Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-1998 Staff Reports SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3082-' AGENDA ITEM J 3 MEETING DATE: December 16, 1998 CITY MANAGER: ft ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Designation of a multi -way stop intersection at Fourth St. /Springer Ave. RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution at Fourth Street/Springer Avenue. REPORT SUMMARY: The attached Motor Vehicle Resolution, if adopted, would establish a four -way stop intersection at Fourth Street/Springer Avenue. Presently, the intersection is a two -way stop intersection with stop signs on Springer Avenue at Fourth Street. Although there is no significant accident history at this intersection, because of the vertical and horizontal alignment of the two streets at the intersection, the addition of two more stop signs would improve the safety of the intersection. The Public Safety Commission unanimously supports this traffic safety improvement. FISCAL IMPACTS: Approximately $400.00 in labor and materials for the City to install the signs. Funds for this expense would come from the Traffic Control Budget. ADVERTISING, NOTICING, AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The Resolution would not be adopted and the intersection would remain as is. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: A Work Order will be issued to install the signs and markings. ATTACHMENTS: Motor Vehicle Resolution and location map. 1 1 i q _Hi SCQLE l"="40' ll 11 S) 11 j1�j t;(1' �1 e,, 4 4k 11 1 1 11 1 i 1 ,z� /�JOlS n p;, FO i H I- vsr,444 R /thvr O. Y. t sN rd PAINT 12 I 7YPE C; Q Z4 d. C. 7 G w,re a 7 D n 6 PUNT 12" ...5-Wilize BAR h V C PA LEGEND PA /NT LE6ENO 7 ..„Pb 1 1 cA'rearo 1/4 I,vsrgG c a i i s O G t/ cy i 1/4 .1 DRAWN BY CITY OF SARATOGA SCALE E.' .0orsw HOR. 1" y STANDARD DRAWING s c7 VERT. 1 shown APPROVED BY PROPOSED MULTI -WAY TOP DATE AT 1998 FOURTH sr e S� 7 R/,V ER AI'E. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3 Y/ AGENDA ITE s 6 4 MEETING DATE: December 16, 1998 CITY MANA ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: Public Hearing on use of COPS (Citizen's Option for Public Safety) Funding in FY 98/99 RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): 1. Conduct the required public hearing. 2. Move to approve the recommended use of the FY 98/99 COPS allocation as noted in the report. REPORT SUMMARY: As a result of the state legislature's reauthorization of the COPS funding program for FY 98/99, the City Council must conduct a public hearing to consider uses for the funding. Further, the statutes pertaining to the COPS program require submission of a written request for uses of the funding by the City's Chief of Police (in Saratoga's case, the Sheriff), and consideration and action on the request by the City Council. The funding request from the Sheriff for FY 98/99 recommends the purchase of seven patrol car mounted video cameras and related equipment (see Attachment 1). Based on available funds needed in FY 98/99 to continue the City's supplemental code enforcement efforts, sufficient funding should be available to purchase six of the seven patrol car mounted video cameras recommended for purchase by the Sheriff. In FY 98/99, Saratoga is expected to receive approximately $71,000 in COPS funding. An additional $7,929 of unspent funds from FY 97/98 is also available for reallocation, making a total of $78,929 available for allocation in FY 98/99. Both the Public Safety Commission and staff believe that the most productive uses for the COPS funding are to: 1) hire a Public Safety Officer on a contractual basis to supplement the City's code enforcement and lower level law enforcement activities; 2) fund the additional .2 FTE authorized for the City's Community Services Officer beginning in FY 98/99 to further enhance the City's code enforcement efforts; 3) upgrade the radios in the City's two code enforcement vehicles from analog to digital to enable field communications to continue between City code enforcement staff and the Sheriff 1 over the Sheriff's new digital radio system; and 4) partially fund the Sheriff's request to purchase 6 patrol car mounted video camera systems (see Attachment 2 for Public Safety Commission's written recommendation). 1) Contract Public Safety Officer (PSO) Both the Public Safety Commission and staff believe that the priority use of FY 98/99 COPS funding is to continue with the staffing of supplemental code enforcement. The major difference from the last funding cycle is that the PSO would be hired as a contract employee of the City. By hiring the PSO on a contractual basis, the City will save approximately $35 per hour from the FY 97/98 cost of the Sheriffs Code Enforcement Technician from a cost of $52.88 per hour down to approximately $17 per hour. While this is a significant decrease, there will be no resulting reduction in employee experience or know -how. By all indications, the applications thus far received show a measurable increase in experience over the previous incumbent in the position. A recruitment to fill the PSO position has just concluded and an applicant has been identified to whom staff is prepared to extend an offer of employment. If the Council approves this recommendation, the applicant could begin work with the City at the beginning of January. In addition to the hourly cost savings, hiring a contract PSO will allow for more direct oversight of this individual by City staff, as the PSO will report directly to the Community Services Officer. This will eliminate any confusion about whom this individual will be reporting to and where their primary responsibilities lie. This reporting relationship will result in greater responsiveness to the Community's code enforcement needs. 2) Additional .2 FTE for the CSO As an additional code enforcement measure, the City Council approved a .2 FTE increase for the position of Community Service Officer in FY 98/99. This additional staff allocation will require the expenditure of approximately $12,000 which can be funded through the COPS program. The increased staffing allocation will allow the CSO to devote more time to code enforcement issues including providing oversight for the PSO. 3) CSO Radio Upgrade The Sheriff's radio system has recently been upgraded from analog to digital. Without performing this upgrade to the City's two code enforcement vehicle radios, field communications between the CSOs and the Sheriff would not be possible. 4) Sheriff's Patrol Car Mounted Video Cameras During this funding cycle, the written request from the Sheriff recommends outfitting the 7 patrol cars assigned to Saratoga with video cameras at a total cost of $6,037.25 per vehicle. As noted by the Sheriff, the vehicles assigned to the other contract cities and unincorporated areas are equipped with in -car video systems. Sufficient funding will be available in FY 98/99 to purchase 6 of the 7 recommended video systems after funding the code enforcement priorities noted above. The remaining video system can be funded in the FY 99/00 funding cycle. FISCAL IMPACTS: As noted on Attachment 3. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of the public hearing was published in the Saratoga News. Also, the Public Safety Commission was separately notified of the Public Hearing. e CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Depends on Council's action. Some or all of the funding recommendations would not be approved. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: 1. The Public Safety Officer will be hired. 2. Arrangements for upgrading the CSO radios will be made. 3. The Sheriff will be advised to proceed with purchasing 6 in -car video systems. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Written request from Sheriff for use of COPS funding. 2. Recommendation by Public Safety Commission for use of COPS funding. 3. COPS Funding Worksheet. A TTRG1(NI ENT 1 N OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF o SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES P. GILLINGHAM To: Larry Perlin, erlm, Cary ar oga From: Captain R. Wilson Date: December 10, 1998 Subject: 1998 -1999 COPS Expenditures Attached you'll fmd our request for the car mounted video cameras. Currently all other contract cities and unincorporated cars are equipped with in -car video systems. The addition of these units in Saratoga patrol cars will enhance our ability to provide services to the City of Saratoga. CAR MOUNTED VIDEO SYSTEM Because every traffic stop is potentially dangerous, in -car video cameras could save an officer's life; suspects who would resort to violence may think twice before doing so when they know their actions are being recorded. With in -car videos, routine stops have a better chance of remaining routine. Vidoetapes delivers the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In -car video provides an indisputable account of traffic stops, such as; DUI tests and results, verbal consents for vehicle searches, proof that proper procedure was followed, and establishes "probable cause" for the stop. Video systems have changed the way that many departments document vehicle stops and arrests. A video camera is mounted in front of the rear view mirror. This camera is movable and there is a small monitor that shows the deputy the area being filmed. The main VCR is mounted in the trunk area of the patrol car. This is a system designed for law enforcement so the camera offers low light sensitivity, locking auto focus and 450 lines of horizontal resolution. This results in a better than "normal" picture which is important for the night time hours that a patrol deputy works. The