HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-20-1994 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2,472-
MEETING DATE: JULY 20, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR.:
DEPT. HEAD: WAs j,
uJi
SUBJECT: Recommendation from the Public Safety Commission to
establish a multi -way stop at the intersection of Aspesi
Drive and Metler Court
Recommended Motion (s) Move to adopt the attached Motor Vehicle
Resolution establishing a multi -way stop at the intersection of
Aspesi Drive and Metler Court.
Report Summary: At their June meeting, the Public Safety Commission
voted unanimously to recommend to the Council that a multi -way stop
be created at the intersection of Aspesi Drive and Metler Court.
The particular traffic problem which the multi -way stop is intended
to address is the inability of motorists on Aspesi Dr. to remain
right of the centerline as they drive through the curve at Metler
Ct. The Commission was persuaded to make its recommendation upon
considering the responses to a survey of the residents in the
vicinity of the intersection, and who would be affected by the
installation of the stop signs. A majority of the residents who
responded to the survey believe that the stop signs willw improve
traffic safety on Aspesi Dr. and therefor, should be installed.
Staff's recommendation to the Commission was to defer- action on the
matter until the Commission has the opportunity to discuss
anticipated traffic impacts associated with the opening of Route
85. The Commission will be discussing this issue at their next
three meetings in an effort to formulate an overall recommendation
to the Council of various actions to take and measures to implement
prior to the opening of the new freeway on October 19. Since it is
quite likely that Aspesi Dr. will be one of the streets considered
in these discussions, staff felt that the recommendation on the
multi -way stop should.be folded into the larger recommendation to
ensure consistency and necessity. However, the Commission believes
the traffic safety issue on Aspesi Dr. is unrelated to, and will
not be affected by, either the opening of the freeway or any
actions the City may take prior to then, and that the multi -way
stop should be created now to address this specific traffic safety
concern.
Fiscal Impacts: Approximately $500 in labor and materials to create
the multi -way stop. Funding would come from Program 33, Traffic
Control.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The multi -
way stop would not be approved at this time. The Council may
either adopt the resolution, reject the Commission's
recommendation, table the matter, or refer the matter back to the
Commission with specific direction.
Follow Up Actions: If the resolution is adopted, a work order will
be initiated to install the multi -way stop. The work would take
approximately two weeks to complete.
Attachments: 1. Motor Vehicle Resolution.
2. Staff report to Public Safety Commission dated June
8, 1994, with attachments.
3,. Staff report to Public Safety Commission dated
March 10, 1994 with attachments.
F
4
0
O�
(aT
ZTE(b 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
TO: Public Safety Commission
FROM: Public Works Director
COUNCIL MENLBERS:
SUBJECT: Proposed Stop Signs on Aspesi Dr. at Metler Ct.
DATE: June 8, 1994
Karen Anderson
Ann Marie Burner
Willem Kohler
Victor Moni.a
Karen Tucker
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive further public input, then continue the
matter until the Commission reviews Route 85 traffic impacts and
develops recommendations to address the impacts on a comprehensive
level.
DISCUSSION: This matter was continued from your March meeting.
Since then, staff has performed a survey of 93 residents who would
be impacted by the proposed three -way stop if it is created. A
total of 72 survey responses have been received as of the date of
this memo, 38 of which indicate support for the stop signs and 34
which indicate opposition to the stop signs. Attached are copies
of all of the survey responses which include additional comments,
as well as the survey itself and a follow -up memo sent to all 93
residents advising them of the survey results and your meeting on
Monday evening.
I believe the Commission has three options for making its decision.
They are:
1. Recommend the installation of the stop signs to the City
Council.
2. Do not recommend the installation of the stop signs.
3. Defer action at this time.
My recommendation to the Commission is to defer taking any action
until you discuss -the anticipated traffic impacts associated with
Route 85 later this summer. You may then want to develop your
recommendation within the context of a broader recommendation to
the City Council about various traffic control measures to
implement prior to the opening of the new freeway. Because traffic
patterns on Aspesi Dr. might change after the freeway opens, it may
be advantageous to consider the stop signs at the same time you are
considering other traffic control measures to ensure a well
coordinated plan to deal with the post freeway environment.
�i ntec on e,vciec oaoer
WA,t44 .. a4t--
Larry I.#Peiilin
Attachments: 1. Memo to residents dated June 8.
2. Stop Sign Survey dated May 16 with map.
3. Survey responses with comments.
'0
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
TO: Residents in the Vicinity of Aspesi Drive
FROM: Director of Public Works
COUNCIL MEiVIBERS:
SUBJECT: Proposed Stop Signs on Aspesi Drive at Metler Court
DATE: June 8, 1994
Karen Anderson
Ann Marie Burger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
As of today, I have received 72 response cards from the stop sign
survey out of a total of 93 residences included in the survey.
This represents a response rate in excess of 77% (much better than
the voter turnout for yesterday's election!) and I would like to
thank those of you who took the time to return the response card.
Of the 72 responses, 38 or approximately 52.8% of the total,
indicate support for the proposed three -way stop. The remaining
34, or approximately 47.2 %, indicate opposition to the stop signs.
A number of response cards include additional comments, the most
common of which are:
1. Put the three -way stop at Aspesi and La Paz Way.
2. Close La Paz Way to through traffic.
3. Install speed bumps on Aspesi as an alternative to the stop
signs.
4. Install a raised berm /median along the center of the Aspesi
curve to prevent vehicles from crossing over the
centerline.
5. Increase traffic enforcement on Aspesi.
The matter will next be considered by the City's Public Safety
Commission at their meeting this coming Monday, June 13. The
meeting will be held in the Administrative Conference Room at City
Hall and the item is scheduled on the meeting agenda for 8:00 p.m.
Please feel free to attend the meeting and address the Commission
about this, or call me at 867 -3438, extension 241, if you have any
questions or would like to discuss this further with me.
d��w ;, t
Larry I. Pe i.n
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Marie Burger
Willem Kohler
TO: Residents in the Vicinity of Aspesi Drive VicrorMonia
Karen Tucker
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Proposed Stop Sign on Aspesi Drive at Metier Court
DATE: May 16, 1994
Dear Resident:
The City of Saratoga's Public Safety Commission is evaluating
whether to recommend to the City Council that stop signs be
installed on. Aspesi Drive at Metler Court. The primary purpose of
the stop signs would be to force traffic to stop at the point where
Aspesi Dr. curves in order to reduce the speed of traffic
travelling through the curve. This, in turn, could improve the
safety of Aspesi Dr. by keeping motorists from crossing over the
centerline of the road as they drive through the curve. On the
other hand, stop signs pose an inconvenience to those who must pass
through them to get to and from their homes, and create additional
noise and air pollution near them.
The Public Safety Commission would like to know what you think.
Enclosed with this memo is a pre- stamped, pre- addressed postcard
for you to use to, express your opinions about the proposed stop
signs. Please take a-moment to fill out the survey on the back of
the card and then return it to the City by Friday, June 3. I will
then tally the survey responses and summarize the comments in a
report to the Public Safety Commission which will consider the
matter at their next meeting on Monday, June 13.
You are welcome to attend this meeting and before then, I will
write you again to remind you of the time and location of the
meeting as well as to provide you with the results of the survey.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this, and if you
have any questions, please call me at 867 -3438, extension 241. .
l'044 .
Larry I. Per in
?nn!ee on recyclea paper.
Aspesi ur. stop signs
-owe support the proposed stop signs.
- I /we.do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
esi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
I /we do not support the proposed stop
p
I /we have another idea:
igns
y - I /we support the proposed stop . si ns --�
g one
I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea: L Ht,¢= S,J OTtte�C C�t�dC� TIrR; NSC ,9 ih,•v�
J A L'G-r. CA+P,-,vX, 3 "H t c iO '1' o r socuLo /e.---rP AL4 rv.:i Fro^,
CcanY�
0F T i_ Cz)a D, 1 tt t S 5004 LO Ac--so -51DLj 77-fol,, n
x,_w, r �1 ✓�/ iGtf1
ON T_M( c u t Vc_ ,4yJ O N m c c -nt� r is OAO.5r.L y -17 c Fc> v &j1q a � , ✓l
1d "J 7}tt: Z-Fr'arr bV tlo SP 's � _j 'W T � CLhJ��%' - /,
77
I r! N
</� ,co (Its.
n
wou,_0 cE A Cosy
ca.�r,ca,L Li . oigns
V, - Itwe support the proposed stop signs.
- I. /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I / we have anotber idea:
_ - VVe support the proposed stop signs.
I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I } have ,
ad
�lc,� /�� arc /. Jannoi
13620 �arncn�E
Sapaioga, 95070
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
_ - I /ve support the proposed stop signs.
- I /ve do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
y
l S Co (I
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
- I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
l,U e S ��� o ,�-t- 7� e 2 o p o 5 �d s ro p s 1-OV b 41 '
T
�LiiyK D y e- C o u 6 r .fir �S� esi C!?"_
%d b zf� mss; �-.�7 0 7/7 e, ce .e v 2 — ro �c 4� •� v r 7'0
�u 1'-
7-X -
- - -- - -- - - -- -- ---------- - - - - -- -
Aspes i Dr.. Stop -Signs -- - - _ -- .__ --
q; support the proposed stop signs.
I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
we have another idea: `
I le-11-1
i
�M-
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
I /ree support the proposed stop signs.
I /we do not support the proposed stoF:-
signs.
I /we have another
idea:
i
4)
�uc7`6
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
I /we support the proposed stop signs.
I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
67 � �GvT�vt Gl eases �rcrG k es7�T ,� v
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
- I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
n QcicCc cr -to - � a�hs �o r a� �f lie m�, jpcc. CA 5e UirA
wou-1A Snow 4kz- �i-ctf'c, W,�h 6L4 30Y1 '�cak'Ry
zhG�c�c 4's J- c( aO u -*- ►gorse cis curi,�p�u,�cl nornna.( --bra
1,,,,k -fh,+ � O[ C.�GL ' AuyY k cp GL SkT 31cjh
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
we upport the proposed stop signs. P . P g L�iI-T2tcl uJ � I�we See.
e C—K-,0 SS o v
I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea: GL1 � LLA A, ikv
CL 0
Q 6 it- ko- �a z
-Aspesi Dr. SUP Signs
I /we support the proposed stop signs.
X- 1/We do not support the proposed stop
9ms.
si PP
I /we have ano der idea :
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I/we support the proposed stop signs.,
- I/we do not support the proposed star
signs.
I/we support the proposed stop signs.
I/we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I/we.have another idea:
2signs----
I/we support the-proposed stop signs.
I/we do not su
signs. pport the proposed stop
I/we have another idea:
AA�
Aspesi , D;r,. S FS.igns
- �►�atpport the proposed stop signs.
