City Council and Authorities Concurrent
June 7, 2022

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 Projectlevel Construction Assessment for New Development Proposed Under
Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus
Area Plan. The City shall require applicants to
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 2-13
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
submit a quantitative project-level 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);
 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;
_______________________
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 2-14
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
 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.

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 2-15
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.

City;
Individual
project
applicants
SU
Impact 5-4: Result in a Cumulatively
Considerable Net Increase in Criteria
Pollutants for which the Region is NonAttainment – 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.

S Mitigation Measure 5-4A: See Mitigation
Measure 5-3A.

Mitigation Measure 5-4B: Use Low- and
Super Compliant VOC Architectural 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. “SuperCompliant” refers to paints that have been reformulated to levels well below the “Low-VOC”
Greystar
project
applicant
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 2-16
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
limits. This impact would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.

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.

S Mitigation Measure 5-5: See Mitigation
Measure 5-3B.

Even with implementation of these measures,
this impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.

City;
Individual
project
applicants
SU
Impact 5-6: Expose Sensitive Receptors to
Substantial Operational Pollutant
Concentrations – Freedom Circle Focus
Area Plan

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 5-7: Expose Sensitive Receptors to
Substantial Pollutant Concentrations –
Greystar General Plan Amendment

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 5-8: Odors – Freedom Circle Focus
Area Plan

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 5-9: Odors – Greystar General Plan
Amendment

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 2-17
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 6-1: Impacts on Special-Status
Species, Riparian Habitat, Sensitive Natural
Communities, and Wetlands

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 6-2: Potential Impacts on
Threatened and Endangered Species
Habitat. Because biological resources are
mobile and may colonized or relocate, even
within built structures, before project work
begins, the City would evaluate whether each
individual, future project application (with the
exception of the Greystar site [Ground-truthing
of the biological resources on the Greystar
property site on the December 12, 2020 site
visit provided no evidence that further
biological surveys would be required to be in
compliance with this EIR’s mitigation
measures, as the site contained no vegetation,
no aquatic resources, is regularly disked, and
did not contain any small mammal burrows.])
would be required to prepare a biological
resource survey for City review prior to
approval of any development. This is to ensure
that any future project activities within the
Focus Plan Area that have the potential to
degrade the habitat of any threatened or
endangered species are evaluated according
to Policy 5.10.1‐P1 of the Santa Clara General
Plan (see “Regulatory Setting” above).

Disregarding City evaluation of the need for
S Mitigation 6-2. Upon receiving applications for
projects within the project area, the City shall
evaluate the need for a specific biological
resource survey of the project area and adjacent
area that may be indirectly impacted by project
work. If no biological resources are determined
to be at risk for an individual project (i.e.,
potential for bird and bat species, within and
directly adjacent to the project area, to occur
and/or be affected by project activities is
negligible), no further survey shall be required.

However, if the City determines that biological
resources within the proposed 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, performance standards, and
avoidance and minimization measures required
to protect any special-status species with
potential to be impacted, consistent with the
regulatory agency protocols. Implementation of
this measure would reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level.

City;
Individual
project
applicants
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 2-18
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
further biological resource surveys would be in
violation of City policy and is therefore
considered a potentially significant impact.

Impact 6-3: Potential Impacts on SpecialStatus 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 project area (with the
exception of the Greystar site, which has been
confirmed not to contain these plant species) ,
especially if the area is left undisturbed for a
long period of time (i.e., a year or longer) and
plants are able to colonize the project site.

Without a proactive mitigation procedure in
place, Plan implementation and any future
projects planned within the Focus Area Plan
could inadvertently result in the removal of
special-status plants. This is considered a
potentially significant impact.

S Mitigation 6-3. Before any project work within
the project area, including the Greystar project
site, a qualified botanist shall conduct sitespecific, 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 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
City;
Individual
project
applicants
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 2-19
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
species cannot be avoided or may be indirectly
impacted, the applicant shall notify CDFW to
discuss avoidance, minimization, and other
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 amount and
method of mitigation and/or credits shall be
determined in formal consultation with CDFW
and/or USFWS.

Implementation of this measure would reduce
the impact to a less-than-significant level.

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,
S 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
City;
Individual
project
applicants
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 2-20
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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."
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 project 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
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.

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 within a
species-specific no-work buffer (to be
determined by the qualified biologist and based
on the species life history and regulatory
requirements) until the biologist has determined
_______________________
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 2-21
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
substrates, and the landscaped vegetation
within the project area for nesting, foraging,
and roosting. Common bat species protected
by the CFGC may also rarely utilize vegetation
or roof tiles within the project 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 (see Regulatory Setting above).

This is considered a potentially significant
impact.
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 project area vegetation, roof tiles,
and/or vacant buildings for day roosting, the
project applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife
biologist to conduct a survey for roosting bats no
sooner than 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 demolition
of buildings or vegetation removal efforts do not
begin within the 14 days following the roosting
bat survey, another survey shall be required. 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, avoiding take as defined by
CESA and the CFGC), construction may resume
outside the buffered area.

A nesting bird and roosting bat survey report of
the methods and results of the pre-project
survey will be submitted to the City for review
and approval prior to commencement of
_______________________
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 2-22
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
construction activities for individual projects.

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 for the entirety
of the project.

Implementation of this measure would reduce
the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Impact 6-5: Potential Impacts on Protected
Trees, Plants, and Shrubs

LS N/A N/A N/A

CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
Impact 7-1: Destruction/Degradation of
Historic Resources—Plan Area. There may
be one or more properties or features within
the Focus Area 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 in the Focus Area Plan
Area, which would be required to be consistent
with the standards and guidelines incorporated
in a subsequent comprehensive planning study
(such as a specific plan) adopted by the City to
guide Plan Area development, may ultimately
cause substantial adverse changes in the
S Mitigation 7-1. For any individual discretionary
project under the subsequent comprehensive
planning study (such as a specific plan) adopted
by the City to guide Plan Area development 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 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
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 2-23
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.
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:1
 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 decision-making 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
1Under the CEQA Guidelines (section 15064.5[b][3]), a project's adverse impact on a historic resource generally can be mitigated to a lessthan-significant level by following either of these standards. _______________________
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 2-24
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
historic resource impacts to a less-thansignificant level (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5).
(b) If the City determines that 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.1 Implementation of
measure (b) would reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level.

If the City determines that neither measure (a)
nor measure (b) is feasible, to the extent
required by CEQA, additional analysis shall be
conducted in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5 and 15162, particularly in order
for specific project alternatives to be designed
and evaluated. If the City determines that
1One 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) _______________________
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 2-25
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
neither measure (a) nor (b) is found to be
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
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 onsite, or for reuse in new construction on the site _______________________
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 2-26
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 Plan Area.

Implementation of measures (b), (c), (d), (e),
and/or (f) would reduce a significant impact on
historic resources, but not to a less-thansignificant 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.

Impact 7-2: Destruction/Degradation of
Historic Resources—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 7-3: Potential for Disturbance of
Buried Archaeological Resources, Including
Human Remains, and Tribal Cultural
Resources—Plan Area. Development
facilitated by the subsequent comprehensive
planning study (such as a specific plan) could
disturb unrecorded sensitive archaeological
resources or tribal cultural resources in the
S Mitigation 7-3. During the City’s standard
project-specific review process for all future,
discretionary, public improvement and private
development projects under the subsequent
comprehensive planning study (such as a
specific plan) adopted by the City to guide
development in the Plan Area, the City shall
determine the possible presence of, and the
City;
Individual
project
applicants
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 2-27
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
Plan Area. This possibility represents a
potentially significant impact.
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).
_______________________
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 2-28
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
In addition, the City shall continue to notify the
Native American tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the Plan 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
_______________________
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 2-29
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
 Deeding the site into a permanent
conservation easement.

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 in this
programmatic mitigation measure.
_______________________
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 2-30
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.
_______________________
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 2-31
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
Implementation of this measure would reduce
the impact to a less-than-significant level.

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.

S 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
City; Greystar
project
applicant
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 2-32
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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
_______________________
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 2-33
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
 Deeding the site into a permanent
conservation easement.

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.
_______________________
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 2-34
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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
_______________________
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 2-35
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 8-1: Effects of Strong Seismic
Ground Shaking—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 8-2: Effects of Strong Seismic
Ground Shaking—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 8-3: Potential Soil Erosion and Loss
of Topsoil—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 8-4: Potential Soil Erosion and Loss
of Topsoil—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/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 sitespecific geotechnical studies for future individual development proposals. Possible
ground instability conditions, if not properly
S 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
City;
Individual
project
applicants
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 2-36
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.
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-thansignificant level.

Impact 8-6: Potential Ground Instability
Impacts—Greystar Project. The potential for
ground instability would depend on specific,
highly localized underlying soil conditions. As
discussed in section 8.1.4, the Rockridge
geotechnical report 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
S 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
City; Greystar
project
applicant
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 2-37
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
 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.
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, shall be complied with and
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 these measures into project final
plans prior to issuance of permits and City
inspection and verification procedures prior to
project operation is required and would reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level.

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.

S Mitigation 8-7. For all public improvement and
private development projects in the Freedom
Circle Focus Area Plan Area, the following
measures shall be implemented:
(1) Education Program. Project applicants
shall implement a program that includes the
following elements:

City;
Individual
project
applicants
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 2-38
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
 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.
_______________________
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 2-39
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.

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.

S Mitigation 8-8. The Greystar project shall be
required, as a condition of project approval, to
implement the following measures:
(1) Education Program. The project applicant
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
City; Greystar
project
applicant
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 2-40
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.
_______________________
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 2-41
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND
ENERGY
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.

S 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),
City;
Individual
project
applicants
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 2-42
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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, as determined
by the City.

This impact would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact 9-2: GHG Emissions and Plan
Consistency – Greystar General Plan
Amendment

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 9-3. Wasteful, Inefficient, or
Unnecessary Consumption of Energy
Resources – Freedom Circle Focus Area
Plan

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 9-4. Wasteful, Inefficient, or
Unnecessary Consumption of Energy
Resources – Greystar General Plan
Amendment

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 9-5. Conflict with or Obstruct a
State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy
or Energy Efficiency – 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 2-43
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
Impact 9-6. Conflict with or Obstruct a
State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy
or Energy Efficiency – Greystar General
Plan Amendment

LS N/A N/A N/A

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 10-1: Project-Related Potential
Impacts Due to Hazardous Materials
Transport, Use, Storage, and Disposal—
Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 10-2: Project-Related Potential
Impacts Due to Hazardous Materials
Transport, Use, Storage, and Disposal—
Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 10-3: Potential Exposure to Existing
Hazardous Materials Contamination—Plan
Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 10-4: Potential Exposure to Existing
Hazardous Materials Contamination—
Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 10-5: Project-Related Potential
Asbestos and PCB Exposure—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 10-6: Project-Related Potential
Asbestos and PCB Exposure—Greystar
Project

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 2-44
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
Impact 10-7: Project-Related Potential
Lead-Based Paint Exposure—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 10-8: Project-Related Potential
Lead-Based Paint Exposure—Greystar
Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 10-9: Potential for Hazardous
Materials Near Schools—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 10-10: Potential for Hazardous
Materials Near Schools—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 10-11: Protocols for Government
Code Section 65962.5 Sites—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 10-12: Protocols for Government
Code Section 65962.5 Sites—Greystar
Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 10-13: Consistency With San Jose
Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan—
Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 10-14: Consistency With San Jose
Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan—
Greystar Project

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 2-45
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 11-1: Construction Period and Post-
Construction Water Quality Impacts—Plan
Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 11-2: Construction Period and Post-
Construction Water Quality Impacts—
Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 11-3: Long-Term Water Quality
Impacts from Project Operation—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 11-4: Long-Term Water Quality
Impacts from Project Operation—Greystar
Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 11-5: Effects on Groundwater
Recharge and Groundwater Management—
Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 11-6: Effects on Groundwater
Recharge and Groundwater Management—
Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 11-7: Drainage Patterns and Risk of
Flooding—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 11-8: Drainage Patterns and Risk of
Flooding—Greystar Project

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 2-46
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 12-1: Project Effects on the Physical
Arrangement of the Community—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 12-2: Project Effects on the Physical
Arrangement of the Community—Greystar
Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 12-3: Project Consistency with Land
Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or
Mitigating Environmental Effects—Plan
Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 12-4: Project Consistency with Land
Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or
Mitigating Environmental Effects—Greystar
Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
NOISE
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
S 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:

City;
Individual
project
applicants
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 2-47
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
substantial, temporary increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan Area.

This represents a potentially significant
impact.
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).
_______________________
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 2-48
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
3) Restrict Work Hours. All constructionrelated 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.
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 noise-
_______________________
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 2-49
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
generating 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 threeor 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
_______________________
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 2-50
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 loss value of 20 dB; ii)
Commercially available acoustic panels or other
products 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
_______________________
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 2-51
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 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
_______________________
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 2-52
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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
_______________________
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 2-53
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.

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
S 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:

City; Greystar
project
applicant
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 2-54
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
result in a substantial, temporary increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan
Area. This represents a potentially
significant impact.
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
_______________________
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 2-55
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.
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
_______________________
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 2-56
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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
_______________________
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 2-57
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.

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.

S Mitigation 13-3: Reduce Potential Freedom
Circle Focus Area Plan Construction
Vibration Levels. To reduce potential vibrationrelated 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
City;
Individual
project
applicants
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 2-58
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 project-specific 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 projectspecific 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
_______________________
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 2-59
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 Cityrepresentatives 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
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.
_______________________
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 2-60
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.

S 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
City; Greystar
project
applicant
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 2-61
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
Amendment Draft EIR constitutes the Projectspecific construction vibration evaluation per Mitigation Measure 13-3, Section 4.

With implementation of these measures, this
impact would be less than significant.

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, activities, or other
operations in excess of applicable City
standards. This represents a potentially
significant impact.

S Mitigation 13-5: Control Fixed and Other Onsite Noise-Generating Sources and Activities in the Freedom Circle Area Plan. To ensure
on-site, operations-related 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
City;
Individual
project
applicants
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 2-62
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 non-residential 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.

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
S 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
City; Greystar
project
applicant
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 2-63
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
other operations in excess of applicable City
standards. This represents a potentially
significant impact.
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.

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.

S Mitigation 13-7. No feasible mitigation is
available.

City;
Individual
project
owners
SU
Impact 13-8: Increases in Traffic Noise
Levels – Greystar Project

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 2-64
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
Impact 13-9: Operational Vibrations –
Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 13-10: Operational Vibrations –
Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 13-11: Exposure to Airport-Related
Noise – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan
and Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact 14-1: Effects on Population
Growth—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 14-2: Effects on Population
Growth—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 14-3: Population and Housing
Displacement Effects—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 14-4: Population and Housing
Displacement Effects—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 14-5: Temporary Employment
Impacts—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 14-6: Temporary Employment
Impacts—Greystar Project

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 2-65
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation

PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact 15-1: Increase in Fire
Protection/Emergency Medical Service
(EMS) Demands—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 15-2: Impacts on Fire
Protection/Emergency Medical Service
(EMS) Demands-- Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 15-3: Increase in Police Service
Demands—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 15-4: Impacts on Police Service
Demands--Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 15-5: Impacts on Public Schools—
Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 15-6: Impacts on Public Schools--
Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 15-7: Impacts on Parks and
Recreational Facilities—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 15-8: Impacts on Parks and
Recreational Facilities--Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 15-9: Impacts on Other Public
Facilities—Plan Area

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 2-66
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
Impact 15-10: Impacts on Other Public
Facilities—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 15-11: Construction Period
Impacts—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 15-12: Construction Period
Impacts—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A

RECREATION
Impact 16-1: Impacts on Parks and
Recreational Facilities—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 16-2: Impacts on Parks and
Recreational Facilities—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 16-3: Construction Period
Impacts—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 16-4: Construction Period
Impacts—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A

TRANSPORTATION
Impact 17-1: Conflict With Adopted
Policies, Plans, or Programs Regarding
Roadways—Plan Area

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 2-67
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
Impact 17-2: Conflict With Adopted
Policies, Plans, or Programs Regarding
Roadways—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 17-3: Impacts on Transit Related to
Conflicts with Adopted Policies, Plans, or
Programs—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 17-4: Impacts on Bicycle Facilities—
Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 17-5: Impacts on Pedestrian
Facilities—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 17-6: Impacts on Transit Related to
Conflicts with Adopted Policies, Plans, or
Programs—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 17-7: Impacts on Bicycle Facilities—
Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 17-8: Impacts on Pedestrian
Facilities—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 17-9: Impacts Related to Vehicle
Miles Traveled—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 17-10: Impacts Related to Vehicle
Miles Traveled—Greystar Project

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 2-68
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
Impact 17-11: Hazards Due to Design
Features or Incompatible Uses—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 17-12: Hazards Due to Design
Features or Incompatible Uses—Greystar
Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 17-13: Emergency Access—Plan
Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 17-14: Emergency Access—
Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
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), the Focus
S Mitigation 18-1. 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), the Focus
Area Plan is inconsistent with the General
Plan/Urban Water Management Plan, and this
City;
Individual
project
applicants
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 2-69
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
Area Plan is inconsistent with the General
Plan/Urban Water Management Plan, and this
inconsistency would represent a potentially
significant project and cumulative impact.
inconsistency would represent a potentially
significant project and cumulative impact.

