Incentivize Innovation
Looking forward, the “medium term” (2028-2032) implementation item to create an Embodied Carbon Plan to establish requirements for new developments to measure and reduce the embodied carbon in buildings, is an important next step. In advance of that, I encourage you to consider additional incentives that promote innovation in the reduction of embodied carbon using sustainably harvested mass timber or other innovations.
Timber buildings have different design parameters than traditional steel or concrete construction, and should have a different approach to design guidance than those materials. Mass timber buildings can be impactful and beautiful, contributing to a sustainable neighborhood and are ideal for the Eco-Innovation District.
Sincerely,
MGA
| MICHAEL GREEN ARCHITECTURE INC
Natalie Telewiak
Architect AIBC
Principal | MGA
1265 Borregas Sunnyvale, CA USA | Complete 2022
Attachment 15
555 Java Sunnyvale, CA USA | In Construction
Flora, Paris FR | In Construction
Attachment 15
Reinventer, Paris FR | Concept
T3 Minneapolis, MI USA | Complete 2020
Attachment 15
P.O. Box 60995 Sunnyvale, CA 94088-0995 | (408) 742-6008
Michelle King, Principal Planner
City of Sunnyvale, Community Development
456 W. Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Sent via email: [email protected]
Re: Comments on the Draft Moffett Park Specific Plan Project
Dear Ms. King,
Thank you for the work that has taken place revising the Moffett Park Specific Plan (MPSP).
The thoughtful collection of ideas has transformed the MPSP into a visionary plan. While the Moffett Park Business Group believes in the vision of an innovative, ecological district, we do have concerns regarding some details. We believe that there are alternatives that address these concerns and still achieve the MPSP vision. Hence, we offer the following comments and suggestions as proposed revisions.
Development Standards (Chapter 5)
x As written, the standards discourage architectural innovation and creativity. The results could be design redundancy and inability to be reactive to the changing needs of the environment.
x The term “shall” is pervasive in the document and provides no flexibility or alternatives for compliance. Consider replacing “shall” with “encourage,” “other alternative” or “consider” to fulfill the intent of the policies.
x Green roofs require special construction considerations, that may present challenges to a project’s feasibility. There are other effective ways to achieve the same benefits of a green roof, especially with stormwater retention and heat island reduction.
Land Use: Innovation and Creation Space (Chapter 4.7)
x Developing Innovation and Creation Space (ICS) in appropriate areas of Moffett Park and/or preserving existing ICS should be considered a community benefit or a credit against city fees.
Attachment 15
P.O. Box 60995 Sunnyvale, CA 94088-0995 | (408) 742-6008
Mobility (Chapter 7) and Infrastructure & Utilities (Chapter 9)
x Upgrading all infrastructure regardless of whether it’s necessary or not is not an economically sustainable policy. Right-sizing would consider the development caps outline in the MPSP and take place when infrastructure is in disrepair or end of life.
x Upsizing beyond city standards should be a community benefit or credit against other city fees.
x Do not require a company/developer to operate and maintain land they dedicate or public infrastructure they upgrade for the public domain.
x The cost of ongoing operations and maintenance could be capitalized and count as a credit towards parks fees for residential developments or capitalized as a community benefit for commercial projects not subject to park fees.
Transportation Demand Management and Parking (Chapter 8)
x How will the transportation management association (TMA) be funded, what will be its governing principles and what activities or functions will it manage?
x The parking maximums outlined are too restrictive for the speculative market and do not account for the lag time it takes TMA programs to reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips. Flexible parking ratios support vehicular trip reduction goals while positioning the TMA and employer-funded TDM programs for success.
Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions and comments. We look forward to continuing to work with the city on policy and guidelines to achieve the Moffett Park Specific Plan vision.
Regards,
Kerry Haywood
Executive Director
Moffett Park Business Group
Cc: MPBG Members
Trudi Ryan, Department Director, Community Development
Kent Steffens, City Manager, City of Sunnyvale
Attachment 15
Affordable Housing
● Because the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program does not guarantee that affordable units will be built on site or within Moffett Park, include an explicit requirement that a minimum of 15 percent of the residential units in the plan area be income-restricted housing affordable to moderate, low, very-low and extremely-low income households, with a 20 percent goal.
● Include explicit language acknowledging that expanding access to people of all incomes will require deed-restricted units integrated into both market-rate development and stand-alone 100 percent affordable developments. This will require additional public and private resources to achieve deeper levels of affordability. ● Consider other tools that would generate additonal resources, reduce costs, and incentivize affordable housing development.
● One potential tool to consider could be to allow all or some of the Housing Mitigation Fees collected from commercial development within Moffett Park be dedicated to affordable housing development within each master plan area. Another tool could be to reduce city development fees for affordable housing within the plan area. ● Incorporate concrete language in the Community Benefits Program that affordable housing be prioritized to expand opportunities for very-low and extremely-low income households.
● Include details in the Community Benefits Program on how affordable housing is valued, relative to other benefits.
Environmental Resilience and Equitable Open Space
● Pursue more extensive efforts to stave off urban heat island effects and predicted flooding issues by specifying and incorporating additional nature based solutions and green infrastructure (bioswales, wetland restoration and creation, urban greening requirements, etc.) into the MPSP .
● Ensure spatial equity by committing to going above and beyond the minimum 44 acres of high habitat value eco patches recommended in the San Francisco Estuary Institute Technical Report, with emphasis in areas and neighborhoods slated for affordable housing development.
● Consider the establishment of a climate resilience task force focused on guidance of longer term resilience planning efforts.
Attachment 15
Jordan Grimes
Resilience Manager
Greenbelt Alliance
Corey Smith
Executive Director
Housing Action Coalition
Adina Levin
Executive Director
Friends of Caltrain
Ian Griffiths
Policy Director
Seamless Bay Area
Erika Pinto
Planning Policy Manager
SPUR
Louis Mirante
Vice President of Public Policy, Housing
Bay Area Council
Amy Thompson
Policy and Programs Manager
TransForm
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
through a combination of deed restricted units integrated into market-rate development and stand- alone 100 percent affordable developments, which allow deeper levels of affordability than is feasible through the Inclusionary Ordinance alone.
To facilitate the development of more deeply affordable homes, we recommend that Affordable Housing Mitigation Fees (Commercial Linkage Fees) collected from commercial development within the master planned areas, should be made available exclusively in these areas to support additional affordable housing.
The MPSP is a tremendously comprehensive and forward-thinking document that will clearly be transformative and open up opportunities for current and future residents of Sunnyvale. We do not question the City’s commitment to an economically and racially integrated Moffett Park, but we do know that commitments are best met when clear direction is included in the Plan itself.
SV@Home recommends the MPSP include clear mandates for a minimum of 15 percent affordable housing, or 3,000 units, with a goal that 20 percent of all new residential units be deed-restricted affordable homes. SV@Home also recommends using the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fees collected from commercial developments within master planned areas to support affordable housing development within these areas.
Creating a Clear Incentive Structure for Community Benefits that Supports the Development of Additional Affordable Housing at Deeper Levels of Affordability
The Draft MPSP currently includes standards for bonus commercial floor area ratio (FAR) developments and a list of potential district community benefits under Table 3 that includes additional affordable housing. We understand that the details of the Community Benefits Program structure will be coming back to council for consideration. The current Draft Plan does not clearly weigh the different community benefits on the list to ensure the success of incentivizing affordable housing production.
There are many opportunities and interests that can be realized through the community benefits component of the plan. These benefits promise to make Moffett Park a remarkable place to live, work, and play. It will be up to the City, in working with the developers, to determine who has access to these benefits and who does not—due to their inability to afford living in the area. To realize the goals of optimizing equitable community access to enjoy these benefits, the production of housing affordable to Sunnyvale residents of all incomes must be appropriately incentivized by the community benefit structure.
We believe it is essential that Staff’s presentation to City Council scheduled for January 31st on the Plan’s Community Benefits Program highlight the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program’s limits to providing housing opportunities for many lower-income households. Without additional incentives for deeper housing affordability in the Plan, the area will be largely out of reach for a significant Attachment 15
Pa
ge 175 of 235
portion of the city’s current residents, many of the new office and manufacturing employees, and most of the new retail commercial employees—all with average household incomes below 50 percent of the current Area Median Income. If Moffett Park is to truly become a place of opportunity for all, the Community Benefits Program will be instrumental in leveraging the resources to make this happen.
SV@Home recommends that the Community Benefits Program successfully incentivizes affordable housing production by clearly weighing the Plan’s list of community benefits.
SV@Home also recommends the Community Benefits Program include a clear intent to expand housing opportunities for very-low and extremely-low income households, which may not benefit from the below market units required by the current Inclusionary Housing Program.
Tracking, Measuring Progress, and Adaptability
We believe the Plan can set clearer actions to monitor and resolve barriers to achieving the Plan’s affordable housing requirements and goals. We would like to see:
x A program to track or measure progress towards meeting the Plan’s affordable housing production goals throughout the 20-year buildout period and the five-year review/updates. x An adaptive policy that allows the City to change its strategies if affordable housing targets are not met throughout the life the plan, including the five-year review/updates.
We appreciate Staff’s dedicated and tireless work in drafting the MPSP, for meeting with us before its release, and answering all our questions. Our ongoing partnership with the City is important to us, and we look forward to continuing this work together through the MPSP’s adoption. Through this partnership and further discussion of our recommendations with City Staff, we hope to reach our shared goal of ensuring any Sunnyvale resident can afford to live in Moffett Park, the Eco-Innovative District.
Sincerely,
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director
Attachment 15
P.O. Box 60995 Sunnyvale, CA 94088-0995 | (408) 742-6008 Michelle King, Principal Planner
City of Sunnyvale, Community Development
456 W. Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Sent via email: [email protected]
Re: Comments on the Draft Moffett Park Specific Plan Project Dear Ms. King,
Thank you for the work that has taken place revising the Moffett Park Specific Plan (MPSP).
The thoughtful collection of ideas has transformed the MPSP into a visionary plan. While the Moffett Park Business Group believes in the vision of an innovative, ecological district, we do have concerns regarding some details. We believe that there are alternatives that address these concerns and still achieve the MPSP vision. Hence, we offer the following comments and suggestions as proposed revisions.
Development Standards (Chapter 5)
x As written, the standards discourage architectural innovation and creativity. The results could be design redundancy and inability to be reactive to the changing needs of the environment.
x The term “shall” is pervasive in the document and provides no flexibility or alternatives for compliance. Consider replacing “shall” with “encourage,” “other alternative” or “consider” to fulfill the intent of the policies. x Green roofs require special construction considerations, that may present challenges to a project’s feasibility. There are other effective ways to achieve the same benefits of a green roof, especially with stormwater retention and heat island reduction.
Land Use: Innovation and Creation Space (Chapter 4.7)
x Developing Innovation and Creation Space (ICS) in appropriate areas of Moffett Park and/or preserving existing ICS should be considered a community benefit or a credit against city fees.
Attachment 15
P.O. Box 60995 Sunnyvale, CA 94088-0995 | (408) 742-6008
Mobility (Chapter 7) and Infrastructure & Utilities (Chapter 9)
x Upgrading all infrastructure regardless of whether it’s necessary or not is not an economically sustainable policy. Right-sizing would consider the development caps outline in the MPSP and take place when infrastructure is in disrepair or end of life.
x Upsizing beyond city standards should be a community benefit or credit against other city fees.
x Do not require a company/developer to operate and maintain land they dedicate or public infrastructure they upgrade for the public domain.
x The cost of ongoing operations and maintenance could be capitalized and count as a credit towards parks fees for residential developments or capitalized as a community benefit for commercial projects not subject to park fees.
Transportation Demand Management and Parking (Chapter 8)
x How will the transportation management association (TMA) be funded, what will be its governing principles and what activities or functions will it manage?
x The parking maximums outlined are too restrictive for the speculative market and do not account for the lag time it takes TMA programs to reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips. Flexible parking ratios support vehicular trip reduction goals while positioning the TMA and employer-funded TDM programs for success.
Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions and comments. We look forward to continuing to work with the city on policy and guidelines to achieve the Moffett Park Specific Plan vision.
