HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-1984 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSa
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: September 4, 1984
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
DEpAR2MENr. Community Developemnt - Engineering C. Mgr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUB=: Asphalt Concrete Overlay Project
Issue Summary
On Friday, August 31, 1984 bids were received and opened on the above subject project.
Five contractors submitted bids ranging from a low of $282,278.00 to a high of $357,102.00.
The Engineer's estimate was $329,425.00. The low bid of $282,278.00 was submitted by
O'Grady Paving, Inc. of Mountain View. This project consists. of pavement repair and
asphalt concrete overlay to Cox Avenue and to Saratoga Avenue, including improving the
approaches to the railroad tracks on Saratoga Avenue.
Recommendation
Award the contract to O'Grady Paving, Inc. for the submitted bid amount of $282,278.00.
Fiscal Impacts
The cost of $282,278.00 is to come from Gas Tax under the 1984 -85 Capital Improvement
Budget.
Exhibits /Attachments
Project Bid Summary
Council Action
9./5: Approved recommendation and requested study of extension. __
City of Saratoga
_Community Development Department
)ATE: /1 31j1984
-.
LIME: 2:00 P.M. _ `� BI D SUMMARY.
679ineer'S E51imafe : 0329,425.00
_Sheet =D2
PROJECT
.4sRlv,gz T Co�rc,QETE
Ovew4 A Y PRO ✓EC T
LOiDStJ/!Cr /Ofj
Amount
//4,OQ7 Q7
3 900.00
OFrcdyPa ✓in Ino
nit
is Amount
Jj,;s�, �ontfrucfinn
it
Amount
Piotrp
nit
Description
Quantit S'
t
Re vGir o{ fpilyd llrtQS
��s ruc Cow oil
. Tr cks
40, Qoe
/5'GY•1D
5.F.
5.F.
1.75
0.50
zo oo0.
7,500.06
/.,600
6416z
27.85
1.60
14ox 00
0.16
k/eci e Cal
/5000
L. F.
0.65
9,750,00
6.60
9,6_
O,SB
QR 400U ,4s iia/l
// 6700
Gal.
1.30
14,36b.06
1.30
14,300.00
0, 75
Fobr�' Mal
38 500
5. Y.
0.50
19, 750.06
0.55
21, / 75.00
J.,00
/%z "'A. C. O✓er /a
4 600
ar!
33.00
151, 869. 06
33.84
155,&4.00
Zq, 50
4 lt/fjifcSkioLii�e Sfri e
17600
Z. F_
0.09
' 1,530.00
0.a8
1,360.00
0.08
6 "JV4ife Bike �o•�e Sfi�i'
16,000
L.F.
0.13
1,080.
/,066.06
702.00
0.13
Z, 080.0
0.12
Eu% /c Ye / %w .S'fr�" c
BNSo //d �t/h�fe Sfr. e
A'wv %s 4, n oJw
Re F/ccfarizc pa ves,
.¢!DO
-2700
Z&,,*d
L.F.
1. F_
13-00
D.26
O.Z6
0.15
4025.0
6.24
p.z5
675.00
D.24
2 500.00
/, 860 6 0
2, 500.00
/, BaD�oo
2.75
3.00
TOT XL QMOMT OF 81D:. 282 278. 297, 579.
_Sheet =D2
PROJECT
.4sRlv,gz T Co�rc,QETE
Ovew4 A Y PRO ✓EC T
LOiDStJ/!Cr /Ofj
Amount
//4,OQ7 Q7
3 900.00
WAff/J
Unit
2.60
1.15
�/1,"__"
mourit
MCCQ�E�j
.fP�[SMG�
Unit,
Amount
/04,000.
18, 750.
2.08
83 2617.00
/,P,9
0.70
1.1S
28,35-0.00
10, SDD.
12 650.Ld
8, 700.0o
0.62
1,300.
8 250.00
1./O
12 100.
38,5W. 00
135,700.
0. 3-4
3.6.26
20.790.06
166,756E
0.38
22 330.60
4L3
0,09
/90 394,60;
1,530.601
1,360.00
O.Og
1,530.00
1,080
1,920.00
0.13
0.13
7,08 DOI
t 984 m
0.26
1,066.00
p 76
4666.00
702.00
648.00
2 260.
0.26
702.00
0.26
2,4Gb.o
2,SA0.08
2.92 t 752.60
3.00
1,800.00
317 72,00
T3_4 1,ZZQ
357, IoZ.Da
CITY Or Slubm -g,A
q 7 Initial:
AC�'DA BILL M. Dept. Hd.
DATE: September 7, 1984 C. Att
DEPAi:n,IIv'T: City Attorney
. C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE REGULATING TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS
Issue Sunm3ry The proposed ordinance is intended to strengthen the City's existing
regulation of temporary political signs, based upon the expanded power
now available under the recent U.S. Sucreme Court decision of
Vincent v. City of Los Angeles. At a continued regular meeting of
the Planning Commission on September 4, 1984, the ordinance was
considered and reccnunended for adoption by the City Council:
Reccuraridation
Fiscal Impacts
Adoption of ordinance,
There may be some cost incident to the removal of signs placed in
violation of the ordinance, but the ordinance provides for the t
recovery of such costs fran the sign owner.
Emlhibits /Attaci=2nts (1) City Attorney's Memo to City Council
(2) Proposed ordinance
(3) Report to Planning Commission dated August 29, 1984
(4) Planning Commission Resolution No. C -209 -1
Council Action
9/11: Made changes recamiended by City Attorney and_ introduced 5 -0.
9/19: Adopted Ordinance NS -3.60 5 -0.
PAUL B. SMITH
ERIC L. FARASYN
LEONARD J. SIEGAL
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
STEVEN G. BAIRD
JACK L. BRIDGE
GREGORY A. MANCHUK
A=iNSON • FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
660 WEST DANA STREET
P.O. BOX 279
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
(415) 967 -6941
MEMORANDUM
TO: Saratoga City Council
FROM: HAROLD S. TOPPEL, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Ordinance Regulating Temporary Political Signs
DATE: September 7, 1984
J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982)
L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979)
During its regular meeting on September 5, 1984, when the proposed
ordinance regulating temporary political signs was briefly discussed, the Council
expressed a desire for such ordinance to specifically include a monetary fine for
violation of ' the regulations. Chapter 2.5 of the Saratoga City Code states that the
violation of any provision contained in the Code shall constitute either an infraction or
a misdemeanor. The City Attorney's office is now in the process of reviewing the
entire Code to specify infraction offenses versus misdemeanor offenses. We
anticipate that violation of sign regulations will be classified as infraction offenses.
Until the review process is completed, I would recommend that an additional
paragraph be added to the ordinance as subparagraph (e) to read as follows:
(e) Infraction Offense
The violation of any provision contained in this Section is
hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute an
infraction and a public nuisance, subject to the penalties as
prescribed in Chapter 2.5 of the Saratoga City Code. Each sign
found to be in violation of this Section shall constitute a
separate offense.
As stated in the memorandum to the Planning Commission, the ordinance
does not prohibit the erection of temporary political signs upon utility poles within a
public right of way which do not contain traffic or other directional signs or
emergency service equipment. Such poles have customarily been utilized by
candidates for the Saratoga City Council and I assume would also be utilized for the
coming election if signs are posted in support of Measure G. The question of whether
the restriction should be expanded to include all public property has therefore been
left for determination by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Notwithstanding the recent Vincent case, which substantially expanded our
ability to control temporary political signs, we are still governed to some extent by
the numerous decisions of the California Supreme Court which attempt to balance the
constitutional right of free speech against the governmental right to control visual
Memorandum to Saratoga City Council
September 7, 1984
Page Two
clutter and traffic safety. Paragraph (c) concerning duration and removal and
paragraph (d) concerning violation and removal by City represent an attempt to bring
the ordinance within the scope of regulation and due process requirements set forth in
the California decisions. Although the Planning Commission did not change the
ordinance, they did have two suggestions which the Council might consider:
1. Modify paragraph (c) by shortening the period of time when political
signs could be erected prior to an election from sixty (60) days to
thirty (30) days.
2. Modify subparagraph (d) (1) by shortening the period of time during
which effort is made to locate the owner of a sign constituting an
existing peril to the safety of persons or property from three (3)
hours to one (1) hour and similarly shortening the period of time for
removal of such sign from two (2) hours to one (1) hour.
