REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
File#: 2013-7525
Name: Landbank Central & Wolfe Campus
Location: Southeast corner of N. Wolfe Road and E. Arques Avenue
(APNs: 205-33-002, 205-33-005, 205-33-007, 205-33-009, 205-33-010, 205-33-011, 205-33-012, 205-33-013, and 205-33-014)
Proposed Project: Consideration of applications for a 17.84 acre site:
REZONING to change the zone from M-S to M-S/FAR 100%;
DESIGN REVIEW to allow the development of a 777,100 square foot, six story office complex and associated parking and onsite amenities;
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP to consolidate the existing lots and street into a condominium subdivision, including the abandonment of Santa Ana Court; and
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Sunnyvale and Landbank Investments, LLC.
Applicant/Owner: Scott Jacobs, Landbank Investments, LLC
Environmental Review: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Report
REPORT IN BRIEF
General Plan: |
Industrial |
Existing Zoning: |
M-S (Industrial and Service) |
Proposed Zoning: |
M-S/100% FAR (Industrial and Service/100% Floor Area Ratio) |
Existing Site Conditions |
Nine one-story light industrial buildings currently occupied with a combination of light industrial and office uses. |
Surrounding Land Uses |
|
North |
Commercial |
South |
Industrial (across Central Expressway) |
East |
Commercial, industrial, and the City Corp Yard |
West |
Industrial and religious institutions (Places of Assembly) |
Issues |
Traffic, Neighborhood Compatibility, and increased Floor Area Ratio. |
Planning Commission/ Staff Recommendation |
Recommend that the City Council Certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Make the findings required by CEQA, Adopt the Statement of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Introduce an Ordinance to Rezone the property to M-S/100% FAR; Approve the Design Review and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map with Conditions; and Introduce an Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement. |
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is located on 17.84 acres at the southeast corner of North Wolfe Road and East Arques Avenue, diagonally across the street from Fire Station No. 2. The surrounding land uses are primarily non-residential, a combination of commercial, office, and industrial. The closest residences are the approved monk's quarters across North Wolfe Road at the Zen Center expansion. The next closest residences are the Archstone apartment complex located approximately 600 feet northwest of the site (behind Fire Station No. 2). The attached condominium projects at Montara Terrace and Santa Fe Terrace are approximately one-quarter mile west of the project site. The closest single-family neighborhood is located about 1,000 feet west of the site on the southside of Central Expressway. Acacia, Bartlett and California Avenues are the closest streets in this neighborhood. In comparison, the closest single-family neighborhood to the "LinkedIn" project was about 250 feet away. The Sunnyvale and Lawrence Caltrain Stations are approximately one mile away to the southwest and southeast, respectively. The site is fully developed and is occupied with nine one-story light industrial buildings and includes the right-of-way for Santa Ana Court. The gross floor area of the nine existing light industrial buildings is 258,729 square feet for a 34 percent Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
The proposed project involves the demolition of the light industrial/office buildings around Santa Ana Court and the construction of three four-story interconnected office buildings (totaling 747,100 square feet) constructed over two levels of parking, a 30,000 square foot amenities building, and a six-story parking garage; for a 100 percent FAR. The 89-foot tall buildings would be constructed to a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum level. Attachment 1 is a vicinity and noticing map for these related applications. Attachment 2 is the Data Sheet for the project. The Project plans are contained in Attachment 11.
BACKGROUND
The proposed project began in 2013 with the review of a Preliminary Review application. The applicant submitted formal applications on June 12, 2013. Since the application, there have been numerous public meetings on the project including:
Scoping Meeting on the Environmental Impact Statement
The scoping meeting is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is intended to allow the community to provide input on the issues to be addressed in the EIR. This meeting was held on September 19, 2013 in the City Council Chambers. Three members of the public attended the scoping meeting.
Planning Commission Study Sessions
On April 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a study session on the project and provided input to the applicant and his design team.
City Council Study Session
On April 29, 2014, the City Council conducted a study session on the proposed project and provided input to the applicant and his design team.
Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Environmental Impact Report
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Draft EIR (DEIR) on May 28, 2014. At this meeting, members of the public and Planning Commission had the opportunity to provide comments on the analysis and results of the EIR. This hearing is not required by CEQA unless the environmental document is included for action on the project. Sunnyvale conducts these hearings as a courtesy to the public to provide an additional opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the EIR.
Neighborhood Outreach Meetings
The applicant conducted two outreach meetings on April 17, 2014. The first meeting, at 9 a.m., was targeted for the business community, while the second meeting, at 6:30 p.m., was targeted to local residents; interested parties were welcome to attend either meeting. The meeting notification radius is depicted in Attachment 1, which includes all properties located a minimum of 1,000 feet from the edge of the site and includes areas within the viewshed of the project. About 20 members of the public attended the morning session and about 40 members of the public attended the evening session. Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners also attended one of the two meetings. At these meetings the applicant made a presentation on the proposed project and answered questions from those in attendance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA. The DEIR addressed 14 issue/topic areas. Each impact area identifies short-term construction related impacts, operational impacts, cumulative impacts, and mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts. These impact/topic areas addressed in the DEIR are as listed below.
