HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2008 City Council Agenda Packet (2)
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL
SITE VISIT AGENDA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2008
9:00 A.M.
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF THE POSTING
(Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
November 13, 2008)
AGENDA
Appeal of a Planning Commission denial of Design Review PDR07-008 requesting approval to
add a second floor to the existing single story residence. The proposal denied by the Planning
Commission includes an approximately 594 square foot second-story addition, and a 251 square
foot first floor addition to the existing 2,189 square foot residence. Total proposed floor area
would be approximately 3,034 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed building will be
approximately 22 feet. The lot site is approximately 8,150 square feet, located in the R-1-10,000
zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga City Code Section 15-
45.060.
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.saratoga.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 City 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 of Agenda:
I, Ann Sullivan, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for
the meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on November 13, 2008
at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was
available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s
website at www.saratoga.ca.us
Signed this 13th day of November 2008 at Saratoga, California.
Ann Sullivan, CMC
City Clerk
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 19, 2008
SPECIAL MEETING – 6:00 P.M. – ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM
– 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE.
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
November 13, 2008.)
COMMUNICATIONS FROM 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.
OPEN SESSION – 6:00P.M.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 6:00P.M.
1. Joint Meeting with Mountain Winery
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.saratoga.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.
1
2
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. 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 Posing of Agenda:
I, Ann Sullivan, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of
the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on November 13, 2008, at the office of the City of
Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location.
The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us
Signed this 13th day of November 2008 at Saratoga, California.
Ann Sullivan, CMC,
City Clerk
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
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
November 13, 2008)
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 &
Commissions.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
1. Commendation Honoring the League of Women Voters – Southwest Santa Clara
Valley
Recommended action:
Present commendation.
2. Proclamation Declaring the Week of November 23-29, 2008 as “National Family
Week”
1
Recommended action:
Present proclamations.
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 member. 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.
3. City Council Minutes - November 5, 2008
Recommended action:
Approve minutes.
4. Treasurer's Report for the Month Ended July 31, 2008
Recommended action:
The City Council review and accept the Treasurer's Report for the month ended July
31, 2008.
5. Review of Accounts Payable Registers
Recommended action:
That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for Accounts Payable cycles:
October 30, 2008
November 6, 2008
6. Comprehensive County Expressway 2008 Plan Update
Recommended action:
Support the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Draft 2008 Update.
7. Landscape Maintenance Agreement – 18610 Marshall Lane
Recommended action:
Approve a Landscape Maintenance Agreement for public right-of-way landscaping at
18610 Marshall Lane and authorize the City Manager to execute the same.
8. Citywide Striping and Signage – Appropriation of Funds
Recommended action:
Approve Budget Resolution appropriating funds for Citywide Striping.
9. Amendment to Professional Services Contract with MPA Design
Recommended action:
Approve an Amendment to the existing professional services contract with MPA
Design for additional construction design work in the amount of $9,600 and authorize
the City Manager to execute the same.
2
10. Authorization to purchase two Ford Escape Hybrid Vehicles
Recommended action:
1. Authorize purchase of two (2) 2009 Ford Escape Hybrids from The Ford Store in
the amount of $61,921.12
2. Approve Budget Resolution appropriating additional funding for the purchase of
the hybrid vehicles.
3. Move to declare the following vehicles as surplus and authorize their disposal:
•1996 Oldsmobile Ciera-Vehicle #92
•1996 Saturn -Vehicle # 87
11. Request to Change Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Location
Recommended action:
Adopt resolution amending the meeting location of the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
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 item 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
12. Appeal – APPLICATION #APCC08-0004 – 18605 LYONS COURT APN:389-25-
012; Appellant - Brennan: Appeal of a Planning Commission denial of Design
Review PDR07-008 requesting approval to add a second floor to the existing single
story residence. The proposal denied by the Planning Commission includes an
approximately 594 square foot second-story addition, and a 251 square foot first floor
addition to the existing 2,189 square foot residence. Total proposed floor area would
be approximately 3,034 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed building
will be approximately 22 feet. The lot site is approximately 8,150 square feet, located
in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to
Saratoga City Code Section15-45.060.
Recommended action:
Deny the appeal, thus affirming the Planning Commission Design Review Denial
issued on October 8, 2008.
OLD BUSINESS
13. Heritage Orchard Preservation – Current Status and Additional Options
Recommended action:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
NEW BUSINESS
None
3
ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Mayor Ann Waltonsmith
Association of Bay Area Government
Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Advisory Board (PAB)
Hakone Foundation Executive Committee
Santa Clara County Emergency Council
SASCC
West Valley Mayors and Managers Association
Sister City Liaison
Council Finance Committee
Highway 9 Safety AdHoc
Vice Mayor Chuck Page
Chamber of Commerce
Hakone Executive Board
West Valley Sanitation District
Council Finance Committee
Village AdHoc
Valley Transportation Authority PAC
Councilmember Kathleen King
Peninsula Division, League of California Cities
Santa Clara County Cities Association
City School AdHoc
Councilmember Jill Hunter
Historic Foundation
KSAR
Library Joint Powers Association
Santa Clara County Valley Water Commission
Village AdHoc
West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association
Councilmember Aileen Kao
County HCD Policy Committee
Northern Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Board
Santa Clara County Cities Association-Joint Economic Development Policy Committee
(JEDPC)
City School AdHoc
Highway 9 Safety AdHoc
Airport Land Use Committee
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, California
4
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.saratoga.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 City 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 of Agenda:
I, Ann Sullivan, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for
the meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on November 13,
2008, of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was
available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s
website at www.saratoga.ca.us
Signed this 13th day of November 2008 at Saratoga, California.
Ann Sullivan, CMC
City Clerk
NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City
Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us
12/2 Council Reorganization meeting
12/3 Regular Meeting –
12/17 Regular Meeting – Traffic Safety Commission
1/07/09 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2008
5
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: November 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DEPT HEAD: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: Commendation Honoring the League of Women Voters – Southwest Santa
Clara Valley
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present commendation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The attached commendation honors the League of Women Voters – Southwest Santa Clara
County for organizing and sponsoring the 2008 City Council candidate’s forums held on
September 24 and November 3, 2008.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
None
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Copy of the commendation.
6
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL COMMENDATION
HONORING THE
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF
SOUTHWEST SANTA CLARA VALLEY
WHEREAS, the League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization,
encourages informed and active participation in government and influences public policy
through education and advocacy; and
WHEREAS, the League of Women Voters believes that democratic government
depends upon the informed and active participation of its citizens and requires that governmental
bodies protect the citizens’ right to know by giving adequate notice of proposed actions, and
holding open meetings; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2008, the City Council of the City of Saratoga passed a
resolution ordering and calling for a Municipal Election to be consolidated with a Statewide
Election held on November 4, 2008, for the election of two (2) City Council Members, each for
a full term of four (4) years; and
WHEREAS, the League of Women Voters was instrumental in helping Saratoga
residents to be informed voters for the November 4, 2008 City Council election by providing a
Saratoga Council Candidate Forum on Tuesday, September 24, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2008, the League of Women Voters was again
instrumental in keeping the residents of Saratoga informed politically by providing a “Last Word
Candidates Forum” whereby City Council candidates were given the opportunity to express their
final statements of candidacy, thereby increasing public trust and confidence in government by
promoting and maintaining the highest standards of personal and professional conduct among
the people who represent the City of Saratoga.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga does hereby recognize and commends the League of Women Voters – Southwest Santa
Clara Valley for their outstanding participation and dedication to the City of Saratoga by inviting
the council candidates for the Saratoga City Council to participate in these events.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 19th day
of November 2008.
_________________________
Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor
City of Saratoga
7
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: November 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: Proclamation Declaring the Week of November 23-29, 2008 as “National
Family Week”
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present proclamations.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Representatives from the Saratoga Ministerial Association will be present to accept the
proclamations.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment – Proclamation
8
CITY OF SARATOGA
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 23-29, 2008
“NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK”
WHEREAS, the family is the foundation upon which our society is structured,
and the family is one of our society’s most important units, and
WHEREAS, Saratoga is blessed with a multitude of families - an essential part
of the cultural, social, and spiritual fabric that is Saratoga; and
WHEREAS, Saratoga recognizes that strong families are at the center of strong
communities and that everyone has a role to play in making families successful,
including neighborhood organizations, businesses, nonprofit organizations,
policymakers, and of course, the families themselves; and
WHEREAS, during Thanksgiving week we all should take time to honor the
importance of families, and recognize the special connections that support and
strengthen families year-round; and
WHEREAS, we all should recommit to enhancing and extending all of the
connections that strengthen and enrich families.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor of the City of Saratoga, do
hereby proclaim November 23-29, 2008 Family Week in the City of Saratoga, and I
commit this observance to the people of Saratoga and encourage all Saratoga citizens
to work to strengthen families in America as individuals and through government and
community-based organizations.
WITNESS OUR HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on
this 19th day of November 2008.
______________________
Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor
Saratoga, California
9
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: November 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: City Council Minutes – November 5, 2008
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve minutes.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting:
Regular Meeting – November 5, 2008
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Retain minutes for legislative history.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Minutes from November 5, 2008
10
MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 5, 2008
Mayor Waltonsmith called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Aileen Kao, Jill Hunter, Kathleen King, Vice
Mayor Chuck Page, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith
ABSENT: None
ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager
PRESENT: Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk
Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager
Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director
John Cherbone, Public Works Director
John Livingstone, Community Development Director
Michael Taylor, Recreation Director
Chris Riordan, Senior Planner
Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the
agenda for the meeting of November 5, 2008, was properly posted on October 30, 2008)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
The following people requested to speak at tonight’s meeting:
Chris Dudley, producer of the holiday version of the musical show – “Plaid Tidings”
invited everyone to attend the production, which opens on Saturday, November 8th for
four weeks.
Citizen Ray pointed out the plans for a 16,000 square foot home to be built in the Town
of Los Gatos. In addition, Citizen Ray voiced his concerns about a dead tree on Highway
9.
Janice Gamper thanked staff for redoing the turning island on Allendale Avenue, and she
expressed her appreciation for the light that is once again shining on the West Valley
College (WVC) sign near the WVC campus.
Brian Berg, Secretary of the Saratoga Village Development Council announced they now
have a blog (www.blog.saratoga-village.com available for the Saratoga Village.
Bob Busse addressed the Council on his townhouse property in the CH 1 Zoning District
and his concerns regarding a new residential overlay in that zone and that the properties
in the CH 1 zone must either be commercial or rental residential. He noted that if a
catastrophic event occurred in that zone, the property owners would not be allowed to 11
2
rebuild as owner-occupied and asked that the City either change the zoning or change the
verbiage in the city ordinance for those properties affected by this ordinance.
Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items
Councilmember King asked Community Development Director John Livingstone when
the results of the CH2 District meeting would be made available to the Council.
Community Development Director Livingtone stated that item would be agendized for
discussion at the Council Retreat.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
Scott Wheelwright, member of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints and
representative of the Ministerial Association, reported that members of the Ministerial
Association met in a Joint Meeting with the City Council prior to this meeting. He
pointed out that all the communities of faith, more than a dozen in Saratoga, meet
regularly to build relationships in the community. He noted this Thanksgiving marks the
43rd Annual Thanksgiving Day service and is represented by all the communities of faith.
This year the service will be held at the Federated Church at 10:00 a.m. and is open to
everyone.
He also stated that from March 21-29, 2009, all the communities of faith would be
providing a week of “service” to the community and invited everyone who would be
interested in serving their community. Mr. Wheelwright noted they also discussed ways
in which they could build community and relationships within Saratoga by working
together to provide opportunities for seniors and youth.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Waltonsmith announced the Akeena Solar challenge between the Town of Los
Gatos and the City of Saratoga, which ends November 30, 2008. The Mayor also invited
members of the community to attend the Council Reorganization meeting on December
2, 2008.
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
1. COMMENDATION HONORING JOHN NOLEN
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present commendation.
Mayor Ann Waltonsmith read the commendation and presented it to John Nolen.
2. COMMENDATION HONORING JUDITH SUTTON AND SARATOGA HIGH
SCHOOL’S ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present commendation.
12
3
Mayor Ann Waltonsmith read the commendation and presented a commendation to
English and poetry teacher, Judith Sutton, and one to Cathy Head, English
Department representative.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
3. PRESENTATION ON MISSION GREEN EARTH – STAND UP, TAKE
ACTION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept presentation
Joanna Chiu, representative of Mission Green Earth, provided presentation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES –
OCTOBER 7, 2008
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve minutes.
PAGE/KING MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING
COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES – OCTOBER 7, 2008. MOTION
PASSED 5-0-0.
5. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – OCTOBER 15, 2008
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve minutes
PAGE/KING MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -
OCTOBER 15, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0.
6. REVIEW OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE REGISTERS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for Accounts Payable cycles:
October 09, 2008
October 16, 2008
October 23, 2008
PAGE/KING MOVED TO ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR OCTOBER 9,
2008, OCTOBER 16, 2008, AND OCTOBER 23, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0.
7. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION –
MENDELSOHN LANE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve Amendment to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement between David
Cheng and the City of Saratoga.
13
4
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement
Amendment.
PAGE/KING MOVED TO 1) APPROVE AMENDMENT TO THE
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN DAVID CHENG
AND THE CITY OF SARATOGA; AND 2) AUTHORIZE THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0.
8. MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NO PARKING OR
STOPPING
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing “No Parking or Stopping”
on Stoneridge Drive
MV RESOLUTION – 280
PAGE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT THE MOTOR VEHICLE RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING “NO PARKING OR STOPPING” ON STONERIDGE
DRIVE. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0.
9. AGREEMENT WITH CIVICA SOFTWARE FOR WEBSITE DESIGN AND
HOSTING
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and approve agreement with Civica Software for website design and
hosting.
PAGE/KING MOVED TO APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH CIVICA
SOFTWARE FOR WEBSITE DESIGN AND HOSTING. MOTION PASSED 5-
0-0.
10. FY 2008 – 2009 CDBG COUNTY/CITY CONTRACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a $398,360.77 contract
with Santa Clara County for the FY 2008-2009 CDBG Program.
RESOLUTION: 08-068
PAGE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A $398,360.77 CONTRACT WITH SANTA
CLARA COUNTY FOR THE FY 2008-2009 CDBG PROGRAM. MOTION
PASSED 5-0-0.
11. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ONE (1) CHEVROLET 5500 DUMP
TRUCK AND DECLARATION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY AND
AUTHORIZATION OF DISPOSAL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
14
5
1. Move to authorize the purchase of one (1) 2007 Chevrolet 5500 Dump Truck from
Gilroy Chevrolet in the amount of $44,000.
2. Move to declare the following vehicle as surplus and authorize its disposal -
1996 GMC 3500 1-ton--vehicle # 90
PAGE/KING MOVED TO 1) AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 2007
CHEVROLET 5500 DUMP TRUCK FROM GILROY CHEVROLET IN THE
AMOUNT OF $44,000; AND 2) DECLARE THE FOLLOWING VEHICLE AS
SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE ITS DISPOSAL – 1996 GMC 3500 1-TON
VEHICLE #90. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
OLD BUSINESS
12. REVIEW OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S
PROPOSED DESIGN FOR THE HERITAGE ORCHARD SIGN
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Review the proposed design for the Heritage Orchard Sign and direct Staff
accordingly.
Steve Kellond, Chair of Heritage Preservation Commission, addressed the Council
regarding the proposed design of the Heritage Orchard sign.
There was discussion regarding the height of the proposed design, the style and color
of letters used on the sign, and funding sources.
Councilmember King noted she likes the proposed design and thought it was an
elegant look.
Vice Mayor Page stated he also likes the design; however, he was concerned about
mounting rock on cement.
Councilmember Hunter noted the sign should be more simple and that additional
thought should be given to the design.
Councilmember Kao noted the design is beautiful, but voiced concerns that the
library sign is very simple and wasn’t sure if this proposed design would integrate
well with the library sign.
Mayor Waltonsmith stated she likes the proposed design and thinks it will integrate
well with the library sign. In addition, Mayor Waltonsmith noted she would like to
see other options regarding the color of the lettering so that it is easier to read.
Council members noted this project has not been funded and would like to see
possible donations of the specified rock in the design plans, or possibly use the river
rock near the Orchard.
15
6
KING/PAGE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION
COMMISSION’S PROPOSED ORCHARD SIGN DESIGN. MOTION PASSED
4-1-0 WITH COUNCILMEMBER HUNTER OPPOSING.
Council also directed staff to look at options regarding:
o Consider an alternative source for the rock as shown in proposed design;
which could include rock from the ground, river rock from the creek in back
of the Orchard, or donated rock
o Style and color of lettering so that it displays well and is easily readable
o Add the Orchard sign project to the CIP and look into future funding options;
(i.e., grants, etc)
Councilmember King asked if Item 15 could be moved forward for discussion as she
needed to leave at 9:00PM.
Mayor and Council members concurred.
13. 2008 WINTER ISSUE OF THE SARATOGAN
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
Administrative Analyst II Crystal Morrow presented the staff report.
Council provided Ms. Morrow with a variety of suggestions for the winter issue of
The Saratogan, which include:
o Commissions – Article (including a photo) on one or two City commissions
per issue stating what the commission does and the members serving on the
commission
o Kevin Moran and how Kevin Moran Park (KMP) got its name; proposed
design of KMP
o Community concerns/issues corner that includes a telephone number for
residents to call to report problems – such as a non-functioning signal light
o City parks – article highlighting specific City parks – including picture of
featured park
o “Did You Know?” box in a corner with specific information
o Provision for recipients to respond to an email or website link requesting to
receive The Saratogan electronically
o A “Thank You” box thanking Monte Sereno for the Bocce Ball court funding
NEW BUSINESS
14. AMENDMENT TO CITY COUNCIL POLICY PERTAINING TO NORMS OF
OPERATION AND RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE FOR CITY
COUNCIL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached resolution to amend the City Council Policy Pertaining to
Norms of Operation and Rules of Order and Procedure for City Council to conform to
recent changes in the State Elections Code and allow the Council reorganization in
16
7
election years to be held at a special meeting.
City Attorney Richard Taylor presented the staff report.
RESOLUTION: 08-069
PAGE/KAO MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE
CITY COUNCIL POLICY PERTAINING TO NORMS OF OPERATION AND
RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE FOR CITY COUNCIL TO
CONFORM TO RECENT CHANGES IN THE STATE ELECTIONS CODE
AND ALLOW THE COUNCIL REORGANIZATION IN ELECTION YEARS
TO BE HELD AT A SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH
COUNCILMEMBER KING ABSENT.
15. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY CITIES
ASSOCIATION (SCCCA) REGIONAL EFFORTS RELATED TO
DISPOSABLE, SINGLE USE CARRY-OUT BAGS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and adopt Resolution in support of SCCCA regional efforts related to
disposable, single use carry-out bags.
Assistant City Manager Barbara Powell presented the staff report.
RESOLUTION: 08-070
KING/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SCCCA
REGIONAL EFFORTS RELATED TO DISPOSABLE, SINGLE USE CARRY-
OUT BAGS. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0.
ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Mayor Ann Waltonsmith – reported:
Hakone Foundation Executive Committee – will be sending out a donation appeal letter
towards end of November
SASCC –annual appeal letter for donations will be going out in the mail this week
West Valley Mayors and Managers Association – met and discussed “going green plans”
and County emergency services
Sister City Liaison – held a meeting and they are making plans for their 25th anniversary
in 2009
Vice Mayor Chuck Page – reported:
West Valley Sanitation District – celebrated its 60th Anniversary
Councilmember Kathleen King – (not available to make a report)
Councilmember Jill Hunter – reported:
Library Joint Powers Association – has completed a visionary plan and recommended
conducting a survey to find out why citizens aren’t using libraries. She noted that the
recommendation was not approved due to the expense; however, a committee has been
formed to research the matter.
17
8
Santa Clara County Valley Water Commission – met and discussed the over-all water
concerns regarding the demand for water and the water-recycling program at the last
meeting. She noted that in the future most newly constructed homes will have three
water pipes going into the home with two of the pipes providing recycled water. In
addition, the City of San Francisco has stated that around 2015 there is a possibility that
water from Hetch-Hetchy will not be supplied to six communities (not including the
Saratoga community) and that those communities will have to look elsewhere for their
water supply. Also, there is concern regarding the Affordable Housing Program and the
demand for water in these large housing areas.
Village AdHoc –a significant number of people attended the last meeting – including the
city manager and the public works director. She noted a second meeting will be
scheduled; however, the date has not yet been determined.
West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association – meets Thursday, November 6th and
they plan to discuss:
o Impact of heavy garbage trucks on city streets
o JPA considering a 26 cents per month rate increase (monies collected from
Saratoga residents would go to the City of Saratoga)
Councilmember Aileen Kao – reported:
County HCD Policy Committee – the October 23rd meeting was cancelled due to lack of
quorum and has been rescheduled to November 20th and asked for someone to attend in
her place as she is unable to attend.
Northern Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Board – the next meeting is scheduled
for November 19th and is unable to attend. She asked for someone to attend in her place.
[Acting City Clerk Ann Sullivan stated she would follow up with Council to assure
attendance by a fellow Councilmember.]
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
Councilmember Aileen Kao noted she will be out of the country and unavailable to attend
the November 19th meeting.
Vice Mayor Page noted that senior citizens have spoken to him regarding the “disabled”
parking near Longs Drug Store at the Argonaut Shopping Center in Saratoga. He stated
Longs Drug Store recently reconfigured their store front and closed one set of doors,
which was near the disabled parking and the new entrance door is located further away
from the disabled parking. Even though there is adequate disabled parking available,
residents utilizing disabled parking have voiced concerns regarding the distance from the
disabled parking to the store’s entrance. Vice Mayor Page suggested staff follow up with
this and provide a report in the weekly Council Newsletter.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
None
ADJOURNMENT
PAGE/KAO MOVED TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING AT 9:00 P.M.
MOTI0N PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER KING ABSENT.
18
9
Ann Sullivan, CMC
City Clerk
19
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: November 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Ann Xu, Accountant DEPT HEAD: Mary Furey, Director
SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended July 31, 2008
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Council review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended July 31, 2008.
REPORT SUMMARY
California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer (the Municipal Code of the
City of Saratoga, Article 2-20, Section 2-20.035, designates the City Manager as the City Treasurer)
submit to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts,
disbursements, and fund balances.
Section 41004. Regularly, at least once each month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the City
Clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. He shall
file a copy with the legislative body.
The following attachments provide various financial data and analysis for the City of Saratoga’s Funds
collectively as well as specifically for the City’s General (Operating) Fund, including an attachment from
the State Treasurer’s Office of Quarterly LAIF rates from the 1st Quarter of 1977 to present.
FISCAL IMPACT
Cash and Investments Balance by Fund
As of July 31, 2008, the City had $865,942 in cash deposit at Comerica bank, and $15,936,779 on deposit
with LAIF. Council Policy on operating reserve funds, adopted on April 20, 1994, states that: for cash
flow purposes, to avoid occurrence of dry period financing, pooled cash from all funds should not be
allowed to fall below $2,000,000. The total pooled cash balance as of July 31, 2008 is $16,802,721 and
exceeds the minimum limit required.
Cash Summary
Unrestricted Cash
Comerica Bank 865,942$
Deposit with LAIF 15,936,779$
Total 16,802,721$
20
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City would not be in compliance with Government Code Section 41004.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
A – Cash Balances by Fund
B – Change in Total Fund Balances by Fund
C – Cash and Investments by CIP Project
D – Change in Total Fund Balances by CIP Project
E – Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Quarterly Apportionment Rates
21
ATTACHMENT A
The following table summarizes the City’s total cash and investment balances by Fund.
Fund Types Fund Description
Cash & Investment
Balance at
July 31, 2008
General General Fund 3,228,322$
Reserved Fund Balance
Petty Cash Reserve 1,300$
Retiree Medical Reserve 62,500$
Reserved for Development Deposits 598,719$
Designated Reserves:
Designated for Economic Uncertainty 1,500,000$
Designated for Operations 2,808,164$
Designated for Claims 59,906$
Designated for Development Services 650,728$
Designated for Environmental Services 679,917$
Special Revenue Landscape and Lighting Districts 211,527$
CDBG Federal Grants -$
SHARP Program 108,606$
Capital Project Street Projects 1,858,888$
Park and Trail Projects 1,526,784$
Facility Improvement Projects 690,120$
Adminstrative Projects 102,484$
Debt Service Library Bond 848,806$
Internal Service Equipment Replacement 148,388$
IT Replacement 328,956$
Facility Maintenance 265,039$
Equipment Maintenance 45,304$
Information Technology Services 195,950$
Office Stores Fund 42,219$
Liability/Risk Management 37,844$
Workers Compensation 69,936$
Trust/Agency Library Fund 693,948$
KSAR - Community Access TV 38,365$
Total City 16,802,721$
22
ATTACHMENT B
CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE
The following table presents the ending Fund Balances for the City’s major fund types as at July 31,
2008. This table excludes Trust and Agency funds where the City acts merely as a third party custodian
of an outside party’s funds.
Fund Description
Fund
Balance
07/01/08
Inc/(Dec)
Jul Revenues Expenditures Transfers
Fund Balance
07/31/08
General
Undesignated Unreserved Balance 3,141,836 - 369,578 1,191,773 2,319,640
Reserved Fund Balance:
Petty Cash Reserve 1,300 - - - 1,300
Retiree Medical Reserve 62,500 - - - 62,500
Development Deposit Reserves 598,719 598,719
Designated Fund Balances:- -
Designated Economic Uncertainty 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000
Designated for Operations 2,808,164 - - - 2,808,164
Designated for Claims 59,906 59,906
Designated for Development 650,728 - - - 650,728
Designated for Environmental 679,917 - - - 679,917
Special Revenue
Landscape/Lighting 209,821 - (2,302) - 207,519
CDBG Federal Grants - - - - -
SHARP Loan 93,877 - (827) - 93,050
Capital Project
Street Projects 1,955,994 - 4,722 8,722 - 1,951,995
Park and Trails 1,502,400 - - 990 - 1,501,409
Facility Improvements 515,317 - 9,438 (20) - 524,773
Adminstrative Projects 100,841 - - 1,292 - 99,549
Debt Service
Library Bond 853,620 - (4,014) 288 849,318
Internal Service Fund
Equipment Replacement 98,109 - 51,505 1,228 148,387
Technology Replacement 316,310 - 12,826 - 329,136
Building Maintenance 101,361 - 201,771 46,913 256,219
Equipment Maintenance 13,412 - 62,500 19,119 56,793
Information Technology Services 122,541 - 100,987 31,994 191,534
Stores Fund 32,616 - 16,782 4,739 44,660
Liability/Risk Management 128,689 - 72,017 162,943 37,763
Workers Compensation 47,736 - 65,230 43,056 69,910
Total City 15,595,715 - 960,213 1,513,037 - 15,042,888
23
ATTACHMENT C
CASH AND INVESTMENTS BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT
The following table details the cash balances for each project in the Streets, Parks & Trails, Facility
Improvements, and Administrative Project Program Funds.
CIP Funds/Projects
Cash & Investment
Balance at
July 31, 2008
Street Projects
CIP Street Project Fund (7,805)
Tree Fine Fund 2,839
CIP Grant Fund (173)
Traffic Safety 11,757
Highway 9 Safety Project 55,460
Annual Street Resurfacing Project 519,592
Sidewalks Yearly Project 70,075
Saratoga Sunnyale Road Resurfacing (114,321)
Traffic Signal @ Verde Vista Lane 90,000
Fourth Street Bridge 100,000
Highway 9 and Oak Place Pedestrian Sign (16,188)
Quito Road Bridge Replacement 9,730
Quito Road Bridge Construction 115,726
Village Newsrack Enclosur 23,384
Village Façade Program 19,430
Solar Power Radar Feedback Signs 24,158
El Quito Area Curb Replacement 37,552
Sobey Road Culvert Repair 150,000
Village Trees & Lights at Sidestreets 31,965
Village Pedestrian Enhancement 115,000
Prospect Road Median 1,556
City Entrance Sign/Monument 23,788
Village-Streetscape Impv (Sidewalk, Curbs)540,665
Saratoga-Sunnyvale ADA Curb Ramps (2,525)
Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Gateway Sidewalk 57,224
Total Street Projects 1,858,888$
Parks & Trails
CIP Parks Project Fund 10,404
Hakone Garden Kol Pond 50,000
EL Quito Park Improvement 118,209
Wildwood Park - Water Feature/Seating 7,199
Historical Park Landscape 37,200
Citywide Tree Replanting 129,566
Hakone Garden D/W 142,829
Wildwood Park Improvement (4,543)
Carnelian Glen Footbridge -
DeAnza Trail (77,743)
Kevin Moran Improvements 989,086
West Valley Soccer Field (51,412)
Park/Trail Repairs 21,130
Heritage Orchard Path 6,153
Trail Segment #3 Repair 7,912
Teerlink Ranch Trail 22,242
CIP Allocation Fund 118,552
Total Parks & Trails 1,526,784$
Facility Improvements
CIP Facility Project Fund 9,458
Civic Center Landscape 13,385
Warner Hutton House Improvements 5,868
Facility Projects 39,810
Fire Alarm at McWilliams & Museum 11,371
North Campus Improvements 608,466
Historical Park Fire Alarm System 1,762
Total Facility Improvements 690,120$
Administrative Projects
Financial System Upgrade 11,451
Document Imaging Project 92,325
CDD Document Imaging Project (1,292)
Total Administrative Projects 102,484$
Total CIP Funds 4,178,276$
24
ATTACHMENT D
FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT
The following table details the fund balances for each project in the Streets, Parks & Trails, Facility
Improvements, and Administrative Project Program Funds.
