The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-05-2014 Supplemental Council Agenda -redacted0.. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2014 REGULAR MEETING — 7:00 P.M. — CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 30, 2014) REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non- Agendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. Communications from Boards and Commissions Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards cQ Commissions. ANNOUNCEMENTS CEREMONIAL ITEMS None ,;, 4 SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council inem.ber. Any member of the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the Mayor remove an item from. the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended action: Approve City Council minutes for the Special and Regular City Council Meeting on January 15, 2014. 2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 1/14/2014 Period 7 1/21/2014 Period 7 1/28/2014 Period 7 3. Treasurer's Report for the Month Ended December 31, 2013 Recommended action: Review and accept the Treasurer's Report for the month ended December 31, 2013. 4. Amendment to Resolution 13 -082 Appointment Members to the Traffic Safety. Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission Recommended action: Adopt the attached resolution amending Resolution 13 -082, appointing members to the Traffic Safety Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission. 5. Approval of Sports User Agreements - 2014 Recommended action: Approve Sport User Agreements with American Youth Soccer Organization, Saratoga Little League, Quito Little League, De Anza Youth Soccer League, West Valley Lacrosse Club, West Valley Youth Soccer League, CISL (Adult Soccer League), and Saratoga Pony League for the use of Saratoga City parks and Prospect High School for organized sport use, and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. 6. Zoning Amendment for Single Room Occupancy Buildings (SRO) - Second Reading Recommended action: Waive the second reading and adopt the proposed ordinance. . -. - - - � is •� , + .. . r PUBLIC HEARINGS Applicants /Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements.' Members of the public may comment on any itein for up to three minutes. Applicant /Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance are subject to Council's approval at the Council meeting 7. Appeal of the Planning Com-nission's Approval of a Proposed Mixed -Use Project at 12250 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Recommended action: Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 8. Hearing Date of Planning Commission Appeal for 13580 Saratoga Vista Avenue Recommended action: Provide direction on the hearing date of the Planning Conunission appeal for li580 Saratoga Vista Avenue. 9. Review of Blaney Plaza Stone Pine Recommended action: Authorize staff to further assess and moiutor the Blaney Plaza Italian Stone Pine for an amount not to exceed $8,000 to be funded from the City Council's Discretionary Fund. 10. Presentation on State Route 85 Express Lane Project Recommended action: Receive presentation from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) representatives on the State Route 85 Express Lane Project and provide staff with direction on statements to be included in a comment letter on the project. ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Emily Lo Cities Association of Santa Clara County Cities Association of Santa Clara County — Selection Committee Council Finance Committee Hakone Foundation Board Hakone Foundation Executive Committee Santa Clara County Library District Joint Powers Authority West Valley Mayors and Managers Association a -- �S liri', ,i� . �:�.� ',. gip. .��1, ..r .0 •'- 'r � ��.'•_,•'. ., •.J. - aY 1 ,- -�- r Ti,.. 1-i ye,.` .. � �,� : ' .. C. Vice Mayor Howard Miller City School Ad Hoc Council Finance Committee Hakone Foundation Board Postal Service Liaison Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) West Valley Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority Council Member Manny Cappello Destination Saratoga Highway 9 Ad Hoc Let's Move City Ad Hoc Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) Council Committee Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Saratoga Ministerial Association TEA Ad Hoc Village Ad Hoc Council Member Chuck Page Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Highway 9 Ad Hoc Let's Move City Ad Hoc Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory Board Saratoga Sister City Conunittee Liaison TEA Ad Hoc West Valley Sanitation District Council Member Jill Hunter City School Ad Hoc KSAR Community Access TV Board Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission Santa Clara Valley Water District West Valley Flood Control & Watershed Advisory Committee Saratoga Historical Foundation Village Ad Hoc CITY COUNCIL ITEMS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoea.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. In. compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Ciiy Clerk at (408) 868 -1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title II) Certificate of Posting ofAgenda: I, Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk. for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council for the City of Saratoga was posted on January 30, 2014, at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruih,ale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at mviv.sarato;a. ca. its Signed this 30`r' day of January 2014 at Saratoga, California. Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk. NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City Video Archives at www.saratoua.ca.us �{ >;r 02/05 02/07 02/19 03/05 03/19 04/02 04/16 05/07 05/21 06/04 06/18 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2014 Regular Meeting —Joint Meeting with County Fire Council Retreat Regular Meeting —Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Regular Meeting —5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Chamber of Comrnerce/Destination Saratoga Regular Meeting —Joint Meeting with Traffic Safety Commmission Regular Meeting —Joint Meeting with Sheriff Office Regular Meeting —Joint Meeting TBD Regular Meeting —Joint Meeting with Mountain Winery Regular Meeting —Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts Regular Meeting —Joint Meeting with Saratoga Ministerial Association Regular Meeting —5:30 p.m. Community Center -Joint Meeting with HOA's •'l�'M! i jf k -;`q i ! > . - _ _ r. �`• i iii i, _ti tj. �4 : - }.� t t: `� �3 i 07/02 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Sister City Committee 07/16 Recess 08/06 Recess 08/22 Regular Meeting —Joint Meeting with SASCC 09/03 Regular Meeting - -Joint Meeting with Parks & Rec /PEBTAC 09/17 Regular Meeting —Joint Meeting with Youth Commission 10 /01 Regular Meeting —5:30 p.m.- Community Center -Joint Meeting with Saratoga School Districts 10/15 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Hakone Foundation Board 11/05 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with West Valley Board of Trustees 11/19 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Senator Beall 12/03 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Library Commission and Friends of the Saratoga Libraries 12/17 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting TBD City of Saratoga CITY COUNCIL JOINT MEETING Meeting Discussion Topics Joint Meeting with Santa Clara County Fire Department February 5, 2014 16:00 p.m. Saratoga City Hall I Administrative Conference Room 6:00 p.m. Dinner & Introductions 6:15 p.m. Santa Clara County Fire Department Updates 6:25 p.m. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 6:35 p.m. Update on Emergency Preparation Efforts 6:45 p.m. Other Remarks & Wrap Up * The Regular City Council Meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Theater. Joint meeting attendees are invited to attend the Regular Meeting and share on overview of the joint meeting with the public during Oral Communications. 'yo'SARq'° City of Saratoga �% C9 ,.� Memorandum To: Saratoga City Council From: Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk Date: February 5, 2014 Subject: Written Communications on Item 7: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of a Proposed Mixed -Use Project at 12250 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road After the agenda packet for the February 5, 2014 City Council meeting was prepared and posted, the City received the below written communication on agenda item 7: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of a Proposed Mixed -Use Project at 12250 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. - Email from Jack Mallory TO Tuesday, February 4,20149:26:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Re: APCC14 -0002 - Appeal of 12250 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Date: Monday, February 3, 2014 6:56:37 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Mallory58 @aol.com <Mallory58 @aol.com> To: Jill Hunter <jhu.nter @saratoga.ca.us >, Emily Lo <elo @saratoga.ca.us >, Howard Miller <hmiller @saratoga.ca.us >, Manny Cappello <mcappello @saratoga.ca.us >, Chuck Page. <c page @saratoga. ca. us> CC: Dave Anderson <davea @saratoga.ca.us >, City Clerk [Crystal Bothelio] <ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us >, Bettybi1162 @aol.com <Bettybi1162 @aol.com >, charlesye @yahoo.com <charlesye @yahoo.com> City Council members, Thank you Howard Miller, Jill Hunter, and Emily Lo for contacting us. Looking forward to a contact from Chuck Page and Manny Cappello. We were waiting for an hour and half for you to see the towering townhouse impact from our homes but as you know it did not happen. We were upset at missing you but still hope you can make time to see visit us. Please take time to read the material we sent concerning our appeal and see how the townhouses were designed in the Kirkmont area. Jack, Bill, and Charles In a message dated 2/3/2014 11:05:29 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, mfossati @saratoga.ca.us writes: Dear Council — Mr. Jack Mallory has extended an invitation to all councilmembers to visit his property at 12258 Kirkdale Avenue in order to view the project at 12250 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. If you'd like to contact Jack directly, his phone number is 408- 252 -7447. Thank you, Michael Fossati Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1212 (phone) mfossati@wsaratoaa.ca.us (email) Page 1 of 1 Santa Clara County Fire Department 2013 Emergency Response Approximate total calls: 2,100 Average response time: 5:33 Approximate total dollar loss: $578,500 Organizational Changes Staff Changes r Assistant Chief Don Jarvis Deputy Chief/ Operations Joe Parker :- Director of Emergency Management Dana Reed Battalion chiefs Tony Bowden, Wally Finck and Brian Glass Countywide Apparatus Renumbering Promotes /facilitates regional resource sharing ➢ No more duplication of equipment numbers Y Reduces potential confusion "- Increases firefighter safety Future Objectives Regional Communications SJS, CNT, MTV & PAF Feasibility Study Active Shooter /Active Assailant Program County Police Chiefs & Fire Chiefs In conjunction with FIRESCOPE, CFJCC, SFT PulsePoint Ll- -WY- Regional Emergency Preparedness and Emergency Management Regional Emergency Preparedness Personal Emergency Preparedness (PEP) Training := Provided Monthly Classes > Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Training Regional CERT Exercise Regional CERT Academies (4) City Disaster Service Workers (DSW) r Orientation IN Training Regional Emergency Preparedness and Emergency Management Emergency Management EOC Position Training Management Operations r Planning Logistics %- Finance Exercises Table Top Functional Regional Emergency Management Coordination Going - Forward Bay Area Catastrophic Earthquake Planning Project ➢ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ➢ California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal -OES) ➢ Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services (SCCOES) ➢ Santa Clara County Operational Area (All jurisdictions) Web -EOC Utilization and Training and Exercises Resource Ordering and Tracking ➢ Training in your City ➢ Exercises to Maintain Competency FIRE �- Regional Emergency Management Coordination Going - Forward Multiple Agency Coordination System (MACS) ➢ Training ➢ Integration ➢ Exercises CA j-0+ 0 Future Objectives Develop a single Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) for all Santa Clara County. Working with: The Santa Clara County Operational Area Council The Santa Clara County FireSafe Council With supporting contributions from Saratoga City, Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Dept. The Santa Clara County Fire Chiefs Association CAL FIRE Project funding is now available through CAL FIRE Made available due to Fire Prevention /SRA fee Questions IRE �` Ages 6 -9 years Tuesday - Friday 2/18 -2/21 (4 days) Location: Warner Hutton House Camp - Late Care Secicn = 91070.14 Section #91071.14 9 :00- 2:oopm 2:00- 4:ooPm Fee $1351$145 Fee $451*$55 A full agenaa has been planned for your ch6d's erjjoyrnent during their time spent at our in -house camps. Campers will exercise their imagination & sodalization skills by participating in marry different recreational games, songs, stories, enrichment activit4sS food projects, and arts & crafts. Age appropriate activities aril be implemented for all age levels and interest areas. "Ale w4l also have special guest visit camp to ensure entertainment all week bong: one snack is prodded each day but please send your child with a sack lunch„ water, & jacket. Instructor City of Saratoga Recreation Staff *gee for Non- Residents �iJee1KIi! games I stones r0oa socialize enrichment acts & aatt &A fun t musk Recreation Department Announcement Week -long camp offered during the February recess! The City of Saratoga Recreation Department will be offering a daylong camp at the Warner Hutton House during the week of February 18 -21. Games, craft projects, cooking, singing, and much more! Late care will be offered too. Staff is comprised of City of Saratoga Recreation Department trained staff. For more information or to register, visit the Recreation Department on the web, www.saratoga.ca.us /recreation, call 868 -1249, or stop by the Joan Pisani Community Center. City of Saratoga L 9 �. Memorandum �4l l FO To: Saratoga City Council From: Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk Date: February 5, 2014 Subject: Written Communications on Item 10: Presentation on State Route 85 Express Lane Project After the agenda packet for the February 5, 2014 City Council meeting was prepared and posted, the City received the several written communications on agenda item 10: Presentation on State Route 85 Express Lane Project. The written communications are attached to this memo. Monday, February 3, 2014 8:45:41 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: About State Route 85 Express Lanes Project Date: Thursday, January 30, 2014 9 :00:08 PM Pacific Standard Time From: binh vo <v_binh @hotmail.com> To: City Clerk [Crystal Bothelio] <ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us> To whom it may concern, This letter is to express our concern about the impact of the up coming State Route 85 Express Lanes Project upon our environment. As Saratogians, we urge you to please perform a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the major impact on the area before any decision can be made regarding this project. Please note that if there is no EIR, there is no mitigation for noise from additional cars, air quality, light_ pollution with 40 ft high structures. Besides, the Cities bordering , the 85 Corridor have a Performance agreement with the Transportation agency for only 6 Lanes and Light Rail. We urge you again please enforce the Performance Agreement of 6 lanes and Light Rail. Very Truly Yours, -Binh Vo Page 1 of 1 Monday, February 3, 2014 8:24:59 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Concern about VTA Plan of Changing Highway 85 from 6 Lane to 8 Lane highway Date: Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:59:04 PM Pacific Standard Time From: brian cao <bcao.us @gmail.com> To: Howard Miller <hmiller @saratoga.ca.us >, Manny Cappello <mcappello @saratoga.ca.us >, Chuck Page <cpage @saratoga.ca.us >, Jill Hunter <jhunter @saratoga.ca.us >, City Clerk [Crystal Bothelio] <ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us >, Emily Lo <elo @saratoga.ca.us> CC: Liang Cao <bcao.us @gmail.com >, Luke Luke (Neighbor) <IUke95070 @aol.com> Dear Respectful Saratoga City Council Members; As a long -term resident of the City of Saratoga for almost 10 years, we're also very concerned about the California VTA's proposed plan to expand from 6 lanes to 8 lanes of Highway 85, that is passing adjacent to my backyard. Ever since the completion of Highway 85, I have noticed frequently rumbling /vibration of my house from time to time during morning traffic, in addition to the heavier dusts inside the house as well as outside, which were not mentioned in the VTA environmental report. We're strongly opposing to the expansion plan, for the following reasons: 1. I am deeply concern of what may have done to the house structure integrity by the rumbling /vibration of the house due to the traffic. The expansion plan will aggravate the situations. 2. It will worsen noise and air quality (pollution) due to increased number of cars. 3. It violates the Performance Agreement of 6 Lanes Truly yours, Brian and Alice. Cao 12301 Saraglen Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 408 973 -0388 Page 1 of 1 Monday, February 3, 201411:25:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Proposed Widening of 85 Date: Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:02:19 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Bianchi Payne Laura <biapayne @gmail.com> To: City Clerk [Crystal Bothelio] <ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us> To City Clerk, Please forward this to the appropriate city counsel members: I am in favor of widening Highway 85 but we must also leave open the possibility of extending the light rail system further north. It would be foolish to modify the highway in such a way that did not leave open to potential for improving mass transit. Also, I would appreciate it if you would please inform the relevant parties that the situation at the 85 and 280 interchange must be addressed. Every morning it is a gridlock nightmare. I fear widening the highway in Saratoga while not considering the impact on this major interchange in Cupertino will only make the situation worse. Thank you for your time, Laura Bianchi Payne 10061 Bianchi Way #B Cupertino, CA 95014 408 - 255 -8738 biapayneC@gmail.com Page 1 of 1 Monday, February 3, 2014 8:31:30 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: HIGHWAY 85 Changing from 6 -LANE to * -LANE highway Date: Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:26 :38 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Amirsyed Bukhari < amirsyedbukhari@gmail.com> To: Emily Lo <elo @saratoga.ca.us >, Howard Miller <hmiller @saratoga.ca.us >, Manny Cappello <mcappello @saratoga.ca.us >, Chuck Page <cpage @saratoga.ca.us >, Jill Hunter <jhunter @saratoga.ca.us >, City Clerk [Crystal Bothelio] <ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us >, Amirsyed Bukhari <amirsyedbukhari @gmail.com >, Attya Bukhari <attyabukhari @gmail.com> Dear Members of The Saratoga City Council, In the matter of HIGHWAY85 Changing from-6-LANE to * -LANE highway we want to record our strong opposition to this change and we urge you to give our request your due and positive consideration. We further request that the responsible authorities ensure that the items enumerated below are carried out since the changes suggested for highway 85 and the resulting adverse environmental issues are of urgent concern to us. 1. Perform a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for major impact on the area. If there is no EIR, THERE IS NO MITIGATION FOR: NOISE FROM ADDITIONAL CARS, AIR QUALITY, LIGHT POLLUTION WITH 40 FT HIGH STRUCTURES. Cupertino wants Full EIR so should Saratoga. 