Title
Study Session Summary of March 3, 2015 - Discussion of General Plan Amendment, Proposed Watt Companies Project and Sense of Place Plan in East Sunnyvale ITR Area
Summary
Call to Order:
Mayor Jim Griffith called the Study Session to order at 6 p.m.
City Councilmembers Present:
Mayor Jim Griffith
Vice Mayor Tara Martin-Milius
Councilmember David Whittum
Councilmember Pat Meyering
Councilmember Jim Davis
Councilmember Glenn Hendricks
Councilmember Gustav Larsson
City Councilmembers Absent:
None.
Study Session Summary:
Director of Community Development Hanson Hom provided a slide presentation on the subject, including a brief background, General Plan policies, fiscal analysis, project details, EIR status, hazardous materials mitigation, traffic analysis, park dedication, Sense of Place plan, outreach efforts, and project schedule.
Questions and comments were provided by Council.
-Staff should clarify why a four-acre park could not be studied or accepted for the site.
-How are school impacts to be studied?
-Would the private park be publically accessible and what facilities could be accessed? Staff affirmed that the park area would be accessible to the public but it was yet to be determined what facilities within this area would be available for general public use.
-How would the proposed park interface with Swegles Park? Staff noted wider sidewalks at this location, and the design would be complementary.
-Attention could be given to the height of the new development with respect to nearby single family development.
-Provide information regarding mitigation and monitoring of vapor issues at a particular location, including individual residences
-Historical use of gas station at the corner parcel was discussed.
-The proposed green bike lanes and cost of long-term maintenance were raised.
-Why would the Sense of Place fees be higher than previous fees and would the fees be a fair share?
-Concerns were noted regarding prolonging the condition of the existing vacant buildings.
-The amount of parkland is inadequate and that this could be an opportunity to get a larger park.
-Connection to Fair Oaks Park and East Channel Trail is desired.
-Will there be a stoplight at E. Duane Avenue and San Miguel Avenue? Staff noted that this is being analyzed.
-Would existing development pay SOP fees? Staff noted that they had already paid a fee, and it was not possible to collect any additional fees.
-Would this be the first project to use tandem parking under the new ordinance?
-Policies for park standards need to be studied first before determining appropriateness of park dedication.
-Ideally, the park would be situated toward the southeast corner (opposite of Swegles Park. Conversely, it was also stated that the location could be selected to better serve the San Miguel neighborhood.
-Clarification of the minimum allowable density was requested. Staff confirmed that the project at 18.4 d.u./acre is slightly over the policy that recommends 75% of the allowable density.
-Is there parking proposed for the public park? Staff responded that this will be considered but it is unlikely given the size of the park.
-Clarified the design is for "attached" townhouses.
-Questions why most developers decide to pay the fee, rather than provide parkland, given that the rate is intended to be set as a 50-50 proposition.
-This area is considered a high priority area for a park.
Members of the public (including three Planning Commissioners) offered the following comments:
-Attention should be given to lighting design in the Sense of Place Plan
-If parking is needed for the park, it should not be along E. Duane Ave.
-Roundabouts should be considered as a way to improve safety.
-An emphasis on the preservation of mature trees should be included in the Sense of Place Plan.
-The heights of buildings along E. Duane Ave. are critical and should maintain the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
-Slides describing unsafe conditions along E. Duane Avenue were presented with commentary on the desire to eliminate parking along E. Duane, especially along the north side.
-Max Frank, project applicant (Watt), noted that earlier designs included a larger park; however direction was given early on that such a design would not be supported, due to existing park standards. A question to the applicant included the amount of building area of the current site and breakdown of office and manufacturing area. A response was that the existing facility was split approximately 50-50 amongst these uses. Clarification was also provided regarding the adequacy of fire access in the new proposal. The applicant explained the responsibility of AMD for the cleanup and the purpose/process of the PPA (Prospective Purchaser Agreement). The applicant further clarified that the BMR units would likely have a price point of approximately 350K.
Adjournment:
Mayor Griffith adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.