1650 W Steele Lane
1650 W Steele Lane Apartments
Appeal
1 August 8th, 2023 C onor McKay, Senior Planner
Planning and Economic Development
Project Description
This project includes a request for Minor Design
Review approval for the construction of a 36-unit,
three-story apartment complex; additionally, the
project includes a request for Minor Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) approval for a Supplemental
Density Bonus.
2 Affordability Description
• Three one-b edroom units available to Very Low -
Income households
• One three-b edroom unit available to Very Low -
Income households
3 Affordability Description
The Director has approved a State Density Bonus
application for the project, allowing the project to
increase the unit count by 35% beyond the base
density. The request for Supplemental Density
Bonus (Minor CUP) would allow the project to
increase the number of units by an additional 65%,
achieving a total of a 100% increase beyond the
base density (36 units total).
4 Waivers approved via State Density Bonus
The project is eligible for three waivers pursuant to
State Density Bonus law.
Building Setbacks – side yard (east property line) setback reduced from 10’ to 5’
Maximum Building Height – increase from 35’ to 45’
Required Parking Spaces – decrease from 52 spaces to 36 spaces
5 Project History
Neighborhood Meeting – January 15, 2020
Concept Design Review – March 5, 2020
Zoning Administrator Special Meeting – January 25, 2023 Appeal received – February 6, 2023
6 City Council hearing continued - May 23, 2023
Address – 1650 W Steele Lane
7 Project
Site
8 Neighborhood Context
Project
Site
Snoopy’s
Home Ice
Coddingtown
Mall
Children’s
Museum
Charles
Schultz
Museum
Multifamily
Residential
Shopping
Center
Senior
Housing
Church Vet
Hospital
Commercial
Office
Zoning: R-3-15-SA
9 North Station
Priority Development Area
Multifamily dwelling
allowed by right
Reduced review authority
for Design Review
Project Site
General Plan Land Use Designation (GPLU):
Medium Density Residential
10 Site: 0.98 acres
Max Base Density
per GPLU:
18 units per acre
Project
Site
Site Plan
11 Elevations
12 Elevations
13 Elevations
14 Rendering – From Steele Ln & Hardies Ln
15 Rendering – From Meadowbrook Ct
16 Rendering – Courtyard
17 18
Environmental Review
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared with the adoption of the North Station Area Specific Plan.
An Addendum to this EIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which concludes that the proposed Project would not cause new or substantial increases in severity of significant environmental effects.
Technical Studies:
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment
Noise Impact Analysis
Geotechnical Investigation
Biological Evaluation
Traffic Analysis
Cultural Resources Study
19 Basis for Appeal
On February 6th, the Charles M Shulz Creative
Associates submitted an appeal application for the
Project, stating the basis for the appeal as “the City’s approval of much-reduced parking for the project.”
20 Required Findings – Minor Conditional Use Permit
(Supplemental Density Bonus)
1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Z
oning Code and the City Code;
2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan;
3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible with the existing and f
uture land uses in the vicinity;
4. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints;
5. Granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located; and
6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
7. The proposed project will generate a sufficient number of Eligibility Points by providing at least 60 percent of all required Eligibility Points through affordable housing pursuant to Table 3.3, and that the remaining 40 percent are provided thr ough
addi
tional affordable housing pursuant to Table 3.3 or through community benefits pursuant to Table 3.4 as outlined in this section.
8. The proposed community benefits for the project are significant and clearly beyond what would otherwise be required for the project under applicable code provisions, conditions of approval, and/or environmental review mitigation measures.
9. That the proposed community benefits for the project are acceptable and appropriate for the project, and will provi de
t
angible benefits to the community.
21 Required Findings – Minor Design Review
1. The design and layout of the proposed development is of superior quality, and is consistent with the General P
lan, any applicable specific plan, applicable Zoning Code standards and requirements, the City’s Design G
uidelines, architectural criteria for special areas, and other applicable City requirements (e.g., City policy statements and development plans);
2. The design is appropriate for the use and location of the proposed development and achieves the goals, review criteria and findings for approval as set forth in the framework of Design Review (Design Guidelines, Introduction, subsection C);
3. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments;
4. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood;
5. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants, visiting public, and its neighbors through the appropriate use of materials, texture, and color, and would remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately maintained;
6. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
7. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 22 Public Comment
• Comments received:
• Electricity-powered parking structure during power
outage
• Design is not compatible with surrounding area
• Density is too high
• Increased traffic and high speed limit on W Steele
• Increased issues related to traffic violations and
crime
• Residential development during prolonged drought
• Insufficient Parking
Recommendation
23 It is recommended by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning and Economic Development Department that
the Council, by three resolutions, deny the Appeal and
uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to:
1) adopt an Addendum to the certified North Santa
Rosa Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Report,
2) approve a Minor Conditional Use Permit, and
3) approve Minor Design Review for the 1650 W Steele
Lane Apartments Project located at 1650 W Steele Lane.
Questions
24 Conor McKay
Planning and Economic Development
[email protected]
(707) 543-4351