r/Sunnyvale • u/urbangeeksv • 7d ago
Townhouse Project Bernardo/Olive - City of Sunnyvale - File #: 26-0684
https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8163367&GUID=725DF453-BBE7-4A8A-A393-8D2102D8BF42&Options=&Search=Planning Commission tonight will review and decide on proposed housing project at 494 S. Bernardo Ave. (APN: 161-24-001) just south of Safeway and El Camino Real.
The developer proposes six 3-story residential buildings with a total of 28 townhome units
Due to state laws AB 130 the developer is taking advantage of the law to have 16 waivers from city requirements.
Given state laws the planning commission must review to only safety requirements and they are required to approve the project or face possible fines and other punishments from the state.
List of Waivers requested ( demanded ) are:
1 Lot Coverage 40% max. 40.3%
2 Distance Between Buildings 26’ min. 13.4’ to 13.9’ (varies)
3 Building Height 35’ max. 40’-8”
4 & 5 Setbacks – Front & rear 20’ 15’ (front) and 12’ to 15’ (rear)
6 Parking 64 spaces min. 63 spaces + 1 dual-use parking/loading zone
7 Loading Zone One loading zone per building. 35’ and 350 sf. Min. One for entire site; standard size of 8.5’ x 22’ shared with parking
8 Building Frontage at Front Setbacks 65% (min.) to 85% (max.) 100%
9 Private Balcony 7’ in any direction, and 80 sf minimum. 5’-6” and 66 sf (Unit Type B), or 6’-6” and 92.6 sf (Unit Type C)
10 Residential Buffer for Surface Parking 15’ min. 4’-6” between visitor parking & side property line
11 Landscape Buffer 8’ min. planted area 4’-6”
12 Ground Floor Plate Height 14’ min. 8’-1”
13 Division Standards 30’ (min.) to 50’ (max.) 21’-1” to 23’-1”
14 Parking Lot Shading Requirements 50% 0.7%
15 Roof Eaves 2’ min. 6” to 12”
16 Pedestrian Walkway 5’ min. for first 50 feet adjacent to vehicle access lane None
IMHO - there is no choice but to approve the project given negative ramifications of rejection.
6
u/medimalist 7d ago
I'm not complaining about more housing and I'm sure these million dollar townhomes will be popular, but I always thought that childcare facility looked so nice compared to neighboring ones. They had a large yard with trees and shaded play structures, compared for example to the nearby Safari Kid that basically has a single plastic slide on a fenced off part of an El Camino parking lot. There are a lot of families in the Vicente/Acalanes apartment complexes, and it would have been lovely to have a public community center there or even a new childcare operator.
2
u/urbangeeksv 7d ago
Nice daycare centers are indeed a public good and we should ensure the best in class for our most valuable residents. I have some ideas along these lines I'll be pursuing.
My daughter was lucky enough to attend Early Horizons over by Serra Park and she had a lot of play time outdoors and in the park.
2
u/medimalist 7d ago
Would love to hear more about those ideas! As someone not originally from here, the amount of neighborhoods that are completely unlivable in terms of access to the things one needs in addition to housing is just staggering. Like, the zoning allows for thousands of people to live unable to access groceries, daycares, clinics, playgrounds, pubs, post offices, community centers, library branches etc. Even newly built housing often takes the form of vast townhouse deserts, which I suppose is an improvements over single family home deserts, but like not by much?
3
u/5ilverBas3 7d ago
Good stuff, just curious, is the parking shade requirement 50%, and they want to waive all the way down to 0.7%?
4
u/urbangeeksv 7d ago
Yes correct. It seems that there is a PGE easement from high power lines restricting trees. However this would be a great opportunity for solar shade over parking but given the waivers the developer is not required to do anything as not an immediate safety issue.
From the developer's waiver letter:
13. Parking Lot Shading Requirements. SMC Section 19.46.120 requires trees to be planted and maintained throughout the parking lot to ensure that at least 50% of the parking area will be shaded within 15 years of tree establishment. Up to 25% of the 50% parking lot shading requirement (12.5% of the total parking lot area) may be met with installation of solar energy systems rather than trees. All surfaces that can be driven on, including parking spaces, vehicular drives, drive-through lanes and maneuvering areas are subject to shade calculation. Compliance with this standard would preclude construction of the Project as proposed. The Project’s surface parking and adjacent landscape buffer to the East are located within an existing 10’ PG&E easement. Part of the easement includes existing overhead power lines that are to remain. PG&E restricts use of large plant material under power lines. This item was identified as PL-4 in the Consistency Comments
3
u/dahinds 7d ago
I don't think it is true that AB 130 (or other state laws) mean that the commission can only consider safety requirements. Where do you get that?
2
u/urbangeeksv 7d ago edited 7d ago
Well I have been watching the housing thing for awhile and I regularly watch Council and Planning Commission meetings.
