Residential Uses
Commer
cial Uses
Circulation
Open Space
Other
Each comment is numbered for ease of identification and ca n be used to identify desired modification to the plan and related documents.
Residential Uses
• R1: Reduce or Eliminate ECR‐MU54 zoning districts
Staff Comment: One site recommended for change to ECR‐MU33 and Option B Provided for other sites.
Land Use Alternative Option B provides information on the ECR‐MU54 sites in the draft plan. With one exception, all of the ECR‐MU54 sites in the draft ECRSP are in nodes. One site, which has recently been redeveloped in the Eastern Segment, achieved a density over 42 du/acre, so this zoning category was selected. However, the site was developed with 20% of the units as affordable, and the same density could be achieved on a project in the ECR‐MU33 zoning district after applying applicable density bonus points. Staff recommends this change, however
there would not be any housing units to reallocate, as it was assumed that the site would not redevelop. Land Use Alternative Option B presents the option to change the remaining ECR‐MU54 sites to ECR‐MU42 or to create a new category of ECR‐
MU48.
• R2: Retain more sites with commercial‐only zoning designations by reducing the number of sites with residential mixed‐use zoning designations.
Staff Comment: see Commercial Uses: increase commercial‐only sites • R3: Retain Golfland, as it is an important family entertainment asset.
Staff Comment: This site is currently proposed as ECR‐MU. Even if the City Coun cil were to
designate this property as commercial‐only, there is no guarantee that Golfland would continue to operate there. See additional discussion under C1. below. • R4: Modify density bonus points in the community benefits/incentive program:
• More or the same points for VTA transi
t passes than Caltrain transit passes
• More bike/pedestrian facilities
• Sustainability points for participation in Silicon Valley Clean Energy Green Prime Program
Staff Comment: Modify incentive points for VTA transit passes.
Attachment 21
Highlighted items are Staff recommended changes.
Summary of Public Comments with Staff Response
Community feedback on the draft plan (and related documents) includes City Council members, Commission members, and members of the public. The comments are organized below into five general topics.
• R4.1 Originally, more points were recommended for CalTrain passes (vs. VTA pass), because the Caltrain passes are more expensive. Staff is recommending a modification to provide the same points for either type of transit passes as VTA buses serve El Camino Real.
• R4.2 While staff does not recommend an increase in eligible points for bike/pedestrian facilities, required bike parking ratios have been increased, as identified in SMC Chapter 19.36, in order to require more unassigned Class I and II bike parking facilities for new developments.
• R4.3 Participation in SVCEP: Staff notes this recommendation but does not recommend revising the community benefits/incentives point structure to account for this activity. In orde
r to meet other sustainability goals a development may
choose to incorporate Green Prime into their project.
Commercial Uses
• C1: Help preserve the amount of commercial/retail development along the El Camino Real corridor by increasing the number of sites zoned for commercial‐only development (ECR‐ C).
Staff Comment: Options Provided for City Council’s Consideration • Land Use Alternative Option A explored four sites (Located in the Three Points Neighborhood and Eastern Segment) that are identified as mixed‐use sites (ECR‐MU) in the Draft Plan released on March 11, 2022. If City Council desires to increase the number of commercial‐only sites, staff recommends that only the two sites in the Eastern Segment (Henderson Center and El Camino Plaza) be considered for an ECR‐ MU zoning designation.
For the other two sites in the Three Points Neighborhood Node, staff notes the following regarding the potential impact of adopting an ECR‐C vs. ECR‐MU zoning designation:
• C1.1 The site at the northwest corner of Wolfe/El Camino Real is a fully occupied shopping center and
was built relatively recently (1986), is small
(less than one acre) and triangular in shape all of which suggest that it would be less likely to redevelop into a mixed use anytime soon. The 36 base maximum units associated with the mixed‐use zoning could be “re‐assigned” into either the same node or to the adjacent Center or Easte rn Segments.
