City Council and Authorities Concurrent
June 7, 2022

Contract Number: 10051-B
• Payment and Performance Bonds (Exhibit "F")
• Rate Schedule (Exhibit "G")
• Sample Task Order Form (Exhibit "H")
• Addenda
• Change Orders executed by the Stadium Manager
• 2018 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (The Greenbook), Excluding Sections 1-9
• Notice Inviting Bids, if any
• Instructions to Bidders, if any
• Contractor's Bid, if any

3.2 Contractor's Basic Obligation: Scope of Work. Contractor promises and agrees, at its own cost and expense, to furnish to the Stadium Manager all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary for the Project (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 'Work"). The type of Work to be provided is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and in the individual Task Orders issued by the Stadium Manager. No Work shall be performed unless authorized by this Contract and by a fully executed Task Order in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "H". All Work shall be subject to, and performed in accordance, with this Contract, any relevant Task Order, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. Special Conditions, if any, relating to the Work are described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

3.2.1 Change in Scope of Work. Any change in the scope of the Work, method of performance, nature of materials or price thereof, or any other matter materially affecting the performance or nature of the Work shall not be paid for or accepted unless such change, addition or deletion is approved in writing by a valid change order executed by the Stadium Manager.

Should Contractor request a change order due to unforeseen circumstances affecting the performance of the Work, such request shall be made within five (5) business days of the date such circumstances are discovered or shall waive its right to request a change order due to such circumstances. If the Parties cannot agree on any change in price required by such change in the Work, the Stadium Manager may direct the Contractor to proceed with the performance of the change on a time and materials basis.

3.2.2 Substitutions/"Or Equal". Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 3400(b), the Stadium Manager may make a finding that designates certain products, things, or services by specific brand or trade name. Unless specifically designated in this Contract, whenever any material, process, or article is indicated or specified by grade, patent, or proprietary name or by name of manufacturer, such Specifications shall be deemed to be used for the purpose of facilitating the description of the material, process or article desired and shall be deemed to be followed by the words "or equal."
Contractor may, unless otherwise stated, offer for substitution any material, process or article which shall be substantially equal or better in every respect to that so indicated or specified in this Contract. However, the Stadium Manager may have adopted certain uniform standards for certain materials, processes and articles. Contractor shall submit requests, together with substantiating data, for substitution of any "or equal" material, process or article no later than thirty-five (35) days after award of the Contract. To facilitate the repair schedule and sequencing, some requests may need to be submitted before thirty-five (35) days after award of Contract.

Provisions regarding submission of "or equal" requests shall not in any way authorize an extension of time for performance of this Contract. If a proposed "or equal" substitution request

Contract Number: 10051-8
is rejected, Contractor shall be responsible for providing the specified material, process or article.

The burden of proof as to the equality of any material, process or article shall rest with Contractor.

The Stadium Manager has the complete and sole discretion to determine if a material, process or article is an "or equal" material, process or article that may be substituted.

Data required to substantiate requests for substitutions of an "or equal" material, process or article data shall include a signed affidavit from Contractor stating that, and describing how, the substituted "or equal" material, process or article is equivalent to that specified in every way except as listed on the affidavit. Substantiating data shall include any and all illustrations, specifications, and other relevant data including catalog information which describes the requested substituted "or equal" material, process or article, and substantiates that it is an "or equal" to the material, process or article. The substantiating data must also include information regarding the durability and lifecycle cost of the requested substituted "or equal" material, process or article. Failure to submit all the required substantiating data, including the signed affidavit, to the Stadium Manager in a timely fashion will result in the rejection of the proposed substitution.

Contractor shall bear all of the Stadium Manager's costs associated with the review of substitution requests. Contractor shall be responsible for all costs related to a substituted "or equal" material, process or article. Contractor is directed to the Special Conditions (if any) to review any findings made pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 3400.

3.3 Period of Performance and Liquidated Damages. The term of this Contract shall commence on the date first set forth above and expire on April 30, 2024, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Contractor shall complete the Work within the term of this Contract, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines set forth in the Task Order(s). All applicable indemnification provisions of this Contract shall remain in effect following the termination of this Contract. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, further extend the term of this Contract for two (2) additional one (1) year periods. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, Contractor shall pay to the Stadium Manager as fixed and liquidated damages a fixed dollar amount per day for each and every calendar day of delay beyond any completion schedule, repair schedule or Project milestones established pursuant to the Contract and any Task Order(s). The daily liquidated damages amount will be determined for each separate Task Order and will be set forth in that Task Order.

3.4 Standard of Performance; Performance of Employees. Contractor shall perform all Work under this Contract in a skillful and workmanlike manner, and consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Contractor represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Work. Contractor warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Work assigned to them. Finally, Contractor represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Work, including any required business license, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Contract. Contractor shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the Stadium Manager, any work necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by Contractor's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein. Any employee who is determined by the Stadium Manager to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the safety of persons or the Work, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Work in a manner acceptable to the Stadium Manager, shall be promptly removed from the Project by Contractor and shall not be re-employed on the Work.

Contract Number: 10051-B

3.5 Control and Payment of Subordinates: Contractual Relationship. Stadium Manager retains Contractor on an independent contractor basis and Contractor is not an employee of Stadium Manager. Any additional personnel performing the work governed by this Contract on behalf of Contractor shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Contractor shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance under this Contract and as required by law. Contractor shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance.

3.6 Stadium Manager's Basic Obligation. Stadium Manager agrees to engage and does hereby engage Contractor as an independent contractor to furnish all materials and to perform all Work according to the terms and conditions herein contained for the sum set forth above. Except as otherwise provided in the Contract, the Stadium Manager shall pay to Contractor, as full consideration for the satisfactory performance by Contractor of the services and obligations required by this Contract, the below-referenced compensation in accordance with compensation provisions set forth in the Contract.

3.7 Compensation and Payment.

3.7.1 Amount of Compensation. As consideration for performance of the Work required herein, Contractor shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Work rendered under this Contract at the rates set forth in Exhibit "G" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The maximum compensation for Work to be provided pursuant to each Task Order shall be set forth in the relevant Task Order. The total compensation to be provided under this Contract by Stadium Manager to Contractor, in the aggregate, shall not exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) ("Total Contract Price") per contract year without the written approval of the Stadium Manager. The term for subsequent fiscal years shall be conditioned upon approval of the Stadium Authority budget for the applicable fiscal year that includes the amounts under this Contract.

3.7.2 Payment of Compensation. Contractor shall submit to Stadium Manager a monthly itemized statement which indicates Work completed by Contractor in a format acceptable to the Stadium Manager. The statement shall describe the amount of Work and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. These statements shall be supported by evidence which is required by this Contract and such other documentation as the Stadium Manager may require. The Contractor shall certify that the Work for which payment is requested has been done and that the materials listed are stored where indicated.

3.7.3 Prompt Payment. Stadium Manager shall review and pay all progress payment requests in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 20104.50 of the California Public Contract Code. However, no progress payments will be made for Work not completed in accordance with this Contract. Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations relating to the proper payment of its employees, subcontractors, suppliers or others.

3.7.4 Deductions and Withholdings. The Stadium Manager may deduct from each progress payment an amount necessary to protect Stadium Manager from loss because of: (1) liquidated damages which have accrued as of the date of the application for payment; (2) any sums expended by the Stadium Manager in performing any of Contractor's obligations under the Contract which Contractor has failed to perform or has performed inadequately; (3) defective Page4 of40
Contract Number: 10051-8
Work not remedied; (4) stop notices as allowed by state law; (5) reasonable doubt that the Work can be completed for the unpaid balance of the Total Contract Price or within the scheduled completion date; (6) unsatisfactory prosecution of the Work by Contractor; (7) unauthorized deviations from the Contract; (8) failure of Contractor to maintain or submit on a timely basis proper and sufficient documentation as required by the Contract or by Stadium Manager during the prosecution of the Work; (9) erroneous or false estimates by Contractor of the value of the Work performed; (10) any sums representing expenses, losses, or damages as determined by the Stadium Manager, incurred by the Stadium Manager for which Contractor is liable under the Contract; and (11) any other sums which the Stadium Manager is entitled to recover from Contractor under the terms of the Contract or pursuant to state law, including Section 1727 of the California Labor Code. The failure by the Stadium Manager to deduct any of these sums from a progress payment shall not constitute a waiver of the Stadium Manager's right to such sums.

3.7.5 Substitutions for Contract Deductions and Withholdings. In accordance with California Public Contract Code Section 22300, the Stadium Manager will permit the substitution of securities for any monies withheld by the Stadium Manager to ensure performance under the Contract. At the request and expense of Contractor, securities equivalent to the amount withheld shall be deposited with the Stadium Manager, or with a state or federally chartered bank in California as the escrow agent, and thereafter the Stadium Manager shall then pay such monies to Contractor as they come due. Upon satisfactory completion of the Contract, the securities shall be returned to Contractor. For purposes of this Section and Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code, the term "satisfactory completion of the contract" shall mean the time the Stadium Manager has issued written final acceptance of the Work and filed a Notice of Completion as required by law and provisions of this Contract. Contractor shall be the beneficial owner of any securities substituted for monies withheld and shall receive any interest thereon. The escrow agreement used for the purposes of this Section shall be in the form provided by the Stadium Manager.

3.7.6 Title to Work. As security for partial, progress, or other payments, title to Work for which such payments are made shall pass to the Stadium Manager, or its designee, at the time of payment. To the extent that title has not previously been vested in the Stadium Manager, or its designee, by reason of payments, full title shall pass to the Stadium Manager, or its designee, at delivery of the Work at the destination and time specified in this Contract. Such transferred title shall in each case be good, free and clear from any and all security interests, liens, or other encumbrances. Contractor promises and agrees that it will not pledge, hypothecate, or otherwise encumber the items in any manner that would result in any lien, security interest, charge, or claim upon or against said items. Such transfer of title shall not imply acceptance by the Stadium Manager or its designee, nor relieve Contractor from the responsibility to strictly comply with the Contract, and shall not relieve Contractor of responsibility for any loss of or damage to items.
3;7.7 Labor and Material Releases. Contractor shall furnish Stadium Manager with labor and material releases from all subcontractors performing work on, or furnishing materials for, the Work governed by this Contract prior to final payment by Stadium Manager.

3.7.8 Prevailing Wages. Contractor is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on "public works" and "maintenance" projects. Since the Work is being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and since the total compensation

Contract Number: 10051-B
is $1,000 or more, Contractor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Stadium Manager shall provide Contractor with a copy of the prevailing rates of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Contract. Contractor shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Work available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at Contractor's principal place of business and at the project site. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Indemnified Parties (defined below) free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. Contractor and any subcontractor shall forfeit a penalty of up to $200 per calendar day or portion thereof for each worker paid less than the prevailing wage rates.

3.7.9 Apprenticeable Crafts. When Contractor employs workmen in an apprenticeable craft or trade, Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Section 1777.5 of the California Labor Code with respect to the employment of properly registered apprentices upon public works. The primary responsibility for compliance with said Section for all apprenticeable occupations shall be with Contractor. The Contractor or any subcontractor that is determined by the Labor Commissioner to have knowingly violated Section 1777.5 shall forfeit as a civil penalty an amount not exceeding $100 for each full calendar day of noncompliance, or such greater amount as provided by law.

3.7.1 0 Hours of Work. Contractor is advised that eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day's work. Pursuant to Section 1813 of the California Labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit a penalty of $25.00 per worker for each day that each worker is permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half (1-1/2) times the basic rate for that worker.

3.7.11 Payroll Records. Contractor and each subcontractor shall keep an accurate payroll record, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by him or her in connection with the public work. The payroll records shall be certified and shall be available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of Contractor in the manner provided in Labor Code Section 1776. In the event of noncompliance with the requirements of this Section, Contractor shall have 1 0 days in which to comply subsequent to receipt of written notice specifying in what respects such Contractor must comply with this Section. Should noncompliance still be evident after such 10-day period, Contractor shall, as a penalty, forfeit not more than $100.00 for each calendar day or portion thereof, for each worker, until strict compliance is effectuated. The amount of the forfeiture is to be determined by the Labor Commissioner. A contractor who is found to have violated the provisions of law regarding wages on Public Works with the intent to defraud shall be ineligible to bid on Public Works contracts for a period of one to three years as determined by the Labor Commissioner. Upon the request of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, such penalties shall be withheld from progress payments then due. The responsibility for compliance with this Section is on Contractor. The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code Section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4.

3.7.12 Contractor and Subcontractor Registration. Pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, all contractors and subcontractors that wish to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, or enter into a contract to perform public work must be registered with the

Contract Number: 10051-B
Department of Industrial Relations. No bid will be accepted nor any contract entered into without proof of the contractor's and subcontractors' current registration with the Department of Industrial Relations to perform public work. Contractor is directed to review, fill out and execute the Public Works Contractor Registration Certification attached hereto as Exhibit "E" prior to contract execution. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771 .1.

3. 7 .13 Labor Compliance: Stop Orders. This Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be the Contractor's sole responsibility to evaluate and pay the cost of complying with all labor compliance requirements under this Contract and applicable law. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Contractor or any subcontractor that affect Contractor's performance of Work, including any delay, shall be Contractor's sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Contractor caused delay subject to any applicable liquidated damages and shall not be compensable by the Stadium Manager. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Indemnified Parties (defined below) free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Contractor or any subcontractor.

3.8 Performance of Work: Jobsite Obligations.

3.8.1 Water Quality Management and Compliance, if Applicable.

3.8.1.1 Water Quality Management and Compliance. Contractor shall keep itself and all subcontractors, staff, and employees fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations that may impact, or be implicated by the performance of the Work including, without limitation, all applicable provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1300); the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal Water Code§§ 13000-14950); local ordinances regulating discharges of storm water; and any and all regulations, policies, or permits issued pursuant to any such authority regulating the discharge of pollutants, as that term is used in the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, to any ground or surface water in the State.

3.8.1.2 Compliance with the Statewide Construction General Permit. Contractor shall comply with all conditions of the most recent iteration of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board ("Permit"). It shall be Contractor's sole responsibility to file a Notice of Intent and procure coverage under the Permit for all construction activity which results in the disturbance of more than one acre of total land area or which is part of a larger common area of development or sale. Prior to initiating work, Contractor shall be solely responsible for preparing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the Permit. Contractor shall be responsible for procuring, implementing and complying with the provisions of the Permit and the SWPPP, including the standard provisions, and monitoring and reporting requirements as required by the Permit. The Permit requires the SWPPP to be a "living document" that changes as necessary to meet the conditions and requirements of the job site as it progresses through difference phases of construction and is subject to different weather conditions. It shall be Contractor's sole responsibility to update the SWPPP as necessary to address conditions at the project site.

Contract Number: 10051-B

3.8.1 .3 Other Water Quality Rules Regulations and Policies.

Contractor shall comply with the lawful requirements of any applicable municipality, drainage Stadium Manager, or local agency regarding discharges of storm water to separate storm drain systems or other watercourses under their jurisdiction, including applicable requirements in municipal storm water management programs.

3.8.1.4 Cost of Compliance. Storm, surface, nuisance, or other waters may be encountered at various times during repair of the Work. Therefore, the Contractor, by submitting a Bid, hereby acknowledges that it has investigated the risk arising from such waters, has prepared its Bid accordingly, and assumes any and all risks and liabilities arising therefrom.

3.8.1.5 Liability for Non-Compliance. Failure to comply with the Permit is a violation of federal and state law. Pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Contract, Contractor hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties (defined below) for any alleged violations. In addition, Stadium Manager may seek damages from Contractor for any delay in completing the Work in accordance with the Contract, if such delay is caused by or related to Contractor's failure to comply with the Permit.

3.8.1.6 Reservation of Right to Defend. Stadium Manager reserves the right to defend any enforcement action brought against the Stadium Manager for Contractor's failure to comply with the Permit or any other relevant water quality law, regulation, or policy.

Pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Contract, Contractor hereby agrees to be bound by, and to reimburse the Stadium Manager for the costs (including the Stadium Manager's attorney's fees) associated with, any settlement reached between the Stadium Manager and the relevant enforcement entity.

3.8.1.7 Training. In addition to the standard of performance requirements set forth in paragraph 3.4, Contractor warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Work assigned to them without impacting water quality in violation of the laws, regulations and policies described in paragraph 3.8.1. Contractor further warrants that it, its employees and subcontractors will receive adequate training, as determined by Stadium Manager, regarding the requirements of the laws, regulations and policies described in paragraph 3.8.1 as they may relate to the Work provided under this Contract. Upon request, Stadium Manager will provide the Contractor with a list of training programs that meet the requirements of this paragraph.

3.8.2 Safety. Contractor shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. Contractor shall comply with the requirements of the specifications relating to safety measures applicable in particular operations or kinds of work. In carrying out its Work, Contractor shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the Work and the conditions under which the Work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to, adequate life protection and lifesaving equipment; adequate illumination for underground and night operations; instructions in accident prevention for all employees, such as machinery guards, safe walkways, scaffolds, ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, fall protection and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. Furthermore, Contractor shall prominently display the names and telephone numbers of at least two medical doctors practicing

Contract Number: 10051-8
in the vicinity of the Project, as well as the telephone number of the local ambulance service, adjacent to all telephones at the Project site.

3.8.3 Laws and Regulations. Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Contract or the Work, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Contractor shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Work. If Contractor observes that the drawings or specifications are at variance with any law, rule or regulation, it shall promptly notify the Stadium Manager in writing. Any necessary changes shall be made by written change order. If Contractor performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the Stadium Manager, Contractor shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom.

Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold Indemnified Parties (defined below) free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Contract, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.

3.8.4 Permits and Licenses. Contractor shall be responsible for securing Stadium Manager permits and licenses necessary to perform the Work described herein, including, but not limited to, any required business license. Any ineligible contractor or subcontractor pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1777.1 and 1777.7 may not perform work on this Project.

3.8.5 Trenching Work. If the Total Contract Price exceeds $25,000 and if the Work governed by this Contract entails excavation of any trench or trenches five (5) feet or more in depth, Contractor shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Labor Code, including Section 6705. To this end, Contractor shall submit for Stadium Manager's review and approval a detailed plan showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection from the hazard of caving ground during the excavation of such trench or trenches. If such plan varies from the shoring system standards, the plan shall be prepared by a registered civil or structural engineer.

3.8.6 Hazardous Materials and Differing Conditions. As required by California Public Contract Code Section 7104, if this Contract involves digging trenches or other excavations that extend deeper than four (4) feet below the surface, Contractor shall promptly, and prior to disturbance of any conditions, notify Stadium Manager of: (1) any material discovered in excavation that Contractor believes to be a hazardous waste that is required to be removed to a Class I, Class II or Class Ill disposal site; (2) subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated by Stadium Manager; and (3) unknown physical conditions of an unusual nature at the site, significantly different from those ordinarily encountered in such contract work. Upon notification, Stadium Manager shall promptly investigate the conditions to determine whether a change order is appropriate. In the event of a dispute, Contractor shall not be excused from any scheduled completion date and shall proceed with all Work to be performed under the Contract, but shall retain all rights provided by the Contract or by law for making protests and resolving the dispute.

3.8.7 Underground Utility Facilities. To the extent required by Section 4215 of the California Government Code, Stadium Manager shall compensate Contractor for the costs of:
(1) locating and repairing damage to underground utility facilities not caused by the failure of Contractor to exercise reasonable care; (2) removing or relocating underground utility facilities not indicated in the drawings; and (3) equipment necessarily idled during such work. Contractor

Contract Number: 10051-B
shall not be assessed liquidated damages for delay caused by failure of Stadium Manager to provide for removal or relocation of such utility facilities.

3.8.8 Air Quality. Contractor must fully comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations in furnishing or using equipment and/or providing services, including, but not limited to, emissions limits and permitting requirements imposed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Although CARB limits and requirements are broader, Contractor shall specifically be aware of their application to "portable equipment", which definition is considered by CARB to include any item of equipment with a fuel-powered engine. Contractor shall indemnify the Indemnified Parties (defined below) against any fines or penalties imposed by CARB, or any other governmental or regulatory agency for violations of applicable laws, rules and/or regulations by Contractor, its subcontractors, or others for whom Contractor is responsible under its indemnity obligations provided for in this Contract.

3.8.9 State Recycling Mandates. Contractor shall comply with State Recycling Mandates. Any recyclable materials/debris collected by the contractor that can be feasibly diverted via reuse or recycling must be hauled by the appropriate handler for reuse or recycling.

3.9 Completion of Work. When Contractor determines that it has completed the Work required herein, Contractor shall so notify Stadium Manager in writing and shall furnish all labor and material releases required by this Contract. Stadium Manager shall. thereupon inspect the Work. If the Work is not acceptable to the Stadium Manager, the Stadium Manager shall indicate to Contractor in writing the specific portions or items of Work which are unsatisfactory or incomplete. Once Contractor determines that it has completed the incomplete or unsatisfactory Work, Contractor may request a reinspection by the Stadium Manager. Once the Work is acceptable to Stadium Manager, Stadium Manager shall pay to Contractor the Total Contract Price remaining to be paid, less any amount which Stadium Manager may be authorized or directed by law to retain. Payment of retention proceeds due to Contractor shall be made in accordance with Section 7107 of the California Public Contract Code.

3.10 Claims; Government Code Claim Compliance.

3.10.1 Arbitration.,__AII disputes between Contractor and Stadium Manager relating in any way to this Agreement or Services performed under this Agreement (including, but not limited to, claims for breach of contract, tort, discrimination, harassment and any violation of federal or state law, regulation or constitution) ("Arbitrable Claims") shall be resolved by binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, in conformity with the procedures of the California Arbitration Act (Cal. Code Civ. Proc.§ 1280 et seq., including§ 1283.05 and all of the Act's other mandatory and permissive rights to discovery). In addition to any other requirements imposed by law, the arbitrator selected shall be a retired California Superior Court Judge, or otherwise qualified individual to whom the parties mutually agree, and shall be subject to disqualification on the same grounds as would apply to a judge of such court. All rules of pleading (including the right of demurrer), all rules of discovery, all rules of evidence, all rights to resolution of the dispute by means of motions for summary judgment, judgment on the pleadings and all other dispositive motions, and judgment under Code of Civil Procedure § 631.8 shall apply and be observed.

Resolution of the dispute shall be based solely upon the law governing the claims and defenses pleaded, and the arbitrator may not invoke any basis other than such controlling law. The arbitrator shall have the immunity of a judicial officer from civil liability when acting in the capacity of an arbitrator, which immunity supplements any other existing immunity. Likewise, all communications during or in connection with the arbitration proceedings are privileged in accordance with Cal. Civil Code § 47(b). As reasonably required to allow full use and benefit of

Contract Number: 10051-B
this agreement's modifications to the Act's procedures, the arbitrator shall extend the times set by the Act for the giving of notices and setting of hearings. Awards shall include the arbitrator's written reasoned opinion. The Parties understand and agree to this binding arbitration provision, and both Contractor and Stadium Manager give up their right to trial by jury of any claim they may have against each other.

3.11 Loss and Damage. Except as may otherwise be limited by law, Contractor shall be responsible for all loss and damage which may arise out of the nature of the Work agreed to herein, or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the Work until the same is fully completed and accepted by Stadium Manager. In the event of damage proximately caused by an Act of God, as defined by Section 7105 of the Public Contract Code, the Stadium Manager may terminate this Contract pursuant to Section 3.17.3; provided, however, that the Stadium Manager needs to provide Contractor with only one (1) day advanced written notice.

3.12 Indemnification.

3.12.1 Scope of Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Stadium Manager, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, the City of Santa Clara, their affiliates, and each of their respective officers, directors, managers, members, partners, owners, employees, agents and authorized volunteers, each tenant and event promoter of Levi's Stadium, and any mortgagee, bond trustee or other financial institution from time to time holding a line or indenture upon an interest in Levi's Stadium, and each of them (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties"), free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, suits, actions, proceedings, costs, expenses, liability, judgments, awards, decrees, settlements, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, (collectively, "Claims") in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any alleged acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Contractor, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Contractor's services, the Project, this Contract or any Task Order, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, expert witness fees and attorneys' fees and other related costs and expenses. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782, Contractor's indemnity obligation shall not apply to liability for damages for death or bodily injury to persons, injury to property, or any other loss, damage or expense arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties or the Indemnified Parties' agents, servants, or independent contractors who are directly responsible to the Indemnified Parties, or for defects in design furnished by those persons.

3.12.2 Additional Indemnity Obligations. Any defense to be provided by Contractor pursuant to any indemnification provision of this Agreement shall be by counsel approved by Stadium Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. To the extent any of the lndemnitees incurs costs or expenses to enforce this indemnification (including attorneys' fees and expenses), Contractor shall reimburse the lndemnitee for such costs and expenses.

3.13 Insurance.

3.13.1 Time for Compliance. Contractor shall not commence Work under this Contract until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Stadium Manager that it has secured all insurance required under this Section. In addition, Contractor shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Stadium

Contract Number: 10051-8
Manager that the subcontractor has secured all insurance required under this Section. Failure to provide and maintain all required insurance shall be grounds for the Stadium Manager to terminate this Contract for cause.

3.13.2 Minimum Requirements. Contractor shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work hereunder by Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Contractor shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Contract. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage:

3.13.2.1 Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 00 01); (2) Automobile Liability:

Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 00 01, code 1 (any auto); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. Policies shall not contain exclusions contrary to this Contract.

3.13.2.2 Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence and $4,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage; (2) Automobile Liability: $2,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California.

Employer's Liability limits of $1,000,000 each accident, policy limit bodily injury or disease, and each employee bodily injury or disease. Defense costs shall be available in addition to the limits.

Notwithstanding the minimum limits specified herein, any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as additional insureds pursuant to this Contract.

3.13.3 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Contractor shall provide endorsements (amendments) on forms supplied or approved by the Stadium Manager to add the following provisions to the insurance policies:

3.13.3.1 General Liability. (1) Such policy shall give the Stadium Manager, Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Forty Niners Stadium Company LLC and Forty Niners Football Company LLC and their respective officials, employees, agents and authorized volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsements CG20 10 07 04 plus CG20 37 07 04, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage, with respect to the Work or operations performed by or on behalf of Contractor, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; (2) all policies shall waive or shall permit Contractor to waive all rights of subrogation which may be obtained by the Contractor or any insurer by virtue of payment of any loss or any coverage provided to any person named as an additional insured pursuant to this Contract, and Contractor agrees to waive all such rights of subrogation; and (3) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Stadium Manager, its officials, employees, agents and authorized volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of Contractor's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Stadium Manager, its officials, employees, agents and authorized volunteers shall be excess of Contractor's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it.

Contract Number: 10051-B

3.13.3.2 Automobile Liability. (1) Such policy shall give the Stadium Manager, Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Forty Niners SC Stadium Company LLC and Forty Niners Football Company LLC and their respective officials, employees, agents and authorized volunteers additional insured status with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Contractor or for which Contractor is responsible; (2) all policies shall waive or shall permit Contractor to waive all rights of subrogation which may be obtained by the Contractor or any insurer by virtue of payment of any loss or any coverage provided to any person named as an additional insured pursuant to this Contract, and Contractor agrees to waive all such rights of subrogation; and (3) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Stadium Manager, its officials, employees, agents and authorized volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of Contractor's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Stadium Manager, its officials, employees, agents and authorized volunteers shall be excess of Contractor's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way.

3.13.3.3 Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Coverage.

The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Stadium Manager, Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Forty Niners SC Stadium Company LLC and Forty Niners Football Company LLC and their respective officials, employees, agents and authorized volunteers for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by Contractor.

3.13.3.4 All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Contract shall be endorsed to state that: (1) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, reduced or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Stadium Manager; and (2) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the Stadium Manager, Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Forty Niners SC Stadium Company LLC and Forty Niners Football Company LLC and their respective officials, employees, agents and authorized volunteers.

3.13.3.5 Contractor's Equipment Insurance. Contractors Equipment Insurance applying to loss or damage on an "all risk" basis to any equipment, small tools, or other machinery whether owned, leased, rented, borrowed or otherwise in the care, custody and control of the Contractor for use in the performance of Work. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Stadium Manager, its officials, employees, agents and authorized volunteers for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy.

3.13.4 Separation of Insureds: No Special Limitations. All insurance required by this Section shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions. In addition, such insurance shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the Stadium Manager, its officials, employees, agents and authorized volunteers.

3.13.5 Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or selfinsured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Stadium Manager. Contractor shall guarantee that, at the option of the Stadium Manager, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the Stadium Manager, its officials, employees, agents and authorized volunteers; or (2) the Contractor shall procure a bond or other financial guarantee acceptable to the Stadium Manager guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses.

Contract Number: 10051-B

3.13.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Stadium Manager. Exception may be made for the State Compensation Insurance Fund when not specifically rated.

3.13. 7 Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish Stadium Manager with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Contract on forms satisfactory to the Stadium Manager. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf, and shall be on forms supplied or approved by the Stadium Manager. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Stadium Manager before work commences. The Stadium Manager reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.

3.13.8 Subcontractors. All subcontractors shall meet the requirements of this Section before commencing Work. Contractor shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. Subcontractor policies of General Liability insurance shall name the Stadium Manager, its officials, employees, agents and authorized volunteers as additional insureds using form ISO 20 38 04 13 or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein except as otherwise agreed to by the Stadium Manager in writing.

3.13.9 Reporting of Claims. Contractor shall report to the Stadium Manager, in addition to Contractor's insurer, any and all insurance claims submitted by Contractor in connection with the Work under this Contract.

3.14 Bond Requirements.

3.14.1 Payment Bond. If required by law or otherwise specifically requested by Stadium Manager in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, Contractor shall execute and provide to Stadium Manager concurrently with this Contract a Payment Bond in an amount required by the Stadium Manager and in a form provided or approved by the Stadium Manager. If such bond is required, no payment will be made to Contractor until the bond has been received and approved by the Stadium Manager.

3.14.2 Performance Bond. If specifically requested by Stadium Manager in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, Contractor shall execute and provide to Stadium Manager concurrently with this Contract a Performance Bond in an amount required by the Stadium Manager and in a form provided or approved by the Stadium Manager. If such bond is required, no payment will be made to Contractor until the bond has been received and approved by the Stadium Manager.

3.14.3 Bond Provisions. Should, in Stadium Manager's sole opinion, any bond become insufficient or any surety be found to be unsatisfactory, Contractor shall renew or replace the effected bond within (ten) 1 O days of receiving notice from Stadium Manager. In the event the surety or Contractor intends to reduce or cancel any required bond, at least thirty (30) days prior written notice shall be given to the Stadium Manager, and Contractor shall post acceptable replacement bonds at least ten ( 10) days prior to expiration of the original bonds. No further payments shall be deemed due or will be made under this Contract until any replacement bonds required by this Section are accepted by the Stadium Manager. To the extent, if any, that the Total Contract Price is increased in accordance with the Contract, Contractor shall, upon request

Contract Number: 10051-B
of the Stadium Manager, cause the amount of the bond to be increased accordingly and shall promptly deliver satisfactory evidence of such increase to the Stadium Manager. If Contractor fails to furnish any required bond, the Stadium Manager may terminate the Contract for cause.

3.14.4 Surety Qualifications. Only bonds executed by an admitted surety insurer, as defined in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 995.120, shall be accepted. If a California-admitted surety insurer issuing bonds does not meet these requirements, the insurer will be considered qualified if it is in conformance with Section 995.660 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and proof of such is provided to the Stadium Manager.

3.15 Warranty. Contractor warrants all Work under the Contract (which for purposes of this Section shall be deemed to include unauthorized work which has not been removed and any non-conforming materials incorporated into the Work) to be of good quality and free from any defective or faulty material and workmanship. Contractor agrees that for a period of one year (or the period of time specified elsewhere in the Contract or in any guarantee or warranty provided by any manufacturer or supplier of equipment or materials incorporated into the Work, whichever is later) after the date of final acceptance, Contractor shall within ten (10) days after being notified in writing by the Stadium Manager of any defect in the Work or non-conformance of the Work to the Contract, commence and prosecute with due diligence all Work necessary to fulfill the terms of the warranty at its sole cost and expense. Contractor shall act sooner as requested by the Stadium Manager in response to an emergency. In addition, Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, repair and replace any portions of the Work (or work of other contractors) damaged by its defective Work or which becomes damaged in the course of repairing or replacing defective Work. For any Work so corrected, Contractor's obligation hereunder to correct defective Work shall be reinstated for an additional one-year period, commencing with the date of acceptance of such corrected Work. Contractor shall perform such tests as the Stadium Manager may require to verify that any corrective actions, including, without limitation, redesign, repairs, and replacements comply with the requirements of the Contract. All costs associated with such corrective actions and testing, including the removal, replacement, and reinstitution of equipment and materials necessary to gain access, shall be the sole responsibility of Contractor. All warranties and guarantees of subcontractors, suppliers and manufacturers with respect to any portion of the Work, whether express or implied, are deemed to be obtained by Contractor for the benefit of the Stadium Manager, regardless of whether or not such warranties and guarantees have been transferred or assigned to the Stadium Manager by separate agreement and Contractor agrees to enforce such warranties and guarantees, if necessary, on behalf of the Stadium Manager. In the event that Contractor fails to perform its obligations under this Section, or under any other warranty or guaranty under this Contract, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Stadium Manager, the Stadium Manager shall have the right to correct and replace any defective or non-conforming Work and any work damaged by such work or the replacement or correction thereof at Contractor's sole expense. Contractor shall be obligated to fully reimburse the Stadium Manager for any expenses incurred hereunder upon demand.

3.16 Employee/Labor Certifications.

3.16.1 Contractor's Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Contractor certifies that he is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work. A certification form for this purpose, which is attached to this Contract as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference, shall be executed simultaneously with this Contract.

Contract Number: 10051-8

3.16.2 Equal Opportunity Employment. Contractor represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

3.16.3 Verification of Employment Eligibility. By executing this Contract, Contractor verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time, and shall require all subcontractors and sub-subcontractors to comply with the same.

3.17 General Provisions.

3.17.1 Stadium Manager's Representative. The Stadium Manager hereby designates the General Manager, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Contract ("Stadium Manager's Representative"). Stadium Manager's Representative shall have the power to act on behalf of the Stadium Manager for all purposes under this Contract. Contractor shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the Stadium Manager's Representative or his or her designee.

3.17.2 Contractor's Representative. Before starting the Work, Contractor shall submit in writing the name, qualifications and experience of its proposed representative who shall be subject to the review and approval of the Stadium Manager ('"Contractor's Representative").

Following approval by the Stadium Manager, Contractor's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of Contractor for all purposes under this Contract. Contractor's Representative shall supervise and direct the Work, using his best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Work under this Contract and as described in the relevant Task Order. Contractor's Representative shall devote full time to the Project and either he or his designee, who shall be acceptable to the Stadium Manager, shall be present at the Work site at all times that any Work is in progress and at any time that any employee or subcontractor of Contractor is present at the Work site. Arrangements for responsible supervision, acceptable to the Stadium Manager, shall be made for emergency Work which may be required. Should Contractor desire to change its Contractor's Representative, Contractor shall provide the information specified above and obtain the Stadium Manager's written approval.

3.17.3 Termination. This Contract may be terminated by Stadium Manager at any time, either with our without cause, by giving Contractor three (3) days advance written notice. In the event of termination by Stadium Manager for any reason other than the fault of Contractor, Stadium Manager shall pay Contractor for all Work performed up to that time as provided herein.

In the event of breach of the Contract by Contractor, Stadium Manager may terminate the Contract immediately without notice, may reduce payment to Contractor in the amount necessary to offset Stadium Manager's resulting damages, and may pursue any other available recourse against Contractor. Contractor may not terminate this Contract except for cause. In the event this Contract is terminated in whole or in part as provided, Stadium Manager may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated.

Further, if this Contract is terminated as provided, Stadium Manager may require Contractor to provide all finished or unfinished documents, data, diagrams, drawings, materials or other matter prepared or built by Contractor in connection with its performance of this Contract.

Contract Number: 10051-8

3.17.4 Contract Interpretation. Should any question arise regarding the meaning or import of any of the provisions of this Contract or written or oral instructions from Stadium Manager, the matter shall be referred to Stadium Manager's Representative, whose decision shall be binding upon Contractor.

3.17 .6 Notices. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Contract or changes thereto shall be directed to the regularlymonitored electronic mail address, read receipt requested, of such party as follows:

CONTRACTOR:

Attn: Geoffrey Nocon
Cupertino Electric, Inc.

Email: [email protected]
STADIUM MANAGER:

General Manager
Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC
[email protected]
With copy to:

Legal Affairs
Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC
[email protected]
Any such notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given on the day such notice or communication is sent electronically, provided the sender has received a confirmation of such electronic transmission. A Party may, for purposes of this Agreement, change its email address or the person to whom a notice or other communication is marked to the attention of, by giving notice of such change to the other Party pursuant to this Section 3.17.6.

3.17. 7 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Contract.

3.17.8 Assignment Forbidden. Contractor shall not, either voluntarily or by action of law, assign or transfer this Contract or any obligation, right, title or interest assumed by Contractor herein without the prior written consent of Stadium Manager. If Contractor attempts an assignment or transfer of this Contract or any obligation, right, title or interest herein, Stadium Manager may, at its option, terminate and revoke the Contract and shall thereupon be relieved from any and all obligations to Contractor or its assignee or transferee.

3.17 .9 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third-party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.

3.17.10 Laws, Venue, and Attorneys' Fees. This Contract shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Contract, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California.

Contract Number: 10051-B

3.17.11 Counterparts. This Contract may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original.

3.17.12 Successors. The Parties do for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns agree to the full performance of all of the provisions contained in this Contract.

3.17.13 [Reserved]

3.17.14 Solicitation. Contractor maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, to solicit or secure this Contract. Further, Contractor warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, Stadium Manager shall have the right to terminate this Contract without liability.

3.17.15 Conflict of Interest. Contractor maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, to solicit or secure this Contract. Further, Contractor warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, Stadium Manager shall have the right to rescind this Contract without liability. For the term of this Contract, no official, officer or employee of Stadium Manager, during the term of his or her service with Stadium Manager, shall have any direct interest in this Contract, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. In addition, Contractor agrees to file, or to cause its employees or subcontractors to file, a Statement of Economic Interest with the Stadium Manager's Filing Officer as required under state law in the performance of the Work.

3.17.16 Certification of License.

3.17.16.1 Contractor certifies that as of the date of execution of this Contract, Contractor has a current contractor's license of the classification indicated below under Contractor's signature.

3.17.16.2 Contractors are required by law to be licensed and regulated by the Contractors' State License Board which has jurisdiction to investigate complaints against contractors if a complaint regarding a patent act or omission is filed within four (4) years of the date of the alleged violation. A complaint regarding a latent act or omission pertaining to structural defects must be filed within ten (10) years of the date of the alleged violation. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referred to the Registrar, Contractors' State License Board, P.O.

Box 26000, Sacramento, California 95826.

3.17 .17 Authority to Enter Contract. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Contract have the legal power, right and authority to make this Contract and bind each respective Party.

3.17.18 Entire Contract; Modification. This Contract contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior

Contract Number: 10051-B
negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Contract may only be modified by a writing signed by both Parties.

3.17.19 Non-Waiver. None of the provisions of this Contract shall be considered waived by either party, unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.

3.17 .20 Stadium Manager's Right to Employ Other Contractors. Stadium Manager reserves right to employ other contractors in connection with this Project or other projects.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]

Contract Number: 10051-B

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR ON-CALL REPAIR CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE FORTY NINERS STADIUM MANAGEMENT COMP ANY LLC AND CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Contract as of the First day of May, 2021 .

FORTY NINERS STADIUM

MANAGEMENTCOMPANYLLC
B~• ~
· JimMercurio
l Executive Vice President &
General Manager
ATTEST:

CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.

Project Executive
Printed Name: Jim Medefesser
eputy General Counsel

A. SCOPE OF WORK
EXHIBIT "A"

SCOPE OF WORK
Troubleshoot, repair, remove and install electrical equipment and components, typically found in a large sports stadium, rated at less than 60KV. This work will be performed via issuance of a Task Order (defined elsewhere in this solicitation). The work assigned to Contractor will be designated with one of the following "priority levels" which will indicate the urgency of the work and the Contractor's response time:

Priority Level Type Response Time
1 - High Emergency - Hazardous, Respond within 1 hour and property damage, and/or commence work as soon as
event required support possible.
2- Medium Systems Malfunction - Respond within 2 hours and Interruption of daily commence work with 24 hours.
operation
3-Low Minor Repair Respond within 24 hours and
commence work within 72
hours, or as determined
necessary by the Stadium
Manager.

The Contractor shall provide trained technicians with the appropriate tools and testing equipment for scheduled maintenance, safety inspection, and safety testing as required.

The Contractor shall maintain all necessary licenses to perform the work specified herein.

The Contractor will be responsible for supplying all necessary equipment (including aerial lifts), tools, consumables, material, labor, and supplies required to perform the work described herein.

Pursuant to this contract, the Contractor will be tasked, by the Stadium Manager, with performing troubleshooting, repairing, and performing maintenance of various electrical systems at the Stadium, including but not limited to the following:

1. Electrical power work, and communications cabling, including, but not limited, to the following:
a. Power connections for electric-powered equipment;
b. Circuit breaker replacement;
c. Disconnect replacement;
d. Fuse replacement;

e. Conduit repair and installation, including PVC coated rigid conduit and fittings, PVC, flexible conduit, etc.;
f. Wire and electrical cable repair and installation, including copper, aluminum, all insulation and wire types;
g. Transformer removal and replacement;
h. Sub-panel removal and replacement;
i. Electrical devices, including receptacles, switches, etc. Repair, removal or replacement;
j. Motor, starters, controllers, and variable frequency drives. Repair, removal or replacement;
k. Automatic transfer switches;
I. UPS systems and clean power systems, low/medium voltage distribution systems, electrical grounding systems. Trouble shoot and repair; replace batteries as necessary;
m. Troubleshoot and repairs to back-up power systems;
n. Install or repair electric vehicle charging equipment; o. Repairs to computer power floor cables and connections, under carpet raceways, connections to electrified furniture partitions, electrical devices and trim;
p. Work in electric duct banks; and
q. Fiber optic cable repair, replacement, installation.

