HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA
r Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 11, 1982 C. Atty
DEPAR'ITIa]T: Administrative Services C. Mgr.
SUBJDC`r: Request from Library Commission for Expenditure of Library Bond Funds
Issue Sunnary
The Library Commission has been evaluating a variety of suggested improvements
for the Saratoga Community Library. Attached are requests for the following
items:
1. driveway widening improvements (estimated cost $2,000)
2. plans for correcting drainage problems near storeroom
(no cost estimate for plans)
3. plans for design and construction of an awning over bookdrop
(no cost estimate for plans)
4. purchase and installation of plastic inserts for rafters above
front door (estimated cost $50)
5. purchase of three patio benches (estimated cost $600)
Recommendation
Authorize expenditure of Library Bond construction funds to cover expenses
associated with the five items listed above.
Fiscal Impacts
The Library Bond Construction Fund has a balance of approximately $43,182.
All items requested by the Commission are eligible expenses from the con-
struction fund. Expenditure for the above five items would leave a balance
of approximately $40,000 depending upon the cost of plans for items 2 and 3.
In addition," as soon as plans are developed for items 2 and 3 listed above,
the Library Commission will be including those costs as a request in the 1982-
1983 Capital Improvement Budget.
Exhibits /Attachments
Requests from Library Commission
Council Action
5/19: Watson /Clevenger moved to approve proposed improvements. Passed 5 -0.
1�
i.
i 1
. 61982
MAY
To: Mayor Callon and Council Members 1-
From: Saratoga Library Commission
Re; Expenditpr:g of Library Bond Issue Funds
for improvement of driveway
V
The• dx ewav eye
t�zr r "t�"aX1Ge f onSSI'a�rAga;'1ST:enUe
,...? i •`l .. f .i ,+J., i�••Y .. .1rr
r has been' a•'haaad since the library opened,
There, have :,b'de'h - complaints from clients
and 'near misses' of cars entering and
leaving he
g parking area.
The Library Commission has studied the
problem and has consulted City Engineer
Trinidad. The attached dr Ewing indicates
the recommended changes necessary and the
proposed traffic 'flow: With appropriate °
markings.,
The estimated` cost for these improvements
is $2000. The Library Commission recom-
mends this expenditure of Library Bond
monies ._
. 4.
f ;
' � ; i
Chairm
Saratoga Library Commission
.. � � - ?•i'; .. : - •fir _ _ -..c'+ . ..�..! � ..: x. i•f' r :y' it -.:r -
S-Cole /",=/O"
RED MAY
May 7, 1982
To*: Mayor Callon and City Council
From: Saratoga Library Commission
Re: Expenditure•of.Library Bond Issue Funds for
needed--.improvements,
Of p.prOva1z 'f,,t.,the'.
f llowing r
o p ojects and for funds from" the
Library Bond Issue Fund to cover the expenses,
The Saratoga Library Commission approved these
projects at the April 28 meeting,
1. Plans for correcting drainage of area near
storeroom. This condition may be due to (a)
rlettling-of the building, (b) landscaping,
(c) gutters. Some damage has been done to
floor tiles in the storage area. Completion of
this project should be before the rainy season.
Plans-must ' be drawn before estimate of cost''
can be made.
2. Plans for a permanent awning over newly located
bookdrop.
3. Plastic inserts between the.rafters at the library
entrance.'' ' Estimated cost $50. (A City respon-
sibility) These inserts were not installed when
the building was constructed.
,4,,,.Three patio benches (included in the original
-E§ti��tbd' '6' `$'6 0 0" T1'6 Sig b t 6 d
by the Commission has been approved by the Park
Maintenance Department. A patron has indicated
interest in donating a bench as a memorial. It
is possible that the other benches could be given
as memorials. If so, the cost of the benches
.would be returned to the Library Bond Issue Fund.
Mary J'. Koss, Chairman
Saratoga Library Commission
0
AGENDA BILL NO �p
DATE: 5/11/82
DEPARTMENT. City Clerk
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty
C. Mgr.
ti
SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing Acceptance and Consent to Deeds and Grants
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Summary
Government Code Section 27281 requires that any deed or grant conveying
an interest in or easement upon real estate to a city must not be accepted
for recordation without the consent of the city as evidenced by a certificate
attached to the deed or grant. The officer authorized to accept and
consent to such deeds or grants is designated by resolution. The most
recent such resolution passed by Saratoga designated Robert Beyer as
City Clerk. Most cities simply designate the office rather than the
name of the individual holding the office.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution 40 -7 authorizing City Clerk to accept and consent to
deeds or grants.
Fiscal Impacts
None.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolution 40 -7
Council Action
5/19: Jensen/Mallory moved to adopt Resolution 40 -7. Passed 5 -0.
L
-�.r }`ta J.t+!liry 7%�1'�c^st vl"'LZ`•:iH� �`r,r
RESOLUTION NO. 40 -7
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE AND coNSENT TO DEEDS AND GRANTS
'The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 27281 of the State of California,
the City Clerk is hereby authorized to accept and consent to deeds or
grants conveying any interest in or easement upon real estate to the
City of Saratoga for public purposes.
Resolution No. 40 -6 of the City of Saratoga is hereby superseded
and repealed and shall be of no further force or effect from and after
date of this resolution.
This resolution was regularly introduced and passed at a regular
meeting of the City Council held on the day of ,
1982, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MTEST
City Clerk ,
Mayor
CITY OF SARATOGA
^ //__ 6 p Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. 01 0 Dept. Hd. A
DATE: May 12, 19 82 C. At
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Second Revision of ABAG Housing Need. Determinations
Issue Summary
1. Upon advice from legal counsel,ABAG has indicated it can not accept
the reduction in the Housing Needs Determination the City requested
on March 17th.
2. Using 1975 Special Census data the housing need number can be
reduced from 469 Units to 458 units.
3. Saratoga can claim credit for the 200 units acquired through the
Sunland Park annexation thus reducing the actual housing need
number to 258 units.
4. The City should adopt a second resolution,superceding the first,
reflecting the above changes before May 27th.
,Recommendation
Adopt the second resolution superseding the first so that the City will
have a housing need revision acceptable to ABAG.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated
Exhibits /Attachments
Exhibit A - Resolution 1068.1
Exhibit B - Staff Report dated 5/11/82
Council Action
5/19: Watson /Mallory moved to adopt Resolution 1068.1 Passed 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. 1068.1
A RESOLUTION SUPERCEDING A PORTION OF RESOLUTION NO.
1068 REVISING THE HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATIONS
FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA
WHEREAS, the Association of Bay Area Governments is the
council of governments (hereinafter "ABAG.") under the�Joint Exercise
of Powers Act for the San Francisco Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, each council of governments is required by Section
65584 of the Government Code, as added by Chapter 1143, Statutes of
1980 (hereinafter "Section 65584 "), to determine'the. existing and
projected housing needs for its region; and
WHEREAS, each council of governments is further required
to determine each city's and county's share of the regional- housing
needs; and
WHEREAS, ABAG's staff has prepared and circulated, for
public review and comment, a draft Housing Needs Report•meeting the
,:. .�........... - ,,.,• ._....,:....,.....,.....r`. .
requirements o f Section 6558 4 and
WHEREAS, after a duly noticed public hearing held on December
17, 1981, the ABAG Executive Board considered the proposed Housing
Needs Report and comments thereon; and
WHEREAS, the ABAG Executive Board found such report includes
consideration of all factors listed in Section 65584 in proposing
the initial determination of regional housing needs; and
F.r.��atFlrr`v�.in7bi* rA? s? .
