The subject 12.24 acre site is located at 1184 and 1194 N. Mathilda Avenue, at 5^th Avenue and N. Mathilda Avenue. The site is located directly across from the Lockheed LRT station (under construction). The applicant proposes to demolish the two existing one-story buildings and replace them with two, new, Class-A four-story steel frame structures with floor plates of approximately 30,750 square feet (Building B) and 36,500 square feet (Building A). The total square footage of the new buildings will be 266,740 equal to a 50% FAR. The project proposes extensive landscaping along the frontage and throughout the parking lot serving 1009 cars. The applicant is proposing traffic mitigation techniques, including Transportation Demand Management, which are addressed in the Parking and Circulation section of the report.

A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act provisions, as amended, in Resolution #193-86. The initial study noted three issues: growth inducement, and the need for a traffic impact analysis. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is Attachment 3.

The current site is developed at a lower level of intensity 35% than the proposed 50%. There is a possibility that this project could promote additional redevelopment within the immediate vicinity. The traffic impact analysis identified various recommendations that will be mitigation measures for the project. These mitigations include: modifications to the parking, modification to the driveway locations and widths, modifications of the loading and delivery areas, and reduction of trips and/or contributions to long-term transportation improvements.

Use: The proposal is to demolish the two existing one-story buildings and build two new 4-story office buildings. The request is for a 50% FAR where a 35% FAR is permitted as a matter-of-right. The proposed total square footage is 266,740 or 50% floor-area-ratio (FAR). The project description and justification is Attachment 5.

The primary issue for this application is the proposed 50% FAR development intensity. The level of intensity of development, the appropriate locations for high FAR development and project review criteria are being addressed in a policy paper scheduled for public hearings with the Planning Commission on February 22, 1999 and the City Council on March 16, 1999. Development levels have a direct impact on the architecture, mass, and bulk of buildings and have traffic generation and air quality effects on the neighborhood, local and regional transportation system. The architecture and design relate to the community character image, and neighborhood design. Increases in development intensities also directly effect job growth, the need for housing, and City services. Since this proposed project is greater than 35%, it will be subject to a Housing Mtigation Fee (Attachment 10). Job growth and redevelopment opportunities also relate to the economic prosperity program for the City. It is likely that increased intensity at this location could promote additional redevelopment in the area.

Site Layout: The site plan (Attachment 4) places the two buildings toward the Mathilda Avenue frontage, incorporating extensive landscaping along the western frontage and in the parking lot. In addition to service and docking areas serving both buildings, the remainder of the site (to the rear and east of the buildings) is devoted to landscaping and parking areas. There are two major entrances to the site, from Mathilda Avenue and from 5^th Avenue. Both the western sides of the two buildings and the parking area and plaza areas to the east of the buildings are readily accessible to pedestrians.

The west facade has been designed as primarily the vehicular entrance and the east facade provides a more pedestrian scale and interest. The two buildings are linked through design and building materials and could be leased by one tenant or two or more tenants. There is a meandering sidewalk along Mathilda that provides pedestrian access to the site while connecting the two buildings. The introduction of the sidewalk design complements the combination of curvilinear and angular features of the two buildings. There is an existing screened area (2037 square feet) with a GTE mobile unit in the southeast corner of the site, to remain.

The following Guidelines were considered in analysis of the project site design.

Lighting standards and fixtures will be located along the meandering sidewalk at the front of the property, the colonnade (entry) area will have special overhead and bollard fixtures, with illuminated markers and columns along the passage way for pedestrians. The lighting standards in the parking lot will be appropriately designed, with shields as necessary, to provide illumination without overwhelming the site. The plaza/ amphitheater area will incorporate special plaza and bollard fixtures to complement the architectural features and building design. The overall effect combines functionality and aesthetic design.

The Planning Commission has expressed concerns about appropriate security lighting, particularly in the extensive parking area. Planning and Public Safety staff will work with the applicant during review of the lighting and landscaping plan. The following guidelines were considered in review of lighting.

There are two 4-story buildings (Buildings A and B) proposed for the site. They are located about 90 feet apart. The buildings are composed of a variety of materials. The building envelope is reinforced steel and the exterior combines a window wall system of green vision/spandrel glass interspersed with light grey metal panels and GFRC/green glass. There are additional accent architectural elements, including aluminum "fins" above the entryways, balconies, and columns along portions of the base of the buildings. The two buildings differ in shape to add architectural interest to the site. The grey metal roof screens complement the building design and materials.