- X
� not support the proposed stop,,/-,—
3mm. -
I /we have amp idea:
Wa. i O r f r-ccW 9re-N t t C(.i'1 Al ZC �Y-a&f�
f � y
oalte.r os Q.vj__
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
- I /we Q not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs
I /we ft not support the proposed stop
signs.
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs:
I /we have another idea:
I /we support the proposed stop signs.
X - I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea: . As\4- eo I'Crft, �
e in) 01-d V `'yQ c c� C.1 �'�..�. _ .
Q �
/10 b a..a_cCeca
a
Aspesl Dr. Sip Signs
- I've support the proposed stop signs.
'G .do not support the proposed stop
sagas.
I /we have another idea:
�P 8 �+�
Aspesi Dr. Stop
,.. P
S s
- I /we support the proposed stop signs."
f
- I /we do not support the proposed s'top'!
signs.
I /we have another idea:
La
IV
�-at,° �'•`��' �.t' � -_ . , �.� -.ems
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
I /we support the proposed stop signs.
o not support the proposed stop
s s.
I /we
have another
idea:
To S LZVj
CU(Wi
T
�f Y S�tM
To Oo �T
- . �•
O� t, : -
-SUN
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
- I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
LAAA z_ f
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
- I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
�. %� SIBS;; (,.'�)�, 4 �� Try � ads fj"Grc S ��" V/C c.0 �� jiC �s �D►Ptr' S' j le, ����� ....- �;,. �: ,
,2. PCt /!t� eJn• G':/ !) i� ! •'!� ,�C1J1i� Oj -��° /,�Gf� �
7' psOrs/ i� �S /�Ct ?CCU fLlJ /i� Lr'C
vjt/.: Sri iTitif LV"l` a�4W �! / ✓L°/'� /� GQrf
/J sitfj
Aspesi . Dr. Signs
,L'NE:mapport the proposed stop signs.
_ - -I O' not support the proposed stop
s
we
have a idea:
_T-4F a-
ti5pesi Dr. Stop Signs
I /we support the proposed stop signs.
_ - I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
j ZSZS I� � sl
i
L5 mek�-e-v e r
eit c
cr
cu�c
vt cve-rt e
L
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
- I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /w< support the proposed stop signs.
V - I _
/ � do not support the proposed stop
s ice.,, .
I /we have anc Liier idea: �
Icy
jL.0 -D' A[-fl`^ECr LC `a- iL� ]�C �
� o
ti
(0917T @2 §&M&19Q)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Marie Burger
Willem Kohler
TO: Public Safety Commission Willem Kohler
Karen Tucker
FROM: Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Aspesi Drive Speeding Issue
DATE: March 10, 1994
RECOMMENDATION: No additional traffic control devices are
recommended at this time. If a three -way stop is proposed for the
Aspesi Drive /Metler Court intersection, staff recommends that the
property owners identified on the attached map be surveyed first.
DISCUSSION: This matter was continued from your December meeting.
At that time, the Commission received input from Mr. Allen Amstutz,
a Metler Court resident, about a continuing speeding problem on
Aspesi Drive in the vicinity of the curve near Metler Court. Mr.
Amstutz is concerned about motorists who are unable to remain in
their lane of traffic as they drive through the curve at excessive
speeds. The Commission requested staff to evaluate the reported
problem again and develop appropriate recommendations.
This is not the first time that Mr. Amstutz has come before the
Commission to express concerns about this situation. Staff
reviewed the same concern back in 1992 and a copy of staff's prior
report to the Commission is attached. In 1992, the Commission
concurred with Staff's recommendations and the additional striping
and signage was installed.
In January, 1993, there was a property damage accident involving a
vehicle travelling eastbound on Aspesi Drive. A copy of the
accident report is attached. The accident occurred at 5:45 p.m. on
a rainy day and according to the report, the driver of the vehicle
involved in the accident thought he was on Quito Road and did not
expect the curve on Aspesi Dr. nor see the curve because of the
rain. There is no evidence to suggest that the vehicle was being
driven too fast, (in fact the driver was not cited for a speed
violation), so assuming the driver's statements to be true, it is
doubtful that any traffic control device such as a stop sign on
Aspesi Dr. at Metler Ct. would have prevented this type of
accident.
_. ... _.
Mr. Amstutz is requesting the City install a three -way stop at the
Aspesi Dr. /Metler Ct. intersection to slow traffic. Unfortunately,
this is not an appropriate warrant for installing stop signs.
However, if the Commission truly believes a multi -way stop is
warranted, one can probably be justified using other warrant
criteria. Before performing such a warrant study though, staff
would recommend a survey of the surrounding property owners who
would be impacted by the installation of the stop signs. Those
property owners whom staff believes should participate in the
survey are indicated on the attached map.
As for other traffic control measures, staff believes that this
location has ample signage and striping and anything additional
would be redundant and ineffective. And, as a matter of fact,
staff has received several complaints since the signage and
striping were installed in 1992 suggesting that they constitute an
eyesore and are overkill.
Lastly, staff believes that Aspesi Dr. may very well become one of
those streets where traffic patterns could change after the opening
of' Route 85. Consequently, the Commission may want to wait until
after the freeway opens before making any recommendations to make
further changes on Aspesi Dr.
Larry it. P rlin
Attachments: 1. Staff report dated July 6, 1992.
2. Accident Report No. AR93- 026 -5.
3. Map of suggested survey area.
y
July
6, 1992
�o C
M,/-Eu Q) Z&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMO
TO: Public Safety Commission
FROM: Larry I. Perlin, City Engineer
RE: Letter from Gail and Allen Amstutz
requesting a 3 -way stop at Aspesi Drive
and.Metler Court
Recommended Action: Support staff's recommendation to install
additional signage and striping and to request increased
enforcement by the Sheriff's Dept.
Discussion: Engineering staff has evaluated Mr. and Mrs. Amstutz's
request for a 3 -way stop at the intersection of Aspesi Dr. and
Metler Ct.. Since the stated reason for the request is to control
speed on Aspesi Dr. and since there is no history of accidents at
this intersection which would warrant the installation of the stop
signs, staff is not supportive of the request.
Instead, staff believes that there is additional signage and
striping which could be installed in the vicinity of the
intersection and which would be a more proper response to the
reported problems. The proposed signage and striping is
illustrated on the attached drawing and involves edge stripes along
the sides of the road and warning signs to alert motorists to the
curves and the intersection. Additionally, staff believes it would
be appropriate to request increased traffic enforcement on Aspesi
Dr. by the Sheriff's Department, particularly during those times of
the day when students are travelling to and from West Valley
College. .
If the Commission supports staff's recommendations, the proposed
signage and striping could be installed within the next.2 -3 weeks
as no Council action is necessary to install these traffic control
devices.
Attachments:
1. Proposed conditions.
2. Existing conditions.
3. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Amstutz dated 2- 28 -92.
Motion & Vote:
�, .. - - _.U__ [g 2 _
C-4SA BL,gNCA Xw
�N �fW53
5
�RoYas�D
//e o
l -_
D .�
N
1 i4
S,
,E TOLE?: cr.
JCA4 Et
/ 01:/4000
,v -,
TAI
\\ ws3
1
W
t
To Avi fa RAJ.
C.9'SA BL�gNCA L/y
f WS3
D
q
a
,45A &sI
ma
~�- - io
-N 7k,
�✓J3
K �
Ex 1--3 77,/ A./ c
M� t�.�- Cr.
JCAL C:
A5/P E S I
To Atli fo Rt/
Larry Perlin .
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Perlin,
2 -28 -92 MAR 2 1992
CITY OF O&L
-!T':' ENGINEER'S OFFICE
We are residents of Saratoga and are writing this letter to you
in hopes of solving a traffic problem on our street.'
Our house is located on the corner of Metler Court and Aspesi
Drive. It is at this point of Aspesi that there is an "S"
turn, and during commuting hours, cars speed around this corner.
Many cars go so fast around this "S" turn that they are driving
on the opposite side of the street. This is particularly dang-
erous because it is a blind curve, and we have witnessed near
head -on collisions. Our neighbor across the street has had cars
jump the curb and drive across his lawn. Also, it is difficult
to exit Metler Court because of poor visibility.
We have talked to Erman in city engineering twice about this
problem. After the first talk, he had 15 mile per hour signs
installed. Unfortunately, the signs have had no affect. The
second time we called him, he said he would inform traffic
police, and he also suggested we write to you.
We would like to see a three way stop put in at this intersection_.
That way, cars would definately be travelling slower around the
curve, and residents of Metler Court could safely exit the court.
There are several families with young children living near this
intersection and during rush hours, it is dangerous for the -kids
to ride their bikes and play nearby. Can you please help us
solve this problem before someone gets hurt?
Sincerely,
Gail and Allen Amstutz
18733 Metler Court
Saratoga, CA 95070
374 -5589
T _
REPORT- Property Damage Only a4mairoonici9F;ooay(bs)fohmM� dParty(ie,
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
HIT RUN
CITY J DK:IAL dSTRICT
9,f 1 o , L 0.7 A
N 8
- c
COV POTO
14 S !
O OFFICE R
/�J•
COLLISION OC URg _ H _
1 �S
DAY '[E
TIME (,7 1
NCIC _
OfRC, AL Ll
AT NTERSECTIOH W17H
OR: FEETI MILES OF �� C
DAY OF WfEK !l
S M T T F S
TOW AWAY
❑Yfs BLIO
STATE ISOHWAY RELATED
❑YES ❑Np
PA' TY
DNVER's LICENSE NUMBER
STATE
CL / ASS SAFETY
EOUP.
SNAD[
DAMACIED
KETCH
MdCA1
NORTI
i
r
r
f -
I' �
DRIVER
NAME (� MIOD Crj }, C %�J O UY[
_
PEO.
STREET AO E 8 TY /STATEID►
r7 1: T- Q 1 - , , b
,
1K VEM
SEX
U 61RTHDATE - J ^ INSURANC��
CAgIVEn�4 POLICY HUI{[En w Y / `V
)Mr'' C/L+ L /4- G J
BICYCLE
DIR. TRAVEL ON
STREET OR HIGHWAY
SPEED 9 .
OTHER
E Yq
MA� /IIODEIrc Lon . / / GI�
�! //- �GC STATE (vEN.7YPE
-7 `r^
PARTY
PARTY
2
DwvERR''SLICELNSS,ENUMBER
STATE
CLASS SAFETY
SOUP.
SHAOf
DAMAGED
AREA
PARTY
2
DRIVER
NAM •( JIR$T, MIDDLE, LAST 1 � PHONE NUMBER _
PED.
SrT, EET AOD(IESS I STATE / L►
PK VEH
SEX SIRTMDATE
INSURANCE CARRIER POLICY NUM BER
(CYCLE
OIR. TRAVEL
ON STREET OR ISDJ7W AY / f
7L7A //J 1
S ►EE D�MT.
.:�
OTHER
VEH
g.
