REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
File #: 2013-8029
Location: 523 E. Homestead Road (APNs: 309-44-003, 309-44-049, 309-44-050)
Proposed Project: Appeals by two Councilmembers of a decision of the Planning Commission to deny a:
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: to allow 7 single-family homes, and
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP: to create 7 ownership lots.
Applicant / Owner: S&S Construction, LLC/Louis Mariani Trustee
Environmental Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Report
REPORT IN BRIEF
General Plan: Residential Low Medium Density
Zoning: R-2/PD (Low-Medium Density Residential/Planned Development)
Existing Site Conditions: Five residential units, consisting of one single-family home and two duplexes
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Single-Family Residential
South: Multi-Family Residential within the City of Cupertino (across Homestead Rd.)
East: Single-Family Residential
West: Duplexes
Issues: Density, Architecture
Planning Commission Decision: Adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Denied the Special Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map
Staff Recommendation: Approve the appeal and Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approve the Special Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map
A Vicinity and Noticing Map for this project is Attachment 1. The Project Data Table is Attachment 2.
Appeal Requests: Two appeal requests were submitted by Mayor Jim Griffith and Councilmember Dave Whittum on June 13, 2014.
Mayor Griffith's appeal letter noted concerns regarding the Planning Commission's application of General Plan goals and policies to the project, such as the BMR requirements and minimum density General Plan Policy HE-4.3 (see letter in Attachment 1).
Councilmember Dave Whittum's appeal letter also expressed concerns regarding Planning Commission's application of the General Plan and due process (see letter in Attachment 2).
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission originally considered the project at a public hearing on May 28, 2014, with six Commissioners present. The project was continued to June 9, 2014 to allow for all seven Commissioners to be present. At the June 9, 2014 public hearing, with only six Commissioners present, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and denied the Special Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map.
Two appeal requests were submitted on June 13, 2014, one from Mayor Jim Griffith and the second from Councilmember Dave Whittum. The City Council has the final decision-making authority for an appeal.
Description of Proposed Project
The proposed project includes the demolition of existing structures to allow construction of seven detached single-family homes.
· Special Development Permit
A Special Development Permit (SDP) is required for projects within the Planned Development PD Combining District for site and architectural review. The SDP also allows for consideration of deviations from specified Zoning Code requirements in exchange for superior design, environmental preservation or public benefit. The project complies with all Zoning Code requirements, such as lot coverage, parking and setbacks. The project includes a minor change from General Plan Policy HE-4.3, which requires new developments to build to at least 75% of the maximum zoning density. A minimum of eight units is required, where seven units are proposed. A maximum of 11 units is permitted on this site in the R-2 Zoning District.
· Vesting Tentative Map
The proposed project requires a Tentative Map to allow for sale of the seven individual lots. Lot lines will extend to the center of the private cul-de-sac and no common lot is proposed. The Vesting Tentative Map vests the developer's right to build the project for the life of the map. It also secures the approved project against future Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC) changes by the City that might otherwise affect the property. The Vesting Tentative Map is valid only in conjunction with the approved SDP site plan and Conditions of Approval. The recommended Conditions of Approval are in Attachment 6 and the proposed Tentative Map can be found in Attachment 8.
Previous Actions on the Site
Based on City records, in the 1960s, the property was contemplated for expansion of a Fremont Union High School District campus to the north. The school campus was not built, and the project site was rezoned from P-F (Public Facilities) to the current designation of R-2/PD in 1970. The site was also partially redeveloped at that time. An existing single-family home built in the 1930s was maintained and two duplexes were built. The adjacent property, previously owned by the school district, was subsequently sold and subdivided into single-family homes in an R-1 (Low Density Residential) zoning district (minimum lot size of 8,000 s.f.). The project site and existing structures are not listed on the City's Heritage Resource Inventory.
EXISTING POLICY
General Plan Goals and Policies: Key goals and policies from the Land Use and Transportation Chapter of the General Plan, Council Policy Manual and Single Family Home Design Techniques which pertain to the proposed project are provided in Attachment 5.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines (Attachment 7). An initial study has determined that the proposed project would not create any significant environmental impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation pertaining to noise (indoor and outdoor noise impacts on future residents of the development and construction noise impacts on neighbors) and hazards and hazardous materials. Mitigation Measures have been incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 6.
