Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, June 7, 2022 (part 13 of 16)

© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California The client in this assignment is Joseph Bruzzone with the City of Santa Clara and the intended user of this report is Joseph Bruzzone with the City of Santa Clara and no others. The sole intended use is to determine a value for a possible sale of the property.. The value opinions reported herein are subject to the definitions, assumptions, limiting conditions, and certifications contained in this report.

The findings and conclusions are further contingent upon the following extraordinary assumptions and/or hypothetical conditions, the use of which might have affected the assignment results:

Extraordinary Assumptions:
• In terms of physical characteristics of the property, we relied on information provided by our client, along with public record information and technology platforms including google earth.

It is an extraordinary assumption of the appraisal that the information contained herein is accurate
• Legal access is assumed to exist for each of the three main property components. It is reported that the acreage has been used for grazing of livestock, and the acreage is thus assumed to be suitable for this use.

Hypothetical Conditions:
• None
Based on the analysis contained in the following report, our value conclusion is as follows:

Respectfully submitted,
Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California
John A. Hillas, MAI, SRA
Managing Director
California Certified License #AG002432
Component As Is
Value Type Market Value
Property Rights Appraised Fee Simple Estate
Effective Date of Value April 1, 2022
Value Conclusion $4,370,000
$425 per acre
Value Conclusion

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page i Table of Contents
Cover Page
Letter of Transmittal
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................................................................i Summary of Salient Facts .......................................................................................................................................................ii Aerial Photograph....................................................................................................................................................................iii Location Map.............................................................................................................................................................................iv Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................1 Scope of Work............................................................................................................................................................................3 Regional and Market Area Analysis....................................................................................................................................5 Site Description....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Assessment and Tax Data ................................................................................................................................................... 16 Economic Outlook.................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Highest and Best Use............................................................................................................................................................ 20 Sales Comparison Approach.............................................................................................................................................. 22 Reconciliation........................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Exposure Time and Marketing Period....................................................................................................................... 38 General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions .......................................................................................................... 39 Certification – John A. Hillas, MAI, SRA.......................................................................................................................... 44 Addenda .................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Glossary................................................................................................................................................................................. 46 Qualifications ...................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Valbridge Property Advisors Information / Office Locations ........................................................................... 56

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page ii Summary of Salient Facts
Property Identification
Property Name Loyalton Ranch Property
Property Address East of Loyalton and West of Cold Springs in Sierra and Lassen Counties
Latitude & Longitude 39.67918, -120.130868
Tax Parcel Number
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
Property Owner City of Santa Clara Electric Department
Site
Zoning General Forest, Mixed-industrial, Open Space (GF,MI,OS) FEMA Flood Map No. 06091C0250C
Flood Zone Zone X, Not a Designated Flood Prone Area
Gross Land Area 10,273.950 acres
Sierra County Acres 6,371.46 acres
Lassen County Acres 3,902.49 acres
Usable Land Area 10,273.950 acres
Valuation Opinions
Highest & Best Use - As Vacant Grazing land
Reasonable Exposure Time Four to Six Months
Reasonable Marketing Time Four to Six Months
Approach to Value As Is
Sales Comparison $4,370,000
Cost Not Applicable
Income Capitalization Not Applicable
Component As Is
Value Type Market Value
Property Rights Appraised Fee Simple Estate
Effective Date of Value April 1, 2022
Value Conclusion $4,370,000
$425 per acre
Value Indications
Value Conclusion

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page iii Aerial Photograph

AERIAL VIEW

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

LOCATION MAP
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page iv Location Map

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

INTRODUCTION
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 1 Introduction
Client and Intended Users of the Appraisal
The client in this assignment is City of Santa Clara and the sole intended user of this report is Joseph Bruzzone with the City of Santa Clara.

Intended Use of the Appraisal
The sole intended use of this report is to determine a value for a possible sale of the property..

Real Estate Identification
The subject is located within Sierra and Lassen counties, East of Loyalton and West of Cold Springs, and is further identified by tax parcel numbers 147-040-02-11,147-050-02-11,147-050-03-11,147-050- 19-11,147-050-20-11,147-070-04-11,147-070-05-11,147-080-01-11,147-080-03-11, 147-080-11- 11,147-080-14-11,147-080-15-11,021-010-003,021-020-001,016-100-004, 016-090-059, 021-010- 006, 021-010-012, 016-100-005, 016-080-008, 016-070-012, 016-090-011, 021-010-013, 016-100-001, 016-100-006 and 016-080-007.

Legal Description
A legal description of the property was not provided. The assessor parcel numbers, maps, and exhibits herein are considered to adequately identify the property.

Use of Real Estate as of the Effective Date of Value
As of the effective date of value, the subject was agricultural undeveloped land.

Use of Real Estate as Reflected in this Appraisal
Same as above.

Ownership of the Property
According to ParcelQuest, title to the subject property is vested as follows: City of Santa Clara Electric Department.

History of the Property
Ownership of the subject has not changed within the past three years. According to the City of Santa Clara, the property was purchased in 1977 for $1,613,850 ($157/acre). We have considered and analyzed the known history of the subject in the development of our opinions and conclusions.

Analysis of Listings/Offers/Contracts
The subject property is not offered for sale on the open market. There have been no known offers to purchase the subject property.

Type and Definition of Value
The appraisal problem is to develop an opinion of the market value of the subject property. “Market Value,” as used in this appraisal, is defined as “the most probable price that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.”

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

INTRODUCTION
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 2 Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
• Buyer and seller are typically motivated.
• Both parties are well informed or well advised, each acting in what they consider their own best interests;
• A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; • Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and
• The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sale concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.”1 The value conclusions apply to the value of the subject under the market conditions presumed on the effective date of value. Please refer to the Glossary in the Addenda section for additional definitions of terms used in this report.

Valuation Scenarios, Property Rights Appraised, and Effective Dates of Value Per the scope of our assignment we developed an opinion of value for the subject property under the following scenario of value:

Date of Report
The date of this report is April 14, 2022.

Assumptions and Conditions of the Appraisal
This appraisal assignment and the opinions reported herein are subject to the General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions contained in the report and the following extraordinary assumptions and/or hypothetical conditions, the use of which might have affected the assignment results.

Extraordinary Assumptions
• In terms of physical characteristics of the property, we relied on information provided by our client, along with public record information and technology platforms including google earth.

Hypothetical Conditions
• None
1 Source: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 12, Banks and Banking, Part 722.2-Definitions Valuation Scenario Effective Date of Value As Is Market Value of the Fee Simple Estate April 1, 2022

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SCOPE OF WORK
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 3 Scope of Work
The elements addressed in the Scope of Work are (1) the extent to which the subject property is identified, (2) the extent to which the subject is inspected, (3) the type and extent of data researched, (4) the type and extent of analysis applied, (5) the type of appraisal report prepared, and (6) the inclusion or exclusion of items of non-realty in the development of the value opinion. These items are discussed as below.

Extent to Which the Property Was Identified
The three components of the property identification are summarized as follows:
• Legal Characteristics - The subject was legally identified via county records and assessor plats from Lassen and Sierra County.
• Economic Characteristics - Economic characteristics of the subject were identified via information provided by the client, as well as a comparison to properties with similar locational and physical characteristics
• Physical Characteristics - The subject was physically identified via information provided by our client, as well as aerial photography from Google Earth, topographic maps, and other technology resources..

Extent to Which the Property Was Inspected
The property was not physically inspected by the appraiser. The subject property consists of over 10,000 acres of rural acreage, much of which has limited accessibility. Our analyses of available aerial photography and topographic maps was considered the best way to understand the physical characteristics of the property. The appraiser also has familiarity with the general area.

Type and Extent of Data Researched
We researched and analyzed: (1) market area data, (2) property-specific market data, (3) zoning and land-use data, and (4) current data on comparable listings and transactions. We also interviewed people familiar with the subject market/property type.

Type and Extent of Analysis Applied (Valuation Methodology) We observed surrounding land use trends, the condition of any improvements, demand for the subject property, and relevant legal limitations in concluding a highest and best use. We then valued the subject based on that highest and best use conclusion.

Appraisers develop an opinion of property value with specific appraisal procedures that reflect three distinct methods of data analysis: the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, and Income Capitalization Approach. One or more of these approaches are used in all estimations of value.

All of these approaches to value were considered. We assessed the availability of data and applicability of each approach to value within the context of the characteristics of the subject property and the needs and requirements of the client. Based on this assessment, we relied upon the Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach was not used because this is an appraisal of land only and there are no improvements for which costs can be estimated and accrued depreciation quantified. The Income

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SCOPE OF WORK
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 4 Capitalization Approach was not used because this is an appraisal of land only and market participants do not employ this approach for valuing land only. Such acreage is not traded on the basis of the revenue it would generate, but rather on the sale price per acre of land area (Sales Comparison Approach.)
Appraisal Conformity and Report Type
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.

This is an Appraisal Report as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice under Standards Rule 2-2a.

Personal Property/FF&E
All items of non-realty are excluded from this analysis. The opinion of market value developed herein is reflective of real estate only.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

REGIONAL AND MARKET AREA ANALYSIS
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 5 Regional and Market Area Analysis

REGIONAL MAP
Overview
The subject property is located near Loyalton, California with parcels sitting in both Sierra and Lassen counties. This area is on the northern/northeastern portion of the State. Both counties border the state of Nevada in a mountainous area rich in forestry and full of wildlife. These counties have a combined population of approximately 37,000 with only roughly 700 of those people residing in Loyalton. The area was settled in the 1950s, with the City being established in 1864. Loyalton is much the same today as it was back then and even referring to itself as the “city with more animals than people.” Note that much of the following pertains to Sierra County but would be similar for Lassen County.

Population
Sierra county has a very small population with only about 3,214 residents, and while Lassen county is larger in population, housing 32,981 residents as of 2019, both counties are still very small compared to the rest of the state.

According to the Site to Do Business projections, presented below, both Sierra and Lassen counties are expected to see a decrease in population with a change of -0.4% and -0.6% annually between 2021-2026

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

REGIONAL AND MARKET AREA ANALYSIS
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 6 Transportation
Public transportation in Sierra County is very limited. There is no fixed route transit service, but public transportation is provided by two non-profit transit services, which services both Sierra County and the City of Loyalton. These services are open to the general public but primarily specialize in the elderly and disabled population. Considering the small population and the rural nature of Sierra County, there are currently no plans to increase or add public bus services as it is not necessary or financially feasible at this time.

Air service in the area is very minimal. The Sierraville Dearwater Field Airport is the only designated airport in Sierra County, and it is classified as a Basic Utility airfield. The airport provides a link for local and regional aviation uses. The field is used for recreation, ingress and egress for regional events, Population Estimated
Annual %
Change Projected
Annual %
Change
Area 2010 2021 2010 - 21 2026 2021 - 26
United States 308,745,538 333,793,107 0.7% 333,934,112 0.0% California 37,253,956 39,476,705 0.5% 40,507,842 0.5%
Sierra County 3,240 3,169 -0.2% 3,080 -0.6%
Lassen County 34,895 32,284 -0.3% 32,284 -0.4%
Source: ESRI (ArcGIS)

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

REGIONAL AND MARKET AREA ANALYSIS
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 7 occasional charter services and emergency services. Air freight in the county is limited to occasional service by private aircraft. Residents in Sierra County typically use airports in Reno, Sacramento, and San Francisco for their commercial needs.

With such a small population, traffic congestion is not usually a problem in the City of Loyalton or the Sierra/Lassen County areas. About 64 miles of State Route 49 runs east-west through Sierra County and Loyalton. State Route 89 runs from Nevada County to the Plumas County line, crossing through about 30 miles of Sierra County. SR 89 largely carries local, commercial, and recreational traffic through undeveloped forest land with restricted access. US 395 runs through the northeastern corner of the county. A 1.6-milelong section of I-80 passes through the southeastern corner of Sierra County.

Unemployment
The unemployment rate in Sierra County is currently less than the rates of the state and nation. The County unemployment rate was 4.1% as of December 2021 (most recent available). The State of California was at 7.3% while the Nation was at 5.3% for the same time period.

Median Household Income
Lassen and Sierra Counties have a median household income which is quite a bit lower than that of the state and national average but is expected to grow by about 1.7-2.4 percent over the next four years. Total median household income for the region is presented in the following table. Overall, the subject compares unfavorably to the state and the country Conclusions
Sierra County and Lassen County are well up into the Sierra Nevada and consist mostly of rural/remote acreage and small communities. With a decreasing population, aging work force and limited local training options, the pool of workers in this area is quite small and talent attraction is difficult due to lack of housing availability. Most of the housing is owner occupied with limited rental options. There is a significant amount of land that is owned by the Federal or State Government. Although Loyalton is the biggest community within Sierra County it has been called “the loneliest town in America” Unemployment Rates Area YE 2016 YE 2017 YE 2018 YE 2019 YE 2020 2021¹
United States 4.9% 4.4% 3.9% 3.7% 8.1% 5.3%
California 5.5% 4.8% 4.3% 4.1% 10.2% 7.3%
Sierra County, CA 7.0% 5.6% 4.8% 4.7% 7.1% 4.1%
Source: www.bls.gov data not seasonally adjusted; ¹Annual - most recent for US, others lag by 1-2 mos.) Median Household Income
Estimated Projected Annual % Change
Area 2021 2026 2021 - 26
United States $62,203 $67,325 1.6%
California $80,044 $90,664 2.5%
Sierra County $57,732 $65,063 2.4%
Lassen County $60,572 $65,927 1.7%
Source: ESRI (ArcGIS)

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

REGIONAL AND MARKET AREA ANALYSIS
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 8 because visitors are few and far between. Despite the scenic views and pleasant small-town atmosphere, there is not much to attract tourism keeping the town much as it was 150 years ago:
small, quiet, and full of wildlife and natural beauty
With regard to economic conditions, the real estate market in general was several years into positive trends after a period of deep recession until the pandemic in the first quarter of 2020.

The outlook is still somewhat clouded by the unknowns associated with COVID-19. There were increasing impacts on many businesses as people continued to curb their activity, and certain industries in particular have been severely affected. While California “re-opened for business” in June 2021, mask requirements subsequently returned and vaccination mandates were announced, but these are now waning again. On March 1, 2022, the State of California requirement for unvaccinated people to mask in indoor settings was changed to a recommendation that all persons continue indoor masking, regardless of covid vaccination status.

Many market participants had been becoming more optimistic, thanks in large part to the vaccination rollouts, but the forceful return of Covid protocols in the winter of 2021-22, and both government and private sector mandates had a dampening effect. Now, as the pandemic recedes, continued supply chain issues and inflation, exacerbated now by the war in Europe, and possible greater implications, have extended national and global concern and uncertainty, and the economy will continue to be adversely impacted.

The timeline for a return to normalcy remains unknown, but the historic reasons for growth in the region remain the same. The timeline for a return to normalcy remains unknown, but the historic reasons for growth in the region remain the same, and thus the expectation is that normal growth will resume over time.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SITE DESCRIPTION
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 9

GOOGLE AERIAL

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SITE DESCRIPTION
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 10 Site Description
The subject site is located in northeastern California, about 100 air miles northeast of Sacramento and 20 miles northwest of Reno. The property is east of Loyalton, and northwest of Cold Springs, Nevada.

The characteristics of the site are summarized as follows:

Site Characteristics
Summary The property consist of acreage that is remote and in a generally native state. The acreage has been used as seasonal grazeland.

Location The acreage is within Sierra County and Lassen County, CA, just east of Loyalton, CA and just west of Cold Springs, Nevada Gross Land Area: 10,273.95 Acres
Lassen County Acres 3,902.49 acres
Sierra County Acres 6,371.46 acres
Shape: Generally Rectangular
Topography:

Western Acreage:

Topography ranges from lower mildly sloping flatlands to steep sloping areas and peaks. Following is a brief description of each of the three main components of the property.

The western acreage, just east of Loyalton, is relatively flat in the western portion at about 5,000 feet elevation, extending easterly to peaks that are almost 7,500 feet high. There is somewhat of a valley that extends upward in elevation from the west to the east, sloping up also toward the north and south. There are several “jeep” trails identified on the topographic map, and one named “road” (Staverville Road) that is basically a trail.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SITE DESCRIPTION
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 11 There are several high peaks in this portion of the property.

Notably, there are two “islands” of public land reflected in the white shaded areas in the aerial image above.

Northeastern Acreage: The northeastern acreage is southwest of the intersection of Highway 70 and the 395 Freeway, just east of Reno Junction. This is considered the main ranch area with a farmstead in the northern portion.

This acreage has a significant amount of nearly level or gently sloping acreage, sloping up to the south and southeast, as well as to the northwest. The lower area in the northeast part of this acreage is at about 5,000 feet elevation, extending southerly to just over 6,000 feet, with higher areas up to 7,000 feet to the southwest.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SITE DESCRIPTION
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 12 There is publicly owned land adjacent to the south. One small portion of the subject is an island within this public land.

Southeastern Acreage: The southeastern component of the property is similar to the others in that it has valley areas and high peaks, but it differs from the other two property components in that it has inferior access.

As reflected in the aerial photo below, there is a portion of public land (white shaded) that extends into the subject acreage, with additional subject acreage north of that. Aside from “touching” the southern edge of the northeastern part of the property, it is not technically adjoining.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SITE DESCRIPTION
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 13 Note in the topographic map above where the Lassen/Sierra County line crosses the property.

Utilities Electric power is believed to exist at the western edge near Loyalton, and in the northeastern part of the property near the existing farmstead. The main ranch site has a domestic well.

Access The acreage is considered remote. The property is accessible from the southwest corner where Garbage Pit Road connects with Staverville Road. Staverville Road runs West-East through the Southern portion of the Sierra County parcels.

There is also access from the northeast, with ranch roads extending southwesterly. There is also a ranch road which appears to extend easterly from the northeast acreage to Bringman Road and the 395 freeway.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SITE DESCRIPTION
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 14 The southeast part of the property has inferior access when compared to the other two property components. There is a trail/road which extends from the 395 freeway toward the southeastern part of this southeastern acreage, but it would require an offroad vehicle.

Significantly, legal access is assumed to exist for each of the three main property components. It is reported that the acreage has been used for grazing of livestock, and the acreage is thus assumed to be suitable for this use.

Drainage: Assumed adequate for intended use
Interior or Corner: Interior
Signalized Intersection: No
Flood Zone Data
Flood Map Panel/Number: 06091C0250C
Flood Map Date: 02-02-2012
Portion in Flood Hazard Area: 0.00%
Flood Zone: Zone X – not a flood zone
Other Site Conditions
Soil Type: This is remote hilly acreage at 5,000 to 7,500 feet elevation. It is rocky and typically consists of soils that would not be highly rated for productive agriculture, other than seasonal grazeland.

Environmental Issues: An environmental site assessment report was not furnished for our review. An inspection of the property did not reveal any visible or factual evidence of apparent environmental impairment to the site.

The appraisers are not considered experts in hazardous materials.

The client is advised to obtain an environmental report if further investigation is desired. In addition, a drive-by inspection of the immediate vicinity surrounding the subject did not reveal any uses or hazards that would be expected to pose an apparent risk to the site or would restrict its use.

Easements/Encroachments: None known that would adversely affect development of the site.

Earthquake Zone: The property is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone for earthquake hazard. Earthquake hazard is typical for the overall area.

Zoning Designation
Zoning Jurisdiction: Sierra County and Lassen County
Zoning Classification: Sierra: GF (General Forest) and A1 (Agriculture 1) Lassen: OS (Open Space)

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SITE DESCRIPTION
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 15 General Plan Designation: Sierra: Agricultural, Forest
Lassen: Extensive Agriculture
Permitted Uses: Permitted uses are primarily agricultural in nature. Limited residential use is also allowed. The forest designation provides for the harvest of timber where there is adequate supply/access.

Analysis/Comments on Site
The subject consists of acreage in the northeast part of the state of California, just northwest of Reno, Nevada. It includes ±6,371.46 acres in Sierra County, and ±3,902.49 acres in Lassen County. There are three separate ranch components, including the ±3,582.49 acre main headquarters ranch accessible from the north, ±4,272.46 acres in the southwest portion, just east of Loyalton, and a third component east of Loyalton and south of the main headquarters ranch. This third component in the southeast is more remote with inferior access. It amounts to ±2,419 acres. The main headquarters ranch includes a farmstead, but the property is otherwise unimproved but for fencing. There are no known developed irrigation systems, the acreage is served by natural ponds and creeks, etc.

The property has historically been used for seasonal grazeland. With elevations of 5,000 to over 7,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada, snow limits grazing during winter and into the early spring.

Much of the ranch was damaged by a wildland fire that occurred in 2020. Some fencing was damaged but has since been fixed to allow for continued cattle operations. The rancher/operator stated that the property is functional, but there is additional work that could be done to repair fire damage.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ASSESSMENT AND TAX DATA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 16 Assessment and Tax Data
Assessment Methodology
The State of California has provided for a unified system to assess real estate for property taxes.

Assessment Districts are established on a county basis to assess real estate within the county. The appraised property falls under the taxing jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is subject to both general taxes and direct assessments.

Assessed Values and Property Taxes
The subject’s assessed values, applicable tax rates and total taxes including direct assessments are shown in the following table. The first 14 parcels are in Sierra County and the others are in Lassen County.

There are no tax bills for two of the subject parcels.

General Taxes
The amount of General Taxes due is quantified by multiplying the assessed value by the tax rate. In the State of California, real estate is assessed at 100% of market value as determined by the County Assessor’s Office. The tax rate consists of a base rate of 1% plus any bonds or fees approved by the voters. The County Tax Rate for the Sierra county acreage is 1.40%. The rate in Lassen County is 1.0% Tax Schedule
Parcel
Assessor's
Appraised
Assessor's
Appraised Assessed Effective Special Tax
Tax Year Number Value - Land Value - Imp. Value Tax Rate Assessments Expense 1 2021 016-070-012 $110,759 $110,759 1.040000% $72 $1,224 2 2021 016-080-007 $28,422 $28,422 1.040000% $24 $320
3 2021 016-080-008 $142,109 $142,109 1.040000% $96 $1,574 4 2021 016-090-011 $147,678 $147,678 1.040000% $96 $1,632 5 2021 016-090-059 $117,958 $117,958 1.040000% $77 $1,304 6 2021 016-100-001 $147,678 $147,678 1.040000% $96 $1,632 7 2021 016-100-004 $110,759 $110,759 1.040000% $72 $1,224 8 2021 016-100-005 $106,582 $106,582 1.040000% $26 $1,134 9 2021 016-100-006 No Data No Tax Bill
10 2021 021-010-003 $147,678 $147,678 1.040000% $1,536
11 2021 021-010-006 $26,645 $26,645 1.040000% $277
12 2021 021-010-012 $73,839 $1,281 $75,120 1.040000% $781 13 2021 021-010-013 $5,999 $5,999 1.040000% $62
14 2021 021-020-001 $128,296 $128,296 1.040000% $1,334
15 2021 147-040-002 $16,908 $16,908 1.000000% $169
16 2021 147-050-002 $23,676 $39,786 $63,462 1.000000% $635 17 147-050-030 No Data No tax Bill
18 2021 147-050-019 $13,526 $13,526 1.000000% $135
19 2021 147-050-020 $27,060 $27,060 1.000000% $271
20 2021 147-070-004 $16,476 $16,476 1.000000% $165
21 2021 147-080-001 $23,212 $23,212 1.000000% $232
22 2021 147-070-005 $13,526 $13,526 1.000000% $135
23 2021 147-080-003 $15,178 $15,178 1.000000% $152
24 2021 147-080-011 $35,875 $35,875 1.000000% $359
25 2021 147-080-014 $1,129 $1,129 1.000000% $11
26 2021 147-080-015 $8,535 $8,535 1.000000% $85
Total $1,489,503 $41,067 $1,530,570 $558 $16,583

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ASSESSMENT AND TAX DATA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 17 Direct Assessments
Direct assessments are tax levies that are not dependent upon the assessed value of the property. They are levied regardless of assessment. According to the Santa Clara County Tax Collector’s Office, the direct assessments for the subject are as follows: $558.

Current and Future Taxes
Proposition 13 was passed by voters in June 1978 and substantially changed the taxation of real estate in California. This constitutional amendment rolled back the base year for assessment purposes to the tax year 1975-1976. Annual increases in assessed value are limited to 2 percent per year, regardless of the rate of inflation. Real estate is subject to re-appraisal to current market value upon a change in ownership or new construction. Property assessments in years subsequent to a change of ownership or new construction are referred to as factored base values.

Proposition 8, which passed in November 1978, states that the Assessor shall lower tax roll values to fair market value whenever the assessed value exceeds fair market value. It mandates that the lower of fair market value or factored base value be placed on the assessment roll. When fair market values are enrolled, the Assessor reassesses the property annually until such time as fair market value again equals or exceeds the factored base year value. For properties that have been owned for several years, the assessed value may not reflect the current fair market value. Furthermore, due to adjustments following a Prop 8 reduction, increases in assessed value can increase substantially more than 2% per year until the assessment again matches the factored base year value.

Conclusions
According to the Santa Clara County Tax Assessor the subject’s property taxes are paid as of the date of value.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 18 Economic Outlook
While the war in Europe is foremost on everyone’s mind at this time, Covid-19 continues to impact all aspects of the economy in some way. The impact of the pandemic on commercial real estate was relatively muted in 2021. The market overall has been experiencing growth, fueled by low lending rates and inflationary pressures. Demand for investment properties was expected to increase in secondary and tertiary markets as investors look for higher yields. Investors and owners are also expected to continue to watch federal involvement in business loans, as government may need to intervene if inflation continues to grow. This will influence the decision of business owners to choose between buying or leasing their commercial space. Supply chain issues have the potential to impact both inflation and the ability to keep up with space demand. A shortage of supplies as well as labor is continuing to cause delays in construction across the country.

Supply for commercial space is not keeping up with demand from buyers. High net worth individuals as well as institutions are seeking real estate assets as a hedge against inflation and are taking advantage of the low interest rates while they last. Unlike past recessions, during the brief Covid-19 recession, there has been no shortage of capital, and this has kept several CRE sectors not just solvent, but thriving, including multi-family, certain retail properties, self-storage, healthcare and especially industrial. Office and much retail space is undergoing a shift as companies and consumers continue to adapt to both pandemic concerns as well as changes in the ability to work remote. Many companies are expected to need to offer office employees hybrid work arrangements, which not only depressed square footage demands in office but daytime retail demand nearby.

Despite the space adjustments, retail tenants are paying their rents in higher percentages since April 2020, but many retailers, especially in suburban markets, are struggling to find hourly workers, which is impacting their ability to stay open for regular business hours. Overall office trends are flat or slightly negative, as companies sort out employee policies for being in office and workers continue to opt for and insist on flexible work arrangements. The Covid-19 pandemic upended economies globally beginning in Q1 2020. Unprecedented vaccine development and manufacturing efforts, combined with mitigation strategies, helped slow the progress of the virus in many places. According to the CDC as of mid-March 2022, approximately 81.5% of all persons aged five or older in the United States have received at least the first dose of a Covid-19 vaccine. While the virus is still out in the population, most who have tested positive for the Covid in late 2021/early 2022 have been infected with the Omicron variant which has mild symptoms. Mask mandates are being lifted, and most are hoping to see a return to pre-pandemic level activity later in 2022 and into 2023 for most industries. Now there is a war in Europe and great concern about how it will impact the world economy.

Inflation is perhaps the biggest worry for CRE markets and investors. High inflation rates are being driven by both demand (stimulus, more businesses opening, high savings rates) and supply factors (labor shortages and supply chain disruptions). While inflation was already at the highest rate in 30 years, inflation concerns have increased dramatically now due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Energy costs have increased dramatically and increases in costs of fuel and fertilizer, etc. will impact food production and transportation. Russia produces about 10% of global energy, much of which supplied Europe until just recently. On a global scale, Russia produces about 20% of wheat. Significant amounts of global corn, grains, and seeds for vegetable oil, etc. are grown in Russia and Ukraine. These supplies are now very much at risk.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 19 The median pre-war CPI was increasing at over a 6% annual rate, which is a pace not seen since the late 80’s. As of March 2022, the rate of inflation rose to nearly 8% and is expected to increase further before improving.

Market participants had anticipated that the Fed would hike interest rates higher in 2022 and this belief reduced uncertainty around the longer path of inflation. The biggest risk is that unexpected runaway inflation would be damaging to the economy which would negatively affect property markets. This was not the expected scenario, however, but then Russia invaded Ukraine and international trade between Russia and most of the West has come to a standstill. In March 2022, The Federal Reserve raised its interest rate for the first time in three years in an effort to combat rising inflation without torpedoing economic growth. The situation has changed rapidly and continues to evolve.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

HIGHEST AND BEST USE
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 20 Highest and Best Use
The Highest and Best Use of a property is the use that is legally permissible, physically possible, and financially feasible which results in the highest value. An opinion of the highest and best use results from consideration of the criteria noted above under the market conditions or likely conditions as of the effective date of value. Determination of highest and best use results from the judgment and analytical skills of the appraiser. It represents an opinion, not a fact. In appraisal practice, the concept of highest and best use represents the premise upon which value is based.

Analysis of Highest and Best Use As Though Vacant
The primary determinants of the highest and best use of the property As Though Vacant are the issues of (1) Legal permissibility, (2) Physical possibility, (3) Financial feasibility, and (4) Maximum productivity.

Legally Permissible
The subject site is zoned General Forest, Open Space and Agriculture. The zoning controls the general nature of permissible uses but is appropriate for the location and physical elements of the subject, providing for a consistency of use with the general neighborhood. The location of the subject property is appropriate for the uses allowed, as noted previously, and a change in zoning is unlikely. There are no known easements, encroachments, covenants, or other use restrictions that would unduly limit or impede development.

Physically Possible
The physical attributes allow for a number of potential uses. Elements such as size, shape, availability of utilities, known hazards (flood, environmental, etc.), and other potential influences are described in the Site Description and have been considered. There are no items of a physical nature which would adversely impact development with the legal permitted uses. The property has historically been used or livestock grazing and recreational uses.

Financially Feasible
The probable use of the site for agricultural and recreational uses conforms to the pattern of land use in the market area. An agricultural ranch and/or recreational use is feasible and most likely. A residential use as an accessory to the agriculture use is also quite common.

Maximally Productive
Among the financially feasible uses, the use that results in the highest value (the maximally productive use) is the highest and best use. Considering these factors, the maximally productive use as though vacant is for grazing land.