It should be noted that the ordinance does not regulate any temporary
political signs placed upon private property. Moreover, the ordinance does not limit
the total number of signs which can be erected within the City by any candidate or the
proponents of any ballot measure, nor does the ordinance control the number of signs
which can be erected at a single location, such as a utility pole. Such regulations have
been invalidated by the California Supreme Court and the Vincent case does not
specifically address these issues.
H S. TO
City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. NS -3
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ADDING
SECTION 10.12 RELATING TO TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 10.12 of Ordinance NS -3, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Saratoga, entitled "Temporary Political Signs ", is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 10.12. Temporary Political Signs:
Temporary political signs may be erected without a permit in
conformity with this section.
(a) Definition: As used in this Section, the term "Temporary
Political Sign" means a sign which directly relates to a
candidate for public office or to a ballot issue, in an election
conducted by a governmental entity.
(b) Sign Restrictions: A temporary political sign may be
erected only in accordance with the following restrictions:
(1) No temporary political sign may be illuminated in any
manner other than by previously existing lighting sources
normally used for illumination of the area where the sign
is erected.
(2) No temporary political sign may be affixed to any pole or
wire appurtenance thereof on which is attached any
traffic sign, traffic signal, street sign, parking sign or
other sign installed by any public agency for public
information purposes, nor may any temporary political
sign be erected in a manner or place that will obstruct
normal visibility of such traffic signs, traffic signals,
street signs, parking signs or other signs installed by any
public agency for public information purposes.
(3) No temporary political sign may be erected upon or
affixed to any sidewalk, crosswalk, police or fire alarm
system, hydrant, or any public building or other public
structure.
(4) No temporary political sign may be erected within or upon
any public highway, public street or public right of way in
a manner or place that will obstruct a motorist's line of
sight or otherwise constitute a safety hazard for vehicular
or pedestrian traffic upon such highway, street or right of
way.
9/11/84
-1-
(5) No temporary political sign may exceed an area of five (5)
square feet.
(G) No temporary political sign may be erected having
bracing or backing material thicker than one -half inch
(1/211), except for support posts firmly planted in the
ground.
(c) Duration and Removal: A temporary political sign may be
erected not more than forty -five (45) days prior to the day of
the election to which it relates and shall be completely
removed not later than five (5) days after the date of such
election.
(d) Violation and Removal by City:
(1) In the event a temporary political sign is erected in
violation of the restrictions set forth in paragraph (b) of
this Section and such sign constitutes an existing peril. to
the safety of persons or property, the City Director of
Maintenance shall endeavor to locate the owner of such
sign and request its immediate removal or relocation. If,
after reasonable effort to do so, the owner cannot be
found within one (1) hour after the Director of
Maintenance first becomes aware of the existence of the
peril, or if such owner is found and fails or refuses to
remove or relocate the sign within one (1) hour after
being requested to do so, the Director of Maintenance or
his representative may proceed to remove such sign.
(2) In the event a temporary political sign is erected in
violation of the restrictions set forth in paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this Section or is not removed within the time
prescribed in paragraph (c) of this Section, but such sign
does not constitute an existing peril to the safety of
persons or property, the Director of Maintenance shall
endeavor to locate the owner of such sign and notify such
owner of the violation. If, after reasonable effort to do
so, the owner cannot be found, the Director of
Maintenance shall post a notice of violation upon the
sign. If the violation is not corrected within three (3)
days after notice thereof is given to the owner or posted
upon the sign, as the case may be, the Director of
Maintenance or his representative may proceed to
remove the sign.
(3) Any temporary political sign removed by the Director of
Maintenance pursuant to paragraphs (1) or (2) above shall
conclusively be deerned to have been abandoned by the
owner thereof and may be destroyed. The City shall have
the right to recover from the owner of such sign all
removal and destruction costs.
9/11/84
-2-
(e) Infraction Offense: The violation of any provision contained in
this Section is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall
constitute an infraction and a public nuisance, subject to the
penalties as prescribed in Chapter 2.5 of the Saratoga City
Code. Each sign found to be in violation of this Section shall
constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance: The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty
30 days from and after the date of its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * * * **
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted this 19th day of
September, 1984, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
9/11/84
-3-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 8 -29 -84
Commission Meeting: 9-04-84
SUBJECT: Political Signs
Until recently, cities have been restricted by the courts in the
extent to which temporary political signs can be regulated,
although it was permissible to prohibit signs in areas where a
direct threat to the public safety could be shown (such as on
traffic signals, intersections and emergency communication
facilities). These signs were generally allowed to be installed
on public property.
The scope of regulation has now been dramatically increased by
the United States Supreme Court in the case of Vincent vs. City
of Los Angeles, wherein the Court held that temporary political
signs can be prohibited from public property on aesthetic grounds
alone. The ordinance adopted by the City of Los Angeles pro-
vided that no sign.could be erected upon any sidewalk, cross-
walk, curb, curb stone, lamp post, hydrant, utility pole, fire
or alarm system, street sign, traffic sign or other types of
public property.
The proposed ordinance is not quite as broad as Los Angeles, in
that temporary political signs can be erected upon utility poles,
provided the pole does not also contain a traffic information
sign. However, the Commission may consider expanding the scope
of the ordinance to exclude temporary political signs from all
public rights -of -way and other public property.
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
City Attorney
HST:cd
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. C -209 -1
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 10,
SIGNS - TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS
WHEREAS, an application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
was initiated by Staff to implement recent supreme Court decisions
regarding temporary political signs and conform with the objectives
of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance,, and --
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
said proposed amendment, which public hearing was held at the following
time and place to wit: at the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the 4th day of
September, 1984, at the Community Center Meeting Room, 19655 Allendale
Avenue, Saratoga, California, and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration the proposed amendment as
it would affect the Zoning Regulations in the General Plan of the City
of Saratoga, and after consideration of the staff report, the Commission
has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amend-
ment attached hereto shall be formally recommended to the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Saratoga as follows:
1. That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the
same as hereby affirmatively recommended to the City
Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of
the Zoning Ordinance of the City.
2. That the report of Findings of this Commission, a copy
of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B ",
be and the same as hereby approved, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send
a copy of this resolution of recommendation with attached proposed
amendment and Report of Findings and summary of hearings held by this
Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with
State Law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 4th day of September, 1984, by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Crowther, Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson and
Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT:Commissioner Schaefer
Chairman, Planning Commi n
ATTEST:
V U
Secretary
L
PTMnTNrC-
EXHIBIT "B"
C,. C -209
1. The proposed amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance
are required to acheive the objectives of'the General Plan
and zoning ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of the
zoning ordinance in that:
a) The location of temporary political signs will be
controlled to promote a safe, effective traffic cir-
culation system.
b) The size and location of these signs will be controlled
to preserve the natural beauty of the City's site, and
to ensure that public lands are used for the purposes
most appropriate and beneficial for the City as a whole.
2. The proposed amendments-to the test of the zoning ordinance
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare and are intended to promote public safety and wel-
fare by controlling the(.size and location of temporary poli-
tical signs particulary in public rights -of -way.
� 3 !
� U �
O
r•
J
SCALE: / =50
SARA T O GA
_LL G
- - - - _° _-
575'
NO PARK /NCB
a II l
e I
if if
I I� nu
hu
o,
.. .. .. _ >.. �.. cwc: ui.l li. H�i1. b? G. Jl bi: l�Max. t% frG:':(. i' Ia���' ww2'!( �4/ �! �1t�ii. �G�l�wtiwa�.% LY' J: t_1 ctWwt1;::; u, a� ..u........:y'- ',tNt.%.+..A.+. �S,SekT+et'.V+as.:+b . ..il. ..i':.:•�_,i. .. .. .. . �
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. (p 8
DATE: Sept. 10, 1984 (Sept. 15, 1984)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd. ✓�--
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Request for Recommendation of No Parking on Saratoga
Avenue Adjacent to Library
Issue Summary
At a recent study session the Council requested Staff to prepare documents
for the establishment of a no parking zone on Saratoga Avenue - fronting
the library. Adoption of the attached resolution and the subsequent
installation of signs will implement this program.
Recommendation
Adopt the Resolution Prohibiting Parking on a Portion of Saratoga
Avenue.
Fiscal Impacts
Approximately $115. for signs and approximately $62 for painting curb red
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution
2. Plan of Saratoga Avenue along library frontage
Council Action
9/19: Adopted Resolution MV-158 5 -0.
J (,'ALE: ! =50
3 �
Q
r
SARA-T 0 GA AVENUE �w
576' 1
NO PARK /NCB
12' — —
E
G 1 # p ,e
Ay
hrr
r
t
i.
AGcIDA BILL No. 6 q
DATE:
DEPAIfI'MENT: Community Services
CITY OP SIVZRr ACA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Cooperation Agreement
for the HCDA Program for FY 1985 -1987.
Issue ammary
The_City is in its 10th year of participation in the Urban (Santa Clara)
County HCDA -Block Grant Program, concluding a three -year Joint Powers aftd
Cooperation Agreement. City execution•of the proposed three -year JPA i!;-
required for continued participation in the program. The proposed JPA
remains essentially the same as that signed by the City in 1981.
n
Recommendation
City Council adoption of Resolution No. acknowledging execution
of the JPA; and
City Council authorization of the proposed HCDA Joint Exercise bf Powers
Agreement and Cooperation Agreement for fiscal years 1985 -1987 authorizing
the Mayor to sign for the City.
Fiscal Impacts
City receipt of HCDA -Block Grant funding estimated at a minimum of
$200,000 per year.
7 "hi.bits /Attachments
1. Resolution No.
2. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Cooperation Agreement, and
Appendix A (Certifications).
3. Report to City Manager
Council Action
9/19: Adopted resolution 2179 5 -0.
• RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA ACKNOWLEDGING EXECUTION OF JOINT EXERCISE
OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT
PURSUANT TO TITLE I OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED
FOR FISCAL YEARS 1985 - 1987
WHEREAS, in 1974 the United States Congress enacted the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, herein called Act;
and
WHEREAS, Title I of the Act allows Urban Counties to
receive Community Development Block Grants when such Counties
enter into Joint Exercise of Powers Agreements and Cooperation
Agreements with non - entitlement cities to qualify as an Urban
County applicant under the Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga wishes to enter into such
an agreement with the County of Santa Clara to qualify such
County as an Urban County in order to receive Housing and
Community Development Act funds thereby;
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of
the City of Saratoga approves the Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement and Cooperation Agreement on behalf of the City of
Saratoga.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to
execute said Joint Exercise of Powers and Cooperation Agreement
on behalf of the City of Saratoga.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Saratoga this 19th day of September, 1984,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR
• ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
OF., . , I.
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND
COOPERATION AGREEMENT TO UNDERTAKE
OR TO ASSIST IN THE UNDERTAKING OF
ESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO
TITLE I OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 197;', AS AMENDED
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985 -1987
This agreement by and between the County of Santa Clara and
is made in the light of the following recitals:
A.
That Congress has enacted the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, as amended;
B.
That Title I of the Act provides for a new program of Community
Develpment Block Grants;
C.
That Title I of the Act makes entitlement grants available to cities
with a population of 50,000 or more persons and to counties that qualify
as an urban county;
D.
That City is not eligible to apply directly for entitlement funds under
the Act but may, by entering into a cooperation agreement with
County, qualify County as an urban county applicant and can thereby
receive such funds;
• E.
That the parties hereto wish to enter into this agreement to enable the
County of Santa Clara to apply for and receive entitlement funds as an
urban county and to establish the respective rights and obligations of
the contracting parties to such funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1.
Authorities
This agreement is made pursuant to Section 6500 and following of the
California Government Code and constitutes an exercise of powers
common to both City and County, each being empowered to carry out
the purposes of the grant in their own jurisdictions.
This agreement is further made pursuant to the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended.
2.
Definitions
The definitions below are intended to assist the parties in making this
agreement. For purposes of simplicity and clearer understanding, some
of the definitions below have been shortened or rephrased from those
set forth in the Act and Regulations thereunder. In the event of any
conflict between the definitions in this agreement and those set forth in
the Act and Regulations, the latter shall govern.
• (a) "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, P.L.93 -383, as amended.
(b) "Applicant" is the County of Santa Clara applying as an urban •
county.
(c) "Regulations" means the rules and regulations of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development; particular reference is made
to those regulations found in 24 Code of Federal Regulations Part
570 (containing the general regulations of Community Develop-
ment Block Grants) and Part 53 (containing the regulations on the
Federal Environmental Review Procedures).
(d) "County" means the County of Santa Clara.
(e) "City" means the city or town that is a party to this agreement;
such city or town may be referred to as a "Non- entitlement city ",
that is, a city which cannot directly apply for or receive entitle-
ment grants under the Act but which can receive funds through
cooperation agreements with the Gounty.
(f) "Urban County" means a county that is (1) in a metropolitan area;
(2) authorized under state law to undertake essential community
development and housing assistance activities within its unincor-
porated areas, and (3) has a population of 200,000 or more within
its unincorporated areas or within its unincorporated areas and
units of general local government (cities) within the county with
which it has made cooperation agreements to undertake or to
assist in the undertaking of essential activities. •
(g) "Urban County staff" means those HCD staff persons of the
County and cities participating in the Urban County HCD pro-
gram.
(h) "Application" means the application for a grant to be submitted
by the County, as an Urban County, for entitlement funds under
Title I of the Act.
(i) "HUD" is the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment.
(j) "HCD" is Housing and Community Development, the Urban Coun-
ty's program to address housing and community development
needs of low to moderate income persons in Santa Clara County.
(k) "CDBG" is Community Development Block Grant, a federal pro-
gram administered by HUD which provides funding to eligible
entitlement cities and urban counties to address housing and
community development needs of low to moderate income per-
sons.
(1) "Grant" is the CDBG funds given by HUD to Santa Clara County
as the legal recipient of the Community Development Block Grant
for the Urban County.
(m) "HCD Council Committee" is an advisory committee established •
by the Board of Supervisors to advise the Board of Supervisors on
Q
•
the CDBG funded HCD Program. Its adopted role is "the policy
recommending body to the Board of Supervisors on the planning,
monitoring, and evaluation of the HCD program and the develop-
ment of a comprehensive, coordinated housing and community
development plan."
(n)
"HCD Citizens Advisory Committee" is an advisory committee on
the CDBG funded HCD progt am established by the Board of
Supervisors on the recommendation of the HCD Council Commit-
tee. Its adopted role is "the policy recommending body to the
HCD Council Committee on the planning, monitoring, and evalua-
tion of the HCD program and development of a comprehensive,
coordinated housing and community development plan."
(o)
"Board of Supervisors" is the legal recipient of the Community
Development Block Grant from HUD and is legally responsible for
the administration of the Urban County HCD Program for Santa
Clara County. '
(p)
"Citizens Participation Plan" is the plan adopted by the Board of
Supervisors which outlines the opportunities and process for
citizen input on matters dealing with the planning, monitoring,
and evaluation of the Urban County HCD program.
(q)
"Project proposals" are requests for CDBG funds submitted by
eligible applicants to implement specific eligible CDBG activities,
as defined by HUD...
(r)
"Housing Assistance Plans" (HAP) describe the housing conditions
and goals to meet the housing needs of lower income persons, and
identifies specific housing actions to be taken by the Urban
County to fulfill its housing needs. The HAP also serves as a
guide for HUD in the distribution opf assisted housing resources to
communities.
(s)
"Net Funds" are the total annual CDBG entitlement grant less
City and County administrative costs.
(t)
"Designated Funds" are those CDBG funds which will be allocated
on a competitive basis for only housing activities. The total
amount of money to be available in the Designated Funds cate-
gory will be determined by multiplying the Net Funds by 50%.
Therefore, Designated Funds = Net Funds x 50 %.
(u)
Non - Designated Funds" are those CDBG funds which will be
allocated equally to all participating jurisdictions in the Urban
County on a non - competitive basis to meet identified community
development and housing needs. The total amount of money to be
available in the Non - Designated Funds will be determined by
multiplying the Net Funds by 5096 and dividing the product by the
total number of participating jurisdictions. Therefore,
•
Non- Designated Funds - Net Funds x 50%
Number of Participating Cities and County
3. Purpose of Agreement •
This agreement is being made to meet the requirements and purposes of
the Act and Regulations with respect to the application for an
entitlement grant under Title I of the Act and to establish the
respective rights and obligations of the parties to such grant.
