Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-05-1992 City Council Agenda packetEXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. DATE: August 5, 1992 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk SUBJECT: Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed Abatement Charges Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution. Report Summary: Under State and local laws, local governments routinely abate the seasonal fire hazards of weed growth on undeveloped property. For the County and several cities, including Saratoga, this weed abatement program is administered by the County Fire Marshal's Office. In many cases, property owners find it convenient to have government take care of weed removal and to pay through a property tax lien. This past year, the County performed weed abatement on 106 parcels in Saratoga. Tax liens and assessments on the owners of these parcels totalled $29,259.06. In order to recover this cost, it is necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution confirming the assessments and directing the County Auditor to enter and collect the assessments on the property tax bill. Fiscal Impacts: None upon City if resolution is passed. City may be liable for work performed by contractor for any assessments not levied. Attachments: Resolution with list of assessments. ot SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM R CITY MGR. APPROVA August 5, 1992 To: City Council From: Public Safety Commission Subject: Policy for Parking in Bike Lanes Following an assignment given to the Public Safety Commission at the March 10, 1992, joint meeting with the City Council, Commissioner Ken Johnson undertook a study of the legal requirements, history, and current status of bicycle lanes in the City. The Commission approved the recommendations which Commissioner Johnson made in his report, and is now submitting the report to Council for further direction. The recommendations regarding regu- lating parking in bike lanes refer generally to regulation on the basis of time of day, i. e., no parking during day light hours. If the Council agrees with the recommended course of action, the Commission, if so directed, would then proceed with mapping the City's bike lanes and making specific recommendations. ;;i Li arolyn King Assistant to the City Manager Printed on recycled paper. 02 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 June 24, 1992 To: Public Safety Commission From: Kenneth L. Johnson Subj: Policy For Parking in B Lanes 'assignment. From the joint Council/ Commission meeting 10 Mar 1992. Monia asked for feedback from Commission what should the policy be overall of parking in Bike Lanes. Recommended action. r` 1. Parking should be F "Bike Lanes 2. "Bike Lane" parking altIthltL should be posted frequently on signs along "Bike Lanes 3. Where parking cannot be zortrictcd, all indications of a "Bike Lane" including striping and signing should be removed. Applicable Statutes. 4. "Bike Routes" should not have a painted stripe on the roadway. Bicycle lanes on local roads may be established by local authorities (Presumably, establishment of bicycle lanes on state and county highways require approval by those agencies). (DMV Code Sec. 21207). Operation of motor vehicles in a bicycle lane are prohibited except for: 1. To park where parking is permitted. 2. To enter of leave the roadway. 3. To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection. Note: There are some mitigating circumstances allowing Mopeds in bicycle lanes.(DMV Code Sec. 21209) Bike Lanes, Bike Paths, Bike Trails, and Bike Routes are different terms applied to facilities provided primarily for bicycle travel. All of these facilities are included in the term "Bikeway The principal definitions of concern are: 1. Bike Lane A paint striped and signed lane set aside on a public street separate from motor vehicle lanes. Parking may be prohibited within its boundaries. 2. Bike Path or Trail A completely separated right of way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized. It is usually improved with asphalt or concrete. The separation ideally consists of a Landscaped buffer along the shoulder of the road. 3. Bike Route A right -of -way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians or motorists. (Streets and Highways Code Sec. 2373) Local authorities are permitted to regulate stopping, standing, or parking of vehicles on local, state, or county highways provided county and state approval is obtained (DMV Code Sec. 22506). Saratoga City Code 9-60.050 incorporates all the provisions discussed above, but is silent on the policy of parking in bicycle lanes leaving the issue up to the City Council. Other than the Legislative intent expressed in the Streets and Highways Code Section 2371 no stated policy exists. Section 2371 Legislative Intent It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to establish a bicycle transit system. It is the