Planning commission reviews 242‑unit redevelopment proposal at 777 Sunnyvale Saratoga Road

The Sunnyvale Planning Commission on Jan. 27 reviewed a special development permit and tentative map for 777 Sunnyvale Saratoga Road, a 5.24‑acre redevelopment of the former Orchard Supply Hardware site proposing 242 total housing units (80 three‑story townhouse condominium units and 162 units in a seven‑story apartment building) and 2,050 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space, with a tentative subdivision into 19 lots.

City project planner Momo Ishijima summarized the application and the list of concessions and development‑standard waivers the applicant is seeking under the state density bonus law. Applicant representatives — Doug Richards of Vallejo Partners and Scott Connolly of Valley Oak Partners — presented the site and architectural concept, which places the taller apartment building toward South Matilda Avenue and the townhouse units along Sunnyvale Saratoga Road, adds internal paseos to improve pedestrian connections, and widens sidewalks to implement the El Camino Real streetscape plan along the frontage.

The proposal would develop about 46 dwelling units per acre on a site zoned El Camino Real mixed‑use at 54 dwelling units per acre. Staff said the project includes 15 percent below‑market‑rate (BMR) units overall (12 townhome BMR units and 25 BMR apartment units), which triggers eligibility for density bonus concessions; the applicant has also filed a separate alternative compliance application that, if approved by the City Council after a Housing & Human Services review, would make the apartment building 100 percent affordable and eliminate the commercial requirement for the project.

Why it matters: the site sits inside the El Camino Real specific plan area near the Cherry Orchard Shopping Center and Las Palmas Park and could add a substantial number of new units and affordable units to Sunnyvale while raising questions about how closely the proposed design meets the specific plan and city code.

Key technical variances and waivers the applicant seeks, as presented by staff and the applicant, include a modest increase in parapet height to about 79 feet 2 inches (code 75 feet), a request to reduce required 10‑foot stepbacks on more than 60 percent of a façade (project provides 37.7 percent), deficiencies in the El Camino Real requirement for active ground‑floor commercial frontage (project proposes 2,050 sf vs. the 12,302 sf minimum cited in the staff summary and a lower floor plate height than the 18‑foot minimum), reduced perimeter landscape buffers at a few locations, shortfalls in the quantity of lockable storage required for the apartment building (staff cited a shortfall against a 40,600 cubic‑foot threshold), no clubhouse/community room (code requires 450 sf), spacing between some townhouse buildings short of the 26‑foot requirement (one measured at roughly 19 feet), and a stated shortfall in parking for the apartment portion (staff and applicant discussed approximately 40 spaces short). Staff and the applicant listed additional, more limited exceptions in building articulation, daylight‑plane compliance for one townhouse nearest the south property line, and ground‑floor wrap of active uses around an above‑grade parking structure.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly pressed the applicant on several topics: parking and guest parking supply and possible mechanical parking solutions; whether unit mix and bedroom sizes could be adjusted to yield more units; the justification and trade‑offs for the many waivers (a commissioner counted roughly 17 waivers requested); driveway and pedestrian circulation (including the north driveway that staff said is tight and largely for emergency/service access); landscaping and tree impacts (the applicant’s arborist report cited 82 trees on or adjacent to the site but staff said only 10 met the city’s protected‑size threshold, and replacement and planting plans would be part of later materials); and noise levels for third‑floor courtyards and pool areas adjacent to Matilda Avenue (staff said noise studies are a standard requirement and will be completed to meet General Plan limits).

Applicant response: the project team said the taller, higher‑density massing is intentionally placed toward Matilda Avenue to relate to higher‑scale buildings to the north and to step down toward lower‑rise neighbors to the south; the team described internal paseos, widened sidewalks, and architectural articulation intended to meet the intent of the El Camino Real plan even where the project seeks concessions from specific numeric standards. The applicant said it will consider mechanical parking (stackers) as a condition to address the parking shortfall and indicated willingness to include conditions addressing pedestrian access and tree replacement.

Community outreach and public comment: staff reported a community meeting on Dec. 18 attended by 16 participants; concerns raised there included parking, building height, construction staging and lane closures, and questions about funding for the affordable units. Two public speakers addressed the study session: Armando Murillo, field representative for the Northern California Carpenters Union Local 405, asked the commission to require area‑standard wages, state‑certified apprenticeship programs, accessible health care and local hiring practices on the project. Resident Steven Meyer (Fairbrae neighborhood) spoke in support of the project and urged the commission to prioritize housing over parking minimums and to maximize pedestrian and bicycle passage through the site.

Alternative compliance track: staff explained a parallel alternative compliance request filed with the city’s housing programs. If City Council approves that alternative compliance after the planning commission’s project approval and a Housing & Human Services recommendation, the apartment building could become 100 percent affordable (staff cited a potential increase to roughly 66–67 percent of the total project being affordable units) and eligibility rules would remove the commercial requirement for the mixed‑use ground floor. Staff said some of the waivers requested are tied to the commercial use and would drop from consideration if alternative compliance is approved.

Process and next steps: the Jan. 27 meeting was a study session; the planning commission did not take a final vote on the project at that meeting. Staff said the application packet to return for a decision hearing will include a detailed density bonus letter and exhibits, the arborist report, circulation diagrams, and other technical attachments requested by commissioners. If the commission later approves the project with conditions, any alternative compliance approval that follows would be considered by the City Council and could change the project’s required conditions (for example, parking standards for affordable housing and commercial requirements).

Discussion highlights and outstanding items commissioners said they expect to see at the public hearing included clearer internal circulation diagrams (bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular), detailed justification exhibits that show trade‑offs for each waiver, a parking management plan or mechanical parking detail to offset shortfalls, tree replacement and landscape survival measures, and noise studies for exterior amenity areas adjacent to Matilda Avenue.

The planning staff and applicant indicated they will return to the commission for a noticed public hearing with the requested exhibits and conditions; no planning decision was made at the study session.

Ending note: the project will return to the planning commission for a formal hearing and decision; any alternative compliance decision that would substantially change the affordable unit count or the need for commercial ground floor uses would be decided by the City Council following the city’s housing program review.