2003-0508 - Yvonne E. Jacobson [Applicant/Owner] - Application for related proposals on a 3.71-acre site. The properties are located at 0, 707 and 711 South Mathilda Avenue in a C-2/PD (Highway Business/Planned Development) Zoning District. (APNs: 201-22-009, 201-22-010, 201-22-012 and 201-35-005) (Negative Declaration) EW (Also to City Council on 12/16/03)

• General Plan Amendment for a portion of the site from Commercial General Business to Residential;
• Amendment of a portion of Opportunity Area Three of the Precise Plan for El Camino Real to residential and commercial, and
• Rezone from C-2/PD (Highway Business/Planned Development) to C-2/ECR (Highway Business/El Camino Real Precise Plan)

Erin Walters, Project Planner, presented the staff report. She summarized the proposed application highlighting the use, site, history and necessary action required of the Commission. She noted that the application does not include a development proposal but determination of the appropriateness of land use designations only. Further, she noted that certain parcels are pare of the unincorporated Santa Clara County and are under the Williamson Act Contract. Before any development to this site, the contract must be cancelled and the property annexed to the City of Sunnyvale. Staff also noted the options and development constraints. Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the Amendment of a portion of Opportunity Area Three of the Precise Plan for El Camino Real and the Rezone from C-2/PD to C-2/ECR. Staff recommended no change to the General Plan.

Vice Chair Moylan asked for clarification in response to a letter received from a neighborhood association requesting only single family homes be developed, the lowest density option is R-2 which is more dense than single family homes. Staff responded that there are three zoning districts that are appropriate with low medium density R-1.7 and R-1.5 and R-2, which permit similar density. Staff noted that single family detached has been approved in R-2 Zoning District. It is not a single family zoning district but has allowed single family homes. She gave examples of some single family homes have been developed in R-2 zoning district.

Further, Vice Chair Moylan asked since the application is a general plan amendment, there is no traffic study conducted. Staff responded that staff reviewed the applicant's study conducted by their consultant, which determined that the existing allowed use of office would have a higher traffic generation than residential.

Comm. Simons asked staff whether there was consideration of all or part of the access through Danforth. Staff responded that it was conceptually looked at and was discussed with the applicant but requires further study when a development plan is submitted. Ms. Ryan added possible access through the subject site conceptually one is from Danforth, west side of the property, which has to go through the Tennis Center parking lot and also the Tennis Center Lane which runs adjacent to the southernmost piece of the lot.

Comm. Hungerford asked staff how consistent is staff recommendation with the applicant's proposals and whether staff recommendation would allow office along El Camino and residential along Mathilda. Staff responded that staff recommendation is consistent with the applicant's proposal but staff is looking at a broader opportunity and vertical integration of mixed use.

Chair Babcock asked what is the reason for 20 units/acre or above where medium residential requires 14-27and where did this number from. Staff noted the General Plan to achieve 75% of the maximum density, which would be 18 units per acre. Ms. Ryan added that by increasing the goal a little more than 75% would create a product type more likely to shield the residents from the noise along Mathilda. and the different orientation and layout with lower density and also to serve as a buffer from other environmental issues.

Chair Babcock clarified with staff the recommendation does not specify 14 to 27 units. Ms. Ryan responded that staff recommends the Precise Plan states that 20 units/acre density be included as a standard. She added that 20 unit/acre is less single family in nature but would be more reliant on common open space to create usable open space.

Bill Jacobson, applicant, thanked staff for the thorough analysis. He noted that the heart of the recommendation is on Attachment 11 which is consistent with the their initial proposal. They have considered several alternatives in addition to the alternatives presented by staff because the site is narrow and difficult to develop. He commented that that they have developed a concept that would be workable and consistent with the development across the street. He added that the residential units should be owner-occupied, which was not discussed in the staff report. He discussed some development options. He expressed his requested amendments to the recommended Conditions of Approval regarding the Precise Plan of El Camino Real: 1) Would prefer to have 10 foot setback; 2) Vehicle circulation with integration internal and external circulation - felt that this should not be decided upon until the details of the development; 3) Would prefer to have R-3 noting that a specific limitation of 20 units/acre would be restrictive. Overall, their plan is consistent with staff recommendation.

Comm. Swegles asked the applicant if there is a way to save cherry trees. Mr. Jacobson responded that most of the trees have died and yield no crop. Comm. Swegles commented that it would be great to save as many trees as possible.

Comm. Chu asked the applicant what would be his preference should the parcel be split into two, whether to development them separately or at the same time. Mr. Jacobson responded that they would prefer to develop at the same time.

Comm. Simons asked Mr. Jacobson if there would be access from the Tennis Center Lane from the south end. Mr. Jacobson responded that he had worked with traffic staff about the circulation but requires further detail study when a formal development application is submitted. He noted that he conducted a traffic study and it was determined that proposed development would be a lower traffic impact than what is currently existing.

Scott Ward, Classic Communities, residential member of the development team, addressed what was discussed during the study session. 1) Desire and ability to continue the mixed use and to be consistent with the neighborhood land use pattern; 2) to address the noise impact and livability. He had conducted a noise study which states impacts could be readily mitigated. 3) depth and propriety of the site for residential use along Mathilda and El Camino Real. He pointed out that Mathilda is aligned mostly by residential uses. He appreciated the staff report and staff recommendation and heading in the same direction in terms of intensity of use. He pointed out that there are techniques to increase the level of integration for horizontal mix use.

Mr. Ward echoed Mr. Jacobson's comments. He felt the minimum number of units to be developed on R-3 is 18 units per acre. He noted that 20 units per acre transforms a development into some form of condominium and it would be difficult to finance and insure. He asked the Commission to delete this restriction from the Precise Plan of El Camino Real but rather allow flexibility. Also to reduce the setback to 10 to bring the building to the street edge with mass and scale appropriate to define the corner as a gateway to the Downtown.