Land Use and Planning |
Biological Resources |
Population and Housing |
Geology and Soils |
Aesthetics |
Hydrology/Water Quality |
Transportation and Traffic |
Hazards and Hazardous Materials |
Air Quality |
Cultural Resources |
Greenhouse Gases |
Utilities and Service Systems |
Noise |
Public Services |
Significant Impacts
The EIR identified potentially significant impacts for the following. Appropriate mitigation measures were identified for all of the significant impacts except for Traffic and Transportation and construction related noise. The mitigation measures from the EIR have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Design Review and Vesting Tentative Map.
• Aesthetics
• Traffic and Transportation
• Air Quality - Construction
• Air Quality - Operation
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Noise - Construction
• Biologic Resources
• Cultural Resources
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The EIR identified several significant and unavoidable impacts to the environment. The significant and unavoidable (unmitigatable) impacts included the following:
· Traffic and Transportation. While the project would add traffic to many area intersections, only the impact to the intersection of Commercial Street and Central Expressway was determined to be significant. The DEIR initially indicated that the construction of a full movement intersection at this location had the potential to address impacts of the project. However, during the public review of the DEIR, a number of commenters indicated that the construction of a full-movement intersection could create other traffic problems. As a result of these comments, the proposed intersection was re-studied and re-evaluated. The re-evaluation indicated that a full-movement intersection in this location had the potential to create other traffic impacts that were more substantial than the traffic impacts being created by the project. As a result, the previously identified mitigation measure has been removed from the EIR. The potential significant impacts at the intersection of Commercial Street and Central Expressway, with the elimination of the undesirable mitigation measure, are significant and unavoidable. The adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required to approve the project.
· Construction Noise. Temporary impacts during building demolition, pile driving and building construction are likely to occur that could adversely impact nearby residents. The source of the noise includes heavy equipment used during demolition and construction, impact tools, and pile driving equipment. Because construction-related noise impacts are impossible to completely eliminate, the impact is still considered to be significant and unavoidable even with the identified mitigation measures. As a result, the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required to approve the project.
Because of recent issues with pile driving activities of other projects, staff is recommending that the mitigation measure addressing the noise from pile driving activities, that is incorporated into the conditions of approval, be strengthened to require the use of alternative pile construction techniques, if feasible (given the character and properties of on-site soils).
Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts
The EIR also addresses the cumulative impact of the project by assuming that all known future projects in the surrounding area are also implemented and then assessing these cumulative impacts. The DEIR concluded that the project would induce growth in the City consistent with the adopted General Plan (the long-term plan for the City). Because the future growth is consistent with the City General Plan, the impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Project Alternatives
CEQA also requires the consideration of Project Alternatives as a way to reduce the impacts of the project. As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, a range of reasonable alternatives to the project need to be addressed within the EIR. While some of these alternatives did reduce the impacts of the project, none of them reduced a significant and unavoidable impact to a less than significant level. The three alternatives considered in the DEIR are:
o A No Project Alternative which would not have the proposed project constructed so that the existing one-story industrial/office buildings remain in use on the site. This alternative project would result in no new impacts on the environment.
o A Reduced Development Alternative envisioning the future development of the site at 70 percent FAR (instead of the requested FAR 100 percent).
o An Alternative Transportation Alternative would reduce the number of parking spaces in conjunction with the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program.
Several Project Alternatives were initially considered but rejected by City staff and the City's EIR consultant during the process of preparing the DEIR. These rejected project alternatives include: an alternate site (the applicant does not have an equivalent alternative site in the area); an alternate land use project (the General Plan identifies this area for industrial/office development); and an even more reduced development alternative (that did not meet project objectives).
Public Review and Comment Period
The DEIR was released for public review and comment on April 18, 2014. The comment period ended at 5 p.m. on June 2, 2014. In addition, a public hearing was held on May 28, 2014 to allow for the public to provide verbal comments on the DEIR. Fourteen agencies or individuals commented on the DEIR including one State agency (Caltrans), Santa Clara County (Roads and Airports Department), one regional agency (VTA), and nine individuals, as well as the project applicant and project architect. All of the written and verbal comments (received at the public hearing) were considered during the preparation of the Final EIR (FEIR).
Final EIR
The FEIR was provided to the responding agencies and the General Public on August 14, 2014. The FEIR contains formal responses to each of the comments, corrected and updated information in the DEIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The most significant change to the DEIR is the removal of a traffic-related mitigation measure (the installation of a four-way signalized intersection at Commercial Street and Central Expressway) that was questioned by a number of respondents. As a result of the comments, the desirability and feasibility of the improvements were re-evaluated. The result of this re-evaluation was a determination that the impacts of the proposed mitigation measure resulted in a greater adverse impact to the transportation system than did the original project. The impact was characterized in the DEIR as significant and unavoidable as it was subject to approval by another agency (Santa Clara County). As a result, the mitigation measure was determined to be ineffective at mitigating the impact and is being dropped in the FEIR; eliminating this mitigation measure did not change the conclusion that the impact is significant and unavoidable. A copy of the FEIR, which included the DEIR by reference, was provided separately to the Planning Commission and City Council and is referenced as Attachment 10 to this staff report. The City received a subsequent letter from Caltrans reiterating their earlier comments on the Draft EIR. A copy of this letter is located in Attachment 14.
