Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-07-1992 City Council Agenda packetEXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. .2-/2 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: Fiscal Impacts: None 1/7/92 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Santa Clara County's Draft Paratransit Plan CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Motion: Authorize Mayor to sign letter stating City's position on plan. Report Summary: Transit Assist has requested City of Saratoga Councilmembers to support its concerns regarding the Paratransit Draft Plan for Santa Clara County. Specifically, Transit Assist would like Council to request that the draft plan consider and build upon the existing paratransit systems. Attachments: Staff report plus referenced letters Motion and Vote: Printed on recycled paper. January 7, 1992 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867.3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Mania Francis Stutzman Memo to: City Council From: Administrative Assistant Subject: Santa Clara County's Draft Paratransit Plan Lauren Mende, Coordinator. of Transit Assist, has requested that the Transit Assist JPA cities individually submit letters to the Santa Clara County Transportation Commission and to the Santa Clara County Transit District Board of Supervisors at their respective meetings on January 8 and January 14, 1992. The discussion at these meetings will focus on the Americans with Disabilities Draft Paratransit Plan. The states that the major transit operators (in our case, the Santa Clara County Transit District) is responsible for ensuring that "comparable paratransit service" is available for disabled individuals who cannot use fixed route buses and /or light rail. Elements of comparable service include: o Service, hours, and days comparable to public transportation routes o Service to all origins and destinations within 3/4 mile on each side of any fixed route o Next day scheduling (including weekends and holidays) o No trip restrictions or priorities o Fares are less than or equal to twice the adult fare for a similar fixed route trip The Santa Clara County Transportation Agency staff examined four (4) alternatives to county -wide implementation of the paratransit plan. Staff chose to select one broker to administer paratransit services for the whole county through a Request for Proposal process. Transit Assist and the other four Santa Clara County paratransit service providers intend to respond to SCCTD's request for proposals with a joint proposal; the proposal will designate one agency to be the lead broker. This would allow each paratransit agency to remain intact and satisfy SCCTD's desire to monitor only one contract. Karen Campbell Administrative Assistant Lauren Mende indicated that Transit Assist has three concerns with the plan which are outlined in Los Gatos' letter (attachment #2) to the SCCTD Board of Supervisors. Briefly, the concerns are that the Board of Supervisors should: o Protect the integrity and quality of the programs by building on the existing paratransit systems o Address service needs of paratransit clients residing in geographic areas not covered by ADA regulations. o Take the lead in identifying the source of funds to be used for the paratransit system In conversation with Lauren Mende, she mentioned that the agency's primary concern is that the plan build on the existing transit system and requested that our letter specifically address this. Her two main points are that: A. Transit Assist and other paratransit providers have a twelve year history of providing a paratransit system that can easily be adapted to the ADA requirements. (Currently, everyone using Transit Assist would be considered "ADA- eligible. The draft plan does not specifically do this. B. Studies on paratransit in this County have shown that paratransit agencies have been providing a high level of service, high quality, at a relatively low cost. It would be logical to fully utilize the agencies which have the knowledge, expertise, and the desire to provide the service. Recommendation I have drafted a letter for the Mayor's signature. If Council concurs with Transit Assist's concerns and request, the recommendation is to sign the letter and send to the SCCT Commission and the SCCTD Board of Supervisors. d� a5111 December 20, 1991 Carolyn King Assistant to the City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Carolyn: Attached, please find the Town of Los Gatos Council report and letter to the Santa Clara County Transit District Board of Supervisors, which will be presented to the Los Gatos Town Council on January 6, 1992. The topic of the Council report and letter is regarding the Americans with Disability Act Paratransit Draft Plan. The Council report and the letter addresses staff's and the Transit Assist Joint Powers Agency's concerns regarding the Paratransit Draft Plan. Please send a letter from your to the Santa Clara County Transit District Board of Supervisors for their January 14, 1992 meeting, and a copy to the Santa Clara County Transportation Commission for their January 8, 1992 meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 395- 2010, or Regina Falkner, at 354 -6820. Thank You! e5=0 Lauren Mende, Coord nator Transit Assist cc: Barbara Winckler, Councilmember, City of Monte Sereno Dr. Francis Stutzman, Councilmember, City of Saratoga Brent Ventura, Councilmember, Town of Los Gatos Jack Lucas, Councilmember, City of Monte Sereno csdli:a: \letters \cities.ada LOS GATOS MONTE SERENO SARATOGA JOINT POWERS AGENCY 208 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone (408) 395 -2010 DEC. 2 7' 1991 December 23, 1991 Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Diane McKenna, Chair 70 West Hedding, 10th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 The Town has reviewed your draft Paratransft Plan. It appears to meet the spirit and letter of the law. However, we urge the Board to: 1. Protect the int gr ty and quality of the programs by building on the existing paratransft systems. Transit Assist and the other four paratransk providers In the county have a twelve year history of providing an excellent paratransk system that can be easily adapted to meet the ADA requirements. The draft plan does not speciflcaky build on the existing paratransit system. At risk is Transit Assist's human services component in service delivery. 