Concerns Regarding the Moffett Park Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report

May 25, 2023

Michelle King
Principal Planner, Department of Community Development
City of Sunnyvale
456 West Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086

Re: Moffett Park Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report, File No. 2021080338

Dear Ms. King,

Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge are environmental organizations with interest in the San Francisco Bay and the region's wildlife and natural resources. Due to the Moffett Park Specific Plan (MPSP) area’s proximity to San Francisco Bay, new development in the Plan area raises significant concern about impacts on wildlife, shoreline ecosystems and open space resources as well as community resilience to risks associated with sea level and groundwater rise. We therefore have participated in every opportunity to provide public comment on the Moffett Park Specific Plan as it developed.

We commend the diligent work of City staff and its team of consultants to put forth a comprehensive and thoughtful plan for the future of Moffett Park. We acknowledge and appreciate the extensive research, refinement and public process that underlie the MPSP. Nevertheless, the responses to comments in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and associated updates to the MPSP did not allay several of our concerns. In particular, we find the lack of policies or mitigation to monitor or manage the ecological impacts of increased human activity in shoreline open spaces to be of dire concern and we lament the lost opportunity to protect nature and reverse the degradation of ecosystems as part of this immense plan.

Our comments below highlight specific areas of continued concern with regard to resilience of existing open space and recreation facilities, biological resources and wildlife protection, hazardous contamination, and unique impacts of development of life sciences laboratories. Our recommendations within each issue area separately identify gaps in the Final EIR that need to be addressed and proposed amendments to strengthen and clarify the MPSP’s policies and strategies. For your convenience, Appendix C, attached, provides a consolidated list of our recommendations.

We hope you will consider our comments and recommendations to strengthen the MPSP and better support its vision for an ecological innovation district. We look forward to meeting with you to discuss further.

EIR TECHNICAL CORRECTION

Please correct page 6 (pdf page 8) and page 60 (pdf page 62) of the Final EIR response file to specifically mention the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society as co-authors of the joint Draft EIR comment letter submitted with the Sierra Club.

PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION

The EIR dismisses our concern, shared by multiple other commenters,¹ that adding 42,000 new residents and 60,000 employees to the area will have significant detrimental impacts on existing park, open space and recreation facilities and on wildlife along bayland wetlands and levees. However, without any evidence-based assessment of employee use, and with critical gaps in analysis of impacts, there is insufficient evidence to make the Impact REC-1 or Impact BIO-4 findings of less than significant impact.

The resulting failure to require monitoring and mitigation of the impacts from increased recreation use will have significant detrimental effects on existing park and recreation facilities, wildlife including migratory and special-status species), community well-being, and the City’s budget outlook.

1. Impact REC-1 and Topic Response 3 fail to provide credible analysis of increased employee use of existing park and recreation facilities.

The City’s park dedication fee ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter 19.74, is at the core of the

City’s finding that the MPSP would have less than significant impact on existing park and recreation facilities. However, that ordinance does not purport to address non-resident impacts. By its terms, it is based on a finding that “multifamily rental housing projects have a significant effect on the use and availability of parks and recreation space and facilities.” Furthermore, its stated intent is to ensure that residential development pays “its fair share toward improvements, and/or purchase and development of parks and recreational facilities.”²

Any impact on the degradation of existing facilities attributable to the addition of 60,000 new employees in Moffett Park would be additive. Yet the only assessment of increased use by project employees is a single sentence in Topic Response 3 indicating an unsubstantiated expectation that their use will be minimal.³

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Appendix G requires analysis of the project’s impact on degradation of parks and recreation facilities, not just new resident impacts. The EIR reliance on a mere assumption that 60,000 new employees will make minimal use of existing facilities is grossly flawed, especially in an area designed for dense development and active transportation and in an era when employee access to nature is recognized as a core element of corporate wellness.^{4 5}

Additionally, we note that Park dedication fees collected pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 19.74 can only be used to “purchase land, buy equipment or construct improvements.”⁶ The fees cannot be used for monitoring impacts, maintenance of trails and other facilities, or habitat protection and restoration. Furthermore, there is no current mechanism for non-residential development to pay a fair share toward the upkeep of park and recreation facilities or the protection of wildlife and restoration of habitat. Underestimating (and failing to mitigate) increased use, could have budget implications for the City that delay or prevent needed future maintenance and restoration investment for existing facilities.

2. The EIR fails to evaluate or address impacts from increased demand for distinct uses only available in existing shoreline park and recreation facilities adjacent to the Plan area.

The EIR acknowledges an expected increase in resident and employee use of existing facilities. Indeed, Specific Plan Policy OSE-1.2 seeks to affirmatively connect residents, employees and visitors to existing “adjacent facilities.” However, the MPSP and Final EIR fail to evaluate and address the cumulative demand for open space uses that are not served by new facilities envisioned within the Plan area.

The Draft EIR and Topic Response 3 assert that new park and open space acreage, in conjunction with Specific Plan Policies OSE-2.1 through OSE-2.8 requiring certain types of facilities, would “offset” the project’s demand for existing park and recreational facilities. However, the claim of offsetting facilities falls flat as applied to the Bay Trail’s distinct function as a regional commute route and recreation trail, or the unique character of existing shoreline trails and vistas (at Baylands Park, the landfill hills, and along many levees abutting Sunnyvale’s water treatment ponds, Guadalupe slough, Calabazas/San Tomas Aquino creek and marsh, and other levees in the south end of the San Francisco Bay). Hunting is another recreation activity offered in the Sunnyvale Baylands that cannot be duplicated within the Plan area.

The introduction of a large number of residents and employees without alternative, like-kind facilities, and with ready access facilitated by Policy OSE-1.2, likely will lead to a sharp increase in use of Baylands Park, the Bay Trail and the above-mentioned shoreline trails, with inevitable impacts on wildlife (including migratory birds and special-status species) and degradation of existing facilities. Yet the MPSP relies only on existing protections, such as trail signage directing visitors away from sensitive habitats, and limitations on dogs at Sunnyvale Baylands Park.⁷ Those protections target some specific detrimental behaviors but do nothing to address increased volume of use. The lack of policies or mitigations to monitor or manage the impacts of increased human activity in shoreline open spaces is of dire concern.

3. The EIR fails to evaluate or address impacts of increased recreation use on wildlife.

Our comment letter expressed the concern that impacts to special-status species, migratory birds and other wildlife species are likely to result from the inevitable increase in human and pet activity on levees. This concern remains valid. Indeed, there is substantial scientific evidence to support a fair argument that an increase in human activities and encroachment in or adjacent to wildlife habitat will impact patterns of use and populations of species using these habitats.

Impacts on migratory and nesting birds behavior (including foraging, resting, roosting and nesting) from human activity on trails are well documented globally as well as specifically in the South Bay adjacent to the Sunnyvale Baylands (see Appendix A: Annotated Reference for summary of specific studies’ findings). As shown in Appendix A, scientific studies and reviews reveal widespread effects of human presence and recreation on animals, with a large amount of evidence showing negative impacts to raptors and shorebirds. Studies also show consistent negative impacts to shorebird breeding.

In the Bay Area, and specifically in locations near or adjacent to Moffett Park, studies of the responses of migratory birds to human activity on shoreline trails and levees show that the numbers and species richness of migratory shorebirds decreased with an increase in human recreational activities. Migratory duck species seem especially sensitive: all duck species within 80 meters of a levee trail responded to trail use. When disturbed, ducks moved substantially farther from the trail than they were found before pedestrians' presence. Tolerance differed between species, with some more averse to human activity than others. But in a scientific literature review of human impacts on waterbirds in the San Francisco Bay Area, 86% of the studies found that human disturbance affected their study species. The review shows that boating and walking affect bird behavior, causing them to waste time and energy they could have used to feed. Birds flying away in response to human disturbance was noted in 57% of the 50 studies reviewed.

The analysis associated with Impact BIO-4 did not fully address the impact of recreation on wintering migratory shorebirds and ducks. As we have highlighted above, use of trails and levees in the area will increase substantially as a result of the addition of 60,000 employees and 42,000 residents to Moffett Park since walking and biking on Bay levees are popular activities that cannot be fully, or even closely, replicated with the new recreation facilities in the Plan area.

Response R.8 to this concern directed us again to Topic Response 3 which includes no analysis or discussion of impacts from increased recreation activity on migratory birds and special status species, dismissing our concern by stating, “Baylands Park and San Francisco Bay Trail direct visitors to designated trails (and not sensitive wildlife habitat).“ The missing analysis, discussion, monitoring and mitigation requirements are a fatal flaw of the EIR and must be corrected.

Needed Additions to the EIR

• Provide evidence substantiating the City’s expectation that commuting employees will make minimal use of local park and recreation facilities (including trails). This should include an objective evaluation of the expected participation of Moffett Park employees in active transportation commute modes, including use of the Bay Trail.
• Substantiate the City’s expectation that the cumulative increase in population - both residents and employees - will not expand trail use in ways that disrupt and harm populations of migratory birds, special status species, and other native resident or migratory wildlife species.

The following mitigation measures should be added to the EIR (EIR Table 2.3-6: Summary of Key Specific Plan Requirements and Policies by Resource Area - Biological Resources and elsewhere).

• Proposed new requirement 10.3.5-xx: Limit public access to some of the Sunnyvale Baylands Levees. Closing some levees to recreational activities (see Figure 1, below, levees proposed for closure to recreation are marked in Green). This mitigation measure reserves some levees for use by migratory birds while at the same time providing accessibility and connectivity for people. It reduces encroachment and disturbance of migratory birds.
• Proposed new requirement 10.3.5-xx: With the exception of commute trails (such as Bay Trail and the East and West Channels trails), limit access to human-powered-only, and prohibit electronic or motorized mobility devices except as required for Americans with Disabilities Act accommodation. This mitigation measure reduces encroachment pressure further from the Bay Trail.

PROPOSED SEASONAL LEVEE CLOSURES

Figure 1

MPSP Recommendations re: Parks, Open Space, and Recreation

MPSP Section 6.2 Open Space and Urban Ecology Principles, Goals, and Policies, Goal OSE-1: INTERCONNECTED AND BIODIVERSE OPEN SPACE NETWORK. Moffett Park provides a high level of service with ample open space for residents, employees, and visitors through an interconnected network of open spaces that supports healthy ecosystems, improves air and water quality, improves public health, and adapts to a changing climate.

• Proposed new policy OSE-1.X: Protect and enhance habitat in open space and Bayland ecosystems to maintain and support biodiversity over time.
• Proposed new policy OSE-1.4.X: Monitor usage of open space in and near the Plan area as Moffett Park grows and densifies, and use dynamic strategies to regulate use as needed to reduce impacts to wildlife and maintain the quality of recreation facilities.
• Proposed new policy OSE-1.4.X: Identify financing strategies to ensure fair share contributions to facility maintenance and habitat restoration costs.

MPSP Section 6.2 Open Space and Urban Ecology Principles, Goals, and Policies, Goal OSE-3: ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. New developments’ parks and open spaces enhance ecosystems and support biodiversity, benefiting both people and natural habitat.

● Proposed text change (in bold) to Policy OSE-3.1: Facilitate the removal of existing and transfer of future development away from the Lockheed Martin stormwater holding ponds, other stormwater, emergent and potential wetlands, grasslands and other undeveloped lands north of 1st Street through implementation of an Ecological Combining District to expand and enhance wetland habitat, ecosystem health, and climate resilience.

CONTAMINATION HAZARDS

We remain quite concerned about the potential for mobilization and spread of legacy hazardous chemical contamination in Moffett Park, with potentially significant site-specific and cumulative impacts that can be exacerbated by climate change effects, including sea level rise, shallow groundwater rise, and fluvial flooding. Because CEQA does not address impacts of the environment on a project, the EIR leaves significant gaps in public understanding of these threats to public and ecosystem health within the Plan area. We urge the City to include robust policies in the MPSP to ensure transparency and enable full assessment, management, and mitigation of future project-specific and cumulative contamination impacts as the MPSP unfolds over time.

Despite the Plan area’s proximity to known or suspected sources of contamination, no testing has been done for chemicals likely to be present within the Plan area. An April 23, 2023 comment letter submitted by environmental scientist Naomi Goodman, indicated that “most of the ‘site closures’ listed on the various state and federal maps addressed only fuel tank leaks.”⁸ As a result, site closures may not have considered the full range of likely contaminants currently present. Nevertheless, the Final EIR indicates that “closed” sites need not go through a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

Climate change also significantly complicates assessment and management of potential chemical hazards as sea level rise, shallow groundwater rise, and fluvial flooding threaten to spread contamination more widely. Contaminant disruption from development at one site may have wider ranging impacts than anticipated under current conditions, resulting in a greater cumulative impact. Unfortunately, CEQA is an inadequate tool for addressing that challenge and a programmatic EIR, by its nature, defers much analysis to future project-by-project environmental review, often with less public visibility and engagement. We hope the City will exercise its discretion to strengthen the MPSP with additional attention to hazardous contamination.

We recommend the following additions and amendments to the MPSP in order to build public confidence that legacy contamination is appropriately identified and remediated and to improve the City’s capacity to monitor, evaluate and respond to potential cumulative impacts.

MPSP Recommendations Regarding Contamination Hazards

MPSP Section 4.1 Land Use Goals and Policies, Goal LU-1 COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS. A

series of neighborhoods with access to public amenities, quality housing, good jobs, and healthy

and safe environments that weave together into a vibrant ecological innovation district.

• Proposed new Policy LU-1.7: Assure transparency and opportunity for public review and comment regarding hazardous materials analysis for all projects, including the decision basis and findings regarding additional site investigations, the scope of new site investigations, and planned remediation measures.

MPSP Chapter 10 Implementation, Section 10.2.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

• Proposed new submittal requirement: Soil and Groundwater Study. For any renovation, modification, or redevelopment of a property within Moffett Park, an assessment of existing soil and groundwater conditions shall be completed, including testing for hazardous contaminants and identifying site-specific vulnerability to shallow groundwater rise.

MPSP Chapter 10 Implementation, Section 10.4 Implementation Actions, Table 29

• Proposed text change (in bold) to Groundwater Data Collection description: Establish a monitoring plan of groundwater elevations, hazardous soil-borne contaminants, and salinity within Moffett Park that includes the development and publication of a three- dimensional map of subsurface geology as well as a regularly updated map of chemical testing results. [Note: the proposed 10.2.1 submittal requirement above would be a valuable data source for this Groundwater Data Collection effort.]

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Bird Safety

The MPSP limits Bird Facade treatment requirements to the first 60 feet of building height. We ask that you expand this requirement to include all building heights on building facades that face parks, open space and water features. Increasingly, evidence shows⁹ that nocturnally migrating birds are attracted to light at night (such as from residential towers) and collide with towers and tall structures, sometimes in great numbers. Collision risk is especially visible in areas near bays and rivers. To reduce the risk of bird collision, we ask that the MPSP strengthen the requirements for safety treatment. Similar to the San Jose City Wide Design Standards and Guidelines, we ask that glazing achieves reflectivity of no more than 20%. Similar to the City of Cupertino, we ask for facades taller than 60 feet to implement bird safety treatment when facing open space and water features.

MPSP Recommendations Regarding Bird Safety

MPSP Section 5.4 Ecological Development Standards

• Proposed MPSP text change (in bold) to section 5.4.2 BIRD SAFE DESIGN Section 2. Façade treatment: No more than 10% of the surface area of a building’s total exterior façade shall have untreated glazing between the ground and 60 feet above ground. Building facades that face open space or water features will have treated glazing at all heights. Bird Friendly glazing treatments can include the use of opaque glass, the covering of clear glass surface with patterns, the use of paned glass with fenestration patterns, and the use of external screens over non-reflective glass. All façade glazing shall have reflectivity ratings no greater than 20%.
• Proposed MPSP text change (in bold) to section 5.4.2 BIRD SAFE DESIGN Section 4. Façade treatment: No more than 10% of the surface area of a building’s total exterior façade between the ground and 60 feet above ground or within 15 feet above a green roof shall have untreated glazing. Building facades that face open space or water features will have treated glazing at all heights. Bird Friendly glazing treatments can include the use of opaque glass, the covering of clear glass surface with patterns, the use of paned glass with fenestration patterns, and the use of external screens over non-reflective glass. All façade glazing shall have reflectivity ratings no greater than 20%.

2. Oversight for Special Status Species

Final EIR Response R.5 to our comment asking for criteria to be provided for “qualified biologist” in regard to Special Status Species, modifies the following text in the MPSP (highlight added):

We have two concerns about this response. One is that the City only added this definition to the category of Special Status Plants but did not apply it to any of the seven other Special Status Species or Sensitive Habitat included in the Draft EIR nor in Section 10.3.5 of the MPSP. The second concern is that the definition added is inadequate when applied to Special Status Species and habitats on which those species depend.

