Comments on Moffett Park Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report

July 7, 2023

City Council
City of Sunnyvale
456 West Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086

Re: Agenda Item # 2, Moffett Park Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report

Dear Mayor Klein and City Councilmembers,

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 commend the diligent work of the City Council, 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 Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and associated updates to the MPSP did not allay some significant concerns. We strongly disagree with the EIR’s conclusion that increased use by 42,000 new residents and 60,000 new employees in the Moffett Park area will not have a significant impact on wildlife and habitat in existing park and open space adjacent to Moffett Park. We also disagree with the EIR’s comment responses asserting that the threat of bird collisions above 60 feet is minimal.

As such, we ask the City Council to proactively add policies and standards in the MPSP to assure the longevity of Sunnyvale’s vital ecological assets as well as community health and sustainability. Please consider the following comments and proposed amendments to strengthen the MPSP and better support Sunnyvale’s vision for an ecological innovation district.

1. ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SECTION 5.4.2 BIRD SAFE DESIGN

Discussion

We are pleased to see the inclusion of several bird safety and lighting design standards in the MPSP. However, given Moffett Park’s location along the Pacific Flyway, we urge you to further strengthen protections on building facades facing open space and water features. The San Francisco Bay shoreline, including Sunnyvale, provides a critical stopover for hundreds of thousands of birds and hosts more wintering shorebirds than any other estuary on the West Coast outside of Alaska.

The MPSP requires bird-safe facade treatments on the first 60 feet of building height. Requiring protections up to 60 feet, per San Francisco’s bird safety guidelines, was once the gold standard, but that is no longer the case. The City of Cupertino, for example, exceeds that standard where buildings face open space and water features. Increasingly, evidence shows¹ that nocturnally migrating birds are attracted to light at night (such as from residential towers or lighted offices) 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 you strengthen the MPSP requirements for bird safety by including bird safe facade treatments at all heights on building facades that face parks, open space and water features.

Proposed Amendments

Please revise Sections 2 and 4 regarding Facade Treatments to extend bird safe treated glazing at all building heights where facing natural open space and/or water features.

a. Proposed addition (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 natural 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 15%.

b. Proposed addition (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 natural 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 15%.

2. OPEN SPACE AND URBAN ECOLOGY PRINCIPLES, GOALS AND POLICIES

Discussion

The analysis associated with Impact BIO-4² did not fully address the impact of increased open space recreation associated with new residents and employees on wintering migratory shorebirds and ducks. 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.

We recommend restricting recreational access (in coordination with Sunnyvale’s Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) management and Valley Water, as needed) on some secondary, redundant levees that are currently used primarily for WPCP and other infrastructure management access. In the map below,³ levees proposed for closure to recreation are marked in green. This policy approach would reserve some levees for use by migratory birds (and agency access) while at the same time maintaining duplicate accessibility and connectivity for people on the primary levees. It reduces encroachment and disturbance of migratory birds.

PROPOSED SEASONAL LEVEE CLOSURES

Sunnyvale resident and naturalist Kira Od⁴ describes: “The levees highlighted in green in the above map are narrow, low, and in places, fragile. Their intimacy attracts wounded, exhausted, and baby birds; but it also makes human traffic disruptive. In fall and winter, migrating waterfowl gather on and near them to rest and recover. In spring and summer, local species nest on them and raise young. The WPCP (Water Pollution Control Program) requires 24/7 access to these low levees, but the public does not: all are adjacent to wider, taller, more robust levees that are better suited to recreational traffic [emphasis added]. If these low levees were closed to the public and restricted to Authorized Personnel Only, it would be a big plus. New gates with signs explaining how the closures benefit both humans and wildlife would likely be necessary to encourage compliance.”

Proposed Amendments

Please add a new Policy OSE-1.4.X

Regulate public trail use in shoreline open space adjacent to the Plan area to reduce impacts on wildlife and Bay ecosystems, including

a. limiting public access on redundant, secondary Baylands levee trails (see map below), and

b. limiting non-human powered use of public Bayland trails and levees (except for commute routes and ADA access).

Thank you for considering these comments and recommendations.

Sincerely,

James Eggers
Senior Director
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate
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

¹ https://www.fws.gov/story/2022-04/dim-lights-birds-night
² Moffett Park Specific Plan Update Draft EIR, page 114.
³ The Last Wild Place in Sunnyvale: Twenty-three Years of Experience, Observation, and Effort, Kira Od, 2019
⁴ The Last Wild Place in Sunnyvale: Twenty-three Years of Experience, Observation, and Effort, Kira Od, 2019

APPENDIX A
Annotated Reference List - Impacts of Human Activities 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 Global Systematic Review.

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.

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.

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.