2004-0306 – Yvonne E. Jacobson [Applicant] - Application for related proposals on a 3.71 acre site located at 707 South Mathilda Avenue, 711 South Mathilda Avenue, and 0 South Mathilda Avenue in a C-2/ECR (Highway Business/El Camino Real Precise Plan) Zoning District (Mitigated Negative Declaration) (APNs:  201-22-009, 010, 012 and 201-35-005) JMc (Also to City Council on 07/13/04)

·         Annexation of unincorporated Santa Clara County into the City of Sunnyvale;

·         Cancellation of Williamson Act;

·         Dis-establishment of agricultural preserve;

·         Special Development Permit to allow a 14,940 square-foot commercial building and 36 townhomes;

·         Tentative Map to subdivide one lot into 37 lots including one common lot.

Jamie McLeod, project Planner, presented the staff report. She stated the necessary actions required to develop the project.  She reported the environmental assessment conducted and noted the measures necessary to mitigate the environmental effect. She provided a summary of the proposed project highlighting the use, site layout, circulation, parking, landscaping, trash enclosures, stormwater management, lot line adjustments for both the residential and commercial sites. She noted the deviations requested by the applicant.  She also noted which of the deviations staff is in support of and which deviations staff is not supporting and explained the needs to meet code requirements. Staff also noted the traffic and parking impacts to Tennis Center Lane. She stated that staff supports pedestrian connection between the Tennis Center Lane and the project site but no driveway connection. Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended that the Commission recommend to City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Annexation of the land to the City, Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract, Dis-establishment of the Agricultural Preserve, Approval of the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map subject to the Conditions of Approval.

Vice Chair Moylan asked if there were any parking deviation to the residential.  Staff said no.

Vice Chair Moylan asked staff to clarify the improvement the project would have on the job/housing ratio.  Ms. Ryan responded that although there would be a potential 36 net new jobs associated with the commercial development the gas station would be removed.  She added that the proposed project would likely have a small improvement to the job/housing ratio.

Further, he asked to clarify the annexation process and whether the site would be receiving city services after the dis-establishment of the agricultural preserve.  Staff responded by explaining the annexation process noting that the County would not contest the annexation. She added that the site will receive city services upon annexation to the city.

Comm. Simons asked staff whether permeable pavers or other options were considered for surface run-off or stormwater management.  Staff responded that since the proposed plan meets the new requirements further exploration of other options was done.

Comm. Simons asked staff whether it is appropriate for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to review the bicycle locations.  Staff responded that BPAC would be able to review them during the Building Permit issuance process.

He further asked staff what was the rationale for the limited hours of operation and whether there were any assumptions as to what types of commercial businesses are expected. Staff responded that there is no assumption and that this condition is similar to the Cherry Orchard Center.  Ms. Ryan added that because it is adjacent to a residential neighborhood, it is important to consider limits to the hours.

Lastly, Comm. Simons asked whether it would be appropriate to request that the City Arborist consider large species for landscaping.  Ms. Ryan said yes.

Comm. Klein asked staff to clarify Class I and Class II bicycle parking requirements.  Staff responded that the condition is in keeping with the VTA requirements.

Further, he asked staff whether it is normal for lockable space to be included in the garage and would it meet the required dimension.  Ms. Ryan responded that it has been a standard practice that garage meets the requirements and satisfies the lockable storage requirement.

Comm. Klein asked staff to clarify the boundaries for Condition of Approval #15 – residential for the 6 foot and 8 foot masonry wall.  Staff responded that Condition of Approval #15a is the northern section and Condition of Approval #15c is the western and southern section of the site.

Comm. Hungerford asked whether staff considered the left hand turn from Mathilda Avenue.  Staff responded yes and concluded that it is infeasible to make a left hand turn from Mathilda Avenue as the left lanes are used for left turn queuing to El Camino Real.

Comm. Hungerford asked for clarification of Condition of Approval related to the 15%-30% gross floor area and the make up of the commercial sites. Staff explained the code requirements.  Ms. Ryan added that the type of permit that would be suggested for up to 15% would be a Miscellaneous Plan Permit to review the trash, vents and that proper steps are taken to accommodate a restaurant on the property.

Chair Babcock asked staff about the egress and ingress from the site and whether it is safe to make a right hand turn on Mathilda to make a U-turn on Tennis Center Lane to go north of Mathilda.  Staff responded that Transportation and Traffic Division has reviewed this egress and determined that there is no issue.

Further, she asked whether right hand only turn was considered on Tennis Center Lane.  Staff said yes, however, there are safety and circulation concerns.

Chair Babcock confirmed whether future tenants coming from South Mathilda would have to make a U-turn on El Camino to get to the site.  Staff said yes.