Regards,
Kerry Haywood
Executive Director
Moffett Park Business Group
Cc: MPBG Members
Trudi Ryan, Department Director, Community Development
Kent Steffens, City Manager, City of Sunnyvale
Attachment 15
&ƌŽŵ͗ ŐŶĞƐ sĞŝƚŚ ф х
^ĞŶƚ͗ dƵĞƐĚĂLJ͕ Ɖƌŝů ϭϴ͕ ϮϬϮϯ ϴ͗ϱϬ D
dŽ͗ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ W
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ >ŝǀĂďůĞ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ Ͳ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ WůĂŶ ddE͗
ŵĂŝů ŝƐ ĨƌŽŵ ĂŶ ĞdžƚĞƌŶĂůƐŽƵƌĐĞ͖ ^ƚŽƉ͕ >ŽŽŬ͕ ĂŶĚ dŚŝŶŬ ďĞĨŽƌĞ ŽƉĞŶŝŶŐ ĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐ Žƌ ůŝŶŬƐ͘ ,ĞůůŽ ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌƐ͕
tĞ ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚ LJŽƵ ǁŝůů ďĞ ĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ ĚƵƌŝŶŐ LJŽƵƌ Ϯϰ Ɖƌŝů ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘ ŽŶƐĞƋƵĞŶƚůLJ͕ ǁĞ ĂƌĞ ƌĞƐĞŶĚŝŶŐ ƚŚŝƐ ůĞƚƚĞƌ ĂŶĚ ĂƐŬ ƚŚĂƚ LJŽƵ ƉůĞĂƐĞ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ ŽƵƌ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ ĂƐ LJŽƵ ƌĞǀŝĞǁ ƚŚĞ DW^W͘
dŚĂŶŬ LJŽƵ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĂŶŬ LJŽƵĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ǁŽƌŬ LJŽƵ ĚŽ͘
<ŝŶĚ ƌĞŐĂƌĚƐ͕
ŐŶĞƐ sĞŝƚŚ ĂŶĚ 'Ăŝů ZƵďŝŶŽ
>ŝǀĂďůĞ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ DŽĨĨĞƚƚWĂƌŬ ŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ŽͲŚĂŝƌƐ
ͲͲͲͲͲ
^ƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ ǀŝĂ ĞŵĂŝů
DŝĐŚĞůůĞ <ŝŶŐ͕ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů WůĂŶŶĞƌ͕ ŝƚLJ ŽĨ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ
ŵŬŝŶŐΛƐƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ͘ĐĂ͘ŐŽǀ
WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͕ ŝƚLJ ŽĨ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ
WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶΛƐƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ͘ĐĂ͘ŐŽǀ
:ĂŶƵĂƌLJ Ϯϭ͕ ϮϬϮϯ
ĞĂƌ DŝĐŚĞůůĞ͕
KŶ ďĞŚĂůĨ ŽĨ >ŝǀĂďůĞ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞΖƐ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͕ ǁĞ ĂƌĞƉůĞĂƐĞĚ ƚŽ ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ƐŽŵĞ ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ ĂŶĚ ĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ǁĞ ǁŽƵůĚ ůŝŬĞ ƚŽƐĞĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ WůĂŶ WƵďůŝĐ ƌĂĨƚ͘ dŚĞ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ Attachment 15
ŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ŚĂƐ ďĞĞŶ ŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚ ŝŶ ƚŚŝƐ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ WůĂŶ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ ƐŝŶĐĞϮϬϮϬ ĂŶĚ ǁŝƐŚ ƚŽ ĐŽŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ŽĨ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚƐƚŚĂƚ ŚĂǀĞ ĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ WƵďůŝĐ ƌĂĨƚ͘ DĂŶLJ ŽĨ >ŝǀĂďůĞ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ͛Ɛ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐ ĂƚƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƚŚĞ :ĂŶƵĂƌLJ ϭϳƚŚ sŝƌƚƵĂů WƵďůŝĐ tŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ͘ tĞ ǁĂŶƚ ƚŽ ƚŚĂŶŬ ĐŝƚLJƐƚĂĨĨ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚƐ ĨŽƌŽƌŐĂŶŝnjŝŶŐ ƚŚŝƐ ĞǀĞŶƚ͘ KƵƌ ĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐ ĚŽ ŚĂǀĞ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐǁĞ ǁŽƵůĚ ůŝŬĞ ƚŽ ƐŚĂƌĞ ǁŝƚŚ LJŽƵ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ WůĂŶ WƵďůŝĐ ƌĂĨƚ͘ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ĂƐ Ă ƌĞƐƵůƚ ŽĨƚŚĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬŝƐ Ă ĐƌŝƚŝĐĂů ƉŝůůĂƌ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƚƌĂŶƐĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ĨƌŽŵ Ă ƐŝŶŐůĞͲƵƐĞ ŽĨĨŝĐĞͬŝŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů ƉĂƌŬ ŝŶƚŽ ĂŵŝdžĞĚͲƵƐĞ ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ƚŚĂƚ ǁŝůů ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ Ă ĚŝǀĞƌƐĞ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ĞŶŐŝŶĞ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ŽĨ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ ĂŶĚ ƌĞŐŝŽŶ͘ hƐŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ /ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ĐƚŝŽŶƐ ƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ ϭϬ͘ϰ ǁĞ ƐƵŐŐĞƐƚ ƚŚĞ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ƚŽĞŶŚĂŶĐĞ ƚŚĞ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ĞŶĞĨŝƚƐĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ͘
/ŶĐůƵĚĞ
ƉƵďůŝĐ ƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŽŶ ŝŶ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞ ŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚ ǀĂůƵĞ ŽĨ ĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ďĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ďŽŶƵƐ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘
ŶƐƵƌĞ
ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ LJĞĂƌůLJ ĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ĂŶĂůLJnjŝŶŐ ĂĐƚƵĂů ǀƐ ĨŽƌĞĐĂƐƚƐ͘
sŝĞǁ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ĂƐ Ă ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƚŚĂƚ ŵŝŐŚƚ ŶĞĞĚ ƚŽ ďĞ ĂĚĂƉƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƐŚŝĨƚƐͬĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ ŝŶ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ĂŶĚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ
/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ
dŚĞƌĞ ĂƌĞ ŶŽƚ ŵĂŶLJ ĚĞƚĂŝůƐ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ƐĐŚŽŽů ŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ ŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ƚŚĞ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘ EŽƌƚŚĞƌŶ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ ŶĞĞĚƐ ƐĐŚŽŽůƐ ƚŽ ŶĞŐĂƚĞ ƚŚĞ ŝŶĞƋƵĂůŝƚLJ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĐŝƚLJ͘ ^ĐŚŽŽůƐ ŶĞĞĚ ƚŽ ďĞ ƉůĂĐĞĚ͕ ŶŽƚ ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌŝůLJ ŝŶ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ďƵƚ ĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶƚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJ ŽĨ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ǀŝĐŝŶŝƚLJ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐĐŚŽŽů;ƐͿ͘ Attachment 15
tĞ ǁŽƵůĚ ůŝŬĞ ƚŽ ƐĞĞ ĂŶ ĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞ
ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŶƵŵďĞƌ ŽĨ ŶĞǁ ĞůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌLJ͕ ŵŝĚĚůĞ ĂŶĚ ŚŝŐŚ ƐĐŚŽŽů ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ĂƐ Ă ĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐ͘ dŚĞ ƉůĂŶƐŚŽƵůĚ ĂůƐŽ ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ŽƉƚŝŽŶƐ ƚŽ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ĂƐ ǁĞůů ĂƐ ƚŚĞ ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵ ƐƋƵĂƌĞ ĨŽŽƚĂŐĞ ĂŶĚ ŽƉĞŶ ƐƉĂĐĞ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͘ /ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ
ϭϬ͘ϰ /ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ĐƚŝŽŶƐ͗
/Ŷ ƌĞŐĂƌĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƚŝŵĞůŝŶĞ ƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚ ƚŽ ĂƐ͕ ͞ŽŶŐŽŝŶŐ͟ ǁŚĂƚ ŝƐ ƚŚĞƐƚĂƌƚ ĚĂƚĞ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞƐĞ ĂĐƚŝŽŶƐ͍ tĞ ǁŽƵůĚ ůŝŬĞ ƚŽ ƐƵŐŐĞƐƚ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŽŶ ĂƐ ƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ͕ ƐŝƚƚŝŶŐ ŽŶ ƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌ ĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞƐ ƚŽ ŚĞůƉ ĨƌĂŵĞ ĂŶĚ ƐƉĞĂŬ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŽŶŐŽŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐ ŶĞĞĚƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ŽďũĞĐƚŝǀĞƐ͘
ŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞ
ŶƚŝƚLJ ĨŽƌ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ
dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ
DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ ƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ
ĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ 'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ ĂŶĚ ŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ
'ƌĞĞŶ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ WƌŽŐƌĂŵ͗ ZĞŵŽǀĞ ƚŚĞ
ŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀĞͲďĂƐĞĚ njŽŶŝŶŐ ƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶƐ ĨŽƌ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ͛Ɛ 'ƌĞĞŶ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ WƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘
DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ŝƐ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ ŵĞŶƚŝŽŶĞĚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ 'ƌĞĞŶ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ WƌŽŐƌĂŵ ĨŽƌ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ƉĞƌŵŝƚƐ ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ ŽŶ Žƌ ĂĨƚĞƌ :ƵůLJ ϭ͕ ϮϬϭϵ͘ tŚĂƚ ŝƐ ƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶƚ ďĞŚŝŶĚ ƚŚŝƐ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŝƚĞŵ͍ dŚĞ DŝĐƌŽŐƌŝĚ WƌŽŐƌĂŵ ůŝƐƚĞĚ ĂƐ ĂůŽŶŐ ƚĞƌŵ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ŝŶ ƐĞĐƚŝŽŶϭϬ͘ϰ ǁĂƐ ĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ :ĂŶƵĂƌLJ ϭϳƚŚ ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘ /ƚ ŝƐ ŽƵƌ ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚ ŵĞŶƚŝŽŶĞĚƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ŚĂƐ ƐƚĂƌƚĞĚ ƚĂůŬŝŶŐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƵƚŝůŝƚLJ ĂŐĞŶĐŝĞƐ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ŵŝĐƌŽŐƌŝĚ͘ /Ĩ ƚŚŝƐ ŝƐ ƚŚĞ ĐĂƐĞ͕ ǁĞ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚŝƐ ďĞ ĚĞĞŵĞĚ ĂƐ ĂŶ ŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞ Žƌ ŽŶŐŽŝŶŐ ĞĨĨŽƌƚ͘
Attachment 15
ϭϬ͘ϲ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ DĞƚƌŝĐƐ͗
tĞ
ǁĂŶƚ ƚŚĞ ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ ƉůĂŶ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ ŵĞƚƌŝĐƐ ƚŽ ďĞ ƵƉĚĂƚĞĚ ĂŶŶƵĂůůLJ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĚĂƚĂ ĐŽŵƉŝůĞĚ ŝŶƚŽ Ă ĚĂƐŚďŽĂƌĚ ĞĂƐŝůLJ ǀŝĞǁĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ ƉƵďůŝĐ͘ /Ĩ ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ͕ ƚŚĞ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ WůĂŶ ǁŽƵůĚ ďĞ ĂŵĞŶĚĞĚ͘ dŚĞ ŵŽĨĨĞƚƚƉĂƌŬƐƉ͘ĐŽŵǁĞďƐŝƚĞ ŝƐ ƋƵŝƚĞ ŐŽŽĚ ĂŶĚ ŝƐ ƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůůLJ Ă ŐŽŽĚ ƉůĂĐĞ ƚŽ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ƐƵĐŚ Ă ĚĂƐŚďŽĂƌĚ͘ tĞ ƐƵŐŐĞƐƚ ƚŚĞƐĞ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů
ŵĞƚƌŝĐƐ͗
ZĞƚĂŝů
ƐƋƵĂƌĞ ĨŽŽƚĂŐĞ ƉĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĚ͘
ZĞƚĂŝů
ƐƉĂĐĞ ŽĐĐƵƉŝĞĚ й͕ ZĞƚĂŝů ƐƉĂĐĞǀĂĐĂŶƚй͕ dĞŶĂŶƚ ƚƵƌŶ ŽǀĞƌ й
'ĂƚĞǁĂLJ
ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ ĂŶĚ ůĞǀĞů ŽĨ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ƚŽ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ĚĞ ůĂLJƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŝůĞƐ ƌĂƚŚĞƌ ƚŚĂŶ ĂǀĞƌĂŐĞƐ͘
dƌĂŶƐŝƚ
ƵƐĂŐĞ ĨŽƌ ďƵƐĞƐ͕ ůŝŐŚƚ ƌĂŝů͕ ĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŽƌ Žƌ ŽƚŚĞƌ ĨŽƌŵƐ ŽĨ ƚƌĂŶ ƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ dD͘
EƵŵďĞƌ
