Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-02-1981 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO: -O gsc- Initial: Dept. Head: DATE: September 2, 1981 City Atty DEPARTMENT: Parks ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and Recreation Commission City Mgr - - - - -- SUBJECT: Referral to Parks and Recreation Commission Re: E1 Quito Park Acquisition Issue Summary The City Council received a letter from Dan Guiterrez, President, E1 Quito Homeowner's Association, requesting the City consider purchasing E1 Quito Park property from the Moreland School District. Council referred the letter to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review and comment and this was considered by the Commission at their meeting on July 6, 1981. The City presently leases the site from the School District and it has been developed. As explained in the attached report, it is now timely that we consider purchasing the property. Recommendation Authorize the City Manager to enter into negotiations with Moreland School District for the acquisition of the property referred to as El Quito Park.and to report back to the City Council on the results. Fiscal Impact To be determined. Exhibits /Attachments Background report - E1 Quito Park Acquisition Council Action 9/2. Mallory /Clevenger moved to authorize Manager to initiate negotiations. Passed 5 -0. o� SARA Lei -.r- jmw, CITY of = � ' AT©GA REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 19, 1981 COUNCIL MEETING: September 2, 1981 SUBJECT EL QUITO PARK ACQUISITION. Background In 1972 the City Council entered into an agreement with the Moreland School District to lease approximately 6.3 acres of surplus school property for park and recreation purposes. The lease expires in 1992, is renewable, states that property is to be used only for park and recreation or open space purposes, requires the City to maintain it,.requires Board of Trustees approval of any proposed development and gives the City the first right or refusal to purchase and the School District does maintain a 90 day termination clause. This leased property is commonly referred to as El Quito Park and it is the open space portion only, not the portion which contains the buildings of the surplus school site. A master plan for park development was completed in 1972 and initial development of the four acres of open space field area was constructed in 1973. Prior to further development taking place, the master plan was revised in 1977 and Phase II development was completed in 1978, Phase III development was completed in 1980. The final development of the park was the installation of the Senior Citizen Fitness Course which was completed this last July. Currently, staff considers E1 Quito Park to be fully developed. It contains an open space and turf field play area, picnic tables and barbecues, children's play equipment, an area for volleyball court, horseshoe pits, Senior Citizen Fitness Course, pathways, considerable landscaping and night security lighting.` It also contains an area for a planned community garden plot program. The actual cost of development through the years totals $166,000 but if the entire park had to be developed at today's costs it would exceed $300,000. In May of 1979 1 held several discussions with the Business Manager of the Moreland School District regarding the potential purchase of E1 Quito Park. Just prior to that time a specially appointed District Property Advisory Committee had reported to the Board of Trustees that the El Quito School could be sold when the District finds someone who wants to buy it, with no recommendation for date of sale. The Board of Trustees adopted that report and, therefore, the District has had the right to find potential buyers for the property since early in 1979, August 19, 1981 El Quito Park Acquisition Page Two The education code states that if a school facility is not used for its intended purpose for a period of five years, the District must begin to pay taxes on that property. A portion of the building area is currently leased to the Santa Clara County Education Department and is being used as a handicapped center. This use has qualified the School District to state that the site is being used for elementary education which meets the School District's legal requirements of "intended purpose of use ". As recently as October 1980 City Manager Robert Beyer and I met with Moreland School District Superintendent Mr. Reasoner and the District Business Manager and it was noted that they felt the County would be continuing to use the building portion through June 1983 and as a result there was no immediate necessity for the City to begin negotiations for purchase of the property. Present Status feel there are four major reasons for the subject being brought to the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff's recommendation to begin negotiations to purchase the property. These are: 1) The interest of the homeowners in retaining the park on a permanent basis. 2) Staff and Commission interest in assuring that the Park is purchased and saved as park property. 3) The recent communications between the County School District and Moreland School District regarding termination of the lease of the building portion. 4) The fact that the School District may be interested in selling the property for financial reasons. There are a considerable number of laws which apply to a School District selling property and these differ depending upon how much surplus property the District.has, to whom it is being sold, etc. A number of these deal also with selling to another public agency, potentially for less than fair market value, if they meet certain requirements: It will take a great deal of work on both the School District and the City's part before any formal agreement can be reached and it is staff's opinion that we should start as soon as possible in negotiations. There is also.the point that the longer we wait the more expensive the property may become. The Board of Trustees of the Moreland School District has always been very cooperative with the City and I feel that the City will be able to negotiate a reasonable price for the property and that we will probably be allowed "} r August 19, 1981 El Quito Park Acquisition Page Three to arrange a lease purchase so that we might pay for the property over a five to ten year period of time. This of course-remains to be determined through negotiations. It is my understanding that the City would be interested in purchasing only the park or open space portion of the property and this should also be included in the first negotiations. It would be my expectation that if we began negotiations immediately we could reach some kind of an approved agreement prior to June 1982 which is the date that the County Education Department has tentatively requested to be released from their lease with the School District. If the lease with the County is terminated, then the District will no longer have the right to state that the property is meeting its "intended purpose" and they would probably want to sell as soon as possible. Therefore, it is imperative that the City begin to take action to purchase the property so that it will be retained as a City Park. Staff will be available at the meeting to answer any questions you might have on the recommendation, but would recommend that it be referred to the City Manager and the City Attorney to begin immediate negotiations. ms Barbara Sampson, Secretary Parks and 'Recreation Commiss-ion CITY OF SARIdUGA r AGENDA BILL NO. 27 DATE: 9/2/81 DEPARTMENT: Public Works ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: SIGNAL MAINTENANCE, INC. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Issue Summary Initial Dept. F C. Atty C. Mgr. Recently Signal Maintenance, Inc. (SMI) requested a rate increase (8%) in accordance with paragraph 9 of the agreement between Saratoga and SMI. A multi-jurisdictional request for bids for signal maintenance recently re- sulted in SMI submitting the low proposal. That proposal, however, was greater than is being requested under our current contract. Recommendation Approve the 8% rate increase requested by SMI v Fiscal Impacts 1. Monthly Maintenance - $350 increase 2. 8% increase on all other services Exhibits /Attachments 1. Letter from SMI 2. Memo to Asst. Director of Public Works from Asst. Civil Engineer Council Action )/2 Clevenger /Mallory moved to approve increase and authorize Manager. Passed 5 -0. SIGNAL MAINTENANCE INC. MAIN OFFICE: 2720 E. REGAL PARK DR., ANAHEIM, CA 92806 • (714) 630.4900 REGIONAL OFFICES: 3395 VISO CT., SANTA CLARA, CA 95050 • (408) 988 -5541 8841 PRODUCTION AVE., SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 • (714) 578.7961 June 30, 1981 Mr. Robert S. Shook Director of Public Works City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Calif. Re: Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement Dear Mr. Shook: With reference to Paragraph Ninth (d) of our Agreement, I must again seek rate adjustments as provided therein. Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of the most recent CPI Report indicating an increase of eleven percent (11 %) for the twelve month period ending April, 1981. In dealing with our particular problem, we are asking for a rate adjustment of eight percent (80) to become effective August 1, 1981. Also enclosed is a copy of the labor and equipment schedules for extraordinary maintenance which contain the same percentage increase. I will appreciate your advisement on this matter at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, William C. Sondergard, President WCS : rms Enclosure G v cc: Dave Clelland Santa Clara Regional Office ti CONSMIER PRICE INDEXES PACIFIC CITIES AND U. S. CITY AVERAGE ALL ITEMS INDEXES (1967 =100 unless otherwise noted) MAY 1981 C014SLIIIER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL UR&M CONSrMERS PERCENT CHAPIGE INDEXES YEAR TWO MONTHS ENDING ENDING MAY APR MAY APR IN AY APR MAY 1980 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 U. S. City Average ........... 244.9 266.3 269.0 10.0 9.8 1.4 1.5 Los Angeles -Long Beach- Anaheim 249.1 265.5 267.3 8.5 7.3 1.5 1.5 San Francisco - Oakland ...... - 270.3 - 11.0 - 3.8 - hon6lulu, Hawaii ........... ... - .2- 50..0 - -9.9 - 2.8 - San Diego, California ........ 269.7 - 297.5 - 10.3 - 1.5 Portland, Oregon ............. 257.3 - 273.5 - 3.2 - 3.9 Seattle - Everett, Ufashirigton. 249.6 - 274.7 - 10.1 - 1.3 Anchorabe, Ak. (Oct. 1967 =100) 226.5 - 244.6 - 8.0 - 1.5 CONSUNER PRICE INDEX FOR U; U. S. City Average ........... Los Angeles -Long Beach - Anaheim San Francisco - Oakland ...... Honolulu, Hawaii ............. San Diego, California ........ Portland, Oregon ............. Seattle - Everett, Washington. Anchorabe, Ak. (Oct. 1967 =100) =tq UAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS PERCENT CHARGE INDEXES YEAR TWO .IONTHS ESvDING ENDING RAY APR MAY APR t;AY APR MAY 1980 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 245.1 266.8 269.1 10.0 9.8 1.3 1.5 252.6 269.1 270.7 8.6 7.2 1.5 1.6 - 270.9 - 11.6 - 3.6 - - 250.2 - 9.5 - 2.8 - 264.8 - 292.5 - 10.5 - 1.6 255.9 - 276.1 - 7.9 - 3.4 246.8 - 271.5 - 10.0 - 1.3 223.1 - 240.1 - 7.6 - 1.7 Bureau of Labor Statistics - San Francisco, CA 94102 June 23, 1981 NOTE: The Consumer Price Index for June 1981 will be released on Jul; 23, 1981. • 0 a ®® 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 o • { (408) 887 -3438 tIE�IOO R.• NDtI�I TO: Asst. Director of Public Works FROM: Asst. Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Traffic Signal Maintenance Contract DATE: 7/15/81 Recently the bids for the Traffic Signal Maintenance For Various Cities (SMVC) were opened and Signal Maintenance Inc. (SMI) was the low bidder. SMI main- tains our traffic signals through a separate contract with the City of Saratoga. SMI has recently submitted a letter requesting an eight (8) percent increase as entitled under paragraph nine in Saratoga's contract with SMI. I made a comparison sheet comparing the new SMI rates for Saratoga's contract to SMI rates in the Traffic Signal Maintenance For Various Cities (attached).'. I reviewed previous SMI bills for a -nine month. period, 7 -80 to 3 -81, to see what catagories the expenses lies. The breakdown is: Traffic Signal Tech - Traffic Signal Tech - Service Ladder Truch Field - 29.5 hours Lab - 8 hours - 27.0 hours Under our current SMI contract with the proposed increase the nine month billing would be $4,127.63 as compared to $4,164.20 with the SMVC contract. The monthly rate is higher with the SMI contract but the lower rate for the Service Ladder Truck more.than compensates for the higher monthly rate. I recommend keeping our current contract with Signal Maintenance Inc. John Be /da SIGNAL MAINTENANCE FOR VARIOUS CITIES (SMVC) - SIGNAL MAINTENANCE INC. (SMI) COMPARISON SHEET IZ ITEM SMI SMVC )DIFFERENCE 1. Monthly maintenance (per intersection) $58.80 $56.28 -4% $24.80/ $28.74/ 14 %/ 2. Signal Maintenance Superintendent $37.93 43.11 12 %_ .69 23.81 9 %/ 3. Engineering Technician $33.18 $35.72 7% $1973/ $23.81/ 21 %/ 4. Traffic Signalman /Lead Man $30.05 $35.72 19% $16.53/ $22.00/ 33 %/ 5. Traffic Signal Laborer $25.28 $33.00 31° _ $ 5.15/ $ 8.60/ 67 %/ 6. Utility Vehicle /Pickup Truck (hr/day) $38.69 $30.00 -29% $ 5.15/ $ 8.60/ 67 %/ 7. Service Ladder Truck (hr /day) $38.69 $30.00 -29% 8. Boom Truck (hr /day) $15.47/ $24.00/ 55 %/ n -290-- $32.88/ $35.00/ 6 %/ 9. Saw Truck (hr /day) $225.66 $160.00 -41% $15.47/ $15.00/ -3 %/ 10. Compressor & Tools (hr /day) $96.70 ' $70.00 -38% $15.47/ $24.00/ 55 %/ Ill. Hydraulic Man/Lift (hr /day) $103.15 $80.00 -29% i AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 9/2/81 DEPT Public Works --------------------------- - - - - -- CI'T'Y OF SiV1NIC)GA SUBJECT: WESTMONT AVENUE EXTENSION Issue Summary Initial: Dept. Hd. i" The City of San Jose is planning to extend Westmont Ave. to Quito Rd. At the location of the new intersection, three (3) jurisdictions own part of Quito Rd. The City of San Jose wants Saratoga to participate in the project, which in- cludes the installation of a traffic signal at Quito Rd. and Westmont Ave. Reconinendation Not to participate in the Westmont Ave. Extension project. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo to Director of Public Works from Asst. Civil Engineer Council Action !/2: Mallory /Watson moved to refrain from participating in project. Passed 5 -0. 0- 097f o:T O&UMEMDO& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 I�- IEMOORANDUI��I TO: Director of Public Works FROM: Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Westmont Extension DATE: 8/27/81 There are two projects proposed on Quito Road between Yorktown Way and Aspesi Drive. They are, the extension of Westmont Avenue to Quito Road with the installation of a traffic signal and the construction of a Park and Ride Facility at the southeast corner of Westmont Avenue and Quito Road, which includes the improvement of Quito Road near the Southern Paci- fic Railroad crossing. The Westmont Avenue extension is ready to go out to bid immediately and the Park and Ride improvement to Quito Road is scheduled to be constructed in the Spring of 1982. . The extension of Westmont Avenue to Quito Road is a solution to a problem situated in the City of San Jose. Some of the traffic currently using Yorktown Way will shift to Westmont Avenue. Quito Road will be widened from Yorktown Way south to near the tracks to allow the installation of a left turn pocket for southbound Quito Road to eastbound Westmont Avenue. A traffic signal study was conducted at the intersection of Quito Road and Yorktown Way. Warrants 1, 2, and 8 were met. Warrant 1 is the Minimum Vehicle Volume, Warrant 2 is the Interruption of Continuous Traffic, and Warrant 8 is the Combination of Warrants. Even though these warrants are met, it cannot be assumed that enough traffic will use the proposed Westmont Avenue extension to satisfy warrants 1, 2, and 8. The plans show an eight legged intersection. Three of the eight legs lie within the City of Sara - toga's city limits, therefore, the City of San Jose expects Saratoga to pay three eighths of the traffic signal installation. Two of the three legs lie on private property. These two legs lie on the-shopping center owned by Mr. Manuel Costa. Three locations in Saratoga have satisfied various traffic signal warrants. The proposed traffic signal at Westmont Avenue and Quito Road is low on our priority list because of the uncertainty of the Yorktown Way at Quito Road warrants being satisfied at Westmont Ave. and Quito Rd. and its importance relative to Saratoga's other traffic signal needs. A conversation was held, and.a letter to follow, with Mr. Arch Walters of the Santa Clara County Transit District. The District supports the in- stallation of a traffic signal because it is a necessity for the busses entering and leaving the Park and Ride Facility. c V Pag& 2 . ) Memo to Director of Public Works, 8/27/81 Westmont Extension The improvement plans show an adequate cross- section of Quito Road for a through traffic lane and bike lane in both directions, however, the striping plan does not show the installation of a bike lane. We received a letter from the City of San Jose dated August 3, 1981, re- garding the Westmont extension. San Jose is going to eliminate all im- provement in Saratoga's jurisdiction, all improvement south of the new Westmont Avenue centerline and west of the Quito Road centerline, eliminate the installation of the traffic signal and install a stop sign on Westmont Avenue at Quito Road. These revisions were made because of "the lack of firm commitment for funds from the City of Saratoga." I contacted Mr. Art Mendoza, of the City of San Jose, to determine if their position regarding Saratoga's portion of the project was firm. Mr. Mendoza stated that if the City of Saratoga participated in BOTH the street improvement and the installation of the traffic signal, the City of San Jose would allow the City of Saratoga to participate in the project. However, if the City of Saratoga wants to participate in just the street improvement, the City of San Jose will not allow partial participation. Recently, we have had several meetings with citizens who live on Quito Road near Allendale Avenue. These citizens were upset with completion of traffic safety improvements to the intersection of Quito at Allendale Avenue. The improvement to the traffic signal enabled the 22,000+ ADT of Quito Road to travel more safe with less frequent stops. Residents of the area did not like the improvement because the traffic flowed smoother, giving the resi- dents the appearance of faster speeds and making egress from their drive- ways more difficult. Additional improvements to Quito Road, as proposed with a traffic signal installed, will likely result in an increase in resi- dents feeling that we are taking good care of through traffic at the expense of our residents. Due to time restrictions, I was unable to contact home- owners in the area of the proposed project to solicit their input. The City of Saratoga should participate in the street improvement to Quito Road which is part of the extension of Westmont Avenue to Quito Road. How - ever, the proposed traffic signal at Westmont Avenue and Quito Road is low on our priority list, therefore, I recommend that the City of Saratoga not participate with the City of San Jose in the extension of Westmont Avenue to Quito Road Project. John Bean JB /dsc CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: September 2, 1981 DEPApxTMETVT: City Manager Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mar. SUBJECT: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR ACQUISITION OF FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Issue Sunnnary The City of Saratoga has access to purchase surplus Federal property at considerable savings. Each year, the City must renew, by Council resolution, those individuals authorized to make purchases on behalf of the City. Under the present organization, those named in the attached resolution are recommended. Recommendation Adopt resolution. Fiscal Impacts None. Exhibits /Attathrmnts Resolution No. 804.1 Council Action 9/2: Clevenger /Mallory moved to adopt and approve. Passed 5 -0. • RESOLUTION NO. A Resolution Superceding Resolution No. of the City of Saratoga Providing for the Acquisition of Federal Surplus Property WHEREAS, by Public Law 95 -519, the Federal Government has authorized the donation of federal surplus property to any public agency to assist in carrying out or promoting for the residents of a given political area one or more public purposes, such as, but not limited to, conservation, economic development, education, parks and recreation, public health and public safety; and, WHEREAS, certain terms, conditions and eligibility requirements are imposed by the California State Agency for Surplus Property in connection with the acquisi- tion of such property; a list of such terms and conditions and requirements is attached as Exhibit "A "; and, WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California desires to establish its eligibility for such property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga that: 1. The officials and /or employees whose names and titles are listed below shall be and are hereby authorized as our representatives to acquire on behalf of the City, federal surplus property from the California State Agency for Surplus Property under the Terms and Conditions listed on the attached form (Exhibit "A "). Wayne Dernetz - Director of Emergency Services Patricia Mullens - Assistant Director of Emergency Services Rob Robinson - Director of Planning Department Barbara Sampson,- Director of Community Services Richard Mitchell - Acting Coordinator of Emergency Services IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager of the City of Saratoga is authorized to sign an Assurance of Compliance with GSA Regulation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (SASP Form 203, attached hereto as Exhibit "B "), and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution on this subject dated February 2, 1977, and October 5, 1977 is hereby rescinded. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: r � �J MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. 804.1 A Resolution Superceding Resolution No. 804 of the City of Saratoga Providing for the Acquisition of.Federal Surplus Property WHEREAS, by Public Law 95 -519, the Federal Government has authorized the donation of federal surplus property to any public agency to assist in carrying out or promoting for the residents of a given political area one or more public purposes, such as, but not limited to, conservation, economic development, education, parks and recreation, public health and public safety; and; WHEREAS, certain terms, conditions and eligibility requirements are imposed by the California State Agency for Surplus Property in connection with the acquisition-of such property; a list of such terms and conditions and requirements is attached as Exhibit "A"; and, WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California desires to establish its eligibility for such property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga that: 1. The officials and /or employees whose names and titles are listed below shall be and are hereby authorized as our representatives to acquire on behalf of the City, federal surplus property from the California State Agency for Surplus Property under the Terms and Conditions listed on the attached form (Exhibit "A "). Robert F. Beyer - Director of Emergency Services James B. Hendrickson - Assistant Director of Emergency Services Robert S. Shook - Director of Public Works Daniel 0. Trinidad - Assistant Director of Public Works IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager of the City of Saratoga is authorized to sign an Assurance of Compliance with GSA Regulation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (SASP Form 203, attached hereto as Exhibit "B "), and i BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution on this subject dated February 2, 1977 is hereby rescinded. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City j Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 5 day of October 1977 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Bridges, Brigham, Kraus, Corr & Motteoni NOES: loons ABSENT: None MAYOR / ATTEST: EEXXHIBIT "A" • TERMS AAIB, .:ONDITJONS \ (A) THE DONEE CERTIFIES THAT: (1) It is a public agency; or a nonprofit educational or public health institution or organization, exempt from taxation under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; within the meaning of Section 2030) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, and the regulations of the Administrator of General Services. (2) if a public agency, the property is needed and will be used by the recipient for carrying out or promoting for the residents of a given political area one or more public purposes, or, if a nonprofit tax - exempt institution or organization, the property is needed for and will be used by the recipient for educational or public health purposes, and including research for such purpose. The properly is not being acquired for any other use or purpose, or for sale or other distribution; or for permanent use outside the state, except with prior approval of the state agency. (3) Funds are available to pay all costs and charges incident to donation. (4) This transaction shall be subject to the nondiscrimination regulations governing the donation of surplus personal property issued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, Section 606, of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, is amended. (B) THE DONEE AGREES TO THE FOLLOWING FEDERAL CONDITIONS: (1) All items of property shall be placed in use for the purpose(s) for which acquired within one year of receipt and shall be continued in use for such purpose(s) for one year from the date the property was placed in use. In the event the property is not so placed -irr use, or continued in use, the donee shall immediately notify the state agency and, at the donee's expense, return such property to the state agency, or otherwise make the property available for transfer or other disposal by the state agency, provided the property is still usable as determined by the state agency. (2) Such special handling or use limitations as are imposed by General Services Administration (GSA) on any item(s) of property listed hereon. (3) In the event the property is not so used or handled as required by (B)(1) and (2), title and right to the possession of such property shall at the option of GSA revert to the United States of America and upon demand the donee shall release such property to such person as GSA or its designee shall direct. _ I I . (C) THE DONEE AGREES TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE STATE AGENCY, APPLICABLE TO ITEMS WITH A UNIT ACQUISITION COST OF $3,000 OR MORE AND PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES, REGARDLESS OF ACQUISITION COST, EXCEPT VESSELS 50 FEET OR MORE IN LENGTH AND AIRCRAFT: (1) The property shall be used only for the purposes) for which acquired and for no other purpose(s). (2) There shall be a period of restriction which will expire after such property has been used for the purpose(s) for which acquired for a period of 18 months from the date the property is placed in use, except for such items of major equipment, listed hereon, on which the state • agency designates a further period of restriction. (3) In the event the property is not so used as required by (C)(1) and (2) and federal restrictions (B)(1) and (2) have expired then title and right to the possession of such property shall at the option of the state agency revert to the State of California and the donee shall release such property to such person as the state agency shall direct. (D) THE DONEE AGREES TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS, RESERVATIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS: (1) From the date it receives the property listed hereon and through the period(s) of time the conditions imposed by (B) and (C) above remain in effect, the donee shall not sell, trade, lease, lend, bail, cannibalize, encumber, or otherwise dispose of such property, or remove it permanently, for use outside the state, without the prior approval of GSA under (B) or the state agency under (C). The proceeds from any sale, trade, lease, loan, bailment, encumbrance, or other disposal of the property, when such action is authorized by GSA or by the state agency, shall be remitted promptly by the donee to GSA or the state agency, as the case may be. (2) In the event any of the property listed hereon is sold, traded, leased, loaned, bailed, cannibalized, encumbered, or otherwise disposed of by the donee from the date it receives the property through `the period(s) of time the conditions imposed by (B) and (C) remain in effect, without the prior approval of GSA or the state agency, the donee, at the option of GSA or'the state agency, shall pay to GSA or the state agency, as the case may be, the proceeds of the disposal or the fair market value or the fair rental value of the property at the time of such disposal, as determined by GSA or the state agency. (3) If at any time, from the date it receives the property 'through the period(s) of time the conditions imposed by (B) and (C) remain in effect, any of the property listed hereon is no longer suitable, usable, or further needed by the donee for the purpose(s) for which acquired, the donee shall promptly notify the state agency, and shall, as directed by the state agency, return the property to the state agency, reiease the property to another donee or another state agency or a department or agency of the United States, sell, or otherwise dispose of the property. The proceeds from any sale shall be remitted promptly by the donee to the state agency. (4) The donee shall make reports to the state agency on the use, condition, and location of the property listed hereon, and on other pertinent matters as may be required from time to time by the state agency. (5) At the option of the state agency, the donee may abrogate the conditions set forth in (C) and the terms, reservations, and restrictions pertinent thereto in (D) by payment of an amount as determined by the state agency. (E) THE DONEE AGREES TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, APPLICABLE TO ALL ITEMS OF PROPERTY LISTED HEREON: . (1) The property acquired by the donee is on an "as is," "where is" basis, without warranty of any kind. (2) Where a donee carries insurance against damages to or loss of property due to fire or other hazards and where loss of or damage to donated property with unexpired terms, conditions, reservations, or restrictions occurs, the state agency ;will be entitled to reimbursement from the donee out of the insurance proceeds, of an amount equal to the unamortized portion of the fair value of the damaged or destroyed donated items. (F) TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE DONATION OF AIRCRAFT AND VESSELS (50 FEET OR MORE IN LENGTH) HAVING AN ACQUISITION COST OF $3,000 OR MORE, REGARDLESS OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH ACQUIRED: The donation shall be subject to the terms, conditions,'seservations, and restrictions set forth in the Conditional Transfer Document executed by the authorized donee representative. F76 -233 DE10780 7 -77 7.500 EXH T "B" State Age(y for Surplus Property SAGP Form No. 203, UO -77) ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH GSA REGULATIONS UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, SECTION 606 OF TITLE VI OF THE FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED, AND SECTION 5040F THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED City of Saratoga , (hereinafter called the "donee "), (Name of donee organization) HEREBY AGREES THAT the program for or in connection with which any property is donated to the donee will be conducted in compliance with, and the donee will comply with and will require any other person (any legal entity) who through contractual or other arrangements with the donee is authorized to provide ser- vices or benefits under said program to comply with, all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the regulations of the General Services Administration (41 CFR 101 -6.2) issued under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 606 of Title VI of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to the end that no person in the United States shall on the ground of race, c61or, national origin, or sex, or that no otherwise qualified handicapped person shall solely by reason of the handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the donee received Federal assistance from the General Services Administration; and HEREBY GIVES ASSURANCE THAT it will immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement. The donee further agrees that this agreement shall be subject in all respects to the provisions of said regulations; that this agreement shall obligate the donee for the period during which it retains ownership or possession of any such property; that the United States shall have the right to seek judicial enforcement of this agreement; and, this agreement shall be binding upon any successor in interest of the donee and the word "donee" as-used herein includes any such successor in interest. Dated City of Saratoga City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Donee Mailing Address L Donee Organization BY City Manager (President /Chairman of the Board or comparable authorized official) CITY OF SARATOGA A=A BILL NO. 7/ d o DATE: September 2, 1981 DEPARTMENT: City Manager ------------- - - - - -- SUBJECT: CLAIM OF RICHARD SIEVE FOR DAMAGES - $165.92 --------------- - -- Issue SLmanary Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. —5L Dr. Sieve claims ' that on 8/7/81, at 6:00 p.m., his automobile was damaged by a piece of planking as he was driving along Saratoga Avenue crossing the (S.P.R.R.)-. railroad crossing. Damage sustained amounts to $165.92. The City of Saratoga is responsible for maintenance of roadway and S.P.R.R. Co. is responsible for maintenance of track. The planks protecting the track are also the responsibility of S.P.R.R. Co. Recom-nendation Deny the claim on the ground that it is not the City's responsibility to maintain track and track protectors. Fiscal Impacts None, if denied. Exhibits /Attactmx -nts 9/2 :Letter of 8/11/81 from Richard Sieve. Council Action 9/2: Clevenger/%�llory moved to deny claim. Passed 5 -0. Mr. Dan Trinidad O'fice of the City Enqineer 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoaa, Ca. 95070 Dear Mr. Trinidad, 14 7� +PUBLIC WORKS DEP3 August 11, 1901 CITY OF SARATOGA As I discussed with you yesterday, I wish to make a claim against the City of Saratoga for $165.92 for damaae to my automobile sustained on Auqust 7, 191-1. The damage was sustained as I drove over the railroad crossing on Saratoga Avenue near the Paul Masson Winery last Friday at approximately 6 P. M. Some of the planking which was apparently loose came out of it's bed as I drove across it allowinq my automobile to fall into the bed o-F the plank - ing. The sudden severe blow to my automobile bent the left rear tire rim giving me a flat tire. The rim cannot be re- paired and had to be replaced. I do not believe that I had any further damage to my automobile as I have had it checked by the dealer, Smythe Euronean, and no further damage was noted. The automobile is a 1979 Mercedes 300 ST). The wheels are an alloy type and this is the reason for the relatively expensive wheels. The tire was not daMa -ed as far as I can determine. This minor accident was witnessed by the driver behind me, Mr Gary Melmon, 13190 Glen Brae Ave., Saratoga. I do not know if he sustained damage to his automobile but if he did. I'm sure you will hear from him. Since the City is responsible for maintaining the roads in a safe driving condition, I believe the Citv should be responsible for the damage. I will b,=, sending a cony of this letter to Mr E. R. Stone at Southern Pacific Railroad. Sincerely, Richard Sieve 13388 Hammons Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 ' t ZENITH IME W FEEL CJ. 0029 155 KENNEOX AVENUE C PBS�. EAELFORNIA 95008 Z 5S -�,�( 08) 379 -3136 CUSTOMER'S ORDER NO. DEPT- DAF NAME ADDRESS S �c SOLD BY CASH C.O.D, CHARGE I ON ACCT. MDSEAE7D. PAID OUT RECD BY Redifprm 5H 330 KEEP THIS SLIP FOR REFERENCE MR. MRS. MS. MISS. _ IN ITIALS PRINT LA OSG r� TIRE AND BATURY-WORK ORDER. NU SALES RETAIN THI VEHICLE YR.- rpjy� /� LICIEtiSE NO. PI/ STATE,2 fi IPY: I., IS ?YOUR RECEIPT OF PUKtiASE 1 , �r�'�•s�t,I I I � y C CASH CHECK {. TSR IDENT. NO. GO 11253 a MANUFACTURER'S 91KOMMENDED ? COLD TIRE PRESSURE DESCRIPTION OUAN MFG. NAME COMPUTERIZED WHEEL BALANCE LIMITED WARRANTY "•• 30 TIRE GRAND AUTO WARRANTS THE ACCURACY OF ITS COMPUTERIZED WHEEL, ' y '•' v'.. - ' "� °rc' BALANCE.,FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE BALANCED TIRE ANM 31 U FEDERAL EXCISE TArX S C. i,l Il F� WHEEL ARE NOT SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER. DURING THAT. TIME, 30. ry(fl a1 TIRE GRAND AUTO WILL, WITHOUT CHARGE, REBALANCE THE TIRE /WHEELCOM -•, r " "TRADE-IN VALUE BINATION EVERY 5000 MILES PROVIDED THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER RETURNS ti, THE TIRE /WHEEL AND VEHICLE ON WHICH MOUNtED AT. THE TIME OF. THE z, q ' a. , 33 31 E STEM l.a Z /t r.,, ,METAL CHROME RUBE R ORIGINAL BALANCE TO ANY GRAND AUTO SERVICE CENTER WITH PROOF <t fi' 9M ' 0C PURCHASE. THIS WARRANTY 15 VOID IF THE TIRE IS SEPARATED FR 'THE 44 s �}•1/`'' x + iij .,:ItNTING .i,'i ±:� }4 \•iS }ac .�. WHEEL FOR ANY REASON. GRAND WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR CONSEQ _ 45 '•,f. �`� : +- - "+^- '' ' • \- ° ' EEL BALANGbt i' STATIC DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED OR RESULTING. w r 45 t •i COMPUTERIZED STATIC WHEEL BALANCE LIMITED WARRANTY HEEL B'ALAPICEt'' GRAND AUTO WARRANTS ITS STATIC WHEEL BALANCE FOR A PERIOD OF 44 I' �•. d. ^ FRONT END CHEKr, 1 NINETY (90) DAYS FROM THE DATE Of THE ORIGINAL BALANCE IF THE "e "` ' • ' 35 NEW a , 1.a ORIGINAL PURCHASER BRINGS THE TIRE /WHEEL COMBINATION, WITH 37 RECON BATTEeY �' '•r PROOF OF PURCHASE TO ANY GRAND AUTO SERVICE CENTER WITHIN THAT 35 BATTERY PERIOD. THIS WARRANTY IS VOID IF THE TIRE IS SEPARATED FROM THE TRADE -IN VALUE 36 WHEEL FOR ANY REASON. GRAND WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL - , • ANTI CORROSION KIT DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED OR RESULTING. 