Sunnyvale City Council
July 11, 2023

Attachment 15

Attachment 15

Attachment 15

MPSP Questions
PG. 46: What does the city anticipate for maintenance of parks on private property? What is the role for property owners? Will easement agreements be put in place to protect property owners from liability from public access to the property?
PG 74: What does, “expansion and restoration of LM Stormwater Detention Area” mean? PG 74: Plan calls for extension of Discovery Way across Navy site. Would this be dedicated public road to City?
PG 79: Navy Site MP-E1 zoning – Allows mix of uses, but only mentions corporate office. Please confirm that light industrial including warehouse and distribution is allowed.

PG. 84: How does District Parking work? District parking is excluded from FAR. Is structured non-district parking included in FAR?
PG 86: Since not requesting Bonus FAR, is north parcel exempt from development agreement requirement?
PG 89: Need to prepare and submit a Habitat Enhancement and Management Plan and a maintenance and management plan. Clarify 1) FAR can be transferred anywhere in Moffett Park? 2) is preparation of plans only requirement or is implementation, maintenance and management required? 3) Can we transfer FAR to other owned sites in West Matilda neighborhood to be “banked” for future use, without a development plan? 4) If so, if we sell site with banked FAR in future to a developer, can they use “banked” FAR without incurring Community Benefit obligations for the banked FAR? PG 93: What is definition of creative space not adjacent to Residential? How is creative space going to work in our secure core campus?
PG 96: Can new public streets West of Matilda be dedicated? PG 97: Existing private utilities shall be improved to City standards. Is this continuation of current policy in which streets fronting redevelopment need to be improved OR an expansion of this policy? Who determines dedication City or Developer?
PG 187: Why showing so many new vehicular streets on Navy site? Exempted on Page 103 from small blocks.

PG 226: Project can exceed parking maximum by 50% if all excess shared with public. So this means the excess could not be leased by tenants but available for first come, first serve? PG 227: How does “At Adoption” “Mid Term” and “At Full Build Out” work? Is this by project or over the years for all of Moffett Park? Office numbers too low, especially “Mid term” and “Full Build Out”.

Residential should not go below 1.0 – Near impossible to sell / lease unit without parking.

PG 228: Can office tenant or resident have renewal options for parking lease? Attachment 15

PG 287: Objective to cap parking at 57K spaces for all of Moffett Park. Why this number? Never cited in EIR.

EIR Questions
PG 138: New natural gas services to be prohibited in Moffett Park? Is this an issue for our continuing industrial operations! Can exemption for industrial uses be incorporated? PG 296: District Parking Strategy: Mostly centralized in series of shared parking garages. Additional detail on how this would work?
Attachment 15

From: Mitch Price
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 11:48:32 PM
To: Michelle King <[email protected]>
Subject: Questions about Table 3.17-2 in the Draft EIR for the MPSP ATTN: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Hi! I have a few silly questions about table 3.17-2 on page 297 of the draft EIR:

1. I checked the referenced table (page 9 of "Moffett Park Specific Plan CEQA Transportation Analysis" in Appendix I), and it shows a different mode share for non-driving external trips. It looks like the "Total" mode split on Table 4 of the Transportation Analysis has accidentally been transposed into the draft EIR as "External" mode split at build out, resulting in the "Bike-Walk" percentage being over-inflated.

2. Additionally, I am confused as to where the 587,222 average daily trips being generated comes from and was unable to find it in the Transportation Analysis report - is there an explanation of where this is calculated somewhere? Thanks!
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

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

/0 /1 /2 /0 /1 /3 /2 /4 /i255 /0 /6 /7 /8 /i255 /9/10/10 /11/12 /13 /i255 /14 /i255 /15 /16 /13 /13 /17 /i255 /18 /19 /11 /i255 /14 /i255/20/21/22 /13 /23 /23 /24 /19 /22 /22 /25 /26 /6 /1 /1 /23 /21 /22 /13 /23 /23 /24 /27 /23 /28 /28 /12 /29 /16 /2 /30 /7 /27 /29 /23/31/1 /31/11/12 /13 /1 /32 /16 /16 /25 /13 /12 /33 /24 /34 /25 /23 /25 /23 /21 /22 /35 /3 /36 /0 /37 /35 /16 /38 /26 /12 /23 /33 /36 /3 /39 /3 /2 /39 /0 /3 /39 /39 /39 /40 /27 /0 /2 /37 /35 /12 /16 /41 /36 /25 /38 /12 /33/22/0 /1 /3 /42/43/44/45 /i255 /42 /47 /47 /44 /48 /49 /50 /51 /i255 /52 /53 /i255/54/52/55 /55 /47 /56 /56 /i255 /57 /49 /58 /51 /i255 /59 /60 /47 /50 /61 /55 /61 /50 /i255 /57 /62 /49 /53 /63/64/65 /66 /67 /68 /68 /67 /i255 /70 /64 /71 /72 /i255 /73/63/70/64 /71 /72/74/75/76 /71 /71 /77 /78 /79 /68 /67 /80 /65 /79 /80 /72 /81 /78 /82 /83 /76 /67 /i255 /84 /85 /86 /84 /85/87 /88 /87 /86 /i255 /89 /90 /84 /87 /i255 /91 /63 /83 /81 /90 /70 /67 /68 /68 /77 /i255 /92 /66/79 /i255 /73 /70 /92 /66 /79/74/75/76 /71 /71 /77 /78 /79 /68 /67 /80 /65 /79 /80 /72 /81 /78 /82 /93 /77 /64
/94 /67 /95 /i255/96/76/95 /68 /81 /81 /97/i255 /98 /81 /99 /i255 /91 /71 /100 /99 /81 /64 /100 /101 /102 /103/104/105/i255 /107 /108 /109 /110 /111 /112/113 /i255 /114 /110 /109 /111 /112 /115 /116 /108 /i255 /127 /128 /129 /130 /105 /i255/131/124/132 /133 /109/134 /135 /i255 /136 /109 /132 /119 /109 /110 /134 /i255 /137 /138 /135 /i255 /139 /138 /139 /137 /i255 /140 /140 /141 /142 /143 /141 /140 /138 /i255 /144 /131 /145 /103 /105 /i255/131/115/118 /108 /112 /111 /111 /112 /i255/146 /115 /132 /116 /i255 /117/131/146/115 /132 /116/121/113/119 /132 /132 /134 /147 /109 /111 /112 /123 /118 /109 /123 /116 /124 /147 /126 /148 /149 /105 /i255 /107 /124 /119 /132 /118 /115 /111 /i255 /150/132 /113 /151 /112 /110 /144 /124 /115 /132 /152 /i255 /117 /118 /124 /119 /132 /118 /115 /111/121/113/119 /132 /132 /134 /147 /109 /111 /112 /123 /118 /109 /123 /116 /124 /147 /126 /127 /153 /154 /155 /128 /149 /130 /105 /i255 /114 /112 /112 /133/156 /109 /118 /120 /i255 /124 /132 /i255/131/124/157 /112 /158 /i255 /144 /109 /110 /120 /i255 /159 /160 /112 /118 /115 /161 /118 /i255 /144 /111 /109 /132 /i255
/91 /83 /83 /163 /90 /i255 /164 /165/79 /64 /68 /i255 /64 /75 /i255 /98 /99 /81/165/i255/79 /71 /i255 /67 /166 /95 /67 /99 /71 /79 /68 /i255 /75 /81 /76 /99 /65 /67 /167 /i255 /168 /95 /81 /169 /170 /i255 /171 /81 /81 /97 /170 /i255 /79 /71 /100 /i255 /83 /66 /64 /71 /97 /i255 /172 /67 /98 /81 /99 /67 /i255 /81 /169 /67 /71 /64 /71 /72 /i255 /79 /95 /95 /79 /65 /66/165/67/71/95 /75 /i255 /81 /99 /i255 /68 /64 /71 /97 /75 /80 /173 /115 /i255/131/115/118 /108 /112 /111 /111 /112 /135 /i255
/174 /108 /109 /132 /120 /113 /i255 /122 /124 /110 /i255 /109 /111 /111 /i255/134 /124 /119 /110 /i255 /151 /124 /110 /120 /i255 /109 /132 /133 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255 /151 /124 /110 /120 /i255 /113 /152 /109 /157 /i255 /108 /109 /113 /i255 /160 /119 /152 /i255 /115 /132 /152 /124 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255/131/124/157 /112 /158 /i255 /144 /109 /110 /120 /i255 /159 /160 /112 /118 /115 /161 /118 /i255 /144 /111 /109 /132 /123 /i255 /175 /i255 /113 /152 /110/124 /132 /116 /111 /134 /i255 /113 /119 /160 /160 /124 /110 /152 /133 /112 /147 /112 /111 /124 /160 /115 /132 /116 /i255 /131/124 /157 /112 /158 /i255 /144 /109 /110 /120 /i255 /115 /132 /152 /124 /i255 /109 /i255 /147 /115 /156 /110 /109 /132 /152 /i255 /118 /124/125/125/119/132 /115 /152 /134 /i255 /109 /132 /133 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255 /116 /124 /109 /111 /113 /i255 /124 /122 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255/131/124/157 /112 /158 /i255 /144 /109 /110 /120 /i255 /159 /160 /112 /118 /115 /161/118 /i255 /144 /111 /109 /132 /135 /i255 /156 /119 /152 /i255 /175 /108 /109 /147 /112 /i255 /113 /112 /147 /112 /110 /109 /111 /i255 /118/124 /132 /118 /112 /110 /132 /113 /i255 /109 /132 /133 /i255 /176 /119 /112 /113 /177 /124 /132 /113 /i255 /109 /156 /124 /119 /152 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255 /160 /111 /109 /132 /i255 /109 /132 /133 /i255 /178 /175 /179 /123 /i255
/180 /103 /154 /181 /182 /183 /103 /153 /181 /184 /129 /185/i255 /154 /187 /188 /187 /129 /149 /128 /i255
/174 /108 /112 /i255 /178 /175 /179 /i255 /113 /152 /109 /152 /112 /113/i255 /152 /108 /109 /152 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255/131/124/157 /112 /158 /i255 /144 /109 /110 /120 /i255 /160 /111 /109 /132 /i255 /151 /115 /111 /111 /i255 /118 /110 /112 /109 /152 /112 /i255 /108 /124 /119 /113 /115 /132 /116 /i255 /122 /124 /110 /i255 /142 /139 /135 /138 /138 /138 /i255 /132 /112 /151 /i255 /159 /119 /132 /132 /134 /147 /109 /111 /112 /i255 /110 /112 /113 /115/133 /112 /132 /152 /113 /123 /i255 /174 /108 /115 /113 /132 /112 /151 /i255 /108 /124 /119 /113 /115 /132 /116 /i255 /115/113 /i255 /116 /110 /112 /109 /152 /i255 /109 /132 /133 /i255 /115 /113 /i255 /133 /112 /113 /160 /112 /110 /109 /152 /112 /111 /134 /i255 /132 /112 /112 /133 /112 /133 /i255 /115 /132 /i255 /159 /119 /132 /132 /134 /147 /109 /111 /112 /123 /i255 /173 /124 /151 /112 /147 /112 /110 /135 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255 /178 /175 /179 /i255 /109 /111 /113 /124 /i255 /113 /152 /109 /152 /112 /113 /i255/152 /108 /109 /152 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255 /160 /111 /109 /132 /151 /115 /111 /111 /i255 /118 /110 /112 /109 /152 /112 /i255 /189 /138 /135/142 /140 /142 /i255 /132 /112 /151 /i255 /190 /124 /156 /113 /123 /i255 /178 /147 /112 /132 /i255 /152 /108 /124 /119 /116 /108 /i255/131/124/157 /112 /158 /i255 /144 /109 /110 /120 /i255 /151 /115 /111 /111 /i255 /118 /110 /112 /109 /152 /112 /i255 /109 /i255 /111 /109 /110 /116 /112 /i255 /132 /119/125/156/112 /110 /i255 /124 /122 /i255 /108 /124 /119 /113 /115 /132/116 /i255 /119 /132 /115 /152 /113 /135 /i255 /109 /118 /124/125/160/111 /112 /152 /112 /i255 /156 /119 /115 /111/133 /i255 /124 /119 /152 /i255 /109 /118 /118 /124 /110 /133 /115 /132 /116 /i255 /152 /124 /i255 /152 /108 /115 /113 /i255 /160 /111 /109 /132 /i255 /151 /115 /111 /111 /i255 /109 /118 /152 /119 /109 /111 /111 /134 /i255/125/109/120 /112 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255 /108 /124 /119 /113 /115 /132 /116 /i255 /113 /108 /124 /110 /152 /109 /116 /112 /i255 /151 /124 /110 /113 /112 /123 /i255
/175 /132 /i255 /124 /110 /133 /112 /110 /i255 /152 /124 /i255 /109 /133/133 /110 /112 /113 /113 /i255 /152 /108 /115 /113 /135 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255 /160 /111 /109 /132 /i255 /118 /124 /119 /111 /133 /i255 /112 /115 /152 /108 /112 /110 /i255 /115 /132 /118 /110 /112 /109 /113 /112 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255 /132 /119/125/156/112 /110 /i255 /124 /122 /i255 /108 /124 /119 /113 /115 /132 /116 /i255 /119 /132 /115 /152 /113 /i255 /124 /110 /i255 /133 /112 /118 /110/112 /109 /113 /112 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /109/125/124/119 /132 /152 /i255 /124 /122 /i255 /124 /191/118 /112 /i255 /113 /160 /109 /118 /112 /i255 /113 /124 /i255 /152 /108 /109 /152 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255 /132 /119/125/156/112 /110 /i255 /124 /122 /i255 /132 /112 /151 /i255 /190 /124 /156 /113 /i255 /115 /113 /i255 /111 /112 /113 /113 /i255 /152 /108 /109 /132 /i255 /124 /110 /i255 /112 /176 /119 /109 /111 /i255 /152 /124 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255 /109/125/124/119 /132 /152/i255 /124 /122 /i255 /132 /112 /151 /108 /124 /119 /113 /115 /132 /116 /i255 /118 /110 /112 /109 /152/112 /133 /123 /i255
/174 /108 /112 /i255 /160 /111 /109 /132 /i255 /115 /113 /i255 /109 /133/133 /115 /132 /116 /i255 /140 /138 /i255/125/115/111 /111 /115 /124 /132 /i255 /113 /176 /123 /i255 /192 /123 /i255 /124 /122 /i255 /124/191/118/112 /i255 /113 /160 /109 /118 /112 /i255 /152 /124 /i255/131/124/157 /112 /158 /i255 /144 /109 /110 /120 /123 /i255 /174 /108 /115 /113 /i255 /132 /119/125/156/112 /110 /i255 /118 /124 /119 /111 /133 /i255 /156 /112 /i255 /110 /112/133 /119 /118 /112 /133 /i255 /152 /124 /160 /110 /112 /147 /112 /132 /152 /i255/131/124/157 /112/158 /i255 /144 /109 /110 /120 /i255 /122 /110 /124/125/i255 /125/109/120 /115 /132 /116 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255 /108 /124 /119 /113 /115 /132 /116 /i255 /113 /108 /124 /110 /152 /109 /116 /112 /i255 /151 /124 /110 /113 /112 /123 /i255
/127 /149 /193 /103 /103 /188 /181
/i255
/174 /108 /112 /i255 /178 /175 /179 /i255 /112 /113 /177 /125 /109 /152 /112 /113 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /110 /112 /i255 /151 /115 /111 /111 /i255 /156 /112 /i255 /109 /156 /124 /119 /152 /i255 /139 /135 /138 /138 /138 /i255 /113 /118 /108 /124 /124 /111 /i255 /118 /108 /115 /111 /133 /110 /112 /132 /i255 /111 /115 /147 /115 /132 /116 /i255 /115 /132 /i255/131/124/157 /112 /158 /i255 /144 /109 /110 /120 /123 /i255 /175 /152 /i255 /109 /111 /113 /124 /i255 /113 /152 /109/152 /112 /113 /i255 /124 /132 /i255 /160 /123 /139 /143 /137 /135 /i255 /152 /108 /109 /152 /i255 /194 /195 /124/i255 /113 /118 /108 /124 /124 /111 /i255 /115 /113 /i255 /160 /110 /124 /160 /124 /113 /112 /133 /i255 /109 /113 /i255 /160 /109 /110 /152 /i255 /124 /122 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255 /160 /110 /124 /190 /112 /118 /152 /i255 /109 /152 /i255 /152 /108 /115 /113 /i255 /177/125/112/123 /196 /i255 /175 /122 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /110 /112 /i255 /115 /113 /i255 /132 /124 /i255 /113 /118 /108 /124 /124 /111 /i255 /115 /132/i255/131/124/157 /112 /158 /i255 /144 /109 /110 /120 /135 /151 /108 /112 /110 /112 /i255 /151 /115 /111 /111 /i255 /152 /108 /112/113 /112 /i255 /120 /115 /133 /113 /i255 /116 /124 /i255 /152 /124 /i255 /113 /118 /108 /124 /124 /111 /197 /i255
/174 /108 /112 /i255 /112 /111 /112/125/112/132 /152 /109 /110 /134 /135 /i255/125/115/133 /133 /111 /112 /135 /i255 /109 /132 /133 /i255 /108 /115 /116 /108 /i255 /113 /118 /108 /124 /124 /111 /113 /i255 /160 /124 /113 /112 /i255 /133 /115 /157 /112 /110 /112 /132 /152 /i255 /118 /108 /109 /111 /111 /112 /132 /116 /112 /113 /i255 /109 /132 /133 /i255/125/109/134 /i255 /110 /112 /176 /119 /115 /110 /112 /i255 /133 /115 /157 /112 /110 /112 /132 /152 /i255 /113 /124 /111 /119 /177 /124 /132 /113 /123 /114 /124 /110 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255 /108 /115 /116 /108 /i255 /113 /118 /108 /124 /124 /111 /113 /135 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /i255 /156 /112 /113 /152 /i255 /124 /119 /152 /118 /124/125/112/i255/125/109/134 /i255 /156 /112 /i255 /152 /124 /i255 /112 /132 /113 /119 /110 /112 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /110 /112 /i255 /115 /113 /i255 /122 /109 /113 /152 /135 /i255 /110 /112 /111 /115 /109 /156 /111 /112 /i255 /152 /110 /109 /132 /113 /160 /124 /110 /152 /109 /177 /124 /132 /i255 /152 /124 /i255 /152 /108 /112 /112 /198 /115 /113 /177 /132 /116 /i255 /108 /115 /116 /108 /i255 /113 /118 /108 /124 /124 /111 /113 /123 /i255 /174 /108 /112 /i255/131/124/157 /112 /158 /i255 /144 /109 /110 /120 /i255 /160 /111 /109 /132 /i255 /113 /108 /124 /119 /111 /133 /i255 /113 /160 /112 /118 /115 /161 /118 /109 /111 /111 /134 /i255 /118 /124/125/125/112/132 /152 /i255 /124 /132 /i255 /152 /108 /115 /113 /135 /i255 /160 /110 /124 /160 /124 /113 /112 /i255 /108 /124 /151 /i255 /152 /108 /115 /113 /i255 /151 /115 /111 /111 /156 /112 /i255 /109 /118 /108 /115 /112 /147 /112 /133 /135 /i255 /109 /132 /133 /i255 /109 /133 /133 /110 /112 /113 /113 /i255 /151 /108 /124 /i255 /151 /115 /111 /111 /i255 /122 /119 /132 /133 /i255 /115 /152 /123 /i255
Attachment 15

/0 /1 /2 /0 /1 /3 /2 /4 /i255 /0 /6 /7 /8 /i255 /9/10/10 /11/12 /13 /i255 /14 /i255 /15 /16 /13 /13 /17 /i255 /18 /19 /11 /i255 /14 /i255/20/21/22 /13 /23 /23 /24 /19 /22 /22 /25 /26 /6 /1 /1 /23 /21 /22 /13 /23 /23 /24 /27 /23 /28 /28 /12 /29 /16 /2 /30 /7 /27 /29 /23/31/1 /31/11/12 /13 /1 /32 /16 /16 /25 /13 /12 /33 /24 /34 /25 /23 /25 /23 /21 /22 /35 /3 /36 /0 /37 /35 /16 /38 /26 /12 /23 /33 /36 /3 /39 /3 /2 /39 /0 /3 /39 /39 /39 /40 /27 /0 /2 /37 /35 /12 /16 /41 /36 /25 /38 /12 /33/22/3 /1 /3 /42 /43 /44 /i255 /44 /46 /44/47/44/48 /49 /50 /51 /52 /i255 /50 /48 /53 /i255/47/54/53 /53 /46 /44 /i255 /55 /56 /43 /57 /57 /46 /55 /i255 /58 /54 /46 /46 /i255 /46 /54 /59 /44 /46 /52 /i255 /48 /44 /44 /53 /i255 /48 /44 /58 /i255 /55 /56 /43 /57 /57 /46 /55 /i255 /57 /51 /i255 /44 /60 /61 /50 /48 /55 /54 /57 /48 /i255 /57 /62 /i255 /55 /56 /43 /57 /57 /46 /55 /63 /i255 /42 /43 /44 /i255 /61 /46 /50 /48 /55 /43 /57 /64 /46 /53 /i255 /61 /51 /57 /61 /57 /55 /44 /i255 /46 /57 /56 /50 /65 /57 /48 /55 /i255 /62 /57 /51 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /55 /44 /i255 /48 /44 /58 /i255 /55 /56 /43 /57 /57 /46 /i255 /62 /50 /56 /54 /46 /54 /65 /44 /55 /i255 /66 /61 /57 /55 /55 /54 /67 /46 /52 /i255 /54 /48 /i255 /48 /44 /50 /51 /67 /52 /i255 /48 /44 /54 /68 /43 /67 /57 /51 /43 /57 /57 /53 /55 /69 /63 /i255 /70 /49 /i255 /55 /43 /57 /64 /46 /53 /50 /46 /55 /57 /i255 /50 /53 /53 /51 /44 /55 /55 /i255 /58 /43 /57 /i255 /58 /54 /46 /46 /i255 /62 /64 /48 /53 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /53 /44 /71 /44 /46 /57 /61/47/44/48 /49 /i255 /57 /62 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /48 /44 /58 /i255 /62 /50 /56 /54 /46 /54 /65 /44 /55 /72 /i255 /50 /48 /53 /i255 /61 /51 /44 /55 /44 /48 /49 /i255 /61 /51 /57 /61 /57 /55 /50 /46 /55 /i255 /62 /57 /51 /i255 /55 /50 /62 /44 /i255 /51 /57 /64 /49 /44 /55 /67 /44 /49 /58 /44 /44 /48 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /43 /57 /64 /55 /54 /48 /68 /i255 /50 /48 /53 /i255 /55 /56 /43 /57 /57 /46 /i255 /62 /50 /56 /54 /46 /54 /65 /44 /55 /63 /i255
/73 /74 /75 /76 /77 /78
/i255
/42 /43 /44 /i255 /61 /46 /50 /48 /i255 /53 /57 /44 /55/i255 /48 /57 /49 /i255 /61 /51 /57 /71 /54 /53 /44 /i255 /50 /i255 /46 /57 /56 /50 /65 /57 /48 /i255 /62 /57 /51 /i255 /50 /i255 /46 /50 /51 /68 /44 /i255 /68 /51 /57 /56 /44 /51 /52 /i255 /55 /49 /57 /51 /44 /i255 /46 /54 /59 /44 /i255 /50 /i255 /79 /50 /62 /44 /58 /50 /52 /i255 /57 /51 /i255 /80 /64 /56 /59 /52 /63 /i255 /42 /43 /44 /i255 /46 /50 /51 /68 /44 /55 /49 /i255 /51 /44 /49 /50 /54 /46 /62 /50 /56 /54 /46 /54 /49 /52 /i255 /54 /49 /i255 /61 /51 /57 /61/57 /55 /44 /55 /i255 /54 /55 /i255 /50 /i255 /55 /54 /48 /68 /46 /44 /i255 /81 /82 /72 /82 /82 /82 /i255 /55 /83 /63 /i255 /84 /63 /i255 /46 /57 /56 /50 /65 /57 /48 /63 /i255 /42 /43 /54 /55 /i255 /54 /55 /i255 /55 /54/47/54/46 /50 /51 /i255 /54 /48 /i255 /55 /54 /85 /44 /i255 /49 /57 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /86 /50 /48 /57 /87 /57 /88 /55 /i255 /68 /51 /57 /56 /44 /51 /52 /i255 /48 /44 /50 /51 /47/52/i255 /43 /57 /64 /55 /44 /63 /i255 /86 /50 /48/57 /87 /57 /88 /55 /i255 /54 /55 /i255 /50 /i255 /62 /50 /48 /49 /50 /55 /65 /56 /i255 /55 /49 /57 /51 /44 /72 /i255 /67 /64 /49 /i255 /70 /i255 /53 /57 /48 /88 /49 /i255 /49 /43 /54 /48 /59 /i255 /50 /i255 /68 /51 /57 /56 /44 /51 /52 /i255 /55 /49 /57 /51 /44 /i255 /57 /62 /i255 /49 /43 /50 /49 /i255 /55 /56 /50 /46 /44 /i255 /43 /50 /55 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /56 /50 /61 /50 /56 /54 /49 /52 /i255 /49 /57 /55 /44 /51 /71 /44 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /89 /90 /72 /82/82 /82 /i255 /48 /44 /58 /i255 /51 /44 /55 /54 /53 /44 /48 /49 /55 /i255 /57 /62 /i255/91/57/92 /44 /87 /i255 /93 /50 /51 /59 /72 /i255 /48 /57 /49 /i255 /49 /57 /i255/47/44/48 /65 /57 /48 /i255 /50 /46 /46 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /56 /64 /51 /51 /44 /48 /49 /i255 /79 /64 /48 /48 /52 /71 /50 /46 /44 /i255 /51 /44 /55 /54 /53 /44 /48 /49 /55 /94 /57 /51 /49 /43 /i255 /57 /62 /i255 /95 /82 /95 /i255 /58/43 /57 /i255 /48 /44 /44 /53 /i255/47/57/51 /44 /i255 /46 /57 /56 /50 /46 /i255 /68 /51 /57 /56 /44 /51 /52 /i255 /55 /49 /57 /51 /44 /i255 /57 /61 /65 /57 /48 /55 /63 /i255
/42 /43 /44 /i255 /61 /46 /50 /48 /i255 /55 /43 /57 /64/46 /53 /i255 /61 /51 /57 /61 /57 /55 /44 /i255 /50 /49 /i255 /46 /44 /50 /55 /49 /i255 /57 /48 /44 /i255 /50 /53 /53 /54 /65 /57 /48 /50 /46 /i255 /51 /44 /49 /50 /54 /46 /i255 /46 /57 /56 /50 /65 /57 /48 /i255 /57 /71 /44 /51 /i255 /96 /82 /72 /82 /82 /82 /i255 /55 /83 /63 /i255 /84 /63 /i255 /58 /43 /44 /51 /44 /i255 /50 /i255 /46 /50 /51 /68 /44 /51 /i255 /68 /51 /57 /56 /44 /51 /52 /55 /49 /57 /51 /44 /i255 /56 /57 /64 /46 /53 /i255 /67 /44/i255 /53 /44 /71 /44 /46 /57 /61 /44 /53 /63 /i255/97/44/i255 /58 /44 /51 /44 /i255 /50 /67 /46 /44 /i255 /49 /57 /i255 /68 /44 /49 /i255 /50 /i255 /96 /90 /72 /82 /82 /82 /i255 /55 /83 /63 /i255 /84 /63 /i255/97/43/57 /46 /44 /i255 /98 /57 /57 /53 /55 /i255 /54 /48 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /48 /44 /58 /i255 /53 /57 /58 /48 /49 /57 /58 /48 /53 /44 /71 /44 /46 /57 /61/47/44/48 /49 /63/i255/97/43/52 /i255 /56 /50 /48 /i255 /58 /44 /i255 /48 /57 /49 /i255 /68 /44 /49 /i255 /55 /57/47/44/49 /43 /54 /48 /68 /i255 /55 /54/47/54/46 /50 /51 /i255 /54 /48 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255/47/64/56 /43 /i255 /46 /50 /51 /68 /44 /51 /i255/91/57/92 /44 /87 /i255 /93 /50 /51 /59 /i255 /53 /44 /71 /44 /46 /57 /61/47/44/48 /49 /99 /i255
/100 /101 /74 /102 /i255 /104 /101 /76 /105 /74
/i255
/106 /57 /64 /49 /43 /i255 /55 /61 /57 /51 /49 /55 /i255 /50/51 /44 /i255 /54/47/61/57 /51 /49 /50 /48 /49 /i255 /49 /57 /i255 /68 /44 /49 /i255 /57 /64 /51 /i255 /59 /54 /53 /55 /i255 /57 /64 /49 /55 /54 /53 /44 /i255 /50 /48 /53 /i255 /50 /58 /50 /52 /i255 /62 /51 /57/47/i255/49 /43 /44 /54 /51 /i255 /55 /56 /51 /44 /44 /48 /55 /63 /i255 /42 /43 /44 /i255/91/57/92 /44 /87 /i255 /93 /50 /51 /59 /i255 /61 /46 /50 /48 /61 /51 /57 /61 /57 /55 /44 /55 /i255 /50 /i255 /46 /50 /51/68 /44 /i255 /50/47/57/64 /48 /49 /i255 /57 /62 /i255 /57 /61 /44 /48 /i255 /55 /61 /50 /56 /44 /72 /i255 /58 /43 /54 /56 /43 /i255 /54 /55 /i255 /68 /51 /44 /50 /49 /72 /i255 /67 /64 /49 /i255/47/57/55 /49 /i255 /57 /62 /i255 /54 /49 /i255 /54 /55 /i255 /64 /48 /64 /55 /50 /67 /46 /44 /i255 /62 /57 /51 /i255 /52 /57 /64 /49 /43 /i255 /55 /61 /57 /51 /49 /55 /63 /i255 /42 /43 /44 /61 /46 /50 /48 /i255 /61 /51 /57 /61 /57 /55 /44 /55 /i255 /57 /48 /46 /52 /i255 /50 /i255 /55 /54 /48 /68 /46 /44 /i255 /107 /44 /46 /53 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /55 /54 /85 /44 /i255 /57 /62 /i255 /50 /i255 /43 /54 /68 /43 /108 /55 /56 /43 /57 /57 /46 /i255 /55 /57 /56 /56 /44 /51 /i255 /107 /44 /46 /53 /i255 /50 /48 /53 /i255 /49 /43 /51 /44 /44 /i255 /107 /44 /46 /53 /55 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /55 /54 /85 /44 /i255 /57 /62 /i255 /50 /i255 /109 /95 /82 /52 /57 /64 /49 /43 /i255 /55 /57 /56 /56 /44 /51 /i255 /107/44 /46 /53 /63 /i255
/110 /48 /44 /i255 /62 /64 /46 /46 /i255 /55 /54 /85 /44 /i255 /50/48 /53 /i255 /49 /43 /51 /44 /44 /i255 /52 /57 /64 /49 /43 /i255 /55 /54 /85 /44 /i255 /107 /44 /46 /53 /55 /i255 /62 /57 /51 /i255 /89 /90 /72 /82 /82 /82 /i255 /48 /44 /58 /i255 /51 /44 /55 /54 /53 /44 /48 /49 /55 /63 /i255/97/43/44 /51 /44 /i255 /58 /54 /46 /46 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /56 /43 /54 /46 /53 /51 /44 /48 /i255 /46 /54 /71 /54 /48 /68 /i255 /54 /48 /91/57/92 /44 /87 /i255 /93 /50 /51 /59 /i255 /61/50 /51 /65 /56 /54 /61 /50 /49 /44 /i255 /54 /48 /i255 /52 /57 /64 /49 /43 /i255 /55 /61 /57 /51 /49 /55 /99 /i255 /42 /43 /44 /51 /44 /i255 /54 /55 /i255 /48 /57 /49 /i255/47/64/56 /43 /i255 /44 /60 /56 /44 /55 /55 /i255 /56 /50 /61 /50 /56 /54 /49 /52 /i255 /54 /48 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /107 /44 /46 /53 /55 /i255 /49 /43 /50 /49 /i255 /50 /46 /51 /44 /50 /53 /52 /44 /60 /54 /55 /49 /i255 /54 /48 /i255 /79 /64 /48 /48 /52/71 /50 /46 /44 /63 /i255
/42 /43 /44 /i255 /61 /46 /50 /48 /i255 /55 /43 /57 /64/46 /53 /i255 /55 /54 /68 /48 /54 /107 /56 /50 /48 /49 /46 /52 /i255 /44 /60 /61 /50 /48 /53 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /48 /64/47/67/44 /51 /i255 /57 /62 /i255 /107 /44 /46 /53 /55 /i255 /61 /51 /57 /71 /54 /53 /44 /53 /i255 /50 /55 /i255 /58 /44 /46 /46 /i255 /50 /55 /i255 /50 /53 /53 /51 /44 /55 /55 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /57 /61 /44 /48 /i255 /55 /61 /50 /56 /44 /48 /44 /44 /53 /44 /53 /i255 /49 /57 /i255 /55 /64 /61/61 /57 /51 /49 /i255 /50 /48 /52 /i255 /48 /44 /58 /i255 /55 /56 /43 /57 /57 /46 /55 /i255 /58 /43 /54 /56 /43 /i255 /50 /51 /44 /i255 /48 /44 /44 /53 /44 /53 /63 /i255
/i255
/70 /49 /i255 /54 /55 /i255 /54/47/61/57 /51 /49 /50 /48 /49/i255 /49 /57 /i255 /68 /44 /49 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255/91/57/92 /44 /87 /i255 /93 /50 /51 /59 /i255 /79 /61 /44 /56 /54 /107 /56 /i255 /93 /46 /50 /48 /i255 /50 /53 /57 /61 /49 /44 /53 /i255 /50 /55 /i255 /55 /57 /57 /48 /i255 /50 /55 /i255 /61 /57 /55 /55 /54 /67 /46 /44 /63 /i255 /111 /57 /58 /44 /71 /44 /51 /72 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /61 /46 /50 /48 /48 /44 /44 /53 /55 /i255 /49 /57 /i255 /50 /53 /53 /51/44 /55 /55 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /112 /57 /67 /55 /113 /43 /57 /64 /55 /54 /48 /68 /i255 /54/47/67/50 /46 /50 /48 /56 /44 /i255 /50 /48 /53 /i255 /61 /51 /57 /71 /54 /53 /44 /i255 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /55 /56 /43 /57 /57 /46 /72 /i255 /68 /51 /57 /56 /44 /51 /52 /72 /i255 /50 /48 /53 /i255 /61 /46 /50 /52 /54 /48 /68 /i255 /107 /44 /46 /53 /i255 /48 /44 /44 /53 /55 /i255 /57 /62 /54 /49 /55 /i255 /48 /44 /58 /i255 /51 /44 /55 /54 /53 /44/48 /49 /55 /63 /i255
/114 /43 /64 /56 /59 /i255 /98 /51 /50 /46 /44 /54 /68 /43 /i255
Attachment 15

