Loading...
Item 8 - PDC 21-001 A Request for a 20-Lot Sub Utilizes an Affordable Housing Density Bonus at 13667 Twin PeaksApril 6, 2021, Item #8DATE: TO: FROM: CONTACT: SUBJECT: Summary: AGENDA REPORT City of Poway April 6, 2021 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Robert Manis, Director of Development Services~ Scott Nespor, Associate Planner $ A~ 858-668-4656 or snespor@poway.org CITY COUNCIL Pre-Development Conference (PDC) 21-001, a request for a 20-lot subdivision that extends Holly Oak Way and utilizes an affordable housing density bonus on a 4.77-acre parcel located at 13667 Twin Peaks Road in the RS-4 zone Cornerstone Communities (Applicant) is proposing to redevelop a 4.77-acre parcel at 13667 Twin Peaks Road with a 20-lot single-family residential subdivision that will be accessed from an extension of Holly Oak Way. The site is zoned Residential Single Family-4 (RS-4) within the Old Poway Specific Plan (OPSP) area. The Applicant is requesting a density bonus by providing an affordable housing unit. This density bonus is allowed under State law. The project is subject to approval by the City Council of a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) and Development Review (DR). The review of Pre-Development Conference (PDC) 21-001 is advisory only. The City Council will not render any decision. If the Applicant wishes to proceed with an application, it is with the understanding that the City Council has made no representation upon which the Applicant may rely. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council provide input and direction regarding the request. Discussion: Background The Applicant and Property Owner is Cornerstone Communities. The site (Assessor's Parcel Number 314-192-02) is zoned RS-4 within the Old Poway Specific Plan area. It is located on the south side of Twin Peaks Road between the Midland Road and Budwin Lane intersections. The Diroma Estates subdivision is located to the south and is also zoned RS-4. Living Way Church and a single-family residence at the end of Outlook Drive are west of the property. These properties are also zoned RS-4. Administrative offices and a bus fleet storage lot for the Poway Unified School District are located across Twin Peaks north of the site and are zoned Public Facility (PF). The Kent Hills subdivision is 1 of 28 April 6, 2021, Item #8located to the east of the subject property and is also zoned RS-4. A location/zoning vicinity map is included as Attachment A. The property lies within the Old Poway Specific Plan area. Although it is not within the mandatory Old Poway design area, Old Poway architectural design features are encouraged to be incorporated into subdivision and housing tract design. A link to the existing OPSP is provided as Attachment 8. The Applicant is utilizing a density bonus incentive that is allowed under State law by providing an affordable housing unit. To clarify the correct use of concessions and waivers that are provided by the law, the Applicant's attorney prepared the attached letter discussing their interpretation of these requirements (Attachment C). Project Summary The project site is a 4.77-acre parcel that was historically used for farming and now contains a residence that was constructed in the late 1950's. Mature trees surround the structure. The proposal is to demolish the residence, remove the trees, and create a 20-lot tract subdivision with residences that range from 3,465 square.feet to 3,900 square feet of living area. The homes feature two or three car garages with additional storage area. The proposal includes an extension of Holly Oak way onto the site which will provide access to the subdivision. A decorative block wall will be constructed along the rear property line of the homes that will back up to Twin Peaks Road and provide noise attenuation. A project description is included as Attachment D. The extension of Holly Oak Way will be a private road that will be maintained by future residents. Public utilities, including City water and sewer, will also be extended onto the site. A pedestrian easement will extend from Holly Oak Way and connect to the pedestrian trail along Twin Peaks Road. The project will contain one affordable housing unit and therefore will allow the developers to create five additional residential lots by applying State density bonus laws. The Holly Oak extension streetscape improvements include new pedestrian sidewalks, street trees, and decorative Old Poway street lights consistent with the street lights on Holly Oak Way. Stormwater treatment facilities are not shown and will likely affect the plan's overall design. The proposed site plan is included as Attachment E. A conceptual landscape plan is included as Attachment F. For tract developments, the Poway Municipal Code requires at least three different plans. Each plan is required to have three different fa~ade treatments. To provide further variety in the tract, one of the plans must be a single-story plan. The Applicant is proposing four plan types for the 20 total homes and has indicated to staff that each plan will feature two architectural schemes with four different color scheme options. Each of the plans are two stories however, the applicant has indicated that they can substitute one of their two-story plans with one that features a low profile front elevation that is designed to resemble a single story, even though the rear portion of the building is two stories. With the