Conclusion of Highest and Best Use As Though Vacant
The conclusion of the highest and best use as though vacant is for continuation of the current agricultural and recreational use.

Analysis of Highest and Best Use as Improved
In determining the highest and best use of the property as improved, the focus is on three possibilities for the property: (1) continuation of the existing use, (2) modification of the existing use, or (3) demolition and redevelopment of the land.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

HIGHEST AND BEST USE
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 21 The only improvements to the property consist of fencing and a farmstead. Retaining the improvements as they exist meets the tests for physical possibility, legal permissibility, and financial feasibility. The improvements are reportedly in average/serviceable condition and any alternative use of the existing improvements is unlikely to be economically feasible Conclusion of Highest and Best Use As Improved
The highest and best use of the subject property, as improved, is continuation of the existing agricultural and recreational use.

Most Probable Buyer
As of the date of value, the most probable buyer of the subject is an owner/user who intends to graze the acreage or use for recreational purposes.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 22 Sales Comparison Approach
Methodology
The Sales Comparison Approach develops an indication of market value by analyzing closed sales, listings, or pending sales of properties similar to the subject, focusing on the difference between the subject and the comparables using all appropriate elements of comparison. This approach is based on principles of supply and demand, balance, externalities, and substitution, or the premise that a buyer would pay no more for a specific property that the cost of obtaining a property with the same quality, utility, and perceived benefits of ownership.

The process of developing the Sales Comparison Approach consists of the following: (1) researching and verifying transactional data, (2) selecting relevant units of comparison, (3) analyzing and adjusting the comparable sales for differences in various elements of comparison, and (4) reconciling the adjusted sales into a value indication for the subject.

Unit of Comparison
The primary unit of comparison selected depends on the appraisal problem and nature of the property.

The primary unit of comparison in the market for properties such as the subject is price paid per acre.

Elements of Comparison
Elements of comparison are the characteristics or attributes of properties and transactions that cause the prices of real estate to vary. The primary elements of comparison considered in sales comparison analysis are as follows: (1) property rights conveyed, (2) financing terms, (3) conditions of sale, (4) expenditures made immediately after purchase, (5) market conditions, (6) location, and (7) physical characteristics.

Comparable Sales Data
To obtain and verify comparable sales and listings of comparable properties, we conducted a search of public records, interviewed knowledgeable real estate professionals, and reviewed data from both third party and internal databases.

The sales presented in our analysis were judged to be the most comparable to develop an indication of market value for the subject property. The following is a table summarizing each sale comparable and a map illustrating the location of each in relation to the subject. Details of each comparable follow the location map.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 23

COMPARABLE LAND SALES
Grantor Size (acres)
Sale Grantee Sale Date Struct Impr Type
No. Location Reference No. Sale Price Price/Acre Topography 1 23300 Caliente Creek Road Donna A. Douglas Et Al 3/17/2022 4,805.02 Grazing Land Caliente, Kern County The Nature Conservancy $2,500,000 Farmstead Rolling to Steep Doc#2022-42105 -$120,000 $495
$2,380,000
2 Brownell Lava Bed Road William Moore R TR 9/10/2021 1,360.00 Grazing Land Tulelake, Siskiyou County Modoc Nation $734,400 Farmstead Rolling to Steep Doc#2021-09772 $540
3 111-000 HWY 91 Weishan Family LLC 8/20/2020 2,358.00 Grazing Land Lookout, Modoc County J&J Ranch Holdings LLC $1,400,000 None Level to Gently Hilly Doc#2020-02141 $594
4 Caliente Bodfish road John & Patricia Beard 7/9/2020 5,668.17 Grazing Land Caliente, Kern County Family Trust Et Al $4,250,000 None Gently Rolling to Steeply Sloping The Nature Conservancy $750
Doc#2020-089151
5 4555 Meridian Road Diamons X Ranch LLC 10/11/2019 9,535.00 Grazing Land Vina, Tehama County Darrell & Callie family 2005 $8,500,000 Homestead Gently Rolling Revocable Trust Et Al -$500,000 $839
Doc# 2021-002096 $8,000,000 incl conservation easement
6 East of State Route 16 Pine Family Trust 9/5/2019 9,493 Grazing Land Guinda, Yolo County 360 Ranch Corp $10,000,000 Recreational Rolling to Steep Doc# 2019-030760/ -$3,000,000 $737
2019-003870 $7,000,000
7 12 Miles NE of Ravendale Roberts Trust 7/22/2016 23,500 Grazing Land Termo Lassen County Dodge Ranch LLC $9,200,000 Houses/Shops/Barns Rolling to Steep Doc# 2016-3293 -$1,800,000 $315
$7,400,000

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 24

COMPARABLE LAND SALES MAP

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 25 LAND COMPARABLE 1
Property Identification
Property Name Portion of Douglas
Montgomery Ranch
Address 23300 Caliente Creek Rd.

City County State Zip Caliente, Kern County,
California
MSA Bakersfield
Tax ID 179-250-01, -12; 179-260-04, -
05; 179-270-01, -10; 179-280-
05, -07, -09, -11, -20, -21, -22, -
23; 505-010-03
VPA Property/Sale ID 11177913/1553195
Transaction Data
Sale Status Recorded
Sale Date March 17, 2022
Grantor/Seller Donna A. Douglas, et.al.

Grantee/Buyer The Nature Conservancy
Recording Number 22-42105
Property Rights Fee Simple
Financing Cash to Seller
Conditions of Sale Estate/Probate Sale
Sales Price $2,500,000
Adjusted Sales Price Indicators
Price per Gross Acre $520
Net Price per Acre $495
Verification
Confirmed By Walter D. Carney
Confirmation Source Michael Conner, The Nature
Conservancy
Confirmation Contact 7-14-2021
Property Description
Proposed Use Livestock Grazing; Land
Preservation
Gross Land Area 4,805.02 Acres
Topography Varies
Utilities None
Drainage Caliente Creek, plus others
Flood Hazard Zone Zone X
Zoning Code A Exclusive Agriculture
General Plan Extensive Agricultural
Source: Valbridge NorCal; Google Earth

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 26 Remarks
This is a 4,805-acre portion of the Douglas-Montgomery Ranch, in the Tehachapi Mountain area of eastern Kern County. Site topography is rolling to steep, and the land profile consists primarily of trees and chaparral, with scattered areas of open grassland. Elevation ranges from 1,712 feet to 5,047 feet above mean sea level. Site access is via an easement off Caliente Creek Road.

There is no developed electrical power or water onsite. Water for the cattle operation is provided by several natural springs and creeks. Property improvements consist of a homestead area with a 2,400-square foot, woodframe barn, with animal pens; two storage sheds; corrals and loading chute. Solar panels are affixed to the barn.

Improvements are functional for the use of the property with an estimated $120,000 in contributory value.

Soils are a mix of Class VI and Class VII types, a non-productive agricultural classification. They are additionally rated as "poor" and "very poor" on the Revised California Storie Index. Because of the site topography, the property is best used for rangeland or wildlife habitat purposes. The regional area typically receives about 14 inches of rainfall annually, with an average 46 days of rainfall per year. The wettest months are typically from November to May. The average high temperature is approximately 86.9 degrees peaking in July, and the average low temperature is 31.2 degrees set in December and January.

The property is zoned for agricultural uses. At the time of the sale, the parcels comprising the ranch were enrolled within the Williamson Act, a voluntary, ten-year agricultural land preservation contract.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 27 LAND COMPARABLE 2
Property Identification
Address Brownell Lava Bed Road
City County State Zip Tulelake, Siskiyou County,
California
Tax ID 001-080-221-000
VPA Property/Sale ID 11229367/1586205
Transaction Data
Sale Status Closed
Sale Date September 10, 2021
Grantor/Seller William Moore R TR
Grantee/Buyer Modoc Nation
Recording Number 09772
Property Rights Fee Simple
Financing Conventional
Conditions of Sale Typical
Sales Price $734,400
Adjusted Sales Price Indicators
Price per Gross Acre $540
Verification
Confirmation Source Public Record
Property Description
Gross Land Area 1,360 Acres
Topography Rolling
Utilities Assumed to be adequate
Drainage Assumed adequate
Zoning Code AG - Agriculture
General Plan Agricultural
Remarks
Rolling sagebrush and juniper rangeland near the Klamath Basin Wildlife Refuge. Property adjoins BLM and USA lands . about 2/3 of the property is almost level, the southwest 1/3 slopes up. A modest farmstead was not a factor in the price paid. Elevation is about 4,200 - 4,400 feet.

Brownell Lava Bed Road

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 28 LAND COMPARABLE 3
Property Identification
Property Name Roberts Ranch
Address 111-000 HWY 91
City County State Zip Lookout, Modoc County,
California 96054
Tax ID 012-020-078, -077, 011-180-
078, -079, 011-170-015, -016,
012-010-016
VPA Property/Sale ID 11229385/1586209
Transaction Data
Sale Status Closed
Sale Date August 20, 2020
Grantor/Seller Weishan Family LLC
Grantee/Buyer J & J Ranch Holdings LLC
Recording Number 02141
Property Rights Fee Simple
Financing Conventional
Conditions of Sale Typical
Sales Price $1,400,000
Adjusted Sales Price Indicators
Price per Gross Acre $594
Verification
Confirmation Source Public Record
Property Description
Gross Land Area 2,358.00 Acres
Shape Irregular
Topography Gently sloping
Utilities Assumed to be adequate
Drainage Assumed adequate
Zoning Code AG - Agriculture
General Plan Agricultural
Remarks
Acreage is used for cattle operations, and largely dominated by wild grass meadows, juniper, large stands of pine, as well as sagebrush and bitterbrush. Extensive wet meadow that lies in the Roberts Reservoir drainage system. Elevation is around 4,200 feet.
111-000 HWY 91

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 29 LAND COMPARABLE 4
Property Identification
Property Name Beard Family Ranch
Address Caliente Bodfish Road
City County State Zip Caliente, Kern County,
California 93518
MSA Bakersfield
Tax ID 397-210-05 and -06
VPA Property/Sale ID 11133748/1525991
Transaction Data
Sale Status Recorded
Sale Date July 9, 2020
Grantor/Seller John & Patricia Beard Family
Trust, et.al
Grantee/Buyer The Nature Conservancy
Recording Number 220089151
Property Rights Fee Simple
Financing Cash to Seller
Conditions of Sale None
Sales Price $4,250,000
Adjusted Sales Price Indicators
Price per Gross Acre $750
Verification
Confirmed By Walter D. Carney
Confirmation Source Public Records (Grant Deed);
Marketing Brochure; File
Material
Property Description
Proposed Use Livestock grazing;
conservation; preservation
Gross Land Area 5,668.17 Acres
Topography Varies
Utilities Wells
Drainage Caliente and Tehachapi
Creeks
Zoning Code A Exclusive Agriculture
General Plan 8.3, Extensive Agriculture
(Min. 20 Acre Parcel Size)
Source: Valbridge NorCal; Google Earth

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 30 Remarks
The Beard Family Ranch consists of 5,668.17 acres of gently rolling to steeply sloping livestock grazing and recreational hunting ranch in eastern Kern County, approximately 30 miles from Bakersfield. A majority of the ranch is steep, with elevations ranging from 1,420 feet to 4,210 feet above mean sea level. There are two points of access to the ranch via Caliente Bodfish Road - at Caliente Creek Road, on the east side of the property, and off Highway 58, near the southwest portion. Caliente Bodfish Road, a paved, two-lane road, runs through the entire expanse of the property; interior ranch roads provide additional site circulation.

Historic and current use of the ranch is for livestock grazing. Water is provided by one well, five natural springs, and from Caliente Creek and Tehachapi Creek. The well is located at the southwestern portion of the ranch, and the springs are located throughout the property. Water is distributed by truck to holding troughs. Improvements include two sets of corrals, a loading chute, cattle scale, and perimeter fencing.

Soils are mostly a mix of “fair” and “poor” rated farmlands, according to the California Revised Storie Index.

About 7% of the property is comprised of “very good” rated soils. The soils and topography are overall wellsuited to livestock grazing. The mean annual temperature is between 54º F. to 64º F. The mean annual precipitation is between 9 to 16 inches.

The ranch was acquired by The Nature Conservancy. Assigned land uses are for agricultural use, and the entire ranch was enrolled within the "Williamson Act" at the time of sale. The property was marketed for sale at $4,900,000, and the offering consisted of 5,520.69 acres, or $888 per acre. Subsequent to the parties entering into a purchase contract, an additional 147.48-acre parcel was included. The purchase price was $4,250,000, or $750 per acre, for the total 5,668.17 acres. Terms of the sale are assumed to be all-cash to seller.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 31 LAND COMPARABLE 5
Property Identification
Property Name Diamond X Ranch
Address 4555 Meridian Road
City County State Zip Vina, Tehama County,
California
Tax ID 079-030-002, et.al.

VPA Property/Sale ID 11131992/1524785
Transaction Data
Sale Status Recorded
Sale Date October 11, 2019
Grantor/Seller Diamond X Ranch, LLC
Grantee/Buyer Darrell & Callie Family 2005
Revocable Trust, et.al.

Recording Number 2021-002096
Property Rights Encumbered Interest
Financing Cash to Seller
Conditions of Sale Purchased by tenant
Sales Price $8,500,000
Adjusted Sales Price Indicators
Price per Gross Acre $891
Net Price per Acre $839
Verification
Confirmed By Neil Shah
Confirmation Source Todd Renfrew
Confirmation Contact (707) 455-4444
Property Description
Proposed Use Livestock Grazing
Gross Land Area 9,535.00 Acres
Topography Varies
Drainage Brush, Singer, Rattlesnake,
and Deer Creeks
Zoning Code AG-1
Source: Valbridge NorCal; Google Earth

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 32 Remarks
Diamond X Ranch, a 9,535-acre livestock grazing and recreational ranch at the southern portion of Tehama County, east of the town of Vina and approximately 20 miles from the town of Chico, along the east side of Highway 99. The property additionally has frontages along Lassen Road, at its southern border, and Meridian Road, at its eastern perimeter. Overall site topography is gently rolling, with an elevation range from 225 feet to 406 feet above mean sea level. Several creeks traverse the ranch, including Brush, Singer, Rattlesnake, and Deer Creeks. The entire property is perimeter-fenced and cross-fenced, dividing the ranch into eight separate pastures. Historic and current use of the ranch is for livestock grazing.

Available water is plentiful, with sources including five reservoirs, seasonal creeks, and a dedicated right to draw water from Deer Creek (in the fall). Recreational opportunities include fishing and duck hunting.

Soils are mostly a mix of “poor” and “very poor” rated farmlands, according to the California Revised Storie Index.

Less than 5% of the property is comprised of “excellent” and “very good” rated soils. The soils and topography are overall well-suited to livestock grazing. The mean annual temperature is between 46º F. to 63º F. The mean annual precipitation is between 25 to 33 inches.

Homestead improvements include a two-bedroom, 2,300-square foot main residence with an office area and a detached guest room, a bunk house, three recreational vehicle hook-ups, and a large fishpond. The main residence is equipped with solar panels. Two wells provided water to the homestead area, including one for the fishpond. Condition of the improvements were good, per the listing agent. Contributory value of the ranch improvements was estimated by the confirming source to be $500,000, or about 0.6% of the total ranch value.

At the time of the sale, the property was enrolled in the "Williamson Act," a voluntary ten-year agricultural preservation contract. In addition, the ranch sold encumbered with a conservation easement (held in trust by The Nature Conservancy). The easement has been in place since November 2000 and is intended to "preserve, protect, enhance, and restore in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the property...including vernal pools, grasslands, and open space." Permitted uses include livestock grazing (limited to a "November to May" seasonal use), passive recreational uses, maintenance of existing improvements, maintenance, and development of water resources (for grazing uses only). Site development is restricted to a five-acre home area, and a five-acre community area. Subdivision of the property is restricted.

The property was purchased by a tenant who had been using the ranch for grazing uses. Purchase price was $8,500,000. As stated, contributory value of the improvements is $500,000; the land only purchase price is $8,000,000, or approximately $839 per acre. The impact of the conservation easement was estimated by the listing agent to be 20% to 30%. Estimating the conservation easement at 25% indicated the equivalent unencumbered fee simple land rangeland value is $10,067,000 or $1,056 per acre.

The parties entered into an option agreement in October 2019; the agreement was recorded with the County of Tehama Recorder's Office in January 2020. Close of escrow was February 2021. Terms of the sale were all-cash to the seller.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 33 LAND COMPARABLE 6
Property Identification
Property Name Pine Ranch
Address East of State Route 16
City County State Zip Guinda, Yolo County, California
Tax ID 059-010-007, et.al.

VPA Property/Sale ID 11132408/1525049
Transaction Data
Sale Status Recorded
Sale Date September 5, 2019
Grantor/Seller Pine Family Trust
Grantee/Buyer 360 Ranch Corp
Recording Number 2019-030760 (Yolo); 2019-
003870 (Colusa)
Property Rights Fee Simple
Financing Cash to Seller
Conditions of Sale None
Sales Price $10,000,000
Adjusted Sales Price Indicators
Price per Gross Acre $1,053
Net Price per Acre $737
Verification
Confirmed By Neil Shah
Confirmation Source Todd Renfrew
Confirmation Contact (707) 455-4444
Property Description
Proposed Use Livestock grazing; recreation;
investment
Gross Land Area 9,493.45 Acres
Zoning Code A-X Agricultural Extensive
Source: Valbridge NorCal; Google Earth

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 34 Remarks
Pine Ranch is a 9,493.45-acre livestock grazing and recreational ranch situated in the foothills of the Capay Valley, in Yolo and Colusa Counties, approximately a one-hour drive from Sacramento and a two-hour drive from San Francisco. Most of the property is in the northern portion of Yolo County; approximately 297.5 acres are in Colusa County. Access is circuitous with a “rough drive” for approximately four miles. Overall site topography is rolling-to-steep, with an elevation range between 600 feet to 1,700 feet above mean sea level.

Vegetation consists of grasslands, and brush and scrubs, with the best land located at the headquarters area.

Historic and current use has been livestock grazing, along with recreational hunting and fishing. Water is provided by seasonal creeks, holding ponds, and seasonal springs.

Soils are mostly a mix of “poor” rated farmlands, according to the California Revised Storie Index. Less than 2% of the property is comprised of “fair” rated soils. The soils and topography are overall well-suited to livestock grazing. The mean annual temperature is between 45º F. to 64º F. The mean annual precipitation is between 12 to 35 inches.

Property improvements are high-quality and are substantial. The 720-acre headquarters area improvements include a five-bedroom, 7,000-square foot main residence with attached four-car garage and private lake stocked with bass, bluegill, and catfish; a 4,000-square foot lodge with three bedrooms, a large gathering room, and an extensive kitchen area; a resort-quality swimming pool; large-sized entertainment deck equipped with a barbeque large enough to roast a steer; a roping and cutting arena; covered riding arena; and a six-stall barn, with a tack room and a four-car garage. Electrical power was brought in eight miles to the property. The contributory value of the improvements, which were high-quality and in excellent condition, per the confirming source (who represented both buyer and seller in the transaction) was about $3,000,000.

The ranch was assembled and improved by the sellers (Bay Area investors/owner-users) over a twenty-year period. Amenities include expansive, panoramic views, as well as passive and active recreational uses (hunting, fishing, canoeing, horse riding, off-road vehicle use).

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 35 LAND COMPARABLE 7
Property Identification
Property Name Dodge Ranch
Address 12 miles NE of Ravendale
City County State Zip Termo, Lassen County,
California 96132
Tax ID 023-100-006 et al
VPA Property/Sale ID 11229405/1586223
Transaction Data
Sale Status Closed
Sale Date July 22, 2016
Grantor/Seller Roberts trust
Grantee/Buyer Dodge Ranch LLc
Recording Number 2016-3293
Property Rights Fee Simple
Financing Conventional
Conditions of Sale Typical
Sales Price $9,200,000
Adjusted Sales Price Indicators
Price per Gross Acre $391
Net Price per Gross Ac $315
Verification
Confirmation Source MLS, public records
Property Description
Gross Land Area 23,500.00 Acres
Remarks
This is the sale of Dodge Ranch near Ravendale. The ownership totaled 23,500 acres in 27 nearby but non-contiguous parcels that are connected by BLM acreage. The acreage is at 5,000 to 6,000 feet in elevation making it similar to the subject in this regard. The property is improved with three dwellings, one bunkhouse, a shop, haybarn, along with livestock corrals and working facilities. The improvements were reported at $200,000. Farm equipment was included in the sale which was valued at $1,600,000.

The property had been used for hay production. Net of improvements, the sale price was $315 per acre.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

LAND VALUATION
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 36 Sales Comparison Analysis
When necessary, adjustments were made for differences in various elements of comparison, including property rights conveyed, financing terms, conditions of sale, expenditures made immediately after purchase, market conditions, location, and other physical characteristics. If the element in comparison is considered superior to that of the subject, we applied a negative adjustment. Conversely, a positive adjustment to the comparable was applied if inferior. A summary of the elements of comparison follows.

Transaction Adjustments
These items are applied prior to the application of market conditions and property adjustments.

Transaction adjustments include: Real Property Rights Conveyed, Financing Terms, Conditions of Sale, and Expenditures made immediately after purchase.

Sale 5 sold with a conservation easement which impairs value, but the sale requires downward overall adjustment due to its location with superior accessibility.

Market Conditions Adjustment
Market conditions change over time as a result of inflation, deflation, fluctuations in supply and demand and other factors. The sales are arranged in descending order by sale date. The comparables are considered to represent generally recent sale transactions, relatively near the date of value.

Furthermore, the market for this type of property has been relatively level, with a slight upward trend.

Overall, while no formal adjustment is applied, we have considered the improving general economic trends in our reconciliation.

Property Adjustments
Property adjustments are based on locational and physical characteristics and are applied after the application of transaction and market conditions adjustments. We have summarized our adjustment analyses below. The pertinent elements of comparison and adjustments, if warranted, are based on our market research, best judgment, and experience in the appraisal of similar properties.

We have considered location with regard to proximity to linkages and accessibility. We have also considered the differences in topography, water improvements and structures, and magnitude. Severe topography limits productivity. Water and structural improvements are a factor in value enhancement, and there is a recognized relationship between size and price. Larger magnitude sales will almost universally sell for less per unit of measure than smaller magnitude sales, although this factor can sometimes be offset to some extent by other elements of comparison.

The valuation analyses are summarized in the following ranking array. The sales are arranged in descending order by sale price per acre. In such an array, the indicated value for the subject is shown on the following page below those which require downward adjustment, and above those which require upward adjustment.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

LAND VALUATION
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 37

RANKING ARRAY
Reconciliation and Conclusion
The sales reflect range of $315 to $839 per acre. Magnitude of sale, elevation and proximity to urban areas are all significant factors in the analysis. A reasonable value for the subject will be toward the lower end of the reflected range.

Sale 7 is the lowest indicator and is least recent, but it constitutes a large ranch sale at a similar elevation. A reasonable value for the subject would be higher than the indication from Sale 7 due to upward adjustment for its larger magnitude along with an upward adjustment for improved market conditions. All of the other sales require downward overall adjustment.

Sales 2, 3 and 7 are most similar for location in northeast California. These three sales reflect a range from $315 to $594 per acre. Sales 2 and 3 are significantly smaller and downward adjustment is required for this factor.

Overall, a value of $425 per acre is concluded.

Sales Comparison Approach Conclusion
Overall, we have concluded that the value of the subject property, as of the effective date of value of April 1, 2022, can be calculated on the basis of $425 per acre. This figure results in a value indication of $4,370,000.

No. Location Sale Date Size (Acres) Elevation Price/Acre Comment 5 Diamond X Ranch Oct-19 9,535.00 225'-400' $839 Significant downward adjustments for location and lower elevation outweighs all other factors.
4 Beard Family Ranch Jul-20 5,668.17 1,400'-4,200' $750 Downward adjustments for smaller magnitude, lower elevation and superior location attributes
6 Pine Ranch Sep-19 9,493.45 600'-1,700' $737 Significant downward adjustment for lower elevation and location.
3 Roberts Ranch Aug-20 2,358.00 4,200' $594 Downward adjustment for smaller magnitude 2 Brownell Lava Bed
Road
Sep-21 1,360.00 4,200'-4,400' $540 Downward adjustment for smaller magnitude 1 Portion of Douglas
Montgomery Ranch
Mar-22 4,805.02 1,700'-5,000' $495 Downward adjustment for smaller magnitude, lower elevation and superior location attributes
Subject Loyalton Ranch Apr-22 10,273.95 5,000'-7,000' $425 Three acreage components of 4,272, 3,582 and 2,419
acres with the larger portions having access from a
public road, and the third being very remote and
accessible only via easement.
7 Dodge Ranch Jul-16 23,500.00 5,000'-6,000' $315 Upward adjustment for greater magnitude and slight upward adjustment for improved market conditions.

Total Acres 10,273.95
Value per Acre $425
Value Indication via Sales Comparison Approach $4,366,429 rounded $4,370,000
Value Indication via Sales Comparison Approach

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

RECONCILIATION
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 38 Reconciliation
Only one approach to value was considered applicable, therefore, no formal reconciliation is required.

The indicated value from the applicable approach and our concluded market value for the subject property are summarized in the following table.

The acceptance of this appraisal assignment and the completion of the appraisal report submitted herewith are subject to the General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions contained in the report. Our findings and conclusions are further contingent upon the following extraordinary assumptions and/or hypothetical conditions which might have affected the assignment results:

Hypothetical Conditions:
• None
Exposure Time and Marketing Period
Based on statistical information about days on market, escrow length, and marketing times gathered through national investor surveys, sales verification, and interviews of market participants, similar marketing and exposure time estimates of four to six months are considered reasonable and appropriate for the subject property..

Approach to Value As Is
Sales Comparison $4,370,000
Cost Not Applicable
Income Capitalization Not Applicable
Component As Is
Value Type Market Value
Property Rights Appraised Fee Simple Estate
Effective Date of Value April 1, 2022
Value Conclusion $4,370,000
$425 per acre
Value Indications
Value Conclusion

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 39 General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This appraisal is subject to the following general assumptions and limiting conditions:

1. The legal description – if furnished to us – is assumed to be correct.

2. No responsibility is assumed for legal matters, questions of survey or title, soil or subsoil conditions, engineering, availability or capacity of utilities, or other similar technical matters. The appraisal does not constitute a survey of the property appraised. All existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded and the property is appraised as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management unless otherwise noted.

3. Unless otherwise noted, the appraisal will value the property as though free of contamination.

Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California will conduct no hazardous materials or contamination inspection of any kind. It is recommended that the client hire an expert if the presence of hazardous materials or contamination poses any concern.

4. The stamps and/or consideration placed on deeds used to indicate sales are in correct relationship to the actual dollar amount of the transaction.

5. Unless otherwise noted, it is assumed there are no encroachments, zoning violations or restrictions existing in the subject property.

6. The appraiser is not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal unless previous arrangements have been made.

7. Unless expressly specified in the engagement letter, the fee for this appraisal does not include the attendance or giving of testimony by Appraiser at any court, regulatory or other proceedings, or any conferences or other work in preparation for such proceeding. If any partner or employee of Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California is asked or required to appear and/or testify at any deposition, trial, or other proceeding about the preparation, conclusions or any other aspect of this assignment, client shall compensate Appraiser for the time spent by the partner or employee in appearing and/or testifying and in preparing to testify according to the Appraiser’s then current hourly rate plus reimbursement of expenses.

8. The values for land and/or improvements, as contained in this report, are constituent parts of the total value reported and neither is (or are) to be used in making a summation appraisal of a combination of values created by another appraiser. Either is invalidated if so used.

9. The dates of value to which the opinions expressed in this report apply are set forth in this report.

We assume no responsibility for economic or physical factors occurring at some point at a later date, which may affect the opinions stated herein. The forecasts, projections, or operating estimates contained herein are based on current market conditions and anticipated short-term supply and demand factors and are subject to change with future conditions. Appraiser is not responsible for determining whether the date of value requested by Client is appropriate for Client’s intended use.

10. The sketches, maps, plats, and exhibits in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. The appraiser has made no survey of the property and assumed no responsibility in connection with such matters.

11. The information, estimates and opinions, which were obtained from sources outside of this office, are considered reliable. However, no liability for them can be assumed by the appraiser.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 40

12. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. Neither all, nor any part of the content of the report, or copy thereof (including conclusions as to property value, the identity of the appraisers, professional designations, reference to any professional appraisal organization or the firm with which the appraisers are connected), shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without prior written consent and approval.

13. No claim is intended to be expressed for matters of expertise that would require specialized investigation or knowledge beyond that ordinarily employed by real estate appraisers. We claim no expertise in areas such as, but not limited to, legal, survey, structural, environmental, pest control, mechanical, etc.

14. This appraisal was prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the client for the function outlined herein. Any party who is not the client or intended user identified in the appraisal or engagement letter is not entitled to rely upon the contents of the appraisal without express written consent of Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California and Client. The Client shall not include partners, affiliates, or relatives of the party addressed herein. The appraiser assumes no obligation, liability, or accountability to any third party.

15. Distribution of this report is at the sole discretion of the client, but third-parties not listed as an intended user on the face of the appraisal, or the engagement letter may not rely upon the contents of the appraisal. In no event shall client give a third-party a partial copy of the appraisal report. We will make no distribution of the report without the specific direction of the client.

16. This appraisal shall be used only for the function outlined herein, unless expressly authorized by Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California.

17. This appraisal shall be considered in its entirety. No part thereof shall be used separately or out of context.

18. Unless otherwise noted in the body of this report, this appraisal assumes that the subject property does not fall within the areas where mandatory flood insurance is effective. Unless otherwise noted, we have not completed, nor have we contracted to have completed an investigation to identify and/or quantify the presence of non-tidal wetland conditions on the subject property. Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied, regarding this determination.

19. The flood maps are not site specific. We are not qualified to confirm the location of the subject property in relation to flood hazard areas based on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps or other surveying techniques. It is recommended that the client obtain a confirmation of the subject property’s flood zone classification from a licensed surveyor.

20. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures which would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for engineering which may be required to discover them.

21. Our inspection included an observation of the land and improvements thereon only. It was not possible to observe conditions beneath the soil or hidden structural components within the improvements. We inspected the buildings involved, and reported damage (if any) by termites, dry rot, wet rot, or other infestations as a matter of information, and no guarantee of the amount or degree of damage (if any) is implied. Condition of heating, cooling, ventilation, electrical and plumbing equipment is considered to be commensurate with the condition of the balance of the improvements unless otherwise stated. Should the client have concerns in these areas, it is the client’s responsibility to order the appropriate inspections. The appraiser does not have the skill or expertise to make such inspections and assumes no responsibility for these items.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 41

22. This appraisal does not guarantee compliance with building code and life safety code requirements of the local jurisdiction. It is assumed that all required licenses, consents, certificates of occupancy or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value conclusion contained in this report is based unless specifically stated to the contrary.

23. When possible, we have relied upon building measurements provided by the client, owner, or associated agents of these parties. In the absence of a detailed rent roll, reliable public records, or “as-built” plans provided to us, we have relied upon our own measurements of the subject improvements. We follow typical appraisal industry methods; however, we recognize that some factors may limit our ability to obtain accurate measurements including, but not limited to, property access on the day of inspection, basements, fenced/gated areas, grade elevations, greenery/shrubbery, uneven surfaces, multiple story structures, obtuse or acute wall angles, immobile obstructions, etc. Professional building area measurements of the quality, level of detail, or accuracy of professional measurement services are beyond the scope of this appraisal assignment.

24. We have attempted to reconcile sources of data discovered or provided during the appraisal process, including assessment department data. Ultimately, the measurements that are deemed by us to be the most accurate and/or reliable are used within this report. While the measurements and any accompanying sketches are considered to be reasonably accurate and reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. Should the client desire more precise measurement, they are urged to retain the measurement services of a qualified professional (space planner, architect or building engineer) as an alternative source. If this alternative measurement source reflects or reveals substantial differences with the measurements used within the report, upon request of the client, the appraiser will submit a revised report for an additional fee.

25. In the absence of being provided with a detailed land survey, we have used assessment department data to ascertain the physical dimensions and acreage of the property. Should a survey prove this information to be inaccurate, upon request of the client, the appraiser will submit a revised report for an additional fee.

26. If only preliminary plans and specifications were available for use in the preparation of this appraisal, and a review of the final plans and specifications reveals substantial differences upon request of the client the appraiser will submit a revised report for an additional fee.

27. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the value conclusion is predicated on the assumption that the property is free of contamination, environmental impairment, or hazardous materials. Unless otherwise stated, the existence of hazardous material was not observed by the appraiser and the appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required for discovery. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired.

28. The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) became effective January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific compliance survey of the property to determine if it is in conformity with the various requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property, together with an analysis of the requirements of the ADA, could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this could have a negative effect on the value of the property. Since we have no direct evidence relating to this issue, we did not consider possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in developing an opinion of value.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 42

29. This appraisal applies to the land and building improvements only. The value of trade fixtures, furnishings, and other equipment, or subsurface rights (minerals, gas, and oil) were not considered in this appraisal unless specifically stated to the contrary.

30. No changes in any federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or codes (including, without limitation, the Internal Revenue Code) are anticipated, unless specifically stated to the contrary.

31. The data gathered in the course of this assignment (except data furnished by the Client) shall remain the property of the Appraiser. The appraiser will not violate the confidential nature of the appraiserclient relationship by improperly disclosing any confidential information furnished to the appraiser.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Appraiser is authorized by the client to disclose all or any portion of the appraisal and related appraisal data to appropriate representatives of the Appraisal Institute if such disclosure is required to enable the appraiser to comply with the Bylaws and Regulations of such Institute now or hereafter in effect.

32. You and Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California both agree that any dispute over matters in excess of $5,000 will be submitted for resolution by arbitration. This includes fee disputes and any claim of malpractice. The arbitrator shall be mutually selected. If Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California and the client cannot agree on the arbitrator, the presiding head of the Local County Mediation & Arbitration panel shall select the arbitrator. Such arbitration shall be binding and final. In agreeing to arbitration, we both acknowledge that, by agreeing to binding arbitration, each of us is giving up the right to have the dispute decided in a court of law before a judge or jury.

In the event that the client, or any other party, makes a claim against Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California or any of its employees in connections with or in any way relating to this assignment, the maximum damages recoverable by such claimant shall be the amount actually received by Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California for this assignment, and under no circumstances shall any claim for consequential damages be made.

33. Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California shall have no obligation, liability, or accountability to any third party. Any party who is not the “client” or intended user identified on the face of the appraisal or in the engagement letter is not entitled to rely upon the contents of the appraisal without the express written consent of Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California. “Client” shall not include partners, affiliates, or relatives of the party named in the engagement letter. Client shall hold Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California and its employees harmless in the event of any lawsuit brought by any third party, lender, partner, or part-owner in any form of ownership or any other party as a result of this assignment. The client also agrees that in case of lawsuit arising from or in any way involving these appraisal services, client will hold Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California harmless from and against any liability, loss, cost, or expense incurred or suffered by Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California in such action, regardless of its outcome.

34. The Valbridge Property Advisors office responsible for the preparation of this report is independently owned and operated by Valbridge Property Advisors | Hulberg & Associates, Inc.

Neither Valbridge Property Advisors, Inc., nor any of its affiliates has been engaged to provide this report. Valbridge Property Advisors, Inc. does not provide valuation services, and has taken no part in the preparation of this report.

35. If any claim is filed against any of Valbridge Property Advisors, Inc., a Florida Corporation, its affiliates, officers or employees, or the firm providing this report, in connection with, or in any way arising out of, or relating to, this report, or the engagement of the firm providing this report, then (1) under no circumstances shall such claimant be entitled to consequential, special or other damages, except only for direct compensatory damages, and (2) the maximum amount of such compensatory damages recoverable by such claimant shall be the amount actually received by the firm engaged to provide this report.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 43

36. This report and any associated work files may be subject to evaluation by Valbridge Property Advisors, Inc., or its affiliates, for quality control purposes.

37. Acceptance and/or use of this appraisal report constitutes acceptance of the foregoing general assumptions and limiting conditions.

38. The global outbreak of a "novel coronavirus" (known as COVID-19) was officially declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). It is currently unknown what full effect this event may have on the national economy, the local economy, or the market in which the subject property is located. The reader is cautioned and reminded that the conclusions presented in this appraisal report apply only as of the effective date(s) indicated. The appraiser makes no representation as to the effect on the subject property of this event, or any event, subsequent to the effective date of the appraisal.

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

CERTIFICATION
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 44 Certification – John A. Hillas, MAI, SRA
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.

2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.

4. The undersigned has performed services as an appraiser regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.

5. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.

6. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.

7. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.

8. My analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

9. John A. Hillas has not personally inspected the subject property.

10. No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification.

11. The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

12. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.

13. As of the date of this report, the undersigned has completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.

John A. Hillas, MAI, SRA
Managing Director
California Certified License #AG002432

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ADDENDA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 45 Addenda
Glossary
Qualifications
• John A. Hillas, MAI, SRA - Managing Director
Information on Valbridge Property Advisors
Office Locations

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ADDENDA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 46 Glossary
Definitions are taken from The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th Edition (Dictionary), the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA).

Absolute Net Lease
A lease in which the tenant pays all expenses including structural maintenance, building reserves, and
management, often a long-term lease to a credit tenant. (Dictionary)
Amortization
The process of retiring a debt or recovering a capital
investment, typically through scheduled, systematic
repayment of the principal; a program of periodic
contributions to a sinking fund or debt retirement fund. (Dictionary)
As Is Market Value
The estimate of the market value of real property in its current physical condition, use, and zoning as of the
appraisal date. (Dictionary)
Base Rent
The minimum rent stipulated in a lease. (Dictionary)
Base Year
The year on which escalation clauses in a lease are based. (Dictionary)
Building Common Area
In office buildings, the areas of the building that provide services to building tenants but which are not included in the office area or store area of any specific tenant. These areas may include, but shall not be limited to, main and auxiliary lobbies, atrium spaces at the level of the finished floor, concierge areas or security desks, conference
rooms, lounges or vending areas, food service facilities, health or fitness centers, daycare facilities, locker or shower facilities, mail rooms, fire control rooms, fully enclosed courtyards outside the exterior walls, and
building core and service areas such as fully enclosed
mechanical or equipment rooms. Specifically excluded
from building common area are floor common areas,
parking space, portions of loading docks outside the
building line, and major vertical penetrations. (BOMA)
Building Rentable Area
The sum of all floor rentable areas. Floor rentable area is the result of subtracting from the gross measured area of a floor the major vertical penetrations on that same floor.

It is generally fixed for the life of the building and is rarely affected by changes in corridor size or configuration.
(BOMA)
Bulk Value
The value of multiple units, subdivided plots, or
properties in a portfolio as though sold together in a
single transaction.

Certificate of Occupancy (COO)
A formal written acknowledgment by an appropriate unit
of local government that a new construction or
renovation project is at the stage where it meets
applicable health and safety codes and is ready for
commercial or residential occupancy. (Dictionary)
Common Area Maintenance (CAM)
The expense of operating and maintaining common
areas; may or may not include management charges and
usually does not include capital expenditures on tenant improvements or other improvements to the property.
(Dictionary)
The amount of money charged to tenants for their shares of maintaining a [shopping] center’s common area. The
charge that a tenant pays for shared services and facilities such as electricity, security, and maintenance of parking lots. Items charged to common area maintenance may
include cleaning services, parking lot sweeping and
maintenance, snow removal, security and upkeep. (ICSC – International Council of Shopping Centers, 4th Ed.)
Condominium
A multiunit structure, or a unit within such a structure, with a condominium form of ownership. (Dictionary)
Conservation Easement
An interest in real estate restricting future land use to preservation, conservation, wildlife habitat, or some
combination of those uses. A conservation easement may
permit farming, timber harvesting, or other uses of a rural nature as well as some types of conservation-oriented
development to continue, subject to the easement.
(Dictionary)
Contributory Value
A type of value that reflects the amount a property or
component of a property contributes to the value of
another asset or to the property as a whole.

The change in the value of a property as a whole, whether positive or negative, resulting from the addition or
deletion of a property component. Also called deprival
value in some countries. (Dictionary)

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ADDENDA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 47 Debt Coverage Ratio (DCR)
The ratio of net operating income to annual debt service (DCR = NOI/Im), which measures the relative ability of a property to meet its debt service out of net operating
income; also called debt service coverage ratio (DSCR). A larger DCR typically indicates a greater ability for a
property to withstand a reduction of income, providing
an improved safety margin for a lender. (Dictionary)
Deed Restriction
A provision written into a deed that limits the use of land.

Deed restrictions usually remain in effect when title
passes to subsequent owners. (Dictionary)
Depreciation
In appraisal, a loss in property value from any cause; the difference between the cost of an improvement on the
effective date of the appraisal and the market value of the improvement on the same date.

In accounting, an allocation of the original cost of an asset, amortizing the cost over the asset’s life; calculated using a variety of standard techniques. (Dictionary)
Disposition Value
The most probable price that a specified interest in
property should bring under the following conditions:
• Consummation of a sale within a specified time, which is shorter than the typical exposure time for such a
property in that market.
• The property is subjected to market conditions
prevailing as of the date of valuation;
• Both the buyer and seller are acting prudently and
knowledgeably;
• The seller is under compulsion to sell;
• The buyer is typically motivated;
• Both parties are acting in what they consider to be
their best interests;
• An adequate marketing effort will be made during the
exposure time;
• Payment will be made in cash in U.S. dollars (or the
local currency) or in terms of financial arrangements
comparable thereto; and
• The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold, unaffected by special or creative
financing or sales concessions granted by anyone
associated with the sale. (Dictionary)
Double Net (Net Net) Lease
An alternative term for a type of net lease. In some
markets, a net net lease is defined as a lease in which the tenant is responsible to pay both property taxes and
premiums for insuring the building(s). (Valbridge)
(The market definition of a double net lease varies
depending on the market)
Easement
The right to use another’s land for a stated purpose.
(Dictionary)
EIFS
Exterior Insulation Finishing System. This is a type of exterior wall cladding system. Sometimes referred to as dry-vit.

Effective Date
The date on which the appraisal or review opinion applies. (SVP)
In a lease document, the date upon which the lease goes into effect. (Dictionary)
Effective Gross Income (EGI)
The anticipated income from all operations of the real
estate after an allowance is made for vacancy and
collection losses and an addition is made for any other income. (Dictionary)
Effective Rent
Total base rent, or minimum rent stipulated in a lease, over the specified lease term minus rent concessions; the rent that is effectively paid by a tenant net of financial concessions provided by a landlord. (TIs). (Dictionary) EPDM
Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer Rubber. A type of
synthetic rubber typically used for roof coverings.
(Dictionary)
Escalation Clause
A clause in an agreement that provides for the
adjustment of a price or rent based on some event or
index. e.g., a provision to increase rent if operating
expenses increase; also called escalator clause, expense recovery clause or stop clause. (Dictionary)
Estoppel Certificate
A signed statement by a party (such as a tenant or a
mortgagee) certifying, for another’s benefit, that certain facts are correct, such as that a lease exists, that there are no defaults, and that rent is paid to a certain date.
(Black’s) In real estate, a buyer of rental property typically requests estoppel certificates from existing tenants.

Sometimes referred to as an estoppel letter. (Dictionary) Excess Land
Land that is not needed to serve or support the existing use. The highest and best use of the excess land may or

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ADDENDA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 48 may not be the same as the highest and best use of the
improved parcel. Excess land has the potential to be sold separately and is valued separately. (Dictionary)
Excess Rent
The amount by which contract rent exceeds market rent
at the time of the appraisal; created by a lease favorable to the landlord (lessor) and may reflect unusual
management, unknowledgeable or unusually motivated
parties, a lease execution in an earlier, stronger rental market, or an agreement of the parties. (Dictionary)
Expense Stop
A clause in a lease that limits the landlord’s expense
obligation, which results in the lessee paying operating expenses above a stated level or amount. (Dictionary)
Exposure Time
The time a property remains on the market.

The estimated length of time that the property interest being appraised would have been offered on the market
prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at
market value on the effective date of the appraisal;
Comment: Exposure time is a retrospective opinion
based on an analysis of past events assuming a
competitive and open market. (Dictionary)
Extraordinary Assumption
An assignment-specific assumption as of the effective
date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.

Comment: Uncertain information might include physical,
legal, or economic characteristics of the subject property; or conditions external to the property, such as market
conditions or trends; or the integrity of data used in an analysis. (USPAP)
Fee Simple Estate
Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest
or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain,
police power, and escheat. (Dictionary)
Floor Common Area
In an office building, the areas on a floor such as
washrooms, janitorial closets, electrical rooms, telephone rooms, mechanical rooms, elevator lobbies, and public
corridors which are available primarily for the use of
tenants on that floor. (BOMA)
Full Service (Gross) Lease
A lease in which the landlord receives stipulated rent and is obligated to pay all of the property’s operating and fixed expenses; also called a full service lease. (Dictionary) Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E)
Business trade fixtures and personal property, exclusive of inventory. (Dictionary)
Going-Concern Value
An outdated label for the market value of all the tangible and intangible assets of an established and operating
business with an indefinite life, as if sold in aggregate; more accurately termed the market value of the going
concern or market value of the total assets of the business. (Dictionary)
Gross Building Area (GBA)
Total floor area of a building, excluding unenclosed areas, measured from the exterior of the walls of the abovegrade area. This includes mezzanines and basements if and when typically included in the market area of the type of property involved.

Gross leasable area plus all common areas.

For residential space, the total area of all floor levels measured from the exterior of the walls and including the superstructure and substructure basement; typically does not include garage space. (Dictionary)
Gross Measured Area
The total area of a building enclosed by the dominant
portion (the portion of the inside finished surface of the permanent outer building wall which is 50 percent or
more of the vertical floor-to-ceiling dimension, at the given point being measured as one moves horizontally
along the wall), excluding parking areas and loading
docks (or portions of same) outside the building line. It is generally not used for leasing purposes and is calculated on a floor by floor basis. (BOMA)
Gross Up Method
A method of calculating variable operating expenses in
income-producing properties when less than 100%
occupancy is assumed. Expenses reimbursed based on
the amount of occupied space, rather than on the total
building area, are described as “grossed up.” (Dictionary) Gross Retail Sellout
The sum of the separate and distinct market value
opinions for each of the units in a condominium,
subdivision development, or portfolio of properties, as of the date of valuation. The aggregate of retail values does not represent the value of all the units as though sold together in a single transaction; it is simply the total of the individual market value conclusions. Also called the aggregate of the retail values, aggregate retail selling price or sum of the retail values. (Dictionary)
Ground Lease
A lease that grants the right to use and occupy land.

Improvements made by the ground lessee typically revert

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ADDENDA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 49 to the ground lessor at the end of the lease term.
(Dictionary)
Ground Rent
The rent paid for the right to use and occupy land
according to the terms of a ground lease; the portion of the total rent allocated to the underlying land.
(Dictionary)
HVAC
Heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) system. A unit that regulates the temperature and distribution of heat and fresh air throughout a building. (Dictionary)
Highest and Best Use
The reasonably probable use of property that results in the highest value. The four criteria that the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical
possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum
productivity.

The use of an asset that maximizes its potential and that is possible, legally permissible, and financially feasible.

The highest and best use may be for continuation of an
asset’s existing use of for some alternative use. This is determined by the use that a market participant would
have in mind for the asset when formulating the price that it would be willing to bid. (IVS)
[The] highest and most profitable use for which the
property is adaptable and needed or likely to be needed in the reasonably near future. (Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions) (Dictionary)
Hypothetical Condition
A condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to
exist on the effective date of the assignment results but is used for the purpose of analysis.

Comment: Hypothetical conditions are contrary to
known facts about physical, legal, or economic
characteristics of the subject property; or about
conditions external to the property, such as market
conditions or trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis. (USPAP)
Insurable Value
A type of value for insurance purposes. (Typically this includes replacement cost less basement excavation,
foundation, underground piping, and architect’s fees).
(Dictionary)
Investment Value
The value of a property to a particular investor or class of investors based on the investor’s specific requirements.

Investment value may be different from market value
because it depends on a set of investment criteria that are not necessarily typical of the market. (Dictionary)
Just Compensation
In condemnation, the amount of loss for which a property owner is compensated when his or her property is taken.

Just compensation should put the owner in as good a
position pecuniarily as he or she would have been if the property had not been taken. (Dictionary)
Leased Fee Interest
The ownership interest held by the lessor, which includes the right to receive the contract rent specified in the lease plus the reversionary right when the lease expires.
(Dictionary)
Leasehold Interest
The right held by the lessee to use and occupy real estate for a stated term and under the conditions specified in the lease. (Dictionary)
See also Positive Leasehold and Negative Leasehold.

Lessee (Tenant)
One who has the right to occupancy and use of the
property of another for a period of time according to a lease agreement. (Dictionary)
Lessor (Landlord)
One who conveys the rights of occupancy and use to
others under a lease agreement. (Dictionary)
Liquidation Value
The most probable price that a specified interest in
property should bring under the following conditions:
• Consummation of a sale within a short time period.
• The property is subjected to market conditions
prevailing as of the date of valuation.
• Both the buyer and seller are acting prudently and
knowledgeably.
• The seller is under extreme compulsion to sell.
• The buyer is typically motivated.
• Both parties are acting in what they consider to be
their best interests.
• A normal marketing effort is not possible due to the
brief exposure time.
• Payment will be made in cash in U.S. dollars (or the
local currency) or in terms of financial arrangements
comparable thereto.

The price represents the normal consideration for the
property sold, unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with
the sale. (Dictionary)

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ADDENDA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 50 Loan to Value Ratio (LTV)
The ratio between a mortgage loan and the value of the
property pledged as security, usually expressed as a
percentage. (Dictionary)
Major Vertical Penetrations
Stairs, elevator shafts, flues, pipe shafts, vertical ducts, and the like, and their enclosing walls. Atria, lightwells and similar penetrations above the finished floor are included in this definition. Not included, however, are vertical penetrations built for the private use of a tenant
occupying office areas on more than one floor. Structural columns, openings for vertical electric cable or telephone distribution, and openings for plumbing lines are not
considered to be major vertical penetrations. (BOMA)
Market Rent
The most probable rent that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all the conditions
requisite to a fair lease transaction, the lessee, and the lessor each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and
assuming the rent is not affected by undue stimulus.

Implicit in this definition is the execution of a lease as of a specified date under conditions whereby:

Lessee and lessor are typically motivated;
Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests;
Payment is made in terms of cash or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and
The rent reflects specified terms and conditions, such as permitted uses, use restrictions, expense obligations,
duration, concessions, rental adjustments and
revaluations, renewal and purchase options, and tenant
improvements (TIs). (Appraisal Institute)
Market Value
The most probable price that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all condition’s
requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is
not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
• Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
• Both parties are well informed or well advised, and
acting in what they consider their own best interests;
• A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
• Payment is made in terms of cash in United States
dollars or in terms of financial arrangements
comparable thereto; and
• The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative
financing or sales concessions granted by anyone
associated with the sale. (Dictionary)
Marketing Time
An opinion of the amount of time it might take to sell a real or personal property interest at the concluded
market value level during the period immediately after
the effective date of an appraisal. Marketing time differs from exposure time, which is always presumed to precede the effective date of an appraisal. (Advisory Opinion 7 of the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal
Foundation)
Master Lease
A lease in which the fee owner leases a part or the entire property to a single entity (the master lease) in return for a stipulated rent. The master lessee then leases the
property to multiple tenants. (Dictionary)
Modified Gross Lease
A lease in which the landlord receives stipulated rent and is obligated to pay some, but not all, of the property’s operating and fixed expenses. Since assignment of
expenses varies among modified gross leases, expense
responsibility must always be specified. In some markets, a modified gross lease may be called a double net lease, net net lease, partial net lease, or semi-gross lease.
(Dictionary)
Negative Leasehold
A lease situation in which the market rent is less than the contract rent. (Dictionary)
Operating Expense Ratio
The ratio of total operating expenses to effective gross income (TOE/EGI); the complement of the net income
ratio, i.e., OER = 1 – NIR (Dictionary)
Option
A legal contract, typically purchased for a stated
consideration, that permits but does not require the
holder of the option (known as the optionee) to buy, sell, or lease real estate for a stipulated period of time in accordance with specified terms; a unilateral right to
exercise a privilege. (Dictionary)
Partial Interest
Divided or undivided rights in real estate that represent less than the whole, i.e., a fractional interest such as a tenancy in common, easement, or life interest.
(Dictionary)
Pass Through
A tenant’s portion of operating expenses that may be
composed of common area maintenance (CAM), real
property taxes, property insurance, and any other
expenses determined in the lease agreement to be paid
by the tenant. (Dictionary)

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ADDENDA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 51 Percentage Lease
A lease in which the rent or some portion of the rent
represents a specified percentage of the volume of
business, productivity, or use achieved by the tenant.
(Dictionary)
Positive Leasehold
A lease situation in which the market rent is greater than the contract rent. (Dictionary)
Potential Gross Income (PGI)
The total income attributable to property at full
occupancy before vacancy and operating expenses are
deducted. (Dictionary)
Prospective Future Value Upon Completion
A prospective market value may be appropriate for the
valuation of a property interest related to a credit
decision for a proposed development or renovation
project. According to USPAP, an appraisal with a
prospective market value reflects an effective date that is subsequent to the date of the appraisal report. … The
prospective market value –as completed- reflects the
property’s market value as of the time that development is expected to be complete. (Dictionary)
Prospective Future Value Upon Stabilization
A prospective market value may be appropriate for the
valuation of a property interest related to a credit
decision for a proposed development or renovation
project. According to USPAP, an appraisal with a
prospective market value reflects an effective date that is subsequent to the date of the appraisal report …The
prospective market value – as stabilized – reflects the property’s market value as of the time the property is
projected to achieve stabilized occupancy. For an
income-producing property, stabilized occupancy is the
occupancy level that a property is expected to achieve
after the property is exposed to the market for lease over a reasonable period of time and at comparable terms and conditions to other similar properties. (Dictionary)
Replacement Cost
The estimated cost to construct, at current prices as of a specific date, a substitute for a building or other
improvements, using modern materials and current
standards, design, and layout. (Dictionary)
Reproduction Cost
The estimated cost to construct, at current prices as of the effective date of the appraisal, an exact duplicate or
replica of the building being appraised, using the same materials, construction standards, design, layout, and
quality of workmanship and embodying all of the
deficiencies, superadequacies, and obsolescence of the
subject building. (Dictionary)
Retrospective Value Opinion
A value opinion effective as of a specified historical date.

The term retrospective does not define a type of value.

Instead, it identifies a value opinion as being effective at some specific prior date. Value as of a historical date is frequently sought in connection with property tax
appeals, damage models, lease renegotiation, deficiency judgments, estate tax, and condemnation. Inclusion of
the type of value with this term is appropriate, e.g.,
“retrospective market value opinion.” (Dictionary)
Sandwich Leasehold Estate
The interest held by the sandwich leaseholder when the
property is subleased to another party, a type of
leasehold estate. (Dictionary)
Sublease
An agreement in which the lessee in a prior lease conveys the right of use and occupancy of a property to another, the sublessee, for a specific period of time, which may or may not be coterminous with the underlying lease term.
(Dictionary)
Subordination
A contractual arrangement in which a party with a claim to certain assets agrees to make his or her claim junior, or subordinate, to the claims of another party. (Dictionary) Surplus Land
Land that is not currently needed to support the existing use but cannot be separated from the property and sold
off for another use. Surplus land does not have an
independent highest and best use and may or may not
contribute value to the improved parcel. (Dictionary)
TPO
Thermoplastic polyolefin, a resilient synthetic roof
covering.

Triple Net (Net Net Net) Lease
An alternative term for a type of net lease. In some
markets, a net net net lease is defined as a lease in which the tenant assumes all expenses (fixed and variable) of operating a property except that the landlord is
responsible for structural maintenance, building reserves, and management; also called NNN lease, net net net
lease, or fully net lease. (Dictionary)
(The market definition of a triple net lease varies; in some cases tenants pay for items such as roof repairs, parking lot repairs, and other similar items.)
Usable Area
The measured area of an office area, store area, or
building common area on a floor. The total of all the
usable areas for a floor shall equal floor usable area of that same floor. (BOMA)

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ADDENDA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 52 Value-in-Use
The value of a property assuming a specific use, which
may or may not be the property’s highest and best use
on the effective date of the appraisal. Value in use may or may not be equal to market value but is different
conceptually. (Dictionary)
VTAB
Value of the Total Assets of a Business. The value of a going concern (i.e. the business enterprise). (Dictionary)

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ADDENDA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 53 Qualifications

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ADDENDA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 54 Qualifications of John A. Hillas, MAI, SRA
Managing Director
Valbridge Property Advisors | Northern California
Independent Valuations for a Variable World
State Certifications
Certified General RE Appraiser
-State of California AG002432
-State of Alaska 165129
Memberships/Affiliations/Honors
MAI, SRA Member Appraisal Institute; Northern California and Alaska Chapters
2012 Chair Appraisal Institute Fall Conference
2009, 2020-21 Chair Appraisal Institute Spring Conference 2008 Chair Appraisal Institute Region One
2007-08 Director Appraisal Institute Board of Directors 2004 President Northern CA Chapter, Appraisal Institute 1998 President Sierra Chapter, Appraisal Institute
Associate Member American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers (ASFMRA)
Expert Witness Superior Courts of Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, Fresno,
Tuolumne, and San Mateo Counties
Appraisal Institute Related Courses & Examinations Passed Appraisal Institute: All courses and examinations required for the MAI and SRA designations, as well as thousands of hours of continuing education.

Speaking Engagements:

Nor-Cal Chapter, Appraisal Institute:

Authored/Presented Workshops:
• “Analyzing Operating Expenses”
• “Adjustments in Valuation Analyses”
• “Appraisal of Small Residential Income Properties”
• “Mastering Marshall – Using Marshall & Swift Cost Data” Risk Management Association (RMA) Central Valley Chapter:

Authored/Presented Workshop:
• “Real Estate Overview”
California Chapter, ASFMRA
Authored/Presented Workshop:
• “Valuation of Transitional Property”
San Joaquin County Assessor In-house Training:

Authored/Presented Seminar:
• “Valuation of Subdivision Properties”
Formal Education
B.B.A.

Business Administration
University of Oregon
A.A.S.

Business Administration
Anchorage Community College
Contact Details
209-623-1451 (p)
[email protected]
Valbridge Property Advisors |
Northern California
2813 Coffee Road, Suite E-2
Modesto, CA 95355
www.valbridge.com

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ADDENDA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 55 Related Valuation Experience
Valuation experience includes all sorts of general commercial, industrial, retail, office, multiple-unit residential, existing, and proposed residential, commercial, and industrial subdivisions and transitional land, commercial and agricultural lands including large ranches, orchards, and cropland. Work has been performed for a wide variety of needs including estate planning/filing and gifting, condemnation and general litigation support, insurance casualty loss, and lending.

Managing Director
ValbridgePropertyAdvisors | Northern California (2013-Present) Modesto, California
Senior Vice President, Branch Manager
Hulberg & Associates, Inc. (2007-2013 joined to create Valbridge Property Advisors in 2013)
Modesto, California
Owner/Appraiser
Sierra Valuation Consultants (1996-2007) (acquired by Hulberg 2007)
Modesto, California
Senior Appraiser
National Valuation Consultants, Inc. (1995-1996)
Denver, Colorado
Senior Appraiser
San Francisco Federal Savings and Loan (1992-1995)
Modesto, California
Senior Appraiser
Private Real Estate Valuation Firm (1991-1992)
Modesto, California
Appraiser
Stockton Savings Bank (1987-1991)
Modesto, California
Appraiser
Hillas Appraisal Company (1980-1987)
Homer, Alaska

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ADDENDA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 56 Valbridge Property Advisors Information / Office Locations

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ADDENDA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 57

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY

ADDENDA
© 2022 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS | Northern California Page 58 Resolution/To Declare the Vacant Loyalton Ranch Property as Surplus Land Page 1 of 3 Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,

TO DECLARE THE VACANT LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY
(APPROXIMATELY 10,273.95 ACRES) OWNED BY THE CITY AS

SURPLUS LAND
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City is the owner of approximately 10,273.95 acres of land commonly known as Loyalton Ranch located in Sierra County and Lassen County, about 30 miles north of Truckee, California and about 20 miles northwest of Reno, Nevada (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the City purchased the property with electric utility funds in 1977 for $1,613,850 or approximately $157/acre with the intent to use the Property for potential electric utility generation uses, and the City’s Electrical Department, doing business as Silicon Valley Power, is responsible for the maintenance of the property; and WHEREAS, the Property has not been suitable or used for its intended purpose and in August 2020, the Loyalton Fire burned approximately 90% of the Property and the City does not desire to use the Property for utility purposes in the future; and WHEREAS, the Surplus Land Act (“SLA”) requires that before a local agency takes any action to sell or lease its property, it must declare the property to be either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land;” and
WHEREAS, “surplus land” means land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action in a regular meeting declaring that such land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use; and WHEREAS, 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, so the Property is no longer necessary for the City’s use or operations; and WHEREAS, along with declaring the property surplus, the SLA also requires the City to give written notice of the availability of the Property to certain groups and entities prior to disposing of Resolution/To Declare the Vacant Loyalton Ranch Property as Surplus Land Page 2 of 3 Rev: 11/22/17
the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council therefore finds that the Property is surplus land as defined by the SLA and is not necessary for the City’s use.

