1. City Council Meeting July 17, 2017
Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals Decision Tentative Parcel Map # E. California Blvd.
City Council Meeting July 17, 2017

2. Appeal The issue before the Council tonight:
Tentative Parcel Map (Land Use Entitlement)
When reviewing an appeal, the City Council may:
Consider any issues associated with the decision being appealed, in addition to the specific grounds for the appeal;
Reverse, modify, or affirm, in whole or in part, the determination, decision, or action that is the subject of the appeal; and
Adopt additional conditions of approval that were not considered or imposed by the original applicable review authority, as deemed reasonable and necessary.
Effect of Appeal “vacates” the previous decision.

3. Appeal
Before the City Council is an appeal of a decision made by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal for the Tentative Parcel Map on April 5, 2017.
Staff’s recommendation was to approve the Tentative Parcel Map and uphold the decision of the Hearing Officer.
At the conclusion of public testimony, the BZA disapproved the entitlement application.
Appeal period was from April 6, 2017 to April 17, Effective date of April 18, 2017.
An appeal was filed by the applicant, Betsy Lee.

4. Requested Entitlement
Tentative Parcel Map:
To create three air parcels on one lot for residential condominium purposes.
Approval of the Tentative Parcel Map is required to allow the units to be sold individually as residential condominiums.
If the Map is not approved, the project can be constructed as “for rent” units rather than “for sale”.
The approved development project would demolish the existing SFR and construct three new units.

5. Location Map RM-32 RM-32 RM-16 RM-16 CALIFORNIA BLVD EUCLID AVE RM-16
RS-6
RS-6

6. Proposed Parcel Map C B A

7. Residential Elevations
Front Elevation (California Blvd)
Rear Elevation

8. Residential Elevations
Corner Side Elevation (Euclid Ave)
Side Elevation

9. Project Background Review Process: Preliminary Plan Check (Dec. 2015):
Staff level review to determine compliance with the Zoning Code. Project as designed is code compliant.
Design Review (April 2016): Staff level design review to determine compliance with applicable design guidelines. Project as designed is code compliant Tree Removal: Two Victorian Box Trees CEQA Review: Project found to qualify for a categorical exemption.
Finding: The design of the project is consistent with the purposes of design review and the applicable design guidelines
Plan Check Submittal (November 2016):
Review in process.

10. Project Background Optional Review Process: Required Findings:
Parcel Map: For Condominium Purposes (Hearing Process)
Does not affect the design or configuration of the residential project.
Only determines whether the project could be home ownership or rental property.
Required Findings:
The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section
The site is physically suitable for the type of development.
The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems in that the subdivision is compatible with existing residential land uses in the vicinity.
The proposed map meets the requirements of Title 16 as applicable.
The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into existing sewer system would not add to or result in violation of existing water quality control standards.
The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision

11. Hearing Officer Action
Tentative Parcel Map: To create three air parcels for condominium purposes
November 16, 2016: Hearing held by Hearing Officer
Public Participation
Three speakers in opposition – concerns related to:
Rental property would be preferable as it would be more affordable;
Condominiums are not common along California Boulevard and adjacent streets; and
The approved residential project is inconsistent with surrounding development.

12. Hearing Officer Action
The Hearing Officer approved the entitlement application and made the required findings for approval of the Parcel Map.
November 17, 2016 to November 28, 2016: Appeal Period
November 28, 2016: Appeal filed by Kelley Holmes, on behalf of Madison Heights Neighborhood Association, citing a disagreement with the decision of the Hearing Officer.

13. Board of Zoning Appeals Action
Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing was held on April 5, 2017:
Staff’s recommendation was to approve the Tentative Parcel Map and uphold the decision of the Hearing Officer.
Two speakers in opposition:
Residential project is inconsistent with surrounding development;
Residential project out of character and not in scale with adjacent development; and
Tree removals.

14. Board of Zoning Appeals Action
At the conclusion of the hearing:
A motion was made to overturn the Hearing Officer’s decision and disapprove the Tentative Parcel Map, and
To adopt the environmental determination that the project qualifies for categorical exemption.
The motion resulted in a 3-0 vote by the three members present.
As a result, action was taken to disapprove the Tentative Parcel Map based on the maps inconsistency with the goals and policies of the General Plan.

15. Board of Zoning Appeals Action
The BZA specifically found that:
The proposed map was not consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy 23.4 (Development Transitions) in that the project does not ensure a sensitive transition in building scale between buildings in multi-family residential areas and lower-scale buildings in adjoining residential areas, and
The proposed map is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy 8.1 (Identify and Protect Historic Resources). Specifically how the map relates to the bungalow court that is individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places that is located immediately north of the site.

16. Findings Analysis Policy 23.4 (Development Transitions):
The subject site is zoned RM-16 and serves as a transition zone between the RS-6 (Single-Family Residential) zoned neighborhood located south of California Boulevard and the RM-32 (Multi-Family Residential) zone located immediately north of the subject site.
Through the Design Review process, project was designed to be compatible with the surrounding context in terms of massing, height, setback, architectural style and materials.

17. Findings Analysis
Policy 8.1 (Identify and Protect Historic Resources):
Policy 8.1 states: Identify and Protect Historic Resources. Identify and protect historic resources that represent significant examples of the City’s history.
The north elevation of the proposed development was modified through the design review process to provide a ten-foot setback from the rear property line and a reduction in the number of windows provided in order to be sensitive to the adjacent historic property.
It was determined that the proposed French Eclectic architectural style of the development would be compatible with the English Tudor architectural style of the adjacent bungalow courts.

18. Findings Analysis
Policy 8.1 (Identify and Protect Historic Resources):
The historic Bungalow Court is listed on National Register of Historic Places, so it HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED.
The Bungalow Court is important because it is an excellent example of an important architectural building type in the City’s history. The courtyard and bungalows remain relatively unchanged from their original construction.
An impact to a historic resource occurs when a property is no longer able to convey its significance. In this case, The Bungalow Court is not being altered and the physical attributes which allowed it to be listed on the National Register will not be changed.
The Hearing Officer and BZA found the project to be exempt from CEQA which are only allowed for projects that would not result in impacts to historic resources.

19. Conclusion Staff concludes that:
The map would result in a project that is consistent with the land use designation contained in the City’s General Plan;
The map would result in a project that meets the development standards of the Zoning Code;
Based on the analysis of the issues, and as conditioned, it is not expected that the proposed use will result in negative impacts to the surrounding uses.

20. Staff Recommendation
Staff’s Recommendation to the City Council is to approve the application:
Adopt the Environmental Determination, that the proposed project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21080(b)(9); Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter 3, Class 3 §15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); and
Approve Tentative Parcel Map # to create three air parcels on one lot for residential condominium purposes.

21. City Council Meeting July 17, 2017
Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals Decision Tentative Parcel Map # E. California Blvd.
City Council Meeting July 17, 2017

22. Elevation Plans

23. Proximity to Historic Bungalow

25. Findings
The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section The proposed density of the Tentative Parcel Map is within the maximum density allowed for the Medium Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan, and is consistent with the size and character of other residential lots in the vicinity of the site. The Tentative Parcel Map is also consistent with the following General Plan Objectives and Policies: Policy 21.4 (New Residential Development), Policy 23.1 (Character and Design), and Policy 23.2 (Parking Areas and Garages).
 The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is a standard lot of ample size and without unique topographical features. The site is similar in size and topography to other lots in the vicinity that are developed with similar uses.

26. Findings
The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The property and surrounding area is in an urbanized area and is developed with multi-family residential uses. The project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. No fish or wildlife habitats in the vicinity have been identified. As such, approval of the map will not result in significant environmental impacts.
The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems in that the subdivision is compatible with existing residential land uses in the vicinity. The design of the project provides appropriate ventilation, light, and circulation within the development and among other existing developments in the vicinity as required by the applicable development standards of the Zoning Code.

27. Findings
The proposed map meets the requirements of Title 16 as applicable. The proposed density of the Tentative Parcel Map is within the maximum density allowed for the Medium Density Residential under the General Plan. The project is consistent with the size and character of other residential lots in the vicinity of the site. The Tentative Parcel Map is also consistent with the following General Plan Objectives and Policies: Policy 21.4 (New Residential Development), Policy 23.1 (Character and Design), and Policy 23.2 (Parking Areas and Garages). The project supports these policies by expanding the type, and increasing the inventory of housing units available for Pasadena families. The project will enhance the neighborhood character and quality through implementation of the “City of Gardens” development standards that emphasize the coherence, embellishment, and visibility of courts and gardens; and providing parking in a subterranean structure.

28. Findings
The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into existing sewer system would not add to or result in violation of existing water quality control standards. The residential development standards of the Pasadena Municipal Code provide standards that will require the applicant to connect to public sewer. Compliance with this requirement will be verified during the plan check process.
The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Easements acquired for the public at large do not traverse the site of the proposed subdivision.