architecture and color variations, no two homes will be exactly the same. The proposal is also utilizing Poway's allowance to provide front yard setback variation of up to 40 percent of the homes within a tract by allowing reduced front yard setbacks of 18 feet for front entry garages and 15 feet for side entry garages. For driveways, 20 feet by 20 feet is typically recommended. The proposed plans will all feature craftsman style architecture that includes wide eaves and exposed rafters. Each architectural theme has different siding styles including lap, board and batten, or shake shingle. Stone or brick accents and pillars also provide architectural interest. The sides and rears of the homes will be stucco. The siding and masonry selections for the street elevations match some of the current homes on Holly Oak Way, however, several styles that exist on Holly Oak Way are not represented (e.g., Farmhouse, Victorian). The architectural design utilizes earth tone colors and 2 of 28 April 6, 2021, Item #8natural wood, stone, and brick finishes that provide compatibility with buildings in the Old Poway Specific Plan area and reflect Poway's rural character. Architectural renderings of the homes are included as Attachment G-J. Housing Density Bonus The maximum density in the RS-4 zone is four dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Under the Poway Municipal Code allowances, which was adopted to comply with the State law, a developer providing affordable housing can request a density bonus in addition to incentives and concessions (e.g., deviations of development standards) to be included in the development. Using RS-4 standards, the developer has calculated that the subject parcel would yield 15 lots. Since the developer will be providing one dwelling unit for a qualified very-low income family, a density bonus of five percent can be applied to the gross density of the 4.77-acre parcel. This will result in five additional dwelling units. The dwelling designated as an affordable housing unit must be consistent in size and appearance with the other dwelling units in the development. A deed covenant requiring the residence remain available to very-low income households for a minimum of 55 years will be required. Cornerstone Communities will be required to enter into an implementation agreement for the creation of the affordable housing unit. To accommodate the five additional units, the developer is also requesting development standard concessions. The granting of incentives and concessions to accommodate affordable housing is also a requirement of State law. The reduction of the minimum lot size requirement is the first requested concession. Lots in the conceptual subdivision layout range from 7,145 square feet to 13,468 square feet. Only four of the lots, all of which are located at the end of the cul-de-sac, meet the minimum lot size of the RS-4 zone, 10,000 square-feet. The remaining 16 lots range from 7,145 square feet to 8,502 square feet. Additionally, the developer is requesting that side yard setbacks be reduced to five feet. In the RS-4 zone, the side yard setback is 10 feet. Although this is a reduction of 50 percent of the setback requirement, a five-foot setback is consistent with the setback for accessory structures in the RS-4 zone. To comply with State law, the City must provide these reasonable concessions to accommodate affordable housing. Subdivision Access With Diroma Estates (TTM99-01 ), the subdivision creating Holly Oak Way, the approved final map identifies a future easement that accommodates an extension of Holly Oak Way to the north, onto the subject site. The City also required the Diroma Estates developer to record deed covenants on the title of each lot to advise future buyers of the intent to extend Holly Oak Way. A copy of deed covenant is provided as Attachment K. Staffs understanding is that this deed covenant is referenced in every preliminary title report (PTR) for each property within the Holly Oak subdivision. Access to the site from Holly Oak Way is preferred over a Twin Peaks Road entrance for multiple traffic related reasons. Twin Peaks Road is designated as a prime arterial street in the City's General Plan. Strategies of the General Plan are to reduce the access points to a major arterial street to assist the flow of traffic. One way to do this is to combine access onto adjacent properties. Utilizing the easement at the end of Holly Oak Way meets this objective. Additionally, accessing the subdivision through Holly Oak Way avoids a blind curve that is west of the site on Twin Peaks Road. The blind curve may create a safety hazard for vehicles exiting the subdivision. If access is provided along Twin Peaks Road, a new traffic signal would not be recommended given the close proximity of the signalized 3 of 28 intersections at Midland Road and Budwin Lane. A traffic analysis would be required related to restrictions on left-turns from the subdivision onto Twin Peaks Road which may require additional traffic calming along Twin Peaks Road. Right turns from the subdivision onto Twin Peaks are also a concern due to the lack of visibility of on-coming traffic from the blind curve to the west. City staff would recommend the creation of pedestrian access through the new tract from Holly Oak Way to Twin Peaks Road to provide an additional opportunity for pedestrian circulation in the area, given the proximity to two schools. Public Comment At the January 23, 