2004-0112 – First Community Housing [Applicant] Sunnyvale Inn LLC [Owner]:  Application for related proposals for a 1.50 acre site located at 940 W. Weddell Drive in a C-2/PD (Highway Business/Planned Development) Zoning District.  (Mitigated Negative Declaration) (APN: 110-12-078)

·        General Plan Amendment from Commercial General Business to High Density Residential (27-45 du/acre);

·        Rezone from C-2/PD (Highway Business/Planned Development) to R-4/PD (High Density Residential/Planned Development) Zoning District, and

·        Special Development Permit to allow conversion of an existing hotel building to a 42-unit apartment building with associated minor additions.

Diana O’Dell, Project Planner, presented the staff report.  She summarized the proposed application noting that the project proposes conversion of a 95-room hotel into 42 affordable apartments for low income households at or below 40% of the median income.  She noted the required actions and explained the reasons to allow this conversion – General Plan Amendment, Rezone and Special Development Permit. She also noted that the conversion includes a 4,431 sq. ft. addition to the west of the building, construction of carports and modification to the site’s parking and landscaping.  Further, she noted the trade-offs between community benefits and compliance with development standards such as re-use of an existing building, affordable housing for very low and extremely income households, improved architecture, green building materials and increased landscape area.  Staff reported that there are several deviations requested such as frontage landscape strip, distance between buildings and parking lot landscaping due to existing site layout situations.  Staff supported the re-using of the existing building and recommended approval of these deviations.  However, she noted that there are remaining deviations for landscaping, usable open space, lockable space and parking.  Staff provided modifications and conditions of approval to mitigate these deviations. She noted that the applicant provided additional information and letters of support, which were distributed to the Planning Commission at the beginning of the meeting. Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the project subject to Conditions of Approval and suggested design modifications.

Comm. Simons asked staff about Condition of Approval #7 about screening of roof equipment whether it would be significant to exclude solar panels from being screened. Ms. Ryan responded that solar panels are not required to be screened which is implied in the code. However, if the Commission so desires the exclusion of solar panel screening could be specified.

Further Comm. Simons asked whether the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) for higher density in the area would be conforming and whether there are any more changes about to happen in the surrounding area. Staff responded that the proposed GPA is in conformance with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan and currently there are no proposals for a General Plan Amendment in the area.  Further, staff noted that the staff’s recommended modification to reduce the number of units would result in adequate parking.

Comm. Sulser asked staff what is the demand for affordable housing and for three-bedroom units versus one or two bedroom units.  Ms. Ryan responded that there is a great need for all types of housing.  She deferred the demand for the type of units to the applicant based on any waiting lists or historical data.

Chair Babcock clarified with staff whether Condition of Approval #13 only implied application for LEED certification and not necessarily qualify for LEED.  Ms. Ryan responded by explaining the LEED certification process and that the developer must first apply and upon completion of the project, an evaluation of the project is needed to obtain LEED certification.  She added that the intent is to design to this standard and efforts should be put in ahead of time.

Further, Chair Babcock asked staff whether the request for the exterior lighting to be grandfathered from the ordinance is feasible and whether staff and the applicant have explored this request. Currently, she stated that as a hotel use, the 24-hour use of the exterior light is not problematic but it could be a nuisance with the change of use.   Staff responded that typically since this an existing situation and there is no proposed modification, removal is not necessary and staff could look into whether the light would become a nuisance to tenants.

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

Geoffrey Morgan, applicant, thanked staff and the members of the public who came to support the project.  He agreed with most of the Conditions of Approval with the exception of Conditions of Approval #11, 13 and 14.  He stated that - 1) the additional units are important. He talked about the housing needs in the Valley. He commented that there is a gap in the job/housing ratio not only in Sunnyvale but throughout the region, a fact that there is a great need for affordable housing.  He quoted the CDD Community Strategy and articles from the San Jose Mercury News about survivability in the area and the great demand for affordable housing.  2) the storage requirement is not viable nor necessary because of building constraints.  It is an existing structure and to be environmentally friendly, he wants to use as much as the existing structure 3) LEED certification – he stated that they want to build solar panels and photovaics to maximize the amount of energy savings and that they will be using green building materials.  He noted that the proposed design is not at its maximum density allowed.  He said that there are better ways to get open space. In response to Comm. Sulser’s questions, he stated that there is an incredible need for 3-bedroom units.  He also noted that there is no LEED certified residential multi-family structures and the requirement would be an added expense of approximately $150,000 in the development of these affordable units. However, they are committed to green building practices and goals.  He urged the Commission to remove this requirement and to support the 42-apartment units.  In conclusion he thanked the Commission.

Chair Babcock asked Mr. Morgan to explain the $150,000 expense for LEED certification.  Mr. Morgan responded that it is mostly consulting expense and because the program is new and complex.  He stated that First Community Housing is committed to green building practices but at this point, this requirement would not be practical.

Comm. Hungerford supported Condition of Approval #11 and expressed his concern about the impact to small children with no open space for them to play that is in closer proximity.  He stated that it is a better trade off creating an open space versus building the additional units. During his site visit, he observed an area that could be used a tot lot.  Mr. Morgan clarified that there is proposed open space in the project site and commented that it is logical to take advantage of the park.  He added that they are working on an easement agreement with Orchard Garden Apartments to allow the use of its tot lot. This approach would create a better interaction and experience for the community and achieve a social benefit. He commented that using an existing park and adding six three bedroom units is more advantageous to the community.

Ms. Ryan clarified that the area that staff discussed as a tot lot is not a recommendation but rather a suggestion of how the space could be used.

Chair Babcock commented that since First Community Housing owns both properties, could they both share the pool and the tot lot.  Mr. Morgan responded that it could be an alternative creating a good sense of community and that an empty and under utilized lot could be a hazard in the long run.

Mr. Morgan thanked Ms. Ryan for the clarification of the tot lot and commented that he too has a child and understands the advantage of having a secured tot lot.  He asked the Commission to ask what is the value of having the open space versus the much needed additional units.

John Brown, resident and a member of St. Cyprian’s Peace and Social Justice Committee, spoke on behalf of the Committee by reading a letter of support of the proposed affordable housing. The letter discussed the potential impact of the project to the community.  They strongly supported First Community Housing’s goal in providing affordable housing to families who are at risk of homelessness, its commitment to use green building materials and to provide Eco-Passes.  The Committee urged the Commission to support the proposed 42-units apartments.

James Brady, a member of St. Cyprian’s Peace and Social Justice Committee, supported the proposed project.  The project is a good use of an existing structure and improves the architecture.  He commented that the removal of the units reduces the effectiveness of the project in solving the affordable housing crisis. He further commented that the developer supports saving the environment through the distribution of Eco Passes to its tenants and that requiring more open space with the removal of the additional units does not justify the ends.  He suggested converting a portion of the old parking lot into open space, as a more viable option.  He urged the Commission to approve the project for 42-unit apartments.

Janet Farabough and Gretchen Keener, residents, were present and concurred with the previous speakers in support of the project.

Shiloh Ballard, member of public, spoke on behalf of the Silicon Valley Manufacturer’s Group Housing Action Coalition (HAC).  She introduced the mission and goals of the Coalition to the Commission. She talked about the scarcity of land in the Valley.  The project proposes a unique adaptation of existing building to a better use and the trade-off of three-bedroom units versus open space.  The project site is in-close proximity to a park and the availability of the Orchard Garden Apartment is helpful. The Transportation Demand Management Program suggested by the developer in the form of Eco Pass would be helpful in reducing auto ownership and contribute less to traffic congestion and in reducing the need for parking.  She also spoke about the target population the project would serve.  The Coalition commended the developer in addressing this need and urged approval of the project as submitted.

Tracey Chew, Vice Chair of Santa Clara County Collaborative for Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues, congratulated the Commission for having the opportunity to breathe life to a very critically needed and viable project for the community.  The developer is experienced and is capable of obtaining subsidies to make the rent affordable.  She explained that the targeted population would be able to rent a three-bedroom apartment for $548.00. She stated that one of the goals of the Collaborative is to assist members of the community from homelessness to homeownership.  The project is the first step in preventing homelessness in the Community.  She urged the Commission to support this service.

Darin Lounds, member of the Cooperation for Support of Housing serving Santa Clara Counties, Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties and member of the Santa Clara County Collaborative for Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues, supported the project.  He spoke of the population this project would serve who are at risk of homelessness. He stated that these affordable units along with quality support services are essential in addressing the root cause of homelessness in the community.  He urged the Commission to support the project.

Vimal Kumar, property owner, stated that the project is the best use of the building and the site.  The existing hotel use is not economically feasible, less competitive and the location is not ideal for hotel use due to lack of complementary facilities such as a restaurant or retail shops and the building is old with a certain obsolescence. He stated that he worked very closely with the developer to meet all funding requirements to deliver affordable housing.  He concluded that the proposed use is the best use for the site.