The draft resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report, making findings and adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is presented as Attachment 7.
DISCUSSION
The project consists of four main entitlement requests: Rezoning, Design Review, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and a Development Agreement. The central issue is whether it is appropriate to allow a higher density office development on the subject property and accept the increased traffic and other impacts that would result from this project. The policy decision requires balancing economic development, employment and fiscal benefits with the real impacts on neighborhoods and the local street system. From a regional perspective, Silicon Valley continues to be a global center for growing innovation companies and contributes to the world economy, and the building needs of this sector are evolving. Many companies are seeking office space with larger floor plates in multi-story buildings. While smaller companies can adapt to the lower density industrial buildings that are prevalent in Sunnyvale, major corporate tenants are seeking distinctive Class "A" office buildings as proposed by this applicant. The proposed rezoning would directly respond to this segment of the market and, if not allowed in Sunnyvale, these higher FAR projects would inevitably be built in surrounding communities.
Although the project site is conveniently located adjacent to Central Expressway, increased traffic on surrounding streets will be unavoidable and the project would noticeably change the character of this older industrial area. While the existing roadway and transit conditions may not be ideal at this location, if the Council were to approve this project, conditions of approval and a Development Agreement require contribution of traffic impact fees above the City standard and an ambitious transportation demand management (TDM) plan. The City would work with the developer to implement traffic mitigation projects and an aggressive trip reduction program. Additional community benefits have also been negotiated in the recommended Development Agreement.
Rezoning
The site is currently zoned Industrial and Service (M-S) which allows a maximum 35 percent Floor Area Ratio (FAR) unless a green building incentive is used to achieve 45 percent FAR or a Use Permit is approved for higher FAR. The Rezoning would be an amendment to the Precise Zoning Plan to rezone the site from M-S to M-S/100% FAR.
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Industrial. The General Plan identifies the M-S, Manufacturing and Service Zone, as one of the two zones used to implement the Industry General Plan Land Use Designation (the other zone is the M-3, General Industrial Zone). The General Plan also identifies that intensification of the Industrial Land Use Designation (above 35 percent FAR) may be considered. In 1993, industrial areas in Moffett Park and along Mathilda Avenue, both major transportation corridors, were identified for intensification. Envisioning future industrial intensification, the zoning ordinance identifies three different base intensities of development in the M-S Zone to implement this provision. The three intensities are defined by different FAR categories: 35 percent, 70 percent, and 100 percent. The subject site has an Industrial land use designation, is at the intersection of three arterial roadways, and is not adjacent to any single family residential neighborhoods or other sensitive land uses. The Project is also not in conflict with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan. Staff can make the finding that rezoning the site from M-S (35% FAR) to M-S/100% FAR is consistent with the General Plan. Attachment 3, Recommended Findings, has been modified to more fully discuss the findings for all of the related applications. The draft Ordinance approving the Rezoning is contained in Attachment 8.
When the applicant initially submitted their application, they were uncertain about whether a Use Permit to achieve 100 percent FAR or a Rezoning to 100 percent FAR would be the best choice. As a result, they provided answers to the Council-adopted Review Criteria for Projects Greater Than 35 percent FAR. If the site is rezoned to the higher FAR, the evaluation criteria would not technically be required; however, staff has included the applicant's response to the Review Criteria in Attachment 5. At the Planning Commission hearing there were concerns expressed that several of the criteria responses provided by the applicant were incomplete. As a result, staff requested the applicant to update the information in Attachment 5. If City Council finds that a Use Permit for 100 percent FAR is preferable to the requested Rezoning, then this material would be directly applicable to the applicant's request.
To assist in the deliberations, the following table notes the difference between the Rezoning plus Design Review and Use Permit only options for a higher FAR project:
Rezoning + Design Review |
Use Permit |
Rezone requires City Council Approval; |
High FAR Use Permit requires City Council Approval |
Zoning does not expire (but may be changed by the City Council after public hearings and adoption of an ordinance); Design Review with the Development Agreement expires in 15 years* |
Use Permit with Development Agreement expires in 15 years* A Use Permit without a Development Agreement expires in 3 years (initial 2 years with a one year extension allowed). |
Without a Development Agreement: the Rezoning does not expire. The Design Review would expire after two years (and a one year extension, if approved). |
Without a Development Agreement: the Use Permit expires after 2 years (plus a one-year extension) if not exercised |
Currently, no formal Council policy on whether the Development Pool should be adjusted if there are zoning changes. Staff recommends adjusting the Citywide Development Pool if the rezoning is approved. |
Additional square footage is deducted from the Citywide Development Pool |
TDM Program to reduce vehicle trips to the equivalent of 70 percent FAR required. |
Flexible conditions for TDM programs. Conditions decrease certainty in the development review process. |
The M-S/100% FAR Zoning has a height limit of 100 feet (exclusive of rooftop equipment) |
The M-S Zoning District has a height limit of 75 feet (exclusive of rooftop equipment). |
*The proposed term of the Development Agreement is 10 years with one 5 year extension |
Design Review
A major Design Review is needed to approve the layout and design of the proposed campus. The Design Review addresses the buildings, landscaping, and associated public improvements. The discussion of the design of the project is located under the Design Review heading. The proposed project complies with all of the applicable Development Standards as set forth in the Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC). Compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Code is demonstrated in the Project Data Table located in Attachment 2. No variances or deviations from the Zoning Code are being requested.