further intent of the Legislature that this transit system shall be designed and developed to achieve the functional commuting needs of the employee, student, businessman, and shopper as the foremost consideration in route selection, to have the physical safety of the bicyclist and bicyclist's Discussion. property as a major planning component, and to have the capacity to accommodate bicyclists of all ages and skills. Clearly, parking a motor vehicle in a Bike Lane does not contribute to a bicyclist's safety. This safety concern has to be balanced with the desires of businessmen and homeowners who have a Bike Lane passing in front of their property. The Public Works Department of Saratoga conducted a Feasibility Study for the Incorporation of a "Demonstration Bicycle Route System" into the city transportation network. The study was published 9 May 1972. On 3 Oct 1973, a Mayor's select committee reviewed the "Demonstration Bicycle Route System Their recommendations were apparently accepted by the City Council, and the resulting system forms the basis of what exists today. No major review of the System has been conducted since then. Minor changes have been made from time to time as changes to roadways have occurred. For example, Highway 85 has been expanded to 4 lanes throughout its full length. The Mayors Select Committee agonized over the issue of parking in Bike Lanes. There was no policy then, nor is there now, on how to regulate parking in Bike Lanes. The parking problem only concerns Bike Lanes, because Bike Trails or Paths are not amenable to parking, and Bike Routes permit parking. The purpose of a Bike Lane is to provide a bicyclist a sense of security from an aggressive stream of motorists. when a biker confronts a parked car in a Bike Lane, he usually pulls out into the car lane, a potentially dangerous situation. Bike Lanes aren't needed in the neighborhoods, because there aren't so many motorists, and those that are there are not as aggressive. Kids grow up riding bikes in the neighborhoods with courteous motorists giving them wide sway. Eventually our kids graduate from the neighborhoods to the Boulevards. Motorists are less courteous for several reasons; speed picks up, traffic density increases, maneuvering room vanishes either because of double yellow centerlines or multiple car lanes full of traffic, and lastly they are farther from home. This is where Bike Lanes are most helpful. If our kids have been taught to associate Bike Lanes with security, then parking should be prohibited. If home owner or business pressures are so great that parking cannot be prohibited, then don't institute Bike Lanes. Don't lull the kids into some false sense of security. A better way would be to have no Bike Lane at all thereby alerting the bicyclist to be extra careful. Changing from a Bike Lane to a Bike Route ducks the parking problem, but it makes the situation worse than nothing at all. Bike Route s'ignage conveys minimum information. It tells the cyclist that this is probably the best (smoothest, easiest) way to proceed from point A to point B. If left over lane striping exists on the roadway, the cyclist may make a false conclusion that parking is under some kind of prohibition. If so, he may be in for a rude awakening. Clearly, there is a lot of "heat" associated with parking restrictions in front of homes or businesses. In some cases, parking hours can be established. when bicycle traffic is nil, cars could park. City staff could easily ascertain an equitable time share by conducting motor and bicycle vehicle traffic counts over a 7 day period. Confusion exists over just what a Bike Lane is. I didn't understand it myself until I became involved in this task. I doubt if many of our children understand all the nuances involved. Saratoga's Bikeway System has different markings applied along the same Bikeway. Little wonder that most citizens are confused. The system should be consistent and simple. If you want to know what an ideal system is, just look at the Saratoga side of Prospect Avenue. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 5, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: .Engineering SUBJECT: Letter from Douglas and Barbara Frandsen, 20255 Merida Dr., requesting extension of Rte. 85 soundwall along Prospect Road Recommended Action: Council discretion. Discussion: For some time now, Mr. Mrs. Frandsen have been working with staff to attempt to persuade the Traffic Authority to extend to Covina Court, the wrap around soundwall at the southwest quadrant of Prospect Road and Route 85. Presently the wall, referenced as Soundwall No. 7 on the attached plan, terminates approximately 100 feet east of Covina Court. The Frandsen's would like to see the wall extended along their property to shield them from perceived impacts from the Prospect Road overcrossing. At this time, the Traffic Authority has directed the project designers to reevaluate the Frandsen's concerns