MAKErYO L COL R
ob it %Arco /�4c�
UC SE UYB(R STATE
9 ' )9.2 C
VEIITYPf
M RI❑O
AGE
SX
NAME r�l� f,A �2 R157 P PARTY N
cl
SEX
/ NE NUYBELR PARTY NO
PROP. [NAME
OWNER
ADDRESS OAMAOED PROPERTY
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
LIST NUMBER (m) OF PARTY AT FAULT
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
2
TYPE OF VE)iCLE
2
MOVEMENT PRECEDING
COLLISION
A
VC SECTION VIOLATED:
22 ?0'7 C •
ACONTROLS FUNCTIONING
A PASSENGER CAR / STATION WAGON
A STOPPED
B CONTROLS NOT FUNCTIONING
B PASSENGER CAR W / TRAILER
B PROCEEDING STRAIGHT
a BOTHER
IMPROPER DRIVING •
CCONTROLS OBSCURED
C MOTORCYCLE / SCOOTER
C RAN OFF ROAD
D NO CONTROLS PRESENT / FACTOR
IF
PICKUP OR PANEL TRUCK
D MAKING RIGHT TURN
C
OTHER THAN DRIVER '
TYPE OF COLLISION
PICKUP r PANEL TRUCK W I TRAILER
E MAKING LEFT TURN
DUNKNOWN'
A HEAD - ON
TRUCK OR TRUCK TRACTOR
F MAKING U TURN
E FELL ASLEEP
B SIDESWIPE
G TRUCK I TRUCK TRACTOR W / TRLR.
G BACKING
REAR END
SCHOOI BUS
H SLOWING / STOPPING
WEATHER ( MARK I TO 2 ITEMS )
D BROADSIDE
I OTHER BUS
l PASSING OTHER VEHICLE
ACLEAR
EMT OBJECT
j EMERGENCY VEHICLE
J CHANGING LANES
BCLOUDY
F OVERTURNED
I
K HIGHWAY CONST. EOUIPMENT
K PARKING MANEUVER
C RAINING
G VEHICLE / PEDESTRIAN
L BICYCLE
L ENTERING TRAFFlC
D SNOWING
I
H OTHER':
M OTHER VEHICLE
MOTHER UNSAFE TURNING
FOG / VISIBILITY FT.
MOTOR VEHICLE INVOLVED WITH
N PEDESTRIAN
N XING INTO OPPOSING LANE
F
OTHER:
I A NON - COLLISION
MOPED
Q PARKED
GWIND
B PEDESTRIAN
MERGING
LIGHTING
C OTHER MOTOR VEHICLE
1
2
OTHER ASSOCIATED FACTOR(S)
( MARK I TO 2 ITEMS)
Q TRAVELING WRONG WAY
A DAYLIGHT
D MOTOR VEHICLE ON OTHER HIGHWAY
R OTHER'
B DUSK - DAWN
E PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE
A VC SECTION VIOLATION:
CDARK- STREETLIGHTS
F TRAIN
DARK - NO STREET LIGHTS
G BICYCLE
B VC SECTION VIOLATION:
E DARK. STREET LIGHTS NOT
FUNCTIONING
H ANIMAL:
�
2
SOBRIETY -DRUG
PHYSICAL
( MARK I TO 2ITEMS)
ROADWAY SURFACE
A DRY
l AXED OBJECT
E VISION OBSCUREMENT : U
A HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING
B HBD -UNDER INFLUENCE
B WET
C SNOWY • ICY
MJ OTHER OBJECT:
C HBD - NOT UNDER INFLUENCE
D SLIPPERY ( MUDDY, OILY, ETC.)
F INATTENTION
HBD•IMPAIRMENT UNKNOWN'
ROADWAY CONDITION(S)
( MARK I TO 21TEMS)
PEDESTRIAN'S ACTION
G STOP 6 GO TRAFFIC
E UNDER DRUG INFLUENCE'
A NO PEDESTRIAN INVOLVED
H ENTERING /LEAVING RAMP
F IMPAIRMENT -PHYSICAL'
A HOLES, DEEP RUTS'
B CROSSING IN CROSSWALK
AT INTERSECTION
( PREVIOUS COLLISION
G IMPAIRMENT NOT KNOWN
B LOOSE MATERIAL ON ROADWAY •
J UNFAMILIAR WITH ROAD
H NOT APPLICABLE
C OBSTRUCTION ON ROADWAY �
CCROSSING IN CROSSWALK -NOT
AT INTERSECTION
K DEFECTIVE VEK EQUIP.
I SLEEPY /FATIGUED
DCONSTRUCTION. REPAIR ZONE
SPECIAL INFORMATION
E REDUCED ROADWAY WIDTH
DCROSSING • NOT IN CROSSWALK
I IL
UNINVOLVED VEHICLE
A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
FFLOODED
EINROAD - INCLUDESSHOULDER
MOTHER':
GOTHER :
F NOT IN ROAD
N NONE APPARENT
H NO UNUSUAL CONDITIONS
G APPROACHING /LEAVING SCHOOL BUS
O RUNAWAY VEHICLE
'
CHP SSS-07 (REV I IAA) OPI 042
3
4,
' ~
rims Im")
wqC NUMBER
o� �c/ s w .
wu- rg- w
—
� . c
DAY
7 L 5-
q3/
`
'• ' •- ' 14.
a
W �- -
.
e___.Pfi
� 4
�% 6
.—
9
z
OIL' L-6-73 T /9,EL _r9PEO
%I 7- ,Gi ET
P A l AWO TffE
vZ,
C/
7 SSO�
9 %lp 1�6tiIE�QJ Uiq 3r,
Loofr�,U�U T Tr�'�' Gvs�v� >oe�t� AT
o. TNT 7"s,.., E 0/� Ti�iE C oG r s I� g-G
ACC.) s r.y tiD 4;o _F Lip( '
4.
,5
ry - 4!i
i
S
A VFy7' -T/t/ 7i4%o=-
,
7-
7.
w
e___.Pfi
iti o� !//
� 4
tlp T .yE
9
Q F
v /
�vi'i
l/F Gn/
22.
pF �9,� D.TI>
,IiG i s« Tf/E 1325
C961s,e
23.
ct Ty c 1�",ci�
'l aT 6FEti
2d
F.yt
a 7Z,
,.o. Furuw yo, DAY Yw, w. v,a w.w'•pw y.,
�� -y3 4
!Ee4Ff 7-
MO, OAY Y.,
Tz
y�aP 1 :F'Q2
:b ` e of =� r6 � � ii ��: :. .� . ! •
r� •r�
i✓
Ps
4"k
..............................
..........
i✓
Ps
4"k
`,
,F;
;; .•r
\�.
� `�.�-
j • �' i i .r1 `Y�w� •� ), yam. y. .'. t1 .�- �% .� ' �
• - . jam'• �Itr� � • •"4� t,''• -s•• _ .1..�. •awl l % n. :• �� .
\,t./•AC��4 , •�. It ��' � •tic .�:. �� , �� _•` �. �: 'jii � :: „�,�' _ � �• i
- • r•�i.; �Lv ;�`. yT t� A �{� ,-.y .�'•i. 11 ��"� N r � � 1'.: +�yF�i'{� `' �.�stv ^,�i•' j .
N y
, + +� YF�v �J � �. � q t �3. 'r, •,; f`. •� �!�4�± � l `�t �. �•-• Via•:, 1.:�1:: .. 4 i �•'•
d
y •".'t. 1iY %!rrfiuF iA''. l".- 59'°^ftd3
r -? ••,
+•,�MC.,•,�.,..y..,,._'..... ,. _'SAP' � `: :�;` - 'A•.Wm�wnri,'y �i. i� �
_Y r. � Ar!ti: � ��.'�"r• # ���`�7*. -' ..}`' ' c i._ �p's9: -r4.�' y?i. �••y.•`t'- ��Sa.�. �
-k =
\
k
1 OJ
�� - ii�•X� -� s• ?; �yy ..i Vii' "' � A";:.t=p4�'i•'
frr k h
�'P'? •yam- �l. �� � pp i i
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE:-JULY 20, 1994 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD
SUBJECT: Extension of Lease.Agreement with Friends of the Saratoga
Library for Patterson Memorial Library Building.
Recommended Motion(s): Move to approve the attached amendment to
the existing lease agreement and authorize its execution by the
City Manager.
Report Summary: The City leases the Patterson Memorial Library
building located at 14410 Oak Street to the Friends of the Saratoga
Library for $1 per year. In return, the Friends operate the Book -
Go -Round used book store which generates tens of thousands of
dollars each year to benefit the Saratoga Library. The existing
lease expires on July 31 and it is proposed to extend the lease for
another three years to July 31, 1997. Attached is the proposed
amendment to the lease which the City Attorney's office has
prepared. The existing lease with all its terms and conditions is
on file with the City Clerk should you wish to review it.
Fiscal Impacts: Aside from the $3 in lease revenue the City will
receive over the next three years, the Friends will probably donate
somewhere between $35,000 and $50,000 to the Saratoga Library
during this period.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The lease
amendment will not be approved and the existing lease may expire on
July 31 unless the Council approves a different lease amendment
which is also approved by the Friends.
Follow Up Actions: The lease amendment will be signed by the City
Manager and the Chairperson of the Friends.
Attachments: 1. Proposed lease amendment.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ��i�V AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 7 2 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Project - CDBG
Recommended_Motion(s
1. Approve the affordable housing project proposed by Community
Housing Developers.
Report Summary:
Community Housing Developers has requested a loan in the amount of
$350,000 from the city to finance the acquisition of two properties
that would provide affordable housing to five very -low income
seniors.
Staff is proposing that the Community Development Block Grant funds
be used as the source of the loan. Currently the city has
approximately $350,000 in unobligated CDBG dollars. The city has
been under pressure from the county to commit these funds to an
affordable housing project by June 30, 1994 or run the risk of
losing the funds.
Community Housing Developers currently owns rental properties in
the City of Cupertino and the Town of Los Gatos with a similar set-
up as that proposed for the City of Saratoga. Both of the proposed
sites are located in the Saratoga -Park development, which is a
senior's project located off of Saratoga Avenue.
Fiscal Impacts!
Unobligated CDBG funds would be used as the source of the loan and
would not require the use of general funds.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
If the project is not approved the city's unobligated CDBG funds
will not roll over to next year's account and the monies will be
committed to other projects within the urban county.
Follow.Up Actions:
Implement the proposed project
Attachments:
Proposal from Community Housing Developers
COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPERS
255 NORTH MARKET STREET • SUITE 290 • SAN JOSE • CA • 95110
408 279-7676 FAX 408 292 -1231
InterOffice Memo
To: Irene Jacobs
From: Nancy M. Hendee
Date: July 13, 1994
Subject: Scenario For Existing Housing Made Affordable
Program Summary
Community Housing Developers.-Inc. (CHD) is interested in purchasing housing in
Saratoga to provide affordable rental housing on a shared basis for up to ten seniors.
CHD would use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds as partial financing
to assist in making the units affordable.