Site Design and Layout
The site is located at the intersection of two arterial streets, North Wolfe Road and East Arques Avenue. The project is oriented toward these two streets. The project consists of three interconnected cloverleaf shaped office buildings which frame a large courtyard designed for people to relax and interact. The six-story parking garage is located in the southeastern corner of the site adjacent to Central Expressway and the City Corp Yard (which fronts on Commercial Street), away from North Wolfe Road and East Arques Avenue. Building 1, located at the corner of North Wolfe Road and East Arques Avenue, is closest to the street with ground level at approximately 55 feet from the edge of right-of-way. In contrast, Buildings 2 and 3 are setback over 100 feet from the property line.
The following components of the Industrial Design Guidelines were considered in analysis of the site design:
Site Design Guidelines |
Evaluation |
A1. New development shall enhance the character of its surrounding area through quality architecture, and landscaping and appropriate site arrangement. |
The proposed project will enhance the site and surroundings with the introduction of high-quality architecture and substantial landscaping. |
A4. New buildings shall present strong relationships to their site and surrounding buildings on the same or adjacent parcels. Visual and functional relationships between buildings and sites may be created by building orientation and massing, and site organization. |
While the building design is a departure from the surrounding more traditional industrial/office buildings, the proposed project is consistent with the innovative and distinctive characteristics of other new Class A office buildings in the community and is large enough to create its own visual and functional relationships. |
A5. In multi-building complexes, a distinct visual link shall be established among various buildings by using architectural or site design elements such as courtyards, plazas, landscaping, and walkways to unify the project. |
The unique shape of the buildings creates a curvilinear form and creates a distinct visual link to the complex. Central pedestrian spaces as well as a perimeter pathway have been incorporated into the site plan. |
B1. Site components such as structures, parking, driveways, and out-door functions shall be arranged and located to emphasize the aesthetically pleasant components of the site such as existing mature trees and views, or superior architectural features, and disguise its less attractive scenes such as service facilities, outside storage and equipment areas, and trash enclosures through placement and design of structure and landscaping. |
The proposed building will be located towards the corner of the site with parking under the buildings and in the rear of the site. Many existing mature trees along the edge of the street will be maintained and additional landscaping will enhance the streetscape. Each building will have a trash collection transfer area while the main collection area is located in the rear of the site in the parking garage. |
C1. Each project site shall be designed for maximum utility of open space for ventilation, sunlight, recreation and views for both the new and existing buildings. |
Nearly half of the site (approximately 44 percent) is landscaped, leaving much of the site as open space allowing abundant opportunities for sunlight and recreation. |
C3. Incorporating benches, art work, landscaping, water and hardscape features into open space is encouraged. |
The proposed project incorporates a large courtyard/plaza area at the center and three smaller courtyards in each "clover-leaf." These areas include a variety of human scaled spaces and amenities. |
Circulation and Parking
Access to the project is provided by two driveways from North Wolfe Road and two driveways from East Arques Avenue. These driveways provide vehicular access to the parking located underneath each of the three buildings and the parking garage. Both of the access drives from North Wolfe Road are right-in/right-out. The driveways on East Arques Avenue are proposed to allow full turning movements. The western most of the driveways onto East Arques Avenue is in the same location as the current intersection with Santa Ana Court.
SMC 19.46.100 establishes a minimum and maximum number of parking spaces. According to Table 19.46.199, both research and development and corporate office uses are required to have at least two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet and no more than four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The project, as currently proposed, contains 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. This translates to a total of 2,541 parking spaces which is made up of 343 spaces beneath each of the three office buildings, 12 surface spaces, and 1,500 parking spaces in the parking garage. This total is inclusive of all of the required handicapped and van accessible spaces as well as electric vehicle charging and dedicated car-share parking. As conditioned, a final parking lot striping plan demonstrating conformance to SMC 19.46 and Design Guidelines will need to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.
SMC 19.46.150 requires a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces equal to 5 percent of the number of parking spaces provided, or 128 parking spaces. A minimum of 75 percent of the bicycle parking spaces must also be secured or lockable, such as bike lockers or secured bicycle parking areas. The bicycle storage areas are located in the ground floor parking areas under each office building and on the ground floor of the parking garage. Additional parking is provided near each building entrance. The project meets the minimum bicycle parking requirements. These locations comply with the Design Guidelines to encourage visibility and ease of access to the bicycle parking spaces.
