City Council and Authorities Concurrent
June 7, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
The Greystar Project, evaluated in the EIR at the project level, proposes development of three buildings with 1,075 residential units and 2,000 square feet of retail space, plus a 2.0-acre park. The 13.3-acre Greystar site lies within the Freedom Circle Focus Area and is bounded by San Tomas Aquino Creek to the East, Freedom Circle to the West, and Highway 101 in Santa Clara.

The Project requires the following approvals: (1) determination of the adequacy of the EIR prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts for the project and an associated MMRP; (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/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. As will be explained below, the above approvals will result in inconsistencies with the Santa Clara General Plan.

On December 20, 2021, Silicon Valley Residents submitted comments on the Draft EIR (“DEIR”) prepared for the Project. On March 30, 2022, the City released the Final EIR (“FEIR”), which revises the DEIR and includes responses to our comments. As will be explained below, the FEIR fails to remedy the issues identified in our initial comments. We prepared our responses to the FEIR with the assistance of air quality and health risk experts from Soil / Water / Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”),1 and biological resources expert Shawn Smallwood, PhD.2 For these reasons, Silicon Valley Residents urges the Planning Commission to recommend against adopting the Project’s Approvals at the Planning Commission meeting set for April 13, 2022. Silicon Valley Residents urges the Planning Commission to remand the FEIR back to Staff to allow for preparation of a legally adequate EIR pursuant to CEQA.
1 SWAPE’s technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2 Dr. Smallwood’s reply comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B.

April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
I. The Project’s General Plan Amendment Related to Future Focus Areas Is Internally Inconsistent
The Project includes designation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area, which would allow, subject to a future planning study, 2,500 dwelling units beyond those anticipated in the Greystar General Plan Amendment, and an additional 2 million square feet of additional office space. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan is defined as a “focus area plan,” which is one of several policy and regulatory tools used by the City of Santa Clara to implement the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan. A focus area plan provides a foundation for the future comprehensive, detailed planning study (or “comprehensive plan,” such as a specific plan) necessary to be adopted prior to allowing development in the Plan Area. A focus area plan provides a preliminary analysis of land use, utilities, streets, services, parks, and other public facilities as part of a coordinated planning process established to determine new infrastructure and service needs adequate to support future development and to plan for timing of development appropriate to sustain environmental quality.

The Project proposes to establish the Freedom Circle Focus Area via a General Plan Amendment. In order to establish the Focus Area through an Amendment, the Project includes a General Plan Amendment that would add the following text 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 General Plan Amendment is inconsistent with General Plan Goals. Goal

5.4.7‐G1 provides: “All applicable prerequisites are met, and a comprehensive plan is adopted, prior to implementation of any Future Focus Area.” It is contradictory to require a comprehensive plan prior to implementation of a Future Focus Area, while also stating the creation of a Future Focus Area precedes a comprehensive plan.3 The Planning Commission should recommend against approval of this General Plan amendment.
3 General Plan Section 8.2-18: Implementation – “Actions, procedures, programs or techniques that carry out policies.”
General
Plan
Comment
April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
II. The Project’s Rezoning and Related General Plan Amendment Potentially Conflict With the General Plan
The Greystar Project would require rezoning the Project site from highintensity office/R&D to high-density residential. But rezoning at this time conflicts with the General Plan, as the General Plan prohibits rezoning in future focus areas before a comprehensive plan (i.e. specific plan) is adopted for the future focus area:

Policy 5.4.7‐P1: “Require the adoption of the comprehensive plan prior to any rezoning within that designated Future Focus Area.”
Policy 5.4.7‐P4 states: “Until such time as a comprehensive plan is adopted for a Future Focus Area, allow development in accordance with the land use designations on the Phase II General Plan Land Use Diagram.” Here, a comprehensive plan has not yet been prepared, yet the proposed rezoning would occur in what would be a Future Focus Area. Thus, the rezoning conflicts with the General Plan.

The Project includes the following General Plan Amendment, which purports to ensure the rezoning is consistent with 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.

It is unclear how this General Plan Amendment would resolve the issue of rezoning prior to comprehensive planning, as the new Policy does not waive the prerequisite comprehensive planning. Allowing for General Plan Amendments and rezonings in combination with Future Focus Areas while also prohibiting rezoning without prerequisite comprehensive planning would be an internal inconsistency within the General Plan. It is also inconsistent with the City’s intent in adopting the current General Plan, which is to ensure proper planning for Future Focus Areas.

The Project’s proposed Policy 5.4.7-P11 is also structurally inconsistent with General Plan policies listed above because this Policy undermines the General Plan’s goals for cohesive development in Focus Areas:

General
Plan
Comment
April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Goal 5.1.1‐G1 states: “Cohesive, integrated planning that restrains premature development prior to the necessary supportive infrastructure has been programmed for each phase of the Progressive General Plan.” Goal 5.4.7‐G1 states: “All applicable prerequisites are met, and a comprehensive plan is adopted, prior to implementation of any Future Focus Area.”
And as stated in the DEIR:

Comprehensive planning is a prerequisite for new development in Santa Clara, and Focus Areas have been identified throughout the city to support and foster a diverse economic and cultural base by encouraging improvements and new development tailored to each area’s character and the quality of these areas. Future Focus Areas are intended to continue to support community vitality, and all Future Focus Areas require a detailed, comprehensive plan prior to any development approval.4
By allowing rezoning before comprehensive planning has occurred, the General Plan Amendment weakens the effectiveness of the Focus Area. As a result, the rezoning and the General Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the General Plan.

III. Prerequisite Planning and Studies Are Required Before the Greystar Project is Approved
General Plan Policy 5.1.1‐P8 provides: “Prior to approval of residential development for Phase III in any Future Focus Area, complete a comprehensive plan for each area that specifies: [land uses, street system, community design, infrastructure and utilities, etc.].” The DEIR acknowledges that the Freedom Circle Focus Area would be subject to requirements for Phase III development:

The Freedom Circle Focus Area (upon approval of the proposed General Plan amendment) would be added as a Phase III 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 4 DEIR, pg. 3-12.

General
Plan
Comment
April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Future Focus Area Goals and Policies of the General Plan, as amended (see above).5
However, the City argues that the Greystar Project is not subject to the Phase III requirements:

Although projects identified for Phase III of the General Plan require the City to perform the necessary Phase III prerequisite studies as part of the planning process, there is no near-term timeframe limit during which a Future Focus Area can be considered, which would allow for the Greystar project to be developed concurrently with the Focus Area planning process.

This reasoning is unclear and does not resolve the General Plan inconsistency. The Planning Commission should recommend against approval of the Greystar Project until a comprehensive plan has been prepared.

IV. The City Fails to Conduct a Quantitative Health Risk Analysis In our initial comments, we explained that the City’s failure to conduct a quantitative health risk analysis violates CEQA. By failing to analyze and disclose key information such as the magnitude of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) generated by the Project, and the concentration of DPM by sensitive receptors, the City fails to meet CEQA’s informational and analytical standards for EIRs. As the Court explained in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, “a sufficient discussion of significant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact.”6 In the FEIR, the City responds that analysis and disclosure of this information is not necessary. The City reasons that “[g]iven that the Greystar project would not result in a significant health risk impact, nor has the commenter provided any evidence that such an impact would occur, it is not necessary for the Draft EIR to explain in substantial detail the specific magnitude to which receptors could be adversely affected by exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) concentrations.”7
5 DEIR, pg. 3-12.
6 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 519, citing Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 514–515.
7 FEIR, response L4.31.

General
Plan
Comment
April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
The City’s reasoning is flawed, as SWAPE’s screening-level HRA shows the Project has potentially significant health risk impacts. This is substantial evidence that triggers the need for disclosure and analysis of the magnitude and concentrations of DPM.

The City argues that the HRA is not supported by substantial evidence, identifying elements of the screening-level HRA that are not representative of project-specific conditions. However, the City misconstrues the purpose of a screening-level HRA: the screening-level assessment conservatively evaluates the Project’s impacts to determine whether more rigorous analysis is necessary. As stated in SWAPE’s initial comments: “[a] Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.”8 Thus, the City’s critique of SWAPE’s HRA does not affect its conclusion that a more rigorous quantitative analysis is justified.

V. The EIR Relies on Nonbinding Air Quality Mitigation
The EIR states that the proposed Greystar Project would not result in significant air quality impacts during construction activities.9 The DEIR assumes that all heavy-duty off-road equipment would meet either U.S. EPA / CARB Tier III or IV emissions standards: the Applicant provided a list of the heavy-duty off-road equipment that would be used during construction of the Greystar Project, and all listed equipment meets meet either U.S. EPA / CARB Tier III or IV emissions standards.10 But use of Tier III and IV equipment is not included in the Project’s MMRP. As a result, this mitigation is not binding. CEQA requires that mitigation measures that are adopted by an agency must be enforceable through conditions of approval, contracts, or other means that are legally binding.11 The MMRP must be revised to explicitly require the Greystar project to use Tier III or IV equipment as described in the Applicant’s list. Therefore, potentially significant air quality impacts during construction activities remain unmitigated and the FEIR’s conclusions must be revised and recirculated for public review. 8 SWAPE initial comments, pg. 11.
9 DEIR, pg. 5-48.
10 DEIR, pg. 5-44.
11 Pub. Resources Code § 21081.6(b).

April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
VI. The DEIR Conceals Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts by Disguising Mitigation Measures as Project Design Features
When the EIR describes the Greystar Project’s construction emissions impacts, its disclosure of “unmitigated” emissions assumes use of Tier III or IV construction equipment. The EIR reasons that the Applicant provided a list of the heavy-duty off-road equipment that would be used during construction of the Greystar Project, and that the listed equipment meets meet either U.S. EPA / CARB Tier III or IV emissions standards.12
But under CEQA, it is improper to attempt to disguise mitigation measures as part of the project’s design if this obfuscates the potential significance of environmental impacts.13 In Lotus v. Department of Transportation, an EIR prepared by the California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”) contained measures to help minimize potential stress on redwood trees during highway construction, such as restorative planting, invasive plant removal, watering, and use of an arborist and specialized excavation equipment.14 The Court of Appeal held that because the EIR relied on these measures to reduce adverse impacts, they were actually mitigation measures.15 The Court of Appeal held that the EIR improperly compressed the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue because the EIR did not designate the measures as mitigation and concluded that because of the measures, no significant impacts were anticipated.16 As in Lotus, the EIR improperly compresses the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue. Just as measures like restorative planting and invasive plant removal are not project design features of a highway construction project because their purpose are to reduce adverse impacts, use of Tier III and IV equipment is not a design feature because it reduces adverse emission impacts. By assuming use of Tier III and IV equipment when disclosing the Project’s impacts, the EIR avoids disclosing significant impacts. The City must reconduct the air quality analysis, GHG analysis, and health risk analysis so that 12 DEIR, pg. 5-44.
13 Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 658 (compression of mitigation measures into project design without acknowledging potentially significant impact if effects were not mitigated violates CEQA)
14 Id. at 650.
15 Id. Lotus v. Dep't of Transp. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 651-52. 16 Id. at 656.

April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
the Project’s unmitigated impacts are accurately disclosed. Also, as explained above, the City must include use of Tier III and IV equipment in the MMRP. Once these errors are corrected, the EIR must be recirculated.

VII. The EIR Fails To Adequately Analyze and Mitigate All Potentially Significant Impacts to Biological Resources
In our initial comments, we explained that the EIR’s description of the Greystar site’s biological baseline is not supported by substantial evidence. First, the EIR fails to substantiate any details of its site visit, so it is unknown who performed the survey, methods used, the time of day when the survey began, how long the survey lasted, which portion of the Project site was covered, and weather conditions during the survey. As a result, the EIR lacks substantial evidence that the baseline is as described. Second, the EIR assumes, without scientific evidentiary support (i.e., substantial evidence), that because the Greystar site is disturbed, it has low habitat value. Conversely, Dr. Smallwood’s report provides photographic evidence that wildlife forages, nests, and moves through the site.

Third, whereas the EIR claimed the site lacked burrows, Dr. Smallwood’s site visit detected several burrow systems of California ground squirrels on the project site, which demonstrates that the site contains potential habitat for burrowing owls, and foraging grounds for carnivores. Fourth, the City failed to consult all available biological resources databases to establish which species are potentially present, even overlooking species actually seen at the Greystar site.

The City does not resolve these issues in any way in the FEIR. Dr.

Smallwood’s reply comments explain that the City’s claims regarding the sufficiency of its analysis are flawed, and the City’s environmental baseline is still not supported by substantial evidence. These errors require the City to revise its environmental setting, conduct new biological surveys, and analyze and mitigate impacts on the full spectrum of potentially present species.

VIII. Conclusion
The Planning Commission cannot recommend approval of the Project until the City complies with CEQA by preparing a legally adequate EIR for the Project.

The Project still has potentially significant impacts to public health, air quality, climate change, and biological resources, all of which remain unmitigated. The Project relies on several General Plan amendments that result in internal inconsistencies within the General Plan. Silicon Valley Residents urges the Biology
Comment
April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Planning Commission to remand the FEIR back to Staff to allow for preparation of a legally adequate EIR and recirculation to the public, as required by CEQA.

Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall
Attachments
APM:acp

EXHIBIT A
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
April 13, 2022
Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd #1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Comments on the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (SCH No. 2020060425)
Dear Mr. Marshall,
We have reviewed the March 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and the November 2021 Public Release Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (“Project”) located in the City of Santa Clara (“City”).

After our review of the FEIR, we find that the FEIR is insufficient in addressing our concerns regarding the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts. Furthermore, we find additional errors within the DEIR’s air quality analysis. As asserted in our December 17th comment letter, an updated EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential impacts.

Air Quality
Failure to Implement All Feasible Mitigation to Reduce Emissions The DEIR concludes that the Project’s operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be significantand-unavoidable (p. 5-41). Specifically, the DEIR concludes that the Project’s operational NOX and ROG emissions would exceed the applicable BAAQMD thresholds (see excerpt below) (p. 5-40, Table 5-16). 2 As a result, the DEIR determines that the Project’s operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be significant-and-unavoidable (p. 5-41). The DEIR states:
“Despite the implementation of these mitigation measures, growth allowed for under the Focus Area Plan would still be substantially more than that accounted for in the City’s General Plan and could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment. This impact would be significant and unavoidable” (p. 5-41).

However, while we agree that the Project’s operational emissions would result in a significant air quality impact, the DEIR’s conclusion that these impacts are “significant and unavoidable” is incorrect.

According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”
As demonstrated above, an impact can only be labeled as significant and unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation is considered. Here, while the DEIR includes Mitigation Measure (“MM”) 5-3C and 5- 3D, which require the use of low- and super-compliant VOC architectural coatings as well as the development of a Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) program, the DEIR and FEIR both fail to implement all feasible mitigation (p. 2.4-21). Thus, the DEIR’s conclusion that the Project’s operational criteria air pollutant impacts are significant-and-unavoidable is unsubstantiated. To reduce 3 air quality impacts to the maximum extent possible, additional feasible mitigation measures should be incorporated, such as those suggested in the section of this letter titled “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions.” Thus, the Project should not be approved until an updated EIR is prepared, incorporating all feasible mitigation to reduce emissions to less-than-significant levels.

Insufficient Mitigation Measure to Reduce Operational Air Quality Emissions Regarding the Project’s mobile-source operational emissions, the DEIR states:
“Despite the Focus Area Plan being served by frequent bus service via VTA Routes 20, 57, and 59 and featuring many amenities to help reduce trips within the Plan Area (i.e., people could walk or bike to their destination), emissions from mobile sources would still remain a substantial source of emissions associated with buildout of the Focus Area Plan. As described in Section

5.1.3.1, the SFBAAB is designated as non-attainment for ozone, and NOx and ROG/VOCs are precursors to ozone (see Section 5.1.1.1). The SFBAAB is also designated as nonattainment for state PM10 and state and federal PM2.5 air quality standards. Accordingly, the City would implement Mitigation Measure 5-3D, which requires future development within the Plan Area to develop and implement a TDM program, consistent with the City of Santa Clara’s 2013 Climate Action Plan (see Chapter 9) and 2010-2035 General Plan (City of Santa Clara 2010, 2013)” (p. 5-40).

As demonstrated above, the DEIR incorporates MM 5-3D, which states:
“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.)” (p. 5-43).

However, MM 5-3D is insufficient. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B), a lead agency must identify “the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will [be] considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measure.”1 While MM 5- 3D offers examples of TDM reduction measures (i.e. transit subsidies, telecommuting options), MM 5-3D fails to tangibly consider potential actions that could achieve the measure’s performance standard.

Thus, despite including a performance standard of reducing the Project’s anticipated vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) by 20% compared to baseline conditions, with at least 10% coming through projectspecific TDM measures, MM 5-3D fails to formally include actions that could be used to achieve this standard. As such, MM 5-3D is inadequate per CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B), and the DEIR and 1 “2019 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act Statute & Guidelines.” Association of Environmental Professionals, available at:
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2019_CEQA_Statutes_and_Guidelines.pdf, p. 194. 4 FEIR both inadequately address and mitigate the Project’s significant mobile-source operational emissions.

Screening-Level Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact As discussed in our December 17th comment letter, the DEIR failed to adequately evaluate the proposed Project’s potential health risk impacts. Review of the FEIR demonstrates that the Project again fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts. As such, we find the FEIR to be inadequate and maintain that the DEIR’s less-than-significant impact conclusion regarding the Project’s health risk impact should not be relied upon for five reasons.

First, regarding the construction-related DPM emission rate, the FEIR states:
“The construction emissions rate for DPM derived by the commenter appears to be a combination of both on- and off-site emissions (e.g., trucks hauling materials to and from the site)” (p. 2-301).

As demonstrated above, the FEIR claims that SWAPE’s HRA accounted for both on-site and off-site emissions during Project construction. This is incorrect. In order to calculate the construction-related DPM emission rate, we utilized the mitigated annual criteria air pollutant emissions summary, provided in the Supplemental Air Quality/GHG Information as Appendix 25.2 to the DEIR. Review of this summary demonstrates that almost no on-road mobile emissions were accounted for (see excerpt below) (pp. 1274, Table 2-2).

As such, the DPM emission rate utilized by SWAPE almost entirely accounts for off-road construction equipment located on-site. Thus, the DPM emissions rate is not overestimated. 5 Second, the FEIR states:
“The screening level HRA indicates that it uses PM10 exhaust estimates, while BAAQMD recommends using PM2.5 exhaust estimates (BAAQMD Guidelines, pg. 8-8)” (p. 2-301).

After further review of BAAQMD guidelines, we agree that PM2.5 exhaust estimates should have been utilized. However, review of the above-mentioned emissions summary demonstrates that the construction-related PM10 exhaust estimates and PM2.5 exhaust estimates are the almost identical (see excerpt below) (pp. 1274, Table 2-2).

As such, the construction-related emissions estimates utilized in SWAPE’s screening-level HRA are an accurate representation of Project-generated PM2.5 emissions, as recommended by BAAQMD guidance.

Regarding the operational emissions estimates, we acknowledge that PM10 exhaust emissions were incorrectly used in our screening-level HRA. However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Greystar Residential Development (2030; Mitigated)” model calculated 0.1107 tons/year of PM10 exhaust and 0.1088 tons/year of PM2.5 exhaust (see excerpt below) (Appendix 25.2, pp. 1152). 6 As such, the difference between operational PM10 exhaust emissions and PM2.5 exhaust emissions is only

0.0019 tons/year. Thus, the difference is negligible.

Third, the FEIR states:
“The operational emissions estimate used by the commenter came from the Greystar Project (2030) Unmitigated CalEEMod run. The Greystar Project would be subject to mitigation that would reduce emissions” (p. 2-301).

However, the FEIR’s claim that we utilized unmitigated operational emissions estimates is incorrect. As indicated above, we utilized the mitigated operational emissions estimates calculated in the “Greystar Residential Development (2030; Mitigated)” model (Appendix 25.2, pp. 1152).

Fourth, regarding the operational DPM emission rate, the FEIR states:
“The operational emissions rate derived by the commenter incorrectly assumes that all PM2.5 exhaust emissions from the Project (i.e., from area, energy, and mobile sources) would be 100 percent DPM, and that all the Project’s emissions would occur within the 13.3-acre area” (p. 2- 302).

Furthermore, the FEIR states:
“[I]t is not appropriate to assume all mobile source emissions would be generated within the

13.3-acre Project site, as reflected in the emissions rate and, ultimately, the area modeled by the commenter. Mobile sources would operate primarily outside of the Plan Area, distributing the same quantity of pollutants over a greater area and resulting in lower concentrations than that assumed by the commenter” (p. 2-302).

We acknowledge that the operational DPM emission rate utilized by SWAPE is overestimated. As the DEIR and associated documents did not provide the on-site DPM emissions associated with Project 7 operation, we were unable to calculate a more precise emission rate. Regardless, we have included our screening-level HRA below, now only accounting for construction emissions, in order to not artificially inflate the Project’s cancer risk (see table below).
2 The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions
Source
Duration
(years)
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Breathing
Rate (L/kg-day)
Cancer Risk
(without ASFs*) ASF Cancer Risk(with ASFs*)
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.2212 361 2.56E-07 10 2.56E-06 Infant
(Age 0 - 2) Construction 2 0.2212 1090 6.18E-06 10 6.18E-05 Construction 1.75 0.2212 572 2.40E-06
Operation 12.25 * 572 *
Child
(Age 2 - 16) Total 14 * 3 *
Adult
(Age 16 - 30) Operation 14 * 261 * 1 *
Lifetime 30 6.43E-06 6.43E-05
* Operational cancer risk not accounted for.

As you can see in the excerpt above, the excess cancer risk over the course of Project construction is

64.3 in one million, which still exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million and results in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the DEIR or FEIR.

To conclude, we reiterate our December 17th comment that our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection.3 The purpose of the screening-level construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project’s emissions and the potential health risk. According to the U.S. EPA:
“EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.

EPA, 1992).

In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment). 2 Methodology discussed in SWAPE’s December 17th comment letter. 3 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 1-5 8 The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screeninglevel assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.”4 As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. Because our screening-level HRA demonstrates that the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, the City should prepare an updated, refined quantitative health risk analysis which more accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in a significant air quality impact that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’sAir Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”), as described below: 5 SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-AQ-1:

In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.

Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. 4 “Exposure Assessment Tools by Tiers and Types - Screening-Level and Refined.” U.S. EPA, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/expobox/exposure-assessment-tools-tiers-and-types-screening-level-and-refined. 5 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –

4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. 9 q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters. bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. - Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. - Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. - Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
- Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. - The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:

1. Source of supply

2. Quantity of fuel
10 3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency:
- Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways and shorter block lengths, sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters, traffic calming measures, parks and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers. - Provide traffic calming measures, such as:
i. Marked crosswalks
ii. Count-down signal timers
iii. Curb extensions iv. Speed tables
iv. Raised crosswalks
v. Raised intersections
vi. Median islands
vii. Tight corner radii
viii. Roundabouts or mini-circles
ix. On-street parking
x. Chicanes/chokers
- Create urban non-motorized zones
- Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi-unit residential projects - Dedicate land for bike trails
- Limit parking supply through:
i. Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements ii. Creation of maximum parking requirements
iii. Provision of shared parking
- Require residential area parking permit.
- Provide ride-sharing programs
i. Designate a certain percentage of parking spacing for ride sharing vehicles ii. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles
iii. Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides iv. Permanent transportation management association membership and finding requirement.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project operation. An updated EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The updated EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was 11 reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

ProfessionalCertifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
ProfessionalExperience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment A
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications forlarge solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peerreview of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te ri zati on and Cl ean up at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment B

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Attachment B Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
Attachment B
Greystar General Plan Amendment Project Quantitative Construction Health Risk Assessment
FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Attachment B Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

Memo
To: John Davidson and Alexander Abbe, City of Santa Clara CC: Ray Pendro, MIG, and Chris Butcher, Thomas Law Group From: Phil Gleason and Chris Dugan
Date: May 11, 2022
SUBJECT: Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction Health Risk Assessment This memorandum describes the methodology and results of a quantitative health risk assessment (HRA) prepared for the proposed Greystar General Plan Amendment Project. This memorandum has been prepared to further affirm the significance conclusions drawn in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2020060425; City of Santa Clara 2021). As explained in this memorandum, construction emission associated with the proposed project would not result in cancerogenic health risks that exceed the BAAQMD-recommended significance threshold of 10 excess cancers per million population.

Project Description
The Greystar Project proposes the development of three buildings with 1,075 residential units and 2,000 square feet of retail space, plus a 2.0-acre park. The 13.3-acre Greystar site lies within the Freedom Circle Focus Area and is bounded by San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east, Freedom Circle to the west, and Highway 101 in Santa Clara.

Construction activities associated with development of the proposed Greystar Project would generally include: clearing and grubbing; mass excavation; structural concrete work, including structural framing and rough in; and exterior / interior work, including structural framing / rough in and site work / landscaping. In total, construction of the Greystar Project is anticipated to last approximately 48 months, beginning in the middle of 2023 and concluding in the middle of 2027, and require the net off-haul of approximately 71,500 cubic yards of soil. 1 The specific types of heavy-duty, off-road equipment would vary between the construction phases, depending on the types of activities being undertaken, but would require the use of backhoes, graders, excavators, mini excavators, scrapers, bulldozers, cranes, telehandlers (e.g., Gradalls), and tractors / loaders. The Applicant, Greystar, provided a list of the heavy-duty off-road equipment that would be used during construction of the Greystar Project, as well as the number of hauling and vendor trips that are anticipated per construction phase. Attachment 1 provides a full breakdown of the construction schedule, heavy-duty equipment operating characteristics by phase, and worker, vendor, and hauling trip details, as provided by Greystar. 1 The Applicant, Greystar, has indicated that the project’s timeline has been delayed by approximately one year. The date ranges presented in this memorandum are approximately one year later than that presented in the EIR. Other construction parameters (e.g., hauling, vendor, worker trips; off-road equipment operating characteristics; etc.) were also confirmed with the Applicant prior to initiating the health risk analysis contained in this memorandum.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 2 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Construction Exhaust PM2.5 Modeling Methodology
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate on- and off-site exhaust emissions, including diesel particulate matter (DPM), in the form of PM2.5. The specific quantity of emissions emitted at any given time would be dependent on the type and number of pieces of equipment operating, the equipment’s engine classification, the equipment’s horsepower, and the load the engine is under. Off-site emissions would be generated from haul trucks used to export waste and soil to and from the site and from vendor trips used to deliver construction materials (e.g., rebar, concrete, lumber, etc.) to the site. This analysis also includes potential DPM emissions that could be generated by workers commuting to and from the site.

The U.S. EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model (version 21112) was used to predict pollutant concentrations at existing sensitive residential receptors (Santa Clara Square Apartments) located approximately 770 feet southwest of the Greystar Project site.2 The AERMOD dispersion model is an EPA-approved and BAAQMD-recommended model for simulating the dispersion of pollutant emissions and estimating concentrations of pollutants at specified receptor locations. AERMOD requires the user to input information on the source(s) of pollutants being modeled, the receptors where pollutant concentrations are modeled, and the meteorology, terrain, and other factors that affect the potential dispersion of pollutants. These variables are described below.