2. ENFORCE THE PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT OF 6 -LANES AND LIGHT RAIL. We are longtime Saratoga residents and reside at 19668 Needham Lane, Saratoga, CA, 95070. Yours truly, Syed Amir Bukhari Attya Bukhari Page 1 of 1 Monday, February 3, 2014 8:28:55 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: FW: Contact the City Council of Saratoga, California Form Submission Date: Friday, January 31, 2014 1:02:21 PM Pacific Standard Time From: City Council <saratoga_cc @saratoga.ca.us> To: Chuck Page <cpage @saratoga.ca.us >, Jill Hunter <jhunter @saratoga.ca.us >, Howard Miller <hmiller @saratoga.ca.us >, Manny Cappello <mcappello @saratoga.ca.us >, Dave Anderson <davea @saratoga.ca.us >, Emily Lo <elo @saratoga.ca.us >, City Clerk [Crystal Bothelio] <ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us> From: website @saratoga.ca.us Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 1:02:09 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Council Subject: Contact the City Council of Saratoga, California Form Submission Submission from the Saratoga City Council Comment Form Your Name : Bob Rayl Phone Number: Email Address : bobrayl @pacbell.net Your Comments to the City Council of Saratoga, California : I do not favor any expansion of Highway 85 through the corridor of the City of Saratoga, except for light rail, because of my concerns of additional by -pass traffic on city streets, air quality and increased noise. The City Council should request a full EIR for the suggested project by VTA and Cal- Trans, and team up with neighboring cities to oppose this project. Most importantly, the Saratoga City Council should not re- negoiate or change any of the existing Freeway Agreement (September 19, 1989) between the State and the City of Saratoga for State Highway Route 85 from Quito Road to Prospect Avenue, I am also amazed, but not necessarily surprised, that city council representatives to the VTA ( Council - members Page and Miller) seem to have not kept the city council, administration and the community up -to -date about any Highway 85 project through Saratoga. Major regional projects by state agencies just do not pop -up over night. Page 1 of 1 Monday, February 3, 2014 8:25:32 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Highway 85 express lanes proposal Date: Friday, January 31, 2014 8 :29:33 PM Pacific. Standard Time From: Diane Drewke <ddrewke @interorealestate.com> To: Jill Hunter <jhunter @saratoga.ca.us >, Emily Lo <elo @saratoga.ca.us >, Howard Miller <hmiller @saratoga.ca.us >, Manny Cappello <mcappello @saratoga.ca.us >, Chuck Page <cpage @saratoga.ca.us >, Dave Anderson <davea @saratoga.ca.us >, City Clerk [Crystal Bothelio] <ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us> Dear City Counsel Members, I agree with Cheriel Jensen's position. I am not in favor of the proposal and think it will be detriment to the Saratoga residences and the surrounding cities. RE: the proposed Express lanes proposed for Highway 85. Saratoga negotiated a contract with CalTrans prior to allowing the building of Highway 85. This contract was based on considerable environmental work identifying ways to mitigate the considerable environmental damaging aspects of Highway 85. This contract and it's mitigation were signed by both parties representing CalTrans and the City of Saratoga (Mayor Joyce Llava) with specific provision including: There were to be only two regular lanes of traffic each way and one carpool lane each way. This was a firm commitment. It was based on the EIR. The carpool lane was to reduce trips by taking cars off the road, and in return allow for a faster trip for those who had taken care to add passengers. The noise level was promised to be within state prescribed limits for residential uses. To that end the freeway was to be below grade in specific places and sound walls were to be provided. No trucks were allowed on Highway 85. There were to be only local funds used in that corridor because if federal funds are ever used there could be no limits on trucks of Highway 85. Saratoga resident assess was to be provided to the freeway from Saratoga Avenue. The center was to be reserved for light rail when funding for light rail became available. This was so that residents of Saratoga and the west valley cities would have access via some form of public transit to CalTrain, other light rail lines and then by links could access the greater Bay Area without requiring a car. This center area was NOT for high speed rail. This contract was violated the first hour the freeway was opened because of the surface used and material used to build the freeway. The noise level was shocking. It affected at least 1/3 of the city. It took several years of begging and pleading for money to get CalTrans to grind down the surface, but the noise, though slightly improved, is still unbearable and Saratoga's own noise element measurements, recently measured, show it does not even come close to meeting the required noise standards or the promise of the EIR. Residents have begged desperately for resurfacing with asphalt, but no one has been able to arrange funding for Pagel of 3 this. Thus the freeway is now out of compliance with California state noise standards, and the Saratoga noise element, the contract with CalTrans, and the promise of the Saratoga General Plan on the quality of our environment. The freeway is severely degrading our environment in Saratoga, Cupertino, Los Gatos and west San Jose. Then the contract was further violated by the traffic monitoring lights put up shortly after the freeway opening restricting Saratoga resident's ability to access the freeway, by then already filled up with south San Jose traffic. While "No Truck" signs are posted this is not often enforced in rush hours. Then, last year Cal Trans, in violation of the contract, proposed to put high -speed rail in the center. When apparently no one wanted high -speed rail, CalTrans shelved the rail (light or high speed) idea entirely. Then, unknown to the majority of Saratoga residents, CalTrans went to the Saratoga Council in mid January, 16th I believe, last year with the concept of "converting" the carpool1ane into a high speed express lane. It is not clear what the council did in respect to that sham presentation as CalTrans/VTA's intention was actually to ADD a paid express lane and also CONVERT the carpool lanes to paid express lanes. Now VIA and CalTrans have rolled out a double paid Expressway ADDITION to Highway 85 as well as other freeways in this county after having converted our carpool lane into one of the high -speed express lanes. We Were first introduced to this proposal in a public "viewing" January 14, 2014, last night. This very short notice as comments must be made within two weeks when we were just barely introduced to this issue. From what I can gather on short one -day notice, the EIR does not begin to address the impact of this proposal. We have already sacrificed so much. We thought the Saratoga Council had bent over backwards to allow this freeway in the first place. We depended on them to honor the promise and actual contract with CalTrans. Those of us who had worked so hard finally could go ahead with our lives after so much_ effort to prevent the disaster Highway 85 has become. Now this proposal is a nightmare. Even if we were to like the idea of a paid expressway, it will not serve Saratoga Residents in any way as the entry and exits to it are at the junction of 280 and 85 (already at a breaking point) and Winchester. It would be entirely closed off for our Saratoga access. So what are we west valley residents losing with this proposal so rich people can get through Saratoga faster? 1. We get trucks on Highway 85 due to the federal funds. Along with the trucks comes a much greater frequency of accidents and actually slower traffic. 2. More through traffic on more lanes will go through Saratoga, but we cannot access these lanes. 3. Along with the increased traffic we will have even more noise, much more neighborhood double back traffic and local congestion as a result. 4. We will have even more dust, and more toxic Page 2 of 3 fumes. How can this proposal serve our communities? It will not. The carpooling lane was intended to mitigate the EIR. It is official mitigation. It cannot now be summarily changed to allow rich people to speed their way by- passing normal traffic. It must remain as a carpool lane and no additional lanes can built. As I have just been introduced to this proposal, I will have additional comments concerning the environmental work. Sincerely, Diane Drewke Intero Real Estate Services BRE #01849831 (408) 482 -8687 DDrewke@InteroRealEstate.com www.DrewkeTeam.com Page 3 of 3 Monday, February 3, 2014 8:28:11 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Proposed 85 project Date: Friday, January 31, 2014 5:07:51 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Dipesh Patel <dipesh.ifpatel @gmail.com> To: Emily Lo <elo @saratoga.ca.us >, Howard Miller <hmiller @saratoga.ca.us >, Manny Cappello <mcappello @saratoga.ca.us >, Chuck Page <cpage @saratoga.ca.us >, Jill Hunter <jhunter @saratoga.ca.us >, City Clerk (Crystal Bothelio] <ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us> Dear All, I have just found out about the proposed 85 project to convert it from 6 lanes to 8 lanes. As you can imagine this is very concerning for us and I would like to see.a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and understand what the mitigation is going to be for: Noise from additional cars, Air Quality, Light Pollution with 40FT high structures. I understand Cupertino Council wants a full EIR and so should we in Saratoga Council. I look forward to the report and your reply. Thanks, Dipesh Page 1 of 1 Monday, February 3, 2014 8:30:35 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Objection on hwy 85 changing from 6 lanes to 8 lanes Date: Friday, January 31, 2014 1:47:27 AM Pacific Standard Time From: Fred <f red. meta po @gmail.com> To: Emily Lo <elo @saratoga.ca.us >, Howard Miller <hmiller @saratoga.ca.us >, Manny Cappello <mcappello @saratoga.ca.us >, Chuck Page <cpage @saratoga.ca.us >, Jill Hunter <jhunter @saratoga.ca.us >, City Clerk [Crystal Bothelio] <ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us> Hi all, My family oppose any change on performance agreement on highway 85. Fred more than 20 years Saratoga resident Sent from my Wad Page 1 of 1 Monday, February 3,20148:30:09 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Highway 85 (6 to 8 lane) project Date: Friday, January 31, 2014 8:49:49 AM Pacific Standard Time From: Swastik Bihani <swastik @gmail.com> To: Emily Lo <elo @saratoga.ca.us >, Howard Miller <hmiller @saratoga.ca.us >, Manny Cappello <mcappello @saratoga.ca.us >, Chuck Page <cpage @saratoga.ca.us>, Jill Hunter <jhunter @saratoga.ca.us >, City Clerk [Crystal Bothelio] <ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us> Hi, I'm a resident of Saratoga, CA (20021 Knollwood Drive) and want the citi council to take specific actions with regards to the Highway 85 project (changing from 6 to 8 lane highway). • Perform a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the major impact on the area. If there is no EIR then there is no mitigation for • Noise from additional cars +Air Quality • Light pollution with 40 ft high structures Why is Saratoga not following Cupertino Council's path around a full EIR? • We want to make sure that council enforces the performance agreement of 6 lanes and light rail Best„ Swastik (415,385.3090) http: / /sbihani.blogspot.com Page 1 of 1 Monday, February 3, 2014 8:19:01 AM Pacific Standard rime Subject: Fwd: Highway 85 Council Meeting Wed., February 5 Date: Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:03:12 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Emily Lo <elo @saratoga.ca.us> To: City Clerk [Crystal Bothelio] <ctderk @saratoga.ca.us >, Dave Anderson <davea @saratoga.ca.us> FYI. Emily -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - -- From: Jack Chen <jackchenjc @yahoo.com> Date: 02/02/2014 10:43 PM (GMT - 08:00) To: Emily Lo <elo @saratoga.ca.us >,Howard Miller <h mil ler @saratoga.ca.us >,Manny Cappello < mcappello @saratoga.ca.us >,Chuck Page <cpage @saratoga.ca.us >,Jill Hunter <jhunter @saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Fw: Highway 85 Council Meeting Wed., February 5 Dear Saratoga council, I agree with the Cupertino Council "Instructions" for the City to execute. Details below. Jack From: Mary Robertson [mailto:robertson.b.m @mindspring.com] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 12:33 PM To: Mary Robertson Subject: Highway 85 Council Meeting Wed., February 5 Dear Residents, VTA will be presenting the Highway 85 Project, Wednesday, February 5, before the Saratoga City Council. This Council meeting starts at 7PM. Please Mark your Calendars for February 5th to attend the Meeting. Please share with any neighbors that might be concerned. You can read the Highway 85 Document at the following URL or you can View the Presentation to Cupertino Council with Council Questions below. URL for documents are: http://www.dot.ca.ciov/dist4/envdocs.htm#santaclara httl2:/ /www.dot.ca.,gov /dist4/ documents /85Exl2ressLanesPro *ei ct/al2pendix —a_pt2 thru— appendix_g:pd f 1. If you have any concerns regarding the expansion of Highway 85 to 8 lanes ( an additional (2) TOLL lanes will be added between Camden and De Anza Blvd. Only) with no fix to the 280/85N bottleneck; concerns about added traffic noise, air quality etc.; concerns about HOV conversion to HOWTOLL FOR SOV; or just want to learn more, please attend the council meeting. You should Page 1 of 3 also have the opportunity to express your views. Currently, ONLY an Initial Study Negative Declaration, Environmental Assessment has been performed suggesting there is no further mitigation needed for Noise, Air Quality, etc. 2. Please review the "Cupertino Council Instructions to Staff' below in RED. If you agree with the Cupertino Council "Instructions" for the City to execute, please ask our Saratoga council to join with Cupertino to (1) enforce the Performance Agreement the City has with VTA /Caltrans for a six lane freeway and (2) Require a Full EIR (Environmental Impact Report). Saratoga City Council Emails are: elo+'a!saratoea. ca. us, hmiller'i saratoaa.ca.us, mcappello(asaratoea.ca.us, cpaeeiysaratosa. ca. us, jhunter ci:saratoaa.ca.us 3. Very IMPORTANT: Please, VOU HAVE UNTIL FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (date extended) TO send vour concerns off to Caltrans , Ngoc Bui, Office of Environmental Analysis, PO Box 23660, MS -86, Oakland, CA 94623. In addition, you can comment via email to: 85expresslanes @urs.com. 4. Don't Forget February 5 Saratoga City Council Meeting. Review the Information below: I highly encourage you to watch the neighboring Council's (City of Cupertino) concerns with this project and VTA Presentation. The VTA presentation is conducted by Mr. Risto, Chief of Congestion Management, VTA. Sincerely, Mary * * * * * * * * * * ** Information relating to VTA presentation to Cupertino City Council Go to 3:55:16 on the left side to start the meeting regarding VTA. http:// cupertino .oranicus.com /MediaPlaver.ohp ?view id =18 &clip id= 1588 &meta id= <http:// cupertino .granicus.com /MediaPlaver.php ?view id= 18 &amp:clip id= 1588 &amo:meta id => Several concerns were expressed by the Cupertino Council: 1. Performance agreement of 1989 indicated center reserved for mass transit(light rail) and six lanes as is currently. (This is the same type of performance agreement Saratoga has posted on city website). Mass transit was to be light rail which takes cars off the road helping with Greenhouse gasses. 2. What good is this going to do if the bottlenecks at 280/85N are not fixed. What good is the additional lane going to do if 85 N after 280 does not have an added express lane as VTA wants to put in between Camden and De Anza Blvd ONLY (On Both Sides of Freeway). Now currently 3 lanes, the added 4th lane may complicate the bottleneck at 85N/280 further. VTA states they cannot expand 85N after 280 as they have restricted/ constrained right of way and prohibitive costs to do so. 3. Motorcycles, carpools, a vehicles will still be allowed in the lanes PLUS SINGLE occupancy vehicles that pay TOLL. The toll charge will be Dynamic system changing prices (raising/lowering) based on demand. At times, SOV might not be allowed if traffic slows below 45mph (optimal speed). 4. Cupertino was trying to see how this would benefit them and Saratoga and basically concluded it would not and best be of benefit to South San Jose residents. 5. City Council was not happy with the fact that the Initial Study with Proposed NEGATIVE Declaration /Environmental Assessment was issued December 27, 2013 and did not start (2) public open houses with NO presentations (only drawings) until January 14th and give the public until January 31 to respond 1/21/14 Cupertino Council Instructed staff to: 1. Request to extend the VTA public comment period for EVERYONE (This has been done and extended to February 28,2014) 2. Cupertino council has allowed up to $30,000 for resources to review the Negative Declaration/Environmental Page 2 of 3 Assessment and any "studies" that would have gone along with it. 3. A letter to VTA expressing concerns regarding the Current Performance contract which is in place (for Cupertino and cities along the Corridor). Performance contract was for 6 lane freeway and light rail in center. Pie 3 of 3 Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:26:02 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Ltr to Saratoga City Council Date: Monday, February 3, 2014.5:46:49 PM Pacific Standard Time From: cherielj <cherielj @earthlink.net> To: Jill Hunter <jhunter @saratoga.ca.us >, Emily Lo <elo @saratoga.ca.us >, Howard Miller <hmiller @saratoga.ca.us >, Manny Cappello <mcappello @saratoga.ca.us >, Chuck Page <cpage @saratoga.ca.us >, Dave Anderson <davea @saratoga.ca.us >, City Clerk [Crystal Bothelio] <ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us> Cheriel Jensen 13737 Quito Road, Saratoga, CA 95070 4o8 379-0463 February 3, 2014 Mayor and City Council Members, jhunter @saratoga.ca.us, elo @saratoga.ca.us, hmiller @saratoga.ca.us, mcappello @saratoga.ca.us, cpage @saratoga.ca.us, davea @saratoga.ca.us, ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us City of Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor and Council Members, It has been not yet three weeks since we have been made aware, through the Nextdoor neighbor list invitation to a VTA meeting, actually a 'viewing," that VTA-is planning to add two paid express lanes each way to Highway 85, one of them by converting the current car pool lane to a paid express lane, and by the addition of one additional new, paid express lane each way to take up the space that was to be reserved since 1989 for a light rail line. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project even though it will cost, they say &150 million. VTA in some places admits and in some places denies it will have a substantial environmental impact. But this document, in places, does not even admit it is physically adding a lane, Page i, paragraph 1, for example just says it is "converting" the existing HOV lanes to and express lanes. Thus this document is inconsistent. It does not fully disclose impacts because it does not even consistently acknowledge the whole project. It also does not provide alternative approaches to the traffic slow downs, if that is indeed the obvious objective. Even the objective is questionable, as it also gives the objective of putting more traffic into the HOV lanes, and also gives raising money as the objective. Despite this internally inconsistent document, the sound level is projected to increase by 3 decibels (Neg. Dec.), meaning doubling the noise. (Decibels are measured on the logarithmic scale.) In spite of this being almost entirely residential interface in the west valley, light on high standards every half -mile, on an industrial scale, will flood the adjacent Page 1 of 7 neighborhoods. This light is to be added due to the complex signage every half -mile that goes with paid express lanes. Anyone who drives Highway 85 at this time knows the slow downs and stops along this route have to do with the choke points, intersections which do not work, merges, and the crossover traffic, all of which this proposal will increase. The current worst choke point, with 4 crossovers all in one place, Highway 28o/85 going north in the morning, causing up to a 15 minute delay is not even on the list for future resolution. Other choke points are "to be addressed" sometime in the future. Yet VTA is attempting to crowd more cars on Highway 85 without doing any alternative analysis. See the San Jose Mercury News article at: http:// sanjosemercur�- news.ca.newsmemo ,rte /publink.php ?shareid= 6o6663bio showing the increase in traffic, problems, general delays and frustration on Route 237 when the Express lane was installed. This increase in traffic will result from (1) loss of incentives to carpool and thus more single- occupancy vehicles to carry the same number of people and (2) collecting people from other routes with the promise of a faster commute trip, and (2) people thinking they now can move further from their jobs and commute easily by paying a toll. Saratoga negotiated contracts prior to allowing the building of Highway 85. The contracts were based on environmental work identifying ways to mitigate the considerable environmental damaging aspects of Highway 85. These contracts, with the mitigation incorporated, were signed by parties representing the Transportation Authority (Santa Clara County), and the City of Saratoga with specific provision including: Lanes were to be limited to two regular lanes of traffic each way and one carpool lane each way. This was a firm commitment. It was mitigation based on the EIS. The carpool lane was to reduce trips by taking cars off the road, and in return allow for a faster trip for those who had taken care and time to add passengers. The noise level was promised to be within state prescribed limits for residential uses. To that end the freeway was to be below grade in specific places, surfaces were to be determined for sound absorbing qualities, and sound walls were to be provided. A separate contract was signed between CalTrans and Saratoga restricting trucks on Highway 85. No trucks were allowed on Highway 85 through Saratoga or the west valley. There were to be only local funds used in that corridor because if federal funds are ever used there could be no limits on trucks of Highway 85. For that reason we, the residents paid for it entirely locally with many years of a local sales tax premium. Saratoga resident full access was to be provided to the freeway from Saratoga Page 2 of 7 Avenue including to the carpool lane. The center was to be reserved for light rail when funding for light rail became available. This was so that residents of Saratoga and the west valley cities would eventually have access via some form of public transit to CalTrain, other light rail lines and by links could access the major work centers in Palo Alto and Mountain View, and the greater Bay Area without requiring a car. This center area was NOT for high -speed rail. This contract was violated the first hour the freeway was opened. The deliberately rough, concrete surface used and material used to build the freeway sent noise throughout 1/3 of the city effecting half of the city population (densest areas were more hard hit). The noise level was shocking. It took several years of begging and pleading for money to get the County and CalTrans to work again on noise, but instead of a cover of asphalt paving, they ground down the road surface. (Costs would have been similar.) The noise, though slightly improved, is still unbearable at the current limits and at times of inversions well over the limits. Without this project noise is projected to increase 5 decibels. (Saratoga Noise Element Draft.) With this project, the Negative Declaration says noise will increase 3 decibels. Adding, this is an 8 decibel increase or an increase by a factor of more than ten times. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale. (I hope the diagram will come through with this email, but I will bring it Wednesday if not.) The freeway does not even come close to meeting the noise standards of 65 dBA for residential areas, or the promise of the EIS. Residents have begged desperately for resurfacing with asphalt, but no one has been able to arrange funding for this. Thus the freeway is now out of compliance with California state noise standards, and the Saratoga noise element, the contract with signed with the County Transportation Agency, and the promise of the Saratoga General Plan on the quality of our environment. The freeway is severely degrading our environment in Saratoga, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Campbell and west San Jose. It also degrades the Highway 85 driving environment with the intensity and particular frequency generated against the reflective surfaces, making drivers very tired, and adding to the risk of accidents. The contract was further violated by the traffic monitoring lights put up shortly after the freeway opening limiting Saratoga resident's ability to freely access the freeway, by then already filled up with south San Jose traffic. Then, last year VTA, the State or MTC proposed high -speed rail in the center. When apparently no one wanted high -speed rail, unknown to us, all rail (light or high speed) was shelved entirely. Then, unknown to the majority of Saratoga residents, VTA went to the Page 3 of 7 Saratoga Council January, 16th last year with the concept of "converting" the carpool lane into a high speed express lane as this item was noticed. It is not clear what the council did in respect to that presentation as VTA's intention, only disclosed late in the meeting, has been to ADD paid express lanes and ALSO CONVERT the carpool lanes to paid express lanes. Question: Was the Saratoga Council told Saratoga would have no access to these lanes? Now VTA has rolled out a plan for double paid express lanes ADDITIONS to Highway 85 as well as other freeways in this county, having plans to convert our carpool lane and the light rail reserved space, into two paid express lanes. We were first introduced to this proposal in a public "viewing" January 14, 2014. Comments were to be made within two weeks when we were just barely introduced to this issue. The Negative Declaration does not begin to address the impact of this proposal. There is no EIR, nor apparently any intention to prepare one. Thus no real input will be considered in any formal process. No alternatives will be presented. This is the epitome of poor planning and against State Environmental Law. We continue to sacrifice so much. The Saratoga Council had bent over backwards, against residents interest, to allow this freeway in the first place. At the very least we depended on the County and CalTrans to honor the promise and the actual contract. We had no idea they would not think they have to honor signed contracts. This proposal is a nightmare. Even if we were to like the idea of paid express lanes, they will not serve Saratoga Residents in any way as the entry and exits are nowhere near Saratoga Avenue. They would be entirely closed off for our Saratoga access through the west valley. So what are we west valley residents losing with this proposal so south San Jose Residents and Los Gatos residents can get through Saratoga faster as lone drivers? 1. We get trucks on Highway 85 if any federal funds come in (as the Negative Declaration says they may). Along with the trucks comes a much greater frequency of accidents, much slower traffic and much more noise and air pollution and much more difficult driving for Highway 85 users. 2. More through traffic on more lanes of Highway 85 will go through Saratoga, but we cannot access these lanes. 3. We lose our access to our carpool lane in the west valley. Our accessible lanes go from 3 to 2. 4. Along with the increased traffic we will have even more noise. The Negative Page 4 of 7 Declaration says an additional 3 decibels, (a doubling of current noise levels). 5. Much more neighborhood double -back traffic will go through our streets on the way to and from Winchester and the other limited access points. Local congestion and even more local noise will result. 6. Heavy construction activity and noise through the night for months, maybe years. 7. Even more dust, and more toxic fumes to add to the health damage we already experience due to the increase in traffic and loss of incentives for commuters to buy electric vehicles. 8. Industrial strength light pollution will be introduced to the corridor further disturbing sleep. 9. We paid for the facility with our sales tax money. It is paid for. Now they want to charge for use of part of it. But I believe there was a ballot measure that prohibited just such charges. (More on this as the research continues.) These are just the impacts that are apparent at this time. We have barely begun to do the research into this plan in this short time, so my comments will be expanded and will probably be corrected where necessary as the time for comments on the Negative Declaration approaches. Much research into the past commitments, current and past law, and the current experience with these lanes is required to adequately provide comment to this proposal with very limited time to do this work. How can this proposal serve our communities? We already know it will not. The carpool lane was intended to mitigate the original EIR identified impacts. It is official mitigation. The light rail in the median was in these contracts, also as mitigation for the original EIR impacts. These official mitigations cannot now be summarily changed to allow those south San Jose residents with money to burn, to speed their way bypassing further - constricted regular traffic. The carpool lane must remain as a carpool lane and no additional lanes can built under the contract. Promises were made to each city along the corridor and all cities signed contracts essentially the same as Saratoga's contracts, limiting the number of lanes. Impacts cannot be increased while at the same time removing the formal mitigations. In the west valley, we have the right to public transportation as most every other part of the Bay Area now has, all of it subsidized (by us). The median must be reserved for light rail. Contracts limiting trucks could not be enforced if federal money comes in.. But trucks on Highway 85 would blow to bits any traffic improvements. VTA Page 5 of 7 apparently has ignored all these signed, valid contracts and apparently does not care about the trucks. (Does VTA actually care about the real congestion ?) When it was pointed out by the Cupertino Council that the additional lane would not solve the congestion issues, that the choke points were the main problem, and light rail was promised and should be at long last put in (instead of an additional paid lane and loss of the carpool lane), the VTA spokesperson stated that light rail would require higher density to work. But BART does not require higher density in the residential end of it's lines and it works. It works because it goes from residential areas to work centers. This light rail line would go exactly where needed, unlike most of the other light rail lines in the County, which go to downtown San Jose where relatively few people go. VTA has put forth a Negative Declaration, at first with a deadline for comments just two weeks from the first public introduction to this plan. A Negative Declaration is laughable if it wasn't so serious. This is a project adding two traffic lanes to the existing 6, and increasing traffic by at least 1/4 more on a freeway already out of compliance with the noise standards of the residential areas it passes through. VTA plans on a concrete median barrier such as they have placed on Highway 280 going north. Reverberation of the noise against this barrier can be expected, probably not yet accounted for, especially in the most irritating and physically damaging frequency range. The cost we are told will be $150 Million. Of course a project of that magnitude requires an EIR with serious alternatives honestly investigated. The response to the Negative Declaration was extended after the Cupertino City Council requested an extension and comments are now due February 28, 2014. It is critical that cities stand up and defend the contracts. It is critical that a real EIR be prepared to examine honest alternatives, not to just to look at adding paid express lanes as the only option, but to really look at the promised light rail, and to really present solutions to the choke points which slow and tie up traffic and cause accidents, and address the merging and crossovers which slow traffic and cause accidents, frequently foreclosing movement on the system altogether. Now that there is experience with these paid express lanes as to the increase in traffic they cause, the increased noise they cause, the increase in accidents they cause, the difficulty of policing them or cleaning up accidents, the degradation of the carpool lanes for carpools, and the delay to the whole system they cause, a true EIR is possible and can more accurately account for the impacts. Picture the Highway patrol trying to enforce the law but being restricted to one half of the lanes of the freeway, the other lanes restricted by barriers. Picture an accident in either the express lanes or the regular lanes now requiring necking the Page 6 of 7 freeway to one lane instead of two, with no options to shift traffic across the lanes as can be done as needed now. Accidents, slow drivers, etc. are so frequent these restrictions will make traffic impossible many days. Most important of all, federal funds may cause the loss of the ability to prevent trucks on Highway 85. We will lose way more than any possible or theoretical gain if trucks are allowed. Yet the funding sources listed include the federal government. The deadline for comments on the Negative Declaration is 5:00 PM Friday, February 28, 2014 Please join Cupertino in asking for a real Environmental Impact Report with real alternatives carefully examined. Please join Cupertino in insisting our contracts be honored. The residents of Saratoga have reserved the Community Room of the Saratoga Library to discuss this proposal Tuesday, February 25, 7:00 PM to g:oo PM. Everyone is invited. We hope Council Members will come. If you are unprepared to take action and need more time to examine this issue, set it for another meeting. You can ask VTA for another extension. Yours truly, Cheriel Jensen Page 7 of Monday, February 3, 20141:29:57 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Highway 85 expansion plan Date: Monday, February 3, 2014 1:20:01 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Peter Lam <plam_95134 @yahoo.com> To: Emily Lo <elo @saratoga.ca.us >, Howard Miller <hmiller @saratoga.ca.us >, Manny Cappello <mcappello @saratoga.ca.us >, Chuck Page <cpage @saratoga.ca.us >,1ill Hunter <jhunter @saratoga.ca.us>, City Clerk [Crystal Bothelio] <ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us> Dear Saratoga Council members: My name is Peter Lam and had been a Saratoga residents for the last 13 years. My home at Marilla Drive is directly backed against the sound wall of the highway 85. Over the years, the elevated freeway noise (78 decibel level) had prevent our family as well as our neighbors from going outside our backyard for gathering or any outside activities due to the high level noise pollution from the freeway. This is really ashamed given California has afforded us the pleasant and sunshine weather throughout the years for us to enjoy. Any expansion to the Highway 85 through the corridor of City of Saratoga will make the situation worse, create more bottle neck for the interchanges between Highway 85 & 280 and Highway 85 and 17. Therefore, I respectfully request council members to request VTA and Caltran for a full EIR report for the suggested expansion. Also, the Saratoga City council should not re- negotiate or change to any existing Freeway Agreement between the state & the City of Saratoga signed 1989 between the state & City of Saratoga for the State Highway Route 85 from Prospect Ave to Quito Road. Sincerely, Peter Lam A concerned Saratoga resident. Page 1 of 1 Mark Weisler 13138 Heath Street, Saratoga, California 95070 mark @weisler- saratoga -ca.us Saratoga City Council, Saratoga, California Dear Council Members, 05 February 2014 Saratoga has been my home for over six decades now. I am writing to address the proposed expansion of Route 85 to an.eight lane freeway. Residents of Saratoga trust their elected officials in the form of the City Council to look out for their health and wellbeing including that of their children. There are few matters that affect our health and welfare as much as the installation or expansion of a freeway as such infrastructure can be in place for decades or centuries. I'm concerned about the increase in pollution that would result from adding lanes and traffic signals to Route 85. I request: • A full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) including addressing the topic of pollution. This examination should be refined to include particulate, chemical, gas, noise and light pollution and any other relevant effects from the expansion. I request that the study show the incremental effects from adding the lanes to the freeway. The project proponents want to proceed with the project with only an environmental assessment, but I don't think that is sufficiently rigorous considering the potentially serious effects and long term of the project. I also request that ongoing studies be performed to measure the pollution from the existing freeway to compare actual pollution to the initial project assumptions and agreements about the freeway and that this information be regularly (at least semiannually) conveyed to the public via Saratoga City`Council. • That the existing Route 85 agreement made in 1989 be respected and adhered to. Deviation from this agreement should not take place without explicit citizen and resident approval. • Considering that the project would also establish a mechanism to charge a toll to use roadways we have already paid for, I also request the establishment of a financial review committee appointed by Saratoga City Council to review the financial aspects of the project and that this include sources and uses of funds statements and other appropriate analyses. • I also request a statement of the problem this expansion is intended to address. While it may seem obvious that the expansion is intended to relieve the problem of congested traffic, will we go through this process again in a few years when increased population and traffic again result in congestion? And again a few years after that? I request a process that develops and considers alternatives to adding more paved lanes. _ Sincerely, Mark Weisler FACT SHEET Express Lanes �Siticon t,311e,. ■ % r / /�, EXPRESS LAM" State Route 85 Express Lanes Project Overview The SR 85 express lanes project is within the central corridor of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program being implemented by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). This project will convert approximately 27 miles of existing High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV or carpool) lanes to express lanes. The project will add a second HOV express lane between SR 87 and 1 -280. The project limits are between U.S. 101 in Mountain View and Bailey Avenue on U.S. 101 in south San Jose. The project will also convert the existing HOV direct connector in south San Jose, from U.S. 101 to SR 85, to an express lane connector. Carpools with two or more occupants, motorcycles, transit buses, and clean air vehicles with applicable decals will continue to use the express lanes free of charge. Solo drivers will have the option of paying a toll to use the express lanes during commute hours. Express lanes are a tool to manage congestion by utilizing existing capacity in the HOV lanes. SR 85 Express Lanes access points will accommodate traffic from 1 -280, SR 17, SR 87, SR 237, U.S. 101, and potentially county expressways and other major arterials. SR 85 connects commuters from San Jose, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Saratoga, Campbell, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and Mountain View��' to the technology and professional service industries in Santa Clara Countv. _ ANA 'b �h p� a� `000 `' /00, / I � I• Not to scale Project Funding Partners 47z,:-:M:�rVWl.'Y*Tla'n's,po,rt'ation Authority al 0 O O �D Express lanes are separated from regular lanes by a double white painted buffer. Electronic signs display the current toll for solo drivers with FasTrak. Toll will vary based on the level of congestion in the express lanes and will be adjusted to maintain free - flowing traffic. An overhead antenna reads a FasTrak transponder and the correct toll is automatically deducted from prepaid FasTrak accounts. Continued on back side C'* U S -pcarlr nl of TronspoPc bn ''"0"ou rnu �1 Federal Highway CAW I R,YVSPOR'LAl ION Qrlbaaer %Administration 1— IMIsslns 85 EXP 01/13/14 SAN FRANCISCO A COUNTY BAY COUNT SAN MATEO COUNTY Palo Alto tot Mountain MofleH 86d .. View - Cenlml Ezpw Los Altos 12048288 Project Benefits Sunnyvale b Comim Reel Fremont Ave Santa Clara Homesteod Rd i Stevens Creek Blvd (uperaino sorw sumpole Rd Soretoee Ave Yfi Saratoga SR 4714. Silicon Valley EXPRESS LANES 0 Express Connector 0 Interchanges U.S. tol i SR 85 Express Lanes 0 125 25 5 Mflee San Jose a N I Campbell Union Ave BT 8k ssom Hil Rd Win Rd Ave EXPWY Los Gatos • Increased efficiency of existing roadway: Existing carpool lanes have the available capacity to accommodate more vehicles. More efficient use of existing roadways is accomplished by encouraging transit and carpools, and allowing solo drivers to pay a fee to access the lanes. • Fast, reliable travel: Through the use of dynamic pricing, VTA can manage the amount of traffic in the express lanes and maintain free - flowing speeds even when the general purpose lanes are congested. Motorists who choose to use the express lanes will benefit from reliable travel times. • Revenue reinvested in the corridor: Revenue from tolls would maintain the facility, enhance transit improvements, and provide enforcement by the California Highway Patrol. Schedule Early 2014: Project approval and environmental documents complete Mid 2014: Begin final design pending funding Early 2017: Open express lanes for service pending funding How to Reach Us If you have any questions about the VTA Express Lanes Project, please visit www.vta.org/expresslanes, or call VTKs Community Outreach Department at (408) 321 -7575, (TTY) for the hearing- impaired (408) 321 -2330. You may also e-mail us at community. outreach@vta.org. VTA Mission: VTA provides sustainable, accessible, community focused transportation options that are innovative, environmentally responsible, and promote the vitality of our region. 