HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 95-06 RESOLUTION 95 - 06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION;
APPLICANT CONSTANTIN;
20855 KITTRIDGE ROAD (PARCEL ONE) AND
15261 NORTON ROAD (PARCEL TWO)
LL-94-008
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Constantin, the applicants have
applied for a lot line adjustment between 20855 Kittridge Road
(Parcel One) and 15261 Norton Road (Parcel Two) as a means of
satisfying one of the requirements of a conditional certificate
of compliance recorded against Parcel One, in order for that
parcel to become a legal lot of record; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 1994, the Planning Commission of
the City o[ Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on said
application at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and
following the conclusion thereof the Planning Commission voted to
deny the lot line adjustment application; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have appealed the denial by the
Planning Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 1995 the City Council conducted a de
novo public hearing on the appeal at which time any person
interested in the matter was given a full opportunity to be
heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff
report, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Commission
relating to the application, and the written and oral evidence
presented to the City Council in support of and in opposition to
the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga as follows:
1. By split vote of the City Council (Councilmember Wolfe
voting in opposition) the appeal from the Planning Commission is
hereby denied and the action of the Planning Commission is
affirmed, to wit: The applicant has not met the burden of proof
required to support the application for the lot line adjustment
and the following findings have been determined:
a. That the proposed lot line adjustment is not
consistent with the General Plan or the Hillside Residential
1
Specific Plan, as required by Section 14-50.040(b)(1) of the
Saratoga Municipal Code, in that:
(1) Extraordinarily Steep SloDe of site Results
in [~ilure to Comply With SlODe Density [Qrmul~. The
Density Policy 2 of the Hillside Residential Specific
Plan provides for maximum densities of i unit per 10
acres for a maximum slope of 50%. The subject property
is so steep, it is "off the charts" of the slope
density table.
(2) Th~ $~op~ Density Provisions are Directly
Related to Safety. The slope density provisions are
not arbitrary because slope is a major determinant of
geologic hazard which cannot be engineered away.
(3) Extraordinarily Steep $~opes such ~s the
Subject Property are Hazardous for Development. to
Persons and Properties Onand off-site. The
Supplemental Environmental Information for the Hillside
Residential Specific Plan, (which Plan includes this
site within its boundaries) describes topography in the
Specific Plan area as including extremely steep slopes,
some with an average slope of 26.5% - far less than the
73% average slope of the subject property. On the
Subject Property there is no room for the effects of
failure to be contained onsite. The entirety of the
subject property exceeds the 40% slope standard. Any
failure, would inevitably affect other properties and
residents.
(4) Steep Slopes Appear to be the Most Common
Factor in Geologic Hazard. The Conservation Element
comments on unstable soils made more hazardous for
development by steep terrain. (P. 3-37, see also
Safety Element, p. 2.) The..Safety Element discusses
interrelated factors in slope stability, including
steep slopes, weak soil units, high clay soils, water
saturation, vegetation removal and seismic activity.
The element further notes a combination of factors
could bring a hillside to the verge of failure where
one single factor could then trigger slope failure.
(See p.6.) Similarly, soil creep, a common hazard in
this area, is a function of slope, soil thickness and
texture. (p. 13.) Steep slopes also increase seismic
hazards (p. 14.) The Safety Element maps show the
subject property as located near the Berrocal fault
(Map 4) and in an area of unstable soils (Map 2 shows
Pd & Ps soils) and near the most geologically unstable
area of the planning area. (Map 3)
2
(5) En~inee~inq ~die~ Muse. be to ~he
Satisfaction of the City as well as its En~ineSr and
Q~her Consultants. Engineers' responses to hazards are
not, perforce, determinant of project approval. The
Specific Plan contains geology soils Policy 2 on page
10 which requires such studies to show their long-term
effectiveness while Policy 9 on page 11 says responses
requiring high maintenance should not be approved.
(6) The SubjeCt $~te is Too Small a~d Too Steep
to contain the Effects of Failure on the Property. The
above-mentioned Policy 9 on page 11 states projects
should be designed so they don't affect public or
private structures in the event of failure. The Safety
Element (p. 2, p. 6, and 13) makes it clear that
geologic hazards are a matter of community health,
safety and welfare, not just individual concern.
