DATE: August 7, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Development Services Department
TITLE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE LOMA ALTA TERRACES PROJECT - APPLICANT: LOMA ALTA TERRACES, LLC, SCOTT DARNELL - APPELLANT: LINK LADUTKO
RECOMMENDATION
title
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution upholding Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-P19 approving Tentative Map (T22-00003), Development Plan (D22-00004), and Density Bonus (DB22-00003) to allow the construction of 13 single-family homes, with one reserved for very low-income households, on a 2.00-acre parcel located between Loma Alta Drive and Crouch Street approximately 150 feet south of Walsh Street.
body
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
On January 10, 2024, the City Council considered an appeal of the Planning Commission’s October 9, 2023 decision to approve the proposed project. After public testimony and deliberation, the City Council voted unanimously to grant the appeal and deny the project on the basis that the private street serving the proposed subdivision exceeds the City’s maximum allowable street grade, thereby constituting a specific adverse impact pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2). Proposed at 16 percent (16%), the street grade exceeds the City standard of 12 percent (12%) maximum grade. Further explanation of this issue is included in the Analysis section.
Pursuant to City Code Section 2.1.43, since the City Council did not adopt the resolution presented as part of the staff report, the decision remains pending until written findings are considered by the City Council at a subsequent meeting. Before a Resolution for denial could be prepared and presented to City Council for consideration, the applicant proposed modifications to the project to address design concerns, reduce reliance on Density Bonus waivers, and eliminate potential adverse impacts associated with the requested waivers. A similar situation occurred with the Grandview Pointe project (T15-00006) in 2018. The proposed modifications to the originally proposed project are listed below and include:
1. Adding variety of exterior materials to building elevations;
2. Removing rear-facing balconies on Lots 4, 5, 6, and 11;
3. Reducing the height of the retaining walls on Lots 5, 10, and 13;
4. Eliminating the requested waiver of the 36-foot height limit;
5. Eliminating the requested waiver of the 20-foot minimum driveway length;
6. Ensuring the cul-de-sac grade would conform to the five percent (5%) maximum grade requirement; and
7. Ensuring the driveway grades would conform to the City Engineering Design Manual.
Further descriptions of the modifications are included in the Analysis section.
ANALYSIS
The following analysis addresses and clarifies the City’s private street grade requirements and limitations, as well as the proposed modifications that have been incorporated into the project since it was last considered by the City Council at its January 10, 2024 meeting.
Maximum Street Grade
The City has adopted regulations on the maximum allowable street grade to ensure that necessary City services can be provided to the site and that residents and guests can access the site in a safe and convenient manner.
Section 3.8 of the City’s Engineering Design Manual (“Manual”) states that private streets shall not exceed 12 percent (12%) grade without prior written approval of the City Engineer. The Manual proceeds to state that the thickness of the asphalt shall be increased by one inch for every percentage of street grade exceeding 12 percent (12%), and that in no case shall a road exceed 18 percent (18%) grade. Prior to the January 24, 2024 public hearing, a written request was submitted by the applicant for a private street with 16 percent (16%) grade, which was approved by the City Engineer with conditions of approval. Conditions of approval include a requirement that if any portion of the roadway exceeds the 16 percent (16%) grade following construction, the contractor shall reconstruct such non-compliant sections. The draft City Council Resolution, included as Attachment 1, has been revised to include a condition of approval stipulating that the proposed project must comply with all conditions included in the letter signed by the City Engineer and the applicant dated May 20, 2024 (see Attachment 4).
The City’s Fire Department also allows streets over 12 percent (12%) grade subject to a similar review process. Section 11.18 of the Municipal Code specifies that street grades in excess of 12 percent (12%) must be approved by the Fire Marshall and are subject to additional mitigation measures as seen fit by the Fire Marshall. The Fire Marshall concurs with Engineering’s requirements and approves the proposed grade. A condition of approval was included for a road test to be conducted prior to occupancy, which would ensure that the subdivision could be adequately served in emergency situations.
Waste collection vehicles can access steeper streets than fire apparatuses, so the City’s Solid Waste Division deemed the proposed private street adequate, provided that it meets the requirements of the Fire Department.