Categorically, Special Status Species are subject to the oversight of responsible wildlife agencies, applying and ensuring species protection intended by one or more of the wildlife regulatory authorities cited in the Draft EIR. Qualifications for performing these protective actions include species-specific training and experience with permitting, including survey protocols and construction requirements. These are qualifications that can only be acquired through post-undergraduate field work and study and must be species-specific. Further, as sensitive habitats are often associated with Special Status Species, biologists involved in surveys and permitting in those habitats discussed in 10.3.5 must have related advanced qualifications.

The 10.3.5 discussion of the salt marsh harvest mouse¹⁰ (SMHM) can serve as an example. It is identified¹¹ as endangered at both the Federal and State level and also Fully Protected by the State. Thereby the responsibility of protection of the SMHM and habitats on which it depends falls on the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Fish and Wildlife Service (CDFW). Actions potentially disturbing habitat or the SMHM itself, including surveys of its presence and permits for certain actions, fall under protocols established by the USFWS.

Unfortunately, the 10.3.5 SMHM discussion¹² describes certain survey requirements without any annotation that survey protocols need USFWS approval, nor that the “qualified biologist” must have “special status marsh species experience.”¹³

Broadly we note that the 10.3.5 discussion of Special Status Species and sensitive habitats omits any annotation that actions required thereunder are subject to confirmation as protocols and standards by the wildlife agencies responsible for Special Status Species and Habitats protection per Federal and State Law cited.¹⁴

MPSP Recommendations Regarding Oversight for Special Status Species

Chapter 10: Implementation, 10.3 General Submittals and Site Master Plans, Section 10.3.5 Special Species

• Definition of Qualified Biologist. We recommend that the following definition be prominently inserted at the beginning of Section 10.3.5 to be applied to actions related to all the species and habitats discussed.

• Deferral to responsible agencies. Section 10.3.5 could address this topic in one of two ways. Here we provide and recommend inclusion as a statement at the beginning of the section, before the Definition of Qualified Biologist. An alternative to that single statement is to modify each of the 11 species and habitat discussions to include deferral to the species/habitat-appropriate agency or agencies.

LIFE SCIENCES LABORATORIES

1. Biosafety

There are four biosafety levels (BSLs) that define proper laboratory techniques, safety equipment, and design, depending on the types of agents being studied.¹⁵ We strongly recommend the addition of an MPSP policy limiting Life Sciences labs to Biosafety Levels 1 and Level 2 (BSL-1 and BSL-2) and prohibiting Biosafety Level 3 or Level 4 (BSL-3 and BSL-4) laboratories in Moffett Park.

The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter recently organized a webinar, “Planning for Life Sciences Development for Bay Area Cities.” The event featured experts from the Boston/Cambridge area, a historic hub for life sciences in the US, and included biosafety experts. An important fact emerged: With decades of experience in the industry and the growing awareness of the increasingly lethal infectious agents used in high-containment BSL-3 and maximum containment BSL-4 labs, several cities in the greater Boston/Cambridge metropolitan area are reversing or have already reversed their biosafety policies to no longer allow BSL-3 or higher labs in their cities, and more are joining their ranks. Some do not even allow BSL-2 labs. Please see here a partial list of cities and links to their ordinances.

BSL-3 high-containment labs, as defined by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services,¹⁶ work with indigenous or exotic infectious agents with known potential for airborne transmission of pathogens that may cause serious and potentially lethal infections.¹⁷ They require complete dependence on mechanical systems that can fail through human error, mechanical failure or disasters, as well as safety oversight issues.^{18 19} They may work well in institutions that have rigorous scientific safety oversight, committees that ensure an understanding of risks, transparency, regular reporting and inspections, and biosafety procedures for worker, public and environmental safety. Sunnyvale does not have such mechanisms in place for this responsibility.

MPSP Recommendations Regarding Biosafety

Goal LU-3: A CENTER FOR INNOVATION. Moffett Park continues to be a center of innovation and the knowledge economy.

• Proposed new Policy LU-3.5: Encourage Life Sciences innovation by allowing facilities that commit to public health and safety by limiting Life Sciences Labs to only biosafety levels BSL-1 and BSL-2.

5.1 Development Standards Goals and Policies, Goal DS-4: HEALTHY, CLIMATE-READY SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN. Site and building design reduce energy use and water use, protect public health, and increase climate resilience.

• Proposed new Policy DS-4.10: For public health and safety, any life sciences development proposed in the R&D or Commercial Office zones will limit its labs to biosafety levels BSL-1 and BSL-2. No BSL-3 or BSL4 labs will be permitted. Further all life sciences labs shall abide by the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health.

9.1 Infrastructure Goals and Policies, Goal IU-2: SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE. To achieve the vision of an ecological innovation district, Moffett Park invests in sustainable and resilient infrastructure and practices to illustrate leadership.

• Text correction to Policy IU-2.6: Ensure that infrastructure development considers and avoids impacts due to potential rising groundwater and overall low high water tables in the Plan area.

2. Additional Concerns and Recommendations Regarding Life Sciences Projects

Even as the local market for office space struggles with increasing vacancy rates and declining rents, the Bay Area life sciences industry continues to expand, with a 27% growth in employment from 2019 to second quarter 2022 and a massive development pipeline going into this year.²⁰ We believe this trend will likely lead to significant developer interest in life sciences facilities within the MPSP’s innovation district. In addition to the biosafety concerns raised above, life sciences facilities pose unique climate sustainability challenges by producing disproportionate energy and water demands, noise, and plastics waste as compared to typical office use.

