PARCEL C - AMENDMENT NO. 1 LEASE AHi ~
Beginning at the point of intersection with the westerly line of the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way (50 feel. wide) and the northerly line of TASMAN DRIVE as shown on that certain Record of Survey filed in the Office of the County Recorder, Santa Clara County, California, in Bonk 345 of Maps at pages 1 through 8 therein; Thence, along the said westerly line of the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way North 28° 16' 16'' West 406.32 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence, from the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and continuing along last said line North 28° 16' 16" West 1578.53 feet to the point-of inters·ectfon- with the northerly line of that certain parcel of land conveyed to Santa Clara Municipal Refuse Disposal Corporation by deed recorded in Book 6644 of Official Records at page 143, Santa Clara County records;
Thence, along last said northerly line South 69° 56' 26'' West 2240.76 feet to the point of intersection with the easterly line of Great America Parkway (125 feet wide) as shown on said Record of Survey;
Thence, along said easterly line of Great America Parkway South 1° 05' 37" flest 340.82 feet to the point of intersection with the northeasterl.y line of San Tomas Aquino Channel (230 feet wide) as described in the deed to Santa Cl.ara County Water District recorded in Book B498 of Off1c1al Records at page 28 therein; Thence, along last said line South 57" 47' 44'' East 950.15 feet to the POlNY OF TANGENCY with a 686.10 feet radius curve to the right;
Thence, along said curve through the central angle of 26° 15' 54'' for an arc length of 314.52 feet to the POINT OF TANGENCY on the easterly line of the San Tomas Aquino Channel (230 feet wide);
Thence, along last said line South 31° 31' 50'' East 317.58 feet; Thence, .}eaving last said line North 63° 03' 14" East 742.23 feet; Thence, at right angles to last said line South 26° 561 46'' East 116.69 feet; Thence, at right angles to last said line North 63° 03' 14" East 1071.64 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,
And, containing 78.12 Acres, more or less.
i>age 4 of 4
, I I I I I
,,
/
I
,. i
I / )
V
//J?'l.:J ~,·/.
2 ,_a
u. "\ e ., ,, ~
~ V'. " i.·
·,
·.s .,.s'·) } . . r-1··.( -f \{ , ., •
-5 37• s1· 3,-, -.....,.,
.59 73 'A<.
l
I
·I
I
!
'
i I I
\•
•
[ ,..,,,t:,N1,...(e'1tt$),Pffl«1e:r::r:rr•#1,...,..,.
_N,-..,f1t4
o,,,.,,,,,. l)y Gw JO.,,· P., 3
Cllt< J. kl fiY
1PM<n'l4
S.M. Ui/Si"Of"A °"'' IU
Dlr,clor of Pvb!lc Wods/Cllr Ef'laf111u
EXHIBIT 2 (Page 1
CITY OF
-'l~!-1" fr, .Jf, W
- -1 a. 11 • •\
of 3)
:0
2 rn
~\ )
SANTA.CLARA
I ./.\~~OF.ILL GAS
RECOVERY PROJECT
\
\
\
I
I •I
l tn:.J.li?"1.~~
11<,1o
I -~ :j -··
11.r
lrK~ A~
FJ?~)~: /.,
.•
GW 7-23-85
Gw 4-11-Bs-'.
R1.•visad G \•/ 2-28 Bf.: - Drawn 8Y Gw I- i'. 3 - BS
Chocked 6',.,\ , _J , . .,._; ,f-JZ-85
I
I
/
8/S.oo • / ' / '
/
(
/·
:/ I
t <'· -I :
I
! Pel J/s
/ ?h_.15c' I
I do "O'A' J. I ,_ ,, C• ,:, •. '.
0 0
V) "'
~
'so·
"' ;. Nt,3""0) 0
/4';;'
0 " "' .., hi ~ '-0 ..
.. 0
"
,,. l/ 0 ·1:,, .,,
• ...,_...-.-'\ i---/Y (, l.'"' o<.., · f 9 ~ .. \°) 31. 61 TASMAN_. DRIVE 345 M /-5 L
/Z/S ···--------- \ ..
... -------~-
\'-i.; of 2
EX//IB!T 2. (PAGE 3 oF 3) !
c11-y O'F SANTA CLARA
Sc<1lt!
.. /'': soc
Ref
AMENDMENT NOi . SC/5,350 . LEASE AREA
Approv~d -~ '~/U.-1 .I, 1;,y;,,. 0,11,A ,/J ,yy' ' . Trocin9 No. · CITY G.OLF/~\)OURSE LAND.· . .· -,,. . ·<;-, M, CRISTOFANO ·.
.. "tJll't!K.&l~~ • ~;.).n;.::;l(..:h.'L-~· ~i?'.--RY-J'.~~~ "'':fN . . :107<J·A ·:~ '( . ., ... ::.. .. -, ' . ,•.,-~_;.• .• . ,• • .~ _, --1~·.:-··, .. . •w ',; •
LEASE AND OPERATING AGREEMENT
FOR LANDFILL GAS CONVERSION SYSTEMS
THIS LEASE AND OPERATING AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this 27th day oi June, 1984, by and among the City of Santa Clara, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "Lessor''), Santa Clara Reclamation Corporation, a California nonprofit corporation (''Santa Clara Reclamation"), santa Clara Landfill Corporation, a California nonprofit corporation ("Sfnta Clara Landfill''), All Purpose Landfill Company, a California partnership (the ''Operator'') and Cambrian Energy _Systems, a California limited partnership (hereinafter "Lessee")•
INDEX
Article
Title Page l
I Definitions 2
II Lease ot Premises 6
III L~ase Term 9
IV Lease Payment 10
V Use of Premises 12
VI Construction by Lessee. 13
VII Taxes-Payment by Lessee 17
VIII Insurance to be Maintained by Lessee 20
IX Damage or Destruction of Improvements 25
X Assignment, Subletting and Mortgaging 26
XI Default and Remedies 32
XII Surrender and Removal 35
XIII Lessor's General Protective Provisions 37
XIY General Provisions 40
XV Arbitration 45
XVI Representations and warranties of
Lessee as to Experience 47
XVII Execution, Recording and Incorporation
by Reference 47
Appendix Project Schedule 50
I
I
/· '-1 ,~ - ( ' .
--------- ______ ➔-:-----
------- I ~•'1 r I•,-- J
I
I
I
I
I
I
. , __
/
PCL 3/-0
PHASE
'15.506 ACRES
199
/
' I.
------~·J
--~
.',. {
---
'",, (
e,:./r !/:TH''·
0.~!, f;!_r::-:-1•i:_,,!-.~. '.'t';•••~ l,
1 r~,'..1/':./,''.S'/ r.::;•. ,'. '.•/~:
T.;\\'f.f~~
EXlll8IT 2 (Page 2 of 3)
PAHCll_~~
PI-IASE
..
/
/
5 .
>-
z
<(
Q_
2 'O
~ ' Q}
,., z
,_ ~
-
ll CL
' .J
"' ;I ,.,
/. cc
f-1
. I
-'"-I
L,
-
J
.-~
i.
\ '1. z
LJ.;
-- l
· I--
!~-~ ... > ' n
5·>
fw
w
rr
fen
LLJ
I-
"-
LL!
>-
,1'.
LL
<l
_.)
'J,.;.
rr
·, I i ', I
i l
I
I I
' I 'I . I .
/-/
j,
:· ·: ·: - . ~. ~.
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
1.1. Collection system - A network of gas collection
wells, interc~nnecting pipes, valves, mo11itoring equipment, any necessary flare/blower stations, vacuum pumps and any additional gas extraction equipment installed on the Premises and used for the purpose of the extraction of Landfill Gas ..
1 . 2. Conversion system - A 1 1 o f t h e e q u i pm e n t determined by Lessee to be necessary to convert Paying Quantities of Landfill Ga~ into electric power. Such Conversion System Will normally include a compressor (gas or electrically driven), a fuel pretreatment system (if required), a skid-mounted industrial gas turbine and generator set, a recuperator, switch gear, paralleling control gear, a water treatment facility (if required), a concrete pad and an outdoor enclosure. The electric power generation portion of the Conversion System proposed to be used by Lessee will utilize an industrial gas turbine and generator set having an electrical output in th~ range of 700 to 1400 kilowatts per hour per unit. However, Lessee may elect to use iqdustrial gas turbines or internal combustion engines coupled with generator sets of either a larger or smaller output if, in its sole judgment, such equipment would be better suited for the application. Where the context requires, "Conversion System'' shall also mean any new or different technologies installed by Lessee on the Site to produce commercial revenues from the conversion or sale of the Landfill Gas.
1.3. Conversion syst<'m Site C"Site"l A lo.cation
having an approximate size of one-half (,50) acre -within the Premises on ground which is level, or capable of being leveled by grading upon which the Conversion System shall be located. The Site shall.be on ground whict, is firm and not susceptible to settlement (e.g. does not contain refuse from landfilling operations) following the pouring of a concrate slab and the installation of the Conversion system and certain parts of the Utility the Lessor shall only be obligated Interface. However, to provide ground which to the best of its knowledge meets the foregoing conditions. Determining .the soil condition shall be the responsibility of Lessee. The Site and any expansion or alteration thereof shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties taking into account both the convenience to the Collection System, the convenience and proximity to the Utility Interface, and aesthetic and environmental considerations. If the parties are unable to mutually agree on the location of the Site, said location shall be dete~mined by Lessor's Director·of Public Works prior to construction of the Conversion System.
1.4. Date of Initial Commercial Operation - The date
on which the Project begins producing and delivering electrical energy.
1.5. Governmental Approvals - such permits, licenses,
entitlem·ents to construct or use,. variances and approvals as may be required by Federal, state or local ~g&ncies having
jurisdiction thereof. If Lessee is required to obtain any conse~t or approvals to cross over, under or through with a pipelfne or other means any right of way owned by southern Pacific Transportation Company, Lessee shall obtain any such consent or approval at its own expense.
1.6. Gross Revenues - The gross receipts in any Lease
Monch received by Lessee after any wheeling charges from the sale of electricity or Landfill Gas or any constituent product from the Project less the amount of all taxes or fees, if any, which shall be paid on the production of electricity or Landfill Gas or any constituent product from the Project pursuant to any federal, state or local law now or hereafter in effect; provided, however, that no capital stock tax, privilege tax, or franchise . p.:ige 3
tax, and no income or similar tax based upon prdfits as such, shall be deducted from Gross Revenues.
1. 7. Landfill Gas - The g a s generated from the
anaerobi~ digestion by methanogenic bacteria of refuse and other solid wastes deposited in sanitary landfills. The composition of such gas varies, but usually. contains methane in the range of 40% to 60% by volume, carbon dioxide in tfie range of 40% to 60% by volume, and small percentages of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and other gaseous elements.
1.8. Lease Month - Calendar months commencing on the
first month following the execution of this lease by Lessor, l . 9 . Lease Year - C a 1 e n d a r y e a r s c om me n c i n g ·on January the first of the calendar year in which occurs the Date of Initial Commercial Operation.
1.10. Leasehold Mortgage - The term "leasehold
mortgage" means a mortgage of Lessee's leasehold interest under this lease, and includes a deed of trust conveying Lessee's leasehold interest under this lease as security for a
construction loan or loans or "take-out'' loans or loans to finance construction or purchase of the project to be erected on the premises.
1.11. Leasehold Mortgagee - The· term "leasehold
mortga~ee" means the holder of the Leasehold Mortgage under this lease, and includes any beneficiary under a deed of trust conveying Lessee's leasehold interest under this lease as aforesaid.
1.12. Lessee - Cambrian Energy Systems, a California
limited partnership. In the event of an assignment of this Lease by Cambrian Energy Systems, ''Lessee'' shall mean the assignee of Cambrian Energy Systems.
1.13. Lessor - The City of Santa Clara, a municipal
corporation.
1.14. Operating Lease~ - The leases between the Lessor
and the Operator dated January 15, 1977 and September 21, 1982 together with all amendments thereto granting to the Operator the right to conduct sanitary landfill operations at the Premises.
1.15. Operator - All Purp_ose Landfill Company, a
California general partnership.
1.16. PGandE - Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
1.17. Paying Quantities - such quantity of Landfill
Gas as is capable of being recovered by the Collection System, having a heat value (expressed in BTU' s) within the operating limits of a Conversion system, and recoverable at a flow rate (expressed in standard cubic feet per minute) which is both within reasonable safety margins to prevent interruption of anaerobic conditions in the Premises and sufficient to
continuously operate a conversion System without interruption during the Lease term, having supportable test data indicating in the judgment of Lessee the economic longevity of the Landfill Gas reservoir, and in the sole judgment of Lessee, providing a sufficient return upon the installation and operation of a Conversion system or systems after the payment of all expenses related thereto, including the lease payments payable to the Lessor.
1.18. Premises - whenever the term "land" or
''premises" is used herein, it shall refer to the lease premises referred to in section 2.1 of this lease and described and depicted in Exhibits 1 and 2 attached hereto.
1.19. Project - Landfill Gas recovery project for the
. purpose of generating electric power or other forms of energy, or both, and the subsequent sale thereof to Lessor, PGandE, or other purchaser; and comprised of the Collection System, the
Conversion system and the Utility Interface at the Premises.
1.20. Santa Clara Landfill - Santa Clara Landfill
Corporation, a California nonprofit corporation, which owns a portion of the Premises which is subject to a facility lease dated June 1, 1967 with Lessor.
1. 21. Santa Clara Rec) amation s a n t a c 1 a r a·
Reclamation Corporation, a California_ nonprofit corporation, which owns a portion of the Premises which is subject to a facility lease dated August 1, 1970 with Lessor.
1.22. Utility Interface - The step-up transformer,
-metering facilities, protection circuitry, transmission lines, poles and any other equipment necessary to interconnect the Conversion system or Systems with the grid of any utility (including a utility owned or operated by Lessor) or any purchaser of the electrical energy produced:by the Project.
ARTICLE II
LEASE OF PREMISES
2.1. Lease of Premises for Landfill Gas Recovery System.
Lessor, Santa Clara Landfill and Santa Clara·
Reclamation, to the full extent of their respective interests in the Premises and for and in consideration of the rents, royalties, covenants and conditions herein contained to ·be kept, performed and observed by Lessee, hereby lease the Site exclusively to Lessee and lease all necessary portions of the Premises to Lessee, and Lessee hereby leases exclusively the Site and leases all necessary portions of the Premises from the Lessor, S~nta Clara Landfill and Santa Clara Reclamation only for the purposes and the term, and subject to the covenants, conditions and provisions hereinafter set fo~th. The Premises are hereby leased for the purposes of drilling and testing thereon for Landfill Gas, the installation and operation of a Collection.System or ·systems, the installation and operation of a Conversion System or Systems, and the installation and operation of all facilities and equipment necessary for either the transmission and sale of electric power or other energy generated by the Conversion system or for the commercial sale of any other energy product or products into which the Landfill Gas may be converted, In connection with such purposes, Lessee shall have, during the term hereof, except as may hereinafter be provided, the sole and exclusive right to explore, drill and develop upon the Premises for Landfill Gas, and the installation, maintenance, operation, relocation, replacement and removal of a Collection System or systems, a Conversion System or Systems,· an.a a Utility Interface, as well as the installation, operation, relocation, re~lacement and removal of such other technologies for the commercial use of Landfill Gas as may be determined by Lessee from time to time during the term of this Lease to be employed on the Premises, as economic conditions may dictate or change, Lessee shall also have the right to place and maintain on the Premises pipelines, powsr lines, and all other ~tructures, works and improvements as may be necessary or convenient in Lessee's operatjons, with the right of removal of the same, eithei during or within a reasonable time after the term hereof, together with all other rights necessary or convenient for any and all of the purposes set forth in this section, including, but not limited to, rights of way and easements over, upon and across the Premises, The Lessor shall have the right to the use of the surface of the Premises to such an extent as will not
unreasonably interfere .with the full and proper operations of the Collection System or Systems, the Conversion System or Systems, and the Utility Interface, LesGor expressly reserves the right to construct, operate and maintain golf course facilities on the Premises, The Lessor, Santa Clara Landfill and Santa Clara Reclamation expressly reserves all rights of use, control and possession of the Premises, and all other rights therein of whatever character not herein
Lessee. The Operator hereby
expressly given exclusively
grants to Lessee all rights
to
of
ingress and egress to the Premises and all other rights which may be necessary or convenient to Lessee in order to implement the Project.
2.2. No warranty.
Neither Lessor, Santa Clara Landfill nor Santa
Clara Recla~ation make any guarantee as to the quantity or quality of refuse or solid waste or Landfill Gas present in the Premises. such .determinations shall be made by Lessee in accoid~nce with it~ testing and evaluation program as set forth in section 6.2 of this lease.
2.3. Lessee option.
During the term of this•lease, and provided that
Lessee is not in default under the terms of this lease at such time, Lessor agrees to provide Lessee with the right of first refusal to enter into a lease on the same or substantially similar terms and conditions as this lease with respect to any other landfills within the city limits of Santa Clara which the Lessor.~ay own or lease during the term of this lease where the leaseh~ld property interest does not exceed $500.00 in value.
Lessee reserves all rights to lease or purchase afforded to members of the general public under _Section 714· of the Charter of the City of Santa Clara.
ARTICLE III
LEASE: TERM
3.1. commencement and Expiration Dates.
(a) The term of thi~ lease shall commence on
the date of approval of this lease by Lessor in compliance with Section 714 of Lessor's City Charter and unless sooner terminat~d as provided herein, shall be for twenty (20) years, and for so long thereafter as Landfill Gas is produced in Paying Quantities~ In no event shall this lease extend beyond the applicable legal limitation pertaining to the term of an agreement of the nature set forth herein.
(b) Lessee shall have the right to terminate
this lease, subject to the provisions of Article XII hereof, and to thereupon be relieved of any further obligations hereunder following the giving of at least thirty (30) days' written notice of termination should ~t any time, in the sole judgment of Lessee, the operation of the Collection System, Conversion System and the Utility Interface prove to be economically or technically infeasible or unsuccessful.
,. 3.2. Holdover.
If· Lessee shall holdover after the expiration of
the term hereof or any extension thereof, such tenancy shall be from month to month on all the terms, covenants and conditions of this lease.
ARTICLE TV
LEASE PAYMENT
4.1. Minimum Rent.
For each Lease Month prior to the Date of
Initial Commercial Operation, Lessee covenants and agrees to pay to Lessor, on or before the 1ast day of each such Lease Month, the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100,00).
4.2. Royalty.
Lessee covenants and agrees to pay to Lessor, on
or before the last day of each Lease Month, a royalty equal to the percentage set forth below of the Gross Revenues for the preceding Lease Month.
Lease Years (Commencing
with Date of Initial
Commercial operation
1st through 6th
7th and thereafter
Percentage of
Gross Revenue
12.50%
16.67%
If, after the Date of Initial Commercial
Operation, Lessee modifies the Conversion System by adding additional electric power generating equipment, cogenerating equipment, or equipment for the conversion of Landfill Gas to any non-energy product, L~ssee shall pay to Lessor a royalty equal to twelve and one-half percent (12.50%) of the Gross Revenues produced by each such additional increment of equipment, for the first six (6) Lease Years following the Date of Initial Commercial Operation of the additional increment of equipment, and a royalty equal to sixteen and two thirds percent (16.67%) of the same additional incremental Gros~ Revenues thereafter.
Pa<Je 10
If during any Lease Month a fuel other than
Landfill Gas is used to operate the Conversion System or Systems (such. as natural gas, propane or diesel fuel), the royalty otherwise payable by Lessee to the Lessor with respect to such Lease Month shall be reduced in the same proportion as the quantity (measured in BTUs or other comp.arable measure) of such other fuel used during such Leas~ Month bears to the quantity of Landfill Gas used in operating the Conversion system· during such Lease Month. Provided, however, the royalty otherwise payable by .Lessee to Lessor shall not be reduced due to the use of such other fuels by more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the royalty which would be payable had the conversion System been operating during such Lease Month solely on Landfill Gas.
4.3. Accountjng.
Each quarterly royalty payment by Lessee shall
be accompanied by a statement showing the computation of the royalty amount owing by Lessee to Lessor. Lessor or its authorized representative shall have the right to inspect during reasonable business hours on a quarterly basis the sales jo~rnal and any other pertinent books and records of Lessee relating to the Gross Revenues generated by each Conversion System located on the Premises. such inspection rights shall be conducted during business hours and in such a manner so as not to unreasonably interfere with the ongoing business operations of Lessee,
4.4. Net Lease.
It is the intention hereof that the Lessor shall
receive all lease payments free from charges, expenses, costs and deductions of every description except as heretofore described.
Paqe 11
ARTICLE V
USE OF PREMISES
5.1. Actions by Third Parties and Lessor.
Neither Lessor nor Operator shall during the
term of this Lease take any action, or omit to take any action, or allow any third party to take any action or omit to take any action with respect to any portion of the Premises not actually used by Lessee under this lease which would in any manner reduce the quantity or quality of the Landfill Gas or which would reduce the quantity of refuse and solid waste in place or the anaerobic conditions existing with respect thereto.
5.2. Signs.
Lessee shall have the right to erect and
maintain upon the Premises only such signs as ·relate to the Project and any improvements constructed hereunder, and only in accordance with applicable zoning ordinances and building codes.
No.other signs, billboards, or other advertising may be erected tipon the Premises ·without the prior written consent of Lessor.
5.3. Interference.
In drilling, equipping, operating and
miintalning the Project, Lessee shall use reasonable care and diligence and shall perform all work in a proper and workmanlike manner and so as to prevent any unreasonable interference with any ongoing operations of Lessor or Operator on the Premises and any existing or future development by Lessor thereon. Lessor expressly reserves the right to construct, operate and maintain golf course facilities on the premises.
5.4. Maximize Landfill Gas Recovery.
Lessee shall use its best efforts to maximize
the recovery and production of Landfill Gas and constituent products. Lessee's best efforts shall incluae, but not be Pa<Je 12
limited t~, the investment of sufficient capital on a continuing basis to maximize said recovery and production.
5.5. Minimize Land~ill Gas Migration.
Lessee shall use its best efforts to design and
operate its facilities for collecting, treating, processing and distributing the Landfill Gas and/or con§tituent products in such a manner so as to minimize gas migration. In_addition, Lessee agrees to provide reasonable assistance to Lessor at· its request in developing a gas migration control system to be put.into effect either during the term of this lease or upon its termination; without Lessee thereby incurring any.responsibility or liability for gas migration from the Premises.
5.6. safety Procedures.
Lessor and Lessee acknowledge that Lessor
intends to construct, operate and maintain golf course facilities at the_ Premises, Lessor and Lessee agree that they shall mutually agree upon reasonable safety procedures for Lessee's employees when performing any work on the Premises during operating hours of such proposed golf course facilities.
ARTICLE VI
CONSTRUCTION BY LESSEE
6.1. ~essee's Right to Build - General Conditions.
Lessee shal 1 have the right, during the term of
this lease, to erect, maintain, alter, remodel, reconstruct, rebuild, replace, and renew the Project on the Premises, provided, however, that such improvements shall be built in accordance with all applicable state laws and local zoning, buildtng and electrical codes, and shall be constructed in a workmanlike manner in accordance with the require~ents of all Governmental Approvals. All necessary Governmental Approvals for paqe 13
such construction shall be obtained by Lessee at Lessee's sole expense.
6.2. Testing and Ev<JJuation Program.
(a) Lessor and Operator hereby _grant to
Lessee the right to conduct a reasonable testing program on the Premises in order to determine whether the Landfill Gas and/or constituent products can be economically recovered from the Premises in Paying Quantities. Lessee, at its sole expense, will commence testing and evaluation of the Premises for Landfill Gas and/or Constituent Products and complete such testing and evaluation.
(b) Prior to
evaluation program, Lessee shall
commencing its testing and
submit to Lessor in writing a
general, non-proprietary description of the procedure, methods, and equipment to be used by Lessee that relate to its testing and evaluation activities upon the Premises. Lessor shall have fourteen (14) days after receipt of such description to object in writing to any specific procedure, method or location of equipment. Upon receipt of such objection, Lessee shall make reasonable efforts to change its procedures, methods or locations to overcome such objections consistent with the need of Lessee to obtai~ valid and accurate test data and results, In the event that no written objection by Lessor is received by Lessee during said fourteen (14) day period, the testing procedures, methods and equipment to be used by Lessee (including the location thereof) shall be deemed approved by Lessor.
(e) In the event t"hat Lessee's testing and
evaluation program establishes in its sole judgment that the Premises ~re not suitable for the economic r~covery and purification of Landfill Gas and/or constituent products in Paying Quantities, all rights under this lease will revert to Lessor and this lease shall terminate upon receipt of written notice from Lessee to Lessor of the results of the testing and evaluation program, without further liability, except as to Minimum Rent payable but not yet paid and except for liabilities to Lessor or others incurred to said date, on the part of either party to the other hereunder.
results of Lessee's testing and
A copy of the summary of the
evaluation program shall be
forwarded to Lessor together with Lessee's written notice. In addition to the aforementioned summary, upon request by Lessor, Lessee shall forward copies of all non-proprietary well data accumulated by Lessee during the testing and evaluation program. conducted on the Premises, Lessbr hereby releases Lessee from liability for errors contained in the aforementioned summary and well data; and Lessee may attach appropriate disclaimers to such materials of any warranty, covenant or representation, whether express or implied, by Lessee with respect to their accuracy or completeness.
(d) Should Lessee determine in its sole
judgment that the results of the testing and evaluation program indicate that the Premises are suitable for the econ'omic recovery and purification of Landfill Gas and/or Constituent Products in Paying Quantities, Lessee will give written notice to Lessor of its determination prior to the start of construction.
6.3. Prerequisites to the start of Construction.
No construction shall be commenced on the
Premises unless the following shall have first occurred:
(a) Lessee, at Lessee·' a expense, shall
pre~are and submit all required data and reports and shall have obtained all necessary Governmental Approvals or other permits necessary for the start of construction. Lessor shall make available copies of existing information, data, and reports, and environmental data•in the possession of or reasonably obtainable by the Lessor to the Lessee in a timely manner,
(b) Lessee shall have furnished. to Lessor
comprehensive general liability and property damage insurance, Pa<_1e 15
with contractual liability endorsement, if not otherwise covered by such insurance policy,_ with combined single limits of not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). for any one accident or occurrence, the types 6f coverages, exclusions and general provisions in the contract or contracts of insurance providing such coverage to be subject to the reasonable approval of Lessor, The requirements set forth may be satisfied by Lessee arranging for Lessor to be named as an additional insured on policies of insurance to be purchased by Lessee, provided that _the types of coverages, exclusions and general provisions included in any such policy or policies shall be subject to the reasonable approval o{ Lessor, Any policy of liability insurance furnished herein must insure Les~or against any liability it may incur to the public and/or its employees as a result_of the use of the Premises by Lessee, for the operations thereon of any contractor or subcontractor working for Lessee, Any such insurance shall be primary and not contributing,
(c) Lessee shall have delivered to Lessor
satisfactory proof that worker's compensation insurance has been procured to cover all persons employed in. connection with the construction of the Project, or any portion thereof,
(d) Lessee shall have furnished to Lessor a
written commitment by one or more banking c_orporations or other lending institutions by which the financing or the-costs of construction of the ·Proj ec-t improvements will. be provided for, which commitment shall have been duly accepted by Lessee, As an alternative, the evidence of funds
available for financing and the construction or operation of Lessee's proposed Project contemplated above Lessee may present other evidence of available funds,
6.4. Due Diligence.
Lessee shall use its best efforts to prosecute
the testing, evaluation, permit processing, design, financing, procurement, construction and startup of the Project improvements in accordance with the Project schedule described in Appendix I subject, however, to unavoidable delays, i.e., delays due to strikes, acts of God, inability to obtain labor or materials, enemy action, civil commotion, fire, unavoidable casualty, or similar causes, or any other causes beyond the reasonable control of Lessee.
6.5. As Built Drawings.
Lessee agrees to furnish to Lessor and from time
to time update a complete set of "as-built drawings'' for'the Collectioti System constructed by, or for, Lessee on the Premises at no expense to Lessor.
6.6 Lessee's ownership of Improvements and Fixtures.
Except as herein provided, it is expressly
understood and agreed that any and all buildi~gs, improvements, fixtures, machinery and equipment of whatsoever nature at any time constructed, placed or maintaine~ upon any part of the Premises during the term of this lease shall be and remain the property of Lessee or its suble~sees, as their interests may appear.
ARTICLE VII
TAXES-PAYMENT BY LESSEE
7.1. r,essee to Pay Tgxes.
In addition to the lease payments desc~ibed in
Article IV hereof, Lessee shall pay all local, state, federal or other taxes or assessments levied on the Collection System, the Conversion system and, if owned by Lessee, the Utility Interface.
Pa<J8 1 7
Additionally, Lessee shall pay any taxes which may be assessed or levied against the irtterest in ot created by this Lease to the extent that the existence of this Lease results in any such taxes being levied by any governmental authority. To the exte~t applicable (i.e. should the Premises be conveyed by Lessor to a person or entity that is not exempt from taxation), the successor to the Lessor shall pay all Other taxei and assessments on the Premises and on all other improvements and personal property thereon. The foregoing provisions shall not in anf way diminish or .relieve Operator from its obligations to pay taxes pursuant to the Operating Lease.
7.2. Notice of Possessory Interest: Payment of Taxes
and Assessments on Value of Entire Premises.
In accordance with California Revenue and
Taxation Code Section 107.6(a), Lessor states that by entering into this lease, a possessory interest subject to property taxes. may be created. Lessee, or any other party in whom the
possessory interest in vested, may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest.
7.3. Payment and Furnishing of Receipts.
Subject to Lessee's right to pay taxes in
installments as provided below, all payments to be made by Lessee pursuant to the article shall be made .not later than thirty (30) days before any fine, penalty, interest or costs may be added thereto for nonpayment. Lessee shall furnish Lessor's Financ~ Director within twenty (20) days after the date of payment, as provided in this article, with official receipts or photocopies thereof~ evidencing that the tax has been paid.
7.4. Installment Payments.
If by any law any tax is payable or may at the
option of the taxpayer be paid in installments, Lessee may pay the tax together with any accrued interest on the unpaid balance of the tax, in installments as they become due.
Pa0e 18
7.5. Proration for Tin!.eAll such taxes and assessments for the first and, if the Lessee is not in default under this lease, the last year of this lease, shall be prorated between the Lessor and Lessee on the basis of a tax fiscal year commencing July 1 and ending June 30.
7.6. Contest surety Bond.
Lessee shall have the right to c·ontest the
amount or validity of any such imposition by appropriate legal proceedings, but this right shall not be deemed or construed in any way as relieving or modifying or extending Lessee's covenants to pay any such imposition at the time and in.the manner as in this Article provided. Lessor shall, upon written request, join in any such proceedings if Lessee reasonably determines that it shall be necessary or convenient for Lessor to do so in order for Lessee to prosecute properly such proceedings, but Lessor shall not be subject to any liability for payment of any costs or expenses in connection with any such proceeding brought by Lessee. Lessee hereby covenants to indemnify and save Lessor harmless from any such costs and expenses. If iuch contest shall have the effect of staying or postponing the obligation to pay _such t,ax Lessee, upon commencing such contest, shall deliver to Lessor a good and sufficient surety bond guaranteeing payment of any taxes, penalties and interest thereon, found due as a result of such contest. The right to contest such impositions granted herein shall not prevent Lessor from contesting any such impositions for which Lessor is responsible hereunder. If both parties are contesting any such impositions, Lessee and Lessor shall each coordinate their activities with the other.
7.7. separate Assessment of Lessee's Per'sonal
Property.
During the Lease Term, Les.see shall cause all
taxes, assessments and other churges levied upon or imposed upon any improvement or personal property of Lessee's situated in, on, or about the Premises to be levied or assessed separately from the Premises and not as a lien thereon to the maximum extent allowable under the law of the State of Calif6rnia.
7.8. Indemnification of Lessor.
Lessee shall protect and ·hold harmless Lessor
and the Premises and all improvements in, on, or about the same from any liability for any and all such taxes, assess~ents, and charges together with any interest, penalties or other sum thereby composed, and from any sale or other proceeding to enforce payment thereof.
ARTICLE VIII
INSORANCE TO BE MAINTAINED BY LESSEE
8,1. Hazard Insurance,
At all times, Lessee shall maintain or cause to
be maintained the insurance below described for the mutual benefit of Lessor and Lessee against the following risk:
(a) Loss or damage by fire and such other
risks. as may be embraced within the st~ndard form or its equivalent of "all risk'' coverage insurance from time to time available, insuring the full replacement cost of the Project,. together with any buildings and othe~ improvements from time to time erected on the Premises. Lessee agrees that such coverage shall be in an am6unt no less than Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) and in any case not less than the value of all impr.ovements.
(b) such other insurance in such amounts as
may from time to time be reasonably required by Lessor against other insurable hazards which at the time are commonly insured against in the case of premises situated with •due regard to the page 20
type of installation, its construction and its use and occupancy.
8.2. Liability Insurance.
Lessee shall also maintain at all times
comprehensive general liability insurance, including contractual liability, for the mutual benefit of Lessor and Lessee against claims for personal injury or death or property damage in or. about the Premises with such limits as may reasonably be requested by Lessor which shall be not less than combined single limits of Five Million Dollars {$5,000,000) combined single limit and not greater than Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,.000,000) combined single limit without the consent of Lessee in the event of bodily injury or death of any number of persons in any one accident, and including broad form property damage coverage. The limits of said policy shall be increased from time to time to meet changed circumstances. If the parties are unable to agree on the amount by which such limits are to be increased, the controversy shall be resolved by arbitration under the procedure for arbitration set forth in Article XV hereof. Lessor may not request a change in the limits of the policy as above provided for more often than once in any five (5) year ~eriod. All such insurance shall be primary insurance and Lessor shall be named as additional insured. a
8.3. worker's compensation Insurance.
Lessee shall also maintain worker's compensation
insurance covering all persons employed by it in the conduct bf its business on the Premises.
8.4. Deposit of Policies.
(a) All policies except the worker's
compensation policy shall name Lessor as additional insured. (b) All insurance shall be effected by valid
and enforceable policies issued by insurers of responsibility, such. responsibility to meet with the reasonable approval of Lessor. Certificates of insurance required under this Article Pv<Je 21
VIII, shall be delivered to Lessor, Prior to the expiration date of any policy, a certifi~ate attesting to the issuance of a renewal policy shall be delivered by Lessee to Lessor, To the extent obtainable, all such policies shall contain agreements by the insurers that (i) such policy shall not be cancelled except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to each named insured and loss payee, and (ii) the coverage atforded thereby shall not be affected by the performance of any work in or about the Premises,
8,5, Inclusion of Mortgagee as Insured.
The following pr6visions shall govern the
policies described in Section 8,1 (Hazard Insurance) when a Leasehold Mortgagee has an insurable interest in Le~see's improvements at the Premises,
(a) subject to the provisions hereinafter.
set forth in this section, the policies shall also provide, if required by either party hereto, for any loss to be payable to any Leasehold Mortgagee as the respective interest of such party may appear, pursuant to standard mortgagee clause or endorsement, provided, however, that sucih Leasehold Mortgagee must agree that any insurance proceeds received by such party shall be made available for restoration of the improvements, or equivalent improvements, to at least the condition of said improvements prior to the casualty giving rise to the payment of such proceeds to said lender. The loss shall be adjusted with the insurance companies by Lessee, except that in case of any particular casualty tesulting in damage or destruction exceeding One Hundred Thousand Dollars .($100,000) in the aggregate, no adjustment shall be made with the insurance companies unless the Leasehold Mortgagee shall have approved the amount of the adjustment, (b) The loss shall .be payable ( i) in the
case of any particular casualty resulting in i loss payment not exceeding One Hundred Thousa11d Dollars ($100,000) to Lessee, or page 22
(ii) in the case of any particular casualty resulting in a loss payment in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) to the Leasehold Mortgagee, or if. there be none, to bank or trust company or title insurance company providing construction disbursement services, as insurance trustee designated by Lessee, but· subject to the approval of Lessor~ which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, in a notice given to the insurance companies and to Lessor promptly following the occurrence of the casualty, which bank or trust company or title insurance company shall be. licensed to do business as an escrow holder in the State of California. All polici~s of the kind aforesaid shall expressly provide that loss thereunder shall be adjusted and paid as required by the terms hereof.
(c) Insurance procee·ds on hazard insurance
deposited with such trustee shall be disbursed as provided for in Article IX hereof.
8.6. Consent to Blanket·rnsurance Policy .
. Nothing in this Article shall prevent Lessee
from carrying insurance of the kind required of Lessee under a blanket insurance policy or policies which cover other properties owned or operated by Lessee as well as the premises herein demised. Lessee shall furnish Lessor and any Leasehold Mortgagee with copies of the Schedule or makeup of all property affected by any such policy of blanket insurance within thirty (30) days after the filing of such schedul~ or makeup with the Lessee's property insurance carrier.
8.7. Indemnification.
(a) Lessee agrees to investigate, defend,
indemnify and hold Lessor, operator, Santa Clara Landfill and Santa Clara Reclamation (the "Indemnified Parties") harmless from and against any and all loss, damage, liability, claims, demands, detriments, costs, charges and expense (including attorney's fees) and causes of action oJ whatsoever character which the Indemnified Parties may incur, sustain or be subjected to on account of Lessee's proposed use or Lessee's use of the Premises or o.n account of Lessee having entered into any contract, sublease,· Leasehold Mortgagee or other agreement of whatsoever character having to do with or involving the Premises, or on account of loss or damage to property and loss of use thereof, or for bodily injury to or death of any persons {including, but not limited to employees, subcontractors, agents and invitees of each party hereto) arising out of or in any way connected with the work to be performed or occupancy, operation, maintenance, enjoyment or use of the Premises by Lessee under this lease, (b) Lessor agrees to investigate, defend,
indemnify and hold Lessee harmless fiom and against any and all loss, damage, liability, claims, demands, detriments, costs, charges and expense {including attorney's fees) and causes of action of whatsoever character which Lessee may incur, sustain or be subjected .to on ·account of Lessor's ownership, use or occupancy of the Premises or activity conducted at the Premises or on account of any condition which may exist on the Premises for which Lessee is not responsible, or on a~count of loss or damage to property and loss of use thereof, or for bodily injury to or_death of any persons .{including, but not limited to employees, subcontractors, agents and invitees of each party hereto) arising out of or in any way connected with the ownership, use or.occupancy, operation, maintenance or enjoyment of Premises by Lessor or any employee, agent, contractor or invitee of Lessor, Lessor further agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Lessee harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, causes of action, demands, losses or expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out of any claim from a third party as a result of any migration of Landfill Gas from the Premises.
(c) Operator agrees to
indemnify and hold Lessee harmless from and
investigate, defend,
against any and all
loss, damage, liability, claims, demands, detriments, costs, chaiges and expense (including attorney's fees) and causes of action of whatsoever character which·Lessee may incur, sustain or be subjected to on account of Operator'~ use or occupancy of the Premises or activity conducted at the Premises or on account of any condition which may exist on the Premises for which Lessee is not respDnsible, or on account of loss or damage to property and loss of use thereof, or for bodily injury to or death of any persons (including, but not limited to employees, subcontractors, agents and invitees of each party hereto) qrising out of or in any way connected with the use or occupancy, operation, maintenance or enjoyment of Premises by Operator or any employee, agent, contractor or invitee of Operator.
ARTICLE IX
DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
9.1. Lessee's Duty to Repair.
Lessor and Operator shall use their best efforts
to prevent any employees of Lessor or Operator or any contractor or subcontractors of Lessor or Operator from operating any equipment or from conducting any activities on the Premises, whether or not related to the operation of a sanitary landfill, which will result in any damage to the Collection System or to the Conversion system or Utility Interface of Lessee. Any such damage resulting to the Collection System, Conversion System or Utility Interface resulting from the negligenc~ or willful miscond~ct of employees, contractors or subcontr~ctors of Lessor or Operator or in breach of 1.essor's or Operator's covenants contained herein shall be the responsibility of Lessor and
Operator,
ARTICLE X
ASSIGNMENT, SUBLETTING AND MORTGAGING
10,l Assignment.
If the estate of either party hereto is assigned
or conveyed, the rights and obligations created hereby and the covenants hereof shall extend to and.be binding upon such party's assignsor transferees. The party so assigning or transferring such in-terest shall thenceforth be released from all obligations hereunder to the extent of the interest so assigned or
transferred, pr;vided ihat at the.time of such assignment or transfer the transferring party's assignee or transferee had the legal ability to perform such obligations. Lessee shall not assign its interest in this lease to any other party without the prior written consent of the Lessor, which written consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, No change of ownership in the Premises or in the royalties shall be recognized by Lessee until Lessee has been furnished with written notice of such transfer or assignment, together with a certified copy of the instruments of transfer or assignment.
10.2. Mortgage of Leasehold Interest.
(a) Lessee shall have the right, at any time
and from time to time during the Lease Term, to encumber the leasehold estate created by thiS lease by a Leasehold Mortgage. (b) If Lessee shall have granted any
Leasehold Mortgage and if a Leasehold Mortgagee shall have given to Lessor a notice (''Leasehold Mortgagee's Notice") specifying the name and address of the Leasehold Mortgagee, Lessor shall give to the Leasehold Mortga0ee a copy of any and all notices from time to time given to Lessee by Lessor (including, withoutpaqe 26 limitation, any notice of default) at the same time as and whenever any such notice shall thereafter be given by Lessor to Lessee, addressed to such Leasehold Mortgagee at the address last furnished to Lessor. No such notice of any kind by Lessor shall be deemed to have been given to Lessee unless and until a copy thereof shall have been so given to the Leasehold Mortgagee. (c) In the CcJ.Se of any notice of default
given by Lessor to Lessee, the Leasehold Mortgagee shall thereupon have the same concurrent grace periods as are given Lessee {or remedying a default or causing it to be remedied, plus, .in each case, an additional period of thirty (30) days after the expiration thereof or after Lessor has served such notice of default upon Leasehold Mortgagee, whichevei: is later.
Provided that all. monetary obligations of Lessee under this lease shall be duly performed, these grace periods shall be extended as set forth in the respective circumstances below.
(i) In those instances which ,.
reasonably require the Leasehold Mortgagee to be in possession of the Premises to cure any default by Lessee, the time therein allowed Leasehold Mortg~gee to cure any default by Lessee shall be deemed extended to include the period of time required by said Leasehold Mortgagee to obtain such possession with due diligence; and
.( ii) In tho s e. i n s t a n c e s i n w hi ch
Leasehold Mortgagee is prohibited by any process or injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving Lessee from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof, the time hirein illowed Leasehold Mortgagee to prosecute such foreclosure or other proceeding shall be extended for the period of such prohibition.
P<l<Je 27
(d) · Leasehold Mortgagee shall , w i thou t
prejudice to its rights against Lessee, without payment of any penalty to Lessor and within a period and as otherwise provided herein, have the right, but not the obligation, to pay all of the rents due hereunder, to effect any insurance, to pay any taxes and assessments, to make any repairs and improvements, to do any othe~ act or thing required of Lessee-hereunder or which may be necessary and proper. to be done in the performance and obser~ance of the agreements, covenants and conditions hereof, to remedy any default of Lessee or cause the same to be remedied, to acquire Lessee's leasehold estafe or to commence foreclosure or other appropri~te proceeding$, For such purposes Lessor and Lessee .hereby authorize Leasehold Mortgagee to enter upon the Premises and to exercise any of Lessee's rights and powers under this lease, and, subject to the provisions of this lease, under the Leasehold Mortgage. Lessor will accept perfoimance by the Leasehold Mortgagee of any covenant, condition or agreement on Lessee's part to be performed hereunder with the same force and effect as those performed by Lessee. Nothing contained in Section 10 ,2(c) to the contr_ary, provided t~at all monetary obligations of Lessee shall be 'duly performed, no default by Lessee shall be deemed to exist and this lease shall not be terminated by Lessor so long as the Leasehold Mortgagee shall, in good faith, have commenced to rectify any claimed default or to exercise its rights to acquire the leasehold interest of Lessee or commence foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings, and to prosecute the same to completion with diligence and continuity; provided, however, that the Leasehold Mortgagee shall not be required to continue such foreclosure proceedings if such default occurred,
(e) From and after receiving the Leasehold
Mortgagee's Not'ice·, neither J,essor nor Lessee shall cancel, terminate, surrender, modify or amend this lease in any respect page 28
without the prior written cons~nt of the Leasehold Mortgagee. No Leasehold Mortgagee shall become liable under the provisions of this lease,· unless and until such time as it becomes, and then bnly for so long as it remains, the owner of the leasehold estite, and such liability shall be limited to the insurarice required to b~ carried hereunder an~ to its interest in the Premises,
(f) Foreclosure of a Leasehold ,Mortgage, or
any sale thereunder, whether by judicial proceedings or by virtue of any power contained in the Leasehold Mortgage, or any conveyance of the Leasehold estate created hereby from Lessee to Leasehold Mortgagee through, or in lieu of, foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof, shall not require the consent of Lessor not shall it constitute a breach of any provision of or a default under this lease, and upon such foreclosure, sale or conveyance Lessor shall recognize Leasehold M6rtgagee, or any othei foreclosure sale purchaser, as Lessee hereunder.
(g) If a Leasehold Mortgagee shall acquire
Lessee's interest in this lease as a result of a sale under said Leasehold Mortgage pursuant to a power of sale contained therein, pursuant to a judgment of foreclosure, through any transfer in lieu of foreclosure, or through settle~ent of or arising out of any pending or contemplated foreclosure action, or in the event Leasehold Mortgagee becomes Lessee under this lease or any new lease obtained pursuant to section 10.l(h) below, such Leasehold Mortgagee's right thereaf~er to assign or transfer this lease or such new lease shall not be subject to any restriction. In the event Leasehold Mortgagee subsequently assigns or transfers its interest under this lease after acquiring the same by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure or subsequently assigns or transfers its interest under any new lease obtained pursuant to Section 10. 2 ( h), and in connection with any such assignment or transfer Leasehold Mortgagee takes back a mortgage or deed of trust encumbering such leasehold interest to secure a portion of the purch~se price given to Leasehold Mortgagee ior such assignment or transfer, ·then such mortgage or deed of trust shall be considered a Lejsehold Mortgage ai contemplated under this Section 10.2 and ieasehold Mortgagee shall be entitled to receive the benefit of the holder of a Leasehold Mortgage. Any purchaser at a foreclosure sale, other .than Leasehold Mortgagee, must assume this lease and it shall have no right in respect to the Premises unless it so assumes and delivers an original of the assumption agreement (to be executed in form for recording) wi~hin ten (10) days after such purchaser acquires title to the Lessee's interest in this lease.·
(h) In the event that this lease is
terminated by Lessor on accourit of a default (and provided that an unsatisfied Leasehold Mortgage stands of record) or in the event Lessee's interest under this lease shall be sold, assigned or transferred pursuant to the exercise of any remedy of the Leasehold Mortgagee, or pursuant to judicial or other
proceedings, Lessor shall, upon written request by Leasehold Mortgagee given within sixty (60) days after such termination, immediately execute and deliver a new lease of the Premises to Leasehold Mortgagee or its nominee, pur~haser, aisignee or transferee, upon written request by such person or entity given within sixty (60) days ~fter such termination, sale, assignment, or transfer for the remainder of the Lease Term ~ith the same agreements, covenants and conditions (except for any requirements wh_ich have been fulfilled· by Lessee prior to termination) as are contained herein and with priority equal to ihat hereof; provided, however, that Leasehold Mortgagee shall promptly cure a default of Less~e susceptible to cure by Leasehold Mortgagee, and provided further that if more than one Leasehold Mortgagee requests such new lease, the Leasehold Mortgagee holding the most senior Leasehold Mortgage shall prevail. Upon execution and delivery of such new lease, Lessor shall cooperate with the new lessee, at the expense of the said new lessee; in taking such action as may be necessary to cancel and discharge and remove Lessee named herein from the Premises. In such event the ownership of the improvements shall be deemed to have been transferied to such transferee of Lessee's interest in this lease and the provisions of section 12.2 hereof causing such
improvements to become the property of Lessor in the event of termination of this lease shall be ineffective as applied to any such termination. Lessee shall, at no expense to Lessor, execute such deed or othjr instrument of conveyance as may be necessary for fee simple title to the improvements, but not the premises, to be insured in such transfer of Lessee's interest.
10.3. Notice of Arbitration: Right to Participate.
In any circumstance where arbitration is
provided under this lease, Lessor agrees that Lessor will give a Leasehold Mortgagee, who shall have given Lessor a Leasehold Mortgagee's Notice, notice of demand by _Lessor for any arbitrati~n, and Lessor will recognize any such Leasehold Mortgagee, in the order of their priority if there is more than one, as a proper party to participate in the arbitration if Lessee fails to do so, whether such failure is in the matter of designating arbitrators or otherwise.
ARTICLE XI
DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES
11.1. Events of Default.
Each of the following events shall be a default
· by Lessee and a breach of this lease:
(a) Failure by Lessee to comme·nce testing
and evaluation program of the.Premises for Landfill Gas and/or constituent products within thirty (30) days after the date of execution of this lease.
(b) Failure by Lessee to submit written
determination to Lessor of suitability of Premises for the economic recovery and purification of Landfill Gas and/or constituent products in paying quantitxes and data required in paragraph 6.2(c) of Article VI within one hundred twenty (120) days after the date of execution of this lease.
(c) Failure by Lessee t.o construct the
Project Collection System within twelve (12) months after the date of execution of this lease.
(d) Abandonment or surrender of. the Premises
or of .the leasehold estate, or failure or refusal to pay to Lessor when due any installment of rent or any other sum when required by this lease to be paid to Lessor by Lessee, or to perform as r,equired or conditioned by any other covenant or condition of this lease.
(e) The subjection of any right or interest
of Lessee to attachment, execution, or other levy, or to seizure under legal process, if not released within thirty (30) days provided that the foreclosure of any Leasehold Mortgage permitted by provisions of this lease shall not be const~ued as a default within the meaning of this paragraph.
p,19e 32
{f) The appointment of a receiver to take
possession of the Premises or improvements or of Lessee's interest in the leasehold estate or of Lessee's operations on the Premises for any reason, including but not limited to assignment for the benefit of creditors or voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy proceedings, but not inclgding receivership {i) pursuant to administration of the estate of any deceased or incompetent Lessee or of any deceased or incompetent individual member of any Lessee, or (ii) pursuant to any Leasehold Mortgage permitted by provisions of this lease relating to purchase or construction of improvements, of {iii) in_stituted by Lessor's instance but the event justifying the receivership, if any. (g)· An assignment by Lessee for the benefit
of creditors or the filing of a voluntary or involuntary petition by or against Lessee under any law for the purpose of
adjudicating Lessee a bankrupt; or for extending time for payment, adjustment or satisfaction of Lessee's liability; or for reorganization, dissolution, or arrangement on account of or to prevent bankruptcy or insolvency; unless the assignment or proceeding, and·all consequent o,rders,_ adjudications, custodies and supervisions are dismissed, vacated or other0ise permanently stay.ed or terminated within ninety (90) days after the assignment, filing or other initial event.
(h) Failure to post any mechanic's or
miterial~en's lien release bond wh~n required.
11.2. Notice as Precondition to Lessor's Remedies.
As a precondition to pursuing any remedy foran
alleged default by Lessee, Lessor shall, before pursuing any remedy, give notice of default to Lessee and all qualifying subtenants and Leasehold Mort0agees whose names antl addresses were previously given to Lessor in a notice or notices from Lessee or any Leasehold Mortgagees stating that the notice was for the purpose of. notice under. this provision or are oth·erwise Pil•Je 3 3
set forth in this lease. A qualifying subtenant is a subtenant in possession under an existing sublease which is proper under this lease. Each notice of default shall specify in detail the alleged event of default .and the intended remedy.
11.3. Lessee's Right to Cure Defaults.
If the a·11eged default is nonpayment of rent,
royalties, taxes, or other sums to be paid by Lessee as provided in Article IV on rent, or elsewhere in this lease directed to be paid as rent, Lessee shall have thirty (30) days after notice is given by Lessor to cure the default. Lessee shall p~omptly and diligently after the notice, commence curing any other default and diligently pursue the cure to completion.
11.4. Rights of subtenants; Nondisturbance Clause.
Any subtenant of the entire Premises shall have
the right, at its election, to cure a curable default of this lease or under any Leasehold Mortgage then existing under the provisions of this.lease relating to purchase or construction of improvements, ot under both. If any such subtenant cures all defaults then existing, or if any subtenant cures all defaults that are then curable, and other defaults are.noncurable, or if all then existing defaults are noncurable, that subtenant's possession and use shall not be disturbed by Lessor. or by any Leasenold Mortgagee as long as ( i) the subtenant performs his sublease's provisions, (ii) the suptenant attorns to Lessor and Leasehold Mortgagee according to their respective interests, and (iii) subsequent defaults are cured as in the above provisions or are not curable.