As noted above, all relevant City departments reviewed the proposed 16 percent (16%) grade for the private street and consider the street grade request adequate and compliant with all applicable codes, regulations, and design standards. Staff has confirmed that the proposed 16 percent (16%) street grade does not represent a “Specific Adverse Impact,” as discussed in the latter portion of the Analysis below.
Project Modifications Subsequent to January 10, 2024 City Council Meeting
Following concerns from staff, the City Council, and the public, the applicant agreed to modify and/or clarify various elements of the proposed project as outlined below. An updated Density Bonus waiver and incentive table is provided in Table 1. The revised architectural plans and Tentative Tract Map are included as Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. Pertinent project information and details can be found in previous staff reports prepared for the proposed project (Attachment 5).
Architectural Accent Variety. Originally, the project was proposed with 11 three-story structures with identical floor plans and elevations and two (2) two-story structures with identical floor plans and elevations. Each of the residences were designed with stucco exteriors and a nominal amount of Hardie Board siding surrounding the garage, stairwell, and decks. Under the revised proposal, each subsequent residence would have a different accent material. For instance, Lot 1 would have horizontal accent siding, Lot 2 would have vertical board and batten accent siding, and Lot 3 would have shingle accents. That pattern would repeat throughout the subdivision. Garage door styles would also be varied on each successive lot. Elevations showing the revised materials can be found in Attachment 2.
Balcony Removal. Rear-facing, second-story balconies were removed from lots 4, 5, 6, and 11 to address concerns regarding surrounding residents’ privacy. The balcony removal is specific to lots that benefit from significantly reduced rear setbacks per the requested Density Bonus waivers.
Retaining Wall Height. Section 1050(U) of the Zoning Ordinance limits retaining wall height to six feet in rear and side yards and 42 inches in front yards. The proposed project originally included three retaining walls with heights ranging from 7 to 10 feet in the side and rear yards. The applicant has modified the plans in compliance with the six-foot limitation by reducing pad elevations on Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, and 13. The revised project eliminates the proposed waiver for the maximum height of retaining walls for rear and side yards. According to the applicant, complying with the 42-inch maximum retaining wall height in a front yard would not be feasible. Therefore, the applicant’s waiver request for the height of a retaining wall in the front-yard setback area remains.
Building Height. Plan A, which comprises 11 of the 13 proposed residences, is proposed at a height of 30.5 feet. While under the allowable height of the underlying RE-B zoning district, many of the residences were proposed to be constructed on elevated pads with the use of retaining walls. Since height is typically measured from grade, the use of retaining walls would have increased the overall height above 36 feet on lots 5 and 13. The applicant is now proposing to reduce the building pad elevations, and thus the height of the retaining walls, on the lots in question. This eliminates the need for a waiver as no structures would be proposed at heights over 36 feet as measured from the base of the retaining wall.
Driveway Length. Pursuant to Section 1050(DD) of the Zoning Ordinance, garages shall be setback at least 20 feet from the property line. This requirement mostly applies to side-loaded garages to provide adequate backup distance and to zoning districts which have shallower front setback requirements to ensure that vehicles are not parked over the sidewalk. The 25-foot required front yard setback in the RE-B district nullifies this requirement in most cases; however, because this project previously proposed to construct residences closer than 20 feet from the property line, a waiver was requested for both the 25-foot front yard setback requirement and the 20-foot minimum driveway length requirement.
Lots 4, 5, and 6 were previously proposed with driveways less than 20 feet in depth. Each of the three subject residences have been shifted approximately two feet towards the rear of the lots. This modification has brought the proposed project into compliance with the 20-foot minimum driveway length requirement, thereby eliminating the need for a waiver. As no changes were proposed to the floor plans of the proposed structures, Lots 4, 5 and 6 are now proposed with rear setbacks of approximately 18 feet, 10 feet, and 5 feet respectively.
Maximum Cul-de-Sac Grade. The originally proposed project included a turnaround to be constructed in excess of 15 percent (15%) grade. Pursuant to Table 3-1 of the Circulation Element, the grade of a cul-de-sac turnaround shall not exceed five percent (5%). To meet the City’s five percent (5%) maximum grade limit, the applicant is proposing additional earthwork reducing the building pad elevations past the cul-de-sac. The subject building pads were largely level with the current elevation of Crouch Street. This modification would result in building pads approximately eight to ten feet below the current elevation of Crouch Street. By insetting the proposed residences at the highest point of the project, visual impacts to the community to the east of the project would be reduced. Manufactured slopes in the rear yards of the subject lots would serve as a smooth transition from the upper lots to Crouch Street as opposed to a perimeter retaining wall.