Although life sciences facilities are not specifically addressed in the draft MPSP or EIR, we urge you to consider how the MPSP, in conjunction with Sunnyvale’s Reach Code and Climate Action Plan, can best assure that life sciences development in Moffett Park will be consistent with the district’s eco-innovation vision. Appendix B offers additional information and recommendations for improved clarity and attention to the particular challenges posed by life science facilities.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss further once you have had an opportunity to review them.

Sincerely,

James Eggers
Senior Director
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Matthew Dodder
Executive Director
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society

Eileen Mclaughlin
Board Member
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge

cc:
Gladwyn D’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Jennifer Chang Hetterly
Bay Alive Campaign Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Appendix A - Consolidated list of Recommended Amendments to the EIR and MPSP
Appendix B - Annotated Reference of Studies: Human Impacts on Wildlife
Appendix C - Additional recommendations related to life science development

APPENDIX A
Consolidated list of Recommended Amendments to the EIR and MPSP

EIR TECHNICAL CORRECTION

Please correct page 6 (pdf page 8) and page 60 (pdf page 62) of the FEIR response file to specifically mention the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society as co-authors of the joint DEIR comment letter submitted with the Sierra Club.

PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION

Needed Additions to the EIR

• Provide evidence substantiating the City’s expectation that commuting employees will make minimal use of local park and recreation facilities (including trails). This should include an objective evaluation of the expected participation of Moffett Park employees in active transportation commute modes, including use of the Bay Trail.
• Substantiate the City’s expectation that the cumulative increase in population - both residents and employees - will not expand trail use in ways that disrupt and harm populations of migratory birds, special status species, and other native resident or migratory wildlife species.

The following mitigation measures should be added to the EIR (EIR Table 2.3-6: Summary of Key Specific Plan Requirements and Policies by Resource Area - Biological Resources and elsewhere):

• Proposed new requirement 10.3.5-xx: Limit public access to some of the Sunnyvale Baylands Levees. Closing some levees to recreational activities (see Figure 1, below, levees proposed for closure to recreation are marked in Green). This mitigation measure reserves some levees for use by migratory birds while at the same time providing accessibility and connectivity for people. It reduces encroachment and disturbance of migratory birds.
• Proposed new requirement 10.3.5-xx: With the exception of commute trails (such as Bay Trail and the East and West Channels trails), limit access to human-powered-only, and prohibit electronic or motorized mobility devices except as required for ADA accommodation. This mitigation measure reduces encroachment pressure further from the Bay Trail.

PROPOSED SEASONAL LEVEE CLOSURES

Figure 1

MPSP Recommendations re: Parks, Open Space, and Recreation

MPSP Section 6.2 Open Space and Urban Ecology Principles, Goals, and Policies, Goal OSE-1: INTERCONNECTED AND BIODIVERSE OPEN SPACE NETWORK. Moffett Park provides a high level of service with ample open space for residents, employees, and visitors through an interconnected network of open spaces that supports healthy ecosystems, improves air and water quality, improves public health, and adapts to a changing climate.

• Proposed new policy OSE-1.X: Protect and enhance habitat in open space and Bayland ecosystems to maintain and support biodiversity over time.
• Proposed new policy OSE-1.4.X: Monitor usage of open space in and near the Plan area as Moffett Park grows and densifies, and use dynamic strategies to regulate use as needed to reduce impacts to wildlife and maintain the quality of recreation facilities.
• Proposed new policy OSE-1.4.X: Identify financing strategies to ensure fair share contributions to facility maintenance and habitat restoration costs.

MPSP Section 6.2 Open Space and Urban Ecology Principles, Goals, and Policies, Goal OSE-3: ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. New developments’ parks and open spaces enhance ecosystems and support biodiversity, benefiting both people and natural habitat.

• Proposed text change (in bold) to Policy OSE-3.1: Facilitate the removal of existing and transfer of future development away from the Lockheed Martin stormwater holding ponds, other stormwater, emergent and potential wetlands, grasslands and other undeveloped lands north of 1st Street through implementation of an Ecological Combining District to expand and enhance wetland habitat, ecosystem health, and climate resilience.

CONTAMINATION HAZARDS

MPSP Recommendations re: Contamination Hazards

MPSP Section 4.1 Land Use Goals and Policies, Goal LU-1 COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS. A series of neighborhoods with access to public amenities, quality housing, good jobs, and healthy and safe environments that weave together into a vibrant ecological innovation district.

• Proposed new Policy LU-1.7DS-4.10: Assure transparency and opportunity for public review and comment regarding hazardous materials analysis for all projects, including the decision basis and findings regarding additional site investigations, the scope of new site investigations, and planned remediation measures.

MPSP Chapter 10 Implementation, Section 10.2.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

• Proposed new submittal requirement: Soil and Groundwater Study. For any renovation, modification, or redevelopment of a property within Moffett Park, an assessment of existing soil and groundwater conditions shall be completed, including testing for hazardous contaminants and identifying site-specific vulnerability to shallow groundwater rise.

MPSP Chapter 10 Implementation, Section 10.4 Implementation Actions, Table 29

• Proposed text change (in bold) to Groundwater Data Collection description: Establish a monitoring plan of groundwater elevations, hazardous soil-borne contaminants, and salinity within Moffett Park that includes the development and publication of a three- dimensional map of subsurface geology as well as a regularly updated map of chemical testing results. [Note: the proposed 10.2.1 submittal requirement above would be a valuable data source for this Groundwater Data Collection effort.]