11.s. Lessor's Remeax.
If any default by Lessee shall continue uncured,
following notice of default as required by this lease, for the period applicable to the default under the lease, Lessor shall have the right to terminate this lease.
page 34
11.6. Notice of Lessor's Default: Lessee's waiver
-Lessor shall not be considered to be in default
under this lease unless (i) Lessee has given notice specifying the default and (ii) Lessor l1as failed for thirty (30) days to cure the default, if it is curable, or to institute and dili~ently pursue reasonable corrective or amelioiative acts for noncurable defaults. Lessee shall have_the right of termination for Lessor's default only after notice to and consent by all Leasehold Mortgagees under Leasehold Mortgages then existing under pr~visions of this lease relating to purchase or
construction or improvements.
ARTICLE XII
SURRENDER AND REMOVAL
12.1. surrender of Possession~
(a) upon the expiration of the term of this
lease or any earlier termination thereof, Lessee shall, subject to the provisions of Paragraph 12.2, surrender to Lessor possession of the Premises.
(b) upon termination of this lease, Lessee
shall~emove or cause to be temoved all furniture, furnishings and equipment installed on the Premises except as otherwise specified herein, Lessor may cause any of said. personal property that is not removed from said Premises within ninety (90) days after the date of any termination of this lease to be removed from the Premises and stored at Lessee's expense, or at Lessor's election said personal property thereafter shall belong to Lessor without the payment of any consideration, subject to the rights of any person holding a perfected security interest therein ..
12.2. Removal of Tmprovements.
Upon such expiration or termination, Leasor may,
at Lessor's sole election given within thirty_ (30) days of such expiration or termin.ation, require Lessee to salvage or demolish and remove any above ground improvements constructed upon the Premises, all it Lessee's sole expense. Should Lessee fail or refuse to so remove any above ground improvements constructed upon the Premises, Lessor may arrange for such demolition and removal at the expense of Lessee. Lessee covenants and agrees to pay any amount incurred by Lessor for such demoiition and removal within ten (10) days of receipt of written demand therefor from Lessor. At termination., Lessee shall removal all above ground equipment and restore the Premises to a grade and condition compatible with impr~ved conditions. Such removal shall include, but is not limited to, iemoval of .all compressors, generators, turbines, fuel treatment system, water treatment system, foundations, recuperator, switchgear, control panel cabinets, and control cabinet foundations, fencing and ~tructures. Lessee shall abandon and leave in place all of the Collection System or Systems for the Prciject and the existing above.ground piping and equipment deemed necessary by Lessor to allow the Lessor to constr,uct a landfi~l gas flaring facility for the Landfill Gas. 12,3, Lessee's ouitcJaim.
Upon the expiration of the Lease Term or any
sooner termination of this lease, Lessee agrees to execute, acknowledge and deliver to Lessor a proper instrument in recordable form, releasing and quitclaiming to Lessor all right, title and interest of Lessee in and to the Premises, If Lessee fails to deliver such instruments to Lessor within thirty (30) days after such termination and receipt of written notice requesting same by Lessor, Lessee shall pay to Lessor the sum of One Hundred Dollars ( $100) for each day which elapses from and after the expiration of said thirty (30) day period to and pc,ge 36
including the date upon which Lessee delivers such instruments to Lessor, Lessee and Lessor hereby agree that this provision is a fair and reasonable estimate of the damages which Lessor might suffer from Lessee's failure to have delivered such instruments within said thirty (30) day period, and further agree that the actual damages which Lessor might suffer in such event are incapable of ascertainment ~r reliable estimate at this time. In addition, Lessor may institute proceedings to quiet its title and in that event, in addition to all other relief that may be granted to Lessor, Lessor shall be entitled to recover against Lessee all attorney's fees, investigation charges, Court costs, and other sums that Lessor has expended in quieting. its title.
ARTICLE XIII
LESSOR'S GENERl\.L PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS
13.1. Lessor's Right of Entry and Inspection.
Upon reasonable prior written notice to Lessee
by Lessor (and without notice in the.event of apparent or actual emergencies), Lessee shall permit Lessor or Lessor's agents, representatives or employees to enter upon the Site for the purpo;es of inspecting, posting of notices of nonresponsibility, determining whether agreements in this lease are being complied with, maintaining, repairing or altering the land .for
co~stru6tion, operation, and maintenance of golf course facil1ties, for showing the Premises to prospective lessees, purchasers, mortgagees or beneficiaries u~dei deeds of trust, extraction of minerals, road building necessary to support the above activities, and for all other uses to which the Premises may reasonably be put, provided that no such use shall
unreasonably interfere with Lessee's activities carried out pursuant to this lease.
page 37
13.2. Lessor's Right to cure Def~ult.
In the event Lessee shall fail to pay and
discharge or cause to be paid and discharged, when due and payable, any tax, assessment, or other charge as set forth herein, or any lien or claim for labor or material employed or used in, or any claim for damage arising out of, the
construction, repair, restoration, replacement, maintenance and use of the Premises and the improvements thereon, or any judgment on any contested lien or claim thereof, or any insurance premium or expense in connection with the Premises and improvements thereon, or any claim, charge or demand which Lessee has agre.ed to pay or cause to be paid under the covenants and conditions of this lease, and if Lessee, after ten (10) days' written notice from Lessor so to do, shall fail to pay and discharge the same, then Lessor may, at its option, pay any such tax, assessment, insurance expense, lien, claim, charge, or demand or settle or discharge any action therefor, or judgment thereon, and all costs, expenses and other sums incurred or paid by Lessor in connection with any of the foregoing shall be ~aid by Les~ee to Lessor as additional rent and upon demand, together with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date incurred or paid and any default in such payment shall constitute a breach of the covenants and conditions of this lease; 13,3 Accord and satisfaction.
No payment by Lessee or receipt by Lessor of a
lesser amount than the rental shall be deemed to be other· than on account of the rental, nor shall any endorsement or ~tatemerrt on any check or any letter accompanying any check or statement as rent be deemed an accord and satisfaction, and Lessor may accept such check or payment without prejudice to Lessor's right to recover the balance of the rental or pursue other remedy provided for in this lease.
13.4. Transfer by r.essor - Release from Liability.
In the event Lessor shall seli or transfer the
Premises or any part thereof, and as a part of such transaction shall assign its interest as Lessor in and to thjs lease, then from and after the effective date of such sale, assignment, or transfer, Lessor shall have no further liability under this lease to Lessee except as to matters of liability which shall have accrued and are unsatisfied as of such date, it being intended that the covenants and obligations contained in this lease on the part of Lessor shall be binding upon Lessor and its successors and assigns only during and in respect to their respective successive periods of ownership of the fee, As a condition thereto, however, any assignee or transferee of Lessor shall assume each and every obligation of Lessor hereunder as a direct obligation to Lessee pursuant to an assumption agreement in a . . form satisfactory to Lessee, Lessee shall, im~ediately upon written request from Lessor or any such assignee, execute and deliver to such assignee an instrument in proper form by which Lessee attorns to said assignee.
13,5, Reservation of Mineral Rights. ·
There is reserved to Lessor the title and
exclusive right to all of the minerals and mineral ores of every kind and character now known to exist or hereafter discovered upon, within
therefrom,
limiting the
or underlying said Premises, or that may be produced
excluding Landfill Gas, but including, without
generality of the foregoing, all petroleum, oil,
natural gas and other hydrocarbon substances and products derived therefrom and all geothermal steam or brines which may be producied or derived therefrom, together with the exclusive and perpetual right to use the surface to extract the same provided that such use does not unreasonably interfere with Lessee's activities carried out pursuant to this Lease.
p~ge 39
ARTICLE XIV
GENERAL PROVISIONS
14.1 .. conditions and covenants.
All of the provisions of this lease shall be
deemed as running with the land, and construed to b~ ''conditions" as well as ''covenants" as though the word~ specifically expressing or imparting covenants and conditions were used in each separate provision.
14.2. waiver of Breach,
No failure by either Lessor or Lessee to insist
upon the strict performance by the other of any covenant, agreement, term -0r condition of this lease or to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach thereof, shall constitute a waiver of any such breach or of such covenant, agreement, term or condition. No waiver of any breach shall affect or alter this lease, but each and every covenant, condition, agreement, and term of this lease ~hall continue in full force and effect with respect to other than existing or subsequent breach.
14.3. Time is of the ~ssence.
Time is of the essence of this lease, and of
each provision thereof.
14 .4.. computation of Time.
The time in which any act provided by this lease
is to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, and then it is 'also excluded,
14.5. unavoidable DeluY - Poree Majeure.
Notwithstanding anything ih this lease contained
to the contrary, it is expressly understood and agreed that the obligations imposed upon the ~ffected party may be suspended so long as and to the extent that the affected party is prevented from or delayed in performing such obligations by the elements, accidents, strikes, lock-outs, riots, delays in transportation, inability to secure fuel, materials, utilities or services in the open market, delays by suppliers of equipment, acts of war or conditions attributable to war.or compliance with federal, state, - county, municipal or other governmental agency or quasi-governmental agency regulations, rules or orders, fire or other acts of God, the act or omission of any governmental authority or of the other party, the order of any court, the interruption of the generation of Landfill Gas in Paying Quantities, or other causes beyond the reasonable control of the affected party, whether similar or dissimilar to the foregoing.
This lease shall remain in full force and effect during ~ny suspension of any of the affected party's obligations under any provisions of this Section and for a reasonable time thereafter, provided that, after the removal of. the cause or causes preventing or hindering the performance of such obligations, the affected party diligently commences o'r resumes the performance of such obligation.
14.6. successors in Interest.
Each and all of the covenants, conditions an.a
restrictions in this Lease contained shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the successors in interest of Lessor, and, subject to the restriction of Article x, the authorized encumbrancers, assigns, transferees, subtenants, licensees and other successors in interest of Lessee.
14.7. Entire Agreement.
This lease contains the entire agreement of the
parties with respect to the matters covered by this lease, and no other agreements, statement or promise made by any party, to any employee, officer, or agent of ariy party, which is not contained in this lease shall be binding or valid.
Pa<Je 41
14.8. Partial Invalidity.
If any term, covenant, condition, or provision
of this lease is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated.
14,9, Relationship of Parties.
Nothing contained in this lease shall be deemed
or construed by the parties or by any third person or court to create the relationship of principal and agent or of partnership or of joint venture or of any association between Lessor and Lessee, and neither the method of computation of lease payment nor any other provisions contained in this lease_nor any acts of the parties shall be deemed to create any relationship between Lessor and Lessee, other than the relationship of Lessor and Lessee.
14.10. Interpretation and Definition.
The language in all parts of this lease shall in
all cases be simply construed. according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against Lessor or Lessee. Unless otherwise provided in this lease, or unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions and rules of construction shall apply to this lease,
(a) Number and Gender: In this lease the
neuter gender includes the feminine and masculine, and the singular number includes plural and the word "person'' includes corporation, partnership, firm or association wherever the context so requires.
( b) Mandatory and Permissive: "Shall,"
"will,'' and ''agree" are mandatory; ''may'' is permissive. ( C) Captions of the articles
sections and paragraphs bf this lease are fot convenience and reference only, and the words contained therein shall in no way be held to explain, modify, amplify, or aid in the
interpretation, construction or meaning of the provisions of this lease.
( d) Term Includes Extensions: A l l
referencei to the term of this lease or the ''Lease Term'' shall include any extension of such term.
( e) Parties : P a r E i e s s ha 11 i n c 1 u d e t h e - Lessor and Lessee names in this lease.
( f) unaertaking Wherever reference is made
in this lease to an engagement by Lessee to perform a certain undertaking it shall mean that as to that undertaking or engagement, that Lessee has covenanted for its performance, and the expression "Undertaking,'' "Undertakes," ''Engages,'' or "Engagement" shall be so construed in each instance,
(g) Assignment : In any circumstance when an
assignment of this lease is restricted by the terms of this lease, an assignment of this lease_includes, but is not limited to, a transfer of fifty-one percent (51%) or more of the stock of the Lessee corporation if the holder of the Lessee's interest in this lease be a corporation, or a transfer of fifty-one percent (51%) or more of the interest in -the Lesse~ partnership if the holder of the Lessee's interest in this lease be a partners6ip, but any such transfer consequent upon the death of a stockholder or partner or resulting from a gift by a stockholder or partner to the immediate members of his family shall not be deemed a transfer within the meaning of the foregoing. Provided, however, that a transfer of fifty-one percent (51%_) or more of any interest in a Lessee partnership shall not constitute an assignment of this_ lease provided that a permitted assignee or any of its wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiaries remains as a general partner or otherwise primarily responsible for the obligations of the Lessee und~r this lease.
14.11. Attorney's feeu,
In the event either Lessor or Lessee shall bring
any action or proceeding against the other for damages for an alleged breach of any provision of this lease, to recover rents, or to enforce, protect, or establish an right or remedy of either party, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover as a part of s·uch action or proceeding reasonable attorney's fees and court costs.
14.12. Interest.
Any sum accruing to Lessor or Le.ssee under the
provisions of this lease which shall not be paid when due shall bear interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the .date of written riotice specifying such nonpayment is served on the defaulting party, until paid,
14.13. Modification.
This lease is not subject to modification except
in writing signed by both parties hereto,
14.14. Payment of Rent,
All rents and other sums payable by Lessee to
Lessor shall be in lawful money or by check payable to City of Santa Clara; delivered in person or mailed to Lessor at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050, Attention:
Director of Public works,
14.15. Notice.
(a) Notice to Lessor:
All noti·ces, demands or requests .from
Lessee to Lessor shall be given to Lessor at:
City of Santa Clara
City Hall
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Attention: Director of Public Works
( b) Notice to Lessfae:
Pil<Je 4 4
All notices, demands or requests from
Lessor to Lessee shall be given to Lessee at:
Cambrian Energy Systems
6055 East Washington Boulevard
Suite 830
Commerce,· California 90040
(cl Change of Address:
Each party shall have the right, from
time to time, to designate a different address by notice given in conformity with this Section.
(d) Multiple Parties:
If more than one Lessor or Lessee is
named in this lease, service of any notice on any of the Lessees or Lessors will be deemed service on all the Lessees or Lessors, respectively,
ARTICLE XV
ARBITRATION
15.1. Code of Civil procedure.
If any controversy shall arise between the
parties with respect to any other matters set forth in this lease and such dispute shall not be resolved by the parties within thirty (30) days after ~ither of the patties shall notify the other of its desire to arbitrate the dispute, the dispute shall be settled bi arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Part 3, Title 9 Of the Code of Civil Procedure of California, including the provisions of section 1283,05, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The arbitration shall be by a panel ~f three (3) arbitrators, one of whom must be an attorney at law actively engaged in the practice of his or her profession for at Pet<Je 45
least ten (10) years.. The arbitrators shall have no power to modify any of the provisions hereof and their jurisdiction is limited accordingly, Each party hereby consents to the entry of judgment by any court having jurisdiction in a~cordance with the decision of the arbitration pilnel: No change in the rules of arbitration which would deprive a. party of the right to be represented by counsel! to present evidence, or to cross-examine witnesses presented by the other party shall be effective in any arbitration proceeding arising out of this agreement. Any arbitration provided for herein shall be conducted in the County of Santa Clara. Notwithstanding anything set forth herein to the contrary, the parties agiee that Lessor shall have the right to institute unlawful detainer proceedings as provided for in Chapter 4 (commencing with section 1159) of Title 3 of P~rt 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the event of the occurrence of any event of default listed in Section 13.1 hereof which is not cured, subject to the rights of any Leasehold Mortgagee contained in Article x.
ARTICLE XVI
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF LESSEE
AS TO EXPERIENCE
16.1. Representations and warranties of Lessee as to
Experience.
Lessee hereby represents and warrants to Lessor
that the following facts as to Lessee's experience are true and correct:
(a) Lessee has designed, installed and
operated a Landfill Gas Collection System.
(b) Lessee has negotiated and signed at
least one contract for the purchase of power with Pacific Gas & Pc1<Je 4 6
Electric or with another major utility in the State of
California.
( c) Lessee i s cu r r en t 1 y ope r a t i n g a
Conversion system using Landfill Gas as a fuel which is producing electric power that is being purchased by a major utility in the state of California.
ARTICLE XVII
EXECUTION, RECORDING AND INCORPORATION BY REFEREN_CE
17,1. Recording.
Neither party shall record this lease without
the written consent of the other party; however, upon the request of either party, the other party shall join in the execution of a memorandum or ''short form" of this lease for the ·purpose of ' recordation. The memorandum of short form shall describe the parties, the Premises and the term of this lease and shall incorporate this lease by reference,
17.2. Execution.
This lease has been executed by the parties on
__ J:;=~'--"-"---~')~1.__, 1984, at Santa Clara, California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
· agreement as of the date first above written.
LESSOR:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF
ATTEST: By:
.City Clerk / .
C, ,.._ 1,. ,/ .·
I ( .·
page 47
LESSEE:
CAMBRIAN ENERGY SYSTEMS
a California limited partnership
By:·CAMBRIAN MANAGEMENT, INC,
a California corporation,,
as General Partner
~ /4,;/ ✓• By / (J ,t,?l«_ -v i:llL.C:«4"'1,'L
Evan G. Williams,
President
SANTA CLARA LANDFILL
CORPORATION
By:
SANTA CLARA RECLAMATION
CORPORATION
By: 6..2 ~, S, <{(,1c&~
,~ President
Pc1<Je 48
ALL PURPOSE LANDFILL COMPANY
By: ~4te,(U/V1-~ \j ' ~l ,PartnEH
. , ~ .
p.:,9e 49
APPENDIX I
PROJECT SCHEDULE
TASKS START DATE*
Testing and Evaluation Program
Testing Pr=edure Ces=iption Rep:,rt
Field Testing .
Testing and Evaluation
Pro:irarn Report
Energy Sales Negotiating
Permit Applications and APPiovals**
Project Engineering
landfill Gas Collection System
Conversion SystBU
Cetaile::i Plans, Bid
D'.xurrents and Cost Estirrate
Installation of Eguipnent/Facilities
Landfill Gas Collection SystBU***
Conv~rsion Systen
Start Up Testing
Acceptance Test
Initial Cannercial Operation
6/25/84
7/9/84
8/20/84
6/25/84
6/25/84
8/13/84
8/20/84
8/20/84
8/20/84
10/1/84
10/15/84
10/15/84
6/15/85
7/15/85
7/22/85
* Assumed Date of Execution of Lease _ _:cJun=e"--'lcc9'..J,,_,lcc9c,:8c,4 __
W!'AL PERIOD
UNI'IL CCMPk9'E
DUE DATE
Available
4 \\eeks
2 \\eeks
4 M:::mths
8 We=---ks
2 M::Jnths
6 We=-ks
6 We=__ks
6 Weeks
6 \\leeks
3 M::Jnths
8 M:mths
1 1-bnth
1 Week
(20+ Years)
TOTAL 12-1/2 /.DNI'HS
** Assumes City will issue ConditionJl Use Pennit and Negative Ceclarations issue::i by City within six (6) weeks.
*** This portion of the project could be accelerated, if required, and will be cccrdianted with golf course devcloµnent.
----J:..A.nJ..D Li >-
LEGAL r--"CRIPTION OF U\NDFILL GAS REC0\'0:,~Y PROJECT
Al 1 that certain real property situate in the City of Santa Clara, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as fol lows:
PARCEL 1
Beginning at the point of intersection of the easterly I ine of Lafayette Street (90 feet in width) with the I ine of that route of the pipe! ine described in that indenture made by and between GALLAGHER FRUIT CO. and PACIFIC. GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY and recorded in Book 592 of Official Records at page 232, Santa Clara County Records;
Thence, from said Point of Beginning, along sa_id route of the pipe! ine the following four (4) courses:
North 67° 23' East, 980.95 feet;
North 40° 03 1 East, 419, 10 feet;
North 9° 17 1 East, 114.40 feet;
North 39° 23' 30 11 East, 70,04 feet, more or less, to a point in the westerly boundary I ine of Parcel I of that real property conveyed to the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water District by that Grant Deed filed for record April 26, 1973 in Book 0346 of Official Records at page 667, said County Records;
Thence, along said boundary I ine of Parcel 1, North 35° 33' 54" West 538,55 feet; Thence, South 50° 34'· 18" West, 1,001.02 feet;
Thence, along the arc of a curve, concave to the North, having a radius of 160 feet, through a central arigle of 45° 00 1 00", an arc length of 125.66 feet; Thence, North 84° 25 1 42" West, 358.95 feet to said easterly I ine of Lafayette Street;
Thence, from a tangent bearing South 9° 40' 42" East, along said· easterly I ine, on the arc of a curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 600 feet, through a central angle of 18° 34' 18", an arc length of 194.48 feet; Thence, tangent to last said curve, continuing along sai·d easterly I ine, South 28° 15' 00" East, 548.47 feet to the Point of Beginning, and containing an Area of 21.66 Acres, more or less.
PARCEL 2
Beginning at a point in the easterly 1 i·ne of Lafayette Street (90 feet in widthi, said poirit being the most easterly point in the boundary of that parcel of teal property conveyed from the SANTA cLARA RECLAMATION CORPORATION to the City of Santa Clara by that Grant· Deed recorded in Book 9246 of Official Records at page 588, Sa.nta Clara County Records;
Thence, from said Point of Beginning along the easterly I ine of said parcel and easterly line of Lafayette Street, North 28° 15 1 West, 1528.69 feet, more or less, to intersection with the I ine of that route of the pipeline described in that indenture made by and between GALLAGHER FRUIT CO. and PACIFIC GAS ANO ELECTRIC COMPANY and recorded in Book 592 of Official Records at page 232, said County - I -
EXHJBLT l -----
Thence, along said ruute of the pipeline the fol low,:, four (4) courses; North 67° 23 1 East, 980.95 feet;
North 4o 0 03' East, 419. 10 feet;
North 9' 17' East, 114.40 feet;
North 39° 23' 30" East, 70.04 feet, more or less, to a point in the westerly l:oundary 1 ine of Parcel 1 of that real property conveyed to the SANTA CLARA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ANO WATER DISTRICT by that Grant Deed filed for record April 26, 1973 in Book 0346 of Official Records at page 667, said County Records;
Thence, along said boundary 1 ine of Parcel 1,_ South 35° 33' 54" East, 48.19 feet, more or less, to a point in the easterly boundary I ine of Parcel Two of that· real property conveyed to the SANTA CLARA RECLAl-<ATION CORPORATION by that Grant Deed fil~d for record October 19, 1970 in Book 9092 of Official Records at page 80, said County Records;
Thence, along said boundary I ine of .Parcel T=, the fol lowing three (3) courses, South 37° 57' 30" West, 2,93 feet;
South 23° 02' 3011 East, 158.40 feet;
South 55~ 32' 30" East, 108.86 feet, more or less, to the northwesterly corner of Parcel 2 of said real p_roperty conveyed to the SANTA CLARA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER DISTRICT;
Thence, along the westerly I ine of said Paree·! 2, South 35° 33' 54" East, 1678.64 feet, more or less, to a point in the southerly boundary I ine of said Parcel Two of the real property conveyed to the SANTA CLARA RECLA/-<ATION CORPORATION; Thence, along said southerly bound3ry I ine the fol I.owing four (4) co·urses; North 84° 10' 30" West, 48. 71 feet;
South 23° 53' East, 7.40 feet;
North 85° 15' West, 139.92 feet;
South 67° 45' \,/est, 443.50 feet, to the most easterly point in the boundary of Parcel Three of _last said Grant Deed;
Thence, along the southerly I ine of said Parcel Three, South 67° 45' West, .1, 159.83 feet, to the Point of Beginning,
And, containing 59,73 Acres, more· or less,
- 2 -
EXHIBIT 1
Description of Pel. 3/6 Phase 1 Lcindfill
That portion of that land conveyed to the Santa Clara Landfill Corporation-by that deed filed for record August 30, 1967 in Book 7840 of Official Records at page 199, Santa Clara County Records, bounde·d on the north by that certain 15 foot wide right-of-wav conveyed to Pacific Gas and Electric Company by that indentur~ recorded in Book 454 of Official Records at page 354, Santa Clara County Records, and by that certain 15 foot wide right-of-way. described as Part 2 and conveyed to Pacific Gas and Electric Company by that indenture recorded in Book 455 Qf Official Records at page 230; said County Records, and by that parcel of land describec in· that Final Order of Condemnation recorded in Book 558 of Official Records at page 362, said County Records, bounded on the east by that 50 foot wide easement to the Southern Pacific Railroad b~ that iLdenture recorded in Book 42 of Deeds page 127, said Count\" ?.e-::ocds and bounded on the south by a line parallel with and 60 feei ~ortherly of, measured at right angles to the southerly line of Parcels ~o. 2 and No. 3 of said deed recorded in Book 7840, and bounded on ~~e west by a line bearing South 14° 30' 00'' East, 1450.29 feet from t~a~ parcel described in said Final Order of Condemnation to said ~arallel southerly line;
And containing an atea at 35.65 acres, more or less.
- 3 -
Oirfcfor
\\ I
i
I
I._,
jC' I
V
<.,
GW
l'p,;.~
. <A A I.
( J : ,:.. s 1.,,..
nETEr,-:-1::N
BASIN
.5973eA<-
/60).33
:,;;~1a-1.s·w
'i.
5 37' S7. ,o w
.523°<:>2 .30 £
-5.S.S 0323cf
118-1~ 10· ~ow
-i-'. r,· ·1
\
\
EXH18IT 2 (pg. l of 2) .
/5, ~ -to
10-<o- 8 3 CITY OF SANTA CLARA
I
PCL 3/G
PHASE I
-35.65 ACRES
199
EXHIBIT 2 (pg. 2 of 2)
/
/ /
i
C. '
N
'
s
>-
z . <(
g (l_
= .•::--------c:-G-w -----4-,-2-3 _---,e-4--l CI TY Of SANT A CLARA PARCELS 3/6 hf.
PHASE I
)
/
I
LEASE AND OPEilATI!\G AGREEMENT
FOR LANDFILL GAS CONVERSION SYSTEMS
EXHIBIT "3"
Table of Contents
1. Non-Profit landfill Coq;oration Leases to City of Santa Clara - Santa Clara Reclamation Corp::,ration
- Santa Clara Land Fill eorp::,ration
2. City of Santa Clara Landfilling and Operating Agrearent With All Purp::,se landfill ern,pany
- Parcel 2
- Parcel 1 and Phase I Parcel 3/6
3. Proposed Golf Course Construction Developrent on Parcel 2 /\ii that ccrtilin re;:,l property situ.:itc in the City of Santa Clara, County of S.Jntil Clara, State of California, described ;,s follows:
PAR CE!-.!
Beginning at the polnt of intersection of the easter,l,y 1 ine of Lafuyette Street (90 feet In width) wl th the I lne of that route of the plpel lne describ, In that Indenture made by and betl'ieen GALLAGHER FRUIT CO. and PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY and recorded In llook 592 of Official Records at p.:ige 232, Su, Clara County Records;
Thence, from s_aid Point of Beginning, along said route of the pipeline the, fol lowing four (4) courses:
North 67° 23 1 East, 980.95 feet;
North 40° 03' East, 419, 10 feet;
North 9° 17' East, 114.110 feet;
North 39° 23 1 3011 fast, 70,04 feet, more or less, to a point in the westerly boundary line of Parcel 1 of that real property conveyed to the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water District by that Grant Deed filed for record April 26, 1973 in Book 0346 of OfficiaJ·Records at page 667, silid County Records;
Thence, along sald boundary 1 ine_ of Parcel I, North 35° 33' 54 11 West 538, 55 fl' Thence, South 50° 34' 1811 West, 1 ,ool .02 feet;
Thence, along the arc of a curve, concave to the North, havin~ a rudius of 160 through a central angle of 45° 00 1 OO", an arc length of 125.66 feet; Thence, North 84° 25 1 42" West, 358.95 'feet to said easterly l lne of Lafayette Street;
Thence, from a tangent bearing South 9° 40 1 42" East, along said eilsterly line on the arc of a curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 600 feet, throu a ce0tral angle of 18°.34 1 1811 , an arc length of 194.48 feet; Thence, tangent .to last said curve, continuing along said easterly I inc, South 28° 15' 0011 East, 548.47 feet to the Point of Beginning, and contalnlng'an Area of 21.66 Acres, more or less.
PARCEL 2
Beginning at a point In the e.:isterly l lne.of Lafayette Street (90 feet In 1·1idt said point being the most easterly point In the boundary of that pilrcel of rca property conveyed from the SANTA CLAM RECLAMATION CORPORATION to the City of Santa Clara by that Grant Deed r~cu1·ded ln Book 92~6 of Official Records at page 588, Santa Clara County Records;
' Thence, from said Point. of Beginning along the easterly I lne of said parcel an easterly l lne of Lafayette Street, North 28° 15' \,/est, 1528,69 feet, r11ore or I to intersection with the I Inc of tl,,lt route of the pipe I inc described in that indenture made by and between GAi.1./\GHER FRUIT CO. <Jnd PACIFIC GAS ANO ELECTRIC COMPANY and recor·ded in Gook 592 of Official Records at page 232, said County R,~c,-..rds:
Thrnce, ,, 1 ong said ro,,, of the pi1•cllne the follt ng four (4) courses; r;o(lh 67° 2) 1 East, 98Ci.'.J5 feet;
North 40° 03 1 East, l119.IO feet;
J(orth 9° 17 1 East, 1111.l10 feet;
North- 39• 23 1 3011 East, 70.04 feet, more or less, to a point in the ~,esterly lx,undary 1 ine of Parcel 1 of that real property conveyed to the SANTA Cl.ARA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL /\ND \./ATER DISTRICT by that Grant Deed filed for record April 26, 1973 ln Book 0346 of Official Records at page 667, said County Records;
Thence, along said boundary line of Parcel 1, South 35° 33' 5411 East, 48.19 fc, more or less, to a point ln the easterly boundary l lne of Parcel Two of_ that real property conveyed to the SANTA CLARA RECLAMATION CORPORATION by that Gr;:ini Deed filed for record October 19, 1970 ln Book 9092 of Official Records at pc,g, said County Records;
Thence, along said boundary line of Parcel Two, the fol lowing three (3) course, South 37° 57 1 3011 \.lest, 2-93 feet;
South 23° 02 1 3011 East, 158.40 feet;
South 55° 32 1 3011 East, 108.86 feet, more or less, to the northwestc1 corner of Parcel 2 of ·said real p.roperty conveyed to the SANTA CLARA COUNTY FU CO.NTROL AND WATER DISTRICT;
Thence, along the westerly I ine of .,;:iid Parcel 2, South 35°· 33' 54" East 1678.64 feet, more or less, to a point ln the southerly boundary I ine of' said Parcel Two of the real property conveyed to the SANTA CLARA RECLA/-'ATION CORPORf, Thence, along said southerly bound;:iry line the fol lowing four (4) courses; North 84° 10 1 3011 West, 48.71 .feet;
South 23° 53' East, 7 .40 feet;.
North 85° 15 I West, 139.92 feet;
• Sou th 67° 45' West, 443.50 feet, to the most easterly point in the boundary of Parcel Three of last said Grant Deed;
Thence, along the souther-ly 1 lne of said Parcel Three, South 67° 45 1 \.lest, 1,159,83 feet, to the Point of Beginning,
And~ containing 59.73 Acres, more or less.
LXJi I t1 J l "-
Dcscripti., of Pc1. 3/6 Ph,,se 1 L---rlfill
,hat portion of· that .1 and conveyed to the Santa Clara Landf i 11 Cotporation by that deed filed for record August 30, 1967 in Book 7840 of Official Records at page 199, Santa Clara County Records bounded on the north by that cerla~n 15 foot wide right-of-way ' conveyed to Pacific Gas and Electric Company by lhat indenture recorded in Book 454 of Official Records at page 354, Santa Clara County Records, and by that certain 15 ~o~t wide right-of-way described as Part 2 and conveyed to Pacific Gas and Electric Company by that indenture recorded in Book 455 of Official Records at page - 230, said County Records, and by that parcel of land described in that Fin~l Order of Conderanation recorded in Book 558 of Official Records at page 362, said County Records, b_ounded on the Ecst by that 50 foot wide easement to the Southern Pacific Railrocd by that indenture recorded in Book 42 of Deeds page 127, said County Records and bounded on the south by a li11e parallel with and 60 feet northerly of,. measured at right ang1es to the southerly line of Parcels No. 2 and No. 3 of said deed recorded in Book 7840, and bounded oc the west by a line bearing South 14° 30' 00" East, 1450.29 feet fro:r, that parcel described in said Final Order of Condemnation to said parallel southerly line;
And containing an area at 35.65 acres, more or less.
-3-
GROUND LEASE
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
AND
SANTA CLARA POLICE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE
EXHIBIT "C"
Insurance Requirements for PAL:
PAL, at its sole cost and expense, shall purchase and maintain insurance on all of its operations under this Lease for the full tenn of this Lease and the related warranty period (if applicable) as follows:
1. MINIMUM SCOPE AND POLICY LIMITS OF INSURANCE
The following policies shall be maintained with insurers autho1ized to do business in the State of California and shall be issued under fo1ms of policies satisfactory to the City:
1.1 · Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy ("CGL'').
1. 1. I Policy shall include coverage at least as bro~d as set fo1th in Insurance Services Office (herein "ISO") Commercial General Liability coverage. (Occurrence Form CG 0001) with policy limits not less than the following:
$2,000,000 each occmTence ( combined single limit);
$2,000,000 for personal injury liability; ·
$2,000,000 aggregate for products-completed operations; and, $2,000,000 general aggregate.
The general aggregate limits shall apply separately to PAL's activities under this Lease.
1.2 Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance Policy ("WC/EL").
This policy shall include at least the following coverages and policy limits:
1.2.1 · Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the laws of the State of California; and
1.2.2 Employer's Liability Insurance Coverage B with coverage amounts not less than five hundred thousand ($500,000) dollars each accident/Bodily Injury (herein "BI"); five hundred thousand ($500,000) dollars policy linlit BI by disease; and, five hundred thousand ($500,000) dollars each employee BI by disease.
EXHIBIT C Page 1 of 3
2. DEDUCTIBLES AND SELF-INSURANCE RETENTIONS
Any deductible and/or self insured retentions which apply to any of the insurance policies referred to above shall be declared in writing by Contractor and approved by the City before work is begun pursuant to the Agreement. With respect to the City, its City Council, Conunissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents, Libe1ty Mutual provides a financial guarantee to its Insured suppotied by Letter of Credit guaranteeing remittance of deductible.
3. ENDORSEMENTS
All of the following clauses and endorsements, or similar provisions, are required to be made a part of insurance policies indicated in parentheses below:
3.1 The City of Santa Clara, its Council; employees, and officers are hereby added as additional insured in respect to all liabilities arising out of PAL's perforniance of activities under this Lease (CGL & AL);
3.2 This policy shall be considered priniary insurance in respect to any other valid and collectible insurance City may possess, including any self-insured retention City may have, and, any other insurance City does possess shall be considei'ed excess insurance only and shall not be called upon to contribute with this insurance (CGL, & AL); and
3.3 No cancellation or non-renewal of this policy, or reduction of coverage afforded under the policy, shall be effective until written notice has been given at least thiity (30) days prior to the effective date of such reduction or cancellation to City at the address set forth below (CGL, AL & WC/EL).
4. CERTIFICATES FROM THIRD PARTY USERS
The groups usii1g the Propeliy under Sections 4.1.b and 4.1.c of the Lease, shall provide ce1iificates of insurance to PAL and PAL shall provide the same to City. The amounts of coverage shall be as stated in this Exhibit. In addition, PAL shall require waivers of liability (iu a form acceptable to City) from each participant in activities recited in Section 4 of the Lease.
5. PROOF OF INSURANCE COVERAGE AND COVERAGE VERIFICATION A Certificate oflnsurance, on anAccord form, and completed coverage verification shall be provided to City by each of P AL's insurance companies as evidence of the stipulated coverages prior to commencement of the Effective Date of this Lease, and amrnally thereafter for the te1m of this Lease. All of the insurance companies providing insurance for PAL shall have, and provide evidence of, a Best Rating Service rate of A VI or above.
The Certificate of Insurance and coverage verification and all other notices related to EXHIBIT C Page 2 of 3
cancellation or non-renewal shall be mailed to:
Office of the City Clerk
Attention: Deputy Director of Public Works
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
EXHIBITC Page 3 of 3
GAGLIARDI BROS INS 40836?~9?6 _____ ----'08/21 '98 14:54 N0.504 01/01 I --1s_s_U_E_O_A_TE-- ··7 -'!.~ {,!Jf:l; CERT IF ICA?::S ~:
1 1~~ ~:1:~;1:icAre Is IssuE07.:s ·, 1ArrER oF INFORM:~~: ~:L v A No GAGLIARDI BROTHERS INSURANCE CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE',.~RTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE 2380 S. BASCOM AVE SUITE 200 DOES NOT AMEN!), F.XTF.ND OR Al:i ER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED 8Y THE CAMPBEi.i., CA 95008 POLICIES BELOW.
1Nw,n:::o
(408) 369-8040
FAX (408) 369·8096
POLICE ACllVITIES LEAGUE ASSOCIATION
SANTA CLARA PAL
COMPANIES AFl'OROING COVERAGI:
COMPANY
A RWANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY CO
COMPANY
e
COMPANY
C RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY co 1671 THE ALAMEDA STE 100 SAN JOSE. CA 95126 COMPANY·-- ------~------
0 . TH!$ fS TO CErtTIFYTHATTl-\1'; POUCtes OF 1Nsi:i~M'cr::"1.ISTG.Q IJijt.OWlv\VJ; AF..EN tssurn TO TH~ INStJRl:ONAME:I) MOVE FoR'M POI.ICY PF.RIOD INO!r.ATGO N01W,TH~fl\NDING ANY rumumr:MijNT Tl;R\1 on CONDITION OF ANYCONYRACT Oil OTH!iA OOCfJMl!NTWITH RESP/:CT TO'MifCH THI$ Cl:A.Tl:"l~TE MAY IJI:; 1Ss1JF.O OA./'MY PERT/1.lNI-THE IN$1Jf1ANCI? t,Fr-Qnr)f.l) BY lHl:. POUCH~$ 01:~CRIBr:o li:iflEIN IS SVl)Jt;CT TO lt!J. WI! TEAMS. l!XCI.IJSlONSAND CONDITIONS or SUCH PQ!.!C!l!S. UMITS SHOWN MAY JiAVF. Of:.1;N Rf::IJUCEO fJY PAID CLAIMS. · -- . ····•· .. --· -·----· , POUCYixPIRATION ..•
0 l'OI.ICYNVMB!ifl POJ.!';Y lir-r-G:CTN/i C llMJTS
l '" TYPE QF INSl)/V1NCI; DATE tMMmoNY1 r.>ATF. (MM/OOl'l'Y) GENF.RAl.I.IABILITV t;>EN/:RAl MGR!iOI\Tli ,, 1.000,000 aCOMM<RC!hl, GP.NORN. (!MU.ITV NGB2670937 NOV 1597 NOV 16 98 PR001;cti.c0Mi>raf> AGG. ' 1,000.000 ~-=]U\•M' MNJC I ~J OCCUit Pli:R~ON.Al & MV INJURY $ 1,000,000 A l ov-mr:1rs ~ coNTnl\cron-s pnor. r#..i-i.OCr.unr.u:mcr; ' 1,000,000 ~[Nf;llJl)ES ATMUiTIC PAAT!C!PA,"ITS FIRE OArl.AG!;:(My Ofl? Flro} ·r G0,000 li!if f!:Xj>J;,."'"l'"'Y Uli9 t'GllM r- ·- G.OOo
AUTOMOSII.E LIABILITY I COMBftW) SrNGu: l.!MfT ··-· ANY /\IJTO ' .. -· ---- All OV/NEOAUTOS aoou.v 1NJuRY ·- SCl-11::0Ul.l:O AUTOS (PMPey,10-:m) , ,_ HIAF.I) AUTIJS ... -··-· - - - .. -- 1300ft Y INJIJRY ' NON,QWNf:0 AVTQS (P'lrAr,,-;~,;n\J - ··-- .... PflOPr::RTY Oi\MAt21;' ' ···-··
GARAGF- I.IABILITY AIJTO ONL V.-1:AACClOG!IT ' . . :.~ ANY NJfO OTMF.R rnAW/'11;ro OHL v: ,--· .
MCI--I_ACCtOENT r··
i ---······ AGGR!iGATG '
.....
. L•~»n.11 T ,-~Cl~-~CCVIUH,;NCI: f 1,000,000
cH<1JWlR~r.Lh r-oRM NEA2670938 NOV 1597 NOV 1598
AOGRl:GA'l'E ·t--·· i ,000,000
OTHER THAN VMJJRGl.ll\ ~O~M i
WORKER'S COMPENSATION ANO STATVTORY l1M!T6 , ... I
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY IMCI-( ACC!OENT i~· ..
Tl-t8 Pf\OPRleTOIV I ~j me,
D!Sl:ASE-P0i.icv f.1MfT "
f>Af\rttEl\$/F.X.f:CUTIVJ: •... 1:XCl. ' OFFlt;!,RS MG; O!SF.A.SG·F..ACH P.MPI.OYEE s OTHER .. .•..... .. •-•-··-·-· ---- '--· .... ····-·-·------·•--- ·-···· •.n· -· : " •
CITY OF SANTA Cl.ARA IS AC>r.>F.r.> AS AN AODITIDNAL INSURED BUT ONLY WITH RESPF.CT TO I.IASII.ITV ARISING OUT OF OPERATIONS OF THE POLICE ACTIVITIES I.F.AGUE ASSOCIATON FOR THE PERIOD OF 11-15-97 TO 11-15• 98, ALL POLICY TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY.
I CERTIFICATEHDL~E._fl __ _
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
PARKS & RECREATION DEPT
1600 WARBURTON AVE
SANTA Cc;;:1;; ~W.,(,
-~----~C_'\J,lfE.LI.ATION · .. . . . .. , ...
SHOULD ANY QF TW: MOVI'! OF.SCRIOF.O POI.ICl!:S BP.. CAN~EU.1:0 01::FOR.!: THE EXPIRATION OATE THl:.RE0/1. nm ISSUING COMP-ANYWILl.r:.NJ>GAVOR TO MAil 3o) O/\Y,S. WRITTEN NOTtt;li TO Tl1fi Cl;ATll"ICA"J'F, 11O1.OliA N/\MF.!) TO THI: LEIT nvr f/\(11UAF. TO MAIi. l!lJCH NOTICI:: Sl-fN.l. !MPOS~ NIJQBLIGATION OR I.W111.ITY OF ANY }(rr,,r,, IJPONnlr:: COMPANY. ITS IIO"NT~ OR REPRf:SE~TATIVF.S. _J
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
AGENDA l\1ATERIAL ROUTE SHEET
Council Date: January 27, 2004
SUBJECT: Amendment 1 to the PAL/BMX Ground Lease.
CERTIFICATION
The proposed Amendment #1 to the existing Ground Lease between the City and the Police Activities League (PAL), executed in August 1998, modifies Exhibit A, which defines the 12 acre boundaiics of the site and speaks to the requirement for a Special Permit from the City to have overnight vehicle camping on the closed landfill site. Additionally, the Amendment adds language that clarifies Pal's need to seek all necessary approvals for constructing on the closed landfill.
PUBLICATION REQUIRED:
The attached Notice/Resolution/Ordinance is to bepublished __ time(s) at least __ days before the scheduled meeting/public heating/bid opening/etc., which is scheduled for _________ , 200_ AUTHORITY SOURCE FOR PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT:
Federal Codes:
Title ______ U.S.C. § _____ _
(Titles rim I througl, 50)
Federal Regulations:
Title _____ C.F.R. § _____ _
(Titles rtlll 1 through 50)
City
California Codes:
Code---,---~~-§ _____ _ (i.e., Go••emme11t, Street aud Highway, Public Resources) California Regulations:
Title __ C(l/ifomi" Code of Reg11/(lfio11s §_. _
(Titles ru11 l t!trough 28) ·
City Charter§ _____ (i.e., 1310. Public Works Contracts. Notice published at least once at least ten days before bid ope11ing) City Code§ _____ _
1. 2.
3. As to City Functions, by
As to Legality, by
As to Environmental
hnpact Requirements, by
4. As to Substance, by
S:\Agenda Report Processing\Agenda Material Route Sheet Rev I0-02 ----1.....-----------
Cit Manager
Al'1ENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
AND THE
SANTA CLARA POLICE ACTIVITY LEAGUE
PREAMBLE
.)7"
This agreement ("Amendment No. 1 ") is made and entered into on this 28th day of January, 2004, ("Effective Date") by and between the City of Santa Clara, California, a chattered California municipal corporation, ("City") and Santa Clara Police Activity League Incorporated, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation ("PAL"). PAL and City may be refened to herein individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties" or the "Parties to this Amendment No. I."
RECITALS
A. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled "GROUND LEASE," dated August 25, 1998 (the "Original Agreement"), for the purpose of having PAL construct and maintain a bicycle motocross facility for youth activities; and
B. The Parties now wish to amend the O1iginal Agreement to provide for a revised definition of the lease and other related issues.
In consideration of the above Recitals and the following mutual covenants and obligations, the· Parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
I. The parties agree to the following definitions.
A.) Properly. ("Property") The Property shall consist of all of the real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached and incorporated by this reference. The use of the Property by PAL is limited to the Permitted Use and activities in the Prope1ty recited in Section 4 of this Amended Lease. PAL acknowledges that the Property is a closed landfill, with landfill gas collection system appmtenances, and that activities on the Prope1ty are governed and permitted by state, county and local regulations. PAL promises and covenants that the landfill cover and subsurface materials shall not be disturbed by P AL's development and construction.
B.) . All references to Pacific Energy in the Original Agre'ement are and is replaced with Covanta Energy. Covanta Energy is the successor in interest to Pacific Energy.
Amendment No. 1 To: PAL Lease Agreement
Rev: 1/21/04
2. That paragraph number 4.1, entitled "Permitted Use," of Section 4 of the Original Agreement, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Pal shall use the Property solely for the puqioses of development of a bicycle motocross dirt track, (hereafter referred to as "BMX Track") at no cost to the City. PAL shall make the BMX track available for Santa Clara community use, and shall offer the BMX track as an enhancement of youth sports in the City. The Prope1iy shall not be used for any other purpose than specified in the tenns of this Amended Lease Agreement.
3. That paragraph 4.4, entitled "Responsibility for Compliance with Laws," of Section 4 of the Original Agreement, is amended to add the following:
The scope of this agreement is a controlled expansion of the original lease agreement. PAL shall be allowed to have a range of structures on the Property that are conducive to BMX racing. The structures on the prope1ty must be in compliance with postclosure plans as well as state, county and local rules and regulations. The Prope1iy is located on the surface of a closed landfiil. PAL shall only place on the Property approved utilities to support tlw various structures on the site. Placard warnings shall be posted on the structures as appropriate.
3. That paragraph number 4.3, entitled "Security Responsibilities," of Section 4 of the Original Agreement, is hereby amended to read as follows:
PAL shall provide, at P AL's sole cost and expense, secmity sufficient to provide for ·the safe use of the Property. The security shall be sufficient to address safety issues raised by the · pcnnitted uses recited in Section 4.1. PAL shall, to the best of their ability, protect the fence with gates around the perimeter of the Property. This fence shall not be removed at any time without written pennission granted by the City.
A fence will be installed by the City to define the perimeter of the Prope1iy. Gates shall be provided at specified locations as defined by City along the fence to be used for ingress and egress by Covanta Power and City employees to allow for maintenance of the site and facilities.
4. That paragraph number 4.6, entitled "Responsibility for use of Motor Vehicles," of Section 4 of the Original Agreement, is hereby amended to add the following:
4.6.3 Overnight stays on the property will follow all Santa Clara City Code ·Sections, including Section 18.60.060. Overnight stays on the prope1ty shall be governed by a Special Permit as approved by the City Council.
Since the Property is located on a closed landfill, at no time shall a recreational campsite be established. Therefore, no temporary or pernrnnent tents, campfires, use of barbecues, or other types of flammable materials shall be allowed on the Property.
5. That paragraph number 4.7, entitled "Responsibility for Site Development," of Section 4 of the Original Agreement, is hereby amended to read as follows: · · Amendment No. 1 To: PAL Lease Agreement
Rev: 1/21/04
PAL shall develop the Property and perf01rn construction activities related to the approved improvements in a mam1er which does not disturb the existing landfill cover and/or site drainage. No construction, excavation, movement of soil or use of machine1y activities to constmct any of the approved improvements listed in paragraph 4.1 shall be permitted without prior approval of the City. Final detailed construction and development plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to submission to required regulat01y agencies, including the California Integrated Waste Management Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board-San Francisco Bay Region, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, County of Santa Clara Environmental Health Department (Local Enforcement Agent for Site), for approvals, as stated in Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations The cost of planning, design, pennit approvals, construction and maintenance activities associated with this Lease shall be b01i1e solely by PAL. PAL shall ensure that City receives c.opies of all submitted permit applications, correspondence, notices and approvals.
PAL shall enstire for itself, its agents and its contra<;tors that all of the environmental control facilities and appurtenances located on the Property have been inspected and confirmed by State, County and/or local rules and regulations, whichever is applicable. PAL shall take appropriate measures to protect these facilities, as stated in Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations. Any dmirnges to such facilities shall be reported immediately to the City Street Depmiment at ( 408) 984-3080, or ( 408) 984-5131 after work hours.
PAL shall conduct all activities on the Property in such a manner as to not impact the underlying landfill. PAL acknowledges that the Property is a former landfill and that uses of, activities and operations on, the landfill are limited by law, regulating agencies, and by the site closure plan. PAL agrees to petition the City for new or amended site closure plans before commencing with any developments on the Prope1ty, as stated in the original lease agreement and in compliance with the primary lessee of the property, Covanta Energy, or its successor(s) in interest. After City Approval, City will then forward the detailed plans for any proposed development to the appropriate local, state and federal agencies in order to obtain a new closure plan. PAL shall allow City and Covanta Energy access to the site at any time if access is necessary to facilitate landfill closure or maintenance requirements ..
The allowed improvements on the Prope1ty as desc1ibed in paragraph 4.1 must comply with all applicable state, county and local regulations. Smoke detectors (electric with battery backup) and methane detectors ( electric with batte1y backup) must be installed and maintained in required buildings as stated in Title 27 of the California•Code of Regulations.
7. Section 9 of the Original Agreement, entitled "Assignment and Subletting" is hereby amended to read as follows:
PAL may not sublet, or assign, or subordinate its leasehold interests in the Prope1ty or otherwise sell, transfer or convey any right, title or interest which PAL may have in the Prope1ty, without first obtaining the written consent of City, which consent may be given or Amendment No. 1 To: PAL Lease Agreement
Rev: 1/21/04
Pagc3 ofS
withheld at City's sole and absolute discretion. Any change in P AL's status as a non-profit corporation or in the rights of its members or any merger or consolidation of PAL with any other entity, (whether in one transaction or as a result of a series of transactions) shall constitute an assignment by PAL of this Lease for the Purposes of this Section 9.
Notwithstanding the tenns of this paragraph 9, PAL may contract with the national BMX organization for competitions. However, terms and conditions of any such contracts must meet City standards including all City mandated insurance requirements. All such contracts must include compliance with the policy limits and endorsements as set fo1ih in the "Standard City Insurance Requirements" set forth in Exhibit C attached and incorporated by this reference.
Additional Insurance requirements may be asked for by the City to ensure the City is indemnified and held harmless for any activities that occur on the Prope1iy by PAL or its subleasees.
Separate contracts must be entered into for every individual event with others.
8. All other terms of the Original Agreement which ate not in conflict with the provisions of this Amendment No. 1 shall remain unchanged in full force and effect. In case of a conflict in the te1rns of the Original Agreement and this Amendment No. 1, the provisions of this Amendment No. 1 shall control.
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Amendment No. 1 To: PAL Lease Agreement
Rev: 1/21/04
Page4 ofS
The Paiiies acknowledge ai1d accept the terms and conditions of this Amendment No. 1 as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives. It is the intent of the Parties that this Amendment No. I shall become operative on the Effective Date first set fotih above.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
a chartered California municipal corporation
APPROVED AS TO FORM: &~( ~e10UJ~
(1/ MICHAEL R. DOWNEY j J-.. JEi-lNIFER SPARACINO .