2. Lighting and physical security work, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Indoor and outdoor lighting repairs and installations, including exterior pole mounted fixtures, and sports field lighting; b. Lamp removal and replacement, including HID, fluorescent, incandescent, etc.; c. Ballast removal and replacement, including HID, fluorescent, etc.; d. New lighting fixture installation, all types;
e. Lighting control work. Contractors must have experience with a variety of lighting control systems, including Lutron and Crestron control systems;
f. Provision of temporary lighting, as necessary; and
g. Conduit and related work for parking lighting, rolling gates, and other related electrical equipment.

3. Testing & Maintenance:
a. Arc Flash assessment;
b. Infrared inspection;
c. Coordination study;
d. Switch gear testing;
e. Emergency generator testing;
f. Power monitoring;
g. Motor control center cleaning; and
h. Ground fault testing.

B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1. All work performed shall meet the latest revision of all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, laws, and codes.

2. All work schedules must be approved in writing by the Stadium Manager prior to

commencement of work.

3. Unless otherwise specified, Contractor shall guarantee the labor and materials used are within the specified guidelines and recommendations of the manufacturer.

4. Materials furnished shall be new and shall be of commercial quality material. Used, reconditioned, or discontinued models and materials are not acceptable. The warranty period for contractor provided materials shall be for a period of 1 year, or within the manufacture warranty, whichever is longer. Such warranty shall commence upon the date of acceptance of Contractor's work by the Stadium Manager.

5. The Stadium Manager reserves the right to supply all or part of the materials or equipment on any project/repair.

6. Contractor shall be responsible for the replacement of failed/defective equipment, and parts installed by Contractor that are under warranty. Such cost, if any, shall be incurred by Contractor. Contractor shall assume all liability for such defects.

7. Follow up work required to correct recent repair/improper repair, or substandard parts shall be at no charge to the Stadium Manager.

8. Contractor shall coordinate site access and Hot Work with Forty Niners Stadium Management Company Engineering Department prior to commencement of work.

9. Contractor shall complete a service tag/log after completion of work. Such tag or log must contain the following information:
a. Date of Service
b. Name of Technician(s)
c. Description of Service(s)

10. Contractor shall notify Stadium Manager when a recall is issued for any equipment or component serviced, installed, or repaired by Contractor. Notification by Contractor shall include the reasons for the recall, procedures for replacement, and the disposition of the recalled equipment.

11. Contractor is responsible for compliance with all building code requirements.

Independent of, or in addition, to any other legal requirements, the Stadium Manager may inspect and test Contractor's work to determine if it conforms to the California Building Standards Code and local regulations, if applicable. The Stadium Manager will not accept Contractor's work unless it meets all applicable building code requirements.

12. The use of the safety equipment includes but is not limited to hard hats, eye protection, safety vests, hearing protection, fall protection, and safety boots as required by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

13. Contractor is required to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) to perform the work and follow the Public Health Orders issued by the Santa Clara County Health Department related to Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). The Public Health Order

updates can be accessed online at
https://www. sccq ov. orq/sites/covid 19/Paqes/publi c-h ea Ith-orders. aspx

14. Contractor shall maintain all necessary licenses to perform the work specified herein.

15. Contactor shall be in compliance with applicable prevailing wage laws and the California Labor Code.

16. Contractor shall provide protection for all existing building components beneath and around the work. Any damage to existing building components caused by contractor shall be immediately repaired or replaced at contractor's sole expense in a manner acceptable to and approved by Stadium Manager.

17. In all active work areas, contractor shall provide, install and maintain all necessary barricades and warnings to prohibit pedestrian access into any affected work area.

This not only includes areas surrounding the work, but also includes areas below the work. Levi's Stadium is an active building containing employees, guests, and other contractors on a daily basis. Contractor shall be responsible for keeping others out of its active work areas and preventing the exposure of others to grinding, sanding, scraping, paint drips, overspray or any other material generated within the work area, both around and below.

18. Contractor will have a designated representative to oversee Contractor's technicians assigned to perform the work specified herein. Contractor representative shall be responsible for providing all required documents, including, but not limited to, reports, invoices, as-built drawings and all other project contract documents to the Stadium Manager.

19. Contractor shall assign a primary/secondary technician(s) as the main contact for the Stadium Manager during the term of the contract. If different representatives are designated during the term of the Contract, notice of any changes (including, but not limited to, name, address, e-mail, and telephone number) shall be promptly served in writing.

20. Contractor must obtain written authorization prior to commencement of work. The Stadium Manager will provide Contractor written approval by issuing a Notice to Proceed.

21. The Contractor shall perform the following to ensure a clean, safe work site:
a. At end of each workday, remove rubbish, empty cans, rags, and other discarded materials from project site. Secure, locate and position all unused materials and equipment, including man lifts, to the satisfaction of Stadium Manager.
b. After completing coating application, clean spattered surfaces. Remove spattered coatings by washing, scraping, or other methods. Do not scratch or damage adjacent finished or unfinished surfaces. Do not allow coatings to drip, spatter onto or otherwise stain adjacent ~urfaces.

c. Protect work of other trades against damage from coating operation. Correct damage by cleaning, repairing, replacing, and recoating, as approved by Stadium Manager, and leave in an undamaged condition.
d. Protect all adjacent surfaces as required by field conditions.

C. REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
All material and work shall be in accordance with the rules and requirements of the United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA"); National Electrical Code ("NEC"); National Fire Codes published by the National Fire Protection Association ("NFPA"); California Administrative Codes ("CAC"); Uniform Building Code ("UBC"); Uniform Plumbing Code ("UPC"); and other applicable federal, state, and local laws and/or regulations. These specifications shall not be construed to permit work not conforming to these requirements. The regulations shall govern where they require higher standards or conflict with the specifications. Published rulings and interpretations of the enforcing agencies shall be considered a part of these specifications. All regulations and standards shall be the latest publication unless governing authorities require otherwise. In addition, all of Contractor's work shall be in accordance with the best practices available in the industry, and shall present a neat, workmanlike appearance upon completion.

EXHIBIT "B"

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Plans and Specifications shall be provided and made a part of each individual Task Order.

EXHIBIT "C"

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
ARTICLE 1. BONDS
Within ten (10) calendar days from the date the Contractor is notified of award of the Contract, the Contractor shall deliver to the Stadium Manager four identical counterparts of the Performance Bond and Payment Bond on the forms supplied by the Stadium Manager and included as Exhibit "F" to the Contract. Failure to do so may, in the sole discretion of Stadium Manager, result in the forfeiture of Contractor's bid security. The surety supplying the bond must be an admitted surety insurer, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 995.120, authorized to do business as such in the State of California and satisfactory to the Stadium Manager. The Performance Bond and the Payment Bond shall be for one hundred percent (100%) of the Total Contract Price.

EXHIBIT "D"

CONTRACTOR'S CERTIFICATE REGARDING WORKERS' COMPENSATION LABOR CODE -SECTION 1861
I, the undersigned Contractor, am aware of the provisions of Section 3700, et seq., of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of the Code, and I, the undersigned Contractor, agree to and will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.
. CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.

By:

Project Executive
Title (Print)

EXHIBIT "E"

PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, all contractors and subcontractors that wish to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, or enter into a contract to perform public work must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. See http://www.dir. ca.gov/PublicWorks/PublicWorks.html for additional information.

No bid will be accepted nor any contract entered into without proof of the contractor's and subcontractors' current registration with the Department of Industrial Relations to perform public work.

Contractor hereby certifies that it is aware of the registration requirements set forth in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 and is currently registered as a contractor with the Department of Industrial Relations. 1
Name of Contractor: _ _..;::;C.;::;u.a:;.pe..:.rt=-=-i:a.:n""o-=E::.le..:.c:.:t::...ari.=..c,i...:l"""'n..:.c.,....._ ___ _ DIR Registration Number: ___ 10=0=0:;;...;:0;..;:;0..;:;;.3.;:;..69=2"------- DI R Registration Expiration:_6 __ / __ 3 __ 0/ __ 2 __ 2 _________ _ Small Project Exemption: __ Yes or __ X _____ No
Unless Contractor is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption, Contractor further acknowledges:
• Contractor shall maintain a current DIR registration for the duration of the project. • Contractor shall include the requirements of Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 in its contract with subcontractors and ensure that all subcontractors are registered at the time of bid opening and maintain registration status for the duration of the project. • Failure to submit this form or comply with any of the above requirements may result in a finding that the bid is non-responsive.

Name a • Project Executive
Dated. __ SJ-4--, /y_/-'"'- 2,...._ /1 ______ _
1 If the Project is exempt from the contractor registration requirements pursuant to the small project exemption under Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, please mark "Yes" in response to "Small Project Exemption."

PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:

Bond No. 023210162
THAT WHEREAS, the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Stadium Manager") has awarded to Cupertino Electric, Inc. , (hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor") a Delaware Corporation an agreement for Levi's StadilJTl 01-Cal Bectrica M:intenare ax:! Reoor (herei natter referred to as the "P reject").

WHEREAS, the work to be performed by the Contractor is more particularly set forth in the Contract Documents for the Project dated May 1, 2021 , (hereinafter referred to as "Contract Documents"), the terms and conditions of which are expressly incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Contractor is required by said Contract Documents to perform the terms thereof and to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said Contract Documents.

NOW, THEREFORE, we, Cupertino Electric, Inc., the undersigned Contractor and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company as Surety, a corporation organized and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, are held and firmly bound unto the Stadium Manager in the sum of T'v\O Hundred Fifty Thousand ard t\b'100 DOLLARS, ($250,000.00 ), said sum being not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the total amount of the Contract, for which amount well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that, if the Contractor, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and agreements in the Contract Documents and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on its part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their intent and meaning; and shall faithfully fulfill all obligations including the one-year guarantee of all materials and workmanship; and shall indemnify and save harmless the Indemnified Parties, as stipulated and defined in said Contract Documents, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect.

As a condition precedent to the satisfactory completion of the Contract Documents, unless otherwise provided for in the Contract Documents, the above obligation shall hold good for a period of one (1) year after the acceptance of the work by Stadium Manager, during which time if Contractor shall fail to make full, complete, and satisfactory repair and replacements and totally protect the Stadium Manager from loss or damage resulting from or caused by defective materials or faulty workmanship, Surety shall undertake and faithfully fulfill all such obligations. The obligations of Surety hereunder shall continue so long as any obligation of Contractor remains.

Nothing herein shall limit the Stadium Manager's rights or the Contractor or Surety's obligations under the Contract, law or equity, including, but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 337 .15.

Whenever Contractor shall be, and is declared by the Stadium Manager to be, in default under the Contract Documents, the Surety shall remedy the default pursuant to the Contract Documents, or shall promptly, at the Stadium Manager's option:

(1) Take over and complete the Project in accordance with all terms and conditions in the Contract Documents; or
(2) Obtain a bid or bids for completing the Project in accordance with all terms and conditions in the Contract Documents and upon determination by Surety of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, arrange for a Contract between such bidder, the Surety and the Stadium Manager, and make available as work progresses sufficient funds to pay the cost of completion of the Project, less the balance of the contract price, including other costs and damages for which Surety may be liable. The term "balance of the contract price" as used in this paragraph shall mean the total amount payable to Contractor by the Stadium Manager under the Contract and any modification thereto, less any amount previously paid by the Stadium Manager to the Contractor and any other set offs pursuant to the Contract Documents.
(3) Permit the Stadium Manager to complete the Project in any manner consistent with local, California and federal law and make available as work progresses sufficient funds to pay the cost of completion of the Project, less the balance of the contract price, including other costs and damages for which Surety may be liable. The term "balance of the contract price" as used in this paragraph shall mean the total amount payable to Contractor by the Stadium Manager under the Contract and any modification thereto, less any amount previously paid by the Stadium Manager to the Contractor and any other set offs pursuant to the Contract Documents.

Surety expressly agrees that the Stadium Manager may reject any contractor or subcontractor which may be proposed by Surety in fulfillment of its obligations in the event of default by the Contractor.

Surety shall not utilize Contractor in completing the Project nor shall Surety accept a bid from Contractor for completion of the Project if the Stadium Manager, when declaring the Contractor in default, notifies Surety of the Stadium Manager's objection to Contractor's further participation in the completion of the Project.

The Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract Documents or to the Project to be performed thereunder shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract Documents or to the Project, including but not limited to the provisions of Sections 2819 and 2.845 of the California Civil Code.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 4th day of May , 20lj_).
(Corporate Seal) Cupertino Electric, Inc.

Title Chief Financial Officer

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
(Corporate Seal) Surety
By ' ~lk~~->
Sar -in-Fact
Signatures of those signing for the Contractor and Surety must be notarized and evidence of corporate authority attached.
(Attach Attorney-in-Fact Certificate) Title _A_tt_o_rn_e....,_y_-1....;.n_-F_a_c-'-t _______ _ The rate of premium on this bond is $13.68 per thousand. The total amount of premium charges, $_1_0.,_,2_6_0 __________ _
(The above must be filled in by corporate attorney.)

THIS IS A REQUIRED FORM
Any claims under this bond may be addressed to:
(Name and Address of Surety) Liberty Mutual Surety Claims PO Box 34526
(Name and Address of Agent or
Representative for service of
process in California, if different
from above)
(Telephone number of Surety and
Agent or Representative for service
of process in California)
Seattle, WA 98124
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
790 The City Drive South, Suite 200
Orange, CA 92686
(714) 634~5712
NOTE: A copy of the Power-of-Attorney authorizing the person signing on behalf of the Surety to do so must be attached hereto.

CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of Santa Clara
On May 5, 2021
Date
}
before me, _____ N_o_re_e_n_;_J_. A_n_a_,,g"--n_o_s,_N_o_t_ary__,_P_u_b_l_ic _____ ~ Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared _______ W_il_li_am_R_._S_lak_e~y __________________ _ Name(s) of Signer(s)
NIA
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~) whose name~) is!lm§ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/~ executed the same in his~ authorized capacity(m'$), and that by his~ signature(!;) on the instrument the person~). or the entity upon behalf of which the person~) acted, executed the instrument. ········~ . NOREEN J. ANAGNOS
. llf:-:::'llii.'Ar.'5:/
Notary
Santa
Public
Clara
-
County
Cilifornia 1 ,.. Commission 112309392 -
Comm. Expires Oct 19, 2023
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above
SignatureU1f~l{l GJflrJilf11~
Signature/of Notar;{f)Jblic

OPTIONAL
Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.

Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: Performance Bond #023210162-Levis Stadium On-Call Emergency Elect. Maintenance & Repair Document Date: ~M~ac;.y~4=,~2=0=2=1 ________________ Number of Pages: __ 5__ _ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: ______ N_/_A _______________ _ Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer's Name: William R. Slakey
Kl Corporate Officer - Title(s): _C_F_O _____ _
□ Partner - □ Limited □ General
□ Individual □ Attorney in Fact
□ Trustee □ Guardian or Conservator
□ Other:

Signer is Representing: Cupertino Electric, Inc.
©2018 National Notary Association
Signer's Name:
□ Corporate Officer - Title(s): ______ _
□ Partner - □ Limited □ General
□ Individual □ Attorney in Fact
□ Trustee □ Guardian or Conservator
□ Other:

Signer is Representing: _________ _

NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of Oregon
County of Multnomah County
On \'1\_D...-lJ\ J-t1 AD·~ before me, _K'"'"e~l'-J.ly~M-'-'-'-'ic~h=e~lle~N~ie~m~e=l=a_(lnsert Name) .)
personally appeared Sarah Harren who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

Notary Signat
Commission Expiration November 24, 2023
Notary Seal:
1 ~Libe_rtx
~ Mutuat
SURETY
Tiis PcMer of Attorney lirrits tte acts cithaie rared herein, aro trey have no au:hority to bind the Coo-pany ex.cert intte roamer and totte extert herein stated.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company
West American Insurance Company

POWER OF ATTORNEY
CertificateN:>: 8204707- 905031
KNOJ\N AU. PERSOS BY 11-ESE PRESENTS: That "The Olio Casualty Insurance Ccrrpany is a cor!X)ration duly organiza:l urder the lcMS ci the State of New Harpshire, that Literty M.Jtual Insurance Ccrrpany is a corporation duly organized unoor the !1MS of the State of l\llassachusett, and W:s.. M'Erican Insurance Carpany is a corporation duly organized under the law, of the State of lrdiana (herein collectively called the "Ccrrpanies'), pursuant to and by authority herein set forth, does hereby narre, constitute and ai:point, Allison Thornhill, Bradley Mapes, Darla Naugher, Emily Nagel, Karl L. Choltus, Kelly M. Niemela, Sarah Harren, Shawn Carlisi all of the city of Portland state of OR each indMdually if there re rrore than one nared, its true and ialMl.ll attorney-in-fact to rmke, execute, seal, acm-Mlecge and deliver, for and on its behalf as surety ard as its act and deed, any and all undertakirg;, bonds, ~niz.ances ard ether surety dlligations, in pursuance of these presents and shall re as bindirg l4JOl1 the Coopanies as if they have been duly signed by the president and attested by the secretary of the Ccrrpanies in their OMl proper persons.

IN WlNESS w-ERECF, this Pc:Mer of .Attorney has been subsaibed by an authorized officer or official ci the Ccrrpanies ard the corporate seals of the Ccrrpanies have been affixed theretothis 8th dayol January ,~.

Literty MJtual Insurance Ccrrpany
"The Olio Casualty Insurance Ccrrpany
W:s.. J\rrerican Insurance Ccrrpany
I _____. ..____ _ ___.Bye M;Z U .
~ ~ David M Carey, .115sistant Secretary g- § -o .u stateolFSNSYLVANIA 55 ·-:5 ~ 5J COJnty of M:MrovERY .§ [ ~ ~ a, this 8th day of January , 2021 before rre personally appeared David M Carey, \Mio ackno.Mecged hirrse!f to !:Ethe A&;istant Secretary of Literty I\A.rtual Insurance 1§ i ~ ro Corrpany, "The Olio Casualty Ccrrpany, and W:s.. M'Erican Insurance Ccrrpany, and that he, as such, beirg authorized so to do, exea.ite the foregoing instn.rrent for the pl.lTJX)SeS ~ @ 2 ..:'. therein contained t,,, signing on tehalf of the corporations by hirrself as a duly authoriza:l officer. ~ ©) -
~cu ::i IN WlNESS w-ERECF, I have hereunto subsaibed rT¥ narre and affixed rT¥ notarial seal at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, on the day and year first above 'Mitten. <( ~ _, ~ coo cu Ill /;,.. PAs a..0
_Q ~ /4.~~ • COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA -;::;;
(I) 0 (~co· <}\, Notarial Seal 0 d ~ Cl)
0 _ Ill OF ~, \ Teresa Pastella, Notary Public By·. (I/~ ~ . . _ \ f! -I- If !I ...... '-oEQ) C:
~
CU \ ~"-----•~"'"3/. V UpperMenonTwp.,MontgomeryCounty MyComm1ssionExpiresMarch28,2021 ~U,(1.-,:tJ ~ ...., '- (I)~ ,i,,..~ f' .__ ________ ___, Teresa Pastella, N:ltary Public :'.:: o C) (/) ..... , 14/:N -pU~,; Member, Pennsy\varnaAssociation ofNotanes 0 0 cu (I) ' -.::I'
.g> 2 This PcMer of .Attorney is made and executed pursuant to and by authority of the followng By-law; and Authorizations ci "The Olio Casualty lnsuranre Ccrrpany, Lirerty M.Jtual ~ ~ OE -~ Insurance Ccrrpany, and \/\est Plrerican Insurance Ccrrpany IMlich resolutions are OON in full force and effect rea:ling as follOAS: o ~ - a.. ._ 2 ARJlCU: IV-(FFICERS: Section 12. R:Mer of .Attorney. 0 °i> S2 ~ kr-f officer or other official of the Corporation authorized for that purpose in wiling by the Olairrran or the President, and suqect to such linitation as the Olairrran or the =a ~ ;g G' President rray presaire, shall clAJC)int such altorn€'frin-fact, as rray re neressaiy to act in tehalf of the Corporation to rrake, exea.ite, seal, ackncM!ecge and deliver as surety ffi ~ ~ ffi any and all undertakirgs, bonds, recognizanres and ether surety ~igations. Su::h attorn€'frin-fact, sl.tlject to the !irritations set forth in their respective pcMerS of attorney, shall -o ~ ...... t:: have full pc:Mer to bird the Corporation by their signature and execution of any such instrurrents and to attach thereto the seal of the Corporation. \Men so executed, such § a> ~ ~ instrurrents shall re as birdirg as if signed by the President and attested to by the Secretary. hly pcMel' or authority granted to any representalM! or attorney-in-fact urder the ~ ~ provisions of this artide rray be revd<ed at any tiire by the Boord, the 0,airrran, the President or by the officer or officers granting such pcMel' or authortty. ~ ~ ARJlCU: XIII -Execltion of Catracls: Section 5. Surety Bonds and Ulderta<irgs.

My officer of the Ccrrpany autholized for that purpose in witirg by the chairrran or the president, and suqect to such !irritations as the chairrran or the presicent rray presaire, shall appoint such attorn€'frin-fact, as rray re neressaiy to act in rehalf of the Carpany to rrake, exea.ite, seal, ac:kno.Mecge and deliver as surety any and all undertakirgs, bonds, ~nizanres and ether surety ~igations. Su::h attorreys-in-fact sti:lject to the !irritations set forth in their respective poAefS of attorney, shall have full pcMer to bind the OJrn:)any by their signature and exea.rtion of any such instnrrents and to attach thereto the seal of the Ccrrpany. Wien so exea.ited such instrurents shall re as binding as if signed 'r1y the president and attested by the secretary.

Certificate ci Desigiation-"The President of the Carpany, acting pursuant to the Bylaw; of the Carpany, authorizes David M Carey, .115sistant Secretary to clAJC)int such attorneys-infact as rray re neressaiy to act on behalf ci the Ccrrpany to rrake, exea.rte, seal, acknoMecge and deliver as surety any and all undertakirgs, bonds, recognizances and other surety obligations.

Authorization - ~ unanirrous oonsent of the Carpany's Board of rectors, the Carpany consents that facsinile or rrechanically reprodu::ed signature of any assistant secretary of the Ccrrpany, wherever ~ng l4JOl1 a certified Cf::tiJf of any pcMel' of attorney issued by the Carpany in connection v.ith surety bonds, shall be valid ard birding upon the O:rrpany wth the sarre force and effect as tholgh iranually affixed.

I, Renee C. UEMellyn, the undersigned, A&;istant Secretary, "The Olio Casualty Insurance Ccrrpany, Literty I\A.rtual Insurance Carpany, ard \/\est Jlrrerican Insurance Carpany do hereby certify that the original pcMel' of attorrey of IMlich the foregoirg is a full, tn.e and correct Cf::tiJf of the R:Mer of .Attorrey executed by said Ccrrpanies, is in full force and effect and has not been revoked.

IN TESTIIVDNV\H:REOF, I ha..e hereunto set rT¥ hand and affixed the seals of said Carpanies this 4th day of May , ~.

By: 7{~
Renee C. UEMellyn, .115sistant Seaeteay
LMS-12873 LMIC OCIC WAIC Multi Co_B/20

PAYMENT BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS That
Bond No. 023210162
WHEREAS, the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC (hereinafter designated as the "Stadium Manager"), by action taken or a resolution passed May 1 , 201.L_has awarded to OJpertino Bectric, Inc. hereinafter designated as the "Principal," a contract for the work described as follows:
_L_e_v_i'_s_S_ta_d_i_u_m_O--'-. _n_-C_a_l_l E_l_e_ct_r"_1c_a_l M_a_in_te_n_a_n_c_e_a_n_d_R_e___.p_a_ir ___ (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the work to be perforrned by the Principal is more particularly set forth in the Contract Documents for the Project dated May 1, 2021 ("Contract Documents"), the terms and conditions of which are expressly incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, said Principal is required to furnish a bond in connection with said contract; providing that if said Principal or any of its Subcontractors shall fail to pay for any materials, provisions, provender, equipment, or other supplies used in, upon, for or about the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for any work or labor done thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code or for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages ofemployees of said Principal and its Subcontractors with respect to such wprk or labor the Surety on this bond will pay for the same to the extent hereinafter set forth.

NOW THEREFORE, we, the Principal and Libertyl'vt.Jtual lnsura,c;eCorrpany as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the Stadium Manager in the penal sum of _______ _ Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($250,000.00 ) lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH that if said Principal, his or its subcontractors, heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall fail to pay any of the persons named in Section 9100 of the Civil Code, fail to pay for any materials, provisions or other supplies, used in, upon, for or about the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for any work or labor thereon of any kind, or amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the contract, or for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department or Franchise Tax Board from the wages of employees of the contractor and his subcontractors pursuant to Section 18663 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, with respect to such work and labor the Surety or Sureties will pay for the same, in an amount not exceeding the sum herein above specified.

This bond shall inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in Section 9100 of the Civil Code so as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond.

It is further stipulated and agreed that the Surety on this bond shall not be exonerated or released from the obligation of this bond by any change, extension of time for performance, addition, alteration or modification in, to, or of any contract, plans, specifications, or agreement pertaining or relating to any scheme or work of improvement herein above described, or pertaining or relating to the furnishing of labor, materials, or equipment therefore, nor by any change or modification of any terms of payment or extension of the time for any payment pertaining or relating to any scheme or work of improvement herein above described, nor by any rescission or

attempted rescission of the contract, agreement or bond, nor by any conditions precedent or subsequent in the bond attempting to limit the right of recovery of claimants otherwise entitled to recover under any such contract or agreement or under the bond, nor by any fraud practiced by any person other than the claimant seeking to recover on the bond and that this bond be construed most strongly against the Surety and in favor of all persons for whose benefit such bond is given, and under no circumstances shall Surety be released from liability to those for whose benefit such bond has been given, by reason of any breach of contract between the owner or Stadium Manager and original contractor or on the part of any obligee named in such bond, but the sole conditions of recovery shall be that claimant is a person described in Section 9100 of the Civil Code, and has not been paid the full amount of his claim and that Surety does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, addition, alteration or modification herein mentioned and the provisions of Sections 2819 and 2845 of the California Civil Code.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 4th day of May , 201.1.
( Corporate Seal)
(Corporate Seal)
Title
Cupertino Electric, Inc.

Contractor/ Principal
B
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Surety .

By .~1A.Jto--'.i c 0·.},~U\.~JW.__.,;
Sarah >4arren,Attorn 'y-in-Fact
Attorney-In-Fact
Signatures of those signing for the Contractor and Surety must be notarized and evidence of corporate authority attached. A Power-of-Attorney authorizing the person signing on behalf of the Surety to do so much be attached hereto.

NOTE: A copy of the Power-of-Attorney authorizing the person signing on behalf of the Surety to do so must be attached hereto.

CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of Santa Clara
On May 5, 2021
Date
}
before me, __ N_o_r_·e_en~J-_A_n_a~g~n_o_s,_N_o_t_ar~y_P_u_b_li_c _______ _ Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared ______ W_ill_1_·a_m_R_. S_l_ak_e_y ___________________ ~ Name(s) of Signer(s)
NIA
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(:g) whose name(¥) is/~ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/~ executed the same in his~ authorized capacity(~, and that by his/~signature(l£) on the instrument the person(~). or the entity upon behalf of which the person(ir;) acted, executed the instrument. o, NOREEN J. ANAGNOS 1 ,. ~ ~ Notary Public • California z i Santa Clara County ! z Commission# 2309392
,~ My Comm. Expires Oct 19, 2023
Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

OPTIONAL
Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.

Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: Payment Bond #023210162-Levis Stadium On-Call Emergency Elect. Maintenance & Repair Document Date: _=M=a""yr--=4~, 2=0=2=1~ ______________ Number of Pages: _~4~-- Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: ____ N_/_A _________________ _ Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer's Name: William R. Slakey Signer's Name: ___________ _ Kl Corporate Officer - Title(s}: CFO □ Corporate Officer - Title(s): ______ _ □ Partner - □ Limited D General □ Partner - □ Limited □ General □ Individual □ Attorney in Fact □ Individual □ Attorney in Fact □ Trustee □ Guardian or Conservator □ Trustee □ Guardian or Conservator □ Other: -----~~-~-~-~~- □ Other:

Signer is Representing: Cupertino Electnc, Inc. Signer is Representing: _________ _ ©2018 National Notary Association

NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of Oregon
County of Multnomah County
On \\J\ 0 1-I,, }1) :L\ before me, Kelly Michelle Niemela (Insert Name) personally appeared Sarah Harren who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

Commission Expiratio
Notary Seal:

November 24, 2023

OFFICIAL STAMP

KELLY MICHELLE NIEMELA

NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 994145
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOVEMBER 24, 2023
= ·:;;,,.,._~~-"
1 ~Liberl):
~ Mutuat
SURETY
llis PcMa" of Attorney linits the acts c:J those rared herein, arKi they have no au:hority to tird the Coopav excep: in the rranner andtotheextert herein staed.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company
West American Insurance Company

POWER OF ATTORNEY
Certificate NJ: 8204707- 905031
KNCMN ALL PERSOIS BY TI-ESE PRESENTS: That Tre Olio Casualty Insurance ConiJarri is a oorporation duly aganized uooer the laws of the State of N3w Harpshire, that Liberty M.Jtual Insurance Corqiany is a rorporation duly organized uooer the 18\i\S of the State of 11/assachusetts, and V\est .Arrerican lnsurarre OllTpany is a corporation duly organized under the lcMS of the State of lrdiana (herein collectively called the "Carpanies''), pusuant to and by autholity herein set forth, does hereby rare, coostitute and awolnt, Allison Thornhill, Bradley Mapes, Darla Naugher, Emily Nagel, Karl L. Choltus, Kelly M. Niemela, Sarah Harren, Shawn Carlisi all of the city of Portland state of OR each indMdually if there be rrore than one nared, its true and laMUI attorney-in-fact to rrake, execute, seal, acknc:IMedge and delMlr, for ard on its behalf as surety and as its act and deed, any and all undertakirgs, booos, reccgnizanres and dher surety obligations, in pursuance of these presen1s and shall be as bindirg ~ the Corrpanies as if they have been duly signed by the president and attested by the secretary of the Carpanies in their OM1 proper persons.

IN WTNESS WEREOF, this R:Mel" of .Attorney has been subscribed by an authorized offirer or official of the Corrµmies and the oorporate seals ri the Carpanies have been affixed theretothis 8th dayal January .~-
Liberty M.Jtual Insurance OllTpany
The Oiio Casualty lnsuranre OllTpany
V\est Jllrerican Insurance Carµany
i By, b7 u ~ ---~- ..__,_. D:!vid M Carey, Assistant 5,cretary o- ~ :t:::- ro state of PEI\NSYL VANIA . !: :5 ¥ 5J County of M:NTro/ERY 55 .§ ~ ~ ~ a, this~ day of January , ~ before rre personally~ D:!vid M Carey, Wlo aooiOMedged hirrself to be the Assistant Secretary of Liberty MJtual Insurance 1§ a3 :: rn Corrl)any, The Olio Casualty Corrµmy, and V\est Jlireric:an Insurance Carµany, and that he, as such, beirg authorized so to do, exea.Jle the foregoirg instrurrent for the purposes ~ @ 2 ..:'. therein contained by signirg on behalf of the oorporations by hirrself as a duly authorized offirer. ~ @) -ro ~ ~--5 IN WTNESS WEREOF, I h/Ml hereunto subsaibed rry narre and affixed rry notarial seal at Kirg of Prussia, Pennsylvania, on the day and year first al:xlve witten. ~ c·- 00 0000 1 _Q ~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ';2:

Q) Q Notarial Seal ~ i ~ ·ro - Q.) Teresa Pastella, Notary Public 0/, ~ . . , fl +- If II '-- E 0...:. / Upper Merion Twp., Montgomery County By: -d~-~~~~-~---------l.8 (I) c_ e:! ,/~v1..'11-,*"'" c., My Commission Expires March 28, 2021 Teresa Pastella, fltiary F\iblic <( 0 & U) Y~ • ~'x>V Member, Pennsylvania Association of Notaries t) o ro Ql FfY p\) . "Sf" .g> 2 This Pov\er of .Attorney is rra::le and exeaJted pursuant to and by authority of the follcMirg By-lcMS and hrthorizations of Tre Olio Casualty Insurance Corrpany, Liberty M.Jtual ~ ~ g .!::_ Insurance Carµany, and Wlst .Arrerican Insurance CarpanyWlich resolutions are roN in full forCE and effect readirg as follCJ,1S: fr._ ~ .__ $ ARTIQ.E IV-a=FICERS: Se::tion 12. PoAer of .Attorney. . 0 ~ .8 e:! AITy offirer or dher official ri the Qxporation authorized for that puqxise in witirg by the Olainran or the President, and suqect to such !irritation as the Qiainran or the :a ..- ;g i:;' President rray prescribe, shall awoint such attorneys-in-fact, as rray be neressary to act in behalf of the Corporation to ITB{e, execute, seal, acknc:M4edge and delMlr as surety i5 ~ ~ ~ any and all undertakings, booos, rerognizancEs and cther surety obligations. Such attorneys-in-fact, stilject to the !irritations set forth in their respective po,-.ers of attorney, shall -o rJ 0 t:: have full pcMel" to bind the Corporation by their signature and execution of any such instrurrents and to attach thereto the seal of the Corporation. Wen so exea.Jled, such 5 (I) z a instrurrents shall be as birdirg as if signed by the President and attested to by the Secretary. Ally pcMel" or authority granted to any representative or attorney-in-fact under the ~ gJ provisions of this artide rray be revoked at any tirre by the Board, the Oiairrran, the President or by the officer or offirers granlirg such pcMel" or authority. ~ ~ ARTIQ.E XIII - E'xecu:ion c:J Catracts: Se::tion 5. Surety Bonds and Lk1derta<irgs.

AITy offirer of the Carpany authorized for that purpose in witirg by the chairrran or the president, and suqect to such linitations as the chairrren or the president rray prescribe, shall 8A)Clint such attorneys-in-fact, as rray be neressary to act in behalf of the Corrpany to ITB{e, exeate, seal, aooiOMedge and delMlr as surety any and all undertakings, bonds, reccgnizanres and dher surety obligations. Such attorneys-in-fact Sltject to the linitations set forth in their respective pcMerS of attorney, shall have full pc:M,er to bind the Corrl)any by their signature and exea.ition of any such instn.rrents and to attach thereto the seal of the Corrpany. Wen so exea.ited such instrurrents shall be as bindirg as if signed by the president and attested by the semitary.

Certificated Desigaion-The President oftheCorrpany, actirg pursuant to the BylcMS of the Corrpany, authorizes David M Carey, Assistant S,cretaryto awoint such attomeys-infact as rray be neressary to act on behalf of the Corrpany to rra<e, exerute, seal, aooiOMedge and deliver as surety any and all urdertakings, booos, reccgnizancEs and cther surety obligations.

Authorization - By unanirrous oonsent of the Carpany's Board of rectors, the Corrµmy oonsents that facsinile or rrechanically reproduced signature of any assistant secretary of the Corrpany, Wlerever appearirg ~ a certified copy of any pcMel" of attorney issued by the Corrpany in connection wth surety booos, shall be valid and bindirg upon the Corrl)any IMth the sarre forre and effect as thcx.gh rrenually affixed.

I, Renee C. UEMellyn, the urdersigned, Assistant Secretary, The Olio Casualty Insurance Carpany, Liberty M.ltual lnsuranre Olllpany, and Wlst .Arrerican Insurance Carpany do hereby rertify that the original pc:Mer of attorrey of Wlich the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the R:Mer of Pttorrey executed by said Corrµmies, is in full forre and effect and has not been revoked.

IN lESTIMJNY WEREOF, I have hereunto set rry hand and affixed the seals ri said Corrpanies this 4th day al May , ~.

By:u~ Renee C. Uev.ellyn, Assistant Secretar;
LMS-12873 LMIC OCIC WAIC Multi Co_B/20
EXHIBIT "G"

RATE SCHEDULE
Billable Labor Rates Straight Daily Saturday Sunday &
Time/Weekday Holiday
A Journey Level:
1 COMM & System Installer $104.71 $139.93 $175.72 $175.72 2 COMM & System Tech $113.82 $152.09 $191.00 $191.00
3 Inside Wireman, Technician $162.76 $217.64 $273.43 $273.43 4 Cable Splicer $211.60 $282.93 $355.48 $355.48
5 Material Handler $98.77 $131.05 $162.81 $162.81
6 Material Handler - Fourth Six Months $80.71 $107.24 $133.21 $133.21 7 Material Handler - Third Six Months $71.82 $95.29 $118.39 $118.39 8 Material Handler - Second Six Months $62.85 $83.40 $103.61 $103.61 9 Material Handler- First Six Months $53.86 $71.46 $88.79 $88.79 8 Apprentice Level:
1 Electrician, Inside Wireman - 5th period $105.79 $141.45 $177.74 $177.74 2 Electrician, Inside Wireman - 6th period $113.93 $152.34 $191.41 $191.41 3 Electrician, Inside Wireman - 7th period $122.08 $163.22 $205.07 $205.07 4 Electrician, Inside Wireman - 8th period $130.22 $174.09 $218.75 $218.75 5 Electrician, Inside Wireman - 9th period $138.34 $184.98 $232.41 $232.41 6 Electrician, Inside Wireman - 10th period $146.49 $195.86 $246.09 $246.09 C Materials & Consumables Mark-Up from Actual Cost to Contractor is 13% D Equipment Rentals Mark-Up from Actual Cost to Contractor is 13%

1. Materials and Consumables
a. Materials (which include replacement parts, new components such as panel boards, transformers, etc., but does NOT include the cost of small tools) and consumables, which are "minor" materials actually "consumed" during the course of work (such as caulking, solder, tape, etc.) shall be provided to the Stadium Manager at the Contractor's "cost" (meaning what the Contractor paid the supplier) plus an agreed upon mark-up percentage, which would include handling, storage, etc. b. When the Contractor is invoicing for specific task orders, and that invoice includes materials costs, Stadium Manager, at its discretion, may require invoices documenting what the Proposer paid for said materials.
c. If Stadium Manager issues an "emergency" task order, then this requirement may be waived if Stadium Manager so authorizes.

2. Equipment Rental
a. If the Contractor must rent equipment in order to accomplish a Task Order, the price of that equipment to Stadium Manager shall be the Contractor's actual invoice cost for that equipment, plus an agreed upon mark-up percentage. b. If the Contractor owns equipment, then reimbursement for use of that equipment is to be covered in the Contractor's overall Overhead and Profit mark-up, which is a component of the Contractor's billable hourly rates described above.

3. Permit Fees
a. All permit fees shall be pass through charges billed to the Stadium Manager for actual documented costs charged without markup.

EXHIBIT "H"

SAMPLE TASK ORDER FORM

FORTY NINERS STADIUM MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC

TASK ORDER
Task Order No. ---
Contract: Levi's Stadium On-Call Electrical Maintenance and Repair Services (#10051-B) Contractor: CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.

The Contractor is hereby authorized to perform the following work subject to the provisions of the Contract identified above:

List any attachments: [INSERT ATTACJ IME TS, Ir ANY]
Dollar Amount of Task Order: Not to exceed $ __ , __ .00 Liquidated Damages for this Task Order: $XXX per day.

Completion Date: _____ ,20_
The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees that it will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may be otherwise noted above, and perform all work specified above in accordance with the Contract identified above and will accept as full payment therefore the amount shown above.

FORTY NINERS STADIUM

MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC
Dated: _________ _
By: -----------
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.

Dated: ----------
By: -----------

ATTACHMENT G

LABOR COMPLIANCE ADDENDUM
Contract Title: Levi's Stadium On-Call Electrical Maintenance and Repair Services CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.

CONTRACTOR (Supplier) 1132 N. 7TH STREET
Name and Address SAN JOSE, CA 95112
This Contract is subject to the requirements of California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. requiring the payment of prevailing wages, the training of apprentices, and compliance with other applicable requirements.

A. Prevailing Wage Requirements

1. Contractor shall be obligated to pay not less than the General Prevailing Wage Rate, which can be found at www.dir.ca.gov. Contractor is also required to have a copy of the applicable wage determination posted and/or available at each job site.

2. Specifically, contractors are reminded of the need for compliance with Labor Code Section 1774-1775 (the payment of prevailing wages and documentation of such), Section 1776 (the keeping and submission of accurate certified payrolls) and 1777 .5 in the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Further, overtime must be paid for work in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week pursuant to Labor Code Section 1811-1813.

3. Special prevailing wage rates generally apply to work performed on weekends, holidays and for certain shift work. Depending on the location of the project and the amount of travel incurred by workers on the project, certain travel and subsistence payments may also be required. Contractors and subcontractors are on notice that information about such special rates, holidays, premium pay, shift work and travel and subsistence requirements can be found at www.dir.ca.gov.

4. Only bona fide apprentices actively enrolled in a California Division of Apprenticeship Standards approved program may be employed on the project as an apprentice and receive the applicable apprenticeship prevailing wage rates.

Apprentices who are not properly supervised and employed in the appropriate ratio shall be paid the full journeyman wages for the classification of work performed.

