Modifying the planned intensity and character of land use in the Moffett Park area relates to many of the General Plan Elements.  As a comprehensive long range plan it is important to understand the relationship of Land Use and Transportation to other city services and values.  Attachment D is a more complete list of pertinent Goals, Policies and Action Statements.

 

Land Use and Transportation Element

 

GOAL C3 Attain a transportation system that is effective, safe, pleasant, and convenient.

GOAL C4 Sustain a strong local economy that contributes fiscal support for desired city services and provides a mix of jobs and commercial opportunities.

 

Community Development Strategy

 

The Community Development Strategy is an administrative document used by staff to allocate resources to meet general plan goals and budget outcomes.  This Strategy was finalized in February 2003 and identifies Moffett Park as a prime location for development of Class "A" office and R&D uses. Economic development resources are to be aimed at marketing the area's higher FAR and geographic positioning towards the expansion of current Sunnyvale industrial users and relocation of other high technology and corporate headquarter uses.

 

In 2000 the City Council approved the preparation of an EIR and Specific Plan for the Moffett Park area. This action was in response to business requests for higher intensity development (typically 55-70% FAR) in the Moffett Park area, and the City’s desire to accommodate Class “A” Office and Corporate Headquarters. A Specific Plan was selected as an appropriate land use and transportation management tool. A Specific Plan comprehensively evaluates planned land uses, their environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and can provide more certainty in the development process. Present practice requires separate environmental review studies for each site, without the benefit of a long term plan for the growth and development of Moffett Park. The current practice of requiring a Use Permit for development over standard zoning (35% FAR in most cases) considers individual proposals on a site-by-site basis, which adds both time and uncertainty into the development review process. A Specific Plan sets out a well-defined series of goals and policies for a geographic area and defines the most desirable tools for implementing those goals.

Consultants (RBF Consulting, and their sub-consultants) were hired in February 2001 to assist staff with the research and analysis. Staff conducted a series of outreach meetings with the “stakeholders” in Moffett Park: e.g. businesses, property owners, developers, real estate brokers and trade associations.

It was clear from the outset that transportation/access to Moffett Park is a major constraint to development. The allowable levels of development permitted by the General Plan can only be accommodated with the expansion of access to Moffett Park. Mary Avenue extension was identified in the 1985 Transportation Element as an appropriate mitigation for traffic in the Moffett Park Area. Development of the Mary Avenue extension, or other similar mitigation, provides capacity above that needed for the current General Plan land uses.

The Moffett Park Specific Plan has been analyzed and prepared considering the maximum capacity appropriate to maintain adopted Traffic Level of Service policies. Once capacity was understood, the study evaluated various land uses and distribution of those uses throughout the Moffett Park Specific Plan area.

Related Studies/Mitigation Requirements

Concurrent with the development of the Specific Plan was the Major Transportation Infrastructure study (now called the Transportation Strategic Program). The TSP study has evaluated needed transportation improvements to support General Plan buildout (assuming increased development in some areas of Sunnyvale, including Moffett Park). The conclusions of that study recommend a citywide traffic impact fee, identifying a greater need for mitigation in the Moffett Park area and therefore a higher fee per net new trip.

In January 2003, City Council considered a study to formally adopt a Housing Mitigation Fee for high intensity developments as part of the zoning code. Although a significantly higher fee could be justified from a nexus standpoint, Council adopted a fee of $8.00/sf (primarily for industrial development above 35% FAR) in deference to the challenging economic times in this region and to maintain a competitive advantage with other jurisdictions.

Also in 2003 Council considered potential new fees and taxes to support city services in a down economy. Increases in development fees were adopted to support the cost of development review and to provide for general plan maintenance.

Pending is the Green Building Sustainability study that could result in a program to phase in requirements or incentives to construct more environmentally sensitive development. This study is further discussed under “Sustainability” on page 9.

Outreach

Throughout the MPSP study, staff has met formally and informally with the Moffett Park Stakeholders on more than a dozen occasions and formally with Planning Commission and City Council ten times. The staff recommendation reflects the land use and transportation capacity limitations of the area, Economic Development goals, and the desires of the Moffett Park Community. Consensus on all issues was not achieved, however input from the Planning Commission, City Council and stakeholders has continually modified staff recommendations. The most pressing goals of the stakeholders have been to add certainty to the process and to create a fair system of mitigation. Council and Planning Commission have expressed interest in assuring adequate community oversight of high intensity development. Planning Commission’s recent recommendation also reflected a desire for a high level of environmental stewardship.