Parking and Circulation Guidelines |
Comments |
A1. To avoid large expanses of paved areas and to provide easy accessibility to buildings, large parking lots should be divided into smaller parking areas and dispersed around the site. |
The proposed project has parking located in four distinct areas, on the lower levels of each building and a large parking garage. |
A5. Bicycle lockers and/or racks shall be located hear building entrances. |
The proposed project incorporates secured bicycle parking into the design of project and incorporates additional parking adjacent to each building entrance. |
B3. Exterior design of parking structures shall maintain similar architectural as those on principal buildings on the site to provide architectural harmony. |
The proposed project incorporates green wall elements and similarly colored metal elements consistent with the main office buildings. |
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
The project is required to prepare a TDM Plan to reduce the number of peak hour and average daily vehicle trips to a level equivalent to a project with an FAR of 70 percent. The applicant has submitted a preliminary TDM Plan that incorporates a variety of developer provided infrastructure and tenant day-to-day based measures. The physical features to support TDM programs include onsite transit and shuttle stops, showers and lockers, and fiber optic connections to facilitate working off-site. Examples of the tenant provided measures include Go Passes, guaranteed rides home, alternative work schedules, telecommuting, and financial incentives. The Plan promotes sustainable modes of transportation, such as carpool/vanpool programs and transit subsidies. A copy of the preliminary TDM Plan is contained in Attachment 6. The project has been conditioned to submit a final TDM prior to the issuance of a building permit and is subject to approval prior to building occupancy (when the identity and character of the tenants are known).
The Planning Commission has recommended a more aggressive TDM goal for the project. Under the Commission's recommendation, the TDM Plan would reduce a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips to a level equivalent to a 65% FAR project (35% trip reduction). Because this higher standard is beyond the 70% FAR standard (30% trip reduction) specified in the Zoning Code, a provision has been added to the Development Agreement to require the additional 5% peak hour trip reduction goal. The difference between the 70% FAR standard and 65% FAR standard is about 38 AM peak hour and 37 PM peak hour vehicle trips for the project. (A total of 773 AM peak hour and 724 PM Peak Hour vehicle trips are projected from the project without TDM; a 30% target represents a reduction of 232 AM and 217 PM trips while a 35% target represents a reduction of 270 AM and 253 PM trips.)
Achieving a 30% trip reduction target is already quite aggressive given the site location and will require a combination of both property management and tenant provided measures as outlined in the preliminary TDM Plan. Where the property owner will also be the tenant, the owner can better manage and implement a successful TDM Plan. However, where the project will be leased, the TDM plan will require the participation of one or multiple tenants. Meeting the TDM goals will be uncertain until tenants are identified and leases are signed. Attracting tenants could also be challenging if they believe the TDM requirements are too ambitious or unrealistic. The higher 35% target would require a more significant commitment to TDM measures and could further affect tenant attraction.
While staff concurs with the rationale for increasing the TDM goal, it would be the most aggressive that has ever been required for a project in Sunnyvale. For Moffett Park projects that benefit from a VTA light rail line, the requirement is a 30% reduction in peak hour trips. Staff does not recommend that the City Council adopt a target above 35% for this project. Further, to ensure that this target is met, staff recommends adding a provision to Condition GC-6 that requires the property owner or tenant to participate in a transportation management association if one is formed for the area in the future.
Architecture
The project incorporates innovative curvilinear building design for the proposed office buildings. The parking structure is a more traditional rectangular shaped structure. The exterior is predominantly glass with the concrete floors projecting out of the building through the plane of the window. The windows for the top three office floors lean outwards making the building slightly closer to the street. The glass is a Fritted Solarban which is highly energy efficient. The EIR identified a mitigation measure (AES-4) to address potential issues from reflected light and glare during the building permit process. This requirement is included in the conditions of approval. The following components of the Industrial Design Guidelines were considered in analysis of the site design:
Building Design Guidelines |
Comments |
A4. Front facades of large buildings visible from a public street shall include architectural features such as reveals, windows and opening, expansion joints, changes in color, texture, and material to add interest to the building elevation. |
The proposed architecture includes cantilevered wall planes with angled windows on a curvilinear wall surface which create an interesting and dynamic exterior elevation. |
B1. New buildings shall maintain diversity and individuality in style while improving aesthetic character of their surrounding area. |
The proposed architectural style is reflective of other new buildings within the City while also providing an innovative and unique design with high quality materials. |
B5. Main entrances of the buildings shall be well defined. |
The main entry of the building is oriented to the corner of the lot, creating a prominent feature that is easily accessible from both street frontages. The proposed landscaping helps to further enhance the entrance to the site. |
B6. New buildings shall have at least one major focal point and minor focal point. Focal points should be achieved through horizontal and vertical lines, change in material, change in color, changing the form and shape of a portion of the building, etc. Combining the main entrance and the focal points is encouraged. |
The form of the proposed building creates a situation where the entire building becomes the focal point. This attracts visitors toward the central courtyard and the primary building entrances. |
E1. A comprehensive material and color scheme shall be developed for each site. |
The proposed buildings will be constructed of curved glass and steel with ledge bands between each floor. The building exterior will be composed primarily of glass in a blue color, with a green wall softening the mass of the building at the street level while concealing the lower parking levels. |
E3. Large expanses of high reflective surface and mirror glass exterior walls shall be avoided to prevent heat and glare impacts on the adjacent public streets and properties. |
The proposed office buildings will utilize clear glass and spandrel glass along exterior facades to minimize reflection on public streets and adjacent properties. Mirror glass is not proposed. The project site is not adjacent to residential uses. |
Landscaping
The project is designed with approximately 44.3 percent of the lot area as landscaping, which far exceeds the 20 percent minimum landscaping requirement. The landscaping will be dispersed throughout the site (including in the green wells at the core of each of the office buildings) and will include a variety of groundcover, shrubs and trees. Plant species have been designed to comply with the SMC water-efficient landscaping requirements and the proposed placement of trees complies with the Bird Safe Design Guidelines.
