23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711) — Sunnyvale City Council, July 11, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Moffett Park Specific Plan | June 2023 (updated 7/11/2023) Appendix: Proposed Changes Matrix
+ Response to Comments on the MPSP Public Draft
Comment
Number
From Chapter Section Page Topic Comments Response
# 339 Google 10 10.5 282 Funding and Financing
Strategy
Proposed Modification(s):
“Each new development project, except for projects built or occupied by non‐profits, low or moderate income households, Innovation and Creation office and commercial spaces, and/or retail or other active ground floor uses , will contribute toward impact fees, on‐site and off‐site improvements related to the project, and provide co
ntributions to other required funding sources or allowed alternative mitigations. Where a development impact fee is imposed on a project, the fee shall be based on a nexus study, subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, and cannot be used to compensate the City for existing shortfalls or deficiencies in the Specific Plan. Wher e a development project is required to pay for capital improvements in the Specific Plan that are not otherwise covered by development impact fees, a developer’s contribution shall be limited to the “fair share” contributions for proposed capital improvements that support the development of Moffett Park. A developer’s fair share c ontributions to the Specific Plan’s capital improvements shall be limited and proportional to the new demand for infrastructure or municipal services created by a developer’s project, based on net new office square footage or residential units. Developers may offset their required impact fees and/or community benefits requirement through City approved delivery of di strict improvements.”
(Each development should have a fair and proportional responsibility to realizing the vision of the MPSP. Additionally, non‐profit or community development projects should not face additional delivery challenges by having to contribute to impact fees or district improvements. Allowing developers to offset fees and community benefits requirements thr
ough delivery of district improvements to the City would hasten the realization of the MPSP vision.)
Noted. No recommended change.
# 340 Google 10 10.5 282 Funding and Financing
Strategy
Recommendation: Major infrastructure capacity improvements and amenities that serve the entire district should be funded by entities such as: Public Agencies, Community Facilities Districts, Assessment Districts, and/or the proposed ‘Collaborative Entity for Infrastructure.' These entities could then be reimbursed by future developments through Reimbursement Agreements. If these types of improvements are funded by priv ate development projects these costs should be credited against applicable development impact fees or treated as fulfillment of Community Benefits requirements if the development has not already paid these fees.
(Requiring that a development front major infrastructure costs for the entire district or a portion of the district, with no clear tim eline for reimbursement, would most likely make the project financially infeasible. Entities such as public agencies, CFD’s or assessment districts can utilize their unique structures to leverage additional funds (e.d. Bonds, State funds, etc.) and/or ensure reimbursement for major infrastructure projects from future and current developments that would benefit from the im provement.) Noted. No recommended change.
# 341 Jay Paul Company 10 10.5 282 Funding and Financing Strategy
The various infrastructure programs should be City funded infrastructure projects when the benefits are more widely shared with other parts of the community.

The City studied and is now including proposed MPSP impact fees to for water and sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements as part of this approval p rocess. Pending discussions with City staff during the Site Master Plan process, developments may construct the required improvement or pay the impact fee. No change recommended.

Attachment 9

Page 48 of 113 ends

Creation of the Plan’s vibrant new communities and ecological innovation district would be accomplished through the establishment of public easements, creation of ROW widening, open space and landscape improvements undertaken through redevelopment of individual parcels within the Plan Area.

Accordingly, it is critical that the zoning and design contr ols adopted in connection with the Plan facilitate future residential redevelopment of existing sites under current and reasonably anticipated future market conditions.

If development of these sites does not “pencil” for property owners, they will not proceed with redevelopment and the associated community benefits and exactions necessary to finance public improvements wi thin the Plan Area would not be achieved.

Request:

We request that the Department evaluate the economic feasibility of residential development within the Plan area based upon typical building typologies incorporating the Draft Plan’s detailed form‐based density design requirements, horizontal site area restrictions, public opens space obligations, and proposed increases to de velopment impact fee exactions for plan‐area development.

We further suggest that the Department conduct a workshop to coordinate and share comments specifically amongst potential residential developers within the Draft Plan area and to explore current incentives and barriers to the form of high‐density residential development proposed by the Draft Plan .

Noted. The summary plan changes memo outlines modifications made to building design standards. New streets and open spaces are necessary for plan implementation. No change recommended due to this comment. # 343 Silicon Valley @
Home
10 10.6 285 Performance Metrics Recommend tracking or measure progress towards meeting the affordable housing production goals throughout the 20‐year buildout period and the 5‐year review/updates.

The Specific Plan identifies key performance metrics to measure progress in implementing the vision for an ecological innovation district (Section 10.6). These metrics include housing units pe rmitted. The City aims to review and measure progress on 5‐year basis as described in the Specific Plan. No change recommended. # 344 Google 10 10.5 285 Performance Metrics Comment : There is a stated performance metric of one residential unit per every 500 square feet of office floor area. This metric should be monitored at a neighborhood level, instead of a district wide level, to ensure that each neighborhood has a vibrant mixed‐use character The Specific Plan includes separate monitoring actio ns for the Development Reserve (Section 4.8). Development will be monitored at the neighborhood level consistent with this section. Because each neighborhood has a unique character and uses are not allowed uniformly across Moffett Park, the ratio of 1 unit per 500 square feet does not apply at neighborhood scale. No change r ecommended.
# 345 R+A 10 10.6 285 Performance Metrics Revise creation and innovation space reference Revised text: "Performance Metric: Percent of Innovation and Creation space and innovation square footage permitted a. Objective: 750,000 net new square feet of Innovation and Creation space and Innovation space b. Responsible Department: Community Development
c. Data Source: Building permit data

3. Performance Metric: Percent of office and and R&D square footage permitted." # 346 City Staff App. A App. A 289 Glossary Add district parking definition Add definition: "District Parking: District parking includes a shared parking garage. District parking locations are clustered and serve multiple uses with clear signage, a single payment system, and coordinated parking management." # 347 City Staff App. A App. A 289 Glossary Add district systems definition Add definition: "District Systems: District Systems are defined as ‘resource‐based’ systems that are designed to generate or treat resources locally to enhance environmental and economic performance across the life cycle of a development. The systems including microgrids, water reuse, and geothermal, among others. Systems are sh ared at a plan or neighborhood level and involve multiple property owners and stakeholders." # 348 SFEI App. B App. B 300 Planting Palettes Update the page breaks in Table 32 so all of the oak savanna/woodland info is on 1 page, not split across 2 pages.

Update table.
# 349 Planning Commission 4 4.6 90 Innovation and
Creation Space
Expand the list of neighborhood‐serving retail to include gallery, commercial kitchens, and other creative uses
The neighborhood‐serving retail list has been revised to accommodate the land uses as suggested. Added a new land use "art gallery" and provided a definition in Chapter 19.12. # 350 Planning Commission 4 4.6 90 Neighborhood ‐Serving Uses
Expand the list of neighborhood‐serving retail to include maker space The neighborhood‐serving retail list in the Zoning Code chapter alread includes a land use that includes maker space("Manufacture, processing, repair, compounding, packaging, assembly or treatment plants or facilities for equipment, materials or products, including production bakeries and food pr ocessing activities . (Non‐hazardous materials) but added a note stating it is subject to CDD Director approval for compatibility review with adjacent uses. No change to the Plan recommended.
# 351 Staff 4 4.4 82 General Land Use Remove "FAR" from the last bullet on page 82 Remove reference to FAR from the last bullet on page 82: Residential developments. Residential and mixed‐use development within the MP‐AC and MP‐R have a minimum residential density. There is no residential density minimum for MP‐MU. All residential districts do not hav e a maximum density but are limited through form‐based standards including setbacks, lot coverage, height, FAR, and required publicly accessible open spaces.

Additional staff recommendations (after Report to Council published on July 5, 2023) Attachment 9

Page 49 of 113 ends

Update figure 15
#356 Valley Water 3 3.8 55 Complete Conceptual
Street Framework
Figure 17, page 55, does not show the alignment of Sunnyvale East or West Channel within the Plan Area and Figure 29 only shows portions of the channels within the Plan Area.

However, Figure 19 clearly shows the limits of both channels with the Plan Area. Please revise all fi
gures as necessary to clearly show and identify Sunnyvale East and West Channels within the limits of the Plan Area.

Update figure 17
#357 Valley Water 3 3.8 57 Complete Bicycle
Network
Figure 18, page 57, needs to clearly identify and label all proposed bridges over Sunnyvale East and West Channels.

Update figure 18
#358 Valley Water 4 4.2 66 ‐77 Illustrative
Neighborhood
Diagrams
The text of the Neighborhood Descriptions, starting on page 66, should note if bridges over Sunnyvale East or West Channel are proposed. Accompanying figures should also show existing and proposed bridges, and trails.

Update figures 20‐25, and update descriptions re: bridges #359 Valley Water 4 4.2 72 Chesapeak
Neighborhood
The text in the “mobility” section of the Chesapeake Neighborhood on page 72 referencing coordination with Valley Water for bridges should be included in the mobility sections for each neighborhood description where bridges over Sunnyvale East or West Channel are proposed.

Update language for each neighborhood description where bridges over Sunny vale East or West Channel are proposed. #360 Valley Water 4 4.4 84 Standards for All
development
The Standards for All Development listed on page 84 should include setbacks to Sunnyvale East or West Channel, consistent with Policy LU 4.5 on page 63 and the "Guidelines and Standards for Land Use near Streams" (https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doing‐ businesses‐with‐the‐district/permits‐working‐district‐land‐or‐easement/guidelines‐and‐ st
andards‐land‐use‐near‐streams)
Section 6.5 Design Vision for Key Park and Open Space Features includes standards for setbacks along the East and West Channels. No change recommended.
#361 Valley Water 5 5.1 102 Develoment Standards
Goals and Policies
Policy DS‐5.2 discussion on page 102 should also the reference "Guidelines and Standards for Land Use near Streams", Design Guide # 2, ‘Use of local native species’, as well as the newer pathogen protection guidance from CalPhytos.org which can be found here:
https://www.suddenoakdeath.org/welcome‐to‐calphytos‐org‐phy tophthoras‐ in‐native‐ habitats/resources/#nursery.

No change recommended
#362 Valley Water 5 5.2 106 Site Design Table 5 on page 106 and Figure 29 specifies setbacks for Sunnyvale West Channel but not for Sunnyvale East Channel. Figure 29 should show the complete limits of both channels.

Setbacks to Sunnyvale East Channel needs to be provided and noted in Table 5. Setbacks provided to Sunnyvale East or West Channel sh ould also be consistent with the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams.

Section 6.5 Design Vision for Key Park and Open Space Features includes standards for setbacks along the East and West Channels. No change recommended.
#363 Valley Water 6 6.2 135 Open Space and Urban
Ecology Principles,
Goals, and Policies
Regarding Open Space and Ecology (OSE) Policy 1.8, page 135, Valley Water supports a combination of native, non‐native, and non‐invasive drought tolerant plants consistent with the in Chapter 4, Design Guide 3, ‘Use of Ornamental or Non‐native Landscaping.’ For examp
le, non‐native trees may be better able to ameliorate the heat island effect in the Plan Area quicker and less expensively than native species which are intolerant of the presumed saline site soils.

Noted; no change recommended.
#364 Valley Water 6 6.2 135 Open Space and Urban
Ecology Principles,
Goals, and Policies
OSE Goals and Policies stated on page 135 should also reference the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams for areas adjacent to Sunnyvale East and West Channels.

Policy OSE‐1.7 includes coordination with Valley Water. No change recommended. Reference to the Guidelines in addition to Wa
ter Resources Protection Manual will be referenced in Section 6.6.6 (Landscape Design). See Comment #365. In addition, the zoning code includes Chapter 19.81. STREAMSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW that references “Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams.” No change recommended Additional staff recommendations post Planning Commission hearing from June 13, 2023 Attachment 9

Page 50 of 113 ends

Update Section 6.6.6 (Landscape Design) with reference to both documents #366 Valley Water 6 6.5 161 Design Vision for Key
Park and Open Space
Features
The discussion starting on page 161 regarding Sunnyvale East and West Channel encourages channel improvements for flood control that incorporate vegetation and lower floodwalls.

The Plan should discuss the feasibility of these improvements holistically, rather than with each development at a later date. The Plan sh ould be clearer about the intent regarding improvements that impact Sunnyvale East and West Channels.

The intent for this improvement is for the City and private property owner(s) to coordinate with Valley Water to identify opportunities where nature‐based/naturalized channels with reduced or no flood walls are possible. No chan ge recommended.
#367 Valley Water 6 6.5 163 Design Vision for Key
Park and Open Space
Features
Table 15, page 163, needs to note that improvements on Valley Water property and easements must comply with the Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Manual in addition to any City requirements.

Revise Table 15 to add note that that improvements on Valley Water pr operty and easements must comply with the Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Manual, and the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. #368 Valley Water 6 6.6 173 Parks and Open Space
Standards and
Guidelines
It is unclear why Guideline 5 under 6.6.4 Stormwater Management on page 173 includes protecting open space along Sunnyvale East Channel, but not Sunnyvale West Channel.

Open space along each channel should be protected and the Plan text revised accordingly.

Reivse the language for Guideline 5 to: "De signated stormwater retention and treatment areas should be distributed throughout the Moffett Park open spaces. Groundwater is shallowest (emergent) in Moffett Park at the Lockheed Martin stormwater ponds. Protecting open space around this area and allowing more room for stormwater and groundwater detention in the future is advisable. Pr oviding open space for stormwater retention in open spaces along the Sunnyvale East Channel and stormwater ditch, and the West Channel are encouraged." #369 Valley Water 6 6.6 175 Parks and Open Space
Standards and
Guidelines
Section 6.6.6 Landscape Design, page 175, should also include compliance with the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, Design Guides 1, 2, 3 and 4, which are related to vegetation and landscaping.

Add Standard: "Improvements on Valley Water property and easements must comply wi th the Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Manual and the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams." #370 Valley Water 7 7.4 204 Bicycle Network The Complete Bicycle Network improvements listed on page 204 should note if widening of any existing bridges is proposed on Sunnyvale East or West Channels.

It is not known yet if widening of bridges is needed. A note will be added that bridges on Sunnyvale East or West Channels may be widene d.
#371 Valley Water 9 9.5 253 Stormwater and Flood
Management Systems
The levees on Sunnyvale West Channel extend upstream to Mathilda Avenue. Figure 66 on page 253 should be revised to show the extent of the existing levees.

Figure 66 is a reference figure from Sunnyvale Shoreline Resilience Vision project. No change recommended. #372 Valley Water 10 10.4 276 Implementation
Actions
Section 10.4 Implementation Actions on page 276 states that a “medium‐term” action is for the City of Sunnyvale (City), to “develop an updated City‐wide storm drain master plan, including close coordination with the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project.” As the non‐ federal sponsor for the South San Francis co Bay Shoreline Phase III Feasibility Study to provide coastal flood and sea‐level rise protection for the Santa Clara County shoreline, Valley Water would like to coordinate with the City of Sunnyvale on its storm drain master planning given the magnitude of potential changes that could occur at the Sunnyvale sho
reline in relation to stormwater, coastal flood protection, and tidal marsh restoration.

The City is open to coordinating efforts with Valley Water; however, changing the schedule of the storm drain master planning effort would be difficult due to limited staff resources and budget. No change recommended. #373 Valley Water 10 10.4 276 Implementation
Actions
Section 10.4 on page 276 states that storm drain master planning is scheduled to occur in 2028 to 2032. The City may benefit from conducting this planning effort sooner in order to coordinate desired stormwater system changes with the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Phase III Feasibility Study.

Due to limited st aff resources and budget, it would be difficult to change the project schedule for storm drain planning earlier than scheduled.
#374 Valley Water Valley Water recommends that a professional soil scientist be engaged to provide a consultation, lab analysis and soil treatment recommendations before the Planting Palettes in Appendix B are finalized. In general, native foothill species may be incompatible with saline, lowland, compacted, poorly drained Bayland soil. Secondarily, use of native foothill spec
ies may likely be incompatible with the dense fog common to this lowland site, so diseases may thwart success. For example, wild grape and black oak may get mildew and drop their leaves. Valley Water recommends that a professional local botanist be provided the soil scientist’s results and then edit the plant palettes to better mat ch soil and location specifics. We urge consultation with the Calscape website which shows the natural range of native species. For example, wild grape and black oak are not shown growing anywhere near the Plan area (
https://calscape.org/Vitis‐californica‐(California‐Grape) https://calscape.org/Quercus‐ kelloggii‐(Black‐Oak)
The plant palettes in A ppendix B are intended to capture the entirety of the MPSP area and should be refined by applicants based on site location and conditions. Table 15 “East and West Channel Design Standards” already captured the need for ecologist review of the plant palette for riparian areas. We recommend the following revisio ns:
•Add to secƟon 6.6.6 (Landscape Design), beginning of bullet 2.a.iii: “A qualified soil scientist will be consulted to assess on‐ site soil conditions prior to finalization of site‐specific planting plans, to ensure recommended plants are suitable to local conditions.”
•Remove black oak (Quercus kelloggii) and California grape (ViƟs californica) from the planƟng paleƩes. #375 Valley Water Valley Water requests that any species on the Alkali Wet Meadow and Wet Meadow/Bioswale palettes listed in Table 32, Ecosystem Planting Palettes, page 298 be contract‐grown per ‘clean culture’ techniques from propagules of local ecotypes only so that any ‘escapes’ which find a home on adjacent Valley Water properties will be ec ologically compatible.

Revise the language broadening it to all plant palettes within VW ROW. Add bullet to Table 15 (p. 163), Landscape Design & Lighting:
‐Plants shall be contract‐grown from locally collected seed and in accordance with clean culture techniques to ensure pathogen‐free production and prevent genetic degradation.

Attachment 9

Page 51 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Moffett Park Specific Plan | June 2023 (updated 7/11/2023) Appendix: Proposed Changes Matrix
+ Response to Comments on the MPSP Public Draft
Comment
Number
From Chapter Section Page Topic Comments Response
#376 Valley Water Valley Water requests the following specific changes in planting palettes shown in Appendix B:
•Please remove Festuca rubra since it is not common in Santa Clara County and replace with another meadow grass.
•Please remove Prunus ilicifolia in oak woodland paleƩe since it can be invasive in creek and channels.
•Please replace Salvia Sonomensis with Salvia spathacea as it is more appropriate for a lower elevation site.
•We encourage that any naƟve species included in the plant paleƩe which are growing wild near/within the Plan area be contract‐grown from locally collected seed and in accordance with clean culture techniques outlined by CalPhytos to ensure nearly pathogen‐free production and that no genetic degradation occurs due to the inevitable ‘esc apees’ from Plan area which will move downstream.
•Though not common, Festuca rubra is a naƟve bunchgrass – no change recommend. AddiƟonal naƟve grasses have been added to the plant palette.
•Prunus ilicifolia is included in the oak woodland paleƩe (and not included in the riparian plant paleƩe), and thus invasiveness in creek/channel settings is not anticipated to be a problem. The species is listed as not having invasive potential on Valley Water’s Rebate Program Qualifying Plants List (https://scvwd.dropletportal.com/documents/pdf/SCVWD_Qualified_Plants_Partial_List.pdf). •Salvia sonomensis and Trichostema lanatum have been removed from the plant paleƩe. Salvia spathacea is not common in the region and is not characteristic of coastal grassland – no change recommended. •Regarding the clean culture recommendaƟon, see response to comment #21 above. #377 Councilmember/publ
ic comment
5 5.3.5 120 Design Standards Above grade structured parking levels facing a street, laneway, or publicly accessible open space, except for alleyways, shall be lined with commercial or habitable uses. I can see if it is a streetway or an active open space neighborhood. But I would think it would be difficult to activa
te a habitable space that is on a laneway at the rear of site. If a structure was set back from the street and blocked by the main building, would that NOT be the requirement? Would that just be decided/negotiated during the planning process? Staff concurs and recommends modifying this standard to provide he avy landscaping OR ground floor habitable spaces along laneways and open space. Revise the language: 4.a. Integrated parking structures. a. Above grade parking. Above grade structured parking levels facing a street, laneway, or publicly accessible open space, except for alleyways, shall be lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum de pth of 20 feet or minimum depth of 16 feet for residential units. Laneways and publicly accessible open space may substitute this requirement with heavy landscaping between the building and the laneway or open space. Heavy landscaping shall include at least 75 percent of the area between the garage and the lanewa y or open space planted with shrubs and trees that will screen a minimum of 75 percent of the garage facace within 5 years. In an MP‐AC district, structured parking located above the first floor within a tower residential mixed‐use building may have up to two facades wi th structured parking facing the street for a maximum of 4 stories. Façade design shall screen all parking and lighting and shall be of similar detail, material quality, and façade articulation to the rest of the building
#378 Councilmember/publ
ic comment
Bird Safe Design In a July 7 advocacy letter, the Audubon Society advocates the following policy language be added, under Bird Safe Design: “Building facades that face natural open space or water features will have treated glazing at all heights.” Can Staff please discuss the merits of this.

The 60‐foot height lim
it was used as a typical tree canopy height. Other Cities such as Cupertino and San Francisco do have different standards and height triggers. Attachment 9 included a Staff Recommended change to use no more than 10% of the surface area of a building’s total exterior façade between the ground and 60 feet above ground or within 15 feet above a green roof shall have untreated glazing. The Audubon Society’s request to add the following text is acceptable: “Building facades that face natural open space or water features will have treated glazing at all heights.” The rationale for this request is that the mai
n issue with is reflections of trees and other greenery in the glazing, so requiring in areas that face open space makes sense. Modification to Staff Recommended #189: Revise standard #4 to read:

Façade treatment. At a minimum, Nno more than 10% of the surface area of a building’s total exterior façade between the d d 60 ft b d ithi 15 ft b f hl l h tt d li B ildi fd th t #379 Councilmember 10 Table 30 284 School Districts On Page 284 of the draft Plan, should the line item for School Districts also include the Fremont Union High School District?
Yes, Fremont Union High School District should be added to the table page 284. Amend TABLE 30 Moffett Park Capital Improvements and Facilities Funding Sources
School Districts line:

Sunnyvale School Di strict, Fremont Union High School District, Santa Clara Unified School Distric
#389 Councilmember/
Staff
10 Table 29 239 and
277

Page 239 ends

strategy.

The statement about preparation of a district infrastructure stategy should be struck from the MPSP.

Staff is further recommending a change to the language on page 277 regarding the Implementation Item Collaborative E
ntity for Infrastructure should be modified: EstablishExplore a collaborative entity to manage and oversee infrastructure, such as a non‐profit public benefit corporation for Moffett Park, with City staff on the board to facilitate financing, development, and management of infrastructure.

Attachment 9

Page 52 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Staff Recommended Changes to Draft MPSP
On December 16, 2022, the City of Sunnyvale released the Moffett Park Specific Plan for public review. During the public review period, the City facilitated a series of meetings with the community, City Council, Planning Commission, property owners, and developers in Moffett Park. Additionally, the City received comment letters on the Specific Plan. A summary of the public meetings and links to the comment letters received by the City can be found at www.moffettparksp.com.