City Attorney- ,' City Manager ·
ATTEST:
"City"
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408)615-2210
Facsimile: ( 408)241-6771
SANTA CLARA POLICE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE, INC.,
a California non-profit public benefit corporation
By:
Type or Print Name: Vern Deto
Title: President
Address: 601 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA
Telephone: (408) 615-4880
Facsimile: ( 408) 296-1346
"PAL"
I:\CTYMNGRS\Agreements\2004\PAL-BMX Amendment I.doc
Amendment No. -1 To: PAL Lease Agreement
Rev: 1/21/04
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
STANDARD INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT II C II
PAL, and its subcontractor(s), if any, shall purchase and maintain the insurance policies set forth below on all of its operations under this Agreement at its/their sole cost and expense. Such policies shall be maintained for the full term of this Agreement and the related warranty period (if applicable). For purposes of the insurance policies required under this Agreement, the tenn "City" shall include the duly elected or appointed council members, connnissioners, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers of the City of Santa Clara, California, individually or collectively.
1. MINilVlUJVI SCOPE AND Lll\'IITS OF REQUIRED INSURANCE POLICillS.
The following policies shall be maintained with insurers authorized to do business in the State of California and shall be issued under fonns of policies satisfactory to the City:
a. COMJVIERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY ("CGL").
Policy shall include coverage at least as broad as set forth in h1surance Services Office (herein "ISO") Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Fann CG 0001) with policy limits not less than the following:
$1,000,000 each occurrence (combined single limit);
$1,000,000 for personal injury liability;
· $1,000,000 aggregate for products-completed operations; and, $1,000,000 general aggregate applying separately to this project. b. BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY POLICY ("BAL").
Policy shall include coverage at least as broad as set forth in h1surance Services Office Business Automobile Liability coverage, Symbol 1 "Any Auto" (Form CA 0001). This policy shall include a minimum combined single limit of not less than mie million ($1,000,000) dollars for each accident, for bodily injmy and/or prope1iy damage.
c. WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
INSURANCE POLICY ("WC/EL"). (A Workers' Compensation Policy is required to cover PAL employees and volunteers.)
These policies shall include at least the following coverages and policy limits:
1. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the laws of the State of California; and
Standard Insurance Requirements
REV: 5/25100 Page1of3
2. Employer's Liability insurance with coverage amounts not less than one million ($1,000,000) dollars each accident/Bodily Injmy (herein "BI"); one million ($1,000,000) dollars policy limit BI by disease; and, one million ($1,000,000) dollars each employee BI by disease.
2. DEDUCTIBLES AND SELF-INSURANCE RETENTIONS.
Any deductibles and/or self insured retentions which apply to any of the insurance policies referred to above shall be declared in writing by PAL and approved by the City before work is begun pursuant to this Agreement. At the option of the City, PAL shall either reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions or provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and/or defense expenses.
3. ENDORSEMENTS.
All of the following clauses and endorsements, or similar provisions, are required to be made a part of the required insurance policies indicated in parentheses below:
a. Additional Insureds The City of Santa Clara, its City Council, connnissions, officers and employees are hereby added as additional insureds in respect to liability arising out of the P AL's work for the City, providing coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office (ISO) Endorsement CG 2010, 1985 Edition, or insurer's equivalent (CGL);
b. General Aggregate The general aggregate limits shall apply separately to P AL's work under this Agreement providing coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office (ISO) Endorsement CG 2503, 1985 Edition, or insurer's equivalent (CGL); c. Primary Insurance This policy shall be considered primaty insurance with respect to any other valid and collectible insurance City may possess, including any selfinsured retention City may have, and any other insurance City does possess shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not be called upon to contribute with this insurance (CGL & BAL); and
d. Notice of Cancellation No cancellation shall be effective until written notice has been given at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such cancellation to City at the address set forth below, except the insurer may give ten (10) days notice for non-payment ofpreminm (CGL, CAL & WC/EL & PL).
4. DEDUCTIBLES AND SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS (SIR)
Deductibles and self-insured retentions (SIR) must be declared (all Policies).
5. ABSENCE OF INSURANCE COVERAGE.
Standard Insurance Requirements
REV: 5125/00 Page 2 of 3
City may direct PAL to immediately cease all activities with respect to this Agreement if the City determines that PAL fails to cmTy, in full force and effect, all insurance policies with coverages at or above the limits specified in this Agreement. Any delays or expense caused due to stopping of work and change of insurance shall be considered P AL's delay and expense. At the City's discretion, under conditions of lapse, City may purchase. appropriate insurance and charge all costs related to such policy to PAL.
6. PROOF OF INSURANCE COVERAGE AND COVERAGE VEIUFICATION.
A Certificate of Insurance, on an Accord form, and implementing endorsements shall be provided to City by each of P AL's insurance companies as evidence of the stipulated coverages prior to commencement of work under this Agreement, and annually thereafter at least ten (10) days prior to tennination of existing coverage for the term of this Agreement.
City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by this Agreement at any time. All of the insurance companies providing insurance for PAL shall have, and provide evidence of, a Best Rating Service rate of "A VI" or above.
The Certificate of Insurance and coverage verification and all other notices related to cancellation shall be mailed to:
City of Santa Clara [City Manager's Office]
c/o Insurance Data Services - Insurance Compliance
P.O.12010-S2 or 151 North Lyon Avenue
Hemet, CA 92546-8010 Hemet, CA 92543
Telephone: (909) 766-2280
FAX: (909) 766-2299
f:_\CTYMNGRS\Agreements\2004\PAL-BMX Amendment I .doc
Stnndnrd Insurance Requirements
REV: 5/25/00 Pnge3of3
' ..J90 1/ 13 05:42p p.1
Ehix Insurance No, _____ _
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO THE GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
AND
SANTA CLARA POLICE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE
PREAMBLE
This agreement ("Amendment No. 2") is made and entered into on thisl-ili.-day of December, 2013, ("Effective Date") by and between Santa Clara Police Activities ~e, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, wi1h its principal place of business located at 301 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California 95050 ("PAL"), and 1fte City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation with its primary business address at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050 {"City''). City and Contractor may be referred to individually as a "Party'' or collectively as the "Parties" or the "Patties to this Amendment No. 2"
RECITALS
A. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled "GROUND LEASE", dated August 25, [998 (the "Original Agreement"); and
B. Tue Original Agreement was previously amended by Amendment No. I, dated January 27, 2004. The Original Agreement and all previous amendments are collectively refen-ed to herein as the "Original Agreement as Amended"; and
C. The Parties entered into tb.c Original Agreement as Amended for the purpose of having PAL construct and maintain a bicycled motocross facility for youth activities, and the Parties now wish to amend the Original Agreement as Amended to provide for revised lease terms.
The Parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
1. AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
A. The parties agree to the following definitions.
All references to Covanta Energy in the Original Agreement as Amended are and is replaced with Ameresco Santa Clara, LLC ("Ameresco"). Ameresco is the successor in interest to Covanta Energy.
All references to "Initial Tenn", "Initial Term and any Extended Term" and "Lease Term" in the Original Agreement as Amended are and is replaced with "Tenn".
Amendment No. 2 to Agreement/PAL BMX
Rev. 06/22/12: Typed: 12/4/13
Page I of3
Oeo 17 13 05:42p
"B. Sect\on 2 of the Original Agreement as Amended, entitled "Lease Tenn" is hereby amended to read as foliows:
p.2
Ille term of !his Lease ("Tenn") shal\ c1Jmm~nc<:i on th.11 dam of execution of this Lease by all of the Parties (tb.e "Lease C-Ommencement Date") and shall continue for a period expiring February 29, 2016 (the "Lease Expiration Date"), unless sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions hereof. With the written consent of the City (signed on behalf of the City by the City Manager and approved as to form as provided below), PAL may remain after on a month to month basis on all the other terms of this lease, except that such tenancy may be terminated on fifteen (15) days v.'fitten notice given by either City or PAL.
C. That paragraph number 2.1, entitled "Option to Extend'' of Section 2 of the Original Agreement as Amended, is deleted.
D. Section 8 of the Original Agreement M Amended, entitled, "Entry by City" is hereby amended to read as follows:
City, and its agents, employees, and independent contractors, and any third party granted pennission by the City, shall have the right, at all times during the Term, to enter into or upon the Property or any Improvements thereon for any purpose whatsoever, including, without limitation, for purposes of inspecting, surveying, testing, and conducting any other investigations or inquiries related to the potential future development of the Property. Any such inspections, surveys, testlng, investigations, or inquiries conducted at the Property by a third party granted permission by the City shall be at the sole cost and expense of the third party.
E. That Section 19 entitled "Hold Over" of the Original Agreement as Amended is deleted.
F. That paragraph number 20.2, entitled "Delivery" is hereby amended to replace the following:
Notice to PAL:
SANTA CLARA POLICE ACTMTIES LEAGUE
601 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95050
2. TERMS
All other terms of the Original Agreement as Amended which are not in conflict with the provisions of this Amendment No. 2 shall remain unchanged in full force and effecL In case of a confHct in the tenns of the Original Agreement as Amended and this Amendment No. 2, the provisions of this Amendment No. 2 shall control.
Amendment No, 2 to Agreement/PAL BMX
Rev. 9/4/13; Typed: 12/4/13 Page2of3
ueo 17 13 05:43p p,3
3. COUNTERPART/FACSIMILE SIGNATURE
This Agreement may be executed in co1mterparls, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but both of which shall constitute one and the same instrument; and, the Parties agree that signatures on this Agreement, including those transmitted by facsimile, shall be sufficient to bind the Parties.
The Parties acknowledge and accept the tenns and conditions of this Amendment No. 2 as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives. It ls the intent of the Parties that this Amendment No. 2 shall become operative on the Effective Date first set forth above.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
a chartered California m1micipal corporation
Af~
RICHARD E. NOSKY, JR.
City Attorney
ROD DlRIDON, JR.
City Clerk
"CITY"
City Manager
1500 Wai:burton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
SANTA CLARA POLICE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE, INC.,
a California non-profit public benefit corporation
Name:
"'~~
~oursiere /
Title: ...:P:..:re=si::::d:.::en:.:;t,,_, .::_P::cA::::L:..:B::.o::::ard=.;;oc;:.f.::Dc:.irc.:ecc::t::ooccrs:'..._ _______ _ Local Address: 601 El Camino Real ~'--''-----'~=---=-.cc-""--------~------ S ant a Clara, CA 95050
Email Address: _,_l'<.c..09'.......,4'}.l=b)c-,jf-"4r.,_ . ...,QJ,l.K=-""'{et,..µ.~~B::':a· _.,1,,'f-!i/J='-.M"'--'-1..1ald"'--!...rn!...!:_ __ ~ Telephone: _(~4~0-'-8.,_)-"-6~15_-4~8"'"8-'--0--,--__ I ________ _ Fax: < l I --'"--'-------.;..,,------------ up AL''
I:\AGRBEMBNTS\2013v\MENDMENTNO 2ro,lsed -llMX.DOC
Amendment No. 2 to Agreement/PAL BMX
Rev. 9/4/13; Typed: 12/4/13 Pnge3 of3
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-667 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Discussion and Action on Contracting with the Current Downtown Precise Plan Consultant, WRT, to Prepare a Financial Analysis for Moving City Hall to a Location within the Eight Blocks of the Original Downtown (Lafayette, Benton, Monroe, Homestead)
COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency, and Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development
BACKGROUND
At the April 19, 2022 City Council hearing, a written petition was submitted by resident Mary Grizzle on behalf of the members of Reclaiming our Downtown (Attachment 1) requesting that the Council agendize a discussion and action for contracting with the current Downtown Precise Plan consultant, WRT, to study the four following financial benefits of moving City Hall to a location within the eight blocks of the original Downtown (Lafayette, Benton, Monroe, Homestead):
1. The financial benefits and construction savings of moving City Hall to an 8+ story mixed-use (offices) building;
2. An updated and complete analysis of the advantages of selling the acreage used by City Hall on its current location on Warburton Avenue;
3. The substantial increase in private investment after a City Hall has been brought back to Downtown as evidenced by several other American cities studied by Reclaiming our Downtown; and
4. Financial benefit of a “completed Downtown” to the tax revenue of Santa Clara.
The City Council approved placing the item on a subsequent agenda for further study and discussion.
DISCUSSION
At the December 16, 2021 Downtown Community Task Force (DCTF) meeting, the DCTF asked a similar question of the City’s consultant assisting with the preparation of the Downtown Precise Plan (WRT). WRT provided the following information on scope and schedule to the DCTF along with a potential cost of $258,000 - $334,000.
Potential Study Scope:
· Land Use Layout Options
· City Hall floorplans, and floor plates are specific to that type of use (council chambers, permit center, etc.)
· Economic Analysis, which should include:
o Look at existing City Hall property and land value, as well as, the land value of the City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-667 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
property downtown. What would be more beneficial to the city cost wise? o Analyze other uses on the existing City Hall site.
o How to pay for the move? (bond, sell existing city hall property?) o Possibility of a public/private partnership (selling city owned land) o Consider prevailing wage and construction costs in the analysis o Review the example sites mentioned by the DCTF, how did they move their city halls, how does Santa Clara compare to them, and what constraints Santa Clara may have that these cities in other states may not have had.
Potential Process and Timeline (six months +/-)
· Program Confirmation
· Concept Development and test-fitting
· Financial Evaluation
· Additional Concept Refinement
· Final Options Report
· Assume three meetings with the Downtown Community Task Force and other necessary team and city coordination meetings.
This information provided to the DCTF by WRT was preliminary and further refinement and detail would be needed to define a scope of work to study the financial implications of moving City Hall to a location within the Downtown Precise Plan boundary. There is currently no budget associated with this request and a funding source would need to be identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report except for staff time. Should the City Council direct staff to work with WRT on a contract amendment with a scope of work to study the financial implications of moving City Hall Downtown, an item will be placed on a future City Council agenda with a budget action to fund the contract amendment for up to approximately $334,000. If direction is provided to fund the contract amendment, the use of General Fund Land Sale Reserve funds would be needed to fund the study. It should be noted that the potential use of these funds shall be made within the context of ongoing General Fund budget constraints and other unfunded Council priorities.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-667 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct staff to work with WRT on a contract amendment with a scope of work to study the financial implications of moving City Hall Downtown and the associated cost for action on a future agenda.
2. Take no action.
3. Any other City Council Action, as determined by the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff makes no recommendation.
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director, Community Development Department Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Written petition submitted by Mary Grizzle
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
Please provide the information requested. below. When complete. please submit to the City Clerk's Office, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 950-50.
Date: April 7, 2022
1, Mary Grizzle , am hereby requesting to be placed on the Santa Ciara City Council Agenda for the foiiowing purpose:
The members of Reclaiming Our Downtown are formally asking Council to place on the 4/12/22 Council Agenda an up or down VOTE on a study of the following 4 financial benefits of moving City Hall to a location within the 8 blocks of the original Downtown (Lafayette Benton Monroe Homestead). We would like the current Downtown Urban Planning firm WRT to study: 1) The financial benefits and construction savings of moving City Hall to an 8+ story mixed-use (offices) building; 2) An updated and complete analysis of the advantages of selling the acreage 11sed by City Hall an its cmceot lacaliao an Wach11rtan; 3) The s11hstaotial increase in private investment after a City Hall has been brought back to Downtown as evidenced by several other American cities studied by Reclaiming Our Downtown; 4) Financial benefit of a "completed Downtown" to the tax revenue of Santa Clara.
I understand that it is important that I attend the meeting in the event there are any questions the Council wishes to ask me.
NAME: -===M=a=ry=G= rizz= le============
ADDRESS: 1167 Monroe Street
Street
Santa Clara 95050
City Zip Code
TELEPHONE:'" 408 2421851 --------------- 0 p ti on a I
April 7, 2022 DATE: _______________ _
*NO"fE: Thlt, 1$' a pub'Jc document. ,f your tetephon,f number f8 urnlsted or If you do not want It- to be public, please provide an alternate number where you can be reached.
S:\CilyCJerk\FORMS AND INFORMATION FOR St
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-594 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Action on the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan Including: Adoption and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Prepared to Analyze the Potential Environmental Impacts for the Project and an Associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; Adoption of a General Plan Text Amendment to Add Language Regarding the Creation of Additional Future Focus Areas, the Redesignation of Land Outside of Focus Areas, Creation of the New Very High-Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) Designation, and Adoption of a General Plan Amendment to Create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, Bounded by Great America Parkway to the West, Mission College Boulevard to the North, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the East, and Highway 101 to the South; Adoption of the Greystar General Plan Amendment to Change the Designation of the Greystar Site from High Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) (Maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Units/Acre); and Adoption of the Planned Development Rezoning for the Greystar Site, Which Would Allow up to 1,100 Units on a 13.3 Gross Acre Site Bounded by Freedom Circle to the West, Mission College Boulevard to the North, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the East and Highway 101 to the South
COUNCIL PILLAR
Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing, and Transportation Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject item before the City Council combines actions on a privately initiated General Plan Amendment and a City initiated General Plan Amendment. The private Amendment was initiated by Greystar Development (Greystar) and would change the City’s General Plan Land Use Designation from High Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre) to allow the development of up to 1,100 multi-family dwelling units on a 13.3 acre site in North Santa Clara between Freedom Circle and San Tomas Aquino Creek on the north side of US Highway 101. The accompanying City Initiated General Plan Amendment would create a new Future Focus Area in the General Plan for a larger 108 acre area encompassing the Greystar site and extending westward to Great America Parkway (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEAQ), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment and related approvals. The EIR analyzes program-level impacts of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. Key findings from the EIR are summarized below.
As discussed below and in the attached Report to the Planning Commission, the General Plan Amendment proposed by Greystar along with the creation of a new Future Focus Area within the General Plan will allow for intensified land uses within the northern part of the City, supporting future economic development while also providing near-term and long-term capacity for new housing City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 14 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-594 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
development. In doing so, the General Plan Amendments will support City goals for efficient land use and future growth. The Freedom Circle Future Focus Area will be in close proximity to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, which is the north-south spine of the City’s active transportation network, and will have proximity to employment and other commercial uses that support the continued development and prosperity of North Santa Clara as a more urban regional job center.
The City Council is being asked to conduct a public hearing and take four actions related to the creation and adoption of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the associated Greystar General Plan Amendment (the project):
1) Adoption and certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts for the project and an associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
2) Adoption of a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area; 3) Adoption of the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51- 100 Dwelling Unit/Acre); and
4) Adoption of the Planned Development Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south.
The Planning Commission heard and deliberated on the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the Greystar project (Attachment 3) on April 13, 2022. Public speakers at the Planning Commission meeting included a number of members of labor unions, some supporting and some opposing approval of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the Greystar General Plan amendment.
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project as recommended by staff with the following modification:
1) Change the proposed bike lanes in the Future Focus Area from Class II on-street bike lanes to Class IV separated bikeways.
BACKGROUND
In 2016, Greystar submitted a proposal to the City to redevelop a 13.3 acre site in North Santa Clara between Freedom Circle and San Tomas Aquino Creek on the north side of US Highway 101 from low intensity commercial office use to a high intensity mixed-use development featuring residential and office towers. Rather than proceed independently with a General Plan Amendment (GPA) specific to the Greystar site, the City Council directed staff to process the General Plan Amendment along with an amendment to the City’s General Plan to designate the Greystar site and adjacent properties to the west and north as a Future Focus Area in the City’s General Plan, thereby establishing additional commercial and residential development capacity for the larger area. Greystar has been funding the Future Focus Area process while also moving forward with a GPA application for their site and an accompanying development proposal for up to 1,100 multi-family dwelling units.
The Freedom Circle area (shown in Attachment 1) is not currently designated for conversion to City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 14 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-594 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
residential uses under any phase of the 2010 - 2035 General Plan, but rather planned over the longterm to be preserved for employment uses. The existing buildings in the Freedom Circle area are a mix of concrete tilt-ups, office towers, and single-use commercial buildings such as the Santa Clara Marriott Hotel and Pedro’s Cantina. The Greystar site, which sits directly north of 101 and directly west of San Tomas Aquino Creek, is undeveloped.
The proposed Freedom Circle Future Focus Area (Attachment 2) encompasses approximately 108 gross acres in an employment-rich area of northern Santa Clara, comprising several moderateintensity office and industrial parks accompanied by surface parking, along with the Santa Clara Marriott Hotel. The Plan Area is bounded by San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east, Great America Parkway to the west, Great America Theme Park to the north, and US-101 to the south. It is proximate to a range of regional destinations and amenities, including Levi’s Stadium, Great America Theme Park, and the Santa Clara Convention Center.
The vision for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area is an intensely urban environment, with Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard retaining their commercial character while sites along Freedom Circle could be converted to high-intensity residential use. As indicated in the Notice of Preparation circulated on June 26, 2020, the proposed Future Focus Area would support up to 2,500 residential dwelling units in addition to the 1,100 units proposed through the Greystar GPA, for a total of 3,600 dwelling units. The Future Focus Area designation will also add the potential to develop 2 million square feet of office space beyond the current General Plan capacity, allowing a total of 9.6 million square feet of potential office/industrial development. The addition of new residentially designated land will help the City achieve its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals for housing production. The parcels designated High Intensity Office/R&D are currently developed with approximately 2.35 million square feet of building space.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission heard and deliberated on the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the Greystar project (Attachment 3) on April 13, 2022. The following discussion summarizes the Planning Commission hearing discussion and actions. Additional staff analysis is provided in the attached Report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 4).
Staff provided a presentation on the proposed project and noted that the City received a letter from the law firm of Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo shortly before the hearing (Attachment 5). The letter raises issues around the consistency of the proposed Focus Area Plan with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, and issues regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR including the amount of detail in the biological surveys; concerns about building design and the potential for bird strikes; and the lack of a quantitative health risk analysis.
Public speakers at the Planning Commission meeting included a number of members of labor unions, some supporting and some opposing approval of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the Greystar General Plan amendment.
Issues Raised by Public Testimony
The law firm Adams Broadwell brought up several issues relating to the proposed General Plan amendment and environmental analysis, which were responded to as follows:
· General Plan Consistency Issues: The Commenter cited to an existing General Plan policy City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 14 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-594 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
requiring the adoption of a comprehensive plan prior to rezoning within a future focus area, claiming that the City was acting inconsistently with that policy. Staff responded that Freedom Circle is not one of the existing future focus areas in the General Plan, and explained that a new policy is being added to allow for the rezoning in combination with the creation of new future focus areas.
· Diesel Particulate Matter: The correspondence and testimony provided by the law firm Adams Broadwell argued that the qualitative health risk analysis (HRA) did not provide sufficient detail to comply with CEQA, and that the City needed to perform a quantitative analysis. However, CEQA does not require a quantitative HRA, and staff explained that the qualitative analysis, along with the project’s proposed mitigation measures, were sufficient. · Analysis of the possibility of bird strike resulting from the Greystar development: Adams Broadwell indicated that the proposed elevations for the Greystar project could cause bird strike issues, especially because of the proximity of the project to a riparian corridor. Staff and the project consultant indicated that the proposed project elevations were conceptual, and would be reviewed for consistency with bird safety standards per the City’s standard condition for bird-safe design. Moreover, the creek in the project area is channelized, and with the minimal plant life, does not attract abundant bird species. · Adequacy of the biological survey for the project site: Adams Broadwell claimed that the biological analysis did not provide sufficient detail about the site visit used in the analysis, and questioned the City’s utilization of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to evaluate the site (as opposed to other citizen-driven databases). Staff responded that the City sets the thresholds of significance for CEQA impacts, and as part of that, selects the applicable databases for the biological analysis. The City utilizes CNDDB because the data has been vetted, whereas the alternate databases proposed by the commenter allow anyone to contribute information.
The Assistant City Attorney also indicated that if the Planning Commission thought that the project needed supplemental analysis to address Adams Broadwell’s concerns, that the project and the Planning Commission’s recommendations could move on to City Council and be supplemented with additional analysis prior to the Council hearing.
Following public testimony, Commissioner Saleme made a motion to recommend adoption of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Saleme then made a motion to adopt the Future Focus Area Plan, including Chair Biagini’s proposed modification to the Future Focus Area Plan to make all Class II bike lanes separated Class IV bikeways.
Planning Commission Action
By a vote of 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cherukuru absent) the Commission recommended approval of the Future Focus Area Plan and associated environmental clearance and land use changes as recommended by staff with the following modification:
1) Change the proposed bike lanes in the Future Focus Area from Class II on-street bike lanes to Class IV separated bikeways.
The Freedom Circle Future Focus Area diagram, included as a part of Attachment 2, has been updated to reflect the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 14 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-594 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
Additional Analysis
This report includes additional analysis related to the General Plan Consistency Issues, the Traffic Analysis, and related to questions raised regarding the qualitative Health Risk Assessment and the Biological Assessment provided in the Draft EIR (Attachment 6).
General Plan Consistency
The 2035 General Plan includes three Future Focus Areas. All the requirements set forth in the General Plan relating to Future Focus Areas concerns these three existing Future Focus Areas. For these three existing Future Focus Areas, the General Plan includes discussion and policies concerning the development of comprehensive planning for these areas. In adopting policies relating to these three Future Focus Areas as part of the existing General Plan, the City exercised its discretion to prohibit any specific project from moving forward within these three Future Focus Areas until after comprehensive planning was completed.
Freedom Circle is not one of the three existing Future Focus Areas included in the General Plan. The General Plan does not state that, should the City exercise its discretion to create Additional Future Focus Areas, those Additional Future Focus Areas must be made subject to all the same requirements as the three Future Focus Areas included in current General Plan. Therefore, in proposing to identify Freedom Circle as an Additional Future Focus Area, the City has the discretion to create new policies relating to it and other Additional Future Focus Areas that may be proposed by the City in the future.
As explained in the EIR, the City has proposed adding Policy 5.4.7-P11 to the General Plan, which allows for the creation of Additional Future Focus Areas and also allows the City to exercise its discretion to allow General Plan and Zoning amendments to proceed at the same time as an Additional Focus Area is created. For example, the City may choose to exercise its discretion to allow for General Plan and Zoning amendments to proceed concurrently for an Additional Focus Area, where a Future Focus Area is made up of numerous property owners and only a subset of those property owners is prepared to move forward to specific project applications (as was the case with Freedom Circle and Greystar). In such circumstances, the City may determine that delaying an application for a specific development project is not appropriate for one or more reasons such as, for example, where due to the location or use proposed by an applicant the City believes the use can move forward concurrently with the comprehensive planning without negatively impacting the ability to comprehensively plan the Additional Future Focus Area or where the City determines the use, if developed, should be developed in the near term. For Greystar, as demonstrated in the EIR, the Project can be implemented without negatively impacting comprehensive planning of the entire Additional Future Focus Area. Moreover, the Greystar Project proposes over 1,000 new homes.
Given the local need and state objective to produce more housing, City staff believes the uses proposed in Greystar further supports the City Council exercising its discretion to allow the project to move forward concurrently with comprehensive planning of this Additional Future Focus Area.
City Staff, however, acknowledges that minor clarifications to the proposed General Plan Amendments may help to avoid confusion concerning the differences between existing Future Focus Areas and Additional Future Focus Areas such as Freedom Circle. Therefore, City Staff is now proposing the following clarifications to the proposed General Plan Amendments:
Text under section 5.4.7, Future Focus Areas Goals and Policies:
“In addition to the three Future Focus Areas identified in the General Plan as adopted on November 16, 2010, Aadditional Future Focus Areas may be added to the General Plan Land City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 14 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-594 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
Use diagram through the General Plan Amendment process. Subject to the discretion provided pursuant to Policy 5.4.7-P11, tThe creation of an Additional Future Focus Area is a precursor to the comprehensive planning process required for all Focus Areas.” Policy 5.4.7-P11:
Allow for General Plan Amendments and rezonings outside of existing Future Focus Areas in combination with the designation of new Additional Future Focus Areas.
Updated Traffic Analysis
The December 2021 version of the Transportation Analysis has been included as a part of this report (Attachment 7). The updated Transportation Analysis concludes that conversion of Hichborn Drive to two-way traffic and installation of a traffic signal at Hichborn and Great America Parkway would help to lessen adverse effects on the level of service (LoS) along Great America Parkway. The updated analysis includes the conversion of Hichborn Drive from one-way to two-way traffic and fair-share payments for those improvements by both Greystar and future Freedom Circle developers as conditions of approval.
Pursuant to SB 743 (2013), the City ceased using LoS as a threshold of significance in CEQA documents on July 1, 2020. Instead, the City adopted a transportation policy establishing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the methodology for analyzing transportation impacts. For Freedom Circle, the VMT impacts were determined to be less-than-significant, because the project qualified as a transit supportive project (located near the intersection of major bus routes; minimum residential density of 35 du/ac and office FAR of 0.75; includes transit-oriented-design elements; and no excess parking).
Nevertheless, the City still requires traffic studies to examine LoS, but as an operational analysis element, not as a CEQA threshold. Because impacts on LoS are no longer considered a CEQA impact, the updated Transportation Analysis does not alter the mitigation measures or conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report.
Quantitative Health Risk Analysis
One of the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report indicated that the commentors felt that the environmental analysis was inadequate for purposes of CEQA, and that a quantitative Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was required. See comments L4.30 through L4.39 in the Final EIR. The City maintains that a Qualitative HRA is legally adequate under CEQA. However, to confirm the results of the Qualitative Analysis, the City’s CEQA consultant has also performed a Quantitative Health Risk Assessment, which is included as Attachment 8.
The Quantitative HRA finds that the construction of the Greystar project would not lead to a significant impact regarding health risks to sensitive receptors, based on the size of the construction site, the duration of construction, or the distance from the project site to the nearest sensitive receptor. The impact conclusions of the DEIR remain unchanged, and re-circulation is not required.
Updated Biological Assessment
The same commentor felt that the Biological Assessment included with the EIR was inadequate, because the Assessment was based on a December 12, 2020 site visit that was made shortly after the site was disked, when vegetative cover was minimal and had no remaining small mammal burrows. That survey concluded that the site “…therefore provides very little habitat value for raptor or other carnivore (i.e. coyote, fox) foraging and does not provide aestivation and/or cover to reptile City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 14 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-594 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
or amphibian species.”
To provide a more complete picture of the habitat value of the Greystar site, the City is including an updated biological analysis, from April of this year (Attachment 9). The analysis concludes that the site is being used by species that are adapted to urban habitats, that the site does not provide unique habitat value, and that species using the site will disperse to other nearby parcels. Similar to Air Quality Impacts, the conclusions of the DEIR remain unchanged, and re-circulation of the document for additional review and comment is not required.
Biological site survey and methodology used in the Draft EIR Although the description in the DEIR is brief, it was based on research of multiple databases (as reported in the DEIR) and a site visit. The survey completed in December 2020 was completed by a single biologist who walked the perimeter of the site and noted conditions within and around the site using visual surveys and binoculars. The site had been mowed, and vegetation was predominantly dried grasses in winter. The biologist did not observe burrows during the survey; these would have been evident under the mowed conditions due to mounded dirt or ground squirrel activity during the day. The weather was cloudy, dry, and about 60 degrees. The biologist summarized her observations on that day in Chapter 6 of the DEIR, including that the site vegetation was either lacking or had died back and that she did not observe any animal burrows. We look for animal burrows because they indicate a food source for predators, and ground squirrel burrows would indicate potential habitat for burrowing owl. Since it has been more than a year, and the initial survey was conducted in winter, we report current conditions in April 2022 in an additional memo for the Council’s benefit. The updated setting does not change the conclusions or mitigation requirements in the DEIR.
An additional walking survey throughout the parcels was conducted in April 2022. Two land cover types were mapped: (1) Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grassland (Avena spp. - Bromus spp. Seminatural Alliance), and (2) developed. The grassland is dominated by ruderal and invasive non-native plant species. The developed portions are paving and electrical structures remaining from past activities. Several species adapted to the urban environment were observed.
The differences between the December 2020 and April 2022 site visits are:
· In December 2020 the site had been mowed, and the lack of vegetation resulted in less cover and forage for wildlife, while in April 2022 the site had not been mowed, and greater use by urban-adapted species was observed.
· In 2022 active ground squirrel burrows were observed on the San Tomas Aquino levee next to 101, in the southeast corner of the site, and inactive burrows were observed on a berm on the south end of the site adjacent to US 101; they were not observed during the 2020 visit.
Ground squirrel burrows are not evident anywhere else on the parcels or on the levee.
Prior land uses have affected the biological setting. Sometime between 1968 and 1980, the Greystar parcels were graded as the area was developed (UCSB 2022). Plowing, tilling, and other land disturbance associated with agriculture and urbanization has likely eliminated most soil seed banks of native plants and degraded natural habitats within the parcels. The parcels are currently mowed short three times annually, and have been for at least the last 6 years (M. Avila, J. Ly pers. comm.).
The parcels are currently under a Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) voluntary cleanup program for soil contamination by agricultural chemicals, including pesticides (DDT, chlordane), arsenic, and lead. In 1997 between one and five feet of imported gravel and soil were placed on the City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 14 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-594 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
parcels for use as parking and temporary construction storage. In 2004, under the DTSC-approved Removal Action Workplan, a portion of the Greystar parcels was capped with a one-foot deep covering of soil and gravel, and additional gravel was applied periodically as part of maintenance activities directed under the Operations and Management Plan with DTSC. Most of the site was used for parking and storage between 2004 and 2014. The parcels currently still contain the gravel and cap, but over time have been overgrown with vegetation.
Multi-season and multi-year surveys provide a better picture of site use by wildlife, but the assessment of whether the project site has been significantly impacted by historic use can be done with research and a single season survey. The DEIR acknowledges that site conditions can change, and requires nesting bird surveys as mitigation to minimize or avoid impacts to these species for this reason. These surveys include all birds, regardless of whether they are defined as special-status species.
Methods used to assess biological resources are reported in the DEIR, but further explanation is provided here. A “desk-top analysis” is completed first so that the biologist understands what specific habitat requirements are important to look for during the field survey. During the desk-top analysis, Google Earth history and a minimum of three databases maintained by the state and federal governments are reviewed: the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. In some cases, the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory is also reviewed. MIG biologists also regularly review citizen science sites, including eBird and iNaturalist, but these data points are sometimes entered by non-scientists and must be considered carefully. If there are recent biology reports from projects nearby, those may also be reviewed. Using these resources, a list of special-status species that have been reported to occur in the region, and a description of their habitat requirements, is compiled.
The list informs the site visit, but it is also presented as a table in the biology analysis that includes an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence on the project site once site conditions are observed. This assessment records which state or federally listed, or candidates for listing, could be impacted by the project. One of the data points we use is whether the species has been recorded within a certain distance of the site in any database, although in the table the CNDDB and the CNPS Inventory are mainly referred to because they are map-based. Citizen science sites are more recent additions to the map-based tools available for this review and should have also been referenced in the table. If the databases don’t report an occurrence on or adjacent to the project site, that is never interpreted to mean that the species are absent. If the project site has suitable habitat for the plant or animal species, and there is a reasonably recent record for the species within a certain distance (usually five miles), then further surveys for that species would be required. The DEIR includes the criteria used to determine whether a species potentially occurs on the parcel and also explains the methods used.
Bird-window collisions
The renderings presented in the DEIR are conceptual and do not show the final materials to be used, because they don’t fully reflect standard conditions of approval that will be imposed on the project.
They were not assessed, because the conditions of approval will require bird safety standards in the final design. Those conditions include at least the following measures, which are enforceable through the design review process:
The final design of buildings shall incorporate specific bird safety standards based on the following City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 14 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-594 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
bird-friendly building principles:
· Reduce mirrors and large areas of reflective glass.
· Avoid transparent glass skyways, walkways, or entryways, free-standing glass walls, and minimize transparent building corners, or utilize glazing treatments to mitigate the hazard. · Minimize funneling of open space toward a building façade. · Strategically place landscaping to reduce reflection and views of foliage inside or through glass.
· Reduce potential light and glare by installing low-profile, low-intensity lighting directed downward, installing shielded fixtures for outdoor lighting, and using low emissivity reflective coating on exterior glass surfaces.
· To the extent consistent with the normal and expected operations of the uses planned for the particular development area, take appropriate measures to avoid use of unnecessary lighting at night, especially during bird migration season (February-May and August-November) through the installation of motion sensor lighting, automatic lighting shut-off mechanisms, or other effective measures to the extent feasible.
Burrows, burrowing owl, and nesting bird protection
Burrowing owls prefer open grassland with mounds or berms where they can easily stand and watch for predators. In April, the site conditions were not attractive to burrowing owls due to few apparent burrows, tall weedy vegetation, and a predominantly flat site; although, a berm next to US 101 and the levee adjacent to San Tomas Aquino Creek provide raised areas that could provide suitable burrow and sentinel habitat. Feral cats are fed on the site adjacent to Freedom Circle, despite efforts by the landowner to stop this use (M. Avila, pers. comm.), and these are a burrowing owl predator.
For safety reasons it is likely that ground squirrel burrows are discouraged in the creek levee; in April a few burrows were observed in the levee at US 101, but the rest of the levee along the parcel had been mowed and no evidence of burrows was detected. During a subsequent visit in May, after the site had been mowed, it was easier to detect ground squirrel burrows. There is an active burrow system consisting of 5 or 6 openings on the creek levee at US 101. There are burrows on the berm at the south end of the project site, but they did not have the dirt spray that typically indicates they are in use.
Although burrows were not detected during the December 2020 survey, the DEIR acknowledges that site conditions can change over time, and species can appear into what was thought to be unoccupied habitat. The DEIR includes a mitigation measure to survey for nesting birds prior to site disturbance (measure 6-4 applies to the Focus Plan Area and the Greystar site). The survey is expected to include observations of all ground squirrel burrows on or adjacent to the site for sign of burrowing owl use (whitewash, feathers, prey items), followed by dawn and dusk surveys completed according to CDFW protocol. No sign of burrowing owl use was observed at ground squirrel burrows in site surveys in April and May 2022, and potential use by burrowing owls is expected to be low.
If burrowing owls are detected on the site, consultation with CDFW would be necessary before the project could move forward.
Species to address in the DEIR
The DEIR is not required to address an exhaustive list of species that may be impacted by the project (14 CCR 15003(i)). As documented in the DEIR (pages 6-2, 6-3), the analysis focuses on species that are on the following lists:
City of Santa Clara Page 9 of 14 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-594 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
§ The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database’s (CNDDB) records for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle containing the project area and the eight (8) surrounding quadrangles (Newark, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mountain View, Milpitas, Calaveras Reservoir, Cupertino, San Jose West, and San Jose East),
§ United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) database,
§ USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI), and
§ California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory records for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle containing the project area and the eight (8) surrounding quadrangles (Newark, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mountain View, Milpitas, Calaveras Reservoir, Cupertino, San Jose West, and San Jose East).
As a result, a total of 650 special-status plant and animal species were considered, and 89 were selected for further analysis in the DEIR.
In addition to these species, the DEIR requires surveys and protection for nesting birds and roosting bats to minimize impacts to these species as required by state and federal law.
Traffic-wildlife collisions
The DEIR determined that the project is not growth-inducing, and therefore will not increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT). If VMT is not increased over the current setting, then the project will not increase traffic wildlife collisions unless wildlife populations increase. Because this is an urban setting, it is not expected that wildlife populations will increase in the local area and result in a significant impact due to traffic collisions.
Tree removal
Tree removal in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan area is addressed in the DEIR on page 6-14.
First, any future project in the Focus Area Plan area is required to comply with City ordinances related to trees. By obtaining a written permit from the superintendent of streets before altering or removing any trees, plants, or shrubs along streets or public portions of the project, as well as ensuring the required minimum ratio for tree replacement of 2:1 as required by General Plan Policy
5.3.1-P10, any project would comply with all local policies or ordinances preserving trees.
Second, Mitigation Measure 6-4 on page 6-13 of the DEIR specifies when pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats are required, and what measures need to be implemented to protect nests until the birds have fledged, and to minimize impacts to bats.
There are multiple trees on the Pedro’s Restaurant border with the Greystar site and there are a few trees along the San Tomas Aquino Creek border of the Greystar site, otherwise the site is treeless.
Trees and shrubs proposed to be planted on the Greystar site will add nesting habitat for urbanadapted bird species, but will remove ground-nesting habitat that the project site may currently provide.
City of Santa Clara Page 10 of 14 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-594 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
Wildlife Corridor
Using both a site visit and a desktop analysis of the resources contained in the Focus Plan Area and the surrounding areas, the DEIR analysis determined that the area contains neither a significant wildlife corridor, nor a significant nursery site. This is based on the habitat quality determined to be present.
A significant wildlife corridor is one which is important to the survival of populations that migrate between winter and summer habitat, or which provides an unimpeded link between populations to allow for gene exchange. That is not present in the Focus Plan Area, which is urbanized and is surrounded by urbanization. A significant nursery site is a site that is essential for population survival, because it has unusual characteristics that are not found elsewhere, and the species are able to successfully reproduce using that site. The Focus Plan Area provides urban habitat for common wildlife species, and redevelopment will provide the same. That said, the Greystar site is an open field, albeit heavily disturbed, that is used by wildlife, particularly birds, that are adapted to urban habitats. Many common bird species will find habitat in the developed area on Greystar, but possibly not in the same numbers because there will be less open space. San Tomas Aquino Creek connects habitats within the watershed, and is both a nursery site and a corridor. The project does not propose to encroach on the creek or block species use or travel within the creek corridor. Wildlife will not be prevented from traveling through the area to reach breeding or foraging grounds.
Wildlife use of the Focus Plan Area and the Greystar site Wildlife use is generally greater in areas with a diverse assemblage of plant species, habitat structure, and edges between vegetation types. There is not a high diversity of plant species in the Focus Plan Area or the Greystar site due to long-term and consistent human disturbance that has reduced both diversity and habitat structure. The Focus Plan Area does provide mature vegetation, including trees, that support a variety of urban-adapted bird species and provide some habitat diversity. Trees located in areas of future development of the Focus Plan Area will need to be preserved or replaced at a 2:1 ratio, benefitting the same urban-adapted wildlife currently found there. The Greystar site is an open field dominated by non-native weed species that supports one vegetation type and, except for a berm, no diversity in habitat structure. That said, it is not devoid of wildlife at all. It provides open, urban habitat that primarily benefits bird species. The presence of San Tomas Aquino Creek adjacent to the Greystar site may contribute to the species observed to use the site for forage, such as Canada goose and rough-winged swallow. The Greystar project will replace the open forage habitat with urban park and apartment uses that will likely change current wildlife use of the site, but is not expected to result in an adverse impact as defined under CEQA.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment and related approvals (the “project”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment 6). The EIR analyzes program-level impacts of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. The EIR and Notice of Availability were circulated for a 45-day period from November 5, 2021, to December 20, 2021, in accordance with CEQA requirements. The EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts for the project, and addresses topics identified within the General Plan policies for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, including land use compatibility and provision of public facilities and parks and open space (Policy 5.4.7-P6, 5.4.7-P7, 5.4.7-P8, and 5.4.7-P9).
City of Santa Clara Page 11 of 14 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-594 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
The EIR found that there would be significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to:
• Air Quality emissions (toxic air contaminant emissions) • Potential destruction or degradation of Historic Resources • Noise (increases in traffic noise levels from Specific Plan development) The project would also result in the following significant unavoidable cumulative impacts:
• Air Quality emissions (criteria pollutant emissions)
All of the other potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are included in their entirety as a part of the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). A detailed discussion of the potential impacts and mitigation measures to be applied to the project is specified in the EIR and would be implemented through project conditions of approval and the MMRP for the proposed project.
The Draft EIR comment period ran from November 5, 2021, to December 20, 2021. A total of five comments were received during the comment period. None of the comment letters have identified a new significant impact or have provided substantial evidence that the CEQA analysis is otherwise inadequate. Recirculation of the EIR is therefore not required. Responses to the Draft EIR comments, as well as minor text changes and clarifications, in the form of a Final EIR, was made available to the public through the City’s website on March 30, 2022, and have been forwarded on to any commenters on the Draft EIR. In addition, the supplemental analyses described above (traffic, HRA, biology), were made available to the public through the City’s website on May 13, 2022, and have been forwarded on to the commenters on the EIR.
FISCAL IMPACT
Consultant costs borne by the City for the preparation of the Future Focus Area have been borne by Greystar through a reimbursement agreement with the City.
The proposed change in land uses would significantly increase land values and the property tax base as well as demand for services, having both positive and negative fiscal impacts upon the City. The addition of retail services and an increased local population will add to more sales tax revenue for the City. It is understood that residential land uses generally have a net negative fiscal impact (as increased land value revenue does not completely offset increased costs for service), but infill development and higher density development, particularly utilizing Type I or Type III construction, provides for more efficient delivery of services and can be revenue neutral or even positive in some circumstances. Furthermore, the Plan will include private maintenance of park spaces and a significant private investment for infrastructure that will also provide fiscal benefits. On the whole, implementation of the eventual Specific Plan is expected to have a relatively minor net fiscal impact to the City and will provide housing necessary for Santa Clara’s ongoing economic vitality.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by publishing a hearing notice in the Santa Clara Weekly on May 11, 2022, and by mailing a hearing notice to properties within a 1,000-foot radius of the plan area and posting a notice of public hearing at three conspicuous locations within 300 feet of the project site on March 30, 2022. The City Council agenda was also posted on the City’s official-notice bulletin City of Santa Clara Page 12 of 14 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-594 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
The City held a community meeting on the North Santa Clara area including the Freedom Circle area on February 25, 2019. Approximately 28 members of the public attended the meeting.
ALTERNATIVES
(Planning Commission Recommendation)
1. Adopt a resolution approving and certifying the Final EIR prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan and the Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (SCH #2020060425), including CEQA Findings and a statement of overriding consideration;
2. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/R&D designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area bounded by Great America Parkway to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south, including modifications of the plan area diagram to change all Class II bike lanes to Class IV separated bikeways;
3. Adopt a resolution approving the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre);
4. Adopt a resolution approving the Planned Development Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south;
OR:
5. Provide direction to staff to make modifications to the Freedom Circle and Greystar General Plan Amendments and/or the Greystar Planned Development rezoning for City Council consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a resolution approving and certifying the Final EIR prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan and the Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (SCH #2020060425), including CEQA Findings and a statement of overriding consideration;
2. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/R&D designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area bounded by Great America Parkway to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south, including modifications of the plan area diagram to change all Class II bike lanes to Class IV separated bikeways;
3. Adopt a resolution approving the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre); and
City of Santa Clara Page 13 of 14 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-594 Agenda Date: 5/24/2022
4. Adopt a resolution approving the Planned Development Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south.
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Aerial of the Freedom Circle Focus Area
2. Proposed Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan
3. Greystar Rezoning Proposal
4. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment Planning Commission Report
5. Adams Broadwell letter dated 4/13/2022
6. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment EIR
7. Freedom Circle December 2021 Transportation Analysis
8. Updated Air Quality Analysis (with Quantitative Health Risk Assessment)
9. Updated Biological Assessment
10. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment Findings of Fact
11. MMRP for the Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment
12. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment EIR Resolution
13. Freedom Circle Future Focus Area General Plan Text and Map Amendment Resolution
14. Greystar project General Plan Amendment Resolution
15. Greystar Planned Development Rezoning Resolution
16. 8-3-2021 Subdivision Committee Minutes
City of Santa Clara Page 14 of 14 Printed on 5/19/2022
powered by Legistar™
Figure 1. Proposed Freedom Circle focus area. The Greystar property is outlined in yellow.
Freedom Circle Focus
Area
-
Greystar site
1 FOCUS AREA PLAN
Revised Draft March 2022
I. Introduction
The City of Santa Clara’s General Plan provides a vision and constitution for long-term development. The Plan contains the City’s policies for land use, transportation, housing, design, environmental resources, health, and safety.
The General Plan also identifies Focus Areas throughout the city, each representing opportunities for more intense development and future economic growth. The purpose of these Focus Areas is to encourage improvements and new development tailored to the unique character and quality of these distinct areas. Additional planning is a prerequisite for development of these Focus Areas, and all plans for the Focus Areas must conform with the City’s overarching General Plan goals and policies.
The Freedom Circle area was not designated in the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan as a Future Focus Area. This employment-rich northern district has become the central focus of redevelopment activity and intensification of existing uses due to its status as an employment and entertainment district and distance from single-family residential neighborhoods. The proposed Freedom Circle Focus Area encompasses approximately 108 gross acres in an employment-rich area of northern Santa Clara, comprising several moderate-intensity office and industrial parks accompanied by surface parking, along with the Santa Clara Marriot hotel.
Given the rate of growth and development interest in North Santa Clara, the City has designated FC as a Future Focus Area. This Focus Area Plan outlines new land uses that will convert the area from an employment center to a high-intensity mixed-use neighborhood including residential developments.
These changes will help meet the demand for housing and for using land more efficiently at high, urban densities.
In parallel to the development of this Plan, Greystar Real Estate Partners developed a project proposal for a portion of the Freedom Circle Focus Area, which will be processed as a General Plan Amendment in 2021. The remainder of the FC Plan Area will be built out over the next fifteen years or more.
The Freedom Circle (FC) Focus Area Plan (Plan) establishes a comprehensive planning framework to guide the development of a new mixed-use district in northern Santa Clara. It includes the goals, policies, and design principles that will inform redevelopment in the Focus Area including the Greystar project proposal.
••••• ••••• •• ••••• •••••
Freedom Circle
Focus Area Pion
2 II. Vision and Goals
The long-term buildout of the Freedom Circle Focus Area will create a dynamic, mixed-use district that includes residential developments and community amenities as well as a diverse range of employment uses. It will complement other North Santa Clara neighborhoods and provide a complete network of pedestrian, bicycle and roadway connections to destinations including employment centers, transit stops, and trails.
The Greystar General Plan Amendment proposes to change the land use designation for the 13.3 acre Greystar site from High Intensity Office (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre). Proposed uses include:
• 1,075 dwelling units in three 7-story buildings
• A two-acre public park with a connection to the San Tomas Aquino Creek trail, and • up to 2,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail.
At full buildout, the Freedom Circle Focus Area would allow, subject to a future planning study, 2,500 dwelling units beyond those anticipated in the Greystar General Plan Amendment (described above) and 2 million square feet of additional office space beyond that allowed under the current high-intensity office designation.
Proposed General Plan land use designations (see Figure 1) include:
• Very High Intensity Office / R&D (FAR of 3.0)
• High-Intensity Office / R&D
• Regional Commercial
• Very High Density Residential (51-100 du/acre)
• Public / Quasi Public
• Parks and Open Space
The following goals will guide the development of the Freedom Circle Focus Area FC-G1: Develop an urban-scale mixed-use activity center in North Santa Clara to support economic vitality while increasing residential options.
FC-G2: Provide for a range of housing types and densities to accommodate future residents and to create diversity in building scale and typology.
FC-G3: Create a complete neighborhood that provides easy access to day-to-day services and amenities for residents, employees and visitors
FC-G4: Reduce reliance on private vehicles and improve jobs/housing balance by locating amenities and jobs that can be comfortably and safety accessed from housing by walking.
FC-G5: Create a human scaled public realm through inviting architecture and urban design.
FC-G6: Improve multi-modal transportation options and connections 3 FC-G7: Enhance connectivity to the San Tomas Aquino Creek trail.
III. Policies
FC-P1: Allow for a range of housing density and development intensity throughout the plan area, consistent with the General Plan designations and overall buildout capacity.
FC-P2: Co-locate commercial, recreational and other active uses to create nodes of activity throughout the plan area
FC-P3: Require active street frontages and ground floor uses to create a pedestrian-friendly, cohesive urban environment
FC-P4: Provide public parkland and privately-owned public open space (POPOs) that is accessible to all residents and visitors, adequate to meet resident activity needs, and consistent with the General Plan requirements and other City regulations.
FC-P5: Require the provision of open space, or payment of in-lieu fees for parks and open space for residential development, consistent with the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance.
FC-P6: Prioritize size, shape, and location of public parkland to ensure that amenities are usable, programmable, and flexible.
FC-P7: Encourage sensitive design and site planning to mitigate the scale and height of larger buildings through use of building massing, setbacks, façade articulation, fenestration, varied parapets and roof lines, and pedestrian-scaled architectural details.
FC-P8: Provide appropriate transitions between new development in the Focus Area and adjacent uses consistent with General Plan Transition Policies.
FC-P9: Require that building facades and entrances directly face street frontages, with a high proportion of transparent windows facing the street for nonresidential uses.
FC-P10: Minimize surface parking by requiring below-grade or structured parking facilities with active uses along street frontages.
FC-P11: Establish parking ratios that support transit, active transportation and shared vehicle use FC-P12: Encourage shared parking between uses and parcels, including the shared use of existing structures.
FC-P13: Establish affordable housing requirements for residential and residential mixed-use developments that support regional growth goals, City policy, and local need.
