HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2008 City Council Agenda PacketCITY 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 Cou?ncil 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.u
. 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 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 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 CARRYOUT 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 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 $ 6 2,500 Reserved for Development Deposits $ 5 98,719 Designated Reserves: Designated for
Economic Uncertainty $ 1 ,500,000 Designated for Operations $ 2 ,808,164 Designated for Claims $ 5 9,906 Designated for Development Services $ 6 50,728 Designated for Environmental Services
$ 6 79,917 Special Revenue Landscape and Lighting Districts $ 2 11,527 CDBG Federal Grants $ -SHARP Program $ 1 08,606 Capital Project Street Projects $ 1 ,858,888 Park and Trail Projects
$ 1 ,526,784 Facility Improvement Projects $ 6 90,120 Adminstrative Projects $ 1 02,484 Debt Service Library Bond $ 8 48,806 Internal Service Equipment Replacement $ 1 48,388 IT Replacement
$ 3 28,956 Facility Maintenance $ 2 65,039 Equipment Maintenance $ 4 5,304 Information Technology Services $ 1 95,950 Office Stores Fund $ 4 2,219 Liability/Risk Management $ 3 7,844
Workers Compensation $ 6 9,936 Trust/Agency Library Fund $ 6 93,948 KSAR -Community Access TV $ 3 8,365 Total City $ 1 6,802,721 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 1 1,757 Highway 9 Safety Project 5 5,460 Annual Street Resurfacing Project 5 19,592 Sidewalks Yearly Project 7 0,075 Saratoga Sunnyale Road Resurfacing (114,321) Traffic Signal
@Verde Vista Lane 9 0,000 Fourth Street Bridge 1 00,000 Highway 9 and Oak Place Pedestrian Sign (16,188) Quito Road Bridge Replacement 9 ,730 Quito Road Bridge Construction 1 15,726
Village Newsrack Enclosur 2 3,384 Village Façade Program 1 9,430 Solar Power Radar Feedback Signs 24,158 El Quito Area Curb Replacement 3 7,552 Sobey Road Culvert Repair 1 50,000 Village
Trees & Lights at Sidestreets 3 1,965 Village Pedestrian Enhancement 1 15,000 Prospect Road Median 1 ,556 City Entrance Sign/Monument 2 3,788 Village-Streetscape Impv (Sidewalk, Curbs)
5 40,665 Saratoga-Sunnyvale ADA Curb Ramps (2,525) Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Gateway Sidewalk 5 7,224 Total Street Projects $ 1 ,858,888 Parks & Trails CIP Parks Project Fund 1 0,404 Hakone
Garden Kol Pond 5 0,000 EL Quito Park Improvement 1 18,209 Wildwood Park -Water Feature/Seating 7 ,199 Historical Park Landscape 3 7,200 Citywide Tree Replanting 1 29,566 Hakone Garden
D/W 1 42,829 Wildwood Park Improvement (4,543) Carnelian Glen Footbridge -DeAnza Trail (77,743) Kevin Moran Improvements 9 89,086 West Valley Soccer Field (51,412) Park/Trail Repairs
2 1,130 Heritage Orchard Path 6 ,153 Trail Segment #3 Repair 7 ,912 Teerlink Ranch Trail 2 2,242 CIP Allocation Fund 1 18,552 Total Parks & Trails $ 1 ,526,784 Facility Improvements
CIP Facility Project Fund 9 ,458 Civic Center Landscape 1 3,385 Warner Hutton House Improvements 5 ,868 Facility Projects 3 9,810 Fire Alarm at McWilliams & Museum 1 1,371 North Campus
Improvements 6 08,466 Historical Park Fire Alarm System 1 ,762 Total Facility Improvements $ 6 90,120 Administrative Projects Financial System Upgrade 1 1,451 Document Imaging Project
9 2,325 CDD Document Imaging Project (1,292) Total Administrative Projects $ 1 02,484 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 ---9 90 (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 --9 90 -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 9 30.00 232 Azule Lighting -233
Sarahills Lighting -241 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape 8 5.00 8 5.00 242 Bonnet Way Landscape 1 27.00 1 27.00 243 Carnelian Glen 2 70.00 2 70.00 244 Cunningham/Glasgow Landscape 1 45.00
1 45.00 245 Ferdericksburg Landscape 1 32.00 1 32.00 246 Greenbriar Landscape 7 57.00 7 57.00 247 Kerwin Ranch Landscape 3 40.00 3 40.00 248 Leutar Court Landscape 8 5.00 8 5.00 249
Manor Drive Landscape 1 60.00 1 60.00 251 McCartysville Landscape 3 13.55 3 13.55 252 Prides Crossing Landscape 4 50.00 4 50.00 253 Saratoga Legends Landscape 1,452.00 1 ,452.00 254
Sunland Park Landscape 3 40.00 3 40.00 255 Tricia Woods Landscape 3 7.00 3 7.00 271 Beauchamps Landscape 8 5.00 8 5.00 272 Bellgrove Landscape 113.43 1,985.00 2 ,098.43 273 Gateway Landscape
2 82.71 2 82.71 274 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting 9 60.00 9 60.00 275 Quito Lighting 8 69.00 8 69.00 69.00 276 Tollgate LLD 9 0.00 9 0.00 277 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 3 7.15 3 7.15 414 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 7 26.19 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 4 05.44 622 Information Technology 3,504.85 1 15.00 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 1 96.94 1 96.94 632 --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
35
36
37
38
39
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 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 ..................................................................
