Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 973 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA In the Matter of: ) ) Ruling Upon An Application By ) Joseph E. Politi and Sandra L. ) Politi 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. 973 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 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 corrnnonly 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, sub- divisions. 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 Restrictions of Measure A", On July 16, 1980. the Politis filed an application for an exception under Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance for develop- ment of a single-family home on property consisting of a single lot. Noticed public hearings were held on August 6, 1980, and August 21, 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 (1) of extreme hardship and (2) that the proposed development is in agreement with the pro- visisions 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 3.52 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 on February 14, 1979. c. The proposed development is strictly for construction of an owner-occupied single-family residence. It is not a subdivision, The applicants have been working on the proposed development for approximately 5 years during which time construction, construction financing and mortgage costs have risen for them significantly. The applicant has expended some $88,000.00 on the project to date and believes they are 75% into com- pletion of the project. 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 24.9%. The maximum density specified in Section 4.a. of the Initiative Ordinance is one unit for 3.324 acres. The applicant conforms to the density standards of Section 4.a. of the Initiative Ordinance; b. The development will not require the improvement of Pierce Road because it does not front on Pierce Road. Since the present vacant property will be improved with a single-family residence, there will only be a minimal impact. c. There will be minimal, if any, impact of 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. of the Initiative 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.; - 2 - 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 of 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 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: a. The proposed development meets the maximum density standards of Section 4.a,; b. The proposed development is in agreement with the access and circulation standards of Section 4.b.; 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 records, fines and proceedings relating to the application of Joseph E. Politi and Sandra L. Politi 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. - 3 - The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the _lfotL day of October , 1980, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Comci1ma:IDers Clevenger, Mallory, Watson, and Mayor Callan ColD1ci1roerrDer Jensen ABSENT: !'ik:me ATTEST: - 4 -