2021, neighborhood open house, residents of Diroma Estates provided feedback opposing access to the new subdivision from Holly Oak Way. They are opposed to the extension of the street and the additional traffic that they feel will change the character of their neighborhood. They have provided letters in opposition of this concept and are included in this report as Attachment L. In response to the concerns of the Diroma Estates residents, Cornerstone prepared an alternate subdivision plan that shows an access for a new cul-de-sac from Twin Peaks Road. This alternate is included as Attachment M. However, as mentioned earlier, this results in a number of traffic issues. Recommendation The review of the Pre-Development Conference (PDC) 20-001 is advisory only. The applicant is seeking feedback on their latest submitted plans. The City Council will not render any decision. If the Applicant wishes to proceed with their application, it is with the understanding that the City Council has made no representation upon which the Applicant may rely. The Agreement of Understanding is included as Attachment N. A neighborhood meeting with notification of surrounding properties in accordance with City standards was not conducted for this item, but would be required if the Applicant pursues the project. Cornerstone Communities did notify property owners within 500 feet of the site to encourage public discussion of this item. Environmental Review: Because no action can be taken, this item is not a "Project" pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore not subject to CEQA review. Fiscal Impact: None. Public Notification: None. Attachments: A.Land Use and Location Map B.OPSP (on file in the Office of the City Clerk) https://docs.poway.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=151665&dbid=0&repo=CityofPoway C.Letter from Project Attorney 4 of 28 April 6, 2021, Item #8 April 6, 2021, Item #8D. Project Description E. Site Plan F. Conceptual Landscape Plan G. Architectural Renderings Plan 1 H. Architectural Renderings Plan 2 I. Architectural Renderings Plan 3 J. Architectural Renderings Plan 4 K. Deed Covenant L. Letters of Opposition M. Alternate Site Plan N. Agreement of Understanding Reviewed/ Approved By: Wendy Kaserman Assistant City Manager 5 of 28 Reviewed By: Alan Fenstermacher City Attorney April 6, 2021, Item #80 120 240 480 .__~---~--L---___,j Feet 6 of 28 RS-RR-A CITY OF POWAY Zoning / Location Map Item: PDC 21-001 ATTACHMENT A PF 7 of 28 Old Poway Specific Plan (OPSP) on file in the Office of the City Clerk https://docs.poway.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=151665&dbid=0&repo=CityofPoway ATTACHMENT 8 April 6, 2021, Item #8 April 6, 2021, Item #8Allen Matkins Via Electronic Mail May 26, 2020 Mr. David De Vries, AICP City Planner, Development Services City of Poway 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064-5755 Email: ddevries@poway.org Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, 27th Floor I San Diego, CA 92101-0903 Telephone: 619.233.1155 I Facsimile: 619.233.1158 www.allenmatkins.com Timothy M. Hutter E-mail: thutter@allenmatkins.com Direct Dial: 619.235.1510 File Number: 134180-00004/SD897826.02 Re: Cornerstone Proiect -McKee Orchard Dear Mr. De Vries: This law firm represents Cornerstone Communities with respect to its McKee Orchard project (the "Project"). I write to offer some clarification regarding the interpretation of California's Density Bonus Law (Government Code§ 65915, the "DBL"), including its application to the Project. On behalf of Cornerstone, thank you for your willingness to discuss these matters and attempt to reach an understanding on behalf of the City of Poway ("City"). As you know, the current iteration of the Project proposes 1 very low income unit, and 19 market rate units, and therefore qualifies for protection under the DBL. As I understand it, there are a couple of outstanding items that you intend to run by the City Attorney to ensure conformity with the DBL and the Poway Municipal Code. Incentives and Waivers Cornerstone has previously expressed that, in order to accommodate the design of the Project, including the additional units earned by providing the affordable unit, the Project will require waivers of the minimum lot size and setback requirements. Strict application of these development standards would physically preclude construction of the Project. We understand from your correspondence that the Project would "require a lot area concession/incentive allowed by density bonus law, but the setback variance/waiver would not be permitted." This is not consistent with the DBL. In an effort to provide some clarity, I offer the following references regarding incentives and waivers for DBL projects. First, it appears there is some confusion about whether there is an exhaustion requirement in the interplay between incentives and waivers. Incentives and waivers are different categories under Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Century City I San Francisco 8 of 28 ATTACHMENT C April 6, 2021, Item #8Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. David De Vries, AICP May 26, 2020 Page 2 the DBL, and are to be reviewed independently. An applicant may submit a proposal for specific incentives or concessions, but is not required to do so. (See Gov. Code§ 65915(d)(l).) In addition, there is no requirement for any or all available incentives to be exhausted prior to utilizing waivers -the submission of