DISCUSSION
Present Site Conditions
The project site is located on the northeast corner of E. Homestead Road and Canary Drive and is comprised of three lots totaling 0.9 acres (39,575 square feet). The site is developed with five residential units, including one single-family home and two duplex buildings.
Development Standards
The proposed project complies with all of the applicable Development Standards as set forth in the Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC). The following items have been identified for clarification by staff or the Planning Commission:
Density
Housing types that are typical in the R-2 zoning district include townhomes and duplexes. Small single-family lot developments are also common for smaller infill development sites. It is the applicant's request to build single-family homes to better integrate with the adjacent single-family neighborhood to the north and east. The project includes a minor change from General Plan Policy HE-4.3, which states "require new development to build to at least 75 percent of the maximum zoning density, unless an exception is granted by the City Council." The zoning code would allow a maximum of 11 units on this site; 75% is eight units. The applicant proposes seven single-family homes, one unit less than the 75% policy minimum.
General Plan policies provide direction and context for achieving stated Goals and objectives. In some circumstances there is tension between policies and judgment is used to achieve overall consistency with the General Plan. It has been the City's practice to allow a minor change from the minimum density policy to be approved by the Planning Commission. A minor change is considered one or two units; this exception to the policy has been approved by Planning Commission when it has resulted in fewer neighborhood impacts and better site design. Staff would refer a project to the City Council for consideration of an exception if the projects fall below the minimum density by more than two units.
A previously-considered site plan showed nine units, which would have resulted in a tight lot configuration with setback deviations and concerns regarding trash and recycling pick-up. The applicant has reduced the number of units proposed to better integrate with the adjacent single-family neighborhood and to avoid deviations from development standards, such as setbacks and lot coverage. While the proposed density is less than the minimum required, the small lot single-family development appropriately transitions density with adjacent single-family homes to the north and east and multi-family homes to the west and south.
Site Layout
The proposed project consists of seven detached single-family homes on individual lots. The homes will internally face a new private drive with a turn-around and with sidewalks, providing direct vehicular and pedestrian access off of Canary Drive. A private easement and maintenance agreement will be created to allow for common use of these facilities and to ensure private maintenance. Individual lot lines will extend to the center of the drive and each lot will contain a two-story home with a two-car garage, two-car driveway, and private yards. Each home will contain five bedrooms and will range between 2,588 square feet and 2,755 square feet (includes 403 square feet to 412 square feet of garage area).
Setback requirements are measured from property lines. On Lots 1, 2, 6 and 7, the front property line is located in the middle of the private drive. These lots comply with the minimum front yard setback requirements on both stories, as measured from the front property line. Most of the homes on these lots are located an additional 20 feet back from the private sidewalk. The exception is Lot 7, where a portion of the first floor is located five feet back from the sidewalk. This is not an uncommon setback on a small lot single-family home development.
Lots 3, 4, and 5 are atypical due to the configuration of the turn-around, with street frontages that function primarily as side yards and front yards that are perpendicular to the private drive. Applying setback requirements to the functional yard areas, each lot has been designed to comply with the minimum setback requirements for the R-2 zoning district (see Attachment 8).
Staff finds that the proposed site layout is generally in keeping with a small lot single-family neighborhood pattern, with private yards, parking and adequate setbacks. All homes have been designed to comply with setback requirements in the R-2 zoning district and provide for adequate separation between the units to allow for privacy and open space.
Architecture
Four elevation types are proposed (Plans 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B), which are reminiscent of a Spanish-style and use a rich array of materials and details (see Colors and Materials Boards in Attachment 7). Wall materials primarily consist of stucco painted in earth tones, with complementary stone accents. Roof forms are simple with a combination of hips and gables, and the material is concrete s-tile. Architectural details common to the Spanish-style are incorporated into the design, including exposed rafter tails, decorative pipe vents, and wrought iron details. Fenestration details include window trim, window shutters, sectional garage doors, and simple wooden entry doors.
Most of the entries maintain a modest one-story profile (Plans 2A and 2B). Single Family Home Design Techniques 3.3.D. encourages entry eave lines to be within approximately two feet of the first floor eave. Three of the homes have entry eaves that are four feet taller than the first floor eave (Plans 1A and 1B). Staff recommends these entries be reduced by two feet to comply with the Design Techniques.