0 IlSilicon Valley Express Lanes Program A Saratoga City Cou wit,,,- Agenda ■ Background ■ Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program ■ SR 85 Express Lanes � EXPRESS LANES Existing Challenges • Highly urbanized corridor with limited room to widen. • Increased employment and population growth will increase demand. • No dedicated local funding for highways similar to dedicated sales tax for transit. 3 Val TA EXPRESS AM - Congestion Levels in Silicon Valley 1 ►a+nwe SY South County 3 6;, PM - Congestion Levels in Silicon Valley SWth Cow" 1', I 6 A 0' t+ Existing Carpool Lane Network Express Lanes is maximizing efficiency of existing carpool lane network Silicon Valley HOV Lane Network 180 Miles of carpool SAxn valley EXPPESSLAN Silicon Valley 2040 Forecasts Population, Employment and Freeway Capacity Increases (2010-2040) a0•. 35% 30% 75% - 10% 15 %.� 10% 5% 0% -- Popiubwon Jobs Freeway Capacity Source; VTP 2040 7 SI�cm USlkr %� EXPRESS 1..: What are Express Lanes? Express Lanes are converted carpool lanes that offer solo drivers the opportunity to use carpool lanes for a fee. February 2014 8 %/' EXCESS LANkS Why are Express Lanes being developed? • To provide congestion relief through more effective use of existing roadways (e.g., use of existing carpool lanes) • To provide commuters with a new mobility option • To provide a new source of funding for transportation improvements including public transit February 2014 9 ��/ EXPRESS Who can use Express Lanes? CARPOOL USERS Eligible vehicles with two or more people per car (in addition to transit and motorcycles) travel in Express Lanes FREE of charge. SOLO DRIVERS can use Express Lanes for a fee. February 2014 10 4111 r Sdicron Ualiey /� EXVRESS LANES Why drivers use Express Lanes Drivers choose to use Express Lanes for a variety of reasons at different times, but the most reported reasons are: Time Savings Ease of Commute Convenience February 2014 I 1 sir l�lley r� ExvnESS LANES Silicon Valley Express Lanes Progression • Equity Study (2004) • VTA Feasibility Study (2005) • Legislative Approvals (2004,2007,2011) • Conceptual engineering (2006 -2008) • Extensive communication and outreach (2008) • VTA Board approval of Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program (2008) saa Bark 12 rA E' G"W.S LANES How Are Toll Revenues Used? ■ Tolls collected will be used to fund — Operations, maintenance, and enforcement of the lanes — Transportation improvements — including transit ■ Revenue to stay within corridor — AB 2032, AB 574 4 srr�o uai TA .1-.=' SS Fairness — How Everyone Benefits ■ 58% of those surveyed thought that dual use is -W efficient approach (53% ilse ■ All income levels say $75- $125,000 they will use (63% will use) Income level of those who responded x$75,000 (63% will use) that they would get a FasTrak device in the next 5 years: ;�M All drivers 280yo 0% 4 (60% will use) ■Every day ?2% ■0 -$75k ■$76k -$125k ❑$125+ a.So 15 Potential Use of Express Lane by Income Class 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% a 3 days/wk 1 -2 days/wk ■few times/mo ■Not use Where are we now? • Award winning SR 237 Express Lanes Phase 1 • Project cost $11.8 million • FY 2013 gross revenue $1.05 million • Travel time savings up to 15 minutes • Experience operating Express Lanes 16 49.s '� I //7 EIfPRE55 SR 237 Abntbly Total Traffic Volumes & R°rmre -W ,J.— ;�M Mud, $4" a.So 116 —w -Roams '� I //7 EIfPRE55 SR 85 Express Lanes SILICON VALLEY EXPRESS LANES nw� by Valo Alto Mlipbas 1 View Sunnyvale — —L «ai Hiyrways t.tmefvpmsLane � Flane Fvprcss lanes Santa Cliea •. NWn E.W11 lane Alr waed Under LeyMlwion San Jme Cupertino Campbell - �N awn r AMargan Hill, Gdroy February 2014 17 r' I //J EXDFESS LANES Will use of federal funds require allowing trucks on SR 85? ■ No, Federal Funds does not effect ban on trucks ■ In 1988, Caltrans recommended banning of trucks exceeding 9000 pounds and California vehicle code was amended to include this ban ■ Actions by the local agencies and Caltrans would be needed to amend the ban 18 Silicon 1 r� LX�E� Saratoga access to the Express Lanes • Current design provides access hierarchically starting from major freeway interchanges to expressways to major arterials • Access locations should also meet design requirements geometrically and must be operationally feasible • Design Phase — Will study the possibility to increase the length of openings • Future Plan - Open access under study 19 SACm L'a/ley EXPRESS LANES Access to /from Saratoga Avenue and Express Lanes ■ Existing merging distance needed between Saratoga Ave. and carpool lane: 1 mile ■ Northbound — Express Lanes to Saratoga Ave.: 1.2 miles — Saratoga Ave. to Express Lanes: 2.6 miles ■ Southbound — Express Lanes to Saratoga Ave.: 2.4 miles — Saratoga Ave. to Express Lanes: 1.2 miles 20 �Of Lei TA Exvr+ESs Noise level analysis for Saratoga ■ 14 locations within Saratoga modeled for noise levels - Only 2 locations are approaching or exceeding noise abatement criteria - 13 locations had an increase of 1 decibel - 1 location had no increase in decibel - All 14 locations have less than significant impact Environmental Document Available at: htto:)/ tvww /doLCa.eov/distd'emdoes.htm 21 ate, <. ,. Any relief from the bottleneck at I- 280 /SR 85? ■ Not in the near term - SR 85 corridor study between I -280 and SR 237 completed in 2005 identified the following: - major impacts to residential homes to improve I- 280/SR 85 interchange - constraints to add lanes in the Homestead and Fremont area due to existing pedestrian over - crossing ■ 1 -280 two lane off ramp to Foothill Expressway - Design completed. Construction funding pending. zz Vary EXW .. LANES Any relief from the bottleneck at I- 280 /SR 85? ■ Other potential reliefs: — Northbound auxiliary lanes between De Anza Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. (Part of SR 85 Express Lanes) — I -280 corridor study starting later in 2014. Study to re- examine I- 280 /SR 85 interchange. 23 Sil cm vaIkav TA EXPRESS What is the mass transportation plan on SR 85 north of SR 87? • No planned extension of the current light rail system • Express bus service will continue on SR 85 with potential to increase frequency due to Express Lanes revenues 24 TA PRE53 ; T/JSilicon Valley . EXPRESS LANES Thank You! www.vta.org/expressianes CITY OF SARATOGA — February 5, 2014 — City Council Meeting — Public Comment Mayor, City Council Members and fellow residents: My name is Don McIntosh, resident of Saratoga at 1.8910 Twain Court. I am not in favor of building Express Lanes on Hwy 85. My issues are vehicle safety and enforceability of Express Lane traffic law. My concerns come from my experience with highways with these express lanes. My solution is simple: Honor the current Hwy 85 Contracts between the City of Saratoga and VTA(the County) and with Caltrans! ! I am interested to hear a CHP Officer describe how Express Lane traffic law can be enforced. have not seen any enforcement on current Express Lanes. My vehicle safety and enforcement issues are twofold: First, my Express Lane experience is based on Hwy 237. I won't drive in the lane next to the Express Lane due to fear, since —50% of the Express Lane drivers will bolt across the solid double white line without warning to get to an exit. Many commuters access Highway 85 at Saratoga Ave and De Anza Blvd. I expect many of these commuters will access the planned Hwy 85 Express Lanes - double white line or not. The rest of us will be limited to the single, far right lane on Hwy 85 as a precaution. Second, if heavy semi - trucks will now be allowed to use Hwy 85 because of use of Federal funds on this Hwy 85 expansion, I relate to my experience on I -580 eastbound over Altamont Pass. Due to almost exclusive use of the right, two lanes by trucks, regular auto traffic wishing to go 60mph or more will have no available lane on this Highway. If Express Lanes are approved on Hwy 85, the only other lanes available are the truck lanes. With the 18- wheelers passing and driving close to the lane boundaries, auto travel becomes scary, white - knuckle driving. So, Express Lanes are bad. Adding heavy trucks as well becomes an untenable hazard. In summary, approval of Express Lanes on Hwy 85 will mean that safe auto travel will be limited to surface streets, not Hwy 85. Please note that I also share the other resident's concerns about local noise and light pollution. r 'A WOMB Thanks for your consideration, Don McIntosh Statement in Support of Light Rail for California SR -85 John Chen. 12075 Saraglen Drive, Saratoga 2/5/2014 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, my name is John Chen. I have lived just off of Prospect Road (two blocks from SR -85) since 2002. In the past I have commuted to work to Sunnyvale and Redwood City. I currently commute to Mountain View near the Caltrain station. In 2011, I. purchased a Nissan Leaf for purposes of using HOV Ianes, but as congestion in the HOV lanes has increased, I now drive my old SUV on SR -85. Luckily, I am able to exit on the Moffett Blvd and bypass the SR-85/US-1 01 congestion spot adjacent to the Google campus. When the weather is good, I bike the 10 miles each way to work, passing along Foothill Blvd. To go to the ball games at AT &T Park in SF, I take the Caltrain. Last summer for vacation, my family boarded the Amtrak Pacific Coast Starlight to visit Legoland in San Diego. I frequently would like to take public transportation to San Francisco for technology conventions at Moscone Center or for socializing with friends. At the moment the most time - efficient option is to drive to catch the Fremont BART. I would be very happy to catch a light -rail to Caltrain connection if it was in my neighborhood. For a few _years, time- shifting work hours was my best way to use SR -85, especially commuting after 9pm in the morning and after 7pm at night. These days I often experience congestion between gaps of good speed up to 1 I am in the morning and 8pm at night. On SR -85 this happens at DeAnza Blvd, the 280 Interchange, Homestead Rd, the 237 exits, and the 101 interchange near Google. There was a Monday article m the San Jose Mercury News about slowness in the fast lane. t : //c niosemercuZmews ca.newsmemoty comLpubliak phn?shaTeid= 606663b10 I have coworkers who commute from South San Jose. One has recently purchased a Chevy Volt, another coming from Fremont has purchased a Prius plug -in. Both were motivated by the availability of the green HOV sticker for their vehicles. Since 2011 in my Nissan Lea£, I can surely say that my commute in the HOV lane has seen lane speeds drop to parity with the other lanes. This has happened within the span of 2.5 years. I have a feeling that at new HOT will eventually become congested again due to the increased popularity of EVs and plug -in hybrids. Here's a link to an article in San Jose Mercury about electric car sales at an all -time high. hU: //Nvwwmercur3mews com/ business /ci_24714433 /electric -car- sales- have - banner - year -but- overall In 2013 some data points for US EV sales are: 1) Nissan Leaf: 22,000 2) Chevy Volt: more than 21,000 3) Tesla Model S: at least 21,500 Sam On', executive vice president of the Electrification Coalition, a nonpartisan advocacy group, notes that plug -in electric vehicles are just in their third year. "There are now 17 models on the market," Orsi says. "It's not just the Volt and the Leaf." While US EV sales are a tiny fraction of the 15M in total vehicle sales, they impact HOV lanes more due to their preferential treatment in California HOV lanes. Both white and green stickers are valid until 2019. 1. also have doubts about revenue generating potential of HOT lanes. Here's an article in the Atlantic Cities web page about the struggle of HOT lanes for generating revenue. bJWm//wmnL, theat anticcities com /commute /2013/06 /why- are -hat- lanes- stniggling- make- money/6000/ Saratoga is a great community with great people. Much of that comes from people who care about preserving one of the best aspects of the city, which is its historic character. With super - congestion developing along SR -85, I believe we are approaching the point of convergence for the success of light rail. Why not build southward from the .Mountain View Caltrain establishing a station at DeAnza College. The distance is only 6 miles and the project should certainly cost less than the HOT lane. It would connect high density development in Cupertino to rail and relieve congestion along its route. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, I strongly urge you to: 1) Request a full Environmental Impact Report for the State Route 85 Express Lanes Project and for future projects along the 85 corridor 2) Implement the current performance contract which records that a 6-lane freeway with light rail in the center. 3) Suggest to VTA to build a light rail line from Mountain View Caltrain to DeAnza College in Cupertino. The West Valley has been traditionally under -served by mass transit funding. With the additional .HOT lanes, what Saratoga residents get is: - increased air pollution - increased noise pollution - increased light pollution - increased stress - decreased health quality With a. light -rail station in Cupertino at DeAnza College, Saratoga residents - won't have to drive to Mountain View or Sunnvvale to ride the Caltrain - would benefit by having less development in Saratoga, preserving its historic character - will keep open a light -rail extension further south to further reduce congestion on SR -85 - most of all, we will finally get a more equitable share of transit spending from Measure A sales tax extension in 2000. Thank vou. Questions for the VTA concerning HWY 85 Conversion to Expressway: EIR: A comprehensive, detailed EIR offering alternatives must be completed before work begins on this massive project with full disclosure to all the residents in the 85 corridor and enough time allotted for us to evaluate the effect the dit oval lanes will have on residents, schools, and parks along the corridor. What will you do to mitigate the noise, which is already above acceptable standards? What about the air pollution this will exacerbate? Light standards: Where will they be placed? How tall will the standards be? How will you mitigate light shining into back yards? Where will the money come from? Will we have any say in how this is financed? How can we be assured there will be NO Federal funds thus avoiding trucks being allowed to use 85 as was agreed in the original valid contract? How will this benefit Saratoga residents? How many miles will Saratoga residents have to travel to access the express lanes? What happens after Feb. 28, when the `discussions' are over? Will Caltrans /VTA go ahead with the project over citizen's objections? What will the next phase to relieve traffic congestion loo�jike after Apple, Netflix, and Main Street open? Netflix plans to build a 35 foots arking garage, on their property at 85 and Winchester. Main Street will have a hotel, restaurant, retail, and office spaces as well as an athletic club and residential apartments at the Stevens Creek /Vallco location. Apple will have 8,255 parking spaces. Finally, what about the bottleneck at 280 /85 /Foothill? If the VTA is serious about reducing congestion on 85, then the logical place to start is where the congestion occurs: at the 280 /85 /Foothill bottleneck. Adding extra lanes only adds more confusion as drivers struggle to merge into the lane that will get them where they need to go. (See "Solo drivers stew as fast turns slow" by Gary Richards, Mercury News, Monday, Feb. 3, 2014, page 1.) Donna Poppenhagen 12487 Fredericksburg Dr. Saratoga, CA Note to Council: This ill- advised project will affect the quality of life and property values of all our residents and once it's in, it's in to stay. 4/5/14 Statement of Cheriel Jensen RE: Highway 85 express lanes plan. The citizens of Saratoga invite everyone to a meeting Tuesday, February 25, at 7:00 PM in the Community Room of the Saratoga Library. We hope more people will become acquainted with this proposal as most residents do not know about this. We need to be able to discuss it together as a community. These HOV lanes are working as they should to take vehicles off the road and to reduce noise, dust and chemical pollution. They are official mitigation based on EIS findings for the enormous impacts of this highway every day. Reservation for light rail was also official mitigation. Loss of that option, forever dooms the west valley to no real transit alternatives ever. If the purpose is just more use of the HOV lane as this internally inconsistent document says. Page 1 -4, it does not take a $150 million dollar project to do this. All it takes is to allow more 50 mpg vehicles in the carpool lane, simply a bit of paperwork. The primary pollutants produced by traffic are carbon monoxide which directly kills brain cells and other body cells, sulfur oxides, nitric oxides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which include recognized carcinogens and also interfere with immune, kidney and liver functions, particulates (PM 10's to PM 2.5s), which concentrate these listed pollutants for entry into the lungs. The pattern for these pollutants looks pretty much like the noise patterns you see on your draft Noise Element, except that they also sweep greater distances and poison the entire west valley. It is wrong and a violation of the trust we have placed in you to further impact your citizens with more noise, more pollutants, more traffic on our city streets, so south San Jose residents can speed by us. Your job as a council is to protect your residents health and protect us from such damaging plans. We already know from the 237 experience that congestion becomes even worse with these lanes. Stand by the contract. Ask for a full EIR with proper alternative analysis. http: / /www.google.com /search ?q = decibel + scale &client= safari &sa= X &rls= en &tbm =isch &source= iu &imgil= 3Kb - IaagggwvnM %253A% 253Bhttp %253A %252F %252Ft2.gstatic.com %252Fimages %253Fq %253Dtbn %253AANd9GcTv211 M650DUY774BHP06Y9F50doRHB10yV14XnlBcIF8TdwUby %253B272 %253B364 %253Bs4irZu Nt5BUeI M %253Bhttp %25253A %25252F %25252Fwww. phys. unsw. edu. au %25252F~jw %25252FdB.html &ei =W- vl UsaM LpC IogSO81KABA &ved= OCCcQ9QEwAA &biw= 1362 &bih= 879#facrc= _ &imgd ii= 3Kb - IaagggwvnM% 3A% 3BZC- uMOp7tXEOFM %3B3Kb- IaagggwvnM %3A &imgrc= 3Kb - IaagggwvnM %253A %3Bs4irZuNt5BUeIM %3Bhttp %253A %252F % 252Fwww . animations. physics. unsw.edu.au %252Fjw %252Fimages %252Fd6 —files %252FLI.gif% 3Bhttp %253A %252F %252Fwww. phys. unsw.edu. au %252Fjw %252FdB. html %3B272 %3B364 dB Difference in 10 Sound intensity level 5 ♦ twice the power gives + 3 dB 10 times the power gives + 10 dB 0 ♦ 5 10 15 same power P2 gives 0 dB difference ♦ one half the power pi gives — 3 dB Poorer -5 P2 P1 -10 / one tenth the power gives — 10 dB February 5, 2014 Dear Mayor Lo, Council and Staff, I am here tonight to discuss noise regarding 2 additional lanes to Route 85. With the current six lanes, the proposed (2) additional Toll lanes and the proposed Auxiliary lanes per VTA 2035 Plan, this will amount to 10 lanes of traffic on 85 through Saratoga. Whether this be an additional 2 lanes or more lanes, noise will increase in the corridor. Saratoga's 1988 Noise ordinance indicated freeway design would mitigate noise to 60dBA. The day the freeway opened it far exceeded that. Saratoga's recent noise study indicates Route 85 noise levels of 67 -71dBA measured at 100'. Try having your windows open and sleeping with that The distance measured is significant as all the other noise measurements in Saratoga were conducted at 50'. VTA's assessment of SR85 freeway noise indicates noise levels to be 61 -67dBA and expects it to increase above 3dBA. In fact, if you look at the E!A Noise Level document from VTA vs. Saratoga's Noise Measurement Document, VTA's document basically indicates that the Freeway is quieter than our city Streets over a 24 hour period. This is hard to believe and completely laughable. Sound will be further amplified depending on weather conditions as well as the addition of a cement barrier in the freeway center. A 10 dBA increase in the level of continuous noise is the perceived doubling of loudness. Remember, the original design was to be at an acceptable 60 dBA. And today is recorded up to 71dBA. A recent FIR references the health affects of sound at 75 dBA or higher to include increased tensions, blood pressure, etc. Congresses 1972 Noise Control Act indicated that sound should be below 70dBA to protect against hearing loss. Our city noise study shows current Highway 85 levels measured at 100' to 71db. What is it at 50 ft? And VTA states it will rise. I am here tonight speaking as a resident who loves my city. If these additional lanes go through, this bedroom community had better be handing out industrial strength earplugs. The backup at 280/85N will not be fixed. The additional lanes through Saratoga do nothing to benefit this city's residences. How can you accept this E/A when the Neg Dec and Summary only refer to HOV conversion not an additional 2 lanes. I ask this council to: 1. Request a Full EIR to provide for mitigation of noise, air quality, and light as well as alternative plans. 