Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-1981 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA` CITY OF Si�RM`OGA '1 Initial: AML DP; BIZ" NO. Dept. lid. DATS: 10/9/81 C. Atty DEPAR'I11=: Community Development C. Mgr. ----------------------------------------------- 7 --------------------------------------- SU&7ECr: V -557, A -785 - Mr: & Mrs. Robert Schwartz, 19783 Colby Court Issue SuTmary The applicant has requested to add a second story addition to their single story dwelling in a neighborhood where it would be adjacent to other two story dwellings. Although the design of the structure appears compatible with other dwellings in the neighborhood, the subject lot is not constrained in size of shape which could warrant'a variance. There has been no neighborhood objection or support expressed in regard to this project. 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 denial of the variance, and approval of the Design Review subject to reduction of the proposed addition which would not exceed 5% over the standard F.A.R. Fiscal Imoacts None Noted. Exhibits /Attachments I. Letter of Appeal. 2. Staff report dated 9/16/81. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated 9/23/81. 4. Exhibits "B";-,& "C" S. Addendum dated October 13, 1981 6. Correspondence received Council Action 10121: Clevenger /Mallory moved to grant V -557 and A -785 for seven square feet over 5Q/ maxi=. Passed 5 -0. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION .,. *(amended 9/23/81) City c4 Sarat a DATE: 9/16/81 Commission Meeting: 9/23/81 DA i � V -557 SUBJECT* A -785 Robert & Nancy Schwartz 19783 Colby Court -------------------------7-------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: Variance and Design Review approval for a second story addition to a one -story single family dwelling which exceeds the standard floor area ratio. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This project is a Categorical Exemption '15101(e) PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been noticed by mailing notices to 69 property owners in the vicinity, posting the site and advertising in the newspaper. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING: R -1 - 10,000 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: SITE SIZE: 12,700 SQ FT. SITE SLOPE: 1% HEIGHT STRUCTURE: 22' -6" STRUCTURE SIZE: Existing 2,528 sq ft New: 832sq ft Total 3,420 sq ft FLOOR AREA RATIO: 29% + 6% of 2,700 sq. ft. = 3,062 sq. ft. + 5% +3,215 sq. ft. (195 sq. ft. over F.A.R.) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 29% existing, 60% is the maximum allowed SET BACKS: Front: 30' Right side: 9'6" Left side: 11' Rear: 46' GRADING REQUIRED: NONE C C�� Report to Planning Commission 9/16/81 V -557, A -785 Page 2 STAFF ANALYSIS: Since the project proposal requires both Design Review and Variance approval, Staff has chosen to combine both reports. Prior to action on the Design Review for the project the variance must first be granted. The subject lot is level and meets ordinance requriements for lot width and length and in addition exceeds the minimum lot size by 2,700 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing. to construct a.second story addition which will exceed the floor area ratio by 11.6 %, or 195 sq- . "ft.. above the 5% for which the Commission has discretionary approval. In this case it does not appear that a variance is warranted, due to the fact that the site is not constrained in size or shape. FINDINGS: 1. There is no physical hardship associated with the land necessitating a variance. The subject lot is standard in dimension and is 2,700 over the minimum lot size required for this zoning district. 2. There are no exceptional.circumstances which apply only to this property. The subject lot is not significantly underproportioned in relation to other properties on Colby Ct. 3. Denial of this variance sYDuld not deprive the applicant of the right to develop the property similar to others c],as-�ified in the same zoning district. Denial of this variance does not prevent the applicant from adding a structure which is in compliance with the Design Review Ordinance. 4. The granting of this variance will be a grant of special privilege since other property owners in the same situation will have to comply with existing restrictions. 5. The proposed project will not be detrimental to Community or injurious to properties in the vicinity. STAFF ANALYSIS OF DESIGN REVIEW (A -785): The proposed addition is to be located on the east side of the existing structure. The windows, located on the eastern and western elevations, are not oriented toward private yard areas of the adjacent property owners. The deck located on the rear elevation could pose a privacy impact to the neighbor to the east, and thus staff recommends that it be deleted. The subject structure is adjacent to a two story dwelling to the west and another diagonally across the street to the southwest. There are four other two story dwellings on Colby Ct. in total. The design of the proposed structure is consistent with the existing structure and compatible with the other dwellings on Colby Court, specifically in terms of height and bulk. Report to Planning Commision V -557, A -785 9/16/81 Page 3 It is Staff's opinion that if the proposed addition were reduced in size by 200 sq. ft., it would meet the criteria set forth in the Design Review ordinance. This would make the addition within the 5% that may exceed the standard floor area ratio if approved by the Commission. As conditioned,the proposed addition compiles with the standards set forth in the Design review ordinance in terms of preservation of the natural landscape and viewshed floor area ratio, impervious coverage, height, setbacks and the protection of privacy of adjacent neighbors. RECOMMENDED ACTION: A. Variance: Deny per findings of staff report dated 9/16/81 and exhibits B & C. B. Design Review: Staff would recommend approval of the Design Review request subject to the following conditions that the addition be reduced in size by 200 sq. ft. so that the Floor Area Ratio required by ordinance is not exceeded. rnMnTMTnMC . A. Prior to the issuance of building permits: 1. Detailed drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. Only these approved plans shall be implemented during construction. * 2. Plans shall be submitted which have deleted at least 200 sq. ft. of the proposed addition, not significantly affecting the proposed structure, and the deck to the rear? for Staff review and approval. Approved: P.C. Agenda (/23/81 SL:lt L Sharon Lester Planning Aide *as amended at Planning Commission meeting 9/23/81, RECEIVED SEP 2 & 1981 LETTER OF APPEAL TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA This appeal is being made in a humanitarian appeal to the City situation. It has to do with a new City Ordinance, which at a apply to the Schwartz application for home enlargement. At the Council, by a 3 to 2 decision a variance was denied for the ne w scaled -down second story addition was approved. The Need for the Addition: V- 5- and to address an unfair very late date was made to 9/23 meeting of the Planning ordinance. However, a The mother of Bob Schwartz, age 76, currently lives alone in an apartment in the area. Her senile condition -makes it impossible for her to continue to live like that. On several occasions she was picked up by the police in a confused state. A try at moderate institu- tional care was made and rapid disintegration was evident. She.could not adjust. However, the Schwartz household at 19783 Colby Court is currently too small (three bedrooms) to move her in on a permanent basis. Therefore, the City Planning Department was approached for guidance as to the procedures necessary. The Unfair Situation: At every encounter with the Department it was asked, what else is necessary, and at every turn it was complied Frith. Nowhere along the, line were we informed that a major charge in the code was being considered that would make all our efforts void. When our plans were brought in during Mid- August, they "discovered" that ten reduced sets of plans were necessary, even though the form submitted specifically said that was not necessary for second story,additions. "We forgot to change it," we were told. We then procurred the necessary reductions and again asked, "What else ?" 14e were told everything was in order. However, in early September, we were informed they just remembered the ne:v ordinance, so we would have to apply for a variance. It sounded as if it was just one more obstacle to yet over. Even after that.a member of the Planning Department made an on--site inspection and left us with the feeling that vie did not have too much to worry about. However, the discussion at the Planning Council made it clear, in their thinking, that no way could we get our plans approved as they were. By this time, $600 for engineering reports was spent, which now appears to be completely wasted money if their decision is allowed to stand. If they had told us of the new ordinance immediately, that expense could have been avoided. Neighborhood Impact: The basic addition to the house was approved by the Planning Council. However, we would have to eliminate 200 square feet which would require a new design since the 200 square feet reduction would move the walls off from the bearing walls beneath. The original size was determined by a natural following of bearing walls belo;•j. These plans are in accordance with the basic goals, of the City of Saratoga, as printed on the lead page of the new ordinance. It has no negative impact on anyone's view nor has any neighborhood opposition been expressed to it. liany neighbors, knovjing our plight, have wiShOd us well. Currently we have the smallest house on the cul -de -sac (we back up to Prospect Rcad) , and the new structure would be entirely compatible with the neighborhood. I have served the City of Saratoga for ten years as one of its ministers. I have provided as much assistance as I could to its people. Now I need the City to help me. I have a lonely, confused mother, who is dependent on me. Time is of the essence. Her future does not have all that much time as this issue gets moved from one agency to another. If this appeal is denied, basically we would have to start all over again, another three months •.-fasted. She doesn't have that time to hang in limbo. I desperately need your compassion in dealing with a very real, human need. l97$3 C4 . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9/23/8,1 -782 (cont.) Page 7 a to what the original grade is and how they got this house so high in th air. He commented that he hoped that Staff will explain to the app 'cant what is considered the original grade and what has happened by p Ting in the 14 ft. high basement. Commissioner Monia added that he does h ve a concern about the length of this house, and he feels it has a treme ous visual impact, in addition to the impact from the height. Commissionrowther stated that when there has been a prior approval, he would like t see a more detailed analysis of any changes relative to the prior approva Break: 9:40 9:SS p. 6a. A -788 Sharon an Howard Morse, Request for Variance and Design Review 6b. V -560 Approval to llow 'the construction of a second -story addition to an existing o -story structure which exceeds the floor area ratio b greater tha 50 (14% max.), at 20878 Verde Moor Court Staff reported that the applicant has requested a continuance of this matter. _ The public hearing was opened at 9:56 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commis- sioner Monia moved, seconded b Commissioner Bolger, to continue this matter to October 14, 1981. Th motion was carried unanimously. 7. A -787 Robert Snyder, Request fo Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a second -s ory addition to an existing one -story structure at 12841 Foothill ane Staff described the proposal, stating t at they were recommending approval. The public hearing was opened at 10:00 p Mr. Snyder, the applicant, asked for clari\deicient. f the condition regard - ing the grading and drainage plan. Staff t the plans will be reviewed and he would be advised if they a Commissioner Monia moved to close the publ. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried una Commissioner Monia moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to approve A -787 per the Staff Report dated September 14,.1981 and Exhib ts "B" and "C ". he motion was carried unanimously. 8a. A -785 - Robert Schwartz, Request for a Variance -and Design Review Approval 8b. V -557 - to allow the construction of a second -story addition to an exist- ing one -story structure which exceeds the floor area ratio by greater than S% (11% max.) at 19783 Colby Court The proposal was described by Staff, who stated that they were recommending approval of the design review subject to the addition being reduced so that the floor area ratio required by the ordinance is not exceeded and the variance is not needed. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that if the variance is denied, the Commission has the option to either have the applicant submit a revised drawing for design review or a revision that would be subject to approval of Staff. He added that if the Commission feels that 200 ft. is enough of an impact to necessitate the Commission's review, then the item could be reagendized if the applicant wishes to proceed with the reduction. The public hearing was opened at 10:07 p.m. Robert Schwartz, the applicant, stated that he had been under the impres- sion that there was no problem with the variance application. He explained that he was in a time bind, since it would be necessary to have his mother 7 - �;- the Commission cannot act arbitrarily, and there are certain findings that 8 � � ! f•�r�p4tJ rt�r. � � r Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 Minutes 9/2.3 -81 A -785 and V -557 (cont.) live with them. He indicated that'his 3- bedroom house is the smallest on the block. He added that there is-no problem with the neighbors, and his home backs up to Prospect; therefore, there will be no visual impact. Mr. Schwartz stated that when he had submitted his application in the middle of August he had not been aware of the necessity for a variance. He commented that he is a minister, and in addition to needing room for his mother, he had a lot of people flowing through the'house from time to time. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther commented that, since the neighbors' homes are of a larger size than Mr. Schwartz's home with the proposed addition, he felt that would be an unusual circumstance for justifying the granting of the variance. He added that the key criteria here that is applicable is the special privi- lege which would set a precedent. He stated that lie believes that on that particular court others have been privileged and that would be proper grounds for granting the variance, since this is an unique situation. Commissioner Monia asked how the Commission could then address an infill lot in a R -1- 40,000 district, where there are 10 lots and 1 of them is a 10,000 sq. ft. home. He explained that if there were perhaps a home or two in the neighborhood that were oversized and variance after variance was approved, the homes would be getting larger and larger and creating an unnecessary impact on the neighbors. Commissioner Crowther pointed out that this situation has a court with a few number of houses on it and if other homes on that court that have similar size lots have larger homes than what the applicant is applying for, then he feels that it would be the kind of unique situation that justi- fies the granting of a variance. Commissioner King commented that he did not feel the situation was unique at all. He explained that the ordinance had been created which has a limit; therefore, the variance process will be requested of the Commission and the Commission will be required to make the findings consistently for every variance request received. Commissioner Bolger asked the applicant if he had investigated the possi- bility of a somewhat smaller design and putting it in the rear yard. Mr. Schwartz stated that he had been advised.that this is the less expensive way of proceeding and, having been advised that there was no particular problem, it is the only concept that they had dealt with. He explained that he uses the back yard for entertaining purposes, and if he added on there he would ruin the uniformity of the back yard. Commissioner King moved to deny V -557, based on the inability to make the findings to grant the variance, per the Staff Report. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would vote against the motion, since she agreed with Commissioner Crowther and felt that this can be a special circumstance wi "th houses around the area that are larger. The vote was taken on the motion. It was carried, with Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Monia moved to approve A -78S, per the Staff Report which would require design review by Staff, subject to a reduction in the size of 200 feet. Commissioner King seconded the motion. Mr. Schwartz stated that he felt that this was an unfair situation, and he should have been asked to submit a reduction sooner if that was necessary. He added that he has a real human need and is in an immediate time bind. It was pointed out to Mr. Schwartz that the Commission had not seen the plans until last Friday evening. The Deputy City Attorney explained that �;- the Commission cannot act arbitrarily, and there are certain findings that 8 � � ! f•�r�p4tJ rt�r. � � r Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9/23/81 A -785 and V• -557 (cont.) Page '9 are required by City and State law that have to be made before the Commis- sion is legally empowered to make a variance. He added that the conclusion they have reached in this situation is based on an inability to make those findings. Commissioner Crowther noted that when anyone applies.for a variance they should be given those five findings, in order to argue as to why those should be made, and they should also be given a copy of the Design Review Ordinance. The vote was taken to approve A -785, with a reduction of 200 ft. subject to Staff review and approval. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. The applicant was notified of the 10 -day appeal period and the procedure to use for requesting an appeal. 9. V -55 - D. and L. Sousa, Request for a Variance to allow an existing horse corral to maintain existing setbacks which do not meet ordinance requirements (50' from any property line and 100' from __ any dwelling not on the site) at 19615 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road The propolal was described by Staff, who stated that they were recommend- ing denial``because of their inability to make the necessary findings. The public h-A-Ving was opened at 10:30 p.m. Mrs. Sousa, the applicant, clarified that the corral is 50 ft. from the dwelling, and ac ually about 75 ft. from the living quarters of the house. She described the orral and the location, stating that there was no other location on the pro erty for the corral. Mrs. Sousa noted that the neighbors had given heir verbal approval. The impact on the scenic high- way area was discussed, Staff clarified that the City has developed an unwritten policy that fto structure shall be built within 70 ft. of a scenic highway, and a s ucture is defined as anything located on the ground, which would incl ale both a stable and corral. Mrs. Sousa explained that w,en they purchased the house they had been told that, since they have an acr they could have a horse. When her daughter turned 13 they bought a horse and proceeded to board it. They started building the corral, not reali Ong that there was an ordinance stating that this could not be done. \ The Deputy City Attorney stated th4 the applicant will have to obtain a horse permit, and that permit can on y be issued upon a determination that the corral and other facilities are i compliance with the zoning laws. Discussion followed on the difference be ween a fence and a corral. Mrs. Sousa cited other horses in the area, whi h were in corrals with similar setbacks or behind fences. She noted that the fence posts for their corral are set in gravel, and it is entirely possi e that they may decide not to keep the horse; however, they do want to make an effort. Commissioner King moved to close the public heal\ing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff noted that there had been no complaints on thus issue; the Code Enforcement had noted the construction and notified the applicant of the situation. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels the site is unusual because of its triangular shape. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels that people living in that area move there with the idea that they can have a horse. She added that people tend to live independently there, and there seems to be more give and take than there is in other parts of \the City. She noted that people had expressed concern about the maintainin,� of the scenic easement. Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she feels horses are attractive, but she feels there should be some condition added \about 9 - I " � -.. � -. � k� {•Il :tit �Tl. . „• ...- - _. ... ._ -. ._ .. " lj \I ' L.R{IlCO tu�.?L ri.�ON I 4'12 ( 4.1•'•� I � \ C � 1 � � _ ,,t• � i I 114 8 � ,1 � (� 1'n T i - t' - • _ .