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

MPSP Recommendations re: Bird Safety

MPSP Section 5.4 Ecological Development Standards

• Proposed MPSP text change (in bold) to section 5.4.2 BIRD SAFE DESIGN Section 2. Façade treatment: No more than 10% of the surface area of a building’s total exterior façade shall have untreated glazing between the ground and 60 feet above ground. Building facades that face open space or water features will have treated glazing at all heights. Bird Friendly glazing treatments can include the use of opaque glass, the covering of clear glass surface with patterns, the use of paned glass with fenestration patterns, and the use of external screens over non-reflective glass. All façade glazing shall have reflectivity ratings no greater than 20%.
• Proposed MPSP text change (in bold) to section 5.4.2 BIRD SAFE DESIGN Section 4. Façade treatment: No more than 10% of the surface area of a building’s total exterior façade between the ground and 60 feet above ground or within 15 feet above a green roof shall have untreated glazing. Building facades that face open space or water features will have treated glazing at all heights. Bird Friendly glazing treatments can include the use of opaque glass, the covering of clear glass surface with patterns, the use of paned glass with fenestration patterns, and the use of external screens over non-reflective glass. All façade glazing shall have reflectivity ratings no greater than 20%.

MPSP Recommendations re: Oversight for Special Status Species

Chapter 10: Implementation, 10.3 General Submittals and Site Master Plans, Section 10.3.5 Special Species

• Definition of Qualified Biologist. We recommend that the following definition be prominently inserted at the beginning of Section 10.3.5 to be applied to actions related to all the species and habitats discussed.

• Deferral to responsible agencies. Section 10.3.5 could address this topic in one of two ways. Here we provide and recommend inclusion as a statement at the beginning of the section, before the Definition of Qualified Biologist. An alternative to that single statement is to modify each of the 11 species and habitat discussions to include deferral to the species/habitat-appropriate agency or agencies.

BIOSAFETY

MPSP Recommendations re: Biosafety

Goal LU-3: A CENTER FOR INNOVATION. Moffett Park continues to be a center of innovation and the knowledge economy.

• Proposed new Policy LU-3.5: Encourage Life Sciences innovation by allowing facilities that commit to public health and safety by limiting Life Sciences Labs to only biosafety levels BSL-1 and BSL-2.

5.1 Development Standards Goals and Policies, Goal DS-4: HEALTHY, CLIMATE-READY SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN. Site and building design reduce energy use and water use, protect public health, and increase climate resilience.

• Proposed new Policy DS-4.10: For public health and safety, any life sciences development proposed in the R&D or Commercial Office zones will limit its labs to biosafety levels BSL-1 and BSL-2. No BSL-3 or BSL4 labs will be permitted. Further all life sciences labs shall abide by the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health.

9.1 Infrastructure Goals and Policies, Goal IU-2: SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE. To achieve the vision of an ecological innovation district, Moffett Park invests in sustainable and resilient infrastructure and practices to illustrate leadership.

• Text correction to Policy IU-2.6: Ensure that infrastructure development considers and avoids impacts due to potential rising groundwater and overall low high water tables in the Plan area.

APPENDIX B
Annotated Reference of Studies: Human Impacts on Wildlife

Locally focused studies:

Trulio, L. & Sokale J. 2008. Foraging Shorebird Response to Trail Use around San Francisco Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1775-1780. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40208460
Two-year study of the effects of human trail use on foraging shorebirds around San Francisco Bay. The number of shorebirds decreased with the increase in human traffic. An average of 25% fewer birds were found on higher-use days.

Trulio et al. 2013. Experimental Study of Shorebird Response to New Trail Use in the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. https://www.southbayrestoration.org/sites/default/files/documents/final_shorebird_report_trulio_etal.pdf
Experimental study of shorebird response to new trail walkers around the San Francisco Bay. The methods involved having two pedestrians walk back and forth on the levees/boardwalks for 10 minutes. After walkers were introduced, bird numbers decreased by 2.5% and species richness decreased by 18%.

White, H.R. 2009. Wintering Duck Response to Trail Use at Former San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds. https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.hyvm-4ayk
Seven-month study of wintering ducks’ movement away from previously unused trails around San Francisco Bay salt ponds when used by pedestrians (two individuals). All duck species within 80 meters of the levee trail responded to trail use. When disturbed, ducks moved more than 106 meters on average, which is substantially farther from the trail than they were found before pedestrians were introduced.

Trulio et al. 2008. Study of Waterbird Response to Trail Use in the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. https://www.google.com/url?sa=j&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.southbayrestoration.org%2Frfq-rfp%2F2008-rfp-awards%2FTrulio_4Final.pdf&uct=1669676011&usg=jqtQEAE-QVDWJit1teHK0R1Ce7A.&source=meet
Research proposal for four studies to be conducted in the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration project area. Justifications include evidence of seven species of dabbling ducks responding to all nearby trail use (especially walking and biking) and data collected by White in which species richness and the overall number of birds became considerably lower after trail use disturbance (at distances of up to 120 meters).

Trulio, L. & White, H.R. (2017). Wintering Waterfowl Avoidance and Tolerance of Recreational Trail Use. Waterbirds: The International Journal of Waterbird Biology, 40(3), 252–262. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26428223
Experimental study conducted in the south San Francisco Bay measuring the amount of trail users and the number of birds present before and after the introduction of trail use. Overall, comparison of before/after bird counts and number of trail users did not show any increase in habituation (increasing tolerance) to trail use. Tolerance differed between species; Northern Shovelers increased in number with increasing trail use, while significantly fewer Ruddy Ducks were found as trail use increased.

Borgmann, K. A Review of Human Disturbance Impacts on Waterbirds https://ca.audubon.org/sites/default/files/documents/humandisturbanceimpactsreportfinal.pdf
Scientific Literature review of human impacts on waterbirds in the San Francisco Bay area. Out of 50 studies, 86% found that human disturbance affected their study species. Boating and walking affect bird behavior, causing them to waste time and energy they could have used to feed. Birds flying away in response to human disturbance was noted in 57% of the 50 studies reviewed.

Studies from elsewhere:

Larson et.al. 2016. Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed as Widespread through a GlobalSystematic Review. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167259
Review of scientific literature on the effects of human recreation on animals. Over 93% of articles reviewed noted at least one effect of recreation on animals. Approximately 55% of these effects were negative. Raptors and shorebirds had an especially large amount of evidence of negative effects from recreation.

Burger et al. 2009. Ecotourism and Birds in Coastal New Jersey: Contrasting Responses of Birds, Tourists, and Managers. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environmental-conservation/article/abs/ecotourism-and-birds-in-coastal-new-jersey-contrasting-responses-of-birds-tourists-and-managers/8F21C5F819C4B87C3DBA68317BBA49CB
Collection of case studies focusing on the effects of ecotourism on the New Jersey coast. Human presence within heronries can lead to damage and death by scaring the young away from their nests too early. Least Tern colonies with many tourist visitors tend to have lower nesting rates and less successful breeding. Piping Plovers commit more time and energy to staying alert than feeding with increasing human presence, which can be especially harmful to chicks learning how to forage for the first time. Shorebirds and migratory gulls at Caven Point stay further away when more people are present, meaning that they lose access to foraging opportunities near paths. On the shore of Delaware Bay shorebirds fly away from humans and can even completely abandon beaches with high levels of human disturbance.

Tarr et al. 2008. An Experimental Assessment of Vehicle Disturbance Effects on Migratory Shorebirds. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1776- 1783. https://www.academia.edu/download/39770412/An_Experimental_Assessment_of_Vehicle_Di20151107-4773-186xg2s.pdf
Study of the effect of off-road (ATV) traffic on number and location of shorebirds at a “migratory stopover area” on the coast of North Carolina, with a particular focus on one species: Sanderlings. Motorized vehicle disturbance led to overall decreasing numbers of migrant shorebirds and reduced use of microhabitats above the tidal zone, as birds shifted to increased use of the tidal zone to get farther away from vehicle disturbance. Sanderlings were more active with the presence of motorized vehicles and fewer Sanderlings used the study area to rest in.

APPENDIX C

Additional recommendations to address sustainability concerns related to life science development

Even as the local market for office space struggles with increasing vacancy rates and declining rents, the Bay Area life sciences industry continues to expand, with 27 percent growth in employment from 2019 to the second quarter of 2022 and a massive development pipeline going into this year.²¹ We believe this trend will likely lead to significant developer interest in life sciences facilities within the MPSP’s innovation district. In addition to biosafety concerns, life sciences facilities pose unique climate sustainability challenges by producing disproportionate energy and water demands, noise, and plastics waste as compared to typical office use.

Although life sciences facilities are not specifically addressed in the draft MPSP or EIR, we urge you to consider how the MPSP, in conjunction with Sunnyvale’s Reach Code and Climate Action Plan, can best assure that life sciences development in Moffett Park will be consistent with the district’s eco-innovation vision.

1. Applicability of all-electric exceptions for laboratory facilities.

Response M.1 of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Moffett Park Specific Plan refers to pages 133 and 134 of the Draft EIR which indicates that the City’s Reach Code prohibits gas appliances with the exception of certain non-residential uses such as factories, hazardous materials manufacturing, and laboratory facilities, as well as emergency operation centers and commercial dryers in large hotels. However, those exceptions appear inconsistent with the MPSP Policy IU-5.1: Prohibit new natural gas services in all buildings and infrastructure to transition to all electric [emphasis added].

We support Policy IU-5.1 and encourage you to eliminate or narrowly tailor the Reach Code exception for laboratory facilities. All-electric new and remodeled biotech lab buildings, with the exception of gas allowed for lab experiments, are growing fast in the Bay Area and in many communities now.^{22 23 24}

Recommendation

Please clarify that any exception, in the Reach Code or elsewhere, for use of gas in laboratory facilities applies only for use in the lab for experiments. The general HVAC systems and hot water heating for lab facilities should be required to be all-electric. This should also be clarified for factories and hazardous materials manufacturing.

2. Consumption of energy.

Life Science lab facilities have been shown to make disproportionate demands on the electrical grid.²⁵ Response R.17 on page 71 of the Final EIR indicates that energy use assumptions for the MPSP, “including R&D uses, were based on CalEEMod model defaults.”²⁶ We are concerned that CalEEMod model defaults may not reflect the intensity of current Bay Area demand for Life Sciences facilities (and their disproportionate energy demands), nor the likelihood that Moffett Park's innovation district would attract and include substantial new life sciences development. Underestimation of the volume of high-energy-demand Life Sciences development in the Plan area could have significant cost and infrastructure implications.

Additionally, page 133 of the Draft EIR states that under the City’s green building standards for new construction, additions, and remodels of buildings, “[a]t minimum, new non-residential projects greater than 5,000 square feet are required to meet CALGreen Mandatory Measures and LEED Gold.” Because of the apparent inconsistency noted above regarding all-electric requirements, we urge greater clarity as to how the City’s standards and requirements will be applied to life sciences development projects.

Recommendation

Please confirm that laboratory facilities, like all other non-residential projects exceeding 5,000 square feet, will be required to meet the City’s LEED Gold certification and also include a policy in the Specific Plan clarifying that LEED Gold certification will be required in both new lab construction and major lab remodels.

3. Life Sciences water, sewer and plastic waste

Life Sciences labs consume as much as five times more water than typical office buildings of the same size and generate waste water proportionately. In addition, life sciences labs generate an inordinate amount of plastic waste from single use plastics.²⁷

Recommendations

Require that anticipated water usage and waste water needs for lab buildings shall be specified early, subject to environmental review, and monitored, with corrective action taken as needed.²⁸ 

Include a goal in the Climate Action Playbook for the reduced use of water and single-use disposable plastics in life sciences lab facilities to acknowledge and address the disproportionate climate impacts of such facilities.

Review current strategies for plastic waste reduction and revise as needed to ensure effective application to life science facilities.

1 Topic Response 3, FEIR p. 7, “Since many of the comments raised the same concerns and questions, topic responses have been prepared.”

2 Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapter 19.74, section 19.74.010.

3 “While employees in Moffett Park may use existing park and recreational facilities in the area, their use is expected to be minimal given their primary purpose in Moffett Park is to work (verses residents who live and recreate in Moffett Park) and would further be minimized with provision of on-site amenities that are typically provided with non-residential development.” Topic Response 3, FEIR p.10.

4 The Benefits of Green Spaces: How Nature Can Improve Mental Health and Well-being, Corporate Wellness Magazine https://www.corporatewellnessmagazine.com/article/the-benefits-of-green-spaces-how-nature-can-improve-mental-health-and-well-being

5 Reducing Stress at Work is a Walk in the Park, The Conversation, April 17, 2016 https://theconversation.com/reducing-stress-at-work-is-a-walk-in-the-park-57634

6 Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapter 19.74.020(d).

7 Topic Response 3, FEIR page 9.

8 April 27, 2023 letter submitted by Naomi Goodman, an environmental scientist with over 40 years of experience in hazardous waste site characterization and remediation. Goodman Comment on MPSP and final EIR 4-27-23.pdf

9 https://www.fws.gov/story/2022-04/dim-lights-birds-night

10 Moffett Park Specific Plan Update, Public Review Draft, December 2022, p.274.

11 Moffett Park Specific Plan Update, Draft Environmental Review Report, Table 3.4-1, p.99

12 Moffett Park Specific Plan Update, Public Review Draft, p.274

13 Personal email, Kim Squires, Section 7 Division Manager, SF Bay Delta USFWS Office.

14 Ibid MPSP Update DEIR, pp.85-86

15 https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/biodefense-biosafety-labs

16 https://www.phe.gov/s3/BioriskManagement/biosafety/Pages/Biosafety-FAQ.aspx#biocont8

17 Gao-18-145, High-Containment Laboratories: Coordinated Actions Needed ... https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-145.pdf.

18 Boston University, June 1, 2016: A typical example- “A malfunctioning network switch at BU’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) resulted in a shutdown of parts of the lab’s ventilation monitoring system ...The University has suspended BSL-3 research until the outside engineers review recommended remedial work to prevent future ventilation system malfunctions.” There are many such examples.

19 You should be afraid of the next “lab leak,” NY Times Nov 23, 2021. “.... In fact, the most concerning aspect about high-containment biolabs is that, considered as a collective, they may only be as safe as the worst lab among them. A breach or a breakdown at one could imperil us all.”

20 Bucking Trends, Bay Area Life Science Market Shows Resilience, The Real Deal, April 18, 2023. https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2023/04/18/bucking-trends-bay-area-life-science-market-shows-resilience/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=single_content_share&utm_source=clipboard

21 Bucking Trends, Bay Area Life Science Market Shows Resilience, The Real Deal, April 18, 2023. https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2023/04/18/bucking-trends-bay-area-life-science-market-shows-resilience/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=single_content_share&utm_source=clipboard

22 https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/partners/genentech-inc Between 2015 and 2019, Genentech reduced GHG emissions from onsite energy use by 30% despite the expansion of its site operations. To achieve further reductions, Genentech is implementing energy conservation projects in its buildings, optimizing HVAC systems and converting to electric heat pumps, as well as transitioning sites to renewable energy.
Genentech’s 60-building South San Francisco headquarters has transitioned 100% of its grid power to CO2-free

23 Announcement of all-electric life science campus in Millbrae, CA https://lfrep.com/longfellow-celebrates-groundbreaking-of-avia-labs-upcoming-state-of-the-art-all-electric-science-center/ (March 1, 2023)

24 Laboratories require a great deal of energy-use and finding sustainable solutions to support it are critical for both the planet and for operational costs. Bakar BioEnginuity Hub (in Berkeley) is LEED Gold certified. Representative elements of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems include conversion to all-electric building. https://www.commercialsearch.com/news/mbh-architects-on-trends-in-bay-area-life-science-design/

25 MassBio Talks Showcase That Massachusetts Needs Cooperation From Biology Labs To Achieve Sustainability. “... Strikingly, the building firm ARUP showed data that buildings in Massachusetts are making huge demands on the electrical grid - especially lab facilities.” May 21, 2019 https://www.labconscious.com/blog/massbio-talks-energy-massachusetts-biology-labs-sustainability

26 An incomplete sentence at the end of Response R.17 on page 71 makes oblique reference to “assumptions in the Draft EIR,” but offers no transparency into the details of those assumptions.

27 Research scientists have largely gone unnoticed as major users of unrecyclable material. Now some universities are helping them kick the habit, The Guardian, November 10, 2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/10/research-labs-plastic-waste

28 Menlo Park’s Life Sciences ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter 16.44.130(3)(C), for example, requires project applicants to submit a water use budget and the City monitors water usage for compliance. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/MenloPark/html/MenloPark16/MenloPark1644.html#16.44.130