Hillside House Project

Below are comments by Judy Orias who attended the Hillside house project workshop.

 I attended the planning commission workshop with Hillside House on Thursday Sept 16, 2004.  Because of the rules I was unable to speak and correct a very serious error that was made. Mr. Mahan asked what was the density of the Hillside project compared to
the development in Hidden Valley.  The Hidden Valley homes are a collection of flat parcels zoned E3 with 7,500 sq. foot lots, about 5 units per acre.  The proposed Hillside House project has a total of 27 acres which the applicant states translates into E3 at 127 units.  There is a serious difference between Hidden Valley and Hillside House land.  Hillside House has a significant hillside and the slope density ordinance is applicable. This coupled with the 100 foot setback from the creek and a 50 foot setback from the hill, gives Hillside House 7 acres of developable land.  Hillside House has indicated that they wish 127 units on 7 acres of land which is a higher density than Hidden Valley.  Hillside house has also indicated within the 7 acres of developable land they wish to have a community center, offices and facilities for their clients.  The square footage of these buildings has not been subtracted from the developable acreage and when this is computed the 7 acres available of residential land becomes less. The stated 127 units on 7 acres is 18 units per acre, far denser than Hidden Valley. When the question was asked and the answer was given that the 127 units on 27 acres equaled Hidden Valley density I was surprised that no one corrected this statement.  I had received a return call from the planner on Monday before the meeting and I had asked her about the density and the developable land.  I was told that staff had not figured out how many acres were developable given the slope density ordinance, creek and hillside setbacks.  The figures indicate that the proposed Hillside house project is 3x the density of Hidden Valley.  The houses on Veronica Springs Rd. have bigger lots and are located directly next to the project site.  Where is their compatibility? As a point of history when Hidden Valley was developed the developers were required to deed to the city land for a city park.  When Valle Verde was built the city required them to deed land along the creek instead of paying annexation fees.  These parcels of land exceed the amount of land asked for in the 100 foot setback from the creek in the Hillside project. The protection of the creek has a long history in our neighborhood. The members of the Hillside House team met with the board of Hidden Valley and the developers stated that they had 7 acres which could be developed.  They stated that they could get the 127 units in the county.  To get that density they must have sewer connections and that requires annexation to the city.  Septic tanks would not work in that area with that density. I request that the commission correct the misinformation regarding the density of the Hillside House project.  Because the meeting was closed to the public this matter could not be corrected by knowledgeable people in the audience. Other issues:  There was no discussion about the number of bedrooms in the proposed units.  The number of bedrooms is significant as this translated into numbers of occupants which translates into trips and traffic. There was very little discussion about the other proposed buildings in regard to their square footage and how much that reduced the 7 build able acres.  Such buildings are a community center, therapy room and offices.  There was also discussion about a commercial store. The single roadway proposed with the long driveways will result in the fire dept. requiring a 50 foot radius turnaround at the end of each driveway.  The fire dept. doe not like to back up in emergency situations. Gravel paths were suggested but have you ever pushed a wheel chair in gravel?  It is very difficult. The proposed bike path along the emergency road to Palermo is a good idea.  We need to be able to exit this area in several ways.  However we would not like to see the end of Palermo become a parking lot for the beach.  Currently there is a shortage of parking and this has resulted in cars parked in the residential areas. I submitted by phone to the planning staff 2 questions regarding the project.  One was regarding the number of bedrooms and the traffic impact.  The second was requesting financial information which would justify this density.   Neither question was raised by the staff.  The question of finances was mentioned by one commissioner and she was not sure she could have that information.  The need for information regarding the financial soundness of the project was requested by the city and used in the decision making process of the Levy project with the California Hotel.  This was stated by Mr. Casey, the community development director at the Grove Lane Association meeting of Sept. 20, 2004. I have a concern as this process goes on that so many details are being addressed without an environmental analysis or an EIR.  It has the appearance that the decision making body was in part designing the project. I am writing you this letter because I believe that these issues are vital to a decision regarding this proposal.  I would appreciate a correction about the density, not only the units but also the number of bedrooms as well as the other proposed buildings.  Thank you