On August 26, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed this project. Several residents gave testimony in support of this project and the zoning district as proposed (See Attachment 10, Draft Planning Commission Minutes). The Planning Commission had a brief discussion regarding density issues and appropriate locations for single-family homes. The Commission modified staff’s recommendation for R-2/PD Zoning and approved the project as proposed, including R-1.7/PD Zoning, with modified conditions.

Previous Actions on the Site: The following table summarizes previous planning applications related to the subject site.

Since the GPA study was initiated, staff, the applicant and the property owner have worked extensively to create a project that met everyone’s objectives. Staff has reviewed numerous site plans and discussed different development options and City policy. The applicant has met with residents in the area to understand their desires for the neighborhood. The property owner delayed filing the formal application while he and Economic Development staff explored commercial options for the site. However, it has been a challenge to balance the desires of the surrounding neighborhood, City goals for affordable housing and economic realities of commercial development into one cohesive project.

The proposed project involves the following actions:

• Demolition of the existing shopping center.
• Construction of 31 two-story homes on a 2.87 acre portion.
• Construction of a 12,000 sq. ft. commercial building on a new 1.13-acre lot at the corner of a Mary and Washington Avenues.
• Creation of a private street system for the homes which gain access from Lometa Avenue.
• New commercial parking area with entrances from Mary and Washington Avenues.

To accomplish the project, a General Plan Amendment and Rezone must be approved to allow for the construction of a residential development on what is currently a commercial lot. The associated Special Development Permit and Tentative Map would provide approvals for the specific site, architecture and landscape design for the project as well as the proposed lot divisions which allow for the homes and commercial building to be individually owned.

A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines. An initial study has determined that the proposed project would not create any significant environmental impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. (See Attachment 3, Initial Study).

All of the recommended mitigation measures pertain to noise impacts on the proposed residential. Two sources of noise have been identified: traffic noise from Mary and Washington Avenues and mechanical equipment from the proposed commercial building. The acoustical consultant suggested several mitigation measures, including special window installation, ventilation systems and a more specific study of the mechanical equipment on top of the roof of the proposed commercial building. These mitigation measures are included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as Conditions of Approval #13.

General Plan Amendment

Change under Consideration: A General Plan Initiation requested consideration of a change from Neighborhood Shopping to "Residential" for a portion of the site. The request at the time did not specify the residential density proposed. In September 2000, Council approved a study to consider "mixed use". The current proposal is to change 2.87 acres to Low-Medium Density Residential and leave the remaining 1.13 acre site as Neighborhood Shopping (See Attachment 6, Proposed General Plan Amendment and Surrounding Uses). The proposed residential development in is the western portion of the site with a small section that extends across the south of the site to Mary Avenue (see Attachment 6). The 1.13-acre northeast corner will remain Neighborhood Shopping.

Objective: The objective is to allow for redevelopment of an older shopping center to both residential uses and a smaller, more updated commercial center.

General Plan Amendment Initiation: Staff had two concerns at the time of the initiation request: preservation of adequately sized neighborhood shopping centers and integration of the residential and commercial uses.

At the time of the initiation in 2000, a schematic site plan indicated separation of the residential portion from the commercial center through a buffer of streets, setbacks and limited car access. The inclusion of residential uses on a commercial site can be accommodated through approval of a Use Permit or Special Development Permit if the uses and project site design is highly integrated. The applicant indicated an interest in a mixed use project; however, the project as initially designed required both the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and the Rezone. Staff noted that the size and location of the site offered a unique opportunity to design a mixed-use project integrating different land uses into a cohesive site layout with enhanced pedestrian and auto linkages.

An additional consideration was the preservation of neighborhood-serving commercial space in the north of the City. Previous retail market studies had been conducted indicating a lack of adequate neighborhood-serving retail at the north of the City. The recommendations at that time had been to preserve these centers where possible. At the time of the initiation, there was no specific information about whether the proposed commercial space would be adequate to serve neighborhood concerns, and staff recommended continuing the item until a retail market study could be initiated.

Based on testimony from the applicant and the desire to encourage redevelopment at that center, the Council acted to allow study of conversion from Neighborhood Shopping to "Mixed Use". There is no category specifically for "mixed use" in the City’s General Plan, but staff has worked with the applicant in order to pursue a high degree of integration between the uses.

Current Request for Low-Medium Density Residential:

Surrounding Uses: The site is bordered on three sides by land with a Medium Density (14-27 du/acre) General Plan Designation. These properties are developed with apartments and condominiums at a density consistent with this designation (17 - 24 du/acre). Beyond those apartments and condos is a large single-family neighborhood. The site is also adjacent to the major arterial roads of Mary and Washington Avenues. A bus line is located along Mary and Washington Avenues.

Discussion: Any residential development at this site would exceed what is currently planned for in the General Plan and would increase the number of housing units in the City. Low-Medium Density facilitates the development of detached single-family homes, which is virtually impossible with a medium- density designation. Staff notes that there are goals to maintain and protect single-family residential property, as well as goals and policies to encourage ownership housing. Detached single-family homes are considered desirable by the community and allow for individual ownership with comparatively larger private spaces. This general plan designation would meet those goals by facilitating that type of density.

However, this site is ideal for a Medium Density Residential designation due to the proximity of mass transit, major streets and adjacent medium density uses (Please refer to Attachment 1 for General Plan Goals and Policies and Attachment 6 for Surrounding Uses). Low-Medium Density would be a lost opportunity for additional housing needed by the City and could create a fundamental incompatibility between the expectations of single-family property owners and the realities of commercial development. Staff strongly encouraged the applicant to consider medium density. Several site plans with townhomes were presented. However, the applicant felt that the neighborhood preference for single-family homes precluded approval of a townhouse project.

Staff is concerned that typical low-medium density residential uses (primarily single-family homes) are less compatible than other types of housing product with commercial uses. Commercial uses typically cause a certain amount of noise, odor and traffic. While conflict exists for any residential use adjacent to commercial centers, the conflict is heightened for single-family homes (For example, there has been a history a conflicts between homes adjacent to El Camino Real and those near Dick’s Lakewood in Lakewood Village.) Single-family homeowners have a higher expectation for quiet streets and less traffic than those that live in more compact environments such as townhomes and condominiums. In part for these reasons, successful mixed use developments typically combine more dense housing and commercial uses.

Despite these concerns, staff finds that the Low-Medium Density Residential designation, though less appropriate than the Medium Density designation, is still appropriate as it provides additional housing units and meets the Land Use and Transportation Goals of providing detached single-family homes. If the Low-Medium Density Designation is not adopted, the associated Rezone, Special Development Permit and Tentative Map would be inconsistent with any other designation, and must be denied. The following discussion will analyze the appropriate Zoning District and the proposed project as designed.

Change Under Consideration: Rezone a 2.87 acre portion from C-1 (Neighborhood Business) to R-1.7/PD (Low Medium Density Residential / Planned Development) and the remaining 1.13 acre portion from C-1 to C-1/PD (Neighborhood Business /Planned Development). R-1.7/PD allows up to 14 du/acre, and is compatible with a General Plan Designation of Low Medium Density Residential.

Objective: To allow for 31 detached single-family homes on the west portion of the site and commercial on the northeast corner. The proposed Planned Development Combining Districts allow for deviations from certain development standards for both the residential and commercial developments.

Residential Zoning District:

In the Low-Medium Density General Plan Designation, there are three zoning districts available:

Each of these Zoning Districts has different characteristics. The R-1.5 Zone has a lower maximum density than what is proposed, and would require redesign of the project if this option were adopted. The R-1.7/PD allows the highest base density of the three and limits residential uses to detached single-family. This Zone has more stringent FAR and lot size requirements than the other Zones. The R-2 has the most flexibility, allowing a variety of uses, lot sizes, and FARs. It also has more requirements in the minimum open space provided. In addition, this is the only Low Medium Density Zoning District that requires provision of affordable housing.

Staff recommends the R-2 Zone as it provides BMRs that assist the City in meeting its affordable housing goals. This Zoning District is consistent with the proposed density and would allow the FAR and lot sizes planned for this project. This Zoning District would trigger two additional deviations: minimum useable open space and minimum lot width.

If a Medium Density General Plan designation is chosen, the R-3 Zoning District must also be adopted, as that is the only Zoning District in the City consistent with that density range. This Zoning District allows a range of uses and lot sizes, similar to the R-2 Zone. It also requires BMRs and allows for density bonuses of up to 15%.