unit also has a wireless microphone that will record the deputy and the violator or impaired drivers words. The recording can be turned on several different ways. The video unit is wired into the emergency equipment so that when the lights are activated the system turns on. The wireless microphone has a remotely activated switch that can turn on the video unit. There is also a manual switch on the unit that the deputy can turn on. Having these units installed will help to record the interaction between the deputy and the person that was operating the car. When an impaired driver is arrested this record will provide invaluable evidence when needed for prosecution. The recording can be used to document the deputy's actions should a complaint arise about their actions. The tape could be used as a training aid to train new officers or to further develop the current deputies. COST Kustom Signals Eyewitness Video System (7 systems) $37,100.00 100 VHS T -160 tapes at $3.00 per tape 300.00 Installation for 7 systems 2,100.00 Tax at 8.25% 3,258.75 TOTAL COST $42,758.75 oA 5AR9 SCi),,Attachment 2 alm oaucE of D A �6 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 Zf C o COUNCIL MEMBERS: Incorporated October 22, 1956 Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaftey Jim Shaw December 11, 1998 Nick Streit To: Saratoga City Council From: Public Safety Commission Subject: Allocation of Citizen's Option for Public Safety (COPS) Funds FY 98/99 Recommendation: 1. Approve the use of the FY 98/99 COPS allocation as follows: Authorize the City Manager to hire a contract Public Safety Officer with the remainder of the appropriation used to fund additional code enforcement supplies and services and the equipment request made by the Sheriff. Summary: During FY 96/97 the COPS program was created by the California legislature to supplement existing local law enforcement resources by using state funds to augment "front line municipal police services." Initially Saratoga expenditures focused on one -time purchases of equipment for the Sheriff since future funding for the program was unclear. Though COPS funding will continue in FY 98/99, there again is no certainty it will be available beyond this fiscal year, although the legislature has indicated their intent to continue the program for the next three years. Therefore the City must take care to use the money in the best possible manner to meet specific law enforcement needs unique to Saratoga. For some time thorough code enforcement within the City has been lacking due to the absence of City funds to support the necessary manpower. During the FY 97/98 COPS funding cycle, Santa Clara County provided a Sheriffs Technician to supplement existing code enforcement activities at a cost of $52.88 per hour. Total hours allocated for the technician was 1800 hours, for a budgeted amount of $95,184. Approximately 74 percent of this amount ($70,645) was to be paid using COPS funds. The actual cost of the technician however, was $62,716 based on only 1,186 hours worked. Before the fiscal year ended, the individual in the position left the Sheriff's Department to join a public safety organization in another City. Since that time field code enforcement activity has been limited to what can be accomplished by the City's one Community Service Officer (CSO) who has also been responsible for ordinance development and other activities. Printed on recycled paper. Attachment 2 Staff is now proposing that the City engage a contract Public Safety Officer (PSO) to work with the CSO in field ordinance enforcement. Such a measure would save approximately $35 per hour or $63,000 in FY 98/99 over the previous cost of the Sheriff's Technician. In addition, by directly hiring a contract employee, the City would enjoy greater flexibility in meeting code enforcement requirements if a COPS appropriation is not available next fiscal year. After reviewing data provided by City staff and approving a job description for the position, the Public Safety Commission recommends that the City Council approve the use of the FY 98/99 COPS funds to hire a contract Public Safety Officer (PSO), with the remaining balance allocated to additional supplies and services, and the Sheriff, as requested, for equipment purchases to augment service to the City. Attachment 3 City of Saratoga COPS Funding Worksheet Beginning Balance 7 -1 -97 19,004 FY 97/98 Revenues 70,645 FY 97/98 Expenditures: Sheriffs Technician 62,716 Prior Year Allocations 9,445 Ending Balance 6 -30 -98 17,488 Beginning Balance 7 -1 -98 17,488 FY 98/99 Revenues (est.) 71,000 FY 98/99 Expenditures Public Safety Officer 16,980 .20 FTE CSO 11,695 CSO Radio Upgrades 13,000 Patrol Car Video Cameras 36,722 Prior Year Allocations 9,559 Ending Balance 532 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3a3 AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: December 16, 1998 CITY MANAGER: r ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development DEPT. HEAD: A A SUBJECT: Ordinance Adding Section 9- 15.065 to the Municipal Code Relating to Vehicles. RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Introduce Saratoga Ordinance 9- 15.065 (restricting sleeping or living in vehicles) by title only, waiving a full reading. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is a proposed Ordinance that, if adopted, will assist code enforcement and the Sheriff's Office in eliminating the use of vehicles as living or sleeping quarters. Over the past few years, there has been an increase in complaints related to persons sleeping in recreational type vehicles or motor vehicles on public or private property. Current zoning ordinances do not specifically address this activity, therefore the City has been limited in its ability to regulate the situation. The Sheriff's Office has also related their concerns regarding persons sleeping in their vehicles in the parking lot of the Argonaut Shopping Center. There were three people "homesteading" on a continuous basis during the month of June 1998. Without a local ordinance prohibiting this activity, the Sheriff's Office had no means of legally moving them out of the area. Transients sleeping in their vehicles are also reportedly beginning to show up in City neighborhoods because they feel safe parking in Saratoga. Residents are upset that neither the City nor the Sheriffs Office can effectively abate this problem. Sleeping or living out of a vehicle promotes blight, and constitutes as an attractive nuisance promoting health and sanitation violations and public safety issues. An Ordinance is needed to protect the general health and welfare of the Saratoga residents, and to remove conditions tending to reduce the value of private property. The Public Safety Commission has reviewed the Ordinance and is recommending its adoption. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The public will be informed of the proposed Ordinance, if accepted, through the local media. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The Ordinance will not be adopted, and the conditions of persons utilizing vehicles as living or sleeping quarters may continue. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The Ordinance will be scheduled for the next regular meeting for adoption on the City Council consent agenda. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance e ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING SECTION 9- 15.065 TO THE MUN1CPAL CODE RELATING TO VEHICLES The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: Section 1: Section 9- 15.065 is hereby added to the Saratoga Municipal Code to read as follows: "Section 9- 15.065. Vehicles Used as Living or Sleeping Quarters. No vehicle, including any boat, bus, trailer, motor home, van, camper (whether or not attached to a pickup or other vehicle) camp trailer, automobile, truck, pickup, airplane, haul trailer, truck tractor, truck trailer, utility trailer, or any device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved or drawn, shall be used for living or sleeping quarters, except as permitted below: 1. Trailers, campers or recreational vehicles may be used by a bona fide guest of a City resident for a period not to exceed seventy -two hours where the trailer, camper or recreational vehicle is located on such resident's property." Section 2: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1998 by the following vote; AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK I IP SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3 0 o AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1998 CITY MANAGER: i ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Policy for placement of items on agendas by Councilmembers RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to adopt the proposed policy. REPORT SUMMARY: As directed at your December 8 meeting, I have drafted the attached policy for the placement of items on City Council meeting agendas by individual Councilmembers. Essentially, the policy allows for individual Councilmembers to place items on agendas for purposes of discussion only under the "City Council Items" portion of the agenda. In order to move the item to a subsequent meeting for action, the concurrence of at least two Councilmembers would be required. The proposed policy would also allow for individual Councilmembers to request the placement of action items on agendas through the Mayor. If the Mayor concurs with such a request, the Mayor would instruct the City Manager on how to place the item on the agenda. If the Mayor does not concur with such a request, the item would be placed on the agenda for discussion only as described above. The policy also establishes deadlines for Councilmembers to make these requests, and requires the Mayor, in those instances where requests to place action items on agendas are made, to explain his /her decision to the Councilmember making the request prior to the meeting at which the item will appear on the agenda. w FISCAL IMPACTS: None. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The proposed policy would not be approved and there would be no established policy about this issue. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The adopted policy will be placed in the Policy Manual which is being developed. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed policy. File Adopted on: POLICY ON PLACEMENT OF ITEMS ON AGENDAS BY COUNCILMEMBERS Any member of the City Council may request through the City Manager that an item be placed on the agenda of an upcoming City Council meeting for purposes of discussion only. Such requests shall be made in writing and transmitted to the City Manager by no later than 12:00 noon on Wednesday of the week preceding the meeting at which the Councilmember desires the item to appear on the agenda. Upon timely receipt of such a request, the City Manager shall cause the item to be placed on the agenda under "City Council Items" by identifying both the item to be discussed, and the Councilmember making the request. If the Councilmember desires the item to be placed on a subsequent meeting agenda for action, he /she must gain the concurrence of another Councilmember at the meeting at which the item is under discussion to do so. Any member of the City Council may request through the Mayor that an item be placed on the agenda of an upcoming City Council meeting for the purpose of taking action on the item. Such requests shall be made in writing and transmitted to the Mayor by no later than 12:00 noon on Wednesday of the week preceding the meeting at which the Councilmember desires the item to appear on the agenda. Upon timely receipt of such a request, the Mayor shall determine whether or not to support the request of the Councilmember. If the Mayor determines to support the request, the Mayor shall then instruct the City Manager on how to place the item on the agenda. If the Mayor determines not to support the request, the Mayor shall then instruct the City Manager to place the item on the agenda as an item for discussion only under "City Council Items." The Mayor shall then inform the Councilmember making the request of his /her determination and the reasons therefore prior to the meeting. In the latter case, if the Councilmember desires the item to be placed on a subsequent meeting agenda for action, he /she must gain the concurrence of another Councilmember at the meeting at which the item is under discussion to do so. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 30 C l AGENDA ITEM 'RA MEETING DATE: December 16, 1998 CITY MANAGER: off/ ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER PREPARED BY: rfffforimf. SUBJECT: Appeal from Robert and Ann Kiehl of the Public Safety Commission's approval of a crosswalk installation at the intersection of Carol Lane and Kirkbrook Drive. RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): 1. Deny the appeal from Robert and Aim Kiehl on the crosswalk installation at the intersection of Carol Lane and Kirkbrook Drive. REPORT SUMMARY: In May, 1998, the City received a written request from the Principal at Blue Hills Elementary School regarding the installation of a school crosswalk and appropriate signage at the south side of Carol Lane where it intersects Kirkbrook Drive. The request came to the City as a result of a concerned parent's notification to the principal that an unsafe condition was present on the route through this neighborhood to Blue Hills Elementary School (attachment 1). The volume and speed of cars was cited as the problem in the vicinity. Since the request came from the Principal of Blue Hills Elementary School, it was assumed by the City that a potentially unsafe condition existed. City staff reviewed the site and, citing the applicable traffic warrants, determined that the proposed location was the best possible location at which to install the marked crosswalk. Subsequently, a Work Order to install the markings for the crosswalk and signage was prepared (attachment 2). At the time installation began, the appellant objected and it was halted for further review. Staff was then directed to take up this issue at the June meeting of the Public Safety Commission (see attachment 3 excerpt of June 11 Public Safety Commission meeting minutes). At that meeting, several residents in support of and opposed to the crosswalk were in attendance to voice their concerns. In response to questions by neighborhood residents as to why the installation began without notification, the City Manager told the group that the City does not always notify residents of every traffic- related item, particularly when a request is made by a school principal (who had considered the initial request by the concerned parent before forwarding a written request to the City Traffic Engineer). Subsequent to this time, a petition was received by staff from neighborhood residents in favor of the crosswalk (attachment 4). At their June meeting, the Public Safety Commission directed staff to perform further review of the crosswalk location, including placement of the radar trailer to gather data on speeders and a request that the Sheriff perform several traffic surveys during August and September. The Sheriff performed three surveys and recommended, at a minimum, that a yellow crosswalk and appropriate signs be installed (attachment 5). At the October 8 Public Safety Commission meeting (the second public hearing on this issue), it was decided by the Commission that a crosswalk and appropriate signage (speed limit and school signs) be installed together with additional traffic enforcement by the Sheriff (attachment 6). The decision was made after consideration of several factors: 1) the written request by the principal of Blue Hills Elementary School, 2) the recommendation for a crosswalk installation by the Sheriff, 3) the petition received from concerned area residents, 4) recommendations from staff, and 5) Public Safety Commissioners review of the site. In response to the appellant's objection to the decision, the Commission stated that several options were considered and that the least intrusive option was chosen. The appellants stated their desire to appeal the decision and were informed by the Commission that it was their right to do so. Subsequently the appellant addressed a letter to former Mayor Wolfe objecting to the decision to install the crosswalk (attachment 7). In that letter, the appellant requested the following: 1) data that supports the fact that a pedestrian is safer in a marked crosswalk and that a marked crosswalk will cause a speed reduction on Kirkbrook Drive; 2) the ability for the appellant to retain all the parking in front of their house; and 3) a statement from the City that the marked crosswalk would not affect the value of the appellant's home. In a written response to the appellant's letter (attachment 8), staff explained that crosswalks are not speed control devices per se, rather crosswalks alert motorists that pedestrians cross the street at these marked locations. This is crucial for school crosswalks. In addition, the appellant was notified that the City could not guarantee that all parking would be retained in front of their home, citing that the City must balance individual desires of property owners with the broader public safety needs of the community. Lastly, staff explained that the City was in no position to render an opinion about how the value of the appellant's property may be affected by the installation of the crosswalk. Staff reiterated that the decision to install the crosswalk was made because of an unsafe condition which exists for children walking to and from Blue Hills Elementary School. After notifying the appellant of the Municipal Code procedure for filing appeals, the appellant submitted an appeal application and the required fee. Staff concludes that the information presented states a compelling case for the installation of the crosswalk and appropriate signage. This information includes the request from the Blue Hills Elementary principal, the recommendation by the Sheriff, the determination by the City's Traffic Engineering Technician, the recommendation by the Public Safety Commission after holding two public hearings, and the petition supporting the crosswalk signed by area residents. It is recommended therefore, that the Council support the decision of the Public Safety Commission by denying the appeal. FISCAL IMPACTS: The cost estimate of crosswalk and signage installation is approximately $400. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Persons who previously expressed an interest in this issue were notified of this appeal. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The appeal would be granted and the crosswalk and associated signage would not be installed. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The crosswalk will be installed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Written crosswalk request by principal of Blue Hills Elementary School. 2. Traffic Engineer's diagram of proposed crosswalk and signage. 3. Excerpt from Public Safety Commission June 11, 1998 meeting minutes. 4. Crosswalk petition. 5. Sheriff's Traffic Survey and crosswalk recommendation. 6. Excerpt from Public Safety Commission October 8, 1998 meeting minutes. 7. Appellant's letter to Mayor Wolfe. 8. Staff's written response to appellant's letter. 