|
Robert Paternoster, Director of Community Development, presented the staff report.
Councilmember Hamilton asked if there is another use for the theatre building should the cinema close down for any reason. Director Paternoster stated he believed it could be reused in a number of different ways, but suggested that question be asked of the developer.
Councilmember Hamilton asked why the proposed townhomes along Iowa Avenue are twice as high as across the street where the zoning height limit is set at 30 feet. Director Paternoster stated the height has not changed from the previous developer’s plan as the housing units were also 63 feet high. He stated the height difference will be obvious and staff plans to work with the developer to have the units set-back (so as not to be a solid wall). Director Paternoster stated this area will need good design work.
Councilmember Hamilton inquired about the location of the eight additional townhomes (for a total of 26 townhomes). Director Paternoster stated the additional townhomes would not increase the 292 total housing units and that the additional eight would occupy what is currently open space.
Councilmember Howe disclosed that he met with City Staff, the developer, representatives of the developer, and many citizens about this project.
Councilmember Howe asked staff to explain the difference between what City staff and the Planning Commission are recommending for Planning Commission (PC) Condition S.2.a. Director Paternoster stated the Planning Commission wished to delete condition S.2.a. (Site Design), because they believed the view corridor requirement would reduce the amount of retail available. Whereas, staff’s design advisors and the developer’s design team believe this condition would be beneficial to the area. The Murphy Avenue extension would be the same width (same tree lines, etc.) as the 100 block of Murphy, and would create a continuous view corridor to the theatre marquee at the other end.
Councilmember Chu disclosed that he has talked to numerous members of the public about the proposed mall.
Councilmember Chu asked staff how the building heights along Mathilda and Washington compare to those proposed by the previous developer (Forum Development Group). Steve Lynch, Senior Planner, stated at the southern half of Mathilda, the height has been reduced from 75 feet to approximately 52 feet (with the exception of the two northern office buildings which remain at 75 feet as proposed by Forum). Along Washington Avenue, the height is similar to the previous developer’s plan, with the exception of a one-level increase (about 55 feet as opposed to 45 feet previously) to the parking structure at Washington and Sunnyvale Avenues.
Vice Mayor Spitaleri disclosed he met with the developer at various public forums, and has talked with the public about the Downtown on a regular basis.
Councilmember Hamilton stated she attended an outreach meeting on the Downtown at the Sunnyvale Senior Center, but she has not met privately with the developer.
Mayor Lee stated he has not met with the developer since the last vote Council made on this project; however, he has talked with the public about the Downtown.
Public Hearing Opened 7:56 p.m.
Peter Pau, applicant, introduced the project’s design team, Ken Rodrigues and David Schmitz, who gave a power-point presentation on the project. Mr. Rodrigues stated their plan is a true return to a Downtown street grid and Downtown retail/mixed use project. David Schmitz gave a presentation on the architecture and exterior design. He stated they are working on making this a functional, yet sustainable project.
Councilmember Hamilton asked if there is any plan to recreate historical elements from older Sunnyvale buildings into the project. Mr. Rodrigues stated he is aware that design element was part of the previous developer’s plan and they will be working with staff on this as part of their next step in the project.
Councilmember Hamilton inquired about possible uses for the movie theatre building, should it not be successful for any reason. She stated she certainly hopes the theatre is successful, but her concern is due to the size of the building. Mr. Rodrigues stated there are a lot of retail uses that could go into the space if needed. He stated he designs theatre spaces with flexibility in mind.
Councilmember Howe asked Mr. Rodrigues to comment on the preservation qualities of his plan for the trees at Redwood Square. Mr. Rodrigues stated they will hire an Arborist who will review the trees (along with the City Arborist) and make recommendations during construction and design. Preservation of trees is at the top of the landscape architects list of design elements.
Councilmember Chu asked the design team to comment on what façade improvements will be made to the Macy’s building since it will not be part of the demolition. David Schmitz stated they will design a new interior entry to Macy’s and will assist Macy’s with designing their other entry points into the store. Macy’s owns the building and although the developer can not tell them what to do, they do continue to bring suggestions to them.
Councilmember Chu inquired as to the number of parking spaces planned for underneath the Target store. Mr. Rodrigues stated there will be a little over 330 (below street grade level) parking spaces. Councilmember Chu confirmed with Director Paternoster that there will be over 330 at Target, plus 1,300 in the parking structure (fully underground).
Councilmember Hamilton suggested that murals or colorful architecture could be used as design features within the project.
Charles Wallin stated he is glad to see that the proposed street grid has been retained and improved. He stated his concerns over this project include building heights and high density, amount of retail space, traffic flow, and parking.
Peter Spielvogel suggested using the Santana Row project as a model for review. He stated having enough parking is an important consideration.
Tammy Salans expressed concerns over sustainability within this project.
Denise DeLange expressed concerns over the traffic plan, the amount of pedestrian access, and not having enough open space in the proposed plan. She stated she would like Council to insist the landscape plan include drip irrigation and native plants.
Margavethe Mundi expressed concerns over increased traffic on Olive Street and rodent problems at the mall. Ms. Mundi requested that Council address the rodent problem prior to the mall being demolished. Councilmember Hamilton stated there is an extermination plan in place. Director Paternoster confirmed the Demolition Development Construction Mitigation Plan requires that before the mall is demolished, extermination must be performed. Director Paternoster stated he believes the developer has already talked with exterminators about this issue. Extermination is the next step in the mall project and then the demolition.
Ray Johnson explained his concerns over the proposed project. He requested that Council consider delaying their decision, transfer this project to a future time, initiate the appraisal process so that the property may be purchased by the Redevelopment Agency, and initiate a competition to develop at least three new concepts for a commercial center in block 18. He stated that the re-design of this project needs to go through the full public review process (including periodic informal citizen meetings with the Council).
Suzi Blackman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce, stated that members of the Chamber support Sand Hill Properties and RREEF as the new developers of the Town Center Mall. She stated the Chamber urges the City and the developer to keep the project moving, but with as little disruption as possible to the surrounding businesses.
Anne Dugan urged Council to delay approval of this project. She stated that there are still many unanswered questions such as inadequate parking, traffic congestion, and the size of buildings. Answers to these questions are critical to the success of this project.
Joe Antuzzi expressed concerns over unanswered questions such as parking and density.
Arthur Schwartz stated concerns over height limits and density. He offered suggestions for the project such as reducing the theatres from 14 to 12 (allowing the theatre to be located back from Sunnyvale Avenue), and to designate one theater for live entertainment. He stated he would like more grass in the Plaza.
Emily Poon suggested that native plants be used at this project, and that a police substation be included in this plan. She stated concerns over the noise level of the air conditioning units affecting the neighborhood that surrounds this project. She suggested the use of shuttles to alleviate any parking issues.
Bob Kunz stated his support of this project and encouraged Council to move forward quickly with limited disruption to the nearby businesses.
Peter Pau thanked the City Manager, City Attorney, and City staff for their outstanding performance on this project. He also thanked City Council for all their efforts.
Mr. Pau stated of the fifteen conditions that the Planning Commission added there are two PC Conditions (1 and 10) that are troublesome because they deal with the Macy’s site. Condition 1 states that the north facing door of the Macy’s building shall be retained. This is a problem since Macy’s owns the building; therefore, the developer is not in a position to comply with this condition. Condition 10 suggests widening the sidewalk on Washington Avenue from six feet to ten feet wide. Mr. Pau stated this is not physically possible and he asked that Council have these two conditions removed.
Mr. Pau explained that a portion of PC Condition 4 requests that the building on the northeast corner of Murphy and McKinley be set-back to provide a view of the theatre marquee. He stated that this may be a problem, because there is a tenant committed for the corner building.
Mr. Pau stated he wished to address the citizen concerns that have been made. Mr. Pau assured Council and the public that the right amount of parking is very important to the developer because additional parking may not be added after the project is complete. The theatre has a lease on the space, which has been recorded against the property, so there is nothing that can change at that location.
Councilmember Hamilton inquired about the ability to add additional open space to the project. Mr. Pau stated there is not a lot of open space available, but they are attempting to find every possible way to add open space if possible.
Councilmember Hamilton stated previously there had been discussion to step the building heights up toward the middle of the project. She asked Mr. Pau about having set-backs on the exterior streets. Mr. Pau explained the overall height of the project in the two office buildings on Mathilda will be high points; around Redwood Plaza will be two-story buildings, and the retail spaces will be one to two levels. He stated there are height restrictions within the Downtown Specific Plan and this project’s height does not come close to those limits in most cases. Councilmember Hamilton stated her concern was over Block 2 where across the street there are two-story homes. Mr. Pau stated Mathilda was selected as the area for placement of tall buildings due to the street width.
Councilmember Howe confirmed with Mr. Pau that his concern over PC Condition 4 is in regard to the parameters (which are not identified) of any set-back. Mr. Pau stated they would be able to do minor changes. Councilmember Howe asked staff for clarification on this condition. Director Paternoster stated that the condition is to “consider” the set-back, which means to have a process that determines the feasibility of the request.
Councilmember Howe asked who has the ability to make the decision on conditions and Director Paternoster stated the Director of Community Development has the initial decision and then the Planning Commission will also have an opportunity to weigh in on the decision. Director Paternoster stated that when a condition is a requirement, changes may not be made. Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, added that there were a number of areas in which the Planning Commission did not want to make a specific requirement; rather their intention was to provide a design direction for the applicant. Officer Ryan stated PC Condition 4 was supported by the Planning Commission because it was not binding. Should the condition not work, the developer can explain this to the Planning Commission when the project returns to them. Director Paternoster added that PC Condition 10 is another design direction listed as “to consider”.
Councilmember Howe asked Mr. Pau if he was satisfied with staff’s explanation of what “consider” means with respect to Planning Commission Conditions 4 and 10. Mr. Pau stated that in order to have a direct view of the theatre marquee, the City would have to straighten out Murphy Street as it angles off to the west. He said adjusting set-backs will still not achieve the direct view of the theatre marquee; a direct view is not possible.
Vice Mayor Spitaleri inquired if it was accurate that the developer would not be able to proceed on the project unless Macy’s agrees. Director Paternoster stated Macy’s and Target are property owners, and what Council approves this evening applies to all property owners on the site.
Director Paternoster stated if the PC Condition 10 was deleted, staff believes they could administer the intent of the Planning Commission without this condition.
Mayor Lee asked if there had been any discussion on green roof placement. Mr. Pau stated they are looking at areas where a green roof could possibly be implemented.
Mayor Lee asked Mr. Pau if there is any type of parking electronics being proposed that would assist customers in finding parking spaces and help to even out the parking locations. Mr. Pau stated there are approximately 5,700 parking spaces that are split between the four parking structures and the Target parking lot. He stated there are thirteen or fourteen access points from City streets. His team is working on different systems. One idea would be to allow visitors to enter at any access point at which point they would be directed to one of the parking garages that had available parking. Once a customer reaches that garage, information would be displayed as to number of parking stalls available on each level. This is not an entirely accurate system, but overall would identify the parking levels with available parking spaces. Mr. Pau stated this type of system is a City requirement, identified by the Community Development Director, to assist in lessening the frustration level of those attempting to park.
Mr. Pau explained that Macy’s has requested that his team prove that a potential customer will be able to find their way to the store from any point. In order to fulfill Macy’s request, numerous studies will need to occur on items such as traffic patterns, turning movements, intersections, lane configurations, and number of turns. Mr. Pau stated the plan will be further refined. At the time his team has a final plan, the traffic circulation and parking will have been studied very well.
Officer Ryan stated that a correction to the Planning Commission items was passed out to Council and she would like to make sure it is listed for the record. A correction was made to Planning Commission Condition 14, which should read, “Medical office uses in excess of 10% is subject…” (not 40%).
Public Hearing Closed 9:16 p.m.
Councilmember Hamilton asked what the rationale was behind requiring parallel parking versus angled parking. Director Paternoster explained that according to Traffic Engineers and statistics, angled parking is not as safe as parallel parking. Angled parking is better suited for a small town center. Additionally, research has shown that pedestrians feel safer walking next to parked cars because they are further away from traveling vehicles.
Mayor Lee reopened the Public Hearing at 9:19 p.m. to hear comments from the applicant about the correction to PC Condition 14. Mr. Pau asked for clarification and Director Paternoster stated that anything over 10% in medical office use would require that the developer return to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pau confirmed with Director Paternoster that the DDOPA agreement is still accurate.
Public Hearing Closed 9:20 p.m.
MOTION: Councilmember Howe moved and Vice Mayor Spitaleri seconded to approve Alternative No. 1:
Council approves the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map with modified conditions:
- Remove PC 1
- Remove PC 4 (as noted in the staff report)
- Remove PC 10
- PC S.2.a. –(correction to 2nd sentence in condition only)
Per the applicant because Murphy Avenue has an angle to it, a continuous view corridor to the theatre marquee is not possible. This part of Condition S.2.a. shall be corrected and/or approved by Director of Community Development and the project shall not be unreasonably withheld by this condition.
- PC 14 (as modified by staff memo distributed this evening) from 40% to 10%
- Confirms recommended findings:
1. Proposed use attains the objectives and purposes of the General Plan of the City of Sunnyvale and the project meets the goals and policies of the General Plan.
2. The proposed use ensures that the general appearance of proposed structures, or the uses to be made of the property to which the application refers, will not impair either the orderly development of, or the existing uses being made of, adjacent properties through its mix of permitted uses, provisions for additional permits for sensitive uses, architectural design, supply of parking, and investments in street frontage improvements and traffic signals. The proposal, as conditioned, minimizes development impact on the surrounding properties and allows development complementary to Sunnyvale Downtown goals and image. The redevelopment of the vacant commercial center will in fact be a positive benefit to surrounding uses and improve the general appearance and form of Block 18.
Councilmember Hamilton offered a friendly amendment to revise PC Condition 2 to exempt the areas along Iowa and Sunnyvale Avenues (where residential units are directly across the street from the project) from additional height increases for architectural features.
Friendly amendment accepted.
Mayor Lee offered a friendly amendment to add a condition to consider green roof placement on the roof areas as appropriate.
Friendly amendment accepted.
Restated Motion:
MOTION: Councilmember Howe moved and Vice Mayor Spitaleri seconded to approve Alternative No. 1:
Council approves the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map with modified conditions:
- Remove PC 1
- Remove PC 4 (as noted in the staff report)
- Amend PC 2 to include: Exemption: Areas along Iowa and Sunnyvale Avenues (where there is residential directly across the street from the project) from additional height increases for architectural features
- Remove PC 10
- Add an additional condition: PC 16. Consider green roof placement on the roof areas as appropriate
- PC S.2.a. –(correction to 2nd sentence in condition only)
Per the applicant because Murphy Avenue has an angle to it, a continuous view corridor to the theatre marquee is not possible. This part of Condition S.2.a. shall be corrected and/or approved by Director of Community Development and the project shall not be unreasonably withheld by this condition.
- PC 14 (as modified by staff memo distributed this evening) from 40% to 10%
- Confirms recommended findings:
1. Proposed use attains the objectives and purposes of the General Plan of the City of Sunnyvale and the project meets the goals and policies of the General Plan.
2. The proposed use ensures that the general appearance of proposed structures, or the uses to be made of the property to which the application refers, will not impair either the orderly development of, or the existing uses being made of, adjacent properties through its mix of permitted uses, provisions for additional permits for sensitive uses, architectural design, supply of parking, and investments in street frontage improvements and traffic signals. The proposal, as conditioned, minimizes development impact on the surrounding properties and allows development complementary to Sunnyvale Downtown goals and image. The redevelopment of the vacant commercial center will in fact be a positive benefit to surrounding uses and improve the general appearance and form of Block 18.
VOTE: 7-0
|