Planned Development: A property may be Rezoned to include the PD Combining District in absence of a specific project or approval of a specific project. The PD Zoning enables the consideration of deviations from the Code and/or imposition of more restrictive requirements.

The purpose of the Planned Development Combining District is to provide modifications, additions and limitations to other zoning districts to meet special conditions and situations. In 1998, the City Council approved guidelines for the use of PDs and Special Development Permits (SDPs). The subject request for a PD meets all of the three applicable established guidelines.

• To facilitate development or redevelopment of a site to improve the neighborhood. (Meets)
• To allow for a proposed use that is compatible with the neighborhood but requires deviations from development standards for a successful project. (Meets)
• To allow for the development and creations of lots that are less than the minimum size required in the base zoning district. (Meets)

The project involves a complete redevelopment of a 4-acre site to commercial and residential uses. In order to design this type of project, certain deviations will be necessary to allow for design elements such as private streets, small ownership lots, and setback and lot coverage deviations. If an R-3 density is desired it could be incorporated with the PD. However, ownership situations in the R-3 Zoning District virtually require the PD to allow for smaller lots.

Residential Use: As discussed in the General Plan Amendment and Rezone sections, this project would convert commercial space to a residential use. The detached single-family homes proposed as part of this project are consistent with the uses allowed for the R-1.7/PD Zone as well as the R-2/PD recommended by staff. The proposed project is at 11.15 du/acre, meeting the Housing and Community Revitalization Sub-element goal of providing 75% of the maximum density allowed.

Commercial Use: Although the Council initiation of the GPA did not require an updated market analysis, staff was able to have one prepared by the Sedway Group in 2001. It found that competing retail sites on nearby El Camino Real eliminated sufficient demand for a grocery store at this location. However, the study identified the potential market for a drug store ranging in size from 4,000 to 25,000 sq. ft.

The property owner and City Economic Development staff have been working to find an appropriate drug store tenant for this site. They were unable to get a commitment from any particular company prior to submittal and decided to pursue entitlements for the proposed 12,000 sq. ft. building. The building is subdivided into multiple tenant spaces but may be modified if a drug store tenant is found.

This proposed commercial center is one-third of the size of the existing center. Typical tenants for this size of center are restaurants, dry cleaners and small medical offices. If this commercial building is approved, staff recommends as Condition of Approval #7 and 22 that certain uses, including all restaurants that exceed a 30% of shopping center be required to go through a Special Development Permit process.

Commercial Development: The commercial site faces Mary Avenue with two buildings totaling 12,000 sq. ft. of area. An overhead trellis connects the two buildings and provides for a visual and pedestrian axis through the site to the adjacent residential street. On-grade parking is located in front of the building along Mary and to the side and rear between the residential development and the building. The trash enclosure is located at the south side of the building.

The building is set back 10-15 ft. from the corner of Mary and Washington Avenues. This layout requires a deviation from the required front setback of 70 ft. This closer setback provides a visual focal point and presents a pedestrian-friendly presence along this major intersection.

Residential Development: The remaining land is dedicated to single-family homes. A U-shaped private street and associated driveways provide individual access to 26 of the 31 homes and the remaining 5 homes have access directly from Washington Avenue. Two homes front onto Mary but obtain vehicle access from the private street. Guest parking is provided in designated spaces along the private street.

Six different floor plans are proposed for the homes. Most of the plans have front porches that are located approximately 6-10 ft. back from the edge of the sidewalk. Side setbacks are typically 4 ft. on both sides. Most floor plans have a two-car garage facing the street, but an attached garage at the rear of the site distinguishes Plan 2. The variety of floor plans is intended to provide visual interest and reduce the impact of garage doors on the street. See Attachment 5 for a breakdown of individual unit sizes, setbacks, lot coverage, and requested deviations for individual lots.

The proposed lot sizes for this project are not consistent with the requirements for the R-1.7/PD Zoning District. Individual lot sizes are less than the minimum 2,600 sq. ft. and more than the maximum 4,000 sq. ft. Since the R-1.7/PD was designed to specifically accommodate small-lot single-family homes, staff recommends that this standard be met for this project if the R-1.7/PD Zoning District is adopted (Condition of Approval #6b). If the R-2 Zoning District is adopted, the project is consistent with that Zoning District.