Harriette Rowe, resident, shared the enthusiasm for the proposed project in providing affordable housing.  However, she concurred with Comm. Hungerford on the need for open space by providing a tot lot nearby.  She would like to see a concrete plan (as expressed by the applicant to be approved by staff) on how to provide a safe environment for the children and how to combine the two communities.

Geoffrey Morgan, applicant, stated that First Community Housing is the winner of the Met Life Foundation Award one of the top two managed properties in the United States for affordable housing. He stated that they take great pride of this management award because this addresses issues such as the deck becoming a storage area and making sure that the exterior of the building is well-managed.  He stated that they are responsible and responsive to tenants. He further stated that he understands about the short attention span of children and the need for a close and safe environment to play.  He pointed to a small courtyard that is enclosed on the project site and stated that there would be some activities that will be provided. The site is a gateway and an immediate connection to Orchard Gardens.  He concluded that he will have something concrete establishing joint use of the facilities.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Comm. Simons appreciated for the concerns for the added residential units in the city. He explained the goals of the General Plan such as the need for housing and open space.  He complimented the applicant for the higher density that provides greater leverage to the existing building that is an environmentally friendly building.  However, he has concerns of its effectiveness and wants to ensure that landscaping and open space are installed.  He was also interested in seeing the project go forward but shared staff’s concerns about meeting the requirements.

Chair Babcock offered a friendly amendment to eliminate Condition of Approval #14 and to not specify that the project has to have 36 units but to allow the applicant to work with staff in figuring the best number of units to fit within the existing buildings.  Comm. Simons accepted the amendments.

Chair Babcock stated that she prefers not to have the addition.  She noted some of the deficiencies of the project such as landscaping, parking and open space.  She added that eliminating the addition will almost eliminate all these deficiencies but not all.  She stated that she would rather provide the tenants the quality of life they deserve.  She is hesitant that it may be misconstrued that the Commission and staff encourage and support using a public park as open space for a private development.  She added that there is not much public park in the north end of the City and she would like to make sure that everyone has equal access to the public park not only to those who live the closest.

Ms. Ryan clarified whether the motion includes that the 69 parking is adequate even with the 42-units or whether the parking ratio shall also be met.  Chair Babcock responded the she does not see that 42 units would be able to fit in the existing buildings, so parking would not be deficient.   However, with Eco Pass, 69 parking space would be sufficient for what will fit into the existing building.

Comm. Fussell supported the motion.  He stated that the project is good for the community augmenting the affordable housing deficiency and in re-using an existing structure.

Comm. Klein agreed that the project is a big step in providing affordable housing in the Valley.  He agreed that the Commission has to be direct in regards to parking.  During his site visit, he observed that the Orchard Gardens tenants are already using the small parking space and conceivably, there would be a parking issue in the neighborhood.  He hoped that the Eco Pass could mitigate the parking issue.

Vice Chair Moylan offered a friendly amendment to Condition of Approval #10 that the exterior lighting be made to meet the current ordinance as opposed to be grandfathered at a high hotel level.  Accepted by maker and the second.

Vice Chair Moylan did not support the motion.  He agreed that the project meets one of the goals of the General Plan in improving the jobs/housing ratio. However, he favors a project that provides homeownership rather than rental. He was not convinced that the Eco Pass will reduce the number of trips but in fact will have no effect.  The site is far enough from the public transit that tenants will be driving to the light rail.  He commented that he will support a high density rental development near a public transit over homeownership development.  Unfortunately, this project does not qualify.  He stated that the LEED program is important and he would have supported Condition of Approval #13. He would like to see the project go with or without additional units.  He preferred a modified version but cannot support the motion.

Comm. Sulser did not support the motion.  He considered the three-bedroom units as the crown jewel for the development and stated that most affordable housing units have been smaller units therefore, he would prefer having bigger units to support bigger families.

Comm. Hungerford supported the motion commenting that affordable housing is important and the project’s goal of increasing the inventory of affordable housing is commendable.  He was impressed with the management of Orchard Garden and its design.  He commented that he prefers providing a safe play environment for small children within its neighborhood where neighbors could watch each other’s kid without having to go to a public park or another neighborhood.   

FINAL MOTION:

Ms. Ryan noted that City Council will consider the item on April 6, 2004.