In addition, staff recommends that textured stucco (smooth sand finish or hand-troweled) be applied to the exterior walls to add visual interest and to contribute to the Spanish-style. With the recommended modifications to the entries and stucco wall contained in Attachment 6, staff finds the architectural design to be high quality.
Floor Area Ratio
Floor Area Ratios (FARs) exceeding 45% may be approved by the Planning Commission with a Design Review, Use Permit, or Special Development Permit. The proposed FARs range from 46% to 50%, while the overall proposed FAR is 47%. Staff finds that the proposed FAR is consistent with other approved R-2 projects where two-story homes have been located on smaller lots. The proposed FAR is also consistent with Council Policy 1.1.12, which helps guide the design of small lot single-family subdivisions and encourages an overall FAR of not more than 50% (inclusive of private drives). Staff finds that the proposed FAR is common for similar projects and provides reasonable living area for future residents.
If an individual homeowner requests additional floor area in the future, the request will be considered a modification to the approved plans through a separate public hearing (see Attachment 6).
Parking and Circulation
SMC Section 19.46 requires that each single-family home provides two covered spaces and two uncovered spaces, for a minimum of four spaces per unit. The project complies with the minimum parking requirements by providing two garage spaces and two driveway spaces for each home. No parking spaces are provided along the private drive.
In circumstances where there is limited or no on-street parking, an additional 0.4 unassigned parking spaces per unit is required (or three spaces for seven units if found necessary). The Homestead Road frontage prohibits street parking and the Canary Drive frontage contains room for five vehicles. Staff finds that there is adequate on-site and on-street parking to serve residents and guests of the development without requiring additional on-site guest parking.
A private two-way drive will provide direct vehicular access to Canary Drive from each of the driveways. No driveway or street access is proposed along Homestead Road. A positive feature of the project is a 4-foot wide sidewalk that is designed along most of the private street to allow for pedestrian connection to Canary Drive.
Landscaping and Tree Preservation
SMC Section 19.37 requires a minimum of 500 square feet of usable open space per unit and 850 square feet of total landscaping per unit. The project exceeds the minimum required by providing an average of 1,021 square feet of usable open space per unit and an average of 2,538 square feet of total landscaping per unit. A landscaping plan has been provided in Attachment 6, which includes a combination of trees, grass, and groundcover in yard areas.
There are 27 trees located on-site, with 26 of them proposed for removal. Most of the on-site trees are Palm trees and are not considered to be "protected" under SMC Section 19.94. A protected tree is defined as having a trunk that is at least 38 inches in circumference, as measured 4.5 feet from the ground. There are five protected trees on-site, including two Palm trees in good condition, one dead Acacia tree, one Japanese Yew Pine tree in poor condition, and one Redwood tree in fair condition. All five protected trees are proposed for removal. The Redwood tree is located towards the Homestead Road frontage and is recommended for removal by the applicant's arborist due to the structural instability of the tree root system during the construction of the project and the removal of the asphalt surrounding the tree base. There is also a line of healthy Italian Cypress trees along the north and east perimeter of the site; these trees do not meet the definition of a protected tree. They will be maintained and help to provide privacy screening to the adjacent single-family homes. Per the applicant's arborist, the Italian Cypress trees are approximately 40 years old and can live to be over 1,000 years old. More trees will be added to the site than the amount of protected trees being removed (at least seven new tree trees), which is consistent with the SMC tree replacement requirements.
Water-Efficient Landscaping
All landscaping is subject to water-efficient design requirements contained in SMC 19.37.050. The submitted landscaping plans demonstrates compliance for all landscaping on-site, including landscaping within the front yards and rear yards of each unit. The developer will install all front yard landscaping per plans. Regarding rear yard landscaping, each homeowner has the option to: (1) have the developer install the landscaping per pre-approved landscape plans to be provided to the homeowner at no charge; (2) select their own landscape professional to install landscaping per pre-approved plans, or (3) submit an alternative water-efficient landscaping plan for staff approval through a Miscellaneous Plan Permit (see Attachment 6).
Fences and Walls
Wooden fences at a height of 6 feet will be installed in order to enclose each side and rear yard within the development. Fences are not proposed in the private yard areas. An existing masonry wall along the north and east property lines (adjacent to the Italian Cypress trees) will be maintained. A new perimeter masonry wall is proposed along the property lines facing Canary Drive and Homestead Road, with a recess at the street corner to maintain corner vision triangle clearance. The perimeter wall height and material has been designed to comply with noise requirements contained in SMC 19.42.030 and as recommended in the noise study prepared for the project (see Attachment 7). The perimeter wall will be six feet in height facing Canary Drive and eight feet in height facing Homestead Road. The areas between the back of the public sidewalk and the masonry wall, which are within the public right-of-way, will be planted with street trees and shrubs. Staff also recommends that climbing vines be planted to soften the look of the fence (see Attachment 6). A maintenance agreement with the City is recommended to ensure that required landscaping within the public right-of-way is privately maintained.
Trash and Recycling Facilities
Individual trash and recycling pick-up will be provided on the private drive. In consultation with the Department of Public Works, individual carts will be staged in front of each home, against the private drive. Staff finds the pick-up on the private drive to be a positive feature of the project, which helps to avoid visual and parking impacts from carts staged on the public street.
Stormwater Management
A preliminary Stormwater Management Plan has been submitted as required, which shows proposed drainage patterns and conceptual treatment techniques to minimize surface runoff and pollution. Low Impact Development (LID) measures are proposed throughout the site and include bio-retention planters and bio-filtration areas (on each lot) which, to the extent feasible, retain water onsite and allow treated overflow in the storm drain system. A more detailed Stormwater Management Plan will be submitted during the building permit phase per Conditions of Approval and the plans will be reviewed and certified by a City approved Third Party reviewer. Staff recommends a covenant to be recorded against each lot to ensure bio-retention and bio-filtration areas are properly maintained by future homeowners (see Attachment 6).
Green Building Requirements
The proposed project complies with the Citywide Green Building Program by achieving a minimum of 80 points. The City Council will consider amending the Program to increase the requirement at a Council hearing in July or August 2014, which may increase the minimum points required to 110 points. Staff will be exploring, with the community, modifications to the recommended update to the Green Building program which could affect the effective date and green building levels (e.g., Build It Green points for residential projects).
Below Mark Rate Housing
No below market rate (BMR) units are required for this development, as the total number of units is less than eight per SMC 19.67. The decision to reduce the units below eight was based on staff feedback about the layout of the site and not about the BMR requirement.
Traffic Impacts
The City's Transportation and Traffic Division was consulted on possible traffic impacts resulting from the project. The resulting project trips are below the threshold requiring a full transportation impact analysis (TIA). Based on the low number of trips added to the street system by the project, the Transportation and Traffic Division found that the existing street system can absorb this minimal increase in traffic and that the additional trips are not expected to impact the existing traffic calming measures on Canary Drive (see Attachment 7).
Fiscal Impact
The project is required to pay a Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) for each net new peak hour trip generated by the project. The estimated TIF for the proposed seven-unit subdivision (credit given for the one single-family unit and four multi-family units) is $7,398.00. The final amount will be recalculated based on the fee in place at the time of payment.
All residential projects are required to pay a park in-lieu fee unless dedicated park land is provided as part of the project. In this case the required in-lieu fee is estimated (based on the adopted FY 2013-14 park land valuation) to be $63,869.85 for a net increase of two units. The park in-lieu fee will be recalculated based on the fee in place at the time of payment. The acreage basis for the fee will not change, while the land value will likely increase.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City's official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall, at the Sunnyvale Senior Center, Community Center and Department of Public Safety; and by making the agenda and report available at the Sunnyvale Public Library, the Office of the City Clerk and on the City's website.
Notice of Public Hearings on the Special Development Permit
· Published in the Sun newspaper
· Posted on-site
· 136 notices were mailed to property owners and tenants within 300 ft. of the project site as shown on Attachment 1, including properties within the City of Cupertino.
· Notices were emailed to the following Neighborhood Associations: Canary Drive, Ortega Park, and Northpoint (within the City of Cupertino).
Staff Report
· Posted on the City of Sunnyvale's Web site
· Provided at the Reference Section of the City of Sunnyvale's Public Library
· Available at the One-Stop Permit Center of the City of Sunnyvale
Planning Commission Public Hearing - May 28, 2014: The Planning Commission considered the project at a public hearing on May 28, 2014, with six Commissioners present. Several residents and Commissioners expressed concerns regarding traffic, parking, construction-related impacts, architecture, and the lack of a BMR unit. These issues have been addressed in the staff report and in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Those in support of the project noted that the project complies with all Zoning development standards, is consistent with the General Plan objectives (minor change from the minimum density policy improves the project), and that the project appropriately transitions density between the site and the adjacent single-family and multi-family uses.