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

1. That the aforementioned recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein.

2. That the City Council finds that the Loyalton Ranch Property containing approximately 10,273.95 acres in Sierra County and Lassen County is surplus land as defined in the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code sections 54220 et seq.) and is not necessary for City use.

3. That the City Council finds that the declaration that the Property is surplus land is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15378, and 15061(b)(3), as the declaration and activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, the declaration and activity are not a "project" as defined in CEQA, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the declaration and activity will have a significant effect on the environment because no development or construction is proposed.

4. That the City’s officers and staff are hereby authorized to do all which may be deemed necessary or proper to effectuate the purpose of this Resolution, including but not limited to issuance of a Notice of Availability to the required entities and negotiation for the sale of the Property in accordance with the SLA.
///
///
///
///
///
Resolution/To Declare the Vacant Loyalton Ranch Property as Surplus Land Page 3 of 3 Rev: 11/22/17

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 ___ DAY OF _________, 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: None
DRAFT
May ____, 2022
RE: Notice of Availability/Offer to Sell Surplus Property To All Interested Parties:

As required by Government Code Section 54220 of the State of California, the City of Santa Clara is providing notification that the City intends to sell the surplus property known as Loyalton Ranch (the “Property”). The Property is approximately 10,273.95 acres within both Sierra County and Lassen County and is further identified in Attachment A hereto.

In accordance with Government Code Section 54222, you have sixty (60) days from the date this offer was sent via certified mail or electronic mail to notify the City of your interest in acquiring the property. However, this offer shall not obligate the City to sell the Property to you. Instead, the City would enter into at least ninety (90) days of negotiations with you pursuant to Government Code Section 54223. If no agreement is reached on sales price and terms, the City may market the Property to the general public.

As required by Government Code Section 54227, if the City receives more than one letter of interest during this 60 day period, it will give first priority to entities proposing to develop housing where at least 25 percent of the units will be affordable to lower income households. If more than one such proposal is received, priority will be given to the proposal with the greatest number of affordable units. If more than one proposal specifies the same number of affordable units, priority will be given to the proposal that has the lowest average affordability level.

In the event your agency or company is interested in purchasing the property, you must notify the City in writing within sixty (60) days of the date this notice was sent via certified mail or electronic mail. Notice of your interest in acquiring the property shall be delivered to:

Manuel Pineda, Assistant City Manager/Chief Electric Utility Officer City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
You may also direct your questions to [email protected] or by calling Manuel Pineda at 408-615-2217.

Entities proposing to submit a letter of interest are advised to review the requirements set forth in the Surplus Land Act (Government Code Section 54220-54234).

ATTACHMENT A

LOYALTON RANCH PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Property Location:

Latitude & Longitude:

Assessor Parcel Numbers:

Property Owner:

Site Information:

Zoning:

East of Loyalton and West of Cold Springs in Sierra and Lassen Counties

39.67918, -120.130868
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 and 021-020-001.

City of Santa Clara
General Forest, Mixed-industrial, Open Space (GF,MI,OS) FEMA Flood Map No. 06091 C0250C (02/02/2012)
Flood Zone: Zone X, Not a Designated Flood Prone Area
Gross Land Area: 10,273.950 acres
Usable Land Area: 10,273.950 acres
Sierra County Acres: 6,371.460 acres
Lassen County Acres: 3,902.490 acres
Total Land Area: 10,273.950 acres
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-224 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Levy of Benefit Assessment upon the City of Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District No. 122 - Franklin Square

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
Parking Maintenance District No. 122 (PMD 122) was formed in 1965 for the parking lots, arcades, fountains, sidewalks, landscaping, irrigation, lights, and utilities within Franklin Square, which is bounded by Benton Street, Homestead Road (formerly known as Liberty Street), Monroe Street, and Jackson Street. From 1965 - 2002, the cost of maintenance and operation of PMD 122 was divided between the City and property owners. There have been several changes in how maintenance and operation costs have been collected over the years and in 2002 the City Council passed a motion at a public hearing in which the City assumed all future costs for operation and maintenance and in May 2003 adopted Resolution 7026. Under the collection method contained in Resolution 7026, the property owners contribute annually to pay for capital repairs of the parking lot and associated walkways. The fixed annual contribution from the property owners totals $14,200, less the earned interest on the accumulating balance. The City, through the General Fund, is responsible for covering the costs for annual maintenance and operations of PMD 122 and that has continued to be the arrangement through the present day.

On April 19, 2022, Council adopted a Resolution of Intention (Resolution No. 22-9084) related to the proposed maintenance assessments for PMD 122. In addition, the Resolution established June 7, 2022 as the date that City Council would hear testimony and act upon the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) and Director’s Report (Attachment 2).

DISCUSSION
The proposed FY 2022/23 assessment to property owners will be $12,262. Per the terms of PMD 122, accrued interest earned in FY 2020/21 in the amount of $1,938 will be used to reach the $14,200 annual requirement. These funds are placed into an account that generates interest income and are used to pay for capital repair projects as needs arise. As of December 31, 2021, the interestbearing account contained $145,305.

The final recommended operating budget is $137,521 for FY 2022/23, which is $642 less than the FY 2021/22 expenditure budget, primarily due to a small decrease to interfund services which includes overhead. The operating budget includes funding for routine maintenance and operation performed by the Department of Public Works as well as contractors, which is all funded by the General Fund.

This includes regular maintenance for landscaping, trees, and parking lot/walkway sweeping. There City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-224 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
are no proposed Capital outlay expenditures to cover maintenance and improvements of parking lots and associated walkways in FY 2022/23. Both parking lots at the complex were resurfaced and striped during the summer of 2019. The work was funded by previously collected property owner assessments.

Proposition 218 requires that written ballots be sent and returned if there are proposed increases greater than any previously approved assessments. Since the proposed assessments of $12,262 ($14,200 minus $1,938 in interest) for FY 2022/23 are less than the greatest previously approved assessments, no ballots and approvals are required from the property owners. Therefore, staff’s recommendation includes a provision to overrule any protests, if received. The assessments to the property owners cannot be sent out until the Director’s Report is approved at a public hearing.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the assessment maintains the funding source for future capital repairs to parking lots and walkways located within Franklin Square. The City’s General Fund remains as the funding source for routine maintenance and operating costs for the Downtown Parking Maintenance District. The total proposed FY 2022/23 expenditure budget for Parking Maintenance District No. 122 is $137,521.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and the City Attorney’s Office.

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

On May 25, 2022, the Notice of Public Hearing for the June 7, 2022 Council meeting was published in the Santa Clara Weekly. In addition, the notice was posted at the City Clerk’s Office, as well as at the public information desk at each City of Santa Clara public library and mailed to all property owners within the District.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt a Resolution approving the levy of benefit assessment upon the City of Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District No. 122 and approving, confirming, and adopting the Director’s Report for FY 2022/23.

2. Do not adopt a Resolution to move forward with collecting the property owner assessments for FY 2022/23.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-224 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022

RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1:

Adopt a Resolution approving the levy of benefit assessment upon the City of Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District No. 122 and approving, confirming, and adopting the Director’s Report for FY 2022/23.

Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Director’s Report FY 2022/23

3. Notice of Public Hearing
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/PMD 122 Resolution June 2022 Page 1 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

APPROVING THE LEVY OF BENEFIT ASSESSMENT UPON THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARA PARKING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.
122 AND APPROVING, CONFIRMING AND ADOPTING
DIRECTOR’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 16.10, Article VI, Sections 16.10.490 and 16.10.500 of the Santa Clara City Code (“City Code”), on May 6, 2003, Council adopted Resolution No. 7026, “A Resolution of Intention to Order that the Alternative Method for the Levy of Benefit Assessment be made Applicable to City of Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District No. 122, Providing for Notice of Hearing Thereon, Approving Director's Report and Providing for Notice of Hearing on Director's Report;”
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2022, the Council did declare in Resolution No. 22-9084 its intention to order that the amount necessary to pay the costs and expenses of the maintenance and operation of the public automobile parking places, covered pedestrian lanes and walkways, fountains and landscaping in the District be raised by an annual special benefit assessment apportioned according to benefits among the several lots or parcels of property within the City of Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District (“District”) in accordance with the formula therefore, and more particularly set forth in the Resolution of Intention in accordance with and pursuant to the City Code;
WHEREAS, notice of hearing any and all protests in relation to the levy of benefit assessments and the formula and Report was given by causing a copy of the Resolution of Intention to be duly posted, published and mailed in the time, form and manner provided by in the Code all as more particularly appears from the certificates and affidavits thereof on file in the office of the City Clerk; whereupon the hearing thereon was duly and regularly held at the time and place advertised in the Resolution of Intention;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 10107 and 10108 of Chapter 2, Division 12 of the Streets and Resolution/PMD 122 Resolution June 2022 Page 2 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17
Highways Code of the State of California, and Chapter 26 of Part 3 of Division 7 of said Code, all as provided in Chapter 16.10 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara, on the 30th day of March, 1965, this Council adopted its Resolution No. 1581, a Resolution creating "City of Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District No. 122" (“Parking Maintenance District”) in the City for the purpose of paying the costs and expenses of acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, installing, extending, enlarging, repairing, improving, maintaining and operating public automobile parking places, covered pedestrian lanes and walkways, fountains, and landscaping therein then existing or thereafter to be constructed in and for the Parking Maintenance District, and of benefit to said maintenance district, but not of benefit to the City of Santa Clara as a whole, including the cost of necessary repairs, replacements, water, fuel, power, gas, electric current, care, supervision and any and all other items necessary for the proper maintenance and operation thereof, and all additions, improvements and enlargements thereto which may thereafter be made;
WHEREAS, said proceedings provided that this Council shall, in addition to all other taxes, annually fix and levy a special assessment tax upon the real property (land and improvements) within the Parking Maintenance District as therein provided, sufficient to raise a determined amount of money to pay all or part of said costs of maintenance and operation; WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works (“Director”) did cause a written report (“Report”) to be prepared and filed with the City Clerk of the City, which provides the basis for the levy of benefit assessments for the cost and expenses of maintenance and operation on all lots or parcels of property within the District which the Report sets forth the amounts to be provided in the budget for maintenance and operation, a description of each lot or parcel of property by a legal description, assessor's parcel number or other description sufficient to identify the same, and the amount of the assessment to be levied for the fiscal year 2022/23 against each lot or parcel of property;
WHEREAS, Proposition 218 passed on November 5, 1996, added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the Resolution/PMD 122 Resolution June 2022 Page 3 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17
State of California Constitution which requires the property owners within a Maintenance District to approve the continuation of the Maintenance District, and annually approve any increase in assessments. On June 24, 1997, a sufficient vote of ballots was received as revised in order to approve the continuation of the Maintenance District;
WHEREAS, procedures of approval require the preparation of a report on how the assessments were prepared and based, but this year a written ballot need not be returned to the Director’s Office in order to determine the approval of the proposed assessment for the Maintenance District because this year’s assessment is not greater than the greatest previously approved assessment amount;
WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting thereto, filed written protests with the Director at or before the time set for hearing, and all persons interested, desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard and all matters and things pertaining thereto were fully heard and considered by the Council;
WHEREAS, the Council has remedied and corrected any errors or informalities in the Director's Report and has revised and corrected any of the acts or determinations of the various City officials as contained therein, and is fully informed of the contents; and, WHEREAS, said Council is fully informed in the matter.

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

1. That a weighted vote, based on the assessment to each property, was not needed to approve the proposed annual assessments for said District because this year’s assessment is less than the greatest previously approved assessment.

2. That all written protests, objections and other written communications regarding the amount of the assessment, the formula for the assessment levy, and the Director’s Report were read at a noticed public hearing and all persons desiring to be heard were fully heard, and each of them are hereby overruled.

Resolution/PMD 122 Resolution June 2022 Page 4 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17

3. That the public interest and convenience require that the cost and expenses of acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, installing, extending, enlarging, repairing, improving, maintaining, and operating public automobile parking places, covered pedestrian lanes and walkways, fountains and landscaping therein now existing or hereafter to be constructed in and for the District and of benefit to the District, but not of benefit to the City as a whole, including the cost of necessary repairs, replacements, water, fuel, power, gas, electric current, care, supervision and any and all other items necessary for the proper maintenance and operation thereof, and of all additions, improvements and enlargements thereto which may hereafter be made, be raised by an annual special benefit assessment in accordance with and pursuant to the provisions for the alternative method for the levy of benefit assessments in maintenance districts in said City as provided in Chapter 16.10, Article VI, of the Code on all lots or parcels of property within the District.

4. That the costs and expenses of capital repairs to the parking lots and internal walkways within the District shall annually be assessed either partly or wholly upon the several lots and parcels of property within the District benefited thereby by apportioning the costs and expenses according to benefits among the several lots or parcels of property within the District in accordance with the following formula:

A. Each assessment shall be determined on the basis of the gross floor area of the building located upon the lot or parcel of property assessed.

B. For the purposes of the formula herein, gross floor area shall mean that area computed from the outside dimensions of the building, including all and not excluding corridors and other design features, and aggregated for each additional story or mezzanine floor and any basement area.

5. That the formula for the apportionment of benefits in the annual assessment levies be, and it is hereby, finally approved, confirmed, and adopted by this Council.

6. That the Director's Report and assessment roll, and each of the assessments therein as Resolution/PMD 122 Resolution June 2022 Page 5 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17
duly revised and corrected be, and they are hereby, approved, confirmed, and adopted.

7. That the special benefit assessments shall be levied and collected annually upon the last equalized secured and utility tax rolls upon which ad valorem property taxes are collected. They shall be in addition to all other ad valorem property taxes levied, and shall be collected together with, and not separate therefrom, and enforced in the same manner and by the same person and at the same time and with the same penalties and interest as are said ad valorem property taxes. All laws applicable to the collection and enforcement of ad valorem property taxes shall be applicable to the special benefit assessment levy, and the assessed lot or parcel of property, if sold for taxes, shall be subject to redemption in the same manner as such real property is redeemed from the sale for ad valorem property taxes, and if not redeemed, shall in like manner pass to the purchaser.

8. That the Report together with the certificate of the City Clerk as to the fact and date of approval, confirmation and adoption by this Council, shall forthwith be delivered to the Director of Finance of this City who shall thereafter deliver the Report to the officer of the County of Santa Clara designated by law to extend ad valorem property taxes upon the tax roll, and the proper County officer shall cause to be posted to the tax rolls, in the column provided therefor, the amount of each of the special benefit assessments proposed to be levied and collected for said fiscal year as set forth in said Report as confirmed.

9. That the City Clerk shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Director of Finance of the City and to the officer designated by law to extend ad valorem property taxes upon the tax roll on which they are collected.
//
//
//
//
//
Resolution/PMD 122 Resolution June 2022 Page 6 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17

10. 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 ___ DAY OF _________, 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. Director’s Report FY 2022/23

DIRECTOR'S REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
PARKING DISTRICT NO. 122 MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
FISCAL YEAR 2022/23
June 7, 2022

ASSESSMENT FORMULA
Fiscal Year 2022/23
City of Santa Clara, California
Parking District No. 122 Maintenance District
The formula upon which the annual assessment levy, for the payment of the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the improvements, and providing funds for future parking lots and associated walkways, exceptional maintenance and improvements, within Parking District No. 122 Maintenance District, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, will be apportioned according to benefits among the several lots or parcels of property within the Maintenance District for the Fiscal Year 2022/23 is as follows:
- Costs and expenses are to be shared between the City and property owners as below:
a. City shall pay for the operation and maintenance cost on a 100% basis. b. Property owners shall pay $14,200 annually, less interest from prior years' property owners operation and maintenance assessments as of June 30, 2002, to be kept in a fund to be used towards future exceptional maintenance and improvements of parking lots and associated walkways and appurtenances.
- Each assessment shall be determined on the basis of the gross floor area of the building located upon the lot or parcel of property assessed. - For the purposes of the formula herein, gross floor area shall mean that area computed from the outside dimensions of the building and not excluding corridors and other design features and aggregated for each additional story or mezzanine floor and any basement area.

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2022/23 City of Santa Clara, California Parking District No. 122 Maintenance District
I, Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works for the City of Santa Clara, California, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.10.490 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara, hereby make this report and following benefit assessment to cover the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the improvement within Parking District No. 122 Maintenance District of said City, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by said Maintenance District.

The amount to be paid therefor by said Maintenance District for the Fiscal Year 2022/23 is as follows:

Expenditures
As
Preliminarily
Approved
As Finally
Approved
Routine Maintenance & Operation $ 137,521.00 $137,521.00 Exceptional Maintenance and Repairs $ 0.00 $0.00
TOTAL COST $ 137,521.00 $137,521.00
Funding for FY 2022/23 Expenditures
Exceptional Maintenance & Improvement
From Fund Balance Reserve $0.00 $0.00
Contribution from City General Fund (001) $ 137,521.00 $137,521.00 TOTAL $ 137,521.00 $137,521.00
Property Owner Assessment
Owner's Annual Assessment $14,200.00 $14,200.00
Less Accrued Interest of Owner’s Fund
Balance [$1,938.00]

[$1,938.00]
TOTAL NET ASSESSMENT $12,262.00 $12,262.00
(Goes to Fund Balance Reserve)
And I do hereby assess and apportion the amount said costs and expenses, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, upon the several lots or parcels of property liable therefor and benefited thereby, in proportion to the benefits to be received by such lots or parcels of property, from the maintenance and operation thereof and more particularly set forth in the list hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

Each lot or parcel of land is described in the assessment list by reference to its parcel number as shown on the assessor's maps of the County of Santa Clara for the Fiscal Year 2022/23 to the right of the parcel numbers and include all of such parcel.

Dated:_______________ ________________________________
Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022/23
City of Santa Clara, California
Parking District No. 122 Maintenance District
Expenditures
As
Preliminarily
Approved
As Finally
Approved
Maintenance & Operation: $ 137,521.00 $137,521.00 Labor, materials, supplies, and equipment to maintain Parking
Maintenance District No. 122
including, but not limited to water,
sewer, and electrical costs,
sweeping of parking lots and mall
area, maintenance of pavement,
striping, landscaping, mall fountains,
City supervision (50% of labor and
fringe benefits of Street Maintenance
Worker III).

Exceptional Maintenance and
Improvements of Parking Lots
and Associated Walkways
$ 0.00 $0.00
TOTAL COST $ 137,521.00 $137,521.00
Funding for FY 2022/23 Expenditure
Owner's Reserve for
Exceptional Maintenance &
Improvement Fund Balance:
[$ 0.00] [$0.00]
Contribution from City
General Fund (001): [$137,521.00]

[$137,521.00]
Owner's Annual
Assessment $14,200.00

$14,200.00
Less Accrued Interest on
Owners' Fund Balance: [$1,938.00] [$1,938.00]
Total Net Assessment: $12,262.00 $12,262.00

San Jose, CA 95117
269-22-110 $1,355.32 $1,355.32 7,034.13 11.053
John DeMartini Trustee & Et al.
477 9th Avenue Ste 107
San Mateo, CA 94402
269-22-108 $1,640.41 $1,640.41 8,513.76 13.378
David DeLozier Trustee
1162 Carmel Way
Santa Clara, CA 95050
269-22-098 $1,434.65 $1,434.65 7,445.88 11.700
T & I Real Estate Solutions
364 Appian Way
Union City, CA 94587
269-22-103 $ 267.31 $ 267.31 1,387.35 2.180
Alice May-Wan Chan
20015 Bella Vista
Saratoga, CA 95070
269-22-102 $ 154.25 $ 154.25 800.59 1.258
Ross L. Peterson Et al.
10 Enterprise Dr.

Corte Madera, CA 94925
269-22-105 $ 386.13 $ 386.13 2,004.02 3.149

ASSESSMENT
Fiscal Year 2022/23
City of Santa Clara, California
Parking District No. 122 Maintenance District
Name & Address of Owner
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
(2) As Finally
Confirmed
(1) As
Preliminarily
Approved
Gross Floor
Area (sq. ft.)
% of Total
Floor Area
Robert Freitas Et al.
255 Washington Street
Milpitas, CA 95035
269-22-104 $ 320.77 $ 320.77 1,664.82 2.616
Gillmor Properties LLC
1201 Franklin Mall
Santa Clara, CA 95050
269-22-113 $ 414.58 $ 414.58 2,151.67 3.381
Thomas Mitchell Trustee & Et al.
1291 Franklin Mall
Santa Clara, CA 95050
269-22-106 $1,536.80 $1,536.80 7,976.00 12.533
Vitarelli Family LP
925 Circle Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95050
269-22-101 $ 424.88 $ 424.88 2,205.13 3.465
Vitarelli Family LP
925 Circle Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95050
269-22-100 $ 237.64 $ 237.64 1,233.34 1.938
Gillmor Properties LLC
1201 Franklin Mall
Santa Clara, CA 95050
269-22-115 $1,161.09 $1,161.09 6,026.07 9.469
Gillmor Properties LLC
1201 Franklin Mall
Santa Clara, CA 95050
269-22-114 $ 364.55 $ 364.55 1,892.02 2.973
TOTAL $12,262.00 $12,262.00 63,640.00 100%
I, the Assistant City Clerk of the City of Santa Clara, hereby certify that the foregoing assessment in the amounts set forth in Column (2) unless Column (2) is blank, in which event the amounts in Column (1) apply, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of said City on
, 2022.
__
Nora Pimentel, MMC
Assistant City Clerk
City of Santa Clara
City of Santa Clara
Regarding the Levy of Benefit Assessment Applicable to the Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District No. 122, and Approval of Distribution of Director’s Report Fiscal Year 2022/23 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Director of Public Works has requested a report, in writing, to be prepared and filed with the City Clerk, which provides the basis for the levy of benefit assessments for the costs of maintenance and operation on all lots or parcels of property within said maintenance district. Said report sets forth the amounts to be provided in the budget for maintenance and operation; a description of each lot or parcel of property in the maintenance district, by a legal description, assessor's parcel number or other description sufficient to identify the same; and the amount of assessment to be levied for the fiscal year 2022/23 against each lot or parcel of property. Said report is open to public inspection.

Said report will be heard by the Council at its regularly scheduled meeting to be held on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in chambers and virtually, at which time said Council will examine said report and hear all persons interested therein. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953(e) and City of Santa Clara Resolution 22-9087 the City Council meeting will be held both in person in the Council Chambers at 1500 Warburton Avenue and by teleconference. We are providing alternatives to in person attendance for viewing and participating in the hearing. The methods for the public to participate remotely are listed below:
• Via Zoom: https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306
 Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306 or
• Phone: 1(669) 900-6833
• Via the City’s eComment (now available during the meeting) • Via email to [email protected]
As always, the public may view the meetings on SantaClaraCA.gov, Santa Clara City Television (Comcast cable channel 15 or AT&T U-verse channel 99), or the livestream on the City’s YouTube channel or Facebook page.

Any interested owner, objecting to the amount of the assessment on any lot or parcel of property owned by him, may file with the City Clerk at or before the hour fixed for hearing a protest, in writing, signed by him, describing the lot or parcel of property so that it may be identified, and stating the grounds of his/her protest, and may appear at said hearing and be heard in regard thereto.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the City of Santa Clara will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities, and will ensure that all existing facilities will be made accessible to the maximum extent feasible. The City of Santa Clara will generally, upon request, provide appropriate aids and services leading to effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities including those with speech, hearing, or vision impairments so they can participate equally in the City’s programs, services, and activities. The City of Santa Clara will make all reasonable modifications to policies and programs to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to enjoy all of its programs, services, and activities.

Agendas and other written materials distributed during a public meeting that are public record will be made available by the City in an appropriate alternative format. Contact the City Clerk’s Office at 1-408-615-2220 with your request for an alternative format copy of the agenda or other written materials.

Individuals who require an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or any other disability-related modification of policies or procedures, or other accommodation, in order to participate in a program, service, or activity of the City of Santa Clara, should contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 408-615-3000 as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event.

Please see the above-mentioned options citizens may participate in the upcoming hearing. Submit written and/or oral comments directly to the City Clerk, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, 95050; telephone 408-615-2220.

Nora Pimentel, MMC, Assistant City Clerk
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-227 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Levy of Benefit Assessment Upon the Santa Clara Convention Center Complex - Maintenance District No. 183

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
The original lease agreements between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Convention Hotel Limited Partnership (Hotel) and SCCC Associates II (Techmart) provided for the formation of the Santa Clara Convention Center Complex - Maintenance District No. 183 (MD 183). These agreements also served to apportion the funds necessary to maintain and operate the common improvements serving the Convention Center, Hotel, and Techmart. Hudson Techmart Commerce Center LLC currently owns Techmart, Hyatt Regency Santa Clara is the current Hotel owner, and the Convention Center building is owned by the City of Santa Clara. Each of these three parties are responsible for a share of the maintenance assessment, which is set by the annual budget.

In June 1986, Council Adopted Resolution 5081 that formed MD 183 and established the mechanism for funding maintenance and operations on an annual basis. There are two components of this annual funding. The first component is the overall cost of maintaining and operating the general infrastructure consisting of things such as pavement, sidewalk, walkways, covered walkways, signs, landscaping etc. In addition to the cost of maintaining and operating the common areas, the proposed total cost includes expenses relating to the City's cost to administer MD 183, insurance, and utilities. The cost for these items is split by 39.64% to the City of Santa Clara (City), 22.94% to the Hyatt Regency Hotel (Hyatt), and 37.42% to Hudson Techmart Commerce Center LLC (Techmart). The second component includes the cost of maintaining and operating permanent parking controls such as fixed signage, electronic signage, and other parking related equipment. The costs for these items are allocated 30.04 percent to the City, 22.12 percent to the Hyatt, and 47.84 percent to Techmart. The third and final component includes the costs for maintaining and operating temporary parking controls such as moveable barriers, temporary parking attendants and guards, adjustable gates, and signage. The costs for these items are allocated by 78.72% to the City, 10.64% to the Hyatt, and 10.64% to Techmart.

A report (Director’s Report) for each maintenance district is required to be prepared each fiscal year by the Director of Public Works, setting forth the budget for the ensuing year, the formula for the annual assessment levy and a description of each property, including the amount of assessment to be levied against each lot. A copy of the Director’s Report for the District for FY 2022/23 has been prepared and is attached (Attachment 1). This Report has also been filed with the City Clerk.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-227 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
Proposition 218, passed by the voters of California in November 1996, made significant changes to the method and manner of approving assessments for maintenance districts. Proposition 218 requires that written ballots be sent and returned if there are proposed increases greater than any previously approved assessments. A written majority of ballots, weighted according to the proportional financial obligation, needs to be received to approve any proposed annual increase.

Copies of the Director’s Report were mailed to each of the owners in Maintenance District No. 183 apprising them of the proposed formula, including the amount of the individual assessment. Staff notified property owners and any interested tenants about scheduled meetings on April 6, 2022 and May 4, 2022 to discuss the Director’s Report and the assessment district procedures (Due to the COVID-19 health emergency, all correspondence was via email).

DISCUSSION
On April 19, 2022, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention (Resolution No. 22-9083, Attachment 2) related to the proposed FY 2022/23 special benefit assessments for MD 183, which is bounded by Tasman Drive, Great America Parkway, and San Tomas Aquino Creek. In addition, the Resolution of Intention established June 7, 2022 as the date that City Council would hear testimony and act upon the attached report prepared by the Director of Public Works.

Per Proposition 218 requirements, since the proposed FY 2022/23 operational and maintenance costs of $1,878,119 are approximately $180,000 more than the greatest previously approved assessments, ballots and approvals are required from all members of MD 183. Increases are due to inflation and scheduled road repair work. A majority vote is required to approve the proposed increase to the assessments. Ballots from all three members of MD 183 approving the proposed increases to the assessments are on file in the City Clerk’s Office.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Convention Center Maintenance District Fund in the City’s FY 2022/23 proposed budget includes the assessments from the three property owners totaling $1,878,119 and the associated operations and maintenance budget. There is an increase for the total cost for operation and maintenance of the District for FY 2022/23. There is no prior year’s surplus so there is no reduction to apply towards FY 2022/23 operations and maintenance costs for the District.

The proposed assessments by property owner are as follows: $842,700 from the City of Santa Clara (Santa Clara Convention Center); $399,353 from the Hyatt Regency Hotel; and $636,066 from the Hudson Techmart Commerce Center. The funds to pay for the proposed assessment for the City’s portion (formerly that of the Redevelopment Agency) are budgeted as a transfer from the General Fund.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and City Attorney’s Office.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-227 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022

Copies of the Director’s Report were mailed to each of the owners in Maintenance District No. 183 apprising them of the proposed formula, including the amount of the individual assessment. Staff notified property owners and any interested tenants about scheduled meetings on April 6, 2022 and May 4, 2022 to discuss the Director’s Report and the assessment district procedures (due to the COVID-19 health emergency, all correspondence was via email).

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt a resolution approving the levy of benefit assessment upon the Santa Clara Convention Center Complex - Maintenance District No.183, and approving, confirming, and adopting the Director’s Report for FY 2022/23.

2. Do not adopt a Resolution to move forward with collecting the property owner assessments and provide Staff with further direction on funding the assessments.

RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1:

Adopt a resolution approving the levy of benefit assessment upon the Santa Clara Convention Center Complex - Maintenance District No. 183, and approving, confirming, and adopting the Director’s Report for FY 2022/23.

Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Director’s Report FY 2022/23

2. Resolution No. 22-9083

3. Notice of Public Hearing

4. Resolution
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
DIRECTOR’S REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
4/19/2022
COUNCIL APPROVED: (proposed June 7, 2022)
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
2 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2022-2023

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
The Director of Public Works/City Engineer of the City of Santa Clara, California, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.10.490 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara, hereby makes this report and the following special benefit assessment to cover the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the improvements within Santa Clara Convention Center Complex Maintenance District No. 183 of said City, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by said Maintenance District.

The amount to be paid therefore by said Maintenance District for the Fiscal Year 2022-23 is as follows:

As Finally Confirmed
Maintenance and Operations $1,608,119
Permanent Parking Controls $15,000
Reserve for Dynamic Parking Controls $255,000
Exceptional Improvements $0

Funds Advanced by and to be Repaid to City $0
TOTAL COST $1,878,119
Less Amount of Surplus From Prior Years:

Convention Center $0
Hyatt Corporation - A Delaware Limited Liability Corporation $0 Hudson Techmart Commerce Center L.L.C $0
Amount of Reserves: $0
Amount of Contribution: $0

BALANCE OF ASSESSMENT $1,878,119
And I do thereby assess and apportion the amount of said costs and expenses, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, upon the several lots or parcels of property liable therefore and specially benefited thereby, in proportion to the benefits to be received by each lot or parcel of property, from the maintenance and operation thereof and more particularly set forth in the list hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

Each lot or parcel of land is described in the assessment list by reference to its parcel number as shown on the assessor's maps of the County of Santa Clara for Effective Roll Year 2022-2023 to the right of the parcel numbers and include all of such parcel.

I hereby certify to the best of my professional knowledge and experience that each of the identified benefiting properties located within the District receives a special benefit over and above the benefits conferred to the public at large and that the amount of the assessment is proportional to the benefits specially received or enjoyed by each parcel or property within the District.

Date: ___________________________ _____________________________________________ Director of Public Works
City of Santa Clara
3 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2022-2023

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 1. BUDGET
Category Estimated
Cost Description Of Category
Maintenance and
Operation
$1,608,119 Labor, materials, supplies and equipment to maintain and operate Maintenance District No. 183 including,
but not limited to water, sewer, electrical and other
utility costs, sweeping of parking lots, maintenance of pavement and sidewalks, pavement striping, signs,
fountains, landscaping, storm drains, lighting, space
frames, parking structure, bridges, other common
improvements, City supervision and management of
maintenance district, insurance, contingencies, and
incidental expenses.

Permanent Parking
Controls
$15,000 Labor, materials, supplies and equipment to maintain and operate fixed directional signs, electronic signs,
automatic vehicle counting devices, cashiering
stations, ticket printer, dispensers, card readers, cashier booths, including regularly scheduled parking
attendants and guards.

Dynamic Parking
Controls
$255,000 Labor, materials, supplies and equipment to maintain and operate movable barriers and barrier placement,
special parking attendants and guards, implementation
of adjustable gates, special directional signs, and
implementation of electronic signs.

Exceptional
Improvements
$0 Special improvement project benefiting special parcel.

Funds Advanced by
and to be Repaid to
City
$0 For deficits which occurred in prior years
TOTAL COST $1,878,119
Less Amount of Surplus From Prior Years:

City of Santa Clara $0
Hyatt Regency Hotel Santa Clara $0
Hudson Techmart Commerce Center L.L.C $0
Amount of Reserves: $0
Amount of Contribution: $0
BALANCE OF ASSESSMENT $1,878,119
4 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2022-2023

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 2. PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE ASSESSED
Name & Address of Owner
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
As
Preliminarily
Approved
As Finally
Confirmed
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Santa Clara Convention Center (Convention
Center)
104-55-017 $842,700 $842,700
Hyatt Corporation as agent of IA Lodging Santa
Clara TRS, L.L.C dba Hyatt Regency Santa Clara
Eron Hodges – General Manager
5101 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
(Hotel)
104-55-005
104-55-012
$399,353 $399,353
Hudson Techmart Commerce Center L.L.C
Rebecca Agbuya, Portfolio Manager
2055 Gateway Place, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95110
(Techmart)
104-55-013 $636,066 $636,066
TOTAL $1,878,119 $1,878,119
Also Send Copy of Director’s Report To:

Hyatt Regency Santa Clara
Eron Hodges – General Manager
5101 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Hudson Techmart Commerce Center L.L.C
Rebecca Agbuya, Portfolio Manager
2055 Gateway Place, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95110
5 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2022-2023

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 3. BUDGET/ASSESSMENT COMPARISON
Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Total
Assessment
Reduced by
Proportion
From Prior
Year’s Surplus
Net Assessment Total
Assessment
Reduced by
Proportion
From Prior
Year’s Surplus
Net Assessment
City of Santa Clara
(Convention Center)
$771,349 $0 $771,349 $842,700 $0 $842,700
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Santa Clara
$358,060 $0 $358,060 $399,353 $0 $399,353
Hudson Techmart Commerce
Center L.L.C
$568,710 $0 $568,710 $636,066 $0 $636,066
TOTAL $1,698,119 $0 $1,698,119 $1,878,119 $0 $1,878,119 6 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2022-2023

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 4. FORMULA FOR ASSESSMENT LEVY
Category
Estimated
Expenditure
City of Santa Clara
(Conv. Center)
Hyatt Regency
Hotel Santa Clara
Hudson Techmart
Commerce Center

39.64% 22.94% 37.42%
I. Maintenance and Operations $1,608,119 $637,458 $368,903 $601,758

30.04% 22.12% 47.84%
II. Permanent Parking Controls $15,000 $4,506 $3,318 $7,176

78.72% 10.64% 10.64%
III. Dynamic Parking Controls $255,000 $200,736 $27,132 $27,132 IV. Exceptional Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0
V. Funds Advanced by/to be Repaid to City $0 $0 $0 $0
VI. Surplus Funds from Prior Year $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL ASSESSMENT $1,878,119 $842,700 $399,353 $636,066
I:\MD #183 Convention Center\Assessments\2022April\MD#183 Director's Report 22-23Apr.doc RESOLUTION NO. 22-9083

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA OF INTENTION TO ORDER THAT THE

ALTERNATIVE METHOD FOR THE LEVY OF BENEFIT

ASSESSMENT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO CITY OF SANTA

CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 183, PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF HEARING

THEREON, APPROVING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE

DIRECTOR'S REPORT, AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF
HEARING ON DIRECTOR'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-
23 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 16.10 of "The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California" ("City Code"), the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, California ("Council") adopted Resolution No. 5081 on June 3, 1986, creating "City of Santa Clara Convention Center Complex Maintenance District No. 183" ("District") in the City of Santa Clara, California ("City").

Resolution No. 5081 also ordered that the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the on-site public improvements ("Public Improvements") on the property within the District, including the cost of necessary repairs, replacements, fuel, power, electrical current, care, supervision and any and all other items necessary for the proper maintenance and operation of the Public Improvements be raised by the levy of an annual special benefit assessment apportioned according to special benefits conferred among the parcels of property within the District in accordance with a formula set forth in Resolution No. 5081, and in accordance with and pursuant to the provisions for the alternative method for the levy of benefit assessments in maintenance districts in the City as provided in the City Code; WHEREAS, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 1401 on April 8, 1980, which provided for an alternative method for annually fixing and levying a special benefit assessment within maintenance districts located in the City for said purpose; II
II
Resolution of Intention for MD No. 183 for FY 2022-23 and Set Public Hearing for June 7, 2022 Rev: 11 /22/17

Page 1 of 5 ends

WHEREAS, in the opinion of this Council, the annual costs of maintenance and operation of the Public Improvements shall be appropriately financed pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 1401 and Resolution No. 5081 and related provisions of the City Code; WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. 5081, the City's Director of Public Works has made and filed with the City Clerk a written report ("Director's Report") setting forth the budget, the formula for the annual assessment levy, a description of each lot or parcel of property to be assessed and the amount of the assessment to be levied against each lot or parcel of property in accordance with said formula for Fiscal Year 2022-23. The costs of operation, maintenance, and servicing of improvements to be funded by the District are apportioned to each parcel in proportion to the special benefit it receives; WHEREAS, City Staff met with the affected property owners on April 6, 2022 to discuss the Director's Report;
WHEREAS, Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218) requires majority approval of the property owners within the District for any increase in the rate used to calculate the assessment or changes in the methodology by which the assessment is calculated, if that change increases the amount of the assessment imposed on any person or parcel;
WHEREAS, the Director's Report, Ballot, and public hearing notice are to be sent out at least 45 days in advance of the public hearing to all property owners, and any tenants within the District who are responsible for paying each assessment;
WHEREAS, in the event of an assessment that is greater than any previous assessment, a majority weighted vote of the Ballots (weighting determined by an amount of assessment paid), must be received in order to approve any proposed increase in assessment; WHEREAS, for Fiscal Year 2022-23, the assessments are increasing and therefore, Proposition 218 requirements do apply; and,
II
Resolution of Intention for MD No. 183 for FY 2022-23 and Set Public Hearing for June 7, 2022 Rev: 11/22/17

Page 2 of 5 ends

WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered the Director's Report and finds that it is sufficient and does not require modification.

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

1. That the recitals set forth above are true and correct and by this reference, the Council makes them a part hereof.

2. That the public interest and convenience require and this Council hereby orders that the costs and expenses of acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, installing, extending, enlarging, repairing, improving, maintaining and operating the Public Improvements now existing or hereafter to be constructed in and for the District which benefit the District as a whole, including the cost of necessary repairs, replacements, water, fuel, power, gas, electric current, care, supervision and any and all other items necessary for the proper maintenance and operation thereof, and of all additions, improvements and enlargements thereto which may hereafter be made, be raised by an annual special benefit assessment in accordance with and pursuant to the provisions for the alternative method for the levy of benefit assessments in maintenance districts in the City, as provided in Section 16.10.490 and Section 16.10.500 of the City Code, on all lots or parcels of property within the District.

3. That the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the Public Improvements within the District shall annually be assessed, either partly or wholly, upon the benefited lots and parcels of property within the District by apportioning the costs and expenses according to benefits in proportion to the special benefits received by each lot or parcel of property within the District in accordance with the formula set forth in EXHIBIT "B" of Resolution No. 5081.

II
II
II
II
Resolution of Intention for MD No. 183 for FY 2022-23 and Set Public Hearing for June 7, 2022 Rev: 11 /22/17

Page 3 of 5 ends

4. That the City Manager or designee caused a budget to be prepared for the costs of the expenses of maintaining and operating the Public Improvements during fiscal year 2022-23 and the Director of Public Works prepared and filed a Director's Report with the City Clerk which provides the basis for the levy of benefit assessments for the cost of maintenance and operation on all lots or parcels of property within the District.

5. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, at 7:00 p.m., at its regular meeting place in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, the Council will hold a public hearing during which it will hear any and all evidence and protests relating to said alternative method for the levy of benefit assessments and said formula for the District, and if the assessment is greater than any previous assessment, certify any ballots received and determine any weighted vote necessary, examine said Director's Report and hear all persons interested therein. Any interested property owner, who objects to the alternative method for the levy of benefit assessments, the formula, or to the amount of the assessment on any lot or parcel of property owned by him/her, may file a signed written protest with the City Clerk before the commencement of the Council meeting during which the public hearing will be held, describing the lot or parcel of property owned by him/her so that it may be identified and stating the grounds of his/her protest. The property owner may appear at the hearing and be heard with regard to his/her protest.

6. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to a) post a copy of notice of hearing on or near the Council Chamber door or any bulletin board in or adjacent to the City Hall and b) publish a copy of notice of hearing at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, pursuant to City Code Section 16.10.490(p).

II
II
II
II
Resolution of Intention for MD No. 183 for FY 2022-23 and Set Public Hearing for June 7, 2022 Rev: 11/22/17

Page 4 of 5 ends

7. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said hearing by mailing a copy of this Resolution of Intention and Director's Report, postage prepaid to record owners of any lot or parcel of property subject to a benefit assessment to pay said costs of maintenance and operation, as determined by the last assessment roll. This Resolution will be available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office; and said mailing shall be done at least forty-five (45) days, and posting and publication shall be completed not less than ten (10) days, prior to the date fixed (June 7, 2022) for the hearing.

8. 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 AND A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Director's Report
Becker, Chahal, Hardy, Jain, and Park,
and Mayor Gillmor
None
Watanabe
None
ATTEST: ~ NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Resolution of Intention for MD No. 183 for FY 2022-23 and Set Public Hearing for June 7, 2022 Rev: 11 /22/17

Page 5 of 5 ends

7 DIRECTOR'S REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
4/19/2022
COUNCIL APPROVED: (proposed June 7, 2022)
Director of Public Works/City Engineer

SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2022-2023

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
The Director of Public Works/City Engineer of the City of Santa Clara, California, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.10.490 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara, hereby makes this rep01i and the following special benefit assessment to cover the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the improvements within Santa Clara Convention Center Complex Maintenance District No. 183 of said City, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by said Maintenance District.

The amount to be paid therefore by said Maintenance District for the Fiscal Year 2022-23 is as follows:

Maintenance and Operations
Pe1manent Parking Controls
Reserve for Dynamic Parking Controls
Exceptional Improvements
Funds Advanced by and to be Repaid to City

TOTAL COST
Less Amount of Surplus From Prior Years:

Convention Center
Hyatt Corporation - A Delaware Limited Liability Corporation Hudson Techmaii Commerce Center L.L.C
Amount of Reserves:

Amount of Contribution:

BALANCE OF ASSESSMENT
As Finally Confirmed
$1,608,119
$15,000
$255,000
$0
$0
$1,878,119
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,878,119
And I do thereby assess and app01iion the amount of said costs and expenses, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, upon the several lots or parcels of property liable therefore and specially benefited thereby, in proportion to the benefits to be received by each lot or parcel of prope1iy, from the maintenance and operation thereof and more particularly set forth in the list hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

I hereby certify to the best of my professional knowledge and experience that each of the identified benefiting prope1iies located within the District receives a special benefit over and above the benefits conferred to the public at large and that the amount of the assessment is prop01iional to the benefits specially received or enjoyed by each parcel or prope1iy within the District.

Date:
------------------::,,.....,---.....,,.,,,,......,,.--:-:---=::-,----,,--------- Director of Public Works City of Santa Clara
2 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2022-2023

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 1. BUDGET
Category Estimated Description Of Category Cost
Maintenance and $1,608,119 Labor, materials, supplies and equipment to maintain Operation and operate Maintenance District No. 183 including, but not limited to water, sewer, electrical and other
utility costs, sweeping of parking lots, maintenance of pavement and sidewalks, pavement striping, signs,
fountains, landscaping, storm drains, lighting, space
frames, parking structure, bridges, other common
improvements, City supervision and management of
maintenance district, insurance, contingencies, and
incidental expenses.

Permanent Parking $15,000 Labor, materials, supplies and equipment to maintain Controls and operate fixed directional signs, electronic signs, automatic vehicle counting devices, cashiering
stations, ticket printer, dispensers, card readers, cashier booths, including regularly scheduled parking
attendants and guards.

Dynamic Parking $255,000 Labor, materials, supplies and equipment to maintain Controls and operate movable baniers and barrier placement, special parking attendants and guards, implementation
of adjustable gates, special directional signs, and
implementation of electronic signs.

Exceptional $0 Special improvement project benefiting special parcel.

Improvements
Funds Advanced by $0 For deficits which occurred in prior years and to be Repaid to
City
TOTAL COST $1,878,119
Less Amount of Surplus From Prior Years:

City of Santa Clara $0
Hyatt Regency Hotel Santa Clara $0
Hudson Techmart Commerce Center L.L.C $0
Amount of Reserves: $0
Amount of Contribution: $0
BALANCE OF ASSESSMENT $1,878,119
3 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2022-2023

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 2. PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE ASSESSED
Assessor's As
Name & Address of Owner Parcel Preliminarily
Number Approved
City of Santa Clara 104-55-017 $842,700
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Santa Clara Convention Center (Convention
Center)
Hyatt Corporation as agent of IA Lodging Santa 104-55-005 $399,353 Clara TRS, L.L.C dba Hyatt Regency Santa Clara 104-55-012 Eron Hodges - General Manager
5101 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
(Hotel)
Hudson Techmmi Commerce Center L.L.C 104-55-013 $636,066 Rebecca Agbuya, Portfolio Manager
2055 Gateway Place, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 9 5110
(Techmmi)
TOTAL $1,878,119
Also Send Copy of Director's Report To:

Hyatt Regency Santa Clara
Eron Hodges - General Manager
5101 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Hudson Techmart Commerce Center L.L.C
Rebecca Agbuya, Portfolio Manager
2055 Gateway Place, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95110
4 As Finally
Confirmed
$842,700
$399,353
$636,066
$1,878,119

SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2022-2023

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 3. BUDGET/ASSESSMENT COMPARISON
Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Reduced by Reduced by
Total Proportion Net Assessment Total Proportion Net Assessment Assessment From Prior Assessment From Prior Year's Surplus Year's Surplus
City of Santa Clara $771,349 $0 $771,349 $842,700 $0 $842,700 (Convention Center)
Hyatt Regency Hotel $358,060 $0 $358,060 $399,353 $0 $399,353 Santa Clara
Hudson Techmart Commerce $568,710 $0 $568,710 $636,066 $0 $636,066 Center L.L. C
TOTAL $1,698,119 $0 $1,698,119 $1,878,119 $0 $1,878,119 5 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2022-2023

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 4. FORMULA FOR ASSESSMENT LEVY
Category Estimated City of Santa Clara Hyatt Regency
Expenditure (Conv. Center) Hotel Santa Clara

39.64% 22.94%
I. Maintenance and Operations $1,608,119 $637,458 $368,903

30.04% 22.12%
II. Permanent Parking Controls $15,000 $4,506 $3,318

78.72% 10.64%
III. Dynamic Parking Controls $255,000 $200,736 $27,132 IV. Exceptional Improvements $0 $0 $0
V. Funds Advanced by/to be Repaid to City $0 $0 $0
VI. Surplus Funds from Prior Year $0 $0 $0
TOTAL ASSESSMENT $1,878,119 $842,700 $399,353
!:\MD # 183 Convention Center\Assessments\2022April\MD# 183 Director's Report 22-23Apr.doc 6 Hudson Techmart
Commerce Center

37.42%
$601,758

47.84%
$7,176

10.64%
$27,132
$0
$0
$0
$636,066
Notice of Public Hearing #183 2021.doc
City of Santa Clara
Notice of Public Hearing Regarding the Levy of Benefit Assessments Applicable to the Santa Clara Convention Center Maintenance District No. 183, and Approval of Distribution of Director's Report Fiscal Year 2022-23
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clara has determined and fixed its regularly scheduled meeting of June 7, 2022 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in chambers and virtually as the location, date and time to conduct a public hearing to consider the passage of a resolution as follows: "a Resolution of the City of Santa Clara, California of intention to order that the alternative method for the levy of benefit assessment be made applicable to City of Santa Clara Convention center complex maintenance district no. 183, providing for notice of hearing theron, approving the distribution of the director’s report and providing for notice of hearing on directors report for fiscal year 2022-2023.” The purpose of the public hearing is to provide City staff with an opportunity to present the City Council and the public with information concerning the proposed assessments ($1,035,419 total) to the property operators, to pay towards maintenance repairs of the Santa Clara Convention Maintenance District #183 and the proposed determination of the City to pay all of the remaining costs ($842,700) for routine maintenance and operation of the property and improvements of the Santa Clara Maintenance District No. 183. A total of 3 operators pay for the assessments. The public may submit written comments prior to, or make oral presentations, at the public meeting.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953(e) and City of Santa Clara Resolution 22-9067 the City Council meeting will be held both in person in the Council Chambers at 1500 Warburton Avenue and by teleconference. We are providing alternatives to in person attendance for viewing and participating in the hearing.

The methods for the public to participate remotely are listed below:
• Via Zoom: https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306
 Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306 or
• Phone: 1(669) 900-6833
• Via the City’s eComment (now available during the meeting) • Via email to [email protected]
As always, the public may view the meetings on SantaClaraCA.gov, Santa Clara City Television (Comcast cable channel 15 or AT&T U-verse channel 99), or the livestream on the City’s YouTube channel or Facebook page.

A copy of the above Resolution and Director's Report will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California.

Agendas and other written materials distributed during a public meeting that are public record will be made available by the City in an appropriate alternative format. Contact the City Clerk’s Office at 1-408-615- 2220 with your request for an alternative format copy of the agenda or other written materials.

Individuals who require an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or any other disabilityrelated modification of policies or procedures, or other accommodation, in order to participate in a program, service, or activity of the City of Santa Clara, should contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 408-615-3000 as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event.

Nora Pimentel, Assistant City Clerk
Resolution/Assessment Dist 183 Page 1 of 5
Rev. 11/22/17; Typed 4.13.22
RESOLUTION NO. 22-XXXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE LEVY OF BENEFIT

ASSESSMENT UPON THE SANTA CLARA CONVENTION
CENTER COMPLEX MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183, AND
APPROVING, CONFIRMING, AND ADOPTING DIRECTOR’S
REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 16, Article II, Division 5.1 of the Santa Clara City Code (“City Code”) on May 13, 1986, Council adopted Resolution No. 5068, “A Resolution of Intention to Form Santa Clara Convention Center Complex Maintenance District No. 183 and to Order that the Alternative Method for the Levy of Benefit Assessments be Made Applicable Thereto;”
WHEREAS, after proceedings to that end duly held on June 3, 1986, the Council adopted Resolution No. 5081, “A Resolution of Intention to Order that the Alternative Method for the Levy of Benefit Assessments be Made Applicable to City of Santa Clara Convention Center Complex Maintenance District No. 183, Providing for Notice of Hearing Thereon, Approving Director’s Report, and Providing for Notice of Hearing on Director’s Report;” WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VI of Chapter 16.10 of the City Code), the City Manager or designee has caused to be prepared a budget for the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating within the City of Santa Clara Convention Center Complex Maintenance District No. 183 (“District”) the local public improvements for the fiscal year 2022-23, including (a) the gross amount required for the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the improvements; (b) the surplus balance available at the end of the preceding fiscal year for such purposes; (c) the amount, if any, to be contributed to pay any part of the costs and expenses; (d) the amount, if any, to be repaid to the City for funds advanced by it to pay deficiencies which occurred in prior years; and (e) the balance of the amount necessary to pay the costs and expenses; WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 22-9083 and the City Code, the Director of Public Resolution/Assessment Dist 183 Page 2 of 5
Rev. 11/22/17; Typed 4.13.22
Works has made and filed with the City Clerk a written report (“Director’s Report”) for fiscal year 2022-23, which provides the basis for the levy of benefit assessments for the cost of maintenance and operation on all lots or parcels of property within the District, and the Director’s Report sets forth the budget, the formula or formulae for the annual assessment levy, a description of each lot or parcel of property in the District, Assessor's Parcel Number or other description sufficient to identify the same, the amount of assessment to be levied for fiscal year 2022-23 against each lot or parcel of property, and such other information as will be necessary or useful in applying the formula or formulae;
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2022 this Council duly considered the Director’s Report and found that each and every part thereof was sufficient and that neither the Director’s Report nor any part thereof required modification, and ordered that the Director’s Report shall be open to public inspection;
WHEREAS, Proposition 218 passed on November 5, 1996, added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the State of California Constitution which requires property owners within the District to annually approve any assessment increase that is more than any previous assessment; WHEREAS, procedures of approval required the preparation of a Director’s Report on how the assessments were prepared and based;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 22-9083 and the provisions of the City Code, notice of hearing any and all protests in relation to the Director’s Report and any of the matters contained therein was given by causing notice of public hearing to be posted at Santa Clara City Hall on April 20, 2022, published in the Santa Clara Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation, on April 20, 2022, and mailed to all property owners in the Maintenance District on April 20, 2022, as provided by the City Code, all as more particularly appears from the certificates and affidavits thereof on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City, whereupon the hearing on the Report was duly and regularly held at the time and place advertised in the notice and in Resolution No. 22-9083;
Resolution/Assessment Dist 183 Page 3 of 5
Rev. 11/22/17; Typed 4.13.22
WHEREAS, the Director’s Report, and public hearing meeting notice were timely provided to the entities within the District who are responsible for paying the assessments; WHEREAS, for Fiscal Year 2022-23, the assessments are increasing and therefore, Proposition 218 ballot requirements apply;
WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting thereto, filed written protests with the City at or before the time set for hearing, and all persons interested, desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard and all matters and things pertaining thereto were fully heard and considered by the Council; and
WHEREAS, the Council has remedied and corrected any errors or informalities in the Director’s Report and has revised and corrected any of the acts or determinations of the various City officials as contained therein, and is fully informed of the contents.

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

1. That a weighted vote, based on the assessment to each property, was needed to approve the proposed annual assessments for said District because this year’s assessment is greater than the greatest previously approved assessment.

2. That all written protests, objections and other written communications were read at a noticed public hearing and all persons desiring to be heard were fully heard, and that no majority protest exists.

3. That the Director’s Report and each and every part thereof contained all the matters and things called for by Resolution No. 5081 and the City Code, including the budget, the formula or formulae for the annual assessment levy, Assessor's Parcel Number or other description sufficient to identify the same, the amount of the assessment to be levied against each lot or parcel of land in accordance with the formula or formulae, and such other information as will be necessary or useful in applying the formula adopted by the Council.

Resolution/Assessment Dist 183 Page 4 of 5
Rev. 11/22/17; Typed 4.13.22

4. That the Director’s Report and assessment roll, and each of the assessments therein as duly revised and corrected be, and they are hereby approved, confirmed and adopted.

5. That the special benefit assessments shall be levied and collected annually upon the last equalized secured and utility tax rolls upon which ad valorem property taxes are collected. They shall be in addition to all other ad valorem property taxes levied, and shall be collected together with, and not separate therefrom, and enforced in the same manner and by the same persons and at the same time and with the same penalties and interest as are ad valorem property taxes. All laws applicable to the collection and enforcement of the ad valorem property taxes shall be applicable to the special benefit assessment levy, and the assessed lot or parcel of property, if sold for taxes, shall be subject to redemption in the same manner as such real property is redeemed from the sale for ad valorem property taxes, and if not redeemed, shall in like manner pass to the purchaser.

6. That the Director’s Report, together with a certified copy of this Resolution, shall forthwith be delivered to the Director of Finance of this City, who shall thereafter deliver the Director’s Report to the officer of the County of Santa Clara designated by law to extend ad valorem property taxes upon the tax roll. Proper County officer shall cause to be posted to the tax rolls, in a column provided therefor, the amount of each of the special benefit assessments proposed to be levied and collected for the fiscal year as set forth in the Director’s Report as confirmed.

7. That the City Clerk shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution and Director’s Report to the City Manager, Director of Public Works, and Director of Finance of this City and to the officer designated by law to extend ad valorem property taxes upon the tax roll on which they are collected.

8. Constitutionality, severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this resolution is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the Resolution/Assessment Dist 183 Page 5 of 5
Rev. 11/22/17; Typed 4.13.22
remaining portions of the resolution. The City of Santa Clara, California, hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section(s), subsection(s), sentence(s), clause(s), phrase(s), or word(s) be declared invalid.

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 OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE ___ DAY OF _________, 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. Director’s Report
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-201 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on Climate Action Plan, General Plan Amendment to Adopt the Updated Climate Action Plan 2022 and an Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report

BACKGROUND
Following over two years of community engagement, the City has developed a Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2022 to update the current CAP adopted in 2013. Adoption of the CAP Update would extend the City’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals through 2030; address all new State requirements established since the 2013 CAP was adopted; and offer a Qualified CAP that would provide California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) streamlining benefits.

The City of Santa Clara adopted its CAP as Appendix 8.13 to the General Plan on December 3, 2013, as required by the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan. The City started the process of comprehensively updating the CAP in January 2020. The CAP Update process included analyzing the City’s GHG emission trends and developing alternatives for the overall GHG emissions reduction target that would align with or exceed the State goal and establish it as a qualified CAP.

More details on the strategies and actions, and the planning process are discussed in the report to Planning Commission, which is available as Attachment 2 with this report.

DISCUSSION
Updating the Climate Action Plan will require the City to adopt a General Plan Amendment to Appendix 8.13 (the Climate Action Plan). On April 13, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment. The following summarizes the Planning Commission discussion.

The Planning Commission expressed concern over the City’s contract with the vendor that collects mixed waste and does not separate the organic waste from the garbage stream, leading to the contamination of the recyclables in the mixed waste garbage. Staff provided information on how the program, established through Council policy decision effective January 1, 2021, brings the City into full compliance with the SB 1383 organics state mandate. Staff also found that one of the benefits of the mixed waste processing option is that it allows for 100% public participation in food scraps and City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 6 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-201 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
organics composting. Additionally, it is important to note that the City still collects curbside recycling for maximum landfill diversion. Mixed waste processing for garbage and organics collection allows for additional waste diversion.

The Commission also asked staff to make all the action items and issues discussed at the hearing available on the City’s website. Staff responded that the meeting minutes of the hearing will be posted on the CAP webpage on the City’s website. Also, staff responded that the CAP webpage would be further refined to make it more user-friendly. Both requests have been completed and the CAP webpage has been modified and expanded accordingly. For additional detail on the discussion of the Planning Commission see Attachment 1 with this report, Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2022.

Five speakers from Sierra Club and Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action spoke in strong support for the Draft Climate Action Plan 2022. The Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed General Plan Amendment and also adopt an Addendum to the City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Residential TDM Requirements
Based on prior discussions with the City Council, the draft CAP includes a requirement that new multi -family residential development achieve a 20% reduction in Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) through active TDM measures. During the City Council’s recent action to approve the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan this standard was discussed as a potential requirement for the Specific Plan, but after hearing testimony from project developers, as well as staff input, the City Council decided not to include this requirement in the Specific Plan in consideration of the likely infeasibility for a project to meet this standard. Staff had independently discussed this requirement with a traffic consultant who had also indicated to staff that the requirement would likely be infeasible to achieve. Staff also notes that Mountain View, which has been a local leader in raising TDM requirements, currently requires only 5-10% VMT reduction through TDM measures for residential projects. Accordingly, staff recommends that the proposed CAP include a 20% VMT reduction requirement for multi-family residential projects, but that only half of that amount (a 10% reduction) will need to be achieved through TDM measures.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An addendum to the 2010-2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and 2013 CAP Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to inform key decision-makers and the general public of the potential environmental effects that would arise from the implementation of the 2022 Draft CAP. The Addendum found that the 2022 CAP would not result in any potentially significant impacts that were not previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and 2013 CAP Negative Declaration, and that the 2022 CAP would not result in an increase in the severity of any of the previously identified significant impacts.

