RTC 03-084 Attachment 6

2002-0976 - Sobrato Development Corporation [Applicant/Owner]: Application for related proposals on a 9-acre site located at 1150-1152 Morse Avenue and 1139 Karlstad Drive in an M-S/ITRR3 (Industrial & Service/Industrial to Residential) Zoning District. (Mitigated Negative Declaration) (APN's: 110-14-174 and 110-14-197)

• Rezone from an M-S/R-3/ITR/PD (General Industrial /Medium-Density Residential/Industrial to Residential/Planned Development) Zoning District to R-4/PD (High-Density Residential/Planned Development); and
• Special Development Permit to allow the development of a 3-story, 272-apartment unit complex.

Christine Cannizzo, Project Planner, presented the staff report. Staff provided a summary of the proposed project highlighting the use, site layout, architecture, landscaping, parking and circulation. She noted that the project would be constructed in two phases between two to five years with Phase I on Morse Avenue and Phase II on Karlstad. Staff was able to make the required findings and recommended approval of the Rezone and Special Development Permit subject to Conditions of Approval.

Comm. Swegles verified with staff the recusal provision since he manages a mobile home park within 500 feet of the project site. Senior Assistant City Attorney Borger responded that since he only manages and has no ownership he can participate in the review process.

Vice Chair Babcock asked staff which trees and how many will be protected during construction and whether it is appropriate to add a condition to protect at least 50% of the trees. Staff was unable to provide specific details since there is no detailed landscaping plan submitted as yet. Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer added that it is appropriate to ask for a certain percentage. She suggested the Commission could also place a condition to have the landscaping plan return to Planning Commission.

Vice Chair Babcock verified with staff whether there is only one covered parking required even in a two-bedroom unit as noted on page 13 of 16 of the staff report. Staff responded that one or two bedroom units have the same number of required covered parking.

Comm. Swegles asked whether Morse Avenue is the only entrance for Phase I and whether Karlstad Drive was considered as a possible entrance during the traffic study. Staff responded that Morse Avenue is the only entrance during Phase I and that there is no side entrance. Ms. Ryan added that Karlstad Avenue was considered and when Phase I and II are completed, there would be an option to use either Morse Road or Karlstad Drive.

Comm. Chu asked if the distance between buildings meets the fire safety standards. Ms. Ryan responded that the distance is within safety standards.

Comm. Chu asked what school the children would attend. Ms. Ryan responded that it is either Columbia or Middle School, Fremont High School and possibly Bishop for the elementary.

Comm. Satterlee verified with staff that there is a Morse Avenue Parking analysis conducted. Staff responded yes and the project meets the parking requirement.

Comm. Satterlee asked further more information on the walkway or pedestrian walk-through. Ms. Ryan responded that the general design accommodates pedestrian travel and transition points. She added that the proposed plan generally meets the intent but there are more details to be worked on.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff whether there are any plans to make the back look attractive since the back of the buildings are fronting the streets. Staff responded that several alternatives have been considered and as a result architectural details were added.

Comm. Satterlee commented that the design seems to lack some elements. Staff responded that she would be looking at the details further during building permit issuance.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff why there is a deviation to the porches. Staff responded that the deviation is to achieve design consistency. Ms. Ryan added that code provision likely was considering that ground floor units could provide slightly larger space.

Tim Steele, applicant, stated that Sobrato Development Company have pioneered in building high-end research and development buildings and would like to pioneer again in residential developments. He complimented staff for a good job in working out the details of the project. He introduced his development team who will present the project - Jim Yee, Dahlin Group, Janet Hittle, Guzardo & Associates and Gene Golobic, Kier & Wright.

Jim Yee, Dahlin Group, presented the design plan of the project highlighting the landscaping, architecture and site layout. He noted that the team is working with staff on the sidewalk and transit orientation, which are included in the conditions of approval in response to the Commission's questions. He pointed out the changes in the plan addressing the concerns expressed by the Commission at the Study Session. He noted the use of accent windows to breakout the elevation and not lose privacy and the uniqueness of the design of individual unit entries.

Comm. Swegles clarified that the homes surrounding the project site are not trailers but rather mobile homes, which are permanent.

Comm. Moylan asked Mr. Steele why develop apartment units rather than condominiums. Mr. Steele responded that Sobrato Development develops only rental properties and will not build for sale. He added that the company is looking at converting a lot of 40-year old R&D buildings to apartments where appropriate to diversify the company's portfolio.