According to the arborist report, the site contains 334 trees. All of these trees were planted as landscaping when the site was first developed in the 1970s. There are 22 species of trees on the site. The most common trees are the Silver Birch (91), various species of Eucalyptus (72), Coast Redwood (60), and Olive (44). Of the 334 trees identified on-site, 210 were large enough to be protected trees under SMC Chapter 19.94. The project as proposed would remove 160 of the 210 protected trees.
|
Total |
Protected Tree |
Non-Protected Tree |
Tree Name |
Number |
Removed |
Retained |
Removed |
Retained |
Silver Birch |
91 |
5 |
1 |
85 |
0 |
Eucalyptus sp. |
72 |
60 |
4 |
9 |
0 |
Coast Redwood |
61 |
35 |
26 |
0 |
0 |
Olive |
47 |
31 |
8 |
7 |
1 |
Other tree species |
62 |
29 |
11 |
21 |
1 |
TOTAL |
334 |
160 |
50 |
123 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the trees being kept as part of the proposed project, about 70 percent are located in the landscaped areas adjacent to North Wolfe Road and East Arques Avenues. The remaining protected trees are located either in the central plaza or in the landscaped area south of Building 2 and east of Building 3. The proposed Landscape Plan shows the planting of 302 new trees as part of the project, bringing the total number of trees, when the project is constructed, to over 350. Conditions of Approval require a minimum 24-inch box tree for replacement of any protected trees.
SMC Section 19.37.070 states that at least 50 percent of the parking areas must be shaded within 15 years after the establishment. However, only 104 of the 2,541 parking spaces will not be shaded by either a building or by the solar panels on the top level of the parking garage. This means that 96 percent of the parking spaces will be entirely shaded when the project is constructed.
The following Industrial Design Guidelines were considered in the analysis of the project landscaping:
Landscaping Guidelines |
Comments |
A2. All areas not in use by structures, driveways, and parking spaces shall be properly landscaped. |
The proposed project disperses the landscaping throughout the site, along the two street frontages between the sidewalk and building, between the buildings are around the perimeter of the site. All portions of the site are either built on to make those areas impervious or are landscaped. |
A4. Landscape design and material shall adhere to the City's water wise standards. |
The project will be using reclaimed water for both landscape irrigation and toilet flushing. The proposed project complies with the requirements of the efficient irrigation requirements. |
A7. Site furniture and fixtures such as planters, light poles, tree grates, newspaper racks, benches, transit shelters, mail boxes, etc. shall be incorporated into the landscape design. |
The proposed project incorporates a wide range of site furniture, fixtures, benches, and other items into the landscape design. |
B1. A minimum of 15 foot wide landscape strip shall be provided along all public street frontages. |
The proposed project substantially exceeds this requirement providing over 30 feet of landscaping adjacent to the public street. |
B6. A combination of trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be used between the buildings and the public right-of-way. Water wise ground covers are highly encouraged in lieu of grass. Annuals or other non-drought tolerant plant material shall be use minimally and shall be used in highly visible areas. |
The landscape palate includes a wide range of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of higher water use plants and turf is limited to less than 20 percent of the total landscaped area. |
Green Building Requirements
The current requirement is that all new buildings (greater than 5,000 square feet) be constructed to at least LEED Silver level. The applicant has proposed a project to be constructed to a LEED Platinum level.
Bird Safe Building Design Guidelines
The City recently adopted Bird Safe Building Design Guidelines, which include recommendations for sites within 300 feet of a body of water larger than one acre in size or located adjacent to a landscaped area, open space or park larger than one acre in size. Because the site contains more than one acre of open space area, the more stringent requirement will apply to this project. The project includes the following bird safe components in conformance with the adopted Guidelines.
· The project limits the use of multi-floor expanse of reflective or transparent glass on the lower 19 feet of the structure and uses angled glass to reflect ground for most of the remaining elevations;
· Uses low reflective building glass;
· Limits the amount of glass on ground level stories, especially in areas adjacent to landscaping;
· Uses fritted or etched glass;
· Avoids placing tall landscaping in front of highly reflective glass and the use of green roofs and water features near glass;
· Avoids the funneling of open space towards a building face;
· Uses shielded light fixtures; and
· Will include operational provisions that reduce night time lighting.
Art in Private Development
Sites over two acres in size are subject to the Art in Private Development requirements of SMC Chapter 19.52. The project will be conditioned to comply with these provisions. The applicant has indicated that artwork will likely be located in the central plaza area or near one of the project entrances. The developer has contacted the Library and Community Services Department on the City's art requirements. The project has been conditioned to design artwork to comply with the code requirements.
Construction
Once construction activities begin, project construction is expected to take approximately 22 months. This is broken out into several distinct phases that are described below.