Impact 18-2: Greystar Project
Inconsistency with General Plan and UWMP
Growth Projections

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 18-3: Project and Cumulative Need
for Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage
System Infrastructure—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 18-4: Project and Cumulative Need
for Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage
System Infrastructure—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/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
S 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
City;
Individual
project
applicants
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 2-70
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
stations would be a significant cumulative
impact.
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. 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.
_______________________
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 2-71
Impacts
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Responsibility
Significance
With
Mitigation
Impact 18-6: Cumulative Wastewater Pump
Station Capacity Impacts—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 18-7: Wastewater Treatment
Capacity Impacts—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 18-8: Wastewater Treatment
Capacity Impacts—Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 18-9: Impacts on Solid Waste
Disposal and Recycling Service—Plan Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 18-10: Impacts on Solid Waste
Disposal and Recycling Service—Greystar
Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 18-11: Electricity, Natural Gas, and
Telecommunications Infrastructure—Plan
Area

LS N/A N/A N/A
Impact 18-12: Electricity, Natural Gas, and
Telecommunications Infrastructure—
Greystar Project

LS N/A N/A N/A
Resolution/ Greystar GPA / Freedom Circle EIR reso Page 1 of 7 Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND CERTIFY A FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKE FINDINGS WITH

RESPECT THERETO, AND ADOPT A STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE

FREEDOM CIRCLE FUTURE FOCUS AREA AND GREYSTAR

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
SCH # 2020060425
PLN2017-12516 (EIR, Greystar General Plan Amendment, and Greystar Zoning Amendment) PLN22-00054 (Freedom Circle Focus Area)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara (the “City”) is contemplating the adoption of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment and related rezoning (collectively, the “Project”), which together would allow for up to 3,600 dwelling units and up to 2 million additional square feet of office space beyond what would be allowed the current General Plan designation, subject to a future planning study; and WHEREAS, the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area sets out a vision for a vibrant urban neighborhood for the area bounded by Great America Parkway to the west, the southern boundary of the Great America theme park to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east, and Highway 101 to the south; and
WHEREAS, the Greystar General Plan Amendment and associated development proposal will create up to 1,100 units of housing and an associated 2.0-acre park (the “Greystar Project”); and
WHEREAS, Santa Clara City Charter Section 1007 and Government Code Section 65353 require that the Planning Commission provide input to the City Council on any proposed General Plan Amendment;
WHEREAS, the Project approvals will include a resolution certifying the EIR; a resolution approving the General Plan Amendment creating the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and making related text changes to the General Plan; a resolution approving the Greystar GPA to Resolution/ Greystar GPA / Freedom Circle EIR reso Page 2 of 7 Rev: 11/22/17
change the land use designation from High Intensity Office / R&D to Very High Density Residential; and a resolution rezoning the Greystar Site from Commercial Park (CP) to Planned Development (PD) (collectively, the “Approvals”);
WHEREAS, implementation of the Project also requires separate applications for the Greystar Tentative and/or Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps and architectural review that are not part of this application, but which were analyzed as part of the environmental analysis; and WHEREAS, once the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area has been created, future development (beyond the Greystar project) would first require the preparation of a comprehensive plan such as a Specific Plan, consistent with General Plan prerequisite 5.1.1-P8, which would be subject to separate environmental review; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2020, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2020, the City posted the Notice of Preparation at the Santa Clara County Clerk’s office, soliciting guidance on the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2020, the City hosted a public scoping meeting to obtain community input on the scope and content of the DEIR;
WHEREAS, the DEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the City circulated copies of the DEIR and Notice of Availability to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, as well as to other interested persons, organizations and agencies, and the City sought the comments of such persons, organizations and agencies on November 5, 2021 for a 45-day review period, ending on December 20, 2021 (the “Comment Period”); WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to the comments received during the Comment Period and included those responses in a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”). The FEIR consists of a list of agencies and organizations to whom the DEIR was sent, a list of the Resolution/ Greystar GPA / Freedom Circle EIR reso Page 3 of 7 Rev: 11/22/17
comment letters received on the DEIR, revisions to the text of the DEIR, responses to comments received on the DEIR, and copies of comment letters. The FEIR was distributed to commenting parties and to the public on March 30, 2022; WHEREAS, the DEIR and FEIR constitute the EIR for the Project; WHEREAS, the EIR identified certain significant and potentially significant adverse effects on the environment that would be caused by the Project as proposed; WHEREAS, the EIR outlined various mitigation measures that would substantially lessen or avoid the Project’s significant effects on the environment, as well as alternatives to the Project as proposed that would provide some environmental advantages; WHEREAS, the City is required, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.), to adopt all feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental effects of the Project;
WHEREAS, the EIR analyzed a “No Project” alternative for the Freedom Circle Future Focus area that considers full build-out under the existing land use designation (No Project/Light Industrial Development) both with and without the Greystar project, along with a Mainly Commercial Office Development alternative, a Mainly Residential Development Alternative and a Development Alternative with Reduced Focus Area Plan and with the Greystar project; and WHEREAS, for the Greystar project, the EIR also analyzed a “No Project” alternative that maintains development potential for the Greystar site and the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area as currently allowed in the Santa Clara General Plan, along with a Same Greystar Residential Buildout But With Larger Park alternative, and a Reduced Greystar Residential Development Alternative but With Larger Park; and
WHEREAS, significant and unavoidable air quality, historic resources, and traffic noise impacts would remain with the proposed project;
Resolution/ Greystar GPA / Freedom Circle EIR reso Page 4 of 7 Rev: 11/22/17
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code § 21081, subdivision (a) requires a lead agency, before approving a project for which an EIR has been prepared and certified, to adopt findings specifying whether mitigation measures and, in some instances, alternatives discussed in the EIR, have been adopted or rejected as infeasible;
WHEREAS, the “CEQA Findings” attached to this Resolution is a set of Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared in order to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code § 21081, subdivision (a);
WHEREAS, as the CEQA Findings explain, the City Council intends to adopt the associated General Plan Amendments including for both the creation of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and for the Greystar General Plan Amendment, along with the approval of the Greystar rezoning;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that none of the alternatives addressed in the EIR, would be both feasible and environmentally superior to the Project as proposed. Neither the No Project alternatives, nor the Reduced Development alternative, nor the Mainly Residential nor the Mainly Commercial alternatives, nor the Larger Park alternatives would sufficiently satisfy the Project Objectives. The details supporting these determinations are set forth in the CEQA Findings;
WHEREAS, in taking this course, the City Council has acted consistent with the CEQA mandate to look to project mitigations and/or alternatives as a means of substantially lessening or avoiding the environmental effects of projects as proposed; WHEREAS, many of the significant and potentially significant environmental effects associated with the Project can either be substantially lessened or avoided through the inclusion of mitigation measures proposed in the EIR;
WHEREAS, the City Council, in reviewing the Project, intends to adopt all mitigation measures set forth in the EIR;
Resolution/ Greystar GPA / Freedom Circle EIR reso Page 5 of 7 Rev: 11/22/17
WHEREAS, the significant effects that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures will necessarily remain significant and unavoidable; WHEREAS, as detailed in the CEQA Findings, the City Council has determined that, despite the occurrence of significant unavoidable environmental effects associated with the Project, as mitigated and adopted, there exist certain overriding economic, social and other considerations for approving the Project which justify the occurrence of those impacts and render them acceptable;
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the proposed project was published in the Santa Clara Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation for the City, on May 11, 2022; WHEREAS, notices of the public hearing on the proposed project were mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project Site, according to the most recent assessor’s roll, on March 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as the “MMRP”, as well as a set of CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, along with the City Staff report pertaining to the EIR for the Project (SCH #2020060425), and all evidence received at a duly noticed public hearing on April 13, 2022. Following the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt and certify the Freedom Circle Focus Area / Greystar General Plan Amendment EIR.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the City Council hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.

2. That the City Council hereby finds that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.

Resolution/ Greystar GPA / Freedom Circle EIR reso Page 6 of 7 Rev: 11/22/17

3. That the City Council hereby finds the EIR has been presented to the City Council, which reviewed and considered the information and analysis contained therein before making its determination, and that the EIR reflects the Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

4. That the City Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15091, that many of the proposed mitigation measures described in the EIR are feasible, and therefore will become binding upon the City and affected landowners and their assigns or successors in interest as conditions of approval when the Project is approved.

5. That the City Council hereby finds that none of the Project Alternatives set forth in the EIR can feasibly substantially lessen or avoid those significant adverse environmental effects not otherwise lessened or avoided by the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures.

6. That, in order to comply with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in the attached “MMRP”.

The MMRP is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the City, affected landowners, their assigns and successors in interest and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified. The MMRP identifies, for each mitigation measure, the action to be taken and the party responsible for implementation.

7. That the City Council hereby finds that the EIR set forth program and cumulative environmental impacts that are significant and unavoidable that cannot be mitigated or avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives. As to these impacts, the City Council finds that there exist certain overriding economic, social and other considerations for approving the Project that justify the occurrence of those impacts, as detailed in the “CEQA Findings” exhibit attached hereto.

8. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the evidence in the City Staff Report, and the attached CEQA Findings, the City Council approves and certifies the EIR, makes findings concerning mitigation measures, adopts the MMRP, makes findings concerning Resolution/ Greystar GPA / Freedom Circle EIR reso Page 7 of 7 Rev: 11/22/17
alternatives and make findings that there exist certain overriding economic, social and other considerations for approving the Project that justify the occurrence of those associated impacts and adopt the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, all in accordance with CEQA for the Project.

9. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 7
th DAY OF JUNE, 2022, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST:

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments Incorporated by Reference:

1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)

2. CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C:\Users\JDavidson\Desktop\New folder\FC-Greystar General Plan Amendment EIR Reso.doc Resolution/Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Page 1 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #98 TO CREATE

AND APPLY THE FREEDOM CIRCLE FUTURE FOCUS AREA,

WHICH IS BOUNDED BY GREAT AMERICA PARKWAY TO THE
WEST, THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF CALIFORNIA’S

GREAT AMERICA TO THE NORTH, SAN TOMAS AQUINO CREEK
TO THE EAST AND HIGHWAY 101 TO THE SOUTH; AND TO

REVISE THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE

FOCUS AREAS
SCH # 2020060425
PLN2017-12516 (EIR)
PLN22-00054 (Freedom Circle Focus Area)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, on May 3, 2017, the Greystar Corporation applied for a General Plan Amendment and rezoning to develop a vacant 13.3 acre site north of Highway 101 and west of the San Tomas Aquino Creek in the City of Santa Clara (the “Greystar Site”); and WHEREAS, Greystar is proposing to amend the General Plan for the Greystar Site from HighIntensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre) (the “Greystar GPA”); and
WHEREAS, Greystar has also applied for a Planned Development rezoning to develop up to 1,100 dwelling units, along with a 2.0 acre park and up to 2,000 square feet of amenity space (together with the Greystar GPA, the “Greystar Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Greystar Site adjoins an existing industrial office area; and WHEREAS, City staff was directed by the City Council to plan for future development in the area surrounding the Greystar Site, bounded by Great America Parkway to the West, the southern property line of California’s Great America to the North, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the East and Highway 101 to the South (the “Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the City is proposing to add a Freedom Circle Future Focus area to the General Plan to help direct potential development in the area, subject to a Specific Plan (together with the Greystar Resolution/Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Page 2 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17
Project, the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the intent of the Freedom Circle Future Focus area is create a dynamic, mixed-use district that includes residential developments and community amenities as well as a diverse range of employment uses, which will complement other North Santa Clara neighborhoods and provide a complete network of pedestrian, bicycle and roadway connections to destinations including employment centers, transit stops and trails; and
WHEREAS, Santa Clara City Charter Section 1007 and Government Code Section 65353 require that the Planning Commission provide input to the City Council on any proposed General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the GPA, at the conclusion of which, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the GPA to the City Council, with the additional recommendation to upgrade all Class II bike lanes in the Plan Area to Class IV separated bikeways;
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendment was published in the Santa Clara Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation for the City, on May 11, 2022; and WHEREAS, notices of the public hearing on the General Plan Amendment were mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project Site, according to the most recent assessor’s roll, and to all local agencies expect to provide essential facilities or services to the project, on March 30, 2022;
WHEREAS, before considering making a recommendation for the General Plan Amendment for the Freedom Circle area, the City Council reviewed and considered the potential environmental impacts of the Project, identified mitigation measures, and recommended that the Council adopt and certify the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project (SCH # 2020060425), as well as a set of CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA;
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the General Plan Amendment; and Resolution/Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Page 3 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2022, the City conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the GPA, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence in support of and in opposition to the proposed General Plan Amendment.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the City Council hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.

2. General Plan Amendment Findings. That the City Council finds and determines that the General Plan Amendment is in the interest of the public good for the following reasons:

A. The proposed General Plan Amendment is deemed to be in the public interest, in that:

The proposed General Plan Amendment is a prerequisite to the adoption of the Project, which is located in an urbanized area served by existing municipal services and implements smart growth principles by developing underutilized properties with a high density residential, transitoriented development that will contribute to the City both socially and economically.

B. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected, in that:

The Project furthers and is consistent with the goals, policies and major strategies of the General Plan that enhance the City’s quality of life, preserve and cultivate neighborhoods, promote sustainability, enhance City identity, support Focus Areas and community vitality, maintain the City’s fiscal health and quality of services, and maximize health and safety benefits with the creation a new residential development close to jobs, amenities and services and the City’s primary north-south bike corridor.

C. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that:

Resolution/Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Page 4 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the City circulated copies of the DEIR and Notice of Availability to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, as well as to other interested persons, organizations and agencies, and the City sought the comments of such persons, organizations and agencies. The City prepared and circulated written responses to the comments received during the Comment Period and included those responses in a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”), in accordance with CEQA.

D. The potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, in that:

A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for implementation with Project development to reduce potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR to less than significant and a set of CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant; and the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt these documents.

3. That pursuant to Government Code § 65356,the City Council hereby amends the General Plan by:

A. Adding the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to Subchapter 5.4, Focus Areas, of Chapter 5, Goals and Policies by creating a new Section 5.4.8, Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Goals and Policies.

The Focus Area Plan diagram reflects the Planning Commission’s recommendation to make all proposed Class II on-street bike lanes in the plan area into Class IV separated bikeways.