and request. Up to now, the Authority's position has been that the extent of the visual and noise impacts from the overcrossing has been determined and that the heigth and length of Soundwall No. 7 has been designed accordingly. However, the Frandsen's are not convinced that the designers have properly taken into account the radiating effect of headlights from westbound vehicles on the overcrossing which they believe will shine into their rear yard. Should the Traffic Authority's latest evaluation support the Frandsen's contentions, then the Authority will extend the wall at their cost. However, if the Authority concludes that there are no visual impacts which require mitigation, then what they will most likely offer to the City is to facilitate the extension of the wall, but at the City's cost. Assuming the 14 foot high wall is extended by 100 feet, I would estimate this cost to be $15,000. By your meeting next Wednesday, the Authority's reevaluation should be complete and staff should be able to report to you on whether the Authority will extend the wall. If the Authority indicates that they will not extend the wall, then the Council, will need to decide whether the Frandsen's request should still be honored and if so, how the cost for the wall extension should be funded. Fiscal Impacts; Unknown at this time. Attachments: 1. Prospect Road plan. 2. Letter from Douglas and Barbara Frandsen dated July 22. 3. Previous letters on same subject. Motion Vote: R °SPEC* RbAbloVERROSSING BR. No. 37-526 NOTE( COMPLETE RIGHT OF WAY AND ACCURAlt" ACCESS DATA SEE RIGHT OF WAY:RECORO, MAP AT DISTRICT OFFIC.. END SOUND WALL NO 7 189.10' LI 494+27.13 4 SOUND,rWALL NO:,„7,LOL lo8p7' WErt.493+59.37, SOUND. WALL 6; k PROSPECT •-R644,PUMOINO \PLANT. BR. Na -FENCE +6 r TYPE CL-6 FENCE SIDEWALK 16 GATE 2 THRIE BEAM BARRIER' TYPE 5 FLARE 7 POT 2 t•, Frandsen Pro pert./ 2:G. rfPE, FENCE'-„, (41, 0 '4 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN. INCHES toUND/WALL AC DIKE_(TYPE 0 1 BEGIN SOUND WALL NO. 2 LOL: 136.45'; t< "Br 499+77.28 SOUMD4A11-NOTI-1161:1- .1 RI 500+14.67 SAN J 0 S 2 3 157' Harry Peacock, City Mgr. 13773 Fruitvalle Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Atten: Mr. Harry Peacock July 22, 1992 Subject: Extension of Soundwall to Covinia Court (Approx. 100 ft.) We would appreciate the above subject placed on the agenda for the August 5th meeting. We have been working with Larry Perlin on this subject for over a Year. We have been bounced between Mr. Perlin and the Traffic Authority all this time. We are asking the City for the same consideration given the Cox Ave. residents. Now the wall is being built and the moment of truth is here. We will bring pictures to display the story to the council. cc: Karen Anderson Larry Perlin 400, Karen Tucker ncer ly, Douglas Barbara Frandsen Printed on recycled paper. August 29, 1991 Santa Clara County Traffic Authority 1754 Technology Drive, Suite 224 San Jose, CA 95110 Attn: Allen Johnson Re: MSA 102 -1, 2 Route 85: Stevens Creek Blvd. to Prospect Rd. 100% Submittal Dear Allen: Sheet L -2 and SW -6 UMW ©2 0 '0 o C� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Can soundwall no. 7 be extended to station 35 84 to include the last property along Prospect Rd. up to Covina Court? The City would prefer this for aesthetic and conti- nuity reasons and the property owner would prefer this to mitigate anticipated visual impacts due to the increased elevation of Prospect Rd. as it crosses the freeway cor- ridor. If the Traffic Authority determines that there will be no visual impacts, please provide me with any relevant data to support that conclusion. Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman In my previous letter to you dated August 16, I forgot to add the following comment on the 100% submittal package for the above referenced project: I appreciate your consideration of the above comment. Should you have any questions, please give me a call at 867 -3438. Sincerely, u P•411 04-40 Larry I. Perlin City Engineer cc: Barbara Frandsen 20255 Merida Dr. SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY Jim Beall Barbara Tryon Chairperson Vice Chairperson WIII Kempton, Executive Director Mr. Larry Perlin City. Engineer City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Perlin: SUBJECT: Susan Hammer October 11, 1991: Michael F. Kotowski Zoe Lofgren OCT i5 1991 .CiTY C S.