The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About40-Planning and Building CITY OF SAN BEfil.ARDINO - REQUESPFOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director ~~"..,_ '~"Subject: Tentative Tract No. 15228 Dept: Planning and Building setvide,s Mayor and Common Council Meeting May 4, 1992 Date: April 23, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: On April 20, 1992, this item was continued to the Mayor and Common Council meeting of May 4, 1992. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council approve Tentative Tract No. 15228; or That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council deny Tentative Tract No. 15228. Al Bouhgey I !{_ 1 / d f~~"', L:;h .'. Sig~~re 384-5357 Contact person: Phone: Staff Report Supporting date etteched: 5 Ward: N/A FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. DescriPtion) Finance: Council Notes: J.j() Ct.TY OF SAN BERCA~ _,,)1 NO - REQUESTOa COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: Final determination for Tentative. Tract No. 15228, a request to establish an 18-lot single family subdivision. Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 20, 1992 REOUEST Pursuant to Development Code Section 19.66.070, the applicants request approval of Tentative Tract No. 15228, to subdivide a parcel into 18 single-family residential lots. The request is before the Mayor and Common Council because a motion by the Planning Commission to deny the project failed by a tie vote. The subject property consists of 5.71 acres located at the southwest corner of Magnolia Avenue and Ohio Avenue in the RL, Residential Low, land use district. BACKGROUND Rovember 19, 1991 The Planning commission held a properly noticed public hearing on Tentative Tract No. 15228 (See Exhibit 1, Certificate of Mailing and Proof of Publication). After staff's presentation of the staff report, the Commission was advised that Staff received comments by telephone from Ms. Pat Smith, 3288 Meyers Road, on the day of the hearing. Ms. Smith stated that her property abuts the subject property and expressed concerns regarding the removal of trees, the lack of sewers and asked if it would still be legal to stab~e her stallions if the proposed subdivision is approved and occupied. After the opening of the public hearing, Donald and Jean Hanson, 180 W. Fiesta Green, Port Hueneme, spoke in favor of the application. Mr. Hanson stated that he and his wife own approximately 10 acres across the street from the subject property and they feel that the proposed subdivision would have a positive effect. Gary Smith, 3288 Meyers Road, then spoke in opposition to the request. He stated that the proposed lot sizes and density are incompatible with the existing development in the area, citing his and three other .one-acre residential properties abutting the subject property to the south, which are the result of a four-lot subdivision approved in 1980. According to Mr. Smith, the recently approved smaller lot, higher density developments are destroying the quiet, low density character of the area. Mr. Smith also 75-0264 ". '( o o Tentative Tract No. 15228 Request for Final Determination Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 20, 1992 page 2 claimed that the arborist report prepared for the subject property was false. June Reeves, 3414 Belmont Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed subdivision, citing a lack of sewer service on Belmont Avenue and drainage concerns on Maqnolia Avenue. steven Levy, 1398 Meyers Road expressed opposition to the application, also citing drainage concerns. Sam Zayed, 3308 Meyers Road, spoke in opposition to proposal. He stated that he recently moved into the area and has invested in improvements to his property under the impression that the area would continue to be comprised of one-acre lots. Eugene Ehe, civil engineer for the project, then responded to the drainage and sewer issues. He stated that proper drainage could be carried to Belmont Avenue 1. however, due to the lay of the land, a drainage easement would be required along the neighboring property to the east (A.P.N. 261-071-2, 3, 9). The proposed conditions of approval require that the subdivider obtain the easement prior to recordation of the final map, but the neighboring property owner is unwilling to negotiate at this time. He also stated that all trees removed as a result of the development of the subdivision shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, as indicated in the proposed conditions of approval. A motion then carried to continue the hearing to December 10, 1991 so that a representative from the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department could be present to answer questions regarding drainage issues, the proposed street design, and policies and procedures for the filing of final maps. December 10, 1991 A quorum of the Planning Commissioners who originally heard the item on November 19, 1991 was not present, and the item was continued to January 7, 1992. January 7, 1992 The Planning Commission continued the item to March 3, 1992 at the request of the Planning Director. The purpose of the continuance request was to allow the applicant to make a final attempt to negotiate for an off-site drainage easement through the neighboring property to the east prior to taking action on the tentative map. This request was made because, pursuant to section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the City imposes a condition of approval , o o Tentative Tract No. 15228 Request for Final Determination Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 20, 1992 Page 3 requiring the subdivider to obtain an easement for offsite improvements, and the subdivider is unable to obtain the drainage easement by the time that the final map is filed, the city will be compelled to acquire the easement through eminent domain: in turn, the City would require the subdivider to pay the cost of acquiring the easement. March 3, 1992 staff advised the Planning Commission that the owners of the neighboring property are still unwilling to grant off-site drainage easement rights to the applicant, so the proposed conditions of approval will require the subdivider to obtain the easement prior to recordation of the final map (Standard Requirement No. 18, Exhibit 4, Attachment DJ, potentially compelling the City to condemn the property. Commissioner stone then asked staff if the proposed temporary dead end at the eastern end of the subject property would obligate the owner of the neighboring property to the east to continue the street if the adjacent parcels are ever developed. Staff responded that the neighboring property owner would be obligated to continue the street. Commissioner Stone then expressed concern that the neighboring, larger property would be "held hostage" by the subject property. A motion to deny Tentative Tract No. 15228 then failed by a tied 3- 3 vote. As a result of the failed motion, the application was forwarded to the Mayor and Common Council for final determination. April 20, 1992 The item was continued by the Mayor and Common Council to May 4, 1992. OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL The Mayor and Common Council may approve Tentative Tract No. 15228. OR The Mayor and Common Council may deny Tentative Tract No. 15228. v o o Tentative Tract No. 15228 Request for Final Determination Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 20, 1992 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of staff that the Mayor and Common Council: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration: and 2. Approve Tentative Tract No. 15228 based upon the attached Findings of Fact (Exhibit 4, Attachment B), and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 4, Attachement C) and Standard Requirements (Exhibit 4, Attachment D). Exhibits: Gregory S. Gubman Assistant Planner for Al Boughey, AICP Director of Planning and Building Services 1 - certificate of Mailing and Proof of Publication for Planning Commission Hearing 2 -Statement of Planning commission Action 3 - Official Notice of Public Hearing before the Mayor and Common Council 4 - Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 19, 1991 Prepared by: