|
Transportation and Traffic Manager Jack Witthaus presented the staff report. Manager Witthaus stated there was a labeling mistake on the staff report in that Attachment A should be labeled as “AM peak hour,” not “PM Peak hour.”
Councilmember Whittum inquired what “recirculation of Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)” meant, and Manager Witthuas explained that it would be the recirculation of a revised DEIR. Manager Witthaus stated the revision would be largely based on the comments received to date on the initial Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Councilmember Whittum asked since Manager Witthaus does not believe there will be substantial new information, then who determines whether evidence is substantial. Manager Witthaus stated from a technical standpoint, it is determined by staff in the context of what the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines as substantial new information.
Councilmember Whittum asked the city attorney under the substantial evidence standard, whose finding makes the evidence substantial in an EIR. City Attorney Kahn stated that Council’s role is to review the staff recommendation for the certification of the final EIR. At that point, Council would either certify the final EIR which would imply that there was substantial evidence to support it or, if Council did not certify it, they would make the finding that there was not substantial evidence.
Councilmember Whittum inquired if Council is able to not accept the results of a traffic study and City Attorney Kahn explained that the action would not be to reject a certain portion; rather, it would be whether or not to certify the final EIR.
Councilmember Whittum inquired if Council would be able to make the finding, after weighing the evidence, that a bridge at the end of Mary Avenue would increase traffic. City Manager Chan stated Council may request additional information after receiving the EIR. City Manager Chan stated after Council reviews all the information presented for consideration, Council may then decide whether or not to certify the final EIR.
Councilmember Swegles confirmed with Manager Witthaus that utilizing highway 85 off Ellis Street was not looked at in the DEIR because Ellis Street is in Mountain View and is not a project that the City could pursue.
Councilmember Swegles confirmed that staff did not look at the possibility of widening the frontage road (Moffett Park Drive) because there are right-of-way constraints due to the freeway and the west channel. Manager Witthaus stated it would be physically impossible to widen that roadway. Director of Public Works Marvin Rose stated the EIR is not before Council this evening and therefore it is difficult to discuss the details without the document. Director Rose stated staff is looking for Council’s direction on the EIR process.
Vice Mayor Hamilton inquired what level of detail the enhanced response would contain compared to the analysis that has been done on the other alternatives in the draft. Manager Witthaus stated the enhanced response would include a 100 percent detailed analysis of the alternatives received from the public comments received. Vice Mayor Hamilton confirmed that the analysis would be the same but would be on a different set of items.
Public hearing opened at 7:49 p.m.
David Cohen stated he opposes the Mary Avenue Extension Project and cited his reasons. Cohen stated he also opposes any change in parking restrictions or resident parking.
Glenn Hendricks, member of the Personnel Board, but speaking on his own behalf, stated he supports the staff recommendation but would like to see clarification between the definitions of what is a comprehensive versus a technical response. Manager Witthaus explained that some letters received are not relevant to the project being analyzed and per the CEQA guidelines those letters would not need a response. However, staff is proposing an enhanced analysis which would attempt to give responses to every question or issue posed from the comments received. Hendricks requested the motion include the broader aspect of the enhanced analysis because the technical nature of the EIR does not address the majority of the issues that are being raised.
Debbie Staats stated the DEIR did not address most of the Sunnyvale West resident concerns. Staats stated she supports expanding the DEIR to include all of the public comments and as many alternatives as possible.
Councilmember Whittum questioned if Staats was in favor of a revised DEIR which would focus on a different preferred alternative than a vehicle bridge. Staats stated she supports an enhanced EIR revised to address all comments supplied by the residents.
Josh Salans stated he supports dropping the bridge entirely (Alternative 9).
Staats went to the podium and stated she was not aware dropping the project was an option and would like Council to know she supports that option.
Councilmember Whittum inquired if an alternative would be acceptable and Salans stated that she supports dropping this project and then revisiting the existing issues.
Mary Olmstead stated she is against the entire project and would like to see the project dropped.
Gopal Patangay stated he is a member of Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association and found overwhelming support in the neighborhood for dropping this project. Patangay questions why the City is spending money on a project that is not acceptable to the residents or good for the City. Patangay stated he supports Alternative 9 and does not want the City to spend any more money on this project.
Geeta Patangay stated she supports building a green Sunnyvale and urged Council to drop the proposed bridge project on Mary Avenue.
Patrick Grant proposed Council direct staff to limit the EIR and throw out some options.
Peter Cirigliano stated the bridge project is inevitable and the alternative of not doing anything will put the area in a worse situation. Cirigliano stated the alternatives offered in the staff report each offer a time delay; however, each delay is associated with an increasing cost. Cirigliano stated he supports moving forward with the cheapest and quickest option and not delaying any further. .
Jeannette Hayden stated concerns over increased traffic on Mary Avenue resulting from this project.
Dan Hafeman urged Council to consider Alternative 10 and direct staff to return with another design. Hafeman stated this project will discourage use of the areas freeways and encourage the use of the surface streets which in turn will increase traffic. Hafeman urged Council to make policy decisions based on the reasonableness of the project and the engineering alternatives that might exist.
Councilmember Whittum questioned Hafeman whether he would be in favor of a revised DEIR if it were to focus on a different alternative other than a vehicle bridge. Hafeman stated he is in favor of bicycle and electrical vehicle access to the towers. Hafeman stated single passenger cars should be channeled onto the freeways.
Kerry Haywood, Executive Director of Moffett Park Business and Transportation Association, expressed the association’s support for the Mary Avenue extension project.
Eleanor Hansen stated the DEIR and public comments should be looked at prior to any decision being made. Hansen stated she supports Alternative 9 and should it not be approved, she would then support Alternative 1.
Julie Norton stated she is appealing to Council to consider Alternative 9 or 10. Norton stated she would like Council to look from a global perspective as to what is happening in and around the Sunnyvale area.
Jeanne Yeager stated she supports Alternative 9. Yeager stated she also supports Council directing staff to plan in association with regional, state and federal traffic planning authorities so as to direct an efficient, modern, traffic management plan that will answer the needs of the Moffett Park Builders and additionally be responsible to the Sunnyvale residents.
Gary Vercellino stated he is against the Mary Avenue extension and spoke about safety issues for pedestrians and school children. Vercellino stated he is in favor of Alternative 9 but if the bridge has to move forward, he would then like to see that the overpass is accessible only from highway 237.
Public hearing closed at 8:26 p.m.
Vice Mayor Hamilton confirmed with Manager Witthaus that the CEQA purpose of looking at alternatives for completing the EIR is to see whether alternatives exist that could meet the purpose and needs of the project and better reduce the significant negative environmental consequences. Manager Witthaus stated staff heard about a lot of other alternatives through citizen comments and staff is proposing to go beyond the CEQA requirements and develop more information regarding the alternatives in order to assist with the decision making process.
Vice Mayor Hamilton confirmed with Manager Witthaus that it was possible that the City could have gone into the EIR with Mary Avenue as the preferred project, but during the process staff could have found that one of the alternatives was environmentally superior to the Mary Avenue project.
Councilmember Swegles stated he has traveled Mary Avenue at different parts of the day and each time he found that the traffic lights on Mary Avenue were not timed as well as on Mathilda Avenue. Councilmember Swegles inquired if that situation would be corrected with the overpass. Manager Witthaus stated at the current time, the City does not coordinate the traffic signals along Mary Avenue; however, the City is currently installing interconnection equipment along Mary Avenue (from El Camino to Evelyn).
Councilmember Whittum inquired if Council is able to direct staff to consider a preferred alternative to do something other than an over crossing. Manager Witthaus stated the project currently being considered is a roadway connection project within the City’s General Plan. Manager Witthaus stated for the City to study something that is not a roadway connection project requires new planning rather than environmental impact reporting. Manager Witthaus stated however, the City is looking developing information on alternatives to the roadway connection project and staff is proposing to look at alternative transportation facilities in the alternatives discussion.
Councilmember Whittum stated the staff report includes the ability for Council to request that staff reconsider the General Plan. Councilmember Whittum stated it is his understanding that Alternative 9 includes the possibility of Council directing staff to revise the General Plan to eliminate the overpass. Councilmember Whittum stated he is suggesting that within the EIR process, Council could direct staff to give consideration to a different alternative. Staff could then return to Council with a recommendation based on having evaluated the alternative with respect to the original. Councilmember Whittum confirmed with Manager Witthaus that it is possible for Council to direct staff to consider alternatives to a vehicle bridge.
