2000-0523 - City of Sunnyvale Study Issue - Certification of the Moffett Park Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Moffett Park Specific Plan KDI (Also to City Council on 11/11/03)

Kelly Diekmann, Project Planner, presented the staff report. He clarified what action is required of the Planning Commission which includes recommendations to City Council on the Certification of the Final Environment Impact Report, General Land Use Designations, the geographic delineation of the sub- districts and the Moffett Park Specific Plan and the intensity of use that would be provided for. He noted the Moffett Park Specific Plan's primary goals and stated that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. He provided the history of the study and City Council's vision of Moffett Park. He further discussed the results of the EIR and staff recommendations. He noted three proposed zoning areas, Moffett Park Industrial Area (MP-I), Moffett Park Commercial (MP-C) and Moffett Park Transit Oriented Design (MP-TOD). He also noted the intensity and the use of the square footage such as instituting the development reserve of 3.9 s.f. to be allocated on a first come-first served basis to meet the development standards and the objectives of the General Plan. Staff recommended 35% FAR MP-I and 50% FAR for MP-TOD and 40% FAR for MP-C. MP-I is similar to existing M-3 Zoning and the MP-TOD has the same FAR as the existing Futures Site E and serves as an extension of Futures Site E and the remaining balance would be in the development reserve.

Vice Chair Moylan asked staff whether staff's recommendations include the maximum of the 50% for MP-I and 70% for MP TOD. Staff said yes.

Vice Chair Moylan asked for clarification of the Commission's required action whether it includes the green building requirement. Staff responded that Alternative B2 would give staff direction to prepare the actual standards for the Specific Plan for later Planning Commission review. This is where the green building provision would be addressed.

Ms. Ryan added that it would be helpful to include individual comments in the motion directing staff what to include in the Specific Plan, which is the concluding step of the Moffett Park Specific Plan efforts.

Comm. Swegles expressed concerns about the chart on page 6 of 16 of the staff report whether staff is recommending elimination of commercial use in Moffett Park. Staff clarified that the chart contains five alternatives as a result of the EIR analysis. Staff added that the Plan allows commercial uses to limit the trips across town.

Myron Crawford, Berg & Berg, property owners, expressed two specific objections 1) electronic data storage and data server farms restrictions on MP-TOD, would create a hardship and burden to property owners. He urged to eliminate the restrictions. 2) side setbacks in MP-TOD area creates a restriction creating a detriment. He commented that green building is market driven and should be left as such. He concluded that these restrictions would drive up building cost and asked that there should be balance.

Jane Vaughan, Menlo Equities, property owner, strongly supported the Moffett Park Specific Plan, its potential growth and encouragement of business community development. She commented on the traffic mitigation fee and the MPSP. She urged a recommendation to certify the final EIR, approve the Specific Plan with recommended conditions: 1) 50% in MP-TOD and 35% elsewhere and the remaining balance in the reserve. 2) She agreed with staff recommendation of pre-payment of traffic impact fee up front but asked for lower fee from 33% to 10%. She agreed that the concept would provide an additional FAR to those who would use the property but also would like to ensure that traffic continues to be mitigated. 3) No additional public hearing is required once the Specific Plan is approved similar to the Futures Site. She recommended using a professional architectural consultant for review to ensure quality architecture to develop the community appropriately that is best suited for the area. 4) She recommended that LEED certification should not be imposed at this time. She concluded that the vision of the Specific Plan is to encourage business growth and mitigate traffic. She encouraged upholding the vision and to adopt the FAR that matches.

Comm. Simons asked Ms. Vaughan's opinion about reviewing the LEED certification in 2-4 years. Ms. Vaughan responded that the LEED certification could be reviewed over time. She commented that certification is really ten years out and there is no city in the bay area that requires certification. The City of Pleasanton adopted encouragement of LEED certification, however. She further commented that as a developer, there are still uncertainties to LEED.

Comm. Simons asked Ms. Vaughan if she has any recommendation for LEED implementation and review in the future. Ms. Vaughan recommended looking at the market place and what is available.

Comm. Simons commented that there is concern that LEED certification is not incorporated early on in the design and construction process. Ms. Vaughan suggested reviewing it on a regular basis similar to reviewing the traffic cost. She commented that sustainable design can also be reviewed and LEED certification could later become, acceptable to the market place.

Thom Bryant, Network Appliance, generally supported staff's recommendation and complimented staff for a well-written report. He commented that the reserve pool will maximize building densities to generate dollars for the TSP. He expressed his concerns about the green building, felt that it is rather early. He suggested to have increased FAR zones with design guidelines that could be approved by staff not requiring a public hearing. He encouraged the Commission to adopt a similar approach. He stated that the building would be better served by providing choices to the businesses rather than mandating. He agreed that green building is market driven and over time these requirements would happen.

Comm. Simons asked Mr. Bryant if he has any suggestions on forms of incentives to encourage green building development. Mr. Bryant responded that staff has provided design guidelines that could be used for green building design and also it would be good sense to provide choices to businesses.

Ms. Vaughan added that perhaps they could delay the mandate until the green building study is completed and staff could review good faith approaches.

Thom Mayer, resident, commented that cost of energy would drive green building development. He supported the increased density, as long as there would be no traffic increase. He suggested adding lanes and off-ramps to freeways, expressways and interchanges. He further suggested regulating the traffic as lightrail is poorly run at this point as it take hours to get from one point to Moffett Park. He commented that regulating parking lot size rather than regulating the building size is a better approach. He was pleased to see the bike parking is included and if bike showers are not included it should be. He commented that he did not see the Borregas bike/pedestrian bridges incorporated if not, it should be included as part of the traffic mitigation.

Comm. Simons asked staff whether the VTA guidelines were incorporated in the Specific Plan. Staff responded that the Plan includes the intent of the VTA guidelines. He noted that the Plan calls development of pedestrian friendly in an industrial campus setting including bike parking, shower areas and 20% fee reduction for traffic mitigation incentives.

Ms. Ryan then clarified that the inclusion of the LEED requirement is not a mandate but rather intended to be an incentive. She acknowledged that there is a lack of understanding about LEED programs at this time. She noted that there is study on green building with an anticipated completion for early next year. The study would provide staff guidelines regarding green building and sustainability. She added that there are other factors other than energy use contributing to green building. She clarified the LEED requirement provisions and the levels of LEED certifications. She further clarified that the design criteria for sustainability could be defined and incorporated in the Plan.

Comm. Lee asked staff about the cost and length for LEED certification. Ms. Ryan responded that the cost to apply is minimal. There is, however, additional time involved for review. She noted that there is a review schedule that complements well with the City's project turn-around schedule. She added that the actual LEED Commissioning requires an on-site inspection by a certified individual to assure that the design features are incorporated correctly, which is an added cost. Ms. Ryan stated that she received a recent analysis that the overall increase for both the design and construction cost would be 1% or less for construction for LEED Certified building.

Comm. Lee confirmed with staff about the Green Building study issue. Ms. Ryan responded yes and is scheduled to go to City Council in February 2004

Comm. Moylan asked staff about the restrictions of data storage permit in MP-TOD. Staff responded that staff would like to encourage active use of spaces in close proximity to transit oriented areas. He added that data server farm is not economically advantageous and is not an efficient use of land as it is a lower intensity of use.

Ms. Ryan added that staff is proposing that MP-TOD would encourage transit-oriented buildings for high intensity use with sufficient density of people for the land area.

Staff added that if the storage farm is a component part of a business, it would be permitted but if it is for exclusive storage use, then it is not permitted.

Comm. Lee asked staff to clarify the data server permitted use. Staff responded that if the server farm is located at a higher level of the building and the active users on the ground floor in MP-TOD zoning, then the use is permitted.

Comm. Chu asked staff whether a site that is located in the MP-TOD but along the edge of MP-I could be rezoned to MP-I. Staff responded that it is a possibility. Ms. Ryan added however, that Mr. Crawford most likely would want his property to be in the MP-TOD with option to also have a server farm.

Comm. Chu commented that the report is a well-prepared document.

Vice Chair Moylan clarified whether the motion includes the MP-I standard of 35% FAR and 50% FAR for MP-TOD. Comm. Chu responded yes as recommended by staff to allow 35% FAR for MP-I, 50% for MP-TOD, Development Reserve for 3,930,000 and building potential square feet of 24.33.

Comm. Chu commented although streamlining the process, the study session format would facilitate the process rather than through a public hearing. He further noted that LEED Certified buildings should be encouraged but not mandated.

Comm. Swegles concurred with Comm. Lee.

Ms. Ryan clarified that Tiers 3 and 4 apply when previous project alternative is written up and there is a difference where the current development reserve is less and FAR is higher. She noted that the Tier example show higher FAR not subject to Planning Commission review but only the use of development reserve.

Chair Babcock acknowledged staff's desire to streamline the process, however, she commented that staff is not always constant neither is the public. She stated that she would like to have public review for architectural and site designs and to encourage public input.

Comms. Chu and Comm. Swegles withdrew their motion.

Comm. Lee clarified whether the lock-in percentage is an option. Chair Babcock said yes.

Comm. Simons commented that instead of deleting the LEED building requirement incorporate it for future review. Ms. Ryan commented that the Specific Plan has review criteria for sustainability and that LEED building is only one way of a sustainability level to be incorporated in the project.

Vice Chair Moylan did not support the motion. He commented that there are several incentives provided in the proposed plan but no requirement in exchange of these incentives. He recommended that MP-I should be LEED Certified and MP-TOD LEED Silver in exchange for any of the benefits provided. He commented that if the developers could not absorb the one time cost of 2.4% or less and reduce the operating cost of potential tenants in perpetuity, then the development should be subject to a public hearing or not use the development reserve but rather use the standard FAR and not the maximum FAR.

He stated that he would like to provide several options. He disagreed with the comment that any LEED building requirement in the Moffett Park Area would deter businesses to locate in Sunnyvale. He agreed with Comm. Simons that the LEED building requirement should be incorporated now in the Moffett Park Specific Plan and not in an indeterminate time. He also agreed that there would be additional cost to the developers but would be vastly beneficial for the City and it should be required now. He added that it is a reasonable requirement since there are several options in order to get the benefits.

Comm. Simons asked Vice Chair. Moylan for any suggestions.

Vice Chair Moylan suggested adding conditions to what is already recommended by staff such as requiring Planning Commission review only in certain cases such as standard FAR and development pool making it an incentive to make green buildings.

Comm. Simons further asked what would be the trigger points for LEED Certify or LEED Silver.

Vice Chair Moylan suggested that trigger points may be development up to maximum FAR, use of some of the development reserve or bypass the Planning Commission Review.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION:

Comm. Simons commented that the Plan is a useful tool to expedite the public hearing process while addressing environmental improvements. He added that the condition is not a loss but rather an additional option.