Integration Between the Uses: The strongest link between the two uses is a visual and pedestrian "axis" which leads from Mary Avenue through the residential section to Lometa Avenue. This axis allows for pedestrian access through the commercial section and from Mary Avenue to the parking lot. There is no vehicle access between the uses and a 6 ft. high masonry wall is proposed to shield the residential portion from the commercial building. A 4–6 ft. wide passthrough will be allowed in this wall for pedestrians to access the shopping center.

As stated earlier, staff does not believe that this type of site layout captures the intent of a true mixed use project. The project is designed with a traditional separation of uses, including separate parking facilities and visual barriers. A 6 ft. high wall is proposed to screen the residential from the commercial along the joint property line. This wall is a code requirement for any residential project adjacent to commercial uses. In addition, the loop road was designed to further separate the uses and minimize adverse impacts from the commercial center onto the proposed neighborhood. These elements are typical of well-designed traditional development, not an integrated mixed-use project.

The following Guidelines were considered in analysis of the project site design.

The homes have modern floor plans with Craftsman architectural elements. The homes consist of prominent front porches with stone bases, wood brackets in the gable, and a variety of front treatments. Each floor plan has different architectural details to create variety along the street. Staff feels that the proposed residential architecture is of high quality and meets the design standards for the City.

Floor Area Ratio: The project-wide FAR and the individual residential lot FARs exceed the 50% maximum for the R-1.7/PD Zoning District. This is a function of the size of the lots and the density proposed; however, the unit sizes are modest, ranging from 1,600 to 2,400 sq. ft., including garage area. The R-1.7/PD was designed to for small-lot single-family homes and the FAR limitation on the homes was designed to control the size of the house in relationship to the lot as a way of assisting affordability of single-family homes. No single house would be larger than 2,000 sq. ft. (as the largest lot is 4,000 sq. ft.). If the R-1.7/PD zoning district is adopted, staff recommends that the project be redesigned to conform to the 50% FAR maximum for individual lots (Condition of Approval #6a).

However, the R-2/PD Zoning District does not have as strict standards as the BMR units are required as part of the development. If the R-2/PD Zoning District is adopted, reduction in the individual FAR is not necessary.

The following Guidelines were considered in the analysis of the project architecture.

The proposed landscaping plan appears to meet applicable standards; the commercial parking lot must comply with the City’s new parking lot shading requirements. The project is also compatible with the City-Wide Design Guidelines.

Traffic/Parking/Circulation: A traffic study was conducted to measure the increase of peak hour trips associated with the new project. The results indicated that the currently proposed project will generate 1,391 fewer daily trips, one more AM peak-hour trip, and 123 fewer PM peak hour trips than the existing uses at full occupancy. These impacts were less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

Commercial Parking: The site provides the minimum number of parking spaces for the size of building and proposed use. This calculation does not take into account the outdoor seating area. Staff recommends as Condition of Approval #23 that outdoor seating be considered through a Miscellaneous Plan Permit. In order to accommodate the required parking, deviations from both the maximum number of compact spaces and minimum driveway aisles are requested.

Residential Parking: Each home provides two covered and two uncovered spaces, meeting the minimum required. Sixteen additional spaces are provided along the private street for guest and overflow parking. These spaces are particularly important as traffic engineering is recommending that certain areas of Lometa and Washington Avenues be painted with a red curb to ensure adequate sightlines and traffic safety.

Circulation: Traffic Engineering staff and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) have reviewed the proposed site plan. The VTA recommends that a bus duckout be constructed along Washington Avenue to improve the existing bus stop and reduce conflicts between buses and other vehicles on Washington Avenue (Condition of Approval #20).

Undergrounding: There are existing overhead utility lines along the south property lines. Sunnyvale Municipal Code section 19.38.090 requires that these and all new utility lines and service drops be undergrounded prior to building permit final (Condition of Approval #8)

Tentative Map

Access: The project proposal includes 31 single-family lots, one common lot including parking areas and private drives, as well as one commercial lot. If the project is approved, staff recommends Condition of Approval #35 requiring the formation of a homeowner’s association and CC&Rs allowing for the joint use of the residential drive aisle, two open parking spaces and rear open space.

The proposed project will have a temporary impact on the surrounding uses as part of the construction. The long term impacts such as noise and traffic are expected to be minimal. The commercial building gains access from major arterial roads and should not directly impact the adjacent apartments or nearby single-family neighborhood. The trash enclosure is located to minimize impact on the proposed adjacent homes.

