Search This Blog

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Sunnyvale Downtown - Part I

If formatting seems odd try: http://MeetingTheTwain.BlogSpot.com/2017/08/Sunnyvale-downtown-part-I.html

Addendum 8/18/2017 - Some confusion was clarified in the City Council meeting of 8/15/2017.  Corrections and clarifications are in red.

 On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 the Sunnyvale City Council will take up a proposal to study some revisions to the downtown plan.  It is item 4 on the agenda.  Documents relating to it are here:
https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3124214&GUID=A4DAA6EB-2307-4F1D-918D-A88C033F13C0

Sunnyvale's city web site on the downtown is here:
https://sunnyvale.ca.gov/business/projects/town.htm

Another web site: http://citylinesunnyvaleconstruction.com/

Summary:

Site plan from https://sunnyvale.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=23861 (Click on image to enlarge).



The proposal includes the following requests:
  1. Re-examine current building height limits of 85 ft and 70 ft.,
  2. Reduce retail from 1,000,000 sq. ft to 675,000 sq. ft.,
  3. Increase housing from 290 to 750 units, Add 750 to the 292 originally proposed = 1,042.
  4. More commercial space:  686,000 sq. ft. instead of 275,000 sf.
  5. Remove 200-room hotel,
  6. Put a pedestrian walk extension of Frances St. through the middle of the current Macy's Building.  This would make it two buildings.  Also, add four two floors of commercial space,
  7. Add on to existing "Murphy Square" building.
To let the Sunnyvale City Council know your thoughts on the issue you may attend the public hearing at 7 PM on August 15th, 2017, at 456 W. Olive Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 and fill out a speaker card to speak for 3 minutes on the issues or email the city council at:
Council@sunnyvale.ca.gov

I, of course, remain studiously neutral and completely open, trusting fully in the impartiality of the analysts of the proposed study.

By the way, some people have strong feelings about some builders.  Speaking for myself, I think we should look only at what is good for Sunnyvale, regardless of who is the agent.  Also, we get a lot of information third hand so we may be missing some aspects of various situations.  Also, Mathew 7:3.

Details:

Current concept from Sares Regis developer is here: http://www.sunnyvaledowntown.com/uploads/3/4/0/4/34043289/citylineconstructiontimeline_2x3panel_063017.pdf with an excerpt below. (Click to enlarge)

Work Area Diagram
http://www.sunnyvaledowntown.com/uploads/3/4/0/4/34043289/citylineconstructiontimeline_2x3panel_063017.pdf
The revisions requested are:
  1. Request existing height limits be made flexible.  Current heights allowed are  85 ft (about height of a 7-story apartment building) for one block and 70 ft. (about = a 6-story apt. building) for other blocks. Developers (or staff?) are requesting these be not absolute limits but 'flexible' height limits. Some might say builders do not want to lower the maximum height so 'flexible' may be taken to mean 'higher'.
  2. Cut the amount of retail space by about one third from roughly 1,000,000 sq. ft. to about 675,000 sq. ft.  The argument is that a lot of retail is going online so you don't want to have a lot of empty store fronts.  Others have argued that downtown near public transit is the single best place to put retail.  To those people, a downtown is distinguished (or not) by its retail - restaurants, hair stylists, nice little bookstores, dress shops, etc.  If El Camino becomes largely residential, as many would like, then where will retail go, these people ask.  What I hear some people are afraid of is that we will get more streets like Olson Way which, to some people, is effectively a 'dead' street.
    Olson Way - Note the benches facing brick and cement walls
  3. Change the number of housing units from to 292 to 790 1,042, ("292 to 790" is a direct quote from Sunnyvale city staff in their Report to City Council.  It was the original request from developer Sares Regis.  It should have read 292 + 750 = 1,042.) 2.7 This is 3.6 times  the number of apartments originally proposed - 500 additional units proposed by developer Sares-Regis and another 250 units added by city staff.  It is unspecified how large the housing unit buildings will be but this might tie into the 'flexible' height issue above.  The diagram of the current proposal shows the existing 5-story apt. buildings with 4 stories of apts. above 1 story of retail.  These will stay as they are as seen in the Work Area Diagram shown above.  All the additional 750 apartments would go where Macy's parking lot is and where the green area next to it is.  See street and satellite views below:
    750 Apartments would go in area marked in RED above
     
