Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Moffett Park Specific Plan

February 10, 2023

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

mking@sunnyvale.ca.gov

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 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:
  1. Criteria for the selection of qualified biologists,
  2. Criteria for evaluating potential disturbance or “take”,
  3. Criteria clarifying and directing survey protocols,
  4. Avoidance periods and buffer distances,
  5. Criteria for requiring Biologist supervision of construction activities,
  6. Reporting requirements,
  7. 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 California1 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 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 Plover4 for guidance for potential recovery actions in the MPSP Area.

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

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 from 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 will 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.

A 2020 book published by the California Fish and Wildlife Journal11 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 speed 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 Bay 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 report12 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,

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 wetlands¹⁴. 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

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 upto-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 HAZ4 is premature and cannot be supported at this time.

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 G¹⁸ 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) interactive 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 Phase 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.
• 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, preventing cumulative impacts…. Projects resulting in hazardous materials impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level 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 RWQCB²¹ and Santa Clara County²² indicate that the use of a VIMS to reduce hazards cannot be allowed until active mitigation is complete.

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 RWQCB²³ 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 area²⁵ 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 contamination 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 incorporate 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 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 that 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 parcels 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.

Commercial Use

Subslab soil gas and indoor air sampling has found VOC concentrations in excess of USEPA commercial use SLs at multiple vacuum degreaser facilities within the Lockheed Plant One site and within the boundaries of the NIROP solvent plume,³⁰ and in the vicinity of the Google Caribbean Campus.³¹ This is not a complete list of sites in the project area that could potentially have soil gas contamination. Other potential areas with known or suspected hazardous chemical releases were identified in the Farallon Consulting report, Appendix F to the Draft EIR.³² Subsequent projects should perform soil gas sampling at potential contamination sites.

Landscape Area and Open Space

We have consistently expressed the importance of open space in the “Ecological Innovation District,” so we are pleased that the MPSP proposes 200-plus new acres of parks and open space. However, it is not 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 is 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 biocontainment of infectious diseases and pathogens.

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.

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 Area³⁷ 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-wide 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. 

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 Trail⁴⁵ 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 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 conditions in these nearby facilities, evaluate the impacts (including physical degradation of facilities, overcrowding 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 vehicles 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 made conditional to the gateways being able to accept the additional traffic. This should be used to make an informed decision on permitting additional development, 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-out⁵⁰ 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 pricing^{53) 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 Delta 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

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

---

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.

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://scvhabitatagency.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

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-9A4C78799FD2BAE6&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/

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

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. 

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. 

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. 

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-VIMSGuidance-Document-Rev%2011.pdfhttps://hazmat.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb471/files/report/VaporIntrusion-Mitigation-Systems-VIMS-Guidance-Document-Rev%2011.pdf 

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. 

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. 

³⁰ Lockheed Martin Corporation. 2022. Interim Vapor Intrusion Assessment Report, Lockheed Martin Space Plant One Site, Sunnyvale, California. Prepared by Cameron-Cole. April 2022.

³¹ Cornerstone Earth Group. 2019. Site Management Plan. 100 and 200 Caribbean Campus Project. Prepared for Google. February 14, 2019.

³² Farallon Consulting, LLC. 2021. Land Use and General Plan Review, Moffett Park Specific Plan Area. Sunnyvale, California. Appendix F to Moffett Park Specific Plan Draft EIR Appendices, Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Comment Letters. August 2021. 

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 

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-rd-industry.html

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-findhome/

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-SheetFINAL-9.15.pdf, visited 2/7/23

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/9817/636656973233730000 shows 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.

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

⁵⁰ http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/transportation/supplemental-documents/ca_parking_cashout_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/