5. As a condition to receiving progress payments, final payment and payment of retention on any and all projects on which the payment of prevailing wages is required, Contractor agrees to present to Stadium Manager, along with its request for payment, all applicable and necessary certified payrolls (for itself and all applicable subcontractors) for the time period covering such payment request.

The term "certified payroll" shall include all required documentation to comply

Attachment G
Labor Compliance Addendum
with the mandates set forth in Labor Code Section 1720 et seq, as well as any additional documentation requested by the Stadium Manager or its designee including, but not limited to: certified payroll, fringe benefit statements and backup documentation such as monthly benefit statements, employee timecards, copies of wage statements and cancelled checks, proof of training contributions (CAC2 if applicable), and apprenticeship forms such as DAS-140 and DAS-142.

6. In addition to submitting the certified payrolls and related documentation to Stadium Manager, Contractor and all subcontractors shall be required to submit certified payroll and related documents electronically to the California Department of Industrial Relations. Failure to submit payrolls to the DIR when mandated by the project parameters shall also result in the withholding of progress, retention and/or final payment.

7. No contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1 (a)].

8. No contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract for public work on a public works project, unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. Contractors MUST be a registered "public works contractor'' with the DIR AT THE TIME OF BID. Where the prime contract is less than $15,000 for maintenance work or less than $25,000 for construction alternation, demolition or repair work, registration is not required.

9. All contractors/subcontractors and related construction services subject to prevailing wage, including but not limited to: trucking, surveying and inspection work must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations as a "public works contractor". Those you fail to register and maintain their status as a public works contractor shall not be permitted to perform work on the project.

10. Should any contractor or subcontractors not be a registered public works contractor and perform work on the project, Contractor agrees to fully indemnify the Stadium Manager for any fines assessed by the California Department of Industrial Relations against the Stadium Manager for such violation, including all staff costs and attorney's fee relating to such fine.

11. This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

8. Audit Rights
All records or documents required to be kept pursuant to this Contract to verify compliance with this Addendum shall be made available for audit at no cost to Stadium Manager, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request. Copies of such records or documents shall be provided to Stadium Manager for audit at Levi's Stadium when it is practical to do so.

Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be made available at Contractor's address indicated for receipt of notices in this Contract.

Attachment G
Labor Compliance Addendum
C. Enforcement

1. Stadium Manager shall withhold any portion of a payment; including the entire payment amount, until certified payroll forms and related documentation are properly submitted, reviewed and found to be in full compliance. In the event that certified payroll forms do not comply with the requirements of Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., Stadium Manager may continue to hold sufficient funds to cover estimated wages and penalties under the Contract.

2. The Stadium Manager is not obligated to make any payment due to Contractor until Contractor has performed all of its obligations under these provisions. This provision means that Stadium Manager can withhold all or part of a payment to Contractor until all required documentation is submitted. Any payment by the Stadium Manager despite Contractor's failure to fully perform its obligations under these provisions shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term or condition contained in this Contract or a waiver of the right to withhold payment for any subsequent breach of this Contract.

Stadium Manager, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, or the California Department of Industrial Relations may impose penalties upon contractors and subcontractors for failure to comply with prevailing wage requirements. These penalties are up to $200 per day per worker for each wage violation identified; $100 per day per worker for failure to provide the required paperwork and documentation requested within a 10-day window; and $25 per day per worker for any overtime violation.

Stadium Manager
Name: Jim Mercurio
Title: EVP, Stadium Operations and General Manager
Email: [email protected]
Attachment G
Labor Compliance Addendum
Contractor (Supplier)
Name: Jim Medefesser
Title: Project Executive
Email: [email protected]

AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE LEVI’S STADIUM ON-CALL ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR CONTRACT 10051-B

BETWEEN

THE FORTY NINERS STADIUM MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC
AND
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.

1. Parties and Date.

This Amendment No. 1 to the Levi’s Stadium On-Call Electrical Maintenance and Repair Contract is made and entered into as of this [***INSERT DAY***] day of [***INSERT MONTH***], 2022, by and between the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC (“Stadium Manager”) and Cupertino Electric, Inc., a California corporation with its principal place of business at 1132 N. 7th Street, San Jose, CA 95112 (“Contractor”). Stadium Manager and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

2. Recitals.

2.1 Contractor. The Stadium Manager and Contractor have entered into an agreement entitled “Levi’s Stadium On-Call Electrical Maintenance and Repair Contract” (“Agreement”) for the purpose of retaining the services of Contractor to provide on-call stadium electrical maintenance and repair work.

2.2 Amendment Purpose. The Stadium Manager and Contractor desire to amend the Agreement to increase the not-to-exceed compensation amount.

2.3 Amendment Authority. This Amendment No. 1 is authorized pursuant to Section 3.7.1 of the Agreement.

3. Terms.

3.1 Amendment. Section 3.7.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

3.7.1 Amount of Compensation. As consideration for performance of the Work required herein, Contractor shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Work rendered under this Contract at the rates set forth in Exhibit “G” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The maximum compensation for Work

to be provided pursuant to each Task Order shall be set forth in the relevant Task Order. The total compensation to be provided under this Contract by Stadium Manager to Contractor, in the aggregate, shall not exceed Seven Hundred Sixty-Four Thousand, Two Hundred Ninety-Eight Dollars ($764,298) for the second year of the Contract term, and Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) for each subsequent contract year without written approval of the Stadium Manager. The term for subsequent fiscal years shall be conditioned upon approval of the Stadium Authority budget for the applicable fiscal year that includes the amounts due under this Contract.

3.2 Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment No. 1. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 1, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by Amendment No. 1 and this Amendment No. 1.

3.3 Adequate Consideration. The Parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 1.

3.4 Severability. If any portion of this Amendment No. 1 is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
[Signatures on Next Page]

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LEVI’S STADIUM ON-CALL

ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE FORTY NINERS STADIUM MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC AND CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC. (10051-B)

FORTY NINERS STADIUM

MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC
Approved By:

Jim Mercurio
Executive Vice President &
General Manager

Date
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.

Signature

Name

Title

Date
May 9, 2022
Mr. Ryan Van Maarth
Forty Niners Stadium Management Company
4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way
Santa Clara, CA 95054
RE: Levi Stadium – Electrical Primary Main Service Switchgear Dear Ryan:

We have reviewed the information you provided by the third-party testing agency Apparatus Testing and Engineering (ATE) on the condition of your main electrical service switchgear “PMSG”.

This switchgear has two incoming feeders from Silicon Valley Power and provides the main power to the stadium. It is critical that this switchgear operate all the time (24/7) and be well maintained to ensure the stadium has power every day without interruptions. Currently, there are several components within this switchgear that have failed and leave the stadium exposed to a power loss. It is our recommendation the following components in the switchgear be replaced immediately to maintain the reliability of the power system at the stadium:

1. Control Power Transformer (CPT). This work should include the replacement of the CPT drawer and CPT drawer rails to make the new components operational.

2. 48volt Switchgear Batteries. These are the original batteries for the switchgear that were tested and determined to be inoperable. In addition, since the downstream switchgear PSGA and PSGB utilize these same batteries and several of the batteries failed the test too, we recommend replacement of them as well.

3. Repair the control power throwover mis-wiring identified in the report from ATE on switchgear PSGA and PSGB.

4. Upon completion of the above, a qualified third-party should test and certify the installation is compliant with the latest NETA standards and verify the switchgear is functioning properly.

5. Procure replacement 12kV Spare Breaker(s). These breakers are used on the primary switchgear (PMSG) and the downstream switchgear (PSGA & PSGB) that serves the stadium substations. Due to the long procurement time (potentially over 16 weeks) and the importance of these breakers to the reliability of the system, we recommend the stadium have at least one spare breaker on-site, if not two spare breakers.

Ryan, if you have questions regarding our recommendations, please do not hesitate to call me.

Sincerely,
M-E ENGINEERS, INC.

Scott V. Gerard, P.E., LEED AP
Senior Principal
We Deliver Power and Possibilities
1132 North Seventh Street, San Jose, CA 95112
CA LIC #174637
1-877-747-4CEI
[email protected]  www.CEI.com
May 9, 2022
Forty Niners Stadium Management Company
4900 Marie P. Debartolo Way
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Attn: Ryan Van Maarth
Dear Ryan,
We are pleased to submit for your consideration our electrical quotation for the above referenced project. Our proposal is based on pricing and scope of work below.

1. Battery
Replace PMSG and PSGA/PSGB station batteries.

T&M Not to Exceed .................................................................................... $ 45,870.00 Temporary battery rental for 6 months
T&M Not to Exceed .................................................................................... $ 8,186.00

2. Control Power Transformer (CPT)
CPT replacement includes brand new unit from ABB, labor to swap the CPT (by IEM), inspection and replacement of CPT drawer and rails as necessary, testing by ATE, SVP coordination and fee (by 49ers) and CEI coordination and support for a complete installation of the whole working system.

T&M Not to Exceed .................................................................................... $ 82,889.00

3. 12KV Main Circuit Breaker
Due to no stock availability in the United Stated, the 12KV main circuit breaker is built to order from ABB in Europe which has 12-16 weeks lead time. This breaker can be used in either PMSG (with 3 breakers), PSGA (with 4 breakers) or PSGB (with 4 breakers). Currently in the configuration of the system, there are no spare breakers. CEI recommends that 49ers have a minimum of two spare breakers on hand to minimize down time in the event of breaker failure.

T&M Not to Exceed .................................................................................... $ 56,638.00

4. All T&M costs include the cost of bond.

We appreciate this opportunity to present our proposal and your consideration of Cupertino Electric. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.

Geoffrey Nocon
We Deliver Power and Possibilities
1132 North Seventh Street, San Jose, CA 95112
CA LIC #174637
1-877-747-4CEI
[email protected]  www.CEI.com
Geoffrey Nocon
Project Manager
(408) 771-6747
We Deliver Power and Possibilities
1132 North Seventh Street, San Jose, CA 95112
CA LIC #174637
1-877-747-4CEI
[email protected]  www.CEI.com
May 9, 2022
Forty Niners Stadium Management Company
4900 Marie P. Debartolo Way
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Attn: Ryan Van Maarth
Re: 2022 Preventative Maintenance Work
Electrical Proposal
Dear Ryan,
We are pleased to submit for your consideration our electrical quotation for the above referenced project. Our proposal is based on pricing and scope of work below.

Base Scope - T&M Not to Exceed ............................................................... $ 320,715.00 Clarifications/Exclusions

1. VLF Tan Delta testing to establish baseline for medium voltage cables from PSGA and PSGB and downstream.

2. Identify and verify locations of manholes. Plot an overall drawing for future reference.

3. Equipment testing, inspection and cleaning for the following:

Day 1 – A Side
A. Switchgear PSGA

1. One (1) PSGA switchboard inspection

2. Six (6) sets of MV cables VLF Tan Delta
B. Substation SS-C1B

1. One (1) medium voltage 600A LI switch

2. One (1) medium voltage transformer
C. Substation SS-D1B

1. One (1) medium voltage 600A LI switch

2. One (1) medium voltage transformer
D. Substation SS-C2A

1. One (1) medium voltage 600A LI switch

2. One (1) medium voltage transformer
E. Substation SS-FR

1. One (1) medium voltage 600A LI switch

2. One (1) medium voltage transformer
F. Substation SS-B1B

1. One (1) medium voltage 600A LI switch

2. One (1) medium voltage transformer
G. Substation SS-A1B

1. One (1) medium voltage 600A LI switch

2. One (1) medium voltage transformer
Day 2 – B Side
H. Switchgear PSGB

1. One (1) switchboard inspection

2. Seven (7) sets of MV cables VLF Tan Delta
We Deliver Power and Possibilities
1132 North Seventh Street, San Jose, CA 95112
CA LIC #174637
1-877-747-4CEI
[email protected]  www.CEI.com
I. Substation SS-B8A

1. One (1) medium voltage 600A LI switch

2. One (1) medium voltage transformer
J. Substation SS-B1A

1. One (1) medium voltage 600A LI switch

2. One (1) medium voltage transformer
K. Substation SS-A1A

1. One (1) medium voltage 600A LI switch

2. One (1) medium voltage transformer
L. Substation SS-C8A

1. One (1) medium voltage 600A LI switch

2. One (1) medium voltage transformer
M. Substation SS-C1C

1. One (1) medium voltage 600A LI switch

2. One (1) medium voltage transformer
N. Substation SS-C1A

1. One (1) medium voltage 600A LI switch

2. One (1) medium voltage transformer
O. Substation SS-D1A

1. One (1) medium voltage 600A LI switch

2. One (1) medium voltage transformer

4. Provide detailed Method of Procedure (MOP) for switching unit substations to PSGB on Saturday and PSGA on Sunday.

5. MOP is based on current single line diagram.

6. All work is to be performed on de-energized equipment only.

7. All work will be performed on Saturday and Sunday. Identifying and verifying locations of manholes will be performed on straight time.

8. Our proposal is based on the assumption that work will flow in a continuous, sequential, adjacent area-by-area manner, with adequate time allowed for electrical work in the construction schedule. Work stoppages and work requested to be performed in a non-continuous or compressed manner may result in a request for an upward adjustment of the contract value.

9. Includes the cost of bond.

We appreciate this opportunity to present our proposal and your consideration of Cupertino Electric. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.

Geoffrey Nocon
Geoffrey Nocon
Project Manager
(408) 771-6747
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-742 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022

REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Report from the Stadium Authority for Action Regarding Stadium Manager’s Request to Execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Cupertino Electric, Inc. for the Primary Main Switch Gear Transformer Battery and 12KV Circuit Breakers CapEx Project and 12KV Electrical Power Study, Assessment and Replacement at Primary Switch Gear at Quadrant Substations CapEx Project

BOARD PILLAR
Ensure Compliance with Measure J and Manage Levi’s Stadium

BACKGROUND
On October 8, 2019, the Stadium Authority Board (Board) approved Ordinance No. 2005 amending Chapter 17.30 of the City Code (Stadium Authority Procurement Policy), which rescinded the delegation to the Executive Director to enter into agreements without prior Board approval. As result of Ordinance No. 2005, the Stadium Manager is also required to request Board approval before entering into agreements on behalf of the Stadium Authority. As of the effective date of the Ordinance (November 8, 2019), all Stadium Authority agreements for services, supplies, materials, and equipment require the approval of the Stadium Authority Board.

As the Stadium Manager, Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC is responsible for maintaining “the Stadium in the Required Condition and operate the Stadium as a quality NFL and multi-purpose public sports, public assembly, exhibit and entertainment facility” as required by the Management Agreement between the Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager.

On April 20, 2021, the Stadium Authority Board approved the Stadium Manager’s request to enter into a three-year agreement with Cupertino Electric, Inc. with a not to exceed amount of $250,000 per contract year for on-call electrical maintenance and repair services. The Stadium Manager is now requesting approval to execute an Amendment No. 1 to the existing Levi’s Stadium Electrical Maintenance and Repair Agreement with Cupertino Electric, Inc. to increase the not to exceed amount from $250,000 to $764,298 for the second year of the contract term; and authorize the Stadium Manager to execute change orders up to $48,489 for the following projects:

1. Primary Main Switch Gear Transformer, Battery and 12KV Main Circuit Breakers CapEx Project - The proposed cost for this project based on a time and materials basis, inclusive of the applicable bond, is $193,583. The Stadium Manager is requesting for additional authority to execute change orders up to $16,417 (8.5%) of the proposed cost, for a total not to exceed amount of $210,000. The Stadium Authority FY 2022/23 CapEx Budget includes $210,000 for this project.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-742 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022

2. 12KV Electrical Power Study, Assessment and Replacement at Primary Switch Gear at Quadrant Substations CapEx Project - The proposed cost for this project based on a time and material basis, inclusive of the applicable bond, is $320,715. The Stadium Manager is requesting for additional authority to execute change orders up to $32,072 (10%) of the proposed cost, for a total not to exceed amount of $352,787. The Stadium Authority FY 2022/23 CapEx Budget includes $420,000 for this project.

DISCUSSION
Stadium Authority staff reviewed the Stadium Manager’s Recommendation Memo, supporting documentation, and proposed amendment to the agreement with Cupertino Electric, Inc. that were submitted (these documents are attached to corresponding report #22-736) and exchanged questions with the Stadium Manager to get more clarification on various aspects of the requests. The Stadium Manager’s responses are also attached to the corresponding report #22-736.

The Stadium Manager determined that this project is of an urgent and critical nature from a “public safety and general operational perspective.” The Stadium Manager stated that Cupertino Electric, Inc. was an essential member of the design-build team that constructed the stadium and is intimately familiar with its electrical systems. The Stadium Manager determined that Cupertino Electric, Inc.’s knowledge of the overall building systems, insight into the specific project as a result of their prior testing and inspection services of the same system, and history of the necessary coordinate among various entities made them the only contractor that can perform this project under the time and operation constraints presented.

In addition to the existing Cupertino Electric, Inc. agreement, the Stadium Manager has an agreement with a separate vendor, Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc., for electrical maintenance and repairs. Per the Stadium Manager’s response, they informed Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. of the work but the vendor did not indicate interest in pursuing the projects. Bear Electrical Solutions responded it did not possess the resources and experience internally to perform this type of complicated high voltage electrical work and had concerns regarding meeting the proposed project schedules. The Stadium Manager determined that the existing agreement with Cupertino Electric, Inc. includes the scope of the proposed work. For these reasons, the Stadium Manager is pursuing the work as a single source procurement.

Based on the documentation and responses provided, staff recommends approval of the Stadium Manager’s request to execute an Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Cupertino Electric, Inc.

However, staff recommends that the Stadium Manager’s request for delegated authority to execute change orders for the two projects be delegated instead to the Executive Director. Currently, the Executive Director has no procurement delegated authority under the Stadium Authority Procurement Policy. Approving staff’s recommendation to provide the Executive Director with such authority to execute change orders up to $48,489 (up to $16,417 for the Primary Main Switch Gear Transformer, Battery & 12KV Main Circuit Breakers CapEx Project and up to $32,072 for the 12KV Electrical Power Study, Assessment and Replacement at Primary Switch Gear at Quadrant Substations CapEx Project) accomplishes the expediency that the Stadium Manager seeks.

The Stadium Authority will require full supporting documentation including compliance with prevailing wage laws, if applicable, before releasing public funds upon completion of work. This requirement is consistent with the Stadium Authority Board’s March 27, 2019 direction to staff to stop payment of City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 4 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-742 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
any additional invoices for services unless there is substantial documentation of services rendered which must also be in compliance with State law and City Code.

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(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Stadium Authority FY 2022/23 CapEx Budget includes $210,000 for the Primary Main Switch Gear Transformer, Battery & 12KV Main Circuit Breakers line item. There are sufficient funds to cover the cost of the project ($193,583) and the 8.5% continency ($16,417) that the Stadium Manager is requesting (a total not to exceed $210,000).

The Stadium Authority FY 2022/23 CapEx Budget includes $420,000 for the 12KV Electrical Power Study at Primary Switch Gear at Quadrant Substations line item. There are sufficient funds to cover the cost of the project ($320,715) and the 10% continency ($32,072) that the Stadium Manager is requesting (a total not to exceed $352,787).

The total cost to undertake and perform the two projects by Cupertino Electric, Inc. with the change orders is $812,787.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City’s Purchasing Manager, Stadium Authority Counsel and Treasurer’s Offices.

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.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the Stadium Manager’s request to execute an Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Cupertino Electric, Inc. to increase the total not to exceed amount from $250,000 to $764,298 for the second year of the agreement term to cover the cost of the Primary Main Switch Gear Transformer, Battery and 12KV Main Circuit Breakers CapEx project ($193,583) and 12KV Electrical Power Study, Assessment and Replacement at Primary Switch Gear at Quadrant Substations CapEx project ($320,715), and authorize the Executive Director to approve and process the reimbursement of such costs upon receiving final invoices and supporting documentation from the Stadium Manager;

2. Authorize the Executive Director to approve the execution of any and all documents associated with, and necessary for the award, completion, and acceptance of the project; and

3. Authorize the Executive Director to approve the execution of change orders up to $16,417 for the Primary Main Switch Gear Transformer, Battery & 12KV Main Circuit Breakers CapEx City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-742 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
project and up to $32,072 for the 12KV Electrical Power Study, Assessment and Replacement at Primary Switch Gear at Quadrant Substations CapEx project, and authorize the Executive Director to approve and process the reimbursement of such costs upon receiving final invoices and supporting documentation from the Stadium Manager.

Reviewed by: Christine Jung, Assistant to the Executive Director Reviewed by: Rajeev Batra, Executive Director
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 4 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-769 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan Including: Adoption and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Prepared to Analyze the Potential Environmental Impacts for the Project and an Associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; Adoption of a General Plan Text Amendment to Add Language Regarding the Creation of Additional Future Focus Areas, the Redesignation of Land Outside of Focus Areas, Creation of the New Very High-Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) Designation, and Adoption of a General Plan Amendment to Create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, Bounded by Great America Parkway to the West, Mission College Boulevard to the North, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the East, and Highway 101 to the South; Adoption of the Greystar General Plan Amendment to Change the Designation of the Greystar Site from High Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) (Maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Units/Acre); and Adoption of the Planned Development Rezoning for the Greystar Site, Which Would Allow up to 1,100 Units on a 13.3 Gross Acre Site Bounded by Freedom Circle to the West, Mission College Boulevard to the North, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the East and Highway 101 to the South (Continued from May 24, 2022)

COUNCIL PILLAR
Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing, and Transportation Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject item before the City Council combines actions on a privately initiated General Plan Amendment and a City initiated General Plan Amendment. The private Amendment was initiated by Greystar Development (Greystar) and would change the City’s General Plan Land Use Designation from High Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre) to allow the development of up to 1,100 multi-family dwelling units on a 13.3 acre site in North Santa Clara between Freedom Circle and San Tomas Aquino Creek on the north side of US Highway 101. The accompanying City Initiated General Plan Amendment would create a new Future Focus Area in the General Plan for a larger 108 acre area encompassing the Greystar site and extending westward to Great America Parkway (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEAQ), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment and related approvals. Key findings from the EIR are summarized below.

As discussed below and in the attached Report to the Planning Commission, the General Plan Amendment proposed by Greystar along with the creation of a new Future Focus Area within the General Plan will allow for intensified land uses within the northern part of the City, supporting future economic development while also providing near-term and long-term capacity for new housing development. In doing so, the General Plan Amendments will support City goals for efficient land use City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 14 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-769 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
and future growth. The Freedom Circle Future Focus Area will be in close proximity to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, which is the north-south spine of the City’s active transportation network, and will have proximity to employment and other commercial uses that support the continued development and prosperity of North Santa Clara as a more urban regional job center.

The City Council is being asked to conduct a public hearing and take four actions related to the creation and adoption of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the associated Greystar General Plan Amendment (the project):
1) Adoption and certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts for the project and an associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
2) Adoption of a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area; 3) Adoption of the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51- 100 Dwelling Unit/Acre); and
4) Adoption of the Planned Development Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south.

The Planning Commission heard and deliberated on the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the Greystar project (Attachment 3) on April 13, 2022. Public speakers at the Planning Commission meeting included a number of members of labor unions, some supporting and some opposing approval of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the Greystar General Plan amendment.

Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project as recommended by staff with the following modification:
1) Change the proposed bike lanes in the Future Focus Area from Class II on-street bike lanes to Class IV separated bikeways.

BACKGROUND
In 2016, Greystar submitted a proposal to the City to redevelop a 13.3 acre site in North Santa Clara between Freedom Circle and San Tomas Aquino Creek on the north side of US Highway 101 from low intensity commercial office use to a high intensity mixed-use development featuring residential and office towers. Rather than proceed independently with a General Plan Amendment (GPA) specific to the Greystar site, the City Council directed staff to process the General Plan Amendment along with an amendment to the City’s General Plan to designate the Greystar site and adjacent properties to the west and north as a Future Focus Area in the City’s General Plan, thereby establishing additional commercial and residential development capacity for the larger area. Greystar has been funding the Future Focus Area process while also moving forward with a GPA application for their site and an accompanying development proposal for up to 1,100 multi-family dwelling units.

The Freedom Circle area (shown in Attachment 1) is not currently designated for conversion to residential uses under any phase of the 2010 - 2035 General Plan, but rather planned over the longCity of Santa Clara Page 2 of 14 Printed on 6/3/2022 powered by Legistar™
22-769 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
term to be preserved for employment uses. The existing buildings in the Freedom Circle area are a mix of concrete tilt-ups, office towers, and single-use commercial buildings such as the Santa Clara Marriott Hotel and Pedro’s Cantina. The Greystar site, which sits directly north of 101 and directly west of San Tomas Aquino Creek, is undeveloped.

The proposed Freedom Circle Future Focus Area (Attachment 2) encompasses approximately 108 gross acres in an employment-rich area of northern Santa Clara, comprising several moderateintensity office and industrial parks accompanied by surface parking, along with the Santa Clara Marriott Hotel. The Plan Area is bounded by San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east, Great America Parkway to the west, Great America Theme Park to the north, and US-101 to the south. It is proximate to a range of regional destinations and amenities, including Levi’s Stadium, Great America Theme Park, and the Santa Clara Convention Center.

The vision for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area is an intensely urban environment, with Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard retaining their commercial character while sites along Freedom Circle could be converted to high-intensity residential use. As indicated in the Notice of Preparation circulated on June 26, 2020, the proposed Future Focus Area would support up to 2,500 residential dwelling units in addition to the 1,100 units proposed through the Greystar GPA, for a total of 3,600 dwelling units. The Future Focus Area designation will also add the potential to develop 2 million square feet of office space beyond the current General Plan capacity, allowing a total of 9.6 million square feet of potential office/industrial development. The addition of new residentially designated land will help the City achieve its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals for housing production. The parcels designated High Intensity Office/R&D are currently developed with approximately 2.35 million square feet of building space.

DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission heard and deliberated on the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the Greystar project (Attachment 3) on April 13, 2022. The following discussion summarizes the Planning Commission hearing discussion and actions. Additional staff analysis is provided in the attached Report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 4).

Staff provided a presentation on the proposed project and noted that the City received a letter from the law firm of Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo shortly before the hearing (Attachment 5). The letter raises issues around the consistency of the proposed Focus Area Plan with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, and issues regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR including the amount of detail in the biological surveys; concerns about building design and the potential for bird strikes; and the lack of a quantitative health risk analysis.

Public speakers at the Planning Commission meeting included a number of members of labor unions, some supporting and some opposing approval of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the Greystar General Plan amendment.

Issues Raised by Public Testimony
The law firm Adams Broadwell brought up several issues relating to the proposed General Plan amendment and environmental analysis, which were responded to as follows:
· General Plan Consistency Issues: The Commenter cited to an existing General Plan policy requiring the adoption of a comprehensive plan prior to rezoning within a future focus area, City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 14 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-769 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
claiming that the City was acting inconsistently with that policy. Staff responded that Freedom Circle is not one of the existing future focus areas in the General Plan, and explained that a new policy is being added to allow for the rezoning in combination with the creation of new future focus areas.
· Diesel Particulate Matter: The correspondence and testimony provided by the law firm Adams Broadwell argued that the qualitative health risk analysis (HRA) did not provide sufficient detail to comply with CEQA, and that the City needed to perform a quantitative analysis. However, CEQA does not require a quantitative HRA, and staff explained that the qualitative analysis, along with the project’s proposed mitigation measures, were sufficient. · Analysis of the possibility of bird strike resulting from the Greystar development: Adams Broadwell indicated that the proposed elevations for the Greystar project could cause bird strike issues, especially because of the proximity of the project to a riparian corridor. Staff and the project consultant indicated that the proposed project elevations were conceptual, and would be reviewed for consistency with bird safety standards per the City’s standard condition for bird-safe design. Moreover, the creek in the project area is channelized, and with the minimal plant life, does not attract abundant bird species. · Adequacy of the biological survey for the project site: Adams Broadwell claimed that the biological analysis did not provide sufficient detail about the site visit used in the analysis, and questioned the City’s utilization of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to evaluate the site (as opposed to other citizen-driven databases). Staff responded that the City sets the thresholds of significance for CEQA impacts, and as part of that, selects the applicable databases for the biological analysis. The City utilizes CNDDB because the data has been vetted, whereas the alternate databases proposed by the commenter allow anyone to contribute information.

The Assistant City Attorney also indicated that if the Planning Commission thought that the project needed supplemental analysis to address Adams Broadwell’s concerns, that the project and the Planning Commission’s recommendations could move on to City Council and be supplemented with additional analysis prior to the Council hearing.

Following public testimony, Commissioner Saleme made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Huang, to recommend adoption of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Saleme then made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Huang, to adopt the Future Focus Area Plan, including Chair Biagini’s proposed modification to the Future Focus Area Plan to make all Class II bike lanes separated Class IV bikeways and to approve the Greystar General Plan project.

Planning Commission Action
By a vote of 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cherukuru absent) the Commission recommended approval of the Future Focus Area Plan and associated environmental clearance and land use changes as recommended by staff with the following modification:
1) Change the proposed bike lanes in the Future Focus Area from Class II on-street bike lanes to Class IV separated bikeways.

The Freedom Circle Future Focus Area diagram, included as a part of Attachment 2, has been updated to reflect the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 14 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-769 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
Additional Analysis
This report includes additional analysis related to the General Plan Consistency Issues, the Traffic Analysis, and related to questions raised regarding the qualitative Health Risk Assessment and the Biological Assessment provided in the Draft EIR (Attachment 6).

General Plan Consistency
The 2035 General Plan includes three Future Focus Areas. All the requirements set forth in the General Plan relating to Future Focus Areas concerns these three existing Future Focus Areas. For these three existing Future Focus Areas, the General Plan includes discussion and policies concerning the development of comprehensive planning for these areas. In adopting policies relating to these three Future Focus Areas as part of the existing General Plan, the City exercised its discretion to prohibit any specific project from moving forward within these three Future Focus Areas until after comprehensive planning was completed.

Freedom Circle is not one of the three existing Future Focus Areas included in the General Plan. The General Plan does not state that, should the City exercise its discretion to create Additional Future Focus Areas, those Additional Future Focus Areas must be made subject to all the same requirements as the three Future Focus Areas included in current General Plan. Therefore, in proposing to identify Freedom Circle as an Additional Future Focus Area, the City has the discretion to create new policies relating to it and other Additional Future Focus Areas that may be proposed by the City in the future.

As explained in the EIR, the City has proposed adding Policy 5.4.7-P11 to the General Plan, which allows for the creation of Additional Future Focus Areas and also allows the City to exercise its discretion to allow General Plan and Zoning amendments to proceed at the same time as an Additional Focus Area is created. For example, the City may choose to exercise its discretion to allow for General Plan and Zoning amendments to proceed concurrently for an Additional Focus Area, where a Future Focus Area is made up of numerous property owners and only a subset of those property owners is prepared to move forward to specific project applications (as was the case with Freedom Circle and Greystar). In such circumstances, the City may determine that delaying an application for a specific development project is not appropriate for one or more reasons such as, for example, where due to the location or use proposed by an applicant the City believes the use can move forward concurrently with the comprehensive planning without negatively impacting the ability to comprehensively plan the Additional Future Focus Area or where the City determines the use, if developed, should be developed in the near term. For Greystar, as demonstrated in the EIR, the Project can be implemented without negatively impacting comprehensive planning of the entire Additional Future Focus Area. Moreover, the Greystar Project proposes over 1,000 new homes.

Given the local need and state objective to produce more housing, City staff believes the uses proposed in Greystar further supports the City Council exercising its discretion to allow the project to move forward concurrently with comprehensive planning of this Additional Future Focus Area.

City Staff, however, acknowledges that minor clarifications to the proposed General Plan Amendments may help to avoid confusion concerning the differences between existing Future Focus Areas and Additional Future Focus Areas such as Freedom Circle. Therefore, City Staff is now proposing the following clarifications to the proposed General Plan Amendments:

Text under section 5.4.7, Future Focus Areas Goals and Policies:
“In addition to the three Future Focus Areas identified in the General Plan as adopted on November 16, 2010, Aadditional Future Focus Areas may be added to the General Plan Land City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 14 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-769 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
Use diagram through the General Plan Amendment process. Subject to the discretion provided pursuant to Policy 5.4.7-P11, tThe creation of an Additional Future Focus Area is a precursor to the comprehensive planning process required for all Focus Areas.” Policy 5.4.7-P11:

Allow for General Plan Amendments and rezonings outside of existing Future Focus Areas in combination with the designation of new Additional Future Focus Areas.

In another comment letter dated May 24, 2022, Adams Broadwell claimed that these revisions would create internal inconsistencies in the General Plan, since several policies of the General Plan require that a comprehensive plan be in place prior to any development of a future focus area. Again, however, this misses the fact that Freedom Circle is not currently identified as a future focus area in the General Plan, and so the policies do not apply to Freedom Circle. The proposal is to amend the General Plan to allow for the designation of additional future focus areas, including Freedom Circle, and to expressly allow for development in combination with such a designation. No inconsistency would result.

Updated Traffic Analysis
The December 2021 version of the Transportation Analysis has been included as a part of this report (Attachment 7). The updated Transportation Analysis concludes that conversion of Hichborn Drive to two-way traffic and installation of a traffic signal at Hichborn and Great America Parkway would help to lessen adverse effects on the level of service (LoS) along Great America Parkway. The updated analysis includes the conversion of Hichborn Drive from one-way to two-way traffic and fair-share payments for those improvements by both Greystar and future Freedom Circle developers as conditions of approval.

Pursuant to SB 743 (2013), the City ceased using LoS as a threshold of significance in CEQA documents on July 1, 2020. Instead, the City adopted a transportation policy establishing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the methodology for analyzing transportation impacts. For Freedom Circle, the VMT impacts were determined to be less-than-significant, because the project qualified as a transit supportive project (located near the intersection of major bus routes; minimum residential density of 35 du/ac and office FAR of 0.75; includes transit-oriented-design elements; and no excess parking).

Nevertheless, the City still requires traffic studies to examine LoS, but as an operational analysis element, not as a CEQA threshold. Because impacts on LoS are no longer considered a CEQA impact, the updated Transportation Analysis does not alter the mitigation measures or conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report.

Quantitative Health Risk Analysis
One of the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report indicated that the commentors felt that the environmental analysis was inadequate for purposes of CEQA, and that a quantitative Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was required. See comments L4.30 through L4.39 in the Final EIR. The City maintains that a Qualitative HRA is legally adequate under CEQA. However, to confirm the results of the Qualitative Analysis, the City’s CEQA consultant has also performed a Quantitative Health Risk Assessment, which is included as Attachment 8.

The Quantitative HRA finds that the construction of the Greystar project would not lead to a significant impact regarding health risks to sensitive receptors, based on the size of the construction City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 14 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-769 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
site, the duration of construction, or the distance from the project site to the nearest sensitive receptor. The impact conclusions of the DEIR remain unchanged, and re-circulation is not required.

Updated Biological Assessment
The same commentor felt that the Biological Assessment included with the EIR was inadequate, because the Assessment was based on a December 12, 2020 site visit that was made shortly after the site was disked, when vegetative cover was minimal and had no remaining small mammal burrows. That survey concluded that the site “…therefore provides very little habitat value for raptor or other carnivore (i.e. coyote, fox) foraging and does not provide aestivation and/or cover to reptile or amphibian species.”
To provide a more complete picture of the habitat value of the Greystar site, the City is including an updated biological analysis, from April of this year (Attachment 9). The analysis concludes that the site is being used by species that are adapted to urban habitats, that the site does not provide unique habitat value, and that species using the site will disperse to other nearby parcels. Similar to Air Quality Impacts, the conclusions of the DEIR remain unchanged, and re-circulation of the document for additional review and comment is not required.

Biological site survey and methodology used in the Draft EIR Although the description in the DEIR is brief, it was based on research of multiple databases (as reported in the DEIR) and a site visit. The survey completed in December 2020 was completed by a single biologist who walked the perimeter of the site and noted conditions within and around the site using visual surveys and binoculars. The site had been mowed, and vegetation was predominantly dried grasses in winter. The biologist did not observe burrows during the survey; these would have been evident under the mowed conditions due to mounded dirt or ground squirrel activity during the day. The weather was cloudy, dry, and about 60 degrees. The biologist summarized her observations on that day in Chapter 6 of the DEIR, including that the site vegetation was either lacking or had died back and that she did not observe any animal burrows. We look for animal burrows because they indicate a food source for predators, and ground squirrel burrows would indicate potential habitat for burrowing owl. Since it has been more than a year, and the initial survey was conducted in winter, we report current conditions in April 2022 in an additional memo for the Council’s benefit. The updated setting does not change the conclusions or mitigation requirements in the DEIR.

An additional walking survey throughout the parcels was conducted in April 2022. Two land cover types were mapped: (1) Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grassland (Avena spp. - Bromus spp. Seminatural Alliance), and (2) developed. The grassland is dominated by ruderal and invasive non-native plant species. The developed portions are paving and electrical structures remaining from past activities. Several species adapted to the urban environment were observed.

The differences between the December 2020 and April 2022 site visits are:
· In December 2020 the site had been mowed, and the lack of vegetation resulted in less cover and forage for wildlife, while in April 2022 the site had not been mowed, and greater use by urban-adapted species was observed.
· In 2022 active ground squirrel burrows were observed on the San Tomas Aquino levee next to 101, in the southeast corner of the site, and inactive burrows were observed on a berm on the south end of the site adjacent to US 101; they were not observed during the 2020 visit.

Ground squirrel burrows are not evident anywhere else on the parcels or on the levee.

City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 14 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-769 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
Prior land uses have affected the biological setting. Sometime between 1968 and 1980, the Greystar parcels were graded as the area was developed (UCSB 2022). Plowing, tilling, and other land disturbance associated with agriculture and urbanization has likely eliminated most soil seed banks of native plants and degraded natural habitats within the parcels. The parcels are currently mowed short three times annually, and have been for at least the last 6 years (M. Avila, J. Ly pers. comm.).

The parcels are currently under a Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) voluntary cleanup program for soil contamination by agricultural chemicals, including pesticides (DDT, chlordane), arsenic, and lead. In 1997 between one and five feet of imported gravel and soil were placed on the parcels for use as parking and temporary construction storage. In 2004, under the DTSC-approved Removal Action Workplan, a portion of the Greystar parcels was capped with a one-foot deep covering of soil and gravel, and additional gravel was applied periodically as part of maintenance activities directed under the Operations and Management Plan with DTSC. Most of the site was used for parking and storage between 2004 and 2014. The parcels currently still contain the gravel and cap, but over time have been overgrown with vegetation.

Multi-season and multi-year surveys provide a better picture of site use by wildlife, but the assessment of whether the project site has been significantly impacted by historic use can be done with research and a single season survey. The DEIR acknowledges that site conditions can change, and requires nesting bird surveys as mitigation to minimize or avoid impacts to these species for this reason. These surveys include all birds, regardless of whether they are defined as special-status species.

Methods used to assess biological resources are reported in the DEIR, but further explanation is provided here. A “desk-top analysis” is completed first so that the biologist understands what specific habitat requirements are important to look for during the field survey. During the desk-top analysis, Google Earth history and a minimum of three databases maintained by the state and federal governments are reviewed: the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. In some cases, the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory is also reviewed. MIG biologists also regularly review citizen science sites, including eBird and iNaturalist, but these data points are sometimes entered by non-scientists and must be considered carefully. If there are recent biology reports from projects nearby, those may also be reviewed. Using these resources, a list of special-status species that have been reported to occur in the region, and a description of their habitat requirements, is compiled.

The list informs the site visit, but it is also presented as a table in the biology analysis that includes an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence on the project site once site conditions are observed. This assessment records which state or federally listed, or candidates for listing, could be impacted by the project. One of the data points we use is whether the species has been recorded within a certain distance of the site in any database, although in the table the CNDDB and the CNPS Inventory are mainly referred to because they are map-based. Citizen science sites are more recent additions to the map-based tools available for this review and should have also been referenced in the table. If the databases don’t report an occurrence on or adjacent to the project site, that is never interpreted to mean that the species are absent. If the project site has suitable habitat for the plant or animal species, and there is a reasonably recent record for the species within a certain distance (usually five miles), then further surveys for that species would be required. The DEIR includes the criteria used to determine whether a species potentially occurs on the parcel and also explains the methods used.

City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 14 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-769 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
Bird-window collisions
The renderings presented in the DEIR are conceptual and do not show the final materials to be used, because they don’t fully reflect standard conditions of approval that will be imposed on the project.

They were not assessed, because the conditions of approval will require bird safety standards in the final design. Those conditions include at least the following measures, which are enforceable through the design review process:

The final design of buildings shall incorporate specific bird safety standards based on the following bird-friendly building principles:
· Reduce mirrors and large areas of reflective glass.
· Avoid transparent glass skyways, walkways, or entryways, free-standing glass walls, and minimize transparent building corners, or utilize glazing treatments to mitigate the hazard. · Minimize funneling of open space toward a building façade. · Strategically place landscaping to reduce reflection and views of foliage inside or through glass.
· Reduce potential light and glare by installing low-profile, low-intensity lighting directed downward, installing shielded fixtures for outdoor lighting, and using low emissivity reflective coating on exterior glass surfaces.
· To the extent consistent with the normal and expected operations of the uses planned for the particular development area, take appropriate measures to avoid use of unnecessary lighting at night, especially during bird migration season (February-May and August-November) through the installation of motion sensor lighting, automatic lighting shut-off mechanisms, or other effective measures to the extent feasible.

Burrows, burrowing owl, and nesting bird protection
Burrowing owls prefer open grassland with mounds or berms where they can easily stand and watch for predators. In April, the site conditions were not attractive to burrowing owls due to few apparent burrows, tall weedy vegetation, and a predominantly flat site; although, a berm next to US 101 and the levee adjacent to San Tomas Aquino Creek provide raised areas that could provide suitable burrow and sentinel habitat. Feral cats are fed on the site adjacent to Freedom Circle, despite efforts by the landowner to stop this use (M. Avila, pers. comm.), and these are a burrowing owl predator.

