BACKGROUND
The project site is located on parcels F-25 (5.49 acres) and F-26 (5.6 acres) within the West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP), on either side of the future Prairie Town Way, and south of the intersection with Fiddyment Road. The subject parcels are designated High Density Residential (HDR) and are zoned Multi-Family Housing (R3). Parcels F-25 and F-26 have been planned for HDR land use since the adoption of the WRSP in 2004. The existing land use density allocated to the site allows up to 277 dwelling units. The project is bounded on the north by Community Commercial parcels F-32 and F-33. The project is separated by public streets on the west from Low-Density Residential subdivision F-16, on the south from RG Phillips Park, and on the east from Low-Density Residential subdivision F-15B. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by a mix of single-story and two story homes.
Current Project
The current project includes the development of a market-rate rental, high-density multi-family residential project consisting of 189 dwelling units across the two parcels. There are four different unit types in the project. There are two different two-story detached units and two units that are located on the second and third floors over a garage within a three-story building. The project is designed generally in clusters or “pods” of three buildings. Each pod contains two two-story detached units and one multi-unit three-story building with garages below. There is a central courtyard and private yard space between the multi-unit building and single unit buildings. The project includes a total of 404 parking spaces, and also includes site amenities such as a playground, swimming pool, wading pool, fitness building, and clubhouse, as well as pedestrian pathways and landscaping. A full evaluation of the project is included in the Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 1). The approved exhibits are included in Attachments 4 and 5.
Planning Commission Testimony and Appeal
On May 13, 2021, the Planning Commission voted (6 Yes – 1 No) to approve the Design Review Permit. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, a group of residents submitted a letter outlining their concerns with the project. This letter (known as the “Lacey, Teske, McPeak letter”) was supported and “cosigned” by 133 additional residents. The verbal testimony by 18 individuals at the Planning Commission hearing was consistent with the concerns outlined in this letter. Staff provided the Commission with a response to these concerns in the “Fiddyment Bungalows Letter Response Memorandum.” The Response Memorandum and the Lacey, Teske, McPeak letter are provided as Attachment 2.
On May 24, 2021, the City Clerk’s office received a notice of appeal from Michael Teske (Attachment 6). Mr. Teske is one of the authors of the Lacey, Teske, McPeak letter. According to the appeal, the justification for challenging the May 13, 2021, Planning Commission approval of the Fiddyment Bungalows project is contained in the previously submitted documents from residents as well as the issues raised at the Planning Commission hearing. Materials submitted with the appeal include a series of photos of the project site and the surrounding neighborhood.
Because the justification for the appeal relies on the Lacey, Teske, McPeak letter that was provided to the Planning Commission, staff is providing the following summary of concerns from both the letter and public testimony, followed by a response to these concerns. The subject of the letter, testimony, and appeal can be divided into four topics: Aesthetics, Parking and Traffic, Safety, and Controlled Access. Staff is providing an overall response and then a discussion of each topic.
Overall Response
The Lacey, Teske, McPeak letter correctly notes that a Design Review Permit is a discretionary permit. However, the letter mischaracterizes what discretionary action was before the Planning Commission and is now before the City Council. The letter appears to take two separate tracks concurrently. On the one hand, there are concerns put forth about the design of the project. On the other hand, the remedy for those concerns appears to be to alter the scope of the project to reduce the number of dwelling units. There are legislative and contractual requirements in place that determine whether this project could be reduced in density. Staff is not able to make those findings.
According to California Government Code Section 65589.5.(j), if a local agency proposes to disapprove or impose a condition that reduces density of a housing development project that is consistent with all applicable standards, “the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.”
Staff finds that the project is consistent with the applicable standards, and there is not a preponderance of evidence that the above findings A and B can be made.
In addition to the legislative requirements above, the Fiddyment Ranch area of the WRSP is governed by the provisions of the Fiddyment Land Venture Development Agreement, which provides a variety of vested rights to the property owner, including dwelling unit allocation and development standards. California Government Code 65865.2. states that “A development agreement shall specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The development agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the agreement.”
