(See Corrected Attachment 9, posted 20230711)
Moffett Park Specific Plan | June 2023
Appendix: Proposed Changes Matrix
+ Response to Comments on the MPSP Public Draft
Comment
Number
From Chapter Section Page Topic Comments Response
# 339 Google 10 10.5 282 Funding and Financing
Strategy
Proposed Modification(s):
“Each new development project, except for projects built or occupied by non‐profits, low or moderate income households, Innovation and Creation office and commercial spaces, and/or retail or other active ground floor uses , will contribute toward impact fees, on‐site and off‐site improvements related to the project, and provide co
ntributions to other required funding sources or allowed alternative mitigations. Where a development impact fee is imposed on a project, the fee shall be based on a nexus study, subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, and cannot be used to compensate the City for existing shortfalls or deficiencies in the Specific Plan. Wher e a development project is required to pay for capital improvements in the Specific Plan that are not otherwise covered by development impact fees, a developer’s contribution shall be limited to the “fair share” contributions for proposed capital improvements that support the development of Moffett Park. A developer’s fair share c ontributions to the Specific Plan’s capital improvements shall be limited and proportional to the new demand for infrastructure or municipal services created by a developer’s project, based on net new office square footage or residential units. Developers may offset their required impact fees and/or community benefits requirement through City approved delivery of di strict improvements.”
(Each development should have a fair and proportional responsibility to realizing the vision of the MPSP. Additionally, non‐profit or community development projects should not face additional delivery challenges by having to contribute to impact fees or district improvements. Allowing developers to offset fees and community benefits requirements thr
ough delivery of district improvements to the City would hasten the realization of the MPSP vision.)
Noted. No recommended change.
# 340 Google 10 10.5 282 Funding and Financing
Strategy
Recommendation: Major infrastructure capacity improvements and amenities that serve the entire district should be funded by entities such as: Public Agencies, Community Facilities Districts, Assessment Districts, and/or the proposed ‘Collaborative Entity for Infrastructure.' These entities could then be reimbursed by future developments through Reimbursement Agreements. If these types of improvements are funded by priv ate development projects these costs should be credited against applicable development impact fees or treated as fulfillment of Community Benefits requirements if the development has not already paid these fees.
(Requiring that a development front major infrastructure costs for the entire district or a portion of the district, with no clear tim eline for reimbursement, would most likely make the project financially infeasible. Entities such as public agencies, CFD’s or assessment districts can utilize their unique structures to leverage additional funds (e.d. Bonds, State funds, etc.) and/or ensure reimbursement for major infrastructure projects from future and current developments that would benefit from the im provement.) Noted. No recommended change.
# 341 Jay Paul Company 10 10.5 282 Funding and Financing Strategy
The various infrastructure programs should be City funded infrastructure projects when the benefits are more widely shared with other parts of the community.
The City studied and is now including proposed MPSP impact fees to for water and sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements as part of this approval p rocess. Pending discussions with City staff during the Site Master Plan process, developments may construct the required improvement or pay the impact fee. No change recommended.
Attachment 9
(See Corrected Attachment 9, posted 20230711)
Moffett Park Specific Plan | June 2023
Appendix: Proposed Changes Matrix
+ Response to Comments on the MPSP Public Draft
Comment
Number
From Chapter Section Page Topic Comments Response
# 342 RJR 10 10.5 282 Funding and Financing
Strategy
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 contr ols adopted in connection with the Plan facilitate future residential redevelopment of existing sites under current and reasonably anticipated future market conditions.
If development of these sites does not “pencil” for property owners, they will not proceed with redevelopment and the associated community benefits and exactions necessary to finance public improvements wi thin the Plan Area would not be achieved.
Request:
We request that the Department evaluate the economic feasibility of residential development within the Plan area based upon typical building typologies incorporating the Draft Plan’s detailed form‐based density design requirements, horizontal site area restrictions, public opens space obligations, and proposed increases to de velopment impact fee exactions for plan‐area development.
We further suggest that the Department conduct a workshop to coordinate and share comments specifically amongst potential residential developers within the Draft Plan area and to explore current incentives and barriers to the form of high‐density residential development proposed by the Draft Plan .
Noted. The summary plan changes memo outlines modifications made to building design standards. New streets and open spaces are necessary for plan implementation. No change recommended due to this comment. # 343 Silicon Valley @
Home
10 10.6 285 Performance Metrics Recommend tracking or measure progress towards meeting the affordable housing production goals throughout the 20‐year buildout period and the 5‐year review/updates.
The Specific Plan identifies key performance metrics to measure progress in implementing the vision for an ecological innovation district (Section 10.6). These metrics include housing units pe rmitted. The City aims to review and measure progress on 5‐year basis as described in the Specific Plan. No change recommended. # 344 Google 10 10.5 285 Performance Metrics Comment : There is a stated performance metric of one residential unit per every 500 square feet of office floor area. This metric should be monitored at a neighborhood level, instead of a district wide level, to ensure that each neighborhood has a vibrant mixed‐use character The Specific Plan includes separate monitoring actio ns for the Development Reserve (Section 4.8). Development will be monitored at the neighborhood level consistent with this section. Because each neighborhood has a unique character and uses are not allowed uniformly across Moffett Park, the ratio of 1 unit per 500 square feet does not apply at neighborhood scale. No change r ecommended.
# 345 R+A 10 10.6 285 Performance Metrics Revise creation and innovation space reference Revised text: "Performance Metric: Percent of Innovation and Creation space and innovation square footage permitted a. Objective: 750,000 net new square feet of Innovation and Creation space and Innovation space b. Responsible Department: Community Development
c. Data Source: Building permit data
3. Performance Metric: Percent of office and and R&D square footage permitted." # 346 City Staff App. A App. A 289 Glossary Add district parking definition Add definition: "District Parking: District parking includes a shared parking garage. District parking locations are clustered and serve multiple uses with clear signage, a single payment system, and coordinated parking management." # 347 City Staff App. A App. A 289 Glossary Add district systems definition Add definition: "District Systems: District Systems are defined as ‘resource‐based’ systems that are designed to generate or treat resources locally to enhance environmental and economic performance across the life cycle of a development. The systems including microgrids, water reuse, and geothermal, among others. Systems are sh ared at a plan or neighborhood level and involve multiple property owners and stakeholders." # 348 SFEI App. B App. B 300 Planting Palettes Update the page breaks in Table 32 so all of the oak savanna/woodland info is on 1 page, not split across 2 pages.
Update table.
# 349 Planning Commission 4 4.6 90 Innovation and
Creation Space
Expand the list of neighborhood‐serving retail to include gallery, commercial kitchens, and other creative uses
The neighborhood‐serving retail list has been revised to accommodate the land uses as suggested. Added a new land use "art gallery" and provided a definition in Chapter 19.12. # 350 Planning Commission 4 4.6 90 Neighborhood ‐Serving Uses
Expand the list of neighborhood‐serving retail to include maker space The neighborhood‐serving retail list in the Zoning Code chapter alread includes a land use that includes maker space("Manufacture, processing, repair, compounding, packaging, assembly or treatment plants or facilities for equipment, materials or products, including production bakeries and food pr ocessing activities . (Non‐hazardous materials) but added a note stating it is subject to CDD Director approval for compatibility review with adjacent uses. No change to the Plan recommended.
# 351 Staff 4 4.4 82 General Land Use Remove "FAR" from the last bullet on page 82 Remove reference to FAR from the last bullet on page 82: Residential developments. Residential and mixed‐use development within the MP‐AC and MP‐R have a minimum residential density. There is no residential density minimum for MP‐MU. All residential districts do not hav e a maximum density but are limited through form‐based standards including setbacks, lot coverage, height, FAR, and required publicly accessible open spaces.
Additional staff recommendations post Planning Commission hearing from June 13, 2023 Attachment 9
(See Corrected Attachment 9, posted 20230711)
Moffett Park Specific Plan | June 2023
Appendix: Proposed Changes Matrix
+ Response to Comments on the MPSP Public Draft
Comment
Number
From Chapter Section Page Topic Comments Response
# 352 Staff 2 2.1 25 Relationship to Other
Plans
Clarification on the Shoreline Resilience Vision effort Revise the paragraph under the Sunnyvale Shoreline Resilience Vision: "The Sunnyvale Shoreline Resilience Vision (“Vision”) is an ongoing collaborative effort between a group of organizations deeply invested in long term regional resilience and interested in coordinating across their individual planning efforts. This effort is led by Santa Cl ara Valley Water District (Valley Water) and Google. Stakeholders for this informal, ad‐hoc community group includes the City of Sunnyvale, Valley Water, Lockheed Martin, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, NASA, the US Fish and Wildlife Services, the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, and Google. The ar ea of interest is the shoreline from Stevens Creek to San Tomas Aquino Creek and associated urban areas south to US 101 and SR 237. The group focused on shoreline adaptation, stormwater management, and urban ecology."
# 353 Staff 4 4.4 84 Standards for All
development
Replace "parcel" with "project" for consistency with other standards allowing the entire project area as the base for calculating allowed floor area and density Revise Standard #2 Allowed floor area and density: "Allowed floor area and density are defined by Land Use District in Table 2. Allowed floor area and de nsity isare based on the gross parcelproject area." # 354 Valley Water Valley Water comments Potential response to Valley Water comment letter dated June 14, 2023 Attachment 9
(See Corrected Attachment 9, posted 20230711)