After two attempts for a motion, one to deny and one to approve the project (both motions failed), a motion to continue the project to June 9, 2014 to allow for all seven Commissioners to be present was subsequently approved unanimously (see Attachment 12 for meeting minutes).
Planning Commission Public Hearing - June 9, 2014: The Planning Commission considered the continuance on June 9, 2014. At the public hearing, the applicant presented an alternate site plan and front elevation (see Attachment 11). The alternate site plan includes five additional uncovered parking spaces. Two of the parking spaces would be located at the end of the cul-de-sac (in front of Lot 4), perpendicular to the street and unassigned. To reduce paving, the parking spaces are designed as "Hollywood strips" or "ribbon driveways", with paving placed where the tires meet the ground and a grass strip in the center. The remaining three parking spaces would be located adjacent to the driveways of the three lots at the end of the cul-de-sac (Lots 3, 4, 5). These parking spaces are considered to be tandem because they are located in front of the two driveway parking spaces. The alternate front elevation demonstrates how the reduction in the bulk of the entry feature can be achieved, with the decorative trim around the front door reduced in height and a clerestory window modified at the top of the front door.
Several members of the public spoke in opposition to the project, citing the concerns previously expressed at the May 28, 2014 public hearing. A neighbor, who previously wrote a letter and circulated a petition in opposition to the project, spoke in support of the project noting that the reduced density and trash pick-up on the private drive addressed his concerns.
After the public testimony, a motion was made to approve the project with the alternate site plan and front elevation but failed with a 2-4 vote. A second motion was made to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and deny the Special Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map, which unanimously passed (see Attachment 13 for meeting minutes). The Planning Commission motion included direction to the applicant to re-design the project to include eight homes (possibly townhouse style), instead of seven, and also requested that staff explore the preparation of a traffic analysis on the corner of Homestead Road and Canary Drive to determine if a traffic signal is warranted.
Traffic Signal Follow-up: Staff consulted with the Department of Public Works, per Planning Commission's request. In order to determine whether a signal is warranted at a location, the City would need to conduct a signal warrant analysis based on criteria from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). However, based on the low street volumes at this intersection, the Department of Public Works found that it would not likely meet the criteria for installation of a signal. Staff also consulted with the City of Cupertino, who maintains the signals on Homestead Road. The City of Cupertino stated they would not likely support installation of a signal at this intersection due to the close proximity to the signal at Homestead Road and Blue Jay Drive, which is located one block to the west.
Public Correspondence: Staff has maintained an email distribution list, informing residents of the revised project and updated hearing dates. Staff has received several letters in opposition to the project included in Attachment 10.
ALTERNATIVES
- Grant the Appeal and Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approve the Special Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map based on the Findings in Attachment 5 and with the recommended Conditions in Attachment 6.
- Grant the Appeal and Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approve the Special Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map with modified findings and conditions.
- Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Decision to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Deny the Special Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map.
- Do not adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and direct staff as to where additional environmental analysis is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternative 1: grant the appeal and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Special Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map based on the Findings in Attachment 5 and with the recommended Conditions in Attachment 6.
Staff finds that the project complies with all development standards and General Plan goals and policies contained in Attachment 5. The City Council has the option to approve the project with the alternate site plan and front elevations contained in Attachment 11. In staff's judgment, this alternate site plan and front elevations would positively enhance the project.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends Alternative 3: Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Decision to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Deny the Special Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map.
The Planning Commission felt the project should be redesigned with eight units to meet the General Plan policy for minimum density, which would also trigger the requirement for a below market rate (BMR) unit.
Staff
Prepared by: Noren Caliva-Lepe, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer
Reviewed by: Hanson Hom, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Robert Walker, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager
Attachments
ATTACHMENTS
1. Appeal Letter from Mayor Jim Griffith, June 13, 2014
2. Appeal Letter from Councilmember Dave Whittum, June 13, 2014
3. Vicinity and Mailing Radius Map
4. Project Data Table
5. Findings for Approval and General Plans Goals and Policies
6. Recommended Conditions of Approval
7. Mitigated Negative Declaration
8. Project Plans dated April 25, 2014
9. Project Colors and Materials Boards
10. Letters from Interested Parties
11. Alternate Site Plan and Elevations
12. Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes, May 28, 2014
13. Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes, June 9, 2014