Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/06/1990, 1 - APPEAL OF HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION DENYING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CREATING TWO LOTS FROM ONE LOT, 1` MEE111 G DATE: city of san lues osispo � -90 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director; By: Jeff Hoo ssociate Planner SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Officer's decision denying a tentative parcel map creating two lots from one lot, at 1778 Alrita Street, at the northeast end of Alrita Street adjacent to the City limits. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution denying the appeal and the tentative map. BACKGROUND The subdivider wants to split a one-acre hillside lot. Parcel 1 would have about 32,000 square feet, and include the subdivider's existing 3-bedroom house. Parcel 2 would have about 11,000 square feet, and would be developed with a new house. Access to the parcels is via an existing 20-foot wide private driveway easement from Alrita Street. Neither lot would have street frontage, so a council exception from subdivision standards is requested. At the September 29, 1989 Director's subdivision hearing, this item was taken under submission. On October 9, the Director denied the tentative map based on six findings (minutes attached). Staff is concerned that the lot split could exacerbate an existing resource deficiency in the neighborhood. Utilities and Fire Department staff note that there is insufficient water pressure and flow to meet fire protection needs for this and neighboring properties. The Director's subdivision actions are appealable to the City Council. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS No significant impacts will result from the subdivision if the recommended mitigation is included with the project. However construction of an additional house poses public safety impacts, since the City would not be able to provide adequate fire protection to the new house. Water pressure and flow for domestic use appears adequate to serve the proposed and existing house, although inadequate pressure levels could occur due to occasional, higher- than-normal water use by downhill neighbors. The lot split creates the expectation of and potential for additional development. To accommodate additional development, the City may incur significant costs to improve water service and fire protection for the Alrita Street neighborhood. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION If the appeal is upheld and the subdivision is approved, special measures need to be taken to provide adequate fire protection for the new house, and possibly, to upgrade the neighborhood system. Utilities staff estimates that the cost to upgrade the neighborhood's water service may be $250,000. These improvements have not been studied or designed, and are not included in the City's Capital Improvement Program and FY1989-90 budget. DATA SUMMARY Subdivider/Property Owner: Earle Murie Representative: Dan Hutchinson, Contract Survey and Design Zoning: R-1 and C/OS-40 General Plan: Low-density Residential and Conservation/Open Space Environmental Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration granted August 29, 1989 Site Description: The site is bordered on three sides by houses. It covers about one acre and has one house. It is zoned R-1 on its lower one-half, and C/OS-40 above the 520-foot contour elevation. The site slopes down to Alrita Street at an average grade of 23 percent ��l MY of sari tins 081spo =WRIGN COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 2 for the entire site, and 17 percent for the new building site. The site has ornamental landscaping around the house, and a small orchard on the slope bank just downslope from the house. HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION On September 29, 1989 the Hearing Officer took the item under submission, to allow other city departments to comment on the tentative parcel map. On October 9, 1989, the Hearing Officer denied the tentative map based on Utilities and Fire Departments' determination that a resource deficiency existed, and recommended against the lot split. Aside from resource concerns, Community Development Department staff supported the lot split. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL In discussions with staff, the appellants acknowledged that a water supply problem existed but disagree with staff's contention that the lot split would jeopardize water service or fire protection for other houses in the neighborhood. They point out that the situation has existed for over 20 years, and that other development has occurred in the neighborhood during that time without raising resource concerns. They are willing to consider installing a water tank, pump, and well on their property so that there is no added demand on the neighborhood's water supply system. But they object to the Fire Department requirements in that they: 1) hold the project to a higher standard of fire protection than exists for neighboring houses; 2) are excessive in terms of the actual increased demand created by one additional house; and 3) are inconsistent with past city actions dealing with hillside water supply deficiencies. EVALUATION General Plan/Zoning Consistency The lot split appears consistent with General Plan policies for residential development. The Land Use Element sets a density standard of four to seven dwelling units per net acre in the R-1 zone. Allowed density is reduced to four units per net acre on sites with an average cross-slope of 16-20 percent. As recommended by staff, the subdivider enlarged Parcel two's lot area to meet slope/density