To: Board of Supervisors
From: John Kopchik, Director, Conservation and Development
Report Title: 3455 Freeman Road Residential Addition Project Appeal (County File #CDDP23-03020
☒Recommendation of the County Administrator ☐ Recommendation of Board Committee
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. OPEN the public hearing on an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve a 2-story, 1,400-square-foot residential addition at 3455 Freeman Road in the unincorporated Lafayette area (County File #CDDP23-03020); RECEIVE testimony and CLOSE the public hearing.
2. DENY the appeal of Lindsey and Logan Daniels,
3. DETERMINE that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(2).
4. APPROVE the Small Lot Design Review Development Plan for the project, (CDDP23-03020)
5. APPROVE the attached findings in support of the project.
6. APPROVE the project conditions of approval.
7. APPROVE the 3455 Freeman Road Residential Addition Project
8. DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The applicant has paid the necessary application deposit and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to cover all additional costs associated with the application process.
BACKGROUND:
This hearing is an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s January 24, 2024, decision to approve a Development Plan for a 2-story, 1,400-square-foot residential addition and an approximately 85 square-foot extension to an existing rear porch of an existing single-family residence at 3455 Freeman Road, Lafayette, County File #CDDP23-03020.
Development Plan #CDDP23-03020, was initially heard by the County Zoning Administrator (ZA) on October 2, 2023, during which the County Zoning Administrator accepted testimony from the applicant and members of the public. After receiving testimony and considering the project analysis provided by County staff, the County Zoning Administrator approved the Development Plan. Jason and Iva Schwarz, et al. appealed the ZA’s decision on October 12, 2023.
The appeal was heard by the County Planning Commission on January 24, 2024. After receiving public testimony, the County Planning Commission voted (5-1) to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval and denied the appeal. Lindsey and Logan Daniels appealed the County Planning Commission’s decision on February 5, 2024.
Project Description
The applicant requests approval of a Small Lot Design Review Development Plan to construct a second story, approximately 1,400-square-foot residential addition on to an existing single-family residence and which will add approximately 85 square feet to extend an existing rear porch. The porch extension is due to the second story addition being placed directly above the porch and an existing walkway, enclosing it from the top. The second story addition will consist of the following:
• Four Bedrooms
• One Loft
• Two Bathrooms
• One Utility Closet
• One Laundry Room
The overall addition will bring the residence from its original 2,200 square feet of residential space to 3,600 square feet with an additional 85 square feet of covered rear porch. Other work that is not included in the Small Lot Design Review Development Plan application is an interior remodel to the existing kitchen and a sliding glass door.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The proposed project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. This CEQA section exempts minor alterations to existing facilities, including, specifically, additions to existing structures of no more than 10,000 square feet in an area that is not environmentally sensitive and where all public services and facilities are available for the maximum development permissible in the General Plan. The proposed project is a 1,400-square-foot addition and an 85-square-foot extension to an existing rear porch of an existing single-family residence. The total square footage added to the proposed project does not exceed 10,000 square feet and the project is not in an area that is environmentally sensitive. The site is currently served by water, sanitary and fire. Therefore, the project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(2).
County Planning Commission
An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve the project was heard by the County Planning Commission on January 24, 2024. After receiving public testimony, the County Planning Commission voted (5-1) to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval and denied the appeal.
Appeal
On February 5, 2024, Lindsey and Logan Daniels, et.al filed an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Development Plan. A summary of the appeal points and staff responses are provided below. A copy of the appeal letter is attached to this report.
Appeal Point #1: The Zoning Administrator failed to properly apply the Small Lot Occupancy Code Section by comparing the project to homes that are not within the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Response #1: County Ordinance Code Section 82-10.002(c) states that a building permit can be issued for a small lot if the Zoning Administrator determines that the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. A small lot is any lot of less area or width than required by the Zoning District that the parcel is located in. The subject property is a small lot because the parcel is zoned R-10, which establishes a minimum lot size of 10,000 square-feet (parcel has 8,118 square-feet) and 80’ minimum width (parcel has 65.9’ width) and is therefore subject to the small lot design review of Section 82-10.002(c).
The County Ordinance Code does not define what qualifies as the surrounding neighborhood, as the County is not uniform and every neighborhood in the County is different. Rather, the Code allows the Zoning Administrator to determine the extent and makeup of the appropriate surrounding neighborhood, including parcels and residences of various shapes and sizes, when making a small lot design review determination. For context, however, the Draft Contra Costa County 2045 General Plan (11-13) defines neighborhood as the following, “Relatively large residential areas that have some common characteristics, such as common history, common physical characteristics, a common meeting place, or more intangible characteristics, or clear physical boundaries (major roads). Here, for the analysis of this project , Staff relied on the boundaries of the community in which the project is located. The subject property is in the Saranap neighborhood. The Saranap neighborhood includes parcels and houses on the subject street (Freeman Road), as well as parcels and house on streets that are directly accessed from Freeman Road including Melody Drive, Stanley Court, Freeman Cout, Hilton Court, Hilton Road, Juanita Drive and Ponderosa Lane. Staff surveyed the parcels and houses in this neighborhood to analyze the proposed project’s compatibility. All houses surveyed are approximately within 1,000 feet from the subject property. Staff identified multiple two-story houses within this radius. The County Code does not require the County to limit its analysis only to homes on the same street as the subject property. The analysis should be one that considers the surrounding neighborhood. Here, two-story homes located on adjacent streets and within the Saranap neighborhood are appropriate for comparison.
