HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 964
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
In the Matter of: )
)
Ruling Upon an Application By )
McBain and Gibbs for the Grant )
of an Exception from the Interim )
Restrictions Imposed by the )
Initiative Ordinance Adopted by )
the Voters in an Election Held )
on April 8, 1980. )
)
RESOLUTION NO. 964
At a special election ordered consolidated with the general
municipal election and held on April 8, 1980, the voters of the
City of Saratoga adopted an ordinance entitled IIAn Init.iativr->
Ordinance Directing Preparation of a Specific Plan for Preservation
of the Rural Character of the Northwest Hillsides of the City of
Saratoga and Imposing a Moratorium on Development Pending
Completion of Said Plan." The Initiative Ordinance is also
commonly referred to as Measure A. It went into effect on
April 25, 1980;
Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance provides that:
nSECTION 7. INTERIM RESTRICTIONS
Pending final completion of the requirements of
Section 3, no zoning changes, land divisions,
subdivisions, building or grading permits for
construction of a new residence, or other land
development approvals of any kind shall be issued in
the subject area, nor any applications accepted
therefor¡ provided, that upon a showing of extreme
hardship and in agreement with the provisions of
this initiative, exceptions may be granted after two
noticed public hearings by a 4/5's vote of the City
Council. II
To implement section 7, the City Council on June 4, 1980,
adopted Resolution No. 956.1, "A Resolution of the City Council
of the City of Saratoga Establishing Criteria for Evaluating
Hardship Exemption Applications Under Section 7, Interim
Restrictions of Measure A";
On April 28, 1980, McBain & Gibbs filed an
application for an exception under section 7 of the Initiative
Ordinance for property co~sisting of Tract 6628;
Noticed public hearings were held on May 21, 1980, June 4,
1980, and July 8, 1980, at each of which the applicant was
heard and presented evidence. In addition, all other persons
wishing to be heard were heard;
Members of the City Council have inspected and are familiar
with the property, each has reviewed the City's files pertaining
to the subdivision applications, and the Environmental Impact
Report proceedings, has read the written record pertaining to
the application for an exception and has listened to, considered
and evaluated the testimony at the public hearings and the
presentation by staff, fun accordance with Resolution 956.1¡
The questions before the City Council upon the question of
whether or not to grant an exception under section 7 is whether
there is a showing by the applicant (1) of extreme hardship and
(2) that the proposed development is in agreement with the
provisions of the Initiative.
NOW THEREFORE the City Council finds and determines as
follows:
1. The evidence with respect to whether or not there is
a showing by the applicant of extreme hardship is substantially
as follows:
a. The property consists of approximately 45 acres
located in the southerly portion of the area
which is the subject of the Initiative Ordinance;
b. The property is the subject of a subdivision
proceeding designated Tract 6628 which consists
of 20 lots for which final map approval was
granted by the City on November 7, 1979;
c. According to the applicantt.:s declarations, as of
June 2, 1980, the applicant has incurred certain
(1) expenses for survey, planning, civil, soils
engineering and landscape architecture services,
(2) fees and the cost of bonds, and (3) a
contractual obligation for the installation of
water distribution facilities. The details of
these expenaes are set forth in the declaration
of Robert Gibbs dated June 2, 1980, and filed
with the City Council;
d. No subdivision improvements of any kind, on-site
or off-site, ha~e been installed.
2. The evidence with respect to whether or not the
proposed development is in agreement with the provisions of the
Initiative Ordinance is substantially as follows:
a. The average slope of the property is 33 percent.
The maximum density specified in section 4.a. of
the Initiative Ordinance is 10 lots; final map
approval is for 20 lots. The development of
Tract 6628 does not meet the density standard of
section 4.a. of the Initiative Ordinance;
b. Tract 6628 does not front en Pierce Road so that
the improvement of Pierce Road is not a consideration.
However, access for Tract 6628 does involve
questions of ingress, egress and traffic
circulation which should be addressed by the
specific plan and, until the specific plan for the
area is adopted, it is not possible to determine
that alternate access roads are fully compatible
with the goals of the Initiative Ordinance.
c. The standards for the preservation of rural
character set forth in section 4.c. of the Initiative
Ordinance can be met through the establishment of
-2-
regulations and controls which will avoid
geologic hazards. control erosion, preserve the
natural drainage system. topography and natural
creekside vegetation;
d, Tract 6628 is proposed to be developed in 1 stage
and the provisions for staging of growth set
forth in section 4,d. are not applicable;
e. The ability of the City to require any proposed
development to meet the standards of section 4.e.
for street and storm drain maintenance is impaired
by Article XIII A of the California Constitution
and court decisions interpreting it. Article XIII A
limits the levy of ad valorem taxes on real property
and provides for their collection and apportionment
by the County as provided by law. The City can
levy a special tax only upon approval by a 2/3rds
vote of its qualified electors. The City is
authorized to form a special assessment district as
a means for financing the construction of improve-
ments by the levy of an assessment spread over
properties upon the basis of benefit received;
however there is no authority authorizing the City
to levy an annual assessment over the benefitted
properties for maintenance of streets and storm
drain facilities,
3. Upon the issue of extreme hardship, the City Council
finds that the applicant has sustained its burden and there is
a showing of extreme hardship within the meaning of section 7
of the Initiative Ordinance.
4. Upon the issue of agreement with the provisions of the
Initiative Ordinance. the City Council finds as follows.
In determining whether the application meets the density
standards of section 4.a. of the Initiative Ordinance, the Council
provides the maximum permissible density.
a. Tract 6628 is not in agreement with the maximum
density standards of section 4.a.
b. It is not possible to make the determination that
Tract 6628. if permitted to proceed with develop-
ment. would be in agreement with the access and
circulation standards of section 4.b.
c. Tract 6628 can be developed in a manner which
will comply with the preservation of rural
character standards of section 4.c. through the
imposition by the City and acceptance by the
applicant of regulations and controls to avoid
geologic hazards. control erosion and preserve
the natural drainage system. topography and
natural creekside vegetation.
d. Tract 6628 complies with the staging of growth
standards of section 4.d.
-3-
e. The ability of Tract 6628 to meet the street
and storm drain maintenance standards of
section 4.e. has been impaired. While it is
possible to finance the construction of streets
and storm drains by means of special assessments,
it is not possible at this time to finance the
cost of maintaining these facilities on an
annual basis by the levy of an assessment,
as is contemplated by section 4.e.
The Council therefore finds that it cannot
require the applicant to comply with the
standards of section 4.e. to the extent that it
is impossible to do so.
5. Upon the basis of the records, files and proceedings
relating to the application of ~cBain and Gibbs for an exception
under section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance the City Council
makes the following determination~ The application for an
exception under section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance for Tract
6628 is denied without prejudice. The applicant may wish to and
should have the opportunity in the future to make an additional
showing for an exception under section 7 of the Initiative
Ordinance.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly
passed and adopted at a adjourned special meeting of the City
Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 22nd day of
July , 1980, by the following vote:
AYES: Callon. Clevenger, Watson. Mallory and Jensen
NOE S : None
AB5ENT:None
MAYOR
~"...~" _ - K, '''''.'~.''.''''''
",",'h,
ATT 5T: _, ~."'""
"""""1"
'\"~I
.., -....... r----
C' CLER~-I'
t
-4-