For safety reasons it is likely that ground squirrel burrows are discouraged in the creek levee; in April a few burrows were observed in the levee at US 101, but the rest of the levee along the parcel had been mowed and no evidence of burrows was detected. During a subsequent visit in May, after the site had been mowed, it was easier to detect ground squirrel burrows. There is an active burrow system consisting of 5 or 6 openings on the creek levee at US 101. There are burrows on the berm at the south end of the project site, but they did not have the dirt spray that typically indicates they are in use.

Although burrows were not detected during the December 2020 survey, the DEIR acknowledges that site conditions can change over time, and species can appear into what was thought to be unoccupied habitat. The DEIR includes a mitigation measure to survey for nesting birds prior to site disturbance (measure 6-4 applies to the Focus Plan Area and the Greystar site). The survey is expected to include observations of all ground squirrel burrows on or adjacent to the site for sign of burrowing owl use (whitewash, feathers, prey items), followed by dawn and dusk surveys completed according to CDFW protocol. No sign of burrowing owl use was observed at ground squirrel burrows City of Santa Clara Page 9 of 14 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-769 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
in site surveys in April and May 2022, and potential use by burrowing owls is expected to be low.

If burrowing owls are detected on the site, consultation with CDFW would be necessary before the project could move forward.

Species to address in the DEIR
The DEIR is not required to address an exhaustive list of species that may be impacted by the project (14 CCR 15003(i)). As documented in the DEIR (pages 6-2, 6-3), the analysis focuses on species that are on the following lists:
§ The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database’s (CNDDB) records for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle containing the project area and the eight (8) surrounding quadrangles (Newark, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mountain View, Milpitas, Calaveras Reservoir, Cupertino, San Jose West, and San Jose East),
§ United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) database,
§ USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI), and
§ California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory records for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle containing the project area and the eight (8) surrounding quadrangles (Newark, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mountain View, Milpitas, Calaveras Reservoir, Cupertino, San Jose West, and San Jose East).

As a result, a total of 650 special-status plant and animal species were considered, and 89 were selected for further analysis in the DEIR.

In addition to these species, the DEIR requires surveys and protection for nesting birds and roosting bats to minimize impacts to these species as required by state and federal law.

Traffic-wildlife collisions
The DEIR determined that the project is not growth-inducing, and therefore will not increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT). If VMT is not increased over the current setting, then the project will not increase traffic wildlife collisions unless wildlife populations increase. Because this is an urban setting, it is not expected that wildlife populations will increase in the local area and result in a significant impact due to traffic collisions.

Tree removal
Tree removal in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan area is addressed in the DEIR on page 6-14.

First, any future project in the Focus Area Plan area is required to comply with City ordinances related to trees. By obtaining a written permit from the superintendent of streets before altering or removing any trees, plants, or shrubs along streets or public portions of the project, as well as ensuring the required minimum ratio for tree replacement of 2:1 as required by General Plan Policy

5.3.1-P10, any project would comply with all local policies or ordinances preserving trees.

City of Santa Clara Page 10 of 14 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-769 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
Second, Mitigation Measure 6-4 on page 6-13 of the DEIR specifies when pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats are required, and what measures need to be implemented to protect nests until the birds have fledged, and to minimize impacts to bats.

There are multiple trees on the Pedro’s Restaurant border with the Greystar site and there are a few trees along the San Tomas Aquino Creek border of the Greystar site, otherwise the site is treeless.

Trees and shrubs proposed to be planted on the Greystar site will add nesting habitat for urbanadapted bird species, but will remove ground-nesting habitat that the project site may currently provide.

Wildlife Corridor
Using both a site visit and a desktop analysis of the resources contained in the Focus Plan Area and the surrounding areas, the DEIR analysis determined that the area contains neither a significant wildlife corridor, nor a significant nursery site. This is based on the habitat quality determined to be present.

A significant wildlife corridor is one which is important to the survival of populations that migrate between winter and summer habitat, or which provides an unimpeded link between populations to allow for gene exchange. That is not present in the Focus Plan Area, which is urbanized and is surrounded by urbanization. A significant nursery site is a site that is essential for population survival, because it has unusual characteristics that are not found elsewhere, and the species are able to successfully reproduce using that site. The Focus Plan Area provides urban habitat for common wildlife species, and redevelopment will provide the same. That said, the Greystar site is an open field, albeit heavily disturbed, that is used by wildlife, particularly birds, that are adapted to urban habitats. Many common bird species will find habitat in the developed area on Greystar, but possibly not in the same numbers because there will be less open space. San Tomas Aquino Creek connects habitats within the watershed, and is both a nursery site and a corridor. The project does not propose to encroach on the creek or block species use or travel within the creek corridor. Wildlife will not be prevented from traveling through the area to reach breeding or foraging grounds.

Wildlife use of the Focus Plan Area and the Greystar site Wildlife use is generally greater in areas with a diverse assemblage of plant species, habitat structure, and edges between vegetation types. There is not a high diversity of plant species in the Focus Plan Area or the Greystar site due to long-term and consistent human disturbance that has reduced both diversity and habitat structure. The Focus Plan Area does provide mature vegetation, including trees, that support a variety of urban-adapted bird species and provide some habitat diversity. Trees located in areas of future development of the Focus Plan Area will need to be preserved or replaced at a 2:1 ratio, benefitting the same urban-adapted wildlife currently found there. The Greystar site is an open field dominated by non-native weed species that supports one vegetation type and, except for a berm, no diversity in habitat structure. That said, it is not devoid of wildlife at all. It provides open, urban habitat that primarily benefits bird species. The presence of San Tomas Aquino Creek adjacent to the Greystar site may contribute to the species observed to use the site for forage, such as Canada goose and rough-winged swallow. The Greystar project will replace the open forage habitat with urban park and apartment uses that will likely change current wildlife use of the site but is not expected to result in an adverse impact as defined under CEQA.

Additional correspondence received
The City received additional correspondence from Adams Broadwell on May 24, 2022, which is City of Santa Clara Page 11 of 14 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-769 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
provided as Attachment 17. The letter raises issues relating to General Plan consistency regarding the creation of Future Focus Areas, and the adequacy of the biological analysis. Although the May 24 comments are largely duplicative of their prior comments, the General Plan consistency issue is discussed above, and the biological analysis issues will be addressed in a separate memo prior to the Council meeting.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment and related approvals (the “project”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment 6). The EIR has been prepared as a program EIR for the Focus Area Plan, while incorporating a project-level analysis for the proposed Greystar project. The EIR and Notice of Availability were circulated for a 45-day period from November 5, 2021, to December 20, 2021, in accordance with CEQA requirements. The EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts for the project, and addresses topics identified within the General Plan policies for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, including land use compatibility and provision of public facilities and parks and open space (Policy 5.4.7-P6, 5.4.7-P7, 5.4.7-P8, and 5.4.7-P9).

The EIR found that there would be significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to:
• Air Quality emissions (toxic air contaminant emissions) • Potential destruction or degradation of Historic Resources • Noise (increases in traffic noise levels from Specific Plan development) The project would also result in the following significant unavoidable cumulative impacts:
• Air Quality emissions (criteria pollutant emissions)
All of the other potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are included in their entirety as a part of the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). A detailed discussion of the potential impacts and mitigation measures to be applied to the project is specified in the EIR and would be implemented through project conditions of approval and the MMRP for the proposed project.

The Draft EIR comment period ran from November 5, 2021, to December 20, 2021. A total of five comments were received during the comment period. None of the comment letters have identified a new significant impact or have provided substantial evidence that the CEQA analysis is otherwise inadequate. Recirculation of the EIR is therefore not required. Responses to the Draft EIR comments, as well as minor text changes and clarifications, in the form of a Final EIR, was made available to the public through the City’s website on March 30, 2022, and have been forwarded on to any commenters on the Draft EIR. In addition, the supplemental analyses described above (traffic, HRA, biology), were made available to the public through the City’s website on May 13, 2022, and have been forwarded on to the commenters on the EIR.

FISCAL IMPACT
Consultant costs borne by the City for the preparation of the Future Focus Area have been borne by Greystar through a reimbursement agreement with the City.

The proposed change in land uses would significantly increase land values and the property tax base as well as demand for services, having both positive and negative fiscal impacts upon the City. The City of Santa Clara Page 12 of 14 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-769 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
addition of retail services and an increased local population will add to more sales tax revenue for the City. It is understood that residential land uses generally have a net negative fiscal impact (as increased land value revenue does not completely offset increased costs for service), but infill development and higher density development, particularly utilizing Type I or Type III construction, provides for more efficient delivery of services and can be revenue neutral or even positive in some circumstances. Furthermore, the Plan will include private maintenance of park spaces and a significant private investment for infrastructure that will also provide fiscal benefits. On the whole, implementation of the eventual Specific Plan is expected to have a relatively minor net fiscal impact to the City and will provide housing necessary for Santa Clara’s ongoing economic vitality.

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

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by publishing a hearing notice in the Santa Clara Weekly on May 11, 2022, and by mailing a hearing notice to properties within a 1,000-foot radius of the plan area and posting a notice of public hearing at three conspicuous locations within 300 feet of the project site on March 30, 2022. The City Council agenda was also posted on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

The City held a community meeting on the North Santa Clara area including the Freedom Circle area on February 25, 2019. Approximately 28 members of the public attended the meeting.

ALTERNATIVES
(Planning Commission Recommendation)

1. Adopt a resolution approving and certifying the Final EIR prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan and the Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (SCH #2020060425), including CEQA Findings and a statement of overriding consideration;

2. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/R&D designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area bounded by Great America Parkway to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south, including modifications of the plan area diagram to change all Class II bike lanes to Class IV separated bikeways;

3. Adopt a resolution approving the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre);

4. Adopt a resolution approving the Planned Development Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south;
City of Santa Clara Page 13 of 14 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-769 Agenda Date: 6/7/2022
OR:

5. Provide direction to staff to make modifications to the Freedom Circle and Greystar General Plan Amendments and/or the Greystar Planned Development rezoning for City Council consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a resolution approving and certifying the Final EIR prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan and the Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (SCH #2020060425), including CEQA Findings and a statement of overriding consideration;

2. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/R&D designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area bounded by Great America Parkway to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south, including modifications of the plan area diagram to change all Class II bike lanes to Class IV separated bikeways;

3. Adopt a resolution approving the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre); and

4. Adopt a resolution approving the Planned Development Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south.

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Aerial of the Freedom Circle Focus Area

2. Proposed Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan

3. Greystar Rezoning Proposal

4. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment Planning Commission Report

5. Adams Broadwell letter dated 4/13/2022

6. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment EIR

7. Freedom Circle December 2021 Transportation Analysis

8. Updated Air Quality Analysis (with Quantitative Health Risk Assessment)

9. Updated Biological Assessment

10. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment Findings of Fact

11. MMRP for the Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment

12. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment EIR Resolution

13. Freedom Circle Future Focus Area General Plan Text and Map Amendment Resolution

14. Greystar project General Plan Amendment Resolution

15. Greystar Planned Development Rezoning Resolution

16. 8-3-2021 Subdivision Committee Minutes

17. 5-24-2022 Adams Broadwell comment letter
City of Santa Clara Page 14 of 14 Printed on 6/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
Figure 1. Proposed Freedom Circle focus area. The Greystar property is outlined in yellow.

Freedom Circle Focus
Area
-
 Greystar site
1 FOCUS AREA PLAN
Revised Draft March 2022
I. Introduction
The City of Santa Clara’s General Plan provides a vision and constitution for long-term development. The Plan contains the City’s policies for land use, transportation, housing, design, environmental resources, health, and safety.

The General Plan also identifies Focus Areas throughout the city, each representing opportunities for more intense development and future economic growth. The purpose of these Focus Areas is to encourage improvements and new development tailored to the unique character and quality of these distinct areas. Additional planning is a prerequisite for development of these Focus Areas, and all plans for the Focus Areas must conform with the City’s overarching General Plan goals and policies.

The Freedom Circle area was not designated in the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan as a Future Focus Area. This employment-rich northern district has become the central focus of redevelopment activity and intensification of existing uses due to its status as an employment and entertainment district and distance from single-family residential neighborhoods. The proposed Freedom Circle Focus Area encompasses approximately 108 gross acres in an employment-rich area of northern Santa Clara, comprising several moderate-intensity office and industrial parks accompanied by surface parking, along with the Santa Clara Marriot hotel.

Given the rate of growth and development interest in North Santa Clara, the City has designated FC as a Future Focus Area. This Focus Area Plan outlines new land uses that will convert the area from an employment center to a high-intensity mixed-use neighborhood including residential developments.

These changes will help meet the demand for housing and for using land more efficiently at high, urban densities.

In parallel to the development of this Plan, Greystar Real Estate Partners developed a project proposal for a portion of the Freedom Circle Focus Area, which will be processed as a General Plan Amendment in 2021. The remainder of the FC Plan Area will be built out over the next fifteen years or more.

The Freedom Circle (FC) Focus Area Plan (Plan) establishes a comprehensive planning framework to guide the development of a new mixed-use district in northern Santa Clara. It includes the goals, policies, and design principles that will inform redevelopment in the Focus Area including the Greystar project proposal.
2 II. Vision and Goals
The long-term buildout of the Freedom Circle Focus Area will create a dynamic, mixed-use district that includes residential developments and community amenities as well as a diverse range of employment uses. It will complement other North Santa Clara neighborhoods and provide a complete network of pedestrian, bicycle and roadway connections to destinations including employment centers, transit stops, and trails.

The Greystar General Plan Amendment proposes to change the land use designation for the 13.3 acre Greystar site from High Intensity Office (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre). Proposed uses include:
• 1,075 dwelling units in three 7-story buildings
• A two-acre public park with a connection to the San Tomas Aquino Creek trail, and • up to 2,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail.

At full buildout, the Freedom Circle Focus Area would allow, subject to a future planning study, 2,500 dwelling units beyond those anticipated in the Greystar General Plan Amendment (described above) and 2 million square feet of additional office space beyond that allowed under the current high-intensity office designation.

Proposed General Plan land use designations (see Figure 1) include:
• Very High Intensity Office / R&D (FAR of 3.0)
• High-Intensity Office / R&D
• Regional Commercial
• Very High Density Residential (51-100 du/acre)
• Public / Quasi Public
• Parks and Open Space
The following goals will guide the development of the Freedom Circle Focus Area FC-G1: Develop an urban-scale mixed-use activity center in North Santa Clara to support economic vitality while increasing residential options.

FC-G2: Provide for a range of housing types and densities to accommodate future residents and to create diversity in building scale and typology.

FC-G3: Create a complete neighborhood that provides easy access to day-to-day services and amenities for residents, employees and visitors
FC-G4: Reduce reliance on private vehicles and improve jobs/housing balance by locating amenities and jobs that can be comfortably and safety accessed from housing by walking.

FC-G5: Create a human scaled public realm through inviting architecture and urban design.

FC-G6: Improve multi-modal transportation options and connections 3 FC-G7: Enhance connectivity to the San Tomas Aquino Creek trail.

III. Policies
FC-P1: Allow for a range of housing density and development intensity throughout the plan area, consistent with the General Plan designations and overall buildout capacity.

FC-P2: Co-locate commercial, recreational and other active uses to create nodes of activity throughout the plan area
FC-P3: Require active street frontages and ground floor uses to create a pedestrian-friendly, cohesive urban environment
FC-P4: Provide public parkland and privately-owned public open space (POPOs) that is accessible to all residents and visitors, adequate to meet resident activity needs, and consistent with the General Plan requirements and other City regulations.

FC-P5: Require the provision of open space, or payment of in-lieu fees for parks and open space for residential development, consistent with the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance.

FC-P6: Prioritize size, shape, and location of public parkland to ensure that amenities are usable, programmable, and flexible.

FC-P7: Encourage sensitive design and site planning to mitigate the scale and height of larger buildings through use of building massing, setbacks, façade articulation, fenestration, varied parapets and roof lines, and pedestrian-scaled architectural details.

FC-P8: Provide appropriate transitions between new development in the Focus Area and adjacent uses consistent with General Plan Transition Policies.

FC-P9: Require that building facades and entrances directly face street frontages, with a high proportion of transparent windows facing the street for nonresidential uses.

FC-P10: Minimize surface parking by requiring below-grade or structured parking facilities with active uses along street frontages.

FC-P11: Establish parking ratios that support transit, active transportation and shared vehicle use FC-P12: Encourage shared parking between uses and parcels, including the shared use of existing structures.

FC-P13: Establish affordable housing requirements for residential and residential mixed-use developments that support regional growth goals, City policy, and local need.

FC-P14: Provide new street, bicycle and pedestrian networks that break down large blocks and sites, accommodate multiple modes of travel, and maximize connections to activity hubs and transit facilities. 4 FC-P15: Develop design standards and guidelines to support active ground-floor environments, welcoming public spaces, and safe and comfortable sidewalks and pathways.

FC-P16: Design and program the plan area and sites to encourage walking, bicycling and transit use.

FC-P17: Minimize environmental impacts through sustainable building and infrastructure design, consistent with CALGreen and Santa Clara Climate Action Plan requirements.

FC-P18: Redesign Mission College Boulevard, Freedom Circle, and Hichborn Drive to better balance space dedicated to vehicles, bicycle, and pedestrians.

FC-P19: Redesign Mission College Boulevard, Freedom Circle, and Hichborn Drive to facilitate safe and comfortable pedestrian crossings.

FC-P20: Maintain VTA bus transit service in the Focus Area Plan area and improve transit stops and shelters
FC-P21: Design pedestrian and bicycle networks and infrastructure to facilitate access to transit stops on Great America Parkway, Mission College and Tasman Drive FC-P22: Locate loading zones and rideshare pick-up / drop-off areas away from bus stops.

FCP23: Require developments to contribute to City vehicle miles travelled (VMT) goals and implement a variety of sustainable transit solutions as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program.

FC-P24: Require developers and property owners to coordinate with North Santa Clara employers and stakeholders to explore participating in a private transit systems and/or a Transportation Management Agency (TMA) as part of the Specific Plan process
IV. Implementation
Upon plan approval, the Freedom Circle Focus Area will be added as a Phase III Focus Area to the General Plan (Section 5.4.5). Any change in land use designation or rezoning of land within the Freedom Circle area will be subject to the requirements of the Future Focus Area Goals and Policies of the General Plan.

The Greystar project will accomplish this via its General Plan Amendment application, while other property owners will prepare their own plan and/or application in the future.

Since the General Plan did not designate the study area a Focus Area and consequently did not consider any potential land uses changes there in its Environmental Impact Report (EIR), an EIR was required for this Focus Area Plan and for the General Plan Amendment.

A multi-use path along the
northern boundary of the
Focus Area will offer another
cross-site connector for
bikes and pedestrians.

Mission
Community
College , ourladys~
I
101
\
~
ai
fl u
C
0 ·~
i
a.

Establishing pedestrian and
bike connections will
support on-site mobility
and create OJ>portun1t1es
for ground-floor activation. -----..-._ ___ __,,-----...---' I
Class IV bike lanes will
enhance active
transportation options
and connectivity to other
bike routes and
destinations.

California's
Great America
Gatewaxs along Mission
College Blvd at the Focus
Area boundaries will be
established to reinforce
imageability and
hignlig~t features and
amenities.
n College Blvd
I I
A two-acre community
park will provide an open
space and recreation
opportunities and connect
to the San Tomas Aquino
Trail. Open and active
ground-floor frontages,
well-designed landscaping
and on-site amenities will
ensure vibrancy.

Freedom Circle
Focus Area Plan
Figure 1: Land Use and
Urban Design Framework
Legend
c=J Study Area Boundary
p - - •
~ __ ~ Greystar Project Boundary
Land Use Designations
- Very High Intensity Office/ R&D
- High Intensity Office/ R&D
- Regional Commercial
Very High Density Residential
Parks/ Open Space
- Public/ Quasi Public
Urban Design
@ Node
Gateway
Circulation & Mobility
• • Bike/Ped Connection
- Primary Vehicular Circulation
- Local Vehicular Connection
- San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail
- Class IV Bike lane ~
~ . New Traffic Signal
N
r---------,
250 500 1,000ft E9
6KHHW7LWOH

6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R

7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7

$UFKLWHFWXUH


%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD





3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV

1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD

*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO

)D[

ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO


ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO

)D[


ZZZENIFRP
 
&Z

KD/Z>
Z
^/
Ed/>
W>EE

s
>KWD
EdKE/E'^
d
&29(53$*(
ri
STUDIO

TSQUARE

GREYSTAR
'ƌĞLJƐƚĂƌŝƐŚĞƌĞďLJƐƵďŵŝƫŶŐĂƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĨŽƌĂ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƚŽƌĞnjŽŶĞƚŚĞϭϯ͘ϯĂĐƌĞƐŝƚĞĨƌŽŵ,ŝŐŚ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJKĸĐĞͬZΘƚŽĂůůŽǁĨŽƌĂsĞƌLJ ,ŝŐŚĞŶƐŝƚLJZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůŽŶĞ͘dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚǁŽƉĂƌĐĞůƐďŽƵŶĚĞĚďLJ&ƌĞĞĚŽŵŝƌĐůĞ͕DŝƐƐŝŽŶŽůůĞŐĞŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ͕,ŝŐŚǁĂLJϭϬϭ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞ^ĂŶdŽŵĂƐƋƵŝŶŽƌĞĞŬ͘dŚĞ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐŚŝŐŚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĂŶĚĂϮͲĂĐƌĞƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬƚŽďĞďƵŝůƚĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚďLJƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ͘dŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƵƐĞĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨϭϯ͘ϯĂĐƌĞƐŽĨǀĂĐĂŶƚůĂŶĚ;WEƐϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϯϲĂŶĚϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϮϭͿ͘dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗ͻ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů;ϭϬϳϱƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŶŝƚƐŝŶϵϬϳ͕ϯϮϱƐĨǁŝƚŚϭ͕ϯϳϵƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƚĂůůƐͿͻ EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞ;ƵƉƚŽϮ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚǁŝƚŚƵƉƚŽϭϬƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƚĂůůƐͿͻ ϮͲĂĐƌĞƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬǁŝƚŚϮϬƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƚĂůůƐĨŽƌƉĂƌŬǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚ͘KŶĞŽĨƚŚĞŬĞLJƉƌŽũĞĐƚŐŽĂůƐŝƐƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĂǀŝďƌĂŶƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚŚĂƚĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞƐǁĂůŬŝŶŐĂŶĚďŝŬĞƌŝĚŝŶŐ͕ůŝŶŬŝŶŐƚŚĞ&ƌĞĞĚŽŵŝƌĐůĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞ^ĂŶdŚŽŵĂƐƋƵŝŶŽƌĞĞŬdƌĂŝůǀŝĂĂŶĞǁ͕ƚǁŽͲĂĐƌĞƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬ͘dŚŝƐŶĞǁƉĂƌŬ͕ǁŝƚŚĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞĐŝƚLJͲƐƉĂŶŶŝŶŐ^ĂŶdŚŽŵĂƐƋƵŝŶŽƌĞĞŬdƌĂŝů͕ǁŝůůďĞĐŽŵĞĂŬĞLJĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚŽĨǁŚĂƚƚŚĞ>ĂǁƌĞŶĐĞ^ƚĂƟŽŶƌĞĂWůĂŶĐĂůůƐƚŚĞ͞'ƌĞĞŶtĞď͟ŽĨĂĐƟǀĂƚĞĚƉƵďůŝĐƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘ƐƚŚĞĐĞŶƚĞƌƉŝĞĐĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ƚŚĞŶĞǁƉĂƌŬǁŝůůƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĂƐƚƌŽŶŐƐĞŶƐĞŽĨƉůĂĐĞĨŽƌƚŚŝƐǀŝďƌĂŶƚŶĞǁƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚĞŐƌĞĂƚĞƌ&ƌĞĞĚŽŵŝƌĐůĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďLJƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂǀĞŶƵĞĨŽƌďŽƚŚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞǀĞŶƚƐĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĐĂƐƵĂůƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂůƵƐĞ͘dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨƚŚƌĞĞdLJƉĞ///ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƉŽĚŝƵŵƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐͲƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͕͕ĂŶĚͲŽǀĞƌϯůĞǀĞůƐŽĨdLJƉĞ/ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚůĞǀĞůŽĨƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƚŽďĞƉĂƌƟĂůůLJďĞůŽǁŐƌĂĚĞ͘dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐǁŝůůďĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĂŶĚĞŶŐĂŐĞƚŚĞƵƌďĂŶĨŽƌŵĂŶĚĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌĂŶĚĂĐƟǀĂƚĞƉƵďůŝĐƐƉĂĐĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶĂŶĚƐƵƌͲƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘dŚĞϯ͕ϳͲƐƚŽƌLJďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐǁŝůůďĞƵƉƚŽϭϬϬ͛ƚĂůůŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞŽĨĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚĞůĞǀĂƚŽƌŽǀĞƌƌƵŶƐ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂŶĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĂsĞƐƟŶŐdĞŶƚĂƟǀĞWĂƌĐĞůDĂƉƚŽĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĨŽƵƌůŽƚƐ͘ 6KHHW7LWOH
6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R

7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7

$UFKLWHFWXUH


%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD





3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV

1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD

*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO

)D[

ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO


ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO

)D[


ZZZENIFRP
 
^^
^^KZ^WZ
>EhD
Z͗ ϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϯϲ͕ϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϮϭ^/d
Z
    ͗ ϭϯ͘ϯ
y/^d/E''
E
Z>W>E ͗ ,/',/Ed
E^/dzK&&/
ͬZΘWZKWK^
'
E
Z>W>E ͗ s
Zz,/',
E^/dzZ
^/
Ed/>;ϱϭͲϭϬϬhͬͿ
y/^d/E'KE/E'   ͗ KDD
Z/>WZ<WZKWK^
KE/E'  ͗ W>EE

s
>KWD
Ed
y/^d/E'h^
    ͗ WZ</E'ΘsEd>EWZKWK^
h^
   ͗ Z
^/
Ed/>ΘKW
E^W
^hZZKhE/E'h^
^  ͗ K&&/
ΘKW
E^W

E^/dz     ͗ ϱϭͲϭϬϬhͬh/>/E',
/',d   ͗ ϭϬϬ&dDy/DhDKhWEz'ZKhW  ͗ ZϮ͕ϯ͕^Ϯ͕KE^dZhd/KEdzW   ͗ ϱ^dKZ/
^K&dzW
///Ks
Zϯ>
s
>^K&dzW
/
;ϭ>
s
>WZd/>>z
>Kt'Z
Ϳ
ͲϬϬϬ WZK:
d^hDDZzͲϬϬϭ 
s
>KWD
Ed^dEZ^ͲϬϮϬ />>h^dZd/s
^/d
W>E Ϯ͘Ϭ  WZ
>/D/EZz/s/>^/d
W>EϮ͘ϭ  WZ
>/D/EZz/s/>^/d
W>EͲϰϬϭ KDWK^/d
^
d/KE^>ͲϭϬϮ ^dZ

d>
s
>>E^W
W>EdDͲϭ  s
^d/E'd
Edd/s
WZ
>DW
WZK:
d^hDDZz͗
WW>/Ed͗'ƌĞLJƐƚĂƌZĞĂů
ƐƚĂƚĞWĂƌƚŶĞƌƐϰϱϬ^ĂŶƐŽŵĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϱϬϬ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕ϵϰϭϭϭŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗ĂŶĞŝďĞůWŚŽŶĞ͗ϰϭϱ͘ϵϰϳ͘ϳϴϴϳZ,/d dͬW>EE
Z͗^ƚƵĚŝŽd^ƋƵĂƌĞϭϵϳϬƌŽĂĚǁĂLJ͕^ƵŝƚĞϱϬϬKĂŬůĂŶĚ͕ϵϰϲϭϮŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗ŚĞŬdĂŶŐ͕WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůWŚŽŶĞ͗ϱϭϬ͘ϰϱϭ͘ϮϴϱϬ/s/> E'/E

Z͗<&ϭϳϯϬE͘&ŝƌƐƚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϲϬϬ^ĂŶ:ŽƐĞ͕ϵϱϭϭϮŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗ĂƐĞLJ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶWŚŽŶĞ͗ϰϬϴ͘ϰϲϳ͘ϵϭϯϵ>E^W Z,/d
d͗Z,ϮϮϱDŝůůĞƌǀĞDŝůůsĂůůĞLJ͕ϵϰϵϰϭŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗DĂŶƵĞůĂ<ŝŶŐWŚŽŶĞ͗ϰϭϱ͘ϯϴϳ͘ϳϵϬϬ WZK:
dd
D͗
^,

d>/^d͗
s//E/dzDW
WZK:
ddh>d/KE
$
352-(&76800$5<
&DOLIRUQLD¶V
*UHDW
$PHULFD
0LVVLRQ
&ROOHJH
0,/(
0,1:$/.
5HVLGHQWLDO
1HLJKERUKRRG
97$
7$60$1'5 6WDWLRQ
6$1720$6
2UDFOH
0,/(
0,1:$/.
,QWHO
&RUS
0RQWDJXH([S\
0,/(
0,1:$/.
97$/,*+75$,/
%$<6+25()5((:$<
/$)$<(77(67 3DWULFN+HQU\ 'ULYH
$48,12&5((. 75$,/
WR%D\7UDLO
>Ğǀŝ͛Ɛ
^ƚĂĚŝƵŵ
&ƌĞĞĚŽŵ
ŝƌĐůĞ
&ŽĐƵƐƌĞĂ
*5($7$0(5,&$3.:<
7DVPDQ(DVW
6DQWD&ODUD
&LW\3ODFH
6DQWD&ODUD
6TXDUH
$&(
7UDLQ
ϯŵŝůĞƐƚŽ
ŽǁŶƚŽǁŶĂŶĚ
ĂůƚƌĂŝŶ
^ŝƚĞ WĞĚƌŽ͛Ɛ
WZK'ZDƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhŶŝƚƐ ϯϲϯ
^ƚƵĚŝŽƐ ϭϳ͘ϭй ϲϮKŶĞĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ ϱϰ͘ϱй ϭϵϴdǁŽĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ Ϯϴ͘ϰй ϭϬϯ >ĞĂƐŝŶŐ ϮϯϬϬ^&ůƵďZŽŽŵ ϮϭϬϬ^&&ŝƚŶĞƐƐͬzŽŐĂ ϮϳϱϬ^&ŽͲtŽƌŬŝŶŐͬƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϭϮϱϬ^&WĞƚ^ƉĂ ϱϴϬ^&ŝĐLJĐůĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ;ůĂƐƐ/Ϳ ϰϴϬϬ^&ŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ Ϯϴϲϰϱ^&>ŽďďLJ ϭϲϬϬ^& ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhŶŝƚƐ ϯϵϴ
^ƚƵĚŝŽƐ ϭϯ͘ϭй ϱϮKŶĞĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ ϱϳ͘ϯй ϮϮϴdǁŽĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ Ϯϵ͘ϲй ϭϭϴ >ĞĂƐŝŶŐ ϮϱϬϬ^&ůƵďZŽŽŵ ϮϯϬϬ^&&ŝƚŶĞƐƐ ϮϮϬϬ^&ŽͲtŽƌŬŝŶŐͬƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϭϯϬϬ^&WĞƚ^ƉĂ ϳϳϱ^&>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϳϮϱ^&ŝĐLJĐůĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ;ůĂƐƐ/Ϳ ϱϬϬϬ^&ŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ ϯϱϬϱϱ^&EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞ ϮϬϬϬ^&>ŽďďLJ ϭϰϰϬ^& ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhŶŝƚƐ ϯϭϰ
^ƚƵĚŝŽƐ ϭϳ͘ϴй ϱϲKŶĞĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ ϱϰ͘ϱй ϭϳϭdǁŽĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ Ϯϳ͘ϳй ϴϳ >ĞĂƐŝŶŐ ϭϭϱϬ^&ůƵďZŽŽŵ ϮϱϬϬ^&&ŝƚŶĞƐƐ ϮϰϬϬ^&ŽͲtŽƌŬŝŶŐͬƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϭϰϱϬ^&WĞƚ^ƉĂ ϱϱϬ^&DŝƐĐŵĞŶŝƚLJ ϭϮϱϬ^&ŝĐLJĐůĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ;ůĂƐƐ/Ϳ ϰϯϳϬ^&ŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ ϮϬϲϮϬ^&>ŽďďLJ ϭϵϬϬ^& ^ŝƚĞ
ĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬ Ϯ͘ϬĂĐƌĞƐ
'ƌŽƐƐƵŝůĚŝŶŐƌĞĂ>ĞǀĞůϭ^ƵďƚĞƌƌĂŶĞĂŶ'ĂƌĂŐĞ ϮϮϴ͕ϰϭϱ>ĞǀĞůϭ'ĂƌĂŐĞ ϮϬϯ͕ϳϱϬ>ĞǀĞůϭZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů͕ƌĞƚĂŝů͕ΘĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ϵϲ͕ϭϲϱ>ĞǀĞůϮ'ĂƌĂŐĞ ϭϵϰ͕ϬϬϬ>ĞǀĞůϮZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůΘĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ϭϬϱ͕ϲϬϬ>ĞǀĞůϯZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůΘĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ϮϬϳ͕ϳϭϱ>ĞǀĞůϰZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϬϳ͕ϳϭϱ>ĞǀĞůϱZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϭϬ͕ϯϯϱ>ĞǀĞůϲZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϭϬ͕ϯϯϱ>ĞǀĞůϳZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϬϱ͕ϴϬϱdKd> ϭ͕ϴϲϵ͕ϴϯϱ hE/d^ YƵĂŶ͘ Z͘^͘&͘ Dŝdž ZĞŶƚĂďůĞ^͘&͘ WĂƌŬŝŶŐZĂƚŝŽ WĂƌŬŝŶŐZĞƋΖĚ^ƚƵĚŝŽƐdŽƚĂů ϭϳϬ ϱϳϬ ϭϱ͘ϴй ϵϲ͕ϴϭϱ ϭ ϭϳϬϭZhŶŝƚƐdŽƚĂů ϱϵϳ ϳϱϬ ϱϱ͘ϱй ϰϰϳ͕ϳϴϱ ϭ ϱϵϳϮZhŶŝƚƐdŽƚĂů ϯϬϴ ϭϭϳϳ Ϯϴ͘ϳй ϯϲϮ͕ϰϭϱ Ϯ ϲϭϲ>>hE/d^ͲdKd> ϭ͕Ϭϳϱ ϴϰϰ ϭϬϬ͘Ϭй ϵϬϳ͕Ϭϭϱ ϭϯϴϯ h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKWK^

ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϰϲϲ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϰϳĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϵ sWĂƌŬŝŶŐͲϭϱй;
sZĞĂĚLJͬ&ƵƚƵƌĞ
sͿ/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ϳϬ
h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKs/
 ϰϲϲh/>/E'WZ</E'WZKWK^

ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϱϭϲ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϱϮĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϭϬ sWĂƌŬŝŶŐͲϭϱй;
sZĞĂĚLJͬ&ƵƚƵƌĞ
sͿ/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ϳϳZĞƚĂŝů;ϭƉĞƌϮϬϬ^&Ϳ ϭϬWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϭϬ h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKs/
 ϱϯϲh/>/E'WZ</E'WZKWK^

ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϰϬϭ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϰϬĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϵ sWĂƌŬŝŶŐͲϭϱй;
sZĞĂĚLJͬ&ƵƚƵƌĞ
sͿ/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ϲϬWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϭϬ
h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKs/
 ϰϭϭdKd>WZ</E'WZKWK^

ƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϭϯϴϯ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϭϯϴWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϮϬEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞ;ϭƉĞƌϮϬϬ^&Ϳ ϭϬ dKd>WZ</E'WZKs/
 ϭϰϭϯ/<
WZ</E'WZKWK^

ƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϭƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϯϲϯƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϭƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϯϵϴƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϭƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϯϭϰƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϱƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϮϱƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϱƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϮϳƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϱƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϮϭEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϯϬĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐͿ ϭEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϬϬϬƐĨͿ Ϯ dŽƚĂůŝŬĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐWƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ϭϭϱϭKW
EZ

^ŝƚĞƌĞĂ^& ϱϴϬϵϭϲƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ^& Ϯϵϵϵϭϱ
KW
EZ
WZKs/
 ϰϴй
I
I ! ! ! ! !
I
! I
ri
STUDIO

TSQUARE
rhaa
~ BkF

GREYSTAR
6KHHW7LWOH

6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R

7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7

$UFKLWHFWXUH


%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD





3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV

1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD

*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO

)D[

ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO


ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO

)D[


ZZZENIFRP
 
'(9(/230(1767$1'$5'6
0LQLPXP%LF\FOH3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWV
L
)RUHDFKPXOWLIDPLO\XQLWRQH&ODVVELF\FOHSDUNLQJVSDFHSHUXQLWDQGRQH&ODVVELNHUDFNDFFRPPRGDWLQJWZRELNHVSHUXQLWVLVUHTXLUHG LL
0L[HGXVHGHYHORSPHQWV
2QH&ODVVELF\FOHSDUNLQJVSDFHSHUHPSOR\HHVDQGRQH&ODVVELNHUDFNIRUHYHU\VTXDUHIHHWRIUHWDLOÀH[RUFRPPXQLW\XVH LLL
2ႈFH GHYHORSPHQWV
2QH ELF\FOH SDUNLQJ VSDFH SHU  VTXDUHIHHWZLWKSHUFHQWDV&ODVV2QHVSDFHVDQGSHUFHQWDV&ODVV7ZRUDFNV´$ႇRUGDELOLW\/HYHOV )RUHLWKHURZQHUVKLSRUUHQWDOKRXVLQJGHYHORSHGXQGHUWKHWKLV3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQWUH]RQLQJWKHIROORZLQJDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVDSSO\ 
D
 1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJ 6XEVHFWLRQ 
D
 UHVLGHQWLDO RZQHUVKLSSURMHFWV RIWHQ RUPRUH XQLWVPXVW SURYLGH DW OHDVW ¿IWHHQ SHUFHQW 
 RIWKHXQLWVDWDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRVWVIRUH[WUHPHO\ORZYHU\ORZORZPRGHUDWHDQGDERYHPRGHUDWHLQFRPHKRXVHKROGVRUVRPHFRPELQDWLRQRIWKRVHLQFRPHFDWHJRULHV$GHYHORSHUVKDOOVHOHFWLQFRPHFDWHJRULHVVXFKWKDWWKHDYHUDJHLQFRPHRISXUFKDVHUVZLOOQRWH[FHHGHLJKW\SHUFHQW 
RI$0,5HVLGHQWLDORZQHUVKLSSURMHFWVRIIHZHUWKDQWHQXQLWVPD\HLWKHUSURYLGHRQHGZHOOLQJDWDQDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRVWIRUDKRXVHKROGHDUQLQJXSWRHLJKW\SHUFHQW 
RI$0,RUSD\DQLQOLHXIHHLGHQWL¿HGIRUUHVLGHQWLDORZQHUVKLSSURMHFWVLQWKHDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJPDVWHUIHHVFKHGXOH E
 1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJ6XEVHFWLRQ

D
IRU UHVLGHQWLDO UHQWDOSURMHFWVRIWHQRUPRUHXQLWVWKHGHYHORSHUPXVWSURYLGHDWOHDVW¿IWHHQSHUFHQW 
RIWKHXQLWVDWDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRVWVIRUH[WUHPHO\ORZYHU\ORZORZPRGHUDWHDQGDERYHPRGHUDWHLQFRPHKRXVHKROGVRUVRPHFRPELQDWLRQRIWKRVHLQFRPHFDWHJRULHV$GHYHORSHUVKDOOVHOHFWLQFRPHFDWHJRULHVVXFKWKDWWKHDYHUDJHLQFRPHRIUHQWHUVZLOOQRWH[FHHGHLJKW\SHUFHQW 
RI$0,6WRUPZDWHU7UHDWPHQW3ODQ 6WRUPZDWHUWUHDWPHQWVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHK\GUDXOLFVL]LQJUHTXLUHPHQWVRI3URYLVLRQ&G 9HU\+LJK'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO=RQH
7KHSXUSRVHRIWKH9HU\+LJK'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO=RQHLVWRSURYLGHODQGDUHDVIRUWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQXVHDQGRFFXSDQF\RIKLJKGHQVLW\DQGLQWHQVLW\PXOWLIDPLO\GHYHORSPHQWV LHORZULVHPLGULVHDQGKLJKULVHDSDUWPHQWVDQGFRQGRPLQLXPV ,WLVWKHLQWHQWRIWKLV]RQHWRHQFRXUDJHGHYHORSPHQWWRXVHLQQRYDWLYHVLWHSODQQLQJSURYLGHRQVLWHUHFUHDWLRQDODPHQLWLHVDQGEHORFDWHGQHDUPDMRU FRPPXQLW\IDFLOLWLHVEXVLQHVV FHQWHUVWUDQVSRUDWLRQ FRUULGRUV DQGRUPDMRUWKRURXJKIDUHV7KH UHVLGHQWLDO GHQVLW\ UDQJHIRUWKLV]RQHLVGZHOOLQJXQLWVSHUDFUH7KLV]RQHLPSOHPHQWVWKH9HU\+LJK'HQVLW\ODQGXVHGHVLJQDWLRQLQWKH*HQHUDO3ODQ 
E
6KDUHG3DUNLQJ3DUNLQJVKDUHGDPRQJXVHVLVHQFRXUDJHGDQGXSWRRISDUNLQJVSDFHVSURYLGHGPD\EHVKDUHGEHWZHHQWZRXVHV)RUWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLVWLWOHWKRVHSDUNLQJVSDFHVVKDUHGEHWZHHQWZRXVHVFRXQWWRZDUGVWKHSDUNLQJ UHTXLUHPHQWRIERWK F
6XUIDFH3DUNLQJ6XUIDFHSDUNLQJLVRQO\DOORZHGDVDWHPSRUDU\RULQWHULPXVH G
0HFKDQLFDOSDUNLQJVWDFNHUVOLIWVDQGWDQGHPSDUNLQJPD\EHXVHGWRVDWLVI\PLQLPXPUHTXLUHPHQWV H
8QEXQGOHG3DUNLQJ$PD[LPXPRIRQHSDUNLQJVSDFHVKDOOEHUHQWHGRUVROGZLWKHDFKXQLW$GGLWLRQDOSDUNLQJVSDFHVVKDOOEHUHQWHGRUVROGVHSDUDWHO\ L
$VDQDOWHUQDWLYHWRUHQWLQJRUVHOOLQJSDUNLQJVSDFHVVHSDUDWHO\IURPUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWSURSHUW\PDQDJHUVPD\LPSOHPHQWDSDUNLQJSUHIHUHQFHSURJUDPZLWKSURVSHFWLYHUHQWHUVZLWKRXWFDUVSXWRQDVHSDUDWHZDLWLQJOLVWIURPUHQWHUVZLWKFDUVDQGUHQWHUVEHLQJFKRVHQDOWHUQDWHO\IURPWKHWZROLVWV 
s
>KWD
Ed^dEZ^
$
3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWV
0LQLPXPVSDFHVSHUXQLW
LQFOXVLYHLQUHVLGHQWVSDUNLQJ


*6)8QLW

 7KH'HYHORSPHQW6WDQGDUGVSDJHHVWDEOLVKHVWKH]RQLQJVWDQGDUGVIRUWKH3URMHFW $OORWKHUSDJHVDUHIRULOOXVWUDWLYHSXUSRVHV
*6)8QLW
Permitted Uses and Permit Requirements - Residential.