4 ANT I,, CORROSION$,ERVICE.1 (:v�,' 4Y "• :• i;r;''. MECH VEHICLE DEPOSITORY •RECEIPT SECT. 1850.1 CIVIL-CODE t•�' TIME OR Receipt from above named customer for the oboJe described vehicle for'r1iXr ar olterottoA iVhe4by ocknowl. INSTAL edged by Grand Auto Inc. Said customer is hereby notified that the,soid property is not insured or protected to the amount of the actual cash value thereof, or otherwise, by Grand Auto, Inc. against loss occasioned by theft• fire or vandalism while the property remains with Grand Auto Inc. Grand Auto,lnc. Is not a depository for personal property left in the vehicle and assumes no risk for loss thereof. GRAND A INC. fist �I�Ii.� IN CUSTOMER WORK AUTHORIZATION./ I hereby authorize Grand Auto to. perform the repair or instollotlon work itemiied herein, eluding t e cost of to- placement materials. You and your employees may operate the vehicle described 'e0 for purpo of resting or inspection of my risk. An express mechanics lien is acknowledged On this ve' a to s re the am nr of costs indicated hereon. I understand that storage for the vehicle maybe charged -me, tom sing 48 ours after repairs are completed. IN y + A A RIZED AND AGREED TO STAt Dn y CASHIER'S INITIALS OUT IMPORTANT! PLEASE KEEP THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND PROTEC. TION. CLAIMS FOR REFUND, EXCHANGE IN OR ADJUSTMENT WILL BE CONSIDERE,1) `..•. ONLY UPON ITS PRESENTATION, OUT ACKNOWLEDGMENT . .OF CARRY OUT SALE SEE REVERSE SIDE •' QEtIVEREP BY ' FOR APPLICABLE LIMITED WARRANTY ON BATTERY Iv 'B _, CUSTOMER COPY GR NO 418072 19- 2034) REV. 4/80 100 /PKG 5PT • 'NO CHARGE TIRE SERIAL NU r: MDSE -6 TOTAL SALES TAX 2. SUB TOTAL TOTAL 4, CREDIT TOTAL �& MDSE 7� TOTAL LABOR 6. TOTAL SALE 7 ® LA Doe el 15C CITY OF SAF IA CX'A AGENDA BILL NO 7 DA'L'E: DEPARTMED]T:. Public Works Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty._ C. Mgr. -------------------------- y ---- - ------- SUBJ ECT• FINAL ACCEPTANCE SDR 1297, Ron Shoemake, Aloha Ave. ---------------------------------------------------- r---------------------------- - - - - -- Issue Summary All improvements required of the subject Building Site Approval have been satisfactorily completed. Recormiendatiori Authorize release of the attached described bond. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo describing bond Council Action 9/2�Clevenger /Mallory moved to adopt and approve. Passed 5 -0. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 '.:J (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM CUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Tract SDR 1297 Location: Aloha Ave. DATE: 8/17/81 (Final Acceptance) All improvements required of SDR 1297 and agreed to in the Building Site Approval Agreement dated 5/25/77 have been satisfactorily completed. Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Mr. Ron Shoemake Address: 2054 Walsh Ave'., Santa Clara Ca. 95050 2. Improvement Security: Type: Cash Amount: $3,000 Issuing Co.: N/A Address: N/A Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 3. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm 38631 Rob pt S. Shook CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. C11 DATE: September 2, 1981 Initial Dept. I C. Atty DEPARUT4ENT :Administrative Services C. Mgr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------=-- JFC'I' SUB: INVESTMENT POLICY OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Issue Summary The City Council received correspondence dated August 3, 1981, from the Mayor of Daly City requesting the City of Saratoga adopt a resolution similar -to a resolution adopted by Daly City to encourage PERS to improve their investment practices to increase the rate of return on PERS' investment portfolio. Many other cities in California have passed similar 'resolutions. Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. Fiscal Impacts An increase in the return from PERS investments has the potential of stabilizing or decreasing the employer contribution rates and /or increasing benefits to retirees at no cost to the taxpayers. _ Exhibits /Attachments Letter from Mayor Teglia, Daly City. Council Action a/2: Mallory /Clevenger moved to adopt resolution. Passed 5 -0. 0 RESOLUTION NO. • • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA SUPPORTING AN INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE INVESTMENT POLICIES OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM IN AN EFFORT TO INCREASE RATE OF RETURN WHEREAS, the California Public Employees Retirement System membership, as of June 30, 1980, included 357,157' members who are employed by local public agencies; and WHEREAS, as of this date, no action has been taken by the PERS Board of Administration to indicate that a change in investment policies is imminent; and WHEREAS, short term investment vehicles continue to pay high interest rates, as they have for the past 30 months, with PERS failing to capitalize on these investment opportunities; WHEREAS, the 1980 Annual Financial Report and Report of Operations, issued by the Public Employees Retirement System of the State of California for the fiscal period ended June 30, 1980, has revealed that the "Computed Rate of Return" on the entire $12.85 billion investment portfolio was 7.91%; and WHEREAS, the rate of inflation, as determined by the state composite California Consumer Price Index, as computed by the California State Industrial Relations Board, for the same 12 -month period was 17.5% for all urban wage — earners, and the interest crediting rate which member employers and employees were granted on their accumulated retirement earnings for the year ending June 30, 1980, was only 6 %; and WHEREAS, the "Statement of Investment Objectives and Policy" of the California Public Employees Retirement System contains a section entitled, "Investment Objectives ", which states the following: "I) to increase asset coverage of actuarial liabilities; 2) to maintain real dollar value of the assets (provide inflation coverage); and 3) to stabilize current em- ployer contribution rates." WHEREAS, the interest crediting rate was increased by PERS Board of Administration to 6.75 %, effective July 1, 1980; and WHEREAS, Federal Treasury Notes, Federal T- Bills, Certificates of Deposit and Short Term Commercial Paper has been yielding interest rates ranging from 12% to 20% over the past 30 months, depending on the amount to be invested; and WHEREAS, 49% of the PERS $12.85 billion investment portfolio as of June 30, 1980, is placed in bonds, many of which are long term investments, some yielding as low as 4 %; and WHEREAS, only 4.1% of the PERS investment portfolio, as of June 30, 1980, was placed in short term investments at a time when money market funds are earning up to 20% for large investments; and WHEREAS, public agency employers, depending on the Public Employee Re- tirement System (PEAS) benefit level they have contracted for, coupled with their experience, expend from 8% to 12% of their annual operating budget on PERS employer contributions for employee retirement benefits; and r� u WHEREAS, public agency employers, such as PERS member cities and counties, are experiencing continuous employer rate increases following periodic audits of the financial integrity of the PERS system; and WHEREAS, current PERS investment policies appear too rigid and unable to respond in a timely manner with a flexible and aggressive investment policy which can capitalize on rapidly changing money market investment opportunities; and WHEREAS, PERS' actuaries have estimated that a 1% increase in the PERS' Computed Rate of Return on its investment portfolio would probably offset a 13% increase in costs to PERS Retirement System employers in California; and WHEREAS, the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) is not currently meeting the 2nd and 3rd objectives of its stated, "Investment Object- ives ", which it has officially adopted as policy guidelines for the retirement system investment program; and WHEREAS, while it is recognized that the PERS Board of Administration has managed its 'investment portfolio in a prudent and effective manner in the past, that the League of California Cities take appropriate action to influence the PERS Board of Administration to change its investment strategy so that a significantly higher percentage of new revenue could be placed in Federal T- Bills, Certificates of Deposit, Bankers Acceptance and other performance investment • vehicles with high yield when market conditions so justify, in a concerted effort to maximize earnings from investments; and WHEREAS, support should be given by the League of California Cities to the Investment Practices Sub - Committee of the Finance, Insurance and Commerce Committee, Assemblyman Louis J. Papan's Assembly Committee, which is conducting an investigation of the investment policies of the California Public Employees Retirement System in an effort to ensure that PERS maximizes its rate of return from investments; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby encourage PERS member cities, member counties, individual members and public agency employee organizations to write letters to the PERS Board of Administration and to personally appear before the Board to demonstrate wide public agency and employee organization support for a full review of and change, Y -` as appropriate, of current investment policies; and believes The effort to maximize interest earnings from the PERS investment port - folio will directly benefit PERS member cities and individual members of the California Public Employees Retirement System and, in so doing, will reduce the need for employer rate increases which would be funded from tax revenues. The above and foregoing resolution was regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting on the day of 1981, by the following vote: AYES: • NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL ALBERT M. TEOLIA MAYOR JAMES J. TUCKER MAYOR PRO TKM►ORK ANTHONY A. OIAMMONA VICTOR O. KYRIAKIS JANE POWELL DAVID R. ROWS CITY MANAO[R BETTY MAZZA CITY CLERK ANTHONY J. ZIDICH CITY TRKASURtR PHONE (415) 992 -4500 EXTENSION 204 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY OF DAI.Y CITY SULLIVAN AVENUE AND 90TH STREET DALY CITY, CALIFORNIA 94015 August 3, 1981 h 1 11981 1 TO: Mayors of California Cities who are contracting agencies with the Public Employees Retirement System; and Chairman, Boards' of Supervisors of California Counties who are contracting agencies with the Public Employees Retirement System. FROM: Mayor Albert M. Teglia, City of Daly City SUBJECT: INVESTMENT POLICY OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) r The enclosed Resolution adopted by our City Council on July 24, 1981, calls for various actions by the League of California Cities which, we believe, will result in improvement of the PERS rate of return on their 12.85 billion dollar investment portfolio. Your city may be one of the twenty California cities listed on Page 3 of the attached City of Daly City Resolution indi- cating you have already adopted a similar PERS resolution. If so, I thank you for your support. If your city hasn't adopted a PERS resolution to date, I respectfully suggest you give the issue your consideration. If you agree with our position, we seek your support by resolution. The PERS computed rate of return for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1980, was only 7.91 %. We sincerely believe PERS can change their investment strat- egy in order to dramatically increase earnings from their investments. In so doing, perhaps employer contribution rates can be decreased or be stabi- lized, or the retirement benefits to retirees could be increased, or perhaps a combination of both alternatives could be explored. We seek your city's support, as demonstrated by adopting a resolution similar to the one our city recently adopted (see attachment). Since California cities expend from 8% to 12% of their Annual Operating Budget on the employer contributing to PERS, we feel the issue should be of interest to you. In this era of declining revenues from the State in bail -out funds and reduced revenues from property taxes, we need to reduce or stabilize the cost of funding our retirement programs, as well as other areas, whenever possible. Assemblyman Louis J. Papan will chair the Assembly Insurance Practices sub - committee, which will conduct investigative hearings into PERS investment policy. These hearings will commence in mid - September, 1981 in Sacramento. con't Page 2 August 3, 1981 Investment Policy of PERS If you concur with our position, your support and input at these hearings would be appreciated. We also plan to introduce a resolution similar to the one attached for consideration at the annual League of California Cities conference in San Francisco in October, 1981. We respectfully request that your City Council authorize your city's voting delegate to support our position at that time. Very truly yours /sue Albert M. Teglia Mayor and Chairman, PERS Committee of San Mateo County AMT:jv Enclosure: City of Daly City Resolution 40'. 81 -213 CITY rviiMNAut1 -t RESOLUTION NO. 81 -213 DALY, CITY A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DALY CITY SUPPORTING AN INVESTIGA`PION AND ANALYSIS OF THE INVESTMENT POLICIES OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM IN AN EFFORT TO INCREASF.RATE OF RETURN BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Daly City, as • - "' follows: 1) The California Public Employees Retirement System membership, as of June 30, 1980, included 357,157 members who are employed by local public agencies; and 2) The City of Daly City sent a letter to the PERS Board of Ad- ministration in April, 1980, encouraging a change in investment policies in order to take advantage of short term investment opportunities, such as federal treasury bills, which are guaranteed by the federal government; and 3) The City of Daly City adopted Resolution No. 81 -48 on February 2, 1981, encouraging the PERS Board of Administration to review its invest- ment policies in an effort to maximize the rate of return; and 4) Nineteen Cities of the County of San Mateo, represented by the Mayor and Deputy City Manager of the City of Daly City and the Management Analyst of the City of Redwood.City, made a formal presentation to the PERS Board of Administration.at its April 22, 1981 meeting in Los Angeles, request- ing a change in PERS investment policies in order to maximize earnings from investments; and ` 5) As of this date, no action hasbeen taken by the PERS Board of Administration to indicate that a change in investment policies is imminent; and 6) Short term investment vehicles continue to pay high interest rates, as they have for the past 30 months, with PERS failing to capitalize on these investment opportunities; 7) The 1980 Annual Financial Report and Report of Operations, is- sued by the Public Employees Retirement System of the State of California for the fiscal period ended June 30, 1980, has revealed that the "Computed Rate of Return" on the entire $12.85 billion investment portfolio was 7.91 %; and STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO I, eErry M•zx., City Clerk in and for the City of Daly City, County of San Mateo, State of California, and ex off icio Clerk of the City Council thereof, do hereby certify the annexed to be a full, true and exact copy of Resolution No.._ 81- 213.,._ Supporting ..an..Inyesti_gati.on_ and ..Analysi.s,_pf_.the.,Inyestment Policies o[ the California Public Employees Retirement System in an Effort to Increase a pgesag appe urn i the official records of the City of Daly City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hay, hereunto set my hand and official seal this ........... ?4th .. ...day of July...... ......., c _ '� .... g�ETrr Mn.Yr:(✓ci.. e�x w .. .............. 8) The rage of inflation, as determined by the state composite California Consumer Price Index, as computed by the California State In- dustrial Relations Board, for the same 12 -month period was 17.5% for all, urban wage earners, and the interest crediting rate which member employers t- ^,:� =� - :._. .. -• and employees were granted on their accumulated retirement earnings for the year ending June 30, 1980, was only 6 %; and 9) The "Statement of Investment Objectives and Policy" of the California Public Employees Retirement System contains a section entitled, "Investment Objectives ", which states the following: "1) to increase asset coverage of actuarial lia- bilities; 2) to maintain real dollar value of the assets (provide inflation coverage); and 3) to stabilize current employer contribution rates." 10) The interest crediting rate was increased by PERS Board of Administration to 6.75 %, effective July 1, 1980; and 11) Federal Treasury Notes, Federal T- Bills, Certificates of Deposit and Short Term Commercial Paper has been yielding interest rates .. _`iY'rr••.�_.•"'�`, xezM�s« •.�a'�'�•,csc�ysr.ti »3t� -�ri:� � ranging from 12% to 20% over the past 30 months, depending on the•amount to be invested; and 12) 49% of the PERS $12.85 billion investment portfolio as of June 30, 1980, is placed in bonds, many of which are long term investments, some yielding as low as 4 %; and 13) Only 4.1% of.the PERS investment portfolio, as of June 30, 1980, was placed in short term investments at a time when money market funds are earning up to 20% for large investments; and 14) Public agency employers, depending on the Public Employee Re -' tirement System (PERS) benefit level they have contracted for, coupled with their experience, expend from 8% to 12% of their annual operating budget on PERS employer contributions for employee retirement benefits; and 15) Public agency employers, such as PERS member cities and counties, are experiencing continuous employer rate increases following periodic audits of the financial integrity of the PERS system; and 16) Current PERS investment polities appear too rigid and unable to respond in a timely manner with a flexible and aggressive investment policy -2- which can capitalize on rapidly changing money market i.nvestm._nt oppor- tunities; and 17) PERS' actuaries have estimated that a 1p increase in the PERS' Computed Rate of Return on its investment portfolio would probably offset a 13% increase in costs to PERS Retirement System employers in California; and 18) Most of the above matters and concerns have been incorpor- ated in a previous Resolution adopted on February 26, 1981, by the City Managers Association of San Mateo County; a Resolution adopted on February 27, 1981, by the Council of Mayors of San Mateo County; a similar Resolu- tion adopted on February 26, 1981, by the Peninsula Division, League of California Cities, the City Managers Association of Orange County and the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities; and similar Resolutions adopted by the California Cities and Towns of: Colma Los Alamitos Redwood City Coronado !!� Los Gatos San Mateo 1 Corte Madero Menlo Park Santa Clara Daly City Millbrae Southgate Fairfax Mountain View Tustin Fountain Valley Norwalk Villa Park Huntington Beach Oceanside and the Peace Officers Research Association of California; the American Society for Public Administration (Los Angeles Metropolitan Chapter); and Southeast Los Angeles County Municipal Management Group; the Marin County City Managers Association and the Marin County Council of Mayors; and 19) The City of Daly City desires to declare its support of the adoption of the proposed Resolution by the League of California Cities at its annual conference in San Francisco to be held in October, 1981. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDby the City Council of the City of Daly City that it hereby expresses its support and concurs in adoption of the Resolution adopted by the City Managers Association of San Mateo County, and supported by the PERS Committee of San Mateo County, wherein: 1) The California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) is not currently meeting the 2nd and 3rd objectives of its stated, "Investment Objectives ", which it has officially adopted as policy guidelines for the retirement system investment program; and -3- n' na`;+c =_`;s 2) While it is recognized that the PERS Board of Administration has managed its investment portfolio in a prudent and effective manner in the past, that the League of California Cities take appropriate action to influence the PERS Board of Administration to change its investment strategy so that a significantly higher percentage of new revenue could be placed in Federal T- Bills, Certificates of Deposit, Bankers Acceptance and other per- formance investment vehicles with high yield when market conditions so justify, in a concerted effort to maximize earnings from investments; and 3) The League of California Cities take appropriate action to in- fluence the PERS Board of Administration to examine the maturity period when purchasing new, long term bonds to determine whether they should be shortened. This procedure would allow increased opportunities to examine investment de- cisions in view of current market conditions; and 4) The League of California Cities aggressively oppose passage of Senate Constitutional Amendment 21, or any similar legislation, which would i t increase the existing 25% PERS portfolio ceiling on PERS stock market invest- ments, which investments have not provided a satisfactory rate of return over the eleven year period ending June 30, 1979• Justification of this position can be easily reached upon careful review of Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, entitled, "Annual Equities Transactions, 11 Year Record" of the Public Employees Retirement System of the State of Cali- fornia; 5) The League of California Cities sponsor legislation which will expand membership of the PERS Board of Administration and the PERS Investment Committee to ensure representation of public agency employers who are PERS members and that such additional positions be filled by appointment of the President of the League of California Cities; and 6) Employee organizations, such as the Peace Officers Research As- sociation of California (PORAC), California State Firefighters Association (CSFA), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), other organized labor organi- zations and other interested organizations and committees, be fully informed of the importance of this issue and legislation related thereto, and seek their support; and -4- 7) Support be given by the League of California Cities to the Investmenit Practices Sub- Committee of the Finance, Insurance and Commerce Committee, Assemblyman Louis J. Papan's Assembly Committee, which is con- ducting an investigation of the investment policies of the California Public Employees Retirement System in an effort to ensure that PERS maxi- mizes its rate of return from investments; and 8) Encouragement be given to PERS member cities, member counties, individual members and public agency employee organizations to write letters to the PERS Board of Administration and to personally appear before the Board to demonstrate wide public agency and employee organization support for a full review of and change, as appropriate, of current investment policies; 9) The effort to maximize interest earnings from the.PERS invest- ment portfolio will directly benefit PERS member cities and individual members of the California Public Employees Retirement System and, in so doing, will reduce the need for employer rate increases which would be funded from tax revenues. I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the City Council of Daly City, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of July 19 81 , by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmen: Kyriakis, Powell, Tucker NOES, Councilmen: None Absent, Councilmen: Giammona BETTY MAllA CITY CLERK OF THE CITY F DALY CITY APPROVED: 1 ALBERT M. TEGLIA By: «c enJ MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DALY CITY / Deputy —5— /V / C CITY MANAGER REPORT TO THE PERS PUBLIC AGENCY MEMBERSHIP DALY CITY No. 3 - 1981 Jake Petrosino, Elected Member, PERS Board of Administration PERS EQUITIES INVESTMENT RECORD SHOWS SOME SIGN OF IMPROVEMENT SINCE PURCHASES INITIATED IN 1968 Approximately 25% of the California Public Employees Retirement System assets are invested in equities. As of December 31, 1980, the System's equities portfolio was valued at $740 million more than at date of stock purchase. This represents a paper gain of 23% for all equities holdings which were originally purchased at a cost of $3.18 billion since 1968. Despite these impressive gains, sales of stocks during the past eleven years show an average loss to PERS of $687,177 per year, with an additional average of $842,269 spent annually.on commissions for equities transactions. As indicated in the accompanying chart, the yield on all bonds and mortgages earned an average of 8.37% annually during that same eleven -year period. Pension funding has always been perceived by the membership as a concern of the participating public agencies. However, the stakes are critically high for the PERS membership as well in this post - Proposition 13 era. Improved investment returns to the System will allow for both necessary benefit improvements and reduced pension costs. A 1974 report for the California Legislature indicated that, "The importance of earnings on investments to a pension system cannot be overstated. For instance, a 1% increase in the yield on investments, in a funded retirement system will result in an approximate 24% savings to the employer (utiimately the taxpayer) over the funding period of the system." Many pension systems .around the nation continue to count on extraordinary investment returns on equities "over the long term" promised by brokerage firms. Many public pension.system investment advisors, including those employed by the California PERS, still remain optimistic about future equities earnings. I consider equities a "high risk" investment to be limited to current restrictions which allow not more than 25% of System assets for that purpose. The PERS record does not justify an increase in the existing limit. A move to recommend such an increase was defeated at the January 1981 Board of Administration meeting in San Francisco. The PERS record tells me that continuing visions of huge profits on equities are illusionary. Therefore, I prefer to look to more conservative investment opportunities which have a proven record of success. PERS monies must be preserved in terms of their real, undiminished value. As your elected representative, I am not prepared to risk the System's assets (your money) for some promise of large increases in value at some future date which may never dawn. Controversy continues to intensify concerning public pension system invest- ment decisions and who makes them. The federal Pension Task Force was most critical of the high level of employer control exerted on public pension plan administration and assets. In our System, the 5- member Investment Committee of the Board of Administration does not have any elected members assigned to that responsibility. L:XIIInIT A !7 H t~" H 7 r e; ,4. t' California Public Employees Retirement System ANNUAL EQUITIES TRANSACTIONS - 11 YEAR RECORD Annual Cost of Purchase Price Selling Price _ Percent Yield Commisetoo for percent Yield Annual Income Fiscal of Equities of Equities Dollar of all all Equities on all Bonds from all Sources Total Assets Year Sold Sold Gain or Lose Equities Transactions and Mortgagee ($ billion) ($ billion) 78/79 $ 26,555,175 $ 36,680,495 $ 10,126,319 4.67 % $ 623,020 9.45 Z $ 2.09 $ 11.49 77/78 8,860,192 9,180,812 320,620 4.68 % 839,670 8.73 % 1.83 10.16 76/77 52,603,307 47,659,129 - 4,944,178 3.59 % 977,570 8.26 % 1.55 8.95 75/76 19,940,164 22,540,069 2,599,905 2.02 % 717,676 8.53 7, 1.34 7,91 74/75 42,447,178 14,868,009 - 27,579,169 2.23 % 906,901 8.86 S 1.16 7,02 73/74 23,259,001 25,R92,107 2,633,106 2.32 % 538,278 8.27 % 0.99 6.24 72/73 61,993,471 61,395,432 - 598,039 1.90 % 891,291 7,67 % 0.89 5.57 71/72 42,911,365 47,519,482 4,608,117 - 2.97 % 1,004,420 7.90 7. 0.77 4.95 70/71 40,667,839 43,504,833 2,836,994 2.95 % 1,051,078 8.45 % 0.70 4.41 69/70 24,929,509 25,205,374 275,865 2.5 % (est.) 907,930 8.64 % 0.62 3.92 68/69 10,342,110 12,504,624 2,162,514 1.7 % (est.)- 810,129 7.32 % 0.54 3.48 Totals $354,509,311 $346,950,366 $ - 7,558,945 31.52 L $ 9,264,963 92.08 % Yearly $ 32,228,119 $ 31,540,942 $ - 687,177 __ 2.87 I $ 842,269 8.37 ; Average Purchase Price of All PERS Current Book Value of All PERS Dollar Value of Current PERS Equities Percent Value of Current PERS Equities Equities Holdings as cf 12/31/80 Equities Holdings as of 12/31/80 Holdings as of 12/31/80 - Gain or Lose Holdings as of 12/31/80 - Gain or Loss $ 3.18 billion $ 3.92 billion $ 0.74 billion + 23.2% Note: Constitutional authorization for equity purchases by the California Public Employees Retirement System implemented in fiscal 1968/69. Source: Annual financial reports of the Board of Administration, State of California, Public Employees Retirement System, for the fiscal years indicated above. Equities information as of 12/31/80 provided by PERS in its monthly reports - to the Board of Administration. PERS Retirement Betterment Committee, Inc. CITY Or SiU 7YUOGA rI , AGENDANBILL NO. Bib Initial: Dept. i-kl . DATE: 9/3/81 C. Atty. . DEPARIMWr:. Community Development C. Mgr. ----------------------------------------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- Appeal on Denial of a Design Review Application for a t o -story SUBJECT: single- family dwelling on Lot #4, Carnelian Glen Tract 6722, A -775 - Appiicant1A2pell.ant___ Dividend_ Industries_ Inc__ --------------- - - - - -- Issue SL=ary On August 12, 1981, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request to construct a two -story single- family dwelling on Carnelian Glen. Some issues raised during the hearing included the height, bulk and setbacks. In addition, there was considerable discussion of the fact that the interim ordinance was about to expire and that the guidelines contained in the new Design Review Ordinance should be considered in the deliberation of this matter., The City Council should be aware that Section 12 of Ordinance No. NS -3.47 (the Design Review Ordinance) in part reads as follows: "however, that in the event an appeal has been taken from such Design Review Approval or issuance of a conversion permit which is heard by the appellant body after the effective date of _this ordinance, the provisions of this ordinance may be applied to the proposed structure or major addition which is the subject of the appeal,"(i.e., the City Council may review this matter under the guidelines of Ordinance No. NS- 3.47). Recommendation 1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal or set a hearing de novo. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny. 3. Staff recommended approval of the Design Review to the Planning Commission. Fiscal Impacts None noted 12/2: Mallory/Watson moved to sustain appeal. Passed.3- 2,(Clevenger, Jensen opposed). Exhibits /Attachments 1. Appeal letter dated August 14, 1981 2. Minutes.from the August 12, 1981 Commission Meeting 3. Staff Report dated August 6, 1981 4. Exhibit "B" and Site Map 5. Letter submitted regarding the Design Review Application Council Action 9/16: Jensen/Watson moved to continue to next regular meeting on Wednesday, October 7, at 8:00 p.m. Passed 5 -0. 10/7: Clevenger /Jensen moved to deny appeal; failed 2 -3. Mallory/Watson moved to grant. Pased 3 -2. 1.1/4: Callon /Jensen moved to reconsider Dividend appeal of denial of design review application for two -story single - family dwelling on Lot 4, Carnelian Glen, Tract 6722, which had 1-�n rrran4 -oA l () /7 D=c A I -7 fWntcnn mnl l � r �rtrv��.71 i AAA ass REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 9/29/81 COUNCIL MEETING: 10/7/81 SUBJECT: A -775 Dividend Development, Lot 4, Tract 6722 Carnelian Glen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This application was reviewed in accordance with the previous Design Review Ordinance NS -3.31. Under this ordinance single family structures over 22' in height required a public hearing. This project was heard by the Planning Commission on August 12, 1981. The application complied with the requirements of that ordinance which includes: 1. Minimum required setbacks: Rear: 45' Sides: 151 Front: 30' 2. Height: 30' maximum allowed 3. Coverage: 17% of site area.is maximum allowed 4. Privacy Impacts: None noted; site is heavily vegetated. In relation to the present Design Review Ordinance, which came into effect August 15, 1981, the subject application complies with requirements for setbacks, height and impervious coverage. The standard floor area ratio allowed for this site would permit a structure of 51177 sq. ft. in size. The Planning Commission, after a public hearing, may approve a 5% variation without a variance. The proposed structure is within this 5% limitation. In addition, under the present Design Review Ordinance, the pro- ject would require a public hearing because it is a two -story structure over 26' in height. In terms of impacts to the natural landscape and privacy of adjacent neighbors, Staff did not have major concerns. The site contains a scenic easement along the northwestern boundary and is heavily vegetated with mature pine, oak and eucalyptus trees. Included in the new Design Review Ordinance is the provision (Section 4.d) that the Commission may increase one or more of the required setbacks by 10% for each foot that the structure exceeds 22' in height. Report to Mayor and City Council RE A -775, Dividend Dev., Lot 4, Tract 6722 9/24/81 Page 2 Staff also reviewed the mailing list which was submitted by the applicant. Staff has determined that this list was not accurate as it did not include all the property owners within 500 feet. The mailing list has been corrected and the proper people were notified. Submitted by S aron Lester P1, i g Aide Approved by S. Shook Director of Community Development SL:cd ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION ON APPEAL RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 11, 1981. RECEIVED SEP -11 1981 sar toga, Calif - Sept t io '�,i 9F city of •S'aratoga :.,'.Pl�nninp, -.Coml.'Assio rho repreoe�-, ts Divi�le r7 r I have ta1k.ed.to. TvIr. Omsbe 0 r M.' "ed the tern . h, 0, s r ej e c t, Develo�menu Corp. i, nf ie -that G s o bni-] 0 ��t Aiv e n rl s',"p, n' t I irl, o r type ho 1.,e on t S -Div from `m e c use �its.eig :1 'i C i,(;:e;nT �,pur h s ed, r:6 V eight w if to fed3t from my )roperty 1-ine the i o 6.' -house is. no n comi� . table with rni 12 of the e houses i -cludin f mJ -ne Sara t oga acr e s =rare i t h root pern-Auted to be located fifteen i -n, r, e t f r c) the side of the b'-p 6 r t y 1 J, -n e I hnve no O1? 1 c ti o n s) to tlls".';^'s tioli o -P' t' ei r'ho'.�se. f r a F, v i d n, d is co~ ce r-, e (T "I t�, oc: ifty o i_x.t v Futthvr the site s h o w r,-, 1he oiJ.!-, e to be bout f.4- r r, feet from the b,-4. c 11 of Tn y gar C, e .end -F.-:-Irther fro-,,n my house. y e s h--,,ve been a nd- more wil.1 be pi anted to b ul. f f r h o ids e, from mine no ni,`ter whe' r e i t s, I o c e,',.'. U n,Ierstand t he 1_ ouse s two storiej -high. Con si dery i ng 3. ow the gr�-- the r f 1obr will be Tle five feet b e of feet rp e 1 ova 't he, f "'Vej. Of my m -ir ho--ise and -about save , house, It ?.ppe:ars to me t h t co d. floor wil-I be abott even J� ouF;e, thus I see no objection. to t I--, i e wi th mv n -f .9 t- a n d, "ne objectiol tT r�D A iS'L�1" t h t + e T of Vre r-.1iol-ild be m-,de coran-ar-ible with think, s:i,'ice I ri no w in ta+ suln,14.17ision, th:, P, soon no S 4.b e mV o s e sb c S eS d b e 7- P. cl e, c o m n. m, r b,1e, with h o.A 1 -have. no objections, ,,r J. th the i.lia .1 dividend i& developing th i s p ro -erty. If n. n-7-thil ng S..1houl d arise, m r p,,st RE with Dividend .is tha t all problems c'�n be 'sa.,t,i s f ac t or J. y o 1 v e c! Therefore as the nearest neighbor to Ahe, hoi.7.ses in q u.- t i 0 n a..nd.with fuli.cisi'aerati as to the impact these ho;,,.ses vii-17 , h?,ve on m y pro perty you , I urge you to reconsider the -a - 0- 01 - i C t 0 n Of Di h":,.v i v i 0. end, t o b i.i 11 rl the e h o u.s e they for the s s, i t. e th eig'boril.00d. It I believe it i , vill �b e .grist im-provement to e n. r,, o �willl!.Il SO: arable wl�h` th- 6- hi,.; sOs bul- n the, yroperty to e.. com P the north of.mine, x.1,1: of these h o -(i s e s u -p Ig r� d. e the neighb -r hond. z. v n Y d i P, i'�! -n -d th i s ne glhborho�)�! th a.' !, S'e'e??' We ha' e ma e op�e J. y-L U Ln -q i n -abol-A everyti, ,g, to block eve ro n e t r j. e s,. 0 coo n rl c oln S1T2Ce they have a tr ck recorcl of ustifie,8cnr p n s y complai-,it they voice s1io-j' -11. be ig-:Iore�-!. They r-,h o u 1 -1 be to](? to be sure ro o �, �e 'V e r ,S corv)? -Ant Mt tlieir 'activities. 10 rV Jil I . 5h,-n q.. 4531. Tr or^ahon Dr o i ga 9507 o .7: 'May I point out that. -most, of the v e ga tenon a 1 o n g the creek is poison o�i.k, or so ingrovin with poison oak` --?.t it, shoul -d be this r e .�) ,ce it. I s-nr .- -a7r,_,i z-,,, tvi J o e rem .nved e�nd sq,f er S h rub s re. .to kill. the -r"Oi7,on onk, but i t c�Lme back. it s'.lou! d 7.7, be rin--oe�i out a--d h:a.ule(l -i.vi-,y. RF Dividend Development Corporation 3600 Pruneridge Avenue Suite 340 Santa Clara, CA 95051 (408) 246 -5001 August 14, 1981 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 U AU' 91931 MTG DATE AGENDA # /06 EXHIBIT # Subject: Appeal of Design Review Denial by Planning Commission, Lot 4, Tract 6722 Members of the City Council: ���vr� iF'LCJ In accordance with Section 7 of Ordinance No. 3E -16, Dividend Development Corporation hereby appeals the August 12, 1981 denial by the Planning Commission of the design review of our proposed home at Lot 4, Tract .6722 (Agenda Item A -775). The grounds for the appeal are as follows: 1. No substantive evidence was presentd by the Commission to substantiate the denial. 2. The denial was based on subjective opinion of a number of Commissioners and not on established rules, generally acceptable standards, and known or published design criteria. 3. The decision was arbitrary and capricious .causing harm to Dividend Development Corporation. 4. There was insufficient consideration given to the particu- lar site characteristics, including the site's natural .vegetation and topography. In support of Dividend's appeal, I submit the City Staff's report on the design review clearly showing there are no exceptions to the zoning ordinance asked for by Dividend; there are no adverse impacts on neighbors or viewsheds; and recommending unequivocal Planning Commission approval of the .house design. Dividend Development Corporation is a su )sid;.:ary of Dividend Industnes Inc. Honorable Mayor and City Council August 14, 1981 . Page Two ` I also point out that the objectives of the City would be better met with a two -story structure on this lot than having a one -story structure that would cover a greater area of the lot and, hence, require greater destruction of the natural vegetation. We would appreciate you placing this appeal on the next appropriate City Council meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, DIVIDEND,, DE ORPORATION James K. berg ,.X Vice Pre,�(ident JRO: daf Enclosure - Check to City of Saratoga, $30.00 I'lann.ing Conimission Page 4 Aleet.ing Plinutes 8 /12 /S] A4, . �� - 550 (coat. ) MTG DATE a basis for revoking the permit. - / AGEWA # fQ � The -ote was taken on the motion to direct Staff not to take ally action E. .IDIT # -2 for tie horse permit with regard to V -5S0. The motionZfailed, with Commissioners laden, King, Schaefer and Zambetti dissenting. Commis oner King commented that he felt the centr issue is whether a horse is appropriate on this site. He stated tha this is a rather small site and s probably inappropriate for a horse. ommissioner King stated - that this 's no longer a rural neighborhood, al ough there may be one near it. Commissioner King moved to request Staff to itiate proceedings to revoke the horse permit from this site, as suggest by the City Attorney, unless a variance comes back before the Commissio . The Deputy City Attorney stated that if;\the applicant wished to ap eal revocation proceedings, that appeal would god directly to the City Cou il. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried, ith Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Alonia dissenting. Commissioner ASchafer stated that sh had voted for the mo tion, even though she feels a hainly could b ong on the site, because she feels that the matter sheyond the Co fission level at this point. SDR -1500 - Nl, Herriman Avenue, 2 Lots, Tentative Building Site A Continued rom July 22, 1981 The proposal was described by taff. It was noted that a variance had previously been approved on t] s—project. The public hearing was o\ene at 9:05 p.m. Doug Adams, the attorney,;, tated that the applicant has no intention of building at this point, an the purpose of the proposal was to split the lots so they conform to tj�e\ they lots in the area. He expressed his concern about the condit'ons�in the Staff Report, which include payment of fees, since the applicaryt does not intend to build at this time. Mr. Adams explained that he had d scussed the condition from Sanitation District No. 4 with them, and there is a possibility that some of the storm.drainage fees will be reduced d waived until such time as a building permit is applied for. The con itions of the Staff Report were discussed, and it was explained by Staff t at Conditions II -C, D and E would not come into play until there is some se of the �dot\t and III -B, C, D and E would not be required prior to F'nal Map Approvd�. Regarding Condition II -A, Staff indicated that thi condition ha's always been applied with site development rather than the is uance of a build' g permit. Chairman Laden commented that perhaps Cond'tion V -A, regardin the hook up to sewers, is directed towards both lots. She explained tha it has been customary for the City to bring all lot that are involved in a lot split up to the City require- ments, which would apply to both parcels in this case. Mr. Adams statl�' that he was hopeful'tha\\t additional comments from the - Sanitation District No. 4 would be receibed soon, and it was determined that Condition IV -A be amended to read "Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated June 22, 1981 or any additional letters submitted by the Sanitation District." Commissioner. Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner King moved to approve SDR -1500, per the conditions of tile. Staff Report dated July 8, 1981 as amended. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. ividend Development Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval or a two -story single - family dwelling that would be over 22' in height (30' max.) on a lot with an average slope of less than 100 in the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district on Carnelian Glen (Lot 4, Tract 6722) Staff described the proposal. Discussion followed on the lot lines and 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 meeting Minutes 8/12/81 A -775 (cont.) the building envelopes in the area and specifically regarding this project. The public hearing was opened at 9:35 p.m. Jim Omsberg, from Dividend Development Corporation, stated that the lot lines and the building envelopes as to %,!here these houses were sited were dictated to them at the time they received tentative map approval. Lorraine Pace, Carnelian Glen Court, expressed her concern with the ease- ment along the side. She explained that there is a pathway there that has been used, and she is concerned that, now that it is going to be blocked off, the easement will not be clear so they can walk through. She indicated that there was a lot of brush in that area and the easement is along the creek. Mrs. Pace requested the Commission to ask the applicant, while they had heavy equipment there, to run a tractor through to clear some of the brush away. It was noted that this proposal falls under the Urgency Ordinance; the new Design Review Ordinance will be effective August 15, 1981. A letter was noted into the record from Mr. Frank Grengo, a neighbor on Horseshoe Drive, indicating his concern that the access of the drive or road should be fenced for protection of the children and the homes be placed in such a way as to not have an effect on the creek and plant life. Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner King suggested that the Commission consider this application under the guidelines developed under the new ordinance, to satisfy them- selves that this structure meets those guidelines. Commissioner Monia suggested pulling the house a little forward, in order to save some of the trees. It was pointed out that if the home were moved forward on the scenic easement line the side yard setback would be lost. The easement line was discussed. Commissioner Zambetti expressed his concern with the height of this structure. He commented that he felt the house was too big for this lot. He noted that there are two other vacant lots on this property, and those two homes are going to have to be consistent with the new ordinance. He also indicated that he felt the side yard setback is inadequate for a 30 ft. structure. Commissioner King commented that his concerns were regarding the design review process. He stated that, even though this Staff Report was written based upon the Urgency Ordinance which is presently in effect, he feels that the City has had no guidelines for design review to deal with a lot of severe pproblems in this community. He added that it was the consensus of the Com�hission that the general guidelines for design review in the new ordinance were most suitable for the City. Chairman Laden stated that she has a problem with applying the specific measurements in the new ordinance on a proposal that has been submitted when the new ordinance is not yet in effect. The Deputy City Attorney pointed out that the new ordinance can certainly be considered with reference to its general guidelines, but there is a clear distinction between the general guidelines and specific quantified requirements. He added that,._if this item is continued, then the Commission would be considering it under the new ordinance; as of this meeting the Urgency Ordinance is still in effect. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the Commission cannot deny the design review for violation of the new ordi- nance; they may conclude that this proposal doesn't meet the criteria, but since the Urgency Ordinance already has some of the same criteria, to that extent the Commission can make the same decision under the Urgency Ordinance. Commissioner Crowther commented that if the house were turned 450 on the site, then possibly the setbacks could be met. Commissioner Monia stated that he has a problem with the side setback and the height of the structure. - 5 - ill a.fill i i, Commission ?Ieeting Minutes 8/12/31 A -775 (cont.) Page 6 Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A -775, with the stipulation that the grading be done to allow for the pathway and easement with a minimum amount of disturbance to the creek itself, if possible. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Monia moved to deny A -775 because of the height and the fact that the setbacks are not consistent with the neighborhood, and it would create an impact on some of the neighbors. Commissioner-King seconded the motion. Mr. Omsberg stated that he was confused, since they were given instructions and designed this home in terms of the old ordinance. Chairman Laden stated that the Commission is operating under the Urgency Ordinance tonight; how- ever, the Commission has the discretion to indicate that those setbacks are not sufficient. She added that the Commission feels the structure is too high and the setbacks are not sufficient for the size of the structure. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she felt the applicant was being put in a very difficult position, since he assumed that the proposal would be considered under the Urgency Ordinance. Commissioner King stated that all of the applicants have been in that same difficult position for the last two years while the City had an ambiguous Design Review Ordinance. Chairman Laden stated that she would like to continue the matter and allow the applicant to make an effort to redesign the house to meet the setbacks that the Commission is looking for. Commissioner Bolger stated that he would like the applicant to bring back a modified design, possibly showing the house tipped 450 to comply with the setbacks, and how that would affect the site development plan. He indicated that he was primarily addressing the rear setback, but also would like to see the side yard setback increased, although it does meet ordinance requirements. Commissioner Monia stated that, for that size of structure, he would like the side yard setback increased to at least 20 ft. The vote was taken on the motion to deny A -775. The motion was carried,' with Commissioners Laden and Schaefer dissenting. Chairman Laden stated that the applicant has come to the Commission under the criteria that has been used for the last several months. She added that she would like the Commission to direct the applicant as to what the problems are and what the Commission would like to see in a modified plan. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would like to see a side yard setback of at least 20 -25 ft. He suggested putting an L shape to the design to use more of the rear yard. He added that he felt it was imposing upon the neighbor to the south; therefore, the two -story structure portion could be moved over toward the north and it would be more applicable. Commissioner King stated that he had no problems with the setbacks, since they meet the Urgency Ordinance. However, he added, he does have problems with the height and its bulk compared to the adjacent properties and compatibility with the neighborhood. The applicant was informed of the 10 -day appeal period. It was clarified that any revised plan will be considered under the new Design Review Ordinance. 7. SDR -1501 - Jean Rohrig, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for 2 loi,� on Douglass Lane Staff described th roposal. They indicated that it is practical for this proposal to take ac .ss off of Douglass Lane. The public hearing was'\opcned at 10:10 p.m. Jean Rohrig, the applicakt, stated that she has no problem with the Staff Report. \ - 6 - oil P001 MTG DATE; AGENDA # D� EXHIBIT # 3 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 8/6/81 Commission Meeting: 8/12/81 SUBJECT A -775, Dividend Development Corporation, Lot 4, Tract 6722 Carnelian Glen REQUEST: Design Review Approval for a two -story single family dwelling. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration was prepared for SDR -1416. PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been advertised by noticing in the paper, posting the site and mailing notices to 26 property owners in the vicinity. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING: R- 1- 20,000 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential SITE SIZE• 39,624 SITE SLOPE: 3% HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 30' STRUCTURE SIZE: 1st floor: 3,054 sq. ft., including garage 2nd floor: 2,307 sq. ft. total: 5,352 sq. ft. STRUCTURE COVERAGE: 13 %, including garage SETBACKS: Rear: 45' Left side: 22' Right side: 15' Front: 85' STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposed structure is Tudor in style, utilizing a com- bination hip and gable shake roof. The exterior facade will consist of sand color stucco with brown color wood trim, and brick veneer along the front elevation. Report to Planning Commission 8/6/81 A -775 Page 2.. The proposed dwelling is located on heavily vegetated site, however, the building site is situated in a relatively open area of the lot. Approximately two 18 " -24" diameter eucalyptus trees will need to be removed as well as several non - ordinance size pine and fruit trees. The remainder of the site contains a scenic easement along the northwestern portion of the property, which contains mature oaks, bay, eucalyptus trees, and thick brush. To the northeast, there are primarily eucalyptus trees 18 " -30" in diameter and many non - ordinance sized pine trees. Due to existing vegetation located along the property lines adjoining the subject site and neighboring properties, and the distance to existing dwellings (ranging from 120 -250 feet) privacy impacts are expected to be minimal. Impacts to the viewshed in the area appear to be minimal due to the fact that many trees surrounding the.proposed dwelling are 30' or taller. The scenic easement also helps to preserve the natural environment. Staff has reviewed the site in terms of grading and drainage and has determined there are no significant concerns. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve per Staff Report dated 8/6/81, and Exhibits B & C, and subject to the following condition(s): 1. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Inspection Services. Only these approved plans shall be implemented during construction. 2. Any modifications to the proposed site development plan or elevations shall require Planning Department review and approval. 3. If more than 2 ordinance sized trees need to be removed to accommodate the building site, they will require a tree removal permit. Approved Jl_ Sharon Lester, Planning Aide SL /dra P.C. Agenda:' 8/12/81 M� EX_IIBIT # W -- August 10. 19� Saratoga, Ca. To the members of the Saratoga Planning Commission; I am the property ovmer at 14551 Horseshoe Drive and wish to state a few of my concerns regarding the Dividend Industries extension of the Carnelian. Glen development. Since I have not received. T,,Tritten notices on many of the issues regarding this development, 1: hope that this letter will be discussed at the August 12th meeting since I will not be able to attend. The following is a list of my concerns at this time: 1) that a fenq,e, wall be built along the new road for the safety of my three little children and for privacy. Of co,,-irse '_t should be built to blend in with the landscape. The people of Carnelian Glen fought to push this road on the people of Horseshoe Drive, and one of their main issues was the safety of-their children because of traffic. I assure yoi that I also have ,just as much concern, if not. more so, for the safety of my children, 2) that the home being built near my side lot on my side of the creek directly= behind the Johns be single story rather than double. This i %,ill provide for the privacy of all parties involved. 3) that the devastation of the creek be kept at�a minimum. I am very concerned about the plant life, trees and brush, and z- rild-life U) that a.deq>>a.te drainage be provided on. Horseshoe Drive when this development; goes thro ,'zgh. Tr- conclusion, I feel that all parties should work together so that everyone will be happy with the end result since this project is now inevitable. Sincere y, ;� r-2, �. Frank _ , ,lrengo a : -1 G �� September 29, 1981 OCT i 19�,� Saratoga, Calif. To the Saratoga City ouncil: I am the property owner at 14.551 Horseshoe Drive, Saratoga, and wish to state my opinion on the appeal-of the design review denial for the two story, single family dwelling that would be over 22` in height (30' max) on a lot with an average slope of less than 10% in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district on Carnelian Glen ( Lot 4, Tract 6722). I wish to state that I agree with the Saratoga Planning Commission on their denial of the above described dwelling. With all respects to Dividend. Industries and their project, I fear for my privacy as well as for other property owners in the area,for such a dwelling 'being built or such a lot. 'Reca.use of the height of the dwelling to be built, I will never again have the privacy of which I am accustomed to during the many years as a residence on my property. I understand that several people wrote letters in favor of Dividend Industries that live in the Carnelian Glen development on this new project at the last council meeting. I can not understand. their Input and interest on this issue since they live over 1/4 to 1 /2mile away and are nowhere in sight of the project. I also >> nderstand that one of the representatives at the last council meeting could not define where the creek actually,it on the map plans or exactly how many trees will be cut in the eucalyptus Fro —, These Pre serious issues that you mlast consider. Another very important issue that concerns me is the fence along the border of my property and the road that will serve the homes being built. I have been asking for such a fence to be built for over a year now, I desperately need such a fence for the safety of my three little children and my pets, not to mention my privacy in my back yard. I understand that now the plans show a little fence to be built, which will be a fence of 36 inches to 11R inches. I believe that the fence should be a standard 6 feet, to provide for safety and privacy. A small fence will do nothing but define the border of the properties. I am really asking the council to help me on this issue. �ncere y, Frank R. Grengo 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 December 7, 1981 Mr. James R. Omsberg Vice - President Dividend Development Corporation 3600 Pruneridge Avenue, Suite 340 Santa Clara, CA 95051 Dear Mr. Omsberg: This is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting on December 2, 1981, reconsidered the grant of appeal of denial of a Design Review application in Carnelian Glen Tract 6722. This application was for a two -story single- family dwelling on Lot #4. After considerable review, the City Council moved to grant the appeal. The Council expressed concern regarding the trees on the site, and requested that extreme care be taken in the construction and that no trees be removed unless directly related to the building envelope. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd '/ I cc: Deputy City Clerk 1° (� 0 . Y. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 . (408) 887 -3438 November 13, 1981 Mr. James R. Omsberg Vice - -President Dividend Development Corporation 3600 Pruneridge Avenue, Suite 340 Santa Clara, CA 95051 Dear Mr. Omsberg: This is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting on November 4, 1981, discussed the reconsideration of your appeal of a,Planning Commission denial of a Design Review application for a two- story, single - family dwelling on Lot #4, Carnelian Glen Tract 6722 (application #A -775). This discussion was held due to a request from an adjoining property owner who was erroneously not notified of the public hearing on this matter on October 7, 1981. After review of the request, the City Council, moved to reconsider the appeal at a public hearing which has been noticed to be held on Wednesday, December 2, 1981. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, i bert' S S ookk Director of Community Development RSS:cd cc: Deputy City Clerk /0 �- o WE Qq 0&U9&UQX5& $ :v: Wu 3 ' as 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 o ka (408) 867 -3438 November 13, 1981 Mr. Joseph H. Schauf 19965 Douglass Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Schauf: In response to your letter of October 22, 1981, the City Council, at their meeting on November 4, 1981, discussed the reconsideration of an appeal by Dividend Development Corpora- tion of a Planning Commission denial of a Design Review appli- cation. This application was for a two- story, single- family dwelling on Lot #4, Carnelian Glen Tract 6722 (application #A -775). After review of your request, the City Council moved to reconsider the appeal at a public hearing which has been e noticed to be on Wednesday, December 2, 1981.. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office, Sincerely, bert S � Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd cc: Deputy City Clerk' CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO Dept. Hd. DATE: September 3, 1981 DEPARmENT: Administrative Services C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT,: Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for receipt of funding under the Housing and Community Development Act (HCD). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- issue Stunnary Beginning in 1975 the City has received annual funding under the HCDA. The currently pro- posed agreement is effective from 7- 1 -82.to 6- 30 -85. Recent legislative amendment has ex- tended the agreement from l to 3 years, primarily to facilitate comprehensive planning.and to provide greater fiscal control. The proposed JPA includes an annual funding guarantee to participating cities and the County, (35 %.of the net annual grant amount divided by the number of participating cities and the County), such funds to be used to meet locally identified housing needs. In Saratoga's case this translates to housing rehabilitation (SHARP Program). Recommendation Approve the proposed Joint Exercise of Powers'Agreement and Cooperation Agreement. Fiscal Impacts Using as a base, the net urban County block grant amount (total grant amount minus the administrative costs of the cities and the County) for FY 1981 -82 of approximately $3,420,160 Saratoga could expect to receive $149,632 -annually for the continued operation of the SHARP. In addition to this amount, $40,000; can be expected for program administration. This rounds to $189,632/year, or approximately $568,896 funding to the City during the term of the JPA. This figure is a bottom .line amount. The City may request additional CDBG monies for eligible activities which meet identified, priority urban County needs. Exhibits /Attachments DA Narrative Summary Memo City Manager. Council Action 9/16• Mallory /Clevenger moved to approve proposed Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Receipt of Funding under Housing and Community Development Act. Passed 4 -0 (Jensen abstained). I�1 E NI OO R A N D LJ NI TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: HCD COORDINATOR 0 MEW - @:T 0&Z&'X00& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 1981 SUBJECT: HCDA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT 1982 -1985, NARRATIVE SUMMARY The City of Saratoga has received funding under the Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) since 1975 for a variety of projects such as Historical Preservation, Urban Beautification, Parks Development, Site Acquisition, Planning and Management Develop- ment, Senior Citizen Housing, Demolition, Architectural Barriers Removal, the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program, and the Saratoga Senior Citizens Center. Funding amounting to approximately $1,500,000 has been received. This year legislation requires a three -year JPA vs. the annual agreements of the past. This seems to be a logical step in order to facilitate longer range planning and greater fiscal control. With a three -year agreement, the Federal government can ap- propriate and commit Block Grant program funds with greater certainty, allowing parti- cipants to more adequately plan on the availability of funds. In addition to the three -year time frame, this year's JPA provides a guaranteed funding clause (page 4, Section 8 - Grant Disbursements.) Essentially, this section provides each participating non - entitlement city and the county with 1 /8th of 35% of the net Urban County annual grant amount to be utilized for identified local housing needs, including housing rehabilitation. Using the 1981 -82 Urban County net grant amount of $3,420,160 each participating non - entitlement city and the county would be guaranteed approximately $149,632/year during the term of the JPA. Additionally, it can be ex- pected that $40,000± could be received by the City for program administration and related costs. This, would translate to $189,632 annually or $568,896 over the three - year period. This amount. is the least the City would receive. Saratoga would remain eligible to submit requests for the funding of other CDBG eligible activities that meet identified Urban County priority needs, as funding permits during the term of the JPA. At present, staff will propose continuation of the SHARP Program and administrative costs reimbursement for Saratoga's participation during the JPA term. Since, in all probability, the SHARP Program will be the City's only CDBG funded activity, staff will recommend a funding level greater,than the guaranteed amount (i.e., $250,000 /year plus administration costs.) HCDA JPA 1982 -85 September 4, 1981 Page two The SHARP is a primary method of the City's ability to meet affordable housing needs via the Rental Component, and serves as a substantial program in the City's proposed Housing Element to the General Plan. Although rental housing is not the primary focus of the SHARP, it does maintain some ability for the City to increase the supply of affordable units. To date, 12.5% SHARP participation has been to non - resident owners, including one unit owned by the City at Hakone Gardens. Last year, the City Council was concerned over wording contained in Section 4 "Coopera- tion Agreement" of the JPA. This wording continues to remain in the proposed JPA. I should point out that the City Attorney and I have once again reviewed this wording, and continue to agree that the wording is flexible enough so as not to commit the"City`.to building any project or undertaking any activity within ... the City that the City Council would not permit. JPA wording in Section 14 reenforces this position. Also, experi- ence since the signing of the last JPA evidences no significant pressure on the City for any such housing construction. On this same issue, in a letter from C. Bruce Hibbard, HUD HCDA Program Manager, responding to questions asked by Robert F. Beyer, the following was sent to the City on September 26, 1980: We have been asked to address several questions which were to be discussed at the September 30 public hearing. 1. Does HUD have the capacity to build housing in a City without its full concurrence? HUD has no program for direct involvement in housing con- struction. Land use, General Plan amendments, issuance of building permits, etc. are the sole prerogative of the City and no housing such as that suggested by the question could be built under any circumstances. 2. If HUD or the County should become dissatisfied with the City's per- formance, HUD would ask that all funds from previous years be returned? No requirement exists in HUD regulations, nor is there any precedent for such action. In fact, funds approved for all previous years could be spent on eligible activities, barring some failure by the City to meet the County's performance standards or a change in the eligibility or program benefit status of the activity. This would include funds for the sixth year which.is covered by the most recently executed Joint Powers Agreement signed in September, 1979. HCDA JPA 1982 -85 September 4, 1981 Page three Pending affirmative action by the City Council on the proposed JPA, I would like to implement the following time schedule in order to meet program deadlines. September 23 Public Meeting #1 Saratoga Community Center September 24 Public Meeting #2 October 7 HCDA Public Hearing #1 October 21 HCDA Public Hearing #2 7:30 p.m. Volunteer Fire Hall 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Meeting October 23 Submittal to the County of City Council approved HCDA projects for 1982 -85. The City will continue its approved HCDA program for the current year (FY 1981 -82) by completing the Senior Citizens Addition to the Community Center, Paul Street improve- ments, the removal of architectural barriers to the City offices and Civic Theatre, and continuati4ol of the SHARP program. ck JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT TO UNDERTAKE OR TO ASSIST IN THE UNDERTAKING OF ESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO TITLE 1 OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974. AS AMENDED 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 1 of the Act provides for a new program of Community Development Block Grants; C. That Title 1 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 jurisdiction. This agreement is further made pursuant to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and 24 Code of Federal Regula- tions, Section 570.105 in particular (39 Federal Register 40141, November 13, 1974). 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 1 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 Development Block Grants) and Part 58 (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 entitlement grants under the Act but which can receive funds through cooperation agreements with the County. (f) "Urban County" means a county that is (1) in a metropolitan area; (2) authorized under state law to undertake essential community devel- opment and housing assistance activities within its unincorporated 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 program. (h) "Application" means the application for a grant to be submitted by the County, as an Urban County, for entitlement funds under Title 1 of the Act. W "HUD" is the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (j) "HCD" is Housing and Community Development, the Urban County'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 program administered by HUD which provides funding to eligible entitlement cities and urban counties to address housing and community develop - ment needs of low to moderate income persons. (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 the CDBG funded HCD Program. Its adopted role is "the policy recom- mending body to the Board of Supervisors on the planning, monitor- ing, and evaluation of the HCD program and the development of a comprehensive, coordinated housing and community development plan." (n) "HCD Citizens Advisory Committee" is an advisory committee on the CDBG funded HCD program established by the Board of Supervisors on the recommendation of the HCD Council Committee. Its adopted role is "the policy recommending body to the HCD Council Commit- tee on the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of the HCD program and the 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) "Citizen 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 evalua- tion 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) are prepared every three years by the Urban County and describes 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 of assisted housing resources to communities. 3. Purpose of the Agreement This agreement is being made to meet the requirements and purposes of the Act and Regulations with respect to the application for an entitle- ment grant under Title I of the Act and to establish the respective rights and obligations of the parties to such grant. 2 The purpose of this agreement shall be accomplished in the manner hereinafter set forth. 6. Term of the Agreement This agreement shall be come effective upon execution by the governing bodies of County and of City and it shall remain in full force and effect until June 30, 1985. W 4. Cooperation Agreement The parties hereto agree to undertake or to assist in the undertaking of essential activities as defined in the Act and the 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 all requirements of the application and grant. City understands and agrees 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 terminated, reduced or otherwise limited in accordance with the Act and Regulations. 5. Administration of Agreement The officers 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, on or before August 30, 1981 furnish the w 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, on or before October 15, 1981, or 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 descrip- tion 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 activities, and other data 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. ' The City shall, on or before October 15, 1981, submit to the County a Housing Assistance Program for the period July 1, 1982 through June 30, 1985. This document will detail the City's commitments to provide housing assistance to low and moderate income persons within the city. The information is to be provided in a format developed by the County. 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 preparation and filing of the application and of other papers and documents in support thereof. 6. Term of the Agreement This agreement shall be come effective upon execution by the governing bodies of County and of City and it shall remain in full force and effect until June 30, 1985. W The County will submit to the City by August 31, 1981, the Joint Powers Agreement to be signed by the City if it is to participate in the Urban County program. The County will also give the City, by September 15, 1981, a notice of the City's right not to be 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 Powers Agreement, it may not be eligible to receive entitlement CDBG funding for three successive pro- gram years commencing on July 1, 1982 and ending June 30, 1985. Upon qualifying, the county will remain an urban county (including its unincorporated areas and the included units of general local government) 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 by applicants other than cities . for activities to be conducted totally within the sphere of influence of a city. 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 1 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 Committee 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. 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 County agree that 35% of the net block grant funds will be guaranteed to be utilized equally by each participating jurisdiction for their identified housing needs as contained in the locally developed Housing Assistance Plan. Alloca= tion of said housing funds will be determined by the following :._. formula: .35 x net funds Number of participating jurisdictions + the County Thus if there are seven participating non - entitlement jurisdictions plus the County, the denominator would be eight and each jurisdic- tion's share would be one eighth of the product of 35% times net funds. For purposes of this paragraph net funds are defined as the total entitlement grant amount less all city and county administration costs. Housing needs include both housing rehabilitation and activi- ties to increase the supply of new affordable housing. x 4 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 in each of the three successive program years. 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 Committee and the Board of Supervisors will hold a joint meeting to resolve the differences. The joint meeting will continue until mutual agreement is reached. Voting 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 community 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 during the periods July 1, 1982 to June 30, 1985. Upon approval of the CDBG application and the release of funds by HUD, the City may begin implementation of approved activities. Information on the progress of approved activities will be submitted to the County every four months during each 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 each 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 Repro- gramming 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 serv- ices, equipment and other property necessary for the planning, prepara- tion and filing of the CDBG application and for the administration of the grant funds subject to the right of County to seek reimbursement for actual expenses and costs of furnishing such services, 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. 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 authorized representative of City, County, the 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 such funds. 12. Certification On or before September 18, 1981, City shall furnish County with those assurances listed on Form HUD -7068, 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 responsibility 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 applica- tion as a result of City's failure to supply County with information 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's 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 judgments against it arising out of the failure of City to conform to the require - ments 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. 14. Discretionary Actions Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the City from exercising its discretion on any legislative quasi - judicial and /or adminis- trative 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 whatso- ever 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, or 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 law 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. r 1• 6 18. Section Headings All section headings contained herein are for the convenience of refer- ence 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: COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA By Chairperson, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: DONALD M. RAINS Clerk, Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM: PL-t:�� }^^_&t� all ,� yDili _Ch'arles Perrotta Deputy County Counsel Date: ATTEST: City Clerk 7 CITY OF By air erson, Town City Council sh APPENDIX A U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Grants Program Assurances The applicant hereby assures and certifies thatt le) It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, and to execute the Prop pr ogr n. (b) Its governing body has duly adopted or passed as an official act a reso- lution, motion or similar action authorizing the filing of the application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional informa- tion as may be reauired. (c) It has complied with all the requirements of OMB Circular No. A -95 as modified by 24 CFH 570.310 and that eithert (1) Any comments and recommendations made by or through clearinghouses are attached and have been considered prior to submission of the application; or (2) The reauired procedures have been followed and no comments or recommenda- tions have been received. (d) Prior to submission of its application, the applicant hast (1) Prepared a written citizen participation plan, which: (i) Provides an opportunity for citizens to participate in the development of the application, encourages the submission of views and proposals, particularly by residents of blighted'neighborhoods and citizens of low- and moderate - income, Provides for timely responses to the proposals submitted, and schedules hearings at times and locations which permit broad participations (ii) Provides citizens with adequate information concerning the amount of funds available for proposed community development and housing activities, the range of activities that may be undertaken, and other important program require- ments; (iii) Provides for public hearings to obtain the views of citizens on commu- nity development and housing needs; and (iv) Provides citizens with an opportunity to submit comments concerning the community development performance of the applicant. (2) Follis Plan in manner in developmenteoftthe apolication. Thetapplhcant Plan zens achieve full citizen participation in all other stages of the program. (e) Its chief executive officer or other officer of applicant approved by HUD: (1) Consents en as Notional Environmensume the status of a responsible Federal official under the apply to 24 CPR 57O1 tal Policy Act of 1969 insofar as the Provisions of such Act (2) Is authorized and consents on behalf of the applicant and himself to accept the jurisdiction of the Federal courts for the purpose of enforcement of his responsibilities as such an official. page 1 of 4 HUD -7068 (6 -74) 8 (f) The Community Development Program has been developed so as to give max: - mum feasible priority to activities which will benefit low- and moderate- income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. )The requirement for this certification will not preclude the Secretary from approving an application where the applicant certifies, and the Secretary deter- mines, that all or part of the Community Development Program activities are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency as specifically explained in the application in accordance with 5570.302(f).) (g) It will comply with the regulations, policies, guidelines and require- ments of OMB Circular No. A -102, Revised, and Federal Management Circular 74 -4 as they relate to the application, acceptance, and use of Federal funde under 24 CFR 570. (h) It will administer and enforce the labor standards requirements set forth in 24 CFR 570.605 and HUD regulations issued to implement such requirements. (i) It will comply with all reauiremente imposed by HUD concerning special reouirements of law, program reauiremente, and other administrative requirements, approved In accordance with OMB Circular No. A -102, Revised. (j) It will comply with the provisions of Executive Order 11296, relating to evaluation of flood hazards and Executive Order 11268 relating to the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution. (k) It will require every building or facility (other than a privately owned residential structure) designed, constructed, or altered with funds provided under 24 CFR 570 to comply with the 'American Standard Specifications for Making Buildinas and Facilities Accessible to, and Usable by, the Physically Handicapp- ed,' Number A- 117.1 -R 1971, subject to the exceptions contained in 41 CPR 101- 19.604. The applicant will be responsible for conducting inspections to insure compliance with these specifications by the contractor. (1) It will comply with: (1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88 -352), and the regu- lations issued pursuant thereto (24 CFR Part 1), which provides that no person in the United States shall on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise sub- jected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the applicant receives Federal financial assistance and will immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this assurance. If any real property or structure there- on is Dfovided or improved with the aid of Federal financial assistance extended to the applicant, this assurance shall obligate the applicant, or in the case of any transfer of such property, any transferee, for the period during which the real property or structure is used for a purpose for which the Federal financial assistance is extended, or for another purpose involving the Provision of similar services or benefits. (2) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90 -284), as amended, administering all programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing; and will take action to affirmatively further fair housing in the sale or rental of housing, the financing of housing, and the provision of brokerage services. (3) Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto (24 CFR Part 570.601), which provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be sub- jected to discrimination under, any program or activity funded in whole or in parr with funds provided under 24 CFR 570. na,.n J of 4 HIIn_7n4R (4_7al 9 6. (4) Fxecutive Order 11063 on equal opportunity in housing and nondiscrimina- tion in the sale or rental of housing built with federal assistance. (5) Executive Order 11246, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto (24 CPR Part 130 and 41 CPP Chapter 60), and Section 4(b) of the Grant Agreement, which Provides that no person shall be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin in all phases of employment during the performance of Federal of federally assisted construction contracts. Contractors and subcontractors on Federal and federally assisted construction contracts shall take affirmative action to Insure fair treatment in employment, upgrading, demo- tion, or transfers recruitment or recruitment advertisingl layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training and apprenticeship. (m) It will comply with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, requiring that to the greatest extent feasible opportunities for training and employment be given to lover - income residents of the project area and contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by, persons residing in the.area.of the project. (n) It will: (1) To the greatest extent practicable under State law, comply with Sections 301 and 302 of Title III (Uniform Real Property Acquisition Policy) of the Uni- form Relocation Assistance and Peal Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and will comply with Sections 303 and 304 of Title III, and HUD implementing instruc- tions at 24 CPR Part 421 and (2) Inform affected persons of their rights and of the acquisition policies and Procedures set forth in the regulations at 24 CPR Part 42 and 5570.602(b). (o) It will: . II) Comply with Title II (Uniform Relocation Assistance) of the Uniform Relo- cation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 42 and 5570.602(x); (21 Provide relocation payments and offer relocation assistance as described in Section 205 of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act to all persons displaced as a result of acquisition of real property for an activity assisted under the Community Development Block Grant program. Such payments and assistance shall be provided in a fair and consistent and equitable manner that insures that the relocation process does not result in different or separate treatment of such persons on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or source of income: (3) Assure that, within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement, comparable decent, sate and sanitary replacement dwellings will be available to all displaced families and individuals and that the range of choices available to such persons will not vary on account of their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or source of income; and (4) Inform affected persons of the relocation assistance, policies and proce- dures set forth in the regulations at 24 CFR Part 42 and 24 CFR 570.602(a). IN It -111 establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using positions for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselvee or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties. page 3 of 4 HUD -7068 (6 -75) 10 (0) It will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act which limits the Political activity of employees. .. -, (r) It will give HUD and the Comptroller General throuqh any authorized representatives access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the qrant. (s) It will insure that the facilities under its ownership, lease or supervi- sion which shall be utilized in the accomplishment of the program are not listed on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) list of Violating Facilities and that it will notify HUD of the receipt of any communication from the Director of the EPA Office of Federal Activities indicating that a facility to be used in the project is under consideration for listing by the EPA. ( U It will comply with the flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. Pub. L. 93 -234, 67 Stat. 975, approved December 31, 1973. Section 103(x) required, on and after March 2, 1971, the purchase of flood insurance in communities where such insurance is available as a condition for the receipt of any Federal financial assistance for construction or acquisition purposes for use in any area, that has been identi- fied by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development as an area having special flood hazards. The phrase 'Federal financial assistance' includes any form of loan, grant, guaranty, insurance payment, rebate, subsidy, disaster assistance loan or grant, or any other form of direct or indirect Federal assistance. (u) It will, in connection with its performance of environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470), Executive Order 11593, and the Preservation of Archeological and Historical Data Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 469a -1, et. seq.) by: (1) Consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer to identify .properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of His- toric Places that are subject to adverse effects (see 36 CFR Part 600.6) by the proposed activity, and (2) comDlyinq with all requirements established by HUD to avoid or mitigate adverse effects upon such properties. - ".,+ ri.. tiiv:<: i- n: �a:.: x�1.•: >:.;�:+.}�;:,f::r..:C. ;;.c:;:>i paq., 4 of 4 HUD -7068 (6 -78) )) CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 8/19/81 DEPARTMENT: Public Works Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty C. Mgr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- - - -- SUBJECT• SDR 651 - B. ALTER, GLEN UNA DR. - REQUEST FOR BOND RELEASE Issue S Although the street improvements required by "Building Site Approval" were never made, the Alters are requesting that the shares of common stock which they posted to guaranty the completion be released. Glen Una Dr. is an-aes- thetic and.rustic street which the City will want to include in its upcoming policy on Heritage Lanes. Recommendation Require Alters to enter into a "Deferred Improvement Agreement" to replace the 40 shares of Kirsch stock. Evaluate the need for a "Deferred Improvement Agreement" when Heritage Lane Policy is adopted. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo to Director of Public Works from the Asst. Director of Public Works Council Action 8/19: Mallory /Clevenger moved to enter into deferred improvement agreement and release bond. Passed 5 -0. '�1 ELI OR.a�1 DL1.��II uguw @a O&M&ODM& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: Director of Public Works FROM: Asst. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: SDR 651, Alter -Glen Una Dr. Request for Bond Release DATE: 8/6/81 By the attached letter of July 29,.1981 and in an over - the - counter dis- cussion with Mrs. Alter, the City is being requested to release a $600 bond (40 shares of Kirsch Company common stock) which was posted to guaranty street improvements. This was required by the Building Site Approval which was given in August, 1966. Although it has been.15 years since the Building Site Approval, the improvements were never made. As you know, Glen Una Dr. is a narrow, semi - improved street with very much character and natural beauty. Be- cause of this, the Alters resisted making the improvement and the City did not press the issue. There are several options available to the City at this time. 1. We can cause the Alters to make the improvements at this time. The $600 value of the bond will not provide much improvement with today's costs. 2. We can require the Alters to post a cash bond to replace the shares of stock. The amount of bond could remain at $600 or could be raised to the current value of.the stock. (I have no idea what that is) . 3. We can require the Alters to enter into our Standard "Deferred Improvement Agreement" to replace the shares of stock. 4. We can release the A1tE due to environmental ar no longer desired. DT /dsc Attachment . uirement, since it appears cerns, the improvements are Dan Trinidad, Jr. A . w ► E' , E�114 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT CITY OF SARATOGA 6-1 CITY or sAiuArocA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd. DATE: 8/19/81 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT:. Public Works C. Mgr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: STRIPING CERTAIN CITY STREETS - 1980 Issue Summary City Council of the City of Saratoga at their regular meeting, awarded the contract of "Striping Certain City Streets - 1980" to J.F. Hourigan Co.. Recommendation The work on the subject project has been satisfactorily completed and it is our recommendation that his work be accepted and that the City Council authorize filing the "Notice of Completion ". Fiscal Impacts Per 1980 -81 Budget. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Notice of Completion Council Action 8/19: Approved err ut cr l ptinn NUtir.r is hereby given that ........... ............... tlre al, rader" sigrred ,.....J.......Waxne....Dernetz ................................... ............................... [tile agent of] " the own er ............. o of th ................ certain lot .... - - -- piece.......... or parcel......... of land situated in the ........ ....................�.lty....of Saratoga - -- --- ............ ...countw of Santa... Clara ................................................... State of California, grad descr "'llJeLl as follows, to-wit: ................. STRIPING CERTAIN CITY STREETS - 1980 That ......................... .... - .................... --- ...... ................................ -- ........... -•- ......................................... - ............ .- .......... ....- _..- _. -... .................. ................................................................ __ ..................... _. as owner.._._o f said land, did, on the .... 3 rd- . ...._ .......... - d a y o f ................December ............. ........ . . . . .. _ __ 8x. enter into a contract with ...... _.......................................... , ................. 7'.....F. Hour •gan•_Co , for - ._....._ ......._... .- .--- •------ .-- .----- ••- - - -... .._.._..___...._.._ ................•---•-•......--•-----.-•--•- ,___- ............ ..._Striping.. - Certain__ City.... Streets_.__ - -... 19-80.- .__..._..._.._....__...- .... ...................................... ...............---••-•--......----...-.....-..._...........................-..........-------•--.....------................................................. ..._._..........----- .......... .... - ..................................................................................................................... ---------------•---._........__................---------.................----... .---- .......................... upon, the lar,.d above described, which contract was filed i52 the office of the county recorder of the- ................................................... County of ..... _ ............................................................................... ... State of Californ4a, ost the .......................... - ...................... - ...................... _._day of .............. _ ..... _................ - - - - -- .... ,19 ............ ; That ore tlae_.._ ........ 1st ................... - ................ ....day of...................._ July - -- - .19.81 the said contract or 7vork of inchrove,nent, as a whole, was actually co,npleted by the said J. F. Hourigan Co. .... ................... - •-- ...- ....------- - -•• -. - - - - ._.._. _.......... ....... ...........-------------- - - - - -- ..................................... ---_ ..................... ...................... , That the narne......... and address ............... of all the owner ..... _.. of said property are as f ollows: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. '95070 arid the riatrtre of ..................... _ ............... ...... _ ..... title to said property is............ - .............. - ............ - ..... _ .............. - ..................... _ ....................................... - ................................. ........ STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of ...................................................... O w; I e r...... Iss. BA? ......................................... ............................... J. Wayne Dernetzzlgent ............................... ......................... . . . . .. ................................................................................................................................................ ............................... bei.rrg duly sworn . ...................... ........................................ .................................................... says: ... ............................... j the agent of ] the owner...... oi` the propci -ty described irr. the f orcgoinrl notice. I hazle read the foregoing notice and know the con tents thereof, arid tltc save I's tare of r:ty ow;t krrozulcd9e. Subscribed and sworn to before rate this ...... .................. day of .................... . ................................... 19- ............ 'Delete words in brackets if owner signs. Cuwd,rr a Form No. 774 — NOTICE OF COMPLETION EY OWNER (C. C. P. Sac. 1193.1) 3860 . CITY OF SM-ZATOGA t AGENDA DA IIILL NO. DATE: August 20, 1981 DgA1Zn1 : Comm. Planning & --------- Policy na lys is _ SLBJ=: General Plan Amendment 81-2 (a and b) Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue Summary The subject sites are presently designated P (Proposed Park.) on the 1974 General Plan Map. The property owners are seeking to subdivide. The Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission have reviewed the proposed amendments (memos and resolutions attached). The City Council on February 18,`•1981 referred the issues to the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. On August 20', 1981 'th,e. GP:CAC .recommende.d. th,e .}?fan : Amendment with the added comment that the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan criteria apply to the Hincks property. Recommendation 1. Conduct a public hearing 2. Determine the merits and approve, modify or deny each General Plan change. 3. I.f approved, adopt Resolution No. and making the required findings. Fiscal T=)acts None anticipated. Exhibits /Attach7n -_nts , amending the General Plan 1. Recommendation from the GPCAC dated August 24, 1981 2. Memo from Associate Planner dated August 17, 1981. 3. Recommendations from Parks and Recreation Commission 4. Letters dated February 2S, 1981 from Acting City Manager S. Material on Brookwood Lane (APN 503- 23 -38) Letter from City Manager Council Action (continued below) 9/2: Watson /Clevenger moved to adopt resolution as amended. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed). Attachments (cont.) dated May 20, 1.981, Letter from applicant, Staff .Report; Neg.. Dec..z_Resolution of Commission and Site Map 6.' Material'on Hincks Estate (APN "517 -13 -14 and 517- 13 -15) Letter from. applicant, Staff Report, Neg. Dec., Resolution of Planning _Commiss.ion and Site Map 7. Planning Commission and City Council Minutes 8. City Council Resolution O REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 8/24/81 COUNCIL MEETING: 9/2/81 SUBJECT' General Plan Amendments GPA- 81 -1(b), (Johnston Parcel) and GPA- 81 -1(c) , ( Hincks Estate) (GPA - -81 -2 (a) and GPA - -81 -2 (b) ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- The General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee ( GPCAC) reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendments for,the subject properties listed above. The GPCAC concurred with both the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commissions in that both sites should not be designated as parks. The GPCAC agreed that a buffer between the Johnston parcel and Wildwood Park was necessary and that a portion of the Hincks estate should be set aside for the Hakone Garden parking expansion. The GPCAC felt that the proposed medium density residential designation for the Johnston Parcel was appropriate. However) it was the consensus of the GPCAC that the City Council should consider applying the criteria of the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan to the Hincks estate. VR: j d icci R din Associate Planner :�IE�IORANDt1�1 99UW 02 0&12&U00&S 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: GENERAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DATE: AUGUST 17, 1981 FROM: Vicci Rudin, Associate Planner SUBJECT: General Plan Amendments for Hincks Estate and Johnston Parcel These two properties are designated "proposed park" on the 1974 General Plan Map. They are numbered 34 and 36, respectively, on the land use review map and list which the GPCAC have been using as planning tools to assess the best use of several un- developed parcels in Saratoga. In both cases, the property owners are seeking to subdivide the parcels according to the underlying zoning (R -1- 40,000 - Hincks, and R -1- 15,000- Johnston.) The Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the parcels and determined that complete acquisition is not feasible. (See attached memorandum to Planning Director from Director Community Services, February 10, 1981). The Planning Commission considered the requests to amend the General Plan for these parcels at its January 14, 1981 meeting. (Attached are the staff reports, resolutions, and minutes for that meeting.) The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the amendments be approved. The Council, on February 18, 1981, instead referred the issues to the GPCAC to be handled through the General Plan Review process. At that time, staff advised the applicants of the committee's whole plan and suggested that the GPCAC recommendation would be back to the Council by August. The attached letters show that the applicants are eager to move forward. In that the GPCAC's current schedule indicates it will be at least two more months before your work is complete, staff recommends that you report to the .Council at this time if you concur with the recommendations of the Parks and Planning Commissions. During our compilation of input from the planning area meetings, there was no reported desire to acquire either of these parcels as park additions, to my knowledge. Vicci Rudin Associate Planne Attachments K H t'g CT 2 �-IE�1ORANDt1'�1 0 0 (UMEW @0 O&M&MOM& . 1 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1981 FROM: DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 81 -1 -B and 81 -1 -C _(GPA- 8i_ -2_- (a)_anu_(b_)_ The Parks and Recreation Commission, at their regular meeting on Monday, February 2, reviewed your request to confirm previous recommendations regarding property adjacent to Wildwood Park and_Hakone Gardens. The Commission reaffirmed their previous request to obtain a 20 to 30 foot por- tion of property between Wildwood Park and any private residential development. The purpose of obtaining this property is to provide a better buffer between the City owned park and private residential property. In the memo to the Planning Department regarding this matter, the Commission also requested Planning staff to review the development of the Johnston property and request additional type of buffers, i.e. landscaping, fence, on the private property. The Commission also reaffirmed-their request to obtain an area of two acres adjacent to Hakone Gardens for purposes of expansion of the Garden and parking lot. The long range concept of this expansion is to convert the western portion of the current parking lot to a transition area, retain the eastern portion of the current parking lot, and expand the current parking lot in order to handle the number of spaces needed for visitors to the Garden. The Parks and Recreation Commission did not consider the purchase of the entire 2.9 acres adjacent to Wildwood Park for two major reasons: availability of funds to purchase and /or development, as well as building additional park in the area which is so restricted for surveillance and patrol. The Commission also reviewed their priorities for funding programs which include money for development of Phase II at Congress Springs Park, funds for purchase of E1 Quito, some additional develop- ment at Kevin Moran, and the potential of purchase of the two acres adjacent to Hakone. It was reaffirmed by the Commission that these priorities for funding not be changed, and as a.result no funds would be available for consideration for purchase of the area adjacent to Wildwood Park. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact my office. Barbara Sampson ck e)(-H 6 lr 3 0M,9W @a 0&M&,9Q)0&. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: Planning Department DATE: May 6, 1981 FROM: Director of Community Services SUBJECT: SDR -146] (Prel iminary) The Director of Community Services _and The Parks and Recreation Commission have been working with Kirkeby and Associates, Mr. Richard Lane and Mr. Cliff Beck, to determine the area of this private property to be reserved for expansion of Hakone Gardens, mainly for parking purposes. Kirkeby and Associates volunteered to prepare a design and location of the parking area that would meet the City's needs of an additional 80 spaces, yet wouid fit in with the proposed development plan. Kirkeby proposed two different plans to the Commission which were reviewed at the meeting on Monday, May 4th. Mr. Cliff Beck was in attendance to answer questions and discuss the matter with the Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that Plan B, or the alteraatz -p4a-n dated April 29,. 1981, be proposed as the portion of the property to be reserved for the Hakone Garden expansion and parking lot. The Commission also requested that the Design Engineer consider reversing the direction of traffic in the parking lot from what is proposed on the Plan. The Parks and Recreation Commission took this action based on the fact that the alternate plan used less acreage and still provided the same number of parking spaces, thereby the City's cost could be reduced. It was further pointed out by Mr. Beck that he did not anticipate a net loss of lots resulting from this portion - of property being taken by the City, whereas, the initial plan proposed could result in the loss of a lot or require redesign of their initial proposal. Mr. Beck also brought to the Staff and Commission's attention that this property has a legal right of access to Hakone Garden which he intends to propose as an emergency access. It is my understanding this easement or access was given in 1892 and Staff were unaware of this restriction on the property. If this is the case, it will have an effect on the design of the parking lot. It was the intent May 6, 1981 Planning Department Page Two of The City to enclose the City 'owned property to prevent access from the private development in order to adequately secure the Garden as we are currently doing. If this emergency access is to be allowed, the plan -will also have to take into consideration the access fo Hakone Garden from Big Basin Way. The present entrance to Hakone from Big Basin Way is closed with a steel pipe gate when the garden is no.t open. I do not consider this structure breakable or crashable as far.as emergency vehicles are concerned. The City does not wish to lose the ability to securely close this entrance to'the Garden. As a result of the above, The Parks and Recreation Commission requests they be allowed to review any further plans before a tentative map is approved, so that the location of the parking lot, direction of vehicle movement and the potential emergency access can be reviewed to determine if it,is' acceptable. The security of the Garden when closed to the public cannot be jeapordized. 1 have attached a copy of the alternate plan for the location and design of -.the parking lot which was basically approved by The Parks and Recreation Commission with the change of direction of traffic flow as marked, for your reference. also need to discuss with you what alternatives this City has in trading Park Development Fees for property or'conditioning -the donation of this property. Barbara Sampson, LTirector Department of Community Services J : Mr. Cliff Beck ms z E IST. u 6 �I ' J I EXIS7_ ?XIST blo rPARKING pawy, "C- C —� 0' V.G. F o60- i- - - -- — �E1,15T � IIL 6 a I 30' v.0 EAIST. yExISL_ }I PARKING I Pa V+Y• O6D I "Du 1` =lam _? i, ,D D• PROPOSED F?-1 >r \S�r. ����� I aD•y.C. SD' V.C. �. ����' F•F= — — — PROPOSED ,•D_IDr, SECTION "A -A" PROPD' 50' ROAD PRO ?OSED SECTION 5-B .B -B L? 20 25 DRIVE Z r PARK I I PARK I.,JK 0 POSED _ ' ROAD —680 --d101 —69DI —610 EXIST. 5 20' 25' DRIVE _ QO' 5'Ij�' 6�- Ni r:r PA0.K I DPRK r14 I —b5D 5ia wn �� A A' _ PROPOSED I E - 4'NIGR i` • : t � / 4• aIGMA I 1� I 1 TT 5C E' 1•-40' - 1 PIOZI�D Ft / I / f - r• _ _ 680-- 1 �Ab, I rIn ' I r I .D. � II 80 PARKING SPACES ACRE5 PLAN f ... --- --- -- 5c ALE 1'. 0* SECTION -D -D' "A-A' I —690 —680 5E_ CTIgN •E_E • ALTERNATE PLAN Io KirL.by and A—latm• Inc 77.6 Sh.— D,i.. S.. Iw., CA MM. IWl179 -nU +CAu AS NOTEp " "O' °D•' 1,.... .. M.S. SCADS: HR 1 ° =20 1,..4, 29 1481 .°..°1 VERT, T, I "= 10' , CITY OF 5ARATOGA- ,IAPANE5E HAKON , GARDENS 00AMCET) DADv111G [Aril I-ry SECTION C- C - -� _ JRIVE. PARK 20 5•I PA; K `WALL �b60 I*A 5. 20 i 20' , 5 EXIST. PA ItK N II_ I "A -A' I j _ ' •=680 —----- - RICH WALK — �I_4 �l0 SECTION -D -D' "A-A' I —690 —680 5E_ CTIgN •E_E • ALTERNATE PLAN Io KirL.by and A—latm• Inc 77.6 Sh.— D,i.. S.. Iw., CA MM. IWl179 -nU +CAu AS NOTEp " "O' °D•' 1,.... .. M.S. SCADS: HR 1 ° =20 1,..4, 29 1481 .°..°1 VERT, T, I "= 10' , CITY OF 5ARATOGA- ,IAPANE5E HAKON , GARDENS 00AMCET) DADv111G [Aril I-ry o'.^✓,� ��Y�o�kl,. \ fibe ll A1, 000 o [ 00 0 A 0 000 1 j GAY 13777 FRUIT `'A LE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 A(. n (408) 867 3438 I February 25, 1981 Cal Engineering 4320 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 179 San Jose, California Dear Sirs: You Mere recently sent a notice of a public hearing concerning a General Plan Amendment for APN 517 -13 -014 and 517 -13 -015, the acreage immediately east of Hakone Gardens. That public hearing took place before the City Council on February 18, 1981. Councilmember Jensen moved, and Watson seconded, to refer this amendment (GPA 81 -1 -c) to the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee for determination of appropriate land use and appropriate density.' The motion passed 5 -0. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call this office or the staff member who is coordinating the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, Vicci Rudin of the Planning Department. Sincerely, Patricia M. Mullens Acting City Manager ✓cc: Planning Department Uoo 0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 @ot� (408) 867 -34:38 February 25, 1981 Mr. Charles R. Johnston 14320 Springer Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Johnston: You were recently sent a notice of a public hearing concerning a General Plan Amendment for APN 503 -23 -038, the southwestern- most portion of Brookwood Lane. That public hearing took place before the City Council on February 18, 1981. Councilmember Jensen moved, and Watson seconded, to refer this amendment (GPA 81 -1 -b) to the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee for determination of appropriate land use and appropriate density. The motion passed 5 -0. If you haveany questions, do not hesitate to call this office or the staff member who is coordinating the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, Vicci Rudin of the Planning Department. Sincerely, .Patricia M. Mullens Acting City Manager i be ✓cc: Planning Department �J / '.l O� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 May 20, 1981 Mr. R. S. Peck The White Company 14583 Big Basin Way. Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Peck: I have your letter of May 8, 1981, and would like to correct some possible misunderstanding or prevent future misunderstanding in the language contained therein. Your letter indicates that the Johnston property on Brookwood Lane "would be" removed from the General Plan as a park site and that a tentative map "would be" approved by the Planning Commission as of the next meeting. I have checked with Kathy Kerdus of the Planning Department to be sure that.we did not convey any impression that the outcome of these proceedings were committed to you in advance. Of course, they cannot be. Our representations to you were instead that the City would process an application through the Planning Commission and City Council for an amendment to the General Plan that would consider removal of the park site designation on the Johnston property. Of course, we cannot determine whether the application will be approved or denied. Further, in no way did we imply that a tentative map would be approved by the City Planning Commission as of the next meeting after the General Plan amendment. If the Planning Commission and City Council act favorably upon the application for amendment to the General Plan, the existing proposed tentative map that you have submitted will be set for the next available Planning .Commission meeting. Again, we cannot predetermine whether the .Planning Commission will deny or approve the conditions that ten- tative map application. I'm sure you are aware of these conditions and that the wording of your letter did not intend to imply anything to the contrary. I appreciate the opportunity, however, to prevent any future mis- understanding. pSieriE�ly, ne Dernetanager cc: Rob Robinson ,�,_attn: Kathy Kerdus A T1I1; III:P1!p LUIII?ANY INVESTME=NTS - SALE -1; - AIIPR IS;AI11 145X3 riic BASIN WAY, SUITE sit SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 75070 (lux) 867-7913 23 March 1.981 The City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members: I have been instructed by my employer, Dr. Charles Johnston, to formally request that you reconsider your decision concerning his property APN 503- 23 -38, on Brookwood Lane as soon as possible. His request was that the City of Saratoga release his property from under a proposed park status under the general plan. You differed this decision and passed it on to the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. We are repetitioning the City to place this issue on the soonest possible agenda and release the property as soon as possible. 'rnere are several reasons wily Lulls prupei Ly �iivulu JAUL vC considered as a park site. The oldest is a conveyance upon the property placed September 18, 1953, by Walter F. Harriman prohibiting the grantees from conveying any part of the property to be used as a park. Thus Dr. Johnston couldn't sell you the land even if he wanted to and he does not want to at this time. A second reason is that the City Parks and Recreation Distrist has decided it is not a good location for a park and they do not want to purchase it. The third is that the neighbors in the area do _got want this property used as a park as it would bring major p-rvhlems from the Brookwood Lane parking, etc. City of Saratoga Page 2 Fourth the City doesn't have the money to purchase the land as open space. Fifth, Dr. Johnston is experiencing an above mentioned economic hardship. Sixth, it is the duty of the City to consider such matters in a timely manner. In talking to the various members of the city government and persons on the committee it would appear that the earliest the committee would have any sort of recommendation would be July, 1981, and this date in some of those talked to could be extended to 1983. Thus we feel that there are many grounds for our request to have this matter reconsidered and hope that we may be able to convence you that this property is not needed as an extension of Wildwood Park. Thank you for considering this matter. RSP /fsn Enclosure 13 Sincere �S , —'L Robert S: Peck c .i." i.. - . 0 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 1 -05 -81 - Commission Meeting: 1-14-81 SUBJECT' General Plan Amendment 81 -1 -b (Brookwood Lane) _(SPA -81_ 2- (a) August _1981 ) --------------------------------------------------------------- - - --n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Current General Plan Designation: Proposed Park Current Zoning: R -1- 15,000 Single- Family Residential Surrounding Lane Uses: The area is surrounded by Wildwood Park on the west, the Saratoga Creek and commercial properties on the south, and residential properties on the north and east. Area of Site: 2.9 acres PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN: The current General Plan designation for this 2.9 acre parcel is Proposed Park. The original master plan for Wildwood Park, com- pleted in 1972, proposed an additional purchase of property of approximately 2 acres to increase the size of the park. This pro- posed addition was referenced in the Park Plan of Action, completed by the Parks and Recreation Commission in Decem er of 1973. During 1977 and 1978, the Parks and Recreation Commission conducted a complete study of all parks in the City and, as.a result of that study, the Commission deleted the proposal to purchase additional property for Wildwood Park. The Parks Commission still is in favor of maintaining a strip of land between the existing Wildwood Park and any proposed development on this site. The amendment to the 1974 General Plan Land Use Element is necessary because the underlying zoning is Residential and the General Plan is Proposed Park. Since the Parks Commission is not in favor of purchasing the additional 2.9 acres, it is necessary to amend the 1974 General Plan Land Use Element in order to have compliance CKrf 16 IT S Staff Report January S, 1981 GPA- 81 -1 -b 181, -2 7(a) Page 2 Brookwood Lane between the zoning and the General Plan. The Land Development Committee has dealt with this particular parcel over the last six -month period. Some of the problems associated with this site is that the entire area is subject to inundation by flooding from Saratoga Creek. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has studied the area, and has stated that development of this area is appropriate, provided necessary pre- cautions are taken to ensure that the development does not impact downstream residences, and that the structures in question are not subject to the 1% flooding. OPTIONS: Option #1: Amend the 1974 Land Use Element and designate the proposed area as Medium Density Residential. Option #2: Maintain the area as Proposed Park, and add the area to the Conser- vation Element and Open Space Element of the 1974 General Plan. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS: Option #1: Since the Parks Commission has indicated they are not in favor of purchasing the entire 2.9 acres, it seems appropriate that the General Plan designation be amended to Medium Density and allow the development of two additional single - family residences on the site. Any development on the site is subject to the conditions of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the tentative map process, and the design review process of the City of Saratoga. Option #2: Should the Planning Commission feel strongly about maintaining this area as park and open space, it would be necessary that the City purchase this property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommencing that the Planning Commission recommend the attached resolution to the City Council, which would amend the General Plan from Proposed Park to Medium Density Residential for the 2.9 acre parcel at the end of Brookwood Lane, commonly known as APN S03- 23 -38. Staff Report January 5, 1981 GPA- 81 -1 -b (FI -a(C-) Page 3 Brookwood Lane Comment Should the City Council approve the resolution amending the General Plan for this parcel, this does not allow automatic development of the site. It is still necessary that the applicant go through the tentative map process and receive the appropriate conditions. Minson, Jr. Planning Director RSR:cd I HIa,. -T s - i EIA -4 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No: GPA- 81 -2(a) The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15080 through 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 - of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amend the 1974 General Plan Land Use Element for a parcel 2.96 acres in size, which is adjacent, to Wildwood Park. This site is currently zoned for Residential use, and the General Plan designation is for a proposed park. The new General Plan designation will be Medium Density Residential. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed project (General Plan Amendment) will not have a significant impact on the environment, since the forthcoming project for development must go through an environ- mental determination. The project location is currently within a flood plain, which has been evaluated by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. In order for any development to occur on that site, it must conform to the standards as prescribed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. All building elevations must meet the minimum standards. No adverse impacts to the area or residents are expected if this project should be approved at a later stage through the land development process. It is necessary that a separate environmental determination be made for this particular site, once the development applica- tion is proposed. Executed at Saratoga, California this 16th day of December 1980 . Reviewed August 1981. R. S. ROBINSON, JR. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER iE-XN )61-T S � — ^ neS0LuTr0w w0. 0ra'8l l h ---------'------- 8I --- xc30coTzOx OF THE CITY OF SxnxT0ox pLxywIwG CnxwzSsIOw KEC0xxcwozwG awcwD:CnT TO THE 1974 CsVoRxL PLAN Lxxo USE E[smcwr FOR x 2.9 xcaa PARCEL OF LAND 'COMMONLY xwoww AS / xpw 503 -23-38 wxc!isxs, the City of Saratoga is required to maintain consistency uotvcon the General plun and the Zoning Ordinance according to the 197* zoning Conformance Act and Government ' Code 66860; and, xxsnsxS, the City of Saratoga has identified that an area commonly known as xrx S03'23'38 and located immediately oust of xildxood Park and at the end of Brookwood Lunn, and as shown on _ Exhibit "C"` is zoned for residential use and the General 9zun is designated as Proposed Park; and, wxcRsxS' the Parks and Recreation Commission has discussed the desirability of maintaining the area as Proposed Park in a ?oh/ic meeting and has determined that it is not in the best interest of the City to develop that area duo to u luck of funds uua^ ' wxsnsAS, the City of Saratoga ,zonoiug Cnmmissinn, at u regular meeting in accord with Government Code Section 653S1, w+ had u public hearing on January 14' 1981 and reviewed the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission reviewed the Draft wuOutivo Declaration and the Findings attached as Exhibit ^D"� . NOW, TxansponD, BE TT nEJ0LvsD' by the pzuuoing Commission of the City of Saratoga: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the 1974 Land Uso Dlcmoot from Proposed ports to Medium ' Density Residential for u 2.9 acre parcel, commonly known as xPw 503 '23'38 and as shown on Exhibit "C", based on the ability to make the findings as stated in Exhibit "o". The above and foregoing . and �bcrcu��c, passed und�»n�/�hs«us�roouzurzrio�rodu�ou adopted . " Saratoga Planning Commis- sion on the 14tu du/ of January, 1981 by the following- vote: | x,ss: Commissioner King, Marshall, Schaefer, Siegfried and zamhctti 00c3: None ' xoSsm/: Commissioner Williams . ' ' Ao5Txzwco: Commissioner Laden C"^^rmvu' Planning Commission ` ATTEST: . ' / occrocurr \ EXHIBIT "B" File No. GPA- 81 -1 -b _(GPA- 81- 2 - _(a)__- ------ FTNnTN(;S 1. That the parcel in question has been designated as a "Proposed Park" since 1974, and the City of Saratoga has failed to pur- chase said site. 2. That the Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the issue in a public meeting and they are no longer interested in the 2.9 acre park expansion due.to budget constraints. 3. That the underlying zoning is Residential, and under the pro- visions of the Government Code Section 65860, it is required that there be consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 4. That the proposed amendment will not affect the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area. S. That any future development of the site shall go through the land development process to insure compliance with all Saratoga ordinances and applicable County agencies. ��� P�PT ow qw i, Rall '41 4, Civil & C®NSYRUCTEON C®NSUITANTS, INC. 7246 SHARON DRIVE SAN JOSE (408) 257.7083 CALIFORNIA 95129 Job No. 78084 -1 June 1, 1981 CCB -81 -84 Mayor Linda Callon Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 CLIFFORD C. BECK, R.C.E. MARVIN D. KIRKEBY, R.C.E. KENNETH NELSON, R.C.E. Mahesh N. Patel, R.C.E. RE: Amendment to 1974 General Plan Land Use Element GPA -81 -1c commonly known as Hincks Estate Dear Mayor Callon: Please refer to the various attached documents which state what the past and recent action has been as it pertains to the subject matter. During the course of the 18 February 19th City Council meeting, it is my understanding that Land Use Element GPA -81 -1c was referred back to the Citizens Advisory Committee, and that the Parks and Recreation Commission was to conduct further studies for the purpose of defining precisely what their true future land use requirements may be. Accordingly, members of my firm have assisted the Parks Commission in its parking area planning determinations. By the May 6th memorandum from the Director of Community Services to the Planning Department, it is clear what has transpired. Now, we believe that the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Planning Director should be able to proceed again with the review process. In a few weeks, my partners and I shall submit a tentative subdivision map for the development of the Hincks Estate. Before this can happen, it -is necessary that the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Planning department re- submit without further delay a revised resolution CPA- 81 -1 -c (which amends the General Plan for R -1 -4000 residential use)to the City.Council as soon as possible. Furthermore, it is requested that this action be taken "out of sequence" to the normal General Plan process because there has been a four month delay incurred already due to the fact that the Council has elected to partially approve resolu- tion ##496 in February. If the Parks Commission intends to purchase property from us for the lowest price possible, it is absolutely necessary that the General Plan procedure be conclud- I CIVIL & CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS, INC. Page Two Job No. 78084 -1 ed immediately. As you must be certainly, cognizant, carrying costs such as interest and taxes on property are rapidly inflat- ing land prices. These non - productive development costs are always passed -on to all future buyers with no discrimination being made as to who is the ultimate bearer of these expenses. If you or members of the Council wish to participate in addition- al discussion of this matter, we shall be pleased to assist and meet with anyone further and as necessary for purposes of expediting the right of submitting a tentative map. Sincerely yours, -if rd C. ec , RCE Partner of Saratoga Development Associates cc: Planning Department Saratoga Development Associates CCB /bjd Enclosures REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 1- 05 -81` Commission Meeting: 1-14-81 SUBJECT General Plan Amendment 81 -1 -c (Hincks Estate)(GFA= &1 -2 -() PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Current General Plan Designation: Current Zoning: Proposed Park R -1- 40,000 Residential Surrounding Land Uses: The property is surrounded by Hakone Park on the west, the Novitiate on the. south, the cemetery on the east, and single- family dwellings on the north. Area of Site: 16.0 acres (westernmost 2+ acres to remain proposed park) PROPOSED AMENDMENT.TO THE GENERAL PLAN: The principal reason for amending the 1974 General Plan is to bring the General Plan and zoning into conformance. The area is zoned R -1- 40,000, and the City has not taken any actions to purchase or make any agreements with the adjoining property owners with regard to the Proposed Park designation on the site. The Parks Commission has indicated that they are desirous of maintaining approximately 2.0 acres on the west side for an extension of the parking lot for Hakone Gardens. Staff has received the preliminary tentative map on the site, but we have not been able to proceed any further because of the incon- sistency of the General Plan and the zoning. The site has rather severe topography, which could be a limiting factor in the actual number of units designated for that site. OPTIONS: Option #1: Amend the 1974 General Plan Land Use Element from Proposed Park to a��is Staff Report GPA- 81 -1 -c Hincks Estate January S, 1981 Page 2 Very Low Density Residential for 14 acres of the 16 acre parcel. Leave the 2.0 acres, which are adjacent to Hakone Park, as a pro- posed park. Option #2: Maintain the entire 16 acres in Proposed Park. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS: u Option #1: Under this option, the City would be maintaining 2.0 acres for an eventual expansion of the Hakone Park parking lot. This action would bring the General Plan and the zoning into conformance and would allow a single - family development on the remaining 14 acre parcel of land. Any development within this area would be required to go through extensive geological investigation and the entire tentative map process. At the present time, Staff has not deter- mined the maximum number of units that would be allowed on this site. If the City maintains the 2.0 acre parcel of land adjacent to Hakone Park, it would be necessary that the Parks Commission submit a plan for eventual purchase of that acreage. Option #2: Should the Planning Commission decide that it would be appropriate to maintain the entire 16 acres as a proposed park, then the City would be required to purchase the entire 16 acres. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, which recommends the amendment of the 1974 General Plan Land Use Element from Proposed Park to Very Low Density Residential for 14 acres of the 16 acre parcel. The remaining 2 acres should remain as a proposed park, for eventual expansion of the Hakone Park parking lot. RSR:cd I o - 7-ayi' . S, o inson, Jr. Planning Director EKE 16 1-1-6. - :,..icD- ..1..;+ imp ..�aY.wv�w:- 14in7.5.iw'::U.il4' ALL.: h4..:: n. na. r' r1: u...: ir.+ 4.. �dM:. rw�..{ JMNwir' w: ilW3M' i.:•' :n.+M.oi.�nn�v14'Aln.wi.na..�.. ..a...iue�:....w. ....�n.... .....ri...... ...a :: �e.. �........ .:... rv... :...�. ... �.._...... .t. ... ,.... ... :.. .,_. � .. .. tIA -4 File No:GPA- 81 -2 7b Saratoga 41 0 DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15080 through 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 - of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amend the 1974 General Plan Land Use Element for APN 517 -13 -14 and 517 -13 -15 (16.0 acres). This action is to bring the 1974 General Plan and the zoning into conformance. Of the 16 acres being described, l +acres will be retained for an extension of Hakone Gardens, and the remaindelr will be designated Very Low Density Residential., NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION This proposal (General Plan Amendment) will not have a significant impact on the environment. However, any proposal for the remaining 14 acres must go through a separate environmental determination for any proposed project on that site. Specific concerns addressed during that environmental deter- mination will deal with geology, grading, disruption of the natural vegeta- tion, erosion, run -off, etc., and an appropriate density based on the above factors. Executed at Saratoga, California this 16th day of December 19 80. Reviewed August 1981. R. S. ROBINSON, JR. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA V__ DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER • -. .: isni ;�iv.S+n�;.C:.i.:'+�.�c + \.c 's�.:,.. -s,TV ., -;: �.: -.;.� ;. ., .:.:. .... .: :: . n .. .,.:;;, ... _,. .:... ..r.;�' -, -. .. t.t:.� _ ., ..+.�- �a.t�aai•�+`vas.t�- a.,�.. h+¢- J.�S;> RESOLUTION NO. GPA- 81 -1 -c ,_CGPA- 8.1= 2= (-b)Aug.' 81 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT TO THE 1974 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT FOR THE T .; _ ......_.. _.. EASTERNMOST 14+ ACRES OF LAND COMMONLY k_ KNOWN AS APN 517 -13 -14 and 517 -13 -15 Cy h'.+'}sftii- •r�3C��''` ^:�.�asx���`Y�..sm��'1". ';`.'3, .._ WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga is required to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance according to the 1974 Zoning Conformance Act and Government Code 65860; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has identified that an area commonly known as APN 517 -13 -14 and 517 -13 -15 and as shown on Exhibit "C" is zoned for residential use and the General Plan is designated as Proposed Park; and, WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission is desirous of maintaining only 2.0+ acres of the entire 16.0+ acres as a Proposed Park; and, WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, at a regular meeting in accord with Government Code Section 65351, held a public hearing on January 14, 1981 and reviewed the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Negative Declaration and the Findings attached as Exhibit "B"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the 1974 Land Use Element from Proposed Park to Very Low Density Residential for the easternmost 14.0+ acres, commonly known as APN 517 -13 -14 and 517 -13 -15 and as shown on Exhibit "C "; based on the ability to make the findings as stated in Exhibit "B ". The above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and thereafter passed and adopted by the Saratoga Planning Commis- sion on the 14th day of January, 1981 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner King, Marshall, Schaefer, Siegfried, and Zambotti NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Williams ABSTAINED: Commissioner Laden ATTEST: A �_j t� Se retary � 1 Chairm n, Planning Commission .v5+ .:.i s....h...�w.rhviru.p4++.•���.1 y..= 1:�'zs+t+k..vr�� %M".�� `i'i,'i�•�!v.!.'iY'xY �M11� l:vM,M ±ww!.i.�'�w:!M±N;• -?• EXHIBIT "B" File No. GPA- 81 -1 -c FINDINGS: 1. That the parcel in question has been designated as a "Proposed Park" since 1974, and the City of Saratoga has failed to pur- chase said site. 2. That the Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the issue in a public meeting and are interested in maintaining only 2.0 of the 16.0 acres on the western most edge for an expansion of the Hakone Garden parking lot. 3. That the underlying zoning is Residential, and under the pro- visions of the Government Code Section 65860, it is required that there be consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 4. That the proposed amendment will not affect the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area. 5. That any future development of the site shall go through the land development process to insure compliance with all Saratoga ordinances and applicable County agencies. 1+ 1 a ► TZ '. Planning =Collimissi'011 /- ,xuc Z Commi^s 7xmi.ccti ,ccovucu the mor Commissioner zom»rtti mu,cu to approve recommend inx to the City Council that �x,y 'Inc �xo 'u /y7� from School Facilities �o Medium oco^��r xc,�dcv�io� {o, �k parcel, making �bo �indio��. Commissioner wurshaz� s�con�cd �xo mn�zo��~���ch was carried, with Commissioner Laden abstaining. ._2—(p), 'Auizust 1981) _ hu General Plan designation was for Proposed Park. r k . �[� explained that t The Parks and Recreation Commission has determined that it is not fonsi additional 2.9 x�c, from the standpoint of economics, to dcvozny this uc,c nazc*z. and for that reason they have stated that it should go to the underlying zoning. Our attorneys have directed us to either change nral Plan or buy it for o park, or zone it uyvu space and allow some use on it. Commission Commi—s-ioner Schaefer stated that when she was on the Parks the .. ....... . issue was dropped, because at that time there.was no money in the City. o the She suggested that possibly this should go to the public during -lit now. General Plan review, unless there is a need to get it clarified ri. the time he Commissioner Zambetti gave the history of this site during was on the Parks Commission, and noted that there had been problems with policing that area. Woodruff Tompkins, representing the owner, Dr. Charles Johnson, stated that they would like to see the General Plan agree with the zoning map. ed Commissioner Marshall stated that the City Council had proviousl� indicat no feclinas for considering any expenditure of funds for acquisition of this land, but rather encouraged that it be brought before the Commission and dealt with expeditiously. He added that lie felt th, fact, along with the Parks and Recreation Commissioll,s position, would suggest that the Commission not delay on the matter. Commissioner Zambetti. moved to close the public hearing on GPA Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner King commented that this is a particularly interesting and this is converted to housill- tile attractive site. He stated that once City can never recover it as a park. The Deputy City Attorney commented that tiliS iteill Should probably )lot ith his land. bc delayed, since the applicant does desire to do something w Ile added that, while tic approciatos the sentiment to presci—Ve this space, the hard reality is that you can' t ;]low land on a Goner, I Pl i Without eventually follo%,!ing tbrough with that-, otherwise you end Lip with a virtual condemnation. Staff indicated that this itein lind been discussed by the Parks and Recrea- ti.on Commission recently. s'taff stated that the), can transmit tile feel ing of the Commission rc-ardi.ng their concern about the feasibility Of P11V- and include chasing this site be cause of its proximity to tile Village, that as one of tile options Undoi the, r6commendation. Commissioner Marshall commented that it is reasonable to saN that a majority of the Commission would onclorso the retention of this land as a park, but the)- recognize that tllis is only possible and practical if the City huys, it at this I)o i lit. it was tile consensus of the Commission that their Comments Should be Planning Commission Dlceting NJinutcs 1/14/81 GPA- 81 -1 -b (coat.) cleA.gl -s -,�U) sir +• _. �. ._a.,_. .,..- .._. 4.». .lv .�.._... �. >. CPages transmitted to the City Council, and the Commission should act on the resolution at this time, in fairness to the owner of the land. The Deputy City Attorney commented that an amendment to the General Plan does not constitute approval of an), particular building project, and the applicant will have to go through the standard process and satisfy whatever requirements may be imposed at that time. Commissioner Marshall moved to adopt Resolution GPA- 81 -1 -b, recommending to the City Council that the.1974 Land Ilse Element be amended from Proposed Park to Mod.ium Density Residential for this 2.9 acre parcel, making the findings. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Laden abstaining. GP:\- 81 -1 -c ' ('"PA -81 -2- (b) , August 1981) Staff stated that this is also an area that was designated as a Proposed Park. They added that in this situation the Parks & Recreation Commission is desirous of maintaining the westernmost two acres for a parking lot. The public hearing was opened at 8:S6 p.m, on GPA- 81 -1 -c. Since no one appeared, Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner King commented that., referring to the former item, since the City apparently has money for 2 %2 acres somewhere, he would recommend that the City Council consider the options as to what 212- acres to spend it on. Ile stated that liakone has a lot of parking, as far as lie is concerned. Conunissioner Schaefer agreed, stating that perhaps the City Council should review agai.n.as to where the priority is. Couuui.ssioner Zambetti moved to approve Resolution GPA- 81 -1 -c, recommending to the City Council that the 1974 Land Ilse Element be.amended from Proposed Park to Very low Density Residential for�this 14.0+ acre parcel, making the findings. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Laden abstaining. " - - Staff lamed that they are not recommending that the Commission approve ' an), resol.L 'on on this item. They described the area, and indicated that there is a s ement in the General Plat that all undeveloped parcels in this area will > developed in a 1 acre minimum, and the zoning does not state that. Staff lted that they feel the most appropriate action is to go to the General 1 Advisory Committee for review. Commissioner Marshall comment that during the pui)lic sessions held during the .1971 General Plan cons' eration,.which were generally undocu- - mented, the so called Glen Una area s not indeed that, but was land described by some people unfamiliar wit the City as Area I; yet it is characterized as being Partially Glcn Ilna, artia-lly the Dlontalvo area, partially Aloha, etc. lie added that lie firm believes that the proper form for dealing %,,ith this area is the_ General n 'Re viow Committee. Staff stated that, regarding the Mendelsohn area, the is one document with regards to the precedent being set in terms of the - 20,000 zon- ing. "There is a City Council policy statement regarding the consistency of the Zoning Ordinance with the General flan, dated May 7, 1.1 It states that the Commission's review of this area is designated as very low and Iona density. StafI' stated that the City Attorney reviewed this document and said that there is probably too much latitude. 1V 7 7TMV- M I N U T E S SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, February 18, 1981 -7:30 p.m. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting AGENDA ACTION EXECUTIVE SESSION - 5:00 p.m. (Litigation and Personnel Matters) REGULAR MEETING I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory, Watson, Mayor Callon - present B. MINUTES - 2/4/81 JEIdSEN /MALLORY MOVED ACCEPTANCE WITH CHANGE IN ITEM IV. A. INDICATING POTENTIAL DEEP SLIDING AREA. Passed 5 -0. II. COMMUNICATIONS A. ORAL None. B. WRITTEN Noted and referred to staff. III. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, None. ZONING REQUESTS IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS V. PUBLIC HEARINGS -.8:00 p.m. A. AMENDMENT TO THE 1974 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT - GPA -81 -1 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Y 1. Resolution.No. 996 None. Planning Director reviewed the General Plan process and the amendments being proposed to bring it into conformance with the areas iln question. After discussion by Council, the public hearing was opened. - Everett IIcNicholas, Superintendent of the Saratoga Union School District, spoke to lend District support to Resolution 996 as applied to the school district. No one else appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Planning Director discussed the possibilitt` of using Area A as a senior citizens hous _`.g Project, pointing out that the State w-xuld probably not approve because such a use .-_uld not meet the needs stated in the Housing Eleme=, Mr. McNicholas again spoke to inform the Courci that the District intended to sell the lots. -sa felt that the inhabitants of the expensive houses surrounding those lots would not want senior housing in the area. C01-1ciL- a7:; —r .�� IBIT' ti 2- 2/18/81 ACTION Mallory responded that senior housing should not be restricted to poorer neighborhoods. In response to Councilmember Jensen's inquiry Planning Director stated that the proposed ` changes conformed to the zoning regulations. Mayor Callon noted that the Oak Street School are might be more suitable for a senior.housi .area because of its favorable location. Councilmembers Clevenger and Mallory stated that the proposed use would be ideal for the school district area, but Councilmember Jer-se felt it would be out of character with the neighborhood. CLEVE.NGER /MALLORY MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLLTrIO 996 .AS APPLIED TO GPA 81 -1 -a ONLY (SARATOGA LNION SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICES); APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN A^'iENDM= AS APPLIED TO GPA' 81 -1 -a; APPROVAL OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GPA 81 -1 -a ONLY. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed.) Council and staff discussed whether ite-ns b and c should be referred to General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee or Planning Com- mission. Councilmember Jensen expressed the conviction that zoning should follow the General Plan designation, and further noted the need to comply with federal flood insuran; requirements. She explained that if the mate were referred to the Planning Crnmission it would not be heard by the Council again becau: of the necessary procedural sequence. Coun- cil_member Watson noted that there was a new group of Planning ConTnissioners to examine thi matter. Councilmember Mallory favored sendinc it to the Planning Comnission, specifically s< that they could determine whether it would be a good site for senior housing. Mayor.Callon pointed out that City process must continue n( matter who serves on the Planning Ccmnission; she favored referring the matter to them if the Council wished to indicate a changed dire( tion, but not otherwise. Planning Director stated that referring it to the Planning Ccr. mission would not lead to further public exposure. City Attorney informed Council that only three changes per year are permitted for any mandatory element. JENSENMATSON MOVED TO REFER GPA 81 -1 -b (Jcim- ston Property; APN 503- 23 -38) AND GPA 81 -1-c (HINCNS PROPERTY; APN 517 -13 -14 and 517- 13 -15) TO GENERAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY CC1MNUTTEE FC DE-TEP1MINATION OF APPROPRIATE LA'I'D USE AND AP- PROPRIATE DENSITY. Passed 5 -0. JEdSEN /MALLORY MOVED TO APPROVE PLANNING COt4- MISSION RDCOP1%1ENDATION TO REFER GPA 81 -1-d (GLEN UNA) TO THE GENERAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY Ca,M TTEE. Passed 5 -0. What 7 rr.GdkE�i+'A+� ti 2- 2/18/81 ACTION Mallory responded that senior housing should not be restricted to poorer neighborhoods. In response to Councilmember Jensen's inquiry Planning Director stated that the proposed ` changes conformed to the zoning regulations. Mayor Callon noted that the Oak Street School are might be more suitable for a senior.housi .area because of its favorable location. Councilmembers Clevenger and Mallory stated that the proposed use would be ideal for the school district area, but Councilmember Jer-se felt it would be out of character with the neighborhood. CLEVE.NGER /MALLORY MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLLTrIO 996 .AS APPLIED TO GPA 81 -1 -a ONLY (SARATOGA LNION SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICES); APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN A^'iENDM= AS APPLIED TO GPA' 81 -1 -a; APPROVAL OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GPA 81 -1 -a ONLY. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed.) Council and staff discussed whether ite-ns b and c should be referred to General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee or Planning Com- mission. Councilmember Jensen expressed the conviction that zoning should follow the General Plan designation, and further noted the need to comply with federal flood insuran; requirements. She explained that if the mate were referred to the Planning Crnmission it would not be heard by the Council again becau: of the necessary procedural sequence. Coun- cil_member Watson noted that there was a new group of Planning ConTnissioners to examine thi matter. Councilmember Mallory favored sendinc it to the Planning Comnission, specifically s< that they could determine whether it would be a good site for senior housing. Mayor.Callon pointed out that City process must continue n( matter who serves on the Planning Ccmnission; she favored referring the matter to them if the Council wished to indicate a changed dire( tion, but not otherwise. Planning Director stated that referring it to the Planning Ccr. mission would not lead to further public exposure. City Attorney informed Council that only three changes per year are permitted for any mandatory element. JENSENMATSON MOVED TO REFER GPA 81 -1 -b (Jcim- ston Property; APN 503- 23 -38) AND GPA 81 -1-c (HINCNS PROPERTY; APN 517 -13 -14 and 517- 13 -15) TO GENERAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY CC1MNUTTEE FC DE-TEP1MINATION OF APPROPRIATE LA'I'D USE AND AP- PROPRIATE DENSITY. Passed 5 -0. JEdSEN /MALLORY MOVED TO APPROVE PLANNING COt4- MISSION RDCOP1%1ENDATION TO REFER GPA 81 -1-d (GLEN UNA) TO THE GENERAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY Ca,M TTEE. Passed 5 -0. What 7 AGENDA VII. B. (continued) C. STREET ACCEPTANCE - Tract 4886 1. Resolution No. 995 D. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Report re: Appointment of Library Commissioners 2. Report re: Appointment of Parks and Recreation Commissioners C. DEPARIMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Planning Director a. Report re: Ordinance Referred from County re Adult Entertain- ment Facilities i D. CITY MANAGER IX. ADJOURNMaIT - 12:00 or earlier EXrSUT1VE SESSION - Lit.iq_ation and Personnel Matters 6- 2/18/81 ACTION Councilmembers expressed concern about such issues as adequacy of setbacks, utilization .. of the site for business and professional pur- poses (rather than courercial purposes which would generate sales tax), -and design. A representative of the developer stated that the tentative map and the final map were essen tially identical, and that changes which had been made had come about at the suggestion of staff. JENSEN /CIEVENGER MOVED THAT ITEM B BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR 3/4 AND THAT STAFF SUBMIT FURTHER INFORMATION, INCLUDING THE TENTATIVE MAP; THE SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS; AND THE CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS KITH RESPECT TO SET- BACKS. Passed 5 -0. Approved. Approved. Mayor Callon announced appointment of J. Wayne Dernetz as City Manager, effective on a part -time basis as contract employee 2/24 and as a full -time employee 4/1. CALLON /JENSEN MOVED APPROVAL OF LETTER OF INTENT TO HIRE JOSEPH WAYNE DERNETZ AS CITY MANAGER. Passed 5 -0. Consensus to interview five applicants. Consensus to discuss subcommittee recommenda- tions. Continued to 3/4. Consensus to cancel. Respectfully submitted, 14 F. � Grace E. Cory Acting City Clerk i ►' R:. AGENDA BILL NO. 93 DATE: August 20, 1981 �• is Planning CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJBCr: Appeal on Denial of an Encroachment Permit for a fence at 12499 Scully Avenue (EP -16), Appellant /Applicant- Lawrence Roe Issue Stmanary On July 22, 1981, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request to allow a 6' high wooden fence to remain about 4' within the Scully Avenue Right -of -way. Some of-the issues raised during the hearing included traffic safety and the possibility of setting an undesirable precedent. Recomnendation 1. 2. 3. Fiscal Impacts Conduct a public hearing on the appeal Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny Staff recommended approval of the encroachmentsto the Planning Commission. None anticipated Exhibits /Attachments 1. Appeal letter dated July 30, 1981 2. Minutes for the July 22, 1981 Commission meeting 3. Staff Report dated May 20, 1981 4. Addendum dated June 17, 1981 S. Exhibit B and Site Map Council Action 9/2: Jensen/Watson moved to deny encroachment permit and require fence to be moved within 30 days. Passed 5 -0. Clevenger /Mallory moved to amend the motion to allow 90 days for fence to be moved. Passed 3 -2 (Jensen, Watson opposed). Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Appeal the Commission Decision Disapproval of Fence Structure Item 11 -EP -16 - Meeting of 22 July 1981 Gentlemen: 12499 Scully Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 30 July 1981 G r The comments in Mr. Sheridan's letter that I was not asking for a permit to build a simple wooden fence is true. I did not ask for a permit since a permit from the City of Saratoga is not required for a fence. Also, this is none of Mr. Sheridan's affairs. Several comments in his letter might lead you to believe that Sheridan is very interested in the community in which he resides, but the police records will show otherwise. This condition is well known by the majority of residence that have lived here for any length of time. The fence has been put up with plans of it staying there for many years. Before any decision to its status is made, it is suggested that each member on the City of Saratoga Planning Commision make it a before the date of any scheduled meeting made by all concerned. point to know and understand the subject so a more intelligent decision can be Also, Scully Avenue has had two accidents since I have lived.at this residence. One time teen -agers were driving fast, lost control of their car and hit the car across the street. The second time a drunk woman was driving, hit the car parked in front of a house and the hit car ended up on the neighbor's yard. Neither time did the cars land on the piece of property that the fence is now located. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence Roe G �7n S , n l7✓ fps �- •(�f'�'�(.._ f S P �' - <��,� 5 Planning Commission Meeting 'Minutes 7/22/81 Page 7 UP,-505 (cont.) Mrs Vimal Rajdev, the applicant, addressed the hours and weekend activities. The tuber of children and employees were also discussed. It was determined that ndition No. 1 of the Staff Report shall read: "The maximum number of student will not exceed that permitted by the state license. Number of employees will be commensurate with the number of students per state require- ments ." Condition No. 2 -will read: "The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. b o 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Infrequent staff or other meetings may held in the evening." Commissioner Schae er moved, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to close the public hearing. Th motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer m ved, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to approve V -505 per the amended Sta Report, making the findings. The motion was carried unanimously. 10. V -554 Charles Gill, 13935 Svtoga Avenue, Request for a Variance to allow the construction of a rgom addition which would cause the main dwellin g to 'maintain an side yard where 15' is required Staff described the proposal, recomm •gd' approval. The public hearing was opened at 9:45 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission \n this matter. Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. \Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer moved, seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to approve V -554 per the Staff Report, making the necessary findings. The motion was carried unanimously. M L �was Roe, 13499 Scully Avenue, Request for Encroachment Permit o in right -of -wa continued from June 24, 1981 oposaescribed by Staff. They.commented that they do not feel there is any adverse safety impact with regards to the fence itself. They added that they recommended that the steel supporting posts be removed as a safety precaution. Staff clarified that they were referring to the posts which are not attached to the fence. They also noted that they had added the condition that the City has the right to revoke the encroachment permit if they need to widen Scully Avenue in that vicinity or if it does create a health or safety impact. Mr. W. Sheridan commented that he has been in contact with the City during the last year regarding this matter. He expressed concern over the rigid and solid posts. Mr. Sheridan noted that he had submitted a letter regarding this matter . Mr. Roe, the applicant, stated that he would like to leave the fence where it is. He explained that the steel posts were used because wooden posts would soon rot. Mr. Roe added that if he were conditioned to move those posts he would not leave the fence there. He noted that there is a 15 m.p.h. speed limit in that area, and no one has ever run into the posts. Commissioner Crowther stated that he agrees with the Staff Report, adding that from a safety viewpoint he does not think it makes much difference whether the fence is 3 feet back or 7 feet back. He commented that he feels the key issue is related to the reinforced posts. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would like to see the entire fence and posts removed. She commented that she is concerned about setting a precedent regarding encroachments. She added that she feels the City never 7 Planning Commission �' Page 8 Meeting Minutes 7/22/81 EP -'16 (cont.) realizes that it is a hazard until there is a major accident. The Deputy City Attorney suggested, if the Commission grants the encroach- ment, to add a condition that the applicant enter into an indemnity agreement with the City. Commissioner Laden agreed with Commissioner Schaefer that the City should not make a habit of granting encroachment permits in circumstances where t they are not absolutely a necessity. Commissioner Schaefer moved to deny EP -16, consistent with the precedence of not granting encroachment into City rights -of -way. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissent- ing. COMMUNICATIONS Written _. 1. \Letter from Senior Citizens Coordinating Council re the new Senior Citizen Center. 2. Int r retation of Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff explained I that currently Article 2 o the ordinance home occupation permits can be granted only in Agricultural or Residential district. The code has changed significantly sin \homoccupation le 12 was written, and the City now allows single - family uses, i.e., iniums, in "C -C ", "C -V" and "P A" districts. The Deputy City Attorney disce restrictions. He explained that the present ordi- nance permits home tion in "A" and "R" districts. He commented that he feels the intent odinance was home occupation in residential structures. It was noted that use would have to go through the permit process. It was the consensus occupation should be a use in a residence, regardless of the district whr idence is found. Oral 1. Chairmathanke the Good Government Group for attending the meeting and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded by mmissioner Schaefer, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimous y, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, RSR:cd ��'S. Kobinson, Jr. Secretary C � i FA NAME TA.111111111 I I REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 5/20/81 Commission Meeting: 5/27/81 SUBJECT EP -16, Lawrence Roe 12499 Scully Avenue REQUEST: The applicant requests the issuance of an encroachment permit to allow an existing 6' high fence to encroach about 4' into the Scully Avenue right -of -way. BACKGROUND: The applicant bought a triangular property from a development company in 1978 immediately adjacent to the western property line of the site. The applicant tried to purchase additional property from the City but was denied by the City Council. The applicant then hired a surveyor to determine the exact location of the property line. The applicant then built a 6' high wooden fence which was reinforced with steel pipe. The applicant feels that the City had given him approval for the fence's location when it was first erected. However, there is no permit process for the construction of a wooden fence so no formal approval was granted by the City. STAFF ANALYSIS: The fence is about 3' from the back of curb along a 92' portion of the lot's frontage on Scully Avenue. The fence stops at the western property line of the original lot. The City has traditionally restricted structures within rights - of -way because of: 1. The possibility of future widenings of the roadway or other improvements. 2. Impacts on pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety. 3. Loss of open space and scenic quality considerations. The Department of Public Works has indicated that there are no plans to widen Scully Avenue in the future so the fence will create no interference in that regard. Staff Report \\ C 5/20/81 EP -16 Page 2 The fence leaves a 3' space between it and the curb which is sufficient room for a pedestrian path so that they are not forced to walk in the street. The fence would eliminate a minor amount of open space along the right -of -way but the City would not have to maintain the area encroached upon. The visual impact of the solid fence on open space would not be signifi- cantly reduced by relocating the fence 7' from curb. The fence does not appear to create any significant hindrance -to the flow of traffic through Scully Avenue. However, it is possible that the City could incur some liability if a vehicle collided with the reinforced elements of the fence. The Commission has granted an encroachment permit in the past (1977) for a 6' high fence in the right -of -way (EP -10). That fence had been in place for 5 years and was 7' away from the curb rather than the 10' required. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per staff report dated 5/20/81 and Exhibit "B" subject to the following condition: 1. The City retains the right to revoke this encroachment permit if it interferes with future street improvements or it is determined that the fence creates -a safety hazard. Michael Flores, Assistant Planner Approved: MF /ms P.C. Agenda: 5/27/81 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 6/17/81 Commission Meeting: 6/24/81 ADDENDUM T0: SUBJECT EP -16 Lawrence Roe 12499 Scully Avenue ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- This item was continued from the meeting of May 27, 1981 so that one of the neighboring property owners would have a chance to speak regarding the encroaching fence. Staff is concerned with the placement of reinforced steel posts behind the fence. Therefore, the following condition should be added if the encroachment permit is granted: 2. The reinforced steel posts shall be removed within 30 days of the granting of this encroachment permit. Approved: ��-- Michael Flores Assistant Planner MF /clh P. C. Agenda 6/24/81 I' i EXHIBIT , FILE No. CITY OF SARATOGA E 1 l� C=\ �v 1 43 42 1 4.1 Ld 44 J\A HI 46 47 Scu.L.Lile 51TE- l � i 71 A L .y.. rr . 'DAUG27 - . 1981 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 WILLIAM E. SHERIDAN 19766 ELISA AVE. (CONOR SCULLY AVE.) SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 AUG. 24, 1981 RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR FENCE Al: 12499 SCULLY AVE. (APPLICANT /APPELLANT, LAWRENCE ROE ) COUNCILMEMBERS: I WOULD LIKE THE OPPOURNITUNITY TO COMMENT OM MR ROE'S LETTER DATED JULY 3C, 1991 ADDRESSED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( I ASSUMED HE INTENDS THIS LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL, NOT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.) MR ROE SECOND STATEMENT THAT A PERMIT FROM THE CITY IS NOT REQUIRED FOR A FENCE. MYSELF HAVEING BEEN LICENSED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS LICENSE BUREAU FOR THE PAST TEN YEARSj.I KNOW THIS IS NOT CORRECT. I WOULD LIKR TO QUOTE MR JOHN TUREHAN CITY OF SARATOGA BUILDING DEPARTMENT. "TECHNICALLY WHEN YOU NAIL, rviO BOARDS TOGETMR YOU NEED A BUILDING PERMIT. BUT FOR FE' 'LACES BUILT ON ONUS OWN PROPERTY OR REPLACEMENT FENCES THE PERYJTS ARE NOT RELY ENFORCED. NEW DEVELOPERS DO NEED BUILDING PERMITS, ANDANY BODY BUILDING WHERE A VARIANCE, EXCEPTION OR ENCROACHMENT IS REQUIRED DEFINITELY NEEDS A PERMIT" (QUOTE IS WITH JOHN TURCHAN PERMISSION). MP. ROE'S THIRD STATEMENT QUOTE "THIS IS NONE OF MR SHERIDAN'S AFFAIRS." AGAIN MR ROE IS WRONG IT IS THE AFFAIRS OF CITY COUNCIL PLANING DEPT. BUILDING DEPT. AND ALL TAXPAYERS IN SARATOGA. AS SHOWN BY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMI-rdSSION AND THE COMING PUBLIC HEARING 2nd SEPTEMBER BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. MR ROE SHOULD ALSO BE APPRAISED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND MR SHERIDAN (AND MR SHERIDAN'S DAUGHTER CATHY'S TYPING) ARE ALL WORKING ON THIS WITH NO PERSONAL INTREST AND WITHOUT PAY. CONLY FOR THE BENIFIT OF ALL TAXPAYERS IN SARATOGA) MR ROE'S FOURTH AND FIFTH STATEMENTS FIRST PARAGRAPH MIGHT LEAD THE COUNCIL TO THINK THIS IS A NEIGHBOR QUARREL, WHICH THE COUNCIL HAS SEEN MORE THAN ITS SHARE. FIRST I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MR ROE, HIS NEIGHBORS, HIS POLICE. RECORDS OR WHO IS QUALIFIED FOR LIVING HERE ANY LENGTH OF TIME. I HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO MR ROE OR ANY MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY OR KNOW AOTHING ABOUT THEM. I OBTAINED HIS NAME FROM THE CROSS REFERENCE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY WHICH LISTS THE RESIDENT AS MAJOR ROE. A FIRST YEAR LAW STUDENT TS TAUGHT IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE LAW ON YOUR SIDE FIGHT THE FACTS. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE FACTS ON YOUR SIDE FIGHT THE LAW. IF,YOU DON'T HAVE THE LAW OR THE FACTS ON YOUR SIDE FIGHT (SMEAR) YOUR OPPONENT. -IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL MR ROE DOES NOT HAVE THE LAW (CODE), NOR 3� THE FACTS ON HIS SIDE. SO HE HAS CHOSEN TO THROW MUD AT THE ONLY PERSON TO SPEAK IN t OPPOSITION IN THE HOPES THAT SOME MUD WILL STICK TO THE WALL. I'M,SURE THE COUNCILME&RS HAVE SEEN THIS CHEAP APPROACH TAKEN BEFORE AND WILL EXCUSE MR ROE FOR THIS. MY FIRST CONCERN IS THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY. NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY DIRECTLY EFFECTS OTHER PROPERTY, VALUES. THE FENCE FIRST DOES NOT MEET THE. AESTHETICS FOR THE AREA. (A SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG THE FRONT OF ANY PROPERTY)., NO ONE ELSE OUT HERE HAS THIS. „ SECOND THESE HOMES ARE PROTECTED BY AN ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE. SINCE THE AREA IS N9d BUILT UF�I DON'T KNOW WHO NOW IS ON TIE TRACT ARCHITURAL COMMITTEE. THIRD NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT ANY THING ON THE dITYS PROPERTY. FOURTH THE SAFTEY FACTOR OF SOMEONE MISSING THE CURVE, HITTTING THE FENCEt THEN GETTING INJURED BY THE CEMTNT FILLED FOUR INCH STEEL PIPES. THIS WOULD HE At STRANGER TO THE STREET. MR ROE'S SECOND PARAGRAPH THAT THE FENCE WAS PUT UP WITH PLANS OF IT STAYING THERE: FOP: MANY YEARS. THE TWENTY ONE, FOUR AND ONE HALF INCH DIAMETER STEEL PIPES EXTENDING rdo FEET SIX INCHES ABOVE GROUND AND THREE AND ONE HALF FEET IN THE GROUND SET IN CEMENT AND FILLED WITH CEMENT HAVE NO EFFECT ON HOLDING UP OR KEEPING UP THIS FENCE. (THE INTENT IS CLEAR HERE) MR ROE'S THIRD PARAGRAPH SCULLY AVE HAS HAD ONLY TWO ACCIDENTS IN TWELVE YEARS IS WRONG IT HAS HAD MORE THAN TWO ACCIDENTS ING THE LAST SIX.MONTHS, THAT I KNOW OF AND I'M SURE ITS MUCH HIGHER. THE CITY ATTORNEY (AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING) - SUGGESTED THAT MR ROE GIVE THE CITY A LETTER OF INDEMNIFICATION FOR ANY DAMAGES OR INJURY SUITS ARISING FROM THE FEri;.'E. INDEMNIFICATION IN A CASE. LIKE THIS MAY BE MORE HARMFUL TO THE CITY THEN A BENIFIT. THE ATTORNEY FOR ANY DEFENDANT IN A CIVIL SUIT WOULD NAME THE CITY. THE CITY OR IT's INSURANCE CARRIER WOULD HAVE TO EMPLOY AN ATTORNEY TO ANSWER AND APPEAR TO ANY SUIT AND THE LETTER OF INDEMNIFICATION COULD BE DISALLOWED BY THE COURT. MR ROE CAN SELL AND WILL DIE. THE STEEL POSTS WOULD REMAIN, ALONG WITH THE USELESS LETTER OF INDEMIFICATION. CITY OF SARATOGA WOULD BE LIABLE. IT IS A MATTER OF LAW THAT A PROPERTY OWNER KNOWS THE APPROIXMATE VALUE. OF HIS PROPERTY AND HIS APPRO11MATE PROPERTY LINES. IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT MR ROE THOUGHT IT WAS HIS PROPERTY THAT HE BUILT THE FENCE ON AFTER HIRING A SURVEYOR. THE PLANING COMMISSION DENIED MR ROE'S REQUEST ON THE FACT IT WAS BUILT ON THE CITYS PROPERTY. IT DID NOT VOTE ON THE OTHER ISSUES THAT IT WOULD HAVE, IF IT HAD PAST THE FIRST VOTE. THE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS SHOULD BACK THE PLANING COMMISSION AND DENY THIS APPEAL. YOU RES 7TnulLY aa: PLANING COMMISSION :`o ffAv .T7�2 C11p IV 12499 Scully Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 30 July 1981 Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Appeal the Commission Decision Disapproval of Fence Structure Item 11 -EP -16 - Meeting of 22 July 1981 Gentlemen: The comments in Mr. Sheridan's letter that I was not asking for a permit to build a simple wooden fence is true. I did not ask for a permit since a permit from the City of Saratoga is not required for a fence. Also, this is none of Mr. Sheridan's affairs. Several comments in his letter might lead you to believe that Sheridan is very interested in the community in which he resides, but the police records will show otherwise. This condition is well known by the majority of residence that have lived here for any length of time. The fence has been put up witji plans of it spaying there for many years. Before any decision to its status is made, it is suggested that each member on the Cit y of Saratoga Planning Commision make it a before the date of any scheduled meeting made by all concerned. point to know and understand the subject so a more intelligent decision can be Also, Scully Avenue has had two accidents since I have lived at this residence. One time teen -agers were driving fast, lost control of their car and hit the car across the street. The second time a drunk woman was driving, hit the car parked in front of a house and the hit car ended up on the neighbor's yard. Neither time did the cars land on the piece of property that the fence is now located. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence Roe A CITY OF SARATOGA ,1 Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. U Dept. Fid. DATE: August 20, 1981 C. Atty. OATZni VT: Planning C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Approval of a rezoning from R-1-12,500 to R -M -4000 at -------- __14239- Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road _�C_197, _Applicant Clarence Neale- Issue SL=ary 1. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission during the use permit hearing on Saratoga Federated Church and indicated that he wished to relocate several of the old structures. 2. -"The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval of the rezoning at their July 8th meeting. 3. The City Council conducted a public hearing on August 19th and directed Staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance to finalize the rezoning. Recommendation 1. Approve the Negative Declaration 2. Accept the Planning Commission's Resolution 3. Make the required findings arid introduce the ordinance. • Fiscal Imoacts None anticipated. E: %hibits /Attachmn_nts 1. Staff Report dated 8/24/81 2. Planning Commission Resolution 3. Staff Report dated 7/1/81 4. Negative Declaration dated 6/29/81 Council Action S. Minutes for the 7/8/81 Commission Meeting 6. Ordinance and Map 9/2: _ - Clevenger/Watson moved to accept Negative Declaration. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed). rRa1-1_ory/Watson moved to accept Resolution C -197. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed). Watson/mml lnry roved to waive readina and read by title only. Passed -5 -0: Mallory/Watson moved to introduce ordinance. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed). 9/16: Mallory/Watson moved to read by title only. Passed 5 -0. Callon/Mallory moved to adopt as read. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed). 0 n o0 S41yit std REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 8/24/81 COUNCIL MEETING: 9/2/81 SUBJECT: C -197 - Clarence W. Neale 14230 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road This item was heard at the City Council meeting of August 19, 1981. At that time the Council,approved the rezoning. But the Council did not specifically approve the Negative Declaration or make the required findings as per Section 18.8 of the ordinance. The Council should, therefore, vote to approve the Negative Declaration, accept the Planning Commission's Resolution; and make the required findings (as per the resolution) to appr.o.ve the rezoning. After this is accomplished, the Council should then approve the first reading of the ordinance which would amend the zoning desig- nation of the subject property. The ordinance is also included in this packet. Submitted by: R r. Planning Director RSR: j d y1_ ii C RESOLUTION NO. C-197 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY 01: SARATOGA WHEREAS, the 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 8th day of July, 1981 at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California; and thereafter said hearing was closed, and WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it would affect the zoning regulation plan of the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of a Negative Declaration prepared for the project and brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached here- to and marked Exhibit "A" should be affirmatively recommended to the city Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the •... City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of said City, and that the Report of Findings of this Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B ", be and the same • is hereby approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed Amend- ment and Report of Findings and a summary of hearings held by this Com- mission to the City Council for further action in accordance with State Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Comnission, State of California, this 8th day of July, 1981, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther-, Ring, Laden 1\0ES; Commissioners Schaefer and Zamhetti PbSEDT: Commissioner �lonia CTiairm' an of the Planning Commission C -197 EXHIBIT "B" FTNDTNGS: 1. The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of the site into confor- mance with the Land Use Element of the 1974 General Plan of Saratoga. 2. The rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the zoning ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of said ordinance. 3. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the environment (Negative Declaration determined to be an appropriate document). • • a � REPORT TO PLANNING C®MMISSI ®N DATE: 7/1/81 Commission Meeting: 7/8/81 SUBJECT* C -197 - Clarence W. Neale 14230 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: Rezone the subject parcel identified as A.P.N. 397 -27 -15 from R -1- 12,500 (Single- Family Residential) to R -M -4,000 (Multi - Family Residential). • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A negative declaration for this project has een prepared. PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been advertised by publishing in the newspaper, posting, and by mailings to 89 nearby property owners. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Apartments ZONING: R -1- 121500 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential (R -1- 10,000 and R -1- 12,500) to the north and east; multi - family residential (R -M -3000 and R -M -4000) to the south and west. SITE SIZE: 1.16 acres (50,529 sq. ft. ±) SITE SLOPE: Gentle STAFF ANALYSIS: The current R -1- 12,500 zoning for the site is not consistent with the apartments designation established for the site in the 1974 General Plan. The purpose of this application is to remove this inconsistency and bring the zoning of the site into conformance with the General Plan as per Section 65860 of the Government Code. Staff feels that under certain conditions the site would be appropriate for higher density development. The site is currently occupied by two dwelling units which will remain on the site. The applicant proposes, for the time being, to relocate the two structures on the Saratoga Federated Church site to his property. The structures would be brought up to code and placed between the exist- ing structures. The units would be rented to senior citizens at a cost of $350 to $400 per month. �, Report to Planni} Commission 7/1/81 C -197 Page 2 Access to the site from Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road is through Neale's • Hollow Lane and Arbeleche Lane. The applicant has indicated that a 30'wide non - exclusive easement allows him access on the above mentioned routes. However, since the proposed rezoning could increase the max- imum number of dwelling units that would be allowed on the site from 4 units to about 12 units, Staff has determined that a second access to the site is necessary for adequate fire protection and the provision of emergency services. It is also suggested that the entrance to Neale's Hollow be widened to provide easier access to the site. The applicant feels that the present access is sufficient. Under Section 18.11 of the zoning ordinance the Commission can recommend to the Council that the site be conditionally reclassified from an R -1 to an R -M district to ensure compliance with community objectives. The conditions that can be applied to the proposed rezoning are: 1. That one of the uses for which the property was reclassified shall be established, and /or 2. That a particular use represented by the applicant as being in- tended by him shall be established, and /or 3. That a particular use and /or structure or structures represented by the applicant as being intended by him shall be established and con- structed, within a specified period of time, and in accord with such plans as presented by the applicant in requesting the change of zoning granted, the nonhappening of which would in such specified period of time automatically reinstate the previous district classification ex- isting prior to the ordinance changing the zone. • " Staff recommends that, if the rezoning is to be approved, a condition be added to require a complete developmental plan for the site, in- cluding a second access to the site, prior to the rezoning becoming effective. Staff has tried to contact the Santa Clara Valley Water District to determine if a second access to the site could be provided from their property immediately to the East. There is an existing gate protected driveway that could be utilized if the Water District were willing. FINDINGS: If the Commission determines that this rezoning should be recommended for approval by the City Council, the following findings should be made: 1. The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of the site into con- formance with the Land Use Element of the 1974 General Plan of Saratoga. 2. The rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the zoning ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of said ordinance. 3. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the environment (Negative Declaration determined to be an appropriate document). OPTIONS: 1. Recommend conditional approval of the rezoning to t e City Council. 2. If the Commission feels this proposed rezoning is un- acceptable they should recommend that the General Plan designation for the site shown on the 1974 General Plan Map be ammended to Medium Density Residential to reflect the site's current zoning. 'Report to Planning -Commission 7/1/81 C -197 Page 3 • This could then be addressed by the General Plan Advisory Committee. 3. Schedule this item for a study session and request further information from the applicant. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council the attached resolution recommending con- ditional reclassification of the site's zoning from R- 1- 12,500 to R -M- 4000 to bring the zoning of the site into conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The following conditions shall be added: 1. Prior to final approval by the City Council of this request, the applicant shall prepare a total site development plan showing the place- ment of existing and future structures for Planning Commission and City Council review and approval. Applicant shall also submit proof of a viable secondary access to the site to provide adequate fire and emer- gency access. 2. The structures shown on the above mentioned site development plan shall be in place within two years of approval of that plan by the City Council. If this is not accomplished, the rezoning of the site shall revert to R -1- 12,500. Approved: -� • MF /as P.C. Agenda: 7/8/81 • Michael Flores, Assistant Planner. - File No: C - 19 7 DECLARATIONI THAT ENVIRONIMITAL 1HP1%CT REPORT NOT REnJIRED • .(Negative'DcclarL Lion) Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Thc undersigned, Di•r.ector of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SAM'' TOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental. Quality Act of 1970, Sections 1500 through 1502,3 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 - of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project twill have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment v7ithin the terns and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone a 1:16 acre parcel from R- 1- 12,500 to RM -4000. The site is located at 14230 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and identified as•APN 397 -27 -15 in the records of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara.• The action is required to bring the General Plan and zoning into conformance. PAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANIT •Mr. Clarence IV. Neale 14165 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Sar. ato ga CA 9 �0 70 RI�I\SON1 OR NE ATIVE DECLARATION The.proposed project will not have a signifi.cant adverse impact on the environment since-it is an infill project which will not require the significant extensioji -of urban.services and will comply with current codes and ordinance when the project is physically developed. Executed at Saratoga, Cali- fornia this 29th day of June R. S. RODINSONT, JR . DIRECTOR OF PLANINING AND EI`T\7I1' Oii COIF ROL OI? TIIL 4Z, I:ATO'A ^ A DIRECTOP,' S AUT�FI' I1L 113Lr. .- Planning Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes - 7/8/81 SDR '\1499 (cont.) exist�Qg legal lot and the applicant has a right to build on it. Richard'S,towers, architect, questioned the condition by the Saratoga Fire Dist %4ct requesting a 32 foot radius on site. He explained that a turnaround having that large a radius would be detrimental to the site because of txe trees and topography. It was determined that the Fire District does have various options to a standard 32 foot radius turna- round, and Condition V -B should read "Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling.,site having a 32 foot inside radius or other approved type turnaround which must meet requirements of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans." Commissioner Zambett1 \moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to approve the Negative Declaration for.,SDR -1499. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to approve SDR -1499, per the Staff Report dated July 8, 1981 as amended, and Exhibit "B ". The motion was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6 Negati e Declaration - C -197 - C. Neale 6b. C -197 - Neale, Consideration of Rezoning from R -1- 12,500 to R -M -4,000 on the 1.15+ acre parcel located at 14230 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road • described the proposed rezoning. They commented that they have concerns regarding secondary access. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has indicated that up to one - quarter of the site would be taken up by easements due to flood hazards, and this would significantly reduce the maximum number of allotted units that could occupy the site. Chairman Laden stated that the issue at this time is the rezoning of this property to bring it into conformance with the General Plan. She explained that the owners can later bring in a site development plan, at which time the structures can be conditioned and the access can be addressed. She added that the Commission can either suggest a rezoning or General Plan Amendment to the City Council. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. Clarence Neale, 14165 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, stated that he has two accesses to the property in his deed, both of which are accessible to Highway 85. He explained the history of the site, explaining that the property had previously been zoned R -M -4,000 and had not been developed; therefore the zoning had reverted back to R -1. Mr. Neale described the access roads and the proposed project, stating that he wished to build units for senior citizens on this property. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the rezoning of the property would not give building site approval; that can he dealt with at a later date. Chairman Laden explained to Mr. Neale that the emergency access condition could be addressed with the Fire Chief when the time comes to develop. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther questioned why a zoning of R -M -5,000 was not heing considered, since it is listed in the ordinance. Staff explained that the R -M -4,000 is consistent with adjacent developments and there is presently no R -M -5,000 in the City. Commissioner Crowther commented that he felt R -M -5,000 would be more consistent with the density requirements of the General Plan. He noted that this site is already being used for multi.- Planning Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 7/8/81 C -197 (cont.) family and is directly adjacent to another multi - family residential area Commissioner Schaefer agreed that she felt the R -M -5,000 zoning would be reasonable. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that a R -M -4,000 zoning would be consistent with the General Plan. The Negative Declaration for the rezoning was discussed, and it was determined that the sentence reading "The applicant intends to provide _ senior citizen rental housing on the site" should be deleted. Chairman Laden explained to Mr. Neale that he can specify senior citizen rentals to the bank and City when he comes in with a site development plan. Commissioner King moved to recommend to the City Council the amended Negative Declaration and rezoning to R -M -4,000 for application C -197, bringing.it into conformance with the General Plan; making the necessary findings. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, amending it to include the conditions recommended in the Staff Report, that the applicant shall prepare a total site development plan and submit proof of a viable secondary access to the site. The amendment failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Bolger seconded Commissioner King's motion for recommendation of the Negative Declaration and rezoning. Commissioner Crowther moved to amend the motion to rezone the property to R -M -5,000 instead of R -M- 4,000. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which failed, with Commissioners Bolger, King, Laden and Zambetti dissenting. The vote was taken on the recommendation for rezoning to R -M -4,000 and the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Zambetti stated he would be voting no,.explaining that it should be a conditional rezoning and he feels that at some future time, before final approval is given at the City Council level, the applicant should submit a site development plan to ensure a viable double access for fire and emergency. He added that he feels, if the site development plan was not activated in two years, then the plan should revert back to a R- 1- 12,500 zoning. Commissioner Schaefer agreed. The motion for rezoning to R -M -4,000 was carried, with Commissioners Zambetti and Schaefer dissent- ing. Chairman Laden suggested to Mr. Neale that he follow Commissioner's Zambetti's suggestion to present a site development plan to the Planning Department for their review; Mr. Neale stated he would do so as soon as possible. • 7. UP -503 - Dr. 01linson, Request for a Use Permit to allow the continuation, under new ownership, of an existing veterinary clinic in the C -N ( �ighborhood- Commercial) district at 13561 Quito Road Staff described tfie proposal. The public hearing 11 s opened at 8:45 p.m. Since no one appeare &, Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissionei C owther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve UP -503, making the findings. Com- missioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff suggested that the Commission should consider changing the use permit to run with the land, as opposed to with the owner. The whole issue of use permitswill be taken up in'•a future study session. 8. UP -SO4 - Thomas Gwin, Request f.or`.a Use Permit to allow the construction of a detached garage over 6" in height (12' max.) in the required rear vard at 19621 Juna Lane A report on the proposal was given by .-Staff. The setbacks of the project were discussed. �/� I • • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, 13Y AMENDING THE ZONING MAP RE: APN 397 -27 -15 FROM R -1- 12,500 TO R -M -4000 The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Sectional District Map No. C -197 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted, and the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga adopted by Section 1.8 of Ordinance NS -3 of said City, together with any amendments thereto, is hereby changed and amended by substituting the crosshatched area on the foregoing sectional district map for that portion of the Zoning Map delineated in and by the within - adopted crosshatched portion of the sectional district map. So much of the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga, together with any amendments thereto, as in conflict with the within- - adopted sectional district map is hereby superseded and repealed. SECTION 2: This ordinance reclassifies certain property shown on the attached sectional map from R -1- 12,500 to R -M -4000. It shall become operative and take effect on and after thirty (30) days from its date of passage. This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this day of by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK iN14YOR DKVIL ED IM CONFORMANCE *ITN SECO2T� OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE EFFECTIVE DATE MARCH 1, 1900 ALFRED I— CARLSON- ASSESSOR • Is ca I w 28 o c, 9�T9 0 GrST � I qG� I OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA _x•iss��n r�6itGs E 3 3.4 d d HC. O\ .,gal (,1 I 1 � \,3�BO • . 9,,0 2S �1 PARCEL 2 5D„ - 214.P ARCEL , -31.'20 1 70 . 2 I / K S.]S .. a � tT� �s SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE 503 I;: 0 3 J: SCALE I 11Im100 /' _.a.. n R �.'.. 7 � R.O.S. 374/53 h(o ..p4G4 �•� _... COM11 (CF LOTS ()'L 'k ! 7 MaP.I %(`)'h C't l9 '2 29 30 - �S 0.8069 Ac t y 28 o C, *y �j SARATOGA 0.462 AC. e ' 4.+ .1 20. 5E W z-r. sc i. MARY PARKER HOMESTEAD ( ROAD — 20 W __ _- ___Jr L6 t -z0 !7 nI. Is 1- 13704 34.2 � / � LY n s C o s3 •� V I C T 0 CF N~ 1 5042 �9s6 S 13 O 9 to g io o v 6 i 1712_... i �t' 12 Z 7 ":z 8.81 -- -- •71 -1< - •PTN CITY OF 1-'29 - PTN ±o- 26�4c. 1601; PTN.14 Iov.Tl 12 SARATOGA III 13 761.sD R. D. S. 179144' SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE 503 I;: 0 3 J: SCALE I 11Im100 /' _.a.. n R �.'.. 7 � R.O.S. 374/53 h(o ..p4G4 �•� _... COM11 (CF LOTS ()'L 'k ! 7 MaP.I %(`)'h C't l9 '2 29 30 - �S 0.8069 Ac t y 28 o C, *y �j SARATOGA 0.462 AC. e ' 4.+ .1 20. 5E W z-r. sc i. MARY PARKER HOMESTEAD ( ROAD — s • �h'ni 4 ORDINANCE NO. NS- 3 -ZC -83 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP RE: APN 397 -27 -15 FROM R -1- 12,500 TO R -M -4000 The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Sectional District Map No. C -197 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted, and the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga adopted by Section 1.8 of Ordinance NS -3'of said City, together with any amendments thereto, is hereby changed and amended by substituting the crosshatched area on the foregoing sectional district map for that portion of the Zoning Map delineated in and by the within - adopted crosshatched portion of the sectional district map. So much of the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga, together with any amendments thereto, as in conflict with the within - adopted sectional district map is hereby superseded and repealed. SECTION 2: This ordinance reclassifies certain property shown on the attached sectional map from R -1- 12,500 to R -M -4000. It shall become operative and take effect on and after thirty (30) days from its date of passage. This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this day of by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK m-WOR CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. %OJ DATE: August 21, 1981 DEPAIZIMaIr: Code Enforcement SUBJECT: Handicapped Parking Stalls at Private Parking Facilities Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue Summary The City has been contacted by City residents regarding the problem of non - handicapped people parking in marked "handicapped only" parking stalls. However, the County Sheriff cannot cite unless the following requirements are met. The California Vehicle Code (C.V.C.) 22511 gives local authorities power by ordinance or resolution to designate parking stalls for the exclusive use of vehicles belonging/ being driven by handicapped persons. The C.V.C. 21107.8 sets guidelines for setting up enforceable handicapped parking stalls on private property that is generally held open for use by the public for the purpose of vehicular parking. A public hearing must be held and a resolution passed, by the City Council, declaring that handicapped parking stalls do exist at private parking facilities that are open for use by the general public. The private parking facility must be posted by a sign measuring not less than 17" x 22" with lettering not less than one inch in height at,-.each entrance stating the off - street facility is subject to public traffic regulations and control. The C.V.C. 21107.8 (b) states the parking facility is to be posted by the owner or operator. Enforcement of this resolution will be by the County Sheriff Department and the City Code Enforcement Officer. Recommendation I recommend that a City Council resolution be adopted declaring that handicapped parking stalls be designated in such centers as: Azule, Argonaut, Neales Hollow, Big Tree, Saratoga Village, Family Shopping Center, Quito Center, 0ak Creek, and Park Saratoga. The C.V.C. requires a public hearing thereon and a ten day prior written notice to the .owner of the private parking facility. Fiscal Impacts None. As mentioned the owner of the Center is responsible for posting the signs. However, to help expedite this resolution the City might consider paying for and installing the signs. Exhibits /Attaches nts Proposed resolution Council Action 9/16: , Jensen /Clevenger moved to adopt resolution with the exception of the fiscal impacts, including addition of phrade "which provide handicapped parking 'stalls to Section 4. Failed 2 -3. RESOLUTION NO. Resolution Establishing Handicapped Parking Areas in Private Parking Facilities Open to the General Public The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: This resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Vehicle Code Section 22511.7 of the State of California, relating to the regulation of off - street handicapped parking locations on private parking facilities generally open to the general public. Section 2: Full -time prohibition is hereby established for the parking of motor vehicles by non - handicapped persons in parking stalls specially designated for the parking of motor vehicles belonging to handicapped persons. Section 3: Handicapped person parking stalls shall be designated by blue paint on the curb or edge of the paved.portion of the street adjacent to the space. In addition to blue paint, the space may also be indicated by signs or other suitable means. The designated handicapped parking stalls shall be for the exclusive use of vehicles which display a distinguishing license plate or a placard issued pursuant to C.V.C. 22511.5 or to disabled veterans as specified by C.V.C. 9105. Section 4: This resolution applies to all private off - street parking facilities genera y open for use, by the q.eneral public,which provide handicapped parking stalls. Section 5: The owners of private off - street parking facilities within the City of Saratoga, shall cause appropriate signs to be posted giving notice that the parking facility is controlled by the regulations of the California Vehicle Code. Such signs shall be posted at each entrance to the private off - street parking facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Saratoga does hereby require private off - street parking facilities open to the general public to provide special designated handicapped parking spaces. Such spaces shall be designated as required above. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1981, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR Vv J �i ✓ I t 1 r 4�1 r ts- ALFRED MABEY Executive Director EASTER SEAL SOCIETY for Crip led Children and Adults of Santa :Clara & San Benito Counties 1245 S. Winchester Boulevard, Suite 116 San Jose, California 95128 (408) 241 -3331 September 28, 1981 Honorable Linda Callon, Mayor Members of the City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Linda and Members of the Council, In response to your comments at the public hearing Wednesday, Septem- ber 16, regarding the proposed resolution establishing handicapped parking areas in private parking facilities open to the general public, I would like to address some basic points regarding designated parking spaces for persons with handicaps. Mrs. Clevenger commented that she was surprised at the number of handicapped persons she sees using the various facilities that those of us who are able - bodied take for granted. This is basically due to the fact that more and more facilities have been constructed, or modi- fied, to allow usage by the handicapped. However, no matter how physically accessible a building is, if there is no accessible parking for a handicapped person either because no spaces have been designated or because there is abuse of designated spaces by non - handicapped persons, then that building is still not accessible. If, by posting the necessary signs regarding enforcement of the Califor- nia Vehicle Code provisions for the legal use of handicapped parking (which the proposed resolution addressed), you can ensure the availabi- lity of Saratoga firms and businesses to all members of our community, then you will have acted in the spirit of what both President Reagan and Governor Brown addressed in designating 1981 as the International Year of Disabled Persons. I have enclosed, for your information, a copy of President Regan's proc- lamation as well as a copy of the Easter Seal publication, "How to Avoid a $25 Ticket." Al Mabey, Executive Director of Easter Seals, and I would be happy to attend a Committee of the Whole meeting sometime soon, and answer any questions you may have regarding designated parking spaces for persons with disabilities. We would be happy to bring with us our slide show on "Handicapped Parking" if you would like. The pre- sentation takes about 15 minutes. Affiliated with the California and National Easter Seal .Society I have also included resolutions and ordinances regarding designation and enforcement of handicapped parking areas from the neighboring com- munities of Los Gatos, Cupertino and Morgan Hill. Perhaps they will be of some assistance to you in this matter. We look forward to hearing from you soon, so that we may work together to assure access to our city by all of its citizens. Sincerel , Sally Ca son, Community Education Coordinator Brookglen Drive, Saratoga cc:V-9a'yne Dernetz, City Manager Marjorie Didinger, Saratoga Access Committee Dolores Costanza Wally Skeels encls. ORDINANCE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS PROVIDING FOR DESIGNATION OF PARKING SPACES FOR VEHICLES-* OF HANDICAPPED PERSONS. THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: read: SECTION 1. Section 16-.60 is added to the Los Gatos Town Code to Section 16-60 Parking Spaces for Handicapped Persons The Town council may designate.parking spaces or stalls on streets or in publicly owned offs treet parking lots or structures for the exclusive use of vehicles which bear distinguishing license plates or in which are properly displayed placards issued to handicapped persons Vehicle Code section 22511.5) or disabled veterans (Vehicle Code section 9105). When a stall or space is so designated, and is either marked with --a blue curb or_ __ poste . d with a sign or both, in the manner specified,in Vehicle.Cbde-sections 22,5.07.8 and 2251-1.7,.the..provisions of Vehicle Code section 22507.8 apply, and it is unlawful for any person to park or leave standing in such a space or stall a vehicle without the distinguishing license plate or placard. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days,after the date it is adopted. Within 15 days after this ordinance is adopted the Town Clerk shall cause it to be published once in a newspaper of general- circulation published and circulated in the Town. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on 19 and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a regular meeting of the Town Council on , 19 ` AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS SIGNED• • Mayor of th.e' Town - of Los Gatos ATTEST: Clerk of the Town of Los Gatos a, ' V f Nsrgm Rift ��id�.':�iY 1��'S ���•.• 11 �:tS•:.Yj'�i. C. Memorandum JUN 01 !9-179 To: Members of the City Council Date: 5/29/79 From: City Manager Subject. RESOLUTION TO ALLOW ENFORCEMENT OF HANDICAPPED PARKING VIOLATIONS OF CERTAIN PRIVATE LOTS. There are provisions of the Vehicle Code to allow the Police Dapartment to enforce violations of handicapped parking spaces in private parking lots. We are proposing to enforce the pro- visions in those lots which are most used by the public and in- clude: Alpha Beta parking lot Nob Hill parking lot Candy Lane parking lot Post Office parking lot Downtown Mall parking lot The owners of each of these facilities have been properly notified of this public hearing. Their only requirement will be to post a sign or notice, of certain minimum size, to the effect that their off - street parking facility is subject to traffic regu- lations and control by the Police Department. We will work with each of the owners on a proper sign.. IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that after hearing anyone who wishes to speak at the public hearing, that the Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Police Department to enforce certain traffic violations and violations of handicapped parking spaces in the subject private parking lots. CHARLES R. CATE CRC:bb Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 1469 A RESOLUTION FINDING AND DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF PRIVATELY OPINED AND IK'AINTAINED OFF- STREET PARKING FACILITIES GENERALLY HELD OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR PURPOSES OF ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE. WHEREAS, Section I1107.8 of the California Vehilce Code states that upon enactment of certain resolutions it is possible for the City Police Department to enforce certain provisions of a California Vehicle Code on certain private parking lots; and WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable that the City have authority to control vehicle activity in private parking lots; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held as required by Vehicle Code Section 21107.8, and written notice thereof has been given to the owners and operators of the lots described in Exhibit A attached hereto, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Morgan Hill resolves as follows: Section 1. The Council finds and declares that the lots described in Exhibit A are privately owned and maintained off - street parking facilities in the City of Morgan Hill which are generally held open for use of the public for purposes of vehicular parking. Section 2. The Police Department is hereby authorized to enforce all provisions under the care of California Vehicle Code referred to in Section 21107.8 (.a) including Division 16.5 of the California Vehicle Code. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill at their regular meeting of June 6, 1979 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: CC-456 Page 4 Presentation of illustra- tions MINUTES OF THE APRIL 16, 1979, CITY COUNCIL MEETING ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 23. Presentation by "Ideas for Tomorrow" Jr. Achievement Company. Mr. Paul Beirne (Presider -t7-,",q_r_ Alex.- and -.Mr_, Scot ebster of "Ideas n'ted for Tomorrow" prese-the City with original colored-II e- picting scenes -of Cupertino. 24. Jo-A-Ann Gholson regarding handicap parking ordinance. / \ Handicapped ! It was moved by Counc. Jackson, seconded by Counc. Rogers and passed parking Ord.; unanimously that City staff prepare a handicapped parking ordinance to �. signs'for be enforced and to report back to Council on this matter. Council also parking lots . directed staff to look into the possibility of having the Vehicle Code 7 revised regarding the necessity of posting signs at all entrances to privately owned parking lots. 25. Jo -Ann Gholson regarding traffic.light at Rainbow Drive and Stelling Traffic light i i i Negative Dec granted 2 -TM -79 approved Council took the request for installation of a traffic light at Rainbow Drive and Stelling Road under advisement. PUBLIC HEARINGS 26. None PLANNING APPLICATIONS 27. Application 2 -TM -79 of J. Cyril & Laprele Johnson: Tentative Map to resubdivide eight existing parcels consisting of approximately 9.8 acres into three parcels. Parcels 1 and 2 which equal a total of approximately 3 acres are located within the City of Cupertino, Parcel 3 equaling approximately 6 acres is located within the City of Los Altos, and Environmental Review: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the south side of Homestead Road approximately 300 ft. easterly of the intersection of Foothill Expressway. Recom- mended for approval. Duncan Madison, co- developer of the property, answered Council's questions regarding condition 16 of Planning Commission Resolution 1926. It was moved by Counc: Sparks, seconded by Counc. Jackson and passed unanimously to grant a Negative Declaration to the project. It was moved by Counc. Sparks, seconded by Counc. Jackson and passed unanimously to approve Application 2 -TM -79 with the conditions of-Planning Commission Resolution 1926. r MIWTES OF T 7 � L 1 HE MAY 1979 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CC -459 Page 5 Mr. St. Claire, 20100 Rodrigues Ave., No. G, addressed Council regarding Rent stabili- intent to pass a petition - €or -- rent -- stabilization. He submitted a copy of zation a proposed ordinance to the Council. , 34: " Ronald Moffett regarding parking for the handicapped and disabled. Mr. Ron Moffett, 331 Curtner, No. C., Palo Alto, addressed Council regarding Handicapped a parking ordinance, stickers for the disabled, identifiable markings and parking enforcement of a handicapped parking ordinance. Mayor Meyers informed those present that there is presently pending in the Legislature a bill re -' i garding handicapped parking. At the May 24, 1979 Council meeting, staff S j will present either an ordinance or a staff report on handicapped parking. l Staff was directed to contact Assemblyman Hayden or the League of Calif. Cities regarding the status of the pending bill. Staff will work with,the Easter Seal Society and Mr. Moffett in determining.-priorities for curb cuts PUBLIC - _.HEARINGS 35. Application 3 -Z -79 of State Mutual Savings & Loan Association: Re- zoning approximately two acres from CG (General Commercial) to P (Planned Development with residential and commercial intent) zone and ! Environmental Review: The Planning Commission recommends the granting; of a Negative Declaration. Said property is, located on the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue. Recommended for approval. i (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 925: "An Ordinance of the City of Cupertino Amending Section 1 of Ordinance No. 2 by Rezoning ' Approximately Two Acres from CG to P; Located on the Southwest Corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue." It was moved by Counc. Jackson, seconded by Counc. Rogers and passed unan- imously to hear No. 35 and 38 together. PLANNING APPLICATIONS 38. Application 4 -U -79 of State Mutual Savings & Loan Association: Use Permit to allow construction of a 10,000 sq. ft. commercial /office building and 19 residential townhouse units and Environmental Review: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a Negative Declara- tion. Said property is located on the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue. Recommended for approval. Ms. Vickie Simpson of State Mutual Savings & Loan Association addressed Council regarding the applications. Mr. Mariani expressed concern regarding overflow and flooding of Calabazas Creek. Mr. Bill Lauderdale, Craft Drive, questioned where garbage pickup in the development would be. The Director of Planning and Development mentioned that this would be discussed in detail at the Architectural and Site Approval Committee meeting Thursday, May 10, 1979. It was moved by Counc. Rogers, seconded by Counc. Jackson and passed unan- Close public imously to close the public hearing. hearing PLANNED GIVING MEMORIALS /COMMEMORATIVES / BEQUESTS Memorials and commemoratives are a way of honoring loved onesthrough agift to the Easter Seal Society, and are tax deductible. The families of those you have remembered are notified of the contribution by an appropriate card. A direct cash gift is the usual type of contribution made. Checking the tax table can give you an idea of your tax deduction. For example, if you are in the 40% bracket, tax can be reduced by 40 %. If your taxable income is $32,000, a $1,000 gift would cost you $610, while allowing you full credit for the $1,000 donation. A bequest is an effective way to make a lasting gift to those disabled children and adults served by Easter Seals. A bequest can be stated as a specific dollaramount, a specified percentage of an estate, or a residuary interest in an estate. Howeverit is expressed, the bequest is a charitable contribution by means of a will, deduct- ible from the estate in full before the estate tax rates are applied, which con- tinues to give to those in need in theyears to come. If an individual dies without a will, the state steps in and the property is distribu- ted according to state laws of descent and distribution. The heirs will go through a maze of legalities that a simple will could have prevented. How much better to plan ahead. Including the Easter Seal Society in a will or bequest is a way in which persons can help insure the continuation of direct services to disabled children and adults of Santa Clara and San Benito counties. Whatever plan of giving you choose, take time now to consult "-with your attorney for assistance in planning your Will and charitable contributions. DONATION OF A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY The donation of a life insurance policy to Easter Seals allows one to make a substantial gift to charity at death by making small deductible contributions during one's lifetime. It is a gift designati- ing Easter Seals as the irrevocable beneficiary of the policy. The donor pays the small annual premiums which are deductible on her income tax, a way of "helping Easter Seals on an installment plan basis." SECURITIES AND TRUSTS A person can give a gift of stocks, bonds or other securities to the Easter Seal Society. Tax deductions for the contributor depend on the length of time held. Charitable Trusts can be created to assist Easter Seals. There are substantial tax advantages to the contributor, with avoidance of capital gains tax as well as reduction of estate taxes. If you are interested in establishing such a trust for Easter Seals, a member of our Board of Directors would be happy to meet with you. Easter Seal Society ` MEMORIAL OR GIFT ` U (PLEASE PRINT) U /1C FROM (DONOR) ADDRESS CITY IN ❑ MEMORY OF IN ❑ HONOR OF SEND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO ADDRESS STA (Indicate birthday, anniversary, graduation, etc.) MIN STATE ZIP. All donations to the Easter Seal Society are tax deductible. BOARD OF DIRECTORS President .. ... . Edward Huff I st Vice President .. Dave Heagerty 2nd Vice President Ray Hollingsworth' Treasurer ... ........Mike Craig' Secretary ........... Wilma Tognazzini Edward' Buttyan Grover Christensen Anita Craighead Dennis M. Fitzpatrick Lei Huff Kevin McKay Gail Stigen John David Webster Darwin Williams ADVISORY BOARD Delores Costanza Roy'Litherland Robert Metcalf, LLD Minnie Perlstein, M.D. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR `Alfred Mabey STAFF Client Services .... Stephanie McMillan Community Education Sally Carlson Special Events .............. Julie Grim Receptionist........... Lucille Fimbrez EDITOR Sally Carlson 1980 TELETHON EXCEEDS GOAL This year's telethon, March 28th and 29th, with national host Pat Boone, was the most successful yet, exceeding the expected goal with a total of over $17 million raised in individual pledges and corporate support. The telethon was carried on 131 sta- tions across the country, and was seen locally on channels 3 and 4. 95% of all monies raised from the telethon are returned to local communi- ties. Nationally, the Easter Seal Society spends 79% of its income for program services and research, with over 73% going to direct services to handicapped people and their families. Local businesses included among the corporate sponsors for the 1989 telethon were: Ramada Inns, Fantastic Sams, Calvert Distillers, Century 21, Gloria Marshall Figure Salons, Teamsters Local 287 and Toys R Us. Pat Boone has agreed to serve as national host for Telethon again in 1982. We welcome the dedication and partici- pation of this talented and generous individual on behalf of the Easter Seal Society. NATIONAL SOCIETY PROVIDES BROAD SPECTRUM OF SERVICES The purpose of the National Easter Seal Society is to strengthen and aid its nation- wide network of affiliates. With offices in Chicago and Washington, D.C., it provides advice and assistance to affiliated socie- ties in five major ways: fundraising, pro- gram development, advocacy on behalf of disabled persons, management and pro- fessional education and training. The National Society conducts board and volunteer development programs, stresses public health education and, through the Easter Seal Research Foun- dation, allocates grants for research relat- ing to the needs of the handicapped. The office of Governmental Affairs in Washington, D.C., within the limits requir- ed for tax - exempt organizations, heads lobbying efforts on behalf of disabled people nationwide. The staff also main- tains ties with consumer groups and other rehabilitation organizations, whether gov- ernmental or private, with the goal of better serving handicapped people and maintaining a leadership role in the rehabilitation movement as they work toward their common goal. Other advocacy efforts of the National Society are aimed at informing the public about disabling conditions and the rights of disabled people, providing a solid foundation for Easter Seal fund - raising efforts. By working together nationally, costs for fundraising for individual socie- ties can be substantially reduced, provid- ing more dollars for direct program services. The Easter Seal Research Foundation awards funds or grants -in -aid for research aimed at enhancing the physical, psycho- logical and social well -being of people with physical disabilities and /or reducing physically disabling conditions. The Foun- dation also disseminates the results of research and assists Easter Seal affiliates in utilizing the results in their service programs. Helpful, low -cost books and pamphlets dealing with various disabilities are pro- duced and distributed each year by the National Society. All of these programs combine, in the Easter Seal effort, to serve handicapped children and adults so that they, too, may be part of the mainstream of American life. EQUIPMENT LOAN PROGRAM GROWING The current inflationary spiral which is affecting the nation has had particular impact on the physically disabled. Senior citizens and others on social securityora fixed income suffer the most. Wheel- chairs and other types of orthopedic equipment are expensive, restricting their availability to disabled persons. The Easter Seal Society loans, on either a short-term or long -term basis, necessary items free to disabled persons who can't afford to purchase them direct- ly. Currently available for loan are wheel- chairs and wheelchair trays, walkers, canes, crutches, bedside commodes, elevated toilet seats, bath rails, a hydraulic bath lift and adjustable bath and shower seats, as well as other small equipment needs. Anyone in need of such equipment can contact our office Monday through Friday, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at 241- 3331. Or, if you have equipment in good condition which you no longer need, call us to make a tax deductible donation. WHAT WERE YOUR EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES? Do you or your child have a disability? Do you know someone who has a physical disablity, visual handicap, de- velopmental disability, hearing difficulty, learning problem, emotional handicap or even a hidden disability? The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc. wants to hear from you. The Fund is a non - profit public interest law corporation, composed of disabled persons, who have received a grant from the Women's Educational Equity Act Program in Washington, D.C. to conduct a national survey of handi- capped persons to identify their educa- tional experiences and needs. The pur- pose of the Fund is to foster the growth of the disability civil rights movement on a regional and national level. To participate, or for further informa- tion, call: (415) 644 -2555, collect or write to: Ann Cupolo Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc. 2032 San Pablo Avenue Berkeley, CA 94702 All responses will be kept strictly confidential. my 20N z LLI �_� v a y O Q !! Fq R OF i i REAGAN PROCLAIMS 1981!1 INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF% DISABLED PERSONS ll We seek, in the 1980s, an era of 1 national renewal, an era that will set loose again the energy and ingenuity of the American people. Today there are 35 million disabled Americans who represent one of our most underutilized national resources. Their will, their spirit, and their hearts are not impaired, despite their limita- tions. All of us stand to gain when those who are disabled share in America's I; opportunities. To increase the participation of f' disabled persons in our national life i' and in the lives of other nations, the i United Nations has designated 1981 the I International Year of Disabled Persons. ; America has long been a world leader in this area, and the United States Council for the International Year of Disabled Persons and our Federal government have already responded to the United Nations challenge. Programs are under - way throughout the Nation. Through partnerships of disabled and nondisabled persons; of our private ; fsector and our government; and of our national, state, and community organi- zations, we can expand the oppor- tunities for disabled Americans to make a fuller contribution to our national life. I am proud to pledge the coopera- tion of my Administration and the Federal agencies under my jurisdiction, including the Federal Interagency Committee for the International Year of Disabled Persons. NOW, THEREFORE, in keeping with the goals of the International Year, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim 1981 the International Year of Disabled Persons in the United States." EASTER SEAL SOCIETY LIFE IN "Serving the disabled community since 1946" 1245 S. WINCHESTER BLVD. SAN JOSE, CA 95070 FALL, 1981 BE A `MIRACLE WORKER': EASTER SF-A - DOLLARS AT WORK The theme, "Be a Miracle Worker" often appears in Easter Seal appeals. Have you ever wondered just what that means? By means of explanation, we would like to tell you the story of one young man. Juan is a 17- year -old non- resident male bilateral amputee. Juan was involv- ed in a train accident in April, 1978 which resulted in the loss of both legs below the knees. After the accident, Juan had his first set of new limbs donated to him by an orthopedic company in Sac- ramento, who heard about this young boy's courageous struggle through TV news coverage. However, three years later Juan had outgrown his old "legs" and was in need of a new pair. Where does one turn? In this case, it was to Easter Seals. Attorneys for Juan contacted the Easter Seal Society office the first week of July, 1980, inquiring whether we might be able to help. The case was reviewed and accepted. Due to the expense of the devices, which amounted to $2,700, The Easter Seal Society decided to contact com- munity services and representative groups to work for a coordinated com- munity effort to help Juan. After several months of following through on lead after lead of possible resources, things began to take shape around the first of November. Alexian Brothers Hospital president Edmond T. Doyle offered financial support and the names of several resource persons; the Mexican - American Community Services Agency donated both time and financial support on Juan's behalf; and the Community Services Organization also offered its help in the way of names of community groups and resource persons, as well as financial contributions. A great big smile expresses Juan's pleasure with his "new legs," and his gratitude to all those who helped make them possible. By Christmas week, 1980 the Easter Seal Society was able to pull together a substantial portion of the necessary funds from community resources, and the appliances were ordered. A "mir- acle" did happen. On February 3, 1981, Juan received his new legs. He can once again lead the active life of a teenager without much restrictive limitation in his gait, which most of us take for granted. STATE HOLDS ANNUAL MEETING IN SAN JOSE Executive Directors, staff and mem- bers of the Boards of Directors of the 36 local Easter Seal Societies throughout the state will gather October 29 -31 at the Hyatt House in San Jose for the 55th Annual Meeting of the Easter Seal Society of California. The meeting will feature the Directorof the National Easter Seal office in Wash- ington, D.C., Joe Romer, who will review the federal legislative process and how the system impacts on Easter Seals. Other plans include professional work- shop sessions and the traditional awards banquet, scheduled for Friday evening. All of us, working together to provide funds and resources, can make a differ- ence in the lives of those persons in our community with special needs. Won't you please help! Another example of your contributed dollars at work can be seen i n the case of a delightful little seven year old girl who is paralyzed from the chest down as the result of an automobile accident when she was three and one half years old. Lesley shares most of the same inter- ests and activities of little girls her age: Brownies, a love of animals and horse- back riding, and has attended Easter Seal's Camp Harmon for the past two summers. Recently, Lesley's mother contacted Easter Seals to seek assistance in the purchase of a special bike for Lesley. Called the "Starrider," the bike is hand - operated and has 3 speeds, and was developed for children with physical handicaps, ages 4 -12. With this para tricycle, Lesley will have much more freedom in her play activities in the neighborhood. Lesley practices riding her special tricycle on the patio of Stanford Children's Hospital Rehabilita- tion Center. Whether orthopedic devices, such as Juan's legs, or assistive devices like Lesley's tricycle, the Easter Seal Society is there to help, putting your dollars to work by enabling those who have a disability to lead fuller, more active lives. HORSE SHOW, GOLF TOURNAMENT, SOFTBALL HIGHLIGHT 1980 281 YEAR This past year has seen a substantial increase in special events for the Easter Seal Society. September 20,1980 was the date of the Saratoga Benefit Horse Show, sponsored by the Saratoga Kiwanis Club and benefitting Easter Seals. 136 riders participated in the day -long event which was held a t Garrod Farms in Saratoga, in conjunction with the 1980 Saratoga Festival. The event raised over $9,500 through ads in the program book, class sponsorships, and entry fees and dues. All proceeds from the show went to support direct services to Easter Seal clients. Easter Seal Executiue Director, Al Mabey, and Stephanie Kelso, a former Easter Seal child, check over the program book prior to the start of the 1980 Saratoga Benefit Horse Show. The month of January was designated as "Fitness Month" in honor of 1981, the International Year of Disabled Persons, by Wallbangers Family Fitness Centers. For each new member joining their club, over $5,000 from Wallbanger's facilities in Santa Clara county was raised to benefit the disabled members of our community. Over 50 bars in our county joined together to determine the "Favorite Bar- tender" in the area. This program, co- sponsored by Easter Seals and Calvert Distillers, asked bar patrons to pay $1 a vote for their favorite, with all proceeds going to Easter Seals. Carolyn Bell of the Biju Lounge was Santa Clara county's favorite, single - handedly raising over $500. Five fields in western San J ose werethe sites for the Slo -Pitch Softball Marathon, a first -year event. Teams from all over Santa Clara County turned out to raise funds for Easter Seal programs. Special features included a throwing, running and hitting contest for participants, as well as appearances by sports and media celebrities from our area. The Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company and Santa Clara Valley Distributors acted as major .contributors for this event. Schlitz beer was a great incentive for players after a long game of softball! The Union Square Holiday Inn of San Francisco was the site for the 'Just Showing Off' 8 Ball Pool Tournament, held in early August. Contestants from a 13- county area participated in this pro- gram, co- sponsored by Easter Seals and the Miller Brewing Company. LOOKING AHEAD The Annual Golf Classic for Easter Seals, sponsored for the 4th year by Pacific Valley Bank and KEEN -KBAY Radio, has always been an enjoyable afternoon on the green for all. The tournament will again be held at San Jose Country Club on September 18th, with an awards banquet directly following the afternoon of golf. If you would liketo play in this event, or enter a foursome, call the Society offices at 241 -3331 for inform - tion. Check -in time at San Jose Country Club for last year's Easter Seal Golf Classic, sponsored by KBAY -KEEN and Pacific Valley Bank. OUTDOOR GUIDE AVAILABLE The Easter Seal Society has recently published' an Outdoor Access Guide to the many regional parks, nature areas and outdoor, programs available in Santa Clara County. The guide is designed to indicate the extent of accessibility of these areas to physically limited visitors. Included in the guide are parking, road and trail surfaces, buildings (including restrooms, telephones and water foun- tains) and picnic areas (tablesand'barbe- cues), as well as any programs offered. In many instances, terrain significantly limits accessibility, but with some ad- vanced planning (and, in some cases, the aid of an ablebodied friend) any number of the parks can be enjoyed by those who are physically limited. COMMUNITY EDUCATION The Easter Seal Society has a slide show presentation on "How To Avoid a $25 Ticket" which covers the California Vehicle Code sections pertaining to handicapped parking. The show chronicles the need for special parking areas for handicapped persons, how such spaces are indentifled and the penalties for use of the desig- nated spaces by non - handicapped per- sons. While the slide show is geared toward high school drivers education classes, it would be suitable for pre- sentation to community groups. If you would be interested in arranging for a presentation to your organization, call us at 241 -3331. The entire pre- sentation takes about 30 minutes. LEGISLATIVE NEWS At this writing, it seems that financial support for social service, mental health and programs for handicapped persons will most likely be reduced in fiscal year 1982. The Regan administration, as part of its budget reform plan, has proposed a 25% reduction in the funding levels fof these programs. Whether the programs will be funded categorically as they currently are or in a block grant form to the states, the result will be fewer federal and state dollars available to meet the needs of those served by agencies such as Easter Seals. So far, House and Senate committees have authorized essentially the same level of funding (1981 level) for state grants for vocational rehabilitation, ed- ucation of the handicapped, and devel- opmental disabilities and independent living programs, but the final decision rests with the full Congress, which is expected to basically accept the admini- stration's recommendations. The Title XX Social Services and the Maternal and Child Health and Crippled Children Services programs have not fared as well during committee deliber- ations, with approval given for reducing funding by 25% for both of these pro- grams for fiscal year 1982. The anticipated substantial increase of postal rates for third class non - profit mailers will put a financial burden on non - profit agencies. As the cost of pro- viding services continues to increase, the Easter Seal Society must depend more heavily than ever before on indivi- dual donations. Please consider how you can respond to this very real need, and return the enclosed envelope with YOUR donation TODAY. Like all youngsters, children with disa- bilities enjoy making new friends, learn- ing new skills, developing independence. But many have special needs that ordi- nary camps can't meet. That's why Easter Seals' Camp Harmon means happiness to hundreds of disabled children and adults each year. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE Why Multiple Mailings? In order to assure a continuity of services to our clients, the Easter Seal Society has found it necessary to con- duct several direct mail drives through- out the year. These campaigns assure our supporters of an opportunity to give when it is most convenient, and to make more than one donation should they wish to do so. The regular Easter Seal solicitation takes place in the spring to coincide with the Easter Seal Telethon, while the Membership Drive, Sweepstakes Mail- ings and the Christmas Appeal are de- signed to be timely reminders to contrib- utors with special interests or needs. As an example, many people like to give during the holidays, just prior to closing out their income tax statements for the past year. As an Easter Seal contributor, you will be pleased to know that our multiple mailings are less expensive than one local campaign, thanks to the combined purchasing power of the State and National offices. So, whatever your personal prefer - ance as to the time of year you give to the Easter Seal Society, be assured that we are using the least costly system available to us. Along with you, we much prefer to spend the funds raised on direct service to handicapped children and adults, while at the same time re- minding our many supporters that we're here to help and care. The camp, located in the Santa Cruz mountains, in beautiful redwood groves on the San Lorenzo river, was construct- ed with campers' health, accessibility, safety and comfort in mind. The empha- sis is on what individuals can do rather than what they are unable to do. Ten weeks of residential camping were offered this past summer, with the Easter Seal Society of Santa Clara and San Benito Counties sending 36 children and adults with special needs on full or partial camperships. The camp program includes horse- back riding, crafts, boating and fishing, nature hikes, campfires, swimming, dra- ma, dances, and sports activities. In the words of one camper, "Camp Harmon is the most important and the happiesttime of my life, because it's the only place I go where I'm not crippled." Camp is expensive... thefee is $390for one ten -day session. But each child's dream of camp is a dream you help bring to life with your contribution to Easter Seals, because YOU CARE. PREVENTION KEY THEME OF EASTER SEAL PUBLICATIONS EARLY WARNING SIGNS Many children are born with physical or mental problems, or they may acquire disorders which handicap normal devel- opment. Fortunately, many handicap- ping conditions can be helped or completely corrected if parents recog- nize the problem in time, but many parents of young children are unaware that their child needs special help. There are also parents who suspect or know that their child has special needs but do not understand the often crucial impor- tance of early diagnosis and treatment. As part of an on -going prevention and awareness program, the Easter Seal Society is stressing the importance of early detection. A free booklet is available to assist parents in recognizing early signs of handicapping conditions and what to do about them. The booklet "Early Warning Signs" contains a series of significant and easily recognizable behavior clues that a problem may exist in vision, speech, hearing, thinking, play activities or general physical develop- ment. CONDUCTIVE HEARING LOSS Much of a child's world is built upon what he or she hears. Children who can't hear well may not learn to speak correctly and may have learning prob- lems. But hearing loss in children can be prevented if it's detected early. The most common hearing disability among infants and young children is conductive hearing loss. More than half of all children experience such a loss at least once by the age of 3. Conductive hearing loss occurs when sounds aren't conducted efficiently to the brain, usually because there's fluid in the middle ear. Sounds are muffled, and the child hears as if he or she is under water. This type of hearing loss is difficult to diagnose because it is frequently intermittent; it comes and goes. It may folow a cold, for example, and clear up as the cold goes away. An Easter Seal publication, "Con- ductive Hearing Loss in Children," contains the warning signals that might indicate that your child has conductive hearing loss, and is available at no charge from the local Easter Seal office. Conductive hearing loss can be treated, but the longer it goes unde- tected, the harder it will be to deal with the language and learning problems which result. SCOLIOSIS Another disorder which can be con- trolled if detected early is Scoliosis, a sideways curvature of the spine. Scolio- sis is one of the most common spine disorders affecting adolescents. It afflicts girls five times more often than boys, and is most apparent in children between the ages of 10 and 13, when rapid growth takes place. When scoliosis is detected early, there are excellent therapies to halt pro- gressive curvature, and even correct an existing curve. If scoliosis continues unchecked, it can lead to a permanent deformity which threatens the indivi- dual's psychological well- being, and may also cause serious adult health problems. A free brochure from the Easter Seal Society, a part of Easter Seals' year - round campaign to prevent physical disabilities, contains a quick and easy home test for spinal curvature, and is available by contacting the Society's office. THE CHOSEN FEW: SPECIAL MOTHERS (This Article by nationaly syndicated colum- nist Erma Bombeck was written for Mother's Day 1980 and reprinted by permission of the author and Field Newspaper Syndicate.) Most women become mothers by ac- cident, some by choice, a few by social pressures and a couple by habit. This year, nearly 100,000 women will become mothers of handicapped chil- dren. Did you ever wonder how mothers of handicapped children are chosen? Somehow I visualize God hovering over earth selecting His instruments for propagation with great care and deli- beration. As He observes, He instructs His angels to make notes in a giant ledger. "Armstrong, Beth, son, Patron saint, Matthew. "Forrest, Marjorie, daughter, patron saint, Cecelia. "Rudledge, Carrie, twins, patron saint . give her Gerard. He's used to pro- fanity." Finally, He passes a name to an angel and smiles, "give her a handicapped child." The angel is curious. "Why this one, God? She's so happy." "Exactly," smiles God. "Could I give a handicapped child a mother who does not know laughter? That would becruel." "But has she patience?" asks the angel. "I don't want her to have too much patience or she will drown in aseaofself- pity and despair. Once the shock and resentment wears off, she'll handle it. "I watched her today. She has that feeling of self and independence that is so rare and so necessary in a mother. You see, the child I'm going to give her has his own world. She has to make it live in her world and that's not going to be easy." But, Lord, I don't think she even believes in you." God smiles. "No matter. I can fix that. This one is perfect. She has just enough selfishness." The angel gasps, "Selfishness? Is that a virtue ?" God nods. "If she can't separate herself from the child occasionally, she'll never survive. Yes, here is a woman whom I will bless with a child less than perfect. She doesn't realize it yet, but she is to be envied. She will never take for granted a 'spoken word.' She will never consider a 'step' ordinary. When her child says 'Momma' for the first time she will be present at a miracle and know it! When she describes a tree or a sunset to her blind child, she will see it as few people ever see my creations. "I will permit her to see clearly the things I see . . . ignorance, cruelty, prejudice ... and allow her to rise above them. She will never be alone. I will be at her side every minute of every day of her life because she is doing my work as surely as she is here by my side." "And what about her patron saint ?" asks the angel, his pen poised in mid -air. God smiles. "A mirror will suffice." An Exceptional View of Life A very special book, "An Exceptional View of Life," written and illustrated entirely by children with disabilities,is available from the Easter Seal Society for a donation of $10 or more. The book's cover is deceiving; although the artwork and stories were created by children, the mature philosophy expressed belies their youth. It is a book for adults, allowing a glimpse into the special and perceptive views of life of handicapped children. As we read in the foreword, a child who responds to handicaps, who strives to overcome disabilities, becomes truly exceptional. I he Children w o contributed to this book each has his or her own measure of exceptional talent, and that talent shines through the handicaps to reveal a unique perspective of the world. To read this book is to better understand handicapped people. . and it is more than that. "To read this book is to enrich your own life with a fresh and enlarged view of human potential. You will find that the children who created this book are not only different from yourself, but very much the same. It is a most rewarding; discovery." To receive a copy of this book, for yourself or as a gift for a friend, send your donation of $10 or more for each book to: The Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults of Santa Clara and San Benito Counties 1245 S. Winchester Blvd., Suite 116, San Jose, CA 95128 The supply of books is limited. Please send copies of "An Exceptional View of Life" to: NAME ADDRESS CITY Enclosed is my donation of $ STATE ZIP THIS IS A WARNING YOU ARE PARKED IN A SPACE RESERVED FOR THE HANDICAPPED YOUR VEHICLE DOES NOT DISPLAY DISTINCTIVE PLATES OR PLACARDS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW Vehicle Code Sections 22511.8 and 21107.8 allow enactment of local ordinances which direct law enforcement agencies to: Tow away unauthorized parked vehicles at owner's expense when a sign specified by law is displayed or Issue citations for unauthorized parked vehicles These reserved spaces are provided for in- dividuals whose physical disabilities make parking here a necessity. Your Cooperation is Appreciated (front) THIS SYMBOL IDENTIFIES FACILITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY DE- SIGNED AND /OR RESERVED FOR USE BY THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED For further information regarding handi- capped parking spaces, contact the Depart- ment of Rehabilitation, Mobility Barriers Section, or the Department of Motor Ve- hicles. Printed By: The California Department of Rehabilitation ( back) The Department of Rehabilitation supplies parking reminders, pictured above, at no cost, to aid in educating the public on parking and the handicapped. For any information regarding this brochure or to obtain parking reminders contact: Mobility Barriers Section Department of Rehabilitation 830 K Street Mall Sacramento, California 95814 REHAB Prepared by Judy MacDonald 4 j u m Q >� 1A PARKING PRIVILEGES FOR HANDICAPPED J. PERSONS ck ARKWd ONLY i.::- -,.i ill � � • �� .....,,,.. WHO QUALIFIES? The California Vehicle Code provides special parking privileges for handicapped persons and persons who provide transportation on a regular basis to a disabled individual. Parking privileges are available to handicapped persons who can be defined by the California Vehicle Code as "DISABLED PER- SONS" or as "DISABLED VETERANS." HOW TO QUALIFY 96 PHARMACY Persons who park in spaces reserved for use / by the handicapped must possess either a / distinguishing license plate or placard issued to disabled persons or disabled veterans with MIKIN6 disabilities defined in the California Vehicle ONLY Code. SPECIAL ORC PLATE PLACARD Any disabled individual who does not possess a special license plate or placard is subject to the penalties set forth for all violators. HOW TO APPLY Persons who believe they qualify as a disabled veteran or disabled person may apply for distinguishing license plates or placards at any local office of the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Disabled persons must pay the usual registration fees, however, there is no extra charge for a distinguishing license plate. There is a $4.00 charge for all placards issued. In some instances, a medical certification may be required before the issuance of special plates or placards. All information collected on applications is kept confidential. USE OF A PLACARD Unlike a license plate, the placard may be used by a disabled person in any car in which he /she is a passenger or driver. Placards must be displayed on the driver's side and must be turned face upon the dashboard of the vehicle. Persons who do not properly display the placard are subject to citation or tow -away. �0 PERK_ Off` -)P`e' 1BAaM SbOP j� 4<00* kZ7_ ****�_ WHAT ABOUT DECALS? Any disabled person who wishes to take advantage of the parking provisions available, MUST possess a special license plate or placard. Displaying a decal of the International Symbol of Access does not give anyone the authority to park in stalls reserved for the handicapped. BLUE CURB PARKING Local jurisdictions throughout the state may establish ordinances (often referred to as "Blue Curb Ordinances ") to penalize violators who park in spaces reserved for disabled persons. If you would like more information regarding the establishment of a local "blue curb" ordinance, write to the Department of Rehabilitation, Mobility Barriers Section, 830 "K" Street Mall, Room 126, Sacramento, CA 95814. A "DISABLED PERSON" is: Any person who has lost, or has lost the use of, one or more lower extremities, or who has a diagnosed disease or disorder which substantially impairs or interferes with mobility, or, who is so severely disabled as to be unable to move without the aid of an assistive device. Any person who is blind to such an extent that the person's central visual acuity does not exceed 20/200 in the better eye, with corrective lenses, as measured by the Snellen test, or visual acuity that is greater than 20/200 but with a limitation in the field of vision such that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle not greater than 20 degrees. Any person who suffers from lung disease to such an extent that his forced (respiratory) expiratory volume one second when measured by spirometry is less than one liter or his arterial oxygen tension (Po2) is less than 60 mm /hg on room air at rest. Any person who is impaired by cardiovascular disease to the extent that his functional limitations are classified in severity as Class III or Class IV according to standards accepted by the American Heart Association (California Vehicle Code Section 22511.5). A "DISABLED VETERAN" is: Any veteran who has lost, or has lost the use of, two or more limbs or one eye and any limb, or, who has suffered permanent blindness (California Vehicle Code Section 9105). WHAT ARE THE PRIVILEGES? DISABLED VETERANS and DISABLED PERSONS who possess special license plates and placards are entitled to: 1) Park for unlimited periods of time in blue zones, green zones, white zones and other zones where time limitations are set. (NOTE that parking in red or yellow zones is absolutely prohibited.) 2) Park for unlimited periods of time at metered spaces without paying parking meter fees. 3) Park in spaces reserved for the handicapped in both public and private parking facilities. DISABLED VETERANS (only) who possess distinguishing plates and placards are exempt from paying all registration and vehicle license fees for one vehicle as long as that vehicle is not used for hire, compensation, or profit. o �Q a P�\4o 'L OQ� DID YOU KNOW? • You can obtain listings of license plate numbers issued to disabled persons from your local DMV Office. • The Department of Rehabilitation provides parking notices for placement on the windshield of a vehicle which is illegally parked in a stall reserved for the handi- capped. • "A person who is temporarily dis- abled for a period of less than one year, may apply for a placard." t How to Avoid., a $25 Ticket... Don't Park in Spaces RESERVED for Disabled People If you notice an empty, handicapped parking place near a building entrance, you may be tempted to park there. Perhaps you're in a hurry and will only use it for a short time. Or maybe the parking area is crowded, and you don't want to search for a place and then walk to your destination. Whatever your reason, keep in mind that it has been reserved for people whose physical disabilities re- quire them to park in wider stalls adjacent to ramps and entrances. Choosing to park in a reserved space anyway may re- sult in seeing a ticket.on your windshield when you return. Even worse, there may be no windshield to see because your car has been towed away. The Vehicle Code provisions for the legal use of handicapped parking are described in this booklet; knowing them may help you avoid a $25 ticket. -1- VETERANS DISTINGUISHING LICENSE PLATES OR PLACARDS Gold on Black Plates Gold on Blue Plates VET 000 - VET 999 VTN 000 - VTN 999 VTR 000 - VTR 999 000 VET - 999 VET 000 VTN - 999 VTN 000 VTR - 999 VTR. The letters R, S, T, U and V may also precede the "DP" Example: RDP 381 NEW 7 -DIGIT PLATES Gold on Blue Plates 1 DPA 000 - 1 DPA 999 Any letter, A -Z, may follow the "DP," e.g., 1 DPH 416 CM DISABLED PERSONS DISTINGUISHING LICENSE PLATES OR PLACARDS Gold on Black Plates. Gold on Blue Plates DPW 000 - DPW 999 000 DPW - 999 DPW DPX 000 - DPX 999 000 DPX - 999 DPX DPY 000 - DPY 999 000 DPY - 999 DPY DPZ 000 - DPZ 999 000 DPZ - 999 DPZ DPR 000 - DPR 999 000 DPR - 999 DPR DPS 000 - DPS 999 000 DPS - 999 DPS DPT 000 - DPT 999 000 DPT - 999 DPT DPU 000 - DPU 999 000 DPU - 999 DPU DPV 000 - DPV 999 000 DPV - 999 DPV The letters R, S, T, U and V may also precede the "DP" Example: RDP 381 NEW 7 -DIGIT PLATES Gold on Blue Plates 1 DPA 000 - 1 DPA 999 Any letter, A -Z, may follow the "DP," e.g., 1 DPH 416 CM 9105 DISABLED AND BLIND VETERANS, PLATES AND PLACARDS Defines a disabled veteran as any person who has lost, or lost the use of, two or more limbs, or suffered permanent blindness while in active service with the armed forces. The section exempts disabled veterans from fees required for plates, certificates or cards. it further states that any disabled veteran who qual- ifies for distinguishing plates may also be issued a distinguishing placard. 22511 VETERANS' EXEMPTIONS This section allows disabled veterans to park, with out paying, at metered spaces. 22511.5 DISABLED PERSONS' EXEMPTIONS, PLATES AND PLACARDS Defines a disabled person as anyone who has lost, or lost the use of, one or more limbs, or both hands, or who is so severely disabled as to be unable to move without the aid of a mechanical device, or who suf- fers from lung disease. Under this section, people who are disabled can park in metered spaces without paying. These people may also be issued distinguish- ing plates or placards. 21458 CURB MARKINGS Blue curb marking means that parking is limited to vehicles of physically handicapped people. -3- .'.2511.7 DESIGNATION OF PARKING FOR DISABLED PERSONS AND VETERANS (on- street) Local authorities can designate parking spaces for the lse of the disabled. These spaces must be marked with ?glue paint on the curb. 22511.8 REMOVAL OF UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLES FROM DISABLED PERSONS' DESIGNATED PARKING AREA (off - street) Any public or privately owned off - street parking facil- ity may designate stalls for the exclusive use of the _lisabled if, at each stall there is posted a sign that has a profile view of a wheelchair with an occupant in white on a blue background. Further, any off - street parking facility may also have violators towed away at the owner's expense if there are signs, either at the spaces or at the entrance to the lot, stating that unauthorized vehicles will be towed. -4- 22517.8 PARKING IN SPACES DESIGNATED FOR DISABLED PERSONS PROHIBITED This section makes it unlawful for any vehicle that does not display plates or placards to park in a stall or space designated for the physically disabled, pro- vided proper signs are posted. This applies to any state operated lot, any off - street parking operated by local authorities, or any privately owned parking lot as defined in Section 21107.8. 21107.8 PRIVATE PARKING FACILITIES Allows cities or counties to enact ordinances or reso- lutions that state certain private parking areas are generally for the use of the public for parking, and if they are properly marked with signs so stating, are subject to Vehicle Code enforcement. 22522 PARKING NEAR SIDEWALK ACCESS RAMPS The Vehicle Code also makes it unlawful to park with- in three feet of any sidewalk access ramp (curb cut) adjacent to a crosswalk. -5- 3 e f. .f :o •• f'il�l .P a �iU1nP�j3 , o ' •. a • . 7'?'/°1GAL tfAAJOkAfPeO PAf3FS/AJ4 5P�• Guf36 J"/rp llequlile v WA(eN c+JMM wAY 15 5t-eVAreo ABOVE on 5[JNfS �cvW pA�}f4iNy 5c1�3FAce- A � . �srAnmA�3D Pfl1�n1N� • �'� SPAGt a a Q _N H 0 o. �7/N' HANaiGAYY�D SYAG�S 5htvuGD P�'P��T USE of C-I NeH vj3lveP,'-s ari PAts:e•NAOM'S VA 7M. AN- -e-1-44w ri Usepys 5W,7ut o Al"r 60 f"--eo % I'15,4vac. beA(WV 8W5hr -P 4QPis o7Neh 7101V ;WC-gi owN, Adhering to the Vehicle Code provisions concerning handicapped parking involves more than obeying the law. The availability of these spaces increases the mobility of disabled people and their oppor- tunities to participate in the community. So, the next time you're tempted to park in a handi- capped parking space, think about the person who needs it; then drive a little further on. The two of you may never meet, but your consideration will be appreciated. -7- THIS IS A WARNING YOU ARE PARKED IN A SPACE RESERVED FOR THE HANDICAPPED YOUR VEHICLE DOES NOT DISPLAY DISTINCTIVE PLATES OR PLACARDS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW Vehicle Code Sections 22511.8 and 21107.8 allow enactment of local ordinances which direct law enforcement agencies to: Tow away unauthorized parked vehicles at owner's expense when a sign specified by law Is displayed or Issue citations for unauthorized parked vehicles These reserved spaces are provided for in- dividuals whose physical disabilities make parking here a necessity. Your Cooperation is Appreciated —8— EASTER SEAL SOCIETY BOARD OF DIRECTORS Roy Litherland - President Edward Huff - 1st Vice President Ray Hollingsworth - 2nd Vice President Dennis Fitzpatrick - Treasurer Wilma Tognazzini - Secretary James Dowling Larry Nelson William Gorman Michael Ortiz Alex Grossi Minnie Perlstein David Heagerty Gail Stigen Lei Huff John Webster Robert Metcalf Dar Williams Alfred Mabey - Executive Director The preparation of this guide was financed in part through a grant from the Department of Labor under provisions of the Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973 and the Santa Clara Valley Employment & Training Board Title II -D Temporary Employment Plan. EASTER SEAL SOCIETY 1245 S. Winchester Boulevard San Jose, California 95128 MEMORANDUM TO: City flanager FROM SUBJECT 09,9W o2 �O�f 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 1 Code Enforcement Officer Handicapped Parking Ordinance DATE: December 14, 1981 Attached is an Assembly Bill that goes into effect 1/1/82. It deletes the requirement for local resolution or ordinance declaring handicapped parkiny stalls, in private parking facilities usually open to the general public. The bill would also delete the requirement for a sign to be posted at the entrance to such parking facility. The bill specifies that a parking space designated for physically handicapped persons may be out- lined in blue markings with a similar handicap insignia on the ground in the space. The bill allows for local authorities to enforce state law pro- hibiting such unauthorized parking. The bill does not make it mandatory for the owner of the parking facility to designate private parking stalls nor does it set any ratio for handicap stalls to non - handicap. Therefore, the City does not have to pass a resolu- tion or ordinance regarding this matter. However, we should contact such owners to have them designate handicap parking stalls which the City will then enforce. Ti1U /df Attachment "// 1, qPP-W, Thomas H. Upson 99DR50 r I��IEMOO RAND�1NiI 097E o:T 0&MkUQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 . TO: Thom Upson DATE: December 7, 1931 FROM: Wayne Dernet SUBJECT: Handicapped Parking Ordinance As you know, the City Council did not adopt the resolution that was prepared for enforcement of handicapped parking restrictions in private parking facilities open to the general public. The City Council was not enthusiastic about this additional regulation and wanted more information concerning the number of handicapped spaces within the City, the costs of enforcement to the City, and the cost to private parties for installation of the required signs. Sally Carlson of the Easter Seals Society was in attendance at the meeting and spoke in suprort of the Proposal. Subsequent to the hearing on the issue, Sally provided the attached information and has indicated that perhaps a local ordinance is no longer necessary as the result of recent legislation that preempts the City�'j in any case. Please determine whether it is still necessary for a local resolu- tion or ordinance to be adopted in order for the enforcement to take place and report your findings to me as soon as possible. The file information on this matter is attached. ...................... ......... . ........................................ ......... ...................... ............... ............. ---------- ----- --------- * ... ....... ............ . ...................... .......... . ...... - - - - ----- ------------------- ................... ....... ............. ........ ... ................................................................................................................................................ -------------------- - ------------- ........ .......................... ...... ---------- -- - - — ------------- ........................ * ..... .... .... ................... ............. - ---------------------- ------- ..................... ................. ...................... I ................ = ........ :::::::: ..... ....................... . ........... .................. . ...... —'- --- - -*- - - - * - -.- - - _7 - . . ............................. .................. ........... .............. ............ - ............ * .................. ................ * ..... ..'- ... * =:: .......... .................. .. . . ........................................................ - ----------- - -------------- . .. ..... ..................... . .......... . ............. . ......................................... * ---- ......... ..................... .......... .......... ............. ......... :"*,** ................. ...... ------------------ * ................... ------------ ----------- ------------------------ .... ......... ... ........ ..... ........................ ...... ...................... — ------- - - - - ------- ------------- ----------------- --- =.= . ........ ............... ............................... .......................... ........... ......... * ......... * :::::: ............. ...... ........ . .. . ........... . ........ . ..... . ........ . ............... ... ....................... : --- --- PperE R StL �L ............. ............ :: ..................... ...................... ...................... ........... .................. .............................. .............................. ........................ ....... 91 ........... ........... ................. ......... ........................................... .................. ........... ............. .................................... AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 23,1981 ........ ....... .................. . .. . . ........ .............. .......... ........... ............ -- - - - - -- ...... ............. . .. . . ............................ ................. .................... ....................... ----------------- .................... CALIFORNIA LECISL-kTURE-1981-82 REGULAR SESSION ................................ ........... ............ * . ...... ............... ............ .................................... ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2192 - -- ..... .......................... * ... ............. .............. .... ......... * ....................... ................. ............................ .................................. .. ................. .......... ................. ........... ........... .... ............................... ........................... ........... Introduced by Assemblyman Felando ........................ :7-7 .... .......... .............. ..................... ...... ................... .......................... *.,.,- ........... ] - ......... ------------------ . ....................... ............. ........ . .................. ................. .............................. April 22, 1981 An act to amend Seetiea 42001.6 5eCH0175 21107.8 and 22507.8 of the Vehicle Code, relating to parking violations; C) a-ftd deelat:ing t4e tifg;,eney thef:eef-, to take e&et iffitned—at-FAY, , LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2192, as amended, Felando. Vehicles: parking violations: physically handicapped persons' spaces. J1z-,T,nder- ekistin,- ---I. 4 i-5 a-n itn4aetien fe+ ftn-y per-sen t-e ati�: e h i e 1 e 1-ft a s p a e e d e 5 i g n a t e d fe t per A; - 13ef sens if *e space is as steed; ttnless ire e speeial lieense of pA whieh tff-- available ef*-, t-e p'ef 5ens. T4-,-- f) unis1.ffiet4 upeft it f44 eenvie tie is a ftft-e of ft,9+ le-as t4� Tl+is � vettld iner-ea5e t4ftt t:niniffitiffi fifte t-& T4-,e b44 weeld ��- effeet as tffi irtr-gefte�, stattite- E�sting , la w prohibits parki-r2g, in a stall or space designated for physically -handicapped persons, if posted with a sign depicting a handicapped insignia, as specified, unless the vehicle displays distinguishing license plates or a specified placard These provisions apply to offstreet parkin,-- facilities owned or operated by the state and, if designated by the local authority by ordinance or resolution, to offstreet parking facilities owned or operated by a local authority. They also apply to privately owned and maintained offstreet parking .... ........ .. -.-.:;,4 facilities if the entrance is posted with a designated sign ............. .... .................. i*.*.:::::::: ...... ........... ............ 98 30 .................... . . . .._ .................... ... ............................... AB 2192 —2— stating that the facility is subject to public traffic regulations = == and if the city and county has adopted a specified ordinance. W This bill would specify that, as an alternative to the sign depicting the handicap insignia, a parking space designated for physically handicapped persons may be outlined in blue markings with a similar handicap insignia on the ground in the space. The bill would also delete the requirement for a __ J local ordinance or resolution prohibiting unauthorized parking in offstreet handicap parking spaces so designated and for– si ns at the entrance to privately owned and maintaine offstreet parking areas declaring the applicability ofpublic traffic regulations, thereby allowing local authorities to enforce state la w prohibiting such unauthorized parking. Vote: 3� majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State - mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows. 1 s E GTI O `l 4- Seetien 42001.5 4 #-ke Miele ale is _ 2 SECTION 1. Section 21107.8 of the Vehicle Code is 3 amended to read 4 21107.8. (a) Any city or county may, by ordinance or 5 resolution, find and declare that there are privately 6 owned and maintained off - street parking facilities as .. 7 described in the ordinance or resolution within the 8 city or county that are generally held open for use of the 9 public for purposes of vehicular parking. Upon 10 enactment by a city or county of such an ordinance or 11 resolution, Seetiee 22597.8 s apps t-e a 15t e 12 armed a-ftd ffiaitttetined effI*fe,4 pat:kiftg 13 faeilities- e}eep t as p��ided ift {b�- 1-ft 14 additian, if speeifieetily stated ift strek - tee of 15 ,.esiet-t; Sections 22350, 23103, and 23109 and the _- 16 provisions of Division 163 (commencing with Section J 17 38000) shall apply to any such. facilities, except as 18 provided in subdivision (b) . 19 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a) , 20 no ordinance or resolution enacted thereunder shall 21 apply to any off- street parking facility described therein 22 unless the owner or operator has caused to be posted in 98 80 -3— AB 2192 1 a conspicuous place at each entrance to ste-h that 2 off- street parking facility a notice not less than 17 by 22 3 inches in size with lettering not less than one inch in 4 height, to the effect that etteh the off - street `parking 5 facility is subject to public traffic regulations and control. 6 (c) No ordinance or resolution shall be enacted under 7 subdivision (a) without a public hearing thereon and 10 8 days prior written notice to the owner and operator of the 9 privately owned and maintained off - street parking 10 facility involved. 11 (d) Nothing in this section shall, preclude the 12 enforcement of5ect'on 225078 without the enactment of 13 an. ordinance or resolution. 14 (e) The department shall not be required to provide 15 patrol or enforce any provisions of this code on any 16 privately owned and maintained off- street parking 17 facility subject to the provisions of this code under this 18 section except those provisions applicable to private 19 property other than by action under this section. 20 SEC. 2. Section 225078 of the Vehicle Code is 21 amended to read: 22 22507.8. (a) It is unlawful for any person to park or 23 leave standing any vehicle in a stall or space designated 24 for physically handicapped persons, if, immediately 25 adjacent to and visible from such stall or space, there is 26 posted a sign consisting of a profile view of a wheelchair 27 with occupant in white on a blue background or the space 28 is outlined in blue markings and there is on the ground 29 in the space a similar profile view depicting a wheelchair 30 with occupant, unless the vehicle displays either one of 31 the distinguishing license plates or a placard issued 32 pursuant to Section 22511.5 or to disabled veterans, as 33 specified in Section 9105. 34 (b) The provisions of subdivision (a) shall apply to all 35 offstreet parking facilities owned or operated by the 36 state, and to all offstreet parking facilities owned or 37 operated by a local authority if se design b�- t-� }�} 38 ° °. •may bY wee e+ fesekt4eft. The provisions of 39 subdivision (a) shall also apply to any privately owned 40 and maintained offstreet parking facility ats pfevided ift ---------- ................ .................... .................. . . - ........... - -- - - - - - -- - --- -- ............ 98 90 -------- _ .... ....7.7 77_.....7.7 7 ---- ....... ._ ..................... --- ........_._. ..._.......--- -•----- ....._ ---- ....•. - ..... ............... -- - .......... .............. ................ ....... ........ .......... .............................. .................................. .................................................. - .......... .................. .......... ............... . ................................ ........... ......................................... .............. ............ ............................. ........... ......... . ...... .................. . .......... ....... .... ............. AB 2192 2 ftffiended to feftd- 3 +8+ EN-et:)- per-sen een-vieted 4 erft ififf aetian 4 fet a vielatieft 48e4ieft 22700 4tff4b-e epafii,,Ah�ed by a fire T7T 6 +b+ pet:sen eenvieted ef aft infraetien fef a 7 vielatien 4 Seetien 2250-'t-.8 be ptinished tipen et fir--,t -4 ............................... .......... ..... ............................... 9 -ET rTx H zxr,, �p -S RG. 2- aet is a!ft tit:geney st4tite fteeessat:y f-ef 10 •4e i�e4iate pt:eser-valti 4 ire ptiblie peaee, heftith, 11 of safety withift the tiiee:>�ittg of Ar-tiele W 4 :.::� -- --- -- ----- -- ------- 12 Gengtitutiett s hall- ge ift�e iffiffiediate effeet. T4-,e f&et-, 13 eenstittttin the fteeesssit� Etf:e! .................... ........... . . . 14 ift ender- t-& effeetive enfet:eeffi 4 t 4e ......... ...... .......... - - -- 4 1 15 16 5peeial --ided handieapp ........... -------------- -- par-kifig pf4�Alege pef:sens, I I FT=-'� 4 i-9 fieeess 4- 4111 ae� 4,e effeet iffifneEliRtel,- .. : : :A a ............ ....................... ..................... ---------------- ..... ................ ................ ............ ..................... ............................... ............. ................ .................................... --------------- ................ .............................. ........... .... ............................... ------------------------ --- -------------- ...................... ............ .......... ------------------------- .................................... . . ....... . ........................................... ........................... ..................... .. ........... *.-,.,.,.-.,."., ............... ............... ...................... .......................... ----------- ............... --------------- .................... .......... ................... .......... ..... a --- --------------------------- ------------- ............. ----------- --------------------- ............. ................ .................. ...... ......................... ............. ----- 7 . — ------------------ -------- -------- ................................ . ............... ...... ............ .. ------ I -------------------------- .................. ........ .......... ........... ........... ............... -------------------- ----------- ---- ------ ------ --------- — ------ . ... ...................... ...... * .... ................................................ ---------- ..... ................. ......... ........................... .......... ....................... ............. ............... ------------------------ ------- ........ .............................. — — --- — ------- — --------- ............. ........... .............. - -------- ------------- --- ------------- ......... ...... ................ .... ..................... .......................... .................. ........... ................... ......................... .............. ................................. ........ . ------------- .............. ............ ------------ - ------ ------- ------------------------ ------------ ........ ... ....... ............................... ... ................. ............. ....... ...................... .... .......... ................................ ................. .......... ............................... ............... ............... ............ ..................................... .......................... ...................... ........ .......... ------ -- ------------------------ .............. . ........... — ------- .. D .... .......... - ------------------------ .................... .......... ------------- --------------- ................. ............... ............... ........... ............... ............................... ............................... ................................................ 7 . ........... --------------------- ...... ............. ............ ----- - ------- ............................................ .......... ........ .............. .. ............ ...................... ..................................................... --------------- ................ -- ---- 98 100 -------- --------- -------- - .................. ......... ...... ................................... ... ............... ....... ........................... .......... ------ — — - - -- -- ---------------------------- ------------------------------------- - - ---- — ------------------ ................................. ....................... * ... ... :-::::: — -------- ......................... 7-7 ........ - =7 -- --------------------------- ---- ------------------- ------ ...................... .... ............. . ... . ............ ------ --- . ................ ...... ......................... - ------------ ........ ...................... --------- ----------------------- ......................... - ---------------------- ------------ ........... ----- - ------- ...................................... - --------------------------- LICENSE PL.? TES ISSUED TO DIaABLDD PL's �O yrS This series applies to both the ne;,i blue plates and the old black plates: DP:1 000 thru DP:.1 999 DPX 000 thru DPX 999 SPY 000 thru DPY 999 DPZ o0o t: ^.ru DPZ 999 000 DP:1 thru 999 DP:1 000 DPX thru 999 •Dp:{ 000 DPY. thru 999 DPY 000 DPZ thru 999 DPZ This series applies only to the new blue plates: DPR o00 thru DPR 999 .... 000 DPR thru 999 JPR ,_S 000 thru DPS 999 000 DPS thru 999 DPS 3 T 000 thru DPT 999 000 DPT thru 999 DPT DPU 000 thru' DPU 999 000 DPU thru 999 DPu J?`J 000 thru DF'J 999 000 DPV thru 999 -DPV filth this Series, the letters R,S,T,U and V can either _-recede or follow the "DP" designation. (;or example: RDP 000 thru R]P 999) This series applies only to the new blue plates issued from 1978 and on: 1 DPA 000 thru 1 DPA 999 In this new series :vith 7 characters on each plate, any license designated "DP" followed by any letter (A thru Z) is a valid plate issued to a. handicapped person. =his series applies to both the.new blue plates .and the old black plates: lr�T ,.r. 000 thru ',F--T 999 000 V:T thru 999 VLT 000 thru IJTI-r 999 000 -'1 V-1 thru ^' 999 'JTIN V"D 000 thru VTR 999 000 VTR thru 999 VTR i'hi3 series is issuued -only to. service- connected, disable-, veterans.