ŽĨ ůĂƐƐ ϭ ĂŶĚ ůĂƐƐ Ϯ ďŝŬĞ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƐƉŽƚƐ ĂŶĚ ƵƐĂŐĞ ƌĂ ƚĞƐ͘
Attachment 15
EƵŵďĞƌ
ŽĨ
s ĐŚĂƌŐŝŶŐ ƐƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ ĂŶĚ ƵƐĂŐĞ ƌĂƚĞƐ͘
dŽƚĂů
ĐĂƌďŽŶ ĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐ
DŽďŝůŝƚLJ
/Ŷ Ăůů ŽĨ ƚŚĞ
ĞdžĂŵƉůĞƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐƚƌĞĞƚ ĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ ƚŚĞƌĞ ĂƌĞ ďŝŬĞ ůĂŶĞƐ ĂŶĚ ƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐ͘ tŚĞŶ ƚŚĞƌĞ ŝƐ Ă ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ ƉŽŝŶƚ ƚŽ ďĞ ŵĂĚĞ ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƐŝnjĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ůĂŶĞ ĨŽƌ ďŝŬĞƐ͕ ǁĞ ǁŽƵůĚ ůŝŬĞ ƚŚĂƚ ůĂŶĞ ƚŽ ďĞ ůĂƌŐĞ ĞŶŽƵŐŚ ƚŽ ĂůƐŽ ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞ ĞͲďŝŬĞƐ ĂŶĚ ƐĐŽŽƚĞƌƐ͘ dŚŝƐ ǁŝůů ĞŶƐƵƌĞ ƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚ ďŝŬĞ ůĂŶĞƐ ǁŚŝĐŚ ĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞ ƐĂĨĞ ďŝŬŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ǁŝůůŵĂŬĞ ŵŝĐƌŽ ŵŽďŝůŝƚLJ ĨĂƐƚ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶƚ͘ tĞ ĂůƐŽ ƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJ ĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞ ďĂƚŚƌŽŽŵƐ ĂŶĚ ǁĂƚĞƌ ĨŽƵŶƚĂŝŶƐ Ăƚ ƚŚĞŵŽďŝůŝƚLJ ŚƵďƐ ĂƐ ǁĞůů ĂƐ ĞǀĞŶůLJ ĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞƐĞ ĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ŝŶ ŽƉĞŶ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘ /Ĩ ǁĞ ǁĂŶƚ ƚŽ ĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞ ƉĞŽƉůĞ ƚŽ ůĞĂǀĞ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶĐĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞŝƌ ĐĂƌ͕ ǁĞ ŵƵƐƚ ŵĂŬĞ ďĂƚŚƌŽŽŵƐ ĂŶĚ ǁĂƚĞƌ ĨŽƵŶƚĂŝŶƐ ƉůĞŶƚŝĨƵů ĂŶĚ ĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞ ƚŽ Ăůů͘ KƉĞŶ ^ƉĂĐĞ
zŽƵƚŚ ƐƉŽƌƚƐ ĂƌĞ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ ƚŽ ŐĞƚŬŝĚƐ ŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƐ ĂŶĚ ĂǁĂLJ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞŝƌ ƐĐƌĞĞŶƐ͘ dŚĞ ĚƌĂĨƚ ƉůĂŶ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐ Ăƚ ŵŽƐƚ Ϯ ĨƵůůͲƐŝnjĞĚ ƐŽĐĐĞƌ ĨŝĞůĚƐĂŶĚ ϰ ϭϬhͲƐŝnjĞĚ ƐŽĐĐĞƌ ĨŝĞůĚƐ ĨŽƌ ĂŶ ĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ŽǀĞƌ ϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ͘ tŝƚŚ ƐƵĐŚ ůŝŵŝƚĞĚ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ ǁŚĞƌĞ ǁŝůů ƚŚĞ LJŽƵƚŚ ůŝǀŝŶŐ ŝŶ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ďĞ ĂďůĞ ƚŽ ƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞ ŝŶ LJŽƵƚŚ ƐƉŽƌƚƐ͍ ƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ͕ ƚŚĞ ĐŝƚLJ ĨŝĞůĚƐ ĂƌĞ ŚĞĂǀŝůLJ ƵƚŝůŝnjĞĚĂŶĚ ǁŽƵůĚ ďĞ ƵŶůŝŬĞůLJ ƚŽ ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ƵƐĂŐĞ͘
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ĂŶĚ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ƉĂƌŬ ƐƉĂĐĞ ŚĂƐ ďĞĞŶ ŐƌĞĂƚůLJ ƌĞĚƵĐĞĚƐŝŶĐĞ ƚŚĞ DĂƌĐŚϮϬϮϮ KƉĞŶ ^ƉĂĐĞ tŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ ƚŽ ĂďŽƵƚ ĨŝǀĞ ĂĐƌĞƐ ŽĨĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJͬŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ƉĂƌŬ ƐƉĂĐĞ͘ dŚĞ KƉĞŶ ^ƉĂĐĞ tŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ŽǀĞƌ Ϯϱ ĂĐƌĞƐ ŽĨ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ƉĂƌŬ ƐƉĂĐĞ ĂůŽŶĞ͘ dŚĞ ĚƌĂĨƚ ƉůĂŶ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ Ă ƐŝŶŐůĞ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ƉĂƌŬ͕ ĂƐƉŝĂŶ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ WĂƌŬ ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚŝŶŐ ŽĨ ϰϬй ŶĂƚƵƌĂů ĂƌĞĂ ůŝŵŝƚŝŶŐ ƉƵďůŝĐ ĂĐĐĞƐƐ͕ ĂƐ ǁĞůů ĂƐ ďŝĐLJĐůĞĂŶĚ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ƉĂƚŚƐ͘ dŚĞ ĂŵŽƵŶƚ ŽĨ ůĂŶĚ ĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƚƌĂĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ƉĂƌŬ ƐƉĂĐĞ ŝŶ ĂƐƉŝĂŶ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ WĂƌŬ ŝƐ ŽŶůLJ ϯϬϬ ĨĞĞƚ dž ϯϬϬ ĨĞĞƚ͘ tĞǁŽƵůĚ ůŝŬĞ ƚŽ ƐĞĞ ƚŚĞ ƉůĂŶ ƌĞǀŝƐĞĚ ƚŽ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ƉĂƌŬ ƐƉĂĐĞ ŵƵĐŚ ĐůŽƐĞƌƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŶƵŵďĞƌƐ ǁĞ ƐĂǁ ŝŶ ϮϬϮϮ͘ KŶĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŵĂũŽƌ ĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ ƐĞĞŵƐ ƚŽ ďĞ ƚŚĂƚ ŵĂŶLJ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŶĂƚƵƌĂů ĂƌĞĂƐ ŝŶ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ŚĂǀĞ ďĞĞŶ ĐĂůůĞĚ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ƉĂƌŬƐ͘ Ɛ ĂŶ ĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ ^ŽƵƚŚ :ĂǀĂ WĂƌŬ ŝƐ ĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝnjĞĚ ĂƐ͕ ͞EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ Attachment 15
WĂƌŬͲ,ĂďŝƚĂƚ WĂƚĐŚ͘͟ tŚĞŶ ŝƚ ŝƐďƵŝůƚ͕ ǁŝůů ^ŽƵƚŚ :ĂǀĂ WĂƌŬ ďĞĂ ƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚ ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů ĂƌĞĂ ǁŝƚŚ ůŝŵŝƚĞĚ ĂĐĐĞƐƐ Žƌ ǁŝůů ŝƚ ďĞ ĐŽŵƉĂƌĂďůĞ ƚŽ ĂŶ ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ƉĂƌŬ ƐƵĐŚ ĂƐ DƵǁĞŬŵĂ WĂƌŬ͍ tĞ ƚŚŝŶŬ ƚŚĂƚ ĐĂůůŝŶŐ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ůŝŬĞ ^ŽƵƚŚ :ĂǀĂ WĂƌŬ Ă ͞ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ƉĂƌŬ͟ ǁŝůů ŐŝǀĞ ƚŚĞ ƉƵďůŝĐ ĂŶ ŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚ ĞdžƉĞĐƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ǁŚĂƚ ǁŝůů ďĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ŝŶ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ͘ dŚĞ KƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞ tŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ ĚŝĚ ŶŽƚ ƵƐĞ ƐƵĐŚ ĐŽŶĨƵƐŝŶŐ ĐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ /ƚ ĐůĞĂƌůLJ ĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚŝĂƚĞĚ ŶĂƚƵƌĂů ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ĂŶĚ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚͬĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ƉĂƌŬƐ͘ tĞ ǁŽƵůĚ ůŝŬĞ ƚŚĞ ƉůĂŶ ƚŽ ƌĞǀĞƌƚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŽƉĞŶ ƐƉĂĐĞ ĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐƵƐĞĚ ŝŶ DĂƌĐŚ ϮϬϮϮ ǁŚŝĐŚ ǁŝůů ĐůĂƌŝĨLJ ƚŚĞ ŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞƐĞ ŽƉĞŶ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘
^ƉĂĐĞ ůůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ
ϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ ƐƋ͘ Ĩƚ͘ ŽĨ ͞EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚͲƐĞƌǀŝŶŐ ŽĨĨŝĐĞ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ƵƐĞƐ͟ ĚŽĞƐ ŶŽƚ ƐĞĞŵ ƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚ ƚŽ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ƚŚĞ ƉƌĞƐĐŚŽŽů ŶĞĞĚƐ ŽĨ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ ŐŝǀĞŶ ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐ ϯϱ ƐƋ͘ Ĩƚ͘ ŽĨ ƐƉĂĐĞ ƉĞƌ ĐŚŝůĚ ĂŶĚ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐ ϳϬ ƐƋ͘ Ĩƚ͘͘ /Ĩ ϭϬϬй ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚͲƐĞƌǀŝŶŐ ƐƉĂĐĞ ǁĞƌĞ ĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƉƌĞƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͕ ŝƚ ǁŽƵůĚ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ϱϳϭ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͘ /Ɛ ƚŚŝƐ ƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚ ƚŽ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ϮϬ͕ϬϬϬ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƵŶŝƚƐ͍ tŝůů ƚŚĞ ϯϬ͕ϬϬϬ ƐƋ͘ Ĩƚ͘ ŽĨ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ĐĞŶƚĞƌͬůŝďƌĂƌLJ ƐƉĂĐĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ĞŶŽƵŐŚ ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ ĨŽƌ Ă ĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ ƐŝŵŝůĂƌ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŽůƵŵďŝĂ EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ĞŶƚĞƌ͍
dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ
dŚĞ ĚƌĂĨƚ ƉůĂŶ ĚŽĞƐ ŶŽƚ ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶ ĚĞƚĂŝůƐ ĂďŽƵƚ ŚŽǁ ƚŚĞ ĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶůŝǀŝŶŐ ŝŶ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬǁŝůů ŐĞƚ ƚŽ ĂŶĚ ĨƌŽŵ ĞůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌLJ͕ ŵŝĚĚůĞ͕ ĂŶĚ ŚŝŐŚ ƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͘ tĞ ǁŽƵůĚ ůŝŬĞ ƚŚĞ dD ƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞ Ă ŐŽĂů ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ ƐĐŚŽŽů ƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ƚĂƌŐĞƚƐ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ŵĂdžŝŵƵŵ ƚŝŵĞ ŝƚ ǁŝůůƚĂŬĞ Ă ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚ ƚŽ ŐĞƚ ƚŽ ĞĂĐŚ ƚLJƉĞ ŽĨ ƐĐŚŽŽů ĂƐ ǁĞůů ĂƐ ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐ ƚŽ ĞŶƐƵƌĞ ƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ǁŝůů ďĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ĨŽƌ ĂĨƚĞƌ ƐĐŚŽŽů ĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ͘ dŚĂŶŬ LJŽƵ ĨŽƌ ƌĞǀŝĞǁŝŶŐ ŽƵƌ ůĞƚƚĞƌ ĂŶĚ ǁĞ ůŽŽŬ ĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ ƚŽ LJŽƵƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͘ <ŝŶĚ ƌĞŐĂƌĚƐ͕
ŐŶĞƐ sĞŝƚŚ ĂŶĚ 'Ăŝů ZƵďŝŶŽ
>/ǀĂďůĞ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ŽͲŚĂŝƌƐ
Attachment 15
&ƌŽŵ͗ EĂŽŵŝ 'ŽŽĚŵĂŶ ф х
^ĞŶƚ͗ dŚƵƌƐĚĂLJ͕ Ɖƌŝů Ϯϳ͕ ϮϬϮϯ ϳ͗ϰϱ D
dŽ͗ DŝĐŚĞůůĞ <ŝŶŐ͖ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ W
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ ŽŵŵĞŶƚ ŽŶ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ WůĂŶ ĂŶĚ &ŝŶĂů /Z
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐ͗'ŽŽĚŵĂŶ ŽŵŵĞŶƚ ŽŶ DW^W ĂŶĚ ĨŝŶĂů
/Z ϰͲϮϳͲϮϯ͘ƉĚĨ
ddE͗
ŵĂŝů ŝƐ ĨƌŽŵ ĂŶ ĞdžƚĞƌŶĂůƐŽƵƌĐĞ͖ ^ƚŽƉ͕ >ŽŽŬ͕ ĂŶĚ dŚŝŶŬ ďĞĨŽƌĞ ŽƉĞŶŝŶŐ ĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐ Žƌ ůŝŶŬƐ͘ 0LFKHOOH .LQJ 3ULQFLSDO 3ODQQHU
'HSDUWPHQW RI &RPPHUFLDO 'HYHORSPHQW
&LW\ RI 6XQQ\YDOH
:HVW 2OLYH $YHQXH
6XQQ\YDOH &$
'HDU 0V .LQJ DQG 6XQQ\YDOH 3ODQQLQJ &RPPLVVLRQHUV
7KLV HPDLO UHODWHV WR WKH 0D\ FRQWLQXDWLRQ RI WKH $SULO VWXG\ VHVVLRQ WR UHYLHZ DQG DSSURYH WKH 0RIIHWW 3DUN 6SHFLILF 3ODQ
0363
DQG WKH )LQDO (QYLURQPHQWDO ,PSDFW 5HSRUW
(,5
, DP FRQFHUQHG WKDW WKH 0363 DQG (,5 GR QRW JLYH HQRXJK DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH FXPXODWLYH KD]DUG SRVHG E\ OHJDF\ HQYLURQPHQWDO FRQWDPLQDWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH 3ODQ $UHD 7KH DWWDFKHG OHWWHU RXWOLQHV WKHVH FRQFHUQV DQG UHTXHVWV DGGLWLRQV WR WKH 0363 WR SURYLGH WUDQVSDUHQF\ RQ GHFLVLRQV RQ VLWH LQYHVWLJDWLRQV DQG FOHDQXS SODQV DV GHYHORSPHQW SURMHFWV DUH VXEPLWWHG WR WKH &LW\ 5HVSHFWIXOO\
1DRPL *RRGPDQ 063+
Attachment 15
April 26, 2023
Michelle King, Principal Planner
Department of Commercial Development
City of Sunnyvale
456 West Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
By email to: [email protected]
Subject: Comment on the Moffett Park Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report Ms. King,
This communication is related to the May 8 continuation of the April 24 study session to review and approve the Moffett Park Specific Plan (MPSP) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
As an environmental scientist with over 40 years of experience in hazardous waste site characterization and remediation, I have conducted site investigations and risk assessments of many military and industrial sites, including several of the semiconductor solvent plumes in the Sunnyvale area. I am concerned that the MPSP and EIR do not give enough attention to the cumulative hazard posed by legacy environmental contamination within the Plan Area.
