|
Steve Lynch, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Councilmember Swegles confirmed with staff that the information presented for the appeal has already been presented and discussed at the Planning Commission hearing. Councilmember Swegles asked staff on what basis the decision is being appealed. Senior Planner Lynch stated there is not any significant new information in the appellant’s letter other then the appellant wanting to appeal the decision. Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, stated the municipal code states that anyone aggrieved by a decision may appeal it.
Councilmember Chu disclosed that he met with the developers.
Councilmember Chu inquired if the lot coverage is a requirement for review or a specific variance. Senior Planner Lynch stated it is a requested deviation as a part of the applicant’s application. Councilmember Chu confirmed this is an actual variance request as opposed to a review triggered by reaching a certain threshold.
Councilmember Hamilton disclosed she also met with the developer.
Councilmember Hamilton asked staff to explain the density bonus. Principal Planner Ryan stated the code allows up to a 15 percent density bonus. As an example, if 100 units were permitted, an additional 15 units could be built. In this example of the 100 units, 12.5 percent would be required to be below market rate. The 12.5 percent would be rounded to 13 percent and the below market rate units would total 13 as opposed to the 15 density bonus units allowed in this example. Principal Planner Ryan stated Councilmember Hamilton was correct that the density bonus units could be more than the below market rate units as identified in the previous example. Councilmember Hamilton inquired as to what triggers a density bonus and Principal Planner Ryan stated a developer can request it because the way the code is written the developer is entitled to a density bonus. To comply with state law, when a developer supplies affordable housing, the City must allow for a density bonus. There is a provision in the City’s code that states the developer is entitled to a density bonus provided they meet all other standards of the zoning district. Deviations to those requirements can be considered through the special development permit and planned development zoning, (with or without the density bonus).
Councilmember Hamilton identified that page three of the staff report states that the distance between the current buildings on this site is 30-feet and any new project would require a 26-foot minimum distance between buildings. However, it appears in the staff report that the developer is proposing a 12-foot distance between the buildings and Councilmember Hamilton asked staff for confirmation that the actual distance being proposed between buildings is 12 feet. Principal Planner Ryan stated there is a portion between the townhouse buildings where there is only 12 feet between the two buildings. Principal Planner Ryan explained that there is a 12-foot distance between groups of six townhouse buildings where the two buildings come together at an angle and those corners would be the smaller distance of 12 feet.
Councilmember Hamilton stated she thought most buildings were attached within this project, but that she understood R4 zoning requires the minimum distance between buildings to be 26 feet. Principal Planner Ryan confirmed that for this height of structure and without a special development permit, the developer would need to observe a 26-foot distance between buildings.
Councilmember Swegles disclosed he met with the developer.
Councilmember Moylan disclosed he met with the developer.
Councilmember Howe disclosed he met with the developer and also had two telephone conversations from members of the community that are close to the project.
Councilmember Hamilton confirmed with Senior Planner Lynch that the original application had two children’s play areas (one for larger children and one for smaller children). The Planning Commission stated they only wanted one play structure, just for children under the age of six.
Public hearing opened 8:56 p.m.
Tara Martin-Milius, appellant, speaking on behalf of the San Miguel Neighbors Association, stated they are still looking for height reduction and traffic mitigation within the project. Martin-Milius stated the new design on traffic will work for the association. They approve of the traffic design, as long as the current access onto Duane is blocked off and right and left turns are accessible off the traffic island. The San Miguel neighbors would like to see some of the heights be reduced to three stories and they would like the homes to return to code in terms of their setbacks and lot coverage.
Phil Mader, Senior Vice President of Taylor-Woodrow, gave a power point presentation on the history and progress of their project.
Councilmember Chu inquired if Mader has seen the staff recommendation which is to reduce the lot coverage to 40 percent. Mader stated that was not in the Planning Commission approval and they don’t feel they should be penalized for two percentage points over on lot coverage.
Councilmember Chu confirmed with Mader that with the increase in lot coverage, Taylor Woodrow would attempt to add four units.
Councilmember Hamilton confirmed that the 3,000 square-foot difference (derived from the additional two percent lot coverage) would be incorporated into three or five stories.
