In 1990, the Zoning Code was amended to require sidewalks in industrial areas with a change of use. The sidewalk provisions have not resulted in increased and contiguous sidewalks as envisioned. To date, large portions of the industrial areas do not have sidewalks. This study examines other methods and code changes that could result in more sidewalks. Staff has also analyzed various forms of funding for sidewalks:

• Capital Improvement Budget (City)
• Grants and other public monies
• Sidewalk in-lieu fee
• Improvement district

Other methods to achieve more sidewalks would include changing the current threshold for sidewalk installation to include smaller expansion and reconstruction projects.

Staff recommends that the City Council consider adoption of Guidelines for a Comprehensive Sidewalk Program and examine funding (approximately $5.7 million) for sidewalks as part of the forthcoming Public Works-lead study entitled Revenue Sources for Major Transportation Capital Improvement Projects.

Sidewalks were not required in the industrial areas until 1971, when the City Council determined that there was a need for some sidewalks in industrial areas. An Industrial Sidewalk Master Plan was developed which determined the need for sidewalks along major streets. Subsequently, sidewalk installation was required with new construction, reconstruction and expansion. In 1990, the Zoning Code was amended to require sidewalks when a change of use occurs in any industrial area. However, sidewalk construction has not taken place in the systematic manner or to the extent envisioned. Therefore, Planning staff recommended that this issue be revisited. The Council ranked this study sixth for 1999. A copy of the Council Study Issue is included as Attachment A.

Sidewalks have typically been installed in conjunction with new construction. Due to the slow economy in the early 1990s, there was less new construction, redevelopment or major expansion of industrial facilities. With an improved economy, there has been a significant increase in new projects in the last three years. Staff believes that the improved economy and the need for new office and R&D facilities will continue to redevelop Sunnyvale’s industrial sites and that there will be the addition of more sidewalks.

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BAC) reviewed the sidewalk study on November 18, 1999 and the Planning Commission Public Hearing took place on November 22, 1999. The BAC felt that the staff recommendation was not comprehensive enough and would not be implemented soon enough to address the need for additional sidewalks in the community. The Planning Commission supported the BAC recommendations. A brief summary of the concerns of the BAC and the Planning Commission begins on Page 9 of this report. A copy of the Planning Commission meeting minutes is Attachment C. Staff recommends adoption of Guidelines for a Comprehensive Sidewalk Program and inclusion of sidewalk funding in the forthcoming Transportation Capital Improvement Project.

Policies regarding sidewalks in Sunnyvale’s General Plan occur in the Land Use and Transportation Element, which was adopted in 1997.

In 1991, the City Council modified the zoning (SMC 19.38.080) and subdivision (SMC 18.121.160) codes to require the developer to install sidewalks in industrial areas associated with:

• New construction;
• Reconstruction (20 percent of the gross floor area or 10,000 square feet-whichever is less)*;
• Expansion (20 percent of the gross floor area or 10,000 square feet-whichever is less)*;
• Change in use requiring a tentative map, a discretionary permit or having the potential to cause a significant increase in pedestrian traffic; or
• Subdivision (SMC 18.12.160)

The intent of this change in the Code was to increase the number of sidewalks in pedestrian areas as a means of providing safe pedestrian access as more commercial services were made available in the industrial areas. To date, however, the extent and linkage of sidewalks has not been as comprehensive as expected.

A Field survey indicates that large portions of the industrial areas do not have sidewalks (see maps – Attachment B). Staff research notes that:

• There are 991 industrially zoned parcels
• 31% have sidewalks on all frontages;
• 69% do not have sidewalks (6% have partial sidewalks)
• About 27 miles (144,500 linear feet) of sidewalks are needed
• The cost of the sidewalk for all industrial properties would be $5.7 million ($40/linear foot)
• In the last five years, sidewalks have been installed in conjunction with 21 new developments
• In the last five years, out of 36 expansion projects, 2 projects were subject to sidewalk installation
• Three projects requested and were granted exemption from sidewalk requirements

At this rate of sidewalk installation, it would take over a 100 years to complete sidewalks in industrial areas.

For the purposes of this study, industrial neighborhood boundaries are delineated on the attached maps to describe each of those neighborhoods with respect to sidewalks. The Moffett Park neighborhood has minimal sidewalks while the Oakmead East-West/Central Expressway Industrial neighborhood has approximately half the parcels with sidewalks.

The maps also indicate location of transit, including Light Rail and bus stops, since a key consideration is to provide sidewalks for pedestrians in order to link activity centers including transit.

The General Plan Policies encourages alternative transportation modes to reduce dependence on the automobile. Such modes include transit and pedestrian travel, with convenient locations for retail and other services in the industrial areas. Sidewalks are needed to support pedestrians.

Although the City has had code requirements for sidewalks for at least eight years, problems still exist. They can be categorized as:

• Lack of sidewalks altogether;
• Discontinuous sidewalks;
• Lost opportunities for requiring sidewalks

The following factors affect the ability to install sidewalks at existing industrial facilities:

• Cost: Sidewalk installation costs approximately $37-$40 (in 1999 dollars) per linear foot. Sidewalk installation also includes curbs and ramps.
• Easement/Right-of-Way: Industrial properties that were developed prior to the 1991 Sidewalk Ordinance do not have additional easements or right-of-way to accommodate sidewalks. Properties that were expanded or reconstructed after 1991 and were exempt from the sidewalk requirement do not have sidewalk easements either.
• Landscaping and berms: A majority of the industrial sites in Sunnyvale have mature landscaping including trees, berms and irrigation systems along street frontage which affects the location and construction of sidewalks. Retaining walls for the berms may need to be constructed adjacent to the sidewalks, and irrigation systems would also need to be moved and altered.

The following Guidelines for a Comprehensive Industrial Sidewalk Program include exploration of several funding options.

Staff has prepared guidelines for sidewalk planning that assist in the development of a sidewalk program which would address the issues noted in the Study Paper and the General Plan goals and policies. The guidelines provide for prioritization of sidewalk installation. These guidelines are largely based on existing staff practices for sidewalk planning.

• The guidelines encompass a set of evaluation criteria for prioritizing sidewalk construction. The first criterion addresses linkages necessary to critical paths of travel. Other criteria include linkages in the other remaining portions that do not have sidewalks. These guidelines can be used in conjunction with capital improvement project planning so that sidewalks would be installed in a systematic, contiguous and cost efficient manner.

Access to:

• Transit (bus, Light Rail and shuttle)
• Retail and other services
• Parks/Schools
• Connecting discontinuous sidewalks, and/or
• Evidence of high pedestrian traffic.

As noted on the maps (Attachment B), there are several Light Rail and bus stops in the industrial areas with an absence of sidewalks to access these transit stops. Some retail and parks (e.g.: Baylands Park and Encinal Park) are also located in or adjacent to industrial areas. An example of critical paths of travel in the Moffett Park neighborhood would include sidewalks on Mathilda, Java and Crossman Avenues, which contain transit stops and commercial uses (along Java Avenue).

Linkages to/within Other Sections – Other criteria address completion of contiguous sidewalks in the remaining areas. These areas occur within the industrial neighborhoods and away from major streets.

Funding is the critical issue for increasing the rate of sidewalk construction in industrial areas. Based on the linear feet of sidewalks required and unit costs for new sidewalk construction in undeveloped areas, staff estimates $5.7 million ($40/linear foot of sidewalk for 144,481 linear feet of sidewalks) for sidewalk construction in the entire industrial area. This does not take into account additional costs resulting from easements or right-of-way acquisition, or landscape modifications if required. These additional factors, particularly landscape modifications and potentially right-of-way acquisition, could significantly drive up the cost of sidewalk construction to as much as double the above estimate.

