2001-0116 - City of Sunnyvale Study Issue: Consider changing industrial zoning to residential and retail in the area generally bounded by Route 237, US-101, and Lawrence Expressway. (Mitigated Negative Declaration) (Also to City Council on 06/25/02) DRP

• Review and adopt the Study.

• Consider amendments to General Plan and Zoning designations.

Diana O'Dell, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She provided a summary of the study, the industrial areas within the boundaries, the different scenarios to promote further development to residential and commercial uses, the public meetings held to gather input from the property owners and businesses in the affected areas, the traffic analysis conducted, the traffic mitigation, fiscal impact associated with the different scenarios and the retail market study conducted. Staff recommended actions to address the changing of the industrial zoning to residential and retail and examination of possible development and identification of businesses or uses that may be viable to the site.

Vice Chair Simons asked staff since the area is next to light rail and mass transit, how does these impact the study. Dieckmann Wolfe, Transportation Planner, responded that the City Council will review the study and related citywide and regional impacts as part of the Transportation Strategic Plan. Ms. Ryan, Planning Officer, added that the study will review the schedule and if the intersection should be included in the Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The ITR Rezoning study only has one intersection identified as CMP.

Vice Chair Simons expressed his concerns on the CMP to be below the level such that the funding could be impacted. Dieckmann Wolfe responded that the CMP identified site is Tasman and Lawrence Expressway is already designated in the General Plan needing improvement. She added that the impact of the study would be mitigated with the General Plan build out.

Vice Chair Simons commented that there is regional discussion to remove it from the CMP. Staff concurred that such discussions were on-going.

Comm. Moylan noted that Alternative #3 recommended deferring actions until completion of the Transportation Strategic Plan and asked staff why not recommend this Alternative. Staff responded that if action is deferred until formal designation could delay development. With the recommended Alternative, the action could be taken with costs identified and could help development with certainties.

Comm. Moylan clarified that if this study is approved, the TSP study may identify some issues that would not have been identified at this study. Ms. Ryan responded that usually is the comfort level and the sequencing of actions of the study. Mitigation needs to be identified now and staff can still go back to make modification to the mitigation after completion of the Transportation Strategic Plan when improvements are determined for certain intersections.

Comm. Chu asked staff that it appears that there is only one directional access to Route 237 and Fair Oaks. Dieckmann Wolfe concurred; however, it was not included in the traffic analysis for this particular study. Ms. Ryan added that it can be included and will be looked at in the Moffett Park Specific Plan.

Chair Brown opened the public hearing.

Craig, Mechling, member of the Traditions of Sunnyvale Homeowners' Association, thanked city staff for courtesy and in responding and acknowledging their input. On behalf of the Association, they strongly support Alternative #1. He commented that the Association's interest is Alternative 1F which addresses the City owned property that lies directly across from their community. He summarized the letter that is included in the staff report of their interest to develop this property. He volunteered to partner with staff during this process to identify the logical and viable uses. He requested that one of the association's director be an active participant in the team and that Planning staff consider the extension of the sound wall that borders Traditions and Route 237.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff about Item 1F and whether this would be considered in the potential study issue to be ranked in December. Staff said yes. Comm. Satterlee addressed Mr. Mechling's request and explained the study issue process. She encouraged that they participate during this process. Mr. Mechling stated that he is aware of the study issue process and have worked with staff on a study issue and that they would be participating in this potential study.

Thom Mayer, resident, opined that staff should be looking at planning a new neighborhood. He recommended to defer the study until the Transportation Strategic Plan is completed as well as define and identify commercial area, which would have access to Fair Oaks, Weddell and US 101.

Vice Chair Simons asked staff to point out the area that Mr. Mayer recommended to be considered.

Vice Chair Simons asked Mr. Mayer his reasons to postpone the study after the Traffic Study. Mr. Mayer responded that it would be ideal to plan the commercial portion before the residential and also plan the development as an entirely new neighborhood and not just put high density housing first.

Comm. Moylan asked Mr. Mayer about which one should be developed first housing or commercial. Mr. Mayer opined not to build commercial but rather have a complete plan for a new neighborhood so development could be done simultaneously.

Joseph Head, Summerhill Homes, recently has purchased property that is within the area of consideration and asked what process the project would be subject to. Ms. Ryan responded the process relates to when the actual application is received and the new ordinance effective date. He shared his experience in housing development both rental and homeownership opportunities and its economic impact.

Vice Chair Simons asked Mr. Head why higher density is not as economically advantageous as moderate densities. Mr. Head responded that if there is a change of unit size relative to the density, the associated costs such as construction, and required parking could be cost significant but with little revenue gain.

Vice Chair Simons asked Mr. Head the minimum size dwelling unit that are economically feasibly for sale and what could be done to promote smaller units. Mr. Head responded, as an example, that 1,600 and 1,800 square foot dwelling units were all sold in a recent project but the 1,400 square feet dwelling units sold at a slower rate. He added that the market does not heavily respond to lower density for sale units.

