2002-0069 - City of Sunnyvale Downtown Urban Design Study - A study to consider a Plan to revitalize Downtown Sunnyvale and may require revision to the Downtown Specific Plan, Redevelopment Area Plan, and Zoning Ordinance, and preparation of appropriate environmental review. (Continued from Planning Commission of 03/11/02 and also to City Council on 04/23/02)

Robert Paternoster, Director of Community Development, presented the staff report. He gave a brief history of the study and noted the previous Study Session. He introduced Joe Antuzzi, Chair of the Downtown Stakeholders Advisory Committee, who presented the planning process of the Downtown Urban Design Plan.

Joe Antuzzi, on behalf of the Downtown Stakeholders Advisory Committee, thanked staff, the Planning Commission and City Council for considering the Plan. He commented that the committee members had different concepts but eventually came up with a compromise. He gave a summary of the planning stages and the process of the Urban Design Plan from the inception of the Downtown Stakeholders Advisory Committee on July 26, 2001, to its presentation stage to the Planning Commission and eventually to City Council. He noted that the Plan would implement the changes envisioned for the development of Downtown Sunnyvale.

Mr. Paternoster explained the vision for Downtown Sunnyvale, which was captured in the Mission Statement of "An Enhanced, traditional downtown serving the community with a variety of destination in a pedestrian-friendly environment." He presented the plan noting the goals of the Downtown Urban Design Plan addressing Murphy Avenue development; the Town & Country; the Town Center Mall development; the Downtown Plaza with an opportunity for two plazas in Downtown; the residential opportunities; the circulation along Mathilda Avenue; Parking and the possibility of using Sunnyvale Avenue as the entrance to Downtown Sunnyvale. He also brought up the differences of the Plan from the existing Downtown Specific Plan. He further noted that the Plan would maintain the uniqueness of Sunnyvale. He described its benefits to Downtown and the entire City and the surrounding cities.

Mr. Antuzzi presented 12 issues identified by the Committee and provided recommended resolutions to these issues, which are listed in the Plan. 1) Translation into legal documents; 2) Eminent domain; 3) Protection of neighborhoods adjacent to Downtown; 4) Residential rezoning district; 5) Reduction of residential height limit; 6) Increase of residential parking requirements; 7) Protection of small local businesses; 8) Improvement of transportation access; 9) Transportation Demand Management Plan; 10) Parking construction phasing; 11) Streetscape improvements, and 12) Handicap accesses to the parking facilities, sidewalks and private developments. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to make the presentation.

Mr. Paternoster concluded that the Urban Design Plan presentation is the midpoint in the update of planning for development of Downtown Sunnyvale. He noted that the decision would be to approve a concept and that Planning Commission would further review the necessary steps prior to implementation of the concept. He recommended that Planning Commission adopt Alternative #1.

Comm. Satterlee asked Mr. Antuzzi what is the goal of having numerous heights and densities among the downtown neighborhoods. Mr. Antuzzi responded that the recommendation came from each neighborhood. For example, 100 Block of Charles Street felt that the height is a concern that could potentially invade their privacy. Mr. Paternoster added that the Plan proposes bringing down the height lower and lowering the densities from the existing Downtown Specific Plan.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff what is the vision in regards to the home frontages as shown on Page 64 of the Plan. Mr. Paternoster responded that the units would be facing the street with a central lobby which, is a Neotraditional design.

Comm. Satterlee asked Mr. Antuzzi how the 2000 housing units came about, and whether the number is policy driven. Mr. Antuzzi responded that the number was suggested by the consultant, and he was sure there was a market demand considered. Mr. Paternoster added that the Committee thought concentrating housing in downtown, which could absorb the regional requirement, would keep it from dispersing to other neighborhoods. The 2000 number is what could be supported. He noted that the housing has a strong demand in Sunnyvale.

Comm. Satterlee further asked what is the jobs/housing ratio as it appears that the area is relatively small and that no calculation was presented. Ms. Ryan responded that that number is a net increase in the housing units and that the ratio for jobs/housing balance will go down from that provided in the current plan.