9. Citizen letters in support of and opposed to the crosswalk. 10. Additional staff correspondence. A TENT i BLUE HILLS SCHOOL Randy Karel, Principal CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 12300 DeSanka Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 257 -9282 (408) 366-0611 Fax April 28, 1998 Mr. Erman Dorsey Sr. Engineering Technician City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Dorsey, Per our phone conversation last week, there is parent concern over a route to school that has become unsafe. According to the parent, approximately 20 children from Carol Lane and the surrounding area (including Natoma and Covina Courts and Merida Drive) walk this route to Blue Hills School every day as part of a safe route to school. Therefore, on their behalf, I am requesting that a school crosswalk and signs be placed at the south side of Carol Lane at the intersection with Kirkbrook Drive. Thank Y ou for your support and attention to this matter. Sin Randy Karel Principal cc: Mr. Larry I. Perlin 5 e 6 t1 s 143-0/Z5 CITY OF SARATOGA DAILY FIELD LOG FOR SIGNS a MARKINGS DATE 9 'Porse Y Y LOCATION DATA DESCRIPTION OF WORK PERFORMED ON STREET DISTANCE N,S,E)N CROSS STREE LABOR VEI•ICLE MATERIALS C;,�� SIDE N ,S,E,W WONK OgDER MIDDLE ra D�rE ACTION HRS. HRS. Carol Ln, Across ©en 1 Pant Yell w ScY QO Cr ;.RK8Raok DE. MEM ,Crosram/l< kl Slgl. al 2" eept e wo props '1RK: Roo A Lrensul4 E 54198Th 4/ /I(/6. krfiiA v. 1111. MI MI MI 111111 1111111111111 T,ss .rgcc c! 1 :sy ii 1=11111 W66 #0166A a7d�..r 7 ;16. 1 20207 y oiQ /•y r IIIIIIIIIIIIIII CAROL LM. rec.40 .SrcKOG L /2,68 c deassivA[g NM sl a /2182 min— SCA I.6: m ?ID¢ Y lNS L I= KIRKNiu�tT Gil66W66A DE. /Z22-6' B Sc. m e E T t 4 4 M t N Let ATTIK- biWIEmZ` r� Assembly Floor. Chief Sporleder gave a brief background to the legislation. Ms. Loft read the memo from the Fire Chief of the City of Milpitas; Chief Kraule agreed that what was stated in the memo about Saratoga Fire Department was correct. The Commission thanked both fire chiefs, their contacts and staff for -a demonstrating their support at the Council meetings; both chiefs commended the Commission for spearheading the project. C. Laura Lorman, Chief of Public Safety, West Valley College Chief Lorman reported on the Strawberry Festival and distributed an activities report. Commissioner Dippel requested that safe driving tips be constantly reminded to the student population; Chief Lorman will place safe driving items in West Valley College's public information route. VI. New Business A. Crosswalk Request at Carol Lane and Kirkbrook Dr. near Blue Hills School Neighbors who wanted a crosswalk as well as those who didn't want one at the above location were present to discuss with the Commission their concerns. The volume and speed of cars were cited as a problem in the vicinity. Larry Perlin responded to the inquiry from neighbors as to why the City went ahead with the crosswalk without notifying the neighbors: he responded that the City does not always notify neighbors of every traffic related item, particularly when a request was made by a school (schools have safety groups which monitor traffic safety issues). Initially, there were 2 votes and 2 abstaining votes to direct City staff to review alternative traffic (possibly including a crosswalk) implementation(s) in the vicinity. The vote was changed to 3 votes and 1 abstaining vote when it was further discussed what the steps were to review alternative traffic implementation(s). The Commission directed City Staff to place a radar trailer at site, have the Sheriff's Office review the situation and perform a survey, the Commission,will review area as part of the study group, and City Staff directed to review vicinity. Further, the Commission directed City staff to place the radar trailer and have the Sheriff's Office review situation and perform a survey again in September. The Commission requested this item be placed again on the Public Safety Commission agenda in September to review data gathered, invite the neighbors, and hope that the City can implement recommendations immediately after the September Public Safety meeting. B. Stop Sign(s) Request at the Intersection of Springer Ave. and 4' St. Sy Syvertson, 14666 Springer, reviewed a map of requested stop signs at the above intersection. The Commission referred the request to City staff to review the area, check with Code Enforcement Division as to whether the fence is in violation of City Codes, and would like the City to notify affected residents of any traffic implementations. C. School Bussing Ms. Loft reported that at previous Public Safety Commission meetings school bussing costs were discussed, but was an unknown factor, therefore, research was conducted to see how much a school bussing system may cost. Commissioner 3 A r F fM sv I.1- Saratoga, June 2, 1998, Dear Ms. Loft, Enclosed, please find a petition to place a crosswalk and signs at Carol Lane and Kirkbrook Drive Saratoga, signed by 61 residents of Carol Lane, Covina and Natoma Courts, Merida, Marilla and Kirkbrook Drives. We strongly believe that our children need a safe way to cross Kirkbrook Drive from Carol Lane in order to use the only existing sidewalk on Kirkbrook Drive so they can continue their walk to Blue Hills school safely. We are aware of the protest of a neighbor and his concern about losing a parking space to the crosswalk. However, we feel that the lives of our children are more important and that a possible loss of a children's life far outweighs the loss of one parking spot on a public street for one resident. The argument that there are no more cars now than 30 years ago and that there has never been a problem before may be partially true 30 years ago parents did not need to worry to let their children walk to school all by themselves, nobody drove a car to school everybody walked. Unfortunately those times have changed. People from outside our area are in a hurry to drop off their children at school before driving on to work. We believe that SLOW signs and a crosswalk will remind them to stop for pedestrians. We hope you can agree with us, Respectfully yours, t Trees ens. 20304 Carol Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 343 -0128 Blue Hills school parent. I encl.: 4 pages petition for crosswalk at Carol Lane and Kirkbrook Drive. CO PETITION FOR CROSSWALK AT CAROL LANE AND KIRKBROOK DRIVE. YES, we would like to provide a safe route to school for the children of our neighborhood and therefoRrequest the placement of a crosswalk and signs at the intersection of Carol Lane with Kirkbrook Drive. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE lisA TA• 7 O 3 t l C maxi- LN 12- ii,j.e.4... Tsia,_ zi2-)-ei Lategel- 441 as± .5 If 1 1 t -4-- 1 __Fho.±.14. ...._netsnif i____12,111____Car_g_L_Lt.) `"//_I'Thefs4-c\,- ___Ibasiva. ftqcSDIAAAA IA,1 oo caul 4,1 ic(i 411Ait r.,444,---- _&inraS D. iu 1242. CAP 4-/ AV II Lb( trek_ tot ar_� 1 b 0(39 _c_nr_ al___La! Azk 1 cent fts1N 1 2c :7 c4-1,01- 1- 4-, e la_ll ____card 4ar_ut.,_ sN _tlaati__Al2.e, I c1 1 6 Cerol i-ahe /21.449iii: A. Lei ..57-/A) /1 JJ...3.. &Rat, i-da, 0Q2_21.Viu I, L:-- 'Afro _34/1...\2 Ard2C2 ;V 42a.5 L 4-4 i-c z ZQ gag auk .ice sor l/ LL ,n r D�''' T '�T I I _4_1t.,L2� JS-v N _.<,.D_ 22Z C�21 1.411 L.� �t c,6,a'> Q..)., J U PETITION FOR CROSSWALK AT CAROL LANE AND KIRKBROOK DRIVE. YES, we would like to provide a safe route to school for the children of our neighborhood and therefoRrequest the placement of a crosswalk and signs at the intersection of Carol Lane with Kirkbrook Drive. alr1 1. CAL; v 2,11 Pw. 20 27 q c t- L:,,.,e, SSs tQ_ A t __1�!Lc✓ OEl'Rvrci-ir Z.c ?o S C4461 t'/A'E., lA2h?'oc D e 1ff srosinT Gco rvL 34,7.9E- 1. gA Xd,ps.) 2.46 t atti-z/ •-ifer.14s1_ 4 �LL.Lc.�_.11.11.2 .41.lil 2 7.`) 5 C:( 11"C L l T rev. r rV w•.n V rrrn °7r r 7rrr r nnrnrwnn nnr rr r rrT nrrnrT- �r r C}3 PETITION FOR CROSSWALK AT CAROL LANE AND KIRKBROOK DRIVE. YES, we would like to provide a safe route to school for the children of our neighborhood and therefoitrequest the.placement of a crosswalk and signs at the intersection of Carol Lane with Kirkbrook Drive. ul rl: t are h ov► g rti hei ah 12 b 0 aQaDvh U,f 33 ►J a 4 .1 ?11 _t11%tT!ia A 1 (Th-jri NIEALA-_ 421,, A VA,�.h LAZA 1 21,-x--- VIA 1 l) PETITION FOR CROSSWALK AT CAROL LANE AND YES, we would like to provide a RKBROOK DRIVE, therefor�request the placement of a crosswalk and si at the intersection section of Carol Lane and Kirkbrook Drive. Lane with r 1: 1= -1 111_ ixz _d f- c .J -It 1.6161-e l or 1 ;:ip 4 _ialz4;_. ____,T vat rv2 WZIs .��r_Li.,f� c� fir I 1 7.433 C ✓4,+r,. %sy! Jo g� r" y %_-_47.‘ 1 cam- wz i i�P,T- gel/ t t.E..Cca.V.ca`21 c--7 fr Sad CSI �r�r i- /AZ ii-- 2- �Q h, 312? H e.)- o.. p y-, 2 p ct h`L �fia: y,, /34,94.,&) ILI Go e WA- ter- T 1 s Va Ci-N\t:)‘=. 