The purpose of this agreement shall be accomplished in the manner
hereinafter set forth.
4. Cooperation Agreement
The parties hereto agree to undertake or to assist in the undertaking of
essential activities as defined in the Act and Regulations thereunder for
the term of this agreement. More specifically, the parties hereto agree
to cooperate in undertaking, or to assist in undertaking, essential
community development and housing assistance activities, specifically
urban renewal and public assisted housing.
To the extent required by the provisions of the Act and Regulations
thereunder and to the extent required by the terms of this agreement, .
City agrees to comply with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964; Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968; Section 109 of
Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and
other applicable laws and requirements of the application and grant.
City understands and agres that should it fail to comply with such •
requirements or with the terms of this agreement, that funds allocated
to City during the effective dates of this agreement may be term-
inated, or reduced of otherwise limited in accordance with the Act and
Regulations.
5. Administration of Agreement
The officer and agents of both parties will cooperate in furnishing
information and assistance necessary for the preparation, completion
and filing of the County's application with HUD in accordance with the
requirements of the Act and the Regulations. In accordance with such
cooperation, the City shall annually furnish the County with the City's
local plan and process for citizen participation in the development of
the City's project proposals requested to be funded with Urban County
CDBG funds. The City's local citizen participation commitments will
be incorporated into the official Urban County Citizen Participation
Plan.
The City shall, prior to the final project proposal submission deadline
approved by the Board of Supervisors, submit project proposal requests
for CDBG funding to the County in the format developed by the
County. These project proposals will include a description of the
project's activities, the Urban County's need the project is addressing, a
detailed time schedule for the implementation of the project's activ-
ities, and other dataa items needed in the evaluation of the project •
proposal. These project proposals must be formally approved by the
City Council for transmittal to the County and be developed and
reviewed during the local citizen participation process.
4
• The City shall submit to the County a Housing Assistance Plan in the
form required by HUD. This document will detail the City's commit -
r rents to providing housing assistance to low and moderate income
persons within the city. The local commitments to housing assistance
by the cities will be incorporated into the Urban County's Housing
Assistance Plan (HAP), which will be reviewed by HUD to determine
the local commitments to address housing needs of low to moderate
income persons.
Whereas the County shall not alter or amend the elements furnished to
County where in compliance with the Act and the Regulations and
consistent with identified Urban County needs and priorities, the
County shall have full authority and necessary control of the prepara-
tion and filing of the application and of other papers and documents in
support thereof.
6. Term of Agreement
This agreement shall become effective upon execution by the governing
bodies of County and of City and it shall remain in full force and effect
until June 30, 1988.
The County will submit to the City the Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement and Cooperation Agreement to be signed by the City if it is
to participate on the Urban County program. The County will also give
the City, by August 3, 1984, a notice of the City's right not to be
O included in the Urban County if the City so desires. If a City decides
not to participate in the Urban County Program by not signing a Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement and Cooperation Agreement, it may not
be eligible to receive entitlement CDBG funding for three successive
program years commending on July 1, 1985 and ending June 30, 1988.
Upon qualifying, the County will remain an urban county (including its
unincorporated areas and the included units of general local govern-
ment) for a period of three years. That is, during the three year
qualification period no included unit of general local government can be
removed from the urban county, nor can any additional units of general
local government generally be included in the urban county during that
period. To assure that included units of general local government
remain an effective part of the urban county for the entire three year
qualification period, this cooperation agreement between the urban
county and its included units of general local government covers three
successive program years.
7. Project Proposals
Any and all project proposals for eligible HCD activities totally within
the sphere of influence of a city must be submitted to the city and
considered as a part of the city's project proposal development process,
No project proposals may be submitted directly to the County be
applicants other than cities for activities to be conducted totally within
the sphere of influence of a city.
is
Project proposals of a countywide nature may be submitted directly to •
the County. Cities shall have the right to review and comment on all
project proposals for the funding of countywide HCD eligible activities.
8. Grant Disbursements
A. City understands and agrees that CDBG funds disbursed under this
agreement are the obligation of County and that such obligation
of the County is dependent upon the qualification of the County
as an urban county applicant and upon the availability of federal
funds to implement Title I of the Act. Funds disbursed to the
City will be expended on eligible activities and projects selected
through a process developed jointly by the HCD Council Com-
mittee and the Board of Supervisors and described in the adopted
Urban County HCD Plan. The HCD Citizens Advisory Committee
will give advice to the HCD Council Committee prior to HCD
Council Committee actions. The HCD Plan includes a description
of prioritized needs, strategies to address the needs, and a project
funding submission and evaluation process. This process will be
used to evaluate all project proposals according to their ability to
address the adopted, prioritized needs and other criteria described
in the adopted Urban County HCD Plan.
B. It is understood that all parties to this agreement recognize their
responsibilities to undertake community development and housing
activities. Accordingly, each of the participating jurisdictions •
will be provided with an equal share on Non - Designated Funds in
order to meet identified community development and housing
needs in their jurisdiction. Cities and the County will recognize
the housing need in the County and HAP goals when deciding to
fund projects from their Non - Designated Funds. However, there
are no guaranteed percentages in the Non - Designated Fund set
aside for housing activities in each participating jurisdiction.
C. Because housing has been previously identified as the highest
priority need within the Urban County by the HCD Council
Committee and the Board of Supervisors, the City and the County
agree that all of the Designated Funds will be allocated on a
competitive basis as set forth below for housing activities:
Housing needs include but are not limited to housing rehab-
ilitation, activities to increase the supply. of new affordable
housing, and housing - related services which increase the avail-
ability and /or affordability of new and existing housing.
After the deadline for submission of project proposals, the Urban
County staff, composed of members of the County and City HCD
staffs, will evaluate the project proposals according to the
approved criteria and make recommendations on projects to be
funded. These recommendations will be reviewed by the HCD
Citizens Advisory Committee, the HCD Council Committee and
the Board of Supervisors. The HCD Citizens Advisory Committee
will give its advice on projects to be funded to the HCD Council •
Committee prior to actions of the HCD Council Committee.
• The Urban County staff report and the HCD Council Committee
recommendations will be reviewed at a .public hearing before the
Board of Supervisors. After public comment, should .there be a
difference between the HCD Council Committee and the Board
of Supervisors on projects to be funded, the HCD Council Com-
mittee and the Board of Supervisors will hold a joint meeting to
resolve the differences. The joint meeting will continue until
mutual agreement is reached. V(,ting separately, when a majority
of the HCD Council Committee and a majority of the Board of
Supervisors votes to accept specific project proposals, mutual
agreement is achieved. It is understood and agreed that as legal
recipient of the grant, the Board of Supervisors must officially
approve the mutually agreed upon project proposals to be included
in the application in order to insure that the program submitted to
HUD is consistent with the County's adopted housing and com-
munity development plan. At that time, the City will know the
number of projects approved and the estimated amount of CDBG
funds it is to receive.
Upon approval of the CDBG application and the release of funds
by HUD, the City may begin implementation of approved activi-
ties. Information on the progress of approved activities will be
submitted to the County on a periodic basis during the program
year the activities are being carried out. This information will be
included in the Urban County's monitoring reports which are
submitted to HUD during the program year... Projects which fall
• off of schedule according to the approved time schedule will be
evaluated according to the process detailed in the approved Urban
County CDBG Reprogramming Guidelines.
9. Areas of Housing Authority Operation
Nothing herein shall affect the rights and obligations of the parties with
respect to any agreement which the City may have with the Santa
Clara County Housing Authority.
10. Services, Equipment and Property; Reimbursement
County shall provide or be primarily responsible for providing the
services; equipment and other property necessary for the planning,
preparation and filing of the CDBG application and for the admin-
istration of the grant funds subject to the right of County to seek
reimbursement for actual expenses and costs of furnishing such ser-
vices, equipment and property. Subject to the provisions of the
application or of the grant award made thereon, all property furnished
by County as herein -above described shall belong to County during the
term of this agreement and after its termination. At the termination
of the CDBG program, all property and equipment acquired with CDBG
funds will be subject to the requirements and conditions of OMB
Circular A -102 Attachment N, Property Management Standards.