CIP Funds/Projects
Fund
Balance
07/01/08
Inc/(Dec)
Jul Revenues Expenditures Transfers
Fund
Balance
07/31/08
Street Projects
CIP Street Project Fund - - - 8,722 (8,722)
Tree Fine Fund - - 4,722 - 4,722
CIP Grant Fund - - - - -
Traffic Safety 11,757 - - - 11,757
Highway 9 Safety Project 55,460 - - - 55,460
Annual Street Resurfacing Project 732,980 - - - 732,980
Sidewalks Yearly Project (3,564) - - - (3,564)
Saratoga Sunnyale Road Resurfacing (178,292) - - - (178,292)
Traffic Signal @ Verde Vista Lane 90,000 - - - 90,000
Fourth Street Bridge 100,000 - - - 100,000
Highway 9 and Oak Place Pedestrian Sign - - - - -
Quito Road Bridge Replacement 9,730 - - - 9,730
Quito Road Bridge Construction 115,726 - - - 115,726
Village Newsrack Enclosur 23,384 - - - 23,384
Village Façade Program 19,430 - - - 19,430
Solar Power Radar Feedback Signs 24,158 - - - 24,158
El Quito Area Curb Replacement 37,553 - - - 37,553
Sobey Road Culvert Repair 150,000 - - - 150,000
Storm Drain Upgrades - - - - -
Median Repairs(Landscape/Irrig.)- - - - -
Village Improvements - - - - -
Village Trees & Lights at Sidestreets 31,965 - - - 31,965
Village Pedestrian Enhancement 115,000 - - - 115,000
Cox Ave Railroad Crossing Upgrade - - - - -
Prospect Road Median 1,556 - - - 1,556
City Entrance Sign/Monument 23,788 - - - 23,788
Village-Streetscape Impv (Sidewalk, Curbs) 540,665 - - - 540,665
Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Gateway - - - - -
Saratoga-Sunnyvale ADA Curb Ramps (2,525) - - - (2,525)
Storm Drain @ El Camino / Mt Vista - - - - -
Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Gateway Sidewalk 57,224 - - - 57,224
Total Street Projects 1,955,995 - 4,722 8,722 - 1,951,995
Parks & Trails
CIP Parks Project Fund - - - 990 (990)
Hakone Garden Kol Pond 50,000 - - - 50,000
EL Quito Park Improvement 118,209 - - - 118,209
Beauchamp Park Fund - - - - -
Wildwood Park - Water Feature/Seating 7,199 - - - 7,199
Historical Park Landscape 37,200 - - - 37,200
Citywide Tree Replanting 129,566 - - - 129,566
Hakone Garden D/W 142,829 - - - 142,829
Wildwood Park Improvement (4,543) - - - (4,543)
Carnelian Glen Footbridge - - - - -
DeAnza Trail (77,802) - - - (77,802)
Kevin Moran Improvements 982,259 - - - 982,259
West Valley Soccer Field (58,507) - - - (58,507)
Park/Trail Repairs 21,130 - - - 21,130
Heritage Orchard Path 6,153 - - - 6,153
Trail Segment #3 Repair 7,912 - - - 7,912
Teerlink Ranch Trail 22,242 - - - 22,242
San Marcos OP Space Trail - - - - -
CIP Allocation Fund 118,552 - - - 118,552
Total Parks & Trails 1,502,399 - - 990 - 1,501,409
Facility Improvements
CIP Facility Project Fund - - 9,438 (20) 9,458
Civic Center Landscape 13,384 - - - 13,384
Warner Hutton House Improvements 5,868 - - - 5,868
Facility Projects 39,735 - - - 39,735
Fire Alarm at McWilliams & Museum 11,371 - - - 11,371
North Campus Improvements 443,195 - - - 443,195
Historical Park Fire Alarm System 1,762 - - - 1,762
Total Facility Improvements 515,315 - 9,438 (20) - 524,773
Administrative Projects
Financial System Upgrade 8,516 - - - 8,516
Document Imaging Project 92,325 - - - 92,325
CDD Document Imaging Project - - - 1,292 (1,292)
Total Administrative Projects 100,841 - - 1,292 - 99,549
Total CIP Funds 4,074,550 - 14,160 10,984 - 4,077,725
25
ATTACHMENT E
26
Dave Anderson
Melanie Whittaker Mary Furey
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council review and accept the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable payment cycles:
October 30, 2008
November 6, 2008
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached are the Check Registers for:
Date
Ending
Check No.
10/30/08 110756 110810 55 82,928.65 10/23/08 10/16/08 110755
11/06/08 110811 110863 53 165,533.18 11/06/08 10/30/08 110810
AP Date Check No. Issued to Dept.Amount
10/30/08 110767 Public Works 16,900.00
11/06/08 110813
Non -
Departmental 48,410.02
11/06/08 110822
Public Safety
Services 42,528.12
11/06/08 110833 Public Works 14,829.99
The following are Accounts Payable checks that were voided or manually issued:
AP Date Check No. Issued to Amount
10/30/2008
11/6/2008 107244 (25.00)
11/6/2008 107267 (129.90)
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:November 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
Checks Released
Prior Check Register
DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY:DEPT. DIRECTOR:
Accounts Payable
Accounts Payable
The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks issued for more than $10,000 and a brief description of the expenditure:
SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers.
Type of Checks Date
Starting
Check No.
Ending Check
No.Total Checks Amount
Fund Purpose
Duran & Venables Streets Concrete work - Glenbrae
Gachina Landscape Various Landscape Management
Abag Plan Corp Worker's Comp
Workers Comp Deposit for
FY 08-09
City of San Jose General
Animal Control - Monthly
Services
Description
(None)
Shawn Gardner Stale Dated - Reissued
Corey, Rateau Stale Dated - Reissued
27
The following is a list of cash reduction by fund:
Fund #AP 10/30 AP11/06 Total
111 General 28,344.52 90,279.33 118,623.85
231 Village Lighting 930.00 930.00
232 Azule Lighting -
233 Sarahills Lighting -
241 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape 85.00 85.00
242 Bonnet Way Landscape 127.00 127.00
243 Carnelian Glen 270.00 270.00
244 Cunningham/Glasgow Landscape 145.00 145.00
245 Ferdericksburg Landscape 132.00 132.00
246 Greenbriar Landscape 757.00 757.00
247 Kerwin Ranch Landscape 340.00 340.00
248 Leutar Court Landscape 85.00 85.00
249 Manor Drive Landscape 160.00 160.00
251 McCartysville Landscape 313.55 313.55
252 Prides Crossing Landscape 450.00 450.00
253 Saratoga Legends Landscape 1,452.00 1,452.00
254 Sunland Park Landscape 340.00 340.00
255 Tricia Woods Landscape 37.00 37.00
271 Beauchamps Landscape 85.00 85.00
272 Bellgrove Landscape 113.43 1,985.00 2,098.43
273 Gateway Landscape 282.71 282.71
274 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting 960.00 960.00
275 Quito Lighting 869.00 869.00
276 Tollgate LLD 90.00 90.00
277 Village Commercial Landscape -
311 Library Bond Debt Service -
411 CIP Street Projects 19,244.12 19,244.12
412 CIP Parks Projects 8,022.50 8,569.00 16,591.50
413 CIP Facility Projects 37.15 37.15
414 CIP Admin Projects 1,769.90 1,769.90
421 Tree Fine Fund 15,137.00 15,137.00
431 Grant Fund - CIP Streets 323.34 726.19 1,049.53
481 Gas Tax Fund -
611 Liability/Risk Mgt 2,256.77 2,256.77
612 Workers' Comp 48,410.02 48,410.02
621 Office Stores Fund 405.44 405.44
622 Information Technology 3,504.85 115.00 3,619.85
623 Vehicle & Equimpent Maint 4,609.82 2,221.73 6,831.55
624 Building Maintenance 523.73 3,855.79 4,379.52
631 196.94 196.94
632 - -
82,928.65 165,633.18 248,561.83
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Check Registers in the A/P Checks By Period and Year report format
IT Equipment Replacement
TOTAL
Fund Description
Vehicle & Equipment Replacement
28
29
207
205
206
211
215
233
227
202
203
228
212
201
209
222
225
217
210
216
226
232
231
204
229
224
30
31
32
33
34
3
5
3
6
3
7
3
8
3
9
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: November 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Macedonio Nunez DIRECTOR: John Cherbone
SUBJECT: Comprehensive County Expressway 2008 Plan Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Support the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Draft 2008 Update.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Background:
In November 2001, the County initiated the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study (Study)
to develop a long-range strategic plan for improvement and maintenance of the expressway system. The
Study’s objectives were to: 1) Identify a plan, supported by local officials and communities, for
improving and maintaining expressways; 2) recommend priorities and implementation strategies; and, 3)
identify funding needs and sources.
The Study involved a Technical Working Group (TWG) compromised of representatives from agency
staff who would provide technical input and recommendations to the County and Policy Advisory Board
(PAB) and also provide input and direction on critical policy issues. PAB members kept their respective
city councils informed of the Study and brought forward local concerns and issues to staff and /or the
PAB. Mayor Ann Waltonsmith currently serves on the PAB.
On May 7, 2003, the City Council reviewed the Draft Plan and forwarded a recommendation in support of
the Plan to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. On August 19, 2003, the County Board of
Supervisors adopted the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Implementation Plan. At
that time, the County indicated that it would update the Implementation Plan every three years in the
conjunction with triennial updates of the VTA’s Valley Transportation Plan (VTP).
Discussion:
In December, 2007, the County began the process of preparing the Comprehensive County Expressway
Planning Study Draft 2008 Update (Draft 2008 Update). The 2008 Update Work Plan included the
following tasks:
• Develop a pedestrian access plan for expressways within each jurisdiction
• Hold TWG and PAB progress meetings
• Review the performance of expressway high-occupancy vehicles (HOV) lanes
Page 1 of 3
40
• Report on the expressway intersection level of service
• Update Capacity and Operations Improvement Tier 1A/1B project lists
o Tier 1A projects focus on improving level of service (LOS) F intersection
o Tier 1B projects focus would construct interchanges at LOS F intersections
• Compare the County’s Tier 1A/1B project list with the VTP 2035 project list
• Review updates to all elements of the study
Attachment 1 is the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Draft 2008 Update and
Attachment 2 is the Executive Summary of the Draft 2008 Update. Of particular interest are the Capacity
and Operational Improvement Element and also the Pedestrian Element. Attachment 3 is a summary of
the status of projects along Lawrence Expressway within the City of Saratoga.
Capital and Operational Improvement Element
The Capacity and Operational Improvement element includes the Lawrence-Signal coordination along
Lawrence/Saratoga Avenue corridor to SR 85, additional left-turn lane from EB Prospect Rd to NB
Lawrence Expressway and additional left-turn lane from EB Saratoga Ave to NB Lawrence Expressway.
Project Tier changes from the 2003 Expressway Study to 2008 Update have impacted two of the three
above projects.
The Lawrence-Signal coordination along Lawrence/Saratoga Avenue corridor to SR 85 was a 2003 Tier
1A project and has been completed and removed from the 2008 update. The additional left-turn lane from
EB Prospect Rd to NB Lawrence Expressway project (2003 Tier 1C) has been added to the 2008 update
Tier 1A list because it is now has a LOS of F which meets the criteria for Tier 1A.
The intersection of Saratoga Ave/Lawrence Expressway is located in the City of San Jose, but it impacts
traffic flow in Saratoga. The additional left-turn lane from EB Saratoga Ave to NB Lawrence Expressway
project is not a LOS F and therefore it is still a Tier 1C project. The County has committed to look at the
signal timing for the intersection of Saratoga Ave/Lawrence Expressway to help improve traffic flow
there. This will likely occur in the next couple of months.
Pedestrian Element
The Pedestrian Element of the Draft Update recommends sidewalks at 31 locations along seven of eight
expressways to close gaps, access transit stops, and provide access to land uses fronting the expressway.
The 2003 Expressway Study proposed new sidewalk on the east side of Lawrence Expressway within
Saratoga. This project was completed this past August and Lawrence Expressway within Saratoga now
has sidewalks on both sides of the road.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the Council’s review of the Draft 2008 update.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Draft 2008 Update would not be supported and staff would notify County staff of additional
comments required before the City Council supports the Draft 2008 Update.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Page 2 of 3
41
Page 3 of 3
The Council may wish to provide comments to the County Board of Supervisors on the Draft 2008
Update.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Staff will notify County Staff of Council’s endorsement or comments of the Draft 2008 Update.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Draft 2008 Update
2. Executive Summary of the Draft 2008 Update
3. Summary of Projects in Saratoga
4. Addendum Sheet for the Draft 2008 Update
42
Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study
DRAFT 2008 UPDATE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
ROADS AND AIRPORTS DEPARTMENT
OCTOBER 9, 2008
43
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors
Donald F. Gage
District 1
Blanca Alvarado
District 2
Pete McHugh – Chairperson
District 3
Ken Yeager
District 4
Liz Kniss
District 5
Peter Kutras, Jr.
County Executive
Policy Advisory Board
Ken Yeager – PAB Chair
Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Clara
Jamie McLeod – PAB Vice-Chair
Council Member
City of Santa Clara
Donald F. Gage
Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Clara
Jane P. Kennedy
Council Member
City of Campbell
Joe Hernandez, PAB Alternate
Vice Mayor
City of Campbell
Gilbert Wong
Council Member
City of Cupertino
Peter Arellano
Council Member
City of Gilroy
David Casas
Council Member
City of Los Altos
Jose Esteves
Mayor
City of Milpitas
Marby Lee
Mayor Pro Tempore
City of Morgan Hill
Ronit Bryant
Council Member
City of Mountain View
Margaret Abe-Koga, PAB Alternate
Vice Mayor
City of Mountain View
Yoriko Kishimoto
Council Member
City of Palo Alto
Kansen Chu
Council Member
City of San Jose
Will Kennedy, PAB Alternate
Council Member
City of Santa Clara
Ann Waltonsmith
Mayor
City of Saratoga
Aileen Kao, PAB Alternate
Council Member
City of Saratoga
Christopher R. Moylan
Council Member
City of Sunnyvale
Melinda Hamilton, PAB Alternate
Vice Mayor
City of Sunnyvale
Dominic J. Caserta
City of Santa Clara Council Member
VTA Board Member
Nancy Pyle
City of San Jose Council Member
VTA Board Member
Ted Brown – ex-officio
Chairperson
County Roads Commission
Steven Levin – ex-officio
Member
County Roads Commission
44
Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study
Draft 2008 Update
County of Santa Clara
Roads and Airports Department
101 Skyport Drive
San Jose, CA 95110
408-573-2400
www.sccgov.org
www.expressways.info
October 9, 2008
45
46
Table of Contents Draft (October 9, 2008)i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................ES-1
1 Introduction....................................................................................................1
Purpose of 2008 Update ..................................................................................2
Process ...........................................................................................................2
Document Organization ...................................................................................3
2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element .......................................5
2003 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Progress Report ........6
2008 Update Approach ....................................................................................6
South County Corridor ...................................................................................10
HOV System Evaluation and Recommendations ..........................................11
Expressway Level of Service Performance ...................................................17
Project Tiers ..................................................................................................19
Implementation Requirements and Strategies ...............................................29
3 Bicycle Element ...........................................................................................31
2003 Bicycle Element Progress Report .........................................................32
2008 Update Approach ..................................................................................34
2008 Project List ............................................................................................34
Implementation Strategies .............................................................................36
4 Pedestrian Element .....................................................................................37
2003 Pedestrian Element Progress Report ...................................................38
2008 Update Approach ..................................................................................40
Pedestrian Route Plans .................................................................................40
2008 Project List ............................................................................................44
Implementation Strategies .............................................................................52
5 Finishing Element ........................................................................................54
2003 Finishing Element Progress Report ......................................................54
2008 Update Approach ..................................................................................56
2008 Project Lists ..........................................................................................56
47
Table of Contents Draft (October 9, 2008)ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
6 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Element ...........................................62
2003 O&M Element Progress Report ............................................................62
2008 Update Approach ..................................................................................63
2008 O&M Element Costs .............................................................................63
O&M Implementation Challenges ..................................................................66
7 Funding Strategy .........................................................................................67
2008 Funding Strategy Progress Report .......................................................67
2008 Update Estimated Needs ......................................................................69
Funding Opportunities ...................................................................................72
Tier 1A Expenditure Plan ...............................................................................74
2008 Update Funding Strategy ......................................................................78
8 Future Updates ............................................................................................79
Appendix
A Project Tier Changes from 2003 Expressway Study to 2008 Update ..........A-1
B Tier 1A Expenditure Plan Criteria ................................................................B-1
48
Table of Contents Draft (October 9, 2008)iii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure Page
ES-1 2008 Tier 1A and 1B Projects ....................................................................ES-4
1 2003 Tier 1A and 1B Projects: Completed, In Progress
or Fully Funded................................................................................................9
2 Santa Teresa/Hale Corridor ...........................................................................12
3 Intersection Level of Service..........................................................................18
4 2008 Tier 1A and 1B Projects ........................................................................28
5 2003 Bicycle Projects Completed or in Progress ...........................................33
6 2003 Pedestrian Projects Completed or in Progress .....................................39
7 2008 Pedestrian Route Map ..........................................................................41
Table
ES-1 Roadway Projects Tier Summary ..............................................................ES-3
ES-2 Capital Program Funding Needs ...............................................................ES-7
1 2003 Tier 1A and 1B Project Status ................................................................7
2 HOV Lane Performance ................................................................................15
3 2008 Update Criteria for Tier Assignment .....................................................20
4 Summary of Tier Results ...............................................................................20
5 Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects ..........................................21
6 2003 Bicycle Projects Completed/In Progress ...............................................32
7 2008 Bicycle Element Project List .................................................................35
8 2008 New Sidewalks .....................................................................................45
9 2008 New Sound Wall Locations ...................................................................57
10 2008 Higher Replacement Sound Wall Locations .........................................59
11 2008 O&M Target Levels of Effort and Costs ................................................64
12 Capital Program Funding Needs ...................................................................69
13 Tier 1A Expenditure Plan ...............................................................................76
49
50
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Adopted in 2003, the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study provides a long-term plan
for the improvement and maintenance of the County Expressway System. It includes all areas of
need: capacity and operational improvements, signal operations, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and finishing elements such as landscaping and sound
walls. It also includes a summary of ongoing operating and maintenance needs and funding strategy
recommendations.
The 2008 Update is the first update of the 2003 Expressway Study. While it is primarily an
administrative update to reflect new conditions, it also tackled some key issues unresolved in the
2003 Study. These issues included developing an expenditure plan for the highest priority
expressway capacity and operational improvements, integrating South County’s Santa Teresa-Hale
Corridor’s needs into the project lists, and developing a plan to more completely accommodate
pedestrians on all expressways.
The same collaborative planning process used to develop the 2003 Expressway Study was used for
the 2008 Update. Elected officials and staff from twelve cities and the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA), representatives from the County Roads Commission, and the
County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) participated in the development of the
Update. Public comments will be solicited during the circulation of the Draft Update document.
51
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-2
Accomplishments Since 2003
The benefits of having the 2003 Expressway Study have been substantial and systemwide. The Study
has brought a greater understanding of the value provided by the expressway system as part of the
transportation system in Santa Clara County. It has also increased awareness of what is needed to
keep the expressway system functioning well, thereby, helping the County take advantage of every
possible opportunity. The highest priority expressway capacity and operational improvements (Tier
1A) became the Expressway Program in the VTA Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030),
laying the groundwork for grant allocations and federal earmarks. In addition, the comprehensive list
of expressway needs has been a resource for cities in conditioning developers to provide
improvements.
Specific project delivery accomplishments include:
Capacity and Operational Improvements – Twelve of the 28 highest priority expressway
capacity and operational improvements (Tier 1A at-grade projects) have been completed or
funded by various grants, County funding sources, and city contributions through developer
mitigations. In addition, six of the seven next highest set of priority projects (Tier 1B grade
separation projects) have full or partial funding commitments from city development impact
fees.
Bicycle Improvements – Nine of the eleven projects listed in the 2003 Study have been
delivered or funded. These improvements involved widening shoulders at pinch points and
improving delineation of shoulder areas for bicycle use.
Pedestrian Improvements – Some progress has also been made in providing pedestrian
improvements as identified in the 2003 Pedestrian Element including constructing new
sidewalk segments along five of the expressways, providing crossing enhancements at several
high demand locations, and installing pedestrian countdown timers at 39 intersections.
Little or no progress has been made in providing new and higher replacement sound walls or
installing new landscaping due to a lack of funding sources. In addition, no progress has been made
to increase levels of effort for expressway operations and maintenance. Rather, the annual operations
and maintenance shortfalls were exacerbated by the declining value of the gas tax and the year-by-
year uncertainty whether the State would borrow roadway maintenance funds, making it a challenge
to sustain current levels of effort.
52
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-3
Capacity and Operational Improvement Element
As in the 2003 Study, the 2008 Update capacity and operational improvements include the following
types of projects:
Capacity Projects – Roadway widening, new turning lanes at intersections, and new or
reconfigured interchanges/grade separations.
Operational and Safety Improvements – Auxiliary lanes, median/access closures, and bridge
replacements.
Signal Operational Improvements – Traffic Operations System (TOS) equipment using
advanced technologies to monitor and improve traffic flow, replacement of outdated
equipment, and expanded coordination with city signal systems.
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) System Projects – Recommendations to improve the
effectiveness of the HOV system, including corrective actions dealing with high violation
rates and removing a little-used peak-hour queue jump lane on Central Expressway.
The total roadway capital program includes 74 projects at an estimated cost of $2.2 to 2.6 billion. To
determine priorities for funding and implementation, the projects were divided into tiers using slightly
modified criteria from the 2003 Study. Table ES-1 provides a summary of the tiers and Figure ES-1
maps the highest priority projects (Tier 1A and 1B).
Table ES-1: Roadway Projects Tier Summary
Tier Tier Criteria # of
Projects
Cost
(2008
$/millions)
1A Improves 2001 and 2006/07 LOS F
intersections, provides operational
improvements, or conducts feasibility studies
25 $166
1B Constructs interchanges at 2001 LOS F
intersections
5 $253
1C Improves 2025 projected LOS F intersections 20 $76
2 Provides other expressway capacity
improvements or new technologies
15 $875-930
3 Reconstructs major existing facilities or
constructs new facilities
9 $861-1,126
Totals 74 $2,231-2,551
53
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-4
Figure ES-1: 2008 Tier 1A and 1B Projects
54
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-5
Bicycle Element
Bicycles are accommodated on all expressways and along the Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor. The 2003
Bicycle Element focused on bringing all expressways into compliance with the Expressway Bicycle
Accommodation Guidelines. No changes in policy or approach are made in the 2008 Bicycle
Element. A total of six projects are shown in the Bicycle Element. Included are projects from the
2003 Bicycle Element that have not been completed, a systemwide bicycle signal detection
improvement project, and an improvement for the Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor.
Pedestrian Element
In line with the County’s belief that the safest way to accommodate pedestrian use of expressways is
on improved sidewalks behind the curb or on parallel routes off the expressway, the 2008 Update has
taken a far more proactive pedestrian route planning approach than the 2003 Study. The goal of the
2008 Update was to identify continuous routes, either in the right-of-way or along alternate parallel
routes, providing for pedestrian travel along both sides of the expressways wherever possible. The
2008 Update Pedestrian Element completely replaces the 2003 Expressway Study Pedestrian
Element, including all policies, project lists, and recommendations.
The net results of this proactive approach for pedestrian route planning are recommendations for 38
miles of new sidewalks, a comprehensive signage program to help guide pedestrians along parallel
routes, and a recommendation that all expressway intersections should include design considerations
for pedestrian crossing enhancements whenever opportunities arise for these improvements.
Finishing Element
The Finishing Program Element involves improvements to expressway medians and edges. These
improvements include sound wall, landscaping, and street lighting. The 2008 Update carries forward
the 2003 Study recommendations for 63,500 feet of new sound walls and replacing 36,000 feet of
existing walls with higher sound walls. In addition, the basic level of landscaping recommended
continues to be trees and limited shrubs, median finishes (such as decomposed granite), sound walls
covered with ivy, and automated irrigation systems. Due to a lack of adequate annual funding for
landscape maintenance, the Update also continues to support the County’s policy to only allow
installation of new landscaping if full recovery of capital and maintenance costs can occur.
55
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-6
New to the Finishing Element for the 2008 Update is the consideration of pedestrian scale lighting to
support the ambitious pedestrian access plans. Because the utility and maintenance costs of street
lighting are high and beyond the means of the expressway system’s operating budget, the Update
includes a policy similar to the landscaping policy, where installation of pedestrian scale street
lighting along the expressways is only allowed if full recovery of capital and maintenance costs can
occur.
Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
Operations and maintenance (O&M) include all activities and material necessary to keep the
expressways functioning safely and effectively while looking presentable. It includes signal
operations, sweeping, pavement maintenance, landscape maintenance, enforcement, and aging
infrastructure replacement. As part of the 2003 Study, target levels of effort were developed. The
2003 Study also indicated that the annual costs for these target levels of effort exceeded existing
available revenues.
Since the 2003 Study, the annual O&M costs for the target levels of effort have grown 51% (from $18
million to $27.2 million) due to increased labor and material costs as well as an expanded Traffic
Operations System that must be maintained. With an annual cost estimate of $27.2 million in 2008
dollars and only $10.8 million expected to be available for expressway O&M in 2009, there will be an
annual shortfall of $16.4 million to achieve the target levels of effort. This shortfall is expected to
grow as real gas tax revenue declines.
Funding Strategy
With approximately $2.5 billion in capital needs (see Table ES-2) and an annual $16.4 million
shortfall for operations and maintenance, some innovative and aggressive strategies are needed. In
reviewing all known and potential capital funding sources, the net result through 2035 is likely to be:
All Tier 1A projects and half of the Tier 1B projects will be funded over the next 25 years. In
addition, most of the bicycle needs and some of the pedestrian needs will be funded.
The following needs will not be funded: the remainder of the Tier 1B projects; the roadway
projects in Tiers 1C, 2, and 3; most of the pedestrian needs; and the sound walls and
landscaping needs listed in the Finishing Program.
56
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-7
Table ES-2: Capital Program Funding Needs 1
Element Total Cost Committed
Funds 2
Potential
Funding 3 Net Needs
Capacity & Operational
Improvements $2,244-2,564 $106.3 $2,138-2,458
Bicycle 16.5 10.9 5.6
Pedestrian 76.3-84.3 23.3 53-61
Finishing: Sound Walls 76.6 13.7 62.9
Finishing: Landscaping 24-29 24-29
Total $2,284-2,617
million
1 All costs are in millions of 2008 dollars.
2 Committed sources include grants (Federal earmarks, VTA Bicycle Expenditure Program, other sources)
and city commitments, including development impact fees.
3 Other potential funding sources include funded, Tier 1A, and Tier 1B roadway projects (project costs
include appropriate bicycle, pedestrian, and sound wall needs) and land development conditions.
4 Includes San Tomas Expressway Culvert project.
It will be a challenge to maintain the current O&M levels of effort, and it will not be possible to
expand the levels of effort to reach any of the targets without an increase in sustainable revenue
sources. O&M efforts necessary to maintain the safety of the expressway system will continue to be
the highest priority for the limited funding. However, the forecast is that pavement conditions will
decline, the County will be less responsive to signal timing requests, there will be less sweeping and
more weeds/litter, and most other non-critical maintenance will be deferred.
The County will continue to take the following actions: pursue all possible grants and partnerships
for expressway improvement and O&M needs; work with the cities to acquire traffic mitigation fees
and new development conditions to support the expressway system; and, support all state efforts to
index the gas tax to inflation and to increase the gas tax to help fund the O&M needs of the
expressway system. However, these actions are not likely to be enough to deliver all the high priority
capital needs or increase O&M levels of effort.
57
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-8
Acquiring new revenue sources for both capital and O&M needs is very difficult in the current
economic environment. However, some opportunities do exist and the following strategies are
recommended to the meet the needs identified in the 2008 Update:
Request full funding for the Tier 1A Capacity and Operational Improvements in VTP 2035
with Tier 1B projects also listed should additional funding become available.