2. Enforce the performance agreement. 3. Ask VTA for a responsible solution with longevity. This freeway already has considerable impact on this city. This is not a tree, a house, or a neighborhood affected. How you vote tonight and what questions you raise will affect every resident and Saratoga forever. 1� q PdA HIGHWAY CONSTRAINED PROJECT LIST H2 PROJECT VTP SPONSOR/ to PROJECT TITLE LOCATION H1 S4 85 Express lanes: US lot (South Mountain. View, Los San Jose to Mountain View) — Convert Altos, Sunnwale, existing HOV lanes on SR 85 to express Cupertino, Saratoga, lanes Campbell, Los Gatos View, Sunnyvale, and San Jose H2 SR 87 Express lanes: SR 85 to US San Jose tot (Conversion) — Convert HOV lane to express lane. H3 US Ioi Express Lanes: San Mateo Palo Alto, Mountain Countyline to SR 85 in Mountain View View, Sunnyvale, (Conversion)— Convert existing HOV lanes Santa Clara, San to express Lanes on US lot from the San Jose Mateo County line to SR 85 in Mountain View. H4 US ioi Express Lanes: SR 85 (San San Jose, Morgan Jose) to Cochrane Rd. (Conversion)— Hill, Santa Clara Convert existing HOV lanes to express lanes County on US ioi from SR 85 in South San .lose to Cochrane Rd. in Morgan Hill. HS US iot Express Lanes: SR 85 in Palo Alto, Mountain Mountain View to SR 85 in San Jose View, Sunnyvale, (Conversion) — Convert existing HOV lanes Santa Clara, San to express lanes on US lol between SR 85 Jose Mountain View and SR 85 in San Jose. H6 US 1oi HOV /Ex-press Lanes: Cochrane Morgan Hill, Santa Rd. to Masten Ave. —Build HOV /express Clara County lanes on US im from Cochrane Rd. tq Masten Ave. H7 US ioi HOV /Express Lanes: Masten Gilroy, Santa Clara Ave. to loth St. —Build HOV /express lanes County on US loi from Masten Ave. to zoth St. in Gilroy. HS . US zoi HOV /Express Lanes: loth St. to Gilroy, Santa Clara SR 25 —Build HOV /express lane on US tol County between loth St and SR 25 in Gilroy. TOTAL PROJECT COST l'os St++ILUONS) $30.0 $12.0 $23.0 $90.0 $93.0 $59.0 $43.0 VTF kLLOCATION IJ v0s stmWot4sj 5 "_.o $12.[, $9o.0 S03.0 5 .g.o $413.0 VTP " ID .' PROJECT TITLE:.: H81 SR 85/ EI Camino Real Interchange ' Improvement —SR 85 auxiliary lanes - AL-LOCATIO,N between El Camino Real and SR 237, : r08 4MIW014S) and SR 85/M Camino Real interchange Mountain Yew improvements. H82 SR 85 Northbound AwdUary Lanes from North of Winchester Blvd. to Saratoga Ave. — Proposes auxiliary lanes from Saratoga Ave. to Winchester Blvd. on SR 85 in both directions along with related TOS improvements. H83 US 101 Northbound AuuUary Lane Widening: Tennant Ave. to Dunne Ante.— Auxiliary lane widening on US ion between Tennant Ave. and.Dunne Ave. in Morgan Hill. H84 US ion Southbound AbAliary Lane Widening. Tennant Ave. to Dunne Ave. — Auxiliary lane widening on US 101 . Southbound between Telinant Ave. and Dunne Ave. ■ ■ ® APPENDIX A H85 I- 680/Mont2gue Expwy- Interchange Improvement -- Construct partial clover- leaf interchange at I-68o and Montague Expwy. including improvements on Montague Expwy. H86 SR 85 AuAliary Lanes: Homestead Ave. to Fremont Ave. — Creates SR 85 northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes between Homestead Ave. and Fremont Ave. Saratoga, San Jose, Campbell, Los Gatos Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County $18.0 $11.0 Morgan Hill, Santa $11.0 Clara County San Jose (Santa $18.0 Clara County) Sunnyvale, $22.0 Cupertino H87. US ion AuxMary Lane Widenings: San Jose, Santa Trimble Rd. to Montague Expwy.— Clara Widen US 1o1 for northbound and south- bound auxiliary lane from Trimble Rd. to Montague Expiry. $12.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 N vA118:v TDAMCPnoTAT1nN P1AN 7035 1 181 TOTAL - PROJECT.:' PROJECT'.~ VTP ' COST - AL-LOCATIO,N .SPONSOR/ LOCATION : r08 4MIW014S) 08401WONS) Mountain Yew $21.0 $0.0 H85 I- 680/Mont2gue Expwy- Interchange Improvement -- Construct partial clover- leaf interchange at I-68o and Montague Expwy. including improvements on Montague Expwy. H86 SR 85 AuAliary Lanes: Homestead Ave. to Fremont Ave. — Creates SR 85 northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes between Homestead Ave. and Fremont Ave. Saratoga, San Jose, Campbell, Los Gatos Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County $18.0 $11.0 Morgan Hill, Santa $11.0 Clara County San Jose (Santa $18.0 Clara County) Sunnyvale, $22.0 Cupertino H87. US ion AuxMary Lane Widenings: San Jose, Santa Trimble Rd. to Montague Expwy.— Clara Widen US 1o1 for northbound and south- bound auxiliary lane from Trimble Rd. to Montague Expiry. $12.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 N vA118:v TDAMCPnoTAT1nN P1AN 7035 1 181 ai�'ii&.:r7,i:LL7L Ir', r w.i � ti• �,N� .�'.- "TM �4.et��A.S�_ y raa:,tc �;�. l.Nx .1... Gi' ";"c ,6Y:r��n� ^iu: rtrx - H88 SR 85 Northbound Auxiliary Lanes Cupertino, San Jose from Stevens Creels Blvd. to Saratoga/ Sunnyvale Road — Constructs auxiliary lanes on northbound and southbound SR 85 between Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. and related TOS improvements. H89 I -280 Northbound Saratoga Ave. - San Jose Connect Auxiliary Lanes to Complete Fourth Lane— Connect auxiliary lanes to complete fourth lane on northbound I -280 at Saratoga Ave. H90 SR 85 Southbound Awaliaay Lanes Saratoga, San Jose, from North of Winchester Blvd. to Campbell, Los Gatos Saratoga Ave. — Proposes auxiliary lanes from Saratoga Ave. to Winchester Blvd. on SR 85 in northbound and southbound direc- tions along with related TOS improvements. H91 US aoi Southbound Braided Ramps San Jose between. Capitol Eapwy. and Yerba Buena Rd. —Adds a braided ramp onto southbound lot between Capitol Expwy. and Yerba Buena Rd. Includes improvements at Capitol Expwy. interchange. H92 SR 237 Eastbound to Mathilda Ave. Sunnyvale Flyover Off-Ramp—Convert north side of northbound US lol at Mathilda Ave. interchange to partial cloverleaf. Remove Northbound US iii loop ramp to southbound Mathilda Ave. Add diagonal ramp from southbound Mathilda Ave. to northbound US ioi; add auxiliary lane on northbound US iii between Mathilda Ave. and SR 237. Remove Mathilda Ave. on -ramp to westbound SR 237. 182 1 VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY $15.0 $20:0 $18.0 $24.0 $20.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 VTP :ID - H93 H94 H95 H9b H97 H98 ® ® APPENDIX A US ioi Southbound Auxiliary Lane Gilroy $21.0 $0.0 'TOTAL. - PROJECT : :PROJECT VTP lane from loth St. to Leavesley Rd. SPONSOR/ . - COST ALLOCATION PROJECT TITLE _ LOCATION (108 $M wbm) 1108 $niuwoMl SR 237 Westbound to Southbound SR Mountain View $37.0 $0.0 85 Connector Ramp Improvements ramp with the southbound SR 85 to north- (including SR 85 awnliary lanes US ioi Northbound Braided Ramps between El Camino Real and SR between Capitol Expwy. and Yerba 237)— Construct a collector /distributor road northbound US ioi between Capitol Expwy. in the westbound direction on SR 237 from and Yerba Buena Rd., including improve- the Central Expwy. overcrossing to SR 85. SR 85 Northbound /Southbound Widen off -ramp from westbound Awdliary Lanes from Saratoga - SR 237 to southbound SR 85 to two lanes. — Proposes auxiliary lanes from Saratoga - Add auxiliary lane in the southbound direc- Sunnyvale Rd. to Saratoga Ave. on SR 85 tion between SR 237 and the El Camino Real along with related TbS improvements. interchange on SR 85. ' US ioi Northbound Auxiliary Lane Gilroy $20.0 $0.0 Widening: ioth St. to Leavesley Rd.— - US ioi northbound widening of auxiliary lane between loth St. and Leavesley Rd. in Gilroy. US ioi Southbound Auxiliary Lane Gilroy $21.0 $0.0 widening: Loth St. to Leavesley Rd.— - US ioi southbound widening of the awdliary - lane from loth St. to Leavesley Rd. I -28o Northbound Braided Ramps Cupertino, Los Altos $40.0 $0.0 between Foothill Expwy. and SR 85— Reconfigures the existing I -28o northbound off- ramp to Foothill Expwy. into a braided ramp with the southbound SR 85 to north- bound I -28o direct connector. US ioi Northbound Braided Ramps San Jose $24.0 $0.0 between Capitol Expwy. and Yerba Buena Rd. —Adds a braided ramp onto northbound US ioi between Capitol Expwy. and Yerba Buena Rd., including improve- ments at the Capitol Expwy. interchange. SR 85 Northbound /Southbound San Jose, Saratoga $37.0 $0.0 Awdliary Lanes from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. to Saratoga Ave. — Proposes auxiliary lanes from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. to Saratoga Ave. on SR 85 in northbound and southbound directions, along with related TbS improvements. uA 11 CV TO A AICD^DTAT1f1A1 DI AKI OA4S 1 1Qn — Alameda County Transportation vement Authority A special govern - ;envy authorized by State law and by the voters of Alameda County to a half -cent sales tax and use the money ,ecific list of transportation projects )grams in Alameda County. - Americans with Disabilities Act y 26, 199o, ADA was signed into law, ng public transit systems to make :rvices fully accessible to persons with ities as well as to underwrite a parallel -k of paratransit service for those who able to use the regular transit system. ition, VTA must meet the new ADA ibility design guidelines for all newly acted transit facilities such as light rail ►s, bus stops and transit centers. All pro- ent of bus and rail vehicles must also he ADA accessibility design guidelines. — Administration and Finance nittee A standing committee of the VIA Mews policy recommendations pertain - the general administration of VTA. Alternative Planning Strategies — American Public Transportation ry �— Advanced Traffic Management !m ATMS is a category of intelligent )ortation systems that focuses on the mment of traffic. It typically includes metering, traffic management centers s), HOV lanes, integrated corridor ®� ® APPENDIX F management, CCI'Vs, arterial management and /or incident man ze Auxiliary Lanes A lane from one on -ramp to the next off -ramp to allow vehicles coming on the freeway or getting off the freeway to have more time to merge with the through lanes. These lanes are often installed for safety purposes (reduce merging accidents). AVL— Automated Vehicle Location AVL is the use of electronic technologies to allow fleet managers to know where vehicles are located at a given time. Several different types of AVL technologies exist. The Department of Defense's Global Positioning System (GPS) is the basis for several recent transit industry AVL projects• In addition to its primary use by transit dispatchers and supervisors, AVL can be linked into other systems and used to pro- vide real -time arrival information for transit customers, to support paratransit services and for a variety of other applications. BAAQMD• —Bay Area Air Quality Management District The regional agency created by the State legislature for the Bay Area air basin (Alameda, Contra Costa, half of Solano, half of Sonoma, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara coun- ties) that develops, in conjunction with MTC and ABAG, the air quality plan for the region. BAAQMD has an active role in approving the TCM plan for the region, as well as in control- ling stationary and indirect sources of air pollution. VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2035 1 247 City of Saratoga Noise Element Background Report /Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures that the freeway can pass under it depressed about twelve feet. g. A pedestrian overcrossing will be provided between Blue Hills School and Kevin Moran Park. h. Extensive soundwalls will be provided throughout the length of the freeway to reduce noise. Walls will be built as early as possible during the construction process. i. Medium and heavy trucks will not be permitted on the freeway. j. No interchanges will be built in Saratoga. k. The entire section of the freeway from Interstate Route 280 to State Highway 17 will be open to traffic at the same time to prevent partial openings which could divert freeway traffic onto Saratoga surface streets. I. Funding to complete the entire project is provided by the Traffic Authority Strategic Plan. m. Construction hours will be limited to comply with local ordinances (7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in Saratoga). The negotiated freeway design would mitigate traffic noise to acceptable noise levels (60 dBA) for residential and open space land use in Saratoga along the r 3. Saratoga Avenue — Saratoga Avenue is a major two to four -lane arterial leading into the City from the north. The land use along the street is Community Planning Consultants Echrard L. Pack Associates. Inc. predominantly residential, and it provides access to churches and schools. Should the two -lane portion from Fruitvale Avenue into the village be improved in the future, noise mitigation measures would be required in view of residential land uses and the traffic volumes. The 60 dBA contour is at 172 feet from centerline. 4. Fruitvale Avenue — Fruitvale Avenue is a two and four -lane arterial providing access to the Civic Center, Redwood School, West Valley College and the 100F Home. The 60 dBA contour is at 176 feet from centerline. 5. Allendale Avenue — Allendale Avenue provides a connection between Fruitvale Avenue and Quito Road. The land use is predominately residential with the exception of West Valley College and two churches. This street is two -lanes in its easterly section. The 60 dBA contour is at 26 -feet from centerline. 6. Cox Avenue — Cox Avenue is a two -lane arterial between Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Quito Road. Cox Avenue intersects with the Southern Pacific Railroad Line, the West Valley Corridor, and Saratoga Avenue. This residential street has its 60 dBA contour located at 87 feet from centerline. 7. Quito Road — Quito Road is an arterial street of varying improvement standards leading from Saratoga Avenue to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. The land use is single family residential, in both suburban and rural in character. The heavier traffic portion of Quito Road shows the 60 dBA contour at 235 feet. Page 8 Notes:• DRAFT Noise Element TABLE NE -1: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS AND RESULTS Unless noted, DNL w1ves are nonnali&W 1n a measurement dwanae of 50 &W from the madlway centerline 'L7 -and Sr Mng4&m and shaft -term measurement /a bons, reVftVw* data_ DNL at aiwrt -term movement locations are estimated based on comparison Wth long-term Source: 6barlesS#terAsoociahEs, 2013 Page 9 ig December 2013 DNL at 50 feet Location' L�ocabion Description From Centerline No: Along Prospect Road between Saratoga- 70 d6 1 Sunnyvale Road and Miller Avenue Saratoga - Sunnyvale between Prospect Road 71 d6 ST -2 and Cox Avenue Saratoga - Sunnyvale between Cox Avenue. 70 d6 LT-3 and Saratoga Avenue Cox Avenue between Saratoga- Sunnyvale 66 d6 S.-4 Road and Saratoga Avenue Saratoga Avenue between Cox Avenue and 72 d6 LT-5 Highway 85 Avenue between Fruitvale Avenue 68 d6 ST-6 and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Big Basin Way. between Saratoga - Sunnyvale 68 dB LT-7 Road and Pierce. Road -Quito Road between Saratoga Avenue and 68 dB 8 Allendale Avenue -9 -Los Gatos Road between Saratoga 67 d6 S. ...Saratoga .Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga -Los Gatos Road between Fruitvale 71 d6 LT -10 Avenue and QuibD Road At nomina Highway 85 between Prospect Road and 100 -foot distance: LT-11 Cox Avenue 67 to 71 dB with barrier shielding At nominal Along railway between Saratoga -Sunnyvale 100 -foot distance: LT-12 Road and Cox Avenue 56 d6 Unless noted, DNL w1ves are nonnali&W 1n a measurement dwanae of 50 &W from the madlway centerline 'L7 -and Sr Mng4&m and shaft -term measurement /a bons, reVftVw* data_ DNL at aiwrt -term movement locations are estimated based on comparison Wth long-term Source: 6barlesS#terAsoociahEs, 2013 Page 9 ig December 2013 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Notes: Shaded cells Indicate that wall height does not meet the MB noise reduction goal and Is therefore not considered reasonable. ST-31 is already protected by a 1 6-foot sound wall; therefore, a replacement wall was not considered. For ST -34 and ST -36, predicted noise levels with the project and with abatement assume a 2 dBA Increase In traffic noise from the proposed auxiliary lane on northbound SR Sb between South De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (URS 2013n). — Already protected by 14 -foot sound wall , — Already protected by 11- to 12 -foot sound wall ° — Already protected by 12 -toot sound wall NA — Not applicable; noise reduction goal not met, so construction cost not estimated ,wawa. Shaded cells Indicate that wall height does not meet the 7d8 noise reduction goal ana is ° — Already protected by 12 -foot sound wall NA — Not applicable; noise reduction goal not met, so construction cost not estimated SR 85 Express Lanes Protect 2 -100 December 2013 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The locations that are predicted to approach or exceed the NAC are described below and depicted in Appendix A: • Single - family residences'located west of SR 85 between West Fremont Avenue and Homestead Road (ST -23, ST -24, and ST -25). A 12- to 16 -foot noise barrier shields ST -23, ST -24, and ST -25. Noise abatement in the form of replacement sound walls was considered for this area. Segment 5: SR 85—I -280 to South De Anza Boulevard. This segment contains residences (Category B); Mary Avenue Park, De Anza College, the Child Development Center at the south end of Campus Drive, and Orogmnde Place Park (Category C); and the Home of Christ Church (Category D). Y The locations that are predicted to approach or exceed the NAC are described below and depicted in Appendix A: • First -row2o single and multi - family residences located east of SR 85 between 1 -280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard (ST -31); • De Anza College (ST -34 and ST -36); • First -row single- family residenceslocated north of South Stelling Road to the east (ST- 40) and west of SR 85 (ST -38 and ST -39); and • First -row single and multi - family. homes located west of SR 85 and north of South De Anza Boulevard (ST-42 and ST -44). A 16 -foot noise barrier shields ST -3I No noise barriers currently shield ST -34 or ST -36. A 10.5- to 12 -foot barrier shields ST-40; a 12 to 14 -foot noise barrier shields ST -38 and ST- 39; and a 12 -foot noise barrier shields ST-42 and ST-44. Noise abatement in the form of new and replacement sound walls was considered for these Segment 6: SR 85-- .South De Anza Boulevard to Saratoga Avenue. This segment contains residences (Category B) as well as Kevin Moran Park and Congress Springs Park (Category Q. The locations that are predicted to approach or exceed the NAC are described below and .depicted in Appendix A: • First -row residences located east of SR 85 between Prospect Road and.Saratoga Avenue (LT -5, ST -53, and ST -55); and • First -row residences located east of SR 85 between South De Anza Boulevard and Prospect Road (ST -43). A 14 -foot noise barrier shields LT -5, and 12 -foot noise barriers shield ST -53, ST -55, and ST -43. Noise abatement in the form of replacement sound walls was considered for these areas. 