2003-0117 - Pulte Home Corporation [Applicant] Kuang Yu and David Chang [Owners]: Application for related proposals on a 382,021 square foot site located at 1120 Karlstad Drive, 1131 North Fair Oaks Avenue, and 1141 North Fair Oaks Ave in an M-S/ITR/R3/PD (Industrial & Service/Industrial to Residential/Medium-Density Residential/Planned Development) Zoning District. (APN's: 110-14-177, 110-14-201, and 110-14-134 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)

• Special Development Permit to allow 168 condominiums, and
• Tentative Map to subdivide three lots into 168 condominium lots and one common lot

Fred Bell, Project Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that the project further implements the industrial to residential district development. He further noted that the environmental impacts are relatively insignificant and could be mitigated as noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He highlighted the use, site layout, architecture, parking, accessibility, circulation, open space and landscaping. He reported that there are two deviations to code allowing 10 feet distance between two buildings where 20 feet minimum is required. He stated that the project meets all development standards. He addressed the concerns about the impacts schools. He stated that staff discussed the project with the school district. Further, staff noted a similar development north of Tasman and estimated on 28 students (K-12) that would be generated by the project. Staff was able to make the required findings and recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map.

Comm. Satterlee inquired why a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared rather than an Environmental Impact Report. Staff responded that the environmental initial study conducted determined that the noise impact could be mitigated therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration is warranted.

Further, Comm. Satterlee inquired why the noise impact is greater on Tasman and than Fair Oaks. Staff responded that the statement was incorrectly stated and that Fair Oaks side is the more heavily noise impacted. Comm. Satterlee asked if Condition of Approval #27 needs to be corrected as a result.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff if the 15 feet front setback is from the patio or from the building façade. Staff responded that the setback is from the building façade.

Vice Chair Babcock inquired about the building height of the Sobrato project that was recently approved, which is located in the immediate area. Staff responded 38 feet from top of curb. Staff also noted that Traditions Townhome project was 32.5, but was not measured from the top of curb.

Vice Chair Babcock asked staff about the mitigation measure of "maintaining the windows closed at all times" and whether this is an indication of an inoperable windows. Staff responded that the windows could be opened and that closing the window at all times would mitigate the noise impact.

Further, Vice Chair Babcock asked whether the patios would be unusable. Staff responded that the proposed patios provide a strong pedestrian element, an advantage of the project along the Tasman Corridor. He added that there is competing goal between the pedestrian access versus the noise.

Vice Chair Babcock suggested relocating the patio to the other side of the building to be more usable. Staff responded that several alternatives were considered and it was concluded that the proposed location of the patios is the best alternative.

Comm. Swegles asked staff if a parking lot exit directly to Fair Oaks was considered rather than traveling to Tasman and whether a traffic impact analysis was conducted. Staff responded that the proposed circulation pattern was directed by Public Works. He further added that there would be an increase in traffic but not enough to warrant a traffic impact analysis. Ms. Ryan noted that the current use generates traffic.

Comm. Swegles asked staff what the number of residents expected for the development. Staff responded approximately 350 residents using 2.1 to 2.3 occupants per unit.

Comm. Chu asked staff if the decibel calculation includes the weekend noise. Staff responded yes and that the noise study was based on 24 hours/seven days with a weighting for nigh time factored in the calculation.

Comm. Chu further asked for examples of decibel levels. Staff referred Comm. Chu to the Noise Sub-element, which provides a table of acceptable/typical decibel levels.

Dan Carroll, Pulte Home/applicant, introduced his development team and noted that they are prepared to answer the Commission's questions.

Comm. Satterlee asked Mr. Carroll about the height differences on various buildings. Mr. Carroll deferred the question to his architect, Manny Gonzalez.

Manny Gonzalez, architect, responded that there are grade differences in the interior areas of the development site and the perimeter. However, the overall roof height is relatively the same.

Comm. Satterlee asked Mr. Gonzalez if there are windows along the side where there is a minimum distance between buildings. Mr. Gonzalez responded that there would be stairwell windows and that there are no bedroom windows.

Dr. Joseph Rudnicki, Sunnyvale School Superintendent, questioned the mitigation measures suggested and commented that the measures are very general assumptions. He further questioned the projected number of 28 students or 300 students. He raised concerns with re-opening schools, portable classrooms and each of available sites for new schools. He concluded that the recommendations are not good mitigation measures and suggested further review or conduct an environmental impact report.