Existing Housing Made Affordable Scenario
CHD is a non -profit corporation organized for the purpose of developing affordable
- housing, primarily in Santa Clara County. In the past, CHD has developed new housing in
several cities, and has_acquired housing for affordable rental, including the cities of..
Cupertino, Los Gatos, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Campbell, Milpitas and San Jose.
In Cupertino and Los Gatos, CHD owns a number of rental properties which it manages
on -a shared basis for seniors. These programs are similar to what is suggested -for
Saratoga.
CHD has - identified specific properties -which meet criteria for CHD's purposes to ensure
good management.. The City of Saratoga should review those criteria and may wish to
make suggestions. These criteria include location near public transportation and services,
common area management, unit accessibility, location relative to other units and unit size
and configuration. —
These properties have been analyzed for financial feasibility as shown in this memo and a
full presentation prepared, including CHD's recommended purchase price, rental income
potential and management costs.
CHD will make a purchase offer, conditioned upon appraisal, property inspection and
- ability to.. obtain financing. When agreement has been reached with the seller, application
will be made to the city as well' as a conventional lender for financing. The conventional
loan will be arranged through lenders CHD works with regularly.
The city financing would be in the form of a second mortgage using CDBG funds, secured
by a deed of trust. The deed of trust would include restrictions to protect future
affordability of the units, by imposing rent limitations on CHD for - management purposes,
Scenario For Existing Housing Made Affordable
07/13/941'age 2
as well as restrictions on CIID for future sale of the property, in order to eliminate any
windfall profit. The second mortgage would be structured in a way that will allow
affordable rents. Generally, when the acquisition price is market rate, these mortgages are
interest free and due on sale. Occasionally, CHD has been able to purchase properties
below market. In these cases, the loans may include amortization when rental income
Permits.
Previous approval for the terms of such loans is generally obtained from City Council, so
that when the seller approves the terms of the purchase the sale can proceed in timely
manner, without need to return for further approval from City Council.
Afl;er purchase, CHD will assume all responsibility for management of the units, and will
have sole financial responsibility for the mortgages. CHD has a property management
division which markets units, screens tenants for credit and landlord references. CHD
performs periodic property inspections for housekeeping and maintenance and has
maintenance personnel on staff'
CHD has identified several potential properties for acquisition, two of which appear to
meet the criteria. These properties are both in the Saratoga Park development, which is a
a senior's project, restricted to residents over 55 years of age. Purchase of these two .
properties would provide housing for 5 seniors. The development is just off Saratoga
Avenue, with bus transportation- immediately across the street. It is near Westgate
Shopping Center.
The financial projections which follow are based on each senior paying $425 per month
rent, with one occupant per bedroom. With a median income currently at $62,900 fora
family of four, this rent level puts the rents affordable for a single person well below the
very low income level of $27,950, although it is higher than what would be affordable to a
senior who had only SSI income.
The projections include fees for each property related to inspections, closing costs and
other administrative costs. These are shown as "Consultant Fees" on the financial
analysis.
The following properties were analyzed:
18972 Sara Park Circle 2 BR 2.5 BA 1,204 sf_
18929 Sara Park Circle 3 BR 2.5 BA 1,680 sf
The total amount of CDBG funds necessary to assist these acquisitions, using these
assumptions is approximately $350,000.
COtI%IUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPERS.. INC.
07/ 13194
PROJECT SUMMARY:
NA
18972 Sara Park
=
PROJECT DATA
IIII
10,200 IIII
-------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- -
UNIT TYPE UNITS
Saratoga
NA
2Br. -2Ba
- - - - -- - - - -- - -- --
VLI 0
--- --- - - - - -- IIII
Ll 0
------------------------------- - - - - --
USE OF FUNDS:
------------------------ .- -- - - - - --
-------------------------
-------- - - - - --
IIII
i I I I
FINANCING
----- - - - - --
IIII
L2 2
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
$233,000
(III
1111
583 1111
Mlsc.
CONSULTANT FEES
10,000
Jill.
450 1111
INDIRECT COSTS
0
1111
REHABILITATION
0
IIII
ANNUAL
MONYI-I Y
DEVELOPER FEE
0
IIII
DEBT
DEBT
FINANCE COST
4,101
IIII AMOUNT
RATE YRS
SERVICE
SERVICE .
-------------
I111 CONVENTIONAL 51,260
8.25% 30
4,661
388
TOTAL COST
5247,101
IIII CITY 195,841
0.000/0 30
0
0
IIII 0
0
IIII 0
0.000/0
THIS INFORMATION IS SUBJECT
IIII -------- - - - - --
IIII 6247,101
--- - - - - --
54,661
-- ------- -
5388
TO CHANGE
PROFORMA:
INCOME:
RENT & OTHER (GPI)
VACANCY & BAD DEBT
MANAGER'S UNIT
EFFECTIVE GROSS
EXPENSES:
PROP. MGMT.
PROPERTY TAX
UTILITIES
INSURANCE
MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
OPERATING EXPENSES
OPERATING INCOME
LESS RESERVES
LESS DEBT SERVICE
NET INCOME (LOSS)
RENT MONTH ANNUAL
NA
NA
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
=
PROJECT DATA
IIII
10,200 IIII
-------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- -
UNIT TYPE UNITS
5.0% 510 IIII
NA
N/A {III
VLI 0
--- --- - - - - -- IIII
Ll 0
$9,690 1 {11
L1 0
IIII
VL2 0
IIII
L2 2
IIII
TM2 0
IIII
500 IIII
583 1111
Mlsc.
450 1111
2,500 IIII
450 1111
50 IIII
IIII
----- - - - - -- IIII
RENT MONTH ANNUAL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
42
850
10,200
4,533 IIII NOTE:TENANT PAYS GAS & ELECTRIC
IIII VL: VERY LOW INCOME
5,157 111{ LOW: LOW INCOME
5.00% 510 IIII
4,661 IIII
------- - - - - -- IIII
(14) 1111
10,200
610,200
COMMUivITY HOUSING DEVELOPERS, INC.
07:13/94
PROJECT SUMMARY:
18929 Sara Park
Saratoga
3Br. -2.5Ba
-- - - -- -------------------------------
---- - --------------------------------------
-- - - - - --
------------ -- ------ -- ---------- - -- ---
USE OF FUNDS:
---------------------------- - - - - --
-- --------------------
------- - - - - --
jilt
!!!!
FINANCING
----- - - - - --
r
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
$235,000
till
CONSULTANT FEES
10,000
!I'?
INDIRECT COSTS
0
REHABILITATION
0
j!jj
ANNUAL
MO' -N=Y
DEVELOPER FEE
0
ijJj
DEBT
DEBT
FINANCE COST
7,708
Iijj
AIvIOLNT
RATE
YRS
SERXTCE
SERVICE
------- - - - - --
jJJJ CONVENTIONAL
96,350
8.25%
30
8;761
-30
TOTAL COST
$252,708
111i CITY
156,358
0.000/0
30
0
0
0
0
!11
0
0.000/0
THIS INFORMATION IS SUBJECT
IJIj
x252,708
SUM
5730
TO CHANGE
IJIJ
PROFORMA:
Ilf
Jl�
Jill
-------------------------- - - - - --
INCOME: .
; jjj
PROJECT DATA
RENT & OTHER (GPI)
15,300 IJIJ
UNUT TYPE
UNITS RENT
MONTH
ANNUAL
VACANCY & BAD DEBT
5.0%
765 Hll
MANAGER'S UNIT
N/A jjjj
VL1
0
NA
NA
NA
------ - - - - -- IjJI
Ll
0
NA
NA
NA
EFFECTIVE GROSS
514,535 jjjj
Ll
0
NA
NA
NA
VL2
0
NA
NA
NA
IJJI
L2.
3
425
1,215
15,300
EXPENSES:
.III
M2
0
0
0
0
--------------------------- - - - - --
PROP. MGATT.
500 Jill
15,300
PROPERTY TAX
583 jjjj
misc.
0
0
UTILITIES
717 ;l;l
INSURANCE
2,500 I; j;
S 15,300
MAINTENANCE
524 JIJI
MISCELLANEOUS
75 III
JjJI
OPERATING EXTENSES
---- --------- !ill
4,899 Jill
NOTE:T R ANT PAYS GAS & ELECTRIC
Jill
VL: VERY LOW INCOME
OPERATING rNCOME
9,636 IJJJ
LOW: LOW INCOME
LESS RESERVES
5.00%
765- jijj
LESS DEBT SERVICE
8,761 ;j';•j
NET INCOME (LOSS) 1'10
'Pi
qj
lz ;g eel+
,r- a
r M
1
a
'no
—Z DIY g �L A8 686L ® "1H91kJAdO:)
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z 4 t I
MEETING DATE: JULY 20, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM 4a 3
CITY MGR.
DEPT. HEAD: ,
SUBJECT: Final Acceptance of Public Improvements for SD 90 -011.1 -
14800 Sobey Rd., Owner: Houston
Recommended Motion(s): Move to grant final acceptance of the public
improvements and authorize staff to release the
maintenance /warranty security for the improvements.
=Report Summary: All of the public improvements required of the
developer of SD 90 -011.1 (14800 Sobey Road) have been
satisfactorily maintained since Construction Acceptance was granted
on July 20, 1993. Consequently, it is appropriate for the Council
to grant final acceptance of the improvements at this time and
authorize release of the owner's warranty/ maintenance security
posted with the City.
Fiscal Impacts: Little, if any at all. The improvements consist of
incremental widening of Sobey Road along the frontage of the
property and do not add any additional street mileage to the City's
street maintenance system.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The public
improvements would not receive final acceptance and the
warranty /maintenance security would not be released. Staff would
inform the owner of any further work required by the Council before
the improvements could receive final acceptance.'
Follow Up Actions: The warranty /maintenance security will be
released to the owner.
Attachments: 1. Memo granting Construction Acceptance.
Sal � ��13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
V" COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Marie Burger
TO: Harry R. Peacock, City Manager Date: July 20, 19931011emKonier
Victor Monia
FROM: Larry I. Perlin, Public Works Director Karen Tucker
RE: Construction Acceptance for SD 90 -011.1
Name & Location: Houston - 14800 Sobey Road
All public improvements required as part of the above referenced
project have been satisfactorily completed. Consequently, I am
prepared to grant construction acceptance of the improvements at
this time and begin the one year warranty /maintenance period.
Please indicate your concurrence with this by signing below in the
space provided. Also, please sign the Release of Security on the
attached Security Deposit form(s) so that the appropriate portion
of the improvement security posted for this work may be released to
the owner /developer. Upon signing, please return all forms to me
for processing.