Seek $52 million from the 2010 STIP for the first set of Tier 1A projects with follow up
requests of $25 million and $12 million from the 2012 and 2014 STIPs, respectively, to fund
a little over half of the Tier 1A projects by 2015.
Seek funding from VTP 2030’s Pavement Maintenance Program to cover the next round of
expressway pavement maintenance needs to come due between 2010 and 2012 at a cost of
approximately $12-15 million annually.
Advocate for a commitment from future High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane revenue to help
improve and maintain sections of expressways and Santa Teresa-Hale if determined to be
within HOT lane corridors.
Explore, through State liaison, opportunities for opening a State maintenance revenue stream
for expressways.
Support initiatives for vehicle registration fees or vehicle miles traveled fees to help fund
expressway and local road improvement and maintenance needs.
Advocate that MTC institute a return-to-source policy for its 10-cent gas tax authority giving
the cities and County local control to meet high priority O&M needs, or continue to pursue
new local funding sources for expressway O&M needs, taking advantage of partnerships with
other local agencies facing annual deficits in road O&M budgets and pursue a 10-cent gas tax
as a local initiative.
Next Update
The County will update the Expressway Study every four years in conjunction with the regular
updates of VTA’s VTP plans to reflect changing traffic and financial conditions. Special tasks
recommended for the 2012 Update include conducting new traffic modeling to project future
conditions, evaluating the HOV performance targets, updating the sound wall needs list, and
assessing where pedestrian crossing improvements are needed at expressway intersections. Similar to
the 2003 Study and 2008 Update, a collaborative process involving elected officials, local agency
staff, and the public will be used to develop the 2012 Update.
58
Section 1 Introduction Draft (October 9, 2008)1
SECTION ONE
INTRODUCTION
Launched in 2001, the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study provides a long-term plan
for the improvement and maintenance of the County Expressway System. The Study took two years
to complete and culminated in the development of an Implementation Plan, which was adopted by
County Board of Supervisors in 2003. The Expressway Study provides a basis for and guides the
investment of money and resources in the expressways. It includes all areas of need: capacity and
operational improvements, signal operations, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, bicycle and
pedestrian improvements, and finishing elements such as landscaping and sound walls. It also
includes a summary of ongoing operating and maintenance needs.
An extensive collaborative planning process was used during the study to ensure the local cities and
their residents would support the 2003 Expressway Study. Study progress and direction was
monitored by a Policy Advisory Board (PAB) consisting of city elected officials, County Supervisors,
and County Roads Commission members. A Technical Working Group (TWG), consisting of city
and other agency staff, provided review and input to both study staff and the PAB. Community
outreach activities included telephone surveys, various neighborhood and business community
meetings, and a project open house.
The benefits of the 2003 Expressway Study have been substantial and systemwide. The highest
priority expressway capacity and operational improvements became the Expressway Program in the
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030).
From VTP 2030, these projects were then incorporated into the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) regional transportation plan (Transportation 2030), laying the groundwork for
59
Section 1 Introduction Draft (October 9, 2008)2
grant allocations and federal earmarks. The bicycle element projects have received grant funds
through VTA’s Bicycle Expenditure Plan (BEP). The expressway operations and maintenance
element helped develop support for grant funds for pavement maintenance and signal
synchronization. The comprehensive list of all expressway needs have also provided a reference for
conditioning development impact mitigations through the city planning process.
One of the key next steps identified in the 2003 Expressway Study is to update the plan regularly in
conjunction with the updates of VTA’s VTP plans to reflect changing traffic and financial conditions.
Purpose of 2008 Update
In November 2007, the County of Santa Clara began the development of the first update to the 2003
Expressway Study. Taking approximately one year to complete, this 2008 Update is mostly an
administrative update. It reflects new conditions, provides input related to expressways for VTA’s
VTP 2035 and MTC’s Transportation 2035, and addresses issues requiring resolution. These issues
include:
Developing an expenditure plan for the Tier 1A list of capacity and operational projects.
Incorporating any expressway-related recommendations from the South County Circulation
Study.
Continuing to monitor HOV performance.
Developing a plan to more completely accommodate pedestrians on all expressways.
As an administrative update, no new major technical work (e.g., traffic modeling) was undertaken.
The Update document itself is a supplement to, not a replacement of, the 2003 Expressway Study. It
updates project lists and costs; however, except for specific areas noted otherwise in this document,
the basic information, expressway vision statements, and County policies from the 2003 Plan remain
unchanged.
Process
The same collaborative planning process used for the 2003 Expressway Study was used for the 2008
Update.
60
Section 1 Introduction Draft (October 9, 2008)3
A Policy Advisory Board (PAB) consisting of elected officials from the County Board of
Supervisors, cities with expressway mileage, South County cities, and VTA Board of
Directors, along with County Roads Commission members, provided policy input. The PAB
met three times during the Update process.
A Technical Working Group (TWG) consisting of staff from the cities with expressway
mileage, South County cities and VTA met regularly to provide ongoing technical input.
Caltrans and MTC representatives were also kept informed as the study progressed. The
TWG met six times during the Update process.
The County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) reviewed and commented
on the 2008 Update. The draft bicycle and pedestrian elements, as well as the entire 2008
Update document, was brought to the BPAC at three of their regularly scheduled meetings.
As part of the approval process for the 2008 Update document, the Draft 2008 Update will be
presented to city councils for review and comment from October through December 2008. Public
comments will be solicited through stakeholder interviews and inviting public comments at a Roads
Commission meeting in January 2009. The Board of Supervisors is expected to adopt the Final
Expressway Study 2008 Update document by February 2009.
Document Organization
This document is organized by element as was done in the 2003 document. Listed below are the
document sections with a brief content description:
Section 2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Element – Provides a list of
accomplishments for expressway capacity and operational improvements since the 2003
Study, followed by a description of the Santa Teresa/Hale Corridor for South County and a
high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane monitoring report with recommendations for improving
HOV lane performance. The next part provides current level of service (LOS) information
and revised tier criteria resulting in the updated project list and cost estimates for the capacity
and operational improvement tiers. The section ends with a brief discussion of
implementation requirements and strategies.
Section 3: Bicycle Element – Provides a list of accomplishments for expressway bicycle
improvements since the 2003 Study and an updated project list.
Section 4: Pedestrian Element – Provides a list of accomplishments for expressway
pedestrian improvements and an overview of the pedestrian route plans for each expressway
developed as part of the 2008 Update. A new project list, with cost estimates, is provided
61
Section 1 Introduction Draft (October 9, 2008)4
consistent with the route plans. Implementation strategies for the pedestrian improvements
are also discussed.
Section 5: Finishing Element – Provides a current status of sound wall and landscaping
improvements and updated cost estimates. Also includes a policy for adding pedestrian scale
lighting to the expressways.
Section 6: Operations and Maintenance Element – Provides a current status and an overview
of new challenges for expressway operations and maintenance. Updated cost estimates for
achieving the target levels of effort for operations and maintenance are also provided.
Section 7: Funding Strategy – Provides an overview of current funding sources for both one-
time capital improvements and ongoing operations and maintenance. Discusses strategies for
closing the shortfalls and setting priorities for the limited funding. Provides an expenditure
plan for the Tier 1A Capacity and Operational Improvement projects.
Section 8: Future Updates – Provides a list of issues to address in the next update of the
Expressway Study.
62
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)5
SECTION TWO
CAPACITY AND OPERATIONAL
IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
The 2003 Expressway Study listed 72 capacity and operational improvements totaling nearly $2
billion (2003 dollars). It included the following types of projects:
Capacity Projects – Roadway widening, new turning lanes at intersections, and new or
reconfigured interchanges/grade separations.
Operational and Safety Improvements – Auxiliary lanes, median/access closures, and bridge
replacements.
Signal Operational Improvements – Traffic Operations System (TOS) equipment using advanced
technologies to monitor and improve traffic flow, replacement of outdated equipment, and
expanded coordination with city signal systems.
HOV System Projects – Recommendations to improve effectiveness of HOV system, including
adding one new HOV lane, removing HOV lanes experiencing operational problems, and adding
expressway-freeway HOV direct connector ramps.
To determine priorities for funding and implementation, the roadway projects were divided into tiers
using specific criteria. The two top ranked tiers were as follows:
Tier 1A – Relatively low-cost operational/at-grade improvements for areas with existing
problems, including 2001 LOS F intersections. There were 28 Tier 1A projects for a cost of $150
63
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)6
million (2003 dollars). These projects were included in VTP 2030 under the Expressway
Program as eligible for state/federal funding.
Tier 1B – Grade separation/interchange projects to mitigate existing LOS F intersections. There
were seven Tier 1B projects for a cost of $260-270 million (2003 dollars). These projects were
included in VTP 2030 without funding allocations.
2003 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element
Progress Report
Since adoption of the 2003 Expressway Study, opportunities for funding expressway improvements
have been limited. There has been no funding available in the STIP (state and federal funds) for these
improvements. Work completed or underway has been due to the 1996 Measure B sales tax program,
federal earmarks, city contributions through developer mitigations, and County Roads & Airport
Department staff completing the work in-house or folding it into another grant funded project. These
projects were chosen in response to funding opportunities, project viability, and local interests, rather
than through a specific priority order.
Table 1 provides the status of each Tier 1A and 1B project. Figure 1 illustrates the 2003 Tier 1A and
1B projects which have been completed, are in progress, or are fully funded. When looking at overall
program implementation status, it can be seen that most of the Tier 1A projects completed were
generally the low-cost, easy implementation projects, and the high cost Tier 1B projects have
received some relatively significant funding commitments.
While 42% of the Tier 1A projects have been started or have funding identified, they represent
only 26% of the total Tier 1A project costs.
Tier 1B projects were not included in the funded portion of VTP 2030. However, six of the seven
Tier 1B interchange projects have full or partial funding commitments, all due to city
development impact fees.
2008 Update Approach
To update the Capacity and Operational Improvement Element, the following tasks were performed:
The South County Circulation Study recommended list of improvements were reviewed and a
determination was made about how to resolve the question of geographic equity related to South
County and the Expressway Program.
64
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)7
Table 1: 2003 Tier 1A and 1B Project Status
Expressway Project Status
2003 Tier 1A List
Widen to 8 lanes between Coleman and Blossom Hill Unfunded
Prepare SR 85 interchange Project Study Report UnfundedAlmaden
Widening and operational improvements between
Branham and Blossom Hill through SR 85 interchange
Funded/
In Progress
Add auxiliary lanes between Mary and Lawrence Unfunded
Widen to 6 lanes between Lawrence and San Tomas UnfundedCentral
Convert HOV lane between San Tomas and De La Cruz
if unsuccessful after trial HOV Trial
Signal operational improvements Completed
Extend deceleration lane at San Antonio UnfundedFoothill
Replace Loyola Bridge and make circulation
improvements Unfunded
Signal coordination along Lawrence/Saratoga Avenue
corridor to SR 85 Completed
Widen to 8 lanes between Bollinger and Calvert Unfunded
Signal operational improvements at I-280/Lawrence
interchange and Stevens Creek Completed
Prepare Lawrence/Calvert/I-280 interchange Project
Study Report Unfunded
Close median at Lochinvar and right-in-and-out access
at 5 locations Unfunded
Lawrence
Convert HOV lane north of US 101 to mixed flow due to
operational and safety problems Completed
Convert HOV lane on 6-lane portion between I-880 and
I-680 to mixed flow due to operational and safety
problems
Completed
Montague
Widen to 8 lanes from Mission College to Park Victoria,
including various intersection at-grade improvements
and I-880 and I-680 interchange work
Partially
completed;
partially
funded
65
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)8
Table 1: 2003 Tier 1A and 1B Project Status (continued)
Expressway Project Status
Construct I-280/Page Mill interchange modification Unfunded
Prepare Alma Bridge replacement feasibility study UnfundedOregon-
Page Mill Oregon corridor operational and pedestrian
improvements
Funded/
In Progress
At-grade improvements at SR 17/San Tomas Unfunded
Additional left turn lanes at Hamilton intersection Funded/
In Progress
Widen to 8 lanes between Williams and El Camino Real Unfunded
San Tomas
Additional right turn lane at Monroe Unfunded
Signal
Operations/TOS
Capital
Improvements
Systemwide improvements divided into 4 types of
projects including motorist traffic information, automatic
traffic count collection, and two signal
interconnection/coordination with cross streets projects
Partially
funded/
partially
completed
2003 Tier 1B List
Capitol Interchange at Silver Creek Unfunded
Interchange at Monroe Partially
funded 1
Interchange at Kifer Partially
funded 1Lawrence
Interchange at Arques Partially
funded 1
At-grade improvements at Mission College and par-clo
interchange at US 101
Partially
funded/PSR
in progress
Trimble Flyover FundedMontague
McCarthy-O-Toole square loop interchange Partially
funded
1 The City of Sunnyvale has committed to fund thirty percent (30%) of the cost of the three Lawrence
Expressway interchange projects through development traffic mitigation fees. The funding may be
split among the three interchanges or used to completely fund one of the interchanges.
66
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)9
Figure 1: 2003 Tier 1A and 1B Projects
Completed, In Progress, or Fully Funded
67
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)10
The performance of the current expressway HOV lanes was evaluated based on the five
performance measures defined in the 2003 Expressway Study. HOV-related recommendations
were adjusted based on the performance analysis.
Current level of service (LOS) data was analyzed and the results used to determine changes to the
Tier 1A project list.
All unfunded and under-funded projects were reviewed to confirm need for the projects and
revise project descriptions and cost estimates as needed. This included the Signal
Operations/TOS and HOV System capital projects.
South County Corridor
The Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill participated in the 2003 Expressway Study to help resolve plans
for an expressway or continuous arterial in South County and determine how to incorporate South
County’s needs into the Expressway Study. A subcommittee of the Policy Advisory Board (PAB)
composed of San Jose, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, and County elected officials determined that a South
County “local corridor” was needed to facilitate travel between Gilroy and Morgan Hill. It did not
necessarily need to be called an “expressway” or fall under single-jurisdiction ownership, but it did
need consistent standards and an identifiable alignment. It was also recommended that a regional
transportation plan (i.e., a “South County Circulation Study”) be prepared for the South County area.
The 2003 Expressway Study committed to consider the results of the South County Circulation Study
(SCCS) in the next update of the Expressway Study.
VTA, working with the Cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and San Jose, the County of Santa Clara, and
Caltrans, completed the SCCS in early 2008. The Study identified over $1.1 billion in local roadway
improvements and over $2.0 billion in freeway improvements for the South County area. The SCCS
recommended improving three north-south arterials (Santa Teresa Blvd/Hale Avenue, Monterey
Road, and Center/Marcella/Hill/Peet) to serve travel demand between Gilroy and Morgan Hill.
As part of the 2008 Update process, it was agreed to include the Santa Teresa Blvd-Hale Avenue
Corridor in the Expressway Study due to its history as a former planned expressway. The original
plan for the County expressway system, dating back to the late 1950s, included an expressway from
South San Jose to Gilroy following the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Hale Avenue alignment. The County
improved significant mileage as a two-lane roadway and, along some portions in city jurisdiction,
entered into expressway maintenance agreements with the cities for the operation of the boulevard.
Since that time, and as San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy have grown and developed, much of the
68
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)11
alignment has been relinquished or annexed into the cities, and those cities have built and/or widened
sections of the arterial to four lanes.
The Santa Teresa Blvd/Hale Avenue north-south corridor extends for approximately 19 miles from
Palm Avenue at the southern border of San Jose’s Coyote Valley project north of Morgan Hill to the
US 101/SR 25 interchange in southern Gilroy. Figure 2 provides a map of the corridor. The current
roadway varies from two to four lanes and is discontinuous, with the alignment incorporating DeWitt
Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue south of Morgan Hill.
The long-term plan as defined in the SCCS is for a continuous four-lane arterial. The SCCS
identified approximately $260 million worth of capacity and operational improvements to achieve the
four-lane arterial concept. An additional $7.5 million in current safety and operational project needs
were also identified. These improvements are included in the Capacity and Operational Improvement
Element project list. The County will fulfill its obligation to the former expressway plan by helping
to plan this north-south arterial while continuing to transfer operation to the cities. While the County
will help seek funding for the capital improvements, the cities will be the lead agency for delivering
the capacity and operational projects within their jurisdictions. As has already taken place in Gilroy,
it is anticipated that a significant portion of the financing will come from development mitigations/
fees.
HOV System Evaluation and Recommendations
The 2003 Expressway Study took a comprehensive look at the expressway HOV system, including
the performance of existing HOV lanes and potential expansion of the HOV system. Five of the eight
expressways have HOV lanes: Capitol, Central, Lawrence, Montague, and San Tomas. The hours of
operation and occupancy requirements of expressway HOV lanes are similar to the freeway HOV
lanes. As of 2007, clean air vehicles (i.e., certain hybrids and alternate fuel vehicles) with the
freeway HOV lane access stickers are allowed in the expressway HOV lanes. Unlike freeway HOV
lanes, expressway HOV lanes operate in the right lane next to the shoulder. Lack of access control
(i.e., driveways) and/or certain intersection/ramp configurations along some expressway segments can
create operational difficulties for expressway HOV lanes.
69
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)12
Figure 2
70
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)13
Performance Measures
To evaluate the expressway HOV lanes, five performance measures were developed. These
performance measures were based on similar measures used by Caltrans and MTC to evaluate
freeway HOV lanes, but were modified to take into account that expressway HOV lanes are operated
in right-hand lanes and have a lower capacity than freeway HOV lanes. The performance measures
are:
1. Total vehicles per peak hour – minimum of 400 (freeway is 800)
2. Total persons per peak hour – minimum of 880 (freeway is 1,800)
3. Lane productivity (ratio of people in HOV lane to a single mixed-flow lane) – Minimum of
0.8 (freeway has no standard, but most operate at 2.0 to 3.0)
4. Violation rates – no higher than 15% (freeway is 10%)
5. Travel time savings compared to mixed flow lanes – at least 0 seconds per mile (freeway is 1
minute per mile)
2003 Study Findings and Recommendations
Lawrence Expressway’s HOV lane north of US 101 to SR 237 was performing poorly and had
excessively high violation rates. This was due to operational problems created by the early
merging of single-occupant vehicles into the lane to prepare for entry onto SR 237. It was
recommended that this section be converted to mixed-flow since there were no feasible
alternatives to correct the operational problems.
Montague Expressway’s HOV lane performance was marginal to under performing. Lack of
access control (i.e., many driveways between intersections) between I-680 and I-880 creates
operational problems. It was recommended that the HOV lane between I-680 and I-880 be
converted to mixed-flow on the current 6-lane expressway due to operational problems and poor
performance. When the 8-lane widening is completed, the new lanes would be designated as
HOV on a trial basis for 3 to 5 years to see if the operational problems are reduced and overall
performance improves.
In 2003, Central Expressway had two HOV queue jump lanes: at Scott Blvd and at Bowers
Avenue. These queue jump lanes were performing very poorly even though the Central
Expressway/Bowers Avenue intersection was operating at LOS F. Part of the likely explanation
71
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)14
for this is that Central Expressway closely parallels US 101 which has a competing and long
distance HOV lane. A Measure B project in progress was adding an HOV lane from De La Cruz
to San Tomas Expressway, encompassing the Scott Blvd queue jump lane. It was recommended
that the new HOV lane operate on a trial basis for 3 to 5 years to see if it can perform
successfully. It was also recommended to consider removing the Bowers Avenue queue jump
lane if performance does not improve at this location.
No new expressway HOV lanes or lane extensions were recommended due to either relatively
low levels of traffic congestion, other community priorities for right-of-way, operational
problems from lack of access control, or competing parallel freeway HOV lanes. The study did,
however, identify 6 locations that would benefit from direct connections between the expressway
HOV lane (right lane) and freeway HOV lane (left lane).
HOV Lane Actions Since 2003 Study
The Central Expressway HOV lane from De La Cruz to San Tomas Expressway has been
completed and is in operation.
The Lawrence Expressway HOV lane north of US 101 was converted to mixed use as
recommended in the 2003 Study.
The HOV lane on the 6-lane segments of Montague Expressway between I-680 and I-880 has
been converted to mixed use as part of a pavement resurfacing project. The HOV lane will be
added back on a trial basis as part of the 8-lane widening project.
2007 Performance of Expressway HOV Lanes
Table 2 indicates the current performance of the existing HOV lanes using the performance measures
developed during the 2003 Study. The purpose of the performance measures was to identify through
relative comparisons under-performing HOV lanes so that appropriate corrective action could be
taken. Minor variations are not considered significant, and the validity of the performance criteria is
a subject for future investigation and research. For example, results showing HOV lane productivity
near a value of 1.0, but the number of HOV vehicles and persons well below performance measure
targets, suggest those performance measure targets are set too high.
72
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)15
Table 2: HOV Lane Performance
Express-
way
Cross
Street
Peak Hr
&
Direction
Viola-
tion
Rate
Persons/
HOV
Lane
Produc-
tivity
Ratio
HOV
Veh
Peak Hr
Com-
mute
Direction
Sec.
Saved/
Mile
AM-NB 26%378 0.81 200 AM
NB/EB -7
Capitol Story
PM-SB 27%487 0.89 260 PM
SB/WB -2
AM-WB 30%189 0.31 103
AM-EB 39%130 0.22 75
PM-WB 21%156 0.34 80
AM/WB 50Bowers
PB-EB 19%199 0.30 101
AM-WB 44%169 0.25 101
Central
Lafayette
PM-EB 34%535 0.66 299
PM/EB -15
AM-NB 26%742 0.90 393 AM/NB 17LawrenceMonroe
PM-SB 27%878 1.02 468 PM/SB 7
AM-WB 36%453 0.97 256 AM/WB 47MontagueDe La
Cruz PM-EB 32%324 0.59 179 PM/EB -29
AM-NB 24%690 0.96 361 AM/NB 35San
Tomas Monroe
PM-SB 25%710 1.22 373 PM/SB 0
Notes:
Shading indicates where performance exceeds performance measure standards.
Intersection counts were conducted by the County in the Fall of 2007 or January 2008.
The “Seconds Saved per Mile” represents the average over the entire length of each HOV lane.
Key findings are as follows:
All of the expressway HOV lanes have very high violation rates even allowing for inaccurate
counts. (Note: The counting methodology is not technologically sophisticated. With limited
time and sightlines, contractors stand by the side of the roadway and look for occupants in the
vehicle.) Increased enforcement is needed to reduce violations.
Capitol Expressway no longer has the best performing HOV lane. It meets the productivity ratio
measure, but falls far short on all the others. Decreased traffic volume on Capitol Expressway
may explain the lower performance. In addition, the high violation rates may be contributing to
the poor performance. No corrective action is recommended. It is likely performance will
73
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)16
improve as traffic congestion returns to 2001 levels. In addition, most of the Capitol Expressway
HOV lane will be eliminated when the planned LRT project is built.
Central Expressway’s new HOV lane from De La Cruz to San Tomas Expressway (flowing
through Lafayette Street) is doing relatively poorly for the persons, vehicles, and productively
ratios. The travel time savings is mixed – it saves nearly 1 minute per mile in the westbound
direction (AM peak) compared to the mixed flow lanes, but loses 15 seconds per mile in the
eastbound direction (PM peak). It is recommended that the trial period continue until at least
2010.
Central Expressway’s HOV queue jump lane at Bowers is the worst performing HOV lane and
has not improved in performance since the 2003 Study. It is recommended that it be converted to
mixed use to improve operations in the short term, and eliminate the need to grade separate the
Central/Bowers intersection in the longer term.
Lawrence Expressway currently has the best performing HOV lane. It meets all performance
measures (except the violation rate) in one direction and is very close to meeting all of them in
the other direction. No corrective action is required.
Montague Expressway’s HOV lane through the De La Cruz intersection (between I-880 and US
101) meets the productivity ratio for westbound travel but falls far short on vehicle and persons
performance measures. Travel time savings in the westbound direction (AM peak) is excellent,
but there is a significant travel time loss in the eastbound direction (PM peak). Performance may
improve when the 8-lane widening is completed for the entire expressway, if HOV continuity can
be maintained crossing I-880 and a feasible design solution can be identified for merging and
weaving conflicts.
San Tomas Expressway’s HOV Lane meets the productivity ratio in both directions, has good
travel time savings, and is very close to meeting the performance measures for persons and
vehicles. No corrective action is recommended. It is likely performance will improve as traffic
congestion returns to 2001 levels.
HOV Update Recommendations
Work with CHP to increase enforcement and lower violation rates.
Convert the Central Expressway Bowers HOV queue jump lane to mixed use. This queue jump
lane has a 12-year history of poor performance. Conversion could help improve LOS and avert a
future need to grade separate the Central/Bowers intersection. VTA does not have any buses
using the queue jump lane.
74
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)17
Continue the trial period for the Central Expressway HOV Lane from De La Cruz to San Tomas
Expressway until at least 2010.
Continue the regular monitoring program for the expressway HOV lanes using the five
performance measures. If not performing to standards, take appropriate corrective action to
improve performance whenever feasible (e.g., increasing enforcement to reduce violation rates;
finding ways to encourage carpool use; removing an operational problem). Converting an HOV
lane to a mixed-used lane is a last resort measure for under-performing lanes in areas with LOS
problems where no feasible corrective action exists and policymakers approve the conversion.
Evaluate the targets for the HOV lane performance measures and determine whether adjustments
are needed during the next Expressway Study Update.
Continue with the other HOV Element recommendations included in the 2003 Study, such as
supporting freeway-expressway HOV direct connector ramps and working with Caltrans to
continue expressway HOV lanes through freeway interchange areas.
Expressway Level of Service Performance
Level of service (LOS) measures the interrelationship between travel demand (volume) and supply
(capacity) of the transportation system. LOS is categorized into six levels, A through F, with A
representing ideal conditions or no congestion and LOS F representing very poor conditions or
significantly congested flow. Roadways at LOS F are considered deficient and do not meet
Congestion Management Program (CMP) standards. Figure 3 shows which intersections were
performing at LOS F in 2001 (the 2003 Study data year) and which were performing at LOS E and F
in 2006/2007 (the 2008 Update data years).
Key findings in changes in LOS performance between 2001 and 2006/2007 are as follows:
In 2001, there were 30 LOS F intersections along the expressway system. In 2006/2007, there
were 12 LOS F intersections. The improved conditions are due to the following factors:
The dot-com crash occurred just after the 2001 LOS was developed. The loss of jobs in
Santa Clara County led to lighter traffic demand throughout the County.
Completion of Measure B expressway improvements as well as other expressway
improvements provided capacity improvements at some LOS F locations.
75
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)18
Figure 3: Intersection Level of Service
76
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)19
Completion of some freeway and local arterial projects may have contributed to
improved expressway traffic flow as expressway users chose parallel facilities.
2005 expressway system signal retiming allowed all the expressways to flow more
smoothly, improving LOS.
Of the 18 2001 LOS F locations that are no longer at LOS F, 14 are currently at LOS E. Most of
these locations have received no capacity improvements and are currently LOS E due to reduced
traffic demand.
Traffic demand is returning to 2001 levels as the economy grows. From 2001 to 2004,
expressway traffic volume decreased by 6%. Between 2004 and 2007, two-thirds of the decrease
was gained back – in 2007, volumes were only 2% less than 2001 levels.
Santa Teresa/Hale Corridor LOS
Current and projected future LOS information for the Santa Teresa/Hale Corridor was taken from
VTA’s 2008 South County Circulation Study. According to the SCCS, the corridor is currently
operating at LOS D south of SR 152 in Gilroy and LOS C or better north of SR 152 through County
unincorporated and Morgan Hill areas. There are currently no existing LOS E or F intersections
along the alignment. Conditions are due to change, however, by 2030. The Santa Teresa/Hale
corridor LOS is projected to degrade to E south of SR 152 in Gilroy and north of Main Avenue in
Morgan Hill. Six intersections are projected to degrade to LOS F along the corridor by 2030.
Project Tiers
In the 2003 Expressway Study, the roadway projects were divided into tiers using specific criteria to
determine priorities for funding and implementation. During the 2008 Update, the tier criteria was
reviewed and revised slightly to account for changes in conditions. Table 3 lists the criteria used for
assigning projects to tiers.
Table 4 provides a summary of the number of projects and total costs per tier. Table 5 provides the
list of capacity/operational improvement projects divided into the tiers. Figure 4 illustrates the 2008
Update Tier 1A and 1B projects. Appendix A details the changes in the tier project lists between the
2003 Study and the 2008 Update including why a project was modified, moved, or deleted.
77
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)20
Table 3: 2008 Update Criteria for Tier Assignment
Tier Criteria
Tier 1A At-grade improvements to mitigate 2006/2007 level of service (LOS)
F intersections or 2001 LOS F intersections that are currently LOS E
Operational improvements to eliminate weaving, merging/diverging,
and queuing problems, thus improving safety conditions
Signal operational improvements that improve traffic flow
Low-cost feasibility studies needed to answer critical questions
about interchange reconfigurations that have a high level of local
support
Tier 1B Grade separation/interchange projects to mitigate 2001 LOS F
intersections
Tier 1C Improvements (both at-grade and grade separation/interchange
projects) needed to mitigate the projected 2025 LOS F intersections
Longer term signal operational improvements
Tier 2 All other expressway capacity improvement projects that can further
facilitate traffic flow
Enhancements and upgrades to signal systems using new
technologies that will become available over the next 30 years
Tier 3 Major existing facility reconstruction and new facilities such as HOV
direct connectors.