1(�Q /L �Qd sire-I P v‘Kcq C-4- S it _2021/ G R- 5- y f� �r e c CA -i=J L 57 en /03 5 UA- Q Qom, L b� tR y� 2 c_ 5 1 _yiliadleg.e.i gael (Ai r` CL.. ,2.0.1-72 y/! Wro: IA__ 4t+- S r� �R� L l vt- -,1, =j---� "2e 333 ,i, j r `Q'" ,�Qc ec_ rerL t c�5 4 l 77e-eecf. l g ki 1 i4TTAcN 5 County of Santa Clara Office of the Sheriff ou I 55 West Younger Avenue San Jose, California 95110 -1721 (408) 299 -2101 Charles P. Gillingham Sheriff M E M O R A N D U M TO: Lt. Colla FROM: Deputy K. Tarabetz #1588 cropti s 0 SUBJECT: Traffic Survey for Kirkbrook Carol �p, ek DATE: 10/6/98 a As you requested we conducted a traffic survey in the area of Kirkbrook and Carol. Dep Stephens monitored August 4th through the 7th, prior to the opening of school. He chose the early morning hours between 0740 and 0810 hours. No citations were issued during this time frame and the vehicle count was low. DATE: 4 5 6 7 MPH: 20 -25 3 4 1 5 26 -30 13 15 7 11 31 -35 5 4 8 6 36 -40 1 0 0 1 41 -45 0 0 0 0 22 23 16 23 Dep. Stephens then conducted the same survey during the same time frame once school was in session. The dates were September 8 through the 11 between the hours of 0740 and 0810 hours. One citation was issued. The survey found that the traffic was doubled during this time frame with little increase in the higher speeds. DATE: 8 9 10 11 MPH: 20 -25 23 20 16 19 26 -30 19 22 25 23 31 -35 0 0 1 1 36 -40 0 0 1 1 41 -45 1 0 0 0 44 42 43 44 I conducted random checks of the area over several days. I issued 7 citations on September 3rd. The increase of traffic in the afternoon seems to support the need for a marked cross walk, but in addition, there should be speed limit signs posted, as well as, school zone signs. There was bicycle and pedestrian traffic from the school which increases the risk to children from speeding motorists. There is a concern from one neighbor that a stop sign and cross walk would limit his ability to park in front of his residence. Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, James T. Beall, Jr., S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Richard Wittenberg TIME: 1540- 1430- 1700- 1530- 1640 1530 1730 1640 DATE: 8/28 9/3 9/3 9/9 MPH: 20 -25 11 8 6 3 26 -30 30 56 23 24 31 -35 31 55 29 25 36 -40 5 8 5 4 41 -45 0 2 0 0 22 23 16 23 *Note these numbers do not reflect the vehicles that passed while I was issuing a citation. RECOMMENDATION: The afternoon traffic is much heavier than the morning hour traffic. The traffic conditions reflect vehicles that pass on their way to the school then return via the same route. The pedestrian and bicycle traffic coupled with the average speeds by vehicles indicate a need for an increase in signage for the area and the addition of a yellow crosswalk at minimum. A stop sign would assist with slowing the speeds of the vehicles using Kirkbrook. I I I 11 1 Carol Lane Kirkbrook Drive E c c m w I N .33 T. :Wee lid IACTI .11:41.-I:J=4,* ffltERatcutz '2/ (k; :J:10.-itilikdkis 4 ill 1; 7,11:y, =ME= 11:11VIVININD 7.1 7.4 I 7 cra 33 .7.,:,:-..,,,,,, 4.1 v.,-. g ,fr V ---:--"--"--"-----"----"--Zrga:iC\ 0,i. ey P' n cm :11Z"IIV''1.1.1. al :4 IC WNW. SFA 111 11 1 WAY _AF T. if o IMP DeLorme. Sired Atlas USA Y,), 4$, PSc, wke vtitNVt�Trs to/g /0 g TrAGttMtE�vr 1) The PSC approved the concept of the Pride's Crossing Study but felt it was out of sequence with the Circulation Element update; 2) Once the update begins, the "tool kit" would be developed; 3) Data gathering would then commence for Pride's Crossing so that that area would be the prototype under the new criteria. The vote was unanimously approved, with no abstentions. VI. New Business A. Redwood School Traffic Management Saratoga resident, Scott Wheelright indicated that a dangerous situation existed and that a preliminary plan for traffic management had been created to address the primary issue of Fruitvale traffic and the secondary issue of pick up on Allendale. Mr. Wheelright also remarked that enrollments in Saratoga schools would likely increase by 50% in the coming years, highlighting the need for action now. He then introduced Architect Gene Elie to present the proposal. Mr. Elie gave his presentation, suggesting a U -turn at the traffic light and perhaps asking the City to allow turn- around traffic at the parking lot between the Community Center and the Corporation Yard facility (this latter issue was also raised by Mr. Lemmon). He also indicated the proposal would accommodate vans for drop off and pick up, but not buses. Chair Hexamer suggested the creation of a task force with all stakeholders involved to explore options for school drop off and pick up. He also remarked about the possibility of school busing in the future. Mr. Hexamer also said that a progress report would be needed from school parents and area residents. Ms. Ballingall stated that the school district needed to recognize there is a problem and be supportive of working out solutions. She also stated that the key for the future would be an adequate busing design. VII. Old Business A. Carol Lane and Kirkbrook Drive Crosswalk for Blue Hills School Students Mr. and Mrs. Kiehl, residents on Kirkbrook Drive, stated the problem that existed was excessive speed and that the crosswalk would not solve that problem. The proposed crosswalk would take up their parking space and devalue their property. The Kiehls further stated that there were no speed limit signs on Kirkbrook and suggested there should be, including 15 mph signs "when children are present." Other Kirkbrook drive residents (Gary Stevens and Don Gross) remarked that speed limit signs without traffic enforcement would not be effective. They added further that as Kirkbrook was a well- traveled street, in their view a stop sign would be the only solution. Commissioner Edel suggested a stop sign at the intersection, but the Kiehls opposed that measure. He stated that a stop sign was the only way to ensure that motorists would stop 2 at the intersection. Commissioner Ballingall added that the important thing was to let children have a place to cross the street. Reducing traffic speed was also important. The commissioners agreed that a stop sign would not be optimal, as it would increase traffic noise and add pollutants to the environment because of additional emissions. The Commission noted again that the most important issue was to increase the safety of school children crossing the street. A vote was taken by the Commission that recommended a crosswalk at minimum size be installed together with appropriate signage (speed limit and school) and additional law enforcement. The motion passed with Mr. Biester abstaining and all others in favor. In response to the Kiehl's assertion that the decision was hastily made, the Commission pointed out that there were two public hearings on the matter. The Commission further stated that several options had been presented and in their view the least intrusive option was chosen. Further, the decision to install the crosswalk was neither arbitrary nor capricious. VII. Old Business C. Construction Traffic Calming on Williams Avenue Chair Hexamer gave the group an overview of the current situation, namely that a request had been made by area residents to install temporary speed humps on Williams during Blackwell's construction phase. He added that the narrow width of Williams acts as a natural speed calming device and that he felt there was not a speeding problem. Resident George Elliott disagreed saying that there is a speeding problem and it would only worsen when actual construction began. When told that the results of the radar trailer indicated the average speed on Williams was 19 mph, Mr. Elliott maintained that the trailer was put in the wrong place. He further stated that all they were asking for was a temporary fix and that the City would have the option of removing the temporary humps if they posed a problem. Chair Hexamer indicated his concern that the speed humps would be in place for up to three years and that was too long. Further it was not known how much traffic would be generated by the construction. He also was concerned that approving the speed humps would set a precedent and the group was reluctant to do that. Chair Hexamer put forth a seven point proposal that included: 1) temporary reduction of the speed limit to 20 mph on Williams, Walnut and Alta Vista; 2) that Blackwell Properties issue a strongly worded statement to its subs that speeding will not be tolerated; 3) that Blackwell's phone number be available to all area residents; 4) the Sheriff's Office will immediately follow up if license numbers of speeders are given to them; 5) there will be periodic heavy traffic enforcement in the area; 6) "Do Not Block" signs will be erected by Caltrans at the intersections of 3 ATTAct -tmENI r 7 To: Mayor Don Wolfe October 10, 1998 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 From: Robert and Ann Kiehl 12168 Kirkbrook Dr. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Cc: Larry Perlin Subject: Marked crosswalk at Carol Lane and Kirkbrook Dr. Dear Mayor Wolfe, At the Safety Council meeting on October 8, 1998 the council decided to install the subject crosswalk in disagreement with all six of the Kirkbrook Dr. residents present at the meeting. The request for the crosswalk came from one Blue Hills school parent, who contacted the principal, Randy Karel. Ms. Karel was given the impression that many parents requested it. Wrong. (Attachment )A) Ms. Karel did not attend the meeting because she felt it was a neighborhood dispute, implying she was not going to be involved. The only data presented at the meeting was a traffic survey prepared by the Santa Clara County Sheriff. The survey revealed that most all people traveling on Kirkbrook exceed the 25 -mile per hour speed limit. There was no data on how many children actually crossed the street. Everyone at the meeting agreed that the traffic speed on Kirkbrook is excessive and should be reduced, children present or not. The council rejected a stop sign because they say it creates noise and air pollution and most drivers do not come to a complete stop anyway. The council also rejected speed limit signs since most drivers exceed the posted limit. The council seems to think that a marked crosswalk is a speed reducer. What will make the drivers that ignore the stop signs and speed limits, stop at a marked crosswalk? Logic like this makes no sense. It was obvious that the council had no intention of selecting a solution that was agreeable to all residents. They just wanted to close the matter. Since the crosswalk is in front of my house, I am the most concerned. Before the proposed crosswalk is installed, I would like the following: 1. Data that supports the fact that a pedestrian is safer in a marked crosswalk and that a marked crosswalk will cause a speed reduction on Kirkbrook Dr. 2. The ability for me to retain all the parking in front of my house. 