Community Development
DATE: January 11, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
(List all relevant/responsive staff
persons)
Lina Velasco, Community Development Director
Hector Lopez, Senior Planner
Subject:
(This will appear on the agenda)
Appeal of Planning Commission’s approval of a
conditional use permit and design review (PLN20-043)
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no costs to the general fund associated with these actions.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
(List all dates items were heard or
council action took place)
Click or tap here to enter text.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
On October 18, 2021, an appeal was filed by Claire
Arbour, Simon Winer, and Ron Elson, property owners of
360 Western Avenue, objecting to the Planning
Commission’s conditional approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review (PLN20 -043) to construct a
two-story, single-family residence on a vacant parcel , within the -S, Shoreline overlay district, at 35 7 Western Drive.
AGENDA
REPORT
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
(This will appear on the agenda)
ADOPT a Resolution Denying the Appeal and Affirming
the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of a
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review, to construct
a single-family residence on a vacant parcel located
within the -S, Shoreline Overlay district at 357 Western Avenue – Community Development Department (Lina
Velasco 510-620-6706). This item was continued from
the December 7, 2021, meeting. The public hearing is
closed on this item; for council discussion and
resolution only.
DISCUSSION:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The subject property (“project site”) is a 6,000 square foot parcel located on Western Drive, between Santa Fe Avenue and Casey Drive in the Point Richmond neighborhood.
The L-shaped parcel was created through a subdivision with the abutting parcel to the north.
The proposed project is a 2,340 square foot, two -story structure, consisting of three bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a 440 square foot, two-car garage to be constructed on a vacant 6,000 square foot parcel (see Project Plans in Exhibit B).
In 2009, the Planning Commission and City Council on appeal approved a parcel map, with conditions requiring the future residence on the subject lot be visually compatible with surrounding buildings. In addition, the parcel map was conditioned to provide two visual corridors to maintain views of the San Francisco Bay and restricting building heights and window placement (see attached Resolution No.128-09 in Attachment 2).
Zoning Analysis:
The proposed residential use requires a conditional use permit since the project site is located within the -S, Shoreline Overlay zone. In addition, a two -story structure requires major Design Review by the Design Review Board (DRB). Since the conditional use permit requires Planning Commission approval, the DRB review is in the form of a recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Design Review Board Recommendation: On November 18, 2020, the DRB held a public hearing to consider a recommendation on the project design to the Planning Commission. The DRB and staff recommended that the applicant make additional changes and return to the DRB for a recommendation at a fu ture meeting. During the DRB’s deliberation, the applicant stated that they did not want to make any additional changes to the design and instead requested that a vote be taken. Given that the Board wanted additional changes to be incorporated into the de sign to make the proposed design more compatible with surrounding structures, the DRB unanimously voted 7 -0 to recommend denial of the proposed design to the Planning Commission based on the applicant’s desire to not make additional design changes.
Planning Commission Review: On February 4, April 1, September 16, and October 7, 2021, the Planning Commission held public hearings to consider the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for the proposed project. During the hearing, several neighbors expressed their opposition to the proposed design. The neighbors expressed SITE
that modifying the butterfly roof to be a flat roof would reduce the height and massing of the structure.
The applicant stated that the project design had already been modified to reduce t he height and address other comments provided by the DRB. During its deliberations, the Planning Commission expressed that a compromise between the desires of the applicant and the neighbors was appropriate. The Planning Commission directed staff to draft findings and conditions for approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review with the following modifications:
1. The design of the roof be modified to decrease the slope of the butterfly roof and/or ceiling height to reduce the overall height.
2. The metal roofing material be coated to ensure it is non-reflective.
3. A green wall or landscaping be incorporated on the north elevation to reduce the massing and bulk of the building.
APPEAL ACTION:
Pursuant to Section 15.04.803.140.E of the Zoning Ordinance , t he City Council determines whether an underlying decision is supported by substantial evidence and/or constitutes an abuse of discretion. The same standards and evaluation criteria, including the findings required, apply as they were for the original application. The appellate body's review is limited to the issue(s) raised in the petition for the appeal.
The City Council may affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. When a decision is modified or reversed, the City Council must state the specific reasons for modification or reversal. The City Council may also choose to refer a matter back to the Planning Commission or Design Review Board for further consideration and a decision if significant new evidence is presented in conjunction with the appeal, which may include substantial changes to the original proposal.
BASIS OF APPEAL:
The appeal letter (see Attachment 1) submitted by Claire Arbour, Simon Winer, and Ron Elson (“Appellants”) asserts the Planning Commission decision was in error because the process lacked information presented to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission to make an informed decision.
Staff’s Response to Issues Raised in the Appeal:
Pursuant to Section 15.04.803.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, when multiple applications that require public hearing are filed for the same project, all issues shall be heard together by the review authority with the most authority, and other review bodies sh all provide recommendations to that review authority. If a project requires design review, and a conditional use permit, the Design Review Board shall make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. In this case, the DRB unanimously voted 7 -0 to recommend denial of the proposed design to the Planning Commission based on the applicant’s refusal to make design changes to enable the DRB to make the required
Design Review findings. Following the DRB meeting, the applicant agreed to make additional design changes requested by the Planning Commission to address concerns and comments raised. The applicant made some modifications to the project and provided additional exhibits demonstrating the impact of proposed project on Bay views from Western Drive. Based on the new information provided at or prior to the meeting held on September 16, 2021, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the project.
With respect to the issue that the property is not adequately served by public facilities and services, such as water, sewer, and other public facilities, it is uncertain at this time.
It has been suggested that there will be a moratorium for parcels located with the tributary of the Keller Beach line; however, no moratorium has been considered by the City Council.
In staff’s opinion, there were no abused of discretion by the Planning Commission since the Design Review Board decision was only a recommendation and ultimately many of the design comments requested by the DRB were eventually integrated into the final project design.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed project complies with the RL-1, Single-family Very Low Density Residential District regulations and is consistent with the Hillside Residential land use designation under the General Plan. T he revised design repre sents a significant improvement and relates well to the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. The revised design approved by the Planning Commission addressed many of the concerns raised by the public comments, including reducing the overall building height and slope of the butterfly roof.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
EXHIBIT A: Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Commission’s
conditional approval
EXHIBIT B: Project Plans
Attachment 1: Appeal letter from surrounding neighbor at 360 Western Drive Attachment 2: PC Resolution No.128-09