0
11. Records
City and County shall maintain appropriate books, records, files, and
accounts relating to the receipt and disbursement of the grant funds,
including records in accordance with Federal Management Circular 74 -4
and OMB Circular A -102 as they relate to the application, acceptance,
and use of federal funds for this federally assisted program and any
other records imposed by County's contract with HCD. All such books,
records, files and accounts shall be made available for inspection at
reasonable times and places by authorized representatives of City and
County to authorize representative of City, County, and Department of
Housing and Urban Development or any other person authorized by the
Act or the Regulations. The Director of Finance of County shall
receive and have custody of all funds until disbursal of such funds to be
made in a manner designated by County. County shall, by a date no
later than 7 days after receipt of the current year funding money,
notify City of the manner of disbursal of sLIch funds.
12. Certification
•
On or before September 28, 1984, City shall furnish County with those
assurances, copy of which, marked Appendix A, is being attached hereto
and made a part hereof. Such certifications to be furnished by City to
County are necessary to enable County to make the required assurances
in its application to HUD.
13. Liability and Indemnification •
It is expressly understood that, as the applicant to HUD, County must
take the full responsibility and assume all obligations of an applicant
under the Act and that HUD will look only to the County in this regard.
However, County assumes no respnsibility toward City for any failure
to qualify under the Act as an urban county. Further, County assumes
no responsibility towards City for any failure to include City in the
application as a result of City's failure to supply County with infor-
mation necessary to prepare and file the application, or as a result of
City's failure to supply County with such information, upon designated
dates, or as a result of City' failure to comply with the Act and the
Regulations.
Unless the acts of County employees, officials, or their representatives
are involved in the action or the County authorized the acts of the
City, the city shall indemnify and hold County harmless from any
liability, loss or damage suffered as a result of claims, demands, costs
or judgements against it arising out of the failure of City to conform to
the requirements of the Act, Regulations or other applicable laws; or
arising out of City's failure to perform any of the obligations under the
application; or arising out of anything done or omitted to be done by
City under or in connection with the work done on any of City;s
projects.
•
9
• 14. Discretionary Actions
Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the City from
exercising its discretion on any legislative quasi- judicial and /or admin-
istrative matter (including but not limited to any action.. involving
zoning or General Plan amendments).
Nothing herein shall compel the City to take any action on any matter
save and except as expressly required in this agreement. It is _
understood and agreed that the City does not by this agreement commit
itself or delegate the exercise of any of its police powers in any matter
whatsoever save and except as expressly set forth in this agreement.
15. Timeliness
When any action is required hereunder upon request for action on a
document or material furnished by the County to the City said request
for action on a document or material shall be furnished at least 30 days
prior to the date said action is required in order to allow sufficient time
for the City to review and act on said document or material.
16. Time is of the essence in this agreement.
17. Severability
Should any part, term, provision of this agreement be decided by the
• Courts to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of
California or any low of the United States, or should any part, term, or
provision of this agreement be otherwise rendered unenforceable or
ineffectual, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall
not be affected thereby.
18. Section Headings
All section- headings contained herein are for the convenience of
reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any
provision of this agreement.
•
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, parties hereto have executed this agreement on the
dates set forth below.
Date:
ATTEST: DONALD M. RAINS
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
I" �� 4 _-1,— �r
R ndldo Carboni
Deputy County Counsel
Date:
ATTEST: City Clerk
jnb
7/83
f[l7
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
By
Chairperson, Board of Supervisors
CITY OF
By _
Chairperson, Town City Council
•
•
•
0"
APPENDIX A
CERTIFICATIONS
The grantee certifies that:
(a) It possesses legal authority to make a grant submission and to execute a
community development and housing program;
(b) Its governing body has duly adopted or passed as an official act a resolution,
motion or similar action authorizing the person identified as the official
representative. of the grantee to submit the final statement and all
understanding and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing
the person identified as the official representative of the grantee to act in
connection with the submission of the final statement and to provide such
additional information as may be required;
(c) Prior to submission of its final statement to HUD, the grantee has:
(1) met the citizen participation requirements of 9 570.301(x)(2) and has
provided citizens with:
(A) the estimate of the amount of CDBG funds proposed to be used
for activities that will benefit persons of low and moderate
income; and
(R) its plan for minimizing displacement of persons as a result of
activities assisted with CDBG funds and to assist persons actually
displaced as a result of such activities;
(2) prepared its final statement of community development objectives and
projected use of funds in accordance with 5 570.301(a)(3) and made the
final statement available to the public;
(d) The grant will be conducted and administered in compliance with:
(1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88 -352; 42 U.S.C. 2000d
et seq.); and
(2) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 20 -284; 42 U.S.C. 3601
et seq.);
(e) It will affirmatively further fair housing;
February 1984
., I.
(f) It has developed its final statement of projected use of funds so as to give
maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and moderate income
families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; (the fin:u
statement of projected use of funds may also include activities which the
grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs
having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and
immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial
resources are not available); except that the aggregate use of CDBG funds
received under section 106 of the Act and, if applicable, under section 108 of the
Act, during (a period specified by the grantee consisting of 1, 2,
or 3 program years , shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate
income in a manner that ensures that not less than 51 percent of such funds are
used for activities that benefit such persons during such period;
(g) It has developed a 'community development plan, for the period specified in
paragraph (f) above, that identifies community development and housing needs
and specifies both short and long -term community development objectives that
have been developed in accordance with the primary objective and requirements
of the Act;
•
C
(h) It is following a current housing assistance plan which has been approved by HUD '
pursuant to § 570.306;
(i) It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted _
in whole or in part with funds provided under section 106 of the Act or with
amounts resulting from a guarantee under section 108 of the Act by assessing
any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low and
moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition
of obtaining access to such public improvements, unless: (1) funds received
under section 106 of the Act are used to pay the proportion of such fee or
assessment that relates to the capital costs of such public improvements that are
financed from revenue sources other than under Title I the Act; or (2) for
purposes of assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by
persons of low and moderate income who are not persons of low income, the
grantee certifies to the Secretary that it lacks sufficient funds received under
section 106 of the Act to comply with the requirements of subparagraph (1); and
(j) It will comply with the other provisions of the Act and with other applicable
laws.
l T`
- 2 -
0
OT9W o 0&M&19QX5Z
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
August 20, 1984
(408) 867 -3438
Report to City Manager
From: Housing and Community Development Coordinator
Subject: Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and
Cooperation Agreement for City Participation and
Receipt of Funding under the Housing and Community
Development Act - Block Grant Program
BACKGROUND
The City is currently in its 10th year of participation as a non -
entitlement jurisdiction in the Santa Clara . "Urban County"
• Housing and Community Development Act - Block Grant Program.
Funding for this Federal Program, administered by the Departmenmt
of Housing and Urban Development is authorized pursuant to Title
I, of the HCDA of 1974, as amended. Inclusive of 10th year
funding, the City has received a total allocation of
$2,559,865.00 since the beginning of the Program in FY 1975 -76.
For program years 1 through 7, cities participating in the Urban
County Program executed an annual Joint Powers and Cooperation
Agreement. Beginning with Program year 8 (1982 -83) HUD required
a 3 -year JPA. The City authorized the last 3 -year JPA in 1981.
The currently proposed JPA covers another 3 -year period, through
Program Year 1987 -88 (13th year).
During the 10th Program Year, the City will receive $204,002. It
is anticipated that this level of funding will continue through
1988. Should this City elect to seek funds for housing project
development, this figure could increase substantially.
ISSUE
The currently proposed Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and
Cooperation Agreement remains essentially the same as that
executed by the City in 198'1. Only minor changes to update the
document and incorporate into the Agreement, sections of the
Certifications (Appendix A) relative to the Civil Rights Act,
Fair Housing and non descrimination in implementation of the HCDA
Program have been added to page 4, Section 4, "Cooperation
Agreement, paragraph 2, of the proposed JPA.
Report to City Manager Page 2
0
During review of the proposed JPA both staff and members of the
HCD Council Committee expressed concern that the proportion of
funding of the total Urban County Grant receided by the
nonentitlement jurisdictions (cities and the county) should be
amended from its current distribution of 50/50 (governmental
participants /competitive housing project pool) to possibly 60/40.