Ms. Ryan clarified that the 300 is the projected number from the Downtown EIR discussed at the Study Session earlier and that the projected number from the proposed project is 28 based on the 2000 census data for a similar development.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Rudnicki which schools would be able to accommodate the projected 28 students. Mr. Rudnicki responded that Fairwood and Lakewood Schools would be able to accommodate them as the enrollment has dramatically declined but the other schools have significantly increased. He added that the impacts to schools depend on several factors.

Comm. Chu asked Mr. Rudnicki if there is capacity for 28 students in San Miguel, Lakewood or Fairwood. Mr. Rudnicki responded that there would be no problem for Lakewood School and Fairwood would be limited but has some capacity.

Dan Carroll, applicant, thanked staff for the diligence and patience even with last minute changes. He addressed the school concerns and that their experience is that townhomes generate fewer school age students than single family home development. He concurred that 28 students would be an appropriate estimate.

Comm. Satterlee asked the speaker based on his experience as a developer in the valley to comment on the livability of the proposed patios. Mr. Carroll responded that the patios would exceed the acceptable noise level; however, this information would be disclosed during the transfer of property. He concluded that livability depends on personal choice or preference.

Comm. Lee asked Mr. Carroll how they mitigated the noise impact on their development located at Route 87 in Santa Trinita. Mr. Carroll responded that there were sound walls that effectively mitigated the noise impact.

Comm. Swegles expressed concerns about the traffic impact to Tasman and asked staff for more detail about no access to Fair Oaks. Staff responded that most likely because of the proximity of the intersections, the flow and capacity on Fair Oaks. He added that there is a new right hand turn movement unto Fair Oaks.

Comm. Swegles commented that there is currently an access from Fair Oaks to the existing building which seems beneficial. Staff responded that Public Works may have considered that alternative but determined that the proposed access is a better circulation pattern.

Chair Simons asked how the school district fees are determined. Staff responded that the fees are defined by the school district, with a maximum set by the State.

Chair Simons expressed his concerns about the impacts of future developments to the school districts and that the fees being collected could only support temporary student building but not enough to build new facilities.

Chair Simons asked staff if it is possible for the City to collect fees for schools in Sunnyvale if there is an issue that is not being met. Ms. Ryan responded that the City could not charge a fee; but could collect on behalf of an agency.

Comm. Satterlee asked for a friendly amendment to include corrections to Conditions of Approval #27 and 28. Staff responded that the conditions were written correctly.

Comm. Moylan commented that the project is consistent with the goals of the General Plan providing ownership opportunity. He stated that during his site visit, he was happy that the location is close to mass transit and that every bit of the project is within a walkable distance to the lightrail. He was convinced that the effect of the project to schools is not so dire and concurred with the estimated number of students. He stated that he looks forward to further analysis of future school impacts noting the challenges in responding to changes. He agreed with staff's balancing of transit access and noise impacts. He concluded that the project is one of the nicest projects he has seen thus far.

Vice Chair Babcock concurred with Comm. Moylan that it is a very nice project with terrific architecture with ownership opportunity and close proximity to mass transit. She added that noise acceptance depends on each individual.

Comm. Swegles agreed that it is a nice project but expressed concerns about the traffic impact since he lives nearby. He hoped that the proposed right hand turn would address the traffic impact. He suggested that staff should look at the traffic impacts for this transitional area for future projects and would like to see more control on traffic. He supported the motion and that it is a needed project addressing the housing shortage.

Comm. Chu was pleased with the homeownership opportunity. He expressed concerns about the school impacts of this transition area. He added that the project provides an additional impetus to develop a playground in the area.

Comm. Lee echoed his fellow commissioners. He was pleased with the homeownership opportunity to achieve balance and that the project addresses the needed density near a mass transit stop. He also expressed his concerns about development of industrial to residential and suggested a more detailed analysis of impacts to schools when reviewing developments in this district. He thanked Dr. Rudnicki for his input.

Comm. Satterlee supported the motion. She commented that it is difficult to make the noise and height balance. She suggested independently reviewing the noise and height of each project very carefully.

Chair Simons commented that there is currently a school funding crisis and expressed his dismay that the City could not help finance schools, which is a major issue. He stated that it is a great project close to mass transit and agreed that there are limits to noise.

Return to RTC# 03-143