Modeled Construction Sources / Emission Rates
On- and off-site construction emissions were modeled as a series of area and line area sources, as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.
2 This is the distance from the Greystar Project’s southern property line to the receptor location. The majority of construction activities at the Greystar Project site would take place 1,200 feet or more from these receptors Table 1: AERMOD Source Parameters
Source ID Source Description
UTM Coordinates(A) Size
(m2 X Y )
PAREA01 Year 1: On-site Building C (North) 591229.6 4138492.0 5,506.5 PAREA02 Year 1: On-site Building C (Central) 591192.3 4138390.8 5,500.0 PAREA03 Year 1: On-site Building C (South) 591171.6 4138327.1 3,253.6 PAREA04 Year 1: On-site Park (North) 591172.3 4138312.9 4,976.9 PAREA05 Year 1: On-site Park (South) 591173.2 4138258.9 4,230.8 PAREA06 Year 1: On-site Building B (North) 591168.6 4138230.3 6,551.7 PAREA07 Year 1: On-site Building B (Central) 591125.4 4138173.2 5,717.4 PAREA08 Year 1: On-site Building B (South) 591147.1 4138130.4 5,150.2 PAREA09 Year 1: On-site Building A (North) 591161.4 4138088.3 4,818.2 PAREA10 Year 1: On-site Building A (Central) 591151.9 4138051.6 4,811.5 PAREA11 Year 1: On-site Building A (South) 591143.4 4138020.1 5,891.6 PAREA12 Year 2: On-site Building C (North) 591229.6 4138492.0 5,506.5 PAREA13 Year 2: On-site Building C (Central) 591192.3 4138390.8 5,500.0 PAREA14 Year 2: On-site Building C (South) 591171.6 4138327.1 3,253.6 PAREA15 Year 2: On-site Park (North) 591172.3 4138312.9 4,976.9 PAREA16 Year 2: On-site Park (South) 591173.2 4138258.9 4,230.8 Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 3 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Table 1: AERMOD Source Parameters
Source ID Source Description
UTM Coordinates(A) Size
(m2 X Y )
PAREA17 Year 2: On-site Building B (North) 591168.6 4138230.3 6,551.7 PAREA18 Year 2: On-site Building B (Central) 591125.4 4138173.2 5,717.4 PAREA19 Year 2: On-site Building B (South) 591147.1 4138130.4 5,150.2 PAREA20 Year 2: On-site Building A (North) 591161.4 4138088.3 4,818.2 PAREA21 Year 2: On-site Building A (Central) 591151.9 4138051.6 4,811.5 PAREA22 Year 2: On-site Building A (South) 591143.4 4138020.1 5,891.6 PAREA23 Year 3: On-site Building C (North) 591229.6 4138492.0 5,506.5 PAREA24 Year 3: On-site Building C (Central) 591192.3 4138390.8 5,500.0 PAREA25 Year 3: On-site Building C (South) 591171.6 4138327.1 3,253.6 PAREA26 Year 3: On-site Park (North) 591172.3 4138312.9 4,976.9 PAREA27 Year 3: On-site Park (South) 591173.2 4138258.9 4,230.8 PAREA28 Year 3: On-site Building B (North) 591168.6 4138230.3 6,551.7 PAREA29 Year 3: On-site Building B (Central) 591125.4 4138173.2 5,717.4 PAREA30 Year 3: On-site Building B (South) 591147.1 4138130.4 5,150.2 PAREA31 Year 3: On-site Building A (North) 591161.4 4138088.3 4,818.2 PAREA32 Year 3: On-site Building A (Central) 591151.9 4138051.6 4,811.5 PAREA33 Year 3: On-site Building A (South) 591143.4 4138020.1 5,891.6 PAREA34 Year 4: On-site Building C (North) 591229.6 4138492.0 5,506.5 PAREA35 Year 4: On-site Building C (Central) 591192.3 4138390.8 5,500.0 PAREA36 Year 4: On-site Building C (South) 591171.6 4138327.1 3,253.6 PAREA37 Year 4: On-site Park (North) 591172.3 4138312.9 4,976.9 PAREA38 Year 4: On-site Park (South) 591173.2 4138258.9 4,230.8 PAREA39 Year 4: On-site Building B (North) 591168.6 4138230.3 6,551.7 PAREA40 Year 4: On-site Building B (Central) 591125.4 4138173.2 5,717.4 PAREA41 Year 4: On-site Building B (South) 591147.1 4138130.4 5,150.2 PAREA42 Year 4: On-site Building A (North) 591161.4 4138088.3 4,818.2 PAREA43 Year 4: On-site Building A (Central) 591151.9 4138051.6 4,811.5 PAREA44 Year 4: On-site Building A (South) 591143.4 4138020.1 5,891.6 ARLN01 Year 1: Off-site East of Site 591150.7 4138204.3 2,054.2(B) ARLN02 Year 1: Off-site West of Site 590233.5 4138214.6 2,461.0(B) ARLN03 Year 2: Off-site East of Site 591150.7 4138204.3 2,054.2(B) ARLN04 Year 2: Off-site West of Site 590233.5 4138214.6 2,461.0(B) ARLN05 Year 3: Off-site East of Site 591150.7 4138204.3 2,054.2(B) ARLN06 Year 3: Off-site West of Site 590233.5 4138214.6 2,461.0(B) ARLN07 Year 4: Off-site East of Site 591150.7 4138204.3 2,054.2(B) ARLN08 Year 4: Off-site West of Site 590233.5 4138214.6 2,461.0(B) (A) UTM coordinates represent the northwest corner of the source. (B) Reflects length of line area source in meters.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 4 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Figure 1: Modeled Construction Emissions Sources
Consistent with BAAQMD-recommendations, PM2.5 construction exhaust emissions were presumed to be 100 percent DPM.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 5 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
The HRA conducted for the Project evaluates health risks for two emissions scenarios. • EIR Scenario 1 (Emissions from Tier III and Tier IV Equipment): Potential PM2.5 exhaust emissions from the operation of heavy-duty off-road construction equipment (e.g., scrapers, excavators, etc.) were estimated using U.S. EPA Tier III and IV emission factors. The specific emissions factor applied to each piece of off-road equipment was based on information provided by Greystar. This scenario is consistent with the methodology utilized to estimate emissions in the EIR.
• OFFROAD2021Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet Emissions): To develop the emission factors associated with each piece of off-road construction equipment that would be needed for the project under this scenario, OFFROAD20213 was first used to generate an emissions inventory for the Santa Clara County “Construction and Mining” industrial category for the year 2022.4 Equipment was aggregated to include all model years. This approach allows for the identification of typical characteristics for off-road vehicle equipment in the county. The emissions inventory provided the total pollutant emissions (in tons per day) and equipment activity in the county (in annual horsepowerhours (hp-hrs)). Total daily pollutant emissions were then multiplied by 365 (to convert to tons per year), converted to grams, and then divided by total hp-hrs to derive an emissions rate in terms of grams per horsepower hour (g/hp-hr) for each vehicle classification (e.g., excavators, graders, etc.) and horsepower bin (e.g., 100 hp to 175 hp). To estimate the total mass of PM2.5 emissions from a piece of off-road construction equipment, the equipment’s horsepower was multiplied by the emissions factor (g/hp-hr), its total daily runtime hours, its engine load factor, and the anticipated duration of use (in days).5
Mobile source emissions (i.e., from on-road sources – hauling, vendor, and worker trips) were estimated using EMFAC2021 emissions factors for Santa Clara County in year 2022.

Attachment 1 contains additional details regarding the number of trips and trip distances. The on-road mobile source emissions were the same for both Scenarios 1 and 2.

The emissions inventories for Scenarios 1 and 2 were utilized to develop an emissions factor for each source identified in Table 1. Total mass emissions were assigned to each project element (i.e., on-site emissions for Building A, Building, B, Building C, and Park; and off-site emissions) based on detailed phasing information provided by Greystar. For example, as shown in Attachment 1, the project would generally be constructed such that Building A would be finished first, followed by Building B, then Building C, and finally the Park. Emissions estimates were assigned to each project element on a monthly basis, based on where construction activities were taking place that month and where vendor materials would be used onsite. A portion of the 3 OFFROAD2021 is CARB’s database of off-road diesel vehicles and equipment information (e.g., population, age, activity levels, emission rates) and associated emissions levels for different geographic regions (e.g., at the air basin, air district, county, or statewide level). OFFROAD2021 is composed of 18 primary industrial categories, one of which is “Construction and Mining.” The equipment associated with each industrial category is broken down into sub-classifications based on equipment type and horsepower bin. For example, under the “Construction and Mining” category, there are several types of construction equipment listed (e.g., bore/drill rigs, excavators, graders) broken down by engine horsepower ranges (e.g., 75 hp to 100 hp, 100 hp to 175 hp).
4 Although construction is not anticipated to begin until 2023, the emissions estimates for this scenario conservatively use equipment characteristics from year 2022. This is conservative, because in later years off-road equipment would, on average, be cleaner burning (i.e., emit less pollutants) than equipment in 2022. 5 This is the same methodology employed in the EIR for developing off-road equipment emissions rates and mass emissions for criteria air pollutants not affected by Tier III and Tier IV emissions standards; namely reactive organic gases (ROG) and sulfur oxides (SOx).

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 6 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
hauling and vendor emissions were also added to on-site sources to reflect on-road vehicles operating within the project site itself (e.g., a haul truck driving on-site to receive a new load).6 Emissions, by project element, were then summed on an annual basis, based on linear years of construction,7 and converted to an average emissions rate in terms of grams / second per hour of construction activity.8 Mass emissions from the various project elements were split across two-to-three sources due to the relatively large area in which construction activities would take place for each project element (i.e., several acres per project element).

On-site DPM emissions were modeled as area sources with a release height of five (5) meters (m); this elevated source height reflects the height of the equipment exhaust pipes, plus an additional distance for the height of the exhaust plume above the exhaust pipes to account for the plume rise of the exhaust gases. The Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) recommends a release height of 5 meters. Since the BAAQMD does not have a recommended release height for PM2.5 exhaust emissions generated by construction equipment, the SMAQMD’s release height has been used instead (SMAQMD 2013).

Off-site DPM emissions from vehicles were modeled as line area source with a release height of

4.15 meters, the approximate height of a truck exhaust.9 Mobile source emissions were generally split evenly between roadway segments west of the site (i.e., Freedom Circle, Mission College Boulevard, and Bowers Avenue west of the site) and east of the site (i.e., Freedom Circle, Mission College Boulevard and Montague Expressway east of the site).10 Meteorological Data Inputs
AERMOD requires meteorological data as an input into the model. The meteorological data is processed using AERMET, a pre-processor to AERMOD. AERMET requires surface meteorological data, upper air meteorological data, and surface parameter data such as albedo (reflectivity) and surface roughness.

For the proposed project, pre-processed surface data was obtained from the BAAQMD for two meteorological stations in proximity of the Project site; San Jose International Airport (KSJC) and Moffett Federal Airfield (KNUQ) (see Figure 2). Upper air data was obtained from Oakland International Airport, since this is the closest upper air meteorological station with data available.

These data sets contained five complete years of meteorological data from January 2013 to December 2017. The meteorological data was processed using AERMET version 18081 with the adjusted U*. Emissions were modeled to be generated during potential construction hours only.
6 For hauling, the emissions from 1 mile out of the 46.7 miles (per trip) were assigned to on-site sources. For vendor trips, the emissions from 0.5 miles out of the 7.3 miles (per trip) were assigned to on-site sources. For context, the site is approximately

0.35 miles from its northern extent to its southern extent. 7 For example, emissions generated from July 2023 through June 2024 comprise Year 1 emissions, July 2024 through June 2025 comprise Year 2 emissions, and so on.
8 Consistent with EIR Mitigation Measure 13-2, emissions from construction activities were assumed to only occur during the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturday. 9 The release height of 4.15 meters is based on the modeling inputs from CARB’s 2000 Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, Appendix VII, Table 2. Although the inputs in the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan are for a “truck stop,” the release height has been used in other studies, including CARB’s HRA for the Union Pacific Railyard in Oakland (CARB 2000, CARB 2008). 10 Emissions from hauling are the one exception to this; they were assumed to only travel on the roadways east and south of the site. The roadways east and south of the site would provide the most direct routes to locations where on-site soils would be disposed of.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 7 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
The BAAQMD recommended the San Jose International Airport data be used for the HRA (BAAQMD 2022); however, AERMOD model runs were conducted using both sets of meteorological data as a conservative practice.

Figure 2: Wind Rose for San Jose International Airport and Moffett Federal Airfield San Jose International Airport
Moffett Federal Airfield
Source: BAAQMD 2019 and 2022
Note: Wind roses are for the 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM timeframe.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 8 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Terrain Inputs
Terrain was incorporated by using AERMAP (an AERMOD pre-processor) to import the elevation of the project site and surrounding area using data from the National Elevation Dataset (NED) with a resolution of 1/3 arcsecond.

Modeled Receptors
A 1,500-meter by 1,500-meter grid was generated with a receptor spacing of 75 meters. The grid’s center coordinates were 591216.00m E and 4138242.00m N. The grid was converted to discrete Cartesian receptors. Receptors that were located within the project site (and associated, modeled area sources) were removed. An additional 400-meter by 280-meter grid was generated over the Santa Clara Square Apartment Homes with a spacing of 20 meters.

This grid was also converted to discrete Cartesian receptors. In total, there were 731 modeled receptors. Consistent with BAAQMD modeling protocol, receptor height was set to 1.5 meters; the approximate an average human breathing zone (BAAQMD 2020).

Health Risk Analysis Methodology
Cancer risk and non-cancer health risks to sensitive receptors within one-quarter mile of on-site sources were estimated using the U.S. EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model and recommendations contained in the BAAQMD’s Health Risks Assessment Modeling Protocol, as well as the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual (BAAQMD 2020; OEHHA 2015).

Cancer Risk
Cancer risk is the calculated, pollutant-specific estimated probability of developing cancer based upon the dose and exposure to the toxic air contaminants (TAC). Cancer risk is determined by calculating the combinatory effects of the cancer potency factor (CPF) when inhaling the toxic, the daily inhalation dose, the age group the receptor is cohort to, the duration of exposure over a lifetime (70 years), and other factors such as age sensitivity and the amount of time spent at the location of exposure. Risks were assessed for the inhalation pathway (i.e., breathing) for both residential receptors. Additionally, residential receptors were assessed under a 70-year exposure duration to further detail potential risk to those under lifetime exposure. Cancer risk equations for residential receptors are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3.

Receptor exposure was assessed for the four years in which construction activities would take place and the receptors would be exposed to construction PM2.5 emissions. The exposure time is consistent with the construction schedule described in the project’s EIR.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 9 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Table 2: Cancer Risk Equations
Equation 1 – Residential Risk: 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼.𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴 .𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
× 𝐹𝐹
Where:

DOSEAIR
=
Daily Inhalation Dose (mg/kg-day). See Table 3.

CPF = Cancer Potency Factor for Inhalants (mg/kg-day). CPF is expressed as the 95th percent upper confidence limit of the slope of the dose response curve under continuous lifetime exposure conditions. The CPF for diesel exhaust is 1.1 mg/kg-day.

ASF = Age Sensitivity Factor. ASF is a protective coefficient intended to take into account increased susceptibility to long-term health effects from early-life exposure to TACs. The recommended ASFs are 10 for the third-trimester to birth and two-year age bins, 3 for the two-year to nine-year and 16-year age bins, and 1 for receptors over 16 years of age.

ED = Exposure Duration (years). Exposure duration characterizes the length of residency (30 Years) or employment (25 Years) of the receptor.

AT = Averaging Time (years). A 70-year (lifetime) averaging time is used to characterize to total risk as a factor of average risk over a typical lifespan.

FAH = Fraction at Home. FAH is the percentage of time the receptor is physically at the receptor location. The recommended percentages are 85 percent for the thirdtrimester to birth and two-year age bins, 72 percent for the two-year to nine-year and 16-year age bins, and 73 for receptors over 16 years of age.

Table 3: Inhalation Dose Equations
Residential Dose 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴 .𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴 ×
𝐵𝐵
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
× 𝐴𝐴 × × 10−6
Where:

CAIR = Concentration of TAC in air (µg/m3). Concentration of toxic in micrograms per one cubic meter of air. The AERMOD program is used in the study to determine concentrations of diesel particulate matter at surrounding discrete and grid receptor points.

BR/BW = Breathing Rate ÷ Body Weight (L/kg/day). Daily breathing rate normalized to body weight. The 95th percentile breathing rate to body weight ratios are used in this study with a recommended 361 L/kg/day for the third-trimester to birth age bin and 1,090 L/kg/day for the birth to two-years age bin. The 80th percentile breathing rate to body weight ratios are used in this study with a recommended 572 for the two-years to 16-years age bin, 261 L/kg/day for the 16-years to 30- years age bin, and 233 L/kg/day for the 16-years to 70-years age bin.

A = Inhalation Absorption Factor. Is a coefficient that reflects the fraction of chemical absorbed in studies used in the development of CPF and Reference Exposure Levels (RELs). An absorption factor of one is recommended for all chemicals.

EF = Exposure Frequency. EF is the ratio of days in a year that a receptor is receiving the dose. The recommended EF is 0.96 characterizing an assumed 350 days a year that a residential receptor is home for some portion of the day.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 10 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Non-Cancer Risk
The chronic non-cancer hazard quotient is the calculated pollutant-specific indicator for risk of developing an adverse health effect on specific organ system(s) targeted by the identified TAC, in this DPM. The potential for exposure to result in chronic non-cancer effects is evaluated by comparing the estimated annual average air concentration to the chemical-specific, non-cancer chronic reference exposure levels (RELs). The REL is a concentration below which there is assumed to be no observable adverse health impact to a target organ system. When calculated for a single chemical, the comparison yields a ratio termed a hazard quotient. To evaluate the potential for adverse chronic non-cancer health effects from simultaneous exposure to multiple chemicals, the hazard quotients for all chemicals are summed, yielding a hazard index. The chronic REL for DPM was established by OEHHA as 5 μg/m3. For an acute hazard quotient, the one-hour maximum concentration is divided by the acute REL for the substance; however, there is no acute REL for DPM.

Chronic non-cancer risks are considered significant if a project’s TAC emissions result in a hazard index greater than or equal to one. Non-cancer risk equations are summarized in Table

4. Table 4: Non-Cancer Risk Equation
Chronic Hazard Quotient: 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 = 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Where:

HIDPM = Hazard Index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects.

CDPM = Annual average DPM concentration (μg/m3).

RELDPM = Reference exposure level (REL) for DPM; the DPM concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated.

Discussion of Scaling Health Risk Values
The AERMOD model was run once for each meteorological file (i.e., once for San Jose International Airport and once for Moffett Federal Airfield), utilizing the emissions rates calculated for the project based on the use of Tier III and Tier IV equipment/emissions factors (i.e., Scenario 1 (Tier III and IV)). The health risk values presented for OFFROAD2021 Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) in the following section, “Health Risk Assessment Results”, are based on the difference (ratio-wise) between mass emissions of PM2.5 for off-road sources in EIR Scenario 1 and OFFROAD2021 Scenario 2.11 Table 5 below shows the estimated mass emissions of PM2.5 by linear construction year for Scenarios 1 and 2 and presents the ratios of these differences.
11 This approach to scaling is slightly conservative, as it also increases risks associated with receptor exposure to DPM from onroad vehicles (hauling, vendor, and worker trips). In actuality, there would be no difference in risks between the two scenarios associated with DPM emissions (and corresponding concentrations) from on-road vehicles. Thus, including those concentrations (and risk contributions from those concentrations) in the parameter being scaled would result in a slightly higher outcome than if only the off-road emissions were being scaled.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 11 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Table 5: Off-road Project Construction DPM Emissions for Scenarios 1 and 2, and Scaling Values
Linear Year of
Construction
Off-road Equipment DPM Exhaust Emissions
(PM2.5 Tons per Year) Scaling Factor
(Ratio of
Scenario 2 to 1)
EIR Scenario 1
(Tier III and IV
Equipment)
OFFROAD2021 Scenario
2 (Average County-wide
Fleet)
Year 1 0.04 0.11 2.83
Year 2 0.08 0.08 1.01
Year 3 0.12 0.09 0.74
Year 4 0.14 0.08 0.57
Source: MIG, 2022 (see Attachment 1)
As shown in Table 5, Scenario 2 emissions are approximately 283% greater in Year 1 than Scenario 1 emissions. Therefore, health risks calculated for Scenario 1 would be scaled up by approximately 2.83 for Year 1. Similarly, Scenario 1 risks are scaled by approximately 1.01 in Year 2, 0.74 in Year 3, and 0.57 in Year 4.

It is observed that, based on OFFROAD2021, the average blend of construction equipment operating in Santa Clara County during Year 2022 has an emissions profile somewhere between Tier III and Tier IV emissions standards. As shown in Table 5, the off-road DPM emissions calculated for Scenario 1 generally reflect a greater blend of Tier IV equipment earlier on in the construction schedule (Year 1), while a greater blend of Tier III equipment is utilized toward the end of construction (Years 3 and 4). Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) has more emissions than Scenario 1 (mainly comprised of Tier IV equipment, as noted previously) in Year 1, which demonstrates that the county-wide fleet, on average, emits more PM2.5 exhaust than Tier IV equipment alone. In contrast, emissions in Years 3 and 4 for Scenario 2 are lower than Scenario 1 (i.e., where more equipment meets Tier III emissions standards), which indicates that the county-wide fleet in later years emits less PM2.5 exhaust than Tier III equipment. This indicates that the equipment’s emissions profile by Greystar is in line with typical construction emissions rates characteristics throughout the county.

Construction Health Risk Assessment Results
The results of the construction HRA are presented below. The AERMOD output files for the project are contained in Attachment 2.

Individual Cancer Risk from Exposure to DPM (San Jose International Airport Met Data) The predicted locations of the annual, point of maximum impact (PMI) and the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) for DPM exposure during construction along with contours of pollutant concentrations in proximity of the Project site are shown in Attachment 3. Figure 1 through Figure 4 of Attachment 3 depict DPM concentrations for construction Year 1 through Year 4, respectively. See Attachment 4 for the HRA calculations. The predicted PMI is located to the east of the Building A construction area for Year 1 and Year 3, to the southeast of Building B for Year 2, and southeast of Building C for Year 4.12 Since the PMIs for DPM exposure are located on land that is not occupied by a receptor on a permanent basis, lifetime 12 The PMI for Year 1 and Year 3 is located at 591291.00 m E, 4138017.00 m N; at 591291.00 m E, 4138092.00 m N for Year 2; and at 591291.00 m E, 4138317.00 m N for Year 4.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 12 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
excess cancer risks and chronic non-cancer health hazards, which are based on exposure to annual average pollutant concentrations, were not estimated for the modeled PMI locations.

Accordingly, health risks were assessed at the modeled residential MEIR location, which is located southwest of the project site at a multi-family residential building (the northeastern-most building of the Santa Clara Square Apartments) located at the corner of Augustine Drive and Octavius Drive, in the City of Santa Clara (565524.25 m E, 4151934 m N). The HRA for residential receptors evaluated worst-case carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks to child (3rd trimester, 0-2 years, and 2-16 years) and adult (16-30 years and 30-70 years) receptors.

The potential incremental increase in cancerogenic health risk for receptors exposed to construction exhaust emissions associated with Scenario 1 (Tier III and IV) and Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) are shown below in Table 6.

Table 6: Incremental Increase in Cancer Risk from Exposure to Total Project Construction DPM Emissions (San Jose International Airport Met Data) Starting Receptor Age Range at Year 1 of
Project Construction
Health Risk Increase at MEIR(A)(B)
(Total Excess Cancer Risk per Million
Population)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2(C)
Residential Infant Receptor (3rd Trimester) 0.3 0.5
Residential Child Receptor (1-2 Years of Age) 0.2 0.3
Residential Child Receptor (2-16 Years of Age) 0.1 0.1
Residential Adult Receptor (16 to 30 Years of Age) <0.1 <0.1 Residential Adult Receptor (30 to 70 Years of Age) <0.1 <0.1 BAAQMD Significance Threshold 10 10
Threshold Exceeded? No No
Source: MIG, 2022 (see Attachment 4)
(A) MEIR is located at 591165.00 m E and 4137730.00 m N. (B) Risks presented are representative of receptor’s age at time of construction. For example, “Residential Infant Receptor (3rd Trimester)” accounts for risks associated with exposure from 3rd Trimester (Year 1) through age 4 (Year 4); “Residential Child Receptor (1-2)” accounts for risks associated with exposure from age 1 (Year 1) through age 5 (Year 4); and so on. (C) Scenario 2 risks based on Scenario 1 yearly risks scaled based on the factors provided in Table 5.

As shown in Table 6, construction exhaust emissions associated with Scenario 1 (Tier III and IV) and Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) would have the potential to result in maximum incremental cancerogenic health risk increases of 0.3 and 0.5, respectively, for receptors that are at 3rd Trimester age at the beginning of construction. Both of these risk values are well below the BAAQMD’s threshold of 10 excess cancers in a million.

In addition to assessing potential cancerogenic health risk increases based on receptor exposure throughout the entire duration of construction activities, an additional analysis was conducted to evaluate potential cancerogenic health risk increases if receptors were born at the beginning of Year 2 construction and Year 3 construction, due to varying pollutant concentrations across the different years. Table 7 below shows the potential increase in cancerogenic health risk for receptors of 3rd Trimester of age for construction activities beginning in Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3.13
13 Note that potential health risks associated with a receptor that is of 3rd Trimester age at the beginning of Year 4 of construction has not been estimated, because the DPM concentrations at the MEIR are lower for that construction in that year than years prior. This is true for both Scenarios 1 and 2.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 13 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Table 7: Maximum Increased Cancer Risk from Project Construction DPM Emissions for Infant Receptors Based on Year of Birth (San Jose International Airport Met Data)
Starting Year of Exposure
Health Risk Increase at MEIR(A)
(Total Excess Cancer Risk per Million
Population)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2(B)
Year 1 0.3(C) 0.5(C)
Year 2 0.5 0.4
Year 3 0.4 0.3
BAAQMD Significance Threshold 10 10
Threshold Exceeded? No No
Source: MIG, 2022 (see Attachment 4)
(A) MEIR is located at 591165.00 m E and 4137730.00 m N. The MEIR is located at the same location for all years of construction.
(B) Scenario 2 risks based on Scenario 1 yearly risks scaled based on the factors provided in Table 5). (C) This value is the same as that presented in Table 6.

As shown in in Table 7, the maximum incremental increase in cancer risk for a 3rd Trimester residential receptor would be 0.5 for Scenario 1, if the receptor was born in Year 2 of construction, and 0.5 for Scenario 2, if the receptor was born in Year 1 of construction. The potential incremental increase in cancer risk would be well below the BAAQMD’s significance threshold of 10.0 for both scenarios.