DŝĐŚĞůůĞ <ŝŶŐ
WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů WůĂŶŶĞƌ
ϰϱϲ tĞƐƚ KůŝǀĞ ǀĞ͘
^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ͕  ϵϰϬϴϲ
ŵŬŝŶŐΛƐƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ͘ĐĂ͘ŐŽǀ
ZĞ͘ ŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ ŽŶ ƌĂĨƚ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ WůĂŶ
ĞĂƌ DƐ͘ <ŝŶŐ͕

ůůŝƐ WĂƌƚŶĞƌƐ ǁŽƵůĚ ůŝŬĞ ƚŽ ĞdžƉƌĞƐƐ ŽƵƌ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ WůĂŶ͛Ɛ ŐŽĂůƐ ŽĨ ĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐ Ă ŵŽƌĞ ĐŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚ͕ ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ĂŶĚ͕ ĂďŽǀĞ Ăůů͕ ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ ďƵŝůƚ ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͘ tĞ ǁŽƵůĚ ĂůƐŽ ůŝŬĞ ƚŽ ĞdžƉƌĞƐƐ ŽƵƌ ŐƌĂƚŝƚƵĚĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ƐƚĂĨĨ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ƚĞĂŵ ŽĨ ĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚƐ ǁŚŽŚĂǀĞ ƉƵƚ ĨŽƌƚŚ Ă ĐŽŵƉƌĞŚĞŶƐŝǀĞ ĂŶĚ ƚŚŽƵŐŚƚĨƵů ƉůĂŶ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĨƵƚƵƌĞ ŽĨ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ͘ Ɛ Ă ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ͕ ǁĞ ĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞ ƚŚĞ ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJ ƚŽ ĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƐƵĐĐĞƐƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ WůĂŶ ĂŶĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĨƵƚƵƌĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ŽĨ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ͘
dŚĞ ƌĂĨƚ WůĂŶ ŝƐ ĂŵďŝƚŝŽƵƐ ĂŶĚ ŚĂƐ ŵĂŶLJ ĨĂĐĞƚƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŵĞƌŝƚ ĐĂƌĞĨƵů ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘ dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ ŽƵƚ ŽĨ Ă ĚĞƐŝƌĞ ƚŽ ƐĞĞ ƚŚĞ ƌĂĨƚ WůĂŶ ĐŽŵĞ ƚŽ ĨƌƵŝƚŝŽŶ͕ ǁĞ ǁŽƵůĚ ůŝŬĞ ƚŽƐŚĂƌĞ ŽƵƌ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ ĂďŽƵƚ ĐĞƌƚĂŝŶ ĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚƌĞĂƚĞŶ ŝƚƐ ĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚLJ͘ ^ĞǀĞƌĂů ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐ ŚĂǀĞ ƉƵďůŝĐůLJ ƐƚĂƚĞĚ ƚŚĞŝƌ ƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ ĂďŽƵƚ ƚŚĞ ƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝǀĞ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ŵĂdžŝŵƵŵƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ǁĞ ĐŽŶĐƵƌ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚŝƐ ĂůŽŶĞ ƚŚƌĞĂƚĞŶƐ ƚŚĞ ŵĂƌŬĞƚĂďŝůŝƚLJ͕ ĨŝŶĂŶĐĞͲĂďŝůŝƚLJ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ ĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚLJ ŽĨ ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ ŝŶ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ͘ KƚŚĞƌ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƌĂĨƚ WůĂŶ ƚŚĂƚ ǁŝůů ƐƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂůůLJ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ĐŽƐƚƐ ĂŶĚ ƌĞĚƵĐĞ ƚŚĞ ƌĞǀĞŶƵĞ ƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂů ŽĨ ŶĞǁ ŽĨĨŝĐĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ ǁŚŝĐŚ ǁŝůů͕ŝŶ ƚƵƌŶ͕ ĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ ƚŚƌĞĂƚĞŶ ƚŚĞŝƌ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚLJ͘ tĞ ŽƵƚůŝŶĞ ƐĞǀĞƌĂů ŽĨ ƚŚĞƐĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ďĞůŽǁ ĂŶĚ ůŽŽŬ ĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ ƚŽ ĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŶŐ ƚŚĞƐĞ ŝŶ ŵŽƌĞ ĚĞƚĂŝů ǁŝƚŚ ƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ƐƚĂĨĨ ĂŶĚ ŽƚŚĞƌ ůĂŶĚŽǁŶĞƌƐ ƚŽ ĨŝŶĚ ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ ƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞ ƚŚĞ ŐŽĂůƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƌĂĨƚ WůĂŶ͘
KƵƌ ĐŽŵŵŽŶ ŐŽĂů ƚŽ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ŝŶƚŽ Ă ƐĞƌŝĞƐ ŽĨ ͞ϭϱͲŵŝŶƵƚĞ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͟ ĐĂŶŶŽƚ ďĞ ƌĞĂůŝnjĞĚ ǁŝƚŚŽƵƚ ƚŚĞ ĨĞĞƐ ĂŶĚ ŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ ŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ ƚŚĂƚ ǁŝůů ďĞ ĐƌĞĂƚĞĚ ďLJ ŽĨĨŝĐĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ /Ŷ ƚŚĞ ƌĞĐĞŶƚ ƉĂƐƚ Ă ƉƌĞƉŽŶĚĞƌĂŶĐĞ ŽĨ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ĂĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ ŝŶ ^ŝůŝĐŽŶ sĂůůĞLJ ŚĂƐ ďĞĞŶ ƐƉŽŶƐŽƌĞĚ ďLJ Ă ƐŵĂůů ŚĂŶĚĨƵů ŽĨ ůĂƌŐĞ ĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞ ƵƐĞƌƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŚĂǀĞ ďƵŝůƚ ĐƵƐƚŽŵŝnjĞĚ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚ ƐŽůĞůLJ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞŝƌ ůŽŶŐͲ ƚĞƌŵ ƵƐĞ͕ ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐ ƚŚĞŵ ƚŽ ŝŐŶŽƌĞ ƚŚĞ ŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ŵĞƚƌŝĐƐƚŚĂƚ ǁŽƵůĚ ƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJ ũƵƐƚŝĨLJ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ ,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ ǁŝƚŚ ƌĞĐĞŶƚ ŶĞǁƐ ŽĨ ŵĂũŽƌ ůĂLJŽĨĨƐ Ăƚ ŵĂŶLJ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ůĂƌŐĞƐƚ ĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌƐ ŝŶ ĂŶĚ ĂƌŽƵŶĚ ƚŚĞ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ ĂƌĞĂ͕ ǁĞ ďĞůŝĞǀĞ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚŝƐ ƚƌĞŶĚ ŝƐ ŶŽǁ ŐŽŝŶŐ ƚŽ ƐŚŝĨƚ ďĂĐŬ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐ ŶŽƌŵ ŽĨ ŵĂƌŬĞƚͲĚƌŝǀĞŶ ŽĨĨŝĐĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ ǁŚŝĐŚ ŚĂƐ ďĞĞŶ ƚŚĞ ŵĂŝŶƐƚĂLJ ŽĨ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚ ^ŝůŝĐŽŶ sĂůůĞLJ͛Ɛ ŚŝƐƚŽƌLJ͘ dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ Ă ƉůĂŶ ƚŚĂƚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐ ĨŽƌĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ ƐƉĞĐƵůĂƚŝǀĞ ŽĨĨŝĐĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ŝƐ ĐƌŝƚŝĐĂů ƚŽ ĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ͛Ɛ ŶĞdžƚ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ĞŵĞƌŐŝŶŐ ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĐĂŶŶŽƚ ĂĨĨŽƌĚ͕ ŶŽƌ ŚĂǀĞ ƚŚĞ ƐĐĂůĞ͕ ƚŽďƵŝůĚ ĂŶĚ ŽǁŶ ƚŚĞŝƌ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘tĞ ďĞůŝĞǀĞ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ĂĚŽƉƚ Ă WůĂŶ ƚŚĂƚ ŝƐ ŶŽƚ ĞdžĐůƵƐŝǀĞůLJ ŝŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ ƵŶƉƌĞĐĞĚĞŶƚĞĚ ůĂƌŐĞ ĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞ ŽǁŶĞƌͬƵƐĞƌ ŐƌŽǁƚŚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ůĂƐƚ ϭϬ LJĞĂƌƐ͘ ZĂƚŚĞƌ ŝƚ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ Ă ƉůĂŶ ƚŚĂƚ ĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƐ ƚŚĞ ƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJ ĂŶĚ ƌĞĂů ĞƐƚĂƚĞ ĐLJĐůĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŚĂǀĞ ĚĞĨŝŶĞĚ ƚŚĞ ŐƌŽǁƚŚ͕ ĚŝƐƌƵƉƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ƌĞďŝƌƚŚ ĐLJĐůĞƐ ŽĨ ^ŝůŝĐŽŶ sĂůůĞLJ ƐŝŶĐĞ ŝƚƐ ŝŶĐĞƉƚŝŽŶ͘ ĞůŽǁ ǁĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ƐĞǀĞƌĂů ŽƚŚĞƌ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘
WĂƌŬŝŶŐ͗tĞ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ ƚŚĂƚ LJŽƵ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ ƐŽŵĞ ůĞǀĞů ŽĨ ĨůĞdžŝďŝůŝƚLJ ŝŶ ƚĞƌŵƐ ŽĨ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ŵĂdžŝŵƵŵƐ ƚŽ ĂůůŽǁ ŽĨĨŝĐĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ƐŝƚĞƐ ƚŽ ďĞ ŵŽƌĞ ďƌŽĂĚůLJ ŵĂƌŬĞƚĂďůĞ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ ŵŽƌĞ ĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ ĨŽƌ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ Attachment 15

 dŚĞ ĐŽŶƚĞŵƉůĂƚĞĚ ŵĂdžŝŵƵŵ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƌĂƚŝŽƐ ŽĨ Ϯ͘Ϭͬϭ͕ϬϬϬ ;ĂŶĚ ůĞƐƐͿĚŽ ŶŽƚ ŵĞĞƚ ŵĂƌŬĞƚ ĚĞŵĂŶĚ ĨƌŽŵ ŽĨĨŝĐĞ ƵƐĞƌƐ͕ ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌůLJ ƌĞůĂƚŝǀĞ ƚŽ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŝŶŐ ŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐ͘ tŚŝůĞ ǁĞ ƐŚĂƌĞ ƚŚĞ ŐŽĂů ŽĨ ƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐ ƐŝŶŐůĞ ŽĐĐƵƉĂŶĐLJ ǀĞŚŝĐůĞ ƚƌŝƉƐ ŝŶ ŽƵƌ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ͕ ƚŚĞůŝŵŝƚĞĚ ƉĂƚƚĞƌŶ ŽĨ ƉƵďůŝĐ ƚƌĂŶƐŝƚ ƵƐĞ ŝŶ ƚŚŝƐ ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ ŵĞĂŶƐ ƚŚĂƚ ƉƌŽƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞ ŽĨĨŝĐĞ ƚĞŶĂŶƚƐ ǁŝůů ůŝŬĞůLJ ŽŶůLJ ůĞĂƐĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƌĂƚŝŽƐ ŽĨ Ăƚ ůĞĂƐƚ ϯ͘Ϭͬϭ͕ϬϬϬ͘ dŚĞ ůĂƌŐĞ ƚĞĐŚ ƵƐĞƌƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŚĂǀĞ ƐŚƵƚƚůĞ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ ĂƌĞ ĂŶ ĞdžĐĞƉͲ ƚŝŽŶ͕ ďƵƚ ŽƵƌ ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ ŝƐ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ƌĂĨƚ WůĂŶ ŝƐ ŶŽƚ ŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƚŽ ůŝŵŝƚ ŽĨĨŝĐĞ ƵƐĞƌƐ ƚŽ ƚŚĂƚ ƐƵďͲ ƐĞƚ͘ /ƚ ŝƐ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ ƚŚĂƚ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ ďĞ ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ ďLJ ŵĂƌŬĞƚ ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ ŝŶƐƚĞĂĚ ŽĨ ŵĂŶͲ ĚĂƚŽƌLJ ŵĂdžŝŵƵŵƐ͘
ƌĞĂƚŝŽŶͬ/ŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ ^ƉĂĐĞ͗tĞ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞ ƚŚĞ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚ ĨŽƌ ƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ /ŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƉĂĐĞ ŽƵƚƐŝĚĞ ŽĨ ĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ ĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘ /Ĩ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ǁĂŶƚƐƚŽ ƉƌŽŵŽƚĞ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ /ŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƉĂĐĞ͕ ǁĞ ŝŶƐƚĞĂĚ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ďĞĐŽŵĞ ŽƉƚŝŽŶĂů ĂŶĚ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀŝnjĞ ƚŚĞŝƌ ĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ ďLJ ĞdžĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞŵ ĨƌŽŵ &Z ĐĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ĂŶĚ ŐƌĂŶƚŝŶŐ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ĞŶĞĨŝƚ ĐƌĞĚŝƚ ĨŽƌ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞŵ͘
 dŚĞ ƌĂĨƚ WůĂŶ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐ ϳ͘ϱй ŽĨ Ăůů ŶĞƚ ŶĞǁ ŽĨĨŝĐĞ ĂŶĚ ZΘ ƐƉĂĐĞ ďĞ ĂůůŽĐĂƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ Žƌ /ŶͲ ŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƉĂĐĞ ƚŚĂƚ ŝƐ ůĞĂƐĞĚ ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞůLJ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ŵĂŝŶ ŽĨĨŝĐĞ ĂƌĞĂ͘ dŚŝƐ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚ ĂƉƉůŝĞƐ ŝŶ Ăůů njŽŶŝŶŐ ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐ͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐKͲϮ njŽŶŝŶŐ ǁŚŝĐŚ ŝƐ ŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ĨŽƌ ͞ůĂƌŐĞ ĐĂŵƉƵƐĞƐ͘͟ dŚĞ ƚĞŶĂŶƚ ŵĂƌŬĞƚ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƚLJƉĞƐ ŽĨ ƐŵĂůů ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ŝƐ ůŝŵŝƚĞĚ͕ ǁŚŝĐŚ ǁŝůů ƌĞƐƵůƚ ŝŶ ŵĂŶLJ ĞŵƉƚLJ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘ ĚĚŝͲ ƚŝŽŶĂůůLJ͕ ŵĂŶLJ ůĂƌŐĞ ĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞ ƚĞŶĂŶƚƐ ĐĂŶŶŽƚ ƐŚĂƌĞ ƚŚĞŝƌ ĐĂŵƉƵƐĞƐ ǁŝƚŚ ŽƚŚĞƌ ƚĞŶĂŶƚƐ ĚƵĞ ƚŽ ƐĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͘ >ĂƐƚůLJ͕ ƚŚĞ ĚĞƐŝŐŶ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ /ŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ ϮϬ͛ ŚŝŐŚ ĐĞŝůŝŶŐƐ ĨŽƌ ĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƉĂĐĞ ĂŶĚ ĚŝǀŝƐŝďůĞ ĚŽǁŶ ƚŽ ϯ͕ϲϬϬ ƐĨ ĨŽƌ ŝŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƉĂĐĞͿ͕ ŵĂŬĞ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ǀĞƌLJ ĞdžƉĞŶƐŝǀĞ ƚŽ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚ͘ &Žƌ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƌĞĂƐŽŶƐ͕ ƚŚĞ ƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ /ŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ǁŝůů ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJ ŝŵƉĂĐƚ ƚŚĞ ĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚLJ ŽĨ ŽĨĨŝĐĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐ ŝĨ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ĂƌĞ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ŽƵƚƐŝĚĞ ŽĨ ĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ ĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘
dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ͗tĞ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚ ĞdžƉĂŶĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂů ŝƌĐƵůĂƚŽƌ ^ŚƵƚƚůĞ ƌŽƵƚĞ ƚŽ ƐĞƌǀĞ ƚŚĞ ƌĂĨƚ WůĂŶ͛Ɛ ƉĞƌŝŵĞƚĞƌ ƉĂƌĐĞůƐ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶŶĞĐƚ ŝƚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ ĂůƚƌĂŝŶ ^ƚĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ DŝůƉŝƚĂƐ Zd ^ƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘  dŚĞ ŝƌĐƵůĂƚŽƌ ^ŚƵƚƚůĞ ŝƐ ŽŶůLJ ƐŚŽǁŶ ƚŽ ƐĞƌǀĞ ƚŚĞ ĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ ĞŶƚĞƌƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƌĂĨƚ WůĂŶ͘  ƐƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂů ĂŵŽƵŶƚ ŽĨ ĚĂŝůLJ ĐŽŵŵƵƚĞƌƐ ŝŶƚŽ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ǁŝůů ǁŽƌŬ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ůĂƌŐĞ ŽĨĨŝĐĞ ĐĂŵƉƵƐĞƐ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ƉĞͲ ƌŝŵĞƚĞƌ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƌĂĨƚ WůĂŶ͖ ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ ƚŚĞ ŝƌĐƵůĂƚŽƌ ^ŚƵƚƚůĞ ƌŽƵƚĞ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ĂůƐŽ ƐĞƌǀĞ ƚŚŽƐĞ ƉĞƌŝŵĞͲ ƚĞƌ ĂƌĞĂƐ͘
 dŚĞ ŝƌĐƵůĂƚŽƌ ^ŚƵƚƚůĞ ŝƐ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ ůŝŵŝƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƐĞƌǀĞ ƚŚĞ ƌĂĨƚWůĂŶ ĂƌĞĂ͘ ,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ ŵĂŶLJ ĚĂŝůLJ ĐŽŵŵƵƚĞƌƐ ƚŽ DŽĨĨĞƚƚ WĂƌŬ ǁŝůů ĐŽŵĞ ĨƌŽŵ ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ ĂƌŽƵŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĂLJ ƌĞĂ ƚŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ŶŽƚ ƐĞƌǀĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ sd͘ dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ ƚŚĞ ŝƌĐƵůĂƚŽƌ ^ŚƵƚƚůĞ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ĞdžƚĞŶĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ^ƵŶŶLJǀĂůĞ ĂůƚƌĂŝŶ ^ƚĂƚŝŽŶ ;ůĞƐƐ ƚŚĂŶ Ă ϭϬͲŵŝŶƵƚĞ ĚƌŝǀĞͿ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ DŝůƉŝƚĂƐ Zd ^ƚĂƚŝŽŶ ;ůĞƐƐ ƚŚĂŶ Ă ϮϬͲŵŝŶƵƚĞ ĚƌŝǀĞͿ͘ ^ƚƌĞĞƚ Θ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ /ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ͗ tĞ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ ďĞ ĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚ ĨŽƌ ƵƉŐƌĂĚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ƌĞƉůĂĐŝŶŐ ƉƵďůŝĐ ŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͖ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ůŝŵŝƚ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚƐ ŽĨ ƐƚƌĞĞƚƐ ĂŶĚ ƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐ ƚŽ ĂƌĞĂƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ŝŶ ĚŝƐƌĞƉĂŝƌ͖ ĂŶĚ ƐƉĞĐŝĨLJ ƚŚĂƚ ƵƚŝůŝƚLJ ƵƉŐƌĂĚĞƐǁŝůů ŽŶůLJ ďĞ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ƚŽ ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞ ŶĞǁ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ Žƌ ŝŶ ƉƌĞĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ ĂƌĞĂƐ͘
 dŚĞ ƌĂĨƚ WůĂŶ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐ Ă ƐƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂů ŶƵŵďĞƌ ŽĨ ƐƚƌĞĞƚ ŶĞƚǁŽƌŬĂŶĚ ƉƵďůŝĐ ƵƚŝůŝƚLJ ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚ ƚŽ ďĞ ďĂƐĞ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ĨŽƌ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ ƵĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŚŝŐŚ ĐŽƐƚ ŽĨ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵŝŶŐ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƚLJƉĞƐ ŽĨ ƵƉŐƌĂĚĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ďĞĐĂƵƐĞ ƚŚĞƐĞ ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ ůĂĐŬ ĂŶĞdžƵƐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ ŽĨ Ă ƉƌŽͲ ƉŽƐĞĚ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ ǁĞ ďĞůŝĞǀĞ ƚŚĂƚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ĞŶĞĨŝƚ Žƌ ŝŵƉĂĐƚ ĨĞĞ ĐƌĞĚŝƚ ĨŽƌ ĂŶLJ ƵƉŐƌĂĚĞƐ ƚŽ Žƌ ƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚƐ ŽĨ ƉƵďůŝĐ ƐĞƌǀŝŶŐ ŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͘  DĂŶLJ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐƚƌĞĞƚƐ ĂŶĚ ƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƌĂĨƚ WůĂŶ ĂƌĞĂ ŚĂǀĞ ƌĞĐĞŶƚůLJ ďĞĞŶ ŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚ ďƵƚ ƚŚĞ ƌĂĨƚ WůĂŶ ĂƉƉĞĂƌƐ ƚŽ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞLJ ďĞ ƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚ ƚŽ ĐŽŵƉůLJ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ŶĞǁ ƌĂĨƚ WůĂŶ͛Ɛ Attachment 15

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
February 7, 2023
Ms. Michelle King
Principal Planner
City of Sunnyvale
456 West Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
[email protected]

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR MOFFETT PARK SPECIFIC PLAN – DATED DECEMBER 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2021080338) Dear Ms. King:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Moffett Park Specific Plan (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the EIR:

1. A State of California environmental regulatory agency such as DTSC, a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a local agency that meets the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 101480 should provide regulatory concurrence that any Project sites, including those for which Phase I Environmental Site Assessments have been performed, are safe for construction and the proposed use.

2. Refiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance.

This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline Attachment 15
Pa
ge 15 of 235
contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL) being deposited in and along roadways throughout the state. ADL-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underneath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil DTSC, recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the project described in the EIR.

3. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.

4. If any sites included as part of the proposed project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the EIR. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision).

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EIR. Should you choose DTSC to provide oversight for any environmental investigations, please visit DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Restoration Program page to apply for lead agency oversight.

Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at DTSC’s Brownfield website.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3710 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Gavin McCreary
Project Manager
Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
cc: (see next page)
Attachment 15
Pa
ge 16 of 235
cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse

Mr. Dave Kereazis
Office of Planning & E
nvironmental Analysis
Department of Toxic Substances Control

Attachment 15

Attachment 15

Attachment 15

Attachment 15

DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
February 8, 2023 SCH #: 2021080338
GTS #: 04-SCL-2021-01158
GTS ID: 23974
Co/Rt/Pm: SCL/ 237/ 3.29
Michelle King, Principal Planner
City of Sunnyvale
456 West Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Re: Moffett Park Specific Plan Project + Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Dear Michelle King:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Moffett Park Specific Plan Project. We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following comments are based on our review of the December 2022 DEIR.

Project Understanding
The proposed project would allow for the addition of residential uses and an increase in the allowable office/industrial/R&D, commercial, and institutional uses within Moffett Park. The Specific Plan would allow for a net increase of 20,000 residential units (where there are no residential units existing today), 650,000 square feet of commercial uses,1

10.0 million square feet of office/industrial/R&D uses, and 200,000 square feet of institutional uses beyond what is currently existing and recently approved. As a result, the buildout of the Specific Plan (which would include existing, recently approved, and proposed uses) would result in a total of 20,000 residential units and approximately

33.5 million square feet of commercial, office/industrial/R&D, and institutional uses.

Travel Demand Analysis
With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Transportation Impact Studies, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide (link).

Attachment 15
Pa
ge 22 of 235
The project VMT analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory. Per the DEIR, this project is found to have less than significant VMT impact. Caltrans supports the TDM measures and mitigation strategies proposed to minimize impacts to operations from the proposed project. Caltrans also supports the mitigation measures to increase active transportation mode-share in the project area by creating an accessible network to all transportation users.

Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City of Sunnyvale is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the State Transportation Network (STN). The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ right of way (ROW) requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating Caltrans’ ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement. Your application package may be emailed to [email protected].

Please note that Caltrans is in the process of implementing an online, automated, and milestone-based Caltrans Encroachment Permit System (CEPS) to replace the current permit application submittal process with a fully electronic system, including online payments. The new system is expected to be available during 2023. To obtain information about the most current encroachment permit process and to download the permit application, please visit https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic- operations/ep/applications.

Attachment 15

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please emai .

Sincerely,

MARK LEONG
District Branch Ch
ief
Local Development Review
c: State Clearinghouse
Attachment 15

Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3620, San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone 415.263.7400 Fax 415.362.0698 www.jaypaul.com 




1.>A->E 


5@E ;2 (A::EB-81
 ,1?@ %85B1 B1
(A::EB-81  

@@: 5@E ;A:/58
' #;221@@ &->7 (<1/525/ &8-: >-2@
1-> #-E;> !815: -:0 ;A:/58919.1>?
,1 C;A80 8571 @; @4-:7 ;A:/58 2;> E;A> /;:@5:A10 2;/A? ;: A<0-@5:3 @41 #;221@@ &->7 (<1/525/ &8-: ,1 C;A80 -8?; 8571 @; @4-:7 )>A05 'E-: -:0 41> ?@-22 2;> @415> ?A.?@-:@5-8 122;>@ 5: <>;0A/5:3 @41 0>-2@ &8-:
,1 ->1 C>5@5:3 @; E;A @;0-E 4;C1B1> @; 1D<>1?? ;A> /;:/1>:? -.;A@ @41 /1>@-5: -?<1/@? ;2 @41 0>-2@ &8-:
>181-?10 2;> <A.85/ >1B51C ;: 1/19.1>


? E;A 9-E 7:;C -E &-A8 4-? 01B18;<10 -:0 81-?10 :1->8E   95885;: ?=A->1 211@ 5: #;221@@ &->7 ;B1> @41 8-?@ @45>@E E1->? ,1 ->1 @41 8->31?@ 8-:08;>0 5: #;221@@ &->7 %A> 1D<1>@5?1 5: -@@>-/@5:3 @41 45341?@ =A-85@E @1/4 @1:-:@? @; ;A> 01B18;<91:@? 
;;381 #1@-
& -:0 9-F;: -9;:3 ;@41>? 418<10 [email protected]?4
#;221@@ &->7 -? - 9-6;> @1/4 4A. 5: (585/;: +-881E -:0 - ?53:525/-:@ 1/;:;95/ 1:35:1 2;> @41 5@E ,1 91:@5;: -88 ;2 @45? ;:8E @; 019;:?@>-@1 @4-@ C1 A:01>?@-:0 4;C@; 01?53: -:0 01B18;< <>;61/@? @4-@ ?-@5?2E @41 A:5=A1 :110? ;2 @1/4 @1:-:@? -:0 C4-@ 9-71? ?A.A>.-: <>;61/@? 01?5>-.81 @; @419 ,1 ->1 /;:/1>:10 4;C1B1> @4-@ 9-:E -?<1/@? ;2 @41 <>;<;?10 <8-: ->1 5:/;:?5?@1:@ C5@4 @1/4 @1:-:@ >1=A5>191:@? 5: ?A.A>.-: 8;/-@5;:? -:0 /;A80 5: 2-/@ 05?/;A>-312A@A>1 01B18;<91:@ C4581 61;<->05F5:3 @41 /;:@5:A10 ?A//1?? ;2 1D5?@5:3 8->31 ?/-81 /-9<A?1? 5: #;221@@ &->7 1B18;<1>? C4; ->1 :;@ ;C:1>A?1>? 9A?@ 1B-8A-@1 @415> 5:B1?@91:@? .-?10 <A>18E ;: >1-8 1?@-@1 9->71@ 2A:0-91:@-8? -:0 @41 >1=A5>191:@? ;2 @1:-:@? <>;61/@ 81:01>? -:0 5:B1?@;>? #-:E -?<1/@? ;2 @41 0>-2@ &8-: 4;C1B1> /;:285/@ C5@4 @1:-:@ -:0 81:01> >1=A5>191:@? -:0 59<;?1 ;.853-@5;:? @4-@ C588 9-71 <>;61/@? 4->0 @; <1:/58;A@ 25:-:/1 -:0 81-?1 :?@1-0 ;2 - :1C B5?5;: 2;> #;221@@ &->7 .15:3 2A8258810 01B18;<1>? C588 ?-@5?2E @41 019-:0 2;> ;225/1 ?<-/1 5: ;@41> :1->.E /5@51? C5@4 01B18;<91:@ >1=A5>191:@? 9;>1 /;:?5?@1:@ C5@4 @41 :110? ;2 ?A.A>.-: @1:-:@? -:0 <>;61/@ 81:01>? )45? C588 4-B1 - :13-@5B1 59<-/@ ;: @41 05B1>?5@E ;2 /;9<-:51? 5: #;221@@ &->7 -:0 @41 95D ;2 8-:0;C:1>? 13 8-:08;>0? B? ;C:1> A?1>? )41 2;88;C5:3 5? - 01?/>5<@5;: ;2 9-6;> 5??A1? C1 ?11 C5@4 @410>-2@ &8-: 0(+.. 74 '8
31,'%5 '7'.12/'05

5?@;>5/-88E 01B18;<91:@ ;2 #;221@@ &->7 A:01> @41 1D5?@5:3 #;221@@ &->7 (<1/525/ &8-: ?A//1??2A88E 1:/;A>-310 8->31 /-9<A? ?@E81 >101B18;<91:@ -:0 <>;B5010 - C;>7-.81 2>-91C;>7 @4-@ C-? .;@4 281D5.81 Attachment 15


 





 
 
-:0 -0-<@-.81 @; @41 :110? ;2 8->31 @1/4 @1:-:@? @ -88;C10 @41 9->71@ @; 3A501 01B18;<91:@ C4581 ?A//1??2A88E 19.>-/5:3 5@E 3;-8? -:0 <;85/51? 5:/8A05:3 1:B5>;:91:@-8 ?@1C->0?45< -:0 @41 01B18;<91:@ ;2 5:2>-?@>A/@A>1 ,1 .1851B1 @45? ?-91 ?A//1?? /-: ?@588 .1 -/451B10 C5@4 @41 A<0-@1 ;2 @41 &8-: @4>;A34 5:/8A?5;: ;2 ?@-:0->0? -:0 >1=A5>191:@? @4-@ 9;>1 -<<>;<>5-@18E -00>1?? @41 05221>1:/1? .1@C11: 5:2588 01B18;<91:@ -@ <>1B5;A?8E >101B18;<10 /-9<A?1? -:0 3>;A:0 A< 01B18;<91:@ ;2 A:01>01B18;<10 ?5@1? 5: #;221@@ &->7
)1/4 @1:-:@? 81-?1 ?<-/1 5: ?A.A>.-: /-9<A?1? .1/-A?1 @41E /-: <>;B501 ?1/A>1 1:B5>;:91:@? 2;> @415> 9;?@ ?1:?5@5B1 <>;61/@? )41E 4-B1 ?53:525/-:@ <->75:3 >1=A5>191:@? 0A1 @; 19<8;E11 01:?5@E C5@45: @415> .A5805:3? 5:/8A05:3 @4;?1 19<8;E1>? @4-@ ;<1>-@1 <>5B-@1 @>-:?<;>@-@5;: ?E?@19? )41?1 /-9<A?1? 4-B1 .11: /->12A88E 01?53:10 @; <>;B501 - /;41?5B1 1:B5>;:91:@ @; 1:/;A>-31 19<8;E11? @; H<->7 ;:/1 -:0 ?@-E ;: /-9<A? @4>;A34;A@ @41 C;>7 0-E )41E ->1 45348E -91:5@5F10 C5@4 ?53:525/-:@ A?-.81 ;<1: ?<-/1 4534 =A-85@E C188:1??
25@:1?? /1:@1>? >1?@-A>-:@ =A-85@E 2;;0 ?1>B5/1 -:0 ;@41> -91:5@51? :2588 .A5805:3? ?4;A80 .1 <1>95@@10 @; .1 01B18;<10 5: - 9-::1> @4-@ C588 :;@ 1>;01 @41 A:5=A1 /4->-/@1>5?@5/? ;2 1D5?@5:3 /-9<A? 1:B5>;:91:@? ;> @41E C588 :; 8;:31> .1 01?5>-.81 @; 8->31 @1:-:@? (1B1>-8 -?<1/@? ;2 @41 0>-2@ &8-: ->1 5: /;:285/@ C5@4 @45? /;:/1<@ ?<1/525/-88E
• 0017#5+10  3'#5+10
2#%' *#25'3

,4581 C1 -3>11 5@? 59<;>@-:@ @; 9-5:@-5: -
05B1>?5@E ;2 .A?5:1??1? 5: #;221@@ &->7 @41 ::;B-@5;: -:0 >1-@5;: (<-/1 >1=A5>191:@ ?4;A80 :;@ .1 59<;?10 ;: 1D5?@5:3 /-9<A?1? -005:3 5:2588 .A5805:3? -?5@ 5? 01@>591:@-8 @; @41 ?1/A>1 1:B5>;:91:@ @41?1 /-9<A?1? 4-B1 .11: /->12A88E 01?53:10 @; -/451B1 -:0 @41 ?5:381 @1:-:@ :-@A>1 ;2 /-9<A? .A5805:3? 5: -005@5;: @; />1-@5:3 @41 <;@1:@5-8 2;> <1>9-:1:@ B-/-:/51? o
'%63+5:? 91:@5;:10 <>1B5;A?8E @1/4 @1:-:@? 81-?1 ?<-/1 5: ?A.A>.-:/-9<A?1? .1/-A?1 @41E /-: />1-@1 45348E ?1/A>1 1:B5>;:91:@? 2;> @415> 9;?@ ?1:?5@5B1 <>;61/@? '1=A5>5:3 @41 5:/8A?5;: ;2 ::;B-@5;: -:0 >1-@5;: (<-/1 5: :1C5:2588 .A5805:3? C588 />1-@1 ?53:525/-:@ ?1/A>5@E 5??A1? 2;> @1/4 @1:-:@? -? @41E @E<5/-88E 81-?1 -: 1:@5>1 .A5805:3 @; /;:@>;8 -//1?? -:0 ?1/A>5@E C5@45:
)41 ;<@5;: @; /;:?;850-@1 -88 ::;B-@5;: -:0 >1-@5;: (<-/1 5:@; - ?5:381 2-/585@E ;: - /-9<A? ?@588 <;?1? ?1/A>5@E 5??A1? -? /-9<A?1? ->1 ?;91@591? 81-?10 5: @415> 1:@5>1@E .E - ?5:381 @1:-:@
A>@41> 5@? 6A?@ :;@ <>-/@5/-8 @; ?-E .A580 - 


