Attachment 18 - Summary of Comments from City Commissions and City Council Sustainability Commission, April 18, 2022
Kristina Pistone, Commissioner
• Will there be bike lanes along El Camino Real?
• Environmental Impact Report: If sites are being rezoned from commercial to mixed-use, are those impacts already considered as part of new developments? Gle
nn Hendricks, Councilmember
• Clarified that the discussion about converting on-street parking to protected bike lanes has been discussed publicly in the past. This topic is mentioned as a policy in the draft ECRSP. The ECRSP is not intended to outline the funding mechanism to convert on-street parking to bike lanes, but it is a part of the tool that the City can use to start the discussion process of gaining the right of way.
Murali
Srinivasan, Commissioner
• Clarifying question about what the base maximum density represents for residential mixed-use developments.
• Is the daylight plane requirement applied across the entire Plan Area? Does it take into consideration changes in the sun’s angle throughout the year? • Clarifying question about the mitigation of cumulative impacts to wastewater services. • Why is there so much difference between the Alternative R and Alternative R+ studied in the EIR? When increasing the number of residential units studied, where would we expect those units to be built? Would this mean higher building height or density? Just
in Wang, Commissioner
• The EIR identified that at project build-out, the city’s jobs:housing ratio would decrease from
1.36 to 1.23. When comparing the proposed project’s development potential to ABAG’s growth forecasts, it would seem that the City would surpass ABAG’s projections for 2035. • Why is the REI site proposed as commercial-only zoning? • Community benefits/incentives program: Is the list of incentives in the draft plan exhaustive or just an example? Consider parking cash-outs or car shares as an incentive. • Supportive of breaking down “superblocks” with new pedestrian connections. • Has the City thought about offsetting the WPCP capacity issue with district systems or on-site wastewater treatment?
• Recommends staff look into a recent federal grant that could potentially be used towards promoting green infrastructure elements in future developments. • Supportive of the fact that the risk of housing displacement is very low.
Doug
las Kunz, Vice Chair
• Greenhouse gas emissions would likely be increased, but can you explain the impacts some more? Is it just related to construction impacts?
• Regarding state laws for mitigating VMT, are transit passes included in the plan? Kristi
na Pistone, Commissioner
• Can we prioritize housing affordability as a part of the community benefits program? Attachment 18
Ton
ya Veitch, Commissioner
• Appreciative of staff for the thorough presentation of the draft plan. • Is there any consideration for helping small businesses and mom/pop shops? Kristel
Wickham, Chair
• What is the order of operations when accounting for multiple community benefits and density bonuses?
• Does the community benefits/incentive program consider more eco-friendly open space provisions vs. hardscaping?
• Parking in mixed-use development is typically hidden/located behind building frontages. Is this just trendy/fashionable, or is it a requirement?
• Are the proposed C-2 zoning changes applying to all C-2 properties in the City or only in the plan area? What are the primary changes?
• Impacts from greenhouse gas emissions seem to be significant and unavoidable, but maybe there could be additional mitigation for the construction itself or for the materials that are used?
Kristi
na Pistone, Commissioner
• There is nothing in the State that does not have a greenhouse gas impact. Is there any way the proposed project can have a net positive impact?
Gai
l Rubino, Member of the Public
• Sunnyvale’s per capita retail sales tax is higher than Mountain View’s and Palo Alto’s and Cupertino’s. What can be done to increase the per capita sales tax for the ECRSP Area? • Why not permit residential mixed use development on the entire corridor and let the property owners determine how to develop the property, rather than zoning only some of it commercial and some of it mixed-use?
Kristel
Wickham, Chair
• This plan is taking us in the right direction to help offset greenhouse gas emissions.
Gle
nn Hendricks, Councilmember
• Around 30% of the city’s retail sales tax base comes from El Camino Real. We are trying to preserve the ability to have commercial retail along the corridor. • Regarding the development examples that were presented, it would be nice to understand if the different density levels translate to number of stories. Consider adding the building height to the development examples.
• The draft plan doesn’t define any affordable housing standards other than density levels. • Consider an incentive point/density point category for full participation in the Silicon Valley Clean Energy program.
• Consider allocating more community benefit/incentive points for transit passes (VTA), for developments that are closer to transit.