Although staff’s recommendation to change the draft CAP’s multifamily TDM requirements from 20% to 10% would be not as aggressive as originally proposed, the 10% standard will apply to all new multifamily developments. The 2013 CAP has a similar standard, but it only applies to properties with certain land use designations in specific locations in the City. The new standard will apply more broadly, and so will reduce VMT and transportation impacts compared to existing conditions.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 6 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-201 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022

FISCAL IMPACT
On January 14, 2020, the City Council approved an agreement with the consulting team led by Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. to work on the Draft CAP 2022 with a budget of $192,440 and a 10% contingency. The total not-to-exceed amount of this Agreement, including contingency, is $211,684.

On December 7, 2021, the City Council approved the Amendment No. 1 with Cascadia Consulting Group increases the maximum compensation of the agreement by $20,000 for a revised total not to exceed amount of $231,684. This increase will be funded through the Advanced Planning Reserve for continuation of the services through December 31, 2022.

A number of the CAP action items will require City funding through the budget process. The CAP implementation items identified will require new funding sources to be identified and are subject to City Council approval.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office, City Manager’s Office, Finance Department, Silicon Valley Power, Public Works, Water and Sewer Department, and Community Development Department.

PUBLIC CONTACT
On March 30, 2022, a notice of public hearing was published in The Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation.

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 report to council may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

Community Engagement
Community engagement was an integral part of the CAP update process to produce a final plan that is supported by the community and various stakeholders in Santa Clara and that provides a clear vision to further reduce GHG emissions and enhance climate resiliency throughout the City. The City and the Consultant team developed a community engagement strategy to ensure active participation from the community and stakeholders throughout the Climate Action Plan Update process.

Outlined below is an outreach timeline for various engagement activities throughout the planning process:
· Winter/Spring 2020 - Staff and stakeholder interviews · Spring/Summer 2020 - First round of Community Stakeholder Focus Groups · July 2020 - First Virtual Community Workshop: 38 participants engaged and provided input on the City’s overarching climate goals and strategies
· August and October 2020 - Planning Commission CAP Public Study Sessions · July and November 2020 - Two CAP Online Survey comment periods with nearly 900 City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 6 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-201 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
responses
· March and July 2021 - City Council CAP Public Study Session - robust public comment at both sessions
· September 2021 - Second Virtual Community Workshop: 25 participants were provided an overview of the Draft CAP document and an opportunity to share feedback · Fall 2021- Second round of Community Stakeholder Focus Groups and partner interviews · Fall 2021 - Public Comment period to review Draft Climate Action Plan document through an interactive online document review platform (Konveio)
· March 2022 - Planning Commission CAP Public Study Session · March 2020 through May2022 - Email and phone communications with the public and stakeholders to receive CAP comments
Meeting materials, including meeting summaries, from the community engagement activities conducted throughout the process can be found on the CAP Webpage (Attachment 5) under community engagement and the Public Draft of the Climate Action Plan Document. Looking ahead, the City will continue to engage with the community as we move forward with implementing the City’s 2022 Draft CAP.

In addition to public outreach, the following CAP Study Sessions were conducted to get feedback and direction from the Planning Commission and the City Council:
· Planning Commission Study Sessions - August 26, 2020; October 14, 2020; and March 9, 2022
Staff presented CAP alternatives to the Commission to obtain their recommendation on an appropriate GHG reduction target for the CAP and to seek input on the initial actions list. The Commission recommended setting a target that is more stringent than State guidance, such as achieving carbon neutrality earlier than 2045. The Commission provided the input below at the follow-up study session:
o Set ambitious GHG emissions reduction target, exceeding State mandate o Project the City of Santa Clara as a climate action leader o Emphasize reduction of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), promotion of Electric Vehicles (EV’s) and Electric Vehicle Infrastructure improvements o Focus on data centers for opportunities to reduce GHG emissions o Facilitate telecommuting by providing reliable internet o Incorporate reach codes, with a preference for an all-electric reach code On March 9, 2022, staff presented the draft plan back to the Planning Commission with the incorporated public comments along with feedback from all previous Commission and Council study sessions. Commissioners commented on the following aspects of the CAP:
o Concerns regarding increases in Silicon Valley Power (SVP) rates and possible subsequent regentrification
o Concerns regarding gas to electric requirements happening only on new construction o Questions about the Solar panel programs
· City Council Study Sessions - March 2, 2021 and July 13, 2021 o At the Study Session on March 2, Council confirmed the staff recommended GHG emissions reduction target for the CAP Update of carbon neutrality no later than 2045, City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 6 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-201 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
to align with the more aggressive State target and peer cities in the Bay Area. o At the second Study Session on July 13, the City Council provided the following direction, refining their earlier guidance:
o Adopt interim GHG reduction target of 80% by 2035 that may rely on SVP achieving a 100% carbon neutral electricity through rate increases of 44% to 55% (on top of the typical 3% yearly increase)
o Adopt a 25% reduction in project based VMT through active Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements for large commercial employers (over 500 employees), including aggressive regulations to reduce parking in new development
o Adopt a 20% reduction of VMT for multifamily residential through active TDM measures, which may require parking maximums
o Adopt an all-electric reach code, with exceptions
o Change the proposed All-Electric Reach Code requirement for the provision of EV ready parking spaces in new development from 25% Level 2 and 75% Level 1 chargers to 25% Level 2 and 75% Lite Level 2 at 3.8 Kw using an automatic load management software to balance the loads
o Add a requirement for new development to include one secured bicycle parking spot for each multi-family residential unit with electrical outlets available in storage units
o Prepare a policy to replace natural gas furnaces and water heaters upon burnout with an electric equivalent
o Implement a Climate Action Tracking Dashboard
o Have new Data Centers rely on 100% Carbon Neutral electricity, including offsets as needed
Each of the Study Sessions was well attended with a total of 30 comments received by members of the public.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a resolution approving the Addendum to the 2010 - 2035 General Plan EIR prepared for the updated Climate Action Plan 2022.

2. Adopt a resolution approving the amendment to the General Plan Appendix 8.13 to adopt the updated Climate Action Plan 2022, with a modification to require a 20% VMT reduction requirement for multi-family residential projects, but only half of that amount (a 10% reduction) must come from active TDM measures.

Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2022

2. Planning Commission Staff Report of April 13, 2022

3. Resolution Adopting the CAP Addendum to the General Plan EIR

4. Resolution Adopting the General Plan Amendment to Appendix 8.13

5. Draft CAP Addendum to the General Plan EIR

6. Draft CAP 2022
City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 6 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-201 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 6 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 04/13/2022

2. 22-202 Action on Climate Action Plan, General Plan Amendment to Adopt the Updated Climate Action Plan 2022 and an Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report
Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions recommending that the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution approving and certifying the Addendum to the 2010 - 2035 General Plan EIR prepared for the updated Climate Action Plan 2022.

2. Adopt a resolution approving the amendment to the General Plan Appendix 8.13 to adopt the updated Climate Action Plan 2022.

Associate Planner Nimisha Agrawal provided the staff presentation.

Public Speakers: Dashiell Leeds
Alexis Tan
Rosie Chen
Sindhu Saggeri
Jessie
A motion was made by Commissioner Ikezi, seconded by
Commissioner Biagini to close public hearing.

Aye: Chair Biagini, Commissioner Herro, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Ikezi, Commissioner Saleme, and Commissioner Bhatnagar
6 -

Absent: 1 - Vice Chair Cherukuru
A motion was made by Commissioner Herro, seconded by
Commissioner Bhatnagar to approve staff recommendation 1.

Aye: Chair Biagini, Commissioner Herro, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Ikezi, Commissioner Saleme, and Commissioner Bhatnagar
6 -

Absent: 1 - Vice Chair Cherukuru
A motion was made by Commissioner Herro, seconded by
Commissioner Saleme to approve staff recommendation 2.

Aye: Chair Biagini, Commissioner Herro, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Ikezi, Commissioner Saleme, and Commissioner Bhatnagar
6 -

Absent: 1 - Vice Chair Cherukuru
City of Santa Clara Page 5 Printed on 05/18/2022
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-202 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022

REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION

SUBJECT
Action on Climate Action Plan, General Plan Amendment to Adopt the Updated Climate Action Plan 2022 and an Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following over two years of community engagement, the City has developed a Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2022 to update the current CAP adopted in 2013. Adoption of the CAP Update would extend the City’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals through 2030; address all new State requirements established since the 2013 CAP was adopted; and offer a Qualified CAP that would provide California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) streamlining benefits.

BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Clara adopted its CAP on December 3, 2013, as required by the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan. The City’s current CAP identified measurable actions the City could implement through the year 2020 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels, as required by California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32 or AB32). Senate Bill 32 (SB32), passed in 2016, expanded upon AB32 by requiring further reduction in GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and a long-term goal of reducing emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2018, Executive Order B-55-18 set the target of statewide carbon neutrality by 2045.

To address these new State requirements established since the City’s 2013 CAP was adopted and to extend the City’s GHG emissions reduction goals through 2030, the City started the process of comprehensively updating the CAP in January 2020. The CAP Update process included analyzing the City’s GHG emission trends and developing alternatives for the overall GHG emissions reduction target that would align with or exceed the State goal and establish it as a qualified CAP. A qualified CAP demonstrates consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1). Therefore, a qualified CAP provides CEQA streamlining benefits by allowing future projects to use the GHG analysis already completed in the approved CAP Update as their CEQA GHG analysis. Without a qualified CAP status, the responsibility would fall on individual projects, including City projects, to conduct their own project specific GHG analysis to demonstrate that their mitigated impacts are in alignment with State GHG standards.

Planning Process
The City of Santa Clara conducted a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process to select a consultant team. In January 2020, the City engaged the services of a consultant team led by Cascadia Consulting Group, that also included Raimi + Associates and David J. Powers and Associates, to provide professional services to assist with the CAP Update, including community engagement and an addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The CAP Update process kicked off by conducting initial interviews with City staff and key community City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 9 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-202 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
The CAP Update process kicked off by conducting initial interviews with City staff and key community and business stakeholders to prepare a 2013 CAP Progress Summary. From there, the City’s GHG emission trends were analyzed, and a Forecast and Targets Memo was prepared, summarizing the GHG forecasts and providing options for the overall reduction target for the CAP Update. An initial list of Potential Strategies and Actions was developed through an iterative development and review process that included interviews with City staff, outreach to targeted stakeholders and the public, a review of current City planning documents and activities, consideration of peer city and industry best practices, and a qualitative multi-criteria prioritization analysis.The above-mentioned documents are available on the CAP Webpage (Attachment 5) under ‘Documents Library’.

DISCUSSION
The primary consideration for the Planning Commission to evaluate is the strength of the Strategies and Actions proposed in the Draft CAP for citywide implementation.

The Draft CAP lists the strategies and actions that will collectively help Santa Clara meet State GHG emissions reduction requirements in the near-term (40% reduction by 2030 - SB32 requirement) and set the City on a pathway to achieve carbon neutrality in the long-term (by 2045 - Executive Order B55-18). In addition to these targets, the City aspires to reduce emissions more aggressively in the interim - achieve an 80% reduction in emissions by 2035. To achieve this interim target, Santa Clara will rely on the following key actions in addition the other strategies and actions in the Draft CAP:
· Transition to a carbon-neutral electricity fuel mix - SVP to achieve 100% carbon neutral electricity by 2035, which may require rate increases of 44% to 55% · Require all-electric in new construction - Implement the all-electric reach codes that were adopted in November 2021 and require all-electric for new construction (with some exceptions)
The Strategies and Actions in the Draft CAP are divided into the below five focus areas, and are described with further detail in the following:
· Buildings and Energy
· Transportation and Land Use
· Materials and Consumption
· Natural Systems & Water Resources
· Community Resilience & Wellbeing
Buildings and Energy
Nearly 70% of Santa Clara’s GHG emissions come from buildings and energy use making it one of our greatest opportunities to reduce emissions. To further reduce GHG emissions from the buildings and energy consumption sector, draft CAP 2022 will implement the following strategies:
· Shift to electric fuels in new and existing buildings to achieve net-zero carbon buildings Actions include expanding incentive programs to support the electrification of residential and commercial buildings, transitioning all municipal buildings to electricity, and adopting construction requirements and building codes to electrify new buildings. · Improve energy efficiency through retrofits of homes and buildings Actions include adopting building codes and other policies that enhance energy efficiency, offering residents and business owners rebates and other financing to offset the cost of energy efficiency upgrades, and conducting comprehensive energy efficient retrofits at municipal facilities.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 9 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-202 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
· Maximize renewable energy generation and storage capacity Actions include installing solar and other renewables at City-owned facilities, piloting new renewable energy technology in municipal buildings, and expanding financial support for residents to add renewable energy generation and storage systems to their homes.

Key Highlighted Actions
B-1-7: Carbon neutral data centers - Require all new data centers to operate on 100% carbon neutral energy, with offsets as needed (Year 1)
B-3-1: SVP Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for carbon neutral electricity - Examine resource procurement and cost scenarios to provide 70% carbon neutral electricity to all customers by 2030 to meet SB-32 climate goals, and 60% renewable electricity to meet SB-100 climate goals (Year 1)
B-1-1: Electrification incentives & financing - Work with BayREN and other local jurisdictions and agencies to expand current financial incentives to accelerate electrification in new and existing buildings (Near Term)
B-1-4: Municipal Electrification Action Plan - Work with regional energy partnerships to develop and implement an Electrification Action Plan for City facilities (Near Term) Transportation and Land Use
The State’s Clean Car Standards legislation set under Executive Order N-79-20 requires new passenger cars and trucks to be zero emissions vehicles by 2035 to further reduce emissions by promoting widespread adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). The draft CAP 2022 builds upon this State target by developing robust strategies in the areas of transportation electrification, supporting telecommute/telework strategies, and improving access to biking, walking, carpooling, and public transit. These are summed up in the following strategies:
· Transition to electric vehicles by improving our EV charging infrastructure Actions include expanding the number of public, commercial, and residential charging stations, transitioning the municipal fleet to EV’s where feasible, and incentivizing businesses and industries to electrify fleets.
· Expand clean mobility options and use of non-Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) transportation modes
Actions include improving the City’s trail network, promoting low-carbon transportation, making Santa Clara more bike and walk friendly, and identifying transit gaps. · Advance sustainable land use through policies and programs Actions include promoting sustainable development through new building standards, incentivizing “transit-oriented” development that creates compact, walkable, bikeable, mixeduse communities centered around public transit, and supporting telecommuting.

Key Highlighted Actions
T-1-2: EV charging for all new construction - Implement All-Electric and EV Charging Reach Code to require EV Ready and Capable Spaces (Year 1)
T-2-1: Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plans - Fund and accelerate the implementation of the Pedestrian Master Plan and Bicycle Master Plan (Near Term) T-1-6: Municipal charging infrastructure - Expand municipal facility charging infrastructure to serve municipal fleet, employees, and public charging needs (Near-Term) T-3-1: TDM plan requirements - Require a 20% VMT reduction through active TDM requirements for multifamily projects and a 25% reduction for large commercial employers (over 500 City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 9 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-202 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
employees). Note at the March 22, 2022 City Council meeting regarding the Patrick Henry Drive (PHD) Specific Plan, stakeholders in the Plan area, most of whom are proposing multifamily development, expressed concerns about a proposed change to the draft PHD Specific Plan to require a 20% reduction in VMT solely through active TDM measures. The Council did not modify the PHD Specific Plan to include a requirement for 20%VMT reduction through active TDM measures and retained the proposed requirement for 10% VMT reduction through active TDM measures. Also, staff has conducted research and not been able to identify multifamily projects in nearby cities that are required achieve 20% VMT reduction through active TDM measures alone. (Near-Term)
Materials and Consumption
The State of California has set a goal to divert 75% of organic waste from landfills by 2025 and to reduce edible food disposal by at least 20% by 2025. Santa Clara can align with this goal and reduce waste emissions through the following strategy areas:
· Increase waste diversion
Actions include aligning with California’s solid waste policies, promoting and expanding existing recycling and composting programs, such as the battery recycling stations located at City Hall and other public facilities, and requiring that more construction projects comply with regulations that aim to reduce construction and demolition (C&D) waste. · Reduce landfilled food waste
Actions include food waste reduction education and outreach campaigns focused for top food waste producers, supporting local food recovery organizations, and joining food waste recovery and food security efforts.
· Enhance sustainable production and consumption
Actions include supporting regional organizations that process and sell salvageable building materials, adopting new municipal purchasing policies that prioritize goods and materials with the lowest carbon footprint, and promoting sustainable building materials in local construction projects.

Key Highlighted Actions
M-1-1: Compliance with State solid waste ordinances - Comply with State solid waste laws, including AB-1826, AB-341, and SB-1383 (Year 1)
M-1-2: Waste diversion pricing signals - Explore or promote existing incentives for recycling and composting and discouraging landfill waste (Year1)
M-2-2: Food recovery & donation - Continue to partner with local agencies to implement an Edible Food Recovery Program as required under SB-1383 (Near-Term) Natural Systems & Water Resources
Santa Clara’s natural systems and urban forest are key tools for both climate change mitigation and in building resiliency to climate impacts. Additionally, Santa Clara’s water resources are vital for community wellbeing and public health. The following highlights some of the actions proposed to protect these valuable resources:
· Increase tree planting and cover
Actions include new City guidelines for replacing dying or hazardous trees, increased street tree planting, and regional collaboration on urban forests. · Enhance ecosystem resilience
Actions include partnering with regional groups on restoration projects aimed at increasing local carbon capture and developing a tree planting guide outlining best practices for City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 9 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-202 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
local carbon capture and developing a tree planting guide outlining best practices for ecosystem and tree management.
· Improve water supply and conservation
Actions include promoting water conservation incentive programs, expanding water efficiency retrofit and rebate programs, and diversifying the community water supply to prepare for future droughts.

Key Highlighted Actions
N-1-3: Urban forest partnerships - Promote healthy, well-managed urban forests by participating in the County's Urban Forest Alliance partnership (Year1)
N-3-4: Community water portfolio diversification - Continue collaboration with agency partners such as South Bay Water Recycling, Valley Water, BAWSCA, and SFPUC to diversify water supply portfolio and expand current sources (Year1)
N-1-1: Right-of-way tree planting - Promote residential street tree planting in the right-of-way (Near -Term)
N-2-4: Sustainable park management - Utilize sustainable park management practices, including continuing to transition from gas to electric-powered landscape tools and increasing recycled water use in public parks (Near-Term)
Community Resilience & Wellbeing
Climate change poses a significant risk to the health and safety of Santa Clara residents, particularly vulnerable populations, including the elderly and low-income community members. Santa Clara can align with State adaptation and resiliency guidelines to prepare for climate impacts through the following strategy areas:
· Improve community resilience to climate impacts
Actions include expanding disaster relief by developing a network of community resiliency centers, including cooling centers, where residents can go in case of climate-related emergencies. Actions also include expanding public programs that support vulnerable populations, including people experiencing homelessness, and encouraging community-led climate action and adaptation initiatives through grants and other financial incentives. · Prepare for climate change by strengthening vital infrastructure and adopting climaterelated regulations for development and capital improvement projects Actions include integrating natural stormwater systems into site and building designs, requiring new parking lots be paved with more sustainable materials, and identifying and potentially relocating critical facilities threatened by severe climate impacts.

Key Highlighted Actions
C-1-2: Support for people experiencing homelessness - Expand support services to people experiencing homelessness during all extreme weather and hazard events (e.g., extreme heat, flooding, wildfires) (Near-Term)
C-2-1: Climate resilient land use & development - Evaluate city land use maps to identify whether new development is being planned in high-risk areas, such as those projected to experience increased flood risk under climate project scenarios (Near-Term) Conclusion
City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 9 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-202 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
The GHG forecast and analysis shows that the adoption and implementation of these strategies and actions across the five focus areas would support the City in meeting State GHG reduction requirements in the near-term (40% reduction by 2030 - SB32 requirement). The proposed strategies and actions in draft CAP 2022 would also set the City on a pathway to achieve carbon neutrality in the long-term (by 2045 - Executive Order B-55-18) and the bold mid-term goal to achieve an 80% reduction in emissions by 2035.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An addendum to the 2010-2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and 2013 CAP Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to inform key decision-makers and the general public of the potential environmental effects that would arise from the implementation of the draft CAP 2022. The Addendum found that the 2022 CAP would not result in any potentially significant impacts that were not previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and 2013 CAP Negative Declaration, and the 2022 CAP would not result in an increase in the severity of any of the previously identified significant impacts.

FISCAL IMPACT
On January 14, 2020, the City Council approved an agreement with the consulting team led by Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. to work on the draft CAP 2022 with a budget of $192,440 and a 10% contingency. The total not-to-exceed amount of this Agreement, including contingency, is $211,684.

A number of the CAP action items will require City funding through the budget process. The implementation items identified will require new funding sources to be identified and are subject to City Council approval.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office, the City Manager’s Office, the Finance Department, Electric, Public Works, Water and Sewer Department, and the Community Development Department.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by publishing a hearing notice in the Santa Clara Weekly on March 30, 2022.

Additionally, public contact was made by posting the Planning Commission agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
The full administrative record is available for review during normal business hours by contacting the Planning Division. At the time of this staff report, there has been no public input submitted to the City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 9 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-202 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
City in support or opposition to this item.

Outlined below is an outreach timeline for various engagement activities throughout the planning process:
· Winter/Spring 2020 - Staff and stakeholder interviews · Spring/Summer 2020 - First round of Community Stakeholder Focus Groups · July 2020 - First Virtual Community Workshop where 38 participants were asked to provide input on the City’s overarching climate goals and strategies · August and October 2020 - Planning Commission CAP Public Study Session · July and November 2020 - Two CAP Online Survey comment periods with nearly 900 responses
· March 2021 - City Council CAP Public Study Session - robust public comment · July 2021 - City Council CAP Public Study Session - robust public comment · September 2021 - Second Virtual Community Workshop where 25 participants were provided an overview of the Draft CAP document and an opportunity to share their feedback · Fall 2021- Second round of Community Stakeholder Focus Groups and partner interviews · Fall 2021 - Public Comment period to review Draft Climate Action Plan document through an interactive online document review platform (Konveio)
· March 2022- Planning Commission CAP Public Study Session · March 2020 through December 2021 - Email and phone communications with the public and stakeholders to receive CAP comments
Meeting materials, including meeting summaries, from the community engagement activities conducted throughout the process can be found on the CAP Webpage (Attachment 5) under community engagement and the Public Draft of the Climate Action Plan Document. Looking ahead, the City will continue to engage the community as we move forward with implementing the City’s draft CAP 2022.

In addition to public outreach, the following CAP Study Sessions were conducted to get feedback and direction from the Planning Commission and the City Council:
· Planning Commission Study Sessions - August 26, 2020; October 14, 2020; and March 9, 2022
Staff presented to the Commission alternatives to obtain their recommendation on an appropriate reduction target for the CAP and also seek input on the initial actions list. The Commission recommended setting a target that is more stringent than State guidance, such as achieving carbon neutrality earlier than 2045. The Commission provided the input below at the follow-up session:
o Set ambitious GHG emissions reduction target, exceeding State mandate o The City of Santa Clara should project itself as a climate action leader. o Emphasis should be on reducing Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)promoting Electric Vehicles (EV’s) and improving Electric Vehicle Infrastructure City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 9 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-202 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
o Focus on data centers for opportunities to reduce GHG emissions o Facilitate telecommuting by providing reliable internet; o Incorporate reach codes, with a preference for an all-electric reach code On March 9, 2022, staff presented the draft plan incorporating the public comments to the Planning Commission.
· City Council Study Sessions - March 2, 2021 and July 13, 2021 o At the Study Session on March 2, Council confirmed the staff recommended GHG emissions reduction target for the CAP Update of carbon neutrality no later than 2045, to align with the more aggressive State target and peer cities in the Bay Area. At the second Study Session on July 13, the City Council provided the following direction, refining their earlier guidance:Adopt interim GHG reduction target of 80% by 2035 that may rely on SVP achieving a 100% carbon neutral electricity through rate increases of 44% to 55% (on top of the typical 3% yearly increase)
o Adopt a 25% reduction in project based VMT through active Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements for large commercial employers (over 500 employees), including aggressive regulations to reduce parking in new development o Adopt a 20% reduction of VMT for multifamily residential through active TDM measures, which may require parking maximums
o Adopt an all-electric reach code, with exceptions
o Change the proposed All-Electric Reach Code requirement for the provision of EV ready parking spaces in new development from 25% Level 2 and 75% Level 1 chargers to 25% Level 2 and 75% Lite Level 2 at 3.8 Kw using an automatic load management software to balance the loads
o Add a requirement for new development to include one secured bicycle parking spot for each multi-family residential unit with electrical outlets available in storage units o Prepare a policy to replace natural gas furnaces and water heaters upon burnout with an electric equivalent
o Implement a Climate Action Tracking Dashboard
o Have new Data Centers rely on 100% Carbon Neutral electricity, including offsets as needed
Each of the Study Sessions was well attended and a total of 30 comments were received by members of the public.

RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions recommending that the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution approving and certifying the Addendum to the 2010 - 2035 General Plan EIR prepared for the updated Climate Action Plan 2022.

2. Adopt a resolution approving the amendment to the General Plan Appendix 8.13 to adopt the updated Climate Action Plan 2022.

Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development Approved by: Office of the City Manager
City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 9 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-202 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022

ATTACHMENTS

1. CAP Addendum to the General Plan EIR PC Resolution

2. CAP Update General Plan Amendment PC Resolution

3. Draft CAP Addendum to the General Plan EIR

4. Draft CAP 2022

5. CAP Webpage
City of Santa Clara Page 9 of 9 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/Climate Action Plan 2022 Addendum Page 1 of 3 Rev. 02/08/2022
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING

APPROVAL OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, FOR ADOPTION OF
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022
PLN2018-13646
Climate Action Plan 2022 (Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report)

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, in January 2020, the City of Santa Clara (the “City”) engaged the services of a consultant team led by Cascadia Consulting Group and including Raimi + Associates and David J. Powers and Associates, to provide professional services to assist with the update to 2013 Climate Action Plan (CAP);
WHEREAS, the City needs to update the 2013 CAP to address the new State requirements imposed since the CAP was adopted and to extend the City’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction goals through 2030;
WHEREAS, the updated CAP 2022 includes a near term GHG emissions reduction target goal of 40% by 2030, meeting the Senate Bill 32 requirements; WHEREAS, the updated CAP 2022 is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1) for a Qualified CAP; WHEREAS, the updated CAP 2022 includes a long term GHG emissions reduction target goal of carbon neutrality no later than 2045 and an interim GHG reduction target of 80% by 2035; WHEREAS, as a part of updating the Climate Action Plan, the City intends to adopt a General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) to Appendix 8.13 (the Climate Action Plan) adopting the updated Climate Action Plan 2022;
Resolution/Climate Action Plan 2022 Addendum Page 2 of 3 Rev. 02/08/2022
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 Addendum to the General Plan EIR; and a resolution approving the General Plan Amendment (collectively, the “Approvals”);
WHEREAS, the Addendum to the General Plan EIR identified that there have been no changes in circumstances in the project area that would result in new significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe impacts, and no new information has come to light that would indicate the potential for new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were discussed in the General Plan EIR;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed CAP 2022 would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously identified in the General Plan EIR;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in reviewing the Project, recommends that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the General Plan EIR;
WHEREAS, a 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 March 30, 2022;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Addendum to the General Plan EIR, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, along with the City Staff report pertaining to the Project, and all evidence received at a duly noticed public hearing on April 13, 2022. All these documents and evidence are incorporated herein by reference into this Resolution; and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, 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 Addendum to the General Plan EIR.

Resolution/Climate Action Plan 2022 Addendum Page 3 of 3 Rev. 02/08/2022

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
1 That the Planning Commission hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.

2. That the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Addendum to the General Plan EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.

3. That the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Addendum to the General Plan EIR has been presented to the Commission, which reviewed and considered the information and analysis contained therein, and that the Addendum represents the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

4. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution and the evidence in the City Staff Report, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Addendum to the General Plan EIR, in accordance with CEQA for the Project.

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 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 13TH DAY OF ARIL 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:

NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS:

ATTEST:

ANDREW CRABTREE

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Resolution/Climate Action Plan Update Page 1 of 5
Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING

APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
UPDATE APPENDIX 8.13 (CLIMATE ACTION PLAN) FOR
ADOPTION OF CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2022
PLN2018-13646
Climate Action Plan 2022 (General Plan Amendment)

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, in January 2020, the City of Santa Clara (the “City”) engaged the services of consultant team led by Cascadia Consulting Group and including Raimi + Associates and David J. Powers and Associates, to provide professional services to assist with the update to 2013 Climate Action Plan (CAP);
WHEREAS, the City needs to update the 2013 CAP to address the new State requirements imposed since the CAP was adopted and to extend the City’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction goals through 2030;
WHEREAS, the updated CAP 2022 includes a near term GHG emissions reduction target goal of 40% by 2030, meeting the Senate Bill 32 requirements; WHEREAS, the updated CAP 2022 is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1) for a Qualified CAP; WHEREAS the updated CAP 2022 includes a long term GHG emissions reduction target goal of carbon neutrality no later than 2045 and an interim GHG reduction target of 80% by 2035; WHEREAS, as a part of updating the Climate Action Plan, the City intends to adopt a General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) to Appendix 8.13 (the Climate Action Plan) adopting the updated Climate Action Plan 2022;
Resolution/Climate Action Plan Update Page 2 of 5
Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
WHEREAS, Santa Clara City Charter Section 1007 and Government Code Section 65354 require that the Planning Commission provide input to the City Council on any proposed General Plan Amendment;
WHEREAS, a 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 March 30, 2022;
WHEREAS, before considering making a recommendation for the General Plan Amendment, the City of Santa Clara Planning Commission reviewed and considered the potential environmental impacts of the Project and recommended that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment, 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 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission finds and determines that the proposed CAP update 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:

Resolution/Climate Action Plan Update Page 3 of 5
Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
The proposed CAP update will adopt a citywide goal of carbon neutrality no later than 2045 and an interim goal of 80% GHG reduction by 2035, to align with the more aggressive State target and peer cities in the Bay Area.