To approve the lot line adjustment for the subject
site would create a legal lot on record of the site
which, for the reasons set forth above, would be
inconsistent with the General Plan and the Hillside
Residential Specific Plan.
b. That the proposed lot line adjustment is not
consistent with the regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance
or the Subdivision Ordinance, in that:
(1) By= aDprovin~ a lot line adjustment. a legal
lot of record would be created which would be in non-
compliance with the Zoninu Ordinance by virtue of its
severe slope (an average 73% slope with the entire
property greatly exceeding the 40% slope standard)
precluding development of any portion of the property,
without a variance approval.
(2) ApDroval of the lot line adjustment. thereby
~.reatin~ a le~al lot of record would be inconsistent
~ith_...the pu~oses of the Hillsides Residential Zonin~
District (Art. 15-13 of the Zoning Ordinance) which in
part states that the purposes of the Hillsides
Residential District are:
- "To encourage development on gently sloping
sites having natural screening features in
preference to development on steep, visually
exposed sites. (~ 15-13.010(b) and
- "To prevent development that would be subject
to significant uncorrectable geotechnical or
flood hazards." (~ 15-13.010(d))
3
As set forth in paragraph a, above the subject site is
clearly an extraordinarily steep site which is also
visually exposed to other property in the vicinity and
to the valley floor. As further set forth in paragraph
a, above, the subject site is subject to significant
uncorrectable geotechnical hazards including steephess
of slope, and proximity to the Berrocal fault.
(3) Approval of the lot line adjustment, thereby
creatin~ a legal lot of record would be incon.~istent
with the general DurDoses of the Zonin~ Ordinance,
Chapter 15, which as~set forth in S 15-05.020, in part
are intended to:
- ".. . promote and protect the public health,
safety, peace, comfort, convenience,
prosperity and general welfare, including the
following more specific purposes.
- (b) To achieve the arrangement of land uses
depicted in the General Plan.
- (c) To promote the stability of existing
land uses which conform with the General
Plan, and to protect them from inharmonious
influences and harmful intrusions."
As set forth in Paragraph a, above, the subject site is
clearly an extraordinarily steep site which is visually
exposed to other property in the vicinity and to the
valley floor. As further set forth in Paragraph a,
above, the subject site is subject to significant
uncorrectable geotechnical hazards including steephess
of slope and proximity to the Berrocal fault. Creating
a legal lot of record out of this site would not
promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort,
convenience, prosperity and general welfare, would be
inconsistent with the arrangement of land uses depicted
in the General Plan and would not promote the stability
of existing land uses which conform to the General Plan
or protect them from inharmonious influences, or
harmful intrusions, either through visual intrusions or
slope failure, affecting off site persons and
properties.
(4) A~Droval of the lot line adjustment thereby
creating a leaal lot of record would be inconsistent
with the general ~urposes...of the Subdivision Ordinance,
4
Chapter 14 of the Saratoga Municipal Code, which as set
forth in ~ 14-05.020, in part are intended to:
".. . promote and protect the public health,
safety and general welfare, including the
following more specific purposes:
(c) To promote orderly growth and
development, preservation of open space, and
proper use of land.
(e) To implement the goals and policies of
the City's General Plan and any applicable
specific plan."
As set forth in Paragraph a, above, the subject
property is clearly an extraordinarily steep site which
is substandard in size, is subject to significant
uncorrectable geotechnical hazards including steephess
of slope and proximity to the Berrocal fault. Creating
a legal lot of record out of this site would not
promote the public health, safety and general welfare,
would be inconsistent with the orderly growth and
development, and proper use of land within the City,
and would not implement the goals and policies of the
General Plan or the Hillside Residential Plan.
5
2. After careful consideration of the site plan, the
General Plan, the Hillside Residential Specific Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance, reports, plans and other
exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the
application for lot line adjustment approval be and the same is
hereby denied.
***
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Saratoga held on the 1st day of February. ,
1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember Jabocs, Moran, Wolfe and Mayor Burger
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmember Tucker
ATTEST: Ha r ~
Deputy City C
Januar~ 25, 1995
mnrsw\273~res\Constatn.app
6