2 Address service needs of paratransit clients residing in geographical areas not covered by ADA regulations. These areas include a portion of the Los Gatos hillside and all of the Saratoga hillsides. Individuals who live in these areas represent approximately three percent of the Transk Assist registered clients. 3. Take the lead In identifying the source of funds to be used for the paratransit system. The $2 $15 million projected cost over five years is shown as a deficit in the plan. Are federal monies going to be available to fund this program? Are local monies going to be made available? Staff believes that services should be prioritized and provided within available funding levels. the proposal paratransit service provider's intend to respond to SCCTD's request for proposals with a joint proposal; P posai will designate one agency to be the lead broker. Each paratransit agency would thereby remain intact. This cooperative and consolidated agreement would satisfy SCCTD'S desire to monitor only one contract, at the same time allowing the paratransit agencies to protect the integrity and quality of the current services. Sincerely, Eric D. Carlson, Mayor EC:dr DRAFT cc: Barbara Tryon, Chair, S.C. County Transportation Commission CSD13:A: \1 \W D rinted on recycled paper. January 8, 1992 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (4081867 -3438 Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Diane McKenna, Chair 70 West Hedding, 10th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 Dear Supervisor McKenna: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman The County's draft Paratransit Plan was discussed by the Saratoga City Council at our January 7 Council meeting. While we are in agreement with the plan, our concerns reflect those presented by the Town of Los Gatos in their December 23 letter to the Board of Supervisors. Specifically, we request that the Santa Clara County Transportation Commission and the Board of Supervisors support a draft plan which will build on the existing paratransist system. For the past twelve years, Transit Assist has meet the needs of the Saratoga community. We would like the plan to fully utilize the agencies which have the knowledge, expertise, and the desire to provide the service in order to ensure the continuance of quality, cost effective programs. Sincerely, Willem Kohler, Mayor cc: Barbara Tryon, Chair, S.C. County Transportation Commission TO: DATE: Yv FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Printed on recycled paper. Background: Recommendation: UMW ©2 0 1 1 f 123 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M Mayor and City Council Paul L. Curtis, Planning Director December 29, 1992 SA COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Ann Marie Burger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Karen Tucker AZO -92 -006 An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga repealing Section 15- 45.090(b) and Section 15- 46.050(b) and adding Section 15- 45.090(b) and Section 15- 46.050(b) to the Code of the City of Saratoga, relating to extensions of time for design review and site modification approvals Accept the Planning Commission recommendation of November 24, 1992, and introduce Ordinance AZO -92 -006 which accomplishes the following: 1. Removes the extension process for Design Review and Site Modification approvals; 2. Exempts (i.e. "grandfathers all Design Review and Site Modification projects approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance; 3. Exempts Design Review and Site Modification approvals that are considered as part of Subdivisions or Conditional Use Permits. Property owners and /or developers (i.e. applicants) must have Design Review or Site Modification approval prior to development of their property. This approval is valid for two years, during which time building permits are to be issued for construction to commence. If building permits are not issued within two years, the Design Review or Site Modification approval is void. The City Code currently gives the Planning Commission the authority to extend Design Review and Site Modification approvals beyond their initial two -year approval date. Applicants are permitted to request up to three, one -year extensions, potentially keeping these applications active for up to five years from the original approval date. Recently, the Planning Commission has considered extension requests for projects that now are somewhat inconsistent with current approvals. The Commission has proposed adding conditions or making minor modifications to maintain consistency with current regulations. However, the Commission has been advised by the City Attorney that only changed health and safety issues warrant adding conditions or changing the previously approved plan. If the City has adopted any new development regulations (e.g. setbacks, lot coverage, slope requirements, etc.), these new standards cannot be applied to the previously approved plan and, furthermore, must grant extensions of up to three additional years minus the health and safety issues. This existing extension process could