FC-P14: Provide new street, bicycle and pedestrian networks that break down large blocks and sites, accommodate multiple modes of travel, and maximize connections to activity hubs and transit facilities. 4 FC-P15: Develop design standards and guidelines to support active ground-floor environments, welcoming public spaces, and safe and comfortable sidewalks and pathways.
FC-P16: Design and program the plan area and sites to encourage walking, bicycling and transit use.
FC-P17: Minimize environmental impacts through sustainable building and infrastructure design, consistent with CALGreen and Santa Clara Climate Action Plan requirements.
FC-P18: Redesign Mission College Boulevard, Freedom Circle, and Hichborn Drive to better balance space dedicated to vehicles, bicycle, and pedestrians.
FC-P19: Redesign Mission College Boulevard, Freedom Circle, and Hichborn Drive to facilitate safe and comfortable pedestrian crossings.
FC-P20: Maintain VTA bus transit service in the Focus Area Plan area and improve transit stops and shelters
FC-P21: Design pedestrian and bicycle networks and infrastructure to facilitate access to transit stops on Great America Parkway, Mission College and Tasman Drive FC-P22: Locate loading zones and rideshare pick-up / drop-off areas away from bus stops.
FCP23: Require developments to contribute to City vehicle miles travelled (VMT) goals and implement a variety of sustainable transit solutions as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program.
FC-P24: Require developers and property owners to coordinate with North Santa Clara employers and stakeholders to explore participating in a private transit systems and/or a Transportation Management Agency (TMA) as part of the Specific Plan process
IV. Implementation
Upon plan approval, the Freedom Circle Focus Area will be added as a Phase III Focus Area to the General Plan (Section 5.4.5). Any change in land use designation or rezoning of land within the Freedom Circle area will be subject to the requirements of the Future Focus Area Goals and Policies of the General Plan.
The Greystar project will accomplish this via its General Plan Amendment application, while other property owners will prepare their own plan and/or application in the future.
Since the General Plan did not designate the study area a Focus Area and consequently did not consider any potential land uses changes there in its Environmental Impact Report (EIR), an EIR was required for this Focus Area Plan and for the General Plan Amendment.
A multi-use path along the
northern boundary of the
Focus Area will offer another
cross-site connector for
bikes and pedestrians.
Mission
Community
College [ _our Ladys Way
I
101
~
ai
fl u
C
0 ·~
i
~
Establishing pedestrian and
bike connections will
support on-site mobi_lity
and create OJ>portunit1es
for ground-floor activation.
Class IV bike lanes will
enhance active
transportation options
and connectivity to other
bike routes and
destinations.
California's
Great America
Gatewaxs along Mission
College Blvd at the Focus
Area boundaries will be
established to reinforce
imageability and
highlig~t features and
amenities.
I
I I
A two-acre community
park will provide an open
space and recreation
opportunities and connect
to the San Tomas Aquino
Trail. Open and active
ground-floor frontages,
well-designed landscaping
and on-site amenities will ensure vibrancy.
••••• ••• • •• ••••• ••• • • •
Freedom Circle
Focus Area Plan
Figure 1: Land Use and
Urban Design Framework
Legend
[:=J Study Area Boundary
~ - - ~ Greystar Project Boundary ·--·
Land Use Designations
- Very High Intensity Office/ R&D
- High Intensity Office/ R&D
- Regional Commercial
Very High Density Residential
Parks/ Open Space
- Public/ Quasi Public
Urban Design
~ Node
Gateway
Circulation & Mobility
• • Bike/Ped Connection
- Primary Vehicular Circulation
- Local Vehicular Connection
- San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail
- Class IV Bike lane ~
t!1 . New Traffic Signal
~
N
250 500 1.000ft E9
6KHHW7LWOH
6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R
7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7
$UFKLWHFWXUH
%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD
3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV
1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD
*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO
)D[
ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO
ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO
)D[
ZZZENIFRP
&Z
KD/Z>
Z
^/
Ed/>
W>EE
s
>KWD
EdKE/E'^
d
&29(53$*(
ri
STUDIO
TSQUARE
GREYSTAR
'ƌĞLJƐƚĂƌŝƐŚĞƌĞďLJƐƵďŵŝƫŶŐĂƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĨŽƌĂ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƚŽƌĞnjŽŶĞƚŚĞϭϯ͘ϯĂĐƌĞƐŝƚĞĨƌŽŵ,ŝŐŚ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJKĸĐĞͬZΘƚŽĂůůŽǁĨŽƌĂsĞƌLJ ,ŝŐŚĞŶƐŝƚLJZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůŽŶĞ͘dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚǁŽƉĂƌĐĞůƐďŽƵŶĚĞĚďLJ&ƌĞĞĚŽŵŝƌĐůĞ͕DŝƐƐŝŽŶŽůůĞŐĞŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ͕,ŝŐŚǁĂLJϭϬϭ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞ^ĂŶdŽŵĂƐƋƵŝŶŽƌĞĞŬ͘dŚĞ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐŚŝŐŚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĂŶĚĂϮͲĂĐƌĞƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬƚŽďĞďƵŝůƚĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚďLJƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ͘dŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƵƐĞĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨϭϯ͘ϯĂĐƌĞƐŽĨǀĂĐĂŶƚůĂŶĚ;WEƐϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϯϲĂŶĚϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϮϭͿ͘dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗ͻ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů;ϭϬϳϱƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŶŝƚƐŝŶϵϬϳ͕ϯϮϱƐĨǁŝƚŚϭ͕ϯϳϵƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƚĂůůƐͿͻ EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞ;ƵƉƚŽϮ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚǁŝƚŚƵƉƚŽϭϬƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƚĂůůƐͿͻ ϮͲĂĐƌĞƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬǁŝƚŚϮϬƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƚĂůůƐĨŽƌƉĂƌŬǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚ͘KŶĞŽĨƚŚĞŬĞLJƉƌŽũĞĐƚŐŽĂůƐŝƐƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĂǀŝďƌĂŶƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚŚĂƚĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞƐǁĂůŬŝŶŐĂŶĚďŝŬĞƌŝĚŝŶŐ͕ůŝŶŬŝŶŐƚŚĞ&ƌĞĞĚŽŵŝƌĐůĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞ^ĂŶdŚŽŵĂƐƋƵŝŶŽƌĞĞŬdƌĂŝůǀŝĂĂŶĞǁ͕ƚǁŽͲĂĐƌĞƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬ͘dŚŝƐŶĞǁƉĂƌŬ͕ǁŝƚŚĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞĐŝƚLJͲƐƉĂŶŶŝŶŐ^ĂŶdŚŽŵĂƐƋƵŝŶŽƌĞĞŬdƌĂŝů͕ǁŝůůďĞĐŽŵĞĂŬĞLJĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚŽĨǁŚĂƚƚŚĞ>ĂǁƌĞŶĐĞ^ƚĂƟŽŶƌĞĂWůĂŶĐĂůůƐƚŚĞ͞'ƌĞĞŶtĞď͟ŽĨĂĐƟǀĂƚĞĚƉƵďůŝĐƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘ƐƚŚĞĐĞŶƚĞƌƉŝĞĐĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ƚŚĞŶĞǁƉĂƌŬǁŝůůƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĂƐƚƌŽŶŐƐĞŶƐĞŽĨƉůĂĐĞĨŽƌƚŚŝƐǀŝďƌĂŶƚŶĞǁƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚĞŐƌĞĂƚĞƌ&ƌĞĞĚŽŵŝƌĐůĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďLJƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂǀĞŶƵĞĨŽƌďŽƚŚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞǀĞŶƚƐĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĐĂƐƵĂůƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂůƵƐĞ͘dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨƚŚƌĞĞdLJƉĞ///ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƉŽĚŝƵŵƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐͲƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͕͕ĂŶĚͲŽǀĞƌϯůĞǀĞůƐŽĨdLJƉĞ/ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚůĞǀĞůŽĨƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƚŽďĞƉĂƌƟĂůůLJďĞůŽǁŐƌĂĚĞ͘dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐǁŝůůďĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĂŶĚĞŶŐĂŐĞƚŚĞƵƌďĂŶĨŽƌŵĂŶĚĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌĂŶĚĂĐƟǀĂƚĞƉƵďůŝĐƐƉĂĐĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶĂŶĚƐƵƌͲƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘dŚĞϯ͕ϳͲƐƚŽƌLJďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐǁŝůůďĞƵƉƚŽϭϬϬ͛ƚĂůůŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞŽĨĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚĞůĞǀĂƚŽƌŽǀĞƌƌƵŶƐ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂŶĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĂsĞƐƟŶŐdĞŶƚĂƟǀĞWĂƌĐĞůDĂƉƚŽĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĨŽƵƌůŽƚƐ͘ 6KHHW7LWOH
6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R
7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7
$UFKLWHFWXUH
%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD
3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV
1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD
*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO
)D[
ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO
ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO
)D[
ZZZENIFRP
^^
^^KZ^WZ
>EhD
Z͗ ϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϯϲ͕ϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϮϭ^/d
Z
͗ ϭϯ͘ϯ
y/^d/E''
E
Z>W>E ͗ ,/',/Ed
E^/dzK&&/
ͬZΘWZKWK^
'
E
Z>W>E ͗ s
Zz,/',
E^/dzZ
^/
Ed/>;ϱϭͲϭϬϬhͬͿ
y/^d/E'KE/E' ͗ KDD
Z/>WZ<WZKWK^
KE/E' ͗ W>EE
s
>KWD
Ed
y/^d/E'h^
͗ WZ</E'ΘsEd>EWZKWK^
h^
͗ Z
^/
Ed/>ΘKW
E^W
^hZZKhE/E'h^
^ ͗ K&&/
ΘKW
E^W
E^/dz ͗ ϱϭͲϭϬϬhͬh/>/E',
/',d ͗ ϭϬϬ&dDy/DhDKhWEz'ZKhW ͗ ZϮ͕ϯ͕^Ϯ͕KE^dZhd/KEdzW ͗ ϱ^dKZ/
^K&dzW
///Ks
Zϯ>
s
>^K&dzW
/
;ϭ>
s
>WZd/>>z
>Kt'Z
Ϳ
ͲϬϬϬ WZK:
d^hDDZzͲϬϬϭ
s
>KWD
Ed^dEZ^ͲϬϮϬ />>h^dZd/s
^/d
W>E Ϯ͘Ϭ WZ
>/D/EZz/s/>^/d
W>EϮ͘ϭ WZ
>/D/EZz/s/>^/d
W>EͲϰϬϭ KDWK^/d
^
d/KE^>ͲϭϬϮ ^dZ
d>
s
>>E^W
W>EdDͲϭ s
^d/E'd
Edd/s
WZ
>DW
WZK:
d^hDDZz͗
WW>/Ed͗'ƌĞLJƐƚĂƌZĞĂů
ƐƚĂƚĞWĂƌƚŶĞƌƐϰϱϬ^ĂŶƐŽŵĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϱϬϬ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕ϵϰϭϭϭŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗ĂŶĞŝďĞůWŚŽŶĞ͗ϰϭϱ͘ϵϰϳ͘ϳϴϴϳZ,/d dͬW>EE
Z͗^ƚƵĚŝŽd^ƋƵĂƌĞϭϵϳϬƌŽĂĚǁĂLJ͕^ƵŝƚĞϱϬϬKĂŬůĂŶĚ͕ϵϰϲϭϮŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗ŚĞŬdĂŶŐ͕WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůWŚŽŶĞ͗ϱϭϬ͘ϰϱϭ͘ϮϴϱϬ/s/> E'/E
Z͗<&ϭϳϯϬE͘&ŝƌƐƚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϲϬϬ^ĂŶ:ŽƐĞ͕ϵϱϭϭϮŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗ĂƐĞLJ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶWŚŽŶĞ͗ϰϬϴ͘ϰϲϳ͘ϵϭϯϵ>E^W Z,/d
d͗Z,ϮϮϱDŝůůĞƌǀĞDŝůůsĂůůĞLJ͕ϵϰϵϰϭŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗DĂŶƵĞůĂ<ŝŶŐWŚŽŶĞ͗ϰϭϱ͘ϯϴϳ͘ϳϵϬϬ WZK:
dd
D͗
^,
d>/^d͗
s//E/dzDW
WZK:
ddh>d/KE
$
352-(&76800$5<
&DOLIRUQLD¶V
*UHDW
$PHULFD
0LVVLRQ
&ROOHJH
0,/(
0,1:$/.
5HVLGHQWLDO
1HLJKERUKRRG
97$
7$60$1'5 6WDWLRQ
6$1720$6
2UDFOH
0,/(
0,1:$/.
,QWHO
&RUS
0RQWDJXH([S\
0,/(
0,1:$/.
97$/,*+75$,/
%$<6+25()5((:$<
/$)$<(77(67 3DWULFN+HQU\ 'ULYH
$48,12&5((. 75$,/
WR%D\7UDLO
>Ğǀŝ͛Ɛ
^ƚĂĚŝƵŵ
&ƌĞĞĚŽŵ
ŝƌĐůĞ
&ŽĐƵƐƌĞĂ
*5($7$0(5,&$3.:<
7DVPDQ(DVW
6DQWD&ODUD
&LW\3ODFH
6DQWD&ODUD
6TXDUH
$&(
7UDLQ
ϯŵŝůĞƐƚŽ
ŽǁŶƚŽǁŶĂŶĚ
ĂůƚƌĂŝŶ
^ŝƚĞ WĞĚƌŽ͛Ɛ
WZK'ZDƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhŶŝƚƐ ϯϲϯ
^ƚƵĚŝŽƐ ϭϳ͘ϭй ϲϮKŶĞĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ ϱϰ͘ϱй ϭϵϴdǁŽĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ Ϯϴ͘ϰй ϭϬϯ >ĞĂƐŝŶŐ ϮϯϬϬ^&ůƵďZŽŽŵ ϮϭϬϬ^&&ŝƚŶĞƐƐͬzŽŐĂ ϮϳϱϬ^&ŽͲtŽƌŬŝŶŐͬƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϭϮϱϬ^&WĞƚ^ƉĂ ϱϴϬ^&ŝĐLJĐůĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ;ůĂƐƐ/Ϳ ϰϴϬϬ^&ŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ Ϯϴϲϰϱ^&>ŽďďLJ ϭϲϬϬ^& ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhŶŝƚƐ ϯϵϴ
^ƚƵĚŝŽƐ ϭϯ͘ϭй ϱϮKŶĞĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ ϱϳ͘ϯй ϮϮϴdǁŽĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ Ϯϵ͘ϲй ϭϭϴ >ĞĂƐŝŶŐ ϮϱϬϬ^&ůƵďZŽŽŵ ϮϯϬϬ^&&ŝƚŶĞƐƐ ϮϮϬϬ^&ŽͲtŽƌŬŝŶŐͬƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϭϯϬϬ^&WĞƚ^ƉĂ ϳϳϱ^&>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϳϮϱ^&ŝĐLJĐůĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ;ůĂƐƐ/Ϳ ϱϬϬϬ^&ŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ ϯϱϬϱϱ^&EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞ ϮϬϬϬ^&>ŽďďLJ ϭϰϰϬ^& ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhŶŝƚƐ ϯϭϰ
^ƚƵĚŝŽƐ ϭϳ͘ϴй ϱϲKŶĞĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ ϱϰ͘ϱй ϭϳϭdǁŽĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ Ϯϳ͘ϳй ϴϳ >ĞĂƐŝŶŐ ϭϭϱϬ^&ůƵďZŽŽŵ ϮϱϬϬ^&&ŝƚŶĞƐƐ ϮϰϬϬ^&ŽͲtŽƌŬŝŶŐͬƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϭϰϱϬ^&WĞƚ^ƉĂ ϱϱϬ^&DŝƐĐŵĞŶŝƚLJ ϭϮϱϬ^&ŝĐLJĐůĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ;ůĂƐƐ/Ϳ ϰϯϳϬ^&ŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ ϮϬϲϮϬ^&>ŽďďLJ ϭϵϬϬ^& ^ŝƚĞ
ĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬ Ϯ͘ϬĂĐƌĞƐ
'ƌŽƐƐƵŝůĚŝŶŐƌĞĂ>ĞǀĞůϭ^ƵďƚĞƌƌĂŶĞĂŶ'ĂƌĂŐĞ ϮϮϴ͕ϰϭϱ>ĞǀĞůϭ'ĂƌĂŐĞ ϮϬϯ͕ϳϱϬ>ĞǀĞůϭZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů͕ƌĞƚĂŝů͕ΘĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ϵϲ͕ϭϲϱ>ĞǀĞůϮ'ĂƌĂŐĞ ϭϵϰ͕ϬϬϬ>ĞǀĞůϮZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůΘĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ϭϬϱ͕ϲϬϬ>ĞǀĞůϯZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůΘĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ϮϬϳ͕ϳϭϱ>ĞǀĞůϰZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϬϳ͕ϳϭϱ>ĞǀĞůϱZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϭϬ͕ϯϯϱ>ĞǀĞůϲZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϭϬ͕ϯϯϱ>ĞǀĞůϳZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϬϱ͕ϴϬϱdKd> ϭ͕ϴϲϵ͕ϴϯϱ hE/d^ YƵĂŶ͘ Z͘^͘&͘ Dŝdž ZĞŶƚĂďůĞ^͘&͘ WĂƌŬŝŶŐZĂƚŝŽ WĂƌŬŝŶŐZĞƋΖĚ^ƚƵĚŝŽƐdŽƚĂů ϭϳϬ ϱϳϬ ϭϱ͘ϴй ϵϲ͕ϴϭϱ ϭ ϭϳϬϭZhŶŝƚƐdŽƚĂů ϱϵϳ ϳϱϬ ϱϱ͘ϱй ϰϰϳ͕ϳϴϱ ϭ ϱϵϳϮZhŶŝƚƐdŽƚĂů ϯϬϴ ϭϭϳϳ Ϯϴ͘ϳй ϯϲϮ͕ϰϭϱ Ϯ ϲϭϲ>>hE/d^ͲdKd> ϭ͕Ϭϳϱ ϴϰϰ ϭϬϬ͘Ϭй ϵϬϳ͕Ϭϭϱ ϭϯϴϯ h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKWK^
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϰϲϲ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϰϳĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϵ sWĂƌŬŝŶŐͲϭϱй;
sZĞĂĚLJͬ&ƵƚƵƌĞ
sͿ/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ϳϬ
h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKs/
ϰϲϲh/>/E'WZ</E'WZKWK^
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϱϭϲ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϱϮĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϭϬ sWĂƌŬŝŶŐͲϭϱй;
sZĞĂĚLJͬ&ƵƚƵƌĞ
sͿ/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ϳϳZĞƚĂŝů;ϭƉĞƌϮϬϬ^&Ϳ ϭϬWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϭϬ h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKs/
ϱϯϲh/>/E'WZ</E'WZKWK^
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϰϬϭ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϰϬĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϵ sWĂƌŬŝŶŐͲϭϱй;
sZĞĂĚLJͬ&ƵƚƵƌĞ
sͿ/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ϲϬWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϭϬ
h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKs/
ϰϭϭdKd>WZ</E'WZKWK^
ƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϭϯϴϯ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϭϯϴWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϮϬEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞ;ϭƉĞƌϮϬϬ^&Ϳ ϭϬ dKd>WZ</E'WZKs/
ϭϰϭϯ/<
WZ</E'WZKWK^
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϭƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϯϲϯƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϭƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϯϵϴƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϭƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϯϭϰƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϱƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϮϱƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϱƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϮϳƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϱƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϮϭEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϯϬĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐͿ ϭEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϬϬϬƐĨͿ Ϯ dŽƚĂůŝŬĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐWƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ϭϭϱϭKW
EZ
^ŝƚĞƌĞĂ^& ϱϴϬϵϭϲƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ^& Ϯϵϵϵϭϱ
KW
EZ
WZKs/
ϰϴй
I
I ! ! ! ! !
I
! I
ri
STUDIO
TSQUARE
rhaa
~ BkF
GREYSTAR
6KHHW7LWOH
6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R
7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7
$UFKLWHFWXUH
%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD
3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV
1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD
*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO
)D[
ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO
ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO
)D[
ZZZENIFRP
'(9(/230(1767$1'$5'6
0LQLPXP%LF\FOH3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWV
L
)RUHDFKPXOWLIDPLO\XQLWRQH&ODVVELF\FOHSDUNLQJVSDFHSHUXQLWDQGRQH&ODVVELNHUDFNDFFRPPRGDWLQJWZRELNHVSHUXQLWVLVUHTXLUHG LL
0L[HGXVHGHYHORSPHQWV
2QH&ODVVELF\FOHSDUNLQJVSDFHSHUHPSOR\HHVDQGRQH&ODVVELNHUDFNIRUHYHU\VTXDUHIHHWRIUHWDLOÀH[RUFRPPXQLW\XVH LLL
2ႈFH GHYHORSPHQWV
2QH ELF\FOH SDUNLQJ VSDFH SHU VTXDUHIHHWZLWKSHUFHQWDV&ODVV2QHVSDFHVDQGSHUFHQWDV&ODVV7ZRUDFNV´$ႇRUGDELOLW\/HYHOV )RUHLWKHURZQHUVKLSRUUHQWDOKRXVLQJGHYHORSHGXQGHUWKHWKLV3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQWUH]RQLQJWKHIROORZLQJDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVDSSO\
D
1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJ 6XEVHFWLRQ
D
UHVLGHQWLDO RZQHUVKLSSURMHFWV RIWHQ RUPRUH XQLWVPXVW SURYLGH DW OHDVW ¿IWHHQ SHUFHQW
RIWKHXQLWVDWDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRVWVIRUH[WUHPHO\ORZYHU\ORZORZPRGHUDWHDQGDERYHPRGHUDWHLQFRPHKRXVHKROGVRUVRPHFRPELQDWLRQRIWKRVHLQFRPHFDWHJRULHV$GHYHORSHUVKDOOVHOHFWLQFRPHFDWHJRULHVVXFKWKDWWKHDYHUDJHLQFRPHRISXUFKDVHUVZLOOQRWH[FHHGHLJKW\SHUFHQW
RI$0,5HVLGHQWLDORZQHUVKLSSURMHFWVRIIHZHUWKDQWHQXQLWVPD\HLWKHUSURYLGHRQHGZHOOLQJDWDQDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRVWIRUDKRXVHKROGHDUQLQJXSWRHLJKW\SHUFHQW
RI$0,RUSD\DQLQOLHXIHHLGHQWL¿HGIRUUHVLGHQWLDORZQHUVKLSSURMHFWVLQWKHDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJPDVWHUIHHVFKHGXOH E
1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJ6XEVHFWLRQ
D
IRU UHVLGHQWLDO UHQWDOSURMHFWVRIWHQRUPRUHXQLWVWKHGHYHORSHUPXVWSURYLGHDWOHDVW¿IWHHQSHUFHQW
RIWKHXQLWVDWDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRVWVIRUH[WUHPHO\ORZYHU\ORZORZPRGHUDWHDQGDERYHPRGHUDWHLQFRPHKRXVHKROGVRUVRPHFRPELQDWLRQRIWKRVHLQFRPHFDWHJRULHV$GHYHORSHUVKDOOVHOHFWLQFRPHFDWHJRULHVVXFKWKDWWKHDYHUDJHLQFRPHRIUHQWHUVZLOOQRWH[FHHGHLJKW\SHUFHQW
RI$0,6WRUPZDWHU7UHDWPHQW3ODQ 6WRUPZDWHUWUHDWPHQWVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHK\GUDXOLFVL]LQJUHTXLUHPHQWVRI3URYLVLRQ&G 9HU\+LJK'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO=RQH
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
E
6KDUHG3DUNLQJ3DUNLQJVKDUHGDPRQJXVHVLVHQFRXUDJHGDQGXSWRRISDUNLQJVSDFHVSURYLGHGPD\EHVKDUHGEHWZHHQWZRXVHV)RUWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLVWLWOHWKRVHSDUNLQJVSDFHVVKDUHGEHWZHHQWZRXVHVFRXQWWRZDUGVWKHSDUNLQJ UHTXLUHPHQWRIERWK F
6XUIDFH3DUNLQJ6XUIDFHSDUNLQJLVRQO\DOORZHGDVDWHPSRUDU\RULQWHULPXVH G
0HFKDQLFDOSDUNLQJVWDFNHUVOLIWVDQGWDQGHPSDUNLQJPD\EHXVHGWRVDWLVI\PLQLPXPUHTXLUHPHQWV H
8QEXQGOHG3DUNLQJ$PD[LPXPRIRQHSDUNLQJVSDFHVKDOOEHUHQWHGRUVROGZLWKHDFKXQLW$GGLWLRQDOSDUNLQJVSDFHVVKDOOEHUHQWHGRUVROGVHSDUDWHO\ L
$VDQDOWHUQDWLYHWRUHQWLQJRUVHOOLQJSDUNLQJVSDFHVVHSDUDWHO\IURPUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWSURSHUW\PDQDJHUVPD\LPSOHPHQWDSDUNLQJSUHIHUHQFHSURJUDPZLWKSURVSHFWLYHUHQWHUVZLWKRXWFDUVSXWRQDVHSDUDWHZDLWLQJOLVWIURPUHQWHUVZLWKFDUVDQGUHQWHUVEHLQJFKRVHQDOWHUQDWHO\IURPWKHWZROLVWV
s
>KWD
Ed^dEZ^
$
3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWV
0LQLPXPVSDFHVSHUXQLW
LQFOXVLYHLQUHVLGHQWVSDUNLQJ
*6)8QLW
7KH'HYHORSPHQW6WDQGDUGVSDJHHVWDEOLVKHVWKH]RQLQJVWDQGDUGVIRUWKH3URMHFW $OORWKHUSDJHVDUHIRULOOXVWUDWLYHSXUSRVHV
*6)8QLW
Permitted Uses and Permit Requirements - Residential.
Land Use (see Artide 8 for land use defini6ons).
Owelling, Accessory Units
Dwelling, Multifamily Dwelling, Second Unit Dwelling, 51\gle-family Dwelling, Two-family Employee Housing
Home Oa:upalions Live-Work Facilities Mobile Home Park
OrganizationalHO\lses
Rooming and/or Boarding Houses
SllpportiveHousing
Transitional Housing
Assisted Living Faci~ties
Oay Care Homes, Up to 14 Children Commun ity Care Facilifies, Small Community Care Facilities, Large Emergency Shelters
Community Gardens
Parks and Pubic PLaizas Retail
Off-sale of alcohol
Restaurants, including on-sale of alcohol
Office Uses
Residential Zones
CUP CUP CUP
Development Standards.
Development feature Freedom Circle
minimum unless otherwise indicated
Parcel Area 10,000
Street Frontage (feet~ 70 Structural Coverage (maximum percentag Parcel Alea (less than 10,000 sq. ft.) None Parcel Area (greater than 10,000 sq. ft.) None Setbacks (minimum)- Setback lines are sured from the back of walk Residential (front, side comer and interior) 10
Mixed-Use (front, side comer and interior) 0
Office (front, side corner and interior)
Height (maximum) measured in front
Height (within 20 feet of the R1 -6L, R1.,<JL, and 32
R2 zones)
Height (all other zones) 100 Number of Stories {maximum) Number of Stories (all other zones) 10 Gross Residential Density (minimum tom imum) shown in number of dwelling unrts per acre Allowable Density
Recreation Space for Multi-Family Dwelhn {minimum) measured in square feet per dwelling unit Private Recreation Space
Common Recreation Space (per unit)
(a) Minimum Parking Requirements
,. ,. ''
Residential Minimum 1 space per unit for units
1BRorless
Minimum 2 spaces per unit for units
w/ more than 1 BR
Retail / Flex None required Minimum 1 space per 1,000 SF Office Minimum one space for each 500 Minimum 1 space per 3,000 SF SF of gross floor area
Community/Civic None required None required
ri
STUDIO
TSQUARE
rhaa
~ BkF
GREYSTAR
0 6
,
2 /
*
(
%
/9'
6KHHW7LWOH
6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R
7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7
$UFKLWHFWXUH
%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD
3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV
1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD
*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO
)D[
ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO
ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO
)D[
ZZZENIFRP
$
,//8675$7,9(6,7(3/$1
%$<6+25()5((:$<86
(. 75$,/
' 0 &,5
'5 9(
´ ¶´
,//8675$7,9(6,7(3/$1 6&$/(
´ ¶´
3+$6(
3+$6(
3+$6(
%8,/',1*$
%8,/',1*%
$&5(
38%/,&3$5.
%8,/',1*&
9(57,&$/&,5&8/$7,21$0(1,7<$5($
/(*(1'
81,7
;::::::---- ---
-----~
------
~-FR / c,t:: ~l§:::::O ----~=- --
--
[fl
0 z
0 r
{T\
;;;;:; GRAP;;:;; mr7c' scd,~-----..:"• g
60' ,,.
'
ri
STUDI 0
TSQUA RE
rha a
,.,.. __
""''""~, .......
~ BkF
100+
YEARS PlANMERS
GREYSTAR
-
-
AMENITY
DOWN TO B1
GARAGE
AY B SHORE FREEWAY- US 101
FREEDOM CIRCLE DRIVE
SAN TOMAS AQUINO CREEK TRAIL
BLDG B LEVEL
1 GARAGE
ACCESS
PUBLIC PARK/
GUEST/RETAIL/
LEASING ACCESS
ONLY
BLDG A LEVEL
1 GARAGE
ACCESS
BLDG A LEVEL
2 GARAGE
ACCESS
BLDG B LEVEL B1 GARAGE ACCESS
SECURED RESIDENTIAL ACCESS ONLY
UP TO LEVEL
2 GARAGE
BLDG A LEVEL
B1 GARAGE
ACCESS
TO SANTA
CLARA SQUARE
BLDG C
GARAGE
ACCESS TO ALL
LEVELS
BLDG B LEVEL 2 GARAGE ACCESS TWO WAY TRAFFIC
PEDESTRIAN ACCESSBIKE PATHMOVE-IN LOBBY
LEGEND
MOVE-IN / LOADING ZONEREGIONAL BIKE & PEDESTRIAN TRAILPEDESTRIAN PATH
CROSSING
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
LVD
TO LEVI’S
STADIUM
PASEO
Sheet Title:Scale:Job No. :Date:Sheet No:
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED
IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS
CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,COPYRIGHT 20 : Architecture
:
%URDGZD\6XLWH: Oakland, California 94: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning : Urban Design
Revisions:
No. Description Date
Freedom Circle
Greystar
5HVLGHQWLDO
Santa Clara, &DOLIRUQLD
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California
323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
San Jose, CA
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
8/11/2021
A-030
SITE CIRCULATIONPLAN
1 SITE CIRCULATION PLAN SCALE: 1” = 60’-0”
1” = 60’-0”
BUILDING A
BUILDING B
2.0 ACRE
PUBLIC PARK
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR
PARK PEDESTRIAN PATH
BUILDING C
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHEIN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OFEVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITSCONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHERPURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVECOPYRIGHT 2020. : Architecture
: 1970 Broadway, Suite 500: Oakland, California 94612: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning: Urban Design
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
San Jose, CA
323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
Freedom Circle Residential
Santa Clara, California
Greystar
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California
Revisions:
No. Description Date
Sheet Title:
Scale: AS SHOWNJob No. :Date: 07/13/2021
20002
Sheet No:
PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN
LEGEND
C2.0
SITE PLAN NOTES
I I
j
I
PROPERTY UIE
AOJo\CENTPRCPERTYUNE
BKlRETENTlONAREA
(N) \OllCAI. CURS (N)lta!llCAl.t'URSANOGUTIER
EXIS'IING EASEMENTUNE
SOIT lRIANGLE UNE CROSSSECTIONREFERENC£
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHEIN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OFEVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITSCONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHERPURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVECOPYRIGHT 2020. : Architecture
: 1970 Broadway, Suite 500: Oakland, California 94612: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning: Urban Design
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
San Jose, CA
323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
Freedom Circle Residential
Santa Clara, California
Greystar
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California
Revisions:
No. Description Date
Sheet Title:
Scale: AS SHOWNJob No. :Date: 07/13/2021
20002
Sheet No:
PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN
C2.1
LEGEND
SITE PLAN NOTES
c:==: === : === JI
(N)\-UillCAI.CUR8 (N)\9111CAI.CUR8Atl)GUTIER
1. UNUSED ORl'o£WA\"S IN THE PUBU(; RIGHT-OF'-WAY
SHAU.BERD'LAtm"IITHCITYSTANDARDClMB.
GUTIER.ANDSID£WALK.
2. DAMAGE OJRB, GUTTER, AND SlllEWolJ..K 'IITHN Tl£
Pl.8..JCRICHT-OF'-WAYALONGTHEPROPERTY'S
f'ROHTAGESHAU.BEREPAIRCOORREPLACED(lOlliE
NEAAEST SCORE MARK) IN A MANNER ACUPTA8LE TO
l. .W. NEW DRIVEWAYS ALONG THE PROPERTY ""-1.
COrilPI.Y 'MTH THE QTY"S DRIVEWAY AND INTEFlstCllON
~:~~a.:[N~~~GHT WU. NOT
~~Ts:r1:;riw~~
4. SEETHE'£$11NGTENTA11VEPARCO.MAP,SHEET
TM-I, roR AU.PARCEL UNE ANO CURVE TA8LES.
SEE THt-.ESflH(l TENTAlM:PARCELMAP,SHEET
:~~WON.ALLOF'THEPROPOSEDEASEMENT
6· ,.~lo FREEDOM
/
CIRCLE SHALL HAVE SIGNAGE AND SlRIPING, BOTH ON-sm:{PRIVATES'IREETA)ANDOFF-sm:
~~Cl:f}ON~:.T DE90NATE$ RIGHT TURN IN,
--- ------r--/
TTURNIN/OUTONU /
F--'"'
_
-
_
•
_
'"''""'J I
(N)llRl~VPER Cl1'YSTANOAAO
(N)OJR>,O)ST~:a
RAWi>PERQty
STANDAfil\,st-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GRAPHIC SCALE
P"'\-+K-
"' 0 "' 80
Iii
STUDIO
TSQUARE
rhaa
~ BkF
GREYSTAR
Sheet Title:
Scale:Job No. :Date:Sheet No:
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED
IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS
CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,COPYRIGHT 20 : Architecture
:
%URDGZD\6XLWH: Oakland, California 94: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning : Urban Design
Revisions:
No. Description Date
Freedom Circle
Greystar
5HVLGHQWLDO
Santa Clara, &DOLIRUQLD
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California
323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
San Jose, CA
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
8/11/2021
A-401
COMPOSITESECTIONS
AS NOTED
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
l
i ri Ti~
.m I T 'ffi - - - ·" - - "" - ·" - STUDIO - ·" ,.I - ·" - l: : -~ - l'CQ.<:0.RN - ... - "" - l'CQ.<:O.ll"'""'' . - ·" - TSQUARE --·- - ·" --· - I
=> :r - => ~-- ... • •• -••· ... -- => II I --· II - -- - --· I Jl) Poll.llNG l M!UI --· I i --· I lt,~ I me I ~mmc,,,,,,,_ M ' ,_.~-E- '<•~- 1S'-{l'SCT8'0C !!'sna,o( COMPOSITE SITE SECTION · SCAL.f: l ' = 60' I 3 rhaa
,.,.._ .. """"''"~'' ...... "'""
.. ..
I
I
I U,IT tx<IT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT 1 I ~ BkF U,IT tx<IT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT U,IT tx<IT U,IT UNIT U,IT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT tx<IT UNIT
.. •
UNIT UNIT UNIT ., 100+ I UNIT tx<IT -~ AMENITY POOL COORll'/\RD UNIT UNIT 1- -~ - POOL CDURTYARD"- ,,.. ._ YEARS p1,.u ;1m1s .... PARKINGLEVB.2 I UNIT - - UNIT I PARKINGLEVEL2
T '1 PARKING LEVEL I UNIT i I UNIT PARKING LEVEL I
•·~-il~r
PARKJNGLEVEL81 PARKING LEVEL Bl I
I LDING 60' TO 85' SEPARATIO IIDING ; 2 ACREDEDICATEDPAAK "'-1s• MIN BUILDING SETeACK "'-tS'-O"SETBACK
BUILDING A ANO B SITE SECTION - SCALE: 1' = 40' I 2 GREYSTAR .. .. ..
I I
I I
NIT UNIT I I NIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT T NIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT NIT 111! ltt UNIT UNIT UNIT - POOL COURTYM D .._ _.., ,. NIT AMENITY POOL COURTYARD - -- UNIT UNIT --- COORlYARD I -- UNIT LEVEI.2 r,,- '1- ••• ••• -••· .. ...... UNIT I PARKINGLEVEL2 11 - LEVELi ·- UNIT PAAKINGLEVELl BI I I PARKING LEVEL Bl I , 1"SETIIACl( --BUILDING , 2 ACRE DEDICATED PARK ,
~15'-0' SETBAO(
·
- -LDINGC
15'--0' SETBACK lt' SETBACK \ 26'-0"£!/A
BUILDING C SITE SECTION - SCALE: l' = 40' I 1
6~® 6
BUILDINGB
BUILDINGC
BUllOINGA
KEYPI.AN
08/11/2021
PROPERTY LINE
LEGEND
10 9876
5 43
21 1/2-ACRE TURFED PLAY FIELD
LANDSCAPED AND FURNISHED, PARK-LIKE QUIET AREAPLAYGROUNDSPORT COURTPICNIC AREA & BOCCE COURTOFF-LEASH DOG AREACONNECTION TO CREEK TRAIL PERIMETER ROADPARKING GARAGE ENTRYBIKE LANE CLASS II 1 2
10 2
3 4
5 6
8 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
11 SAN TOMAS AQUINO CREEK TRAIL
FREEDOM CIRCLE
THE BAYSHORE FREEWAY
BUILDING A BUILDING B
BUILDING C
PARK PROPERTY LINE
7 0 30’ 60’ 120’ N
LEASING
OFFICE
BIKE
STORAGE
BIKE
STORAGE
BIKE
STORAGE PET SPA
COWORKING
LOBBY
MAIL
PET SPA
AMENITY / BIKE SHOP
BUSINESS
LOUNGE
LOBBY
MAIL
LEASING
OFFICE
10 PARKING 10 PAR SPACES
RESERVED F E OR PARK
VISITORS
LOBBY
MAIL
PET SPA BIKE STORAGE
LEASING
LOBBY
10 PARKING SPACESRESERVED FOR PARKVISITORS
RESTROOMS FOR
PARK VISITORS
MOVE-IN LO M V BBY
BIKE
STORAGE
STREET LEVELLANDSCAPE PLAN
1”=60’-0”
L-102
10 8
8 ri
STUDIO
TSQUARE
Architecture
Planning
Urban Design
· 19TO&omway,S<,ite500
: Oekland.~lk612
; {510)45\-2950
rhaa
=~ci."802
Telol15.8e1-7900
__ ,...,
~ Bkf
17301'1F...iSI.SuM900
s.n.-,CA
Tllol011.a1&19100
F••4011.4e191" -wGREYSTAR
AFfili9nt•
LEGEND LOT 1 LINE AND CURVE TABLES LOT 2 LINE AND CURVE TABLES
ABBREVIATIONS
LOT 3 LINE AND CURVE TABLES LOT 4 LINE AND CURVE TABLES PUBLIC STORM DRAIN EASEMENT *
LINE TABLE
GENERAi NOTES
1 VESTING IfNTATI\IE PARCEi MAP TJ-, IS VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE V, SECTION 400, "SUBDl\tlSION OF FOUR OR FEWER PARCELS (MINOR SUBDI\/ISIONSr OF TH£ CITY OF SAN TA CLARA MUNICIPAL COO£. THE VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP WILL CREATE FOUR (4) PARCELS FROM TJ-,E TWO (2) EXISTING PARCELS. PARCEL 4 IS CREATED ON THIS MAP IS FOR FUTURE DEDICATION
TO TH E CITY OF SAN TA CLARA
2 UJl.U..Il.E.S;_ UTILI TY SIZING AND LOCATIONS ARE PRELIMINAR Y ANO SUBJECT TO FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN. SEE UTILITY CLEARANCE REQU IREMENTS NOTES ON SHEET C4. 1
3. EASEMENJS:.. EXISTING £AS£1,1£N TS ARE LISTED IN TH£ VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP.
4 EE.Mt,;_ THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN ZONE X AS SHOWN IN FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP COMMUN ITY NUMBER D6085C0063H, DAITO MAY 18, 2009. FLOOD ZONE X BEING AREAS OF 0.2JY. ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; AREAS OF 1~ ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS TH AN 1 FOOT OR WI TH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS Tl-lAN 1 SQUARE MILE; AND AREAS PROTECITD BY LEVEES FROM 1:t ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOO
5. OWNER/SlJ BPI\IIPER 7 . .5!..IE....AP.1
GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS ]905 FREEDOM CIRCLE CONTACT: DAN DEIBEL SANTA CLARA. CA 95D54 PHONE: 415.524.0992
6 . g\r7~ E~Ncr~NE1:~'§
1730N.FlRSTSTREET,
SUITE600
1~~~5~~HOROVSKY 7:~
Ii
I
8. ASSESSORS PARCEi NO
PARCEL 1: 104- 40- 036
PARCEL 2: 104-40- 021
BIORETENTION AREA
EXISTlNGEASEr.tEN T LJNE
PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE
PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT
PROPOSED EMERGENCY .£HIGLE ACCESS
EASEMENT ANO INGRESS/ EGRESS
EASEMENT TO ACCESS PUBLIC STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
WATER UTI LITY EASEMENT
I.N:MO. 1.£NQ1M mE:1ION
FIR£ MAINS REPRESENT CENTER LIN£ OF 5' 'MOE PRIVATE FIRE SERVICE EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARCEL 1, PARCEL 2, AND PARCEL J PBIYtfil SJORM DRAIN EAfiEMQH·
STORM DRAIN MAINS IN PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2
REPRESENT CENTER LINE OF 5" WI DE PRIVATE:
STORM DRAIN EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFI T OF
PARCEL 2 AND PARCEL 1 RESPECTIVELY
PBIYl:Jf S:YtlP.RY 5EWfR EAffMFNI·
SANITARY SEWER MAINS IN PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2
REPRESENT CENTER LINE OF 5" WI DE PRIVATE
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT FOR TI-lE BENEFlT OF
PARCEL 2AND PARCEL1 RESPECTIVELY
• PURI IC SIQRM DRAIN EASEMENT NQ1f·
OWNERSHIP SHALL PROVIDE THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA WITH AN IJNPEBGBOIJNO IJDI IIY EAffMFNI· IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF Tl-IE LAND COVERED WI THIN SILICON VALLEY POWER (SVP) UTILITY STRUCTURES THS NEW PUBLIC STORM DRAIN EASEMENT TO SERVE AS A FU TURE AND ASSOCIATED CONDUIT Will. BE PLACED IN THEIR PUM P STATION Sj TE. TI-llS IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION WI LL OWN RESPECTIVE EASEMENTS. LOCATIONS OF TI-JES[
ALSO INCLUDE AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF SAID PUMP STATION EASEMENTS ARE TENTATIVELY SHOWN ON SHEETS PARCEL WHICH WILL HAVE TI-lE SAME PATI-l AS TI-lE PROPOSED C4.D- C4.1 ANO WI LL BE FULLY OEITRI.IINED WHEN E.V.A.E. AND THE INGRESS/EGRESS EASEM ENT TO ACCESS PUBLIC SVP HAS FINISHED DESIGN OF THESE FACILITIES
STORM DRAIN EASEMENT SHOWN BELOW
PYBUC WAJEB SEB\ACE Q.SQ4FNT LANO USE ANO ZONING PESIGNADONS A DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE LATER AL AND ASSOCIATED EXISTING ZONING: COMMERCIAL PARK APPURTENANCES 'M LL BE PLACED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE PROPOSED ZONING: FREEDOM CIRCL£ FOCUS EASEMENTS. LOCATIONS OF THESE EASEMENTS ARE TENTATIVELY AREA PLAN SHOWN ON SHEETS C4.0- C4.1 ANO WILL BE FULLY OETERI.IINEO EXISTING USE: PARKING ANO VACAN T LANO ~~p~r ~~ZEO DESIGN FOR Tl, IS WATER SERVICE LINE HAS :r~~ ~;:dESIDENTIAL, COMI.IERCIAL lllii:z:i;::: .2j] I.N:NO. l.tMQ1H Olt[C1KIN
-
E.V.A.E EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT
W.U.E. WATER UTILITY EASEMENT
P.I.E.E. PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT
U.G.E.E. UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL EASEMENT
P.A. [ PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
P.S.E PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT
P.U.E PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
mTi-IfEP-n.R'fA~9!1ioPERTY s IruAn:o IN THE COUNTY
OF SANTA CLARA. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
PARCEL ONE:
ALL OF PARCEL 2. AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP
ENTITlEO, "PARCEL MAP BEING A RESUBOIVISION OF LANDS OF MARRIOTT CORPORATION, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO FESPAR ENTERPRISES, INC., ANO MARRIOTT HOTELS, INC., AND STEPHEN & MARY DORCICH AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY
RECORDED ON JANUARY 12, 1977 IN BOOK 386 OF MAPS. AT
PAGE 54. SAN TA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS", 'M-1 ICH MAP WAS
FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON ~~CEMBER 29. 1977 IN BOOK 410 OF MAPS. AT PAGES 29 ANO EXCEPTING THEREFROM TH AT PORTION TI-lEREOF CON VEYED TO
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA CALIFORNIA, A CHARTERED
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDED AUGUST 11 , 1999 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 14936851. OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL TWO:
ALL OF PARCEL 2. AS SHOWN UPON THAT U:RTAIN MAP
ENTITlED. "PARCEL MAP BEING ALL OF PARCEL 3. AS SHOIYN
ON TH AT CERTAIN 'PARCEL MAP", RECORDED IN BOOK 410 Of
MAPS. AT PAGES 29 AND 30, SANTA CLARA COUNTY
RECORDS", \YI-I ICH MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN TI-lE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN TA CLARA, STATE OF CALJFORNIA, ON MAY 18, 1979 IN BOOK 442 OF MAPS. AT PAGES.
ljj In
.,
I.N:HO.I.ING"IH laC'1l0N
LB J•5.16 s~210•,2•w
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
TI-J IS ITNTATIVE MAP HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME
OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. AT TI-lE REQUEST OF GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTN ERS ON (DAT£)
PRELIMNARY
JOHN KOROYAN
P.L. S. NO. 8883
JKOROYANC10KF.COM
DAT£: JULY 13, 2021
ENGINEER'S STATEt.ENT
TH IS ITNTATIVE MAP HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME
OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. AT TI-lE REQUEST OF
GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS ON (OAT£)
PRELIMNARY
NORMAN I KONTOROVSKY P.E. NO. 78090
IKONTOROVSKYCl0KF.COM
OAT£: JULY 13. 2021
UEMO. I.DC1H Dll£C"JION 0UIM MO. I.DIG1tt ltMIUS DU.To\ 5,,s2 120.81 oo-t-zo·oz•
SH EET INDEX
J
I j
( 1 •
..... J
N.T.S.
!.ON COUtGE: 61.\otl
Sllflll!Q. Sllill___Il_Il.
TM- 1 VESTING TEN TATIVE PARCEL MAP
EXISTING CONDI Tl ONS EXISTING CONDITION S PRELJMINARYSITEPLAN C2.1 PRELIMINARY SI TE PLAN
C3.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
C4.0 PRELJMINARYUTILITYPLAN C4.1 PRELJI.IINARYUTILITYPLAN 10 C4.2 PRELJMINARYUTILITYPLAN
C5.0 CROSS SECTIONS
12 CS.1 CROSS SECTIONS
13 C6.0 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEI.IENT PLAN 14 CS. 1 PRELIMINAR Y STORMWATER MANAGEI.IENT PLAN 15 C7.0 FIRE ACCESS PLAN 16 C7.1 l" l
:H
!" . Ii
- t $1
L.N:MO. I.INGlH Dll!C1ION QIM:MO. l.tMQ1H RMaJS
14,1J N•11l1'17'W CJ 174.94 JJ6.00 0 29·49"54•
299.03 ss2io•15•w I C4 l 5 4.52 ! 120.a1 ! 004•20·02• I
GRAPHIC SCALE
1-1•
BK F ENGINEERS
:':':
z
Ct'
Cl. 0
C LL :::J
:::E <( II.I u
..J ..J
0 w <O
cc 0 .; >- a: f--- ,:. z 0 C :::J
Cl. 0 0
:I "' 0 w z ... <( 0 > ... Ct' Q <( j:: w __j II.I ... u II.I C ii: <( z f--- cc 0 z
LL z j:: <( w C 1/)
II) 0 ::::;
0 (!J ... ... O> 3!: C (') <(
Ct'
u, <( __j
w 0
> <( f---
z
<(
1/)
Drowing Num ber:
TM-1
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT
Recommendation on General Plan Amendments for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the Greystar Development Project
BACKGROUND
In 2016, Greystar Development (Greystar) submitted a proposal to the City to redevelop a 13.3 acre site in North Santa Clara between Freedom Circle and San Tomas Aquino Creek on the north side of US Highway 101 from low intensity commercial office use to a high intensity mixed-use development featuring residential and office towers. Rather than proceed independently with a General Plan Amendment (GPA) specific to the Greystar site, the City Council directed staff to process the General Plan Amendment along with an amendment to the City’s General Plan to designate the Greystar site and adjacent properties to the west and north as a Future Focus Area in the City’s General Plan, thereby establishing additional commercial and residential development capacity for the larger area.
Greystar has been funding the Focus Area process while also moving forward with a GPA application for their site and an accompanying development proposal for up to 1,100 multi-family dwelling units.
The Planning Commission is being asked to conduct a public hearing and make recommendations on four actions for the City Council related to the creation and adoption of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the associated Greystar General Plan Amendment (the project):
1) Determination of the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts for the project and an associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
2) Adoption of a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area; 3) Adoption of the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51- 100 Dwelling Unit/Acre; and
4) Adoption of the Planned Development Rezoning for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south.
DISCUSSION
In conjunction with the Greystar development, the City Council directed Planning staff to plan for a future transition to a mix of residential and office uses for the properties around Freedom Circle by creating a new General Plan Future Focus Area. Based on prior City Council direction, staff is considering preparation of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area to be a precondition of the City Council for completing the processing of the GPA for the Greystar parcel.
City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
The Freedom Circle area (shown in Attachment 1) is not currently designated for conversion to residential uses under any phase of the 2010 - 2035 General Plan, but rather planned over the longterm to be preserved for employment uses. The buildings in the Freedom Circle area are a mix of concrete tilt-ups, office towers, and single-use commercial buildings such as the Santa Clara Marriott Hotel and Pedro’s Cantina. The Greystar site, which sits directly north of 101 and directly west of San Tomas Aquino Creek, is undeveloped.
The proposed Freedom Circle Future Focus Area encompasses approximately 108 gross acres in an employment-rich area of northern Santa Clara, comprising several moderate-intensity office and industrial parks accompanied by surface parking, along with the Santa Clara Marriot Hotel. The Plan Area is bounded by San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east, Great America Parkway to the west, Great America Theme Park to the north, and US-101 to the south. It is proximate to a range of regional destinations and amenities, including Levi’s Stadium, Great America Theme Park, and the Santa Clara Convention Center.
The vision for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area is an intensely urban environment, with Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard retaining their commercial character while sites along Freedom Circle could be converted to high-intensity residential use. As indicated in the Notice of Preparation circulated on June 26, 2020, the proposed Future Focus Area would support up to 2,500 residential dwelling units in addition to the 1,100 units proposed through the Greystar GPA, for a total of 3,600 dwelling units. The Future Focus Area designation will also add the potential to develop 2 million square feet of office space beyond the current General Plan capacity, allowing a total of 9.6 million square feet of potential office/industrial development. The addition of new residentially designated land will help the City achieve its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals for housing production. The parcels designated High Intensity Office/R&D are currently developed with approximately 2.35 million square feet of building space.
Most of the proposed Specific Plan Area currently has a High Intensity Office/R&D General Plan designation, which supports high-rise and campus style office development with an allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to 2.0. The Marriott Hotel site is the lone exception and is currently designated Regional Commercial. Unlike other Future Focus Areas where the City anticipates conversion of all or a large majority of lands to residential use, this Future Focus Area is intended to preserve a significant amount of commercial use, reflecting the existing commercial and office uses which play an important role in the City.