Chair Brown asked Mr. Head how many total units is he planning to develop and how many potential owners would have school age children. Mr. Head responded that approximately 125 to 140 and almost none would have school age children.

Steve Tao, resident, encouraged the Commission to support the residential use in the general surrounding areas and to be consistent in the R-3 zoning.

Comm. Satterlee asked Mr. Tao why support R-3 versus higher density. Mr. Tao responded that from his experience, the type of properties in an R-3 zoning is more acceptable on the sale side and by the general public.

Christine Myers, resident, addressed the current traffic concerns in the area and has seen seven major accidents. She added that the increased housing density would exacerbate such problems. She agreed with housing needs in the City but proposed to have a lower density and not higher density. She further added that commercial along Fair Oaks would increase traffic and accidents. She would prefer ownership opportunity rather than rentals.

Vice Chair Simons asked Ms. Myers how would she deal with the decision for lower density housing vs higher density housing next to mass transit. Ms. Myers commented that she would prefer to have home ownership opportunity rather than rental characterized by lower density.

Comm. Satterlee asked clarification of staff about Scenario A & B Net New AM and PM peak trips and and if it includes commercial impacts and no additional dwelling units. Staff responded that both scenarios include the commercial use and added that Scenario A, which increases the density to 36 dwelling unit, with the additional commercial new net trips would result.

Comm. Satterlee further asked how many additional units would be allowed to rezone from R-3/PD to R-4/PD with no commercial use. Staff responded that it is addressed on Attachment D on the number of units allowed per each scenario and group.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff about Alternative 1D recommending retaining the ITR designation. Staff responded that this recommendation is a phasing type approach to see how the decision would work leaving it as ITR and depending on the resulting development leave the ITR South of Tasman.

Comm. Satterlee furthermore asked about Alternative 1E and how would this take place practically. Ms. Ryan responded this Alternative would continue to study the area but on an indefinite schedule. She added that this also was an opportunity to use the services of the consultant.

Comm. Satterlee confirmed whether the recommendation was to go ahead with the up zoning of the residential areas prior to identifying the ideal commercial sites. Ms. Ryan said yes and to allow a more comprehensive review.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff if the alternatives were recommended and adopted, the mitigation related to Tasman and Fair Oaks would be done barring the results of the Transportation Strategic Plan. Staff said yes.

Comm. Moylan commented that during public testimony it appears that density above 24 units per acre is only viable for rental housing, however, the General Plan encourages home ownership. He added that since staff recommendation for 36 du/acre, he questioned staff's belief that 36 du/acre would not be viable for ownership but rather only for rental. Ms. Ryan responded that home ownership has been built on R-4 in Sunnyvale. There is a higher likelihood for rental as oppose to homeownership in R-4 zoning district.

Vice Chair Simons asked staff if the Commission should only consider uses and not whether the units are ownership or rental. Ms. Ryan responded that zoning only specifies density and use and not whether it is for rental or ownership opportunities.

Ms. Ryan cautioned the Commission that during project consideration not to deny a project just because it is not home ownership opportunity as this is not in the spirit of the City regulation and State law and also this is not a prudent approach. She added, however, if the application is requesting a deviation from the zoning code, in the past, the Commission weighed the request against whether or not the project is rental or ownership but encouraged them not to deny a project because it is rental and not ownership.

Vice Chair Simons commented that this alternative would encourage home ownership opportunities and that R-4 would encourage rental units. He felt that it is important to have a closer mix of ownership and rental but shifted towards home ownership. He added that if a project requires a higher density, then it could come before the Commission and would be closely reviewed with the public.

Comm. Babcock echoed Vice Chair Simons and commented that she prefers opportunity for home ownership in this section of the City and residential units are currently developing in this area.

Comm. Satterlee asked the maker and the second to look at staff recommendation for the area North of Tasman to rezone to R-4/PD which is near the light rail, mass transit therefore a mix of R-3 and R-4 is a good idea. Vice Chair Simons asked staff what is the process for a developer in an R-3/PD zoning which is more befitting in an R-4/PD. Ms. Ryan responded that they would have to apply for a rezoning, it would have to go through public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the merits of the project. Vice Chair Simons did not accept the amendment.

Comm. Satterlee would not support the motion without this caveat. She commented that she is a firm supporter of a variety of housing and that rental properties are also important. However, if North of Tasman is rezoned to R-4, she would support the motion. She added that there is no guarantee that only units for home ownership opportunity would be developed on R-3 or that only rental units would be developed on R-4. The maker and the second accepted the amendment accepting staff recommendation of Alternative 1D.

Chair Brown supported the motion and concurred with her fellow Commissioners.

Return to RTC# 02-276