Furthermore, Comm. Satterlee commented that the Traffic Impact Analysis seems to be incomplete and asked staff whether the traffic calculation was based on the net traffic result or whether other factors were considered. Mr. Paternoster responded that the calculation took into account what is foreseen development and that detailed traffic review would be addressed during the environmental impact review.

Comm. Satterlee further asked if the residential parking ratio requirement for a three bedroom dwelling unit was considered. Mr. Antuzzi responded that during this process, parking increase for a three bedroom dwelling unit was not discussed. Mr. Paternoster added that it is one of the issues that staff would be working with the Planning Commission related to zoning changes.

Chair Brown asked Ms. Ryan to address this issue. Ms. Ryan responded that the Zoning Code has a graduated scale based on number of bedrooms and this could be the starting point.

Comm. Satterlee asked Mr. Antuzzi where the idea come from on the proposed residential units on parking structures. Mr. Antuzzi responded that the idea came from the buyers of the Town Center Mall. Mr. Paternoster added that the buyers requested this residential opportunity. Comm. Satterlee then asked if the consultant could provide examples of existing places where this idea is successful. Mr. Paternoster responded that there are some cities in Florida.

Comm. Satterlee noted that on page 74 Block 13 and 13A should be reversed. Mr. Paternoster concurred. She further noted that there appears to be missing information in the Excel spreadsheet on Figure 4.1.

Comm. Satterlee further asked Mr. Paternoster about the linkages and boundaries or markers on Washington and Sunnyvale Avenues. Mr. Paternoster responded that Washington and Sunnyvale is within the downtown periphery, therefore, a gateway/or marker is not necessary. He added that the intention is to have residential gateways to let motorists know that they are entering a residential area. In addition, the downtown would be accessed from either Sunnyvale or Mathilda Avenues.

Vice Chair Simons asked Mr. Antuzzi whether there were discussions to ask or encourage Macy's to install pedestrian friendly windows along Washington Avenue. Mr. Antuzzi responded that it was not discussed specifically. Mr. Paternoster added that a meeting with Macy's has been scheduled; however, the window idea may be difficult to achieve.

Vice Chair Simons further asked Mr. Antuzzi whether there were discussions to develop the back entrance of the stores along Murphy Avenue to be more attractive and inviting. Mr. Antuzzi responded that it was discussed during the Downtown Plaza study but not in the Plan. Ms. Ryan added that the Murphy Avenue Design Guidelines address this concept, therefore, it is not necessary to be included in this Plan.

Vice Chair Simons commented that the Plan should use the recommended traffic engineer lane widths. Mr. Paternoster noted that the Plan recommends 12-foot lanes.

Vice Chair Simons commented that it would be wise to have a walkable distance from the train station to other uses. Mr. Paternoster responded that currently it does not appear walkable along Mathilda Avenue to El Camino Real because Mathilda Avenue is not as interesting compared to Castro Street in Mountain View even though it has the same distance from El Camino, so it is a walkable distance but not necessarily environmentally walkable.

Vice Chair Simons further asked if staff intends to do anymore citywide outreach or marketing of the Plan. Mr. Paternoster responded that there have been numerous ads in the Sun and the San Jose Mercury News. He added that the real opportunity is during the environmental review process. There were no formal notices mailed to property owners but it would be done during the environmental process and rezoning hearings. He added that there would be roadshows and neighborhood presentations. He noted that creating a citywide forum does not seem to be attracting huge attendance from the public at large but by residents and businesses near downtown.

Comm. Babcock thanked Mr. Antuzzi and staff for the effort in bringing about the Downtown Urban Design Plan. She noted that the Plan would be a huge change for Sunnyvale. She asked staff whether it is possible to have a simple and basic model where the residents could look at the heights and setback comparisons. Mr. Paternoster responded that it was discussed but the consultant felt that if a crude model is used it would have a negative response. Therefore, the consultant recommended the aerial, which was on display. He further added that the City Manager suggested using the downtown virtual tour program. Ms. Ryan added that it could be brought up to current condition to include the Mozart development. She added that it would be expensive and that the program may not be used by the community at large.