Land Use (see Artide 8 for land use defini6ons).

Owelling, Accessory Units
Dwelling, Multifamily Dwelling, Second Unit Dwelling, 51\gle-family Dwelling, Two-family Employee Housing
Home Oa:upalions Live-Work Facilities Mobile Home Park
OrganizationalHO\lses
Rooming and/or Boarding Houses
SllpportiveHousing
Transitional Housing
Assisted Living Faci~ties
Oay Care Homes, Up to 14 Children Commun ity Care Facilifies, Small Community Care Facilities, Large Emergency Shelters
Community Gardens
Parks and Pubic PLaizas Retail
Off-sale of alcohol
Restaurants, including on-sale of alcohol
Office Uses
Residential Zones

CUP CUP CUP
Development Standards.

Development feature Freedom Circle
minimum unless otherwise indicated
Parcel Area 10,000
Street Frontage (feet~ 70 Structural Coverage (maximum percentag Parcel Alea (less than 10,000 sq. ft.) None Parcel Area (greater than 10,000 sq. ft.) None Setbacks (minimum)- Setback lines are sured from the back of walk Residential (front, side comer and interior) 10
Mixed-Use (front, side comer and interior) 0
Office (front, side corner and interior)
Height (maximum) measured in front
Height (within 20 feet of the R1 -6L, R1.,<JL, and 32
R2 zones)
Height (all other zones) 100 Number of Stories {maximum) Number of Stories (all other zones) 10 Gross Residential Density (minimum tom imum) shown in number of dwelling unrts per acre Allowable Density
Recreation Space for Multi-Family Dwelhn {minimum) measured in square feet per dwelling unit Private Recreation Space
Common Recreation Space (per unit)
(a) Minimum Parking Requirements
,. ,. ''
Residential Minimum 1 space per unit for units
1BRorless
Minimum 2 spaces per unit for units
w/ more than 1 BR
Retail / Flex None required Minimum 1 space per 1,000 SF Office Minimum one space for each 500 Minimum 1 space per 3,000 SF SF of gross floor area
Community/Civic None required None required
ri
STUDIO

TSQUARE
rhaa
~ BkF

GREYSTAR
0 6
,
2 /
*
(
%
/9'
6KHHW7LWOH
6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R

7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7

$UFKLWHFWXUH


%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD





3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV

1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD

*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO

)D[

ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO


ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO

)D[


ZZZENIFRP
 
$
,//8675$7,9(6,7(3/$1
%$<6+25()5((:$<86
(. 75$,/
' 0 &,5
'5 9(
´ ¶´
 ,//8675$7,9(6,7(3/$1 6&$/(
´ ¶´
3+$6(
3+$6(
3+$6(
%8,/',1*$
%8,/',1*%
$&5(
38%/,&3$5.
%8,/',1*&
9(57,&$/&,5&8/$7,21$0(1,7<$5($
/(*(1'
81,7
;::::::---- ---
-----~
------
~-FR / c,t:: ~l§:::::O ----~=- --
--
[fl
0 z
0 r
{T\
;;;;:; GRAP;;:;; mr7c' scd,~-----..:"• g
60' ,,.
'
ri
STUDI 0

TSQUA RE
rha a
,.,.. __
""''""~, .......
~ BkF
100+
YEARS PlANMERS

GREYSTAR
-
-

AMENITY
DOWN TO B1
GARAGE
AY B SHORE FREEWAY- US 101

FREEDOM CIRCLE DRIVE

SAN TOMAS AQUINO CREEK TRAIL

BLDG B LEVEL
1 GARAGE
ACCESS

PUBLIC PARK/

GUEST/RETAIL/

LEASING ACCESS
ONLY

BLDG A LEVEL
1 GARAGE
ACCESS

BLDG A LEVEL
2 GARAGE
ACCESS
BLDG B LEVEL B1 GARAGE ACCESS

SECURED RESIDENTIAL ACCESS ONLY

UP TO LEVEL
2 GARAGE

BLDG A LEVEL
B1 GARAGE
ACCESS

TO SANTA

CLARA SQUARE
BLDG C
GARAGE

ACCESS TO ALL
LEVELS
BLDG B LEVEL 2 GARAGE ACCESS TWO WAY TRAFFIC

PEDESTRIAN ACCESSBIKE PATHMOVE-IN LOBBY
LEGEND

MOVE-IN / LOADING ZONEREGIONAL BIKE & PEDESTRIAN TRAILPEDESTRIAN PATH

CROSSING
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
LVD
TO LEVI’S

STADIUM
PASEO
Sheet Title:Scale:Job No. :Date:Sheet No:

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED

IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS

CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER

PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,COPYRIGHT 20 : Architecture
: 
%URDGZD\6XLWH: Oakland, California 94: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning : Urban Design
Revisions:

No. Description Date
Freedom Circle
Greystar
5HVLGHQWLDO
Santa Clara, &DOLIRUQLD
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California

323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
San Jose, CA
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
 8/11/2021
A-030

SITE CIRCULATIONPLAN
1 SITE CIRCULATION PLAN SCALE: 1” = 60’-0”
1” = 60’-0”

BUILDING A

BUILDING B

2.0 ACRE

PUBLIC PARK

SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR

PARK PEDESTRIAN PATH

BUILDING C

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHEIN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OFEVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITSCONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHERPURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVECOPYRIGHT 2020. : Architecture
: 1970 Broadway, Suite 500: Oakland, California 94612: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning: Urban Design
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
San Jose, CA
323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
Freedom Circle Residential
Santa Clara, California
Greystar
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California
Revisions:

No. Description Date
Sheet Title:

Scale: AS SHOWNJob No. :Date: 07/13/2021
20002
Sheet No:

PRELIMINARY

SITE PLAN
LEGEND
C2.0

SITE PLAN NOTES
I I
j
I

PROPERTY UIE
AOJo\CENTPRCPERTYUNE
BKlRETENTlONAREA
(N) \OllCAI. CURS (N)lta!llCAl.t'URSANOGUTIER

EXIS'IING EASEMENTUNE
SOIT lRIANGLE UNE CROSSSECTIONREFERENC£

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHEIN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OFEVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITSCONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHERPURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVECOPYRIGHT 2020. : Architecture
: 1970 Broadway, Suite 500: Oakland, California 94612: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning: Urban Design
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
San Jose, CA
323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
Freedom Circle Residential
Santa Clara, California
Greystar
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California
Revisions:

No. Description Date
Sheet Title:

Scale: AS SHOWNJob No. :Date: 07/13/2021
20002
Sheet No:

PRELIMINARY

SITE PLAN
C2.1
LEGEND

SITE PLAN NOTES
c:==: === : === JI
(N)\-UillCAI.CUR8 (N)\9111CAI.CUR8Atl)GUTIER

1. UNUSED ORl'o£WA\"S IN THE PUBU(; RIGHT-OF'-WAY
SHAU.BERD'LAtm"IITHCITYSTANDARDClMB.

GUTIER.ANDSID£WALK.

2. DAMAGE OJRB, GUTTER, AND SlllEWolJ..K 'IITHN Tl£
Pl.8..JCRICHT-OF'-WAYALONGTHEPROPERTY'S
f'ROHTAGESHAU.BEREPAIRCOORREPLACED(lOlliE
NEAAEST SCORE MARK) IN A MANNER ACUPTA8LE TO
l. .W. NEW DRIVEWAYS ALONG THE PROPERTY ""-1.

COrilPI.Y 'MTH THE QTY"S DRIVEWAY AND INTEFlstCllON
~:~~a.:[N~~~GHT WU. NOT
~~Ts:r1:;riw~~

4. SEETHE'£$11NGTENTA11VEPARCO.MAP,SHEET
TM-I, roR AU.PARCEL UNE ANO CURVE TA8LES.

SEE THt-.ESflH(l TENTAlM:PARCELMAP,SHEET
:~~WON.ALLOF'THEPROPOSEDEASEMENT
6· ,.~lo FREEDOM
/
CIRCLE SHALL HAVE SIGNAGE AND SlRIPING, BOTH ON-sm:{PRIVATES'IREETA)ANDOFF-sm:
~~Cl:f}ON~:.T DE90NATE$ RIGHT TURN IN,
--- ------r--/

TTURNIN/OUTONU /
F--'"'
_
-
_
•
_
'"''""'J I
(N)llRl~VPER Cl1'YSTANOAAO
(N)OJR>,O)ST~:a
RAWi>PERQty
STANDAfil\,st-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

GRAPHIC SCALE
P"'\-+K-
"' 0 "' 80
Iii
STUDIO

TSQUARE
rhaa
~ BkF

GREYSTAR
Sheet Title:

Scale:Job No. :Date:Sheet No:

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED

IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS

CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER

PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,COPYRIGHT 20 : Architecture
: 
%URDGZD\6XLWH: Oakland, California 94: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning : Urban Design
Revisions:

No. Description Date
Freedom Circle
Greystar
5HVLGHQWLDO
Santa Clara, &DOLIRUQLD
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California

323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
San Jose, CA
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
 8/11/2021
A-401

COMPOSITESECTIONS

AS NOTED
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
l
i ri Ti~
.m I T 'ffi - - - ·" - - "" - ·" - STUDIO - ·" ,.I - ·" - l: : -~ - l'CQ.<:0.RN - ... - "" - l'CQ.<:O.ll"'""'' . - ·" - TSQUARE --·- - ·" --· - I
=> :r - => ~-- ... • •• -••· ... -- => II I --· II - -- - --· I Jl) Poll.llNG l M!UI --· I i --· I lt,~ I me I ~mmc,,,,,,,_ M ' ,_.~-E- '<•~- 1S'-{l'SCT8'0C !!'sna,o( COMPOSITE SITE SECTION · SCAL.f: l ' = 60' I 3 rhaa
,.,.._ .. """"''"~'' ...... "'""
.. ..

I
I
I U,IT tx<IT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT 1 I ~ BkF U,IT tx<IT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT U,IT tx<IT U,IT UNIT U,IT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT tx<IT UNIT
.. •
UNIT UNIT UNIT ., 100+ I UNIT tx<IT -~ AMENITY POOL COORll'/\RD UNIT UNIT 1- -~ - POOL CDURTYARD"- ,,.. ._ YEARS p1,.u ;1m1s .... PARKINGLEVB.2 I UNIT - - UNIT I PARKINGLEVEL2
T '1 PARKING LEVEL I UNIT i I UNIT PARKING LEVEL I
•·~-il~r
PARKJNGLEVEL81 PARKING LEVEL Bl I
I LDING 60' TO 85' SEPARATIO IIDING ; 2 ACREDEDICATEDPAAK "'-1s• MIN BUILDING SETeACK "'-tS'-O"SETBACK
BUILDING A ANO B SITE SECTION - SCALE: 1' = 40' I 2 GREYSTAR .. .. ..

I I
I I
NIT UNIT I I NIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT T NIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT NIT 111! ltt UNIT UNIT UNIT - POOL COURTYM D .._ _.., ,. NIT AMENITY POOL COURTYARD - -- UNIT UNIT --- COORlYARD I -- UNIT LEVEI.2 r,,- '1- ••• ••• -••· .. ...... UNIT I PARKINGLEVEL2 11 - LEVELi ·- UNIT PAAKINGLEVELl BI I I PARKING LEVEL Bl I , 1"SETIIACl( --BUILDING , 2 ACRE DEDICATED PARK ,
~15'-0' SETBAO(
·
- -LDINGC
15'--0' SETBACK lt' SETBACK \ 26'-0"£!/A
BUILDING C SITE SECTION - SCALE: l' = 40' I 1
6~® 6

BUILDINGB

BUILDINGC
BUllOINGA
KEYPI.AN
08/11/2021

PROPERTY LINE
LEGEND
10 9876
5 43
21 1/2-ACRE TURFED PLAY FIELD

LANDSCAPED AND FURNISHED, PARK-LIKE QUIET AREAPLAYGROUNDSPORT COURTPICNIC AREA & BOCCE COURTOFF-LEASH DOG AREACONNECTION TO CREEK TRAIL PERIMETER ROADPARKING GARAGE ENTRYBIKE LANE CLASS II 1 2
10 2
3 4
5 6
8 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
11 SAN TOMAS AQUINO CREEK TRAIL

FREEDOM CIRCLE

THE BAYSHORE FREEWAY

BUILDING A BUILDING B

BUILDING C

PARK PROPERTY LINE
7 0 30’ 60’ 120’ N

LEASING
OFFICE
BIKE

STORAGE
BIKE

STORAGE
BIKE

STORAGE PET SPA
COWORKING
LOBBY
MAIL

PET SPA

AMENITY / BIKE SHOP

BUSINESS
LOUNGE
LOBBY
MAIL

LEASING
OFFICE
10 PARKING 10 PAR SPACES

RESERVED F E OR PARK

VISITORS
LOBBY
MAIL

PET SPA BIKE STORAGE

LEASING
LOBBY
10 PARKING SPACESRESERVED FOR PARKVISITORS

RESTROOMS FOR

PARK VISITORS

MOVE-IN LO M V BBY
BIKE

STORAGE

STREET LEVELLANDSCAPE PLAN
1”=60’-0”
L-102
10 8
8 ri
STUDIO

TSQUARE
Architecture
Planning
Urban Design
· 19TO&omway,S<,ite500
: Oekland.~lk612
; {510)45\-2950
rhaa
=~ci."802
Telol15.8e1-7900
__ ,...,
~ Bkf
17301'1F...iSI.SuM900
s.n.-,CA
Tllol011.a1&19100
F••4011.4e191" -wGREYSTAR
AFfili9nt•
LEGEND LOT 1 LINE AND CURVE TABLES LOT 2 LINE AND CURVE TABLES

ABBREVIATIONS
LOT 3 LINE AND CURVE TABLES LOT 4 LINE AND CURVE TABLES PUBLIC STORM DRAIN EASEMENT *

LINE TABLE
GENERAi NOTES
1 VESTING IfNTATI\IE PARCEi MAP TJ-, IS VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE V, SECTION 400, "SUBDl\tlSION OF FOUR OR FEWER PARCELS (MINOR SUBDI\/ISIONSr OF TH£ CITY OF SAN TA CLARA MUNICIPAL COO£. THE VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP WILL CREATE FOUR (4) PARCELS FROM TJ-,E TWO (2) EXISTING PARCELS. PARCEL 4 IS CREATED ON THIS MAP IS FOR FUTURE DEDICATION

TO TH E CITY OF SAN TA CLARA
2 UJl.U..Il.E.S;_ UTILI TY SIZING AND LOCATIONS ARE PRELIMINAR Y ANO SUBJECT TO FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN. SEE UTILITY CLEARANCE REQU IREMENTS NOTES ON SHEET C4. 1

3. EASEMENJS:.. EXISTING £AS£1,1£N TS ARE LISTED IN TH£ VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP.
4 EE.Mt,;_ THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN ZONE X AS SHOWN IN FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP COMMUN ITY NUMBER D6085C0063H, DAITO MAY 18, 2009. FLOOD ZONE X BEING AREAS OF 0.2JY. ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; AREAS OF 1~ ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS TH AN 1 FOOT OR WI TH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS Tl-lAN 1 SQUARE MILE; AND AREAS PROTECITD BY LEVEES FROM 1:t ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOO

5. OWNER/SlJ BPI\IIPER 7 . .5!..IE....AP.1
GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS ]905 FREEDOM CIRCLE CONTACT: DAN DEIBEL SANTA CLARA. CA 95D54 PHONE: 415.524.0992
6 . g\r7~ E~Ncr~NE1:~'§
1730N.FlRSTSTREET,
SUITE600
1~~~5~~HOROVSKY 7:~
Ii
I

8. ASSESSORS PARCEi NO
PARCEL 1: 104- 40- 036
PARCEL 2: 104-40- 021

BIORETENTION AREA
EXISTlNGEASEr.tEN T LJNE

PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE

PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT
PROPOSED EMERGENCY .£HIGLE ACCESS

EASEMENT ANO INGRESS/ EGRESS

EASEMENT TO ACCESS PUBLIC STORM DRAIN EASEMENT

WATER UTI LITY EASEMENT
I.N:MO. 1.£NQ1M mE:1ION
FIR£ MAINS REPRESENT CENTER LIN£ OF 5' 'MOE PRIVATE FIRE SERVICE EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARCEL 1, PARCEL 2, AND PARCEL J PBIYtfil SJORM DRAIN EAfiEMQH·
STORM DRAIN MAINS IN PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2
REPRESENT CENTER LINE OF 5" WI DE PRIVATE:

STORM DRAIN EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFI T OF
PARCEL 2 AND PARCEL 1 RESPECTIVELY
PBIYl:Jf S:YtlP.RY 5EWfR EAffMFNI·
SANITARY SEWER MAINS IN PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2
REPRESENT CENTER LINE OF 5" WI DE PRIVATE
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT FOR TI-lE BENEFlT OF
PARCEL 2AND PARCEL1 RESPECTIVELY
• PURI IC SIQRM DRAIN EASEMENT NQ1f·
OWNERSHIP SHALL PROVIDE THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA WITH AN IJNPEBGBOIJNO IJDI IIY EAffMFNI· IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF Tl-IE LAND COVERED WI THIN SILICON VALLEY POWER (SVP) UTILITY STRUCTURES THS NEW PUBLIC STORM DRAIN EASEMENT TO SERVE AS A FU TURE AND ASSOCIATED CONDUIT Will. BE PLACED IN THEIR PUM P STATION Sj TE. TI-llS IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION WI LL OWN RESPECTIVE EASEMENTS. LOCATIONS OF TI-JES[

ALSO INCLUDE AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF SAID PUMP STATION EASEMENTS ARE TENTATIVELY SHOWN ON SHEETS PARCEL WHICH WILL HAVE TI-lE SAME PATI-l AS TI-lE PROPOSED C4.D- C4.1 ANO WI LL BE FULLY OEITRI.IINED WHEN E.V.A.E. AND THE INGRESS/EGRESS EASEM ENT TO ACCESS PUBLIC SVP HAS FINISHED DESIGN OF THESE FACILITIES

STORM DRAIN EASEMENT SHOWN BELOW
PYBUC WAJEB SEB\ACE Q.SQ4FNT LANO USE ANO ZONING PESIGNADONS A DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE LATER AL AND ASSOCIATED EXISTING ZONING: COMMERCIAL PARK APPURTENANCES 'M LL BE PLACED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE PROPOSED ZONING: FREEDOM CIRCL£ FOCUS EASEMENTS. LOCATIONS OF THESE EASEMENTS ARE TENTATIVELY AREA PLAN SHOWN ON SHEETS C4.0- C4.1 ANO WILL BE FULLY OETERI.IINEO EXISTING USE: PARKING ANO VACAN T LANO ~~p~r ~~ZEO DESIGN FOR Tl, IS WATER SERVICE LINE HAS :r~~ ~;:dESIDENTIAL, COMI.IERCIAL lllii:z:i;::: .2j] I.N:NO. l.tMQ1H Olt[C1KIN
-
E.V.A.E EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT
W.U.E. WATER UTILITY EASEMENT
P.I.E.E. PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT
U.G.E.E. UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL EASEMENT
P.A. [ PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
P.S.E PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT
P.U.E PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
mTi-IfEP-n.R'fA~9!1ioPERTY s IruAn:o IN THE COUNTY
OF SANTA CLARA. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:

PARCEL ONE:

ALL OF PARCEL 2. AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP
ENTITlEO, "PARCEL MAP BEING A RESUBOIVISION OF LANDS OF MARRIOTT CORPORATION, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO FESPAR ENTERPRISES, INC., ANO MARRIOTT HOTELS, INC., AND STEPHEN & MARY DORCICH AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY
RECORDED ON JANUARY 12, 1977 IN BOOK 386 OF MAPS. AT
PAGE 54. SAN TA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS", 'M-1 ICH MAP WAS

FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON ~~CEMBER 29. 1977 IN BOOK 410 OF MAPS. AT PAGES 29 ANO EXCEPTING THEREFROM TH AT PORTION TI-lEREOF CON VEYED TO

THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA CALIFORNIA, A CHARTERED
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDED AUGUST 11 , 1999 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 14936851. OFFICIAL RECORDS.

PARCEL TWO:

ALL OF PARCEL 2. AS SHOWN UPON THAT U:RTAIN MAP
ENTITlED. "PARCEL MAP BEING ALL OF PARCEL 3. AS SHOIYN
ON TH AT CERTAIN 'PARCEL MAP", RECORDED IN BOOK 410 Of
MAPS. AT PAGES 29 AND 30, SANTA CLARA COUNTY
RECORDS", \YI-I ICH MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN TI-lE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN TA CLARA, STATE OF CALJFORNIA, ON MAY 18, 1979 IN BOOK 442 OF MAPS. AT PAGES.
ljj In
.,
I.N:HO.I.ING"IH laC'1l0N
LB J•5.16 s~210•,2•w

SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT

TI-J IS ITNTATIVE MAP HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME
OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. AT TI-lE REQUEST OF GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTN ERS ON (DAT£)

PRELIMNARY

JOHN KOROYAN
P.L. S. NO. 8883
JKOROYANC10KF.COM
DAT£: JULY 13, 2021
ENGINEER'S STATEt.ENT

TH IS ITNTATIVE MAP HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME
OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. AT TI-lE REQUEST OF
GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS ON (OAT£)

PRELIMNARY
NORMAN I KONTOROVSKY P.E. NO. 78090
IKONTOROVSKYCl0KF.COM
OAT£: JULY 13. 2021
UEMO. I.DC1H Dll£C"JION 0UIM MO. I.DIG1tt ltMIUS DU.To\ 5,,s2 120.81 oo-t-zo·oz•

SH EET INDEX
J
I j
( 1 •
..... J
N.T.S.
!.ON COUtGE: 61.\otl
Sllflll!Q. Sllill___Il_Il.

TM- 1 VESTING TEN TATIVE PARCEL MAP
EXISTING CONDI Tl ONS EXISTING CONDITION S PRELJMINARYSITEPLAN C2.1 PRELIMINARY SI TE PLAN
C3.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
C4.0 PRELJMINARYUTILITYPLAN C4.1 PRELJI.IINARYUTILITYPLAN 10 C4.2 PRELJMINARYUTILITYPLAN
C5.0 CROSS SECTIONS
12 CS.1 CROSS SECTIONS
13 C6.0 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEI.IENT PLAN 14 CS. 1 PRELIMINAR Y STORMWATER MANAGEI.IENT PLAN 15 C7.0 FIRE ACCESS PLAN 16 C7.1 l" l
:H
!" . Ii
- t $1
L.N:MO. I.INGlH Dll!C1ION QIM:MO. l.tMQ1H RMaJS
14,1J N•11l1'17'W CJ 174.94 JJ6.00 0 29·49"54•
299.03 ss2io•15•w I C4 l 5 4.52 ! 120.a1 ! 004•20·02• I

GRAPHIC SCALE
1-1•

BK F ENGINEERS
:':':
z
Ct'
Cl. 0
C LL :::J
:::E <( II.I u
..J ..J
0 w <O
cc 0 .; >- a: f--- ,:. z 0 C :::J
Cl. 0 0
:I "' 0 w z ... <( 0 > ... Ct' Q <( j:: w __j II.I ... u II.I C ii: <( z f--- cc 0 z
LL z j:: <( w C 1/)
II) 0 ::::;
0 (!J ... ... O> 3!: C (') <(
Ct'
u, <( __j
w 0
> <( f---
z
<(
1/)
Drowing Num ber:

TM-1
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022

REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION

SUBJECT
Recommendation on General Plan Amendments for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the Greystar Development Project

BACKGROUND
In 2016, Greystar Development (Greystar) submitted a proposal to the City to redevelop a 13.3 acre site in North Santa Clara between Freedom Circle and San Tomas Aquino Creek on the north side of US Highway 101 from low intensity commercial office use to a high intensity mixed-use development featuring residential and office towers. Rather than proceed independently with a General Plan Amendment (GPA) specific to the Greystar site, the City Council directed staff to process the General Plan Amendment along with an amendment to the City’s General Plan to designate the Greystar site and adjacent properties to the west and north as a Future Focus Area in the City’s General Plan, thereby establishing additional commercial and residential development capacity for the larger area.

Greystar has been funding the Focus Area process while also moving forward with a GPA application for their site and an accompanying development proposal for up to 1,100 multi-family dwelling units.

The Planning Commission is being asked to conduct a public hearing and make recommendations on four actions for the City Council related to the creation and adoption of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the associated Greystar General Plan Amendment (the project):
1) Determination of the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts for the project and an associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
2) Adoption of a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area; 3) Adoption of the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51- 100 Dwelling Unit/Acre; and
4) Adoption of the Planned Development Rezoning for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south.

DISCUSSION
In conjunction with the Greystar development, the City Council directed Planning staff to plan for a future transition to a mix of residential and office uses for the properties around Freedom Circle by creating a new General Plan Future Focus Area. Based on prior City Council direction, staff is considering preparation of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area to be a precondition of the City Council for completing the processing of the GPA for the Greystar parcel.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
The Freedom Circle area (shown in Attachment 1) is not currently designated for conversion to residential uses under any phase of the 2010 - 2035 General Plan, but rather planned over the longterm to be preserved for employment uses. The buildings in the Freedom Circle area are a mix of concrete tilt-ups, office towers, and single-use commercial buildings such as the Santa Clara Marriott Hotel and Pedro’s Cantina. The Greystar site, which sits directly north of 101 and directly west of San Tomas Aquino Creek, is undeveloped.

The proposed Freedom Circle Future Focus Area encompasses approximately 108 gross acres in an employment-rich area of northern Santa Clara, comprising several moderate-intensity office and industrial parks accompanied by surface parking, along with the Santa Clara Marriot Hotel. The Plan Area is bounded by San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east, Great America Parkway to the west, Great America Theme Park to the north, and US-101 to the south. It is proximate to a range of regional destinations and amenities, including Levi’s Stadium, Great America Theme Park, and the Santa Clara Convention Center.

The vision for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area is an intensely urban environment, with Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard retaining their commercial character while sites along Freedom Circle could be converted to high-intensity residential use. As indicated in the Notice of Preparation circulated on June 26, 2020, the proposed Future Focus Area would support up to 2,500 residential dwelling units in addition to the 1,100 units proposed through the Greystar GPA, for a total of 3,600 dwelling units. The Future Focus Area designation will also add the potential to develop 2 million square feet of office space beyond the current General Plan capacity, allowing a total of 9.6 million square feet of potential office/industrial development. The addition of new residentially designated land will help the City achieve its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals for housing production. The parcels designated High Intensity Office/R&D are currently developed with approximately 2.35 million square feet of building space.

Most of the proposed Specific Plan Area currently has a High Intensity Office/R&D General Plan designation, which supports high-rise and campus style office development with an allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to 2.0. The Marriott Hotel site is the lone exception and is currently designated Regional Commercial. Unlike other Future Focus Areas where the City anticipates conversion of all or a large majority of lands to residential use, this Future Focus Area is intended to preserve a significant amount of commercial use, reflecting the existing commercial and office uses which play an important role in the City.

The Greystar General Plan Amendment would change the General Plan land use designation for a vacant 13.3 acre site, which is bounded by San Tomas Aquino Creek to the East, Freedom Circle to the West, and Highway 101 to the south from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Units/Acre). Greystar is proposing as depicted on a conceptual site plan a total of 1,075 dwelling units in three 7-story buildings, all of which are proposed to be a maximum of 100 feet in height. The proposal also includes a two-acre public park with a connection to the San Tomas Aquino Creek trail, and up to 2,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail.

The primary issues for the Planning Commission to consider in evaluating the proposed Future Focus Area Plan are its consistency with the General Plan and the strength of the Plan’s policies to act as the foundation for a future Specific Plan. Because the General Plan does not currently include City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
a process or policies related to the creation of new Future Focus Areas, the following discussion relies on policies for existing Focus Areas, and on land use policies that are applicable City-wide.

General Plan Text Amendment-Future Focus Areas
The proposed General Plan Amendment would add the following text and new policy to the General Plan (under section “5.4.7 Future Focus Areas Goals and Policies”): “In addition to the three Future Focus Areas, additional Future Focus Areas may be added to the General Plan Land Use diagram through the General Plan Amendment process. The creation of a Future Focus Area is a precursor to the comprehensive planning process required for all Focus Areas.” This additional text provides a process for expanding the number of Future Focus Areas available for development.

The General Plan text amendment would also add the following policy to the General Plan: “Policy

5.4.7-P11: Allow for General Plan Amendments and rezonings outside of existing Future Focus Areas in combination with the designation of new Future Focus Areas.” This proposed General Plan Text Amendment helps to resolve the conflict between the proposed Greystar General Plan Amendment and the General Plan requirement to develop under the existing land use designation (General Plan Policy 5.4.7-P4).

The Future Focus Area Plan includes goals and policies that will help to establish the vision for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, an urban-scaled, walkable mixed-use neighborhood, including policies relating to land use, building interfaces with the street, active transportation networks including establishing connections to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, and housing affordability.

These Focus Area Policies are consistent with General Plan Future Focus Area Policies to implement appropriate measures to reduce land use conflicts (Policy 5.4.7-P7), to require development of public amenities, including parks and open space in the first phase of the plan (Policy 5.4.7-P8), and to emphasize walkability and access to transit in comprehensive plans (Policy 5.4.7-P9).

Upon Plan approval (with the proposed General Plan Amendment), the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area would be added as a Phase III Future Focus Area to the General Plan (Section 5.4.7), and any change in land use designation or rezoning of land within the Freedom Circle area would be subject to the requirements of the Future Focus Area Goals and Policies of the General Plan, as amended (see above).

General Plan Text Amendment-Very High-Intensity Office/R&D The text amendment also amends the General Plan to include the new Very High-Intensity Office/Research and Development (R&D) land use designation, which allows for industrial buildings to be developed at Floor Area Ratios of up to 3.0.

The definition for Very High-Intensity Office/Research and Development (R&D) is proposed as follows:
“Very High-Intensity Office/Research and Development (R&D). This classification is intended for landmark high
‐
rise developments for corporate headquarters, R&D and supporting uses, with landscaped areas for employee activities. Permitted uses include offices and prototype R&D uses.

Data centers under this designation are limited to those that serve the use on ‐
site. Medical facilities,
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
except pharmacies, are not allowed. In addition, manufacturing uses are limited to less than ten percent of the building area. Accessory, or secondary, small ‐
scale supporting retail uses that serve
local employees and visitors are also permitted. Parking is typically structured or below ‐
grade. The
maximum FAR is 3.0, excluding any FAR devoted to supporting retail uses.” The creation of the Very High-Intensity Office/R&D designation is necessary to meet one of the goals of the creation of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, namely to provide the potential for up to 2 million square feet of additional office/R&D capacity within the Focus Area boundary.

Freedom Circle Future Focus Area
As proposed, the land use designations in the Future Focus Area would also create the capacity for up to 2,500 dwelling units beyond those anticipated in the Greystar project, at densities within the Very High-Density Residential range (51-100 DU/AC).

No development other than the Greystar project is planned under the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area at the present time. Any residential development proposals, or proposals implementing the Very High-Intensity Office/R&D designation within the plan area would need to complete a comprehensive plan, with associated rezonings to implement the General Plan land use designations.

The combination of designating sites for Very High-Intensity Office/R&D and the designation of sites for residential is necessary to meet the intent of the Future Focus Area, to create a vibrant, landmark mixed-use neighborhood.

The Freedom Circle Area is located to the northwest of Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC).

During good weather, aircraft take-offs from SJC depart heading northwest towards the Freedom Circle Area. The portion of the Freedom Circle Area north of Great America Parkway is located within SJC’s Airport Influence Area, which requires a referral to the County’s Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consistency with the SJC’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. All of the additional intensity proposed in the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area is located outside of the Airport Influence Area and not subject to ALUC review, to ensure compatibility with airport operations. This arrangement of land uses is consistent with General Plan Policy 5.4.7-P2, to implement development in Focus Areas consistent with General Plan Policies related to Environmental Quality, specifically safety in relationship to the flight paths emanating from San Jose International Airport.

The proposed Future Focus Area Plan includes goals and policies that will be incorporated into the City’s General Plan and will act as a starting point for the future development of the required comprehensive plan, including the following policy regarding regional transit solutions:
“FC-P24: Require developers and property owners to coordinate with North Santa Clara employers and stakeholders to explore participating in a private transit system and/or a Transportation Management Agency (TMA) as part of the Specific Plan process.” Similarly, a draft condition of approval for the Greystar development permit requires that Greystar participate in a TMA. Greystar and other future developers in the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area will be required to participate in the TMA formed by the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. These requirements are consistent with General Plan Policy 5.8.5-P4, to “5.8.5 ‐
P4 Encourage new
development to participate in shuttle programs to access local transit services within the City[.]” City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
Planned Development Rezoning of the Greystar Site
The project also includes the rezoning of the Greystar site from CP - Commercial Park to PD - Planned Development. The subject Planned Development rezoning is intended to codify development standards for the subject site. The rezoning plans include proposed development standards, including setbacks, height limits, development densities, and maximum lot coverage.

Building plans and elevations are shown to demonstrate conformance with the proposed development standards and are only illustrative.

As currently proposed, the Greystar project includes 1,075 units in three buildings, all of which are 7 stories and up to 100 feet in height. The project also includes a 2.0 acre park at the center of the site, and a bike path connection through the park to the adjacent San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail. The proposed connection to San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail is consistent with General Plan Policy 5.8.4 ‐
P2, to “Provide a system of pedestrian and bicycle friendly facilities that supports the use of alternative travel modes and connects to activity centers as well as residential, office and mixed ‐
use
developments.”
Building Architecture is illustrative and is not intended to be considered as a part of the development standards being adopted. Approval of building architecture and site improvements will occur as a part of a development review hearing, heard by the Director of Planning after the effective date of the rezoning.

Proposed Greystar park
On September 21, 2021, the Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed a proposed schematic design for the 2.0-acre park at the center of the Greystar site. After discussion, the Commission made a unanimous recommendation that Council approve the preferred schematic design for the proposed Neighborhood Park. The Council subsequently reviewed the conceptual design for the park on February 22, 2022 and indicated that the concept could move forward, contingent upon the completion of the environmental review and approval of the Future Focus Area Plan. Development of the Greystar park is consistent with General Plan Future Focus Area Policy 5.4.7-P8, to “Require development of public amenities, including parks and open space, in the first phase of development for all Future Focus Areas.”
Conclusion
The General Plan Amendment proposed by Greystar along with the creation of a new Future Focus Area within the General Plan will allow for intensified land uses within the northern part of the City, supporting future economic development while also providing near-term and long-term capacity for new housing development. In doing so, the GPA and Future Focus Area will support City goals for efficient land use and future growth. Unlike other Focus Areas, the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area does not have close access to rail facilities, but its close proximity to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, which is the north-south spine of the City’s active transportation network, and proximity to employment and other commercial uses will support the continued development and prosperity of North Santa Clara as a more urban regional job center.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An EIR was prepared for the Greystar General Plan Amendment and Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and related approvals (the “project”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment 3). The EIR analyzes project-level impacts of the Greystar General Plan City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
Amendment and program-level impacts of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan. The EIR and Notice of Availability were circulated for a 45-day period from November 5, 2021, to December 20, 2021, in accordance with CEQA requirements. The EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts for the project, and addresses topics identified within the General Plan policies for development in Future Focus Areas, including land use compatibility and provision of public facilities and parks and open space (Policies 5.4.7-P6, 5.4.7-P7, 5.4.7-P8, and 5.4.7-P9).

The EIR found that there would be significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to:
• Air Quality (toxic air contaminant emissions)
• Cultural Resources (potential destruction or degradation of Historic property and features) • Noise (increases in traffic noise levels from development related to the Focus Area Plan) The project would also result in the following significant unavoidable cumulative impacts:
• Air Quality (criteria pollutant emissions)
All of the other potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are included in their entirety as a part of the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). A detailed discussion of the potential impacts and mitigation measures to be applied to the project is specified in the EIR and would be implemented through project conditions of approval and the MMRP for the proposed project.

The Draft EIR comment period ran from November 5, 2021 to December 20, 2021. A total of four comments were received during the comment period. None of the comment letters have identified a new significant impact or have provided substantial evidence that the CEQA analysis is otherwise inadequate. Recirculation of the EIR is therefore not required. Responses to the Draft EIR comments, as well as minor text changes and clarifications, in the form of a Final EIR, were made available to the public through the City’s website on March 30, 2022, and have been forwarded on to any commenters on the Draft EIR.

Certification of the Freedom Circle EIR and adoption of the Future Focus Area Plan could potentially provide streamlining benefits for developers that choose initiate the comprehensive planning process for the Freedom Circle Plan area. Because the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area has already been analyzed at a programmatic level, the EIR could be also used as the starting point for the future approval of a specific plan, provided that it was supplemented with site-specific project-level analysis.

FISCAL IMPACT
Consultant costs borne by the City for the preparation of the Future Focus Area Plan have been funded through a reimbursement agreement with the Greystar Corporation. In addition, Greystar has paid development fees for their General Plan Amendment, EIR review and development permit, which are all intended to be cost recovery.

The eventual change in land uses would significantly increase land values and the property tax base as well as demand for services, having both positive and negative fiscal impacts upon the City. An increased local population will add to more sales tax revenue for the City. It is understood that residential land uses generally have a net negative fiscal impact (as increased land value revenue does not completely offset increased costs for service), but infill development and higher density development, particularly utilizing Type I or Type III construction, provides for more efficient delivery of services and can be revenue neutral or even positive in some circumstances. Furthermore, the City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022
Greystar proposal would include the delivery of a two-acre park to the City, which is a valuable amenity, given the potential increase in local population. On the whole, implementation of the Greystar General Plan Amendment and Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan is expected to have a relatively minor net fiscal impact to the City and will provide housing necessary for Santa Clara’s ongoing economic vitality.

The potential conversion of land from jobs-generating land uses to residential land uses could have a potentially negative fiscal impact on the City. While the City has not conducted a fiscal analysis for the future focus area and General Plan Amendment, it is understood that residential land uses generally have a net negative fiscal impact (as increased land value revenue does not completely offset increased costs for service). As discussed above, the resulting infill and higher density mixeduse development, particularly utilizing Type I or Type III construction, can provide for more efficient delivery of services and support more tax revenue generating activity, potentially resulting in net neutral or positive fiscal implications.

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

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by publishing a hearing notice in the Santa Clara Weekly on March 30, 2022, by mailing a hearing notice to properties within a 1,000-foot radius of the plan area, and by posting a notice of public hearing at three conspicuous locations within 300 feet of the project site.

The Planning Commission agenda was also posted on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.

The City held a community meeting on the North Santa Clara area including the Freedom Circle area on February 25, 2019. Approximately 28 members of the public attended the meeting.

ALTERNATIVES
That the Planning Commission adopts Resolutions recommending that the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution approving and certifying the Final EIR prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan and the Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (SCH #2020060425), including CEQA Findings and a statement of overriding consideration;

2. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/R&D designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area;

3. Adopt a resolution approving the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre;

4. Adopt a resolution approving the Planned Development Rezoning for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south; or
City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-259 Agenda Date: 4/13/2022

5. Provide direction to staff to make modifications to the Freedom Circle and Greystar General Plan Amendments and/or the Greystar Planned Development rezoning for City Council consideration.

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

1. Adopt a resolution approving and certifying the Final EIR prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan and the Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (SCH #2020060425), including CEQA Findings and a statement of overriding considerations.

2. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/R&D designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area.

3. Adopt a resolution approving the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre.

4. Adopt a resolution approving the Planned Development Rezoning for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south.

Prepared by: John Davidson, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Reena Brilliot, Assistant Director of Community Development

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan

2. Greystar Rezoning Proposal

3. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment EIR

4. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment Findings of Fact

5. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment MMRP

6. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment EIR Resolution

7. General Plan Text and Map Amendment Resolution to recommend adoption of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area

8. General Plan Amendment Resolution for the Greystar project

9. Planned Development Rezoning Resolution for the Greystar site City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 8 Printed on 4/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
6KHHW7LWOH

6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R

7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7

$UFKLWHFWXUH


%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD





3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV

1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD

*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO

)D[

ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO


ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO

)D[


ZZZENIFRP
 
&Z

KD/Z>
Z
^/
Ed/>
W>EE

s
>KWD
EdKE/E'^
d
&29(53$*(
'ƌĞLJƐƚĂƌŝƐŚĞƌĞďLJƐƵďŵŝƫŶŐĂƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĨŽƌĂ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƚŽƌĞnjŽŶĞƚŚĞϭϯ͘ϯĂĐƌĞƐŝƚĞĨƌŽŵ,ŝŐŚ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJKĸĐĞͬZΘƚŽĂůůŽǁĨŽƌĂsĞƌLJ ,ŝŐŚĞŶƐŝƚLJZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůŽŶĞ͘dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚǁŽƉĂƌĐĞůƐďŽƵŶĚĞĚďLJ&ƌĞĞĚŽŵŝƌĐůĞ͕DŝƐƐŝŽŶŽůůĞŐĞŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ͕,ŝŐŚǁĂLJϭϬϭ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞ^ĂŶ dŽŵĂƐƋƵŝŶŽƌĞĞŬ͘dŚĞ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐŚŝŐŚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĂŶĚĂϮͲĂĐƌĞƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬƚŽďĞďƵŝůƚĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚďLJƚŚĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ͘dŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƵƐĞĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨϭϯ͘ϯĂĐƌĞƐŽĨǀĂĐĂŶƚůĂŶĚ;WEƐϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϯϲĂŶĚϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϮϭͿ͘dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗ ͻ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů;ϭϬϳϱƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŶŝƚƐŝŶϵϬϳ͕ϯϮϱƐĨǁŝƚŚϭ͕ϯϳϵƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƚĂůůƐͿͻ EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞ;ƵƉƚŽϮ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚǁŝƚŚƵƉƚŽϭϬƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƚĂůůƐͿͻ ϮͲĂĐƌĞƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬǁŝƚŚϮϬƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƚĂůůƐĨŽƌƉĂƌŬǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚ͘KŶĞŽĨƚŚĞŬĞLJƉƌŽũĞĐƚŐŽĂůƐŝƐƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĂǀŝďƌĂŶƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚŚĂƚĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞƐǁĂůŬŝŶŐĂŶĚďŝŬĞƌŝĚŝŶŐ͕ůŝŶŬŝŶŐƚŚĞ&ƌĞĞĚŽŵŝƌĐůĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞ^ĂŶdŚŽŵĂƐƋƵŝŶŽƌĞĞŬdƌĂŝůǀŝĂĂŶĞǁ͕ƚǁŽͲĂĐƌĞƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬ͘dŚŝƐŶĞǁƉĂƌŬ͕ǁŝƚŚĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞĐŝƚLJͲƐƉĂŶŶŝŶŐ^ĂŶdŚŽŵĂƐƋƵŝŶŽƌĞĞŬdƌĂŝů͕ǁŝůůďĞĐŽŵĞĂŬĞLJĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚŽĨǁŚĂƚƚŚĞ>ĂǁƌĞŶĐĞ^ƚĂƟŽŶƌĞĂWůĂŶĐĂůůƐƚŚĞ͞'ƌĞĞŶtĞď͟ŽĨĂĐƟǀĂƚĞĚƉƵďůŝĐƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘ƐƚŚĞĐĞŶƚĞƌƉŝĞĐĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ƚŚĞŶĞǁƉĂƌŬǁŝůůƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĂƐƚƌŽŶŐƐĞŶƐĞŽĨƉůĂĐĞĨŽƌƚŚŝƐǀŝďƌĂŶƚŶĞǁƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚĞŐƌĞĂƚĞƌ&ƌĞĞĚŽŵŝƌĐůĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ďLJƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂǀĞŶƵĞĨŽƌďŽƚŚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞǀĞŶƚƐĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĐĂƐƵĂůƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂůƵƐĞ͘dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨƚŚƌĞĞdLJƉĞ///ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƉŽĚŝƵŵƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐͲƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͕͕ĂŶĚͲŽǀĞƌϯůĞǀĞůƐŽĨdLJƉĞ/ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚůĞǀĞůŽĨƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƚŽďĞƉĂƌƟĂůůLJďĞůŽǁŐƌĂĚĞ͘dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐǁŝůůďĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĂŶĚĞŶŐĂŐĞƚŚĞƵƌďĂŶĨŽƌŵĂŶĚĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌĂŶĚĂĐƟǀĂƚĞƉƵďůŝĐƐƉĂĐĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶĂŶĚƐƵƌͲ ƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘dŚĞϯ͕ϳͲƐƚŽƌLJďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐǁŝůůďĞƵƉƚŽϭϬϬ͛ƚĂůůŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞŽĨĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚĞůĞǀĂƚŽƌŽǀĞƌƌƵŶƐ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂŶĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĂsĞƐƟŶŐdĞŶƚĂƟǀĞWĂƌĐĞůDĂƉƚŽĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĨŽƵƌůŽƚƐ͘ 6KHHW7LWOH
6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R

7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7

$UFKLWHFWXUH


%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD





3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV

1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD

*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO

)D[

ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO


ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO

)D[


ZZZENIFRP
 
^^
^^KZ^WZ
>EhD
Z͗ ϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϯϲ͕ϭϬϰͲϰϬͲϬϮϭ^/d
Z
    ͗ ϭϯ͘ϯ
y/^d/E''
E
Z>W>E ͗ ,/',/Ed
E^/dzK&&/
ͬZΘWZKWK^
'
E
Z>W>E ͗ s
Zz,/',
E^/dzZ
^/
Ed/>;ϱϭͲϭϬϬhͬͿ
y/^d/E'KE/E'   ͗ KDD
Z/>WZ<WZKWK^
KE/E'  ͗ W>EE

s
>KWD
Ed
y/^d/E'h^
    ͗ WZ</E'ΘsEd>EWZKWK^
h^
   ͗ Z
^/
Ed/>ΘKW
E^W
^hZZKhE/E'h^
^  ͗ K&&/
ΘKW
E^W

E^/dz     ͗ ϱϭͲϭϬϬhͬh/>/E',
/',d   ͗ ϭϬϬ&dDy/DhDKhWEz'ZKhW  ͗ ZϮ͕ϯ͕^Ϯ͕KE^dZhd/KEdzW   ͗ ϱ^dKZ/
^K&dzW
///Ks
Zϯ>
s
>^K&dzW
/
;ϭ>
s
>WZd/>>z
>Kt'Z
Ϳ
ͲϬϬϬ WZK:
d^hDDZzͲϬϬϭ 
s
>KWD
Ed^dEZ^ͲϬϮϬ />>h^dZd/s
^/d
W>E Ϯ͘Ϭ  WZ
>/D/EZz/s/>^/d
W>EϮ͘ϭ  WZ
>/D/EZz/s/>^/d
W>EͲϰϬϭ KDWK^/d
^
d/KE^>ͲϭϬϮ ^dZ

d>
s
>>E^W
W>E
WZK:
d^hDDZz͗
WW>/Ed͗'ƌĞLJƐƚĂƌZĞĂů
ƐƚĂƚĞWĂƌƚŶĞƌƐϰϱϬ^ĂŶƐŽŵĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϱϬϬ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕ϵϰϭϭϭŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗ĂŶĞŝďĞůWŚŽŶĞ͗ϰϭϱ͘ϵϰϳ͘ϳϴϴϳZ,/d dͬW>EE
Z͗^ƚƵĚŝŽd^ƋƵĂƌĞϭϵϳϬƌŽĂĚǁĂLJ͕^ƵŝƚĞϱϬϬKĂŬůĂŶĚ͕ϵϰϲϭϮŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗ŚĞŬdĂŶŐ͕WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůWŚŽŶĞ͗ϱϭϬ͘ϰϱϭ͘ϮϴϱϬ/s/> E'/E

Z͗<&ϭϳϯϬE͘&ŝƌƐƚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϲϬϬ^ĂŶ:ŽƐĞ͕ϵϱϭϭϮŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗ĂƐĞLJ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶWŚŽŶĞ͗ϰϬϴ͘ϰϲϳ͘ϵϭϯϵ>E^W Z,/d
d͗Z,ϮϮϱDŝůůĞƌǀĞDŝůůsĂůůĞLJ͕ϵϰϵϰϭŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗DĂŶƵĞůĂ<ŝŶŐWŚŽŶĞ͗ϰϭϱ͘ϯϴϳ͘ϳϵϬϬ WZK:
dd
D͗
^,

d>/^d͗
s//E/dzDW
WZK:
ddh>d/KE
$
352-(&76800$5<
&DOLIRUQLD¶V
*UHDW
$PHULFD
0LVVLRQ
&ROOHJH
0,/(
0,1:$/.
5HVLGHQWLDO
1HLJKERUKRRG
97$
7$60$1'5 6WDWLRQ
6$1720$6
2UDFOH
0,/(
0,1:$/.
,QWHO
&RUS
0RQWDJXH([S\
0,/(
0,1:$/.
97$/,*+75$,/
%$<6+25()5((:$<
/$)$<(77(67 3DWULFN+HQU\ 'ULYH
$48,12&5((. 75$,/
WR%D\7UDLO
>Ğǀŝ͛Ɛ
^ƚĂĚŝƵŵ
&ƌĞĞĚŽŵ
ŝƌĐůĞ
&ŽĐƵƐƌĞĂ
*5($7$0(5,&$3.:<
7DVPDQ(DVW
6DQWD&ODUD
&LW\3ODFH
6DQWD&ODUD
6TXDUH
$&(
7UDLQ
ϯŵŝůĞƐƚŽ
ŽǁŶƚŽǁŶĂŶĚ
ĂůƚƌĂŝŶ
^ŝƚĞ WĞĚƌŽ͛Ɛ
WZK'ZDƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhŶŝƚƐ ϯϲϯ
^ƚƵĚŝŽƐ ϭϳ͘ϭй ϲϮKŶĞĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ ϱϰ͘ϱй ϭϵϴdǁŽĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ Ϯϴ͘ϰй ϭϬϯ >ĞĂƐŝŶŐ ϮϯϬϬ^&ůƵďZŽŽŵ ϮϭϬϬ^&&ŝƚŶĞƐƐͬzŽŐĂ ϮϳϱϬ^&ŽͲtŽƌŬŝŶŐͬƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϭϮϱϬ^&WĞƚ^ƉĂ ϱϴϬ^&ŝĐLJĐůĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ;ůĂƐƐ/Ϳ ϰϴϬϬ^&ŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ Ϯϴϲϰϱ^&>ŽďďLJ ϭϲϬϬ^& ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhŶŝƚƐ ϯϵϴ
^ƚƵĚŝŽƐ ϭϯ͘ϭй ϱϮKŶĞĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ ϱϳ͘ϯй ϮϮϴdǁŽĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ Ϯϵ͘ϲй ϭϭϴ >ĞĂƐŝŶŐ ϮϱϬϬ^&ůƵďZŽŽŵ ϮϯϬϬ^&&ŝƚŶĞƐƐ ϮϮϬϬ^&ŽͲtŽƌŬŝŶŐͬƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϭϯϬϬ^&WĞƚ^ƉĂ ϳϳϱ^&>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϳϮϱ^&ŝĐLJĐůĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ;ůĂƐƐ/Ϳ ϱϬϬϬ^&ŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ ϯϱϬϱϱ^&EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞ ϮϬϬϬ^&>ŽďďLJ ϭϰϰϬ^& ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhŶŝƚƐ ϯϭϰ
^ƚƵĚŝŽƐ ϭϳ͘ϴй ϱϲKŶĞĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ ϱϰ͘ϱй ϭϳϭdǁŽĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ Ϯϳ͘ϳй ϴϳ >ĞĂƐŝŶŐ ϭϭϱϬ^&ůƵďZŽŽŵ ϮϱϬϬ^&&ŝƚŶĞƐƐ ϮϰϬϬ^&ŽͲtŽƌŬŝŶŐͬƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ>ŽƵŶŐĞ ϭϰϱϬ^&WĞƚ^ƉĂ ϱϱϬ^&DŝƐĐŵĞŶŝƚLJ ϭϮϱϬ^&ŝĐLJĐůĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ;ůĂƐƐ/Ϳ ϰϯϳϬ^&ŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ ϮϬϲϮϬ^&>ŽďďLJ ϭϵϬϬ^& ^ŝƚĞ
ĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬ Ϯ͘ϬĂĐƌĞƐ
'ƌŽƐƐƵŝůĚŝŶŐƌĞĂ>ĞǀĞůϭ^ƵďƚĞƌƌĂŶĞĂŶ'ĂƌĂŐĞ ϮϮϴ͕ϰϭϱ>ĞǀĞůϭ'ĂƌĂŐĞ ϮϬϯ͕ϳϱϬ>ĞǀĞůϭZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů͕ƌĞƚĂŝů͕ΘĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ϵϲ͕ϭϲϱ>ĞǀĞůϮ'ĂƌĂŐĞ ϭϵϰ͕ϬϬϬ>ĞǀĞůϮZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůΘĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ϭϬϱ͕ϲϬϬ>ĞǀĞůϯZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůΘĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ ϮϬϳ͕ϳϭϱ>ĞǀĞůϰZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϬϳ͕ϳϭϱ>ĞǀĞůϱZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϭϬ͕ϯϯϱ>ĞǀĞůϲZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϭϬ͕ϯϯϱ>ĞǀĞůϳZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ϮϬϱ͕ϴϬϱdKd> ϭ͕ϴϲϵ͕ϴϯϱ hE/d^ YƵĂŶ͘ Z͘^͘&͘ Dŝdž ZĞŶƚĂďůĞ^͘&͘ WĂƌŬŝŶŐZĂƚŝŽ WĂƌŬŝŶŐZĞƋΖĚ^ƚƵĚŝŽƐdŽƚĂů ϭϳϬ ϱϳϬ ϭϱ͘ϴй ϵϲ͕ϴϭϱ ϭ ϭϳϬϭZhŶŝƚƐdŽƚĂů ϱϵϳ ϳϱϬ ϱϱ͘ϱй ϰϰϳ͕ϳϴϱ ϭ ϱϵϳϮZhŶŝƚƐdŽƚĂů ϯϬϴ ϭϭϳϳ Ϯϴ͘ϳй ϯϲϮ͕ϰϭϱ Ϯ ϲϭϲ>>hE/d^ͲdKd> ϭ͕Ϭϳϱ ϴϰϰ ϭϬϬ͘Ϭй ϵϬϳ͕Ϭϭϱ ϭϯϴϯ h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKWK^

ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϰϲϲ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϰϳĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϵ sWĂƌŬŝŶŐͲϭϱй;
sZĞĂĚLJͬ&ƵƚƵƌĞ
sͿ/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ϳϬ
h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKs/
 ϰϲϲh/>/E'WZ</E'WZKWK^

ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϱϭϲ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϱϮĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϭϬ sWĂƌŬŝŶŐͲϭϱй;
sZĞĂĚLJͬ&ƵƚƵƌĞ
sͿ/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ϳϳZĞƚĂŝů;ϭƉĞƌϮϬϬ^&Ϳ ϭϬWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϭϬ h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKs/
 ϱϯϲh/>/E'WZ</E'WZKWK^

ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϰϬϭ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϰϬĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ;/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϵ sWĂƌŬŝŶŐͲϭϱй;
sZĞĂĚLJͬ&ƵƚƵƌĞ
sͿ/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ϲϬWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϭϬ
h/>/E'WZ</E'WZKs/
 ϰϭϭdKd>WZ</E'WZKWK^

ƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ϭƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵͿ ϭϯϴϯ'ƵĞƐƚͲϭϬйŽĨƐƐŝŐŶĞĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞͿ ϭϯϴWƵďůŝĐWĂƌŬWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϮϬEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞ;ϭƉĞƌϮϬϬ^&Ϳ ϭϬ dKd>WZ</E'WZKs/
 ϭϰϭϯ/<
WZ</E'WZKWK^

ƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϭƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϯϲϯƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϭƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϯϵϴƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϭƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϯϭϰƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϱƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϮϱƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϱƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϮϳƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϱƵŶŝƚƐͿ ϮϭEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞůĂƐƐ/;ϭƉĞƌϯϬĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐͿ ϭEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞŶŝƚLJ^ƉĂĐĞůĂƐƐ//;ϭƉĞƌϭϬϬϬƐĨͿ Ϯ dŽƚĂůŝŬĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐWƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ϭϭϱϭKW
EZ

^ŝƚĞƌĞĂ^& ϱϴϬϵϭϲƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ^& Ϯϵϵϵϭϱ
KW
EZ
WZKs/
 ϰϴй
6KHHW7LWOH

6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R

7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7

$UFKLWHFWXUH


%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD





3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV

1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD

*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO

)D[

ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO


ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO

)D[


ZZZENIFRP
 
'(9(/230(1767$1'$5'6
0LQLPXP%LF\FOH3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWV
L
)RUHDFKPXOWLIDPLO\XQLWRQH&ODVVELF\FOHSDUNLQJVSDFHSHUXQLWDQGRQH&ODVVELNHUDFNDFFRPPRGDWLQJWZRELNHVSHUXQLWVLVUHTXLUHG LL
0L[HGXVHGHYHORSPHQWV
2QH&ODVVELF\FOHSDUNLQJVSDFHSHUHPSOR\HHVDQGRQH&ODVVELNHUDFNIRUHYHU\VTXDUHIHHWRIUHWDLOÀH[RUFRPPXQLW\XVH LLL
2ႈFH GHYHORSPHQWV
2QH ELF\FOH SDUNLQJ VSDFH SHU  VTXDUHIHHWZLWKSHUFHQWDV&ODVV2QHVSDFHVDQGSHUFHQWDV&ODVV7ZRUDFNV´$ႇRUGDELOLW\/HYHOV )RUHLWKHURZQHUVKLSRUUHQWDOKRXVLQJGHYHORSHGXQGHUWKHWKLV3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQWUH]RQLQJWKHIROORZLQJDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVDSSO\ 
D
 1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJ 6XEVHFWLRQ 
D
 UHVLGHQWLDO RZQHUVKLSSURMHFWV RIWHQ RUPRUH XQLWVPXVW SURYLGH DW OHDVW ¿IWHHQ SHUFHQW 
 RIWKHXQLWVDWDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRVWVIRUH[WUHPHO\ORZYHU\ORZORZPRGHUDWHDQGDERYHPRGHUDWHLQFRPHKRXVHKROGVRUVRPHFRPELQDWLRQRIWKRVHLQFRPHFDWHJRULHV$GHYHORSHUVKDOOVHOHFWLQFRPHFDWHJRULHVVXFKWKDWWKHDYHUDJHLQFRPHRISXUFKDVHUVZLOOQRWH[FHHGHLJKW\SHUFHQW 
RI$0,5HVLGHQWLDORZQHUVKLSSURMHFWVRIIHZHUWKDQWHQXQLWVPD\HLWKHUSURYLGHRQHGZHOOLQJDWDQDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRVWIRUDKRXVHKROGHDUQLQJXSWRHLJKW\SHUFHQW 
RI$0,RUSD\DQLQOLHXIHHLGHQWL¿HGIRUUHVLGHQWLDORZQHUVKLSSURMHFWVLQWKHDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJPDVWHUIHHVFKHGXOH E
 1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJ6XEVHFWLRQ

D
IRU UHVLGHQWLDO UHQWDOSURMHFWVRIWHQRUPRUHXQLWVWKHGHYHORSHUPXVWSURYLGHDWOHDVW¿IWHHQSHUFHQW 
RIWKHXQLWVDWDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRVWVIRUH[WUHPHO\ORZYHU\ORZORZPRGHUDWHDQGDERYHPRGHUDWHLQFRPHKRXVHKROGVRUVRPHFRPELQDWLRQRIWKRVHLQFRPHFDWHJRULHV$GHYHORSHUVKDOOVHOHFWLQFRPHFDWHJRULHVVXFKWKDWWKHDYHUDJHLQFRPHRIUHQWHUVZLOOQRWH[FHHGHLJKW\SHUFHQW 
RI$0,
9HU\+LJK'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO=RQH
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
E
6KDUHG3DUNLQJ3DUNLQJVKDUHGDPRQJXVHVLVHQFRXUDJHGDQGXSWRRISDUNLQJVSDFHVSURYLGHGPD\EHVKDUHGEHWZHHQWZRXVHV)RUWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLVWLWOHWKRVHSDUNLQJVSDFHVVKDUHGEHWZHHQWZRXVHVFRXQWWRZDUGVWKHSDUNLQJ UHTXLUHPHQWRIERWK F
6XUIDFH3DUNLQJ6XUIDFHSDUNLQJLVRQO\DOORZHGDVDWHPSRUDU\RULQWHULPXVH G
0HFKDQLFDOSDUNLQJVWDFNHUVOLIWVDQGWDQGHPSDUNLQJPD\EHXVHGWRVDWLVI\PLQLPXPUHTXLUHPHQWV H
8QEXQGOHG3DUNLQJ$PD[LPXPRIRQHSDUNLQJVSDFHVKDOOEHUHQWHGRUVROGZLWKHDFKXQLW$GGLWLRQDOSDUNLQJVSDFHVVKDOOEHUHQWHGRUVROGVHSDUDWHO\ L
$VDQDOWHUQDWLYHWRUHQWLQJRUVHOOLQJSDUNLQJVSDFHVVHSDUDWHO\IURPUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWSURSHUW\PDQDJHUVPD\LPSOHPHQWDSDUNLQJSUHIHUHQFHSURJUDPZLWKSURVSHFWLYHUHQWHUVZLWKRXWFDUVSXWRQDVHSDUDWHZDLWLQJOLVWIURPUHQWHUVZLWKFDUVDQGUHQWHUVEHLQJFKRVHQDOWHUQDWHO\IURPWKHWZROLVWV 
s
>KWD
Ed^dEZ^
$
3DUNLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWV
0LQLPXPVSDFHVSHUXQLW
LQFOXVLYHLQUHVLGHQWVSDUNLQJ


*6)8QLW

 7KH'HYHORSPHQW6WDQGDUGVSDJHHVWDEOLVKHVWKH]RQLQJVWDQGDUGVIRUWKH3URMHFW $OORWKHUSDJHVDUHIRULOOXVWUDWLYHSXUSRVHV
*6)8QLW
0 6 , 2/ *( %/9'
6KHHW7LWOH
6FDOH
-RE1R
'DWH
6KHHW1R

7+,6'2&80(17&217$,16,1)250$7,21
35235,(7$5<72678',2764,1&$1',6)851,6+('
,1&21),'(1&()257+(/,0,7('385326(2)
(9$/8$7,21255(9,(:7+,6'2&80(1725,76
&217(1760$<127%(86(')25$1<27+(5
385326($1'0$<127%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26('7227+(56:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1 &216(172)678',2764,1&$//5,*+765(6(59('&23<5,*+7

$UFKLWHFWXUH


%URDGZD\6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD





3ODQQLQJ
8UEDQ'HVLJQ
5HYLVLRQV

1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH
)UHHGRP&LUFOH
*UH\VWDU
5HVLGHQWLDO
6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD

*HDU\6WUHHW
7HO

)D[

ZZZUKDDFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
6DQVRPH6WUHHW6XLWH
7HO


ZZZJUH\VWDUFRP
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
1)LUVW6W6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
7HO

)D[


ZZZENIFRP
 
$
,//8675$7,9(6,7(3/$1
%$<6+25( )5((:$<  86 
(
.
7 5
$,/
'
0 &,5
'
5 9
(
´ ¶´
 ,//8675$7,9(6,7(3/$1 6&$/(
´ ¶´
3+$6(
3+$6(
3+$6(
%8,/',1*$
%8,/',1*%
$&5(
38%/,&3$5.
%8,/',1*&
9(57,&$/&,5&8/$7,21$0(1,7<$5($
/(*(1'
81,7

AMENITY
DOWN TO B1
GARAGE
AY B SHORE FREEWAY- US 101

FREEDOM CIRCLE DRIVE

SAN TOMAS AQUINO CREEK TRAIL

BLDG B LEVEL
1 GARAGE
ACCESS

PUBLIC PARK/

GUEST/RETAIL/

LEASING ACCESS
ONLY

BLDG A LEVEL
1 GARAGE
ACCESS

BLDG A LEVEL
2 GARAGE
ACCESS
BLDG B LEVEL B1 GARAGE ACCESS

SECURED RESIDENTIAL ACCESS ONLY

UP TO LEVEL
2 GARAGE

BLDG A LEVEL
B1 GARAGE
ACCESS

TO SANTA

CLARA SQUARE
BLDG C
GARAGE

ACCESS TO ALL
LEVELS
BLDG B LEVEL 2 GARAGE ACCESS TWO WAY TRAFFIC

PEDESTRIAN ACCESSBIKE PATHMOVE-IN LOBBY
LEGEND

MOVE-IN / LOADING ZONEREGIONAL BIKE & PEDESTRIAN TRAILPEDESTRIAN PATH

CROSSING
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
LVD
TO LEVI’S

STADIUM
PASEO
Sheet Title:Scale:Job No. :Date:Sheet No:

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED

IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS

CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER

PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,COPYRIGHT 20 : Architecture
: 
%URDGZD\6XLWH: Oakland, California 94: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning : Urban Design
Revisions:

No. Description Date
Freedom Circle
Greystar
5HVLGHQWLDO
Santa Clara, &DOLIRUQLD
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California

323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
San Jose, CA
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
 8/11/2021
A-030

SITE CIRCULATIONPLAN
1 SITE CIRCULATION PLAN SCALE: 1” = 60’-0”
1” = 60’-0”

BUILDING A

BUILDING B

2.0 ACRE

PUBLIC PARK

SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR

PARK PEDESTRIAN PATH

BUILDING C

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHEIN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OFEVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITSCONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHERPURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTENCONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVECOPYRIGHT 2020. : Architecture
: 1970 Broadway, Suite 500: Oakland, California 94612: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning: Urban Design
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
San Jose, CA
323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
Freedom Circle Residential
Santa Clara, California
Greystar
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California
Revisions:

No. Description Date
Sheet Title:

Scale: AS SHOWNJob No. :Date: 07/13/2021
20002
Sheet No:

PRELIMINARY

SITE PLAN
LEGEND
C2.0

SITE PLAN NOTES

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHEIN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OFEVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITSCONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHERPURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTENCONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVECOPYRIGHT 2020. : Architecture
: 1970 Broadway, Suite 500: Oakland, California 94612: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning: Urban Design
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
San Jose, CA
323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
Freedom Circle Residential
Santa Clara, California
Greystar
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California
Revisions:

No. Description Date
Sheet Title:

Scale: AS SHOWNJob No. :Date: 07/13/2021
20002
Sheet No:

PRELIMINARY

SITE PLAN
C2.1
LEGEND

SITE PLAN NOTES
Sheet Title:

Scale:Job No. :Date:Sheet No:

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED

IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS

CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER

PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ORDISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,COPYRIGHT 20 : Architecture
: 
%URDGZD\6XLWH: Oakland, California 94: (510) 451 - 2850 : Planning : Urban Design
Revisions:

No. Description Date
Freedom Circle
Greystar
5HVLGHQWLDO
Santa Clara, &DOLIRUQLD
450 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California

323 Geary Street, #602
Tel 415.861.7900
Fax 415.861.7908
www.rhaa.com
San Francisco, CA
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
Tel 415.522.0992
www.greystar.com
San Francisco, CA
1730 N. First St. Suite 600
San Jose, CA
Tel 408.467.9100
Fax 408.467.9199
www.bkf.com
 8/11/2021
A-401

COMPOSITESECTIONS

AS NOTED
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
UP TO 85'
08/11/2021

PROPERTY LINE
LEGEND
10 9876
5 43
21 1/2-ACRE TURFED PLAY FIELD

LANDSCAPED AND FURNISHED, PARK-LIKE QUIET AREAPLAYGROUNDSPORT COURTPICNIC AREA & BOCCE COURTOFF-LEASH DOG AREACONNECTION TO CREEK TRAIL PERIMETER ROADPARKING GARAGE ENTRYBIKE LANE CLASS II 1 2
10 2
3 4
5 6
8 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
11 SAN TOMAS AQUINO CREEK TRAIL

FREEDOM CIRCLE

THE BAYSHORE FREEWAY

BUILDING A BUILDING B

BUILDING C

PARK PROPERTY LINE
7 0 30’ 60’ 120’ N

LEASING
OFFICE
BIKE

STORAGE
BIKE

STORAGE
BIKE

STORAGE PET SPA
COWORKING
LOBBY
MAIL

PET SPA

AMENITY / BIKE SHOP

BUSINESS
LOUNGE
LOBBY
MAIL

LEASING
OFFICE
10 PARKING 10 PAR SPACES

RESERVED F E OR PARK

VISITORS
LOBBY
MAIL

PET SPA BIKE STORAGE

LEASING
LOBBY
10 PARKING SPACESRESERVED FOR PARKVISITORS

RESTROOMS FOR

PARK VISITORS

MOVE-IN LO M V BBY
BIKE

STORAGE

STREET LEVELLANDSCAPE PLAN
1”=60’-0”
L-102
10 8
8 CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022

FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE FREEDOM CIRCLE FOCUS AREA/GREYSTAR GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clara Project Nos. PLN2017-12516 and PLN2022-00054 (EIR, Freedom Circle General Plan Amendment, and Greystar General Plan and Zoning Amendments)
SCH #2020060425
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2020060425) FOR THE FREEDOM CIRCLE

FOCUS AREA / GREYSTAR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
(CITY PROJECT NUMBERS PLN2017-12516 and PLN2022-00054)
I. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21081 et seq, and the Guidelines for Implementation for the California Environmental Quality Act, Title 14 California Code of Regulations, section 15091 et seq (“CEQA Guidelines”) require that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to provide that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The CEQA Guidelines section 15091 specifically provides as follows:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.

CEQA Guidelines section 15093 further provides as follows:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project.

If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
(b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/ or other information in the record.

This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to section 15091.

Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations. See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II). The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-1509 (court upholds CEQA findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on applicant’s project objectives); see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 (CNPS) (“an alternative ‘may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record’”) (quoting Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act [Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2009] (Kostka), § 17.39, p. 825); In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166 (Bay-Delta) (“[i]n the CALFED program, feasibility is strongly linked to achievement of each of the primary project objectives”; “a lead agency may structure its EIR alternative analysis around a reasonable definition of underlying purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal”). Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; see also CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001 (“an alternative that ‘is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint’ may be rejected as infeasible”) (quoting Kostka, supra, § 17.29, p. 824); San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 17.

For purposes of these findings, the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level.

Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is “avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed],” these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been “avoided” (i.e., reduced to a less than significant level).

CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a), (b).

With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” CEQA Guidelines §§ 15093, 15043(b); see also Pub. Resources Code § 21081(b). The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576. The EIR (as defined below) for the Project (as defined below) concluded the Project would create significant and unavoidable impacts; thus, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.

These Findings of Fact (sometimes referred to herein as “Findings”) constitute the City of Santa Clara’s (City’s) evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. To the extent that these Findings conclude that various mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to ensuring that these measures are implemented by the appropriate party(ies). These Findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts a resolution approving the Project.

In addition, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) has been prepared for the Project, and is being approved by the City Council by the same Resolution that has adopted these Findings. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with Project mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will remain available for public review during the compliance period. The Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to and incorporated into the environmental document approval resolution and is approved in conjunction with certification of the EIR and adoption of these Findings of Fact.

Having received, reviewed, and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR” and, together with the Draft EIR, the “EIR”) for the Freedom Circle Focus Area/ Greystar General Plan Amendment (the “Project”), State Clearinghouse (“SCH”) No. 2020060425, as well as other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the City of Santa Clara City Council, in its capacity as the decision-making body of the CEQA Lead Agency hereby finds, determines, and declares the following Findings and Facts, in accordance with Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code.

These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the County for the development of the Project. These actions include the approval of the following for the Freedom Circle Focus Area/ Greystar General Plan Amendment (Project:
 Environmental Impact report (SCH No. 2020060425)
 Freedom Circle Focus Area General Plan Amendment
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022  Greystar General Plan Amendment
 Greystar Zoning Amendment
A. Document Format
These Findings have been organized into the following sections:
(1) Section I provides an introduction to these Findings. (2) Section II provides a summary of the Project, overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the Project, and a statement of the Project’s objectives.
(3) Section III provides a summary of environmental review related to the Project and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the Project
(4) Section IV sets forth findings regarding the potential impact areas identified in the EIR. This section details findings for those impacts for which the County has determined that there is no impact or the impact is less than significant and thus no mitigation is required; findings regarding potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the County has determined can be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures; and findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR that will or may result from the Project and which the County has determined will remain significant and unavoidable, despite the identification and incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures.

In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of the mitigation measures will be included in MMRP for the Project and adopted as conditions of the Project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level through mitigation, these findings specify how those impacts would be reduced to an acceptable level. (5) Section V sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Project (6) Section VI sets forth findings regarding the growth-inducing impacts of the Project.
(7) Section VII sets forth findings regarding recirculation of the Draft EIR. (8) Section VIII sets forth findings regarding rejection of recommended mitigation measures.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 (9) Section IX contains the findings pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.1(c)(3).
(10) Section X contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093.

B. Custodian and Location of Records
The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report consists of:

1. the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and Appendices 25.1 through 25.6, dated November, 2021; and

2. the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) dated March, 2022.

The following Findings of Fact are based in part on the information contained in EIR for the Project, as well as additional facts found in the complete record of proceedings. The EIR is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review at Santa Clara City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, 95050 during normal business hours.

For the purposes of CEQA, and the findings herein set forth, the administrative record for the Project consists of those items listed in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project consists of the following documents, at a minimum, which are incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these Findings:
 The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project;
 The Draft EIR for the Project and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference;
 All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR;
 All comments and correspondence submitted to the City during the public comment period on the Draft EIR, in addition to all other timely comments on the Draft EIR;  The Final EIR for the Project, including the Planning Commission staff report, minutes of the Planning Commission public hearing; City Council staff report; minutes of the City Council public hearing; comments received on the Draft EIR; the City’s responses to those comments; technical appendices; and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference;
 The MMRP for the Project;
 All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
 All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 trustee agencies with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the Project;  All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Project, up through the close of the public hearing;  Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project;  Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings and public hearings;
 All resolutions adopted by the City regarding the Project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions;  The City’s General Plan and applicable Specific Plans and all updates and related environmental analyses;
 Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to Federal, State, and local laws and regulations;
 The City Code;
 Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above; and
 Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).

The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions related to the Project are at Santa Clara City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, 95050. The City is the custodian of the Administrative Record for the Project.

The City has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decisions on the proposed Project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City Council or City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the Project. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the Project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City Council was aware in approving the Project. See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-391; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6. Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the Planning Commission and the City Council as final decision makers. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City’s decisions relating to approval of the Project. See Pub. Resources Code § 21167.6(e)(10); BrowningFerris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 II. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Project Location
The Freedom Circle Focus Area covers approximately 108 acres and currently contains predominantly commercial uses such as biotech and electronics, business offices, a hotel (Marriott), and various support services (such as car rental, UPS store, medical/dental, and restaurants).

The Plan Area is generally bounded by Great America Parkway to the west, California’s Great America amusement park to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east, and U.S. 101 to the south.

The Freedom Circle Plan Area, much like the surrounding neighborhood, is characterized by several “superblocks” with ample surface parking, significant setbacks, and significant separation between buildings. The Plan Area is relatively flat and developed with buildings ranging in height from two and three stories to up to 13 stories (Marriott Hotel) in the west; buildings in the rest of the Plan Area range from one to three stories. The Plan Area is generally underutilized, and some buildings are vacant. There are no residential land uses, public parks, or historic structures located in the Plan Area. Private automobiles predominate the suburban streetscape environment that is defined by limited pedestrian and bicycle accessibility. Visible infrastructure includes local streets and utilities, such as streetlights, and the City’s Pump Station on Freedom Circle at Mission College Boulevard in the east. Due to the large-lot development pattern and limited number of roadways within the Plan Area, linkages and connectivity across the Plan Area are limited.

The vacant Greystar project site (approximately 13.3 acres) is located in the southeast portion of the Plan Area, bordered by San Tomas Aquino Creek, U.S. 101, Pedro’s Restaurant, and part of Santa Clara Park (a 12-building business center).

B. Project Description
The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan is one step in the comprehensive planning process required as a General Plan prerequisite for incorporating a new “Focus Area” into the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan, under Phase III, which is programmed to occur between 2023 and 2035. The Focus Area Plan would designate changes to the Land Use Diagram that describe the future land uses anticipated in the Focus Area Plan Area. The Focus Area Plan process requires conformance with applicable General Plan policies, including preparation and approval of a future, comprehensive planning study (such as a specific plan). The planning study would establish more detailed policies, regulations, and actions for the Plan Area, and would also refine the framework for development, development assumptions, and related infrastructure and implementation needs. The Draft EIR briefly summarizes or describes Focus Area Plan policies designed to inform City planning and decision-makers of the detailed actions and performance standards that will be required by the comprehensive plan’s CEQA document to implement site-specific, individual development projects and public improvements, where such policies are relevant to the environmental analysis as set forth in the EIR.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 The Greystar project, included in the Plan Area and proposed while this Focus Area Plan as part of the Plan, would be a 1,075-unit multi-family residential project (with some projectserving retail and a two-acre public park) proposed for two currently vacant parcels formerly owned by Intel Corporation in the southeastern portion of the Plan Area. Because the General Plan land use designation currently allows high-intensity office/R&D rather than residential and retail development as proposed, the Greystar project would require a General Plan amendment.

Because it is not currently designated a Future Focus Area but will be, and as a site-specific development proposal and General Plan Amendment evaluated in this EIR concurrently with the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, the Greystar project, if approved, could proceed without adoption of the future planning study required for the remainder of the Plan Area.

C. Discretionary Actions
Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would require, but is not limited to, the following discretionary approvals by the City of Santa Clara:
 Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report  Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program  Adoption of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan
 Adoption of a General Plan amendment to designate the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Area as a Phase III Focus Area in the City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan and associated zoning changes for consistency with the current zoning code Future City approvals:
 Preparation and adoption of a comprehensive planning study (such as a specific plan) for the Focus Area
 Future discretionary review as necessary, including CEQA review, for individual public and private development proposals in the Plan Area Prior to Project implementation, additional permits and/or approvals may be required from various governmental entities, including the following:
 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
 Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities Department
 Silicon Valley Power (SVP)
 County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health  Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022  San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)  Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
D. Statement of Project Objectives
The statement of objectives sought by the Project and set forth in the Final EIR is provided as follows:

Focus Area Plan. The overarching goal of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan is to outline new land uses that will convert the area from an employment center to a high-intensity mixed-use neighborhood including residential developments. As such, the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan has been formulated to establish the comprehensive planning framework necessary to guide development, with goals, policies, and design principles that will inform redevelopment in the Focus Area (including the Greystar project).

The Focus Area Plan goals listed below are referred to collectively in this EIR as the “basic project objectives” (CEQA Guidelines section 15124[b]):
 Develop an urban-scale mixed-use activity center in North Santa Clara to support economic vitality while increasing residential options.  Provide for a range of housing types and densities to accommodate future residents and to create diversity in building scale and typology.  Create a complete neighborhood that provides easy access to day-to-day services and amenities for residents, employees and visitors.  Reduce reliance on private vehicles and improve jobs/housing balance by locating amenities and jobs within walking distance to housing.  Create a human-scaled public realm through inviting architecture and urban design.
 Improve multi-modal transportation options and connections.  Enhance connectivity to the San Tomas Aquino Creek trail.

