HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 965
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
In the Matter of: )
)
Ruling Upon An Application By )
Parnas Corporation 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. 965
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. II The Initiative Ordinance is
also commonly referred to as Measure A. It went into effect on
April 25, 1980;
Section 7 of the Initiati¥e 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 applica-
tions 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 All;
On April 22, 1980, Parnas Corporation filed an application
for an exception under Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance
for property consisting of Tract 5928 and Tract 6665.
Noticed public hearings were held on June 4, 1980, July 2,
1980, July 8, 1980, July 22, 1980, July 30, 1980, and August 21,
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
wi th the property; each has revie-vled the Ci ty IS 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 123.7 acres
located in the southwesterly portion of the area
which is the subject of the Initiative Ordinance;
b. The property is the subject of two subdivision
proceedings: Tract 5928 which consists of 8 lots
for which final map approval was granted by the City
on September 21, 1977; Tract 6665 which consists of
34 lots for which a conditional tentative map approval
was granted by the City Planning Commission on April 25,
1979.
c. According to the applicant it is a small company
which depends substantially on bank loans to make its
projects work. Applicant indicates the following:
it borrowed $1,700,000 from United California Bank to
buy the property ($1,100,000 for Tract 6665 and
$600,000 for Tract 5928); it borrowed over $300,000
more from United California Bank for various costs
and fees (Tract 5928: approximately $191,000
following recording of the final map; Tract 6665:
approximately $273,000, of which approximately
$193,550 was spent following tentative map approval).
Applicant has presented letters from United California
Bank, as late as July 11, 1980, stating that its loan
will mature on September 1, 1980, and that the Bank
will not consider a loan extension and will demand
payment at maturity since there appears to the Bank
to be no definite course of action to obtain a final
map and building permits. The applicant states it
will lose substantially all of its $2,OOO,000-plus
investment if it is not granted an exception. The
details of the foregoing are set forth in the following
documents: (1) letter of Leonard Borello dated April 22,
1980; (2) 12-page letter of Steven M. Bernard received
on June 26, 1980; (3) II-page letter of Steven M.
Bernard dated June 25, 1980; and applicant's presenta-
tion on July 8, 1980, and July 22, 1980.
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 comprising Tract
5928 is approximately 23.5% and Tract 6665 - 29%. The
maximum density specified in section 4,a, of the Initiative
-2-
Ordinance is 4.6 lots for Tract 5928; final map
approval is for 8 lots. The maximum density
specified in section 4.a. of the Initiative Ordinance
is 29 lots for Tract 6665; tentative map approval is
for 34 lots. The applicant has stated that it does
not object to reducing the total number of lots in
each tract to meet the density requirements of
section 4.a. for each tract. The development as
proposed by the applicant for each tract does not
meet the density standard of section 4.a. of the
Initiative Ordinance; but the development as proposed
to be reduced in density by the applicant does meet
such density standards;
b. The proposed development will require improvement of
Pierce Road but not in a manner that will significantly
alter the character of its corridor since it involves
only paved width of up to 26 feet, as practical, under
the direction of the Director of Public Works, a two-
inch asphalt overlay on existing payment, and minimal
disturbance to topography and landscape. Access by a
road from Pierce Road into the proposed development
can be provided in the following manner so as to be
compatible with the goals of the Initiative Ordinance:
(1) such access road will not connect with the
present westerly terminus of Tollgate Road as shown
on the tentative map for the subject property but will
terminate at a precise point to be determined by the
Director of Public Works westerly of the swale which
traverses the property in a generally north/south
direction, such termination point to be in the north-
easterly portion of the proposed development on the
road as currently shown on the tentative map; (2) at
such termination point, there is to be constructed a
rigid gate which will be opened only for emergency
access to and from the present westerly terminus of
Tollgate Road, in substantially the same manner as
was approved in the tentative map for Blackwell Homes,
Unit II (Tract 6528); (3) the emergency access road
mentioned in item (2) will presently be designed to
City standards as a fully improved public street from
the termination point to the present westerly terminus
of Tollgate Road, but will presently be constructed
to minimum access road standards from such termination
point to the present westerly terminus of Tollgate
Road sufficient for emergency vehicles but not normal
traffic, all as directed by the Director of Public
Works, subject to the applicant offering the minimum
access road on the subject property for dedication
as a public street and posting a bond for two years
with the City guavanteeing its construction by the
applicant at its cost as a fully improved public street
if required by the City pursuant to the specific plan
to be adopted under the Initiative Ordinance; (4) the
Initiative Ordinance Citizens I, Advisory Committee
will study, review and comment on whether this access
road from Pierce Road will ultimately be a permanent
cuI de sac approximately at the termination point
designated in (1) above, or whether it will connect
with the present westerly terminus of Tollgate Road
as a fully improved public street. The interim design
and construction of the access road in the foregoing
-3-
manner is intended to Leav~the Citizens' Advisory
Committee flexibility in studying and considering
access and circulation through the proposed develop-
ment and recommending methods deemed by it to be
most 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 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 2 stages with underground site work in the first
phase and houses to be built according to market
demand. This 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
andprovides 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 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 to each Tract 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. Upn 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. Each Tract is in agreement with the maximum density
standards of section 4.a. if reduced in density as
proposed by the applicant in Paragraph 2.a. above.
b. The development is in agreement with the access and
circulation standards of section 4.b. if the applicant
complies with the conditions set forth in Paragraph
2.b. above.
-4-