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

The Plan 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 of new land use designations that allow for the development of a high-density mixed-use transit-oriented environment.

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

An Addendum to the General Plan EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA that finds that there have been no changes in circumstance in the project area that would result in new significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe impact, and no new information has come to light that would indicate the potential for new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were discussed in the General Plan EIR.

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

An Addendum to the General Plan EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA found that the proposed CAP 2022 would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously identified in the General Plan EIR, and the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt all of these documents.

Resolution/Climate Action Plan Update Page 4 of 5
Rev. Rev: 11/22/17

3. That based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the Approvals, and the evidence in the City Staff Report and such other evidence as received at the public hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Climate Action Plan 2022.

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

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

AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A SPECIAL MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 13th DAY OF APRIL 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:

NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS:

ATTEST:

ANDREW CRABTREE

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Initial Study/Addendum
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan 2022 Update
March 2022
In Consultation with
Prepared by
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update i Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................1 Purpose of the Addendum ......................................................................................................1 Notice of Determination .........................................................................................................2 Section 2.0 Project Information .........................................................................................................3 Project Title ............................................................................................................................3 Lead Agency Contact .............................................................................................................3 Section 3.0 Project Description..........................................................................................................4 Description of the Project Analyzed in the 2010 FEIR ..........................................................4 Description of the Proposed Project .......................................................................................5 Section 4.0 Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Impact Discussion ...........................................10 Aesthetics..............................................................................................................................11 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .....................................................................................13 Air Quality............................................................................................................................15 Biological Resources............................................................................................................18 Cultural Resources................................................................................................................20 Energy...................................................................................................................................22 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................25 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................................................27 Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................................................33 Hydrology and Water Quality ..............................................................................................35 Land Use and Planning.........................................................................................................37 Mineral Resources................................................................................................................38 Noise.....................................................................................................................................39 Population and Housing........................................................................................................41 Public Services......................................................................................................................43 Recreation.............................................................................................................................45 Transportation.......................................................................................................................47 Tribal Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................50 Utilities and Service Systems ...............................................................................................52 Wildfire.................................................................................................................................54 Section 5.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................56 Section 6.0 References.....................................................................................................................57 Section 7.0 Lead Agency and Consultants.......................................................................................58 Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update ii Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
Lead Agency.........................................................................................................................58 Consultants ...........................................................................................................................58 Section 8.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................59 Figures
Figure 3.2-1: Citywide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Forecast................................................................5 Figure 4.8-1: Emissions by Sector.......................................................................................................30 Tables
Table 3.1-1: Current 2013 CAP Target Metrics for 2020......................................................................4 Table 4.3-1: Ambient Air Quality Standards Violations .....................................................................15 Table 4.8-1: 2021 CAP Actions and Reduction Estimates..................................................................31 Table 4.8-2: Achievement of CAP Targets..........................................................................................32 Appendices
Appendix A:2022 Climate Action Plan Update
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 1 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM
The City of Santa Clara, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Addendum to the 2010-2035 General Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan FEIR) for the proposed 2021 Climate Action Plan (CAP) that addresses climate change, and is intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and build resiliency. The purpose of the Addendum is to analyze potential environmental impacts that would result from changes to the project description since certification and adoption of the FEIR by the City of Santa Clara in November 2010.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15164, provide that an addendum to a previously certified EIR can be prepared for a project if the criteria and conditions summarized below are satisfied:
• No Substantial Project Changes: There are no substantial changes proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• No Substantial Changes in Circumstances: Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • No Substantial New Information: There is no new information of substantial importance which was not known or could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternatives; or
d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative
The proposed project as revised, and as described in this Addendum, does not create any of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines that call for the preparation of a subsequent EIR. No new significant impacts would occur, and no previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR. Thus, an addendum to the adopted EIR is the appropriate environmental documentation to analyze the potential environmental impacts that would result from the refinement to the project description.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 2 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

1.1.1 2010-2035 General Plan
In October 2010, the City of Santa Clara approved the 2010-2035 General Plan and certified the Plan FEIR (Resolution No. 10-7797) which is a long-range program for future growth of the City. The General Plan FEIR is a broad range analysis of the planned growth and did not analyze specific development projects. The intent was for the General Plan FEIR to provide program-level documentation from which subsequent development consistent with the General Plan could tier. The General Plan FEIR also identified mitigation measures and adopted a statement of overriding considerations for significant unavoidable impacts to public utilities, biological resources, air quality, transportation and traffic, noise, and climate change, as well as cumulative land use, population and housing, and transportation and traffic impacts resulting from build out of the General Plan.

An Initial Study and Negative Declaration was prepared in December 2013, which updated the climate change discussion from the General Plan FEIR and determined that no new impacts would occur related to implementation of the 2013 CAP. For this reason, and those described above, the General Plan FEIR continues to be an accurate evaluation of program-level impacts for the proposed 2022 CAP.

This Addendum has been prepared as part of the supplemental environmental review process needed to evaluate the proposed project in terms of the overall development and policies envisioned in the General Plan FEIR.

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
If the project is approved, the City will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)).

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 3 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT TITLE
The Santa Clara Climate Action Plan 2022 Update

LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
Nimisha Agrawal, Associate Planner
City of Santa Clara
Community Development Department, Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408) 615-2450
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 4 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ANALYZED IN THE 2010 FEIR
The City of Santa Clara adopted the 2010-2035 General Plan on November 16, 2010. In December 2013, the City Council adopted the City’s current CAP as Appendix 8.13 to the General Plan and approved an Initial Study and Negative Declaration. The CAP detailed how the City would comply with state mandated GHG emission reductions targets by 2020 under Assembly Bill (AB) 32.

3.1.1 Climate Action Plan
The 2013 CAP established a GHG reduction goal of 15 percent below 2008 levels by 2020 and included measures designed to achieve this reduction.1 The following represents a summary of the measures proposed in the 2013 CAP.
• Coal Free & Large Renewables. A key component of the 2013 CAP was achieving 33 percent Renewables Portfolio Standards and removing GHG-intensive sources of electricity, such as coal, from the energy portfolio of Silicon Valley Power (SVP). • Energy Efficiency Programs. SVP has established annual energy efficiency targets for 2013 – 2021 and these targets are updated every three years. The 2013 CAP demonstrates emissions reduction benefits of SVP achieving the established energy efficiency targets and offers examples of effective programs that can achieve the targets. • Other Measures. Other measures identified in the 2013 CAP address emissions from the transportation, solid waste, water, and off-road equipment sectors.

According to the 2013 CAP, implementation of these measures would reduce emissions by 465,610 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), or 23 percent below 2008 baseline levels,2 resulting in citywide emissions of 1,420,200 MTCO2e in 2020. As shown in Table 3.1-1, the City’s latest GHG inventory (2016) emissions estimates were 1,790,833 MTCO2e in 2016. Based on an adjusted business-as-usual projection of 2016 emissions, 2020 emissions were estimated to be 1,703,528 MTCO2e.

Table 3.1-1: Current 2013 CAP Target Metrics for 2020
2013 CAP Reduction Target (Percent) 15 Percent below 2008 levels 2013 CAP Mass Emissions Target 1,576,155 MTCO2e
Latest GHG Inventory (2016) 1,790,833 MTCO2e
Projected Emissions (2020) 3 1,703,528 MTCO2e
Note: Mass Emission Target refers to the actual emissions needed to achieve 15 percent below 2008 levels. 1 A GHG emission reduction of 15 percent below 2008 levels was assumed to be equivalent to 1990 emissions levels. Source: ICLEI. Quick Start Guide to Setting GHG Reduction Targets. 2010. 2 The City’s 2008 GHG inventory showed emissions to be 2,037,800 MTCO2e in that year. Source: City of Santa Clara. Climate Action Plan. 20013.
3 Considers emission reductions from state-level policy; does not include potential GHG emission reductions from local climate action.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 5 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
As shown in Table 3.1-1 above, The City did not achieve its goal of 23 percent reduction below 2008 baseline levels in 2020.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

3.2.1 Progress Toward 2030 Goal
A GHG inventory was conducted using 2016 data to establish a benchmark year from which to further develop emissions’ forecasts and targets through 2030. Based on current guidance from the Air Resources Board and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, the City has set a target of 950,040 MTCO2e by 2030. This 2030 target is a state-mandated goal under SB 32 which requires a 40 percent reduction from the 1990 levels to ensure that the state meets its long-term goal of reductions equal to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

An updated emissions analysis estimates that citywide mass emissions were 1,583,400 MTCO2e in 1990. Figure 3.2-1 shows Santa Clara’s two most recent GHG inventories (2008 and 2016) and projected GHG emissions through 2050, without implementation of the proposed 2022 CAP.

Figure 3.2-1: Citywide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Forecast Source: Cascadia Consulting, 2022 CAP
As shown in Figure 3.2-1, under an adjusted business-as-usual scenario, citywide emissions in 2030 would be 1,497,040 MTCO2e. Thus, in order to achieve a 40 percent reduction from 1990 emission levels, the City would be required to decrease emissions by 550,553 MTCO2e.4 Based on the 4 2030 business as usual emissions 1,497,040 minus 2030 target emissions 945,693 = 551,347 required emissions reduction.
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 2008 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
100,000 MTCO2E
Transportation
Nonresidential Electricity
Nonresidential Natural Gas
Residential Electricity
Residential Natural Gas
Landfilled Waste
Wastewater Treatment
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 6 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
forecasted GHG emissions levels above, the City has developed the following measures to achieve the 2030 GHG emissions target.

3.2.2 Proposed 2022 Climate Action Plan
The 2022 CAP (proposed project) establishes GHG reduction targets and proposed measures designed to reduce the City’s GHG emissions levels by 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030 in accordance with SB 32 and sets aspirational goals for emissions reductions in 2035 and 2045. Several GHG reduction measures included in the proposed project are derived from adopted policy documents that are being implemented citywide. Although the 2022 CAP addresses GHG emissions from new construction, it would also require emissions reductions from the current built environment. The following list provides a summary of the GHG reduction measures proposed in the 2022 CAP.

B1. Shift to electric fuels in new and existing buildings to achieve net-zero carbon buildings.

Decarbonizing buildings by transitioning away from natural gas to electricity.

Implementation Actions
• Electrification incentives and financing
• Electrification outreach for commercial and residential energy upgrades • Electric panel upgrades upon sale/turnover
• Municipal Electrification Action Plan
• Reach Codes5 for new construction
• Burnout Ordinance6
• Carbon neutral data centers
B2. Improve energy efficiency. Reduce energy consumption by using our energy more efficiently through retrofits to our homes and buildings.

Implementation measures
• Municipal energy retrofits
• Free home-energy upgrades for qualifying residents
• Energy-efficient and electric-ready building codes
• Distributed energy resource pilot programs such as energy storage, vehicle-to-grid charging stations, web-enabled devices and microgrids within City facilities • Energy efficiency incentives
B3. Maximize renewable energy generation and storage capacity. Shift to clean, renewable energy sources.
5 Reach Codes are local building energy codes that “reach” beyond the state minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction. Source: City of Santa Clara. “City News, Building Electrification and Electric Vehicle Reach Codes.” December 23, 20219. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/39775/ 6 Burnout ordinances require that homeowners replace gas furnaces with electric heat pumps when the gas furnace burns out or stops working.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 7 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
Implementation Actions
• SVP Integrated Resource Plan for renewable electricity • City-owned renewable energy projects
• Renewable installations at municipal facilities
• Renewable energy generation and storage on private property • Local grid resilience and energy storage improvements • Alternative fuel backup generators
• Renewable electricity for new data centers
T1: Transition vehicles to electric alternatives by improving our electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure.

Implementation Actions
• Community EV Blueprint implementation7
• EV charging for new multi-family developments
• EV charging at single-family and two-family dwellings, townhomes, hotels/motels, offices, & other non-residential developments
• City Fleet Electrification Plan implementation
• Heavy duty electric trucks8
• Municipal charging infrastructure
T2: Expand clean mobility options and use of non-single occupancy vehicle transportation modes.

Reduce the number of daily miles traveled by single occupancy vehicles by making Santa Clara more bike and pedestrian friendly, improving public transit, and incentivizing low-carbon transportation.

Implementation Actions
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan implementation
• Curb management improvements9
• Bike and shared mobility improvements
• Transit gap and improvement study
7 The EV Blueprint is a program to accelerate transportation electrification and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation in the City of Santa Clara. Source: California Energy Commission. Clean Transportation Program Final Project Report EV Ready Communities Challenge, Phase I EV Blueprint. June 2019. https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/home/showpublisheddocument/64525/636972441204370000 8 This implementation action involves partnering with businesses and industries to accelerate the transition of heavyduty trucks to electric through incentives or local tax credits. Source: City of Santa Clara. 2022 Climate Action Plan. 9 Incentivize projects that optimize curbside areas for low-carbon modes and reduce VMT, such as designated rideshare parking and loading zones, scooter and bike share docs, bike parking, electric vehicle and bike charging stations, and autonomous vehicle loading zones. Source: City of Santa Clara. 2022 Climate Action Plan.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 8 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
T3: Advance sustainable land uses. Enact more sustainable city planning policies and programs that encourage higher density development near transit centers, walkable and bikeable communities, and support telecommuting.

Implementation Actions
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan requirements • Sustainable development in underutilized non-residential areas • Transit-oriented development
• Telework
• Transportation Analysis Policy Compliance
M1: Increase waste diversion programs.

Implementation Actions
• Compliance with state solid waste ordinance
• Waste diversion pricing signals
M2: Reduce landfilled food waste.

Implementation Actions
• Technical assistance to top food generators
• Food recovery and donation
• Food recovery and organization partnerships
M3: Enhance sustainable production and consumption.

Implementation Actions
• Reuse salvageable building materials
• City property consumption and waste diversion
• Municipal Sustainable Procurement Policy
• Carbon-smart building materials
• Low-carbon schools
N1: Increase tree canopy cover by planting more trees.

Implementation Actions
• Right-of-way tree planting
• Support private property trees
• Urban forest partnerships
• Tree maintenance, replacement and plantings
N2: Enhance ecosystem resilience.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 9 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
Implementation Actions
• Carbon farming on open space land10
• Partnerships for compost management
• Sustainable planting guide
• Sustainable park management
N3: Improve water supply and conservation.

Implementation Actions
• Water conservation rebates
• Fixture replacements
• Water-efficient landscape requirements
• Community water portfolio diversification
• Recycled water connection requirements
C1: Improve community resilience.

Implementation Actions
• Community resilience network
• Support for people experiencing homelessness
• Community climate action grant
• Incentives for adaptation upgrades
Strategy C2- Prepare for climate change.

Implementation Actions
• Climate-resilient land use & development
• On-site and natural stormwater systems
• High-albedo parking lots
• Climate Resilience Capital Improvements Program (CIP) • Planned retreat strategies
10 Carbon farming refers to the act of using farming practices that are known to improve the rate at which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and converted to plant material and/or soil organic matter. Source:

California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. “Carbon Farming.” September 14, 2021. https://carcd.org/our-work/project/carbon-farming/
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 10 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST, AND

IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section presents the discussion of impacts related to the following environmental subjects in their respective subsections:

4.1 Aesthetics

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

4.3 Air Quality

4.4 Biological Resources

4.5 Cultural Resources

4.6 Energy

4.7 Geology and Soils

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.11 Land Use and Planning

4.12 Mineral Resources

4.13 Noise

4.14 Population and Housing

4.15 Public Services

4.16 Recreation

4.17 Transportation

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

4.20 Wildfire

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
The discussion for each environmental subject includes the following subsections:
• Environmental Setting – This subsection 1) provides a brief overview of relevant plans, policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the project and 2) describes the existing, physical environmental conditions at the project site and in the surrounding area, as relevant.
• Impact Discussion – This subsection 1) includes the recommended checklist questions from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to assess impacts and 2) discusses the project’s impact on the environmental subject as related to the checklist questions, and compares the impact to the 2010 EIR, as updated by the 2013 Negative Declaration.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 11 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

AESTHETICS

4.1.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Although adopted prior to the 2013 CAP, Senate Bill (SB) 743 came into effect after adoption of the 2013 CAP and therefore, represents a change in the regulatory framework for aesthetics conditions since adoption of the 2013 CAP. SB 743 was adopted in September 2013 and requires lead agencies to use alternatives to level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts, specifically vehicle miles traveled (VMT). SB 743 also included changes to CEQA that apply to transit-oriented developments, as related to aesthetics and parking impacts. Under SB 743, a project’s aesthetics impacts will no longer be considered significant impact on the environment if:
• The project is a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project, and • The project is located on an infill site within a transit priority area SB 743 also clarifies that local governments retain their ability to regulate a project’s aesthetics impacts outside of the CEQA process.

Existing Conditions
Numerous development projects have been approved and constructed since adoption of the 2013 CAP which has visually changed the built environment in Santa Clara. These development projects were required to undergo environmental review and comply with City policies and design standards.

4.1.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 12 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings?11 If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Response
According to the General Plan FEIR, there are no scenic vistas within the City. Long-range views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range are available from roadways and public trails throughout Santa Clara. However, these views from public viewpoints are partially or completely obscured by existing development or vegetation and implementation of the proposed 2022 CAP would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic resources. There are no state-designated scenic highways in the City of Santa Clara. Therefore, the proposed 2022 CAP actions would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state-designated scenic highway.

The City of Santa Clara is located within an urban environment. Implementation of the proposed 2022 CAP would, therefore, occur within urban environments and would be overseen as part of the City’s development review process. The proposed 2022 CAP actions would not directly create new sources of light and glare. Indirectly, new development and redevelopment associated with implementation of the 2022 CAP would create new sources of light and glare such as from exterior building lighting as well as reflective solar panels. Future development and redevelopment projects would go through the City’s Architectural Review process prior to issuance of building permits and would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s Design Guidelines, all applicable zoning regulations, and other regulations concerning scenic quality.

Conclusion
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe aesthetics impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR or the 2013 CAP Addendum. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
11 Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 13 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
There have been no substantial changes to the regulatory framework for agricultural and forestry resources conditions since adoption of the 2013 CAP.

Existing Conditions
There have been no substantial changes to the environmental conditions for agricultural and forestry resources since adoption of the 2013 CAP.

4.2.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 14 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
Response
The proposed project would involve implementation actions which would reduce citywide GHG emissions to achieve state mandated reduction goals. Proposed actions would occur within existing buildings and developed areas of the city and would not convert farmland, forest land, or Prime Farmland within the city limits of Santa Clara.

There is no land within the City of Santa Clara that meets the State of California definition of forest land or that is zoned for forestry uses.

Conclusion
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe agricultural or forestry resources impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR or 2013 CAP Addendum. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 15 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

AIR QUALITY

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Clean Air Plan (2017)
In 2017, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the agency primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area, issued an update to the air quality plan for the Bay Area Air basin. The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP) focuses on two related BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. To protect public health, the 2017 CAP describes how BAAQMD will continue its progress toward attaining state and federal air quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities. To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super-GHGs that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.12
Existing Conditions
BAAQMD continues to monitor trends in air pollution through measurements at regional air monitoring stations. Ozone and particulate matter remain criteria pollutants of concern along with community risks associated with toxic air contaminants (TACs). Table 4.3-1 shows pollutant monitoring results for the years 2017 to 2019 (the most recent data available) at the San José monitoring station (the nearest monitoring station to Santa Clara).

Table 4.3-1: Ambient Air Quality Standards Violations
Pollutant Standard Days Exceeding Standard
2017 2018 2019
SAN JOSÉ STATION
Ozone State 1-hour 4 0 2
Federal 8-hour 4 0 2
Carbon
Monoxide
Federal 8-hour 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-hour 0 0 0
PM10 Federal 24-hour 0 0 0
State 24-hour 6 0 4
PM2.5 Federal 24-hour 6 15
Source: BAAQMD. Air Pollution Summaries (2017 – 2019). Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-airquality/air-quality-summaries 12 BAAQMD. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-qualityplans/current-plans Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 16 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

4.3.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
Response
Building & Energy Actions
Air quality impacts associated with renovation of existing buildings and construction of new buildings were previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and determined to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-1, which calls for the City to prepare a Community Risk Reduction Plan for TAC concentrations resulting from new development within the City, and establish appropriate buffer distances for new development with residential uses or other sensitive receptors to protect them from existing sources of TACs. For these reasons, the implementation of the proposed 2022 CAP Building and Energy Strategies would not result in new or substantially more severe air quality impacts than those previously identified in the General Plan FEIR.

Transportation & Land Use Actions
Strategies such as the transition to electric vehicles, expanding clean mobility options, and advancing sustainable land uses would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and by extension, reduce fossil fuel consumption for transportation, thereby reducing air quality emissions from operation of fossil fuel powered vehicles, as well as reducing emissions associated with production and distribution of fossil fuels.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 17 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
Materials & Consumption Actions
Strategies and measures related to increasing waste diversion, reducing landfilled food waste, and enhancing sustainable production and consumption of materials would result in reduced criteria pollutant emissions from waste processing.

Natural Systems & Water Resources Actions
Implementation of Strategy N1 would improve air quality from increased oxygen generated by trees and reduce energy consumption from building cooling, thereby reducing criteria pollutant and TAC emissions associated with energy generation. Implementation of Strategies N2 and N3 to enhance ecosystem resilience, and improve water supply and conservation, respectively, would reduce water use and result in a proportional reduction in criteria pollutant and TAC emissions from energy used to operate the water distribution systems
Climate Adaptation & Resilience Actions
Implementation of Strategies C1 and C2 would not result in new or substantially more severe air quality impacts than those previously identified in the General Plan FEIR.

Conclusion
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe air quality impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 18 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.4.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
There have been no substantive changes to the regulatory framework for biological resources since adoption of the 2013 CAP.

Existing Conditions
Numerous development projects have been approved and constructed since adoption of the 2013 CAP which have resulted in the loss of trees. All development projects are subject to the City’s 2:1 tree replacement requirements for new construction. Additionally, these development projects were required to undergo environmental review and comply with City policies and design standards.

4.4.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations,
or by the CDFW or USFWS?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 19 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
Responses
The proposed project would involve implementation actions which would reduce citywide GHG emissions to achieve state mandated reduction goals. Proposed actions would not change the areas in which new development or redevelopment would occur or allow development closer to sensitive habitats or habitats occupied by special status plants or wildlife species. It would not change policies or City Code requirements designed to protect riparian habitats or maintain the health of the City’s urban forest.

As discussed in Section 4.9 Biological Resources, of the General Plan FEIR, the City of Santa Clara is located adjacent to but not located within the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan area. For these reasons, implementation of the proposed 2022 CAP would not conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan.

Conclusions
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe biological resources impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR or 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 20 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
There have been no substantive changes to the regulatory framework for cultural resources since adoption of the 2013 CAP.

Existing Conditions
Since adoption of the 2013 CAP, no historic resources have been demolished within Santa Clara.

4.5.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
Response
Building, Energy, Transportation, & Land Use Actions
Cultural resources impacts associated with development and redevelopment of existing buildings were previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and determined to be less than significant with implementation of standard conditions of approval and compliance with existing state and local regulations at a programmatic level. The proposed project would involve implementation actions which would reduce citywide GHG emissions to achieve state mandated reduction goals. Proposed actions would occur within existing buildings and developed areas of the city and would not result in new impacts to cultural resources not previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. Project specific cultural resources impacts are examined through project level CEQA review. Retrofits of existing development would be subject to the City’s permitting requirements and processes and reviewed for consistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Landmarks Alteration Permit requirements which would ensure retrofits of existing development would not result in significant impacts to historic resources or adjacent development.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 21 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
Other Actions
Implementation of the other actions which involve preparing the City for climate change, improving community resilience, improving water supply and conservation, enhancing ecosystem resilience, increasing the tree canopy, enhancing sustainable production and consumption, reducing landfilled food waste, and increasing waste diversion actions would not involve alteration and/or demolition of existing structures or substantive ground disturbing activities; for this reason, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.

Implementation of the policies to advance sustainable land uses and expand clean mobility options actions would involve encouraging transit-oriented development and sustainable development in underutilized non-residential areas of the city, as well as constructing transportation improvements to increase pedestrian, bicycle, and other non-single occupancy vehicle transportation modes. Cultural resources impacts associated with such increased density near transit were previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and found not to result in significant impacts with implementation of General Plan policies and existing regulations. Project level cultural resources impacts from implementation of the proposed transportation improvements for non-single occupancy vehicle transportation modes are not known at this time and would be examined through project level CEQA review.

Conclusion
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe cultural resources impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and the 2013 CAP Addendum. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 22 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
ENERGY

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Title 24
State Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, were established in 1978 in response to legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately every three years. The 2019 Standards which became effective January 1, 2020 improve upon the 2016 standards for construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings.

Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county governments.

Solar Electric Incentives
In 2020 SVP began offering the Low-Income Solar Grant Program that provides free solar panel systems to qualifying residents. This program increases the amount of renewable energy generated within the City and reduces the non-renewable energy demand of the City.

Reach Code
In 2021, the City Council adopted new Building Code Standards that reach beyond the state minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction. Effective January 1, 2022, the Santa Clara Reach Code is focused on improving energy efficiency, increasing the electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and incentivizing the electrification of existing buildings. In addition, the Code mandates the use of electricity as a power source in new construction and limits the installation of natural gas plumbing and meters.

Green Fleet Policy
Implemented in 2019, this policy effort ensures that the City purchase and use the lowest emission vehicles available to reduce vehicle emissions, consumption of non-renewable resources, and maintenance/operating costs to the City.

EV Blueprint Plan
Developed in 2019 through a grant from the California Energy Commission, this blueprint outlines 14 program initiatives to improve Santa Clara’s electric vehicle charging infrastructure to prepare to meet the state’s goal to increase the number of zero-emissions vehicles to five million by 2030.

Initiatives in the plan include updates to building codes, rebates and incentive programs, publicprivate partnerships, and changes to construction permitting requirements.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 23 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
Existing Conditions
In January 2018, SVP began providing 100 percent carbon-free power to all residential customers.13

4.6.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Response
Building & Energy Actions
Implementation of the CAP action to shift to electric fuels would reduce natural gas consumption and increase electricity demand by incentivizing conversion of existing buildings to all electric energy use. The proposed improve energy efficiency action would reduce the amount of energy used by new and existing development throughout the City by retrofitting existing municipal facilities, and incentivizing home energy upgrades. Additionally, implementation of a distributed energy resource pilot program would reduce solar energy loss, from lack of energy storage facilities by encouraging the installation of energy storage and micro-grid systems. Thus, implementation of these measures would result in less energy demand than that previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and 2013 CAP Negative Declaration and would not result in a significant impact to the environment due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Furthermore, the proposed 2022 CAP actions would be consistent with state and local plans to facilitate the shift to carbon-free and renewable energy such as the renewable energy portfolio standard, Title 24, and the City’s Reach Code. For these reasons, the proposed 2022 CAP would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Transportation & Land Use Actions
The proposed CAP actions to transition vehicles to electric alternatives, expand clean mobility options, use non-single occupancy vehicle transportation modes, and advance sustainable land uses 13 City of Santa Clara, Silicon Valley Power. “Power Content Label.” Accessed October 27, 2021. https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/about-svp/power-content-label.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 24 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
would reduce gasoline consumption compared to that previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. The proposed 2022 CAP actions would be consistent with state and local plans to facilitate conversion of the passenger vehicle fleet to electric vehicles such as the California Air Resources Board Advanced Clean Cars program, as well as the City’s Green Fleet Program, and EV Blueprint Plan. For these reasons, the proposed 2022 CAP would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Materials & Consumption Actions
The proposed CAP actions to increase waste diversion, reduce landfilled food waste, enhance sustainable production and consumption would reduce energy use from waste processing and consumer products production compared to that previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. For this reason, the proposed 2022 CAP actions would not result in a significant impact to the environment due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The proposed CAP actions would be consistent with waste diversion requirements in Title 24 and would, therefore, not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Natural Systems & Water Resources Actions
The proposed CAP actions to increase the tree canopy, enhance ecosystem resilience, improve community resilience, and prepare for climate change would reduce building energy use during warmer months by reducing the urban heat island effect and prevent further increases in global temperatures. Proposed actions to improve water supply and conservation would reduce energy use from water distribution and wastewater treatment. Thus, implementation of these actions would result in less energy impact than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. For this reason, the proposed 2022 CAP actions would not result in a significant impact to the environment due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The proposed CAP actions would be consistent with energy efficiency and water conservation requirements in Title 24 and would, therefore, not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Community Resilience & Well-being Actions
The proposed CAP actions to develop a network of community resiliency centers and strengthen vital infrastructure to prepare for climate change would occur within existing buildings and developed areas of the City and would not involve any changes to land use, housing, or jobs such that it would result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, or conflict with a state or local renewable energy or energy efficiency plan. Impacts would be the same as those disclosed in the General Plan FEIR.

Conclusion
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe energy impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Less Impact than Approved Project)
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 25 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Since adoption of the 2013 CAP, the latest update to the California Building Code was incorporated into the Santa Clara City Code. Effective January 2020, all projects involving construction are required to comply with the 2019 editions of the California Residential, Commercial, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Energy, and Green Building Standards Codes. These regulations include standards and guidelines to prevent and reduce seismic and geological hazards and reduce soil erosion in the City of Santa Clara.

Existing Conditions
Overall, the geologic and soil conditions in the City have not changed since adoption of the 2013 CAP.

4.7.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
- Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a
known fault (refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42)?
- Strong seismic ground shaking?
- Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
- Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 26 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in the current California Building Code,
creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geological feature?
Response
The proposed project would involve implementation actions which would reduce citywide GHG emissions to achieve state mandated reduction goals. Proposed actions would not change the areas of the City in which new development or redevelopment would occur or allow development on steeper slopes prone to landslides or other hazardous areas. No physical changes to the environment are proposed with implementation of the 2022 CAP which would result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil, use of septic tanks, or directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geological feature. It would not change policies or City Code requirements designed to reduce substantial risks to people, structures, or infrastructure from geologic hazards.

The 2022 CAP includes water conservation measures which may result in the extension of recycled water lines. Ground disturbance from the extension of recycled water lines would be subject to the same General Plan policies previously identified to reduce risks to people, structures, or infrastructure from geologic hazards and would be subject to project-level CEQA review as a part of the development permit process.