The MPSP and EIR outline procedures to evaluate and, if necessary, remediate chemical hazards on individual development project sites, assuming that will mitigate overall risks. That is not necessarily the case. Air pollution does not respect property boundaries. There are areas such as the NIROP/Plant One naval cleanup sites that will require decades to remediate the halogenated solvent groundwater plume to the point where vapor intrusion into buildings no longer poses a threat. Until that time, early residents and workers at Moffett Park may be exposed to airborne contamination from multiple sources.
This failure of the EIR to properly evaluate cumulative hazard is not surprising, as the intent of CEQA is to assess the impact of a project on construction workers, surrounding communities and the environment. CEQA is much less useful at assessing the impact of current site conditions on future workers and residents at a project site. However, it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission and the City of Sunnyvale to safeguard public health by incorporating protections into the MPSP.
In many areas of the site, no testing has been done for chemicals likely to be present. Most of the “site closures” listed on the various state and federal maps addressed only fuel tank leaks.
Given the history of this area, and its proximity to known or suspected offsite sources of contamination (for example, Moffett Field, Sunnyvale landfill, and upgradient groundwater contamination plumes), a thorough assessment should be made of existing soil and groundwater conditions at every development project. The language added to the final EIR at the request of the Department of Toxic Substances Control that “closed” sites need not go through a Phase I assessment is not appropriate, as the site closures may not have considered the full range of likely contaminants.
Attachment 15
2 Data gaps should be addressed, such as those noted in the SF Estuary Institute’s report on groundwater conditions (Appendix G to the EIR), and in the February 10, 2023 comment on the Draft EIR by the Sierra Club, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge.
Development on sites with known contamination is risky, potentially exposing residents to unhealthy conditions and the City and developers to future litigation. To allay public concerns regarding the risks of living or working in Moffett Park, there needs to be transparency on the basis for decisions on whether additional site investigations will be required, on the scope of new site investigations, and on planned remediation measures. The public should have the opportunity to review and comment on each of the relevant documents before they are finalized.
Sincerely,
Naomi Goodman, MSPH
Menlo Park, CA
AƩachment: Naomi Goodman Curriculum Vitae
CC: Sunnyvale Planning Commissioners
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
4 1987- Senior Associate Environmental Scientist
1990 ICF/Clement Associates, San Francisco, CA
Conducted human health risk assessments for EPA Region 9 Superfund sites and other hazardous waste sites. Evaluated and modeled chemical fate and transport at manufactured gas plant facilities, hazardous waste landfills, and paper mills. Prepared reports for federal agencies and private clients. 1985- Environmental Scientist
1987 GCA Services Group, Bedford, MA
Performed human health risk assessments, characterization of hazardous waste and PCB spill sites, field sampling, report preparation and regulator response.
1979- Analytical Chemist
1983 Stanford University Environmental Engineering Department Analyzed wastewaters and groundwater for pollutants, including disinfection byproducts, polar, volatile and semivolatile organic compounds using liquid- liquid extraction, gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. 1977- Quality Control Chemist
1979 Zoecon Inc., Palo Alto, CA
Conducted quality control analyses of innovative pesticides and reagents using chemical analyses.
EDUCATION
MS Public Health – Environmental Chemistry
University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, 1985
BA Biology
University of California – Santa Cruz, 1976
Attachment 15
Trudi Ryan, Director of Community Development
Connie Vercules, Deputy City Manager
Michele King, Principal Planner
City of Sunnyvale
May 12, 2023
LKHD-52547\2781125.1
this point. The specifics of this mutually acceptable arrangement could be negotiated post-MPSP approval.
4. City to accept dedication of the storm water pumps located on City land. Can be negotiated post-MPSP approval.
5. In order for Lockheed to grant the Public Access Easement, certain provisions of the MPSP would need to be refined to allow for the transfer of FAR from the North Parcel to be exempt from additional community benefits, etc. Small tweaking of language in MPSP would be needed (see attached).
6. Lockheed’s core campus, exempt from Creation Space requirements. Recommend adding proposed revisions to our specific zoning classification in MPSP (see attached).
We also discussed dedicating new streets to the City west of Mathilda. We do not think this needs any changes to the MPSP, but a policy change by the City. The redevelopment of new streets as part of the Jay Paul developments that are used by the public, should be accepted by the City on the grounds of both public safety and equity. Likewise, the planned Discovery Way extension, should be dedicated to the City.
We look forward to continuing our discussions and working together towards the finalizing and adoption of the MPSP.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Green
Thomas M. Green
Director of Real Estate
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Attachment 15
LKHD-52547\2781125.1
ATTACHMENT 1
LOCKHEED MARTIN – MPSP COMMENTS (Updated as of May 11, 2023) Additional Comments from Lockheed Martin (Supplementing list provided previously to the City by Tom Green). Proposed revisions are shown in bold/underline and proposed deletions are shown in strikeout text.
3.5 Facilitating Diverse Housing and Economic Development ….
Incentive based zoning
x Incentive-based zoning establishes a system to encourage developments to work toward the new vision for Moffett Park. For example, to achieve the maximum intensities, non- residential developments must be granted Bonus Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ; provided, however, that FAR that is transferred through the TDR Program from the ECD to a receiving parcel (up to the Total FAR Maximum) shall not be subject to the “Standards for Bonus FAR Developments” (Section 4.4, General Land Use) so long as the property owner agrees to convey a public access easement over the ECD lands pursuant to a development agreement.
….
4.4 General Land Use
STANDARDS
x Non-residential development. Floor area ratio (FAR) is used to regulate non-residential developments and/or the non-residential component of a mixed-use development. Additional FAR for non-residential developments, up to the bonus maximum, may be granted to developments that contribute to community benefits and/or district-level improvements. Developments may also exceed the Bonus FAR Maximum for the district through the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program up to the Total FAR Maximum. Developments requesting TDR must first meet the requirements for Bonus FAR through the provision of community benefits. Provided, however, that FAR that is transferred through the TDR Program from the ECD to a receiving parcel (up to the Total FAR Maximum) shall not be subject to the “Standards for Bonus FAR Developments” so long as the property owner agrees to convey a public access easement over the ECD lands pursuant to a development agreement.
STANDARDS FOR BONUS FAR DEVELOPMENTS
x Non-residential developments or the non-residential component of a mixed-use development may pursue Bonus FAR if they meet all of the following requirements, in addition to the Standards for All Development requirements above. Provided, however, that FAR that is transferred through the TDR Program from the ECD to a receiving parcel (up to the Total FAR Maximum) shall not be subject to the “Standards for Bonus FAR Developments” so long as the property owner agrees to convey a public access easement over the ECD lands pursuant to a development agreement.
4.5 Transfer of Development Rights Programs
STANDARDS
….
2. General provisions. Except for FAR that is transferred through the TDR Program from the ECD to a receiving parcel (up to the Total FAR Maximum), which shall not be subject to the “Standards for Bonus FAR Developments” so long as the property owner agrees to convey a public access easement over the Attachment 15
LKHD-52547\2781125.1
ECD lands pursuant to a development agreement, the following general provisions apply to all TDR programs….
x 3. TDR Programs. Three TDR programs seek to incentivize the Specific Plan priorities related to open space, urban ecology, public school and community facility site acquisition, and residential development as follows:
….
c. 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.
i. Habitat Enhancement and Management Plan. The property owner shall fund the cost of a Habitat Enhancement and Management Plan, developed by a qualified biologist and to be designed, constructed, and operated by the City (and/or in partnership with a local, non-profit entity), which includes: …. ii. Transferable floor area from the sending sites. The property owner may transfer floor area up to the Base FAR.
4.7 Innovation and Creation Space
STANDARDS
x Innovation and creation space minimum area. Except for Lockheed Martin’s Core Campus, which shall be exempt from this requirement due to unique security concerns, 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). ….
Attachment 15
&ƌŽŵ͗ ZĂLJ ,ĂƐŚŝŵŽƚŽ ф х
^ĞŶƚ͗ dŚƵƌƐĚĂLJ͕ DĂLJ ϭϴ͕ ϮϬϮϯ Ϯ͗ϱϵ WD
dŽ͗ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ W
Đ͗ ^ŚĂƵŶŶ DĞŶĚƌŝŶ͖ DŝĐŚĞůůĞ <ŝŶŐ͖ dƌƵĚŝ ZLJĂŶ͖ WĞƌƌLJ ,Ăƌŝƌŝ͖ >ĂŝƌĚĞŶŶŝŽŶ͖ <ĂƚŚLJ dŚŝďŽĚĞĂƵdž͖ EĂƚŚĂŶ ^ŝŵƉƐŽŶ͖ /ĂŶ DƵƌƉŚLJ͖
ũŵĞƐŶĂΛŵŝƌĂŵĂƌĐĂƉŝƚĂů͘ĐŽŵ
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ DŽīĞƩ ^ƉĞĐŝĮĐ WůĂŶ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ^ƚƵĚLJ ^ĞƐƐŝŽŶ :ƵŶĞ ϭϮ͕ ϮϬϮϯ ƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐ͗DŝƌĂŵĂƌ ŝĂŐŽŶĂů ĞƐŝŐŶ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƐ >ĞƩĞƌ Ͳ DĂLJ ϭϳ ϮϬϮϯ͘ƉĚĨ͖ ϮϬϮϯϬϱϬϱͺD/ZDZͺ:sͺ/'E>ͺ^,
D
^͘ƉĚĨ͖ϯϱϮ :ĂǀĂͺĞƐŝŐŶ
ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶͺϬϱ Ϭϵ Ϯϯ͘džůƐdž
/ŵƉŽƌƚĂŶĐĞ͗,ŝŐŚ
ddE͗
ŵĂŝů ŝƐ ĨƌŽŵ ĂŶ ĞdžƚĞƌŶĂůƐŽƵƌĐĞ͖ ^ƚŽƉ͕ >ŽŽŬ͕ ĂŶĚ dŚŝŶŬ ďĞĨŽƌĞ ŽƉĞŶŝŶŐ ĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐ Žƌ ůŝŶŬƐ͘ ŚĂŝƌƉĞƌƐŽŶ ,ŽǁĂƌĚ ĂŶĚ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌƐ͗
DŝƌĂŵĂƌ ĂƉŝƚĂů͕ ǁŚŝĐŚ ŚĂƐ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ WůĂŶ ĂƌĞĂ͕ ŚĂƐ ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ƚŽ ƐŚĞĚ ůŝŐŚƚ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ͞ŝĂŐŽŶĂů͟ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĚƌĂĨƚ ƉůĂŶ͘ ƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ ŝƐ Ă ĐŽǀĞƌ ůĞƚƚĞƌ ǁŝƚŚ Ă ƐƵŵŵĂƌLJ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŝƐƐƵĞ͕ ƚŚĞŶ ƐƚƵĚŝĞƐ ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ ƚŽƐŚŽǁ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚƐ ĂŶĚ ŶƵŵďĞƌ ŽĨ ƵŶŝƚƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĐĂŶ ďĞ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĚ ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ŝĂŐŽŶĂů ĂƐ ĚƌĂĨƚĞĚ ĂŶĚ ǁŝƚŚ ĂŶ ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ ĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚ ƚŽ ĂĐŚŝĞǀŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ŽƉĞŶ ƐƉĂĐĞ ǁŝƚŚŽƵƚ ďŝƐĞĐƚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƐŝƚĞ͘ dŚĞ ůĂƐƚ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚ ƐŚŽǁƐ ƚŚĞ ĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂů ŝŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƚŚƌĞĞ ŵŽĚĞůƐ͘ dŚĞ ͞ďŽƚƚŽŵͲůŝŶĞ͟ ŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ ŝƐ ƚŚĂƚ͕ƵƐŝŶŐ DŝƌĂŵĂƌ͛Ɛ ƐŝƚĞ ĂƐ ĂŶ ĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ ƚŚĞ ŝĂŐŽŶĂů ĂƐ ĚƌĂĨƚĞĚ ƐĞƌǀĞƐ ĂƐ Ă ŵĂũŽƌ ŝŵƉĞĚŝŵĞŶƚ ƚŽ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ŽŶĂŶLJ ƐŝƚĞ ƚŚĂƚ ŝƚ ďŝƐĞĐƚƐ͘ KƵƌ ͞ĂƐŬΗ ŝƐ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ŝƚLJ ŽƵŶĐŝů ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƚŽ ƐƚĂĨĨ͕ ĂƐ ŝƚ ŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚƐ ƚŚĞ ƉůĂŶ͕ ƚŽ ĂůůŽǁ ƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚ ĨůĞdžŝďŝůŝƚLJ ƚŽ ǁŽƌŬ ĂƌŽƵŶĚ ƚŚĞ ŝŶƚĞŶƚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŝĂŐŽŶĂů ĂŶĚ ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐ ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ŽƉĞŶ ƐƉĂĐĞ ƚŽ ďĞ ŵŽǀĞĚ ƚŽ ŽŶĞ ƐŝĚĞ ŽĨ Ă ƐŝƚĞ ƐŽ ĂƐ ŶŽƚ ƚŽ ďŝƐĞĐƚ ŝƚ͘dŚŝƐ ĨůĞdžŝďŝůŝƚLJ ŝƐ ĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂů ĨŽƌ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƚŽ ďĞ ďƵŝůƚ ŽŶ ƐŝƚĞƐ ĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ ďLJƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ŝĂŐŽŶĂů͘
tĞ ǁĂŶƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƐŚĂƌĞ ƚŚŝƐ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ǁŝƚŚ LJŽƵ ƉƌŝŽƌ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ :ƵŶĞϭϮƚŚ^ƚƵĚLJ ^ĞƐƐŝŽŶ͘ tĞ ĂƌĞ ŚĂƉƉLJ ƚŽ ĂƌƌĂŶŐĞ Ă ĐĂůů Žƌ ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ ǁŝƚŚ LJŽƵ ƚŽ ĚŝƐĐƵƐƐ ƚŚŝƐ ŝ
ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĂŶŬƐ ǀĞƌLJ ŵƵĐŚ͘
ZĂLJ ,ĂƐŚŝŵŽƚŽ͕ /W
WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů͕ >ĂŶĚ ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ DĂŶĂŐĞƌ
Ž͘
Đ͘ ͮ
ϭϱϳϬKĂŬůĂŶĚ ZŽĂĚͮ^ĂŶ :ŽƐĞ͕ ϵϱϭϯϭ
ǁǁǁ͘ŚŵŚĐĂ͘ĐŽŵ
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
352 E Java Drive - Sunnyvale, CA
Development Analysis
DESIGN COMPARISON
Project Configuration Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Scheme 3
Subterranean Levels - 2 2
Above-Grade Type I Levels 3 3 13
Above-Grade Type III Levels 5 5 -
Total Levels (Incl. Subterranean) 8 10 15
Total Levels (Excl. Subterranean) 8 8 13
Subterranean Parking Spaces - 181 210
Above-Grade Parking Spaces 277 35 42
Total Parking Spaces 277 216 252
Type I Units - 66 330
Type III Units 330 183 -
Total Units 330 249 330
Total NRSF 257,500 197,355 261,135 Avg. Unit NRSF 780 793 791
Development Budget Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Scheme 3
Land:
Acquisition Price 21,100,000$ 21,100,000 $ 21,100,000 $ Transaction Fees 280,000 280,000 280,000 Entitlement Costs 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Total Land Costs 23,380,000 23,380,000 23,380,000 Hard Costs:
Sitework 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 Direct Costs - Parking Subterranean $60,000 / stall - 10,860,000 12,600,000 Direct Costs - Parking Above-Grade $30,000 / stall 8,310,000 1,050,000 1,260,000 Direct Costs - Residential Type I $500,000 / unit - 33,000,000 165,000,000 Direct Costs - Residential Type III $350,000 / unit 115,500,000 64,050,000 - Multi-Building Premium (1) 20.0% - 21,792,000 35,772,000 Direct Costs Subtotal 127,810,000 134,752,000 218,632,000 General Conditions & Overhead 5.0% 6,390,500 6,737,600 10,931,600 GC Fee 3.0% 3,834,300 4,042,560 6,558,960 Contingency 5.0% 6,390,500 6,737,600 10,931,600 Total Hard Costs 144,425,300 152,269,760 247,054,160 Soft Costs & Financing:
Permits & Fees $65,000 / unit 21,450,000 16,185,000 21,450,000 Architect, SMEP, Civil $12,000 / unit 3,960,000 2,988,000 3,960,000 Consultants $15,000 / unit 4,950,000 3,735,000 4,950,000 Insurance $13,000 / unit 4,290,000 3,237,000 4,290,000 Taxes, Legal, Overhead & Misc. $25,000 / unit 8,250,000 6,225,000 8,250,000 Contingency 5.0% 2,145,000 1,618,500 2,145,000 Financing $90,000 / unit 29,700,000 22,410,000 29,700,000 Total Soft Costs & Financing 74,745,000 56,398,500 74,745,000 Total Development Budget 242,550,300 $ 232,048,260 $ 345,179,160 $ $ / Unit 735,001 $ 931,921 $ 1,045,997 $ (1) Accounts for additional costs to construct two buildings (i.e. individual building skins, separate MEP, etc.).
RETURN ON COST ANALYSIS
Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Scheme 3
Target Return on Cost 5.75% 5.75% 5.75%
Net Operating Income 13,946,642 $ 13,342,775 $ 19,847,802 $ OpEx 30.0% (5,977,132) (5,718,332) (8,506,201) Untrended Rental Income 19,923,775 19,061,107 28,354,002 Target Rent per Unit 5,031 $ 6,379 $ 7,160 $ Target Rent PSF 6.45 $ 8.05 $ 9.05 $ Attachment 15
1 May 25, 2023
Michelle King
Principal Planner, Department of Community Development
City of Sunnyvale
456 West Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Re: Moffett Park Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report, File No. 2021080338 Dear Ms. King,
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge are environmental organizations with interest in the San Francisco Bay and the region's wildlife and natural resources. Due to the Moffett Park Specific Plan (MPSP) area’s proximity to San Francisco Bay, new development in the Plan area raises significant concern about impacts on wildlife, shoreline ecosystems and open space resources as well as community resilience to risks associated with sea level and groundwater rise. We therefore have participated in every opportunity to provide public comment on the Moffett Park Specific Plan as it developed.
We commend the diligent work of City staff and its team of consultants to put forth a comprehensive and thoughtful plan for the future of Moffett Park. We acknowledge and appreciate the extensive research, refinement and public process that underlie the MPSP. Nevertheless, the responses to comments in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and associated updates to the MPSP did not allay several of our concerns. In particular, we find the lack of policies or mitigation to monitor or manage the ecological impacts of increased human activity in shoreline open spaces to be of dire concern and we lament the lost opportunity to protect nature and reverse the degradation of ecosystems as part of this immense plan.
Our comments below highlight specific areas of continued concern with regard to resilience of existing open space and recreation facilities, biological resources and wildlife protection, hazardous contamination, and unique impacts of development of life sciences laboratories. Our recommendations within each issue area separately identify gaps in the Final EIR that need to be addressed and proposed amendments to strengthen and clarify the MPSP’s policies and Attachment 15
2 strategies. For your convenience, Appendix C, attached, provides a consolidated list of our recommendations.
We hope you will consider our comments and recommendations to strengthen the MPSP and better support its vision for an ecological innovation district. We look forward to meeting with you to discuss further.
EIR TECHNICAL CORRECTION
Please correct page 6 (pdf page 8) and page 60 (pdf page 62) of the Final EIR response file to specifically mention the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society as co-authors of the joint Draft EIR comment letter submitted with the Sierra Club.
PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
The EIR dismisses our concern, shared by multiple other commenters, 1 that adding 42,000 new
residents and 60,000 employees to the area will have significant detrimental impacts on existing park, open space and recreation facilities and on wildlife along bayland wetlands and levees.
However, without any evidence-based assessment of employee use, and with critical gaps in analysis of impacts, there is insufficient evidence to make the Impact REC-1 or Impact BIO-4 findings of less than significant impact.
The resulting failure to require monitoring and mitigation of the impacts from increased recreation use will have significant detrimental effects on existing park and recreation facilities, wildlife (including migratory and special-status species), community well-being, a nd the City’s budget outlook.
1. Impact REC-1 and Topic Response 3 fail to provide credible analysis of increased employee use of existing park and recreation facilities.
The City’s park dedication fee ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter 19.74, is at the cor e of the City’s finding that the MPSP would have less than significant impact on existing park and recreation facilities. However, that ordinance does not purport to address non-resident impacts.
By its terms, it is based on a finding that “multifamily ren tal housing projects have a significant effect on the use and availability of parks and recreation space and facilities.” Furthermore, its stated intent is to ensure that residential development pays “its fair share toward improvements, and/or purchase and development of parks and recreational facilities.” 2 Any impact on the degradation of existing facilities attributable to the addition of 60,000 new employees in Moffett Park would be additive. Yet the only assessment of increased use by project 1 Topic Response 3, FEIR p. 7, “Since many of the comments raised the same concerns and questions, topic responses have been prepared.”
2 Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapter 19.74, section 19.74.010.
Attachment 15
3 employees is a single sentence in Topic Response 3 indicating an unsubstantiated expectation that their use will be minimal.3
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Appendix G requires analysis of the project’s impact on degradation of parks and recreation facilities, not just new resident impacts. The EIR reliance on a mere assumption that 60,000 new employees will make minimal use of existing facilities is grossly flawed, especially in an area designed for dense development and active transportation and in an era when employee access to nature is recognized as a core element of corporate wellness.
45 Additionally, we note that Park dedication fees collected pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter
19.74 can only be used to “purchase land, buy equipment or construct improvements.” 6 The fees
cannot be used for monitoring impacts, maintenance of trails and other facilities, or habitat protection and restoration. Furthermore, there is no current mechanism for non-residential development to pay a fair share toward the upkeep of park and recreation facilities or the protection of wildlife and restoration of habitat. Underestimating (and failing to mitigate) increased use, could have budget implications for the City that delay or prevent needed future maintenance and restoration investment for existing facilities.
2. The EIR fails to evaluate or address impacts from increased demand for distinct uses only available in existing shoreline park and recreation facilities adjacent to the Plan area.
The EIR acknowledges an expected increase in resident and employee use of existing facilities.
Indeed, Specific Plan Policy OSE-1.2 seeks to affirmatively connect residents, employees and visitors to existing “adjacent facilities.” However, the MPSP and Final EIR fail to evaluate and address the cumulative demand for open space uses that are not served by new facilities envisioned within the Plan area.
The Draft EIR and Topic Response 3 assert that new park and open space acreage, in conjunction with Specific Plan Policies OSE-2.1 through OSE-2.8 requiring certain types of facilities, would “offset” the project’s demand for existing park and recreational facilities. However, the claim of offsetting facilities falls flat as applied to the Bay Trail’s distinct function as a regional commute route and recreation trail, or the unique character of existing shoreline trails and vistas (at Baylands Park, the lan dfill hills, and along many levees abutting Sunnyvale’s water treatment ponds, Guadalupe slough, Calabazas/San Tomas Aquino creek and marsh, and other levees in 3 “While employees in Moffett Park may use existing park andrecreational facilities in the area, their use is expected to be minimal given their primary purpose in Moffett Park is to work (verses residents who live and recreate in Moffett Park) and would further be minimized with provision of on-site amenities that are typically provided with non-residential development.” Topic Response 3, FEIR p.10. 4 The Benefits of Green Spaces: How Nature Can Improve Mental Health and Well-being, Corporate Wellness Magazine https://www.corporatewellnessmagazine.com/article/the-benefits-of-green-spaces- how-nature-can-improve-mental-health-and-well-being
5 Reducing Stress at Work is a Walk in the Park, The Conversation, April 17, 2016 https://theconversation.com/reducing-stress-at-work-is-a-walk-in-the-park-57634 6 Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapter 19.74.020(d).
Attachment 15
4 the south end of the San Francisco Bay). Hunting is another recreation activity offered in the Sunnyvale Baylands that cannot be duplicated within the Plan area.
The introduction of a large number of residents and employees without alternative, like-kind facilities, and with ready access facilitated by Policy OSE-1.2, likely will lead to a sharp increase in use of Baylands Park, the Bay Trail and the above-mentioned shoreline trails, with inevitable impacts on wildlife (including migratory birds and special-status species) and degradation of existing facilities. Yet the MPSP relies only on existing protections, such as trail signage directing visitors away from sensitive habitats, and limitations on dogs at Sunnyvale Baylands Park. 7 Those
protections target some specific detrimental behaviors but do nothing to address increased volume of use. The lack of policies or mitigations to monitor or manage the impacts of increased human activity in shoreline open spaces is of dire concern.
3. The EIR fails to evaluate or address impacts of increased recreation use on wildlife.
Our comment letter expressed the concern that impacts to special-status species, migratory birds and other wildlife species are likely to result from the inevitable increase in human and pet activity on levees. This concern remains valid. Indeed, there is substantial scientific evidence to support a fair argument that an increase in human activities and encroachment in or adjacent to wildlife habitat will impact patterns of use and populations of species using these habitats.
Impacts on migratory and nesting birds behavior (including foraging, resting, roosting and nesting) from human activity on trails are well documented globally as well as specifically in the South Bay adjacent to the Sunnyvale Baylands (see Appendix A: Annotated Reference for summary of specific studies’ findings). As shown in Appendix A, scientific studies and reviews reveal widespread effects of human presence and recreation on animals, with a large amount of evidence showing negative impacts to raptors and shorebirds. Studies also show consistent negative impacts to shorebird breeding.
In the Bay Area, and specifically in locations near or adjacent to Moffett Park, studies of the responses of migratory birds to human activity on shoreline trails and levees show that the numbers and species richness of migratory shorebirds decreased with an increase in human recreational activities. Migratory duck species seem especially sensitive: all duck species within 80 meters of a levee trail responded to trail use. When disturbed, ducks moved substantially farther from the trail than they were found before pedestrians' presence. Tolerance differed between species, with some more averse to human activity than others. But in a scientific literature review of human impacts on waterbirds in the San Francisco Bay Area, 86% of the studies found that human disturbance affected their study species. The review shows that boating and walking affect bird behavior, causing them to waste time and energy they could have used to feed. Birds flying away in response to human disturbance was noted in 57% of the 50 studies reviewed.
7 Topic Response 3, FEIR page 9.
Attachment 15
5 The analysis associated with Impact BIO-4 did not fully address the impact of recreation on wintering migratory shorebirds and ducks. As we have highlighted above, use of trails and levees in the area will increase substantially as a result of the addition of 60,000 employees and 42,000 residents to Moffett Park since walking and biking on Bay levees are popular activities that cannot be fully, or even closely, replicated with the new recreation facilities in the Plan area.
Response R.8 to this concern directed us again to Topic Response 3 which includes no analysis or discussion of impacts from increased recreation activity on migratory birds and special status species, dismissing our concern by stating , “Baylands Park and San Francisco Bay Trail direct visitors to designated trails (and not sensitive wildlife habitat).“ The missing analysis, discussion, monitoring and mitigation requirements are a fatal flaw of the EIR and must be corrected.
Needed Additions to the EIR
● Provide evidence substantiating the City’s expectation that commuting employees will make minimal use of local park and recreation facilities (including trails). This should include an objective evaluation of the expected participation of Moffett Park employees in active transportation commute modes, including use of the Bay Trail. ● Substantiate the City’s expectation that the cumulative increase in population - both residents and employees - will not expand trail use in ways that disrupt and harm populations of migratory birds, special status species, and other native resident or migratory wildlife species.
The following mitigation measures should be added to the EIR (EIR Table 2.3-6: Summary of Key Specific Plan Requirements and Policies by Resource Area - Biological Resources and elsewhere).
● Proposed new requirement 10.3.5-xx: Limit public access to some of the Sunnyvale Baylands Levees. Closing some levees to recreational activities (see Figure 1, below, levees proposed for closure to recreation are marked in Green). This mitigation measure reserves some levees for use by migratory birds while at the same time providing accessibility and connectivity for people. It reduces encroachment and disturbance of migratory birds.
● Proposed new requirement 10.3.5-xx: With the exception of commute trails (such as Bay Trail and the East and West Channels trails), limit access to human-powered-only, and prohibit electronic or motorized mobility devices except as required for Americans with Disabilities Act accommodation. This mitigation measure reduces encroachment pressure further from the Bay Trail.
Attachment 15
6 Figure 1
MPSP Recommendations re: Parks, Open Space, and Recreation MPSP Section 6.2 Open Space and Urban Ecology Principles, Goals, and Policies, Goal OSE-1:
INTERCONNECTED AND BIODIVERSE OPEN SPACE NETWORK. Moffett Park provides a high level of service with ample open space for residents, employees, and visitors through an interconnected network of open spaces that supports healthy ecosystems, improves air and water quality, improves public health, and adapts to a changing climate. ● Proposed new policy OSE-1.X: Protect and enhance habitat in open space and Bayland ecosystems to maintain and support biodiversity over time. ● Proposed new policy OSE-1.4.X: Monitor usage of open space in and near the Plan area as Moffett Park grows and densifies, and use dynamic strategies to regulate use as needed to reduce impacts to wildlife and maintain the quality of recreation facilities. ● Proposed new policy OSE-1.4.X: Identify financing strategies to ensure fair share contributions to facility maintenance and habitat restoration costs.
Attachment 15
7 MPSP Section 6.2 Open Space and Urban Ecology Principles, Goals, and Policies, Goal OSE-3:
ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. New developments’ parks and open spaces enhance ecosystems and support biodiversity, benefiting both people and natural habitat. ● Proposed text change (in bold) to Policy OSE-3.1: Facilitate the removal of existing and transfer of future development away from the Lockheed Martin stormwater holding ponds, other stormwater, emergent and potential wetlands, grasslands and other undeveloped lands north of 1st Street through implementation of an Ecological Combining District to expand and enhance wetland habitat, ecosystem health, and climate resilience.
CONTAMINATION HAZARDS
We remain quite concerned about the potential for mobilization and spread of legacy hazardous chemical contamination in Moffett Park, with potentially significant site-specific and cumulative impacts that can be exacerbated by climate change effects, including sea level rise, shallow groundwater rise, and fluvial flooding. Because CEQA does not address impacts of the environment on a project, the EIR leaves significant gaps in public understanding of these threats to public and ecosystem health within the Plan area. We urge the City to include robust policies in the MPSP to ensure transparency and enable full assessment, management, and mitigation of future project-specific and cumulative contamination impacts as the MPSP unfolds over time.
Despite the Plan area’s proximity to known or suspected sources of contamination, no testing has been done for chemicals likely to be present within the Plan area. An April 23, 2023 comment letter submitted by environmental scientist Naomi Goodman, indicat ed that “most of the ‘site closures’ listed on the various state and federal maps addressed only fuel tank leaks.”8 As a result, site closures may not have considered the full range of likely contaminants currently present.
Nevertheless, the Final EIR ind icates that “closed” sites need not go through a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
Climate change also significantly complicates assessment and management of potential chemical hazards as sea level rise, shallow groundwater rise, and fluvial flooding threaten to spread contamination more widely. Contaminant disruption from development at one site may have wider ranging impacts than anticipated under current conditions, resulting in a greater cumulative impact. Unfortunately, CEQA is an inadequate tool for addressing that challenge and a programmatic EIR, by its nature, defers much analysis to future project-by-project environmental review, often with less public visibility and engagement. We hope the City will exercise its discretion to strengthen the MPSP with additional attention to hazardous contamination.
We recommend the following additions and amendments to the MPSP in order to build public confidence that legacy contamination is appropriately identified and remediated and to improve the City’s capacity to monitor, evaluate and respond to potential cumulative impacts. 8 April 27, 2023 letter submitted by Naomi Goodman, an environmental scientist with over 40 years of experience in hazardous waste site characterization and remediation. Goodman Comment on MPSP and final EIR 4-27-23.pdf
Attachment 15
8 MPSP Recommendations Regarding Contamination Hazards
MPSP Section 4.1 Land Use Goals and Policies, Goal LU-1 COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS. A series of neighborhoods with access to public amenities, quality housing, good jobs, and healthy and safe environments that weave together into a vibrant ecological innovation district. ● Proposed new Policy LU-1.7: Assure transparency and opportunity for public review and comment regarding hazardous materials analysis for all projects, including the decision basis and findings regarding additional site investigations, the scope of new site investigations, and planned remediation measures.
MPSP Chapter 10 Implementation, Section 10.2.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ● Proposed new submittal requirement: Soil and Groundwater Study. For any renovation, modification, or redevelopment of a property within Moffett Park, an assessment of existing soil and groundwater conditions shall be completed, including testing for hazardous contaminants and identifying site-specific vulnerability to shallow groundwater rise.
MPSP Chapter 10 Implementation, Section 10.4 Implementation Actions, Table 29 ● Proposed text change (in bold) to Groundwater Data Collection description: Establish a monitoring plan of groundwater elevations , hazardous soil-borne contaminants, and salinity within Moffett Park that includes the development and publication of a three- dimensional map of subsurface geology as well as a regularly updated map of chemical testing results. [Note: the proposed 10.2.1 submittal requirement above would be a valuable data source for this Groundwater Data Collection effort.]
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Bird Safety
The MPSP limits Bird Facade treatment requirements to the first 60 feet of building height. We ask that you expand this requirement to include all building heights on building facades that face parks, open space and water features. Increasingly, evidence shows 9 that nocturnally migrating
birds are attracted to light at night (such as from residential towers) and collide with towers and tall structures, sometimes in great numbers. Collision risk is especially visible in areas near bays and rivers. To reduce the risk of bird collision, we ask that the MPSP strengthen the requirements for safety treatment. Similar to the San Jose City Wide Design Standards and Guidelines, we ask that glazing achieves reflectivity of no more than 20%. Similar to the City of Cupertino, we ask for 9 https://www.fws.gov/story/2022-04/dim-lights-birds-night Attachment 15
9 facades taller than 60 feet to implement bird safety treatment when facing open space and water features.
MPSP Recommendations Regarding Bird Safety
MPSP Section 5.4 Ecological Development Standards
● Proposed MPSP text change (in bold) to section 5.4.2 BIRD SAFE DESIGN Section 2.
Façade treatment: No more than 10% of the surface area of a building’s total exterior façade shall have untreated glazing between the ground and 60 feet above ground.
Building facades that face open space or water features will have treated glazing at all heights. Bird Friendly glazing treatments can include the use of opaque glass, the covering of clear glass surface with patterns, the use of paned glass with fenestration patterns, and the use of external screens over non-reflective glass. All façade glazing shall have reflectivity ratings no greater than 20%.
● Proposed MPSP text change (in bold) to section 5.4.2 BIRD SAFE DESIGN Section 4.
Façade treatment: 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. Building facades that face open space or water features will have treated glazing at all heights. Bird Friendly glazing treatments can include the use of opaque glass, the covering of clear glass surface with patterns, the use of paned glass with fenestration patterns, and the use of external screens over non-reflective glass.
All façade glazing shall have reflectivity ratings no greater than 20%.
2. Oversight for Special Status Species
Final EIR Response R.5 to our comment asking for criteria to be provided for “qualified biologist” in regard to Special Status Species, modifies the following text in the MPSP (highlight added):
Requirement 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 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.
We have two concerns about this response. One is that the City only added this definition to the category of Special Status Plants but did not apply it to any of the seven other Special Status Species or Sensitive Habitat included in the Draft EIR nor in Section 10.3.5 of the MPSP. The second concern is that the definition added is inadequate when applied to Special Status Species and habitats on which those species depend.
Categorically, Special Status Species are subject to the oversight of responsible wildlife agencies, applying and ensuring species protection intended by one or more of the wildlife regulatory Attachment 15
10 authorities cited in the Draft EIR. Qualifications for performing these protective actions include species-specific training and experience with permitting, including survey protocols and construction requirements. These are qualifications that can only be acquired through post- undergraduate field work and study and must be species-specific. Further, as sensitive habitats are often associated with Special Status Species, biologists involved in surveys and permitting in those habitats discussed in 10.3.5 must have related advanced qualifications.
The 10.3.5 discussion of the salt marsh harvest mouse10 (SMHM) can serve as an example. It is identified11 as endangered at both the Federal and State level and also Fully Protected by the State. Thereby the responsibility of protection of the SMHM and habitats on which it depends falls on the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Fish and Wildlife Service (CDFW). Actions potentially disturbing habitat or the SMHM itself, including surveys of its presence and permits for certain actions, fall under protocols established by the USFWS.
Unfortunately, the 10.3.5 SMHM discussion
12 describes certain survey requirements without any
annotation that survey protocols need USFWS approval, nor that the “qualified biologist” must have “special status marsh species experience.”13
Broadly we note that the 10.3.5 discussion of Special Status Species and sensitive habitats omits any annotation that actions required thereunder are subject to confirmation as protocols and standards by the wildlife agencies responsible for Special Status Species and Habitats protection per Federal and State Law cited.14
MPSP Recommendations Regarding Oversight for Special Status Species Chapter 10: Implementation, 10.3 General Submittals and Site Master Plans, Section 10.3.5 Special Species
● Definition of Qualified Biologist. We recommend that the following definition be prominently inserted at the beginning of Section 10.3.5 to be applied to actions related to all the species and habitats discussed.
For actions described below regarding Special Status Species and Sensitive habitats discussed, a qualified biologist will be a person with a minimum of a four- year degree in wildlife sciences, biology, environmental sciences having post- graduate species and/or habitat-specific experience and, when required by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or National Marine Fisheries Service, appropriate permit or other authorization. 10 Moffett Park Specific Plan Update, Public Review Draft, December 2022, p.274. 11 Moffett Park Specific Plan Update, Draft Environmental Review Report, Table 3.4-1, p.99 12 Moffett Park Specific Plan Update, Public Review Draft, p.274 13 Personal email, Kim Squires, Section 7 Division Manager, SF Bay Delta USFWS Office. 14 Ibid MPSP Update DEIR, pp.85-86
Attachment 15
11 ● Deferral to responsible agencies . Section 10.3.5 could address this topic in one of two ways. Here we provide and recommend inclusion as a statement at the beginning of the section, before the Definition of Qualified Biologist. An alternative to that single statement is to modify each of the 11 species and habitat discussions to include deferral to the species/habitat-appropriate agency or agencies.
Discussion below includes actions related to biological surveys, reporting and construction mitigations. As each such discussion applies to either Special Status Species or Sensitive habitats, survey requirements commonly fall under protocols defined by responsible wildlife agencies. As such, persons or organizations subject to Section 10.3.5 Implementation are responsible minimally to seek informal consultation with the appropriate wildlife agency before proceeding with any 10.3.5 listed requirements.
LIFE SCIENCES LABORATORIES
1. Biosafety
There are four biosafety levels (BSLs) that define proper laboratory techniques, safety equipment, and design, depending on the types of agents being studied. 15 We strongly recommend the addition of an MPSP policy limiting Life Sciences labs to Biosafety Levels 1 and Level 2 (BSL-1 and BSL-2) and prohibiting Biosafety Level 3 or Level 4 (BSL-3 and BSL-4) laboratories in Moffett Park.
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter recently organized a webinar, “ Planning for Life Sciences Development for Bay Area Cities.” The event featured experts from the Boston/Cambridge area, a historic hub for life sciences in the US, and included biosafety experts. An important fact emerged: With decades of experience in the industry and the growing awareness of the increasingly lethal infectious agents used in high-containment BSL-3 and maximum containment BSL-4 labs, several cities in the greater Boston/Cambridge metropolitan area are reversing or have already reversed their biosafety policies to no longer allow BSL-3 or higher labs in their cities, and more are joining their ranks. Some do not even allow BSL-2 labs. Please see here a partial list of cities and links to their ordinances.
BSL-3 high-containment labs, as defined by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services,16 work with indigenous or exotic infectious agents with known potential for airborne transmission of pathogens that may cause serious and potentially lethal infections. 17 They require complete dependence on mechanical systems that can fail through human error, mechanical failure or 15 https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/biodefense-biosafety-labs 16 https://www.phe.gov/s3/BioriskManagement/biosafety/Pages/Biosafety-FAQ.aspx#biocont8 17 Gao-18-145, High-Containment Laboratories: Coordinated Actions Needed ... https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-145.pdf.
Attachment 15
12 disasters, as well as safety oversight issues. 18 19 They may work well in institutions that have rigorous scientific safety oversight, committees that ensure an understanding of risks, transparency, regular reporting and inspections, and biosafety procedures for worker, public and environmental safety. Sunnyvale does not have such mechanisms in place for this responsibility.
MPSP Recommendations Regarding Biosafety
Goal LU-3: A CENTER FOR INNOVATION. Moffett Park continues to be a center of innovation and the knowledge economy.
● Proposed new Policy LU-3.5: Encourage Life Sciences innovation by allowing facilities that commit to public health and safety by limiting Life Sciences Labs to only biosafety levels BSL-1 and BSL-2.
5.1 Development Standards Goals and Policies, Goal DS-4: HEALTHY, CLIMATE-READY SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN. Site and building design reduce energy use and water use, protect public health, and increase climate resilience.
● Proposed new Policy DS-4.10: For public health and safety, any life sciences development proposed in the R&D or Commercial Office zones will limit its labs to biosafety levels BSL- 1 and BSL-2. No BSL-3 or BSL4 labs will be permitted. Further all life sciences labs shall abide by the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health.
9.1 Infrastructure Goals and Policies, Goal IU-2: SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE. To achieve the vision of an ecological innovation district, Moffett Park invests in sustainable and resilient infrastructure and practices to illustrate leadership. ● Text correction to Policy IU-2.6: Ensure that infrastructure development considers and avoids impacts due to potential rising groundwater and overall low high water tables in the Plan area.
2. Additional Concerns and Recommendations Regarding Life Sciences Projects Even as the local market for office space struggles with increasing vacancy rates and declining rents, the Bay Area life sciences industry continues to expand, with a 27% growth in employment 18 Boston University, June 1, 2016: A typical example- “A malfunctioning network switch at BU’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) resulted in a shutdown of parts of the lab’s ventilation monitoring system …The University has suspended BSL-3 research until the outside engineers review recommended remedial work to prevent future ventilation system malfunctions.” There are many such examples.
19 You should be afraid of the next “lab leak,” NY Times Nov 23, 2021. “.... In fact, the most concerning aspect about high-containment biolabs is that, considered as a collective, they may only be as safe as the worst lab among them. A breach or a breakdown at one could imperil us all.” Attachment 15
13 from 2019 to second quarter 2022 and a massive development pipeline going into this year.20 We believe this trend will likely lead to significant developer interest in life sciences facilities within the MPSP’s innovation district. In addition to the biosafety concerns raised above, life sciences facilities pose unique climate sustainability challenges by producing disproportionate energy and water demands, noise, and plastics waste as compared to typical office use.
Although life sciences facilities are not specifically addressed in the draft MPSP or EIR, we urge you to consider how the MPSP, in conjunction with Sunnyvale’s Reach Code and Climate Action Plan, can best assure that life sciences development in Moffett Park will be consistent with the district’s eco-innovation vision. Appendix B offers additional information and recommendations for improved clarity and attention to the particular challenges posed by life science facilities.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss further once you have had an opportunity to review them.
Sincerely,
James Eggers
Senior Director
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Matthew Dodder
Executive Director
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Eileen Mclaughlin
Board Member
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge
cc:
Gladwyn D’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Jennifer Chang Hetterly
Bay Alive Campaign Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Appendix A - Consolidated list of Recommended Amendments to the EIR and MPSP Appendix B - Annotated Reference of Studies: Human Impacts on Wildlife Appendix C - Additional recommendations related to life science development 20 Bucking Trends, Bay Area Life Science Market Shows Resilience, The Real Deal, April 18, 2023. https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2023/04/18/bucking-trends-bay-area-life-science-market-shows- resilience/?utm medium=social&utm campaign=single content share&utm source=clipboard Attachment 15
14 APPENDIX A
Consolidated list of Recommended Amendments to the EIR and MPSP
EIR TECHNICAL CORRECTION
Please correct page 6 (pdf page 8) and page 60 (pdf page 62) of the FEIR response file to specifically mention the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society as co-authors of the joint DEIR comment letter submitted with the Sierra Club.
PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Needed Additions to the EIR
● Provide evidence substantiating the City’s expectation that commuting employees will make minimal use of local park and recreation facilities (including trails). This should include an objective evaluation of the expected participation of Moffett Park employees in active transportation commute modes, including use of the Bay Trail. ● Substantiate the Ci ty’s expectation that the cumulative increase in population -b o t h residents and employees - will not expand trail use in ways that disrupt and harm populations of migratory birds, special status species, and other native resident or migratory wildlife species.
The following mitigation measures should be added to the EIR (EIR Table 2.3-6: Summary of Key Specific Plan Requirements and Policies by Resource Area - Biological Resources and elsewhere):
● Proposed new requirement 10.3.5-xx: Limit public access to some of the Sunnyvale Baylands Levees. Closing some levees to recreational activities (see Figure 1, below, levees proposed for closure to recreation are marked in Green). This mitigation measure reserves some levees for use by migratory birds while at the same time providing accessibility and connectivity for people. It reduces encroachment and disturbance of migratory birds.
● Proposed new requirement 10.3.5-xx: With the exception of commute trails (such as Bay Trail and the East and West Channels trails), limit access to human-powered-only, and prohibit electronic or motorized mobility devices except as required for ADA accommodation. This mitigation measure reduces encroachment pressure further from the Bay Trail.
Attachment 15
15 Figure 1
MPSP Recommendations re: Parks, Open Space, and Recreation MPSP Section 6.2 Open Space and Urban Ecology Principles, Goals, and Policies, Goal OSE-1:
INTERCONNECTED AND BIODIVERSE OPEN SPACE NETWORK. Moffett Park provides a high level of service with ample open space for residents, employees, and visitors through an interconnected network of open spaces that supports healthy ecosystems, improves air and water quality, improves public health, and adapts to a changing climate. ● Proposed new policy OSE-1.X: Protect and enhance habitat in open space and Bayland ecosystems to maintain and support biodiversity over time. ● Proposed new policy OSE-1.4.X: Monitor usage of open space in and near the Plan area as Moffett Park grows and densifies, and use dynamic strategies to regulate use as needed to reduce impacts to wildlife and maintain the quality of recreation facilities. ● Proposed new policy OSE-1.4.X: Identify financing strategies to ensure fair share contributions to facility maintenance and habitat restoration costs.
Attachment 15
16 MPSP Section 6.2 Open Space and Urban Ecology Principles, Goals, and Policies, Goal OSE-3:
ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. New developments’ parks and open spaces enhance ecosystems and support biodiversity, benefiting both people and natural habitat. ● Proposed text change (in bold) to Policy OSE-3.1: Facilitate the removal of existing and transfer of future development away from the Lockheed Martin stormwater holding ponds, other stormwater, emergent and potential wetlands, grasslands and other undeveloped lands north of 1st Street through implementation of an Ecological Combining District to expand and enhance wetland habitat, ecosystem health, and climate resilience.
CONTAMINATION HAZARDS
MPSP Recommendations re: Contamination Hazards
MPSP Section 4.1 Land Use Goals and Policies, Goal LU-1 COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS. A series of neighborhoods with access to public amenities, quality housing, good jobs, and healthy and safe environments that weave together into a vibrant ecological innovation district. ● Proposed new Policy LU-1.7DS-4.10: Assure transparency and opportunity for public review and comment regarding hazardous materials analysis for all projects, including the decision basis and findings regarding additional site investigations, the scope of new site investigations, and planned remediation measures.
MPSP Chapter 10 Implementation, Section 10.2.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ● Proposed new submittal requirement: Soil and Groundwater Study. For any renovation, modification, or redevelopment of a property within Moffett Park, an assessment of existing soil and groundwater conditions shall be completed, including testing for hazardous contaminants and identifying site-specific vulnerability to shallow groundwater rise.
MPSP Chapter 10 Implementation, Section 10.4 Implementation Actions, Table 29 ● Proposed text change (in bold) to Groundwater Data Collection description: Establish a monitoring plan of groundwater elevations , hazardous soil-borne contaminants, and salinity within Moffett Park that includes the development and publication of a three- dimensional map of subsurface geology as well as a regularly updated map of chemical testing results. [Note: the proposed 10.2.1 submittal requirement above would be a valuable data source for this Groundwater Data Collection effort.]
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MPSP Recommendations re: Bird Safety
Attachment 15
17 MPSP Section 5.4 Ecological Development Standards
● Proposed MPSP text change (in bold) to section 5.4.2 BIRD SAFE DESIGN Section 2.
Façade treatment: No more than 10% of the surface area of a building’s total exterior façade shall have untreated glazing between the ground and 60 feet above ground.
Building facades that face open space or water features will have treated glazing at all heights. Bird Friendly glazing treatments can include the use of opaque glass, the covering of clear glass surface with patterns, the use of paned glass with fenestration patterns, and the use of external screens over non-reflective glass. All façade glazing shall have reflectivity ratings no greater than 20%.
● Proposed MPSP text change (in bold) to section 5.4.2 BIRD SAFE DESIGN Section 4.
Façade treatment: 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. Building facades that face open space or water features will have treated glazing at all heights. Bird Friendly glazing treatments can include the use of opaque glass, the covering of clear glass surface with patterns, the use of paned glass with fenestration patterns, and the use of external screens over non-reflective glass.
All façade glazing shall have reflectivity ratings no greater than 20%.
MPSP Recommendations re: Oversight for Special Status Species Chapter 10: Implementation, 10.3 General Submittals and Site Master Plans, Section 10.3.5 Special Species
● Definition of Qualified Biologist. We recommend that the following definition be prominently inserted at the beginning of Section 10.3.5 to be applied to actions related to all the species and habitats discussed.
For actions described below regarding Special Status Species and Sensitive habitats discussed, a qualified biologist will be a person with a minimum of a four- year degree in wildlife sciences, biology, environmental sciences having post- graduate species and/or habitat-specific experience and, when required by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife or National Marine Fisheries Service, appropriate permit or other authorization. ● Deferral to responsible agencies . Section 10.3.5 could address this topic in one of two ways. Here we provide and recommend inclusion as a statement at the beginning of the section, before the Definition of Qualified Biologist. An alternative to that single statement is to modify each of the 11 species and habitat discussions to include deferral to the species/habitat-appropriate agency or agencies.
Discussion below includes actions related to biological surveys, reporting and construction mitigations. As each such discussion applies to either Special Status Species or Sensitive habitats, survey requirements commonly fall under protocols Attachment 15
18 defined by responsible wildlife agencies. As such, persons or organizations subject to Section 10.3.5 Implementation are responsible minimally to seek informal consultation with the appropriate wildlife agency before proceeding with any 10.3.5 listed requirements.
BIOSAFETY
MPSP Recommendations re: Biosafety
Goal LU-3: A CENTER FOR INNOVATION. Moffett Park continues to be a center of innovation and the knowledge economy.
● Proposed new Policy LU-3.5: Encourage Life Sciences innovation by allowing facilities that commit to public health and safety by limiting Life Sciences Labs to only biosafety levels BSL-1 and BSL-2.
5.1 Development Standards Goals and Policies, Goal DS-4: HEALTHY, CLIMATE-READY SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN. Site and building design reduce energy use and water use, protect public health, and increase climate resilience.
● Proposed new Policy DS-4.10: For public health and safety, any life sciences development proposed in the R&D or Commercial Office zones will limit its labs to biosafety levels BSL- 1 and BSL-2. No BSL-3 or BSL4 labs will be permitted. Further all life sciences labs shall abide by the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health.
9.1 Infrastructure Goals and Policies, Goal IU-2: SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE. To achieve the vision of an ecological innovation district, Moffett Park invests in sustainable and resilient infrastructure and practices to illustrate leadership. ● Text correction to Policy IU-2.6: Ensure that infrastructure development considers and avoids impacts due to potential rising groundwater and overall low high water tables in the Plan area.
Attachment 15
19 APPENDIX B
Annotated Reference of Studies: Human Impacts on Wildlife Locally focused studies:
Trulio, L. & Sokale J. 2008. Foraging Shorebird Response to Trail Use around San Francisco Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1775-1780. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40208460 Two-year study of the effects of human trail use on foraging shorebirds around San Francisco Bay. The number of shorebirds decreased with the increase in human traffic. An average of 25% fewer birds were found on higher-use days.
Trulio et al. 2013. Experimental Study of Shorebird Response to New Trail Use in the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project.
https://www.southbayrestoration.org/sites/default/files/documents/final shorebird report trulio etal.pdf Experimental study of shorebird response to new trail walkers around the San Francisco Bay. The methods involved having two pedestrians walk back and forth on the levees/boardwalks for 10 minutes. After walkers were introduced, bird numbers decreased by 2.5% and species richness decreased by 18%.
White, H.R. 2009. Wintering Duck Response to Trail Use at Former San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds.
MYYUX ITNTWL
JYIM^[RF^P
8J[JSRTSYM XYZI^ TK \NSYJWNSL IZHPXѣ RT[JRJSY F\F^ KWTR UWJ[NTZXQ^ ZSZXJI YWFNQX FWTZSI 8FS +WFSHNXHT 'F^ XFQY UTSIX \MJS ZXJI G^ UJIJXYWNFSX
Y\T NSIN[NIZFQX &QQIZHP XUJHNJX \NYMNS
RJYJWX TK YMJ QJ[JJ YWFNQ
WJXUTSIJI YT YWFNQ ZXJ <MJS INXYZWGJI IZHPX RT[JI RTWJ YMFS RJYJWX TS F[JWFLJ \MNHM NX XZGXYFSYNFQQ^ KFWYMJW KWTR YMJ YWFNQ YMFS YMJ^ \JWJ KTZSI GJKTWJ UJIJXYWNFSX\JWJ NSYWTIZHJI Trulio et al. 2008. Study of Waterbird Response to Trail Use in the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. https://www.google.com/url?sa=j&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.southbayrestoration.org%2Frfq- rfp%2F2008-rfp-awards%2FTrulio 4Final.pdf&uct=1669676011&usg=jqtQEAE- QVDWJit1teHK0R1Ce7A.&source=meet
Research proposal for four studies to be conducted in the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration project area.
Justifications include ev idence of seven species of dabbling du cks responding to all nearby trail use (especially walking and biking) and data collected by White in which species richness and the overall number of birds became considerably lower after trail use disturbance (at distances of up to 120 meters).
Trulio, L. & White, H.R. (2017). Wintering Waterfowl Avoidance and Tolerance of Recreational Trail Use.
Waterbirds: The International Journal of Waterbird Biology , 40(3), 252 –262. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26428223
Experimental study conducted in the south San Francisco Bay measuring the amount of trail users and the number of birds present before and after the introduction of trail use. Overall, comparison of before/after bird counts and number of trail users did not show any increase in habituation (increasing tolerance) to trail use. Tolerance differed between species; Northern Shovelers increased in number with increasing trail use, while significantly fewer Ruddy Ducks were found as trail use increased.
Borgmann, K. A Review of Human Disturbance Impacts on Waterbirds https://ca.audubon.org/sites/default/files/documents/humandisturbanceimpactsreportfinal.pdf Scientific Literature review of human impacts on waterbirds in the San Francisco Bay area. Out of 50 studies, 86% found that human disturbance affected their study species. Boating and walking affect bird behavior, causing them to waste time and energy they could have used to feed. Birds flying away in response to human disturbance was noted in 57% of the 50 studies reviewed.
Attachment 15
20 Studies from elsewhere:
Larson et.al. 2016. Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed as Widespread through a Global Systematic Review. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167259 Review of scientific literature on the effects of human recreation on animals. Over 93% of articles reviewed noted at least one effect of recreation on animals. Approximately 55% of these effects were negative. Raptors and shorebirds had an especially large amount of evidence of negative effects from recreation.
Burger et al. 2009. Ecotourism and Birds in Coastal New Jersey: Contrasting Responses of Birds, Tourists, and Managers.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environmental-conservation/article/abs/ecotourism-and-birds-in- coastal-new-jersey-contrasting-responses-of-birds-tourists-and- managers/8F21C5F819C4B87C3DBA68317BBA49CB
Collection of case studies focusing on the effects of ecotourism on the New Jersey coast. Human presence within heronries can lead to damage and death by scaring the young away from their nests too early. Least Tern colonies with many tourist visitors tend to have lower nesting rates and less successful breeding. Piping Plovers commit more time and energy to staying alert than feeding with increasing human presence, which can be especially harmful to chicks learning how to forage for the first time.
Shorebirds and migratory gulls at Caven Point stay further away when more people are present, meaning that they lose access to foraging opportunities near paths. On the shore of Delaware Bay shorebirds fly away from humans and can even completely abandon beaches with high levels of human disturbance.
Tarr et al. 2008. An Experimental Assessment of Vehicle Disturbance Effects on Migratory Shorebirds.
Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1776- 1783.
https://www.academia.edu/download/39770412/An Experimenta l Assessment of Ve hicle Di20151107- 4773-186xg2s.pdf
Study of the effect of off-road (ATV) traffic on number and location of shorebirds at a “migratory stopover area” on the coast of North Carolina, with a particular focus on one species: Sanderlings. Motorized vehicle disturbance led to overall decreasing numbers of migrant shorebirds and reduced use of microhabitats above the tidal zone, as birds shifted to increased use of the tidal zone to get farther away from vehicle disturbance. Sanderlings were more active with the presence of motorized vehicles and fewer Sanderlings used the study area to rest in.
Attachment 15
21 APPENDIX C
Additional recommendations to address sustainability concerns related to life science development
Even as the local market for office space struggles with increasing vacancy rates and declining rents, the Bay Area life sciences industry continues to expand, with 27 percent growth in employment from 2019 to the second quarter of 2022 and a massive development pipeline going into this year.
21 We believe this trend will likely lead to significant developer interest in life sciences facilities within the MPSP’s innovation district. In addition to biosafety concerns, life sciences facilities pose unique climate sustainability challenges by producing disproportionate energy and water demands, noise, and plastics waste as compared to typical office use.
Although life sciences facilities are not specifically addressed in the draft MPSP or EIR, we urge you to consider how the MPSP, in conjunction with Sunnyvale’s Reach Code and Climate Action Plan, can best assure that life sciences development in Moffett Park will be consistent with the district’s eco-innovation vision.
1. Applicability of all-electric exceptions for laboratory facilities .
Response M.1 of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Moffett Park Specific Plan refers to pages 133 and 134 of the Draft EIR which indicates that the City’s Reach Code prohibits gas appliances with the exception of certain non-residential uses such as factories, hazardous materials manufacturing, and laboratory facilities, as well as emergency operation centers and commercial dryers in large hotels. However, those exceptions appear inconsistent with the MPSP Policy IU-5.1: Prohibit new natural gas services in all buildings and infrastructure to transition to all electric [emphasis added].
We support Policy IU-5.1 and encourage you to eliminate or narrowly tailor the Reach Code exception for laboratory facilities. All-electric new and remodeled biotech lab buildings, with the exception of gas allowed for lab experiments, are growing fast in the Bay Area and in many communities now.
22 23 24
21 Bucking Trends, Bay Area Life Science Market Shows Resilience, The Real Deal, April 18, 2023. https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2023/04/18/bucking-trends-bay-area-life-science-market-shows- resilience/?utm medium=social&utm campaign=single content share&utm source=clipboard 22 https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/partners/genentech-inc Between 2015 and 2019, Genentech reduced GHG emissions from onsite energy use by 30% despite the expansion of its site operations. To achieve further reductions, Genentech is implementing energy conservation projects in its buildings, optimizing HVAC systems and converting to electric heat pumps, as well as transitioning sites to renewable energy.
Genentech’s 60-building South San Francisco headquarters has transitioned 100% of its grid power to CO2-free
23 Announcement of all-electric life science campus in Millbrae, CA https://lfrep.com/longfellow- celebrates-groundbreaking-of-avia-labs-upcoming-state-of-the-art-all-electric-science-center/(March 1, 2023)
24 Laboratories require a great deal of energy-use and finding sustainable solutions to support it are critical for both the planet and for operational costs. Bakar BioEnginuity Hub (in Berkeley) is LEED Gold certified. Representative elements of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems include conversion to Attachment 15
22 Recommendation
Please clarify that any exception, in the Reach Code or elsewhere, for use of gas in laboratory facilities applies only for use in the lab for experiments. The general HVAC systems and hot water heating for lab facilities should be required to be all-electric. This should also be clarified for factories and hazardous materials manufacturing.
2. Consumption of energy.
Life Science lab facilities have been shown to make disproportionate demands on the electrical grid.25 Response R.17 on page 71 of the Final EIR indicates that energy use assumptions for the MPSP, “including R&D uses, were based on CalEEMod model defaults.”26 We are concerned that CalEEMod model defaults may not reflect the intensity of current Bay Area demand for Life Sciences facilities (and their disproportionate energy demands), nor the likelihood that Moffett Park's innovation district would attract and include substantial new life sciences development.
Underestimation of the volume of high-energy-demand Life Sciences development in the Plan area could have significant cost and infrastructure implications.
Additionally, page 133 of the Draft EIR states that under the City’s green building standards for new construction, additions, and remodels of build ings, “[a]t minimum, new non -residential projects greater than 5,000 square feet are required to meet CALGreen Mandatory Measures and LEED Gold.” Because of the apparent inconsistency noted above regarding all -electric requirements, we urge greater clarity as to how the City’s standards and requirements will be applied to life sciences development projects.
Recommendation
Please confirm that laboratory facilities, like all other non-residential projects exceeding 5,000 square feet, will be required to me et the City’s LEED Gold certification and also include a policy in the Specific Plan clarifying that LEED Gold certification will be required in both new lab construction and major lab remodels.
3. Life Sciences water, sewer and plastic waste
all-electric building. https://www.commercialsearch.com/news/mbh-architects-on-trends-in-bay-area-life- science-design/
25 MassBio Talks Showcase That Massachusetts Needs Cooperation From Biology Labs To Achieve Sustainability. “... Strikingly, the building firm ARUP showed data that buildings in Massachusetts are making huge demands on the electrical grid -especially lab facilities.” May 21, 2019
https://www.labconscious.com/blog/massbio-talks-energy-massachusetts-biology-labs-sustainability 26 An incomplete sentence at the end of Response R.17 on page 71 makes oblique reference to “assumptions in the Draft EIR,” but offers no transparency into the details of those assumptions.
Attachment 15
23 Life Sciences labs consume as much as five times more water than typical office buildings of the same size and generate waste water proportionately. In addition, life sciences labs generate an inordinate amount of plastic waste from single use plastics.27 Recommendations
Require that anticipated water usage and waste water needs for lab buildings shall be specified early, subject to environmental review, and monitored, with corrective action taken as needed.28 Include a goal in the Climate Action Playbook for the reduced use of water and single-use disposable plastics in life sciences lab facilities to acknowledge and address the disproportionate climate impacts of such facilities.
Review current strategies for plastic waste reduction and revise as needed to ensure effective application to life science facilities.
27 Research scientists have largely gone unnoticed as major users of unrecyclable material. Now some universities are helping them kick the habit, The Guardian, November 10, 2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/10/research-labs-plastic-waste 28 Menlo Park’s Life Sciences ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter 16.44.130(3)(C), for example, requires project applicants to submit a water use budget and the City monitors water usage for compliance. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/MenloPark/html/MenloPark16/MenloPark1644.html#16.44.130 Attachment 15