Individual Cancer Risk from Exposure to DPM (Moffett Federal Airfield Met Data) The predicted locations of the annual, point of maximum impact (PMI) and the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) for DPM exposure during construction along with contours of pollutant concentrations in proximity of the Project site are shown in Attachment 3. Figure 5 through Figure 8 of Attachment 3 depict DPM concentrations for construction Year 1 through Year 4, respectively. The predicted PMI is located to the southeast of Building A construction area for Year 1 and Year 3, to the south of Building A for Year 2, and east of the Park for Year

4.14 Since the PMI for DPM exposure is located on land that is not occupied by a receptor on a permanent basis, lifetime excess cancer risks and chronic non-cancer health hazards, which are based on exposure to annual average pollutant concentrations, were not estimated for the modeled PMI location.

Accordingly, health risks were assessed at the modeled residential MEIR location, which is located southwest of the project site at a multi-family residential building (the northeastern-most building of the Santa Clara Square Apartments) located at the corner of Augustine Drive and Octavius Drive, in the City of Santa Clara (565524.25 m E, 4151934 m N). The HRA for residential receptors evaluated worst-case carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks to child (3rd trimester, 0-2 years, and 2-16 years) and adult (16-30 years and 30-70 years) receptors.

The potential incremental increase in cancerogenic health risk for receptors exposed to construction exhaust emissions associated with EIR Scenario 1 (Tier III and IV) and OFFROAD2021 Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) are shown below in Table 8. 14 The PMI for Year 1 and Year 3 is located at 591291.00 m E, 4137942.00 m N; at 591216.00 m E, 4137492.00 m N for Year 2; and at 591291.00 m E, 4138424.00 m N for Year 4.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 14 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Table 8: Incremental Increase in Cancer Risk from Exposure to Total Project Construction DPM Emissions (Moffett Federal Airfield Met Data) Starting Receptor Age Range at Year 1 of
Project Construction
Health Risk Increase at MEIR(A)(B)
(Excess Cancer Risk per Million
Population)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2(C)
Residential Infant Receptor (3rd Trimester) 4.1 6.0
Residential Child Receptor (1-2 Years of Age) 2.2 3.9
Residential Child Receptor (2-16 Years of Age) 1.3 1.4
Residential Adult Receptor (16 to 30 Years of Age) 0.1 0.2 Residential Adult Receptor (30 to 70 Years of Age) 0.1 0.1 BAAQMD Significance Threshold 10 10
Threshold Exceeded? No No
Source: MIG, 2022 (see Attachment 4)
(A) MEIR is located at 591165.00m E and 4137730.00m N
(B) Risks presented are representative of receptor’s age at time of construction. For example, “Residential Infant Receptor (3rd Trimester)” accounts for risks associated with exposure from 3rd Trimester (Year 1) through age 4 (Year 4); “Residential Child Receptor (1-2)” accounts for risks associated with exposure from age 1 (Year 1) through age 5 (Year 4); and so on. (C) Scenario 2 risks based on Scenario 1 yearly risks scaled based on the factors provided in Table 5).

As shown in Table 8, construction exhaust emissions associated with Scenario 1 (Tier III and IV) and Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) would have the potential to result in maximum incremental cancerogenic health risk increases of 4.1 and 6.0, respectively, for receptors that are at 3rd Trimester age at the beginning of construction. Both of these risk values are below the BAAQMD’s threshold of 10 excess cancers in a million.

Table 9 below shows the potential increase in cancerogenic health risk for receptors of 3rd Trimester of age for construction activities beginning in Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3.

Table 9: Maximum Increased Cancer Risk from Project Construction DPM Emissions for Infant Receptors Based on Year of Birth (Moffett Federal Airfield Met Data) Starting Year of Exposure
Health Risk Increase at MEIR(A)
(Total Excess Cancer Risk per Million
Population)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2(B)
Year 1 4.1(C) 6.0(C)
Year 2 6.0 5.0
Year 3 5.6 3.8
BAAQMD Significance Threshold 10 10
Threshold Exceeded? No No
Source: MIG, 2022 (see Attachment 4)
(A) MEIR is located at 591165.00m E and 4137730.00m N. The MEIR is located at the same location for all years of construction.
(B) Scenario 2 risks based on Scenario 1 yearly risks scaled based on the factors provided in Table 5). (C) This value is the same as that presented in Table 8.

As shown in in Table 9, the maximum incremental increase in cancer risk for a 3rd Trimester residential receptor would be 6.0 for Scenario 1, if the receptor was born in Year 2 of construction, and 6.0 for Scenario 2, if the receptor was born in Year 1 of construction. The Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 15 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
potential incremental increase in cancer risk would be the BAAQMD’s significance threshold of

10.0 for both scenarios.

Non-Cancer Risk (San Jose International Airport Met Data) The maximum annual average DPM concentration at any long-term receptor location would be approximately 0.0017 μg/m3 for Scenario 1 (Year 3) and is estimated to be approximately

0.0015 μg/m3 for Scenario 2 (Year 1). Both of these concentrations would be located at the MEIR (565524.25 m E, 4151934 m N). Based on the chronic inhalation REL for DPM (5 μg/m3), the calculated chronic hazard quotient during the maximum exposure to DPM concentrations for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 would be 0.003 and 0.003, respectively, both of which are well below the BAAQMD’s non-cancer hazard index threshold value of 1.0. The annual average DPM concentrations at the MEIR location would be lower for all other years under both scenarios, therefore, DPM concentrations in those years would also result in chronic hazard quotients that are below the BAAQMD’s non-cancer hazard index threshold.

Non-Cancer Risk (Moffett Federal Airfield Met Data)
The maximum annual average DPM concentration at any long-term receptor location would be approximately 0.0208 μg/m3 for Scenario 1 (Year 3) and is estimated to be approximately

0.0184 μg/m3 for Scenario 2 (Year 1). Both of these concentrations would be located at the MEIR (565524.25 m E, 4151934 m N). Based on the chronic inhalation REL for DPM (5 μg/m3), the calculated chronic hazard quotient during the maximum exposure to DPM concentrations for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 would be 0.004 and 0.004, respectively, both of which are well below the BAAQMD’s non-cancer hazard index threshold value of 1.0. The annual average DPM concentrations at the MEIR location would be lower for all other years under both scenarios, therefore, DPM concentrations in those years would also result in chronic hazard quotients that are below the BAAQMD’s non-cancer hazard index threshold.

Conclusion
As described in this memo, receptor exposure to construction exhaust emissions associated with the proposed Greystar General Plan Amendment Project would not exceed applicable BAAQMD-recommended CEQA thresholds of significance for cancer risk or non-cancer risk. As documented herein this memorandum, potential cancerogenic and non-cancerogenic health risks associated with the Greystar General Plan Amendment Project were evaluated for four separate conditions:
1) EIR Scenario 1 (Tier III and IV Equipment) under San Jose International Airport Meteorological Conditions
2) OFFROAD2021 Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) under San Jose International Airport Meteorological Conditions
3) EIR Scenario 1 (Tier III and IV Equipment) under Moffett Federal Airfield Meteorological Conditions
4) OFFROAD2021 Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) under Moffett Federal Airfield Meteorological Conditions
All of the analyses for the conditions presented above demonstrate that the project would result in less-than-significant health impacts under the scenario analyzed in the EIR, as well as if the project were to use a construction fleet meeting the county-wide average emissions profile.

These results confirm the significance findings contained in the project’s EIR.

It should be further noted that, when using the meteorological dataset recommended for use by the BAAQMD (i.e., the San Jose International Airport data), the estimated incremental increase in cancer risk per million population associated with receptor exposure to construction DPM emissions was less than 1.0, and less than a tenth of the BAAQMD’s cancer risk threshold of

10.0 excess cancer risks per million population.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 16 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
References
The following references were used to prepare this memorandum:

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2017. California Environmental Quality Air Quality Guidelines. 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en ______. 2019. Personal Communication. Email. Subject: AERMOD Met Data Question and Data: Cartan Field (Atherton). Robert Hull, BAAQMD to Phil Gleason, MIG. July 8, 2019. ______. 2020. BAAQMD Health Risk Modeling Protocol. December 2020. ______. 2022. Personal Communication. Email. Subject: Meteorological Data Recommendation. Robert Hull, BAAQMD to Chris Dugan, MIG. May 2, 2022.

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. Sacramento, CA. 2000. Available online at: <https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf> ______. 2008. Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Oakland Railyard. CARB.

Stationary Source Division. April 22, 2008. Web. February 28, 2019. <https://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/up_oak_hra.pdf>
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual. Sacramento, CA. February 2015.

Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) 2013. “CEQA Guide”. Chapter

3. Dispersion Modeling of Construction-Generated PM10 Emissions. Revised July 2013.

Web.
http://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch3PMDispersionModeling GuidanceFINAL7-2013.pdf
City of Santa Clara. 2021. Environmental Impact Report for Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment. SCH# 2020060425. November 2021. ## PG / CD
Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Attachment 1 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Attachment 1
Construction PM2.5 Exhaust (DPM) Calculations and AERMOD Rate Derivations Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Attachment 1 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

Greystar General Plan Amendment (City of Santa Clara, CA) Health Risk Assessment Memorandum
Attachment 1: Construction PM2.5 Exhaust (DPM) Calculations and AERMOD Rate Derivations Prepared by: MIG, Inc.

Contents:

Sheet 1 Scenario 2 Scaling Factors for HRA
Sheet 2 Scenario 1 – AERMOD Source Inputs
Sheet 3 Scenario 1 – Emissions Source Assignment (Area of Emissions) Sheet 4 Scenario 1 – PM2.5 Emissions Compilation
Sheet 5 Worker Trips (PM2.5 Exhaust)
Sheet 6 Vendor Trips (PM2.5 Exhaust)
Sheet 7 Haul Trips (PM2.5 Exhaust)
Sheet 8 On‐road Motor Vehicle Emission Factors (PM2.5 Exhaust) Sheet 9 Scenario 1 – Off‐road PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Month, Area, and Linear Construction Year Sheet 10 Scenario 2 – Off‐road PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Month, Area, and Linear Construction Year Sheet 11 Scenario 1 – Monthly PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Phase Sheet 12 Scenario 2 – Monthly PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Phase Sheet 13 Scenario 1 – Equipment Category and PM2.5 Emissions Assignment Sheet 14 Scenario 2 – Equipment Category and PM2.5 Emissions Assignment Sheet 15 Tier III and IV Emission Factors
Sheet 16 Off‐road Construction Equipment List by Phase
Sheet 17 Raw OFFROAD2021 Output File for Santa Clara (SF) Sub‐Area, Year 2022 Sheet 18 Raw EMFAC2021 Output file for Santa Clara (SF) Sub‐Area, Year 2022 This page intentionally left blank.

Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 1: Scenario 2 Scaling Factors for HRA
Table 1‐1: Scenario 2 Scaling Factors for HRA
Scenario 1
(EIR; Tier III and IV)
Scenario 2
(OFFROAD2021; Average
County‐wide Fleet)
Year 1 0.04 0.11 2.83
Year 2 0.08 0.08 1.01
Year 3 0.12 0.09 0.74
Year 4 0.14 0.08 0.57
Off‐road Equipment PDM (Exhaust) PM2.5 Emissions
(Tons)
Linear Year of
Construction
Scaling Factor
(Ratio of Scenario 2 to 1)
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 2: Scenario 1 ‐ AERMOD Source Inputs
Table 2‐1: Senario 1 AERMOD Source Input Information
Source Description
Size (ft^2) /Length (m)
Size (m^2) /
Length (m)
Emissions Rate (grams
/ sec)
Emissions Rate (grams /
(sec * m^2))
PAREA01 Y1_ON_C‐N 59,271.9 5,506.5 0.000227241 4.13E‐08 PAREA02 Y1_ON_C‐C 59,201.9 5,500.0 0.000226973 4.13E‐08 PAREA03 Y1_ON_C‐S 35,021.6 3,253.6 0.000134268 4.13E‐08 PAREA04 Y1_ON_P‐N 53,571.2 4,976.9 0.000201733 4.05E‐08 PAREA05 Y1_ON_P‐S 45,539.8 4,230.8 0.000171489 4.05E‐08 PAREA06 Y1_ON_B‐N 70,522.1 6,551.7 0.000396605 6.05E‐08 PAREA07 Y1_ON_B‐C 61,542.1 5,717.4 0.000346103 6.05E‐08 PAREA08 Y1_ON_B‐S 55,437.1 5,150.2 0.000311769 6.05E‐08 PAREA09 Y1_ON_A‐N 51,862.9 4,818.2 0.000315277 6.54E‐08 PAREA10 Y1_ON_A‐C 51,790.7 4,811.5 0.000314838 6.54E‐08 PAREA11 Y1_ON_A‐S 63,417.6 5,891.6 0.000385518 6.54E‐08 PAREA12 Y2_ON_C‐N 59,271.9 5,506.5 0.000592099 1.08E‐07 PAREA13 Y2_ON_C‐C 59,201.9 5,500.0 0.0005914 1.08E‐07
PAREA14 Y2_ON_C‐S 35,021.6 3,253.6 0.00034985 1.08E‐07
PAREA15 Y2_ON_P‐N 53,571.2 4,976.9 0 0.00E+00
PAREA16 Y2_ON_P‐S 45,539.8 4,230.8 0 0.00E+00
PAREA17 Y2_ON_B‐N 70,522.1 6,551.7 0.000878567 1.34E‐07 PAREA18 Y2_ON_B‐C 61,542.1 5,717.4 0.000766694 1.34E‐07 PAREA19 Y2_ON_B‐S 55,437.1 5,150.2 0.000690637 1.34E‐07 PAREA20 Y2_ON_A‐N 51,862.9 4,818.2 0.000648663 1.35E‐07 PAREA21 Y2_ON_A‐C 51,790.7 4,811.5 0.00064776 1.35E‐07
PAREA22 Y2_ON_A‐S 63,417.6 5,891.6 0.000793181 1.35E‐07 PAREA23 Y3_ON_C‐N 59,271.9 5,506.5 0.00080796 1.47E‐07
PAREA24 Y3_ON_C‐C 59,201.9 5,500.0 0.000807005 1.47E‐07 PAREA25 Y3_ON_C‐S 35,021.6 3,253.6 0.000477394 1.47E‐07 PAREA26 Y3_ON_P‐N 53,571.2 4,976.9 0 0.00E+00
PAREA27 Y3_ON_P‐S 45,539.8 4,230.8 0 0.00E+00
PAREA28 Y3_ON_B‐N 70,522.1 6,551.7 0.001379358 2.11E‐07 PAREA29 Y3_ON_B‐C 61,542.1 5,717.4 0.001203716 2.11E‐07 PAREA30 Y3_ON_B‐S 55,437.1 5,150.2 0.001084307 2.11E‐07 PAREA31 Y3_ON_A‐N 51,862.9 4,818.2 0.001081404 2.24E‐07 PAREA32 Y3_ON_A‐C 51,790.7 4,811.5 0.001079898 2.24E‐07 PAREA33 Y3_ON_A‐S 63,417.6 5,891.6 0.001322333 2.24E‐07 PAREA34 Y4_ON_C‐N 59,271.9 5,506.5 0.002412391 4.38E‐07 PAREA35 Y4_ON_C‐C 59,201.9 5,500.0 0.002409542 4.38E‐07 PAREA36 Y4_ON_C‐S 35,021.6 3,253.6 0.001425393 4.38E‐07 PAREA37 Y4_ON_P‐N 53,571.2 4,976.9 0.00165837 3.33E‐07
PAREA38 Y4_ON_P‐S 45,539.8 4,230.8 0.001409747 3.33E‐07 PAREA39 Y4_ON_B‐N 70,522.1 6,551.7 0.000276437 4.22E‐08 PAREA40 Y4_ON_B‐C 61,542.1 5,717.4 0.000241237 4.22E‐08 PAREA41 Y4_ON_B‐S 55,437.1 5,150.2 0.000217306 4.22E‐08 PAREA42 Y4_ON_A‐N 51,862.9 4,818.2 0.000114078 2.37E‐08 Notes
PAREA01 through PAREA44: Emissions from each
project element (e.g., Building C, Park, etc.) spread
equally across sub‐sources (e.g., Building C North,
Building C Central, etc.) by size of each source.

Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

PAREA43 Y4_ON_A‐C 51,790.7 4,811.5 0.000113919 2.37E‐08 PAREA44 Y4_ON_A‐S 63,417.6 5,891.6 0.000139493 2.37E‐08 ARLN01 Y1_OFF_E 2,054.2 4.79719E‐05 3.83E‐09
ARLN02 Y1_OFF_W 2,461.0 6.97541E‐06 4.65E‐10
ARLN03 Y2_OFF_E 2,054.2 5.85375E‐06 4.68E‐10
ARLN04 Y2_OFF_W 2,461.0 7.01299E‐06 4.68E‐10
ARLN05 Y3_OFF_E 2,054.2 3.96015E‐06 3.16E‐10
ARLN06 Y3_OFF_W 2,461.0 4.74439E‐06 3.16E‐10
ARLN07 Y4_OFF_E 2,054.2 3.85097E‐06 3.08E‐10
ARLN08 Y4_OFF_W 2,461.0 4.61359E‐06 3.08E‐10
ARLN01: Emissions for this segment porportioned to a
weighted distance derived from haul, vendor, and
worker trips.ARLN02 through ARLN08: Emissions for this segment porportioned to a weighted distance derived from
vendor and worker trips.

Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 3: Scenario 1 ‐ PM2.5 Emissions Source Assigment (Area of Emissions) Table 3‐1: Scenario 1 PM2.5 Emissions Source Assigment
Running Idle Running Idle
Y1 On Building A 12036.89465 108.3294548 9.362421023 6.610006795 6.893935947 0 12168.09047 0.001015633 Y1 On Building B 12506.53625 108.3294548 9.362421023 4.531053045 4.725681899 0 12633.48486 0.001054478 Y1 On Building C 6930.074537 108.3294548 9.362421023 1.33266266 1.389906441 0 7050.488982 0.000588482 Y1 On Park 4353.81168 108.3294548 9.362421023 0 0 0 4471.503556 0.000373222 Y1 Off (West of Site) 0 0 0 372.9643028 0 46.70614281 419.6704456 3.50286E‐05 Y1 Off (East of Site) 0 19802.62433 0 372.9643028 0 46.70614281 20222.29478 0.001687892 Y1 Off Building A 0 19802.62433 0 395.2784063 0 93.41228561 20291.31502 Y1 Off Building B 0 0 270.9569721 0 270.9569721
Y1 Off Building C 0 0 79.69322708 0 79.69322708
Y1 Off Park 0 000 0
Y2 On Building A 25027.28571 0 0 3.838068462 4.00293055 0 25035.12671 0.002089604 Y2 On Building B 27974.16137 0 0 5.757102692 6.004395825 0 27985.92287 0.002335898 Y2 On Building C 18364.86651 0 0 2.878551346 3.002197913 0 18370.74726 0.001533349 Y2 On Park 00000000
Y2 Off (West of Site) 0 0 0 372.9643028 0 65.50991459 438.4742173 3.65981E‐05 Y2 Off (East of Site) 0 0 0 372.9643028 0 65.50991459 438.4742173 3.65981E‐05 Y2 Off Building A 0 0 0 229.516494 0 131.0198292 360.5363232 Y2 Off Building B 0 0 0 344.274741 0 344.274741
Y2 Off Building C 0 0 0 172.1373705 0 172.1373705
Y2 Off Park 00000 0
Y3 On Building A 41730.64669 0 0 2.981356751 3.109419267 41736.73746 0.003483635 Y3 On Building B 43931.70726 0 0 3.152699093 3.288121523 43938.14808 0.00366738 Y3 On Building C 25063.76766 0 0 2.136067864 2.227821467 25068.13155 0.002092359 Y3 On Park 00000 00
Y3 Off (West of Site) 0 0 0 247.2766989 0 70.96907414 318.245773 2.6563E‐05 Y3 Off (East of Site) 0 0 0 247.2766989 0 70.96907414 318.245773 2.6563E‐05 Y3 Off Building A 0 0 0 178.2851337 0 141.9381483 320.223282 Y3 Off Building B 0 0 0 188.5314058 0 188.5314058
Y3 Off Building C 0 0 0 127.7368583 0 127.7368583
Y3 Off Park 00000 0
Y4 On Building A 4402.121143 0 0 0.342684684 0.357404513 4402.821232 0.00036749 Y4 On Building B 8804.242286 0 0 0.685369368 0.714809027 8805.642464 0.00073498 Y4 On Building C 74836.05943 0 0 5.825639629 6.075876728 74847.96094 0.006247326 Y4 On Park 36756.38674 0 0 1.028054052 1.07221354 36758.48701 0.003068116 Y4 Off (West of Site) 0 0 0 235.6642572 0 87.34655278 323.01081 2.69607E‐05 Y4 Off (East of Site) 0 0 0 235.6642572 0 87.34655278 323.01081 2.69607E‐05 Y4 Off Building A 0 0 0 20.49254411 0 174.6931056 195.1856497 Emissions Rate
(grams / second)
Year 1
Year 4Year 3Year 2
Description
Heavy‐Duty Off‐
road
PM2.5 Emissions (grams)
Hauling (46.7 mi) Vendor (7.3 mi)
Worker (14.7 mi)
Total Emissions
(grams)
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Y4 Off Building B 0 0 0 40.98508821 0 40.98508821
Y4 Off Building C 0 0 0 348.3732498 0 348.3732498
Y4 Off Park 0 0 0 61.47763232 0 61.47763232
Notes: One mile of running hauling emissions distributed across all on‐site areas to capture haul truck activity at the site.

Half‐a‐mile of running vendor emissions allocated to on‐site activites for material delivery.

All hauling expected to go to location south of site; thus, all emissions modeled to travel on segment of Highway 101 south of the site.

Emissions rates calculated based construction occuring 7 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturdays.

Table 3‐2: Santa Clara Construction Hours (EIR MM 13‐2) Mon ‐ Fri, 7 AM
to 6 PM
Saturday, 9 AM
to 6 PM
Total Daily Time (hours) 11 9 64 3328
Total Daily Time (seconds) 39600 32400 230400 11980800
Daily
Weekly Annually
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 4: Scenario 1 ‐ PM 2.5 Emissions Compilation
Table 4‐1: Scenario 1 ‐ PM2.5 Monthly Emissions Compilation (Tons) A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park Clear and Grub Jul‐23 1 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3E‐06 Mass Excavation Aug‐23 2 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4E‐06 Mass Excavation Sep‐23 3 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4E‐06 Mass Excavation Oct‐23 4 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4E‐06 Mass Excavation Nov‐23 5 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4E‐06 Structural Concrete Dec‐23 6 0.0014 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0001 0 0 0 2E‐06 0 0 0 1E‐05 Structural Concrete Jan‐24 7 0.0014 0 0 0 0.0001 0 0 0 2E‐06 0 0 0 1E‐05 Structural Concrete Feb‐24 8 0.0007 0.0007 0 0 5E‐05 5E‐05 0 0 9E‐07 9E‐07 0 0 1E‐05 Structural Concrete Mar‐24 9 0.0007 0.0007 0 0 5E‐05 5E‐05 0 0 9E‐07 9E‐07 0 0 1E‐05 Structural Concrete Apr‐24 10 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0 4E‐05 4E‐05 4E‐05 0 6E‐07 6E‐07 6E‐07 0 1E‐05 Structural Concrete + Framin May‐24 11 0.0019 0.0024 0.0024 0 4E‐05 5E‐05 5E‐05 0 7E‐07 9E‐07 9E‐07 0 1E‐05 Structural Concrete + Framin Jun‐24 12 0.0019 0.0047 0 0 4E‐05 0.0001 0 0 7E‐07 2E‐06 0 0 1E‐05 Structural Concrete + Framin Jul‐24 13 0.0019 0.0047 0 0 4E‐05 0.0001 0 0 7E‐07 2E‐06 0 0 1E‐05Structural Concrete + Framin Aug‐24 14 0.0009 0.0033 0.0024 0 2E‐05 8E‐05 5E‐05 0 4E‐07 1E‐06 9E‐07 0 1E‐05 Structural Concrete + Framin Sep‐24 15 0.0019 0.0024 0.0024 0 4E‐05 5E‐05 5E‐05 0 7E‐07 9E‐07 9E‐07 0 1E‐05 Framing / Rough In Oct‐24 16 0.0024 0.0024 0 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 4E‐07 4E‐07 0 0 1E‐05 Framing / Rough In Nov‐24 17 0.0024 0.0024 0 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 4E‐07 4E‐07 0 0 1E‐05 Framing / Rough In Dec‐24 18 0.0024 0.0024 0 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 4E‐07 4E‐07 0 0 1E‐05 Framing / Rough In Jan‐25 19 0.0024 0.0024 0 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 4E‐07 4E‐07 0 0 1E‐05 Framing / Rough In Feb‐25 20 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0 1E‐05 1E‐05 1E‐05 0 2E‐07 2E‐07 2E‐07 0 1E‐05 Framing / Rough In Mar‐25 21 0 0.0024 0.0024 0 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 4E‐07 4E‐07 0 1E‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterio Apr‐25 22 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0 1E‐05 1E‐05 1E‐05 0 2E‐07 2E‐07 2E‐07 0 1E‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterio May‐25 23 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0 1E‐05 1E‐05 1E‐05 0 2E‐07 2E‐07 2E‐07 0 1E‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterio Jun‐25 24 0.0049 0 0.0049 0 2E‐05 0 2E‐05 0 4E‐07 0 4E‐07 0 1E‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterio Jul‐25 25 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0 1E‐05 1E‐05 1E‐05 0 2E‐07 2E‐07 2E‐07 0 1E‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterio Aug‐25 26 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0 1E‐05 1E‐05 1E‐05 0 2E‐07 2E‐07 2E‐07 0 1E‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterio Sep‐25 27 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0 1E‐05 1E‐05 1E‐05 0 2E‐07 2E‐07 2E‐07 0 1E‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterio Oct‐25 28 0.002 0.002 0.0057 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 4E‐05 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 7E‐07 0 1E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Nov‐25 29 0.0049 0.0049 0 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 0 0 1E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Dec‐25 30 0.0049 0.0049 0 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 0 0 1E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Jan‐26 31 0.0049 0.0049 0 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 0 0 1E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Feb‐26 32 0.0049 0.0049 0 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 0 0 1E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Mar‐26 33 0.0049 0.0049 0 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 0 0 1E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Apr‐26 34 0.0032 0.004 0.004 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 3E‐07 0 2E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit May‐26 35 0.0032 0.004 0.004 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 3E‐07 0 2E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Jun‐26 36 0.0032 0.004 0.004 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 3E‐07 0 2E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Jul‐26 37 0.0016 0.0016 0.0081 0 8E‐06 8E‐06 4E‐05 0 1E‐07 1E‐07 7E‐07 0 2E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Aug‐26 38 0.0016 0.0016 0.0081 0 8E‐06 8E‐06 4E‐05 0 1E‐07 1E‐07 7E‐07 0 2E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Sep‐26 39 0.0016 0.0016 0.0081 0 8E‐06 8E‐06 4E‐05 0 1E‐07 1E‐07 7E‐07 0 2E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Oct‐26 40 0 0.0016 0.0097 0 0 8E‐06 5E‐05 0 0 1E‐07 8E‐07 0 2E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Nov‐26 41 0 0.0016 0.0097 0 0 8E‐06 5E‐05 0 0 1E‐07 8E‐07 0 2E‐05 Phase / Task Heavy Duty Off‐Road Hauling (Idle) Vendor (Idle) Month & Year Linear Month Hauling (Running)