• C1.2 The site at the northeast corner of Wolfe/El Camino includes a gas station with car wash service and an older shopping center. The shopping center is currently fully occupied with two restaurants and a liquor store. The center was built in 1964 and has not had significant refresh to the exterior, other
than business signs. Building permits have been completed for tenant improvements and general maintenance. The gas station and car wash date from 1972. Staff consider these sites as good candidates for future redevelopment.
• C1.3 The site at the southwest corner of Henderson/El Camino Rea l is a
moderate sized shopping center of 32,000 square feet on 3.34 acres and a resultant FAR of 22%. The uses include a grocery, several restaurants, Attachment 21
personal services and dental offices. The site was built in 1980. • C1.4 This area at the northeast corner of Henderson/El Camino Real includes three separate properties with two owners. The buildings were constructed in 1966 and 1976 (corner property with fast food restaurant). Neither of the 1966 building have had significant refresh to the exterior, other than business signs. Building permits have been completed for tenant improvements and general maintenance. Staff consider these two parcels as good candidates for future redevelopment. A better project would be possible if the corner fast‐food site were included.
• C1.5 Golfland has frontage on both El Camino Real and Wolfe Road. It was developed as a miniature golf
facility in 1978. The immediately adjacent
hotel site to the southeast is designated ECR‐C in the draft plan; the adjacent sites (2) to the northwest are designated ECR‐MU. There has not been significant modifications to the building on the property. Even if zoned for Commer
cial only uses, there is no guarantee that Golfland would stay. • C1.6 Hacienda Center is an existing large shopping center (over 10 acres with about 160,000 s.f. of retail and office). The site has a combination of Commercial and Mixed Use designations in the proposed plan. The property owners have discussed their rede
velopment concepts with staff to retain
about 90,000 square feet of the existing shopping center and redevelop about a third of the site with mixed use residential and commercial. A significant portion of the site was redeveloped and renovated in the early 1990s.
If the City Council mo
difies any of sites to commercial only, the residential development potential of those sites can be assigned to other sites in the corridor, provided the receiver site is within the same or in an adjacent segment or node. Site C1.5 and Site C1.1 residential units could be assigned to the MU‐24 portion of the Hacienda Center which would enable up to a MU‐54 designation on the MU portion of C1.6.
Below is a map showing C1.1, C1.5 and C1.6. MU‐54 at the west end of Hacienda Center would be acceptable as the adjacent zonin g and land uses are commercial and medium and high density residential. There is a row of seven low‐medium density single‐family homes north of the shopping center, separated by a wide driveway leading to an R‐4 development. • C1. Summary. Staff supports the removal of the MU designation on two sites and the reassignment of the residential units.
o C1.1 Northwest Corner of El Camino Real/Wolfe (997‐889 E El Camino Plaza) modify from ECR‐MU42 to ECR‐C
o C1.5 Golfland site (855 E El Camino Real) modify from ECR‐MU42 to ECR‐C o C1.6 Hacienda Shopping Center (751‐799 E El Camino Real) retain the ECR‐C and modify the ECR‐MU24 to ECR‐MU5
4. Attachment 21
• C2. Reduce minimum commercial in mixed‐use developments. Specifically, in the Draft Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapter 19.36 (El Camino Real Specific Plan District), revise Table
19.36.100 (Minimum ground floor commercial area requirements for mixed‐use development) so that the requirement is whichever is less between the factor of the lot size and length of lot frontage along El Camino Real instead of whichever is greater.
Staff Comment: Do Not Support. The minimum recommended commercial is 10% Floor Area Ratio. As the City Council direction for the plan was to retain the amount of commercial development along El Camino Real, staff is not recommending any change to the minimum requirement. Staff notes that there are some sites in the ECRSP district that are curre ntly developed at less than 10% FAR.