Staff is working with the applicant to assure that there are not reflective glass or panels incorporated into the buildings, which could provide a negative or adverse visual impact. The architecture of the east and west sides of the buildings differ, while using the same building materials. This approach provides design and architectural unity on the site. The attachments include architectural renderings and buildings elevations (Attachment 4).

Building B (farther south) has a curvilinear shape designed to follow the alignment of Mathilda Avenue. This feature provides a graceful and flowing building line. Building A does not continue the curvilinear line yet is also oriented parallel to Mathilda. The west facade is dominated by the window wall system, however, the introduction of architectural details and changes in color and building materials reduce the impact of the extensive window wall system.

Staff recommends additional work with the applicant to examine setting one building further back from Mathilda in order to lessen the visual impact of the length of the two buildings on the street and directly facing the LRT station. In addition, there should be more pedestrian features near Mathilda on the west side to invite pedestrian access from both the LRT and the sidewalk. Staff will also work with the applicant to revise the west facade to include more articulation and change of architectural planes. Staff finds that since the streetscape will primarily be viewed from vehicles the overall design of the buildings and its scale are well suited for this location. The west facade, to date, has been designed more as a vehicular entrance.

The east facades, facing the plaza areas and the parking lot and the sport court, are more architecturally interesting and diverse than the west facades. The introduction of additional changes of the building plane and more architectural features make it attractive. The design of the east facade complements the plaza area and provides a cohesive visual environment. The east facade is less imposing due to the increased building articulation. The east facade maintains a more pedestrian scale and interest.

Staff believes that the architecture and design of the two buildings are distinctive and attractive and provides a major improvement to the built environment in the area. During plan check the staff will work with applicant to assure that the roof screen design will be able to easily accommodate low visibility telecommunications equipment.

In general, there were positive responses to the architecture and design. There was concern raised about the need for additional articulation along the western facades of the buildings to provide a means of reducing the impact of the window wall system facing Mathilda. In addition, it was noted that the east façade has more articulation and changes of the building plane resulting in a more positive visual impact. While the architectural features were generally supported, there was the point made that the aluminum fins need to be more exaggerated above the entryways in order to add more interest to the buildings.

Staff concurs and recommends continued work with the applicant (Condition of Approval #9). The possibility of introducing more plane changes, including the examination of an increased setback of one of the buildings, might reduce the scale of the two buildings. Staff anticipates that as the landscaping matures the bulk and mass of the buildings will be softened.

The following Guidelines were considered in the analysis of the project architecture.

Staff believes that the overall design of the project utilizes quality materials and is well proportioned. The mass, size, and scale of the two buildings are appropriate for the site. Staff finds that the design is consistent with the Industrial Design Guidelines.

During the January 25, 1999 Study Session, the Planning Commission raised concern regarding the possibility of subdivision of the site. The parcel would be subject to the requirements of both the Subdivision Map Act and Title 19 (Zoning) of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code. New parcels would need to meet all requirements individually, including parking, setbacks and separate utility and irrigation systems. Each new parcel would be subject to use permit conditions.

Landscaping:

The proposal includes 139,423 sq. ft. of landscaping (26% of site) which exceeds the minimum requirement of 119,919 sq. ft. The landscape plan distributes landscaping throughout the site. There will be extensive planting along the Mathilda Avenue frontage and throughout the parking area, including the plaza and amphitheater area at the rear of the building. The conceptual landscaping plan incorporates mini-orchards and row planting of flowers. Along the main driveway entry, beginning at Mathilda, there will be a colonnade of trees and lighting that will extend to the rear of the property. The parking areas will be planted with an "orchard" of trees to complement the street frontage design. The plant list includes a variety of complementary species.

The landscaping plan will also incorporate a variety of post-construction storm water management techniques. Some of these include storm water infiltration system, pervious landscape (grass infiltration swale), and cobble swales at parking lot edges and adjacent to parking bays. A tree survey has been conducted for the site. The applicant is retaining 15 mature trees of the 98 trees identified. A tree-protection plan will be required (Condition of Approval #7h).