WHEREAS, the Housing Needs Report was approved by the ABAG
Executive Board for the purpose of beginning the official review
and revision of the determinations contained therein; and
WHEREAS, ABAG's staff have worked with the staff of the
City of Saratoga to ensure that the most complete and reliable
information has been used in the determination of housing needs for
.....
this jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, after further consultation with ABAG's staff
subsequent to the adoption of Resolution No. 1068 it was determined
that certain portions of the proposed revisions to the Housing
Need Determination contained in that resolution were inappropriate
for'ABAG to consider; and
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga desires to revise its share of
the regional housing need based on available data and accepted
planning methodology in accordance with the requirements of Section
65584;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that using more current and reliable 1975 Special Census
information in ABAG's analysis reduces Saratoga's housing
r.?5�nrtvx:krrxT „�i+�esa
need number from 469 units to. 458 units; and. be it further
r
RESOLVED, that the households in the 200 units annexed by Saratoga
in February 1981 would have been assumed in the City of
San. Jose's housing need calculations and that, in effect,
transferring these households and units from San Jose to
'
Saratoga during the 1.980 -85 period means Saratoga has
already accommodated all but 258 units of its share of
the regional housing need; and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Resolution only supercedes the total housing
need component of Resolution No. 1068 and does not affect
any other components of the housing need described in
that resolution or clarifications of those components; and
be it further
RESOLVED, that, pursuant. to Section 65584, the City of Saratoga
revises its share of the regional housing need, as contained
in the December 1981 Housing Needs Report published by
:,
ABAG; and be it further
t .],Nye•,+ �' �S i F 3 �.-'K
3Y„!• {sib r^a.t ..lTLY � #c�M1i?".r'�,sr+,3Tn��., .�)e'�a'rw.`b..iy"CS�
t •:
i.t 1Z...,�• SG ,� `[ ,f"5, j!° 'ni Y�S�' }y. -fie
RESOLVED, that this revision is made effective May 27, 1982; and be
_
"
it further
RESOLVED, that the data and methodology used support such revision;
._.._. :.; >, :....
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ABAG Executive Board is requested to act on such
revision in accordance with the requirements of Section
65584; and be it further
♦• <�^ -(�i �' J f`d �'5i"�''Y t'v'`'.iy (. ,��+,4Yri.f�i��}
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
Executive Director of the Association of Bay Area Governments.
The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted
by the City of Saratoga City Council, State of California this
19th day of May 1982.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
Mayor, City Council
��uFaXMt *� ��tvxc�r tt° i N
ATTEST:
" V
Secretary
3Y„!• {sib r^a.t ..lTLY � #c�M1i?".r'�,sr+,3Tn��., .�)e'�a'rw.`b..iy"CS�
t •:
i.t 1Z...,�• SG ,� `[ ,f"5, j!° 'ni Y�S�' }y. -fie
,(',;e.:pyf 5 i'•p (.w ¢.�bF� "t `�, is
XQX5&
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 5/11/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 5/11/82
SUBJECT: Status of Revision of ABAG Housing Needs Determinations
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
S UMMJA,RY
1. ABAG staff has indicated, due to advice from -legal counsel,
that ABAG will not be able to accept the reduction (.from 469
to 285) in the Housing Needs Determination the City proposed
in its Resolution requesting revision of that.determination
on March 17th.
2. ABAG will allow a slight reduction from 469 to 458 units
based on revisions using 1975 Special Census data generated
by the County.
3. Saratoga can revise the Housing.Needs Determination through
its Housing Element when lccal government constraints on
housing production are considered.
4. As an alternative, Saratoga could claim credit for annexing
200 units in the Sunland Park area which would reduce the
housing need number to 258. ABAG suggested this particular
option so it will be accepted by them.
5. The City can adopt a second resolution adopting the housing need
number (458) as revised by use of 1975 census data and then:
a) Indicate that the City will not be able to produce that
many units because of the 40 -45o reduction in density
due to Measure A,
or
b) Indicate that the City has annexed 200 households which
reduces the remaining need for further housing production
to 258 for 1980 -85.
RECOWIENDA TION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a second resolution
accepting 458 as the City's housing reed for 1980 -85 but also
utilize option 5(b) above and indicate that since 200 housing
units and households were annexed during this p--riod the number
of new housing units that need to be produced in Saratoga is
actually 258.
Status of Revision of ABAG Housing /
Needs Determinations
May 11, 1982
Page 2
BACKGROUND AND EXPLANATION
ABAG has been considering proposed revisions to individual
county and city housing need. numbers since March 31, 1982. AB -2853
allows ABAG 60 days to accept or reject the proposed revisions.
Final action on the revisions will take place on May 27th by
ABAG's Executive Board.
During the review period legal counsel for ABAG indicated.that
revisions based on voter - adopted restrictions on growth, such as
Measure A, could not be accepted. The reasons for non - acceptance
are:
1. AB -2853 does not.specifically include self - imposed
limitations on local growth among the criteria for
determination of the regional housing need.
2. Consideration of such constraints is required in the
Housing Element when it is being adopted by the City.
(The City not ABAG must be accountable for such constraints
which is one of the purposes of AB- 2853.)
The City would therefore have to make a case for reduction in the
housing need number in its Housing Element based on the reasons
for passage of Measure A (i.e. environmental constraints such
as landslides, and other geologic hazards, circulation and road
maintenance problems, etc.) Such a position could be defendable
and, under AB -3252, the burden of proof that Measure A lacks a
real and substantial relation to the public welfare would have
to be bcrne by those suing the City for an inadequate Housing
Element should that ever occur. .
A second and easier option has been offered by ABAG staff. ABAG
will revise the housing need number downward from 469 to 458 units
based on revisions due to 1975 County Special Census Data.
Saratoga would then accept 458 units as its housing need number by
a second resolution. However, Saratoga could take credit for
the 200 units in Sunland Park which were annexed to the City in
1981 therefore the Resolution would indicate that only 258 new
units need to be constructed in 1980 -85. (ABAG has sent a letter
to staff verifying this option.) This option works because ABAG's
methodology is sensitive to changes in the number of households
generated and housed. Also, this option allows San Jose to build
more units based on available sewer allocations since they do not
have to serve the units in Sunland Park. (Saratoga's sewer
allocation can comfortably support the 200 units annexed.)
It should be noted that only three other local governments besides
Saratoga were having some difficulty in getting their revisions
approved; Napa County, Moraga, and Livermore. At the time of
this writing Napa County and Moraga had agreed to revision options
proposed by ABAG. Also, Livermore appeared to be leaning towards
settlement. Saratoga could be the only City without some sort
of revision agreement worked out by ABAG. ABAG would like to
avoid that situation therefore the 200 unit credit for annexation
was suggested.
Status of Revision of ABAG Housing
Needs Determinations
May 11, 1982
Page 3
CONCLUSION
There are several advantages to using the second option offered
by ABAG. It actually reduces the number of new units that need
to be produced than identified in the City's original revision
request (258 vs 285). It also allows San Jose to provide mere
affordable housing than might otherwise be possible. Also,
Saratoga can not be "singled out" as the only City unable to
agree with ABAG on a revised housing need number.
The reduced density created by Measure A can still be accounted
for in the Housing Element but probably should be used in
determining housing need past 1985. Staff feels this option is
acceptable because it creates less of a burden on the City in
terms of required new construction and the City can still
determine the best method of meeting the remaining need.
The City Council does need to take action prior to the Executive
Board meeting on May 27th.
W441.�-
Michael Flores
Assistant Planner
MF /mgr
FREDERIC C.BENNER
ARTHUR HARRIS
JOHN G. EVAN5
KENNETH K.MOY
To:
From:
Re:
RECFIyE7o
LAW OFFICES 'PH �+ 1982
B E N N E 1 0 sHH AK R Rue, ulr oo E V A WN�O POCICy gNALYSI
S
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704 -1258 (415)848 -0630
MEMORANDUM
April 15, 1982
Executive Board
John G. Evans, Legal Counsel
RPC /Action on ABAG Housing Needs Report
At its April 7, 1982 meeting, the ABAG Regional Planning Committee
(RPC) voted to recommend Executive Board action on the ABAG Housing Needs
Report which has been prepared pursuant to AB 2853 (1980, Roos). The RPC
recommendation was made subject to resolution of several issues, some legal in
nature, which were to be considered by the Executive Board. This Memorandum
discusses the legal issues, which are:
(1) May a jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need be stated as
a numerical range of housing units?
(2) Is ABAG required to accept voter - adopted restrictions on growth
as justifying reduction in a locality's share of the regional housing
need?
(3) In its December, 1981 Housing Needs Report, ABAG determined
the regional housing need to be 216,800 units. Now it is
recommended that the regional housing need be reduced to
209,300. Will this reduction prevent the ABAG Housing Needs
Report from complying with the requirements of AB 2853?
These issues are addressed below. My conclusions have been reviewed
with ABAG staff. One caveat is in order. AB 2853, the statute which mandates
-1-
the ABAG Housing Needs Report, is not tightly or carefully drafted. AB 2853 has
not been construed by the courts on the subjects addressed in this memorandum.
Therefore, any legal opinions are matters of interpretation at this point.
(1) May a jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need
be stated as a numerical range of housing units?
AB 2853 requires ABAG to "determine the existing and projected
housing need for its region" and "each locality's share" of that regional housing
need. While AB 2853 does not precisely state that the regional or local need must
be quantified, the conclusion is inescapable that hard numbers are intended.
For example, Government Code Section 655831 requires that the
housing element of local general plans contain quantified objectives. Section
65583(b) leaves little doubt that these quantified objectives are to be stated in
numerical terms. Since the raison d'etre of ABAG's Housing Needs Report is to
provide the quantified numbers for preparation of local housing elements (see
Section 65583(a)), the conclusion is compelled that ABAG's regional housing need
and the local shares derived therefrom must be stated in hard numbers.
Two jurisdictions have proposed that their shares of the regional
housing need be stated in numbers ranging from low to high. This offers no legal
problem to ABAG so long as the low or minimum local share identified in the range
is equal to or greater than the share for that locality as finally determined by
ABAG under AB 2853. In this way, ABAG can still assure that each jurisdiction's
share complies with the AB 2853 mandate and will, when added to other local
lUnless otherwise indicated, all references are to Government Code.
-2-
shares, aggregate to the regional housing needs number. In principle, it is of no
concern that a jurisdiction identifies a range of units which at the high end exceeds
the share finally determined by ABAG under AB 2853; in fact, such an elevated
goal would be complimentary to the spirit and purpose of AB 2853. On the other
hand, it should be understood that in its Housing Needs Report ABAG would defend
only such final local share because of certainty that this number is consistent with
AB 2853 criteria and technically supportable.
(2) Is ABAG required to accept voter - adopted restrictions
on growth as justifying reduction in a locality's share of
the regional housing need?
This question arises because of a contradiction in the proposed handling
of local growth restrictions. ABAG staff felt required to accept voter - imposed
growth limitations as a constraint upon a locality's housing needs share, justifying
reduction of that locality's housing needs share as originally determined in the
,December, 1981 ABAG Housing Needs Report. On the other hand, staff felt that
similar restrictions imposed by a local governing body could not justify a reduction
in a locality's housing needs share. This staff distinction appears to be unjustified.
Neither type of growth limitation should be considered in determining a locality's
housing needs share.
Section 65584 sets forth the criteria to be used in developing and
distributing the housing needs for persons at all income levels within an area
affected by a local general plan. The housing need is to be based upon available
data, taking into consideration "market demand for housing, employment
opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and public facilities, commuting
patterns, type and tenure of housing need, and the housing needs of farm workers."
It is further required that the distribution of needs "seeks to avoid further
-3-
impaction on localities with relatively higher proportions of lower income
households." AB 2853 does not include self- imposed (whether by voters or
governing board) limitations on local growth among the criteria for determination
of the regional housing need.
Rather, AB 2853 requires local consideration of such constraints by a
city or county in developing and adopting its housing element. The locality must
analyze "potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement or development of housing for all income levels, including land use
control, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other
exactions required of developers and local processing of permits and procedures."
Section 65583(a)(5). Further, Section 65583(c) requires the local government to
devise a program which sets forth a five year schedule to accomplish its housing
goals through "the administration of land use and development controls." The
program is required to identify adequate sites which will be made available through
"appropriate zoning and development standards needed to facilitate and encourage
the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including
rental housing, factory built housing and mobile homes in order to meet the
community's housing goals ..."
Under these circumstances, it seems clear that ABAG's function in
developing the Housing Needs Report is to provide and distribute an overall
regional housing need based upon pertinent AB 2853 criteria. After the housing
needs shares are regionally determined, the function reserved to the local
jurisdiction is to evaluate and deal with local land use regulations and local
governmental constraints in developing and enacting a local housing element.
ABAG should not accept local growth limitations (whether voter - imposed or not) as
justification for reducing a local housing needs share. The verity of this conclusion
-4-
is indicated by (1) AB 2853's failure to include local growth constraints (even though
such constraints are mentioned extensively elsewhere in the bill) among the factors
to be considered by ABAG and (2) its assignment of such considerations to local
governments. If growth controls were to be factored into the regional
determination of housing needs, or to be accepted by ABAG in revision thereof, the
local consideration of, and accountability for such constraints, which is clearly
sought by AB 2853, would be defeated.
The provisions of AB 3252 (1980, Papan) do not compel acceptance of
voter - adopted local growth restrictions. The effect of AB 3252 is merely to
reverse the evidentiary burden of proof in litigation regarding general plans. Prior
to AB 3252 the rule was, under Associated Home Builders v. City of Livermore,
(1976) 18 Cal. 3d 582, 135 Cal. Rptr. 41, that the party challenging the
constitutionality of a growth restriction (on the basis of invalid exercise of police
power) bears the burden of proving that the restriction lacks a real and substantial
relation to the public welfare. AB 3252 changes this burden of proof, excepting
certain growth limitation measures adopted by initiative or referendum prior to the
effective date of the bill. The effect of AB 3252 is not to validate or insulate from
litigation such prior- adopted measures, but to leave intact the Associated Home
Builders rules of burden of proof.
(3) In its December, 1981 Housing Needs Report, ABAG
determined the regional housing need to be 216,800
units. Now it is recommended that the regional housing
need be reduced to 209,300. Will this reduction prevent
the ABAG Housing Needs Report from
complying with the requirements of AB 2853?
Section 65584(a) requires the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) to provide data to ABAG respecting the existing and projected
-5-
housing need for the region. HCD did this in June, 1981. Based upon Department
of Finance (DOF) interim population projections (which had not been extensively
reviewed by all affected agencies), HCD advised ABAG that the region can 206,000
new households between 1980 and 1985. ABAG's December, 1981 Housing Needs
Report estimated the projected regional housing need to be 216,800 units. Based
upon revisions authorized and made under Section 65584(c), ABAG now proposes to
reduce the number of units to approximately 209,300. This number still exceeds
the original HCD estimate.
The 216,800 units contained in the December, 1981 Housing Needs
Report was an initial determination. It was clearly subject to the revision process
set forth in Section 65584(c). This revision process allows local governments ninety
(90) days within which to revise their local housing need share. Thereafter, within
sixty (60) days ABAG is allowed to accept or reject the revision, based upon
available data and accepted planning methodology. As such, Section 65584(c)
clearly sanctions and allows possible reductions of the original estimate published
by ABAG. Subject to the caveat mentioned above, the mere fact that the regional
housing need is reduced from the initial determination published in December, 1981
should not make ABAG's final Housing Needs Report legally deficient; provided
that, adequate justification exists for the reductions, a technical issue which the
staff is prepared to address and defend.
10
RECEIVED
h4 AY 11 1982
o4eAEAG
PLANNING POLICY ANALYSIS.
Association of Bay Area Governments
Hotel Claremont • Berkeley, California 94705 - (415)841 -9730
May 10, 1982
Michael Flores
Assistant Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mike:
It was nice to talk to you today regarding the housing needs number
for Saratoga. I hope the following clearly explains a possible course
of action for the city, as discussed on the phone.
