related proposals on a 4 acre site located at 1002 Washington Avenue (Mary Manor Shopping Center) in a C-1/PD (Neighborhood Business/Planned Development) Zoning District. (APN: 161-37-035) (Mitigated Negative Declaration) DO (Also to City Council on 09/17/02)

Diana O'Dell, Project Planner, presented the staff report. Staff corrected the staff report noting that staff recommendation is Alternative #2 and not Alternative #1. Staff highlighted the proposed general plan amendment, the rezoning and site layout. She provided a brief summary of the proposed application and explained three levels of detailed analysis of the use as stated in the staff report. 1) General Plan designation and the allowable dwelling units; proximity to mass transit and commercial sites; 2) appropriate zoning districts and differences between R-2 and R-1.7 zoning districts, and 3) the use allowed in the special development permit. She commented on the level of integration between uses. Staff was able to make the required findings and recommended Alternative #2.

Comm. Satterlee commented that she did not see any plans for the detached garages for either Plan 1 or 2 and asked if there are any detailed drawings available. Staff pointed out that it is on Attachment 4, page 7 and that the plan is for an attached garage but the floor plan was not clear enough making it appear to be located at the rear of the site. Comm. Satterlee then confirmed that they are two story buildings five feet away from the rear of the site. Staff said yes.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff what is the biggest piece of building left for commercial use if a drugstore is located on site. Staff responded approximately 6,000 s.f.

Comm. Satterlee further asked staff to clarify the condition for additional work to the commercial buildings. Staff responded that the condition is to ensure additional articulation on the façade along Mary Avenue, more details in front of the building and additional features to the corner of Mary and Washington for more visual interest.

Comm. Swegles asked staff to clarify how the proposed number of units came about. Ms. Ryan responded that there was no request from staff to reduce the number of units. Staff further added that staff reviewed a number of plans where more units were designed, however, the proposed plan is the one that applicant felt best fit the site and not because of the staff request.

Comm. Chu asked staff about the difference between R-1.7 and R-2 and whether the difference is the provision of BMR units in R-2 and not on R-1.7 but the same number of units would be allowed in both zoning districts. Staff responded that it is one of the differences but there are others such as lot sizes, lot widths and allowable floor area ratios which allows more flexibility in an R-2 zoning district.

Scott Ward, Classic Communities/applicant, stated that the application is a model for a creative balance in Sunnyvale changing Mary Manor to a more vital community neighborhood residential and commercial. He asked the Commission to consider Alternative #3 and delete Condition of Approval #6A. He stated that the project meets the Smartgrowth goal and gave an overview of the growth and needs of the city, history and the development need of the site, economic impact to the neighborhoods, including the resolution adopted by City Council and the project’s meeting the goals of the General Plan. He presented the evolution of the project and his efforts communicating and soliciting input from the neighborhood thus achieving a classic design. He also noted his efforts in attracting commercial business and the efforts being in line with the Council’s direction and retail study analysis conducted by staff. He noted his objection to staff recommendation of R-2/PD Zoning District. He felt that 40 units is recommended to be developed to accommodate the BMR underwriting and that R-2 would not allow the flexibility the project needs. He addressed the deviations and that the variances are placed in context and relatively minor. He also addressed the zoning differences, the lot area, lot sizes, floor area and stated that the proposed design meets the lot area ratio. He also noted that the construction insurance business is in crisis and that there are only two businesses still in business and one of which is their carrier. He encouraged the Commission to approve Alternative #3 and remove Condition of Approval #6A.

Comm. Moylan followed up on his comments regarding Smartgrowth. He asked Mr. Ward whether the reason for not proposing a vertical development was due to the insurance crisis. Mr. Ward responded that the proposed project is a result of several reasons but most importantly is that it is based on neighborhood input and not to have peripheral mix use. Another reason is that the developer listened to City Council’s direction to be very careful about the integration of uses and its proximity to another use and be very mindful of potential incompatibilities,

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Ward whether the requested Alternative 3 would evade the BMR housing requirement. Mr. Ward responded that it is one of the effects of Alternative #3.

Comm. Swegles further asked if he had contacted all existing businesses at Mary Manor and whether some of them indicated the desire to come back. Mr. Ward responded yes and some have indicated interest in coming back.

Comm. Chu asked Mr. Ward with the removal of Condition of Approval 6A for individual residences to be no greater than 50%, how close would the units be to 50% FAR with Condition of Approval 6b if the lot would be increased to the maximum. Mr. Ward noted the reason for lot size deviation and responded that they could redesign the plan to keep the 31 units making the project adhere to the ordinance and standards as close as possible but yet provide a classic and compatible development with the neighborhood.

Pete Contostavlos, 40-yr resident, stated that the project site would probably the last site to be developed in the city. He added that the site has been under-utilized and although the residents would like to have another grocery it was not possible. He further added that the next best thing is the proposed application. He urged the Commission to approve the project as R1.7 zoning as indicated on Alternative #3 which would blend in with the neighborhood and the wishes of the surrounding residents. He commented that owner occupied housing is a vanishing breed.

Comm. Satterlee asked the speaker to clarify his statement of owner occupied as being vanishing. Mr. Contostavlos responded there are many more units for rentals versus ownership.

Ray Johnson, commented that it is a very fine plan and yet staff rejects it. He commented that quality of life is a high priority to most residents but it appears that staff is not supportive of this concept. He added that denser is not synonymous with better but rather worst. Furthermore, another huge benefit of the project is the quality. He stated that sometimes in order to attain quality, deviation to code and city guidelines is needed. He concluded that it is a sensible growth for both the current and future residents. He urged the Commission to approve Alternative #3 and to face reality, which makes good sense.

Yolanda Risch, resident and former Planning Commissioner, supported the project. She stated that the developer clearly listened to the Commission’s desire to develop single family units at the site. She commented that the project site has strong civic minded neighborhood and deserves a quality project. She felt that the project is suitable for the site and fits in with the neighborhood. She encouraged the Commission to approve the project for either Alternative 2 or 3.

Mania Smith, resident, stated that she has attended several community meetings and that the first presentation was not acceptable. However, the developer listened to the neighborhood resulting in a classic project. She expressed her disappointment to the landscaping of Cherry Orchard as having no cherry trees. She added that the design is beautiful and would enhance the neighborhood and the city. She supported R-1.7 zoning and prefers not to have a higher density project. She urged the Commission to consider the quality of life and traffic impacts.

Comm. Moylan asked Ms. Smith for her exact domicile to the project site. Ms. Smith responded that she does not live in the immediate neighborhood however, she considered the area her neighborhood.

Sharon Lynch, who lives adjacent to the neighborhood, thanked the developer for a classic project and for listening to the residents. She stated that the residents want to have another supermarket but were unable to get interested parties. However, she was happy with the compromise and the housing opportunity presented. She preferred to have a R-1.7 Low density residential since there are traffic issues in the neighborhood with the presence of two schools.

Comm. Satterlee asked Ms. Lynch why she feels that medium density is not appropriate for the site. Ms. Lynch responded that because of the two grammar schools, there would be increased traffic; therefore, the site is not the right spot for higher density housing.

Marilyn Macris, long time resident, echoed the previous speakers and urged the Commission to approve Alternative #3.

Ms. Ryan commented on some of the public statements. 1) Staff is recommending approval of the project and not recommending to change the number of units nor different densities; 2) Condition of Approval #6A was included should the Commission approve the R-1.7; however, if R-2 is approved, three below market housing would be required, and 3) the difference between R-1.7 and R-2 in terms of Floor Area Ratio is that R-1.7 has a requirement for each of the units to be a maximum of 50% FAR. She added that there are only two or three R-1.7 zoning districts in the City and every site is at 50% FAR or in the case of Frances/Taaffe, slightly above 50% FAR, She noted that the Benner site was built with every single lot at 50% FAR and the private streets are not included in the calculation. If R-2 is approved, the FAR is typically calculated including the private streets.

Mr. Ward concluded his presentation by addressing that the floor plan for model has 2 a rear set-back of about six feet from the ground floor, and that the windows in the rear are for ventilation purposes and that the primary window is on the side wall and does not look into the rear.

Ms. Ryan also noted that there are cherry trees at the Cherry Orchard Shopping Center.

Vice Chair Babcock applauded the developer for listening to the residents, the Commission and City Council. She added that the project is a unique opportunity to develop 31 units at the site and agreed with staff that the project is of high quality residential architecture, which would be a great addition to the City.

Comm. Lee echoed Comm. Babcock. He stated that he advocates for medium density housing and the opportunity for BMR units; however, staff recommendation for an R-2/PD seems to be inappropriate to the site based on the residents’ input. He encouraged staff to look for other locations for a BMR opportunity around the city.

Comm. Satterlee commented that this is one of the most exciting opportunities to reach and achieve a number of goals of the General Plan, specifically augmenting the housing shortage in the Bay Area. She felt that the site is ideal for medium density housing with access to a major arterial with great capacity. There are very few places in Sunnyvale for capacity and the site is a great location for its juxtaposition of single family homes against multi-family homes. She stated that she would prefer to change the zoning to medium density residential, therefore, did not support the motion.

Comm. Moylan commented that in order to approve the project, it is necessary to make the required findings and whether or not the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. He noted that C-1 did not work so a mixed use was supported. He added that it is an ideal site for medium density housing. He further added that it is important to give the commercial business in the C-1 zoning an opportunity for survivability by providing medium density residential. Furthermore, he stated that the developer has done an excellent job maximizing the capacity for the proposed zone; however, he felt that the developer would still be able to get the number of units desired without deviation in an R-2 zoning. He further added that the project site is surrounded with different zoning districts and based on studies, the ideal zoning is R-3. Therefore, he concluded that he was unable to make the required findings and that the project is not consistent with the goals of the General Plan and recommended Alternative #1- adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and deny the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Special Development Permit and Tentative Map. He urged the Commissioners to reconsider the motion and that the project before them is not a mixed use as directed by Council.

Chair Simons supported the motion and commented that there is capacity for higher density in the Mary Manor Corridor but felt that the project site is not appropriate for medium density housing. He stated that the project is wonderful, would benefit the neighborhood and would integrate in the community.

Return to RTC# 02-359