This document summarizes proposed changes to the Specific Plan in response to public comment. This document does not contain all the proposed changes to the Specific Plan; rather it highlights key changes to the Specific Plan and describes why City staff recommend these changes. To see a full list of comments on the Public Review Draft Specific Plan, City staff responses, and all proposed changes to the Specific Plan, please see Appendix: Proposed Changes Matrix for more details. City staff will also make non-policy or regulatory changes to the Specific Plan to address misspellings and typography, and to increase clarity for future readers. These changes are not included in this summary memorandum or in the Proposed Changes Matrix.

How This is Summary is Organized
Proposed changes are organized by Specific Plan section or by a topic area that crosses multiple specific plan sections. After each section header, the summary includes a short narrative that describes the intent of the Specific Plan section and the requirements for new development. Then, at a high level, it describes some of the comments or questions raised during the comment period and City staff’s recommended response. The narrative is followed by a table that highlights the proposed changes. The table includes the specific page number and section, background on City staff’s response, and the proposed change to the Specific Plan. Within the “Proposed Change” column, modifications to Specific Plan text are denoted as: “new text” (in red) and “removed text” (in strike through). Revised maps or graphics have been included as appropriate after the table. Please note that this summary does not include all Specific Plan policies and standards, only those key changes that City staff recommends.

Sections in
clude:

Attachment 9

Page 53 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Table of Contents
• Chapter 4 Land Use
o Land Use Districts and General Land Use
o Neighborhood-Serving Uses
o Innovation and Creation Space
• Chapter 5 Development Standards
o Building Height and Upper Floor Massing
o Building Massing and Façade Modulation
o Outside the Fine Grain Core
o Other Development Standards
• Chapter 6 Open Space and Urban Ecology
o Open Space
o Urban Ecology
• Chapter 7 Mobility
• Chapter 8 Transportation Demand Management and Parking • Chapters 9 and 10 – Infrastructure and Utilities and Implementation

Attachment 9

Page 54 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Chapter 4 Land Use
Land Use Districts and General Land Use
Moffett Park’s transformation from an office/industrial park into a mixed-use district supports a diverse economic engine for the City of Sunnyvale and creates a complete vibrant community. The Specific Plan includes land use districts that establish minimum residential densities to meet the vision of an ecological innovation district and support the production of up to 20,000 new housing units. Based on comments received on the Specific Plan, City staff recommends five changes to the Land Use Districts Map (Figure 26) and removing maximum allowed FARs for residential development to support new housing in Moffett Park (Specific Plan Sections 4.3 and 4.4).

Additionally, Moffett Park’s future neighborhoods include a mix of land uses and amenities. Each neighborhood is distinct with a unique mix of land uses that blends the historic development of the area with future needs to create an ecological innovation district. The Specific Plan establishes development ranges for office/R&D/industrial floor area, residential units, and open space by neighborhood. City staff recommends specific clarifications to the Specific Plan text related to transferring of non-residential floor area within a Site Master Plan to sites in other neighborhoods. New development may shift non-residential floor area from one neighborhood to another, so long as it meets the intent established in the Table 1 - Estimated Land Use Ranges (Specific Plan Sections 4.2). City staff also recommend adding conditions of approval language provided by the ALUC. The staff does not recommend any changes to the development reserve allocation, basic development standards, minimum densities for residential, or maximum densities for non-residential.

Page Section Background Proposed Change
61 4.3 To clarify the City’s goal for providing
affordable housing the following policies were
modified.

Modify Policy
"Policy LU-2.1: Require a minimum of 15% of all residential units in Moffett Park as deed restricted affordable consistent with SMC

19.67 and 19.77. Provide incentives for property owners to provide more affordable housing than is required by citywide policy. The goal of the Specific Plan is to reach 20% of all residential units to be deed-restricted affordable units."

"Policy LU-2.2: Fairly distribute the affordable housing units throughout Moffett Park’s residential neighborhoods. Promote the mixing of affordable housing units into market-rate and 100% affordable housing developments."
Attachment 9

Page 55 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
81 4.3 Harvest properties requested changing their
MP-O2 zoning designation to MP-MU in the
Chesapeake Neighborhood at APN 11037002.

This is consistent with the vision for the
Chesapeake Neighborhood as a mixed-use
place. With this change, these parcels would
be added to the fine-grain core consistent
with all other MP-MU, MP-R, and MP-AC
districts.
p. 81) Change Figure 26 Land Use Districts MP-O2 portion of APN 11037002 to MP-MU (see figure below).

p. 104) Change Figure 28 Fine Grain Core Area to include all MP- MU, MP-AC, and MP-R parcels (see figure below).

81 4.3 Commonwealth Properties requested
changing their MP-O2 and MP-R land use
districts to MP-MU in the South Java
neighborhood. Providing flexibility for office
districts to allow housing is consistent with the
neighborhood vision. However, changing MP-
R to MP-MU would result in a reduction in the
minimum residential area in Moffett Park and
may requiring adding an equal sized MP-R
area elsewhere in Moffett Park.

Change Figure 26 Land Use Districts the MP-O2 portions of Commonwealth’s parcels to MP-MU (see figure below).

No change to MP-R to MP-MU.

81 4.3 Google requested changing two parcels north
of Baltic Way from MP-O2 to MP-MU to
provide flexibility in development. This change
is in line with goals and vision of the Crossman
neighborhood as a mixed-use neighborhood.

With this change, these parcels would be
added to the fine-grain core consistent with all
other MP-MU, MP-R, and MP-AC districts.
p. 81) Change Figure 26 Land Use Districts MP-O2 parcels north Baltic Way to MP-MU (see figure below).

p. 104) Change Figure 28 Fine Grain Core Area to include all parcels north of Baltic Way and west of Crossman Avenue (see figure below).

81 4.3 Jay Paul requested changing their MP-MU
parcels to MP-O2 to provide for additional
potential Bonus FAR without the need to buy
TDR floor area. Staff is recommending
changing part of the MP-MU areas between
Mathilda Ave and Borregas Avenue to MP-O2
but maintaining the MP-MU designation for
Change Figure 26 Land Use Districts areas of MP-MU parcels between Mathilda Avenue and Borregas Ave not adjacent to Bordeaux Dr to MP-O2(see figure below).

Attachment 9

Page 56 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
potential development sites along the
diagonal and Bordeaux Dr. These changes are
in line with creating a mixed-use district and
increasing office density in proximity to
activity centers.
82 4.4 To incentivize high-rise development,
restrictions on residential floor area beyond
Specific Plan form-based controls are not
necessary. Eliminating residential floor area
from the Total FAR Maximum definition
removes a potential unintended barrier to
residential development and makes it easier
for City staff to administer, particularly issues
associated with net and gross development
calculations.
p. 82) Modify Definition:
“Total FAR Maximum. Maximum density for a parcel inclusive of office and R+D floor area, commercial and retail areas, residential floor area, and TDR floor area from sending parcels.

p. 83) Change Table 2 Office and Residential Intensity and Density Standards by Land Use District.
• Modify Total FAR Maximum* Column
o MP-AC: (450%**, 150% Office)
o MP-R (350%**)
o MP-MU (400%, 200% Office)
• Footnotes:
o “*Total FAR Maximum is the total of Office and R+D
Bonus FAR Maximum, residential floor area, commercial
and retail floor area, creation and innovation space, and additional Transfer of Development Rights Program
incentives (Section 4.6).”
o “** MP-AC and MP-R developments in the Chesapeake
neighborhood may exceed the Total FAR Maximum by
up to 100% FAR due to additional height allowances.”

p. 85) modify text: “Residential development or the residential component
of a mixed-use development may exceed the minimum
density up to the Total FAR Maximum if they shall meet all of the following requirements, in addition to the Standards for All Development requirements above.”
84 4.4 To provide incentive for split parcels to build
residential.

Modify Standard:

7. Split parcels. If a parcel includes more than one Land Use District, the site development
shall be based on the land area within each Land Use District. At the City’s discretion,
Attachment 9

Page 57 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
a weighted average may be distributed without regard to the Land Use District boundary, provided the Total FAR Maximum is not exceeded. Where a parcel is split between MP-R and MP-O2, the gross area for the full parcel may be used to determine the allowed floor area.
84 4.4 To provide flexibility in the location of non-
residential floor area, recommended changes
to the Standards for All Development clarify
that within a Site Master Plan, Bonus Floor
Area may be moved between neighborhoods
if it meets the intent of Table 1 (Section 4.2).

Additional changes suggested to simplify and
provide clarity.
p. 84) Modify standard:
"2. Allowed floor area and density. Allowed floor area and density are defined by Land Use District in Table 2. Allowed floor area and density is based on the gross parcel area.
a. Non-residential FAR. “Base” and “Bonus” FAR intensity are established for each Land Use District. Within a multi- parcel Site Master Plan allowable floor area may be
aggregated or consolidated within a neighborhood. Floor area may be moved to another neighborhood if it generally meets the intent of Table 1 (Section 4.2).
b. Residential density. Minimum residential densities are set for the MP-AC and MP-R districts and shall be met on identified parcels. There are no residential maximum
densities."

Remove Standard:
“6. Consolidated density. As part of
a Site Master Plan, Bonus FAR
and residential density may be consolidated across parcels within the neighborhood boundaries in Figure 19.”

p. 84) Modify standard:
"9.c. Exception for transferred Base FAR with common ownership.

Base FAR transferred between properties with common ownership and within neighborhood boundaries are not subject to community benefit requirements. Base FAR transferred to another property owner shall be subject to contribute to community benefits for receiving property."

p. 86) Remove duplicative standard:
"5.c: Exception for transferred Base FAR with common ownership.

Base FAR transferred between properties with common ownership and within neighborhood boundaries are not subject to community Attachment 9

Page 58 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
benefit requirements. Base FAR transferred to another property owner shall be subject to contribute to community benefits for receiving property."

82,
84,
110

4.4, 5.3.1 To incorporate conditions of approval
provided by ALUC.

Add standard p.82:
"3. Turning Safety Zone. No residential development is allowed within the Turing Safety Zone (TSZ) of Moffett Federal Airfield (NUQ), and the population density of any nonresidential development within the TSZ shall be limited to a maximum of 200 people per acre including open areas and parking areas required for the building’s occupants and one- half of the adjacent street area.”
Add standard p.84: "10. Avigation easements. Prior to the issuance of building permits, pursuant to NUQ CLUP policy G-5, an Avigation Easement shall be dedicated to the United States Government on behalf of Moffett Federal Airfield.”
Modify standard p.110: "1.a. Compliance with the Moffett Field Comprehensive Land Use Plan. All buildings or parts of buildings shall not exceed maximum heights set forth by the Moffett Field Comprehensive Land Use Plan. When measuring development height for consistency with the Moffett Federal Airfield (NUQ) Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) Part 77 Heights, height is to be measured from above mean sea level (AMSL) to the top of the highest point of the development."

Add new standard "b. Building height may be exceeded up to 25 feet as allowed in SMC 19.32.030 (a)."

Attachment 9

Page 59 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)

Attachment 9

Page 60 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Neighborhood-Serving Uses
Providing places to dine, shop, socialize, and fulfill daily needs is key to Moffett Park’s livability and vibrancy. Moffett Park’s neighborhood- serving uses help fulfill daily needs within a short walk or bike ride from new homes and businesses. While allowed throughout Moffett Park, neighborhood-serving uses are required in the activity centers and other targeted locations to support active street life. Providing space for neighborhood-serving uses including ground floor retail/ commercial uses and office/community space is important to meet the plan’s vision for an ecological innovation district and walkable community. The Specific Plan establishes minimum amounts of floor area, types of spaces, and locations for these neighborhood-serving uses (Specific Plan Section 4.6). The Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report allows for a build-out of up to 500,000 square feet of retail and service uses.

