Diana O'Dell, Project Planner, presented the staff report. She gave a brief summary of the study noting that the City Council certified an EIR and adopted general plan amendments to the downtown area to incorporate revised land uses, intensities and building heights. The action was the result of a two-year process of working with the community to update the vision for the future downtown. She noted that actions for the evening are the last steps in the process to update the land uses and development standards in the downtown area. She further noted that the purpose of the specific plan is to provide more specific directions about public and private improvements, including goals and policies, building design guidelines and infrastructure improvements. The zoning code has been updated to reflect permitted land uses and applicable land uses. She reported that two outreach meetings were held in August and staff received helpful comments from the public, which have been incorporated in the specific plan. She reported that staff received letters from lawyers (representing one of the property owners within the specific plan area of the downtown) expressing concerns about the concept of establishing the street grid on McKinley and whether the action was adequately addressed in the Downtown EIR. Ms. O'Dell addressed this issue stating that the EIR is a Program level document, which is intended to cover broader actions, and does not typically cover site specific review. She noted the traffic analysis included intersection analysis on all major access points into Block 18. She added that the re-introduction of the street grid was discussed as "where feasible" and "when possible" but is not a mandated action in the specific plan. Further, she noted that for any future projects in Block 18, an individual traffic analysis will be required to analyze the impacts of the circulation within the Block and this level of detail is not covered in the Program Level EIR. Staff noted the Finding the Planning Commission must make is that the amendments are in the public interest. Staff recommended Alternative 1 to recommend approving the Downtown Specific Plan Amendments and Zoning Code Amendments to City Council.
Vice Chair Moylan asked staff whether, in staff determination, the Program EIR is adequately covers the issue. Staff responded yes.
Further, he asked staff what would be the recourse of any member of the public who believes that the EIR is inadequate. Senior Assistant City Attorney Borger responded that the public can make comments whether the EIR is adequate or not and the hearing body could consider the testimony. If the City Council determined that the EIR is adequate after hearing the public comments, the decision could be challenged in a lawsuit.
Vice Chair Moylan asked staff whether the latest Downtown Specific Plan document is in its final form. Staff responded yes.
Comm. Simons asked staff if it is appropriate to specify that the architectural design details, pedestrian space and landscaping in the Downtown Specific Plan conform with the latest VTA pedestrian design guidelines. Ms. Ryan responded that a number of references in the Plan are consistent with the VTA standards and noted specific references for bicycle parking. She noted that the Planning Commission could consider and recommend staff to incorporate additional language in the Plan.
Comm. Simons asked staff if the Planning Commission could recommend land use changes to City Council. Ms. Ryan responded that Planning Commission could make comments but could not incorporate those changes in the actions before them this evening. She noted that the Commission could make a separate motion suggesting modification to the General Plan intensity, density or heights. However, could not recommend on site plans, architectural details and other features which are not included in the specific plan.
Chair Babcock asked staff why hotels were not permitted as noted in the charts in the draft Downtown Specific Plan. Ms. Ryan responded that the intent is to follow the actions recommended as part of the design plan approved at a conceptual level in 2002. She added that should a hotel be desired in downtown, it could be considered but is not listed as a land use that is being sought for the downtown. Diana O'Dell read the code amendments where there are certain blocks where hotels are prohibited in keeping with the intent of the plan.
Comm. Swegles noted that he did not see increased parking as previously discussed. Staff directed Comm. Swegles to the specific page and noted the residential standards commenting that they are included in both the specific plan and zoning code.
Comm. Swegles further asked if the retail parking requirement was increased to plan for success. Ms. Ryan responded that the minimum parking requirement in the specific plan is prudent and that it is difficult to compare downtown with El Camino Real such as there are different patterns of use. She noted that for a specific development, there is an opportunity to ask for additional parking.
Ms. Ryan noted the downtown specific plan is in draft form and if the Commission feels that there is something in the draft plan that should be modified, this is the time to make a recommendation.
Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.
Scott Castro, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, LLP, representing Harvest SV/PEN, noted that their client had not received any noticing information prior to the last hearing. He expressed appreciation in receiving recent documents and public hearing notices. He also noted that his client was appreciative of continuing the General Plan Amendment application of The Forum Group. He expressed his client's principal concerns were the establishment of the street grid, which threatens the property interest of his client. He noted, however, that his clients has no desire to slow down the changes needed in the downtown but rather agrees that changes are needed. He noted the following requests: 1) some change to the proposed Specific Plan that McKinley will not be extended (to avoid conflict with SV/PEN's property) and 2) that a traffic study be conducted related to any extension of McKinley that has not been discussed in the General Plan stage. He appreciated staff comments in addressing the CEQA concerns regarding traffic and circulation. However, he would like further discussion of how traffic, circulation as well as design requirements for existing properties in the downtown will be addressed.
Ms. Ryan addressed the design features for existing properties stating that it is the city's normal practice that unless there is an application for a modification, the city does not require modification to existing buildings to be consistent with the current standards. She added that there is a certain reasonableness that are considered for each application. However, a caveat is if the existing building is subject of another application with major changes being planned that staff may explore modification to existing building to meet current standards.
Further, Ms. Ryan noted that credit need to be given to the members of the community who expressed their desire to re-establish the street grid. The street grid concept originated from public comment and the plan proposed by Forum Group is in response to that desire of the public.