3. A statement from the city that the marked crosswalk will not effect the value of my home. Therefore, if the city does install the marked crosswalk and we lose available parking in front of the house, we expect compensation from the city for this loss. (I'm sure there is a legal term for this, if necessary, I will retain a lawyer.) Please consider this letter as an appeal, which we were told, we could do at the meeting. Further, until this matter is settled no marked crosswalk should be installed Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, e Ann and Robert Kiehl prroce! PAerCT' sA A O. R `�T O ice: p „t. dgllfM C auw o2 0 A Co) et, a 13777 FRUITCALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 9;507( (4OS) 5(iti 1'20 FOO R ('OI N('IL MEM1I3E1 Ali. November 2, 1998 1.-- Robert and Ann Kiehl 12168 Kirkbrook Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Robert and Ann: This letter is in response to your October 10 letter to Mayor Wolfe and City Manager Perlin regarding the proposed crosswalk at Carol Lane and Kirkbrook Drive. In your letter you requested the following: 1. Data that supports the fact that a pedestrian is safer in a marked crosswalk and that a marked crosswalk will cause a speed reduction on Kirkbrook Drive. 2. The ability for you to retain all the parking in front of your house. 1 3. A statement from the City that the marked crosswalk will not affect the value of your home. In response to your first request relative to pedestrian safety and speed reduction, you must understand that crosswalks are not speed control devices. Rather, when properly P Y located and marked, crosswalks alert motorists that pedestrians cross the street at these marked locations. This is especially true for school crosswalks, and the applicable traffic warrants are based on this premise. When the City Traffic Engineer investigated this issue, these warrants were used to determine that the proposed location was the best location at which to install the marked crosswalk. The Santa Clara County Sheriff's report recommended, at a minimum, the installation of the crosswalk as well. I Your second request, that you should be able to retain all parking in front of your house, is an understandable concern, but is something which cannot be guaranteed should the crosswalk be installed. Inevitably, such an installation might indeed interfere with the ability to park directly in front of your home. In these circumstances, the City must balance the individual desires of property owners with the broader public safety needs of the Community. Thirdly, the City is in no position to render an opinion about how the value of your home might be affected by the installation of this crosswalk. Instead you may wish to consult Printed or reCycipc paoc' an independent appraiser about this. Please remember that the initial request for a crosswalk was made because of a potentially dangerous situation which exists for school children walking to and from Blue Hills Elementary school. I suppose the elimination of this danger could increase the value of your property. Lastly, you asked that the City consider your letter to be an appeal to the City Council of the decision made by the Public Safety Commission on October 8` While you are entitled to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council, such appeals must conform to the procedures contained in Municipal Code Section 2- 05.030 (attached): All appellants must fill out an Appeal Application (attached). All appellants must pay the applicable fee (see attached excerpt from the City's Fee Schedule), in this instance (an appeal to the City Council without a public hearing), the fee would be $100.00. Per the Municipal Code section referenced above, you have 15 days from receipt of this letter to file your appeal form and fee if you still wish to file an appeal of the decision. Once received by the City Clerk, your appeal will be scheduled for the next available City Council agenda for their review. If you have any questions or need clarification of any information provided, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 868 -1221. Sinc Pete Gonda Administrative Analyst Office of the City Manager cc: Larry I. Perlin, City Manager Erman Dorsey, Assistant Engineer Public Safety Commission A, r`l AC rvtE r 9 Trees Martens 20304 Carol Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 343 -0128 October 14, 1998, Dear Mr. Haxamer and members of the Public Safety Commission of the City of Saratoga As parents of two young children walking to Blue Hills Elementary School from Carol Lane we would like to thank you for your vote to recommend placing a crosswalk, schoolsigns, and speed limit signs at Carol Lane and Kirkbrook Drive. We believe this will have a great impact on the safety of our children and we are looking forward to the implementation of your recommendations. Respectfully yours, Erwin De Bruycker and Trees Martens. 20304 Carol Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 343 -0128 Blue Hills School parents. Mrs. Lisa Tam 20311 Carol Ln. Saratoga, CA 95070 October 26, 1998 Mr. Peter Gonda Public Safety Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Gonda, I would like to thank you and the Commission for the decision to place a crosswalk, and school and speed limit signs at the intersection of Kirkbrook Drive and Carol Lane. I am so pleased that the Commission responded to the dozens of concerned neighbors who signed the petition in support of this proposal. For the past five years I have walked my two daughters to and from Blue Hills, and have experienced first hand the dangers of crossing Kirkbrook Drive at those peak traffic times. Most drivers will not stop to allow children to cross. When children cross at times when no cars are visible, cars turn the corner onto Kirkbrook Drive quickly and approach before children have completed crossing. Drivers often seem so preoccupied, many behave as if they don't even "see" that there are children crossing, and the children must hurry across to avoid the oncoming cars. This is a very frightening experience for young children. Additionally, crossing Kirkbrook Drive on the way home is sometimes difficult because of the visual obstacles posed by the large vehicles parked in the spot where the crosswalk is proposed to be. I strongly feel that the visual cues of street signs and bright white crosswalk lines will alert drivers of the need to be more watchful. It also gives children the "right -of -way" once they have safely entered the crosswalk. My youngest daughter only has one more year at Blue Hills School. However, during my five years in Saratoga, I have been president of the School Site Council, a Saratoga AYSO soccer coach, and a volunteer teacher. I care deeply about the safety and welfare of all of the children of this community, and by your recommendation, I am encouraged that you also do. Thank you for putting our children's safety first. Sincerely, Lisa Tam Charles E. Luchi Krahling 12146 Kirkbrook Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070 Home: (408) 257 -7870, Office: (650) 404 -7208 Fax: (650) 404 -7400, E -mail: cek@microfocus.com October 27, 1998 Mr. Donald Wolfe Mayor City of Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Ref: Proposed Croswalk at Carol Lane Kirkbrook Drive Dear Mayor Wolfe: Our home is situated at the base of Carol Lane on Kirkbrook Drive. We attended the first meeting on this subject and personally spoke of our strong belief that a crosswalk was: Not a solution to the problem of excessive speed on Kirkbrook Drive. Potentially more dangerous than no crosswalk since children could have a false sense of security in a crosswalk (the council refused to consider lowering the speed limit on Kirkbrook Drive, placing stop signs on both sides of Carol Lane, and other non- crosswalk measures). The result of essentially a single parent's proper reaction concerning the safety of her children but overreaction in willing to consider only the crosswalk as a solution. Unfortunately we were unable to attend the second meeting since we were out of town. As a result, we are writing this letter to kindly ask you to consider that a crosswalk will never be a solution to excessive speed. Speed bumps, stop signs and a more thorough policing of the existing speed limit are solutions to this very real problem. Several years ago my wife was quoted in a San Jose Mercury News article by Gary Richards. She said that the State's decision not to erect a barrier on Highway 85 separating on- coming lanes would cost lives. Unfortunately her prediction proved all too true with the very sad irony of a friend and her unborn twins among the victims. We certainly pray that the City of Saratoga will demonstrate more wisdom than the State of California Highway Department and properly address the problem of excessive speed on Kirkbrook Drive. Yours very t truly, Charles Luchi Krahling Ernest A. Brookfield 12226 Kirkbrook Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 21 May 1998 D i i Mr.Larry L Perlin l City Manager, Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Perlin I am writing you on a matter which concerns me on an action that was taken by the city without public notice or notification. On 19 May a work team from Saratroga was starting to drill a hole on