    750 Apartments would go in area seen here
     If the number of stories of apts is multiplied by 2.7, to accommodate the increase in the number of housing units, they would become 11-stories of apartments plus one of retail on the ground floor.  This would be about 140 feet tall.  There is a 10-story apartment building (about 120 feet tall) in Cupertino at 20450 Stevens Creek Blvd.  Click image to enlarge:
    10-Story Apt. Building at 20450 Steven Creek Blvd
    This is a drawing of a 12-story building in approximately the style of the existing proposals:
    12-story Apartment Building
  4. Add 411,000 sq. ft commercial space - from 275,000 sq. ft. to 686,000 sf. = 411,000 sf increase = 2.5 times the commercial space originally authorized.  Given the huge increase in housing units requiring 10 or 12 story apartment buildings where would this additional space go?  Additional commercial space would partially come from replacing Macy's retail space and partially from deleting the 200-room hotel.  Multiplying by 2.5 a 4-story building is an additional 6 stories = a 10-story building.  Would the 4-story office buildings become 10-story commercial office buildings?  For comparison, here is an 8-story office building in Cupertino near Steven Creek and De Anza Blvd.  The approximate size of a four story office building is seen below. Click image to enlarge:  
    Very rough approximation of what a redone Macy's would look like except it would be split into two buildings
  5. Eliminate the planned 200-room hotel.  I am unclear on why they would want to do this.  It appears this comes from the desire to add more commercial office space.  I have heard it argued that while apt/condo dwellers can eat at home, hotel guests pretty much have to eat in a restaurant. This, they say,  gives extra business to the downtown merchants, keeping the downtown busy and attractive.  Another argued 'With all the commercial space being asked for, they continue, where will potential clients and customers of all the downtown office companies stay?'  Those I asked said essentially:   'We are constantly hearing about the dire shortage of hotel space, and how much revenue the hotel tax brings in.  This is the downtown.  We get one chance to get it right.  If we don't build it in now, it may never go in.'  The existing small hotel nearby charges $300 per night and is usually full.  That is the argument for keeping the hotel. On the other hand is the view is that there are a lot of hotels in the works and there might be surplus of hotel space later on.
  6. Cut the Macy's building in half - creating two buildings - with an extension of Frances St. as a pedestrian walkway through to what would become Redwood Square, (roughly 25% of that block).  The existing Macy's building would then have four two more floors added to become a six four-story commercial building of about 120 80 ft in height.  The bottom floor would be "flex retail/office".  It might look like the above picture of the four story office (see above) building but with a pedestrian walkway in the middle.  Sort of like the following picture: 
    For office space, each story is about 20 ft. while for living space each story is about 12 ft.  photo of the 8-story office building in Cupertino minus top 2 floors.  See schematic plan below:
  7. Add an extension to the "Murphy Square" building in the same height and style.  Where a proposed addition to Murphy sq. would be added (with underground parking).
    Where proposed addition to Murphy sq. would be
    Some have noted it is very close to the train tracks where a 'grade separation' might be put in place.  Here is the existing Murphy Square building. The grade separation for the train tracks will be coordinated with the new development.  The architects of the new building say they are open to putting in an open space square at the intersection.
    Existing Murphy Square
With all the requests to cut back on retail, eliminate hotel rooms and add commercial space, some people are saying builders would rather construct commercial buildings.  One might think commercial buildings appear to be simpler - lay some carpet, almost no walls, plumbing for two sets of bathrooms, get a 5 or 10 year lease and collect rent checks.

Hotel rooms, apartments, and condos take a lot of (expensive) skilled manual labor putting in and tiling bathrooms, kitchens, etc., with lots of walls.  Apt. tenants move every year or two, fall behind in their rent, complain about neighbors, management, etc., etc.

Some I talk to argue we need to consider the residents wishes for a vibrant downtown with lots of people living there and patronizing downtown merchants.