In respone to this concern, 'the County HCD Program Manager
responded that the HCD Council Committee with the concurrence of
the Board of Supervisors could at any. time during the course of
the proposed JPA take action to amend the distribution formula
(see JPA Definitions Section, page 2, (t) and (u)). With this
understanding and agreement, the HCD Council Committee agreed to
recommend approval of the proposed JPA to their respective City
Councils and the Board.
RECOMMENDATION
Subsequent to consideration of the proposed JPA, review of the
operation of the last three- yearJPA, and agreement by the HCD
Council Committee to recommend City Council and Board of
Supervisors approval, staff recommends that the Saratoga City
Council execute the proposed JPA authorizing the Mayor to sign on
• behalf of(--�he City.
Stan' Carh'ekie
•
0919W o 0&%kXQX5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
August 20, 1984
(408) 867 -3438
Report to City Manager
From: Housing and Community Development Coordinator
Subject: Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and
Cooperation Agreement for City Participation and
Receipt of Funding under the Housing and Community
Development Act - Block Grant Program
BACKGROUND
The City is currently in its 10th year of participation as a non -
entitlement jurisdiction in the Santa Clara "Urban County"
Housing and Community Development Act - Block Grant Program.
Funding for this Federal Program, administered by the Departmenmt
of Housing and Urban Development is authorized pursuant to Title
I, of the HCDA of 1974, as amended. Inclusive of 10th year
funding, the City has received a total allocation of
$2,559,865.00 since the beginning of the Program in FY 1975 -76.
For program years 1 through 7, cities participating in the Urban
County Program executed an annual Joint Powers and Cooperation
Agreement. Beginning with Program year 8 (1982 -83) HUD required
a 3 -year JPA. The City authorized the last 3 -year JPA in 1981.
The currently proposed JPA covers another 3 -year period, through
Program Year 1987 -88 (13th year).
During the 10th Program Year, the City will receive $204,002. It
is anticipated that this level of funding will continue through
1988. Should this City elect to seek funds for housing project
development, this figure could increase substantially.
ISSUE
The currently proposed Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and
Cooperation Agreement remains essentially the same as that
executed by the City in 1981. Only minor changes to update the
document and incorporate into the Agreement, sections of the
Certifications (Appendix A) relative to the Civil Rights Act,
Fair Housing and non descrimination in implementation of the HCDA
Program have been added to page 4, Section 4, "Cooperation
Agreement, paragraph 2, of the proposed JPA.
Report to City Manager Page 2
During review of the proposed JPA both staff and members of the
HCD Council Committee expressed concern that the proportion of
funding of the total Urban County Grant received by the
nonentitlement jurisdictions (cities and the county) should be
amended from its current distribution of 50/50 (governmental
participants /competitive housing project pool) to possibly 60/40.
In respone to this concern, the County HCD Program Manager
responded that the HCD Council Committee with the concurrence of
the Board of Supervisors could at any time during the course of
the proposed JPA take action to amend the distribution formula
(see JPA Definitions Section, page 2, (t) and (u)). With this
understanding and agreement, the HCD Council Committee agreed to
recommend approval of the proposed JPA to their respective City
Councils and the Board.
RECOMMENDATION
Subsequent to consideration of the proposed JPA, review of the
operation of the last three- yearJPA, and agreement by the HCD
Council Committee to recommend City Council and Board of
Supervisors approval, staff recommends that the Saratoga City
Council execute the proposed JPA authorizing the Mayor to sign on
behalf of, -the City.
Stapt" Car iYekie
S
CITY OF SARATOGA
' INITIAL:
AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd.
DATE: 9/10/84 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Variance V -649 - Fred and Susan
Schumacher
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
0
Issue Summary
1. The existing carport was constructed without benefit of building permit
and was noticed by staff at the time of processing a Design Review
application for a second story addition. A condition of Design Review
approval was to legitimize the carport.
2. The existing carport which is attached to the residence, maintains a
1 ft. sideyard setback where 10 ft. is required and a 28 ft. rear yard
setback where 35 ft. is required.
3. The carport is a fire safety hazard because of the 1 ft. setback and
brush on the adjacent property. The Uniform Building Code requires
1 hour fire walls on structures within 3 ft. of a property line. Re-
construction of the carport would be required in order to comply with
the regulations of the Uniform Building Code.
4. A three -car garage currently exists on the site.
Recommendation
1. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny V -649.
2. Staff recommended denial of V -649.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Appeal letter from Susan Schumacher
2. Staff reports dated 7/13/84 and 9/21/83
3. Resolution No. V -649 -1
4. Minutes from Planning Commission Hearings 8/8/84 and 7/25/84.
5. Exhibits
6. Correspondence
Council Action
9/19: Denied appeal 4 -1 (Callon).
V1 4
COMMUNITY DEVELOP�!Fn''
APPEAL APPLICATION
Date Received: �
Hearing Date:- /9 -ky -k�
Fee (�
CITY USE ONLY
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone: _ %7�� �C�C�.�✓ �%-/�� .� �'S �— J� /-�o ��
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address.:
Project Description:
Decision Being Appealed:
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
Appellant's Signature
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION ?MUST BE SUBAiITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
Till; DATE 0r 'THE DECISION,
IiECEIVED
61�2
AUG 15 M4
COMMUNITY DEVELOP PAP
C---7
77
m
-5L
(24E_Z
09f
7� z , �
zp-/
oy�
7"Y.-
�C.���_/���h� �
��
�� � �
��ti
i� -- � �
_� -�..� .�:_ _. _Q.�� -�__ .____
_�
._ -
. ,
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 7/13/84
Commission Meeting: 7/25/84
SUBJECT: V -649 - Fred & Susan Schumacher, 14561 Westcott Drive
ACTION REQUIRED: Variance Approval for an existing carport which maintains only a 1 ft.
sideyard setback where 10 ft. is required, and a 28 ft, rear yard setback where 35 ft, is
required.
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION
ZONING: R- 1- 10,000
GENERAL PLAN: Residential: Medium Density Single Family (M -10)
SITE DATA
PARCEL SIZE: 30,854 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The site is level with a significant number of oak
trees and mature landscaping surrounding the house.
GRADING REQUIRED: None
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
SETBACKS (Carport): Front: 285 Ft. Rear: 28 Ft.
Right Side: 1 Ft.
HEIGHT: 112 Ft.
TMDCD11TA11C rnvrnnrr.
25% (60% max. allowable)
SIZE OF STRUCTURE (Including Garage): Existing Residence: 4,408 sq. ft. (3,500 sq. ft.
Carport: 319 sq. ft. Standard)
COMPLIANCE: The existing carport maintains only a 1 ft. sideyard setback where 10 ft. is
required and a 28 ft. rear yard setback where 35 ft. is required.
�)� - . # z
Report to Planning Commissic 7/13/84
V -649 - Fred & Susan Schumacher, Westcott Dr. Page 2
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
Background: In September of 1983, the applicant received Design Review Approval for
a second story expansion. At that time, it was noted that the carport on the north-
east side of the residence had been constructed without building permits and did not
meet the required setback.
The applicant was given six (6) months to correct the violation, either by demolishing
the carport, acquiring additional sideyard area through a lot line adjustment or through
a Variance Approval. He was also required to submit a letter of credit to the City.,
which would cover the cost of removing the carport should the correction not be made.
Because a lot line adjustment is not possible (refer to attached letters), variance
approval for the carport is now being requested.
Code Compliance: The existing carport is a fire safety hazard due to the 1 ft. setback
and brush on the adjacent property. The Uniform Building Code requires 1 hour fire walls
on structures within 3 ft. of a property line for fire safety. This would result in
portions of the existing carport requiring reconstruction and there may be additional
construction required in order to satisfy UBC regulations.
Site Conditions: The subject property is an odd shaped lot with a substandard lot width
where the house.is loacted (80 ft. instead of the 85 ft. standard). There is currently
an attached 3 -car garage on the southwest end of the house. Where the illegal carport
is, the house maintains a 12 ft. setback which complies with setback requirements.
FINDINGS
1. Strict Interpretation Causing Unnecessary Physical Hardship Inconsistent with Ordinance
ObJectives
The purpose of setback requirements is to maintain open space and privacy in residential
districts. Enforcement of the 10' sideyard setback is consistent with this objective.
It does not cause an unnecessary physical hardship as the carport was built without
building permits and, therefore, the practical difficulty in removing the carport is
caused by the illegal construction and not the regulation. Staff cannot make this finding
2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances
The subject property is an odd shape and the lot width, where the house is located, is
5 ft. narrower „than the standard width. Staff would be able to make this finding were
an 8 ft. setback proposed, as it would be consistent with the exception granted to other
properties with substandard lot width. However, there is nothing extraordinary about
this lot to necessitate a 1 ft. setback and, therefore, staff cannot make this finding.
3. Denial of Common Privilege
As there is already a three (3) car garage on the site, denial of a Variance for the
carport will not deprive the applicant of the common privilege to have covered parking.
Staff cannot make this finding.
4. Granting of Special Privilege
Because there are no exceptional circumstances which would necessitate a 1 ft. setback
or denial of common privilege, the granting of the variance would be a grant of special
privilege. Staff cannot make this finding.
Report to Planning Commissi 7/13/84
V -649 - Fred & Susan Schumaciier, Westcott Dr. Page 3
5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare
The carport will need to be reconstructed in order to meet the Uniform Building Code
fire safety regulations. This would be required if the variance were approved and,
therefore, staff can make this finding.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial having been unable to make Findings #1, 2, 3 and
4. If the Commission wishes to approve the.variance, it would be per the Staff Report
dated 7/13/84, Exhibits "B and C" and staff would recommend the following conditions:
1. The carport must meet all UBC regulations. Building permits for these corrections must
be secured within two (2) months from the date of the variance approval and have final
building approval within 4 months from this date. The'City shall retain the letter of
credit until final building approval.
2. Significant changes to the carport will require Planning Commission Approval, but -
will not require public noticing.
Approved:
Lirtda Lauzz
Planner
LL /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 7/25/84
62wl; - M
A
Rai
hL
I. q %
—wool
I'M l!"NOMEN
ic
I
Am.. 14A
a� S�R9
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City c` nr,..t' '' *Revised: 9/28/83 -
n,-
APP %G'�': 7 il'w'�S. --r .� DATE: 9/21 /83
DATES C 3 - Commission Meeting: 9/28/83
INITIALS:,,.._.
SUBJECT: A -911 - Mr. Fred Schumacher, 14561 Westcott Drive
REQUEST: Design Review Approval to construct a second story addition to an existing two -
story residence which exceeds the standard floor area for the zone.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Variance approval and building permits for a carport addition
to the north side of the residence which maintains a 1 foot setback where 10 feet is re-
quired.
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 30,854 sq. ft. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Single
Family
ZONING: R -1- 10,000
SITE DATA:
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential
SITE SLOPE: Level SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Level
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: There are numerous trees and shrubs on the site.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: The applicant commenced building a second story expansion over an existing
carport without building permits or Design Review. There is currently partial framing
for this addition'.
Additionally, staff was unable to find building permits for a completed carport on'the
north side of the residence where a 1 foot setback now exists. The applicant will need
a variance for this addition and, if granted, a building permit which will require some
modifications such as installing 1 hour fire walls.
GRADING REQUIRED: None
SETBACKS: Front: 229 ft. Right Side: 36 ft. Left Side: 14 ft.
(From the Addition)
Report to Planning Commissi.a
A -911 - Schumacher, Westcott Drive
HEIGHT: Addition:
SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
2616" Existing Residence: 24' 6"
c
Existing Structure:
3,400
sq.
ft.
New Garage:
541
sq.
ft.
Proposed 2nd Story Addition:
467
sq.
ft.
Total Floor Area:
4,408
sq.
ft.
9/21/83
Page 2
(3,500 sq. ft. Design
Review Standard)
COLORS & MATERIALS: Wood siding and shake roofing will match existing residence.
SOLAR: Clearstory windows are proposed on the southwest elevation.
RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: The house sits on an irregularly shaped lot about
230 feet back from Westcott Dirve. There are single story residences to the north and
east, and a two -story residence on a large lot to the southwest. Trees and shrubs screen_
the existing residence from adjacent properties.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Setbacks:
The proposed addition does conform to setback and height requirements for the zone, except
for the exterior stairway off the two -story deck which intrudes into the required 10 foot
side yard setback. As a condition of approval, the stairway must be moved out of this set-
back.
Privacy Impacts:
The proposed addition, with the second story deck, is screened from the property to the
southwest by high shrubs and from the residence to the east by a dense tree canopy, thus
privacy impacts are minimized.
Existing Carport on North Side:
If the applicant is unable to produce a valid building permit for this addition, then he
must submit variance and building permit applications. Staff recommends that no building
permit be issued for the requested second story addition, if approved, until variance
approval and final building approval is complete for the existing, apparently illegal,
carport.
FINDINGS:
I. Interference with Views and Privacy
The proposed second story addition will not interfere with the privacy of adjacent
properties due to the distance between residences and the screening of existirU trees
and high shrubs.
2. Preserve Natural Landscape
There is no removal of trees or grading involved in this project.
3. Excessive Bulk and Compatible Bulk and Height
The landscape screening minimizes any appearance of bulk and the proposed residence
is compatible in bulk and hieght with other residences in the neighborhood. The
l Report to Planning Commissi,.� 9/21/83
A -911 : Schumacher, Westcott Drive Page 3
second story addition will not impair the solar access of adjacent properties.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the staff report dated 9/21/83 and Exhibits
"B, C and D ", subject to the following conditions:
I. The applicant shall revise the location of the exterior stairway so as to maintain
the required 10 foot sideyard setback.
-�:
Va ri- a*ce -appre val- -and -f -naI -btri 1 d --n- - approvaI 4s- requ-iTed -for- tire- unapproved -carport-,
-de €i- -ort -E- xhfb,rt- "B 1-L or -the- car P
port -must- be -remo ve�i- p r i-or to -is� u a rrce- o f -btri i d i-rrg
-permi- ts- for- -the - requested - second - story- &Mtiorr. (deleted)
*2. Applicant shall post a cash bond to cover cost of demolition of carport and admini-
strative costs should he not be able to obtain a variance or a property line adjustment
within six (6) months. Should the applicant not be able to legitimize this structure,
he shall remove it within the same six month period or the bond will be used for such
removal.
Approved:
Li a Lauzze
Planner
LL /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 9/28/83
*as amended by Planning Commission 9/28/83
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. V -649 -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
F I LE NO.: V -649
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of �,fr _ Frrx� grhi miachar for a Variance approval
for an existing carport in the required side yard setback area, in the R-1- ,
-zoning district at 14561 Westcott Drive.
and
WHEREAS, the applicant (kXS3 (has not) met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the application for .the Variance be and the same is hereby
(9X4x1g4) (denied) subject to the following conditions:
Per Exhibits B and C and the Staff Report dated
July 13, 1984.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that
X��4�XCXX�(XXrXX�i) (the Planning Commission could not
make all of the requisite findings), and the Secretary be, and is
hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 8th day of August 1984
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther and Siegfried)
ATT _ T:
Se etary, P anni��g eaimission
M
V
Planning Commission Page 5
Meeting Minutes 8/8/84
E -1 -83 (cont.)
Commissioner Peterson moved to accept E -1 -83, acknowledging that this project
will have a significant impact on the environment. Commissioner McGoldrick
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. It was directed that
the applications on the project be continued to August 22, 1984.
9. A -998 - Mr. and Mrs. Donald Rumph, 14968 Granite Court, Request for
Design Review Approval to construct a two -story addition to an
existing one -story residence in the R- 1- 40,000 District
It s`d'i�ected that this be continued to September 12, 1984.
10. V -649`` - D1r. Fred Schumacher, 14561 Westcott Drive, Request for Variance
Ap Toval for an existing carport in the required side yard set -
ack area in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district; continued from July
25, 1934
Staff explained the application, recommending denial since they are unable
make the findings.
Mr. Schumacher addressed the proposal. He stated that the only one that it
impacts is the neighbor, Mrs. Smith, and she also feels that it is attractive
He noted that behind his home there is a two -story structure that is sitting
on the property line, and he does not believe there :could be any precedent
setting problem in granting this variance.
