Community Development
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
(List all relevant/responsive staff
persons)
Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development
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)
December 2, 2021 , January 11, 2022 , and January 18,
2022
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 Drive, 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 va cant parcel , within the RL1 zoning district and -S, Shoreline overlay district, at 357 Western Drive.
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 RL1 zoning district and -S, Shoreline overlay district at 357 Western Drive – Community Development
Department (Lina Velasco 510-620-6706). This item was
continued from the December 7 , 2021 , January 11 ,
2022, and January 18, 2022 meetings. The public
AGENDA
REPORT
hearing is closed on this item; for council discussion
and resolution only.
DISCUSSION:
On October 18, 2021, an appeal (see Attachment 4) was filed by Claire Arbour, Simon Winer, and Ron Elson, property owners of 360 Western Drive, 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 RL1 Zoning district and -S, Shoreline overlay district, at 357 Western Drive.
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 approved by the City Council 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 co rridors to maintain views of the San Francisco Bay and restricting building heights and window placement (see Resolution No.128-09)
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 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). When multiple applicat ions that require public hearings are filed for the same projects, all issues are to be heard together by the review authority with the most authority, and other review bodies shall provide recommendations to that review authority unless more specific proc edures for a specific application or procedure are prescribed. Therefore, the DRB’s review was 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 conside r 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 future meeting. During the DRB’s deliberation, the applicant state d 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 design 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 and provide additional exhibits.
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 that modifying the butterfly roof to be a flat roof would reduce the height and massing of the structure.
The Planning Commission suggested the applicant work with staff and consult with members of the Design Review Board. It was recommended that the applicant return to a future meeting with additional exhibits, demonstrating the potential Bay views from the street. The applicant met with two Design Review Board members for input and subsequently revised the ir project plans and provided the additional exhibits requested by the Planning Commission.
At the September 16, 2021 meeting, the applicant stated that the project design had already been modified to reduce the height and address the comments originally expressed by the DRB, including removal of a roof deck proposed at the rear of the structure.
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 come back at a future meeting with d raft findings and conditions fo r 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.
During the October 7, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented a n alternative design of the proposed butterfly roof. The Planning Commission found that the alternative design met the intent of a modified roof design that resulted in an overall height reduction. The Planning Commission ultimately determined there was sufficient grounds to make the required findings and approve the project.
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 4) 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 a public hearing are filed for the same project, all issues shall be heard together by the review authori ty with the most authority, and other review bodies shall 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. I n this case, 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 requested by the DRB to enable the DRB to make certain 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 to support making the required design review findings to approve the project.
With respect to the Planning Commission direction to the applicant to work with staff and consult with members of the Design Review Board, it is not a violation of due process.
The DRB members asked to work with the applicant were primarily focused on making sure the applicant provided accurate and complete exhibits for Planning Commission review.
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 October 7, 2021, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the project. With respect to the question of whether it was a late submission, the Planning Commission considered that it was a minor change meeting the intent for a modified roof with a lower slope. All exhibits provided during the meeting were adequate to determine the impact of Bay views from the street as required by the Shoreline Overlay District. Given the to pography of the site and the surrounding, the street intersection of Casey Drive and Western Drive will be partially affected. This is the main view down the street to the north. Portion of this view from this angle will be preserved due to the neighboring buildings being located at a much lower elevation. In front of the property, the new building will block the left side view, but the view of the Bay will be retained on the right side since the abutting buildings are located at a lower elevation.
It appears that existing Bay views from the home located across the street at 360 Western Drive will be partially blocked and the nearby homes across the street may not be affected since they are at higher elevations.
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. There is a moratorium for parcels located within the tributary of the Keller Beach line; this issue is discussed later in this report.
In staff’s opinion, there were no abuse 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.
City Council Public Hearing on Appeal
On December 7, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the appeal.
Several comments were raised regarding sewer service to the proposed project given concerns were raised about the ability of the project to connect to the Keller Beach Sewer System (KBSS) due to the degraded condition of the line. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council directed staff to return to the meeting on January 11, 2022 on ce issues related to the potential moratorium on connections to the KBSS were considered.
The item was continued to January 18, and again to February 1 awaiting consideration of an urgency moratorium related to the KBSS.
On January 18, 2022, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance imposing a 45-day moratorium on the issuance of building permits for projects that would require new sewer connections to the KBSS. The moratorium is also anticipated to be extended beyond the original 45-day period, possibly up to 2 years, should the Public Works Department and City Council find that the imminent threat to the health and safety has not been abated.
The moratorium adopted by the City Council does allow projects to be approved that require new connection s; however, building permits cannot be issued until options for connecting to the City sewer system are identified that do no further impact the KBSS.
The capacity to serve the property exists at the City’s water treatment plant, and therefore, the requir ed use permit finding regarding there being adequate utilities and public services to serve the site of the proposed use can be made. However, building permits requiring sewer connections to KBSS cannot be issued until the moratorium is lifted or an alternative design for the extension of a sewer main to an alternative segment is approved pursuant to Section 5(b) of the moratorium. Further, under Section 6 of the moratorium, any City entitlement approvals that are impacted by the moratorium will be tolled for the period that the moratorium is in place.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the project. The 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. The revised design represents a significant improvement and rel ates 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:
Attachment 1: Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Commission’s conditional approval
Attachment 2: PC Resolution No.21-17 and Project Plan
Attachment 3: PC Resolution No.128-09
Attachment 4: Appeal letter from neighbor at 360 Western Drive Attachment 5: Supplemental Letter Submitted by Appellant on January 10, 2022