Table 4: Summary of Tier Results
Tier # of Projects Cost
(2008 $/millions)
1A 25 $166
1B 5 $253
1C 20 $76
2 15 $875-930
3 9 $861-1,126
Totals 74 $2,231-2,551
78
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)21
Table 5: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
Expressway Project Description Cost
(2008 $/millions)
Funded Projects (for future implementation)
Widen to 8 lanes between Lick Mill and Trade Zone (funded
by San Jose)N.A.Montague
Construct Trimble Flyover Ramp (funded by San Jose)N.A.
Tier 1A List
Widen to 8 lanes between Coleman and Blossom Hill
including an additional left-turn lane from SB Almaden to
Coleman and from EB and WB Coleman to Almaden, and a
right-turn lane from WB Coleman to NB Almaden; a 4th SB
and NB through lane on Almaden at Via Monte; and an
additional left-turn (a total of three) from SB Almaden to EB
Blossom Hill and an additional SB through lane at Blossom
Hill intersection
10.5
Almaden
Initiate a Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR)/Project
Development Study (PDS) to reconfigure SR 85/Almaden
interchange
0.4
Capitol
Add TOS infrastructure (fiber-optic trunkline, CCTV,
Ethernet-capable controller, battery back-up system, system
detector loops) from US 101 to Almaden Expressway
3.5
Install median curbs where missing and enhance existing
median curbs as needed between SR 85 and SR 237 to
improve safety and operations.
0.8
Widen between Mary and Lawrence to provide auxiliary
and/or acceleration/deceleration lanes to improve ramp
operations and safety (may also include a turning lane
improvement at Central/Mary)
17.0
Widen to 6 lanes between Lawrence and San Tomas
Expressways without HOV lane operations 13.6
Convert HOV queue jump lane at Bowers to mixed flow
based on 10 years of poor performance and LOS problems 0.1
Central
Convert the Measure B HOV lane widening between San
Tomas and De La Cruz to mixed flow if unsuccessful after a
3 to 5-year trial period
0.1
79
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)22
Table 5: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
(continued)
Expressway Project Description Cost
(2008 $/millions)
Extend existing WB deceleration lane at San Antonio by
250 feet 0.7
Foothill Widen Loyola Bridge (This improvement project will also
provide necessary bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and
channelization and operational improvements at adjacent
intersections.)
7.0
Provide additional left-turn lane from EB Prospect to NB
Lawrence 2.6
Widen to 8 lanes between Moorpark/Bollinger and south of
Calvert with additional WB through lane at Moorpark 5.2
Prepare Caltrans PSR for Tier 1C project at the
Lawrence/Calvert/I-280 interchange area 1.0
Lawrence
Close median at Lochinvar and right-in-and-out access at
DeSoto, Golden State, Granada, Lillick, Buckley, and St.
Lawrence/Lawrence Station on-ramp
1.5
At-grade improvements at Mission College intersection 4.0
Montague
Widen to 8 lanes from Trade Zone to Park Victoria,
including Phase I of I-680 interchange improvements (fill in
deck over I-680 to add through lanes); designate new lanes
between I-880 and I-680 as HOV for a 3 to 5-year trial
period.
20.0
I-280/Page Mill interchange modification: remove SB loop
on-ramp and construct SB diagonal on-ramp with signal
operations; signalize NB off-ramp intersection; and provide
proper channelization for pedestrians and bicycles
6.6Oregon-
Page Mill
Alma Bridge Replacement Feasibility Study 0.3
At grade improvements at SR 17/San Tomas:
Re-stripe the EB through lane on White Oaks to provide
an optional left as 3rd left-turn lane
Provide second right-turn lane on SB off-ramp
Study potential operational and safety improvements in
the interchange area
2.6
San Tomas
Widen to 8 lanes between Williams and El Camino Real
with additional left-turn lane from EB and WB El Camino
Real to San Tomas
40.7
80
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)23
Table 5: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
(continued)
Expressway Project Description Cost
(2008 $/millions)
Realign DeWitt S-Curve between Origilia Lane and Spring
Avenue to improve operations and safety 2.5
Santa
Teresa-Hale
Corridor
Add TOS infrastructure (fiber-optic trunkline, CCTV,
Ethernet-capable controller, battery back-up system, system
detector loops) on Santa Teresa Blvd from US 101 in Gilroy
to Buena Vista
5.0
Signal Coordination/Interconnect between Expressway
Signals & City/Caltrans Signals on Cross Streets 5.0
Santa Clara County Motorist Traffic Information & Advisory
Systems (Electronic Changeable Message Signs, Advisory
Radio, Web page)
5.0System
Signal
Operations/
TOS Capital
Projects
Santa Clara County Traffic Operations System
Infrastructure Improvements:
Automated traffic count collection system
Wireless controller communication system
Signal & video monitoring infrastructure upgrades
Wireless vehicular detection system
10.0
Tier 1A Total 165.7
Tier 1B List
Interchange at Monroe 59.0
Interchange at Kifer 59.0Lawrence
Square Loop Interchange at Arques 45.0
Par-clo interchange at US 101 12.0Montague
McCarthy-O’Toole square loop interchange 78.0
Tier 1B Total 253.0
Tier 1C List
Almaden
Widen to 6 lanes starting south of Camden to conform with
the current 6-lane segment south of Redmond with
additional left-turn lane from EB and WB Camden to
Almaden
7.2
81
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)24
Table 5: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
(continued)
Expressway Project Description Cost
(2008 $/millions)
Provide a third left-turn lane from SB Senter to EB Capitol 5.9
Improvements between McLaughlin and Aborn as identified
by US 101 Central Corridor Study including intersection
modifications, left-turn lanes, carpool lane adjustments, and
striping modifications
4.6
Provide a third left-turn lane from NB Aborn to WB Capitol
and a second right-turn lane from EB Capitol to SB Aborn 7.2
Capitol
Provide a third left-turn shared with through lane from SB
Capitol Avenue to SB Capitol Expressway 2.6
Provide additional left-turn lane from EB Saratoga to NB
Lawrence 2.6
Interim improvements at Lawrence/Calvert/I-280: provide
additional SB through lane at Calvert; widen I-280 SB on-
ramp to provide additional mixed-flow lane; and construct I-
280 SB slip on-ramp from Calvert west of Lawrence and
prohibit EB through movement at Calvert/Lawrence
intersection (based on results of Tier 1A PSR)
10.5
Provide additional EB through lane on Homestead 1 2.6
Provide additional left-turn lane from WB Benton to SB
Lawrence 2.6
Lawrence
Provide a third left-turn lane from EB Oakmead/Duane to
NB Lawrence 2.6
Provide additional right-turn lane from WB Scott to NB San
Tomas 1.3
San Tomas
Provide an additional right-turn lane form WB Monroe to NB
San Tomas 1.3
Signalize Santa Teresa Blvd and Miller Avenue intersection 0.6
Signalize Santa Teresa Blvd and Day Road southern
intersection 0.6
Signalize Santa Teresa Blvd and San Martin Avenue
intersection 0.6
Santa
Teresa-Hale
Corridor
Signalize Santa Teresa Blvd and Watsonville Road
intersection and add eastbound left turn lane 1.0
82
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)25
Table 5: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
(continued)
Expressway Project Description Cost
(2008 $/millions)
Signalize Santa Teresa Blvd/Hale Avenue and West Main
Avenue intersection 0.6
Signalize Santa Teresa Blvd/Hale Avenue and Tilton
Avenue intersection and add northbound right turn lane 1.0
Santa
Teresa-Hale
Corridor
(continued)DeWitt/Sunnyside Avenue 2-lane roadway realignment at
Edmundson Avenue 6.6
System
Signal
Operations/
TOS Capital
Projects
Adaptive traffic signal system for selected or all
expressways based upon further study 14.4
Tier 1C Total 76.4
Tier 2 List
Almaden Widen to 6 lanes from Almaden Road to south of Camden 2 15
Depress the Rengstorff/Central intersection in conjunction
with the adjacent Rengstorff/Caltrain railroad tracks grade
separation project
50
Depress Central at light rail crossing near Whisman 45
Central
Interchange at Bowers 3 60
Lawrence
Signalize the Wildwood Avenue intersection including
opening the median, realigning Wildwood Avenue, and re-
timing signals between US 101 and Elko
5
Interchange at Mission College 70Montague
Interchange at Great Mall/Capitol 4 55
Interchange at Stevens Creek 65-90
Interchange at El Camino Real 80
Interchange at Monroe 70
San Tomas
Interchange at Scott 85
83
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)26
Table 5: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
(continued)
Expressway Project Description Cost
(2008 $/millions)
Hale Avenue/Sunnyside Avenue 2-lane connection from
Edmundson Avenue to W. Main Avenue (may use portions
of DeWitt Avenue)
23
Widen Santa Teresa Blvd/Hale Avenue to 4 lanes from Day
Road to Palm Avenue (may be constructed in segments)120
Santa
Teresa-Hale
Corridor
Widen Santa Teresa Blvd/Hale Avenue to 4 lanes from US
101/SR 25 interchange to SR 152/First Street 62
System
Signal
Operations/
TOS Capital
Projects
New technology/Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
updates over the next 30 years 70-100
Tier 2 Total 875-930
Tier 3 List
Almaden
Modify the SR 85/Almaden interchange to a par-clo type
with loops in the NE and SE quadrants based on results of
Tier 1A PSR/PDS
25
Lawrence
Reconstruct the interchange to provide direct access ramps
between Lawrence, I-280, and Stevens Creek, and HOV
direct connector ramps. Costs include for a feasibility
study/PSR/PDS for this project (estimated at $1.5 million)
330-395
Montague Phase 2 of I-680 interchange modification 18
Add a second SB right-turn lane from Junipero Serra to
Page Mill; extend the SB right-turn lane half way to Stanford
intersection. Maintain through bike lane, no free right-turn
lane, avoid inadvertently inducing traffic shift onto Stanford
Avenue 5
5
Alma Bridge reconstruction based on results of Tier 1A
feasibility study 130Oregon-
Page Mill
Reconfigure US 101/Oregon Expressway/Embarcadero
Road interchange to resolve operational problems due to
ramp queues backing up on Oregon Expressway. Costs
include a feasibility study/PSR/PDS for this project
(estimated at $0.5 million)
50
84
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)27
Table 5: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
(continued)
Expressway Project Description Cost
(2008 $/millions)
San Tomas
Reconstruct SR 17/San Tomas Interchange. Costs include
for a feasibility study/PSR/PDS for this project (estimated at
$0.5 million)
130-260
Santa
Teresa-Hale
Corridor
Santa Teresa Blvd extension from Castro Valley Road to
US 101/SR25 interchange and complete interchange 43
HOV Direct
Connectors
Freeway/expressway direct connector HOV ramps at five
locations: Capitol/US 101, Montague/I-880, Lawrence/US
101, Montague/San Tomas/US 101, and San Tomas/I-280
130-200
Tier 3 Total 861-1,126
Notes:
1 An additional EB through lane at the Homestead intersection would not improve the projected 2025
LOS from F to E or better. However, it would reduce average intersection delay significantly.
2 Implementation of an extension of Almaden Expressway to Bailey Avenue and additional
improvements for the existing Almaden Expressway will be determined by City of San Jose land use
decisions.
3 The 2003 Expressway Study determined that if the new lanes between San Tomas and De La Cruz
remain designated as HOV after the trial period and the widening between Lawrence and San
Tomas is operated as HOV lanes, interchanges will be required at Bowers and Lafayette to remove
LOS F conditions.
4 If the new HOV lanes between I-880 and I-680 remain designated as HOV after the trial period, the
Great Mall/Capitol interchange may need to be moved into Tier 1B.
5 Although this is an existing LOS F intersection, Palo Alto would like to wait on improvements until
the benefits of the Sand Hill Road improvements and programs to encourage alternate modes of
transportation can be evaluated. Should a future evaluation indicate LOS improvements are still
needed, the project could be moved into Tier 1 with Palo Alto’s concurrence.
85
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)28
Figure 4: 2008 Tier 1A and 1B Projects
86
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)29
Implementation Requirements and Strategies
As capacity and operational improvement projects receive funding and move forward into project
development, the following conditions will apply:
Each capacity improvement project will undergo design, environmental review, and community
outreach as appropriate. Operational improvement projects (such as median closures, TOS
improvements, safety improvements) will also have appropriate traffic analysis, community
outreach, and environmental review before implementation. Project descriptions and cost
estimates may require some changes based on the results of these activities.
All projects will be designed and constructed consistent with the 2003 Expressway Bicycle
Accommodation Guidelines. All costs related to bicycle improvements within a project’s limits
are included in the project’s overall cost estimate.
All projects will include appropriate pedestrian improvements as specified in the 2008 Update
Pedestrian Element (e.g., add new sidewalks and/or crossing enhancements), assuming
meaningful and continuous segments can be included in the project limits. All costs related to
pedestrian improvements within a project’s limits are included in the project’s overall cost
estimate. In situations of limited or restricted funding, Routine Accommodation guidelines shall
apply.
All capacity improvement projects will incorporate transit support (e.g., bus stops) and sound
wall needs into the design and construction of the project. The costs for these improvements are
included in the project’s cost estimate. Landscaping improvements may also be included where
provisions have been made for ongoing maintenance costs.
All projects will be designed and constructed consistent with the latest Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements.
87
Section 2 Capacity and Operational Improvement Element Draft (October 9, 2008)30
Implementation Strategies
Similar to the 2003 Expressway Study, the 2008 Update Tier 1A projects are the highest priority and
will be submitted for VTA’s Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2035 as part of the constrained
funding plan. Tier 1B projects will also submitted for VTP 2035 as part of the unconstrained plan so
they are eligible for regional funds should additional funds become available.
Tiers 2 and 3 do not reflect tier priorities but are divided based on type of project. In other words,
Tier 3 projects may be pursued before Tier 2 projects should funding become available. It should be
noted that Tier 1A includes feasibility/project studies for two Tier 3 projects to position these projects
to compete for funding in the future.
Recognizing that not all Tier 1A projects can be worked on concurrently and the funding will not be
available all at once, a Tier 1A Expenditure Plan was developed as part of the 2008 Update. This
Expenditure Plan is included in the Funding Strategy section of this document.
88
Section 3 Bicycle Element Draft (October 9, 2008)31
SECTION THREE
BICYCLE ELEMENT
The Bicycle Element is based on the following two principles:
Bicycle travel will be accommodated on all expressways.
The expressways should only be used by advanced-skilled bicyclists and should not be used
by children or novice bicyclists.
As part of the 2003 Study, Expressway Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines (BAG) were developed
and have been used to define improvement needs and guide new project construction. The basic
premise for the expressways is to “delineate but not designate” meaning the expressway shoulder
width and striping are consistent with Class 2 bicycle lane standards but the shoulders are not
designated as bicycle lanes. The BAG document provides guidelines for the following main areas:
travel width, delineation, entrance/exit ramps, safe passage across intersections, trail connectivity, and
maintenance. The BAG is available at www.expressways.info.
The list of 2003 bicycle improvement recommendations was based on bringing all expressways into
compliance with the BAG. The 2003 Bicycle Element also identified a need to work with Caltrans to
develop design options for freeway/expressway interchange ramps where there are double right on-
ramps that force a bicyclist to cross more than one conflicting vehicle lane at a time.
89
Section 3 Bicycle Element Draft (October 9, 2008)32
2003 Bicycle Element Progress Report
The 2003 Expressway Study identified ten specific expressway bicycle improvements plus one
systemwide project with a total cost estimate of $3.75 million (2003 dollars). As shown in Table 6,
eleven projects (nine from the 2003 Study and two new projects) have been completed or are in
progress. Figure 5 illustrates the locations of these projects.
Table 6: 2003 Bicycle Projects Completed/In Progress
Expressway Project Description Status
All
Expressways Re-striping per Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines Completed
Almaden Widening between Ironwood and Koch to provide
adequate shoulder per BAG Completed
Widen WB approach at Silver Creek to provide a
bicycle slot Completed
Capitol
Widen NB approach to Capitol Avenue and SB
approach to Excalibur to provide bicycle slots Completed
Widen EB approach at Magdalena to provide a
bicycle slot Completed
Foothill
Provide more shoulder width in both directions
under the Loyola Bridge In Progress
Widen NB approach to continue shoulder before
Pruneridge Completed
Lawrence
Provide more shoulder width from El Camino Real
to Kifer Completed
Stripe bicycle delineation from Camden Avenue
thru Curtner intersection and NB SR 17 ramp area In Progress
Widen SB approach at Hamilton to provide
adequate shoulder per BAG In ProgressSan Tomas
Widen NB approach at Cabrillo to provide
adequate shoulder per BAG Completed
90
Section 3 Bicycle Element Draft (October 9, 2008)33
Figure 5: 2003 Bicycle Projects Completed or In Progress
91
Section 3 Bicycle Element Draft (October 9, 2008)34
2008 Update Approach
No changes in policy or approach are recommended for the Bicycle Element. Projects from the 2003
Bicycle Element that have not been completed and are not in progress are carried over to the 2008
Update project list. In addition, a systemwide bicycle signal detection improvement project and an
improvement for the Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor have been added to the list.
The Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor will not be a County-operated expressway; therefore, the approach
for bicycle accommodations includes a variety of treatments along this 19-mile urban and rural
corridor. Bicycle accommodation plans for the corridor are as follows:
Improved 4-lane sections of Santa Teresa Blvd/Hale Avenue within Gilroy and Morgan Hill
have Class 2 bike lanes. As the cities annex, widen, and/or build additional sections of the
corridor, Class 2 bike lanes will be provided.
The 2-lane segment in Gilroy south of 152 has increasing traffic demand with some
intersections including acceleration/deceleration lanes and right-turn pockets. This segment
has paved shoulders for bicycle use but will have bicycle lanes added when it is widened to 4
lanes by the City of Gilroy. Until the widening, the Expressway BAG can be applied to the
intersections to better accommodate bicycle use (new project for the 2008 Bicycle Element).
The unincorporated portions in the County’s jurisdiction have paved shoulders that are
generally adequate for bicycle use through the rural/agricultural areas. Some portions of the
road are along hillsides and the shoulders are narrow. Widening these shoulders at this time
is not practical, but wider shoulders will be a part of future roadway expansion.
2008 Project List
Table 7 lists the 2008 Bicycle Element projects. It also includes a column indicating implementation
opportunities for each project. The total list of project costs is $16.5 million; however, approximately
$10.9 million of the funding will be provided through roadway improvement projects (i.e., Tier 1A
Capacity and Operational Improvements) reducing the need for bicycle-related funding to $5.6
million.
92
Section 3 Bicycle Element Draft (October 9, 2008)35
Table 7: 2008 Bicycle Element Project List
Expressway Project Description Cost
(2008
$/millions)
Potential
Implementation
Widen WB approach at San Antonio to
provide a bicycle slot 0.3 Tier 1A roadway
project 1
Foothill Provide bicycle channelization and
shoulder width on the approaches to and
over Loyola Bridge
7.0
Tier 1A roadway
project and BEP
list 2
Provide more shoulder width in both
directions under the Alma Bridge NA
Very long term –
requires bridge
reconstruction
Oregon-
Page Mill
I-280 interchange modification to support
bicycle travel through interchange:
remove SB loop on-ramp and construct
SB diagonal on-ramp with signal
operations; signalize NB off-ramp
intersection; and provide proper
channelization for pedestrians and
bicycles
6.6
Tier 1A roadway
project and BEP
list 2
Santa
Teresa-Hale
Corridor
Provide bicycle delineation at 8
intersections between Castro Valley
Road and SR 152
0.5 Apply for BEP
All
Expressways
and Santa
Teresa/Hale
Corridor
Install bicycle detection on shoulders, left
turn lanes, and cross streets as needed
at all signalized intersections (will support
bicycle adaptive signal timing)
2.1 Apply for BEP
Total Project Costs 16.5
1 Roadway project costs in the Capacity/Operational Improvement Element include this bicycle
improvement.
2 Cost listed is the total cost for the project which includes improvements for all modes of travel. The
Tier 1A Capacity/Operational project includes the bicycle-related improvements; however, the
projects are also included in VTA’s Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) for partial funding (e.g., for
matching funds to roadway-related grants).
93
Section 3 Bicycle Element Draft (October 9, 2008)36
Overall, the Bicycle Element total costs are low compared to other Expressway Study elements and
most of the projects have a reasonable chance of being implemented in the next ten years. The
remaining needs to fully accommodate bicyclists on the expressways are facing some significant
challenges as follows:
Oregon Expressway/Alma Bridge area – The Capacity and Operational Improvement
Element identifies the need to reconstruct the Alma/Oregon Expressway interchange and has
listed it as a Tier 3 project (no funding identified). It is expected that reconstruction could
cost upwards of $130 million (2008 dollars) due to the complexity of this project involving
the railroad as well as the two roadways and the very limited right-of-way.
The Page Mill/I-280 interchange modifications – Improvements at freeway interchanges fall
under Caltrans jurisdiction; therefore, Caltrans study and agreement will be needed to
implement the proposed project. This will lead to a longer delivery time for this project.
Freeway interchange conflict areas: There are six freeway/expressway interchanges, in
addition to Page Mill/I-280, with double right on-ramp conflict locations (one lane is usually
an HOV bypass lane). They are Almaden/SR 85, Capitol/US 101, Lawrence/US 101,
Lawrence/SR 237, Montague/San Tomas/US 101, and San Tomas/SR 17. Modifications to
these interchanges will require Caltrans agreement on design changes and, potentially,
changes to the Highway Design Manual. No project costs are provided because the
improvements are still to be determined. County staff will continue to work with Caltrans
staff to study design options that can improve the situation yet still meet traffic demand
requirements.
Implementation Strategies
The County will seek funding for the projects listed in Table 7 using roadway and BEP grants and
will continue to work with Caltrans to improve freeway interchange conflict areas. Clarification to
California Vehicle Code Section 21960 language relating to local agency regulation of bicycles on
expressways should also be considered to support efforts to improve and enhance safe access for
bicycles.
94
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)37
SECTION FOUR
PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT
In 1991, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors adopted a “Policy for Bicycle and Pedestrian
Usage of the Expressways.” The policy stated that the County is committed to accommodating
pedestrians wherever possible, subject to safety considerations and fiscal constraints. The 2003
Pedestrian Element supported that policy by proposing improvements for two different pedestrian
needs: traveling along the expressways and crossing the expressways.
During the 2003 process, city and community input focused mostly on facilitating safe pedestrian
crossings of the expressway. As a result, the 2003 Pedestrian Element identified 45 high demand
pedestrian crossings and developed a “toolbox” of crossing enhancement options that could be
considered for these intersections on a case-by-case basis. These crossing enhancement options
ranged from reconfiguring intersections to installing pedestrian countdown timers and pedestrian curb
ramps. Two new pedestrian overcrossings (POCs) were also recommended.
For traveling along the expressways, a list of new sidewalk locations was developed to close gaps in
otherwise continuous sidewalks, to access transit stops, and to provide access to land uses fronting on
the expressways. The 2003 Element also recommended improved connections and directional
signage to parallel pedestrian facilities, such as trails and frontage roads.
95
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)38
2003 Pedestrian Element Progress Report
The Pedestrian Element recommended new sidewalks at 31 locations along six1 of the eight
expressways at a total cost of $6.6 million (2003 dollars). Funding sources for expressway sidewalk
projects have been limited to developer mitigations, capacity and operations project grants, the
County Road Fund, and the County’s share of TDA Article 3 funds (County receives approximately
$70,000 annually). As a consequence, only a few sidewalk improvements have been made since
2003. As shown on Figure 6, Almaden, Capitol, Central, Lawrence, and Montague Expressways
have received new sidewalk segments, representing full or partial completion of 7 of the 31 locations
identified in 2003.
A total of 45 high demand pedestrian crossing locations were identified with a recommendation that
they be studied for potential crossing enhancement improvements when funding becomes available.
There was a wide cost estimate range for improving an intersection ($50,000 to $300,000 in 2003
dollars) depending on what was needed at an intersection. Based on an assumption that many of the
intersections would need the more expensive intersection reconfiguration treatments, the total
potential cost for crossing enhancements was set at $8.4 million (2003 dollars). In addition, two
POCs were recommended at a cost of $4 million each. Since 2003, the following crossing
improvements have been implemented:
Crossing enhancement improvements have been made at nine of the high demand
intersections, including a new crossing of Lawrence Expressway at Mitty to connect with the
Saratoga Creek Trail. In addition, the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project currently
under development includes crossing enhancements for five intersections.
Pedestrian countdown timers have been added to 37 of the 45 intersections identified in the
2003 Pedestrian Element and to 2 other expressway intersections.
Of the two new recommended pedestrian overcrossing locations: the County has assisted
with coordination and funding (Rule 20A) for utility undergrounding as part of the City of
San Jose project at the Almaden Expressway location; and no progress to date has been made
for the San Tomas Expressway location.
1 New sidewalks for Montague Expressway were included in the 8-lane widening project and were not listed
separately. No new sidewalk locations were recommended for Oregon-Page Mill.
96
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)39
Figure 6: 2003 Pedestrian Projects Completed or in Progress
97
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)40
2008 Update Approach
The 2003 Study Pedestrian Element focused on identifying locations for new sidewalks that would
close gaps in existing sidewalks, access transit stops, and provide access to land uses fronting on the
expressway. In other words, it was reactive to where there was existing demand for pedestrian travel.
However, this approach left many sections of the expressways without sidewalks or convenient
parallel routes for pedestrians. In line with the County’s belief that the safest way to accommodate
pedestrian use of expressways is on improved sidewalks behind the curb or on parallel routes off the
expressway, the 2008 Update has taken a more proactive pedestrian route planning approach with the
following goal:
To identify continuous routes, either in the right-of-way or along alternate parallel
routes, providing for pedestrian travel ideally along both sides of the expressways.
The 2008 Update Pedestrian Element completely replaces the 2003 Expressway Study Pedestrian
Element, including all policies, project lists, and recommendations.
Pedestrian Route Plans
The cornerstone of the 2008 Update Pedestrian Element is the pedestrian route plans for all eight
expressways and the Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor. The following steps were taken to develop these
pedestrian route plans: 1) County and city staff met to develop initial pedestrian route maps and
gather information on implementation opportunities; 2) extensive field review of all 164 miles of
roadway frontage was conducted; and 3) the preliminary pedestrian route maps were presented to the
Technical Working Group and the County/VTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
for review and comment. During the process, additional high demand pedestrian crossing locations
were identified.
Figure 7 illustrates the continuous pedestrian route plans for the eight expressways and Santa Teresa-
Hale Corridor in a countywide map. A separate Pedestrian Element Working Paper is available that
includes a detailed map for each roadway.
98
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)41
Figure 7: 2008 Pedestrian Route Map
99
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)42
The continuous routes use the following three types of facilities:
Existing sidewalks on the expressway
Parallel routes outside the expressway right-of-way
Recommended new sidewalk locations on the expressway, including “Very Long Term” new
sidewalks
Parallel Routes
Parallel routes are within a convenient distance of the expressway and consist of creek trails, park
pathways, frontage roads, and parallel city streets. Routes are not designated through non-
County/City property even if they are open to public use (e.g., shopping centers, parking lots,
schools).
Field review has confirmed that almost all of the frontage roads and city streets designated as parallel
routes have continuous sidewalks along at least one side of the street. A few locations do not have
sidewalks by neighborhood design/preference (e.g., some Campbell and Los Altos residential streets).
A listing of sidewalk gaps along parallel routes is provided in the Working Paper. Some cities have
indicated a desire to make these streets a high priority for their city sidewalk programs.
Some of the pedestrian route plans indicate future trails as the designated parallel route. One of these
trails is currently under construction and all others are included in trail plans, some with funding plans
and timelines.
Improvements to the parallel streets and trails are not listed as part of the expressway program
because they are outside the expressways’ right-of-way and under other agencies’ jurisdiction. The
list of expressway improvements does include improving connections to parallel facilities and
providing pedestrian guide signage for using the parallel facilities.
It has also been noted that some creek trails and park paths are only open from sunrise to sunset. It is
not anticipated that this will be a great hindrance to pedestrian travel along the expressways as most
pedestrian use occurs during the day. Directional signage, however, could specify the limited hours
as applicable.