-`-`, 71A J GA cD 1 `r ENC.INCER's OFFICE ROUTE 85 FROM PROSPECT' ROAD TO STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD. 100% PS &Q SUBMITTAL.COMMENTS MSA 102 -10 In your letter dated August 29, 1991, you requested an extension of soundwall number 7 to station 35 84. Though this extension may be desirable, certain constraints prohibit a longer soundwall in that area of Prospect Road. First, a critical electrical- telephone pole is located at station 35 00 which Pacific Bell and PG &E feel must remain in place. The current soundwall configuration was set in order to avoid a conflict with this pole. The second problem is the :inadequate space between the sidewalk and.existing Right -of -Way 'for the minimum three foot soundwall offset In addition the current soundwall length is in accordance with the noise study and visual mitigation is not needed in this area. Therefore, the Traffic Authority does not contemplate further revision. If you have any questions, please contact Allen Johnson at 453 -1313. JM /AJ /ml cc: Kevin Rohani, BKF By Sincerely, 1754 Technology Drive, Suite 224, San Jose, California 95110 Printed on recycled paper WILL KEMPTON Executi Director L MANIACI Deputy Director (408) 453 -3777 Printed on recycled paper. October 21, 1991 Barbara Frandsen 20255 Merida Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Route 85 Improvements on Prospect Road Dear Ms. Frandsen: Attached is a copy of a letter I received from the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority in response to the request to extend the soundwall along Prospect Road to the corner of Covina Court. In summary, the Traffic Authority has denied the request for three reasons utility conflicts, lack of available right -of -way and lack of visual intrusion requiring mitigation. If after your review of the letter you have any additional questions, please call me at 867 -3438. Sincerely, Larry I. Perlin City Engineer TIM a 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ��-U5E AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 5, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Route 85: Saratoga Avenue Interchange Mitigation of visual impact caused by the relocation of Saratoga Avenue Recommended Action: Consider mitigation alternatives selected by affected residents. Discus ion: As recently reported to you by the City Manager, the Traffic Authority has identified a visual impact on five Via Arriba Drive /Via Arriba Court properties resulting from the westward relocation and slight elevation of Saratoga Avenue as part of the construction of the freeway interchange. As a result, the Traffic Authority has developed two alternatives to mitigate the visual impact. The first alternative is to build a masonry block visual barrier along the rear of the properties similar to the masonry block soundwalls which are being built along the freeway corridor. This alternative would necessitate removal of the large Monterey pine trees growing along the exterior side of the existing rear yard fences. However, both the Traffic Authority and Barrie Coate have evaluated the condition of these trees and have determined that they will more than likely begin to die off in the next three to five years. The second alternative is to build a wooden visual barrier along the rear of the properties which would take on the appearance of a large fence. The only advantage to this alternative is that in using wood to construct the barriers, the pine trees could be preserved. The Traffic Authority has surveyed the affected property owners and a summary of the property owners/ responses is attached. Essentially 4 of the 5 property owners who the Traffic Authority was able to contact prefer the masonry block wall alternative and do not object to the removal of the trees. As of this time, the Traffic Authority has been unable to make contact with the fifth property owner at 13194 Via Arriba Drive. A sixth property owner at 13238 Via Arriba Drive was also surveyed by the Traffic Authority even though there is no visual impact on that property. However, the Traffic Authority felt the City might have an interest in extending the wall along this property for reasons of visual continuity. If the City desires to extend the wall by the additional 128 feet along this property, the estimated cost to the City would be $11,000. The decisions which the City Council needs to make on this matter are as follows: 1. Selection of wall type masonry or wood. 2. Location of new sidewalk along Saratoga Avenue should it be located away from the street and along the wall or should it be located away from the properties and closer to the street. From my perspective and to promote a safer walking environ- ment, I believe the sidewalk should be located away from the street and along the wall as the present alignment contem- plates. 3. Heigth of wall behind 13160 Via Arriba Court The property owner, Mr. Scales, wants a 12 foot wall instead of the 10 foot wall proposed by the Traffic Authority. The additional wall height would cost approximately $3,000. 4. Extension of wall across 13238 Via Arriba Drive As previously stated, no visual impact exists, but the wall extension may be preferable for continuity reasons. Estimated cost 11,000. Regardless of the decisions made by the City, there will be an opportunity to plant some landscaping between the street and the properties as part of the overall landscape plan to be implemented with the freeway work. Trees can be replanted to replace the Monterey Pines which will either be removed now with the wall construction or later when they die. Also, a copy of this staff report has been mailed to the six property owners along with your meeting agenda. Some of the property owners may appear at your meeting to address you on this item. Fiscal Impacts: Dependent on Council's decisions. Attachments: 1. Vicinity map. 2. Summary of survey responses dated July 22. 