20 The first row of structures from the noise sources being studied, in this case, SR 85 and US 101. SR 85 Express Lanes Project 2-94 December 2013 dB 10 5 0 -5 Difference in Sound imensity level twine the power gives + 3 dB t� 5 same power gives 0 dB difference one half the power gives — 3 dB 10 times the power gives + 10 dB 10 -101 one tenth the power gives — 10 dB Power F2 Fi 15 P2 Fi SCH: 4- SCL -8543M O.Ol 824.1 4-SCL- 101 -PM 23.1/28.6 4-SCL -101 -PM 47.9/52.0 4A7900/0400001163 11& Construct express SR 85 from US 10"n MoUllain View to US 101 in San Jose (Post Miles 0.0 to R24. i) and a SR Bra ir>renitarvge in San Jose to Metcalf Road (Post Mites 25.3 to 26.8); and construct advance notification signs on portions of US 101 in Palo Alto and Mountain Vey„ (Post Miles 47.9 to 52.0) and San Jose (Post Miles 23.1 to 28.6). Initial Study with Proposed Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment Date of Approval Submitted Pursuant to: (State) Division 13, CaNfomie Public Resources Code (Federal) 42 USC 4332(2)(C) THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation Cooperating Agencies: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority I ,z Bija Sari District Director California Department of Transportation NEPA and CEQA Lead Agency The follovn^g person may be contacted for more information about this document Cristin Hallissy Branch Chief California Department of Transportation. District 4 111 Grand Avenue Oaldand, CA 94612 510-622 -8717 Proposed Negative Declaration Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code Project Description SCH: The California Department of Transportation (Department), in cooperation with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), proposes to convert the existing High - Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on State Route (SR) 85 to express lanes. Use of the HOV lanes is currently restricted to vehicles with two or more occupants, motorcycles, and certain alternative fuel vehicles. The conversion of the HOV lanes to express lanes would allow single- occupant vehicles (SOVs) to pay a toll to use the lanes, while HOVs would continue to use the lanes for free. The express lanes would extend along the entire 24.1 -mile length of SR 85 and 1.5 miles of United States Highway 101 (US 101) from the southern end of SR 85 to Metcalf Road in San Jose. The project would also convert the SR 85/US 101 HOV direct connectors in San Jose to express lane connectors, add signs to 4.1 miles of US 101 north of SR 85 in Mountain View and Palo Alto and to 1.8 miles of US 101 between Metcalf Road and Bailey Avenue in San Jose, and add an auxiliary lane to a 1.1 -mile segment of northbound SR 85 between South De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino. The total project length is 33.7 miles. Determination This proposed Negative Declaration (ND) is included to give notice to interested agencies and the public that it is the Department's intent to adopt an ND for this project. This does not mean that the Department's decision regarding the project is final. This ND is subject to change based on comments received by interested agencies and the public. The Department has prepared an Initial Study (IS) for this project, and pending public review, expects to determine from this study that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: The proposed project would have no effect on agricultural and forest resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, public services, and recreation. In addition, the proposed project would have less than significant effects on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontology, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems. Melanie Brent Deputy District Director Environmental Planning and Engineering District 4 California Department of Transportation Date Summary Summary The California Department of Transportation (Department), in cooperation with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (WA), proposes to convert the existing High - Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on State Route (SR) 85 to express lanes. Use of the HOV lanes is currently restricted to vehicles with two or more occupants, motorcycles, and certain alternative fuel vehicles. The conversion of the HOV lanes to express lanes would allow single- occupant vehicles (SOVs) to pay a toll to use the lanes, while HOVs would continue to use the lanes for free. The express lanes would extend along the entire 24.1 -mile length of SR 85 and 1.5 miles of United States Highway 101 (US 101) from the southern end of SR 85 to Metcalf Road in San Jose. The project would also convert the SR 85/US 101 HOV direct connectors in San Jose to express lane connectors, add signs to 4.1 miles of US 101 north of SR 85 in Mountain View and Palo Alto and to 1.8 miles of US 101 between Metcalf Road and Bailey Avenue in San Jose, and add an auxiliary lane to a 1.1 -mile segment of northbound SR 85 between South De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino. The total project length is 33.7 miles. The Department is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) lead agency per assignment of responsibilities by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) pursuant to Title 23, United States Code (USC), Section 327. The Department is also the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency for the project. The project is proposed in cooperation with VTA, which is responsible for providing regional funding. The purpose of the project is to manage traffic in the congested HOV segments of the freeway between SR 87 and I -280, and maintain consistency with provisions defined in Assembly Bill 2032 (2004) and Assembly Bill 574 (2007) to implement express lanes in an HOV lane system in Santa Clara County. This Initial Study /Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) addresses the proposed project's potential to have adverse impacts on the environment. Potential impacts and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are summarized in Table S -1. Table S -1: Summary of Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Affected Resource Pond 6npoct Avoidance, MirtirtaaHon, andlor MkWadon Assures No Brad Alliemadve Budd All ernalive Land Use None_ None. The project would not change or None required. conflict with e)dsfing land use designations or parkland. Growth None. None_ The proposed project would not None required. substanfially change roadway may. provide new access to previously finable areas, or improve access in ways that would foster local development beyond that which is already planned. Farmlands/ None, None. The project would not convert or None required. Timberlands conflict with zoning for farmlands or timberlands. SR 85 Exprew Lanes project i December 2013 Palo Alto 101 O N= Mountain Mi View Sunnyvale 101 Las Altos Santo Cloro Cupertino Campbel{ Saratoga CA* n T/'Los Gatos r WHAT'S BEING PLANNED: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in cooperation with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), is propos- ing to cgagilLthe existing High - Occupancy Vehicle OV) lanes on State Route (SR) 85 to express lanes. The express lanes would allow HOVs to continue to use the lanes without cost and eligible singular occupant vehicles to pay a toll. WHY THIS AD: Caltrans and VTA have studied the effects this project may have on the environment. The studies show that it will not significantly affect the quality of the environment; the report that explains why is called a Draft Initial Study /Environmental Assessment with proposed Negative Declaration (IS /EA). This notice is to inform you of its availability for review, the comment period, and the upcoming public open house meetings. WHAT'S AVAILABLE: The Draft IS/EA is available for public review online at: www .dot.ca.gov/dist4/envdocs.htm and at the following locations during regular business hours: Caltrans District 4, 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612 VTA, 3331 N. First Street, Building B Lobby, San Jose, CA 95134 Various libraries — call Roy Molseed at (408) 321 -5784 for locations or see website above. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration. Notice of Availability of Draft Initial Study/ Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) and Public Meeting. Son lose PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD EXTENDED New Deadline: 5 p.m., Friday, February 28, 2014 In response to the public interest in this project VTA has extended the public comment period from January 31 to February 28, 2014. For more information on how express lanes work in Santa Clara County, please visit: vta.org /bxpresslanes/faq. You can also view information about the SR 85 Express Lanes Project at: vta. org/85expresslanes. WHERE YOU COME IN: Do you have comments or concerns regarding the environ- mental analysis of the project? Do you have information that should be included? Written comments on the environmental document may be submitted no later than February 28, 2014 via email to 85expresslanes Ours. com or via regular mail to: Ngoc Bui, Office of Environmental Analysis, P.O. Box 23660, MS -86, Oakland, CA 94623 CONTACT: For more information about the Draft IS/EA, call Ngoc Bui, Caltrans, at (510) 286 -4736 or Roy Molseed, VTA, at (408) 321 -5789. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE 2013 Table V.J -1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES J. NOISE Term Definitions Decibel, dB A unit that denotes the ratio between two quantities proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm to the base 10 of this ratio. Frequency, Hz Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in one second i.e., number of cycles per second). A- Weighted Sound The sound level obtained by use of A- weighting. The A- weighting filter de- emphasizes the Level, dBA very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this section are A -weighted, unless reported otherwise. Loj, Ljo, L50i Lgo The fast A- weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level for 1 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time period. Equivalent The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the Continuous Noise same A- weighted sound energy as the time - varying sound. Level Le Community Noise The 24 -hour A- weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the Equivalent Level, addition of 5 decibels to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. CNEL and after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 m. and 7:00 a.m. Day/Night Noise The 24 -hour A- weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the Level, L& addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Lmax, L,,,i„ The maximum and minimum A- weighted sound levels measured on a sound level meter, during a desi nated time interval using fast time averaging. Ambient Noise The all- encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time, Level usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far; no articular sound is dominant. Intrusive The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Source: Harris, Cyril M., 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. (2) Physiological Effects of Noise. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's 1985 Noise Guidebook, permanent physical damage to human hearing begins at pro- longed exposure to noise levels higher than 85 to 90 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, and thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the ear, and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. To avoid adverse effects on human physical and mental health in the workplace or in communities, the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires the protection of workers from hearing loss when the noise exposure equals or exceeds an 8 -hour time - weighted average of 85 dBA.2 2 Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2011. Regulations, Standards 29 CFR, Occupational Noise Exposure 1910.95. P:1000 1101 Appk 2 Ca mp- \PRODUCTSkDEIR1Publi .�5j- Noi..d., (OM3/13) PUBLI= �W DRAFT 451 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .1• NOISE Unwanted community effects of noise occur at levels much lower than those that cause hearing loss and other health effects. Noise annoyance occurs when it interferes with sleeping, conversation, and noise - sensitive work, including learning or listening to the radio, television, or music. According to World Health Organization (WHO) noise studies, few people are seriously annoyed by daytime activities with noise levels below 55 dBA, or are only moderately annoyed with noise levels below 50 dBA.' JCaDle v.J -Z: it vDical A -W Common Outdoor Sound Levels Commercial Jet Flyover at 1000 Feet Gas Lawn Mover at 3 Feet Diesel Truck at 50 Feet Concrete Mixer at 50 Feet Air Compressor at 50 Feet Lawn Tiller at 50 Feet Quiet Urban Daytime Quiet Urban Nighttime Quiet Suburban Nighttime Quiet Rural Nighttime ted Sound Levels Common Indoor Sound Levels Rock Band Inside Subway Train (New York) Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc., 2009. b. Characteristics of Groundborne Vibration. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. As the vibration propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the building, the vibration of floors and walls may cause perceptible vibration from the rattling of windows or a rumbling noise. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. When 3 World Health Organization, 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. Website: www.who.int/docstore /neh/noise/ guidelines21tml. P.\COC 1 101 Apple 2 Gmp.\PRODUCTSIDEMIP.Wie\31.N.- d -, (06/03 /13) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 452 Food Blender at 3 Feet Garbage Disposal at 3 Feet Shouting at 3 Feet Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Feet Normal Speech at 3 Feet 0 Large Business Office Dishwasher Next Room 40 Small Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) 30 Library 20 Bedroom at Night Concert Hall (Background) 10 Broadcast and Recording Studio 0 Threshold of Hearing Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc., 2009. b. Characteristics of Groundborne Vibration. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. As the vibration propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the building, the vibration of floors and walls may cause perceptible vibration from the rattling of windows or a rumbling noise. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. When 3 World Health Organization, 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. Website: www.who.int/docstore /neh/noise/ guidelines21tml. P.\COC 1 101 Apple 2 Gmp.\PRODUCTSIDEMIP.Wie\31.N.- d -, (06/03 /13) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 452 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE 2013 In order to analyze the worst case scenario and highest traffic volumes for each of the mod- eled scenarios, PM traffic volumes were used to calculate the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes, as PM volumes were higher overall than the AM traffic volumes. d. Regulatory Framework. The follow- ing section summarizes the regulatory frame- work related to noise, including federal, State and City of Cupertino plans, policies and standards. (1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). In 1972, Congress enacted the Noise Control Act. This act authorized the U.S. EPA to publish descrip- tive data on the effects of noise and establish levels of sound "requisite to protect the public welfare with an adequate margin of safety." These levels are separated into health (hearing loss levels) and welfare (annoyance levels) categories, as shown in Table V.J -7. The U.S. EPA cautions that these identified levels are not standards because they do not take into account the cost or feasibility of the levels. For protection against hearing loss, 96 percent of the population would be protected if sound levels are less than or equal to an Leq(24) of 70 dBA. The "(24)" signifies an L. duration of 24 hours. The U.S. EPA activity and interfer- ence guidelines are designed to ensure reliable speech communication at about 5 feet in the outdoor environment. For outdoor and indoor environments, interference with activity and annoyance should not occur if levels are below 55 dBA and 45 dBA, respectively. The noise effects associated with an outdoor Ldn of 55 dBA are summarized in Table V.J -8. At 55 dBA Ld,I, 95 percent sentence clarity (intelligibility) may be expected at 11 feet, with no substantial community reaction. However, 1 percent of the population may complain about noise at this level and 17 percent may indicate annoyance. APPLE CAMPUS 1 PROJECT EIR V. SETTING. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES J. NOISE Table V.J -7: Summary of EPA Nake. i,P.vPIC Effect Level Area Hearing loss L,,(24) < 70 dB All areas. Outdoor L&:5 55 dB Outdoors in residential activity inter- areas and farms and ference and (average) at 1.0 meter. other outdoor areas annoyance where people spend Average None evident; 7 dB below level of widely varying amounts significant complaints and threats of Reaction of time and other places "vigorous action." in which quiet is a basis I percent dependent on attitude and other for use. Annoyance L,(24):5 55 dB Outdoor areas where other non -level related factors. Attitude people spend limited Towards Area various factors. amounts of time, such as school yards, play- grounds, etc. Indoor activity - L,:5 45 dB Indoor residential areas. interference LN(24) S 45 dB Other indoor areas with and annoyance human activities such as schools, etc. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. Informa- tion on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March. Table V.J -8: Summary of Human Effects in Areas Exposed to 55 dBA Ldn Type of Effects Ma nitudeofEffect Speech— 100 percent sentence intelligibility (avel•- Indoors age) with a 5 dB margin of safety. Speech — 100 percent sentence intelligibility (aver - Outdoors age) at 0.35 meter. 99 percent sentence intelligibility (average) at 1.0 meter. 95 percent sentence intelligibility (average) at 3.5 meters. Average None evident; 7 dB below level of Community significant complaints and threats of Reaction legal action and at least 16 dB below "vigorous action." Complaints I percent dependent on attitude and other non -level related factors. Annoyance 17 percent dependent on attitude and other non -level related factors. Attitude Noise essentially the least important of Towards Area various factors. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. Informa- tion on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March. r\ P.\COC1101 Apple 2 Gmpus\PRODUC7S \DEIRIPubli.