Greystar Project. The basic objectives of the Greystar project, as provided by the applicant and identified by the City, are:
 To both acknowledge the level of development interest in North Santa Clara, and to be consistent with and comply with the policies of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The Focus Area Plan will outline new land uses that will convert the area from an employment center to a high-intensity mixed-use neighborhood CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 including residential developments. These changes will help meet the demand for housing and for using land more efficiently at high, urban densities.  Create a vibrant residential community that complements other North Santa Clara neighborhoods and encourages walking and bike riding, linking the Freedom Circle neighborhood to the San Thomas Aquino Creek Trail via a new, two-acre public park.
 Redevelop a vacant lot in North Santa Clara and adjacent to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail with attractive and desirable amenities, housing, and a public park available to all Santa Clara residents.
 Support, enhance and connect to the City’s existing and planned open space network.
 Create a vibrant, two-acre, multifunctional public park with space allocated for such activities including a dog park, sport court, and a playground for ages 2 and up.
 Meet the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance and Inclusionary Zoning requirements, including any direction on levels of affordability from the City Council.
 Create a human scaled public realm through inviting architecture and urban design.
 Activate street frontages and ground floor uses to create a pedestrian-friendly, cohesive urban environment.
 Minimize surface parking by providing below‐grade and structured parking facilities.
 Redesign the Freedom Circle right-of-way adjacent to the project to better balance space dedicated to vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.  Minimize environmental impacts through sustainable building and infrastructure by designing to a GreenPoint Rated Silver (or equivalent) level and remaining consistent with CALGreen and Santa Clara Climate Action Plan requirements.
 Contribute to the City’s vehicle miles travelled (VMT) goals and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM programs).
 Support and enhance the City’s goal for a balanced transportation network serving all modes of transportation - including walking, biking, and driving - to address the City's transportation challenges and needs, and to build on Santa Clara's existing transportation system.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Final EIR, dated March 2022, includes the Draft EIR dated November 2021, written comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the public review period, written CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 responses to these comments, clarifications/changes to the Draft EIR, and the MMRP. In conformance with CEQA, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project, as described below:
 The City issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“NOP”) on June 26, 2020, to federal, state, regional, and local government agencies and interested parties to solicit comments and to inform agencies and the public of the Project during a 30-day public review period that extended from June 26, 2020 to July 27, 2020.
 The Project, as it was envisioned in 2020, was described in the NOP; potential environmental effects associated with Project approval and implementation were identified; and agencies and the public were invited to review and comment on the Initial Study, NOP, and NOP mailing list.
 Based on the Notice of Preparation and responses, a determination was made that the EIR would contain a comprehensive analysis of the following environmental issues, identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and Historical resources (including Tribal Cultural Resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions and energy, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems.
 An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. As required by CEQA, the EIR includes appropriate review, analysis, and mitigation measures for the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Final EIR could be utilized by other permitting agencies in their capacity as Responsible and Trustee agencies under CEQA.  A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for a 45-day public review period, beginning on November 5, 2021, and ending on December 20, 2021. The Draft EIR was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding jurisdictions, interested parties, and other parties who requested a copy of the EIR in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 20192.  The Draft EIR was available for public review on the City’s webpage and, during normal business hours, at City Hall located at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA, 95050. During this review period, the document was reviewed by various state, regional, and local agencies, as well as by interested organizations and individuals.

Comment letters on the Draft EIR were received from 4 agencies and 1 law firm representing a property owner within the plan area. Comment letters and responses to comments are included in the FEIR, which was issued in January 2022.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 IV. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following potentially significant impacts were analyzed in the EIR, and the effects of the Project were considered. For some impacts, the City has determined that the Project impacts have no impact on the environment or have a less than significant impact on the environment and thus no mitigation is required.

Other potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant because of the environmental analysis of the Project and identification of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes, and the identification and incorporation of feasible mitigation measures. The City has thus found for these impacts – in accordance with CEQA section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1) – that “Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Where the City has determined – pursuant to CEQA section 21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(2) – that “Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency,” it has also designated the impact as less than significant with mitigation.

Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the Project, the City has determined that either (1) even with the identification of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordance with CEQA section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3) that "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report." These impacts have been designated significant and unavoidable.

A. Aesthetics

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
The Greystar project would be a new development in the southeast part of the Plan Area on a vacant site between the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail (and levee road), Pedro’s Restaurant, and Freedom Circle. There are no other residential uses in this part of the Plan Area; however, there are multi-story buildings in the general vicinity, east across San Tomas Aquino Creek but outside of the Plan Area. As follows, the Greystar project design would be substantially consistent with General Plan policies governing scenic quality.

However, the proposed project would cast shadows on several project features and adjacent properties over the course of the seasons, varying with the time of day (e.g., angle CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 of the sun). The courtyards in Building B of the Greystar Project would have the most consistent shadow effects, but not all year round. Shadow effects on adjacent properties would likewise be limited by the season and time of day, primarily in the mornings or late afternoons.

Therefore, because the project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality including light and glare, and its shadow effects would not be considered significant due to their limited duration and variability, the impact of the Greystar project on the existing visual character and quality of project site and its surroundings is considered less-than-significant.

Impact 4-1: Effects on Scenic Vistas—Plan Area. Existing, limited vistas within the Plan Area include views of distant hills, but due to the generally flat, urbanized nature of Santa Clara, these vistas are often blocked by buildings, trees, power poles, and walls. Public views of these features occasionally emerge along view corridors created by long, straight roads along the perimeter of the Plan Area (e.g., Great America Parkway) and also by Mission College Boulevard, which transects the Plan Area. Occasionally, public views are accessible selectively between buildings and other structures, but no scenic vistas can be viewed from existing public areas in the Plan Area because the Plan Area (with the exception of the Greystar project site) is already built out and is largely private development with limited public access, and because of a lack of significant scenic vistas in the vicinity. As described and illustrated above, the Plan Area does not afford expansive or high quality scenic views, and the proposed development would neither exacerbate or improve that condition. Therefore, Plan impacts on scenic vistas are considered less-thansignificant (see criterion [a] in subsection 4.3.1, “Significance Criteria,” above).

Mitigation 4-1. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 4-2: Effects on Scenic Vistas—Greystar Project. As discussed in Impact 4-1, existing, limited vistas within the Plan Area include views of distant hills, but due to the generally flat, urbanized nature of Santa Clara these vistas are often blocked by buildings, trees, power poles, and walls. Public views of these features occasionally emerge along view corridors such as the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Greystar site and the Plan Area, and to a lesser extent parts of Freedom Circle.

Mitigation 4-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

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

4.1(c), “Greystar Project Site,” describes the existing visual character of the Greystar project site and vicinity. As described earlier, the Greystar project would be a new development in the southeast part of the Plan Area on a vacant site between the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail (and levee road), Pedro’s Restaurant, and Freedom Circle. There are no other residential uses in this part of the Plan Area; however, there are multi-story buildings in the general vicinity, east across San Tomas Aquino Creek but outside of the Plan Area. As follows, the Greystar project design would be substantially consistent with General Plan policies governing scenic quality.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 In summary, the proposed project would cast shadows on several project features and adjacent properties over the course of the seasons, varying with the time of day (e.g., angle of the sun). The courtyards in Building B would have the most consistent shadow effects, but not all year round. Shadow effects on adjacent properties would likewise be limited by the season and time of day, primarily in the mornings or late afternoons. Therefore, because the project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and its shadow effects would not be considered significant due to their limited duration and variability, the impact of the Greystar project on the existing visual character and quality of project site and its surroundings is considered less-thansignificant Mitigation 4-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 4-5: Project Light and Glare Effects—Plan Area. Development facilitated by the Focus Area Plan and required comprehensive planning study (specific plan) would be subject to light and glare requirements described in section 4.2 (Regulatory Setting) of this EIR chapter (e.g., Santa Clara City Code, Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Zones). Lighting characteristics in the Plan Area would not be expected to represent a source of substantial new light or glare due to the fact that the area is already developed with urban uses that are sources of daytime and nighttime light and glare and do not contain uses sensitive to light or glare. Application of the standard regulations described above would result in lessthan-significant light and glare impacts (see criterion [d] in subsection 4.3.1, “Significance Criteria,” above).

Mitigation 4-5. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 4-6: Project Light and Glare Effects—Greystar Project. Similar to Impact 4-5, the Greystar project would be subject to light and glare requirements described in section 4.2 (Regulatory Setting) of this EIR chapter (e.g., Santa Clara City Code, Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Zones). An overall increase in nighttime lighting would be expected due to the project, but the project’s lighting characteristics would not be expected to represent a source of substantial new light or glare which would adversely affect views and vision.

Although the project site is vacant, the area around the project site is already developed with urban uses that contain sources of daytime and nighttime light and glare. There are no identified uses sensitive to light or glare. The project would also not be expected to significantly increase daytime or nighttime light or glare in a way that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, application of the City of Santa Clara standard regulations described above would result in lessthan-significant light and glare impacts.

Mitigation 4-6. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) Impact 4-3: Impacts on Existing Visual Character and Quality—Plan Area.

New development throughout the Plan Area could include a combination of CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 residential, retail, office, and open space uses. New uses could include combinations of, for example, residential, retail, restaurant, and office uses in single or mixed-use buildings. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan is, by definition, a generalized plan.

As stated in the General Plan, a comprehensive planning study is required for future focus areas, which would include, among other items, “…appropriate design guidelines for private development, public facilities, streetscapes and transitions to adjacent land uses” (Prerequisite Policy 5.1.1-P8).

Finding: Although the Focus Area Plan includes goals and policies intended to provide direction for minimizing visual impacts from future development, these general goals and policies lack the detail and enforceability that would be included in the comprehensive planning study, and therefore present potential conflicts with applicable General Plan policies governing scenic quality. This represents a potentially significant impact.

Facts in Support of Finding
The Focus Area Plan includes goals and policies that would support General Plan policies governing scenic quality (see section 4.2, Regulatory Setting) but because the Focus Area Plan goals and policies are generalized, consistency with General Plan policies cannot be ensured until the future, more detailed comprehensive planning study is completed, they could present potential conflicts:
 Policy 5.3.1‐P3: Support high quality design consistent with adopted design guidelines and the City’s architectural review process.

Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan goal and policy would support high-quality design but provide no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:

FC-G5: Create a human scaled public realm through inviting architecture and urban design.

FC-P9: Require that building facades and entrances directly face street frontages, with a high proportion of transparent windows facing the street for nonresidential uses.  Policy 5.3.1‐P6: Allow planned development only if it is consistent with General Plan land use density and intensity requirements and provides a means to address unique situations to achieve high community design standards that would otherwise not be feasible.

Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan goal and policy would support the land use density and intensity envisioned for the Plan Area but provide no performance enforceable standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:

FC-G5: Create a human scaled public realm through inviting architecture and urban design.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 FC-P1: Allow for a range of housing density and development intensity throughout the plan area, consistent with the General Plan designations and overall buildout capacity.  Policy 5.3.1-P10: Provide opportunities for increased landscaping and trees in the community, including requirements for new development to provide street trees and a minimum 2:1 on‐ or off‐site replacement for trees removed as part of the proposal to help increase the urban forest and minimize the heat island effect.

Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan policies would support opportunities for increased landscaping but provide no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:

FC-P4: Provide public parkland and privately-owned public open space that is accessible to all residents, adequate to meet resident activity needs, and consistent with the General Plan requirements and other City regulations.

FC-P5: Require the provision of open space, or payment of in‐lieu fees for parks and open space for residential development, consistent with the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance.
 Policy 5.3.1-P24: Coordinate sign programs for commercial uses to promote continuity, improve streetscape design and reduce visual clutter.

Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan policy would support improved streetscape design and reduce visual clutter but provides no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:

FC-P3: Require active street frontages and ground floor uses to create a pedestrianfriendly, cohesive urban environment.  Policy 5.3.1-P29: Encourage design of new development to be compatible with, and sensitive to, nearby existing and planned development, consistent with other applicable General Plan policies.

Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan policy would support compatibility with nearby existing and planned development but provides no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:

FC-P8: Provide appropriate transition between new development in the Focus Area and adjacent uses consistent with General Plan Transition Policies.  Policy 5.3.4-P7: Use design techniques, such as stepping down building heights, and siting incompatible activities, such as loading and unloading, away from residential uses.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan policy would support design techniques to minimize effects of incompatible activities but provides no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:

FC-P15: Develop design standards and guidelines to support active ground-floor environments, welcoming public spaces, and safe and comfortable sidewalks and pathways.
 Policy 5.3.4-P12: Prioritize pedestrian‐oriented streetscape and building design in mixed‐use development, including features such as wider sidewalks, street furniture, specialty planters, signage, public art, street trees, special paving materials, decorative awnings, enhanced entrances, colors, variety of materials and textures and distinctive building massing and articulation.

Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan policies would support pedestrianoriented streetscape and building design but provide no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:

FC-P3: Require active street frontages and ground floor uses to create a pedestrianfriendly, cohesive urban environment.

FC-P15: Develop design standards and guidelines to support active ground-floor environments, welcoming public spaces, and safe and comfortable sidewalks and pathways.

FC-P16: Design and program the plan area and sites to encourage walking, bicycling and transit use.
 Policy 5.9.1-P17: Foster site design for new development so that building height and massing do not overshadow new parks and plazas.

Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan policy would support appropriate building height and massing but provides no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:

FC-P7: Encourage sensitive design and site planning to mitigate the scale and height of larger buildings through use of building massing, setbacks, façade articulation, fenestration, varied parapets and roof lines, and pedestrian‐scaled architectural details.
 Policy 5.10.3-P4: Encourage new development to incorporate sustainable building design, site planning and construction, including encouraging solar opportunities.

Potential conflict. The following Focus Area Plan policy would support sustainability in development but provides no enforceable performance standard to assure consistency with the General Plan policy:

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 FC-P17: Minimize environmental impacts through sustainable building and infrastructure design, consistent with CALGreen and Santa Clara Climate Action Plan requirements.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation 4-3. As required by the City of Santa Clara General Plan, the City shall prepare a future comprehensive planning study for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan (whether a specific plan or another type of plan) and it shall include the following performance and design standards and guidelines that apply to all future individual development proposals in the Plan Area to minimize visual impacts by:
(a) those enhancing form and design in the Plan Area; (b) those incorporating land use densities and associated changes in intensity consistent with the General Plan; (c) those encouraging street trees and landscaping along corridors to beautify the streetscape; (d) those coordinating signage color, shape, and graphic styles with the City’s signage system; (e) those including standards to ensure compatibility of new development with nearby existing and planned development; (f) those establishing standards related to building form, mass, and scale that enhance the pedestrian realm and provide transitions to adjacent lower-density development and public spaces; (g) those including guidelines and standards for pedestrian amenities; and (h) those fostering site design so that building height and massing would not overshadow new parks and plazas and/or interfere with solar collectors.

Incorporation of such performance and design standards and guidelines in the required comprehensive planning study for the Plan Area would minimize conflicts with General Plan policies pertaining to visual character. Therefore, implementation of this mitigation would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.

4. Cumulative impacts
Buildout of the Focus Area would not substantially block views of scenic vistas or resources beyond existing conditions. Due to the distance between cumulative projects, and the intervening development, vegetation, and flat topography of the area, there is not anticipated to be a cumulative impact to visual character. Projects in the City and adjoining jurisdictions are subject to architectural review, design guidelines and development standards, and municipal codes, including standards to prevent light and glare impacts.

Thus, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to a significant visual impact.

B. Air Quality

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The Project would not conflict with or CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Implementation of the proposed Freedom Circle Focus area and Greystar General Plan Amendment would be consistent with and not hinder the implementation of any applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures. In addition, the proposed Focus Area’s growth in service population would be greater than the increase in trip generation within the Planning Area, and the Focus Area Plan would not promote disparities in health risks. Based on the preceding analysis, the proposed Freedom Circle Focus Area/ Greystar General Plan Amendment would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Impacts 5-6 and 5-7: Expose Sensitive Receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
Impact 5-6: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Operational Pollutant Concentrations – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Implementation of the proposed Focus Area Plan would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial operational pollutant concentrations of toxic air contaminants nor criteria air pollutants. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation 5-6. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 5-7: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations – Greystar General Plan Amendment. Implementation of the proposed Greystar General Plan Amendment / Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of toxic air contaminants or criteria air pollutants during its construction or operation. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation 5-7. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 5-8: Odors – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). Future development under the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in new residential, retail, commercial, office, and other community serving land uses. It would not permit the land uses identified in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identified as generating odor. No impact would occur.

Mitigation 5-8. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required Impact 5-9: Odors – Greystar General Plan Amendment. According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). The Greystar General Plan Amendment / Project would result in the development of new residential, retail, and CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 community serving land uses. It would not permit the land uses identified in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identified as generating odor. No impact would occur.

Mitigation 5-9. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required

2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) Potential Impact:

Impact 5-4: Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants for which the Region is Non-Attainment – Greystar General Plan Amendment. Implementation of the Greystar General Plan Amendment / Project could result in the emission of criteria air pollutants that have the potential to exceed BAAQMD thresholds of significance. These activities represent a potentially significant impact.

Facts in Support of Finding
The Greystar General Plan Amendment / Project would generate short-term construction and long-term operational emissions of regulated air pollutants (i.e., criteria air pollutants and TACs). These emissions would be released to the ambient air and disperse according to the topographic and meteorological influences that prevail near the Greystar Project site and in the greater SFBAAB. The BAAQMD and/or CARB monitor levels of criteria air pollutant concentrations in ambient air to evaluate attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS; the significance of the level of criteria air pollutant emission that the Greystar Project could emit during construction and operation is evaluated below.

Neither the BAAQMD nor CARB conduct regular and routine monitoring of TACs because most TACs do not have an established ambient air quality standard against which ambient air concentrations can be compared; however, TAC emissions could result in local effects if substantial concentrations were to occur at sensitive receptor locations as a result of the Greystar Project.

On a project-level, the proposed Greystar Project would not result in significant air quality impacts during construction activities after the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-4A and Mitigation Measure 5-4B, and its operational emissions would be less than significant without mitigation. The Greystar Project would still be required to implement Mitigation Measures 5-3C and 5-3D, which address impacts for implementation of the entire Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan.

Mitigation Measures:

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

Mitigation Measure 5-4B: Use Low- and Super Compliant VOC Architectural CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Coatings During Construction. During construction, the City shall require the Greystar Project use architectural coatings for exterior applications that meet “Low VOC” or “Super-Compliant” standards, as defined in South Coast Air Quality Management District AQMD Rule 1113. “Super-Compliant” refers to paints that have been reformulated to levels well below the “Low-VOC” limits. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable (a) Impact 5-3: Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants for which the Region is Non-Attainment – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could result in growth in the Plan Area that exceeds the level of growth accounted for in the City’s General Plan and, therefore, could generate a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants for which the region is in non-attainment.

Finding: This represents a potentially significant impact.

Facts in support of Finding
The Focus Area Plan would permit a substantially higher development intensity in the Plan Area than current conditions; however, the proposed land uses would serve a greater number of people in the city than the current land uses and would concentrate development in an area that is well served by local and regional transit.

Nonetheless, the transition of current land uses to those proposed under the Focus Area Plan would result in criteria air pollutant and other emissions from construction activities and from the operation of the new residential, office, retail, and other community-serving land uses. The emissions levels associated with the growth proposed by the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would far exceed that accounted for in the City’s General Plan and result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions for which the region is in nonattainment.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure 5-3A: Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. The City shall require new development projects occurring under implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Control Mitigation Measures to address fugitive dust emissions that would occur during earthmoving activities associated with project construction. These measures include:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Mitigation Measure 5-3B: Require a Project-level Construction Assessment for New Development Proposed Under Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The City shall require applicants to submit a quantitative projectlevel construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions analysis for future development proposed under implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The estimated construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions shall be compared against the thresholds of significance maintained by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and, if emissions are shown to be above BAAQMD thresholds, the City shall require the implementation of mitigation to reduce emissions below BAAQMD thresholds or to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation measures to reduce emissions could include, but are not limited to:
 Selection of specific construction equipment (e.g., specialized pieces of equipment with smaller engines or equipment that will be more efficient and reduce engine runtime);
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022  Requiring equipment to use alternative fuel sources (e.g., electric-powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas), meet cleaner emission standards (e.g., U.S.

EPA Tier IV Final emissions standards for equipment greater than 50- horsepower), and/or utilizing added exhaust devices (e.g., Level 3 Diesel Particular Filter);
 Minimizing the idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to two minutes; Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM;
 Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines; and  Application of Low-VOC paints to interior and/or exterior surfaces (e.g., paints that meet SCAQMD Rule 1113 “Low-VOC” or “Super-Compliant” requirements).

Mitigation Measure 5-3C: Use Low- and Super Compliant VOC Architectural Coatings During Operational Activities. The City shall require the use of Low- and Super-Compliant VOC Architectural Coatings in maintaining buildings in Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan through Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Ground Lease. Developed parcels shall require within their CC&Rs and/or ground leases requirements for all future interior and exterior spaces to be repainted with architectural coatings that meet the “Low-VOC” or “SuperCompliant” requirements. “Low-VOC” refers to paints that meet the more stringent regulatory limits of South Coast Air Quality Management District AQMD Rule 1113. “Super-Compliant” refers to paints that have been reformulated to levels well below the “Low-VOC” limits.

Mitigation Measure 5-3D: Implement TDM Program. Proposed residential and office land uses within the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan shall prepare and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs that achieve a minimum reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of 20 percent compared to baseline conditions (i.e., without internal or external reductions accounted for, such as geographic location, land use interconnectivity, etc.), with at least 10 percent of the reduction coming through project-specific TDM measures (e.g., transit subsidies, telecommuting options, etc.).

Even with implementation of these measures, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
(b) Impact 5-5: Generate Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions that Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations During Construction – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in construction activities over the next approximately 20 years that generate toxic air contaminant emissions and could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. These activities represent a potentially significant impact.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure 5-3B would require the preparation of a project-specific air quality assessment to evaluate potential TAC construction emissions associated with the development project. Although future development projects would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 5-3B, it cannot be definitively known or stated at this time that all development projects occurring under implementation of the Focus Area Plan would be able to reduce potential TAC emissions to levels that are below BAAQMD thresholds. For example, should a development project involving new residential receptors be undertaken on the eastern side of Plan Area early on in the Plan’s implementation, future development projects upwind of that site (i.e., to the west / northwest) would generate emissions that could adversely affect the new receptors and exceed applicable BAAQMD thresholds of significance.

Therefore, despite the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-3B, TAC construction emissions associated with the proposed Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could result in significant adverse health risks at receptor locations. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

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

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

C. Biological Resources

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 6-1: Impacts on Riparian Habitat, Sensitive Natural Communities, Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife Corridors, and Fish and Wildlife Nursery Sites. The project area, including the Greystar project site, is outside the nearest known Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area, approximately 1.3 miles west of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan permit area at its nearest point. Two Natural Communities of Special Concern, as identified by CDFW, occur within the general geographic vicinity of the project area along the margins of the San Francisco Bay approximately 3.6 miles north: northern coastal salt marsh and sycamore alluvial woodland.

However, these sensitive natural communities do not occur in or adjacent to the project area.

The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) databases did not identify any habitat types that could occur in the project area that would be able to support special-status species.Based on the discussion above, implementation of the project would have a less-than-significant impact on special-status species, riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impact 6-5: Impacts on Protected Trees, Plants, and Shrubs. There are no Citydesignated heritage trees in the Freedom Circle Focus Area (General Plan Table 8.10).

However, Section 12.35 (Trees and Shrubs) of the City of Santa Clara Municipal Code is an ordinance pertaining to all trees, plants, and shrubs along streets or public places within the city. Any of these trees, plants, or shrubs planned for removal must first obtain written permission from the superintendent of streets. Finally, Section 12.35 states “No person without such authorization shall trench around or alongside of any such tree, plant or shrub with the intent of cutting the roots thereof or otherwise damaging the same.” The ordinance was adopted by the City and is implemented as applicable. Under CEQA, the ordinance is considered a uniformly applicable development regulation implemented to avoid or reduce impacts on trees, plants, and shrubs along city streets and within public spaces. Permission to alter or remove vegetation is generally based on the vegetation’s potential hazard (e.g., may fall and damage property or injure people); or, in the case of development proposals, on vegetation replacement and landscaping plans. On obtaining a written permit from the superintendent of streets before altering or removing any trees, plants, or shrubs along streets or public portions of the Freedom Circle Focus Area, a project would be in compliance with all local policies and ordinances for preserving trees.

Therefore, Freedom Circle Focus Area implementation would have a less-than-significant impact on trees, plants, and shrubs.

Mitigation 6-5. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) Potential Impact: Impact 6-2: Potential Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Habitat. Development facilitated by the Freedom Circle Focus Area could degrade the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered species (also referred to as “special-status”) potentially present on a project site, and conflict with Policy

5.10.1‐P1 of the Santa Clara General Plan, to require environmental review prior to approval of any development with the potential to degrade the habitat of any threatened or endangered species.

Finding: Mitigation measures would require environmental review prior to approval of any development with the potential to degrade the habitat of any threatened or endangered species. The City hereby determines this impact to be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding
The absence of City evaluation of the need for further biological resource surveys would be in violation of City policy and is therefore considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation 6-2. Upon receiving applications for site-specific projects within the Plan Area, the City shall evaluate the need for a specific biological resource survey of the project site and adjacent area that may be indirectly impacted by project work. If no biological resources are determined to be at risk as determined by a qualified biologist, no further survey shall be required. However, if the City determines that biological resources within the project area require further analysis, the project proponent shall be required to conduct a biological resource survey of the habitat and special-status species that may be impacted by project activities, either directly or indirectly. A report shall be provided to the City detailing survey methods, results, and avoidance and minimization measures required to protect any specialstatus species with potential to be impacted, in accordance with the regulatory protocols of the responsible jurisdictional agencies for the resource in question, including, but not limited to: USFWS, CDFW, and USACE. If no further surveys/investigation is requested by a permitting or other regulatory agency upon receipt of biological survey report, work may proceed as planned. Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. (b) Potential Impact: Impact 6-3: Potential Impacts on Special-Status Plants.

There is a low potential for Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii; California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2) and arcuate bush mallow (Malacothamnus arcuatus; California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2) to occur within the Focus Area, especially if the area is left undisturbed for a long period of time (i.e., a year or longer).

Without a proactive mitigation procedure in place, Plan implementation could inadvertently result in the removal of special-status plants. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Finding: Mitigation measures would reduce impacts to Congdon’s tarplant to less than significant levels. The City hereby determines this impact to be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation measures would require that a qualified botanist shall conduct sitespecific, focused surveys according to CDFW guidelines before any project work within the Focus Area begins, to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species on the individual project site and any adjacent potential area of disturbance
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation 6-3. Before any project work within the Focus Area, including the Greystar site, a qualified botanist shall conduct site-specific, focused surveys according to CDFW guidelines to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species on the individual project site and any adjacent potential area of disturbance. A comprehensive, site-wide survey should be conducted within May to September before project work begins, to encompass the Congdon’s tarplant and CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 arcuate bush mallow’s blooming periods. Following the completion of the surveys, a survey results report shall be prepared and provided to the City. This report should include, but should not be limited to, the following: (1) a description of the survey methodology; (2) a discussion of the survey results; and (3) a map showing the survey area and the location of any special-status plants encountered. If no rare plants are found, then no further mitigation would be required.

If rare plants are found during the survey, the number of individuals present shall be documented and the limits of population shall be marked with flagging. The flagged border of the population shall be avoided by construction personnel for the duration of the project. If the species cannot be avoided or may be indirectly impacted, the applicant shall notify CDFW to discuss avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures as appropriate for each species population, including measures to be taken and protocols to be followed if special-status plants are inadvertently disturbed during construction activities.

CDFW may require the preparation and implementation of a mitigation plan that details avoidance, preservation, and/or compensation for the loss of individual special-status plant species. Mitigation may include the purchase of mitigation bank credits, preserving and enhancing existing on-site populations, creation of off-site populations through seed collection and/or transplantation and monitoring these populations to ensure their successful establishment, and/or preserving occupied habitat off-site in perpetuity. Specific amounts and methods of mitigation and/or credits shall be determined in formal consultation with CDFW and USFWS.

Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
(c) Potential Impact: Impact 6-4: Potential Impacts on Nesting Birds or Roosting Bats.

The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513, 3800, and 4150 protect migratory and nesting birds, as well as roosting bats. Although the project does not specify which trees or buildings might be removed under individual projects facilitated by the Plan, trees (potential nesting and roosting habitat) or buildings could be disturbed or removed by Plan implementation. The possibility of removing trees and/or buildings that contain nests or roosting bats is identified here as a potentially significant impact. Any direct removal of trees or indirect disturbance by construction or operational activities during the nesting season that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered a "take." This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Finding: Mitigation measures would reduce impacts on Nesting Birds or Roosting Bats to less than significant levels. The City hereby determines this impact to be less than significant.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Facts in Support of Finding
Although the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan does not specify which trees or buildings might be removed under individual projects facilitated by the Plan, trees (potential nesting and roosting habitat) or buildings could be disturbed or removed by Plan implementation. The possibility of removing trees and/or buildings that contain nests or roosting bats is identified here as a potentially significant impact.

Any direct removal of trees or indirect disturbance by construction or operational activities during the nesting season that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered a "take." There is a low potential for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; California species of special concern), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; California Fully-Protected Species), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii; California species of special concern) to utilize the landscaped habitat within the Focus Area for roosting and/or nesting, especially if the area is left undisturbed for a long period of time. In addition, many common bird species without a special status, though protected by the MBTA, MBPA, and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), may utilize buildings, gravel substrates, and the landscaped vegetation within the Plan Area for nesting, foraging, and roosting.

Common bat species protected by the CFGC may also rarely utilize vegetation within the Focus Area for individual roosting. Without a proactive mitigation procedure in place, Plan implementation could inadvertently result in the removal of existing trees containing nests or eggs of migratory birds, raptors, or bird species during the nesting season, or roosting bats, which would be considered unlawful take under the MBTA and the CFGC.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation 6-4. The demolition of any buildings, disturbance of gravel substrate, and/or removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no demolition, gravel disturbance, vegetation, or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no further action is required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, the project applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nesting birds at most 14 days prior to the start of removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, or buildings, including prior to grading or other construction activity. If demolition of buildings, disturbance of gravel substrate, or vegetation removal efforts do not begin within the 14 days following the nesting bird survey, another survey shall be required. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as reasonably accessible areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist and dependent on species’ life history requirements.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 If an active nest is discovered in the areas to be directly physically disturbed, or in other habitats within the vicinity of construction boundaries and may be disturbed by construction activities (as determined by the qualified biologist), clearing and construction shall be postponed until the qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest fails, or the nest is otherwise determined to be inactive by the biologist (i.e. predation).

To avoid impacts to roosting bats that may rarely utilize the Focus Area vegetation and/or vacant buildings for day roosting, the project applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for roosting bats at most 14 days prior to the start of demolition of any vacant buildings left with entry and egress points accessible to bats or removal of suitable bat roosting vegetation. If roosting bats are detected, the biologist shall enact a minimum of a 150-foot no-work buffer and confer with CDFW to determine potential roost protection or roost eviction practices. After conferring with CDFW, the protective buffer may be adjusted based on specific roost needs. Once bats have been suitably protected by a buffer and/or safely evicted from roosting sites (as approved by CDFW), construction may resume outside the buffered area.

A nesting bird and roosting bat survey report prepared with the methods and results of the pre-project survey will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to commencement of construction activities. Any additional construction monitoring, as determined through any necessary coordination/discretionary approvals with the resource agencies, will be documented per requirements set forth in an approved mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

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

3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.

4. Cumulative impacts
None.

D. Cultural Resources

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 7-2: Destruction/Degradation of Historic Resources—Greystar Project. The Greystar project site is vacant and does not contain any buildings or structures (except a wood and Plexiglas bus shelter). As discussed in section 7.1 (Setting) above, review of the CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 State Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory by the CHRIS/NWIC identified no recorded buildings or structures located on the project site. As discussed in section 7.1.2, according to a cultural resources assessment by Basin Research Associates, several features of the “built environment” were observed on the site (a concrete utility vault, electrical transmission power poles, electrical service boxes/cabinets, a water service pipe, and a wood and Plexiglas shade structure [i.e., the bus shelter]). All were determined to be less than 50 years in age and none was considered significant. Therefore, because there are no buildings or structures on-site that would meet the CEQA definition of a historic resource, including properties or features eligible for listing in a local, State, or Federal register of historic resources, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation 7-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) Potential Impact: Impact 7-3: Potential for Disturbance of Buried Archaeological Resources, Including Human Remains, and Tribal Cultural Resources—Plan Area. Development facilitated by the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could disturb unrecorded sensitive archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources in the Plan Area. This possibility represents a potentially significant impact.

Finding: Mitigation measures would reduce impacts due to a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource to less than significant levels. The City hereby determines this impact to be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding
On March 26, 2021, the City of Santa Clara provided notification to Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as having traditional lands or cultural places in the proposed project vicinity to invite them to request consultation. To date, no tribes have requested consultation for the Plan.

Though almost all of the Plan Area is developed, with only the 13.3-acre Greystar Project site vacant, there is a possibility that as-yet unrecorded prehistoric cultural resources or tribal cultural resources could exist beneath the surface of the Plan Area. Contact with such resources during construction activities could result in a significant impact. The mitigation below would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level.

Mitigation Measures:

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation 7-3. During the City’s standard project-specific review process for all future, discretionary, public improvement and private development projects in the Freedom Circle Focus Area, the City shall determine the possible presence of, and the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts of the action on, archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. The City shall require individual project applicants or environmental consultants to contact the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the particular project is located in a sensitive area. Future discretionary development projects that CHRIS determines may be located in a sensitive area - i.e., on or adjoining an identified archaeological site - shall proceed only after the project applicant contracts with an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, to conduct a determination in regard to cultural values remaining on the site and warranted mitigation measures, as described directly below.

In general, to make an adequate determination in these instances, the archaeologist shall conduct a preliminary field inspection to (1) assess the amount and location of visible ground surface, (2) determine the nature and extent of previous impacts, and (3) assess the nature and extent of potential impacts. Such field inspection may demonstrate the need for some form of additional subsurface testing (e.g., excavation by auger, shovel, or backhoe unit) or, alternatively, the need for on-site monitoring of subsurface activities (i.e., during grading or trenching).

In addition, the City shall continue to notify the Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Focus Area of the discretionary, public improvement and private development projects if those proposed improvements or projects are subject to a CEQA Negative Declaration (including Mitigated Negative Declaration) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in accordance with California Assembly Bill 52, and if a Native American tribe requests consultation, conduct a good faith consultation.

Following field inspection and completion of all necessary phases of study as determined by the archaeologist and the City, damage to any identified archaeological resources shall be avoided or mitigated to the maximum extent possible. Preservation in place to maintain the relationship between the artifact(s) and the archaeological context is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts on an archaeological site. Preservation may be accomplished by:
 Planning construction to avoid the archaeological or tribal cultural site;  Incorporating the site within a park, green space, or other open space element;  Covering the site with a layer of chemically stable soil; or  Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 When in-place mitigation is determined by the City to be infeasible, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequate recovery of culturally or historically consequential information about the site (including artifacts discovered on the site), subject to review and approval by the City, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be submitted to the CHRIS Northwest Information Center. If Native American artifacts are indicated, the studies shall also be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). CHRIS and NAHC are recognized as experts in their respective disciplines.

Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures recommended by these two groups (CHRIS and NAHC), as reviewed and approved by the City, shall be undertaken prior to and during construction activities. Although the precise details of the mitigation measures would be specific to the particular project site, the measures shall be consistent with the avoidance and mitigation strategies described above in this programmatic mitigation measure.

A data recovery plan and data recovery for a historic resource shall not be required if the City determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the necessary data, provided that the data have already been documented in an EIR or are available for review at the CHRIS Northwest Information Center (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4[b]).

Resource identification training procedures shall be implemented for construction personnel, conducted by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. In the event that subsurface cultural resources are otherwise encountered during approved ground-disturbing activities for a Plan Area construction activity, work within 50 feet shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds following the procedures described above. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Although work may continue beyond 50 feet, the archaeologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to archaeological resources.

If human remains are found, the rules set forth in State Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b) apply and shall be followed.

Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
(b) Impact: Impact 7-4: Potential for Disturbance of Buried Archaeological Resources, Including Human Remains, and Tribal Cultural Resources— Greystar Project. Development of the Greystar project could disturb unrecorded sensitive archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources on the project site.

This possibility represents a potentially significant impact.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Finding: Mitigation measures would reduce impacts due to a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource to less than significant levels. The City hereby determines this impact to be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure:

Mitigation 7-4. Prior to construction activities, resource identification training procedures shall be implemented for construction personnel, conducted by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. The qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant and approved by the City and shall meet U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. Training shall include a written handout and focus on how to identify cultural/Native American resources that may be encountered during earth-moving activities, including the procedures to be followed in such an event. On-site archaeological monitor duties and the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation shall also be explained, in case either or both becomes necessary.

During ground-disturbing project construction activities, if subsurface cultural resources are encountered, work within 50 feet shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds following the procedures described below. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Although work may continue beyond 50 feet, the archaeologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to archaeological resources.

All cultural/archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified professional archaeologist. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes and/or Individuals shall be contacted and consulted, and Native American construction monitoring shall be initiated if requested by the Tribes and/or Individuals. The City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan that avoids or mitigates, to the maximum extent possible, damage to any identified resources. Preservation in place to maintain the relationship between the artifact(s) and the archaeological context is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts on an archaeological site. Preservation may be accomplished by:
 Planning construction to avoid the archaeological or tribal cultural site;  Incorporating the site within a park, green space, or other open space element;  Covering the site with a layer of chemically stable soil; or  Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 If in-place mitigation is determined by the City to be infeasible, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequate recovery of culturally or historically consequential information about the site (including artifacts discovered on the site), subject to review and approval by the City, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. The study shall be submitted to the CHRIS Northwest Information Center, and if Native American artifacts are indicated, the study shall also be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

CHRIS and NAHC are recognized as experts in their respective disciplines.

Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422 (archaeological sites). Any additional mitigation measures recommended by these two groups (CHRIS and NAHC), as reviewed and approved by the City, shall be undertaken prior to and during construction activities. Although the precise details of those measures would be based on the nature and extent of the resource(s) uncovered on the site, the measures shall be consistent with the avoidance and mitigation strategies described above in this mitigation measure.

In addition, if the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed, or have a high probability of exposing, cultural and/or archaeological artifacts, construction monitoring for cultural and/or archaeological resources shall be required. The City shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors.

The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist.

If human remains are found, the rules set forth in State Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b) apply and shall be followed, in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (as appropriate).

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

3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 (a) Impact 7-1: Destruction/Degradation of Historic Resources—Plan Area There may be one or more properties or features within the Plan Area, now or in the future, that meets the CEQA definition of a historic resource, including properties or features eligible for listing in a local, State, or Federal register of historic resources.

Future development projects that are otherwise consistent with the proposed Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan may cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of one or more such historic resources. Substantial adverse changes that may occur include physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of one or more historic resources or its immediate surroundings such that the resource is "materially impaired." The significance of a historic resource would be considered potentially "materially impaired" when and if an individual future development project proposes to demolish or materially alter the physical characteristics that justify the determination of its significance (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5[b]). Such adverse changes in the significance of a CEQA-defined historic resource would be a significant impact.

Finding: Without knowing the characteristics of the potentially affected historic resource or of the future individual development proposal, the City cannot determine with certainty that complying with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties or relocation of the resource would be considered feasible. Consequently, this impact is currently considered significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of Finding
The identification of historic resources must account for change over time. Today’s newer buildings may be recognized as historic within the lifetime of the Focus Area and eventual Specific Plan. Today’s older buildings may attain historic significance as more is uncovered about their past. Currently non-historic buildings may be recognized as historic in the future if the people or events associated with those buildings become historically or culturally distinguished. All these possibilities are accounted for in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 (Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological and Historical Resources).

Consistent with the perspective described above, the California Office of Historic Preservation notes, “There is a common misconception that resources 50 years or older need to be evaluated, but anything younger cannot be considered significant….[T]he California Register criteria (CCR section 4852) state that in order for a resource to achieve significance within the past 50 years, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource….Specifically, the California Register statute allows CEQA Lead Agencies [in the case of this EIR, the City of Santa Clara] a fair amount of flexibility in justifying that a resource is significant, even if that resource is less than 50 years old.”1

1California Office of Historic Preservation, CEQA Case Studies, September 2015 (Volume VI).

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 At of time of writing (November 2021), there are currently no buildings older than 45 years within the Focus Area.2
Due to the possibilities described above, the potential for a substantial adverse change to a historic resource due to individual discretionary development projects proposed under the Focus Area would be evaluated by a qualified professional on a case-by-case basis in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 to determine whether projects would have new or substantially more severe impacts to historic resources.

Under CEQA, conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will normally mitigate impacts on a historic resource to a less-than-significant level.

Under the Standards for Rehabilitation, new additions, alterations, or adjacent new construction must not destroy character-defining features, spaces, and spatial relationships. New work must be differentiated from the old and must be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, proportion, and massing.

New additions, alterations, and construction must be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

In some cases, it can be challenging to accommodate the needs of new uses while fully adhering to the Standards for Rehabilitation and, in many situations, it can be infeasible. In addition, changes to the eligibility, identification, and condition of historic resources and their surroundings between now and the time that individual development proposals are received for specific properties could affect potential impacts on historic resources. As a result, it cannot be determined at this time, without consideration of a current, specific development proposal, whether it would be feasible to mitigate to a less-than-significant level the impacts of any given subsequent development project under the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan involving properties that may contain historic resources. (No building or structure in the Plan Area is on a local or State historic resource inventory.) Although the following mitigation measures are intended to mitigate impacts on historic resources from implementation of the eventual Specific Plan to the extent feasible, the impacts on historic resources may still remain significant and unavoidable. This conservative approach is consistent with CEQA.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation 7-1. For any individual project within the Freedom Circle Focus Area that the City determines may involve a property that contains a potentially significant historic resource, the resource shall be assessed by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards to

2Historic Aerials, 2020.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 determine whether the property is a significant historic resource and whether or not the project may have a potentially significant adverse effect on the historic resource. If, based on the recommendation of the qualified professional, the City determines that the project may have a potentially significant effect, the City shall require the applicant to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) Adhere to at least one of the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards::
 Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings; or
 Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.