6 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-byyear 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 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 onetime 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 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
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 Almaden Prepare SR 85 interchange Project Study Report Unfunded Widening and operational improvements between Branham and Blossom Hill through
SR 85 interchange Funded/In Progress Add auxiliary lanes between Mary and Lawrence Unfunded Central Widen to 6 lanes between Lawrence and San Tomas Unfunded Convert HOV lane between
San Tomas and De La Cruz if unsuccessful after trial HOV Trial Signal operational improvements Completed Foothill Extend deceleration lane at San Antonio Unfunded 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/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 Oregon-Prepare Alma Bridge replacement feasibility study Unfunded 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 Kifer Partially funded 1 Lawrence 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 Funded Montague 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 Expressway Cross Street Peak Hr & Direction Violation Rate Persons/HOV
Lane Productivity Ratio HOV Veh Peak Hr Commute 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 50 Bowers 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 17
Lawrence Monroe PM-SB 27% 878 1.02 468 PM/SB 7 AM-WB 36% 453 0.97 256 AM/WB 47 Montague De La Cruz PM-EB 32% 324 0.59 179 PM/EB -29 San AM-NB 24% 690 0.96 361 AM/NB 35 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, 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 Oregon-6.6 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) System 5.0 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 Lawrence Interchange at Kifer 59.0 Square Loop Interchange at Arques 45.0 Par-clo interchange at US 101 12.0 Montague 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 onramp 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 retiming signals between
US 101 and Elko 5 Interchange at Mission College 70 Montague 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 130 Oregon-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 onramps 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 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 San Tomas In Progress 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 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 twolane 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 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 offramp 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 4.10 Foothill 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 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 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 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 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 Capitol
eligibility 3 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 4.4 Lawrence 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 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., 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) Committed ($M) Net ($M)
1 (2010) 2 (2012) 3 (2014) 8 lanes Coleman -Blossom Hill (Phase 1 PE/Env) 2.5 2.5 2.5 Almaden 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 0.8 Central Aux Lanes Mary -Lawrence 17.0 0.5 16.5 16.5 Extend decel lane at San Antonio 0.7 0.7 0.7 Foothill 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 Lawrence 1.0 1.0 1.0 Close median and right ins/outs 1.5 1.5 1.5 Mission College at-grade intersection improvements
4.0 4.0 4.0 Montague 8 lanes Trade Zone -Park Victoria 20.0 13.0 7.0 7.0 I-280/Page Mill interchange modification Oregon-6.6 1.0 5.6 1.3 4.3 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 8.0 San Tomas Culvert rehabilitation 13.2 0.5 12.7 12.7 Santa DeWitt “S” Curve 2.5 0.5 2.0 2.0 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 5.0 Signal/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)
32.7 San 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 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 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 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 Recommendation 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 deceleration lane at San Antonio Yes Near Term (Cycle 1) Foothill – Widen Loyola Bridge Yes BEP
plus potential LS&CR for offexpressway 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 Recommendation
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 Recommendation
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 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-byyear 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 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 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 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
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
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 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 nonorchard 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