· Demolition of the existing buildings - 3 months
· Site Grading and Preparation - 1½ months
· Placing Foundation Piles - 1½ months
· Building Construction and Site Landscaping - 16 months
Section 16.08 of the SMC regulates the hours of construction. The hours of construction are limited to Monday through Friday between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. This project is required to comply with these requirements and will be conditioned to prepare and implement a Construction Noise Management Plan.
The proposed project will require installing concrete piles for the building foundations. Staff is concerned that this may disturb the surrounding neighbors and have discussed with the applicant using a quieter method to install the piles. As a result, the project will be conditioned to not use piling driving, but to use alternative methods such as drill piles or vibrated-in-place piles, unless for structural or geotechnical reasons such methods are proven to be infeasible (see Condition of Approval BP-18).
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
The site is currently subdivided into nine lots and the right-of-way for Santa Ana Court. The applicant is requesting a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. The proposed parcel map would create a one-lot condominium with four air space lots. Through the remapping of the site, the existing right-of-way easement for Santa Ana Court would be vacated. Santa Ana Court was originally created when the property was subdivided in the early 1970s. The proposed vacation would return the area of the road to the adjacent properties. The recommended conditions of approval for the Design Review and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map are both in Attachment 4.
Development Agreement
Development Agreements are an optional and voluntary contract between a local government and a property owner that is commonly used to guarantee development and provide additional benefits to the City and developer that could not otherwise be obtained through standard land use approvals. The proposed Development Agreement is fairly simple with only a few provisions. In the Development Agreement, the developer would be receiving the following benefits:
· A 10-Year Development Guarantee (with a possible single 5-year extension) for the entitled project; and,
· No new impact or mitigation fees would apply to the project during the first five years of the Agreement.
The City is getting the following community benefits:
· Payment of Housing Mitigation Fee for the square footage of the additional building square footage (estimated to be about $4.6 million);
· A financial contribution of $2,000,000 for landscaping, beautification, or park improvements within the City (with an annual escalation of 4 percent of this amount to reflect project cost increases);
· A financial contribution of $1,000,000 toward future traffic improvements above the required CEQA traffic mitigation measures for the project (with an annual escalation of 3 percent of this amount to reflect project cost increases);
· Require an additional 5 percent reduction in peak hour vehicle trips over that required in the Zoning Code (i.e. total 35% trip reduction or equivalent to a project with a 65% FAR); and
· A commitment from the developer to maximize the City's sales and use taxes from project construction.
Consistent with City Policy, the Development Agreement does not freeze the permit and impact fees or waive any of the current regulatory permits. The 10-year right-to-develop guarantee and the additional impact fees are the primary components of the agreement. The staff recommended findings to support the approval of the Development Agreement are found in Attachment 3 and in the draft ordinance approving the Development Agreement. The draft Ordinance and proposed Development Agreement between Landbank Investors, LLC and the City of Sunnyvale is contained in Attachment 9.
Expected Effects on the City
Development Pool
In 1998, the City Council adopted a policy that set up procedures and criteria for reviewing "high FAR" industrial projects. There are 26 criteria in the Use Permit Process that staff, Planning Commission and City Council use in determining the desirability of the higher FAR on a site. Part of the policy effort also created a citywide "development pool" of available floor area. This floor area helps assure consistency with planned growth in the General Plan. The pool is credited with square footage from sites without industrial uses such as utilities, hotels, retail, etc. It is debited each time a Use Permit is approved. The current balance of the pool for projects approved is about 1.93 million square feet. If the rezoning is approved, Planning Commission and staff recommend deducting from the development pool the additional 518,821 square feet. allowed through this rezoning (which also includes the additional square footage associated with the street abandonment), and which would leave a balance in the development pool of about 1.41million square feet.
Balanced Growth Profile
An updated Balanced Growth profile (June 2014) is included as Attachment 15. The profile reflects: 1) projects built; 2) projects approved; and, 3) this pending project. The Balanced Growth Profile helps illustrate the project on a citywide basis.
FISCAL IMPACT
Normal fees and taxes are anticipated for this project. The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on the City. The new buildings are expected to increase the assessed value of the property and increase the property tax revenue received by the City by approximately $440,000. In addition to the amounts identified in the Development Agreement, the applicant will be required to pay the City Traffic Impact Fee (estimated at $1,050,754.28). The estimated school fees (Sunnyvale School District and Fremont Union High School District) for the project will be about $388,550 and the Construction tax revenue, approximately $580,000.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
August 25, 2014 Planning Commission Hearing
The Planning Commission first considered the Project at a public hearing on August 25, 2014. During the public hearing, one member of the public addressed the Commission in support of the Project. The other speakers were all part of the Applicant's project team.
Following the public hearing the Planning Commission made two motions. The first motion was to recommend that the City Council Certify the Environmental Impact Report and approve the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This motion passed on a 4-0 vote, with three members absent.
A second motion to recommend that the City Council introduce an ordinance rezoning the subject property, approve the Design Review and Tentative Parcel Map (subject to the attached conditions of approval), and introduce an ordinance approving the Development Agreement, passed 3-1. However, the Project did not receive sufficient affirmative votes as required by Section 19.92.080(d) of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code (which requires that Planning Commission motions on General Plan Amendments and Rezoning requests must be approved by a majority of the entire Commission, not just the Commissioners attending the meeting). As a result, the motion technically does not constitute a recommendation. However, this motion did include a number of modifications to the Conditions of Approval of the Design Review and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. These modifications were carried over in staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission at the September 22, 2014 public hearing. These carried over modifications to the Conditions of Approval of the Design Review and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map included the following modifications:
1. Modify Condition of Approval BP-9b to clarify that the widened driveway cross section only applied to the access drive portion of the driveway not the drive aisle area serving the auto court parking spaces.