Capital Improvement Program: The City has allocated approximately $80,000 (the equivalent of approximately one half mile of sidewalk) annually for construction of sidewalks. These funds could be used to first complete the critical paths of travel in the industrial areas, although the monies are allocated for sidewalks throughout the City and not exclusively earmarked for the industrial areas. Staff believes that the existing capital improvement program would assist in sidewalk construction and could be supplemented by other sources of funding discussed in this report.

Grants or other public monies: Certain transportation funding resources are available for sidewalk construction. The availability of outside revenue ranges from fairly certain to very undependable. For example, the City is virtually assured of around $ 75,000 in funding from the Transportation Development Act (TDA) each year specifically for sidewalk and bike facility construction. Conversely, most other grant sources are competitive on a countywide, regional, or state level, and pit sidewalk projects against the multitude of transportation projects.

As previously mentioned, about $ 75,000 in TDA funds are allocated to the City each year. These funds are earmarked for pedestrian and bicycle related projects, and in the past the City has typically spent funds on both pedestrian and bicycle related improvements. Other funding sources include TDA discretionary funds, federal TEA-21 funds, and regional Transportation Fund for Clean Air monies. These sources are all competitive. The City has applied many times for sidewalk funding from these various sources, and has received one $100,000 grant, in 1993.

In addition, in cooperation with the Valley Transportation Authority’s Tasman West Light Rail project, the City received $ 375,000 in funding for constructing sidewalks associated with the light rail system.

• Grant funds allow for contiguous, cost efficient sidewalk construction projects.
• Grant funded projects do not financially burden the City, developers, or property owners.
• Grant funds can augment a larger City capital improvement fund.

• Grant funds are an unpredictable, unreliable source of funding.
• Some grants require matching funds from the City.
• Grants tend to have certain limitations or restrictions which affect their utility.

Grant funding can assist in accelerating sidewalk construction as a means of augmenting a stable funding source. The City should continue to apply for grants. Such grant monies would increase the rate of sidewalk construction. Supplementing City’s allocated capital improvement monies with grant funds, staff estimates about 30-35 years for completing the sidewalk program. The program could be completed in about 20 years if the City aggressively sought and received supplemental public monies.

Sidewalk in-lieu fees: The City could establish an in-lieu fee fund that would be utilized to install sidewalks as a capital improvement project. An in-lieu fee could be collected by the City from the developer instead of the developer installing the sidewalk along the frontage of their property. This would be utilized in situations where sidewalk construction is not physically constrained or otherwise unfeasible at the time of development, or if sidewalk construction by the developer would result in a discontinuous sidewalk segment. The in-lieu fee would allow funds to be directed to areas where sidewalk construction is a higher priority.

Another alternative would require reconstruction and expansion projects that are currently exempt under this provision from installing sidewalks if the cost of sidewalks exceeds five percent of the cost of improvement to pay an in-lieu fee. These projects that are exempt from sidewalk construction could pay five percent (of improvement costs) as an in-lieu fee.

• Contiguous sidewalks would be installed by the City, especially along the Critical Paths of Travel and then to other parts of the industrial zones in a systematic manner
• Such a program would address the Goals and Policies of the General Plan

• The in-lieu fee would increase the cost of smaller reconstruction and expansion projects by five percent, which may not be viewed positively by the industrial community.
• Very few projects would be required to pay the in-lieu fee and thus the fund would not be substantial to address sidewalk construction in the industrial areas.
• The in-lieu fees collected would need to be utilized promptly, as construction costs increase with time thereby reducing the amount of sidewalks realized.
• The in-lieu fund would not fund all needed sidewalks – the fund would need to be supplemented with grants and other funds.
• Administration of such a program would require staffing.

