2000-0523- City of Sunnyvale – Introduction of an Ordinance, Chapter 19.29 Moffett Park Specific Plan and associated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (Environmental Impact Report was certified November 11, 2003) KDI (Continued from April 12, 2004)

Kelly Diekmann, Project Planner, presented the staff report.  He noted that the zoning ordinance is the final step in implementing the Moffett Park Specific Plan.  The ordinance provides the zoning standards and permitting procedures for the Moffett Park Specific Plan area. He stated that there are two new permit types in effect only in Moffett Park – Moffett Park Specific Plan Design Review (MPSP-DR) with Minor and Major type of permits where minor permit are reviewed at staff level and Major Permits are reviewed by the Planning Commission and could be appealed to City Council. Another permit is Moffett Park Specific Plan Special Development Permit also with Minor and Major type of permits with Minor Permits reviewed at the Administrative Hearing and appealable to Planning Commission and to City Council and Major Permits reviewed by the Planning Commission appealable to City Council.  Staff recommended introducing the Ordinance to implement the Moffett Park Specific Plan.

Comm. Simons asked what is the purpose of Table 3D for MP-TOD not allowing Destination Retail over 10,000 square feet.  Staff responded that the purpose is to avoid auto oriented type of use and based on land use assumption that larger stores equal more automotive appeal.  Ms. Ryan added that it would be more difficult to control products in response to Comm. Simons’ further questions on specialty retail such as commute alternative products that could be larger than 10,000 square feet.

Further, Comm. Simons asked why childcare centers small business sponsored and recreational/accessory facilities are not allowed in MP-C.  Ms. Ryan responded that MP-C sites are currently hotels only and that added recreational facilities to existing structures could be considered as ancillary to the primary use and that they are not necessarily prohibited.

Comm. Simons asked staff to refresh his memory about the adult entertainment ordinance and why there is a differentiation on places of assembly.  Ms. Ryan responded that the ordinance is based on the distance requirements of adult entertainment from schools and places of assembly.  She added that there is no change in the proposed ordinance from the existing ordinance and that it is to remain in compliance with statutes and legal requirements.  

Ms. Ryan explained the differentiation on places of assembly.  She noted that places of assembly, which is a non-industrial based use, when the economy is down, industrial sites are available for their use.  This ordinance gives an opportunity to protect businesses from those uses as the presence of places of assembly would make it difficult to conduct business in certain areas.

Comm. Simons then asked whether trade associations would be prohibited.  Ms. Ryan responded that if it is a business supporting association, then it is allowed and she explained business serving associations.

Furthermore, Comm. Simons commented that he would like to see maximum development and make certain allowances for additional square feet not to be included in the total FAR with a trade-off of increase quality architecture. Ms. Ryan responded that for certain architectural features and not usable building area, staff could ensure that the definition of the floor area is consistent with M-S and M-3.  However, for usable floor area, it was not evaluated in the environmental document but rather based on gross floor area of the entire area.

Vice Chair Moylan confirmed with staff that the goal for allowable retail uses under MP-TOD and MP-I is to make sure that people have walkable access to those uses and if limited to MP-C, then a lot of people would not have walkable access defeating its purpose.  Staff confirmed Vice Chair Moylan’s statement.

Further, Vice Chair Moylan asked clarification of staff about 8A requiring Special Development Permits for public transportation facilities.  Ms. Ryan clarified and defined “public transportation facilities” as places to park transportation vehicles when not used and also included stops and stations along the transit lines.  She suggested that the Commission could modify 8A to state “public transportation facilities except stops and stations which could be considered as Miscellaneous Plan Permit.”

Ms. Ryan noted that the Zoning Ordinance would be continued to May 11, 2004 City Council meeting to allow time to modify and incorporate the Planning Commission’s recommendation and further fine tune the ordinance.

Comm. Simons expressed his concerns that there should be further definition of what is allowable such as child care near hotel facilities and some specialty retail stores being excluded but opted not to be belabor the ordinance.  Overall, he was pleased with the end-result.

There were no comments from Vice Chair Moylan.

Ms. Ryan stated that the City Council will consider the adoption of the Moffett Park Specific Plan on April 27 and the introduction of the Ordinance would be continued to May 11, 2004.