Mader stated they are required to have trash enclosures which count against their lot coverage; however, if they were not required to have the trash enclosures, they would not be over on their lot coverage. Mader stated that the trash enclosures are being counted in their lot coverage percentages, yet they do not provide any living space. Councilmember Hamilton stated it is her understanding that the trash enclosures are required by the trash company.
Councilmember Howe inquired if the concrete area of the project (island), which is slated to become landscaped, is the City’s responsibility or the developers. Senior Planner Lynch stated it will become the City’s responsibility to maintain that area but the developer would be responsible for building the area and turning it over to the City in turn-key condition. Councilmember Howe inquired if any estimates have been received on the cost of maintaining this area. Director Rose stated he would suggest the developer maintain the landscaping because it is not connected with any maintenance/landscaping that the staff does anywhere else in the area. Councilmember Howe stated the City would be taking on an additional responsibility without knowing what the costs will be and this issue needs to be worked out in one way or another. Councilmember Howe inquired if staff had taken into account the cost of maintaining this island. Director Rose stated staff anticipated that the island area would be a hardscape median island which has negligible costs associated with it. Director Rose stated if this area is being to be landscaped, that is a different issue and Public Works does not have the resources to maintain this area.
Councilmember Howe inquired what staff had anticipated would be in place for the island area – as staff understood the area to be hardscape – or did staff anticipate the area as being green and the City would maintain the area. Planning Officer Ryan stated the discussions about the roadway have been handled through the Public Works Department. Discussions about this area have occurred with the Public Works staff and the Director of Public Works has the final decision on the roadway geometry.
Mayor Lee confirmed there is a 15-foot set-back to the start of the front porch, and the porch is about five feet deep (out from the house), which creates 20 feet to the face of the front door.
Councilmember Howe confirmed with Planning Officer Ryan that the department responsible for a project/area from the City has final approval on the item.
Bena Chang, Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition, spoke in favor of the Duane Court proposal.
Glen Chambers stated the code requires a four-story and yet the project is five-story. Chambers stated if he were to ask for deviations to the code (similar to what the developer is requesting) for his own property, he would be turned down. Chambers stated concerns over traffic and wondered if the Council was aware that the children in this complex would be attending Santa Clara schools. Chambers inquired if a traffic study was done as children will have to be driven down Lawrence Expressway to get to school. Planning Officer Ryan stated staff mentioned in both the staff report and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that a portion of the site would be in two different school districts (Sunnyvale School District and a portion in Santa Clara school district). Chambers stated after the rezoning, this entire project became part of the Santa Clara School District.
Chambers stated the project down the street at AMD site is undergoing an abatement program for the toxic agricultural waste and also for industrial waste. Chambers stated he would expect the same abatement program for this site because it had the same land uses. Senior Planner Lynch stated this issue was studied through the EIR and was approved at an R4 density. John Schwarz, Environmental Consultant (who prepared the EIR on the entire site along with the AMD site) stated chemical impacts have historically occurred at the north end of this area. This environmental issue was disclosed in the EIR and discussed at length. The Taylor Woodrow project was conditioned to clean up and contact the oversight agency (in this case the Regional Water Quality Control Board) and coordinate with them per their requirements to ensure the safety of the residents.
Chambers stated that he would like to see the set-backs followed per code as would be expected from any project.
Councilmember Howe inquired if Chambers would rather see a smaller set-back with graduated height limits or a larger set-back with a five-story building at the front. Chambers responded that listed under the conditions, there are asterisks by the items that do not meet code and he would like to see the developer work harder to meet code. Chambers stated he would rather have decent set-backs on Duane Court.
Albert S. Lee, neighbor of the proposed project, urged Council to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
Beverley Bryant, Executive Director of the Home Builders Association of Northern California, urged Council to approve this project and deny the appeal.
Carl Sandwick, neighbor of the proposed project, inquired about dust and pollutants from the project as he is concerned over his garden. Sandwick stated he prefers a three-story building facing Duane Court. Councilmember Howe explained to Sandwick that the three-story building would have a shorter distance from the single-family houses and the longer distance from the single-story homes would start at five stories. Councilmember Howe asked Sandwick which he would prefer, and Sandwick stated three stories with a shorter set-back.