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

Kenneth Rodriguez, commercial member of the applicant’s development team, stated that the proposed project is in response to City Council’s direction to design a mixed use project. He stated that the pedestrian, vehicular circulation, landscaping, and architecture are all tied together making it a seamless project making it a high quality complex. He further stated that the mixed use project with 30% commercial is needed to achieve a very important high quality shopping center. The project is designed allowing a neighborhood center.  He stated that food service is very important aspect of the center and urged that a 30% right be granted to restaurant use absent of public hearing review. He introduced Scott Ward who is the residential development team member.

Scott Ward, member of the residential team member, presented the residential development of the site and urged the Commission to approve the project to enable the transformation of the underutilized site in becoming a gateway to the neighborhood and the downtown.  He complimented staff for their efforts.  He gave an overview of the previous actions necessary to move forward with the project.  He noted the architectural design, orientation of the units, landscaping, and masonry wall.  He also noted that the site was designed accessing the Tennis Center Lane with a sidewalk and pedestrian path to traverse from residential to commercial sites.  He reported the result of their neighborhood outreach meetings.  He provided justifications to the proposed deviations such as allowable units in R-3, landscaping, bicycle parking, trash collection, the need for Tennis Center connection and circulation, parking lot shading, flowering cherry trees and Magnolia tree and traffic and circulation.  He felt that staff’s recommendation does not heed City Council’s direction and the preference of the neighborhood. He stated that the direction from the City Council is to be creative and make something happen.  He suggested issuing parking passes to address the parking concerns, have the City reconfigure the lot to provide more parking on the Tennis Center property.  He urged the Planning Commission to approve the Special Development Permit with individualized trash carts, bicycle parking rack only and a connection to the Tennis Center Lane.  He added that if the connection is not supported, he suggested that an additional egress to Mathilda be created from the site.

Comm. Simons asked Mr. Ward if he prefers to have access to the Tennis Center Lane than having an additional access point.  Mr. Ward responded that access to Tennis Center is a better movement.

Ms. Ryan commented on the following in response to Mr. Ward’s comments. 1) Discounting the lot with the PG&E towers likely results at each in the minimum 18 du/acre and the project then meets the 75% minimum density for R-3 zoning district requirements; 2) Magnolia Trees vs Cherry some blending of species would be appropriate; 3) bicycle parking- whether or not the garage meets the intent of a secured parking for residents but that bicycle parking for residential guests should be provided; 4) circulation and traffic – access to Tennis Center Lane is a concern expressed by Parks & Recreation Department concerning parking and spill over.  She stated that parking passes would not be reasonable and this would impact the residents.  5) trash enclosures versus individual carts  - staff recommendation would work adequately without  an additional driveway.

Comm. Klein asked staff whether staff’s recommendation is to have a centralized trash enclosure.  Staff said yes.

Comm. Hungerford asked staff as to what time the tennis center lights go off.  Ms. Ryan responded that typically at 10PM and during tournaments maybe later.

Bill Jacobson, on behalf of the property owner and developer, commented on the overall design of the complex.  He addressed the concerns expressed by staff on parking and circulation.   He recommended an amendment to the Conditions of Approval to allow all restaurants, up to a maximum of 30% gross floor area to be subject to Miscellaneous Plan Permit review.  He provided comparisons of parking usage with the Cherry Orchards and Mary Manor in support of his requests.  

Comm. Simons asked staff if the removal of Condition of Approval #17 is acceptable.  Staff responded yes.

Comm. Hungerford asked whether the applicant’s request meant that restaurant use shall be subject to a Use Permit Process.  Ms. Ryan clarified the zoning requirements in a C-2 zoning district. 

Comm. Klein asked Mr. Jacobson to further clarify his request regarding the 30% gross floor area request.  Mr. Jacobson responded that he would like staff to review each application according to its own merits and not reject a project based on percentage basis.

Comm. Klein asked staff for clarification.  Ms. Ryan clarified that staff’s recommendation is that applications with a gross floor area of up to 15% of the site could be used as a restaurant will go through staff level review and anything above 15% will be subject to Special Development Permit process (a form of Use Permit).

Bernard Morais, President of the Old Orchard Townhomes Association, on behalf of the association, expressed its appreciation for considering and sharing the developer’s plans with the association. He requested the following: 1) that the height of the masonry wall to be eight feet high instead of six feet in keeping of the existing chain link between the two properties; 2) that the back of the new units that would be visible from the townhomes would be two stories in keeping with the architecture of the Old Orchard townhomes; 3) that the private yards backing to the townhomes would have a minimum depth of 15 feet;  4) that the exit road from the development would go through Tennis Center Lane to access Mathilda Avenue. With the above understanding, he stated that the project is a corner stone gateway that would preserve the integrity of the neighborhood which has been a part of Sunnyvale’s legacy.

Art Schwartz, member of the public, commented that is it a bad idea to have individual toters. There is no side yard and no clear visitor parking area. He supported staff’s recommendation that a centralized trash enclosure is essential. He suggested having a one-way entrance on south end of the development and exit at the north end. He stated that if an additional entrance is added it is not going to be safe to exit on to Mathilda Avenue to make a U-turn. He also asked the Commission commenting on an earlier application why the tandem parking was eliminated and yet the tandem parking is being allowed on this development.

