CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 24, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.___-22
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT, USE PERMIT,
MINOR SUBDIVISION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT
(PLN 21-0294) FOR THE 490 GOLF CLUB ROAD PROJECT (CHOICE IN AGING – ADULT DAY CARE, CHOICE IN LEARNING – CHILD
DAY CARE, AND SATELLITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ASSOCIATION – 81 UNIT AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING) AT 490 GOLF CLUB ROAD (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 153-030-004)
SYNOPSIS
Choice In Aging/Choice In Learning and Satellite Affordable Housing Association (Applicant) is requesting a Use Permit, Minor Subdivision, Development Plan Permit and Architectural Review Permit for the development of three individual facilities, Adult Day Care - Choice in Aging (CiA), General Child Care - Choice in Learning (CiL) and Affordable Senior Housing - Satellite Affordable Housing Association (SAHA), that would operate as one campus. The request has been reviewed by the Architectural Review and Planning Commissions, and both have recommended the City Council approve the request.
DISCUSSION
A. Project Description
The Applicant is requesting approval of Architectural Review and Development Plan Permits that include the demolition of one existing, one-story adult day care facility and demolition of an existing, one-story pre-school building. The two permits would also include the development of three new facilities (an adult day care facility, a Montessori pre-school facility and a four-story affordable senior housing residential facility) and associated site improvements to include 127 parking spaces, private roads, landscape areas and tree removals. The four-acre site was recently rezoned from R-7 Single Family Residential - High Density zoning district to a PUD (Planned Unit Development District - Specific Plan), and an accompanying General Plan Amendment was recently adopted to change the General Plan land use designation on 1.46-acres of the four-acre project site from Semi-Public & Institutional to Multi-Family Very High Density (Allowed Density:
41-73 dwelling units per net acre). The proposed density would be 73 dwelling units per net acre (based on 1.12 net acres).
The Minor Subdivision (Tentative Tract Map) is a request to subdivide the four-acre project site into three legal parcels consisting of Parcel A (1.83 acres), Parcel B (0.72 acres) and Parcel C (1.44 acres). The parcels would be developed as follows:
Parcel A is proposed to accommodate the CiA and CiL facilities. Parcel B is proposed to remain undeveloped with the possibility of being developed in the future with a medical offices and an assisted living facility. Parcel C would be developed with the affordable senior housing facility (SAHA).
The City Council will consider the ARC’s and Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the request and will take final action.
B. Background and Project Location
1. Background
The facility, initially opened in 1949, was known as the Mt. Diablo Therapy Center and served those that were afflicted with polio. Over the years, as polio was eradicated, the facility added/modified its services, expanded the building footprint, and merged with other service providers until it was renamed Rehabilitation Services of Northern California (RSNC) in 1984. Most recently, the facility has been renamed Choice in Aging to better reflect the services offered.
The following is a summary of recent activity relative to the proposed project:
November and December 2020 - The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and PC both held public hearings on the request and recommended the City Council approve the proposed PUD Concept/Specific Plan, and associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. January and February 2021 - The CC approved Application No. PLN 18-0445 for the General Plan Amendment request (to change 1.46 acres of the fouracre project site from Semi-Public Institutional to Multi-Family Very High Density - 41-73 dwelling units per net acre), a PUD Rezoning application, including the associated PUD Concept/Specific Plan and zoning map amendment, and adoption of the associated Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment H - City Council Ordinance No. 942).
The Rezoning request established a PUD Planned Unit Development District/Specific Plan (Ordinance 942) on the entirety of the four-acre project site. The approved Concept/Specific Plan includes the following:
1. Relocation of the existing Choice in Aging (adult day care facility) and Choice in Learning (Montessori pre-school facility) on the site.
2. Development of an 82-unit (four-story) affordable senior housing project that would have a maximum allowed density of 73 dwelling units per net acre based on 1.12 net acres (and a maximum allowed density of approximately 56 dwelling units per gross acre based on 1.46 gross acres).
3. Development of a medical clinic and three-story assisted living facility.
4. Site improvements including new landscaping, 127 on-site parking spaces (consisting of 94 spaces on the project site and 33 spaces located within a vehicular access easement), site lighting, and retention basin areas.
Architectural Review Commission Meeting - November 18, 2021 The ARC held a public hearing on the request and recommended approval with the adoption of ARC Resolution No. 03-21, to the Planning Commission and City Council.