Councilmember Howe asked staff what type of dust and vapor control (or any other environmental controls) will be required of the developer during the construction of this project. Schwarz stated there is a substantial list of mitigation measures that were identified in the EIR and were made conditions of approval to address construction, dust, and noise. Additionally, the usual Bay area control measures were included in the EIR and made conditions of approval. Councilmember Howe confirmed that street sweeping will be included if debris is removed from the site. Schwarz stated any residual pesticides on the site will be capped and removed, and any vapor rising from underneath the site will be captured by the vapor barriers required of the development.
Sandwick inquired if the position of the City was that the food in his garden will be safe to eat. Planning Officer Ryan stated she is unable to say if his food will be safe to eat but nothing happening on the proposed site will affect the quality of his food.
Michael Dollinger, Managing Member of Duane Ventures – owner of the property, stated these same issues/concerns have been raised at the Planning Commission meetings. Dollinger recommended that Council uphold the Planning Commission decision as approved. Dollinger stated he was concerned with the five-story building as well because he did not want to be a part of something that would be offensive to the neighbors. Dollinger explained that he went to the site and there was a row of street trees down the length of the block which block the view of the proposed project. Dollinger stated set-back and lot coverage was thoroughly discussed at the Planning Commission meeting.
Mader explained extensive environmental work has been completed on this site and this project is suitable for residential development.
An environmental consultant for the applicant stated numerous soil and gas studies have been completed and submitted to the regional board and the Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health (acting as lead agency), and they have submitted a work plan for construction and there is no future risk to construction workers or future residents of this project. The mitigation is removal of contaminated soils. During construction there will be mitigation of any ground water that is impacted.
Mader explained that by code this project is allowed to be 55 feet in height (with additional five-feet for underground parking). Mader stated by code they are allowed to have a 60-foot building, and they are at 58 feet in height, so the project is in compliance with the height requirement.
Mader stated he is asking Council to uphold the Planning Commission decision and allow for the design alternative to step the last portion of the condominium building at the bulb of Duane Court to three stories and add four additional units.
Councilmember Hamilton stated that one of the speakers identified a section of the building (which steps down) would be in the public right-of-way and she inquired if that would require the City to sell that section of land to the developer. Senior Planner Lynch stated from what staff can tell at first look, that area would be in the public right-of-way, so the City would need to dedicate, sell or give the land to the developer in order to make the design alternative happen. Senior Planner Lynch stated there are a number of complications involved, the least of which is the geometry of the existing cul-de-sac’s ability to meet City standards if the City were to give up that land. The second significant issue is, if this project is at the maximum density it can have under R4, and four additional units are approved, the project would become R5 density as well as become very high density under the General Plan. Units would have to be removed elsewhere or the entire site would need to be rezoned and the General Plan amendment for the site would need to be changed.
Councilmember Hamilton stated there was a question earlier about whether or not the square footage would be a wash and if it would have an impact on the 40 versus 42 percent lot coverage. Principal Planner Ryan stated staff does not have enough information to explain the impacts of the proposal. However, adding four units appears to be adding to the lot coverage which would add an additional one or two percent to the lot coverage. Instead of the 42 percent, it sounds like the developer would be asking for something higher than that, plus the additional four units. Principal Planner Ryan stated Council could only approve the additional units requested by the developer if Council were to direct that units be reduced elsewhere.
Councilmember Hamilton confirmed with Mader that the configuration of the building and how it goes together created other issues. Mader stated they came to the conclusion that the best options are to leave the project as the Planning Commission had it, at five stories 170 feet away from the nearest home, or extend a three-story element out in front. Mader stated if they try to reduce the project as it is now, that will create many different issues which will start rippling through the project and it will become very problematic. Councilmember Hamilton asked Mader to explain the issues and Mader stated there will be issues with how the units lay out from the garage; structural issues with the units above, and how they stack would be problematic. Mader stated adding the design alternative to step the last portion of the condominium building at the bulb of Duane Court to three stories and adding four additional units was an attempt to find a solution. The project can be left as the Planning Commission approved it and if there is a desire to have a dropped edge; it would require a dedication of 4,000 square feet of road right-of-way. Mader stated the developer is merely trying to facilitate an option.
Mayor Lee stated the proposal has been submitted for 304 units (42 percent) and inquired if the proposal was reduced to (40 percent) how many units would be lost. Mader stated he would lose four to six units.