The following information is provided for your use:
1. Owner /Developer: Jerry Houston
Address: 155 N. Santa Cruz Ave., #A
Los Gatos, CA 95030
2. Security to be Released:
Type: Certificate of Deposit
Amount: $35,000
Issuing Company: Saratoga National Bank
Bond, Certificate or Account No. 2017
Printed on recvcted pager
3. Warranty /Maintenance Security to Remain in Effect:
Type: Cash Bond
Amount: $3,500
Issuing Company: N/A
Bond, Certificate or Account No. (Receipt No. 27269)
4. Remarks:
4 , - 7- 70 -53A.,e
Public orks Director Date City )tanager D to
Pnnieu on Pcxiec o per
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-4�C) AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE: JULY 20, 1994 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD
SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1;
Follow -up from July 6 Public Meeting
Recommended Motion(s): None. No Council action is required.
Report Summary: At the close of the Public Meeting held on July 6
to consider the proposed increases in the LLA -1. assessments for FY
94 -95, the Council requested certain additional information of
staff for further consideration. The information requested is the
following:
1. Location of streetlights in Zone 7 (Village Residential Lighting
District) - See attached map. As best as I can ascertain, there
are 47 streetlights within the boundaries of Zone 7.
2. Separate the maintenance costs for Zones 2 and 9 - Attachment 2
shows what the assessments would be if the maintenance costs for
Zones 2 and 9 are separated. Attachment 3 shows what the
assessments would be if the property owners in Zone 2 paid their
entire accumulated deficit in one year.
3. Reduce the repair costs from 25% to 15% of maintenance costs -
Attachment 4 shows what the assessments for all of the Zones would
be if the allowance for repairs is reduced from 25% to 15% of the
maintenance costs. (Note that in Attachment 4, the maintenance
costs for Zones 2 and 9 are separated, and the entire Zone 2
deficit is paid in one year.)
4. Contract maintenance cost for Zone 16 (Beauchamps Landscaping
District) - Staff met with the maintenance contractor for Zone 16
to determine whether it is possible to reduce the monthly landscape
maintenance costs for the Beauchamps Landscaping District. Not
only is the contractor unwilling to reduce the monthly charge, but
he actually believes an increase in his monthly compensation is in
order.
For $110 per month, the contractor provides the following services
for Zone 16:
- Weekly mowing during the growing season (approximately 10
months per year) of 900 square feet of turf area
- Fertilizing of the.turf area every.8 weeks
- Maintenance and operation of the irrigation system,
including periodic adjustment .of all spray heads, and
reprogramming of the controller at different times during
the year to control water use
- Regular ongoing pest control for weeds and insects
- Maintenance of the flagstone entry wall as needed including
replacement of individual flagstones which regularly fall
off of the wall
- Maintenance (pruning, feeding, etc.) of 11 trees
- Maintenance of 450 square feet of shrub area
- Semi - annual planting of annual flowers
Additionally, the contractor must pay prevailing wages, maintain
adequate insurance including workman's compensation, and maintain
a City business license. When compared to the landscape
maintenance costs in the other Zones, the $110 monthly charge for
Zone 16 does not seem out of line. Therefor, I do not recommend
rebidding the contract at this time particularly since the current
contract will expire at the end of this year and is scheduled to be
rebid along with the contracts in many of the other Zones next
spring. Unless the Beauchamps Homeowners Association is willing to
assume responsibility for this work, I recommend that the current
contract remain in effect until a new contract is in place
beginning in FY 95 -96.
5. Citywide LLA District - There are a number of significant policy
issues which the Council would need to address before proceeding
with a Citywide District and which are beyond the context of the
current discussions. This issue has been considered by previous
City Councils and most recently at the Policy Development
Conference in 1993. The background report dated March 2, 1993,
which deals with the creation of a Citywide District and some of
the related issues, is attached to this report. The Council may
want to table discussion of this issue until the next Policy
Development Conference in 1995.
Fiscal Impacts: Depends on any decisions the Council may make.
Regardless, there are no direct fiscal impacts on the City from the
LLA District. All of the costs associated with the District are
recovered from the annual assessments.
Advertising Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional for
this meeting. All of the property owners whose assessments are
proposed to be increased have received the required notice of the
August 3 Protest Hearing.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: N /A.
Follow Up Actions: The proposed assessment schedule will be
adjusted for the August 3 Protest Hearing depending on whatever
decisions the Council may make.
Attachments: 1. Map of streetlight locations in Zone 7.
2. Assessments for separate Zones 2 and 9.
3. Assessments for separate Zones 2 and 9, with Zone
2 deficit retired in one year.
4. Assessments with 15% repair allowance.
5. Proposed assessments per Engineer's Report.
6. History of LLA assessments through FY 92 -93.
7. Background Report on Citywide LLA District dated
March 2, 1993.
8. Letter from Saratoga Creek HOA President dated
July 11, 1994.
$ -cSFr �-`.� - •• � •\r�l� ..,. _ .._ _ +1: R1-. -e ,�.___ _ 'Y.:_.+: -swa <A v.r _ -'�-° .,y .e�.�
/ PIS 1,
C� �t EKt y-
I r- GERALD
ZAPPELLI \ ~
CT
NY
� QT
ly
� m I
\ ,
ESTERLEE
CL
IT
1 JACK •� j ^\7• `•, _ -.�\/
O
) - y N 0
J � T1111 -
_�
,vim -% rt
`a\ T
CITY OF SARATOGA - LLA -1 FY 94 -95
ZONE 2
# OF PARCELS 85
FACTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
WAGES & BENEFITS
ATTORNEY
ASSESS. ENGRG.
ADVTSG.
MISC.
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD
TOTAL
MAINTENANCE COSTS
WAGES & BENEFITS
CONTR. MAINT.
CONTR. REPAIRS
IRRIGATION WATER
ELECTRIC POWER
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD
TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION
SUB -TOTAL
RESERVE ALLOWANCE
TOTAL COST
PRIOR YR. CARRYOVER
EST. PROP. TAX
0.0236
ZONE 9
. 48
0.0133
$544.57
$307.52
11.80
6.66
133.33
75.29
11.80
6.66
4.72
2.67
51.54
29.10
99.11
55.97
$856.87 . $483.88
3,180.00 3,900.00
795.00
975.00
150.00
2,150.00
50.00
195.00
546.09
944.38
$4,721.09
$8,164.38
.$565.00
$5,577.96
$9,213.26
$5,577.96 $9,213.26
($5,146.44) ($10,411.04)
$220.00
NET COST
C'OVER NOT RECOVERED
COVER TO FY 95 -96
NET TO ASSESS
CALCULATED ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
C: \WK\LLA19495
$10,504.40
($3,859.83)
$6,644.57
$78.17
$130.80
$19,624.30
($7,808.28)
$11,816.02
$246.17
$169.92
1
1
AirrAcomiiar Z
CITY OF SARATOGA - LLA -1 FY 94 -95
# OF PARCELS
FACTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
WAGES & BENEFITS
ATTORNEY
ASSESS. ENGRG.
ADVTSG.
MISC.
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD
TOTAL
MAINTENANCE COSTS
WAGES & BENEFITS
CONTR. MAINT.
CONTR. REPAIRS
IRRIGATION WATER
ELECTRIC POWER
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD
TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION
SUB -TOTAL
RESERVE ALLOWANCE
TOTAL COST
PRIOR YR. CARRYOVER
EST. PROP. TAX
NET COST
C'OVER NOT RECOVERED
COVER TO FY 95 -96
NET TO ASSESS
CALCULATED ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
C: \WK\LLA19495
ZONE 2 ZONE 9
85 48
0.0236 0.0133
$544.57
$307.52
11.80
6.66
133.33
75.29
11.80
6.66
4.72
2.67
51.54
29.10
99.11
55.97
$856.87 $483.88
3,180.00 3,900.00
795.00
975.00
150.00
2,150:00
50.00
195.00
546.09
944.38
$4,721.09
$8,164.38
$565.00
$5,577.96
$9,213.26
$5,577.96
$9,213.26
($5,146.44)
($10,411.04)
$220.00
$169.92
$10,504.40
$19,624.30
$0.00
($7,808.28)
$10,504.40
$11,816.02
$123.58
$246.17
$130.80
$169.92
A TTACN MEAJlr 3
CITY OF SARATOGA - LLA -1 FY 94 -95
ZONE
# OF PARCELS 29
FACTOR 0.0081
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
WAGES & BENEFITS
ATTORNEY
ASSESS. ENGRG.
ADVTSG.
MISC.
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD
TOTAL
MAINTENANCE COSTS
WAGES & BENEFITS
CONTR. MAINT.
CONTR. REPAIRS
IRRIGATION WATER
ELECTRIC POWER
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD
TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION
SUB -TOTAL
RESERVE ALLOWANCE
TOTAL COST
PRIOR YR. CARRYOVER
EST. PROP. TAX
NET COST
COVER NOT RECOVERED
COVER TO FY 95 -96
NET TO ASSESS
CALCULATED ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
C: \W K\LLA19495
ZONE2 ZONE ZONE4 ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE 10 ZONE 11
85 167 697 107 64 765 48 9 250
0.0236 0.0464 0.1935 0.0297 0.0178 0.2124 0.0133 0.0025 0.0694
$185.79
$544.57
$1,069.92
$4,465.48
$685.52
$410.03
$4,901.14
$307.52
$57.66
$1,601.68
4.03
11.80
23.18
96.75
14.85
8.88
106.19
6.66
1.25
34.70
45.49
133.33
261.95
1,093.30
167.84
100.39
1,199.96
75.29
14.12
392.14
4.03
11.80
23.18
96.75
14.85
8.88
106.19
6.66
1.25
34.70
1.61
4.72
9.27
38.70
5.94
3.55
42.48
2.67
0.50
13.88
17.58
51.54
101.26
422.61
64.88
38.81
463.84
29.10
5.46
151.58
33.82
99.11
194.73
812.74
124.77
74.63
892.03
55.97
-
10.49
291.51
---------------
$292.34
$856.87
- - - - --
$1,683.50
- - - - - --
$7,026.33
- - - - - -- -
$1,078.65
- - - - --
$645.17
- - - - - -- -
$7,711.83
- - - -- -
$483.88
- - - - --
$90.73
- - - - - --
$2,520.21
2,040.00
3,180.00
2,340.00
3,900.00
1,066.50
1,260.00
305.00
475.00
350.00
585.00
160.00
190.00
250.00
150.00
250.00
2,150.00
337.50
450.00
50.00
13,000.00
6,500.00
1,500.00
3,000.00
195.00
45.00
339.43
504.23
384.55
1,700.40
850.20
196.20
392.40
893.36
224.40
248.52
- - - - - --
$2,934.43
----------
$4,359.23
- - - - --
$3,324.55
- - - - - --
$14,700.40
- - - - - --
$7,350.20
- - - - - -- -
$1,696.20
- - - - --
$3,392.40
--- - - - - --
$7,723.36
--- - - - - --
$1,833.40
- - - - - --
$2,148.52
$565.00
$127.12
$3,226.77
$5,216.10
$5,008.05
$21,726.73
$8,428.85
$2,341.37
$11,104.23
$8,772.24
$2,051.25
$4,668.73
$3,226.77
$5,216.10
$5,008.05
$21,726.73
$8,428.85
$2,341.37
$11,104.23
$8,772.24
$2,051.25
$4,668.73
($699.67)
($5,146.44)
($3,165.06)
$53,986.69
$24,856.52
$715.32
$2,772.20
($10,411.04)
($7,783.94)
($351.54)
$1,150.00
$220.00
$1,580.00
$12,250.00
$4,950.00
$2,776.44
$10,142.54
$6,593.11
($44,509.96)
($21,377.67)
$1,626.05
$8,332.03
$19,183.28
$9,835.19
$5,020.27
($524.75)
$0.00
($2,373.80)
($7,808.28)
($5,837.96)
($263.66)
$44,509.96
$21,377.67
$2,251.69
$10,142.54
$4,219.31
$0.00
($0.00)
$1,626.05
$8,332.03
$11,375.00
$3,997.23
$4,756.61
$77.64
$119.32
$25.27
$0.00
($0.00)
$25.41
$10.89
$236.98
$444.14
$19.03
$85.62
$130.80
$26.86
$0.00
$0.00
$25.40
$10.88
$169.92
$456.00
$19.60
T C
SIT A HMfI�T
�
CITY OF SARATOGA - LLA -1
FY 94 -95
$4,851.70
$2,71427
$5,581.56
$2,506.54
$23,857.69
$107,860.16
$227,104.47
$238.30
($3,058.13)
($14,365.28)
ZONE 12
ZONE 13
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 16
ZONE 17
ZONE 18
ZONE22
ZONE24
TOTAL
# OF PARCELS
9
36
20
41
55
200
11
891
118
3602
FACTOR
0.0025
0.0100
0.0056
0.0114
0.0153
0.0555
0.0031
0.2474
0.0328
1.0000
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
$3.12
$50,409.87
$116,300.62
$124.61
WAGES & BENEFITS
$57.66
$230.64
$12813
$262.68
$352.37
$1,281.34
$70.47
$5,708.39
$755.99
$23,077.00
ATTORNEY
1.25
5.00
2.78
5.69
7.63
27.76
1.53
123.68
16.38
500.00
ASSESS. ENGRG.
14.12
56.47
31.37
64.31
86.27
313.71
17.25
1,397.60
185.09
5,650.00
ADVTSG.
1.25
5.00
2.78
5.69
7.63
27.76
1.53
123.68
16.38
500.00
MISC.
0.50
2.00
1.11
2.28
3.05
11.10
0.61
49.47
6.55
200.00
INDIRECT COSTS
5.46
21.83
12.13
24.86
33.35
121.27
6.67
540.24
71.55
2,184.00
OVERHEAD
10.49
41.98
23.32
47.81
64.13
-
233.21
12.83
- -
1,038.95
- - - - - - -
137.59
- - - - - - -
4,200.12
- -- - - - - --
TOTAL
- - - - - - -
$90.73
- - - - - - -
$362.91
- - - - - - -
$201.62
- - - - - - -
$413.31
- - - - - -
$554.45
- - - - - - -
$2,016.16
- - - - -
$110.89
$8,982.01
$1,189.54
$36,311.12
MAINTENANCE COSTS
WAGES & BENEFITS
$16,339.00
$16,339.00
CONTR. MAINT.
1,500.00
2,370.00
2,760.00
1,380.00
500.00
1,30150
2,200.00
9,925.00
35,725.00
CONTR. REPAIRS
225.00
355.00
415.00
205.00
195.00
330.00
1,500.00
5,290.00
IRRIGATION WATER
200.00
750.00
750.00
412.50
500.00
1,750.00
7,950.00
ELECTRIC POWER
100.00
325.00
55.00
125.00
21,750.00
46,645.00
INDIRECT COSTS
3,068.00
3,068.00
OVERHEAD
251.79
0.00
498.68
513.39
249.83
65.40
274.27
412.67
7,106.63
15,106.35
- - - - - -- - - - - - --
TOTAL $2,176.79 $0.00
CONSTRUCTION
SUB -TOTAL $2,267.52
RESERVE ALLOWANCE
TOTALCOST $2,267.52
PRIOR YR. CARRYOVER ($4,610.14)
EST. PROP. TAX
NET COST $6,877.66
COVER NOT RECOVERED ($3,457.61)
COVER TO FY 95 -96
NET TO ASSESS $3,420.05
CALCULATED ASSESSMENT $380.01
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT $398.88
C: \WK \LLA19495
$362.91
--------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -------- -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- --- - - - - --
$4,073.68 $4,438.39 $2,159.83 $565.40 $2,240.27 $3,567.67 $61,438.63 $130,123.35
$282.50 $3,000.00 $155.38 $11,308.00 $45,232.00 $60,670.00
$4,557.80 $4,851.70 $2,714.27 $5,581.56 $2,506.54 $23,857.69 $107,860.16 $227,104.47
$0.00
$362.91
$4,557.80
$4,851.70
$2,71427
$5,581.56
$2,506.54
$23,857.69
$107,860.16
$227,104.47
$238.30
($3,058.13)
($14,365.28)
($1,101.87)
$542.70
$2,640.54
$3,610.07
$125,935.43
$164,604.66
$32,900.00
$53,050.00
$124.61
$7,615.93
$19,216.98
$3,816.14
$5,038.86
($134.00)
$20,247.62
($50,975.27)
$9,449.81
($2,293.60)
($10,773.96)
($826.40)
($34,160.00)
$3.12
$50,409.87
$116,300.62
$124.61
$5,322.33
$8,443.02
$2,989.74
$5,038.86
($130.88)
$20,247.62
($565.40)
$91,590.43
$3.46
$266.12
$205.93
$54.36
$25.19
($11.90)
$22.72
N/A
$3.48
$277.90
$202.04
$57.24
$25.20
$0.00
$22.58
N/A
CITY OF SARATOGA - LLA -1 FY.94 -95
ZONE 1
# OF PARCELS 29
FACTOR 0.0081
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
WAGES $ BENEFITS
ATTORNEY
ASSESS. ENGRG.
ADVTSG.
MISC.
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD
TOTAL
MAINTENANCE COSTS
WAGES 8 BENEFITS
CONTR. MAINT.
CONTR. REPAIRS
IRRIGATION WATER
ELECTRIC POWER
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD
TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION
SUB -TOTAL
RESERVE ALLOWANCE
TOTAL COST
PRIOR YR. CARRYOVER
EST. PROP. TAX
NET COST
COVER NOT RECOVERED
COVER TO FY 95 -96
NET TO ASSESS
CALCULATED ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
C: \WK \LLA19495
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 4
ZONE 5
ZONE 6
ZONE 7
ZONE 9
ZONE 10
ZONE 11
85
167
697
107
64
765
48
9
250
0.0236
0.0464
0.1935
0.0297
0.0178
0.2124
0.0133
0.0025
0.0694
$185.79
4.03
$544.57
$1,069.92
$4,465.48
$685.52
$410.03
$4,901.14
$307.52
$57.66
$1,601.68
45.49
11.80
133.33
23.18
261.95
96.75
1,093.30
14.85
8.88
106.19
6.66
1.25
34.70
4.03
11.80
23.18
96.75
167.84
100:39
1,199.96
75:29
14.12
392.14
1.61
4.72
9.27
38.70
14.85
5.94
8.88
3.55
106.19
6.66
1.25
34.70
17.58
51.54
101.26
422.61
64.88
38.81
42.48
463.84
2.67
29.10
0.50
13,88
- - - -33 82
- - - -99.11
- - - 194.73
812.74
- - - - - - -
124.77
- - - - - -
74.63
892.03
55.97
5.46
10.49
151.58
291.51
$292.34
$856.87
$1,683.50
$7,026.33
-
$1,078.65
- - - - - - -
$645.17
- - - - - --
$7,711.83
- - - - - --
$483.88
$90.73
$2,520.21
2,040.00
4,754.90
2,340.00
510.00
1,188.73
585.00
2,685.10
1,066.50
1,260.00
250.00
1,671.25
250.00
671.27
266.62
315.00
127.82
13,000.00
6,500.00
1,500.00
3,000.00
943.75
72.18
337.50
45.00
450.00
- - - 366 -24
1,012.74
- - - 415 -29
1,700.40
850.20
196.20
392.40
571.90
224:40
264.87
$3,166.24
$8,755.44
$3,590.29
$14,700.40
$7,350.20
$1,696.20
$3,392.40
$4,944.20
$1,940.02
- - - - - - -
$2,289.87
$361.09
$203.91
$127.12
$3,458.58
$9,973.40
$5,273.79
$21,726.73
$8,428.85
$2,341.37
$11,104.23
$5,631.99
$2,157.87
$4,810.08
$3,458.58
$9,973.40
$5,273.79
$21,726.73
$8,428.85
$2,341.37
$11,104.23
$5,631.99
$2,157.87
$4,810.08
($699.87)
($5,146.44)
($3,165.06)
$53,986.69
$24,856.52
$715.32
$2,772.20
($10,411.04)
($7,783.94)
($351.54)
$1,150.00
$140.60
$1,580.00
$12,250.00
$4,950.00
$79.40
$3,008.25
$14,979.24
$6,858.85
($44,509.96)
($21,377.67)
$1,626.05
$8,332.03
$15,963.63
$9,941.81
$5,161.62
($524.75)
($3,859.83)
($2,373.80)
($7,808.28)
($5,837.96)
($263.66)
$44,509.96
$21,377.67
$2,483.50
$11,119.41
$4,485.05
$0.00
($0.00)
$1,626.05
$8,332.03
$8,155.35
$4,103.85
$4,897.96
$85.64
$130.82
$26.86
$0.00
($0.00)
$25.41
$10.89
$169.90
$455.98
$19.59
$85.62
$130.80
$26.86
$0.00
$0.00
$25.40
$10.88
$169.92
$456.00
$19.60
ATTACHMEor s
CITY OF SARATOGA - LLA -1 FY 94 -95
ZONE 12
# OF PARCELS 9
FACTOR 0.0025
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS -
WAGES & BENEFITS
ATTORNEY
ASSESS. ENGRG.
ADVTSG.
MISC.
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD
TOTAL
MAINTENANCE COSTS
WAGES & BENEFITS
CONTR. MAINT.
CONTR. REPAIRS
IRRIGATION WATER
ELECTRIC POWER
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD 271.41 0.00
TOTAL $2,346.41 $0.00
ZONE 13
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 16
ZONE 17
ZONE 18
ZONE 22
ZONE 24
TOTAL
36
20
41
55
200
11
891
118
3602
0.0100
0.0056
0.0114
0.0153
0.0555
0.0031
0.2474
0.0328
1.0000
$57.66
1.25
$230.64
5.00
$128.13
$262.68
1,303.50
$352.37
$1,281.34
$2,437.14
$70.47
$5,708.39
($4,610.14)
$756.38
$23.500.00
14.12
56.47
2.78
31.37
5.69
64.31
$124.61
7.63
86.27
27.76
412.50
1.53
123.68
8,265.00
NET TO ASSESS
$3,589.67
1.25
5.00
2.78
5.69
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
7.63
313.71
- - - 495.08
17.25
1,397.60
274.27
185.09
5,650.00
0.50
2.00
1.11
2.28
$565.40
3.05
27.76
$62,004.03
1.53
123.68
16.38
500.00
5.46
21.83
12.13
24.86
$4,795.30
33.35
11.10
121.27
$5,581.56
0.61
49.47
$108,425.56
6.55
200.00
23.32
47.81
64.13
233.21
$4,795.30
6.67
12.83
540.24
$5,581.56
71.55
2,184.00
- -- -1049 -
-- -4198
-
- - - - -- -
- - - - --
-
- - - -
$2,640.54
$3,610.07
$125,935.43
1,038.95
137.59
4,200.12
$90.73
$362.91
$201.62
$413.31
$53,050.00
--
$554.45
$2,016.16
$110.89
$8,982.01
($3.12)
$1,189.54
$36,311.12
1,500.00
375.00
200.00
CONSTRUCTION
SUB -TOTAL
$2,437.14
$362.91
.RESERVE ALLOWANCE
1,303.50
2,200.00
TOTAL COST
$2,437.14
$362.91
PRIOR YR. CARRYOVER
($4,610.14)
$238.30
EST. PROP. TAX
220.00
2,000.00
NET COST
$7,047.28
$124.61
C'OVER NOT RECOVERED
($3,457.61)
412.50
COVER TO FY 95 -96
1,750.00
8,265.00
NET TO ASSESS
$3,589.67
$124.61
CALCULATED ASSESSMENT
$398.85
$3.46
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
$398.88
$3.48
CAWK \LLA19495
2,370.00
2,760.00
1,380.00
500.00
1,303.50
2,200.00
$19,925.00
$36,085.00
592.50
750.00
275.00
750.00
345.00
325.88.
220.00
2,000.00
7,670.00
100.00
325.00
412.50
. 500.00
1,750.00
8,265.00
55.00
125.00
21,750.00
46,600.00
-- 49868
- - - 495.08
- - - 268.14
65.40
274.27
398.29
3,068.00
7,172.03
3,068.00
15,437.93
$4,311.18
$4,280.08
$2,318.14
$565.40
$2,371.15
$3,443.29
$62,004.03
$133,464.93
$282.50
$3,000.00
$155.38
$11,308.00
$45,232.00
$60,670.00
$4,795.30
$4,693.39
$2,872.59
$5,581.56
$2,637.42
$23,733.30
$108,425.56
$230,446.05
$0.00
$4,795.30
$4,693.39
$2,872.59
$5,581.56
$2,637.42
$23,733.30
$108,425.56
$230,446.05
($3,058.13)
($14,365.28)
($1,101.87)
$542.70
$2,640.54
$3,610.07
$125,935.43
$164,604.66
$32,900.00
$53,050.00
$7,853.43
$19,058.67
$3,974.46
$5,038.86
($3.12)
$20,123.23
($50,409.87)
$12,791.39
($2,293.60)
($10,773.96)
($826.40)
($38,019.83)
$3.12
$50,409.87
$116,300.62
$5,559.83
$8,284.71
$3,148.05
$5,038.86
($0.00)
$20,123.23
$0.00
$91,072.18
$277.99
$202.07
$57.24
$25.19
($0.00)
$22.58
N/A
$277.90
$202.04
$57.24
$25.20
$0.00
$22.58
N/A
SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1
ZONE
DATE
80 -81
------------
$21.02
CREATED
---- --
$35.38
0 (7C)
4/16/80
$102.01
1
4/16/80
$34.26
2
4/16/80
$11.30
3
4/16/80
$4.78
4
4/16/80
$20.95
5
4/16/80
$23.52
6
4/16/80
$42.03
7 (7R)
4/16/80
$10.41
8 (VPD #1)
4/16/80
$269.07
9
5/4/83
$6.56
10
4/18/84
$15.68
11
4/18/84
$16.94
12
4/17/85
$5.78
13
4/17/85
$3.32
14
4/17/85
$0.00
15
4/17/85
$213.80
16
4/16/86
$65.00
17
4/15/87
$90.82
18
4/15/87
$0.00
19 (VPD #2)
4/19/89
$167.34
20 (VPD #3)
4/19/89
$133.36
21 (VPD #4)
4/19/89
$8.38
22
4/17/91
$157.20
23
5/1/91
$153.02
24
8/3/94
$186.26
A N N U A L A S S E S S I V I E N T S
81 -82 82 -83 83 -84 84 -85 85 -86 86 -87 87 -88 88 -89 89 -90 90 -91 91 -92 92 -93 93 -94 94 -95
$92.50
-----
$92.58
--- -- -----
$56.80
------------
$21.02
$34.56
---- --
$35.38
$10.54
$0.00
$10.90
$6.80
$203.76
$207.82
$5.62
$6.16
$6.62
$7.86
$8.86
$35.14
$4.46
$0.00
$0.00
$4.20
$11.60
$8.70
$18.54
$0.00
$2.08
$2.30
$5.86
$6.70
$21.28
$2.12
$0.84
$1.24
$5.00
$6.56
$36.68
$0.00
$15.68
$11.32
$14.78
$16.94
$8.90
$6.66
$5.78
$2.54
$2.50
$3.32
$48.26
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$213.80
$0.00
. $25.40
$65.00
$84.86
$83.52
$90.82
$4.26
$6.88
$0.00
$1,416.00
$0.00
$167.34
$117.20
$0.00
$133.36
$14.32
$5.66
$8.38
$87.40
$113.74
$157.20
$136.74
$172.00
$153.02
$161.30
$169.92
$186.26
$234.70
$18.00
$5.24
$385.38
$371.12
$328.17
$456.00
$14210
$121.30
$8.76
$9.58
$10.72
$11.32
$222.00
$170.76
$154.16
$168.04
$188.04
$209.84
$222.60
$2,376.44
(1) - Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 & 21 merged to create Zone 24.
(2) - Zone dissolved on 5/20/92.
$21.60
-----------------------------------------------
$21.66
$21.66
$14.64
$73.56
$49.72
$72.64
(1)
$113.70
$113.54
$105.94
$95.12
$101.54
$62.20
$90.32
$85.62
$27.40
$29.66
$32.00
$34.62
$36.50
$5.98
$18.15
$130.80
$20.50
$23.06
$46.82
$13.14
$15.36
$25.80
$45.21
$26.86
$2.26
$1.86
$1.86
$1.60
$2.10
$23.84
$0.00
$0.00
$5.14
$4.98
$4.98
$6.24
$6.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.54
$10.60
$10.60
$8.62
$8.58
$0.00
$0.00
. $25.40
$3.14
$2.64
$2.64
$3.78
$4.26
$6.88
$0.00
$10.88
$341.32
$330.36
$117.20
$0.00
$133.36
$0.00
$0.00
(1)
$87.40
$113.74
$157.20
$136.74
$144.82
$138.82
$161.30
$169.92
$186.26
$234.70
$43580
$348.74
$385.38
$371.12
$328.17
$456.00
$7.70
$8.04
$8.76
$9.58
$10.72
$11.32
$15.48
$19.60
$154.16
$168.04
$188.04
$209.84
$222.60
$24242
$203.01
$398.88
$3.04
$3.60
$3.60
$3.70
$3.16
$0.00
$0.00
$3.48
$107.04
$114.48
$15248
$137.56
$141172
$19274
$110.10
$277.90
$87.44
$83.76
$126.18
$10260
$100.72
$98.90
$227.39
$20204
$3.04
$3.22
$3.22
$59.88
$40.56
$45.16
$42.58
$57.24
$10.00
$7.70
$7.70
$8.72
$8.66
$0.00
$5.06
$25.20
$50.00
$6.08
$13518
$154.56
$164.94
$88.10
$0.00
$0.00
$1,851.00
$1,52030
$5,243,00
$6,969.76 $13,62000
(1)
$6,412.00
$6,414.00 $14,09200 $18,770.62 $21,25235
(1)
$0.00
$977.78
$2,933.00
$5,406.00 $14,38556
(1)
$36.00
$0.00
$13.21
$22.58
$110.00
(2)
$0.00
CAWKILLA- SUM.WK1 ATTAMME07
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
470TAMMEOr
L
7
09,Yff @2 O&M&IO(DB&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
jl
COUNCII. MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Mane Burger
Willem Kohler
Victor Morua
Karen Tucker
March 2, 1993
City Council
City Engineer
Background Note - Item No. 5C:
POLICY ISSUE: How can the City effectively deal with
increased maintenance. requirements for the parks and
medians resulting from system expansion and increased use
of facilities by the community by expanding. the
Landscaping and Lighting District to cover the entire
City and setting a per parcel charge to provide
maintenance citywide?
BACKGROUND: In 1980, the City Council established the Landscaping.
and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 under the provisions of the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. (Streets and Highways Code
Sections 22500 et. seg..). Over the years, the District has been
expanded to 24 separate zones encompassing roughly 3,576 parcels
which represent approximately one -third of the total number of
parcels in the City. The primary purpose of the District is to
provide landscape maintenance services and/or street lighting in
the various zones which directly. benefit the properties in the
zones and for which annual assessments are levied against the
properties to pay for these benefits.
The areas for which landscape maintenance services are provided are
generally around the entrances to particular subdivisions or
neighborhoods and also include parkways along roads which abut a
subdivision as well as common areas within a subdivision.
Traditionally, these areas would be maintained by either a
Homeowners Association or some other form of neighborhood
association. For various reasons however, the property owners
within each of. the zones have chosen to annex themselves into the
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District and to contract
through the City, via the District, for these landscape maintenance
services.
Printed on recycles pacer
Under the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act, local
agencies may levy assessments for, among other things, park
development, park maintenance, park and open space acquisition,
median improvements, median maintenance, trail development and
maintenance and even traffic signal installations, operation and
maintenance. Up to now however, the City has not attempted to fund
any of .these kinds of improvements or services with Landscaping and
Lighting assessments. (The lone exception was the Ravenwood Park
acquisition.) This report examines the opportunities for creating
a citywide assessment district to deal with increased maintenance
requirements for the parks and medians resulting from system
expansion and increased use of facilities by. the community.
ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS: A number of California cities have
established citywide Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts
and I suspect the number will grow as cities seek ways to reduce
demands on their General Funds. The attractiveness of these
districts are the relative ease with which they can be established,
the opportunity to achieve full cost recovery for the improvements
and services which they provide, and the flexibility they offer-to
respond to changing needs and desires. As you might imagine, there
are an unlimited number of ways to structure a citywide district--
.
However to simplify the discussion'in this report, I will mare
several basic assumptions to illustrate how a citywide district
might work in Saratoga. At your policy conference, you may then
discuss the many variables which can be used to formulate a
citywide district to your liking.
