Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 1085 RESOLUTION NO. ] 085 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING EXAMINATION OF SALES AND USE TAX RECORDS WHEREAS, pursuan't to Ordinance 12, the City of Saratoga entered into a contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration and collections of local sales and use taxes; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga deems it desirable and necessary from time to time for a representative of the City to audit for and in its behalf the sales and use tax transactions and collections that are made for the City by the State Board of Equalization; and WHEREAS, Section 7056 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California states in part that the ~Board shall permit any duly authorized officers or employee of such city, to examine all of the sales and use taxrecords of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, ~tE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Manager, or any designated assistant or employee of such officer, is hereby appointed to represent the City of Saratoga with full authority to investigate and review sales and use tax transactions and collections for the City, contained in the records of the State Board of Equalization. SECTION 2. That as provided in Section 7056 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the information so gained by the City Manager or any designated assistant or employee of such officer shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of local sales and use taxes by the Board pursuant to the contract. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of May , 1982 by the following vote: AYES.: Councilmembers Clevenger, Watson, and.Mayor Callon NOES: Counci ]member Jensen ABSENT: Councilmember Mallory MAYOR ATTEST: UUMMI~S~UN, MAKING REQUISITE FINDINGS, DENYING A VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR V-571 AND A-808 WHEREAS, applicants Dr. & Mrs. Vernal have requested Variance and Design Review approval to construct a two-story addition to a single story dwelling; and WHEREAS, said proposed addition is not in conformity with Ordinance NS-3.47, Section 5(d), regarding setbacks;!and WHEREAS, Section 6 of Ordinance NS-3.47 provides that an exception to said ordinance may be granted by the Planning Commission through the variance pro- cedure as set forth in Section 17 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on February lO, 1982, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on applicants' request for Variance and Design Review approval and after said public hearing approved said request; and WHEREAS, appellants, Mr. Matt Christiano and Ms. Sally Calhoun, have appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council pursuant to Section 17.7 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 1982, the City Council held a de novo public hearing and after the closing of said public hearing, reviewed and considered the appli- cant's request, staff reports, minutes of the Planning Con~nission meeting of February lO, 1982, and other evidence, both written and oral, presented to the Council during said public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: 1. The appellants' appeal from the Planning Commission is granted and the decision of the Planning Commission is overruled. 2. The Council makes all of the findings as set out in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Having made the appropriate findings, Variance to Section 5(d) of Ordinance NS-3.74 is hereby denied for V-571 and Design Review is hereby denied without prejudice. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the C~ty Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 5th day of May , 19 82 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Clevenger, Jensen, Watson, and Mayor Callon NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember ~allory (.'~.~'~,'~:.~. MAYOR ATTEST: ~ ' CITY CLERK ~c~z VARIANCE FILE NO. V-571 REPORT OF FINDINGS 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardshi, p inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Or- dinance, since the Plot plan suOmitted With the propo ai is inaccu at; the pla~ was not drawn to scale, and the o lentation of t~e house on t~e ~ot is shifted. . r 2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classifie~ in the same Zoning District with respect to second story additions. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same Zoning District since an addition could be built in conformance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and since he did not present any evidence to the contrary on the appeal. 4. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classi- fied in the same Zoning District, since the addition would impact the adjacent neighbor's privacy. 5. The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or im- provements in the vicinity with the addition of the window area.