There are several significant land use issues associated with this project. While the applicant and staff have worked together to achieve a project that meets both parties’ criteria, there is still some difference of opinion on what is the best use of the site.

Planning staff reviewed this project based on land use principles and General Plan goals and policies. Many of these policies encourage developing more housing and attaining a denser product where feasible. These policies may not necessarily reflect developers’ or nearby property owners’ preferences, but should be recognized as a critical part of the Housing and Community Revitalization Sub-Element’s policies and necessary to the health of the City as a whole. Staff finds that this site meets many of the criteria for a medium-density product. Proximity to mass transit, major arterials, commercial development and the fact that it is surrounded by medium-density land uses make it ideal for a medium-density development.

Despite these concerns, staff finds that the Low-Medium Density Residential designation, though less appropriate than the Medium Density designation, is still appropriate as it provides additional housing units and meets the Land Use and Transportation Goals of providing detached single-family homes. A Low-Medium designation may be a lost opportunity to provide the housing density that the City must actively pursue to meet its affordable housing goals, but the project will provide 31 more single-family homes than are currently planned.

Staff also recommends Rezoning the project to an R-2/PD Zoning District. This Zoning District has several benefits:

• It requires BMRs, providing affordable housing for City residents.
• It is compatible with the density as proposed.
• It allows for FAR higher than 50%, which the applicant is requesting.
• It allows for a variety of lot sizes, also requested by the applicant.

As proposed, the project has many deviations from both the C-1 and the R-1.7/PD Zoning District standards and Sunnyvale Municipal Code requirements. Some are desirable, such as the smaller setback for the commercial building in order to provide a pedestrian-friendly presence at the corner. Some are less desirable, but staff has found adequate justification from other project attributes to recommend these aspects. If the Council is able to approve the R-1.7/PD Zoning District, staff recommends the following deviations be eliminated through alternate project design (as Condition of Approval #6).

1. Individual residential FAR of 50%, if R-1.7/PD is approved
2. Lot sizes less than 2,600 sq. ft. and greater than 4,000 sq. ft.

If the R-2/PD Zoning District is adopted, these deviations will not occur and the associated redesign will not be required.

At the Planning Commission hearing of August 26, 2002, the Commission chose to support the R-1.7/PD designation and did not recommend the R-2/PD Zone. Concerns were expressed by one member of the Commission that this was not an appropriate location for affordable housing. They also eliminated Conditions of Approval #6a and b requiring reducing the project FAR and changing the lot sizes.

Staff is recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment, Special Development Permit and Tentative Map because the Findings were made. Staff was not able to make the findings for the R-1.7/PD and recommends the R-2/PD Zone instead.

• Findings and General Plan Goals are located in Attachment 1.

• Conditions of Approval are located in Attachment 2.

No fiscal impacts other than normal fees and taxes are expected.

In addition to the standard outreach, the applicant held two neighborhood meetings to present the project to adjoining residents. These meetings were held on November 15, 2001, and August 8, 2002. Both were intended to inform neighbors about the most recent proposal and allow time for questions and comments. Staff attended the most recent meeting. Residents expressed the following concerns:

• Traffic
• Location of dumpster
• Number of units facing Washington
• Access to commercial center
• Possibility of having a "seedy" rear area for the commercial building
• Concern with proposal for private streets, not public
• Parking

The residents appeared supportive of the single-family design and if anything, were concerned about the number of units being proposed. Several residents had concerns about the access being taken from Lometa Avenue and potential spillover traffic onto adjoining streets.

1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and introduce a Resolution to change 2.87 acres from Neighborhood Shopping to Low-Medium Density Residential, introduce an Ordinance to Rezone a 2.87 acre portion of 1002 Washington Avenue from C-1 to R-2/PD and approve the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map with attached conditions.
2. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and introduce a Resolution to change 2.87 acres from Neighborhood Shopping to Low-Medium Density Residential, introduce an Ordinance to Rezone a 2.87 acre portion of 1002 Washington Avenue from C-1 to R-1.7/PD, approve the Special Development Permit and delete Condition of Approval #6 and approve the Tentative Map (Planning Commission Recommendation).
3. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and introduce a Resolution to change 2.87 acres from Neighborhood Shopping to Low-Medium Density Residential, introduce an Ordinance to Rezone a 2.87 acre portion of 1002 Washington Avenue from C-1 to R-1.7/PD, approve the Special Development Permit and the Tentative Map with modifications.
4. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and deny the General Plan Amendment, Special Development Permit and Tentative Map.
5. Do not adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and direct staff as to where additional environmental analysis is required.