\i- Noised« x(06103 113) PUBLIC REvIEWDRAFT� 458 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE 2012 APPL V. SETTING, IMPACTS AN CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR MITIGATION MEASURES J. NOISE Table V.J -6 lists the calculated traffic noise levels along road/lett se in nts in the project site vicinity under existing conditions. For purposes of assessing impacts, sis considers existing condi- tions to be those associated with conditions on the site as of A11, at the time the Notice of Preparation was published. Under the August 2011 baseline c, approximately 4,844 employees worked on the project site. The current employee n the site reflect Apple's relocation of its employees in preparation for the project and ackard's consolidation of its employees in Palo Alto. The s ite has historically operated at i level of 9,800 employees. Therefore, the noise impact analysis, which evaluates the di ween existing and with - project noise levels (including on roadway segments around the pr ect site), represents a conservative approach to evaluating project - related noise impacts. Table V.J -6: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment Average Daily Trips' Centerline to 70 dBA CNEL feet Centerline to 65 dBA CNEL feet Centerline W 60 dBA CNEL feet CNEL(dBA) 50 Feet From Outermost Lane 1 Homestead Road - Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road to Blaney Avq6ue 23,300 < 50 90 187 66.4 2 Homestead Road - Blaney Avenue to Wolfe Road 23,600 < 50 90 189 66.4 3 Homestead Road- Wolfe Road to Tantau Avenue 4 23,900 <50 91 191 66.5 4 Homestead Road - Tantau Avenue to Lawrence Expressikay 20,800 < 50 84 174 65.9 5 Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road - Fremont Avenue to Home ead Road 39,300 79 156 329 69.3 6 DeAnza Boulevard - Homestead Road to I -280 NB s 48,400 89 178 377 70.2 7 DeAnza Boulevard - I -280 SB Ramps to Stevens C! #k Boulevard 44,400 85 169 357 69.9 8 Wolfe Road - Fremont Avenue to Homestead Roa 24,600 < 50 96 196 65.9 9 Wolfe Road - Homestead Road to Project Efitran96 31,800 < 50 112 231 67.0 10 Wolfe Road - Project Entrance to Prunerid e Av6nue 31,100 <50 110 228 66.9 11 Wolfe Road - Pnmerid a Avenue to I -280 NB am s 38,200 66 125 261 67.8 12 Wolfe Road -1 -280 SB Ramps to Vallco Par&ay 34,200 63 117 242 67.3 13 Wolfe Road - Vallco Parkway to Stevens CV6ek Boulevard 24,600 <50 96 196 65.9 14 Miller Road - Stevens Creek Boulevard to ollin er Road 17 100 < 50 79 155 64.3 15 Tantau Avenue - Homestead Road to Prl erid a Avenue 9,000 <50 <50 99 63.2 16 Tantau Avenue - Pruneridge Avenue to andenl Drive 9,700 < 50 < 50 104 63.5 17 Tantau Avenue - Tandem Drive to V co Parkway 10,400 < 50 52 109 63.8 18 Tartan Avenue - Vallco Parkway to tevens Creek Boulevard 8,800 < 50 < 50 98 63.1 19 Lawrence Expressway - Homestea4lRoad to Prunerid a Avenue 57,500 140 288 612 72.8 20 Lawrence Expressway - Prunerida Avenue to Stevens Creek Blvd 56,400 139 284 605 72.7 21 Stevens Creek Boulevard - SR 8 NB Ramps to Stelling Road 33,700 63 116 240 67.2 22 Stevens Creek Boulevard - Stelgng Road to De Anza Blvd 28,700 < 50 105 216 66.5 23 Stevens Creek Boulevard - D Anza Boulevard to Wolfe Road 25,600 < 50 99 201 66.1 24 Stevens Creek Boulevard - olfe Road to Finch Avenue 21,700 < 50 90 181 65.3 25 Stevens Creek Boulevard - inch Avenue to Tantau Avenue 23,200 < 50 93 189 65.6 26 Stevens Creek Boulevard LTantau Avenue to I -280 SB Rams 27,500 < 50 103 210 66.4 27 DeAnza Boulevard -Ste ens Creek Blvd to McClellan Road 12,800 <50 80 159 64.5 28 DeAnza Boulevard - McClellan Road to Bollinger Boulevard 7,400 < 50 < 50 113 1 62.1 'Average daily trips are stimated based on the peak hour traffic volumes. b Traffic noise within 5 feet of the roadway centerline requires a site - specific analysis. Note: Shaded cells in cate roadway segments adjacent to the project site. Source: LSA Associ tes, Inc., 2012. Results indicate that existing traffic noise levels from modeled roadway segments nearest the project site range fr6m approximately 63 dBA to 67 dBA CNEL as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. P.\COCI IOI Apple 2 CampusWRODUCTSIDEMY . bli.NSi- Noi¢.d —. (OW113) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 457 Dear City Council and Mayor Lo, Regarding the VTA proposal and negative declaration for 2 lanes being added to HY85 -I agree with comments opposing the HY85 expansion and will not repeat them. My focus will be on the road noise and the capability to reduce noise by roughly 6db as tested, proven and documented by Caltrans almost 10 years ago. Back in the late 80's when HY85 was going through the approval, in this room, I recommended using a quieter pavement I had observed when traveling in the Netherlands. The highways were quiet and 'in a down pour of rain had no puddles and the water seemed to just flow right through. For HY85, cement was poured and the traffic sound was beyond the 60db as committed to the Saratoga Residents in the August 17, 1988 Saratoga Noise Element Agreement. After the opening of the freeway, the City of Saratoga agreed the cement pavement was louder than planned, and persuaded Caltrans to have the - freeway ground down to help reduce the noise. At that time there was no more money for HY85 to be repaved. As documented on the California Department of Transportation website, starting in 1998, Caltrans had investigated European highways and installed "quiet pavement" on Interstate 80 just east of Davis. And in 2002, they repaved portions of HY280 on top of the same surface we have through Saratoga. The benchmark results do show that as much as a 6.2db reduction can be achieved and the noise levels aligned well with the proactive European standards. I submit for your review, a document printed in 2005, from the State of California that I used for the preceding statements. J With the existing noise levels documented in the EA as approaching or exceeding Federal Noise Abatement criteria, the already projected 3db increase does need to be mitigated. Since Caltrans has not met the original design criteria for HY85, how are we to believe they will not exceed the 3db estimate? Noise mitigation must be required. The technology and experience for the "quiet pavement" application has already been demonstrated by Caltrans. Once again, I strongly request that the Council ask VTA/Caltrans for a full EIR and enforce the Performance Agreement of 6 lanes and Light Rail. My additional ask, along with the EIR, are for the City of Saratoga to once again step up and drive VTA/Caltrans /MTC to repave HY85 through Saratoga (and Cupertino / Campbell / Los Gatos) with quiet pavement ". Clearly, since Caltrans have the capability to allocate $170 -180 million to HY85, they should have the ability to apportion funds and deploy the technology already tested and proven to reduce noise with "quiet pavement' . Thank you. California Tests Show Pavement Selection Influences Noise Levels By Bruce Rymer, Division of Environmental Analysis, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and Paul Donavan, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. raffic noise has become a grow- ing public concern and the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) has responded by initiating a num- ber of studies to examine the impact various standard pavements have on traffic noise levels. The European community has been experimenting with quiet pavements for many years, and in May 2004, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) jointly sponsored an international scanning tour to examine European quiet pavement technology. In September 2004, Caltrans, General Motors, and the FHWA sponsored a follow -up study that used the sound intensity technology to measure and compare some of the European quiet pavements seen on the scanning tour to the California and Arizona quiet pavements. The Noise Intensity Testing in Europe (KITE) study is the first definitive comparison of quiet pavements on multiple continents. Among the many findings of the NITE study, the principle conclusion is that several of the quietest 'off- the shelf' open - graded asphalt pavements in California and Arizona compare very favorably to the optimized quiet pavements of Europe. Introduction Within the United States, the primary method for mitigating traffic noise is the construction of sound walls to intercept the transmission between the traffic noise source and the receiver. Sound walls have geometric limitations; they have to interrupt the line -of- sight between the source and the James Reyff performs continuous wayside sound measurements at 1 -80 outside of Davis, Calif. Hot Mix Asphalt Technology — NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005.25 receiver and they effectively attenuate noise levels only 200 to 250 feet directly behind the wall. The State of California constructs sound walls only when a "readily noticeable" reduction of 5 dBA can be achieved. At more than $1.3 million per mile, sound walls are the only noise mitigation solution recognized by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Royston Rosphalt Protection That Protects and Performs in Tough Environments The shortcomings of sound walls become especially apparent when the walls block scenic views, negatively impact future road widening projects, add additional dead weight to bridge structures, or simply fail to effectively shield receivers from traffic noise. For these reasons, several years ago, Caltrans became interested in the use of "quiet pavements" as an alternative 4.. manufacturers of . t advanced products for industry ROSPHALT — A "Dry Mix" additive offering superior results. Over 3.5 times more lilg than standard HMA designs based on AASHTO's Beam Fatigue along with independent testing. If you need a product that lasts and lasts you can count on a Rosphalt solution with over 23 years' practical field experience offering: • Better long term durability • Best resistance to rutting or shoving • Best waterproofing system (R50) ; • Fast tramp construction solver . • Cqst competitive and long term cost e eness. a. i Bridge Deck overlays (most cost effective solution when considering traffic control) Interstate access ramps Bus Turn - arounds Truck — Weigh Scales Heavy traffic intersections — Solutions for reflective cracking Airports • Rehab over existing stable base Excellent solution over concrete in failure mode Motor Doug Zuberer • (508) 341.4961 • dzuberer@chasecorp.com 26 • Hot Mix Asphalt Technology — NOVEMBERIDECEMBER 2005 approach to turning down the volume of the irritating noise at the source rather than try to intercept, interrupt, or contain the objectionable sound. One of the concerns about asphalt -based quiet pavements has been its longevity in abating traffic noise. To develop an understanding of this issue, Caltrans has embarked on several projects investigating the long- term performance of potentially quiet, thin lift asphalt overlays. The first of these was on a portion of the heavily trafficked I -80 near Davis, Calif. This project is in its seventh year of investigation. Caltrans also used a new measurement technique, On- Board- Sound - Intensity (OBSI), for measuring and comparing and indexing pavement acoustics. Database of pavement noise performance Since its inception, Caltrans' pavement noise index or database has grown to over 100 different pavements and bridge decks and includes data from both California and Arizona. The difference, including extremes, between the quietest and loudest pavements can span as much as 16 dBs. Within this data set, generic pavement groupings include "PCC" for Portland Cement Concrete, "DGA" or "DGAC" for Dense Graded Asphalt Concrete, and "OG /RAC" for Open Graded /Rubber Asphalt Concrete. The quietest or lower one -third of all the pavements are either open - graded and /or rubberized asphalt. The middle one -third are mostly dense - graded asphalt with some overlap of OGAC and quieter textured PCC surfaces. The upper one -third or loudest pavements tend to be aggressively textured PCC and large angular aggregate ACs that generated high levels of lower frequency noise. OG /RAC Pavements 09 0 PCC Pavements as ® DGAC Pavements a d J a .c d N 1 -80 Davis OGAC long -term study Figure 1: Range of car and sound intensity. The thicker tire /pavement noise OGAC pavement is consistently levels from California quieter. However, the RAC(0) surface and Arizona roadways. is almost as quiet as the DGAC. The thinner OGAC is slightly noisier than these two surfaces. These results were confirmed by independent statistical - pass-by measurements completed by the US DOT Volpe Center. continued on page 30 In 1998, Caltrans began a long- a, r term study of the effect of an OGAC ping problems pavement overlay applied to a 9- b. ® �" ` kilometer stretch of I -80 just east of : -: .• Davis, Calif. Prior to the pavement A M @ rehabilitation project, the roadway •Trusted and proven chemistries bed consisted of 120 to 160 mm of . ■ ■ aged DGAC. In some spots, the -Low odor underlying base was removed and -High temperature stability replaced. The new AC surfacing BECAUSE began with the placement of 60 mm of DGAC as a leveling course in June PERFORMANCE and early July 1998. This was MATTERS subsequently covered with 25 mm of Charleston, SC 29423 -8005 OGAC in July 1998. Since that time, 1- 843 - 740 -2243 the noise performance of the overlay ■ A : • , 0 has been monitored using time - www.Asphalt- Innovations.com averaged wayside measurements . Q made in late fall /early winter, spring, PAVE BOND' and MORLIFE" are registered trademarks of Rohm and Haas Company. and June of each year. Los Angeles County 138 test site Solves to In 2002, Caltrans constructed five ping problems sections of different types of AC - Effective with broad range of pavement on a portion of State Route asphalts and aggregates 138 in a remote area in northern Los Angeles County. These sections •Trusted and proven chemistries consisted of a dense graded asphalt concrete which was to serve as a -Low odor reference section over time, an open- -High temperature stability graded asphalt concrete 75 mm in thickness, another OGAC section 30 mm in thickness, an open - graded MeadWestvaco Asphalt Innovations rubberized asphalt concrete surface P.O. Box 118005 (RAC(0)), and a bonded wearing Charleston, SC 29423 -8005 course (BWC) surface. In the initial 1- 843 - 740 -2243 measurements, all test sections Asphalt .Innovations@MeadWestvaco.com displayed lower levels than the www.Asphalt- Innovations.com reference DGAC for both passby measurements of the controlled test halt mnovationsrb' and INDUL1W are registered trademaf of MeadWestvaco Corporation. PAVE BOND' and MORLIFE" are registered trademarks of Rohm and Haas Company. Hot Mix Asphalt Technology - NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005.27 Quiet Between June and November of 2002, Caltrans completed a pavement rehabilitation project on a portion of Interstate 280 in San Mateo County, California. The existing pavement was older PCC with some slab faulting. The faulting was repaired as required and new surface treatments applied. All of the PCC lanes were ground using a "regular" diamond grinding process. Additional sections received an open graded, rubberized asphalt concrete RAC(0) overlay. As a result, in the post - project state, three new surfaces existed on this segment of I -280 in both the north and south bound directions. In order to capture the change in pavement /tire noise with these new surfaces, pre- and post- project SI measurements were conducted. This data indicate several things. First, in all cases where direct comparison is available, all of the surfaces produced improvement. The reductions with the RAC(0) were greater than either of the grindings Section #1 Section #2 Section #3 Section #1 Section #2 Section #3 ■Pre -Pro ect 111 Post-Pro ect applied to the PCC. One interesting aspect of the pre - project data is the 2 dB range in level. For this project, the data indicated that the RAC(0) produced a project average of 6.2 dB reduction, the regular grind, a 1.0 dB reduction, and the texture grind, a 0.9 dB reduction. One interesting side note to this testing was that the highway shoulders were non - rubber OGAC. Direct comparison between the OGAC shoulder and the RAC(0) travel lane yielded virtually the same acoustic results. Humboldt is THE source for asphalt testing equipment. We carry a complete W line of asphalt testing equipment for #,utlrtnt,I both lab and field applications, as well as equipment for aggregate, soil and concrete testing. From individual items to a complete low lab, we have the equipment you need, when you need it, and, at a great price. Call or email us today for your FREE 240 -page catalog. Figure 2: Pre- and post - project overall sound intensity levels for 1 -280 pavement rehabilitation with the indicated reduction for each section. Noise Intensity Testing in Europe With the development of a consistent tire /pavement noise data base in California and Arizona, there was considerable interest in applying the OBSI measurement approach to pavements in Europe. In May of 2004, a delegation from the U.S. undertook a "scan" tour of European countries to discover and document the state of the practice in European technology for quiet pavement systems. The Europeans have been experimenting with quiet pavement design much longer than .T .4I, 9411r www.humboldtmfg.com • asphalt @humboldtmfg.com HUMBOLDT 30 • Hot Mix Asphalt Technology - NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005 the U.S. Although this tour was successful in its qualitative assessment, because of measurement method and test tire differences between researchers in Europe and the U.S., there was no common scale to compare the performance of European pavements to those in the U.S. To fill this void, Caltrans initiated a project to perform OBSI measurements in Europe that could be compared directly to those in the California /Arizona (CA /AZ) database. This became the Noise Intensity Testing in Europe or "NITE" Project. General Motors supplied logistical support and the FHWA made a financial contribution to the project. Project definition In principle, sound intensity measurements of European roadways could readily be accomplished, as the sound intensity fixture and measurement equipment are quite portable. After the verification testing at the General Motors Opel Proving Ground, sound intensity measurements were conducted in four different countries on a total of 66 different pavements. As the primary interest of the project was for higher speed pavement performance, the majority of the testing was performed at 97 km/h. However, 33 pavements were also tested at 56 km /h. The test pavements were located in Germany, the Netherlands, France, and Belgium. The measurement period was three weeks in duration and was completed in October of 2004. Results of testing The abbreviations are "PA" for Porous Asphalt, "DLPA" for Double Layer Porous Asphalt, and "SMA" for Stone Matrix Asphalt. In CA /AZ, the term 'open graded" is somewhat casually used to refer to AC surfaces that may have some degree of porosity. However, these can have lower void ratios, on the order of 5 to 8 percent. In Europe, porous pavements typically imply void ratios on the order of 15 to 20 percent. To distinguish this, the "PA" nomenclature is used in Figure 12. The DLPA nomenclature refers to two layers of porous AC typically Figure 3: Range of overall A- weighted sound intensity levels at 97 km1h as measured in Europe for the NiTE project. European Pavements at 97 km/h Hot Mix Asphalt Technology - NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005.31 VZAL- Asphalt Distributors 4 � 1 ' :.F Chip Spreaders Heavy Duty Trailers Live Bottom Trailers Asphalt Transports E.D. Etnyre & Co. www.etnyre.com 800 - 995 -2116 e -mail: sales @etnyre.com L!etane with differing aggregate size ranges to achieve different amounts of permeability. Typically, the top layer is constructed of smaller aggregate to reduce noise while the lower layer uses larger aggregate to Improve drainage. Different top layer aggregate sizes are used to optimize noise performance. SMA pavements are not common in California. These pavements typically feature a large amount of stone -to -stone contact, viscous binder, and low air voids. It should be noted that in Europe, pavements termed dense - graded AC appeared to be quite different than those in California. The overall ranges in noise levels for typical CA /AZ pavements and European pavements are nearly identical at about 13 dB. In terms of absolute level, the quietest European pavements are slightly lower (--2 dB) than the quietest from the CA /AZ database. The exception to this is the DLPA category, which, as a group, defined the quieter end of the data set. It is also noteworthy that one of the PCC pavements produced levels comparable to the DLPA surfaces. This was a porous PCC pavement with a diamond - ground surface. The levels for the quietest and loudest pavements in both data sets are virtually identical. Similarly, at 97 km /h, the ground porous PCC pavement was almost as quiet as the quietest AC pavements. A second, unground porous PCC, is also included in this data set (not in the 97 km /h data set), and it also performed well being only about 1 dB higher than the ground section. Although the rank ordering is not perfect, the general trend is that the smaller aggregate sizes produce lower noise levels. This trend is not unexpected based on other pavement noise studies. It has also reported that porous AC surfaces can loose their porosity through clogging over time, which 32 - Hot Mix Asphalt Technology — NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005 may account for a portion of the range of noise performance indicated. In contrast to the single layer PA, the double layer PA surfaces display remarkably