� ( t _� n. aY - I �u•x� ;��a :� I I II : iy -_ 9�v u -7 LI Cti!Y c.T1.:. J -co.n• o � i I .t � .t � Q L c -vn o -- •, n' GJ-- - - -- d . r �. .n 1 �: k}`lw', w .y If�"C�c1• .. ._� � - .C,...i *•[G lir �'— X..S.,•��- 4TF> /. .. ... -:�:• �t,r r. -.vs � r -rnat r• . -- r c r, u- LUU1�1` -La 'r�'7101.� rl.;� - _. • - G �✓�— .:1�:: -->. "Doil"t!'JS JO JJ.IJ vEJC ON 31►J 4Tt1L II I -!� ;Ii� I I ;. �- .� -i ! _ �• `9TOC.GG —eo i21v 74' To T+E - -� `1�f3+7 R1H7 � I K'nJ -� 7RYa.. •I j7- N r � L=J 1 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 10 15 81 COUNCIL MEETING: 10-21-81 SUBJECT : Addendum A­785 and V­557 Robert Schwartz, 19783 Colby Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- There were some incorrect figures presented in the Staff Report dated 9 /16/81. Revised Site 'Si'ze 11,214 sq. ft. Revised Structure Size: Revised Floor Area Ratio: Existing 2,528 sq. ft. New: 832 Total: 3,360 sq. ft. 2,900 sq. ft. + 6% of 1,214 = 2,973 sq. ft. Floor Area Ratio +'S %: 3,122 sq. ft. The proposed project is 11.5% or 387 sq. ft. over the standard floor area ratio. The essence of the Planning Commission action was to allow the 5% increase over the allowed Floor Area Ratio, i.e. 3,122 sq. ft. This would mean a 238 sq. ft. reduction of the requested square footage. Submitted by .Y\- Sharon Lester jo Penning Aide Approved by r Director of Community Development SL;cd October 12, 1981 Saratoga City Council Saratoga City Hall Appeal for Variance - Second Story Addition Robert H. Schwartz, 19783 Colby Ct. In the present housing market the opportunity to enlarge a home to meet changing family needs should be preserved whenever possible. The denial of this opportunity should be based only on the most compelling reasons. In the past, compatibility with the neighborhood, comments of neighbors and land conditions have been the primary considerations. Indeed, the effort to house additional family members has been encouraged in response to the scarcity of housing. These criteria all indicate that this variance should be granted. I encourage the Council to do so. Sincerely, Rudolph Kanne 19918 Bonnie Ridge Way Saratoga, CA 95070 SAINT ANDREW'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH 13601 SARATOGA AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 7 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 October 14, A.D. 1981 Mrs. Linda Callon, Mayor City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Linda: I am writing to you on behalf of my triend, the Reverend Robert H. Schwartz, who will soon be appealing a negative response he received from the City Planning Commission. You will have ample opportunity to review Mr. Schwartz` dilemma as I have. I write to make one essential point which seems important to me. Since I believe that Mr. Schwartz' case is a good one and that he got caught between changing and complex regulations, I will not bother to deal with what I think are the objective merits in the matter. I'll leave that to your good judgment. What I do emphasize is the need for you to view Mr. Schwartz' appeal with a high degree of sensitivity. Bob Schwartz and his wife are trying, through their plans for enlarging their home, to provide one answer to the needs of our elderly family relations. In my experience, it is not as common as it might be that young couples with busy lives and growing children are willing to take senile or near - senile family members into their homes. Bob's humane and loving response to his mother's dilemma can only be carried through if he is able to provide the needed additional room in his dwelling. I realize this is only one answer to the needs of our elderly family members but I view the provision of an inter - generational home environment as the most desirable by a wide margin. Bob and his wife were led deeply into their project as those complex and changing city regulations began to evolve, Now, time is of the essence and the hour is late for these good citizens of our community. I hope you can give them the positive response they need so that others may be encouraged to find creative ways for helping their older family members. In advance, thanks for your attention to this mat Sincerel ROY W. STRAS�URGER, D.Min. Rector IL 7 9 7 �3 �_/; � }� —C-s• r�- z-�C�i mot/ �08� City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Council Members: 12491 Radoyka. Drive Saratoga, Ca. 95070 October 16, 1981 WE are writing in behalf of Robert H. Schwartz•s petition to you for a variance in connection with his plan to build an addition to his home at 19783 Colby Court. This addition is needed to accomodate his mother. From our review of the events leading to his present petition , it certainly appears that the city's requirements were not adequately communicated to Bob, and that some allowance for this would be in order in your present review. In our opinion he is to be commended for his efforts to provide adequate care for his mother in a time when senior citizens seem to be havting increasing difficulty in this respect in all areas. With the city's efforts to provide better facilities for It& senior citizens, It seems reasonable to urge review of this petition and allow a variance for this addition . Yours very truly, Robert B. Hutchins Vesta G. Hutchins /O -/7- l 3 X77 �r ��u� Cp'ti• -•� Q�� all, 4 ,�.� 6" Q, /�• /� S r �.�i/���i C � / U G.� __7f� � may_ Q � � �2 .,� � , �� .� � %� �� , �� 0��� ���_ t, ���� ANDREW J. BEVER= 19597 VIA MONTE DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 October 15, 1981 TO MEMBERS OF THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Subject: Appeal by Robert H. Schwartz of Planning Commission Decision Refusing to Grant Variance for Construction of Additional Room at Residence Located at 19783 Colby Court, Saratoga We understand that Pastor Schwartz's appeal will come before the Council on Wednesday, October 21, 1981. You will doubtless receive information on the details of the case from other sources and we will not repeat them here. We urge you to act favorably upon his appeal, a decision which in effect will allow him to construct the addition to his home in accordance with his original plans. There are strong grounds to support such a decision, including: I. There are highly valid humanitarian reasons. The addition is needed to accommodate an elderly and ailing mother. 2. Neighbors on Colby Court support the Sc hwartzes. 3. Since the property is adjacent to Prospect Road, nobody's view will be obstructed. 4. Pastor Schwartz has been the victim of staff delays and errors in communications. The staff itself may not be at fault, since it was operating under pressures of rapid revisions in the ordnance. This, however, does not lessen the problems created for the applicant. It seems high time for the City to take a step toward rectifying the frustrations and hardships created for a good and law- abiding family by this unfortunate chain of events. A favorable decision by you could constitute such a step. Respectfully, � 1 J Andy and Martha Beverett Oct.21,I8I Saratoga City Council: We, the undersigned, are concerned about the disapproval of the plans of an addition to the home of Rev. Robert Schwartz on Colby Ct. Lispite his earnest efforts to comply with requirements of the planning commision and with apparent approval along, the way theplans were disapproved. It is our understanding there are no objections i'rom the neighborhood in .regards to the addition but rethel a possible lack of exact compliance with the planning commision regulations. Rev. Schwartz certainly has great need for approval due to the space needed f r his ill mother. Perhaps, since there are no neighborhood objections the planning board could reevaluate the situation and find some means of approval. Your help would certainly be appreciated on behalf of Rev. Schwartz. /99 7 Calby C I�V,),11� 70 �oG77 j `ems JSi?7 )7, 6,44 1So70 Sincerely, 9Jv -k�v 1,-24513 V 9Wa7o r / Wn / / / ✓ 'l o. / MY JN1 o I' . � e i � / ter_- ✓ � /i 20998 Sarahills Dr. I�y f Saratoga, California October 15,1981 Councilwoman Linda Callen Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Lear Ms. Callen: In reference to the item on the Council Agenda for Octo- ber 21, 19819 7:30 P.M., concerning the request for var- iance by Rev. Robert Schwartz, 19783 Colby Court, I am writing to ask that you grant this variance. The family involved are in need of help from the com- iiunity in which they serve. They are not asking for this variance to help them financially. Rather it is made out of desperation in trying to solve the problem of housing an elderly relative ( Rev. Schwartz' mother) who can not live in institutional -type facilities ( they have tried that already) and who can not continue living alone because she is too disoriented. To the best of my knowledge Rev. Schwartz has followed all the rules in applying for a building permit. These rules and the interpretation of same have been rather difficult to understand! Even the people in the Planning Dept. seem confused about certain aspects of the new Ordi- nance. Since the neighbors on Colby Court do not object to the addition to the Schwartz home and the plans,as pre - sented,were structurally sound with regard to earthquake specifications, it would be in the best interest of our community as a whole to grant this variance as requested. Once again, I urge you to vote to grant the variance as requested by Rev. Schwartz. This country is dedicated to providing shelter for the homeless; Mrs. Schwartz ,Sr. is from East Germany. I also believe you will agree with me that care "or the elderly is best provided by a loving family ( '•Irs. Schwartz,Jr. is a Registered 3urse) rather than a government subsidized institution. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter. Sin rely, Lois J Brooks(Mrs. K.M.) 20998 Sarahills Drive Saratoga, California 95070 October 15,1981 Councilwoman Martha Clevenger Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Ms. Clevenger: Regarding the Agenda Item for Council meeting October 21, at 7:30 P.M. presented by Rev. Robert Schwartz requesting a variance for building an addition at 19783 Colby Court: I am asking you to vote to grant this variance. The famil; involved are in need of help from the commun- ity they serve. They are not asking for the variance to help them financially. Rather, the request is made out of desperation intrying to house and care for an elderly relative (Rev. Schwartz mother who came to this country from East Germany). They have tried institutional care for her and that was even more disorienting than having her live alone in her own apartment. The progress of her senility has reached the point where she can no longer be left alone. The only objections to the building requested have come from the Planning Dept. people who seem to have problems interpreting the Ordinance involved. Colby Court neigh- bors are in favor of the variance, and those of us living in Saratoga concerned about the well -being of our Senior Citizens are also in favor. of the variance. I believe you will agree with me that care and housing provided by a loving family are to be preferred over government sub- sidized institutions. Once again I urge you to vote to grant this variance. It is in the best interest of our community and I am sure that you will concur. Sin rely, ois J. rooks (Mrs. K.M.) 20998 Sarahills Drive Saratoga, California 95070 October 15, 1981 Councilman Dale Watson Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Watson: I am writing in regard to the Council i4eeting A4-enda item on October 21, 1981, 7:30 P.M., concerning a Request For Variance presented by Rev. Robert Schwartz, 19783 Colby Court, this City. I urge you to grant this variance in the best interest of our community and its elderly. The family involved in this request is not seeking finan- cial ,,ain, but rather a solution to the problem of hous- ing and care for an elderly relative( Rev. Sakwartz' mother) who can no longer exist on her own. Living in a Retirement Center made her even more disoriented. To the best of my knowledge Rev. Schwartz has followed all the rules in applying for a building permit and now the variance suggested by the Planninr_' Dept.(even though they knew it would be apparently futilel). The only people ob- jecting to the variance are the Planning People who have been using wrong numbers in determining house and lot size! The neighbors on Colby Court agree that the addition is necessary and further agree that the variance should be granted. Since the issue of housing; for the elderly is constantly before us in Saratoga, it would seem to me that this re- quest is the best possible answer to the problem of this one senior citizen. Since this country is dedicated to off- ering shelter to the homeless( Mrs. Schwartz is from Last Germany) and this family wish to provide shelter rather than seek government help, I am sure you will vote to grant their request. Sin r*Broot Lois J (Mrs. K.M.) October 19, 1981 City of Saratoga City Council. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: Appeal of Denial of Variance Applicant /appellant, Robert Schwartz y Council Members: I have received the notice for the hearing on Robert Schwartz's appeal and communicated with him regarding his plans. I am in favor of granting him the variance and allowing him to build his extension. In addition, I am concerned about the manner in which the process of denying approval to build was handled. It would seem that either the process is slanted toward making it difficult for the home - owner, or the performance of the ,town staff is lacking. Either of these two conditions can and should be corrected by your appropriate actions. Very truly yours, /fgh M. Brown 19773 Viewridge Drive Saratoga, Ca. 95070 mQ,,;�a Uzi ,� m s�� � a � 14-A\ It bw CL&L tj 4L 6/ Cud A4 /VJ /VAe � AL. . 1 1. • S��� -Z- �sa�a i i Gz' � A& ?4 .ce4ol- z' �a � -r •t -7, iq �.O/ c 5o -7o do" 77� l WaAAen PatmeA 20069 Chateau Dti.ve Saratoga, COU6. 95070 sc �-x. l q -7f 12313 De S nka Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 0, 195-1 2-y 11519 -717 Octoberl8, 1981 Saratoga Planning Commission Saratoga, California To Whom It Concerns; In what is appearing to be the age of neglect for our elderly, when we read of the aged wandering away from rest homes and expiring, we wonder why the planning comp- mission of Saratoga would allow our friend and Pastor Mr. Robert Schwartz to not be able to solve the responsibilities we all bear by having his building improvements held up in red tape. We understand that all concerned neighbors have agreed to the changes and that all codes were met in the design at the time of conception. Why is it that we as citizens have to be caught in a "catch -22" situation until it effects our personal problems? We sincerely wish that you will find the way to help Mr. Schwartz solve this,family problem and vote in favor of allowing himw to build his addition. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Varozza 18959 Mellon Drive Saratoga, California a,-.I elf, i ��- t?�'L(sy' _ L.C.: ��1��- �c.C� -c� ��L.6 -J�2 /� � "���(/ �.t,� Cam_ - ��� �,���c..��o�.� -t�c . �� �-�� �r �r -�-�r� /� �� y �� �-- �� �a�c,�� r, W : ¢O C u October 19, 1981 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ` Subject: Robert H. Schwartz, 19783 Colby Court, Saratoga, Appeal to over -rule Planning Commission's Denial of Variance for Addition: October 21, 1981 As we understand the information available, there will be data presented whic'i demonstrates that a request for a variance is within most of the guidelines which you have established. Even though these conditions may be acceptable to you, we feel there are other factors which should be taken into consideration: Bob Schwartz's profession has been that of a minister for more than twenty years. As such one of his objectives is to deliver sermons which are inspiring, comforting and which also promote others to work for the good of mankind. Also, he may be called upon day or night to minister to people at a time of personal need. , It must be difficult for him to concentrate on these tasks if he has the constant worry that his aged mother may wander off at any time. She does this as she seeks Bob or anyplace she associates with him; otherwise she is very insecure. Bob's wife, Nancy, is head nurse in the emergency room for the evening shift at Good Samaritan Hospital. She, too, is called upon to help people in times of extreme need and must be able to react swiftly and conscientiously. We feel that both Bob and Nancy are serving and have served others for many years and will continue to do so. We feel their efforts can be more positive and productive if this personal problem of theirs is alleviated. We urge you to grant this variance based upon these humanitarian needs. e Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Lyle and Dottie Hamilton 13193 Via Arriba Saratoga, California 95070 cc: Robert Schwartz DR. AND MRS. P. b. 0�°T!Wkn, 13861 RIVER RANCH CIRCLE SARATOGA, CA. 95070 c or- e_ c4" �n aAlUeQ a•.e - % i C�' Oct. 18, 1981 12327 De Sanka Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 ATTN: Members of the City Council Re: Council Review of Planning Commission Decisions on tte Robert Schwartz residance, 19783 Colby Court, Saratoga Dear Membersoof the Council: We want to take this opportunity to express our support to the request by Bob and Nancy Schwartz to have approval of their plans for a second story addition to their home. In support of this request, we would like to make several points. First, the Schwartz family is a positive asset to our community. Second, they have proposed a legitimate plan for an improvement totally within the character of their neighborhood. Lastly, the members of the staff of the city of Saratoga have acted in an arbitrary and cap- ricious manner in their handling of the Schwartzes and their requests. The council should be aware of this, and demand professionalism and accouq.tability from the staff that serves us, the citizens of Saratoga. Bob and Nancy, and their family, are strong supporters of our community. They are both active in the Blue Hills School PTA and other activities, in Boy 5kouts, Cub Scouts, and other vital community areas. Bob is pastor of the Grace United Methodis t Church in Saratoga, an institution that, under Bob's leadership, has given spiritual and material support to the residents of this area. Nancy serves the community as an emergency room nurse supervisor in the Good Samaritan hospital. In short, Bob and Nancy and their family are valuable assets to our community. o Second, Bob and Nancy have a legitimate, desp@ rate need to expand their hease to make room for Bob's ailing Mother. We persoaally know Bob and his mother, and are in- spired by his example of loving and caring for the family unit. In this day and age, this care for the family unit demands encouragement and support for all of us. The request they have made is reasonable, and fully compatible with their neighborhood. Thirdly, as residents of Saratoga, and ones who have successfully traversed the building permit process for a much less extensive project, we would like to lift up to the members of the city council our personal observations on this process. To the members of the planning commission, and the planning and building departments, building permits, approvals, and associated paperwork are a part of their daily existance. To most home- owners, though, this is a confusing, onee -in -a- lifetime experience. What may be a simple oversight or mistake on the part of one of the city staff members can turn into a personal, financial and emotional nightmare to the citizens involved. Having the process stymied by oversights, errors, and cases of the staff "forgetting "about recently passed city ordinances is truely arbitrary and capricious treatment of the citizens of the city by members of the staff, and should be made known to the council. In summary, we wish to support Bob and Nancy in their application. They are valuable members of our community, who have a wortUy, legitimate request. Their case deserves positive action by the city council. We thank you, and remain Sincerely you ms at�4 lbert EandC of Baker Citizens and resistered voters City of Saratoga 19118 Vineyard Lane Saratoga, Ca. 95070 October 17, 1981 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Gentlemen: I have heard about the dispute of Rev. Robert H. Schwartz, 19783 Colby Court, Saratoga, Ca. 95070 and the City of Saratoga on the re- designing of his property to provide room for his mother, who certainly needs his help. I am deeply concerned about the process to date. Since the rainy season will be with us soon. I (and many other people ) would appreciate all the help you can possibly give Rev. Schwartz to hurry the process of clearing up this matter. Thank you for your cooperation. cc: ar Sincerely, (Mrs) Anna May Randall 10/19/81 Phone Message from Mrs. LeClaire, 19798 Colby Court Mrs. LeClaire has no.objection to Mr. Schwartz's proposed addition. 10/19/81 phone message. Edwin Belles, neighbor of Robert Schwartz, wishes to express support for Mr. Schwartz'a appeal in view of the emergency situation of housing his aged mother. Mr. Belles feels that Mr. Schwartz has complied with all the requirements of which he was aware. Mr. Belles will be unable to appear at the 10/21 hearing. � i� II11 -� cu ��� mly „r o_U J. ! MK General Contractor 6884 Hampton Drive SAN JOSE, CALIF. 