HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-2000 City Council staff report- update of General PlanSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: November 15, 2000 AGENDA ITEM:
LI
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY: ;, 1 /n . DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Update of the City's General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highway Element
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review the corrected pages of the final document, to be presented at the November 15 meeting,
and adopt the attached Resolution approving the environmental Negative Declaration and
adopting the updated Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City's General Plan.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Community Development Department staff has updated the Circulation and Scenic Highway
Element of the City's General Plan. This document will act as the City's long-range traffic
management plan. It was last updated in 1983. The update is intended to assess existing traffic
conditions and to develop a goals and policies document to address changed conditions. An
environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this
project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. The initial study
concludes that the Element update will not result in significant adverse impacts on the environment.
Staff began this project last Fall 1999 with advertised community workshops. The draft Element
was then readied and made available for public review. The document has been extensively
advertised, including direct mailings to all Saratoga households. Notices were also distributed to
City Commissions last Spring, including the Parks and Recreation Commission, advising
Commissioners of the project's status and making staff available to review the document with
individual Commissions if desired. The Public Safety Commission reviewed the document at two
successive meetings and the Planning Commission at four public meetings. Both Commissions
voted to recommend approval of the document to the City Council.
The City Council reviewed draft copies of the environmental initial study and the Circulation and
Scenic Highway Element at their September 20 meeting and, with some amendments, voted
unanimously to approve the document. At the October 8 meeting, trail advocate Teri Baron spoke
and noted what she felt were omissions in the trails and bicycle facilities sections of the document.
As a result, the City Council postponed acting on the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element and
requested staff to respond to her comments.
Ms. Baron has since submitted the attached written list of comments. Staff met with the Parks and
Recreation Commission at their November 6 meeting to review her letter and any other comments
the Commissioners may have. Staff noted that this transportation document does not replace the
City's Parks and Trails Master Plan - it simply acknowledges and supports the Master Plan and its
goals and policies. Parks and Recreation Commission members were satisfied with staff s
responses to Ms. Barons letter, and with some suggestions of their own, such as designating
Wardell Road as a collector road, recommended approval of the document to the City Council.
The following is a summary of amendments being made to the Circulation and Scenic Highway
Element in response to Ms. Baron's letter:
Figure C-6 - Comments 1-5, noted and corrected. (The document incorporated the City's 1992
Parks and Trails Master Plan map, which does not reflect trails dedicated since then.)
Figure 7 - Comments 1-5, noted and corrected. (The document incorporated the City's 1992
Parks and Trails Master Plan map, which does not reflect trails dedicated since then.)
Page 15 - Noted and language amended to acknowledge all Mountain Winery events, not just
major events.
Page 17 - Noted and document amended.
Page 25 - Noted and language incorporated to the extent applicable. This document is not
meant to provide the level of individual road/project analysis that a project specific traffic
impact analysis would. As the City Council is aware, the County of Santa Clara recently
adopted an Environmental Impact Report that analyzed the Mountain Winery events and traffic
impacts in detail.
Page 27 - Pierce Road was not included in this section because no major road improvements,
such as building additional travel lanes, are recommended or desirable. Language will be
included that emphasizes that Pierce Road improvements should be limited to specific
improvements at critical points along the road where lines of site can be improved, road
shoulders can be created and road surfaces maintained.
Page 33 - The document updates the City's bicycle facilities plan to accurately reflect what
exists and to reflect minor changes to proposed facilities. In some instances, for example,
bicycle lanes have been changed to bicycle routes because the installation of lanes would
require substantial right-of-way acquisition or construction costs and is not considered
feasible.
Regarding bicycle routes on Mt. Eden Road and Pierce Road, Figure C-5 shows that these
facilities are identified as existing routes. Implementation Measure CI.5.11 states that the
City's Bikeways Master Plan should be updated and adopted and should included the
facilities shown on Figure C-5. Thus, these facilities are recommended for adoption in the
Circulation and Scenic Highway Element and are consistent with the County's plan.
2 of 4
Page 45 - Noted and included.
Because of the short turnaround time to prepare the corrected Element, staff is summarizing the
changes to the document via this memorandum. Final, corrected, copies of the Circulation and
Scenic Highway Element will be distributed to the City Council at the November 15 meeting.
In addition to Ms. Baron's letter, staff has received a handful of e-mail letters commenting on the
Highway 85 discussion in the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element background report,
including one from Council member Waltonsmith. As the Council recalls, this was a topic of
discussion at the October 8 meeting. Some Council members felt that having a section in the
report that discussed additional interchange possibilities and constraints gave the perception that
the City was encouraging additional interchanges. The majority of the Council ultimately agreed
that this background report was valuable since the report outlines not only what is possible, but
also what is not physically possible. The Council also felt that it provided a useful overview of
how the Saratoga Avenue interchange was selected. These letters are attached for Council
members information.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None at this time. Specific Circulation and Scenic Highway Element policies may result in
capital project funding decisions in the future.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Circulation and Scenic Highway Element update would not be adopted and the current Element
would remain in effect.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Not applicable.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Not applicable.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
A notice of the proposed General Plan amendment and Circulation and Scenic Highway Element
update and the environmental Negative Declaration has been published in the Saratoga News and
has been mailed to all adjoining jurisdictions, all regional traffic management agencies, all local
service providers and the State Office of Planning and Research. OPR serves as the regional
clearinghouse to further distribute notification of the project to interested agencies.