a request for waivers does not affect the number of incentives available (See Gov. Code§ 65915(e)(2).) At this time, no incentives are requested or contemplated by Cornerstone. As an alternative explanation for this approach to incentives, we understand that it may be your position that a developer has an obligation to design a Project to fit applicable development standards for the zone or the City. This, too, is inconsistent with the DB and established case law interpreting it. Requests for waivers under the DBL are broadly construed, and local jurisdictions are not permitted to impose standards that would preclude construction of a project that meets the requirements of the DBL unless specific findings can be made. The criteria for those findings are not met here. While critics and even some public officials have claimed that developers should re-design or modify projects to build smaller units, provide more open space, or eliminate amenities in order to comply with local standards, that approach has been soundly rejected by California courts. In Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346-1347 (known as Wollmer II), the court flatly stated that "standards may be waived that physically preclude construction of a housing development meeting the requirements of a density bonus, period. The statute does not say that what must be precluded is a project with no amenities, or that amenities may not be the reason a waiver is needed. Wollmer's argument goes nowhere." In effect, the project applicant is permitted to design and propose a project. If a project meets the requirements of the DBL, any development standards that preclude construction of the project as designed must be waived. That principle applies here: the Project qualifies for benefits under the DBL, and the waivers identified by Cornerstone are necessary to accommodate the Project as designed. In particular, as explored above in relation to the density calculations, more units are proposed than would typically be allowed in the subject zone. Setbacks are specifically identified as an example of a "development standard" in section 65915(0)(1), and they are commonly waived for density bonus projects. The same is true for minimum lot size requirements. Conclusion We recognize that density bonus projects can be both controversial and complex due to the number of differences from a standard entitlement process. Cornerstone representatives and I are willing to participate in a meeting with you, Mr. Manis, and the City Attorney to discuss these issues at your convenience. Given the current environment, we expect that may need to occur via video or teleconference, and are willing to accommodate whatever would work for the City. 9 of 28 April 6, 2021, Item #8Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. David De Vries, AICP May 26, 2020 Page 3 We hope that you, your family, and the other members of City staff are doing well in these difficult times. We look forward to hearing from you and continuing to work with the City to bring this Project to fruition. TMH:cs 10 of 28 Sincerely, ls/Timothy M. Hutter Timothy M. Hutter April 6, 2021, Item #8Mct'\ee Orchard Pre-Development Conference Parcel 314-192-02-00 Project Information Cornerstone Communities proposes to develop the McKee Orchard site as a single cul-de-sac street with 20 Single Family Residences. • Project Summary o Gross Area -4.77 AC o R.O.W. Dedication -0.152 AC o New Public Street -0. 709 AC o Net Area - 3.911 AC • Zoning: RS-4 The current RS-4 residential single-family zone is intended as an area for single-family residential development on minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet and maximum densities of four units per acre. Cornerstone's plans includes twenty (20) single family homes, which is slightly under the minimum lot size, as we will be utilizing a density bonus to provide one (1) affordable housing unit. • Walking trail to Twin Peaks Road • Average Lot Size -8,500 SF • 20 Single Family Homes -Craftsman Style Architecture Site Development This is a development providing (19) market rate homes and (1) affordable single-family home. Per direction from the City Planning Department, the proposed neighborhood plan was designed as an extension of Holly Oak Way. On January 25, 2021, Cornerstone Communities held a Community Outreach Meeting and shared the plans with interested residents. After presenting our plan, we received strong resistance from the Holly Oak residents to the layout that would take away their cul-de-sac. Because of the very negative feedback, we propose an alternate layout be considered that would enter from Twin Peaks Road and not connect to Holly Oak Way. This would enable the Holly Oak cul-de-sac to remain intact and would be consistent with the project on Kent Hill Way, which is the next street to the East. Construction will consist of demolition of existing structures, mass grading of the site, installation of public storm drains, public water and public sewer. All power and dry utilities will be constructed underground and public curbs, gutters, sidewalks, pavement etc., will be installed for the circulation element and will include parkway landscaping with street trees and a walking trail. 11 of 28 .JAN 2 9 2uJ A TT AC~,Mjf~(LD. • ."·1.,.-.