95120 October 18, 1981 Planning Commi sion City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Dear .Sir; On October 18, 1981, I took the following measurements for the floor area of the Schwartz household at 19783 Colby Court, Saratoga: garage 211-00 X 201-8” = 434 square feet house - -- 60' -3" X 30' -11" = 1863 square feet total area - 22297 square feet Sincerely .yours, ®3� Louis J. Pernik Generql Contractor SUBSUNIKED AIND ?SN10"Ifli1 "iG 8ifi ji i,jt DAYI y'i C 19 i G' ...........�� ,.�. ­0 r NOTARY PUBLIC. CALIFORNIA =1, tai, j f1i,' 2 it Z1, 1955 �� � e 26�$ -3= I have reviewed the plans for the second story addition to the Schwartz house at 19783 Colby Ct., Saratoga, and do not object to them. NAME c FA ADDRESS ! r i 1.CY n p rt s ZZ 0077",V70. I-ARATOGIA PR01PTROT RON) Ct3L13Y cmw �R�W W Propose(--11 addition 10 Other Two-'...1tory Ronmes There are 11 other housesz on Colby Court 4 of them are already i -ato °y. Hous'Qpsi :e ( including garage) s E 4 are approximately 3000 sq. ft. I is approximately 3100 sod. ft. I .. 3200 sq. --f+ �� ,t. (r eo to 3500 sq 0 ft. fi / 1 40 s7 %000 sq,, ft. Proms Or°dinancO No. NS 3.47, Sez-tlon I, � t��e���nt and Fi c n - -- .� V It is the Policv Uf the City► of Varatogn to review the conv3truction of cone-family detached L eigidentia.l .ty'uCture,1 ���d rf'MJOYI additi®n�- tfYgret un�er circumistance � here such structturse or major uddit'dn8 %'fO uld aungtituts an Invagien of ux�re���,��able zr privacy, intex�fezenne with viaAs, li t and Taira, and .r rate JQVac t up38n the 'e character of neighboring residentialtu It is my �����tscnti�vri Gllltl X10 evidence, to the CGItrary h&6 been Offered) that nv addition 18 ndt 'n c -t6 -q1 '11vA with the intention of the new Grdinr&nce� Sara 2 Area m SerlJor From tirsix° statemoeit on proposell . Legislative Programs "V1. Support and advoE:�,te <?ip*o� -c —., and aggre�s�sivs �i�:ti��x ai��ed toward increasing the u Cpl. of s uitablo designed seni':Pra housing, working with public and Private a.y;enc1e€� as neceseatvJ AC,rLF1, BIT Z NO. DATE: 1019/81 CITY OF SiV271'I`OGA DEPARTIM : Community Development ------------------------------------ - - - - -- SUBJ T: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of SD -1505, Saratoga- Sunnyvale, TSA - 10 lots ---------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Issue SL- rmiary Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty C. Mgr. Wilson Development Applicant requested a 10 -lot subdivision with access off of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road after being denied, on appeal to the Council, a 10 -lot subdivision with access from Tricia.Way. The Planning Commission initially voted 2 -2 to approve the project and then voted 4 -0 to deny, in order to place the item before Council on appeal. Letters have been submitted from the neighbors supporting this proposal. Circulation safety versus a traffic increase on a local road are the major concerns. Recomnezdation 1. Conduct a de novo public hearing on the appeal. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve (with approval of the Neg. Dec. prior to this action) or deny. 3. Staff recomnended approval of the subdivision proposal. Fiscal Impacts None noted. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Letter of Appeal. 6. Negative Declaration 2. Staff Report dated 9/16/81. 7. Correspondence received on 3. Planning Commission minutes of Sept. 23, 1981, the project 4. Exhibit "B ". 5. City Council Minutes of 7/15/81 Council Action 10/21: Jensen /Callon moved to continue to 11/18 at 8:00 p.m. with the intention of discussion at study session 11 /10. Passed 5 -0. 11/18: Mallory /Clevenger moved to deny appeal for map with access from Saratoga- _ Sunnvvale Road without prejudice. Passed A,27(Callon, Watson opposed)._ Callon /Clevenger moved that in the event the cul de sac is ov 400 �� finds it is E� in conformape with the SSubdiv' ' On�iztcul I ecause therel is another feas e access. ass Ca on, a on 0998 • RECEIVED SEP 2 4 1931 T WILSON il Development, hic. ' 14370 Saratoga Arenuue, Saratoga, California 95070, (408) 867 -5110 September 24, 1981 City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City Clerk, Wilson Development, Inc., hereby formally files an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of SD 1505 for a tenflot subdivision on September 23, 1981, and requests that our appeal come before the City Council at the earliest date possible. DSW /ss Very truly yours, 14ILSON DEVELOPMENT, INC. David S. Wilson President 1 .. a „ C• Exhibit "A” REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 9/16/81 Commission Meeting: 9/23/81 SUBJECT' SD -1505 Wilson Development, Inc., Saratoga - Sunnyvale & Tricia Way, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 10 lots ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- REQUEST: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 4 acre site on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd in the R- 1- 12,500 zoning district into 10 lots. The access for the lots is proposed to be via a public road from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration dated 8/2,181 to be acted on prior to action on the project. PUBLIC NOTICING: The project has been advertised by posting publication in the newspaper & mailings to neighbors within 500 feet. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING: R -1 - 12,500 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Commercial and Professional Administrative to the north, and residential to the east, south & west. SITE SIZE: ± 4 acres SITE SLOPE: 3.05% Report to Planning Commission SD -1505 9/16/81 Page 2 STAFF ANALYSIS: The previous application for the site (SD -1489) proposed 10 lots with access'via an extension of Tricia Way and an emergency access road to Saratoga - Sunnyvale. The City Council, on appeal of this proposal made the finding that "the proposed subdivision does not meet the terms of the Subdivision Ordinance because it does require a cul -de -sac in excess of 400 feet without secondary access, and they cannot make the finding required by section 13.34 which provides an exception to that." (minutes attached) The present application meets Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance criteria. In discussion at.the Planning Commission Committee of the Whole, some Commissioners expressed concern as to whether creating an additional access onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale would be a safe solution for the subdivision's design. With respect to circulation safety the General Plan states "Facilitate the safe movement of vehicular traffic within and through the City; however., some inconvenience will be accepted where necessary to preserve residential integrity." Staff has stated that the safest way to access the proposed subdivision is via an extension of Tricia Way. With this proposal the Tricia Way temporary'cul de sac is left as is, contiguous to the rear yard of one proposed lot. Other concerns with the proposal are: 1. The noise generated by Saratoga - Sunnyvale traffic. A noise study was done with the original proposal and staff is recommending the applicant be conditioned to landscape and. fence per the Noise Assessment Study. 2. The landscaping and pedestrian walkway along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Staff recommends the applicant be conditioned to provide landscaping in the right -of -way and landscape easement continuing from the adjacent development. Additionally, for safety, the grade difference should be minimized for access onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. 3. Location of two -story homes. Staff recommendations include a condition for no two -story homes. 4. Trees. The site contains several significant trees, some of which are to be removed by the proposed street and several of which may need to be removed at the time of construction. Staff is recommending a condition for Design Review Approval for all the homes which includes review of any tree removals. If the Commission finds the project as proposed, complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, they need to make the following findings: PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Report to Planning Commission 9/16/81 SD -1505 Page 3 A negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: August 27, 1981 The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SD -1505 (Exhibit "B" filed August 20, 1981) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; sub- mission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department requlations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II.. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A. Standard Engineering Conditions. B. Street improvements on 451-ft. right -of -way to be 30-feet. C. No direct access allowed onto Saratoga Sunnyvale Road from Lots 1, 8 -10. No direct access allowed on Tricia Way from Lot 2. D. Provide pedestrian walkway along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at street grade as required by Director of Community Development. Subject to additional requirements of Planning Commission and /or Design Review. E. Provide decorative wall or fencing, including tree planting within lots along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Subject to additional require- ments of Planning Commission and /or Design Review. F. Landscape area between fence and highway. Subject to additional requirements of Planning Commission and /or Design Review. G. Construct storm line as per Master Drainage Plan and as directed by the Director of Community Development. Report to Planning Commission 9/16/81 SD -1505 Page 4 III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional for: 1. Foundations, prior to issuance of building permits. B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities). 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope outfall, location etc.) 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher. 4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. 5. Erosion control measures. 6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map,, north arrows, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. < e C. Bonds required for removal of existing structures including wells and septic tanks. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT A. Sanitary Sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined in letter dated August 26, 1981 B. Annex to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to Final Approval. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT A. Extension'of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants. B. Developer to install 1 hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's specifications. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of building permits. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Cupertino Sanitary District. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. Report to Planning Commission 9/16/81 SD -1505 Page 5 C. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled to County Standards. A $1,000.00 bond, to be posted to insure completion of work. D. Seal well in accordance with County Standards.' A $300.00 bond to be posted to insure completion of work. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and certification. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. The residences shall be built in accordance with the recommendations of the Noise Assessment Study dated April 8, 1981 on the project. B. No two -story residences shall be constructed on any of the lots. C. Individual structures shall be reviewed during Design Review to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. D. Applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way and the landscape easement that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping (including fencing) and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for design review and approval prior to Final Map Approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be in- stalled and established within 90 days of completion of the right -of- way improvements. Fencing shall be in accordance with the recommenda- tions of the Noise Assessment Study dated April 8, 1981, and the stated alternatives. E. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for those landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and easements. The applicant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a minimum of one year after which the homeowners association shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaped areas. Report to Planning Commission 9/16/81 SD -1505 Page 6 F. All individual lot owners shall be required to become members of a homeowners association for the express purpose of maintaining all landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and easements. The C, C, & R's of the homeowners association shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department, prior to final map approval. Approved: P. C. Agenda: 9/23/81 KK:lt Kathy K dus, Assistant Planner ( i Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 Minutes 9/23/81 SDR -1453 (c nt.) Commissioner nia moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR -1453. - Commissioner Ki seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner King he restated his motion to approve SDR -1453. Commissioner Monia seconded the otion, which was carried unanimously. vice- Chairman explaine to the applicant that the Commission is very concern - ed about setting a prece nce at this level for safety conditions that can come about. She notified e applicant of the 15 -day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARINGS t Declaration - SD -:1505 - Wilson Development Corporation 4b. SD -1505 , Wilson Development Corp., Request for Tentative Subdivision A—rnval fnr 10 lots on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Staff described the current proposal, stating that the project had been before the Commission and appealed to the City Council for a 10 -lot sub- division with access off of Tricia Way; the current proposal is for access off of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. They indicated that Staff still feels that the safest access is from Tricia. Way; however, the access out to Sara- toga- Sunnyvale Road should be such that the site problems and access diffi- culties are minimized.- The public hearing was opened at 8:20Ep.�- Dave Wilson, the applicant, pointed out that the Staff Report states that the present application meets Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance criteria. He commented that they felt the best way to develop these lots would be with access off of Tricia Way; however, they have listened to the neighbors,, the Commission and the City Council, and this proposal is a compromise of their wishes. He noted that they have discussed the access with CalTrans, and have received a letter stating that this current proposal is acceptable to them. Mr. Wilson stated that this area is zoned R- 1- 12,500, and the subdivision has an average lot size of 15,560 sq. ft. He pointed out that if only eight lots were approved, they would increase in size to over a half -acre, and that is not compatible with all the other houses in that area. Dick Kier, the engineer, discussed the intersection of the proposed street and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, including the treatment of the existing path. He noted that Condition II -B should read "Street improvements on 45 ft. of right -of -way to be 30 feet." Bob Saxe, the attorney for the applicant, stated that the project meets all City requirements. He discussed the access and the visual aspects. He commented that this subdivision has been studied, designed, and redesigned in a way to accommodate every concern that was raised. Bob Granum, 20421 Tricia Way, addressed the Commission, stating that the proposal does not address good solid consistent planning principles. He commented that he feels this is not the only alternative plan and does not eliminate the temporary easement that exists in front of his home. Mr. Granum indicated that the City street is on 9 feet of his property, and it was always intended to be removed. He stated that Lot a.2 backs up into his front yard, into his neighbor's front yard, and is viewed by the people on Tricia Way. Mr. Granum stated that he did not know of any instance where a back yard is contiguous to the front yard of another home in Saratoga. He submitted an alternative plan, which (1) eliminated the temporary cul -de -sac and temporary easement; (2) adheres to the findings of the Commission and City Council; and (3) eliminates the poor principle of having rear yards face front yards. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff commented that, while it is true that it is not common practice to have 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9/23/81 Page 4 SD -1505 (cont.) rear yards adjacent to side or front yards, it would not be unique in Saratoga; there are other such situations. Commissioner King stated that, while the Commission has heard a great deal from the neighbors about their concern with traffic, he feels that the ori.gi- nal proposal for 10 lots as an extension of Tricia Way was far superior to the current one. He added that good planning says that this is a less safe alternative to the original proposal. Commissioner King stated that he believes that if the subdivision were conditioned for single -story struc- tures it would eliminate a lot of the concerns of the neighbors expressed in many hours of testimony, and that the traffic issue would be better served by the original plan. Commissioner Monia stated that he feels the current proposal is the best, given the alternatives that have been studied. He added that he feels that is the basic consensus that came out of the meetings with the developer, the residents and the City Council. Commissioner Monia moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SD -1505. Commissioner Bolger commented that he has had a great deal of concerns about this particular project. He noted that his original comments were that he did not feel that the first proposal was consistent with the General Plan and he was not in favor of the emergency access the way it was proposed. He added that he has been concerned about the routing of the traffic out to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; however,'he feels if the traffic was routed back out through Tricia Way, it would. go down Regan and eventually end up on Blauer. He stated that he has concluded that this proposal would generate only around 120 vehicle trips per day on a road that is probably generating an excess of 20,000 vehicle trips per day; therefore, he would second the motion to approve the Negative Declaration for SD -1505. Commissioner King commented that he did not feel it is the number of trips per day that cause the hazard, because the number is quite small in either case. 'He explained that he is troubled by the incidents of people turning and stopping for turns at another intersection, as opposed to vehicle trips per day. Commissioner Bolger commented that he has taken that into account, and he feels that primarily there will be vehicles turning to the right or coming out and turning to the right, not cross traffic. He added that he feels that since there is not going'to be a traffic light at Blauer Drive at this time, the original proposal would merely be impacting that unlighted inter- section with more traffic that would be going across at a full intersection. The vote was taken on the motion to approve the Negative Declaration for SD -1505. There was a tie vote, since Commissioners King and Schaefer dissented. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she had voted against the motion because she agrees with Commissioner King. She explained that, although CalTrans has said they feel that it is potentially safe, she feels that having two roads so close together is critically unsafe, particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would like to see a compromise on Tricia Way with perhaps 8 homes, rather than creating little pockets off of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. The Deputy City Attorney stated that, since there is a split vote, the matter could be agendized at the next meeting, when there will be a full Commission. Discussion followed, and Mr. Wilson, the applicant, stated that he felt the matter would end up at the City Council in any event, and he would like to expedite the matter. Commissioner Monia moved to deny the Negative Declaration for SD -1505, because there was a deadlock and the applicant would like to move to the City Council as soon as possible. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. - 4 - Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 Minutes 9/23/81 SD -1505 (cont.) Commissioner Monia moved to deny SD- -1505. Commissioner King seconded the motion, on the basis that the prior plan of the 10 -lot subdivision taking access off of Tricia Way is the desirable solution. Commissioner Monia commented that the purpose of making the motion to deny this subdivision is to allow the applicant to have some expeditious means of resolving his problem. The motion was carried unanimously. S. A -782 - Aaron Berman, Request for Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a one - -story single family dwelling over 22' in height (32' -36' max.) on Via Tesoro, Lot #2 Staff described the current proposal. The public heari was opened at 8:57 p.m. Angelo Lieber, rep esenting the applicant, stated that the house they have submitted is 21 ft. high and they are asking for a 14 ft. rise; which would total 35 ft., not 4142 ft., as suggested in the Staff Report. Staff clarified that they ve measured the height of the proposed structure from the approved fin shed floor of 404 to the top of roof, which would make the structure 34 t. from natural grade or 39 ft. from finished grade. - -•" Mr. Lieber stated that hey feel they have a problem with the interpreta- tion of natural grade be ause the lot is unique, and the ordinance does allow for the alleviatio when one has a nonvisible basement area. He commented that they would like the Eintprpretation of a nonvisible basement addressed at this time. Lieber indicated that Mr. Haas had represented himself as the developer a the previous hearing; however, Mr. Berman owned the property at that time, d he was not aware that the property was under review. Therefore, he did n t have the opportunity to address the 2 ft. request to drop the pad down o 404, which it is now. Mr. Lieber submitted an exhibit showing this and st ted that the house that Mr. Berman had designed did not take this req 'rement into consideration at the time. He explained that Mr. Berman ha been promised an outstanding view of 360 degrees; he now does not have th s. Mr. Lieber indicated that they have submitted a new plan which has a educed height in the structure itself; secondly, they are asking that it e raised so the applicant has a reasona- ble view. He clarified that Mr. B man bought the property from Mr. Haas, and Mr. Haas was not under contract at the time of the previous hearing' in February to develop the property. The Deputy City Attorney stated that t is should be considered as a new design review approval, and he did not eel that the situation involving Mr. Haas was pertinent at the present ti e. Commissioner King commented that the neigh ors had previously been concerned about the height of this house, and now the applicant is proposing to raise it to a 443 elevation. Mr. Weaver stated that another reason for the request to raise the pad is because Mrs. Berman has a problem with her legs and cannot go upstairs. Chuck Allen, aide to the applicant, clarified that Mr. Berman's plan does not include a cellar, and the large void that exists there now because of the cut will be backfilled. Ron Mancuso, Chester Avenue, stated that he was confused, because he thought the design had been worked out. He commented that, \looking at this plan, the refill. is going to be at a point as high or high r than the highest point of the lot that exists now, and from that point it will be raised. He expressed concern for himself and the homeowners in that area regarding the impact on privacy. He stated that he feels this d ,sign takes unfair advantage of the privacy of the existing homes, and som� type of modifica- tion should he considered. \ Chuck Allen indicated that the landscaning plan has a IS ft. landscaped AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 p.m. A. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR TEN LOTS ON TRICIA WAY (Applicant /appellant, David S. Wilson) "r 7- 7/15/81 ACTION The City Manager reviewed the appeal. The Planning Director briefed the Council on the subdivision, stating that the principal issues were (1) nur ber of lots on a cul -de -sac, (2) leng, of the cul -de -sac, and (3) number or location of two - stories. It was notes that the Public Works Department had indicated that the most logical and safest way was to have access on Tric: Way; however, the neighbors were not in favor of this access because of th( increased traffic. The Planning Direc for pointed out that the General Plan. as well as the Subdivision Ordinance, indicates as a matter of policy that there only be 15 lots on a cul -de -sac unless there is an emergency access. He added that this project does have an emergency access provided in the cul -de` -sac to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road which does meet that provision. Discussion followed on the length of the cul -de -sac and the possibility of full access onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The Public Works Director stated that it has been an effort of the City to minimize the number of streets intersecting thoroughfare streets, particularly streets such as Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road which has a heavy traffic volume. He explained that to access this would require U -turns at Blauer and Paramount and creates an additional maneuver in a traffic stream of heavy volume, which adds to the hazards of the roadway. The Planning Director discussed the proposed soundivall, including land- scaping, sound - proofing and the appropriate setbacks. The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. Bob Saxe, attorney representing the appellant, stated that the enOineer was present tonight to explain how the design of the adjacent P.inn Brothers subdivision, which he pre- pared, was done in such a way that Tricia Way was intended to he the extension to serve this property. Mr. Saxe quoted the Staff Report on this project, which states that the projec: complies with all objectives of tho General Plan and requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. He pointed out that this proposal speci- fically provides for emergency access P AGENDA C 8- 7/lS/81 ACTION and is consistent with the language in the General Plan. He noted that, regarding the length of the cul- de -sai the Planning Commission had agreed that it was not realistic to take access directly onto Saratoga- Sunnyva: Road; therefore, he felt the finding could be made that Tricia Way is the only feasible access. Mr. Saxe dis- cussed the traffic and pointed out that the Public Works Staff had state, that there would be no traffic impact as a result of this project. Dave Wilson, the appellant, discussed the development of the project, stat- ing that, after much time and study, they had determined that the most intelligent and well planned develop- ment would be an extension of Tricia Way. When questioned about alterna- tives, he stated that if the City makes the determination that Saratoga Sunnyvale Road is a better access to the property, they will investigate that access. Mr. Wilson discussed the proposed landscaping along Sara- toga- Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Richard Kier, engineer, described the soundwall, including its location and setbacks. Thomas O'Donnell, the attorney repre- senting the neighbors on Tricia !'Jay, showed a chart indicating the loca- tion of the signators on the petition which had.previously been submitted against the project. He explained that his clients are not againstt the development of the property, but are concerned about access and density. Mr. O'Donnell stated that they would like to see the access be right turns onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, and if the Council does not feel that to be a satisfactory solution, then they would like the number of homes to be reduced to 6. lie pointed out that a right turn onto Sara to on - Syunnyval.e Road does not seem to be that dan- gerous, and they are concerned with the safety of the children. Pat. Carroll, resident of Tricia Way, discussed the proposed access onto Tricia, stressing concern that there are 18 children in the 9 homes on Tricia Way. Ronald Pizaiali, 13123 Regan, stated that he had not seen any other alternatives from the developer, even AGENDA 9- 7/15/81 ACTION though promised. He expressed con- cern over tree removal, specifically at the entrance point into the expan- sion of the cul -de -sac. He added that they were only asking for an ex- tension of the current access to Saratoga - Sunnyvale that already exists Mr. Touns, 13035 Regan Lane, expressed concern over the traffic and the height of the houses. The Planning Director explained that each home will be going through design review. Gil Troutman, 13070 Regan Lane, commented that two -story homes would completely block his view. He express a desire for a stop sign on the corner of Tricia way and Regan and also on Argonaut and Regan, in order to slow down traffic. He indicated that he felt a "traffic light at Saratoga - Sunnyvale would slow down traffic sufficiently to make a safe access ont that road from the new development. Alan King, 14690 Fieldstone Drive, spoke to the fact that he believes tha the Planning Commission erred in this decision, and he feels the project does meet the intent of the General Plan and the local zoning. He added that he feels the Planning Commission should have conditioned the develop- ment for single -story homes, which would be appropriate for the communit�- Bob Granum, Tricia Way, referenced the petition with 72 signatures that had been submitted, opposing this development. He stated that he has the right to preserve the well being of his family and property value, and when he purchased his home there was clearly a temporary curve at the end of the cul -de -sac. He noted that the initial Staff Report had been changed and it now says that an option does exist. Fie stated that he had con- tacted CalTrans, who said that an acces can be provided on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road if a reasonable plan is presento�i Ile urged that this proposal, be referred back to the Staff or deve.lope for alternative solutions. Mr. Saxe again addressed the Council, clarifying that construction traffic on Tricia Way could be avoided by constructing from Saratoa-Sunnyvale Road up the existing driveway. He also commented that they are agreeable to C -AGENDA E t 10- 7/1S/81 ACTION the condition of one -story homes. Mr. Kier explained that the sub- division map for Pinn Brothers very clearly shows the extension of Tricia Way and also indicates a temporary turnaround easement that was granted to the City by the developer. WATSON /MALLORY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (5 -0). ,. -CLEVENGER /JENSEN MOVED THAT THE APPEAL FOR SD -1489 BE DENIED. Councilmember Clevenger stated that she felt 1S homes should be allowed but no more. She added that she felt the overall cumulative traffic impact. of a future development at Cunningham Court should also be considered. She stated that the access should be from Tricia Way and not Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, and the issue is the number of homes on the cul -de -sac. She would approve this cul -de -sac if there were only 6 homes on it and it would not exceed the 15 homes that the City advocates. Councilmember Jensen concurred. She expressed the desire for the access to be moved to preserve the cluster of fir trees. She also indicated that she would like Staff to explore the possibility of a stop sign at Argonaut and Regan and Regan and Tricia Way. Mayor Callon indicated that she did not feel 10 homes would add much more traffic than 6 , but expressed concern about the length and design of the cul -de -sac. She suggested the possi- bility of the developer either reducing the number of homes and shortening the cul -de -sac with access onto Tricia, or open the access onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with the full number of homes. She added that she felt openings on Saratoga - Sunnyvale are dangerous, but if there were just 10 homes, it may be possible. The City Manager pointed out that this is not a de novo hearing and the issues to be considered at this time are those that were presented to the Commission. fie explained that, while the Council may express preference or indicate its views with regard to the project, it would be inappropriate to condition the conclusions or findings. It was clarified that the issue of access is appropriate, but it would c c AGENDA i c 11- 7/15/81 ACTION not be appropriate to amend the tentative map. However, the Council can give the developer an indication of the direction they feel he should take. Councilmember Watson stated that he feels the significant issue is the number of cars that would impact that area; however, he is sensitive to the fact that Mr. Wilson would like to develop this in the most efficient an; effective way. He concurred that there are alternatives that have not been explored that can minimize the impact to adjacent people, and, for that reason, he would support a denia of the application. The Planning Director clarified the fact that the developer could come in with a new map with 10 homes that had access only off of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, provided that Ile meet all the necessary street standards and was able to meet the lot widths. Councilmember Mallory stated that he would vote against the motion, because he feels very strongly that there should not be a permanent acces onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road with the increased houses in this area. H added that he thinks that the emergenc access is proper on Saratoga -Sum nyval and that Tricia Way should be used fo the full access. He explained that the nr000sed development would main- tain the basic character of Tricia. He basically feels there is no reason, because of the emergency access, to only have 15 homes in this area and feels this proposal is a moderate one The findings were discussed b}r the Ci Attorney. CLEVE-NGER /JENSEN AMENDED THE MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL ON SD -1489 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, MAKING THE' FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DOES NOT %H ':F THE TERMS OF THE SUBDIVISION OI2IITNANC BECAUSE IT DOES REQUIRE A CUL -DE -SAC IN EXCESS OF 400 FEET WITHOUT SECON- DARY ACCESS, AND THEY CANNOT MAKE THE FINDING REQUIRED BY SECTION l..i. WHICH PROVIDES AN EXCEPTION TO THAT. Passed 4 -1 (Mallory opposed). 4 File 140: SD -1505 Sai-at;oga _ DECLARATION TITAT ENVIPON14ENTAL I1,1P7iCT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative'Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970. The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SA)?AI'0!1-)A, 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 15030 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 ter ;ns and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION] The project involves dividing a 4 acre site into 10 - 12,500.sq. ft. plus lots in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Presently the site consists of 2 lots with 2 houses and accessory structures. The Olson lot also contains old equipment,.cars and various dis- (farded items. Several significant trees exist on the site, some of which.are proposed for.removal by the road. The site will access onto Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road'. EAME ANrD ADDRESS of A ?P•LICANT Butler and Wilson 1.4370oo�cSaratoga Avenue R]��SDia'l'OI2 9N G.TIVE DECLARATION A noise study and review of the traffic and drainage impacts on Cal Trans facilities are included as part of this document. Mitigation measures for the noise impact of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road are recommended by the study and are to be included in the project. The project, developed in accord with the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and recommended mitigation measures, is.not expected to have a significant effect on the environment. Executed at Saratoga, California this 27th day of August 1981 R. S. RonlNsoN, JR. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND EI`��IROivrI:I:TAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SAI ATOGA P DIRI:C`iOR' S AUT:IORI ZED STAFF 1,10,113E11 2A g 1981 October 5, 1981 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Wilson Development - Agenda Item, October 21, Public Hearing Dear Council Member: As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way and Regan Lane. 2) Limit the homes to single story residences. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineer, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. Sincerely, :. LIVED 81981 Octob 5, 1981 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Wilson Development - Agenda Item, October 21, Public Hearing Dear Council Member: As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal df ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way and Regan Lane. 2) Limit the homes to single story residences. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineer, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. Sincerely, �7. L ? l Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 EE NED 81981 October 5, 1981 SUBJECT: Wilson Development - Agenda Item, October 21, Public Hearing Dear Council Member: As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way'and Regan Lane. 2) Limit the homes to single story residences. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineer, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. Sincerely, William G. Kinder and Mrs. Billie A. Xinder 20412 Tricia Way Saratoga, Calif. 95070 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Wilson Development - Dear Council Member: C 81981 October 5, 1981 nda Item, October 21, Public Hearin As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way'and Regan Lane. 2) Limit the homes to single story residences. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineer, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. Sincerely, L-J. -'t f October 5, 1981 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Wilson Development - Agenda Item, October 21, Public Hearing Dear Council Member: As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way and Regan Lane. 2) Limit the homes to single story residences. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineer, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. Sincerely, G7 October 5, 1981 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Wilson Development - Agenda Item, October 21, Public Hearing Dear Council Member: As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way and Regan Lane. 2) Limit the homes to single story residences. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineer, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. Sincerely, /�o c,L o c<� —•tip. October 5, 1981 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Wilson Development - Agenda Item, October 21, Public Hearing Dear Council Member: As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way'and Regan Lane. 2) Limit the homes to single story residences. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineer, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. Sincerely, O w October 5, 1981 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Wilson Development - Agenda Item, October 21, Public Hearing Dear Council Member: As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way and Regan Lane. 2) Limit the homes to single story residences. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineer, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. Sincerely, a� 3� C S S October 5, 1981 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Wilson Development - Agenda Item, October 21, Public Hearing Dear Council Member: As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way'and Regan Lane. 2) Limit the homes to single story residences. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineer, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in.an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. Sincerely, r is ' U E 91981 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 October 5, 1981 SUBJECT: Wilson Development - Agenda Item, October 21, Public Hearing Dear Council Member: As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way and Regan Lane. 2) Limit the homes to single story residences. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineer, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. Sincerely, / &,4� �L57 7,0 S October 5, 1981 15 1981 Saratoga City Council — 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Wilson Development - Agenda Item, October 21, Public Hearing Dear Council Member: As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way'and Regan Lane. 2) Limit the homes to single story residences. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineer, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. Sincerely, CZ-1 A-Lb 3. I� z i A l_ k i CA-L r' 9 Sz0 7 a S6-1- Z1Z3 C Mane "P"Z,`d /3/23 R� a� � October 5, 1981 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Wilson Development- Agenda Item, October 21, Public Hearing Dear Council Member: As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way'and Regan Lane. 2) Limit the homes to single story residences. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineer, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. Sincerelv, G., rtlPo�t t Y,.i ,v, 3 010 A Q )TV j, A-). 5o?ig 6 P,C01- 7co 0 October 5, 1981 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Wilson Development - Agenda Item, October 21, Public Hearing Dear Council Member: As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way'and Regan Lane. 2) Limit the homes to single story residences. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineer, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. Sincerelv. ��V , �;, -77dep2ttv earol yo A F.ellms a CO26 D &90 na,, 4r, ra �oVa %a . 