Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 966 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA In the Matter of: Ruling Upon An Application By Perry C. West and Marcia A. West 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. 966 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 "An Initiative Ordinance Directing Preparation of a Specific Plan før 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: "SECTION 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." 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 Restr ictions of Measure AIr; On June 2, 1980, the Wests filed an application for an exception under section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance for replacement of their existing single-family home with their new single-family home on property consisting of a single lot. Noticed public hearings were held on July 8, 1980, and July 22, 1980, at each of which the applicants were 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 property and the application, 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, in accordance with Resolution No. 956. 1 ; The question 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 applicants (I) 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 1.38 acres located in the area which is the subject of the Initiative Ordinance. b. The lot on which the property is located received final approval more than two years prior to the effective date of the Initiative Ordinance and, therefore, the Ordinance does not apply to the lot itself under Section 8. However, the proposed development of a replacement residence does require approvals under section 7 of the ordinance and approval may be granted only pursuant to the exceptions procedure of section 7. c. The proposed development is strictly for replace- ment of an existing owner-occupied single-family residence with a new single-family residence for the same family. It is not a subdivision. The existing residence houses 6 people with only one bathroom. It is old, nonconforming to current building codes and difficult to maintain and the new residence would not only remedy this situation but would be more in keeping with general neighborhood and city standards. If the exception is denied, the applicant must continue to live in the existing residence or move. The applicants have been working on the proposed development for approximately 18 months during which time construction, construction financing and mortgage costs have risen for them significantly and a delay of a year in proceeding could add from $13,000 to as much as $35,000 to the costs and possibly put the develop- ment beyond applicants' reach. 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 32.7%. The maximum density specified in section 4.a. of the Initiative Ordinance is one unit fi.or4.l9 acres. The peculiar circumstances of this application render it impossible for the proposed development ever to meet the density standard of section 4.a. of the Initiative Ordinance. -2- Moreover, the proposed development does not increase density on the existing lot. b. The development will not require the improvement of Pierce Road because it does not front on Pierce Road. Since the use of the property is unchanged, there is no impact on traffic, access or circulation; c. There will be minimal, if any, impact on topography, natural creekside vegetation, natural drainage, and erosion, and the City's geologist has indicated that there is no significant geologic hazard¡ the standards for the preservation of rural character set forth' in section. 4.c. oftheIni tiative Ordinance can be met through the establishment of regulations and controls which will avoid geologic hazards, control erosion, preserve the natural drainage system, topography and natural creekside vegetation¡ d. The subject property is proposed to be developed in 1 stage and meets the provisions for staging of growth set forth in section 4.d. 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 2j3rds vote of its qualified electors. The City is authorized to form a special assessment district as a means for financing the construction of improvements 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 applicants have sustained their 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 adopts the interpretation of the slope density formula which provides the maximum permissible density. a. The ability of the proposed development to meet the maximum density standards of section 4.a. has been impaired by the peculiar circumstances applicable to the property. b. The proposed development is in agreement with the access and circulation standards of section 4.b. -3- c. The proposed development 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. The proposed development complies with the staging of growth standards of section 4.d. e. The ability of the proposed development 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 main- taining 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 Perry C. West and Marcia A. West for an exception under section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance the City Council makes the determination that the application for an exception under section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance is granted. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at an adjourned special meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 30th day of July , 1980, by the following vote: AYES: Callon, Clevenger, Jenson, Mallory, and Watson NOES: None ABSENT: None ~' .,1' I " "'- " ,,-;'1 "....;.. .:~. . ,"-' A_.... ·...'.é"--.. 1/" . ..... .---~ I .~,," MAYOR ATTEST: ~~.-"~ y c~æ~r ~ -4-