• C3. Allow Convalescent hospital/inpatient rehabilitation hospital use (defined as Convalescent Hospital in the zoning code)
Staff Comment: Support with modifications. Convalescent hospitals are important land uses for a community; they allow patients discharged from a hospital to continue recovery with skilled nursing available on‐site. Staff recommen
ds that convalescent hospitals be
Attachment 21
considered for mixed use residential/commercial sites as an auxiliary use (meaning that the minimum residential and commercial uses need to be provided). Allowing this use as a standalone use is not supported, as it does not contribute to the economic vibrancy and permanent housing that are goals for the plan.
• C4. Allow Driv e‐through uses in ECR‐MU sites (for certain retail uses such as pharmacy), which are not identified as permitted uses in the ECR‐MU zoning districts, per the draft released on March 11, 2022.
Staff Comment: Do Not Support. One of the primary intents behind the ECR‐MU zoning district is to promote residential mixed‐use development that contributes to a walkable
neighborhood and streetscape that prioritizes pedestrians and bicyclists before motorists.
Allowing drive‐through uses in a mixed‐use zoning district and neighborhood would be counter to the intent of the zoning district. Retail sales business with drive‐through and drive‐through restaurants require a Spe
cial Development Permit in the ECR‐C zoning
district.
• C5. Create a “Commercial Preservation Incentive” (CPI) for properties that are “split zoned” ECR‐C and ECR‐MU in order to preserve, enhance, or replace 100 percent of the existing commercial square feet identified within the CPI area. In exchan ge for preserving or
replacing the designated commercial space in the CPI area, the project would have the opportunity to calculate the mixed‐use residential density based on the site’s total net lot area.
Staff Comment: Do Not Support. If a site is “split zoned” ECR‐C and ECR‐MU, residential use (in the form of residential mixed‐use development) is only permitted on the ECR‐MU portion of the site. In such a case, staff would
apply the density calculation only to the
portion of the site zoned ECR‐MU. The ECR‐C is intended to preserve commercial development (or redevelopment). This matter relates to the mixed zonin g on the Hacienda
Shopping Center discussed in C1.6 above.
• C6. Flexibility to respond to market changes such as flexible zoning to account for and adapt to long‐term retail trends/changes (i.e., live‐work units) Staff comment: No changes recommended. Staff considers the propos ed minimum 10%
commercial FAR to be flexible, as more can always be provided. The range of allowable commercial uses is fairly broad and can allow for modification and transition as market demands change. Uses with little to modest investment in tenant improvements (e.g. athletic facilities, childcare, etc.) can serve as interim uses. Th e Citywide Mixed Use (MU)
zoning combining district (SMC 19.26.220. Mixed use (MU) combining district) enables live‐ work units to satisfy part of the minimum commercial requirement; however to date the only site with this zoning district has not produced commercial retail uses. Many of the units that allow for mixed use are residential only.
Attachment 21
Transportation and Circulation
• T1. Develop a more comprehensive and faster plan for converting on‐street parking to protected bike lanes than the ECRSP draft identifies. For example, a suggestion was to revise Policy SD‐P2 in the ECRSP to read: “The majority (over 80 percent) of on‐street parking along El Camino Real shall be removed by 2028, and all on‐street parking should be remo
ved by 2032.”
Staff Comment: Strengthen policies on removal of parking. Staff has included a policy to remove adjacent on‐street parking on El Camino Real when a site redevelops. The matter of converting El Camino Real’s on‐street parking to a protected bike lane would be addressed as part of a future study item sponsored by the City Council that would require coordination with Caltrans.
T2. Enhance Bus Stops. Require bus stops to be upgraded to include bus shelters and other rider amenities.
Staff Comment: Add requirement to upgrade bus stops (when adjacent site is redeveloped) to include bus shelters and other amenities, consistent with then current VTA standards.
Covered bus shelters can add to a rider’s comfort and assist in increasing ridership. Other amenities may include benches, trash receptacles, lighting, and real‐time displays (also known as dynamic information signs).
• T3. Increase safety for pedestrians & cyclists. No specific modifications suggested.
Staff Comment: Noted. As this is a general public com
ment, no specific is amended.
• T4. Concerns with potential for an increase in vehicular traffic & congestion in nearby neighborhoods. No specific modifications suggested.
Staff Comment: Noted. As this is a general public com
ment, no specific is amended.
• T5. Introduce more mid‐block pedestrian crossings along El Camino Real, including between Mary Avenue and Hollenbeck Avenue.
Staff Comment: Do no support. Illegal mid‐block crossings on El Camino Real occur, and too often have resulted in
severe consequences to the pedestrian. Caltrans, who controls the Right of Way (ROW) for El Camino Real, does not support mid‐block crossings. Caltrans has allowed HAWKS at unsignalized intersections (not mid‐block); however, these are unfamiliar to many motorists and pedestrians.
T6. Ped/Bike pathways incentive program. Revi se the community benefits points allocated to public bicycle/pedestrian pathways so that the number of incentive points are a factor of the length of the path, not just one flat rate.
Staff Comment: Do Not Support. Staff does not recommend revising the community benefits/incentives point structure to account for this activity. The ped/ bike pathways will also serve to provide open space access/amenities to residents on mixed‐use Attachment 21
developments. The ECRSP community benefits program can be amended in the future to respond to both: level of success of the program in resulting in developments with robust community benefits and incentives; and, future needs and goals of the City and residents as the ECRSP district redevelops over time.
Open Space
• OS1. Useable open space. Two seemingly opposing comments were provided: 1) to decrease the minimum required open space in high density residential sites from 380 sq. ft.; and, 2) to increase the amount of usable open space along El Camino Real.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends a reduction in the per unit usable open space requi
rement from 380 s.f. per unit (in Draft plan) to 150 s.f. per unit. For MU‐42 and MU‐54 districts. The usable open space in other high density transit‐oriented areas (Downtown Lawrence Station) is 50 square feet per unit. The open space is calculated on a per unit bases, but not necessarily tied to a specific ho
using unit ‐‐ a large podium open space for
residents‐only qualifies as usable open space. For El Camino Real, the mixed‐use nature of developments offers additional opportunities for open space such as plazas, connecting pathways and other areas available to the general public (including outdoor dining.
Residential developments would still be obligated to dedicate park land or pay an in‐lieu fee.
• OS2. Encourage more shade trees, parkway
strips, and landscaping throughout the ECRSP
Plan Area.
Staff Comment: ECRSP objective design guidelines, which were not originally available for public review when the draft ECRSP was rel
eased, more specifically delineate detailed
landscaping and planting requirements for new development.
Other
• OT1. Increase the required bicycle parking ratios to more closely reflect VTA’s Bicycle Technical Guidelines
Staff comment: Revise bicycle parking ratio requirements as follows:
Land Use Class I Class II
Residential
General/low‐income
housing/senior housing)
[1]
1 space per 3 units 1 space per 15 units
Non‐Residential
Commercial/Retail 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft.
Hotel 1 space per 15 rooms 1 space per 20 rooms
Attachment 21
Land Use Class I Class II
Restaurant (free‐
standing, no bar or
entertainment)
1 space per 3,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 800 sq. ft.
Office 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. [1] Minimum of 4 unassigned Class I bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for each residential development.
• OT2. Higher floor plate retail space: Revise development standards pertaining to maximum height and building stepback in mixed‐use developments to account for certain retail uses (e.g., auto dealer use) that often require a plate height much higher than the minimum 18‐ foot requirement identified in SMC 19.36, which has an impact on overall building height.
Staff comment: Recomm
ended changes. Provide distinct maximum building height and stepback requirements unique to developments with ground floor retail space with a minimum 25‐foot ground floor plate height. In such cases, the maximum building height is 85 feet in nodes and 65 feet in segments, and the stepback requirement is modified to provide design options.
Attachment 21