?2 .A5805:3 @; ?-@5?2E @41
9-71> ?<-/1 >1=A5>191:@ 2;> - ?5:381 5:2588 .A5805:3
o
'3/#0'05 !#%#0%+'4::;B-@5;: -:0 >1-@5;: ?<-/1 5? @E<5/-88E 8;/-@10 5: ;801> 25>?@ -:0 ?1/;:0 31:1>-@5;: ?<-/1 5: #;221@@ &->7 .1/-A?1 @41?1 .A5805:3? ->1 -22;>0-.81 )41 4534 >1:@-8 >-@1? 5:2588 01B18;<1>? 9A?@ /4->31 @; ;22?1@ ::;B-@5;: -:0 >1-@5;: ?<-/1 01B18;<91:@ /;?@? 4;C1B1> C588 .1 A:-22;>0-.81 @; @41?1 @E<1?;2 @1:-:@? />1-@5:3 @41 <;@1:@5-8 2;> <1>9-:1:@ B-/-:/51?
o +)*'3
'05#.
#5'4'1:@-8 >-@1? 2;> :;: ::;B-@5;: -:0 >1-@5;: ?<-/1 @1:-:@? C;A80 :110 @; 5:/>1-?1 @; ;22?1@ 5:/>1-?10 <>;61/@ 01B18;<91:@ /;?@? ?; @4-@ <>;61/@? <1:/58 ;A@ -:0 /-: .1 25:-:/10 )45? C588 9-71 #;221@@ &->7 81?? /;9<1@5@5B1 C5@4 ;@41> :1->.E /5@51?
o 0%1/2#5+$.' 4'4;8;/-@5:3 >1-@5;: ?<-/1 A?1? 5: 8-??  ;225/1 .A5805:3? 5? 6A?@ :;@ <>-/@5/-8 )41?1 A?1? ->1 9;>1 5:0A?@>5-8 5: :-@A>1 13 <>;0A/@5;: 05?@>5.A@5;: /;:?@>A/@5;: 5:0A?@>51? 4-B1 B1>E 05221>1:@ ?<-/1 -: -//1?? >1=A5>191:@? @4-@ 9-E :;@ .1 /;:?5?@1:@ ;> /;9<[email protected] C5@4 8-??  ;225/1
A>@41> @41 ?5@1 <8-:? ;2 1D5?@5:3 /-9<A?1?
/-::;@ .1 >101?53:10 @; <>;<1>8E 95@53-@1 @41 59<-/@? ;2 @41?1A?1? Attachment 15


 





 
 
)41 019-:0 2;> @45? @E<1 ;2 ?<-/1 5? .15:3 />1-@10 .E @41 019;85@5;: ;2 1D5?@5:3 9-71> ?<-/1 @E<1 .A5805:3? 5: #;221@@ &->7 :;@ @41 -005@5;: ;2 5:2588 .A5805:3? ;: 1D5?@5:3 /-9<A?1? :2588 .A5805:3? ?4;A80 .1 1D19<@ 2>;9 @41 ::;B-@5;: -:0 >1-@5;: (<-/1 >1=A5>191:@ 8@1>:-@5B18E @41 01B18;<91:@ ;2 ::;B-@5;: -:0 >1-@5;: (<-/1 /;A80 .1 1:/;A>-310 @4>;A34 /;99A:5@E .1:125@?
• '7'.12/'05
5#0&#3&4 *#25'3
 :2588 .A5805:3? ?4;A80 .1 <1>95@@10 @; .1 ?5958-> 5: 2;>9 -:0 2A:/@5;: @; ;@41> 1D5?@5:3 .A5805:3? C5@45: @41 ?-91 /-9<A? 5: ;>01> 9-5:@-5: - /;41?5B1 /-9<A? 1:B5>;:91:@ )41 <>;<;?10 .A5805:3 01?53: ?@-:0->0? 0; :;@ 05221>1:@5-@1 .1@C11: 5:2588 .A5805:3? 5: 1D5?@5:3 /-9<A?1? -:0 .A5805:3? 2;> /;9<81@18E :1C?5@1? -:0 -? - /;:?1=A1:/1 5:2588 .A5805:3? 9-E 8;;7 -:0 2A:/@5;: 05221>1:@8E 2>;9 1D5?@5:3 /-9<A? .A5805:3? ,4581 @45? 9534@ .1 01?5>-.81 5: ?;91 /-?1? 5@ 9-E -8?; <>;B1 01@>591:@-8@; 1D5?@5:3 /-9<A? 01?53: 5:
;@41>? )1:-:@? 81-?5:3 ?<-/1 5: ?A.A>.-: /-9<A? 1:B5>;:91:@? -<<>1/5-@1 @41 /;?@ 1221/@5B1:1?? ;2 ?5958-> 28;;> <8-@1? -/>;?? 9A8@5<81 .A5805:3? (5958->5@E .1@C11: 28;;>? -:0 .A5805:3? -88;C @41?1 @1:-:@? @; >-<508E 01?53: -:0 /;:?@>A/@ @415> 59<>;B191:@? -:0 9-71? 5@E <1>95@ >1B51C /E/81? 9A/4 9;>1 1225/51:@ ,1 ?A331?@ @4-@ 01?53: ?@-:0->0? 2;> 5:2588 .A5805:3? ?4;A80 .1 -06A?@10 @; <1>95@ @41 01?53: ;2 5:2588 .A5805:3? @; .1 ?5958-> @; 1D5?@5:3 .A5805:3? ;: @41 ?-91 /-9<A? A<0-@5:3 2;> /4-:31? 5: /;01 1@/
• 9+45+0)
53''54  0(3#4536%563' *#25'34
 )41 0>-2@ &8-: 5:/8A01? >1=A5>191:@? @;
>1/;:?@>A/@ 1D5?@5:3 <>5B-@1 ?@>11@? -:0 5:2>-?@>A/@A>1 <>1B5;A?8E >101B18;<10 @; 5@E ?@-:0->0? -? <->@ ;2 <>5;> >101B18;<91:@ <>;61/@?
A>@41> @41 <8-: 0;1? :;@ 05221>1:@5-@1 .1@C11: 5:2588
<>;61/@? 5: 1D5?@5:3 >101B18;<10 /-9<A?1? -:0 :1C <>;61/@? C41>1 -: 1:@5>1 ?5@1 C588 .1 >101B18;<10 '1=A5>5:3 5:2588 <>;61/@? @; >1/;:?@>A/@ ?@>11@? -:0 5:2>-?@>A/@A>1 <>1B5;A?8E >101B18;<10 @; 5@E ?@-:0->0? />1-@1? - 05?<>;<;>@5;:-@1 /;?@ .A>01: -:0 C588 05?/;A>-31 2A@A>1 01B18;<91:@
;> 1D-9<81
o *' &3#(5
.#0 46))'454 5*#5 

7'06' #0& 0017#5+10 "#: "'45 1( #5*+.&#
816.& $' 3'&'7'.12'& 51 # 0'8 45#0&#3& +)63'
)41?1 ?@>11@? C1>1 <>1B5;A?8E
>1/;:?@>A/@10 @; 5@E ?@-:0->0? -? H/;9<81@1 ?@>11@?I 0A>5:3 @41 5:5@5-8 >101B18;<91:@ ;2
@41 -06-/1:@ /-9<A?1? -:0 ?4;A80 :;@ .1 >1=A5>10 @; .1 >1.A58@C5@4 5:2588 .A5805:3 01B18;<91:@ ?59<8E .1/-A?1 2;> 1D-9<81 @41 <>;B5010 .571 8-:15? :;@ H<>;@1/@10I ,4581 @45? >1=A5>191:@ 9-E .1 -<<>;<>5-@1 2;> :1C 01B18;<91:@ C5@4 ;801> >;-0 C-E 2>;:@-31 @4-@ 5? :;@ /;:?501>10 - H/;9<81@1 ?@>11@I 5@ 5? - ?53:525/-:@ /;?@ .A>01: 2;> 1D5?@5:3 /-9<A?1? ?59<8E -005:3 ;:1 ;> @C; .A5805:3? :E >101B18;<91:@ ;2 /;9<81@1 ?@>11@? <>1B5;A?8E .A58@ @; 5@E ?@-:0->0? ?4;A80 .1 /;:?501>10 - /;99A:5@E .1:125@ o *' 2.#0 46))'454 5*#5 '9+45+0) 8#5'3 /#+04 23'7+164.: %104536%5'& 51 +5:
45#0&#3&4 816.& 0''& 51 $' 624+;'&+)63'
 ,-@1> 9-5:? -:0 ;@41> A@585@E
5:2>-?@>A/@A>1 /;:?@>A/@10 @; 5@E ?@-:0->0? -? <->@ ;2 5:5@5-8/-9<A? 01B18;<91:@ ?4;A80 :;@ .1 >1=A5>10 @; .1 HA<?5F10I A:81?? @41 :110 2;> -005@5;:-8/-<-/5@E 5? 31:1>-@10 ?;818E .E @41 :1C 5:2588 .A5805:3 :E A<?5F5:3 .1E;:0 @45? /;A80 .1 /;:?501>10 - /;99A:5@E .1:125@ ;> @41 /;?@ />105@10 -3-5:?@ ;@41> 5@E 211?
•
3+7#5'
53''54  0(3#4536%563' *#25'34
 
>;9 - 2A:/@5;:-8 ?@-:0<;5:@ @41 0>-2@
&8-: @>1-@? <>5B-@1 >;-0? -:0 5:2>-?@>A/@A>1 -? 52 @41E C1>1 <A.85/ 59<>;B191:@? >;9 -:
;<1>-@5;:-8 -:0 /;?@ <1>?<1/@5B1 01B18;<1>? ->1 1D<1/@10 @; .A580 -:0 9-5:@-5: @41?1 59<>;B191:@? -? 52 @41E C1>1 <>5B-@1 : ;@41> C;>0? <>5B-@1 01B18;<1>? C588 .1 >1?<;:?5.81 2;> .1->5:3 @41 /;?@ ;2 9-5:@-5:5:3 >;-0C-E? -:0 5:2>-?@>A/@A>1 @4-@ 2A:/@5;: -? <A.85/ C4581 01B18;<1>? 5: ;@41> <->@? ;2 @41 &8-: ->1- 1:6;E A?1 ;2 ?5958->5:2>-?@>A/@A>1 C5@4;A@ .1->5:3 -:E ;<1>-@5;:-8 /;?@? @? -8?; :;@ [email protected] @; >1=A5>1 <>5B-@1 01B18;<1>? @; <-E @; A<?5F1 -:0 9-5:@-5: 5:2>-?@>A/@A>1 @4-@ C588 .1:125@ ;@41> 01B18;<91:@? ;A@?501 ;2 @41 <>5B-@1 5:2>-?@>A/@A>1 Attachment 15


 





 
 
->1-?
A>@41> @41 5@E 0;1? :;@ <>;B501 @>-225/ 1:2;>/191:@ ;: <>5B-@1 >;-0? C45/4 4-? .11:
<>;.819-@5/ 2;> 1D5?@5:3 /-9<A?1? ?1>B10 .E @41?1 >;-0? #;>1-:-8E?5? ;2 @45? 5??A1 ?4;A80 .1 A:01>@-71: @; -??A>1 [email protected] <>;B5?5;: ;2 ?1>B5/1? -:0 /;?@? 2;> -88 01B18;<91:@? 5: #;221@@ &->7
• !'*+%.'
#3-+0) #9+/6/4 *#25'3  )41 <->75:3 >-@5;? .15:3 <>;<;?10 .E @41 &8-: 1 3

-@ <8-: 59<8191:@-@5;: >-@/41@5:3 0;C: @; 

-@ <8-: .A580;A@ ->1 :;@ >1-85?@
:;@ 9->71@ -:0 C588 9-71 5:2588 .A5805:3? 05225/A8@ @; 81-?1 )1:-:@ 019-:0 C588 3; @; ;@41> /5@51? C5@4 9;>1 @>-05@5;:-8 ?A.A>.-: <->75:3 >-@5;? 1 3 

A>@41> C5@45: - ?5:381 /-9<A?
@41>1 C588 .1 ?53:525/-:@ 05221>1:/1? 5: @41 <->75:3 >-@5;? -9;:3 B->5;A? .A5805:3? )45? C588 59<-/@ 9->[email protected]@E -:0 -/451B-.81 >1:@-8 >-@1? :2588 .A5805:3? ?4;A80 .1 -88;C10 @; 9-5:@-5:
<->75:3 >-@5;? ?5958-> @; 1D5?@5:3 >-@5;? C5@45: @41 ?-91 /-9<A? 5B1: @>-225/ 5:@; -:0 ;A@ ;2
#;221@@ &->7 9A?@ 2A:/@5;: 5@ 9534@ .1 .1@@1> @; 5:?@1-0 >10A/1 @41 -9;A:@ ;2 <;@1:@5-8 /;991>/5-8 01B18;<91:@ -:@5/5<-@10 .E @41 &8-: 5: ;>01> @; 9-5:@-5: <->75:3 /;9<1@5@5B1:1?? C5@4 ;@41> /5@51?
• 0$60&.'&
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
: -005@5;: @; @41 -.;B1 /;:/1>:? >13->05:3 5:2588 .A5805:3 ?@-:0->0? C1 4-B1 @41 2;88;C5:3 /;991:@? @; @41 0>-2@ &8-:
'+)*$13*11&
'37+0) 4'4 *#25'3

 < +4%17'3: '+)*$13*11&
• )41 0>-2@ <8-: 5:/8A01? - 9-:0-@;>E H/@5B5@E 1:@1>I 5: @41 5?/;B1>E $1534.;>4;;0 C5@4 - >1=A5>191:@ 2;> >1@-58 ;: @41 3>;A:0 28;;> ;2 -:E .A5805:3 -06-/1:@ @; @41 /;>:1> ;2


-:0
5?/;B1>E ,-E /@5B5@E 1:@1>? 5: ;@41> <->@? ;2 @41 <8-: ->1- 9-71 ?1:?1 .1/-A?1 @41>1 ->1 -
B->51@E ;2 A?1? -:0 @41 />5@5/-8 9-?? ;2 -06-/1:@ >1@-58 @; -??A>1 ?A//1??2A8 -@@>-/@5;: -:0 >1@1:@5;:
;2 >1@-58 @1:-:@? )45? 5? :;@ @41 /-?1 5: @45? <->@5/A8-> 8;/-@5;: .1/-A?1 o
5#0&#.10'
'5#+. +4 +((+%6.5 51 '#4'-?10 ;: ;A> 05>1/@ 1D<1>51:/1 C1 7:;C >1@-58 5: @45? 8;/-@5;: 5? B1>E 05225/A8@ @; 81-?1 %A> #;221@@ );C1>? -:0 #;221@@ );C1>? /-9<A?1? .;@4 4-B1 ?@-:0-8;:1 >1@-58 ?<-/1? @4-@ ->1 /A>>1:@8E B-/-:@ -:0 4-B1 .11:
<>;.819-@5/ @; 2588 ;B1> @41 8521 ;2 .;@4 <>;61/@? )41 5?/;B1>E $1534.;>4;;0 5? /;9<>5?10 ;2 8->31 /-9<A?1? @4-@ ->1 81-?10 ;: - ?5:381 @1:-:@ .A5805:3 .-?5? @; @1:-:@? @4-@ <>;B501 ?53:525/-:@ ;:?5@1 -91:5@51? -:0 ?A.?505F10 4534 =A-85@E 2;;0 ?1>B5/1 @; @415> 19<8;E11? @J? B1>E 05225/A8@ 2;> 15@41> ?A.?505F10 ;> A:?A.?505F10 >1@-58 @; /;9<1@1 -@@>-/@5:3 ?9-88 >1@-58 @1:-:@? 4-? .11: :1->8E 59<;??5.81 o
'%63+5: 446'4 (13 '0#054;8;/-@5:3 >1@-58 ?<-/1 C5@45: .A5805:3? @E<5/-88E 81-?10 ;: - ?5:381 @1:-:@ .-?5? C588 <;?1 ?53:525/-:@ ?1/A>5@E /;:/1>:? @; <;@1:@5-8 @1:-:@? 9-75:3 .A5805:3? /4-881:35:3 @; 81-?1 )41?1 @1:-:@? 81-?1 1:@5>1 .A5805:3? ?; @41E /-: /;:@>;8 Attachment 15


 





 
 
C4-@ 4-<<1:? 5: -:0 ->;A:0 @415> .A5805:3? )45? 5? -: 5:2588?5@1 >1@-58 5: @45? 8;/-@5;:

C588 .1 - ?1/A>5@E 5??A1 @; @1:-:@?
'1@-58 5? .1?@ 8;/-@10 5: 8->31> /;:/1:@>-@5;:? 1 3 @41 4534 01:?5@E 95D10 A?1 :1534.;>4;;0? 1-?@ ;2 #-@4580- ;> /8;?1 @; @41 <8-::10 >1?501:@5-8 5: @41 ,1?@ #-@4580- $1534.;>4;;0 @J? :;@ -<<>;<>5-@1 5: 5:2588 .A5805:3? 8;/-@10 5: 1D5?@5:3 ?1/A>1 /-9<A?1? '7'.12/'05
'4'37' *#25'3

)41 1B18;<91:@ '1?1>B1 ?4;A80 .1 -88;/-@10 9;>1 [email protected] .1@C11: @41 B->5;A? :1534.;>4;;0? )41 0>-2@ &8-: /A>>1:@8E -88;/-@1? 
 ;2 @41 1B18;<91:@ '1?1>B1 1D/8A05:3 @41 -?1
' -:0 (9-88
&>;61/@ '1?1>B1? @; @41 (;A@4 -B- -:0 >;??9-: :1534.;>4;;0? C45/4 >1<>1?1:@ ;:8E   ;2 @41 <8-:
->1- : /;:@>-?@ @41 5?/;B1>E $1534.;>4;;0 C45/4 >1<>1?1:@?  ;2 @41 <8-: ->1- 5? ;:8E -88;/-@10

 ;2 @41 :1@ >1?1>B1 ,4581 C1 A:01>?@-:0 ;:1 ;2 @41 3;-8? ;2 @41 0>-2@ <8-: 5? @; 1:/;A>-31 45341> 01:?5@E 01B18;<91:@ 5: @41 :1534.;>4;;0? 1-?@ ;2 #-@4580- @45?05?<>;<;>@5;:-@1 -88;/-@5;: 91-:? ?5@1? 5: @41 5?/;B1>E $1534.;>4;;0 9A?@ -/=A5>1 1D<1:?5B1 )'? 5: - 05?<>;<;>@5;:-@1 -9;A:@ C41:
/;9<->10 @; ;@41> :1534.;>4;;0?
A>@41> @41 .A87 ;2 @41 -?1
' )'? C588 <>59->58E .1 ;C:10 .E
;:1 8-:0;C:1> C45/4 C588 9-71 @41 9->71@ 2;> )'? :;@ B1>E /;9<1@5@5B1 ? @41 <8-: 5? /A>>1:@8E 0>-2@10
' -/451B10 @4>;A34 @41 <A>/4-?1 ;2 -?1 '1?1>B1 )'? C;A80 -8?; .1 ?A.61/@ @; /;99A:5@E .1:125@ >1=A5>191:@? 9-75:3 01B18;<91:@ 5: @41 5?/;B1>E $1534.;>4;;0 9A/4 9;>1 1D<1:?5B1 @4-:
;@41> :1534.;>4;;0? 5: #;221@@ &->7

;> E;A> >121>1:/1 C1 4-B1 -@@-/410 - ?<>1-0?411@ 01?/>5.5:3 01B18;<91:@ >1?1>B1 -88;/-@5;: .1@C11:
:1534.;>4;;0? ,1 C;A80 8571 @; <;5:@ ;A@ @4-@ @41 ?@59-@10 %225/1 ' -:0 @;@-8 ' -@ &8-: .A580;A@
5: @41 0>-2@ &8-: A:01>?@-@1? C4-@ 5? /A>>1:@8E <8-::10 5: @41 5?/;B1>E $1534.;>4;;0 .E -@ 81-?@ 



?2 .-?10 6A?@ ;: -E &-A8 <>;61/@? C5@4;A@ /;:?501>-@5;: ;2 ;@41> 8-:0;C:1>? '7'.12/'05
5#0&#3&4 *#25'3

,4581 C1 <>1B5;A?8E 91:@5;:10 @41 59<-/@ ;2 @41 <>;<;?10 .A5805:3 01?53: ?@-:0->0? ;: 5:2588 .A5805:3? C1 -8?; 4-B1 /;:/1>:? -.;A@ @41 <>;<;?10 ?@-:0->0? 5: @41 /;:@1D@ ;2 :1C /-9<A? 01B18;<91:@ )41 .A5805:3 01?53: ?@-:0->0? /A>>1:@8E <>;<;?10 .E @41 0>-2@ &8-: ->1 =A5@1 <>1?/>5<@5B1 -:0 C588 05?/;A>-31 ->/45@1/@A>-8 5::;B-@5;: -:0 />1-@5B5@E >1?A8@5:3 5: >10A:0-:@ 8;;75:3 .A5805:3? ,4581 C1 -3>11 @4-@ /1>@-5: 01?53: ?@-:0->0? ?4;A80 .1 1:/;A>-310 -:0 9-:0-@10 .E /;01 @41 <>;<;?10 <8-: 5? ;B1>>1-/45:3 5: @45? >13->0 -:0 0;1? :;@ -88;C 2;> 281D5.585@E ;B1> @591 -?->/45@1/@A>-8 ?@E81? -:0 @1:-:@ :110? /4-:31 -:0 -? @1/4:;8;35/-8 5::;B-@5;: /;:@5:A1? @; A:2;80 -:0 5:28A1:/1 .A5805:3 01?53: #;221@@ &->7 5? /A>>1:@8E 4;91 @; - B1>E 05B1>?1 ->/45@1/@A>-8 8-:0?/-<1 C45/4/>1-@1? B5?A-8 5:@1>1?@ -:0 />1-@5B1 <8-/19-75:3 5@E &8-::1>? -:0 @41 &8-::5:3 ;995??5;: 4-B1 0;:1 - @1>>525/ 6;. @4>;A34;A@ @41 59<8191:@-@5;: ;2 @41 1D5?@5:3 #&(& C;>75:3 C5@4 01B18;<1>? -:0 @415> ->/45@1/@? @; <A?4 01?53: -:0 />1-@1 - B5.>-:@ ->/45@1/@A>-8 8-:0?/-<1 #-:0-@5:3 ;B1>8E <>1?/>5<@5B1 01?53: ?@-:0->0? -@@19<@? @; 25D - <>;/1?? @4-@ 5? :;@ .>;71: -:0 C588 ?@5281 />1-@5B1 01?53: 5: #;221@@ &->7 ( >/45@1/@? -:0 :35:11>? C4; 4-B1 01?53:10 ;B1>  95885;: ?=A->1 211@ 5: #;221@@ &->7 C588 ?A.95@ 9;>1 01@-5810 /;991:@? @; @41 01?53: ?@-:0->0? A:01> ?1<->-@1 /;B1>
2'0
2#%' *#25'3
   +4%17'3: '+)*$13*11&
• '+)*$13*11&
#3-)41 0>-2@ &8-: <>;<;?1? - @4>11 -/>1 $1534.;>4;;0 &->7 -@ @41 /;>:1> ;2 
B1:A1 -:0 5?/;B1>E ,-E 
53A>1 
 ,4581 C1 A:01>?@-:0 @415@EJ? 01?5>1 2;> ;<1:
?<-/1 - <->7 5: @45? 8;/-@5;: 0;1? :;@ 9-71 ?1:?1 35B1: @41 ?A>>;A:05:3 ->1- 5? /;9<>5?10 ;2 4534
Attachment 15


 





 
 
01:?5@E ;225/1 /-9<A?1? C45/4 -8>1-0E <>;B501 ?53:525/-:@ 8-:0?/-<10 ;<1: ?<-/1 2;> A?1 .E <>;61/@ ;//A<-:@? )41>1 5? :; >1?501:@5-8 ;> 95D10 A?1 ?<-/1 5: @41 599105-@1 ->1- -:0 >1-85?@5/-88E @41 ;:8E <;@1:@5-8 A?1>? ;2 @41 <>;<;?10 <->7 C588 .1 @41 1D5?@5:3 19<8;E11 <;<A8-@5;: C45/4 -8>1-0E 1:6;E? - 45348E -91:5@5F10 /-9<A? 1:B5>;:91:@ C5@4 ;B1>   A?-.81
8-:0?/-<10 ;<1: ?<-/1 )41 -005@5;: ;2 - :1534.;>4;;0 <->7 5: @45? 8;/-@5;: C;A80 >1=A5>1 @41 >19;B-8 -:0 >18;/-@5;: ;2 1D5?@5:3 8-:0?/-<10 ;<1: ?<-/1 5:/8A05:3 - ?53:525/-:@ ->@ 5:?@-88-@5;: ;: - /-9<A? @4-@ ?117? ;:8E @; -00 5:2588 .A5805:3?
A>@41> @41 $-BE ?5@1 5? ?8-@10 @; 5:/8A01 -
:5:1 -/>1 $1534.;>4;;0 &->7 C45/4 C588 ?1>B1 @41 >1?501:@5-8 <8-::10 :;>@4 ;2 B1:A1 C45/4
5? 9;>1 @4-:

9581? -C-E 2>;9 @45? <8-::10 $1534.;>4;;0 &->7
•
.#;#)41 0>-2@
&8-: -:@5/5<-@1? @41 5:/8A?5;: ;2 - <8-F- -@ @41 /;>:1> ;2


-:0 5?/;B1>E ,-E

53A>1 
  <8-F- 5: @45? 8;/-@5;: 0;1? :;@ 9-71 ?1:?1 5: @
41 /;:@1D@ ;2 @41 <;<A8-@5;: 5: @41
599105-@1 ->1- -:0 <8-::10 @>-225/ 59<>;B191:@? )45? <8-F- C;A80 .1 8;/-@10 ;: - 4534 @>-225/ /;>:1> C41>1 @41 #->E B1:A1 ;B1><-?? 5:5@5-88E 0>;<? 5:@; #;221@@ &->7 @ ?119? /;:@>->E @; ?-21@E @; 1:/;A>-31 <101?@>5-: @>-225/ 5: @45? ->1-
A>@41>C1 .1851B1 @41 <8-F- C588 .1
A:01>A@585F10 -? 5@ 5? ?A>>;A:010 .E 45348E -91:5@5F10 @1/4 ;225/1 /-9<A?1? @4-@ -8>1-0E <>;B501 ?53:525/-:@ ;<1: ?<-/1 -:0 ;A@0;;> 3-@41>5:3 ;<<;>@A:5@51? 2;>19<8;E11? ,5@4 >1?<1/@ @; <->7 -//1?? 2;> >1?501:@5-8 <>;61/@? @41 /8;?1?@ <;@1:@5-8 >1?501:@5-8 01B18;<91:@ -@ ::;B-@5;: -:0 #-@4580- 5? L 9581 -C-E 2>;9 @45? /;>:1> -:0 @41>1 5? <->7 <8-::10 599105-@18E -/>;?? ::;B-@5;: ;: @41 A:5<1> -9<A? ,1 .1851B1 @45? >1=A5>191:@C588 :;@ .1 A?10 2;> 5@? 5:@1:010 <A><;?1 />1-@1? <101?@>5-: ?-21@E 5??A1? -:0 ?4;A80 @41>12;>1 .1 18595:-@10 1$+.+5: *#25'3

&A.85/ @>-:?<;>@-@5;: 5: -:0 ;A@ ;2 #;221@@ &->7 5? /A>>1:@8E :;@ >;.A?@ 1:;A34 @; .1 - 91-:5:32A8 -8@1>:-@5B1 2;> 9;?@ 19<8;E11? -:0 @41 0>-2@ &8-: 0;1? :;@ -01=A-@18E -00>1?? 4;C <A.85/ @>-:?<;>@-@5;:

C588 .1 5:/>1-?10 @; -00>1?? -005@5;:-8 019-:0
A>@41> @41 0>-2@ &8-: -:0 ' -??A91? @4-@
 ;2
:;: B145/81 @>5<? C588 .1 <>;B5010 .E <>5B-@1 @>-:?<;>@-@5;: :1@C;>7? 5 1 ;;381 .A?1? C45/4 9-E ;>
9-E :;@ .1 @41 /-?1 5: @41 2A@A>1 2 @45? 5? :;@ @41 /-?1 @41 )# C588 :110 @; H<5/7 A< @41 ?8-/7I .A@ @41 )# C588 :;@ 4-B1 @41 25:-:/5-8 >1?;A>/1? @; 9-71 A< 2;> @45? 8-/7 ;2 5:2>-?@>A/@A>1 G ?59<8E >A::5:3 ?4A@@81? @; -8 )>-5: -:0 C5@45: #;221@@ &->7 C588 :;@ <>;B501 @41 >135;:-8 @>-:?<;>@-@5;: :1@C;>7 :1/1??->E @; ?A<<;>@ 9;.585@E 5: - ?A.A>.-: 8;/-@5;: "->31 19<8;E1>? 8571 ;;381 ->1 -.81 @; ?<>1-0 @415>
>135;:-8 @>-:?<;>@-@5;: /;?@? ;B1> 9-:E ?5@1? @4>;A34;A@ @41 -E >1- -:0 ->1 <>;B505:3 @45? ?1>B5/1 -? -:
19<8;E11 -91:5@E )45? C588 :;@ .1 @41 /-?1 2;> @41 )# A>@41> ?5:/1 -88 @1:-:@? -:0 <>;61/@? 9A?@ .1
919.1>? ;2 @41 )# 919.1>?45< /;?@? C588 2A>@41> 5:/>1-?1 @41/;?@ ;2 ;//A<-:/E 2;> ::;B-@5;: -:0 >1-@5;: (<-/1 @1:-:@? 9-75:3 @45? ?<-/1 1B1: 9;>1 A:-22;>0-.81 @41 5@E :110? @; /->12A88E 1B-8A-@1 @45? ?@>-@13E @; ?11 52 5@ C588 >1-85?@5/-88E -/451B1 5@? 3;-8?5: @41 /;:@1D@ ;2 @41 <;@1:@5-8 01B18;<91:@ /;:@19<8-@10 .E @41 0>-2@ &8-:
3#042135#5+10 '/#0& #0#)'/'05 #0&
#3-+0) *#25'3 
• 3#042135#5+10 #0#)'/'05 441%+#5+10 *#25'3 : -005@5;: @; ;A> /;991:@? -.;A@ @41 )# -.;B1 C1 ->1 -8?; /;:/1>:10 @4-@ @41 ?A//1?? ;2 @41 &8-:J? @>-:?<;>@-@5;:
9;.585@E
?@>-@13E 5? /;:@5:31:@ ;: @41 1221/@5B1:1?? ;2 @41 @>-:?<;>@-@5;: 9-:-3191:@ -??;/5-@5;: )# C45/4 C588 .1 @-?710 C5@4 9-:-35:3 4;C ?4->10 <->75:3 2-/585@51? C588 .1 >A: -<<>;B5:3 )# <8-:? 01@1>95:5:3 @>5< >10A/@5;: @->31@? 2;> 5:05B50A-8 <>;61/@? -:0 )# <8-: /;9<85-:/1 @ C588 -8?; 01@1>95:1 C41: <->75:3 >-@5;? ?4;A80 .1 >10A/10 -? @41 &8-: ->1- 5? .A58@ ;A@ @J? :;@ /81-> 5: @41 &8-: 4;C1B1> 4;C @41 )# C588 .1 ;<1>-@10 ;> 9-:-310 ;> 4;C <8-: /;9<85-:/1 C588 .1 9;:5@;>10 -:0 4;C 9A/4 /;:@>;8 5@E ;225/5-8? C588 4-B1 ;B1> @45? <>;/1?? ,1 A:01>?@-:0 @41 Attachment 15


 





 


  


 





Attachment 15

Moffett Park Specific Plan Comments
Jay Paul & DES

2.9.23 Chapter Plan Section Page Number Comment
4 4.2 77 There is an unidentified green area shown on the southwest corner of 11th Avenue and Discovery Way which should be deleted. This area is currently a parking lot and it is not on the Plan's list of planned open space.
44 . 38 1 W i t h respect to Moffett Place (Moffett Park Drive between Borregas & Mathilda) a portion of the site is zoned MPͲO2and a portion zoned MPͲMU.Both parcels should be zoned MPͲO2in order to achieve the additional density we have planned for the site without the nedd to acquire TDRs; the split seems rather arbitrary as it is not along any existing property lines
44 . 38 1 Moffett Gateway Site at Crossman & Moffett Park Drive Ͳthere is an artificial zoning split that should be resolved Ͳa portion of the site is zoned residential and the
balance MPͲO2.In order to justify redevelopment of the site, we need the ability count FAR over the entire site at 135% FAR without the need to acquire TDRs. (Based on current split, we would only have 195k sf of additional density in the area of the site zoned MPͲO2.Our planned commercial development at this site is 372k Ͳmeaning we would need to acquire 177k sf of TDRs which would make the redevelopment, including the residential unfeasible) 4 4.4 84 Consolidated density (paragraph 6). Please confirm if this is meant to provide a path for Bonus FAR transfer between parcels with common ownership? 4 4.6
92 Figure 27 ͲNeighborhood Serving Use Locations. The planned Activity Center at the corner of 11th and Discovery Way and the retail requirement in this location should be eliminated. Activity Centers in other parts of the plan area make sense because there are a variety of uses and the critical mass of adjacent retail to assure successful attraction and retention of retail tenants. This is not the case in this particular location because standͲaloneRetail is difficult to Lease and coͲlocatingretail in a building that would typically be leased on a single tenat basis will create security issues for the tenant and will make the building extrememly difficult to lease. Our Moffett Towers and Moffett Towers 2 campuses both have stand alone retail spaces that are currently vacant and have been problematic to fill over the life of both projects. The Discovery Neighborhood is comprised of large campuses that are leased on a single tenant building basis to tenants that provide significant onsite amenities and subsidized high quality food service to their employees. Its very difficult for either subsidized or unsubsidized retail to compete; attracting small retail tenants has been nearly impossible. CoͲlocatingretail space within buildings typically leased on a single tenant basis will pose significant security concerns to potential tenants making buildings challenging to lease. These tenants lease entire buildings so they can control what happens in and around their buildings. This is an infill site; retail in this location will be a security issue to tenants. Retail is best located in larger concentrations eg the high density, mixed use neighborhoods east of Mathilda or close to the planned residential in the West Mathilda Neighborhood. Its not appropriate in infill buildings located in exisiting secure campuses. 4 4.7 93 While we agree its important to maintain a diversity of businesses in Moffett Park, the Innovation and Maker Space requirement should not be imposed on existing
campuses adding infill buildings as it is detrimental to the secure environment these campuses have been carefully designed to achieve and the single tenant nature of campus buildings. Tech tenants lease space in suburban campuses because they can create highly secure environments for their most sensitive projects. Requiring the inclusion of Innovation and Creation Space in new infill buildings, will create significant security issues for tech tenants as they typically lease an entire building to control access and security in and around their buildings. The option to consolidate all Innovation and Creation Space into a single facility on a campus still poses security issues as campuses are sometimes leased in their entirety by a single tenant. Further, its just not pratical to say, build a 40,000 sf building to satisfy the maker space requirement for a single infill building. Innovation and Creation space is typically located in older first and second generation space in Moffett Park because these buildings are affordable. The high rental rates infill developers must charge to offset Innovation and Creation space development costs, howver will be unaffordable to these types of tenants, creating the potential for permanent vacancies. Finally, The demand for this type of space is being created by the demolition of existing maker space type buildings in Moffett Park, not the addition of infill buildings on existing campuses. Infill buildings should be exempt from the Innovation and Creation Space requirement. Alternatively, the Innovation and Creation Space requirement could be encouraged through community benefits at the option of the developer. 44 . 89 5 Table 4 ͲEstimated Office R&D and Industrial Total FAR at Plan Buildout. The estimate of 7.7 million sf of total development in the Discovery Neighborhood is understated. We previously submitted information to the City indicating we intend to develop an additional 1.1 million SF in this neighborhood. This would bring the potential total development closer to 8 million sf.

