Planning Commission denies appeal, upholds SB 9 lot split and four-unit project at 1825 Nash Drive

The Planning Commission on Feb. 25 denied an appeal of the zoning administrator’s approval for an SB 9 urban lot split and single-family-dwelling design review at 1825 Nash Drive, upholding a decision to allow two lots and a total of four residential units (a primary unit and an ADU on each lot).

The commission’s action was to deny the appeal and sustain the zoning administrator’s decision; the motion was adopted by recorded vote with four votes in favor and one abstention. The decision can be appealed to City Council within 10 calendar days.

Staff summary and scope: Associate planner Liz Galliardi told the commission the proposal would split an existing 11,233-square-foot parcel into two lots: Lot A (fronting Nash Drive) would retain the existing two-story house and include a new detached ADU of about 1,200 sq. ft.; Lot B (a rear lot accessed by an easement) would include a new two‑story primary SB 9 unit of about 2,340 sq. ft. with a second‑floor ADU of roughly 800 sq. ft. Because the primary unit on Lot B exceeds 800 sq. ft., staff processed the project via the discretionary design-review path allowed under local code rather than the ministerial-only SB 9 process for units up to 800 sq. ft.

Galliardi told commissioners the project complies with setback, height and floor-area rules as applied under SB 9 and ADU law; ADU area up to 800 sq. ft. is exempt from floor-area-ratio calculations under state law. Staff also reported the project was found categorically exempt from CEQA for small residential construction.

Appellant and public concerns: The appellant and several neighbors said the infill would increase traffic and parking demand on a narrow street, create privacy and view impacts for adjacent backyards and change the character of the block. The appellant called the proposed rear development “a monstrosity” and urged the commission to consider neighborhood impacts; a Zoom commenter who said they live nearby said the project would “drastically change the character of our street” and raised concerns about overcrowding and property values.

Applicant response and intent: Applicant Shiva Hu and architect Kenneth Ho said the design intent is to provide multi‑generational housing for an extended family; Hu described living on Nash Drive for 30 years and said the project is intended to keep family close and provide accessible units for older relatives. “The entire intent … is really to be able to house the uncles and aunts and the family and my parents when they get older,” Hu said.

Commission discussion and constraints: Commissioners discussed design details — including plate heights, the long exterior stair to the second-floor ADU, window placement and potential privacy screens — but several commissioners and staff emphasized legal constraints under state housing laws. Staff cited SB 9’s ministerial allowances (two lots and up to two units per lot) and noted the commission’s substantive discretion applies only to the discretionary portion of the application (the primary unit on Lot B exceeding 800 sq. ft.). Several commissioners noted they could offer design guidance but had limited authority to deny the project because it met applicable objective standards and state law (including provisions of the Housing Accountability Act and recent SB legislation) restricts local discretion when projects meet objective zoning and design standards.

Parking and circulation: Staff explained SB 9 limits local parking requirements for SB 9 primary units to one standard stall per primary unit; ADUs are eligible for a parking exemption when they meet transit‑adjacency criteria. The project proposed three parking stalls in total (one existing on Lot A and a two‑car garage on Lot B) which staff said meets the state‑limited requirement. Public Works reviewed circulation and found the site allowed a 3‑point turn for exiting vehicles and that backing into the public right-of-way complies with rules for single-family and two-unit developments.

Commission conclusion: After extensive public comment and commissioner questions about scale and neighborhood fit, the commission voted to deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator’s approval. Commissioners urged the applicant to consider design refinements — lower plate heights, alternate stair configurations, additional landscaping — but noted those are suggestions rather than required changes under the city’s legal framework. The commission’s denial preserves the zoning administrator’s discretionary design review approval; the decision may be appealed to City Council within 10 calendar days.

Why it matters: The decision illustrates the limited scope of local authority over SB 9 projects that meet objective standards and highlights tensions between state housing goals and neighborhood preservation concerns. The project will add two units plus two ADUs on a former single‑family parcel, increasing housing supply while raising neighborhood concerns about privacy, parking and street impacts.