standards. As revised, the tentative map complies with all subdivision and zoning standards for lot size, dimensions, setbacks, and slope/density. It does not comply with Subdivision Regulations for street frontage, since both parcels would be served by a common driveway within an existing driveway easement to Alrita Street. City standards call for the rearmost lot to own the accessway in fee, and have a street frontage of at least 20 feet unless the council grants an exception. Although this request is for tentative map approval only, the applicant has submitted plans for the new 1900-sq. ft. house they hope to build on Parcel 2. The house size and design are compatible with neighboring houses, and can be accommodated on the site. A soils/geology report was prepared due to the site's location in an area designated in the Seismic Safety Element as having a high landslide hazard. The report indicates that the site is suitable for the proposed development, and recommends specific drainage, foundation design, and utility trenching measures. The Director's mitigated negative declaration requires additional measures to ensure protection of neighbor privacy, erosion protection, adequate drainage measures, and architectural compatibility. Since the new house would be located near the R-1 and C/OS-40 zone boundaries, it is considered a sensitive site and would be expected to meet hillside design standards. ����I➢I II�IIIII IIIIIIUIII City of san luis oBiSpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 3 Grading and Access About one-half of proposed Parcel 2 would be graded to create a building pad for the new house. No retaining walls would be necessary at property lines, and all roof and driveway drainage would be directed to Alrita Street. The existing house has a 20 ft. wide access easement to Alrita Street, and the driveway would be widened, regraded and repaved to meet city driveway standards -- including Fire Department access requirements. A "hammerhead" turnaround is proposed to allow cars to exit in a forward direction. Utilities A portion of the Alrita Street neighborhood (see attached service area map) is served by a pump station and a small storage tank. The system was designed and built in the late 1950's to provide domestic water service and fire protection for the Alrita Street neighborhood above Flora Street. In the 1970's, the Bahia Court lots were developed and connected to a new water main. Properties above Bahia Court remained on the original system. Since the pump station was installed, city fire protection requirements have increased, and the system cannot meet current standards. The system consists of two 15-horsepower pumps and a 2500-gallon tank which provide a combined flow rate of 350 to 400 gallons per minute. The static water pressure (as measured at the street near this lot split) is 54 pounds per square inch, which is about normal for water distribution system operation. However the size of the pumps and tank do not provide enough flow for adequate fire protection. Based on staff's investigation, it appears that the new lot can be supplied with enough water for domestic purposes with minimal interruption; however there may be periods when water use is high in that area and disruption to service will occur. The key resource deficiency problem is water supply for fire protection. There have not been any comprehensive city efforts to resolve the water supply problem. However, measures were taken to provide a back-up water supply if the pump station fails. These measures include: 1) limiting the number of houses on the system to the least number possible, and 2) installation of a check valve near the corner of Alrita and Flora Streets to provide emergency service. According to Utilities staff, the only alternative available to adequately solve the supply problem is the design and installation of a larger tank and pump station. The cost of such a project is estimated at $250,000; however less expensive options to improve the situation may exist, such as upsizing the water pumps and 3" connection between the water mains in Flora and Alrita Streets. Additional studies are needed to identify improvement options and costs. Fire Protection The Fire Code requires that a fire hydrant capable of supplying the required fire flow for a minimum of 30 minutes be available within 300 feet of all structures. In 1977, a water study was completed for the City by Engineering Sciences Inc. which recommended that the minimum acceptable fire-flow requirement for any structure be 1500 gallons per minute. The study was received by the City Council, and is the standard the Fire Department now uses. The closest fire hydrant to the Murie property is in front of 1763 Alrita, over 300 ft. from the proposed house. This hydrant is supplied by the pump station and small storage tank described above. The hydrant has a flow rate of 320 gallons per minute when the storage /-3 ���► i i��IIIIiII�II ����Il city of Sa►n tins OBISp0 00*26 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 4 tank is full. If this hydrant is used it will deplete the tank's water supply in just over six minutes, leaving the neighboring houses without water. Once the tank water is gone, the sustainable hydrant flow drops to less than 100 gallons per minute. If the lot split were approved, the city would not be able to provide adequate fire protection under the present water system. The entire neighborhood served by the pump station faces the same fire-flow deficiency, although most of the houses are within the required distance from a fire hydrant. According to Fire Department staff, the addition of one more house will impact the existing conditions in these ways: 1. There will be one more family in the area that can accidentally start a fire.. 2. If there is a fire in the area, there will be one more house requiring water to protect it. The neighborhood is subject to wildland fires, and staff is concerned about adding new development which could worsen an already undesirable situation. During the Las Pilitas fire there was a severe water shortage in this area, and one house received substantial damage. Fire crews were told not to hook up to the fire hydrant at 1763 Alrita because there wasn't sufficient water available in the storage tank. Fire Department staff does not support private fire protection systems which use on-site tanks, pumps, or wells to provide the required fire flow. Their biggest concern is reliability. It is extremely difficult to be sure that private systems will be operational when the need arises. Monitoring devices are available, however, to give warning when water storage or pressure drops below required levels. If the council supports the lot split, the Fire Marshall recommends that the subdivider meet these requirements in lieu of providing the required hydrant fire-flow: 1. Provide a 45,000 gallon water storage tank, with the base elevation of the tank a minimum of 50 feet above the height of the fire hydrant. 2. Well water or another source shall be used to fill the storage tank. The tank must also be connected to the City water system to ensure the tank is full at all times. It would also need to be fitted with cross-connection protection, to County Health Department standards. 3. Install a new private fire hydrant within 300 feet of the existing and proposed houses on the Murie property. Hydrant shall be a city-standard hydrant for an R- 1 area. 4. Install a water supply line between the tank and the new private fire hydrant capable of supplying 1500 gallons per minute. 5. Provide a NFPA 13D fire sprinkler system for the new house. 6. Allow the Fire Department to use the tank and new hydrant for wildland fire protection, or to fight a fire in either of the two homes in this subdivision, by written agreement with the City. 7. Comply with all other fire code conditions such as access and distance to structure requirements. ►����N�ulllli�pn �����p city or san tuts osisiv COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 5 Historical Context The City's "604-A" ordinance was developed to "flag" resource deficiencies during development review, and provide an orderly process to upgrade water and sewer systems, concurrent with new development. Although the ordinance has been superseded by Ordinance 839 (1980 Series), its basic effect remains: When new development requires city participation in upgrading or replacing utilities, City Council review is required. Council then determines to what degree, if any, the city should fund the necessary utility improvements. If the council supports this lot split, it must also address the resource deficiency prior to subdivision approval. Councilmembers have previously dealt with situations similar to Alrita Street. In 1984, the City approved a use permit extension allowing the Wendt house at the upper end of Buena Vista, in Monterey Heights (U0819-A). To resolve a water flow deficiency, the owner was required to contribute $2,000 toward installation of a new water main and standard fire hydrant, with the balance of the cost paid by the city through the former "quarterly funding" program. In addition, the use permit required that the owner install a private, on- site fire protection system which included an underground water storage tank, pumps and controls, and an automatic sprinkler system. In 1978, the city approved a use permit for the Maloney house at 1900 Woodland Drive (U0667). The owner was required to contribute toward the cost of extending a new water main and installing a new fire hydrant to serve the property. As in the previous project, the owner was required to install a private, on-site fire protection system consisting of a 10,000 gallon water storage tank, on-site wharf hydrant, private 3" water line and pump, and sprinkler system. The fire protection requirements for these properties differed from the Alrita situation in that both had more fire flow to begin with than is available on Alrita Street; and the Maloney house was built. under the less-restrictive 1976 Fire Code. As part of the Hillside Planning Program, the Council recognized the Alrita Street water deficiency and established special standards for the eventual annexation of the minor expansion area just to the east of Alrita Street. Currently the area is in the County and served by wells and septic tanks. As part of any annexation proposal, councilmembers required "the creation of a gravity flow water distribution system which provides standard service to all parts of the expansion area and which corrects service deficiencies in the existing Alrita Street neighborhood." In February 1989, the city received an inquiry regarding annexation of the Alrita expansion area; however no application for annexation has been submitted. If council supports the lot split, staff sees three ways to resolve the resource deficiency: A. Correct the neighborhood deficiency using city funds. Pros ' Does not require assessment district or other complicated funding mechanism. • Allows maximum city control over timing and cost of the improvements. Cons I • Will divert city funds from other utility projects with greater public benefit. /r ����� ►Wlllll�p� ►���I MY of san tins OBISpo j COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 6 • More expensive than public/private cost sharing or installation of a