Alternative 1.

• Action Statement C2.3.2 Promote and preserve single-family detached housing where appropriate and in existing single-family neighborhoods.
• Action Statement N1.4.2 Site higher density residential development in areas to provide transitions between dissimilar neighborhoods and where impacts on adjacent land uses and transportation system are minimal.
• Policy C2.3 Maintain lower-density residential development areas where feasible.
• Action Statement R.1.7.2 Support regional efforts which promote higher densities near major transit and travel facilities, without increasing the overall density of land usage.
• Policy N1.13 Use density to transition between land use, and to buffer between sensitive uses and less compatible uses.

• Action Statement N1.4.1 Require infill development to complement the character of the residential neighborhood.

• Policy C.1 Continue efforts to balance the need for additional housing with other community values, such as preserving the character of established neighborhoods, high quality design, and promoting a sense of identity in each neighborhood.
• Goal D Maintain diversity in tenure, type, size and location of housing to permit a range of individual choices for all current residents and those expected to become city residents.

In order to make the findings for a General Plan Amendment, consistency with the General Plan must be established. As shown in the above General Plan goals and policies, there are policies that could support either a low-medium or medium density type of residential product. However, staff finds that the Low-Medium Density Residential is an appropriate designation for the site as it provides additional ownership housing and maintains single-family neighborhoods.

If a General Plan Designation of Low Medium Density Residential is adopted, the R-1.7/PD is consistent with the General Plan. However, staff finds that the R-1.7/PD is a less desirable option as it limits the type of development to detached single-family homes and does not provide affordable housing units. The Zoning District of R-2 could achieve a similar site design but leave more flexibility for the total project Floor Area Ratio as well as provide 3 below market rate units.

For these reasons, staff recommends denial of the Rezone request to R-1.7/PD and recommends rezoning the 2.87 acres to R-2/PD. Staff can support the change from C-1 to C-1/PD as it allows for alternative setbacks and parking standards that meet the City-Wide Design Guidelines and facilitate a neighborhood shopping center.

To support the Rezoning request to R-1.7/PD, the following finding must be made:

The proposed use attains the objectives and purposes of the General Plan of the City of Sunnyvale.

Findings – Special Development Permit

The Findings for the Special Development Permit are dependent upon the General Plan and Rezoning Actions. Only one of the following Findings must be made to approve the Special Development Permit.

1. The proposed use attains the objectives and purposes of the General Plan of the City of Sunnyvale as discussed below:
2. The proposed use ensures that the general appearance of proposed structures, or the uses to be made of the property to which the application refers, will not impair either the orderly development of, or the existing uses being made of, adjacent properties.

The project as proposed would meet the objectives and purposes of the General Plan as it would provide detached single-family housing and preserve some area for neighborhood commercial uses.

1. The subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan.

2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan.

3. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed type of development.

4. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

5. The design of the subdivision or proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

8. The map fails to meet or perform one or more requirements or conditions imposed by the "Subdivision Map Act" or by the Municipal Code.

Staff recommends in the Conditions of Approval that if the R-1.7/PD zoning district is adopted, the lot sizes be brought into conformance with the standards for that Zone. If the R-2 Zone is approved, the Tentative Map would also be in conformance with those standards. Staff is able to make the findings that the Tentative Map is in conformance with the Sunnyvale Municipal Code and recommends approval of the map as attached.

Back to Attachments

In addition to complying with all applicable Federal, State and local rules and regulations, including the Sunnyvale Municipal Code the permittee expressly accepts and agrees to comply with the following conditions of approval for this permit.

Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development.

1. Execute a Special Development Permit document prior to issuance of the building permit.
2. The Special Development Permit shall be null and void two years from the date of approval by the final review authority at a public hearing if the approval is not exercised, unless a written request for an extension is approved prior to expiration date.
3. Reproduce the conditions of approval on the plans submitted for building permits.
4. Project shall be in substantial conformance to the approved plans dated August 26, 2002. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes, major changes may be approved at a public hearing by the City Council).
5. Specific deviations allowed with this Special Development Permit are as follows:

1. Front, side and rear setbacks
2. Required rear yard coverage greater than 25%
3. Lot coverage greater than 40%
4. Garage sizes of less than 400 sq. ft.

