HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-25-2022 Item 4b PC Staff Presentation5/25/2022 Item 4b Staff Presentation
1
APPEAL OF THE MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL OF TWO, NEW,
PRE-MANUFACTURED SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENCES AND A PRE-
MANUFACTURED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS
WITH SHARED DRIVEWAY ACCESS
March 25, 2022
2406 & 2414 JOHNSON
APPL-0182-2022
Appellant: Joe & Barbara Boud et al.
Recommendation
Adopt the Draft Resolution denying the appeal of the minor development
review approval of two, new pre-manufactured single-unit residences
and a pre-manufactured accessory dwelling unit on two separate lots
with shared driveway access.
2
1
2
5/25/2022 Item 4b Staff Presentation
2
Project Site
3
Location:2406 & 2414 JohnsonAvenue.
Parcel Sizes: Parcel 1 - 0.4 acre; Parcel 3 -
0.25 acre
Access: Both parcels are accessed from
Johnson Avenue by a common driveway
Site Condition: Vacant
Zoning:R-1 (Low density residential)
General Plan:Low density residential
2406
(Parcel 3)
2414
(Parcel 1)
Previous Review
September 18, 2009: The Hearing Officer approved a tentative parcel map creating three lots from
one lot.
October 28, 2009: The Planning Commission reviewed an appeal of the of the subdivision and
denied the appeal and upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision.
January 5, 2010: The City Council reviewed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision and
denied the appeal and upheld the Hearing Officer’s and Planning Commission’s decisions.
February 7, 2022: The ARC reviewed the project for consistency with the CDG.TheARC
recommended that the Community Development Director find the project consistent with the CDG.
March 17, 2022: The Community Development Director reviewed the application and ARC’s
recommendation and approved the minor development project based on findings and conditions
included in the approval letter.
4
3
4
5/25/2022 Item 4b Staff Presentation
3
Project Description
The project includes the same pre-manufactured, 3-bedroom, craftsman styled,
single-unit residence on two separate lots that share driveway access.
Architecture: Single story structures with craftsman architectural elements.
Design Details: Vertical and horizontal siding, gable roofs, porches, craftsman
style door, column features, and window trim.
Materials: horizontal siding and vertical lap siding
Colors: Pale green, whites, and grays
5
Project Description
6
Northwest Elevation (Entry)Southeast Elevation
Northeast Elevation Southwest Elevation
5
6
5/25/2022 Item 4b Staff Presentation
4
Project Description
7
Parcel 1 Parcel 3
Appeal
March 28, 2022: Joe and Barbara Boud et al. submitted an appeal of
the Director’s approval based on three main areas:
1.Non-compliance and violation of the conditions of the
subdivision;
2.Non-compliance and inconsistency with the City’s Community
Design Guidelines; and
3.ADU is inconsistent with objective subdivision conditions and the
California State Subdivision Map Act.
8
7
8
5/25/2022 Item 4b Staff Presentation
5
Project Analysis
Comment #1: The project proposes cutting into the slope to establish a
site for prefabricated residential unit on Parcel 1.
Response: The Engineering Division reviewed the proposed grading for
the prefabricated residential unit on Parcel 1 and, as conditioned, found
that proposed grading activities comply with City’s Engineering
Standards.
9
Project Analysis
Comment #2: The project does not consider site layout/design based on
the existing trees located on the site.
Response: The project application includes an Arborist Report that
identifies the proposed tree removals for the project. The City Arborist
reviewed the Report, tree removals, and landscape plans and
determined that, as conditioned, they are consistent with the Tree
Regulations.
10
9
10
5/25/2022 Item 4b Staff Presentation
6
Project Analysis
Comment #3: The prefabricated residential units have no character or
identity with the neighborhood.
Response: The Director, with a recommendation from the ARC, found
the project consistent with Community Design Guidelines Chapters 2
and 5. There are no prohibitions on prefabricated residential buildings,
which have been successfully installed in other locations of the City.
11
Project Analysis
12
11
12
5/25/2022 Item 4b Staff Presentation
7
Project Analysis
Comment #4: There are no height restrictions on Parcel 3. Development
of a two-story structure would require less landscape removal and less
site disturbance. Fit the Site.