·1 April 6, 2021, Item #8Mct'\ee Orchard Pre-Development Conference Parcel 314-192-02-00 Most important of all will be the construction of 20 attractive single-family homes, which will be constructed in Phases of approximately 5 homes each. Architectural Style The intended lots shall be developed as 2-story single family residences, composed of 3 to 5 bedrooms and 3 ½ to 5 ½ baths. Casitas with separate entrances will be standard with the plans 2 and 3, and optional with the Plan 1. Exterior building elevations shall be Craftsman Style, which is consistent with the Old Poway Specific Plan. The exteriors will feature cement tile roofs, overhanging eaves, wood accents, patterned windowpanes, with various combinations of board and batten, lap siding, stone and brick. The exterior colors will be earth tones, including green, brown, and taupe shades. Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan4 12 of 28 3,465 SF living area with 617 SF, 3 car tandem garage 3 - 4 bedrooms with optional casita and 3 ½ -4 ½ baths -Note: master suite is located on the first floor. 3,598 SF living area with 781 SF, 3 car tandem garage 3 - 4 bedrooms with casita and 3 ½ to 4 ½ baths 3,900 SF living area with 640 SF, 3 car tandem garage 3 - 4 bedrooms, with casita and 4 ½ baths 3,900 SF living area with 640 SF, 3 car tandem garage, 215 SF storage (small garage), 3 - 4 bedrooms, with casita and 4 ½ baths April 6, 2021, Item #8SITE DEYEI.OPIIENT Pl.AN FOR, McKEE ORCHARD ~ (.,) 0 """' N ) · \\\ ·-\:ti\ ',·-.✓-~:, •• ~r··-j··•/ I/ ' .,,,,,,,.,.,.,,.,_,,,, ', t "\ ; . , ...... _,, .... ,,,X··--·····--················· I \ [1 u~~~~% )~~\' i:;sy~~r-i\J : I\ l , "' 7 /'··APN <!14-192-62:-00,.,., 1 ', I 00 $. } ~~~2> (/""••v,-r><) (J.,,,,J,). h,•I ~~-'\~~\~-=f Iil --< :_./··\\\~~ \\AJ'No14-9oo~b~-o/J;y m; 1-~~-r.1 { \ \"''i\ ' ' APN 514-f/60-09-00 MAP 014560 \L ·-r?~~~~~C-=\ LEGAL MSCRfPUQN• 1HA T l'OlfffON OF 1H£ NOlt1H HALr OF ffC' NOlt1HCAST OUAlt1flf OF srcnc:w 12, 70tWSHP , .. SOU1H,, lfA#CE 2 lll'ST. MN 8£,WA/fOINO MSC ANO MfltOAN. W 1H£ CITY OF POIM Y, COON TY OF SAN OIE'CO. STAT£ OF CALIOIINIA • .4CC0lftJWG TO LN7!'0 STA 1£S GO\EltNW£NT SUlltKY MAf0\1('0 S[PJDlll(W Ir. 7'11. ANO AS SHOtlH ON M'C01'0 or Sl.WWY ltlAP Ml '""-FUD ., 1H£ orncc or TH£ COUNTY lfCCOIIDCII OF SM) COUNTY OCTOllrlt , .. 1947. ASS£SSQR'S PARCEL HUMBER· ,,,._,.,_02-00 PRQJ(CT SUMMARY: GROSS ARCA • 4.112 AC .... Q.IK OCDICATION • O.f.51 AC. NErt PUIUC STlfCCF • 0.7W AC NCr AM'A -.1,rr AC ..saEB; arrDFl'OIMr .wA1'£B: POlt'AY ltlf.JNICPAL WilP o,snwcr \ /~--.)°'e:·~~ ~~/014757 ~ l [:nrnrn'' ~ ! v·n·rrq ' ··p;\ 1! MAP~fi ;~z ))w ; 1: 1 i ''" [ ~n-~; .. d '1 \'.:;::;::··-.. ).,/ CT1\!. J; '~~:/)r 1 : ,! i li!i i ~ '-..-,--'~,,~, ' ' ' '"---..•. ,l-\,,,,-,-. J ~ If' " ~, ·--_;;u l ,-F'" ---_, JO' JO' 60' go• l'""'7 I CITY Of POWAY 1111 ~ Orap•lmanl of 0.-opnS!l 5'rWCn ~ Pl...Al'JNING ENGNEERING SURVEYTNG 3880 Ruffin Road, Suite 1 20 511[ DC1otl.CJ'IICNTPlM f(JI MCKEE ORCHARD VICINITY MAP :~.; ~:; 92123 [·-"'""""' NOr TO SCALC BSB-560-8157 Fax ~N0.16\17 April 6, 2021, Item #8--~( .. ~~ Church--Parking Lot-..) J j 14 of 28 Twin 1 andscape Plan Peaks Road ---------·---·-·-· ---·------··-··--· ···-·-··· ···--···---··--····-·•-ect"o t · ·,. Notes: 1. Front and rear yard landscaping will be installed by individual homeowners. 2. Developer will install street trees; individual homeowners will be given vouchers by developer for additional trees as required to mitigate the removal of existing trees Conceptual rendering only. Actual development to be per Project Development Plans. ~ Orcr ATTACHMENT F 1/14/2021 April 6, 2021, Item #8-0, 0 .... N 00 )> ~ ~ )> (") ::I: s: m z ~ G) LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION COLOR SCHEME 1 STA~:K Architecture+ Planning FRONT ELEVATION IDH 2045 Kettner Boulevard Suite 100 San Diego California 92101 619 299 7070 I www starckap com REAR ELEVATION MCKEE ORCHARD APPLICANT: CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES, 4365 EXECUTIVE DR SUITE 600, SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 858.458.9700 2020005P12.DWG 1A CRAFTSMAN-1 5.LOF 14 PLAN 1 'A' ELEVATIONS 3132"=1'-0" ISSUE DATE: 3/05/20 April 6, 2021, Item #8..I, en 0 ~ ~ 00 )> ~ ~ )> (") :I: s: m z ~ :I: LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION COLOR SCHEME 5 S T~~:K A r ch itect u re+ Pl a nnl ng FRONT ELEVATION illH 204 5 Kett n e r B o ulevar d Su ite 10 0 Sa n Di eg o Cal ifo r n ia 9210 1 619 29 9 7 0 7 0 st arcka p com REAR ELEVATION MCKEE ORCHARD APPLICANT: CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES. 4365 EXECUTIVE DR SUITE 600. SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 856.456.9700 2020005P12.DWG 1B CRAFTSMAN-2 6.LOF 14 PLAN 1 'B' ELEVATIONS 3132"=1'-0" ISSUE DATE: 3/05/20 April 6, 2021, Item #8~ ....... 0 ...., ~ 0) ill TltJ·-·1[l ... --, I )> ~ ~ )> n :c ~ m z ~ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION COLOR SCHEME 1 S T~~:K Archltectur• + Planning FRONT ELEVATION 2045 Kettner Boulevard Suite 100 San Diego California 92101 619 299 7070 I www starckap com ][l[ REAR ELEVATION MCKEE ORCHARD APPLICANT: CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES, 4365 EXECUTIVE DR SUITE 600, SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 858.458.9700 2020005P22.DVI/G , .. 2A CRAFTSMAN 1 8.LOF 14 PLAN 2 'A' ELEVATIONS 3/32"=1"-0'" ISSUE DATE: 3/05/20 April 6, 2021, Item #8-I. 00 0 ...., l'IJ 00 9---j ·---, I t---j ---I I ---1 I -I I • I I ---l I .., .... I I I I I I r---, I I ' I I I I I LEFT SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION )> --t --t )> C') :x: s: m z --t c... RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION COLOR SCHEME 5 ST~~:K Architecture.