HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 969
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. ,
BNOOTKAPPROVED: PLACED IN RESOLUTION
o FOR REFERENCE ONLY
RESOLUTION NO. 969
At a special election ordered consolidated with the general
municipal election and held on April B, 1980, the voters of the
City of Saratoga adopted an ordinance entitled HAn 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 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 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 IIResolution 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 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, and July 30, 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, has received communications pertinent
to the application, 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 (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 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: approximatély $191, OOOfóllowing
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 $2,000,OOO-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) l2-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 maximum density requirements of
section 4.a. for each tract. The development as
proposed by the applicant for each tract does not
meet the maximum 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 maximum density standards.
However, section 4.a. of the Initiative Ordinance also
provides that: "Maximum densities shall be decreased
on a sliding scale in relation to severity of geotechnical
hazards II. As pointed out in the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the property (dated February 23,
1979), and the "Ground Movement Potential Maps of the
Upper Calabazas Creek Watershed, Saratoga, California",
Map Sheet 4, dated January, 1980, prepared and approved
by the City of Saratoga Geologist, William Cotton of
William Cotton and Associates, Inc., among other sources,
the property is severely constrained by geotechnical
hazards. These are generally identified in the EIR
in Figure 3 (for example, "Active landslide",
"Recent landslide", "Area of severe active creep"; and
in Part II.A: Landsliding (pp. 8-9) and Seismicity
(pp. 14-15).
As to landsliding, the EIR states among other things:
"Landsliding is extensive on the property"; "Areas of
severe active creep are numerous on the site." The
possible adverse results of building on the clay and
claystone underlying most of the property are set
forth on pages 8 and 9 of the EIR.
As to seismicity, the EIR describes the location and
history of earthquake faults in the general area and
on the property itself; and describes the adverse
impacts that would be expected during a maximum
credible seismic event with the magnitude of the 1906
San Francisco earthquake.
The Cotton Maps, Sheet 4, establish the following
areas of ground movement potential on substantial
areas of the property: (1) "Areas of Potentially
Unstable Groundll: Ps - defined in part as "relatively
unstable material", commonly less than 10 feet thick,
and "subject to shallow landsliding, slumpinç and soil
creep activity"; and Pd - defined as "relatively
unstable landslide debris commonly more than 10 feet
in thickness on moderately steep to very steep slopes,
subject to renewed deep landsliding. I,; (2) "Areas of
Unstable Ground: Ms - Moving shallow landslides
commonly less than 10 feet in thickness; Md - Moving
deep landslides, more than 10 feet in thickness. ";
(3) "Areas with Potential for Surface Faulting: Psf-
Zone of potential surface faulting and associated
ground displacement within 100 feet of a potentially
active fault."
-3-
With respect to a proposed sewer line to be constructed
through an extremely large landslide area at the south
end of the property, because of the anticipated uplift
due to the slide the projected life of the line
according to the applicant is limited to about 20 years.
Thereafter, the sewer line, according to the applicant,
would have to be reconstructed by Sanitary District #4,
of which the City of Saratoga is a part.
with respect to the lots and building sites on the
approved tentative map for Tract 6665, although a
number of building sites are located within "Areas
of relatively stable groundn, as described on the
Cotton Maps referred to above, portions of 8 building
sites are within "Areas of potentially unstable ground"
(Ps), and portions of 2 building sites are within
such "Areas" (MS). Also, as to Tract 6665, although
portions of several of the lots are within "Areas
of relatively stable ground", portions of the majority
of the lots are within "Areas of potentially unstable
ground" (Ms, Ps, Pd) or "Areas with potential for
surface faulting" (Psf).
As to Tract 5928, portions of 2 of the building sites
are designated Ps, and portions of all of the lots are
designated Ps, Psf, or Ms.
As to the proposed roads on the property, portions
of Saratoga Heights Drive and Vintage Lane are
located within or cross areas designated Ps.
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 pavement, 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
-4-
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 guaranteeing 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' Advisory Commit"tee
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
manner is intended to leave 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. Because of the facts set forth in the second and
succeeding paragraphs of paragraph 2.a. of this
Resolution, the standards for the preservation of
rural character set forth in section 4.c. of the
Initiative Ordinance cannot presently be met through
the establishment of regulations and controls which
will, to the fullest extent feasible, avoid geologic
hazards. The standards ,for the preservation of rural
character set forth in section 4.c. of the
Ini tiative ().rdina.:o.t:e can presently be met through
the establishment of regulations and controls which
will, to thè fullest exte:nt feasible, 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 th~ 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 apPQrtionment
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
-5-
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. 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 permis~Üble densit.y.
a. Each Tract is in '_agreement with themaximumdensi ty
standards of section 4.a. if reduced in density as
proposed by the applicant in Paragraph 2.a. above.
However, a finding of agreement with the provision
of Section 4.a. requiring decrease of such maximum
density on a sliding scale in relation to severity
of geotechnical hazards cannot be made at this time
since the manner and/or extent, if any, of such
reduction has not been determined. Such determina-
tion will be made in the process of preparing and
adopting the Specific Plan as mandated by the
Initiative Ordinance on the basis of existing data
and such other pertinent data that may be developed
and considered during such process. The Initiative
Ordinance requires that the Citizens' Advisory
Committee referred to in Paragraph 2.b. of this
Resolution be presented with all aspects of the
Specific Plan referred to in sections 3 and 4 of
the Initiative Ordinance for review and comment,
including, among other things, the question of the
manner and/or extent, if any, of maximum density
reduction under section 4.a. The severe constraints
resulting from geotechnical hazards on the subject
property and their effect on maximum density and the
proposed sewer line in this particular case should be
subject to the review and comment process mandated
upon the Citizens' Advisory Committee for its
maximum possible input as well as to the full
specific plan process mandated by the Initiative
Ordinance.
b. The development is in agreement with the access and
circulation standards of section 4.b. if the applicant
complies iwth the conditions set forth in Paragraph
2.b. above.
c. The proposed development cannot presently 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, to
the fullest extent feasible, geologic hazards. The
proposed development can presently be developed
-6-
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, to the
fullest extent feasible, 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
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 Parnas Corporation 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 for both
Tracts is denied.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly
poassed and adopted at an adjourned special meeting of the
City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the _______day of
, 1980, by the following vote:
AYES:
W~~[~tN~~Vð~LyPLACED IN RESOLUTION BOOK FOR
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
-7-