3. Sample survey dated July 21. Motion &.Vote: u _p —N C t l D'AGMAR DRIVE i- t mo w... 13 ia Owner l,Juyne, act. T.A proroseg $'404 for con ♦invify 12 l b Via Arriba Owner t fiudoc K Wants q' bloct wall. proroses Sande, 1319'4 Via Arriba Owner: unknown. 1:4. unable 4, con-l-act owner, 13172 ✓ia Arr. ba Owner Snyder, No+ directly affected. 131400 Via Arriba C+.- Owner ScalCs. Wants IZ' 1,1ocK 40411. T.A. proposes to 13158 Via Arriba Owner, Re; +66vn 1a4n4 8' 604 11 T A proposes sanr,P, "82 3 to LINE m z 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Eileen Goodwin FROM: Brian Mauldwin DATE: July 22, 1992 RE: SARATOGA AVENUE SIDEWALK /VISUAL BARRIER UPDATE Four residents will have visual intrusion due to the elevation of Saratoga Avenue. Here's a brief summary of what's what and who's who: 1. Howard Rathbun 13158 Via Arriba Court Saratoga, CA 95070 263 -0368 867 -4981 Mr. Rathbun would like an 8 -foot pre -cast or masonry block wall. He is willing to have the trees behind his home removed in order to get the pre -cast wall. He also wants to know how close the wall will be to his new backyard fence. He has requested a copy of the wall plans prior to the installation of the wall. 2. Bill Scales 13160 Via Arriba Court Saratoga, CA 95070 727 -5218 Mr. Scales wants a 12 -foot pre -cast or masonry block wall, not the 10 -foot wall the consultant recommends. He wants the higher wall "so that people in buses won't be able to see in the backyard." He is willing to have the trees behind his home removed in order to get the pre -cast wall. He prefers the sidewalk to be farther away from his home rather than meandering closer to his backyard fence. 3. Bob Snyder 13172 Via Arriba Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -4990 Mr. Snyder's backyard ends before it reaches Saratoga Avenue. However, as far as he's concerned, he'd like a pre -cast wall and no sidewalk. 4. Unknown 13194 Via Arriba Saratoga, CA 95070 I left a card at this address on 7/16/92. The homeowner has not yet contacted me. 5. Nancy Hudock 13216 Via Arriba Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -6945 Ms. Hudock would like a 9 -foot pre -cast wall behind her home. She does not object to the trees behind her home being removed to make room for the pre -cast wall. 6. Mrs. Wayne 13238 Via Arriba Saratoga, CA 95070 Mrs. Wayne is renting the property. I have not yet made contact with the owner. This home will have no visual intrusion caused by the elevation of Saratoga Avenue. However, because it is the last home in the row of affected homes, it would be visually pleasing to continue to wall to the end of this property with an 8 -foot wall. bpm/ 731 saraside.mem SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY Jim Beall Barbara Tryon Susan Hammer Michael F. Kotowski Zoe Lofgren Chairperson Vice Chairperson Will Kempton, Executive Director July 21, 1992 Dear Via Arriba Resident: The Santa Clara County Traffic Authority and the City of Saratoga are interested in your opinion. The Traffic Authority and the City are in the process of making a final decision regarding the construction of a visual barrier behind your home to mitigate for visual intrusion in your backyard from vehicles and pedestrians travelling along the future Saratoga Avenue and the location of a new sidewalk along Saratoga Avenue. Please take a moment to review the options below. Circle one choice from the tree options and one choice from the sidewalk options. Once you have completed this survey, please call Brian Mauldwin at 399 -2277 so that your survey can be collected. Sincerely, Thank you for your input regarding this important neighborhood issue. Brian P. Mauldwin Community Relations Specialist Santa Clara County Traffic Authority 1754 Technology Drive, Suite 224, San Jose, California 95110 (408) 453 -3777 Printed on recycled poper SIDEWALK ISSUE Please circle one of the following alternatives: 1. Save trees and have meandering sidewalk near the base of the trees. 2. Remove trees and have a straight sidewalk along the elevated roadway and have some kind of landscaping. TREE ISSUE 1. Save trees and have a wooden wall'. 2. Remove trees and have a wooden wall'. 