Basically, there are two items that need to be addressed. First, the
use of more current information for Saratoga as identified in the 1975
Special County Census and second, the question of how to deal with the
February 1981 annexation of 200 units.
Use of the 1975 Special County Census information changes the 1975
household figure from 8,236 to 8,270; the 1975 housing unit figure from
8,494 to 8,475; the 1980 estimate of available housing from 9,495 to
9,486; and the 1980 estimate of available vacancy rate from .0211 to
.0201. Using this more current information yields a 1980 -85 housing
needs number of 453 units versus the original determination of 469 units.
An increase of 458 units would provide for an additional 423 households.
We have reviewed the question of how to handle the February 1981 an-
nexation of land that includes 200 housing units. The households
accommodated by these units would (were it not for the annexation)
have been assumed in San Jose's housing need calculations. In effect,
transferring these households and units from San Jose to Saratoga dur-
ing the 1980 -85 period means the city has already accommodated all but
258 units of its share of the regional housing need.
As a consequence of the above, we plan to recommend to our Executive
Board that it find acceptable a revised projected 1980 -85 housing
needs number of 458 units.
The above is an alternative for Saratoga's consideration. I hope it
is both clear and acceptable to the city and that your city council
can adopt a resolution to revise the housing need number from 469 to
458 based on the 1975 Special Census data considered more current and
reliable. Your council needs to take action by May 27, the day our
Work Program and Coordination Committee, acting on behalf of the Ex-
ecutive Board, will take final action.
Representing City and County Governments in the San Francisco Bay Area
Michael Flores
May 10, 1982
Page two
Thanks for your continued cooperation and participation on this arduous
task. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Daniel B. Lopez
Chief of Housing
CITY OF SAPATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. 4 % 3 Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 13, 1982 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Status of Manufactured Housing Ordinance
Issue Summary
1. Some Commissioners requested return of Ordinance because they felt
they had insufficient information and were not aware of all their
options. Council agreed to return Ordinance.
2. Commission formally voted to reconsider Ordinance and have held one
study session and one public hearing since that vote.
3. Commission has requested Deputy City Attorney to investigate
whether pending .legislative bills will modify existing law.
4. Commission has continued public hearing and awaits further input
from City Council.
Recommendation
1. Conduct informal public hearing.
2. Give Commission direction based on the outcome of that hearing.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated
Exhibits /Attachments
Exhibit A - Staff report dated 5/13/82
Exhibit B - Staff report dated 4/27/82
Exhibit C - Deputy City Attorney's letter dated 2/24/82
Exhibit D - Department of H.C.D. letter dated. 1/23/81
Exhibit E - Draft Manufactured Housing Ordinance dated 10/19/81
Council Action
5/19: Consensus to refer to Planning Commission.
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CIrT'Y COUNCIL
DATE: 5/13/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 5/19/82
SUBJECT: Status of Manufactured Housing Ordinance
SUMMARY CHRONOLOGY
1. July 1, 1_981 - SB -1960 becomes effective. Requires local
governments to permit manufactured homes in R -1 Districts.
2. September 1981 - Staff presents law to City Council at study
session. Council directs preparation of Ordinance to allow
manufactured homes in all districts.
3. September - December, 1981 - Staff prepares information and
initial Ordinance for Planning Commission consideration.
4. December 9, 1981- January 13, 1982 - Commission conducts
public hearings and study sessions regarding Ordinance.
Commission adopts resolution recommending approval of
Ordinance allowing manufactured homes in all residential
districts.
5. February 3, 1982 - Council considers Commission report and
agendizes for study session.
6. February 23, 1982 - Some Commission members request Council
to refer Ordinance back to Commission at joint study session.
Council agrees.
7. February 24, 1982 - Commission votes to formally reconsider
Ordinance.
8. March - April, 1982 - Staff collects all legislative bills
pertaining to manufactured housing and further information.
9. May 4, 1.982 - Commission holds brief study session on
Ordinance.
10. May 12, 1982 - Public hearing before Commission on Ordinance.
Public hearing continued to May 26, 1982.
RECOMMENDATION
For City Council information.
CITY E1
= AFi,A�(?GA
REPORT TO MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
AND
DATE: 5/13/82
COUNCIL 'MEETING. 5/19/82
SUBJECT; Status, of Manufactured Housing Ordinance
----------------------------- -------------------------------------------
SUMMARY CHRONOLOGY
1. July-1, 19.81 -'$B-1960 becomes effective. ',Requires local
governments to permit manufactured homes in It -1 Districts.
2. September 1981 - staff presents law to City Council at study
session. Council directs preparation of Ordina-nce to-allow
Manufactured homes in all diStrictse
3. Septenil�er-f)ef)embmbipr129lk17-Staft prepares information and
n�
initiAl Ordinance for Planning CQmmissko consideration.'
4. 15e.cembe'r 9, 1981-January 13, 1982 - Commission conducts_
public hearings and study sessions regardinq.Ordinance.
Commission adopts resolution recommending approval of o
Ordinance allowing manufactured homes in All residential*
districts..
5. February 3' 1982 - Council considers Commiss ,on 'report and
agendizea for study session.
6. February 23, 1982 Some Commission merabers*request Council"
to refer ordixiance back.to Commlasion at jpiJitr study s'o'ssion.
Council, agrees.
7. February 24, 1982 Coftnission votes to formally,reoonsider
Ordinance-
8. Staff oolle cts all legislative k�ijjs
persaitting to manufactured housing and ,furthor.information.
9. May 4'r 1982.- Commission holds brief study aes:p1pn, on
..Ordinance.
10. Ma 12, 1982.- Public, hearing before-Cmmissi in
on on Ordan-de.
Public hearing continued takla')(.26, 1.9,$2,
22F,,C0MML,"NDATION
�'or cant pc(MuCcil information,
Status of Manufactured Housing
Ordinance
May 13, 1982
Page 2
BODY OF REPORT
The Commission requested that the City Council send the Ordinance
back for further work since they felt that all their options were
not clearly understood and that-further information on other
bills dealing with manufactured housing was required. Some
Commissioners felt they had been rushed on the earlier recommend-
ation.
Staff collected the information requested by the Commission for
its May 4th study session. At that time Commissioner Monia
expressed concern as to whether the Commission could reconsider
the Ordinance without a formal vote of the.Council to refer the
Ordinance back to the Commission. Staff was directed to clarify
this with the City Attorney. The Commission also agreed to
request that Mr.. Logan, a legislative analyst, attend a study
session or meeting to explain and explore the options allowed by
State law in complying with SB -1960.
The Commission conducted a public hearing on the Ordinance on
May 12, 1982. No one from the audience spoke on the Ordinance.
The Deputy City Attorney indicated that it was appropriate for
the Commission to cons-ider the Ordinance again based on the Council's
informal referal. The Commission then directed the Deputy City
Attorney to investigate whether any pending bills would affect
the existing law which requires local governments to allow
manufactured housing. Questions were also raised as to the issue
of compatibility, "spot zoning" or designated zones., whether a
specific R -1 zoning district can be set aside for manufactured
homes, and whether the Housing Element should. identify manufactured
homes as a need before the Ordinance is adopted.
Staff noted that no changes to the existing law have been adopted.
The public hearing was continued to May 26th. The Commission
will be awaiting further -input from the Council after it conducts
its informal public hearing on May 19th.
'Michael' Elores
Assistant Planner
MF /mgr
mo 0&7az1x00z
091J�
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 4/27/82
Commission Meeting: 5/12/82
SUBJECT Manufacturing Home Ordinance (SB -1960)
At your last study session,
Ordinance was brought up by
reviewing the various bills
Ordinance with the Planning
SUMMARY:
the issue of the Manufactured Home
the Commission. Staff has been
and is prepared to discuss the
Commission.
One of the main concerns of the Planning Commission at their
hearings on the Manufactured Housing Ordinance was the con-
fusion between the terms mobile tomes and manufactured homes.
SB -1960 clearly states that manufactured housing includes
mobile homes. However, the Commission should refer to Hal
Toppel's memo dated February 24, 1982, bottom of page 1 and
top of page 2 which states that the National Mobile Home
Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 has been amended
to delete all reference to "mobile homes" and substitutes the
phrase "manufactured homes ".
The Federal law does not distinguish between dwellings with or
without permanent foundation. However the California
legislation refers only to mobile homes on permanent foundations.
For further clarification of the topic, staff would refer the
Commission to page 3 of the report entitled. "The Manufactured
Housing Alternative".
BACKGROUND:
In February 1982, the Planning Commission approved Resolution
GF -334 which recommended the addition of manufactured homes as
permitted within single - family detached residential districts
of Saratoga. This item was subsequently sent to the City Council
for their consideration and approval of the Ordinance. However,
the Planning Commission voted to reconsider their original action
Manufacturing Home Ordinance
April 27, 1982
Page 2
during early March. The City Council also requested that the
Ordinance be sent back to the Planning Commission for further
study.
The Planning Commission indicated that they were not completely
aware of the contents of SB -1960 and other manufactured housing
bills and wished to study the matter further. Since that time,'
staff has received copies of all of the bills dealing with
manufactured rousing or mobile homes. Staff has included a
brief synopsis of each one of these bills for the Commission's
review. Additionally, the bills are attached as appendices
to the staff report for your review. Many of the bills
included have no application at all to the land use issues of
manufactured housing within the City of Saratoga.
I have-asked the Deputy City Attorney to review these bills
and he will be prepared to make comments either at the study
session on May 4th or the public hearing on May 12th.
The main bill that the Planning Commission is dealing with
is SB -1960 (Raines). This Bill went into effect July 1, 1981.
The Bill is saying that it is illegal to pass a local ordinance
which prohibits manufactured housing within a City. However,
it does specify that the City can designate certain zoning
districts or lots within a zoning district to be utilized for
manufactured housing. There are several requirements which have
to be made in terms of compatibility with surrounding areas.
It is a judgment call on behalf of the Planning Commission as
to what they want to define as compatible. Regarding the issue
of compatibility, I would refer the Commission to a memo from
the Deputy City Attorney dated February 24, 1982 regarding
manufactured housing as well as a memo from the Department of
Housing and Community Development from Carolyn Burton, Deputy
General Council dated January 23, 1981. Those two memos
explain the details of SB -1960.
The issues before the Planning Commission regarding SB -1960
include:
1. In what zoning district(s) is it appropriate to allow
manufactured housing?
2. Does the Planning Commission wish to designate specific
lots within the City's residential districts or com-
mercial districts for manufactured housing?
The Ordinance which the Planning Commission forwarded to the
City Council in February indicated that all single family
detached residential zoning districts were appropriate for
manufactured housing. Pros of this particular approach is that
you would not have a concentration of manufactured housing in
one particular district and the argument against such an action
is that manufactured housing, because of its size, may not be
compatible with some of the larger houses within the larger
Manufacturing Home Ordinance
April 27, 1982
Page 3
districts. Regarding issue #2, the Planning Commission should
develop some very specific criteria to designate lots within
the City which will be zoned for manufactured housing. The
criteria established should be such that one wishing to place
a manufactured home in a residential district would know -if
their lot qualified or did not qualify.
The staff has included the original ordinance which authorizes
the erection of manufactured homes in all residential districts
within the City. Other information included in the Commissioner's
packet is an article entitled "The Manufactured Housing
Alternative, Questions and Answers for California Communities ".
In staff's opinion, the manufactured housing alternative article
which you received before, gives a very clear picture of what
the law says, the requirements and the difference between
manufactured housina and mobile homes. It further clarifies
the restrictions that the Planning Commission can place on
manufactured homes.
PROCESS:
Staff has scheduled this item for a study session at the may
4th meeting to follow the General Plan review. We plan on
receiving sufficient direction so we can revise the Ordinance
to comply with the Commission's desire and then forward it to
the City Council for their consideration. It should be noted
that the public hearing has been scheduled for the May 12th
meeting so that the Planning Commission can take public
testimony.
Staff would appreciate the opportunity to sit down and talk to
any of the Commissioners regarding the contents of any of the
bills enclosed in the packet or the articles which are enclosed
for the Commissioner's information.
R. Ro inson, J
Planning & Policy Analysis
RSR /mgr
Enclosures:
1. SB -1960, SB -484, SB -431, SB -2084, SB -2095
2. Letter from City Attorney, February 24, 1982
3. Memo from Carolyn Burton, Department of Housing & Community
Development re: Department Legal Interpretation of SB -1960
4. "The Manufactured Housing Alternative"
5. Planning Commission Reports, 12/9/81 and 1/13/82
6. Draft Ordinance
7. Resolution No. GF -334
8. Housing - Manufactured Related Bills
PAUL B. SMITH
ERIC L. FARASYN
Ut NFUL \4 B. sHERER
LEONARD 1. 51ECAL
FLAROLD S.TOPPEL
FRA,iK E. MAYO
STEVEN G.BAiRD
ATKINSON - FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
660 WEST DANA STREET
P. O. BOX 279
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
(415) 967- 6', -)41
February 24, 1982
Saratoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Manufactured Homes
FAr�� -�?,
1. M. ATKINSON, (nsnReo)
L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979)
Section 65852.3, recently added to the Government
Code, provides that the City shall not prohibit the instal-
lation of mobile homes certified under the National Mobile
Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.,
Section 5401, et seq.) and installed on a foundation system
pursuant to Section 18551 of the California Health & Safety
Code on lots zoned for single - family dwellings. Section
65852.3 specifically authorizes a municipality to designate
certain lots within a. residential district as being "co;lt-
patibl.e" for mobile home use, and the City m::'y subject any
mobile home and the lot on which it is placed to any or all
of the same development standards applicable to a conventional
single - family dwelling. By way of example, the statute men-
tions building set- -back standards, side and rear yard re-
quirements, standards for enclosures, access and vehicle
parking, and minimum square footage requirements.
With respect to design review, Section 65852.3
allows a city to impose architectural requirements, but limits
such requirements to roof_ overhang, roofing material and
siding material.
The foregoing provisions have been incorporated
into the ordinance authorizing the installation of manufac-
tured homes in all residential districts, as adopted by the
Planning Copunission and recommended to the City Council.
With respect to the National Mobile Hoene Construc-
tion and Safety Standards Act of 1.974, it is significant to
C: c"
Saratoga Planning Commission
February 24, 1982
Page 2
note that such act was subsequently amended so as to delete
all references to "mobile homes" and substitute the phrase
"manufactured homes ". The Act is now known as the Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety Standards Act. A "manufactured
home" is defined in Section 5402(6) to mean:
"A structure, transportable in one or more
sections, which, in the traveling mode, is
eight body feet or more in width or forty
body feet or more in length, or, when erected
on site, -is 320 or more square feet, and
which is built on a permanent chassis and
designed to be used as a dwelling with or
without a permanent foundation, when con-
nected to the required utilities, and in-
cludes the plumbing, heating, air condi-
tioning, and electrical systems contained
therein; except that such term shall in-
clude any structure.which meets all the
requirements of this section except the
size requirements and with respect to which
the manufacturer voluntarily files a cer-
tification required by the secretary [of
Housing and Urban Development] and complies
with the standards established under this
title."
The federal act authorizes the secretary of Housing
and Urban Development to establish minimum construction stan-
dards for manufactured homes and declares it to be unlawful
for any person to sell a manufactured home which does not
comply with such standards. The federal act specifically
excludes from its coverage any structure which the manufac-
turer certifies to be:
1. Designed only for erection or installation
on a permanent foundation;
2. Not designed to be moved once erected and
installed;
3. Designed and manufactured to comply with
nationally recognized building codes or
equivalent local codes or any state or
C,
Saratoga Planning Commission
February 24, 1982
Page 3
local modular building codes or the HUD
minimum property standards; and
4. To the best of the manufacturer's knowledge,
is not intended to be used other than on a
site -built permanent foundation,
Although the federal law defines a manufactured home
in terms of a structure to be used as a dwelling with or
without a permanent foundation, the California legislation
refers only to mobile homes which are installed on permanent
foundations. Consequently, a municipality would be entitled
to adopt special regulations pertaining to, mobile homes which
are not installed upon a permanent foundation.
The California Department of Housing and.Community
Development has issued a legal interpretation of Government
Code Section 65852.3 (SB 1960), a copy of which is attached
hereto for your information.
you may
I will be happy to invE
y have concerning this matt
HST:jh
enclosure
S.
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
January 23, 1981
TO: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
FROM: Carolyn Burton, Deputy General Counsel
RE: Department's Legal Interpretation of SB 1960
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.. Governor
.' a 'sx
�J
s�,��'y
In 1980 the Legislature passed and Governor Brown signed into law SB 1960
(Rains) which provides for mobilehomes in single family residential zones
(Chapter 1142, Statutes of 1980). Currently, many localities, exclude
mobilehomes entirely, or restrict their location to mobilehome parks. This
new law, which will take effect on July 1, 1981, assures that mobilehomes
will have a place in every California community,
In summary, the new statute precludes prohibition by a city or county of
installation of newer mobilehomes (built since 1974) which are installed on
permanent foundations on lots zoned for sinale - family residences.
Alternatively the local ity may designat�ites for mobilehomes in single
family zones. The local jurisdiction may apply setback, sideyard, parking,
and other development standards which it would apply to a conventional house
on the same lot. Architectural standards may be applied to the mobilehome
which deal specifically with roof overhang, and roofing and siding
materials. Excerpts of the new law are attached.
A number of questions have arisen regarding the proper interpretation of
this law. These questions, and the legal interpretation of the Department
of Housing and Community Development follow.
1. Must mobilehomes meeting the standards of the bill be allowed on
every lot in single family zones.
Yes -- except that the locality may designate specific sites in single family
zones for mobilehome use as an alternative approavc 1.—ffo ever, the number of
single family sites excluded from use by mobilehomes is limited by several
considerations, most importantly, housing element requirements.
The first sentence of the new laa is a general proscription against
prohibiting mobilehomes (meeting the specified standards) on lots zoned for
single family dwellings. However, the second sentence provides an
alternative approach: the city may designate lots zoned for single family
dwellings for mobilehome use, which lots are determined to be compatible for
mobilehome use. If a locality utilizes this approach and does designate
single family lots for mobilehome use, it is not required to allow
mobilehomes on every lot zoned single family.
-1-
l
The empirical basis for determining the number of lots designated for
mobilehome use is in the locality's housing element. Statutory requirements .
for a local housing element -- whether prepared pursuant to Government Code
Section 65302(c) and the Housing Element Guidelines or the new Article 10.6,
commencing with Section 65580, of the Government Code (AB 2853)- _r_eggire a
locality to c0nsld6r mofl e-i oxnes an rovide adequate sites with zoning to
a`rTUW-fvr- mob -H-e,�ro 'Es. To t -he extent that there is a need for lo,d and
moderate income Housing, and these needs are not being met through other
housing programs, the locality must zone an amount of residential land for
mobilehomes commensurate with such need.
Furthermore, in order to withstand an equal protection challenge (see
questions 5 and 6 below) the locality should designate all lots which are
equally compatible for mobilehorne use and be abeto po n to t -e
characteristics which distinguish lots which were_3esi nated from those lots
wh�c�i were no n practice, since a Tots in a_zone will genera e
equally compatible for the placement of mobilehomes, mobilehomes sh loud be
a ded as an a owa e use_ or an e_ ntie sing e i y rest en �a zone.��
2. What does it mean that a locality may designate lots "which
lots are determined to be compatible for such mo e ome use "?
The word "compatible" is not defined and, therefore, the locality may
exercise its own judgment in determining compatibility. However, there must
be a rational basis for this determination. In complying with this
provision, the local jurisdiction should establish the components for a
compatibility standard and, prior to designating single family lots for
mobilehome use, determine that the lots meet this standard. The
✓jurisdiction may wish to make findings to this effect.
Generally, sites will be compatible for mobilehome use if mobilehomes will
meet the existing zoning and subdivision requirements. The fear that the
placement of a mobilehome on a lot might have a negative economic effect on
surrounding lots does not mean that it is an incompatible land use.
Additional criteria that the city could consider in making the determination
are probably limited to architectural and historical factors. The litmus
test would be that the mobilehome would appear "totally out of -6-1—ace-
I uTT stratiee examples of mobilehorne non - compatibility based on these
criteria might be in -fill lots in an historic preservation area or an area
composed of Victorian - styled structures. These situations invoke both of
the criteria noted above. Other older_neighb9rh�o IOnDOSaof lard
two -story residences, although nt. g A-yariety of st_ylesa might
1-� rise be�archit- icturally incompatible for mobilehomes.
A word of caution, however. As the state of the art progresses, mobilehomes
may be designed which will be totally compatible with Victorians or other
architectural types. 7Fu_S, compatibility may be reduced to simply meeting
existing zoning and subdivision requirements. This standard provides the
necessary rational basis and is easy to apply. Since it also reflects the
subsequent requirement of the statute that the locality may subject the
-2-
c �
mobilehome to the same development standards that _apply�to a conventional_
single famiTy-weTl-ing, this standard would not be subject to legal
cF1-J-Tl enge.
3. Does the zoning_ for mobilehome parks or subdivisions comply with
the new law?
A locality may continue to zone for mobilehome parks or subdivisions.
However, such zoning will meet the requirements of the new statute only if
conventional single family structures are also allowed in such zones. Where
such mobilehome park or subdivisions exclude conventional single family
residences, the locality would still be required to allow mobilehomes in
single family zones or designate lots in single family zones for
mobilehomes.
4. What is the relationship b.et --i en the new law and the Mob i.l ehome
Parks c —,dith respec o use perms sf
The Mobilehome Parks Act sets standards for the design and use of mobilehome
parks and provides for state or local enforcement. Health and Safety Code
Section 18300(g)(3) states that the provisions therein do not prevent a
jurisdiction from requiring a use permit for a mobilehome which is installed
outside of a mobilehome park.
While SB 1960 did not explicitly repeal Section 18300(g)(3), a local
requiremenr t of a use permit for a mobilehome in a single fami" y residential
zone is inconsistent wi Fie ne_w law._ The first sentence of the new
statu of prec ud� es a locality from prohibiting mobilehomes on lots in single
family zones. Requiring a use permit implies possible prohibition of the
mobilehome use since the request for a permit could be denied. Therefore,
subsequent to the passage of SB 1960, a use permit for a mobilehome should
not be required, This is 1ikew__ise true if theeoocaTality opts for the
alternative of designating single family lots for mobilehome use Once the
site has been designated, there is no need for a use permit. If the permit
w'4rE--graTT e , it would be superfluous; if the permit were denied, the
locality would be in violation of the statute.
With respect to conditional use permits, conditions relating to factors
other than the fact that t e structure is a mobilehome can be required if
such conditions are likewise applied to conventional construction. This is
consistent with the express statement that mobilehomes may be subjected to
the same development standards as are placed on conventional single family
dwellings.
5. Does the new statute require a city or county to "spot zone "?
"Spot zoning" is the practice of restricting a small parcel as an "island"
and giving it less rights than surrounding properties where no rational
reason exists for such a restriction. The classification would be
discriminatory, i.e., in violation of the equal protection clause. A
property that is favored by allowing additional uses is not spot zoning
since the property has not been discriminated against.