Maximum Driveway Grade. Similar to the maximum allowable street grade, the Engineering Design Manual limits the allowable grade of private driveways to 18 percent (18%). As stated above, the project has been revised to include additional earthwork resulting in lower building pad elevations and thus shallower proposed driveway grades; this modification to the proposed project would be in compliance with the City’s Engineering Design Manual.
Table 1
|
Development Standard |
Zoning (RE-B) Standard |
Proposed* |
Notes |
|
Minimum Lot Area |
10,000 sf |
2,752 sf |
Waiver |
|
Minimum Lot Width |
70 feet |
29 feet |
Waiver |
|
Maximum Lot Depth/Width Ratio |
2.5 to 1 |
3.6:1 |
Waiver |
|
Minimum Setbacks |
|
Front |
25 feet |
20 feet |
Waiver |
|
Side |
7.5 feet |
4 feet |
Waiver |
|
Corner Side |
15 feet |
4 feet |
Waiver |
|
Rear |
20 feet |
4.5 feet |
Waiver |
|
Minimum Driveway Length |
20 feet |
20 feet |
Revised to Comply with Code |
|
Maximum Height |
36 feet |
36 feet |
Revised to Comply with Code |
|
Maximum Wall Height |
6 feet (3.5 feet in front yard) |
6 feet |
Waiver for front yard standard only |
|
Minimum Site Landscaping |
50% in front yard |
34% in front yard |
Waiver |
|
Minimum Tree Canopy |
12% |
24% |
Complies with Code |
|
Minimum Permeable Surface |
22% |
44% |
Complies with Code |
|
Minimum Usable Open Space |
300sf per unit |
>300sf per unit |
Complies with Code |
|
Parking (Maximum required by Density Bonus Law) |
0-1 bedroom: 1 parking space 2-3 bedrooms: 1.5 parking spaces 3+ bedrooms: 2.5 parking spaces |
Floorplan A: 5 parking spaces (3-car garage + driveway) Floorplan B: 4 parking spaces (2-car garage + driveway) |
Complies with City Code & Density Bonus Law |
|
Undergrounding of Overhead Utilities |
|
|
Concession |
Given the modifications incorporated by the applicant and further analysis of the maximum allowable street grade, staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised proposed project. The applicant has made a good faith effort to address issues raised before the City Council, enhance the quality and design of the project, and improve its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, while still maintaining allowances afforded under State Density Bonus Law necessary to construct the project at its proposed density. With more visual variety, greater privacy afforded to the surrounding property owners, and less visual intrusion, the revised proposed project represents a significant improvement to the original project. The proposed modifications also eliminated the need for waivers of the maximum allowable height and the minimum driveway length.
The proposed project complies with the Housing Accountability Act. Under Government Code section 65589.5(j), when a project is consistent with the applicable objective general plan, zoning or subdivision standards in effect when the project was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes either to deny the project or impose a condition that it be developed at a lower density, the agency is required to base its decision on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that the project would have a specific adverse impact which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), a specific adverse impact is defined as a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” The receipt of a density bonus, including applicable concessions or waivers, pursuant to Density Bonus Law (Government Code § 65915) does not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable general plan, zoning or subdivision standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In accordance with CEQA, staff finds that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Article 19 Section 15332 “In-fill Development Projects.” The project site is located in an urbanized area, and would not result in any significant environmental effects.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact.
COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE REPORT
On October 9, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed project based on its initial design. After due consideration, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 (Balma, Malik - no) to approve the proposed project.
CITY ATTORNEY’S ANALYSIS
The City Council is authorized to hold a public hearing in this matter. Consideration of the matter should be based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing. After conducting the public hearing, the Council shall affirm, modify or deny the project. The supporting documents have been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney
end
Prepared by: Dane Thompson, Planner II
Reviewed by: Darlene Nicandro, Development Services Director
Submitted by: Jonathan Borrego, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Resolution upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the project
2. Revised Architectural Plans
3. Revised Tentative Track Map
4. Deviation from Engineering Design Manual Letter, Dated May 20, 2024
5. City Council Staff Report, Dated January 10, 2024