Dolores Smith, 14560 Ylestcott, spoke in support of the project. She indicate
that she would be most affected by this carport, and she feels it is a posi-
tive addition.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Burger commented that if the Commission did grant this variance
there would have to be what appears to be some substantial changes to the
carport as it now stands, so that it would meet the Building Code. Staff
agreed, stating that when it is that close to the property line the Building
Code calls for a one -hour fire wall, and it is an open structure at the momen
Therefore, that side, next to the fence, would have to be enclosed and be of
substantial construction. The findings were discussed, and there was a con-
sensus that they could not be made.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to deny V -649, per the Staff Report dated July
15, 1984 and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, whic
was carried unanimously 5 -0. Chairman Siegfried stated that the Commission
feels that the granting of this would set a rather dangerous precedent and
noted the 10 -day appeal period to the City Council.
Break - 9:05 - 9:15 p.m.
11. A -983 - Richard Geno, Tollgate Road, Lot #IS and #16, Tract 6628, Request
for Design Review A proval to construct a two -story single family
residence on a hill�ide lot in the NHR zoning district
Staff noted that, because of m difications to the proposal, the variance
application is no longer applic ble. They indicated that the height limita-
tion has been modified such tha it is within the 30 ft. They added that
there is no longer a need for tic is permit because it has been reduced.
Staff explained the proposal, in icating that they cannot make the findings
and recommend denial. Phey note, the applicant's comments in the packet rela
tive to the Staff Report, specif cally AJo. 13, which is not applicable at thi
time and should be struck from tie comments. Commissioner Harris questioned
Condition 9, stating that she did not recall any discussion regarding decks,
and 6" does not seem appropriate. Staff was asked to review this and clarify
The public hearing was opened at 920 p.m.
Mr. Geno submitted pictures of the site and discussed the modifications that
have been iradc. He discusses, the .f Indings in terms of the bulk issue, noting
that there appears fo be a wide ran e of sizes i.n the homes and properties wi
in S00 ft. of the subject.. property aid there has been design review approval
for homes up to 1G,19S ss{. ft. in the NHR zone.
Planning g Imission Page 8
�tceting� .tes 7/25/54
V -643 (cont.)
The public hearing was opened at 10:35 p.m.
Mr. Lohman appeared and described the proposal. He indicated that Ile would
like.to use a dumpster that is now on the property for removal of the shed.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V -648, per the conditions of the
Staff Report dated July 18, 1984 and.Exhibit B, with Condition 1 changed to
read that the existing shed shall be removed prior to final approval, rather
than issuance of building permit, making Findings 3 and 4 for the reasons
stated. C issioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unani-
mously 6 -0.
is V -649 - M . Fred Schumacher, 14561 Westcott Drive, Request for Variance
proval for an existing carport in the required side yard set -
back area, in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district
The proposal was explained by Staff. They indicated that they were not able
to make the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a
Land Use Committee report, agreeing with the Staff Report. She added that
she sees the carport roof as a fire hazard and feels that the applicant can
still park a car there. \
The public hearing was opened at 10:41 p.m.
Mr. Schumacher described the lot,•commenting that it seems that this is pri-
marily an issue between him and his neighbor, as no one else is impacted.
He stated that he would like to have an opportunity to discuss this with his
neighbor.before lie is forced to tear down the structure, to see if there are
any other options. He explained that''he had been out of town and would like
to have the matter continued. It was directed that this matter be continued
to August 8, 1984.
MISCELLANEOUS
16a. SDI -7 - Steven Dorcich, 18570 Sobey Road, Site Modification and Design
16b. A -912 - Review Modifica ion Approval for rear decking and an enlarged
Mod. driveway backup area on slopes >100, in the R -1- 40,000 zoning
district - --
Staff described the modificati n, recommending denial. Commissioner McGoldrick
gave a Land Use Committee Repo t, discussing the trees on site. She agreed
with the Staff Report. Commis ioners Harris and Burger agreed, indicating that
it will be very visible and fro down below it will give more of a perception
of bulk.
Chuck Miller, landscape architec , explained the current proposal and reasons
for modification. He discussed he proposed landscaping and possible alter-
natives for the deck. Commission r McGoldrick stated that the swimming pool
and play areas of the house are a sumcd to be in the front around the pool, so
that the back of the house where he decks are is not their primary recrea-
tional area.
The architect for the project Comm nted that the primary purpose of the rear
decks is to soften the effect of t e height of the building and is a design
element of the building. Commissi ner Schaefer asked if it were logical to
build in planters on the top rail s they would drape over the deck. Ile
indicated that that would be a poss ble solution. He discussed the plantings
in the interior courtyard.
Commissioner Harris asked if the concrete area on the driveway needs to be
that large. The architect discussed the driveway and possible options for
the extension of the backup area. 11 indicated that they would be raising
the wall around that area to create , barrier to prevent people from either
driving or walking over the edge of he paving.
There was a consensus to rake the mat er to a study session, to further
review the proposal and possible opti ns. Chairman Siegfried commented that
the Commission would like to see some other possibilities in terms of reducing
the size of the decking, maybe stepping it down, integrating some planting,
pulling the driveway back, and some options showing how the applicant reached
8
C C
To: Saratoga City Planning Commission
From: Fred M. Schumacher
Re: Covered Carport at 145461 Westcott Dr., Saratoga
The variance is necessitated by the'fact that the lot is an
odd configuration. Although the total size is approximately
0.8 acre, it steps in to only 50.feet'where the house is
located. Therefore, it was not possible to cover that
portion of the driveway without going to the property line.
An attempt was made to purchase the,section that steps in
from the neighbor, as the attached offer and subsequent
declination shows.
In response to Section VI:
1• The physical hardship is due to the fact that the lot is
_
only 50 feet wide where the house is located.
2. The configuration of the lot is certainly unique and
results in a considerable amount'of non — utilizable property.'
3. Denial of the permit would prevent me from having
" ::';::.•
functional aspects of a house that should be realizable with
the size of this lot.
4. The granting of the variance certainly.would not be a
�,•, �,,1�
grant of special priviledge as .the difficulties were caused
when the lot was created in this odd configuration.
5. The area of the carport is so isolated it cannot be seen
by anyone except the neighbor that has the property
bordering the carport. This neighbor believes the profile
is more aesthetically pleasing with the carport than it was
prior to the carport. Not one of the neighbors object to.
the carport as the attached signed survey shows.
3
c �
We the undersigned, having property adjacent to 14561 Westcott Dr.,
have no objection to the existing carport on that property.
Name
Add
NAME
Address
Name
Address'
Name
Address I `7 (2
Name fC
Address '3 L 76
Name
ADDRESS
THANK YOU,
Fred and Sue Schumacher
iif
9.
• -ewe. �.�a�, .�
• C ,` A .Y e,,JK,
vtamo
tLL 1&"Amt
Palci
_.
1 -tom; L AJ% .'
Uftow the CDegk o . . . .
Fred M. Schumacher
/V(P
.. . ....... ... L
IC
C, a
bi r
7'0
cll----,�:i':72-07by
Fred M. Schumacher
14561 Westcott Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
November 16, 1983
Ms. Dolores Smith
14560 Westcott Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Ms. Smith:
We have had several discussions regarding my desire to straighten
out the lot line of my property bordering yours by purchasing the
13.50' by 95' section (2,282.5 sq.ft.) from you or, as was
suggested by one of the members of City Council, trading for the
access easement which is approximately 15' by 200'.
Your main expressed concern regarding the sale was a reduction in
privacy by giving up the 13.5' section. Should you sell this
property to me, I would agree to plant a dense row of trees or
put in a block wall, whichever you would prefer; either of which
would increase your privacy. The, block wall would, in addition,
act as a sound barrier.
The price that I am offering to pay for this 13.50' x 95' strip
of land is $7,000.00 cash, plus all costs of purchase and lot
line adjustment.
Should you prefer to trade the 13.50' x 95' strip for the 15' x
200' easement, I will pay for all costs of lot line adjustments.
I understand that deeded access makes your property much more
valuable, so this latter approach may be' the better for the
lo:�oer term. in either case, I :Ji l Z take the steps nee .essar' ..tu
insure your privacy.
Please let me know if any of this is acceptable so that I can
resolve the problem with the City regarding the car port that
does not meet code.
Very truly rs,
red M. Schumacher
FMS /jd