Mayor Lee inquired if the set-back was at 20 feet, how many units would be lost. Mader stated the village green in the center with the clubhouse, pool, and the tot lot would all be dramatically reduced in size.
Mayor Lee inquired if the five stories were reduced to four-story maximum (based on the code), how many units would be lost for the portion on Duane. Mader stated approximately seven units would be lost.
Martin-Milius, speaking on behalf of the San Miguel Neighbors Association, stated the association is against cutting out the turn-around at the end of Duane Court. Duane Court does not have a full bulb at the end of the court; it is straight on the San Miguel side and curved on the Taylor-Woodrow project side. Martin-Milius stated that if the developer removed the fifth level off the top, the association would find that solution acceptable.
Martin-Milius stated the trees surrounding their homes lose their leaves in the winter and the view would not be blocked at that time. The neighborhood is concerned with not just the lack of direct sunlight but the amount of ambient light that would reach the neighborhood. The neighborhood is blocked to the east by the sound wall and would be to the south by this new project. Martin-Milius stated the City will not allow homes in the San Miguel neighborhood to build straight up; rather neighbors are required to set back five or ten feet with the second story.
Martin-Milius stated the neighborhood association would still like to see a reduction in homes and would rather see four-story than five-story homes in the project. Martin-Milius stated what the association is suggesting does not change any of the BMR units as far as they can tell and if it did; it would only be by one.
Martin-Milius stated the association would like to see a change in the traffic pattern that blocks off the current access in front of the three homes, which would be a safer access for all.
Martin-Milius commented that it appears that the project was designed with open space in the middle of the project at the expense of open space and set-backs on Duane Court.
The San Miguel Neighborhood Association would like to add to their request that there not be demolition traffic down Duane Court.
Martin-Milius stated they would like to see this project built as close to code as possible. The neighborhood is working on enhancing their neighborhood and they are being held to code. It seems odd that the neighborhood has to bring their 50-year-old homes up to code and yet variances to code on this project are already being built in. The association prefers staff recommendation as opposed to what the Planning Commission approved earlier.
Councilmember Chu asked if Martin-Milius would rather see a smaller set-back with three story units in front or a larger set-back with a five-story building at the front. Martin-Milius stated she would prefer a larger set-back with a five-story building at the front; but their request is for four-story all the way across and adhere to code set-backs.
Councilmember Chu confirmed with staff that they had heard Taylor Woodrow was exploring the option to add additional units, but staff has not had a chance to study this issue in detail and this option was not presented to the Planning Commission.
Public hearing closed 10:04 p.m.
MOTION: Councilmember Swegles moved and Councilmember Howe seconded to approve Alternative 3: Council denies the appeal and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Special Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map with the attached conditions.
Councilmember Moylan wished to clarify the difference between Alternatives 2 and 3. Councilmember Moylan confirmed that Alternative 2 included the staff-recommended conditions (not including the deviations for set-back and lot coverage) and Alternative 3 was the majority of the Planning Commission recommendation allowing the deviations for set-back and lot coverage. Councilmember Moylan stated he is reluctant to shave a level off this project (down to four-story) because this is the first he has heard of this idea and it appears to be a quick idea for a redesign of the project. Councilmember Moylan stated he is not in favor of the other alternative to add units to make the Duane Court project flush because it would require rezoning of this property to R5. Councilmember Moylan does agree that the deviations are hard to justify and he believes the project should be approved at five stories without the deviations.
Councilmember Hamilton stated there were four items listed on page 19 and 20 of the staff report that the Planning Commission had eliminated as additional conditions of approval. One condition regarded 15-foot set-backs, and one condition was in reference to the 42 percent lot-coverage. The two other items were in reference to collecting in-lieu fees for fair share facility upgrades, and dealing with the water supply. Councilmember Hamilton stated she wanted to make sure that the staff recommendation for these two specific items was the intent of the motion. The Planning Commission stated that they decided to leave these two items out of the conditions because they view these items as being redundant (since they are mentioned in the EIR). Councilmember Hamilton stated she does not agree with the Planning Commission’s decision. Senior Planner Lynch stated there is a little overlap on these items with the EIR, but adding these two items to the conditions is a good idea and will help to clarify the EIR measures a little further.
|