Attachment 18
Housing and Human Services Commission, April 20, 2022
Sco
tt Duncan, Commissioner
• What is the maximum permitted density after all bonuses are applied? Could the maximum building height also conceivably increase?
Leesa
Riviere, Commissioner
• Are there any anticipated community partnerships for affordable housing? • How would build out of the ECRSP help the City get closer to reaching its housing goals? Ken
Hiremath, Commissioner
• Would increasing density through bonuses/incentives also increase maximum permitted height? Lin
da Sell, Vice Chair
• Is there a way to encourage more affordable housing?
• When a developer doesn’t build affordable housing, they put money into a fund. Would the City be able to partner with an agency to acquire properties with the intention of developing affordable housing?
Leesa
Riviere, Commissioner
• Would a mixed-use development have a different fiscal impact than one that is standalone commercial or residential?
• How is the feedback from the public incorporated into the final plan? Sco
tt Duncan, Commissioner
• If a developer wants to increase residential densities, how is the affordable housing requirement impacted?
Lind
a Sell, Vice Chair
• Would it be beneficial to have more/expanded mixed-use in more areas along the corridor? Jim D
avis, Commissioner
• Expressed concerns over how the draft plan rezones a lot of existing successful commercial sites for residential mixed-use.
Attachment 18
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission, April 21, 2022 Ari Fein
smith, Member of the Public
• Density bonus points for CalTrain go passes should be increased so they are economically viable for developers.
• Increase the total number of incentive points for the transportation category (transit passes and bike/pedestrian facilities). This should not be an “either/or” category because they are community amenities that go hand-in-hand.
• In the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), most of the projects that will be needed to alleviate congestion seem to be okay. Concerned about a few projects. o 1) Intersection 8 (Fair Oaks and El Camino Real), which would add a second left turn lane and would increase exposure to pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the street. o Benefits are marginal for drivers. 2) Intersection #15 (Mary and Central Expressway), which would reduce vehicle delays but just 1-2 seconds, which doesn’t seem like a good use of staff time for such small benefits. That energy and time would be much better spent focusing on bike lanes and infrastructure.
• Is it possible to add a study to the TIA that focuses on the potential impacts of adding protected bike lanes along El Camino Real?
Arwe
n Davé, Commissioner
• What does “street furniture” mean and what are some examples of street furniture? • Second Ari Feinsmith’s comments.
Tim
othy Oey, Commissioner
• How feasible would it be to account for Ari Feinsmith’s recommendations? • How feasible will providing bike facilities/lanes be? • Can ECRSP transportation impact fees be used to fund bike facilities? • Where would funding for a future Sense of Place plan come? Alex Bo
nne, Commissioner
• Suggestion: The Plan Area includes 350 acres. It would be useful in the breakdown of the zoning to include how many acres are devoted to each zone.
• Why can’t the Specific Plan allow multi-family residential to be permitted everywhere? • Is there a plan to connect the potential bike and pedestrian paths over time or will they serve as small local walking areas?
• Hopeful that providing bike lanes doesn’t require removing trees.
Richa
rd Mehlinger, Chair
• Expressed disappointment that circulation details weren’t discussed more in the presentation. • Very strongly recommends including a mid-block crossing along El Camino Real between Mary Avenue and Hollenbeck Avenue. This is a 1/3 mile segment and would benefit from breaking down.
• Does the ECRSP propose parking reductions?
• Would like to see slightly lowered vehicle parking minimums. • Would like to see higher minimum requirements for bike parking. One space for every 15 units is not high enough; it should be closer to some like one space for every three units. • Expressed support of Ari Feinsmith’s comments.
Attachment 18
• Skep
tical of cost benefit for LOS improvements at intersections. A priority of the plan needs to be reducing driving. Money should be prioritized for providing class IV bike lanes. • Class IV bike lanes on El Camino Real should require concrete and heavy duty bollards for protecting the lane; flex-post bollards will not suffice. That is especially the case with truck traffic on El Camino Real.
• Expressed disappointment that this presentation was handled as a study session rather than as a formally agendized item. There is no substitute for a motion laying out specific recommendations. In the future, should the BPAC be involved in reviewing plan like this in the future, it should be handled as a regular agendized item. • Expressed general support of the ECRSP.