A. Aesthetics
Height
The Lacey, Teske, McPeak letter and public testimony states that the three-story design is not harmonious with other development and buildings in the vicinity. The proposed project includes two-story units adjacent to the perimeter roadways and these units provide a transition from the three-story structures, which are set back 60 feet from any public roadway and approximately 120 feet from any single-family homes across the street. The project intentionally places the taller three-story units interior to the project, and two-story units fronting the streets and surrounding neighborhood. This step-down in building height provides an effective transition to better harmonize with the height of surrounding homes. In fact, the two-story units fronting the street are only 28 feet in height, while the interior three-story units are up to 38 feet in height. This is well below the R3 district height limit of 45 feet, and only three feet higher than the 35-foot height limit applicable to the surrounding R1 neighborhood. For comparison, the two-story single-family homes on the opposite side of the street are approximately the same height at 27 feet. There is a footnote in the Zoning Ordinance that states the height limit for R3 properties shall be lowered to 35 feet for “units immediately adjacent to the Single-Family Residential (R1) and Small Lot Residential (RS) districts”. No units in this project would be considered immediately adjacent to the R1 zone as there is a public roadway in between the R3 and R1 zone. Even if this project was considered immediately adjacent, it would meet this requirement as all of the units closest to the R1 zone are two-stories in height and under 30 feet tall. There is no precedent for the City to limit a development below the maximum height standard requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, which this project is well under. Furthermore, the provisions of the Development Agreement governing this property vests the property owner with the ability to rely on the applicable Zoning Ordinance standards.
Color and Theme
The Lacey, Teske, McPeak letter and public testimony states that the project’s bright white paint is reflective, does not compliment the house colors throughout the neighborhood and will make the project stand out from the neighborhood. The letter goes on to state that the project’s modern farmhouse architectural theme is incompatible with the design of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has proposed to use six different color schemes to create variety amongst the individual buildings throughout the proposed project. One of the six base colors, Sherwin Williams Greek Villa, could be considered off-white but it is not reflective. Modern farmhouse architectural style is used throughout the project. This style combines modern and traditional features, which are complementary to homes in the immediate area. Community Design Guideline MF-27 calls for multi-family projects to complement the context of adjacent and surrounding projects, but to avoid duplication in design. Copycat architecture is discouraged. Staff compared the proposed architecture and colors for the project to existing homes in the immediate vicinity of the project and found that while the modern farmhouse style is not a copy of any existing home in the area, there are a number of complementary colors, materials, and architectural features that meet the intent of the Community Design Guidelines. The features found to be complementary to the surrounding neighborhood include the two-story detached building form, pitched roof, earth tone color schemes including many similar colors, base material of stucco, and horizontal or vertical accent siding. A more detailed comparison between the project and surrounding homes can be found in the neighbor letter response memo (Attachment 2).
B. Parking and Traffic
The Lacey, Teske, McPeak letter and public testimony encourages the City to focus on the number of bedrooms per unit rather than the project’s land use designation or Zoning Ordinance standards when considering the amount of required parking on-site. There is no precedent for the City to require more parking than that required by the Zoning Ordinance. Ignoring this requirement would be in conflict with the City Council approved West Roseville Specific Plan, the City Council approved Development Agreement and subsequent amendments, the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and State Planning Laws. Due to the number of bedrooms in each unit, two parking spaces are required on-site for every unit in the project. No matter the unit mix or number of units, the City parking standards are the requirement that must be enforced. Staff added Condition 67 to the project, which requires garages be kept free and clear for parking. This goes beyond the requirements for the adjacent single-family homes, which must provide two garage spaces but have no conditions to keep them clear of storage.