The Greystar General Plan Amendment would change the General Plan land use designation for a vacant 13.3 acre site, which is bounded by San Tomas Aquino Creek to the East, Freedom Circle to the West, and Highway 101 to the south from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Units/Acre). Greystar is proposing as depicted on a conceptual site plan a total of 1,075 dwelling units in three 7-story buildings, all of which are proposed to be a maximum of 100 feet in height. The proposal also includes a two-acre public park with a connection to the San Tomas Aquino Creek trail, and up to 2,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail.
The primary issues for the Planning Commission to consider in evaluating the proposed Future Focus Area Plan are its consistency with the General Plan and the strength of the Plan’s policies to act as the foundation for a future Specific Plan. Because the General Plan does not currently include City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
a process or policies related to the creation of new Future Focus Areas, the following discussion relies on policies for existing Focus Areas, and on land use policies that are applicable City-wide.
General Plan Text Amendment-Future Focus Areas
The proposed General Plan Amendment would add the following text and new policy to the General Plan (under section “5.4.7 Future Focus Areas Goals and Policies”): “In addition to the three Future Focus Areas, additional Future Focus Areas may be added to the General Plan Land Use diagram through the General Plan Amendment process. The creation of a Future Focus Area is a precursor to the comprehensive planning process required for all Focus Areas.” This additional text provides a process for expanding the number of Future Focus Areas available for development.
The General Plan text amendment would also add the following policy to the General Plan: “Policy
5.4.7-P11: Allow for General Plan Amendments and rezonings outside of existing Future Focus Areas in combination with the designation of new Future Focus Areas.” This proposed General Plan Text Amendment helps to resolve the conflict between the proposed Greystar General Plan Amendment and the General Plan requirement to develop under the existing land use designation (General Plan Policy 5.4.7-P4).
The Future Focus Area Plan includes goals and policies that will help to establish the vision for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, an urban-scaled, walkable mixed-use neighborhood, including policies relating to land use, building interfaces with the street, active transportation networks including establishing connections to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, and housing affordability.
These Focus Area Policies are consistent with General Plan Future Focus Area Policies to implement appropriate measures to reduce land use conflicts (Policy 5.4.7-P7), to require development of public amenities, including parks and open space in the first phase of the plan (Policy 5.4.7-P8), and to emphasize walkability and access to transit in comprehensive plans (Policy 5.4.7-P9).
Upon Plan approval (with the proposed General Plan Amendment), the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area would be added as a Phase III Future Focus Area to the General Plan (Section 5.4.7), and any change in land use designation or rezoning of land within the Freedom Circle area would be subject to the requirements of the Future Focus Area Goals and Policies of the General Plan, as amended (see above).
General Plan Text Amendment-Very High-Intensity Office/R&D The text amendment also amends the General Plan to include the new Very High-Intensity Office/Research and Development (R&D) land use designation, which allows for industrial buildings to be developed at Floor Area Ratios of up to 3.0.
The definition for Very High-Intensity Office/Research and Development (R&D) is proposed as follows:
“Very High-Intensity Office/Research and Development (R&D). This classification is intended for landmark high
‐
rise developments for corporate headquarters, R&D and supporting uses, with landscaped areas for employee activities. Permitted uses include offices and prototype R&D uses.
Data centers under this designation are limited to those that serve the use on ‐
site. Medical facilities,
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
except pharmacies, are not allowed. In addition, manufacturing uses are limited to less than ten percent of the building area. Accessory, or secondary, small ‐
scale supporting retail uses that serve
local employees and visitors are also permitted. Parking is typically structured or below ‐
grade. The
maximum FAR is 3.0, excluding any FAR devoted to supporting retail uses.” The creation of the Very High-Intensity Office/R&D designation is necessary to meet one of the goals of the creation of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, namely to provide the potential for up to 2 million square feet of additional office/R&D capacity within the Focus Area boundary.
Freedom Circle Future Focus Area
As proposed, the land use designations in the Future Focus Area would also create the capacity for up to 2,500 dwelling units beyond those anticipated in the Greystar project, at densities within the Very High-Density Residential range (51-100 DU/AC).
No development other than the Greystar project is planned under the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area at the present time. Any residential development proposals, or proposals implementing the Very High-Intensity Office/R&D designation within the plan area would need to complete a comprehensive plan, with associated rezonings to implement the General Plan land use designations.
The combination of designating sites for Very High-Intensity Office/R&D and the designation of sites for residential is necessary to meet the intent of the Future Focus Area, to create a vibrant, landmark mixed-use neighborhood.
The Freedom Circle Area is located to the northwest of Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC).
During good weather, aircraft take-offs from SJC depart heading northwest towards the Freedom Circle Area. The portion of the Freedom Circle Area north of Great America Parkway is located within SJC’s Airport Influence Area, which requires a referral to the County’s Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consistency with the SJC’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. All of the additional intensity proposed in the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area is located outside of the Airport Influence Area and not subject to ALUC review, to ensure compatibility with airport operations. This arrangement of land uses is consistent with General Plan Policy 5.4.7-P2, to implement development in Focus Areas consistent with General Plan Policies related to Environmental Quality, specifically safety in relationship to the flight paths emanating from San Jose International Airport.
The proposed Future Focus Area Plan includes goals and policies that will be incorporated into the City’s General Plan and will act as a starting point for the future development of the required comprehensive plan, including the following policy regarding regional transit solutions:
“FC-P24: Require developers and property owners to coordinate with North Santa Clara employers and stakeholders to explore participating in a private transit system and/or a Transportation Management Agency (TMA) as part of the Specific Plan process.” Similarly, a draft condition of approval for the Greystar development permit requires that Greystar participate in a TMA. Greystar and other future developers in the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area will be required to participate in the TMA formed by the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. These requirements are consistent with General Plan Policy 5.8.5-P4, to “5.8.5 ‐
P4 Encourage new
development to participate in shuttle programs to access local transit services within the City[.]” City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
Planned Development Rezoning of the Greystar Site
The project also includes the rezoning of the Greystar site from CP - Commercial Park to PD - Planned Development. The subject Planned Development rezoning is intended to codify development standards for the subject site. The rezoning plans include proposed development standards, including setbacks, height limits, development densities, and maximum lot coverage.
Building plans and elevations are shown to demonstrate conformance with the proposed development standards and are only illustrative.
As currently proposed, the Greystar project includes 1,075 units in three buildings, all of which are 7 stories and up to 100 feet in height. The project also includes a 2.0 acre park at the center of the site, and a bike path connection through the park to the adjacent San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail. The proposed connection to San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail is consistent with General Plan Policy 5.8.4 ‐
P2, to “Provide a system of pedestrian and bicycle friendly facilities that supports the use of alternative travel modes and connects to activity centers as well as residential, office and mixed ‐
use
developments.”
Building Architecture is illustrative and is not intended to be considered as a part of the development standards being adopted. Approval of building architecture and site improvements will occur as a part of a development review hearing, heard by the Director of Planning after the effective date of the rezoning.
Proposed Greystar park
On September 21, 2021, the Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed a proposed schematic design for the 2.0-acre park at the center of the Greystar site. After discussion, the Commission made a unanimous recommendation that Council approve the preferred schematic design for the proposed Neighborhood Park. The Council subsequently reviewed the conceptual design for the park on February 22, 2022 and indicated that the concept could move forward, contingent upon the completion of the environmental review and approval of the Future Focus Area Plan. Development of the Greystar park is consistent with General Plan Future Focus Area Policy 5.4.7-P8, to “Require development of public amenities, including parks and open space, in the first phase of development for all Future Focus Areas.”
Conclusion
The General Plan Amendment proposed by Greystar along with the creation of a new Future Focus Area within the General Plan will allow for intensified land uses within the northern part of the City, supporting future economic development while also providing near-term and long-term capacity for new housing development. In doing so, the GPA and Future Focus Area will support City goals for efficient land use and future growth. Unlike other Focus Areas, the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area does not have close access to rail facilities, but its close proximity to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, which is the north-south spine of the City’s active transportation network, and proximity to employment and other commercial uses will support the continued development and prosperity of North Santa Clara as a more urban regional job center.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An EIR was prepared for the Greystar General Plan Amendment and Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and related approvals (the “project”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment 3). The EIR analyzes project-level impacts of the Greystar General Plan City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
Amendment and program-level impacts of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan. The EIR and Notice of Availability were circulated for a 45-day period from November 5, 2021, to December 20, 2021, in accordance with CEQA requirements. The EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts for the project, and addresses topics identified within the General Plan policies for development in Future Focus Areas, including land use compatibility and provision of public facilities and parks and open space (Policies 5.4.7-P6, 5.4.7-P7, 5.4.7-P8, and 5.4.7-P9).
The EIR found that there would be significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to:
• Air Quality (toxic air contaminant emissions)
• Cultural Resources (potential destruction or degradation of Historic property and features) • Noise (increases in traffic noise levels from development related to the Focus Area Plan) The project would also result in the following significant unavoidable cumulative impacts:
• Air Quality (criteria pollutant emissions)
All of the other potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are included in their entirety as a part of the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). A detailed discussion of the potential impacts and mitigation measures to be applied to the project is specified in the EIR and would be implemented through project conditions of approval and the MMRP for the proposed project.
The Draft EIR comment period ran from November 5, 2021 to December 20, 2021. A total of four comments were received during the comment period. None of the comment letters have identified a new significant impact or have provided substantial evidence that the CEQA analysis is otherwise inadequate. Recirculation of the EIR is therefore not required. Responses to the Draft EIR comments, as well as minor text changes and clarifications, in the form of a Final EIR, were made available to the public through the City’s website on March 30, 2022, and have been forwarded on to any commenters on the Draft EIR.
Certification of the Freedom Circle EIR and adoption of the Future Focus Area Plan could potentially provide streamlining benefits for developers that choose initiate the comprehensive planning process for the Freedom Circle Plan area. Because the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area has already been analyzed at a programmatic level, the EIR could be also used as the starting point for the future approval of a specific plan, provided that it was supplemented with site-specific project-level analysis.
FISCAL IMPACT
Consultant costs borne by the City for the preparation of the Future Focus Area Plan have been funded through a reimbursement agreement with the Greystar Corporation. In addition, Greystar has paid development fees for their General Plan Amendment, EIR review and development permit, which are all intended to be cost recovery.
The eventual change in land uses would significantly increase land values and the property tax base as well as demand for services, having both positive and negative fiscal impacts upon the City. An increased local population will add to more sales tax revenue for the City. It is understood that residential land uses generally have a net negative fiscal impact (as increased land value revenue does not completely offset increased costs for service), but infill development and higher density development, particularly utilizing Type I or Type III construction, provides for more efficient delivery of services and can be revenue neutral or even positive in some circumstances. Furthermore, the City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
Greystar proposal would include the delivery of a two-acre park to the City, which is a valuable amenity, given the potential increase in local population. On the whole, implementation of the Greystar General Plan Amendment and Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan is expected to have a relatively minor net fiscal impact to the City and will provide housing necessary for Santa Clara’s ongoing economic vitality.
The potential conversion of land from jobs-generating land uses to residential land uses could have a potentially negative fiscal impact on the City. While the City has not conducted a fiscal analysis for the future focus area and General Plan Amendment, it is understood that residential land uses generally have a net negative fiscal impact (as increased land value revenue does not completely offset increased costs for service). As discussed above, the resulting infill and higher density mixeduse development, particularly utilizing Type I or Type III construction, can provide for more efficient delivery of services and support more tax revenue generating activity, potentially resulting in net neutral or positive fiscal implications.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by publishing a hearing notice in the Santa Clara Weekly on March 30, 2022, by mailing a hearing notice to properties within a 1,000-foot radius of the plan area, and by posting a notice of public hearing at three conspicuous locations within 300 feet of the project site.
The Planning Commission agenda was also posted on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.
The City held a community meeting on the North Santa Clara area including the Freedom Circle area on February 25, 2019. Approximately 28 members of the public attended the meeting.
ALTERNATIVES
That the Planning Commission adopts Resolutions recommending that the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution approving and certifying the Final EIR prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan and the Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (SCH #2020060425), including CEQA Findings and a statement of overriding consideration;
2. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/R&D designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area;
3. Adopt a resolution approving the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre;
4. Adopt a resolution approving the Planned Development Rezoning for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south; or
City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
5. Provide direction to staff to make modifications to the Freedom Circle and Greystar General Plan Amendments and/or the Greystar Planned Development rezoning for City Council consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions recommending that the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution approving and certifying the Final EIR prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan and the Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (SCH #2020060425), including CEQA Findings and a statement of overriding considerations.
2. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/R&D designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area.
3. Adopt a resolution approving the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre.
4. Adopt a resolution approving the Planned Development Rezoning for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south.
Prepared by: John Davidson, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Reena Brilliot, Assistant Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan
2. Greystar Rezoning Proposal
3. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment EIR
4. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment Findings of Fact
5. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment MMRP
6. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment EIR Resolution
7. General Plan Text and Map Amendment Resolution to recommend adoption of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area
8. General Plan Amendment Resolution for the Greystar project
9. Planned Development Rezoning Resolution for the Greystar site City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
6KHHW7LWOH
6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R
7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7
$UFKLWHFWXUH
%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD
3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV
1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD
*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO
)D[
ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO
ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO
)D[
ZZZENIFRP
&Z
KD/Z>
Z
^/
Ed/>
W>EE
s
>KWD
EdKE/E'^
d
&29(53$*(
ri
STUDIO
TSQUARE
GREYSTAR
'ƌĞLJƐƚĂƌŝƐŚĞƌĞďLJƐƵďŵŝƫŶŐĂƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĨŽƌĂ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƚŽƌĞnjŽŶĞƚŚĞϭϯ͘ϯĂĐƌĞƐŝƚĞĨƌŽŵ,ŝŐŚ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJKĸĐĞͬZΘƚŽĂůůŽǁĨŽƌĂsĞƌLJ ,ŝŐŚĞŶƐŝƚLJZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůŽŶĞ͘dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚǁŽƉĂƌĐĞůƐďŽƵŶĚĞĚďLJ&ƌĞĞĚŽŵŝƌĐůĞ͕DŝƐƐŝŽŶŽůůĞŐĞŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ͕,ŝŐŚǁĂLJϭϬϭ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞ^ĂŶdŽŵĂƐƋƵŝŶŽƌĞĞŬ͘dŚĞ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐŚŝŐŚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĂŶĚĂϮͲĂĐƌĞƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬƚŽďĞďƵŝůƚĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚďLJƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ͘dŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƵƐĞĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨϭϯ͘ϯĂĐƌĞƐŽĨǀĂĐĂŶƚůĂŶĚ;WEƐϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϯϲĂŶĚϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϮϭͿ͘dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗ͻ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů;ϭϬϳϱƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŶŝƚƐŝŶϵϬϳ͕ϯϮϱƐĨǁŝƚŚϭ͕ϯϳϵƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƚĂůůƐͿͻ EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞ;ƵƉƚŽϮ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚǁŝƚŚƵƉƚŽϭϬƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƚĂůůƐͿͻ ϮͲĂĐƌĞƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬǁŝƚŚϮϬƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƚĂůůƐĨŽƌƉĂƌŬǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚ͘KŶĞŽĨƚŚĞŬĞLJƉƌŽũĞĐƚŐŽĂůƐŝƐƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĂǀŝďƌĂŶƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚŚĂƚĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞƐǁĂůŬŝŶŐĂŶĚďŝŬĞƌŝĚŝŶŐ͕ůŝŶŬŝŶŐƚŚĞ&ƌĞĞĚŽŵŝƌĐůĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞ^ĂŶdŚŽŵĂƐƋƵŝŶŽƌĞĞŬdƌĂŝůǀŝĂĂŶĞǁ͕ƚǁŽͲĂĐƌĞƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬ͘dŚŝƐŶĞǁƉĂƌŬ͕ǁŝƚŚĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞĐŝƚLJͲƐƉĂŶŶŝŶŐ^ĂŶdŚŽŵĂƐƋƵŝŶŽƌĞĞŬdƌĂŝů͕ǁŝůůďĞĐŽŵĞĂŬĞLJĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚŽĨǁŚĂƚƚŚĞ>ĂǁƌĞŶĐĞ^ƚĂƟŽŶƌĞĂWůĂŶĐĂůůƐƚŚĞ͞'ƌĞĞŶtĞď͟ŽĨĂĐƟǀĂƚĞĚƉƵďůŝĐƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘ƐƚŚĞĐĞŶƚĞƌƉŝĞĐĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ƚŚĞŶĞǁƉĂƌŬǁŝůůƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĂƐƚƌŽŶŐƐĞŶƐĞŽĨƉůĂĐĞĨŽƌƚŚŝƐǀŝďƌĂŶƚŶĞǁƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚĞŐƌĞĂƚĞƌ&ƌĞĞĚŽŵŝƌĐůĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďLJƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂǀĞŶƵĞĨŽƌďŽƚŚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞǀĞŶƚƐĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĐĂƐƵĂůƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂůƵƐĞ͘dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨƚŚƌĞĞdLJƉĞ///ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƉŽĚŝƵŵƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐͲƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͕͕ĂŶĚͲŽǀĞƌϯůĞǀĞůƐŽĨdLJƉĞ/ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚůĞǀĞůŽĨƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƚŽďĞƉĂƌƟĂůůLJďĞůŽǁŐƌĂĚĞ͘dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐǁŝůůďĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĂŶĚĞŶŐĂŐĞƚŚĞƵƌďĂŶĨŽƌŵĂŶĚĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌĂŶĚĂĐƟǀĂƚĞƉƵďůŝĐƐƉĂĐĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶĂŶĚƐƵƌͲƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘dŚĞϯ͕ϳͲƐƚŽƌLJďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐǁŝůůďĞƵƉƚŽϭϬϬ͛ƚĂůůŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞŽĨĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚĞůĞǀĂƚŽƌŽǀĞƌƌƵŶƐ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂŶĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĂsĞƐƟŶŐdĞŶƚĂƟǀĞWĂƌĐĞůDĂƉƚŽĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĨŽƵƌůŽƚƐ͘ 6KHHW7LWOH
6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R
7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7
$UFKLWHFWXUH
%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD
3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV
1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD
*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO
)D[
ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO
ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO
)D[
ZZZENIFRP
^^
^^KZ^WZ
>EhD
Z͗ ϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϯϲ͕ϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϮϭ^/d
Z
͗ ϭϯ͘ϯ
y/^d/E''
E
Z>W>E ͗ ,/',/Ed
E^/dzK&&/
ͬZΘWZKWK^
'
E
Z>W>E ͗ s
Zz,/',
E^/dzZ
^/
Ed/>;ϱϭͲϭϬϬhͬͿ
y/^d/E'KE/E' ͗ KDD
Z/>WZ<WZKWK^
KE/E' ͗ W>EE
s
>KWD
Ed
y/^d/E'h^
͗ WZ</E'ΘsEd>EWZKWK^
h^
͗ Z
^/
Ed/>ΘKW
E^W
^hZZKhE/E'h^
^ ͗ K&&/
ΘKW
E^W
E^/dz ͗ ϱϭͲϭϬϬhͬh/>/E',
/',d ͗ ϭϬϬ&dDy/DhDKhWEz'ZKhW ͗ ZϮ͕ϯ͕^Ϯ͕KE^dZhd/KEdzW ͗ ϱ^dKZ/
^K&dzW
///Ks
Zϯ>
s
>^K&dzW
/
;ϭ>
s
>WZd/>>z
>Kt'Z
Ϳ
ͲϬϬϬ WZK:
d^hDDZzͲϬϬϭ
s
>KWD
Ed^dEZ^ͲϬϮϬ />>h^dZd/s
^/d
W>E Ϯ͘Ϭ WZ
>/D/EZz/s/>^/d
W>EϮ͘ϭ WZ
>/D/EZz/s/>^/d
W>EͲϰϬϭ KDWK^/d
^
d/KE^>ͲϭϬϮ ^dZ
d>
s
>>E^W
W>E
WZK:
d^hDDZz͗
WW>/Ed͗'ƌĞLJƐƚĂƌZĞĂů
ƐƚĂƚĞWĂƌƚŶĞƌƐϰϱϬ^ĂŶƐŽŵĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϱϬϬ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕ϵϰϭϭϭŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗ĂŶĞŝďĞůWŚŽŶĞ͗ϰϭϱ͘ϵϰϳ͘ϳϴϴϳZ,/d dͬW>EE
Z͗^ƚƵĚŝŽd^ƋƵĂƌĞϭϵϳϬƌŽĂĚǁĂLJ͕^ƵŝƚĞϱϬϬKĂŬůĂŶĚ͕ϵϰϲϭϮŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗ŚĞŬdĂŶŐ͕WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůWŚŽŶĞ͗ϱϭϬ͘ϰϱϭ͘ϮϴϱϬ/s/> E'/E
Z͗<&ϭϳϯϬE͘&ŝƌƐƚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϲϬϬ^ĂŶ:ŽƐĞ͕ϵϱϭϭϮŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗ĂƐĞLJ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶWŚŽŶĞ͗ϰϬϴ͘ϰϲϳ͘ϵϭϯϵ>E^W Z,/d
d͗Z,ϮϮϱDŝůůĞƌǀĞDŝůůsĂůůĞLJ͕ϵϰϵϰϭŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗DĂŶƵĞůĂ<ŝŶŐWŚŽŶĞ͗ϰϭϱ͘ϯϴϳ͘ϳϵϬϬ WZK:
dd
D͗
^,
d>/^d͗
s//E/dzDW
WZK:
ddh>d/KE
$
352-(&76800$5<
&DOLIRUQLD¶V
*UHDW
$PHULFD
0LVVLRQ
&ROOHJH
0,/(
0,1:$/.
5HVLGHQWLDO
1HLJKERUKRRG
97$
7$60$1'5 6WDWLRQ
6$1720$6
2UDFOH
0,/(
0,1:$/.
,QWHO
&RUS
0RQWDJXH([S\
0,/(
0,1:$/.
97$/,*+75$,/
%$<6+25()5((:$<
/$)$<(77(67 3DWULFN+HQU\ 'ULYH
$48,12&5((. 75$,/
WR%D\7UDLO
>Ğǀŝ͛Ɛ
^ƚĂĚŝƵŵ
&ƌĞĞĚŽŵ
ŝƌĐůĞ
&ŽĐƵƐƌĞĂ
*5($7$0(5,&$3.:<
7DVPDQ(DVW
6DQWD&ODUD
&LW\3ODFH
6DQWD&ODUD
6TXDUH
$&(
7UDLQ
ϯŵŝůĞƐƚŽ
ŽǁŶƚŽǁŶĂŶĚ
ĂůƚƌĂŝŶ
^ŝƚĞ WĞĚƌŽ͛Ɛ
WZK'ZDƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhŶŝƚƐ ϯϲϯ
^ƚƵĚŝŽƐ ϭϳ͘ϭй ϲϮKŶĞĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ ϱϰ͘ϱй ϭϵϴdǁŽĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ Ϯϴ͘ϰй ϭϬϯ >ĞĂƐŝŶŐ ϮϯϬϬ^&ůƵďZŽŽŵ ϮϭϬϬ^&&ŝƚŶĞƐƐͬzŽŐĂ ϮϳϱϬ^&ŽͲtŽƌŬŝŶŐͬƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϭϮϱϬ^&WĞƚ^ƉĂ ϱϴϬ^&ŝĐLJĐůĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ;ůĂƐƐ/Ϳ ϰϴϬϬ^&ŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ Ϯϴϲϰϱ^&>ŽďďLJ ϭϲϬϬ^& ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhŶŝƚƐ ϯϵϴ
^ƚƵĚŝŽƐ ϭϯ͘ϭй ϱϮKŶĞĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ ϱϳ͘ϯй ϮϮϴdǁŽĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ Ϯϵ͘ϲй ϭϭϴ >ĞĂƐŝŶŐ ϮϱϬϬ^&ůƵďZŽŽŵ ϮϯϬϬ^&&ŝƚŶĞƐƐ ϮϮϬϬ^&ŽͲtŽƌŬŝŶŐͬƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϭϯϬϬ^&WĞƚ^ƉĂ ϳϳϱ^&>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϳϮϱ^&ŝĐLJĐůĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ;ůĂƐƐ/Ϳ ϱϬϬϬ^&ŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ ϯϱϬϱϱ^&EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞ ϮϬϬϬ^&>ŽďďLJ ϭϰϰϬ^& ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhŶŝƚƐ ϯϭϰ
^ƚƵĚŝŽƐ ϭϳ͘ϴй ϱϲKŶĞĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ ϱϰ͘ϱй ϭϳϭdǁŽĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ Ϯϳ͘ϳй ϴϳ >ĞĂƐŝŶŐ ϭϭϱϬ^&ůƵďZŽŽŵ ϮϱϬϬ^&&ŝƚŶĞƐƐ ϮϰϬϬ^&ŽͲtŽƌŬŝŶŐͬƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϭϰϱϬ^&WĞƚ^ƉĂ ϱϱϬ^&DŝƐĐŵĞŶŝƚLJ ϭϮϱϬ^&ŝĐLJĐůĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ;ůĂƐƐ/Ϳ ϰϯϳϬ^&ŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ ϮϬϲϮϬ^&>ŽďďLJ ϭϵϬϬ^& ^ŝƚĞ
ĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬ Ϯ͘ϬĂĐƌĞƐ
'ƌŽƐƐƵŝůĚŝŶŐƌĞĂ>ĞǀĞůϭ^ƵďƚĞƌƌĂŶĞĂŶ'ĂƌĂŐĞ ϮϮϴ͕ϰϭϱ>ĞǀĞůϭ'ĂƌĂŐĞ ϮϬϯ͕ϳϱϬ>ĞǀĞůϭZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů͕ƌĞƚĂŝů͕ΘĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ϵϲ͕ϭϲϱ>ĞǀĞůϮ'ĂƌĂŐĞ ϭϵϰ͕ϬϬϬ>ĞǀĞůϮZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůΘĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ϭϬϱ͕ϲϬϬ>ĞǀĞůϯZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůΘĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ϮϬϳ͕ϳϭϱ>ĞǀĞůϰZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϬϳ͕ϳϭϱ>ĞǀĞůϱZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϭϬ͕ϯϯϱ>ĞǀĞůϲZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϭϬ͕ϯϯϱ>ĞǀĞůϳZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϬϱ͕ϴϬϱdKd> ϭ͕ϴϲϵ͕ϴϯϱ hE/d^ YƵĂŶ͘ Z͘^͘&͘ Dŝdž ZĞŶƚĂďůĞ^͘&͘ WĂƌŬŝŶŐZĂƚŝŽ WĂƌŬŝŶŐZĞƋΖĚ^ƚƵĚŝŽƐdŽƚĂů ϭϳϬ ϱϳϬ ϭϱ͘ϴй ϵϲ͕ϴϭϱ ϭ ϭϳϬϭZhŶŝƚƐdŽƚĂů ϱϵϳ ϳϱϬ ϱϱ͘ϱй ϰϰϳ͕ϳϴϱ ϭ ϱϵϳϮZhŶŝƚƐdŽƚĂů ϯϬϴ ϭϭϳϳ Ϯϴ͘ϳй ϯϲϮ͕ϰϭϱ Ϯ ϲϭϲ>>hE/d^ͲdKd> ϭ͕Ϭϳϱ ϴϰϰ ϭϬϬ͘Ϭй ϵϬϳ͕Ϭϭϱ ϭϯϴϯ h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKWK^
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϰϲϲ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϰϳĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϵ sWĂƌŬŝŶŐͲϭϱй;
sZĞĂĚLJͬ&ƵƚƵƌĞ
sͿ/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ϳϬ
h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKs/
ϰϲϲh/>/E'WZ</E'WZKWK^
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϱϭϲ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϱϮĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϭϬ sWĂƌŬŝŶŐͲϭϱй;
sZĞĂĚLJͬ&ƵƚƵƌĞ
sͿ/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ϳϳZĞƚĂŝů;ϭƉĞƌϮϬϬ^&Ϳ ϭϬWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϭϬ h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKs/
ϱϯϲh/>/E'WZ</E'WZKWK^
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϰϬϭ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϰϬĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϵ sWĂƌŬŝŶŐͲϭϱй;
sZĞĂĚLJͬ&ƵƚƵƌĞ
sͿ/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ϲϬWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϭϬ
h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKs/
ϰϭϭdKd>WZ</E'WZKWK^
ƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϭϯϴϯ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϭϯϴWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϮϬEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞ;ϭƉĞƌϮϬϬ^&Ϳ ϭϬ dKd>WZ</E'WZKs/
ϭϰϭϯ/<
WZ</E'WZKWK^
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϭƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϯϲϯƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϭƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϯϵϴƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϭƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϯϭϰƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϱƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϮϱƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϱƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϮϳƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϱƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϮϭEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϯϬĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐͿ ϭEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϬϬϬƐĨͿ Ϯ dŽƚĂůŝŬĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐWƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ϭϭϱϭKW
EZ
^ŝƚĞƌĞĂ^& ϱϴϬϵϭϲƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ^& Ϯϵϵϵϭϱ
KW
EZ
WZKs/
ϰϴй
::::
:
-
'----
:-----
C---
'----
-
:
E=
---,
-
-
-
-
==
-
-
-
-
! ! I 1 - 1 -! -! ! -!
-l
::i
ri
STUDIO
TSQUARE
rhaa -""''""~, ...........
GREYSTAR
6KHHW7LWOH
6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R
7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7
$UFKLWHFWXUH
%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD
3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV
1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD
*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO
)D[
ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO
ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO
)D[
ZZZENIFRP
'(9(/230(1767$1'$5'6
0LQLPXP%LF\FOH3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWV
L
)RUHDFKPXOWLIDPLO\XQLWRQH&ODVVELF\FOHSDUNLQJVSDFHSHUXQLWDQGRQH&ODVVELNHUDFNDFFRPPRGDWLQJWZRELNHVSHUXQLWVLVUHTXLUHG LL
0L[HGXVHGHYHORSPHQWV
2QH&ODVVELF\FOHSDUNLQJVSDFHSHUHPSOR\HHVDQGRQH&ODVVELNHUDFNIRUHYHU\VTXDUHIHHWRIUHWDLOÀH[RUFRPPXQLW\XVH LLL
2ႈFH GHYHORSPHQWV
2QH ELF\FOH SDUNLQJ VSDFH SHU VTXDUHIHHWZLWKSHUFHQWDV&ODVV2QHVSDFHVDQGSHUFHQWDV&ODVV7ZRUDFNV´$ႇRUGDELOLW\/HYHOV )RUHLWKHURZQHUVKLSRUUHQWDOKRXVLQJGHYHORSHGXQGHUWKHWKLV3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQWUH]RQLQJWKHIROORZLQJDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVDSSO\
D
1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJ 6XEVHFWLRQ
D
UHVLGHQWLDO RZQHUVKLSSURMHFWV RIWHQ RUPRUH XQLWVPXVW SURYLGH DW OHDVW ¿IWHHQ SHUFHQW
RIWKHXQLWVDWDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRVWVIRUH[WUHPHO\ORZYHU\ORZORZPRGHUDWHDQGDERYHPRGHUDWHLQFRPHKRXVHKROGVRUVRPHFRPELQDWLRQRIWKRVHLQFRPHFDWHJRULHV$GHYHORSHUVKDOOVHOHFWLQFRPHFDWHJRULHVVXFKWKDWWKHDYHUDJHLQFRPHRISXUFKDVHUVZLOOQRWH[FHHGHLJKW\SHUFHQW
RI$0,5HVLGHQWLDORZQHUVKLSSURMHFWVRIIHZHUWKDQWHQXQLWVPD\HLWKHUSURYLGHRQHGZHOOLQJDWDQDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRVWIRUDKRXVHKROGHDUQLQJXSWRHLJKW\SHUFHQW
RI$0,RUSD\DQLQOLHXIHHLGHQWL¿HGIRUUHVLGHQWLDORZQHUVKLSSURMHFWVLQWKHDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJPDVWHUIHHVFKHGXOH E
1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJ6XEVHFWLRQ
D
IRU UHVLGHQWLDO UHQWDOSURMHFWVRIWHQRUPRUHXQLWVWKHGHYHORSHUPXVWSURYLGHDWOHDVW¿IWHHQSHUFHQW
RIWKHXQLWVDWDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRVWVIRUH[WUHPHO\ORZYHU\ORZORZPRGHUDWHDQGDERYHPRGHUDWHLQFRPHKRXVHKROGVRUVRPHFRPELQDWLRQRIWKRVHLQFRPHFDWHJRULHV$GHYHORSHUVKDOOVHOHFWLQFRPHFDWHJRULHVVXFKWKDWWKHDYHUDJHLQFRPHRIUHQWHUVZLOOQRWH[FHHGHLJKW\SHUFHQW
RI$0,
9HU\+LJK'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO=RQH
7KHSXUSRVHRIWKH9HU\+LJK'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO=RQHLVWRSURYLGHODQGDUHDVIRUWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQXVHDQGRFFXSDQF\RIKLJKGHQVLW\DQGLQWHQVLW\PXOWLIDPLO\GHYHORSPHQWV LHORZULVHPLGULVHDQGKLJKULVHDSDUWPHQWVDQGFRQGRPLQLXPV ,WLVWKHLQWHQWRIWKLV]RQHWRHQFRXUDJHGHYHORSPHQWWRXVHLQQRYDWLYHVLWHSODQQLQJSURYLGHRQVLWHUHFUHDWLRQDODPHQLWLHVDQGEHORFDWHGQHDUPDMRU FRPPXQLW\IDFLOLWLHVEXVLQHVV FHQWHUVWUDQVSRUDWLRQ FRUULGRUV DQGRUPDMRUWKRURXJKIDUHV7KH UHVLGHQWLDO GHQVLW\ UDQJHIRUWKLV]RQHLVGZHOOLQJXQLWVSHUDFUH7KLV]RQHLPSOHPHQWVWKH9HU\+LJK'HQVLW\ODQGXVHGHVLJQDWLRQLQWKH*HQHUDO3ODQ
E
6KDUHG3DUNLQJ3DUNLQJVKDUHGDPRQJXVHVLVHQFRXUDJHGDQGXSWRRISDUNLQJVSDFHVSURYLGHGPD\EHVKDUHGEHWZHHQWZRXVHV)RUWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLVWLWOHWKRVHSDUNLQJVSDFHVVKDUHGEHWZHHQWZRXVHVFRXQWWRZDUGVWKHSDUNLQJ UHTXLUHPHQWRIERWK F
6XUIDFH3DUNLQJ6XUIDFHSDUNLQJLVRQO\DOORZHGDVDWHPSRUDU\RULQWHULPXVH G
0HFKDQLFDOSDUNLQJVWDFNHUVOLIWVDQGWDQGHPSDUNLQJPD\EHXVHGWRVDWLVI\PLQLPXPUHTXLUHPHQWV H
8QEXQGOHG3DUNLQJ$PD[LPXPRIRQHSDUNLQJVSDFHVKDOOEHUHQWHGRUVROGZLWKHDFKXQLW$GGLWLRQDOSDUNLQJVSDFHVVKDOOEHUHQWHGRUVROGVHSDUDWHO\ L
$VDQDOWHUQDWLYHWRUHQWLQJRUVHOOLQJSDUNLQJVSDFHVVHSDUDWHO\IURPUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWSURSHUW\PDQDJHUVPD\LPSOHPHQWDSDUNLQJSUHIHUHQFHSURJUDPZLWKSURVSHFWLYHUHQWHUVZLWKRXWFDUVSXWRQDVHSDUDWHZDLWLQJOLVWIURPUHQWHUVZLWKFDUVDQGUHQWHUVEHLQJFKRVHQDOWHUQDWHO\IURPWKHWZROLVWV
s
>KWD
Ed^dEZ^
$
3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWV
0LQLPXPVSDFHVSHUXQLW
LQFOXVLYHLQUHVLGHQWVSDUNLQJ
*6)8QLW
7KH'HYHORSPHQW6WDQGDUGVSDJHHVWDEOLVKHVWKH]RQLQJVWDQGDUGVIRUWKH3URMHFW $OORWKHUSDJHVDUHIRULOOXVWUDWLYHSXUSRVHV
*6)8QLW
Permitted Uses and Permit Requirements - Residential.
Land Use (see Artide 8 for land use defini6ons).
Owelling, Accessory Units
Dwelling, Multifamily Dwelling, Second Unit Dwelling, 51\gle-family Dwelling, Two-family Employee Housing
Home Oa:upalions Live-Work Facilities Mobile Home Park
OrganizationalHO\lses
Rooming and/or Boarding Houses
SllpportiveHousing
Transitional Housing
Assisted Living Faci~ties
Oay Care Homes, Up to 14 Children Commun ity Care Facilifies, Small Community Care Facilities, Large Emergency Shelters
Community Gardens
Parks and Pubic PLaizas Retail
Off-sale of alcohol
Restaurants, including on-sale of alcohol
Office Uses
Residential Zones
CUP CUP CUP
Development Standards.
Development feature Freedom Circle
minimum unless otherwise indicated
Parcel Area 10,000
Street Frontage (feet~ 70 Structural Coverage (maximum percentag Parcel Alea (less than 10,000 sq. ft.) None Parcel Area (greater than 10,000 sq. ft.) None Setbacks (minimum)- Setback lines are sured from the back of walk Residential (front, side comer and interior) 10
Mixed-Use (front, side comer and interior) 0
Office (front, side corner and interior)
Height (maximum) measured in front
Height (within 20 feet of the R1 -6L, R1.,<JL, and 32
R2 zones)
Height (all other zones) 100 Number of Stories {maximum) Number of Stories (all other zones) 10 Gross Residential Density (minimum tom imum) shown in number of dwelling unrts per acre Allowable Density
Recreation Space for Multi-Family Dwelhn {minimum) measured in square feet per dwelling unit Private Recreation Space
Common Recreation Space (per unit)
(a) Minimum Parking Requirements
,. ,. ''
Residential Minimum 1 space per unit for units
1BRorless
Minimum 2 spaces per unit for units
w/ more than 1 BR
Retail / Flex None required Minimum 1 space per 1,000 SF Office Minimum one space for each 500 Minimum 1 space per 3,000 SF SF of gross floor area
Community/Civic None required None required
ri
STUDIO
TSQUARE
rhaa
~ BkF
GREYSTAR
0 6
,
2 /
*
(
%
/9'
6KHHW7LWOH
6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R
7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7
$UFKLWHFWXUH
%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD
3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV
1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD
*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO
)D[
ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO
ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO
)D[
ZZZENIFRP
$
,//8675$7,9(6,7(3/$1
%$<6+25()5((:$<86
(. 75$,/
' 0 &,5
'5 9(
´ ¶´
,//8675$7,9(6,7(3/$1 6&$/(
´ ¶´
3+$6(
3+$6(
3+$6(
%8,/',1*$
%8,/',1*%
$&5(
38%/,&3$5.
%8,/',1*&
9(57,&$/&,5&8/$7,21$0(1,7<$5($
/(*(1'
81,7
;::::::---- ---
-----~
------
~-FR / c,t:: ~l§:::::O ----~=- --
--
[fl
0 z
0 r
{T\
;;;;:; GRAP;;:;; mr7c' scd,~-----..:"• g
60' ,,.
'
ri
STUDI 0
TSQUA RE
rha a
,.,.. __
""''""~, .......
~ BkF
100+
YEARS PlANMERS
GREYSTAR
-
-
AMENITY
DOWN TO B1
GARAGE
AY B SHORE FREEWAY- US 101
FREEDOM CIRCLE DRIVE
SAN TOMAS AQUINO CREEK TRAIL
BLDG B LEVEL
1 GARAGE
ACCESS
PUBLIC PARK/
GUEST/RETAIL/
LEASING ACCESS
ONLY
BLDG A LEVEL
1 GARAGE
ACCESS
BLDG A LEVEL
2 GARAGE
ACCESS
BLDG B LEVEL B1 GARAGE ACCESS
SECURED RESIDENTIAL ACCESS ONLY
UP TO LEVEL
2 GARAGE
BLDG A LEVEL
B1 GARAGE
ACCESS
TO SANTA
CLARA SQUARE
BLDG C
GARAGE
ACCESS TO ALL
LEVELS
BLDG B LEVEL 2 GARAGE ACCESS TWO WAY TRAFFIC
PEDESTRIAN ACCESSBIKE PATHMOVE-IN LOBBY
LEGEND
MOVE-IN / LOADING ZONEREGIONAL BIKE & PEDESTRIAN TRAILPEDESTRIAN PATH
CROSSING
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
LVD
TO LEVI’S
STADIUM
PASEO
Sheet Title:Scale:Job No. :Date:Sheet No:
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED
IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS
CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,COPYRIGHT 20 : Architecture
:
%URDGZD\6XLWH: Oakland, California 94: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning : Urban Design
Revisions:
No. Description Date
Freedom Circle
Greystar
5HVLGHQWLDO
Santa Clara, &DOLIRUQLD
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California
323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
San Jose, CA
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
8/11/2021
A-030
SITE CIRCULATIONPLAN
1 SITE CIRCULATION PLAN SCALE: 1” = 60’-0”
1” = 60’-0”
BUILDING A
BUILDING B
2.0 ACRE
PUBLIC PARK
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR
PARK PEDESTRIAN PATH
BUILDING C
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHEIN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OFEVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITSCONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHERPURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVECOPYRIGHT 2020. : Architecture
: 1970 Broadway, Suite 500: Oakland, California 94612: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning: Urban Design
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
San Jose, CA
323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
Freedom Circle Residential
Santa Clara, California
Greystar
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California
Revisions:
No. Description Date
Sheet Title:
Scale: AS SHOWNJob No. :Date: 07/13/2021
20002
Sheet No:
PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN
LEGEND
C2.0
SITE PLAN NOTES
I I
j
I
PROPERTY UIE
AOJo\CENTPRCPERTYUNE
BKlRETENTlONAREA
(N) \OllCAI. CURS (N)lta!llCAl.t'URSANOGUTIER
EXIS'IING EASEMENTUNE
SOIT lRIANGLE UNE CROSSSECTIONREFERENC£
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHEIN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OFEVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITSCONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHERPURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVECOPYRIGHT 2020. : Architecture
: 1970 Broadway, Suite 500: Oakland, California 94612: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning: Urban Design
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
San Jose, CA
323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
Freedom Circle Residential
Santa Clara, California
Greystar
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California
Revisions:
No. Description Date
Sheet Title:
Scale: AS SHOWNJob No. :Date: 07/13/2021
20002
Sheet No:
PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN
C2.1
LEGEND
SITE PLAN NOTES
c:==: === : === JI
(N)\-UillCAI.CUR8 (N)\9111CAI.CUR8Atl)GUTIER
1. UNUSED ORl'o£WA\"S IN THE PUBU(; RIGHT-OF'-WAY
SHAU.BERD'LAtm"IITHCITYSTANDARDClMB.
GUTIER.ANDSID£WALK.
2. DAMAGE OJRB, GUTTER, AND SlllEWolJ..K 'IITHN Tl£
Pl.8..JCRICHT-OF'-WAYALONGTHEPROPERTY'S
f'ROHTAGESHAU.BEREPAIRCOORREPLACED(lOlliE
NEAAEST SCORE MARK) IN A MANNER ACUPTA8LE TO
l. .W. NEW DRIVEWAYS ALONG THE PROPERTY ""-1.
COrilPI.Y 'MTH THE QTY"S DRIVEWAY AND INTEFlstCllON
~:~~a.:[N~~~GHT WU. NOT
~~Ts:r1:;riw~~
4. SEETHE'£$11NGTENTA11VEPARCO.MAP,SHEET
TM-I, roR AU.PARCEL UNE ANO CURVE TA8LES.
SEE THt-.ESflH(l TENTAlM:PARCELMAP,SHEET
:~~WON.ALLOF'THEPROPOSEDEASEMENT
6· ,.~lo FREEDOM
/
CIRCLE SHALL HAVE SIGNAGE AND SlRIPING, BOTH ON-sm:{PRIVATES'IREETA)ANDOFF-sm:
~~Cl:f}ON~:.T DE90NATE$ RIGHT TURN IN,
--- ------r--/
TTURNIN/OUTONU /
F--'"'
_
-
_
•
_
'"''""'J I
(N)llRl~VPER Cl1'YSTANOAAO
(N)OJR>,O)ST~:a
RAWi>PERQty
STANDAfil\,st-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GRAPHIC SCALE
P"'\-+K-
"' 0 "' 80
Iii
STUDIO
TSQUARE
rhaa
~ BkF
GREYSTAR
Sheet Title:
Scale:Job No. :Date:Sheet No:
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED
IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS
CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,COPYRIGHT 20 : Architecture
:
%URDGZD\6XLWH: Oakland, California 94: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning : Urban Design
Revisions:
No. Description Date
Freedom Circle
Greystar
5HVLGHQWLDO
Santa Clara, &DOLIRUQLD
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California
323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
San Jose, CA
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
8/11/2021
A-401
COMPOSITESECTIONS
AS NOTED
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
l
i ri Ti~
.m I T 'ffi - - - ·" - - "" - ·" - STUDIO - ·" ,.I - ·" - l: : -~ - l'CQ.<:0.RN - ... - "" - l'CQ.<:O.ll"'""'' . - ·" - TSQUARE --·- - ·" --· - I
=> :r - => ~-- ... • •• -••· ... -- => II I --· II - -- - --· I Jl) Poll.llNG l M!UI --· I i --· I lt,~ I me I ~mmc,,,,,,,_ M ' ,_.~-E- '<•~- 1S'-{l'SCT8'0C !!'sna,o( COMPOSITE SITE SECTION · SCAL.f: l ' = 60' I 3 rhaa
,.,.._ .. """"''"~'' ...... "'""
.. ..
I
I
I U,IT tx<IT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT 1 I ~ BkF U,IT tx<IT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT U,IT tx<IT U,IT UNIT U,IT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT tx<IT UNIT
.. •
UNIT UNIT UNIT ., 100+ I UNIT tx<IT -~ AMENITY POOL COORll'/\RD UNIT UNIT 1- -~ - POOL CDURTYARD"- ,,.. ._ YEARS p1,.u ;1m1s .... PARKINGLEVB.2 I UNIT - - UNIT I PARKINGLEVEL2
T '1 PARKING LEVEL I UNIT i I UNIT PARKING LEVEL I
•·~-il~r
PARKJNGLEVEL81 PARKING LEVEL Bl I
I LDING 60' TO 85' SEPARATIO IIDING ; 2 ACREDEDICATEDPAAK "'-1s• MIN BUILDING SETeACK "'-tS'-O"SETBACK
BUILDING A ANO B SITE SECTION - SCALE: 1' = 40' I 2 GREYSTAR .. .. ..
I I
I I
NIT UNIT I I NIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT T NIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT NIT 111! ltt UNIT UNIT UNIT - POOL COURTYM D .._ _.., ,. NIT AMENITY POOL COURTYARD - -- UNIT UNIT --- COORlYARD I -- UNIT LEVEI.2 r,,- '1- ••• ••• -••· .. ...... UNIT I PARKINGLEVEL2 11 - LEVELi ·- UNIT PAAKINGLEVELl BI I I PARKING LEVEL Bl I , 1"SETIIACl( --BUILDING , 2 ACRE DEDICATED PARK ,
~15'-0' SETBAO(
·
- -LDINGC
15'--0' SETBACK lt' SETBACK \ 26'-0"£!/A
BUILDING C SITE SECTION - SCALE: l' = 40' I 1
6~® 6
BUILDINGB
BUILDINGC
BUllOINGA
KEYPI.AN
08/11/2021
PROPERTY LINE
LEGEND
10 9876
5 43
21 1/2-ACRE TURFED PLAY FIELD
LANDSCAPED AND FURNISHED, PARK-LIKE QUIET AREAPLAYGROUNDSPORT COURTPICNIC AREA & BOCCE COURTOFF-LEASH DOG AREACONNECTION TO CREEK TRAIL PERIMETER ROADPARKING GARAGE ENTRYBIKE LANE CLASS II 1 2
10 2
3 4
5 6
8 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
11 SAN TOMAS AQUINO CREEK TRAIL
FREEDOM CIRCLE
THE BAYSHORE FREEWAY
BUILDING A BUILDING B
BUILDING C
PARK PROPERTY LINE
7 0 30’ 60’ 120’ N
LEASING
OFFICE
BIKE
STORAGE
BIKE
STORAGE
BIKE
STORAGE PET SPA
COWORKING
LOBBY
MAIL
PET SPA
AMENITY / BIKE SHOP
BUSINESS
LOUNGE
LOBBY
MAIL
LEASING
OFFICE
10 PARKING 10 PAR SPACES
RESERVED F E OR PARK
VISITORS
LOBBY
MAIL
PET SPA BIKE STORAGE
LEASING
LOBBY
10 PARKING SPACESRESERVED FOR PARKVISITORS
RESTROOMS FOR
PARK VISITORS
MOVE-IN LO M V BBY
BIKE
STORAGE
STREET LEVELLANDSCAPE PLAN
1”=60’-0”
L-102
10 8
8 ri
STUDIO
TSQUARE
Architecture
Planning
Urban Design
· 19TO&omway,S<,ite500
: Oekland.~lk612
; {510)45\-2950
rhaa
=~ci."802
Telol15.8e1-7900
__ ,...,
~ Bkf
17301'1F...iSI.SuM900
s.n.-,CA
Tllol011.a1&19100
F••4011.4e191" -wGREYSTAR
AFfili9nt•
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022
FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE FREEDOM CIRCLE FOCUS AREA/GREYSTAR GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clara Project Nos. PLN2017-12516 and PLN2022-00054 (EIR, Freedom Circle General Plan Amendment, and Greystar General Plan and Zoning Amendments)
SCH #2020060425
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2020060425) FOR THE FREEDOM CIRCLE
FOCUS AREA / GREYSTAR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
(CITY PROJECT NUMBERS PLN2017-12516 and PLN2022-00054)
I. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21081 et seq, and the Guidelines for Implementation for the California Environmental Quality Act, Title 14 California Code of Regulations, section 15091 et seq (“CEQA Guidelines”) require that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to provide that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The CEQA Guidelines section 15091 specifically provides as follows:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.
CEQA Guidelines section 15093 further provides as follows:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project.
If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
(b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/ or other information in the record.
This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to section 15091.
Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations. See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II). The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-1509 (court upholds CEQA findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on applicant’s project objectives); see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 (CNPS) (“an alternative ‘may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record’”) (quoting Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act [Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2009] (Kostka), § 17.39, p. 825); In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166 (Bay-Delta) (“[i]n the CALFED program, feasibility is strongly linked to achievement of each of the primary project objectives”; “a lead agency may structure its EIR alternative analysis around a reasonable definition of underlying purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal”). Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; see also CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001 (“an alternative that ‘is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint’ may be rejected as infeasible”) (quoting Kostka, supra, § 17.29, p. 824); San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 17.
For purposes of these findings, the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is “avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed],” these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been “avoided” (i.e., reduced to a less than significant level).
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a), (b).
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” CEQA Guidelines §§ 15093, 15043(b); see also Pub. Resources Code § 21081(b). The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576. The EIR (as defined below) for the Project (as defined below) concluded the Project would create significant and unavoidable impacts; thus, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
These Findings of Fact (sometimes referred to herein as “Findings”) constitute the City of Santa Clara’s (City’s) evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. To the extent that these Findings conclude that various mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to ensuring that these measures are implemented by the appropriate party(ies). These Findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts a resolution approving the Project.
In addition, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) has been prepared for the Project, and is being approved by the City Council by the same Resolution that has adopted these Findings. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with Project mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will remain available for public review during the compliance period. The Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to and incorporated into the environmental document approval resolution and is approved in conjunction with certification of the EIR and adoption of these Findings of Fact.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR” and, together with the Draft EIR, the “EIR”) for the Freedom Circle Focus Area/ Greystar General Plan Amendment (the “Project”), State Clearinghouse (“SCH”) No. 2020060425, as well as other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the City of Santa Clara City Council, in its capacity as the decision-making body of the CEQA Lead Agency hereby finds, determines, and declares the following Findings and Facts, in accordance with Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code.
These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the County for the development of the Project. These actions include the approval of the following for the Freedom Circle Focus Area/ Greystar General Plan Amendment (Project:
Environmental Impact report (SCH No. 2020060425)
Freedom Circle Focus Area General Plan Amendment
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Greystar General Plan Amendment
Greystar Zoning Amendment
A. Document Format
These Findings have been organized into the following sections:
(1) Section I provides an introduction to these Findings. (2) Section II provides a summary of the Project, overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the Project, and a statement of the Project’s objectives.