Comm. Simons asked for clarification about the legal issues expressed by some property owners. Ms. Ryan responded that any modification to the specific plan or zoning will affect property owners. Therefore, it is one of the reasons property owners are notified about these modifications to have the opportunity to speak on the changes. She noted that it is the City's authority to make those types of changes after considering public testimonies. She added that conversations between property owners, is not pertinent to the decision making.
Comm. Simons asked for clarification of the Commission's responsibility if legal issues have been raised. Ms. Ryan responded that the responsibility of the Commission is to clarify with staff whether the issues raised were addressed and to make a decision.
Comm. Simons stated that he feels that the issues expressed earlier only apply to the application by the Forum Group. Ms. Ryan clarified that there three applications - 1) the Downtown Specific Plan which is for the entire 19 Blocks of the Downtown which also includes the zoning which are now before the Planning Commission. 2) The first item on the agenda, which was continued indefinitely, is a General Plan Amendment application for Block 18 for which Mr. Castro represents one of the property owners. 3) A Special Development Permit for Block 18; however, it is an incomplete application and that no public hearing has been scheduled. She noted that the speaker's comments related to the Specific Plan as well as the development permit.
Comm. Lee asked Mr. Scott when his client purchased the property that JC Penney used to occupy. Further, Comm. Lee confirmed whether the issue at hand is if McKinley is extended, the property would be affected. Mr. Scott responded that his client purchased the building in April and that extension of McKinley is one of the potential concerns but there are other concerns such as the general plan amendment and the Forum Group's development intent and felt that there a lot of unknowns at this time.
Comm. Lee further asked if his client has any specific plans. Mr. Scott responded that his clients have considered several plans. However, there is currently a bankruptcy proceeding affecting the area, but his clients are concerned that their plans may be curtailed based on the decision of the Planning Commission.
Comm. Swegles clarified with staff that the plans presented in the September 22, 2003 study session are not currently before the Commission. Ms. Ryan responded that the plans reviewed at the study session are the special development permit of the Forum Group that is not complete. She noted that the item before the Commission is more general which gives the criteria for future applications to be reviewed against. She pointed out that the letter from Mr. Castro included a copy of the references to the street grid that staff prepared and noted that it is not a mandate but rather where possible and feasible.
Comm. Swegles commented that Attachment D, page 5 of 17 appears that McKinley has been extended all the way through. Ms. Ryan responded that the graphics was intended to show building heights only and did not show any streets internal to Block 18.
Art Schwartz, resident, sympathized with Harvest SV/PEN. He stated that it is essential to return the street grid. He added that if JC Penney building is not torn down, it will not be a viable downtown. He also noted that while he does not agree with the Forum Group's plans, the plans have become closer to what is acceptable but going the opposite direction would be bad for the City and the economy. He also added that the approved plan calls for 200 housing units and 202,000 square feet of commercial but the Forum Group is requesting an increase to 300 housing units and 300,000 square feet of commercial. He urged the Commission to reduce the overall intensity of the downtown. In conclusion, he stated that he is in support of the Downtown Specific Plan and associated zoning code requirements that is before the Commission and he hoped to have this plan maintained as previously approved.
Paul Reed, President of Friends of Sunnyvale, stated that the original plan of the Friends of Sunnyvale was to take down the JC Penney building and to re-construct the street grid to have a downtown look like a downtown and not a mall. He further stated that it is essential to re-establish as much as street grid as possible to achieve a viable downtown.
Comm. Lee asked Mr. Reed to clarify the position of the Friends of Sunnyvale. Mr. Reed responded the Friends of Sunnyvale support the street grid re-establishment and if no amicable decision is made, he urged that the Redevelopment Agency to take the property through eminent domain. He further explained that this was one of the few uses of eminent domain that they are in favor of.
Melinda Hamilton, resident and formerly president of the Friends of Sunnyvale, concurred with Mr. Reed and supported the desire of the Friends of Sunnyvale. She expressed her concerns about increasing the intensity on Block 18. She suggested not increasing the density downtown.
Vice Chair Moylan clarified that item 1 on the General Plan Amendment for Block 18 was continued indefinitely earlier. Ms. Hamilton stated that she understands that the earlier application was continued. She clarified her position that the end result is not to increase the density in downtown.
Ms. Ryan clarified that the item before the Commission does not provide an opportunity to change the fundamental land uses that were adopted in June. However, the Commission could recommend less than the General Plan but staff is not recommending this action as this will not affected property owners the opportunity to speak on the amendments.
Chair Babcock confirmed with Ms. Ryan that the Draft Downtown Specific Plan indicates up to 200 housing units on Block 18. Ms. Ryan said yes and that the approved Downtown Specific Plan calls for a maximum 200 housing units on Block 18.
Ms. Hamilton further noted that housing units on Block 1A are at 450 housing units which is before the Commission. Ms. Ryan responded that the housing units have been approved by Council in June and that it is not appropriate for the Commission to make such changes. However, if the Commission feels strongly about this issue, she suggested asking the Council to consider it in a future action.
Comm. Simons then commented that any re-allocation is not within the purview of the Planning Commission between blocks but within a block would be appropriate. Ms. Ryan emphasized that the public hearing is not set up to change the general plan land use designations approved in June as property owners were not anticipating those changes and were not present to comment. Ms. Ryan stated that the Commission could ask the City Council to open the General Plan Designation for other properties but a specific recommendation for modifying the General Plan were not appropriate this evening.
Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.
Comm. Simons asked staff for directions on how best to integrate the two VTA design guidelines within the Specific Plan. Ms. Ryan recommended making a general recommendation that references for substantial conformance with the VTA guidelines be included and staff find the appropriate locations.