100
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)43
Very Long Term Sidewalks
Very long term sidewalks are recommended in areas designated as “hard spots.” These are locations
where physical constraints limit available space and alternate routes are not apparent or are
inconvenient. Specifically, a location was designated a hard spot if it met all of the following
conditions: no usable space is available behind the curb; no lane or shoulder reduction is possible; no
median reduction/relocation is possible; and no convenient parallel route is available. Typically, hard
spots were located where the only way to obtain more right-of-way would be to take adjacent
residents’ backyards or reconstruct a very high cost overpass/bridge structure.
The general approach for hard spots was to take the long view – thus the term “very long term
sidewalks.” These sidewalks will be built when the physical constraint is removed (i.e., the structure
is rebuilt or the land use is redeveloped). Because it is undesirable to have a pedestrian route
discontinue mid-block, very long term sidewalks are shown extending between two pedestrian access
points even if only a portion of this stretch is truly a hard spot. In the meantime, a route is provided
on the other side of the expressway or the closest possible alternate route is identified.
Sidewalks Not Recommended
Certain locations along the expressways and Santa Teresa-Hale corridor face unique situations where
it would be undesirable to provide sidewalks, even in the very long term. These areas are as follows:
Central Expressway – South side in Mountain View along the Caltrain trackway fence.
There are no pedestrian destinations or bus stops along the south side of Central Expressway between
Mayfield and Bernardo. Providing a sidewalk would have pedestrians walking adjacent to the
Caltrain railroad tracks separated only by a chain link fence, providing a temptation to jump the fence
as a shortcut to reach destinations on the other side of the tracks. A continuous route on the north side
of Central Expressway is planned in this area.
Central Expressway – Through the freeway-like, below grade section in Sunnyvale.
There are no pedestrian destinations or bus stops through this section of Central Expressway;
therefore, there is no need to provide sidewalks and pedestrian crossings in an area that operates like a
freeway. Parallel routes on both sides of the expressway are identified.
101
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)44
Foothill Expressway – North side in Los Altos and Palo Alto between Edith and Arastradero.
This area is adjacent to down slopes into backyards and into a creek bed creating environmental
challenges to widening. There are no pedestrian access points, pedestrian destinations, or bus stops
along this 1 1/2-mile section. The recommendation is to focus on providing a continuous route on the
south side of the expressway.
Santa Teresa/Hale Corridor – Through the rural/agricultural areas and along hillsides.
Providing continuous sidewalks is inconsistent with the rural/agricultural environment along the two-
lane rural road sections. There are also very long distances between potential pedestrian destinations.
In addition, certain areas along hillsides may be too environmentally sensitive to widen to add
sidewalks. Sidewalks are planned for the urban areas of the corridor.
2008 Project List
New Sidewalks
Table 8 provides a list of the new sidewalks recommended and 2008 cost estimates. Nearly 38 miles
of new sidewalk are listed with a total cost estimate of $44.2 million (2008 dollars). These cost
estimates are based on constructing a 5-foot wide Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) sidewalk. The
cost estimates assume no new right-of-way will be required. Where needed, costs do include
installing curb and gutter, retaining walls, ADA pedestrian curb ramps, and connections to parallel
pedestrian routes. These additional costs can double or triple the cost per linear foot of sidewalk,
accounting for why some sidewalk segments will be far more expensive to construct than others of
the same length. The Pedestrian Element Working Paper provides more detail about the sidewalk
locations.
Surfaces other than concrete (e.g., asphalt) can be considered when funding becomes available to
construct sidewalks for a location. However, no matter what type of surface is used, a pedestrian
facility must be ADA compliant in terms of width, cross slope, surface condition, and curb ramps,
and for practical purposes must be durable and able with minimal maintenance to remain in an ADA
compliant condition over its service life. The full lifetime cost of the surface type should be
considered, not just the initial installation cost. Concrete sidewalks require no or little ongoing
maintenance and have a very long life. Asphalt requires more surface maintenance and eventual
replacement. Aggregate base treatments, such as decomposed granite or jogging path surfaces, have
been suggested as cost saving alternatives but trade off much more frequent maintenance issues,
102
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)45
Table 8: 2008 New Sidewalks
Expressway Project Locations 1 Cost 2
(2008 $/millions)
Potential
Implementation
East side:
Harry to Shadow Brook
Gap between Redmond and Winfield
with connection to frontage road
West side:
Harry to Almaden Road
Rajkovich to Serenity with connection
to frontage road
Gap between Camden and Trinidad
with connection to frontage road
Gap just south of Coleman
$2.8
East side: two gaps between Coleman
and Blossom Hill 0.20 Tier 1A roadway
project 3
East side: SR 85 off-ramp to Cherry 0.22 Land developer
East side: Ironwood to Curtner off-
ramp and connector to future trail
south of Capitol
West side: Gap north of Lincoln with
connection to frontage road
0.29
Almaden
Almaden Total 3.51
South side: five gaps between
Narvaez and Seven Trees
North side: three gaps between
Senter and McLaughlin
1.22
West side: between Nieman and Quimby 0.41 Land developer
East side:
North of Tully to Ocala
Connection between existing sidewalk
and frontage road north of Story
0.52 LRT project
South side: Excalibur through I-680
interchange 0.44
Capitol
Capitol Total 2.59
103
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)46
Table 8: 2008 New Sidewalks (continued)
Expressway Project Locations 1 Cost 2
(2008 $/millions)
Potential
Implementation
North side:
Five gaps from west of Shoreline to
Mary
Connection to a frontage road west of
SR 85
Ramps to Whisman and Middlefield
South side:
Bernardo to Mary off-ramp
2.35
North side:
Mary to Soquel
Gaps on Soquel, Indio, and San
Bernardino with connection to frontage
road
Both sides:
Santa Elena to San Tomas
Expressway, with ramp connections to
Wolfe and San Tomas Expressway
6.43 Tier 1A roadway
projects 3
Both sides: San Tomas Expressway to
Scott 0.70 Partial by land
developer
South side: Two gaps between Scott
and Lafayette
North side: Lafayette to De La Cruz
0.65
Central
Central Total 10.13
North side:
Page Mill Expressway to Miranda
Gap east of El Monte with connection
to frontage road
Two gaps between Miramonte and
Grant with connections to frontage
road
South side:
Page Mill Expressway to Old Oak Ct
Gap west of Miramonte with
connection to frontage road
4.10Foothill
Foothill Total 4.10
104
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)47
Table 8: 2008 New Sidewalks (continued)
Expressway Project Locations 1 Cost 2
(2008 $/millions)
Potential
Implementation
West side:
Gap south of Benton with connection
to frontage road
Gap north of Sandia with connection
to frontage road
East side:
Palamos to Tasman
0.52
East side: north of Elko 0.10 Land developer
Lawrence
Lawrence Total 0.62
South side:
Ramp connection to Lafayette
Three gaps between De La Cruz and
Trimble
North side:
Three gaps between Lick Mill and
River Oaks
1.51 San Jose 8-
Lane Widening
Both sides: Three gaps to the west and
east of McCarthy/O’Toole 0.44 Tier 1B roadway
project 3
Both sides: Three gaps between I-880
and McCandless/Trade Zone 0.56 San Jose 8-
Lane Widening
Both sides: Trade Zone to Great
Mall/Capitol Ave
North side: east of Great Mall to east
of Milpitas Blvd
1.34 Tier 1A roadway
project 3
South side: three gaps between Capitol
Ave and Pecten 0.21
Montague
Montague Total 4.06
North side: I-280 interchange to Old Page
Mill 0.31 Tier 1A roadway
project 3
South side: Old Page Mill to Deer Creek 0.28
South side: Four gaps between Waverley
and Indian 0.41 Current roadway
project
Oregon-
Page Mill
Oregon-Page Mill Total 1.00
105
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)48
Table 8: 2008 New Sidewalks (continued)
Expressway Project Locations 1 Cost 2
(2008 $/millions)
Potential
Implementation
East side:
Winchester ramp to Budd
Rincon to Williams
West side:
Waldo to Bucknall with connection
across culvert to trail
Payne to Williams
4.64
East side:
Williams to El Camino Real
West side:
Williams to Moorpark
Gap between Moorpark and Stevens
Creek
Stevens Creek to Benton
Connection between existing sidewalk
and frontage road south of El Camino
Real
6.40 Tier 1A roadway
project 3
East side: El Camino Real to Monroe
West side: El Camino Real to Cabrillo 1.00
West side: Cabrillo to south of Monroe 0.14 Trail Project
Both sides: Walsh to Scott including
connections to San Tomas Expressway 1.23 Partial by land
developer
San Tomas
San Tomas Total 13.41
East side: Sunrise to West Day
West side: North of Longmeadow to
East Day
0.64
New high school
and land
development
East side of Sunnyside:
Sunshine to Native Dancer
Via de Castillo to north of Encino
West side:
Native Dancer to Watsonville
1.41
Santa
Teresa-Hale
Corridor
Both sides: DeWitt to Main Street NA New road
construction
106
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)49
Table 8: 2008 New Sidewalks (continued)
Expressway Project Locations 1 Cost 2
(2008 $/millions)
Potential
Implementation
Both sides: several gaps between Main
and Via Loma 1.79 4-lane widening/
land developer
East side: Via Loma to south of Curry 0.96 Land developer
Santa
Teresa-Hale
Corridor
(continued)Santa Teresa-Hale Total 4.80
Total Sidewalk Costs $44.22
1 Sidewalk needs are divided into expressway segments for ease of comparison to roadway widening
projects and other implementation opportunities. Each segment can be divided into smaller projects
as long as a usable segment is constructed (i.e., each end connects to an intersection or continuing
sidewalk/parallel pedestrian route).
2 Cost is based on constructing a standard PCC 5-foot sidewalk. Where needed, costs also include
curb and gutter, retaining walls, ADA pedestrian curb ramps, and connections to parallel pedestrian
routes.
3 Roadway project costs in the Capacity/Operational Element include these sidewalks. Only Tier 1A
and 1B roadway projects are shown because they are most likely to be funded.
including weed intrusion, a particularly difficult issue for response due to limitations on herbicide
application. For sidewalks alongside the expressway, a curb must be provided to provide separation
between the shoulder and pedestrians.
A light rail extension is planned for Capitol Expressway from the existing light rail line on Capitol
Avenue to Quimby. The LRT project includes replacing all existing pedestrian facilities on Capitol
Expressway along the LRT extension with a continuous six-foot wide sidewalk along the west side
and a continuous ten-foot wide multi-use path with a connection to Silver Creek Trail on the east side.
Table 8 includes sidewalk improvements on Capitol Expressway between Tully and Ocala and at
Story. These improvements are listed as a contingency should the planned light rail extension be
significantly delayed and there is a desire to provide sidewalks for current pedestrian use.
The planned road improvements, LRT project, and new developments listed in the “Potential
Implementation” column of Table 8 could provide $23.3 million of the improvements, a little over
107
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)50
half of the $44.2 million needed. For the remaining $20.9 million in needs, it would take $12.1
million to provide a continuous route along one side of each expressway as shown below:
Almaden - $1.4 million Montague - $0
Capitol - $0.8 million Oregon-Page Mill - $0
Central - $2.3 million San Tomas - $2.5 million
Foothill - $3.6 million Santa Teresa/Hale - $1.2 million
Lawrence - $0.3 million
The Working Paper’s detailed maps also highlight the nearest parallel routes for locations where new
sidewalks are recommended. These are considered “interim” parallel routes because they are not as
convenient as the parallel routes that are formally part of the expressway’s continuous route, but they
do provide an option until expressway sidewalks can be built.
Pedestrian Directional Signage
A key to the success of the pedestrian route plans is directional signage to help guide pedestrians to
and from the designated parallel routes. The cost to install directional signage systemwide is
estimated to be $100,000. The signs placed on County right-of-way would be installed and
maintained by the County. Guideway signs may also be placed in city and trail right-of-way with
appropriate approvals and sign maintenance agreements.
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
A major pedestrian issue for all expressways continues to be to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings,
especially at high demand locations near schools, community centers, transit facilities, and trail
connections. In the 2003 Study, 45 high demand pedestrian crossing locations were identified
through city and community comments. During the 2008 pedestrian route planning process, an
additional 27 intersections were added to the list for a grand total of 72 locations, or more than half of
all signalized expressway intersections. In light of the high degree of interest in pedestrian crossings
and the new approach to sidewalks, the concept of high demand intersections as the only locations to
receive special design consideration was put aside for the 2008 Update Pedestrian Element. Instead,
all expressway intersections should include design consideration for pedestrian crossing
enhancements consistent with the specific needs and unique geometry of each crossing whenever
opportunities arise for these improvements.
108
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)51
Quantifying needs is somewhat more difficult without assessments of each intersection. In general,
we can expect that the costs could range from $0 to $500,000 per crossing. To give an order of
magnitude of how much may be needed for pedestrian crossing improvements, if 50% of the existing
134 intersections require significant reconstruction, it could cost as much as $34 million. Many
intersections have the potential to be improved as part of roadway projects planned or already
underway, and many others may be affected by future developments. Transportation projects and
new development should include studying pedestrian crossing locations within their boundaries to
determine optimal intersection design and if the intersection can be made more pedestrian friendly as
part of the project.
The next update of the Expressway Study should include an assessment of expressway system
intersections to determine how many could use major reconstruction to make them more pedestrian
friendly (e.g., square corners, eliminate free-running rights, etc.) so a cost estimate can be developed.
Until such information is available, the Expressway Study 2008 Update includes a placeholder of $20
million for improvements to intersections that are outside a planned roadway improvement project.
The County will continue to make low-cost improvements (e.g., countdown signals) for all high
demand crossing locations whenever possible. The County will also pursue grants (e.g., Safe Routes
to Schools) to make more extensive improvements for locations not located within a planned roadway
improvement where there is a definitive need for the improvement. Grant location selection will be
based on opportunities and on priorities of city partners. Cities are best placed to evaluate pedestrian
demands, especially demands associated with city services such as parks, community centers,
libraries, and schools.
Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) Structures
The 2003 Study recommended two new POCs: one on Almaden Expressway near Coleman Road and
one on San Tomas Expressway near Latimer. The 2008 Update continues to recommend these two
locations. Recent cost experiences with POCs indicate that these two POCs will cost from $6 to $10
million each, depending on design and right-of-way requirements.
Total Pedestrian Element Costs
The total cost for all pedestrian improvements adds up to $76.3-84.3 million: $44.2 million for
sidewalks, $100,000 for directional signage, $20 million for pedestrian crossing enhancements, and
109
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)52
$12-20 million for POCs. Of this total, approximately $23.3 million may be provided through
funded/planned roadway projects and land development conditions.
Implementation Strategies
Funding opportunities for providing the new sidewalks include developer conditions imposed by
cities, inclusion in roadway improvement projects, and a proposed VTA/County funding program that
would be matched by city contributions. It must be recognized that it will likely take decades to fund
all pedestrian improvements. The implementation strategies below are designed to ensure the highest
priority improvements are constructed as soon as possible as well as identifying other actions needed
to support pedestrian use of the expressways:
Cities should continue to require developers to provide sidewalks when the opportunity arises
and help solicit or provide matching funds for high priority sidewalk improvements. The
advantage of producing the pedestrian route maps is that it gives cities guidance for imposing
developer conditions. Each City will be provided with copies of the Working Paper with the
detailed maps for reference when reviewing land development proposals. In addition, cities
are encouraged to look for opportunities to require intersection crossing enhancements for
pedestrians wherever appropriate.
The County will work with VTA to finalize details and seek VTA Board of Directors
approval of the proposed funding where the County and VTA each provide $150,000
annually to be matched by city contributions to construct the expressway pedestrian
improvements.
The cities will decide which sidewalks or crossing enhancements will be built first by
applying for the VTA funds and providing one-third of the project costs as the city’s match,
or by partnering with the County to apply for other grant sources. It is recommended that the
cities give priority consideration to improving pedestrian safety by focusing on the following
types of locations:
Gap closures for existing sidewalks and locations with existing pedestrian demand (e.g.,
bus stops).
Locations that will ensure at least one side of the expressway provides a continuous
pedestrian route.
Locations where there is no interim parallel route or where the detours are longest for the
interim parallel routes.
110
Section 4 Pedestrian Element Draft (October 9, 2008)53
Intersections with a high volume of pedestrian crossings where existing geometries and
operations suggest enhancements will be beneficial.
Some of these higher priority locations may be due to receive sidewalks through a Tier 1A
roadway project. However, the larger Tier 1A projects will not be completed until 15 to 25
years from now, and cities may wish to pursue sidewalks before the roadway improvement is
made if there is existing demand.
Pedestrian prohibition signs, where existing, will be removed when sidewalks are constructed
on the expressway or if cities repeal ordinances.
The County will develop a plan for a directional signage program. The plan will determine
the types of signage to use and where they are needed.
111
Section 5 Finishing Program Element Draft (October 9, 2008)54
SECTION FIVE
FINISHING ELEMENT
The Finishing Program Element involves improvements to expressway medians and edges. These
improvements include sound wall and landscaping needs. In addition to defining these needs, the
element discusses the tradeoffs that are required between sidewalks, sound walls, and landscaping
when right-of-way is limited. The element also describes the County’s street lighting policy for the
expressways.
2003 Finishing Program Element Progress Report
Sound Walls
The 2003 Expressway Study included an assessment of sound wall needs based on Caltrans and
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The assessment used predicted noise levels
resulting from projected 2025 expressway traffic conditions. The Finishing Program Element
identified a need for $26.8 million (2003 dollars) for new sound walls and $21.0 million (2003
dollars) for higher replacement walls along the expressways. The replacement of sound walls that are
adequate for noise protection but have reached the end of their useful life are part of the Operations
and Maintenance Element.
No funding sources have become available for building new sound walls or replacing existing walls
with higher walls. Therefore, the only opportunities for sound wall improvements continue to be as
112
Section 5 Finishing Program Element Draft (October 9, 2008)55
part of expressway capacity improvement projects or through new land developments or
redevelopment. Progress to date includes:
Montague Expressway has received sound wall improvements as part of the completed 8-lane
widening sections.
Almaden Expressway, northwest of Cherry, will receive sound wall improvements as part of
the current widening project in the vicinity.
VTA is currently conducting a Noise Reduction Screening Program to help identify candidate
locations along existing freeways and expressways that might qualify for funding for noise
mitigation. Only locations where no sound walls currently exist are eligible. VTA is screening
locations based on project eligibility criteria for State funding and VTA’s Basic Noise Mitigation
Standard. The County submitted all expressway locations requiring new walls for screening. In
addition, some cities submitted expressway locations that were not on the 2003 Expressway Study
list. VTA has completed Phase I (quantitative assessment) and has disqualified a few expressway
sound wall locations from VTA’s eligibility list. Phase II (qualitative assessment) is due to be
completed after the 2008 Update is completed and may result in additional locations being
disqualified.
Landscaping
The 2003 Study identified a cost of $19 – 23 million (2003 dollars) to install a basic level of
landscaping along the expressway system where landscaping gaps exist. This basic level consists of
trees and limited shrubs, median finishes (such as decomposed granite), sound walls covered with ivy,
and automated irrigation systems. The annual cost to maintain this landscaping systemwide was
estimated to be $4.0 million (2003 dollars).
Due to a lack of adequate funds for annual landscaping maintenance, the County’s current policy is to
only allow installation of new landscaping if full recovery of capital and maintenance costs can occur.
The expressways that have extensive landscaping are all under maintenance agreements where the
cities, private developers, or assessment districts are paying for landscape maintenance.
113
Section 5 Finishing Program Element Draft (October 9, 2008)56
2008 Update Approach
The update to the 2003 Finishing Program Element included the following tasks:
The sound wall and landscaping cost estimates were increased from 2003 to 2008 dollars.
The sound wall needs lists were revised as appropriate, noting those areas that are considered
ineligible for VTA’s Noise Mitigation Program.
The Finishing Program for the Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor was described.
A revised street lighting policy was developed to take into account the more extensive
pedestrian access plans in the Pedestrian Element.
2008 Project Lists
Sound Walls
Tables 9 and 10 provide the new and replacement sound wall lists with updated cost estimates for the
expressways. The revisions include removing the two completed sound wall projects from the list
and updating the potential implementation opportunities. The sound wall costs were increased based
on Caltrans construction cost index. The total costs are estimated to be $76.6 million: $44.9 million
for new sound wall locations and $31.7 million for higher replacement sound walls. Approximately
$13.7 million of the sound wall needs could be provided through roadway capacity projects, leaving
$62.9 million unfunded.
The sound wall needs assessment conducted as part of the 2003 Study did not include the Santa
Teresa-Hale Corridor. However, there does not appear to be a need to seek funding for new or higher
replacement sound walls since Morgan Hill and Gilroy are providing for any necessary sound walls as
part of development conditions. Sound walls are not needed in the unincorporated, rural areas of the
Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor.
As noted above, VTA is conducting a Noise Reduction Screening Program to help identify candidate
locations for new sound walls that might qualify for the VTP 2035 noise mitigation program. They
have already disqualified certain expressway locations in Table 9 due to the development being built
after the last expressway improvement or because the location is within the limits of a Tier 1A
capacity project. During the next phase of VTA’s screening process (qualitative analysis), additional
114
Section 5 Finishing Program Element Draft (October 9, 2008)57
Table 9: 2008 New Sound Wall Locations
Expressway Project Locations 1 Cost
(2008 $/millions)
Potential
Implementation
Gaps south of Coleman:
SW of Trinidad
East side between Winfield and
Redmond
$0.45
West side between Coleman and Mesa 0.40 Tier 1A roadway
project 2
NE of Foxchase 0.22
To be studied as
part of current
widening project
Almaden
SE and NW of Koch 3.20
Between SR 87 and US 101:
NW of Copperfield
Gap closure south side between
Vista Park and Bluefield
NW and SE of Vista Park
SW of Seven Trees
NE and SE of Senter
5.47
Copperfield/
Bluefield and
Visa Park areas
do not meet VTA
eligibility 3Capitol
Gap closures north and south side
between I-680 and Capitol
Ave/Excalibur
0.47
North side from Rengstorff to east of
Farley
Gap closure NW of Shoreline
Gap closures NW and NE of Moffett
North side between SR 85 and
Whisman
4.97
Central
SE of Pastoria
NE of Mathilda
South side between Mathilda and
Fair Oaks
2.31 Tier 1A roadway
project 2
115
Section 5 Finishing Program Element Draft (October 9, 2008)58
Table 9: 2008 New Sound Wall Locations (continued)
Expressway Project Locations 1 Cost
(2008 $/millions)
Potential
Implementation
Spot improvements:
NW of Moana Court and adjacent to
residences along Blue Oak
North side between El Monte and
Springer
SW of Magdalena
South side between Magdalena and
east of Loyola
NW and NE of Grant
NW of Newcastle
South side between St Joseph and
Vineyard
13.6
Foothill
NE of San Antonio 0.50 Tier 1A Roadway
Project 2
Oregon-
Page Mill
Both sides between US 101 and
Alma 4 9.56
San Tomas
Between SR 17 and Williams:
West side between Williams to south
of Payne
East side small gap near
Sunnyhaven
SE of Hamilton
NW and SW of Bucknall
SW of Budd
NW of Winchester ramp
3.77
Total New Sound Wall Costs $44.92
1 Sound wall needs are divided into expressway segments for ease of comparison to roadway
widening projects. Each segment can be divided into several separate sound wall projects because
the sound wall needs are not continuous along the length of each segment.
2 Roadway project costs in the Capacity/Operational Element included these sound wall installations.
Only Tier 1A roadway capacity increasing projects are shown because they are likely to be funded.
Operational improvements do not typically trigger noise mitigations and projects beyond Tier 1A are
less likely to be funded.
3 Residential developments were built after the last roadway improvement project and, therefore, did
not qualify for VTA’s noise barrier program.
4 The new walls on Oregon-Page Mill are listed to document the need for sound mitigation measures.
The local community and city have indicated that other sound mitigation measures may be preferred
in place of sound walls.
116
Section 5 Finishing Program Element Draft (October 9, 2008)59
Table 10: 2008 Higher Replacement Sound Wall Locations
Expressway Project Locations 1 Cost
(2008 $/millions)
Potential
Implementation
Almaden
SW of Trinidad
East side between Winfield and
Redmond
NW of Branham
SW of Koch
$5.11
Capitol SW of Seven Trees 0.34
Central
South side between Mary and
Potrero
SW of Pastoria
1.27 Tier 1A Roadway
Project 2
Foothill NE of Loyola/Fremont 0.75
Between Central and I-280:
West side near Dahlia
SW of Poinciana
East side near St. Lawrence
NW and SW of Granada
NW of Homestead
SW of Pruneridge
4.4Lawrence
NW of Prospect 1.61
Between Central and El Camino Real:
NW and NE or Cabrillo
East side from Cabrillo to El Camino
Real
3.59
San Tomas
Between El Camino Real and Williams:
East side from El Camino Real to
Forbes
SW of Benton
SW of Saratoga
West side adjacent to Greenlee
residences north of I-280 and
Larkmead residences south of I-280
East side gap closure north of
Williams
9.04 Tier 1A Roadway
Project 2
117
Section 5 Finishing Program Element Draft (October 9, 2008)60
Table 10: 2008 Higher Replacement Sound Wall Locations
(continued)
Expressway Project Locations 1 Cost
(2008 $/millions)
Potential
Implementation
San Tomas
(continued)
Between Williams and SR 17:
SE of Hamilton to NE of Campbell
East side Budd to Winchester
5.55
Total Replacement Sound Wall Costs $31.66
1 Sound wall needs are divided into expressway segments for ease of comparison to roadway
widening projects. Each segment can be divided into several separate sound wall projects because
the sound wall needs are not continuous along the length of each segment.
2 Roadway project costs in the Capacity/Operational Element included these sound wall installations.
Only Tier 1A roadway capacity increasing projects are shown because they are likely to be funded.
Operational improvements do not typically trigger noise mitigations and projects beyond Tier 1A are
less likely to be funded.
locations may be disqualified because the expressway list is based on projected 2025 traffic volumes
and VTA’s screening is based on current traffic volumes. The intention is to keep these disqualified
locations on the expressway list of needs but to note that, similar to higher replacement sound walls,
they are not eligible for any existing grant funding sources.
In addition, some cities submitted new locations for expressway sound walls that did not appear to
qualify for noise mitigation when the 2003 Expressway Study conducted its assessments. If VTA
determines that any of these new locations qualify for noise mitigation, they will need to be added to
the expressway list for new sound walls.
The following steps should be taken for the Sound Wall piece of the next Expressway Study Update:
Update the list of new sound wall locations to indicate any that do not qualify for VTA’s
Noise Mitigation Program and to add any new locations that do qualify.
Reconfirm that the locations listed for new or higher sound walls are consistent with city
urban design plans for the expressway frontage. In 2003, some locations that would qualify
for noise mitigation were dropped from the list due to conflicts with community preferences
and city plans. As cities develop new land use plans, it may affect the desirability of
constructing sound walls in some locations.
118
Section 5 Finishing Program Element Draft (October 9, 2008)61
Landscaping
The expressway system landscaping installation costs in 2008 dollars is $24-29 million based on a
5% annual escalation rate from the 2003 estimate. The estimated 2008 annual cost to maintain this
basic level of landscaping for the entire expressway system is $5.2 million. The County currently
spends approximately $1.5 million annually performing very basic maintenance (e.g., control weeds,
trim trees, repair fences) in areas without maintenance agreements.
Different landscaping standards would apply for the Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor compared to the
expressways. In line with the philosophy of Santa Teresa-Hale as ultimately a city street, Gilroy and
Morgan Hill will take the lead and set standards for installing and maintaining any landscaping within
the incorporated areas. Formal landscaping of the unincorporated, rural areas would not be consistent
with normal County practice and is not proposed.
Street Lighting
The 2003 Study noted that it is County policy to not light expressways for vehicles or pedestrians,
except at intersections as a safety measure for areas of higher risk. The utility and maintenance costs
of street lighting are high and beyond the means of the expressway system’s operating budget.
During the 2003 Study, there were no requests from local communities for lighting and one
community specifically requested that the expressway not be lit because it would disturb the
surrounding homes.
However, it has been noted that as part of the 2008 Update, a far more extensive pedestrian system is
planned for the expressways and pedestrian scale lighting may be desirable. Therefore, a revised
street lighting policy was developed as part of the 2008 Update. Similar to landscaping, the most
significant costs related to lighting are the recurring operating and maintenance (O&M) costs not the
one-time installation capital costs. The County has an annual O&M shortfall and is not in a position
to incur a significant new O&M cost. Similar to the landscaping policy, pedestrian scale street
lighting along the expressways will be subject to the following policy:
“Pedestrian scale lighting shall not be installed unless full recovery of capital and
operations and maintenance costs can occur. The County shall cooperate fully with
public agencies and private entities seeking to make pedestrian scale light
improvements to the expressway system.”
119
Section 6 Operations and Maintenance Draft (October 9, 2008)62
SECTION SIX
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
ELEMENT
The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Element includes all activities and materials necessary to
keep the expressways functioning safely and efficiently while looking presentable. It includes signal
operations, sweeping, pavement maintenance, landscape maintenance, enforcement, and aging
infrastructure replacement.