5. Front setback from Washington of 10 ft.
6. Compact spaces greater than 35% of the total parking provided

6. If the R-1/7/PD Zoning is adopted, staff recommends the following modifications. (The Planning Commission deleted this condition from their recommendation.) The following deviations must be eliminated through project redesign:

1. Individual residential FAR of greater than 50%.
2. Residential Lot sizes less than 2,600 sq. ft. and more than 4,000 sq. ft.

7. All uses as a matter of right within a C-1 Zoning District shall be permitted as a matter of right in the proposed shopping center, except that the following uses shall require a separate Special Development Permit including:

1. Sit-down restaurants with hours after 10:00 p.m. and/or hours prior to 7:00 a.m.
2. Entertainment uses
3. Establishments for which a general liquor license is issued
4. Establishments for which any on-sale liquor license is issued
5. Dog grooming
6. Any collection of uses that do not meet the definition of a shopping center

8. All existing boundary lines and proposed overhead service drops shall be undergrounded from the building to the nearest off-site pole prior to occupancy.
9. All existing and proposed roof equipment for the commercial building shall be screened to the height of the highest piece equipment in accordance with plans approved by the Director of Community Development.
10. Any transformer placed between the face of the building and the street shall be placed in an underground vault. At any other location, the transformer shall be screened as approved by the Director of Community Development.
11. Submit a detailed recycling and solid waste disposal plan to the Director of Community Development for approval. Provide a recycling and solid waste enclosure that is a minimum of six feet high and enclosed on all four sides, of a design, approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of the building permit. The enclosure shall match the design, materials and color of the main building.
12. An Impervious Surface Data Calculation worksheet is required to be completed and submitted for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of a Building Permit.

MITIGATION MEASURES

13. In addition to complying with applicable City Codes, Ordinances, and Resolutions, the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the project to minimize the identified potential environmental impacts:

a) What and where: Install sound-rated windows for homes along Mary Avenue to achieve 45dB or less. Include mechanical ventilation systems at the first row of dwelling units along both Washington and Mary Avenue.

How: Indicate each home and show details of both window and mechanical ventilation systems on the building permit plans.

When: Prior to building permit final.

Who: The City will require this to be indicated on the building permit plans prior to issuance.

b) What and where: Separate the backyard of Lot 27 from Washington Avenue with a 6 ft. high solid fence. If the fence is wood it should have no cracks or gaps and must have a minimum surface density of two pounds per sq. ft.

How: Indicate the location and type of fencing for Lot 27 on the building permits plans. Include details that show material complies with these requirements.

When: Prior to building permit final.

Who: The City will require this to be indicated on the building permit plans prior to issuance.

c) What and Where: Require an analysis of rooftop mechanical equipment at the commercial development to demonstrate the equipment will not exceed either an interior or exterior noise level standard for the surrounding residential units.

How: Submit a roof plan showing the type of equipment proposed and an associated noise study analyzing the extent of the noise and it’s effect on surrounding properties. This study should suggest any requirements needed to mitigate noise to acceptable levels as indicated in the Noise Sub-element.

When: Prior to building permit issuance.

Who: The City will require this to be analyzed and all applicable measures to be indicated on the building permit plans prior to issuance.

BUILDING DESIGN

14. All exterior architectural details that are included in the residential home plans reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council shall be included in the final building plans.
15. The applicant shall improve exterior details of the commercial building to add additional detail, including a focal point at the corner of Mary and Washington, and adding additional details to the façade to break up the length of the building. These exterior details shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of the building permit.
16. Final exterior building materials and color scheme are subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit.

LANDSCAPING AND SITE PLANS

17. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy. The Landscape Plan shall include the following elements:

1. A tree protection plan shall be submitted for any existing trees on the site. Where possible, trees shall be protected and saved. Provide an inventory and valuation of any trees proposed to be removed prior to issuance of building permits.
2. Any protected trees, (as defined in SMC Section 19.94) approved for removal, shall be replaced with a specimen tree of at least 36-inch box size.
3. Ground cover shall be planted so as to ensure full coverage eighteen months after installation.
4. All areas not required for parking, driveways or structures shall be landscaped.
5. Of new trees installed, 10% shall be 24-inch box size or larger and no tree shall be less than 15-gallon size.
6. The project shall provide funding for the installation of street trees as required by the Department of Public Works.
7. Provide storm water infiltration to landscaping areas from roof drains; show method on plans prior to issuance of a Building Permit.

18. Fencing design and colors shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of the building permit. Wherever the grade differential is one foot or higher, a concrete or masonry retaining wall shall be installed.
19. Submit details and specifications of all exterior lighting to be used on each house or in the front yards for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. Lighting plan should include:

6. Lights shall have shields to prevent glare onto adjacent residential properties.
7. Pole heights not to exceed 16 ft. from ground level

1. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City specifying the type of rental assistance to tenants or the applicant/property owner agrees to rentals which are set by the City. The agreement shall be executed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
2. BMR rental units shall be held and maintained by the developer and its successors in interest as BMR rental units. They shall be made available to and occupied only by persons qualified therefore under the provisions of Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapter 19.88, as amended.
3. The developer shall permit reasonable access to the development to City or its designee for purpose of monitoring and verifying continuous compliance with Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapter 19.88, as amended.
4. The BMR units shall be distributed throughout the project in accordance with specific plans approved by the Director of Community Development.
5. In the event that any BMR unit or portion thereof is destroyed by fire or other cause, all insurance proceeds therefrom shall be used to rebuild such units, or, in the alternative, shall be used to repay any encumbrance on such units, and the balance, if any, shall be distributed to the City of Sunnyvale. Grantee hereby covenants to cause the City of Sunnyvale to be named an additional insured party to all fire and casualty insurance policies pertaining to said assisted units.
6. Any material breach of these BMR conditions shall constitute grounds for revocation of this permit, in addition to other remedies provided by law.

30. The Tentative Map shall be valid for a period of two years, measured from the date of approval by the final review authority.
31. A Final Map must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of the building permit.
32. The Tentative Map shall be applicable only in conjunction with a valid Special Development Permit.
33. At the expense of the subdivider, City forces shall install street trees as required by the Public Works Department.
34. The "In-Lieu Park Dedication Fee" shall be paid in accordance with MCS 18.10. in the amount of $189,261.51 ($6,105.21/unit) prior to issuance of Final Map.
35. Deeds, covenants, restrictions and bylaws relating to the development are subject to approval by the City Attorney and Director of Community Development prior to action of the Final Map. In addition to requirements as may be specified elsewhere, the CC&Rs shall include the following provisions:

1. Membership in and support of an association controlling all common facilities shall be mandatory for all property owners within the development.
2. The homeowners association shall obtain approval from the Director of Community Development prior to any modification of the CC&Rs pertaining to or specifying the City.
3. The developer shall maintain all utilities and landscaping for a period of three years following installation of such improvements or until the improvements are transferred to a homeowners association, following sale of at least 75% of the units, whichever comes first.
4. The Agreement shall include the Conditions of Approval of this Special Development Permit.
5. Provisions for short and long term maintenance of landscaping, parking, driveways, private streets and utility connections.
6. Posting of no parking signage in shared driveways and Emergency Vehicle Access areas.

36. Connect to all City utilities or private utilities operating under a City franchise that provides adequate levels of service.
37. Obtain Public Works approval of plans for utility line extensions, utility connections, meter locations, driveways, sidewalks, etc.
38. The on-site drainage and sanitary sewer systems shall be privately owned and maintained. The fire and domestic water systems shall be privately owned and maintained beyond the meter.
39. Individual water services and meters shall be provided to each lot.
40. Construct all public improvements prior to occupancy.
41. Existing and proposed on-site and street frontage electrical, telephone and cable TV services shall be placed underground or removed prior to occupancy (MC 19.38.090).
42. Post labor/material bond and faithful performance bond for the full cost of all off-site public improvements (MCS 12.08.020).
43. Dedicate public utility easements at lot frontages as required by the utility companies.
44. Installation of the water system shall conform to City standards and shall be part of the City (or franchised utility) system up to the master water meter serving the project. The water system shall be privately owned and maintained beyond the meters.

Back to Attachments

All figures indicate the closest possible setback or highest possible lot coverage. Front or rear setbacks, as well as lot coverage may vary on a lot by lot basis.