Comm. Babcock commented that the model would help other citizens to see the difference with the existing condition and they may feel at ease about the Plan.

Comm. Babcock further asked if there were any requirements or guidelines or would the Plan address limitations or changes by commercial property owners. Mr. Paternoster responded that the implementation of requirements or limitations depends on the Planning Commission's recommendation during the environmental review process.

Furthermore, Comm. Babcock asked staff whether any of the proposed buildings have any step back or straight sheer up. Mr. Paternoster responded that a step back is not needed since the proposed building height is not very tall.

Comm. Babcock commented that it appears that the Plan suggests four story building that would be looking down on historic residential district, Block 12 as noted on Page 57. Ms. Ryan clarified that Block 12 is not a historic district and that it currently has one and two story homes.

Comm. Babcock expressed her concerns that the proposed location of the plaza is in the wrong place and that it should be relocated in the center of Downtown Sunnyvale. She asked staff for the reasons why the location was chosen. Staff responded that the Plaza location would be enjoyed by the businesses within Downtown and could also handle large crowd or huge community event. The location has been decided prior to the preparation of the Plan.

Comm. Babcock asked if other locations or options were explored such as swapping the parking east of Macy's with the plaza. Mr. Paternoster responded that it would not prudent to move the plaza, the Macy's parking structure is critical to the mall as well as the Murphy Avenue merchants. He noted that the Committee has been realistic and accepted the consultant's recommendations while accommodating the needs of the public at large. Ms. Ryan added that there are certainly many options but there are cost implications to relocating the plaza.

Comm. Babcock commented that she is concerned there was minimal input from the stakeholders on the plaza location. However, she was pleased to hear that other stakeholders felt that they were listened to and that their concerns were addressed in the Plan.

Comm. Chu thanked the Committee and staff for putting together such an extensive document. He commented that the study has come a long way and noted that the document is available at the library and at the city's website. A copy is also available for purchase at a minimal cost. He further commented that overall, the Plan is good and should go forward to the next step.

Comm. Chu expressed his concerns that it appears that the heritage district was not included in the discussion and asked what is the rationale for inclusion or exclusion. Mr. Paternoster responded that it was discussed and since it is a historic district, it should be kept alone. Comm. Chu then suggested that it should be noted in the Plan.

Comm. Chu further noted that it appears that Block 19 was missing in the diagram as noted on Page 55 of the Plan. Staff would look into it.

Furthermore, Comm. Chu asked about the rezoning requests in the cover letter of the Plan to include town house development in the E. Bayview and East Charles Street. Mr. Paternoster responded that the zoning request was the desire of the residents and that they would like to maintain the existing character of the neighborhood. Comm. Chu noted that he was not advocating either one but inquiring whether the idea of townhouses was considered.

Comm. Chu following Comm. Babcock's comment about the plaza and asked staff whether it is possible to have the plaza on top of a parking structure that is centrally located. Mr. Paternoster responded that it would not work and that people do not go up a flight to go to a Plaza. Comm. Chu then suggested dropping the parking structure one level to have the Plaza at street level. Mr. Paternoster added that the parking structure is already partially underground and to add down one more level would be costly.

Comm. Chu asked staff why the PM Peak number was used in the calculation of the roadway conditions as noted on Page 35. Mr. Paternoster responded that the PM Peak is higher than AM Peak period. Comm. Chu commented that it appears that the AM Peak period is also at capacity and suggested that this should also be discussed in the Plan.

Comm. Chu asked whether a gateway at Mathilda Avenue Evelyn off-ramp was considered. Mr. Paternoster responded that the bridge itself could serve as the gateway to Downtown and provided design details.