B. Adding a new land use designation, Very High Intensity Office/Research and Development (R&D), to Section 5.2.2, Land Use Classifications, of the General Plan with the following text:

Resolution/Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Page 5 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17
“Very High-Intensity Office/Research and Development (R&D). This classification is intended for landmark high‐rise developments for corporate headquarters, R&D and supporting uses, with landscaped areas for employee activities. Permitted uses include offices and prototype R&D uses. Data centers under this designation are limited to those that serve the use on‐site. Medical facilities, except pharmacies, are not allowed. In addition, manufacturing uses are limited to less than ten percent of the building area. Accessory, or secondary, small‐scale supporting retail uses that serve local employees and visitors are also permitted. Parking is typically structured or below‐grade. The maximum FAR is 3.00, excluding any FAR devoted to supporting retail uses.”
C. Adding additional language to Section 5.4.7, Future Focus Areas Goals and Policies, of Subchapter 5.4, Focus Areas, of Chapter 5, Goals and Policies, immediately after the three bullet points (“Central Expressway / De La Cruz / Great America Parkway”):
“In addition to the three Future Focus Areas identified in the General Plan as adopted on November 16, 2010, additional Future Focus Areas may be added to the General Plan Land Use diagram through the General Plan Amendment process. Subject to the discretion provided pursuant to Policy 5.4.7-P11, the creation of an Additional Future Focus Area is a precursor to the comprehensive planning process required for all Focus Areas.” D. Adding a new Policy 5.4.7-P11 to Section 5.4.7, Future Focus Areas Goals and Policies, to Subchapter 5.4, Focus Areas, of Chapter 5, Goals and Policies, to read as follows:
“5.4.7-P11: Allow for General Plan Amendments and rezonings outside of existing Future Focus Areas in combination with the designation of new Additional Future Focus Areas.”
E. Changing the General Plan Land Use diagram for the Freedom Circle Area by modifying Figure 5.2-3 of the General Plan to reflect the land use designations shown on the Freedom Circle Land Use and Urban Design Framework diagram, as set forth on the final page of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan.

Resolution/Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Page 6 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17

4. That based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the EIR Resolution and the evidence in the City Staff Report and such other evidence as received at the public hearing on this matter, the City Council hereby approves the General Plan Amendment.

5. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 7
th DAY OF JUNE, 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan
Resolution/Greystar Project General Plan Amendment Page 1 of 5 Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #89 TO CHANGE

THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM HIGH

INTENSITY OFFICE/R&D (MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF

2.0) TO VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (51-100 DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE), FOR THE 13.3 ACRE GREYSTAR SITE, WHICH IS

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
SCH # 2020060425
PLN2017-12516 (EIR, Greystar General Plan Amendment, and Greystar Zoning Amendment) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, on May 3, 2017, the Greystar Corporation applied for a General Plan Amendment and rezoning to develop a vacant 13.3 acre site North of Highway 101, West of the San Tomas Aquino Creek, East of Freedom Circle and South of Mission College Boulevard in the City of Santa Clara (the “Greystar Site”); and
WHEREAS, Greystar is proposing to amend the General Plan for the subject site from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre) (the “Greystar GPA”); and
WHEREAS, Greystar has also applied for a Planned Development rezoning to develop up to 1,100 dwelling units, along with a 2.0 acre park and up to 2,000 square feet of amenity space (together with the Greystar GPA, the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Greystar Site adjoins an existing industrial office area; and WHEREAS, City staff was directed by the City Council to plan for future development in the area surrounding the Greystar Site, bounded by Great America Parkway to the West, the southern property line of California’s Great America to the North, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the East and Highway 101 to the South (the “Future Focus Area Site”); and WHEREAS, the City is proposing to add a Freedom Circle Future Focus Area to the General Plan to Resolution/Greystar Project General Plan Amendment Page 2 of 5 Rev: 11/22/17
help direct potential development in the area, subject to a Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, Santa Clara City Charter Section 1007 and Government Code Section 65353 require that the Planning Commission provide input to the City Council on any proposed General Plan Amendment;
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the GPA, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the subject General Plan Amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendment was published in the Santa Clara Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation for the City, on May 11, 2022; and WHEREAS, notices of the public hearing on the General Plan Amendment were mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Future Focus Area Site, according to the most recent assessor’s roll, and to all local agencies expect to provide essential facilities or services to the project, on March 30, 2022;
WHEREAS, before making a decision on the General Plan Amendment for the Project Site, the City Council reviewed and considered the potential environmental impacts of the Project, identified mitigation measures, and adopted and certified the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project (SCH # 2020060425), as well as a set of CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the GPA, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence in support of and in opposition to the proposed General Plan Amendment.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the City Council hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.

Resolution/Greystar Project General Plan Amendment Page 3 of 5 Rev: 11/22/17

2. General Plan Amendment Findings. That the City Council finds and determines that the General Plan Amendment is in the interest of the public good for the following reasons:

A. The proposed General Plan Amendment is deemed to be in the public interest, in that:

The proposed General Plan Amendment is a prerequisite to the adoption of the Project, which is located in an urbanized area served by existing municipal services and implements smart growth principles by developing underutilized properties with a high density residential, transitoriented development that will contribute to the City both socially and economically.

B. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected, in that:

The Project furthers and is consistent with the goals, policies and major strategies of the General Plan that enhance the City’s quality of life, preserve and cultivate neighborhoods, promote sustainability, enhance City identity, support Focus Areas and community vitality, maintain the City’s fiscal health and quality of services, and maximize health and safety benefits with the creation a new residential development close to jobs, amenities and services and the City’s primary north-south bike corridor.

C. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that:

A Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the City circulated copies of the DEIR and Notice of Availability to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, as well as to other interested persons, organizations and agencies, and the City sought the comments of such persons, organizations and agencies. The City prepared and circulated written responses to the comments received during the Comment Period and included those responses in a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”), in accordance with CEQA.

Resolution/Greystar Project General Plan Amendment Page 4 of 5 Rev: 11/22/17
D. The potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, in that:

A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for implementation with Project development to reduce potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR to less than significant and a set of CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant; and the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt these documents.

3. That based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the EIR Resolution and the evidence in the City Staff Report and such other evidence as received at the public hearing on this matter, the City Council approves the General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan for the Greystar Site from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre).
//
//
//
//
//
//

4. That the City Council pursuant to Government Code § 65356, hereby amends the General Plan by changing the General Plan Land Use Designation for the Project Site from High Intensity Office/R&D to High Density Residential (51-100 DU/AC) by modifying Figures 5.2-2 and 5.2-3 of the General Plan.

5. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

Resolution/Greystar Project General Plan Amendment Page 5 of 5 Rev: 11/22/17

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 7
th DAY OF JUNE, 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
S:\Attorney\RESOLUTIONS\Form Resolution-City.doc
Resolution/*Greystar Planned Development Rezoning Page 1 of 4 Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

TO APPROVING A REZONING AND VESTING TENTATIVE

PARCEL MAP FROM COMMERCIAL PARK (CP) TO PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT (PD) TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF UP TO 1,100 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS, A 2.0 ACRE PUBLIC PARK AND UP TO 2,000 SQUARE
FEET OF AMENITY SPACE, LOCATED AT 3905 FREEDOM

CIRCLE, SANTA CLARA
PLN2017-12516 (General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and EIR) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, on May 13, 2017, the Greystar Corporation (“Applicant”) filed a development application for a 13.3 acre site consisting of two parcels (APNs 104-40-021 and -036) at 3905 Freedom Circle, which is currently vacant (“Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to change the General Plan Land Use Designation of the Project Site from High-Intensity Office/R&D (Maximum FAR of 2.0) to Very High-Density Residential (51-100 DU/AC); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to rezone the Project Site from Commercial Park (CP) to Planned Development (PD) to allow a residential development of up to 1,100 dwelling units, a 2.0 acre public park, and up to 2,000 square feet of amenity space (“the Project”) as shown on the Development Plans, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Project application includes a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to divide the subject property into four lots; and
WHEREAS, the project will comply with the C.3 provisions of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program in place at the time of the approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, an EIR was prepared for the project, which was noticed and was circulated for a 45-day public review period from December 5, 2021 to December 20, 2021; WHEREAS, the EIR prepared for the project identified potentially significant impacts from the Resolution/*Greystar Planned Development Rezoning Page 2 of 4 Rev: 11/22/17
development of the Project, that with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program (“MMRP”) will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level and will be incorporated into the Project; WHEREAS, the EIR prepared for the project also identified potentially significant impacts from the development of the Project that could not be mitigated to a less-than significant level, and for which the City Council has adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations; WHEREAS, Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Section 18.112.040 provides for the review and recommendation of the City’s Planning Commission of all rezoning requests before action is to be taken by the City Council;
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed rezoning of the Project Site from Commercial Park (PD) to Planned Development (PD), at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed rezoning to the City Council (6-0-1, Commissioner Cherukuru absent);
WHEREAS, notices of the public hearing on the proposed project were mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project Site, according to the most recent assessor’s roll, on March 30, 2022;
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the proposed project was published in the Santa Clara Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation for the City, on May 11, 2022; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed rezoning of the Project Site from Commercial Park (PD) to Planned Development (PD), at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to present evidence and provide testimony, both in favor of and in opposition to the proposed rezoning and vesting tentative parcel map.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

Resolution/*Greystar Planned Development Rezoning Page 3 of 4 Rev: 11/22/17

1. That the City Council hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.

2. Pursuant to SCCC Code Section 18.112.010, the City Council determines that the following findings exist in support of the rezoning:

A. The existing zoning is inappropriate or inequitable, in that the existing Zoning Code does not allow for residential development and creation of housing opportunities at the project site reflective of the residential densities proposed by the applicant.

B. The proposed zone change will conserve property values, protect or improve the existing character and stability of the area in question, and will promote the orderly and beneficial development of such area, in that the proposal develops two vacant parcels and will potentially act as a catalyst for additional residential development in the neighboring Freedom Circle Future Focus Area.

C. The proposed zone change is required by public necessity, public convenience, or the general welfare of the City, in that the proposed zone change provides additional residential development opportunities close to jobs in the northern part of Santa Clara.

D. The proposed zone change would allow imaginative planning and design concepts to be utilized that would otherwise be restricted in other zoning districts in that the proposed zone change would allow flexibility in the development standards to construct residential development that is in the upper range of developments approved within the City of Santa Clara.

3. That based on the findings set forth in this resolution and the evidence in the City Staff Report, EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and MMRP, the City rezones the Project Site from Commercial Park (CP) to Planned Development (PD) to allow a residential development consisting of up to 1,100 dwelling units, a 2.0 acre public park, and up to 2,000 square feet of amenity space, as shown on the attached Development Plans, incorporated herein by this reference.

4. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

Resolution/*Greystar Planned Development Rezoning Page 4 of 4 Rev: 11/22/17

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 7
TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Greystar rezoning proposal

2. 8-3-2021 Subdivision Committee Minutes
C:\Users\JDavidson\Desktop\Freedom Crcle rezonng reso.doc C:\Granicus\Legistar5\Packet\3667_Council and Authorities Concurrent Meeting_6_7_2022\0037_15_8-3-2021 Subdivision Committee Minutes.docx Page 1 of 2

ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT SC MINUTES
PCC Meeting Date: 8/3/2021
Reviewer: Viet Nguyen
Agenda Item #: A
File: PLN2017-12516
Address: 3905 Freedom Circle
Project Description: Architectural Review and General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of the 13.3 acre site to construct a residential project that consists of up to 1,100 residential units with 1,540 parking spaces, up to 2,000 square foot of commercial with 10 parking spaces and a 2-acre public park.

DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:

E1. No comments.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

E1. Obtain site clearance through Public Works Department prior to issuance of Building Permit. Site clearance will require payment of applicable development fees. Other requirements may be identified for compliance during the site clearance process. Contact Public Works Department at (408) 615-3000 for further information.

E2. All work within the public right-of-way and/or public easement, which is to be performed by the Developer/Owner, the general contractor, and all subcontractors shall be included within a Single Encroachment Permit issued by the City Public Works Department.

Issuance of the Encroachment Permit and payment of all appropriate fees shall be completed prior to commencement of work, and all work under the permit shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permit.

E3. Submit public improvement plans prepared in accordance with City Public Works Department procedures which provide for the installation of public improvements. Plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval and recordation of parcel map and/or issuance of building permits.

E4. All work within the Santa Clara Valley Water District right-of-way shall require a Santa Clara Valley Water District encroachment permit.

E5. In accordance with the City Storm Drain Master Plan, a Storm Drain Pump station site easement is required to be dedicated at the southeast corner of the project site where Freeway 101 and San Tomas Aquino Creek intersect by means of a Subdivision Map or approved instrument at time of development.

E6. Record Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for future storm drain pump station at south eastern corner of the property, south of the existing storm drain easement, and pay applicable processing fee.

E7. Ingress/egress easement for access to future storm drain pump station and existing storm drain easement from the City of Santa Clara public right-of-way to overlap the Emergency Vehicle Access Esment path shall be dedicated by means of a Subdivision Map or approved instrument at time of development.

E8. Damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk within the public right-of-way along property’s frontage shall be repaired or replaced (to the nearest score mark) in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer or his designee. The extents of said repair or replacement within the property frontage shall be at the discretion of the City Engineer or his designee.

C:\Granicus\Legistar5\Packet\3667_Council and Authorities Concurrent Meeting_6_7_2022\0037_15_8-3-2021 Subdivision Committee Minutes.docx Page 2 of 2
E9. The project shall provide sidewalk easements along the project frontage where public sidewalks extend into private property. Sidewalk easements are to be 1’ behind proposed back of walk where there is landscaping behind sidewalk. Sidewalk easement where hardscape is behind sidewalk is to be at back-of-walk. Cold joint is required between public sidewalk and private hardscape.

E10. Emergency vehicle access easement language shall be required to include language for the property owner to provide alternative emergency vehicle access when maintenance or replacement activities are being performed on the storm drain main within the existing storm drain main easement.

E11. Dedicate, as required, on-site easements for new public utilities, emergency vehicle, public access, and/or sidewalk by means of a Subdivision Map or approved instrument at time of development.

E12. After City Council approval of the Tentative Map, submit 10 copies of the Subdivision Map, prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor or a Registered Civil Engineer with Land Surveyor privileges to the Public Works Department. The submittal shall include a title report, closure calculations, and all appropriate fees.

E13. Dedicate bicycle and pedestrian access easement for trail path from the public right-ofway to San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail.

E14. Execute easement encroachment agreement for all private improvements and public easements. Pay all appropriate processing fees.

E15. Provide minimum 5’ wide sidewalk plus minimum 4.5’ wide landscape strip along the Freedom Circle project frontage
E16. Reconstruct curb ramps at Mission College Boulevard and Freedom Circle intersection to be ADA compliant.

E17. Unused driveways in the public right-of-way shall be replaced with City standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Standard Detail ST-12.

E18. All driveways shall be City standard ST-8.

E19. Reconstruct driveway at San Tomas Aquino Creek Trailhead to current City standard ST9.

E20. Reconstruct driveway for Freedom Circle Storm Station to current City standard ST-8. 3826-008acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARIEN K. KEY
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. RENGIFO
MICHAEL R. SEVILLE
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444-6201
FAX: (916) 444-6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589-1660
FAX: (650) 589-5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
May 24, 2022
Via Email
Mayor Gillmore and Santa Clara City Council Members
1500 Warburton Ave.

Santa Clara, CA 95050
[email protected]
John Davidson
Principal Planner
Email: [email protected]
Andrew Crabtree
Director, Planning & Inspection Dept.

Email: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item 9 (22-594): Comments on the Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

We write on behalf of Silicon Valley Residents for Responsible Development (“Silicon Valley Residents”) to provide comments on the Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project (“Project”), which appears as Item 9 (22-594) on the Agenda for the May 24, 2022 Santa Clara Joint Council and Authorities Concurrent and Stadium Authority Meeting. The City Council will consider whether to adopt resolutions (1) approving an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and an associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”); (2) adopting General Plan amendments; and (3) rezoning the Greystar site (collectively, “Approvals”).

The Freedom Circle Focus Area would allow, subject to a future planning study, 2,500 dwelling units beyond those anticipated in the Greystar General Plan Amendment, and an additional 2 million square feet of additional office space. The Focus Area is 108 gross acres bounded by San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east, Great America Parkway to the west, Great America Theme Park to the north and Highway 101 to the south.

The Greystar Project 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 May 24, 2022

3826-008acp
printed on recycled paper

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.

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. Silicon Valley Residents submitted responsive comments in advance of the April 13, 2022 Planning Commission meeting explaining that the Project had unresolved environmental impacts and land use inconsistencies.

After the Planning Commission meeting, the City released technical documents revising elements of the Project in response to our comments.1 These documents include (1) a health risk assessment,2 (2) responses to our comments,3 (3) revisions to the Project’s General Plan Amendments,4 and (4) an updated biological 1 City of Santa Clara, Post-Planning Commission Technical Information, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/370/3649?np age=2. 2 MIG, Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and Greystar General Plan Amendment: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo for Air Quality Comments, May 12, 2022, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/77391/637880536900270000. 3 Id. 4 Id.

May 24, 2022

3826-008acp
printed on recycled paper
setting.5 As will be discussed in more detail below, while these revisions address some of the Project’s issues, there remain potentially significant impacts to biological resources and inconsistencies with the General Plan.

We prepared our response with the assistance of biological resources expert Shawn Smallwood, PhD.6
For these reasons, Silicon Valley Residents urges the City Council not to adopt the Project’s Approvals at the City Council meeting set for May 24, 2022.

Silicon Valley Residents urges the City Council to remand the Project back to Staff to allow for preparation of a legally adequate EIR pursuant to CEQA and to enable proper planning for the proposed Freedom Circle Focus Area as set forth in the existing 2010-2035 General Plan.

I. The Project’s General Plan Amendments Related to Future Focus Areas Conflict with General Plan Goals
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. A Future 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 General Plan includes several policies and goals requiring comprehensive planning before rezoning or development could occur in a Future Focus Area. These policies include:
5 MIG, Updated Biological Setting for the Greystar Parcels in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, May 11, 2022,
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/77389/637880536006030000. 6 Dr. Smallwood’s reply comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

May 24, 2022

3826-008acp
printed on recycled paper
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.” 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.”
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.” In apparent conflict with the above provisions, the Project seeks rezoning and approval of the Greystar Project – which is located in the proposed Freedom Circle Focus Area – before comprehensive planning has been conducted.

In order to allow the City to approve the Greystar project before comprehensive planning has taken place, the Project includes several General Plan Amendments:

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.

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.

In our previous comments, we explained that the above General Plan Amendments would create internal contradictions within the General Plan – some policies would require comprehensive planning before rezoning and development could occur in a Future Focus Area, and others would not.

May 24, 2022

3826-008acp
printed on recycled paper
In response to our comments, just over a week ago, the City proposed a new amendment to the General Plan to allow “Additional Future Focus Areas,” outside of the General Plan’s comprehensive planning process:
“In addition to the three Future Focus Areas identified in the General Plan as adopted on November 16, 2010, Additional Future Focus Areas may be added to the General Plan Land Use diagram through the General Plan Amendment process. Subject to the discretion provided pursuant to Policy 5.4.7-P11, tThe creation of an Additional Future Focus Area is a precursor to the comprehensive planning process required for all Focus Areas.”
Policy 5.4.7-P11: Allow for General Plan Amendments and rezonings outside of existing Future Focus Areas in combination with the designation of new Additional Future Focus Areas.7
The City’s reasoning is that “[a]ll the requirements set forth in the General Plan relating to Future Focus Areas concerns [the] three existing Future Focus Areas,” and that “Additional Future Focus Areas” need not “be made subject to all the same requirements.”8 This reasoning creates new inconsistencies within the General Plan, as it is now unclear which of the existing policies regarding Future Focus Areas still apply to Additional Future Focus Areas.

Moreover, even if the City resolves the textual inconsistencies the Amendments create within the General Plan, the City cannot resolve the conflict with the goals of the General Plan. 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.9
7 MIG, Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and Greystar General Plan Amendment: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo for Air Quality Comments, pg. 17, 18. 8 Id. at 17.
9 DEIR, pg. 3-12.

May 24, 2022

3826-008acp
printed on recycled paper
By allowing rezoning and approving individual projects before comprehensive planning has occurred, the General Plan Amendments weaken the effectiveness of General Plan Goals and Future Focus Areas. The Amendments weaken the General Plan’s “cohesive, integrated planning that restrains premature development prior to the necessary supportive infrastructure.”10 As a result, the current approval of the Greystar project, its rezoning, and adoption of the General Plan Amendments are inconsistent with the General Plan. We urge the City Council to deny approval of the General Plan Amendments, and conduct comprehensive planning before the Greystar Project is approved.

II. The EIR Fails To Adequately Analyze and Mitigate All Potentially Significant Impacts to Biological Resources
In our previous comments, we explained that the EIR’s description of the Greystar site’s biological baseline is not supported by substantial evidence. These flaws have not been corrected in the City’s Updated Biological Setting. As a result, the EIR’s conclusions regarding significant impacts are unsupported.

First, we commented that the EIR fails to substantiate any details of its original 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. As explained by Dr. Smallwood, the City’s Updated Biological Setting “repeats the deficiencies in the DEIR by not detailing who performed the site visit, which date the survey was performed, what were the weather conditions, what time of day the survey began, how long the survey lasted, and which methods were used.”11 Without any of these details about the survey, the Updated Biological Setting’s characterization of the environmental setting is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Second, the EIR, in its significance findings, concludes that “[g]roundtruthing of the biological resources on the Greystar property site on the December 12, 2020 site visit provided no evidence that further biological surveys would be required to be in compliance with this EIR’s mitigation measures, as the site contained no vegetation, no aquatic resources, is regularly disked, and did not 10 Goal 5.1.1‐G1. 11 Smallwood Comments (May 24, 2022), pg. 2.

May 24, 2022

3826-008acp
printed on recycled paper
contain any small mammal burrows.”12 But Dr. Smallwood conducted a site visit on December 18, 2021, and found at least several burrow systems of California ground squirrels on the project site.13 This finding is important because it demonstrates that the site contains potential habitat for burrowing owls, and foraging grounds for carnivores.14 Dr. Smallwood’s findings were confirmed by the City’s own April 2022 site visit.15 But the City fails to revise its conclusion that no further biological surveys are required.16 The EIR must be revised to include protocol surveys for special-status species with potential to occur on the Project site.

Third, the EIR assumes that because the Greystar site is disturbed, it has low habitat value. Dr. Smallwood’s initial comments explained that this reasoning lacks substantial evidence by providing analysis and photographic evidence showing that wildlife forages, nests, and moves through the site. The Updated Biological Setting nonetheless points to past disturbances of the project site – as long ago as 25 years – to support the EIR’s conclusion that wildlife use of the site is limited.17 As explained in Dr. Smallwood’s comments, the City must evaluate the biological setting of the Project site based on its actual use by wildlife, not by broad characterizations of the quality of the open space. Here, site visits by the City and Dr. Smallwood detected 35 vertebrate species of wildlife at the project site. These site visits also detected prey mammals and burrows, which indicate potential presence of special-status wildlife species including burrowing owls.18 As a result, the City lacks substantial evidence to conclude that protocol surveys for specialstatus species are not required for the Greystar site. The EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program must be revised to include protocol surveys for special status species with potential to occur on the Project site.19 12 Id. at 2-17. Emphasis added.
13 Smallwood Comments (December 20, 2021), pg. 14.
14 Smallwood Comments (December 20, 2021), pg. 36.
15 Updated Biological Setting, pg. 5.
16 MIG, Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and Greystar General Plan Amendment: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo for Air Quality Comments, pg. 18.
17 Updated Biological Setting, pg. 2.
18 Smallwood Comments (May 24, 2022), pg. 2.
19 A full list of species of occurrence likelihoods of special-status species is presented in Dr.

Smallwood’s comments (December 20, 2021), Table 2.

May 24, 2022

3826-008acp
printed on recycled paper
III. Conclusion
The proposed General Plan amendments contradict the goals of the General Plan. In addition, the EIR’s description of the Project site’s existing biological resources is not supported by substantial evidence. As a result, the EIR’s conclusions regarding significant impacts are unsupported. The City should not approve the Project until it revises the General Plan amendments to correct the internal inconsistencies in the General Plan and until after the City complies with CEQA by preparing a legally adequate EIR for the Project. Silicon Valley Residents urges the City Council to direct Staff to revise the General Plan Amendments and prepare a legally adequate EIR and recirculate the EIR to the public, as required by CEQA.

Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall

Attachment
APM:acp

EXHIBIT A
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Aidan Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080 19 May 2022
RE: Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project Dear Mr. Marshall,
I write to replies to a response to your comments, which summarize mine regarding potential project impacts to biological resources. I also write to comment on the Updated Biological Setting prepared by MIG (2022).

Biology Response: “The Smallwood letter repeats numerous arguments addressed in the Final EIR, and many of the arguments are based on Smallwood’s claim that the biological site visit is too old or otherwise inaccurate. While CEQA’s baseline is generally when the NOP was issued, an additional site visit was nevertheless completed in order to confirm whether conditions have substantially changed in a way that could impact the environmental conclusions in the EIR.”
Reply: I made no argument that the biological site visit was too old. I pointed out that no reporting of the reconnaissance-level site visit was provided with the DEIR, nor was there any description of the survey such as who performed it at what time of day and for what period of time. No summary of species detections was provided. The work done in support of CEQA’s requirement for an accurate characterization of the environmental setting was not reported, and the characterization of the environmental setting that appeared in the DEIR was inconsistent with what I observed of the site.

In no way did I suggest that conditions at the site had substantially changed in a way that could impact conclusions in the EIR. Again, I commented that the reporting of the methods used to characterize the environmental setting was inadequate, and I commented that contrary to the EIR’s conclusions, the project site provides considerable habitat value to wildlife.

Biology Response: “As explained in the updated biological setting memorandum, the site visit confirms the conclusions reached in the EIR.” Reply: It is unclear how the site visit confirms conclusions reached in the EIR, but the implication is that the conclusions had something to do with whether conditions changed at the site since MIG’s 2020 survey or my 2021 survey. According to the Updated Biological Setting (MIG 2022:1), “the setting has not substantially changed from what was observed in 2020.” But this conclusion has no bearing on my comments on the EIR. I have no reason to believe the setting has changed substantially since 2 2020. I did not suggest or imply that conditions had changed or that they remained unchanged, nor do I see much significance in whether the Greystar site was mowed prior to M’G's visits or mine. I commented that the characterization of the environmental setting was inaccurate. After what I have seen of the Updated Environmental Setting, I conclude that it remains inaccurate because of its speculated relationship between site disturbance and the site’s capacity to support wildlife.

The Updated Biological Setting (p. 2) proceeds to describe past environmental settings of the project site as long ago as 25 years. The abuses to the site supposedly support the EIR’s conclusion that wildlife use of the site is “limited,” whatever this is supposed to mean. However, the environmental setting that is relevant to CEQA analysis is the existing environmental setting, inclusive of the species of wildlife that currently make use of the site. What occurs at the site today is the issue, not what was done to the site 25 years ago nor any speculated limitations placed on wildlife by past abuses.

On pages 4 through 6 of the Updated Biological Setting, MIG (2022) speculates over reasons in support of MIG’s conclusions that various special-status species of wildlife are unlikely to occur at the site. MIG concludes without evidence that birds nest in human-made structures or in the adjacent creek, but not on the grassland or trees on site. MIG further speculates over which other species of wildlife might use the site during the non-breeding season. Speculation can be fine as an analytical tool when it is consistent with the precautionary principle in risk analysis, but its use in the Updated Biological Setting is inappropriate for its amenability to err on the side of incaution.

The Updated Biological Setting reports that the site was surveyed in April 2022, and the species observed during the April 2022 survey are listed within the report.

Unfortunately, the Updated Biological Survey repeats the deficiencies in the DEIR by not detailing who performed the site visit, which date the survey was performed, what were the weather conditions, what time of day the survey began, how long the survey lasted, and which methods were used. Later in the report, a reference is made to a survey in May, but nowhere else is this survey described. Just as occurred in the DEIR, the reader is left wondering how to interpret the survey outcome reported by MIG.

Table 1 lists the species detected by MIG in comparison to what I saw during my 2.5- hour survey on 18 December 2021 (at least half of my survey time was committed to the Focal Area, and the balance of my time to Greystar). I had seen 31 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 21 at Greystar. MIG saw 15 species, including 13 specifically on the Greystar site. MIG detected half the number of species I did, which I suspect reflects more of a difference in survey effort than it does any change in the environmental setting between my survey and theirs. Based on our combined survey efforts, the list of vertebrate species of wildlife seen at the project site increases from 31 to 35, and at Greystar specifically from 21 to 26. In other words, MIG’s Updated Biological Setting added to the evidence in support of my conclusion that the site provides considerable habitat value to wildlife., much of it yet to be characterized.

In April 2022, MIG saw the ground squirrels that I saw in December 2021. MIG saw 11 of the same species I saw at the Greystar site, as well as 5 that I had not seen there. 3 Several of the species seen by MIG, but not by me, likely arrived since my survey, as would be expected of their seasonal patterns of migration and emergence from hibernacula. MIG’s observations of these species of wildlife further support my comments that the site provides more habitat value to wildlife than can be detected by one or two reconnaissance-level surveys. As I commented, “There is no question that a larger survey effort would result in a longer list of species documented to use the project site, thereby changing our understanding of the current environmental setting.” MIG realized part of that longer list, but the list is nowhere close to complete.

Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

LITERATURE CITED
MIG. 2022. Updated Biological Setting for the Greystar Parcels in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. 11 May 2022 letter to Mr. John Davidson, Principal Planner, City of Santa Clara.
4 Table 1. Species of vertebrate wildlife detected by myself and by MIG (2022) at the project site.

Common name Species name Status1
Observed by
Smallwood, 18
December 2021
Observed by MIG,
April & May 2022
Sierran treefrog Pseudacris sierra Greystar
Western fence lizard Scelophorus occidentalis Greystar
Canada goose Branta canadensis San Tomas Aquino Creek
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos San Tomas Aquino Creek San Tomas Aquino Creek Snowy Egret Egretta thula San Tomas Aquino Creek
Great egret Ardea alba San Tomas Aquino Creek
California gull Larus californicus BCC, TWL Greystar
Herring gull Larus argentatus Greystar
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Greystar & Focus Area Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Greystar Greystar Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Focus Area Greystar
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native Greystar
Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Focus Area
Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna Focus Area Greystar
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Greystar Greystar
Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Focus Area
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native Greystar
Western bluebird Sialia mexicana Greystar & Focus Area Greystar Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Focus Area
Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Greystar American robin Turdus migratorius Greystar and Focus Area Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Greystar Greystar Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata Greystar & Focus Area California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica Greystar and Focus Area Greystar Common raven Corvus corax Greystar and Focus Area
California towhee Melozone crissalis Greystar Greystar
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Greystar & Focus Area American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Greystar & Focus Area Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla Greystar 5 Common name Species name Status1
Observed by
Smallwood, 18
December 2021
Observed by MIG,
April & May 2022
Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Greystar
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Greystar
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Greystar and Focus Area Greystar Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria Focus Area
Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Non-native Focus Area California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi Greystar & levee Greystar & levee 1 BOP = California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of Prey), and TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008). 1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.

Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.

Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist
Expertise
 Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;
 Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys;  Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.

Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.

M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.

B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.

Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.

Experience
 480 professional publications, including:
 83 peer reviewed publications
 24 in non-reviewed proceedings
 371 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
 8 in mass media outlets
 87 public presentations of research results
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.

Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.

Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC Smallwood CV 2
reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.

Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.

Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.

Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.

Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.

Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.

Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.

Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.

Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.

Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.

Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.

Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their Smallwood CV 3
conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.

Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.

Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.

Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.

Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.

Projects
Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.

Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.

Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.

Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a beforeafter, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS Smallwood CV 4
analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.

Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.

Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.

Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury.

After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.

Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.

Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.

Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).

Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.

Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.

Smallwood CV 5
Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.

Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.

Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.

GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.

Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.

Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.

Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.

Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.

Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.

Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the Smallwood CV 6
County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.

Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.

Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.

Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.

Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.

Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.

Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.

Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by Smallwood CV 7
wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:

Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions: an example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.

Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.

Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman, A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716- 1718.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind-energy development and wildlife conservation.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin:
37:787-795.

Smallwood CV 8
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225.

Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal trials increase estimates of wind turbine-caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915- 943. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizootic on Yellow-Billed Magpie, American Crow, and other Birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor 111:247-254.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind Energy Developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098.

Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285.

Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223.

Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2781-2791.

Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513- 1524.

Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531.

Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M.

Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.

Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation:

Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100.

Smallwood CV 9
Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J.

Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.

Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285- 298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.

Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640.

Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161.

Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49.

Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable Agroecological Solution to Water Shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental Planning and Management 44:345-355.

Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001.

Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California.

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109.

Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography.

Restoration Ecology 9:253-261.

Smallwood, K. S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35.

Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435.

Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora.

Environmental Conservation 26:102-111.

Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates.

Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82.

Smallwood CV 10
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82.

Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65.

Smallwood, K. S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 34:32-38.

Smallwood, K. S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis) under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329.

Smallwood, K. S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958.

Smallwood, K. S., M. L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847.

Smallwood, K. S, and C. M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491.

Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K. S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Meeting 33:88-97.

Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist 17:289-295.

Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289.

Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160.

Smallwood, K. S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi-scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335.

Smallwood CV 11
Smallwood, K. S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594.

Van Vuren, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:41-64.

Smallwood, K. S., B. J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.

Erichsen, A. L., K. S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. Whitetailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D. M.

Bird, D. E. Varland, and J. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.

Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178.

Smallwood, K. S. and W. A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296.

Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259 Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation 69:251-259.

Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist 39:67-72.

Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order.

Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462.

Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59.

Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern Naturalist 38:65-67.

Smallwood, K. S. and T. P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests.

Biological Conservation 62:149-159.

Smallwood, K. S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis.

Smallwood CV 12
Peer-reviewed Reports
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2017. Comparing bird and bat use data for siting new wind power generation. Report CEC-500-2017-019, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019.pdf and http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019-APA-F.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Bird and bat impacts and behaviors at old wind turbines at Forebay, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report CEC-500-2016-066, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php? pubNum=CEC-500- 2016-066
Sinclair, K. and E. DeGeorge. 2016. Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Bat and Eagle Impact-Reduction Strategies at Wind Energy Projects. S. Smallwood, M. Schirmacher, and M.

Morrison, eds., Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-65624, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2014. Final 2013-2014 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, and B. Karas. 2013. Final 2012-2013 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p274_ventus_vasco_winds_2012_13_avian_ bat_monitoring_report_year_1.pdf
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, D. Bell, J. DiDonato, B. Karas, S. Snyder, and S. Lopez. 2009. Range Management Practices to Reduce Wind Turbine Impacts on Burrowing Owls and Other Raptors in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No.

CEC-500-2008-080. Sacramento, California. 183 pp. http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 2008publications/CEC-500-2008-080/CEC-500-2008-080.PDF
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2009. Map-Based Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind Turbines. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2009-065. Sacramento, California. http:// www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=CEC-500-2009-065 Smallwood, K. S., K. Hunting, L. Neher, L. Spiegel and M. Yee. 2007. Indicating Threats to Birds Posed by New Wind Power Projects in California. Final Report to the California Energy Smallwood CV 13
Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. Pending.

Sacramento, California.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2005. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, March 1998 – September 2001 Final Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-36973. Golden, Colorado. 410 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2004. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019. Sacramento, California. 531 pp. http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/500-04-052/2004-08-09_500-04-052.PDF Thelander, C.G. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Period of Performance: March 1998—December 2000.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-33829. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 86 pp.

Thelander, C.G., S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2001. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area – a progress report. Proceedings of the American Wind Energy Association, Washington D.C. 16 pp.

Non-Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S., D. Bell, and S. Standish. 2018. Skilled dog detections of bat and small bird carcasses in wind turbine fatality monitoring. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Methods manual for assessing wind farm impacts to birds. Bird Conservation Series 26, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. T. Ura, ed., in English with Japanese translation by T. Kurosawa. 90 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mitigation in U.S. Wind Farms. Pages 68-76 in H. Hötker (Ed.), Birds of Prey and Wind Farms: Analysis of problems and possible solutions. Documentation of an International Workshop in Berlin, 21st and 22nd October 2008. Michael-Otto-Instiut im NABU, Goosstroot 1, 24861 Bergenhusen, Germany. http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/forschung/greifvoegel/ Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Notes and recommendations on wildlife impacts caused by Japan’s wind power development. Pages 242-245 in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.

Thelander, C.G. and S. Smallwood. 2007. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area's Effects on Birds: A Case History. Pages 25-46 in Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F.E. Janss, Miguel Ferrer Editors, Birds and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Madrid: Quercus.

Neher, L. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality in siting wind turbines. Energy Currents. Fall Issue. ESRI, Inc., Redlands, California.

Smallwood CV 14
Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Laying plans for a hydrogen highway.

Comstock’s Business, August 2004:18-20, 22, 24-26.

Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Refined conundrum: California consumers demand more oil while opposing refinery development. Comstock’s Business, November 2004:26-27, 29-30.

Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Atlas of Endangered Species.” By Richard Mackay.

Environmental Conservation 30:210-211.

Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Endangered Species Act. History, Conservation, and Public Policy.” By Brian Czech and Paul B. Krausman. Environmental Conservation 29: 269- 270.

Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Animal burrowing parameters influencing toxic waste management.

Abstract in Proceedings of Meeting, Western Section of the Wildlife Society.

Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Abstract, page 93 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.

Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed. Abstract, page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.

Smallwood, K.S, and M. Grigione. 1997. Photographic recording of mountain lion tracks. Pages 75-75 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.

Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, and J. Karr. 1995. An approach to scaling fragmentation effects.

Brief 8, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129-0075.

Wilcox, B., and K.S. Smallwood. 1995. Ecosystem indicators model overview. Brief 2, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129- 0075.

Smallwood CV 15
EIP Associates. 1996. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California.

Geng, S., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Zhang. 1995. Sustainable agriculture and agricultural sustainability. Proc. 7th International Congress SABRAO, 2nd Industrial Symp. WSAA.

Taipei, Taiwan.

Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1994. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Pages 454-464 in W. Dehai, ed., Proc. International Conference on Integrated Resource Management for Sustainable Agriculture. Beijing Agricultural University, Beijing, China.

Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:105-8.

Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa.

California Alfalfa Symposium 23:86-89.

Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1992. The use of track counts for mountain lion population census. Pages 59-67 in C. Braun, ed. Mountain lion-Human Interaction Symposium and Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins.

Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Pages 58-63 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.

Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Techniques for monitoring mountain lion population levels. Pages 69-71 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.

Reports to or by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (Note: all documents linked to SRC website have since been removed by Alameda County)
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Data Needed in Support of Repowering in the Altamont Pass WRA. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p284_smallwood_data_needed_in_support_of_repowering_ in_the_altamont_pass_wra.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Long-Term Trends in Fatality Rates of Birds and Bats in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/r68_smallwood _altamont_fatality_rates_longterm.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Inter-annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 1999 through 2012 in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p268_ smallwood_inter_annual_comparison_of_fatality_rates_1999_2012.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2012. General Protocol for Performing Detection Trials in the FloDesign Study of the Safety of a Closed-bladed Wind Turbine. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p246_ smallwood_flodesign_detection_trial_protocol.pdf
Smallwood CV 16
Smallwood, K. S., l. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Burrowing owl distribution and abundance study through two breeding seasons and intervening non-breeding period in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p245_smallwood_et_al_ burrowing_owl density_2012.pdf
Smallwood, K. S 2012. Draft study design for testing collision risk of Flodesign wind turbine in former AES Seawest wind projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p238_smallwood_floeesign_draft_study_design_april_2012 .pdf
Smallwood, L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Winter 2012 update on burrowing owl distribution and abundance study in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www. altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p232_smallwood_et_al_winter_owl_survey_update.pdf Smallwood, S. 2012. Status of avian utilization data collected in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 2005-2011. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p231_smallwood_apwra _use_data_2005_2011.pdf
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Monitoring Burrow Use of Wintering Burrowing Owls. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p229_smallwood_et_al_progress_monitoring_ burrowing_owl_burrow_use.pdf
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Nesting Burrowing Owl Distribution and Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p228_smallwood_et_al_for_nextera_burrowing_owl_distrib ution_and_abundance_study.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of Flodesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass Wind Farm in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p100_src_document_list_with_reference_numbers.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Sampling Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p205_smallwood_neher_progress_on_sampling _burrowing_owls_across_apwra.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p198_smallwood_proposal_to_sample_ burrowing_owls_across_apwra.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p191_smallwood_comments_on_apwra_monitoring_progra m_update.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter-turbine Comparisons of Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p189_smallwood_report_of_ apwra_fatality_rate_patterns.pdf
Smallwood CV 17
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of the December 2010 Draft of M-21: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Collision Study. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p190_smallwood _review_of_december_2010_monitoring_report.pdf
Alameda County SRC (Shawn Smallwood, Jim Estep, Sue Orloff, Joanna Burger, and Julie Yee).

Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on Revised CUPs for Wind Turbines in the Alameda County portion of the Altamont Pass. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p183_src_integrated_comments_on_nop.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of Monitoring Implementation Plan. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p180_src_comments_on_dip.pdf Burger, J., J. Estep, S. Orloff, S. Smallwood, and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Comments on CalWEA Research Plan. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p174_smallwood_review_of_calwea_ removal_study_plan.pdf

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). SRC Comments on Monitoring Team’s Draft Study Plan for Future Monitoring. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p168_src_comments_on_m53_mt_draft_study_plan_for_fut ure_monitoring.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Second Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p171_smallwood _kb_removal_rates_follow_up.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Assessment of Three Proposed Adaptive Management Plans for Reducing Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_ doc/p161_smallwood_assessment_of_amps.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. and J. Estep. 2010. Report of additional wind turbine hazard ratings in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area by Two Members of the Alameda County Scientific Review Committee. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p153_smallwood_estep_additional_ hazard_ratings.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Alternatives to Improve the Efficiency of the Monitoring Program. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p158_smallwood_response_to_memo_on_monitoring_costs .pdf
Smallwood, S. 2010. Summary of Alameda County SRC Recommendations and Concerns and Subsequent Actions. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p147_smallwood_summary_of_src_ recommendations_and_concerns_1_11_10.pdf
Smallwood, S. 2010. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p148_smallwood_progress_of_avian_wildlife_protection_p rogram_1_11_10.pdf
Smallwood CV 18
Smallwood, S. 2010. Old-generation wind turbines rated for raptor collision hazard by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee in 2010, an Update on those Rated in 2007, and an Update on Tier Rankings. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p155_smallwood_src_ turbine_ratings_and_status.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p154_smallwood_kb_removal_ rates_041610.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 1998-2009.

Alameda County SRC document P-145.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on Revised M-21: Report on Fatality Monitoring in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. P144 SRC Comments on 2009 Draft Monitoring Report M21.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p129_smallwood_search_ interval_summaries_supplemental_to_m39.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Smallwood’s review of M32. Alameda County SRC document P-111. 6 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p111_smallwoods_review_of_m32.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2009. 3rd Year Review of 16 Conditional Use Permits for Windworks, Inc. and Altamont Infrastructure Company, LLC. Comment letter to East County Board of Zoning Adjustments. 10 pp + 2 attachments.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Weighing Remaining Workload of Alameda County SRC against Proposed Budget Cap. Alameda County SRC document not assigned. 3 pp.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2008. SRC comments on August 2008 Fatality Monitoring Report, M21. Alameda County SRC document P-107. 21 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p107_smallwood_review_of_july_2008_ monitoring_report_m21.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Burrowing owl carcass distribution around wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document 106. 8 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p106_smallwood_ burrowing_owl_carcass_distribution_around_wind_turbines.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Assessment of relocation/removal of Altamont Pass wind turbines rated as hazardous by the Alameda County SRC. Alameda County SRC document P-103. 10 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p103_assessment_of_src_recommendations_to_ relocate_rated_turbines.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2008. Summary of wind turbine-free ridgelines within and around the APWRA. Alameda County SRC document P-102. 4 pp.

Smallwood CV 19
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area when restricted to recent fatalities. Alameda County SRC document P101.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. On the misapplication of mortality adjustment terms to fatalities missed during one search and found later. Alameda County SRC document P-97. 3 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors outside the APWRA. Alameda County SRC document P-88. 6 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Alameda County SRC document P-76. 19 pp
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2010.

Guidelines for siting wind turbines recommended for relocation to minimize potential collisionrelated mortality of four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area.

Alameda County SRC document P-70.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 11, 2007. SRC selection of dangerous wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document P-67. 8 pp.

Smallwood, S. October 6, 2007. Smallwood’s answers to Audubon’s queries about the SRC’s recommended four month winter shutdown of wind turbines in the Altamont Pass. Alameda County SRC document P-23.

Smallwood, K. S. October 1, 2007. Dissenting opinion on recommendation to approve of the AWI Blade Painting Study. Alameda County SRC document P-60.

Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Effects of monitoring duration and inter-annual variability on precision of wind-turbine caused mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC Document P44.

Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Memo: Opinion of some SRC members that the period over which post-management mortality will be estimated remains undefined. SRC Document P43.

Smallwood, K. S. July 19, 2007. Smallwood’s response to P24G. SRC Document P41, 4 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. April 23, 2007. New Information Regarding Alameda County SRC Decision of 11 April 2007 to Grant FPLE Credits for Removing and Relocating Wind Turbines in 2004.

SRC Document P26.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Burger [J. Yee abstained]).

April 17, 2007. SRC Statement in Support of the Monitoring Program Scope and Budget.

Smallwood, K. S. April 15, 2007. Verification of Tier 1 & 2 Wind Turbine Shutdowns and Relocations. SRC Document P22.

Smallwood CV 20
Smallwood, S. April 15, 2007. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). April 3, 2007.

Alameda County Scientific Review Committee replies to the parties’ responses to its queries and to comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S20.

Smallwood, S. March 19, 2007. Estimated Effects of Full Winter Shutdown and Removal of Tier I & II Turbines. SRC Document S19.

Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Replies to the Parties’ Responses to Queries from the SRC and Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S16.

Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Estimated Effects of Proposed Measures to be Applied to 2,500 Wind Turbines in the APWRA Fatality Monitoring Plan. SRC Document S15.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). February 7, 2007. Analysis of Monitoring Program in Context of 1/1//2007 Settlement Agreement.

Smallwood, S. January 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Concerns over the Agreement to Settle the CEQA Challenges. SRC Document S5.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 19, 2006. Altamont Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Recommendations to the County on the Avian Monitoring Team Consultants’ Budget and Organization.

Reports to Clients
Smallwood, K. S. 2018. Addendum to Comparison of Wind Turbine Collision Hazard Model Performance: One-year Post-construction Assessment of Golden Eagle Fatalities at Golden Hills. Report to Audubon Society, NextEra Energy, and the California Attorney General.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Rooney Ranch and Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to S-Power, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Summary of a burrowing owl conservation workshop. Report to Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Morgan Hill, California.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2017. Comparison of wind turbine collision hazard model performance prepared for repowering projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area.

Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Summit Winds Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Salka, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Smallwood CV 21
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Mitigating golden eagle impacts from repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir.

Report to East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Conservancy and Contra Costa Water District.

Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Report of Altamont Pass research as Vasco Winds mitigation. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor collisions at Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Ogin, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015a. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015b. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills North Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015c. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Patterson Pass Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2014. Early assessment of wind turbine layout in Summit Wind Project. Report to Altamont Winds LLC, Tracy, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Review of avian use survey report for the Longboat Solar Project. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Information needed for solar project impacts assessment and mitigation planning. Report to Panorama Environmental, Inc., San Francisco, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Monitoring fossorial mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the period 2006-2014. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. First-year estimates of bird and bat fatality rates at old wind turbines, Forebay areas of Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to FloDesign in support of EIR.

Smallwood, K. S. and W. Pearson. 2013. Neotropical bird monitoring of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), Naval Air Station Lemoore, California. Tierra Data, Inc. report to Naval Air Station Lemoore.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Winter surveys for San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) and Smallwood CV 22
burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) within Air Operations at Naval Air Station, Lemoore.