The ARC’s recommendations are subject to recommended findings and conditions of approval (Attachment I - ARC Resolution 03-21). No individuals from the public spoke on the item.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 14, 2021
The PC held a public hearing on the request and recommended approval of the request with the adoption of PC Resolution No. 22-21, to the City Council. The PC’s recommendations are subject to the recommended findings and conditions of approval (Attachment J - PC Resolution 22-21). No individuals from the public spoke on the item.
2. Project Location
The four-acre project site (consisting of one legal parcel) is located on the north side of Golf Club Road and is addressed as 490 Golf Club Road; Assessor Parcel Number 153- 030-004.
C. General Information
1. General Plan
The General Plan designates the four-acre project site as follows: (1) western 2.54 acres of the site as Semi-Public and Institutional and (2) eastern 1.46 acres as MultiFamily Very High Density - (41-73 dwelling units per net acre).
2. Zoning
The existing zoning designation for the entirety of the four-acre project site is PUD - Planned Unit Development District/Specific Plan (Ordinance No. 942).
3. Site Description and Existing Land Use
The four-acre site (consisting of one legal parcel) is currently developed with multiple single-story buildings, a surface parking facility and landscaping. The site currently includes an adult day care facility and general day care use (pre-school). The site is relatively flat with an upslope located in the northeast corner of the site. The sole access to the site is an extensive shared vehicle easement that connects the project site to the north side of Golf Club Road.
4. Surrounding Zoning and Uses
Zoning Uses
North Multi-Family Residential - Low
Density
Condominiums/Townhouses
South R-7 Single Family Residential - High
Density District
Diablo Valley Junior College
Parking Facility
East MFR - Low Density Condominiums/Townhouses
West PUD Planned Unit District -
Ordinance 723 and Contra Costa
County Open Space
Contra Costa Country Club,
Single Family Residential Homes,
and Contra Costa Canal Corridor
Surrounding uses and zoning include multi-story, multi-family residences in the MultiFamily Residential - Low Density area to the north and to the east. To the south, the project site abuts a Diablo Valley Junior College surface-parking facility located in the R-7 Single Family Residential - High Density district and to the west, across the Contra Costa Canal open space corridor, are single family homes located within the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa Country Club with a PUD Ordinance 723 zoning designation.
D. Necessary Findings
Necessary findings for the project, including the proposed Use Permit, Development Plan Permit, Architectural Review Permit and Minor Subdivision are in recommended City Council Resolution No. ___-22 (Attachment B).
ANALYSIS
A. General Plan Consistency
The project is consistent with multiple General Plan goals/programs/policies, which are cited in Attachment B (City Council Resolution: see Development Plan Permit Finding No. 3). In addition, many of the same General Plan goals/programs/policies are cited in City Council Resolution No. 8-21, which both approved the applicable General Plan Amendment on January 25, 2021, and certified the associated IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed project.
B. Conformance with Zoning (Approved PUD Concept/Specific Plan) The entire four-acre project site is currently zoned PUD Planned Unit Development District/Specific Plan (Ordinance No. 942, Attachment I). As part of the PUD zoning designation, is a Concept/Specific Plan that identifies a component of multi-family residential (affordable housing for seniors) and an adult day care facility and pre-school facility and includes site-specific development standards tailored to the particular project site and proposed development. As part of this request, the applicant is proposing to comply with each of the approved PUD Concept/Specific Plan development standards contained in Attachment E.
Section 18.30.040 (Development Regulations) governs site features such as minimum area, residential unit density, performance standards and other miscellaneous development regulations.
Performance standards. The performance standards prescribed by PHMC § 18.50.060 apply.
The project will be conditioned to comply, and/or address in the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, all performance standards, including, but not be limited to: noise, vibration, odors, hazardous materials, etc. Other development regulations. Other development regulations shall be complied with as prescribed in the PUD Concept/Specific plan.
Further discussion and analysis of the proposed components of the project follows:
1. Parking.
Vehicle Parking: The applicant is proposing 127 total parking spaces for the initial build-out of parcels A and C, consisting of 94 spaces onsite and 33 spaces to be located within the vehicular easement that connects the project site to the Golf Club Road public right-of-way. Four of the 94 parking spaces on the project site would consist of shuttle pick-up/drop-off spaces along the front of the Choice in Aging facility on the west side of Parcel A.
A parking study was completed as part of the PUD Concept/Specific Plan that included the proposed project (contained as part of the adopted IS/MND). The study concluded that the future (full) build-out of the project (which may consist of the medical clinic and assisted living facility on Parcel B), would need to provide 144 parking spaces.
However, the project as proposed is not the full build-out. The proposed project does not currently include the medical clinic and assisted living facility that is cited as potential land uses in the approved PUD Concept/Specific Plan. For the initial development of Parcel A (CiA & CiL) and Parcel C (SAHA senior affordable housing) the project is required to provide 121 parking spaces, where 127 parking spaces are proposed, for an excess of six parking spaces. Full build-out of the project, would require further analysis or additional parking supply to meet the 144 parking space demand.
Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking: Section 18.55.070.A (Electric Vehicle Parking) of the Zoning Ordinance requires electric vehicle parking, as specified by the Architectural Review Permit, Use Permit and Development Plan Permit. The PUD Concept/Specific Plan requires at least five EV parking spaces, with the applicant proposing six EV parking spaces on the project site.
Bicycle Parking: Section 18.55.070.B (Bicycle Parking) of the Zoning Ordinance requires bicycle parking for non-residential district projects only. The PUD Concept/Specific Plan requires, and the applicant is proposing, provision of a bicycle parking facility (to accommodate no less than 16 bicycles) in the green common area to serve residents/visitors/employees.
Motorcycle Parking: Section 18.55.070.E (Motorcycle Parking) of the Zoning Ordinance requires no less than one motorcycle parking space for commercial, office or industrial uses over 10,000 square feet. The PUD Concept/Specific Plan requires, and the applicant is proposing, provision of one motorcycle parking space to serve visitors and/or employees.
2. Setbacks.
On Parcels A and B the minimum proposed interior side yard setback is 0 feet, which is compliant with the approved PUD Concept/Specific Plan. All other setbacks on Parcels A, B and C would be compliant with PUD Concept/Specific Plan standards. In addition, substantial setbacks (ranging from 39 to 75 feet) will be provided from the proposed buildings to existing surrounding development. Therefore, based on location and design, the ARC and the PC made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed project setbacks including those for internal uses.
3. Solid Waste Facilities.
Trash areas would be internal (i.e. part of the associated building’s floor plan) and provided as follows: (1) one 246 square-foot trash area with a roll-up metal door, located in the northwest corner of the CiA building, that would be utilized by the CiA and CiL uses, and (2) one 185 square-foot area, accessed by double-wide hinged doors, on the ground floor of the SAHA building’s east elevation. Lastly, smaller trash receptacles would be located throughout the central open space area for use by patrons, visitors and residents of the campus (see trash receptacle details on plan sheet L4.00 in Attachment D).
4. Landscape and Tree Replacement.
Landscaping for the site (including both soft-scape and hardscape components) will include: (1) upper and lower terraces for the senior housing facility (Parcel C), (2) playground areas for the pre-school facility, (3) a memory garden for the adult day care facility, and (4) a central garden area.
Of the 212 existing trees located within the four-acre project site, 168 trees are proposed to be removed, including 60 Coast Live Oak trees and four Valley Oak trees. Of the 168 trees to be removed, 77 trees are “protected” trees (consisting of 49 native trees and 28 non-native trees) in accordance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. Lastly, there would be retention of 44 existing trees in addition to 148 new trees (26 of which consist of 24 Coast Live Oak trees and two Valley Oak trees) for a total of 192 trees to provide screening from most adjacent perspectives. Lastly, the applicant provided a tree protection plan (see Plan sheet L2.22 in Attachment D) for the 44 trees to remain, which may be impacted by construction activities.
In addition to trees, other landscape improvements would be native plants and lowmaintenance flowering plants and shrubs to provide a variety of color, shade and texture on the campus. The proposed landscaping, in relation to the building textures and colors, are designed to evoke the feeling of “joy” which is the primary theme of the campus.
Also, outdoor areas for the adult day health care programs will provide short and long walking paths, seating areas of various sizes, and separation via fencing so that program areas can be maintained. Lastly, the community garden area will provide therapeutic activities for participants and residents.
5. Fences and Walls.
The approved PUD Concept/Specific Plan requires that fence heights be limited to eight feet for perimeter fencing and six feet for all other locations (excluding fencing on retaining walls). In addition, fencing on (or near to) a retaining wall would be required to comply with the applicable zoning ordinance development standard. The design guidelines contained in the approved PUD Concept/Specific Plan also encourages that any retaining walls on the site be minimized in height (six feet tall) to the greatest extent feasible.
Interior fencing, to delineate the multiple uses on the campus, would primarily consist of a redwood picket fence design (with varying picket widths) anchored by blue steel posts and steel gates. The perimeter fencing along the south property line (abutting the DVC overflow parking area) would consist of steel-welded wire anchored by blue steel posts.
Fence details can be reviewed on plan sheets L4.01 and L4.02 in Attachment D.
The fencing and wall plans reviewed by the ARC and PC did not include design details (i.e. general design, dimensions, materials, colors) in regards to the perimeter fencing and all retaining walls. As a result, the ARC and PC adopted Resolutions included the following condition of approval:
Recommended Architectural Review Permit Condition 1.2: The applicant shall submit detailed plans, drawn to scale, to indicate the location, design, height, materials and colors of: (1) all retaining walls (interior and perimeter) and (2) all perimeter fencing.
In addition, the plan shall include any modifications to perimeter plant species in accordance with Architectural Review Commission direction. The plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the ARC prior to issuance of a Building Permit, but not prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. (Attachment B - City Council Resolution No. ___-22).
6. Lighting.
In accordance with the approved PUD Concept/Specific Plan, freestanding light standards are required to comply with the City’s 24-foot maximum light standard height.
As a result, the applicant is proposing freestanding light features to be compliant with the maximum light height allowed in the PUD Concept/Specific Plan. More specifically, the site would accommodate 31 freestanding single-head pole lights (16 feet and 20 feet tall) and eight 10-foot tall pole lights. Lastly, the applicant submitted a compliant photometric study associated with the proposed site lighting. Lighting details and the photometric studies can be reviewed on plan sheets P-1 through P-10 in Attachment D.
7. Open Space.
Parcel C of the approved PUD Concept/Specific Plan contains a senior affordable multifamily housing component. This parcel, by itself does not have adequate opportunities for necessary open space. To address this potential short fall in open space, the approved PUD Concept/Specific Plan allows open space provisions for the senior affordable multi-family housing component to be satisfied by open space opportunities throughout the entire PUD area (including Parcels A & B). The PUD Concept/Specific Plan supports this concept as the entire project area has unrestricted access to each component, and therefore is structured as a campus and the uses throughout the PUD are complementary.
8. Density.
The recently approved General Plan designation (Multi-Family Residential Very High Density) on Parcel C allows a density of 41 to 73 units per net acre. As a result, the proposed 73 units per net acre (based on 1.12 net acres) complies with the current General Plan designation and the current PUD Concept/Specific Plan.
9. Scale and Mass of Structures.
The ARC and the PC recommended approval of the project’s scale/massing, primarily citing the project’s high quality architecture and siting of the three- and four-story residential structure, in addition to the two-story adult day care facility (see Architectural Review Permit Findings in Attachment B - City Council Resolution No. __-22).
10. Architecture
The approved PUD Concept/Specific Plan includes provisions related to siting and setbacks of buildings to minimize impacts from surrounding properties, and allows building architecture and colors of “whimsical joy” and forms for elder care and preschool users. The PUD Concept/Specific Plan also encourages open space and light access in connection with access to usable green and open spaces. The proposed design is intended in part, to address the needs of seniors and those with memory care issues, the primary users of the facilities. Thus, the proposed project design is compatible with the design guidelines contained in the approved PUD Concept/Specific Plan which include, but are not limited to: (1) consistency with the City Wide Design Guidelines, (2) provision of amenities to nurture the health and well-being of patrons/visitors/residents associated with an Aging in Place campus, (3) use of bright colors and whimsical forms to challenge the traditional elder care setting and borrow from the pre-school elements to evoke the sense of “joy, (4) maximization of daylighting and outdoor connections through large windows and doors, and (5) provision of a planned green roof at CiA for outdoor space dedicated to the staff.
The ARC recommended approval of the project’s architectural design theme, primarily citing multiple materials and colors on the various structures. In addition, the applicant submitted photo simulations to provide a visual representation of the proposed buildings (mass, height, etc.) as seen from various adjacent perspectives (Attachment F).
Potential impacts (shadowing, views, privacy, aesthetics, etc.) from the proposed number of building stories (to include three and four stories) and building heights (36 to 49 feet), would be minimized by the proposed significant setbacks (39 to 75 feet), ample perimeter landscape (trees for screening) and multiple architectural design features (to include varied façade setbacks, materials and colors). Neither the ARC nor PC expressed any concerns with the multiple story buildings, building design or compatibility while reviewing/recommending the Architectural Review Permit.
Choice in Aging (CiA): The exterior walls of the building would consist of wood panels, stucco (painted beige) with fiber cement panels to accommodate bright colors to the entry portal and color accents around the building. Geometric windows are inset into the building with color surrounds to bring subtle color accents to play off the adjacent pre-school facility.
Choice in Learning (CiL): The colors and patterns (i.e. colorful circles) on the exterior walls of the pre-school facility are intended to be whimsical to provide interest for the young age group attending the facility. The building would reflect the same wood panels, stucco and fiber cement panel materials of the CIA building.
Senior Housing: The facility would exhibit the same wood panels, stucco and fiber cement panel materials as the CiA and CiL facilities to provide a cohesive design theme. In addition, the various colors and materials would create a massing appearance of multiple buildings rather than one contiguous building. The building’s entry is accented with a color portal to match that of the CiA and CiL portals.
11. Contra Costa Fire Protection District
During the first entitlement phase of the project (General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and IS/MND) the County Fire Protection District considered requiring the provision of a second emergency vehicle access (EVA) easement for the project. However, since that time, the County Fire Protection District has provided clearance for the project to be served with the existing EVA easement that connects the four-acre project site to the north side of Golf Club Road. Note: Provision of a second EVA or an alternative approved by the Fire District is an IS/MND mitigation measure, thus, this provision has been satisfied.
C. Compatibility
The surrounding area includes a mix of single and multi-family residences, a junior college campus and a mix of offices and commercial uses to the west. Therefore, the proposed design and physical development (adult day care, multi-family residential and general day care) could continue to be determined to be compatible with surrounding physical development. In addition, the PUD Concept/Specific Plan allows the additional height and four-story senior housing facility because it was found to be compatible with the area and consistent with the City-Wide Design Guidelines.
To provide an illustrative example of the results of the approved PUD Concept/Specific Plan, the applicant completed photo simulations of the project from surrounding views.
The photo simulations were designed to provide the “worst-case” scenario from surrounding views. Many of the views are obstructed by either existing buildings and/or vegetation (Attachment F).
As previously determined through adoption of the PUD Concept/Specific Plan, the project design is compatible with the surrounding area by including adequate buffers from surrounding uses, using design techniques (such as varied roof styles, varied exterior wall treatments, trellis features, staggered façade setbacks, multiple building color schemes, etc.), incorporating architectural styles (use of wood panels and stucco) that are compatible with the surrounding area, using building materials and colors that are compatible with surrounding single family and multi-family homes and the use of landscaping throughout the site. Lastly, the taller buildings of the project are compatible with the DVC Junior College that includes large buildings within the adjacent school campus.
The two proposed land uses (adult day care facility and general day care facility) are appropriate for the project site and compatible with the adjacent residential and school uses as the two proposed uses have been operating on the site for several years without issues and appropriate for the mixed uses in the area. The proposed senior housing is also compatible with the existing multi-family uses in the surrounding area. In addition, the proposed uses have been analyzed in this report and in the associated, and previously adopted IS/MND, to ensure that parking, noise and operational impacts are not in conflict or result in negative effects to properties and users within the vicinity of the site.
D. Conformance with City Wide Design Guidelines
The Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission both considered the project’s substantial conformance with Citywide Design Guidelines. Both Commissions found the project to be consistent with specific Citywide Design Guidelines (Attachment B: Recommended City Council Resolution ___-22).
E. Use Permit Findings
In accordance with Section 18.95.020, a Use Permit is required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses and area. In addition, findings must be made by the City Council prior to approval of the Use Permit (see UP Findings in Attachment B - City Council Resolution No. ___-22).
In accordance with the approved PUD Concept/Specific Plan, a Use Permit is required for the new/expanded adult day care facility (CiA) and the new/expanded general day care facility (CiL).
More specifically, the Use Permit request is as follows:
Choice in Aging (CiA): An approximate 24,750 square foot adult day care use facility with a maximum number of elderly participants to be no more than 60 individuals and with a maximum of 35 employees at any one time. Operating day/hours limited to Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Choice in Learning (CiL): Expansion from an approximate 5,000 square foot Montessori pre-school facility to an approximate 7,000 square foot Montessori preschool facility (general day care use) with a maximum enrollment of no more than 90 children, ages 2-6, and a maximum of five employees at any one time. Operating day/hours would be limited to Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Historically, the adult day care use (Choice in Aging) has operated without an approved Use Permit as the use was established prior to City incorporation, which would have been required under the previous R-7 zoning district. The existing adult day care facility is 26,200 gross square feet, where the new facility would be 24,750 gross square feet. As a result, there would be an approximate 1,500 square-foot reduction in gross floor area and an increase in number of stories from one-story to two-stories.
The proposed days/hours of operation for the Choice in Learning facility are not proposed to be modified from the Use Permit approved by the Zoning Administrator on July 16, 1989 (CUP application no. 517-89) (see Attachment M). In addition, the proposed maximum number of children (90) is the same as the maximum capacity approved in 1989. Therefore, the only modification from that of the current pre-school operation is a 2,000 square-foot increase in the gross floor area of the pre-school facility.
Thus, since both facilities have been operating historically without complaints, it is expected this would continue with the new facility. The Planning Commission reviewed the Use Permit and recommended approval of the request to the City Council, as proposed.
F. Development Plan Permit Findings
In accordance with Section 18.90.020, a Development Plan Permit is required to be reviewed by the City Council to ensure quality of design. In addition, findings must be made by the City Council prior to approval of the Development Plan Permit (see DP Findings in Attachment B - City Council Resolution No. ___-22). The Planning Commission reviewed the Development Plan Permit and recommended approval of the request to the City Council, as proposed.
G. Architectural Review Permit Findings
The Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Architectural Review Permit and made a recommendation to approve the project, as proposed. A detailed analysis of the permit request can be found in the November 18, 2021 Architectural Review Commission Staff Report (Attachment I). In addition, findings must be made by the City Council prior to approval of the Architectural Review Permit (see AR Permit Findings in Attachment B - City Council Resolution No. ___-22).
H. Minor Subdivision Findings
When reviewing and approving a Minor Subdivision the City Council must make findings of conformance with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the project must comply, or substantially comply, with the standards contained in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (Title 17 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code).
More specifically, in accordance with Chapter 17.25 of the PHMC, the findings contained in Attachment B (City Council Resolution No. ___-22) must be made by the City Council prior to approval of the Minor Subdivision (Tentative Tract Map). The Planning Commission reviewed the Minor Subdivision and recommended approval of the request to the City Council, as proposed.
I. Engineering Comments
The Engineering Division reviewed the proposed three-lot subdivision and associated offsite improvements, including driveway, sidewalk, curb and gutter, and the storm drain system in the public right-of-way. The review also included parking, vehicular access, and both pedestrian and traffic circulation and proposed site grading, drainage and stormwater treatment. After review, the Engineering Division provided appropriate conditions of approval for the project including, but not limited to, frontage improvements, easements, and necessary utility and infrastructure improvements for the proposed project (see Engineering Division recommended conditions of approval in Attachment B).
CEQA
The City adopted a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, consisting of nine mitigation measures for the project when the initial approval of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning occurred for the proposed project. This document also included review of the current project proposal before the City Council (Attachments K and L).
CONCLUSION
Approval of the four associated entitlements would result in long-term redevelopment of an underutilized site developed with a semi-public institutional building occupied by an adult care and pre-school use. The proposed project would improve the site with a new affordable senior housing development, a new and expanded adult care and child care facility including updated landscaping, and other various site improvements. The proposed project has been reviewed by the ARC and PC and both recommended approval of the project, with adoption of ARC Resolution No. 03-21 and PC Resolution No. 22-21.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page. A notice of the public hearing was mailed to each residence and/or owner of properties within 500 feet of the project site in addition to outside agencies and Native American Governments that provided written comments related to the CEQA document (Draft IS/MND).
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the proposed Resolution.
ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Adopt the proposed resolution with modifications. 2. Provide further direction to staff pertaining to the proposed resolution and continue consideration to a subsequent City Council Meeting. 3. Do not adopt the proposed resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Location Map
Attachment B Staff Recommended City Council Resolution __-22 Attachment C Development Plan Permit Analysis and Use Permit Analysis Attachment D Project Plans: Minor Subdivision, Use Permit and Site Improvements related to Development Plan Permit and Architectural Review Permit Attachment E Approved Development Standards Table in PUD Concept/Specific Plan
Attachment F Applicant’s Photo Simulations
Attachment G Applicant’s Arborist Report Amendment dated January 6, 2021 Attachment H City Council Ordinance No. 942 adopted on February 22, 2021 Attachment I ARC Letter of Action dated November 19, 2021 (including Architectural Review Commission Resolution No. 03-21)
Attachment J PC Letter of Action dated December 16, 2021 (including Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-21)
Attachment K Adopted Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Appendices can be viewed at the Planning Division)
Attachment L Approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment M Zoning Administrator Approval Letter for Use Permit CUP 517-89 Attachment N Comments from Outside Agencies
Attachment O Public Hearing Notice
Prepared by: Jeff Olsen, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager