October 26, 2004

SUBJECT:      Concerns of Mitchell Diamond with Development at 408-424 E. Evelyn Avenue (INFORMATION ONLY)

REPORT IN BRIEF

Mr. Mitchell Diamond has presented concerns with the development of a condominium project behind his home. Mr. Diamond is seeking City Council assistance in addressing his concerns (see Attachment A). Mr. Diamond has summarized his requests as:

1. Reduce window sizes and placement where overlooking the single-family neighborhood

2. Construct a 15-foot high masonry fence like one that exists at Bristol Commons

3. Densely plant 40-foot tall matyre trees between the development and the neighborhood.

Council would not be able to make these types of decisions through either Citizens to Be Heard or through review of an information only report. Staff has investigated these concerns and found that the development is currently in compliance with the Special Development Permit (SDP) conditions of approval. Staff understands that the development behind Mr. Diamond’s home is distressing to him; there is a big change from the former use of the Evelyn properties. Staff has been working with the developer to minimize the impacts on the adjacent residents and finds that the project is complying with the conditions of approval and the general spirit of the requests made by Mr. Diamond. If the City Council believes that there is evidence of a violation of a condition of approval, the Council could direct staff to further look into these conditions to determine if there are grounds to schedule a hearing to revoke the Special Development Permit.

Council could direct staff to continue to work with the developer and the neighbors to meet the intent of the project conditions of approval relating to landscaping and the masonry wall.

BACKGROUND

In 1990 the City Council approved a series of modifications to the General Plan that located higher density housing in the northern sections of the downtown area. In 1993 the City adopted the Downtown Specific Plan and implementing zoning regulations consistent with the 1990 General Plan designations. The property located at 408-416 E. Evelyn was included in Block 5 of the Specific Plan and planned for very high density housing (48 dwelling units per acre).

In 2000, Nicoli/Sargent, the potential developers of 408-416 E. Evelyn, approached the City about acquiring a City-owned property on Evelyn for inclusion with their development. The City’s property was not then part of the Specific Plan. In 2001, the Council, after hearing the recommendation of the Planning Commission and staff, amended the Specific Plan to include the City’s property in the Block 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan and approved the development of 408-424 E. Evelyn for 18 condominium units at 29 dwelling units per acre (the low end of the “high density” range of 28-42 units per acre). The development is a 3-½ level building with partially submerged parking. The properties to the south were zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and were developed with a lower density (approx 11 units per acre).

The following three paragraphs are from the May 15, 2001 Report to City Council (RTC 01-167)

The Planning Commission considered this item at its hearing of March 26, 2001. The Commission discussed issues related to privacy, building setbacks, screening landscaping, parking, delivery access, private open space, building mass, noise, traffic circulation, density, architecture, unit size, emergency access and exterior lighting (See Minutes Attachment 9). Testimony was provided by three nearby residents. One speaker offered support for the project noting the value of higher density residential development near downtown. Two speakers noted their concerns with traffic noise, privacy and parking. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project with minor modifications to Conditions of Approval No’s 4, 8 and 13. The Commission action also required modification to the project to further address privacy issues. The Commission action offered three alternative design change options to the applicant: (1) Redesign the project to meet the required 20 foot rear yard building setback; (2) Reverse the window placement of the courtyard with the rear (south) side of the building and maintain a minimum 18 foot rear yard setback; (3) maintain an 18 foot rear yard setback and provide enhanced (large tree) landscaping along the rear yard.

At the City Council hearing of April 17, 2001 the applicant requested a continuance to allow time to modify the project in response to the Planning Commission action.

In response to action by the Planning Commission, the proposed project has been modified to incorporate the following changes: side and rear yard setbacks have been increased to 20 feet; distance between buildings have been increased; unit sizes have been reduced; window sizes have been reduced; landscaping and useable open space have been increased. Staff believes that revisions to the project have captured the intent of modifications recommended by the Planning Commission.

At the City Council hearing on May 15, 2001 eight neighbors spoke: three were in support of the project; four stated objections to the project regarding height, setback, density, and parking; and one stated she was not opposed to the project but wanted it modified to better fit the character of the neighborhood (See Attachment E, excerpt of City Council Minutes of May 15, 2001).

In response to questions about the differences in height and density between the Evelyn project and the Washington homes, staff noted that “the adjacent single-family homes were not compatible with the bulk and scale of the project. These single-family uses under-utilized their existing multiple family zoning. Future transition of these properties may occur.” Staff noted that “the mass of the proposed building in close proximity to existing single-family uses to the south and west will have an impact on those properties” and that “the project will provide for the development of a quality home ownership product with attractive architectural details and landscaping consistent with development anticipated by the Downtown Specific Plan.” It was anticipated that over time there would be less difference in the densities of these properties as the Washington area could redevelop to up to 27 dwelling units per acre.