Conclusion
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe geology and soils impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 27 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The following discussion is based on the 2022 CAP Update prepared by Cascadia Consulting and included as Appendix A to this Addendum.

4.8.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Executive Order S-3-05
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05 (EO S-3-05) in 2005 establishing the following near-term, mid-term, and long-term GHG emission reduction targets for California:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels;
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The long-term 2050 target represents the level scientists believe is necessary to reach atmospheric GHG concentrations (below 350 ppm CO2e) that will stabilize climate change. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as AB 32, further detailed and put into law the midterm GHG reduction target established in EO S-3-05 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and created a comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce GHG emissions in California.

Senate Bill 32
In 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 was signed into law, amending the California Global Warming Solutions Act. SB 32, and accompanying Executive Order B-30-15, require CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. CARB updated it Climate Scoping Plan in December 2017 to express the 2030 statewide target in terms of million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e). Based on the emissions reductions directed by SB 32, the annual 2030 statewide target emissions level for California is 260 MMTCO2e.

Regional and Local
2017 Clean Air Plan
To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP (prepared by BAAQMD) includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super-GHGs that are potent climate pollutants in the nearterm, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 28 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
Reach Code
In 2021, the City Council adopted new Building Code Standards that reach beyond the state minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction. Effective January 1, 2022, the Santa Clara Reach Code is focused on improving energy efficiency, increasing the electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and incentivizing the electrification of existing buildings. In addition, the Code mandates the use of electricity as a power source in new construction and limits the installation of natural gas plumbing and meters.

Initiatives in the plan include updates to building codes, rebates and incentive programs, publicprivate partnerships, and changes to construction permitting requirements.

Bicycle Master Plan
An update to the existing Bicycle Master Plan was approved by City Council in 2018. This plan outlines the City’s long-term vision for improving the cycling infrastructure through policies, programs, and City-run projects. Initiatives are focused on creating an integrated cycling network, improving safety for cyclists, making cycling a more convenient transportation option, and fostering a more bike-friendly culture in Santa Clara.14
Pedestrian Master Plan
Adopted in 2019, this is a blueprint for making Santa Clara more walkable, with particular focus on creating an integrated pedestrian network; making walkways safer, more enjoyable, and easier to navigate; and integrating walking into land use policy to make walking a more convenient mode of everyday transportation.15
Complete Streets Policy
14 City of Santa Clara. 2019. Bicycle Plan Update 2018. 15 City of Santa Clara. 2019. Pedestrian Master Plan.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 29 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
This policy outlines specific principles for ensuring that city roadways are safe, accessible, and convenient for all transportation types, including pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, and seniors.

Creek Trail Master Plan Expansion
Identified as a priority by the City Council in 2013, the Creek Trail Expansion Plan improves the existing on-street bicycle transportation system by developing bicycle and pedestrian creek trails along 5.75 miles of the Calabazas Creek Corridor, 3.25 miles of the Saratoga Creek Corridor and

1.75 miles of the Hetch Hetchy corridor.16
Transportation Analysis Policy
Adopted in 2020, this policy establishes the requirements for evaluating land use and transportation projects based on the estimated VMT for that project.17 This regulatory change established a new threshold for CEQA significance and incentivized infill development and projects that are accessible via mass transit and active modes of travel, contributing to a reduction in GHG emissions from transportation.

Specific Plans
Since adoption of the 2013 CAP, the City Council has adopted three new specific plans: Tasman East, Lawrence Station, and Patrick Henry Drive; and is in the process of developing two other comprehensive plans: the Downtown Precise Plan, and the El Camino Real Specific Plan. The City is also working on the Freedom Circle Focus Area that will add capacity to the General Plan for the development of a future specific plan. These neighborhood-specific plans outline General Plan development areas of Santa Clara where there is opportunity to intensify development with limited impact on the existing neighborhoods. Plans include initiatives focused on making the areas more pedestrian friendly and promoting sustainable, dense housing developments.18 Existing Conditions
2016 Baseline Inventory Emissions
An inventory of Santa Clara’s community wide GHG emissions in 2016 and a comparison to the 2008 inventory is provided in Appendix A. A summary of the results of this inventory is provided below. Details on the methodologies used for estimating emissions are also provided in Appendix A.

GHG emissions in 2016 totaled an estimated 1,790,833 MTCO2e. In contrast, Santa Clara’s community wide inventory in 2008 totaled 1,862,824 MTCO2e. Total emissions and a breakdown by sector is provided in Figure 4.8-1 below.
16 City of Santa Clara. 2013. City of Santa Clara Creek Trail Network Expansion Feasibility Study. 17 City of Santa Clara. 2020. Transportation Analysis Policy. 18 City of Santa Clara. Specific Plans.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 30 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
Figure 4.8-1: Emissions by Sector
Source: Cascadia Consulting, 2022 CAP
Between 2008 and 2016, Santa Clara’s GHG emissions have declined by approximately 4.5 percent.

In 2016, more than half of the citywide emissions were associated with non-residential energy demand, an increase of 20 percent compared to emissions for this sector in 2008. This increase is likely the result of post-recession economic growth and the increase in data centers constructed in Santa Clara during this period. Approximately one-third of the citywide emissions were from transportation.19
Emissions Reductions Not Included in 2016 Inventory
Following completion of the 2016 Inventory, in 2018, SVP eliminated coal from its energy mix and began providing residential customers carbon-free electricity consistent with California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard requires that electricity sold by utilities be 33 percent renewable by 2020, 60 percent renewable by 2030, and 100 percent carbon free by 2045. As a result, emissions from residential electricity demand would be reduced to zero by 2045.20 This emissions reduction is not reflected in the 2016 baseline emissions. 19 City of Santa Clara. 2022 Draft Climate Action Plan. December 2021. 20 City of Santa Clara. 2022 Draft Climate Action Plan. December 2021.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 31 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

4.8.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of GHGs?
Response
The proposed 2022 CAP would involve implementation of the identified actions and reduction measures specifically designed to reduce citywide GHG emissions consistent with established reduction targets. As noted in Figure 3.2-1, according to the emissions estimates based on the most recent GHG emissions inventory, Santa Clara is projected to generate 1,497,040 MTCO2e per year by 2030.

A summary of the GHG reductions estimated to result from implementation of the proposed project are included in Table 4.8-1 and Table 4.8-2.

Table 4.8-1: 2022 CAP Actions and Reduction Estimates
Proposed Action 2030 Reduction MT CO2e
Decarbonize buildings 42,812
Reduce energy consumption 67,263
Shift to clean, renewable energy sources 192,248
Transition to electric vehicles 92,264
Reduce the number of daily miles traveled by car 152,340 Enact more sustainable city planning N/A
Planting more trees N/A
Making ecosystems more resilient 37
Conserving and expanding our water supply 3,588
Total 550,553
Source: City of Santa Clara. 2022 Draft CAP. December 2021.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 32 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
Table 4.8-2: Achievement of CAP Targets
GHG Target Impact MTCO2e/year
2030 Emissions without CAP 1,497,040
Estimated CAP reduction 550,553
2030 Emissions with Proposed CAP (total) 946,487
2030 Target 950,040
Target Met? Yes
As shown in Table 4.8-2, the proposed 2022 CAP would reduce overall citywide GHG emissions by approximately 550,553 MTCO2e per year, resulting in citywide GHG emissions of 946,487 MTCO2e in 2030, which is below the 2030 target of 950,040 MTCO2e per year. For these reasons, the proposed 2022 CAP would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGS.

Conclusion
The proposed 2022 CAP would reduce GHG emissions and would not result in any new or substantially more severe GHG emissions impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR or the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Less Impact than Approved Project) Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 33 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
The regulatory framework, in terms of federal, state, and local requirements related to hazards and hazardous materials use and the characterization and clean-up of contaminated sites is similar to that at the time of adoption of the 2013 CAP.

Existing Conditions
Citywide, hazardous materials use and storage and contaminants of concern to regulatory agencies are similar to that described in the Negative Declaration prepared for the 2013 CAP.

4.9.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 34 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires?
Response
The proposed project would involve implementation actions which would reduce citywide GHG emissions to achieve state mandated reduction goals. Proposed actions would not change the areas of the City in which new development or redevelopment would occur or allow development in hazardous areas not previously identified in the General Plan FEIR. It would not change policies or City Code requirements designed to reduce substantial risks to people, structures, or infrastructure from hazards and hazardous materials, including airport safety hazards and wildfires. Implementation of the proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any direct physical changes to the environment or physically interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan. Project level hazards and hazardous materials impacts from implementation of the proposed 2022 CAP actions are not known at this time and would be examined through project level CEQA review during the development permit process.

Conclusion
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe hazards and hazardous materials impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Same Impact as Approved Project) Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 35 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.10.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
There have been no substantial changes to the regulatory framework for hydrology and water quality since the 2013 CAP.

Existing Conditions
Watersheds within the City of Santa Clara remain the same as described in the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. Projected sea level rise and flooding remain a concern in areas near the Bayshore.

Various state and regional agencies have initiated planning efforts to predict the potential extent of sea level rise and storm surge.

4.10.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
- result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
- substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 36 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
- create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
- impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Response
The proposed project would involve implementation actions which would reduce citywide GHG emissions to achieve state mandated reduction goals. Implementation of the proposed 2022 CAP would not change the areas of the City in which new development or redevelopment would occur or allow development in flood zones or groundwater recharge areas not previously identified in the General Plan FEIR. It does not change City policies or City Code requirements designed to: 1) reduce substantial risks to people, structures, or infrastructure from flooding and stormwater runoff or 2) minimize and reduce water quality impacts associated with new or existing development.

Project level hydrology and water quality impacts from implementation of the proposed 2022 CAP actions are not known at this time and would be examined through project level CEQA review during the development permit process.

Conclusion
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe hydrology and water quality impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Same Impact as Approved Project) Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 37 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.11.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
The regulatory framework, in terms of land use is similar to that at the time of adoption of the 2013 CAP.

Existing Conditions
Since adoption of the 2013 CAP, the city has approved numerous general plan amendments and rezoning requests which have changed the land use conditions in the city. These projects were required to undergo environmental review and comply with City policies and design standards to avoid division of established communities, and reduce environmental impacts.

4.11.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
Response
The proposed project would involve implementation actions which would reduce citywide GHG emissions to achieve state mandated reduction goals. Implementation actions proposed in the 2022 CAP would not change the areas of the City in which new development or redevelopment would occur or allow development which would physically divide existing communities (such as new roads) or create a significant environmental impact due to conflict with existing land use plans or policies.

Conclusion
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe land use impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 38 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

MINERAL RESOURCES

4.12.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
There have been no substantial changes to the regulatory framework for mineral resources identified in the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration.

Existing Conditions
There have been no substantial changes to environmental conditions regarding mineral resources within the City of Santa Clara.

4.12.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
Response
Mineral resources were addressed in Section 4.5.4.3 of the General Plan FEIR. No significant impacts to mineral resources of regional or statewide significance were identified. Therefore, similar to the certified General Plan FEIR, implementation of the proposed 2022 CAP would not result in impacts to mineral resources.

Conclusion
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe mineral resources impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 39 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
NOISE

4.13.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
There have been no substantial changes to the regulatory framework for noise and vibration identified in the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration.

Existing Conditions
Since adoption of the General Plan, the volume of vehicle trips have increased along with the increased population in Santa Clara, resulting in increased noise levels on some roadways, as projected in the General Plan FEIR.21

4.13.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Response
Building & Energy Actions
Implementation of the CAP actions to shift to electric fuels, retrofit existing municipal facilities, incentivize home energy upgrades, and implement a distributed energy resource pilot program would involve improvements to new and existing buildings. Noise and vibration impacts associated with new development and redevelopment of existing buildings in Santa Clara were previously analyzed 21 City of Santa Clara. Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Clara Draft 2010- 2035 General Plan Volume I, EIR Text. January 2011. Page 438 -455.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 40 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
in the General Plan FEIR and determined to have a less than significant impact with implementation of standard conditions of approval and compliance with General Plan policies. The proposed 2022 CAP would involve implementation actions which would reduce citywide GHG emissions to achieve state mandated reduction goals. Proposed actions would occur within existing buildings and developed areas of the City and would not result in new noise and vibration impacts not previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. Therefore, noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant, same as the approved project.

Transportation & Land Use Actions
Electric vehicles and other non-motorized modes of transportation generate lower noise levels than standard combustion engine vehicles. The proposed CAP actions to transition vehicles to electric alternatives, expand clean mobility options, use non-single occupancy vehicle transportation modes, and advance sustainable land uses would reduce the number of vehicle trips taken in the City using combustion engine vehicle. Therefore, implementation of these actions would reduce traffic noise levels compared to those identified in the General Plan FEIR.

Materials & Consumption Actions
The proposed CAP actions to increase waste diversion, reduce landfilled food waste, enhance sustainable production and consumption would not result in physical changes to the environment such that significant noise and vibration impacts would occur. Therefore, noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant, same as the approved project.

Natural Systems & Water Resources Actions
The proposed CAP actions to increase the tree canopy, enhance ecosystem resilience, improve community resilience, and prepare for climate change and would not result in physical changes to the environment such that significant noise and vibration impacts would occur. Therefore, noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant, same as the approved project.

Conclusions
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe noise and vibration impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 41 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.14.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Housing Element Update (2015 – 2023)
In December 2014, the City Council Adopted the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update which is one of the seven state-required elements of the General Plan and provides important information for the California Department of Housing and Community Development and California Department of Finance calculations of statewide housing needs.

Existing Conditions
In 2013, the population of Santa Clara was 121,45922 and there were 136,980 jobs.23 The current population is 130,746,24 and there are an estimated 143,565 jobs.25

4.14.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
22 California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011- 2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. May 2021.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ 23 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Projections 2040, Total Employment.” Accessed September 17, 2021. http://projections.planbayarea.org/data
24 California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011- 2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. May 2021.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ 25 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Projections 2040, Total Employment.” Accessed September 17, 2021. http://projections.planbayarea.org/data
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 42 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
Response
The proposed 2022 CAP involves implementation actions which would reduce citywide GHG emissions to achieve state mandated reduction goals. Proposed actions would occur within existing buildings and developed areas of the City and would not involve changes to land use, housing, or jobs such that the City’s population would exceed levels previously identified and analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

Moreover, because the proposed 2022 CAP update includes implementation actions and does not involve specific development projects, it would not result in direct displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing such that construction of replacement housing would be necessary.

Conclusions
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe population and housing impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 43 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

PUBLIC SERVICES

4.15.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
There have been no substantial changes to the regulatory framework for public services since the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration.

Existing Conditions
To accommodate increased demand on fire protection services resulting from the recently approved Related Santa Clara development project in northeast Santa Clara, two of the City’s fire stations (Station 8 and Station 10) are undergoing renovations. Renovations to Fire Station 8 were completed in February 2020 and included a new dormitory wing, all-gender bathrooms, fitness room, workshop, and turnout storage room. Fire Station 10 closed March 1, 2020, to allow for construction of a new fire station at a location to be determined when land is secured.

Since adoption of the 2013 CAP, the City has rehabilitated and expanded four existing neighborhood and community parks, Agnew Park, Fuller Park, Machado Park, and Meadow Park. Improvements made to these parks are included below.
• Agnew Park improvements included a new playground that features a triple slide, swings, and climbing wall.
• Fuller Park was enhanced to complete the original park master plan “Phase Two”.

Improvements made to this park included a volleyball court, basketball half court and fitness equipment cluster. In addition, accessibility improvements were made to and from the park and surrounding area.
• Machado Park was rehabilitated with two new playground areas, one for children 2-5 years old and one for those 6-12 years old, plus ramp access to a hillside slide. • Meadow Park was expanded to include new play spaces with natural meadow habitat, redwood trail with fitness stations, restroom, and a group picnic area.

In January 2012, the Santa Clara Unified School District Board of Trustees approved the Agnews Campus project, which will construct three new schools (one elementary, one middle, and one high school) on a 55-acre site at 3500 Zanker Road in North San José. Since adoption of the 2013 CAP, construction of the elementary and middle schools (Abram Agnew Elementary and Dolores Huerta Middle School) has been completed and both schools are operational as of September 2021.26 Construction of the high school (Kathleen MacDonald High School) is ongoing with a target opening date of Fall 2022.

There have been no substantial changes to the environmental conditions for police protection services, libraries, and other public facilities in the City of Santa Clara. 26 Santa Clara Unified School District. “Agnew/Huerta Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed September 17, 2021. https://www.santaclarausd.org/Page/3502
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 44 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

4.15.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than Approved
Project
Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire Protection?
b) Police Protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other Public Facilities?
Response
The proposed 2022 CAP involves implementation actions designed to reduce GHG emissions produced throughout the City to achieve state mandated reduction goals. Proposed actions would occur within existing buildings and previously developed areas of the City and would not involve any changes to land use, housing, or jobs such that the city’s service population would exceed levels previously identified and analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. For these reasons, the proposed 2022 CAP would not result in substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities.

Conclusions
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe public services impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 45 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

RECREATION

4.16.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
There have been no substantial changes to the regulatory framework for recreation.

Existing Conditions
Since adoption of the 2013 CAP, the City has rehabilitated and expanded existing facilities at the following neighborhood and community parks and senior center and constructed the following new parks.
• Nuevo Community Park, a new park located at 3505 Kifer Road, opened in the Summer 2021 • Fitness Equipment was added to the Santa Clara Senior Center, located at 1303 Fremont Street, in the Summer 2021.
• Raymond G. Gamma Dog Park, located at 888 Reed Street, was rehabilitated and reopened in June 2021.
• Creekside Park, a new park located at 3225 Scott Boulevard, opened in January 2021. • Homeridge Park Playground, located at 2985 Stevenson Street, was rehabilitated and reopened in December 2020.
• Reed & Grant Sports Park, a new park located at 720 Reed Street, opened in October 2020. • Agnew Park playground, located at 2150 Agnew Road, was rehabilitated and reopened in 2020.
• Fuller Park, located at 61 Fuller Street, was rehabilitated and reopened in 2020. • Machado Park, located at 3360 Cabrillo Avenue was rehabilitated and reopened in 2020. • Meadow Park and Redwood Trail, a new park located at 3360 Octavius Drive opened in 2020.
• Bowers Park Playground, located at 2582 Cabrillo Avenue was rehabilitated and reopened in 2019.
• Larry J. Marsalli Park Off-Leash Dog Area, located at 1425 Lafayette Street was rehabilitated and reopened in 2018.
• Everett N. “Eddie” Souza Neighborhood Park & Community Garden, located at 2350 Monroe Street was rehabilitated and reopened in 2018.
• Bill Wilson Jr. Park, located at 2902 Miles Drive was rehabilitated and reopened in 2018. • Steve Carli Park Playground, located at 1045 Los Padres Boulevard, was rehabilitated and reopened in 2017.
• Bracher Park, located at 2560 Alhambra Drive was rehabilitated and reopened in 2016.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 46 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

4.16.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Response
The proposed 2022 CAP involves implementation actions designed to reduce citywide GHG emissions and to achieve state mandated reduction goals. Proposed actions would occur within existing buildings and previously developed areas of the City and would not involve any changes to land use, housing, or jobs such that the city’s service population would exceed levels previously identified and analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. For these reasons, the proposed 2022 CAP would not increase use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facility such that substantial physical deterioration would occur or require construction or expansion of recreational facilities resulting in an adverse physical impact on the environment.

Conclusions
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe recreation impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 47 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

TRANSPORTATION

4.17.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Regional
Regional Transportation Plan
In October 2021, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments adopted Plan Bay Area 2050, which includes a Regional Transportation Plan to guide regional transportation investments for revenues from federal, state, regional, and local sources through 2050. The plan also includes transportation strategies to maintain and optimize the existing transportation system, create health and safe streets, and build a next-generation transit network.

Local
Bicycle Master Plan
An update to the existing Bicycle Master Plan was approved by City Council in 2018. This plan outlines the City’s long-term vision for improving the cycling infrastructure through policies, programs, and City-run projects. Initiatives are focused on creating an integrated cycling network, improving safety for cyclists, making cycling a more convenient transportation option, and fostering a more bike-friendly culture in Santa Clara.27
Pedestrian Master Plan
Adopted in 2019, this is a blueprint for making Santa Clara more walkable, with particular focus on creating an integrated pedestrian network; making walkways safer, more enjoyable, and easier to navigate; and integrating walking into land use policy to make walking a more convenient mode of everyday transportation.28
Complete Streets Policy
This policy outlines specific principles for ensuring that city roadways are safe, accessible, and convenient for all transportation types, including pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, and seniors.

1.75 miles of the Hetch Hetchy corridor.29
27 City of Santa Clara. 2019. Bicycle Plan Update 2018. 28 City of Santa Clara. 2019. Pedestrian Master Plan. 29 City of Santa Clara. 2013. City of Santa Clara Creek Trail Network Expansion Feasibility Study.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 48 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
City of Santa Clara Transportation Analysis Policy
Adopted in 2020, this policy establishes the requirements for evaluating land use and transportation projects based on the estimated VMT for that project.30 This regulatory change established a new threshold for CEQA significance and incentivized infill development and projects that are accessible via mass transit and active modes of travel.

Specific Plans
Since adoption of the 2013 CAP, the City Council has adopted three new specific plans: Tasman East, Lawrence Station, and Patrick Henry Drive; and is in the process of developing two other comprehensive plans: the Downtown Precise Plan, and the El Camino Real Specific Plan. The City is also working on the Freedom Circle Focus Area that will add capacity to the General Plan for the development of a future specific plan. These neighborhood-specific plans outline General Plan development areas of Santa Clara where there is opportunity to intensify development with limited impact on the existing neighborhood. Plans include initiatives focused on making the areas more pedestrian friendly and promoting sustainable, dense housing developments.31 Existing Conditions
As of the Winter of 2022, the San Tomas Aquinas Trail was constructed by the County of Santa Clara and stretches between El Camino Real and Homestead Road. In addition, the City has added numerous bike lanes to existing roadways throughout the city. These improvements have increased pedestrian and bicycle accessibility since adoption of the 2013 CAP.

4.17.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance,
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadways,
bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
30 City of Santa Clara. 2020. Transportation Analysis Policy. 31 City of Santa Clara. Specific Plans.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 49 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Responses
Transportation & Land Use Actions
The proposed CAP actions to transition vehicles to electric alternatives, expand clean mobility options, use non-single occupancy vehicle transportation modes, and advance sustainable land uses would reduce VMT and the number of vehicle trips taken in the City using single-occupancy vehicles and would not conflict with existing transportation programs or policies such as the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, Complete Streets Policy, Creek Trail Master Plan Expansion, and Transportation Analysis Policy. No specific development projects would occur with implementation of the proposed actions such that changes to the physical environment would occur resulting in geometric hazards or inadequate emergency access, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan FEIR.

Other Actions
The proposed 2022 CAP involves implementation actions which would reduce citywide GHG emissions to achieve reduction goals. Proposed actions would occur within existing buildings and developed areas of the City and would not involve any changes to land use, housing, or jobs such that it would conflict with an existing transportation program or policy, create geometric hazards or result in inadequate emergency access, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan FEIR. Project level transportation impacts from implementation of the proposed 2022 CAP actions are not known at this time and would be examined through project level CEQA review during the development permit process.

Conclusions
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe transportation impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 50 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.18.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Since adoption of the 2013 CAP, California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was passed in November 2014, which expands CEQA by identifying a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources” which are defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe” and is:

1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k) or

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of public resources code Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria, the Lead Agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding the potential for non-exempt projects (resulting in a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report) to impact tribal cultural resources.

The General Plan Integrated FEIR considered tribal cultural resources in the context of cultural resources and identified a less than significant impact to tribal cultural resources because implementation of General Plan policies and compliance with existing policies and programs would reduce impacts to unrecorded resources.

Existing Conditions
There has been no change in the existing conditions regarding Tribal Cultural Resources since adoption of the 2013 CAP.

4.18.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 51 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Response
The proposed 2022 CAP would involve implementation of policy actions designed to reduce GHG emissions citywide. Implementation of the proposed 2022 CAP would not change the land uses, areas of the City in which new development or redevelopment would occur, or allow development which would cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource.

Conclusions
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 52 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.19.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
There have been no substantive changes to the regulatory framework for utilities and service systems.

Existing Conditions
Since adoption of the 2013 CAP, numerous development projects have been approved and constructed which have changed the utilities and service systems conditions in the city. These projects were required to undergo environmental review and comply with City policies and standards to avoid insufficient capacity to provide utilities services and ensure compliance with state and local standards.

4.19.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
b) Have insufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
does not have adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 53 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
e) Be noncompliant with federal, state, or
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Response
Water Resources Actions
The 2022 CAP includes water conservation actions which may result in the extension of recycled water lines. The environmental effects of these actions are discussed throughout this Addendum and were determined to be less than significant with implementation of standard conditions of approval and compliance with existing General Plan policies and local, state, and federal regulations.

Other Actions
The proposed project would involve implementation actions which would reduce citywide GHG emissions to achieve state mandated reduction goals. Proposed actions would occur within existing buildings, and previously developed areas of the City and would not involve any changes to land use, housing, or jobs such that the city’s service population would exceed levels previously identified and analyzed in the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. For these reasons, the proposed 2022 CAP would result in the same impacts regarding water supply, wastewater treatment capacity and solid waste generation as previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and 2013 CAP Negative Declaration.

Conclusions
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe utilities and service system impacts than previously identified in the General Plan Final EIR and the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Same Impact as Approved Project) Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 54 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022

WILDFIRE

4.20.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Since certification of the General Plan FEIR, a set of amendments to the CEQA Guidelines were passed in 2018, requiring wildfire to be addressed as a separate section in the Appendix G checklist.

Although questions related to wildfire hazard were previously discussed under Section 4.13, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan FEIR, additional questions were added in 2018 that were not previously addressed in the General Plan FEIR.

Existing Conditions
There are no changes in the environmental conditions with respect to wildfire.

4.20.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less
Impact than
Approved
Project
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, Would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines, or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 55 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
Response
Although wildfire impacts were previously analyzed in Section 4.13 of the General Plan FEIR, this analysis did not address specific hazards associated with development within wildfire hazard zones.

As noted in the General Plan FEIR, there are no wildfire hazard zones within the City of Santa Clara.32 The proposed project would involve implementation actions which would reduce citywide GHG emissions to achieve state mandated reduction goals. Proposed actions would occur within existing buildings and previously developed areas of the City which are not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project, therefore, would not result in any impact related to emergency response or evacuation, exposure of project occupants to pollutant concentrations from uncontrolled spread of wildfire, the installation of infrastructure to combat wildfire, or exposure of people or structures to risks of flooding or landslides resulting from post-fire runoff, slope instability, or drainage changes. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in wildfire impacts substantially different from those previously identified in the General Plan FEIR.

Conclusion
The proposed 2022 CAP would not result in any new or substantially more severe wildfire impacts than previously identified in the General Plan FEIR and the 2013 CAP Negative Declaration. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
32 City of Santa Clara. Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Clara Draft 2010- 2035 General Plan Volume I, EIR Text. January 2011.

Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 56 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
SECTION 5.0 CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis and discussion, no substantive revisions are needed to the General Plan FEIR (including the 2013 Negative Declaration), because no new significant impacts or impacts of substantially greater severity would result from the 2022 CAP project. There have been no changes in circumstance in the project area that would result in new significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe impacts, and no new information has come to light that would indicate the potential for new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were discussed in the General Plan FEIR (including the 2013 Negative Declaration). Therefore, no further evaluation is required, and no Subsequent EIR is needed pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and an EIR Addendum has therefore appropriately been prepared, pursuant to Section 15164.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), this Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but will be included in the public record file for the General Plan FEIR.

Andrew Crabtree
Director of Community Development
_____________________________________
Signature
_____________________________________
Date
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 57 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES
The analysis in this Initial Study is based on the professional judgement and expertise of the environmental specialists preparing this document, based upon review of the site, surrounding conditions, site plans, and the following references:

Association of Bay Area Governments. “Projections 2040, Total Employment.” Accessed September 17, 2021. http://projections.planbayarea.org/data
BAAQMD. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/airquality-plans/current-plans California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. “Carbon Farming.” September 14, 2021. https://carcd.org/our-work/project/carbon-farming/
California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011- 2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. May 2021. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ City of Santa Clara. 2022 Draft Climate Action Plan. December 2021. -----. Bicycle Plan Update 2018. June 2021.
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/64549/636973309258870000 -----. “City News, Building Electrification and Electric Vehicle Reach Codes.” December 23, 20219. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/39775/ -----. Creek Trail Network Expansion Feasibility Study. November 2013. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=10152 -----. Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Clara Draft 2010- 2035 General Plan Volume I, EIR Text. January 2011.
-----. Pedestrian Master Plan 2019. 2019.
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/66646/637184802740430000 -----. Final Transportation Analysis Policy. June 23, 2020. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/ourcity/departments-g-z/public-works/engineering/traffic-engineering/transportation-analysis-policyupdate -----. “Specific Plans.” Accessed November 30, 2021. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departmentsa-f/community-development/planning-division/specific-plans -----, Silicon Valley Power. “Power Content Label.” Accessed October 27, 2021. https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/about-svp/power-content-label.

Santa Clara Unified School District. “Agnew/Huerta Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed September 17, 2021. https://www.santaclarausd.org/Page/3502
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 58 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
SECTION 7.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS

LEAD AGENCY
City of Santa Clara
Department of Community Development, Planning Division
John Davidson, Principal Planner
Nimisha Agarwal, Associate Planner

CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants and Planners
Shannon George, Principal Project Manager
Carolyn Neer, Project Manager
Ryan Osako, Graphic Artist
Santa Clara Climate Action Plan Update 59 Addendum
City of Santa Clara March 2022
SECTION 8.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
2017 CAP Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CAP Climate Action Plan
CIP Climate Resilience Capital Improvements Program
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO S-3-05 Executive Order S-3-05
General Plan FEIR 2010-2035 General Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report GHG greenhouse gas
IS Initial Study
MTCO2e metric tons of CO2e
MMTCO2e million metric tons of CO2e
NOD Notice of Determination
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SVP Silicon Valley Power
TAC Toxic air contaminants
TDM Transportation Demand Management
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VMT vehicle miles traveled

CITY OF SANTA CLARA CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

Page 0 ends

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentJune 7, 2022

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
June 7, 2022