2003-0102 - Pacific Peninsula Group [Applicant] Sun Pacific, LLC [Owner]: Application for related proposals on a 38,303 square-foot site located at 759 & 775 Carmel Avenue in an R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District. (APNs: 205-15-035 and 205-15-036) (Negative Declaration)

• Rezone from R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) to R-3/PD (Medium-Density Residential/Planned Development) Zoning District;
• Special Development Permit to allow the construction of 24 town homes, and
• Tentative Map to subdivide two lots into 24 lots and two common lots.

Ryan Kuchenig, Project Planner, presented the staff report. Staff provided a summary of the proposed project highlighting the use, site layout, floor plan, architecture, landscaping, parking and circulation and the proposed color. He corrected page 6 of the staff report under the Use section that the last sentence of the paragraph should be deleted because a re-design is not necessary since the bonus room is addressed in the Conditions of Approval. Staff also noted that the applicant is currently working with the Housing Officer on the tenant relocation plan. He also noted that there were no negative comments received from the neighborhood. He also corrected the Conditions of Approval under the Tentative Map that Condition of Approval #3 should be deleted as it is a duplicate of Condition #2. Staff recommended adopting the Negative Declaration, approving the Rezone, Special Development Permit and Tentative Map.

Vice Chair Babcock asked staff to further clarify the corrections made to Page 6 and whether the bonus room would still be included in the floor plan. Staff responded yes and stated that the statement is not necessary since the bonus room is addressed in the Conditions of Approval and that he confirmed with the Building Division that the bonus room is not considered a room. Ms. Ryan added that the bonus room could not function as full bedroom.

Vice Chair Babcock asked staff if there is a mistake on page 9 of Attachment 4. Staff responded that there is typographical error and a corrected attachments will provided to City Council.

Comm. Swegles asked staff whether the existing oak tree is declining and asked how many trees would be protected and if the removal of trees could be monitored. Staff responded that the existing oak tree is healthy but will not be replaced and only trees that are significant in size could be monitored.

Comm. Moylan asked staff to clarify the relocation program stated on Page 11 of the staff report. Staff responded that the program is a reinstatement of the General Plan and added that there are also a number of tools that could be used.

Comm. Moylan further asked staff about the various shades of gray and brown proposed and hoped that the color would not be limited to beige. Ms. Ryan responded that the color renderings are meant to provide narrow range of colors but the color would depend on the Commission's direction.

Comm. Chu asked staff to clarify which is Building A requiring a set back deviation. Staff pointed out Buildings A from the site plan noting that Buildings A & B are the rear buildings.

Comm. Chu asked staff if the parking spaces are substandard and whether it is shorter. Staff responded that approximately 35% are compact and shorter in length. Ms. Ryan added that compact parking meets the minimum parking dimension requirements.

Chair Simons asked staff what limits the bonus from becoming a full bedroom. Ms. Ryan responded the size of the room and also the bonus room cannot function as another effective bathroom with the bathroom too far away.

Chair Simons further asked staff what street tree is being considered for removal. Staff responded the Cork Oak.

Brad Smith, applicant/Pacific Peninsula, introduced his development team – Eric Peterson, Steve Ackley and Richard Lundgren. He gave a brief background of Pacific Peninsula Group noting that they are architects, developers and general contractors. He cited some projects they have completed and highlighted a project they developed in Menlo Park that is similar to the proposed project. He noted that the proposed project is to demolish two separate buildings that are in poor condition and develop 24 townhomes with 2, 3 and 4 bedrooms units. He stated that currently there are tenants who are on a month-to-month lease and that a relocation plan is being worked on with the Housing Officer. He further stated that the tenants and neighbors have been notified of the future plans. He clarified that Floor Plan A eliminated the bonus room. He stated that he would like to bring in a new look to the area. He provided a Powerpoint presentation highlighting the modifications made as a result of the study session such as reduction of the height by 2 feet, the rear buildings were broken up, the architecture with gable roof line, modified landscaping plan with 26 new trees to be added and two trees to be removed, the preferred tree species, the bulk was placed toward the rear of the lot to enhance the streetscape. He further noted that their company takes pride of their landscaping designs.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Smith if there is plan to put a sign to the entrance of the development. Mr. Smith responded yes.

Chair Simons asked Mr. Smith why is there in an interest for planting large trees. Mr. Smith responded that they open to staff suggestion, which are best suitable for the site.

Comm. Moylan asked Mr. Smith his rationale for the proposed color scheme. Mr. Smith responded that the proposed color would blend in nicely with the rest of the neighborhood.

Comm. Satterlee stated that Holly Oaks are not very attractive and are very messy. She further stated that during her site visit, she saw more of green instead of brown colors in the neighborhood.

Comm. Simons stated that Cork Oak performs better than Holly Oaks and that there are a variety of oak trees to choose from and suggested to be receptive to suggestions.

Comm. Satterlee commented that she does not like Holly Oaks. She stated that the project would be an asset to the neighborhood with variety of size and forms.

Comm. Swegles asked staff whether a friendly amendment is necessary for the types of oak trees to be planted. Ms. Ryan responded no.

Comm. Swegles commented that it is great project for the neighborhood providing homeownership opportunity.

Comm. Moylan supported the motion and that he is happy with the homeownership opportunity. He hoped that the project serves as an impetus for improvements in the neighborhood. He noted that during his site visit, there is an opportunity to bring down the heat by using a different color such as green.

Vice Chair Babcock commented that it is an excellent project and an asset to the neighborhood. She hoped that it becomes contagious.

Comm. Lee echoed his fellow Commissioners and noted that the project would enhance the neighborhood and become the leader of improvements. He expressed his concerns with the height but felt that the project would work well.

Comm. Chu supported the motion and stated that he too was concerned about the height and was pleased with the reduction. He applauded the applicant for a good job.

Chair Simon supported the motion. He suggested that green would be a nice complement as the proposed colors appears to be repetitive. He further suggested reconsidering the type of oak tree to be planted and he prefers to have long term trees.

Ms. Ryan added that the proposed site is one of the sites identified in the CDD Strategy as one of the neighborhoods to reinvest and that staff is looking forward to this project development.

Return to Agenda, Reports & Minutes