AMENDMENTS
Location: Moffett Park Specific Plan Area (APNs: Various)
File #: 2022-7673
Zoning: Various
Environmental Review: A Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) has been prepared to evaluate the proposed project in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Project Planner: Michelle King, (408) 730-7463,
Director of Community Development Trudi Ryan provided the staff report and
answered questions from commissioners.
Also available to answer questions from Commissioners; Planning Officer Shaunn
Mendrin, Principal Planner Michelle King, Associate Planner Kelly Cha, Rami and
Associates Senior Associate Chris Sensenig and Principal Eric Yurkovich.
After some clarifying questions, Chair Stetson opened the public hearing at 10:12
p.m.
Kenneth Javier Rosales spoke on behalf of SV@HOME. Mr. Rosales thanked staff
for all the work that has been done to move this project forward. He also expressed
concern over being overly dependent on the inclusionary housing program to meet
Sunnyvale's affordable housing needs and goals. He encouraged incentivizing
more affordable housing development to reach Sunnyvale's goals, he suggested
that there was an opportunity to create an explicit requirement to build at minimum
15% of residential units to be income-restricted to low, very-low and extremely-low
income households, along with a 20% goal. He also suggested that there needs to
be clarification of how much affordable housing is valued compared to other
community benefits. Lastly, he shared that he sent a letter to the commissioners
regarding how to use housing mitigation fees generated by the Moffett project, and
suggesting to reduce development fees for affordable housing within the Plan area.
Ray Hashimoto of HMH Engineers on behalf of Miramar Capital, property owners of
352 E Java Drive. Mr. Hashimoto thanked staff and consultants for their work on
developing the Specific Plan. He spoke in opposition of the proposed diagonal
design. He shared that the design bisects and complicates/prevents the
development of the property. He suggested a version of the design where the
perimeters of properties are built into the plan. He objected to the additional 9 to 19
ft requirements for transportation and suggested use of the available landscaping
area to offset this requirement. He noted that the bicycle and pedestrian features
should provide a good network to travel within the area without the diagonal
feature. He also asked for language to be changed to provide more flexibility for
coordination between properties for a more cohesive lane way design. Lastly, he