The letter states that single-family homes are required to have 20-foot deep driveways in order to provide additional parking. This is not correct. There are various reasons for the varying driveway depth requirements in single family zoning districts. The primary purpose of the driveway depth requirement is to ensure vehicles do not hang over the public sidewalk and impede pedestrians. A secondary purpose for driveway setbacks is to prevent garages from being the focal point of a single family dwelling, the driveway setback is always greater than the setback for living space. The project site is bordered by both Single Family Residential (R-1) and Small Lot Residential (RS) zoning districts. The R1 district has a driveway setback of 20 feet and a living space setback of between 10 and 15 feet, while the DS district has a driveway setback of 18 feet and a living space setback of between 10 and 15 feet.
The letter and public testimony states that the proposed emergency vehicle access (EVA) drives will contribute to light and noise pollution. In order to mitigate this concern, the Planning Commission added conditions of approval that will require enhanced screening of the EVA driveways to limit car light from being visible to the adjacent single family homes. These conditions are included as Conditions 2a and 27 within the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 1).
The letter and public testimony provides concerns related to an increase in neighborhood traffic. The project proposes 30% fewer units than that allocated to the parcels, resulting in 30% fewer vehicle trips than anticipated in the City’s traffic model against which the surrounding roadways were designed. Additionally, the entrances to the project are limited exclusively to Prairie Town Way, which feeds directly to Fiddyment Road; other than for emergency vehicle access, there are no driveways to the project from the surrounding residential roadways. Project opponents also cited existing cut-through traffic and speeding concerns in the neighborhood. These issues are further addressed below, and are currently under review by the Public Works Department and are not a result of the proposed project.
During the public testimony, one project opponent brought up concerns about street designations changing from what was analyzed in the West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The speaker believes that because minor and primary residential roads were not identified or analyzed in the EIR the proposed exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15182 for projects consistent with a specific plan EIR is not appropriate for the project. The speaker did not provide any evidence that the proposed project will result in any additional impacts to the traffic circulation network beyond those analyzed within the WRSP EIR. With the exception of a few primary residential roadways, the designation of minor or primary residential roadways throughout the WRSP are analyzed and determined at the time that tentative subdivision maps are submitted for a subdivision. The majority of minor and primary residential roadways were not determined during the review of the WRSP and are therefore not identified in the WRSP EIR. Based on this information, the conclusion is that the roadway designations within the vicinity of the project site are consistent with the analysis prepared for the WRSP EIR. The proposed project does not generate any new transportation impacts on the surrounding roadway network that were not already identified. In fact, as stated above, the project proposes fewer units than allocated and anticipated in the City’s traffic model. No new circumstances or reasonable arguments have been presented that would warrant additional traffic analysis. Therefore, the project meets the requirements for a CEQA Section 15182 exemption.
During the public testimony, one project opponent was concerned that the designation for Prairie Town Way was being changed from a residential street to a collector. Development Services Engineering staff responded that although Prairie Town Way is proposed to be wider than a primary residential roadway, it does not fall into the classification of a collector roadway. Collector roadways are designed to carry 5,000 -12,000 cars a day. The two primary characteristics of a collector roadway are that no single-family driveways front the road, and no on street parking is permitted. These requirements are to ensure that traffic remains free flowing and vehicles aren’t slowing down to park or turn into a driveway. Additionally, the travel lanes on a collector roadway are extra wide (approx. 17 ft.) to allow for higher speeds to convey larger volumes of traffic. Prairie Town Way is essentially being constructed as a primary residential roadway to accommodate on street parking, with the addition of bike lanes. The travel lanes on Prairie Town Way will be 10.5 wide, which is consistent with a residential roadway. Due to the nearby park and future commercial site, staff felt that adding bike lanes provided an additional level of safety for a cyclist traveling to these destinations while still maintaining the narrow lanes and slower speeds of a residential roadway.