+ Plannlng 2045 Kettner Boulevard Suite 100 Sa n Diego California 92101 619 299 7 070 www starckap com ------------r REAR ELEVATION MCKEE ORCHARD Cir""""] f° I[""""] I ['-'_ ----... :i APPLICANT: CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES, 4365 EXECUTIVE DR SUITE 600, SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 858.458.9700 2020005P22. DWG 28 CRAFTSMAN 2 9.LOF 14 PLAN 2 'B' ELEVATIONS 3132"=1'-0" ISSUE DATE: 3/05/20 April 6, 2021, Item #8• RECORDiNG1 ... REQUESTED BY~ -CiT'i.·oF·•:PbWAY AND WHEN RECORDE'.b MAiL jb: APR. 02·• 200_2 1Cl,:44 LJfICiti.. mmI6 · i SAfEDIEGO ,lll.fflY Rmm:R! s 'OFFIL'E .(l{OORV' J ~ flfllH, i(DfflY ffilRIEf ms: ... o~oo :AM CIT't"'CLERK crr{or=j:>owA v P.O. 80)5.789 ·~ NO~n:~::~92074 . 11 lmllH 111111~11 lllll lJ 2002•0272997 I 1f APN.314'192"38; 39 &69 '.l (This\space·for.:;Recorder's Use) ·NO DOCUMENTTRANSFER TAX, N0 FEE DECLARATION,AND·N0TICE~0F.FUTURE ., . -PUBCIC STREET:fuENSION (HOLL Y'OAKWAY,f , •'. W~, the :undersignecLownersmf\the ,f?toperty descrit;>eq ~-~ A.PN .31,4-192~~-, 39. & &a, shovm -.on1 Exhibit "A"' attached hereto, ofv.ihich· is· subject to a p~opos~d 1.4~1ot subdt~n~iqn 9f Te.,:i!atiy_e· Tt~~tM~p·No; 90-;0JR; ·approved by0the Ci~y Council of'the City;of Poway per~Resolutio·n NQ. P~ OO.;f3Q•~rfQ~q_ber1~, ~opo~. hete~f1a~.~re.a.ndserv~ no.!i~Jto,f~ure buyers or owiers of;Lots 1 thru t4~, inclusive, their successors:iat)d·a~sfgns that ~olly,Oak-Way. a ctajiain public s(reef to-:be, created·within•-the·subdivision, 1may'be, at a.future date, .. extended•northerly-to·Tw.;n Pea~sH9ad~ ·_ · es·~e-:. K~'n( · stee;~James E. Kent & Kathfyf:1-E. Kent ~99B'T.rust dat~d··12~3-98 19 of 28 ~ion, J. M.. _rphy TrUstee; Bicm J. Murph ; Jr-·&· arbara· L. Murphy,,Family Trust:dated;G:-26.-89 -Lou1secE;, Kronus Trust~~e~ ~..ibT 3-29-96 . ~~/Z:· ¥,J Taj~t~i:~~r,nes E; Kent & Kathryn~. JSent 1998 Trust dated 1-2~~98 ATTACHMENT K April 6, 2021, Item #8Scott Nespor From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: James Bunner <jbunner@kpbs.org > Saturday, January 23, 2021 4:06 PM David De Vries Scott Nespor Housing protest (sharing an email to our councilman) Dear Mr. Mullin, You are going to be getting inundated with complaints over a proposed housing project in Holly Oak Way. "Cornerstone Communities" is going to try and cram 20 homes in the vacant lot between Holly Oak and Twin Oaks. (Heck the streets are named after trees but they're going to be taking down some historic trees.) Worst yet the traffic being Slammed thru our neighborhood. I live on the end of the Cul de sac and there are so many concerns: Traffic, no exit entry for emergencies, flooding( loss of trees, exotic wildlife and environmental issues, the list goes on. You've got a mob of taxpayers, VOTERS, DONORS, who aren't happy at all. We're not going to stand for a huge project invading our neighborhood. There are zoning problems and experts and attorneys have advised as such. The homes will not have the same character on and on. Midland road can't handle any more. It's dangerous already trying to pull in and out of Holly Oak Way. Fires, Quake evacuation impossible. Those in our area and elsewhere will fight this. Word is spreading and doin the media will join in. Enough is enough. Sure ... a handful of homes entering into a long right turn lane off Twin Peaks would probably work ... but nothing more. So just giving you a heads up if you are not aware already. I appreciate your time and REPRESENTATION for your constituents who vote you in, the CITY and developers DO NOT. I get the "nimby'' attitude in this city but what is being proposed in dangerous, not sound environmentally etc etc and greedy. We will expect you to vote it down. Thanks for your time. Jim Bunner, homeowner, taxpayer, activist, family man Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone 20 of 28 ATTACtf MENT L April 6, 2021, Item #8January 29, 2021 Jack Robson Vice President of land Planning and Development Cornerstone Communities 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92121 RE: Construction Project at 13667 Twin Peaks Road, Poway, CA 92064 Dear IV!r. Robson: Thank you for presenting your proposal on Saturday, January 23, and allowing us to express our serious concerns. We, the homeowners and families residing on Holly Oak Way and Tvvin Gables Court, have discussed the proposal and believe it important to set out our position in writing. We hereby state ve;y dearly our vehement and unanimous opposition to the pro,iect as proposed b0ca~1se it 'Nou!d have devastating and irreversible effects upon our quality of life, safo·ty, and i::tropertv valu·es. The extension of Holiy Oak Wav and construction of 20 houses would more than tdp!e the nurn'··er c;-veh~c!es regu1a(~Y -~ransiting l·fo';y Oak \Nav. This is a qu1et and peaceful community of just l3 families, where residents and children can safely ",alk across our streets as well as g;thei and p!2v in ou,· cul-de-sacs. The characier and nature o-f our neighborhood \.Viii be destroyed by your proposed development. Further, it wouid cx~cerbate an already dangerous trr.:ffic condition .at the intersection o-f :-;oilv Gak \Nay and ;v'Hdland Road. We also have serious concerns about the major disruption to our daily lives during the construction and sale phases of the project, which you estimate \vou!d last almost two years. Trucks, heavv equipment, sales agents, prospective ouyers, and service providers regularly transiting on Hol!v Oak Way would be a nightmare, in addition to the noise, dirt, c;mct dust po:!ution gener2ted bv the constrn-:tion. Further, the densnv, style, architecture, anc aesthetics o-:t:1e proposed 20 houses are cornple'i:etv lncons-istent and incompatible with our neighborhood; vvhich consists of !argelv craftsman•stvte, single-story, custom-buHt homes on targe lots. The proposal to shoehorn 20 two-story houses onto a 4-. 