Santa Clara's City Council destroyed their downtown years ago and now people there are trying to recapture what they lost.  http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/26/opinion-rebuild-santa-claras-downtown-no-this-is-not-a-pipe-dream/
Santa Clara's Old Downtown - Gone but may return.
There was also talk at the city planning commission hearing about trying to get more ownership (i.e., condos for sale rather than apartments for rent.)

The planning commission video is here:

The agenda for the City Council meeting is available here:

I have to note that a little paranoia clouds my thoughts.  I look at several indices of housing and stock valuations and find them to be very high - similar to 2000, and 1929.  This makes me cautious.  C.f.,
http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2017/08/another-financial-bubble.html

Planning Commission Video notes:
I took some notes from the video of the planning commission of some of the members of the public who spoke on the proposed changes to be studied.  My notes may contain some errors so you may wish to watch the video yourself at http://sunnyvaleca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=2263:

------------  begin notes ------------
Minute mark on video = 83:00 
David Schreny (sp?):  What is being proposed is up to 80% office space because retail rents are 50% below office space hence the incentive for office space.  The Nokia and other existing offices are not inviting for walkability – they are fortresses.

87:30 Benjamin Demming: Increase housing and office and pare back retail.  Regional housing crisis.  Prefer ownership.

90:20 John Cordes:  Short of housing not office space.  Dedicated bike lanes, close off Murphy, hotel has a lot of value:

93:00 Holly Lofgren:  Too much office space – it raises the cost of land which raises the cost of housing.  Ownership better than renting.  Nothing to buy because everything is rental.  Reminder that Sand Hill Property (one of the petitioners) bought and closed down Vallco and is just sitting on it.  Reminder that Mr. Lynch is a former Sunnyvale employee (planning dept.) who vested his public pension and is now a real estate developer.  There are 1/20th the number of places for sale compared to 3-4 years ago.

96:00 Melissa ??:  Visceral reaction against Sand Hill Properties.

97:00 Mehud Vastala: Property values rising causing stress.  Homes near gas stations safe?  Hangs out at Santana Row, SF, and Mtn Vu, but never in Sunnyvale because it has a bad holistic feel.  Need something like Golden Gate Park to make Sunnyvale nice.  Open up space for outdoor concerts etc.

99:40: Jim Davis – (former council member): If you do more office space, you should do it where it was previously designated to go, above Mathilda.  Already did a detailed study years ago on retail space.  Don’t take out the hotel – provide customers for Murphy Ave.  That’s what we had in mind when we authorized it.  The small hotel now in downtown charges $300+ per night for small rooms and is often filled showing demand.  Leave parking in proposed office at corner of Murphy for patrons of Murphy St. after business hours.

103:00 Applicants get to respond.

103:20 STC-Ventures:  Dave Hopkins with Seris-Regis.  Need for building housing downtown.  290 initial proposal, Seris-Regis proposed 500, Sunnyvale city staff added another 250.  Parking underground – understand need for parking.

Commissioner Howe (former Mayor) asked about ownership opportunities.  DH replied they were open to it.

107: Sand Hill Property: Retail office flex space – if they can repurpose it with retail they will.  Last study was done in 2015 which is a long time ago so let’s study it anew.  If the study says we need more housing or retail we’re open to that.  The alley will be about the width of Frances St.  It will not be a dark windswept alley or we won’t have anything.  It needs to be inviting like Murphy St.

110: Chang Architecture:  Passed on the opportunity to comment.

Commissioner Howe asks about bldg height.  Staff answers height limit of 85 ft.  (About 7 stories of apts, maybe 4-5 stories of commercial).

Debate over motion on first part 2017-7364 – study increase residential, remain silent on hotel space and increased office space.

Moved on to 2017-7362 - Chang property at 111 W. Evelyn DSP blk 22.
Commissioner Howe mentioned that the Murphy Sq. addition would add parking for after hours and weekend visitors to downtown.  Passes 5-0.

Moved on to 2017-7364 – Macy’s bldg.  up to 5 stories - Commissioner Howard suggested adding housing.  Likes pedestrian walkway.  Commissioner Howe – added 1st story remains retail or service - not offices.  Discussion – retail and services on study.  Clearly “no office”.

-------  end notes  -----

Posted by at