Attachment 15

44 . 89 5 T h e Development Reserve should be allocated more equitably between the various neighborhoods. The draft Plan currently allocates 60% of the Development Reserve excluding the Base FAR and Small Project Reserves to the South Java and Crossman neighborhoods which represent only 32% of the plan area. In contrast, the Discovery Neighborhood, which represents nearly 20% of the plan area is only allocated 10% of the net reserve. While we understand one of the goals of the draft plan is to encourage higher density development in the neighborhoods east of Mathilda, this disproportionate allocation means sites in the Discovery Neighborhood must acquire expensive TDR’s, if available from private parties, in a disproportionate amount when compared to other neighborhoods. Further, FAR achieved through the purchase of Base Reserve TDR’s would also be subject to community benefits requirements, making development in the Discovery Neighborhood much more expensive than other neighborhoods in Moffett Park. Allocating just 714k to the entire Discovery Neighborhood is not equitable. 4 4 9 96 Private streets previously developed to City standards with redevelopment projects should not be required to be upgraded again unless the street is not "complete". This obligation is overburdensome in the context of infill development of existing campus sites. Further, from a functional standpoint, the draft Plan treats private roads as if they were public improvements. From an operational and cost perspective, developers are expected to build and maintain these improvements as if they were private.

In other words, private developers will be responsible for bearing the cost of maintaining roadways that function as public roads while developers in other parts of the Plan area enjoy use of public roads without bearing any operational costs. Further, the City does not provide traffic enforcement on private roads which has been problematic for existing campuses served by these roads. More analysis of this issue should be undertaken to assure equitable provision of services and costs for all developments in Moffett Park. In addition, the plan assumes that these private streets will somehow have public access even if no additional development takes place prompting a public access easement. Its unfair to expect existing landowners who have not granted public access easements to bear the additional cost and liability of providing public access accross currently private roads and streets. This is especially true in the Discovery neighborhood where the Mary Avenue overpass is planned to land. The only public access easement is currently in the section of Discovery between 11th and 5th. Access to the rest of Moffett Park will require travel over private roads with no traffic enforcement support by the City and at considerable maintenance costs to the private landowner. 5 5.1 100 In some infill situations, the parking facilities may require flexibility on location relative to the street. There could be an issue relative to efficient ingress/egress 5 5.2.2 106 No surface parking allowed in setback, building setback for Moffett Place 15' max and MT1 and MT2 25' max. This standard should not apply to existing parking lots of infill projects; existing setbacks should be allowed.
5 5.2 3
109 The requirement for bldg area coverage of 70% maximum, paving 25% max, landscape are 20% max should be weighed against the goal of providing the maximum amount of housing units.
5 5.3 111 Building heightsͲWe don’t see the additional 10% in this section. We assume that the mechanical penthouse/roof screen heights are additional to this table, based on the mechanical requirements for tech office tenants. Please not that tech office Penthouse/roof screens typically take up 70Ͳ80%of roof area.

MPSP proposal. JPC project proposal
a.150’ at MT2 (B7) – proposed 160’
b.130’ at MT2 (B6) Ͳproposed 145’
c.130’ at MT1 Ͳokay
d.130’ at MPL (B8) – proposed 160’
e.160’ at MPL (B7) – proposed 170’
f.130’ at MG oĸce– proposed 170’
g.160’ at MG residenƟal – proposed 170’
h.160’ at InnovaƟon – okay
Building heights need to be max. to FAA limit, as was suggested by several City Council members previously and also by Andy Minor at the very start of the MPSP update process. Alternatively, building heights for infill buildings should be allowed to be the max FAA height limit to encourage a variety of building heights and more efficient use of the ground plane by reducing the footprint of buildings. 5 5.3 2 112Ͳ113 The suggested bldg. massing requirements are invasive on bldg. design creativity / functionality Ͳespecially in the context of infill buildings in previously redeveloped campuses. Infill buildings in previously redeveloped campuses should be permitted to be similar in form and function to other existing buildings within the same campus
in order maintain a cohesive campus environment. The proposed building design standards do not differentiate between infill buildings in existing campuses and buildings for completely new sites and as a consequence, infill buildings may look and function differently from existing campus buildings. While this might be desireable in some cases, it may also prove detrimental to existing campus design in others. Tenants leasing space in suburban campus environments appreciate the cost effectiveness of similar floor plates across multiple buildings. Similarity between floors and buildings allow these tenants to rapidly design and construct their improvements and makes City permit review cycles much more efficient. We suggest that design standards for infill buildings should be adjusted to permit the design of infill buildings to be similar to existing buildings on the same campus (updating for changes in code etc). a. Step backs at 8th floor, bldg. length, required massing entry locations, are too prescriptive to architectural creativity and on many cases to functional needs of large b. Overall, the guidelines are much too prescriptive in building façade design.

Attachment 15

c. There needs to be more flexibility in bldg. and façade design so all projects do not have the same massing design character, design needs to respond to context and not be arbitrary as these guidelines suggest.
d. Gateway resi building max. 160’ in length, above 90’ height only 16,000 sf footprint allowed and min. 60’ separation between buildings Ͳthis will reduce number of potential units. This should not be a requirement for basic massing design. e. For example our proposed MPL B7 has max. length of 300’ (currently designed at 360’ long) and MT2, MT1, MPL B8 and MG, Innovation requires 75% floorplate above 110’ height ( 8th floor onwards) This is too prescriptive, need design flexibility. f. Moffett Gateway and Moffett Place sites should not
be exempted from the requirements of the fine grain core, this line has been arbitrarily drawn as cutting through the site. the actual context should be taken into account, preserving the ability to design a cohesive campus with buildings that are compatible for an existing campus.
5 5.3.2 114 Proposed periodic breaks in façades for entire height of building are much too prescriptive. This does not allow for creative architecture, nor accommodate the ability to design buildings that can remain compatible with an established architectural vocabulary for various infill buildings on tech office campuses. 5 5.3 3
116 Building entries need to be responsive to the needs of the interior planning of a building.bldg. the location and number of entries need to be of that same requirement.

This would compromise the proposed entries for MPL B7 and MG Residential building. The location and number of entries can only be determined due to campus layout and tenant requirements. The following examples are not always appropriate, based on context:
a.

Primary entry needs to face a laneway or publicly accessible open space b. Laneway ROW 52’ min. (publicly accessible)
, laneway sections on Page 201
c . Requires 2 entries, 1 entry for every 150’ length of bldg. 5 5.3.4 118 These requirements much too prescriptive on opens space relative to building placement and connection to the ground plane.

This is not always appropriate, and flexibility is required: Residential common open space width needs to be 80% of height of building, i.e. 160’ height requires open space 135’ wide.
5 5.3.5 120 Parking:
a.Surface parking lots at 20 spaces max is not viable within the development of the park. There may be many cases where ADA stall demands require surface parking spaces in excess of this arbitrary number.
b.StandͲalone garages not allowed fronƟng the diagonal, MPL garage E is planned facing diagonalͲthe site layout of inĮll buildings on an exisƟng campus may need additional flexibility to achieve the best site plan and architectural layout. c.Above grade parking levels facing a street will have 20’ min. / 16’ for resi. habitable/commercial space, applies to all parking garages. MG, InnovaƟon, proposed garages are street facing. This is not viable in office projects. (need exemption for small sites and infill development, exemption if garage facade looks similar to building facade) 5 5.3.5 121 The concept of parking garage heights at 9’ clear is not viable economically. The conversion of parking garage to resi. or commercial is not not viable due to vibration criteria, column spacing, MEP systems, sloped floors, as well as due to additional cost by increasing facade heights by 20%. Eg.

Parking garage at MT2 adds additional
complexity in terms of achieving the proposed design.
5 5.4.3 124 There should be more flexibility on the approach on bird safe glass design approach. As is noted in the San Francisco Standards for BirdͲSafeBuildings , there are numerous
methods to achieve successful solutions. SF's guidelines were throughly researched and are widely noted and used as a standard Ͳperhaps instead refer to this set of standards instead?
5 5.4 3 126 Regarding required green roof over 5000 sf, this may or may not be viable, depending on HVAC location. T24 should dictate this, not the MPSP. Accessibility is typically not viable because of functional and OSHA safety requirements. 6 6.1
132 Please show the major existing open spaces in the JPC projects more accurately. These are extensive areas and are in each of our campuses which typically provide approx 40% landscaped open space.
6 6.3 143 The mini park/plaza at 11th and Discovery Way (Figure 34) is not practicle or viable. A plaza in this location does not make sense in the context of the population in the immediate area and
planned traffic improvements. This plaza would be located on a high traffic corner where the Mary Avenue overpass initially drops into Moffett Park.

It seems contrary to safety to encourage pedestrian traffic in this area. Further, we believe the plaza will be underutilized as it is surrounded by highly amenitized, tech office campuses that already provide significant open space and outdoor gathering opportunities for employees. With respect to park access for residential projects, the closest potential residential development (at Innovation and Mathilda) is ½ mile away from this corner and there is park planned immediately across Innovation on the Juniper Campus. We therefore believe this requirement will not be used for its intended purpose, creates pedestrian safety issues and should therefore be eliminated.

Attachment 15

6 6.3 143 The three acre Neighborhood Park at the corner of 5th Avenue and Discovery Way (Figure 34) is not practical or viable. While we understand the City’s desire for open space, a park in this location does not make sense given the surrounding area is comprised of high density office campuses which already provide significant landscaped open space for use by project occupants. There is no residential or mixed use space in the immediate area and realistically, the only potential users of the proposed park will be the existing employee population which already enjoys a highly amenitized campus environment with over 42% usable, landscaped open space. The addition of a neighborhood park in this location would require the removal and relocation of existing landscaped open space, including a significant art installation, on a campus that seeks only to add infill buildings. Further, there are multiple parks and open spaces being planned for the planned residential north of 1st Avenue including a 9 acre Community Park on the Navy Site, a Greenway and a Natural Area/Bio Diversity Hub immediately adjace to that site. 6 6.5 158 The suggested Moffett Place B7 diagonal cannot be 50’ wide; The existing condition and current design are shown at 25’ wide. The need of vehicle access for the building would conflict with the existing current driveway.
6 6.5
165 The west channel cross section suggests 70’ wide public open space on Moffett Place B7 site; this is not viable since we have existing surface parking lot in this location. 7 7.3 199 There should be
no requirement to rebuild existing neighborhood street when infill building is being proposed. In all of the JPC campuses the adjacent streets were designed and built to City standards with the initial development and are "complete streets". In most cases, these streets ar approx.. 12 years old and in some cases, less that 10 years old. The requirement for rebuilding City streets is more appropriately associated with the 30 and 40 year old streets in other areas of the markͲmostly in the eastern areas Ͳespecially if the streets are not "complete". If the City desires reconstruction of newer "complete streets", the cost should be considered a community benefit or credited against other fees.
8 8.2 222 Public transportation in and out of Moffett Park is currently not robust enough to be a meaningful alternative for most employees and the draft Plan does not adequately address how public transportation will be increased to
address additional demand. Further, the draft Plan/DEIR assumes that 27% of non vehicle trips will be provided by private transportation networks (i.e. Google buses) which may or may not be the case in the future. If this is not the case, the TMA will need to “pick up the slack” but the TMA will not have the financial resources to make up for this lack of infrastructure – simply running shuttles to Cal Train and within Moffett Park will not provide the regional transportation network necessary to support mobility in a suburban location. Large employers like Google are able to spread their regional transportation costs over many sites throughout the Bay Area and are providing this service as an employee amenity. This will not be the case for the TMA; the City needs to carefully evaluate this strategy to see if it will realistically achieve its goals in the context of the potential development contemplated by the draft Plan. 8 8.2 223 Requiring residential tenants to joing the TMA is not practical. Given all applicable fees etc are the obligation of the building owner, the building owner should also have the obligation to assure compliance of its renters through lease document provisions.. This should be an obligation of the building owner who can then impose TDM obligations through lease documents. Residential unit owners should be required to join, but not renters. 8 8.2 224 Trip reduction goals need to be better defined for both Residential and nonͲresidentialdevelopment. The "baseline" needs to be clearly defined as well as target trip reductions which should be equally applied to all new
development.
8 8.3 225 Park Once Ͳit should be noted that the exisiting large scale campuses in Moffett Park redeveloped by Jay Paul have been carefully designed to provide a cohesive environment to encourage employees to “park once" and stay on campus throughout the work day. They are highly amenitized with significant usable open space, high quality wellness/fitness centers, restaurant quality food service, and other amenities. Employees working at these facilities do not create additional trips throughout the day and typcially alter their commuting patterns to arrive early or stay late to take advantage of the free amenities provided in a campus environment. 8 8.3.1 226Ͳ227 The parking ratios being proposed by the Plan, eg 2.0/1000 at plan implementation ratching down to .75/1000 at plan buildout are not realist, not market and will make infill buildings difficult to lease. Tenant demand will go to other cities with more traditional suburban parking ratios eg 3.3/1000. Further, within a single campus, there will be significant differences in the parking ratios among various buildings. This will impact marketability and achieveable rental rates as some tenants with existing long term leases will have the benefit of higher ratios while others will be subject to the new maximums. Infill buildings should be allowed to maintain parking ratios similar to existing ratios within the same campus. Given traffic into and out of Moffett Park must function, it might be better to instead reduce the amount of potential commercial development anticipated by the Plan in order to maintain parking competiveness with other cities 8 8.5 237 Bike parking standards should be per T24 and LEED requirements, not necessarily the MPSP. 99 . 2 & 9.3 245 Ͳ
247 Utilities Ͳthere are a number of requirements to upsize utilities the need of which may not be attributed to serving the additional capacity requirements of infill buildings.

For example, the requirements for new 18” water line along 11th would not necessarily be triggered by an infill building. If upsizing these utilites to support other development is a plan goal, developers installing oversized improvements should be given credit for the cost against other fees or should be entitled to credit as a
community benefit, especially in the context of private infrastructure that is being overly upsized to provide additional capacity to support development throughout the Plan area. See our comment in Section 4.9 above regarding the City's assumption that private infrastructure will somehow become public even if no additional development takes place to prompt public easements.
10 10.2 259 Exception to Standards Ͳ10% plus or minus deviation does not include building height (section 5.3.1) as previously mentioned. 10 10.5
282 The various infrastructure programs should be City funded infrastructure projects when the benefits are more widely shared with other parts of the community.

Attachment 15

Melinda Anne Sarjapur
February 9, 2023
Delivered Via E-Mail and Mail
Michelle King, Principal Planner
Sunnyvale Planning Department
Sunnyvale City Hall
456 West Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
[email protected]
Re: Moffett Park Specific Plan - Draft Plan and Draft EIR Comments Our File No.: 6414.08
Dear Michelle:

Our office represents the owner (“Owner”) of real property located at 250 East Java Drive in Sunnyvale, California (the “ Property”). The Property is located within the Moffett Park Specific Plan (“MPSP”) area.

This letter provides the Owner’s comments on the Draft MPSP and Draft MPSP EIR, which were released for public review on December 22, 2022.

On February 1, 2023, the Owners architects - DLR Group - met with members of the Sunnyvale Planning Department to discuss the potential impact of MPSP re-zoning on the Property and to relay initial comments regarding MPSP policies and design controls that have the potential to impact maximum residential development capacity at the Property.

We appreciate this opportunity to provide written feedb ack on the Draft MPSP and Draft MPSP EIR, and look forward to continued engage ment with the Department and key community stakeholders as these materials are refined leading up to final approval.

As discussed, the Owner supports the Draft Pl an’s vision for creation of an ecological innovation district that will b ecome an integr al part of Sunnyvale, w ith active, unique and sustainable neighborhoods crea ting the potential for up to 20,000 new homes. The comments below are intended to facilitate this vision by en suring feasibility of anti cipated new residential development necessary to transform the plan area.

Attachment 15
Pa
ge 37 of 235

As the Plan aims to encourage high-
density residential development and
already incorporates detailed form-
based density design controls
(height/bulk/setback/open space), we
suggest potentially eliminating the
additional Total Maximum FAR limit
in this district.

Alternately, we suggest the following:
x For purposes of calculating
Total Maximum FAR, please
clarify that Total Maximum
FAR is to be based upon total,
current gross parcel areas.
x Allowing development that
proposes a high-rise
development of 85’ in height
or greater to achieve an
additional FAR bonus
(potentially 0.5:1) for areas
above the 8
th floor of
buildings, with no associated
requirement to obtain transfer
of development rights from the
Development Reserve;
increased entitlement process
(i.e. Development Agreement)
associated with this bonus; or
requirement for additional
community benefits. This
would incentivize
development of the high-rise
typology encouraged by form-
based design controls within
the district by allowing for
additional residential area to
offset increased development
costs.

Attachment 15

Section 5.2
(Site Design)
Figure 32
(Parks and
Open Space
Framework)
Certainty of Laneway Location.

The Draft Plan states that block breaks
will be accomplished via creation of
laneways equivalent to with a minimum
width of 50’ which may or may not be
open to vehicular access. The Draft
Plan states that the location of these
laneways on Draft Plan figures are
diagrammatic, flexible and will be
determined through the Site Master Plan
review process for proposed
redevelopments. However, location of
laneways is also to be determined to
some extent through maximum lot size
and dimensional restrictions.

As properties within the plan area are
anticipated to be redeveloped over time,
there is a potential that the first site
design to be approved will result in
precedential laneway placement that
negatively impacts the potential for
future residential development on
adjacent sites, or that the first site to be
developed would be required to absorb
a disproportionate burden of full
laneway area dedication within their
own parcel.

In order to ensure equitable division of
existing land parcels, increase certainty
in the future redevelopment process,
and ensure a well-coordinated
transportation network consistent with
the Draft Plan’s vision, the Owner
requests that the Draft Plan provide a
fixed location for future laneways and
their operation.

On the Property’s block, the Owner
suggests the following guiding
principles:
x A single east-west laneway be
required at approximately the
centerline of the block with
vehicular access.
x Laneways straddle existing
property lines (e.g. a 52-ft
wide laneway encroach no
more than 26-ft inward from
each existing property lines.
x Laneways not be required in a
manner that splits exiting
parcels.

Section 4.9
(Dedication
and Easement
Requirements)
Indeterminate Encroachment through
Existing ROW Widening.

The Draft Plan requires redeveloped
properties to make substantial public
area dedications through easements or
other means, including the area required
to widen certain Plan area streets
adjacent to private parcels. However,
little information is provided on the
existing width of public ROW and
improvements within the Plan area,
which is necessary for owners to
confirm the extent of public land
dedication that will be required on their
frontages.

Please indicate the existing street and
right of way widths throughout the
plan area to enable existing owners to
confirm the extent of additional public
land dedication required along their
frontages.

For Java and Geneva (amongst other
streets) the Owner suggests having the
suggested ROW be overlaid relative to
existing street surveys, to understand
the encroachment/easement being
required.

Attachment 15

Section 5.2.3
(Lot
Coverage)
Lot Coverage.

The Draft Plan states that development
in the MP-R District will be subject to a
maximum lot coverage area of 70%.

However, the term “lot coverage” is not
clearly defined, and is controlled
through other detailed form-based
density restrictions such a public area
dedication and minimum building
setback requirements along public
streets and future laneways.

From the team’s preliminary discussion
with Planning staff on 2/1/23, it is our
understanding that the intent is for this
lot coverage restriction to apply above a
building base of up to two levels (or 25
feet) high.

Please clarify that this 70% lot
coverage requirement would begin
Lot
coverage be measured above a
‘podium’, at least two levels (or 25-
feet) high.

We further request either that:
x the lot coverage requirement
be increased to 80% of Net
Parcel Area; or
x for purposes of Total
Maximum FAR and maximum
lot coverage, the Net Parcel
Area be based upon existing
parcel dimensions (prior to
open space dedications).

Section 5.3.4
(Usable Open
Space)
Section 5.4.3
(Green Roofs)
Open Space – Amount and Credit
Under the Draft Plan, public open space
dedication reduces Net Parcel Area, but
despite the practical function of
providing usable open space for both
building residents and the community at
large these areas are not credited against
project usable open space requirements.

Under the Draft Plan, building setback
areas in addition to public open space
dedication areas may not count toward
project usable open space requirements.

Under the Draft Plan, certain minimum
green roof requirements apply.

We suggest allowing development to
credit the area of public open space
provided through required easements
to be credited toward private usable
open space requirements.

We suggest allowing the area of
required ground-level setbacks on a
property to be credited toward private
usable open space requirements of
development on that property,
regardless of minimum width
dimensions.

We suggest allowing development to
provide additional publicly-accessible-
private-open-space (“POPOS”) areas
beyond the public easement areas
required by the Plan, and to credit the
area of POPOS toward private open
space requirements of the development
at a reduced ratio (i.e. every square
foot of voluntary POPOS provided
Attachment 15

credited as 2 square feet of common
usable open space).

Please clarify that the area of Green
Roof provided may count toward
usable open space requirements.

Chapter 4, pg.

85. Section 5.3.4
Potential Usable Open Space Conflict
Language.

The Draft Plan states that “all
development must comply with the
SMC Title 19 with regard to usable
open space and landscaping.”
However, the Draft Plan provides
usable open space and landscaping
requirements under Section 5.3.4, and
the existing zoning code does not have
usable open space requirements specific
to MP-R Districts.

Please clarify the specific usable open
space and landscaping requirements
applicable to development in the MP-R
District under both the Draft Plan and
Sunnyvale Municipal Code.

Section 5.3
(Building
Design)
Figure 30
Clarification of Maximum Building
Height.

Figure 30 shows maximum building
heights throughout the Draft Plan area.

This figure indicates that the Property is
largely within a 160’ height district,
with a portion along the west edge
shown as 170’.

Please clarify the map is accurately
reflecting the proposed heigh limits on
this Property, and clarify the proposed
dimensions of split height district
intended for the Property.

Section 8.3.1
(Vehicle
Parking
Maximums)
Table 24
Parking Ratio – Phasing.

The Draft Plan indicates that maximum
parking amounts will be phased.

Please provide more information
regarding the proposed phasing
methodology. Would this be
determined by set time periods within
the overall Plan period or triggered by
percentage of Plan area build-out?
Section 8.2.1
(Vehicle
Parking
Maximums)
Parking Ratio – Shared Parking Bonus.

The Draft Plan allows development to
exceed otherwise permitted maximum
parking limits by up to 50%, provided
that all of the additional spaces over the
maximum “shall be shared with the
public at all times.”
Please clarify that this 50% bonus is
tied to the per-unit maximum parking
ratio in effect at the time the
development is approved. (ex: At plan
adoption, the residential maximum of
1 space per unit would increase to 1.5
spaces per unit).

Attachment 15

We request that the Draft Plan
language be amended to allow shared
public parking spaces to be made
available to the public only during
daylight hours or fixed hours (ex: from
7 a.m.-10 p.m.) rather than “at all
times.” This is to address security
concerns that arise with public access
to private residential development
24/7.

Global Economic Feasibility.

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

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

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

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

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

B. MPSP Draft Environmental Impact Report Comments

DEIR Section Discussion Requested Modification
Project and
Alternatives
Selected

This section discusses the scope of
development under the proposed
project analyzed by the EIR and
describes various alternative projects
The Owner strongly urges City
adoption of the proposed project and
rejection of all other alternatives
discussed in this section, as the full
Attachment 15

Section 7.0 considered by the City during
review.
project scope is most closely aligned
with the goals and policies evaluated
under the MPSP.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Very truly yours,

REUBEN, JUNIUS & ROSE, LLP
Melinda A. Sarjapur
Enclosures:
cc:

Attachment 15

1 1 0 1 1
Ser/RE (KLN) – 5643
February 9, 2023

Ms. Michelle King
Principal Planner
Department of Community Development
456 W. Olive Ave.

Sunnyvale, CA 94086
[email protected]

Subj: DRAFT EIR MOFFETT PARK SPECIFIC PLAN, FILE NO. 2021080338

Dear Michelle,
The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) is the owner of the real property located at 1235 N.

Mathilda Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA, 94089, which is included within the boundary of the Moffett Park Specific Plan district. As the current landowner of this parcel, the Navy has prepared comments and suggested edits regarding the Draft EIR Moffett Park Specific Plan File No. 2021080338 attached as Enclosure (1) for the City’s review and consideration.

Please contact me at (202) 685-0553 or (615) 300-7808, or at [email protected], with any questions regarding this matter.

Very Respectfully,

Eric W. Crafton
Director of Real Estate
By Direction

Encl: (1) Navy Comments Regarding the Draft EIR Moffett Park Specific Plan, File No. 2021080338

Attachment 15

facility, approved CERCLA
remedial action remedies for
groundwater, soil, and soil vapor
will be in place prior to any
redevelopment of the property.

Remedies will be documented in
formal records of decision, and any
ongoing land use controls and
requirements will be recorded in the
chain of title for the property. The
text of the EIR should acknowledge
that where remedies are already in
place and approved by appropriate
regulatory authorities, the additional
studies and investigations should not
be required.

Attachment 15

405 14
th
st. suite 500
oakland, ca 94612
510.516.0167 t
brick-inc.com
10 February 2023
Michelle King
Principal Planner
456 West Olive Ave.

Sunnyvale, CA 94086
[email protected]
Re: Comments on Draft Moffett Park Specific Plan
Dear Ms. King:

I hope this letter finds you well. Brick. would like to express its support for the Moffett Park Specific Plan’s goals of creating a more connected, inclusive and sust ainable built environment. Our thanks goes out to the City staff and the team of consultants who have put together a very thoughtful plan for the future of Moffett Park. As architects currently working in the City , we appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the success of the Moffett Park Specific Plan and to the future of the City of Sunnyvale.

As an architectural firm with a strong interest in sustainable design and urban planning, we are writing to express some of our points of concern regarding the Draft Moffett Park Specific Plan. We believe it is important to provide constructive feedback on proposals that will shape the future of the city, and we believe the Draft Moffett Park Specific Plan could benefit from some revisions.

Firstly, we would like to address the issue of street and infrastructure improvements. While we support the goal of creating a sustainable community, we do not believe that upgrading all infrastructure, regardless of whether it is necessary or not, is an economically sustainable policy. Th is approach will certainly lead to a significant increase in costs for developers and may jeopardize the feasibility of many projects. Instead, we believe that the city should focus on upgrading infrastructure only when it is necessary and where it will have the greatest impact on sustainability and livability.

Another area of concern is the requirement for green r oofs. As architects, we believe that green roofs are an important tool for reducing the urban heat island effect, improving air quality, and providing additional outdoor space. However, we also believe that the requirement for green roofs may limit the feasibility of mass timber projects given the weight requirements and the additional structural support necessary. The sustainable benefits of a green roof, namely stormwater retention and heat island reduction, can be achieved in other ways that do not require increasing the structural capacity of the building.

Finally, we would like to highlight the requirement for Creation/Innovation spaces in the O-1 and O-2 zones.

While we believe that these spaces have the potential to be an important asset to the new district, we have concerns about the specific requirements outlined in the Draft Moffett Park Specific Plan. The tenant market for these types of small spaces is limited, which will result in many empty spaces. Many large corporate tenants cannot share their campuses with other tenants due to security concerns. Additionally, Attachment 15

the requirement for redundant infrastructure, such as electrical services and generators, will increase the carbon footprint of the project and place additional demands on the city’s infrastructure.

We believe that the Draft Moffett Park Specific Plan has the potential to be a positive step forward for the city of Sunnyvale, but also believe that some revisions are necessary to ensure that it is sustainable, livable, and economically viable. We would be happy to engage further in this important conversation and provide any additional feedback that may be of assistance.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Mathew Combrink
Design Partner
Attachment 15

301 HOWARD STREET, SUITE
2100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
C
February 10, 2023 VIA Electronic Mail
Michelle King
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Sunnyvale
456 West Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Re: Draft Moffett Park Specific Plan and 255 Caspian Drive Dear Ms. King:

We are writing on behalf of DivcoWest (Divco), a Bay Area real estate developer and institutional capital advisor, who advises the ownership of 255 Caspian Drive (Property), which is included in the proposed Moffett Park Specific Plan (MPSP) area. The Property currently is zoned Moff ett Park General Industrial (MP-I) and has been tenanted by Equinix, a data storage and digital infrastructure company, for many years, as shown in the graphic below.

Once adopted, the MPSP update will re-designate the Property from MP-I to Moffett Park Mixed-Use (MP-MU), which appears to offer future flexibility for the Property; however, given that we have no current intentions of redeveloping the Property, we are concerned that: 1) the updated MPSP contemplates the elimination of Caspian Drive in favor of future open space, such as the proposed Caspian Community Park, and 2) the new MP-MU designation does not expressly allow data storage providers as a permitted use. Divco, thus, respectfully requests that the clarifications specified below be included in the MPSP, per our discussions during the conference call on Wednesday, February 1, 2023. 
 

 
 


 
Attachment 15

301 HOWARD STREET, SUITE
2100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
C

1. Caspian Drive
As noted above, the MPSP proposes to abandon Caspian Drive at an undetermined point in the future in order to accommodate a proposed Caspian Community Park and other open space amenities. The abandonment of Caspian Drive, as proposed, would completely eliminate the Property’s primary vehicular site access—our literal front door (as highlighted in yellow in Figure 35, Illustrative Caspian Community Park Section and Figure 20, Illustrative North Java Neighborhood Diagram, respectively, below).

This potential elimination of Caspian Drive obviously is very troubling to the Property’s ownership (and likely to other property owners along that corridor) because of the loss of critical vehicular access that the Property has relied on for decades, thus causing substantial negative impacts to the Property value. We recognize that, as the properties in the MPSP redevelop, there will be an expectation that applicants work with the City and adjacent property owners to solve for these significant impacts to neighboring properties; however, the MPSP does not explicitly define or outline any particular policy that formalizes such an expectation.

 

 
 


 
Attachment 15

301 HOWARD STREET, SUITE
2100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
C
Therefore, we respectfully request that specific policy language be added to the MPSP that provides necessary assurances to adjacent owners as part of any future Site Master Plan process or public infrastructure improvement projects.

We recommend the following language be added to Chapter 10.3 General Submittals and Site Master Plans (and/or anywhere else in the MPSP that Planning staff sees fit):

All Site Master Plan development applicants, including any public infrastructure improvement projects, shall either facilitate the retention of existing site access or provide equivalent access to properties adjacent to future improvements.

2. Data Center Use
Given that the Property has been tenanted for years with Equinix, a data center use, Divco also requests that the MPSP clearly reflect a policy that expressly allows existing uses to continue indefinitely as the plan unfolds and evolves. To amplify this point, we ask that the data center-type use be called out in the MP-MU designation (below), as well as the subsequent Zoning Ordinance update that will be undertaken to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the adopted MPSP.

Specifically, we ask that data centers be added to the Zoning Ordinance’s MP-MU land use table as a permitted use and not be characterized as a conditional use or not permitted at all.

Conclusion
We believe that these modest additions to the MPSP will provide comfort and assurances to those stand-alone property owners whose ongoing operations could be significantly impacted by future redevelopments. We appreciate your receptivity to our situation and our collaborative dialogue with the City, and we look forward to continued conversations.