9 s-2) �71) �- ��e�a�� October 5, 1981 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Wilson Development - Agenda Item, October 21, Public Hearing Dear Council Member: As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way and Regan Lane. 2) Linit th� homes to single story residences. az4zt Q o Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineef, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply S with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. Sincerely, c �3c3s'' -� October 5, 1981 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 STTBJECT: Wilson Development - Agenda Item, October 21, Public Hearing Dear Council Member: As a resident of Saratoga affected by the proposed Wilson development of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale road, I wish to express my support of Mr. Wilson's recent proposal taken before the Planning Commission September 23. The proposal of ten homes off of Saratoga Sunnyvale complies in all respects with our request to: 1) Provide no additional traffic hazards to the residents of Tricia Way'and Regan Lane. 2) Limit the homes to single story residences. Furthermore, Mr. Wilson and his engineer, Mr. Kier, have sought to comply with all Saratoga ordnances in their proposed development. I can see no reason to further delay Mr. Wilson's development. Finally, the Planning Commission was split 2 -2 in their decision to accept the new Wilson proposal, with one member changing his vote to deny the proposal in an effort to expedite the matter to Council. We solicit your help in reversing the negative declaration of the Planning Commission, and approve the development as proposed. sincerely. U V 3 WILSON Development, Inc. 14370 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, (408) 867 -5110 October 16, 1981 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Council Members: On Wednesday, October 21, 1981, you will be hearing our appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a tentative map for a 10 lot subdivision accessing from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. This plan was developed in direct response to the concerns voiced at our last hearing before the City Council. In the process of developing the plan which you previously viewed and the one to be presented on October 21, other alternatives for development of the parcel have been explored by us. We now feel that a study session with the City Council to review the various alternatives would be extremely beneficial in order to obtain the best possible plan for development of the property, taking into consideration the concerns of the City, the neighbors, and our company. Therefore, we are requesting that this item be scheduled for a study session following the public hearing presentation on October 21. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, WILSON DEVELOPMENT, INC. _L) "';4/. A%ial� David S. Wilson President E P :. � ,� o ' 22Q6 a -'' tw ti Q — (�- — :�• W 1 "- too' I� � � 4 • a t 16199 \ / . LL ° 14 rM 4n. -M -IZ ; °�L �; a9' 34 a± IS N. cr o I 35 u 5 �� :6 GC _ ent .roanrrtc 1 - z _ 5 Z v 1 ; tl lY �. — _ 1 42 its I � 34 17 �5 s ) � S W- tvav r N ��•— - - -- I — law , October 21, 1981 City of Saratoga Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council Re: Tenative Map or Wilson Developare_nt and Tricia Way cul-de -sac Gentleiren : We, the Owners of Lots 3 & 4 of Tract 6199 (please refer to attached plot plan), endorse the proposed Wilson development subject to one issue which has not been addressed but is appropriately addressed in conjunction with the Wilson application. Tricia Way terminates with a temporary cul-de -sac which has been improved with minimal asphalt (only 1" in areas) and temporary extruded curbs as opposed to poured in place curb and gutters. It is currently in a state of poor repair. This cul-de -sac also encroaches upon both of our properties conning within 15' of our homes in scare areas as opposed to 30' which is typical in the area as a result of the required 25' set back and 5' distance from property line to curb. With the advent of the Wilson development we are rightfully and reasonably requesting that this temporary cul-de -sac now be reimved and Tricia My stubbed at its termination. We are requesting this in light of the following: 1. We are correct in pointing out there exists rnureroous situations in the City where the streets are terminated with a "stubbed" street. Staff has verified this. 2. The configuration of Tricia Way obviously lends itself to termination as a.stub. The stub serves only one driveway.and two hares. With the exception of'our two homes, turn arounds" occur at the elbow not in the temporary cul-de -sac. - 1 - e A October 21, 1981 3. The cul-de -sac encroaches upon our properties. We want our .yards back so we can landscape and finish our hones. We do not.want to be negatively burdened with a cul-de -sac that comes within 15' of our homes. 4. We, the only affected property owners, were told this .was a temporary cul-de -sac only and at some point we would be able to complete our yards. With the development of the adjacent property we now need the Council's recognition of our situation and equitable treatment. So, we are requesting the City Council's understanding and granting of the following: That-it is resolved the temporary easement and temporary cul-de -sac at Tricia Way be abandoned and the street be conpleted with the installation of permanent curbs and gutter .maintaining the standard City distance between curb of 30' to its termination. Secondly,.. that .the installation of such improvements be attached as a condition of the Wilson tentative map or the City of Saratoga assume the responsibility for their installation. Presumably, the previous developer would have been required to post a bond for the subsequent installation of permanent curb and gutter since the developer.was permitted to install only temporary curbs and asphalt. We respectfully request your understanding of our desire to eliminate a cul-de -sac not needed and encroaching on our homes. Thank you. Sincerely, Mr. & 'Mr ames o Mr. & Mrs. Rnbert.M. Granum - 2 - :OArOS 30 L SA. F lj 770 Zf, xv $Orr O LLI 21 C.WRO! 4 41v r. MIS L4-VO SrA,-AG, 1Pf1d4=, A'fG-4yV 70,fl 1 r o RENATO G. MARTINEZ, C.E TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANT P.O. Box 177 LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA 94022 TELEPHONE (415) 948 -1105 November 18, 1981 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 RG M ASSOCIATES OFFICE: 146 MAIN STREET LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA Re: Residential Street Access to Wilson Development Co. Property from Sunnyvale - Saratoga Rd. (SR82) Dear Council Members: This is to advise you that a direct access street from Saratoga - -Sunnyvale Rd. approximately 500' south of Blaur Drive could be designed to conform with State Standards as contained in the Cal Trans Highway Design Manual. Right turn access to and from Sunnyvale - Saratoga Road is an acceptable means of access for the proposed 10 unit subdivision. The existing driveway is about 300' south of Blaur Drive and would be closed. Respectfully submitted, Renato G. Martinez, C. . Traffic Engineering Consultant Ecn: Cal Trans Planning Manual Excerpts p. 7 -206.1 Read Connections and Driveways Fig. 7 -206.1 Access Openings on Expressways p. 7 -406.1 Typical Intersection Designs Fig. 7- 406.1 All -Paved Public Road Intersection RGM /nw P.O. BOX 177 • LOS ALTOS. CALIFORNIA 94022 • TELEPHONE 4 415) 948 -1105 R•120' R•32* - R•120' va I MINIMUM STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE I ,—Encroachments limited to this Sight Line — — — — — — — — — — — 10Q 1A — — — — — — — --- P010 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — to, — — — — — — — — -- — — — - Encroachments limited to this Sight Line R-120' R•32' R•120' = te Stopped vehicle Is assumed 20' long. MINIMUM STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE L W7 , ca C C a -9 C a 0 N o '16. 01 4A DESIGN SPEED M.P.H. STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE FEET 30 200 40 275 '5 so ,5 0 35 0 Go 475 70 1 600 R•120' R•32* - R•120' va I MINIMUM STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE I ,—Encroachments limited to this Sight Line — — — — — — — — — — — 10Q 1A — — — — — — — --- P010 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — to, — — — — — — — — -- — — — - Encroachments limited to this Sight Line R-120' R•32' R•120' = te Stopped vehicle Is assumed 20' long. MINIMUM STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE L W7 , ca C C a -9 C a 0 N o '16. 01 4A Port 7— Design PLANNING MANUAL Typical Intersection Designs (7 -406) 7 -406.1 All -Paved Public Road Intersection Figure 7 -406.1 illustrates the minimum standard all -paved public road intersection design for a right - angle crossing. The 3- center compound curve closely approximates the turning requirements of the com- mercial design vehicle. For skewed intersections, the curve central angles and radii must be adjusted to fit the angle of intersection. The design should be checked for adequacy with the truck turn templates (see Index No. 7- 405.4). In the application of the minimum all -paved public road design to skewed intersections, it may be desir- able to introduce a small triangular traffic island in the acute angle to reduce the size of the paved area and to provide a location for the installation of stop and directional signs. Also, in the obtuse angle of skewed intersections, it may be desirable to substitute a simple curve for the 3- center combination when the reduced length of the central are makes a 3- center curve impractical. 7 -406.2 Bulb Connections for Frontage Road Bulb connections are used at intermediate connec- tions to frontage roads. (See Figure 7- 406.2.) They are designed to accommodate the maximum vehicle. Instructions for determining the width of pavement necessary are given under Index No. 7- 405.4. If it can be expected that heavy vehicles will use an opening frequently, the throat should be wide enough to accommodate two vehicles simultaneously. For less important bulb connections, the throat can be designed to accommodate the maximum vehicle by allowing encroachment on the opposing lane. Chan - nelization may be required to prevent wrong -way movements. 7 -406.3 Two -lane Road With Separate Turning Lane Figure 7 -406.3 illustrates an intersection on a 2 -lane facility where traffic volumes justify a separate turn- ing lane in one quadrant only. The same principle may be expanded to provide separate turning lanes in each quadrant when traffic warrants exist. Left -turn conflicts for the traffic volumes indicated do not war- rant channelization for the left -turn movements. 7 -406.4 Minimum Median Left -turn Channelization Figures 7- 406.4A -B are examples of median left - turn channelization for undivided highways where a 7 -406.1 August, 1961 minimum design is warranted because of traffic con- ditions and right of way limitations. (1) Storage Length. In urban areas where blocks are short the needed storage length may be obtained by the following expedients: (a) When space is limited,.'as in a channelization confined to a length of one block, a median speed - change lane taper 60 feet long should be used (See Table 7- 405.5). (b) If the storage length is such that the channel- ization cannot be confined to one block, the method shown in Figure 7- 406.4B may be used. The principles governing the layout illustrated in Figures 7- 406.4A -B apply to both 2 -lane and multi- lane roads and to situations where unequal widening would be required. (3) Shoulders. The full shoulder width should be provided whenever feasible. Where the improvement is confined to the existing right of way or the take of additional right of way must be minimized, the shoul- der may be omitted and parking restricted. 7 -406.5 Channelized "Y" Figure 7 -406.5 illustrates a 4 -lane divided channel- ization at a "Y" connection where relatively heavy turning volumes must be accommodated. This type of channelization may be applied to a 4 -lane divided through facility; it also may be used on a 2 -lane facil- ity by transitioning to a 4 -lane divided section through the intersection area. 7 -406.6 Four -lane Divided Highway With Separate Turning Lane Figure 7 -406.6 illustrates a channelized intersection on a 4 -lane divided highway with a 22 -foot median. The traffic flow diagram shows warrants for a sepa- rate turning lane in one quadrant. Median decelera- tion lanes are provided for both left turns. 7 -406.7 Widening of 2 -Lane Roads at Signalized Intersections Two -lane state highways should be widened at in- tersections to 4 lanes whenever signals are -installed. Sometimes it is also necessary to widen the inter- secting road. The minimum design is shown in Figure 7- 406.7. More elaborate treatment may be warranted by the volume and pattern of traffic movements. Un- usual turning movement patterns may possibly call for a different shape of widening. HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 7 -206.1 August 1. 1975 PLAN SINGLE RECESSED OPENING ► w- , Iw -w.w 60.0" 0400 IWO". ■L ....a j .......... as.-V-, .L ;... .......... a 1 � V N aMM�M CASE Joint Openings when Angle of 1 Property Line varies from 601 to 120• with the Right of Way Una. Yeyene Access acquired ........ Property Line _ _ _ Area acquired by State (= NOTE: By widening the expressway shoulder deceleration lanes may be provided where justified. Q P A- a ^-s :1ii f.:' • : a_ s 11111 ...ass rase so- • s GM + to 5d CASE Joint Openings when Angle of Property 2 Line is less than 60• or more then 120• with the Right of Way Una. 7 )' J I HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Road Connections and Driveways (7-206)' 7 -206.1 Access Openings on Expressways Access openings are used only on expressways. The term access opening applies to openings through the right of way line which serve abutting land owner- ships whose remaining access rights have been ac- quired by the State. (1) Giiteria for Location. To discourage wrong way movements, access openings should be located at least 300 feet from a median opening. This does not prohibit locating an access opening opposite the median opening. (See "Control of Access," Index 7- 104.) (2) Width. The normal access opening width shall be 30 feet. A greater width may result in large savings in right of way costs in some instances but should be considered with caution because of the possibility that public use might develop. Conversion of a private opening into a public road connection requires the consent of the CTC, which cannot be committed in advance. Openings greater than 30 feet but not greater than 60 feet, will be permitted only if all of the following conditions are met: (a) Concurrence of property owner. (b) Information has been furnished, to the prop- erty owner that conversion of the private road connection to public road usage, by subdivid- ing the adjacent property would be lawful only by consent, by resolution, of the CTC. (c) Substantial savings in right of way costs. (d) Sight distance equivalent to that required for public road intersections. (e) Not less than V2 mile spacing to adjacent exist- ing public road intersection or to another pri- vate access opening that is wider than 30 feet. (f) Discussion with local agencies. (g) Recommended by the District Director based on both_ design and right of way considera- tions. (h) Approval by the Chief, Office of Planning and Design. (3) Recessed Openings Recessed openings, as shown on Figure 7-206.1, are desirable at all points where private access is permitted and shall be pro- vided whenever they can be obtained without re- quiring alterations to existing adjacent improvements. When recessed openings are re- quired, the opening shall be located a minimum dis- . tance of 75 feet from the nearest edge of the through pavement. (4) Joint Openings. A joint access opening serv- ing two parcels of land is desirable whenever feasi- ble. Approved designs are shown on Figure 7- 206.1. (5) Surfacing. All points of private access shall be provided with surfacing of sufficient width and struc- 7 -206.1 August 1, 1979 tural strength to adequately serve the anticipated traffic. Such surfacing shall extend from the edge of the traveled way to the right of way line. r (6) Delineation ofPlam Access taking and access openings are designated op, the plans as shown in Figure 7206.1. :V1 , 7 -206.2 Private Rood Connections The minimum private road connection design is shown on Figure 7- 206.1. Sight distance..require- ments for the minimum private road connection are the same as for all- -paved public road connections shown in Figure 7- 406.1. 7 -2063 Urban Driveways - s These instructions apply to the design of driveways to serve property fronting on State highways in cities or in areas outside the cities where urban type devel- opment is encountered They do not apply where access is controlled by deed conditions. For driveways on frontage roads and in rural areas see Index 7- 206.4. Details for drive- way construction are shown on Figure 7- 206.3. (1) Correlation with Local Standards Where there is an ordinance regulating driveway construc- tion the more restrictive standard will normally gov- ern. (2) Driveway Width. The width of driveways for both residential and commercial usage is the dis- tance "W" between slopes. (The widths of the slopes are called "X" distances. See Figure 7-206.3.) (3) Residential Driveways. The width of single residential driveways is 12 feet minimum and 20 feet maximum. The width "of a double residential drive- way such as used for multiple dwellings is 20 feet minimum and 30 feet maximum The width selected should be based on an analysis of the anticipated volume, type and speed of traffic, location of build- ings and garages, width of street, etc. The sides of these driveways shall be at right angles to the curb in all cases where the sidewalk is less than 3 feet from the curb. (4) Commercial Driveways The maximum width for commercial driveways is established as fol- lows: (a) When only one driveway serves a given prop- erty frontage and the speed limit is less than 45 mph the maximum width of driveway shall be 35 feet. Where such a speed limit is 45 mph or more the maximum width of driveway may be increased to 40 feet, if this width is consist- ent with existing or proposed improvements. In no case shall the width of driveway includ- ing the "X" distances exceed the property frontage. (b) When more than one driveway is to serve a i 1.1�j1 E :R�1 OO K aI DD t 1.MI � 1 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: Director of Public Works DATE: 7/15/81 FROM: Asst. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: SD 1489, Wilson Development - Tricia Way The following report is intended to make you aware of the position I presented to the Planning Commission during their consideration of the subject subdivision. It was and remains my position that direct access onto Highway #85 would be undesirable. Due to the proximity of the Blauer Dr. intersection, a median opening most likely would not be permitted by Caltrans. This would require U -turns to be made at either Blauer Dr. or Paramount Dr. Such maneuvers on a high volume road are considered very bad practice I explained the potential for accidents is closely related to roadway volume and, therefore, felt the use of Regan Ln. and Blauer Dr. for access was clearly preferred. Because of these and other potential traffic safety problems, I recommended that the subdivision take access by extending Tricia Way. Further, that it was my opinion that Tricia Way was stubbed at this location to provide this access. Background Data: Blauer Dr. (west of Regan Ln.) 2071 ADT Peak Hr. (3 -4 p.m.) volume 244 Regan Ln. (south of Blauer Dr.) 1378 ADT Peak Fir. (4 -5 p.m.) volume 203 Hwy. #85 (south of Cox Ave.) 30,000 ADT* Peak Hr. volume 3,300 *Two -way total of divided roadway. I hope that this memo gives Wan rstandila of what took place at the Planning Commission. Dan Trnidad, Jr. DT /dsc Nov. 16, 1981 . To: Mayor and City Council of Saratoga From: Residents of Regan Lane and Tricia Court Subject: Wilson Property Development The purpose of this communication is to indicate the disapproval of neighborhood residents with the actions of the City Council regarding the Wilson Proprosal that would have the new homes exit onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. * 1. We were not informed in writing of the meeting of Nov. 10th held to discuss the development. This was the reason for no neighborhood represen- tation at the meeting. * 2. Through great effort (walk tour of property, working sessions at city hall, hiring a representative at expense of neighbors, Council meeting attendance, Planning Commission attendance and numerous phone calls and letters) the neighbors have made an input to this development plan. We have worked earnestly with the Planning Commission, the developer, the Planning staff and with each other to reach a solution. Through this considerable effort, a plan was achieved to have homes exit and enter on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. The purpose of our mutual plan was to avoid further increasing the traffic on Regan Lane and to mitigate the hazard of additional traffic to the many small children living on Tricia Ct. State transportation authorities have accepted our plan. Planning staff has not raised serious objections. * 3. We believe it is highly inappropriate for our elected representatives to intercede at this late date to reverse all the work that has been done by those involved, particularly with the minimal participation of Council in all our prepatory work. We assume Council has a Planning Staff and Planning Commission to work out details as we have done in good faith. We, the neighbors, took time out of our busy schedules to do our "homework" with the developer, the Commission and the Planning staff - only for that work to be virtually ignored, then reversed by the Mayor and Council. * 4. We are calling on the Mayor and Council to accept the proposal worked out by the residents, the developer, and the Planning Staff whereby the new homes will enter and exit onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Tricia Court will remain a closed cul -de -sac. This will avoid worsening the traffic further on Regan Lane and Blauer Drive and will avoid an impact on the safety of small children living on Tricia Court. Subject: Wilson Appeal (SD -150S) -� I , ' I tme 0 Review of this subdivision involves the following General Plan objective and policy and Subdivision Ordinance requirements: For safety, every new or developing residential area in the City with more than 15 housing units should have a primary and secondary (or emergency) access. (General Plan, p. 19). Facilitate the safe movement of vehicular traffic within and through the City; however, some inconvenience will be accepted where necessary to preserve residential integrity." (General Plan, p. 15). Subdivision Ordinance. Section 15: "Not as a mandate, but as a statement of future policy on all matters concerning the design and improvement of sites and subdivision, the follow- ing shall generally not be approved: (c) culdesac, deadend and other streets not having a means of secondary access where such street services more than fifteen lots or building sites." and Section 13.3 -4 ...No cul -de -sac shall be longer than four hundred feet from its intersection with the centerline of a non cul -de -sac street to the center of the turn - around, unless a length in excess of said four hundred feet is, in the opinion of the advisory agency, the only feasible method of developing the property for the use for which it is zoned... b 66473.55 GOVERNMENT CODE first be amended and that developer then make his project consistent with it. Mountain Defense League v. Board of Sup'rs, San Diego County (1977) 185 Cal. Rptr. 688, 66 C.A.3d 728. 