Report to Tierra Data, Inc. and Naval Air Station Lemoore.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) conservation research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2012. Fatality rate estimates at the Vantage Wind Energy Project, year one.

Report to Ventus Environmental, Portland, Oregon.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2012. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at North Sky River. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC.

Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the Period 2006-2011. Report to East Bay Regional Park District.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2011 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2011). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft study design for testing collision risk of FloDesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass, Santa Clara, and Former AES Seawest Wind Projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report to FloDesign, Inc.

Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Comments on Marbled Murrelet collision model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area. Report to EcoStat, Inc., and ultimately to US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Avian fatality rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2011.

Report to Pattern Energy.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2011. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Tres Vaqueros, Contra Costa County, California. Report to Pattern Energy.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2010 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2010). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Development and avian issues in the Altamont Pass, California. Report to Black & Veatch.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.

Smallwood CV 23
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Vasco Winds. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Livermore, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Baseline avian and bat fatality rates at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2010. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2009 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2009). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 86 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammal surveys at naval outlying landing field Imperial Beach, California, August 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 5 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammals and other Wildlife Observed at Proposed Site of Amargosa Solar Power Project, Spring 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 13 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2009.

Report to members of the Contra Costa County Technical Advisory Committee on the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project. 8 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Repowering the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area more than Doubles Energy Generation While Substantially Reducing Bird Fatalities. Report prepared on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 2 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Surveys to Detect Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Black Rail at Installation Restoration Site 30, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California: March-April 2009. Report to Insight Environmental, Engineering, and Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. 6 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Avian and Bat Mortality at the Big Horn Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished report to Friends of Skamania County. 7 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: report of progress for the period 2006-2008. Unpublished report to East Bay Regional Park District. 5 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2008 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2008). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 84 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Habitat Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 48 Smallwood CV 24
pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto 2008. Impact of 2005 and 2006 West Nile Virus on Yellowbilled Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. 22 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project (IR Site #2), San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-Vegetation Monitoring. Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-04LT-A0045. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 10 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Burrowing owls at Dixon Naval Radio Transmitter Facility. Report to U.S. Navy. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 28 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2007 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2007). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 69 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. A Monitoring Effort to Detect the Presence of the Federally Listed Species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Wetland Habitat Assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30, Final Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-05LT-A0001. U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California. 8 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2006 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2006). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Daly City, California. 165 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander (2004). Report to California Institute for Energy and Environment, University of California, Oakland, CA. 139 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Biological effects of repowering a portion of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California: The Diablo Winds Energy Project. Report to Altamont Working Group. Available from Shawn Smallwood, [email protected] . 34 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Impact of 2005 West Nile Virus on Yellow-billed Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. Report to Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, Elk Grove, CA. 38 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2005 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2005). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team Smallwood CV 25
(IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 160 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter agreements N68711- 04LT-A0042 and N68711-04LT-A0044, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 60 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California.

Sampling for rails, Spring 2006, Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 9 pp.

Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2006. Final Report: Station-wide Wildlife Survey, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 20 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-vegetation Monitoring. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 8 pp.

Dorin, Melinda, Linda Spiegel and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2005. Response to public comments on the staff report entitled Assessment of Avian Mortality from Collisions and Electrocutions (CEC-700-2005-015) (Avian White Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environmental Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 205 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2005. Estimating combined effects of selective turbine removal and winter-time shutdown of half the wind turbines. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 23. 1 p.

Erickson, W. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Avian and Bat Monitoring Plan for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Contra Costa County, California. Unpubl. report to Contra Costa County, Antioch, California. 22 pp.

Lamphier-Gregory, West Inc., Shawn Smallwood, Jones & Stokes Associates, Illingworth & Rodkin Inc. and Environmental Vision. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, LP# 022005. County of Contra Costa Community Development Department, Martinez, California.

Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California.

Smallwood CV 26
Targeted Sampling for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Fall 2005 Installation Restoration (IR) Site

30. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp.

Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 5 pp.

Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. Skaggs Island waste and contaminated soil removal projects, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California. Report to the U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2004. 2004 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 134 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005a. Assessment To Support An Adaptive Management Plan For The APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 19 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005b. Partial Re-assessment of An Adaptive Management Plan For The APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, March 25. 48 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005c. Combining biology-based and policy-based tiers of priority for determining wind turbine relocation/shutdown to reduce bird fatalities in the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 1. 9 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2004. Alternative plan to implement mitigation measures in APWRA.

Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 8 pp.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2005. Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality without significant loss of power generation. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-005. 21 pp. [Reprinted (in Japanese) in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.] Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore.

Report to U.S. Navy. 4 pp.

Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rails and wetland habitat assessment at Pier 4 of the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement N68711-04LT-A0002. 8 pp. + 2 pp. of photo plates.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2003 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat Smallwood CV 27
(Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 56 pp. + 58 figures.

Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Comparison of Biological Impacts of the No Project and Partial Underground Alternatives presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the JeffersonMartin 230 kV Transmission Line. Report to California Public Utilities Commission. 20 pp.

Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore.

Report to U.S. Navy. 6 pp. + 7 photos + 1 map.

Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the Tesla Power Project. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 32 pp.

Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2002 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 45 pp. + 36 figures.

Smallwood, K. S., Michael L. Morrison and Carl G. Thelander 2002. Study plan to test the effectiveness of aerial markers at reducing avian mortality due to collisions with transmission lines: A report to Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 10 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2002. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the East Altamont Energy Center. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 26 pp.

Thelander, Carl G., K. Shawn Smallwood, and Christopher Costello. 2002 Rating Distribution Poles for Threat of Raptor Electrocution and Priority Retrofit: Developing a Predictive Model.

Report to Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp.

Smallwood, K. S., M. Robison, and C. Thelander. 2002. Draft Natural Environment Study, Prunedale Highway 101 Project. California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo, California. 120 pp.

Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Assessment of ecological integrity and restoration potential of Beeman/Pelican Farm. Draft Report to Howard Beeman, Woodland, California. 14 pp.

Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 29 pp. + 19 figures.

Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Rocky Flats visit, April 4th through 6th, 2001. Report to Berger & Montaque, P.C. 16 pp. with 61 color plates.

Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. in the matter of the U.S. Fish and Smallwood CV 28
Wildlife Service’s rejection of Seatuck Environmental Association’s proposal to operate an education center on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Seatuck Environmental Association in two parts, totaling 7 pp.

Magney, D., and K.S. Smallwood. 2001. Maranatha High School CEQA critique. Comment letter submitted to Tamara & Efren Compeán, 16 pp.

Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Preliminary Comments on the Proposed Blythe Energy Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on March 15 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 14 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and D. Mangey. 2001. Comments on the Newhall Ranch November 2000 Administrative Draft EIR. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 68 pp.

Magney, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Newhall Ranch Notice of Preparation Submittal. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding our recommended scope of work for the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 17 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Contra Costa Power Plant Unit 8 Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on November 30 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 4 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the California Energy Commission’s Final Staff Assessment of the MEC. Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 8 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP). Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 9 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Metcalf Energy Center. Submitted to California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 11 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Preliminary report of reconnaissance surveys near the TRW plant south of Phoenix, Arizona, March 27-29. Report prepared for Hagens, Berman & Mitchell, Attorneys at Law, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp.

Morrison, M.L., K.S. .Smallwood, and M. Robison. 2001. Draft Natural Environment Study for Highway 46 compliance with CEQA/NEPA. Report to the California Department of Transportation. 75 pp.

Morrison, M.L., and K.S. Smallwood. 1999. NTI plan evaluation and comments. Exhibit C in W.D. Carrier, M.L. Morrison, K.S. Smallwood, and Vail Engineering. Recommendations for NBHCP land acquisition and enhancement strategies. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento.

Smallwood CV 29
Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Estimation of impacts due to dredging of a shipping channel through Humboldt Bay, California. Court Declaration prepared on behalf of EPIC.

Smallwood, K. S. 1998. 1998 California Mountain Lion Track Count. Report to the Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 5 pages.

Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Draft report of a visit to a paint sludge dump site near Ridgewood, New Jersey, February 26th, 1998. Unpublished report to Consulting in the Public Interest.

Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Science missing in the “no surprises” policy. Commissioned by National Endangered Species Network and Spirit of the Sage Council, Pasadena, California.

Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Alternate mitigation strategy for incidental take of giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk as part of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Pages 6-9 and iii illustrations in W.D. Carrier, K.S. Smallwood and M.L. Morrison, Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan: Narrow channel marsh alternative wetland mitigation. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento.

Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. (peer reviewed).

Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Assessment of plutonium releases from Hanford buried waste sites. Report Number 9, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, New Jersey, 08530.

Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Soil Bioturbation and Wind Affect Fate of Hazardous Materials that were Released at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia.

Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Second assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics and other relevant wildlife observations. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia.

Smallwood, K.S., and R. Leidy. 1996. Wildlife and Their Management Under the Martell SYP.

Report to Georgia Pacific, Corporation, Martel, CA. 30 pp.

EIP Associates. 1995. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Resources Report. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California.

Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1995. Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Program on Workable Energy Regulation, University-wide Energy Research Group, University of California.

Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and W. Idzerda. 1992. Final report to PG&E: Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Ramon, California. 24 pp.

Smallwood CV 30
Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1987. Methods Manual – A statewide mountain lion population index technique. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Salmon, T.P. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Final Report – Evaluating exotic vertebrates as pests to California agriculture. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento.

Smallwood, K.S. and W. A. Erickson (written under supervision of W.E. Howard, R.E. Marsh, and R.J. Laacke). 1990. Environmental exposure and fate of multi-kill strychnine gopher baits. Final Report to USDA Forest Service –NAPIAP, Cooperative Agreement PSW-89-0010CA.

Fitzhugh, E.L., K.S. Smallwood, and R. Gross. 1985. Mountain lion track count, Marin County, 1985. Report on file at Wildlife Extension, University of California, Davis.

Comments on Environmental Documents
I was retained or commissioned to comment on environmental planning and review documents, including:
 The Villages of Lakeview EIR (2017; 28 pp);
 Notes on Proposed Study Options for Trail Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl (2017; 4 pp);  San Gorgonio Crossings EIR (2017; 22 pp);
 Replies to responses on Jupiter Project IS and MND (2017; 12 pp);  MacArthur Transit Village Project Modified 2016 CEQA Analysis (2017; 12 pp);  Central SoMa Plan DEIR (2017; 14 pp);
 Colony Commerce Center Specific Plan DEIR (2016; 16 pp);  Fairway Trails Improvements MND (2016; 13 pp);
 Review of Avian-Solar Science Plan (2016; 28 pp);
 Replies to responses on Initial Study for Pyramid Asphalt (2016; 5 pp);  Initial Study for Pyramid Asphalt (2016; 4 pp);
 Agua Mansa Distribution Warehouse Project Initial Study (2016; 14 pp);  Santa Anita Warehouse IS and MND (2016; 12 pp);
 CapRock Distribution Center III DEIR (2016: 12 pp);
 Orange Show Logistics Center Initial Study and MND (2016; 9 pp);  City of Palmdale Oasis Medical Village Project IS and MND (2016; 7 pp);  Comments on proposed rule for incidental eagle take (2016, 49 pp);  Grapevine Specific and Community Plan FEIR (2016; 25 pp);  Grapevine Specific and Community Plan DEIR (2016; 15 pp);  Clinton County Zoning Ordinance for Wind Turbine siting (2016);  Hallmark at Shenandoah Warehouse Project Initial Study (2016; 6 pp);  Tri-City Industrial Complex Initial Study (2016; 5 pp);  Hidden Canyon Industrial Park Plot Plan 16-PP-02 (2016; 12 pp);  Kimball Business Park DEIR (2016; 10 pp);
 Jupiter Project IS and MND (2016; 9 pp);
 Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015 (2016, 18 pp);  Palo Verde Mesa Solar Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (2016; 27 pp); Smallwood CV 31
 Reply Witness Statement on Fairview Wind Project, Ontario, Canada (2016; 14 pp);  Fairview Wind Project, Ontario, Canada (2016; 41 pp);  Supplementary Reply Witness Statement Amherst Island Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 38 pp);  Witness Statement on Amherst Island Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 31 pp);  Second Reply Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 6 pp);  Reply Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 10 pp);  Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 9 pp);  Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians DEIS (2015, 9 pp);
 Replies to comments 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians FEIS (2015, 6 pp);
 Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015; 28 pp);  Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Project DEIR (2015, 9 pp);  Columbia Business Center MND (2015; 8 pp);
 West Valley Logistics Center Specific Plan DEIR (2015, 10 pp);  World Logistic Center Specific Plan FEIR (2015, 12 pp);  Bay Delta Conservation Plan EIR/EIS (2014, 21 pp);
 Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 32 pp);
 Response to Comments on the Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 15 pp);  Addison and Rising Tree Wind Energy Project FEIR (2014, 12 pp);  Alta East Wind Energy Project FEIS (2013, 23 pp);
 Blythe Solar Power Project Staff Assessment, California Energy Commission (2013, 16 pp);  Clearwater and Yakima Solar Projects DEIR (2013, 9 pp);  Cuyama Solar Project DEIR (2014, 19 pp);
 Draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) EIR/EIS (2015, 49 pp);  Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic Project EIR (2013, 19 pp);  Lucerne Valley Solar Project Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013, 12 pp);  Palen Solar Electric Generating System Final Staff Assessment of California Energy Commission, (2014, 20 pp);
 Rebuttal testimony on Palen Solar Energy Generating System (2014, 9 pp);  Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 32 pp);
 Response to Comments on the Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 15 pp);  Soitec Solar Development Project Draft PEIR (2014, 18 pp);  Comment on the Biological Opinion (08ESMF-00-2012-F-0387) of Oakland Zoo expansion on Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog (2014; 3 pp);  West Antelope Solar Energy Project Initial Study and Negative Declaration (2013, 18 pp);  Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015, 28 pp);  Alameda Creek Bridge Replacement Project DEIR (2015, 10 pp);  Declaration on Tule Wind project FEIR/FEIS (2013; 24 pp);  Sunlight Partners LANDPRO Solar Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 11 pp);  Declaration in opposition to BLM fracking (2013; 5 pp);  Rosamond Solar Project Addendum EIR (2013; 13 pp);
 Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR (2013; 13 pp);
 Reply to Staff Responses to Comments on Soccer Center Solar Project Mitigated Negative Smallwood CV 32
Declaration (2013; 6 pp);
 Soccer Center Solar Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 10 pp);  Plainview Solar Works Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 10 pp);  Reply to the County Staff’s Responses on comments to Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 10 pp);
 Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 13 pp);  FRV Orion Solar Project DEIR (PP12232) (2013; 9 pp);
 Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (3013; 6 pp);  Reply to Staff Responses to Comments on Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 8 pp);
 FEIS prepared for Alta East Wind Project (2013; 23 pp);  Metropolitan Air Park DEIR, City of San Diego (2013; );  Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project DEIR (2013; 9 pp);  Analysis of Biological Assessment of Oakland Zoo Expansion Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake (2013; 10 pp);
 Declaration on Campo Verde Solar project FEIR (2013; 11pp);  Neg Dec comments on Davis Sewer Trunk Rehabilitation (2013; 8 pp);  Declaration on North Steens Transmission Line FEIS (2012; 62 pp);  City of Lancaster Revised Initial Study for Conditional Use Permits 12-08 and 12-09, Summer Solar and Springtime Solar Projects (2012; 8 pp);  J&J Ranch, 24 Adobe Lane Environmental Review (2012; 14 pp);  Reply to the County Staff’s Responses on comments to Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and the Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 8 pp);  Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and the Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 9 pp);  Desert Harvest Solar Project EIS (2012; 15 pp);
 Solar Gen 2 Array Project DEIR (2012; 16 pp);
 Ocotillo Sol Project EIS (2012; 4 pp);
 Beacon Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2012; 5 pp);
 Declaration on Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for the Butte Water District 2012 Water Transfer Program (2012; 11 pp);
 Mount Signal and Calexico Solar Farm Projects DEIR (2011; 16 pp);  City of Elk Grove Sphere of Influence EIR (2011; 28 pp);  Comment on Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND (2011; 9 pp);  Statement of Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Regarding Proposed Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611 Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4 pp);  Declaration of K. Shawn Smallwood on Biological Impacts of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) (2011; 9 pp);
 Comments on Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (2011; 13 pp);  Comments on Draft EIR/EA for Niles Canyon Safety Improvement Project (2011; 16 pp);  Declaration of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., on Biological Impacts of the Route 84 Safety Improvement Project (2011; 7 pp);
 Rebuttal Testimony of Witness #22, K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, on Behalf of Intervenors Friends of The Columbia Gorge & Save Our Scenic Area (2010; 6 pp);  Prefiled Direct Testimony of Witness #22, K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, on Behalf of Smallwood CV 33
Intervenors Friends of the Columbia Gorge & Save Our Scenic Area. Comments on Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power Project DEIS, Skamania County, Washington (2010; 41 pp);
 Evaluation of Klickitat County’s Decisions on the Windy Flats West Wind Energy Project (2010; 17 pp);
 St. John's Church Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (2010; 14 pp.);  Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Results Radio Zone File #2009-001 (2010; 20 pp);
 Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report (2010;12 pp);  Answers to Questions on 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results Report (2009: 9 pp);
 SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington. Second Declaration to Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. and Save Our Scenic Area (Dec 2008; 17 pp);
 Comments on Draft 1A Summary Report to CAISO (2008; 10 pp);  County of Placer’s Categorical Exemption of Hilton Manor Project (2009; 9 pp);  Protest of CARE to Amendment to the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement for Procurement of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources Between Hatchet Ridge Wind LLC and PG&E (2009; 3 pp);
 Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project EIR/EIS (2009; 142 pp);  Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacramento (2009; 11 pp + addendum 2 pp);  Declaration of Shawn Smallwood in Support of Care’s Petition to Modify D.07-09-040 (2008; 3 pp);
 The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis December 16 Workshop for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 9 pp);
 The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis Draft Work Plan for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 11 pp);
 Draft 1A Summary Report to California Independent System Operator for Planning Reserve Margins (PRM) Study (2008; 7 pp.);
 SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington. Declaration to Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. and Save Our Scenic Area (Sep 2008; 16 pp);
 California Energy Commission’s Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Colusa Generating Station (2007; 24 pp);
 Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (2008:
66 pp);
 Replies to Response to Comments Re: Regional University Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (2008; 20 pp);
 Regional University Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (2008: 33 pp.);  Clark Precast, LLC’s “Sugarland” project, Negative Declaration (2008: 15 pp.);  Cape Wind Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2008; 157 pp.);  Yuba Highlands Specific Plan (or Area Plan) Environmental Impact Report (2006; 37 pp.);  Replies to responses to comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration of the proposed Smallwood CV 34
Mining Permit (MIN 04-01) and Modification of Use Permit 96-02 at North Table Mountain (2006; 5 pp);
 Mitigated Negative Declaration of the proposed Mining Permit (MIN 04-01) and Modification of Use Permit 96-02 at North Table Mountain (2006; 15 pp);  Windy Point Wind Farm Environmental Review and EIS (2006; 14 pp and 36 Powerpoint slides in reply to responses to comments);
 Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR (2005; 18 pp);
 Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Notice of Preparation of EIR (2004; 15 pp);  Negative Declaration of the proposed Callahan Estates Subdivision (2004; 11 pp);  Negative Declaration of the proposed Winters Highlands Subdivision (2004; 9 pp);  Negative Declaration of the proposed Winters Highlands Subdivision (2004; 13 pp);  Negative Declaration of the proposed Creekside Highlands Project, Tract 7270 (2004; 21 pp);
 On the petition California Fish and Game Commission to list the Burrowing Owl as threatened or endangered (2003; 10 pp);
 Conditional Use Permit renewals from Alameda County for wind turbine operations in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (2003; 41 pp);
 UC Davis Long Range Development Plan of 2003, particularly with regard to the Neighborhood Master Plan (2003; 23 pp);
 Anderson Marketplace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003: 18 pp + 3 plates of photos);
 Negative Declaration of the proposed expansion of Temple B’nai Tikyah (2003: 6 pp);  Antonio Mountain Ranch Specific Plan Public Draft EIR (2002: 23 pp);  Response to testimony of experts at the East Altamont Energy Center evidentiary hearing on biological resources (2002: 9 pp);
 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Promenade (2002: 7 pp);  Recirculated Initial Study for Calpine’s proposed Pajaro Valley Energy Center (2002: 3 pp);  UC Merced -- Declaration of Dr. Shawn Smallwood in support of petitioner’s application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (2002: 5 pp);  Replies to response to comments in Final Environmental Impact Report, Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision (2003: 22 pp);
 Draft Environmental Impact Report, Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision (2002: 19 pp + 8 photos on 4 plates);
 California Energy Commission Staff Report on GWF Tracy Peaker Project (2002: 17 pp + 3 photos; follow-up report of 3 pp);
 Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Silver Bend Apartments, Placer County (2002: 13 pp);
 UC Merced Long-range Development Plan DEIR and UC Merced Community Plan DEIR (2001: 26 pp);
 Initial Study, Colusa County Power Plant (2001: 6 pp);  Comments on Proposed Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom, California (2001: 5 pp + 4 photos);
 Pacific Lumber Co. (Headwaters) Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Report (1998: 28 pp);
 Final Environmental Impact Report/Statement for Issuance of Take authorization for listed Smallwood CV 35
species within the MSCP planning area in San Diego County, California (Fed. Reg. 62 (60):
14938, San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program) (1997: 10 pp);  Permit (PRT-823773) Amendment for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, Sacramento, CA (Fed. Reg. 63 (101): 29020-29021) (1998);  Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). (Fed. Reg. 64(176):
49497-49498) (1999: 8 pp);
 Review of the Draft Recovery Plan for the Arroyo Southwestern Toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) (1998);
 Ballona West Bluffs Project Environmental Impact Report (1999: oral presentation);  California Board of Forestry’s proposed amended Forest Practices Rules (1999);  Negative Declaration for the Sunset Skyranch Airport Use Permit (1999);  Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Biological Resources Implementation and Monitoring Program (BRMIMP) for the Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 10 pp);  California Energy Commission’s Final Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000);
 US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation with the California Energy Commission regarding Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 4 pp);  California Energy Commission’s Preliminary Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 11 pp);
 Site-specific management plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s mitigation lands, prepared by Wildlands, Inc. (2000: 7 pp);
 Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood in Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. (Plaintiffs) vs. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Defendants), Injuries caused by the No Surprises policy and final rule which codifies that policy (1999: 9 pp).

Comments on other Environmental Review Documents:
 Proposed Regulation for California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 (2015: 12 pp);  Statement of Overriding Considerations related to extending Altamont Winds, Inc.’s Conditional Use Permit PLN2014-00028 (2015; 8 pp);
 Draft Program Level EIR for Covell Village (2005; 19 pp);  Bureau of Land Management Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Scoping document (2003: 7 pp.);
 NEPA Environmental Analysis for Biosafety Level 4 National Biocontainment Laboratory (NBL) at UC Davis (2003: 7 pp);
 Notice of Preparation of UC Merced Community and Area Plan EIR, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2001: 8 pp.);
 Preliminary Draft Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan (2001; 2 letters totaling 35 pp.);  Merced County General Plan Revision, notice of Negative Declaration (2001: 2 pp.);  Notice of Preparation of Campus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7 pp.);  Draft Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Range (Ovis candensis) (2000);  Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 10 pp.);  Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 7 pp.);
Smallwood CV 36
 State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Draft Program EIR (1997);  Davis General Plan Update EIR (2000);
 Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10 pp);
 Proposed termination of Critical Habitat Designation under the Endangered Species Act (Fed. Reg. 64(113): 31871-31874) (1999);
 NOA Draft Addendum to the Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process, termed the HCP 5-Point Policy Plan (Fed. Reg. 64(45):
11485 - 11490) (1999; 2 pp + attachments);
 Covell Center Project EIR and EIR Supplement (1997).

Position Statements I prepared the following position statements for the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, and one for nearly 200 scientists:
 Recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game prioritize the extermination of the introduced southern water snake in northern California. The Wildlife Society-- Western Section (2001);
 Recommended that The Wildlife Society—Western Section appoint or recommend members of the independent scientific review panel for the UC Merced environmental review process (2001);
 Opposed the siting of the University of California’s 10th campus on a sensitive vernal pool/grassland complex east of Merced. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);  Opposed the legalization of ferret ownership in California. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);
 Opposed the Proposed “No Surprises,” “Safe Harbor,” and “Candidate Conservation Agreement” rules, including permit-shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No. 103, pp. 29091-29098 and No. 113, pp. 32189-32194). This statement was signed by 188 scientists and went to the responsible federal agencies, as well as to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

Posters at Professional Meetings
Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.

Smallwood, K. S., J. Mount, S. Standish, E. Leyvas, D. Bell, E. Walther, B. Karas. 2015. Integrated detection trials to improve the accuracy of fatality rate estimates at wind projects. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. G. Thelander. 2005. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research in the Altamont Pass WRA. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.

Neher, L., L. Wilder, J. Woo, L. Spiegel, D. Yen-Nakafugi, and K.S. Smallwood. 2005. Bird’s eye view on California wind. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.

Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander and L. Spiegel. 2003. Toward a predictive model of avian Smallwood CV 37
fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Windpower 2003 Conference and Convention, Austin, Texas.

Smallwood, K.S. and Eva Butler. 2002. Pocket Gopher Response to Yellow Star-thistle Eradication as part of Grassland Restoration at Decommissioned Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento County, California. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.

Smallwood, K.S. and Michael L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.

Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Third Mountain Lion Workshop, Prescott, AZ.

Smith, T. R. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Effects of study area size, location, season, and allometry on reported Sorex shrew densities. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society.

Presentations at Professional Meetings and Seminars
Repowering the Altamont Pass. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017.

Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 1999- 2007. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017.

Conservation and recovery of burrowing owls in Santa Clara Valley. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Newark, California, 3 February 2017.

Mitigation of Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Sacramento, California, 6 November 2015.

From burrows to behavior: Research and management for burrowing owls in a diverse landscape.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, 24 October 2015, San Jose, California.

The Challenges of repowering. Keynote presentation at Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 10 March 2015.

Research Highlights Altamont Pass 2011-2015. Scientific Review Committee, Oakland, California, 8 July 2015.

Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. US Fish and Wildlife Service Golden Eagle Working Group, Sacramento, California, 8 January 2015.

Evaluation of nest boxes as a burrowing owl conservation strategy. Sacramento Chapter of the Western Section, The Wildlife Society. Sacramento, California, 26 August 2013.

Predicting collision hazard zones to guide repowering of the Altamont Pass. Conference on wind Smallwood CV 38
power and environmental impacts. Stockholm, Sweden, 5-7 February 2013.

Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife. California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators, Yosemite, California, 12 November 2012.

Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Madrone Audubon Society, Santa Rosa, California, 20 February 2012.

Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.

Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.

Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee meeting, 17 February 2011
Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 3 May 2011.

Update on Wildlife Impacts in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011.

Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society - Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011.

Wildlife mortality caused by wind turbine collisions. Ecological Society of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6 August 2010.

Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind farm to minimize burrowing owl fatalities.

California burrowing Owl Consortium Meeting, Livermore, California, 6 February 2010.

Environmental barriers to wind power. Getting Real About Renewables: Economic and Environmental Barriers to Biofuels and Wind Energy. A symposium sponsored by the Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, 23 February 2007.

Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Meeting with Japan Ministry of the Environment and Japan Ministry of the Economy, Wild Bird Society of Japan, and other NGOs Tokyo, Japan, 9 November 2006.

Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Symposium on bird collisions with wind turbines. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 4 November 2006.

Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework.

California Society for Ecological Restoration (SERCAL) 13th Annual Conference, UC Santa Smallwood CV 39
Barbara, 27 October 2006.

Fatality associations as the basis for predictive models of fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EEI/APLIC/PIER Workshop, 2006 Biologist Task Force and Avian Interaction with Electric Facilities Meeting, Pleasanton, California, 28 April 2006.

Burrowing owl burrows and wind turbine collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, February 8, 2006.

Mitigation at wind farms. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006.

Incorporating data from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system into an impact assessment tool for birds near wind farms. Shawn Smallwood, Kevin Hunting, Marcus Yee, Linda Spiegel, Monica Parisi. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts.

American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006.

Toward indicating threats to birds by California’s new wind farms. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005.

Avian collisions in the Altamont Pass. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005.

Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EPRI Environmental Sector Council, Monterey, California, February 17, 2005.

Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society—Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005.

Associations between avian fatalities and attributes of electric distribution poles in California. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005.

Minimizing avian mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. UC Davis Wind Energy Collaborative Forum, Palm Springs, California, December 14, 2004.

Selecting electric distribution poles for priority retrofitting to reduce raptor mortality. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2004.

Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework.

Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, South Lake Tahoe, California, October 16, 2004.

Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research at the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area in California. The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, September 2004.

The ecology and impacts of power generation at Altamont Pass. Sacramento Petroleum Association, Smallwood CV 40
Sacramento, California, August 18, 2004.

Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, Hayward, California, February 7, 2004.

Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Symposium, Sacramento, November 2, 2003.

Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C., November 17, 2003.

Raptor Behavior at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.

Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.

California mountain lions. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biology, California State University, Sacramento, November, 2000.

Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass.

National Wind Coordinating Committee, Carmel, California, May, 2000.

Using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) to map wildlife and habitat. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.

Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.

The indicators framework applied to ecological restoration in Yolo County, California. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 25, 1999.

Ecological restoration in the context of animal social units and their habitat areas. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 24, 1999.

Relating Indicators of Ecological Health and Integrity to Assess Risks to Sustainable Agriculture and Native Biota. International Conference on Ecosystem Health, August 16, 1999.

A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Southern California Edison, Co. and California Energy Commission, March 4-5, 1999.

Mountain lion track counts in California: Implications for Management. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, November 4, 1998.
“No Surprises” -- Lack of science in the HCP process. California Native Plant Society Annual Conservation Conference, The Presidio, San Francisco, September 7, 1997.

Smallwood CV 41
In Your Interest. A half hour weekly show aired on Channel 10 Television, Sacramento. In this episode, I served on a panel of experts discussing problems with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Aired August 31, 1997.

Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997.

Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997.

Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996.

Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996.

Small animal control. Session moderator and speaker at the California Farm Conference, Sacramento, California, Feb. 28, 1995.

Small animal control. Ecological Farming Conference, Asylomar, California, Jan. 28, 1995.

Habitat associations of the Swainson’s Hawk in the Sacramento Valley’s agricultural landscape. 1994 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Seed Industry Conference, Woodland, California, May 4, 1994.

Habitats and vertebrate pests: impacts and management. Managing Farmland to Bring Back Game Birds and Wildlife to the Central Valley. Yolo County Resource Conservation District, U.C. Davis, February 19, 1994.

Management of gophers and alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Orland Alfalfa Production Meeting and Sacramento Valley Alfalfa Production Meeting, February 1 and 2, 1994.

Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Seminar Series: Recent Advances in Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, U.C. Davis, Dec. 6, 1993.

Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 9, 1993.

Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 8, 1993.

Association analysis of raptors in a farming landscape. Plenary speaker at Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov. 6, 1993.

Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Plenary speaker, International Conference on Integrated Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture, Beijing, China, Sept. 11, 1993.

Smallwood CV 42
Landscape Ecology Study of Pocket Gophers in Alfalfa. Alfalfa Field Day, U.C. Davis, July 1993.

Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Spatial Data Analysis Colloquium, U.C.

Davis, August 6, 1993.

Sound stewardship of wildlife. Veterinary Medicine Seminar: Ethics of Animal Use, U.C. Davis.

May 1993.

Landscape ecology study of pocket gophers in alfalfa. Five County Grower's Meeting, Tracy, California. February 1993.

Turbulence and the community organizers: The role of invading species in ordering a turbulent system, and the factors for invasion success. Ecology Graduate Student Association Colloquium, U.C. Davis. May 1990.