0.02 Vendor (Running)
PM2.5 Emissions (Tons)
Worker
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Dec‐26 42 0 0.0016 0.0097 0 0 8E‐06 5E‐05 0 0 1E‐07 8E‐07 0 2E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Jan‐27 43 0 0 0.0097 0.0016 0 0 5E‐05 8E‐06 0 0 8E‐07 1E‐07 2E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Feb‐27 44 0 0 0.0097 0.0016 0 0 5E‐05 8E‐06 0 0 8E‐07 1E‐07 2E‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Mar‐27 45 0 0 0.0097 0.0016 0 0 5E‐05 8E‐06 0 0 8E‐07 1E‐07 2E‐05 Site Work / Landscape Apr‐27 46 0 0 0 0.0119 0 0 0 2E‐05 0 0 0 3E‐07 2E‐05 Site Work / Landscape May‐27 47 0 0 0 0.0119 0 0 0 2E‐05 0 0 0 3E‐07 2E‐05 Site Work / Landscape Jun‐27 48 0 0 0 0.0119 0 0 0 2E‐05 0 0 0 3E‐07 2E‐05

0.0133 0.0138 0.0076 0.0048 0.0223 0 0 0 1E‐05 1E‐05 1E‐05 1E‐05 0.0004 0.0003 9E‐05 0 8E‐06 5E‐06 2E‐06 0 0.0001 0 0 0

0.0276 0.0308 0.0202 000000000 0.0003 0.0004 0.0002 0 4E‐06 7E‐06 3E‐06 0 0.0001 0 0 0

0.046 0.0484 0.0276 000000000 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0 3E‐06 4E‐06 2E‐06 0 0.0002 0 0 0

0.0049 0.0097 0.0825 0.0405 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2E‐05 5E‐05 0.0004 7E‐05 4E‐07 8E‐07 7E‐06 1E‐06 0.0002 0 0 0 Table 4‐2: Conversionslbs / ton grams / lbs
2000 453.592
Table 4‐3: Scenario 1 ‐ PM2.5 Annual Emissions Compilation (Grams) A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park 12037 12507 6930 4354 20236 0 0 0 9.362 9.362 9.362 9.362 401.9 275.5 81.03 0 6.894 4.726 1.39 0 93.41 0 0 025027 27974 18365 000000000 233.4 350 175 0 4.003 6.004 3.002 0 131 0 0 041731 43932 25064 000000000 181.3 191.7 129.9 0 3.109 3.288 2.228 0 141.9 0 0 0 4402 8804 74836 36756 00000000 20.84 41.67 354.2 62.51 0.357 0.715 6.076 1.072 174.7 0 0 0 Linear Year 1 Total
Linear Year 2 Total
Linear Year 3 Total
Linear Year 4 Total
Linear Year 3 Total
Linear Year 4 Total
Year
PM2.5 Emissions (Grams)
Heavy Duty Off‐Road Hauling (Running) Vendor Hauling (Idle) (Running) Worker Vendor (Idle) Linear Year 2 Total
Linear Year 1 Total
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 5: Worker Trips (PM2.5 Exhaust)
Table 5‐1: Worker Trips and PM2.5 Exhaust
Grams Tons
PM2.5 (Exh) PM2.5 (Exh)
Clear and Grub Jul‐23 1 All 100 4000 58800 2.426293133 2.67453E‐06Mass Excavation Aug‐23 2 All 150 6000 88200 3.639439699 4.0118E‐06Mass Excavation Sep‐23 3 All 150 6000 88200 3.639439699 4.0118E‐06Mass Excavation Oct‐23 4 All 150 6000 88200 3.639439699 4.0118E‐06Mass Excavation Nov‐23 5 All 150 6000 88200 3.639439699 4.0118E‐06Structural Concrete Dec‐23 6 A 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Structural Concrete Jan‐24 7 A 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Structural Concrete Feb‐24 8 A, B 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Structural Concrete Mar‐24 9 A, B 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Structural Concrete Apr‐24 10 A, B, C 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In May‐24 11 A (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Jun‐24 12 A (Frame), B (Concrete) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Jul‐24 13 A (Frame), B (Concrete) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Aug‐24 14 A (Frame), B (Concrete, Frame), C (Concrete) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Sep‐24 15 A (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Framing / Rough In Oct‐24 16 A (Frame), B (Frame) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Framing / Rough In Nov‐24 17 A (Frame), B (Frame) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Framing / Rough In Dec‐24 18 A (Frame), B (Frame) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Framing / Rough In Jan‐25 19 A (Frame), B (Frame) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Framing / Rough In Feb‐25 20 A (Frame), B (Frame), C (Frame) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Framing / Rough In Mar‐25 21 B (Frame), C (Frame) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Apr‐25 22 A (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work May‐25 23 A (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Jun‐25 24 A (E/I), C (Framing) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Jul‐25 25 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Aug‐25 26 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Sep‐25 27 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Oct‐25 28 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Exterior / Interior Work Nov‐25 29 A (E/I), B (E/I) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Exterior / Interior Work Dec‐25 30 A (E/I), B (E/I) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Exterior / Interior Work Jan‐26 31 A (E/I), B (E/I) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Exterior / Interior Work Feb‐26 32 A (E/I), B (E/I) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Exterior / Interior Work Mar‐26 33 A (E/I), B (E/I) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E‐05Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Apr‐26 34 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape May‐26 35 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jun‐26 36 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jul‐26 37 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Aug‐26 38 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Sep‐26 39 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Oct‐26 40 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Nov‐26 41 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Dec‐26 42 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05 20 Monthly Trips
(One‐way)
Average Trip
Distance

14.7 VMT Days of Construction
per Month Phase / Year Month & Year Linear Month Area Number of Workers Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jan‐27 43 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Feb‐27 44 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Mar‐27 45 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05Site Work / Landscape Apr‐27 46 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05Site Work / Landscape May‐27 47 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05Site Work / Landscape Jun‐27 48 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E‐05 3850 154000 2263800 93.41228561 0.0001029695400 216000 3175200 131.0198292 0.0001444255850 234000 3439800 141.9381483 0.000156467200 288000 4233600 174.6931056 0.000192566 Table 5‐4: Conversionslbs / ton grams / lbs
2000 453.59237
Linear Year 4 Total
Linear Year 3 Total
Linear Year 2 Total
Linear Year 1 Total
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 6: Vendor Trips (PM2.5 Exhaust)Table 6‐1: Vendor Trips Information Concrete Rebar Lumber MEP Rec Lumber Rec Const Int/Ext Site Total Clear and Grub Jul‐23 1 All 00 0
Mass Excavation Aug‐23 2 All 00 0Mass Excavation Sep‐23 3 All 00 0Mass Excavation Oct‐23 4 All 00 0Mass Excavation Nov‐23 5 All 00 0Structural Concrete Dec‐23 6 A 50 20 70 560 4088Structural Concrete Jan‐24 7 A 50 20 70 560 4088Structural Concrete Feb‐24 8 A, B 50 20 70 560 4088Structural Concrete Mar‐24 9 A, B 50 20 70 560 4088Structural Concrete Apr‐24 10 A, B, C 50 20 70 560 4088Structural Concrete + F May‐24 11 A (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 50 20 8 10 5 5 98 784 5723.2Structural Concrete + F Jun‐24 12 A (Frame), B (Concrete) 50 20 8 10 5 5 98 784 5723.2Structural Concrete + F Jul‐24 13 A (Frame), B (Concrete) 50 20 8 10 5 5 98 784 5723.2Structural Concrete + F Aug‐24 14 A (Frame), B (Concrete, Frame), C (Concrete) 50 20 8 10 5 5 98 784 5723.2Structural Concrete + F Sep‐24 15 A (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 50 20 8 10 5 5 98 784 5723.2Framing / Rough In Oct‐24 16 A (Frame), B (Frame) 8 10 5 5 28 224 1635.2Framing / Rough In Nov‐24 17 A (Frame), B (Frame) 8 10 5 5 28 224 1635.2Framing / Rough In Dec‐24 18 A (Frame), B (Frame) 8 10 5 5 28 224 1635.2Framing / Rough In Jan‐25 19 A (Frame), B (Frame) 8 10 5 5 28 224 1635.2Framing / Rough In Feb‐25 20 A (Frame), B (Frame), C (Frame) 8 10 5 5 28 224 1635.2Framing / Rough In Mar‐25 21 B (Frame), C (Frame) 8 10 5 5 28 224 1635.2Framing / Rough In + Ex Apr‐25 22 A (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 8 10 5 5 28 224 1635.2Framing / Rough In + Ex May‐25 23 A (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 8 10 5 5 28 224 1635.2Framing / Rough In + Ex Jun‐25 24 A (E/I), C (Framing) 8 10 5 5 28 224 1635.2Framing / Rough In + Ex Jul‐25 25 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 8 10 5 5 28 224 1635.2Framing / Rough In + Ex Aug‐25 26 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 8 10 5 5 28 224 1635.2Framing / Rough In + Ex Sep‐25 27 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 8 10 5 5 28 224 1635.2Framing / Rough In + Ex Oct‐25 28 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 8 10 5 5 20 48 384 2803.2Exterior / Interior Work Nov‐25 29 A (E/I), B (E/I) 5 20 25 200 1460Exterior / Interior Work Dec‐25 30 A (E/I), B (E/I) 5 20 25 200 1460Exterior / Interior Work Jan‐26 31 A (E/I), B (E/I) 5 20 25 200 1460Exterior / Interior Work Feb‐26 32 A (E/I), B (E/I) 5 20 25 200 1460Exterior / Interior Work Mar‐26 33 A (E/I), B (E/I) 5 20 25 200 1460Exterior / Interior Work Apr‐26 34 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 5 20 10 35 280 2044Exterior / Interior Work May‐26 35 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 5 20 10 35 280 2044Exterior / Interior Work Jun‐26 36 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 5 20 10 35 280 2044Exterior / Interior Work Jul‐26 37 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 5 20 10 35 280 2044Exterior / Interior Work Aug‐26 38 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 5 20 10 35 280 2044Exterior / Interior Work Sep‐26 39 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 5 20 10 35 280 2044Exterior / Interior Work Oct‐26 40 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 5 20 10 35 280 2044Exterior / Interior Work Nov‐26 41 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 5 20 10 35 280 2044 Phase / Year Month & Year Linear Month Area Vendor Deliveries Per Week 4 Monthly
Trips
(One‐way)
Monthly
Multiplier
Average
Trip
Distance

7.3 VMT
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Exterior / Interior Work Dec‐26 42 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 5 20 10 35 280 2044Exterior / Interior Work Jan‐27 43 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 5 20 10 35 280 2044Exterior / Interior Work Feb‐27 44 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 5 20 10 35 280 2044Exterior / Interior Work Mar‐27 45 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 5 20 10 35 280 2044Site Work / Landscape Apr‐27 46 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 10 10 80 584Site Work / Landscape May‐27 47 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 10 10 80 584Site Work / Landscape Jun‐27 48 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 10 10 80 584 4368 318864368 318862896 211412760 20148
Table 6‐2: Conversionslbs / ton grams / lbs
2000 453.592
Table 6‐3: Vendor Trips PM2.5 Emissions
Grams
(Running)
Tons
(Running)
Grams
(Emissions
per Trip;
Idle for
PM2.5)
Tons
(Emissions
per Trip;
Idle for
PM2.5 and
PM10)
PM2.5 (Exh) PM2.5 (Exh) PM2.5 (Exh) PM2.5 (Exh) A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park Clear and Grub Jul‐23 1 All 0.00 0 0.00 0 0% 00000000Mass Excavation Aug‐23 2 All 0.00 0 0.00 0 0% 00000000Mass Excavation Sep‐23 3 All 0.00 0 0.00 0 0% 00000000Mass Excavation Oct‐23 4 All 0.00 0 0.00 0 0% 00000000Mass Excavation Nov‐23 5 All 0.00 0 0.00 0 0% 00000000Structural Concrete Dec‐23 6 A 97.23 0.0001 1.67 2E‐06 100% 100% 0.0001 0 0 0 2E‐06 0 0 0Structural Concrete Jan‐24 7 A 97.23 0.0001 1.67 2E‐06 100% 0% 100% 0.0001 0 0 0 2E‐06 0 0 0Structural Concrete Feb‐24 8 A, B 97.23 0.0001 1.67 2E‐06 50% 50% 100% 5E‐05 5E‐05 0 0 9E‐07 9E‐07 0 0Structural Concrete Mar‐24 9 A, B 97.23 0.0001 1.67 2E‐06 50% 50% 100% 5E‐05 5E‐05 0 0 9E‐07 9E‐07 0 0Structural Concrete Apr‐24 10 A, B, C 97.23 0.0001 1.67 2E‐06 33% 33% 33% 100% 4E‐05 4E‐05 4E‐05 0 6E‐07 6E‐07 6E‐07 0Structural Concrete + F May‐24 11 A (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 136.12 0.0002 2.34 3E‐06 29% 36% 36% 100% 4E‐05 5E‐05 5E‐05 0 7E‐07 9E‐07 9E‐07 0Structural Concrete + F Jun‐24 12 A (Frame), B (Concrete) 136.12 0.0002 2.34 3E‐06 29% 71% 100% 4E‐05 0.0001 0 0 7E‐07 2E‐06 0 0Structural Concrete + F Jul‐24 13 A (Frame), B (Concrete) 136.12 0.0002 2.34 3E‐06 29% 71% 100% 4E‐05 0.0001 0 0 7E‐07 2E‐06 0 0Structural Concrete + F Aug‐24 14 A (Frame), B (Concrete, Frame), C (Concrete) 136.12 0.0002 2.34 3E‐06 14% 50% 36% 100% 2E‐05 8E‐05 5E‐05 0 4E‐07 1E‐06 9E‐07 0Structural Concrete + F Sep‐24 15 A (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 136.12 0.0002 2.34 3E‐06 29% 36% 36% 100% 4E‐05 5E‐05 5E‐05 0 7E‐07 9E‐07 9E‐07 0Framing / Rough In Oct‐24 16 A (Frame), B (Frame) 38.89 4E‐05 0.67 7E‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 4E‐07 4E‐07 0 0Framing / Rough In Nov‐24 17 A (Frame), B (Frame) 38.89 4E‐05 0.67 7E‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 4E‐07 4E‐07 0 0Framing / Rough In Dec‐24 18 A (Frame), B (Frame) 38.89 4E‐05 0.67 7E‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 4E‐07 4E‐07 0 0Framing / Rough In Jan‐25 19 A (Frame), B (Frame) 38.89 4E‐05 0.67 7E‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 4E‐07 4E‐07 0 0Framing / Rough In Feb‐25 20 A (Frame), B (Frame), C (Frame) 38.89 4E‐05 0.67 7E‐07 33% 33% 33% 100% 1E‐05 1E‐05 1E‐05 0 2E‐07 2E‐07 2E‐07 0Framing / Rough In Mar‐25 21 B (Frame), C (Frame) 38.89 4E‐05 0.67 7E‐07 50% 50% 100% 0 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 4E‐07 4E‐07 0Framing / Rough In + Ex Apr‐25 22 A (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 38.89 4E‐05 0.67 7E‐07 33% 33% 33% 100% 1E‐05 1E‐05 1E‐05 0 2E‐07 2E‐07 2E‐07 0Framing / Rough In + Ex May‐25 23 A (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 38.89 4E‐05 0.67 7E‐07 33% 33% 33% 100% 1E‐05 1E‐05 1E‐05 0 2E‐07 2E‐07 2E‐07 0Framing / Rough In + Ex Jun‐25 24 A (E/I), C (Framing) 38.89 4E‐05 0.67 7E‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E‐05 0 2E‐05 0 4E‐07 0 4E‐07 0 Linear Year 4 Total
Linear Year 3 Total
Linear Year 2 Total
Linear Year 1 Total
Phase / Year Month & Year Linear Month Area PM2.5 Idle Emissions Breakdown by Area (tons)
Total
PM2.5 Running Emissions
Activity Breakdown by Area (%) Breakdown by Area (tons) Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Framing / Rough In + Ex Jul‐25 25 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 38.89 4E‐05 0.67 7E‐07 33% 33% 33% 100% 1E‐05 1E‐05 1E‐05 0 2E‐07 2E‐07 2E‐07 0Framing / Rough In + Ex Aug‐25 26 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 38.89 4E‐05 0.67 7E‐07 33% 33% 33% 100% 1E‐05 1E‐05 1E‐05 0 2E‐07 2E‐07 2E‐07 0Framing / Rough In + Ex Sep‐25 27 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 38.89 4E‐05 0.67 7E‐07 33% 33% 33% 100% 1E‐05 1E‐05 1E‐05 0 2E‐07 2E‐07 2E‐07 0Framing / Rough In + Ex Oct‐25 28 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 66.67 7E‐05 1.14 1E‐06 21% 21% 58% 100% 2E‐05 2E‐05 4E‐05 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 7E‐07 0Exterior / Interior Work Nov‐25 29 A (E/I), B (E/I) 34.73 4E‐05 0.60 7E‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 0 0Exterior / Interior Work Dec‐25 30 A (E/I), B (E/I) 34.73 4E‐05 0.60 7E‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 0 0Exterior / Interior Work Jan‐26 31 A (E/I), B (E/I) 34.73 4E‐05 0.60 7E‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 0 0Exterior / Interior Work Feb‐26 32 A (E/I), B (E/I) 34.73 4E‐05 0.60 7E‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 0 0Exterior / Interior Work Mar‐26 33 A (E/I), B (E/I) 34.73 4E‐05 0.60 7E‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 0 0Exterior / Interior Work Apr‐26 34 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 48.62 5E‐05 0.83 9E‐07 29% 36% 36% 100% 2E‐05 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 3E‐07 0Exterior / Interior Work May‐26 35 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 48.62 5E‐05 0.83 9E‐07 29% 36% 36% 100% 2E‐05 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 3E‐07 0Exterior / Interior Work Jun‐26 36 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 48.62 5E‐05 0.83 9E‐07 29% 36% 36% 100% 2E‐05 2E‐05 2E‐05 0 3E‐07 3E‐07 3E‐07 0Exterior / Interior Work Jul‐26 37 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 48.62 5E‐05 0.83 9E‐07 14% 14% 71% 100% 8E‐06 8E‐06 4E‐05 0 1E‐07 1E‐07 7E‐07 0Exterior / Interior Work Aug‐26 38 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 48.62 5E‐05 0.83 9E‐07 14% 14% 71% 100% 8E‐06 8E‐06 4E‐05 0 1E‐07 1E‐07 7E‐07 0Exterior / Interior Work Sep‐26 39 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 48.62 5E‐05 0.83 9E‐07 14% 14% 71% 100% 8E‐06 8E‐06 4E‐05 0 1E‐07 1E‐07 7E‐07 0Exterior / Interior Work Oct‐26 40 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 48.62 5E‐05 0.83 9E‐07 14% 86% 100% 0 8E‐06 5E‐05 0 0 1E‐07 8E‐07 0Exterior / Interior Work Nov‐26 41 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 48.62 5E‐05 0.83 9E‐07 14% 86% 100% 0 8E‐06 5E‐05 0 0 1E‐07 8E‐07 0Exterior / Interior Work Dec‐26 42 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 48.62 5E‐05 0.83 9E‐07 14% 86% 100% 0 8E‐06 5E‐05 0 0 1E‐07 8E‐07 0Exterior / Interior Work Jan‐27 43 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 48.62 5E‐05 0.83 9E‐07 86% 14% 100% 0 0 5E‐05 8E‐06 0 0 8E‐07 1E‐07Exterior / Interior Work Feb‐27 44 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 48.62 5E‐05 0.83 9E‐07 86% 14% 100% 0 0 5E‐05 8E‐06 0 0 8E‐07 1E‐07Exterior / Interior Work Mar‐27 45 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 48.62 5E‐05 0.83 9E‐07 86% 14% 100% 0 0 5E‐05 8E‐06 0 0 8E‐07 1E‐07Site Work / Landscape Apr‐27 46 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 13.89 2E‐05 0.24 3E‐07 100% 100% 0 0 0 2E‐05 0 0 0 3E‐07Site Work / Landscape May‐27 47 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 13.89 2E‐05 0.24 3E‐07 100% 100% 0 0 0 2E‐05 0 0 0 3E‐07Site Work / Landscape Jun‐27 48 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 13.89 2E‐05 0.24 3E‐07 100% 100% 0 0 0 2E‐05 0 0 0 3E‐07 758.4 0.0008 13.01 1E‐05758.4 0.0008 13.01 1E‐05
502.82 0.0006 8.6254 1E‐05479.21 0.0005 8.2203 9E‐06
Linear Year 1 Total
Linear Year 2 Total
Linear Year 3 Total
Linear Year 4 Total
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 7: Off‐road Hauling Emissions (Exhaust)
Table 7‐1: Earthwork Quantities (CY)
Source: Greystar, 2021
Table 7‐2: Size of Haul Truck (CY)
9 Table 7‐3: Haul Trips Required (One‐way)
Total
Table 7‐4: Average Off‐site One‐way Haul Truck Trip Distance (mi) Table 7‐5: Annual Haul Trip Distribution (VMT)
Total VMT
Table 7‐6: Hauling ‐ Annual Running and Non‐Running Emissions (grams) Year
PM2.5 (Exh
Running) PM2.5 (Exh Idle) PM2.5 (Exh Total)
2023 20,236                                                     37                       20,273 Table 7‐7: Conversions
lbs / ton grams / lbs
2000 453.59237
Table 7‐8: Hauling ‐ Annual Running and Non‐running Emissions (tons) Year
PM2.5 (Exh
Running) PM2.5 (Exh Idle) PM2.5 (Exh Total)
2023 0.02                                                      0.00                           0.02 Net Soil Export
71,500
15,889
742,011

46.7 Mass Excavation 2023
Clear and Grub 2023
Year / Phase
Year / Phase
Mass Excavation 2023
Clear and Grub 2023
Year / Phase
Clear and Grub 2023
Mass Excavation 2023
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 8: On‐road Motor Vehicle Emission Factors (PM2.5 Exhaust) Vehicle Type PM2.5 (Exh)
LDA‐LDT1‐LDT2 0.00004
LHDT1‐LHDT2 0.01739MHDT 0.02030HHDT 0.02727
Vehicle Type PM2.5 (Exh)
LDA‐LDT1‐LDT2 0.00000
LHDT1‐LHDT2 0.00023MHDT 0.00360HHDT 2.36E‐03Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.0); note exhaust emissions are only for diesel vehicles. Rate for LDA‐LDT1‐LDT2 based on % of diesel emissions per overall population. Rate for MHDT and HHDT based on diesel emissions per diesel population (i.e., assumes all MHDT and HHDT trips would be diesel).

Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.0); note exhaust emissions are only for diesel vehicles. Rate for LDA‐LDT1‐LDT2 based on % of diesel emissions per overall population. Rate for MHDT and HHDT based on diesel emissions per diesel population (i.e., assumes all MHDT and HHDT trips would be diesel).