-3-
The new law does not intend for localities to designate lots i_n_sinc.
�a`rriily z�n�s �xc usiveIy for mobilehome use_ Sites identified for.
mo e ome use s_EouTd be available for convent�ional construction as w.-! I.
Tn`e-ffZc Cfie permute uses on the property have been expanded to include
mob f ehomes _— Me-property has therefore been treateT- ravorabll y by— aTlT,,,Ilnq
an additional use, and not discriminated against. This is not spot zoning.
6. Can the property owner whose single family lot is not zoned for
mobiiehomes alleqe iscrimination.
A property owner who wants to place a mobilehome on a lot where such use is
prohibited, could argue that the property has been discriminated against if
other, similarly situated properties, were designated for mobilehome use.
While a locality has a great deal of discretion in exercising its zoning
authority, the judicial test for determining whether a zoning classification
violates equal protection standards is as follows:
1. The property owner challenging the regulation must demonstrate
than his or her property stands in precisely the same relationship
as those properties receiving preferential treatment (i.e., those
where mobilehomes are an additional use); and
2. The more narrow zoning classification must not have been made on
an arbitrary basis, but rather must be based upon some distinction
which justifies the differential treatment.
Meeting this standard should not be a problem for a locality in complying
with the new law since this is the same standard that must be applied in
traditional zoning practices. It simply means that the desi ng ation of site
for mobilehome use must have some rational basis. This basis will
be the same as the locality's determination of compatibility. For example,
if very narrow in -fill lots in urban areas are rejected for mobilehome use
as not "compatible" (because of the need for a larger lot), the rational
basis test would be met. On the other hand, in suburban residential areas
where there is large lot zoning, there may be no basis for determining one
lot is compatible, another is not. In this situation, the most appropriate
way to designate lots for mobilehome use may be the adoption of a mobilehome
overlay permitting mobilehomes on all lots in the particular single family
zone.
7. Does the new law nullify covenants, conditions and restrictions on
property which prohibits mobilehomes?
No. Restrictive _covenants prohibiting_ob_Ue _Qm3 res;dentia loth
_an (entered into either before or after passage of the bill) are not directly
affectec- fTiy`S�T906.�Thv courts have upheld covenants restrictlnol e use
of proper iy �n ffie face of more_expnsive__zoninq requirements. (See
teg'slative Coun`seTOpinion No. 16044, 11/17/30, affirming this view.)
However, the department has issued an opinion indicating that restrictive
covenants prol- ii6i�F`nq mobilehomes may be unenforceable and that S3 19--6-0—add s
aCU—QJonaT suppor_ obi- this view. -- -- �—'— --
-4-
Courts have refused to enforce restrictive covenants where, due to "changed
conditions ", it would be oppressive and inequitable to the property owner
to do so. For example, this night occur where a property is restricted to
single family residential use and, over a period of. years, the neighborhood
has changed from residential to commercial. Maintaining the lot as
residential no longer benefits surrounding properties (for whose protection
the covenant was entered into in the first place) and imposes a hardship on
the owner of the restricted property. Rezoning of surrounding areas to
coam ercial is one of the factors of "changed conditions" that a court could
consider in deciding whether or not to enforce the restriction. By analogy,
the rezoning of a "compatible" area to allow mobilehomes pursuant to SB
1960, could be a factor used by a court to determine whether- changed
conditions render a restriction against mobilehomes unenforceable. The new
law is also evidence that such restrictions are contrary to publ is pol icy, a
factor to be considered by the court in deciding whether a restriction
should be enforced.
Covenants prohibiting mobilehomes may also be narrowly interpreted by the
courts to apply only to older mobilehomes rather than newer
mobilehomes - -many of which are visually indistinguishable from
conventionally - constructed homes. This interpretation would be consistent
with a general judicial rule to interpret such restrictions in a manner
which limits encumbrances on property. [The department's legal opinion
analyzing the enforcability of these covenants is available upon request.]
8. Does the new statute apply to charter cities and counties?
Yes. State zoning law only applies to general law cities and counties
unless there is specific language applying the provision to charter
jurisdictions. (See, for example, Government Code Sections 65804 and
65918.) The new law contains such a provision, explicitly applying it to
charter cities and counties.
-5-
�!Nrr. +.- w+.w.,Mw�- ?ta <�r�rfr; :rar,:: . :•i., -.v.,, ,..
"`��t�=�� +eAib►? s Aw�ayti
...r►ay...r.V �!q„}:.�y �n+N.t;.Y+9�.s✓lw.M+w. -VI
• wu..� � : i•�.Y w; is _ ' :, - -. n'_..- :.., <` v�,a
10719/81
C
C
ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ERECTION OF f
MANUFACTURED HOMES IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Saratoga does
hereby adopt an ordinance which will permit the erection of
manufactured homes in all residential districts of the City in
accordance with SB -1960 (Chapter 1142, Statutes of 1980).
SECTION 2: Section 1.5 of Ordinance No. NS -3, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, is hereby amended to read as
r
follows:
odd-1. Manufactured Home. A structure, including a mobile
home, as defined in Section 5402(6) of the National Mobile
Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
§5402(6))."
SECTION 3: Article 3B of Ordinance No. NS -3, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, is hereby enacted to read as
follows:
"Article 3B. Manufactured Homes in Residential Districts.
Sec. 3B.1. Applicable Zoning Districts.
Manufactured homes shall be permitted to be erected in
all R -1 (one - family residential) and HC -RD (hillside conser-
vation residential) zoning districts within the City of
Saratoga, provided that said homes are erected in compliance
with the regulations established in this article.
Sec. 3B.2. Applicable Regulations.
All manufactured homes sought to be erected pursuant to
this Article shall:
(a) Conform to all the requirements of Article 3 and
Article 3A of Ordinance No. NS -3 (the Zoning
Ordinance), and Ordinance No. NS -60 (the Sub-
division Ordinance) of the City of Saratoga; and
(b) Be subject to the same design review approval
process of Article 13 of Ordinance No. NS -3 and
Ordinance No. 3.47 of the Saratoga City Code as
applies to non - manufactured homes; and
(c) Possess the necessary building permits as required
by the Saratoga Department of Community Develop-
ment. Said permits shall include grading permits,
building permits, plumbing permits, electrical
permits, construction permits and mechanical
permits; and
-1-
;t'l.pi-�: .•0.r: � i.+. i.•r' ;.r:.3.�`
(d) B1( laced on a permanent foundation as approved by
the Department of Community Development.
Sec. 3B,3. Development Standards. n
Prior to the issuance of a building permit
t erection of a manufactured home on a permanent foundation
pursuant to this Article, all such homes shall receive design
review approval and shall meet the following development
standards:
(a) Have exterior siding as approved by the Planning
Commission extending eighteen (18) inches above
finished grade and consistent with conventional
building materials; and
(b) Have a shingled, pitched roof with eaves, or a roof
of alternative materials and design acceptable to
the Planning Commission; and
(c) Have an enclosed garage or carport with a minimum
square footage of twenty (20) feet by twenty (20)
feet to provide off - street parking. The exterior
material of the garage shall be compatible with the
exterior siding of the structure."
SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that
any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5: This ordinance shall effect and be in full force
and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage
and adoption.
The above and foregoing ordinance was regularly introduced
and after waiting the time required by law, was thereafter passed
and adopted this day of 1981, upon the
following votes:.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor of the City of Saratoga
ATTEST:
Clerk of the City of Saratoga
-2-
I� CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO ,2 �] 0 Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 14, 1982 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: City Manager C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Revenue Snaring Hearing
Issue Summary
Federal Revenue Sharing regulations require local agencies to conduct two
(2) public hearings prior to adopting budgets for use of revenue sharing
monies. The first such hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, May 19. Its
purpose is to allow the public the opportunity to identify priorities and
proposed uses of Revenue Sharing monies before the budget is presented.