private, on-site fire protection system. B. Correct the neighborhood deficiency using both public and private funds. Pros • Property owners who benefit from improved fire protection pay a portion of the costs. ` Reduced city costs would minimize financial impact to other planned utility improvements. Cons ` May delay implementation due to the time and complexity of establishing a private funding mechanism. • May encounter neighbor opposition. C. Correct the deficiency only for the subject property, with a privately funded and Installed fire protection system. Pros • Simplest and least expensive approach for the city. i • Would provide an adequate level of fire protection for the subject property, and would allow improved wildland fire fighting capability. Cons ` Will not correct an existing neighborhood resource deficiency. • May require significant property owner costs which are disproportionately large considering the project's small scale. ` On-site, private fire protection systems may result in significant visual impact due to the need for 45,000 gallons of water storage in the C/OS zone, at or near the 520 foot contour. Visual impact studies, ARC and council approval would be required for the water tank. Under either approach A or B, engineering studies will be needed to: 1) evaluate alternatives for correcting the resource deficiency, and 2) return to the council with a recommendation and funding program. If council chooses to approve the lot split, staff recommends that the approval be subject to the requirements that: a) the city must have approved plans and specifications and a funding mechanism for the improvements prior to final parcel map approval; and b) the building permit shall not be issued until the utility improvements are completed and functioning. These requirements are included in the conditions of approval, Exhibit "B." I �i ��►�n�i ��IVlllllll��h��������ll{ city of San tub* OBIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT -- Staff Report Page 7 Most of the lots in the Alrita water service area are fully developed, and will not need any future city entitlements. Hence, the city would need to establish an assessment district or similar mechanism to collect these fees. Staff has not explored the feasibility of this approach; however staff would generally try to avoid establishing an assessment district involving so few property owners. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENT Utilities Department staff do not support the lot split under any alternative, and feel that improvments to the Alrita Street water system would delay higher-priority utility projects. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt resolution denying the appeal, and upholding the Hearing Officer's action denying tentative parcel map MS 89-39 subject to the recommended findings and conditions, Exhibit "A." 2. Adopt resolution upholding the appeal, and approving the tentative parcel map subject to the recommended findings and conditions, Exhibit "B." Staff would support alternative 2 provided that fire protection needs were adequately addressed with the project. The council should give direction as to: 1) what level of on- or off-site improvements are required given the Fire Department recommendation, past city requirements, and the scale of the proposed project; and 2) what degree of city funding, if any, would be appropriate to correct the resource deficiency. 3. Continuance with direction to staff or the appellant to provide additional information as appropriate. Attachments: -Draft Resolutions -Vicinity Map -Appeal Letter -Alrita Street Water Service Area Map -Initial Environmental Study -Director's Subdivision Hearing Minutes jh/ms89-39.wp -7 - Exhibit "A" RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE HEARING OF ACTION DENYING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 1778 ALRITA STREET (MS 89-39). BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the minor subdivision request MS 89-39, the Hearing Officer's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, hereby denies the appeal of Earl Murie of the Hearing Officer's denial of the minor subdivision subject to the findings listed below: 1. The design of the minor subdivision and proposed impr With the General Plan. ovements are not consistent ., 2. The site is not physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1 and C/09-40 zones. 3. The design of the minor subdivision is not consistent with Subdivision Regulations requiring the rearmost lot to own the accessway to the public street in fee; or to have a street frontage of at least 20 feet. 4. The design of the minor subdivision and the proposed improvements are likely to cause serious health and safety problems due to an existing water resource deficiency in the area which limits the city's ability to provid development. e adequate fire protection for new S. The design. of the minor subdivision or the type of-improvement will conflict with the easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: E Resolution No. (1990 Series) Piige AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1990. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk s • s • s • sssss • APPROVED: ,ty A minis ati icer C ne Community Develo me t Director U i les Director enp Fire Chief J Exhibit "B" RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) : A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION DENYING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 1.778 ALRITA STREET (MS 89-39). BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the minor subdivision request MS 89-39, the Hearing Officer's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, hereby upholds Earl Murie's appeal of the Hearing Officer's denial of the minor subdivision, and approves Tentative Parcel Map MS 89-39 subject to the findings and conditions listed below: Findinju 1. The design of the minor subdivision and proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1 and C/OS-40 zones. 