APPEAL OF PROJECT NO. 2006-32

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to consider a request by Ruby Herrera to appeal the Planning Board�s decision to deny a variance for density, setbacks and parking to legalize and expand an illegal unit at 1902-1904 Jackson Street.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

Original Project Request: The applicant (Permit Pullers) requested approval of a variance for setbacks, density, and parking to legalize and expand an existing illegal unit on the property.(Planning Board Report in Exhibit 1) The applicant requested to expand the 170 square foot existing legal storage structure by 288 square feet to create a 458 square foot one bedroom apartment. An addition of a one-bedroom unit to the property would require three additional parking spaces and is required to meet current multi-family development standards. However, the proposed addition and conversion does not meet current requirements for parking, setbacks and density. The storage structure is setback only 2�-4� from the side property line instead of the code required 5� minimum and 7� average. The density permitted under code is limited to two units, although four were permitted under the previous multi-family code. The applicant proposed two parking spaces for the third unit, however these parking spaces do not meet code standards as it is substandard in width and length and thus can not be counted towards the requirement. The property is under parked as compared to current standards with only one parking space per unit.

Planning Board Hearing & Deliberations: On July 24, 2006 the Planning Board denied project No. 2006-32 Variance for the setbacks, parking and density to permit an illegal unit. The Planning Board denied the Variance, by a vote of 3-1, on the basis that they could not meet three of the four findings to approve the variance request.(Exhibit 2 -3 ) The project would cause to much of a detriment to the neighborhood with the variances

Appellant Request: Ruby Herrera, the property owner, is requesting that the City Council reverse the Planning Board�s decision to deny the variance, and approve the project. The applicant proposes to �take any steps needed to make this a legal living space� and claims that her hired applicant stated �this should be doable.� Staff believes that it is possible to convert the accessory structure into a legal dwelling unit under building codes, however it is not possible under zoning codes. The appellant has not proposed any modifications to the original proposal, nor does staff believe that there are any possible modifications, that would make the conversion legal under zoning code. (Exhibit 4)

Public Correspondence: Since the Planning Board hearing on July 24, 2006, staff received one phone call from a adjacent neighbor stating that the property owner was advertising and attempting to sell the property as a triplex, even though at the time of the alleged observation the property owner may have been aware that the third unit is not legally permitted as evidenced by submittal of variance application to legalize the unit. However, staff has no evidence of this occurrence.

Environmental Status: This item has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines pertaining to the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made.(Exhibit 1 [Exhibit D])

CONCLUSION:

It is staff's assessment that three of the four findings required for approval of a variance can not be made for this project. The Planning Board clearly identified how this project would be detrimental to the neighborhood in terms of increasing density, impacting parking, and possibly intruding on the neighbor�s privacy with the minimal proposed setbacks.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold Planning Board�s decision to deny Project No. 2006-32 Variances for parking, setbacks and density.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit 1 - Planning Board Staff Report for Project No. 2006-32

2          Planning Board Resolution No. 3031 adopted July 24, 2006

3          Planning Board minutes from July 24, 2006

4          Appeal by Ruby Herrera of Planning Board�s Decision, Project 2006-32

go to the top