Comm. Klein asked staff whether the second parking space is being counted in the parking calculations.  Staff responded no and that the extra space is for storage.

Harriet Rowe, member of the public, commented that the size of the garage should be considered and whether it is large enough to accommodate storage of toters. She also expressed parking concerns about sharing parking spaces with the Tennis Center. Further, she asked whether there is going to be homeowners’ association and if so, where would the club house be.

Comm. Simons commented that staff provided an additional parking diagram showing additional parking spaces and asked whether she is in agreement with the potential additional parking spaces.  Ms. Rowe responded that if the Commission deems that it is doable, then she is in support.

Scott Ward, residential team, commented that the landscape plan does not include a row of trees along the boundary of the private rear yard.  He agreed to install an 8-foot high masonry wall.  He clarified that the face of the wall in the rear yard is two story but there is a third level.  However, the third level would have a 10-foot setback while the second level would have a minimum of 15 feet facing adjacent uses. He agreed with staff about the tandem parking and he noted that the garage is a full size garage with 20 x 20 dimension allowing storage of toters.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Ms. Ryan clarified the parking ratio comparison made by the public during the public hearing.  She stated that the Cherry Orchard Shopping Center is a 60,000 square-foot site with a parking ratio of 1/200 counting the shared parking spaces and is 28% restaurant uses.  The Mary Manor Shopping Center a new development is a 12,000 square feet site and was approved with 30% restaurant use.

Chair Babcock re-opened the public hearing.

Kenneth Rodriques, stated that the proposed development is being created as a pedestrian, street oriented site that needs to have 30% restaurant.  He provided statistics based on the neighboring communities that the community is requesting this type of service and that the neighborhood is asking for a pedestrian foot traffic shopping center.  He urged the Commission to approve the 30% restaurant use similar to Mary Manor.

Comm. Klein asked Mr. Rodrigues whether the connection between the residents and the retail development would be gated.  Mr. Rodrigues responded that it is going to be a pedestrian connection with ornamental gate and could be locked at night should there is be a safety issue.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Vice Chair Moylan asked staff whether the applicant’s offer to deed the tear drop section of the property to the City would be acceptable to address the parking concerns.  Ms. Ryan responded that the staff is not interested in the offer of the dedicated parcel. She added that there are potential areas adjacent to the Tennis Court that could be used for additional parking. Ms. McLeod added that the potential parking space that is on city property is currently being used as an overflow parking.

Comm. Hungerford suggested using Las Palmas Park where there is a parking area at the opposite end of the Tennis Court.  Ms. Ryan responded that it is an option; however, it is frequently full.

Comm. Simons offered the following friendly amendments: 1) that Class II parking shall be transferred to Class I. 2) that alternating Magnolia Trees with the Cherry Trees shall be planted.  3) that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee shall review the bike parking locations prior to building permit issuance. 4) that there shall be additional language that circulation to Tennis Center lane shall be allowed.  5) that there shall be an approximately 10 additional parking spaces at a location to be determined with the applicant. The amendments were accepted.

Chair Babcock expressed concerns about the parking spaces may be located either in a public or private property and who would be responsible for the maintenance.  Ms. Ryan responded that the location could be determined with the applicant and staff.  She also clarified that the net parking gain.

Comm. Simons commented that although he did not address the 30% restaurant use, the applicant could still apply for a Special Development Permit that is above 15%.

Vice Chair Moylan offered friendly amendment to remove Condition of Approval #17 as it is redundant.  Accepted by the maker and the second. He suggested removal of the Residential Condition of Approval #14.  He commented on the advantages of having individual toters in townhomes.  The friendly amendment was not accepted. 

Comm. Hungerford offered a friendly amendment that clarification of the Condition of Approval is needed where up to 30% restaurant shall be allowed.  Comm. Klein suggested that in order to achieve a compromise based on staff clarification, he recommended up to 25%.

Chair Babcock offered a friendly amendment that there shall no additional parking requirement if there is only a right hand turn exit to Tennis Center Lane.  Comm. Klein did not accept amendment and commented that the removal of the parking spaces would provide a faster way of circulation through the parking lot. 

Chair Babcock offered another friendly amendment to reconsider up to 30% restaurant use.  Accepted by the maker and the second.

Comm. Klein commented that the site is a legacy project.  He stated that it is a complex project mixing up commercial and residential in a meaningful way.  He applauded the applicant’s efforts in working with the neighborhood and designing a positive project.

Comm. Simons commented that there appears to be a disconnect between the applicant and the recycling staff.  He stated that there were many issues and was comfortable that many of the issues were addressed.  He concluded that it is a great project.

FINAL MOTION:

Ms. Ryan stated that the City Council will consider the application on July 13, 2004.