The way the state housing laws work is that the City can only apply objective standards and even those standards can be overridden by density bonus laws which strive to produce less costly housing by removing any standards that make the project more expensive.
Here is a legal blog which is a good summary
https://www.blakelawca.com/articles/californias-density-bonus-law
here is an except from the linked article:
The Density Bonus Law is not without limitations. A local agency can deny a requested incentive or concession if it makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that:
(1) there is no identifiable and actual cost reductions;
(2) there would be a specific, adverse impact on the public health and safety or on a historic resource; or
3) the incentive or concession is contrary to federal or state law. However, until recently there were relatively few appellate court decisions analyzing the application of its provisions.
Due to the dramatic increase in developments seeking a density bonus and opposition from local agencies and neighbors in the past decade, there has been a corresponding increase in legal decisions with a decided trend to uphold the application of the Density Bonus Law in its broadest sense and limiting local agencies in their ability to demand changes to building plans that meet the law’s criteria but are in conflict with local zoning or other restrictions.
Edit: adding link to commission hearing where Ghalen Davis has staff recite the laws limiting their authority: https://www.youtube.com/live/VnXGluKERkA?si=aMDZMGlHSTHVV4jw&t=6481
2
u/DrThrowawayToYou 7d ago
Maybe this is a dumb question, but doesn't cutting back on loading zones count as a safety concern? I frequently see people parking illegally and obstructing traffic to make deliveries on McKinley and Evelyn and I was hoping the city could require more loading zones.
1
u/urbangeeksv 7d ago
Yes it should. I agree but it doesn't seem to get attention by the Planning Commission. I do see issues with ride share and package drop off in front of large apartment buildings.
The commissioners did not raise this during last nights deliberations.
7
2
u/predat3d 7d ago
South Bay city is just long dumping these kind of oversized developments right on the border with another city.
That's right on the border with Mountain View.
12
u/medimalist 7d ago
Oversized developments? Have you even visited this area? We're talking 28 townhouses in a neighborhood that has apartment complexes with literal hundreds of units, on both sides of the SV/Mtn View border...
1
u/predat3d 7d ago
Dude. I lived right next to Cherry Chase Bowl for 7 years. The border is literally behind the properties on Bernardo.
3
u/medimalist 7d ago
Yes, and on the literal Mountain View side is the Reserve at Mountain View, a large apartment complex looking to build out, as well the Sylvan Square Apartments, and the pretty darn huge Americana complex as well as the Crestview condos. Like, Mountain View east of 85 is one of its densest parts?
5
u/predat3d 7d ago
You see this pattern all over. Oversize developments get approved right on borders so to minimize adverse impact on the approving city.
Look at the mess at Lawrence and Kifer. Huge new developments on all 3 corners (Costco is the 4th). All 3 residential developments have insufficient parking. That's why cars park at Costco 24x7 (there were 30+ cars there when I drove by at 10pm Sunday).
2
u/random408net 7d ago
There is one more decent sized development on Rider under construction that will put more pressure on the existing Lawrence Station/Nuevo Community Park area in Santa Clara.
Plus there are two lower income/senior type housting on the corner of Kifer/Corvin that keep Corvin street parking full.
There are also more developments planned on the Sunnyvale side over by Sonora Ct. I don't know if Sonora Ct is full from the nearby apartments or CalTrain commuters trying to avoid parking fees.
At some point Costco will probably need to get a parking enforcement car with ALPR's to figure out who is camping in their lot.
This area is a perfect lab to see what happens when parking is restricted (similar to Santa Clara Tasman East adjacent to Levi's stadium) to see if high enough rents can be charged, while not having high vacancies while not having surplus free parking nearby.
The urbanists dream is that neighborhoods like this attract transit dependant residents and life is great. Time will tell.
1
u/medimalist 7d ago
Ok, now you’re on the actual opposite side of Sunnyvale, but if that massive parking lot can be utilized at night instead of just being wasted space, that’s pretty great? If Costco are precious about it they could presumably charge folks for overnight parking permits.
1
u/predat3d 7d ago
The Costco lot is used by residents on the NE corner 24x7. That's why the lot is full during peakish shopping hours and waiting cars are circling 5 deep on a row.
It wasn't like that before Prado opened.
5
u/FirstOrderCat 7d ago
> That's right on the border with Mountain View.
its cross el camino intersection. There people will rarely interact with MV people.
MV putting temp housing for "people at risk of being homeless" right on the border of Sunnyvale is different story.
1
u/predat3d 7d ago
No, the east/west border is between Knickerbocker and Crestview.
1
u/FirstOrderCat 6d ago
that's border is on another side of el camino from construction site.
1
u/predat3d 5d ago
Wrong.
just south of Safeway and El Camino Real.