little range in SI levels, and all surfaces performed relatively well. The consistency of these results may be due to the fact that all these surfaces were relatively new or were on test tracks instead of in -use roadways. Comparisons between the NITS and CA /AZ results One of the main purposes of the NITE project was to determine if the pavement technology in Europe produced quieter pavements. As the lowest levels were measured in the Netherlands, these data were chosen for these comparisons. The typical improvement in level with the DLPA is about 10 dB. In Arizona, although there is a limited amount of longitudinal and random transverse tined PCC, the bulk of the PCC is uniform transverse tined. Relative to Arizona, Asphalt Rubber Friction Courses (ARFC) overlays that have been recently applied in the Arizona Quiet Pavement Pilot Project, reductions on the order of 9 dB are typical. In California, however, the range of possible improvement is smaller primarily due to the absence of the use of transverse tining on grade PCC surfaces. As a result, the typical higher levels are about 3 dB lower than Arizona or the Netherlands and the range of possible improvement is on the order of 6 dB. It is also instructive to compare the quieter pavements measured in Europe, California, and Arizona. In Europe, the quieter pavements are "drainage" pavements, intentionally constructed to be water (and air) permeable. As a result, they should provide sound absorption characteristics, which would decrease tire noise generation and propagation. For the CA /AZ surfaces, high permeability is not necessarily achieved with the open - graded designs. Further, there has been no indication of improved sound absorption of these surfaces relative to others. However, two of three CA /AZ pavements contain rubber, which is not found In European pavements. At this time, the role of the rubber content on noise performance is not understood. Another difference is that European porous pavements tend to be thicker, by 40 to 120 mm. For the CA /AZ rubberized pavements (AZ ARFC & LA 138 RAC(0)), the overlays are thinner (25 to 30 mm . total thickness), but can achieve virtually the same acoustical performance of the thicker permeable European surfaces. A final difference between the European pavements and the CA /AZ pavements is aggregate size. The European pavements have maximum aggregate sizes of 6 to 8 mm. The CA /AZ pavements range from 9.5 mm to 12.5 mm. The relationships between permeability, porosity, pavement thickness, aggregate size, and rubber content are clearly an area for further work. 102 - European Porous Pavements 10 — -- 100 O 99 98 r 9� Y 96 T 95 3 94 i i A59 WA GAR VA A18 WA A 101 AAFC U 138 OL U 138 2/4— .,onm 4141n RA (0) Summary From the Caltrans studies performed in California and Arizona, the following observations have been made: • As a group, open - graded and /or rubberized asphalt concrete show the best tire /pavement noise performance. • Grinding of PCC surfaces can be effective in reducing tire /pavement noise by reducing texture effect (such as transverse tining) and by reducing joint slap. From the N1TE testing, the following observation was made: • Highly porous two -layer AC constructions can provide only slightly better tire /pavement noise performance than the quiet pavements currently in use in California and Arizona. For a complete report, including additional charts, photographs, and information, contact Caltrans and request the report entitled. "Tire/Pavement Noise Intensity Testing in Europe." Paving the Way... Innovation in, ..- TOINNOVALT" asphalt modifiers are paving the way toward more durable, longer lasting roads. INNOVALT modifiers are liquid inorganic polymers that significantly enhance asphalt properties. Easy, effective, and economical to use, these liquid modifiers are quickly dispersed in asphalt without the need for expensive specialized equipment. INNOVALT improves pavement performance by: • Reducing rutting, stripping, and cracking. • Increasing aggregate adhesion. • Increasing high temperature performance. Small amounts of INNOVALT result in a significant improvement to asphalt's high ee temperature ?„ Performance Grade without impact to low a — — — — temperature ? E3 grading. w e c o 1 Fsx ar souncc Small amounts of INNOVALT used in combination with elastomeric or 5 O plastomeric polymers reduce the 3 — — amount of polymer required to meet the Performance Grade specification. 8 t 1 6 IX NOV1i' "•.i Contact us today to learn how you can improve your asphalt's performance with easy, effective and economical INNOVALT asphalt modifiers or visit us at www.innovall.com. INNOVALT" is Innovation in Asphalt. Innophos P 0. Box 8000 • Cranbury, NJ 08512 -8000 Telephone., (609) 495 -2495. Technical Service: (609) 860 -3423. www.innophos.com Hot Mix Asphalt Technology — NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005.33 City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: A) Agenda Item? Yes '3' No Agenda Item number Support Oppose Neutral Date: i- 2,va Name: S11 Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone: (optiona1) Email: (optional) City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: 610n)St?j G LE5�j0 rte, 1 i e—*\, Agenda Item? Yes No Agenda Item number Support Oppose Neutral Date: V�r Name: 'w�t 5 ► { Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone: (optiona1) Email: (optional) City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. This card will help the meeting run smoothlV, but you are not required to provide any information Vou do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines. I would like to speak about: s/ \ S ��— C/j (W r IAA c, VIA Agenda Item? Yes Support Date: — S l Name: Group /Organization: Agenda Item number Oppose Neutral cj — AL-61,�,,v Address: (optional) / Telephone: (optional) / Email: (optiona City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meetinq run smoothly but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: 0 V-I-ra kj 6-f—E 1 f4 - �W�.J� 77P-c-M Ube- Agenda Item? Yes No Agenda Item number g Support Oppose Neutral Date: Z Name: " N m4s w 4k (Zi (,,e,.j Group /Organization: ]—I H 6�_'L 1"15- VV�sI � Address: (optional) Telephone:(optional) Email: (optional) City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide anv information you do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes' ✓ Support No Agenda Item number Oppose Neutral Date:_ 2. Name: AIM (A-) Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone:(optional) Email: (optional) S Gi f City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delaved broadcast This card will help the meetinq run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines. I would like to speak about: u Agenda Item? Yes N/ No Agenda Item number 10 Support Oppose Neutral Dater e` Name: - A q I :.A- Group /Organization: ;7yr,-..W Address: (optional) �' "� Telephone: (optiona1) Email: (optional) City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I_ would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes V' Rd Support L--, Date: Name: a Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone: (optiona1) Email: (optional) No _c'5 Agenda Item number Oppose Neutral City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meetinq run smoothly, but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: — 1. # -- Agenda Item? Yes No Agenda Item number Support Oppose Neutral Date: 0 Name: 96? /4-S /a (RYA Group /Organization: Address:(optional) Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional) City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meetinq run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines / would like to speak about: Ar- ,M g- P..'Expre-as LaLne-cPpo 0 1 Agenda Item? Yes � No Agenda Item number 10 Support Oppose Neutral V Date:_ Name: Group /Organization: �t.G Address: (optional) Telephone:(optional) Email: (optional) Speaker Guidelines • If you are attending a meeting of the City Council or other City Committee, Commission, or Board ( "Legislative Body ") and would like to address the officials, please complete the information on the reverse side of this card and give it to the City Clerk in advance of the meeting. • Speakers are customarily allotted up to three (3) minutes; however, the Legislative Body may limit the number of speakers and length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all items on the Agenda. • Speakers are asked to address specific Agenda items when those items are before the Legislative Body rather than during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. • Completion of this form is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and accurate records; however, this card will become part of the Public Record, In accordance with the Public Records Act, any information you provide on this form is available to the public. You may elect not to include your address and telephone number. • Groups /Organizations that are supporting or opposing issues are urged to select one spokesperson. • City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines 1 would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes No Agenda Item number 9 Support Oppose ✓ Neutral Date: 2 /,- // 4 Name: UDA Y 1 <APOo1---,), Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: S �Z -5�- Ex X1Z es.5 l_ �j Agenda Item? Yes No Agenda Item number Q Support Oppose Neutral Date: Name: �� % c �--� Group /Organization:'�.�� Address: (optional) City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meetinq run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: / nom: I L r:►a & Agenda Item? Yes X No Agenda Item number / 0 Support Oppose _4 Neutral Date: a/,5 /I `f Name: Group /Organization: SL L L o cQ LS-�q /L, T-0 G A0 tjtj IQ 6r4u Address: (optional) Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional) °/.. -&, ✓! City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes X Support Date: No Agenda Item number. Oppose Neutral Name: (T fi G/ L- A-A y Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional) 9�� S e�194)Z-s City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide anv information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes cJ--Q�E5 Support Date: Name: Group /Organization: U Address: (optional) City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines 1 would like to speak about: � g I j C, & Agenda Item? Yes Y No Agenda Item number Support Oppose Y Neutral Date: 2 - �- Name: I "I t, aV] c.-C./Ker to-/ of - Group /Organization: Address: (optional) % �,� Email: (optional) City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast, This card will help the meeting run smoothIV, but Vou are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes i`�' 9 No Agenda Item number Support Oppose Date: Name: �� /��.t t4,I)��.��s Group /Organization: Address: (optional) / Telephone:(optional) Email: (optiona Neutral City ,of Sarataga - Speaker Card Please Note.- City. Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast card will help the meetinq runsm Please zee reverse side .of this card for Speaker Guidelines.. / would like to speak ab-out-. Agenda Item? Yes, No Agenda Item number 100 Support Oppose V 'Neutral Date:_ Re-qp to r ao t q Name: 17>3%^ AO ?QAW 0 kA lAaQe P Group/Organization: Address:(optional) Telephone:(optionat) Email'. (,bptibnal) are not r6c City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Mote: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meetinq run smoothly, but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: -�-T,47C- /ZVTC- R'S EXPK. Agenda Item? Yes ..r° No Agenda Item number Support 1 Oppose '"'° Neutral Date: v 2— h D <1 1 N Name- Group/Organization: Address:(optional) Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional) MMd i City of Saratoga - Speaker Card 16�� Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: �7 i�w-\ z Agenda Item? Yes No Agenda Item number Support Oppose Neutral Date: > Name: Tel SST Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone:(optional) Email: (optional) i City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines / would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes V No Agenda Item number G Support Oppose Neutral Date: Zuv___) Name: ��— c1��JV�Cc YN Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone :(optional) Email: (optional City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I_would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes / No Agenda Item number Support Oppose _41 Neutral Date: ILA Name: Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone:(optional) Email: (optional) &4 City of Saratoga - 'SIP.Oaker Card P/ease,Ndte.• CHV.6-.blin,citmeetih, -q8,arelboih,liV6,af7d,deiiiVe ,br,'d ij dcast , - d�. _ Please,see reverse side 6f-' this ,, *card for-'Speaker , Uidefifies. 1wolild , like, to - speak, Agpnda Iterijl,, Yes! 100 Deft-6 ;-Nam,( N'd -,Agen.di 1teji,,nCtmbe Support', Oppose, Neutral (jr,o.up/Organizafib-b! c45ees-7--- Addr6s$qO,pfiona-1)' 'Tel-c;p.hdnd;'(6'pt-i nal) !EMa.il:jQp!ional.) Speaker Guidelines • If you are attending a meeting of the City Council or other City Committee, Commission, or Board ( "Legislative Body ") and would like to address the officials, please complete the information on the reverse side of this card and give it to the City Clerk in advance of the meeting. Speakers are customarily allotted up to three (3) minutes; however, the Legislative Body may limit the number of speakers and length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all items on the Agenda. Speakers are asked to address specific Agenda items when those items are before the Legislative Body rather than during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. • Completion of this form is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and accurate records; however, this card will become part of the Public Record. In accordance with the Public Records Act any information you provide on this form is available to the public, You may elect not to include your address and telephone number. • Groups /Organizations that are supporting or opposing issues are urged to select one spokesperson, • City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast, Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please (Vote: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes -Lo_ No Age a Item number O Support Oppose Neutral Date Nam( Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional)_ City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Councit meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meetinq run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: Agenda Item Yes ✓ No Support Oppose Date: r') Name:— [,a. Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone:(optional) Email: (optional) Agenda Item number Neutral City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will he/o the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide anv information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines would like to speak about: • v Agenda Item`? Yes _>.I— No Agenda Item number � 0 Support Oppose x Neutral Date: Name: Group /Organization: Address: (optional) _ Telephone :(optional) Email: (optional) � City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes No Agenda Item number Support Oppose Neutral Date: Name: Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone:(optional) Email: (optional) City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: �f �iy��?rr55 w 4 f Agenda Item? Yes 4— No Agenda Item number Support Oppose Neutral Date: -/-b v Name: `% 9A2co Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone :(optional) Email: (optional) City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines. I would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes No Agenda Item number Support Oppose � Neutral Date: Z— 1 - Pi'& Name, 0/z P / e P1 A)" 6� Group /Organization: Address:(optional) Tele phone: (optional) Email: (optional) 7 ,f .9-�Ji--,�LkA L- City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines. I would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes Date Name: No-/a Agenda Item number Support Oppose Neutral Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Email: (optiona City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will hela the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to SP eak about: Agenda Item? Yes Support Date: X115 -11 Name: Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone :(optional) F�Wqwlwpo= No Agenda Item number Oppose Neutral (/� Email: (optional) (!P v City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines 1 would like to speak about, Z2zS Agenda Item? Yes 111-�— r�-��a — Sir, � i�ii� -� ✓�. No Agenda Item number Support Oppose Neutral Date: 21S`7�o Name: Group /Organization: Address: (optiona1) Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional) City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetinqs are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: 07-- 0 rp C Agenda Item? v S pport Date No Agenda Item number. Oppose Neutral Name: L,' S u v\ Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes -`< No Support Oppose Date: r Name: Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone: (option a[) Email: (optional) Agenda Item number Neutral City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and de laved broadcast. This card will help the meeting run smoothlV, but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines. re- Agenda Item? Yes i--" r No Support Oppose Agenda Item number. Date: Name: Group /Organization: SSG Address :(optional) Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional) Neutral J City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines. 1 would like to speak about: / Agenda Item? Yes_ No Agenda Item number Support Date: 5Z �WWAF%MMZMI Group /Organization: Address: (optional) )-? City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to provide any information you do not wish to provide. Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines. I would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes No Agenda Item number � Support Oppose Neutral Date: � -I-e, tf Name: �� t-� Group /Organization: Address: (optional) Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional) -- - - - City of Saratoga - Speaker Card Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I_would like to speak about: �vpc-,-�4 mxe� 6&e Agenda Item? Yes Support Date: Name: 'Flal/ e Group /Organization: Address: (optional) _ Telephone: (optional) Email: (optional) No Agenda Item number Oppose Neutral 6L / / City of Saratoga - Speaker Card 0 Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to Provide any information you do not wish to provide Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: A PPS L Agenda Item? Yes 7- Support Date: c7 //' C, o ,, -� N S S /o /j j ' rL<V a-t - /`'i Ix 67� -C(sLc- e62,0 cis a No Agenda Item number Oppose Neutral Name: A-3/ L- - & (5,6)C V ��TG Group /Organization: Address: (optional) �— Email: (optional) City of - Saratoga Speaker Card CZ p Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast u ation Vou do not wish to orov Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines I would like to speak about: Agenda Item? Yes Support Date:_ Name: � 1 r � A No Agenda 11ttgm number Oppose�k�r Neutral 9- - I �-L- 6f, y Group /Organization: /V/ e-,q f -D /kj Address: (optional) /ZZb 55' Speaker Guidelines • If you are attending a meeting of the City Council or other City Committee, Commission, or Board ( "Legislative Body ") and would like to address the officials, please complete the information on the reverse side of this card and give it to the City Clerk in advance of the meeting. Speakers are customarily allotted up to three (3) minutes; however, the Legislative Body may limit the number of speakers and length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all items on the Agenda. Speakers are asked to address specific Agenda items when those items are before the Legislative Body rather than during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. • Completion of this form is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of whether or not you complete this document. its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and accurate records; however, this card will become part of the Public Record. In accordance with the Public Records Act, any information you provide on this form is available to the public. You may elect not to include your address and telephone number. • Groups /Organizations that are supporting or opposing issues are urged to select one spokesperson. City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.