3 of 4
In addition to this noticing, announcements were mailed to subscribers of the City Council and
Planning Commission agendas, homeowners associations, all City Commissioners, community
and business groups, school boards and clergy. Several articles and News Brief announcements
have also been published in the Saratoga News for this project since last Fall. Lastly, an
announcement was mailed to every household in Saratoga via the City's newsletter encouraging
residents to attend the September 20, 2000 City Council meeting and to share their comments.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Correspondence
2. Approval Resolution
4 of 4
TERI LYNN BARON
19830 via Escuela Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
408 741-0954
Fax 408 867-6100
e-mail tlbaron Cd) aol.com
October 9, 2000
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attn: Stan Bogosian, Mayor
RE: Circulation and Scenic Highway Element, September 29, 2000
Dear Mayor Bogosian:
This letter is a follow up to the City Councils request of October 4`h to have my comments given
at the City Council meeting, in writing. The following are my comments:
Figure C-6, Existing & Proposed Trails, Pedestrian Paths:
Many segments are missing or mis-labeled. I will reference the segment numbers as they
appear in the Trails Master Plan map although the segments in Figure C-6 are not labeled.
Also, the term "Pedestrian Paths" is not used in the Trails Master Plan and is somewhat
of a misnomer.
Segments:
1. Segment 44 is listed as proposed; it is dedicated and developed, although needing
maintenance.
2. Segment 3 is listed as undeveloped; it is developed but currently in need of
maintenance and is closed.
3. Segment 53 is left off.
4. Segment 43 is left off.
5. Hayfield trail easement is left off.
Figure 7, Existing Trail Easements:.
Many segments left off.
Segments:
1. Segment 44 is left off.
2. A gap is put in between segments 14 and 15, there is no gap.
3. There are open space and trail easements around the property at the top of Old Oak
Way.
4. There are open space and trail easements around Chadwick Ct..
5. Hayfield trail easement is left off.
Page 15, under Special Event/Concerts
Paul Masson Winery should be changed to the Mt. Winery. The second sentence
mentions that major events at the winery primarily occur on the weekends. I disagree
with this. Events are occurring all during the week. Again, this was not studied enough.
561 events are authorized to take place at the venue. This means that 1.5 events can take
place every day, with up to 1750 guests. If you look at page 14, table 3, Big Basin Way is
already OVER capacity and the Mt. Winery is just getting started.
Page 17, under the heading "Pedestrian and Equestrian Facilities"
In the first paragraph, second sentence, "These facilities include....."; the word "trails"
should be added.
In the fourth paragraph, first sentence, "Equestrians......", the words "and Pedestrians"
should be added as it reads as if only horses use the trail system for recreation purposes,
which is not true.
Page 25, under the heading "V. Future Conditions"
Nothing is mentioned about the impact of the approximately 359,500 cars that the Mt.
Winery Venue will generate. I believe this is a significant impact on our streets from one
source. The paragraph only mentions that the increase in traffic will be due to "through"
traffic. This is not correct. The Mt. Winery traffic needs to be looked at.
Page 27, under the heading "Potential Roadway Improvements"
The first paragraph provides for acceptable operations in 2025. Why are we looking at
forecasting in 25 years? The improvements listed below may need to be done now or in
the near future.
Why is Pierce Road not mentioned? While it is listed as a collector street, it is well used.
This is one of our worst and most dangerous roads. It is a proven fact that it has had at
least 47 accidents on it in 3 years. This is approx 200 times the calculated accident rate
for Cal Trans Dist. 4. This road is the main access to the Mt. Winery Venue; again,
putting 359,500 cars on this roadway has not been looked at. While we all recognize that
we like the rural character of the road, SOMETHING needs to be done to it to make it a
little safer for everyone. IT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVEDM Probably a number one
priority. Part of the road is about ready to go into the creek, just before the bridge, has
anybody looked at this????????
The conclusion for this section indicates that the increase in traffic will primarily consist
of through traffic, again, forgetting the Mt. Winery venue.
Page 33, under the heading "Bicycle Facilities"
Paragraph 3 mentions that "a revised set of proposed facilities was prepared...... and the
key new facilities include:....." It is unclear to me what the "revised" facilities actually
include. While new ones are listed, what old ones have been taken out? Are the new ones
listed meant to be "new" as in, we have revised all the old ones and these are the new
ones'? Or are you saying in addition to the old, we have added these new ones?
Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Dept. sent a letter on July 1, 2000. It was
addressed to Judi Crowley, Project Planner for the City of Saratoga. It gave input from
the County's point of view regarding the circulation element. The letter NEVER
received a response from the City of Saratoga. The only mention of the letter is in a
memo dated 7-21-2000 from Fehr & Peers to James Walgren and attempts to respond to
the letter, which is does not. Fehr & Peers either did not read the letter, or chose to simply
not respond. The letter asks the city to adopt portions of the Countywide Trails Master
Plan in the update of the City's Circulation Element, specifically the Bike routes along
Mt. Eden and Pierce Rd. that are on the County's plan, but run through the City of
Saratoga's boundaries. Why was this letter not even responded to? It is extremely
important if the city wants to improve some of the bike routes, which desperately need
improving, that they be designated bike routes to the City can obtain VTA money. The
City has recently complained that the County isn't responsive to the City, are we not
doing the same thing? The element suggests that the city should prepare a Bicycle Master
Plan.1 bclieve that if we adopt the County's Trails Master Plan, most of the information
we are looking for is in that document. Policy CI.5.2 on page 45 says exactly this.
Page 45, CI.5.4
"such as...." We should add San Jose Water Company.
Again, I apologize for being a little late on getting some of these suggestions to you, but better
late than never. I would be happy to meet with anyone interested to go into a little more depth on
some of the above -mentioned subjects.
Res/Lyyn
tfl] , submitted,
TerBaron
Cc: James Walgren
Parks and Recreation Commission