Comm. Chu asked staff if there is a gateway on Olive/Sunnyvale and Charles/Iowa Streets. Mr. Paternoster responded that there is a gateway on Olive/Sunnyvale but none on Charles/Iowa Street since that corner is already within the residential area.

Furthermore, Comm. Chu asked staff for clarification on the use of Blocks 9 and 10 as noted on Page 53. Ms. Ryan responded that the preferred use is residential but office use is also permitted with a Use Permit.

Comm. Chu dittoed Comm. Satterlee's concern about having the residential units on top of a parking structure and felt that it would not be successful. He further expressed his concerns about the residential units facing Iowa and that it would not be successful.

Comm. Chu further asked if there is a bike path along Evelyn Avenue and asked how the paths are connected to the network in Sunnyvale. Mr. Paternoster noted that Evelyn will be one of the East/West routes. He further noted that bicycles can use any street so all routes are connected.

Chair Brown thanked the Committee and staff and commented that the Macy's window placements have been discussed years ago and at that time it was not feasible.

Chair Brown asked staff how many notices were sent out. Ms. Ryan responded that information about the study was published in a downtown newsletter with a mailing list of approximately 1000 which includes households and businesses. Also, information was also sent to interested parties who have submitted their names to staff. However, there were no notices of public hearings sent. A display ad was in The Sun and the San Jose Mercury News.

Chair Brown asked staff how many households are there in Sunnyvale. Ms. Ryan responded that there are about 54,000 households in Sunnyvale. Further, Ms. Ryan added that the Study has been in the Quarterly Reports and as the planning efforts move forward there would be continued notification to the community.

Chair Brown commented that it would be helpful to include the street names on the maps as exhibited in the Plan.

Comm. Brown agreed that there should be models created and be available at city hall or the library as well as KSUN for public viewing. It is important to have the architectural renderings so the citizens could see and feel the Plan.

Comm. Moylan expressed concerns that some citizens have left and have not spoken.

Chair Brown noted that Charles Wallin submitted a letter to the Commission and would be a part of the public record.

Jerry Gold, downtown business merchant of over 21 years, commented that he has watched the process and read portions of the Plan. He applauded the Plan but expressed his desire to be a part of the process. He felt that there were no benefits discussed for the downtown merchants in the Plan. He noted that he asked these questions on numerous occasions but was still unclear of what is going on. The existing downtown development has financially affected his business significantly. He expressed his concerns about eminent domain and how this would be exercised. He noted that he has periodically attended the Stakeholders Advisory Committee meetings and has voiced these concerns that there are so many unknowns.

Chair Brown asked staff to keep Mr. Gold apprised and to address his concerns. Mr. Paternoster agreed.

Andy Maloney, resident, noted that the Plan is not a study but rather a highly detailed plan requiring some kind of approval. He further noted that a study has many options and possibilities. He asked whether the old grid of the downtown, which is the traditional downtown was ever discussed. He commented that the Plan is the old Mall with superficial improvements around it. He further commented that the Plan would only increase traffic impacts in Sunnyvale. He asked whether the Committee considered other options. He expressed his displeasure with the Plan. He concluded that citizens should be encouraged to be involved actively in the planning or development of Downtown.

John Griblan, resident of 100 Charles Street, thanked the Commission for considering the Plan. He noted that his neighborhood has expressed concerns and wants to preserve the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood felt that the high density would not be compatible with the neighborhood and that it is important that there is transition from higher density to lower density neighborhood.

Comm. Babcock asked Mr. Griblan if he has attended any of the Stakeholders' Committee meetings and whether he felt that most of their concerns were addressed in the Plan. Mr. Griblan responded that a member of their association attended all the meetings and felt that their concerns were addressed.

Werner Gans, resident, addressed the bigger effect of the Plan and not the details. He noted that the big part is the change from a suburban to an urban area, with high rise buildings. He felt that there is not much outreach made to the Sunnyvale residents. He agreed that a three dimensional model would be helpful. He felt that the traffic and effects on the quality of life and infrastructures were not adequately addressed. He commented that he would prefer to maintain the suburban atmosphere. He encouraged the Commission to ask the citizens of Sunnyvale whether they would like the Downtown to change to an urban downtown before approving the Plan.

