able to get the things that we did, and that we Were able also to fix up the old contract. I feel, of course, since I was a negotiator, I was in on everything all the way down the line and I certainly studied the situation. I would like to, if rd had my preference, I would like to have had a little more time on some of this, because some of the information that came to us came a little later in the process than I had anticipated. But I wanted to have it come to closure. We have other things to do in this city, and we can't get to the other things because we're all so tied up on this freeway issue. I feel comfortable that what we've got now is as good as we're going to get. I guess that's where I come from. ff I thought delaying, even two weeks, even a month-whatever it would be-- would gain us something that we haven't got... ff I thought if we delayed two weeks we would get full depression, for example, I would do it. But I don't think it would make any difference, so from my standpoint, I don't see any purpose to delaying unless there's something to gain from it. So rm prepared to vote tonight. I wilt have the call for the question. All in favor of passing the resolution. Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers Clevenger, Moyles and Peterson: Aye. Mayor Anderson: Opposed? Councilmember Stutzman: No. End of the verbatim transcript. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: Councilmember Peterson asked that the Council be on record as recommending that automatic weaoous be banned in the li~,ht of recent events. A letter to Assemblyman Quackenbush is to be written in that regaud. Councilmember Moyles asked that the Council aclmowlege in some manner the recent resignation of Bill_ Glennort he reported on the recent Community Access TV Meeting. Mayor Anderson reported on a recent meeting with: Congressman Tom Campbell. The Meeting. of the Citv Cnuneil was adjourned at 1: 30 a .m. Respectfully submitted,