Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Planning Commission backs 24‑unit Creston Road development, approves site modifications and oak removals
Loading...
Summary
The commission recommended City Council approval for a 24‑unit development at 420 Creston Road (12 duplexes), accepting a density bonus for one deed‑restricted very‑low‑income unit and approving site modifications and oak tree removal permits; commissioners amended pedestrian condition language and debated timing of site‑distance improvements.
The Planning Commission on Feb. 10 voted 6–0 to recommend City Council approve a 24‑unit residential development at 420 Creston Road, including a site plan modification, oak tree removal permit and tentative tract map.
Staff described the project as 24 dwelling units organized into 12 duplex buildings (each a four‑bedroom unit with attached two‑car garage), on a 4.3‑acre site in the R2 zone. The applicant seeks an affordable housing density bonus based on one deed‑restricted very‑low‑income unit for 55 years, which entitles the project to a four‑unit density bonus under state and locally adopted provisions. Staff reported required parking as 53 spaces and the project provides 61.
“Katie explained the penalty and the calculation for density bonuses and the need for a deed‑restriction,” Commissioner Neal said during discussion; staff clarified the single deed‑restricted unit must be comparable in size and quality and, where for‑sale, must be sold at county‑published affordable maximum sales prices with deed restrictions that can include resale limitations.
The project includes an oak tree removal request for 10 trees; staff showed evidence of drought stress and prior fire damage for several specimens and recommended oak mitigation and replacement plantings. Staff also explained the project meets the city’s objective design standards and is eligible for a Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption for infill development.
Applicant Rebecca Newman of Arris Studio Architects asked the commission to edit two conditions: to change Condition 52 so that public improvements for site distance are “approved” rather than “constructed” prior to building permit issuance (arguing construction sequencing concerns), and to remove the phrase “ADA compliant” from a pedestrian circulation condition because the project is an attached condominium product not subject to Chapter 11A accessibility triggers. City engineering and planning staff recommended keeping Condition 52’s timing (constructed prior to building permit issuance) to ensure safe driveway site distance at occupancy; commissioners debated alternatives such as tying completion to a certificate of occupancy or utility activation.
Commissioner Kogler moved the staff recommendation with one amendment to strike the words “ADA compliant” from the pedestrian circulation condition so it reads that the applicant shall provide continuous, safe pedestrian circulation within the site; Commissioner Connolly seconded. On roll call the motion passed 6–0. Staff will forward the commission’s recommendation and draft resolutions to City Council for final action.
Key project numbers and requirements: 24 units (12 duplexes), site area ~4.3 acres (about 3 acres developable), one deed‑restricted very‑low‑income unit (5% of project for 55 years) enabling a four‑unit density bonus, 10 oak trees proposed for removal with mitigation required, required parking 53 spaces (61 provided), CEQA Class 32 exemption claimed.