Fred Weisinger, member of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and also a member of the Downtown Stakeholders Advisory Committee, commented that the process was educational and felt that the process went well overall. He was pleased with the interaction of staff and the committee. He commented that staff did a good job in the publication of the Study and understands the challenges staff has with the outreach and notification. He expressed his personal concerns on height guidelines, residential density increase, sidewalk designs, open pathway through the mall and open McKinley as a thoroughfare, bike lane, no discussion of the light rail, the theaters to be located on a third floor and no discussion about the parking structure at Target.

Vice Chair Simons asked Mr. Weisinger of his opinion on the direction of the Plan making the City more urban and not necessarily automobile friendly. Mr. Weisinger responded that it would be difficult but the use of Transportation Demand Management would be helpful and also encourage the public to use other methods of transportation. Vice Chair Simons further asked the speaker about his concerns on the light rail whether it was integrated in the design or the Plan. Mr. Weisinger responded that it was never discussed and that if the idea is to be implemented then it is necessary to make the changes now to accommodate the light rail. He expressed his concerns that the room for mistakes is wide open in regards to the location of the light rail.

Mr. Paternoster responded and noted that the light rail was discussed with the Committee and that Mathilda Avenue was not a good route for the light rail and that it could reduce road capacity. He noted that other routes were explored. He added that it was in the Study Issue list; however, it fell below the line at the last study issue ranking. He further added that there was no proposed infrastructure nor was there investment suggested that would need to be undone. Mr. Weisinger repeated that the light rail was never discussed with the Committee.

Comm. Moylan commented that light rail may need to be above grade to work. Mr. Weisinger noted that it is important that all possibilities are discussed.

Chuck Wallin, resident, expressed his disappointment that his letter was not read as requested. He stated that he participated in a committee years ago that was charged to address the development of downtown. He commented that the most important question is whether this proposed change to have an urban downtown is necessary. He commented that Sunnyvale is a suburban city and it is the quality of life that the residents desire. He also was disappointed and finds it outrageous that there is a charge to obtain a copy of the report for citizens in order to prepare for the public hearing. He commented that the City has always provided a copy of applicable documents at no cost and felt that the validity of the public hearing is suspect. He expressed the following concerns with to the proposed Plan - the purpose of high rise buildings (5-9 stories high) and high density with too little attention to the real impact on the quality of life; the future traffic impacts it would create; the placing of housing units above and directly adjacent to a parking garage and whether the new owners of the mall are in agreement to the proposed changes. He also would like to know if the theaters are still being considered, how many and where they would be located. Furthermore, he asked whether the Town Center Lane would remain open. He also noted that a friend told him that the report was not available at the library. Chair Brown commented that the Plan is also available at the city's website. Mr. Wallin noted that there are citizens who do not have access to the web or find it difficult to use the computer. Staff responded that the Plan was available at the library two weeks before the public hearing.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff to check on the availability of the documents at the library. Staff concurred.

Mr. Paternoster commented that the City has always charged some city documents at minimal cost to the public.

Ms. Ryan added that relative to the mall, significant changes to the approved permit shall require a public hearing. Further, she added that the approval of the Plan is only midway through the process and that it would serve as an envelope to evaluate the land use and environmental impacts. She noted that a number of questions from the audience were expressed and those would be clarified and addressed at the environmental review. She added that there would be extended public outreach when other implementing features are scheduled in approximately nine months.

Thom Mayer, resident, commented that he too had problems getting material at the library. He commented that Downtown is over parked and made suggestions for fees, permits and zone parking. He also expressed his concerns on the high density and lower density transition.

Vice Chair Simons asked Mr. Mayer of his opinion on urbanization of downtown or keeping it suburban. He responded that his opinion is not relevant but rather if the Plan is approved to change downtown to urban, then it has to be done correctly and address the issues that were expressed by the residents. He also commented that all routes in Sunnyvale are all bicycle routes.

Comm. Moylan asked Mr. Mayer whether his suggestion of charging a parking fee would force motorists to park at the residential area. Mr. Mayer responded that it is the reason he suggested that zoned parking permits should be issued to downtown residents.

Comm. Satterlee clarified with staff that the next step would be environmental review, then followed by heights and densities consideration. Ms. Ryan responded that these studies could happen concurrently. She added that if there is a height or density concern then it must be expressed or clarified now to provide directions for the environmental review process.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff about the proposed height on 100 Charles Street of four stories down to two stories as it relates to the environmental review. Mr. Paternoster responded that it would be reviewed or examined at the environmental review process and there would be other scenarios that could be considered.

Comm. Satterlee reiterated that this recommendation is just the midway step and that there is still a lot of work to be done and the next step is the environmental review. She commented that she is satisfied with the plan with the exception of the proposed residential units on a parking structure. She thanked the Committee, staff and the residents who have attended the meeting and shared their opinions.

Comm. Moylan commented that there is an existing Downtown Specific Plan that was approved sometime ago. He added that the Downtown Stakeholders Advisory Committee was asked how to improve the downtown and this is the proposal. He added that this is not a done deal and there are environmental issues to be considered and act upon.

Comm. Babcock offered a friendly amendment - 1) to ask staff and the committee to ensure that every avenue has been explored and exhausted to relocate the plazas that is centrally located and 2) to ask staff to do a massive public information program which is vital to the success of this study. She suggested using the newspapers. She suggested on having a model. She asked to delay the decision one month until the exploration of a new plaza location has been completed and that staff had conducted a massive public outreach and return to Planning Commission for review.

Comm. Satterlee did not support the delay of the action but supported the massive outreach in the next phase. She noted that there are a lot of details to flesh out that would be addressed during the environmental review process. She added that the relocation of the plaza has been addressed, was considered, was looked at and unfortunately, the plaza could not be relocated.

Comm. Babcock felt that it is important to look at the location one more time even if it meant higher costs. She clarified with staff whether during the EIR process, extensive outreach could be handled. Mr. Paternoster responded that staff will do an extensive outreach for the next step. Comm. Babcock asked whether it would be too late at that time to make changes to the land uses. He responded it would not be too late.

Comm. Babcock asked the maker whether it could be required to look at other plaza locations. Comm. Satterlee responded that the action is only a recommendation to the City Council and cannot impose a requirement.

Vice Chair Simons asked the maker to add the consideration of other routes for the light rail in Sunnyvale, such as Pastoria or Sunnyvale Avenue and provide a study on the impacts to existing conditions and future development of the proposed routes. Comm. Satterlee asked staff for clarification. Mr. Paternoster responded that this was considered at the last study issue workshop and this is a huge study and rather expensive. He added that they could ask the City Council to consider this study at the next study issue workshop. Vice Chair Simons recommended the Council consider it high. Comm. Satterlee commented that this should be added to the list of study issues to be considered next year and that it should not be a part of the Plan.

Vice Chair Simons commented that Downtown Urban Design Plan is an update of an existing Plan. He expressed his concerns about the change from suburban to urban and that to have walkable downtown streets, it has to be an urban downtown and a suburban downtown would not have walkable streets. He supported the motion; however, with reservation.

Comm. Babcock commented that the Plan is both scary and exciting. She said that it is terrifying to see a small town grow but in order to be viable it has to grow and change. She added that it is now the time to change, how far, depends on the community. She further added that it is vital to have community input and that they should be kept apprised of the progress.

Comm. Chu concurred with Comm. Babcock that it is scary and exciting. He expressed his concerns about affordability of housing and with the changes being contemplated and that some uses may not appropriate. He was also concerned about the proposed residential units on a parking structure that it may not work. He concluded that the City and the region have housing issues to deal with.

Chair Brown supported the motion and concurred her fellow commissioners' concerns.