C. Safety Concerns
The Lacey, Teske, McPeak letter and public testimony raises concerns about neighborhood safety with a focus on the adjacent R.G. Phillips Park. The letter claims that the project fails to provide “pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle linkages.” Crosswalks and bike lanes on public roadways are not in the scope of this private development project. The City’s Public Works Department has a study open to determine whether crosswalks will be needed in any locations surrounding the development. More data will be required when the site is developed to study the number of pedestrians crossing at various points around the development to determine whether crosswalks are necessary. Often crosswalks are not necessary or desired in this scenario as they provide a false sense of security to pedestrians.
The letter and testimony includes a concern about the front door entries onto adjacent streets. These entries facing the street, as well as other paths, are in fact the pedestrian linkages to surrounding developments that the Community Design Guidelines calls for. CDG MF-29 considers the relationship of a multi-family project and surrounding streets. The guideline provides that pedestrian scaled entry should be a prominent feature of the front elevation. Entry doors fronting on the surrounding public streets provide for activity and engagement with the surrounding neighborhood and public amenities. In contrast to the arguments in the letter, there are examples of multi-family developments that interact with nearby single family neighborhoods. The Campus Oaks Apartments is a recent example. That project is separated from a single-family residential development with a 30-foot wide bike/pedestrian paseo.
The letter and testimony includes concerns related to speeding within the neighborhood. As mentioned above, the City Public works Department is reviewing these concerns with studies on various aspects of vehicle safety related to cut-through trips as well as vehicle speeds. Past studies have shown that the neighborhood streets around the project carry in the range of 300-500 cars a day whereas they are designed to accommodate up to 5,000 trips per day (for a primary residential street) and typical speeds have been found to be average for the City. The proposed project will undoubtedly bring additional residents and cars to the neighborhood. These future residents were anticipated with the adoption of the WRSP in 2004 and accounted for in all City modeling and plans in the intervening years. The project proposes 70% of the dwelling units anticipated by the specific plan and City traffic models.
D. Controlled Access
The Lacey, Teske, McPeak letter and public testimony indicates that the project should be separated from the single family neighborhood with fencing. The letter requests that fencing and limited access to the project be required. The Community Design Guidelines do not require fencing around multi-family housing. The letter rightly states that Guideline MF-9 indicates “a project should provide fencing as appropriate between adjacent land uses.” The proposed project is not adjacent to single family homes, it is located across a public residential roadway from single-family homes. Fencing is appropriate when a multi-family project shares a property line with single-family lots. Fencing around the proposed project would have the effect of providing a barrier to connectivity and access to surrounding public streets and amenities. The proposed project is designed with forward-facing front doors that engage the community. Perimeter fencing is not required and would not be appropriate with this design.
The letter and testimony suggests that fencing and limited access will reduce crime associated with the project. Staff consulted with the Police Department on whether anything about the project design would lead to an increase in crime in the area. Police stated there is no data to show that high-quality market-rate multi-family projects such as the proposed lead to an increase in crime beyond any similar single-family development and saw no issues with the design.
The letter states that a fence around the project would also reduce light and noise pollution. Lighting for the units on the perimeter of the project are wall sconces in a design similar to a single-family home. Condition 48 on the project requires that “All on-site external lighting shall be installed and directed to have no off-site glare.” Violation of this condition is enforceable by the City’s Code Enforcement Division. As discussed above, the two parking lots with EVA access adjacent to the street will be largely screened and the small number of parking spaces in these locations will create a low level of off-site light from cars in the evening. Off-site glare from these vehicles will be mitigated by the access gates added as Condition 27 during the Planning Commission hearing. There is one other six-space parking lot adjacent to a public street. This lot will be fully screened by landscaping. The noise created during trash collection from the four trash enclosures on site will be short in duration, typical of multi-family development, and below the thresholds of the City’s Noise Ordinance.
Conclusion
The proposed Fiddyment Bungalows project is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and the WRSP, and the required findings for the requested entitlement can be made. On May 13, 2021, the Planning Commission approved the Design Review Permit. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission’s action, and approve the requested entitlement.