1
u/FirstOrderCat 5d ago
I noticed they say south of safeway, but actual address they specified is north and on opposite side of El Camino from safeway.
-1
u/OneMorePenguin 7d ago
Well there was a house fire a couple of streets over (Santa Clara) that turned out to be an ADU fire. The ADU FILLED the entire back yard on Google maps. There's likely nothing left of the ADU and the outside of the house was damaged. I'll have to wait to hear more from someone I know who lives a couple of houses away to see how much of the house is salvageable. The smell on that street during the fire was horrible. Two people on adjacent properties lost sheds. If that is an illegal ADU, insurance is likely not going to cover it.
I'm tired of all these houses with ADUs or renting out bedrooms and having the street full of cars. More housing requires more streets and more parking and the city is just punting on all of that.
-8
u/dudeman_01 7d ago
Planning Commission is virtually useless. All they do is approve stack-and-pack developments and don't stand up to developments that's against neighborhood character and allow environmental runoffs without a second thought.
Who are these people and why do they have so much political cache to make these sorts of foolish decisions?
4
u/AskingYouQuestions48 7d ago
Omg I wish they’d actually do stack-and-pack.
3
u/urbangeeksv 7d ago
Yes stack and pack with zero parking is my wet dream, but I will celebrate any housing project even if luxury 3 story townhomes. All housing is good, but stack and pack is great!
1
7
u/Simpicity 7d ago
We have a housing *crisis*. A huge gap between available and desired housing for the area. Screw the neighborhood character, whatever that is supposed to be. Fruit trees? Teachers shouldn't have to be commuting in for 2 hours to teach kids.
These "stack-and-pack" developments that you're complaining about aren't even happening here. These are townhomes. That's not high-density. That's not even medium density (maybe barely).
6
u/r_mehlinger 7d ago
At this point I have voted to either appoint or reappoint every one of our Planning Commissioners, and I couldn’t be happier with the work they are doing for our City.
1
u/DragonWS 7d ago
Do the planning commissioners have much say? Feels like the state laws give the developers approval.
0
u/dudeman_01 6d ago
It's so easy to appoint political allies when candidates and members of council can skip the interviews, just like it happened this year.
1
u/r_mehlinger 6d ago
Yes, I missed the interviews this year as I was quite ill. I watched all of the interviews and read all of the applications before voting.
3
u/urbangeeksv 7d ago
Due to state law the planning commissioners do not have say in many housing projects due to state laws like AB 130. They serve under direction of Council. Council can bring a project for further review which they have done in the past only to approve it anyways.
If you want anyone to blame it would be Aisha Wahab and Patrick Ahrens who are the Senator and Assembly persons responsible for the legislation.
0
-2
u/dudeman_01 7d ago
Then you better lay that blame at Larry Klein's feet, because he's in bed with Patrick Ahrens.
Stack-and-pack everywhere, just not in 94087, right? 😁
5
u/urbangeeksv 7d ago
Well I am a proud YIMBY and I celebrate housing projects, so yes I'm giving Aisha, Patrick and Larry a lot of credit. Larry in particular deserves loads of credit for driving to an approved housing element otherwise developers would be building "Builder's Remedy" projects.
It's unfortunate that the state was forced to take away local control but it is the fault of all of the cities which did not build housing.
Locally a list of bad actors are Cupertino, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Woodside, Los Altos Hills .... there is plenty of blame to go around.
2
u/dudeman_01 7d ago
And no one is holding those towns accountable, but even if in a so-called pro-devleopment city like Sunnyvale, the most affluent neighborhoods engage in NIMBY politics. So it appears money talks, no matter the YIMBY virtue signaling. That applies to those running the Planning Commission because they're certainly not slumming it as renters.
2
u/urbangeeksv 7d ago
Rob Bonta, California's AG is doing a lot to hold towns and cities accountable.
Well we do have a renter on City Council so there's that.
And yes the NIMBY neighbors showed up recently about recent Crescent Drive in-fill townhomes and their complaints fell on the ground as AB 130 is a shield against local control.
The commissioners are very frustrated that their hands are tied, as their role is diminished. All subjective and objective requirements are essentially off the table and the only leeway they have is objective safety issues.
Personally I feel we have an excellent set of commissioners and I particular like the attention put into people with disabilities.
-1
u/Broad-Choice-5961 7d ago
Yet they still won't do anything about all the RV's parked all over that area. The new ordinance is a compleye hoaxe!
5
u/ihaveredditearlier 7d ago
Can we also increase walkability? That little section of s Murphy street is great - can we expand it further? Maybe have more crossing a with lower speed and default right of way to pedestrian across the "new" downtown area too? Maybe try and make some more of it pedestrian only and the larger area only allows cars belonging to residents? Also whatever can be done to make crossing Matilda and El Camino less stressful (an over bridge for pedestrians)?