An in-lieu fee would be an appropriate and a fair mechanism to achieve sidewalks in the industrial areas, however staff notes that very few projects would qualify to pay the in-lieu fee. In the last five years, two expansion projects would have qualified to pay the in-lieu fee (total estimate - $147,066)

Staff believes that although the in-lieu fee program would create some funding, the low number of expansion/reconstruction projects would not result in a substantial fund.

Improvement District: An improvement district would address issues noted in the study paper and meet the General Plan goals and policies. Such a program would involve the establishment of an assessment area to include certain industrial zones. If established, those properties that currently do not have sidewalks would be required to pay the Improvement District based on a prescribed formula such as the linear feet of frontage of the property without sidewalks. These funds would then be utilized by the District to undertake a sidewalk capital improvement project where sidewalks would be installed in a systematic, contiguous manner.

It is important to note that the City is currently undergoing a study of revenue sources for future major transportation capital improvements. That study is planned for completion in March 2002. Improvement districts could be a funding mechanism(s) for this major capital needs. Strategically, it would be wise to consider assessments for transportation improvements and sidewalk improvements concurrently. A single improvement district could incorporate roadway and sidewalk improvements.

• Sidewalks would be installed in a systematic contiguous manner whereby all properties have been fairly assessed.
• The Assessment Fund would be utilized for the sidewalk capital improvement project without delay in time and increase in costs
• Sidewalks could be installed in the a relatively short time of about 10 years.

• Establishing an Improvement District would take over a year and could be costly.
• An Improvement District could be perceived negatively by the City’s industrial community.
• Administration of such a program would require additional staffing.
• Consideration of an Improvement District for sidewalks should be delayed until funding mechanisms for major transportation improvements is considered.

Using the Improvement District process would potentially greatly accelerate sidewalk construction. Upon implementation of improvement districts, the City would have bonding authority to generate construction funds. A comprehensive capital project could then be devised that could complete sidewalk construction in as little as 2-3 years. Staff believes adding sidewalks to the transportation-related improvements program would address the required funding. If the transportation study and the City Council determine that improvement districts are appropriate, sidewalk assessments could be done at that time.

Staff has also examined code changes that would result in more sidewalks Following is a discussion on other possible code changes.

• Require sidewalks with tenant improvement (TI)

• Change threshold for installation

• Modify definition of reconstruction and expansion

Staff notes that the above modifications to the code would increase the number and rate of sidewalk installation in the industrial areas, but the industrial community may view it as burdensome. Staff is concerned about the impact of such a change on the City’s industrial buildings, especially if such a requirement were to deter tenant improvements to the city’s older industrial buildings. Staff does not believe that the above-discussed modifications to the code would be beneficial to community at large.

Staff conducted a survey of sidewalk requirements in neighboring cities:

Cupertino: Sidewalks are required in conjunction with: New construction, Use Permits, or improvement of 25 percent of the structure or increase in valuation by 25 percent.

Santa Clara: The City has adopted an Industrial Sidewalk Program, which includes a Master Sidewalk plan, which has locations of required sidewalks. Industrial projects that value $80,000 or more and are noted as requiring sidewalks under the Master Sidewalk Plan, are required to pay for sidewalks ($50/linear foot) based on frontage and fair-share. For projects requiring a Variance or Use Permit the project valuation is lowered to $50,000. The applicant is required to pay for the sidewalks if the cost of sidewalk is 10 percent or less of the project cost. The City does not collect the monies at the time of project construction, but the sidewalk requirement is recorded as a covenant running with the land for the property. The City collects the sidewalk money when the City undertakes a capital improvement project for that street.

Mountain View: Nearly all of Mountain View’s industrial areas have sidewalks. Mountain View’s current sidewalk requirements are designed essentially to upgrade existing deficient sidewalks or add landscape areas, and thus do not compare well with Sunnyvale’s situation.

Sidewalks or improved sidewalks are required in conjunction with new construction, Use Permits and exterior building improvements where the improvement equals or exceeds the value of 6,000 square feet of building area. The value of typical industrial buildings ranges from $70-$150 per square foot.

This report was reviewed and commented on by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BAC) on November 18, 1999 and the Planning Commission on November 22, 1999. The minutes of the BAC meeting were not available in time for this report but the issues were raised by BAC members during the Planning Commission Public Hearing. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes are Attachment C.

A concern of both the BAC and the Planning Commission was that staff's recommendation for funding through a future Assessment District would defer implementation of needed sidewalks that could possibly be achieved through other means. The BAC felt that a combination of strategies would be more efficient: modification of the Municipal Code, to a lower threshold for requiring sidewalk installation, and to provide for an in-lieu fee, as well as restriction of parking along street frontages to promote safer pedestrian travel. There was no recommended priority of strategies although there was strong support for the imposition of an in-lieu fee.

The Planning Commission concurred with the BAC members and recommended making changes to the mechanism for requiring sidewalks, Code modifications, and to include a lower threshold to institute an in-lieu fee and to eliminate on-street parking along frontages with no sidewalks. As there was no discussion of the relative priority of these actions; several of these items would require City Council guidance.

Staff notes that the rate of change in the community would have only marginal affects on the provision of sidewalks. Introducing an in-lieu fee could provide some administrative complications when determining appropriate participation in a sidewalk improvement district. These complications are not insurmountable. Modifications of the Code will not necessarily ensure that sidewalks would be implemented more quickly. The Code currently requires the installation of sidewalks under specific conditions.

In order to provide safer pedestrian opportunities along streets with no sidewalks, there was also a BAC recommendation that parking be prohibited along street frontages where there are no sidewalks. This is a significant parking and circulation issue that needs to be fully explored by the Public Works Department since current and future traffic volumes and parking needs vary throughout the community. This concept needs to be further explored by the Public Works Department. It is premature to assume that a complete restriction would be appropriate.

Staff believes that a Comprehensive Sidewalk Program would prioritize and complete sidewalk installation in the industrial areas. With the existing code requirement and pace of development it would take over a 100 years to complete sidewalks in the City’s industrial areas.

Staff examined several funding sources to expedite sidewalk construction and believes that funding for sidewalks should be examined concurrently with the City’s major transportation capital improvement project. Sidewalks and pedestrian travel are an integral part of transportation and the funding mechanism(s) that will be adopted for the transportation improvements will be fair and cost-efficient. With this alternative, a Comprehensive Sidewalk Program would be completed in a shorter time frame.

Although several issues were raised by the BAC and the Planning Commission, staff continues to supports its original recommendation. Staff does not recommend any changes to the existing code, since the proposed changes would not substantially increase the number of sidewalks in the industrial areas. Staff recommends that the City Council consider adoption of Guidelines for a Comprehensive Sidewalk Program and determine the funding sources in conjunction with the forthcoming transportation capital improvement project.

No fiscal impact at this time. If an in-lieu fee were collected or an improvement district were established, there would be administrative cost associated.

Notice of the public hearing for this project was published in the Sun newspaper. The staff report for this project was posted on the City of Sunnyvale’s Website and a copy of the report was provided at the Reference Section of the City of Sunnyvale’s Public Library. The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on the City of Sunnyvale’s Website and recorded for SunDial.

Copies of the report were sent to Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, and to major property owners and facilities managers.

The Bicycle Advisory Commission reviewed and commented on this report at its November 18, 1999 meeting. The BAC recommended interim short term measures in addition to the staff recommendation. The Planning Commission supported the BAC recommendations. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes is Attachment C.

Staff recommends Alternative #1.

Prepared by:

Shétal Divatia
Associate Planner

Reviewed by:

Gail Price
Principal Planner

Trudi Ryan
Planning Officer

David S. Boesch Jr.
Director, Community Development

Marvin A. Rose
Director of Public Works

Robert S. LaSala
City Manager