The second hearing will be scheduled after t'e proposed budget is presented,
but prior to its adoption. The latter hearing is held to provide opportunity
for the public to react of the City's proposed use of Revenue Sharing monies.
The attached report describes current balances and possible uses of Revenue
Sharing funds.
Recomnendation
Conduct the initial public hearing; provide appropriate direction to staff
to prepare Revenue Sharing budget.
Fiscal Impacts
None at this time.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Report to Council from City Manager, dated 5/11/82.
Council Action
5/19: No action.
2090
N�IENIOO RANDUNiI
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
99TT @0 0&M&'X00&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
DATE: May 11, 1982
SUBJECT: Analysis of Revenue Sharing Fund Utilization
Last month, you directed me to report to the City Council on the utili-
zation of the City's Revenue Sharing monies and penalties for failure to
allocate receipts within two years.
Table A,.attached, displays the Revenue Sharing transactions of the City
of Saratoga since 1972 -1973 fiscal year, the first fiscal year of entitle-
ment. Over the past ten years, including the current fiscal year,
entitlements received by the City have totaled $1,342,388. During this
same period, expenditures will total $1,336,123. Thus, entitlements
received during the past ten years have exceeded actual and estimated
expenditures over the same period by little more than $6,000.
During the period since 1972 -1973, the City has earned interest on Revenue
Sharing balances, all of which have been credited to the Revenue Sharing
Fund, and has been reimbursed for projects paid for with Revenue Sharing
monies. These other credits have amounted to $464,935. By the end of
this current fiscal year, I project a Revenue Sharing balance of $471,200.
This amount is $6,000 more than the combined total of other credits re-
ceived by the Revenue Sharing Fund since 1972 -1973.
Table B shows the appropriations that were approved by your City Council
for the current fiscal year. These appropriations totaled $225,271. Of
this amount, however, I expect that only $125,915 will be expended by
June 30, 1982. We have not been able to complete final recommendations
on three items (number 893, 897', and 899) and one item (number 896) will
not be expended fully by the end of the fiscal year. Thus, of the current
year's appropriations, approximately $100,000 will be returned to the
Fund balance.
Revenue Sharing
May 11, 1982
Page two
TWO YEAR LIMITATION
Regulation 51.100 (b) of the Office of Revenue Sharing provides that
recipient governments must spend., obligate or appropriate Revenue
Sharing funds within 24 months of the of the entitlement period to
which each check applies. In this context, funds are appropriated when
a recipient government,in accordance with the laws and procedures appli-
cable to its own.source of revenues, enacts an "ordinance or resolution
authorizing the expenditure of funds for a specific purpose and in a
specified period. Revenue Sharing funds may be invested as long as
State and local laws regulating investment of locally raised revenues
are observed. The 24 month time limitation, however, must be met when
appropriating, obligating or spending the funds or interest earned on
the investment of the funds. This regulation is not found in the act
establishing Revenue Sharing as adopted by Congress. It is in the regu-
lations promulgated by the Department of Treasury ostensibly under the
authority granted to the Department by the Revenue Sharing Act.
A close examination of Table A indicates that in the year 1977 -1978, the
ending balance of $348,536 exceeded the total available in that years and
the year prior for the first time. In each of the years since 1977 -1978,
the ending balance has also exceeded the amount available for that year
and the year prior. Only the Office of Revenue Sharing itself can deter-
mine whether this condition would relate to the-24 month regulation on
use of Revenue Sharing monies.
PROPOSED USE OF REVENUE SHARING BALANCES
A reference once again to. Table A indicates the expectation that the
current fiscal year will end with a balance of $471,200 in the Revenue
Sharing Fund. We further anticipate an additional $144,600 in new revenues
for the next fiscal year (the final year of the current authorization
period) resulting in a total available of more than $615,000. Table C
identifies. eight projects totaling $295,000 for which Revenue Sharing may
be utilized. If the City Council wishes to appropriate additional Revenue
Sharing monies at this time, I would not hesitate to recommend each of
these eight projects to you as being beneficial projects with significant
impacts both presently and in the future for the community. Appropriation
of the monies at this time would reduce the projected.fund balance for the
current fiscal year by a substantial amount. While some of the projects
can be completed quickly and the monies expended, other projects on the
list will require considerable effort and lead time before monies would
actually be obligated.
Revenue Sharing
May 11, 1982
Page three
Under the Revenue Sharing procedures, we are obligated to conduct a
public hearing in advance of your consideration of the Revenue Sharing
budget for the coming fiscal year. This first of two public hearings
has been scheduled for May 19. At that time, you are to receive comment
from the public concerning proposed uses for Revenue Sharing funds avail-
able in the coming fiscal year. Following this public hearing, the
proposed Revenue Sharing budget is prepared and made public. After that,
a second hearing is held at which the public may comment upon the proposed
use of Revenue Sharing money for the fiscal year 1982 -1983. That second
hearing will be conducted in conjunction with your budget.considerations
for fiscal_, year 1982 -1983.
*J.Wayn:en Dinrtz
ck
attachments
TABLE A
REVENUE SHARING TRANSACTIONS 1972- -1982
Fiscal Year
Entitlements
Other
Credits
Total
Available
Expenditures
Year End
Balance
1972 -73
.156,680
1,956
158,636
50,135
108,501
1973 -74
116,593
10,970
127,563
149,681
86,383
1974 -75
115,928
10,186
126,114
21,246
191,251
1975 -76
128,728
11,923
140,651
164,488
167,414
1976 47
138,285
(85,000)
j 6,829
145,114
122,755
274,773
1977 -78
140,230
96,000)
20,814]
161,044
183,281
348,536
1978 -79
143,334
34,385
177,719
61,076
465,179
1979 -80
144,968
74,263
219,231
127,480
556,930
1980 -81
135,863
52,609
188,472
329,981
415,421
1981 -82 (est.)
121,779
60,000
181,779
126,000
471,200
1982-83 (proj.)
124,600
20,000
144,600
N.A.
TABLE B
1981 -1982 APPROPRIATIONS
Appropriation
Estimated
Program
1981 -1982
Expenditure
6/30/82
Fund 30 (Revenue Sharing)
821
Carpet Replacement
3,700
2,983
822
Water Cooling Tower
2,500
4,130
823
Paint McWilliams House
2,000
2,000
824
Speed Buffers
1,200
1,200
825
Theatre Lighting Booth
2,700
2,700
847
Saratoga Village Signs
2,500
1,709
848
Various Purchases
2,585
2,580
849
Toro Lighting Deck
2,150
2,189
850
1 -Ton Dump Truck
14,000
12,146
851
Community Gardens
1,000
�1,500'
2,500
882
2 -Ton Truck
8,500
8,960
883
Power Sweeper
25,000
25,000
884
8 -Ton Truck
30,000
26,472
890
IBM Typewriter (Community Center)
995
937
891
12 Tables
350
318
892
3 Administration Vehicles
18,000
18,000
893
Computer
25,000
-0-
894
Chamber of Commerce
1,000
1,000
895
Catholic Social Service
1,691
1,691
896
Community Services Officer
30,000
8,000
897
Financial Forecast Committee
2,500
-0-
898
Solar Utilities Study
1,400
1,400
899
Phone Systems
45,000
-0-
Total
225,271
125,915
TABLE C
PROPOSED REVENUE SHARING ALLOCATIONS
..Estimated Balance 6/30/82
$471,200
Less:
Recommended Appropriations current year
1.
Landscape District Annexation Study
$ 35,000
2.
Pavement Management System
20,000
3.
Pierce Road Repairs
35,000
4.
Street Repairs Demo Project
50,000
5.
Village Library Repairs
40,000
6.
Signal at Argonaut (4 share)
30,000
7.
Data Processing System Allocation
60,000
8.
CATV Analysis
25,000
Total
$295,000
Revised Estimated Balance 6/30/82 $176,200
Projected Revenues 82 -83 144,600
Total Available 1982 -1983 Fiscal Year $320,800