3. The design of the minor subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The design of the minor subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easement for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 5. The proposed deep lot subdivision and common driveway are appropriate and meet the intent of Subdivision Regulations, and installation of a standard street would not be feasible due to topographical conditions and existing subdivision design. 6. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed tentative map will not have a significant effect on the environment and has granted a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact based on the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the project: a. The subdivider shall follow the soils and geological engineer's recommendation in layout, design and construction on the new lot. b. At 12 inonths after occupancy of the new house, the subdivider shall submit t Ci i Resolution No. (1990 Series) � Page a monitoringreport,p ort , .prepared by a qualified professional, which documents the project's compliance with engineering recommendations and evaluates the effectiveness of the recommendations in: minimizing grading and topographic disturbance, reducing erosion,- and preventing drainage impacts to adjacent properties. C. The proposed house site, Parcel 2, shall be considered a sensitive site and shall require architectural review prior to building permit issuance. At such review, special attention shall be given to privacy screening, landscaping and erosion control, and building colors. d. The Community Development Director may, at any time, modify, add or delete mitigation measures as needed if the above mitigation measures are determined to be ineffective or physically infeasible. Such changes shall be limited to measures which would meet the intent of the original mitigation. Conditions: 1. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the City for review, approval and recordation. 2. Final map shall note that parcel 2 is a sensitive site and any development proposed shall require architectural review and approval. 3. The subdivider shall submit a common driveway agreement to the city for approval and recordation. Final map shall show an easement for the common driveway. 4. The subdivider shall provide drainage facilities to carry storm water to a suitable disposal point, to the approval of the City Engineer. S. The subdivider shall submit a landscape plan showing erosion control using drought tolerant plant materials. 6. The subdivider shall dedicate to the city an open space easement over the C/OS-40 zoned portion of the site, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 7. The subdivider shall install a dry standpipe and driveway turnaround for fire protection, to the approval of the city Fire Marshal. 8. The existing water resource deficiency shall be mitigated by either: A. Prior to final map approval, the city shall have, approved construction plans and specifications and funding for water supply improvements in the Alrita Street neighborhood, and prior to building permit issuance, said utility improvements .shall be completed and functioning, to the approval of the Utilities Engineer; or B. t Providing an on-site fire protection system, to the approval of the Utilities Engineer and the Fire Marshall. All water facilities, including water storage tank; water pump and supply lines shall be undergrounded or otherwise screened from view with suitable landscaping, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Resolution No. (1990 Series) Page 9. No building ' permit shall be issued for development on this site until condition 8 is met, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 10: The subdivider shall submit a waiver of right to protest participation in an assessment district or other equitable fee program,.to improve the Alrita Water Supply System, to the approval of the Utilities Engineer. 11. Subdivider shall install an NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system to serve new construction, to the approval of the Fire Marshall. 12. Subdivider shall install a private fire hydrant within 300 feet of the proposed house site, to the approval of the Fire Marshall and the Utilities Engineer. 13. Subdivider shall allow the Fire Department to use the private fire hydrant and onsite water storage facilities to fight a fire in either of the two homes in this subdivision or for protection against wildland fires, by written agreement with the City. 14. Easements shall be provided to accommodate drainage and utilities, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 15. The subdivider shall pay water acreage charges for parcel 2.prior to recordation of final parcel map. Fees shall be as determined by the City Engineer. OOn motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1990. - Mayor �_J Resolution No. (MO Series) Page 2 ATTEST: City Clerk s • s • s • ss • ss • APPROVED: C ty mi ist atwe icer C yM.0 ommunity evelop e t Director ities director 2 Fire Chic C L-13-L CITY LIMITS ■lei l)•l!•1>•I�ltll•1� ♦t: C OS - 4 ,o L O iat byE��s "rPJ�s4/ 181= 1001 �qL� O S _ C- E e� O �' d8 9oJ O M3�40 � 1' OfjSAn luis ON$ O� l 990 Palm Stfaet/Post O(tice Box 8100 •San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I. Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obisp Municipa the undersigned hereby appeals from// the decision ofF ZA4 A reedered on[��� On)�t, 6 /�f�'% whit d ci onslsted of the Following (i.e. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed): .The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with: on Appellant: 00.1 Name/Title RECEIVE® Representative OCT 1 71989 CLERK Address Ltd MY SAN Luis OWSPO,CA �>/.5!- lve�77// �-S : ,:+4, Phone Original for City Clerk Copy to City Attorney en aced for: All Copy to City Administrative Officer Co mellowing department(s): City Clerk /` -j-:,tent with the --__.. , Proposed improvement general pl_n• Provements 2• The site i lot physically suited development allowed is the for the t R-i and c ype and density of 3• The /OS=40 zones. design of. the improvements are wino= subdivision and the problems due likely to cause serious health and Proposed to .an insignificant water distribution system (both water volume and pressure in the area) . 4. The design of the minor will conflict witeasements lfor access throu h or property within the type of improvement proposed subdivision. g use of 3. Ylre the I amp for s.: gy:siOn old not . _ _ installation of a standard street due to conditions and existing subdivision design. ers r e topographical 6• The Community Development Director Proposed tentative ma has determined that the environment and p will not have a the effect ton environmental has granted a negative declaration of incorporated intothe based on mitigation measures Project. being r `� i %'3 % � ao3W L' V � ! Ia lilta Nall. . iS • + � a / wp s 01 � I d', ................... ?' . O �N ds, O €$. X. fo O O M . � �•e m a O „� O o.ti �m.7,7 O �3 O / {<: W O O O O O •� O 1 � O W a O O .•••.. V1 Q . ° a� n0 �a ° LUL IJ W a O 0 0 90 H � � O ° O ° W Z J 0 z ` 1 _ ' 1 City of Sall lues omij-6 �►��Ilelllill���i�uAlINITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT � -- SITE LOCATION 1778 Alrita Street APPLICATION No. 23-89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Iiinor Subdivision (IS 89-39)o Dvide one lot into two lots, R-1 zone and the construction of an 1871 sq.- ft. house on one of the two lots. APPUCANT E. Iturie STAFF RECOMMENDATION: X NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INMALSTUDY R ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED PREPARED BY Jeff Hoo sociate ,Plarmer DAT 8/28/89 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DI R'S ACTION 8 VE SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS L DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PLANSAND GOALS................................................... . :'lone* B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH......................,............ �bne C. LAND USENone ................................ D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .. None E PUSLICSERVICES ................................................................ None F. UTILMES......................................................................... None* D. NOISE LEVELS .......:............................................................ :crone H. GEOLOGIC 3 SEISMIC HAZARDS a TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... None* I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS.....................:.:........................ ?JDne J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. None KPLANT LIFE......................:............................................... N071e* LANIMAL LIFE.......................................................I.............. None M. ARCHAEOLOGICALJNISTORICAL................................................... None N. AESTHETIC ..... .E............................ ......... ................... alone O. ENERGY/RESOURCEU3E........................................................... None P. OTHER........................................................................... BL STAFF RECOMMENDATION Ititigated Negative Declaration *SEE ATTACHED REPORT �m Initial Study Page 2 I. DESCRIPTION.OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Proiect Update On April 12th, the Director required an expanded initial study to address grading and seismic safety concerns. Specifically, the subdivider was to submit soils engineering and geology reports, preliminary development plans, and a revised tentative map which conformed to slope/density requirements. The required information has been submitted, and is included below as the Expanded Initial Study. New information or analysis is in italics. Based on the project engineer's evaluation and recommendations, and on the preliminary grading and architectural designs, the project is not likely to have any significant adverse environmental impacts. Proiect Description The subdivider wants to split a one acre, hillside lot. This is proposed as a deep-lot subdivision. The new 10,000 sq. ft. lot would be created on a sloping bank, just below the existing house. Access to the new and existing lot is via a 20 ft. wide private driveway easement from Alrita Street, which runs along the southeast property line. Neither lot would have street frontage. Environmental Setting The site is in a low-density residential neighborhood, and is bordered on three sides by houses. The irregularly-shaped site has one house, and is zoned R-1 on its lower half. — The upper hillside portion is vacant and zoned C/OS40 (Conservation/Open Space - 40-acre minimum lot size) above the 520-foot contour elevation. It slopes upward from the south property line at an average grade of 23 percent for the entire site, and 17 percent for the new building site on Parcel 2. The site has ornamental landscaping around the house, and a small orchard on the slope bank just below the house. IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW A. Community Plans and Goals The City's Land Use Element sets a density standard of four to seven dwelling units per net acre in the R-1 zone. Allowed density is reduced to four units per net acre on sites with an average cross-slope of 16-20 percent. Parcel 2 has an average cross-slope of 17 percent, and does not meet the minimum area requirement to allow development of one house. A lot area of at least 10,890 sq. ft. is required, and 10,059 sq. ft. is shown. To meet City standards, the tentative map must be revised to meet area requirements. The Subdivider has agreed to modify the tentative Wrap to meet slope/density requirements, so this no longer appears to be an environmental issue. There are two options: 1) reduce the lot area by excluding the steepest portion of the lot, thus reducing averag4 slope to less than 12 percent; or 2) increase the lot area by about 800 square feet. Either approach is workable. although in hillside areas, the preferred approach is usually to increase lot area. Once environmental review is completed. the subdivider intends to modify the tentative parcel map to meet City requirements. U Initial Study Page 3 F. Utilities At its April 5, 1989 hearing. the City Council introduced-to-print regulations to restrict new development until additional city water supplies are available. Under the new mandatory water conservation ordinance, the city would issue building permits only for those projects which had applied for architectural review or use permits prior to March 15, 1989. Permits for projects submitted after that date would be available only for exempt projects, like most additions and remodels. If this lot split were approved, a house on the new lot would not be eligible to receive a building permit until mandatory water rationing measures were lifted and adequate water supplies were available to serve new development — probably no earlier than Spring 1990. These controls are expected to mitigate water-use impacts of the proposed lot split. H. Geologic/Seismic Hazards and Topographic Modifications The main concerns with this project are slope stability and grading. According to the City's Seismic Safety Element, this site is located in an area with very high landslide potential. Underlain by the geologically-unstable Franciscan Formation, additional grading and development of the site may increase landslide risk and erosion/drainage concerns for downstream properties. The city's Grading Ordinance limits the area of a site which can be graded, based on its average natural slope. These standards would require that 60 percent of Parcel 2 remain natural and ungraded. To comply, this parcel must be developed within a 4000 sq. ft. area (ie. 40% of the 10,059 sq. ft. lot).. In addition, the new lot naturally drains to the west property corner. Special drainage measures, including four to five feet of fill and a retaining wall, may be necessary along the south property line, to prevent drainage onto neighboring lots. Attached is a soil engineering and engineering geology report documenting existing soil and geologic conditions, describing soil test results. and recommending specific design measures to minimize soil stability concerns. The main conclusion of the report is that 'the site is suitable for the proposed development' in terms of soils engineering and engineering geology. Special site preparation measures will be required. such as requiring overexcavation one foot deeper than would otherwise be required in foundation areas. and using engineered backfill; incorporating special design measures to collect and direct surface drainage: and following special utility trenching and foundation design measures. Preliminary grading and architectural plans show grading only for foundation and driveway. with rain gutters to carry roof runoff to the driveway. The lower floor finish floor elevation is set at 507 ft., and most of the house will be on a level "cut' bench. This approach minimizes the amount of site disturbance. meets City grading standards, and provides a more stable pad without requiring extensive engineered fill or retaining walls. No retaining walls will be required along the property lines, and there would be no significant increase in runoff onto neighboring properties. Initial Study �. Page 4 U K. Plant Life A grove of about 20 small- to medium-sized Avocado trees would be removed by development of Parcel 2. The trees are not significant in terms of wildlife habitat or esthetics, and their removal is not likely to cause adverse impacts. L. Aesthetics The City's Hillside Planning Standards include special design measures to minimize visual impacts from hillside development. These include architectural measures to reduce the apparent height and bulk of structures, use of earth tonecolors for exterior building surfaces, and landscaping which prevents erosion, provides privacy screening, and ties in with the hillside's natural colors and textures.. The proposed lot split and new house are located near the interface of the R-1 and C/OS-40 zone boundaries, and will be expected to meet hillside design standards. To verify compliance with these standards, and to allow neighbor comments. the new house should require architectural review. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Negative Declaration subject to the following mitigation measures to be included in the project: 1) Subdivider shall follow the soils and geological engineer's recommendations in the layout, design, and construction of the new house. G' 2) At 12 months after occupancy, the subdivider shall submit a monitoring report, prepared by a qualified professional, which documents the project's compliance with engineering recommendations and evaluates the effectiveness of the recommendations in: minimizing grading and topographic disturbance, reducing erosion, and preventing drainage impacts to adjacent properties. 3) The proposed house site. Parcel l of SL 89-039. shall be considered a sensitive site and shall require architectural review prior to building permit issuance. At such review, special attention shall be given to privacy screening, landscaping and erosion control, and building colors. 4) The subdivider shall submit a revised tentative parcel map which conforms to slope/density requirements, to the approval of the Community Development Director. S) The Community Development Director may at any time, modify, add, or delete mitigation measures as needed if the above mitigation measures are determined to* be ineffective or physically infeasible. Such changes shall be limited to measures which would meet the intent of the original mitigation. t jhl/er23-89 attachments U DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION REARING - MINUTES FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 29, 1989 17.78 Alrita Street. Minor Subdivision No. MS 89-039; Consideration of a tentative parcel map creating two lots from one lot; R-1 zone; Earle Muriel subdivider. Jeff Hook presented the staff report, stating that he had received revised subdivision plans which address staff's main concern which was the question of slope density. He noted the revised plan meets the city's slope density and lot size requirements and complies with all the zoning and subdivision requirements for a lot split at this site. He further noted that staff received the revised subdivision plan too late to route it to the other city departments, so Public Works and Engineering have not yet reviewed the plan. He said he anticipated that a recommendation for final approval would be given. He indicated that staff is recommending continuance of this item to allow for other department review and comment. The public hearing was opened. Earle Muriel subdivider, spoke in support of his tentative map request. .He explained he wants to split the lot for the purpose of allowing his son and daughter-in-law a site to build their house on. He felt that all questions had been answered to adjacent property owners who might have concerns with the project. He also felt the architect had considered any drainage problems when he drew the house plans and any problems had been resolved. He said, regarding privacy, that the houselocation has been moved back so as not to obstruct the view by adjacent properties. He further explained that he is in the process of planting a natural fence at the property line which would give more privacy and also cut down on noise. Mr. Murie said he spoke to the Neilsen's who own the property at 1792 Alrita Street, and their only concern was view blockage, which he felt had been remedied. Ken Bruce clarified that the issue at this hearing is only the splitting of thelot; not the development of the lot. Leticia Martinez, owner of 1762 Alrita Street, and recent purchaser of 1770 Alrita Street, noted that the purchase contract shows that there is substantial drainage problems on the site; water going under the foundation and erosion problems. She felt that drainage should be addressed so that her property won't have any further problems. She noted that they plan to dig out an area and put Page 2 MS 89-39 - 1778 Alrita Street Minutes gravel in it to digress the drainage. The public hearing was closed. Ken Bruce questioned staff as to why therevised tentative map needs to be routed again in terms of the lot line changing a few feet from one location to another. He felt the issues are no different than the original map proposal. In terms of the drainage issue, Mr. Bruce felt that drainage is a very important issue that must be addressed as part of any subdivision approval. Ken Bruce took thisitem under submission. He explained this means he has an additional ten days to render a decision. He felt continuance would serve no purpose; the only part that might be awkward is that neighbors and the subdivider would not have a chance to comment on recommended conditions. He said he didn't anticipate any significant changes to the conditions noted in the staff report, listed below. He also explained that this decision could be appealed to the City Council within ten days of the action, and that if there was a problem with any of the conditions, that too could be appealed. On October 9, 1989, Ken Bruce denied Minor Subdivision MS 89-39, based on the following findings: Findings 1. The design of the minor subdivision and proposed improvements are not consistent with the general plan. 2. The site is not physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1 and C/OS-40 zones. 3. The design of the minor subdivision and the proposed improvements are likely to cause serious health and safety Problems due to an insignificant water distribution system (both water volume and pressure in the area) . 4. The design of the minor subdivision or the type of improvement will conflict with easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 5. The proposed deep lot subdivision would not be feasible with .the installation of a standard street due to topographical conditions and existing subdivision design. , Page 3 6. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed tentative map will not have a significant effect on the environment and has granted a negative declaration of environmental impact based on mitigation measures being incorporated into the project. '�J