In Saratoga there are 10,576 residential zoned parcels and 165
commercial zoned parcels according to the County's Center for Urban
Analysis. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that all
10,741 parcels will be included in a citywide district. Further,
it -is assumed that the servicing of the existing 24 zones will
continue to directly benefit the properties in those zones and that
the costs to service the zones will not be assessed citywide. Any
additional citywide assessment would simply be added to the
assessments already levied against those properties.
Maintenance Costs -
provide maintenance
Using 1993 budget figures, the full
of parks, medians, open
costs to
space areas,
etc. are:
Medians/
Parks/
Hakone
Total
Parkways
Open Sp.
Gardens
Personnel
O & M
1117,977
1143,599
$103
$364,710
Cap. Equip.
45,300
0
140,135
30,980
216,415
0
7,500
7,500
SUB -TOTAL
�-
$163,277
283,734
$141,614
$588,625
Benefits
40,333
50,166
38,727
129,226
2
Equip. Repl.
31,436
31,436
0
62,872
Fixed Asset Repl.
0
20,690
4,365
25,055
Bldg. Maint.
3,567
3,567
4,756
11,890
SUB -TOTAL
$ 75,336
$105,859:
$ 47,848
$229,043
Overhead (12 %)
$ 28,634
$ 46,751
$ 22,735.
$ 98,120
TOTAL
$267,247
$436,344
$212,197
$915,788
If the entire $915,788 were assessed equally
against
the 10,741
parcels in the City,
the per
parcel assessment for maintenance
would be $ 85.26.
Future Maintenance Costs Resulting from System Expansion The
Parks and Trails Master Plan and Median Landscaping Master Plan
provide estimates of future annual maintenance costs associated
with system expansion. Since both of these plans are several years
old, I have _ inflated the figures in the reports to reflect what.. we
believe are today's maintenance costs. The various projects,
annual maintenance costs and assessments required to fully recover
these costs are as follows:
Median
Projects
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd.
SPRR to Prospect
Prospect Rd. total
50% Saratoga
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd.
Big Basin to Verde Vista
Allendale Ave.
Fruitvale Ave.
Park and Trail Projects
Azule Park
Beauchamps Park
Brookglen Park
Ravenwood Park
Kevin Moran Park
3
Annual Annual
Maint. Cost Assessment
$ 10,944 $ 1.02
24,000 2.24
24,000 2,24
2,214 .21
46,200 4.30
$ 27,079 $ 2.52
12,595 1.17
5,152 .48
3,435 .32
23,310 2.17
Historical Park
Warner Hutton House
All trail expansions identified
in Master Plan
4,580 .43
8,000 ..75
46,555 4.33
Future Capital Costs of System Expansion - Once again, the Parks
and Trails Master Plan and Median Landscape Master Plan provide
cost estimates to construct the various projects identified above.
The following table summarizes these costs and illustrates the
annual assessments required to recover the:costs in a single year.
Median
Projects
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd.
SPRR to Prospect
Prospect Rd. total
50% Saratoga
Allendale Ave.
Fruitvale Ave.
Park and Trail Projects
Azule Park
Kevin Moran Park
E1 Quito Park
Hakone Gardens Road
Trail Development (all)
Capital Annual
Cost Assessment
$ 325,000 $ 30.26.
800,000 74.48
12,100 1.13
400,000 37.24
$ 250,000 $ 23,28
500,000 46.56
14,000 1.30
751000 6.98
1,200,000 111.72
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Clearly, there are a variety of
options to consider if a citywide Landscaping and Lighting.
Assessment District is to be established. For example, it can be
argued that many of the parkways along arterial and collector
streets presently maintained via the existing LLA -1 provide
citywide benefits and the costs to maintain these areas should
therefor be spread citywide. The same can also be said for most
streetlighting in town. Also, there is the opportunity to add
traffic signal operation and maintenance costs to LLA assessments.
Presently these costs are $47,440 which would compute to a per
parcel assessment of $4.42.
4
The City can also make an annual contribution to an LLA District to
reduce the net amount to be assessed against the properties in the
district. The contribution can either be in the form of in -kind
services or a direct transfer from the General Fund. One thought
is to contribute an amount equivalent to what the City presently,
spends on park and median maintenance and to limit assessments to
future maintenance costs resulting from system expansion. An LLA
District can also bond for the larger capital and acquisition costs
of improvements to be financed by the district to reduce the annual
assessments needed to pay for these types of improvements.
Another option is to limit annual assessments to a certain dollar
amount, say $50 or $100, and also limit the annual amount an
assessment could increase to a certain percentage, say 3 %. The
Council may want to limit the assessments to cover only direct
costs of providing services and exclude any of the indirect costs.
Whatever you decide, the basic rule of thumb is that for every $10
assessed per parcel citywide, $107,410 in revenue would be
realized.
I estimate that the administrative and legal costs to set up a
citywide assessment district will be $20,000. If the district is
created, these costs can be recovered from the district through an
assessment of $1.86 per parcel. If the.. district is abandoned
before it is created.however, these costs cannot be recovered.
The justification for establishing a citywide Landscaping and
Lighting Assessment District can be found in the Conservation
Element of the City's General Plan. Specifically, Conservation
Policy 7.1 states "Encourage the formation of assessment districts
to improve and maintain landscaping throughout the City."
Certainly, a citywide Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District
would implement that policy.
r.
Larry I. erlin, City Engineer
5
ArrAiNMEar $
Saratoga Creek Homeowners Association
Judy Heintz, President
408- 741 -0588
City Council, City of Saratoga July 11, 1994
Subject: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1, Fiscal Year 1994 -95,
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for the public meeting on July 6 which was very helpful for
us as homeowners to better understand the process that is underway, and
also how we can contribute towards. that process.
This letter serves to clarify item #2 in my July 6 letter to you which
protested the proposal to combine Zone #2 and Zone #9. Although these two
zones may be physically near each other, they have little else in common.
Zone #2 is a well designed 24 year old area that is very stable and
requires minimal maintenace and expense. Zone #9 started with a flawed
design when it was installed 16 years ago and, accordingly, it has had major
problems ever since with plants not surviving, with enormous water usage,
with large plant maintenace requirements, and with expenses. It presently
needs major improvements and expenses to both make it look attractive and
to make it stable in the sense that Zone #2 is stable. Please refer to the
attached chart which presents a comparison of the 2 zones.
Many homeowners in Zone #2 helped in the actual design and planting
of this practical and efficient landscape area 24 years ago. We are loath to
support the problem plagued and inefficient Zone #9 landscape area; it would
be like having a penalty levied on us for our having done a really good job
with our zone. We do not deserve to bear the brunt of the 16 years of
landscaping problems in Zone #9! It would need to have major improvements
implemented before the homeowners in Zone #2 could welcome combining
with it.
As one homeowner proposed at the July 6 hearing, perhaps it would be
better to combine all of the zones throughout the city and thereby to rise
above the problems of the individual zones. We could support this concept
more readily than for Zone #2 alone to subsidize the Zone #9 situation.
Thanks for your consideration in this matter. We enjoy a wonderful
city here and take pride in helping to keep it beautiful.
Sincerel ,
�Q
COMPARISON CHART
OF SOME CHARACTERISTICS IN
ZONE #2 AND ZONE #9
ZONE #2 (Along Cox Avenue)
ZONE #9 (Along Saratoga Sunnyvale Road)
Overall Size
1800 feet long and 4.5 feet wide strip
1725 feet long with width varying from 6 to 20 feet due to the
irregular shaped sound wall.
Overall Plants
390 plants are in dense clusters at some locations (actually
All 182 trees and shrubs are in a single row
overcrowded and need to be thinned out) and there are barren
spots at other locations (needs considerable replanting)
Drought, Freeze, & Water Needs
All plants are drought and freeze resistant. There is no ground
Not all plants are drought and freeze resistant (need to replace
cover involved
some with more hardy types). Lots of (thirsty) ground cover
(probably should be removed completely).
Watering System Used
the mature plants (about 80 %) are watered only by natural rain,
The spray type sprinkler system with pipes sticking up throughout
the newer replaced plants (20 %) have a drip watering system
the total area uses lots of water and needs lots of repair due to
which conserves water and electricity because its runs completely
vandalism and freezing (should be replaced by a drip system)
from a battery
Walkway Situation
The asphalt walking path is quite uneven in places due to large
The asphalt walkin g path is level and in good condition
root systems lifting and breaking the path (need to remove or
relocate some of the trees or relocate the path to get a level
walkway)
Overall Condition
The area is "stable" requiring very little upkeep other than
This area requires major improvements before it can be considered
occassional trimming of bushes and picking up liter
"stable"
�� ~t
�
julv ll, 1994
Attention: Saratoga City Council Members
Regarding Landscaping and Lighting District LLA-1,
Fiscal year 1994-95
�J'
^�-�. r~-r/,o
As residents of LLA-1, Parcel #386-39-025, in Zone #2, we wish to
protest the proposed merging of zones 2 and 9, as well as the
proposed assessment for fiscal year 1994-95. We hope the City
Council members will consult the comparison chart submitted on
JUly 6th by the Saratoga Creek Homeowners Association which
outlines the costs incurred by homeowners in both zones 2 and 9
and documents the fact that zone 9 contains many more plants, has
a much less efficient watering system, resulting in higher
maintenance and extremely high water costs.
While we ponder Mr. Perlin's rationale for merging these two
zones because of use of streets by nbar-by res0ents, this does
not address the issue of the actual landscaping and lighting
zones which are Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road for zone 9 and Cox Avenue
for zone 2. Many, if not all, of Saratoga residents as well as
non-residents, travel both roadways and one might ask why the
local homeowners are obliged to assist the City in maintaining
landscaping which is of benefit to all. However, the immediate
concern is for zone 2 residents, many of whom, as ourselves, have
been residing in this newly-built in 1968 neighborhood and have
overseen the maintenance of the adjoining Cox Avenue landscaping
since that time.` Our watering system and re-planting has
recently been updated to a low maintenance, drip- system and
drought tolerant plants which has kept the watering cost at a
minimum, whereas zone 9, established in 1983 according to Mr.
Perlin, continues to use above-ground sprinklers, much less
efficient and higher maintenance, and over twice as many plants
as zone 2.
The residents in zone 2 see no reason to essentially subsidize
zone 9 by incurring a large portion of their costs and therefore
request the City Council to make appropriate revisions to more
accurately reflect actual projected costs within zone 2 and zone
9 separately, and abolish the consolidation of these two zones.
We feel this will provide a more equitable solution to a probably
minor, yet troublesome, concern of 86 homeowners in the zone 2,
LLA-1 district. We have faith that the present City Council will
research and be prepared to address this issue prior to the
August' 3rd hearing when our Homeowners Associatioh will be
present.
Donald & Janice Morgan
20120 Williamsburg Lane
Saratoga, CA. 95070
867-266l