(3) Section III provides a summary of environmental review related to the Project and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the Project
(4) Section IV sets forth findings regarding the potential impact areas identified in the EIR. This section details findings for those impacts for which the County has determined that there is no impact or the impact is less than significant and thus no mitigation is required; findings regarding potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the County has determined can be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures; and findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR that will or may result from the Project and which the County has determined will remain significant and unavoidable, despite the identification and incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures.
In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of the mitigation measures will be included in MMRP for the Project and adopted as conditions of the Project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level through mitigation, these findings specify how those impacts would be reduced to an acceptable level. (5) Section V sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Project (6) Section VI sets forth findings regarding the growth-inducing impacts of the Project.
(7) Section VII sets forth findings regarding recirculation of the Draft EIR. (8) Section VIII sets forth findings regarding rejection of recommended mitigation measures.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 (9) Section IX contains the findings pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.1(c)(3).
(10) Section X contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093.
B. Custodian and Location of Records
The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report consists of:
1. the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and Appendices 25.1 through 25.6, dated November, 2021; and
2. the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) dated March, 2022.
The following Findings of Fact are based in part on the information contained in EIR for the Project, as well as additional facts found in the complete record of proceedings. The EIR is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review at Santa Clara City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, 95050 during normal business hours.
For the purposes of CEQA, and the findings herein set forth, the administrative record for the Project consists of those items listed in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project consists of the following documents, at a minimum, which are incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these Findings:
The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project;
The Draft EIR for the Project and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference;
All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR;
All comments and correspondence submitted to the City during the public comment period on the Draft EIR, in addition to all other timely comments on the Draft EIR; The Final EIR for the Project, including the Planning Commission staff report, minutes of the Planning Commission public hearing; City Council staff report; minutes of the City Council public hearing; comments received on the Draft EIR; the City’s responses to those comments; technical appendices; and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference;
The MMRP for the Project;
All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 trustee agencies with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the Project; All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Project, up through the close of the public hearing; Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project; Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings and public hearings;
All resolutions adopted by the City regarding the Project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions; The City’s General Plan and applicable Specific Plans and all updates and related environmental analyses;
Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to Federal, State, and local laws and regulations;
The City Code;
Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above; and
Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions related to the Project are at Santa Clara City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, 95050. The City is the custodian of the Administrative Record for the Project.
The City has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decisions on the proposed Project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City Council or City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the Project. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the Project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City Council was aware in approving the Project. See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-391; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6. Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the Planning Commission and the City Council as final decision makers. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City’s decisions relating to approval of the Project. See Pub. Resources Code § 21167.6(e)(10); BrowningFerris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 II. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Project Location
The Freedom Circle Focus Area covers approximately 108 acres and currently contains predominantly commercial uses such as biotech and electronics, business offices, a hotel (Marriott), and various support services (such as car rental, UPS store, medical/dental, and restaurants).
The Plan Area is generally bounded by Great America Parkway to the west, California’s Great America amusement park to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east, and U.S. 101 to the south.
The Freedom Circle Plan Area, much like the surrounding neighborhood, is characterized by several “superblocks” with ample surface parking, significant setbacks, and significant separation between buildings. The Plan Area is relatively flat and developed with buildings ranging in height from two and three stories to up to 13 stories (Marriott Hotel) in the west; buildings in the rest of the Plan Area range from one to three stories. The Plan Area is generally underutilized, and some buildings are vacant. There are no residential land uses, public parks, or historic structures located in the Plan Area. Private automobiles predominate the suburban streetscape environment that is defined by limited pedestrian and bicycle accessibility. Visible infrastructure includes local streets and utilities, such as streetlights, and the City’s Pump Station on Freedom Circle at Mission College Boulevard in the east. Due to the large-lot development pattern and limited number of roadways within the Plan Area, linkages and connectivity across the Plan Area are limited.
The vacant Greystar project site (approximately 13.3 acres) is located in the southeast portion of the Plan Area, bordered by San Tomas Aquino Creek, U.S. 101, Pedro’s Restaurant, and part of Santa Clara Park (a 12-building business center).
B. Project Description
The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan is one step in the comprehensive planning process required as a General Plan prerequisite for incorporating a new “Focus Area” into the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan, under Phase III, which is programmed to occur between 2023 and 2035. The Focus Area Plan would designate changes to the Land Use Diagram that describe the future land uses anticipated in the Focus Area Plan Area. The Focus Area Plan process requires conformance with applicable General Plan policies, including preparation and approval of a future, comprehensive planning study (such as a specific plan). The planning study would establish more detailed policies, regulations, and actions for the Plan Area, and would also refine the framework for development, development assumptions, and related infrastructure and implementation needs. The Draft EIR briefly summarizes or describes Focus Area Plan policies designed to inform City planning and decision-makers of the detailed actions and performance standards that will be required by the comprehensive plan’s CEQA document to implement site-specific, individual development projects and public improvements, where such policies are relevant to the environmental analysis as set forth in the EIR.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 The Greystar project, included in the Plan Area and proposed while this Focus Area Plan as part of the Plan, would be a 1,075-unit multi-family residential project (with some projectserving retail and a two-acre public park) proposed for two currently vacant parcels formerly owned by Intel Corporation in the southeastern portion of the Plan Area. Because the General Plan land use designation currently allows high-intensity office/R&D rather than residential and retail development as proposed, the Greystar project would require a General Plan amendment.
Because it is not currently designated a Future Focus Area but will be, and as a site-specific development proposal and General Plan Amendment evaluated in this EIR concurrently with the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, the Greystar project, if approved, could proceed without adoption of the future planning study required for the remainder of the Plan Area.
C. Discretionary Actions
Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would require, but is not limited to, the following discretionary approvals by the City of Santa Clara:
Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Adoption of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan
Adoption of a General Plan amendment to designate the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Area as a Phase III Focus Area in the City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan and associated zoning changes for consistency with the current zoning code Future City approvals:
Preparation and adoption of a comprehensive planning study (such as a specific plan) for the Focus Area
Future discretionary review as necessary, including CEQA review, for individual public and private development proposals in the Plan Area Prior to Project implementation, additional permits and/or approvals may be required from various governmental entities, including the following:
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities Department
Silicon Valley Power (SVP)
County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
D. Statement of Project Objectives
The statement of objectives sought by the Project and set forth in the Final EIR is provided as follows:
Focus Area Plan. The overarching goal of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan is to outline new land uses that will convert the area from an employment center to a high-intensity mixed-use neighborhood including residential developments. As such, the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan has been formulated to establish the comprehensive planning framework necessary to guide development, with goals, policies, and design principles that will inform redevelopment in the Focus Area (including the Greystar project).
The Focus Area Plan goals listed below are referred to collectively in this EIR as the “basic project objectives” (CEQA Guidelines section 15124[b]):
Develop an urban-scale mixed-use activity center in North Santa Clara to support economic vitality while increasing residential options. Provide for a range of housing types and densities to accommodate future residents and to create diversity in building scale and typology. Create a complete neighborhood that provides easy access to day-to-day services and amenities for residents, employees and visitors. Reduce reliance on private vehicles and improve jobs/housing balance by locating amenities and jobs within walking distance to housing. Create a human-scaled public realm through inviting architecture and urban design.
Improve multi-modal transportation options and connections. Enhance connectivity to the San Tomas Aquino Creek trail.
Greystar Project. The basic objectives of the Greystar project, as provided by the applicant and identified by the City, are:
To both acknowledge the level of development interest in North Santa Clara, and to be consistent with and comply with the policies of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The Focus Area Plan will outline new land uses that will convert the area from an employment center to a high-intensity mixed-use neighborhood CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 including residential developments. These changes will help meet the demand for housing and for using land more efficiently at high, urban densities. Create a vibrant residential community that complements other North Santa Clara neighborhoods and encourages walking and bike riding, linking the Freedom Circle neighborhood to the San Thomas Aquino Creek Trail via a new, two-acre public park.
Redevelop a vacant lot in North Santa Clara and adjacent to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail with attractive and desirable amenities, housing, and a public park available to all Santa Clara residents.
Support, enhance and connect to the City’s existing and planned open space network.
Create a vibrant, two-acre, multifunctional public park with space allocated for such activities including a dog park, sport court, and a playground for ages 2 and up.
Meet the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance and Inclusionary Zoning requirements, including any direction on levels of affordability from the City Council.
Create a human scaled public realm through inviting architecture and urban design.
Activate street frontages and ground floor uses to create a pedestrian-friendly, cohesive urban environment.
Minimize surface parking by providing below‐grade and structured parking facilities.
Redesign the Freedom Circle right-of-way adjacent to the project to better balance space dedicated to vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Minimize environmental impacts through sustainable building and infrastructure by designing to a GreenPoint Rated Silver (or equivalent) level and remaining consistent with CALGreen and Santa Clara Climate Action Plan requirements.
Contribute to the City’s vehicle miles travelled (VMT) goals and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM programs).
Support and enhance the City’s goal for a balanced transportation network serving all modes of transportation - including walking, biking, and driving - to address the City's transportation challenges and needs, and to build on Santa Clara's existing transportation system.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Final EIR, dated March 2022, includes the Draft EIR dated November 2021, written comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the public review period, written CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 responses to these comments, clarifications/changes to the Draft EIR, and the MMRP. In conformance with CEQA, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project, as described below:
The City issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“NOP”) on June 26, 2020, to federal, state, regional, and local government agencies and interested parties to solicit comments and to inform agencies and the public of the Project during a 30-day public review period that extended from June 26, 2020 to July 27, 2020.
The Project, as it was envisioned in 2020, was described in the NOP; potential environmental effects associated with Project approval and implementation were identified; and agencies and the public were invited to review and comment on the Initial Study, NOP, and NOP mailing list.
Based on the Notice of Preparation and responses, a determination was made that the EIR would contain a comprehensive analysis of the following environmental issues, identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and Historical resources (including Tribal Cultural Resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions and energy, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. As required by CEQA, the EIR includes appropriate review, analysis, and mitigation measures for the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Final EIR could be utilized by other permitting agencies in their capacity as Responsible and Trustee agencies under CEQA. A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for a 45-day public review period, beginning on November 5, 2021, and ending on December 20, 2021. The Draft EIR was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding jurisdictions, interested parties, and other parties who requested a copy of the EIR in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 20192. The Draft EIR was available for public review on the City’s webpage and, during normal business hours, at City Hall located at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA, 95050. During this review period, the document was reviewed by various state, regional, and local agencies, as well as by interested organizations and individuals.
Comment letters on the Draft EIR were received from 4 agencies and 1 law firm representing a property owner within the plan area. Comment letters and responses to comments are included in the FEIR, which was issued in January 2022.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 IV. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following potentially significant impacts were analyzed in the EIR, and the effects of the Project were considered. For some impacts, the City has determined that the Project impacts have no impact on the environment or have a less than significant impact on the environment and thus no mitigation is required.
Other potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant because of the environmental analysis of the Project and identification of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes, and the identification and incorporation of feasible mitigation measures. The City has thus found for these impacts – in accordance with CEQA section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1) – that “Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Where the City has determined – pursuant to CEQA section 21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(2) – that “Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency,” it has also designated the impact as less than significant with mitigation.
Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the Project, the City has determined that either (1) even with the identification of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordance with CEQA section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3) that "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report." These impacts have been designated significant and unavoidable.
A. Aesthetics
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
The Greystar project would be a new development in the southeast part of the Plan Area on a vacant site between the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail (and levee road), Pedro’s Restaurant, and Freedom Circle. There are no other residential uses in this part of the Plan Area; however, there are multi-story buildings in the general vicinity, east across San Tomas Aquino Creek but outside of the Plan Area. As follows, the Greystar project design would be substantially consistent with General Plan policies governing scenic quality.
However, the proposed project would cast shadows on several project features and adjacent properties over the course of the seasons, varying with the time of day (e.g., angle CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 of the sun). The courtyards in Building B of the Greystar Project would have the most consistent shadow effects, but not all year round. Shadow effects on adjacent properties would likewise be limited by the season and time of day, primarily in the mornings or late afternoons.
Therefore, because the project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality including light and glare, and its shadow effects would not be considered significant due to their limited duration and variability, the impact of the Greystar project on the existing visual character and quality of project site and its surroundings is considered less-than-significant.
Impact 4-1: Effects on Scenic Vistas—Plan Area. Existing, limited vistas within the Plan Area include views of distant hills, but due to the generally flat, urbanized nature of Santa Clara, these vistas are often blocked by buildings, trees, power poles, and walls. Public views of these features occasionally emerge along view corridors created by long, straight roads along the perimeter of the Plan Area (e.g., Great America Parkway) and also by Mission College Boulevard, which transects the Plan Area. Occasionally, public views are accessible selectively between buildings and other structures, but no scenic vistas can be viewed from existing public areas in the Plan Area because the Plan Area (with the exception of the Greystar project site) is already built out and is largely private development with limited public access, and because of a lack of significant scenic vistas in the vicinity. As described and illustrated above, the Plan Area does not afford expansive or high quality scenic views, and the proposed development would neither exacerbate or improve that condition. Therefore, Plan impacts on scenic vistas are considered less-thansignificant (see criterion [a] in subsection 4.3.1, “Significance Criteria,” above).
Mitigation 4-1. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 4-2: Effects on Scenic Vistas—Greystar Project. As discussed in Impact 4-1, existing, limited vistas within the Plan Area include views of distant hills, but due to the generally flat, urbanized nature of Santa Clara these vistas are often blocked by buildings, trees, power poles, and walls. Public views of these features occasionally emerge along view corridors such as the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Greystar site and the Plan Area, and to a lesser extent parts of Freedom Circle.
Mitigation 4-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 4-4: Impacts on Existing Visual Character and Quality—Greystar Project. Section
4.1(c), “Greystar Project Site,” describes the existing visual character of the Greystar project site and vicinity. As described earlier, the Greystar project would be a new development in the southeast part of the Plan Area on a vacant site between the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail (and levee road), Pedro’s Restaurant, and Freedom Circle. There are no other residential uses in this part of the Plan Area; however, there are multi-story buildings in the general vicinity, east across San Tomas Aquino Creek but outside of the Plan Area. As follows, the Greystar project design would be substantially consistent with General Plan policies governing scenic quality.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 In summary, the proposed project would cast shadows on several project features and adjacent properties over the course of the seasons, varying with the time of day (e.g., angle of the sun). The courtyards in Building B would have the most consistent shadow effects, but not all year round. Shadow effects on adjacent properties would likewise be limited by the season and time of day, primarily in the mornings or late afternoons. Therefore, because the project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and its shadow effects would not be considered significant due to their limited duration and variability, the impact of the Greystar project on the existing visual character and quality of project site and its surroundings is considered less-thansignificant Mitigation 4-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 4-5: Project Light and Glare Effects—Plan Area. Development facilitated by the Focus Area Plan and required comprehensive planning study (specific plan) would be subject to light and glare requirements described in section 4.2 (Regulatory Setting) of this EIR chapter (e.g., Santa Clara City Code, Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Zones). Lighting characteristics in the Plan Area would not be expected to represent a source of substantial new light or glare due to the fact that the area is already developed with urban uses that are sources of daytime and nighttime light and glare and do not contain uses sensitive to light or glare. Application of the standard regulations described above would result in lessthan-significant light and glare impacts (see criterion [d] in subsection 4.3.1, “Significance Criteria,” above).
Mitigation 4-5. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 4-6: Project Light and Glare Effects—Greystar Project. Similar to Impact 4-5, the Greystar project would be subject to light and glare requirements described in section 4.2 (Regulatory Setting) of this EIR chapter (e.g., Santa Clara City Code, Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Zones). An overall increase in nighttime lighting would be expected due to the project, but the project’s lighting characteristics would not be expected to represent a source of substantial new light or glare which would adversely affect views and vision.
Although the project site is vacant, the area around the project site is already developed with urban uses that contain sources of daytime and nighttime light and glare. There are no identified uses sensitive to light or glare. The project would also not be expected to significantly increase daytime or nighttime light or glare in a way that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, application of the City of Santa Clara standard regulations described above would result in lessthan-significant light and glare impacts.
Mitigation 4-6. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) Impact 4-3: Impacts on Existing Visual Character and Quality—Plan Area.
New development throughout the Plan Area could include a combination of CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 residential, retail, office, and open space uses. New uses could include combinations of, for example, residential, retail, restaurant, and office uses in single or mixed-use buildings. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan is, by definition, a generalized plan.
As stated in the General Plan, a comprehensive planning study is required for future focus areas, which would include, among other items, “…appropriate design guidelines for private development, public facilities, streetscapes and transitions to adjacent land uses” (Prerequisite Policy 5.1.1-P8).
Finding: Although the Focus Area Plan includes goals and policies intended to provide direction for minimizing visual impacts from future development, these general goals and policies lack the detail and enforceability that would be included in the comprehensive planning study, and therefore present potential conflicts with applicable General Plan policies governing scenic quality. This represents a potentially significant impact.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Focus Area Plan includes goals and policies that would support General Plan policies governing scenic quality (see section 4.2, Regulatory Setting) but because the Focus Area Plan goals and policies are generalized, consistency with General Plan policies cannot be ensured until the future, more detailed comprehensive planning study is completed, they could present potential conflicts:
Policy 5.3.1‐P3: Support high quality design consistent with adopted design guidelines and the City’s architectural review process.
Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan goal and policy would support high-quality design but provide no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:
FC-G5: Create a human scaled public realm through inviting architecture and urban design.
FC-P9: Require that building facades and entrances directly face street frontages, with a high proportion of transparent windows facing the street for nonresidential uses. Policy 5.3.1‐P6: Allow planned development only if it is consistent with General Plan land use density and intensity requirements and provides a means to address unique situations to achieve high community design standards that would otherwise not be feasible.
Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan goal and policy would support the land use density and intensity envisioned for the Plan Area but provide no performance enforceable standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:
FC-G5: Create a human scaled public realm through inviting architecture and urban design.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 FC-P1: Allow for a range of housing density and development intensity throughout the plan area, consistent with the General Plan designations and overall buildout capacity. Policy 5.3.1-P10: Provide opportunities for increased landscaping and trees in the community, including requirements for new development to provide street trees and a minimum 2:1 on‐ or off‐site replacement for trees removed as part of the proposal to help increase the urban forest and minimize the heat island effect.
Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan policies would support opportunities for increased landscaping but provide no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:
FC-P4: Provide public parkland and privately-owned public open space that is accessible to all residents, adequate to meet resident activity needs, and consistent with the General Plan requirements and other City regulations.
FC-P5: Require the provision of open space, or payment of in‐lieu fees for parks and open space for residential development, consistent with the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance.
Policy 5.3.1-P24: Coordinate sign programs for commercial uses to promote continuity, improve streetscape design and reduce visual clutter.
Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan policy would support improved streetscape design and reduce visual clutter but provides no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:
FC-P3: Require active street frontages and ground floor uses to create a pedestrianfriendly, cohesive urban environment. Policy 5.3.1-P29: Encourage design of new development to be compatible with, and sensitive to, nearby existing and planned development, consistent with other applicable General Plan policies.
Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan policy would support compatibility with nearby existing and planned development but provides no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:
FC-P8: Provide appropriate transition between new development in the Focus Area and adjacent uses consistent with General Plan Transition Policies. Policy 5.3.4-P7: Use design techniques, such as stepping down building heights, and siting incompatible activities, such as loading and unloading, away from residential uses.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan policy would support design techniques to minimize effects of incompatible activities but provides no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:
FC-P15: Develop design standards and guidelines to support active ground-floor environments, welcoming public spaces, and safe and comfortable sidewalks and pathways.
Policy 5.3.4-P12: Prioritize pedestrian‐oriented streetscape and building design in mixed‐use development, including features such as wider sidewalks, street furniture, specialty planters, signage, public art, street trees, special paving materials, decorative awnings, enhanced entrances, colors, variety of materials and textures and distinctive building massing and articulation.
Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan policies would support pedestrianoriented streetscape and building design but provide no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:
FC-P3: Require active street frontages and ground floor uses to create a pedestrianfriendly, cohesive urban environment.
FC-P15: Develop design standards and guidelines to support active ground-floor environments, welcoming public spaces, and safe and comfortable sidewalks and pathways.
FC-P16: Design and program the plan area and sites to encourage walking, bicycling and transit use.
Policy 5.9.1-P17: Foster site design for new development so that building height and massing do not overshadow new parks and plazas.
Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan policy would support appropriate building height and massing but provides no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:
FC-P7: Encourage sensitive design and site planning to mitigate the scale and height of larger buildings through use of building massing, setbacks, façade articulation, fenestration, varied parapets and roof lines, and pedestrian‐scaled architectural details.
Policy 5.10.3-P4: Encourage new development to incorporate sustainable building design, site planning and construction, including encouraging solar opportunities.
Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan policy would support sustainability in development but provides no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 FC-P17: Minimize environmental impacts through sustainable building and infrastructure design, consistent with CALGreen and Santa Clara Climate Action Plan requirements.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation 4-3. As required by the City of Santa Clara General Plan, the City shall prepare a future comprehensive planning study for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan (whether a specific plan or another type of plan) and it shall include the following performance and design standards and guidelines that apply to all future individual development proposals in the Plan Area to minimize visual impacts by:
(a) those enhancing form and design in the Plan Area; (b) those incorporating land use densities and associated changes in intensity consistent with the General Plan; (c) those encouraging street trees and landscaping along corridors to beautify the streetscape; (d) those coordinating signage color, shape, and graphic styles with the City’s signage system; (e) those including standards to ensure compatibility of new development with nearby existing and planned development; (f) those establishing standards related to building form, mass, and scale that enhance the pedestrian realm and provide transitions to adjacent lower-density development and public spaces; (g) those including guidelines and standards for pedestrian amenities; and (h) those fostering site design so that building height and massing would not overshadow new parks and plazas and/or interfere with solar collectors.
Incorporation of such performance and design standards and guidelines in the required comprehensive planning study for the Plan Area would minimize conflicts with General Plan policies pertaining to visual character. Therefore, implementation of this mitigation would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.
4. Cumulative impacts
Buildout of the Focus Area would not substantially block views of scenic vistas or resources beyond existing conditions. Due to the distance between cumulative projects, and the intervening development, vegetation, and flat topography of the area, there is not anticipated to be a cumulative impact to visual character. Projects in the City and adjoining jurisdictions are subject to architectural review, design guidelines and development standards, and municipal codes, including standards to prevent light and glare impacts.
Thus, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to a significant visual impact.
B. Air Quality
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The Project would not conflict with or CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Implementation of the proposed Freedom Circle Focus area and Greystar General Plan Amendment would be consistent with and not hinder the implementation of any applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures. In addition, the proposed Focus Area’s growth in service population would be greater than the increase in trip generation within the Planning Area, and the Focus Area Plan would not promote disparities in health risks. Based on the preceding analysis, the proposed Freedom Circle Focus Area/ Greystar General Plan Amendment would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Impacts 5-6 and 5-7: Expose Sensitive Receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
Impact 5-6: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Operational Pollutant Concentrations – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Implementation of the proposed Focus Area Plan would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial operational pollutant concentrations of toxic air contaminants nor criteria air pollutants. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation 5-6. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 5-7: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations – Greystar General Plan Amendment. Implementation of the proposed Greystar General Plan Amendment / Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of toxic air contaminants or criteria air pollutants during its construction or operation. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation 5-7. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 5-8: Odors – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). Future development under the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in new residential, retail, commercial, office, and other community serving land uses. It would not permit the land uses identified in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identified as generating odor. No impact would occur.
Mitigation 5-8. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required Impact 5-9: Odors – Greystar General Plan Amendment. According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). The Greystar General Plan Amendment / Project would result in the development of new residential, retail, and CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 community serving land uses. It would not permit the land uses identified in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identified as generating odor. No impact would occur.
Mitigation 5-9. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required
2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) Potential Impact:
Impact 5-4: Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants for which the Region is Non-Attainment – Greystar General Plan Amendment. Implementation of the Greystar General Plan Amendment / Project could result in the emission of criteria air pollutants that have the potential to exceed BAAQMD thresholds of significance. These activities represent a potentially significant impact.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Greystar General Plan Amendment / Project would generate short-term construction and long-term operational emissions of regulated air pollutants (i.e., criteria air pollutants and TACs). These emissions would be released to the ambient air and disperse according to the topographic and meteorological influences that prevail near the Greystar Project site and in the greater SFBAAB. The BAAQMD and/or CARB monitor levels of criteria air pollutant concentrations in ambient air to evaluate attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS; the significance of the level of criteria air pollutant emission that the Greystar Project could emit during construction and operation is evaluated below.
Neither the BAAQMD nor CARB conduct regular and routine monitoring of TACs because most TACs do not have an established ambient air quality standard against which ambient air concentrations can be compared; however, TAC emissions could result in local effects if substantial concentrations were to occur at sensitive receptor locations as a result of the Greystar Project.
On a project-level, the proposed Greystar Project would not result in significant air quality impacts during construction activities after the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-4A and Mitigation Measure 5-4B, and its operational emissions would be less than significant without mitigation. The Greystar Project would still be required to implement Mitigation Measures 5-3C and 5-3D, which address impacts for implementation of the entire Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure 5-4A: See Mitigation Measure 5-3A.
Mitigation Measure 5-4B: Use Low- and Super Compliant VOC Architectural CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Coatings During Construction. During construction, the City shall require the Greystar Project use architectural coatings for exterior applications that meet “Low VOC” or “Super-Compliant” standards, as defined in South Coast Air Quality Management District AQMD Rule 1113. “Super-Compliant” refers to paints that have been reformulated to levels well below the “Low-VOC” limits. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable (a) Impact 5-3: Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants for which the Region is Non-Attainment – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could result in growth in the Plan Area that exceeds the level of growth accounted for in the City’s General Plan and, therefore, could generate a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants for which the region is in non-attainment.
Finding: This represents a potentially significant impact.
Facts in support of Finding
The Focus Area Plan would permit a substantially higher development intensity in the Plan Area than current conditions; however, the proposed land uses would serve a greater number of people in the city than the current land uses and would concentrate development in an area that is well served by local and regional transit.
Nonetheless, the transition of current land uses to those proposed under the Focus Area Plan would result in criteria air pollutant and other emissions from construction activities and from the operation of the new residential, office, retail, and other community-serving land uses. The emissions levels associated with the growth proposed by the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would far exceed that accounted for in the City’s General Plan and result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions for which the region is in nonattainment.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure 5-3A: Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. The City shall require new development projects occurring under implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Control Mitigation Measures to address fugitive dust emissions that would occur during earthmoving activities associated with project construction. These measures include:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Mitigation Measure 5-3B: Require a Project-level Construction Assessment for New Development Proposed Under Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The City shall require applicants to submit a quantitative projectlevel construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions analysis for future development proposed under implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The estimated construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions shall be compared against the thresholds of significance maintained by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and, if emissions are shown to be above BAAQMD thresholds, the City shall require the implementation of mitigation to reduce emissions below BAAQMD thresholds or to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation measures to reduce emissions could include, but are not limited to:
Selection of specific construction equipment (e.g., specialized pieces of equipment with smaller engines or equipment that will be more efficient and reduce engine runtime);
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Requiring equipment to use alternative fuel sources (e.g., electric-powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas), meet cleaner emission standards (e.g., U.S.
EPA Tier IV Final emissions standards for equipment greater than 50- horsepower), and/or utilizing added exhaust devices (e.g., Level 3 Diesel Particular Filter);
Minimizing the idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to two minutes; Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM;
Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines; and Application of Low-VOC paints to interior and/or exterior surfaces (e.g., paints that meet SCAQMD Rule 1113 “Low-VOC” or “Super-Compliant” requirements).
Mitigation Measure 5-3C: Use Low- and Super Compliant VOC Architectural Coatings During Operational Activities. The City shall require the use of Low- and Super-Compliant VOC Architectural Coatings in maintaining buildings in Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan through Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Ground Lease. Developed parcels shall require within their CC&Rs and/or ground leases requirements for all future interior and exterior spaces to be repainted with architectural coatings that meet the “Low-VOC” or “SuperCompliant” requirements. “Low-VOC” refers to paints that meet the more stringent regulatory limits of South Coast Air Quality Management District AQMD Rule 1113. “Super-Compliant” refers to paints that have been reformulated to levels well below the “Low-VOC” limits.
Mitigation Measure 5-3D: Implement TDM Program. Proposed residential and office land uses within the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan shall prepare and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs that achieve a minimum reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of 20 percent compared to baseline conditions (i.e., without internal or external reductions accounted for, such as geographic location, land use interconnectivity, etc.), with at least 10 percent of the reduction coming through project-specific TDM measures (e.g., transit subsidies, telecommuting options, etc.).
Even with implementation of these measures, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
(b) Impact 5-5: Generate Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions that Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations During Construction – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in construction activities over the next approximately 20 years that generate toxic air contaminant emissions and could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. These activities represent a potentially significant impact.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure 5-3B would require the preparation of a project-specific air quality assessment to evaluate potential TAC construction emissions associated with the development project. Although future development projects would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 5-3B, it cannot be definitively known or stated at this time that all development projects occurring under implementation of the Focus Area Plan would be able to reduce potential TAC emissions to levels that are below BAAQMD thresholds. For example, should a development project involving new residential receptors be undertaken on the eastern side of Plan Area early on in the Plan’s implementation, future development projects upwind of that site (i.e., to the west / northwest) would generate emissions that could adversely affect the new receptors and exceed applicable BAAQMD thresholds of significance.
Therefore, despite the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-3B, TAC construction emissions associated with the proposed Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could result in significant adverse health risks at receptor locations. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 5-5: See Mitigation Measure 5-3B.
Even with implementation of these measures, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
C. Biological Resources
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 6-1: Impacts on Riparian Habitat, Sensitive Natural Communities, Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife Corridors, and Fish and Wildlife Nursery Sites. The project area, including the Greystar project site, is outside the nearest known Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area, approximately 1.3 miles west of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan permit area at its nearest point. Two Natural Communities of Special Concern, as identified by CDFW, occur within the general geographic vicinity of the project area along the margins of the San Francisco Bay approximately 3.6 miles north: northern coastal salt marsh and sycamore alluvial woodland.
However, these sensitive natural communities do not occur in or adjacent to the project area.
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) databases did not identify any habitat types that could occur in the project area that would be able to support special-status species.Based on the discussion above, implementation of the project would have a less-than-significant impact on special-status species, riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impact 6-5: Impacts on Protected Trees, Plants, and Shrubs. There are no Citydesignated heritage trees in the Freedom Circle Focus Area (General Plan Table 8.10).
However, Section 12.35 (Trees and Shrubs) of the City of Santa Clara Municipal Code is an ordinance pertaining to all trees, plants, and shrubs along streets or public places within the city. Any of these trees, plants, or shrubs planned for removal must first obtain written permission from the superintendent of streets. Finally, Section 12.35 states “No person without such authorization shall trench around or alongside of any such tree, plant or shrub with the intent of cutting the roots thereof or otherwise damaging the same.” The ordinance was adopted by the City and is implemented as applicable. Under CEQA, the ordinance is considered a uniformly applicable development regulation implemented to avoid or reduce impacts on trees, plants, and shrubs along city streets and within public spaces. Permission to alter or remove vegetation is generally based on the vegetation’s potential hazard (e.g., may fall and damage property or injure people); or, in the case of development proposals, on vegetation replacement and landscaping plans. On obtaining a written permit from the superintendent of streets before altering or removing any trees, plants, or shrubs along streets or public portions of the Freedom Circle Focus Area, a project would be in compliance with all local policies and ordinances for preserving trees.
Therefore, Freedom Circle Focus Area implementation would have a less-than-significant impact on trees, plants, and shrubs.
Mitigation 6-5. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) Potential Impact: Impact 6-2: Potential Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Habitat. Development facilitated by the Freedom Circle Focus Area could degrade the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered species (also referred to as “special-status”) potentially present on a project site, and conflict with Policy
5.10.1‐P1 of the Santa Clara General Plan, to require environmental review prior to approval of any development with the potential to degrade the habitat of any threatened or endangered species.
Finding: Mitigation measures would require environmental review prior to approval of any development with the potential to degrade the habitat of any threatened or endangered species. The City hereby determines this impact to be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
The absence of City evaluation of the need for further biological resource surveys would be in violation of City policy and is therefore considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation 6-2. Upon receiving applications for site-specific projects within the Plan Area, the City shall evaluate the need for a specific biological resource survey of the project site and adjacent area that may be indirectly impacted by project work. If no biological resources are determined to be at risk as determined by a qualified biologist, no further survey shall be required. However, if the City determines that biological resources within the project area require further analysis, the project proponent shall be required to conduct a biological resource survey of the habitat and special-status species that may be impacted by project activities, either directly or indirectly. A report shall be provided to the City detailing survey methods, results, and avoidance and minimization measures required to protect any specialstatus species with potential to be impacted, in accordance with the regulatory protocols of the responsible jurisdictional agencies for the resource in question, including, but not limited to: USFWS, CDFW, and USACE. If no further surveys/investigation is requested by a permitting or other regulatory agency upon receipt of biological survey report, work may proceed as planned. Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. (b) Potential Impact: Impact 6-3: Potential Impacts on Special-Status Plants.
There is a low potential for Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii; California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2) and arcuate bush mallow (Malacothamnus arcuatus; California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2) to occur within the Focus Area, especially if the area is left undisturbed for a long period of time (i.e., a year or longer).
Without a proactive mitigation procedure in place, Plan implementation could inadvertently result in the removal of special-status plants. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Finding: Mitigation measures would reduce impacts to Congdon’s tarplant to less than significant levels. The City hereby determines this impact to be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation measures would require that a qualified botanist shall conduct sitespecific, focused surveys according to CDFW guidelines before any project work within the Focus Area begins, to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species on the individual project site and any adjacent potential area of disturbance
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation 6-3. Before any project work within the Focus Area, including the Greystar site, a qualified botanist shall conduct site-specific, focused surveys according to CDFW guidelines to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species on the individual project site and any adjacent potential area of disturbance. A comprehensive, site-wide survey should be conducted within May to September before project work begins, to encompass the Congdon’s tarplant and CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 arcuate bush mallow’s blooming periods. Following the completion of the surveys, a survey results report shall be prepared and provided to the City. This report should include, but should not be limited to, the following: (1) a description of the survey methodology; (2) a discussion of the survey results; and (3) a map showing the survey area and the location of any special-status plants encountered. If no rare plants are found, then no further mitigation would be required.
If rare plants are found during the survey, the number of individuals present shall be documented and the limits of population shall be marked with flagging. The flagged border of the population shall be avoided by construction personnel for the duration of the project. If the species cannot be avoided or may be indirectly impacted, the applicant shall notify CDFW to discuss avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures as appropriate for each species population, including measures to be taken and protocols to be followed if special-status plants are inadvertently disturbed during construction activities.
CDFW may require the preparation and implementation of a mitigation plan that details avoidance, preservation, and/or compensation for the loss of individual special-status plant species. Mitigation may include the purchase of mitigation bank credits, preserving and enhancing existing on-site populations, creation of off-site populations through seed collection and/or transplantation and monitoring these populations to ensure their successful establishment, and/or preserving occupied habitat off-site in perpetuity. Specific amounts and methods of mitigation and/or credits shall be determined in formal consultation with CDFW and USFWS.
Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
(c) Potential Impact: Impact 6-4: Potential Impacts on Nesting Birds or Roosting Bats.
The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513, 3800, and 4150 protect migratory and nesting birds, as well as roosting bats. Although the project does not specify which trees or buildings might be removed under individual projects facilitated by the Plan, trees (potential nesting and roosting habitat) or buildings could be disturbed or removed by Plan implementation. The possibility of removing trees and/or buildings that contain nests or roosting bats is identified here as a potentially significant impact. Any direct removal of trees or indirect disturbance by construction or operational activities during the nesting season that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered a "take." This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Finding: Mitigation measures would reduce impacts on Nesting Birds or Roosting Bats to less than significant levels. The City hereby determines this impact to be less than significant.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Facts in Support of Finding
Although the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan does not specify which trees or buildings might be removed under individual projects facilitated by the Plan, trees (potential nesting and roosting habitat) or buildings could be disturbed or removed by Plan implementation. The possibility of removing trees and/or buildings that contain nests or roosting bats is identified here as a potentially significant impact.
Any direct removal of trees or indirect disturbance by construction or operational activities during the nesting season that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered a "take." There is a low potential for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; California species of special concern), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; California Fully-Protected Species), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii; California species of special concern) to utilize the landscaped habitat within the Focus Area for roosting and/or nesting, especially if the area is left undisturbed for a long period of time. In addition, many common bird species without a special status, though protected by the MBTA, MBPA, and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), may utilize buildings, gravel substrates, and the landscaped vegetation within the Plan Area for nesting, foraging, and roosting.
Common bat species protected by the CFGC may also rarely utilize vegetation within the Focus Area for individual roosting. Without a proactive mitigation procedure in place, Plan implementation could inadvertently result in the removal of existing trees containing nests or eggs of migratory birds, raptors, or bird species during the nesting season, or roosting bats, which would be considered unlawful take under the MBTA and the CFGC.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation 6-4. The demolition of any buildings, disturbance of gravel substrate, and/or removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no demolition, gravel disturbance, vegetation, or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no further action is required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, the project applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nesting birds at most 14 days prior to the start of removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, or buildings, including prior to grading or other construction activity. If demolition of buildings, disturbance of gravel substrate, or vegetation removal efforts do not begin within the 14 days following the nesting bird survey, another survey shall be required. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as reasonably accessible areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist and dependent on species’ life history requirements.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 If an active nest is discovered in the areas to be directly physically disturbed, or in other habitats within the vicinity of construction boundaries and may be disturbed by construction activities (as determined by the qualified biologist), clearing and construction shall be postponed until the qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest fails, or the nest is otherwise determined to be inactive by the biologist (i.e. predation).
To avoid impacts to roosting bats that may rarely utilize the Focus Area vegetation and/or vacant buildings for day roosting, the project applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for roosting bats at most 14 days prior to the start of demolition of any vacant buildings left with entry and egress points accessible to bats or removal of suitable bat roosting vegetation. If roosting bats are detected, the biologist shall enact a minimum of a 150-foot no-work buffer and confer with CDFW to determine potential roost protection or roost eviction practices. After conferring with CDFW, the protective buffer may be adjusted based on specific roost needs. Once bats have been suitably protected by a buffer and/or safely evicted from roosting sites (as approved by CDFW), construction may resume outside the buffered area.
A nesting bird and roosting bat survey report prepared with the methods and results of the pre-project survey will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to commencement of construction activities. Any additional construction monitoring, as determined through any necessary coordination/discretionary approvals with the resource agencies, will be documented per requirements set forth in an approved mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.
4. Cumulative impacts
None.
D. Cultural Resources
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 7-2: Destruction/Degradation of Historic Resources—Greystar Project. The Greystar project site is vacant and does not contain any buildings or structures (except a wood and Plexiglas bus shelter). As discussed in section 7.1 (Setting) above, review of the CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 State Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory by the CHRIS/NWIC identified no recorded buildings or structures located on the project site. As discussed in section 7.1.2, according to a cultural resources assessment by Basin Research Associates, several features of the “built environment” were observed on the site (a concrete utility vault, electrical transmission power poles, electrical service boxes/cabinets, a water service pipe, and a wood and Plexiglas shade structure [i.e., the bus shelter]). All were determined to be less than 50 years in age and none was considered significant. Therefore, because there are no buildings or structures on-site that would meet the CEQA definition of a historic resource, including properties or features eligible for listing in a local, State, or Federal register of historic resources, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation 7-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) Potential Impact: Impact 7-3: Potential for Disturbance of Buried Archaeological Resources, Including Human Remains, and Tribal Cultural Resources—Plan Area. Development facilitated by the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could disturb unrecorded sensitive archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources in the Plan Area. This possibility represents a potentially significant impact.
Finding: Mitigation measures would reduce impacts due to a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource to less than significant levels. The City hereby determines this impact to be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
On March 26, 2021, the City of Santa Clara provided notification to Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as having traditional lands or cultural places in the proposed project vicinity to invite them to request consultation. To date, no tribes have requested consultation for the Plan.
Though almost all of the Plan Area is developed, with only the 13.3-acre Greystar Project site vacant, there is a possibility that as-yet unrecorded prehistoric cultural resources or tribal cultural resources could exist beneath the surface of the Plan Area. Contact with such resources during construction activities could result in a significant impact. The mitigation below would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level.
Mitigation Measures:
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation 7-3. During the City’s standard project-specific review process for all future, discretionary, public improvement and private development projects in the Freedom Circle Focus Area, the City shall determine the possible presence of, and the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts of the action on, archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. The City shall require individual project applicants or environmental consultants to contact the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the particular project is located in a sensitive area. Future discretionary development projects that CHRIS determines may be located in a sensitive area - i.e., on or adjoining an identified archaeological site - shall proceed only after the project applicant contracts with an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, to conduct a determination in regard to cultural values remaining on the site and warranted mitigation measures, as described directly below.
In general, to make an adequate determination in these instances, the archaeologist shall conduct a preliminary field inspection to (1) assess the amount and location of visible ground surface, (2) determine the nature and extent of previous impacts, and (3) assess the nature and extent of potential impacts. Such field inspection may demonstrate the need for some form of additional subsurface testing (e.g., excavation by auger, shovel, or backhoe unit) or, alternatively, the need for on-site monitoring of subsurface activities (i.e., during grading or trenching).
In addition, the City shall continue to notify the Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Focus Area of the discretionary, public improvement and private development projects if those proposed improvements or projects are subject to a CEQA Negative Declaration (including Mitigated Negative Declaration) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in accordance with California Assembly Bill 52, and if a Native American tribe requests consultation, conduct a good faith consultation.
Following field inspection and completion of all necessary phases of study as determined by the archaeologist and the City, damage to any identified archaeological resources shall be avoided or mitigated to the maximum extent possible. Preservation in place to maintain the relationship between the artifact(s) and the archaeological context is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts on an archaeological site. Preservation may be accomplished by:
Planning construction to avoid the archaeological or tribal cultural site; Incorporating the site within a park, green space, or other open space element; Covering the site with a layer of chemically stable soil; or Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 When in-place mitigation is determined by the City to be infeasible, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequate recovery of culturally or historically consequential information about the site (including artifacts discovered on the site), subject to review and approval by the City, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be submitted to the CHRIS Northwest Information Center. If Native American artifacts are indicated, the studies shall also be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). CHRIS and NAHC are recognized as experts in their respective disciplines.
Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures recommended by these two groups (CHRIS and NAHC), as reviewed and approved by the City, shall be undertaken prior to and during construction activities. Although the precise details of the mitigation measures would be specific to the particular project site, the measures shall be consistent with the avoidance and mitigation strategies described above in this programmatic mitigation measure.
A data recovery plan and data recovery for a historic resource shall not be required if the City determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the necessary data, provided that the data have already been documented in an EIR or are available for review at the CHRIS Northwest Information Center (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4[b]).
Resource identification training procedures shall be implemented for construction personnel, conducted by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. In the event that subsurface cultural resources are otherwise encountered during approved ground-disturbing activities for a Plan Area construction activity, work within 50 feet shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds following the procedures described above. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Although work may continue beyond 50 feet, the archaeologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to archaeological resources.
If human remains are found, the rules set forth in State Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b) apply and shall be followed.
Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
(b) Impact: Impact 7-4: Potential for Disturbance of Buried Archaeological Resources, Including Human Remains, and Tribal Cultural Resources— Greystar Project. Development of the Greystar project could disturb unrecorded sensitive archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources on the project site.
This possibility represents a potentially significant impact.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Finding: Mitigation measures would reduce impacts due to a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource to less than significant levels. The City hereby determines this impact to be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation 7-4. Prior to construction activities, resource identification training procedures shall be implemented for construction personnel, conducted by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. The qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant and approved by the City and shall meet U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. Training shall include a written handout and focus on how to identify cultural/Native American resources that may be encountered during earth-moving activities, including the procedures to be followed in such an event. On-site archaeological monitor duties and the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation shall also be explained, in case either or both becomes necessary.
During ground-disturbing project construction activities, if subsurface cultural resources are encountered, work within 50 feet shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds following the procedures described below. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Although work may continue beyond 50 feet, the archaeologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to archaeological resources.
All cultural/archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified professional archaeologist. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes and/or Individuals shall be contacted and consulted, and Native American construction monitoring shall be initiated if requested by the Tribes and/or Individuals. The City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan that avoids or mitigates, to the maximum extent possible, damage to any identified resources. Preservation in place to maintain the relationship between the artifact(s) and the archaeological context is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts on an archaeological site. Preservation may be accomplished by:
Planning construction to avoid the archaeological or tribal cultural site; Incorporating the site within a park, green space, or other open space element; Covering the site with a layer of chemically stable soil; or Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 If in-place mitigation is determined by the City to be infeasible, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequate recovery of culturally or historically consequential information about the site (including artifacts discovered on the site), subject to review and approval by the City, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. The study shall be submitted to the CHRIS Northwest Information Center, and if Native American artifacts are indicated, the study shall also be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
CHRIS and NAHC are recognized as experts in their respective disciplines.
Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422 (archaeological sites). Any additional mitigation measures recommended by these two groups (CHRIS and NAHC), as reviewed and approved by the City, shall be undertaken prior to and during construction activities. Although the precise details of those measures would be based on the nature and extent of the resource(s) uncovered on the site, the measures shall be consistent with the avoidance and mitigation strategies described above in this mitigation measure.
In addition, if the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed, or have a high probability of exposing, cultural and/or archaeological artifacts, construction monitoring for cultural and/or archaeological resources shall be required. The City shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors.
The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist.
If human remains are found, the rules set forth in State Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b) apply and shall be followed, in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (as appropriate).
Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 (a) Impact 7-1: Destruction/Degradation of Historic Resources—Plan Area There may be one or more properties or features within the Plan Area, now or in the future, that meets the CEQA definition of a historic resource, including properties or features eligible for listing in a local, State, or Federal register of historic resources.
Future development projects that are otherwise consistent with the proposed Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan may cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of one or more such historic resources. Substantial adverse changes that may occur include physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of one or more historic resources or its immediate surroundings such that the resource is "materially impaired." The significance of a historic resource would be considered potentially "materially impaired" when and if an individual future development project proposes to demolish or materially alter the physical characteristics that justify the determination of its significance (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5[b]). Such adverse changes in the significance of a CEQA-defined historic resource would be a significant impact.
Finding: Without knowing the characteristics of the potentially affected historic resource or of the future individual development proposal, the City cannot determine with certainty that complying with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties or relocation of the resource would be considered feasible. Consequently, this impact is currently considered significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding
The identification of historic resources must account for change over time. Today’s newer buildings may be recognized as historic within the lifetime of the Focus Area and eventual Specific Plan. Today’s older buildings may attain historic significance as more is uncovered about their past. Currently non-historic buildings may be recognized as historic in the future if the people or events associated with those buildings become historically or culturally distinguished. All these possibilities are accounted for in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 (Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological and Historical Resources).
Consistent with the perspective described above, the California Office of Historic Preservation notes, “There is a common misconception that resources 50 years or older need to be evaluated, but anything younger cannot be considered significant….[T]he California Register criteria (CCR section 4852) state that in order for a resource to achieve significance within the past 50 years, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource….Specifically, the California Register statute allows CEQA Lead Agencies [in the case of this EIR, the City of Santa Clara] a fair amount of flexibility in justifying that a resource is significant, even if that resource is less than 50 years old.”1
1California Office of Historic Preservation, CEQA Case Studies, September 2015 (Volume VI).
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 At of time of writing (November 2021), there are currently no buildings older than 45 years within the Focus Area.2
Due to the possibilities described above, the potential for a substantial adverse change to a historic resource due to individual discretionary development projects proposed under the Focus Area would be evaluated by a qualified professional on a case-by-case basis in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 to determine whether projects would have new or substantially more severe impacts to historic resources.
Under CEQA, conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will normally mitigate impacts on a historic resource to a less-than-significant level.
Under the Standards for Rehabilitation, new additions, alterations, or adjacent new construction must not destroy character-defining features, spaces, and spatial relationships. New work must be differentiated from the old and must be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, proportion, and massing.
New additions, alterations, and construction must be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
In some cases, it can be challenging to accommodate the needs of new uses while fully adhering to the Standards for Rehabilitation and, in many situations, it can be infeasible. In addition, changes to the eligibility, identification, and condition of historic resources and their surroundings between now and the time that individual development proposals are received for specific properties could affect potential impacts on historic resources. As a result, it cannot be determined at this time, without consideration of a current, specific development proposal, whether it would be feasible to mitigate to a less-than-significant level the impacts of any given subsequent development project under the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan involving properties that may contain historic resources. (No building or structure in the Plan Area is on a local or State historic resource inventory.) Although the following mitigation measures are intended to mitigate impacts on historic resources from implementation of the eventual Specific Plan to the extent feasible, the impacts on historic resources may still remain significant and unavoidable. This conservative approach is consistent with CEQA.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation 7-1. For any individual project within the Freedom Circle Focus Area that the City determines may involve a property that contains a potentially significant historic resource, the resource shall be assessed by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards to
2Historic Aerials, 2020.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 determine whether the property is a significant historic resource and whether or not the project may have a potentially significant adverse effect on the historic resource. If, based on the recommendation of the qualified professional, the City determines that the project may have a potentially significant effect, the City shall require the applicant to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) Adhere to at least one of the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards::
Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings; or
Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
The qualified professional shall make a recommendation to the City as to whether the project fully adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and any specific modifications necessary to do so. The final determination as to a project's adherence to the Standards shall be made by the City body with final decisionmaking authority over the project. Such a determination of individual project adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will constitute mitigation of the project historic resource impacts to a less-than-significant level (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5).
(b) If measure (a) is not feasible, the historic resource shall be moved to a new location compatible with the original character and use of the historic resource, and its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment shall be retained, such that a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource is avoided.3 Implementation of measure (b) would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
If neither measure (a) nor measure (b) is feasible, then the City shall, as applicable and to the extent feasible, implement the following measures in the following order:
(c) Document the historic resource before any changes that would cause a loss of integrity and loss of continued eligibility. The documentation shall adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. The level of documentation shall be proportionate with the level of
3One example of a substantial adverse change would be the loss of eligibility for listing on the California Register. The State Historical Resources Code encourages the retention of historic resources on-site and discourages the non-historic grouping of historic buildings into parks or districts. However, it is recognized that moving a historic building, structure, or object is sometimes necessary to prevent its destruction. Therefore, a moved building, structure, or object that is otherwise eligible may be listed in the California Register if it was moved to prevent its demolition at its former location and if the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historic resource. A historic resource should retain its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment.
(California Office of Historic Preservation, California Register and National Register: A Comparison, Technical Assistance Series 6; Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2001) CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 significance of the resource. The documentation shall be made available for inclusion in the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Collections in the Library of Congress, the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and the Bancroft Library, as well as local libraries and historical societies.
(d) Retain and reuse the historic resource to the maximum feasible extent and continue to apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to the maximum feasible extent in all alterations, additions, and new construction. (e) Through careful methods of planned deconstruction to avoid damage and loss, salvage character-defining features and materials for educational and interpretive use on-site, or for reuse in new construction on the site in a way that commemorates their original use and significance.
(f) Interpret the historical significance of the resource through a permanent exhibit or program in a publicly accessible location on the site or elsewhere within the Focus Area.
Implementation of measures (b), (c), (d), (e), and/or (f) would reduce a significant impact on historic resources, but not to a less-than-significant level. Without knowing the characteristics of the potentially affected historic resource or of the future individual development proposal, the City cannot determine with certainty that measure (a) or (b) above would be considered feasible. Consequently, this impact is currently considered significant and unavoidable.
4. Cumulative impacts
None.
E. Geology and Soils
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 8-1: Effects of Strong Seismic Ground Shaking—Plan Area. The Plan Area could experience strong seismic ground shaking and related effects in the event of an earthquake on the regional fault system. The Focus Area Plan would not exacerbate the existing risk of strong seismic ground shaking. Mandated project compliance with the stringent seismic design provisions of the latest California Building Standards Code (CBSC), as adopted by the City, would reduce the risk of property loss or hazards to occupants to a less-thansignificant level.