The City Council approved the project with the recommendations of the Planning Commission with additional conditions: that the applicant work with the City arborist to select appropriate size and species of landscaping to protect the privacy of the adjacent homeowners; and, that the landscaping and irrigation plans of the exterior area of the development be reviewed by the neighbors.

In 2001 the City commenced review of the Downtown Specific Plan and adjacent areas. During the outreach meetings, property owners on the 300 and 400 blocks of Washington Avenue requested the City Council initiate General Plan amendment and rezoning proceedings to lower the density of their blocks to assist in preserving the single-family and duplex character of the neighborhood. In 2003 the General Plan was amended to Low-Medium Density and the zoning was changed to R-2/PD for the 400 block of Washington Avenue (other areas were rezoned as well). Block 5 densities were retained at Very High Density (revised to 40 du/acre). The result is that the difference between permitted maximum density of the Evelyn site and the Washington Avenue homes (where Mr. Diamond lives) has increased since the project was approved.

The project began construction in 2004. Mr. Diamond attended the original public hearings on the Evelyn project and, since construction commenced, has attended Planning Commission meetings to speak under Citizens to be Heard, and has discussed his concerns with planning staff and the City Manager.

EXISTING POLICY

Community Participation Sub-Element

Policy 7.2C.2 – Notification and Access

Ensure that appropriate and effective public notification and access, in accordance with City Council policies, are provided to enhance meaningful community participation in the policy-making process

Action Statement 7.2C.2b Ensure that all public board, commission and Council meetings provide an opportunity for public input and involvement

Policy 7.2C.5 Feedback

Provide Opportunities for community input and feedback.

Land Use and Transportation Element

Policy N1.1

Protect the integrity of the City’s neighborhoods; whether residential, commercial or industrial.

Action Statement N1.1.3 Use density to transition between land use, and to buffer between sensitive uses and less compatible uses.

Mr. Diamond’s information packet of August 5, 2004 (Attachment B) includes additional city policy he finds relevant to this discussion.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Diamond has expressed his concern with the development occurring behind his residence. A survey of other Washington Avenue residents has been submitted by Mr. Diamond. Because Mr. Diamond was not satisfied with the information provided by staff, the City Manager advised him that he may address the City Council with his concerns. Staff members have advised Mr. Diamond that the Council may not be able to take action on his requests, which follow:

1. Reduce window sizes and placement where overlooking the single-family neighborhood.

The Planning Commission recommended a condition to reduce window size by reversing the orientation of the rear units. The applicant prepared revised plans showing the modified windows. These plans were reviewed at the May 15, 2001 City Council meeting and were approved by the Council.

2. Construct a 15-foot high masonry fence like one that exists at Bristol Commons.

The conditions of approval do not specify the height of the masonry wall for the project. Typically a 7-8 foot wall is installed. Staff did not feel it appropriate to approve a wall taller than eight feet without a public hearing. Taller walls and fences may not be desired by all of the property owners; some residents find it can make a yard area feel small. Staff is requiring the developer to build an 8-foot tall masonry wall. Mr. Diamond refers to a 15 foot wall located at Bristol Commons. Staff has provided the background of this wall in a letter to Mr. Diamond dated August 31, 2004 (Attachment C). In summary, the grade, land use and setback situations are very different in that situation.

Staff has advised Mr. Diamond in the August 31, 2004 letter (Attachment C) that the concept of a height expansion to the wall will be discussed with the developer; this has been done. The developer has indicated his concern that four feet of trellis on top of a masonry wall would not look good, and that the maintenance responsibility would be great.

3. Densely plant 40-foot tall mature trees between the development and the neighborhood.

A landscape plan was presented to staff in August 2004. Staff commented on that plan and asked for additional information to assure that sufficient sized and quantities of plants were being proposed so that the desired screening could be achieved. The plan includes cypress and redwood trees within the rear setback area. The developer has indicated he is in the process of reviewing the plans with the neighbors; he has not yet spoken with Mr. Diamond. The plan includes 24-inch box trees with some 36-inch box trees as well, which would initially be about 10 feet and 14 feet in height respectively. A 48-inch box tree would initially be about 18 feet tall. Different varieties could be taller. Redwoods will likely reach 30 feet in about 5 years and 40 feet in about 10 years. Staff has indicated to Mr. Diamond that the plan will be available for his review before final staff action on the landscape plan.

FISCAL IMPACT

No fiscal impact.

Conclusion

Mr. Diamond is concerned with the impact that the new development will have on his home. Mr. Diamond has expressed concern that the project was approved acknowledging the differences in permissible density on his site and the subject site, and that that difference has changed since the rezoning of his property in 2003.