Daniel
Hafeman, Commissioner
• Surprised that the ECRSP doesn’t require extending a bike lane from Santa Clara to Mountain View boundaries. Is there any work going on in Sunnyvale to get bike lanes on El Camino Real? • Expressed disappointment that we won’t expect to see a bike lane along El Camino Real for at least ten years. It is currently very dangerous to get around El Camino Real on a bike. Sunnyvale needs an active program to move this effort forward, even for properties that aren’t redeveloping yet. What can we do to get something like this started? Tim
othy Oey, Commissioner
• Bike locker storage is not only necessary for overnight/residents, but also in short-term situations. The ECRSP should prioritize requiring bike lockers (such as Bike Link). Are there any bike locker requirements in the draft plan for shorter-term parking? • Does Sunnyvale always default to VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines for bike parking, or does the Specific Plan specifically outline bike parking ratios? • Providing car parking is expensive, and it would be good to provide more funding/priority for bike parking.
Eliz
abeth Mehlman, Vice Chair
• Expressed concern with the fact that when on-street parking is initially removed, there is a delay in terms of when public “buy-in” of the use of that space shifts from auto- to bike-oriented (mention of the “incredible disappearing bike lanes”). How will people comment on the fact that there are places that you can’t park your cars but not focus on bike lane infrastructure? • The City should be encouraging developers to prioritize providing spaces for things like new/enhanced bus stops. Can we encourage VTA to permit the changes that we want to see someday?
• Are there opportunities to improve/update existing bus stop facilities? • Expressed concern over awarding density bonuses to developers for bike/pedestrian pathways.
How beneficial will the really be if the end point for a cyclist is an auto-oriented El Camino Real? • Does the ECRSP account for incentives to reduce the number of driveway access points? Reducing curb cuts and driveway access for site access should be incorporated into the design guidelines draft. Driveway reductions should be one of the primary circulation goals.
Richa
rd Mehlinger, Chair
• What is the proposed repaving schedule for El Camino Real? Attachment 18
Planning Commission, April 21, 2022
Zach
Kauffman, Member of the Public
Read from an email also sent to City staff:
• “Perhaps I overlooked it... What are the underlying assumptions of the Hexagon traffic analysis? For instance, did they assuming some level of mode shift to alternative transportation?” • “C.E.Q.A. requires the examination of greenhouse gas omissions. Yet what isn't examined in the E.I.R., is the increased omissions from new longer trips needed to make up for lost stores and services. For instance, the lands under Michaels and Dollar Tree are to be rezoned for redevelopment. The nearest Michael's is in Cupertino. The nearest Dollar Tree is in Santa Clara.
On page 1-6 of the E.I.R., it states, "ways in which the significant effects of the proposed project might be avoided or mitigated", yet identifying the impact wasn't performed and no anti displacement strategy was set forth for the new development. Simply allocating floor space for retail in new buildings is not an anti displacement strategy. What goes in might not be reflective of what was there pre-redevelopment. Consequently, people may find themselves compelled to drive significantly more, exacerbating traffic and greenhouse gas emissions which the analysis is wanting on.”
• “Perhaps I am overlooking it... On page 3.7-17, a "December 14, 2020" Hexagon e-mail was explicitedly cited. I don't recall seeing it.”
• “Page 1-2, Under 1.2.2 Scoping Results header, "The City received 17 comment letters on the Notice of Preparation for the project’s Draft EIR. A copy of each letter is included in Appendix A." They all don't seem to be there.”
• “As El Camino becomes more congested, in part because of the project, traffic may find it faster to route around El Camino Real onto neighborhood side streets such as Henderson, Iris, and Old San Francisco to avoid stretches of El Camino. Or another example; Wolfe to Gary to Gail to Linden to Maria to El Camino to dodge the El Camino/Wolfe intersection. Is congestion avoidance part of the analysis beyond just some percentage growth in counts? I believe the Henderson/El Camino intersection had some projections.” Attachment 18
Planning Commission Study Session, April 21, 2022
Carol Weiss, Commissioner
• Expressed appreciation of all the work staff has done. • What is the width of the ECRSP Plan Area? Does the Plan extend a quarter mile from the corridor at all points?
• If a development in a segment backs up to a single family neighborhood, could a developer apply community benefits and green building benefits to make a development that is taller than four stories?
• How can we make sure there are consistent standards for sidewalk widths throughout the Plan Area as sites redevelop?
• Expressed concerns over lowering the open space requirements. Sunnyvale’s ratio of parks to open space per capita is lower than ideal. Would like to see the ratio remain high. • Does rooftop open space count towards the open space requirement? It isn’t publicly accessible. • El Camino Real is not a tree-shaded thorough fare.
• How much buy-in would the City need from Caltrans to make any changes to the El Camino Real right-of-way?
John Howe,
Commissioner
• Expressed that the presentation was very informative. • Asked about the adoption process: Does adoption of the Specific Plan happen at the same time that zoning changes go into effect, or is there a separate hearing process? • How does staff account for the cumulative impacts associated to air quality and the Water Pollution Control Plant identified in the Environmental Impact Report as future development projects come forward?
• How will the ECRSP address parking requirements?
• Does the ECRSP plan preclude either rental and/or for sale housing? Nathan I
glesias, Commissioner
• Thank you to staff for the informative presentation.
• What data or research did staff use in order to identify the proper balance of commercial and residential levels? Other nearby cities do a good job of balancing commercial and residential. • The dynamics of the retail market have changed. It’s important to think holistically to identify if we have enough commercial.
• How does the plan address potential impacts to traffic? Increased development and density in the Plan Area will lead to more congestion.
Attachment 18
Daniel Ho
ward, Chair
• Does a residential mixed-use designation cap the amount of commercial/retail that will be permitted on an individual site? A developer on an ECR-MU site should have flexibility to develop a commercial-only development.
• Does not support reducing residential densities on ECR-MU54 sites outlined in Option B of the Land Use Alternatives.
• The El Camino Real cross sections shown on the slide are misleading because they imply that street trees would need to be removed in order to install bike lanes. • Could El Camino Real have an option for a parking district? It could potentially help reduce congestion concerns.
Martin Py
ne, Vice Chair
• Echoed other Commissioners’ comments regarding the staff presentation. • How would the lower density options contribute towards the City’s housing element requirements?
• What would the planning process to replace on-street parking with bike lanes entail? • Does the ECRSP change any commercial parking requirements? Would build-to lines help to minimize the effect of large parking lots along property frontages? • How does the ECRSP address historic/heritage preservation? How many sites would be subject to historic/heritage preservation requirements?
• Can commercial ground floor requirements in mixed-use development be incorporated into the ECRSP Community Benefits/Incentives Program?
• Mentioned an error on Page 53 of draft ECRSP: a footnote is listed that has no reference.
Sue Harris
on, Member of the Public (recused herself as a Commissioner) • Bernardo Gateway Node: Noted that the Safeway site (southwest corner of the intersection of El Camino Real with South Bernardo Avenue) is not zoned homogenously. The north half is zoned MU-54, but what is the southern half zoned?
• Keep open space requirements robust in high-density residential areas. High density only works when there is accessible robust open space.
Alison Wa
rner, Balboa Retail Partners
• Thank you to staff for all the good communication and conversations over the past year. • Very interested in the direction that retail is going. Trends, which are continuing post-covid, show that smart retailers still need brick and mortar space, but have become much more efficient with how they run their businesses. This often means they need much less space. • Expressed concern over how to get the most flexibility to react to a market that changes very quickly.
• The proposed ECRSP commercial/retail standards are pretty restrictive and remove the flexibility of the prior plan, which was more of an overlay.
Attachment 18
Josh Ruper
t, Hunter Properties
• Expressed concerns with draft open space requirements in the ECRSP. The draft plan requires 380 sq. ft. of open space per unit, which is too high, is counter-intuitive to the goal of maximizing density, and there should be a process for a variance or waiver from this requirement.
• Also expressed concerns with how high the draft ECRSP standards for minimum required commercial/retail area are. Retail space is very hard to lease. Retail is a community benefit, and municipalities should be forward thinking and view it as such.
Mike S
errone, Livable Sunnyvale
• Commends staff on the ECRSP and DEIR and in successfully incorporating state law changes but also maintaining the intent and objectives of the earlier plan (i.e., maximize residential density while maintaining retail).
• Urge Planning Commission and City Council to approve the plan in a timely manner for a number of reasons: they’ve been delayed a long time and many projects are on hold waiting for the ECRSP to be adopted. Whatever benefits that come from fine tuning would be lost in the delays and the impacts on our local economy.
• Putting more housing closer to the jobs will reduce, not increase, traffic. This is particularly the case as it relates to adding housing on a transit corridor like El Camino Real.
Jenni
fer Renk, Representative of Balboa Partners
• When will the Planning Commission deliberate on the Study Session item and what the process is for receiving public comments?
Ed Gock
a, Member of the Public
• Ed Gocka was unable to provide public comment due to connectivity issues.
Attachment 18
ECRPAC, May 2, 2022
Chris Figone, Committee Member
• Thanked staff for the helpful and informative presentation. • High density: Expressed concern about moving store fronts closer to the street and removing parking closer to retail business. For people who are not mobility inclined, are disabled, or elderly, it’s getting harder and harder to find parking the provides direct access to businesses.
Expressed concerned about the long term impact that the new retail development could have on mobility issues.
• Is there going to be a speed limit on the bike/pedestrian pathways? How will you make sure the bikes will not run people over?
Raj Si
ngh, Committee Member
• Can you explain what podium parking is?
Steve
Pavlina, Committee Member
• What was the reasoning behind the request to decrease the base maximum density on the ECR- MU54 sites?
Douglas Ku
nz, Committee Member
• What was the reasoning behind the request to retain more sites for commercial in lieu of sites where residential would be permitted?
• Is the ECRSP neutral on the matter of a potential future dedicated bus lane? Mary, Mem
ber of the Public
• Expressed concern over the lack of trees in the Plan Area. To be pedestrian and bike friendly, there should be more landscaping and shade trees, which should be proportional to the building.
Sue Harris
on, Member of the Public (recused herself as a Committee Member) • Plan is very thoughtful does a good job of balancing all the different needs and users within and around Sunnyvale.
• Expressed support of the R+ Alternative studied in the EIR. • Expressed support of not decreasing the required amount of open space that the plan discusses.
When you have increased density, people will need the open space to balance that out and make it livable for residents, businesses, and visitors.
Tim Oey, C
hair
• Thanks to staff for the presentation.
• The City of Sunnyvale needs additional density close to retail and commercial uses. • Expressed support of City Council adopting the ECRSP as is.
Attachment 18
Doug Kunz, Committee Member
• Echoes Chair Oey’s comments.
• Expressed support of locating as much density as possible close to the ECRSP Area. The City needs to make sure adding land use and zoning policies allow density where supporting infrastructure and transportation exist.
Steve
Pavlina, Committee Member
• Echoes Committee Member Sue Harrison’s comment regarding open space: with higher density, more open space is needed.
Ken Hir
emath, Committee Member
• There is a big need for housing. Expressed support of prioritizing development of additional affordable housing.
Attachment 18
City Council Study Session, May 10, 2022
Russ Melton, Councilmember
• Commented on SB 330, state density laws, waivers, etc. • Expressed a need to be judicious about where different residential densities are allocated. • Asked about what would happen if a developer maximized participation in all eligible density bonus points/programs. Asked for one example of what someone maxing out density bonuses would look like. If a developer maximized density points, would they be eligible for higher building height?
• What is the long-term strategy for accounting for the development impacts on the WPCP? • Expressed support for the convalescent hospital use.
• The former OSH site has short frontage on Sunnyvale Saratoga Road. This might make it difficult to meet the proposed ground floor commercial requirements. • Expressed support for considering split zoning on the Hacienda Shopping Center site. • Expressed support of the presented Land Use Alternatives A and B.
Omar Din, Councilmember
• In Land Use Alternative A, how would the existing retail uses at the El Camino Plaza and Wolfe Plaza be impacted by changing to mixed-use zoning designation? • H
ow many lots are proposed “split zoned”?
Gustav Larsson, Councilmember
• Echoes Councilmember Melton’s support of the convalescent/rehab use. • Wants to make sure the amount of commercial is actually viable at the former OSH site. • For the “split-zoning” sites: Keep the door open in determining how the residential density is applied across the entire site.
• Expressed support of Land Use Alternative A.
• Is not supportive of Land Use Alternative B (reducing the base maximum density on the ECR- MU54 sites) except for the Murphy Station site.
Tony Spitaleri, Councilmember
• Expressed support for convalescent hospital use.
• Concerned about “split zoning” the shopping centers.
• Former OSH site: concerned about providing zoning for the appropriate amount of commercial. • Asked a clarifying question about the proposal at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Grape Avenue.
Alysa Cisneros, Vice Mayor
• Are the sites identified in Land Use Alternative A sites where we could potentially expect near- term residential redevelopment?
• Expressed support for Land Use Alternative A and for preserving high quality, long-term, successful retail.
• S
uggested identifying in the plan components the difference between publicly and privately accessible open space requirements.
Attachment 18
• W
hat would removal of on-street parking look like? What needs to happen in order for street p
arking to be removed in the next ten years? Why is this matter handled differently along the “auto row” vs. the rest of the El Camino Real corridor? • Expressed support of the proposed convalescent hospital use (El Camino Health). This would be gr
eat for promoting accessibility to health care for Sunnyvale’s aging population. • N
ot concerned with the “higher” density sites.
Omar Din, Councilmember
• How is the minimum commercial/retail requirement calculated for mixed use sites? Why is the requirement for properties that front on El Camino Real different than those that don’t? • Expressed support of the proposed convalescent hospital use (El Camino Health). • S
uggested using a similar strategy for open space requirements that is used in the Downtown Specific Plan.
• For certain commercial sites (such as the Hacienda center), it’s important to think about how we c
an incentivize commercial. Consider applying the residential density requirements across the entire site.
• Land Use Alternative A: Favors taking a mixed approach. o Recommended ECR-C zoning designation:
Southwest corner of El Camino Real and Henderson (El Camino Plaza): this is a huge asset to the community, so it should stay commercial only. Northeast corner of El Camino Real and Wolfe (Camino Wolfe Center): Carwash should also stay commercial only.
o Recommended ECR-MU zoning designation:
Wolfe Plaza
Henderson Center
• Land Use Alternative B: Do not decrease the ECR-MU54 densities.
Gustav Larsson, Councilmember
• Does Land Use Alternative A (retaining more sites for commercial-only) free up the capacity for a
llocating assumed residential units elsewhere on the corridor? If these sites are unlikely to redevelop anytime soon and produce units, it makes sense to consider moving the capacity for those units elsewhere nearby.
• Expressed support of finding a way to expedite the conversion of on-street parking to dedicated bicycle lanes.
Tony Spitaleri, Councilmember
• Expressed support of providing more mid-block crossings.
Ari Feinsmith, Member of the Public
• Class I bike parking: Make bike parking standards match with VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines Feb 2022: The current Class I (aka long-term) bike parking requirements in the ECRSP draft require only 1 long-term bike parking space (ex: bike locker or secure room) per 3-20 dwelling u
nits.
• Add a mid-block crossing on El Camino Real between Hollenbeck Avenue and Mary Avenue • Ped/Bike pathways incentive program: Developers along ECR with frontages onto multiple s
treets can build +2 additional dwelling units/acre (aka density bonus point) if they make a public bike/ped trail connecting the 2 streets through their property. However, due to the Attachment 18
div
ersity of parcel shapes, 2 properties that are the same size may need differing lengths in pathways. Therefore, I propose to make the incentive based on a sliding scale (rather than a flat +2), where developers get an additional density bonus point for every x number of linear ft of pathway built, up to 4 points.
Sharlene, Member of the Public
• Requested the City to require a ramp from the sidewalk into the street at the end of bike/pedestrian pathways that cross private property.
• Strengthen SD-P2 in the ECRSP: This policy currently says to consider removing on-street parking e
verywhere by 2032. Instead, it should say "Consider removing on-street parking on Auto row and commit to removing parking everywhere else by 2032." • Prioritize getting continuous bike lanes on high-development segments. As parcels redevelop, developers must install protected bike lanes on ECR along their frontage. The city should evaluate which segments or blocks are getting high levels of development and prioritize installing bike lanes on the frontage of the non-developing parcels in these blocks to fill in the gaps.
Bryce Beagle, Member of the Public
• Expressed support of the goals and implementation of the ECRSP. • Bicycle infrastructure. Class IV bike lanes would be a huge win, but the presentation did not cover much potential work for pedestrians.
• M
id-block crossings are identified as a future item for planning. However, given the unfriendliness and (very often) danger the road presents for pedestrians, I would like to see the City look into a few more items for the plan that would have huge benefits for pedestrians. • Locate parking lots behind the buildings or underground. Storefronts along the road or behind green space introduce a much friendlier and walkable corridor so pedestrians don’t have to cross expanses of asphalt to get to their destinations. • Remove parking minimums entirely.
• Remove the right turn slip lanes to streets that intersect El Camino Real. These are dangerous points of crossing for pedestrians as they encourage drivers to zip along without slowing down for pedestrians. They also greatly increase the amount of dangerous road width that pedestrians need to cross.
• Reduce the radius of street corners turning on/off El Camino Real in order to force drives to ta ke
t
heir turns more slowly.
• Implement Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) at intersections, which give pedestrians a head start to get into intersection and become more visible before allowing turning cars to turn into the conflict zones.
• Implement pedestrian refuge islands to make crossing safer for pedestrians.
Eric Armstrong, Member of the Public
• Expressed support of mid-block crossings across the median strips. • Bike paths between shopping centers would be nice and ramps at the end of bike pathways 408****217, Member of the Public
• Encouraged requiring landscape buffer standards.
Siddharth Kotapati, Member of the Public
Attachment 18
• E
xpressed concern over the conversion of on-street parking to bike lanes taking potentially ten y
ears to implement, and support over expediting this process. • Consider reducing the number of curb cuts and driveways along El Camino Real.
Alison Warner, Member of the Public
• Retail is quickly evolving with the market. Requests flexibility to move with the market as it changes.
• Referenced letter that was sent to Planning staff.
David Wessel, Member of the Public
• Expressed concerns over climate change. We should be encouraging denser housing, but climate c
hange is a bigger concern. We should discourage the use of cars and advocate for bike and public transit use.
Ed Gocka, Member of the Public
• Expressed frustration with the ECRSP plan preparation outreach process and concern that not ma
ny residents are aware of and engaged in this process.
• Strongly suggests retaining commercial; El Camino Real is a regional commercial destination, not only local.
Leia Mehlman, Member of the Public
• Pedestrian safety should be prioritized with any future project or improvements along the corri
dor. Any intersection improvements should always prioritize pedestrian access and safety. • Consider making low income housing accessible along this route since it is a major transportation corridor.
• El Camino Real is the dividing line that is the obstruction between the northern and southern parts of Sunnyvale.
Kenneth Rosales, Member of the Public
• Identified recommendations to help promote successful affordable housing development:
o Increase maximum densities for target node areas to incentivize residential development, including in the ECR-R3, R4, MU24, MU28, and MU33. o Expand options for affordable housing incentives to allow for different levels of affordability (not only very low income units).
o Expand the ECRSP community benefits program to provide more benefits for 100 p
ercent affordable developments.
o Make SMC updates to ensure that commercial requirements are based on lot shape so as to not inhibit residential development.
Matthew Asuncion, Member of the Public
• Expressed support of dense housing and pedestrian friendly development. • Median refuge islands are important for safety and connectivity.
Stephen Meier, Member of the Public
• Expressed support of the ECRSP’s approach to increased density and mixed use development.
Attachment 18
• E
xpressed concern with the transportation part of the plan. It’s essential to have funding for the implementation of the City’s Active Transportation Plan. Development should be contingent on completion of the transportation elements.
• On-street parking removal should be a priority.
• Discourage drive-through uses.
• Agrees with concept of pedestrian connections identified in the ECRSP and Community Benefits Program.
Steve Scandalis, Member of the Public
• El Camino Real is the City’s major commercial district, so it’s important to retain the corridor’s c
ommercial emphasis.
Alon Golan, Member of the Public
• There is more to consider with this plan than simply the number of housing units and how big de
velopments will be, but it’s important to keep in mind that this plan is about building and enhancing neighborhoods and communities. We need enhanced pedestrian connections and bike lanes for the neighborhoods we’re building.
Attachment 18