Response: Parcel 3 is located within the R-1 zone that has a height
restriction of 25 feet and maximum lot coverage of 40 percent. As
proposed, the project is a single level, residential unit that has a
maximum height of 15 feet, 3 inches and occupies 17 percent of the total
site and complies with the standards required of an R-1 zoned property.
13
Project Analysis
Comment #5:The subdivision map clearly delineates a building envelope
on the Tentative Map on both Parcels 1 & 3. It is not unusual for the term
“building envelope” and “building footprint” to be comingled. There was
no building footprint identified during the approval of the Tentative Parcel
Map, however there was a delineated building envelope.
Response: As outlined in the staff report, the Planning Commission in
their discussion about the subdivision “required that the final map
indicate a precise building “footprint” that is setback at least ten feet from
the northeast property line to mitigate privacy impacts to surrounding
neighbors.” In this case, the terms “footprint” and “envelope” are not
interchangeable or comingled.
14
13
14
5/25/2022 Item 4b Staff Presentation
8
Project Analysis
Comment #6: Presently, Parcel 2 uses the “no parking” fire turn pocket
between Parcels 2 & 3 for parking. Parcel 2 has no other parking
identified, garage or surface, on-site. City Council Resolution 10140,
Condition of Approval #4 requires parking to be identified on Parcel #1
and Condition #26 requires parking access and maneuverability. The fire
turn-around area between Parcels 2 & 3 will become a parking area and
Parcels 1, 2 & 3 will load up the driveway with vehicles.
15
16
15
16
5/25/2022 Item 4b Staff Presentation
9
Project Analysis
Comment #7: In reviewing the CDG Chapters 2, 5 & 6, the appellant has
identified several inconsistencies with the ARC staff report and the Director’s
Findings of Approval.
Response: The proposed project was reviewed by the Architectural Review
Commission and the Community Development Director and found to be
consistent with the CDG Chapter 2 and 5 as detailed in the findings of the
Director’s Approval Letter. Chapter 6 design guidelines must be considered
along with specific City standards and requirements. The Engineering Division
and the City Arborist reviewed the project and, as conditioned, found that the
proposed grading activities, including the use of retaining walls, and tree
removals are consistent with the City’s Engineering Standards and Tree
Regulations.
17
Project Analysis
Comment #8: The proposed ADU does not comply with objective
development standards that were established in the approval of the
Tentative Parcel Map.
Response: An ADU is not subject to discretionary review per
Government Code Section 65852.2, which expressly states that ADUs
that comply with applicable development standards are subject to
ministerial review and cannot be required to go through discretionary
reviews. Per state law, the proposed ADU can only be evaluated against
the City’s ADU ordinance that complies with Section 65852.2, and no
other “local ordinance, policy, or regulation” (i.e., conditions of approval).
18
17
18
5/25/2022 Item 4b Staff Presentation
10
Project Analysis
Comment #9: Testimony at the ARC hearing indicated that this project would
provide much needed affordable housing opportunities. The proposed project
will be rented. There are no proposed deed restrictions regarding sale value,
nor is there a proposal related to affordable future rent and/or lease.
Response: The staff report and presentation by staff did not identify that any of
the units were affordable or required to be affordable. Although the project
does not and is not required to provide deed restricted affordable units, it does
provide housing and is consistent with the City’s Major City Goal regarding
Housing and Homelessness and the Housing Element which both focus on
facilitating the production of all types of housing. The City does not evaluate
housing based on the type, ownership or rental, or affordability unless the
project is required to include affordable units.
19
Environmental Review
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Class 32, Infill Exemption) because
the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use
designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
20
19
20
5/25/2022 Item 4b Staff Presentation
11
Planning Commission Purview
Review the project for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City
development standards.
Does the project comply with the conditions of the subdivision?
Is the project consistent with the City’s Community Design
Guidelines?
21
Recommendation
Adopt the Draft Resolution denying the appeal of the minor development
review approval of two, new pre-manufactured single-unit residences
and a pre-manufactured accessory dwelling unit on two separate lots
with shared driveway access.
22
21
22
5/25/2022 Item 4b Staff Presentation
12
23
Project Analysis: Final Map
24
23
24
5/25/2022 Item 4b Staff Presentation
13
Project Description
25
Site Plan /
Landscape Plan
Parcel 1
Parcel 3
Project Description
26
25
26