Mitigation 8-1. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impact 8-2: Effects of Strong Seismic Ground Shaking—Greystar Project. The Greystar project could experience strong seismic ground shaking and related effects in the event of an earthquake on the regional fault system. The intensity and extent of seismic ground shaking would be dependent on distance to the earthquake epicenter, magnitude and duration of the earthquake, and other characteristics of the generating fault. Design considerations to ensure adequate foundation support for the structures are legally required to be incorporated in the final project design as required by the latest California Building Standards Code (CBSC), as would the stringent seismic design provisions also required by the CBSC. The final selected foundation system would also require review by the project geotechnical engineer and approval by the City prior to issuance of building permits. In addition, observation during site preparation, foundation installation, shoring installation, and placement and compaction of fill by a geotechnical engineer would provide assurance that anticipated soil conditions and the contractor's work conform with the geotechnical aspects of the plans and specifications. These standard geotechnical requirements mandated by the City and performed by professional engineers would reduce the risk of property loss or hazards to occupants to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation 8-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 8-3: Potential Soil Erosion and Loss of Topsoil—Plan Area. Grading and construction activities may result in minor erosion or the minor loss of some topsoil. Cityrequired standard grading- and construction-period erosion control techniques (e.g., for reducing surface water runoff over exposed soil, which could include a combination of techniques such as minimizing active construction areas during the rainy season, preservation of existing vegetation, soil stabilization methods—soil binders, straw mulch, etc.—as well as project landscaping after construction), consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook, would reduce soil erosion and topsoil loss potentials.
In addition, project grading activities involving disturbance of more than one acre would require a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB, Region 2 for Santa Clara). The RWQCB administers the NPDES stormwater permitting program in the Bay Area, including the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit and C.3 (stormwater compliance) Permit. Project owners submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB to be covered by the General Construction Permit prior to the beginning of construction. The General Construction Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For a project entailing disturbance of more than one acre, the SWPPP must be prepared before construction begins, usually during the planning and design phases of a project, and must include specifications for Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented during project construction to control contamination of surface flows and the potential discharge of pollutants from commencement of construction through project completion.
These City and regional water quality requirements would reduce this potential impact to a less-than significant level.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation 8-3. No significant impact has been identified; no additional mitigation is required.
Impact 8-4: Potential Soil Erosion and Loss of Topsoil—Greystar Project. Disturbance of one or more acres of soil would require the project to obtain coverage under the state’s General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, which among other items would require preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Also, because grading and construction activities may result in minor erosion or the minor loss of some topsoil, standard grading- and construction-period erosion control techniques (e.g., for reducing surface water runoff over exposed soil) are typically required by the City for individual projects such as the Greystar project. These standard techniques include minimizing active construction areas during the rainy season; preservation of existing vegetation; soil stabilization methods—soil binders, straw mulch, etc.—as well as project landscaping after construction. These techniques would be required to be consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook and the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program and would reduce potential Greystar project soil erosion and topsoil loss impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation 8-4. No significant impact has been identified; no additional mitigation is required.
2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) Impact 8-5: Potential Ground Instability Impacts—Plan Area. The potential for ground instability can depend on specific, highly localized underlying soil conditions. Determination of differential settlement, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and subsidence potential in the Plan Area would require site-specific geotechnical studies for future individual development proposals. Possible ground instability conditions, if not properly engineered for, could result in associated significant damage to project buildings, other improvements, and adjacent property, with direct or indirect risks to life or property, representing a potentially significant impact.
Facts in support of the finding:
Although an earthquake would affect an area larger than the Plan Area, any potential for earthquake-induced differential settlement, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and subsidence, and associated damage to proposed buildings or other improvements would be localized (i.e., generally restricted to the area where the building foundation or other improvement has been constructed) and can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of City-required geotechnical investigations and associated engineering design standards, specifications, and measures. Geotechnical mitigation requirements identified here CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 include completion of detailed studies to address specific concerns as future sitespecific project designs are refined. There is substantial, reasonable, historical information to support the conclusion that the specific subsequent geotechnical/geologic investigations, inspections, and specific formulations required to meet City-adopted standards would adequately mitigate related impacts to less-than-significant levels. Information pertaining to soil testing, soil treatments, building foundations, structural strengthening, subsurface design, construction methods, etc., has been developed and refined by the California Building Standards Commission (through the California Building Code) and the California Geological Survey (especially Special Publication 117A, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California 2008”), and research continues at universities and colleges, as well as professional organizations such as the Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists. The City of Santa Clara requires such geotechnical/geologic investigations and specifications as part of its development review under its building code. Individual measures are typically, and most efficiently, specified at a later, more detailed level of design when foundation locations and building architecture is known.
Under the City's grading permit and building permit provisions, requirements, and regulations, an individual development project cannot be given final approval without project compliance with geotechnical/geologic requirements. These requirements and related City inspection and verification procedures prior to project operation provide reasonable, professional assurances that projects would incorporate the design and engineering refinements necessary to reduce the degree of impacts to less-than-significant levels by either avoiding identified soil and geologic impact areas altogether (i.e., basic project design changes), or by rectifying the impact through conventional engineering and construction procedures (e.g., suitable foundation design and construction) prior to issuance of permits.
Mitigation Measures applicable:
Mitigation 8-5. Subject to City review and approval, complete and implement the geotechnical mitigation recommendations identified in the required individual project- and site-specific geotechnical investigations and engineering studies for site-specific proposals, in coordination with City grading permit and building permit performance standards. Such recommendations could address design- and construction-level details regarding the type of building foundation, the extent of subsurface excavation, the details of retaining structures, any need for subsurface water extraction, and other engineering issues and solutions. Incorporation of this mitigation requirement would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impact 8-6: Potential Ground Instability Impacts—Greystar Project. The potential for ground instability would depend on specific, highly localized underlying soil conditions. Although the geotechnical report prepared for the project concluded that although no major geotechnical or geological issues would prevent development of the proposed project on the site, the following issues would need to be addressed:
adequate foundation support for the structures;
weaker, more compressible zones of clay above about 30 feet below ground surface (bgs);
moderately to highly expansive near-surface soil and susceptibility to large volume changes with moisture changes; and
liquefaction-induced settlement potential at one location in the southwestern part of the site.
Possible ground instability conditions, if not properly engineered for, could result in associated significant damage to project buildings, other improvements, and adjacent property, with direct or indirect risks to life or property, representing a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation 8-6. The City shall require the applicant to provide a final geotechnical report, prepared by a geotechnical engineer, for City review and approval. The final geotechnical report (as discussed in Impact 8-2 above) shall include a supplemental field investigation that includes: (1) new borings as necessary to confirm subsurface conditions; (2) review of final project plans and specifications with recommendations based on professional geotechnical engineering (such as final foundation design recommendations and potential need for piles); (3) any other engineering studies to address design- and construction-level details related to type of building foundation, the extent of subsurface excavation, details of retaining structures or subsurface water extraction, and other engineering issues and solutions as may be determined necessary in consultation with the City; and (4) observation of site preparation, foundation installation, shoring installation, and the placement and compaction of fill during construction by a professional geotechnical engineer.
The mitigations and recommendations in the final geotechnical report, subject to review and approval by the City, would provide reasonable, professional assurances that the project incorporates design and engineering refinements to reduce the degree of impacts to less-than-significant levels by either avoiding identified soil and geologic impact areas altogether (i.e., basic project design changes) or by rectifying the impact through conventional engineering and construction procedures (e.g., suitable foundation design and construction). Incorporation of CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 these measures into project final plans prior to issuance of permits and City inspection and verification procedures prior to project operation would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level
(b) Impact 8-7: Potential for Disturbance of Paleontological Resources—Plan Area. Development facilitated by the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could disturb unrecorded paleontological resources in the Plan Area. This possibility represents a potentially significant impact.
Facts in Support of Finding
Santa Clara’s surficial geologic units include alluvial and Bay mud deposits, and Pleistocene alluvial deposits, with the underlying Santa Clara Formation that may potentially contain paleontological resources; in addition, Pleistocene alluvial deposits and the Santa Clara Formation have high paleontological sensitivity.
Although an on-line archival search indicated no records of recorded fossil sites within the Plan Area, it is possible that paleontological resources could be discovered during ground-disturbing activities. Contact with such fossil resources during ground-disturbing activities could result in significant impacts. The mitigation below would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures Applicable
Mitigation 8-7. For all public improvement and private development projects in the Freedom Circle Focus Area, the following measures shall be implemented:
(1) Education Program. Project applicants shall implement a program that includes the following elements:
Resource identification training procedures for construction personnel, conducted by a paleontologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards;
Spot-checks and monitoring by a qualified paleontologist of all excavations deeper than seven feet below ground surface; and
Procedures for reporting discoveries and their geologic context.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 (2) Procedures for Resources Encountered. If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt within a buffer area of at least 50 feet around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until the project paleontologist evaluates the resource and its stratigraphic context. Work shall be allowed to continue outside the buffer area; however, the paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.
During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected and processed by a qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage.
Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall be provided to a local museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a local museum repository for permanent curatorship and storage. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City, shall signify the completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.
Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
(c) Impact 8-8: Potential for Disturbance of Paleontological Resources—Greystar Project. Similar to Impact 8-7, development of the Greystar project could disturb unrecorded paleontological resources in the Plan Area. This possibility represents a potentially significant impact.
Facts in Support of Finding: Santa Clara’s surficial geologic units include alluvial and Bay mud deposits, and Pleistocene alluvial deposits, with the underlying Santa Clara Formation that may potentially contain paleontological resources; in addition, Pleistocene alluvial deposits and the Santa Clara Formation have high paleontological sensitivity. Although an on-line archival search indicated no records of recorded fossil sites within the Plan Area, it is possible that paleontological resources could be discovered during ground-disturbing activities. Contact with such fossil resources during ground-disturbing activities could result in significant impacts. The mitigation below would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation Measures Applicable
Mitigation 8-8. The Greystar project shall be required, as a condition of project approval, to implement the following measures:
(1) Education Program. Project applicants shall implement a program that includes the following elements:
Resource identification training procedures for construction personnel, conducted by a paleontologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards;
Spot-checks and monitoring by a qualified paleontologist of all excavations deeper than seven feet below ground surface; and
Procedures for reporting discoveries and their geologic context. (2) Procedures for Resources Encountered. If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt within a buffer area of at least 50 feet around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until the project paleontologist evaluates the resource and its stratigraphic context. Work shall be allowed to continue outside the buffer area; however, the paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.
During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected and processed by a qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage.
Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall be provided to a local museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a local museum repository for permanent curatorship and storage. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City, shall signify the completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.
Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 None.
4. Cumulative impacts
None
F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 9-2: GHG Emissions and Plan Consistency—Greystar General Plan Amendment Implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment would result in emissions that are below an interpolated Service Population GHG efficiency metric, both from a net emissions perspective (when compared to potential GHG emissions associated with existing land uses in Year 2040) as well as on a standalone basis, and would not conflict, obstruct, or otherwise interfere with the implementation of a plan, policy, or regulation for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. Thus, the proposed General Plan Amendment would result in a less-than-significant impact with regard to GHG emissions and no mitigation is required.
Impacts 9-3 and 9-4. Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources. Implementation of the proposed Focus Area would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas within the Area and gasoline consumption in the region during construction and operation of new land use developments.
Although growth would occur within the Plan Area over the next approximately 20 years, new development would be required to comply with statewide mandatory energy requirements outlined in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (the CalGreen Code), which would decrease estimated natural gas consumption in new and/or retrofitted structures. Energy is a necessary component of building operation, and any natural gas consumption by proposed land uses in the Focus Area would not be used in an unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful manner and would be more efficient than under existing conditions.
Fuel use by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource consumed during development activities, and VMT associated with the transportation of construction materials (e.g., deliveries) and worker trips would also result in petroleum consumption.
Whereas on-site, heavy-duty construction equipment and delivery trucks would predominantly use diesel fuel, construction workers would generally rely on gasolinepowered vehicles to travel to and from construction sites. State regulations such as the LCFS would reduce the carbon intensity of transportation-related fuels, and all construction projects would be required to comply with CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measures, which restrict heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling to five minutes. Since petroleum use during construction would be temporary at each location and required to conduct CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 development activities, it would not be unnecessary, wasteful, or inefficient, and no mitigation is required.
Impacts 9-5 and 9-6. Conflict with or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan And Greystar General Plan Amendment would not conflict with nor obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing renewable energy or energy efficiency.
The Title 24 Building Code contains energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. These standards address electricity and natural gas efficiency in lighting, water, heating, and air conditioning, as well as the effects of the building envelope (e.g., windows, doors, walls and rooves, etc.) on energy consumption. The latest update to these standards, codified in the 2019 Title 24 Building Code, requires the installation of solar panels on new residential development under three stories. The City would enforce the applicable Title 24 Building Code (currently 2019) during design review and project approval processes. The Focus Area Plan would also support the City’s post-2020 Climate Action Plan measures, which support energy efficiency in the City (see Table 9-7).
As discussed above, the Focus Area Plan would support the State’s goals of decreasing energy consumption for its residents, increase energy efficiency, and would not conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy. This impact would be less than significant This impact would be less than significant.
No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
Impact 9-1: GHG Emissions and Plan Consistency – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could generate GHG emissions that have a significant effect on the environment and/or conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. This represents a potentially significant impact.
Facts in Support of Finding
Future implementation of the proposed Focus Area Plan would result in construction and operational activities that would generate GHG emissions from the combustion of fuels used during construction, as well as the operational sources described in Section 5.1.5 of the EIR. As described under Impact 5-3, there is uncertainty regarding the timing and methods of construction activities that would occur for future development projects. Construction activities would cease to emit GHG upon completion, unlike operational emissions that would be continuous year after year until the project is decommissioned. Construction emissions were not estimated for buildout of the proposed Focus Area Plan, because the quantity of CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 construction emissions would be dependent on a number of factors, including the specific nature of development activities and the timeframes on which projects would be undertaken. Given this uncertainty, the City is proposing the following mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure 9-1A: See Mitigation Measure 5-3D.
Mitigation Measure 9-1B: Utilize GHG-Free Electricity. The City shall require new development projects occurring under implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan to source 100% of their electricity from GHG-free sources. GHG-free electricity may come from on-site renewable electricity generation (e.g., photovoltaic systems), enrollment in a GHG-free electricity program (e.g., Silicon Valley Power’s Santa Clara Green Power program), or any combination of measures that ensure electricity consumed by projects subject to discretionary approval come entirely from GHG-free sources.
This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.
4. Cumulative impacts
Past, present, and future development projects worldwide contribute to global climate change. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, change the global average temperature. Therefore, due to the nature of GHG impacts, a significant project impact is a significant cumulative impact. As discussed above, development under the eventual Specific Plan would not generate significant levels of GHG emissions at a project level and thus the Project would not have a cumulative impact on GHG emissions.
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 10-1 and 10-2: Project-Related Potential Impacts Due to Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, Storage, and Disposal. The proposed land uses anticipated to be permitted under the Focus Area Plan and the future comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) are not expected to involve the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials to the extent that a significant public or environmental hazard would occur. Operations in the Plan Area would be expected to involve the occasional transport, use, storage, or disposal of common hazardous substances such as fuel, paint, and solvents.
These normal activities would be subject to applicable local, State, and federal regulations.
Construction of future project proposals under the comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) would likely involve the intermittent transport, use, and disposal of CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 potentially hazardous materials, including fuels and lubricants, paints, solvents, and other materials commonly used in construction and maintenance. During construction activities, any on-site hazardous materials that may be used, stored, or transported would also be subject to applicable local, State, and federal regulations that require standard protocols (as determined by the U.S. EPA, California Department of Health and Safety, Santa Clara County, and the City) for maintaining health and safety.
All land uses are subject to applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code and would also be subject to the comprehensive planning study.
With implementation of adopted, standard procedures and regulations, the potential for associated hazardous materials impacts would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation 10-1 and 10-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 10-3 and 10-4: Potential Exposure to Existing Hazardous Materials Contamination. There is always a possibility that new construction could encounter contamination and expose construction workers to existing spilled, leaked, or otherwise discharged hazardous materials or wastes. Each project applicant in the Plan Area would be required to comply with all applicable, existing City-, County-, regional-, and Statemandated site assessment, remediation, removal, and disposal requirements for soil, surface water, and/or groundwater contamination. Compliance with these established requirements would prevent exacerbation of existing contamination or accidental release, and ensure that this possible health and safety impact would be less-than-significant.
Typically, implementation of these standard procedures would involve the following steps.
As explained above, these steps are consistent with standard procedures required as part of City-, County-, regional-, and State-mandated requirements. The steps are not considered additional mitigations required by this EIR because the steps are existing development standards applied uniformly to all applicable projects. (a) Soil Contamination. In order to avoid or substantially reduce potential health hazards related to construction personnel or future occupant exposure to soil contamination, as well as to prevent accidental release to surrounding areas, project applicants would complete the following steps for each site proposed for disturbance as part of construction activity in the Plan Area:
Step 1.Investigate the site to determine whether it has a record of hazardous material discharge into soils, and if so, characterize the site according to the nature and extent of soil contamination that is present before development activities proceed at that site.
Step 2.Based on the proposed activities associated with the proposed project, determine the need for further investigation and/or remediation of the soil conditions on the contaminated site. For example, if the site is slated for commercial land use, such as retail, the majority of the site will be paved and there will be little or no contact with CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 contaminated soil. Industrial cleanup levels would likely be applicable. If the slated development activity could involve human contact with soils, such as may be the case with residential use, then Step 3 should be completed. If no human contact is anticipated, then no further mitigation is necessary.
Step 3.If it is determined that extensive soil contact would accompany the intended use of the site, undertake a Phase II Environmental Assessment investigation, involving soil sampling at a minimum, at the expense of the project applicant, property owner, or responsible party. Should further investigation reveal high levels of hazardous materials in the site soils, mitigate health and safety risks according to City of Santa Clara and regulatory agency requirements. This would include site-specific health and safety plans prepared prior to undertaking any building or utility construction. Also, if buildings are situated over soils that are significantly contaminated, undertake measures to either remove the chemicals or prevent contaminants from entering and collecting within the building. If remediation of contaminated soil is infeasible, a deed restriction would be necessary to limit site use and eliminate unacceptable risks to health or the environment. (b) Surface or Groundwater Contamination. In order to reduce potential health hazards due to construction personnel or future occupant exposure to surface water or groundwater contamination, or accidental transmission to other properties, project applicants would complete the following steps for each site proposed for disturbance as part of construction activity in the Plan Area:
Step 1.Investigate the site to determine whether it has a record of hazardous material discharge into surface or groundwater, and if so, characterize the site according to the nature and extent of contamination that is present before development activities proceed at that site.
Step 2.Install drainage improvements in order to prevent transport and spreading of hazardous materials that may spill or accumulate on-site.
Step 3.If investigations indicate evidence of chemical/environmental hazards in site surface water and/or groundwater, then measures acceptable to the City and the other applicable regulatory agencies would be required to ensure the site is properly remediated prior to development activity.
Step 4.Inform construction personnel of the proximity to recognized contaminated sites and advise them of health and safety procedures to prevent exposure to hazardous chemicals in surface water/groundwater.
Implementation of these required, standard procedures would result in a less-thansignificant impact associated with potential soil and surface/groundwater contamination.
Mitigation 10-3 and 10-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impact 10-5 and 10-6: Project-Related Potential Asbestos and PCB Exposure.
Removal or disturbance of asbestos-containing material (ACM) and/or transformers during alteration, renovation, or demolition of existing structures within the Plan Area could expose construction workers and the general public to friable asbestos and/or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Therefore, in compliance with General Plan Policy
5.10.5‐P26 (“Survey pre‐1980 buildings and abate any lead‐based paint and asbestos prior to structural renovation and demolition, in compliance with all applicable regulations”) and as a condition of alteration, renovation, or demolition permit approval for buildings within the Plan Area, the City requires the project applicant to coordinate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) as appropriate to determine if ACM and/or PCBs are present, in conformance with BAAQMD established protocols and consistent with the explanation below.
Ensuring proper identification and removal of ACM and PCBs requires each project applicant to complete the following steps. As explained above (“Project-Related Potential Exposure to Existing Hazardous Materials Contamination”), these steps are standard procedures required as part of City-, County-, regional-, and State-mandated requirements; the steps are not mitigation required by this EIR.
Step 1.Thoroughly survey the project site and existing structures for the presence of ACM and PCBs. The survey shall be performed by a person who is properly certified by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and has taken and passed an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved building inspector course.
Step 2.If building elements containing any amount of ACM or PCBs are present, prepare a written ACM/PCB Abatement Plan describing activities and procedures for removal, handling, and disposal of these building elements using the most appropriate procedures, work practices, and engineering controls.
Step 3.Provide the ACM and PCB survey findings, the written ACM/PCB Abatement Plan (if necessary), and notification of intent to demolish to the City and BAAQMD at least ten days prior to commencement of demolition.
Step 4.Remove any on-site transformers prior to demolition of buildings.
Implementation of these required, standard procedures would result in a less-thansignificant impact associated with potential ACM and PCB exposure.
Mitigation 10-5 and 10-6. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impact 10-7 and 10-8: Project-Related Potential Lead-Based Paint Exposure. If leadbased paint is present and has delaminated (split into thin layers) or chipped from surfaces, airborne lead particles could be released during alteration, renovation, or demolition of existing structures within the Plan Area. California OSHA (CalOSHA) regulations would be applied, and each site-specific project would implement the following standard, mandatory procedures in accordance with those CalOSHA regulations:
Notify the City's Building and Fire Safety Division prior to starting work, describing the nature, location, and schedule of the work;
Post a sign at all work locations where lead containment is required, stating that leadbased paint abatement is in progress and public access is prohibited; Notify the tenant(s) where the lead-based paint abatement work will be performed on a residential property occupied by one or more tenants; and Notify the property owner when work on a residential project will disturb lead-based paint.
Lead abatement performance standards are included in the Guidelines for Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development).
Accordingly, HEPA vacuums may be required for abrasive blasting, water blasting, scraping, or sanding. Burning, torching, and similar activities are prohibited. Following completion of lead-based paint abatement, all visible lead-based paint particles must be removed from the site.
The City may inspect lead-based paint abatement activities at any time during construction.
These personnel are also responsible for addressing citizen complaints related to leadbased paint abatement activities and may issue a Notice of Violation, a Stop Work order, or a fine.
Implementation of these required, standard procedures would result in a less-thansignificant impact associated with potential lead-based paint exposure.
Mitigation 10-7 and 10-8. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 10-9 and 10-10: Potential for Hazardous Materials Near Schools. Mission College is located within one-quarter mile of the Plan Area; however, the proposed land uses anticipated to be permitted under the Focus Area Plan and the future comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) are not expected to involve the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials to that extent that a significant public or environmental hazard would occur. In addition, although future construction under the comprehensive planning study would be likely to involve the intermittent transport, use, storage, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials, including fuels and lubricants, CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 paints, solvents, and other materials commonly used in construction and maintenance, these projects would be required to comply with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. Specific to schools, State regulations on the siting of hazardous materials facilities limit their location in proximity to schools; conversely, CEQA (section 21151.8, School Site Acquisition or Construction) and other State regulations impose restrictions on where new schools can be constructed. The impact of hazardous materials on schools would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation 10-9 and 10-10. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 10-11 and 10-12: Protocols for Government Code Section 65962.5 Sites. A review of the Cortese List data resources conducted on March 5, 2020 indicated no sites in the Plan Area in any of the Cortese List data resources (see section 10.1.1, Hazardous Materials, above). The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains the EnviroStor database, which lists and includes data on hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 (Cortese List); such sites are regulated by DTSC because hazardous materials investigations and/or cleanup actions are planned, active, or have been completed at these sites (see Table 10-1 under “Setting,” above). The site-specific mitigation protocols administered by DTSC and other jurisdictional agencies (including the Santa Clara Fire Department) – in conformance with federal, State, regional, and local regulations (see “Regulatory Setting,” above) – are intended to ensure that the cleanup of such sites would result in less-than-significant impacts.
Mitigation 10-11 and 10-12. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 10-13 and 10-14: Consistency with the San Jose Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Approximately 45 acres of the Plan Area (between Mission College Boulevard and California’s Great America amusement park, and bounded by Great American Parkway on the west and the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail on the east) are in the San Jose International Airport Influence Area (AIA). The rest of the Plan Area, south of Mission College Boulevard, including the Greystar project site, is not located within the AIA.
The Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) establishes development standards related to noise, structure height, and safety that are applicable to development in areas surrounding the airport. While the Plan Area is not located in a mapped safety or noise area, parts of the Plan Area are within the CLUP Height Restriction Area, which uses the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 imaginary surfaces to delineate the area within which structures above a maximum structure height may constitute a safety hazard.
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, “Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace” (commonly referred to as FAR Part 77) sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operation, particularly by restricting the height of proposed CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 structures and minimizing other potential hazards to aircraft such as reflective surfaces, flashing lights, and electronic interference. These regulations require that the FAA be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above ground.
CLUP Policy H-1 states that any structure, existing or proposed, that penetrates (i.e., is above the maximum structure height) the FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces would be considered an incompatible use, barring a determination from the FAA that the proposed structure or object does not present a hazard to air navigation. Based on preliminary review of the Plan Area by the City of San Jose Airport Department, the FAR Part 77 airspace surface notification requirement would apply to structures whose proposed height would exceed from 150 feet to 170 feet above ground (assuming a ground elevation of roughly 20 feet), and therefore would require review of project plans by the FAA (which would consider other factors besides height, such as flight direction and trajectory).
Notification to the FAA would therefore be required for individual proposed structures that would exceed this airspace surface, such as for buildings in the Urban Center designation where allowable heights of 12-plus stories have the potential to reach 150-170 feet. FAA review and issuance of determinations that a proposed structure would not be a hazard to air navigation, and project compliance with any conditions set forth in such FAA determinations, would ensure that the structure would not be an air safety hazard.
Additional CLUP policies related to land use compatibility include Policy G-6, which prohibits uses within an AIA that may cause hazards to aircraft due to electrical interference, high intensity lighting, attraction of birds, and activities that produce smoke, dust, or glare, among others. Projects proposed in the Plan Area that are within the San Jose International Airport AIA would need to be referred to the ALUC for a consistency review with the San Jose International Airport CLUP.
Based on the discussion above and the adopted, standard protocols under the CLUP, this land use compatibility and safety impact is considered less-than-significant.
Mitigation 10-13 and 10-14. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
None.
3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022
4. Cumulative impacts
Cumulative projects located in the vicinity of the Plan Area do not include manufacturing facilities or operations that would use significant quantities of hazardous materials. The cumulative projects, therefore, would not create a significant hazard to the environment through the routine use, transport, or reasonably foreseeable accidents related to hazardous materials use. Hazardous materials contamination impacts are specific to the individual sites within the Plan area as impacts vary by site characteristics, site history, and proposed land use, and are subject to local, County, State and Federal regulations. Redevelopment in the Plan Area therefore would not make a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative hazardous materials impact.
H. Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 11-1 and 11-2: Construction Period Water Quality Impacts. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and City of Santa Clara water quality protection requirements and conditions applicable to Plan implementation are intended to reduce any potential construction period water quality impacts to a less-than-significant level, consistent with federal and State water quality regulations and plans.
Development facilitated by the Freedom Circle Focus Area would implement site-specific, mandated measures (uniformly applied development standards) to protect water quality, including but not limited to those measures required under the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP).
Any project grading activities involving disturbance of more than one acre would require a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB, Region 2 for Santa Clara). The RWQCB administers the NPDES stormwater permitting program in the Bay Area, including the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit and C.3 (stormwater compliance) Permit. Project owners submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB to be covered by the General Construction Permit prior to the beginning of construction. The General Construction Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For a project entailing disturbance of more than one acre, the SWPPP must be prepared before construction begins, usually during the planning and design phases of a project, and must include specifications for Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented during project construction to control contamination of surface flows and the potential discharge of pollutants from commencement of construction through project completion.
The SWPPP document itself remains on-site during construction. After completion of the project, the owners are required to submit a Notice of Termination to the RWQCB to indicate that construction is completed.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Also, depending on individual development proposals, grading permits would be required.
For all grading permits, the City mandates site-specific measures (uniformly applied development standards) to be implemented during grading to minimize construction period erosion, including a site-specific erosion and sediment control plan subject to City review and approval. Erosion and sediment control plans typically show what BMPs are proposed to be used and where, and are customarily superimposed on a project grading plan. Because project sites and site conditions vary, the measures could include a combination of techniques such as erosion control blankets, fiber rolls, silt fences, storm drain inlet protection, and stabilized construction exit(s), and would generally address how to minimize impacts from active construction areas during the rainy season (i.e., stockpiling and protecting site soils), preservation of existing vegetation and revegetation of disturbed areas afterward, use of soil stabilization methods (soil binders, straw mulch, etc.), as well as sediment control measures (such as silt fences or straw wattles) to prevent residual silt runoff to storm drains or waterways and measures to clean equipment and prevent off-site tracking of construction-related soil and other debris.
The temporary use of hazardous materials (e.g., diesel fuel) and heavy equipment, which represent a secondary component of construction, could introduce materials that might be spilled in the Plan Area and subsequently washed into water bodies, such as Calabazas Creek, San Tomas Aquino Creek, and, ultimately, San Francisco Bay. These substances could have a direct, adverse effect on water quality in water bodies. Implementation of the standard, required NPDES, SCVURPPP, and City construction period measures to reduce the risk of construction period pollutants would reduce this risk to a less-than-significant level.
As noted above, individual development projects would be required to treat and detain stormwater runoff on a site-specific basis. Road resurfacing and sidewalk repair and/or replacement are exempt from the NPDES C.3 Permit requirements if the work is within the existing impervious area footprint. Where Plan-facilitated improvements include new roadway impervious surfaces outside existing impervious areas, the NPDES C.3 Permit requirements must be implemented.
Based on the above discussion, construction period water quality impacts resulting from Plan implementation would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation 11-1 and 11-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 11-3 and 11-4: Long-Term Water Quality Impacts from Project Operation.
Long-term implementation could result in contamination of Plan Area stormwater runoff with petroleum and other contaminants from motor vehicles. Development facilitated by the eventual Specific Plan would be required to comply with RWQCB- and City-mandated post-construction, non-point source pollution control measures (uniformly applied development standards; also known as facilities and maintenance practices) that would ensure that such impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Plan implementation could result in the deposition by motor vehicles of oil and other contaminants along Plan Area streets and in parking areas. Rainfall has the potential to wash these contaminants into the municipal storm drainage system, potentially contaminating downstream waterways, in particular San Tomas Aquino Creek where stormwater runoff from the Plan Area is conveyed, although during major storm events with high levels of rainfall, storm drain networks can interact through overflow connections and surface flows. Such non-point pollution is typically controlled through a combination of source controls (generally through the use of infiltration devices, such as infiltration trenches or basins, which are designed to transmit runoff directly to subsurface soils and thereby prevent pollutants from entering the waterways).
Under the terms of the countywide Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) that the City of Santa Clara is subject to, each development project must also implement post-construction measures to prevent or control pollutants in runoff (recommended measures are included in the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook), and identify a plan to inspect and maintain these measures. Project designs, subject to review and approval by the City, would be required to include the on-site collection of runoff from all parking facilities and, if feasible, its on-site treatment (oil/grease traps, filters, oil/water separators, or similar inline filtration systems), and an associated periodic clean out/maintenance program that ensures acceptable trap efficiencies, specifies appropriate disposal procedures, and adequately reduces the risk that the traps become sinks for pollutants. A regular schedule of parking facility sweeping would also be required. In addition, source control features such as roofed trash enclosures would be required to keep pollutants from contacting stormwater. These mandated, uniformly applied stormwater treatment measures would also need to meet engineered sizing criteria approved by the City Engineer.
Permanent post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required for all new projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet ("small projects") or more ("large projects") of roofs or pavement, including new development, redevelopment, and commercial and industrial sites. Permanent treatment BMPs can include, for example:
rainwater harvesting and re-use,
biofiltration swales,
detention basins,
bioretention areas, and
flow-through planter boxes.
Low Impact Development (LID) features can be integrated with BMPs, control measures, and permit requirements. LID features reduce impervious surfaces and can include pervious pavements, landscape features, and green roofs. Parking stalls and plaza areas in the Plan Area would utilize pervious asphalt, pervious concrete, or permeable pavers.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Medians would be landscaped to increase permeability. Landscaped open space also would contribute to reductions in impervious surfaces.
Given the existing level of urbanization and the potential development under the eventual Specific Plan, BMPs can complement the Plan’s development standards and guidelines, and address existing constraints. For example, bioretention planter areas may be used to treat roadway runoff, and flow-through planter boxes may be used to treat roof runoff. Or, depending on site-specific conditions and proposed plans, BMPs and LID features could include those listed above (BMP: rainwater harvesting and re-use, etc.; LID: pervious pavement, landscape features, etc.) or a combination of these or other feasible and effective techniques. As part of the standard City development process, future project applicants would be required to submit, for City review and approval, a Santa Clara “C.3” data form, which would be used to determine whether C.3 requirements apply (i.e., projects meeting or exceeding the size threshold for impervious surfaces) and to identify which site design measures, pollutant source controls, and/or stormwater treatment measures are proposed to prevent runoff pollution.
During design, the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook shall be referenced for acceptable BMPs, design considerations, design criteria, and operation and maintenance information. In addition to the C.3 Guidebook, individual development proposals shall determine if drainage would discharge to a water body impacted by specific pollutants, as identified on the C.3 data form (see above), and would be required to demonstrate compliance with RWQCB requirements to reduce stormwater runoff water quality impacts to a less-thansignificant level. The 303(d) List of Impacted Water Bodies, prepared and issued by the RWQCB, includes Calabazas and San Tomas Aquino creeks. The Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) provides more detailed information. Based on the discussion above, the effects of contaminated site runoff on water quality in the local (municipal) storm drainage system would represent a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation 11-3 and 11-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impacts 11-5 and 11-6: Effects on Groundwater Recharge and Groundwater Management. Currently, the Freedom Circle Focus Area is covered almost entirely with structures, surface parking (asphalt paving), and introduced landscaping. Based C.3 requirements and BMPs, implementation of the Focus Area would be expected to decrease the proportion of the Plan Area that is covered with impervious surface through application of LID techniques that would increase permeable area as well as the introduction of new landscaped, open space, and park areas.
The Plan Area would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Management Plan because the Plan Area is not an area designated by Valley Water for groundwater recharge.
Also, the increased use of groundwater is one of several options available to the City to CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 meet short-term water supply deficiencies. The City currently monitors groundwater levels at all City production wells and meters groundwater pumping. If the City determines the need to pump additional groundwater, this groundwater monitoring, in addition to the existing groundwater recharge program, would reduce the potential to substantially decrease groundwater supplies and ensure that the groundwater basin would not approach overdraft conditions.
Therefore, the impact on groundwater recharge and groundwater management would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation 11-5 and 11-6. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 11-7 and 11-8: Drainage Patterns and Risk of Flooding. Because the Focus Area is already largely covered with structures, paved surface parking, and introduced landscaping, development under the Plan would not significantly alter the total volume or rate of stormwater runoff into the existing municipal storm drain system or substantially alter drainage patterns, particularly because implementation of stormwater control measures would slow down the rate and reduce the volume of stormwater runoff, especially when compared to the existing hardscape areas. In addition, the Focus Area Plan proposes public parkland (which would typically include additional landscaped, open space, and park areas with pervious surfaces) and also proposes to minimize surface parking by requiring below‐grade or structured parking facilities.
The currently mapped FEMA Flood Zones indicate that most of the Plan Area is located in Zone X (“Area with Reduced Flood Risk Due to Levee”) – i.e., not in the 1% annual flood hazard zone.
The City applies uniformly applicable stormwater management regulations to avoid or reduce the potential for flood flow or drainage impacts of development, including erosion and siltation impacts, which provide for incorporating in projects one or a combination of BMPs such as rainwater harvesting and re-use, biofiltration swales, detention basins, bioretention areas, and flow-through planter boxes, and/or LID features such as use of pervious pavement, landscape features, and green roofs. The City’s Flood Damage Prevention Code (City Code chapter 15.45) requires development in Special Flood Hazard Areas to meet City standards related to anchoring of structures, construction methods and materials, elevation of structures, and floodproofing (as applicable to reduce or eliminate flood damage). Compliance with these City Code standards would also reduce risks from hazards resulting from inundation by regulating uses (including new construction and other development activities) that may increase flood heights or velocities or otherwise obstruct or redirect flood water in a manner that could lead to potential release of pollutants. City erosion and sediment control plan requirements would reduce the potential for erosion and/or sedimentation resulting from any changes in drainage patterns.
Also, for individual developments, the City requires a utility plan addressing, among other CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 infrastructure components, the storm drain system. Practices include controlling the amount and timing of runoff from development sites (e.g., see the BMPs and LID features described above, which control runoff quantities as well as improve water quality) and raising the elevation of buildings or other flood protective measures as described above.
Implementation of these development standards would be required as a condition of individual development project approval, prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
Also, because development under a future Specific Plan would be required to prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects (e.g., comply with NPDES C.3 requirements), effects on existing drainage patterns would be less-thansignificant.
Based on the above discussion, the impacts of drainage patterns and potential flooding are considered less-than-significant .
Mitigation 11-7 and 11-8. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) None.
3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.
4. Cumulative impacts
The Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on hydrology or water quality. All development projects (including future development under the Focus Area Plan) are required to undertake steps to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate flooding and water quality impacts. Projects north of the Plan Area, including City Place, shall be designed to have no impacts to upstream water surface elevations and therefore will cause no negative flooding impacts to the project site.
In addition, the Project will have no impact on hydrology or water quality with implementation of the mitigation measures discussed above. Future upstream projects would not impact the Plan Area as they would not significantly alter the existing hydrologic (i.e. flow path) conditions of those areas and are subject to NPDES regulations for treatment and retention of stormwater runoff. Therefore, cumulative hydrological impacts would be considered less than significant.
J. Land Use and Planning
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impacts 12-1 and 12-2: Project Effects on the Physical Arrangement of the Community. The analyses and findings in this EIR indicate that future development activity under the Freedom Circle Focus Area would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the community. The Plan Area is generally an internally focused collection of large, self-contained parcels. Focus Area-facilitated development identified in the Project Description would occur within the Plan Area. Implementation of a future comprehensive plan would establish integrated physical and functional connections between Focus Area parcels and with the adjacent community.
The Freedom Circle Focus Area, in concert with the Santa Clara General Plan, is intended to provide for the expansion of housing choices by encouraging compact, transit-accessible, pedestrian-oriented housing and mixed-use (housing/retail/office) development in the Plan Area at densities and heights greater than currently developed. The Plan is designed to ensure that this housing and mixed-use development is conveniently located near public transportation, shopping, employment, and other community facilities.
The Focus Area land use provisions would be expected to encourage substantial beneficial land use effects in (1) revitalizing the Focus Area; (2) facilitating development where services and infrastructure can be most efficiently provided by promoting higher residential densities within or near existing employment and public transportation areas; (3) and promoting compact, transit-accessible, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development patterns and land use. These land use characteristics epitomize the principles and policies of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area, and would represent a beneficial land use effect.
Mitigation 12-1 and 12-2. The Freedom Circle Focus Area and the Greystar project General Plan Amendment would result in beneficial land use and planning effects. No mitigation pertaining to environmental impacts on the physical arrangement of the community is required.
Impact 12-3 and 12-4: Project Consistency with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating Environmental Effects. CEQA requires environmental impacts to be analyzed compared to existing conditions on the ground.
The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would serve as a foundation for a comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) to achieve a coordinated, connected environment within the Plan Area while increasing land use intensity through frameworks and unified, contextsensitive design standards and guidelines, which would result in the efficient use of existing resources and infrastructure. Though these would represent beneficial land use effects, they would not occur before implementation of the next step in the planning process. However, because Focus Area Plan vision is to create a dynamic, mixed-use district of residential developments and community amenities with a diverse range of employment uses to complement other North Santa Clara neighborhoods and provide pedestrian, bicycle and roadway connections to employment centers, transit stops, trails, and other destinations, and because the Focus Area Plan includes goals and policies to support this CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 vision consistent with the General Plan, the Plan’s impact on land use and planning is considered a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation 12-3 and 12-4. The Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar Project would result in beneficial land use and planning effects. No additional mitigation pertaining to project consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects is required beyond those mitigation measures already identified in the environmental topic chapters of the EIR.
2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
None.
3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.
4. Cumulative impacts
The proposed Focus Area Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative land use impact, for the following reasons. With respect to physically dividing an established community, as described in EIR chapter 12 (Land Use and Planning), the proposed project’s effect would be positive rather than negative because the project is intended to provide for the expansion of housing choices by encouraging compact, transit-accessible, pedestrian-oriented housing development in the Plan Area at densities and heights greater than currently developed and conveniently located near public transportation, shopping, employment, and other community facilities. With respect to consistency with adopted City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan land use plans and policies, projects inside the Plan Area and any projects outside the Plan Area are required by law to be consistent with those General Plan plans and policies.
In addition, future development in the Plan Area (other than the Greystar project) would require a comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) before any project approval would be considered. As the purpose of this comprehensive planning is to ensure development impacts within the area are considered cumulatively in order to identify appropriate mitigation, the proposed Focus Area Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative land use or planning impact.
K. Noise and Vibration
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impact 13-9 and 13-10: Operational Vibrations. The Plan Area does not currently include any substantial vibration generating equipment. The Focus Area Plan would add a mix of residential, mixed-use, flex, and/or office land uses to the Plan Area over time, reaching full development by 2040. These new land uses could involve machinery and equipment such as pumps, compressors, generators, and other fixed equipment that produce vibrations; however, this equipment would not generate vibration levels that could exceed the City’s vibration perception threshold of 0.01 in/sec PPV (see Section
13.2.4.2). As discussed under Impact 13-3, even large construction equipment such as a bulldozer does not generate a vibration level above 0.01 in/sec at distance of approximately 150 feet. Potential pumps, generators, and other typical equipment would be securely mounted and not large enough to generate substantial vibrations beyond the immediate vicinity of the equipment. The Focus Area Plan does not propose or support any large vibration-inducing equipment or land use activities and would not result in excessive ground-borne vibration levels. This represents a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation 13-9 and 13-10. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 13-11: Exposure to Airport-Related Noise. The San Jose International Airport CLUP establishes the 65 CNEL contour as the noise restriction area for residential land uses, and the City’s General Plan (Policy 5.10.6- P8) encourages safe and compatible land uses within the airport’s noise restriction area. The part of the Plan Area north of Mission College Boulevard and east of Great America Parkway lies within the San Jose International Airport influence area; however, the Plan Area is not located within the 65 CNEL contour associated with San Jose International Airport (SCC ALUC 2016; Figure 5). Accordingly, future development within the Plan Area, including the Greystar project, would not be subjected to excessive airport-related noise levels. Consistent with the CLUP (Policy N-5), future owners in the Plan Area that own property in the airport influence area and who rent or lease property for residential use will be required to include a disclosure in the rental/lease agreement with the tenant that the property is within a high noise area associated with airport operations and may be exposed to airport-related noise levels greater than 65 CNEL.
The Plan Area, including the Greystar project, would not expose people living or working in the Plan Area to excessive airport-related noise levels. This impact is considered a lessthan-significant impact.
Mitigation 13-11. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) Impact 13-1: Temporary Construction Noise Levels – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could result in construction and development activities in the Plan Area that generate noise levels above City standards and/or otherwise result in a substantial, temporary CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan Area. This represents a potentially significant impact.
Finding: Mitigation measures would reduce impacts due to construction-related vibration impacts to less than significant levels. The City hereby determines this impact to be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
With regard to construction noise, demolition, site preparation, and grading phases typically result in the highest temporary noise levels due to the use of heavy-duty equipment such as dozers, excavators, graders, loaders, scrapers, and trucks. The use of specialized equipment such as impact or vibratory pile drivers can also generate high noise levels during initial foundation work stages. The worst-case Leq and Lmax noise levels associated with the operation of a dozer, excavator, scraper, etc., are predicted to be approximately 82 and 85 dBA, respectively, at a distance of 50 feet from the equipment operating area. At an active construction site, it is not uncommon for two or more pieces of construction equipment to operate at the same time and in close proximity. The concurrent operation of two or more pieces of construction equipment would result in noise levels of approximately 85 to 88 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from equipment operating areas. The magnitude of each individual future project’s temporary and periodic increase in ambient noise levels would be dependent upon a number of project-specific factors that are not known at this time, including: the amount and type of equipment being used; the distance between the area where equipment is being operated and the location of the specific land use, receptor, etc., where noise levels are being evaluated; the time of day construction activities are occurring; the presence or absence of any walls, buildings, or other barriers that may absorb or reflect sound waves, the total duration of the construction activities, and the existing ambient noise levels near construction areas.
Typically, sustained construction noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA or higher would require the implementation of construction noise control practices such as staging area restrictions (e.g., siting staging areas away from sensitive receptors), equipment controls (e.g., covered engines and use of electrical hook-ups instead of generators), and/or the installation of temporary noise barriers of sufficient height, size (length or width), and density to achieve targeted noise reductions. In general, typical construction equipment activities could exceed the City’s significance thresholds at residential and commercial land uses within 400 feet and 200 feet of work areas, respectively, assuming the construction activity would last for more than one year (which may or may not be the case depending on the project. The use of pile driving equipment, if necessary, could exceed residential and commercial thresholds at distances of 500 and 400 feet, respectively. While all projects in the Planning Area would be subject to the permissible construction hours established by the Municipal Code, construction activities could result in temporary increases in noise levels above ambient conditions of 10 to 30 dBs or more during permissible CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 time frames, which would be perceived by noise-sensitive land uses as doubling or quadrupling of loudness, respectively. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation 13-1: Reduce Potential Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Construction Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from Focus Area Plan related construction activities, the City shall ensure future development projects within the Plan Area:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least one week prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the Project, and include the name and phone number of the designated contact for the Applicant/project representative and the City of Santa Clara responsible for handling construction-related noise complaints (per Section 8). This notice shall be provided to: A) The owner/occupants of residential dwelling units within 500 feet of construction work areas; and B) The owner/occupants of commercial buildings (including institutional buildings) within 200 feet of construction work areas or within 400 feet of construction work areas if pile driving equipment will be used. 2) Notify San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Users of Construction Activities. Prior to the start of construction activities within 500 feet of the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, signs shall be posted along the trail warning of potential temporary elevated noise levels during construction. Signs shall be posted within 250 feet of impacted trail segments (i.e., portions of the trail within 500 feet of a work area) and shall remain posted throughout the duration of all substantial noise generating construction activities (typically demolition, grading, and initial foundation installation activities).
3) Restrict Work Hours. All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section 9.10.230. Construction activities, including deliveries, shall occur only during the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday, unless otherwise authorized by City permit. The applicant/project representative and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of this requirement.
4) Control Construction Traffic and Site Access. Construction traffic, including soil and debris hauling, shall follow City-designated truck routes and shall avoid routes (including local roads in the Plan Area) that contain residential dwelling units to the maximum extent feasible given specific project location and access needs.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 5) Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to construction equipment used in the Plan Area: A) To the extent feasible, contractors shall use the smallest size equipment capable of safely completing work activities; B) Construction staging shall occur as far away from residential and commercial land uses as possible; C) All stationary noisegenerating equipment such as pumps, compressors, and welding machines shall be shielded and located as far from sensitive receptor locations as practical. Shielding may consist of existing vacant structures or a three- or four-sided enclosure provide the structure/barrier breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and equipment operations; D) Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with standard noise suppression devices such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, etc. These devices shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities; E) Pneumatic tools shall include a noise suppression device on the compressed air exhaust; F) The applicant/project representative and/or their contractor shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary power generators (if feasible); G) No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site.
6) Implement Construction Activity Noise Control Measures: The following measures shall apply to construction activities in the Plan Area: A) Demolition:
Activities shall be sequenced to take advantage of existing shielding/noise reduction provided by existing buildings or parts of buildings and methods that minimize noise and vibration, such as sawing concrete blocks, prohibiting on-site hydraulic breakers, crushing, or other pulverization activities, shall be employed to the maximum extent feasible; B) Demolition Site Preparation, Grading, and Foundation Work: During all demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities within 500 feet of a residential dwelling unit or 400 feet of a commercial building (including institutional buildings), a physical noise barrier capable of achieving the construction noise level standards set forth in Section 7 below shall, if required pursuant to Section 7, be installed and maintained around the site perimeter to the maximum extent feasible given site constraints and access requirements. Potential barrier options capable of reducing construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to: i) A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) of sufficient height (determined pursuant to Section 7) that has a minimum rated transmission such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB; iii) any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving required construction noise reductions during demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities; iv) The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site); and C) Pile Driving: If pile driving activities are CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 required within 500 feet of a residential dwelling unit or 400 feet of a commercial building, the piles shall be pre-drilled with an auger to minimize pile driving equipment run times.
7) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Noise Evaluation. Prior to the start of any specific construction project lasting 12 months or more, the City shall review and approve a project-specific construction noise evaluation prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant that: A) Identifies the planned project construction sequence and equipment usage; B) Identifies typical hourly average construction noise levels for project construction equipment; C) Compares hourly average construction noise levels to ambient noise levels at residential and commercial land uses near work areas (ambient noise levels may be newly measured or presumed to be consistent with those levels shown in Table 13-2 and 13-3 of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and D) Identifies construction noise control measures incorporated into the project that ensure: i) activities do not generate noise levels that are above 60 dBA Leq at a residential dwelling unit and exceed the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq for more than one year; and ii) activities do not generate noise levels that are above 70 dBA Leq at a commercial property (including institutional land uses) and exceed the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq for more than one year. Such measures may include but are not limited to: a) The requirements of Sections 4, 5, 6, and 8; b) Additional project and/or equipment-specific enclosures, barriers, shrouds, or other noise suppression methods. The use of noise control blankets on building facades shall be considered only if noise complaints are not resolvable with other means or methods.
8) Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan. The Construction Noise Complaint Plan shall: A) Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues; B) Includes procedures describing how the designated project representative will receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints; C) At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint; D) The elements of the Construction Noise Complaint Plan may be included in the project-specific noise evaluation prepared to satisfy Section 7 or as a separate document. 9) Owner/Occupant Disclosure: The City shall require future occupants/tenants in the Plan Area receive disclosure that properties in the Plan Area may be subject to elevated construction noise levels from development in the Plan Area. This disclosure shall be provided as part of the mortgage, lease, sub-lease, and/or other contractual real-estate transaction associated with the subject property.
With implementation of these measures, this impact would be less than significant.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 (b) Impact 13-2: Temporary Construction Noise Levels – Greystar General Plan Amendment. The Greystar project could result in construction and development activities in the Plan Area that generate noise levels above City standards and/or otherwise result in a substantial, temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan Area. This represents a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation 13-2: Reduce Greystar Project Construction Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from Greystar Project construction activities, the City shall ensure the Applicant:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities.
See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 1. 2) Notify San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Users of Construction Activities. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 2.
3) Restrict Work Hours. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 3. 4) Control Construction Traffic and Site Access. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section
4. 5) Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise Control Measures. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 5.
6) Implement Construction Activity Noise Control Measures: See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section. The project will not require pile driving and, therefore, pile driving control measures identified in Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 6 C) are not applicable. See below for noise barrier mitigation requirements per Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 6 B).
7) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Noise Evaluation. Not applicable. The construction noise analysis presented in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report constitutes the Project-specific construction noise evaluation per Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 7.
8) Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section
8. CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 9) Owner/Occupant Disclosure: See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 9.
Per Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 6 B), the following noise barriers shall be installed and maintained around the perimeter of active work areas: A) For all demolition, site preparation, grading, and foundation work within 100 feet of the commercial property (Pedro’s Restaurant and Cantina) that borders the site’s southwest perimeter: i) a 6-foot-tall barrier shall be installed starting at Freedom Circle and extending south along the property boundary to the site’s southern property line (approximately 640 linear feet). B) For all demolition, site preparation, grading, and foundation work within 150 feet of commercial properties across Freedom Circle: i) a 6-foot-tall barrier shall be provided along the length of the property line that fronts Freedom Circle, excepting construction access points as needed (approximately 1,130 linear feet). C) Noise barriers shall consist of ½” plywood or any other material weighing 4 pounds per square foot or more or having a minimum documented transmission loss value of 20 dBA. The barriers may be erected on temporary retaining walls or temporary K-rails or other solid structures (which shall be considered as part of the total height of the barrier). Boards shall be staggered one over two, or joints otherwise fastened and sealed, to prevent sound transmission through joints. There shall be no openings or gaps in the barrier. The barrier shall be regularly inspected (e.g., weekly) and maintained during construction activities (e.g., warped or cracked boards shall be replaced upon discovery). D) The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work within the distances specific above (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site).
With implementation of these measures, this impact would be less than significant (c) Impact 13-3: Temporary Construction Vibration Levels – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could result in construction and development activities in the Plan Area that generate vibration levels above City standards and/or otherwise result excessive ground-borne vibration levels. This represents a potentially significant impact.