2. Findings Where motion which produced city coun- cil findings that proposed development of 70 -unit condominium complex contained a specific reference to staff report which considered the conflicting factors relevant to determining whether the proposed proj- ect was consistent with city's general plan, the reference to the staff report sufficed to incorporate that part of the report in the formal findings of the council. McMillan v. American General Finance Corp. (1976) 131 Ca1.Rptr. 462, 60 C.A.3d 175. Administrative findings need not be as precise or formal as would be required of a court. Id. Requirement that planning commission and city council make findings that pro- posed subdivision was consistent with ap- plicable general or specific plans before subdivision could be approved was not sat- isfied on theory that tie vote by commis- sion, on appeal from advisory agency's ap- proval of subdivision, and tie vote by coun- cil, on appeal from commission's alleged approval of subdivision, were findings "by implication" that subdivision was consist- ent with such applicable plans. Woodland Hills Residents Assn, Inc. v. City Council of Los Angeles (1976) 118 Cal.Rptr. 856, 44 C.A.3d 825, appeal after remand 154 Cal. Rptr. 503, 593 P.2d 200, 23 C.3d 917. 3. Substantial evidence Findings and decision of city council re- garding conformity of pproposed develop- ment for construction of 70 -unit condomini- um complex were supported by substantial evidence. McMillan v. American General Finance Corp. (1976) 131 Cal.Rptr. 462, 60 C.A.3d 175. 4. Review In reviewing action of city council in ap- proving development plan, court must re- solve any reasonable doubts in favor of the agency findings and decision and may not substitute its own judgment for that of the agency. McMillan v. American General Fi- nance Corp. (1976) 131 Ca1.Rptr. 462, 60 C.A.3d 176. Superior court's finding that no substan- tial evidence supported city council's deter- mination that proposed development con- formed with city's general plan was not binding on court of appeal, especially where the superior court improperly con- sidered evidence which had not been before the council. Id. Function of appellate court in reviewing city council's approval of development plan is to determine whether the findings of the agency are legally sufficient and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and support the agency's decision. Id. § 66474. Findings Justifying disapproval A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a final or tentative e • map if it makes any of the following findings: (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and spe- cific plans. " (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision Is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. ,. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site Is not physically suitable for the proposed density of develop- ment. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones; previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the pro- posed subdivision. (Added by Stats.1974, c. 1536, p. 3482, § 4, operative March 1, 1975. Amended by Stats.1975, c. 24, p. 33, 114, urgency, eff. April 4, 1975.) Derivation: Bus. & Prof.Code former Duty of private parties to file environ- section 11549.5, added by Stats.1971, c. 1446, mental statement. (1973) 61 C.L.R. 559. p. 2866, § 7. Bus. & Prof.Code former section 11551.5, added by Stats.1968, c. 1336, p• 2896, 1 1. Index to Notes Law Review Commentaries Birth control for premature subdivisions In general 1 --a legislative pill. (1972) 12 Santa Clara Findings 2 L. 623. Review 4 Underline Indicates changes or additions by amendment 238 Substantial evidence 3 Sufficiency, findings 2.2 1. In general Environmental Impact report Gated that seepage of waste e proposed individual septic to Posed residential development tually reach the Carmel River property was on a steep slope of the thinness of the overlyi and the limited permeability o lying shale and that there was stantial threat of direct infiltr derground water by untreat presented substantial evident( Planning commission's and boe visors' rejection of tentative map. Carmel Valley View, L of Sup'rs, in and for Mont. (1976) 130 Cal.Rptr. 249, 58 C. Advisory agency, planning and city council could not a map of proposed subdivision, Ings that subdivision was cor, district plan which was part Plan. Woodland Hills Resident v. City Council of Los Angels Cal.Rptr. 856, 44 C.A.3d 82a, remand 154 Ca1.Rptr. 503, 593 C.3d 917. To a greater degree than t and counties may utilize the and additions to the Subdivisi and § 65300 et seq. to conditlo Jett the subdivision of land fe Purposes or otherwise by, inter ing that the environment will atantially damaged and that aion Is consistent with applicab specific plans and authorizing which would prescribe great. design and improvement star condition of subdivision map t Ops.Atty.Gen. 129, 3- 16 -76. While both § 66473.5 and this late to similar subject matter section because it requires find` tion to the finding of consistet general plan is of much broad( requires a much wider inquiry of the local governing body. Gen. 21, 1- 15 -75. The former Subdivision Map restrict a local planning commi council from limiting the dense Posed subdivision, so long as tion is in conformity with local but, to the contrary, the fora aion Map Act compels such I density. 56 Ops.Atty.Gen. 274, 2. Findings Where motion which produce cil findings that proposed dev 70 -unit condominium complex specific reference to staff r. considered the conflicting fact to determining whether the pr ect was consistent with city's i the reference to the staff repor incorporate that part of the r formal findings of the council. American General Finance C 131 Cal.Rptr. 462, 60 C.A.3d Administrative findings nee( Precise or formal as would be r court. Id. § 66474.1 Approval of fina proved tentative A legislative body shall nC Section 66474 if it has previ division and if it finds that t viously approved tentative m: (Added by Stats.1974, c. 153! Stats.1975, c. 24, p. 33, § 15, ur Asterisks e * e Indicate dele 1 � 1 4 1 VV-Z To: Mayor and City Council of Saratoga From: Residents of Regan Lane and Tricia Court Subject: Wilson Property Development ` V Nov. 16, 1981 The purpose of this communication is to indicate the disapproval of neighborhood residents with the actions of the City Council regarding the Wilson Proprosal that would have the new homes exit onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. * 1. We were not informed in writing of the meeting of Nov. 10th held to discuss the development. This was the reason for no neighborhood represen- tation at the meeting. * 2. Through great effort (walk tour of property, working sessions at city hall, Firing a representative at expense of neighbors, Council meeting attendance, Planning Commission attendance and numerous phone calls and letters) the neighbors have made an input to this development plan. We have worked earnestly with the Planning Commission, the developer, the Planning staff and with each other to reach a solution. Through this considerable effort, a plan was achieved to have homes exit and enter on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. The purpose of our mutual plan was to avoid further increasing the traffic on Regan Lane and to mitigate the hazard of additional traffic to the many small children living on Tricia Ct. State transportation authorities have accepted our plan. Planning staff has not raised serious objections. * 3. We believe it is highly inappropriate for our elected representatives to intercede at this late date to reverse all the work that has been done by those involved, particularly with the minimal participation of Council in all our prepatory work. We assume Council has a Planning Staff and Planning Commission to work out details as we have done in good faith. We, the neighbors, took time out of our busy schedules to do our "homework" with the developer, the Commission and the Planning staff - only for that work to be virtually ignored, then reversed by the Mayor and Council. * 4. We are calling on the Mayor and Council to accept the proposal worked out by the residents, the developer, and the Planning Staff whereby the new homes will enter and exit onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Tricia Court will remain a closed cul -de -sac. This will avoid worsening the traffic further on Regan Lane and Blauer Drive and will avoid an impact on the safety of small children living on Trici ourt. • �% l 3 / j cpps A111 .D p G�n/vCi� >P? =7' � X133 �c—P I 4' I I Nov. 16, 1981 I 1 1 , To :. Mayor and City'Council of Saratoga !. From: Residents of Regan Lane and Tricia Court Subject: Wilson Property Development The purpose of this communication is to indicate the disapproval of neighborhood residents with the actions of the City Council regarding the Wilson Proprosal.•that would have the new homes exit- onto'Saratoga -, . Sunnyvale Road. ;r * 1. We were not informed in writing of the meeting of Nov. 10th held to discuss the development. This was the reason for no neighborhood represen- tation at the meeting. I * 2. Through great effort (walk tour of property, working sessions at city hall, hiring a representative at expense of neighbors; Council meeting attendance, Planning Commission,attendance and numerous phone calls and letters) the neighbors have made an input to this development plan. We have worked earnestly with the Planning Commission, the developer, the Planning staff and with each other to reach a solution. Through this considerable effort, a plan was achieved to have homes exit and enter on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The purpose of our mutual plan was to avoid further increasing the traffic on Regan Lane and to mitigate the hazard of additional traffic to the many small.children'living on Tr.icia Ct. State transportation authorities have accepted our plan. Planning staff has not raised serious objections. i * 3. We believe it is highly inappropriate for our elected representatives to intercede: at thijs,:,late date:;,to ,reverse all the work that has been done by those• involved .'.�,particularly�•withlthe, minimal ,parr�ti.cipationr,of.Counci:I in all our prepatory work. We assume Council" has a-'Planning Staff i`'an"a "Planninq`%;- a: Y- Commission to work out details as we have done in good faith. We, the neighbors, took time out of our busy.schedules to do our "homework" with the developer, the Commission and the Planning staff - only for that - work to be virtually ignored, then reversed by the Mayor and Council.. * 4. We are calling on the Mayor and Council to accept the proposal worked out by the residents, the developer, and the Planning Staff whereby the new homes will enter and exit onto Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Tricia Court will remain a closed cul -de -sac. This will avoid worsening the traffic further on Regan Lane.and Blauer Drive and will avoid an iinpact on the safety of small children 11ving on Tricia Court. -.- ., ... •., ,..: - .;4.y, .._vim w:..,,.:: �.:.,y'><� ,-a.nv ._ —. r. .... .�.. n'w. -., �F ';� %o >:^�- ,. .., ,•, ye51 a// 44r- t,(G'M�Lr�'•.� 1 , �•, r�'�Rti. }.'�'i�M1 �:r l "^r y r •(� -,. r 8,,.. , � �.,,. w y. :. r 1. '•h Rf. f'• V.Y �51t" 5 4 -' .S f�•n k .. "r -. 1 .'; } FF .i � � ; �ua.;y T.. tN Nr !ij,• r ,,.. .. , t''..'•'�'''Ji�rj;y �`ipik ?ti[�t..'tt °'jr ,�j �:•',S .y, i .�..ti•,'Jt �.� it'kt '>7 t,Itt_'.r•'..� tltt�'i ^,J. �, G" I.y:Sf aih".,• 4'�Sdk,; y,t F�. k, {7 >r �-. rr: 1Y,y,` b• >i' l�,. ii_.t 1 t` ,�..1 1 -• l", �, .I,S_ �_i+ ! ' , r py �^.. �� r ^'rt ^i i 2' R "��•r w�ti } ly ,l }\ "�. +t a 1. R�1i wpb yN ttry,*"'T;,t,s "M t y.. -: •. �,y� �.- ,i 1u .. < Z+�. xf '�"r rr y t . t S ,.r.'t, i fY ti n eel '.�'� t14 Z' +, r ,.1 � - � 9' � a ,}�r i„�'. `fi •h.i a+ �'r 5 • +i. ' XAt�t .1 t\nr � J,,. t � t k ?;,r tfc x y t:p, r ,' .r}) 7 � r �p 3 ,� ✓ ;�+ n?-� to 1 j 3 i •� "y ,•� -J` '�• T r ,5 ^ h ♦' : Y . ..., s � ,+ .� r, s,r 'f r '� s r + 4� 1� ,r •n ,. �t , r S, r a tk�h- t: J t,{. YisT 4 i<,,.,�' t j ;. , `•,., n ?t .� . : i^ x .,..•.t fY�..r .1� w,S ��, •� '� � r 1 � � ; r . 1 f f .. ,•r •4 S ..k S t t` it ! f � A s .r l i -mot T. � �' -s �'� � ' ;� ` ! F °: t e i4 ' �� ,j A"-4• -: rt,�. , � b k 4ty t i .S ". "i t i r r rY'r - t t t y; S �r�. +if J r S'Tt c'» � � �W A+ •�; r t 4 x� �� r.,� t �, t a 2.. S5 .. 4t :% tYS y �; U 1r Mt i r 7 b� ?e r tk t. �i S G ST s }i fTtr{ �� 1Y ✓ /r3 T :f J L 4 yt J •,4? }4L ?;YP S - }.75.�;?;.t .r't* t, d ,� y k t,.. ,4 r i, it ,j;{y e .. ! Y .ia� . S'�`Z ,4 .i,. f. y. e• ,.. ut� ^, ` r y 9 ,r _.1 .., n " .1t1y} ''rf`i.,•. v wi "`t rn`l ','X !�r t .e!r-•t� h, 7i,�P, <5,�,,..:rt{.:,,ry P {« SETT "+x2!'.l at�f ^lr` , ty'.T,'+x s'!,�N. Kt. 1,?.. r ;4 :i t 1t ,,..y 7_y 'qtr i;,t J'!. .t` -a-f. ti4:`,�T•s+•a, ,�y"�i .•�.x,S, �•..✓ tS k. 1 r�'�'tr ,•'.Y,�W' �Ff; n+i'r. �r,ry, t, � 3. ��FIE� S "y iii ' s . 4 t � 7. R `• tMaerr y.� yLN °!' Asa, n»�YJ+rt; ,d'�n,:''Y1in.'tt rs1 }� (, t li' .: t l {T ti••�T ti r�`.0 rJ C t, 1t r a -tr�i t { t h t'f a`iwt� v .f� 1'q c't ,� '' tt , 2y' 5i ♦`� tT�. �,, , !" t 1• -,' ,�•{." f -. . T " v fi i tit d 9,1 vr•, ry ,�1, t 5 < s . •, t , R • �„� t { W ,hr�, �+ t t,'S , Y,+ < 3 � J. i � � } 5 r ., * , � � ,. tr •: � * ; % °a a f t � 1.+ r a° � 4 r k ti.• �. •P' •; ` 1 'd `�! Y .. 4 .1 . 7 1. l• v •-'x!t 4 i,N•5 -f fir A . ; • 4� 4 �rt7' <:.. � . f. - • < tJ, ,.,l y., .�t ,.. z ..! .a: ,: �,�- , .t + ".t,, \ M •' 4r}. " ,t/ � ' •T � '1. r n't t i T r !lk. 11 ry'.,�p,j vr' , 7ra,• t. s > : AC:+ ✓ k'•s }}ti` it }, x psi. r:, t ♦ A ,, r. , -'4 l tt , ,I r,,,` -`.ii,"J�r,l ti4 r ^tt.'Y'.,.r r,a �Y h•-+r's ? >••` '',��yy,,��'i� -%f:.?� �;tT:etT C {Fa.� �, i' t���xr '�d 'I�� ty er '^t' f'. ,; v4i'Yt ... ,..Y .t _ �.�.� �., 4' is •. _.. s , .n:,� rx'w'i. ...r.a.eb'�htri. .rK�w� _ u +.. _. 7 Pi•, x R� . �FaS.C,,�.. a i`�i �:s.,z.. 3= �'S ?." � ., "K.,r' .._. 3 t� _ r t:. �! r .+r �k tt,t c h. r .:t.• e.a x.: s �,- + ,. trt� ,. r.:t•�.v... ..., -, i.... �.. r..... re ., ra.ld. , .. ... .. � , ,?� ..tp., ,.e. ..r.�vM}...� ._ �_� ......1 . �s_..rTt -:� .fin �!.'�'- y,,y. 1 fir".:' ,! _.h.L'+.'.i , � c1..� -.3u ,>x .;d" M.�s.. ,;,•,.;; t Nov. 16, 1931 To: Mayor and City Council of Saratoga From: Residents of Regan Lane and Tricia Court Subject: Wilson Property Development The purpose of this communication is to indicate the disapproval of neighborhood residents with the actions of the City Council regarding the Wilson Proprosal that would have the new homes exit onto Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. * 1. We were not informed in writing of the meeting of Nov. 10th held to discuss the development. This was the reason for no neighborhood represen- tation at the meeting. * 2. Through great effort (walk tour of property, working sessions at city hall, hiring a representative at expense of neighbors, Council meeting attendance, Planning Commission attendance and numerous phone calls and letters) the neighbors have made an input to this development plan. We have worked earnestly with the Planning Commission, the developer, the Planning staff and with each other to reach a solution. Through this considerable effort, a plan was achieved to have homes exit and enter on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. The purpose of our mutual plan was to avoid further increasing the traffic on Regan Lane and to mitigate the hazard of additional traffic to the many small children living on Tricia Ct. State transportation authorities have accepted our plan. Planning staff has not raised serious objections. * 3. We believe it is highly inappropriate for our elected representatives to intercede at this late date to reverse all the work that has been done by those involved, particularly with the minimal participation of Council in all our prepatory work. We assume Council has a Planning Staff and Planning Commission to work out details as we have done in good faith. We, the neighbors, took time out of our busy schedules to do our "homework" with the developer, the Commission and the Planning staff - only for that �Jork to be virtually ignored, then reversed by the Mayor and Council. * 4. We are calling on the ! -1ayor and Council to accept the proposal viorked out by the residents, the developer, and the Planning Staff whereby the near homes will enter and exit onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Tricia Court will remain a closed cul -de -sac. This will avoid worsening the traffic further on Regan Lane and Blauer Drive and will avoid an impact on the safety of small children living on Tricia Court. / 5� 4� f 3 61V 30 �-7 e d244rV, CIv. /z �� �Q 203GU Z_ q Z� b"', ,t Nov. 16, 1981 To: Mayor and City Council of Saratoga From: Residents of Regan Lane and Tricia Court Subject: Wilson Property Development The purpose of this communication is to indicate the disapproval of neighborhood residents with the actions of the City Council regarding the Wilson Proprosal that would have the new homes exit onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. * 1. We were not informed in writing of the meeting of Nov. 10th held to discuss the development. This was the reason for no neighborhood represen- tation at the meeting. * 2. Through great effort (walk tour of property, working sessions at city hall, hiring a representative at expense of neighbors, Council meeting attendance, Planning Commission attendance and numerous phone calls and letters) the neighbors have made an input to this development plan. We have worked earnestly with the Planning Commission, the developer, the Planning staff and with each other to reach a solution. Through this considerable effort, a plan was achieved to have homes exit and enter on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The purpose of our mutual plan was to avoid further increasing the traffic on Regan Lane and to mitigate the hazard of additional traffic to the many small children living on Tricia Ct. State transportation authorities have accepted our plan. Planning staff has not raised serious objections. * 3. We believe it is highly inappropriate for our elected representatives to intercede at this late date to reverse all the work that has been done by those involved, particularly with the minimal participation of Council in all our prepatory work. We assume Council has a Planning Staff and Planning Commission to work out details as we have done in good faith. We, the neighbors, took time out of our busy schedules to do our "homework" with the developer, the Commission and the Planning staff - only for that work to be virtually ignored, then reversed by the Mayor and Council. * 4. We are calling on the Mayor and Council to accept the proposal worked out by the residents, the developer, and the Planning Staff whereby the new homes will enter and exit onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Tricia Court will remain a closed cul -de -sac. This will avoid worsening the traffic further on Regan Lane and Blauer Drive and will avoid an impact on the safety of small children living on Tricia Court. Nov. 16, 1981 To: Mayor and City Council of Saratoga From: Residents of Regan Lane and Tricia Court Subject: Wilson Property Development The purpose of this communication is to indicate the disapproval of neighborhood residents with the actions of the City Council regarding the Wilson Proprosal that would have the new homes exit onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. * 1. We were not informed in writing of the meeting of Nov. 10th held to discuss the development. This was the reason for no neighborhood represen- tation at the meeting. * 2. Through great effort (walk tour of property, working sessions at city hall, hiring a representative at expense of neighbors, Council meeting attendance, Planning Commission attendance and numerous phone calls and letters) the neighbors have made an input to this development plan. We have worked earnestly with the Planning Commission, the developer, the Planning staff and with each other to reach a solution. Through this considerable effort, a plan was achieved to have homes exit and enter on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. The purpose of our mutual plan was to avoid further increasing the traffic on Regan Lane and to mitigate the hazard of additional traffic to.the many small children living on Tricia Ct. State transportation authorities have accepted our plan. Planning staff has not raised serious objections. * 3. We believe it is highly inappropriate for our elected representatives to intercede at this late date to reverse all the work that has been done by those involved, particularly with the minimal participation of Council in all our prepatory work. We assume Council has a Planning Staff and Planning Commission to work out details as we have done in good faith. We, the neighbors, took time out of our busy schedules to do our "homework" with the developer, the Commission and the Planning staff - only for that work to be virtually ignored, then reversed by the Mayor and Council. * 4. We are calling on the Mayor and Council to accept the proposal worked out by the residents, the developer, and the Planning Staff whereby the new homes will enter and exit onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Tricia Court will remain a closed cul -de -sac. This will avoid worsening the traffic further on Regan Lane and Blauer Drive and will avoid an impact on the safety of small children living on Tricia Court. �l 71 Nov. 16, 1981 To: Mayor and City Council of Saratoga From: Residents of Regan Lane and Tricia Court Subject: Wilson Property Development The purpose of this communication is to indicate the disapproval of neighborhood residents with the actions of the City Council regarding the Wilson Proprosal that would have the new homes exit onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. * 1. We were not informed in writing of the meeting of Nov. 10th held to dnscuss the development. This was the reason for no neighborhood represen- tation at the meeting. * 2. Through great effort (walk tour of property, working sessions at city hall, hiring a representative at expense of neighbors, Council meeting attendance, Planning Commission attendance and numerous phone calls and letters) the neighbors have made an input to this development plan. We have worked earnestly with the Planning Commission, the developer, the Planning staff and with each other to reach a solution. Through this considerable effort, a plan was achieved to have homes exit and enter on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The purpose of our mutual plan was to avoid further increasing the traffic on Regan Lane and to mitigate the hazard of additional traffic to the many small children living on Tricia Ct. State transportation authorities have accepted our plan. Planning staff has not raised serious objections. * 3. We believe it is highly inappropriate for our elected representatives to intercede at this late date to reverse all the work that has been done by those involved, particularly with the minimal participation of Council in all our prepatory work. We assume Council has a Planning Staff and Planning Commission to work out details as we have done in good faith. We, the neighbors, took time out of our busy schedules to do our "homework" with the developer, the Commission and the Planning staff - only for that work to be virtually ignored, then reversed by the Mayor and Council. * 4. We are calling on the Mayor and Council to accept the proposal worked out by the residents, the developer, and the Planning Staff whereby the new homes will enter and exit onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Tricia Court will remain a closed cul -de -sac. This will avoid worsening the traffic further on Regan Lane and Blauer Drive and will avoid an impact on the safety of small children living on Tricia Court. C Nov. 16, 19131 To: Mayor and City Council of Saratoga From: Residents of Regan Lane and Tricia Court Subject: Wilson Property Development The purpose of this communication is to indicate the disapproval of neighborhood residents with the actions of the City Council regarding the Wilson Proprosal that would have the new homes exit onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. * 1. We were not informed in writing of the meeting of Nov. 10th held to discuss the development. This was the reason for no neighborhood represen- tation at the meeting. * 2. Through great effort (walk tour of property, working sessions at city hall, hiring a representative at expense of neighbors, Council meeting attendance, Planning Commission attendance and numerous phone calls and letters) the neighbors have made an input to this development plan. We have worked earnestly with the Planning Commission, the developer, the Planning staff and with each other to reach a solution. Through this considerable effort, a plan was achieved to have homes exit and enter on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The purpose of our mutual plan was to avoid further increasing the traffic on Regan Lane and to mitigate the hazard of additional traffic to the many small children living on Tricia Ct. State transportation authorities have accepted our plan. Planning staff has not raised serious objections. * 3. We believe it is highly inappropriate for.our elected representatives to intercede at this late date to reverse all the work that has been done by those involved, particularly with the minimal participation of Council in all our prepatory work. We assume Council has a Planning Staff and Planninq Commission to work out details as we have done in good faith. Ue, the neighbors, took time out of our busy schedules to do our "homework" with the developer, the Commission and the Planning staff - only for that work to be virtually ignored, then reversed by the Mayor and Council. * 4. We are calling on the '•1ayor and Council to accept the proposal �oorked out by the residents, the developer, and the Planning Staff whereby the new hones will enter and exit onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Tricia Court will remain a closed cul -de -sac. This will avoid worsening the traffic further on Regan Lane and alauer Drive and will avoid an impact on the safety of small children living on Tricia Court. u Ar CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd. DATE: 10 -9 -81 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Final Building *Site Approval, SDR -1497, Charles Goss, Austin Way Issue Sunmary 1. This is an addition to an existing Single Family Residence. 2. Requirements of City Departments and other agencies have been met. Reccomneldation Adopt Resolution No. 1497 -02, attached approving the building site.of subject SDR. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments A. Copy of Tentative Map Approval B. Status Report for Building Site Approval C. Resolution No. 1497 -02 Council Action 10/21: JensenAlatson Tmved to approve. Passed 5 -0. -_s v RESOLUTION NO. 1497 -2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF CHARLES GOSS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 23,824 square feet parcel shown as Parcel 1 on the Parcel Map prepared by Civil and Design Consultants, and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual building site. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of October 19 81 , • by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR MEMORANDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval- All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1497., Charles Goss (have) �XXX6Xffd -K C been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 7/8/81 Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items: Offer of Dedication N/A Record of Survey or Parcel Map Yes Storm Drainage Fee N/A Date Subm All Required Improvement Bonds N/A All Required Inspection Fees N/A Building Site Approval Agreement N/A Park and Recreation Fee N/A fitted Date Date Date Date Date Submitted N/A Date Submitted 10/7 N/A Receipt # Submitted N/A Receipt# Submitted N/A Receipt# N A Signed N/A Submitted N/A Receipt# N/A It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that �DitAXXXOC=X) (Final) Building Site Approvai for Charles Goss SDR -1497 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) Reason for Non - Compliance Director of Community Development AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 1 fib g f 81 DEPT: Administrative Services CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. / C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUB Recent HCDA Regulation changes and impact on scheduled public hearing Issue Summary The City has recently received revised National HCDA Regulations which have the potential for expanding the City's scope of eligible activity. At this time, City and County staff are in the process of analyzing these regulation changes and their ,impacts on -the Urban County Program. Subsequent to staff review and analysis, the HCD Council Committee will meet to make program and policy adjustments in light of these changes. It is anticipated that the new regulations will have a favorable impact on Saratoga's program. The emphasis on housing new construction is reduced. Recommendation Conduct 2nd Public Hearing as set, however, the Council would conditionally approve the proposed projects contingent upon the City's ability to revise and /or submit additional or modified projects subsequent to action taken by the HCD Council Committee and the Board of Supervisors relative to the new regulation changes, and continue the HCDA Public Hearing to the November 18th City Council meeting at which time final action can be taken on Saratoga HCDA project proposals. Fiscal Impacts Year 1 2 3 TOTAL Administration 47,539 49,916 54,908 152,363 S.H.A.R.P. 250,000 250,000 250,000 750,000 Regulation changes mentioned above may have the potential for increasing the City's list of eligible activity and consequently HCDA funding. Exhibits /Attachments HCDA Report on recent regulation changes. Added for 11/4 meeting: Memo transmitting proposed draft HCDA JPA Memo on recent changes to HCD Act Council Action 10/21: Clevenger /Mallory moved to adopt Res. 1035.1 rescinding, City's participation under Housing and Commmity Development Act. Passed 3 -1 -1 0,7atson onp; Jensen abstn Vatson /Jensen moved to continue to 11/4 at 8:00 p.m. Passed 5 -0. 11/4: Watson /Mallory moved to continue to 11/18. Passed 5 -0. UMEW @ff O&M&ODOZ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 . IV1 E IUI OO R A N D L1 I��1 TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: October 13, 1981 City Manager FROM: HCD Coordinator SUBJECT: Proposed Saratoga HCDA Activity and national changes in the Housing and Community Development Act resulting from new 1981 legislation Prior to the October 6 receipt of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program changes, the following projects were developed by staff to be approved by the City Council and submitted to the County as Saratoga's intended HCDA activity for FY 1982 -85. Proposed HCDA Activity for FY 1982 -85: • Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program - SHARP: Request the guaranteed City housing amount (1 /8th of 35% of the net Urban County grant) estimated to be approximately $150,000 annually, for housing rehabilitation, and request an additional $100,000 from Category II, Community Housing Activity, also for the SHARP program. (This $100,000 will be adjusted once the guaranteed amount is determined.) The intent of this request is to provide $250,000 annually for the SHARP, enabling the City to complete approximately 20 units per year using an average cost per unit of $12,500. Annual SHARP request $250,000. Three -year total $750,000. • Program Administration: Request a three -year total of :$1,52;363:= This amount includes 100% funding of the City's HCDA Coordinator position and .25 of a Clerk Typist II position for the three -year JPA period. As indicated in Agenda Bill No. it is staff's recommendation that the City Council authorize these activities to be submitted to the County pending subsequent action by the HCDA Council Committee and the Board of Supervisors relative to these regulation changes. Should changes to the Urban County program be made that would permit expanded Saratoga participation i.e., public iriprovement projects, public service activity, solar or energy planning, etc., the City would be in a position to submit such project proposals. If no changes are made the City will have submitted its originally planned activity and funding request for the three -year period. Page 2 HCDA Memo Summary of 1981 legislative Chan es to the Housing and Community Development Act: Review to date of recent legislative changes to the HCDA seem to have the potential for enhancing City participation in the program by expanding eligible activity subsequent to modification of the existing Urban County Needs Statement and need categories,by the HCD Council Committee and the Board of Supervisors. To summarize, recent changes are as follows: 1. The requirement to submit a three -year plan (schedule of activity) has been dropped. The three -year JPA term, however remains: The new annual application process requires a simple one -year statement of objectives and projected use of funds. 2. The new grant process reduces the previously required level of citizen participation, reporting and review requirements. Jurisdictions are no longer required to prepare a formal written citizen participation plan and only one public hearing will be required. 3. The new regs eliminate state and A -95 (ABAG) clearinghouse review along with HUD's review of individual applications. Instead, grants will be awarded immediately on submission of the required program documents. 4. New reg changes allow for increased public service and economic development assistance and increased assistance for planningi -type activity, i.e., solar and alternative energy planning. In the area of economic development, direct funding to for - profit businesses is allowed. 5. Revised regs remove the program's emphasis on overall low and moderate income benefits making the program's two other national objectives- - prevention of slums and blight and meeting other urgent community needs - -of equal status. Although.the.new.rules broaden the scope of slum and blight assistance, the low and moderate income requirements for housing programs funded with HCDA monies will become more stringent, requiring 100% of assisted single- family and the majority of multi - family structures be occupied by low -mod households. This does not effect the SHARP. Recent median income figures for Santa Clara County (unofficial) peg the median for a family of four at $31,300 up from $19,050 (July 1980). This has the potential for expanding Saratoga resident participation in the SHARP and overall City activity expansion. 6. The Housing Assistance Plan, a very complicated and complex document has been "radically simplified ". Also the previous 15% minimum housing goal will be eliminated in favor of a more realistic goal based on available resources, i.e., the federal government has been encouraging new, assisted housing construction without 1) an adequate supply of construction assistance money or 2) dollars available to provide increased levels of Section 8 rent assistance. 7. The timing of the application submittal process to HUD is extended to May 1982. I am sure that other changes exist or remain to be identified, however, Page 3 HCDA Memo These are most apparent at this time. As previously mentioned, for a change, the reg changes have the potential for a positive impact on the City's program. All Urban County HCD staff are currently reviewing the new regulations, the City Managers, HCD Council Committee and Board of Supervisors will meet on this subject to make appropriate program modifications at our local level. The process suggested by the current transitional project proposals; SHARP ability to modify or add action taken at the poli of Supervisors. staff for Saratoga's HCDA participation recognizes situation, providing the County with our three -year and Administration, and retaining the City's to our planned activity and budget subsequent to :y level by the HCD Council Coln ittee and the Board G- ie o� SARA �� 19 REPORT TO MAYOR AND. CITY COUNCIL DATE: 10/29/81 COUNCIL MEETING: 11/04/81 SUBJECT Transmittal of Proposed Draft HCDA Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Attached you will find a proposed, draft HCDA, JPA to replace that which the City Council recently took action to rescind. The attached draft was prepared by City HCD Coordinators with direction from participating city City Managers. New wording is italicized. The proposed JPA is in conformance with the recently enacted Congressional HCDA program amendments.. Essential changes are as follows: • The Guaranteed City amount of funding increases from 35% of the net grant amount divided by 8 participants (7 cities and the county), to 50% of net divided by 7 (the seven.participating cities only). The estimated dollar effect of this modification could mean $250,000 VS. $150,000, or as much as $100,000 additional to each city. The previous requirement that the guaranteed funds be utilized for housing and /or housing related activity has been dropped in the draft JPA. The only constraint on use of the guaranteed funds would be eligibility under the Act. ai The remaining 50% of net grant amount would be allocated on a competitive basis to eligible applicants (including cities) for projects that meet Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) goals or address.housing needs as approved by the HCD Council Committee and the Board of Supervisors. Proposed Draft HCDA JPA Agreement October 29, 1981 Page two o The proposed JPA also deletes any reference to the HCD Citizen Advisory Committee, thereby recommending its dissolution. Citizen Participation at the local level will be emphasized. At an October 28 meeting, City Managers and HCD staff of parti- cipating cities met to review and offer comments on the draft JPA. The original staff draft was subsequently modified and is now being presented for your review and comment in its final, draft form. The Managers agreed that this draft would be presented to the various City Councils for review, comment and conceptual approval as early as possible (November 4 City Council meeting), so that a negotiating team proposed to consist of the City Managers and HCD Council representatives of Los Gatos and Milpitas could begin to meet with County representatives, in order to meet the December 1, 1981 JPA delivery to HUD deadline. Also attached is a County p�posed time schedule relative to this matter. r Ht n rnekie HC ordinator ck 7 ,, attachments rt21-1 n:ag D e t. 70 'r'J ?S H dt71r' Jir?'r: oL3rliy �a; B�Tti , 3f� — `_ _ . , – 299 -2521 Area od> 4G, • -- . . EMA /" GS 1 .. - Env iron mrntak'Aanagemant / 4 -- GBnaral services Agancy 1. C�'T 1981 October 28, 1981 _ TO; Board of Supervisors - — - -- — _ -- - - - -- - CD Council Co it e Mana e Y g rs �w e _ . �d�e �•�y�,�k� -•'c.8 x'� °Tti s t}.'7.}' +tf�l'.3�'� + /` +} ' _ +- - - -- - o Ott a + t t tsaa Kobasht ' CDBG Pro ram ,bland er it &�� LIW�` +�Rl����w.".s��t �' �Jlt.�.+Lk.�tYh -1 a �".,�',�`•^`.t ,d -� -..g c g �C!.!���,{J$ ny� '����, ��n''; cii�'S J �y� '\+} � ,-} o f� � .b d te. t-- ••. -•-+' �- -- -r•` -: � .:. —...� ...r t:.rt :« ' , :,-. _ _. :. .. _ ., SUBJECT '- 1 Schedule for Decisions on Changes in CDBG Program -- _ �' 'U'! y�'�FrtyYF •i`;`�r � r°t tt �" ,}"'�'{? � ,i. tl l't �?1.i { ! i i t. t r - ` - . ?''������hYV' � r t. i P M x`.' • ^� F�� '� tL 1%f / R�` Af n'Y.J:.�3' ^r' }1y-- r'f 1. C S^1 t i 1` n .;1 } - _... .,: rw'4t `�J'L�• Y C bb Ir�t l C'2 C14 /�ij;� lh r �. •S t.M ,+.r .,., / "'• S,, S,.': .... ._ .. •' ecently, some cities have-rescinded `their approved co- operative joi'n't po\riers agreements t o "participatA rn the Urban County CDBG Program during.rne next three years a; a resul *. la tw >.,, • .. / ! °a , of uneer #ainties caused by-1981 Ame' dme'nts•to the Housing and Community Dev?lopment Fx � ct The uncertainties will be discussed at the upcoming' HCD Council Committee - -mee bract 11r�ng on NovemSer 5. 'rHopefull /,'af this meeting, specific recommendations onpotential in ` the CDBG Program` and language of the °co - operation °agrees n?nts will be devil H {1� groped and submitted to e Board of Super \iisors' for review and approval. z R , Ti;lr r � kx�+ ,, �7 i:6 01 f ,�,tpt�..� L y i t !•e.: �, r:% 1, .: � � �. h # t L : rt:: _ 1 r , , Y , s - /' y ✓ -�; a ,._ � . .. r ,. - "� - -•- -_ - L r rr:rBecause'of the tight time schedule we'have for submission of co- operative_�oint po,,vers agreements foNUD by December I, 1931, and because tine Council Cornmi; tee is consi- rr, '' derin chop es. to ,the Santo Clara Count CDBG Program, I arm su zstirr a schedule y 9 / , 9 ., 9g 9,... Ito facilitate decisions 'during the next month. 