result in a project being approved, extensions granted and construction completed inconsistent with development regulations changed five years earlier. Proposed Ordinance: The Planning Commission discussed at length, the effect of the new ordinance on previously approved projects. As originally proposed, the new ordinance would immediately delete the extension process. No extension would be granted after the effective date. The Commission felt this was unacceptable, especially for projects that would expire shortly after the ordinance was effective. The Commission considered several alternatives for "grandfathering" previously approved projects: PLC:cw Grant an automatic 1 -year extension to all approved projects. For example, a project scheduled to expire in March 1993 (having been approved in March 1991), would have new expiration date of March 1994; a project approved in December 1992 would expire in December 1995 instead of 1994 as the code now provides. Grant a 1 -year extension to projects that are scheduled to expire within the next year and no extensions to others. Effectively, this would allow at least one full year for all applicants to activate their projects. Following discussion, the Planning Commission felt that because of the limited number of extension requests (2 or 3 per year) and the potential difficulty in tracking different approval /expiration dates, grandfathering all previously approved projects was the most appropriate alternative. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 45.090(b) AND SECTION 15- 46.050(b) OF AND ADDING SECTION 15- 45.090(c) AND SECTION 15- 46.050(c) TO THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, RELATING TO EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVALS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Sections 15- 45.090(b) and 15- 46.050(b) of the Code of the City of Saratoga are hereby amended and sections 15- 45.090(c) and 15- 46.050(c) are hereby added to read as follows: 15- 45.090 Expiration of Review Approval; Tolling of Time Period. (b) The period of time specified in subdivision (a) shall not include the period of time during which a lawsuit involving the approval or conditional approval of the design review is or was pending in a court of competent jurisdiction, if the stay of the time period is approved by the Planning Commission. (c) Design review approvals approved in conjunction with an approved tentative subdivision map or approved use permit, or both, may be extended for a period or periods of time not exceeding thirty six months. The application for extension shall be filed in the manner prescribed in and shall be reviewed in accordance with the standards set forth in, sections 14- 20.080(b) and /or 15- 55.090(b) of the Code, respectively. 15- 46.050 Expiration of Design Review Approval; Tolling of Time Period. ORDINANCE NO. 71- (b) The period of time specified in subdivision (a) shall not include the period of time during which a lawsuit involving the approval or conditional approval of the design review is or was pending in a court of competent jurisdiction, if the stay of (c) Design review approvals approved in conjunction with an approved tentative subdivision map or approved use permit, or both, may be extended for a period or periods of time not exceeding thirty six months. The application for extension shall be filed in the manner prescribed in and shall be reviewed in accordance with the standards set forth in, sections 14- 20.080(b) and /or 15- 55.090(b) of the Code, respectively. Section 2. With respect only to design review approvals granted prior to the effective date of this ordinance, such approvals may be extended for a period or periods of time not exceeding thirty -six months. The application for extension shall be filed prior to the expiration date, and shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. A public hearing shall be conducted on the application for extension and notice thereof shall be given in the same manner as prescribed in section 15- 45.060(b) or section 15- 46.020(b) of the Code, whichever is applicable. Extension of design review approval shall not be a matter of right and the approving authority may deny the application or grant the same subject to conditions. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1992, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk December 3, 1992 273 \ord \desrev2.msr the time period is approved by the Planning Commission." MAYOR Printed on recycled paper. oa[now cDo 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Interested Parties FROM: Paul Curtis, Planning N DATE: November 13, 1992 SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Repealing Time Extensions for Design Review and Site Modification Applications The City of Saratoga is considering amendments to the zoning ordinance as it pertains to Design Review and Site Modification. applications. The City Code currently allows the Planning Commission the discretion to extend applications beyond their initial two -year approval. Applicants are permitted to request up to three, one year extensions, potentially keeping these applications active for up to five years. The Planning Commission heard this item on Tuesday, November 10, 1992, and continued the public hearing to Tuesday, November 24, 1992 at 7:30 p.m., for further deliberations. A recommendation on the repeal will then be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. Property owners and /or their representatives who may have active development applications with the City, are encouraged to participate in these public hearing deliberations. Any questions regarding the proposed amendments can be directed to James Walgren, Associate City Planner, at 867 -3438. JW:cw james \memo \drsmamnd