REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Proposed Project: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIATION to consider a 100% FAR combining district on 11 parcels in the M-S zoning district totaling 17.85 acres.
File #: 2017-7382
Locations: 893-909 Kifer Road (APN 205-42-011), 905 Kifer Road (APN 205-42-009)
917 Kifer Road (APN 205-42-008), 133-135 Commercial Street and 919-921 Kifer Road (APN 205-42-007), 155 Commercial Street (APN 205-42-006), 165 Commercial Street (APN 205-42-010), 167-171 Commercial Street (APN 205-42-012), 181 Commercial Street (APN 205-42-003), 183 Commercial Street (APN 205-42-004), 193 Commercial Street (APN 205-42-002), No address (APN 205-42-001)
Applicant / Owner: ARC TEC, Inc. (applicant) / Fortinet (owner)
Environmental Review: The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (a).
Report
Project Planner: George Schroeder, (408) 730-7443, gschroeder@sunnyvale.ca.gov
SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission considered this item on July 24, 2017. No members of the public spoke on the item.
The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Alternative 3 to initiate a General Plan Amendment study of a larger study area (bounded by Central Expressway to the north, Kifer Road to the south, a private park to the east, and Wolfe Road to the west) as an industrial intensification site in the General Plan to allow 100 percent FAR with the preparation of a Specific, Area, or Precise Plan.
The Planning Commission inquired about the differences in cost and timing between the applicant’s and staff’s proposed study area (Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, respectively). The applicant expressed concern about how a larger study area and initiation of an area plan (e.g., Specific Plan) would affect their intended schedule to develop an office campus. If the City Council authorizes initiation of a General Plan study, and the applicant moves forward with the process, the estimated cost and schedule would be provided by planning/environmental consultants selected by the City. Staff anticipates that the cost differential of the environmental review between the two alternatives would be minimal because similar environmental impacts, particularly traffic, are anticipated. There would be additional costs and a longer time frame associated with preparation of a Specific, Area, or Precise Plan for a larger area. This applicant would be responsible for its pro rata share of the study preparation costs attributable to its project. Additional sources of funding would be necessary for the balance of the study preparation costs, such as the adoption of a Specific Plan Fee that would be charged to all future development projects in the Specific Plan Area for their pro rata share of the study preparation costs. The adoption of such a fee would need to be considered by Council for approval at a late date.
See Attachment 1 (July 24, 2017 Planning Commission staff report and attachments) for a detailed discussion and Attachment 8 for the meeting minutes. Staff received a public comment (Attachment 9) after production of the staff report. The comment was from a nearby industrial property owner north of Central Expressway that requested their properties be included in the study area. Properties across Central Expressway are not within staff’s recommended boundary.
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.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not initiate a General Plan Amendment study and leave the current zoning designation as M-S. The applicant could apply for a Use Permit for the City to consider a FAR greater than 35% for a specific development project.
2. Initiate a General Plan Amendment study to consider identifying the 11 parcels within the GPI request area as an industrial intensification site in the General Plan to allow 100 percent FAR.
3. Initiate a General Plan Amendment study of a larger study area (bounded by Central Expressway to the north, Kifer Road to the south, a private park to the east, and Wolfe Road to the west) as an industrial intensification site in the General Plan to allow 100 percent FAR with the preparation of a Specific, Area, or Precise Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternative 3: Initiate a General Plan Amendment study of a larger study area (bounded by Central Expressway to the north, Kifer Road to the south, a private park to the east, and Wolfe Road to the west) as an industrial intensification site in the General Plan to allow 100 percent FAR with the preparation of a Specific, Area, or Precise Plan.
Staff and the Planning Commission find that a larger GPI study area is a more thorough approach to planning for this area. A Specific Plan could provide a thorough study of the types of uses and intensities, a holistic view of traffic impacts and area improvements and sense of place additions. It is possible the area will experience more redevelopment interest in the future, and doing a study of the larger area would provide a broader approach rather than taking projects on a piecemeal basis. Excluding properties along the east side of Commercial Street would create a small pocket of light industrial uses that would be isolated from other similarly zoned properties. A specialized plan could also consider a range of uses different than allowed in the M-S zoning district (e.g., community serving places of assembly). All studies required for a general plan amendment or preparation of a specialized plan would be paid for by the applicant and future development projects as discussed above. If City Council authorizes the GPA study, staff would prepare a budget modification for City Council consideration. The budget modification would include the entire costs of the studies and plan; sources of revenue, including future payments by developers within the study area, would be identified.
Prepared by: George Schroeder, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Andrew Miner, Planning Officer
Reviewed by: Trudi Ryan, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Kent Steffens, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Report to Planning Commission 17-0642, July 24, 2017 (without attachments)
2. Applicant’s GPI Request Letter and Fortinet Company Information
3. Aerial Vicinity Map
4. Applicant’s Conceptual Development Plan
5. LUTE Changing Conditions Map
6. General Plan Land Use Map of vicinity
7. Noticing Map
Additional Attachments for Report to Council
8. Excerpt of Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 24, 2017
9. Public comments received since Planning Commission staff report