3. Remove trees and have a concrete wall'. Please note: According to arborist Barry Coates, 60 to 70 percent of the trees along Saratoga Avenue will die in three to five years because of their current condition due to the drought, regardless of the location of the future sidewalk along Saratoga Avenue. *The height of the proposed visual barrier is as follows: 13158 Via Arriba: 8 feet 13160 Via Arriba: 10 feet 13194 Via Arriba: 10 feet 13216 Via Arriba: 9 feet 13238 Via Arriba: 8 feet These visual barrier heights are designed to provide a 6- foot -net visual barrier height based on the elevation of Saratoga Avenue in relation to your property. Name, address, phone number COMMENTS: VIA ARRIBA SIDEWALK/VISUAL BARRIER SURVEY SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �?i AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 5, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Discussion: Engineering SUBJECT: Recommendation from Public Safety Commission to create a three -way stop intersection at Oak Place and Orchard Road. Recommended Action: Council discretion. If the Council supports the Commission's recommendation, then the Council should adopt the attached MV resolution. On July 13, the Public Safety Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that a three -way stop intersection be created at Oak Place and Orchard Road. The Commission's vote was taken after a survey of the surrounding neighborhood revealed that 25 out of 40 residents who responded to the survey support the creation of the three -way stop intersection (see attached survey results). This matter was originally brought to the Public Safety Commission by Lisa Donohoe, a resident at 14441 Oak Place, (see attached letter dated May 15), and was evaluated by engineering staff (see attached staff report dated June 1). Essentially, engineering staff does not support the creation of the three -way stop intersection because there is no accident history which can justify the installation of the stop signs and the primary reason for requesting their installation in the first place is to control speed along Oak Place, a problem which I believe is more properly addressed through traffic enforcement methods. Furthermore, I believe the installation of the stop signs will result in several undesirable effects such as increased noise and vehicle emissions in the immediate vicinity of the intersection and lastly, that the stop signs on Oak Place will constitute a "nuisance stop" which Motorists will tend to ignore much of the time. Notwithstanding engineering staff's opinions about the stop signs and the intersection, the City Council may opt to endorse the Public Safety Commission's recommendation by adopting the attached MV resolution which would designate the intersection as a three -way stop intersection. if the Council desires to adopt the resolution, the stop signs can be justified on the basis of their satisfying applicable stop sign warrants for this type of intersection. Fiscal Impacts: If the Council adopts the attached resolution, the cost for installing the signs and the necessary pavement markings would be approximately $300. Attachments: 1. Neighborhood survey results. 2. Letter from Lisa Donohoe dated May 15. 3. Engineering staff report to Public Safety Commission dated June 1. 4. MV Resolution. Motion Vote: Results of neighborhood survey: 3 -WAY STOP AT OAK PL. ORCHARD RD. Number of postcard sent out 67 Number of postcards returned 40 Number of residents far, the installation of the stop sign 25 YES 62.5% Number of residents against the installation of the stop sign 15 NO 37.5% 60% returned 62.5 62.5% yes 37.5 37.5% no 5 -15 -92 Harry R. Peacock City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Peacock: Please take care of this matter immediately. Since ly, Lisa S. Donohoe 14441 Oak Place Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867-1394 cc: Residents of Oak Place, Orchard Road, and La Paloma. CITY OF SARATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Reference: 00996 EgEir\vrir MAY 1 81992 Lti Back in the late fall of 1991, I called your attention to a dangerous blind corner on Oak Place. I requested that a stop sign be placed on Oak Place at the Orchard Road intersection. I received a reply on December 6th that the City Engineer would investigate the matter. On January 27th, you notified me that the Public Safety Commission would review the matter and that I would be notified of when the item would be agendized. I have heard nothing since. While I was politely waiting, my daughter narrowly escaped being run down by a car at the blind corner. We have on any given day a minimum of eight kids under the age of 9 who regularly ride their bikes in the neighborhood. As parents we do our best to enforce safety rules and monitor them closely, but our "quiet" street is a constant source of anxiety for all parents of the young children in our neighborhood. Now I am weary of standing by and waiting for the bureaucracy to figure out what to do. If I must, I demand that you make our street safe for our children. If it means circulating petitions and publicizing the inertness of the City, I will do it. I hate to sound threatening, but I am angry and I am scared. You put up a sign at Oak Place and La Paloma almost immediately after a