Please feel free to reach out with any questions about the foregoing requests.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Michael Pelletier
Managing Director

 

 
 


 

Attachment 15

/0 /1 /2 /3 /1 /0 /4 /5 /i255 /7 /8 /9 /10 /11 /12/13/13 /14/15 /16 /i255 /17 /i255 /18 /19 /16 /16 /20 /i255 /21 /22 /14 /i255 /17 /i255/23/24/25 /16 /26 /26 /27 /22 /25 /25 /28 /29 /8 /1 /1 /26 /24 /25 /16 /26 /26 /27 /30 /26 /31 /31 /15 /32 /19 /4 /33 /9 /30 /32 /26/34/1 /34/14/15 /16 /1 /15 /35 /36 /26 /37 /1 /15 /38 /1 /12 /12/13/27/12 /39 /22 /27 /40 /41 /27 /0 /42 /41 /40 /16 /43/44/45/16 /40/46/47/25 /42 /39 /12 /9 /40 /15 /2 /15 /40 /39 /45/34/43/41 /47 /0 /42 /0/13/48/49 /50 /51 /37 /42 /50/13/4 /13/52/53/46/12/12 /12 /12 /12 /12 /39 /4 /41 /37 /10 /54 /55 /56 /57 /58/59/28/10 /18 /7 /12 /52 /35 /50/60/2 /1 /2 /61 /62 /63/64/65/i255 /67 /68 /69 /70 /71 /72 /73 /i255 /74 /75 /76 /77 /78 /79 /69 /i255 /89 /90 /91 /92 /65 /i255 /93 /94 /95 /70 /69 /72 /96 /i255 /93 /85 /97 /94 /78 /69 /94 /72 /i255 /98 /99 /96 /i255 /100 /99 /100 /101 /i255 /98 /100 /102 /98 /103 /102 /104 /98 /i255 /105 /106 /107 /63 /65 /i255/106/95/87 /108 /85 /68 /68 /85 /i255 /109 /95 /73 /81 /i255 /80/106/109/95 /73 /81/83/82/78 /73 /73 /72 /110 /69 /68 /85 /86 /87 /69 /86 /81 /77 /110 /88 /89 /111 /112 /113 /90 /114 /92 /65 /i255 /76 /115 /116 /i255 /117 /100 /99 /100 /98 /99 /118 /99 /101 /101 /118 /i255/106/77/119 /85 /120 /i255 /105 /69 /94 /121 /i255 /76 /122 /85 /87 /95 /123 /87 /i255 /105 /68 /69 /73 /i255
/125 /126 /126 /127 /128 /i255 /129/130/131/132 /133 /i255 /132 /134 /i255 /135 /136 /137/130/i255/131 /138 /i255 /139 /140 /141 /139 /136 /138 /131 /133 /i255 /134 /137 /142 /136 /143 /139 /144 /i255 /145 /141 /137 /146 /147 /i255 /148 /137 /137 /149 /147 /i255 /131 /138 /150 /i255 /126 /151 /132 /138 /149 /i255 /152 /139 /135 /137 /136 /139 /i255 /137 /146 /139 /138 /132 /138 /153 /i255 /131 /141 /141 /131 /143 /151/130/139/138/141 /134 /i255 /137 /136 /i255 /133 /132 /138 /149 /134 /154 /155 /139 /143 /131 /142 /134 /139 /i255 /137 /135 /i255 /137 /142 /141 /i255 /137 /135 /i255/131 /141 /141 /131 /132 /138/130/139/138 /141 /i255 /127 /156 /157 /147 /i255 /156 /158 /137 /138 /139 /i255 /131 /138 /150 /i255 /159/160/126/i255 /132 /138 /i255 /125 /146 /146 /139 /138 /150 /132 /140 /i255 /161 /162 /i255 /125 /132 /136 /i255 /163 /142 /131 /133 /132 /141 /164 /162 /i255 /141 /151 /139 /i255 /146 /136 /137 /165 /139 /143 /141 /i255 /134 /151/137 /142 /133 /150 /i255 /131 /150 /150 /i255 /135 /139 /131 /134 /132 /152 /133 /139 /130/139/131 /134 /142 /136 /139 /134 /i255 /135 /137 /136 /i255 /125 /163 /i255 /146/142 /152 /133 /132 /143 /i255 /151 /139 /131 /133 /141 /151 /i255 /132/130/146/131 /143 /141 /i255 /136 /139 /150 /142 /143 /141 /132 /137 /138 /154 /166 /154 /i255 /167 /151 /131 /136 /153 /139 /i255 /132 /138 /143 /137/130/132/138/153 /i255 /168 /139 /151 /132 /143 /133 /139 /134 /i255 /168 /132 /131 /i255 /169 /131 /134 /141 /136 /131 /149 /i255 /137 /136 /i255 /168 /132 /150 /139 /137 /144 /i255 /131 /138 /150 /i255 /136 /139 /152 /131 /141 /139 /i255 /131 /142 /141 /137/130/131/141 /132 /143 /131 /133 /133 /164 /i255 /170 /132 /141 /151 /i255 /143 /131 /134 /151 /137 /142 /141 /147 /i255 /141 /151 /137 /134 /139 /i255 /141/151 /131 /141 /i255 /131 /136 /139 /i255 /139 /133 /139 /143 /141 /136 /132 /143 /147 /132 /138 /143 /133 /142 /150 /132 /138 /153 /i255 /139 /i255 /131 /138 /150 /i255 /137 /141/151 /139 /136 /i255/130/132/143 /136 /137/130/137/152 /132 /133 /132 /141 /164 /147 /i255 /131 /138 /150 /i255 /170 /151 /137 /i255 /170 /137 /142 /133 /150 /i255 /146 /131 /136 /141 /132 /143 /132 /146 /131 /141 /139 /i255 /132 /138 /i255 /141 /151 /139 /i255 /146 /136 /137 /153 /136 /131/130/i255/168 /132 /131 /i255 /136 /135 /132 /150 /147 /i255 /137 /136 /i255 /135 /131 /143 /139 /i255/136 /139 /143 /137 /153 /138 /132 /141 /132 /137 /138 /154 /i255 /171 /154 /i255 /i255 /126 /151 /139 /i255 /126 /161/160/147/i255 /134 /139 /141 /i255/131 /i255 /153 /137 /131 /133 /i255 /137 /135 /i255 /172 /173/174/i255/145 /156 /159 /147 /i255 /132 /134 /i255 /139 /140 /143 /139 /133 /133 /139 /138 /141 /i255 /152 /142 /141 /i255 /132 /134 /i255 /134 /141 /132 /133 /133 /i255 /137 /142 /141 /i255 /137 /135 /i255 /131 /141 /141 /131 /132 /138/130/139/138 /141 /i255 /137 /135 /i255 /175/160/171/154 /172 /154 /i255 /176 /138 /143 /136 /139 /131 /134/139 /i255/130/132/141 /132 /153 /131 /141 /132 /137 /138 /i255 /168 /132 /131 /132 /138 /143 /136 /139 /131 /134 /139 /150 /i255 /168 /139 /153 /139 /141 /131 /141 /132/168 /139 /i255 /152 /131 /136 /136 /132 /139 /136 /134 /147 /i255 /132 /138 /150 /137 /137 /136 /i255 /131 /132 /136 /i255 /135 /132 /133 /141 /139 /136 /134 /147 /i255 /131 /138 /150 /i255 /131 /i255 /134 /141 /136 /137 /138 /153 /139 /136 /i255 /141 /131 /136 /153 /139 /141 /i255 /133 /132 /149 /139 /i255 /171 /172/174/i255/145 /156 /159 /154 /i255 /167 /125 /177 /155 /i255 /132 /138 /i255 /171 /173/173 /172 /136 /139 /143 /137/130/130/139/138 /150 /139 /150 /i255 /141 /151 /131/141 /i255 /151 /137 /142 /134 /132 /138 /153 /i255 /152 /139 /i255 /133 /137 /143 /131 /141 /139 /150 /i255 /172 /173 /173 /178 /i255 /131 /170 /131 /164 /i255 /135 /136 /137/130/i255/146 /137 /133 /133 /142 /141 /132 /137 /138 /i255 /134 /137 /142 /136 /143 /139 /134 /154 /i255 /177 /139 /143 /139 /138 /141 /i255 /136 /139 /143 /137/130/130/139/138 /150 /131 /141 /132 /137/138 /134 /i255 /132 /138 /i255 /141 /151 /139 /129 /142 /136 /137 /146 /139 /131 /138 /i255 /179 /138 /132 /137 /138 /i255 /134/131 /164 /i255 /141 /151 /139 /i255 /152 /131 /136 /136 /132 /139 /136 /i255 /134 /151 /137 /142 /133 /150 /i255 /152 /139 /i255 /166 /173 /173 /173 /178 /i255 /141 /137 /i255 /131 /168 /137 /132 /150 /i255 /134 /132 /153 /138 /132 /135 /132 /143 /131 /138 /141 /i255 /139 /146 /132 /153 /139 /138 /139 /141 /132 /143 /i255 /139 /135 /135 /139 /143 /141 /134 /154 /i255 /180 /132 /153 /151 /170 /131 /164/i255 /159 /139 /153 /139 /141 /131 /141 /132 /168 /139 /155 /131 /136 /136 /132 /139 /136 /134 /i255 /131 /136 /139 /i255 /137 /138 /i255 /170 /131/164 /i255 /141 /137 /i255 /136 /139 /150 /142 /143 /139 /i255 /132/130/146/131 /143 /141 /134 /154 /i255 /181 /154 /i255 /126 /151 /139 /i255 /136 /139 /143 /137/130/130/139/138 /150/131 /141 /132 /137 /138 /134 /i255 /132 /138 /i255 /171 /i255 /170 /132 /133 /133 /i255 /131 /133 /134 /137 /i255 /136 /139 /150 /142 /143 /139 /i255 /182 /180 /182 /154 /i255 /177 /139 /150 /142 /143 /139 /i255 /182 /180 /182 /i255 /135 /142 /136 /141 /151 /139 /136 /i255 /135 /139 /131 /134 /132 /152 /133 /164 /i255 /152 /164 /i255 /150 /139 /134 /132 /153 /138 /132 /138 /153/i255 /141 /151 /139 /i255 /146 /136 /137 /165 /139 /143 /141 /i255 /131 /134 /i255 /131 /130/132/143 /136 /137 /153 /136 /132 /150 /134 /i255 /135 /137 /136 /i255 /171 /183 /184/185 /i255 /136 /139 /138 /139 /170 /131 /152 /133 /139 /134 /i255 /134 /132/130/132/133 /131 /136 /i255 /141 /137 /i255 /141 /151 /139 /i255 /153 /137 /137 /153 /133 /139 /i255 /146 /136 /137 /165 /139 /143 /141 /i255 /132 /138 /i255 /145 /131 /138 /i255 /186 /137 /134 /139 /i255 /131 /141 /i255 /161 /132 /136 /132 /150 /137 /138 /i255 /134 /141 /131 /141 /132 /137 /138 /i255 /131 /138 /150 /i255 /142/134 /139 /i255 /153 /139 /137 /141 /151 /139 /136/130/131/133 /135 /137 /136 /i255 /135 /132 /140 /139 /150 /i255 /146 /137 /170 /139 /136 /154 /i255 /177 /139 /153 /131 /136 /150 /134 /147
/182 /133 /131 /150 /170 /164 /138
Attachment 15

Systems, including the components necessary to enable District Systems and the service options; the benefits of District Systems compared to business-as-usual; and the most accurate way for District Systems to be studied and assessed in a future project context.

Projects within Moffett Park could construct and operate private District Systems that could serve certain buildings within the Master Plan with wastewater, recycled water, thermal energy (heating and cooling), centralized waste management and local renewable energy generation.

The District Systems would include two primary components: (1) one or more Central Plants (CP), and (2) a network of underground pipe connections that connect multiple buildings to the CP.

The particular District Systems that could be implemented in Moffett Park could include:
● Local renewable energy generation and battery storage. ● District Thermal with all-electric heating and cooling systems. ● Water Reuse Facility that treats wastewater to create recycled water for non potable reuse. This could include the use of pyrolysis or anaerobic digestion (including best management practices for odor control) for onsite solids management. ● Centralized Waste Management opportunities to manage waste at the source to become a resource.

Associated with a District Thermal System, there are a number of integrated technology opportunities to increase energy efficiency and reliability, such as:
● Thermal Storage tanks or materials with high thermal capacity. ● Waste Heat Recovery Systems including heat recovery from sewer lines (related to Water Reuse and District Thermal).
● Ground-Source Heat Exchange Field (i.e., geofield): where possible, geofields would be implemented to leverage renewable, seasonal thermal energy storage. Geofields could consist of energy piles either integrated with a structural pile foundation or as drilled bores underneath a mat slab foundation. Energy bores could also be implemented in open space (i.e., not as part of a building’s foundation system). The energy bores could have a maximum depth of 500 feet.

District Systems provide significant benefits compared to business-as-usual utility connections.

For example, District Systems can provide the following:
● Increased environmental performance through energy efficiency, reduced carbon footprint, reduced potable water use, increased reliability, ● Reduced burden on city infrastructure,
● Improved urban outcomes through significantly reduced building equipment footprints, resultant noise and pollutants, and
Attachment 15

district.” We also acknowledge the level of effort this document represents; the careful studies, well-facilitated meetings, and extensive community events are all evident in this thorough document. We offer here a number of our key comments about the plan and its various components; we are accompanying this summary letter with a comprehensive, chapter-by-chapter review. We are available should you desire to discuss any of our comments in further detail.

As with all plans of this nature, there is a balance between prescriptiveness and flexibility. As a property owner and developer, we value a degree of flexibility that affords us the ability to deliver valued plan elements (e.g., residential, retail, parks, streets) in creative ways that respond to various market conditions and economic cycles.

We appreciate the delicate balance between the need for detail to ensure the City’s desired outcomes and the Ƽexibility needed to enable development over time. Overly-prescriptive policies and standards can hinder, slow, or even prevent development, while too much Ƽexibility can result in projects that fail to meet the City and community’s expectations. On the other hand, allowing for Ƽexibility and reasonable adjustments will enable the development community to deliver on the ecological innovation vision consistently over time, taking into account various market conditions and economic cycles.

What follows is a summary of our key recommendations for your consideration. They are designed to help the City achieve a balance between aspiration and delivery/implementation (a more detailed matrix is attached).

The following is the summary of our most important comments; additional details can be found in the attachment, which indicates proposed modifications to the text of the Draft MPSP by chapter.

Ɣ Define the Site Master Plan (SMP) Process. We feel that some adjustments and clarifications are necessary in order to make the SMP process more efficient and effective. Specifically, we recommend the following:
ż Provide clear criteria for when a Site Master Plan will be required and when one will not. Related, provide clarity that smaller or conforming projects can be processed through a streamlined entitlement path within the SMP process and/or overall City process. (Clearly-defined expectations for the SMP process are needed to ensure both adequate review and efficient approvals for projects of all scales; the MPSP should recognize that smaller / conforming projects should move towards approvals more quickly than those that are larger, more complicated, or seeking deviations.) [Draft MPSP , pp. 84, 260]
ż Allow for project areas to aggregate MPSP requirements, such as acreage in the Open Space chapter, as they apply to current parcelization and meet the requirements from the overall total achieved within the identified SMP area. (Individual building permits would be issued subject to a staff level ministerial review confirming that the proposed design and buildout comply with the standards in the approved SMP .) 2 Attachment 15

ż Allow developers to use the SMP process to seek deviations for a broader range of standards - and deviations greater than 10% for those standards specified in Section 10.2. (While we appreciate that Section 10.2 allows for a 10% +/- deviation from certain quantitative standards, to allow for financially-viable and/or innovative new development, we suggest expanding the permitted deviations in Section 10.2 to include all development standards and/or quantitative design metrics.) [Draft MPSP , p. 259]. If an SMP meets the intent of the Specific Plan, the City Council could approve additional deviations beyond 10% at the same time the SMP is approved. ż Provide a MPSP standards template or checklist to track Compliance with Specific Plan Vision metrics. (Providing a template or checklist would add clarity for both the applicant and City reviewer on what standards should be adhered t o )[ D r a f tM P S P ,p .2 6 0 ]
Ɣ Provide Clarity and Transparency Around ‘Adaptive Actions.’ The Draft MPSP calls for “adaptive actions to facilitate housing growth and open space provision,” limiting or potentially stopping the development of office and R&D space until housing catches up. While we understand the need to balance out growth - and to ensure the corollary pacing of infrastructure and services - the document is unclear as to how ‘adaptive actions’ will be determined and implemented. ż It is imperative for both the City and the development community to have clarity as to the criteria, goals, monitoring processes, reporting, and updating procedures for these ‘adaptive actions’ so that landowners and developers are adequately informed and prepared for changes to policies or implementation mechanisms that could affect the economic viability of investment.
ż It is also vital that previously-approved SMPs and Development Agreements be allowed to continue via their agreed-to phasing plans independent of “adaptive actions” that might affect other sites or neighborhoods within the District. [Draft MPSP , pp. 62, 94-95]
Ɣ Widen Rigid Definition and Requirements of Neighborhood-Serving Uses . We support the City’s goal of providing neighborhood-serving retail, commercial, office, and community uses within Moffett Park in order to improve both livability and vibrancy. However, we are also aware of the changing nature of retail - including increased vacancy rates for traditional commercial storefronts and the need for new models for both space and locating sustainable, long-term tenants. We estimate that the Draft MPSP’s level of prescription in terms of both the locations for neighborhood-serving uses (Section 4.6, Figure 27) and the requirements for frontages and space sizes (Section 4.6, Standards 3-6) jeopardizes a healthy, viable retail offering. Because established retail areas do not exist in Moffett Park, and new developments have not been fully planned, we are uncomfortable with the definitiveness with which retail frontage is required in Figure 27 (particularly in the North / South 3 Attachment 15

Java and Crossman Activity Centers). We are likewise concerned about the 85% retail frontage requirement in these locations, especially given the grade change issues that will present unique challenges for retail / commercial uses in particular. (Existing public streets are expected to remain, while new developments will have a first-floor elevation (FFE) of 12’.) We recommend the City consider some combination of the following:
ż Blend the ‘retail / commercial’ and ‘office / community’ uses into a single category, providing developers with greater flexibility to provide market-responsive solutions to neighborhood needs. (In so doing, we recognize the need for certain uses / formats (e.g., a grocery store), and we have recommendations regarding the size requirements for those in our detailed comments below.) [Draft MPSP , pp. 90-91] ż Allow for a broader definition of ‘active frontages’ to include retail, commercial, community uses, when setting ground-floor frontage requirements. (Frequency of entrances, storefronts, outdoor display areas, amenity spaces, and residential lobbies - as examples of ‘active frontages’ - can all contribute to placemaking and the interaction between the public and private realms. Likewise, active ground-floor uses such as fitness, community spaces, co-working, food & beverage, event space, etc also contribute to a lively, vibrant street-level experience.) [Draft MPSP , p. 90] ż Identify retail (frontage) areas via a ‘bubble diagram’ rather than defining very specific locations. In North and South Java, remove any emphasis on a new activity center along a ‘pedestrian main street’ and emphasize activation of the public realm along Borregas Avenue in the North and South Java Neighborhoods and at Crossman Square in the Crossman Neighborhood. Provide clear guidance for how retail frontages should interact with the public realm. Also, allow Site Master Plans (SMPs) to establish retail frontage locations within those more loosely defined ‘bubbles.’ Retail frontage in all neighborhoods should not exceed 50%, see comment matrix for text modification. ż The diagrams currently shown in the Draft MPSP are highly-prescriptive for blocks that have yet to be designed in both North and South Java. [Draft MPSP , pp. 90-92]
Ɣ Maximize Synergies with New Innovation and Creation Spaces . We wholeheartedly support the City’s goal of ensuring a diversity of businesses within Moffett Park, which can contribute to the vibrancy, economic resiliency, and spirit of innovation within the district. While we generally support the overall goal of 750,000 square of “Innovation and Creation space” put forth in the Draft MPSP , the methods specified for achieving that goal present a number of challenges. ż For example, the 7.5% requirement (and the specific design standards for said space) may be overly burdensome for single / small property owners. Also, the specific percentages and square footage requirements are likely overly-prescriptive given ever-evolving market conditions. Further, it is unclear how these spaces will be regulated to 4 Attachment 15

network with higher auto volumes and driving speeds. We believe these standards to be out of alignment with the plan’s goals for higher-density neighborhoods with a finer-grained network. Further, as mentioned above with Development Standards, the street section widths combined with large building setback requirements also detract from the experience of walking by making the overall scale uncomfortable. The wide streets and setbacks also require land dedication and/or public access easements that will significantly reduce both office and housing production due to these wider street widths throughout the district. In order to stay on target with the overarching goals of the plan, the City should consider reducing the Street Design Standards where possible and/or providing greater opportunities for justifiable exceptions to these standards (e.g., via a Site Master Plan). T o optimize the use of limited public and private financial resources, we also believe that existing curbs should be maintained where possible. Please see our specific recommendations in our comments to Chapter 7. [Draft MPSP , pp. 191-202]
Ɣ Apply a Sensible Parking Cap to Ensure Success. We support the district wide parking cap policy as the primary traffic management strategy established in the Draft MPSP , but even we are concerned that the parking maxima in Chapter 8 (T able 24) are too low and will impact the viability of new office / R&D and retail / commercial / restaurant developments. The proposed office parking ratio of 0.75 stalls per 1,000 sf corresponds to a peak period driving rate of less than 25% of total trips generated by an office use at Full Build Out conditions, which is significantly less than the 50% peak period driving rate studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Thus, there is no need to impose a parking ratio that will result in 25% fewer peak period driving rates than the rates studied in the DEIR. In fact, peak period driving rates below 40% may not be feasible for the majority of employers due to the scope of infrastructure improvements needed to expand travel options and the high cost of operating Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. Similarly, if the retail, commercial, and restaurant parking maxima are set too low, the parking cap may encourage business owners to invest in areas other than Moffett Park, resulting in empty ground level storefronts while causing future Moffett Park residents and workers to travel outside Moffett Park for their daily shopping needs. We therefore ask the City to maintain the parking cap policy but adjust the parking maxima for office, R&D, retail, commercial, and restaurant uses up to be consistent with the 50% peak period driving rate studied in the DEIR and TIA. Please see our specific recommendations in our comments to Chapters 8 and 10. [Draft MPSP , pp. 226-227, 287] Ɣ Right-sizing Infrastructure and Utilities costs. While we stress how vitally important it is to maximize existing systems to the degree possible, we recognize that significant investments will need to be made to Moffett Park’s infrastructure and utility systems to enable the type and level of development envisioned for the district. That said, there are utility system upgrade requirements that may not be warranted and could actually result in system deficiencies. For example, the water system modeling assumes maximum buildout of each parcel without consideration of the development caps of the MPSP . 7 Attachment 15

However, the current City ordinance only requires the provision of parks / open space for residential development. Therefore, if non-residential developments in Moffett Park are required or contribute to publicly accessible parks and open spaces for bonus FAR it should be considered a Community Benefit.
5 Ch. 4 Land Use 2 Moffett Park
Neighborhoods Pp. 66-69
Recommendation: Modify text to remove references to a specific ‘new pedestrian main street’ connecting activity centers in the North and South Java Neighborhoods and discuss locations for retail and activation areas more generally via a ‘bubble diagram.’ (Diagrams and text currently contained in the document indicate a specific location for retail activation through Borregas Alley which is overly prescriptive.) 6 Ch. 4 Land Use 2 Moffett Park
Neighborhoods Pp. 66-67
Recommendation: Remove any implication that the landscape area in front of Google’s Caribbean projects will be classified as a ‘Biodiversity-Hub.’ These areas are private open spaces that have already been provided as part of the approved Caribbean project’s conditions of approval. Therefore, those open spaces should not also be subject to the MPSP’s expansion of public accessibility or “ Natural Area - Biodiversity Hub” requirements. The current configuration of the new Natural Area - Biodiversity Hub area in the MPSP should be altered to not include the previously approved private open space on the Caribbean Project’s property. Also, we are requesting the addition of a clarifying statement in the MPSP to the effect of: “While existing private open spaces are not the same as a public park, POPA, or Natural Area - Biodiversity Hub, they may in some instances be counted towards the District’s overall open space target.”
7 Ch. 4 Land Use 2 Moffett Park
Neighborhoods Pp. 70-71
Recommendation: Modify text, diagram, and annotation to remove implications for a specific ‘Crossman Square’ location; preferably replace with a ‘bubble diagram’ and clear intent statement that allows for flexibility in terms of design and placement. (Diagrams and text currently contained in the Draft MPSP indicate a specific location for plaza / retail activation through blocks in Crossman that have yet to be designed.) 8 Ch. 4 Land Use 3 Land Use Districts Pp. 78-80 Recommendation: Add private utilities (e.g., Central Utility Plants (CUPs) and District Infrastructure Systems) as a permitted use in all eight of the listed land use categories. 9 Ch. 4 Land Use 4 General Land Use Pp. 84
Recommendation: Provide clear criteria for when a Site Master Plan (SMP) will be required and when one will not. Related, provide clarity that smaller / simpler projects (e.g. office below 400k SF and residential below 400 units) can move via an expedited path within the SMP framework. (Clearly-defined processes are needed to ensure 10 Attachment 15

would also support project feasibility)
14 Ch. 4 Land Use 4 General Land Use Pp. 86
Recommendation: Development applications for smaller and/or single-parcel developments that access Bonus FAR should not be required to establish a Development Agreement (DA) - but could still be subject to Community Benefits. 15 Ch. 4 Land Use 4 General Land Use Pp. 84, 86
Recommendation: Allow the transfer of development rights (TDR) between property owners for net new Bonus FAR across neighborhoods without requiring Community Benefits.
(If two properties each develop to the allowable Base FAR, they would not be subject to Community Benefits. If one of these sites transfers its Base FAR to the other site, which will use that FAR as Bonus, the net development between the two sites has not changed and should therefore not necessitate Community Benefits.) 16 Ch. 4 Land Use 5
Transfer of
Development
Rights
Pp. 88
Recommendation: Clarify that Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) may be used at a receiving site on top of the initial Base FAR without accessing Bonus FAR (to bring up the site to Max).
17 Ch. 4 Land Use 5
Transfer of
Development
Rights
Pp. 88
Recommendation: Expressly state that Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) sending sites may later replenish their Base FAR rights either by transferring in rights from qualifying sending sites or by accessing the Development Reserve. 18 Ch. 4 Land Use 5
Transfer of
Development
Rights
Pp. 89
Recommendation: Under Standard 3.a, allow sites zoned for office to transfer their Base FAR rights when dedicating those sites for the use of public schools, open space, district infrastructure, district parking, or community facilities. 19 Ch. 4 Land Use 6 Neighborhood-Ser
ving Uses Pp. 90-91
Recommendation: Blend the ‘retail / commercial’ and ‘office / community’ uses into a single category, providing developers with greater flexibility to provide market-responsive solutions to neighborhood needs.
(In so doing, we recognize the need for certain uses / formats (e.g., a grocery store) and the need for flexibility considering the changing face of retail coupled with the rebuilding of businesses following the pandemic.)
20 Ch. 4 Land Use 6 Neighborhood-Ser
ving Uses Pp. 90
Recommendation: Allow for a broader definition of ground floor frontage to include retail, commercial, community uses, residential amenities, etc. when setting ground-floor frontage requirements. LIkewise, active ground-floor uses such as fitness, community spaces, co-working, food & beverage, event space, etc also 12 Attachment 15

contribute to a lively, vibrant street-level experience (Frequency of entrances, storefronts, outdoor display areas, and window permeability - as examples of ‘active frontages’ - can all contribute to placemaking and the interaction between the public and private realms.) [Draft MPSP , p. 90] 21 Ch. 4 Land Use 6 Neighborhood-Ser
ving Uses Pp. 90-92
Recommendation: Identify retail (frontage) areas via a ‘bubble diagram’ rather than defining very specific locations. In North and South Java, remove any emphasis on a new activity center along a ‘pedestrian main street’ and emphasize activation of the public realm along Borregas Avenue in the North and South Java Neighborhoods and at Crossman Square in the Crossman Neighborhood. Provide clear statements of intent for how retail frontages should interact with the public realm. Then, allow Site Master Plans (SMPs) to set eventual retail frontage locations within those more loosely defined ‘bubbles.’
(The diagrams currently shown in the Draft MPSP are highly-prescriptive for blocks that have yet to be designed (e.g., Borregas Alley).)
See Exhibit #1 in Appendix
22 Ch. 4 Land Use 6.3 Neighborhood-Ser
ving Uses Pp. 90
Proposed modification(s): For bullet point 3.1, modify language to say 'Within North Java, South Java, and Crossman neighborhoods, with a minimum of 25% up to a maximum of 75% of building frontage within identified Community-Serving Use Areas in Figure 27 shall be retail, commercial, and/or community-serving storefronts. (This modified standard incorporates a blended definition of retail and community uses, and a market-appropriate reduction in retail quantum.) 23 Ch. 4 Land Use 6.3 Neighborhood-Ser
ving Uses Pp. 90
Proposed modification(s):

Delete bullet point 3.b: "Ground floor retail and commercial storefronts shall have a minimum depth of 25 feet and a minimum of 50% of the frontages shall have a minimum depth greater than 50 feet".
(Given current and likely market conditions, specified retail depth(s) may make tenanting overly prescriptive, resulting in a reduction in the number of spaces that can likely be leased.
13 Attachment 15

24 Ch. 4 Land Use 6.3 Neighborhood-Ser
ving Uses Pp. 90
Proposed modification(s):

Modify bullet point 4.a to read, "A minimum of one medium format retailer with a minimum floor area greater than 7,500 square feet shall be located in the North Java neighborhood.”
(For this location, 7,500 square feet of retail is a more reasonable minimum given current and likely market conditions. (Developers can always provide more if market conditions improve).)
25 Ch. 4 Land Use 6.4 Neighborhood-Ser
ving Uses Pp. 91
Proposed modification(s):

Modify bullet point 4.c to read “A minimum of one medium format retailer with a minimum floor area greater than 7,500 square feet shall be located in the Crossman neighborhood”.
(For this location, 7,500 square feet of retail is a more reasonable minimum given current and likely market conditions. (Developers can always provide more if market conditions improve.)
26 Ch. 4 Land Use 9.2
Dedication &
Easement
Requirements
Pp. 97
Proposed modification(s):

Modify bullet point 2.a to say, “Proposed open space types and design standards including size, width, and other standards, are identified in Chapter 6. Where required, property owners shall dedicate land or provide an easement consistent with these standards. Improvements shall be constructed by the development and shall be eligible for equivalent dollar value credit to offset Parkland Dedication obligations and land value credit .”
(Developers providing a public benefit should have the ability to earn actual dollar value improvement credits via dedication of land or easement for public parks or improvements thereon.)
27 Ch. 5 Development
Standards 2.1 Site Design Pp. 103
Proposed modification(s):

Modify bullet point 4.a to read, “Blocks may be broken by private or public streets, laneways, or open spaces with a minimum width of 40 feet. This break in block shall also be inclusive of a total 12 feet minimum of bike/ped paths”. (This corresponds to the recommended reduction of the minimum ROW of the 14 Attachment 15

Laneway Park/Path (Typical) from 50’ to 40’. 40’ provides ample dimension for the proposed shared use path and landscaping and sufficient in meeting the intent of breaking up larger blocks with public access. Further, revising the language associated with bike/ped paths as optional and not a requirement will differentiate the pedestrian experience throughout the district.)
28 Ch. 5 Development
Standards 2.1 Site Design Pp.103
Proposed modification(s):

Modify bullet point 4.d to read, “Alleyways or streets that function primarily as service and vehicle accessways narrower than 40 feet in width and without bike/ped paths should function as a break in block”.
(Both of these sections should work in concert allowing for a variety of block break lengths, for different functions).
29 Ch. 5 Development
Standards 2.2 Site Design Pp. 105
Proposed Modifications:

Modify bullet point 2.c to read, “Ground floor office. Where ground floor office space is provided, the setback character should enhance the public realm through landscaping, private open space areas, and grade separation. Building setback areas abutting ground floor office uses shall be a minimum 40% landscape area”.

Modify bullet point 2.d to read, “Ground floor residential. Where ground floor residential units are provided, the setback character should enhance the privacy of the residential units through landscaping, private open space areas, and grade separation. Building setback areas abutting ground floor residential use shall be a minimum 40% landscape area
Modify bullet point 2.e to read, “Adjacent to channels and Ecological Combining District. Setback character adjacent to channels and ECD should enhance urban ecology through an appropriate planting palette. Building setback areas abutting ground floor office uses shall be a minimum 40% landscape area.” (2 c through e - These (3) sections indicate precise percentages of landscaping area subject to storefront or ground floor function. The intent of these sections is to ensure that landscaping be considered integral to the setback area, however the application of 40 to 80% of landscaping coverage based on use does not seem appropriate.

Recommend that these sections be collapsed into a single section, that allows for a 15 Attachment 15

minimum percentage landscaping of 40%, subject to adjacent programming such as open space or laneway, etc. Also, include seating areas, sculptures/art, bike parking, etc. as qualifying for landscape coverage)
30 Ch. 5 Development
Standards 2.2 Site Design Pp. 106 &
107
Recommendation: Modify T able 5 (Building Setback Requirements) to reduce minimum setbacks within Mixed-Use Neighborhoods to 10 feet (both for Office and Residential Buildings) and 0 feet when facing publicly accessible open space and laneways. Current significant setbacks of 18 to 20 feet will not comply with Aerial EVA requirements while also contradicting the overall goal to achieve a walkable fine grain as per the goals set out in 5.1. Furthermore, as summarized in the introduction under ‘Urban Form’, the current Draft MPSP setbacks, in congruence with the building design standards, leads to significant residential unit loss. 31 Ch. 5 Development
Standards 2.3 Lot Coverage and
Paving Area Pp. 106
Proposed modification: Revise bullet point 3.c to read, “Habitable spaces such as bays, balconies, or other building modulations may project up to “6 feet” into the setback area”.
(Expansion to 6 feet allows for compliance with ADA for occupiable balconies as well as allows for more variability of building massing and facades) 32 Ch. 5 Development
Standards 3 Building Design Pp. 110
Comment: The sum application of specifically dimensioned design standards related to urban form (ig. setbacks, massing breaks, building stepbacks, upper floor reduction) has a significant negative impact on human-scale experience and overall residential unit yield. Considering the substantial massing and residential unit impact of the larger massing breaks and floorplate reduction / stepback, developers will likely conform to the minimum requirements and produce monotonous street walls.

The following recommendations for the Development Standards are intended to help achieve the vision of the MPSP .

See Exhibit #2 in Appendix
33 Ch. 5 Development
Standards 3.1 Building Design Pp. 111
Recommendation: 5.3.1.1 Maximum Building Heights (Figure 30) Revise map to expand max development height from 160 feet to 170 feet for the entirety of the ‘Caspian Block’ (Java/Borregas to Caspian/Geneva). In addition, revise the map to expand the max height to 160 feet for the ‘NORLA block’ (Baltic/Crossman to 16 Attachment 15

Caribbean/East Channel).
(The inclusion of these (2) modifications will ensure the proposed development potential and vision of the MPSP can be achieved by allowing for an additional floor level of development, while remaining in compliance with the FAA height limitation.) See Exhibit #3 in Appendix
34 Ch. 5 Development
Standards 3.1 Building Design Pp. 110
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 1.b to read, “‘Building height’ means the vertical distance as measured from the average grade plane established 5 feet offset from any proposed building edge .”
Add text that clarifies:

Maximum building height, or ‘highest point of the main building’ shall be based on top of any building systems screening or lift overrun. Regardless of maximum building heights allowed in Fig. 30, all buildings shall meet the height standards set forth by the Moffett Field comprehensive Land Use Plan. (The proposed Standard limits potential means of compliance, creating uniformity which is contrary to the perceived intent. The proposed height and grade definitions and interpretations will align with IBC standards.)
35 Ch. 5
Development
Standards 3.1 Building Design Pp. 110
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 2.c to read, “Ground floor finished level for residential units shall be a minimum 2 feet above sidewalk grade. or setback a minimum 12 feet from back of walk. Ground floor residential units greater than 8 feet above sidewalk grade shall be setback a minimum 15 feet from back of walk.”
(Revising setback/grade change standard ensures privacy separation for ground floor residential units, while maintaining pedestrian scale street widths and minimizing impact to yield and accessibility.)
36 Ch. 5
Development
Standards 3.2 Building Massing
Pp. 112
Proposed modification(s):

Replace bullet point 2.a.i.01 Floor Plate Reduction with, “Floor Plate Modification.

Building floorplates greater than the 7th story in height may include facade 17 Attachment 15

modulation, material articulation, or reduction of floor area of the ground floor area or the building floor area of the podium level”
(A 75% floor plate reduction Standard limits potential means of compliance, creating uniformity which is contrary to the intent of character driven design. Original standard floor plate reduction is not acceptable for office or residential uses and would create financial challenges and impact residential yield.)
37 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.2 Building Massing
Pp. 112
Proposed modification(s):

Delete bullet point 2.a.i.02, and combine with previous comment on bullet point

2.a.i.01 to allow for flexible compliance with intent of variable design outcomes. (Requiring a 10 foot stepback at the 7th floor is excessive in its impacts to development potential, construction typology (problematic for timber), and architectural expression. As noted, we recommend consolidating into a new standard allowing for more design flexibility.)
38 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.2 Building Massing
Pp. 113
Proposed modification(s):

Modify bullet point 2.a.ii.02 to read, “Building facades greater than 120 feet in length shall be located a minimum 100 feet from all other buildings greater than 90 feet in height, except on singular development parcels with podiums and multiple buildings.”
(The revisions in bold allow for optimal high rise building dimensions and architectural expression on large development parcels with multiple buildings and unifying podiums.)
39 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.2 Building Massing
Pp. 113
Proposed modification(s):

Modify bullet point 2.a.ii.03.a to read, ”For residential buildings the applicable building portion shall not have a continuous facade building dimension that exceeds 220 feet in length”
(A 160 foot length will reduce natural light/vent opportunities for larger residential units, lengthening buildings will reduce environmental impacts.) 40 Ch. 5
Development
Standards 3.2 Building Massing Pp. 113
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 2.a.ii.03.b to read, “For non-residential buildings in MP-AC zones, 18 Attachment 15

the applicable building portion may have a dimension greater than 200 feet through the use of major and/or minor breaks.”
(The proposed Standard of 200 feet is too prescriptive and limits development potential and/or floorplate optimization for non-residential uses.) 41 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.2 Building Massing
Pp. 113
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 2.a.ii.03.c to read, “For all other non-residential buildings,the applicable building portion may have dimensions of 380 feet limit within the Fine Grain Core. 600 feet outside the Fine Grain Core will be allowed in a low or mid-rise building typology”
(The draft MPSP text is too restrictive and would invalidate previous block length standards.)
42 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.2 Building Massing
Pp. 113
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 2.a.ii.04 to read , “Residential floor plates on the applicable building portion shall not exceed 18,000 square feet .”
(Enlarging the floor plate area allows for more architectural design flexibility and higher residential yield.)43 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.2 Building Massing
Pp. 113
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 2.a.ii.04.b to read, “Building floor plates that qualify as highrise construction, above 85 feet in height, may include facade modulation, material articulation, or reduction of floor area of the floorplate immediately below highrise designation.”
(Similar to the previous section, application of 110 foot height standard is contrary to intent of character driven neighborhood. By applying highrise designation, and not a prescriptive height, more variability in design outcomes can be achieved.) 44 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.2 Building Massing
Pp. 114
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 3.a to read, “Building facades greater than 250 feet in length shall have at least one facade break, or two distinct facade compositions and/or architectural articulations. Building facades greater than 400 feet in length shall have at least two breaks, or three distinct facade compositions and/or 19 Attachment 15

architectural articulations.”
(Similar to the above example, application of this highly prescriptive standard would create uniformity amongst many developed sites.Further, this impacts development potential and likely prohibits the use of innovative embedded carbon construction typologies such as mass timber.)
45 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.2 Building Massing
Pp. 114
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 3.a.i to read, “The first major break required shall be a minimum 25 feet wide and 10 feet deep ”.
(The proposed 20 feet deep break will have significant impacts on residential yield and building efficiency. Reducing the dimension of a ‘major break’ allows for more design flexibility, and viability to any given building's structure, particularly Mass Timber.) 46 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.2 Building Massing
Pp. 114
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 3.a.iii to read, “Major break height. A major break shall extend from podium level (or 20 feet above ground floor level) through the full height of the building including breaking the roof plane.”
(Revising this standard to above podium, or 20 feet, will ensure maximum potential for ground level retail and programming. A disjointed retail or active edge will not be beneficial to the public realm. This should apply to all development areas, including Fine Grain Core.)
47 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.2 Building Massing
Pp. 114
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 4.a to read, “Building facades greater than 150 feet in length shall have at least one facade break, or two distinct facade compositions and/or architectural articulations.

Building facades greater than 250 feet in length shall have at least two breaks, or three distinct facade compositions and/or architectural articulations.” (Revising the standard to add flexibility to comply with the MPSP’s desire for massing variability will allow for a more diverse and character driven built form.) 48 Ch. 5
Development
Standards 3.3 Ground Floor
Design and Build Pp. 116
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 1 to read, “Utilities, loading, and parking access shall not be 20 Attachment 15

Entries located on primary building facades provided a building design has more than 2 frontages on a vehicular street .”
(The revision allows for more design flexibility while still maintaining the intent of the standard.)
49 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.3 Ground Floor
Design and Build
Entries
Pp. 116
Recommendation: Revise bullet point 2.a ‘Number of Entries - Activity Centers’ to conform with building code and architectural standards in compliance with egress needs, or alternately revise standard to be a guideline with intent to provide activation to the ground floor public realm experiential quality of the adjacent street. (Requiring a building entry per every 75 feet significantly impacts the architectural design potential of any given site, with no clear value add or purpose.) 50 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.3 Ground Floor
Design and Build
Entries
Pp. 117
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 3.a to read, “Storefront spaces shall have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 12 feet, with flexibility in overall height to allow for variability in architectural massing.”
(Variability of ground floor creates overall building height variability, adding to character aspirations of Specific Plan.)
51 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.4 Usable Open
Space
Pp. 118
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 1.b to read, “Minimum 50 square feet per unit.” (Revising this area requirement will allow for design flexibility. The MPSP proposed standard of 75 feet doesn’t take into account access to open spaces adjacent to residential uses.)
52 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.4 Usable Open
Space
Pp. 118
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 2.f.i to read, “In the case of a courtyard where the common open space is enclosed by three sides of a building, the minimum width shall be determined by solar orientation and/or daylight access to all residential units within the courtyard. ”
(80% of highest building height as a design standard fails to take into account building orientation or location and is far too restrictive. We recommend revising this to a 21 Attachment 15

guideline, or at least removing dimension standard.)
53 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.5 Parking Facility
Design
Pp. 120
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 3.a to include, “Shared residential only, or mixed use parking structures (self park or mechanical) shall be allowed within MP-R land use, particularly MP-AC land use.”
(Revising this standard will conform with the masterplan vision as well as support the end goal of unbundling parking from residential units.)54 Ch. 5 Development
Standards

3.5 Parking Facility
Design
Pp. 120
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 3.c to read, “All parapet edges and/or facades shall be designed to screen, or reduce visual impact of vehicles from public view. All parapet edges of parking levels, including roofs shall be a minimum 42 inches in height to reduce light transmittance to adjacent properties from vehicle headlights.” (There should be more flexible language about reducing light transmittance, as written the standard may force garages to be mechanically ventilated). 55 Ch. 5
Development
Standards

3.6 Building Elements
and Required
Facilities
Pp. 122
Proposed modification(s):

Replace bullet point 1.a to read, “Visual shadow lines shall be employed to create facade or material articulation where windows are present.” (A 4 inch uniform dimensional standard for windows is overly prescriptive, limits architectural creativity, and will foster monotony.)
22 Attachment 15

56 Ch. 5 Development
Standards 4.3 Green Roofs Pp. 126
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 1 to read, “Green roofs shall be encouraged with incentives for any development or development expansions with a minimum net roof area (gross roof area - allowed deductions) addition of 5,000 square feet and shall only be applied to the expanded portion. The following uses are exempt from net roof area calculations: codified amenity spaces, codified setbacks, HVAC systems, fire suppression systems, and associated easements and service maintenance pathways to all equipment, emergency corridors and PV panels. Public buildings are fully exempt from this standard. Table 7 defines the following graduated spatial requirement shall be used to determine the green roof size.” (Adding the bold text incentivizes installation of green roofs, and ensures that only optimal locations for green roofs are counted towards the standard.) 57 Ch. 5 Development
Standards 5 Public Art Pp. 129
Proposed Modification(s): Modify the first bullet point to read, “Provision of on-site art installations within the private development area or SMP, with an installation valued at

2.0% of the building permit valuation; or”
(Large public art installations can serve an important role in helping to create a sense of place for the new Moffett Park. This modification would clarify that Public Art Installations could be provided in POPA’s or other privately owned and maintained community centers)
58 Ch. 5
Building Elements
and Required
Facilities

5.3.6 Residential
Lockable Storage Pp. 122
Proposed modification:
“Residential lockable storage. Developer may provide personal storage opportunities in response to market demands. Personal storage may be integrated into the design of each unit or located in an accessible common area. Bike storage facilities shall not be counted towards personal storage requirements.” (Adding the language in bold allows developers to offer storage solutions that are based on the market demand/needs of a particular project.) 59 Ch. 6 Open Space 1 Open Space
Context Pp. 131
Recommendation: Add language stating that “All POPAs are eligible for 100% parkland dedication credit and equivalent credit for value of improvements to the POPA. Likewise, reasonable capitalized operating expenses for POPAs should 23 Attachment 15

be considered additional public benefit and count towards park credit. " (Adding this language will encourage the development of more publicly accessible open spaces within Moffett Park that that will be privately maintained at minimal to no cost to the public)
60 Ch. 6 Open Space 1 Open Space
Context Pp. 132
Recommendation: Figure 31 does not accurately reflect existing open spaces within Moffett Park in 2022. Figure 31 cites that the information was sourced via “City of Sunnyvale (2020); County of Santa Clara (2020); ESRI (2020), but should be updated to reflect the latest (2022) open space conditions and show the private open space at Google's 100/200 Caribbean development on the plan, as well as the private open spaces within Moffett T owers, Moffett Place, Moffett Gateway, 399 Java, and Humboldt, and any other newly constructed or currently under construction open spaces. It is important to depict accurate site conditions when the specific plan is adopted in order to evaluate the differences between the existing and future private and public green spaces.
61 Ch. 6 Open Space 1 Open Space
Context Pp. 133
Recommendation: The MPSP seeks to foster urban ecology through a network of parks and open spaces throughout Moffett Park. While that network is needed to create open space and park amenities, the MPSP states a level of service inconsistent with the rest of Sunnyvale. Specifically, the MPSP seeks to codify an increase from

5.00 acres /1,000 residents to 5.34 acres/1,000 residents. This increase would put an added and untested burden on the developers within Moffett Park, and could inadvertently reduce acreage intended for housing.

Figure 5.34 should be updated to clearly stated that the 5.34 acres/1,000 residents is an aspirational guideline, as stated in the City’s General Plan, because the MPSP’s requirements should conform with the Citywide Open Space Level of Service of 5.00 acres/1,000 residents consistent with the City Code.
62 Ch. 6 Open Space 3
Open Space &
Urban Ecology
Framework
Pp. 140 &
143
Recommendation: Update ‘Figure 32 Parks and Open Space Framework’ and ‘Figure 34 Park and Open Space Location and Size’ to reflect a more continuous and linear network of park spaces in the North of Java neighborhood, between the West and East Channels. Modify the “Community Park-Ecological Corridor” labeled “7/Caspian Community Park” to contiguously connect Borregas Ave to Crossman Ave, better integrating the Meta Campus into this East-West open space network. Also update the 24 Attachment 15

geometries of each shape shown to be more bubbly and less prescriptive in nature, much like the Community Park shape we see in the West Mathilda Neighborhood just south of Lockheed Martin Way.

See Exhibit #4 in Appendix
63 Ch. 6 Open Space 5
Design Vision for
Key Park and
Open Space
Features
Pp. 156
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 1 “Minimum Dimensions” to read: “200 feet West of Geneva Dr and East of Borregas Ave and 150 feet East of Geneva Dr. At least one space that has a minimum dimension of 250 feet by 300 feet.”
(This provides greater flexibility to amalgamate adjacent open spaces and better facilitates the movement of people, plants and animals; in line with the overarching open space vision)
See Exhibit #5 in Appendix
64 Ch. 6 Open Space 5
Design Vision for
Key Park and
Open Space
Features
Pp. 160
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 3 ‘Minimum Area’ to read: “15,000 square feet” (15,000 square feet allows for a more intimate space and a human scale environment, where activation can be concentrated to deliver a vibrant civic heart.) See Exhibit #6 in Appendix
65 Ch. 6 Open Space 5
Design Vision for
Key Park and
Open Space
Features
Pp. 161
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 1 ‘Minimum Dimensions’ to read, “East Channel Park: 250 feet, West Channel Park: 100ft ”
Revise bullet point 2 ‘Minimum Area’ to read, “East Channel Park: 9 Acres. West Channel Park: 3 Acres ”
(Sizing of the West Channel Park should recognize that the landscaped areas of 100 and 200 Caribbean are an already established private open space that should not also be subject to the MPSP’s proposed expansion of public accessibility or “Natural Area - Biodiversity Hub” requirements.)
66 Ch. 6 Open Space 5 Design Vision for Pp. 161 Proposed modification(s):
25 Attachment 15

Key Park and
Open Space
Features
East and West Channel Parks
Modify bullet point 4.c to include, “Incentives will be provided for nature-based solutions that reduce the height and extent of the flood walls. Incentives will include Parkland Improvement value credits and/or eligibility as a Community Benefit”.
(Incentivizing developers to coordinate with Valley Water (within E&W channel park extents) will allow for improved outcomes and greater ability to deliver on the Specific Plan’s guiding principles, standards, and overarching vision to create an ecological innovation district.)
67 Ch. 6 Open Space 5
Design Vision for
Key Park and
Open Space
Features
Pp. 161
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 4.e to read, “West Channel Park areas shall not include the recently approved (2019) Caribbean project’s private open spaces, which is not required as publicly dedicated as a park or as public open space”. (The West Channel Park “Natural Area - Biodiversity Hub” area currently encroaches on Google's Caribbean Project and will overlap with the properties’ private open spaces, which have already been provided as part of the approved Caribbean project and in fulfillment of the project’s conditions of approval. Therefore, those open spaces should not also be subject to the MPSP’s expansion of public accessibility or “Natural Area - Biodiversity Hub” requirements. This new Natural Area - Biodiversity Hub area should be altered to not cover the previously approved use of the Caribbean Project’s property.)
68 Ch. 6 Open Space 5
Design Vision for
Key Park and
Open Space
Features
Pp. 162
Recommendation:

Incentivize developers to coordinate with Valley Water to improve the West & East Channels, (and/or City Stormwater Ditch) to create connected Open Space which may provide naturalized flood protection, active use, reduced flood walls and improved ecological functions where possible. Incentives could include parkland improvement value credits and/or eligibility as a Community Benefit. (Encouraging developers to coordinate with City, PG&E and Valley Water (within Greenbelt extents) will allow for improved outcomes and greater ability to deliver on the Specific Plan’s guiding principles, standards, and overarching vision to create an ecological innovation district.)
26 Attachment 15

69 Ch. 6 Open Space 6.3
Park and Open
Standards and
Guidelines
Pp. 171
Proposed modification(s):

Revise bullet point 1.a to read , “.....For isolated noncompliance areas with documented technical restrictions/circumstances (e.g. utility and programmatic conflicts), the required land areas for canopy cover may be reduced by up to 20% with approval by the City.”
(Greater flexibility around canopy cover targets, particularly for site master plans that incorporate the major activity centers and high-density residential neighborhoods, will ensure impacts on human-scale experience and overall residential unit yield are not compromised)
70 Ch. 6 Open Space 6.3.1.a.iii
Park and Open
Standards and
Guidelines
Pp. 171
Proposed modification(s):

Modify bullet points 1.a.iii.05 to read, “New fine grain office open space: 30% on grade, and 0% on building podium or rooftops ”
Modify bullet points 1.a.iii.06 to read, “New large campus open space: 50% on grade, and 0% on building podium or rooftops ”
Modify bullet points 1.a.iii.07 to read, “New Residential open space: 30% on grade, and 0% on building podium or rooftops ”
(Allowing flexibility around programming of private rooftop courtyards and podiums ensure they are not restricted by canopy cover targets. Additionally, providing tree canopy on rooftops and podiums would pose financial, structural, and maintenance challenges)
71 Ch. 6 Open Space 6.6.2.a
Park and Open
Standards and
Guidelines
Pp. 175
Proposed modification(s):

Add new sub-bullet point 2 a.iii. “City will consider additional species/varieties outside what is included in the Planting Palette so long as it is coordinated with the City's Ecologist and City Parks department representative as part of a development review process .”
(City should allow opportunities for a developer's professional ecologist or licensed landscape architect to expand on the planting palette species list. There are 49 tree species locally native to the Bay Area that are available in Bay Area plant nurseries and only 19 trees in the MPSP plant palette. The trees in the MPSP are hyper native to Santa Clara Valley and many of the species have high water demand, are not tolerant to recycled water irrigation, and widespread planting of these species will not 27 Attachment 15

increase climate resilience. It would be beneficial to expand the tree palette to include more native species, particularly more drought tolerant species and species that can be irrigated with recycled water. Increasing the diversity of the planting palette will increase resilience to climate change, reduce pest and pathogen impacts, and increase habitat support for wildlife.)
72 Ch. 7 Mobility 3
Complete Streets
Design Standards
by Street Typology
Pp.
192-200
Recommendation: Allow an exception via the Site Master Plan or Development Agreement process for a minimum sidewalk width of 8' and landscape buffer width of 5' along both sides of the street for the following street types: Java Drive (Figure 46 and T able 18B), Crosstown Connector with (Figure 48 and T able 19A) and without Flex Space (Figure 49 and table 19B), Crossman Avenue (Figure and T able 20A), and Neighborhood Street with (Figure 54 and T able 21B) and without Bicycle Facility (Figure 53 and T able 21A). Similarly, a minimum 5’ wide landscape buffer should also be allowed along Caribbean Drive (Figure 45 and T able 18B). (While we recognize the value of a minimum 10' sidewalk and 6' buffer for creating a pedestrian-friendly district, we believe there will be some areas within the District where pedestrian flows will not be as heavy, and that reductions in overall right-of-way width could help enable adjacent development.)
73 Ch. 7 Mobility 4 Bicycle Network Pp. 206
Recommendation: The bikeway standards currently exclude the Green Link network, however, the Green Link network can be an encouraged bikeway type by incorporating the following description under Bicycle Network Standards: "Green Link network is a two-way cycle track (Class I and IV) . A two-way cycle track on one side of the street shall be provided with a buffer between the cycle track and vehicular traffic lane. Exceptions to the Complete Street Design Standards specified in Section

7.3 will be considered should a Project applicant propose to implement the Green Link design standard along specific street segments."
74 Ch. 8 T D M&P a r k i n g 1 TDM and Parking
Goals and Policies Pp. 221
Recommendation: Expand Policy TDMP-1.6 or insert new Policy TDMP-1.7 to document the following recommended policy: "Encourage existing developments to share and/or transfer parking rights from an existing site to a new development site to minimize the amount of new parking that is implemented." (Providing policies that encourage the sharing and/or transfer of parking supply rights 28 Attachment 15

from an existing site to a new development site maximizes the flexibility for new developments to provide adequate parking supply within the district wide parking cap.

Doing so also lowers trip generation rates and parking demand of existing development sites that choose to share/transfer surplus parking supply.) 75 Ch. 8 T D M&P a r k i n g 3 Vehicular Parking
Requirements Pp. 226
Recommendation: Modify Guideline 2 under Section 8.3.1 to allow for a maximum proximity threshold of 2,640’
(10-15 minute walk or a bike ride of less than five minutes). (Increasing the proximity threshold expands the options to provide district parking, including shared parking arrangements.)
76 Ch. 8 T D M&P a r k i n g 3 Vehicular Parking
Requirements PP . 227
Recommendation: Add language: “The City, in its discretion, can approve higher parking ratios through the SMP process.”
(Flexible parking ratios support vehicular trip reduction goals while positioning the TMA and employer-funded TDM programs for success. Flexible ratios also respond to market realities and other landowner comments we’ve heard.) 77 Ch. 8 T D M&P a r k i n g 3 Vehicular Parking
Requirements Pp. 227
Recommendation: In Table 24, adjust the Retail / Commercial parking maxima to be 2.5 stalls per 1,000 sf of Retail / Commercial uses and 4.0 stalls per 1,000 sf of Restaurant / Grocery Store uses under the Plan Adoption, Mid-Term and Full Build Out scenarios. The Grocery Store land use is recommended as a new use within Table 24 as grocery stores (and restaurants) typically generate higher parking demand compared to general Retail / Commercial uses. The table should also note that the City, in its discretion, can approve higher parking ratios through the SMP process
(The proposed parking cap of 1.25 stalls per 1,000 sf is substantially lower than most other priority development areas within the region. If set too low, the parking cap may encourage business owners to invest in areas other than Moffett Park, resulting in empty ground level storefronts while causing future Moffett Park residents and workers to travel outside Moffett Park for their daily shopping needs.) 78 Ch. 9 Infrastructure &
Utilities 1 Infrastructure
Goals & Policies Pp. 241
Proposed Modification(s):

In Policy IU-2.5, add: "Private developers that incorporate private District Systems will be eligible for community benefit credits (equivalent to its capital 29 Attachment 15

cost) and/or in-lieu fees and impact fee offsets.”
(Encouraging developers to deliver private systems would alleviate capacity issues on existing infrastructure and allow for improved outcomes and greater ability to deliver on the Specific Plans guiding principles, standards, and overarching vision to create an ecological innovation district.)79 Ch. 9 Infrastructure & Utilities 5 Stormwater Pp. 251
Proposed Modification(s):

In paragraph 5, modify the first sentence to say: “Additionally, the open space network can act as part of the flood management system and provide communal/centralized stormwater treatment for buildings, public and private roads and private open spaces.”
Also, add: “Where practical, in large open spaces, alternative treatment devices should also be considered for sites that are constrained or for City roads where Green-stormwater infrastructure may be challenging to install and/or cost prohibitive.”
(This aligns with section 6 (Open Space Chapter) that indicates centralized treatment devices located within public open spaces can serve multiple sites/development types.

It also makes it clear to the City Parks department, transportation department, stormwater departments and private developers, reading this plan, that centralized / shared treatment can be utilized for both private and public works projects.) 80 Ch. 9 Infrastructure &
Utilities 6 Gas & Electricity Pp. 254
Recommendation: Add language stating that " The undergrounding of PG&E’s high voltage power lines along the eastern edge of the East Channel would enable additional high quality open space benefits within the Moffett Park Specific Plan. It would further contribute to the City’s vision for an East Channel open space corridor and is eligible as a park and open space dedication credit equivalent for its improvement value. Reduced open space setbacks along the East Channel Greenbelt, may also be considered, if the HV lines are undergrounded.”
(Encouraging developers to coordinate with PG&E will allow for improved outcomes and greater ability to deliver on the Specific Plan’s guiding principles, standards, and overarching vision to create an ecological innovation district.) 30 Attachment 15

81 Ch. 10 Implementation 2 Exceptions to
Standards Pp. 259
Proposed Modification(s):

Modify initial paragraph to read, “All new development shall comply with the standards set forth in this Specific Plan. New developments may be provided with some flexibility in meeting design standards based on special site conditions and constraints. To be considered for an exception, applicants for new development must: 1) provide findings on how the new development project meets the goals, policies, and intent of the standard where the exception is requested; and 2) document constraints to meeting the standard. City Staff or the Zoning Administrator may administratively approve exceptions from quantitative standards of up to 10% and exceptions to qualitative or other standards subject to an applicant’s fulfillment of criteria 1 and 2 above. Site Master Plans may differ more than 10% from quantitative standards, or from qualitative or other standards, as well as include deviations outside of the listed exceptions, so long as they meet the intent and vision of the MPSP , comply with criteria 1 and 2 above, and have City Council approval.” (T o meet the activation and innovative place vision of the MPSP exceptions to the standards will be required. At this early stage it is difficult to foresee all potential variances that may be needed. T o expedite delivery of the vision all exceptions to the standard that deviate less than 10% should be handled administratively. SMPs and development agreements that deviate more than 10% should also be granted approval so long as they meet the vision and intent of the MPSP , and subject to City review and approval.)
82 Ch. 10 Implementation 3
General
Submittals and
Site Master Plans
Pp. 260
Recommendation: Provide clear criteria for when a Site Master Plan (SMP) will be required and when one will not. Alternatively, provide clarity that smaller / simpler projects can move via an expedited path without an SMP . (Clearly-defined processes are needed to ensure both adequate review and efficient approvals for projects of all scales; the MPSP should recognize that smaller / simpler projects should move towards approvals more quickly than larger / more complicated ones.)
83 Ch. 10 Implementation 3
General
Submittals and
Site Master Plans
Pp. 260
Recommendation: City should provide a MPSP standards template or checklist to track Compliance with Specific Plan Vision metrics.
(Providing a template or checklist would add clarity for both the applicant and City 31 Attachment 15

reviewer on what standards should be adhered to)
84 Ch. 10 Implementation 4 Implementation
Actions
Pp.
276-280
Recommendation: For T able 29 the City should include District Systems as an Implementation Item and note that the City will work with Applicants proposing District Systems to create a framework for review, approval, and implementation. (This recommendation is in accordance with Policy IU-2.5, enablement of District Infrastructure by land owners should be expressed in this chapter.) 85 Ch. 10 Implementation 5
Funding and
Financing
Strategy
Pp. 282
Proposed Modification(s):
“Each new development project, except for projects built or occupied by non-profits, low or moderate income households, Innovation and Creation office and commercial spaces, and/or retail or other active ground floor uses , will contribute toward impact fees, on-site and off-site improvements related to the project, and provide contributions to other required funding sources or allowed alternative mitigations. Where a development impact fee is imposed on a project, the fee shall be based on a nexus study, subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, and cannot be used to compensate the City for existing shortfalls or deficiencies in the Specific Plan. Where a development project is required to pay for capital improvements in the Specific Plan that are not otherwise covered by development impact fees, a developer’s contribution shall be limited to the “fair share” contributions for proposed capital improvements that support the development of Moffett Park. A developer’s fair share contributions to the Specific Plan’s capital improvements shall be limited and proportional to the new demand for infrastructure or municipal services created by a developer’s project, based on net new office square footage or residential units. Developers may offset their required impact fees and/or community benefits requirement through City approved delivery of district improvements.” (Each development should have a fair and proportional responsibility to realizing the vision of the MPSP . Additionally, non-profit or community development projects should not face additional delivery challenges by having to contribute to impact fees or district improvements. Allowing developers to offset fees and community benefits requirements through delivery of district improvements to the City would hasten the realization of the MPSP vision.)
32 Attachment 15

86 Ch. 10 Implementation 5
Funding and
Financing
Strategy
Pp. 282
Recommendation: Major infrastructure capacity improvements and amenities that serve the entire district should be funded by entities such as: Public Agencies, Community Facilities Districts, Assessment Districts, and/or the proposed ‘Collaborative Entity for Infrastructure.' These entities could then be reimbursed by future developments through Reimbursement Agreements. If these types of improvements are funded by private development projects these costs should be credited against applicable development impact fees or treated as fulfillment of Community Benefits requirements if the development has not already paid these fees. (Requiring that a development front major infrastructure costs for the entire district or a portion of the district, with no clear timeline for reimbursement, would most likely make the project financially infeasible. Entities such as public agencies, CFD’s or assessment districts can utilize their unique structures to leverage additional funds (e.d. Bonds, State funds, etc.) and/or ensure reimbursement for major infrastructure projects from future and current developments that would benefit from the improvement.)
87 Ch. 10 Implementation 5
Funding and
Financing
Strategy
Pp. 285
Comment: There is a stated performance metric of one residential unit per every 500 square feet of office floor area. This metric should be monitored at a neighborhood level, instead of a district wide level, to ensure that each neighborhood has a vibrant mixed-use character 33
Attachment 15

ϭϴϬ 'ƌĂŶĚ ǀĞͮ^ƵŝƚĞ ϭϰϬϬ
KĂŬůĂŶ
Ě͕  ϵϰϲϭϬ
ŵĂŝŶͮϱϭϬ͘ϱϵϰ͘ϮϬϱϬ
,ĂƌǀĞƐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ͘ĐŽŵ
)HEUXDU\
 
0 L F K H O O H . L Q J  3 U L Q F L S D O 3 O D Q Q H U9 L D ( O H F W U R Q L F 0 D L O 'HSDUWPHQW RI &RPPXQLW\ 'HYHORSPHQW
&LW\ RI 6XQQ\YDOH
 : 2OLYH $YHQXH
6XQQ\YDOH &$

5(

0RIIHWW 3DUN 'ULYH ± 0RIIHWW 3DUN 6SHFLILF 3ODQ ± 5H]RQH 5HTXHVW 3DUNLQJ )HHGEDFN
'HDU 0LFKHOOH

:H DUH ZULWLQJ RQ EHKDOI RI +DUYHVW 3URSHUWLHV ,QF
+DUYHVW
 WKH GHYHORSHU IRU 

0RIIHWW 3DUN 'ULYH
$31 

3URSHUW\ 6XEMHFW 6LWH
 DVL[DFUH SDUFHO ORFDWHG ZLWKLQ
WKH 0RIIHWW 3DUN 6SHFLILF 3ODQ
0363
DUHD LQ 6XQQ\YDOH &$
&LW\
 DV VKRZQ EHORZ
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

2/13/23, 10:28 AM
Ray Hashimoto, AICP
Principal, Land Development Manager
o. 669-295-2342
c. 408-205-2775 I
1570 Oakland Road I San Jose I CAI 95131
www hmhca com
Mail - Kelly Cha - Outlook Attachment 15

Attention-This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.

If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
https://outlook.office365.com/maiVinbox/id/AAMkADhkZTk2NTZILWJIZGIINDA5Zi1iZDJmLTl2N2MzYjExNjM3MgBGAAAAAAD3Tx8HVvUwQp8K9Agnj... 2/2 Michelle King
Principal Planner
456 West Olive Ave.

Sunnyvale, CA 94086
[email protected]
Re. Comme
nts on Draft Moffett Park Specific Plan
Dear Ms. King,
Newmark would like to express our support for the Moffett Park Specific Plan’s goals of creating a more connected, inclusive and, above all, sustainable built environment. Thank you to you and the City staff for putting forth a thoughtful plan for the future development of Moffett Park. As a leading brokerage and commercial real estate services company, we appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the success of the Moffett Park Specific Plan and to the future of the City of Sunnyvale.

We would like to share our concerns about the practicality of elements of the Draft Plan – specifically Parking and Creation/Innovation space requirements.

Parking
The contemplated maximum parking ratios of 2.0/1,000 (and less) do not meet market demand from office users, particularly relative to neighboring municipalities. While we share the goal of reducing single occupancy vehicle trips in our communities, the limited pattern of public transit use in this location means that prospective office tenants will likely only lease properties with parking ratios of at least 3.0/1,000. The only successful 2.0/1000 parking office buildings are located on Caltrain or BART depots and, even with increased ridership, there is still inadequate parking for employees at these locations. Given Moffett Park is suburban office park and not in a downtown area, a sub-3/1000 parking ratio would be a competitive disadvantage versus the competitive set in other cities.

Creation/Innovation Space
In our tenant rep practice, we have represented tenants who would be interested in Creation/Innovation space, including the former market leader, TechShop. The struggle for all occupiers of this type of space is rental costs.

The capital for creators is typically invested in machinery, which leaves very little for rent. The market’s response is membership driven creator space companies like TechShop, where creators can rent the equipment.

Companies, like TechShop, cannot afford the rents needed by developers, which will lead to the space sitting vacant. Secondly, there simply is not demand for this space in the market. Third, many large corporate tenants cannot share their campuses with other tenants due to security concerns. Lastly, the design requirements for the Creation and Innovation spaces (e.g.,20’ high ceilings for creation space and divisible down to 3,600 sf for innovation space), make these spaces very expensive to construct. We recommend the City eliminate the requirement for Creation and Innovation space outside of Activity Centers. The feasibility of these spaces is better accommodated in second/third generation buildings that may be functionally obsolete and would provide a lower cost option. If the City wants to promote the construction of Creation and Innovation space, we instead recommend that these spaces become optional and that the City incentivize their creation by excluding them from FAR calculations and granting Community Benefit credit for constructing them.

Thank you for your careful consideration of our concerns. The Newmark team looks forward to collaborating with the City on creative solutions for this important plan.

Kind regards,
Jon Mackey
Executive Managing Director, Market Leader
Newmark
Attachment 15

1 February 10, 2023
Michelle King, Principal Planner
Department of Commercial Development
City of Sunnyvale
456 West Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
[email protected]
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Moffett Park Specific Plan, File No. 2021080338 Dear Ms. King,
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge are environmental organizations with interest in the San Francisco Bay and our region's wildlife and natural resources. Due to the Moffett Park Specific Plan area’s proximity to San Francisco Bay, new development in the Plan area raises significant concern. We therefore participated in every opportunity to provide public comment on the Moffett Park Specific Plan (MPSP) as it developed.

We appreciate the efforts to address our wishes and concerns and thank the City for including “Non-CEQA effects” since the analysis of climate change and sea level rise on the project is important for planning where regulatory statutes come short. We submit the following comments on the MPSP and the associated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).

3.3 Air Quality
Please discuss the health effects of air pollution, such as gaseous emissions and particulate matter, and analyze cumulative impacts on air quality. Please include large projects in Sunnyvale and in nearby jurisdictions (Santa Clara, North Bayshore and East Whisman in Mountain View, Peery Park in Sunnyvale, Development in Moffett Field and the Salt Pond Restoration Project).

3.4 Biological Resources
Consultations with Wildlife Agencies
The Biological Resources analysis identifies a number of special-status species (Burrowing owls, bees, western pond turtles, roosting bats, salt marsh harvest mouse, dusky-footed woodrat) with the potential or likelihood to be present in the MPSP area and its vicinity. Standards for analysis of impacts and for Attachment 15

2 avoidance and mitigation measures should be specified, and permitting and reporting requirements for these species should be clear.
● The DEIR should identify and describe the regulatory responsibility of both wildlife permitting agencies, including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). For each special-status species or biological resource, please identify which wildlife agency(s) should be consulted. ● The DEIR requires surveys and/or special-status Species Plans to be prepared for subsequent developments. However, the DEIR erroneously assigns City staff to review and approve such Species Plans, reports, and outcomes from surveys. Sunnyvale is not a qualified agency to approve avoidance and/or mitigation measures and special-status Species Plans for endangered, threatened or Species of Special Concern. Consultation with the responsible wildlife agencies is the appropriate level of protective action. The EIR should describe the consultation process and responsible agencies for each special-status species.
● For all subsequent projects that are planned on undeveloped parcels, or on any parcels located near open space or water features (wetlands, creeks) and other habitat areas, for each special-status species that has the potential to occur, additional environmental review should require consultation with CDFW and include:
a. Criteria for the selection of qualified biologists,
b. Criteria for evaluating potential disturbance or “take”, c. Criteria clarifying and directing survey protocols,
d. Avoidance periods and buffer distances,
e. Criteria for requiring Biologist supervision of construction activities, f. Reporting requirements,
g. Reporting of incidents that impact the habitat and/or special status species in question.

Recovery Plans
The DEIR and Appendix F should include reference to USFWS plans that guide recovery of the following federally listed species: the salt marsh harvest mouse, the Ridgway’s rail (formerly California clapper rail) and the western snowy plover.
● Salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM), Ridgway’s rail (RIRA): The 2013 USFWS Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California 1 was prepared and approved to guide
the habitat recovery of five federally endangered species, inclusive of the salt marsh harvest mouse and Ridgway’s rail and certain other species of concern. The plan was largely constructed around the biology of the target species. It includes maps that broadly identify areas of sensitive habitat and lands of potential restoration to habitat for the target species. The entirety of the ECD and other lowland portions of the MPSP are within the boundary for consideration of actions aiding recovery (Figure 1).
2 ● Western Snowy Plover (SNPL): The DEIR’s Special Status Animals map (p.104, Figure 3.4-4) should include the closest nesting location of SNPL on the Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study 1 USFWS, Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California, 2013, https://www.fws.gov/project/california-tidal-marsh-ecosystem-recovery 2 USFWS, Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California, 2013, Figure 111-21, Segment O, p. 273.

Attachment 15

3 Area of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen).3 The DEIR should refer to the USFWS 2007 Recovery Plan for the Western Snowy Plover 4 for guidance for potential recovery actions in the MPSP Area.

Figure 1
Western Burrowing owl
The Burrowing owl population in the south Bay Area has suffered a significant decline and the breeding population is at a risk of extirpation. In the past four years, the Burrowing owl population of the South Bay Area has been sustained by deliberate conservation actions implemented primarily by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency in an effort to accomplish the conservation goals of this adopted Valley Habitat Plan.5 Burrowing owls have not bred in Sunnyvale in recent years, but wintering migratory owls use ground squirrel burrows at the landfill and along the levees (including observations by SCVAS staff and volunteers in January 2023), and may use undeveloped parcels within the MPSP area as well as marginal habitat areas along roads and in parking lots.
6 3 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area Restoration Project, https://www.openspace.org/what-we-do/projects/stevens-creek-shoreline-nature-study-area-restoration-project 4 USFWS, Recovery Plan for the Western Snowy Plover, 2007, https://westernsnowyplover.org/recovery plan.html 5 Sullivan, Edmund (2022) Western Burrowing Owl Program Update, Santa Clara Habitat Agency ,https://scv- habitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/1691/06
6 In “Studies of Western Birds 1:218–226, 2008, Species Accounts (pages 218-226), the description of this California Species of Special Status includes, “developed environments pose a substantial risk to Burrowing owls from mortality caused by traffic (Klute et al. 2003, D. K. Rosenberg et al. unpubl. data). Owls nesting along roadsides or parking lots are at greatest risk, although owls foraged along roads over 1 km from the nest burrow (Gervais et al. 2003).” The document is available here:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=10405 Attachment 15

4 Sunnyvale’s 2019 “Burrowing Owl Habitat Suitability and Opportunities Report”7 should be consulted in mitigating impacts to this species. The MPSP should also consider Burrowing owl conservation actions as part of public benefits allocation.

For Requirement 10.3.5-2:
● Please specify in Requirement 10.3.5-2: Qualified Biologist must have at least 2 years experience conducting surveys for burrowing owls
● A pre-construction survey 14 days prior to construction is too long an interval for both migratory and nesting Burrowing owls. Migratory owls may stay at a burrow for only a few days. Breeding burrowing owls may select a burrow, start a nest and lay eggs within 10-days. Surveys must take place no longer than a week before ground disturbance, and repeat if construction activities are halted or paused for more than a week.

Impacts of increased human presence and activities in natural areas We remain concerned with potential impacts to special-status species, migratory birds and other wildlife species that is likely to result fro m the inevitable increase in human and pet activity on trails and levees, wetlands, and stormwater features, as well as at Baylands Park and the landfill hills. Science shows unequivocally that increased human presence and activity in wildlife habitat impacts wildlife. Human activity can flush birds, or deter birds and special- status species from using important resources along the bay,
8 and disrupt basking behavior that is critical to the survival of the Western pond turtle. 9 Even low impact human recreation can change the timing and spatial use of habitat by mammals.10 The DEIR implies the expectation - which we find difficult to comprehend - that residents and new employees will not substantially increase the use of trails, levees and other recreational facilities outside the MPSP (see discussion in section 3.16 Recreation). To the contrary, with 42,000 additional residents and 60,000 new employees, and the tremendous public interest in development at MPSP because of its proximity to the Bay, it is reasonable to expect here w ill be a significant surge in use of trails and levees adjacent to migratory birds habitat (including Burrowing owls) and wildlife habitat all along the Bay - a surge that will significantly exacerbate conditions stemming from existing encroachment and disturbance. 7 Biological Constraints and Opportunities Analysis for the Sunnyvale Landfill and Baylands Park and Protecting Burrowing Owl Habitat on City Facilities (2015) Report to City of Sunnyvale Sustainability Commission https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2242556&GUID=A82784EA-D7EC-4F7E-9A4C- 78799FD2BAE6&FullText=1
8 Trulio, L. A., & Sokale, J. (2008). Foraging Shorebird Response to Trail Use around San Francisco Bay. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(8), 1775–1780. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40208460 and Lynne A. Trulio and Heather R. White "Wintering Waterfowl Avoidance and Tolerance of Recreational Trail Use," Waterbirds 40(3), 252-262, (1 September 2017). https://doi.org/10.1675/063.040.0306 and Phil Higgins, Balancing Public Access and Habitat Enhancement in the Baylands,11/16/21, webinar @~1:50:02; https://www.sfestuary.org/truw-pahlp/
9 Basking Western Pond Turtle Response to Trail Use in Mountain View, California. Paul Eric Nyhof San Jose State University 2013 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7849&context=etd_theses 10 https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2023/01/19/low-impact-human-recreation-changes-wildlife-behavior/ Attachment 15

5 A 2020 book published by the California Fish and Wildlife Journal 11 and the scientific resources cited in footnotes 8-19, show that even low human use can have impacts, but seem to indicate that level of disturbance is directly associated with faster spee d of movement. In addition, lighting interferes with wildlife movement and migratory behavior, and must be avoided in natural areas.

The impact of increased population to wildlife in the natural areas in and around the MPSP should be recognized and mitigation measures should be developed. We propose the following mitigation measures:
● Ensure that night lighting is avoided, and not added to trails on levees, near wetlands, or on and around the landfill hills,
● With the exception of commute trails (Such as Ba y Trail and the East and West Channels trails), limit access to human-powered-only, and prohibit electronic or motorized mobility devices, ● Limit public access to some of the Baylands Levees. Sunnyvale resident and naturalist Kira Od provided the attached report 12 in which she identifies parallel levees that can be closed to public access with no impact to mobility and circulation (Figure 2). Ms. Od’s comments and recommendations can be integrated into the EIR to mitigate some of the impacts of human encroachment and disturbance of wildlife and habitat,
Figure 2
11 California Fish and Wildlife SPECIAL ISSUE Effects of Non-consumptive Recreation on Wildlife in California
12 The Last Wild Place in Sunnyvale: Twenty-three Years of Experience, Observation, and Effort, Kira Od, 2019 Attachment 15

6 Environmental Impacts Caused by Shading
The setbacks from the East channel are missing in Table 5 Building Setback Requirements.

The MPSP places the tallest buildings (Chesapeake) with allowable heights of 250’, 275’ and 250’ near the East Channel and Baylands park. We believe this placement may have significant impacts including shading during the day and introducing Artificial Light at Night. Tall buildings adjacent to open space should be required to step-back13 in height to reduce visual impact on valuable open space, to reduce shadows cast by the building and reduce impacts of light at night on the environment.

Height of buildings can also have a significant impact on riparian corridors, wetlands, open space, and recreation. Light is necessary for photosynthesis by riparian and aquatic vegetation. Water temperature in creeks is also affected and in turn, it influences pH and dissolved oxygen concentration, which affects the species composition and abundance of invertebrates and fish. The effect of shading on the structure and function of wetland ecosystems is greatest in small wetlands 14. Sunlight is important in parks and open space, and in the urban landscape.

Chapter 6 Open Space and Urban Ecology, Table 15 defines the setbacks required along the East and West Channels. Section 5.3.2 defines the “step-backs.” However the building step-backs are not clear for all facades and may not be adequate for reducing shading of open space and waterways. ● Please clarify the step-backs of building facades along the East Channel and West Channel and fronting on Baylands Park.

3.6 Energy
Life Sciences Energy Use
● Has the DEIR analyzed projected energy use for different projects and facilities that are likely to be constructed as R&D uses? Our concern is that Life Science labs have unique requirements. and use significantly more resources than office buildings (in the order of two to ten times more energy.)15
13 What is a Building Step-Back? A building step-back is an architectural design element that is typically applied to the upper-story of a development. Typically, a step back requires that any portion of a building above a certain height is further pushed-in towards the center of the property 14 Bunn, SE, Mosisch, T & Davies, PM (2002), 'Chapter 3: Temperature and light', Riparian Land Management Guidelines, Volume One. Part A: Principles of Sound Management, Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (LWRRDC), Canberra, eds. S Lovett & P Price. 15 A Deep Dive into Sustainable Life Science Buildings With SGA’s Matthew Fickett: A typical existing laboratory building uses close to 500 kBTU/sf/year, while most new ones are below 200, and really exceptional ones might be closer to 45 or 50. That is obviously a tremendous improvement, but it only brings the lab building into the neighborhood of an ordinary office building’s usage, which is almost always below 100 and often closer to 25.

From that comparison, you can see that most lab buildings are using on the order of ten times as much energy per square foot as office buildings.

Attachment 15

7 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The DEIR has not adequately mitigated for the potentially significant adverse impacts posed by hazards and hazardous materials within the Plan area. We disagree with the findings and maintain that Impacts HAZ-2, HAZ-4 and HAZ-C remain significant, and there is substantial concern that the proposed mitigation is not feasible, therefore the impacts will remain significant, unmitigated, reasonably expected to occur.

The MPSP addresses hazards through the following seven requirements for future projects:

1. Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)

2. Site Management Plan

3. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)

4. Remediation and/or Management Measures

5. Dewatering Management Plan

6. Asbestos Survey

7. Lead-based Paint Survey
These requirements are vague. The MPSP bases the determination whether or not an ESA should be prepared on “evaluation of the property history to determine if the property has been or is likely to have environmental impacts.” However, considering only historical data, which in many cases may not be up - to-date and in some cases, quite old, is not sufficient to determine if contaminants remain on the surface or underground at a particular site. Project-specific sampling must be performed by independent qualified personnel in order to determine if a Site Management Plan should be required. In addition, thresholds for what is deemed “minor environmental impact” must be made by independent qualified personnel to determine if a Site Management Plan will be required. The conclusions made in the original ESA for a site are critical to determining if a Site Management Plan, a Phase II ESA, Remediation and/or Management Measures, and a Dewatering Management Plan are required. For this reason, the ESA must be based on current, project specific data as to what toxins and at what levels exist on each property in the Specific Plan area and what cleanup standards must be used.

The following aspects of the MPSP and the DEIR are of concern:

Hazard Assessment
A groundwater solvent plume is present at the Lockheed Plant One/Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant (NIROP) site,16 which is identified as a Cortese List site by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Soil gas samples above the plume have concentrations greater than USEPA Regional Screening Levels (SLs) for the carcinogens TCE, vinyl chloride (VC), benzene, and chloroform, contributing to an estimated lifetime excess cancer risk for residential use of greater than one in one million. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the site has not been finalized; thus, it is unknown whether the yet-to-be-selected remedy will reduce hazard levels for specific populations. The finding of no significance for Impact HAZ- 4 is premature and cannot be supported at this time.
16 Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC). 2022. Revised Draft Soil and Soil Vapor Feasibility Study, Sites 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 19, and 21, Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Sunnyvale, CA, April 2022.

Attachment 15

8 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) from the SF Bay RWQCB17 are much more stringent and address more exposure routes and human and ecological receptors than the USEPA SLs used in the NIROP report. We request that the EIR and Specific Plan incorporate the requirement to use the latest California methodology in assessing hazards at proposed project developments.

We request that the DEIR accept the recommendation in Appendix G 18 to expand the existing network of monitoring wells into the eastern part of the project area, to better characterize historical contamination.

Figure 15 of Appendix G shows existing well locations listed in the Santa Clara County (Valley Water) Well Database that could possibly be used to extend the network. There is no indication that any chemical measurements from these wells are publicly available, as the wells are not shown on the California Water Board’s Groundwater Information System (GAMA) interact ive map.19 New wells should also be placed along the southern boundary of the project area to detect upgradient sources of groundwater contamination that could migrate onsite and impact future developments.

As previously stated, site investigations conducted under IMPACT HAZ-2 should not rely solely on historical records such as are typically used in Phas e I/Phase II investigations to determine the need for sampling and analysis. Due to the extensive military and industrial use of the project area, it is likely that contaminants are present that have not been tested for in the past. In particular, the EIR should include provisions to require proposed developments to sample for the following. ● Per-and-polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) are ubiquitous in the environment, but significant contamination is often associated with municipal waste landfills, biosolids operations, and firefighting or fire training on military bases. Soil and shallow groundwater should be tested along the northern border of the project area across from the former Sunnyvale Landfill, and along the western boundary of the project area where the Navy has identified releases at the former Hanger 4 on Moffett Field Air Base20.
● Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have multiple historical uses and may be present in soil or groundwater from electrical equipment dielectric fluid spills, weathering of PCB-containing paints or building materials, and many other sources. Testing should be conducted on soils in any areas of the site with past industrial or military use. The City of Sunnyvale requirements to test building materials during demolition will not detect this environmental contamination. 17 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2019a. Update to Environmental Screening Levels, January 24, 2019.
18 SFEI, ESA, and Pathways Climate Institute. 2021. Sea-level rise impacts on shallow groundwater in Moffett Park: A technical addendum to the Moffett Park Specific Plan. Funded by the City of Sunnyvale. SFEI Publication #1062. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. Appendix G to Moffett Park Specific Plan Draft EIR Appendices, Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Comment Letters. August 2021. 19 California Water Boards, Groundwater Information System (GAMA). https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/# Accessed 1/24/2023. 20 Final Site Inspection Report. Air National Guard Phase II Regional Inspections for Per- and Poly- Fluorinated Alkyl Substances. Moffett Field National Air Base. June 2019.

Attachment 15

9 ● Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are common soil contaminants due to releases from petroleum spills and vehicle exhaust. Testing for those chemicals was recommended in Appendix G of the DEIR.

Cumulative Impact of Hazardous Materials (Impact HAZ-C) The cumulative impacts of hazardous materials on residents and workers within the Plan area have not been adequately identified, assessed or mitigated to levels that are less than significant. Existing contamination identified on the site exceeds USEPA SLs for both residential and commercial exposures. More of the Project Area is likely to exceed SF Bay RWQCB ESLs, which are more health-protective than USEPAs ESLs. Because the identified and potential contamination sites have not been fully investigated, and a ROD has not been finalized for the extensive Plant One/NIROP solvent plume, there is no factual basis to state that the cumulative impact after mitigation will be less than significant.

DEIR Appendix F (5), Impact Haz-C concludes there will be no significant cumulative impact of existing site contamination because “ Existing regulations are in place to reduce hazardous materials impacts to acceptable levels, preventi ng cumulative impacts…. Pr ojects resulting in haz ardous materials impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant leve l through compliance with existing regulations and implementation of project-specific measures (such as those identified in the Specific Plan Project Requirements identified under Impact HAZ-2).” This statement ignores features of the site and the planned development.

The project requirements for Impact HAZ-2 through HAZ-4 apply to individual development proposals, but residents and workers in the commercial and industrial facilities may be exposed to contamination from multiple sources within the project area. Since many of the residents are expected to also work and recreate in the project area, the cumulative impact should be evaluated on a project area-wide basis.

Mitigation of Hazardous Conditions
The DEIR conclusion of no significant impact from future resident or worker exposure to VOCs in groundwater and soil gas is based on unrealistic assumptions as to the efficacy and timeframe of the mitigation actions. To this point, guidance from both the SF Bay RWQCB 21 and Santa Clara County 22 indicate that the use of a VIMS to reduce hazards cannot be allowed until active mitigation is complete.

Santa Clara County: “SMP [Site Mitigation Program] typically requires cleanup (i.e., remediation) of the source of contamination, instead of mitigation (ex. VIMS) . VIMS are considered short-term solutions to provide protection while active cleanup is ongoing.” 21 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (2022) Fact Sheet: Development on Properties with a Vapor Intrusion Threat
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water issues/programs/sitecleanup/2020 Fact Sheet Final.pdf 22 Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Systems Guidance Document (2018) Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health , Hazardous Materials Compliance Division https://hazmat.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb471/files/report/Vapor-Intrusion-Mitigation-Systems-VIMS- Guidance-Document-Rev%2011.pdfhttps://hazmat.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb471/files/report/Vapor- Intrusion-Mitigation-Systems-VIMS-Guidance-Document-Rev%2011.pdf Attachment 15

10 SF Bay RWQCB: “In most cases, for new construction where a VIMS is needed to protect building occupants, we will not approve the VIMS until remediation to the extent feasible has been implemented. This could affect the local agency’s permitting decision for occupancy.” The timeframe for remediation of halogenated solvent plumes is typically many decades. The required monitoring and treatment infrastructure may preclude future development in project areas above VOC plumes.

We request that the DEIR and Specific Plan add the SF Bay RWQCB 23 and Santa Clara County VIMS
guidance24 as project requirements for all future developments in the project area.

Impacts of Sea Level Rise on Subsurface Contamination
The SFEI et al. report of groundwater conditions at the project area 25 concluded that SLR could lead to groundwater reaching the surface in portions of the site by the end of the century, which could mobilize subsurface contamination. The report also states that “Changes to remediation strategies at individual sites may be required to ensure public safety if groundwater levels rise and cause contaminants to spread to new locations.” We worry that the co ntamination could potentially spread to areas outside of the MPSP boundary and to the Bay.

The DEIR does not address the potential increase in transport of contaminants in soil vapors as groundwater elevations increase over time, which may occur earlier than the end of the century. Mobilization of contaminated groundwater plumes is also not analyzed. And the DEIR does not address recommendations A through D from the SFEI report for measures designed to adapt to groundwater rise, or the steps that were identified to fill data gaps that prevent adequate evaluation of site hydrology and contaminant migration. We recommend that the final EIR incorpor ate the proposed mitigation measures into the project’s design.

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
The DEIR discussion of Existing Conditions, Groundwater, pp.201-202, inadequately informs the reader and decision-makers about the existing groundwater status in the Plan area. We recommend that you improve that discussion with the following.

1. Differentiate between shallow groundwater and deep groundwater.

2. Replace Figure 3.10- 2 “Groundwater Depth in Moffett Park” with Figure 10 “Estimated depth to water in Moffett Park, based on an interpolation between measured values in the Geotracker database”.
26 The latter, in the City’s Groundwater and Sea Level Rise Addendum, provides the 23 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2022. Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Guidance, Technical Resource Document. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
24 County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health. 2018. Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Systems Guidance Document.
25 SFEI, ESA, and Pathways Climate Institute. 2021. See also, May CL, Mohan A, Plane E, Ramirez-Lopez D, Mak M, Luchinsky L, Hale T, Hill K. 2022. Shallow Groundwater Response to Sea-Level Rise: Alameda, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. Prepared by Pathways Climate Institute and San Francisco Estuary Institute. doi.org/10.13140/ RG.2.2.16973.72164. While Santa Clara County was not studied in this report, the underlying environmental conditions are similar.
26 Appendix G, Groundwater, Sea Level Rise Addendum.

Attachment 15

11 reader with a more site-specific overview of the shallow groundwater landscape relative to the proposed plan and includes references to sources and dates of data used.

The DEIR discussion of Existing Conditions, Flood Hazards on p. 206 makes the following statement:
“There are several projects in the process that would reduce the risk of flooding within Moffett Park, including: South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Phase III Feasibility Study – undertaken by the USACE, Valley Water, and the California Coastal Conservancy th at is evaluating the feasibility of implementing levee improvements and habitat restoration that would benefit Moffett Park. The design and construction of improvements is unknown at this time.”
This statement about the Shoreline Phase 3 Feasibility Study is inaccurate and thereby misleading.

1. Before a Feasibility Study can begin, Valley Water and the USACE must sign a cost-share agreement. That action has not occurred nor is there any agreement that it will at any time soon. 27 No Feasibility Study is underway. There is no Phase 3 Project.

2. Unlike nearby cities (Palo Alto and Mountain View), Sunnyvale has not prepared a technical shoreline vulnerability study. While the City has had multiple reports prepared on sea level strategy and resilience, none provide the technical analysis that assesses vulnerability as a starting point for a Phase 3 project.

3. The USACE has now reassessed Phase 2 (Palo Alto, part of Mountain View) to target the year 2060 for completion.28 Phase 2 is prioritized ahead of Phase 3. ● Please correct the Existing Condition discussion in the EIR ● Discussion and impact analysis in the DEIR that refers to the Shoreline Phase 3 Project as an existing condition should be re-evaluated.
● Since the timing for design and construction of Phase 3 levee improvements has not been ascertained, and funding is not reasonably foreseeable, the MPSP and the DEIR should rely upon the levee in considerations of flood risk reduction.

3.11 Land Use and Planning
Residential Use
Residential use is not advisable for project parcel s that have volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater or soil vapor far in excess of California Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). The Proposed Land Use Map (MPSP DEIR Figure 2.3.1) shows a residential area between Lockheed Martin Way, 1st Avenue and Bordeaux Drive. A portion of this parcel is located above a groundwater solvent plume from the Lockheed Plant One/Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant (NIROP) military cleanup site.29 Figure 1 shows the trichloroethene (TCE) groundwater plume from the Figure 2-15 of the NIROP report, overlaid on the Project Land Use Map. Soil gas samples within the proposed residential area have concentrations greater than USEPA ESLs for the carcinogens TCE, vinyl chloride (VC), benzene, and chloroform, contributing to an estimated lifetime excess cancer risk for residential use of greater than one in one million.
27 Phone meeting E. McLaughlin with Rechelle Blank, Chief Operating Officer, Valley Water, 2/7/23 28 Ibid. Rechelle Blank, Valley Water. 2/7/23
29 Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC). 2022.

Attachment 15

13 clear to us that the MPSP provides adequate mechanisms for acquisition or dedication of public open space.

Even the Bonus FAR mechanism, which requires community benefits, does not assure that any new open space would be produced. Therefore, we are concerned that the DEIR makes findings of significance based on the presumed addition and availability to the public of these parks and open space. If 200 acres of open space are not acquired or deeded for public use, project impacts on existing environmental resources (for example, recreation and biological impacts) may prove significant and unavoidable.

We are also concerned about the minimal landscape areas delineated in the proposed Plan and also that the MPSP’s Lot Coverage and Paving Area requirements will severely constrain the greenscape benefits of landscape areas. The MPSP does not require ANY landscape area in the Activity Core MP-AC. In the Residential area MP-R, only 15% of the site is a landscape area. In Non-Residential areas only 5% landscape area (in the Fine Grain Core). Figure 28, pg 104 shows that the “fine grain core” area (referenced in Table 6) covers approximately 50% of the MPSP (excluding the Lockheed campus). We note that there is no requirement for any “landscape area” in this zone though there are guidelines for planting areas located in sidewalk and paved areas for this zone. Outside the “fine grain core” there i s a requirement for 20% minimum lot area for landscape area. However, it is not clear whether surface parking and driveways (Paving Area) are allowed in this “landscape area.”
Please consider the following Plan amendments to ensure that open space will be a required part of the ecological innovation district.
● Require that 50% of all community benefits for bonus FAR be for open space, with priority for ecologically beneficial open space. This is also important because as buildings get taller, the open spaces between them need to be larger in proportion.
● Please reduce the 25% of lot area for “paving area” allowed for non -residential development outside the “fine grain core” so that paved area and surface parking are minimized and landscape area is increased in the “eco-innovation district.”
Life Science Land Use
Permitting of Life Sciences Land Use in R&D requires additional discussion and clarification in the EIR.

Life Sciences lab buildings are categorized into four Biosafety Levels. 33 These reflect levels of bio-
containment of infectious diseases and pathogens.
33 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describes four Biosafety Levels:
● BSL-1 labs are used to study agents not known to consistently cause disease in healthy adults. They follow basic safety procedures and require no special equipment or design features. ● BSL-2 labs are used to study moderate-risk agents that pose a danger if accidentally inhaled, swallowed, or exposed to the skin.
● BSL-3 labs are used to study high-risk agents that can be transmitted through the air and cause potentially lethal infection. Researchers perform lab manipulations in gas-tight enclosures. ● BSL-4 labs have the most stringent safety and security requirements. There are currently only four operational BSL-4 laboratory suites in the United States Attachment 15

14 Moffett Park is located on a fill area with a high groundwater table and flooding risk, as well as liquefaction potential in major earthquake events. 34 In the event of a major earthquake, soils are predicted to liquefy resulting in rupturing and damage to underground utilities as well as potential major structural damage to the buildings. In the event of a major disaster, back-up systems may not be operable and containment may not be possible for biohazards.

Proposed mitigation: Require that emergency equipment and back-up systems be located higher than the 100-year flood level and preferably on the second floor or the roof so as to be safe from flooding. ● Please clarify which districts will be available for biotech labs. ● Will BSL-3 labs be allowed in the MPSP?
● Will there be separation requirements for BSL labs from housing in the MPSP? Cities have instituted separation requirements ranging from 250 feet to 500 feet for public health and safety. ● Will there be special setback requirements for BSL labs from the East and West Channels which are connected by tidal flows to San Francisco Bay and ecologically sensitive wetlands? Suggested mitigations.
● Limit Life Sciences labs to BSL-1 and BSL-2. Consider allowing BSL-1 and BSL-2 labs with minimum setbacks of 500’ from any parks and open space as well as residential, school or day-care sites.35 36
● Site lab buildings out of low lying ground levels to avoid flooding.

We disagree that implementation of the Plan would not include any new or uniquely hazardous uses. See Section 3.11 Land Use and Planning for a discussion about the NEW potential for environmental accidents from biohazards. These are uniquely hazardous uses with the potential to affect the public and are not addressed in the MPSP or in the Sunnyvale General Plan.

Maximum Height Limits
Clarify that maximum heights are to the top of the tallest structures on a building. Usually, heights are set to the top of the roof parapet, or the top of the roof level, or the top of the mechanical equipment structure on the rooftop. However, exhaust stacks may be even taller than the intake and exhaust air from single-pass HVAC equipment. Therefore TOTAL height needs to be specified as the maximum allowable height, to the top of all equipment including exhaust stacks.
34 DEIR pg 147: Soil liquefaction can be defined as ground failure or loss of strength that causes otherwise solid soil to take on the characteristics of a liquid….Moffett Park is located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction and Santa Clara County liquefaction hazard zone. 35 Robinson, Rigel, Sept, 13, 2022, Memo to Mayor and City Council, City of Berkeley Consent Calendar, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-09- 13%20Item%2030%20Referral%20Keep%20Innovation%20in%20Berkeley.pdf 36 Klearman, Sarah (2022) Berkeley, targeting R&D users, takes second look at local zoning codes, San Francisco Business Times, https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2022/09/29/berkeley-launches-initiative-to-grow-r- d-industry.html
Attachment 15

15 3.14 Population and Housing
The CEQA Appendix G Guidelines do not include analysis of jobs/housing balance in the checklist of environmental factors that must be evaluated for all projects in California. Nevertheless, the intensity of the housing crisis in California and the Bay Area 37 has made jobs/housing balance an issue of critical public concern. Rapid jobs growth that outpaces housing production is seen as a significant contributor to housing disruption and inequality in the region. 38 The failure to analyze, describe, and mitigate the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed MPSP on the city-w ide or regional jobs/housing balance is a significant omission.

New state laws,39 and a doubling of Sunnyvale’s RHNA allocation from the 5th to the 6th Cycle, strive to spur housing production. However, recent studies suggest that housing production alone may be insufficient to reverse the trends pushing workers and jobs farther apart. 40 In order to reduce housing inequity and displacement, better alignment between jobs and housing and also between jobs and workers are important parts of the puzzle.41 42
The MPSP’s Guiding Principle 2 envisions “improving the local as well as regional jobs -housing ratio.” Objective 2 in the DEIR uses similar language, but focuses only on “improving the regional jobs-housing balance.” Neither document makes any further mention of jobs-housing balance or ratio and the limited data provided appears inconsistent. Table 3.14.2: Projected Growth Citywide on DEIR page 259 indicates that General Plan Buildout will produce 43,865 jobs/employees, 203,985 residents and 82,122 households whereas the narrative above that table states that buildout of the General Plan is estimated to result in 121,689 jobs/employees and 197,785 residents (with no number of households specified). That inconsistency makes it impossible for the public to estimate the city-wide jobs-housing balance likely to result from the MPSP. Additionally, there is no data provided regarding the current city wide or regional jobs/housing balance, making it difficult to evaluate any improvement consistent with Objective 2 or Guiding Principle 2.

We ask that the DEIR provide accurate data about the current local and regional jobs/housing balance and the projected delta resulting from the proposed MPSP, analyze the city-wide job/housing fit with and without the proposed MPSP, and reduce or mitigate any significant impacts on job/housing balance and fit. 37 Bay Area Housing Crisis: Poll Finds 67% Saying It’s Harder to Find A Home (2022) CBS News Bay Area, CBS San Francisco, https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/bay-area-council-poll-housing-crisis-harder-to-find- home/
38 Majid, Aisha, (2021) The downsides of being a tech hub: Housing disruption and inequality, https://citymonitor.ai/economy/the-downsides-of-being-a-tech-hub-housing-disruption-and-inequality, visited 2/7/23 39 Karlamangia, Soumya, (2022) California Doubles Down on It’s Housing Laws, New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/12/us/california-housing-laws.html, visited 2/7/23 40 Blumenberg, E., & King, H. (2021). Jobs-Housing Balance in California Cities. UCLA: Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.17610/T62K5F Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1g47j2vx.
41 Evelyn Blumenberg & Hannah King (2021) Jobs–Housing Balance Re-Re-Visited, Journal of the American Planning Association, 87:4, 484-496, DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2021.1880961 42 Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, (2015) Fact Sheet: Jobs/Housing Fit and the Effects on Bay Area Health, Equity and the Environment, https://nonprofithousing.org/wp-content/uploads/JH-Fit-Fact-Sheet- FINAL-9.15.pdf, visited 2/7/23
Attachment 15

16 3.16 Recreation
We dispute the contention in Impact REC-1 that the eventual addition of 200 new acres of park and open space in the Plan area would offset the project’s demand on nearby park and recreational facilities and thereby avoid contributing to or accelerating substantial physical deterioration of nearby park and recreation facilities. The DEIR specifies that a determination of the project’s impact on recreation depends on whether the project would “increase the use of existing … parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.”43 By conflating “demand” with “use” in its conclusory recreation impact assessment, the DEIR provides inadequate analysis, fails to substantiate the conclusion that there will be less than significant impact regarding physical deterioration of existing regional parks and other recreation facilities, and fails to propose appropriate mitigation of impacts.

Significant park and recreation facilities currently located on the Bay shoreline (just outside of the Plan area), including Baylands Park and the Bay Trail, are of a character and function distinct from the parks and recreation facilities planned within the Plan area. As a result, any increase in their use due to proposed net population and employee growth is unlikely to be offset by the eventual addition of parks and facilities proposed in the MPSP.
● The recreational facilities along the Bay include commute trails that provide access to destinations outside the Plan area, primarily the Bay Trail. 44 The Bay Trail 45 transverses the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge. The acknowledged46 and intended47 increase in use of the Bay Trail by residents and employees originating in the MPSP area, both for commute and recreation, will very likely increase degradation and increase maintenance requirements for the Bay Trail. The cost of maintenance would thus fall on the refuge, a federal jurisdiction. ● Sunnyvale Baylands Park also provides recreation opportunities that are different in character from the parks and open space proposed within the plan area, including seasonal wetlands, reservable picnic and event areas for large groups, a ropes course, an area for flying drones and model airplanes, and a petting zoo open to the public for limited hours.

The City has repeatedly emphasized the benefits of connections to the Bay and nearby open space, trails, parkland, and recreation facilities to the new Moffett Park community. 48 Additionally, in the 2020 43 DEIR section 3.16.2 Impact Discussion, page 280.
44 Page 3 in San Francisco Bay Trail Design Guidelines and Toolkit https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9817/636656973233730000shows that Transportation is a primary public benefit, “Transportation: As a transportation facility, the Bay Trail serves as an important commute alternative for cyclists and pedestrians, and connects to numerous public transportation features, including ferry terminals, airports, light-rail lines, bus stops, Caltrain, Amtrak, and BART” 45 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Moffett Bay Trail Facility Map, https://www.fws.gov/refuge/don-edwards-san-francisco-bay 46 DEIR section 3.16.2 Project Impacts: “Future residents (as well as employees) in Moffett Park would increase the use and demand on existing park and recreational facilities,” page 281. 47 MPSP draft pg 206 demonstrates that the City views the Bay Trail as a major destination: "Wayfinding for bicyclists should be improved. This could include signage identifying bicycle routes and connections as well as directions to major destinations such as the Bay Trail." 48 March 7, 2022 MPSP Open Space and Urban Ecology Workshop presentation, slides 27 and 28, highlighted proximity of nearby open space and facilities as well as proposed active transportation connections to reach them.

Attachment 15

17 Community Visioning Survey, the highest- ranked key priority was “Connect people to nature and the Bay.”49 Thus it is likely and anticipated that the proposed 42,000 new residents and 60,414 new employees will use the Bay Trail or other existing recreation facilities in addition to new facilities within the Plan Area. The DEIR’s narrow and conclusory approach, focused on a generalized demand for parks and open space rather than likely usage, has resulted in an inadequate analysis that is inconsistent with both expectations and intentions.

Further analysis is needed to identify existing condi tions in these nearby facilities, evaluate the impacts (including physical degradation of facilities, overcro wding and excessive noise) of additional use by the net new residents and employees proposed in the MPSP as well as cumulative impacts with other developments along the bay, such as the North Bayshore Precise Plan and the Bayview Campus, and identify mitigations to minimize degradation of the facilities.

The existing conditions description should include such factors as daily use (including, for Baylands Park, the number of visitors, picnic and event space reservations, and drone operators) as well as maintenance conditions and requirements, and the adequacy of parking facilities. Mitigations could include such things as limiting open hours, daily capacity limits, a reservation system to regulate the volume of drone activity, and signage and fencing to limit off-trail intrusion, especially into sensitive habitat areas.

3.17 Transportation
Moffett Park is isolated from the rest of Sunnyvale by Highway 237. There are three overpasses that serve the area and these “gateways” are already at a Level of Service (LOS) of E or F during commute periods (DEIR Table 3.17-3 Intersection Level of Service Summary). Several other intersections within the MPSP are also impacted according to this summary. The Mary Avenue Overpass is currently not planned for auto traffic and there is no clear path to its being built in the near future.

We dispute the assumptions of Table 3.17-2: Project Trips and Mode Split at Buildout. While we are supportive of reducing driving within the plan area, it is not practical to assume that there would be ZERO internal trips using automobiles. Please revise this assumption to a more realistic scenario where a certain percentage of trips within the plan area will be made using an automobile.

We maintain that Impact TRN-4: The project would not result in inadequate emergency access remains significant. The MPSP has limited roadway access points for emergency ve hicles and personnel. The existing “gateway'' access roads are already impacted and additional development will further impact these points and severely limit emergency access. The planned Mary Crossing overpass may allow emergency vehicles, however, there is no clear path ahead to realizing this project.

Suggested mitigation: In section 10.6 Performance metrics, in the MPSP, add Item 8: Gateway Capacity:

A traffic analysis should be conducted annually, with reporting to the City Council, on the traffic at each gateway, in both directions (incoming and outgoing) during commute hours. Future development should be See also, June 2020 presentation: Moffett Park Specific Plan Understanding the Future: Open Space, slides 10, 11,

30. 49 pdf page 6 in the October 2020 Moffett Park Specific Plan Community Visioning Survey Results https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e38a3dd6f9db304821e8e5e/t/5f8a157bbd7d5f4df5048d74/1602885003640/ MPSP CommunitySurvey Summary 20 1016.pdf
Attachment 15

18 made conditional to the gateways being able to accept the additional traffic. This should be used to make an informed decision on permitting additional devel opment, guide future decisions on development and emphasize the importance of emergency access to the plan area.

Parking
The MPSP parking policies may not achieve the required reduction in driving that is needed to support the anticipated intensification of land use. We have the following suggested changes to the MPSP.

Parking structures should accommodate change of use in the future, from parking cars to housing people.

This flexibility of re-purpose should be the model for all parking structures. ● New parking structures should be built to allow future re-purposing such as housing. In addition, new parking structures should be built so as to be able to respond immediately to crisis needs (shelter during major weather events, shelter post earthquake). ● Please consider using feasible strategies like parking cash-out 50 which Stanford, Lockheed, and Genentech51 used to avoid building additional parking lots and to reduce automobile use. Please require paid parking by all employees. Please install a traffic cap.52 Traffic caps work if enforced (for example, using pavement sensors that count vehicles throughput) and controlled (via pricing53) and feedback systems, such as increasing pricing and fines for exceeding the cap). ● Include the use of electronic toll payment, like FasTrak transponders for all parking and in garages in MPSP.
● Allow or encourage parking in-lieu fees to help pay for shared parking structures. The cost of the structures can be partially covered by revenue generated by parking fees. ● Add a requirement to include car-sharing spaces in residential buildings and require bike-sharing and micromobility-sharing in mobility hubs.
● Prior to building each parking structure, please study overall parking demand to evaluate how multi-modal behaviors evolve, and ensure that the added parking is indeed needed.

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Water Supply Assessment
In Appendix J, water supply was assessed through 2040 and “The City is projected to experience supply shortfalls under single dry-year conditions and multiple dry-year conditions due to the anticipated water supply shortfalls from the SFPUC due to the Bay Delt a Plan.” Please analyze the cumulative impacts of increased water usage from the MPSP and other large master planning efforts in Sunnyvale such as Peery Park past the year 2040. Also include water use estimates for anticipated Life Sciences Lab facilities (since Life Sciences Lab buildings require large quantities of water.)54 50http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/transportation/supplemental-documents/ca parking cash- out program an informational guide for employers 2021.pdf?sfvrsn=6 51 https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-genentech-used-parking-lot-fund-its-employee-commuter-shuttle 52 https://transportation.stanford.edu/about/stanford-and-general-use-permit-faq 53 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/driving-congestion-environment/parking-curb-management 54 https://www.a3p.org/en/a-new-water-management-strategy-for-the-pharmaceutical-industry/ Attachment 15

19 Respectfully,
Susan DesJardin
Bay Alive Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Gita Dev, Co-Chair
Peninsula Regional Group
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Matthew Dodder
Executive Director
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Eileen McLaughlin
Board Member
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge
Attachment 15

11011
Ser/RE (KLN) – 5644
February 9, 2023

Ms. Michelle King
Principal Planner
Department of Community Development
456 W. Olive Ave.

Sunnyvale, CA 94086
[email protected]

Subj: PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT - MOFFETT PARK SPECIFIC PLAN, DECEMBER 2022

Dear Michelle,
The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) is the owner of the real property located at 1235 N.

Mathilda Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA, 94089, which is included within the boundary of the Moffett Park Specific Plan district. As the current landowner of this parcel which is referenced several times in the Draft Moffett Park Specific Plan (Draft MPSP) as the “Navy Parcel” or the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant (NIROP), the Navy has prepared comments and requested adjustments regarding the Draft MPSP attached as Enclosure (1) for the City’s review and consideration.

Please contact me at or , or at ,
with any questions regarding this matter. Thanks again to you and your team for meeting with us on February 6
th!

Very Respectfully,

Eric W. Crafton
Director of Real Estate
By Direction

Encl: (1) Navy Comments Regarding the Public Review Draft Moffett Park Specific Plan (2) Navy Parcel Alternative Conceptual Layout Figure

Attachment 15

Name: Michelle King

Febuary 10, 2023

2. The DEIR does not include any discussion in the Biological Resources or Hydrology and Water Quality sections regarding impacts on the Sunnyvale East or West Channels due to the proposed the pedestrian bridge crossings. The DEIR should include discussion of how any proposed bridge crossings may impact Sunnyvale East and West Channels. To minimize impacts to these facilities, including operational impacts, the number of new crossings should be minimized and where possible pedestrian crossings should be incorporated into existing road crossings.

3. The discussion on page 86 under Regional and Local Regulatory Framework, should include the Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use near Streams (Guidelines and Standards), which was adopted by the City, and Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance and Manual.

4. Page 92 states that Sunnyvale East appears to be tidally influenced. The document should state that the channel is tidally influenced to approximately Highway 101.

5. Page 93 states Sunnyvale West channel is ti dally influenced. The document should state that the channel is tidally influenced to approximately Mathilda Avenue.

6. The discussion of riparian impacts in the Biol ogical Resources section, including pages 111 (Impact BIO-2) and page 116 (Impact BIO-5) should discuss compliance with the Guidelines and Standards and the Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Manual, including lighting and setbacks to waterways and riparian areas.

7. The Groundwater and Subsidence section on page 145 notes that local groundwater provides 40 percent of the Bay Area’s water supply. While this is accurate for Santa Clara County, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 (Department of Water Resources, 2020) notes groundwater provides 20% of the water supply for the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region.

Also, this paragraph uses meters instead of feet as the unit of measure. Meters are not used anywhere else in the DEIR; therefore, for consistency, the document should use feet instead of meters in this paragraph

8. The discussion regarding Valley Water on page 198, should be replaced with the following text:
“Valley Water operates as the flood protection agency for Santa Clara County. Valley Water also provides stream stewardship and is the wholesale water supplier throughout the county, which includes the groundwater recharge program. In accordance with Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, any work within Valley Water's fee title right of way or easement or work that impacts Valley Water facilities requires the issuance of a Valley Water permit. Under Valley Water’s Well Ordinance 90-1, permits are required for any boring, drilling, deepening, refurbishing, or destroying a water well, cathodic protection well, observation well, monitoring well, exploratory boring (45 feet or deeper), or other deep excavation that intersects the groundwater aquifers of Santa Clara County.”

 

 






Attachment 15

Name: Michelle King

Febuary 10, 2023

9. The discussion on page 199 regarding the City’s regulatory framework related to water resources should include reference to the Guidelines and Standards.

10. The discussion on page 201, Groundwater, should note that due to the long agricultural history of the Santa Clara Subbasin and subsequent land development, there are likely many abandoned wells in the Subbasin. While some of these abandoned wells may have been sealed prior to well permitting requirements, many have open casings and may be discovered during construction. If abandoned wells are encountered during construction, they must be properly destroyed with related work permitted by Valley Water as per Valley Water’s Ordinance 90-1 discussed above.

11. The discussion under Groundwater on page 202, needs to include a reference(s) supporting the statements made in the paragraph starting with the sentence “Studies completed to assess the influence of tides on groundwater elevations at the shallowest aquifers generally concludes that tidal influence was not measurable at the locations monitored.”

12. Page 204, Figure 3.10-2, is titled “Groundwater Depth in Moffett Park” (note – ‘depth to groundwater’ is the commonly used term) but the figure legend uses the phrase “water table elevation (NAVD)”. Depth to groundwater and water table elevation mean two different things. The figure legend and title need to be corrected as noted for accuracy and consistency.

13. The discussion on page 206 regarding flooding should note that the Specific Plan area includes areas in a Special Flood Hazard Area(SFHA) AE to the north and east and areas to the south and west are generally located in Zone X, protected by levees. Areas currently designated as Zone X, which is not a SFHA, may in the future be subject to increased flooding due to sea level rise or other changes that impact the levees that currently protect those areas.

14. The discussion of flooding of Sunnyvale East and West Channels on page 206 needs to be revised for accuracy. Please replace the sentence regarding flooding on these channels with the following:
“The cause of high-water levels on Sunnyvale East and West Channels could stem from multiple factors, including backwater flows from San Tomas Aquino and Calabazas Creeks, coastal flood events, high flows on the creeks themselves and higher roughness in the channel. Flooding could potentially occu r from a combination of one or more of these factors.”

15. The discussion on page 206 under “Flooding and Other Inundation Hazards” states, “The Shoreline Project, a joint effort between Valley Water, Coastal Conservancy, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), is planning, designing, and constructing a shoreline levee to replace the protection provided by the salt pond berms.” The DEIR should also note that the Shoreline Phase III Feasibility Study will determine the feasibility of implementing various options to protect the low-lying areas along the Santa Clara County shoreline at risk to coastal flooding and sea-level rise as well as identify opportunities for environmental restoration and expanded public access to San Francisco Bay. The outcome 
 

 






Attachment 15

Name: Michelle King

Febuary 10, 2023
of the Shoreline Phase III Feasibility Study must determine that there is a positive benefit to cost ratio of building coastal flood protection in the study area in order for the project to move forward with design and construction. After the completion of the feasibility study, the project must compete nationally for congressional funding. The project partners, including the City of Sunnyvale, must work together throughout the feasibility study and beyond in order to build appropriate shoreline protection. It should also be noted that at this time the feasibility study has not commenced.

16. The discussion of impacts related to flooding on pages 210 (Impact HDY-3), 211 (Impact HYD-4) and 212 (Impact HYD-C) do not discuss how new development will be protected from existing flooding or comply with the National Flood Insurance Program requirements and City floodplain policies and requirements. Nor do the discussions address the additional fill proposed to raise the finished floors of non-residential buildings (page 214) as may be required for residential buildings to meet federal and City floodplain ordinances would impact both the extent and depth of existing flooding. While Valley Water is working to make flood protection improvements on both Sunnyvale East and West Channels as part of our capital improvement program, until these projects are completed and the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) are revised, development within existing Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) will need to comply with federal and City flood ordnance requirements. Additionally, Valley Water’s projects may not remove all properties currently located within the SFHAs for various reasons including flooding from other sources such as tidal flooding.

17. In the second paragraph on page 322 under “Groundwater”, please either delete the term “safe yield” regarding groundwater extraction of 8,000 AFY because that term is not used in Valley Water’s 2021 Groundwater Management Plan or provide a proper citation if that term is used in a City of Sunnyvale planning document. Additionally, the word “received” should be replaced by “pumped” in the sentence “In fiscal year 2021 to 2022, the City of Sunnyvale received 135 AF of groundwater.”

18. The discussion on page 335 regarding water supply and the Water Supply Assessment in Appendix J conclude that the project could increase water demands up to 7,400 acre-feet per year beyond the estimated use in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Even before these additional demands the Urban Water Management Plan already assumes a substantial increase in water conservation to allow supplies to meet future demands. Valley Water encourages the City to help meet this water conservation goal by requiring all available water conservation measures in the master plan. Valley Water has been working with jurisdictions throughout the county on a Model Water Efficient New Development Ordinance that the City may consider ensuring that there are sufficient water supplies into the future. Measures from the Model Water Efficient New Development Ordinance include:
x Hot water recirculation systems;
x Alternate water sources collection (like cisterns) and recycled water connections as feasible;
x Encourage non-potable reuse of water like recycled water, graywater and rainwater/stormwater in new development and remodels through installation of dual plumbing for irrigation, toilet flushing, cooling towers, and other non- potable water uses;

 

 






Attachment 15

Name: Michelle King

Febuary 10, 2023
x Require dedicated landscape meters where applicable;
x Require installation of separate submeters to each unit in multi-family developments and individual spaces within commercial buildings to encourage efficient water use (Studies have shown that adding submeters can reduce water use 15 to 30 percent); and
x Use of weather- or soil-based irrigation controllers.

19. Appendix G, Technical Memorandum: Stormwater Management, the first sentence on page 14 states, “…including the reasons for increased groundwater discharge in recent years”. It is not clear from the report what, if any data or technical analysis is used to support that statement. The DEIR should specify what specific years does “recent years” represent in this sentence.

20. Appendix G, Sunnyvale Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Strategy: Background, Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment, page 37, as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Santa Clara Subbasin, Valley Water would be interested in coordinating efforts to supplement the initial assessment of increasing groundwater hazard due to sea-level rise by the Plane et al. (2019) study.

Please provide a copy of the Final EIR when available. As proposed developments/projects are proposed please forward project specific CEQA and project proposals for Valley Water review. For any questions you may contact me at
[email protected]
Sincerely,
Shree Dharasker
Associate Civil Engineer
Community Projects Review Unit
cc: Y. Arroyo, S. Dharasker, V. De La Peidra, S. Ferranti, C. Haggerty, M. Martin, E. Zedler, R.

Grillo, L. Bankosh, R. Blank, J. Bourgeois, B. Yerrapotu, File 
 

 









Attachment 15

February 10, 2023
City of Sunnyvale
Department of Community Development
City of Sunnyvale
465 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Re: Draft EIR Moffett Park Specific Plan
Dear Michelle,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Moffett Park Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). VTA also plans to submit a separate letter with comments on the Moffett Park Specific Plan. VTA has the following comments on the DEIR.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impacts – TDM Mitigation Measures The DEIR notes that the buildout of the Moffett Park Specific Plan (MPSP) would result in Significant and Unavoidable Impacts in the areas of Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Impact AIR-2, p. 74, and Impact GHG-1, p. 162). The DEIR states that mobile emissions, from project-generated motor vehicle trips, “account for 89 percent of emissions from Specific Plan buildout” and notes that the Specific Plan includes TDM policies to reduce vehicle trips, which would reduce mobile emissions (p. 70).

VTA supports the inclusion of extensive TDM policies in the draft Specific Plan, including establishing a Transportation Management Association (TMA), requiring a TDM plan and TMA membership of new developments, and working with the TMA to achieve a 50 percent single- occupancy vehicle (SOV) rate at full buildout of the Specific Plan. However, VTA believes that these TDM requirements – which translate into mitigation measures in the DEIR – can be strengthened. In particular, VTA recommends that the City establish an SOV rate target for an intermediate year (for instance 2030 or 2035), and consider establishing a more aggressive SOV rate target for buildout. For comparison, the North Bayshore Precise Plan in Mountain View identifies a 45 percent SOV target for office trips, and the Google North Bayshore Master Plan includes an objective to achieve a 35 percent SOV rate at full buildout.

Transportation Analysis - Assumptions about Project Trips and Mode Splits In Table 3.17-2 and accompanying text, the DEIR analysis assumes that 100 percent of internal trips (within Moffett Park) would be accomplished by non-driving modes at project buildout. A footnote states that “With district parking, people coming into Moffett Park would need to park once and use other modes of transport (e.g., walking or biking) to complete their activities within Moffett Park” (p. 297). VTA staff does not completely agree with this assumption. The DEIR Attachment 15

City of Sunnyvale
Moffett Park Specific Plan DEIR

does not provide any mitigation measure nor does the MPSP include a policy to incentivize or enforce this “park-once” approach. Given that the MPSP area is more than two miles long (Caribbean Drive/SR 237 to Enterprise Way), it is certainly possible that travelers will chose to drive or take transit for internal trips. The district parking and “park-once” approach in the MPSP will certainly encourage fewer trips to be made by car, but VTA encourages the City to consider adding a policy to establish parking pricing, to further encourage “park-once” and non-single- occupancy vehicle travel.

It appears to VTA staff that Table 3.17-2 in the DEIR incorrectly translates the percentages of non-driving external trips from Table 4 in the Hexagon memorandum in Appendix I. Table 3.17- 2 suggests that just under 2% (10,981) of all project trips would be made by public transit, whereas the Hexagon memo states that “approximately 24% of all external non-driving trips (or 4% of all trips) generated by Moffett Park would use public transit” (Hexagon memo p. 8). While this difference is unlikely to affect the DEIR’s conclusions about Transportation impacts, clarifying this will help the City and VTA plan for future transit service to Moffett Park.

Transit Priority Areas Map
The location of the Borregas light rail station is incorrectly shown on the Transit Priority Areas map in the DEIR (Figure 3.1-1, p. 48). However, this does not appear to affect the DEIR’s general characterization of which MPSP development areas fall within Transit Priority Areas and which do not.

Transit Facilities
Transit facilities information is out of date, p. 292. Precise times are used in the DEIR description which are only accurate at a specific period and then become quickly outdated. VTA recommends updating the Final DEIR to reference more general time intervals to account for future schedule changes. The Orange Line currently runs every 15 minutes on weekdays. x LR Orange Line, 5a-12a weekdays, every 15 minutes.
x LR Orange Line, 6a-12a weekends, every 30 minutes.
x Express Line 122 does not exist and was discontinued in 2020. It is incorrectly shown on in the DEIR (Figure 3.17-4, p. 305).

VTA recommends that Voluntary Contributions also be identified for transit improvements to support the proposed MPSP Policies M-3.2, M-3.3, M-3.4. The Mathilda and Java Drive corridors will require significant changes and enhancement to support transit. When the Voluntary Contribution program was established, its intent was to provide local jurisdictions with a pathway for developers to contribute funding towards regional transportation facilities. While the early focus of contributions under this program was often to direct funding towards freeway and express lanes projects, VTA encourages local jurisdictions to take a similar contribution approach towards transit expansions and enhancements which can also address travel demand along regional transportation corridors. To achieve the travel mode share splits and goals Attachment 15

City of Sunnyvale
Moffett Park Specific Plan DEIR

outlined in the MPSP and DEIR, funding and contributions from private sources will be required to achieve the recommended outcomes. For instance, voluntary contributions should also be identified for transit facilities including the planned reconstruction of the Borregas Light Rail station.

Analysis of Congestion Management Program Facilities
VTA staff appreciates that the DEIR and Appendix I include analysis of the project’s effects on Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities including CMP intersections and freeway segments, recognizing that this analysis was performed for City and CMP purposes and the findings to not constitute CEQA impacts. VTA supports the City’s statement in the DEIR that “Express lane projects… would improve freeway traffic flow” and that “these express lane projects would be included in the citywide nexus study. Future development under the Specific Plan would participate in VTA’s Voluntary Freeway Contribution Program and contribute their fair share towards the identified express lane projects via the nexus study” (p. 306). Before identifying specific projects to fund, Sunnyvale staff should first consult with both the current VTA Planning and Programming Officer and Engineering Program Delivery Officer at the time to best coordinate efforts.

The DEIR states that the “The results of the TIA showed that the buildout of the Specific Plan would result in LOS operational deficiencies at a total of 16 study intersections under background plus project and/or cumulative plus project conditions” (p. 299). The DEIR also notes that “No feasible improvements were identified at seven of the 16 deficient intersections… due to right of way constraints” and summarizes feasible improvements for the other 11 intersections (p. 302). VTA notes that several of the intersections where LOS operational deficiencies were found are CMP intersections, and that two of these CMP intersections are along the County’s Expressway system (Intersections #40 and #45) and one crosses the VTA light rail Orange Line. The City should work with the County and V TA to monitor the Project’s effect on these intersections as buildout occurs, to determine whether the potential improvements in the DEIR (such as depressing light rail tracks at Lawrence Expressway and Tasman Drive) is warranted, and to contribute funds through the citywide nexus study/fee.

Please do not hesitate to contact me or to discuss any questions you may have on this letter.

Sincerely,
Br
ent Pearse
Brent Pearse
Transportation Planner
Attachment 15

/0 /1 /2 /3 /1 /2 /3 /4 /i255 /2 /6 /7 /8 /i255 /9/10/11 /12 /13/14/i255/15 /16 /17/14/18/19 /19 /18 /12 /20 /i255 /21 /i255 /22 /23 /24 /i255 /11 /12 /13/14/i255/21 /i255/10/9/15 /9 /i255 /21 /i255/14/12/25 /25 /23 /26 /26 /27 /28 /13 /29 /i255 /30 /9 /i255 /21 /i255/31/16/26 /32 /12 /12 /29 /28 /17 /12 /16 /26 /6 /17 /32 /28 /20 /29 /2 /1 /2
/33 /34 /35 /36 /i255 /38 /39 /40 /36 /i255 /36 /41 /42/43/40/36 /36 /40 /34 /44 /i255 /45 /34 /34 /46 /i255 /45 /40 /46 /35 /i255 /36 /47 /48/43/49/i255/50 /35 /47 /34 /51 /38 /i255 /40 /38 /i255 /39 /35 /51 /35 /52 Attachment 15

(1) Please see attached extension application & approval for SDP 2015-7400 Department of Community Development
Attention: Michelle King & Kelly Cha
City of Sunnyvale
456 W. Olive Ave.

Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Re: Zoning of Surface Parking Lots Serving 1184, 1194, and 1224 N Mathilda Ave (Sunnyvale Office Park)
Dear Ms. King and Ms Cha:

Thank you again for taking the time to discuss the Draft Specific Plan as it applies to Sunnyvale Office Park (“SVOP”). We are excited to continue and expand our already significant commitment to Moffett Park over the coming years, within the guidelines of this impressive, forward-thinking Specific Plan Update.

Following our discussion on February 1 regarding the draft zoning of SVOP’s surface parking lots, below is a written summary of our request.

The Draft Plan released on December 19, 2022 designates SVOP’s three surface lots, from north to south, as Residential (R), Mixed-Use (MU), and Office (O2).

We propose designating all three surface lots as Mixed-Use (MU) to provide the flexibility needed to meet the needs of the city and its residents & businesses in the future.

In a rapidly changing world, flexibility will be essential to facilitate the ideal mix of residential and commercial uses that best serve Moffett Park’s long -term goal of being a vibrant, diverse, and resilient economic engine to the City and region.

Finally, we would like to request confirmation that, whatever zoning is finally agreed to, the Specific Plan will provide the right to allocate (a) our existing entitlements 1 and/or (b) any additional as-of-right zoned
density across any portion of SVOP’s site.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this request and please do not hesitate to reach out in the meantime if you have any follow up questions or feedback.

Sincerely,
Tanner Flyckt
CommonWealth Partners LLC
Attachment 15

Chapter Section Page Comment
33 . 4 4 6 Parks and public spaces greater than a half acre should not be maintained by property owners. The City or a non-profit organization should be responsible for maintenance
33 . 8 5 5 First Avenue west of Mathilda should remain the major street providing access to the redevelopement of the LM's North parcel.

Any new street along the LM chanel should be a laneway. North Parcel will be redeveloped before LM's East parcel. 44 . 2 7 4 "the expansion and restoration of the Lockheed Martin stormwater detention area" should be removed. No change the the stormwater ponds is planned or needed.
44 . 2 7 5 The City should accept dedication of all new public roads West of Mathilda such as the proposed extension of Discovery Way 44 . 2 7 5 The critical work LM performs in Sunnyvale requires a security setback of 100 meters from classified areas. This is a non- negotiable requirement and must be met
44 . 2 7 5 The map does not seem to reflect accurately the core campus boundry - specifically the buffer/setback north of Bldg. 076 44 . 3 7 9 Language should be added to the MP-E1 district clarifying that R&D, industrial and warehouse uses are permitted 44 . 5 8 4 Should clarify that Property owner shall submit a Habitat Enhancement and Management Plan, but City or Non-profit shall be responsible for implementing the plan and maintaining the Ecological Combining District. 44 . 7 9 3 Clarify that Creation Space not being adjacent to residential means "not opposite the front entrance of residential buildings" 44 . 7 9 4 Add language to end of 1. "unless otherwise permitted pursuant to pursuant to a development agreement approved by City Council"
44 . 9 9 6 Add language to end of 2. "including new streets west of Mathilda" 44 . 9 9 7 Open spaces over a certain size, (0.5 acres?) should be operated and maintained by the City or a non-profit 44 . 9 9 7 Section 3a. Should clarify that only sections of provate utilites adjacent to the development site need to be upgraded 5 5.35 120 A straight 20 spaces surface park limit is too low for larger developments recommend 1 surface spot per 2,500 SF 5 5.4.3 126 The proposed green roof requirements are too expensive for speculative development. We suggest under 10K SF be excempt; 10K Sf to 30K sf be 20%; 30k Sf to 50K Sf be 35% and above 50K Sf be 50% 6 6.3 143 & 180 The map does not seem to reflect accurately the core campus boundry - specifically the buffer/setback north of Bldg. 076 is included as a Greenway - Ecological Corridor
6 6.5 167 The dimension of ECD from the northern boundary should be 1,000 feet not 1,040 feet.

Attachment 15

8 8.3 227
The parking maximiums are too restirctive and may lead to no new speculative office development, which is needed to fund public benefits. The parking requirments will decrease over time as residential development adds substantially to employees of Moffett Park that can commute to work on foot, bike or shuttle. Initially however, Moffett Park is a suburban business park with limited public transportation. Therefore we think that during the first 5 years after adoption the office parking max should be

2.75 spaces / 1,000 SF. After 5 years the office parking maximum should be 2.25 / 1,000 SF and after 10 years 1.75 per 1,000 SF.

Residential should be consistant at 1.2 spaces per unit. Industrial should be 1 space per 1,000 SF for first 5 years and drop to .75 spaces / 1,000 SF thereafter Please note that 1) you are going to need slightly more spaces than cars 2) with hybrid work different sites will need varying amounts of parking on different days ("all hands meetings") 9 9.6 254 There should be a exception noted for gas use in manufacturing/industrial processes Attachment 15

Attachment 15

Attachment 15

Attachment 15

Attachment 15

and small businesses and services that enable cross-industry connection and a continuum of support to grow and mature in place.
● Proximity, Walkability and Quality of Place to help attract, maintain and grow talent in the district and support multiple points of interaction, connection and collaboration across users.
● Leadership and Governance to champion and promote the vision for the place, to convene and mobilize the actors around a shared mission, and to catalyze the district by finding new resources and investments and incentivizing connection and collaboration.

It is important that the MPSP policies encourage these principles. Below are some suggestions for the draft MPSP based on our research and our work with Julie Wagner on how to achieve and incentivize these principles:
● Set this innovation space as an important goal for the MPSP District as a whole, rather than a mandate on every individual project.
● Aggregate the 7.5% requirement into a small number of key hubs in the area , not on every parcel or single application. And, the developer who takes on the creation of this purposefully located and concentrated innovation space should receive incentives to attract the critical mass of users and the mix of uses needed to establish a successful innovation district.
● Innovation districts across the world have been utilizing mechanisms such as tax caps or exemptions for small businesses, local neighborhood uses and startups that create new permanent jobs in the district or provide education and development of new skills or training. The City should also consider providing incentives to attract small businesses and entrepreneurs to come to the MPSP District through similar methods. ● In cities like St Louis, the city is redirecting public funds and tax increment financing to support infrastructure improvements. Other cities deploy philanthropic funding or institutional capital to catalyze their innovation districts. T o enable the mix that facilitates a true innovation district, the City of Sunnyvale and developers should work together to define a funding mechanism and source funding opportunities across local, private, state and national opportunities. This collaboration could be one of the immediate action items after the adoption of the MPSP .
● Establish a collaborative management model such as a Business Improvement District, to ensure vitality and strength of the innovation district over time. One model we see around the world is where the primary developer or landowner sets up a new entity (often as a nonprofit) with a board structure, perhaps similar to Sunnyvale’s existing Business Improvement District for downtown. The city and other partners (including developers, anchor institutions, key stakeholders and businesses) sit on the board as voting members. The new entity typically hires staff to oversee the innovation district's tenanting, marketing, programming and ongoing management. This is not typically led by 2 Attachment 15

March 31, 2023
City Hall at 456 West Olive Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Attn: Michelle King, Principal Planner | [email protected] RE: Comments on Draft MPSP, City of Sunnyvale
Dear City of Sunnyvale, Planning Department,
I am writing to express my support for the Draft Moffett Park Specific Plan and in addition, provide my input for consideration regarding further incentivizing low-carbon buildings within the Plan.

The vision for the eco-innovation district is exciting as it provides the opportunity to highlight, at a district scale, what true innovation looks like by implementing the best of sustainable, ecological, and resilient practices. The second guiding principle within the plan outlines that new development will prioritize low carbon buildings, through more sustainable building materials and construction techniques. With this guiding principle in mind, it is compelling to think of the role that mass timber and other low embodied carbon buildings can play.

Specifically, there is potential to further incentivize mass timber and other low carbon buildings within the Plan by relaxing the building design guidelines as described in further detail below.

Mass Timber Opportunities
As we know, mass timber as a building material offers significant opportunity to achieve low-carbon, and net zero buildings. Buildings have the potential to approach net zero from an embodied carbon perspective both in terms of the materials used, as well as operational best practices. We’ve seen this with the recently completed project at 1265 Borregas that is targeting LEED Platinum and all-electric and is designed to achieve a 96% reduction in embodied carbon when all aspects of sequestration are considered.

From a planning perspective, mass timber buildings fit well into a sustainable neighborhood vision. In terms of built environments, exposed mass timber materials have a warm quality that creates welcoming and comfortable environments with measurable benefits on health and well-being of occupants.

Mass timber also lends itself to an exciting range of massing forms and building typologies that can be realized. You can see this in Sunnyvale with the unique expressions of recent mass timber projects – again at 1265 Borregas and also at 555 Java. Included at the end of this letter are images of these buildings, as well as other timber buildings for reference.

These are just a sample of projects that our practice, MGA, have been involved in. The portfolio of mass timber buildings internationally is growing rapidly, illustrating a range of excellent, achievable, and more sustainable design opportunities.

Potential to Further Encourage Use of Mass Timber
To further incentivize the use of mass timber and other low carbon building materials within the MPSP, I recommend that Sunnyvale Planning Department consider exempting or relaxing the requirements for “major breaks” in the façade, and the façade step back requirements. The intent behind these prescriptive requirements could remain priorities.

The reason I make this recommendation is that when specific building form requirements, such as major building breaks and façade step backs are determined prescriptively, it can render mass timber unfeasible on some sites. To make mass timber efficient, we aim for structural simplicity and repeatability, creating minimal material waste (lower carbon) and providing a cost competitive solution when compared to traditional building materials. Though most prescriptive forms can be achieved with mass timber, these requirements can trigger the need for additional steel and concrete, or other forms of reinforcing, to achieve structural forms that are not as natural for the building material. These requirements can make using mass timber cost prohibitive, in addition to losing some of the sustainable benefits.

Design considerations specific to mass timber structures include structural bay spacing optimized to minimize material waste and maximize construction efficiency, which can have an impact on overall building width and depth. Floorplate geometry is also a design driver as it relates to efficient load paths for lateral design and performance relative to a timber building. The stepping of building massing must correlate with the timber structural design, making some types of building façade step backs more difficult to achieve and sometimes resulting in additional material, including steel and concrete reinforcement, that can have an impact on cost, constructability, and carbon footprint.

Attachment 15