Table 8‐1: Mobile Source Emissions Running Rate (g/mi)
Table 8‐2: Mobile Source Emissions Trip Rate (g/trip)
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 9: Scenario 1 ‐ Off‐road PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Month, Area, and Linear Construction Year Table 9‐1: Scenario 1 Off‐road Emissions by Month / Area Emissions (tons)
PM2.5 (Exh) A B C Park A B C Park
Clear and Grub Jul‐23 1 All 0.00 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.00038927 0.00038927 0.00038927 0.00038927Mass Excavation Aug‐23 2 All 0.00 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025Mass Excavation Sep‐23 3 All 0.00 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025Mass Excavation Oct‐23 4 All 0.00 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025Mass Excavation Nov‐23 5 All 0.00 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025Structural Concrete Dec‐23 6 A 0.00 100% 100% 0.00140193 0 0 0Structural Concrete Jan‐24 7 A 0.00 100% 100% 0.00140193 0 0 0Structural Concrete Feb‐24 8 A, B 0.00 50% 50% 100% 0.00070096 0.00070096 0 0Structural Concrete Mar‐24 9 A, B 0.00 50% 50% 100% 0.00070096 0.00070096 0 0Structural Concrete Apr‐24 10 A, B, C 0.00 33% 33% 33% 100% 0.00046731 0.00046731 0.00046731 0Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In May‐24 11 A (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 100% 0.00189803 0.00237253 0.00237253 0Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Jun‐24 12 A (Frame), B (Concrete) 0.01 29% 71% 100% 0.00189803 0.00474507 0 0Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Jul‐24 13 A (Frame), B (Concrete) 0.01 29% 71% 100% 0.00189803 0.00474507 0 0Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Aug‐24 14 A (Frame), B (Concrete, Frame), C (Concrete) 0.01 14% 50% 36% 100% 0.00094901 0.00332155 0.00237253 0Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Sep‐24 15 A (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 100% 0.00189803 0.00237253 0.00237253 0Framing / Rough In Oct‐24 16 A (Frame), B (Frame) 0.00 50% 50% 100% 0.00244802 0.00244802 0 0Framing / Rough In Nov‐24 17 A (Frame), B (Frame) 0.00 50% 50% 100% 0.00244802 0.00244802 0 0Framing / Rough In Dec‐24 18 A (Frame), B (Frame) 0.00 50% 50% 100% 0.00244802 0.00244802 0 0Framing / Rough In Jan‐25 19 A (Frame), B (Frame) 0.00 50% 50% 100% 0.00244802 0.00244802 0 0Framing / Rough In Feb‐25 20 A (Frame), B (Frame), C (Frame) 0.00 33% 33% 33% 100% 0.00163201 0.00163201 0.00163201 0Framing / Rough In Mar‐25 21 B (Frame), C (Frame) 0.00 50% 50% 100% 0 0.00244802 0.00244802 0Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Apr‐25 22 A (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 100% 0.00326249 0.00326249 0.00326249 0Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work May‐25 23 A (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 100% 0.00326249 0.00326249 0.00326249 0Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Jun‐25 24 A (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 50% 50% 100% 0.00489373 0 0.00489373 0Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Jul‐25 25 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 100% 0.00326249 0.00326249 0.00326249 0Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Aug‐25 26 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 100% 0.00326249 0.00326249 0.00326249 0Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Sep‐25 27 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 100% 0.00326249 0.00326249 0.00326249 0Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Oct‐25 28 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 21% 21% 58% 100% 0.00203905 0.00203905 0.00570935 0Exterior / Interior Work Nov‐25 29 A (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 100% 0.00489373 0.00489373 0 0Exterior / Interior Work Dec‐25 30 A (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 100% 0.00489373 0.00489373 0 0Exterior / Interior Work Jan‐26 31 A (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 100% 0.00489373 0.00489373 0 0Exterior / Interior Work Feb‐26 32 A (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 100% 0.00489373 0.00489373 0 0Exterior / Interior Work Mar‐26 33 A (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 100% 0.00489373 0.00489373 0 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Apr‐26 34 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 100% 0.00323501 0.00404376 0.00404376 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape May‐26 35 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 100% 0.00323501 0.00404376 0.00404376 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jun‐26 36 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 100% 0.00323501 0.00404376 0.00404376 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jul‐26 37 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 0.01 14% 14% 71% 100% 0.0016175 0.0016175 0.00808751 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Aug‐26 38 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 0.01 14% 14% 71% 100% 0.0016175 0.0016175 0.00808751 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Sep‐26 39 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 0.01 14% 14% 71% 100% 0.0016175 0.0016175 0.00808751 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Oct‐26 40 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 14% 86% 100% 0 0.0016175 0.00970502 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Nov‐26 41 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 14% 86% 100% 0 0.0016175 0.00970502 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Dec‐26 42 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 14% 86% 100% 0 0.0016175 0.00970502 0 Activity Breakdown by Area (%)
Total
PM2.5 Emissions Breakdown by Area (tons) Phase / Task Month & Year Linear Month Area Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jan‐27 43 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 86% 14% 100% 0 0 0.00970502 0.0016175Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Feb‐27 44 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 86% 14% 100% 0 0 0.00970502 0.0016175Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Mar‐27 45 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 86% 14% 100% 0 0 0.00970502 0.0016175Site Work / Landscape Apr‐27 46 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 100% 100% 0 0 0 0.01188816Site Work / Landscape May‐27 47 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 100% 100% 0 0 0 0.01188816Site Work / Landscape Jun‐27 48 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 100% 100% 0 0 0 0.01188816

0.040.080.120.14
Linear Year 1 Total
Linear Year 2 Total
Linear Year 3 Total
Linear Year 4 Total
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 10: Scenario 2 ‐ Off‐road PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Month, Area, and Linear Construction Year Table 10‐1: Scenario 2 Off‐road Emissions by Month / Area Emissions (tons)
PM2.5 (Exh) A B C Park A B C Park
Clear and Grub Jul‐23 1 All 0.01 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.001681 0.001681 0.001681 0.00168099Mass Excavation Aug‐23 2 All 0.02 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.00399963Mass Excavation Sep‐23 3 All 0.02 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.00399963Mass Excavation Oct‐23 4 All 0.02 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.00399963Mass Excavation Nov‐23 5 All 0.02 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.00399963Structural Concrete Dec‐23 6 A 0.01 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0.005609 0 0 0Structural Concrete Jan‐24 7 A 0.01 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0.005609 0 0 0Structural Concrete Feb‐24 8 A, B 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.002805 0.002805 0 0Structural Concrete Mar‐24 9 A, B 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.002805 0.002805 0 0Structural Concrete Apr‐24 10 A, B, C 0.01 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0.00187 0.00187 0.00187 0Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In May‐24 11 A (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 0% 100% 0.001848 0.002311 0.002311 0Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Jun‐24 12 A (Frame), B (Concrete) 0.01 29% 71% 0% 0% 100% 0.001848 0.004621 0 0Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Jul‐24 13 A (Frame), B (Concrete) 0.01 29% 71% 0% 0% 100% 0.001848 0.004621 0 0Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Aug‐24 14 A (Frame), B (Concrete, Frame), C (Concrete) 0.01 14% 50% 36% 0% 100% 0.000924 0.003235 0.002311 0Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Sep‐24 15 A (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 0% 100% 0.001848 0.002311 0.002311 0Framing / Rough In Oct‐24 16 A (Frame), B (Frame) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003091 0.003091 0 0Framing / Rough In Nov‐24 17 A (Frame), B (Frame) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003091 0.003091 0 0Framing / Rough In Dec‐24 18 A (Frame), B (Frame) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003091 0.003091 0 0Framing / Rough In Jan‐25 19 A (Frame), B (Frame) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003091 0.003091 0 0Framing / Rough In Feb‐25 20 A (Frame), B (Frame), C (Frame) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0.002061 0.002061 0.002061 0Framing / Rough In Mar‐25 21 B (Frame), C (Frame) 0.01 0% 50% 50% 0% 100% 0 0.003091 0.003091 0Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Apr‐25 22 A (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0.002545 0.002545 0.002545 0Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work May‐25 23 A (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0.002545 0.002545 0.002545 0Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Jun‐25 24 A (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 50% 0% 50% 0% 100% 0.003818 0 0.003818 0Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Jul‐25 25 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0.002545 0.002545 0.002545 0Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Aug‐25 26 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0.002545 0.002545 0.002545 0Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Sep‐25 27 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0.002545 0.002545 0.002545 0Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Oct‐25 28 A (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 21% 21% 58% 0% 100% 0.001591 0.001591 0.004455 0Exterior / Interior Work Nov‐25 29 A (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003818 0.003818 0 0Exterior / Interior Work Dec‐25 30 A (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003818 0.003818 0 0Exterior / Interior Work Jan‐26 31 A (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003818 0.003818 0 0Exterior / Interior Work Feb‐26 32 A (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003818 0.003818 0 0Exterior / Interior Work Mar‐26 33 A (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003818 0.003818 0 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Apr‐26 34 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 0% 100% 0.002015 0.002519 0.002519 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape May‐26 35 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 0% 100% 0.002015 0.002519 0.002519 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jun‐26 36 A (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 0% 100% 0.002015 0.002519 0.002519 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jul‐26 37 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 0.01 14% 14% 71% 0% 100% 0.001008 0.001008 0.005038 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Aug‐26 38 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 0.01 14% 14% 71% 0% 100% 0.001008 0.001008 0.005038 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Sep‐26 39 A (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 0.01 14% 14% 71% 0% 100% 0.001008 0.001008 0.005038 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Oct‐26 40 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 0% 14% 86% 0% 100% 0 0.001008 0.006046 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Nov‐26 41 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 0% 14% 86% 0% 100% 0 0.001008 0.006046 0Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Dec‐26 42 B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 0% 14% 86% 0% 100% 0 0.001008 0.006046 0 Activity Breakdown by Area (%)
Total
PM2.5 Emissions Breakdown by Area (tons) Phase / Task Month & Year Area Linear Month Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jan‐27 43 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 0% 0% 86% 14% 100% 0 0 0.006046 0.00100767Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Feb‐27 44 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 0% 0% 86% 14% 100% 0 0 0.006046 0.00100767Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Mar‐27 45 C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 0% 0% 86% 14% 100% 0 0 0.006046 0.00100767Site Work / Landscape Apr‐27 46 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.00 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0 0 0 0.00475591Site Work / Landscape May‐27 47 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.00 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0 0 0 0.00475591Site Work / Landscape Jun‐27 48 Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.00 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0 0 0 0.00475591

0.110.080.09
Linear Year 4 Total 0.08
Linear Year 3 Total
Linear Year 2 Total
Linear Year 1 Total
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 11: Scenario 1 ‐ Monthly PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Phase Table 11‐1: Scenario 1 ‐ Monthly Emissions Calculations Emission Factor
(g/hp‐hr) Emissions (tons)
PM2.5 PM2.5
CAT 140 Grader T4 4 8 20 640 179 0.41 0.0138 0.000714497 CAT D7 Dozer T4 2 8 20 320 265 0.40 0.0138 0.000515988
CAT 320 Excavator T4 1 8 20 160 172 0.38 0.0138 0.00015908 CAT 415 Backhoe T4 2 8 20 320 93 0.37 0.0138 0.000167501 CAT 140 Grader T4 4 8 20 640 179 0.41 0.0138 0.000714497 CAT D7 Dozer T4 2 8 20 320 265 0.40 0.0138 0.000515988
CAT 320 Excavator T4 1 8 20 160 172 0.38 0.0138 0.00015908CAT 623K Scraper T4 6 8 20 960 407 0.48 0.0138 0.002852924 CAT 415 Backhoe T4 2 8 20 320 93 0.37 0.0138 0.000167501 Structural Concrete,
Dec 2023 Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 Structural Concrete,
Jan 2024 ‐ Apr 2024 Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 TLB (T3) 3 8 20 480 97 0.37 0.276 0.005241168
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.276 0.003494112
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.276 0.003494112
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.276 0.003494112
Crane (T3) 3 8 20 480 231 0.29 0.138 0.004891416Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.276 0.003494112
Crane (T3) 3 8 20 480 231 0.29 0.138 0.004891416Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.276 0.003494112
Crane (T3) 3 8 20 480 231 0.29 0.138 0.004891416Telehandler: Gradall T4 4 8 20 640 160 0.40 0.0138 0.000623079 Backhoe T3 6 8 20 960 86 0.37 0.276 0.009293617Mini Excavator T4 6 8 20 960 19 0.38 0.184 0.001405823 Telehandler: Gradall T4 4 8 20 640 160 0.40 0.0138 0.000623079 Backhoe T3 6 8 20 960 86 0.37 0.276 0.009293617Mini Excavator T4 6 8 20 960 19 0.38 0.184 0.001405823 Backhoe T3 6 8 20 960 97 0.37 0.276 0.010482335Mini Excavator T4 6 8 20 960 19 0.38 0.184 0.001405823 Source: OFFROAD2021
Exterior / Interior Work
Site Work / Landscape
Apr 2026 ‐ Dec 2026
Exterior / Interior Work,
Site Work / Landscape,
Jan 2027 ‐ Mar 2027
Exterior / Interior Work,
Site Work / Landscape,
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
Exterior / Interior Work,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
In,
Exterior / Interior Work,
Nov 2025 ‐ Dec 2025
Exterior / Interior Work,
Jan 2026 ‐ Mar 2026
Clear and Grub,
Jul 2023
Mass Excavation,
Aug ‐ Nov 2023
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
In,
May 2024 ‐ Sep 2024
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
Phase Equipment Quantity Horsepower Load Factor Daily Hours In Use Anticipated Duration of Use (days)
Total
Runtime
Hours
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 12: Scenario 2 ‐ Monthly PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Phase Table 12‐1: Scenario 2 ‐ Monthly Emissions Calculations Emission Factor
(g/hp‐hr) Emissions (tons)
PM2.5 PM2.5
CAT 140 Grader T4 4 8 20 640 179 0.41 0.044760064 0.002317458 CAT D7 Dozer T4 2 8 20 320 265 0.40 0.098203865 0.003671882 CAT 320 Excavator T4 1 8 20 160 172 0.38 0.01602342 0.00018471CAT 415 Backhoe T4 2 8 20 320 93 0.37 0.045305859 0.000549912 CAT 140 Grader T4 4 8 20 640 179 0.41 0.044760064 0.002317458 CAT D7 Dozer T4 2 8 20 320 265 0.40 0.098203865 0.003671882 CAT 320 Excavator T4 1 8 20 160 172 0.38 0.01602342 0.00018471CAT 623K Scraper T4 6 8 20 960 407 0.48 0.044862305 0.009274548CAT 415 Backhoe T4 2 8 20 320 93 0.37 0.045305859 0.000549912 Structural Concrete,
Dec 2023 Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 Structural Concrete,
Jan 2024 ‐ Apr 2024 Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 TLB (T3) 3 8 20 480 97 0.37 0.045305859 0.000860346
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.045305859 0.000573564
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.045305859 0.000573564
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.045305859 0.000573564
Crane (T3) 3 8 20 480 231 0.29 0.041012351 0.001453684Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.045305859 0.000573564
Crane (T3) 3 8 20 480 231 0.29 0.041012351 0.001453684Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.045305859 0.000573564
Crane (T3) 3 8 20 480 231 0.29 0.041012351 0.001453684Telehandler: Gradall T4 4 8 20 640 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.002492927 Backhoe T3 6 8 20 960 86 0.37 0.045305859 0.001525563Mini Excavator T4 6 8 20 960 19 0.38 0.397261426 0.003035212 Telehandler: Gradall T4 4 8 20 640 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.002492927 Backhoe T3 6 8 20 960 86 0.37 0.045305859 0.001525563Mini Excavator T4 6 8 20 960 19 0.38 0.397261426 0.003035212 Backhoe T3 6 8 20 960 97 0.37 0.045305859 0.001720693Mini Excavator T4 6 8 20 960 19 0.38 0.397261426 0.003035212 Source: CARB 2017a for load factor information
Phase Equipment Quantity Horsepower Load Factor Daily Hours In Use Anticipated Duration of Use (days)
Total
Runtime
Hours
Exterior / Interior Work,
Site Work / Landscape,
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
Exterior / Interior Work,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
In,
Exterior / Interior Work,
Nov 2025 ‐ Dec 2025
Exterior / Interior Work,
Jan 2026 ‐ Mar 2026
Exterior / Interior Work
Site Work / Landscape
Apr 2026 ‐ Dec 2026
Exterior / Interior Work,
Site Work / Landscape,
Jan 2027 ‐ Mar 2027
Clear and Grub,
Jul 2023
Mass Excavation,
Aug ‐ Nov 2023
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
In,
May 2024 ‐ Sep 2024
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 13: Scenario 1 ‐ Equipment Category and PM2.5 Emissions Assignment Table 13‐1: Scenario 1 ‐ Equipment Category and PM2.5 Emissions Assignment Row Labels
Average of
Horsepower OFFROAD Cat
HP_Bin
Load
Factor
PM2_5
g_hp‐hr
Backhoe T3 97 ConstMin ‐ Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 0.37 0.276CAT 140 Grader T4 179 ConstMin ‐ Graders 300 0.41 0.014CAT 320 Excavator T4 172 ConstMin ‐ Excavators 300 0.38 0.014CAT 415 Backhoe T4 93 ConstMin ‐ Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 0.37 0.014CAT 623K Scraper T4 407 ConstMin ‐ Scrapers 600 0.48 0.014CAT D7 Dozer T4 265 ConstMin ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers 300 0.40 0.014Crane (T3) 231 ConstMin ‐ Cranes 300 0.29 0.138Mini Excavator T4 19 ConstMin ‐ Excavators 75 0.38 0.184Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 ConstMin ‐ Rough Terrain Forklifts 175 0.4 0.014TLB (T3) 86 ConstMin ‐ Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 0.37 0.276 Source: CARB 2017a
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 14: Scenario 2 ‐ Equipment Category and PM2.5 Emissions Assignment Table 14‐1: Scenario 2 ‐ Equipment Category and PM2.5 Emissions Assignment Row Labels
Average of
Horsepower OFFROAD Cat
HP_Bin
Load
Factor
PM2_5
g_hp‐hr
Backhoe T3 97 ConstMin ‐ Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 0.37 0.045CAT 140 Grader T4 179 ConstMin ‐ Graders 300 0.41 0.045CAT 320 Excavator T4 172 ConstMin ‐ Excavators 300 0.38 0.016CAT 415 Backhoe T4 93 ConstMin ‐ Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 0.37 0.045CAT 623K Scraper T4 407 ConstMin ‐ Scrapers 600 0.48 0.045CAT D7 Dozer T4 265 ConstMin ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers 300 0.40 0.098Crane (T3) 231 ConstMin ‐ Cranes 300 0.29 0.041Mini Excavator T4 19 ConstMin ‐ Excavators 75 0.38 0.397Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 ConstMin ‐ Rough Terrain Forklifts 175 0.4 0.055TLB (T3) 86 ConstMin ‐ Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 0.37 0.045 Source: OFFROAD2021
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 15: Tier III and Tier IV Emission Factors
Table 15‐1: U.S. EPA Tier III Emission Standards
PM PM10 PM2.5
50≤hp<75 (I‐T4) 75 0.22 0.22 0.2024
75≤hp<100 100 0.3 0.3 0.276100≤hp<175 175 0.22 0.22 0.2024175≤hp<300 300 0.15 0.15 0.138300≤hp<600 600 0.15 0.15 0.138600≤hp<750 750 0.15 0.15 0.138Mobile > 750 hp (I‐T4) 9999 0.07 0.07 0.0644 Source: CARB 2017b; CARB 2005
Table 11‐5: U.S. EPA Tier IV Emission Standards
PM PM10 PM2.5
50≤hp<75 (I‐T4) 75 0.2 0.2 0.184
75≤hp<100 100 0.015 0.015 0.0138100≤hp<175 175 0.015 0.015 0.0138175≤hp<300 300 0.015 0.015 0.0138300≤hp<600 600 0.015 0.015 0.0138600≤hp<750 750 0.015 0.015 0.0138Mobile > 750 hp (I‐T4) 9999 0.03 0.03 0.0276 Source: CARB 2017b; CARB 2005
EMFAC (g/hp‐hr)
Maximum Horsepower Assigned HP BinMaximum Horsepower Assigned HP Bin EMFAC (g/hp‐hr)
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Table 11‐3: U.S. EPA Tier III Emission Standards ‐ Reformat PM2.5
50≤hp<75 75 0
75≤hp<100 100 0
100≤hp<175 175 0
175≤hp<300 300 0300≤hp<600 600 0600≤hp<750 750 0Mobile > 750 hp 9999 0 Table 11‐4: U.S. EPA Tier IV Emission Standards ‐ Reformat PM2.5
50≤hp<75 75 0
75≤hp<100 100 0
100≤hp<175 175 0
175≤hp<300 300 0300≤hp<600 600 0600≤hp<750 750 0Mobile > 750 hp 9999 0 Maximum Horsepower Assigned HP BinMaximum Horsepower Assigned HP Bin Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 16: Off‐road Construction Equipment List by Phase Table 16‐1: Phased Equipment List
Phase Equipment Horsepower Quantity
Anticipated Duration of
Use (days)
CAT 140 Grader T4 179 4 20
CAT D7 Dozer T4 265 2 20
CAT 320 Excavator T4 172 1 20CAT 415 Backhoe T4 93 2 20 CAT 140 Grader T4 179 4 80
CAT D7 Dozer T4 265 2 80
CAT 320 Excavator T4 172 1 80
CAT 623K Scraper T4 407 6 80
CAT 415 Backhoe T4 93 2 80
Structural Concrete,
Dec 2023 Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 20
Structural Concrete,
Jan 2024 ‐ Apr 2024 Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 80
Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 100
TLB (T3) 97 3 100
Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 60
TLB (T3) 97 2 60
Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 60
TLB (T3) 97 2 60
Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 140
TLB (T3) 97 2 140
Crane (T3) 231 3 140Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 40
TLB (T3) 97 2 40
Crane (T3) 231 3 40Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 60
TLB (T3) 97 2 60
Crane (T3) 231 3 60Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 4 180
Backhoe T3 86 6 180Mini Excavator T4 19 6 180
Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 4 60
Backhoe T3 86 6 60Mini Excavator T4 19 6 60
Backhoe T3 97 6 60Mini Excavator T4 19 6 60
Exterior / Interior Work,
Structural Framing / Rough‐In,
Apr 2025 ‐ Oct 2025
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐In,
Clear and Grub,
Jul 2023
Mass Excavation,
Aug ‐ Nov 2023
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐In,
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐In,
Exterior / Interior Work,
Site Work / Landscape,
Exterior / Interior Work,
Nov 2025 ‐ Dec 2025
Exterior / Interior Work,
Jan 2026 ‐ Mar 2026
Exterior / Interior Work
Site Work / Landscape
Apr 2026 ‐ Dec 2026
Exterior / Interior Work,
Site Work / Landscape,
Jan 2027 ‐ Mar 2027
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 17: OFFROAD2021 Output File for Santa Clara (SF) Sub‐Area, Year 2022 Model Output: OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub‐Area
Region: Santa Clara (SF)Calendar Year: 2022
Scenario: All Adopted Rules ‐ ExhaustVehicle Classification: OFFROAD2021 Equipment Types Units: tons/day for Emissions, gallons/year for Fuel, hours/year for Activity, Horsepower‐hours/year for Horsepower‐hours Region Calendar Vehicle Category Model YearHorsepowFuel HC_tpd ROG_tpd TOG_tpd CO_tpd NOx_tpd CO2_tpd PM10_tp PM2.5_tpSOx_tpd NH3_tpd Fuel ConsTotal_ActTotal_PopHorsepo Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Cranes Aggregate 25 Diesel 1.4E‐06 1.7E‐06 2E‐06 7.9E‐06 6.9E‐06 0.00085 5.3E‐07 4.9E‐07 7.8E‐09 6.9E‐09 27.4511 66.3109 0.13843 1657.77 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Cranes Aggregate 50 Diesel 4.1E‐05 4.9E‐05 5.9E‐05 0.00018 0.00014 0.01371 1.5E‐05 1.3E‐05 1.3E‐07 1.1E‐07 444.753 645.081 1.47659 26596.1 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Cranes Aggregate 75 Diesel 1.1E‐05 1.4E‐05 1.6E‐05 4.7E‐05 0.0001 0.00553 9.6E‐06 8.9E‐06 5.1E‐08 4.5E‐08 179.403 172.05 0.46143 11972 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Cranes Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.00028 0.00034 0.0004 0.00234 0.00302 0.30978 0.0002 0.00018 2.9E‐06 2.5E‐06 10050.5 7700.34 17.3499 676570 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Cranes Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.00068 0.00082 0.00097 0.00623 0.00825 0.94858 0.00044 0.00041 8.7E‐06 7.7E‐06 30775.8 14102.1 30.8699 2062738Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Cranes Aggregate 300 Diesel 0.00084 0.00102 0.00121 0.0056 0.01159 1.63565 0.00048 0.00044 1.5E‐05 1.3E‐05 53067 16161.5 34.2846 3565167Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Cranes Aggregate 600 Diesel 0.00106 0.00128 0.00152 0.01026 0.01407 2.85185 0.00056 0.00052 2.6E‐05 2.3E‐05 92525.2 16929.3 34.1461 6213774Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Crawler Tractors Aggregate 25 Diesel 00000000000000 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Crawler Tractors Aggregate 50 Diesel 0.00012 0.00015 0.00017 0.00054 0.00041 0.0444 4.1E‐05 3.8E‐05 4.1E‐07 3.6E‐07 1440.46 1397.59 4.09535 58755.1 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Crawler Tractors Aggregate 75 Diesel 1.5E‐05 1.8E‐05 2.1E‐05 5.7E‐05 0.00014 0.00478 1E‐05 9.4E‐06 4.4E‐08 3.9E‐08 155.032 99.7408 0.49144 6976.26Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Crawler Tractors Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.00181 0.00219 0.0026 0.01439 0.01861 1.95605 0.00149 0.00137 1.8E‐05 1.6E‐05 63461.9 32668.3 69.8667 2854311 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Crawler Tractors Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.00131 0.00158 0.00188 0.01325 0.01556 2.13941 0.00087 0.0008 2E‐05 1.7E‐05 69410.7 20963.2 46.2365 3127562 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Crawler Tractors Aggregate 300 Diesel 0.00124 0.00151 0.00179 0.00834 0.01789 2.24435 0.00072 0.00066 2.1E‐05 1.8E‐05 72815.6 15991.4 35.8343 3285895 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Crawler Tractors Aggregate 600 Diesel 0.00271 0.00328 0.00391 0.02301 0.03539 7.8481 0.00137 0.00126 7.2E‐05 6.4E‐05 254623 29775.9 62.6999 1.1E+07Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Excavators Aggregate 25 Diesel 3E‐06 3.7E‐06 4.4E‐06 1E‐05 7E‐06 0.00054 9.8E‐07 9E‐07 4.9E‐09 4.4E‐09 17.6358 32.1571 0.12311 803.929 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Excavators Aggregate 50 Diesel 0.00119 0.00144 0.00171 0.0129 0.01117 1.77527 0.00048 0.00044 1.6E‐05 1.4E‐05 57596.6 73268.8 100.126 2623877 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Excavators Aggregate 75 Diesel 1.3E‐06 1.5E‐06 1.8E‐06 5E‐06 1.2E‐05 0.00042 9E‐07 8.3E‐07 3.8E‐09 3.4E‐09 13.5731 12.9847 0.04104 688.191 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Excavators Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.0009 0.00109 0.0013 0.01527 0.01135 2.3041 0.0006 0.00055 2.1E‐05 1.9E‐05 74754.1 46724 72.1403 3802413 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Excavators Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.00147 0.00178 0.00211 0.02833 0.01558 4.86318 0.00076 0.0007 4.5E‐05 4E‐05 157781 54686.9 92.4528 7985946 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Excavators Aggregate 300 Diesel 0.00148 0.00179 0.00213 0.0131 0.01683 6.20881 0.00054 0.00049 5.7E‐05 5.1E‐05 201438 46607.3 79.9781 1E+07 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Excavators Aggregate 600 Diesel 0.0022 0.00267 0.00317 0.02207 0.02145 11.0422 0.00072 0.00066 0.0001 9E‐05 358251 53636.7 83.425 1.8E+07 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Graders Aggregate 25 Diesel 9.6E‐07 1.2E‐06 1.4E‐06 4.5E‐06 3.5E‐06 0.00034 4.3E‐07 3.9E‐07 3.1E‐09 2.8E‐09 11.0732 18.8425 0.08247 471.061 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Graders Aggregate 50 Diesel 3.6E‐05 4.4E‐05 5.2E‐05 0.00015 0.00011 0.0114 1.2E‐05 1.1E‐05 1E‐07 9.3E‐08 369.912 421.459 1.19586 15737.4 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Graders Aggregate 75 Diesel 1.2E‐05 1.4E‐05 1.7E‐05 4.7E‐05 0.00011 0.00492 9.2E‐06 8.4E‐06 4.5E‐08 4E‐08 159.568 105 0.32989 7366.33 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Graders Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.00036 0.00044 0.00052 0.00222 0.00345 0.26122 0.00027 0.00025 2.4E‐06 2.1E‐06 8475.02 4537.92 12.1236 406734 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Graders Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.00201 0.00243 0.00289 0.0194 0.02277 2.97026 0.00126 0.00116 2.7E‐05 2.4E‐05 96367 30583.9 64.824 4542451Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Graders Aggregate 300 Diesel 0.00299 0.00362 0.00431 0.01544 0.04268 6.26424 0.00141 0.0013 5.8E‐05 5.1E‐05 203236 44400.3 58.4735 9612140Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Graders Aggregate 600 Diesel 0.00014 0.00017 0.00021 0.00058 0.00227 0.26924 7E‐05 6.4E‐05 2.5E‐06 2.2E‐06 8735.08 1169.27 1.52575 411692 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Pavers Aggregate 25 Diesel 00000000000000 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Pavers Aggregate 50 Diesel 7.5E‐05 9E‐05 0.00011 0.00042 0.00037 0.0487 2.7E‐05 2.5E‐05 4.5E‐07 4E‐07 1579.9 1705.13 4.80549 66126.6 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Pavers Aggregate 75 Diesel 0.00012 0.00015 0.00018 0.00059 0.00111 0.07439 0.00011 9.8E‐05 6.8E‐07 6.1E‐07 2413.36 1570.59 4.64531 113368 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Pavers Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.00015 0.00018 0.00022 0.00255 0.00213 0.39542 0.00011 0.0001 3.7E‐06 3.2E‐06 12828.8 7386.8 18.5812 599548 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Pavers Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.00022 0.00027 0.00032 0.00365 0.00269 0.6429 0.00013 0.00012 5.9E‐06 5.2E‐06 20858.2 6136.52 15.8982 968925Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Pavers Aggregate 300 Diesel 0.00012 0.00014 0.00017 0.00096 0.00189 0.50206 5.8E‐05 5.3E‐05 4.6E‐06 4.1E‐06 16288.9 3441 7.64874 758092 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Pavers Aggregate 600 Diesel 1.6E‐05 1.9E‐05 2.3E‐05 0.00017 0.00022 0.09131 6.4E‐06 5.9E‐06 8.4E‐07 7.5E‐07 2962.35 365.966 0.84096 137887Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rollers Aggregate 25 Diesel 00000000000000 Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rollers Aggregate 50 Diesel 0.00103 0.00125 0.00149 0.00747 0.00701 0.99853 0.00042 0.00039 9.2E‐06 8.1E‐06 32396.1 42050.9 121.434 1501582 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rollers Aggregate 75 Diesel 3.4E‐05 4.1E‐05 4.9E‐05 0.00013 0.0003 0.01108 2.2E‐05 2E‐05 1E‐07 9E‐08 359.44 265.391 1.15338 18420.2 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rollers Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.00072 0.00088 0.00104 0.0101 0.00919 1.55143 0.00053 0.00048 1.4E‐05 1.3E‐05 50334.6 29715.7 89.5515 2594003 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rollers Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.00042 0.0005 0.0006 0.00891 0.00524 1.61487 0.00024 0.00022 1.5E‐05 1.3E‐05 52392.7 18793.3 52.3963 2702154Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rollers Aggregate 300 Diesel 9.2E‐05 0.00011 0.00013 0.00078 0.0013 0.26745 4.9E‐05 4.5E‐05 2.5E‐06 2.2E‐06 8677.24 2067.51 6.7143 447119 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rollers Aggregate 600 Diesel 3.7E‐05 4.5E‐05 5.3E‐05 0.00041 0.00051 0.15676 1.7E‐05 1.6E‐05 1.4E‐06 1.3E‐06 5085.84 746.39 2.43033 260686Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rough Terrain ForkliftsAggregate 25 Diesel 2.9E‐07 3.5E‐07 4.1E‐07 3.6E‐06 4.4E‐06 0.00052 2.5E‐07 2.3E‐07 4.8E‐09 4.3E‐09 16.9566 29.3235 0.09507 733.087 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rough Terrain ForkliftsAggregate 50 Diesel 5.6E‐05 6.8E‐05 8.1E‐05 0.00037 0.00035 0.05034 2E‐05 1.9E‐05 4.6E‐07 4.1E‐07 1633.25 1479.86 5.41917 70688.9Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rough Terrain ForkliftsAggregate 75 Diesel 3.8E‐06 4.6E‐06 5.5E‐06 1.6E‐05 3.8E‐05 0.00139 2.6E‐06 2.4E‐06 1.3E‐08 1.1E‐08 45.0245 32.636 0.14261 2165.08Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rough Terrain ForkliftsAggregate 100 Diesel 0.00081 0.00098 0.00116 0.0242 0.01452 3.97708 0.00039 0.00036 3.7E‐05 3.2E‐05 129032 64411.1 227.985 6202049 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rough Terrain ForkliftsAggregate 175 Diesel 0.00035 0.00042 0.0005 0.00498 0.00371 0.87474 0.00025 0.00023 8.1E‐06 7.1E‐06 28380.1 10889 39.7406 1365085Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rough Terrain ForkliftsAggregate 300 Diesel 1.2E‐05 1.4E‐05 1.7E‐05 0.00012 0.00019 0.0642 4.4E‐06 4E‐06 5.9E‐07 5.2E‐07 2082.94 476.398 1.90146 100168 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rough Terrain ForkliftsAggregate 600 Diesel 2.6E‐06 3.1E‐06 3.7E‐06 4.3E‐05 2.7E‐05 0.02387 4.1E‐07 3.7E‐07 2.2E‐07 1.9E‐07 774.406 97.3106 0.38029 37484.4Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate 25 Diesel 00000000000000 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate 50 Diesel 7.9E‐05 9.5E‐05 0.00011 0.00047 0.00034 0.04436 2.8E‐05 2.6E‐05 4.1E‐07 3.6E‐07 1439.11 1526.47 1.6068 63316.2 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate 75 Diesel 6.2E‐05 7.5E‐05 8.9E‐05 0.00038 0.0006 0.04459 4.5E‐05 4.2E‐05 4.1E‐07 3.6E‐07 1446.78 1027.98 1.37166 70348.3 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.00015 0.00018 0.00022 0.00112 0.00154 0.14148 0.00012 0.00011 1.3E‐06 1.2E‐06 4590.15 2637.5 3.05685 222930 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.0002 0.00024 0.00029 0.00144 0.00221 0.19922 0.00014 0.00013 1.8E‐06 1.6E‐06 6463.55 2217.39 2.8217 316029Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate 300 Diesel 0.00018 0.00022 0.00026 0.00123 0.0024 0.2154 0.00011 0.0001 2E‐06 1.8E‐06 6988.52 1539.95 2.19466 340683 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate 600 Diesel 0.00164 0.00198 0.00236 0.01575 0.0205 2.24127 0.00092 0.00085 2.1E‐05 1.8E‐05 72715.6 9567.94 13.168 3531445 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Scrapers Aggregate 25 Diesel 6.6E‐08 8E‐08 9.5E‐08 1.9E‐06 1.7E‐06 0.00036 6E‐09 5.5E‐09 3.3E‐09 2.9E‐09 11.5201 16.6094 0.04039 415.234 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Scrapers Aggregate 50 Diesel 1.4E‐05 1.6E‐05 2E‐05 4.6E‐05 3.3E‐05 0.00283 4.6E‐06 4.2E‐06 2.6E‐08 2.3E‐08 91.691 86.784 0.24233 3361.14 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Scrapers Aggregate 75 Diesel 4E‐05 4.8E‐05 5.7E‐05 0.00021 0.00037 0.02494 3.2E‐05 2.9E‐05 2.3E‐07 2E‐07 809.148 477.889 1.09049 32401.9 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Scrapers Aggregate 100 Diesel 9.6E‐05 0.00012 0.00014 0.00085 0.00122 0.1124 9E‐05 8.3E‐05 1E‐06 9.2E‐07 3646.78 1612.17 2.66563 145391 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Scrapers Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.00093 0.00113 0.00135 0.00973 0.01111 1.51641 0.00059 0.00055 1.4E‐05 1.2E‐05 49198.2 11743.5 26.2928 1960227 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Scrapers Aggregate 300 Diesel 0.00095 0.00115 0.00137 0.00598 0.01234 1.78727 0.00054 0.00049 1.6E‐05 1.5E‐05 57986 10432.1 25.687 2329994Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Scrapers Aggregate 600 Diesel 0.00847 0.01025 0.01219 0.07593 0.111 22.1479 0.00423 0.0039 0.0002 0.00018 718563 68078.7 141.763 2.9E+07 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Tractors/Loaders/BackAggregate 25 Diesel 00000000000000 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Tractors/Loaders/BackAggregate 50 Diesel 0.00147 0.00178 0.00212 0.01234 0.01045 1.49257 0.00056 0.00052 1.4E‐05 1.2E‐05 48424.8 60855.9 117.712 2303931 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Tractors/Loaders/BackAggregate 75 Diesel 0.00055 0.00066 0.00079 0.00221 0.0052 0.2198 0.00042 0.00039 2E‐06 1.8E‐06 7131.22 5218.16 22.7631 374369 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Tractors/Loaders/BackAggregate 100 Diesel 0.00917 0.0111 0.01321 0.15758 0.11444 23.8383 0.00601 0.00553 0.00022 0.00019 773407 486192 776.49 4E+07Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Tractors/Loaders/BackAggregate 175 Diesel 0.00131 0.00159 0.00189 0.02448 0.01393 4.15956 0.00071 0.00065 3.8E‐05 3.4E‐05 134952 49635.5 89.412 7118357 Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Tractors/Loaders/BackAggregate 300 Diesel 0.00079 0.00095 0.00113 0.00614 0.00997 2.62225 0.00035 0.00032 2.4E‐05 2.1E‐05 85076.2 21400.4 37.9796 4471436Santa Clara 2022 Construction and Mining ‐ Tractors/Loaders/BackAggregate 600 Diesel 0.00088 0.00107 0.00127 0.00798 0.0097 3.42296 0.00036 0.00033 3.2E‐05 2.8E‐05 111054 17318.6 31.9504 5871071 Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 18: OFFROAD2021 Output File for Santa Clara (SF) Sub‐Area, Year 2022 Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.0) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub‐Area
Region: Santa Clara (SF)Calendar Year: 2022
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar Ye Vehicle CateModel Year Speed Fuel Population Total VMT CVMT EVMT Trips Energy CoNOx_RUNEXNOx_IDLEX NOx_STREX NOx_TOTEX PM2.5_RUN PM2.5_IDLEXPM2.5_STREPM2.5_TOTE Santa Clara 2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 3.8273666 105.19135 105.19135 0 76.578 0 0.0010721 0 0.0001043 0.0011764 6.702E‐07 0 1.432E‐07 8.134E‐07 Santa Clara 2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 8126.6301 984491.31 984491.31 0 118999 0 2.6528293 0.6073383 0.3338163 3.593984 0.0295957 0.0003092 0 0.0299049 Santa Clara 2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 660.77564 47681.358 47681.358 0 5809.4 0 0.0713086 0.0099214 0 0.08123 9.981E‐05 1.629E‐05 0 0.0001161 Santa Clara 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 604047.78 22374250 22374250 0 2805661 0 1.3266694 0 0.8904556 2.2171251 0.031074 0 0.0063766 0.0374506 Santa Clara 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1988.8469 60930.092 60930.092 0 8564.5 0 0.0177008 0 0 0.0177008 0.0013416 0 0 0.0013416Santa Clara 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 49768.561 2058455.9 0 2058456 247156 794734 00000000 Santa Clara 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hybr 14080.335 626833.53 326494.83 300339 69204.8 90711.2 0.0023616 0 0.0357549 0.0381165 0.0004963 0 0.0001738 0.0006701 Santa Clara 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 54974.085 1779154.4 1779154.4 0 245182 0 0.313861 0 0.115931 0.429792 0.0038659 0 0.0008124 0.0046783Santa Clara 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 28.886015 444.57775 444.57775 0 84.9575 0 0.0008155 0 0 0.0008155 0.0001182 0 0 0.0001182Santa Clara 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 182.99279 6367.0471 0 6367.05 860.935 2458.21 00000000 Santa Clara 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hybr 24.315774 1158.9526 555.22679 603.726 119.512 182.343 4.016E‐06 0 6.175E‐05 6.576E‐05 5.363E‐07 0 1.928E‐07 7.291E‐07 Santa Clara 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 274728.48 9911729.9 9911729.9 0 1286654 0 0.9529012 0 0.5490569 1.5019581 0.0142872 0 0.0029151 0.0172023Santa Clara 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 933.78803 35569.229 35569.229 0 4479.45 0 0.0019401 0 0 0.0019401 0.0002202 0 0 0.0002202Santa Clara 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 669.35851 23693.948 0 23693.9 3436.2 9147.82 00000000 Santa Clara 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hybr 1256.2802 57825.985 28723.513 29102.5 6174.62 8789.81 0.0002078 0 0.0031901 0.0033979 3.599E‐05 0 1.293E‐05 4.891E‐05 Santa Clara 2022 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 19023.539 692949.18 692949.18 0 283422 0 0.1717873 0.000809 0.2119336 0.3845298 0.0012727 0 0.0001109 0.0013836 Santa Clara 2022 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 9466.8975 364941.29 364941.29 0 119082 0 0.8211642 0.0224257 0 0.84359 0.0169809 0.0002834 0 0.0172643Santa Clara 2022 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2479.1193 89333.801 89333.801 0 36935.2 0 0.020804 0.0001058 0.0272396 0.0481494 0.0001499 0 1.173E‐05 0.0001616 Santa Clara 2022 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4276.1747 167672.01 167672.01 0 53788.9 0 0.2951305 0.0099664 0 0.3050969 0.0068032 0.0001276 0 0.0069309Santa Clara 2022 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 27595.089 162923.97 162923.97 0 55190.2 0 0.1133439 0 0.009846 0.1231899 0.000326 0 0.0002127 0.0005387Santa Clara 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 150747.25 5216511.8 5216511.8 0 697659 0 0.7864526 0 0.3979919 1.1844445 0.007801 0 0.0017343 0.0095353Santa Clara 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2337.3284 86668.847 86668.847 0 11158.5 0 0.0055554 0 0 0.0055554 0.000521 0 0 0.000521Santa Clara 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 623.69751 22215.798 0 22215.8 3205.62 8577.13 00000000 Santa Clara 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hybr 789.56121 33722.809 17285.181 16437.6 3880.69 4964.65 0.000125 0 0.002005 0.00213 2.687E‐05 0 1.006E‐05 3.694E‐05 Santa Clara 2022 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2642.0841 23105.283 23105.283 0 264.314 0 0.0140449 0 0.0001178 0.0141626 4.882E‐05 0 1.344E‐07 4.895E‐05 Santa Clara 2022 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 940.8008 9155.2096 9155.2096 0 94.0801 0 0.0447914 0 0 0.0447914 0.0010562 0 0 0.0010562Santa Clara 2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1426.5351 69284.182 69284.182 0 28542.1 0 0.0524052 0.0001385 0.0145449 0.0670886 0.0001094 0 1.866E‐05 0.0001281 Santa Clara 2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 10189.551 428042.28 428042.28 0 121267 0 0.8170638 0.1717031 0.1982834 1.1870503 0.009577 0.0004812 0 0.0100582 Santa Clara 2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 84.480523 3914.2047 3914.2047 0 796.889 0 0.0006991 0.000603 0 0.0013021 4.44E‐06 1.51E‐06 0 5.95E‐06 Santa Clara 2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 470.92336 21653.295 21653.295 0 9422.23 0 0.0142339 3.372E‐05 0.0042277 0.0184953 2.06E‐05 0 2.726E‐06 2.333E‐05 Santa Clara 2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 852.16788 61336.681 61336.681 0 8739.29 0 0.0967031 0.0076905 0.0140947 0.1184882 0.001468 8.795E‐06 0 0.0014768 Santa Clara 2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 6.1241899 392.3599 392.3599 0 54.5053 0 0.0001131 1.058E‐05 0 0.0001237 3.122E‐07 2.151E‐08 0 3.337E‐07 Santa Clara 2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 160.41389 7959.4302 7959.4302 0 641.656 0 0.0045862 0.0001637 0.0004874 0.0052373 7.484E‐06 0 3.893E‐07 7.873E‐06 Santa Clara 2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 662.51623 15413.711 15413.711 0 9593.24 0 0.0719641 0.0167041 0.0047653 0.0934335 0.0003757 1.671E‐05 0 0.0003924 Santa Clara 2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 22.596767 578.35316 578.35316 0 327.201 0 0.0003882 0.0001319 0 0.0005201 2.154E‐06 2.681E‐07 0 2.422E‐06 Santa Clara 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 45.811044 4784.0366 4784.0366 0 183.244 0 0.0001446 0 0.0001109 0.0002555 4.742E‐06 0 1.794E‐08 4.76E‐06Santa Clara 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 435.64749 48716.135 48716.135 0 1742.59 0 0.0207421 0 0 0.0207421 0.0003771 0 0 0.0003771Santa Clara 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 5.0467569 199.00273 0 199.003 20.187 346.91 00000000 Santa Clara 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 41.848751 4783.781 4783.781 0 167.395 0 0.0003099 0 0 0.0003099 1.488E‐06 0 0 1.488E‐06 Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

PM2.5_PMT PM2.5_PMB PM2.5_TOTAPM10_RUNEPM10_IDLEXPM10_STREXPM10_TOTE PM10_PMTWPM10_PMBWPM10_TOTACO2_RUNEX CO2_IDLEX CO2_STREX CO2_TOTEX CH4_RUNEX CH4_IDLEX CH4_STREX CH4_TOTEX N2O_RUNEX

5.798E‐07 4.235E‐06 5.628E‐06 7.289E‐07 0 1.557E‐07 8.846E‐07 2.319E‐06 1.21E‐05 1.53E‐05 0.2791207 0 0.0041911 0.2833117 4.86E‐05 0 1.369E‐08 4.862E‐05 2.689E‐05

0.0095165 0.0303718 0.0697932 0.0309339 0.0003232 0 0.0312571 0.0380661 0.0867765 0.1560997 1820.4969 113.56928 0 1934.0662 0.0015826 0.0021216 0 0.0037042 0.28682

0.000473 0.0025016 0.0030908 0.0001085 1.771E‐05 0 0.0001263 0.0018921 0.0071475 0.0091659 75.123548 7.5145282 0 82.638076 0.1413081 0.0263175 0 0.1676256 0.0153144

0.0493268 0.065505 0.1522823 0.0337954 0 0.0069349 0.0407303 0.1973071 0.1871571 0.4251945 7081.7798 0 226.79203 7308.5718 0.0721315 0 0.2513186 0.3234502 0.1330301

0.0001343 0.0001807 0.0016566 0.0014023 0 0 0.0014023 0.0005373 0.0005162 0.0024558 15.868953 0 0 15.868953 0.0001014 0 0 0.0001014 0.00250020.0045381 0.0034736 0.0080117 0000 0.0181525 0.0099245 0.0280769 000000000

0.0013819 0.0009451 0.0029972 0.0005398 0 0.000189 0.0007288 0.0055277 0.0027004 0.0089569 100.34391 0 5.7884048 106.13232 0.0002604 0 0.0120553 0.0123157 0.0002854

0.0039224 0.0063469 0.0149476 0.0042042 0 0.0008834 0.0050877 0.0156895 0.018134 0.0389111 663.12318 0 24.410673 687.53385 0.0152942 0 0.0324767 0.0477709 0.0219232

9.801E‐07 1.828E‐06 0.000121 0.0001235 0 0 0.0001235 3.921E‐06 5.224E‐06 0.0001327 0.2037004 0 0 0.2037004 6.853E‐06 0 0 6.853E‐06 3.209E‐05

1.404E‐05 1.081E‐05 2.485E‐05 0 0 0 0 5.615E‐05 3.09E‐05 8.705E‐05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.555E‐06 1.758E‐06 5.042E‐06 5.833E‐07 0 2.097E‐07 7.93E‐07 1.022E‐05 5.022E‐06 1.604E‐05 0.1706417 0 0.0108123 0.181454 4.418E‐07 0 2.078E‐05 2.122E‐05 4.829E‐07

0.0218516 0.0341334 0.0731874 0.0155385 0 0.0031704 0.0187089 0.0874065 0.097524 0.2036394 3910.1925 0 130.62336 4040.8159 0.0373459 0 0.1316204 0.1689663 0.0755945

7.842E‐05 0.0001211 0.0004198 0.0002302 0 0 0.0002302 0.0003137 0.000346 0.0008899 12.54006 0 0 12.54006 2.595E‐05 0 0 2.595E‐05 0.0019757

5.224E‐05 3.98E‐05 9.204E‐05 0 0 0 0 0.0002089 0.0001137 0.0003227 000000000

0.0001275 8.744E‐05 0.0002638 3.914E‐05 0 1.406E‐05 5.32E‐05 0.0005099 0.0002498 0.000813 8.8277956 0 0.602106 9.4299016 2.286E‐05 0 0.0010738 0.0010967 2.499E‐05

0.0015277 0.020853 0.0237642 0.0013842 0 0.0001206 0.0015047 0.0061108 0.05958 0.0671955 695.59136 2.5467808 8.0734562 706.21159 0.0081597 0.0024847 0.0112423 0.0218867 0.00955660.0012068 0.0109822 0.0294533 0.0177487 0.0002963 0 0.0180449 0.0048273 0.0313778 0.05425 257.51943 1.4067784 0 258.92621 0.0037673 5.32E‐05 0 0.0038205 0.0405723

0.0001969 0.0031364 0.0034949 0.000163 0 1.275E‐05 0.0001757 0.0007878 0.0089611 0.0099246 100.1489 0.3827625 1.054539 101.58621 0.0008183 0.0003275 0.0014359 0.0025818 0.0011874

0.0005545 0.0058867 0.0133721 0.0071108 0.0001334 0 0.0072442 0.0022179 0.0168192 0.0262814 142.95599 1.0130203 0 143.96901 0.0015378 2.403E‐05 0 0.0015618 0.0225228

0.0001796 0.0007543 0.0014725 0.000348 0 0.0002256 0.0005736 0.0007184 0.0021551 0.0034471 34.438073 0 3.2885709 37.726644 0.0327048 0 0.0121857 0.0448905 0.00760240.0115004 0.0183602 0.039396 0.0084834 0 0.001886 0.0103694 0.0460018 0.0524576 0.1088288 2496.914 0 86.280554 2583.1945 0.0288535 0 0.0917946 0.1206481 0.05451540.0001911 0.0003012 0.0010133 0.0005446 0 0 0.0005446 0.0007643 0.0008607 0.0021696 39.856516 0 0 39.856516 5.283E‐05 0 0 5.283E‐05 0.0062794

4.898E‐05 3.729E‐05 8.627E‐05 0 0 0 0 0.0001959 0.0001066 0.0003025 000000000

7.435E‐05 5.091E‐05 0.0001622 2.923E‐05 0 1.094E‐05 4.017E‐05 0.0002974 0.0001455 0.000483 5.3123739 0 0.4627999 5.7751738 1.368E‐05 0 0.000671 0.0006847 1.486E‐05

7.641E‐05 0.0004013 0.0005267 5.309E‐05 0 1.461E‐07 5.324E‐05 0.0003056 0.0011466 0.0015054 49.646262 0 0.0093627 49.655625 0.0005519 0 1.121E‐05 0.0005631 0.0007887

4.037E‐05 0.0001582 0.0012547 0.0011039 0 0 0.0011039 0.0001615 0.000452 0.0017174 10.908222 0 0 10.908222 5.919E‐05 0 0 5.919E‐05 0.0017186

0.0002291 0.0012033 0.0015605 0.000119 0 2.03E‐05 0.0001393 0.0009165 0.0034381 0.0044938 138.94929 0.8530219 1.5171131 141.31943 0.001709 0.0003931 0.0016073 0.0037093 0.0023650.0014155 0.0075216 0.0189953 0.01001 0.000503 0 0.010513 0.005662 0.0214903 0.0376653 546.49468 26.104679 0 572.59936 0.0011448 0.0001506 0 0.0012954 0.0861005

1.294E‐05 6.908E‐05 8.798E‐05 4.829E‐06 1.643E‐06 0 6.472E‐06 5.178E‐05 0.0001974 0.0002556 4.3247209 0.4852229 0 4.8099438 0.0031319 0.0016685 0 0.0048005 0.0008816

7.161E‐05 0.0003742 0.0004692 2.241E‐05 0 2.965E‐06 2.537E‐05 0.0002864 0.0010693 0.0013811 43.068868 0.199452 0.3338047 43.602125 0.0004097 0.000101 0.0003817 0.0008924 0.0006676

0.0002028 0.0012224 0.002902 0.0015344 9.193E‐06 0 0.0015436 0.0008113 0.0034926 0.0058475 87.08415 1.5043979 0 88.588548 0.0001654 1.966E‐05 0 0.000185 0.0137201

1.298E‐06 6.984E‐06 8.615E‐06 3.395E‐07 2.34E‐08 0 3.629E‐07 5.19E‐06 1.995E‐05 2.551E‐05 0.4476617 0.0079893 0 0.4556511 0.0003248 3.109E‐05 0 0.0003559 9.126E‐05

1.755E‐05 0.0001379 0.0001634 8.14E‐06 0 4.234E‐07 8.563E‐06 7.019E‐05 0.0003941 0.0004728 7.1948993 0.4626456 0.0418346 7.6993795 0.0001091 0.0004348 5.29E‐05 0.0005967 0.0002455

5.097E‐05 0.0002671 0.0007105 0.0003927 1.747E‐05 0 0.0004101 0.0002039 0.0007632 0.0013772 19.588863 1.640509 0 21.229372 4.815E‐05 5.975E‐06 0 5.413E‐05 0.0030862

1.913E‐06 1.002E‐05 1.436E‐05 2.342E‐06 2.916E‐07 0 2.634E‐06 7.65E‐06 2.864E‐05 3.892E‐05 0.8172571 0.1008818 0 0.9181389 0.0022631 0.0003877 0 0.0026508 0.0001666

1.055E‐05 0.000168 0.0001833 5.157E‐06 0 1.951E‐08 5.176E‐06 4.219E‐05 0.0004799 0.0005273 5.1397058 0 0.0076666 5.1473724 1.184E‐05 0 1.069E‐05 2.252E‐05 2.213E‐05

0.0004457 0.0020675 0.0028903 0.0003942 0 0 0.0003942 0.0017829 0.005907 0.0080841 59.110237 0 0 59.110237 0.0001726 0 0 0.0001726 0.0093128

1.974E‐06 4.223E‐06 6.197E‐06 0 0 0 0 7.897E‐06 1.206E‐05 1.996E‐05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.314E‐05 0.000203 0.0002476 1.556E‐06 0 0 1.556E‐06 0.0001726 0.0005801 0.0007542 6.8501115 0 0 6.8501115 0.0223869 0 0 0.0223869 0.0013964 Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

N2O_IDLEX N2O_STREX N2O_TOTEX ROG_RUNEXROG_IDLEX ROG_STREX ROG_TOTEX ROG_DIURN ROG_HOTSOROG_RUNLOROG_TOTAL TOG_RUNEXTOG_IDLEX TOG_STREX TOG_TOTEX TOG_DIURN TOG_HOTSOTOG_RUNLOTOG_TOTAL 0 3.265E‐06 3.015E‐05 0.0003048 0 7.437E‐08 0.0003048 4.626E‐05 1.376E‐05 0.000124 0.0004888 0.0004447 0 8.143E‐08 0.0004448 4.626E‐05 1.376E‐05 0.000124 0.0006288

0.0178929 0 0.3047129 0.0340733 0.0456767 0 0.0797499 0 0 0 0.0797499 0.0387898 0.0519994 0 0.0907892 0 0 0 0.09078920.0015319 0 0.0168463 0.0032868 0.0004101 0 0.0036969 0 0 0 0.0036969 0.1456597 0.0268978 0 0.1725575 0 0 0 0.1725575 0 0.1085206 0.2415507 0.2874295 0 1.1805851 1.4680145 1.0189699 0.3039284 0.7724181 3.563331 0.4192902 0 1.2925878 1.711878 1.0189699 0.3039284 0.7724181 3.80719450 0 0.0025002 0.0021837 0 0 0.0021837 0 0 0 0.0021837 0.002486 0 0 0.002486 0 0 0 0.00248600000000000000000000 0.0043153 0.0046007 0.0010213 0 0.0607806 0.0618018 0.0070072 0.0025462 0.0022506 0.0736058 0.0014902 0 0.0665471 0.0680373 0.0070072 0.0025462 0.0022506 0.07984120 0.0110787 0.0330019 0.0689755 0 0.1704096 0.2393851 0.1776878 0.0492259 0.1438867 0.6101855 0.1005774 0 0.1865761 0.2871535 0.1776878 0.0492259 0.1438867 0.65795390 0 3.209E‐05 0.0001475 0 0 0.0001475 0 0 0 0.0001475 0.000168 0 0 0.000168 0 0 0 0.000168 00000000000000000000 7.423E‐06 7.906E‐06 1.737E‐06 0 0.000105 0.0001067 8.059E‐06 2.783E‐06 2.566E‐06 0.0001201 2.534E‐06 0 0.0001149 0.0001175 8.059E‐06 2.783E‐06 2.566E‐06 0.0001309 0 0.0570185 0.132613 0.1507831 0 0.6235827 0.7743659 0.4368605 0.1249344 0.3278251 1.6639859 0.2199775 0 0.682744 0.9027215 0.4368605 0.1249344 0.3278251 1.79234160 0 0.0019757 0.0005587 0 0 0.0005587 0 0 0 0.0005587 0.0006361 0 0 0.0006361 0 0 0 0.000636100000000000000000000 0.0003836 0.0004086 8.985E‐05 0 0.005423 0.0055128 0.0004619 0.0001539 0.0001458 0.0062745 0.0001311 0 0.0059375 0.0060686 0.0004619 0.0001539 0.0001458 0.0068303

6.401E‐05 0.0164311 0.0260518 0.0411647 0.0092666 0.0565102 0.1069415 0.0630245 0.0165885 0.0897952 0.2763497 0.0600674 0.0135219 0.0618715 0.1354608 0.0630245 0.0165885 0.0897952 0.304869

0.0002216 0 0.0407939 0.0811067 0.0011454 0 0.0822521 0 0 0 0.0822521 0.0923346 0.001304 0 0.0936386 0 0 0 0.0936386

8.451E‐06 0.0021261 0.003322 0.0038767 0.001213 0.0071535 0.0122432 0.0075806 0.0020187 0.0107144 0.0325569 0.0056569 0.00177 0.0078322 0.0152591 0.0075806 0.0020187 0.0107144 0.0355728

0.0001596 0 0.0226824 0.0331077 0.0005174 0 0.0336251 0 0 0 0.0336251 0.0376909 0.000589 0 0.0382799 0 0 0 0.0382799 0 0.0005855 0.0081878 0.2180205 0 0.0909481 0.3089686 0.1210659 0.2166017 0.2271719 0.873808 0.260713 0 0.0988642 0.3595772 0.1210659 0.2166017 0.2271719 0.92441660 0.0349117 0.0894271 0.1252452 0 0.4726346 0.5978797 0.2928004 0.0816558 0.2258933 1.1982292 0.1824704 0 0.5174707 0.6999411 0.2928004 0.0816558 0.2258933 1.30029050 0 0.0062794 0.0011374 0 0 0.0011374 0 0 0 0.0011374 0.0012949 0 0 0.0012949 0 0 0 0.001294900000000000000000000 0.0002382 0.000253 5.407E‐05 0 0.0034083 0.0034624 0.0003324 0.0001095 0.0001071 0.0040113 7.889E‐05 0 0.0037317 0.0038106 0.0003324 0.0001095 0.0001071 0.0043595 0 1.196E‐05 0.0008007 0.0025732 0 4.912E‐05 0.0026223 0.0145198 0.0040667 9.397E‐05 0.0213029 0.0037548 0 5.378E‐05 0.0038086 0.0145198 0.0040667 9.397E‐05 0.0224891 0 0 0.0017186 0.0012744 0 0 0.0012744 0 0 0 0.0012744 0.0014508 0 0 0.0014508 0 0 0 0.0014508

1.07E‐05 0.0010097 0.0033855 0.0086994 0.0015825 0.0092386 0.0195205 0.0052321 0.0012928 0.0105774 0.0366228 0.0126941 0.0023092 0.0101152 0.0251185 0.0052321 0.0012928 0.0105774 0.0422207

0.0041128 0 0.0902133 0.024648 0.0032422 0 0.0278902 0 0 0 0.0278902 0.0280598 0.003691 0 0.0317508 0 0 0 0.0317508

9.892E‐05 0 0.0009805 4.475E‐05 2.384E‐05 0 6.859E‐05 0 0 0 6.859E‐05 0.0031964 0.0017029 0 0.0048992 0 0 0 0.0048992

2.71E‐06 0.0003192 0.0009895 0.0020253 0.0003867 0.0020247 0.0044366 0.0013286 0.0003497 0.0014838 0.0075988 0.0029553 0.0005642 0.0022168 0.0057363 0.0013286 0.0003497 0.0014838 0.0088985

0.000237 0 0.0139572 0.00356 0.0004233 0 0.0039833 0 0 0 0.0039833 0.0040528 0.0004819 0 0.0045347 0 0 0 0.0045347

1.629E‐06 0 9.289E‐05 4.64E‐06 4.442E‐07 0 5.085E‐06 0 0 0 5.085E‐06 0.0003315 3.173E‐05 0 0.0003632 0 0 0 0.0003632

1.525E‐05 4.5E‐05 0.0003058 0.0005305 0.0018792 0.0003017 0.0027114 0.0002672 7.672E‐05 0.0001742 0.0032295 0.0007741 0.0027421 0.0003304 0.0038466 0.0002672 7.672E‐05 0.0001742 0.0043646

0.0002585 0 0.0033447 0.0010367 0.0001286 0 0.0011654 0 0 0 0.0011654 0.0011802 0.0001464 0 0.0013267 0 0 0 0.0013267

2.057E‐05 0 0.0001872 3.234E‐05 5.539E‐06 0 3.787E‐05 0 0 0 3.787E‐05 0.0023097 0.0003956 0 0.0027053 0 0 0 0.0027053 0 1.677E‐05 3.891E‐05 3.347E‐05 0 3.914E‐05 7.261E‐05 3.975E‐05 1.31E‐05 2.541E‐05 0.0001509 4.885E‐05 0 4.285E‐05 9.17E‐05 3.975E‐05 1.31E‐05 2.541E‐05 0.00017 0 0 0.0093128 0.0037165 0 0 0.0037165 0 0 0 0.0037165 0.0042309 0 0 0.0042309 0 0 0 0.004230900000000000000000000 0 0.0013964 0.0003199 0 0 0.0003199 0 0 0 0.0003199 0.0228474 0 0 0.0228474 0 0 0 0.0228474 Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

CO_RUNEX CO_IDLEX CO_STREX CO_TOTEX SOx_RUNEX SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREX SOx_TOTEX NH3_RUNEXFuel Consumption

0.0109894 0 6.011E‐05 0.0110495 2.759E‐06 0 4.143E‐08 2.801E‐06 4.604E‐06 0.0298749

0.1359039 0.6312771 0 0.767181 0.017239 0.0010754 0 0.0183145 0.2210214 172.769370.7637066 0.0538126 0 0.8175192 0000 0.0447654 9.551701220.892496 0 11.338641 32.231137 0.0700106 0 0.0022421 0.0722527 0.8096317 770.67977

0.023704 0 0 0.023704 0.0001504 0 0 0.0001504 0.0002082 1.4175673 0000000000

0.1548329 0 0.4492321 0.604065 0.000992 0 5.722E‐05 0.0010492 0.0137074 11.191523.3324563 0 1.6528703 4.9853266 0.0065556 0 0.0002413 0.006797 0.0696263 72.4995860.0007886 0 0 0.0007886 1.93E‐06 0 0 1.93E‐06 1.519E‐06 0.0181965 0000000000

0.0002633 0 0.0007758 0.0010391 1.687E‐06 0 1.069E‐07 1.794E‐06 2.571E‐05 0.0191341

10.498461 0 5.8566022 16.355063 0.0386562 0 0.0012913 0.0399476 0.3788349 426.098980.0051991 0 0 0.0051991 0.0001188 0 0 0.0001188 0.0001215 1.1201986 0000000000

0.0136215 0 0.0400815 0.053703 8.727E‐05 0 5.952E‐06 9.322E‐05 0.0013258 0.9943713

0.9995877 0.0786478 0.9409396 2.0191751 0.0068766 2.518E‐05 7.981E‐05 0.0069816 0.0342589 74.46913

0.2310973 0.0094936 0 0.2405909 0.0024401 1.333E‐05 0 0.0024535 0.0630257 23.129776

0.103692 0.0102628 0.1255766 0.2395313 0.0009901 3.784E‐06 1.043E‐05 0.0010043 0.0044268 10.712138

0.0879931 0.0042882 0 0.0922813 0.0013546 9.599E‐06 0 0.0013642 0.0319196 12.860695

2.7287212 0 0.475804 3.2045253 0.0003405 0 3.251E‐05 0.000373 0.0015634 3.9782274

6.752752 0 3.5900598 10.342812 0.0246845 0 0.000853 0.0255375 0.1990566 272.39463

0.0194359 0 0 0.0194359 0.0003777 0 0 0.0003777 0.0002962 3.5603668 0000000000

0.0081971 0 0.0251909 0.033388 5.252E‐05 0 4.575E‐06 5.709E‐05 0.0008003 0.6089849

0.0689154 0 0.001102 0.0700174 0.0004908 0 9.256E‐08 0.0004909 0.0011355 5.2361236

0.004284 0 0 0.004284 0.0001034 0 0 0.0001034 0.0014518 0.9744271

0.1843897 0.023655 0.2050533 0.4130981 0.0013737 8.433E‐06 1.5E‐05 0.0013971 0.0034314 14.901957

0.079701 0.0817413 0 0.1614423 0.005175 0.0002472 0 0.0054222 0.0927304 51.150074

0.0129074 0.002842 0 0.0157494 0000 0.0045736 0.55595610.0457805 0.0029932 0.042787 0.0915607 0.0004258 1.972E‐06 3.3E‐06 0.0004311 0.0010719 4.5977896

0.0119505 0.0067748 0 0.0187253 0.0008246 1.425E‐05 0 0.0008389 0.0141616 7.9135799

0.0013622 3.88E‐05 0 0.001401 0000 0.0004585 0.0526663

0.01359 0.0145271 0.0075786 0.0356957 7.113E‐05 4.574E‐06 4.136E‐07 7.612E‐05 0.0003948 0.81189

0.0031535 0.0032779 0 0.0064315 0.0001855 1.553E‐05 0 0.000201 0.0023828 1.8964114

0.0077662 0.0004835 0 0.0082497 0000 0.0006758 0.1061229

0.0030068 0 0.0010986 0.0041054 5.081E‐05 0 7.579E‐08 5.089E‐05 0.0002373 0.542784

0.0042621 0 0 0.0042621 0.0005601 0 0 0.0005601 0.0100836 5.2802941 0000000000

0.2585785 0 0 0.2585785 0000 0.005115 0.7917684
Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Attachment 1 MIG Memorandum May 11 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Attachment 2 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Attachment 2
AERMOD Output Files
Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Attachment 2 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Attachment 2 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Attachment 2: AERMOD Output Files is comprised of 3,100 pages. It is on file with the City of Santa Clara and available in electronic format upon request.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Attachment 2 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Attachment 3 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Attachment 3
AERMOD PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions Dispersion Figures
Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Attachment 3 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

Greystar General Plan Amendment
Figure 1: Construction HRA Year 1 San Jose International Airport Legend

0.00058

0.0009

0.001

0.003

0.005

0.009

0.01 0.03

0.05 MEIR/PMI
Project Site
1000 ft
N
➤
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Figure 2: Construction HRA Year 2 San Jose International Airport Legend

0.00124

0.003

0.005

0.008

0.01 0.03

0.05 0.08

0.1 MEIR/PMI
Project Site
1000 ft
N
➤
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Figure 3: Construction HRA Year 3 San Jose International Airport Legend

0.00198

0.003

0.005

0.008

0.01 0.03

0.05 0.08

0.1 MEIR/PMI
Project Site
1000 ft
N
➤
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Figure 4: Construction HRA Year 4 San Jose International Airport Legend

0.00319

0.005

0.007

0.01 0.03

0.05 0.07

0.1 0.3

MEIR/PMI
Project Site
1000 ft
N
➤
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Figure 5: Construction HRA Year 1 Moffett Federal Airfield Legend

0.00072

0.001

0.002

0.005

0.007

0.01 0.02

0.05 0.07

MEIR/PMI
Project Site
1000 ft
N
➤
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Figure 6: Construction HRA Year 2 Moffett Federal Airfield Legend

0.00147

0.003

0.005

0.008

0.01 0.03

0.05 0.08

0.1 MEIR/PMI
Project Site
1000 ft
N
➤
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Figure 7: Construction HRA Year 3 Moffett Federal Airfield Legend

0.00241

0.005

0.006

0.01 0.02

0.05 0.06

0.1 0.2

MEIR/PMI
Project Site
1000 ft
N
➤
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Figure 8: Construction HRA Year 4 Moffett Federal Airfield Legend

0.00446

0.005

0.006

0.008

0.01 0.02

0.04 0.05

0.06 0.08

0.1 0.2

0.4 MEIR/PMI
Project Site
1000 ft
N
➤
Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Attachment 4 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Attachment 4
Health Risk Assessment Calculations
Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Attachment 4 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 4

Attachment 4: Construction Health Risk Assessment Calculations (DPM) Greystar General Plan Amendment HRA
Residential Health Risk Calculations - Moffett Federal Airfield Met Data

METHODOLOGY
Dose (Air) = Cair x DBR x A x EF x CF
Where: Cair Chemical concentration in air (µg/m3
)
DBR: Daily breathing rate (L/kg-day)
A: Inhalation adsorption factor (unitless)
EF: Exposure Frequency, days at home / days in year (unitless) CF: 10^-6 Conversion Factor (m3
/L and mg/µg)
Cancer Risk (per million) = Dose (Air) x CPF x ASF x (ED/AT) x FAH x 1,000,000 Where: Dose: Dose of chemical in the air (µg/m3)
CPF: Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF: Age Sensitivity Factor
ED: Exposure Duration (years)
AT: Averaging Time for lifetime cancer risks
FAH: Fraction of daily time spent at home / school
Risk Parameter Values by Age Bin
0-2 Years 2-16 Years 16-30 Years 16-70 Years
DBR 1090 572 261 233
A 1 1 1 1
EF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
CF 1.00E-06 1.00E-06 1.00E-06 1.00E-06
CPF 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
ASF 10 3 1 1
ED 2 14 14 54
AT 70 70 70 70
FAH 1 1 0.73 0.73
Scenario 1 (EIR; Tier III and IV): AERMOD Modeled DPM Concentrations (PMI/MEIR) Conc. X Y Conc. X Y
Year 1 0.0625 591291.00 4137942.00 0.0065 591165.00 4137730.00 Year 2 0.1371 591216.00 4137942.00 0.0130 591165.00 4137730.00 Year 3 0.22471 591216.00 4137942.00 0.0208 591165.00 4137730.00 Year 4 0.25458 591291.00 4138242.00 0.0115 591165.00 4137730.00

PMI MEIR
1 Variable Residential Age Bin
3rd Trimester
361
1 0.96

1.00E-06

1.1 10

0.25 70
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 4

Scenario 1: Risk Assessment Year 1 MEIR
Scenario
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Scenario 1: Year 1 Dose @ MEIR
Age Group Cair x BR A EF CF Dose
3rd Trimester 0.00649 361 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 2.25E-06
0-2 Years 0.00649 1090 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 6.78E-06
2-16 Years 0.00649 572 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 3.56E-06
16-30 Years 0.00649 261 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 1.62E-06
30-70 Years 0.00649 233 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 1.45E-06
Scenario 1: Year 1 Excess Risk at MEIR
Age Group Dose CPF ASF ED AT FAH Conversion Risk
3rd Trimester 2.25E-06 1.1 10 0.25 70 1 1,000,000 0.1
0-2 Years 6.78E-06 1.1 10 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 1.1
2-16 Years 3.56E-06 1.1 3 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 0.2
16-30 Years 1.62E-06 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.0
30-70 Years 1.45E-06 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.0
Scenario 1: Year 2 Dose @ MEIR
Age Group Cair x BR A EF CF Dose
3rd Trimester 0.01297 361 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 4.49E-06
0-2 Years 0.01297 1090 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 1.36E-05
2-16 Years 0.01297 572 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 7.11E-06
16-30 Years 0.01297 261 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 3.25E-06
30-70 Years 0.01297 233 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 2.90E-06
Scenario 1: Year 2 Excess Risk at MEIR
Age Group Dose CPF ASF ED AT FAH Conversion Risk
3rd Trimester 4.49E-06 1.1 10 0.25 70 1 1,000,000 0.2
0-2 Years 1.36E-05 1.1 10 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 2.1
2-16 Years 7.11E-06 1.1 3 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 0.3
16-30 Years 3.25E-06 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.0
30-70 Years 2.90E-06 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.0
Scenario 1: Year 3 Dose @ MEIR
Age Group Cair x BR A EF CF Dose
3rd Trimester 0.0208 361 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 7.20E-06
0-2 Years 0.0208 1090 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 2.17E-05
2-16 Years 0.0208 572 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 1.14E-05
16-30 Years 0.0208 261 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 5.21E-06
30-70 Years 0.0208 233 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 4.65E-06
Scenario 1: Year 3 Excess Risk at MEIR
Age Group Dose CPF ASF ED AT FAH Conversion Risk
3rd Trimester 7.20E-06 1.1 10 0.25 70 1 1,000,000 0.3
0-2 Years 2.17E-05 1.1 10 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 3.4
2-16 Years 1.14E-05 1.1 3 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 0.5
16-30 Years 5.21E-06 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.1
30-70 Years 4.65E-06 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.1

0.0208 0.00416

0.0115 0.00230

0.00259
AERMOD DPM Conc. Chronic Hazard Quotient

0.0065 0.00130

0.0130
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 4

Scenario 1: Year 4 Dose @ MEIR
Age Group Cair x BR A EF CF Dose
3rd Trimester 0.01151 361 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 3.98E-06
0-2 Years 0.01151 1090 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 1.20E-05
2-16 Years 0.01151 572 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 6.31E-06
16-30 Years 0.01151 261 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 2.88E-06
30-70 Years 0.01151 233 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 2.57E-06
Scenario 1: Year 4 Excess Risk at MEIR
Age Group Dose CPF ASF ED AT FAH Conversion Risk
3rd Trimester 3.98E-06 1.1 10 0.25 70 1 1,000,000 0.2
0-2 Years 1.20E-05 1.1 10 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 1.9
2-16 Years 6.31E-06 1.1 3 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 0.3
16-30 Years 2.88E-06 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.0
30-70 Years 2.57E-06 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.0
Scenario 1: Total Excess Risk at MEIR (Exposure Year 1 through 4) Infant Child (1-2) Child 2<x<16Adult 16<x<30Adult 30<x<70 Year 1 1.2 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0
Year 2 2.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0
Year 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1
Year 4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.03 0.0
Total 4.1 2.2 1.3 0.1 0.1
Note: Infant exposure includes 3rd trimester (0.25 years) and child (1 year exposure) in Year 1 Scneario 1: Total Excess Risk at MEIR (Exposure Year 2 through 4) Infant Child (1-2) Child 2<x<16Adult 16<x<30Adult 30<x<70 Year 2 2.3 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.0
Year 3 3.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1
Year 4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.03 0.0
Total 6.0 3.0 1.2 0.1 0.1
Note: Infant exposure includes 3rd trimester (0.25 years) and child (1 year exposure) in Year 2 Scneario 1: Total Excess Risk at MEIR (Exposure Year 3 and 4) Infant Child (1-2) Child 2<x<16Adult 16<x<30Adult 30<x<70 Year 3 3.7 3.4 0.5 0.1 0.1
Year 4 1.9 0.3 0.3 0.03 0.0
Total 5.6 3.7 0.8 0.1 0.1
Note: Infant exposure includes 3rd trimester (0.25 years) and child (1 year exposure) in Year 3 Scaling Factors for Scenario 2 Risks
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Risks Presented by Age at Time of Construction Initiation Risks Presented by Age at Time of Construction Initiation

2.83 1.01

0.74 Risks Presented by Age at Time of Construction Initiation

0.57 Scaling Factors
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 4

Scenario 2: Risk Assessment MEIR
Scenario
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Scenario 2: Total Excess Risk at MEIR (Exposure Year 1 through 4) Infant Child (1-2) Child 2<x<16Adult 16<x<30Adult 30<x<70 Year 1 3.3 3.0 0.5 0.1 0.0
Year 2 2.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0
Year 3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0
Year 4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total 6.0 3.9 1.4 0.2 0.1
Note: Infant exposure includes 3rd trimester (0.25 years) and child (1 year exposure) in Year 1 Scenario 2: Total Excess Risk at MEIR (Exposure Year 2 through 4) Infant Child (1-2) Child 2<x<16Adult 16<x<30Adult 30<x<70 Year 2 2.3 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.0
Year 3 2.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0
Year 4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total 5.0 2.7 0.9 0.1 0.1
Note: Infant exposure includes 3rd trimester (0.25 years) and child (1 year exposure) in Year 2 Scneario 2: Total Excess Risk at MEIR (Exposure Year 3 and 4) Infant Child (1-2) Child 2<x<16Adult 16<x<30Adult 30<x<70 Year 3 2.7 2.5 0.4 0.0 0.0
Year 4 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total 3.8 2.7 0.6 0.1 0.1
Note: Infant exposure includes 3rd trimester (0.25 years) and child (1 year exposure) in Year 3 Risks Presented by Age at Time of Construction Initiation Risks Presented by Age at Time of Construction Initiation Risks Presented by Age at Time of Construction Initiation AERMOD DPM Conc. Chronic Hazard Quotient

0.0184 0.0037

0.0131 0.0026

0.0153 0.0031

0.0065 0.0013
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 4

Attachment 4: Construction Health Risk Assessment Calculations (DPM) Greystar General Plan Amendment HRA
Residential Health Risk Calculations - San Jose International Airport Met Data

METHODOLOGY
Dose (Air) = Cair x DBR x A x EF x CF
Where: Cair Chemical concentration in air (µg/m3
)
DBR: Daily breathing rate (L/kg-day)
A: Inhalation adsorption factor (unitless)
EF: Exposure Frequency, days at home / days in year (unitless) CF: 10^-6 Conversion Factor (m3
/L and mg/µg)
Cancer Risk (per million) = Dose (Air) x CPF x ASF x (ED/AT) x FAH x 1,000,000 Where: Dose: Dose of chemical in the air (µg/m3)
CPF: Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF: Age Sensitivity Factor
ED: Exposure Duration (years)
AT: Averaging Time for lifetime cancer risks
FAH: Fraction of daily time spent at home / school
Risk Parameter Values by Age Bin
0-2 Years 2-16 Years 16-30 Years 16-70 Years
DBR 1090 572 261 233
A 1 1 1 1
EF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
CF 1.00E-06 1.00E-06 1.00E-06 1.00E-06
CPF 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
ASF 10 3 1 1
ED 2 14 14 54
AT 70 70 70 70
FAH 1 1 0.73 0.73
Scenario 1 (EIR; Tier III and IV): AERMOD Modeled DPM Concentrations (PMI/MEIR) Conc. X Y Conc. X Y
Year 1 0.0583 591291.00 4138017.00 0.0005 591165.00 4137730.00 Year 2 0.1177 591291.00 4138092.00 0.0011 591165.00 4137730.00 Year 3 0.19844 591291.00 4138017.00 0.0017 591165.00 4137730.00 Year 4 0.25833 591291.00 4138317.00 0.0009 591165.00 4137730.00

PMI MEIR
1 Variable Residential Age Bin
3rd Trimester
361
1 0.96

1.00E-06

1.1 10

0.25 70
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 4

Scenario 1: Risk Assessment Year 1 MEIR
Scenario
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Scenario 1: Year 1 Dose @ MEIR
Age Group Cair x BR A EF CF Dose
3rd Trimester 0.00053 361 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 1.83E-07
0-2 Years 0.00053 1090 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 5.54E-07
2-16 Years 0.00053 572 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 2.91E-07
16-30 Years 0.00053 261 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 1.33E-07
30-70 Years 0.00053 233 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 1.18E-07
Scenario 1: Year 1 Excess Risk at MEIR
Age Group Dose CPF ASF ED AT FAH Conversion Risk
3rd Trimester 1.83E-07 1.1 10 0.25 70 1 1,000,000 0.0
0-2 Years 5.54E-07 1.1 10 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 0.1
2-16 Years 2.91E-07 1.1 3 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 0.0
16-30 Years 1.33E-07 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.0
30-70 Years 1.18E-07 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.0
Scenario 1: Year 2 Dose @ MEIR
Age Group Cair x BR A EF CF Dose
3rd Trimester 0.00105 361 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 3.63E-07
0-2 Years 0.00105 1090 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 1.10E-06
2-16 Years 0.00105 572 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 5.76E-07
16-30 Years 0.00105 261 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 2.63E-07
30-70 Years 0.00105 233 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 2.35E-07
Scenario 1: Year 2 Excess Risk at MEIR
Age Group Dose CPF ASF ED AT FAH Conversion Risk
3rd Trimester 3.63E-07 1.1 10 0.25 70 1 1,000,000 0.0
0-2 Years 1.10E-06 1.1 10 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 0.2
2-16 Years 5.76E-07 1.1 3 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 0.0
16-30 Years 2.63E-07 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.0
30-70 Years 2.35E-07 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.0
Scenario 1: Year 3 Dose @ MEIR
Age Group Cair x BR A EF CF Dose
3rd Trimester 0.00168 361 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 5.82E-07
0-2 Years 0.00168 1090 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 1.76E-06
2-16 Years 0.00168 572 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 9.21E-07
16-30 Years 0.00168 261 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 4.20E-07
30-70 Years 0.00168 233 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 3.75E-07
Scenario 1: Year 3 Excess Risk at MEIR
Age Group Dose CPF ASF ED AT FAH Conversion Risk
3rd Trimester 5.82E-07 1.1 10 0.25 70 1 1,000,000 0.0
0-2 Years 1.76E-06 1.1 10 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 0.3
2-16 Years 9.21E-07 1.1 3 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 0.0
16-30 Years 4.20E-07 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.0
30-70 Years 3.75E-07 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.0

0.0011 0.00021

0.0017 0.00034

0.0009 0.00018
AERMOD DPM Conc. Chronic Hazard Quotient

0.0005 0.00011
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 4

Scenario 1: Year 4 Dose @ MEIR
Age Group Cair x BR A EF CF Dose
3rd Trimester 0.00092 361 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 3.18E-07
0-2 Years 0.00092 1090 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 9.62E-07
2-16 Years 0.00092 572 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 5.05E-07
16-30 Years 0.00092 261 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 2.30E-07
30-70 Years 0.00092 233 1 0.96 1.00E-06 = 2.06E-07
Scenario 1: Year 4 Excess Risk at MEIR
Age Group Dose CPF ASF ED AT FAH Conversion Risk
3rd Trimester 3.18E-07 1.1 10 0.25 70 1 1,000,000 0.0
0-2 Years 9.62E-07 1.1 10 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 0.2
2-16 Years 5.05E-07 1.1 3 1.00 70 1 1,000,000 0.0
16-30 Years 2.30E-07 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.0
30-70 Years 2.06E-07 1.1 1 1.00 70 0.73 1,000,000 0.0
Scenario 1: Total Excess Risk at MEIR (Exposure Year 1 through 4) Infant Child (1-2) Child 2<x<16Adult 16<x<30Adult 30<x<70 Year 1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Year 2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Year 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Year 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
Total 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
Note: Infant exposure includes 3rd trimester (0.25 years) and child (1 year exposure) in Year 1 Scneario 1: Total Excess Risk at MEIR (Exposure Year 2 through 4) Infant Child (1-2) Child 2<x<16Adult 16<x<30Adult 30<x<70 Year 2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Year 3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Year 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
Total 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
Note: Infant exposure includes 3rd trimester (0.25 years) and child (1 year exposure) in Year 2 Scneario 1: Total Excess Risk at MEIR (Exposure Year 3 and 4) Infant Child (1-2) Child 2<x<16Adult 16<x<30Adult 30<x<70 Year 3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Year 4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
Total 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0
Note: Infant exposure includes 3rd trimester (0.25 years) and child (1 year exposure) in Year 3 Scaling Factors for Scenario 2 Risks
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4

0.74 0.57

1.01 Risks Presented by Age at Time of Construction Initiation Risks Presented by Age at Time of Construction Initiation Risks Presented by Age at Time of Construction Initiation Scaling Factors

2.83 Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 4

Scenario 2: Risk Assessment MEIR
Scenario
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Scenario 2: Total Excess Risk at MEIR (Exposure Year 1 through 4) Infant Child (1-2) Child 2<x<16Adult 16<x<30Adult 30<x<70 Year 1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Year 2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Year 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Year 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0
Note: Infant exposure includes 3rd trimester (0.25 years) and child (1 year exposure) in Year 1 Scenario 2: Total Excess Risk at MEIR (Exposure Year 2 through 4) Infant Child (1-2) Child 2<x<16Adult 16<x<30Adult 30<x<70 Year 2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Year 3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Year 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
Note: Infant exposure includes 3rd trimester (0.25 years) and child (1 year exposure) in Year 2 Scneario 2: Total Excess Risk at MEIR (Exposure Year 3 and 4) Infant Child (1-2) Child 2<x<16Adult 16<x<30Adult 30<x<70 Year 3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Year 4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Note: Infant exposure includes 3rd trimester (0.25 years) and child (1 year exposure) in Year 3 Risks Presented by Age at Time of Construction Initiation Risks Presented by Age at Time of Construction Initiation Risks Presented by Age at Time of Construction Initiation

0.0011 0.0002

0.0012 0.0002

0.0005 0.0001
AERMOD DPM Conc. Chronic Hazard Quotient

0.0015 0.0003
May 11, 2022
Mr. John Davidson
Principal Planner
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
[email protected]
Re: Updated Biological Setting for the Greystar Parcels in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan
Dear Mr. Davidson:

At the City’s request, MIG is providing this April 2022 update to the December 2020 biological setting presented in the Draft EIR for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment (City of Santa Clara, November 1, 2021). While this updated setting description is more robust than the description provided in the biology section of the EIR, please note that the setting has not substantially changed from what was observed in 2020.