Comments received on the Public Draft Specific Plan request maximum flexibility in providing for and designing the retail experience.

Spaces for these uses are not seen as profitable. City staff recognizes that demand for these uses will grow over time, and there is a need to provide property owners and developers flexibility in the early years of implementation. City staff recommends maintaining a minimum amount of neighborhood-serving uses that are provided in specific locations across Moffett Park’s neighborhoods but providing increased flexibility in its neighborhood-serving use delivery. The staff recommendation adds clarity to the standard, maintains size and amount of medium-format retail, and reduces the overall minimum by approximately 10% from the Public Draft Specific Plan. The Specific Plan would require 220,000 square feet of retail/commercial storefront space and 40,000 sf of neighborhood serving office space.

Page Section Background Proposed Change
90 4.6 To provide flexibility in the location of
retail while maintaining a minimum
amount of ground floor retail space at
key locations. (refer to Page 92 of
MPSP for Figure 27)

3. Neighborhood-serving retail and commercial ground floors. New development shall meet the following requirements: Frontages shall meet the following standards:
a. Ground floor frontage. Within North Java, South Java, and Crossman neighborhoods, a minimum 85% of building frontage identified in Figure 27 shall be retail and commercial storefronts. For other neighborhoods, a minimum 50% of building frontage identified shall be retail and commercial storefronts.
a. Amount of Retail. Areas identified in Figure 27 shall provide the required minimum amount of floor area in retail and commercial storefronts. Storefronts shall be on the ground floor fronting public rights-of-way or open spaces and laneways with public access easements.
• North Java/Borregas Square
o 50,000 square feet; and
o 15,000 square feet medium format tenant space
• South Java Mini Park/Laneway
o 40,000 square feet; and
Attachment 9

Page 61 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
o 15,000 square feet medium format tenant space
• Crossman Square and Laneways
o 50,000 square feet; and
o 30,000 square feet medium format tenant space
• Chesapeake Greenbelt
o 10,000 square feet
• West Mathilda/LHM Way
o 6,000 square feet
• Tech Corners (11th and Discovery Way)
o 2,000 square feet
• 5th Avenue VTA Station
o 2,000 square feet
b. Ground floor depth. Ground floor retail and commercial storefronts shall have a minimum depth of 25 feet and a minimum of 50% of the total frontage in each area identified in Figure 27 shall have a minimum depth greater than 50 feet. Exceptions to the minimum depth may be made for a maximum of 10% of total frontage in each area.
c. Location of Retail/Commercial Storefronts. The minimum of amount of retail required shall be located in the following locations. • North Java/Borregas Square. 50% of required retail shall front Borregas Square and north/south laneway connecting from Java Drive to the Caspian Community Park.
• South Java Mini Park/Laneway. 50% of required retail shall front the north/south laneway connecting from Java Drive south. • Chesapeake Greenbelt. Required retail shall be located on the north side of the Chesapeake Greenbelt and should be split between the two parcels fronting the Greenbelt.
• West Mathilda/Lockheed Martin Way. Required retail shall be located on the north side of Lockheed Martin Way.
• Tech Corners. Required retail shall be located fronting publicly- accessible open space at the intersection of 11th Avenue and Discovery Way.
• 5th Avenue VTA Station. Required retail shall be located fronting 5th Avenue adjacent to or across the street from the VTA Station.

Attachment 9

Page 62 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
c. d. Ground floor design. Ground floor retail and commercial storefronts spaces shall meet design standards regardless of ground floor use.
61 4.1 To allow for a range of temporary uses
and special events and to temporarily
divide required medium-format spaces,
adding the policy provides additional
flexibility in the near-term provision of
neighborhood-serving uses.

Policy LU-1.7: Enable temporary uses and special uses throughout the plan area to reserve space for future neighborhood-serving uses. 117 5.3.3 Provide clarity and flexibility in
storefront design.

Modify Standard:

Floor-to-floor height. In MP-AC district, storefront spaces shall have a minimum floor-to-floor height of 1820 feet and minimum 16 feet clear floor-to-ceiling dimension for the first 25 feet of storefront depth. In MP-MU and MP-R districts, storefront spaces shall have a minimum floor-to-floor height of 15 feet and minimum 12 feet clear floor-to-ceiling dimension.

Attachment 9

Page 63 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Figure 27(refer to Page 92 of MPSP for Figure 27): Map changes reflect flexibility in retail pattern without fundamentally changing the overall retail strategy, amount of retail, or requirements for medium format retail.

Attachment 9

Page 64 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Innovation and Creation Space
To ensure a diversity of businesses within Moffett Park, the Specific Plan established a goal to create 750,000 square feet of innovation and creation space for small and start-up businesses, non-profits, and creators. The Specific Plan requires that all new office, R+D, and industrial development provide innovation and/or creation space either on-site or consolidated elsewhere in Moffett Park (Specific Plan Section 4.7).

Many property owners and developers recommended reducing or eliminating this requirement for several reasons, including: the cost of development for these spaces, lack of demand for space, disruption to existing corporate campuses, and corporate clients will not lease space in a building with multiple tenants. Public comment also recommended technical changes to the standards for innovation and creation space. City staff recommends minor changes be made to address technical clarification to the standards. These include exempting small projects and adding flexibility/clarity to the location requirements for creation space.

Page Section Background Proposed Change
93 4.7 To lessen the burden on small developers, add
an exemption for projects with less than
150,000 square feet of Bonus FAR. This
threshold is consistent with the small project
development reserve.

1. Innovation and creation space minimum area. A minimum of

7.5% of all net new office and R+D space shall be provided as innovation or creation space. Creation space floor area may be counted at 1.5 times innovation space to meet minimum
amount (i.e., 10,000 square feet of creation space = 15,000 square feet of innovation space). Projects requesting less than 150,000 square feet of floor area from the small project reserve are exempt from innovation and creation space minimum area standard.
93 4.7 To clarify what it means to be adjacent to, or
across from residential uses, the following
modification clarifies design standards for
creation space.

4. Design standards for creation space.
a. Creation spaces shall be located on the ground floor and have a floor-to-floor height of 20 feet.
b. Creation space shall not be located adjacent to or across from residential uses or within a 100-foot radius of ground floor residential units.
c. Creation Space leases shall be limited to 40,000 square feet per lessee.

Attachment 9

Page 65 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Dedication and Easements
Currently, Moffett Park consists of 90% private land, with 10% of the area dedicated to open space and public streets. Typical walkable urban areas range from about 35-45% of total area for streets and open spaces. In order to achieve the vision for an ecological innovation district, private parcels will need to contribute to a connected open space and complete streets network through dedication of new open spaces, urban ecology, and complete streets. The Specific Plan calculates minimum and maximum densities based on gross parcel area so the reduction in developable area does not limit development and when calculating expected densities or intensities. The average developable portion of each parcel will be approximately 65%. To clarify this vision, City staff recommends the following clarifying text.

Page Section Background Proposed Change
61 4.1 Add a new policy to clarify the goal of creating complete neighborhoods by increasing
amount of land area dedicated as publicly
accessible.
“Policy LU-1.8: Increase the amount of land in the plan area used as publicly accessible open space, urban ecology, and complete street networks.”
64 4.2 To clarify the need for reducing net
developable land by approximately 35% to
create an integrated open space, urban
ecology, and mobility network.

Modify text:
“Each neighborhood is distinct with a unique mix of land uses that blends the historic development of the area with future needs to create an ecological innovation district. Each neighborhood is planned around an active transportation network, parks and open space, and community-supporting services. To provide for these new spaces and services, each parcel’s developable area will be approximately 60-70% depending on specific circumstances.”

96 4.9 To provide context regarding the need for
dedication and easement requirements to
meet the open space and complete street
goals in the plan.

Modify text:
“The existing condition includes 1,156 acres of net private parcel area over the 1,275-acre plan area. To meet the vision for Moffett Park, an estimated 350 to 400 acres of land will be needed for complete streets and open spaces. Net developable area across the plan area is estimated to be approximately 65% of the existing 1,156 acres of private parcels (amount of development is based on gross parcel area). The following section describes the dedication and easement requirements for new Complete Streets and open spaces. Additional design standards for Complete Streets are included in Chapter 5 Development Standards and Chapter 7 Mobility. Additional design standards for open spaces are included in Chapter 6 Open Space and Urban Ecology.”
Attachment 9

Page 66 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Chapter 5 – Development Standards
Building Height and Upper Floor Massing
Building heights in Moffett Park are oriented around the center of the district, with the tallest buildings correlating with the central activity hubs, neighborhood corners, transit stations, and in the Chesapeake neighborhood where additional height is allowed.

The following recommended changes to the building height map and upper floor massing standards will provide more flexibility in individual building design and further incentivize high-rise construction which support goals and vision for a high-density mixed-use district.

Page Section Background Proposed Change
111 5.3.1 To provide variation in height within existing campuses, increase feasibility of minimizing
building footprints, and providing for
maximum density along transit corridors, the
following changes are recommended to the
maximum building heights.

Modify Figure 30 Maximum Building Height to increase the maximum height in the area allowing 130 feet to 145 feet and modify the boundary of the area allowing 170 feet height to include all parcels between Caspian Drive and Gibraltar drive west of Geneva Drive. See figure below.
112 5.3.2 To increase efficiency and feasibility of mid- rise residential and residential mixed-use
buildings, recommended modifications
include removing upper floor step backs and
floor plate reductions.

Remove standard:
“2a. Upper floor massing in the fine grain core. All buildings within the fine grain core shall meet the following standards:
i. Mid-rise buildings. Buildings greater than 65 feet in height shall provide a variety in building heights and reduce the massing of upper floors through one or more of the following techniques: 01 Floor Plate Reduction. Building floorplates greater than the 7th story in height shall include a floor area less than 75% of the ground floor area or the building floor area of the podium level, whichever is less; or 02 Façade Step Back. Step back façade of floors above the 7th story for a minimum depth of 10 feet for a minimum 60% of the total façade perimeter length dimension of all complete streets and change to “publicly accessible” open space facing facades. ” 113 5.3.2 To provide more flexibility in Activity Centers, MP-R, and MP-MU districts, change
dimensions for residential high-rises, clarify
unclear standards, modify the high-rise
buildings standards to:

Remove:

All standards on page 113

Add standards:
• High-rise buildings in the MP-AC districts. Applies to all portions of a building greater than 90 feet in height.

Attachment 9

Page 67 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
• Increase allowed building size in MP-
AC district
• Change upper floor reduction in mass
to provide more flexibility
• Reduce building spacing between high-
rises
• Increase MP-R and MP-MU residential
high-rise façade length from 160 ft to
200 ft
• Change upper floor reduction in mass
from above 110 ft to above 145 ft
• Change from percentage calculation to
absolute maximum floor plate sizes at
upper stories to provide more
flexibility and more tapering at higher
building heights.
• Building spacing. The portion of a building greater
than 90 feet in height shall be located a minimum
60 feet from all other buildings greater than 90 feet
in height regardless of whether the adjacent
building is on the same parcel or different parcel.

Where two adjacent parcels are under different
ownership, portions of a building greater than 90
feet in height shall be located a minimum 30 feet
from adjoining property line.
• Building dimensions.
• The portion of a building greater than 90
feet in height shall not have any dimension
that exceeds 250 feet in length.
• Reduction in mass.
• Building floor plates greater than 145 feet in
height shall not exceed 20,000 square feet.
• High-rise buildings in MP-R and MP-MU districts. Applies to all portions of a building greater than 90 feet in height. • Building spacing.
• The portion of a building greater than 90
feet in height shall be located a minimum 60
feet from all other buildings greater than 90
feet in height regardless of whether the
adjacent building is on the same parcel or
different parcel. Where two adjacent
parcels are under different ownership,
portions of a building greater than 90 feet in
height shall be located a minimum 30 feet
from adjoining property line.
• Residential building facades greater than
100 feet in length shall be located a
minimum 120 feet from all other buildings
facades greater than 100 feet in length and
greater than 90 feet in height.
• Building dimension.
• For residential buildings the portion of the
building above 90 feet shall not have a
Attachment 9

Page 68 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
continuous façade building dimension that
exceeds 200 feet in length.
• For non-residential buildings, the portion of
a building greater than 90 feet in height
shall not have any dimension that exceeds
300 feet in length.
• Reduction in mass.
• Building floor plates greater than 90 feet in
height shall not exceed 25,000 square feet.
• Building floor plates greater than 130 feet in
height shall not exceed 18,000 square feet.
• Building floor plates greater than 160 feet in
height shall not exceed 14,000 square feet.
• Building floor plates greater than 220 feet in
height shall not exceed 12,000 square feet.

Attachment 9

Page 69 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)

Attachment 9

Page 70 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Building Massing and Façade Modulation
Building massing within the fine grain core contributes to the pedestrian scale of the area with a variety of building heights, shorter building lengths, and a rhythm and pattern of building massing that provides a human-scaled architecture with frequent breaks in massing. Outside of the fine grain core, building massing and modulation standards allow for greater flexibility in size and massing of the building.

Based on comments received from developers, architects, and property owners, City staff is recommending reducing the impact of façade modulations in the fine grain core to provide more flexibility in building design but increasing requirements for façade articulation and changes in façade composition to create buildings the reflect a pedestrian rhythm and scale.

Page Section Purpose Change
114-
115

5.3.2 To provide flexibility in design while ensuring
human-scaled architecture.

Increase building length before major and
minor breaks, reduce depth of major breaks,
and add further regulations for façade
articulation to reduce monolithic buildings.

Modify Standard:
“4. Façade modulation in the fine grain core. All buildings located within the fine grain core shall meet the following standards:
a. Major breaks. Building facades greater than 200150 feet in length shall have at least one major break. Building facades greater than 250 feet in length shall have at least two major breaks.
i. Major break dimensions. The first major break required shall be a minimum 2025 feet wide and 1020 feet deep. If two major breaks are required, the second major break
shall be a minimum 20 feet wide and 2010 feet deep.
ii. Major break location. A major break may extend to the corner of a building with a maximum width of 50 feet.
iii. Major break height. A major break shall extend from the finished ground floor through the full height of the building including breaking the roof plane. Retail ground floors up to 20 feet above ground floor level area exempt from the first major break.
b. Minor breaks. Façade planes in Fine Grain Core shall not exceed 150100 feet in length as measured from façade break (major or minor) to façade break or corner of a building.

Minor break design standards include:
i. Depth. Minor breaks shall be a minimum 2 feet deep.

Attachment 9

Page 71 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
ii. Width. Minor breaks shall be a minimum 4 feet wide
and a maximum 40 feet wide.
iii. Location. A minor break may extend from the edge of a major break or the corner of a building.
iv. Height. A minor break shall extend from the top of the ground floor through the full height of the building
including breaking the roof plane.
c. Façade articulation. Building facades greater than 150 feet in length shall have at least two distinct façade compositions with at least two unique features of fenestration scale; rhythm and pattern; material and color; modulation of building form; or façade articulation. Modulation of building form and façade articulation shall be greater than 18 inches in depth and shall occur for a minimum of 60 percent of the building height.

Major and minor breaks less than 25 feet in width shall not be considered a distinct façade composition. Each distinct façade composition shall make up a minimum of 20% of the total horizontal face of the façade. (Composition A shall be a minimum 20% of façade length but may be broken up,
example: [A-B-A-B-A] where each B is 10% or [A-B] where B is 20%)”
d. Mass timber building exception. Mass timber buildings may receive an exception from building massing standards related to major and minor breaks subject to approval from the Zoning Administrator. Applicants for new development must provide findings on how the new development meets
the intent of the standards and document constraints to meeting the standards.

Attachment 9

Page 72 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Outside the Fine Grain Core
Consistent with the vision for each neighborhood and the goals and policies for varied neighborhood character and design standards, City staff recommends modifying standards associated with development outside the fine grain core. This will allow for architecture and campus development that is generally consisted with and will complement existing office projects.

In order to ensure a walkable network in key locations, City staff recommends modifying the fine grain core to include all of the Chesapeake neighborhood, MP-MU districts, and the MP-E1 district (with the stated special location alternative). These changes reflect requests and comments from property owners and developers.

Page Section Background Proposed Change
103 5.2.1 To provide more flexibility and conform with
existing block structure, maximum block
length has been increased.

Modify standard. “1. Outside fine grain core. Developments outside the fine grain core area shall have a maximum block length of 800600 feet and a maximum block perimeter of 2,800 2,400 feet.

Blocks located adjacent to 237 are exempt from this standard.” 104 5.2.1 To ensure walkable districts while providing
more flexibility for development outside the
fine grain core, increase footprint of fine grain
core in key areas
Modify Figure 28 Fine Grain Core Area to include all of the Chesapeake neighborhood and other key locations within the Fine Grain Core
114 5.3.2 To provide more flexibility in building design, modify the façade modulations standards
outside the fine grain core.

Modify Standard:
“3. Façade modulation outside the fine grain core (FGC). All buildings located outside the fine grain core shall meet the following standards. Exemptions may be made on a case-by-case basis for new buildings outside the fine grain core within an existing campus to maintain a consistency of architecture:
a. Number of breaks. Building facades greater than 300 250 feet in length shall have at least one major break, or two distinct facade compositions and/or architectural articulations. Building facades greater than 400 feet in length shall have at least two major breaks. i. Major break dimensions. The first major break required shall be a minimum 25 feet wide and 1025 feet deep. If two major breaks are required, the second major break shall be a minimum 2540 feet wide and 2540 feet deep.
ii. Major break location. A major break may extend to the corner of a building with a maximum width of 80 feet.
iii. Major break height. A major break shall extend from the finished ground floor through the full height of the building Attachment 9

Page 73 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
including breaking the roof plane. Retail ground floor up to 20 feet above ground floor level is exempt.”
b. Mass timber building exception. Mass timber buildings may receive an exception from building massing standards related to major and minor breaks subject to approval from the Zoning Administrator. Applicants for new development must provide findings on how the new development meets the intent of the standards and document constraints to meeting the standards.

120 5.3.5 To provide more flexibility in site design
outside the fine grain core, reduce or
eliminate requirements that overly restrict the
development of surface parking. Surface
parking in locations outside the fine grain core
will not impact walkability, maximum number
of spaces have been removed from the
standard.

Modify Standard:
“5. Surface parking. Surface parking lots are strongly discouraged within the fine grain core. Surface parking outside the fine grain core shall minimize street frontage and shall not be located between a building and streets, laneways, and open spaces. Surface parking is allowed along Caribbean Drive. If built, surface parking shall meet the following standards:
a. Surface parking size. New surface parking lots in the fine grain core shall be no larger than 20 spaces and shall be located behind buildings, perpendicular to the street, laneway, and/or screened from the street.”
(no change)

Attachment 9

Page 74 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)

Attachment 9

Page 75 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Other Development Standards
Comments on the Specific Plan led to a number of minor technical changes and clarifications to the development standards.

Page Section Background Proposed Change
118 5.3.4 To align MPSP with other specific plan areas in Sunnyvale, including Downtown, a reduction
in required usable open space is
recommended.

Modify Standard:
“1. Residential open space…
b. Within all other districts. Minimum 5075
square feet per unit.”
118-
119

5.3.4 The draft standard was written without
consideration for adjacent high-rise buildings
that would have required unusually large
courtyards. To meet the intention of the
standard, add an overall minimum courtyard
width.

Modify Standard:
p. 118) “2.f.i: Dimensions for partially enclosed interior courtyards. In the case of a courtyard where the common open space is enclosed by three sides of a building, the minimum width shall be equal to or greater than 80% of the highest height of the adjoining facade or 55 feet, whichever is less.”

p. 119) y or 55 feet, whichever is less.”
126 5.4.3 To incentivize mass timber building types by
making them more financially viable, City staff
recommends exempting mass timber buildings
from the green roof requirement. The extra
costs associated with mass timber buildings
for green roofs may make mass timber
buildings less feasible. Mass timber buildings
are an important avenue for reducing carbon.

Staff recommends no other exemptions to the
green roof requirement.

Modify Standard:
“4. Mass timber buildings. Mass timber buildings are exempt from green roof standards.

127 5.4.3 To allow for buildings to meet National
security concerns, provide an exemption for
SCIF buildings.

Add Standard:

4. Sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) exception.

SCIFs may receive an exception from green roof standards subject to approval from the Zoning Administrator. Applicants for new development must provide findings documenting security
constraints to meeting the standards and provide an alternative approach, such as a cool roof.”

Attachment 9

Page 76 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
126 5.4.3 To clarify what is exempt for the gross/net
calculation for determining applicable roof
area for green roof standard.

Modify Standard:

The following uses are exempt from net roof area calculations:
codified amenity spaces, codified setbacks, HVAC systems, fire suppression systems, associated easements and service
maintenance pathways to all equipment, and emergency corridors.

Chapter 6 – Open Space and Urban Ecology
Open Space
The open space and urban ecology framework prioritize the creation of an interconnected network of parks and open spaces that provides a wide range of uses to serve entire communities of all ages and abilities and to address ecological, social, equity, and health issues. The Specific Plan requires the creation of publicly accessible parks, open spaces, biodiversity hubs, and habitat patches that will serve the residents and employees of Moffett Park.

Many property owners and developers recommended eliminating specific open space locations, providing more specificity about open spaces spanning more than one property, and allowing more flexibility in the location and implementation of open spaces. To address these comments, City staff recommends providing more detail for open spaces located in the South Java and Chesapeake neighborhoods where new open spaces and new complete streets span multiple properties (with multiple property owners). For other neighborhoods, with more land in single ownership, specificity is not required, and flexibility is provided in implementation.

City staff also recommends adding a new open space type, “Contributing Open Space,” a new category of private open space.

Commenters noted, and staff agree, that private open spaces may contribute to the overall open space network if they provide publicly accessible pathways through a larger open space. Contributing Open Space must be visible and directly adjacent to a public right-of-way – internal campus open space would not count as Contributing Open Space.

Clarifications and revisions are also recommended for Caspian Community Park, East and West Community Parks, and the East and West Greenbelts. These changes ensure public access to existing properties, correct labeling dimensions, provide more clarity and flexibility to the open space if the channel is naturalized and/or if the PG&E lines are undergrounded, among other technical changes.

Attachment 9

Page 77 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Page Section Background Proposed Change
131 6.1 To clarify the types of spaces that contribute to the overall General Plan goal of providing 5.34
acres per 1,000 residents, staff recommends
modifying the definition of Open Space and
adding a new open space type of “Contributing
Open Space”
Modify definition:

FOR PURPOSES OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, OPEN SPACE IS DEFINED AS: Publicly accessible open spaces, parks, and natural areas which serve the community by providing public access, active
transportation corridors, recreational, cultural programs and ecosystem services. These may include undeveloped natural areas, areas of ecological and ecosystem value, greenbelts and trails, recreation areas, community and neighborhood parks, areas of cultural historic significance, contributing open spaces, public plazas and squares. They may be publicly owned and managed, or privately owned publicly accessible spaces.
132 6.1 To illustrate existing private open spaces. Figure 31 Existing Open Spaces and Open Space Context has been updated to include the private open spaces.
135 6.2 To clarify that the open space may act as part of the flood management system.

Add new policy: "Policy OSE-1.10: Permit the open space network to act as part of the flood management system. When owned and maintained as publicly accessible private open spaces, enable open spaces to provide centralized treatment for buildings, roads, and open spaces."
140-
143

6.3 To reflect new Contributing Open Space
designation, changes to locations/shapes of
Biodiversity Hubs, and added detail to the open
spaces located in the South Java and Chesapeake
neighborhoods, changes to the open space
figures are recommended.

Revise Figure 32 Parks and Open Space Framework, Figure 33 Urban Ecology Framework, and Figure 34 Park and Open Space Location and Size as shown below.

Changes include:
• Re-labeling West Channel Park to a combination of
Biodiversity Hub, Contributing Open Space, and Park/Plaza. • Change shape and locations of neighborhood parks and
mini parks in South Java and Chesapeake Neighborhoods
Revise Table 9 Park a nd Open Space by Area with the park acreage.

148 6.4 To provide clarification of types of open spaces that can be part of Biodiversity Hubs and Habitat
Patches.

Add text at end of paragraph:
“Biodiversity Hubs and Habitat Patches may be a combination of public open spaces, private open spaces with public access, and private open spaces that are not accessible to the public, provided they meet the standards defined in Table 11.”
Attachment 9

Page 78 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
151 6.4 To respond to flexibility to shape and location of the Navy Park, a new standard is added to
specify location requirements that tie to the
overall plan vision while providing flexibility in
design.

Add standard:

Navy Park shall front Lockheed Martin Way for a minimum of 50% of the street frontage between the Discovery Way extension and Mathilda Avenue. The minimum required frontage area shall have a minimum depth of 200 feet. Navy Park shall meet the
intersection of the Discovery Way extension and Lockheed Martin Way. Any part of Navy Park fronting Lockheed Martin Way shall have a minimum depth of 75 feet.
155 6.4 To provide a direct category for existing private open spaces that contribute to the overall open
space goals of the plan. These private open
spaces positively impact the overall public realm
and are partially publicly accessible and viewable
from public rights-of-way. These include existing
open spaces on Juniper’s property at the corner
of Innovation Way and Mathilda Avenue and
new open spaces being built by Google as part of
the Caribbean project.

Add definition:

Contributing Open Space: Contributing Open Spaces may include public open spaces, natural areas, and private open spaces that include limited public access via a publicly accessible pathway through the space. Contributing Open Spaces shall be visible from and directly adjacent to a public or publicly accessible right-of-way.

Contributing Open Spaces not designated in the Specific Plan shall not be permitted to offset designated public or publicly accessible open spaces.

Add Page:

Contributing Open Space Design Standards:

Scale: 1 - 8 acres,
Service Area: Neighborhood-Community,
Minimum Resources: Visible from and directly adjacent to a public right-of-way, Publicly Accessible Pathway(s), Seating Areas, Potential Program: Similar to Neighborhood Park, Landscape and Lighting Design: Landscape design shall be per Section 6.6.6 Landscape Design. Landscape lighting shall be per Section 6.6.9 Exterior Lighting
156 6.5 To clarify and refine standards for the Caspian Community Park, the following modifications are
recommended.

Revise standard. "1. Minimum Dimension: 200 feet between Borregas Ave. and Geneva Drive. 150 feet between Geneva Dr. and Crossman Ave. At least one space with a minimum dimension of 300 feet by 300 feet between Borregas Ave. and Geneva Drive. with At least one space that has a minimum dimension of 300 feet by 300 feet."

Attachment 9

Page 79 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Add standard: "4.c. Caspian Community Park improvements including changes to Caspian Drive shall be completed in tandem with or after improvements to ensure site access to all properties." 161 6.5 To provide specific details for location and size of required open spaces, block structure, and
complete streets in the South Java and
Chesapeake Neighborhoods.

Add new section:
“South Java and Chesapeake Neighborhood Open Spaces
The South Java and Chesapeake Neighborhoods are anchored by a series of open spaces, the Diagonal, and the East and West Channel Greenbelts. Open spaces within these neighborhoods span multiple properties (with multiple owners) which will require a higher level of coordination. Required open spaces, block structure, and complete street network shall be met onsite as illustrated in Appendix C or the development shall submit a joint Site Master Plan with all properties adjacent to the required open space or network connection to be modified from the illustrated Figures.” See figures below.

163-
164

6.5 To provide flexibility and incentivization for
implementation of channel naturalization or
PG&E undergrounding and to revise Figure 37 to
correct a typo in the dimensions.

Correct Valley Water parcel dimension for East Channel: ~226-240 ft ~70-100 ft. See figure below.

Modify Table 15
Add: Minimum Required Open Space for West Channel: 100 feet width in segments where channel flood protection is naturalized channel flood protection
Add: Minimum Total Open Space Width for East Channel: 300 feet width in segments where channel flood protection is naturalized channel flood protection
Add: Public Open Space Setbacks: 30 feet minimum width from property line in all instances including naturalization channel flood protection and PG&E undergrounding
Add footnotes:

If PG&E easement is reduced, building setback may be reduced to minimum setback from top of bank.

If channel flood protection is naturalized, minimum corridor width may be reduced to 300 feet.

Attachment 9

Page 80 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Open Space Framework Map

Attachment 9

Page 81 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Open Space/Complete Streets Diagrams
South Java/Bordeaux Neighborhood

Attachment 9

Page 82 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
South Java/Gibraltar Neighborhood

Attachment 9

Page 83 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Chesapeake Neighborhood

Attachment 9

Page 84 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)

Attachment 9

Page 85 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Urban Ecology
Integrating ecology into Moffett Park — through ecological infrastructure such as stormwater detention wetlands, healthy urban forests — is a multi-benefit approach that moves the area towards a more resilient and sustainable future. Along with the open space and urban ecology plan for Moffett Park, the Specific Plan includes ecological design standards for new development, open space, and public rights- of-way.

Commenters also recommended specific technical changes and clarifications to the ecological design standards. Staff recommends minor changes to the urban forest, landscape design, and planting palettes as defined below.

Page Section Background Proposed Change
89 4.4.5 To clarify language around when the Habitat
Management Plan requirements will be
implemented and allow for TDR of non-
residential floor area.

Ecological Combining District (ECD). To facilitate the expansion and enhancement of the unique habitat, property owners north of 1st Avenue in the ECD may transfer non-residential building area and developable square footage up to the Base FAR to other sites within Moffett Park if the following conditions are met:

01. Prepare a maintenance and management plan for the ECD.

02. A plan to implement the habitat enhancements that shall be completed within the ECD. Examples of habitat enhancements include, but are not limited to, the removal of existing buildings, removal of impervious surface, improvements of stormwater management facilities, and landscape design and planting to enhance the ecological value of the area.

03. Adherence to additional standards in the Open Space and Urban Ecology Chapter.
171 6.6.3 To provide more flexibility for developments
to meet the urban forest standards within a
Site Master Plan.

Revise standard: "1.a. Minimum Canopy Cover. Canopy cover10 shall be managed and monitored at different scales and in relation to different open space types, street types, and private open spaces, with the goal of maximizing coverage within Moffett Park. For small isolated noncompliance areas with documented technical restrictions/circumstances (e.g. utility and programmatic conflicts), the required land areas for canopy cover may be reduced by up to 15% 10% with approval by the City. The reduced percentage shall be compensated for elsewhere in the Site Master Plan unless applicant can demonstrate that the canopy removed from the isolated noncompliance areas cannot be installed elsewhere within the Site Master Plan.”
Attachment 9

Page 86 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
171 6.6.3 To clarify the tree canopy coverage
requirements on building podiums and
rooftops.

Revise standards:
"1.a.iii. Private Open Spaces
…

04. MP-AC Land Use District: 0%

05. New Fine grain core open space: Minimum: 30% on grade, 15% on building podium, 0% on rooftops."

06. New Large campus open space: Minimum: 50% on grade, 15% on building podium, 0% on rooftops."

07. New Residential open space: Minimum: 30% on grade, 15% on building podium, 0% on rooftops."

175 6.6.6 To provide developments with an
opportunity to select additional plant species
beyond the Planting Palette (Appendix B).

Add new standard
“2.a.iii: The City may consider additional species/varieties from those included in the Planting Palette, in coordination with the Department of Public Works as part of a development review process. Species locally native to Santa Clara Valley will be prioritized. If there is consideration to expand the plant palette to include species not locally native to Santa Clara County, careful consideration should be given to a number of factors to ensure that the plantings are ecologically beneficial and suitable for local site conditions, such as native range, native habitat association(s), water requirements, salinity tolerance, sun/shade tolerance, soil tolerance, wildlife support, depth to groundwater, and climate change resilience."

Attachment 9

Page 87 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Chapter 7 – Mobility
The Moffett Park street network increases multimodal connectivity and walkability and provides equitable mobility options for employees, residents, and visitors. The core of the street network focuses on facilitating bicycle, pedestrian, and multimodal travel, and most of the vehicle travel is concentrated on the periphery of the district. The Specific Plan includes a complete street typology, network, and standards for complete street cross-sections.

Comments on the Mobility Chapter of the Specific Plan requested: 1) more clarity to design of the street network; 2) a reduction of right- of-way widths; and 3) flexibility to meet the multimodal goals of each street within existing curb-to-curb widths when possible. The following changes address some of these concerns through the following actions: reclassifying certain streets, adding new street cross sections for unique street configurations, reducing the right-of-way of most streets through reductions in sidewalk width, and providing more detail to certain street cross sections.

Page Section Background Proposed Change
187 7.2 To provide additional flexibility in the future, modify vehicular street locations on the Navy
site.

See Figure 43: Conceptual Vehicular Street Network below. 188 7.2 To match additional detailed design of the
South Java and Chesapeake Neighborhoods
and address flexibility on the Navy site, modify
street classifications and location of some new
streets.

See Figure 44: Complete Conceptual Street Framework below.

See Figure 57: Complete Bicycle Network below.
194-
200

7.3 To reduce the right-of-way of most streets,
reduce Pedestrian Zone dimension for all
street types except Anchor Streets and
Laneways. NACTO minimum recommendation
is 8’ sidewalk throughway.

Modify cross section dimensions in Figures 48 – 54 and Tables 19A – 21B. Modify Pedestrian Zone standard from: 16’ (10’ sidewalk; and 6’ landscape buffer) to 15’ (9’ sidewalk and 6’ landscape buffer). See cross sections below.
195 7.3 To clarify implementation of two different
design conditions for Moffett Park Drive, and
to generally maintain curb-to-curb
dimensions, add the following new sections to
the plan for Moffett Park Drive in the
Chesapeake Neighborhood.

Add proposed street cross sections and add table with dimensions as follows:
• Moffett Park Drive (Chesapeake Neighborhood)
o Curb-to-Curb: 44’
o New Right-of-Way: 74’ (56’ existing)
o Pedestrian Zone: 9’ sidewalk; 6’ landscape buffer
o Bicycle Facilities: 5’ to 6’ Class IV separated bikeway in each direction protected by 1’ to 2’ buffer
Attachment 9

Page 88 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
depending on available right-of-way and expected
vehicle volumes
o Vehicle Lanes: One 11’ travel lane in each direction
o Curbside Zone: 8’ flex space on the west side.
o Medians: N/A
• Moffett Park Drive + Greenbelt (Chesapeake Neighborhood) o Curb-to-Curb: 44’
o New Right-of-Way: 134’ inclusive of 75’ wide
greenbelt open space on north side (56’ existing)
o Pedestrian Zone:
 North side:12’ Class I shared-use path on
west side to accommodate pedestrian and
bicycle travel; and 9’ sidewalk adjacent to
properties to the north.
 South Side side, 9’ sidewalk and 6’ landscape
buffer
o Bicycle Facilities: 6’ Class IV separated bikeway on
the east side protected by 2’ buffer. And shared-use
path through Greenbelt Open Space
o Vehicle Lanes: One 11’ travel lane in each direction
o Curbside Zone: 7’ flex space available for
landscaping, loading, or short-term parking
o Medians: N/A

See cross sections figures below.
196 7.3 To provide flexibility around the
implementation of Moffett Park Drive
(frontage road) condition due to multiple
configurations of the street, a new standard
with performance metrics for the street
section were added.

Add minimum design requirements for Moffett Park Drive (frontage road) as follows:
• Traffic: one lane in each direction, flex lane optional • Curb-to-Curb: 32’
• Sidewalks/Bike Facilities:
o 12’ multiuse path (location flexible but shall be
designed to connect to adjacent properties)
• 6’ landscape buffer (location flexible)
• Building setback to begin north of minimal facilities or ROW whichever is greater

Attachment 9

Page 89 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
196 7.3 Change the street section for Crossman
Avenue to provide clarity to implementation,
identify existing curb locations, and set a
standard for where the curb-to-curb
dimension needs to be widened to make
space for flex lanes.

Modify Figure 50 Crossman Avenue (Typical) cross section. See figure below.

Modify Table 20A Curbside Zone:
“8’ flex space required on east sid
e of the street adjacent to and
within the Activity Center on the east side if ROW allows, available for loading or short-term parking in high-demand locations. 8’ flex space optional for areas north of Activity Center to maintain existing curb-to-curb dimension.”

200 7.3 To generally maintain existing curbs, modify
typical sections for Neighborhood Street with
bicycle facility (Bordeaux, Geneva, Orleans,
and other locations where existing curb-to-
curb is 43-44 feet in width) to reduce
dimension. Modify bike facilities up to
sidewalk level consistent with BPAC guidance.

Add new section and revise Figure 54: Neighborhood Street with Bicycle Facility (Typical) See figure below. Add table with dimensions as follows:
• Curb-to-Curb: 43-44’ where modifying existing street, curb- to-curb dimension may vary for new Neighborhood Streets. • Right-of-Way: 86’
• Pedestrian Zone: 9’ sidewalk; 6’ landscape buffer
• Bicycle Facilities 6’ Class IV separated bikeway in each direction protected by a 3’ buffer.
• Vehicle Lanes: One 11’ travel lane in each direction
• Curbside Zone: 8’ flex space available for landscaping, loading, or short-term parking
• Medians: N/A

200 7.3 Clarify standard to provide for and extend
recently constructed GreenLink along
Gibraltar Drive
Add exception:
“Gibraltar Drive: New sections shall continue GreenLink design with 10’ two-way Class IV separated bikeway with 3’ buffer on the south side of streetGibraltar Drive and 5’ Class II bicycle lane on the north side. North side of the street shall meet minimum sidewalk standards including a minimum 9’ sidewalk and 6’ landscape buffer”

200 7.3 To address comments about 1st Avenue and
future phasing configurations, City staff
recommends reconfiguring existing 4-lane
street into a 2-lane street with Greenbelt
Add new section for 1st Avenue. See figure below. Add table with dimensions as follows:
• Curb-to-Curb: 28’
Attachment 9

Page 90 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
connection to Ecological Combining District.

This will allow the existing curb-to-curb
dimensions to be retained.

• Right-of-Way: 98’ or greater
• Pedestrian Zone: 12’ Class I shared-use path on north side to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel; 14’
landscaping buffer. On south side, 8’ sidewalk and 7’
landscape buffer
• Bicycle Facilities: 6’ Class IV separated bikeway on the east side protected by 1’ buffer.
• Vehicle Lanes: One 11’ travel lane in each direction
• Curbside Zone: N/A
• Medians: N/A
• Intersection: Intersection with Mathilda Ave shall be narrowed to a maximum of 3 lanes.

201 7.3 To simplify Laneway/Shared Street design, the
following technical changes are
recommended.

Modify Figure 55 Laneway Shared Street (Typical) cross section.

See figure below.

Add note:
“If EVA is required, shared street may be required to be increased to 20’, aerial apparatus location may include flex space for 26’ area.”
Modify standard:
8’ flex space available for loading, micro-mobility
parking, landscaping; flex space on Laneways/shares streets is designed to accommodate chicanes, which are encouraged on alternate sides of the street every 200 to 300 feet to slow traffic and increase safety for people walking, biking, and using micromobility.”

202 7.3 To simplify Laneway/Park Path design, add
options for when EVA is required, and provide
direct access to ground floor units and entry
ways on both sides of the laneway.

Modify Figure 56 Laneway Park/Path (Typical) cross section. Add new section for Laneway. See figures below.

Modify Table:
• Pedestrian Zone: Minimum of 1 pedestrian path or
sidewalk on either side of laneway with minimum 6-foot
width; 30’ landscaped area that could accommodate
furnishings, or other park amenities, landscaped area may be reduced in width to 24’ to accommodate EVA
Attachment 9

Page 91 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
• Bicycle Facilities: 12’ two-way cycle track; No vehicle lanes; emergency vehicle access only

Add standard:
“Laneway Park/Paths are preferred to be located and designed without need for EVA.”
202 7.3 To provide standards for street lighting Add standard regulating street lighting per the Table (see below)

Attachment 9

Page 92 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Figure 44 Changes

Attachment 9

Page 93 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Figure 57 Changes

Crosstown Connectors Cross Sections
Attachment 9

Page 94 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Moffett Park Drive (Chesapeake Neighborhood) - North/South Area Street section looking north

Attachment 9

Page 95 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Moffett Park Drive East/West Area with Greenbelt connection from Diagonal Bridge to Baylands Park Street section looking west

Attachment 9

Page 96 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Crossman Avenue
Street section looking north

Attachment 9

Page 97 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Neighborhood Streets
Neighborhood Street with Bicycle Facility
(Bordeaux, Geneva, Orleans, and other locations where existing curb-to-curb is 43-44 feet in width)

Attachment 9

Page 98 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)

1st Avenue
Street section looking west

Attachment 9

Page 99 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Laneways
Laneway/Shared Street

Attachment 9

Page 100 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Laneway/Park Path (EVA not required)

Laneway/Park Path (EVA Required)

Attachment 9

Page 101 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Street Lighting Table
Attachment 9

Page 102 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Chapter 8 – TDM and Parking
As defined in the Specific Plan, a substantial mode shift away from single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips is needed to reduce congestion, ensure multimodal access at the district gateways, and meet local and regional ambitions for improved climate and environmental outcomes. Transportation demand management (TDM) and parking management strategies aim to reduce SOV travel, minimize daily vehicle trips, and shift trips to transit, biking, walking, scooting, or rideshare. All new development above a certain size will be required to participate in a Transportation Management Association, prepare a TDM plan, and monitor plan implementation over time. New developments will be subject to the Specific Plan’s vehicle parking requirements, shared parking, and bicycle parking requirements.

Many property owners and developers provided comments on Section 8.3.1 Vehicle Parking Maximums. Comments recommended increasing the vehicle parking maximums to at least 3.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for office and R&D uses, clarifying the timeline associated with parking maximum phasing, and revising the language about sharing additional parking above the maximum. City staff recommends refining the language about shared parking and clarifying the timelines associated with parking maximum phasing.

City staff, however, does not recommend increasing the vehicle parking maximums. Allowing too much parking can incentivize driving, create traffic congestion, and run contrary to the vision of an ecological innovation district. City staff recognizes the need for near-term flexibility in the provision of parking consistent with current market conditions. To accommodate this near-term flexibility, the Specific Plan allows a 50% increase in the amount of allowed parking if parking is shared. For office and R&D uses specifically, this allows developments to provide up to 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet at time of plan adoption. The Specific Plan also provides the opportunity for the City and TMA to monitor parking needs and review the supply periodically to determine when parking standards should be changed to adapt to evolving development conditions.

Additionally, City staff recommend consolidating standards for shared parking from 8.3.1 to 8.4.1 and removing duplicate standards. City staff recommend minor clarifications to the role of the City and TMA in implementation of TDM, and to the inclusion of trip reduction targets. City staff also recommend minor changes to the bicycle parking standards as listed below.

Attachment 9

Page 103 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Page Section Background Proposed Change
221 8.1 Add a new policy to emphasize shared
parking. Since the Specific Plan does not
require parking minimums, property owners
are welcome to use existing parking or share
parking from an existing site rather than build
new parking
Add new policy:
“Policy TDMP-1.7: Encourage existing developments to share and/or transfer parking rights from an existing site to a new development site to minimize the amount of new parking that is implemented."
221 8.1 To clarify the role of the City and TMA in the
implementation of TDM in Moffett Park.

Revise policy:
"Policy TDMP-2.1: Establish a Moffett Park Transportation Management Association (TMA) to support the City in efforts to oversee mobility improvements, coordinate efforts, and manage a district-wide TDM strategy."
223 8.2 To clarify who joins the TMA. Modify standard:
“1.a. Join the TMA and record a deed restriction agreeing to require all commercial building tenants and residential property managers to become members of the TMA in perpetuity from the date of final inspection or certificate of occupancy."
224 8.2 To clarify the required trip reduction goals
associated with the TDM plans.

Add standard:
"4.c. Trip reduction goal. New development is to meet the following peak hour trip reduction rates through efforts defined in a submitted Transportation Demand Plan (TDM) and through participation in programs of the MPSP Transportation Management Association (TMA)."

Add new table.

224 8.2 To clarify the role of the City and TMA in the
implementation of TDM in Moffett Park.

Revise standard:
"4. Trip reduction goals. Trip reduction goals for new development are as follows:
a. Non-residential. The applicant shall develop and implement a Attachment 9

Page 104 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
TDM Plan that meets an a.m. and p.m. peak-hour trip reduction target from baseline conditions. Trip reduction goals shall be outlined in
the TDM plan submitted to the City TMA and may be subject to periodic revision to address new conditions at the project site and/or new services or programs in the plan area.
b. Residential. The applicant shall develop a TDM Plan using the existing multifamily residential TDM program with modified project size tiers, point thresholds, and additional TDM measures considered for Moffett Park. TDM point targets shall be outlined in the TDM plan submitted to the City TMA and may be subject to periodic revision to address new conditions at the project site and/or new services or programs in the plan area."

Revise standard: "6. TDM plan implementation. Property owners shall implement TDM programs at building occupancy, however each site will not be subject to monitoring until it has reached 75% occupancy. It is the owner’s responsibility to inform the City and TMA when sites have reached 75% occupancy."

226 8.3.1 To clarify who the sharing is with and during what times of day, the following modification
clarifies standards for parking maximums.

Modify standard:
“1. Parking maximums. A project may exceed that maximum by up to 50% of the maximum ratio, provided that all of the additional spaces over the maximum shall be shared with the public, a private entity, a public agency, or other users at all times. A parking management plan must be submitted to the City demonstrating reasonable access to shared parking on a daily basis. The City TMA should monitor parking needs and review the supply periodically to determine when parking maximum standards should be changed to adapt to evolving development conditions.”
226 8.3.1 To clarify parking maximum phasing, the
following modification clarifies standards for
phasing.

Modify standard:
“2. Parking maximum phasing. Parking maximums for new
development shall be phased in over time as shown in Table 24. As Attachment 9

Page 105 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
defined in the Site Master Plan (see Chapter 10, section 10.3), the phasing of all new development, based on the timeline for vertical development, shall adhere to the phased implementation of the off-street vehicle parking standards. Mid-Term is defined as when one third of estimated office, R+D, and industrial total floor area at plan buildout established in Table 4: Development Reserve phased for vertical development. Long-Term is defined as when two thirds of estimated office, R+D, and industrial total floor area at plan buildout.