2003 O&M Element Progress Report
The 2003 Study approach was to develop target levels of effort for each O&M activity. The Study
identified an annual need of $18 million (2003 dollars) to achieve these target levels. In 2003, the
sustainable annual funding available for O&M was $5.2 million, leaving a $12.8 million annual
shortfall for implementing the target levels of effort.
No new ongoing funding sources have been available between 2003 and 2008, and annual shortfalls
have been exacerbated by the State borrowing funds that are designated for roadway maintenance.
One-time funding sources have been made available for some activities including:
$6.4 million in federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for expressway
pavement management program (PMP) needs.
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) and other grants to synchronize lights along most
of the expressways.
120
Section 6 Operations and Maintenance Draft (October 9, 2008)63
2008 Update Approach
The 2008 Update included re-confirming the target levels of effort and updating the annual cost
estimates to 2008 dollars. In addition, new O&M needs and challenges are identified and the O&M
approach for the Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor is described.
2008 O&M Element Costs
Table 11 provides the target level of effort and 2008 cost for each O&M activity. The updated annual
cost to provide the target levels is $27.2 million.
Cost increases for maintenance activities that involve capital expenditures (e.g., pavement
maintenance/reconstruction and infrastructure replacement) were based on the Caltrans Construction
Cost Index. The Cost Index accounts for the impact of oil prices on pavement maintenance cost
estimates and other major construction cost increases beyond a 5% annual inflation rate.
For the operational activities (e.g., signal operations, sweeping, landscaping maintenance), the cost
increases were based on a mix of current cost experience and a 5% annual inflation rate. Factors that
have contributed to a larger than 5% annual increase for some activities include the following:
Maintaining a growing inventory of TOS equipment along with maintaining a more
sophisticated website for the public’s use (e.g., 400 cameras, congestion mapping, e-service
requests).
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance implementation and other signal
enhancements that have maintenance implications (chirping bird, countdown head, bike
detection and programming).
Monitoring and maintaining National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
mitigations and other project mitigations (habitat, trees, etc).
Increased landscape maintenance costs to comply with Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
restrictions (e.g., more hand weeding and mowing).
The expressway system will receive approximately $10.8 million for O&M in 2009, resulting in an
annual shortfall of $16.4 million below the amount necessary to achieve the target levels of effort.
Current O&M revenue sources are detailed in the Funding Strategy (Section 7).
121
Section 6 Operations and Maintenance Draft (October 9, 2008)64
Table 11: 2008 O&M Target Levels of Effort and Costs
Category Target Level of Effort Annual Cost 1
(2008 $/millions)
Signal Operations
Develop and optimize variable timing plans for
different times of the day and days of the week
for all expressways annually
Maintain Traffic Operations System (TOS) and
website
$2.5
Sweeping Twice per month plus on-call response 1.2
Landscaping
Maintenance 2
Maintain landscaping and irrigation systems
Replacement plantings as needed
Control weeds and clean up litter
Repair fences as needed
5.2
Pavement
Maintenance
Patch potholes as encountered
Resurface on 15-20 year cycle
Preventive maintenance/ rehabilitation to
extend life of pavement on 8-10 year cycle
Use more expensive products like Rubberized
Asphalt Concrete with longer life cycle where
cost effective
5.3
Pavement
Reconstruction
Reconstruct/replace 10% of expressway
pavement sections every 30 years 2.3
Sound Wall
Maintenance
Respond to graffiti within 1 to 3 days of
notification 0.3
Sound Wall
Infrastructure
Replacement
Replace all existing noise sufficient sound walls
based on a 30-40 year life cycle 2.9
Traffic Control/Safety
Devices Infrastructure
Replacement
(e.g., signal & lighting
systems, guard rails,
signs, delineators)
Implement preventive maintenance by
replacing on scheduled basis before worn out
Replace and upgrade materials to reflect latest
technologies/ materials where cost effective 4.2
Other Infrastructure
Replacement
(e.g., sidewalks,
drainage, and other
utility systems)
Implement preventive maintenance by
replacing on scheduled basis to prevent service
interruption
Replace with more expensive but longer
service life materials where cost effective
1.7
122
Section 6 Operations and Maintenance Draft (October 9, 2008)65
Table 11: 2008 O&M Target Levels of Effort and Costs (continued)
Category Target Level of Effort Annual Cost 1
(2008 $/millions)
Facility, Equipment,
and Fleet
Implement routine maintenance
Repair as needed
Replace based on variable standard life cycles
1.5
Enforcement
Continue to contract with CHP to patrol HOV
portions of Central, San Tomas, Montague, and
Lawrence Expressways3
Cities continue to provide enforcement on all
other expressways
0.1
Total $27.2
Note: Utility and maintenance costs for any pedestrian-scale lighting added to the expressways are not
included. As noted in the policy for pedestrian-scale lighting, these costs would be covered by maintenance
agreements funded by the cities, developers, or assessment districts.
1 For some activities, such as signal operations, sweeping, and landscaping maintenance, the costs are incurred
annually. For infrastructure replacement and pavement maintenance, the costs are incurred at various
intervals, and the costs have been annualized.
2 The annual cost for the landscaping category reflects the maintenance cost if all eight expressways are brought
up to the landscaping standard described in the Finishing Program Element. The capital costs for landscaping
installation is not included here.
3 Portions of these expressways are patrolled by the CHP to enforce the HOV lanes. The CHP uses the fines
collected from HOV lane violations to pay for costs of enforcement.
Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor
Current O&M responsibilities for the Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor are divided between the County,
Morgan Hill, and Gilroy. The County is responsible for the unincorporated portions of the 20-mile
corridor and the sections within Gilroy and Morgan Hill with executed expressway maintenance
agreements in place. A portion of Santa Teresa north and south of SR 152 that had an expressway
maintenance agreement now has a superceding agreement establishing Gilroy maintenance
responsibility. The 2003 Study “South County Working Paper” suggested continued communications
between the County and cities to establish consistent jurisdiction limits and maintenance
responsibilities, with the intent that the Santa Teresa-Hale improvements inside city jurisdictions
would ultimately become city roadways. The O&M needs for the unincorporated two-lane, rural
portions of the Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor are part of the County’s 608-mile unincorporated roads
O&M budget. No O&M costs for the Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor are included in the expressway
O&M cost estimates; however, the Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor should be considered in any regional
fund sources that may become available to support expressway O&M activities.
123
Section 6 Operations and Maintenance Draft (October 9, 2008)66
O&M Implementation Challenges
Table 11 provides the annualized costs for O&M activities. However, large-scale infrastructure
rehabilitation and replacement projects require large outlays in a single year rather than an annual
amount over a 10 to 40-year life span. Under ideal circumstances, the annualized cost would be set
aside in a reserve fund each year to be drawn from when it is time for a large infrastructure
rehabilitation or replacement project. With the O&M annual shortfall, this has not been possible and,
typically, these large-scale projects depend on securing one-time funding sources (e.g., grants and
sales tax measures).
The following two O&M needs are imminent and present major funding challenges:
San Tomas Box Culvert Repairs – The box culvert structure, which is about four miles long
begins south of Williams Road in San Jose and ends downstream north of Cabrillo Avenue in
Santa Clara. The structure was constructed between 1963 and 1968. An inspection revealed
significant erosion and etching of the concrete invert surface. Structural reinforcing steel is
exposed and deteriorating, compromising the structural integrity. With continued scour,
failure mechanisms are conceivable which could ultimately lead to the collapse of the
structure. This is a serious safety concern since portions of the roadway overtop the structure.
In addition, there would be significant environmental and local flooding issues associated
with structure collapse. The project cost estimate is $13.2 million. While the annualized
rehabilitation costs (approximately $0.35 million for the 40-year life span) for the culvert are
included in the estimated O&M annual needs, there is no current funding source with $13.2
million available for the project.
Expressway Pavement Maintenance – The annualized cost for a preventive maintenance and
resurfacing program for all eight expressways is $5.3 million. If the expressway pavement
maintenance needs were appropriately staggered and $5.3 million were available every year,
there would be no funding challenge. However, due to the O&M shortfall, expressway
pavement maintenance has been dependent on grants and sales tax measures. The 1996
Measure B Sales Tax provided $27 million for expressway pavement maintenance leading to
nearly all the expressways being resurfaced in the same time period (late 1990s/early 2000s).
As a consequence, they are all coming due for maintenance again from 2010 through 2012 at
a cost of nearly $15 million per year. The consequences of deferring maintenance will be an
escalating rate of pavement deterioration and greater costs for pavement repairs.
124
Section 7 Funding Strategy Draft (October 9, 2008)67
SECTION SEVEN
FUNDING STRATEGY
The 2003 Expressway Study identified a total capital program of nearly $2 billion and an annual need
of $18 million for operations and maintenance (O&M). The primary funding sources for the capital
improvement program were identified as being federal and state grants. The only continuous source
of expressway O&M funds was the County’s share of the state gas tax, from which the expressways
were receiving $5.2 million per year.
2003 Funding Strategy Progress Report
Listed below are the key funding strategy recommendations from the 2003 Study and the progress on
each:
Seek $150 million allocation in VTP 2030 for the 2003 Tier 1A Projects and resolve the
expressway local match issue. VTA did allocate $150 million in VTP 2030 for the Tier 1A
projects and included the Tier 1B projects below the funding line should additional funds
become available. However, there was no excess funding capacity in the 2004 and 2006
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for expressway allocations. The new
programming capacity from the Proposition 1B STIP allocation was used toward the VTP
2030 Freeway and Local Streets & County Roads Programs. VTA has indicated that the
Expressway Program is in line for an allocation from the 2010 STIP.
125
Section 7 Funding Strategy Draft (October 9, 2008)68
Resolve the expressway local match issue during VTA’s VTP 2030 process. VTA concurred
that the expressway needs should be fully allocated in the VTP 2030 without a 20% reduction
for a local match. However, local match is still required with federal and state grants and the
County is only able to provide matches for small-scale projects. City developer impact fees
and/or exchanging federal/state funds for local funds with no match requirements remain the
only way to handle the match for most Tier 1A projects.
Jointly with VTA, pursue additional revenue for meeting both the transit operating needs and
the expressway maintenance/operations needs, including capital program local match
requirements. Two attempts have been made to increase funding for expressway needs in
combination with other transportation funding needs. The first was Senate Bill (SB) 680 in
2005. SB 680 would have imposed a $5.00 annual vehicle registration surcharge in Santa
Clara County for eight years. The funding was designated for litter removal/landscape
restoration (freeways and expressways), Tier 1A expressway projects, local road congestion
relief projects, and Caltrain capacity improvements. The bill was vetoed by the Governor.
The second attempt was for a half-cent general purpose countywide sales tax in 2006 with the
funding slated for health services, affordable housing, BART, and roadway improvements,
including expressways. The measure failed to win a majority approval at the polls.
Work with the cities to collect expressway traffic mitigations, and expressway pedestrian,
sound wall, and landscaping improvements through land development approval processes.
Several cities in Santa Clara County have incorporated expressway capital improvements into
their land development traffic impact mitigations. The 2003 Expressway Study was helpful
in calling attention to expressway needs and further facilitating cities conditioning developers
for improvements
Pursue grants and partnerships for non-roadway capacity projects, such as pedestrian,
bicycle, sound wall, and TOS projects. The County has had some success in acquiring grant
funding for bicycle and TOS projects in highly competitive environments with relatively little
funding available. There were no VTP 2030 funding programs that supported pedestrian
improvements for the expressways, and the County’s focus has been to work with VTA to
develop the VTA/County/City matching fund that is discussed in the Pedestrian Element.
There have also been no grant sources for sound walls, but the County has worked to keep the
expressway sound wall needs on eligibility lists.
126
Section 7 Funding Strategy Draft (October 9, 2008)69
2008 Update Estimated Needs
Capital Projects
Table 12 summarizes the total capital program costs for the 2008 Update. The capital costs are
substantially higher due to large increases in construction costs over the last few years, the addition
of some new projects and the Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor needs, and the expansion of the pedestrian
program.
Table 12: Capital Program Funding Needs 1
Element Total Cost Committed
Funds 2
Potential
Funding 3 Net Needs
Tier 1A 4 $178.9 $18.4 $160.5
Tier 1B 253 87.9 165.1
Tier 1C 76.4 76.4
Tier 2 875-930 875-930
Tier 3 861-1,126 861-1,126
Capacity & Operational
Improvements Total $2,244-2,564 $106.3 $2,138-2,458
Bicycle 16.5 10.9 5.6
Pedestrian 76.3-84.3 23.3 53-61
Finishing: Sound Walls 76.6 13.7 62.9
Finishing: Landscaping 24-29 24-29
Total $2,284-2,617
million
1 All costs are in millions of 2008 dollars.
2 Committed sources include grants (Federal earmarks, VTA Bicycle Expenditure Program, other sources)
and city commitments, including development impact fees.
3 Other potential funding sources include funded, Tier 1A, and Tier 1B roadway projects (project costs
include appropriate bicycle, pedestrian, and sound wall needs) and land development conditions.
4 Includes San Tomas Expressway Culvert project.
127
Section 7 Funding Strategy Draft (October 9, 2008)70
The primary funding sources for capital projects will continue to be grants (e.g., through VTP 2035
Expressway and Bicycle Programs and from Federal earmarks) and city development impact fees and
conditions. The proposed expressway pedestrian funding program will be a relatively small pot of
new funding. County Road Fund (County share of state gas tax, 2006 Proposition 1B, and
Proposition 42) expenditures toward capital projects is limited to small projects with high benefit/cost
ratios, local match for grant-funded projects, and cost escalation of projects already underway.
In reviewing all known and potential capital funding sources, the net result through 2035 is likely to
be:
All Tier 1A projects and half of the Tier 1B projects will be funded over the next 25 years. In
addition, most of the bicycle needs and some of the pedestrian needs will be funded.
The following needs will not be funded: the remainder of the Tier 1B projects; the roadway
projects in Tiers 1C, 2, and 3; most of the pedestrian needs; and the sound walls and
landscaping needs listed in the Finishing Program.
Operations and Maintenance
The annual O&M costs for the target levels of effort have grown 51% (from $18 million to $27.2
million) due to increased labor and material costs as well as an expanded Traffic Operations System
that must be maintained. The pavement maintenance and infrastructure replacement costs have been
particularly hard hit due to the substantial increases in oil prices and other materials used in
construction.
The sources for O&M needs are the County Roads Fund and some one-time funding sources (e.g.,
federal pavement rehabilitation grants, TFCA signal timing grants, 2006 Proposition 1B). The
County Road Fund receives approximately $24 million annually from the state gas excise tax for use
on both the 625-mile unincorporated road network and the 62-mile expressway system. There are no
special funds received by the County for operating the expressway system. Santa Clara County is the
only county in the state with a high-capacity expressway network operating through incorporated
cities. The state gas tax formula does not recognize the funding needs of such a unique system.
Starting in 2009, the County is scheduled to receive $12 million annually from Proposition 42 funds
which will be divided up between unincorporated roads and the expressways. However, there is a
provision that allows the state government to divert those funds to help close its budget deficit in
times of fiscal emergency.
128
Section 7 Funding Strategy Draft (October 9, 2008)71
The County is also slated to receive $38 million in 2006 Proposition 1B (infrastructure bond) funds.
The first allocation of $15 million was received for FY 2008 but was needed to compensate for the
lack of Proposition 42 funds in FY 2008. An additional $3 million allocation was approved in June
2008.
The declining value of gas taxes is significantly impacting transportation system funding. The tax
rate is set at a flat amount per gallon of gas. The federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon and the State of
California tax is 18 cents per gallon. The state and federal gas tax rates have not been adjusted since
1995 and 1993, respectively. As a result, the purchasing power of the gas tax has steadily been
eroded by inflation. Also contributing to the decline in gas tax revenue is reduced demand due to the
steep increases in the price of gas. Proposition 42 revenue will simply backfill some of the lost
purchasing power and will not result in the ability to provide additional O&M efforts, while the
remaining Proposition 1B revenue will provide one-time funding for small, high benefit/cost ratio
projects, provided it is not needed to backfill a future Proposition 42 suspension.
The expressways account for approximately 9 percent of the total County road centerline miles and
20 percent of the total lane miles. They will receive a minimum of 30 percent of the County’s gas tax
and Proposition 42 allocations, equal to approximately $10.8 million for O&M in 2009. With an
O&M cost estimate of $27.2 million in 2008 dollars, this leads to an annual shortfall of $16.4 million
to achieve the target levels of effort. This shortfall is expected to grow as real gas tax revenue
declines.
It will be a challenge to maintain the current O&M levels of effort, and it will not be possible to
expand the levels of effort to reach any of the targets without an increase in sustainable revenue
sources. O&M efforts necessary to maintain the safety of the expressway system will continue to be
the highest priority for the limited funding. However, the forecast is that pavement conditions will
decline, the County will be less responsive to signal timing requests, there will be less sweeping and
more weeds/litter, and most other non-critical maintenance will be deferred.
129
Section 7 Funding Strategy Draft (October 9, 2008)72
Funding Opportunities
Acquiring new revenue sources for both capital and O&M needs is very difficult in the current
economic environment. Adding to the challenges are the following competing interests:
The state is in a budget crisis with structural budget deficits that led to a long impasse for
adopting a fiscal year 2008-09 budget and is now projected to lead to a large State budget
deficit again next year.
VTA is seeking a countywide 1/8-cent sales tax increase to fund BART operating expenses.
Many local agencies are facing severe budget deficits, especially for maintaining local
infrastructure. MTC estimates that the San Jose/San Francisco Bay Area has a $10.9 billion
25-year shortfall to adequately maintain, operate, and improve local streets and roads. The
City of San Jose has been exploring various funding sources ranging from taxes to property
assessment districts to help reduce its deficit while the City of Campbell is requesting voters
approve a 1/4-cent citywide sales tax for the city’s general fund.
There is a lack of state support for pursuing increases in vehicle registration fees. The
Governor has a history of vetoing bills to increase the vehicle registration fees. A 2007 bill
(AB 444) to authorize VTA (as Santa Clara County’s congestion management agency) to
place a $10 annual vehicle registration fee for congestion relief and environmental mitigation
has been stalled in a Senate committee.
There has also been a difficulty in preserving current federal and state transportation funding levels
and making sure they are made available for local agency use. With the State of California’s annual
budget deficit, funds intended for transportation purposes have at times been “loaned” to the state
General Fund for non-transportation purposes. At the regional level, there is a desire to direct
existing and new funding sources toward efforts to reduce greenhouse gases through land use changes
and changing travel patterns which must be balanced with the need to maintain a deteriorating
roadway system.
As discussed in the 2003 Expressway Study and still true today, the best opportunity to sustain and
increase O&M revenue for the expressways and all local roadways is to increase the gas tax. If the
gas tax is increased at the federal level, it is unpredictable how much of the funding would actually be
returned to source and allocated to road maintenance needs. If the State increases the gas tax, or
indexes it to inflation, there will be more funding coming to the County through the allocation
130
Section 7 Funding Strategy Draft (October 9, 2008)73
formula. Another opportunity is MTC’s current authorization to place a regional 10-cent per gallon
gas tax on the ballot for general road purposes. However, in 2008, there was legislation proposed
(AB 2744) to repeal this authority and replace it with a 10-cent regional fuel “fee” that will be used to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. This legislation failed passage in the
Assembly but it is due to be reconsidered.
Still, there are opportunities that should be pursued when possible:
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) authorizes the federal surface transportation programs for highways,
highway safety, and transit through 2009. The reauthorization opportunities include
advocating for more direct subvention of maintenance funding to local agencies.
The State has benefited enormously from Santa Clara County’s history of self-help local
initiatives to construct facilities that are normally a state responsibility. This self-help history
traces back to the original expressway planning and construction bonding. It seems fair that
as in-lieu of freeways, the expressways should have access to state freeway maintenance
funds. Designation of a portion of State Highway Operation and Protection Program
(SHOPP) funds, for example, could be pursued.
Passage of AB 444 (vehicle registration surcharge) or another vehicle fee that ensures a stable
source of transportation maintenance funding regardless of the amount of gasoline purchased
by each vehicle should be supported. This could include fees based on vehicle miles traveled
so that users pay proportional to their use of the roads.
Efforts to increase the gas tax either by the State for direct subvention to local agencies or a
local gas tax that can be used for road capital and O&M needs need to be pursued.
Revenue from High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes may be used to support transportation
needs within HOT lane corridors after paying for HOT lane start-up and operating costs.
Portions of expressways and Santa Teresa-Hale may fall within HOT lane corridors and,
therefore, would be eligible to receive HOT lane revenue.
The most likely new funding opportunity for expressway capital needs is from the STIP,
starting with the 2010 STIP. The amount of funding that may be available is unknown. The
last few STIP cycles have seen little or no money available and it was only the infusion of
Proposition 1B funds that provided a fair amount of programming capacity in the 2008 STIP.
131
Section 7 Funding Strategy Draft (October 9, 2008)74
Tier 1A Expenditure Plan
With the anticipation that some regional funding may be made available for the Expressway Tier 1A
projects starting in 2010, an expenditure plan has been developed. This expenditure plan will help
guide discussions with VTA and the cities about allocating regional funds to the expressways as part
of the upcoming near term programming cycles.
The San Tomas Box Culvert repair from the O&M Element has been added to the Tier 1A
Expenditure Plan for regional funding consideration. As discussed in the O&M Element, this $13.2
million project is needed to maintain the integrity of San Tomas Expressway. Technically, this
project is not eligible for any traditional grant sources. However, given the magnitude and urgent
need for the project, it has been submitted to VTA and MTC for VTP 2035 and Transportation 2035
consideration and is recommended for inclusion in the Tier 1A Expenditure Plan in case eligible
funding becomes available (e.g., a new type of federal grant, a local fund/STIP exchange).
The expenditure plan focuses on determining which projects will be in the “near term” (by 2015)
program. All other projects are designated as after 2015. In addition, it was necessary to stay as
close to the expressway program regional fund targets set by VTA for these categories as possible.
The expressway targets for regional dollars are:
Near term (by 2015) – $90.2 million
After 2015 (VTA’s mid and long term) – $71.1 million
Similar to the approach of placing projects into tiers, criteria was used to determine which Tier 1A
projects fell into the near term. Some projects were broken into phases and, therefore, span more than
one time period. Projects meeting one of the following criteria were placed in the near term:
Mitigates a 2006-2007 level of service problem (LOS F)
Is an operational/safety improvement
Has existing grants/funds attached
Has specific timing requirements for the near term linked to other funds or other projects
Is a study to support large, unfunded capital projects to identify project costs/design factors
for future VTP considerations
132
Section 7 Funding Strategy Draft (October 9, 2008)75
Projects that were included in the near term were then divided into the three funding cycles (2010,
2012, 2014) based on the following considerations:
Projects with a history of safety concerns and relatively low-cost, quick fix projects were
placed in the first programming cycle (2010).
Projects with specific timing requirements (e.g., linked to local funds or other projects) were
placed in the appropriate cycle (2010, 2012, or 2014).
Feasibility studies/Project Study Reports (PSRs) were placed in the third cycle (2014)
because of the long term nature of securing funding for the final project and the need to focus
on delivering near term improvements.
Installing TOS infrastructure along new corridors is in the first cycle (2010) while other TOS
improvements fall into second and third programming cycles (2012 and 2014).
Large projects with long delivery times or complicated approval procedures were split into
phases and different programming cycles to allow sufficient time for preliminary
engineering/environmental clearance and to schedule needed construction funds in an
achievable timeframe.
The Tier 1A Expenditure Plan is provided in Table 13. Appendix B shows the application of the near
term criteria and programming cycle considerations in determining project placement in the
Expenditure Plan.
133
Section 7 Funding Strategy Draft (October 9, 2008)76
Table 13: Tier 1A Expenditure Plan
Near Term Recommendations
Programming Cycle
Exp.Project
Total
Cost
($M)
Com-
mitted
($M)
Net
($M)1
(2010)
2
(2012)
3
(2014)
8 lanes Coleman - Blossom Hill
(Phase 1 PE/Env)2.5 2.5 2.5Almaden
PSR for 85/Almaden Interchange 0.4 0.4 0.4
Capitol TOS Infrastructure 3.5 3.5 3.5
Median curb improvement 85 to
237 0.8 0.8 0.8Central
Aux Lanes Mary - Lawrence 17.0 0.5 16.5 16.5
Extend decel lane at San Antonio 0.7 0.7 0.7Foothill
Widen Loyola Bridge 7.0 1.8 5.2 5.2
Additional left-turn at Prospect 2.6 2.6 2.6
PSR for Lawrence/Calvert/I-280
interchange 1.0 1.0 1.0Lawrence
Close median and right ins/outs 1.5 1.5 1.5
Mission College at-grade
intersection improvements 4.0 4.0 4.0Montague
8 lanes Trade Zone - Park Victoria 20.0 13.0 7.0 7.0
I-280/Page Mill interchange
modification 6.6 1.0 5.6 1.3 4.3Oregon-
Page Mill
Alma Bridge feasibility study 0.3 0.3 0.3
8 lanes Williams - El Camino
(Phase 1 PE/Env)8.0 8.0 8.0San Tomas
Culvert rehabilitation 13.2 0.5 12.7 12.7
DeWitt “S” Curve 2.5 0.5 2.0 2.0Santa
Teresa/
Hale Santa Teresa TOS Infrastructure
(Phase 1 – Existing signals)3.0 3.0 3.0
Signal coordination-interconnect
(Phase 1)2.5 2.5 2.5
Motorist traffic information 5.0 5.0 5.0Signal/
TOS
System TOS Infrastructure
Improvements (Phase 1)5.0 0.9 4.1 4.1
TOTAL 107.1 18.2 88.9 51.6 25.0 12.3
134
Section 7 Funding Strategy Draft (October 9, 2008)77
Table 13: Tier 1A Expenditure Plan (continued)
After 2015 Recommendations
Expressway Project Total Cost 1
(millions)
Almaden 8 lanes Coleman - Blossom Hill
(Phase 2 Construction)8.0
Central 6 lanes Lawrence - San Tomas 13.6
Lawrence 8 lanes Moorpark - south of Calvert 5.2
8 lanes Williams - El Camino
(Phase 2 Construction)32.7San Tomas
SR 17 area improvements 2.6
Santa Teresa/
Hale
Santa Teresa TOS Infrastructure
(Phase 2 – New segment/signals)2.0
Signal coordination-interconnect
(Phase 2)2.5
Signal/TOS
System TOS Infrastructure Improvements
(Phase 2)5.0
TOTAL 71.6
1 There are no committed funds for these projects.
Note: The two Tier 1A HOV Lane conversion projects totaling $0.2 million would be fully funded
from the County Road fund and are not included in the Tier 1A Expenditure Plan.
135
Section 7 Funding Strategy Draft (October 9, 2008)78
2008 Update Funding Strategy
For the most part, the funding strategy recommendations from the 2003 Expressway Study remain
valid. The County will continue to take the following actions: pursue all possible grants and
partnerships for expressway improvement and O&M needs; work with the cities to acquire traffic
mitigation fees and new development conditions to support the expressway system; and, support all
State efforts to index the gas tax to inflation and to increase the gas tax to help fund O&M needs of
the expressway system.
Following are the funding strategy recommendations specific to the 2008 Update:
Request full funding for the Tier 1A Capacity and Operational Improvements in VTP 2035
with Tier 1B projects also listed should additional funding become available.
Seek $52 million from the 2010 STIP for the first Tier 1A near term programming cycle with
follow up requests from the 2012 and 2014 STIPs to complete the near term Tier 1A projects
as specified in Table 13.
Seek funding from VTP 2030’s Pavement Maintenance Program to cover the next round of
expressway pavement maintenance needs to come due between 2010 and 2012 at a cost of
approximately $12-15 million annually.
Advocate for a commitment from future HOT lane revenue to help improve and maintain
sections of expressways and Santa Teresa-Hale if determined to be within HOT lane
corridors.
Explore, through State liaison, opportunities for opening a State maintenance revenue stream
for expressways.
Support initiatives for vehicle registration fees or vehicle miles traveled fees to help fund
expressway and local road improvement and maintenance needs.
Advocate that MTC institute a return-to-source policy for its 10-cent gas tax authority giving
the cities and County local control to meet high priority O&M needs, or continue to pursue
new local funding sources for expressway O&M needs, taking advantage of partnerships with
other local agencies facing annual deficits in road O&M budgets and pursue a 10-cent gas tax
as a local initiative.
136
Section 8 Future Updates Draft (October 9, 2008)79
SECTION EIGHT
FUTURE UPDATES
The Expressway Study 2008 Update’s project lists, cost estimates, policy recommendations, and
implementation strategies are based on conditions known today. To keep the Expressway Study
current and useful as a planning tool, it must be updated on a regular basis. The updates are timed to
occur prior to VTA’s VTP updates so the project lists can be incorporated into the VTP. With the
VTP scheduled for update every four years, the next Expressway Update should occur in 2012.
Each element of the 2008 Expressway Study Update included various implementation strategies and
action steps that will be pursued prior to the next 2012 Update. The general scope of every Update
includes the following tasks:
Provide a status of work accomplished since the last Update.
Revise the project lists and cost estimates for all elements.
Identify new challenges facing the expressway system.
Recommend any necessary policy changes.
The following specific issues and work tasks should be addressed in the 2012 Update:
Conduct traffic modeling to project future conditions on the expressways in addition to
reviewing current level of service and operational/safety needs. When the 2012 Update
begins, it will have been over 10 years since the traffic modeling and extensive traffic
analysis was completed for the expressway system. This work is critical for defining current
and future problems and developing project descriptions. Rising gas costs and concerns over
137
Section 8 Future Updates Draft (October 9, 2008)80
climate changes may lead to significant changes in commuting behavior affecting traffic
volumes on the expressways. At the same time, the promotion of land use changes to focus
more growth as in-fill development may increase the demand on the expressway system,
which primarily serves intra-county shorter distance trips connecting residential and
employment areas, beyond previous projections.
Evaluate the targets for the HOV lane performance measures and determine whether
adjustments are needed. The current performance measures were set in 2003 based on
adjustments to freeway HOV lane performance measures. As noted in the HOV performance
discussion of the Capacity and Operational Improvement Element, there is an indication that
some of the targets for the performance measures need adjustment to truly reflect the
operating characteristics of expressway HOV lanes. Continued monitoring of the HOV lanes
between now and the 2012 Update will provide key data for determining what adjustments
may be needed.
Revise the sound wall list and set priorities based on the results of VTA’s noise analysis and
city land use planning preferences (e.g., take into account recent city decisions to have some
developments front on the expressway without sound walls).
Conduct an assessment of expressway system intersections to determine how many could use
major reconstruction to make them more pedestrian friendly (e.g., square corners, eliminate
free-running rights, etc.) providing for a formal project list and cost estimates.
Similar to the 2003 Study and 2008 Update, a collaborative process involving elected officials, local
agency staff, and the public will be used to develop the 2012 Update.
138
APPENDIX A
PROJECT TIER CHANGES
FROM 2003 EXPRESSWAY STUDY TO 2008 UPDATE
139
140
Appendix A: Project Tier Changes Draft (October 9, 2008)A-1
PROJECT TIER CHANGES
From 2003 Expressway Study to 2008 Update
Tier 1A Project List Changes
Projects removed because they are completed or in progress:
Almaden – Widening and operational improvements between Branham and Blossom Hill
through SR 85 interchange
Foothill – Signal operational improvements
Lawrence – Signal coordination along Lawrence/Saratoga Avenue corridor to SR 85
Lawrence – Signal operational improvements at I-280/Lawrence interchange and Stevens
Creek
Lawrence – Convert HOV lane north of US 101 to mixed flow
Montague – Convert HOV lane on 6-lane portion between I-880 and I-680 to mixed flow
Oregon-Page Mill –Oregon corridor operational and pedestrian improvements
San Tomas – Additional left turn lanes at Hamilton intersection
Projects moved to another list:
Montague – 8-lane widening Lick Mill to Trade Zone. Moved to funded list for future
implementation.
San Tomas – Additional right turn lane at Monroe. Moved to Tier 1C due lack of LOS
problem.
Projects remaining on list with modified project descriptions and/or costs due to
changes in scope:
Foothill – Widen Loyola Bridge and make circulation improvements. Cost estimate reduced
due to change in scope from bridge replacement to bridge widening.
Lawrence – Close median at Lochinvar and right-in and –out access at various locations.
Added Lillick to the list of access closures to be studied at City of Santa Clara’s request.
Montague – Widen to 8 lanes between Trade Zone and Park Victoria, including I-680
interchange improvements with lane additions to be operated as HOV on a trial basis. 8-lane
widening from Mission College to Trade Zone is either complete or fully funded. The
portion that is not yet fully funded remains in the Tier 1A project list.
Signal/TOS Capital Improvements – Install equipment to provide signal
coordination/interconnection with cross streets. Combined this project with the 2003 Tier 1A
project to install equipment to interconnect with Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and
Los Altos signal systems.
Signal/TOS Capital Improvements – Various expressway system TOS infrastructure
improvements. Project description and cost estimate revised to reflect the next level of
systemwide TOS enhancements.
141
Appendix A: Project Tier Changes Draft (October 9, 2008)A-2
New projects added to the Tier 1A list:
Capitol – Install TOS infrastructure from US 101 to Almaden Expressway
Central – Convert Bowers queue jump lane to mixed use
Central – Median curb improvements between SR 85 and SR 237
Lawrence – Add left turn lane from eastbound Prospect (moved from Tier 1C List)
Montague – Mission College intersection at-grade improvements (split off from Tier 1B
project)
Santa Teresa/Hale Corridor – Realign DeWitt S-Curve
Santa Teresa/Hale Corridor – Add TOS infrastructure from US 101 to Buena Vista
Tier 1B Project List Changes
Capitol Expressway – Removed Silver Creek interchange project from list as requested by the
City of San Jose requested because this project would conflict with local plans for the area.
Montague – Moved Trimble flyover project to the funded list for future implementation.
Tier 1C Project List Changes
Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor – Added projects for this corridor which met Tier 1C criteria.
Capitol Expressway – Combined the US 101 Central Corridor Study recommended
improvement for the section between McLaughlin and Aborn with the 2003 Tier 1C
McLaughlin intersection improvement project.
San Tomas Expressway – Moved the former Tier 1A Monroe intersection improvement into
Tier 1C.
Tier 2 Project List Changes
Central Expressway – Changed the project description and cost estimate for the
Central/Rengstorff intersection from constructing an interchange to depressing the
Central/Rengstorff intersection in conjunction with the adjacent Rengstorff/Caltrain railroad
tracks grade separation project. This is consistent with city plans and an updated LOS
analysis.
Central Expressway – Removed the “at grade improvements or interchange at Mary” project
as requested by Sunnyvale. This project is not consistent with local community plans, there
is no LOS need for it, and there are feasibility problems in implementing it.
Lawrence Expressway – Removed the “interchange at Tasman” project as requested by
Sunnyvale. This project is not consistent with local community plans, there is no LOS need
for it, and there are feasibility problems in implementing it.
Oregon-Page Mill Expressway – Removed the El Camino Real intersection improvement
project. This project has been incorporated into the Oregon Expressway Corridor project
currently in progress.
142
Appendix A: Project Tier Changes Draft (October 9, 2008)A-3
Tier 3 Project List Changes
Lawrence and San Tomas – Simplified the list by combining the feasibility studies/Project
Study Reports and project construction into one project listing.
Oregon-Page Mill Expressway – Added reconfiguration of the US 101/Oregon
Expressway/Embarcadero Road interchange project to the list.
143
144
APPENDIX B
TIER 1A EXPENDITURE PLAN CRITERIA
145
146
Appendix B: Tier 1A Expenditure Plan Criteria Draft (October 9, 2008)B-1
Tier 1A Expenditure Plan
Criteria and Timing Recommendations
Criteria
Project 2006-07
LOS F
Op/
Safety
Study
Only
Funding
Commitments Timing Issues Phasing
Options
Recom-
mendation
Almaden – 8 lanes
Coleman to Blossom Hill Yes
Still working on Branham
to Blossom Hill Project
(completed in 2-3 years)
1) PE/Env
2) Construct
1) Near Term
(Cycle 3)
2) After 2015
Almaden – PSR for SR
85/Almaden Interchange Yes Near Term
(Cycle 3)
Capitol – TOS
Infrastructure Yes Near Term
(Cycle 1)
Central – Median curb
improvement SR 85 to
SR 237
Yes Near Term
(Cycle 1)
Central – Auxiliary Lanes
Mary to Lawrence Yes
2008 Federal
Earmark to
start PE
History of safety
concerns
Near Term
(Cycle 1)
Central – 6 lanes
Lawrence to San Tomas After 2015
Foothill – Extend decel-
eration lane at San
Antonio
Yes Near Term
(Cycle 1)
Foothill – Widen Loyola
Bridge Yes
BEP plus
potential
LS&CR for off-
expressway
Near Term
(Cycle 2)
Lawrence – Additional
left-turn at Prospect Yes Near Term
(Cycle 1)
147
Appendix B: Tier 1A Expenditure Plan Criteria Draft (October 9, 2008)B-2
Criteria
Project 2006-07
LOS F
Op/
Safety
Study
Only
Funding
Commitments Timing Issues Phasing
Options
Recom-
mendation
Lawrence – 8 lanes
Moorpark to south of
Calvert
After 2015
Lawrence – PSR for
Lawrence/ Calvert/I-280
interchange
Yes Near Term
(Cycle 3)
Lawrence – Close
median and right ins/outs Yes Sunnyvale
funds
Near Term
(Cycle 1)
Montague – Mission
College at-grade
intersection
improvements
Should be planned/
designed jointly with
Montague/101 Par-Clo (a
near term project in VTP
2035 Freeway Program
and due for construction
in 2014)
Near Term
(Cycle 3)
Montague – 8 lanes
Trade Zone to Park
Victoria
Yes
San Jose,
Milpitas, and
VTA BART
funds
San Jose local funds due
2010 and project must be
completed by 2016
Near Term
(Cycle 1)
Oregon-Page Mill –
I-280/ Page Mill
interchange modification
Yes Near Term
(Cycle 2)
Oregon-Page Mill – Alma
Bridge replacement
feasibility study
Yes Near Term
(Cycle 3)
San Tomas – SR 17
area improvements After 2015
San Tomas – 8 lanes
Williams to El Camino Yes
Very large-scale,
complex project –
10-year delivery
1) PE/Env
2) Construct
1) Near Term
(Cycle 2)
2) After 2015
148
Appendix B: Tier 1A Expenditure Plan Criteria Draft (October 9, 2008)B-3
Criteria
Project 2006-07
LOS F
Op/
Safety
Study
Only
Funding
Commitments Timing Issues Phasing
Options
Recom-
mendation
San Tomas – Culvert
rehabilitation Yes
2008 Federal
Earmark to
start PE
Must be completed within
5-7 years to reduce
structure damage
Near Term
(Cycle 1)
Santa Teresa/Hale –
DeWitt “S” Curve Yes Morgan Hill
funds
History of safety
concerns
Near Term
(Cycle 1)
Santa Teresa/Hale –
Santa Teresa TOS
Infrastructure
Yes
A portion of the corridor
in Gilroy is not yet
constructed/widened
1) Existing 4-
lane portion
2) New/
widened
portions
1) Near Term
(Cycle 1)
2) After 2015
Signal/TOS – Signal
coordination-interconnect Yes Can be
phased
1) Near Term
(Cycle 2)
2) After 2015
Signal/TOS – Motorist
traffic information Yes Near Term
(Cycle 2)
Signal/TOS – System
TOS Infrastructure
Improvements
Yes Can be
phased
1) Near Term
(Cycle 3)
2) After 2015
Note: High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane conversion projects would be implemented in-house by the County Roads & Airports
Department and does not require outside funding; therefore, these Tier 1A projects are not listed here.
Abbreviations:
BEP = VTA’s Bicycle Expenditure Program PSR = Project Study Report
LS&CR = VTA’s Local Streets and County Roads Program TOS = Traffic Operations System
PE/Env = Preliminary engineering/Environmental clearance
149
150
Technical Working Group
Matthew Jue
City of Campbell
David Stillman
City of Cupertino
Don Dey
City of Gilroy
Tom Ho
City of Los Altos
Richard Chiu
Town of Los Altos Hills
Jamie Rodriguez
City of Milpitas
Scott Creer
City of Morgan Hill
Jim Rowe
City of Morgan Hill
Sayad Fakhry
City of Mountain View
Shahla Yazdy
City of Palo Alto
Ben Tripousis
City of San Jose
Lorenzo Lopez
City of Santa Clara
David Pitton
City of Santa Clara
Macedonio Nunez
City of Saratoga
Jack Witthaus
City of Sunnyvale
John Sighamony
VTA
County of Santa Clara Staff
Michael Murdter
Director
Roads and Airports Department
Dan Collen
Deputy Director
Infrastructure Development
Dawn Cameron
Consulting Transportation Planner
Masoud Akbarzadeh
County Traffic Engineer
Traffic Engineering and Operations
Mike Griffis
Senior Civil Engineer
Highway Design
Ananth Prasad
Senior Civil Engineer
Traffic Engineering and Operations
Martin A. Little
GIS Technician
Traffic Engineering and Operations
Bernardine Caceres
Civil Engineer
Highway Design
Susan Lee Adams
Infrastructure Development
151
Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study
DRAFT 2008 UPDATE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
ROADS AND AIRPORTS DEPARTMENT
OCTOBER 9, 2008
152
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors
Donald F. Gage
District 1
Blanca Alvarado
District 2
Pete McHugh – Chairperson
District 3
Ken Yeager
District 4
Liz Kniss
District 5
Peter Kutras, Jr.
County Executive
Policy Advisory Board
Ken Yeager – PAB Chair
Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Clara
Jamie McLeod – PAB Vice-Chair
Council Member
City of Santa Clara
Donald F. Gage
Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Clara
Jane P. Kennedy
Council Member
City of Campbell
Joe Hernandez, PAB Alternate
Vice Mayor
City of Campbell
Gilbert Wong
Council Member
City of Cupertino
Peter Arellano
Council Member
City of Gilroy
David Casas
Council Member
City of Los Altos
Jose Esteves
Mayor
City of Milpitas
Marby Lee
Mayor Pro Tempore
City of Morgan Hill
Ronit Bryant
Council Member
City of Mountain View
Margaret Abe-Koga, PAB Alternate
Vice Mayor
City of Mountain View
Yoriko Kishimoto
Council Member
City of Palo Alto
Kansen Chu
Council Member
City of San Jose
Will Kennedy, PAB Alternate
Council Member
City of Santa Clara
Ann Waltonsmith
Mayor
City of Saratoga
Aileen Kao, PAB Alternate
Council Member
City of Saratoga
Christopher R. Moylan
Council Member
City of Sunnyvale
Melinda Hamilton, PAB Alternate
Vice Mayor
City of Sunnyvale
Dominic J. Caserta
City of Santa Clara Council Member
VTA Board Member
Nancy Pyle
City of San Jose Council Member
VTA Board Member
Ted Brown – ex-officio
Chairperson
County Roads Commission
Steven Levin – ex-officio
Member
County Roads Commission
153
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Adopted in 2003, the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study provides a long-term plan
for the improvement and maintenance of the County Expressway System. It includes all areas of
need: capacity and operational improvements, signal operations, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and finishing elements such as landscaping and sound
walls. It also includes a summary of ongoing operating and maintenance needs and funding strategy
recommendations.
The 2008 Update is the first update of the 2003 Expressway Study. While it is primarily an
administrative update to reflect new conditions, it also tackled some key issues unresolved in the
2003 Study. These issues included developing an expenditure plan for the highest priority
expressway capacity and operational improvements, integrating South County’s Santa Teresa-Hale
Corridor’s needs into the project lists, and developing a plan to more completely accommodate
pedestrians on all expressways.
The same collaborative planning process used to develop the 2003 Expressway Study was used for
the 2008 Update. Elected officials and staff from twelve cities and the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA), representatives from the County Roads Commission, and the
County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) participated in the development of the
Update. Public comments will be solicited during the circulation of the Draft Update document.
154
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-2
Accomplishments Since 2003
The benefits of having the 2003 Expressway Study have been substantial and systemwide. The Study
has brought a greater understanding of the value provided by the expressway system as part of the
transportation system in Santa Clara County. It has also increased awareness of what is needed to
keep the expressway system functioning well, thereby, helping the County take advantage of every
possible opportunity. The highest priority expressway capacity and operational improvements (Tier
1A) became the Expressway Program in the VTA Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030),
laying the groundwork for grant allocations and federal earmarks. In addition, the comprehensive list
of expressway needs has been a resource for cities in conditioning developers to provide
improvements.
Specific project delivery accomplishments include:
Capacity and Operational Improvements – Twelve of the 28 highest priority expressway
capacity and operational improvements (Tier 1A at-grade projects) have been completed or
funded by various grants, County funding sources, and city contributions through developer
mitigations. In addition, six of the seven next highest set of priority projects (Tier 1B grade
separation projects) have full or partial funding commitments from city development impact
fees.
Bicycle Improvements – Nine of the eleven projects listed in the 2003 Study have been
delivered or funded. These improvements involved widening shoulders at pinch points and
improving delineation of shoulder areas for bicycle use.
Pedestrian Improvements – Some progress has also been made in providing pedestrian
improvements as identified in the 2003 Pedestrian Element including constructing new
sidewalk segments along five of the expressways, providing crossing enhancements at several
high demand locations, and installing pedestrian countdown timers at 39 intersections.
Little or no progress has been made in providing new and higher replacement sound walls or
installing new landscaping due to a lack of funding sources. In addition, no progress has been made
to increase levels of effort for expressway operations and maintenance. Rather, the annual operations
and maintenance shortfalls were exacerbated by the declining value of the gas tax and the year-by-
year uncertainty whether the State would borrow roadway maintenance funds, making it a challenge
to sustain current levels of effort.
155
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-3
Capacity and Operational Improvement Element
As in the 2003 Study, the 2008 Update capacity and operational improvements include the following
types of projects:
Capacity Projects – Roadway widening, new turning lanes at intersections, and new or
reconfigured interchanges/grade separations.
Operational and Safety Improvements – Auxiliary lanes, median/access closures, and bridge
replacements.
Signal Operational Improvements – Traffic Operations System (TOS) equipment using
advanced technologies to monitor and improve traffic flow, replacement of outdated
equipment, and expanded coordination with city signal systems.
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) System Projects – Recommendations to improve the
effectiveness of the HOV system, including corrective actions dealing with high violation
rates and removing a little-used peak-hour queue jump lane on Central Expressway.
The total roadway capital program includes 74 projects at an estimated cost of $2.2 to 2.6 billion. To
determine priorities for funding and implementation, the projects were divided into tiers using slightly
modified criteria from the 2003 Study. Table ES-1 provides a summary of the tiers and Figure ES-1
maps the highest priority projects (Tier 1A and 1B).
Table ES-1: Roadway Projects Tier Summary
Tier Tier Criteria # of
Projects
Cost
(2008
$/millions)
1A Improves 2001 and 2006/07 LOS F
intersections, provides operational
improvements, or conducts feasibility studies
25 $166
1B Constructs interchanges at 2001 LOS F
intersections
5 $253
1C Improves 2025 projected LOS F intersections 20 $76
2 Provides other expressway capacity
improvements or new technologies
15 $875-930
3 Reconstructs major existing facilities or
constructs new facilities
9 $861-1,126
Totals 74 $2,231-2,551
156
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-4
Figure ES-1: 2008 Tier 1A and 1B Projects
157
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-5
Bicycle Element
Bicycles are accommodated on all expressways and along the Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor. The 2003
Bicycle Element focused on bringing all expressways into compliance with the Expressway Bicycle
Accommodation Guidelines. No changes in policy or approach are made in the 2008 Bicycle
Element. A total of six projects are shown in the Bicycle Element. Included are projects from the
2003 Bicycle Element that have not been completed, a systemwide bicycle signal detection
improvement project, and an improvement for the Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor.
Pedestrian Element
In line with the County’s belief that the safest way to accommodate pedestrian use of expressways is
on improved sidewalks behind the curb or on parallel routes off the expressway, the 2008 Update has
taken a far more proactive pedestrian route planning approach than the 2003 Study. The goal of the
2008 Update was to identify continuous routes, either in the right-of-way or along alternate parallel
routes, providing for pedestrian travel along both sides of the expressways wherever possible. The
2008 Update Pedestrian Element completely replaces the 2003 Expressway Study Pedestrian
Element, including all policies, project lists, and recommendations.
The net results of this proactive approach for pedestrian route planning are recommendations for 38
miles of new sidewalks, a comprehensive signage program to help guide pedestrians along parallel
routes, and a recommendation that all expressway intersections should include design considerations
for pedestrian crossing enhancements whenever opportunities arise for these improvements.
Finishing Element
The Finishing Program Element involves improvements to expressway medians and edges. These
improvements include sound wall, landscaping, and street lighting. The 2008 Update carries forward
the 2003 Study recommendations for 63,500 feet of new sound walls and replacing 36,000 feet of
existing walls with higher sound walls. In addition, the basic level of landscaping recommended
continues to be trees and limited shrubs, median finishes (such as decomposed granite), sound walls
covered with ivy, and automated irrigation systems. Due to a lack of adequate annual funding for
landscape maintenance, the Update also continues to support the County’s policy to only allow
installation of new landscaping if full recovery of capital and maintenance costs can occur.
158
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-6
New to the Finishing Element for the 2008 Update is the consideration of pedestrian scale lighting to
support the ambitious pedestrian access plans. Because the utility and maintenance costs of street
lighting are high and beyond the means of the expressway system’s operating budget, the Update
includes a policy similar to the landscaping policy, where installation of pedestrian scale street
lighting along the expressways is only allowed if full recovery of capital and maintenance costs can
occur.
Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
Operations and maintenance (O&M) include all activities and material necessary to keep the
expressways functioning safely and effectively while looking presentable. It includes signal
operations, sweeping, pavement maintenance, landscape maintenance, enforcement, and aging
infrastructure replacement. As part of the 2003 Study, target levels of effort were developed. The
2003 Study also indicated that the annual costs for these target levels of effort exceeded existing
available revenues.
Since the 2003 Study, the annual O&M costs for the target levels of effort have grown 51% (from $18
million to $27.2 million) due to increased labor and material costs as well as an expanded Traffic
Operations System that must be maintained. With an annual cost estimate of $27.2 million in 2008
dollars and only $10.8 million expected to be available for expressway O&M in 2009, there will be an
annual shortfall of $16.4 million to achieve the target levels of effort. This shortfall is expected to
grow as real gas tax revenue declines.
Funding Strategy
With approximately $2.5 billion in capital needs (see Table ES-2) and an annual $16.4 million
shortfall for operations and maintenance, some innovative and aggressive strategies are needed. In
reviewing all known and potential capital funding sources, the net result through 2035 is likely to be:
All Tier 1A projects and half of the Tier 1B projects will be funded over the next 25 years. In
addition, most of the bicycle needs and some of the pedestrian needs will be funded.
The following needs will not be funded: the remainder of the Tier 1B projects; the roadway
projects in Tiers 1C, 2, and 3; most of the pedestrian needs; and the sound walls and
landscaping needs listed in the Finishing Program.
159
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-7
Table ES-2: Capital Program Funding Needs 1
Element Total Cost Committed
Funds 2
Potential
Funding 3 Net Needs
Capacity & Operational
Improvements $2,244-2,564 $106.3 $2,138-2,458
Bicycle 16.5 10.9 5.6
Pedestrian 76.3-84.3 23.3 53-61
Finishing: Sound Walls 76.6 13.7 62.9
Finishing: Landscaping 24-29 24-29
Total $2,284-2,617
million
1 All costs are in millions of 2008 dollars.
2 Committed sources include grants (Federal earmarks, VTA Bicycle Expenditure Program, other sources)
and city commitments, including development impact fees.
3 Other potential funding sources include funded, Tier 1A, and Tier 1B roadway projects (project costs
include appropriate bicycle, pedestrian, and sound wall needs) and land development conditions.
4 Includes San Tomas Expressway Culvert project.
It will be a challenge to maintain the current O&M levels of effort, and it will not be possible to
expand the levels of effort to reach any of the targets without an increase in sustainable revenue
sources. O&M efforts necessary to maintain the safety of the expressway system will continue to be
the highest priority for the limited funding. However, the forecast is that pavement conditions will
decline, the County will be less responsive to signal timing requests, there will be less sweeping and
more weeds/litter, and most other non-critical maintenance will be deferred.
The County will continue to take the following actions: pursue all possible grants and partnerships
for expressway improvement and O&M needs; work with the cities to acquire traffic mitigation fees
and new development conditions to support the expressway system; and, support all state efforts to
index the gas tax to inflation and to increase the gas tax to help fund the O&M needs of the
expressway system. However, these actions are not likely to be enough to deliver all the high priority
capital needs or increase O&M levels of effort.
160
Executive Summary Draft (October 9, 2008)ES-8
Acquiring new revenue sources for both capital and O&M needs is very difficult in the current
economic environment. However, some opportunities do exist and the following strategies are
recommended to the meet the needs identified in the 2008 Update:
Request full funding for the Tier 1A Capacity and Operational Improvements in VTP 2035
with Tier 1B projects also listed should additional funding become available.
Seek $52 million from the 2010 STIP for the first set of Tier 1A projects with follow up
requests of $25 million and $12 million from the 2012 and 2014 STIPs, respectively, to fund
a little over half of the Tier 1A projects by 2015.
Seek funding from VTP 2030’s Pavement Maintenance Program to cover the next round of
expressway pavement maintenance needs to come due between 2010 and 2012 at a cost of
approximately $12-15 million annually.
Advocate for a commitment from future High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane revenue to help
improve and maintain sections of expressways and Santa Teresa-Hale if determined to be
within HOT lane corridors.
Explore, through State liaison, opportunities for opening a State maintenance revenue stream
for expressways.
Support initiatives for vehicle registration fees or vehicle miles traveled fees to help fund
expressway and local road improvement and maintenance needs.
Advocate that MTC institute a return-to-source policy for its 10-cent gas tax authority giving
the cities and County local control to meet high priority O&M needs, or continue to pursue
new local funding sources for expressway O&M needs, taking advantage of partnerships with
other local agencies facing annual deficits in road O&M budgets and pursue a 10-cent gas tax
as a local initiative.
Next Update
The County will update the Expressway Study every four years in conjunction with the regular
updates of VTA’s VTP plans to reflect changing traffic and financial conditions. Special tasks
recommended for the 2012 Update include conducting new traffic modeling to project future
conditions, evaluating the HOV performance targets, updating the sound wall needs list, and
assessing where pedestrian crossing improvements are needed at expressway intersections. Similar to
the 2003 Study and 2008 Update, a collaborative process involving elected officials, local agency
staff, and the public will be used to develop the 2012 Update.
161
Technical Working Group
Matthew Jue
City of Campbell
David Stillman
City of Cupertino
Don Dey
City of Gilroy
Tom Ho
City of Los Altos
Richard Chiu
Town of Los Altos Hills
Jamie Rodriguez
City of Milpitas
Scott Creer
City of Morgan Hill
Jim Rowe
City of Morgan Hill
Sayad Fakhry
City of Mountain View
Shahla Yazdy
City of Palo Alto
Ben Tripousis
City of San Jose
Lorenzo Lopez
City of Santa Clara
David Pitton
City of Santa Clara
Macedonio Nunez
City of Saratoga
Jack Witthaus
City of Sunnyvale
John Sighamony
VTA
County of Santa Clara Staff
Michael Murdter
Director
Roads and Airports Department
Dan Collen
Deputy Director
Infrastructure Development
Dawn Cameron
Consulting Transportation Planner
Masoud Akbarzadeh
County Traffic Engineer
Traffic Engineering and Operations
Mike Griffis
Senior Civil Engineer
Highway Design
Ananth Prasad
Senior Civil Engineer
Traffic Engineering and Operations
Martin A. Little
GIS Technician
Traffic Engineering and Operations
Bernardine Caceres
Civil Engineer
Highway Design
Susan Lee Adams
Infrastructure Development
162
163
Addendum Sheet Draft (October 9, 2008)X-1
ADDENDUM SHEET
DRAFT 2008 UPDATE
On October 9, 2008, the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study’s Policy Advisory
Board (PAB) recommended that the County Board of Supervisors approve the Expressway Study
Draft 2008 Update after public and city review. As part of the PAB’s discussion, some changes were
suggested for the Draft 2008 Update document. These changes are listed below and should be
considered part of the Draft document, dated October 9, 2008, currently out for public and city
review. Text additions are underlined (e.g., underlined) and deletions are noted by strikethrough
(e.g., deletion).
Executive Summary, Page ES-8, third bullet, and Section 7 Funding Strategy, Page 78, third
bullet, make following word correction:
“Seek funding from VTP 2030’s 2035’s Pavement Maintenance Program to cover the next round
of expressway pavement maintenance needs to come due between 2010 and 2012 at a cost of
approximately $12-15 million annually.”
Executive Summary, Page ES-8, fourth bullet, Section 7 Funding Strategy, Page 73, fifth bullet,
and Page 78, fourth bullet, make following word change:
Replace the terms “High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane” and “HOT lane” with the term “Express Lane”
consistent with the new regional name for these types of facilities.
Section 4 Pedestrian Element, Page 52, third bullet, add word to following paragraph:
“The cities will decide which sidewalks or crossing enhancements will be built first by applying
for the VTA funds and providing one-third of the project costs as the city’s match, or by
partnering with the County to apply for other grant sources. It is strongly recommended that the
cities give priority consideration to improving pedestrian safety by focusing on the following
types of locations:”
Section 4 Pedestrian Element, Pages 52-53, add the following bullet:
“Expressway capacity and operational projects will include new sidewalks consistent with the
pedestrian route plans shown in Figure 7 where meaningful and continuous segments can be
included in the project limits. These projects will also provide crossing enhancements at major
intersections included within the project limits. No existing sidewalks will be eliminated by
roadway improvement projects.”
164
Addendum Sheet Draft (October 9, 2008)X-2
Section 7 Funding Strategy, Page 73, add the following bullets as potential funding opportunities:
“Proposition 1A on the November 2008 ballot will provide funding to begin construction of a
high speed rail line between Northern and Southern California. This funding could benefit Tier 2
and Tier 3 Capacity and Operational Improvements related to Caltrain grade separation projects
along Central Expressway.”
“Naming rights are a way to bring private sector funding into public works projects. The County
of Santa Clara is exploring ways to generate naming rights revenue related to all of its facilities.
There may be opportunities to use naming rights revenue related to the expressway system,
perhaps using resources such as the Department’s website, since current Board policy is that the
expressways themselves will not be renamed.”
“The County has had discussions with the City of San Jose about relinquishing Capitol
Expressway to the City when light rail is built in the median. Capitol Expressway is one of three
expressways that are geographically located in just one city. Relinquishment of these
expressways to the relevant cities would reduce the operating and maintenance burden on the
County.”
Section 8 Future Updates, Page 80, add the following bullet:
“Determine whether changes are needed in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Elements to
support any revisions to the cities’ General Plan Circulation Elements that are made to
implement the California Complete Streets Act, recently adopted in AB 1358. AB 1358
requires cities to modify their circulation elements to plan for a balanced, multimodal
transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways
commencing with any updates to the circulation elements that occur after January 1,
2011. The County anticipates that the cities will include the expressways in their
circulation elements and can use the Expressway Study’s Bicycle Element and Pedestrian
Element provisions to help define the expressway’s role in the city’s balanced,
multimodal transportation network. In the 2012 and future updates, it can be determined
whether adjustments are needed to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Elements (e.g., the
pedestrian route plans) based on the changes to the cities’ circulation elements.”
165
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: November 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Iveta Harvancik DIRECTOR: John Cherbone
Senior Engineer Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Landscape Maintenance Agreement – 18610 Marshall Lane
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Approve a Landscape Maintenance Agreement for public right-of-way landscaping at 18610 Marshall Lane
and authorize the City Manager to execute the same.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Design Review application No. 06-342 for a new single-family residence located at 18610 Marshall Lane
was approved in August of 2006. One of the conditions of approval (Attachment 2) was a landscape
maintenance agreement for landscaping in the public right-of-way adjacent to the property.
The Landscape Maintenance Agreement (Attachment 1) will assure the maintenance of the landscaped
area by the property owner. There are no costs to the City associated with installation or upkeep of the
landscaping.
Therefore it is recommended that City Council approve the Landscape Maintenance Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
No fiscal impact to the City.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Agreement will not be executed.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
The agreement shall be recorded.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Page 1 of 2
166
Page 2 of 2
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Landscape Maintenance Agreement
2. Notice of Approval, Application No. 06-342, 18610 Marshall Lane
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: November 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: ______
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone
SUBJECT: Citywide Striping and Signage – Appropriation of Funds
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Approve Budget Resolution appropriating funds for Citywide Striping.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The Street Maintenance Division is requesting that additional funds be transferred into the Striping
and Signage Project in the CIP from the Streets Project in the CIP. The current allocation of $65,000
for stripping and signage work has been expended or is under current contract. An additional
$40,000 of work has been identified throughout the City.
The Public Works Department is submitting a budget resolution to City Council in order to transfer
funds for the additional work so expenditures can be tracked from one project account.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The attached budget resolution will transfer $40,000 into the Striping and Signage Project from
the Streets Project in the CIP so all expenditures can be tracked from one project account.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The budget resolution will not be approved and another mechanism to pay for the additional work
will need to be determined.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
179
2 of 2
The budget resolution will be implemented.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Budget Resolution.
180
RESOLUTION NO.__________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/09
TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL RE-STRIPING AND SIGNAGE WORK
ON VARIOUS CITY STREETS
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to perform re-striping and signage work on various
City streets; and
WHEREAS, financing in the amount of $40,000 is needed for said work; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to make adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2008/09 budget as
follows:
Account Description Account# Amount
To transfer funding from Street Improvements 411-9111-001-99999 $40,000
To transfer funding to Re-striping and Signage 411-9111-002.49999 $40,000
To appropriate expenditures for the Re-striping and Signage 411-9111-002.81161 $40,000
work on various City streets
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga hereby approves adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2008/09 budget.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the above and foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on 19th day of November 2008 by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________
Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor
City of Saratoga
Attest:
_______________________
Ann Sullivan, City Clerk
181
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: November 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DIRECTOR: John Cherbone
Public Works Director Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to Professional Services Contract with MPA Design
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Approve an Amendment to the existing professional services contract with MPA Design for additional
construction design work in the amount of $9,600 and authorize the City Manager to execute the same.
REPORT SUMMARY:
On September 3rd, the City Council approved a contract with MPA Design in the amount of $25,000 for
construction observation and bid support connected to the Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project.
There is sufficient funding for these services.
There are two items of work which were not included in the original scope of work. The first item of
design work is connected to the relocation of the park restroom. The relocation necessitates a site and
grading plan be prepared for the contractor. The cost of this service is $4,800 (Attachment 1). The second
item of design work is the preparation of a Strom Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the
project. This is requirement of the Environmental Report. The cost of this service is $4,800 (Attachment
1).
There is sufficient funding in the Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project to cover the costs of the
additional design services.
Therefore it is recommended that City Council approve an amendment to the professional services
contract (Attachment 1) with MPA Design in the amount of $9,600 for construction design services for
the Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Funding for this service is covered in the adopted CIP under Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The design plans would not be prepared and the project could be delayed.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
None in addition to the above.
Page 1 of 2
182
Page 2 of 2
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
The existing service contract will be amended.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Amendment to Professional Services Contract, Proposal for Restroom Design Work, and
Proposal for Preparation of SWPPP.
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: November 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Rick Torres DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone
SUBJECT: Authorization to purchase two Ford Escape Hybrid Vehicles
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Authorize purchase of two (2) 2009 Ford Escape Hybrids from The Ford Store in the
amount of $61,921.12
2. Approve Budget Resolution appropriating additional funding for the purchase of the
hybrid vehicles.
3. Move to declare the following vehicles as surplus and authorize their disposal.
• 1996 Oldsmobile Ciera-Vehicle #92
• 1996 Saturn -Vehicle # 87
REPORT SUMMARY:
On an annual basis the Street Maintenance Division performs a review of the City’s rolling stock
and capital equipment inventory for future replacement needs. The information is also used to
plan for subsequent budget years. Replacement is determined on various factors such as age,
condition, mileage and use.
Staff is proposing to surplus two City vehicles (one staff vehicle and one pool vehicle) and
replace them with two hybrid vehicles that meet the same need. Both the vehicles being surplus
have surpassed their life expectancy. Staff is recommending sending these vehicles to auction.
City Council has indicated a desire to explore purchasing alternative fuel vehicles when models
were available that could meet the requirements of the vehicles being replaced. In the case of the
two vehicles currently ending their service, both can be replaced with hybrid models.
Staff researched the available hybrid models and determined that the Ford Escape was the best
value for its size including good industry ratings. The purchase of these new vehicles adheres to
the City’s vehicle replacement schedule and will ensure a dependable fleet.
197
Staff solicited quotations from several dealerships and the following table contains a summary of
the quotes received.
Vehicle Description
Vendor Quotation
______________________________________________________________________________
2009 Ford Escape Hybrid
*The Ford Store $30,969.06 each vehicle
Capitol Ford $32,078.77 each vehicle
Gilroy Chevrolet $32,270.00 each vehicle
San Francisco Lincoln–Mercury $32,516.23 each vehicle
The quotes above reflect those dealership‘s fleet prices. These vehicle come with a standard 3
year/36000 mile manufacture warranty and a 5year / 60,000 mile drive train warranty that is
included in all prices above. All prices include sales tax.
* indicates lowest bid.
Surplus Item: Vehicle # Mileage Reason Method of disposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
1. 1996 Saturn # 87 41,000 Age/ Condition Auction
2. 1996 Olds Ciera # 92 55,000 Age/Condition Auction
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The adopted budget allocates $20,000 for each of the vehicles schedule to be replaced. If the
City Council chooses to purchase hybrid replacements, an additional $11,000 per vehicle or
$22,000 total is needed to supplement the current budget. Sufficient fund balance exists in the
Vehicle Replacement Fund to cover the additional costs. However the vehicle/equipment
replacement schedule will need to be revised to account for the added expenditure of hybrid
vehicles.
The amount of revenue from the auctioned vehicles is uncertain. Funds received from the auction
of surplus vehicles are allocated into the Vehicle Replacement Fund for future vehicle
replacements.
2 of 3
198
3 of 3
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The purchases would not be authorized. If vehicles are not replaced it would result in higher
maintenance and repair costs and the dependability of City’s fleet would diminish.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
Direct staff to solicit quotes for non-hybrid powered vehicles. There are sufficient funds in the
current budget to purchase two non-hybrid model vehicles.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
A purchase order for these vehicles will be issued to the lowest bidder and the above list of vehicles
will be disposed of as recommended
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
None additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Budget Resolution
199
RESOLUTION NO.__________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/09
TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO FORD ESCAPE HYBRID
VEHICLES
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to purchase two Ford Escape Hybrid Vehicles; and
WHEREAS, additional appropriation in the amount of $22,000 is needed for said
purchase; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to make adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2008/09 budget as
follows:
Account Description Account# Amount
To appropriate additional funding in Vehicle Replacement
for the purchase of two Ford Escape Hybrid Vehicles 631-5203-77111 $22,000
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga hereby approves adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2008/09 budget.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the above and foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on 19th day of November 2008 by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________
Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor
City of Saratoga
Attest:
_______________________
Ann Sullivan, City Clerk
200
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: November 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Crystal Morrow DIRECTOR: Barbara Powell
Administrative Analyst II Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Request to Change Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Location
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution amending the meeting location of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
BACKGROUND:
During the April 2, 2008 City Council Meeting, the Council adopted Resolution 08-022
establishing that the Parks and Recreation Commission would meet from 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
in the Planning Conference Room at City Hall on the second Tuesday of odd-numbered months
(January, March, May, July, September, and November).
Since then, it has become clear that the Planning Conference Room is too small for the
Commission and members of the public. The Magnolia Room located in the Senior Center
Portable, offers sufficient space for the Parks and Recreation Commission meetings. The
proposed resolution would change the meeting location of the Parks and Recreation Commission
from the Planning Conference Room to the Magnolia Room.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
The Parks and Recreation Commission would continue to meet in the Planning Conference
Room.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
Page 1 of 3
201
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Resolution amending the meeting location of the Parks and Recreation
Commission
Page 2 of 3
202
Page 3 of 3
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Draft Resolution amending the regular meeting schedule of the Parks and Recreation
Commission
203
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING THE MEETING LOCATION FOR THE
SARATOGA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Saratoga City Council adopted Resolution 432 establishing the Saratoga Parks and
Recreation Commission and Resolution 432 mandates that the Parks and Recreation Commission establish a
regular time and location for its meetings and shall otherwise call and conduct its meetings in compliance
with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Governance Code Sections 54952 and following) and abide
by State law; and
WHEREAS, in September 2004, the Council adopted Resolution 04-070 amending the start time of
regular Parks and Recreation Commission meetings from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution 05-032 in May 2005 to suspend the Parks and
Recreation Commission and renewed suspension of the Parks and Recreation Commission in March 2006
with Resolution 06-020; and
WHEREAS, the Council agreed to reactivate the Parks and Recreation Commission during the May
16, 2007 Council Meeting and Council Resolution 08-222 established that the Parks and Recreation
Commission would meet from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the Planning Conference Room at City Hall on the
second Tuesday of odd-numbered months (January, March, May, July, September, and November); and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission is unable to meet in the Planning Conference
Room, due to the small size of the room;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Code Section 54954 that the regular
meeting location of the Parks and Recreation Commission shall be as follows:
LOCATION: Saratoga City Hall, Senior Center – Magnolia Room
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
State of California, on this 19th day of November 2008 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ann Sullivan, City Clerk
204
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: November 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Heather Bradley, Contract Planner DIRECTOR: John Livingstone, AICP
SUBJECT: Appeal of Design Review Application No. PDR07-0008: 18605 Lyons Court, which was
denied by the Planning Commission, to construct a new 594 square foot second floor and
add 251 square feet to the first floor of the existing single story residence.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Deny the appeal, thus affirming the Planning Commission Design Review Denial issued on October 8,
2008.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The application was submitted on August 8, 2007 as a request for Design Review approval to add a new
second story to the existing single-story residence. The proposal was first heard at the Planning
Commission meeting of May 14, 2008 and included an 897 square foot second-story addition at a height
of approximately 24 feet. This first design had second floor windows and exposed wall surfaces facing the
neighboring properties on all elevations. At the meeting of May 14th the Planning Commission heard from
the applicants and many concerned neighbors. The majority of Planning Commissioners echoed the
neighbors concerns and specifically expressed concerns with; the privacy and view impacts the second
story would have on the three immediately adjacent property owners, the appearance of excessive mass
and bulk of the second story design, and the incompatible height in comparison with adjacent homes on
the cul-de-sac and on homes in the cul-de-sac to the rear. The applicants accepted the recommendation of
the Planning Commission to continue the item to a study session and work to redesign the addition to
mitigate the concerns.
The item was continued to a study session on June 10, 2008 at which time the Planning Commission
heard again from many concerned neighbors and discussed two alternative designs presented by the
applicants. These alternatives included a 70 square foot reduction to the second floor, changed the gable
roof to a hip roof to reduce the appearance of exterior walls, and used clerestory windows on the side and
rear elevations. A second alternative went a step further by placing the master bedroom on the first floor
and reduced the second floor by 360 square feet. This alternative also pushed the addition to the front of
the proposed ridgeline thus reducing the view of the second floor from the rear neighbors’ perspective.
The Planning Commission encouraged the applicants to explore the second alternative, which put the
master bedroom on the ground floor, and asked for the design to be refined and brought back to a second
study session.
The item was continued to a second study session on July 22, 2008 at which the Planning Commission
again heard from many concerned neighbors who consistently voiced their objection to the project. The
Page 1 of 3
205
applicants presented revisions to the previous design alternative which eliminated all windows on the rear
and sides of the second floor and lowered the height to just under 22 feet. The Planning Commission was
generally favorable of the design changes but was concerned that they did not have the opportunity to see
story poles and also asked for the City Arborist to give an evaluation of the health of the tulip tree in the
front yard since it had been approximately a year since it had been evaluated and the Commission wanted
to weigh the merits of a single story alternative which would require removal of the tree. The item was
continued to the August 26th study session to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to view story
poles for the revised design and get a revised report from the City Arborist.
At the third study session meeting of August 26, 2008 the Planning Commission had the opportunity to
visit the site and they discussed the changes that had been made to date. Commissioners Rishi and Zhao
were absent and Commissioner Kundtz had not been able to make the site visit. The Commission again
heard from many concerned neighbors, but the majority of the Commissioners present offered general
encouragement for the design changes made to date and recommended that the applicants bring the
application back to a public hearing.
The application was subsequently scheduled for a public hearing of October 8, 2008 at which time the
applicants presented the plans that had previously been reviewed at the study session of August 26, 2008.
The Commission heard from 10 neighbors, 8 who expressed objections to the project including all of the
neighbors immediately adjacent to the property and one across the street from the subject residence. The
Commission also heard from two neighbors in support of the project including one neighbor across the
street from the subject residence on Lyons Court. Three of the seven Commissioners believed that all of
the required design review findings could be made for the project, however the majority believed that they
could not make the following findings Design Review findings as specified in the Municipal Code
Section 15-45.080:
(d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to
structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of
excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment.
(e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in
terms of bulk and height with (1) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within
the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (2) the natural environment;
and shall not (1) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (2) unreasonably
impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy.
The majority of the Commission believed that: the ridgeline of the second floor was excessively long and
contributed to the perception of excessive bulk; the height at 22 feet was not compatible with the
immediate neighborhood where single story residence heights vary from 16 to 18 feet; the two-story
design was not compatible with the immediate neighborhood in that the other two-story homes in the
neighborhood were on lots that backed up to the creek or railroad tracks and had less of an impact on
adjacent neighbors.
The applicants have discussed several possible plan changes with staff subsequent to the October 8, 2008
Planning Commission meeting. Staff is of the understanding that the applicants intend to develop an
alternative design to address the bulk and mass concerns raised at the October 8th meeting and present
them to the Council. At the time of this writing, Staff did not have a copy of this final design, however the
applicant intends to provide the City Council with a packet including the alternative design prior to the
appeal hearing. This packet is identified as Attachment 16.
Page 2 of 3
206
Page 3 of 3
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Not applicable.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The proposal for a second story addition and remodel would be approved.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The City Council could also take one, or a combination of, the following alternative actions.
1. Approve the appeal, thus reversing the Planning Commission Design Review Denial issued on
October 8, 2008.
2. Approve the application as modified if the City Council finds that changes have been made to
the plans since the Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2008 that satisfy the required
design review findings: (d) to minimize the perception of excessive bulk; and (e) to be of
compatible bulk and height.
3. Direct the applicant to make additional changes and continue the application to a City Council
study for review.
4. Direct the applicant to make additional changes and refer the application back to the Planning
Commission.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Mailed notice to property owners within 500 feet, posted notice, and advertised the notice in the Saratoga
News on November 4.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Resolution of denial of application 07-233.
2. Appeal application dated October 9, 2008.
3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 8, 2008.
4. Plans, Exhibit A from Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2008
5. Planning Commission Resolution of Denial dated October 8, 2008
6. Excerpt of Minutes from the October 8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.
7. Packet submitted by neighbors at the Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2008
8. Packet submitted by applicants at the Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2008
9. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 14, 2008.
10. Plans, Exhibit A from Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 2008
11. Excerpt of Minutes from the May 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.
12. Plans from Planning Commission Study Session of June 10, 2008
13. Plans from Planning Commission Study Session of July 22, 2008
14. Plans from Planning Commission Study Session of August 26, 2008
15. Affidavit of mailing, notice and labels
16. Packet submitted by applicant (received subsequent to preparation of this report)
207
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
APPLICATION 07-0008
BRENNAN; 18605 Lyons Court
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2008, following a public hearing at which time all interested
parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence the City of Saratoga Planning
Commission denied a Design Review application (No. 07-0008) to construct a new second floor and
first floor addition to an existing single-story ranch-style house at 18605 Lyons Court (the
“Project”), which is located in the R-1-10,000 district; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2008 an appeal (APCC08-0004) of the Planning Commission
decision was filed by Mr. & Mrs. Brennan, the owners of 18605 Lyons Court; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2008 the City Council conducted a site visit to the Project
site; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2008 the City Council conducted a duly noticed de novo
public hearing on the appeal at which time any person interested in the matter was given the full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff report, minutes of
proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission relating to the application, and all written and
oral evidence presented to the City Council in support of and in opposition to the appeal.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows:
I. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans, site visits,
public testimony, the deliberations of the Planning Commission, and other exhibits
submitted in connection with this matter, the appeal from the Planning Commission is
not granted and the action of the Planning Commission is upheld, because:
a. The Project does not comply with Section 15-45.080(d), which requires it to
minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main structure is required
to minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to structures on adjacent lots,
and to the surrounding region. The project will not minimize the perception of
excessive bulk in relation to structures on adjacent lots in that in relation to structures
on adjacent lots the roof ridgeline is too large for the lot size. The ratio of house size
to lot size enhances the perception of excessive bulk. The perception of excessive
bulk is exacerbated by the fact that the house backs up to other houses rather than
being adjacent to a creek or other undeveloped area as is the case with regard to most
of the second story houses which have been developed in the surrounding region.
208
PDR07-0008; 18605 Lyons Court
Page 2 of 2
b. The Project does not comply with Section 15-45.080(e), which requires it to be of
compatible bulk. The proposed main structure is required to be compatible in terms
of bulk with existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the
immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district. The project will not be
compatible in terms of bulk with existing residential structures on adjacent lots and
those within the immediate neighborhood in that there are no other two story homes
on adjacent lots or in the immediate cul-de-sac (Lyons Court); nor are there
comparably sized roofs on similarly sized adjacent lots or other lots within the
immediate neighborhood. Additionally, the ratio of house size to lot size is greater
for the Project than for many other lots in the immediate neighborhood.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Saratoga, State of California, this 19th day of
November 2008 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_______________________________
Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Ann Sullivan
Acting City Clerk
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
27
2
27
3
27
4
27
5
27
6
27
7
27
8
27
9
2
8
0
28
1
2
8
2
2
8
3
2
8
4
28
5
28
6
28
7
28
8
28
9
29
0
29
1
29
2
29
3
29
4
29
5
29
6
29
7
29
8
29
9
30
0
30
1
30
2
30
3
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: November 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Barbara Powell, DIRECTOR:
Assistant City Manager
Richard Taylor,
City Attorney
SUBJECT: Heritage Orchard Preservation – Current Status and Additional Options
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
OVERVIEW:
At its July 2, 2008 meeting, the City Council held a joint meeting with the Heritage Preservation
Commission (HPC) and the Historical Foundation. As a part of the discussion, the Council
introduced the idea of reassigning oversight of the City’s Heritage Orchard from the HPC to the
recently reinstituted Parks and Recreation Commission. At its July 16, 2008 meeting, the City
Council discussed a number of issues related to the Orchard including:
1. Means to preserve the Heritage Orchard in perpetuity;
2. Potential recreational and cultural activities that could be undertaken in the Orchard in
order to better acquaint people (especially children) with the value of the Orchard and the
importance of its preservation; and
3. Assignment of oversight of the Orchard to a City Commission.
This staff report concerns items 1 and 3: means to preserve the Heritage Orchard in perpetuity
and assignment of oversight to a City Commission; a subsequent staff report will address
potential recreational and cultural activities.
BACKGROUND:
On March 27, 1973, Kathleen Mattsen conveyed to the City of Saratoga via Grant Deed four
parcels comprising 14 acres, bounded by Saratoga and Fruitvale Avenues. The Deed did not
place any restrictions on the use of the property, other than existing utility easements.
According to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, the historic name of these parcels was the
Marion-Cox-Kitchen-Seagraves Ranch and the common name was Central Park Orchard. The
Inventory notes:
Page 1 of 4
415
Page 2 of 4
“Central Park Orchard exemplifies the agricultural era that was very
important in Saratoga’s early history. Many years ago, orchards of prunes
and apricots covered the Santa Clara Valley, particularly in and around
Saratoga. Orchards were the economic backbone of Saratoga. This
orchard has been owned by several prominent Saratoga families: the
Marion family in the 1880’s, F.C. Cox in the 1920’s and W. Seagrave in
the 1950’s.”
On August 15, 1984, the City Council, based on findings of the HPC, adopted Ordinance HP-3
(Attachment “A”), designating the property known as Central Park as a historic resource. The
HPC’s Report of Findings states:
1. Central Park has special historical, cultural, and aesthetic value as part of the heritage of
Saratoga and Santa Clara County.
2. Central Park satisfies [three criteria of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance in effect at
the time] in that its orchard exemplifies the agricultural use of land which once
dominated the Santa Clara Valley, it is an established visual feature of the neighborhood,
and contributes to the unique natural setting of Wildcat Creek which is of special
aesthetic interest and value.
Although the heritage resource designation was made under an earlier version of the Heritage
Preservation Ordinance, the City Council findings required to make the designation and the
substantive requirements applicable to the Orchard once designated are substantially identical to
the current ordinance provisions regarding historic landmarks. Therefore the Orchard is subject
to the requirements of the existing Heritage Preservation Ordinance that apply to historic
landmarks.
On September 6, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-046 (Attachment “B”), resolving
“. . .that the Heritage Orchard is herby recognized as a valuable asset to the community that
should be maintained for the enjoyment of generations to come”. Subsequently, on October 4,
2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-049 (Attachment “C”), amending Resolution 00-
046, by inserting the words “in perpetuity”, thus reading, “that the Heritage Orchard is hereby
recognized as a valuable asset to the community that should be maintained in perpetuity for the
enjoyment of generations to come”.
On September 5, 2001, the City Council, approved a “Heritage Orchard Master Plan”
(Attachment “D”), prepared by David Gates & Associates in consultation to the HPC. The
stated purpose of the Master Plan is to provide “. . .for the renovation of the existing orchard and
(set) out guidelines to control future uses in the interest of minimizing disruption of the existing
character or health of the orchard”. On April 3, 2002, the Council approved Resolution 02-021
(Attachment “E”), amending the Heritage Orchard Master Plan to allow the removal of non-
orchard trees.
Effect of Prior Council Actions:
The 1984 designation of Central Park as an historic landmark provides a considerable level of
protection of the land’s current use as an orchard. Under the City’s Heritage Preservation
Ordinance, a permit is required for any activity that would “alter, demolish, remove, relocate or
416
Page 3 of 4
otherwise change any . . . natural feature” of a historic landmark. (Saratoga City Code § 13-
20.10.) Permits may be issued only upon the recommendation of the Heritage Preservation
Commission or, if appealed, the Planning Commission or City Council. The designation
therefore ensures that any changes to the Orchard may proceed only after review by the HPC.
The resolutions adopted by subsequent City Councils serve to affirm the important status of the
Orchard; they do not impose any procedural requirements or protections beyond those provided
by the landmark designation.
As with any ordinance or resolution adopted by the City Council, the historic landmark
designation and subsequent resolutions may be amended or repealed by a future City Council.
The City’s Heritage Preservation Ordinance, however, imposes an additional procedural step not
typically required for Council action to amend or repeal an ordinance. Section13-15.100 of the
Code requires that prior to terminating a landmark designation a formal report must be prepared,
public hearings held, and a City Council finding made that “as a result of change in
circumstances, the designation is no longer consistent with the purposes and objectives of [the
Heritage Preservation Ordinance] and no longer satisfies any of the criteria” for designation as a
historic landmark.
Additional Preservation Measures:
The actions taken by the City Council thus far provide a considerable degree of procedural
protection. For example, because the Orchard is a historic landmark any alterations would need a
permit approved by the HPC (or the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal). If a use
is proposed that is inconsistent with the Orchard’s landmark status the City would need to
remove the designation in accordance with the procedures noted above. In addition, a major
change in use could require a General Plan amendment and would require amendment or repeal
of the various Orchard protection resolutions described above. A general plan amendment or
change in landmark status would require public hearings and would require preparation of
documentation in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
The City Council could provide a higher degree of protection by taking action that would limit
the ability of future City Councils to remove the heritage resource designation or other policy
protections described above. There are two primary approaches that the City Council could
pursue towards that objective:
1. Place an initiative measure on the ballot to have the voters reaffirm and readopt some or
all of the Orchard protection policies that have been adopted to date. As a general rule,
matters that have been approved by the voters may only be changed by the voters, not by
the City Council.
2. Place a historic preservation easement on the Orchard lands to limit use of the land to
purposes specified in the easement for perpetuity. This is a tool recommended by the
National Trust for Historic Preservation for significant historic resources. The Trust
summarizes these easements as follows:
“The term ‘preservation easement’ is commonly used to describe a type of conservation
easement – a private legal right given by the owner of a property to a qualified nonprofit
organization or governmental entity for the purpose of protecting a property’s
conservation and preservation values. Conservation easements are used to protect land
417
Page 4 of 4
that has outdoor recreational value, natural environmental value (including natural
habitat), open space (including farmland, forest land, and land with scenic value), or land
that has historic, architectural, or archaeological significance.”
Under a preservation easement the City would continue to own the property but would
transfer the rights represented by the easement to an easement-holding organization.
That would put that independent organization in the position of reviewing and approving
proposed uses of the Orchard for consistency with the easement.
Orchard Oversight
As discussed above, the Orchard’s status as a historic landmark makes it subject to permit review
by the HPC. Accordingly, the Council could direct that HPC be responsible for all Orchard
oversight. As an alternative, the Council could designate an alternate Commission to take
responsibility for Orchard oversight. The HPC would retain oversight of uses requiring a permit
unless the Heritage Preservation Ordinance is amended to change the oversight.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
If the Council desired to pursue either an initiative measure or a preservation easement, staff
would further investigate the necessary steps and related costs and would bring this information
to a future Council meeting.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
The current protections afforded the Heritage Orchard would remain in place.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment “A” -- Ordinance HP-3
Attachment “B” – Resolution 00-046
Attachment “C” – Resolution 00-049
Attachment “D” – Heritage Orchard Master Plan
Attachment “E” – Resolution 02-021
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441