The following Guidelines were considered in analysis of the project landscaping.

Staff finds that the landscaping conforms with the requirements of the Industrial Design Guidelines since the landscaping enhances the aesthetic quality of the site and complements the overall site design. The landscaping also includes a variety of stormwater management controls.

The parking plan provides for 933 parking spaces and the installation of bike racks near the entryways directly behind Buildings A and B. The parking lot incorporates post construction storm water controls in landscaping and parking area. The applicant has also proposed that 43 spaces behind Building B be planned as a future landscape dedication area. Initially constructed as parking, it is designed for potential use as a sport or volleyball court. The conversion will take place when the LRT station is complete and a parking study concludes that the spaces are no longer being utilized.

The findings of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) have identified several site improvements, related to safe vehicular and pedestrian movement, which need to be incorporated into the project. These transportation migitations are in the Condition of Approval #8.

A formal transportation study was prepared for this project by the firm of Optrans, Incorporated. This study meets the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) requirements of the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP). A TIA is required if a project is expected to generate 100 or more peak hour trips in the AM or PM peak hours. Total new trip generation from the new project is estimated at 408 AM peak hour trips and 378 PM peak hour trips. The project will replace existing uses that generate a measured (versus theoretical) 138 AM peak hour trips and 125 PM peak hour trips for a net increase of 270 new AM peak hour trips and 253 new PM peak hour trips. The trip generation analysis does not take any trip reduction allowance for proximity to transit, although CMP guidelines would allow this for this project.

The TIA identifies several issues with the site design that would cause problems with access to and from the site. Staff is recommending conditions of approval to increase the driveway throat distance for the south driveway on Mathilda, modify the main driveways on Mathilda and 5^th Avenue to accommodate trucks, modify the median on 5^th Avenue to allow left turns, and modify the loading dock area to accommodate large trucks.

The study notes that sidewalks should be installed along the project frontage. Sidewalks are currently present along the Mathilda Avenue frontage of the proposed project. These sidewalks are proposed to be reconstructed as part of the project. Also, the project proposes to install sidewalk on the south side of 5^th Avenue, a private street, along the project frontage. This represents a positive impact for pedestrian travel.

The TIA noted that a mid-block crosswalk exists on 5^th Avenue adjacent the site. Mid-block crosswalks are against City policy, for pedestrian safety reasons. Staff is requiring that this crosswalk be removed. The TIA found that pedestrian access through the parking area to the buildings was inadequate. The study recommends that pedestrian pathways be provided through the parking area to the building entrances. (See Conditions of Approval #7e). Staff will work with applicant to support increased pedestrian access (e.g. furniture) to the front of the buildings on Mathilda

In order to account for impacts of the Tasman light rail transit line, City staff directed that a specialized analysis be conducted. Existing roadway traffic counts were adjusted upward based on pre-LRT historical data to account for current reductions in traffic flow due to light rail construction and resultant reductions in capacity, travel time, and overall volume. Intersection level of service analyses for all study scenarios uses post-LRT intersection geometry, and signal timings assume the presence of LRT operations through affected intersections.

Nine CMP and City intersections were analyzed in the TIA, based on the anticipated level of project traffic to be added to these intersections. The TIA found that regionally significant CMP intersections and City intersections are not significantly affected by expected project traffic over the next two years. Levels of service do not change at any study intersections. The TIA indicates the sensitivity of the highly complex Mathilda/Route 237 interchange to added traffic, and notes that monitoring and adjustment of signal timings should occur to account for added traffic from the project.

Four freeway segments were also analyzed based on the anticipated level of project traffic to be added to these segments. No significant impacts were anticipated from the project within a two-year period.

Staff researched traffic impacts of the General Plan buildout of the Moffett Industrial Park in addition to the analysis specified for conformance to CMP regulations and to assess near term affects of the project.

The TIA guidelines only require analysis of project impacts at the estimated time of occupancy of the project. However, the Land Use and Transportation Element recognizes that the Lawrence Expressway and Mathilda Avenue corridors will break down before General Plan build-out (estimate 10-20 year time frame) due to increased citywide and regional traffic generation. The roadway improvements that would be necessary to mitigate this condition, notably urban interchanges on Lawrence Expressway and an extension of Mary Avenue into the Lockheed site, are not currently funded. Development at greater-than-zoned densities will exacerbate this condition.