2. Modify Condition of Approval BP-18a to further limit the time allowed for possible pile driving to 10:00 am to 6:00 pm. (The original condition limited the hours of possible pile drive to 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.)
3. Correct Condition of Approval BP-40 to require a minimum of 95 secured bicycle parking and 32 bicycle racks.
4. Add Condition of Approval GC-17 to require the preparation of a plan to preserve as many of the excellent and good health trees, within 50 feet of the right-of-way, as feasible
5. Modify Condition of Approval AT-9 to clarify that the future tenants are required to implement, but not necessarily manage, the approved TDM Plan.
September 22, 2014 Planning Commission Hearing
The Planning Commission conducted a second public hearing on the Project on September 22, 2014. During the public hearing, two members of the public addressed the Commission on the Project. One member was in support of the Project while the other was in opposition. Following the public hearing and Commission discussion, a motion was made and seconded to recommend to the City Council that they approve the Project with a recommendation additional changes Planning Commission voted 6 for and 1 against the motion.
6. Add Condition of Approval GC-18 to allow the conversion of approved parking spaces to parking for with bicycles, motorcycles or shuttle buses.
7. Add Condition of Approval PS-1 to require the re-evaluation of the architectural design and materials used on the parking structure.
8. Add Condition of Approval PS-2 to recognize that the required public art may include artwork that is integrated into the building and is not limited to free standing designs.
In addition to these modifications to the conditions of approval, the Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council consider the following:
o That the additional square footage associated with this project be deducted from the Citywide development pool; and
o That the Development Agreement incorporate provisions that the required TDM Plan reduce Project traffic to a level equivalent to a 65% FAR Project. (The current Zoning Ordinance requires that high intensity projects with FAR's above 70% to implement TDM Plans to reduce vehicle trips to the level of a 70% FAR Project.)
The approved Planning Commission minutes from the August 25th and September 22nd public hearings are contained in Attachments 12 and 13, respectively.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City's official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall, at the Sunnyvale Senior Center, Community Center and Department of Public Safety; and by making the agenda and report available at the Sunnyvale Public Library, the Office of the City Clerk and on the City's website.
Public Hearing
· Published in the Sun newspaper
· Posted on the site
· 1,357 Notices mailed to property owners and tenants within 2,000 of the project site (noted on the Vicinity and Noticing Map in Attachment 1), for both Planning Commission Hearings. Notice of the City Council meeting of October 14, 2014 was provided along with the second Planning Commission hearing notice.
Availability of the Staff Report
· Posted on the City Website
· Provided at the Reference Section of the City of Sunnyvale's Public Library
Agenda
· Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board
· City of Sunnyvale Website
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the Resolution to Certify the Environmental Impact Report and Make the Findings Required by CEQA, Adopt the Statement of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as set forth in Attachment 10; Introduce an Ordinance to Rezone the property to M-S/100%FAR; Approve the Design Review and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map with Conditions of Approval in Attachment 4; and Introduce an Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement.
2. Alternative 1 with modified Conditions of Approval.
3. Certify the Environmental Impact Report and Deny the Project.
4. Do not certify the Environmental Impact Report and direct staff as to where additional environmental analysis is required.
Following the first Planning Commission public hearing, staff received additional letters and emails on the Project. These are contained in Attachment 16.
PLANNING COMMISSION/STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternative 1: Adopt the Resolution to Certify the Environmental Impact Report and Make the Findings Required by CEQA, Adopt the Statement of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Introduce an Ordinance to Rezone the Property to M-S/100%FAR, Approve the Design Review and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map with Conditions of Approval in Attachment 4; and Introduce an Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement.
Staff recommends rezoning the site to MS-FAR 100% because the location is adjacent to Central Expressway (a prime arterial through the City), is not located adjacent to any single family residential area, is a prime site for a corporate tenant, and can provide a positive identity for the City. Staff supports the Design Review as the building and site plan meet the Citywide Design Guidelines. From an economic development standpoint, the proposed project is a high quality office campus and provides an opportunity to attract one or several major office or research and development businesses to the community.
Staff
Prepared by: David Hogan, Contract Planner
Reviewed by: Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer
Reviewed by: Hanson Hom, Director, Community Development Department
Reviewed by: Robert A. Walker, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Project Data Table
3. Recommended Findings
4. Recommended Conditions of Approval
5. Updated Supplemental Information for Projects Requesting FAR above 35 percent
6. Preliminary TDM Plan
7. Resolution Certifying the EIR, Making Findings, Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
8. Ordinance Approving the Rezoning
9. Ordinance Approving the Development Agreement
11. Project Plans
12. Final Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 25, 2014
13. Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 22, 2014
14. Caltrans Letter in Response to the Response to Comments
15. Updated Balanced Growth Profile September 2014
16. Additional Public Comments Received