The appellants state that there are no two-story homes or homes with two-story elements within 1,000 feet of the project. When reviewing homes in the Saranap neighborhood, Staff found numerous two-story homes or homes with two-story elements within 1,000 feet. The below table represents the location of a two-story home and the distance in a straight line from the subject parcel.
|
Address of two-story house or house with two-story elements |
Location from Project |
|
25 Hilton Court 185-250-029 |
Approx. 617 Feet North of Project |
|
741 Hilton Road 185-260-004 |
Approx. 871 Feet North of Project |
|
3514 Freeman Road 185-250-024 |
Approx. 468 Feet North of Project |
|
3522 Freeman Road 185-250-030 |
Approx. 621 Feet North of Project |
|
3448 Freeman Road 185-250-014 |
Approx. 57 Feet North of Project |
|
835 Juanita Drive 185-270-005 |
Approx. 957 Feet North of Project |
|
860 Juanita Drive 185-250-033 |
Approx. 715 Feet North of Project |
|
865 Juanita Drive 185-250-033 |
Approx. 965 Feet North of Project |
|
3565 Melody Drive 185-250-035 |
Approx. 750 Feet East of Project |
|
3541 Melody Drive 185-250-039 |
Approx. 570 Feet East of Project |
|
3559 Melody Drive 185-250-036 |
Approx. 750 Feet East of Project |
|
3547 Melody Drive 185-250-038 |
Approx. 530 Feet East of Project |
|
3553 Melody Drive 185-250-037 |
Approx. 615 Feet East of Project |
|
144 Ponderosa Lane 185-241-019 |
Approx. 766 Feet North of Project |
The appellants also contend that the proposed square footage of the project would be double that of residences in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has analyzed the square footage of residences in the Saranap neighborhood and has determined that the project is compatible with residence sizes in the surrounding neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood contains residences with a wide range of sizes and development patterns in the Saranap area show that houses are growing as more homeowners improve the livability of their property. The table below lists other residences in the surrounding neighborhood with square footage comparable to the 3,600 square feet proposed for the subject property.
|
Address |
Square Footage |
|
3454 Freeman Road 185-250-020 |
2,907 SF |
|
3522 Freeman Road 185-250-030 |
4,433 SF |
|
3514 Freeman Road 185-250-024 |
3,087 SF |
|
24 Stanley Court 185-250-017 |
3,105 SF |
|
3362 Freeman Road 185-220-016 |
3,668 SF |
|
3351 Freeman Road 185-220-001 |
3,285 SF |
|
3300 Freeman Road 185-220-008 |
3,608 SF |
|
3506 Freeman Road 185-250-023 |
3,234 SF |
|
1015 El Curtola Blvd 185-270-025 |
4,336 SF |
|
3565 Melody Drive 185-250-035 |
3,154 SF |
|
3541 Melody Drive 185-250-037 |
3,398 SF |
|
3547 Melody Drive 185-250-038 |
3,213 SF |
*Square footage is from Assessor’s Information and Zillow
Appeal Point #2: The County failed to give the public hearing notices required by Law.
Staff Response #2: For a project that requires a public hearing notification, County Staff prepares and reviews a 300-foot notification list which encompasses all addresses and property owners within the required noticing area. Additionally, a signed affidavit is prepared as evidence that the notices were mailed to the property owners identified in the 300-foot notification list. Staff has a signed affidavit dated September 19, 2023, which declares that the public hearing notice was mailed to all addresses on the 300-foot list, 12 calendar days before the scheduled public hearing on October 2, 2023. A scanned copy of the signed affidavit is included as attachment #3 - Public Notice Affidavit. Therefore, County Staff followed the correct notification process as dictated by Government Code §65091 and County Code Section 26-2.2004.
Appeal Point #3: The previous appeal points included in the October 12, 2023 Zoning Administrator Appeal and January 22, 2024 County Planning Commission Public Comment letter requests are to be incorporated herein by reference. Both letters are attached to the Board of Supervisors Staff Report for reference.
Staff Response #3: The October 12, 2023, ZA Appeal Letter submitted by Jason and Iva Schwarz included the following comments: 1) Noticing for public hearing was deficient; 2) Small Lot Review guidelines were not followed; 3) Staff did not review the immediate neighborhood; 4) two story homes are only on larger parcels; 5) The property owner did not contact neighbors to discuss the project. Comment 1 is addressed in BOS appeal point #2. Comment 2, 3 and 4 are addressed in BOS appeal point #1. In response to comment 5, the County Ordinance does not require an applicant to engage with surrounding neighbors.
The January 22, 2024, County Planning Commission Public Comment letter included the following comments: 1) Staff did not review immediate neighborhood; 2) Noticing for public hearing was deficient; 3) Staff did not review the immediate neighborhood; 4) The County only supports building upward for small lots. Comment 1 and 3 are addressed in BOS appeal point #1. Comment 2 is addressed in BOS appeal point #2. In response to comment 4, the County does not require a property owner to build upwards or outwards, rather the County Zoning Code provides the guidelines of development of a parcel. The project meets all of the applicable R-10 zoning requirements and development standards, and the small lot occupancy findings can be made for a second story addition based on an analysis of the surrounding neighborhood.
Conclusion and Staff Recommendation
Staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, and also with the intent of the SM General Plan Designation and the R-10 Zoning District. The project is consistent with the neighborhood as single-family residences with two-story elements are a common occurrence. The Small Lot Design Review findings are supported by the analysis of the surrounding neighborhood that shows that the proposed second story addition is compatible with the Saranap neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal and approve County File #CDDP23-03020, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If the Board were to deny the project, the applicant/property owner would not be allowed to improve their property with a residential addition to the existing single-family residence.