Over the next two years, City staff is reviewing funding alternatives for identified capital improvements. At the regional level, the Valley Transit Agency has indefinitely deferred the preparation of a ‘Countywide Deficiency Plan' to mitigate congestion on expressways and freeways.

The Lockheed Plant 1 Master Use Permit EIR examined the issue of future roadway congestion in some detail. The EIR was able to quantify the level of additional trips that could be added in the Moffett Industrial Park area to year 2010 without triggering the need for major improvements. As a result, a reduced project was requested (and approved):

The Lockheed Master Use Permit EIR assumed General Plan build-out densities for the rest of Moffett Industrial Park at a rate of growth consistent with ABAG projections. Based on the available information from the Lockheed Master Use Permit EIR, staff assumes that trips over 35% FAR at the subject 1184/1194 Mathilda site would contribute to breakdown of the north-south travel corridors prior to 2010. City staff has worked with the applicant to examine traffic mitigation options.

In order to mitigate the current and future traffic impacts associated with the proposed project, staff examined several transportation mitigation alternatives. The various alternatives include:

1. Reduction in Parking Spaces and Transportation Demand Program

Staff suggests that one method of ensuring that the traffic generation of the project remains at a 35% FAR level is to restrict parking to the maximum permited for a 35% FAR level. This approach would require a reduction in parking to 746 parking spaces. (note that this parking level still meets the minimum parking required of one space per 500 s.f. of gross floor area). Such a restriction would minimize the traffic impact by serving to reinforce a successfully comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM). The specific components of the TDM program could incorporate many of the suggestions made by the applicant to support the overall success of the project. The details of the TDM program, including the performance measures (goals) and monitoring, could be developed with the applicant prior to the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. Overtime, the specific components of TDM maybe modified based on the success or lack of success of various features. New elements, not yet invisioned, can be added in future years, rather than tying down the TDM to a specific set of items known today.

2. Fair Share Calculations

Staff has made a calculation of what proportion of the total traffic in these corridors would be attributed to the 1184/1194 Mathilda project square footage over-35% FAR under congested conditions during the PM peak hour. Using the best available cost estimates, this "fair share" is calculated to be $972,000. This "fair share" is considerable, given the cost of the major improvements required. However, because of the superficial nature of the available data and cost estimates, the basis for the fair share calculation is tenuous. It also sidesteps the question of where the balance of funding is to be derived.

While staff believes that this is one of the two methods of reducing the cumulative impacts associated with such a project, staff recognizes that the size of the fee is considerable. This project would be the first to contribute such a large "fair share" contribution to be applied to General Plan build-out transportation capital projects. It could establish a precedent for future redevelopment of the Moffett Park area and elsewhere citywide. Staff is not recommending this alternative.

3. Traffic Fee

A set-aside of funds for potential future participation in the Countywide Deficiency Plan is another mitigation alternative that has been used for previously approved projects in Sunnyvale and other communities. Essentially, a fee per-square-foot of floor area is determined and applied to the proposed development.

These funds are set aside in a special account for future contribution to any fund that is developed for CDP improvements. For previously approved projects, Sunnyvale has set the fee based on levels under discussion by the VTA’s CDP task force. The latest fee amount discussed is $4.00/square foot for office development. The City has based the amount of the fee collected on only that square footage over and above the zoned floor area (although the draft CDP suggests the fee should be for all square footage). For the 1184/1194 Mathilda project, a CDP contribution based on the above formula would be $320,092.

At this time, the future of the Countywide Deficiency Plan and the imposition of a traffic impact fee is uncertain. Of the four alternatives being examined, however, the collection of a one-time impact fee would be the simplest and least problematic of the alternatives. This alternative should be given serious consideration. The size of the fee, however, would do little to address transportation impacts of the project.

4. Combination Alternative

The applicant has proposed a hybrid alternative for traffic mitigation of impacts due to a 50% FAR on the site. This alternative combines a parking reduction, traffic impact fee, and Transportation Demand Management program. The proposal includes the following elements:

Staff recommends bicycle parking (Conditio of Approval #7p) as a condition of approval under any transportation impact mitigation scenario. Staff notes that the combination of reduced parking, traffic impact fee and TDM program funding are collectively a more ambitious program than has been proposed, to date, by project applicants.

Planning Commission asked the staff to work with the applicant to examine various traffic mitigations and transportation demand management techniques to offset traffic generation to and from the site. Several of those proposals have been examined in the report.

The following Guidelines were considered in analysis of the project parking and circulation.

The parking and circulation design, as conditioned, conforms with the requirements of the Industrial Design Guidelines in that it provides for vehicular and pedestrian safety. The location of the building adjacent to the light rail station makes access to the LRT very convenient. Site plan modifications have been proposed as conditions of approval to improve access to the site.

Easements/Undergrounding:

The applicant will be subject to the undergrounding of utilities requirement of Zoning Code (Section 19.46.060). A 10-foot public utilities easement (PUE) will be required along the Mathilda Avenue frontage. Public Works approval of plans for utility line extensions, utility connecitons, meter locations, driveways, and sidewalks are required.

Since the site is above 2 acres, the applicant is subject to the Art in Private Development requirement (Section 19.49) of the Zoning Code. The applicant, Menlo Equities, has made initial contact with an artist, to begin discussions of the requirements and appropriate artistic treatments for the site. In accordance with the ordinance, the proposal will be subject to review and approval by the Arts Commission. Location of artwork is subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council. The Applicant has proposed locating artwork at the vicinity of the entry driveway off Mathilda. Staff recommends approval of this location (Condition of Approval #19).

The proposed project complies with all standards of development including setbacks, building height, lot coverage, parking and landscaping. Within the M-3 (General Industrial) Zoning District, applications for greater than 35% FAR require a Use Permit.

The following goals and policies were considered to determine conformance with the General Plan.

The Economic Prosperity Program of the City focuses on fostering a quality business environment that supports a healthy economic environment. The redevelopment of the subject site will provide attractive higher-end office space appropriate for technology-oriented companies.

One of the goals of the Futures Study was to provide for an appropriate balance of land devoted to industrial and residential uses and encourage a broader mix of industrial development. The existing Sunnyvale General Plan identifies specific industrial areas within the community where greater than 35% FAR is acceptable (FARs of 50, 70, and 100 percent) in industrial areas. In addition, the four industrial sites in the Futures Study were selected based on three criteria:

• How well the site supports the proposed light rail transit line and stations?

• How well the site contributes to the visual identify of the city (gateways and nodes of development)?
• The amount of additional commercial space that could be provided on the site.

Two of the Futures Study goals were to locate high intensity uses on transit corridors and to maintain Sunnyvale as an industrial center. These goals address both community character issues and transportation impacts within the community.

The location of the proposed development along a major transportation corridor, including direct access to the LRT station, seems appropriate and suitable. The proposal meets several of the goals of the Futures Study (1993), including locating higher density projects along transportation corridors. The proposed subject parcel is located about 400 feet south of the boundary of Futures Site "E". Futures Site E (50 % FAR permitted) includes approximately 146 acres on either side of Java Avenue between Mathilda Avenue and Crossman Avenue.

The traffic generation, circulation, and parking issues have been discussed in the Parking and Circulation section. A traffic impact analysis was conducted and several mitigations to the site design have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. The applicant has also proposed additional traffic mitigation measures, including, a TDM program, to minimize traffic impacts. The introduction of visually attractive design and architecture will be an improvement over the existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. Staff believes that the implementation of this project, including significant transportation demand management strategies and the traffic impact fee, may serve as a model and catalyst for redevelopment activities within the Moffett Park area. Staff cannot predict if any or all of the 35% FAR sites will be developed for higher FAR.

A letter from the Valley Transportation Authority (Attachment 7) supports the 50% FAR density proposed for the site given that it is directly across from the Lockheed Light Rail Train Station at 5^th Avenue and Mathilda. In addition, there is a letter from a Sheraton Sunnyale (Attachment 8) and Lockheed/Martin (Attachment 9) in the immediate vicinity in support of the proposed project.

The examination of 35% FAR in Industrial Areas policy report under preparation introduces project review criteria for projects greater than 35% FAR. The intent of the categories is:

1. to supplement the Sunnyvale General Plan goals and policies, City-wide Design Guidelines, and the Industrial Design Guidelines
2. to provide specific guidance for consideration of more intense development projects

Staff has utilized the draft project review criteria (Attachment 5) as part of the analysis of the Menlo Equities proposal. A summary of the results is as follows:

There is sufficient land use capacity to develop the site at a proposed 50% FAR. The traffic impact analysis has identified modifications to improve access and egress to the site (conditions of approval). For the cumulative impact, staff has identified several transportation mitigations to support the build-out of the Moffett Industrial Park.

Several transportation mitigations have been identified to mitigate effects on the regional or City-wide roadway system. Several alternatives have been presented in the staff report, including reduced parking and a TDM program, traffic fee, and fair share contributions for capital improvements. The proposed project does not include on-site retail but there have been discussions regarding the possibility of on-site amenities. The proposed development is located directly across Mathilda Avenue from the Lockheed Light Rail Station thereby providing a convenient alternative to automobile use.

The project is well designed and uses high quality buildings materials to create an attractive glass and steel structure. The site plan incorporates a plaza and has features to secure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement. The site plan reduces the lot coverage (compared to the existing conditions) but increases the bulk and mass of the buildings. The landscaping uses storm water management controls. There is not a significant reduction in parking spaces but other elements are being proposed, including a TDM program and a traffic fee. The project is not part of a Master Plan.

The project implements several goals of the Economic Prosperity program related to business retention and attraction. The provision of architecturally attractive buildings, with extensive landscaping and located adjacent to the LRT, might be a very desirable setting and location for a number of "high-tech" businesses. The design of the buildings may influence subsequent building forms and architecture in future redevelopment of the neighborhood. The project would have significant positive fiscal impact over the next 5-20 years, including the need to provide additional City services. The project complements emerging industry "clusters" in Santa Clara County.

Several concepts were introduced in this section but are not current policy. The applicant has proposed none of these concepts. The development of the site may promote redevelopment in the immediate area.

The floor area ratio (FAR) of a parcel is defined as the gross building area divided by the net lot area. The FAR controls the total amount of building area that may be built on a specific parcel; it defines the intensity of use on a specific site. The Zoning Code permits the subtraction of floor area devoted to specified architectural features and bicycle facilities for purposes of calculating the FAR. The gross building area is referred to as the "actual" FAR and the calculation which discounts for "non-employee generating spaces" (e.g. mezzanines, cafeterias, exercise facilities, and child care centers) is referred to as the "effective" FAR. By reducing the actual FAR to a much lower effective FAR, traffic and air quality impacts are reduced on both local roads and sub-regional transportation corridors.

The project applicant has not identified specific "non-employee" generating spaces on the floor plans submitted. However, the applicant has indicated a likelihood of designating about 8-10,000 square feet to these uses and thereby reducing the "actual" FAR from 50% to approximately 48-48.5% FAR. (A reduction of about 26,675 square feet would be necessary to reduce the "effective" FAR to 45.) The reduction of the "effective" FAR is also a means of reducing traffic generation from the site. Staff is working with the applicant on this issue. Unless directed by Council, Staff has not specified what the square footage of the non-employee generating space should be in the report.

In order to approve a Use Permit, either of the following findings must be made:

1. Attain the objectives and purposes of the general plan of the City of Sunnyvale; or
2. Ensure that the proposed use is desirable, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the zoning district. Any such permit likewise may be denied upon a find that said permit, as requested, will not meet the foregoing standards of approval.

• Staff was able to make the required Findings for the project based on the justifications for the Use Permit. The Findings are located in Attachment 2.

As part of the review process, staff may recommend Conditions of Approval be placed on an application. These conditions clarify or modify the applicant's proposal in order to meet requirements imposed by the Municipal Code, policies and standards set forth by the General Plan, Special Plans and the City Council and other specifications that staff believes will enhance the visual character and/or add greater diversity to the City. The recommended Conditions of Approval are located in Attachment 2.

• Staff is recommending approval for this project based on the Findings (Attachment 1) and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment 2).

Increased revenue to the City through related taxes and fees.

Notice of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the public hearings for this project were published in the Sun newspaper, posted on the site and mailed to the property owners within 300 feet of the project site. In addition, notices were went to individuals who have expressed interest in this project. This item was considered by the Planning Commission on February 22, 1999. The Planning Commission supported staff's recommendation to 1) affirm the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Use Permit with Conditions and 2) approve the Combination Alternative (#2d) as the traffic mitigation element. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes is Attachment 11.

3. Affirm the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Use Permit with modifications.

4. Affirm the Mitigated Negative Declaration and deny the Use Permit.
5. Not affirm the Mitigated Negative Declaration and direct staff as to where additional environmental analysis is required.

Alternative #1 and Combination Alternative #2d .

Prepared By:

Gail A. Price
Principal Planner

Reviewed By:

Trudi Ryan
Planning Officer

Reviewed By:

David S. Boesch, Jr., Director
Community Development Department

Approved by:

Robert S. LaSala
City Manager

Attachments:

1. Findings
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Mitigated Negative Declaration
4. Site and Architectural Plans
5. Project Description and Justification
6. Table 1: Project Review Criteria
7. Letters from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
8. Letter from Sheraton Sunnyvale
9. Letter from Lockheed/Martin
10. Housing Mitigation Policy
11. Planning Commission Minutes (2/22/99)

1. The proposed use attains the objectives and purposes of the General Plan of the City of Sunnyvale as the project addresses the following:

Land Use and Transportation Element

The applicant has proposed a transportation demand management program, which includes many elements to offset the transportation impacts associated with the project.

The proposed project combines a very high architectural quality and site design, incorporating significant landscaping and stormwater management techniques. Its location directly across from the LRT station will give the project great visibility and will enhance the streetscape in the immediate vicinity.

The frontage of the proposed development is along N. Mathilda Avenue. Mathilda is a major north-south transportation corridor in Sunnyvale. From Mathilda Avenue there is easy and convenient access to both State Highway 101 and State Route 237. In addition, the Lockheed/Martin Light Rail Train station is located directly across the street at 5^th Avenue and Mathilda.

Community Design Sub-Element

The two building demonstrate attractive design and a variety of architectural features (e.g. columns, balconies, and aluminum "fins" to enhance the facades). All of these elements provide dramatic, visual interest to the City thereby contributing to an attractive environment for businesses, residents, and visitors. The site is prominently located directly adjacent to the Lockheed LRT station and will be visible. The buildings will contribute to Sunnyvale’s economic prosperity.

2. The proposed use is desirable, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the Zoning District because the proposed project replaces industrial uses with site design features with greater than required setbacks, sufficient parking, plaza/amphitheater and high quality landscaping that incorporates storm water management techniques. Additionally, the proposed buildings have quality architecture and design elements enhance the style and aesthetic impacts of buildings in the immediate neighborhood.

In addition to complying with applicable City, County, State and Federal Statues, Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions and Regulations, Permittee expressly accepts and agrees to comply with the following conditions of approval of this Permit:

1. The Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced on one page of the plans submitted for a Building Permit for this project.
2. Execute a Use Permit prior to occupancy. Record a Use Permit document prior to occupancy.
3. Permitted uses include: office and related research and development and ancillary supporting uses such as cafeteria, exercise areas and auditoriums.
4. Any expansion or modification of the approved use shall be approved by a separate application at a public hearing by the Planning Commission. Minor modifications could be approved by the Director of Community Development.
5. Comply with all requirements of the Noise Ordinance (SMC 19.24.020).
6. Obtain encroachment permits, as necessary, when construction projects affect public streets or utilities.
7. Submit a revised parking and circulation plan for review and approval by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The plan shall include:

1. Sufficient marked employee parking to accommodate the maximum shift number of employees on-site, including designated areas for visitors, vanpool, car pool and handicapped parking.
2. The Site Plan is to incorporate a maximum of 933 parking spaces. All such areas shall be clearly marked on Building Permit plans prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
3. Specify compact parking spaces on Building Permit plans. All such areas shall be clearly marked prior to occupancy, as approved by the Director of Community Development.
4. A minimum of 10 percent preferential parking spaces shall be reserved and so marked in the closest possible rows adjoining the building (allowing for visitor, disabled and pool van parking) for exclusive use by carpool vehicles carrying at least two employees per vehicle.
5. The site plan needs to include appropriate pedestrian pathways in the parking lot.
6. Provide secured bicycle storage for a minimum of 20 bicycles in accordance with plans approved by the Director of Community Development. At least 6-8 secured bicycle parking spaces or bicycle racks shall be provided outside the building for short-term visitors and shower facilities shall be provided.

8. To address the long-term traffic impact of the proposal to the Moffett Park Industrial area the developer shall provide all of the following:

9. Submit a revised site and architectural plans subject for review and approval of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a Building Permit. The revised plan shall include the following elements:

1. Any major site and architectural plan modifications shall be treated as an amendment of the original approval and shall be subject to approval at a public hearing before the Planning Commission, except that minor changes of the approved plans may be approved administratively by the Director of Community Development.
2. The applicant shall work with staff in increasing the articulation of the west façade, including building setbacks and change of architectural plane and elements. In addition, applicant will provide additional pedestrian features (furniture, etc.) to promote pedestrian use (access from LRT and pedestrian access).
3. The developer shall modify the site plan to eliminate parking on the southernmost driveway on Mathilda Avenue to provide a 100’ driveway throat.
4. The developer shall modify the site plan to widen the northernmost driveway on Mathilda Avenue or lengthen the curb return radius to accommodate an SU 30 truck, and shall locate the landscape median nose on this driveway a minimum of 40 feet behind the face of curb.
5. The developer shall modify the site plan to widen the southernmost driveway on Mathilda Avenue and the westernmost driveway on 5^th Avenue or lengthen the curb return radii to accommodate an WB 40 truck.
6. The developer shall modify the site plan to remove the median on 5^th Avenue at the westernmost driveway to allow left turns.
7. The developer shall modify the site plan to remove landscape area and parking spaces at the truck loading dock for Building 2 as necessary to provide for unimpeded backing maneuvers for large (WB 40) trucks.
8. The developer shall modify the site plan to remove the mid-block crosswalk of 5^th Avenue between the westernmost 5^th Avenue driveway and Mathilda Avenue. The City Traffic Engineer shall approve the method of removal.
9. The developer shall modify the site plan to provide direct, safe pedestrian aisles from the parking areas to the main building entrances.
10. All signage, "street furniture" (benches, planters, bicycle racks, garbage cans, etc.) shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the approved Industrial Design Guidelines.
11. To promote safety and recreational opportunities, additional pedestrian walkways will be added to the parking lot area and around the perimeter of the lot.

10. All exterior trash shall be confined to approved receptacles and enclosures. Trash enclosure shall be upgraded to meet the commercial trash enclosure guidelines.
11. Provide a trash enclosure that is a minimum of 6-feet high and enclosed on all four sides, of a design, approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The closure shall match the design, materials and color of the main building.
12. The landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted subject review and approval of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit. The landscaping plan shall include the following elements:

1. All areas not required for parking, driveways or structures shall be landscaped.
2. All landscape areas shall have an appropriate irrigation system.
3. Consult with the Trees and Landscaping Division of the Pubic Works Department regarding the provision of street trees along the Mathilda Avenue frontage of the subject property
4. The applicant shall make every effort to save mature trees as possible
5. Provide trees at minimum 30 feet intervals along side and rear property lines, except where mature trees are located on the subject site or immediately adjoining on neighboring property.
6. Appropriate tree species shall be provided along south and west property lines to provide adequate tree foliage for screening purposes to the residential neighbors.
7. Ground cover shall be planted so as to ensure full coverage eighteen months after installation.
8. Prior to issuance of a Demolition Permit, a grading Permit, or building Permit which ever occurs, first, obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan from the Director of Community Development. The Tree Protection Plan will include the recommendations of the tree survey (10/98) submitted with the application. Utility Plan and Site plans shall be adjusted to ensure that healthy mature trees are saved.
9. All areas not required for parking, driveways or structures shall be landscaped.

13. Submit exterior lighting plan, including photometrics, fixture and pole designs, for approval by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Driveway and parking area lighting shall include the following:

1. Sodium vapor (or illumination with an equivalent energy savings).
2. Pole heights (including the base and fixture) shall not exceed 20 feet in the front portion and 8 feet along the rear property line. Anti-glare shields shall be installed to ensure that no over-spill light or glare occurs on the adjacent residential properties.
3. Provide photo cells for on/off control of all security and area lights.
4. All exterior security lights shall be equipped with vandal-resistant covers.
5. Wall packs shall not extend above the roof or parapet of the building.