the sidewalk in front of my home. When my wife asked what were they doing she was told that they were going to install a sign to identify that a cross walk was ahead. She told the crew that we had no knowledge of this and asked them to stop. The crew lead called his supervisor and found out the "cross walk project" was put on hold and they stopped. Upon future investigation I determine that a resident living on Carol Lane had requested a cross walk at the intersection of Carol Lane and Kirkbrook Drive. Her request was her concern for the safety of her three children crossing from Carol Lane to the sidewalk on Kirkbrook Drive on their way to Blue Hills School. I have been a resident of Saratroga for over 25 years and my child and many of her friends have crossed from and to Carol Lane and Kirkmont Drive without the benefit of a cross walk at any of these intersections. The action by the city to expend limited funds for a cross walk based on one request was a surprise to me. The sidewalk on Kirkbrook Drive is for the safety of children walking to school. There are no sidewalks on any other street in our area, including Carol Lane which would require her children walking in the street to get to Kirkbrook Drive. School cross walks are at DeSanka and Kirkdale the end of Kirkbrook If this parent is concerned for the safety of her children then she should walk with them down her street to the sidewalk on Kirkbrook Drive as other parents have done for years in our area The traffic on Kirkbrook Drive has increased due to the many additional children attending Blue Hills school. Many of these children are from the Seven Springs development and their parents drive them to and from school. I suggest that rather than place a cross walk on Kirkbrook Drive, that a speed limit sign be placed at the start and end of Kirkbrook Drive which reflects that the speed limit is 25 miles per hour, and 15 miles per hour when children are present, similar to other school areas. Also, request the Sheriff's office to patrol the street in the AM and PM hours to enforce the speed limit These suggestions would achieve the same or better results for our children's safety (and adults) in our area and would be less costly than to establish a new cross walk. Your consideration of this request is appreciated by me and other neighbors in the area Sincerely, Ernest A. Brookfield cc: Saratoga Public Safety Commission 04 ATTAc.t- trAe-►� t C� q 0112'W©,0 0° A0g3A CSnose 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 sQLIFOO Rr1� COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw June 17, 1998 Donald L. Wolfe Dear Residents at Carol Lane and Kirkbrook Dr.: At the June 11 Public Safety Commission meeting, the Commission recommended City staff to review alternative traffic solutions to the proposed crosswalk (but not excluding the possibility of one during the review) at Carol Lane and Kirkbrook Dr. The plan for alternative traffic solutions at the above site includes 1) placing the radar trailer in June and again in September for data comparison for traffic volume and speed, 2) placement of Sheriff's patrol and survey request in June and again in September for data comparison, and 3) form a study group which consists of Public Safety Commissioners and the City's Senior Engineering Technician to review site and give recommendations. The Commission has requested that this item be reviewed at the September 10 Public Safety Commission meeting and that residents be invited to further discuss the issue. Further, the Commission requested that recommendations from the September meeting be implemented immediately. If you have any questions, please call me at (408) 868 1200. I hope to see you at the Public Safety Commission meeting in September. Sincerely, it enure Hwang Loft Administrative Analyst/Support to the Public Safety Commission cc: Larry 1. Perlin, City Manager Captain Wilson, Sheriff's Department, Westside Station Erman Dorsey, City Senior Engineering Technician Public Safety Commission inted on recycled paper. SAP IC 17 CD A 0 el et, 22E65 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868-1200 O gg COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw August 14, 1998 Donald L Wolfe Dear Residents: You attended the June 11, 1998 Public Safety Commission meeting regarding the crosswalk proposal at Carol Lane and Kirkbrook Dr. near Blue Hills School. The Commission recommended that we revisit this item after some research in September. The Commission will not be meeting in September. Instead, there will be a meeting on October 8. Your item will be scheduled for the October agenda. Please come to the same place on that date; your item will start sometime after 7:30 p.m. If you have any questions, please contact Peter Gonda at (408) 868- 1221. Sincerely, t t Jem eHwangLo Administrative Analyst cc: Public Safety Commission Printed on recycled paper IQ s' 94- City of Saratoga Council Meeting December 16,1998 Subject: Proposed crosswalk at the intersection of Kirkbrook Drive and Carol Lane. Sequence of events: April 28,1998 a request for the subject crosswalk was made by Randy Karel, principal of Blue Hills school. The request was in response to only one Blue Hills student parent. The request was a proposed solution to a problem that was never stated. The city issued a work order to install the crosswalk without the knowledge of the Kirkbrook residents. Work was halted before it was started. The subject was new business at the Safety Commission meeting on June 11,1998. The one Blue Hills parent presented a petition from 28 neighborhood residents. The Safety Commission rejected the petition because most residents did not have school age children. The commission proposed that engineering study be performed and that the results be evaluated at the next meeting. After the meeting, Randy Karel apologized to Ann, my wife, for writing the letter. She was unaware that the request was from one parent only, and hoped that it would not cause any problems. The subject was old business at the safety commission meeting on October 8, 1998. The only study presented was from Deputy K Tarabetz, Santa Clara County Sherrif. Although the study recommended signage crosswalks and stop signs, the data presented was for only vehicle traffic speed. There was no data as to how many children cross the street. The Commission, at the objection of all the Kirkbrook Drive residents present, voted to install the crosswalk. Objection: The decision was made without a proper engineering study. A review of the to and from school pedestrian traffic by Ann, my wife, revealed that no more than three children cross the street on any given day. An article in the November 27, 1998 Mercury News (attached) clearly states that pedestrians are less safe in mid block crosswalks. There are no other mid block crosswalks in the neighborhood. Some intersections with stop signs are even lacking crosswalks. The proposed crosswalk terminates into a rock garden which would be dangerous to walk on. This would look like a lack of planning on the part of the city. This is my final objection which was originally my first: The proposed crosswalk consumes two of the three existing parking places in front of my residence (sketch attached). My daughter who drives a Ford F250 pickup truck would not be able to park at our house. Also, it would be illegal for me to stop in front of my house with my boat and trailer attached to the car for the purpose of loading and unloading. Proposal: Everyone agrees that the traffic speeds are excessive in our neighborhoods. At a minimum, install speed limit signs (there are none) including "reduced speeds when children are present Perform a study by a traffic safety engineer as was originally proposed by the Safety Commission in June. If the City of Saratoga decides to construct the proposed crosswalk, I expect to be compensated for loss of right of eminent domain. Robert Kiehl 12168 Kirkbrook Dr Saratoga ,CA, 95070 408 253 8598 i SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS FRIDAY NOVEMBER 27, 1998 disappear' Traffic engineers are attempting to change behavior of pedestrians CROSSWALKS d Page Itl: ten encourage pedestrians to drop their guard and step in front of speeding vehicles. 1n- Those conclusions. are bolstered by sobering statistics showing the walker's behavior was the primary cause of death In more than half of the pedestrian fatalities in California in fil ii the past two years San Jose officials estimate that the out of OE a tour times a pedestrian is hit by a car, the pedestrian is primar- ilyto blame: i Saf ety as say pe too 't ev looking up as they barge into the stree often Some don wh en bother do glance sign" is &shin& at the road will take off when the "no walls thinking they can beat oncoming traffic. Or they may be able T raffic e ngineers say pedestrians to cross one or two lanes of traffic, but not see a car in third lane. On top of all that, in one of every eight atalities, the pedes- are in danger between tie -Imes nianis either drunk or under the influence of drugs. BY GARY RICAARDS L- 1 In San Jose, city engineer Zany Moore said an informal Mercury News staff writer tracking poll shows that "75 percent of the time it's a pedestri Moments after nervously darting across six lanes of traffic on 1 an who is at fault They step out assuming the driver wi busy Capitol Avenue, Lucy Martino pointed angrily down to the mop Time and time again I read in (police) reports where a pavement II d says the pedestrian stepped right out in front without 'Why did they cov up t he crosswalk with black looking. What were they thinking?' paint?" asked the San Jose woman, who daily cross- The goal of crosswalk removal is to improve safety by per- ..4,4' wading walkers to stroll a block or two farther to an intersec- es ttie s a t_ San Jose ready and Rose aver a rtol to Lion with a stop sign or traffic light and end those dashes like to try flashing lights reach a bus stop on the Martino made across a congested road. If people still want to In the street to warn west side. `People like Cut across a street without a crosswalk, officials contend drivers. BACK PAGE they'll be more likely to keep their heads up. me would be safer if it San Jose recently removed 35 crosswalks on busy streets was still here." Traffic engineers disagree. They say those Crn ss vvalk lines that posed the most pedestrian risks in the eyes of traffic engi- painted across some busy streets hill pedestrians into a false n "This is a hot button with me," said Ray Williamson, a Sun sense of security. And so more than 1,000 crosswalks Xiave.clis- iyvale city traffic engineer who. is president of the Western appeared in recent years across California. Nearly 150 have been removed in Silicon Valley alone. District of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. "Every- Crosswalk policies began shifting four years ago, after a Cali- body at first blush thinks crosswalks are a good idea. But the forma State University-Chico analysis gave new weight to a se- preponderance of studies and my own observations led me to ries of crosswalk studies dating back as far as 1971, A San Diego report was the first to conclude that crosswalks in the middle of a block or at intersections without Strip 8fttufc'iightsof- A See CROSSWALKS, Back Page -7-1 777t-nr7.1 !174::" .1 1:;g ?T' 41- ..7f Some San 0 se -ii..„ sswalks ..V I 0 W. o n th list it ..b, conclude that removing some crosswalks is best" .;,:!•4- -N: :_f f'; Go out to a street and watch what happens when People Aif 1 i m I A l win walk across a street withoirte crosswalk, he says. They look_ iounvI11141. 1 1r both ways, and they keep looking as they cross. They are ex ITraffiC Offcials Say pedestrians can do more to ensure their Ira, extra carefuL 4.•; 3 -J town safety. Here are a few tips: "Quite franldy," Williamson added, "even if a person keepi Wear bright clothing or, at night, carry a flashlight crossing where a crosswalk Used to be, hell probably be 77 Be careful it intersections that allow "free righf' turns. Mo- much safer because r he knows he has to be more careful and :,11orists often are looking to their left at approaching traffic protect himself from traffic.' t ..*end may not see people standing on the curb to their right. 1 San Jose, Los Angeles, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Fremont i' Be extra cautious on weekends. Most pedestrian deaths are among the cities heeding the San Diego study. Many otli.... i r and injuries999frida. Y and Saturday ers, like Palo Alto, may not scrape off a crossing's white paint.; Don't enter aeresswalkWhen the orange hand sign is but are very hesitant to install new crossings. -,-..:!1/41 '•,,7kallashing:BUt keep walkiri9if the hand begins flashing after Yet Santa 1%.1Onlearecently reversed .lis policY: dedding to :4 rti.Y 13 00! 4- ii;';7`,1,:fif,W0 stop removing danswalks arid install More in theCanStal «,;,•_:;••,'f facing OnccirningtrAtfiCifyou, have to Welk in a street neighboring Los Ang 04:And Sante Cruz han not toYed .•':iF bcYcle lane- its crosswalks after witnessing the anger that engulfed: community Wlien_Oalirean tried to remove a crossing on Wi ls. )::41 •,y714 v''' ..:,...i:... 4 4 't*I ,4 7\ .4 f :...;;1•? 7, 1 'i r sion Street The crossing Wan iater pair' tted back in. r4c; 4'. '1,,...: A r band 'sign will be on and theyjust keep on walking," Scared silly :':44kr.' 1 .4 4',a:l i, 2 5 i'444,•0 4', ;;;,,,i,, ,t,:f. 1 1:- ;0;iii):shesaid.." I hear that Someone Ls hit because I i fear in my heart that they were responsible for their own fate James Corless, director of the Surface TransOortation Poll- to a great extent" r.- s .ii.) cy Project in San Francisco, calls removing crosswalks "a mis- t-, But pedestrians have their beef, too. When Ray Louac tries guided policy based on a flawed study." His group says more crossing januned Saratoga Avenue and rely Boulevard, driv- money needs to be spent on encouraging people to walk and ,I, gra in the turning lane often wait but impatient motorists providing for their safety, like nem:ming busy city streets to :go around the traffic island and often make illegal turns, al- slow down motorists. I most hitting him. "Sure, the San Diego Study concluded that titere were fewer ..,"They use their cars almost as weapons and get mad at me mid-block fatalities after crosswalks were taken out," Corless When rm crossing with the walk signal on," Louac said "I'm said. "Why? Because people are scared silly to cross in the legally in the right, but I could be legally dead." middle of the block Is this where we want to end up dis- couraging people from walking. What is the goal here?" Crosswalk re-evaluation Pedestrian deaths statewide have gradually declined over the past two decades, falling from 993 in 1980 to 782 last year. San Jose will re-evaluate its crosswalk policy next year, Of those, pedestrians were the primary cause of the accident .;comparing data from sites where crosswalks were paved over in 426 cases, according to the California lrighway Patrol. to areas where they remain But many officials firmly feel that In Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda and Santa Cruz .coun- many crosswallo alone aren't safe enough anymore. ties, deaths fell from 99 in 1980 to 76 a year ago. An ....t-.:(:.... "Drivers are much more oblivious to crosswalks," William- Yet injuries threUglieut California have risen slightly from son said adding "How many crosswalks did you drive past on 14,640 in 1980 to 14,988 last year. In Silicon Valley, slightly your way to work today? Where was the second one? The last fewer than 2,000 pedestrians were injured last year 100 one? I more than in p so. -,I i" r-'?:'j.-41-.-• iii.14 irWhere conflicting traffic is not controlled," he said, "pedes- Compared to the significant drop in deaths and injuries in Arians are more safe if they need to cross a street defensively." car wrecks the auto fothlities last year made up the he said, is that pedestrians are almost always lowest rate in decades the number of pedestrian injuries is the laser in a confrontation with a vehide. They need to use 1 alarming to many. •I;t'' ci extreme caution. "I think pedestrians are not as safe anymore," said Palo Alto Ws a lesson Eric Leopold has teamed. Nearly three years officer Lynne Johnson. "Drivers are running red lights and go- ago, the 62-year-old Palo Alto chemist was hit by a car making ing faster. On the other hand, a lot of pedestrians are also in a •a left turn. He broke a hip and leg and injured his knee so bad- hurry, jaywalking and crossing whentraffic has a green light" ly he had to retire. Pedestrians have the right of way when they enter either a Leopold said he did everything right at the time. He was in a marked crosswalk or an intersection with no white lines. crosswalk He had alight to proceed. But the driver kept com- However, they must allow cars enough time to stop. ing. S Drivers like Leslie Farrell of Menlo Park gripe that people "Now when I cross a street, I say my prayers and look three standing on a curb are often "oblivious, just clueless. The ways," Leopold said "And then pray again." v ro 0 co K /RK3ROO K DR U DANE-, O a to Lo 3 Z W CAROL. (u LANE. /5' PROPOSED 121.0 GRosSW K Cn 85/ zY' MA /L$CX DR/ VEWA Sc,9LE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 30'1/T AGENDA ITEM /0. MEETING DATE December 8, 1998 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk DEPT. HEAD SUBJECT: RECRUITMENT FOR LIBRARY COMMISSION, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, AND FINANCE COMMISSION Recommended Motion: For Library Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission, direct staff whether to prepare appointment resolutions or extend recruitment; for Finance Commission, no action required. Report Summary: Library Commission 2 seats (Grantham, Ceppos) The current applicants are Ruth Gipstein and David Bethel, and their applications are attached. (Joy Lu, another applicant, has withdrawn due to other commitments.) Both Gipstein and Bethel were interviewed by the Council and have attended several meetings of the Commission. The Commission has lacked full membership for several months and endorses appointment of both applicants. The Council may direct staff to extend recruitment, but there is no reason to expect we would obtain any more applicants within a reasonable time. The holiday season makes it difficult to recruit in any case. If the Council wishes, it would be appropriate to appoint the two applicants to the two seats. However, if the Council wishes to appoint one applicant and extend recruitment for the other seat, that is an alternative. Parks and Recreation Commission 1 seat (Crotty) The Parks and Recreation Commission applicant is scheduled to be interviewed tonight. Please direct staff whether to continue recruiting or appoint the applicant. Finance Commission 2 seats (Low, Streit) Recruitment has already been extended for this Commission, since no applications were received in response to the initial recruitment. We have now received an application from Ernest Brookfield. No Council action is necessary at this point. Fiscal Impacts: None. Follow Up Actions: Staff will prepare appointment resolutions or extend recruitment, as determined by Council. Attachments: Applications for Library Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission