1. City Council Meeting October 23, 2017
Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals Decision Modification to Hillside Development Permit # Fairfield Circle
City Council Meeting October 23, 2017

2. Appeal The issue before the Council tonight:
Modification to a Hillside Development Permit (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 Modification to a Hillside Development Permit on September 6, 2017.
Staff’s recommendation was to approve the Modification to the Hillside Development Permit and overturn the disapproval decision of the Hearing Officer.
At the conclusion of public testimony, the BZA approved the entitlement application.
Appeal period was from September 7, 2017 to September 18, Effective date of September 19, 2017.
An appeal was filed by the appellants, Kenneth and Tracy McCormick.

4. Requested Entitlements
Modification to Hillside Development Permit:
To allow the conversion of 483 square feet of unimproved basement area into habitable space;
Basement originally approved at 280 sq. ft.; and
Increase a detached pool bathroom by 12 sq. ft.
Variance: To allow 5,932 square feet of floor area, where the maximum permitted is 5,469 square feet.

5. Location Map

6. Hearing Officer: June 17, 2015 June 17, 2015: Hearing Officer Approved
Hillside Development Permit: New Residence
4,492 sq. ft. residence
280 sq. ft. basement
620 sq. ft. garage
440 sq. ft. cabana
45 sq. ft. detached pool bathroom

7. Hearing Officer Site Plan

8. Hearing Officer: June 17, 2015

9. Hearing Officer: June 17, 2015

10. Hearing Officer: June 17, 2015 Basement Level During Construction
280 sq. ft. basement
Remainder not habitable
Did not count to floor area
Not fully excavated with ceiling heights of <5’
Not habitable Basement
During Construction
Not habitable areas graded per recommendation of engineer.
Concrete floor/foundation
Ceiling heights of 8’
2,621 sq. ft. Contributes to floor area
Modification
Additional Floor Area.
Variance to allow additional floor area
Not habitable Basement

11. Key Project Dates 06/17/2015: Hillside Development Permit approved
02/29/2016: Building Permit was Issued.
April, 2016: Soils engineer recommended that deeper footings be provided at the basement level.
4/18/2016: Revised structural sheets submitted to Building & Safety
Additional grading resulted in areas in the lower level of the residence with interior ceiling heights of approximately eight feet and a concrete floor.
7/19/2016: Stop Work Order per Planning Division
Grading changes not consistent with approved HDP.
Graded areas contributed approx. 2,700 sq. ft. to floor area
9/02/2016: Revise Plans to Revert Basement back to 280 sq. ft.
Covenant and agreed that remaining areas would be backfilled.

12. Key Project Dates
09/9/2016: Construction Resumes on Remainder of Residence.
While construction is on-going, the basement areas have not been backfilled.
03/03/2017: Modification to Hillside Development Permit Submitted
Permit additional 2,621 sq. ft. of habitable basement; and
Variance to exceed allowed Floor Area Ratio

13. Hearing Officer: May 17, 2017 May 17, 2017: Hearing Held
Modification to Hillside Development Permit: to allow the conversion of 2,621 square feet of unimproved basement area into habitable space and increase pool bathroom by 12 sq. ft.
Variance: To allow an increase in floor area of 8,070 sq. ft.; where the maximum permitted is 5,469 sq. ft.
Public Participation
Three speakers in opposition.
Two letters in opposition.
Two speakers in support.
Two letters and a petition with 13 signatures in support

14. Not habitable Basement
Hearing Officer: May 17, 2017
Modification Request Basement Level
2,901 sq. ft. basement
280 sq. ft. + 2,621 sq. ft.
Remainder not habitable
Not habitable Basement
Floor Area
Original Approved 5,437 sq. ft.
Resulting 8,070 sq. ft.
Max Allowed: 5,469
Variance to Exceed by 2,601sq. ft.

15. Hearing Officer: May 17, 2017

16. Hearing Officer Action
At the conclusion of public testimony, the Hearing Officer disapproved the entitlement application as he could not make the findings to support the request.
May 18 to May 30, 2017: Appeal Period
May 30, 2017: Appeal filed by the applicant

17. BZA: September 6, 2017 September 6, 2017: Hearing Held
Modification to Hillside Development Permit: to allow the conversion of 483 square feet of unimproved basement area into habitable space.
Variance: To allow an increase in floor area of 5,932 sq. ft.; where the maximum permitted is 5,469 sq. ft.
Public Participation
Four speakers in opposition.

18. Revised Plans for BZA
In order to address concerns and issues raised by the Hearing Officer, the following changes were made to the project:
Reduced the size of the basement requested for conversion;
2,621 sq. ft. to 483 sq. ft.
Total proposed habitable basement 763 sq. ft.
Section of the Zoning Code, states that Board of Zoning Appeals shall consider the same application, plans and materials submitted by the applicant for the original decision. However, this section stipulates that changes to the original submittal, to address objections of the Hearing Officer, can be made and considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

19. Revised BZA Plan Modification Request Basement Level Floor Area
763 sq. ft. basement
280 sq. ft sq. ft.
Remainder not habitable
Floor Area
Original 5,437 sq. ft.
Resulting 5,932 sq. ft.
Max Allowed: 5,469
Variance to Exceed by 463 sq. ft.

20. BZA Action
At the conclusion of public testimony, the BZA adopted the environmental determination that the proposed project is exempt from environmental review; and
Approved the Modification to the Hillside Development Permit
September 7 to September 18, 2017: Appeal Period
September 18, 2017: Appeal filed by the McCormick’s

21. City Council Project
Modification to Hillside Development Permit: to allow the conversion of 483 square feet of unimproved basement area into habitable space and increase a detached pool bathroom by 12 sq. ft.
Variance: To allow an increase in floor area of 5,932 sq. ft.; where the maximum permitted is 5,469 sq. ft.

22. City Council Plan Modification Request Basement Level Floor Area
763 sq. ft. basement
280 sq. ft sq. ft.
Remainder not habitable
Floor Area
Original 5,437 sq. ft.
Resulting 5,932 sq. ft.
Max Allowed: 5,469
Variance to Exceed by 463 sq. ft.

23. City Council Plan

24. Adjacent Residences 790 Fairfield Circle 780 Fairfield Circle

25. Appeal Response: CEQA
The BZA found that the proposed project is Categorically Exempted from environmental review for additions to existing structures .
Appellant states that per CEQA, a Categorical Exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The propose project involves “unusual circumstances” resulting in significant environmental impacts and requires environmental review.

26. Appeal Response Cont.
The project does not present an unusual circumstance where there is a possibility that it would have a significant effect on the environment.
The original HDP, approved the demolition of a former residence and allowed the construction of the new residence, basement area and all related site improvements (pool, garage, flat work, cabana…etc.), and was exempt from CEQA and environmental review;
It is not unusual for additions to be built onto residences, including basement expansions;
There are several residences along the Fairfield Circle, and adjacent streets, that have habitable basement areas on the lower levels similar to the one proposed by the applicant;
The request for the expansion and such use of the lower level is not unusual;
It is not unusual for additions to be built onto residences in hillside areas of the City.

27. Appeal Response Cont.
Being in a Hillside Overlay District is not a unique circumstance as there are approximately 4,650 properties in the Hillside Overlay District; that constitutes 23% of all Single-Family Residential zoned parcels in the City;
The proposed addition would not result in a residence with a unique circumstance as it relates to compatibility with the neighborhood. As indicated in the Neighborhood Compatibility section, the Hillside Overlay District requires that all projects subject to a Hillside Development Permit comply with the Neighborhood Compatibility guidelines – the project complies with Neighborhood Compatibility ;
A portion of the area of the basement proposed for conversion to habitable space was previously occupied by basement area of the former residence and previously disturbed due to construction activities of the former residence;
The grading and improvements to finish the space as habitable would not constitute a circumstance that is unusual as it would not result in grading or construction methods that are not commonly utilized for similar additions; and

28. Appeal Response Cont. Final CEQA Determination.
As part of the normal permitting process, If the applicant’s request is approved, revised construction plans, including any necessary geotechnical, structural, and other technical reports, would need to be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permit to allow the proposed improvements. The review of these technical reports is not an unusual circumstance as they are required for projects of this scope.
Final CEQA Determination.
The project does not present an unusual circumstance where there is a possibility that it would have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed project is eligible for an exemption from environmental review pursuant to §15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities);

29. Appeal Response: Findings
The BZA made the required findings to approve the requested project.
Appellant states that the required finding can not be made.
As indicated in Attachment A of the staff report, the findings to approve the Modification to the HDP and the Variance can be made.

30. Variance Findings
Variance: To allow a floor area ratio of 5,932 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 5,469 sq. ft.
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the project site that do not apply generally to sites in the same zoning district;
Granting the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
Granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety, or general welfare;
Granting the application is in conformance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan and the purpose and intent of any applicable specific plan and the purposes of this Zoning Code, and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone district; and
Cost to the applicant of strictly complying with the regulation in question is not the primary reason for the granting of the variance.

31. Conclusion Staff concludes that:
The project is consistent with the land use designation contained in the City’s General Plan;
With the exception of the requested variance, the project 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.

32. Staff Recommendation Based on the Revised Plans Submitted:
Uphold the BZA’s decision and approve the Modification to the Hillside Development Permit:
To allow the conversion of 483 square feet of unimproved basement area into habitable space;
Increase a detached pool bathroom by 12 sq. ft.
Variance: To allow 5,932 square feet of floor area, where the maximum permitted is 5,469 square feet.
Find that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section (Class 1: Existing Facilities)

33. City Council Meeting October 23, 2017
Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals Decision Modification to Hillside Development Permit # Fairfield Circle
City Council Meeting October 23, 2017

34. Variance Findings
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the project site that do not apply generally to sites in the same zoning district. The subject property is characterized by a sloped topography where the difference in elevation between the front property line and the rear of the property is approximately 26 feet. Due to this topographical condition, the residence was designed to step down and follow the downward slope of the site. This results in a design where the residence has a two-story elevation from Fairfield Circle and a three-story elevation on the rear façade. Due to the topography of the site, the lower level of the residence (basement), had areas that were not fully excavated or improved for habitation. These areas were integrated into the structure through the use of foundation walls along the rear façade and partially on the side elevations.
2. Granting the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. The purpose of the application is to allow the utilization of former unimproved lower level space as habitable space. During the construction process, portions of the basement were graded, at the recommendation of the applicant’s engineer, to stabilize the foundation of the residence. This resulted in areas in the lower level (basement) of the residence that contribute as additional floor area. The request will allow this lower level area to be retained as it is already integrated into the structure through foundation walls and will not result in additional modifications outside of the existing building footprint.

35. Variance Findings
3. Granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety, or general welfare. The granting of the application to convert a portion of the lower level from unimproved lower level area into habitable floor area will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, and to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The requested improvements will occur within an area of the lower level that is currently integrated into the structure through foundation walls. The massing, bulk, and building envelope will not change. From a visual perspective, the only exterior alterations that will occur because of the requested improvements will be the installation of windows and doors on the rear elevation facing the backyard. As a result, the overall appearance of the residence will not change nor change the overall character of the neighborhood.

36. Variance Findings
4. Granting the application is in conformance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan and the purpose and intent of any applicable specific plan and the purposes of this Zoning Code, and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone district. The subject site is designated as Low Density Residential in the General Plan Land Use Element. The use of the site will remain a single-family residence; therefore, the character of the single-family neighborhood will be maintained. The project is consistent with Policy 21.9 of the General Plan Land Use Element that requires hillside housing to “maintain appropriate scale, massing and access to residential structures located in hillside areas.” The requested improvements will occur within an area of the lower level that is currently integrated into the structure through foundation walls. The massing, bulk, and building envelope will not change. From a visual perspective, the only exterior alterations that will occur because of the requested improvements will be the installation of windows and doors on the rear elevation facing the backyard. As a result, the overall appearance of the residence will not change nor change the overall character of the neighborhood. Approved access to the site will remain unchanged. Approval of the application will not constitute a grant of special privilege as there are other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone district with a floor area that exceeds the permitted and, because of site topography, have lower basement levels that are habitable.
5. Cost to the applicant of strictly complying with the regulation in question is not the primary reason for the granting of the variance. The cost to the applicant has not been considered a factor at any time throughout the review of this application.

37. Project Summary New Residence:
Meets all applicable development standards, including:
• Lot Coverage:
Max 35%
Proposed 20%
• Height:
Max 28’/35’
Proposed 27’-6”/34’-6”
• Setbacks:
Front: 47’ Rear: 80’
East side: 14’-8”’ West side: 17’-6”
• Neighborhood Compatibility:
Max 5,852
Proposed 5,255

38. Cross-Section