Change term in Table 24 “At Full Build Out Long Term”
226/
232

8.3.1 To clarify shared parking standards,
consolidate shared parking standards and
remove duplicative language into a single
section.

Move: Standard 8.3.1.3; and Guidelines 8.3.1.1 and 8.3.1.2 to 8.4.1 Shared Parking.

Remove: Standard 8.4.1.2 and 8.4.1.3
237 8.5 To clarify differences in bicycle parking
requirements for restaurant and retail /
commercial uses, add additional standards for
short-term bicycle parking for industrial uses,
and modify hotel standards.

Revise Table 28.

Revise: "Hotel: Long-Term 1 per 20 15 rooms; Short-Term 1 per 20 15 rooms"
Separate restaurant from: "Retail / Commercial / Restaurant" Add: "Restaurant: Long-Term 1 per 3,000 SF; Short-Term 1 per 800 SF No Showers / Lockers Required"
Add: "Industrial: Short-Term 1 per 5,000 SF"
Add a reference to the "Sunnyvale Municipal Code 19.36.120"

Attachment 9

Page 106 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
Chapters 9 and 10 – Infrastructure and Utilities and Implementation Implementation of the Moffett Park Specific Plan requires a comprehensive approach that includes private sector development with City actions and infrastructure investment. Existing public utilities will need improvement to accommodate future growth through the collection of fees for future development, through the direct construction of improvements in order to serve future development, or in some cases, as part of the community benefits program expected over the life of the plan’s build out. Implementing these improvements, with a sustainability lens, will require strong, sustained coordination between the private and public sector. The complexity of the systems, the size of the planning area, and the need to phase improvements will require substantial funding, management, and oversight.

Based on comments received on the Specific Plan, City staff recommends several minor clarifications to policy and the addition of a new implementation action to support district system implementation. Additionally, revisions have been made to the hazardous materials and special status sections requirements.

Many property owners and developers recommended clarifying or eliminating requirements for new water and sanitary sewer improvements, particularly unless the improvement is a direct result of the proposed development. City staff notes it is establishing an update to the impact fees for the water and sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements defined in the Specific Plan. Pending discussions with City staff during the Site Master Plan process, developments may construct the required improvement or pay the impact fee.

Page Section Background Proposed Change
241 9.1 To clarify that new development receives impact fee credit for construction of off-site
improvements.

Modify policy:
"Policy IU-1.2: Require new development to contribute toward fees, on-site and off-site improvements related to the project, and provide contributions to other required funding sources or allowed alternative mitigations. Provide impact fee credit for construction of off-site improvements serving multiple property owners."
241 9.1 Encourage developers to deliver private systems would alleviate capacity issues on existing
infrastructure and allow for innovative solutions
to deliver on the Specific Plan’s vision to create
an ecological innovation district.

Modify policy:
"Policy IU-2.5: Encourage district infrastructure systems and energy microgrids in Moffett Park and ensure there is a City process to enable such projects. Provide project developers impact fee and/or community benefit credit for infrastructure and utility improvements. Community benefit credit should only Attachment 9

Page 107 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
apply in cases where developments provide an excess of required contributions that address the fair share of impacts needed to serve the development."
261 10.3.1 Added to clarify that soils imported for future development projects be characterized per
Department of Toxic Substances Control
guidance and free off contaminants.

Add new standard:
"10.3.1-8: Imported Soil Testing. Prior to issuance of building permits, any development project within Moffett Park that includes the importation of soil shall conduct proper sampling to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. Imported materials shall be characterized according to the DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.

261 10.3.1 Added to clarify that future development
projects address the potential for
organochlorinated pesticides and/or aerially
deposited lead contamination, as relevant.

Revise standard:
"10.3.1-3: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. At properties with known or suspected environmental impacts that require additional investigation prior to subsurface disturbance activities, a Phase II ESA shall be prepared and implemented prior to development activities to determine the nature and extent of impacts. The Phase II ESA shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified environmental regulatory agency such as DTSC, RWQCB, or SCCDEH. Consideration should be given to obtaining approval for an investigation plan from the oversight agency prior to completing the Phase II investigation. The scope of work shall include soil, groundwater, and/or soil vapor sampling in areas of potential concern to evaluate if site-specific measures are needed to protect the health and safety of property occupants and construction workers. For example, for projects located on land historically used for agricultural, weed abatement, or related activities, the potential for elevated levels of organochlorinated pesticides shall be addressed. For projects located within proximity to SR 237, the potential for ADL contamination shall be addressed. Field techniques that may be employed under include but are not limited to:

Attachment 9

Page 108 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
261 10.3.1 Added to clarify that subsurface sampling be compared to the standards of the applicable
regulatory agency in place at the time the
project is proposed.

Revise standard:
"10.3.1-2: Site Management Plan. At properties with known or suspected minor environmental impacts that can be addressed safely and effectively during subsurface disturbance activities, a Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared prior to
development activities to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil, soil vapor, groundwater, or other materials during construction activities. Subsurface sampling shall be compared to then-current DTSC, Water Board, or U.S. EPA screening levels for the proposed land use and background levels to determine if risk is present. The SMP shall also address management of site risks and previously unknown conditions during earthwork activities in areas where impacted soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater are present or suspected. Recommendations for elements to be included in site-specific Health and Safety Plans (HSPs), to be prepared by individual contractors for their employees’ safety based on their work scope, may also be included in the SMP. Worker training requirements and health and safety shall be described in the SMP. The SMP shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified environmental regulatory agency such as California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH).

262 10.3.1 Added to clarify the conditions under which
contaminants are adequately remediated and
that future development projects
demonstrate that hazardous materials do not
exist on the site or that construction/use of
the site is approved by the oversight agency
with jurisdiction.

Revise standard:
"10.3.1-4: Remediation and/or Management Measures. At
properties with known environmental impacts that must be addressed to make the property compatible with its future use, appropriate remediation and/or management measures must be implemented under the oversight and to the satisfaction of a qualified environmental regulatory agency such as DTSC, RWQCB, or SCCDEH. Contaminants are considered adequately remediated if levels are at or below the current DTSC, Water Board, or U.S. EPA Attachment 9

Page 109 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
cleanup levels or background levels. Remediation techniques may include but are not limited to excavation, extraction,
bioremediation, oxidation, reduction, phytoremediation, and thermal treatment. Management measures may include
engineering and administrative controls such as but not limited to impermeable surface caps, vapor intrusion mitigation systems, permeable reactive barriers, land use covenants, and deed restrictions. Field techniques that may be employed under include but are not limited to:

- Excavation, extraction, or removal of impacted material for off- site disposal or temporary on-site storage or treatment; - Ex-situ (i.e., above-ground) treatment of impacted material via physical and/or chemical processing; and
- In-situ (i.e., below-ground) treatment of impacted material via intrusive physical and/or chemical processing.

These field techniques include those currently known and used (e.g., dig-and-haul, landfarming, groundwater and soil vapor extraction and treatment, subsurface injection, etc.) and those that will become state of the art in the future. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that hazardous materials do not exist on the site or that the proposed construction and use of the site are approved by the environmental oversight agency with jurisdiction that meets the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 101480."

271 10.3.5 To clarify requirements around special status species, the following clarifications have been
added to the Specific Plan.

Revise standard:
"10.3.5-1: Special Status Plants. At the time development is proposed, focused special status plant surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist (defined as a person with a minimum of a four-year degree in wildlife sciences, biology, environmental sciences, or equivalent experience in the biological sciences) for Attachment 9

Page 110 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
alkali milk-vetch and Congdon’s tarplant in the grasslands and vernally mesic areas (e.g., areas with a moderate supply of moisture) of Moffett Park’s northwestern corner.
271 10.3.5 To clarify requirements around burrowing
owls and special status species, the following
clarifications have been added to the Specific
Plan.

Revise standard:
"10.3.5-2: Burrowing Owl Survey. Preconstruction surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist in areas where burrowing owl habitat occurs such as ruderal lots (not including impervious surfaces). Each preconstruction survey shall consist of two surveys:
an initial survey no more than 14 days in advance of the on-set of ground-disturbing activity and a follow-up survey occurring within 24 hours prior to the start of construction. These surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the methods described in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation or the most recent California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidelines at the time development is proposed. The surveys shall cover all areas of suitable burrowing owl habitat within the construction zones.

- If preconstruction surveys are undertaken during the non- breeding season (September 1 through January 31), any burrows occupied by resident owls in areas planned for construction shall be protected by a construction-free buffer with a radius of 150 to 250 feet around each active burrow, with the required buffer distance to be determined in each case by a qualified biologist with at least two years of experience surveying for burrowing owls. Passive relocation of resident owls is not recommended by the CDFW where it can be avoided. If passive relocation is unavoidable, resident owls may be passively relocated according to a relocation plan prepared by a qualified biologist.

- If preconstruction surveys are undertaken during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) and active nest burrows are located within or near construction zones, a construction-free buffer of 250 feet shall be established around all active owl nests.

Attachment 9

Page 111 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
The buffer areas shall be enclosed with temporary fencing, and construction equipment and workers shall not be allowed to enter the enclosed setback areas. Buffers shall remain in place for the duration of the breeding season. Should construction work be halted or paused for more than one-week, new preconstruction surveys shall be prepared meeting the same requirements. After the breeding season (i.e., once all young have left the nest), passive relocation of any remaining owls may take place but only under the conditions described below."

275 10.3.5 To clarify requirements around State and
Federally Protected Wetlands, the following
clarifications have been added to the Specific
Plan.

Add the following text to 10.3.5-11:
"Future development must comply with all state and federal laws and regulations related to disturbance to jurisdictional waters. If it is determined that wetlands within Moffett Park under the USACE’s and/or RWQCB’s jurisdiction, future project developers would be required to obtain a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit from the USACE, Section 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB, and/or Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW or demonstrate that such permits are not necessary prior to initiating any construction-related activities within jurisdictional waters. Future project developers shall satisfy all agency requirements to mitigate aquatic impacts. These may include avoidance of aquatic resources, measures to minimize impacts, or compensation (e.g., habitat enhancement) for impacts at a minimum of 1:1. Mitigation for the permanent loss of waters of the US and/or state shall be required by either purchasing appropriate mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank (currently mitigation banks do not exist for this location, but should one become available this would become an option) or via permittee responsible mitigation for which the applicant would need to provide a project-specific Wetland/Riparian Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP) prepared by a qualified wetland restoration ecologist. The MMP would form the basis of the applicants permit Attachment 9

Page 112 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)
package to the USACE, CDFW, and/or RWQCB and shall also be submitted to the City of Sunnyvale for review and approval. At a minimum this plan shall include:
• A description of the impacted water;
• A map depicting the location of the mitigation site(s) and a description of existing site conditions;
• A detailed description of the mitigation design that includes: (i) the location of the created wetlands; (ii) proposed construction schedule; (iii) a planting/vegetation plan; (iv) specific monitoring metrics, and objective performance and success criteria, such as delineation of created area as jurisdictional waters using USACE published methods; and (v) contingency measures if the created wetlands do not achieve the specified success criteria; and • Short-term and long-term management and monitoring
methods."

276 10.4 To support the implementation of district
systems, the City would work with the third-
party entity and other interested partners to
define a framework for district systems. In
accordance with Policy IU-2.5, enablement of
District Infrastructure by land owners should be
expressed in this chapter
Add Immediate Term implementation item:
"Work with project applicants proposing district systems to create a framework for review, approval, and implementation of district systems." Participants: "Public Works, Environmental Services, Collaborative Entity, project applicants"

Attachment 9

Page 113 of 113 ends

23-0676 Corrected Attachment 9 (posted 20230711)

Sunnyvale City CouncilJuly 11, 2023

Sunnyvale City Council
July 11, 2023