The difference is that in December 2020 the site had been mowed, and the lack of vegetation resulted in less cover and forage for wildlife. In April 2022 the site had not been recently mowed (as discussed below, the site is mowed short approximately three times per year), and greater use by urban-adapted species was observed. No new potentially significant impacts were identified, and no additional mitigation measures are required.

The following description summarizes the historic use of the site, describes the current biological setting, and lists the species observed during the April 2022 site visit. Figures and photographs are provided at the end.

1. Existing Land Uses, Natural Communities, and Habitats, April 2022

1.1 General Project Area Description and Site History
The Greystar parcels (approximately 13 acres) are within the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan and are located in the Milpitas, California 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle. The parcels are located within an urban area, including residential and commercial development, approximately 1.7 miles northwest of the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport and 5.4 miles from downtown San Jose. The parcels are bordered by U.S. Highway 101 to the south, Mission College Boulevard to the north, commercial development and Freedom Circle to the west, and San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east. The parcels are mainly flat with elevations ranging from approximately 27 feet to 34 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) (Google Inc. 2022). The parcels have a long history of agricultural use (primarily orchard). Sometime between 1968 and 1980, the parcels were graded as the area was developed (UCSB 2022). Plowing, tilling, and other land Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 2 , Inc.
disturbance associated with agriculture and urbanization has likely eliminated most soil seed banks of native plants and degraded natural habitats within the parcels. Furthermore, the parcels are currently mowed short three times annually for weed abatement and fire control, and have been for at least the last 6 years (M. Avila, J. Ly pers. comm.). The owner does not need any approvals to mow, and the consistent mowing is considered part of the biological baseline.

Due to the presence of hazardous agricultural chemicals in the soil, the parcels have been the subject of ongoing environmental evaluation and clean-up activities for 25 years. This is reported in the Draft EIR for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment (November 1, 2021). Since 1997 the parcels have been under a Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) voluntary clean-up 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 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. Progressive aerial photographs of site conditions are shown in Figure 1. The parcels currently still contain the gravel and cap, but over time have been overgrown with weed species as described in this updated setting. summary.

The climate at the parcels is coastal Mediterranean, with most rain falling in the winter and spring. Cool to mild temperatures are common in the winter and hot to mild temperatures are common in the summer. Climate conditions in the study area include a 30-year average of approximately 15 inches of annual precipitation with an average temperature range from 51ºF to 72ºF (PRISM Climate Group 2022).

The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) maps one soil type within the parcels (NRCS 2022a): 165 – Urbanland-Campbell complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, protected. This soil series is listed as hydric in Santa Clara County on the National Hydric Soils List (NRCS 2022b). The Urbanland-Campbell complex is found in alluvial fans and is composed mostly of disturbed and human-transported material. The water table depth is at least 80 inches and is moderately drained.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps San Thomas Aquino Creek as a permanently flooded, perennial riverine feature with a streambed (R2UBHx). No other aquatic features were mapped by the NWI in the project area (NWI 2022).

1.2 Existing Land Uses, Vegetation Communities, and Habitats The parcels are located within the Central Coast/San Francisco Bay Area Subregions of the Central Western Californian Region, both of which are contained within the larger California Floristic Province (Baldwin et al. 2012). Where applicable, vegetation communities were Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 3 , Inc.
mapped using CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program’s (VegCAMP) currently accepted list of vegetation alliances and associations (CDFW 2022).

Based on a site visit in April 2022 to update the site visit for the EIR that was conducted in December 2020, two vegetation communities, habitats, and land cover types occur in the parcels: (1) Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grassland (Avena spp. – Bromus spp. Semi-natural Alliance), and (2) developed. Existing land cover types, vegetation communities, and habitats in the project areas are summarized in Table 1, and their distribution is depicted in Figure 3.

Table 1. Summary of Existing Land Cover Types, Vegetation Communities, and Habitats in the Greystar Parcels Shown on Figure 2
Land Cover Types, Vegetation Communities, and Habitats Area (acres) Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grassland 12.3
Developed 00.6
Total 12.9

1.2.1 Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grassland (Avena spp. – Bromus spp. Semi-natural Alliance)
Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grassland is an annual grassland dominated by non-native grasses. Non-native herbaceous annuals may also be present or co-dominate (Photo 1).

Within the parcels, ruderal and invasive non-native species dominate the grassland community. Dominant non-native grass species observed included slender oat (Avena barbata) and foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum). Other non-native grasses observed included foxtail brome (Bromus madritensis), smilo grass (Stipa miliacea), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), and Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica). The dominant non-native herbaceous species observed included wild radish (Raphanus sativus) and bull mallow (Malva nicaeensis). Other non-native herbaceous species observed included hawksbeard (Crepis sp.), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), and salsify (Tragopogon sp.). The only native herbaceous species observed was salt grass (Distichlis spicata) and common cattail (Typha latifolia). The cattails were dried and were confined to a small area (<80 square feet) where an active water main was leaking (M. Avila, pers. comm.). However, no surface water was observed in this location and since there was no natural hydrology present, this area was not mapped as a wetland (Photo 2).

Several shrubs and trees were also observed along the perimeter of the parcels, including the native coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia); and the nonnative Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Chinese hackberry (Celtis sinensis), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta).

Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 4 , Inc.

Many of the non-native herbaceous species present in the parcels are ranked as moderately to highly invasive by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC 2022). For example, perennial pepperweed has severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure (Cal-IPC 2022).

Wildlife use of the Wild Oats and Annual Brome grassland in the parcels is limited by frequent human disturbance, a dominance of non-native and invasive species, and isolation of the grassland habitat remnants from more extensive grasslands due to urbanization of the area.

Regular mowing likely depresses both plant species diversity and habitat structure diversity.

As a result, avian wildlife species associated with more extensive grasslands, such as the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), are likely absent from the parcels, but urban adapted species such as the darkeyed junco (Junco hyemalis) may nest in dense patches of vegetation in the grassland.

However, most of the bird species using this habitat during the breeding season nest in human-made structures present in the parcels (e.g., electrical boxes, defunct bus shelter, light poles), or other nearby structures and buildings, or in the freshwater marsh in San Tomas Aquino Creek, or nearby trees, and use the grassland community only for foraging. Such species include the Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus). Several other species of birds may use the grassland during the nonbreeding season. These species, which include Canada goose (Branta canadensis), golden-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), yellowrumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), may forage on the ground or in herbaceous vegetation.

Further, raptors, such as red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) may forage for small mammals within the grassland.

Avian species observed during the April 2022 field visit included Anna’s hummingbird, black phoebe, California towhee, house finch, mourning dove, northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), and red-tailed hawk.

Also, several old nests were observed on the structures within the parcels. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and Canada goose were observed in San Tomas Aquino Creek. In May 2022 additional species that were observed include scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), western bluebird, and Brewer’s blackbird.

Few species of reptiles and amphibians occur in the grassland community due to its disturbed nature and urbanization of the surrounding area. Nevertheless, reptiles such as the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) may be present in the grassland, and amphibians such as the Sierran Treefrog (Pseudacris sierra) and western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), which might breed in San Tomas Aquino Creek, may also forage, and seek cover in the grassland.

Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 5 , Inc.

Small mammals expected to be present include the native western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) and non-native house mouse (Mus musculus). Small burrowing mammals, such as the Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), are likely present. Larger mammals that are most often associated with developed areas and are tolerant of human disturbance, such as the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani) may also occur here.

Burrows made by California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) were observed in the southern parcel and along the levee of San Tomas Aquino Creek at US 101. Individual ground squirrels were observed at the burrows on the creek levee. Western fence lizard was also observed on the levee. Botta’s pocket gopher, brush rabbits, and domestic cats (Felis catus) have been observed in the parcels in the past (M. Avila, pers. comm.). A well-maintained human-made structure that provides shelter for stray cats was observed inside the parcel boundary along Freedom Circle. The structure is apparently regularly stocked with food and water for cats (M. Avila, pers. comm.). Feral cats are predators for most of the bird and small mammal species likely to occur on the parcels.

1.2.2 Developed
The paved access road through the parcels was mapped as developed since it was mostly devoid of vegetation, but there were areas with sparse non-native herbaceous species growing through the cracks in the asphalt (Photo 3). Due to the scarcity of vegetation, developed land cover provides relatively low-quality habitat for wildlife species. However, because the developed area is surrounded by the grassland community, the wildlife described above likely move through and forage in this area (see Section 1.2.1).

1.2.3 San Tomas Aquino Creek
San Tomas Aquino Creek flows along the entire eastern border of the parcels and is separated from the parcels by the San Tomas Aquino Trail (Photo 4), and fencing. The parcels are approximately 35 feet from the creek corridor. The San Tomas Aquino Creek watershed covers an area of approximately 45 square miles. San Tomas Aquino Creek originates in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains and flows north through the cities of Campbell and Santa Clara, into the Guadalupe Slough, and finally into the San Francisco Bay.

The major tributaries to San Tomas Aquino Creek include Saratoga, Wildcat, Smith, and Vasona creeks. San Tomas Aquino Creek is channelized for most of its length (from the Smith Creek confluence in Saratoga downstream to Highway 101).

Though San Tomas Aquino Creek has been channelized and altered from its native state, the creek still provides habitat for a diverse suite of aquatic and wetland-associated wildlife species. Native fishes present include hitch (Lavinia exilicauda), California roach (Hesperoleucus symmetricus),), Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis occidentalis), three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), and rainbow trout (Oncohrynchus mykiss) Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 6 , Inc.
in the upper reaches of the creek. Non-native fish, including Western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) may also be present in the creek (Leidy 2005).

The creek may provide habitat for common amphibians such as the Pacific chorus frog and western toad. Reptiles such as the coast garter snake (Thamnophis elegans terrestris) and southwestern pond turtle (Emys pallida) may forage and disperse through the creek.

Terrestrial bird species that occur in adjacent habitats, such as house finches, black phoebes, and sparrows, will forage occasionally in the freshwater wetland vegetation along the creek.

However, passerine birds associated with more extensive wetlands, such as the marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) are not expected to nest along the section of the creek adjacent to the parcels. Mammals that may use the creek corridor and the adjacent grassland habitat in the parcels include striped skunk, opossum, and racoon.

Sincerely,
Taylor Peterson
Director of Biological Analysis
Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 7 , Inc.

References
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. VegCAMP Natural Communities Lists. Accessed April 2022 from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/vegcamp/naturalcommunities.

California Invasive Plant Council. 2022. Inventory of Invasive Plants. Accessed April 2022 from https://www.cal-ipc.org/
City of Santa Clara. November 1, 2021. Draft EIR for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment
Google Inc. 2022. Google Earth Pro (Version 7.1.5.1557) [Software]. Available from earth.google.com.

Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022a. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed April 2022 from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. [NRCS] National Resource Conservation Service. 2022b. National Hydric Soils List. Accessed February 2000 from http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/. [NWI] National Wetlands Inventory. 2022. Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Accessed April 2022 from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html.

PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, https://prism.oregonstate.edu, data created 27 Apr 2022, accessed 27 Apr 2022.

University of California Santa Barbara. 2022. UCSB Library Geospatial Collection. Accessed April 2022 from https://www.library.ucsb.edu/geospatial/aerial-photography Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 8 , Inc.

This page is intentionally left blank
Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 9 , Inc.

Figures and Photographs
Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 10 , Inc.

Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 11 , Inc.

Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 12 , Inc.

Photo 1. Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grassland vegetation community within the parcels.

Bare ground in the foreground is rocked with gravel. April 2022.

Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 13 , Inc.

Photo 2. A small area within the grassland was dominated by common cattail, a wetland species. The cattails are growing in this location due to a water main leak. April 2022.

Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 14 , Inc.

Photo 3. Developed land cover within the parcels. April 2022.

Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 15 , Inc.

Photo 4. San Tomas Aquino Creek trapezoidal channel, April 2022. The parcels are located to the right of the creek in the background.

Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 16 , Inc.

Photographs from December 2020 Visit
Photo 5. Greystar Parcels from Freedom Circle at Pedro’s restaurant. December 2020.

Photo 6. Greystar parcels December 2020
Mr. John Davidson
May 11, 2022
Greystar Parcels DEIR Updated Biological Setting
MIG 17 , Inc.

Photo 7. San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail and Greystar Parcels on the right. Glass buildings in the background are on the other side of US 101, which borders the south end of the parcels.

December 2020.

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 2 Historic 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.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 increase the size of the park from 2.0 acres to 3.0 or 4.0 acres. Therefore, this alternative would generate the same approximately 5,722 ADT as the proposed Greystar project.  Alternative G-3: Reduced Residential Buildout But Larger Park. Under Alternative G-3, the Greystar project would be developed similar to Alternative G-2 except that residential development would be reduced by 20 percent from 1,075 units to 860 units.

The other aspects of the project would be the same: 2,000 SF retail and a larger park (3.0 to 4.0 acres rather than the proposed 2.0 acres). Relevant to air quality, energy, GHG, and noise impacts, this alternative would result in approximately 4,771 average daily vehicle trips (ADT) due to the 20 percent reduction in residential units. Therefore, this alternative would generate about 951 fewer ADT than the proposed project (5,722).
 Alternative G-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 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.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
(a) Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Of all the identified alternatives other than the No Project alternative (Alternative FC-1), Alternative FC-3: Mainly Residential Development would be the “environmentally superior alternative” because although the overall severity of impacts compared to the other alternatives (see EIR Table 21-2) would be similar, if not greater in some instances, this alternative would meet most basic project objectives similarly or more effectively, particularly with respect to addressing the City’s existing jobs/housing imbalance and providing needed affordable housing in Santa Clara. (b) Greystar Project. Of all the identified alternatives other than the No Project alternative (Alternative G-1), Alternative G-3: Reduced Residential Buildout/Larger Park would result in the least adverse overall environmental impacts and would therefore be the “environmentally superior alternative.” This conclusion is based on the overall reduction in the severity of impacts compared to the other alternatives (see EIR Table 21-3). However, while the alternative would meet most of the project objectives, it would not address the CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 City’s existing jobs/housing imbalance because it would not provide as much needed affordable housing in Santa Clara as either the proposed project or Alternative G-2.

Finding: As discussed above for each alternative, based on the sheer size of the Plan Area (108 acres) and the development already allowed under the existing Santa Clara General Plan (No Project), none of the significant unavoidable project or cumulative impacts are expected to be reduced to a level of less than significant under any of the Focus Area Plan alternatives.

VI. FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(d) provides the following guidance on growth-inducing impacts: a project is identified as growth inducing if it “could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.

As of October 2021, there were no residential units in the Plan Area. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment implementation would result in new housing and population in the Plan Area over existing conditions, as explained in section

3.5 (Focus Area Plan Development Assumptions) and chapter 14 (Population and Housing) of this EIR. The increases through the horizon year of 2040 would be up to approximately 3,600 residential units and about 8,172 residents. This forecast assumption is based on the potential development of projects in the Plan Area, consistent with Plan goals and policies related to land use and urban design, and the proposed Greystar project. The direct increase in residential units and population could have an indirect economic “multiplier” effect, generating additional employment in the broader region. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment would help accommodate anticipated regional growth, including residential development that is necessary to meet the City’s state-mandated RHNA targets. No substantial, detrimental, unplanned growth-inducing effect is expected. Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment implementation would not extend roads or infrastructure through undeveloped or lowdensity areas, except for the Greystar project, which would construct a perimeter road around the project site to facilitate resident movement and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire/EMS, police) access. The Plan (including the Greystar project) would not “oversize” infrastructure that would lead to indirect growth. A primary objective of the Plan is to facilitate appropriate development efficiently and effectively in an area where roads and infrastructure already exist (see EIR chapter 3, Project Description).

VII. FINDINGS REGARDING RECIRCULATION OF THE DRAFT EIR
The City Council adopts the following findings with respect to whether to recirculate the Draft EIR. Under section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of an EIR is required when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review but prior to certification of the Final EIR. The term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5.)
Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The above standard is “not intend[ed] to promote endless rounds of revision and recirculation of EIRs.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1132.) “Recirculation was intended to be an exception, rather than the general rule.” (Ibid.)
The City Council recognizes that the Final EIR contains additions, clarifications, modifications, and other changes to the Draft EIR. Some comments on the Draft EIR either expressly or impliedly sought changes to proposed mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR as well as additional mitigation measures. As explained in the Final EIR (Text Revisions), some of the suggestions were found to be appropriate and feasible and were adopted in the Final EIR. Where changes have been made to mitigation measures, these changes do not change the significance of any conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

CEQA case law emphasizes that “‘[t]he CEQA reporting process is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project; indeed, new and unforeseen insights may emerge during investigation, evoking revision of the original proposal.’” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736-737; see also River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, 168, fn. 11.) “CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive project modification which must be genuine. It must be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen insights that emerge from the process. In short, a project must be open for public discussion and subject to agency modification during the CEQA process.” (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 33rd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936 CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 (internal citations omitted).) Here, the changes made to the Draft EIR in the Final EIR are exactly the kind of revisions that the case law recognizes as legitimate and proper.

The City Council finds that none of the revisions to the Draft EIR made by, or discussion included in, the Final EIR involves “significant new information” triggering recirculation because the changes do not result in any new significant environmental effects, substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or feasible project alternatives that would clearly lessen the environmental effects of the project. Similarly, no documentation produced by, or submitted to, the City and relied on by the City after publication of the Final EIR, including but not limited to public comments, identifies any new significant effect, substantial increase in the severity of any environmental effect, or feasible project alternatives that would clearly lessen the environmental effects of the project. All project modifications were either environmentally benign or environmentally neutral and all additional documentation relied on by the City merely clarifies or amplifies conclusions in the EIR, and thus represent the kinds of common changes that occur and supplemental information that is received during the environmental review process as it works towards its conclusion. Under such circumstances, the City Council hereby finds that recirculation of the EIR is not required.

VII. SECTION 21082.1(c)(3) FINDINGS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3), the City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects that independent judgment of the lead agency.

IX. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Where a proposed project may result in significant impacts on the environment, and it is infeasible to reduce impacts to less than significant levels through project alternatives or mitigation measures, CEQA allows a public agency to approve the project only if the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the following:

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 proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
As discussed in more detail in the EIR and as summarized in Section IV above, the Project will result in significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality, historic resources and noise. Specifically, the Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts on the following:

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 • Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) emissions
• Potential destruction or degradation of Historic Resources • Noise, specifically increases in traffic noise levels from development within the Focus Area
The project would also result in the following significant unavoidable cumulative impacts:
• Air Quality emissions (criteria pollutant emissions)
The City identified a potentially feasible alternative (the Reduced Overall Development Alternative) that would result in the reduction of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact due to Increases in Traffic Noise from development, but it has not identified any potentially feasible alternatives that would avoid any of the other significant and unavoidable impacts. Moreover, as compared to the Project, this Alternative would be of substantially less assistance to the City in meeting its RHNA goals and its objectives of providing housing close to commercial development and current and planned jobs and reducing the jobs to housing ratio in the City.

Furthermore, although the Reduced Overall Development Alternative was initially determined to be potentially feasible (subject to further review as the CEQA process proceeded), the City has now determined that the Reduced Intensity is not feasible, for the specific economic, social, environmental, technological, legal or other considerations set forth in section V above. Under CEQA, “the decision makers may reject as infeasible alternatives that were identified in the EIR as potentially feasible.” San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 18.

The City certifies that it has considered the information on alternatives provided in the EIR and in the record, and finds that, as described in the EIR and for the reasons identified in Section V above, there are no feasible alternatives that would avoid all of the above-listed significant and unavoidable impacts.

Overriding Considerations
The City finds that notwithstanding the disclosure of the above significant unavoidable impacts, there are specific overriding economic, social, technological, and other reasons for approving the proposed Project. Those reasons are as follows:
• The City finds that each of the specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations and the benefits of the Project separately and independently outweigh the significant, adverse impacts and is an overriding consideration independently warranting approval. The remaining significant adverse impacts identified above are acceptable in light of each of the benefits of the Project. • The Project will help to intensify an existing office-industrial area near Levi's Stadium, the Convention Center, and the future City Place project by providing housing in an amenity–rich, urban environment that is close to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 which is the spine of the City’s active transportation network, and proximate to employment opportunities.
• The Project will include the establishment of bicycle paths that will provide connections for the residents within the Focus Area to nearby employment and entertainment destinations, such as those planned in the City Place project. • The Project will produce a significant number of new construction jobs during the years of construction.
• The Project plans for the construction of up to 3,500 dwelling units by 2040 that could accommodate up to 7,700 City residents, which would substantially improve the City’s jobs-housing balance and would be a key component of meeting the City’s RHNA obligation for the sixth Housing Element cycle.
• The Project will promote environmental sustainability, transportation efficiency, greenhouse gas reduction, and stormwater management using green technology. • The Project will provide new development in an already urbanized area where public services are available, including utilities, a well-developed network of roadways and where public transit is immediately adjacent to the site. New practices and standards of sustainability, relying on both current and future technologies, are applied to the project and will enable the most efficient use of resources.

On balance, the City finds that there are specific considerations associated with the Project that serve to override and outweigh the Project's significant unavoidable environmental impacts. Therefore, the significant unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the Project are considered acceptable. As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed action, the City has reviewed the Project description and the EIR and fully understands the Project.

Based on the entire record before the City, and having considered the unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project, the City hereby determines that all feasible mitigation has been adopted to reduce the potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR, and that no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts. The City finds that economic, social, technological, and other considerations of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts described above. Further, the City finds that each of the separate benefits of the Project is hereby determined to be, in itself and independent of the other Project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the EIR and in these Findings. In making this finding, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those risks.
_______________________
S = Significant
LS = Less than significant
SU = Significant unavoidable impact See Table 1.1 for definitions.

NA = Not applicable
2 - Summary (19034)_PRD
Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIRCity of Santa Clara 2. Summary November 2, 2021 Page 2-9
Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment MMRP Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation

AESTHETICS
Impact 4-1: Effects on Scenic Vistas—Plan
Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4-2: Effects on Scenic Vistas—
Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4-3: Impacts on Existing Visual
Character and Quality—Plan Area. New
development throughout the Plan Area could
include a combination of 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). 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
S 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
City LS
_______________________
S = Significant
LS = Less than significant
SU = Significant unavoidable impact See Table 1.1 for definitions.

NA = Not applicable
2 - Summary (19034)_PRD
Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIRCity of Santa Clara 2. Summary November 2, 2021 Page 2-10
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.
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-thansignificant level.

Impact 4-4: Impacts on Existing Visual
Character and Quality—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4-5: Project Light and Glare
Effects—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4-6: Project Light and Glare
Effects—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A

AIR QUALITY
Impact 5-1: Conflict with 2017 Clean Air
Plan – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan

LS N/A N/A N/A
_______________________
S = Significant
LS = Less than significant
SU = Significant unavoidable impact See Table 1.1 for definitions.

NA = Not applicable
2 - Summary (19034)_PRD
Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIRCity of Santa Clara 2. Summary November 2, 2021 Page 2-11
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
Impact 5-2: Conflict with 2017 Clean Air
Plan – Greystar General Plan Amendment

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 5-3: Result in a Cumulatively
Considerable Net Increase in Criteria
Pollutants for which the Region is NonAttainment – 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 nonattainment. This represents a potentially significant impact.

S 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.

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
City;
Individual
project
applicants
SU
_______________________
S = Significant
LS = Less than significant
SU = Significant unavoidable impact See Table 1.1 for definitions.

NA = Not applicable
2 - Summary (19034)_PRD
Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIRCity of Santa Clara 2. Summary November 2, 2021 Page 2-12
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.