Vice Chair Moylan asked Mr. Ward if he has any concern with receiving the same negative comments he has heard expressed by the public about the Cherry Orchard development. Mr. Scott responded that the proposal is a transition from the properties to the west through the subject site and over through the Cherry Orchard. He added that they are mindful with the distribution of scale and mass and that their proposal would not have the same scale and intensity of use.

Further, Vice Chair Moylan asked Mr. Ward whether the proposed development will complement the pedestrian friendliness efforts of the downtown plan. Mr. Ward responded that they are in support of the downtown plan and will design a plan that respects that street and pedestrian environment. He added that there are other ways to accomplish the goal other than vertical mixed use.

Mr. Ward added that they are willing to explore the Danforth Drive option.

Comm. Simons clarified whether he has looked at the Tennis Center Drive. Mr. Ward responded that it is the street that he was referring to.

Pam Morias – President of Old Orchard Townhouse, stated that the development would have a direct impact to their neighborhood. She read a letter submitted to staff about their preference noting the five proposals presented during a neighborhood meeting. 1) 100% retail office space; 2) 40% retail and and 60% residence with low density housing of 26; 3) 40% retail and 60% with 36 residential; 4) retail with two story residential above the retail; 5) 100% retail use. She noted that proposal #2 is most preferable, #3 is acceptable but the rest of the choices are unacceptable since the remaining proposal would create a drastic change to their existing peaceful the environment. She encouraged the Commission to include in the motion a green barrier and a fence between the subject site and Old Orchard facing Russet Terrace; development of single family homes only with individual trash collection and prohibit the use of aggregate trash containers to minimize the noise of collection. She also expressed concerns with the window placement and building height and would like to assure their privacy. She noted that a signed petition from property owners was submitted expressing these concerns and preferences.

Comm. Chu asked Ms. Morias whether the properties are one or two story townhouses. Ms. Morias responded that properties are either one or two-story townhouses adjacent to the subject site.

Comm. Chu asked Ms. Morias to explain the green barrier. Ms. Morias responded that a green barrier is something that will attenuate the noise and may save some fruit producing trees.

Comm. Swegles asked whether Ms. Morias has seen the proposed plan and ask to point out where the townhouses are located relative to the site. Ms. Morias pointed their location.

Jason Duty, Noise Consultant for the applicant, clarified that trees do not actually attenuate the sound as suggested by speaker requesting.

Edward More, resident of the Old Orchard Townhouses, clarified the brief description of the staff report that the development behind the site is actually R-2/PD and not R-3/PD. He agreed that trees would not serve as sound proofing but would be a good visual barrier and should be considered when needed as it would depend on how well the plan is designed. He also noted that it could be an accident that their townhouses were not designated correctly on the General Plan map. He suggested that the plan should be designed with care to prevent unsatisfactory effects to their townhouses. He provided a summary of the creation of the Tennis Center Lane and Danforth Court. He urged the Commission to explore pushing the residential street to Danforth Court or Tennis Court Lane.

Gordon Wells, resident, commented that Danforth Street or rather Tennis Center Lane should be retained as it is an asset to the City and would not want to diminish the use of it with residents parking and cutting through the parking lot.

William Jacobson, applicant, urged the Commission to approve staff recommendation with modifications relating to the density and setbacks.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Jacobson whether there would be adequate parking. Mr. Jacobson responded that they will conform to city regulations.

Mr. Ward added their conceptual plan is 2.2 acres and that the teardrop in the parcel is overlayed with powerlines and could not be built upon, therefore the net buildable area is less than 2.2 acres.

Ms. Ryan responded to some of the public testimony that 1) the Cherry Orchard residential is 27 units/acre which is the upper end that a General Plan category of medium density would allow. 2) a project north of Mathilda, Sutton Place, was developed at the lower end of the R-4 density with a setback of about 20 feet. She clarified that the staff recommendation for the Precise Plan has an incentive for vertical mixed use but not a requirement.

Comm. Simons asked Ms. Ryan whether the vertical mix use as an incentive should be included in the motion. Ms. Ryan clarified that the staff recommendation for the Precise Plan is in Attachment 11 which includes development criteria including an incentive for vertical mixed use.

Comm. Chu commented that he was going to suggest 15 on the first floor and 20 foot on the higher floor.

Chair Babcock commented that this detail could be further discussed when a development application is submitted for consideration.

Comm. Chu acknowledged Russet Terrace concerns and that he would want to have a visual barrier between the properties.

Comm. Simons asked staff whether during this consideration, it would be valuable to have this barrier. Ms. Ryan suggested that a general statement such as "when designing a project to be considerate of adjacent uses." Comm. Chu offered this friendly amendment. Comm. Simons accepted.

In response to a public testimony, Vice Chair Moylan suggested including only developable area of the site to achieve the 75% density. Ms. Ryan commented that the calculation included developable areas only. Comm. Simons included this in the motion if it is not included in the calculation.

Comm. Simons commented that he would like to see a development proposal to come sooner than later and that considers the needs of neighbors. He also would like to see an integrated and functional plan for retail space and housing.

Comm. Swegles concurred with Comm. Simons and was glad to see this type of project with the opportunity to review it more than once.

Vice Chair Moylan supported the motion and noted that he heard more meaningful comments and testimony that convinced him to go with the 15-foot setback. He acknowledged that the site is a difficult one to develop.

Chair Babcock also supported the motion and that realized that the site has distinct limitations for development and was glad to see some flexibility.