77 acrn parcel is a stadc departure from the character of our neighborhood, and will diminish ou~ pror<?.rty values. We understand that Cornerstone's objective is to derive a maximum ieturn on the investment in Its ieC7=nt!y acquired property, but \Ne urge you to take our legitimate and s12rious concerns into considerntion bt-::fore disrwriing o,.:r !i'IeS and :~e:;t:-o/l:1g cJ; ;,".iCnd2,ful ne~ghboehood. 1 21 of 28 April 6, 2021, Item #8P1s proposed at the communitv meeting on January 23, we request that you make a very concerted effort to have the City of Poway approve an entrance from Twin Pea!<s Road into the development and leave closed the existing HoHv Oak Way cul-de-sac. We are prepared to support you in this effo1t, if you are sincere. Otherwise, we are piepared to exhaust every legal, regulatory, and political remedy to stop your project for the pro~ection and presen.rz~ion of our cherished neighborhood. S:ncerely, The FamiHes of Holly Oak Way and Tvvin Gables Court 412-402-8892 /,/) ~ ---L_ ~-~~~ ~~¥pdJ John & Mina Foster 13625 HoHv Oak vvav Jim 8~ Kay l<ent 13685 Holly Oak Way 619-851-3254 Lester & Surbhi Marrison 14455 Tvvin Gables Court 619-513-7408 22 of 28 Alla·n J. Preckei 13621 Holly Oak \M'iiy 858-382-7561 Mark & Sonia Caskey 13635 Holly Oak iNay 858-6G8-7029 Scott @ Bernadette Swan 14-460 Tw~n Gables Court 858-776-6066 --· .: ,;" ...... , ... -• -----------'-'--"-·•·-··· _. '·-Donna Kent 13685 ~0H~1 Oak VVay 619-851-0140 lf/✓2 .,;-,,, .t ~ w-:7#4-Massimo & Marissa Sasso 13640 Hol!y Oa!· VVav 858-382--7558 Gabriel & Anna Ho 14450 TiNin Gables Court 858-663-24-47 Deena Delaney 144-60 Twin Gab!es Court 858--216-5945 2 April 6, 2021, Item #8C-------==;;:::;;;;;;;;;;~----..,=============-~ Juan & Kathy Chavez 14-436 Midland Road 858-7 48-2345 Quoc & Nu Vuong 13620 Holly Oak Way 858-842-1238 Cc: Ure Kretowicz, CEO Cornerstone Properties Michael Sabourin, COO Cornerstone Properties 23 of 28 Jim Bunner 13660 Holly Oak Way 619-764-1884 April 6, 2021, Item #8Mayor Steve Vaus Deputy Mayor Barry Leonard Councilmember John Mullin Councilmember Dave Grosch Councilmember Caylin Frank City of Poway P.O. Box 789 Poway, CA 9207 4-0789 March 8, 2021 Homeowners & Residents on Holly Oak Way & Twin Gables Ct. Poway, CA Re: Proposed development at 13667 Twin Peaks Road ("McKee parcel") by Cornerstone Communities Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: I am writing on behalf of all 13 homeowners and residents on Holly Oak Way and Twin Gables Court to express our united and adamant opposition to the proposal by Cornerstone Communities to extend the Hol1y Oak Way cul-de-sac and make it the sole access point to 20 two-story homes to be constructed on a 4.77-acre parcel that fronts on Twin Peaks Road. The reasons for our opposition are set forth in the enclosed letter that was signed by all of us and sent to the Cornerstone principals more than a month ago. We have received no response, not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement. Councilmember John Mullin met with us on-site on February 20 and informed us that Cornerstone has requested a predevelopment conference before the City Council, sitting as the Planning Board, which will likely be calendared in April. We, the affected residents, intend to fully participate in that conference. 1 24 of 28 April 6, 2021, Item #8We recognize that the parcel in question is zoned RS-4 and is ripe for residential development. Although we are concerned about the proposal to squeeze 20 houses onto the site, with maximum 5-foot side setbacks -very much out of character with our large lots and custom-built homes -our opposition is focused on safety concerns and the negative impacts on our quality of life based on the access point being from Holly Oak Way. My home is on the southeast corner of Holly Oak Way and Midland Road. As I write this, cars can be heard speeding by on Midland Rd. The Holly Oak Way intersection does not allow for good north-south visibility, and the prospect of more than tripling the number of vehicles into and out of Holly Oak Way presents substantially increased traffic hazards. Ours is a very quiet and tranquil neighborhood. Children play in the cul-de-sacs, and residents enjoy walking their dogs and going to the mailboxes without undue concern for vehicular traffic, which is minimal. All of that will change dramatically if Holly Oak Way is extended to accommodate Cornerstone's development. We strongly believe and assert that good planning, safety considerations, and common sense support an alternate access point -from Twin Peaks Road. The parcel fronts on that roadway, which provides easy and direct access for heavy equipment and materials. The houses can be constructed along a separate cul-de-sac, leaving Holly Oak Way intact. We beseech you to spare us from becoming a construction zone for almost two years, only to be followed by a further and permanent degradation of our safety and quality of life. We thank you for taking our very serious concerns into consideration when you ultimately vote on this development. We stand ready to meet with you and/or City staff on-site at any time to further sensitize you to the legitimacy of our opposition to any extension of the Holly Oak Way cul-de-sac. 25 of 28 Sincerely, ;· O Q I)~.,_. S\--¼;l.