resident's cat was killed I'm sure you wouldn't want to wait until some child is badly hurt or killed before Saratoga could get its act together to fix this dangerous situation. In addition to a stop sign, we need safety bumps, a convex mirror, or warning signs to get people to slow down before coming around the corner and stopping at Oak and Orchard. Printed on recycled paper. Discussion: MUT o U 1 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMO TO: Public Safety Commission FROM: Larry I. Perlin. City Engineer c4f e COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler June 1, 199 2Victor Monia Francis Stutzman RE: Letter from Lisa Donohoe, 14441 Oak Place, request- ing a 3 way stop intersection at Oak Place and Orchard Road Recommended Action: Direct staff to survey the residents of Oak Place, La Paloma, Orchard Road and Park Place on whether a 3 -way stop at the intersection of Oak Place and Orchard Road is desired. Engineering staff has evaluated Mrs. Donohoe's request for a 3 -way stop intersection at Oak Place and Orchard Road and has determined that the proposed stop signs can satisfy the necessary warrants for their installation. However, I am reluctant to recommend the installation of the stop signs just yet. Current traffic data on speeds, traffic volumes and accident history on Oak Place do not reveal any problems which need to be solved by the installation of additional stop signs. In fact the data does not suggest that there is any problem which needs to be solved at all. However, recognizing that the stop signs can satisfy applicable warrants, I believe it appropriate to pursue the matter by conducting a survey of the neighborhood residents to determine if the stop signs are truly desired. As you well know, often times the perceived benefits of stop signs are outweighed by the resulting undesirable effects of increased noise and air pollution particularly in the immediate vicinity of the stop signs. And since the City has not heard from anyone else in the neighborhood about this problem especially since Mrs. Donohoe's letter was copied to the residents of Oak Place, Orchard Road and La Paloma, I believe a City initiated survey of the neighborhood is a prudent thing to do. Depending on the results of the survey, the Commission can then act accordingly. If the Commission concurs with the survey approach, staff can conduct the survey during the month of June and have the results available for your July meeting. Until then, staff recommends that you take no action on this matter. Panted on recycled paper. Attachments: 1. Engineering staff memo dated May 28 with vicinity map 2. Mrs. Donohoe's letter dated May 15. Motion Vote: May 28, 1992 MEMO TO: City Engineer FROM: Erman Dorsey, Sr. Engr. Tech. SUBJECT: Oak Place at Orchard Road The intersection of Oak Pl. and Orchard Rd. is an uncontrolled "tee" intersection, and somewhat unique in character as it is in a rather dense residential location with most of the homes sitting fairly close to the road, and very local in nature. On the eastbound approach of Oak Pl. there is a curve to the left with double yellow centerline delineation, continuing northeasterly 250' to its "tee" intersection with La Paloma where Oak Pl. is controlled by a stop sign. Orchard Rd. is a straight, narrow, roadway running southeasterly, from Saratoga Ave. 700' to its "tee" intersection with Oak P1.. There are some existing concrete sidewalks in the general area (on both sides of La Paloma, on the southeasterly side of Oak P1. between Orchard Rd.and La Paloma, and along the northwesterly side of Oak PI. halfway between Orchard Rd. and La Paloma). All other areas pedestrians walk along the shoulders of these narrow roadways. Although traffic volumes, and speeds of vehicles using these roadways appear to be reasonable and there is no accident history at this intersection (one single vehicle -hit run back in 1982), the establishment of a three -way stop at the intersection of Oak Pl. and Orchard Rd. would probably make sense, and increase the safety of not only the vehicles traveling these roads but the pedestrians as well. These recommended stop sign installations should have the standard "STOP AHEAD" signs and pavement legends. The existing "STOP AHEAD" for the existing stop sign on Oak P1. La Paloma would have to be either removed or relocated. As far as the other requests of "safety bumps" and "convex mirror I don't believe that these should be used, as they are not recognized official traffic control devices and could cause some liability for the City. o va TvsT.g� -L R1 .BRArodbli A I Z lc) IJ 0.4 Er. rItAf .tflsTALG ?1 s «s REMOV OR R ELOCATd 1A °Saw AKE4Pv S#9n jlMEW Jva RI "s /00' DRAWN BY E. _0arfey APPROVED BY CITY OF SARATOGA STANDARD DRAWING IN TER CTI ON OAK PL. 0.4Cf1ARp DL, SCALE NOR. 1 VERT. 1 DATE May /9 92 M Iue. Number of chi (drrn C? and Linder )9 $t ?J arn oC -teen drivers F Cu4 41irouclh rook &Orr ,2.ra Los s Jul 4o Sara.