'Vthis way, we will be in a position to _ the necessory_document,_to HUD_bly .D�cerrib r l._ r�1+ \ '�S•'y IJ 4. -s �l i tir t•� r ° rl /ti. �,}' t - A / Xr __t.� t Friday,.Oc`tooer 29 :Urban County "staff meet- y 4. r ' !(Y ' ,ing to discuss CDBG +t -rP +d ' rogram chang6s t' `X 1 S�'' �kr +. •' (y �; h t'�,�,�m 1��- e4'...Wt�;ti�, �G� ,<i��,,�r+ t ,�; J!:,. �'r�•t. � „` .. .i�.y �;�..F �3 ,f;-- •'^�,.�H��r. ,,,ati ^'t ta: �.1 , � k;�, :. � u� , i3'�t! 1 syyi�•t w �' e°" 6$w�i �t;d t ""try arkrlT < ,,??,z4i'. =` `•,\ :; '7�'+! ' r'.P,.:..,. °. lt, -.0 K Z •tr`:R,7 -ai, i.y(t 5, F: Thursday, °Novembec,5 Regular meet in 'of HCD . t"1, �f.r.r T 1dY'.y nsh'a4, '�R., M47µF'aY+Li .. �. •, ^Ci r, {Y rE �n.. �;+''j.' +>tP}i Hit +F� {� , iOtw eyyty ` J 1: +� -, r�'44S i♦ti n+� i ; ;.. iL I +1r {n +1r� ;-f s K, - y <E Council Comml i 12° t0 ��yr °r { - r,..}. S�dta_ ..fit' ti y5+ j• 1 : +'t+'T,.o- recommz:�ndat ions :F } At;� on CDBG Program and co-operative- Joint Powers ov Agreements 1 ents F G ar! Monday, November 9 Regular Board of Supervisors Meeting discus. ion of HCD _. . b Council Committee 1 recommendations T yesday, November 10 4:00 p.m.. ;,Special joint meeting, + .. ':.. if necessary, of the Board r nr t of Supervisors and the HCD Council Committed to it ;01 \ice differences Art rgt,al vprbrttln,ty Err':;,! o } a ° • S-up�F* visors;" ICD council �omrnii� and Ci ty r,Acr,,cr; ors October ?d, 1931 Page 2 and mutual oc ree- ment on the CDBG Program and corop.erative (Dint po,,,/ e. ; agrerr-en i s ...November 10 through Approval of.co -o p °tative- November 24 Joint Powers Agreements ' -by city /town councils a -- nd the Board of Supervisors. (This needs to btt- agendized - ahead of time) : = r Frrday, NovPmSer 27 ." y 00 p.m. - Deadline of submission -5 ^ of co oYNraxrv° Joni ,ow °r$ l' ' r (' t0 County t y y.o.CmeniS b µ.., lk Igrki j _ �, •� r` � r i t , 0 6_originally:- signed ,�° �x rr t x r �� r , 1• copje, of 'PA =1 r ' Y�� �� Mf - _ 0 3 copies of Rzsalution r j v'YY ak'�'t authorizing- -,he signing of JPA r , , ,w Mon 30 "44"; £ ' Co�mty ,r- n,smifs co- - .operative a r.reaments.to HUD by December !, 15i,91 decdline. ,. . (The dead n,r_� is set _ national i y cnd ccnno is - r_ s be extender, by HUD). This schedule wi.l1 enable unto discws`�he CDBG Progrcm, ,reach concen.sus, end formally `;approve �. the agreements that are recched. Please call me or Bob Ruf; if you ixjve eny questions on' this, /Ll ` HCD 'Co- cc: 4 ordinators HCD'Citizens Advisory Comrn,i;tj�F .��� 1;�� 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 I of the Act makes entitlement grants availab:e to cities with a population of 50,000 or more persons and to counties that qualify as an urban county; ' :1 t y ?�t t 3• D. That City is not eligible to apply directly for entitlement funds under the v � "r 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 info 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 ot,ligations 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 :o 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. Definitians 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 t!:ose set firth in the Act and Regulations, the latter shall govern. (a) "Act" means Title 1 of the Housing and Community D ,- velopment Act of 19714, 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 referen:e is made to those regulations found in 24 Code of federal Regul• tions Part 570 (containing the general regulations of Community f)ev aopment 11Lac4: Grants) and Part 58 (containing the regulationsi ci the Federal Environmental Review Procedures). (d) "County" means the County of Santa Clara. (c) "City" means the city or town that is a part} to this agreement; sur_h city or town may be referred to as a "Non- entitlemen city ", that is, a city which cannot directly apply for or receive ent t1cment grants under the ,Act but which can receive fends throe; h cooperation agreements with the County. Y • (- - � yam; (f) "Urban County" means a county that -is (1) in a metropolitan area; (2) authorized under state law to undertake essential community development and housing assistance activities within its unin- corporated 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- pei:sens -ef- the- Eetzntp and- eities- pa�tieipatine� -gn- the - Hoban- Eetintp- HEH- p�egi°axt.. coordi- }�4 "�,, ators of the cities and HCD staff persons of the county. ,:- '���``.'- : _ f h }- "�pg��eatiert "- Means- the- applieatiert- few- a- g�artt- te- be- stib�titteel := •> ._:,. __ bp- the- Eetintp; - as -ari- Hoban- Eetintp; - fei°- eritrtle tent- ftine�s- tiaele� 'Fide -1 -of- the -Aet. (h) "HUD" is the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (i) "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. (j) "CDBG" is Community Development Block Grant, a federal i.program administered by HUD which provides funding to eligible entitle- ment cities and urban counties to address housing and community development needs of low to moderate income persons. (k) "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. '(Z) "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 recommending body to the Board of Supervisors on the planning, .monitoring, and evaluation of the HCD program and the development - 2 - F10 1ilLY of a comprehensive, coordinated ho'iis�ifig -and -community--developme -nt - s - (n }- "HEB -E }t} Bens = Ads} seep- Ee>�t;�► }tteei- }s -a'�i- ads }seep- eernxt }ttee -en -the - EHB6- ft�ndee� -HEH= �e �a>�t- estab} }shed -b - the - Bead- ef- St�per�gse�s en- the- �eeextxtendat }en -ef- the- HEB- Eetsne } }- Eemtngttee- - - }ts- adapted ' �e }e - }s -" the- fle } }ep- �eee>�ene� }ng- bedp -te- the- HEH- Eet�ne } }- Ee>�t }t- ___.. -- tee-en- the- P }aaaing ;- xten }te�gne� ;- and - era }natsen -ef- the- HEB -p�e- gem- and - the- e�e�e }epment- a €- a- ee>�p�ehens }tee ;- eeeedtnated- hetxs }ng .. .. ane�- ee�xtt�n }tp- de�e }epxtent- P }an -u- . (m) "Board of Supervisors" is the legal recipient of-the Community Development Block Grant from HUD and is legally responsible for adminiatration of the Urban County HCD Program for Santa fit; Clara County. �P}-- a @ }ttsen - Past }e }pat }en- P }anu - }s- the -p }an- adapted -bp- the- Bea�e� -e� Se�ger�rse�s- rah }eh- ettt }}nes- the- eppe�ttzn }tses- and- preeess -�e� ett}$eri-rnpttt-en- matters- dea }rng- with - the- P }enngng ;- men3te�tng- and- e�*a }nat }en -ef- the- 8rban- eettnty- HEB- peegea�- (n) "Project proposals" are requests for CDBG funds submitted by eligible applicants to implement specific eligible CDBG activities as defined by HUD. (o) "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. ). NrEose of the ,wreeuwmt -- - This agreement is heinq made to rneet the rcqu;re!ncnts and purposes of . the Act and 12r•Kul,itrons with respect to the application for an entitle- ment Kr.:nt under Title I of the Act and to establish the respective rights arid of the parties to such grant. 2 a 3 The purpose of this agreement shall be iccumplished in the manner hereinafter set forth. 4. Cooperation Agreement The parties hereto agree to undertake or to assist in the undertaking of essential activities as defined in the Act and the Regulations thereunder for the term of this agreement. More specifically, th,.- 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. si,; =ra 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, )J 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 =r requirements of the Act and the Regulations. In accordance with such ,, " - - cooperation, the City shall, on or before August 30, 1981 furnish the County with the City's local plan and, process for citizen participation in the development of the City's project proposals requested to be funded with Urban County CDBG funds. The City's local citizen participation commitments will be incorporated into the official Urban County Citizen Participation Plan. The City shall, on or before 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 inz_lude a descrip- tion of the project's activities, the Urban County's treed 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 b( developed and reviewed during the local citizen participation process. The City shall, 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 comrnitm.nts 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 eleme its furnished to County where in compliance with the Act and the Regulations and consistent with identified Urban County needs and priori ics, the County shall have full authority and necessary contro! of the preparation and filing of the application and of other papers and dOCUtT ents in snprort therrof. 6. T,rrm of the Aieement This agreement shall he come effective upon execution ty the governing bodies of County and of City and it shall remain in full lorce and effect until ,June 30, 1985. a 3 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 eligivle 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. '; The County will submit to the City by August 31_, 1981, t.­&­- 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, 198.1 -,. -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 program years commencing on July 1, 1982 and ending r June 30, 1985. The cities will submit to the county on or before November 20, Z98Z five executed copies of the resolution 1MG"_' "` and Joint Powers Agreement. _ D�5on 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 eligivle 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 =r of the County as an urban county applicant and upon the - availability of federal funds to implement Title 1 of the Act as amended (198Z).. Funds disbursed-to the City will be expended on eligible activities and projects se}eeted- thi -etlgh a- preee55-deve }aged - feint }p -bp- the- HeB- eauneii- eeYM4:ttee ``�' and -- the - Bead- ef- 8t�pe��ise�s- and- dese�ibed -in- the- ade}�ted H�' ban- Eet�ntp= HEB- P} an--- �' he- HEH- Eitisens- Ad�ise��- Ee�xtittee w } } }- e}i�*e- ad�iee -te- the- HC'H- Eettnez }- eemmittee-p�ie�- to -HEH Eet�nei }- Eex�►ittee- aetiens - -- the- HEH- P }an -ine }odes- a- dese�ip -- tien- ef- g�ie�iti�ed- needs; - strategies -te- address -the- needs;. and- a- g�e�eet- ft�ndine�- st�bx�issien- end - era }t�atien- p�eeess . Phis- p�eeess- jai } } -be -used- to -era }sate- a } }- g�e3eet- g�e}�esais aeee� ding -te- their- abi }itp -te- address- the - adapted;- g�ie�iti�ee needs - and - ether- e�ite�ia- dese�ibed -in- the - adapted- H�bar�- Eee�nt� HeB -Pian- which meet the Statement of Community Development -Objectives and are approved by the HCD Council Committee and the Board of Supervisors. The Statement of Community Development Objectives shall ensure that each activity to be carried out with CDBG funds is eligible and benefits Zow- and moderate - income persons or aids in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight or meets other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community where other financial resources are not available to meet such needs. - - -- - — Beeaese- gees €eg - Eras -heea- previeesly -idea s} € Reed -with ia- tke- Sebaa- Geuaty -hy- else- I46B- Geunell- 8emmlttee- and - the- Beard . ._ ._ a €- St�se��lse�a; -eke- Slay- eed- 6et�a�y- agree -�ka� -thee- need- eeretirtttes -te - eauiet -and - tote- tee -&f- this - agreement. I�e�esi�g -- -- - - - �eeda- i�e��e bath= lQea�aar�g Helgabi�itatie�e- aa�d- aeta�ities- te- ir�erease -tke ea�pp� -af - ffsrdab�e- e�eea g. Fiftz� per cent of the net. block grant funds wiZZ -be guaranteed to be utilized by each participating City to meet their identified Community Development Objectives which shall be eligible under the Act: reeegxtisit- the- leeably- de�eleped -I�4F. Allocation of said >.u•_.}, funds,wiZZ be determined, by the following formula. .50 x net funds - Number of participating jurisdictions +- the- Geeaty Thus if there are seven participating non - entitlement jurisdictions. plus the- Geenty- The denominator would be eigkt seven and each jurisdiction's share would be one eighth seventh of the product of 35.% 50% times net funds. The remaining 50% of net funds shaTZ be used to meet HAP goals or housing needs as identified by the HCD Council Committee and the Board of Supervisors. For purposes of this paragraph net funds are defined as the total entitlement .grant amount less all city and county administration costs. Heasing needs ir�elede- �e��t- kansiag- re�re�ili�e�iea- ead- se�ivi�ies- �e- i�rerease- eke- snpp�y e €- meta- a € €erdab�e- l�anslag . After the deadline for submission of project proposals, the Urban County staff, ee�np® sad- a €- x�ernbers -e €- eke- 6et�ay- ead- 6i�y -H6B- she € €s, will evaluate the project proposals and make recommendations according to the appreved eri�eris -aftd- mare- reee�eade�iefts- ea- pra�ee�s- �e -be- €Waded- ia- eaek -of -eke three- adeees give - pregram- years. statement of community development objectives. The evaluation shall also take into consideration whether or not the applicant has carried out its activities in a timely manner and whether or not they meet the certification in accordance-with the requirements and the primary.objectives of the act and other appZicabl.e. laws and has- _- t.he--ca.nt-i�n -uing capability to carry out activities in a timely manner. If the evaZuation_generates a concern regarding eligibility Of activities,_a recommendation_wiZZ..be..made that a-deter- -__ _____mina -t ion-of_e-Zigibility be requested from HUD. These recommendations will be reviewed by the- HEB- Eiti ,zens Advisory- eemmittee; the HCD Council Committee and the -- ___ - -- — Board -of Supervisors. The- HEB- Eitisens- Adviserp- eammittee � } }} -give- its- ad�iee- en- pre3eets- to -be- €tended -te- the -HEB eeune4:1- Eemmittee- _ : 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- ineluded -in -the epplieatien in order to insure that the program submitted to HUD is consistent with the County's aelepted- hett9ing and- eertttxnitp- de�elepment -p }an. statement of community development objectives. At- that- tifte;- the-Eity -will renew- the - number- et- pre�eets- appre�*ed -end- the- esttfttated axtettnt- ef- EBB6- fttne�s- it- is- te- reeei*ae- during- the- perieds dnlp- l;- 196- te- 3nne- 39; -199t- Upon appreval -ef- the- eBB6- applieatien= aii4-.th'e release = ,-,s of funds by HUD, the City may begin implementation..of approved activities. Information ion - the---progre.s- s--`csf approved activities will be submitted to the County every fear- manths as needed 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 according to the approved time schedule will be evaluated according to the process de- tailed in- -the approved Urban County CDBG Reprogramming Guidelines.. 1 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 th= Santa Clara r County Housing Authority. 10. Services, F—ui ment and property; Reimbursement ' County shall provide or be primarily responsible for providing the serv- ices, equipment and other property necessary for the plartr.ing, prepar: - tion and filing of the CDBG application and for the adminis ration of the grant funds subject to the right of County to sack reirnt ursemen: for actual expenses and costs of furnishing such services, e,luipment ar.d property. Subject to the provisions of the apPhIN'tion or of the grant award made thereon, all property furnished by County as herein- abovt- described shall belong to County during the term of this a ,reement and after its termination. At the termination of the- CD3G program, all property and equipment acquired with CDBG funds will be !.ubject to the requirements and conditions of OMB Circular :\ -102 Attachment N, Property Management Standards. 11. Records City and Cuunty shall maintain appropriate bex-ks, records, files and accounts relating, to the receipt and disbursement of the grant funds, inclurlup; 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 tnd any other records imposed by County's contract with HCD. All such b.,oks, records, files and accounts shall be. made available for in;pecti :m it reasonable times and places by authorized, representatives of City and County to 5 I r I ._J 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 Ind,2ntnification 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 tinder 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 !egislative quasi - judicial and /or adminis- trative matter (including but not limited to any action involving zoning or General flan 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 agre- _rnent commit itself or delegate the exercise of any of its police powers in any matter whatso- ever sav_ and except as expressly set forth in this agreement. 15. Timeliness When any action is required hereunder itpon 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 suffi.-ient time for the City to review and act on said document or materal. 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 riot be affected thereby. . 7- 6 18. Section Headings All section headings contained herein are for the convenience of refer- ence only and are riot intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this agreement.. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, parties hereto have executed this , greement 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: Chimes errotta Deputy County Counsel Date: CITY OF By &airpe'rson, Tow,—,nT(City Council ATTEST: City Clerk 7 of SAI:�� C� �l�og REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 10/21/81 COUNCIL MEETING: 10/21/81 SUBJECT* Recent Changes to the Housing and Community Development Act, and Recommended Action ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Congress has recently made amendments to the HCDA. The Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) recently executed by the City Council was constructed prior to these amendments. The new regulations are less restrictive than the current Santa Clara Urban County Plan under which we operate. In order to recognize the new HCDA regulations and incorporate them into a new JPA that will exist until! June 30, 1985, the City Managers of participating cities met and agreed to the following: 1. Cities that have not yet approved the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement should refrain from doing so. 2. Cities that have approved the JPA should rescind the Agreement by resolution. 3. City HCD staff will meet (October 21, 1981) to draft new wording to the existing JPA that will: (a) Provide 50% of the net grant amount as guaranteed to cities vs. the current 35 %, and that these guaranteed monies can be used for any eligible purpose at the discretion of the city, vs. using the monies for housing or housing related activity as per the current JPA. (b) Provide that the remaining 50% of grant net be available, on a competitive basis, to all eligible applicants including cities. Use of this remaining 50% could be for housing and /or other eligible activity as per the existing Urban County needs, categories, and priorities statement. Redefinition of overall Urban County needs and priorities should focus on these 50% of net grant funds. This redefinition process could utilize Recent Changes HCDA October 21, 1981 Page two the existing HCD Citizens Advisory Committee, should it remain a viable committee in light of the new regulations not requiring such a body, or the HCD Council Committee could complete the redefinition. 4. City Managers to meet to review staff draft changes to the JPA on October 28, 1981. 5. Meetings to take place with the County and HCD Council Committee to produce a mutually acceptable three -year JPA. The County faces a November 30, 1981 deadline for submittal of fully executed JPAs to HUD. It is anticipated that a modified JPA can be worked out prior to that date. Should the cities' efforts prove unsuccessful, the current JPA could be readopted. c Y RESOLUTION NO. .1035..1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RESCINDING EXECUTION OF THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT TO UNDERTAKE OR ASSIST IN THE UNDERTAKING OF ESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO TABLE 1 OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED, WITH A THREE -YEAR TERM UNTIL JUNE 30, 1985 AND; RECISSION OF CITY OF SARATOGA RESOLUTION NO. 1035. WHEREAS, the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled have made changes to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended through the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1981, P.L. 97 -35; and WHEREAS, such amendments are viewed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as being substantial; and WHEREAS, the-City Council of the City of Saratoga believes that these recent amendments should be considered in the required three -year Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and related Acknowledgement Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby rescind the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Cooperation Agreement relative to qualification of the County of Santa Clara as an Urban County under the Act (HCDA) and also City of Saratoga Resolution No. 1035. The above and foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 21st day of October, 1981, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Clevenger, Mallory, Mayor Callon NOES: Councilnx -=tuber Watson ABSENT: None AB.SPA=: Councilmember Jensen ATTEST: CITY CLERK J MAYOR