Vice Chair Babcock asked Janet Hittle about the landscaping plan regarding the existing mature trees on site. Ms. Hittle responded that there are several issues being addressed such as grading, retaining wall, utilities and sidewalks. She added that they are looking at retaining the pines and redwood trees and that they want to save as much trees as possible. She added that since there is dominant tree, there is an opportunity to consider magnolias creating a beautiful canopy over time. Mr. Steele added that since the project is moving to a much larger footprint, there is an opportunity to increase the amount of trees on both properties from about 100 to 400 trees.

Comm. Satterlee asked the applicant why the porch dimension could not meet the standard seven-foot for the ground floor. Mr. Yee responded that during the early conversation, he understood that seven-foot is the standard for the ground floor. Further, he added that the dimension would architecturally align the porch above and would also create a central court yardspace.

Comm. Satterlee asked for the dimension of the court yard. Mr. Yee responded approximately 75 x 80 ft.

Comm. Swegles asked staff whether the street trees are city owned. Ms. Ryan responded yes.

Chair Simons expressed concerns about the redwood cluster on the south side and that removal of the redwoods could damage the other trees and he expressed his desire to save the redwoods, privets and potocarpus. Ms. Hittle responded that they would try to save as many trees as possible especially the clustered trees; however, there are difficulties.

Chair Simons asked staff whether the potential 10-foot sidewalk could be split into five and five to wrap around a tree. Ms. Ryan pointed several difficulties in the site such as the need to raise the finished floor above the flood plane and accessibility among others with the sidewalks wrapping around the tree.

Gene Golobic, Kier & Wright, spoke about the 10-foot public utility easement requirements. He noted the concerns and constraints relative to the sidewalk/curb and existing trees. He stated that he spoke with PG&E and that they might reconstruct a joint trench. He concluded that there are design elements to be considered. He noted that page 8 of the staff report illustrated the questions asked about a five-foot sidewalk, 10-foot sidewalk, trees and PUE. He concluded that a condition for a 10-foot PUE is not warranted at this time as it may not be needed due to several elements as noted above.

Chair Simons expressed his concerns about the effect on landscaping of not requiring a 10-foot PUE easement. Ms. Ryan suggested re-phrasing the condition to "dedicate to up to a 10-foot wide PUE", which would allow staff and the applicant an opportunity to work on the issues.

Comm. Satterlee suggested to either direct staff to bring a particular item back to the Commission or get information from staff and move on since there are a number of details requiring further review, which could not be resolved during the public hearing.

Chair Simons asked staff what trees would be used on Morse Avenue. Ms. Ryan responded that street trees are traditionally selected by the city arborist.

Bob Hines, Tri-County Apartment Association, spoke of the outstanding reputation of the developer, who has four decades of building and managing properties. He stated that the City could not get a better housing developer than Sobrato. He urged the Commission to support the project and that he felt confident that the City will be proud of the project and that it provides the much needed housing.

Glen Nielson, Parkinson’s Institute, adjacent neighbor, expressed his concerns related to the south side of the building. He stated that there is an existing 16-foot easement to the driveway for emergency exit and if the southern side driveway would be removed, what would be the egress on the shared driveway or walkway and where would be the trash facility be located. Ms. Ryan responded that Condition of Approval #40 addresses the issues on easements to adjacent properties stating that the applicant shall provide to either abandon the easement or to provide an alternative.

Chair Simons asked if there is no easement but historically shared the access, what rights do users have. Ms. Ryan responded that staff would work with both parties to allow them to operate.

Staff pointed out the trash locations in the site plan and that there are a few of the locations that are being reviewed because of parking stall conflict.

Chair Simons asked if the trash locations have any impact to adjacent properties, how would it be addressed. Ms. Ryan responded through conditions of approval.

Thom Mayer, resident, asked where is the neighborhood park for the development. He expressed concerns about what would be stored in the indoor storage, i.e., fuel, propane canister should not be stored, would there be a separate bike parking and he commented on the streetscape. He stated that 10-foot is not critical but 7-foot sidewalk would be nice. Since Morse Avenue is an extra wide street there is plenty of room to move the curb and planting strips.

Ms. Ryan stated that Condition of Approval #27 requires lockable storage for bicycles in accordance with VTA standards. She added that there is a future park site identified in the area near Morse by the Hetchy Hetchy, which would not be developed for several years. She added that the developer would contribute towards the park development through the park in-lieu fee.

Tim Steele, applicant, thanked the Commission for the thoughtful comments. He noted that there is a comment about asking them to return to Planning Commission and stated that there are approximately 40 conditions of approval and the issues raised have been addressed through the conditions. He further stated that he is willing to continue to work with staff on the details. He stated that he has been looking at circulation alternatives for the Parkinson's Institute and will work with the neighbors to come up with an acceptable solution. He noted that Condition of Approval #29 address the street cleanliness requirement. He thanked the opportunity to present the project and looking forward to finalizing the details.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Steele if he is amenable to providing a shuttle service to the light rail. Mr. Steele responded that VTA sent comments and that he is working with staff on what is the better option, the shuttle or eco pass.

Ms. Ryan fine tuned staff recommendations based on the discussions:

1. Condition of Approval #29d to modify "up to a 10-foot sidewalk at the public street frontages" and the rest the same.
2. Condition of Approval #38 dedicate "up to 10-foot wide PUE along Morse Avenue frontage as determined by the Director of Public Works."
3. Condition of Approval #42 should be deleted as it is covered under Condition #29d.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff to clarify the front setback and landscaping buffer. Ms. Ryan responded that the setback is measured from the property line, therefore, the building would be 15 feet from the property line and that there is a distance between the property line and the curb which includes the sidewalk and landscaping.

Comm. Satterlee further asked what is the minimum distance between the property line and the curb. Ms. Ryan responded typically 11 feet from the curb to the property line. She emphasized that the setback is measured from the property line.

Comm. Satterlee asked about the side yard setbacks whether the 10-foot side setback is all the way up or is there a step back on the second and third floors consistent with the single family neighborhood with increasing set-back for second and third stories. Staff responded that the side yard setbacks are based on the distance of the carports from the property line which is approximately 5 feet from the side property line and the buildings that front the streets has 15 feet. Comm. Satterlee noted that the new site plan submitted by the applicant indicated that it is 10 feet all the way. Ms. Ryan noted that the staff report was prepared based on the previous plan submitted by the applicant.

Comm. Satterlee asked how far is the side of the building from the property line. Ms. Ryan responded, that after conferring with the architect, the distance of the building on the Morse Avenue side is about 10 feet straight up from the property line with minor difference on the lower level because of utility enclosures.

Comm. Satterlee asked if the setback for this project is consistent with multi-family neighborhood. Staff said yes.

Vice Chair Babcock stated that she believes that Sobrato Development has a wonderful project and saving as many existing trees would make it more outstanding. It is needed housing to help in the redevelopment of the area and that the developer will do everything they can to assist in the housing needs.

Comm. Lee commented that the project is the beginning of the fruition of the industrial to residential transition zoning changes. He added that there are still other elements such as parks/schools/retail that need to be addressed to transition from industrial to residential but by providing the housing now and later provide the other infrastructure is a good start. He also supported the transit friendly thinking by providing access to lightrail promoting the use of VTA since it is on the north side of the city.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff about the egress easements concerns whether this could be addressed as a minor modification. Ms. Ryan responded that if there is no significant change to the site plan, staff can do the review and the easement will not have to return to the Commission.

Comm. Satterlee commented that although there are a number of unresolved issues; the land use concept weighted heavier providing 271 apartment units and the residual details could be addressed at the staff level, she supported the motion. She finds the interior very attractive but looking forward to re-design of the street side building façades.

Comm. Moylan supported the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Rezone. However, he was unable to make the required findings to approve the Special Development Permit. He stated that there is a traffic issue that needs to be addressed despite the close proximity of the lightrail to the site and it does not provide homeownership opportunity meeting the maintenance of at least 50% owner occupied housing balance in the city. Therefore, the project does not meet the goals of the General Plan. He did not support the motion.

Comm. Swegles supported the motion and stated that he was once concerned with the traffic impact to the neighborhood with the 600 apartment units built in the area; however, the traffic impact was negated by the tenants using Weddell rather than using Tasman. He encouraged the applicant to offer the Eco-pass or the shuttle making it user friendly to use the lightrail. He concluded that the efforts of the applicant in addressing traffic concerns are good.

Comm. Chu supported the motion. He thanked Sobrato Development in providing additional housing augmenting the housing shortage. He disagreed with Comm. Moylan with the homeownership opportunity and that the 50% goal is for all the projects throughout the city and not by individual project. He concurred, however, with Comm. Moylan regarding traffic issue and he encouraged the applicant to use the Eco-pass in conjunction with the shuttle use.

Chair Simons also supported the motion. He stated that he also considers the quality of the applicant and that Sobrato is a good neighbor to the City who can provide high quality residential development. He expressed his major concerns with the mature landscaping on Morse Avenue that could potentially be removed.

Return to RTC# 03-084