HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 963
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAfu\TOGA
In the Matter of: }
}
Ruling Upon An Application By }
Blackwell Homes 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. 963
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 Developmen'::
Pending Completion of Said Plan. 11 The Initiative Ordinance is
also commonly referred to as Measure A. It went into effect on
April 25, 1980í
Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance provides that:
1: SECTION 7. INTERIM RES'l'RICTIONS
Pending fiDal 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 An;
On Apr; 1 ?? , 1980, Blackwell Homes filed an
application for an exception under section 7 of the Initiative
Ordinance for property consisting of Tract 6526 and Tract 6528
(also commonly referred to as the Parker Ranch)¡
Noticed public hearings were held on }1ay 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, 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 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 218 acres
located in the northwesterly portion of the area
which is the subject of the Initiative Ordinance;
b. The property is the subject of two subdivision
proceedings: Tract 6526 which consists of 19
lots for which final map approval was granted by
the City on July 10, 1979; Tract 6528 which
consists of 76 lots for which a tentative map
approval was granted by the City on September 13,
1978, and on appeal, by the City Council on
November 1, 1978.
c. As of March 31, 1980, the applicant had installed
on-site subdivision improvements in Tract 6526.
In addition the applicant had installed some
offsite improvements required by the City as
conditions of approval of the tentative maps for
both Tracts, The applicant has also incurred
expenses for (1) planning, civil and soils
engineering and lanscape architecture services
and (2) fees and bonds. The details of these
expenses and the allocation of them to Tract
6526 and Tract 6528 are set forth in the
declaration of Kenneth Blackwell dated July I,
1980, and filed with the City Council.
d. In Tract 6526 and preceding the adoption of the
Initiative Ordimnce, the City had issured 4 building
permits and the applicant had performed some
foundation work under the permits. On april 16,
1980, the City directed the issuance of stop work
orders and on July 8, 1980, the City Council
rescinded this motion so that upon a showing under
section 8 of the Initiative Ordiance, the applicant
may have these building permits reinstated. These
4 building sites are excluded from the City
Council's consideration of this application under
section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance.
2. The evidence with respect to whether or not the proposed
developemnt is in agreement with the provisions of the Initiative
Ordinance is substantially as follows:
a. The average slope of the property comprising both
Tracts is 28.4 percent. The maximum density
specified in section 4.a. of the Initiative
-2-
Ordinance is 12 lots for Tract 6526; final
map approval is for 19 lots. The maximum
density specified in section 4.a. of the
Initiative Ordinance is 48 lots for Tract 6528;
tentative map approval is for 76 lots. The
development as proposed by the applicant for
both Tract 6526 and Tract 6528 does not meet
the density standard of section 4.a. of the
Initiative Ordinance;
b. The development of both Tract 6526 'Hill not require
the improvement of Pierce Road because
it is no,t served by Pierce Road. Both Tracts
as approved comply with the Circulation Element
of the City's General Plan. Alternate access
for Tract 6526 can be developed to Prospect, an
existing road~ and this is fully compatible with
the goals of the Initiative Ordinance. However,
alternate access for Tract 6528 would require
an extension of Comer Drive and until the
specific plan for the area is adopted, it is not
possible to determine that this alternate access
is 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 by Tract 6526
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 3 stages. Both Tracts 6526 and 6528 meet 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 as follows:
a. As to Tract 6526, the applicant has sustained its
burden and there is a showing of extreme hardship
within the meaning of section 7 of the lnitiative
Ordinance;
-3-
b. As to Tract 6528, the applicant has not sustained
its burden and there is not 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 that interpretation of the slope density formula which
provides the maximum permissible density.
a. Neither Tract 6526 nor Tract 6528 is in agreement
with the maximum density standards of section 4.a.
b. Tract 6526 is in agreement with the access and
circulation standards of section 4.b. Tract 6528
is not in agreement with the access and circulation
standards of section 4.b.
c. Tract 6526 and Tract.6528 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 6526 and Tract 6528 each complies with
the staging of growth standards of section 4.d.
e. The ability of Tract 6526 and Tract 6528 to
meet the street and storm drain matntenance
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 Blackwell Homes for an exception
under section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance the City Council makes
the following determinations:
a. The application for an exception under section 7
of the Initiative Ordinance for Tract 6526 is
granted upon the condition that the number of lots
be reduced to 12 in order to conform with the
density provision of section 4.a. of the Initiative
Ordinance;
-4-
b. The application for an exception under section 7
of the Initiative Ordinance for Tract 6528 is
denied without prejudice upon the basis that
th~ applicant may continue to process the
tentative map up to but not including final map
approval. The applicant may wish to and should
have the opportunity in the future to make an
additional showing for an exception of Tract 6528
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 fallowing vote:
AYES: Clevenger, ì1allory, Watson, Callon
NOES: Jensen
ABSENT: None
(::i::~ ,(?l;',..
,..t ._...A.... ,-4\.-.'-....
MAYOR--
A~~"
',- .... \ \
'" "'!~
", "'"'
", ,,' ,!It.
C l' CLE
~,.
-5-