Current Conditions in Moffett Park

The Moffett Park Specific Plan area is approximately 1156 acres, and currently includes 15.6 million square feet of development (including approved Use Permits that have not been exercised). The General Plan contemplates a buildout of 18.3 million square feet in this area. The current zoning in Moffett Park area allows a range of industrial uses with a standard 35% FAR except the properties along Java Drive which are permitted up to 50% FAR (i.e. Futures E). Use Permits have been granted for several large sites permitting 50%-70% FAR. All but two of those permits have been exercised. In 1994 a Master Site and Use Permit was approved for the 555 acre Lockheed-Martin campus which allowed increased development, capped at approximately 28% FAR for 15 years. Although the property is zoned at 35% FAR, the cap was required to moderate the pace of development until traffic mitigation (e.g. Mary Avenue Extension) could be provided.

Community Input

The first Moffett Park outreach meeting included frank discussion of both desirable and undesirable land uses in the Moffett Park Specific Plan Area. That discussion revealed a desire for maximum entitled development, a general interest to participate in mitigating environmental impacts associated with increased development, an opposition to residential development (except in very limited situations), and a strong desire for streamlined review and predictability.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE INTENSITY

Development Intensity

Staff and consultants prepared preliminary calculations on traffic generation if the entire area were zoned for 70% FAR (31.5 million square feet total). Even with significant traffic improvements this level of development was not possible without significant adverse traffic and other environmental impacts. It was then determined that if the Moffett Park community would accept high levels of Transportation Demand Management (TDM), and Mary Avenue or an equivalent transportation improvement was provided, that Moffett Park could support up to 24.33 million s.f. City Council and Planning Commission were presented this information at a study session where general direction was given to proceed with this scope.

Distribution of Development and Creation of Sub-districts

The plan then evolved to consider how best to meet the goals for the Moffett Park area. Due to the need for high levels of TDM it was determined that an enhanced transit core (larger than the Futures E area) was appropriate. The boundaries of the core were established using a ¼ mile radius from transit stops. The entire parcel was included for any property that had more than ½ of the land area in the radius. Government parcels, even if they were within the radius, were excluded from the core district on the logic that they were not likely to redevelop in the near term of this plan. Properties already developed with hotels were designated as Commercial sites, acknowledging their lower levels of traffic and the business support they provide to Moffett Park. The remainder of the area was designated as the general industrial area with a lower FAR. These three areas are defined as sub-districts.

The new sub-districts were evaluated with alternatives to allow the development intensity for the area to increase from existing approximate 15.6 million square feet of built and entitled development to a total buildout of approximately 24.33 million square feet. 

Image

Means to achieve potential build-out

Throughout the study different options to distribute the development potential were discussed and evaluated. Several of these alternatives were analyzed in the EIR. A goal of the Moffett Park planning effort is to encourage the development of Class “A” Office, therefore staff also considered the best way to achieve that desired outcome. The concept of a development reserve was introduced early in the study. A development reserve would be used as the market required rather than tying up square footage on properties that may not be contemplated for redevelopment. This concept was evaluated as a means of allowing some flexibility.

The chief land use components of the plan are described below:

 

            MP-TOD Centrally located sub-district encompassing 462 acres that supports the highest level of FAR and is situated along the Light Rail Transit Line. (FAR Levels: Standard 55%, Maximum 70%)

            MP-C Isolated areas currently developed with commercial (Hotel) uses that are intended to remain as commercial uses and serve the business needs of Moffett Park. (FAR Levels: Standard and Maximum 40%)

            MP-I  The remainder of the Moffett Park Specific Plan Area (663 acres) is designated for general industrial and office development at moderate FAR levels. (FAR levels: Standard 40%, Maximum 50%)

            Development Reserve  Unallocated square footage intended to allow for maximized development intensities in response to the market demand for corporate headquarters and other high intensity industrial uses.   Specific Plan prescribes the process for granting access to the Development Reserve.

            Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Private tool for transfer of floor area potential from underutilized sites to larger receiver sites.

As proposed, the Specific Plan would allow for a mix of complementary land uses, including corporate office, R&D, manufacturing, warehouse, small-scale retail, hotel, restaurant, and other ancillary support uses.  The proposed Specific Plan would also allow for an increase in development intensities by increasing the standard and maximum Floor Area Ratios of the zoning districts in the Moffett Park Specific Plan area.

The Development Reserve, as proposed by Staff, would be roughly 5.4 million square feet (rather than the 2 million s.f. in the EIR "Preferred Project”).  The benefit of a development reserve over outright distribution to each property is a greater assurance of full buildout and attainment of the MPSP goals for Class "A" office type development.  The City is able to meet the needs of developers that are seeking development in the near term rather than allocating the square footage to properties that may or may not redevelop to a higher intensity in the future.  Due to this relationship of FAR and redevelopment, coupled with the need to fund traffic infrastructure improvements, staff believes full utilization of the square footage is the best method to meet the objectives of the MPSP and address environmental concerns. The EIR reviewed the use of both a development reserve and the private TDR program.  No additional impacts are forecasted from a larger development reserve rather than direct allocation as was considered by the EIR.

 

Potential difficulties of greater administrative and accounting responsibilities for the City and potential for unbalanced select sites at higher intensities than surrounding sites are minor.   The value of supporting full buildout of the MPSP is of much greater benefit to the City over the long term than the potential difficulties of implementation of a large development reserve. 

 

The City currently maintains a citywide floating pool for development above 35% FAR levels in M-3 and M-S zones for all areas of the City.   The new Moffett Park Development Reserve would be independent of the citywide pool in both calculation of supply and allocation to projects.

 

General Plan Land Use Recommendations

The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the General Plan be amended for the geographic creation of the Moffett Park Specific Plan boundary, land use sub-district delineation, and developable square footage intensities up to 24.33 millions s.f. as indicated in Attachment E.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS

Staff is requesting direction and comments on development standards, proposed design guidelines, and application review process. Unless significant changes are required, a final draft of the Specific Plan and zoning code amendments can be prepared for Council consideration in January 2004.

 

The most significant outstanding issue is how best to process development requests in the Moffett Park Specific Plan area, particularly with regard to high intensity development. Primary objectives of preparing the Specific Plan are to encourage Class “A” Office development and to streamline the entitlement process for these higher intensity developments. Another key objective in the Moffett Park Specific Plan is to require “sustainable” development for the highest intensity developments. City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners have expressed a desire for a higher level of community involvement and review for higher intensity projects.

 

For ease of discussion and administration future development in MPSP can be classified into Tiers.  The tiers are based on what level of intensity is proposed and what level of mitigation is required.

     TIER I-  Tenant Improvements/Remodeling No new square footage (sq. ft.)

TIER II- New Development/Expansion New s.f. up to current (1997 General Plan Levels) FAR limits 35% or Futures E 50% FAR.

TIER III- New Development/Expansion New s.f. greater than current FAR limits of 35% or 50% FAR (only applicable to properties being included in MP-TOD that were not in the Futures E combining district).

     TIER IV- New Development/Expansion New s.f. exceeds the proposed        Standard FAR limits of MP-I 35% or MP-TOD 50% FAR which requires          access          to the development reserve or use of TDR to develop up to the      maximum FAR levels of MP‑I 50% and MP-TOD 70%.

Time Limits on Development Reserve

The recommendation to provide a development reserve is to assure that desired high intensity development is accomplished within the planning horizon for Moffett Park. Therefore, staff finds it is appropriate to guarantee the access to that square footage for a minimum time period (two years), unless a financial commitment is made. Earlier discussions from the development community suggested as 10% non-refundable prepayment of transportation impact fees to guarantee the square footage for 5 years.

Staff concurs with the concept; prepayment of fees assists the City in leveraging outside funding for needed transportation improvements and demonstrates a seriousness by the property owner of completing desired levels of development. Staff finds that a significant, yet not onerous commitment to “tie up” the development reserve should be considered. The development community considered a 33% prepayment for seven years too high. In an early motion Planning Commission discussed requiring a 10% non-refundable prepayment for a five-year guarantee, however the final motion omitted any recommendation on this topic. Staff has responded to the development community with a recommendation of lower prepayment (25%) for seven years.

Planning Commission Recommendation on Process

 

On October 27, 2003 on a 5-2 vote, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to City Council on the desired review process for all new development.  Some level of Planning Commission review would be required for all development (except Tier I). Staff notes that the Planning Commission recommendation is more restrictive than current zoning. Further, staff is concerned that the Planning Commission recommendation does not make sufficient provisions for streamlining development review. There is some streamlining achieved as the major environmental analysis and mitigation are already complete. However, there is a lack of certainty to businesses if all new development is subject to discretion. Staff believes that the primary concerns of the Planning Commission are:

·         to assure sufficient community review of site plans and architecture

·         to require a high level of sustainability in the Moffett Park area.

 

The Planning Commission recommendation included incentives for reduced processing time by providing for an informal Planning Commission review at a study session for LEED Certified and LEED Silver buildings. Since the Planning Commission hearing on October 27, 2003, the City Attorney's office has researched the idea thoroughly and determined that such an activity would fall under the Brown Act's purview and would actually function as a public hearing.  As such, the exclusive use of a study session would not provide significant procedural benefits and City Staff does not recommend its use in the context of an incentive or expedited review.

Planning Commission did not make a formal recommendation on the time limits for use of the development reserve.

Staff Recommendation on Development Process

 

Although staff had previously recommended staff review of all new development in the Moffett Park area, the staff recommendation has been revised to reflect the Planning Commission desire for a higher level of review.

 

Staff recommends that development review for Tiers I, II and III be handled by staff. In essence, this is the same requirement for development review that exists for today’s zoning in Moffett Park. The difference is the addition of property that would now be zoned for 50% FAR and the inclusions of specific environmental mitigation measures. Further, staff recommends that objective standards for sustainability be defined and adopted and that staff would determine compliance with the sustainability requirement (see discussion below) for Tier IV. Site Plan and Architectural review (only) would then be scheduled for a noticed public hearing at the Planning Commission; that decision can be appealed to the City Council. Staff believes that this revised process balances the need for certainty expressed by the businesses, provides the higher level of review desired by Planning Commission, and maintains a requirement for sustainability.

 

Staff recommends guaranteed use of approved development reserve square footage for two years through standard approvals. Square footage may be guaranteed for a longer time frame of seven (7) years with a non-refundable prepayment of 25% of the transportation impact fee.

Sustainability/Green Buildings

 

Sustainability has been a goal of the Specific Plan from the outset of its development.  In the draft Specific Plan from October 2002. Appendix A of the draft Specific Plan addresses green building techniques for evaluating a project's merits when requesting access to the development reserve.  There was no set criteria or points system proposed to determine fulfillment of sustainability goals in the Draft Specific Plan.  During 2002 and 2003 a separate study has been underway on green buildings and sustainability. The final report on that study issue will be presented to Council in February 2004. During the course of that analysis staff has become very familiar with the range of programs available, and felt comfortable recommending the LEED Program (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). However, the business community is not yet knowledgeable of the pros and cons and has expressed a strong reservation on a LEED requirement. Attachment G includes a more thorough discussion of Green Buildings and LEED.

 

After the Planning Commission October 27, 2003 hearing, staff met with two Moffett Park property owners and discussed the sustainability requirement. A green building (LEED) analysis of a recently development Moffett Park building is expected by the end of November. This analysis will indicate what it would have taken for the building to become LEED Certified. Generally the two representatives agreed that using an existing program, either in whole or in part, has value (vs. creating a Sunnyvale specific sustainability checklist). The results of the “LEED” analysis will be used to better define an appropriate sustainable standard for Moffett Park. For example, it may be determined that a LEED Certified building is the appropriate level, or that a building that meets the intent (achieve at least 26 LEED points but does not register with the US Green Building Council) is appropriate. It may be that some lower number of points is considered acceptable. Although Staff is confident that the study will show that marginal additional cost (if any) and effort is needed, staff also understands the lack of comfort from the development community with using this new concept without a thorough review.

 

Planning Commission Recommendation on Sustainability

 

Planning Commission determined that LEED was an appropriate sustainability standard and recommended a LEED Certified level for the MP-I zones (35% FAR) and a LEED Silver level (the second level) for the MP-TOD zones (50% FAR). All new development up to the standard FAR would not have a LEED requirement (however development would be subject to approval at a Planning Commission public hearing). As an incentive for more streamlined review, an applicant could choose to do LEED and have a slightly more streamlined Planning Commission study session review.

 

Further the Planning Commission recommended that all development requesting access to the development reserve or using transfer of development rights needed to meet LEED standards and be subject to Planning Commission approval at a public hearing.

 

Staff Recommendation on Sustainability

 

Staff recommends further research on an objective standard for sustainability. No sustainability requirement is recommended for development up to standard zoning FARs. Further, staff recommends that a development requesting access to the development reserve (or using TDR) that meets the sustainability standard be subject to site plan and architectural review approval (only) by the Planning Commission. Developments NOT meeting the sustainability standard would be subject to planning commission review and approval for intensity as well as site and architectural plan approval.

Scope and Purpose of EIR

As part of the MPSP, the City prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to consider and analyze the environmental effects related to the Specific Plan Project, including the goals and objectives, land use patterns and intensities, design guidelines, and subsequent implementing development standards. This Final EIR is an informational document that describes the significant environmental effect of the project, identifies feasible ways to minimize the significance of the effects and discuss reasonable alternatives to the project to avoid, reduce, or minimize environmental impacts. It is not the purpose of the Final EIR to recommend either approval or denial of the project.

 

To determine the adequacy of the EIR and to certify the document the Lead Agency (City of Sunnyvale) must determine the sufficiency of the information in the document, not the correctness of its conclusions.  Legal adequacy is characterized by:

 

• All required contents must be included;
• Objective, good-faith effort at full disclosure;
• Perfection is not required;
• Reasonable treatment of issues is required;
• Minor technical defects are not necessarily fatal;
• Disagreement among experts is acceptable.  

Impacts/Mitigations

The EIR's primary areas of concern with the MPSP project:

·          Air Quality*

·          Noise

·          Hydrology and Water Quality

·          Hazardous Materials

·          Biological Resources

·          Population and Housing*

·          Traffic and Circulation*

·          Transit

·          Utilities and Services

·          Cumulative Growth*