Evaluation of exotic vertebrate pests. Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento, California. March 1990.

Analytical methods for predicting success of mammal introductions to North America. The Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Hilo, Hawaii. February 1988.

A state-wide mountain lion track survey. Sacramento County Dept Parks and Recreation. April 1986.

The mountain lion in California. Davis Chapter of the Audubon Society. October 1985.

Ecology Graduate Student Seminars, U.C. Davis, 1985-1990: Social behavior of the mountain lion; Mountain lion control; Political status of the mountain lion in California.

Other forms of Participation at Professional Meetings
 Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Berlin, Germany, March 2015.
 Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Stockholm, Sweden, February 2013.
 Workshop co-presenter at Birds & Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) Information sharing week, Bird specialist studies for proposed wind energy facilities in South Africa, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Darling, South Africa, 3-7 October 2011.  Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 2-5 May 2011.
 Chair of Animal Damage Management Session, The Wildlife Society, Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada, September 26, 2001.

Smallwood CV 43
 Chair of Technical Session: Human communities and ecosystem health: Comparing perspectives and making connection. Managing for Ecosystem Health, International Congress on Ecosystem Health, Sacramento, CA August 15-20, 1999.  Student Awards Committee, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
 Student Mentor, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.

Printed Mass Media
Smallwood, K.S., D. Mooney, and M. McGuinness. 2003. We must stop the UCD biolab now. OpEd to the Davis Enterprise.

Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Spring Lake threatens Davis. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.

Smallwood, K.S. Summer, 2001. Mitigation of habitation. The Flatlander, Davis, California.

Entrikan, R.K. and K.S. Smallwood. 2000. Measure O: Flawed law would lock in new taxes. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.

Smallwood, K.S. 2000. Davis delegation lobbies Congress for Wildlife conservation. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.

Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Davis Visions. The Flatlander, Davis, California.

Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Last grab for Yolo’s land and water. The Flatlander, Davis, California.

Smallwood, K.S. 1997. The Yolo County HCP. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.

Radio/Television
PBS News Hour,
FOX News, Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development, August 2011.

KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Mountain lion attacks (with guest Professor Richard Coss). 23 April 2009;
KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Wind farm Rio Vista Renewable Power. 4 September 2008;
KQED QUEST Episode #111. Bird collisions with wind turbines. 2007; Smallwood CV 44
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. December 27, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. May 3, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. February 8, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick & Shawn Smallwood), California Energy Crisis: 1 hour. Jan. 25, 2001;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Headwaters Forest HCP: 1 hour. 1998; Davis Cable Channel (host Gerald Heffernon), Burrowing owls in Davis: half hour. June, 2000; Davis Cable Channel (hosted by Davis League of Women Voters), Measure O debate: 1 hour.

October, 2000;
KXTV 10, In Your Interest, The Endangered Species Act: half hour. 1997.

Reviews of Journal Papers (Scientific journals for whom I’ve provided peer review) Journal Journal
American Naturalist Journal of Animal Ecology
Journal of Wildlife Management Western North American Naturalist Auk Journal of Raptor Research
Biological Conservation National Renewable Energy Lab reports Canadian Journal of Zoology Oikos
Ecosystem Health The Prairie Naturalist
Environmental Conservation Restoration Ecology
Environmental Management Southwestern Naturalist
Functional Ecology The Wildlife Society--Western Section Trans.

Journal of Zoology (London) Proc. Int. Congress on Managing for Ecosystem Health Journal of Applied Ecology Transactions in GIS
Ecology Tropical Ecology
Wildlife Society Bulletin Peer J
Biological Control The Condor
Committees
 Scientific Review Committee, Alameda County, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area  Ph.D. Thesis Committee, Steve Anderson, University of California, Davis  MS Thesis Committee, Marcus Yee, California State University, Sacramento Smallwood CV 45
Other Professional Activities or Products
Testified in Federal Court in Denver during 2005 over the fate of radio-nuclides in the soil at Rocky Flats Plant after exposure to burrowing animals. My clients won a judgment of $553,000,000. I have also testified in many other cases of litigation under CEQA, NEPA, the Warren-Alquist Act, and other environmental laws. My clients won most of the cases for which I testified.

Testified before Environmental Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regarding proposed White Pines, Amherst Island, and Fairview Wind Energy projects.

Testified in Skamania County Hearing in 2009 on the potential impacts of zoning the County for development of wind farms and hazardous waste facilities.

Testified in deposition in 2007 in the case of O’Dell et al. vs. FPL Energy in Houston, Texas.

Testified in Klickitat County Hearing in 2006 on the potential impacts of the Windy Point Wind Farm.

Memberships in Professional Societies
The Wildlife Society
Raptor Research Foundation
Honors and Awards
Fulbright Research Fellowship to Indonesia, 1987
J.G. Boswell Full Academic Scholarship, 1981 college of choice Certificate of Appreciation, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, 2000, 2001 Northern California Athletic Association Most Valuable Cross Country Runner, 1984 American Legion Award, Corcoran High School, 1981, and John Muir Junior High, 1977 CIF Section Champion, Cross Country in 1978
CIF Section Champion, Track & Field 2 mile run in 1981
National Junior Record, 20 kilometer run, 1982
National Age Group Record, 1500 meter run, 1978
Community Activities
District 64 Little League Umpire, 2003-2007
Dixon Little League Umpire, 2006-07
Davis Little League Chief Umpire and Board member, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Safety Officer, 2004-2005
Davis Little League Certified Umpire, 2002-2004
Davis Little League Scorekeeper, 2002
Davis Visioning Group member
Petitioner for Writ of Mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act against City of Woodland decision to approve the Spring Lake Specific Plan, 2002 Served on campaign committees for City Council candidates Smallwood CV 46
Representative Clients/Funders
Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker EDF Renewables
Blum Collins, LLP National Renewable Energy Lab
Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation Altamont Winds LLC Law Offices of Berger & Montague Salka Energy
Lozeau | Drury LLP Comstocks Business (magazine)
Law Offices of Roy Haber BioResource Consultants
Law Offices of Edward MacDonald Tierra Data
Law Office of John Gabrielli Black and Veatch
Law Office of Bill Kopper Terry Preston, Wildlife Ecology Research Center Law Office of Donald B. Mooney EcoStat, Inc.

Law Office of Veneruso & Moncharsh US Navy
Law Office of Steven Thompson US Department of Agriculture Law Office of Brian Gaffney US Forest Service
California Wildlife Federation US Fish & Wildlife Service Defenders of Wildlife US Department of Justice
Sierra Club California Energy Commission
National Endangered Species Network California Office of the Attorney General Spirit of the Sage Council California Department of Fish & Wildlife The Humane Society California Department of Transportation Hagens Berman LLP California Department of Forestry
Environmental Protection Information Center California Department of Food & Agriculture Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin, Attorneys at Law Ventura County Counsel Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) County of Yolo Seatuck Environmental Association Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program Save Our Scenic Area Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound East Bay Regional Park District Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk County of Alameda
Alameda Creek Alliance Don & LaNelle Silverstien
Center for Biological Diversity Seventh Day Adventist Church California Native Plant Society Escuela de la Raza Unida Endangered Wildlife Trust Susan Pelican and Howard Beeman and BirdLife South Africa Residents Against Inconsistent Development, Inc.

AquAlliance Bob Sarvey
Oregon Natural Desert Association Mike Boyd
Save Our Sound Hillcroft Neighborhood Fund
G3 Energy and Pattern Energy Joint Labor Management Committee, Retail Food Industry Emerald Farms Lisa Rocca
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Kevin Jackson
Southern California Edison Co. Dawn Stover and Jay Letto Georgia-Pacific Timber Co. Nancy Havassy
Northern Territories Inc. Catherine Portman (for Brenda Cedarblade) David Magney Environmental Consulting Ventus Environmental Solutions, Inc.

Wildlife History Foundation Panorama Environmental, Inc.

NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Adams Broadwell Professional Corporation Ogin, Inc.

Smallwood CV 47
Representative special-status species experience
Common name Species name Description
Field experience
California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Protocol searches; Many detections Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii Presence surveys; Many detections Western spadefoot Spea hammondii Presence surveys; Few detections California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense Protocol searches; Many detections Coast range newt Taricha torosa torosa Searches and multiple detections Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia sila Detected in San Luis Obispo County California horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale Searches; Many detections Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata Searches; Many detections San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Protocol searches; detections Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris Track surveys in Sumatra Mountain lion Puma concolor californicus Research and publications Point Arena mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra Remote camera operation Giant kangaroo rat Dipodomys ingens Detected in Cholame Valley San Joaquin kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides Monitoring & habitat restoration Monterey dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes luciana Non-target captures and mapping of dens Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris Habitat assessment, monitoring Salinas harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotus
distichlus
Captures; habitat assessment
Bats Thermal imaging surveys
California clapper rail Rallus longirostris Surveys and detections Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Numerical & behavioral surveys Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Numerical & behavioral surveys Northern harrier Circus cyaeneus Numerical & behavioral surveys White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus Numerical & behavioral surveys Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Large area surveys Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Detected in Monterey County Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Research at Sierra Nevada breeding sites Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugia Numerical & behavioral surveys Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
Monitored success of relocation and habitat
restoration
Analytical
Arroyo southwestern toad Bufo microscaphus californicus Research and report.

Giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas Research and publication Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Research and publication Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis Research and reports Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
Expert testimony
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-768 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on a Resolution Declaring the Loyalton Ranch Property Surplus (Deferred from May 24, 2022)

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Clara owns and maintains approximately 10,270 rural acres of undeveloped land in Lassen and Sierra Counties near the California-Nevada border. The property is located in northeastern California, about 30 miles north of Truckee, CA, 110 miles northeast of Sacramento, CA, and about 20 miles northwest of Reno, NV. The land is referred to locally as the Trosi Ranch, and within the City as the Loyalton Ranch Property. The City purchased the property with electric utility funds in 1977 for $1,613,850 or $157/acre. The City’s Electrical Department, doing business as Silicon Valley Power (SVP), is responsible for the maintenance of the property.

On December 14, 2021, the City Council discussed a potential sale of the Loyalton Ranch Property and directed staff to develop a strategy for the sale of the Loyalton Ranch Property and present it to the City Council at a future meeting. On March 8, 2022, the City Council voted to Note and File the Strategy and Next Steps for the sale of the Loyalton Property, as follows:

1. Complete an updated Appraisal for the property.

2. Schedule tours of the property for Councilmembers who are interested to visit the site.

3. Schedule for Council consideration declaration of the property as Surplus Land.

DISCUSSION
Updated Appraisal
Valbridge Property Advisers completed an appraisal for the property (Attachment 1). The property was appraised at $4,370,000. As discussed on the March 8, 2022 Council Report, staff also explored hiring additional “local” appraisers to perform a separate appraisal for comparison purposes. Six firms were contacted but none were able to provide the service, mostly due to capacity constraints.

City Council Loyalton Site Visits
On April 26, 2022, Councilmembers Becker, Hardy and Park joined with City staff and visited the two of the three main properties accessible by a four-wheel drive vehicle. The field visit included the site of the former Trosi Ranch complex buildings south of CA Route 70 that were consumed by the 2020 Loyalton Fire and the property easterly of the City of Loyalton on CA Route 49 northerly of the Sierra County Solid Waste landfill. Property showed regrowth of native high desert grasses, spring wildflowers and continued cattle grazing on pastures with mule deer and other wildlife.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-768 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
Declaration of Property as Surplus Land
When the City desires to dispose of land not necessary for agency use, it must first declare the land surplus at a regular public meeting and make written findings supporting the declaration that the land is “surplus land.” Generally, the Surplus Land Act (SLA) identifies three types of land: (1) land necessary for “agency use,” (2) land no longer necessary for agency use but exempt from most of the SLA (“exempt surplus land”), and (3) land no longer necessary for agency use that is not exempt (“surplus land”). “Agency use” is defined as land that is being used or that has a planned use “pursuant to a written plan adopted by the local agency’s governing board.” Agency use does not include commercial or industrial uses, including retail, entertainment, office, or any property disposed of for the sole purpose of investment or revenue generation. (Gov. Code § 54221(c).) The attached resolution (Attachment 2) declares the property as Surplus Land. Per the Resolution the Council finds that the City owns the Property in fee simple, the City does not currently use the Property, and the City has no written or adopted plan for future use of the Property. Further, the Council finds that the Property has not been suitable for its intended electric utility purposes, and in 2020 the Loyalton Fire burned approximately 90% of the Property. So, the Property is no longer necessary for the City’s use or operations and thus should be declared surplus.

If the City Council adopts the proposed Resolution declaring the Loyalton Ranch as Surplus Land, staff will proceed with issuing a Notice of Availability (NOA) (Attachment 3) to certain parties designated in the SLA in the form provided in Appendix A to the HCD Guidelines. (Gov. Code §54222; HCD Guidelines, 201.)
Upcoming Items and Negotiations
After the City issues the NOA, it cannot take any action to dispose of the Loyalton Ranch Property for 60 days. If the City receives one or more responses to the NOA within those 60 days, the City must engage in good faith negotiations with the responding parties for at least 90 days. The 90-day negotiation period cannot begin until the first day following expiration of the 60-day NOA period.

There are specific requirements regarding accepting and rejecting certain types of offers, and the City will provide the Council with any necessary updates as the process continues.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The declaration of the Property as surplus land and posting of the Notice of Availability is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines section 15206(b)(4), 15312 and 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the declaration and associated activities will have a significant effect on the environment because no development or construction is proposed.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no additional costs anticipated at this time.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-768 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

ALTERNARTIVES

1. Act on a Resolution Declaring the Loyalton Ranch Property Surplus.

2. Do not Act on a Resolution Declaring the Loyalton Ranch Property Surplus.

3. Any other Council Direction.

RECOMMENDATION
There is no staff recommendation.

Reviewed by: Manuel Pineda, Chief Electric Utility Officer Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Property Appraisal Report

2. Resolution

3. Notice of Availability
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
Appraisal Report
Loyalton Ranch Property
East of Loyalton and West of Cold Springs in Sierra and Lassen Counties Report Date: April 18, 2022
FOR:

City of Santa Clara
Mr. Joseph Bruzzone P.E.

Electric Utility Engineer
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
Valbridge Property Advisors |
Northern California
2813 Coffee Road, Suite E2
Modesto, CA 95355
209.569.0450 phone Valbridge File Number:
408.279.3428 fax CA05-22-0120
valbridge.com
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California 2813 Coffee Road, Suite E2
Modesto, CA 95355
209.569.0450 phone
408.279.3428 fax
valbridge.com
April 18, 2022
John A. Hillas, MAI, SRA
209.569.0450, ext. 7301
[email protected]
Mr. Joseph Bruzzone P.E.

Electric Utility Engineer
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
RE: Appraisal Report
Loyalton Ranch Property
East of Loyalton and West of Cold Springs in Sierra and Lassen Counties Dear Mr. Bruzzone,
In accordance with your request, we have performed an appraisal of the above referenced property.

This appraisal report sets forth the pertinent data gathered, the techniques employed, and the reasoning leading to our opinions and conclusions. This letter of transmittal alone does not constitute an appraisal report and the rationale behind the value opinion(s) reported cannot be adequately understood without the accompanying appraisal report.

The subject property, as referenced above, is located within Sierra and Lassen Counties, East of Loyalton and West of Cold Springs, and is further identified as tax parcel numbers 147-040-02, 174- 050-02, 147-050-03, 147-050-19, 147-050-20, 147-070-04, 147-070-05, 147-080-01, 147-080-03, 147- 080-11, 147-080-14, 147-080-15, 016-070-012, 016-080-007, 016-080-008, 016-090-011, 016-090- 059, 016-100-001, 016-100-004, 016-100-005, 016-100-006, 021-010-003, 021-010-006, 021-010-012, 021-010-013, 021-020-001. The subject is a 10,273.95-acre ranch with several smaller components as will be discussed herein.

We developed our analyses, opinions, and conclusions and prepared this report in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) of the Appraisal Foundation and the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

Mr. Joseph Bruzzone P.E
City of Santa Clara