Finding: Mitigation measures would reduce impacts due to construction-related vibration impacts to less than significant levels. The City hereby determines this impact to be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
Construction activities have the potential to result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and activities involved. Vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes with increases in distance. The effects of ground vibration CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 may be imperceptible at low levels, result in low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and can disturb human activities such as sleep and vibration sensitive equipment at high levels. Ground vibration can also potentially damage the foundations and exteriors of existing structures even if it does not result in a negative human response. Pile drivers and other pieces of high impact construction equipment are generally the primary cause of construction-related vibration impacts. The use of such equipment is generally limited to sites where there are extensive layers of very hard materials (e.g., compacted soils, bedrock) that must be loosened and/or penetrated to achieve grading and foundation design requirements. The need for such methods is usually determined through sitespecific geotechnical investigations that identify the subsurface materials within the grading envelope, along with foundation design recommendations and the construction methods needed to safely permit development of a site.
As indicated under Impact 13-1, since project specific information is not available at this time, potential short-term construction-related vibration impacts can only be evaluated based on the typical construction activities associated with residential, commercial, and retail development. Potential construction equipment and activity vibration levels were developed based on methodologies, reference noise levels, and equipment usage and other operating factors documented and contained in the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document and Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (FTA 2018 and Caltrans 2020).
Construction vibration impacts generally occur when construction activities occur in close proximity to buildings and vibration-sensitive areas, during evening or nighttime hours, or when construction activities last extended periods of time.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur in multiple phases and may last several years in total, with full development of the Plan Area anticipated to occur by 2040. In general, construction activities in the Plan Area would not be located near residential or commercial buildings or structures because the Plan Area is bordered by Patrick Henry Drive and Great America Park to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail to the east, U.S. 101 to the south, and Great America Parkway to the west. None of these land uses are sensitive to ground-borne vibration, and there are no residential building facades within 700 feet of the Plan Area; however, existing commercial land uses within the Plan Area and future land uses envisioned by the Focus Area Plan (e.g., residential dwelling units and commercial buildings) could be located near construction work areas within the Plan Area and affected by construction vibration.
Mitigation Measures:
In addition to adhering to the City Code for construction hours, the future development projects would be required to implement the following standard construction noise control measures to reduce construction noise levels at nearby land uses:
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation 13-3: Reduce Potential Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Construction Vibration Levels. To reduce potential vibration-related structural damage and other excessive vibration levels from Focus Area Plan related construction activities, the City shall ensure future development projects within the Plan Area:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 1. 2) Restrict Work Hours. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 2. 3) Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. The use of large vibratory rollers, vibratory/impact hammers, and other potential large vibration-generating equipment (e.g., hydraulic breakers/hoe rams) shall be prohibited within 100 feet of any residential building façade and 50 feet of any commercial building façade during construction activities. Plate compactors and compactor rollers are acceptable, and deep foundation piers or caissons shall be auger drilled. 4) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Vibration Evaluation Plan. If it is not feasible to prohibit vibratory equipment per Section 3) due to site- or projectspecific conditions or design considerations, the City shall review and approve a project-specific construction vibration evaluation that:
A) Identifies the project’s planned vibration-generating construction activities (e.g., demolition, pile driving, vibratory compaction);
B) Identifies the potential project-specific vibration levels (given project-specific equipment and soil conditions, if known) at specific building locations that may be impacted by the vibration-generating work activities (generally buildings within 50 feet of the work area);
C) Identifies the vibration control measures incorporated into the project that ensure equipment and work activities would not damage buildings or result in vibrations that exceed Caltrans’ strongly perceptible vibration detection threshold for peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.1 inches/second (in/sec). Such measures may include, but are not limited to: i) the requirements of Sections 1, 2, and 3; ii) the use of vibration monitoring to measure actual vibration levels; iii) the use of photo monitoring or other records to document building conditions prior to, during, and after construction activities; and iv) the use of other measures such as trenches or wave barriers;
D) Identifies the name (or title) and contact information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration-related issues; and
E) Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive, respond, and resolve to construction vibration complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a vibration complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 described in the first condition D) above shall identify the vibration source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint by reducing ground-borne vibration levels to peak particle velocity levels that do not exceed accepted guidance or thresholds for structural damage that are best applicable to potentially impacted buildings (e.g., see Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Table 13-6) and Caltrans’ strongly perceptible vibration detection threshold (PPV of 0.1 in/sec, see Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Table 13-7).
With implementation of these measures, this impact would be less than significant. (d) Impact 13-4: Temporary Construction Vibration Levels – Greystar General Plan Amendment. The Greystar project could result in construction and development activities in the Plan Area that generate vibration levels above City standards and/or otherwise result excessive ground-borne vibration levels. This represents a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation 13-4: Reduce Greystar Project Construction Vibration Levels. To reduce potential vibration-related structural damage and other excessive vibration levels from Greystar project construction activities, the City shall require the Applicant:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities.
See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 1. 2) Restrict Work Hours. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 2. 3) Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-3, Section 3. 4) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Vibration Evaluation Plan. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 3. Mitigation Measure 13-3, Section 4 A) – C) are not applicable because the construction vibration analysis presented in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR constitutes the Project-specific construction vibration evaluation per Mitigation Measure 13-3, Section 4.
With implementation of these measures, this impact would be less than significant. (e) Impact 13-5: On-site Noise Levels from Focus Area Plan Development. The implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could result in new residential, office, and other land uses that generate noise from on-site equipment, CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 activities, or other operations in excess of applicable City standards. This represents a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation 13-5: Control Fixed and Other On-site Noise-Generating Sources and Activities in the Freedom Circle Area Plan. To ensure on-site, operationsrelated equipment and activities associated with the Focus Area Plan do not generate noise levels that exceed City standards or otherwise result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, future development projects shall submit a project-specific operational noise analysis to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project, or as otherwise determined by the City. The noise analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and shall identify all major fixed machinery and equipment, non-residential truck docks/dedicated loading zones, waste collection areas, and above ground parking garages included in the final project design/site plan. The noise analysis shall also document how project noise sources and activities will comply with the exterior sound limits established in Municipal Code Section 9.10.040, Schedule A and the noise compatibility guidelines in General Plan Table 8.14-1. Fixed machinery and equipment may include, but is not limited to, pumps, fans (including air intake or exhaust fans in parking garages), compressors, air conditioners, generators, and refrigeration equipment. The control of noise from such equipment may be accomplished by selecting quiet equipment types, siting machinery and equipment inside buildings, within an enclosure (e.g., equipment cabinet or mechanical closets, or behind a parapet wall or other barrier/shielding.
Truck docks/dedicated loading zones consist of a loading dock or other dedicated area for the regular loading and unloading of retail, commercial, or other nonresidential goods from delivery trucks. The control of noise from such truck docks/loading areas, waste collection areas, and parking garages may be accomplished by placing such areas away from sensitive land uses, restricting activities or operating hours for certain areas, or other design means.
With implementation of these measures, this impact would be less than significant. (f) Impact 13-6: On-site Noise Levels from Greystar Project. The implementation of the Greystar project could result in new residential, park, and retail land uses that could generate noise from on-site equipment, activities, or other operations in excess of applicable City standards. This represents a potentially significant impact.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation 13-6: Control Greystar Project Parking Garage Ventilation System Noise Levels. To ensure potential parking garage ventilation systems do not generate noise levels that exceed City standards or otherwise result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, the City shall require the Applicant to prepare an acoustical study that identifies the final type, location, and sound power level of all parking garage ventilation systems. The study shall also document how project noise sources and activities will comply with the exterior sound limits established in Municipal Code Section 9.10.040, Schedule A. The control of noise from ventilation systems may be accomplished by selecting quiet equipment types, siting machinery and equipment inside buildings, within an enclosure (e.g., equipment cabinet or mechanical closets), the installation of louvres or baffles, or other design means.
With implementation of these measures, this impact would be less than significant.
3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable (a) Impact 13-7: Increases in Traffic Noise Levels – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could generate vehicle trips that substantially increase existing and future No Project traffic noise levels and/or exceed City noise and land use compatibility standards. This represents a potentially significant impact.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Focus Area Plan would have the potential to change the existing amounts and types of land uses within the Plan Area. These potential land use changes would increase residents and employees within the City and lead to an increase in vehicle trips and traffic-related noise levels that could pose land use compatibility issues and/or otherwise represent a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels on roadways used to access the Plan Area.
Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation is possible.
L. Population and Housing
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impacts 14-1 and 14-2: Effects on Population Growth.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Based on the forecasted development assumptions for the proposed Focus Area Plan (see chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR), the Plan is anticipated ultimately to result in up to the following new development in the Plan Area:
3,600 residential units,
2,000,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of new office space, and 2,000 sq. ft. of new retail space.
Both the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and this EIR assume these numbers represent the maximum future anticipated development; however, these numbers may be refined further during preparation of the comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) that is required as part of the General Plan-identified process for “future focus areas” and would allow for responsible growth while ensuring quality City services are maintained for existing and future residents and businesses through establishment of the necessary infrastructure, amenities, and services. The residential growth anticipated under Focus Area Plan would help to address the balance between housing and jobs in the city as identified in the General Plan.
The Focus Area Plan and EIR are preliminary planning documents to provide clarification of potentials for development in the Plan Area and could change during preparation of the required more comprehensive planning study called for in the General Plan (see chapter 1, Introduction, of this EIR). As such, development parameters for the Plan Area could change and, if so, would then be re-evaluated.
This Focus Area Plan assumes an average of 2.27 persons per new household (pph) in the Plan Area, based on demographic and economic research prepared for the Plan.2 Using this factor, Plan implementation could accommodate up to approximately 8,172 new residents in the Plan Area by the year 2040 (the estimated Plan buildout horizon).
As described throughout the EIR, Plan implementation would extend roads and infrastructure into an undeveloped portion of the Plan Area (the Greystar project site), but would not induce substantial population growth beyond the Plan Area boundaries. Rather, Plan implementation would facilitate residential, commercial, and community growth within a mixed-use Plan Area identified as being desirable for adding a mix of residential and commercial due to access to existing and future transit, and for redeveloping existing sites from lower to higher intensity uses, as provided for in the Santa Clara General Plan.
Therefore, this impact is considered less-than-significant.
Mitigation 14-1 and 14-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 14-3 and 14-4: Population and Housing Displacement Effects. As of April 2021, there is no housing in the Plan Area, and the Focus Area Plan would not displace any residents or housing. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan is a long-term plan laying the groundwork for a future comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) that would include frameworks and design standards and guidelines for future long-range CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 development, including residential development. Under the current Focus Area Plan, no individual development proposals are being considered (with the exception of the concurrent Greystar project application); however, because there is no existing housing in the Plan Area, the Focus Area Plan would have no impact related to the displacement of housing or population.
Mitigation 14-3 and 14-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 14-5: Temporary Employment Impacts—Plan Area. No construction jobs would result directly from adoption of the Focus Area Plan because a comprehensive planning study (such as a specific plan) would be required before development in the Plan Area would be authorized; however, development in the Plan Area could ultimately result from adoption of the comprehensive planning study, and future construction jobs would be likely. Such construction jobs would be created over the timeframe of development and would by nature be temporary. It would be anticipated that an adequate construction work force would continue to exist within commute distance of the Plan Area when future development would be likely to commence; a substantial increase in population due to eventual project construction would be considered highly unlikely. The actual number of construction jobs ultimately facilitated as a result of the Focus Area Plan and the comprehensive planning study would depend on the construction dollars spent and the construction schedules. These variables cannot be accurately quantified at this time.
Nevertheless, these project-generated employment opportunities would represent a beneficial temporary economic effect of future development in the Plan Area. In itself, any population growth associated with construction activity ultimately resulting from the Focus Area Plan and comprehensive planning study would represent a less-than-significant environmental impact.
Mitigation 14-5. No significant environmental impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 14-6: Temporary Employment Impacts—Greystar Project. Temporary construction jobs would be created during the Greystar project construction period, estimated at approximately 48 months. It is anticipated that an adequate construction work force will continue to exist within commute distance of the Greystar project site, thereby making a substantial increase in population due to project construction unlikely.
The actual number of construction jobs facilitated by the Greystar project would depend on the construction dollars spent and the construction schedules; however, additional temporary employee growth on site could result in up to 600 construction workers over the projected 48-month construction period, varying between 100 and 600 workers, depending on phase and activity. This temporary increase in worker population would generate demand for services, but the increase would be temporary in duration. It is reasonable to assume that most of the construction jobs would be filled by workers currently residing in the Bay Area region, and therefore this temporary increase would not be considered either substantial or unplanned population growth, and therefore this temporary increase in population would not in itself constitute a significant adverse CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 environmental impact. To the extent that it would result in secondary environmental impacts (e.g., air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic), those impacts would be temporary and are addressed by topic in the various sections of this EIR. The projectgenerated employment opportunities would represent a beneficial temporary economic effect of the Greystar project. In itself, any population growth associated with construction activity resulting from the Greystar project would represent a less-than-significant environmental impact.
Mitigation 14-6. No significant environmental impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
M. Public Services
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 15-1 and 15-2: Increase in Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Service Demands
Individual project proposals are subject to review and approval by the SCFD, based on uniformly applied standards and regulations. As part of the standard development review process for each individual project proposal, the project applicant must demonstrate compliance with Santa Clara City Code Chapter 15.60 (Municipal Fire and Environmental Code), the California Fire Code, and all other applicable regulations. Among other fire protection/EMS requirements, the project must provide adequate emergency water supply (fire flow), storage, and conveyance facilities, as well as unobstructed and adequate access for fire protection equipment and personnel. Without City approval of fire protection/EMS provisions, the project would not receive a building permit or occupancy permit, depending on the specific fire protection issue that needs to be addressed (e.g., emergency access provisions, hydrant pressure, fire alarm and smoke detector adequacy). The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan does not propose new or expanded fire protection/EMS facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, nor does the City anticipate the need for a new facility because of the proximity and adequacy of Fire Station 8 to provide fire service and the future assessment of resources needed as part of the required comprehensive planning study for the Plan Area, as discussed above.
Therefore, based on the above uniformly applied fire protection/EMS standards and regulations, the proximity of existing fire stations, and the City’s commitment to providing adequate fire/EMS service, Focus Area Plan impacts on fire protection/EMS demands are considered less-than-significant.
Mitigation 15-1 and 15-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 15-3 and 15-4: Impacts to Police Services
General Plan Policy 5.1.1‐P8 calls for an analysis of public services as a part of the development of specific plans for future focus areas. Therefore, because it is the City’s policy to reassess SCPD resources available in the vicinity of the Plan Area to ensure CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 adequate capacity for providing police services as part of the future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan), rather than at this more preliminary stage, potential future needs for a new police building or expansion of an existing police building would be speculative at this time, as would options to ensure adequate funds would be available for such facilities required by development in the Plan Area.
Individual project proposals under the Focus Area Plan would be subject to review and approval by the SCPD, based on uniformly applied standards and regulations. As part of the standard development review process for each individual project proposal, the SCPD would determine the ability of the department to provide services and would make projectspecific recommendations in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. Without City approval of police service provisions, the project would not receive a building permit or occupancy permit, depending on the specific police protection/security issue (e.g., security lighting, parking area security provisions, public visibility/defensible space -"eyes on the street" or, in the case of new parks and plazas, “eyes on the park”).
The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan does not propose new or expanded police facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, and any decision whether to build a new facility or expand an existing facility would be the responsibility of the City Council. Although more vehicle traffic from anticipated development in the city could occur (with an associated increase in service calls due to traffic-related enforcement and accident investigations and potentially increased service call response times) and additional staff would be anticipated, the SCPD has not identified at this time the need for a new or expanded police facility. If, as development proceeds in the Plan Area and vicinity, the City determines the need for a new police station or expansion of an existing facility, any additional facilities would be subject to their own CEQA determination--i.e., a CEQA checklist and/or any additional CEQA documentation, if deemed necessary, such as an Addendum to the certified EIR for the future comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan), and/or amendment to the Focus Area Plan.
Under CEQA, the impacts on police service demands are considered less-than-significant.
Mitigation 15-3 and 15-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impacts 15-5 and 15-6: Impacts to School Facilities
New or physically altered school facilities determined necessary by the SCUSD to accommodate students generated by future development under the eventual Specific Plan could cause significant environmental impacts; however, any School District proposal for a new school would be subject to its own evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which would be expected to involve an evaluation of environmental impact topics similar to that provided in this EIR.
The SCUSD is responsible for levying impact fees on new development. The residential and commercial development in the Plan Area would be required to pay the State-authorized school impact fees approved by the SCUSD. Pursuant to section 65995(3)(h) of the CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the payment of statutory school impact fees "...is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization...." Therefore, subsequent to payment of statutory fees, school impacts would be considered less-than-significant.
Mitigations 15-5 and 15-6. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impacts 15-7 and 15-8: Impacts on Parks and Recreational Facilities.
The City ensures a project meets its dedication requirements through the development review process. Parkland, as required, must be included as part of a project’s “land use plan” with the location identified on the project property. A project that does not comply with the parkland dedication requirement would not be approved. In addition, the City requires that parkland be improved (i.e., “turn-key”) and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore, mandatory, future development of parkland and open space in the Focus Area, or as a part of the Greystar project, plus individual project payment of City adopted in-lieu park fees and/or dedication of parkland would ensure that impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less-thansignificant.
Mitigations 15-7 and 15-8. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required. See “Construction Period Impacts” below.
Impact 15-9 and 15-10: Impacts on Other Public Facilities. The Focus Area Plan facilitated increase in residential, commercial, and public activity in the Plan Area and associated job creation and increase in business activity, would result in a corresponding incremental increase in demand for other public, municipal services. The Focus Area Plan does not propose new or expanded public facilities, although the future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) may, when developed, include a public facilities component with discussion of funding options (including approaches and policies for both one-time and ongoing costs of public infrastructure and related improvements).
Any future public facility proposal resulting from Focus Area Plan-facilitated development would therefore be speculative at this time and would be subject to its own evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when a specific proposal was brought forward. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation 15-9 and 15-10. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 15-11 and 15-12: Construction Period Impacts. The construction of Planrelated open space, parkland, and recreational and other public facilities would be temporary and would occur within either existing public rights-of-way or on City property, a project development site, or private property subject to a municipal easement.
Construction period air emissions (dust), noise, and traffic interruption typically associated CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 with parks and recreational facilities construction would be reduced through mandatory, uniformly applied City of Santa Clara construction standards and regulations, as well as mitigations already identified elsewhere in this EIR, which analyzes both operational and construction impacts.
Mitigation 15-11 and 15-12. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
None.
3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.
4. Cumulative impacts
The Project would not have a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative public services impact. The General Plan EIR discussed the cumulative impact on public services from the buildout of the General Plan and concluded that future development, consistent with existing regulations, would not result in significant impacts to public facilities. The proximate City Place project would provide for public services on its site or pay in-lieu fees. The in-lieu fees paid by the Greystar project and projects developed under the eventual Specific Plan would reduce cumulative impacts to school and park facilities and there would be no impacts to fire, police, or library services. For these reasons, implementation of the Project would not have a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative public services impact.
N. Recreation
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 16-1 and 16-2: Impacts on Parks and Recreational Facilities The City ensures that a project meets its dedication requirements through the development review process. Parkland, as required, must be included as part of a project’s “land use plan” with the location identified on the project property. A project that does not comply with the parkland dedication requirement would not be approved. In addition, the City requires that parkland be improved (i.e., “turn-key”) and dedicated to the City. Therefore, mandatory, future development of public parks in the Focus Area plus individual project payment of City adopted park in-lieu fees and/or dedication of parkland to the City in fee title and free of encumbrances would ensure that impacts on parks and recreational facilities would less-than-significant.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigations 16-1 and 16-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required. See “Construction Period Impacts” below.
Impacts 16-3 and 16-4: Construction Period Impacts. The construction impacts of parks and recreational facilities due to the Focus Area Plan and/or the Greystar project would be considered temporary and would occur within either existing public rights-ofway or on City property, a project development site, or private property subject to a municipal easement. Construction period air emissions (dust), noise, and traffic interruption typically associated with parks and recreational facilities construction would be reduced through mandatory, uniformly applied City of Santa Clara construction standards and regulations, as well as mitigations already identified elsewhere in this EIR, which analyzes both operational and construction impacts.
Mitigations 16-3 and 16-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
None.
3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.
4. Cumulative impacts
The Project would not have significant impacts on recreation facilities. The General Plan EIR discussed the cumulative impact on recreation facilities from the buildout of the General Plan (including the Plan Area) and concluded that future development, consistent with existing regulations, would not result in significant impacts to recreational facilities. The previously approved City Place project includes an approximately 31-acre park to provide for recreational facilities north of US 101 and the Project will provide on-site park and recreational space and payment of parkland dedication fees such that there is no project-level impact on recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant cumulative recreation impacts.
O. Transportation/Traffic
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impacts 17-1 and 17-2: Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Regarding Roadways.
The Focus Area Plan includes the following goals and policies relevant to the transportation significance criteria:
FC-G4: Reduce reliance on private vehicles and improve jobs/housing balance by locating amenities and jobs within walking distance to housing. FC-G6: Improve multi-modal transportation options and connections. FC-G7: Enhance connectivity to the San Tomas Aquino Creek trail. FC-P3: Require active street frontages and ground floor uses to create a pedestrian friendly, cohesive urban environment.
FC-P10: Minimize surface parking by requiring below‐grade or structured parking facilities with active uses along street frontages.
FC-P11: Establish parking ratios that support transit, active transportation and shared vehicle use.
FC-P12: Encourage shared parking between uses and parcels, including the shared use of existing structures.
FC-P14: Provide new street, bicycle and pedestrian networks that break down large blocks and sites, accommodate multiple modes of travel, and maximize connections to activity hubs.
FC-P16: Design and program the plan area and sites to encourage walking, bicycling and transit use.
FC-P18: Redesign Mission College Boulevard, Freedom Circle, and Hichborn Drive to better balance space dedicated to vehicles, bicycle, and pedestrians. FC-P19: Maintain VTA bus transit service on Mission College Boulevard and improve transit stops and shelters.
FC-P20: Design pedestrian and bicycle networks and infrastructure to facilitate access to transit stops on Great America Parkway, Mission College and Tasman Drive.
FC-P21: Require developments to contribute to City vehicle miles travelled (VMT) goals and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM programs). FC-P22: Require developers and property owners to coordinate with area employers and stakeholders to explore shared private transit systems and the formation of a Transit Management Authority (TMA) as part of the Specific Plan process.
Because the Focus Area Plan provides the direction for the transportation standards and guidelines to be incorporated into the future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan), the Focus Area Plan is considered substantially consistent with the applicable City of Santa Clara General Plan goals and policies related to transportation. The impact would be less-than-significant.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 The Greystar project, because of its location close to jobs and transit would be consistent with elements such as high density/intensity development near transit; decreased use of the single‐occupant automobiles; reduced vehicle miles traveled; improved pedestrian amenities; accommodating and promoting alternative modes of transportation; improving sidewalks, landscaping, and bicycling facilities to promote pedestrian and bicycle use; connecting private and public open space through publicly accessible trails and pathways; and orienting open spaces to public streets. Therefore the project would not substantially conflict with General Plan transportation policies, this impact would be less-thansignificant.
Mitigation 17-1 and 17-2. No impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 17-3: Impacts on Transit—Plan Area. Impact 17-3: Impacts on Transit Related to Conflicts with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs—Plan Area. Existing transit service for the Plan Area includes an ACE shuttle and three VTA routes along Great America Parkway and/or Mission College Boulevard (though service is currently limited due to COVID-19). Bus stops are currently located within the Plan Area on Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard, with additional bus stops nearby outside of the Plan Area on Great America Parkway (across the street) and Mission College Boulevard (near Juliette Lane). Several bus stops in the Plan Area are also served by an ACE shuttle (along Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard) as well as in the immediate vicinity of the Plan Area.
Because the Focus Area Plan is, by definition, policy oriented, the Plan does not propose any direct transit improvements, but transit support is included in Focus Area Plan Policy FC-19 (“Maintain VTA bus transit service on Mission College Boulevard and improve transit stops and shelters”) and Policy FC-P20 (“Design pedestrian and bicycle networks and infrastructure to facilitate access to transit stops on Great America Parkway, Mission College and Tasman Drive”). Therefore, because the Focus Area Plan would not interfere or conflict with existing or planned transit facilities, this impact would be lessthan-significant.
Mitigation 17-3. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 17-4: Impacts on Bicycle Facilities—Plan Area.
The Plan Area is located near many existing bicycle facilities, including trails along San Tomas Aquino Creek and Calabazas Creek, and bike lanes on Great America Parkway, Mission College Boulevard, and other streets. Future Plan Area residents would be able to ride to work using bike lanes and bike trail connections to surrounding employment areas.
Existing employment zones to the north of the Plan Area would be accessible via bike lanes on Great America Parkway or via the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail. Bike lanes on Tasman Drive would provide a route to other employment opportunities planned as part of the Related Santa Clara development. These bike lanes could also be used to reach the North San José employment area, and the Guadalupe River trail could be used to reach downtown San José. Employment areas south of the project site would be reached via the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail or bike lanes on Great America Parkway/Bowers Avenue.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Because the Focus Area Plan would not interfere or conflict with existing and planned bicycle facilities, this impact would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation 17-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 17-5: Impacts on Pedestrian Facilities—Plan Area.
Because the Focus Area Plan is, by definition, policy oriented, the Plan does not propose any specific pedestrian improvements at this time; however, the Focus Area Plan anticipates future improvements related to pedestrian facilities (Focus Area Plan Policy FCP14: “Provide new street, bicycle and pedestrian networks that break down large blocks and sites, accommodate multiple modes of travel, and maximize connections to activity hubs which would increase the number of connection points that could facilitate emergency access” and Policy FC-P18: “Redesign Mission College Boulevard, Freedom Circle, and Hitchborn Drive to better balance space dedicated to vehicles, bicycle, and pedestrians” such as wider sidewalks).
The Plan Area currently comprises very large parcels that create excessive walking distances between properties. As described earlier in the setting (section 17.1), Plan Area streets mostly all have sidewalk facilities. However, the Focus Area Plan also includes Policy FC-P15: “Develop design standards and guidelines to support active ground-floor environments, welcoming public spaces, and safe and comfortable sidewalks and pathways,” which would support improvements to pedestrian facilities such as wider sidewalks. Currently the only trail connection to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail is located at Mission College Boulevard; however, as discussed below in Impact 17-8, the Greystar project proposes to construct a trail that would provide a connection between Freedom Circle and the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail.
Because the Focus Area Plan would not interfere or conflict with existing and planned pedestrian facilities, this impact would be less-than-significant (see criterion [a] in subsection 17.3.1, “Significance Criteria,” above). Mitigation 17-5. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Mitigation 17-5. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 17-6: Impacts on Transit Related to Conflicts with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs—Greystar Project. The Greystar project does not propose any improvements to existing transit facilities near the project site; however, the project would not interfere or conflict with existing transit facilities-- bus stops located within ½ mile of the project site on Mission College Boulevard (with VTA Route 20 connecting to the Sunnyvale Caltrain station, and service by an ACE shuttle) and on Agnew Road. The project would add additional bicycle and pedestrian improvements that would provide for better access to transit facilities near the project site.
Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation 17-6. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 17-7: Impacts on Bicycle Facilities—Greystar Project. The Greystar project proposes including a new trail connection on the east side of the project site, which would allow pedestrians and bicycles access to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail. In addition, the project would construct an 8-foot Class II bike lane along the Freedom Circle side of the project, which would provide additional bicycle facilities. These proposed bicycle facilities would help connect the project site with other existing bicycle facilities, including the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail and bike lanes on Mission College Boulevard, and would provide a link in the bicycle network.
The proposed Greystar project bicycle facilities, on and near the project site, would provide safer conditions for bicyclists relative to existing conditions, consistent with the City’s General Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan Update 2018; this would be a beneficial effect.
Mitigation 17-7. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 17-8: Impacts on Pedestrian Facilities—Greystar Project. The Greystar project proposes several new pedestrian facilities on and adjacent to the project site, including the new trail connection between the two pedestrian paths on either side of the 2.0-acre park and the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, and a new wider (seven feet) sidewalk on Freedom Circle along the project frontage. The proposed Greystar pedestrian facilities, on and near the project site, would provide safer conditions for pedestrians relative to existing conditions, consistent with the City’s General Plan and the City of Santa Clara Pedestrian Master Plan 2019; this would be a beneficial effect.
Mitigation 17-8. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 17-9 and 17-10: Impacts Related to Vehicle Miles Traveled—Plan Area and Greystar Project. Traffic impacts under CEQA have traditionally been assessed based on increases in intersection delay measured by Level of Service (LOS). However, in 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 743, which directed the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop new California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines to replace LOS with another measure for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. OPR recommended using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which measures the amount of vehicle trip making and trip length and is direct measurement of greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines update and VMT approach. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 (Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts) provides the framework for CEQA transportation analyses.
The City of Santa Clara recently adopted a VMT Transportation Analysis Policy for Environmental Review, which constitutes the City transportation policy, to align with State law and define City transportation analysis requirements for CEQA review purposes. The Policy sets forth screening criteria for certain types of development that are presumed to have a less than-significant impact on VMT due to their characteristics, such as infill CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 development, small projects, and/or transit supportive projects near major transit corridors. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and the Greystar project both qualify as transit supportive projects because they meet the criteria established by the City related to proximity to transit, density, multimodal transportation networks, transit-oriented design elements, parking, and affordable housing. Because the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and the Greystar project qualify as transit-supportive projects (per State guidance and City VMT Policy), the projects’ impact on VMT would be less than-significant.
Mitigation 17-9 and 17-10. No impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 17-11 and 17-12: Hazards due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses.
Plan Area: As a policy oriented plan, the Focus Area Plan does not propose specific internal roadway network improvements; however, the Focus Area Plan anticipates future internal roadway improvements (Plan Policy FC-P14: “Provide new street, bicycle and pedestrian networks that break down large blocks and sites, accommodate multiple modes of travel, and maximize connections to activity hubs which would increase the number of connection points that could facilitate emergency access”). When detailed site plans for future development projects are submitted, project-related roadway designs would be subject to City review, which would ensure adequacy of circulation patterns and safety standards; reduce potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses; and remove potential hazards due to design features (i.e., insufficient sightlines or distances) or incompatible uses.
Greystar Project. Project design features have been reviewed by the City Traffic Division and determined to provide adequate driveway widths and drive aisle widths with sufficient sight lines for entry and exit from driveways, including redesign of the northern perimeter road to be right-in/right-out only where it intersects with Mission College Boulevard.
Therefore, the project would comply with all driveway and related parking and other design standards, and these impacts would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation 17-11 and 17-12. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 17-13: Emergency Access—Plan Area. Existing access to the Plan Area for emergency vehicles is via connections to Patrick Henry Drive, Mission College Boulevard, and Hichborn Drive from Great America Parkway in the west, and to Freedom Circle from Mission College Boulevard as well as from Agnew Road in the east. These connections would remain. As a policy oriented plan, the Focus Area Plan does not propose any specific internal roadway network improvements; however, the Focus Area Plan anticipates future internal roadway improvements (Plan Policy FC-P14: “Provide new street, bicycle and pedestrian networks that break down large blocks and sites, accommodate multiple modes of travel, and maximize connections to activity hubs which would increase the number of connection points that could facilitate emergency access”). When detailed site plans are required to be submitted, street designs would be subject to City review to ensure the CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 adequacy of circulation patterns and compliance with City emergency vehicle access standards, such as requiring that alleys have a minimum width of 25 feet to allow for emergency vehicles and connecting “dead end” street sections (i.e., cul-de-sacs) with multimodal paths that would allow emergency vehicles. City review of future driveway and drive aisle design would ensure compliance with City emergency vehicle access requirements.
Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation 17-13. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 17-14: Emergency Access—Greystar Project. Existing access to the project site for emergency vehicles is via connections to Freedom Circle from Mission College Boulevard (both “west” and “east”—Freedom Circle is a “loop” road). These connections would remain. The Greystar project proposes to construct a new two-way private “perimeter road,” which would connect to Freedom Circle and provide emergency vehicle access around the entire project site. The final design of the perimeter road would be subject to City review. The Fire Department would require roadways to have a “minimum” width of 20 feet for fire engines and a “minimum” width of 26 feet roadways for aerial apparatus. Project plans indicate that the perimeter road would be 26 feet wide, increasing to 34 feet at the three trash staging areas (one for each building; on the south side of Building A, and on the east side of Building B and Building C). As an informational note for disclosure purposes, according to the Hexagon transportation analysis for the project, the 26-foot width for the perimeter road would not provide sufficient room for emergency vehicles to turn around, and with the current design, emergency vehicles would need to enter from the northern driveway and exit from the southern driveway. However, City review of construction drawings would ensure compliance with City emergency vehicle access requirements. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation 17-14. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
None.
4. Cumulative impacts
None.
P. Utilities and Service Systems
1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impact 18-2: Greystar Project Inconsistency with General Plan and UWMP Growth Projections. The WSA prepared for the proposed Focus Area Plan includes the required water supply analysis for the Greystar project. The Greystar project request for an amendment to the General Plan would change the land use designation of the project site to allow residential development, which would resolve the General Plan inconsistency. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan WSA concluded that sufficient water supplies exist to serve the Greystar project for both a normal year or a single-dry year and that alternative sources exist for projected shortfalls occurring during a multi-year drought scenario. Confirmation of water supply would be provided by the WSA, prepared by the City of Santa Clara in its role as the water service provider, in conjunction with the City’s “Master Geographic Letter,” which provides verification and assurance of the City’s ability and commitment to serve Greystar project water needs. Therefore, this would be a less-than-significant project and cumulative impact.
Mitigation 18-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 18-3: Project and Cumulative Need for Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage System Infrastructure—Plan Area. Over the course of development under the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and future, required comprehensive planning study, water, wastewater, and storm drainage infrastructure systems in the Plan Area would be expected to require some improvements to accommodate new development facilitated by the Focus Area Plan and required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan), including the upgrading of deficiencies. (Specific improvements and upgrades required by the Greystar project are discussed separately below.) Due to the preliminary nature of the Focus Area Plan, an infrastructure element has not been developed, though it would be included as part of the required comprehensive planning study and would provide more details on Plan Area needs, based on consultation with City engineers and the results of hydraulic modeling as determined necessary by the City.
Mitigation 18-3. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 18-4: Project and Cumulative Need for Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage System Infrastructure—Greystar Project. Development of the Greystar project would be expected to require construction of improvements and upgrades to City water, wastewater, and storm drainage systems. The construction of Greystar projectrelated utility infrastructure would be temporary and would occur within either existing public rights-of-way, City property, the Greystar project site, or Greystar property subject to a municipal easement. Construction impacts have been evaluated as part of this Focus Area Plan CEQA analysis, and construction period air emissions (dust), noise, and traffic interruption typically associated with utility infrastructure construction would be reduced through mandatory City of Santa Clara construction protocols and mitigations as they would apply to other development under the Focus Area Plan. No additional significant environmental impact beyond those already identified in the EIR would be anticipated with CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 such construction activity. Based on the above analysis, the Greystar project’s construction and operational impacts on water, wastewater, and storm drainage infrastructure would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation 18-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 18-6: Cumulative Wastewater Pump Station Capacity Impacts—Greystar Project. As noted in the Woodard & Curran technical memo conducted for the Focus Area Plan, future wastewater generated by the Greystar project would be approximately 0.170 mgd, which would result in an updated total flow to pump stations of 45.407 mgd and would not exceed the current combined wastewater capacity of the Northside and Rabello pump stations (46.1 mgd). The Greystar wastewater contribution would represent less than four percent of the current combined wastewater capacity and less than four percent of the total flow to the pump stations; therefore, the proposed Greystar project would not contribute considerably to a cumulative pump station capacity impact at the Northside and Rabello pump stations, and this would be a less-than-significant impact Mitigation 18-6. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 18-7: Wastewater Treatment Capacity Impacts—Plan Area. Wastewater from the City of Santa Clara, with some flow from the Cupertino Sanitary District (CuSD), is conveyed to the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF) for treatment before the treated water is discharged into the South San Francisco Bay or recycled for other uses. The RWF has a Water Board/NPDES treatment capacity limit of 167 million gallons per day (mgd). Approximately 35 mgd of RWF treatment capacity is allocated to other wastewater agencies by agreement. The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara share the remaining treatment capacity. In 2020, the treatment capacity allotment for Santa Clara was approximately 25.147 mgd, and the City had approximately 9.606 mgd of unused treatment capacity remaining.
According to the Woodard & Curran technical memo prepared for the Focus Area Plan, wastewater generation from Focus Area Plan development (including the Greystar project) is projected to total approximately 1.063 mgd, which would not exceed the City’s remaining capacity allocation of 9.606 mgd. Moreover, that 9.606 mgd of capacity is only the City’s current share; the RWF currently has a total excess flow capacity of approximately 65 mgd.
The total flow capacity at the RWF is 167 mgd, and the joint owners (Santa Clara and San José) have agreements with several tributary agencies, which have capacity rights of approximately 35 mgd. Pursuant to Section V.B.3 of the 1983 agreements with the tributary agencies, Santa Clara can purchase additional capacity from those tributary agencies, in the unlikely event that the City’s current excess capacity of 9.606 mgd was insufficient.
Therefore, Focus Area Plan development (including the Greystar project) would have a less-than-significant impact on wastewater treatment facility capacity.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation 18-7. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 18-8: Wastewater Treatment Capacity Impacts—Greystar Project. As discussed in Impact 18-7, wastewater generation from Focus Plan development including the Greystar project is projected to total approximately 1.063 mgd, which would not exceed the City’s remaining capacity allocation of 9.606 mgd. The Greystar project is forecasted to account for approximately 0.170 mgd. Therefore, the Greystar project would have a lessthan-significant impact on wastewater treatment facility capacity.
Mitigation 18-8. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 18-9: Impacts on Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling Service—Plan Area.
Based on City solid waste generation rates, development under the Focus Area Plan (including the Greystar project) would be anticipated to generate approximately 46,852 cubic yards of solid waste per year,1 with about two-thirds of the waste generated by residential use. This would represent approximately 0.2 percent of remaining capacity at the Newby Island Landfill. 2 Because Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan implementation would not be expected to generate an inordinate amount of solid waste for its size (i.e., a rate inconsistent with adopted plans, policies, and regulations) either during demolition/construction activities or operation due to project compliance with the Solid Waste Ordinance, and would be served by solid waste disposal and recycling facilities with sufficient capacities to accommodate the Plan’s demolition/construction debris and solid waste disposal needs, the Plan’s effect on solid waste and recycling services would represent a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation 18-9. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 18-10: Impacts on Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling Service—Greystar project. Because the Greystar project would not be expected to generate an inordinate amount of solid waste for its size (i.e., a rate inconsistent with adopted plans, policies, and regulations) either during demolition/construction activities or operation, and would be served by solid waste disposal and recycling facilities with sufficient capacities to accommodate project demolition/ construction debris and solid waste disposal needs, the Greystar project’s effect on solid waste and recycling services would represent a less-thansignificant impact.
Mitigation 18-10. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 18-11: Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications Infrastructure— Plan Area. The Focus Area Plan is designed as a preliminary planning document. A future comprehensive planning study would be required, per the General Plan, to refine CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 development assumptions. Because no plans have been finalized nor sites identified for these potential additional electrical system improvements, any further analysis would be speculative. Any natural gas, and telecommunications improvements in the Plan Area would be required to comply with uniformly applied City of Santa Clara construction standards and regulations and the mitigations already identified elsewhere in the Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment Project EIR, and therefore the construction period impacts associated with these improvements would represent a less-thansignificant impact.
Mitigation 18-11. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
Impact 18-12: Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications Infrastructure— Greystar Project. Similarly, for the Greystar project, any natural gas, and telecommunications improvements related to the project would be required to comply with uniformly applied City of Santa Clara construction standards and regulations and the mitigations already identified elsewhere in the Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment Project EIR, and therefore the construction period impacts associated with these improvements would represent a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation 18-12. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.
2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) Impact 18-1: Focus Area Plan Inconsistency with General Plan and UWMP Growth Projections. The WSA prepared for the proposed Focus Area Plan includes development in the Plan Area that has not been identified in the General Plan (i.e., exceeds the General Plan land use projections for 2035, the General Plan horizon year), and therefore, because the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was based on General Plan buildout projections, this WSA is inconsistent with General Plan and UWMP buildout projections. Until the Focus Area Plan development exceeding General Plan growth projections is included in the General Plan and the UWMP (i.e., the 2020 UWMP, currently being prepared), the Focus Area Plan is inconsistent with the General Plan/Urban Water Management Plan, and this inconsistency would represent a potentially significant project and cumulative impact.
Facts in support of Finding:
Approval of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and the required comprehensive planning study (specific plan) would include adoption of a General Plan amendment to incorporate the Focus Area Plan into the General Plan’s growth projections. In addition, the recently adopted 2020 UWMP did not include Focus Area Plan CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 development in its growth projections. Until the General Plan is amended to include Focus Area Plan development, its anticipated growth would exceed the current General Plan growth projections for the Plan Area and would not be consistent with the City’s prerequisite policy, prior to implementation of General Plan Phase III, of “undertak[ing] a comprehensive assessment of water…demand and facilities in order to ensure adequate capacity and funding to implement the necessary improvements to support development in the next phase” (General Plan Goal 5.1.1‐ P3). Therefore, to ensure consistency with General Plan and UWMP policies related to ensuring adequate water supplies for future, projected development, future project applications under the Focus Area Plan would need confirmation that the City-identified water supplies, as discussed previously, would be adequate to serve each project, in compliance with State law.
In addition, SB 221, adopted by the State in 2001, prohibits a city or county from approving a tentative subdivision map or parcel map, or a development agreement including land subdivision, of more than 500 units unless there is written verification that a sufficient and reliable water supply will be available prior to completion of the project. However, the Focus Area Plan would not entitle any specific development application, so while an adequate, specific water supply must still be verified for individual, future project applications, the City in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan WSA has identified that water supplies would be available and has estimated water demand in compliance with State law.
A project-specific, confirmation of water supply (e.g., written verification from the City that sufficient water supply is available for the project) would need to be completed in connection with the City’s approval of any tentative map or development agreement for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan (regardless of the 500-unit or equivalent threshold under SB 221 and SB 610), when the individual project details have been more definitively established. This subsequent confirmation/verification would include any pertinent updates to the citywide water supply situation and would also include progress on City plans for expanding its recycled water program plus City requirements for implementing additional “best management practices” (BMPs) related to recycled water use and/or water conservation.
Mitigation 18-1. Prior to City approval of any tentative map or development agreement for a proposed, individual project, the City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities Department shall review individual project details to confirm that water supplies are adequate for each individual project. Such confirmation shall include an updated description of the citywide water supply situation (including any plans for pumping additional groundwater) at that future time, reflecting any progress on City plans for expanding its recycled water program and any City requirements for implementing additional “best management practices” (BMPs) related to recycled water use and/or water conservation. These City actions would ensure a continual monitoring of citywide water supply throughout implementation of the Focus Area Plan and required comprehensive planning study (specific plan).Incorporation of CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 measures to reduce water demand and, if necessary, identification of alternative water sources to offset project supply shortages would reduce this impact to a lessthan-significant level.
3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.
4. Cumulative impacts
(a) Impact 18-5: Cumulative Wastewater Pump Station Capacity Impacts—Plan Area. As noted in the Woodard & Curran technical memo conducted for the Focus Area Plan (and discussed above), future wastewater generated by anticipated development in the Focus Area Plan Area is projected to exceed the current combined wastewater capacity of the Northside and Rabello pump stations (46.1 mgd) by 0.2 mgd (for a total of 46.3 mgd), which represents a cumulative wastewater impact. Therefore, the proposed Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan contribution to cumulative pump station capacity at the Northside and Rabello pump stations would be a significant cumulative impact.
Facts in Support of Finding: Necessary pump station upgrades could include additional wet well and pumping capacity and/or force main improvements. The timing of pump station improvements is not currently known. A detailed engineering study would be necessary to determine the extent and details of pump station capacity upgrades, and the City would ultimately be responsible for coordinating the capacity upgrades. Proposed developments (including those under the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and the future, required comprehensive planning study) would be responsible for funding their fair-share contribution to the upgrades. Also, although this EIR assumes that the proposed improvements could be accommodated on the existing pump station sites and/or within existing City rights-of-way, the upgrade project(s) would be subject to an environmental review and determination under CEQA.
Mitigation 18-5. The City shall require individual projects implemented under the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan (and the future, required comprehensive planning study – e.g., specific plan) to make a fair-share contribution to the wastewater pump station improvements necessary to accommodate cumulative development in Santa Clara. The fair-share contributions for future projects developed under the Focus Area Plan and required comprehensive planning study shall be determined based on a detailed wastewater pump station engineering study prepared by the City and each project’s percent of wastewater contribution to cumulative flow capacity needs above the current pump capacity. This mitigation would provide funding for wastewater pump station upgrades, which would reduce the Plan’s contribution to the cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level.
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 The City would be required to plan and construct the improvements. Because the timing of these improvements cannot be guaranteed or estimated at this time (spring 2021), the combined wastewater capacity of the two pump stations could be exceeded by development proposals already under consideration. Therefore, the City shall continually monitor pump station capacity in order to coordinate the pump station improvements with development proposals. Until pump station capacity improvements adequate to accommodate the incremental increases in wastewater flows are completed, the City shall delay individual project building permits. In addition, as a standard condition of approval, each individual project would need to provide sanitary sewer information to the City, and no project would be approved by the City until the City determines that sufficient sewer capacity exists. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce Plan cumulative wastewater pump capacity impacts to a less-than-significant level.
None.
V. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. The concept of “feasibility” encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 (City of Del Mar); Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-1509 [court upholds CEQA findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on applicant’s project objectives]; see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 (CNPS) [“an alternative ‘may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record’”] (quoting Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act [Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2009] (Kostka), § 17.39, p. 825); In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166 (Bay-Delta) [“[i]n the CALFED program, feasibility is strongly linked to achievement of each of the primary project objectives”; “a lead agency may structure its EIR alternative analysis around a reasonable definition of underlying purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal”].) Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; see also CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001 [“an alternative that ‘is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint’ may be rejected as infeasible”] [quoting Kostka, supra, § 17.29, p. 824]; San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 17.)
To provide a basis for further understanding of the environmental effects of a proposed project and possible approaches to reducing its identified significant impacts, the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to also “…describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Identified Alternatives
Pursuant to these CEQA sections, chapter 21 identifies and evaluates the following five alternatives to the project:
(a) Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan
Alternative FC-1A: No Project (Without Greystar Project) - Existing City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan. Under Alternative FC-1A (No Project—Without Greystar Project), there would be no change in the current land use and zoning controls in the Focus Plan Area, and the Greystar project would not proceed as proposed. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would not be adopted, and development would proceed under the current 2010-2035 General Plan, including development allowed on the Greystar site. New infrastructure would be maintained or constructed as required to accommodate new development on a project-by-project basis, and not as a planned, integrated set of improvements specifically for the Plan Area. The No Project alternative would continue to allow development under the existing High Intensity Office/R&D (HDRD) with some Regional Commercial (RC) General Plan designations.
The HDRD classification would accommodate medical facilities, data centers (and supporting on-site uses), and campus-like corporate/office developments with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.00; the RC classification would accommodate commercial developments such as regional shopping centers, local‐serving offices, medical facilities, and travel‐related services such as hotels, gas stations, restaurants, convention centers, and amusement parks, among other uses, with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.60. Because no residential uses would be developed, no new public parks or open spaces would be required. For this alternatives analysis it is assumed that the Greystar project would not be developed under its current proposal and reasonably foreseeable development on the Greystar site would include approximately 1,159,000 SF of commercial (see Alternative G-1, Greystar—No Project, for further discussion of what the General Plan would allow on the Greystar site). No goals or policies of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would be implemented, and no residential units would be developed. No additional office square footage as proposed by the Focus Area Plan (i.e., the 2,000,000 SF above GP allowed) would be developed. Alternative FC-1B: No Project (With Greystar Project) - Existing City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan. Under Alternative FC-1B (No Project—With Greystar Project), there would be no change in the current land use and zoning controls in the Focus Plan Area, with the exception of those necessary to accommodate the Greystar project, which would proceed as proposed. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would not be adopted, and development would proceed under the current 2010-2035 General Plan (except for the Greystar proposal). New infrastructure would be maintained or constructed as required to accommodate new development on a project-by-project CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 basis, and not as a planned, integrated set of improvements specifically for the Plan Area. The No Project alternative would continue to allow development under the existing High Intensity Office/R&D (HDRD) with some Regional Commercial (RC) General Plan designations. The HDRD classification would accommodate medical facilities, data centers (and supporting on-site uses), and campus-like corporate/office developments with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.00; the RC classification would accommodate commercial developments such as regional shopping centers, local‐serving offices, medical facilities, and travel‐related services such as hotels, gas stations, restaurants, convention centers, and amusement parks, among other uses, with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.60. Because no residential uses would be developed (except for Greystar), no new public parks or open spaces would be required, but Greystar’s 2.0-acre park would still be proposed. For this alternatives analysis it is assumed that the Greystar project, which could theoretically be approved without approval of the Focus Area Plan, would be a reasonably foreseeable development, and therefore the Greystar project has been included in this “no project” alternative. No goals or policies of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would be implemented, and no residential units (other than the Greystar project) would be developed. No additional office square footage as proposed by the Focus Area Plan (i.e., the 2,000,000 SF above GP allowed) would be developed.
Alternative FC-2: Mainly Commercial Office Development. Under Alternative FC-2, a Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would be adopted, but the maximum allowable office development would be approved (excluding parcels assumed not to be redeveloped, such as the hotel and other office buildings). Total office development would be 6,410,000 square feet, which would be an increase of 4,061,000 square feet over existing office development in the Plan Area and an increase of 1,041,000 square feet more than the proposed Focus Area Plan. No residential development would be included (besides the Greystar project), and because no other residential uses would be developed, no new public parks or open spaces would be required (again, besides the Greystar project). Alternative FC-2 would result in a net reduction of 2,525 fewer residential units and 5,732 fewer residents, but increases of 1,041,000 SF net new office development and 2,000 SF retail, and a 2.0-acre public park (both retail and the park would be on the Greystar site).
Alternative FC-3: Mainly Residential Development. Under Alternative FC-3, a Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would be adopted, but most development would be multi-family residential. No community development would be included in the Focus Area Plan. Alternative FC-3 would result in a net reduction of 3,501,000 less square feet of office space, but a net gain of approximately 1,871 multi-family dwelling units, for a total of 5,471 dwelling units in the Plan Area. Overall impacts throughout the Plan Area would be expected to be higher, generally due to the single-use (residential) aspect of the alternative.
Alternative FC-4: Alternative Project Location (Considered But Rejected). Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states, “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project[.]” Further, section 15126.6(c) explains, “Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental effects.” Because an alternative project location would be infeasible, would not necessarily avoid or lessen the significant impacts of the proposed project and might result in new significant impacts, and would not necessarily be able to achieve the basic project objectives, a project alternative in a different location was eliminated from further detailed consideration. No further evaluation of alternative project locations is required under CEQA.4 (b) Greystar Project
Alternative G-1: No Project - Existing City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan.
Under Alternative G-1 (No Project), there would be no change in the current land use and zoning controls on the Greystar project site. The Greystar project would not be approved, and development would be allowed to proceed under the current 2010-2035 General Plan. The No Project alternative would continue to allow development under the existing High Intensity Office/R&D (HDRD) General Plan designation. The HDRD classification would accommodate medical facilities, data centers (and supporting onsite uses), and campus-like corporate/office developments with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.00. Because no residential uses would be developed, no new public parks or open spaces would be required. No residential development would occur on the Greystar site, and no parkland would be required (i.e., the 2.0-acre public park would not be developed). In addition, there would be no retail development. Alternative G-2: Same Residential Buildout But Larger Park. Under Alternative G-2, the Greystar project would be developed essentially the same as proposed but with a larger park (3.0 to 4.0 acres rather than the proposed 2.0 acres). Though there would be changes made to configuration of the site (mainly to create the additional 1.0 to 2.0 acres), the number of dwelling units would stay the same, though there could be a different mix of unit types and the size of units could vary. The main project characteristics would remain the same. Relevant to air quality, energy, GHG, and noise impacts, this alternative would result in generally the same approximately 5,722 average daily vehicle trips (ADT) because the only change in this alternative would be the
4CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c) explains that alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the basic project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid significant environmental effects. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f) indicates that the Lead Agency should consider site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other regulatory limitation, jurisdictional boundaries, and the proponent's control over alternative sites in determining the range of alternatives to be evaluated in an EIR. With respect to alternative locations, CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f) indicates that alternative locations need not be evaluated in every case. The key question in determining whether to evaluate alterative locations is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen significant effects need be evaluated in the EIR. CEQA Guidelines section 15126(f)(2) indicates that alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered.