RESPONSE TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS RE: 3/22/22 AGENDA
Agenda Item 7: Action on the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Including: Determination of the Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and an Associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); Adoption of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan; Adoption of General Plan Amendments to Create New General Plan Land Use Designations and Change the General Plan Land Use Diagram from Light Industrial to Various Residential Designations; Waive First Reading and Introduce an Ordinance to Add a New Chapter 18.27 to the Zoning Code to Create Zoning Regulations for the Patrick Henry Drive Area Specific Plan and Rezoning of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Area
1. How can we ensure that internet infrastructure is provided such that every residential unit can be served with at least 200 Mb/s of download speeds?
Response: Following standard City practice, conduits for telecom will be provided in the streets to support new development. However, the number of conduits and who will use them (and provide a certain level of internet service) is driven by the developer and their coordination with utility companies. Because these streets will have pavement treatment all developer infrastructures will be installed before they pave.
2. How can we ensure that there will be robust infrastructure to support cellular data including 5G? Response: The Patrick Henry streetlights will be designed to accommodate a dedicated 5G/fiber conduit for future use.
3. Are there requirements for TDM plans and funding review of them? Response: Yes, the Specific Plan requires new development to provide TDM Plans. TDM Plan review is a Citywide Policy issue due to need for staffing, etc. The City will issue an RFP shortly to receive proposals from consultants to administer TDM compliance. That RFP will provide costs of providing this service which will inform the creation of new fees at the Building Permit stage and for the City’s review of annual compliance. Such new fees, if adopted are proposed to be applicable citywide, including PHD.
4. I know that Costco is installing a Roundabout and that Stanford has installed many. We’re these considered in this plan?
Response: Yes, roundabouts were considered for new and existing intersections in the plan area. However, due to traffic levels, queuing impacts, right of way/property constraints, and compatibility issues with the proposed Class IV bikeway on Patrick Henry Drive, the plan proposes traditional traffic signals and stop signs to manage traffic (bike, peds, and vehicles) instead of roundabouts.
5. San Jose has plans for over 60 Urban Villages. I would like for this SAP to serve as an urban village. Do we have the same requirements and level of commercial, employment and residential as San Jose has for its Urban Villages?
Response: No. The proposed Specific Plan is intended to implement the Goals and Policies in the City of Santa Clara General Plan, consistent with the direction provided by the City Council over the past 4 years as the Specific Plan was developed. The City of San Jose establishes unique employment and residential requirements for each of the Urban Villages identified in their General Plan, depending upon the specific characteristics of each Urban Village area. The goals are in place before San Jose commences the preparation of an Urban Village Plan for a particular Urban Village. Similarly, the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan was prepared to implement the Goals and Objectives set forth in the City’s General Plan and as reviewed by the City Council at key check-ins during preparation of the Specific Plan. The Patrick Hendry Drive Specific Plan supports new commercial development and requires commercial frontage along the “Main Street” envisioned in the Plan, but the intent is to develop a new residential neighborhood in an area that has a high degree of nearby commercial services and employment 2 opportunities, while providing additional services and amenities within the new neighborhood to support future residents of that neighborhood.
6. What incentives are there for installing rooftop gardens and private open space on rooftops? Response: The Plan is intended to be consistent with the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance which establishes a mechanism for new development to receive credit toward fulfillment of the Ordinance obligations through qualifying private open space areas, as well as the publicly accessible parklands identified in the Specific Plan. Accordingly, rooftop gardens may be considered under the 50% credit for private recreational amenities against the park in lieu fees due.
7. The EIR says 15% at 80% AMI but I prefer the 5% at 50%, 5% at 80% and 5% at 120%. Is there a conflict with the EIR?
Response: No, this change will not result in any new environmental impacts that weren’t addressed in the EIR.
8. I think for 26,000 people it is imperative to have a grocery store like a Sprouts or Trader Joes. I don’t see any commitment to that here.
Response: The Plan supports commercial development with sufficient square footage available to allow the development of a grocery store within the Plan area. The development and operation of a grocery store depends upon the private sector making a market-based decision. As previously discussed, the developer of the adjacent Kylli Mission Point project has indicated their intent to include a new grocery store within that development that could help to meet the demand for groceries in this area.
9. I would like a list of proposed amenities at the various parks – basketball, volleyball, play structures, dog parks, tennis with pickleball striping, etc.
Background
Park Concept Proposals –Staff Level Review.
The Parks & Recreation Department staff reviews each residential housing development application and proposal for conformance with the provisions of Santa Clara City Code 17.35. This assures that a variety of parks and recreational amenities will be provided within each dedicated public park space, and appropriate credit is given for on-site private recreational amenities to serve the greatest number of residents and diversity of indoor and outdoor, organized group and informal/individual recreational interests across the Specific Area’s park system as a whole.
Specific attention is paid to the size, shape, and location of the park, and within it, appropriately sized amenities and features to serve a desired capacity. Principles include research based best practices, health & wellness, inclusion, sustainability, and support of natural habitats, shade, weather. Trends and use patterns, compatibility of amenities, lifecycle operation, and maintenance costs are also considered for various amenities. Where there are multiple park parcels to be dedicated by different developers at different times, the park design(s) also must have a cohesive integrity such that they can be constructed at different times, by different developers, but still provide immediate service, while ultimately fitting together.
Public Design Process.
The Parks & Recreation Department staff work with the developer to propose an initial/feasible Conceptual Site Plan that will progress through the public design review process inclusive of a community survey, public input and the Parks & Recreation Commission review, refinement, and recommendation to City Council for final approval.
As of March 2022, none of the residential developers have initiated a development proposal or public park design process, therefore the following is subject to revision.
3 Patrick Henry Drive Public Parks & Desirable Amenities List. 1) Central Neighborhood Park (two parcels): (a) Community Center includes program spaces to accommodate: library, community/classroom, activity spaces for seniors and youth, full size multi- purpose gymnasium for indoor sports and fitness, staff offices, restrooms, custodial and storage; (b) underground public parking; (c) park site includes low water use landscaping, perimeter shade trees, small indoor/outdoor amphitheater space adjacent to Center, pathways, bench seating, wayfinding signage; (d) slow street frontage..
2) South Mini-Park (two parcels): (a) Visual Arts Center accommodates program spaces for: studio, classroom, temporary exhibits, restroom, storage office, circulation; (b) Art Walk linear space adjacent to building for outdoor sculpture garden, class space, temporary exhibit/activities; (c) right of way or additional landscaped space to include pathway, wayfinding, shade trees and park benches, specimen trees.
3) Creek Trail head (one parcel): (a) bike and pedestrian trail access, wayfinding/interpretation, bike/ped supporting amenities such as bike service and water fountain. 4) Creekside Neighborhood Park (two parcels): (a) bocce court, restroom, landscaping, access to adjacent development parking/restroom; (b) playground, meadow, multiuse sport court (TBD), picnic tables with game tops, possible trail connect.
5) Southeast Neighborhood Park (two parcels): (a) playground with active play features, picnic tables, park benches, landscaping, (b) individual restroom. 6) North Central Neighborhood Park (three parcels): (a) off leash dog park 1 acre; definable setback & screening, water feature; (b) meandering pathways, arboretum, classic greenhouse/community garden; (c) playground with varying topography; (d) slow street frontage. 7) North East Mini Park (gateway parcel): trail related open space and entry statement
10. Is birdsafe design incorporated here?
Response: This is potential City Council direction. The EIR did not identify a potentially significant impact related to bird strikes. In the case of the Tasman East Specific Plan, the EIR did identify a potential impact associated with proximity to the Guadalupe River Corridor and subsequent development projects are conditioned to follow bird safe design standards based upon proximity to the Guadalupe River. Similar design measures could be implemented in Patrick Henry, but they are not warranted based upon the environmental analysis.
11. Can we get a commitment that landscaping will avoid invasive species on the Plant-Right list? Response: This is potential City Council direction. The Current Plan includes the following Policy: “5.4.1.7 Use climate-appropriate and native tree and plant species for landscaped areas to minimize maintenance and water requirements.” The “Plant-Right” list includes a prohibition of seven specific species (Pampas Grass, Green Fountain Grass, Mexican Feathergrass, Highway Iceplant, Periwinkle, Yellow Flag Iris, and Water Hyacinth). We could identify these as specific landscape materials that are not allowed in the Specific Plan.
12. Parking ratios are really low. Can we get commitments for a number of zip-cars in the project? Response: This is potential City Council direction. We could require parking spaces for rideshare programs, but not specify a particular company.
13. Secure bike parking rooms should have card key access, security cameras, bike repair stations and electrical outlets
Response: This is potential City Council direction. The first three items are typically provided by private developers. Bicycle room electrical outlets have also been provided by developers for some recent projects and could be added as a requirement.
14. Are there any LEED equivalent targets in the plan?
Response: The Green Building Code and Citywide Reach Code have mostly implemented measures previously promoted under LEED or similar programs.
4 15. Will all developments be subject to our Reach Codes ? Response: Yes.
16. Is there any way to ban gas powered landscaping equipment in the project? I know a statewide ban is coming. There should be outlets for electrical landscaping equipment.
Response: This not considered a Specific Plan land use issue and more appropriately addressed Citywide.
17. Can we implement a 0.3% public art fee which is much lower than surrounding cities but better than nothing?
Response: This is potential City Council direction. It should be noted that the Specific Plan includes a new community room/visual arts center and an outdoor art park area.