Vice Mayor Hamilton inquired if Council were to choose another alternative, would the current EIR suffice or would another EIR be needed? Manager Witthaus explained that a new EIR process would be required and staff would need to review the Land Use Plan, Transportation Plan, and the environmental documentation supporting those documents, because the Mary Avenue project is integral to the City’s Land Use Plan.
Councilmember Whittum asked if Council would be able to direct staff to return to Council with a plan to revise the General Plan to remove the Mary Avenue bridge; to consider a bike bridge along with the environmental impacts together with other features of the plan. Councilmember Whittum stated it is commonplace in the EIR process to find that an alternative is better and that the EIR document, when certified, is adequate for the alternative and no additional EIR needs to be done. City Attorney Kahn confirmed that the final EIR can consider different alternatives and Council could find an alternative to be preferable. City attorney explained that should the alternative be selected over the preferred project, it would require a new EIR directed at that particular project. Councilmember Whittum stated that a revised EIR could be accepted as a final EIR.
Councilmember Whittum asked the city attorney if Council could direct staff to pursue a bike bridge as a preferred alternative and that the alternative should include other features as determined by staff to meet purpose and need. City Attorney Kahn stated Council could not change the EIR so that the new preferred project is the bike bridge as the new alternative. City Attorney Kahn stated Council can request that the item come back as one of the alternatives being studied in the environmental impact report. At that point, Council could direct staff to look at the new project as the focus of a new EIR.
City Manager Chan stated this evening, Council has nine alternatives to choose from; however, if Council is interested in providing staff with another direction, then the time to do that is when the final EIR comes back to Council. City Manager Chan stated if Council’s alternative is substantially different than the preferred alternative then a different process will be needed including a new EIR. City Manager Chan stated the focus this evening is when Council would like to have the report to come back to them.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Hamilton moved, and Councilmember Moylan seconded, to approve Alternative 4: Council directs staff to provide “enhanced” responses to comments on the Mary Avenue Extension DEIR that comprehensively address comments, provide a 10-day public review period prior to Council consideration of document certification, include a peer review and execute Budget Modification No. 33 in the amount of $85,000.
Vice Mayor Hamilton stated she is trying to solve the problem of getting traffic in and out of the area and includes the additional alternatives brought about by public comments. Vice Mayor Hamilton stated currently she does not have enough information on this project and the additional analysis will assist her decision.
Councilmember Moylan stated Council has several options and spoke in favor of Alternative 4. Councilmember Moylan stated some of the other alternatives add on a 45 day public review period which seems unnecessary due the extended comment period and the thorough engagement from the community.
Councilmember Moylan explained that he is not presently in favor or Alternative 9 because all the data has not been reviewed yet including all the ideas from the public. Councilmember Moylan stated once the data is received, then Council can make an informed decision.
Councilmember Whittum stated he will vote against the motion and objects to not being asked questions without the ability to view the resident comments.
Councilmember Whittum stated where several alternatives are available, it is appropriate for the community to request that Council consider one or two of the alternatives. Councilmember Whittum stated he does not see the City considering the alternatives, rather he sees the City moving toward an overcrossing. Councilmember Whittum stated the City does not apply its own standards to its own neighborhoods. Mary Avenue currently does not meet the standards in the General Plan for residential development due to noise levels. Councilmember Whittum stated he will be voting against this motion and further explained there are alternatives that he would endorse; however, they are not listed in the report.
Councilmember Swegles stated he will not support the motion due to the cost factor and would prefer to look at Alternative 2 which would allow a peer review and is less expensive.
Councilmember Swegles responded to a member of the public’s earlier comment about Council all wearing black this evening and explained that it was not meant to be a statement about any decisions made, rather it was in honor of his father who recently passed away.
Councilmember Lee stated he is not able to support the motion due to not allowing the 45 day public review period. Councilmember Lee noted that the longer review did not affect the cost and he does not feel this is an issue that Council should move too quickly on given the amount of public interest in this project. Councilmember Lee stated another concern of his is regarding traffic mitigation and feels a bike option is an important aspect to look at for this bridge.
VOTE: 4-3 (Councilmembers Whittum, Swegles and Lee dissented)
Mayor Spitaleri called for a short recess at 8:55 p.m.
Mayor Spitaleri reconvened the Council meeting at 9 p.m.
|