£.Q}f.e. '---C✓-1 / l;/ ALLAN J. PRECKEL 13621 Holly Oak Way, Poway, CA 92064 Alia(, Pree J:..l@::ox.n2t 858.382. 7561 2 April 6, 2021, Item #8cc: Bob Manis, Director of Development Services Tracy Beach, Senior Civil Engineer (Land Development) David DeVries, City Planner Austin Silva, Senior Planner (Traffic Engineering) Enclosure 26 of 28 3 April 6, 2021, Item #8N ....... 0 ..... N CX) I I _}-A ~ \ SITE DEYEJ.OPIIE/l 1 \7 \ '-"(Jil)~,~~f ~--J=-,>~t ~!!"~:1 ORi!FO&~,. r ~~ \ f _ ,) I \ 1-r=i· ~•"f-1 =••=. ,, , ~ I -" •--• {--I · -' -1' -~ \ L-rf I )-)~~\_ I rl }:~ :_ ,::,;:I .,cq:: l_'.__\7-7!.:---~1:-. ' \ "'--' ---... ~-• 1--~---, ---: \ --rL , c' I ! ~-+ c:::-___,I ... ,~-~ .-. --. I It~ ~ \ es~-' -,-___.1 ')"'--t~-i --: ' ' ~1--s-,-s-1.----' ' ...,°l., -\ "'-1 ; ~--·· t:~I :,.;: : , ', c -I APN '1"-" > • ·-, '" _ __, -,-~• : : --· ( ' '----, '92-(;2-00 ( \ ~ ~ ~ -, , ~ .,_;;_.J_ t.;,. v~"--',..~['',,-, (" ~ 1 > I \ ,'• --, <",;c'.,J ~ .•. : t j' ~ _,. ~ r ~ 1 PN_ ,&-192-10---,! ' _,--,[ --,--·~ , \ \ ~~-'a'\ ~ _/ -·, ---=---s::.J ---: : \ ,,,--., ---_, I -\ ,---•~T -' / .,_;~ ;-----------l \\\ "~}{!;..' ~ Jj)~),~ --·~-:::-_,,-----~ --=½&, 'J I: II j i' I ijP IJ j ij ·I , lj ___ r----' \ '--.___ i. L.u.,:jh '' ~~ '1 ,~ ~ . J I --::--=+ ' ' ,, I I ' •r' •.__,-1J \ ~. rS-r, , ,,,_ -··"-,,f!9, , r ----'--~ -" ,.,. ~ ~-I ~ ---2,_ __ ~ 'fi' ... ,. I "' ----•<er -_. =-= ./ 1°' -4"' ' ,,,. ---,,.~ :i,,1-. l - '\'C,\,-\ { \ \ tt ' -~:, \ . \ --'\,!: m \ .. / '-P!l!'!'"Lfl_c;llfiZ \ ' ---->< . ' \,,.\~1--_J □ +,, t;· J -----~ ···--_7 I I I I J ..I 3: \ '( I • ~ HOU5WC LNT. I I r· --7!- ',t7'ttr,-.,----'ni-,-+-+--4-I -4-'-I! \ APNo14-fJf!O-OfJ-00 ~t;=:;1 ~ IJ ~;c·R ~d J ~ '] 7 ~ ~ r J \XI'] Lj ~7t1 ~ 7 '1 !.~ 11 .11 ~·:· :_: ,, ·:· .l i lr ./\ MAP014o!iO 1 ~ r ~ ~d ~ l~~~ LJ...~11··1' i I ' \~~ 1 ______ ~_;;_-~ __ _'. __ !.= __ ------~·_:_ -----------· -----------~ Uf t: I !' , __ I \J_.__,;-··-'""-.,,, (--\ - ---4--. ~-----r----- - ----I :, ! d i ___ \ --c:--r---:-("~=7----.,..--,,-~,.-.,.__,~ -~1 -JO,l,:]-n -~ r --&>a··r LJJ -fc:_:j;\ f/ I ~ : 1 (----::::·J ) ,JD--\/\,.r ) c:2 \_,,,.--r-'7~ ·1 C:J "~ (>; __ "' rL--r::}-J \ I , , j ---i-D1\l MAPSt?~ ~, II :, : ! I C r/ . (: ______ ,,-__ , '\, AP1 °14-W~OO I ~014767 ~ ! I flTT""'J 1 ~u ~rn.J rrr1 I ~~~II ~n : "'1 f I I I ii I I: ~ kfr(!l '!H;f!,1f,1Jf!f; H -HAST"".,.,.,. " f!{~lLNJic. !e.N!NG RS 4 (4 DU/ACRE;}-, . _ x,• ~ ~TION»:,Z~IN,~~ ~--=.:Y.~~ ~~~ = ~g: =~: :,. GRAPHIC SCALC ~ STAT[ or CALICIIMA, ACC0ft0lll'4G TO UHl1£0 STA1£S GOWltHWCNT S10C SB• ,o· , , . , ~ SLW'l,f;'Y MIAl'OKO SCPTCM«lt II, ,.,._ ANO AS SHOtlW ON M'COIIO fllCAlf 511 • 15' JO O .JO 60 go 2 OF SI.Jlr\ll(Y MAP NO. 1141, Fl.CO IN ff arnC£ OF THC COIMTY 11tONT 58 • zs• i llf'COIDllt or SAG COLWTY ocr08Dt ,,. ,~,. ,101.r9Ct nltONT YMO sr1eAors ~ SUIP'MSJCW •Acr ~ I CITY OF POWAY 1111 ASS£SSOR'S PARC£L NUMB£B• oivnc••KNTS .,., • /ICDCJCCO UP 10 40 l'CtfC%NT OH A .,.-.., -....-~---i--L_..!._J o.pwtm~t of o....,...,~, Sonkn ~ ~ Jl4-t'2-02-00 ~~;~ ~ = ':,,'!«~ ,,,:, ~~:,., ~rillfr L:J5 r--........-:::,~-u SITE MWlCPMCNT Pl.AN f(R PROJ(CT SUMAIARY: IHf: ,_A.,. ra,, SIIIC £N1"Y. MCKEE OHCHAHD G110SS -A • •.m Ac D(NSITY BONUS CALCULATIONS• ~°.,~=ci !~5:o:~c QtOSS DCN!ITY .... ,n x •au/Ac. 11.0, au ~to1~1~1om~1o~c-.';'="'=•••=""=•""=======;::===~ I NCT A«A • .1•t1 AC NCT DCH51Tl' • .J.llf X .f OU~AC • 15..IA 0V 1---~ ••~ ~ ~~~ :ff!J:!jcf:;:c!:rr DCN51TY) • (O.Z x tt.ot) + . on [NQHCDI: ~ WAi(R-y ~-.:·: ~ YfCJ!!~l'£ALENAP 1 ·-., --17 i POIMY ~AL .. TDf asnwcr • Mlll0fll P'MIICCR ,.,[. NO. IDl7 -~ April 6, 2021, Item #8AGREEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING City Council for the City of Poway, hereinafter referred to as "City" and __ C_o_r_ne_r_s_to_n_e_C_o_m_m_u_n_it_ie_s....;.,_L_L_C _____ , hereinafter referred to as "Proponent" enter into this Agreement of Understanding based upon the following facts: Proponent owns or has an equitable interest in land described by tax Assessor's Parcel Number(s) _3_1_4_-1_9_2_-0_2_-_00 _______ . Proponent desires to develop this property in accordance with the will of the City and without the expense of a protracted development. City is concerned that Proponent will create development plans unsatisfactory to City and consume time and effort of City employees needlessly on unsatisfactory development plans unless City assists in directing Proponent. Based upon the above-mentioned facts, City will grant Proponent a hearing prior to filing any application for development upon the following understanding: a. City will render no decision with regards to any development proposal or part thereof. b. City will receive no evidence, specific in nature, in support of a particular development plan. c. City will make no representations that will obligate the City to render a decision in favor of or against any development proposal or part thereof Proponent may subsequently submit. d. If any development proposal is subsequently submitted, Proponent will proceed at its sole and exclusive risk with the understanding that City has made no representations upon which Proponent may rely. Dated: 1/29/2021 28 of 28 Proponent: ·:C ·: ATTACHMENT N JAN 2 9 2021 Signature Ure R Kretowicz, Manager ;>tx:..21-00,