|
Mayor Swegles asked the Council if they wished to make disclosures on this matter.
Councilmember Howe stated he met with representatives (about a year ago) on this concept, but discussed nothing in detail.
Councilmember Moylan stated he met with the applicant a few weeks ago about this project.
Councilmember Chu stated he had a phone conversation with the applicant earlier this afternoon.
Councilmember Hamilton stated she met with the applicant about six weeks ago, but this topic was not discussed.
Councilmember Spitaleri stated he met with the applicant a few weeks ago regarding this project.
Vice Mayor Lee and Mayor Swegles stated they met with the applicant about three months ago regarding this project.
Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, presented the staff report.
Councilmember Hamilton verified that the current height limit for all of the Moffett Park – Transit Oriented Development (MP-TOD) area is one hundred twenty-five feet, and the Ordinance as currently written does not provide for an exception to this height limit for the MP-TOD area. Any height limit change would require a Variance. If Council feels the height limit should be increased to one hundred thirty feet, Council would need to adopt the proposed amendment to the Ordinance as identified in Attachment F.
Councilmember Hamilton verified with Planning Officer Ryan that there is an error on Attachment F of the staff report, page 1 and 2 as the height limit should state one hundred thirty feet, not one hundred twenty-five feet.
Councilmember Howe verified that the Moffett Park Specific Plan requires that when a project goes to a 70% floor area ratio (FAR), the Transportation Demand Management Program requires 20% total reduction in vehicles and a 30% peak hour reduction. The new development would need to comply with the 20/30% reduction.
Councilmember Howe asked how long this development could be delayed before the developer would have to come back for additional approval and a Public Hearing. Planning Officer Ryan stated the developer would like to start as quickly as possible and each building would take up to a year to complete. Normally, a permit is good for two years; however, in the Moffett Park area, a project that has approved access to the development reserve could prepay their traffic mitigation fees by 25%, which would allow the permit for the project to extend to seven years.
Vice Mayor Lee asked staff to explain the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) levels. Planning Officer Ryan stated the basic level is entitled “Certified” and subsequent levels are “Silver”, “Gold” and “Platinum” with 60 points as the highest level. Planning Officer Ryan stated this project would be required to meet the intent of LEED Certified per the Moffett Park Specific Plan. Currently, there is not a requirement in the Moffett Park area for projects to be submitted for formal certification by the U.S. Green Building Council, but the applicant would be willing to meet that formal application.
Councilmember Moylan asked staff to explain rationale in supporting the General Plan Amendment that would turn Parcel 3 into zoning for the Transit Orientated Development (TOD), when none of Parcel 3 is within walking distance of transit. He verified that Parcel 1 and 3 are to be viewed as linked because the Moffett Park Specific Plan states if a certain fraction of a parcel is within walking distance of transit, it counts as being TOD. Officer Ryan added that they are linked because they are adjacent and linked through their design. She stated there would be an expectation that when Parcel 3 develops, it avails itself to the proximity to light rail. She stated staff hesitated because of the distance issue; however, because it is a highly visible area, it serves as a gateway to the City and creates a visual entry along the edge of Moffett Field which could be of value to the City in promoting Moffett Park as Class A office space.
Councilmember Moylan verified that all three parcels are owned by different entities. He stated the ability to define Parcel 3 as part of a lot that is close to the light rail station depends on it being transferred and becoming unified with Parcel 1, which has not happened. He asked what is to stop the owner of any other lot in Moffett Park from saying they also want to be TOD and developing their lot up to 70% FAR. Planning Officer Ryan stated staff is recommending that Council include language and modify the text of the specific plan to be clearer (rather than look at who owns the property). When something is outside of the average distance, that it is designed in a cohesive manner with other properties to provide those linkages. Page 17 of the staff report highlights a proposed text amendment that describes what someone would have to do to be considered MP-TOD if outside the area.
Councilmember Moylan stated that criteria appeared to be tailored to this project and asked if it is staff’s expectation that another project in Moffett Park could meet those expectations. Planning Officer Ryan stated that currently the twenty-five acre Network Appliance campus is a similar parcel.
Councilmember Moylan asked if Council has the option to make the General Plan Amendment conditional upon Parcel 1 and 3 being formally linked at some point and made into one (one parcel owned by one entity) so legitimately half of the entire parcel is within walking distance of transit and distinctions would not be an issue. Planning Officer Ryan stated a General Plan Amendment does not generally have conditions, but through the Development Agreement, Council could reserve the right to change the designation on properties if certain performance standards are met.
Councilmember Moylan stated he is looking for reassurance that this does not become a mechanism under which some property (that is not within walking distance of transit), would immediately be eligible for development at 70% FAR.
Councilmember Moylan asked about the combination of Parcel 1 and the Ariba Parcel (two parcels that are not the same). He asked what would stop the Ariba Parcel from being subsequently sold after Council approves this item and then the new owner claiming they are next to the light rail station and developing to 70% FAR; thereby, leaving Parcel 1 at 86% FAR. Planning Officer Ryan stated Ariba is part of the application and if approved, Ariba and Parcel 1 would be at 70% and that would be the highest FAR percentage they could obtain. Councilmember Moylan asked if this would eliminate the dividing line between the two parcels and they would become one entity. Officer Ryan stated it would eliminate the dividing line for FAR calculations, but they can still be independent parcels. From the permit standpoint, the entire site would be limited to a total of 70% FAR. Councilmember Moylan verified that the parcel locations per the County Assessors point of view and where the parcels are located from the point of view of counting FAR do not have to be the same.
Councilmember Chu inquired about the status of the process to resolve which alternative reservation the City will choose. Jack Witthaus, Transportation/Traffic Manager, stated staff is pursuing a capital project (an environmental analysis and conceptual engineering – Caltrans document) which is called a project study/projects (PSR/PR) report for the Mary Avenue Extension that will be submitted to Caltrans for consideration. Staff will bring alternatives for Mary Avenue to the Council during the environmental process. Currently, staff is at 95% geometric alternatives, the PSR/PR document has been drafted, and the environmental process was just initiated. Manager Witthaus also stated that staff is approximately 40/45% through the project and anticipates coming to Council in August 2007 with a decision. Councilmember Chu verified that in August 2007 Council would decide among two alternatives (northern end, or no project).
Councilmember Chu stated that the first reservation was made in 1985 and the second reservation was more recent. He verified that the second reservation follows the original property line of Parcel 1 (essentially a place holder for an alignment that would go to 11th Avenue), but was not based on any project drawings. Manager Witthaus stated that in 2004 Council considered the State Route 237 Quarter Study which looked at a number of improvements in the Mathilda/237 area including the Mary Avenue Extension. It was a traffic modeling exercise to see how traffic would flow with the Mary Avenue Extension and it was determined that given the changes in land use, an alignment to 11th Avenue could better circulate traffic into the Moffett Park area,. The second alignment is in place based on the concept of connecting to 11th Avenue, but currently it all resides on Parcel 1. As staff moves further along with the geometric design, it may be necessary to use part of the Ariba Parcel to actually build a Mary Avenue Extension to 11th Avenue.
Councilmember Chu asked if the reason staff is not able to determine which of the two alternatives is best is due to the current status of the engineering. Manager Witthaus stated that was correct and verified that staff is at about 95% geometrics and plans to come back to Council with a decision in August 2007.
Mayor Swegles opened the Public Hearing at 8:06 p.m.
Jay Paul, applicant, spoke about his project and stated this will be one of the first green projects in Santa Clara County. He explained that the project will include an amenities building (which will have a gym) for the occupants to use. Mr. Paul stated he expects the project to be built within a few years.
Mr. Paul stated there is a road issue he would like Council to address because it affects how quickly his company can build a second building. The issue regards the reservation that goes along the property line (that was in place when he received the parcel map). He owns both properties and if the Mary Avenue road is built, he is willing to give a right-of-way that would straddle both the Ariba Parcel and his parcel in an alignment that is more beneficial to the City. It would more effectively address the road overpass than the existing situation. If it is not appropriate for Council to discuss this now, then he would like this item added to another agenda in December; otherwise, his company will have to delay their building plans.
Tom Gilman, architect with DES Architects, stated the approach for this project was to create a unified campus, which is reflected in how the buildings are clustered and how they meet the open spaces. He stated the design includes 35% landscaping of the entire site as compared to a 20% requirement by the City. A major factor of the project is to create a strong pedestrian linkage from the light rail through the project to every building. Artwork will be distributed along the project’s pathway and the City right-of-way. Mr. Gilman confirmed the campus was designed as a sustainable green campus.
Councilmember Howe verified that staff understands the right-of way of both parcels as described by Mr. Paul. Manager Witthaus stated there is an existing Offer to Dedicate and Mr. Paul is talking about adjusting that Offer to Dedicate to address where staff thinks the road will actually go. Councilmember Howe asked if there were any downside to meeting Mr. Paul’s request. Manager Witthaus stated the issue is procedural and without a downside. The Offers to Dedicate would remain in place until Council makes a decision on one alignment or another. Based on the geometric information staff developed for the Mary Avenue Extension Project, Mr. Paul’s request would be a refinement of the Offers to Dedicate by putting them in the right place to support the alternatives.
Amy Chan, City Manager, stated Council previously directed staff to have the two reservations preserved. She stated Council has two choices: 1) direct staff to make the decision or 2) direct staff to bring a report back to Council after December 2006.
Councilmember Howe expressed concerns about timing for the project and confirmed with Mr. Paul that he will start construction as soon as possible and he does not have intentions to use the full time limit of seven years. Mr. Paul stated if Council could direct staff to make the decision on the right-of-way that could assist in moving the project forward.
Vice |