The qualified professional shall make a recommendation to the City as to whether the project fully adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and any specific modifications necessary to do so. The final determination as to a project's adherence to the Standards shall be made by the City body with final decisionmaking authority over the project. Such a determination of individual project adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will constitute mitigation of the project historic resource impacts to a less-than-significant level (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5).
(b) If measure (a) is not feasible, the historic resource shall be moved to a new location compatible with the original character and use of the historic resource, and its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment shall be retained, such that a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource is avoided.3 Implementation of measure (b) would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

If neither measure (a) nor measure (b) is feasible, then the City shall, as applicable and to the extent feasible, implement the following measures in the following order:
(c) Document the historic resource before any changes that would cause a loss of integrity and loss of continued eligibility. The documentation shall adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. The level of documentation shall be proportionate with the level of

3One example of a substantial adverse change would be the loss of eligibility for listing on the California Register. The State Historical Resources Code encourages the retention of historic resources on-site and discourages the non-historic grouping of historic buildings into parks or districts. However, it is recognized that moving a historic building, structure, or object is sometimes necessary to prevent its destruction. Therefore, a moved building, structure, or object that is otherwise eligible may be listed in the California Register if it was moved to prevent its demolition at its former location and if the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historic resource. A historic resource should retain its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment.
(California Office of Historic Preservation, California Register and National Register: A Comparison, Technical Assistance Series 6; Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2001) CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 significance of the resource. The documentation shall be made available for inclusion in the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Collections in the Library of Congress, the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and the Bancroft Library, as well as local libraries and historical societies.
(d) Retain and reuse the historic resource to the maximum feasible extent and continue to apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to the maximum feasible extent in all alterations, additions, and new construction. (e) Through careful methods of planned deconstruction to avoid damage and loss, salvage character-defining features and materials for educational and interpretive use on-site, or for reuse in new construction on the site in a way that commemorates their original use and significance.
(f) Interpret the historical significance of the resource through a permanent exhibit or program in a publicly accessible location on the site or elsewhere within the Focus Area.

Implementation of measures (b), (c), (d), (e), and/or (f) would reduce a significant impact on historic resources, but not to a less-than-significant level. Without knowing the characteristics of the potentially affected historic resource or of the future individual development proposal, the City cannot determine with certainty that measure (a) or (b) above would be considered feasible. Consequently, this impact is currently considered significant and unavoidable.

4. Cumulative impacts
None.

E. Geology and Soils

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 8-1: Effects of Strong Seismic Ground Shaking—Plan Area. The Plan Area could experience strong seismic ground shaking and related effects in the event of an earthquake on the regional fault system. The Focus Area Plan would not exacerbate the existing risk of strong seismic ground shaking. Mandated project compliance with the stringent seismic design provisions of the latest California Building Standards Code (CBSC), as adopted by the City, would reduce the risk of property loss or hazards to occupants to a less-thansignificant level.

Mitigation 8-1. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impact 8-2: Effects of Strong Seismic Ground Shaking—Greystar Project. The Greystar project could experience strong seismic ground shaking and related effects in the event of an earthquake on the regional fault system. The intensity and extent of seismic ground shaking would be dependent on distance to the earthquake epicenter, magnitude and duration of the earthquake, and other characteristics of the generating fault. Design considerations to ensure adequate foundation support for the structures are legally required to be incorporated in the final project design as required by the latest California Building Standards Code (CBSC), as would the stringent seismic design provisions also required by the CBSC. The final selected foundation system would also require review by the project geotechnical engineer and approval by the City prior to issuance of building permits. In addition, observation during site preparation, foundation installation, shoring installation, and placement and compaction of fill by a geotechnical engineer would provide assurance that anticipated soil conditions and the contractor's work conform with the geotechnical aspects of the plans and specifications. These standard geotechnical requirements mandated by the City and performed by professional engineers would reduce the risk of property loss or hazards to occupants to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation 8-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 8-3: Potential Soil Erosion and Loss of Topsoil—Plan Area. Grading and construction activities may result in minor erosion or the minor loss of some topsoil. Cityrequired standard grading- and construction-period erosion control techniques (e.g., for reducing surface water runoff over exposed soil, which could include a combination of techniques such as minimizing active construction areas during the rainy season, preservation of existing vegetation, soil stabilization methods—soil binders, straw mulch, etc.—as well as project landscaping after construction), consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook, would reduce soil erosion and topsoil loss potentials.

In addition, project grading activities involving disturbance of more than one acre would require a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB, Region 2 for Santa Clara). The RWQCB administers the NPDES stormwater permitting program in the Bay Area, including the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit and C.3 (stormwater compliance) Permit. Project owners submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB to be covered by the General Construction Permit prior to the beginning of construction. The General Construction Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For a project entailing disturbance of more than one acre, the SWPPP must be prepared before construction begins, usually during the planning and design phases of a project, and must include specifications for Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented during project construction to control contamination of surface flows and the potential discharge of pollutants from commencement of construction through project completion.

These City and regional water quality requirements would reduce this potential impact to a less-than significant level.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation 8-3. No significant impact has been identified; no additional mitigation is required.

Impact 8-4: Potential Soil Erosion and Loss of Topsoil—Greystar Project. Disturbance of one or more acres of soil would require the project to obtain coverage under the state’s General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, which among other items would require preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Also, because grading and construction activities may result in minor erosion or the minor loss of some topsoil, standard grading- and construction-period erosion control techniques (e.g., for reducing surface water runoff over exposed soil) are typically required by the City for individual projects such as the Greystar project. These standard techniques include minimizing active construction areas during the rainy season; preservation of existing vegetation; soil stabilization methods—soil binders, straw mulch, etc.—as well as project landscaping after construction. These techniques would be required to be consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook and the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program and would reduce potential Greystar project soil erosion and topsoil loss impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation 8-4. No significant impact has been identified; no additional mitigation is required.

2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) Impact 8-5: Potential Ground Instability Impacts—Plan Area. The potential for ground instability can depend on specific, highly localized underlying soil conditions. Determination of differential settlement, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and subsidence potential in the Plan Area would require site-specific geotechnical studies for future individual development proposals. Possible ground instability conditions, if not properly engineered for, could result in associated significant damage to project buildings, other improvements, and adjacent property, with direct or indirect risks to life or property, representing a potentially significant impact.

Facts in support of the finding:

Although an earthquake would affect an area larger than the Plan Area, any potential for earthquake-induced differential settlement, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and subsidence, and associated damage to proposed buildings or other improvements would be localized (i.e., generally restricted to the area where the building foundation or other improvement has been constructed) and can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of City-required geotechnical investigations and associated engineering design standards, specifications, and measures. Geotechnical mitigation requirements identified here CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 include completion of detailed studies to address specific concerns as future sitespecific project designs are refined. There is substantial, reasonable, historical information to support the conclusion that the specific subsequent geotechnical/geologic investigations, inspections, and specific formulations required to meet City-adopted standards would adequately mitigate related impacts to less-than-significant levels. Information pertaining to soil testing, soil treatments, building foundations, structural strengthening, subsurface design, construction methods, etc., has been developed and refined by the California Building Standards Commission (through the California Building Code) and the California Geological Survey (especially Special Publication 117A, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California 2008”), and research continues at universities and colleges, as well as professional organizations such as the Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists. The City of Santa Clara requires such geotechnical/geologic investigations and specifications as part of its development review under its building code. Individual measures are typically, and most efficiently, specified at a later, more detailed level of design when foundation locations and building architecture is known.

Under the City's grading permit and building permit provisions, requirements, and regulations, an individual development project cannot be given final approval without project compliance with geotechnical/geologic requirements. These requirements and related City inspection and verification procedures prior to project operation provide reasonable, professional assurances that projects would incorporate the design and engineering refinements necessary to reduce the degree of impacts to less-than-significant levels by either avoiding identified soil and geologic impact areas altogether (i.e., basic project design changes), or by rectifying the impact through conventional engineering and construction procedures (e.g., suitable foundation design and construction) prior to issuance of permits.

Mitigation Measures applicable:

Mitigation 8-5. Subject to City review and approval, complete and implement the geotechnical mitigation recommendations identified in the required individual project- and site-specific geotechnical investigations and engineering studies for site-specific proposals, in coordination with City grading permit and building permit performance standards. Such recommendations could address design- and construction-level details regarding the type of building foundation, the extent of subsurface excavation, the details of retaining structures, any need for subsurface water extraction, and other engineering issues and solutions. Incorporation of this mitigation requirement would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impact 8-6: Potential Ground Instability Impacts—Greystar Project. The potential for ground instability would depend on specific, highly localized underlying soil conditions. Although the geotechnical report prepared for the project concluded that although no major geotechnical or geological issues would prevent development of the proposed project on the site, the following issues would need to be addressed:
 adequate foundation support for the structures;
 weaker, more compressible zones of clay above about 30 feet below ground surface (bgs);
 moderately to highly expansive near-surface soil and susceptibility to large volume changes with moisture changes; and
 liquefaction-induced settlement potential at one location in the southwestern part of the site.

Possible ground instability conditions, if not properly engineered for, could result in associated significant damage to project buildings, other improvements, and adjacent property, with direct or indirect risks to life or property, representing a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation 8-6. The City shall require the applicant to provide a final geotechnical report, prepared by a geotechnical engineer, for City review and approval. The final geotechnical report (as discussed in Impact 8-2 above) shall include a supplemental field investigation that includes: (1) new borings as necessary to confirm subsurface conditions; (2) review of final project plans and specifications with recommendations based on professional geotechnical engineering (such as final foundation design recommendations and potential need for piles); (3) any other engineering studies to address design- and construction-level details related to type of building foundation, the extent of subsurface excavation, details of retaining structures or subsurface water extraction, and other engineering issues and solutions as may be determined necessary in consultation with the City; and (4) observation of site preparation, foundation installation, shoring installation, and the placement and compaction of fill during construction by a professional geotechnical engineer.

The mitigations and recommendations in the final geotechnical report, subject to review and approval by the City, would provide reasonable, professional assurances that the project incorporates design and engineering refinements to reduce the degree of impacts to less-than-significant levels by either avoiding identified soil and geologic impact areas altogether (i.e., basic project design changes) or by rectifying the impact through conventional engineering and construction procedures (e.g., suitable foundation design and construction). Incorporation of CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 these measures into project final plans prior to issuance of permits and City inspection and verification procedures prior to project operation would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level
(b) Impact 8-7: Potential for Disturbance of Paleontological Resources—Plan Area. Development facilitated by the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could disturb unrecorded paleontological resources in the Plan Area. This possibility represents a potentially significant impact.

Facts in Support of Finding
Santa Clara’s surficial geologic units include alluvial and Bay mud deposits, and Pleistocene alluvial deposits, with the underlying Santa Clara Formation that may potentially contain paleontological resources; in addition, Pleistocene alluvial deposits and the Santa Clara Formation have high paleontological sensitivity.

Although an on-line archival search indicated no records of recorded fossil sites within the Plan Area, it is possible that paleontological resources could be discovered during ground-disturbing activities. Contact with such fossil resources during ground-disturbing activities could result in significant impacts. The mitigation below would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures Applicable
Mitigation 8-7. For all public improvement and private development projects in the Freedom Circle Focus Area, the following measures shall be implemented:
(1) Education Program. Project applicants shall implement a program that includes the following elements:
 Resource identification training procedures for construction personnel, conducted by a paleontologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards;
 Spot-checks and monitoring by a qualified paleontologist of all excavations deeper than seven feet below ground surface; and
 Procedures for reporting discoveries and their geologic context.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 (2) Procedures for Resources Encountered. If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt within a buffer area of at least 50 feet around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until the project paleontologist evaluates the resource and its stratigraphic context. Work shall be allowed to continue outside the buffer area; however, the paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.

During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected and processed by a qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage.

Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall be provided to a local museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a local museum repository for permanent curatorship and storage. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City, shall signify the completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.

Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
(c) Impact 8-8: Potential for Disturbance of Paleontological Resources—Greystar Project. Similar to Impact 8-7, development of the Greystar project could disturb unrecorded paleontological resources in the Plan Area. This possibility represents a potentially significant impact.

Facts in Support of Finding: Santa Clara’s surficial geologic units include alluvial and Bay mud deposits, and Pleistocene alluvial deposits, with the underlying Santa Clara Formation that may potentially contain paleontological resources; in addition, Pleistocene alluvial deposits and the Santa Clara Formation have high paleontological sensitivity. Although an on-line archival search indicated no records of recorded fossil sites within the Plan Area, it is possible that paleontological resources could be discovered during ground-disturbing activities. Contact with such fossil resources during ground-disturbing activities could result in significant impacts. The mitigation below would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation Measures Applicable
Mitigation 8-8. The Greystar project shall be required, as a condition of project approval, to implement the following measures:
(1) Education Program. Project applicants shall implement a program that includes the following elements:
 Resource identification training procedures for construction personnel, conducted by a paleontologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards;
 Spot-checks and monitoring by a qualified paleontologist of all excavations deeper than seven feet below ground surface; and
 Procedures for reporting discoveries and their geologic context. (2) Procedures for Resources Encountered. If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt within a buffer area of at least 50 feet around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until the project paleontologist evaluates the resource and its stratigraphic context. Work shall be allowed to continue outside the buffer area; however, the paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.

During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected and processed by a qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage.

Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall be provided to a local museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a local museum repository for permanent curatorship and storage. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City, shall signify the completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.

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

3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 None.

4. Cumulative impacts
None
F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 9-2: GHG Emissions and Plan Consistency—Greystar General Plan Amendment Implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment would result in emissions that are below an interpolated Service Population GHG efficiency metric, both from a net emissions perspective (when compared to potential GHG emissions associated with existing land uses in Year 2040) as well as on a standalone basis, and would not conflict, obstruct, or otherwise interfere with the implementation of a plan, policy, or regulation for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. Thus, the proposed General Plan Amendment would result in a less-than-significant impact with regard to GHG emissions and no mitigation is required.

Impacts 9-3 and 9-4. Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources. Implementation of the proposed Focus Area would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas within the Area and gasoline consumption in the region during construction and operation of new land use developments.

Although growth would occur within the Plan Area over the next approximately 20 years, new development would be required to comply with statewide mandatory energy requirements outlined in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (the CalGreen Code), which would decrease estimated natural gas consumption in new and/or retrofitted structures. Energy is a necessary component of building operation, and any natural gas consumption by proposed land uses in the Focus Area would not be used in an unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful manner and would be more efficient than under existing conditions.

Fuel use by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource consumed during development activities, and VMT associated with the transportation of construction materials (e.g., deliveries) and worker trips would also result in petroleum consumption.

Whereas on-site, heavy-duty construction equipment and delivery trucks would predominantly use diesel fuel, construction workers would generally rely on gasolinepowered vehicles to travel to and from construction sites. State regulations such as the LCFS would reduce the carbon intensity of transportation-related fuels, and all construction projects would be required to comply with CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measures, which restrict heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling to five minutes. Since petroleum use during construction would be temporary at each location and required to conduct CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 development activities, it would not be unnecessary, wasteful, or inefficient, and no mitigation is required.

Impacts 9-5 and 9-6. Conflict with or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan And Greystar General Plan Amendment would not conflict with nor obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The Title 24 Building Code contains energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. These standards address electricity and natural gas efficiency in lighting, water, heating, and air conditioning, as well as the effects of the building envelope (e.g., windows, doors, walls and rooves, etc.) on energy consumption. The latest update to these standards, codified in the 2019 Title 24 Building Code, requires the installation of solar panels on new residential development under three stories. The City would enforce the applicable Title 24 Building Code (currently 2019) during design review and project approval processes. The Focus Area Plan would also support the City’s post-2020 Climate Action Plan measures, which support energy efficiency in the City (see Table 9-7).

As discussed above, the Focus Area Plan would support the State’s goals of decreasing energy consumption for its residents, increase energy efficiency, and would not conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy. This impact would be less than significant This impact would be less than significant.

No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
Impact 9-1: GHG Emissions and Plan Consistency – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could generate GHG emissions that have a significant effect on the environment and/or conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. This represents a potentially significant impact.

Facts in Support of Finding
Future implementation of the proposed Focus Area Plan would result in construction and operational activities that would generate GHG emissions from the combustion of fuels used during construction, as well as the operational sources described in Section 5.1.5 of the EIR. As described under Impact 5-3, there is uncertainty regarding the timing and methods of construction activities that would occur for future development projects. Construction activities would cease to emit GHG upon completion, unlike operational emissions that would be continuous year after year until the project is decommissioned. Construction emissions were not estimated for buildout of the proposed Focus Area Plan, because the quantity of CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 construction emissions would be dependent on a number of factors, including the specific nature of development activities and the timeframes on which projects would be undertaken. Given this uncertainty, the City is proposing the following mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measure 9-1A: See Mitigation Measure 5-3D.

Mitigation Measure 9-1B: Utilize GHG-Free Electricity. The City shall require new development projects occurring under implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan to source 100% of their electricity from GHG-free sources. GHG-free electricity may come from on-site renewable electricity generation (e.g., photovoltaic systems), enrollment in a GHG-free electricity program (e.g., Silicon Valley Power’s Santa Clara Green Power program), or any combination of measures that ensure electricity consumed by projects subject to discretionary approval come entirely from GHG-free sources.

This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.

4. Cumulative impacts
Past, present, and future development projects worldwide contribute to global climate change. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, change the global average temperature. Therefore, due to the nature of GHG impacts, a significant project impact is a significant cumulative impact. As discussed above, development under the eventual Specific Plan would not generate significant levels of GHG emissions at a project level and thus the Project would not have a cumulative impact on GHG emissions.

G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 10-1 and 10-2: Project-Related Potential Impacts Due to Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, Storage, and Disposal. The proposed land uses anticipated to be permitted under the Focus Area Plan and the future comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) are not expected to involve the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials to the extent that a significant public or environmental hazard would occur. Operations in the Plan Area would be expected to involve the occasional transport, use, storage, or disposal of common hazardous substances such as fuel, paint, and solvents.

These normal activities would be subject to applicable local, State, and federal regulations.

Construction of future project proposals under the comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) would likely involve the intermittent transport, use, and disposal of CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 potentially hazardous materials, including fuels and lubricants, paints, solvents, and other materials commonly used in construction and maintenance. During construction activities, any on-site hazardous materials that may be used, stored, or transported would also be subject to applicable local, State, and federal regulations that require standard protocols (as determined by the U.S. EPA, California Department of Health and Safety, Santa Clara County, and the City) for maintaining health and safety.

All land uses are subject to applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code and would also be subject to the comprehensive planning study.

With implementation of adopted, standard procedures and regulations, the potential for associated hazardous materials impacts would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation 10-1 and 10-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 10-3 and 10-4: Potential Exposure to Existing Hazardous Materials Contamination. There is always a possibility that new construction could encounter contamination and expose construction workers to existing spilled, leaked, or otherwise discharged hazardous materials or wastes. Each project applicant in the Plan Area would be required to comply with all applicable, existing City-, County-, regional-, and Statemandated site assessment, remediation, removal, and disposal requirements for soil, surface water, and/or groundwater contamination. Compliance with these established requirements would prevent exacerbation of existing contamination or accidental release, and ensure that this possible health and safety impact would be less-than-significant.

Typically, implementation of these standard procedures would involve the following steps.

As explained above, these steps are consistent with standard procedures required as part of City-, County-, regional-, and State-mandated requirements. The steps are not considered additional mitigations required by this EIR because the steps are existing development standards applied uniformly to all applicable projects. (a) Soil Contamination. In order to avoid or substantially reduce potential health hazards related to construction personnel or future occupant exposure to soil contamination, as well as to prevent accidental release to surrounding areas, project applicants would complete the following steps for each site proposed for disturbance as part of construction activity in the Plan Area:

Step 1.Investigate the site to determine whether it has a record of hazardous material discharge into soils, and if so, characterize the site according to the nature and extent of soil contamination that is present before development activities proceed at that site.

Step 2.Based on the proposed activities associated with the proposed project, determine the need for further investigation and/or remediation of the soil conditions on the contaminated site. For example, if the site is slated for commercial land use, such as retail, the majority of the site will be paved and there will be little or no contact with CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 contaminated soil. Industrial cleanup levels would likely be applicable. If the slated development activity could involve human contact with soils, such as may be the case with residential use, then Step 3 should be completed. If no human contact is anticipated, then no further mitigation is necessary.

Step 3.If it is determined that extensive soil contact would accompany the intended use of the site, undertake a Phase II Environmental Assessment investigation, involving soil sampling at a minimum, at the expense of the project applicant, property owner, or responsible party. Should further investigation reveal high levels of hazardous materials in the site soils, mitigate health and safety risks according to City of Santa Clara and regulatory agency requirements. This would include site-specific health and safety plans prepared prior to undertaking any building or utility construction. Also, if buildings are situated over soils that are significantly contaminated, undertake measures to either remove the chemicals or prevent contaminants from entering and collecting within the building. If remediation of contaminated soil is infeasible, a deed restriction would be necessary to limit site use and eliminate unacceptable risks to health or the environment. (b) Surface or Groundwater Contamination. In order to reduce potential health hazards due to construction personnel or future occupant exposure to surface water or groundwater contamination, or accidental transmission to other properties, project applicants would complete the following steps for each site proposed for disturbance as part of construction activity in the Plan Area:

Step 1.Investigate the site to determine whether it has a record of hazardous material discharge into surface or groundwater, and if so, characterize the site according to the nature and extent of contamination that is present before development activities proceed at that site.

Step 2.Install drainage improvements in order to prevent transport and spreading of hazardous materials that may spill or accumulate on-site.

Step 3.If investigations indicate evidence of chemical/environmental hazards in site surface water and/or groundwater, then measures acceptable to the City and the other applicable regulatory agencies would be required to ensure the site is properly remediated prior to development activity.

Step 4.Inform construction personnel of the proximity to recognized contaminated sites and advise them of health and safety procedures to prevent exposure to hazardous chemicals in surface water/groundwater.

Implementation of these required, standard procedures would result in a less-thansignificant impact associated with potential soil and surface/groundwater contamination.

Mitigation 10-3 and 10-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impact 10-5 and 10-6: Project-Related Potential Asbestos and PCB Exposure.

Removal or disturbance of asbestos-containing material (ACM) and/or transformers during alteration, renovation, or demolition of existing structures within the Plan Area could expose construction workers and the general public to friable asbestos and/or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Therefore, in compliance with General Plan Policy

5.10.5‐P26 (“Survey pre‐1980 buildings and abate any lead‐based paint and asbestos prior to structural renovation and demolition, in compliance with all applicable regulations”) and as a condition of alteration, renovation, or demolition permit approval for buildings within the Plan Area, the City requires the project applicant to coordinate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) as appropriate to determine if ACM and/or PCBs are present, in conformance with BAAQMD established protocols and consistent with the explanation below.

Ensuring proper identification and removal of ACM and PCBs requires each project applicant to complete the following steps. As explained above (“Project-Related Potential Exposure to Existing Hazardous Materials Contamination”), these steps are standard procedures required as part of City-, County-, regional-, and State-mandated requirements; the steps are not mitigation required by this EIR.

Step 1.Thoroughly survey the project site and existing structures for the presence of ACM and PCBs. The survey shall be performed by a person who is properly certified by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and has taken and passed an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved building inspector course.

Step 2.If building elements containing any amount of ACM or PCBs are present, prepare a written ACM/PCB Abatement Plan describing activities and procedures for removal, handling, and disposal of these building elements using the most appropriate procedures, work practices, and engineering controls.

Step 3.Provide the ACM and PCB survey findings, the written ACM/PCB Abatement Plan (if necessary), and notification of intent to demolish to the City and BAAQMD at least ten days prior to commencement of demolition.

Step 4.Remove any on-site transformers prior to demolition of buildings.

Implementation of these required, standard procedures would result in a less-thansignificant impact associated with potential ACM and PCB exposure.

Mitigation 10-5 and 10-6. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impact 10-7 and 10-8: Project-Related Potential Lead-Based Paint Exposure. If leadbased paint is present and has delaminated (split into thin layers) or chipped from surfaces, airborne lead particles could be released during alteration, renovation, or demolition of existing structures within the Plan Area. California OSHA (CalOSHA) regulations would be applied, and each site-specific project would implement the following standard, mandatory procedures in accordance with those CalOSHA regulations:
 Notify the City's Building and Fire Safety Division prior to starting work, describing the nature, location, and schedule of the work;
 Post a sign at all work locations where lead containment is required, stating that leadbased paint abatement is in progress and public access is prohibited;  Notify the tenant(s) where the lead-based paint abatement work will be performed on a residential property occupied by one or more tenants; and  Notify the property owner when work on a residential project will disturb lead-based paint.

Lead abatement performance standards are included in the Guidelines for Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development).

Accordingly, HEPA vacuums may be required for abrasive blasting, water blasting, scraping, or sanding. Burning, torching, and similar activities are prohibited. Following completion of lead-based paint abatement, all visible lead-based paint particles must be removed from the site.

The City may inspect lead-based paint abatement activities at any time during construction.

These personnel are also responsible for addressing citizen complaints related to leadbased paint abatement activities and may issue a Notice of Violation, a Stop Work order, or a fine.

Implementation of these required, standard procedures would result in a less-thansignificant impact associated with potential lead-based paint exposure.

Mitigation 10-7 and 10-8. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 10-9 and 10-10: Potential for Hazardous Materials Near Schools. Mission College is located within one-quarter mile of the Plan Area; however, the proposed land uses anticipated to be permitted under the Focus Area Plan and the future comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) are not expected to involve the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials to that extent that a significant public or environmental hazard would occur. In addition, although future construction under the comprehensive planning study would be likely to involve the intermittent transport, use, storage, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials, including fuels and lubricants, CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 paints, solvents, and other materials commonly used in construction and maintenance, these projects would be required to comply with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. Specific to schools, State regulations on the siting of hazardous materials facilities limit their location in proximity to schools; conversely, CEQA (section 21151.8, School Site Acquisition or Construction) and other State regulations impose restrictions on where new schools can be constructed. The impact of hazardous materials on schools would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation 10-9 and 10-10. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 10-11 and 10-12: Protocols for Government Code Section 65962.5 Sites. A review of the Cortese List data resources conducted on March 5, 2020 indicated no sites in the Plan Area in any of the Cortese List data resources (see section 10.1.1, Hazardous Materials, above). The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains the EnviroStor database, which lists and includes data on hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 (Cortese List); such sites are regulated by DTSC because hazardous materials investigations and/or cleanup actions are planned, active, or have been completed at these sites (see Table 10-1 under “Setting,” above). The site-specific mitigation protocols administered by DTSC and other jurisdictional agencies (including the Santa Clara Fire Department) – in conformance with federal, State, regional, and local regulations (see “Regulatory Setting,” above) – are intended to ensure that the cleanup of such sites would result in less-than-significant impacts.

Mitigation 10-11 and 10-12. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 10-13 and 10-14: Consistency with the San Jose Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Approximately 45 acres of the Plan Area (between Mission College Boulevard and California’s Great America amusement park, and bounded by Great American Parkway on the west and the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail on the east) are in the San Jose International Airport Influence Area (AIA). The rest of the Plan Area, south of Mission College Boulevard, including the Greystar project site, is not located within the AIA.

The Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) establishes development standards related to noise, structure height, and safety that are applicable to development in areas surrounding the airport. While the Plan Area is not located in a mapped safety or noise area, parts of the Plan Area are within the CLUP Height Restriction Area, which uses the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 imaginary surfaces to delineate the area within which structures above a maximum structure height may constitute a safety hazard.

Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, “Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace” (commonly referred to as FAR Part 77) sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operation, particularly by restricting the height of proposed CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 structures and minimizing other potential hazards to aircraft such as reflective surfaces, flashing lights, and electronic interference. These regulations require that the FAA be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above ground.

CLUP Policy H-1 states that any structure, existing or proposed, that penetrates (i.e., is above the maximum structure height) the FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces would be considered an incompatible use, barring a determination from the FAA that the proposed structure or object does not present a hazard to air navigation. Based on preliminary review of the Plan Area by the City of San Jose Airport Department, the FAR Part 77 airspace surface notification requirement would apply to structures whose proposed height would exceed from 150 feet to 170 feet above ground (assuming a ground elevation of roughly 20 feet), and therefore would require review of project plans by the FAA (which would consider other factors besides height, such as flight direction and trajectory).

Notification to the FAA would therefore be required for individual proposed structures that would exceed this airspace surface, such as for buildings in the Urban Center designation where allowable heights of 12-plus stories have the potential to reach 150-170 feet. FAA review and issuance of determinations that a proposed structure would not be a hazard to air navigation, and project compliance with any conditions set forth in such FAA determinations, would ensure that the structure would not be an air safety hazard.

Additional CLUP policies related to land use compatibility include Policy G-6, which prohibits uses within an AIA that may cause hazards to aircraft due to electrical interference, high intensity lighting, attraction of birds, and activities that produce smoke, dust, or glare, among others. Projects proposed in the Plan Area that are within the San Jose International Airport AIA would need to be referred to the ALUC for a consistency review with the San Jose International Airport CLUP.

Based on the discussion above and the adopted, standard protocols under the CLUP, this land use compatibility and safety impact is considered less-than-significant.

Mitigation 10-13 and 10-14. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
None.

3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022

4. Cumulative impacts
Cumulative projects located in the vicinity of the Plan Area do not include manufacturing facilities or operations that would use significant quantities of hazardous materials. The cumulative projects, therefore, would not create a significant hazard to the environment through the routine use, transport, or reasonably foreseeable accidents related to hazardous materials use. Hazardous materials contamination impacts are specific to the individual sites within the Plan area as impacts vary by site characteristics, site history, and proposed land use, and are subject to local, County, State and Federal regulations. Redevelopment in the Plan Area therefore would not make a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative hazardous materials impact.

H. Hydrology and Water Quality

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 11-1 and 11-2: Construction Period Water Quality Impacts. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and City of Santa Clara water quality protection requirements and conditions applicable to Plan implementation are intended to reduce any potential construction period water quality impacts to a less-than-significant level, consistent with federal and State water quality regulations and plans.

Development facilitated by the Freedom Circle Focus Area would implement site-specific, mandated measures (uniformly applied development standards) to protect water quality, including but not limited to those measures required under the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP).

Any project grading activities involving disturbance of more than one acre would require a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB, Region 2 for Santa Clara). The RWQCB administers the NPDES stormwater permitting program in the Bay Area, including the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit and C.3 (stormwater compliance) Permit. Project owners submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB to be covered by the General Construction Permit prior to the beginning of construction. The General Construction Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For a project entailing disturbance of more than one acre, the SWPPP must be prepared before construction begins, usually during the planning and design phases of a project, and must include specifications for Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented during project construction to control contamination of surface flows and the potential discharge of pollutants from commencement of construction through project completion.

The SWPPP document itself remains on-site during construction. After completion of the project, the owners are required to submit a Notice of Termination to the RWQCB to indicate that construction is completed.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Also, depending on individual development proposals, grading permits would be required.

For all grading permits, the City mandates site-specific measures (uniformly applied development standards) to be implemented during grading to minimize construction period erosion, including a site-specific erosion and sediment control plan subject to City review and approval. Erosion and sediment control plans typically show what BMPs are proposed to be used and where, and are customarily superimposed on a project grading plan. Because project sites and site conditions vary, the measures could include a combination of techniques such as erosion control blankets, fiber rolls, silt fences, storm drain inlet protection, and stabilized construction exit(s), and would generally address how to minimize impacts from active construction areas during the rainy season (i.e., stockpiling and protecting site soils), preservation of existing vegetation and revegetation of disturbed areas afterward, use of soil stabilization methods (soil binders, straw mulch, etc.), as well as sediment control measures (such as silt fences or straw wattles) to prevent residual silt runoff to storm drains or waterways and measures to clean equipment and prevent off-site tracking of construction-related soil and other debris.

The temporary use of hazardous materials (e.g., diesel fuel) and heavy equipment, which represent a secondary component of construction, could introduce materials that might be spilled in the Plan Area and subsequently washed into water bodies, such as Calabazas Creek, San Tomas Aquino Creek, and, ultimately, San Francisco Bay. These substances could have a direct, adverse effect on water quality in water bodies. Implementation of the standard, required NPDES, SCVURPPP, and City construction period measures to reduce the risk of construction period pollutants would reduce this risk to a less-than-significant level.

As noted above, individual development projects would be required to treat and detain stormwater runoff on a site-specific basis. Road resurfacing and sidewalk repair and/or replacement are exempt from the NPDES C.3 Permit requirements if the work is within the existing impervious area footprint. Where Plan-facilitated improvements include new roadway impervious surfaces outside existing impervious areas, the NPDES C.3 Permit requirements must be implemented.

Based on the above discussion, construction period water quality impacts resulting from Plan implementation would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation 11-1 and 11-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 11-3 and 11-4: Long-Term Water Quality Impacts from Project Operation.

Long-term implementation could result in contamination of Plan Area stormwater runoff with petroleum and other contaminants from motor vehicles. Development facilitated by the eventual Specific Plan would be required to comply with RWQCB- and City-mandated post-construction, non-point source pollution control measures (uniformly applied development standards; also known as facilities and maintenance practices) that would ensure that such impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Plan implementation could result in the deposition by motor vehicles of oil and other contaminants along Plan Area streets and in parking areas. Rainfall has the potential to wash these contaminants into the municipal storm drainage system, potentially contaminating downstream waterways, in particular San Tomas Aquino Creek where stormwater runoff from the Plan Area is conveyed, although during major storm events with high levels of rainfall, storm drain networks can interact through overflow connections and surface flows. Such non-point pollution is typically controlled through a combination of source controls (generally through the use of infiltration devices, such as infiltration trenches or basins, which are designed to transmit runoff directly to subsurface soils and thereby prevent pollutants from entering the waterways).

Under the terms of the countywide Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) that the City of Santa Clara is subject to, each development project must also implement post-construction measures to prevent or control pollutants in runoff (recommended measures are included in the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook), and identify a plan to inspect and maintain these measures. Project designs, subject to review and approval by the City, would be required to include the on-site collection of runoff from all parking facilities and, if feasible, its on-site treatment (oil/grease traps, filters, oil/water separators, or similar inline filtration systems), and an associated periodic clean out/maintenance program that ensures acceptable trap efficiencies, specifies appropriate disposal procedures, and adequately reduces the risk that the traps become sinks for pollutants. A regular schedule of parking facility sweeping would also be required. In addition, source control features such as roofed trash enclosures would be required to keep pollutants from contacting stormwater. These mandated, uniformly applied stormwater treatment measures would also need to meet engineered sizing criteria approved by the City Engineer.

Permanent post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required for all new projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet ("small projects") or more ("large projects") of roofs or pavement, including new development, redevelopment, and commercial and industrial sites. Permanent treatment BMPs can include, for example:
 rainwater harvesting and re-use,
 biofiltration swales,
 detention basins,
 bioretention areas, and
 flow-through planter boxes.

Low Impact Development (LID) features can be integrated with BMPs, control measures, and permit requirements. LID features reduce impervious surfaces and can include pervious pavements, landscape features, and green roofs. Parking stalls and plaza areas in the Plan Area would utilize pervious asphalt, pervious concrete, or permeable pavers.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Medians would be landscaped to increase permeability. Landscaped open space also would contribute to reductions in impervious surfaces.

Given the existing level of urbanization and the potential development under the eventual Specific Plan, BMPs can complement the Plan’s development standards and guidelines, and address existing constraints. For example, bioretention planter areas may be used to treat roadway runoff, and flow-through planter boxes may be used to treat roof runoff. Or, depending on site-specific conditions and proposed plans, BMPs and LID features could include those listed above (BMP: rainwater harvesting and re-use, etc.; LID: pervious pavement, landscape features, etc.) or a combination of these or other feasible and effective techniques. As part of the standard City development process, future project applicants would be required to submit, for City review and approval, a Santa Clara “C.3” data form, which would be used to determine whether C.3 requirements apply (i.e., projects meeting or exceeding the size threshold for impervious surfaces) and to identify which site design measures, pollutant source controls, and/or stormwater treatment measures are proposed to prevent runoff pollution.

During design, the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook shall be referenced for acceptable BMPs, design considerations, design criteria, and operation and maintenance information. In addition to the C.3 Guidebook, individual development proposals shall determine if drainage would discharge to a water body impacted by specific pollutants, as identified on the C.3 data form (see above), and would be required to demonstrate compliance with RWQCB requirements to reduce stormwater runoff water quality impacts to a less-thansignificant level. The 303(d) List of Impacted Water Bodies, prepared and issued by the RWQCB, includes Calabazas and San Tomas Aquino creeks. The Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) provides more detailed information. Based on the discussion above, the effects of contaminated site runoff on water quality in the local (municipal) storm drainage system would represent a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation 11-3 and 11-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impacts 11-5 and 11-6: Effects on Groundwater Recharge and Groundwater Management. Currently, the Freedom Circle Focus Area is covered almost entirely with structures, surface parking (asphalt paving), and introduced landscaping. Based C.3 requirements and BMPs, implementation of the Focus Area would be expected to decrease the proportion of the Plan Area that is covered with impervious surface through application of LID techniques that would increase permeable area as well as the introduction of new landscaped, open space, and park areas.

The Plan Area would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Management Plan because the Plan Area is not an area designated by Valley Water for groundwater recharge.

Also, the increased use of groundwater is one of several options available to the City to CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 meet short-term water supply deficiencies. The City currently monitors groundwater levels at all City production wells and meters groundwater pumping. If the City determines the need to pump additional groundwater, this groundwater monitoring, in addition to the existing groundwater recharge program, would reduce the potential to substantially decrease groundwater supplies and ensure that the groundwater basin would not approach overdraft conditions.

Therefore, the impact on groundwater recharge and groundwater management would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation 11-5 and 11-6. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 11-7 and 11-8: Drainage Patterns and Risk of Flooding. Because the Focus Area is already largely covered with structures, paved surface parking, and introduced landscaping, development under the Plan would not significantly alter the total volume or rate of stormwater runoff into the existing municipal storm drain system or substantially alter drainage patterns, particularly because implementation of stormwater control measures would slow down the rate and reduce the volume of stormwater runoff, especially when compared to the existing hardscape areas. In addition, the Focus Area Plan proposes public parkland (which would typically include additional landscaped, open space, and park areas with pervious surfaces) and also proposes to minimize surface parking by requiring below‐grade or structured parking facilities.

The currently mapped FEMA Flood Zones indicate that most of the Plan Area is located in Zone X (“Area with Reduced Flood Risk Due to Levee”) – i.e., not in the 1% annual flood hazard zone.

The City applies uniformly applicable stormwater management regulations to avoid or reduce the potential for flood flow or drainage impacts of development, including erosion and siltation impacts, which provide for incorporating in projects one or a combination of BMPs such as rainwater harvesting and re-use, biofiltration swales, detention basins, bioretention areas, and flow-through planter boxes, and/or LID features such as use of pervious pavement, landscape features, and green roofs. The City’s Flood Damage Prevention Code (City Code chapter 15.45) requires development in Special Flood Hazard Areas to meet City standards related to anchoring of structures, construction methods and materials, elevation of structures, and floodproofing (as applicable to reduce or eliminate flood damage). Compliance with these City Code standards would also reduce risks from hazards resulting from inundation by regulating uses (including new construction and other development activities) that may increase flood heights or velocities or otherwise obstruct or redirect flood water in a manner that could lead to potential release of pollutants. City erosion and sediment control plan requirements would reduce the potential for erosion and/or sedimentation resulting from any changes in drainage patterns.

Also, for individual developments, the City requires a utility plan addressing, among other CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 infrastructure components, the storm drain system. Practices include controlling the amount and timing of runoff from development sites (e.g., see the BMPs and LID features described above, which control runoff quantities as well as improve water quality) and raising the elevation of buildings or other flood protective measures as described above.

Implementation of these development standards would be required as a condition of individual development project approval, prior to issuance of grading or building permits.

Also, because development under a future Specific Plan would be required to prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects (e.g., comply with NPDES C.3 requirements), effects on existing drainage patterns would be less-thansignificant.

Based on the above discussion, the impacts of drainage patterns and potential flooding are considered less-than-significant .

Mitigation 11-7 and 11-8. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) None.

3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.

4. Cumulative impacts
The Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on hydrology or water quality. All development projects (including future development under the Focus Area Plan) are required to undertake steps to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate flooding and water quality impacts. Projects north of the Plan Area, including City Place, shall be designed to have no impacts to upstream water surface elevations and therefore will cause no negative flooding impacts to the project site.

In addition, the Project will have no impact on hydrology or water quality with implementation of the mitigation measures discussed above. Future upstream projects would not impact the Plan Area as they would not significantly alter the existing hydrologic (i.e. flow path) conditions of those areas and are subject to NPDES regulations for treatment and retention of stormwater runoff. Therefore, cumulative hydrological impacts would be considered less than significant.

J. Land Use and Planning

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impacts 12-1 and 12-2: Project Effects on the Physical Arrangement of the Community. The analyses and findings in this EIR indicate that future development activity under the Freedom Circle Focus Area would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the community. The Plan Area is generally an internally focused collection of large, self-contained parcels. Focus Area-facilitated development identified in the Project Description would occur within the Plan Area. Implementation of a future comprehensive plan would establish integrated physical and functional connections between Focus Area parcels and with the adjacent community.

The Freedom Circle Focus Area, in concert with the Santa Clara General Plan, is intended to provide for the expansion of housing choices by encouraging compact, transit-accessible, pedestrian-oriented housing and mixed-use (housing/retail/office) development in the Plan Area at densities and heights greater than currently developed. The Plan is designed to ensure that this housing and mixed-use development is conveniently located near public transportation, shopping, employment, and other community facilities.

The Focus Area land use provisions would be expected to encourage substantial beneficial land use effects in (1) revitalizing the Focus Area; (2) facilitating development where services and infrastructure can be most efficiently provided by promoting higher residential densities within or near existing employment and public transportation areas; (3) and promoting compact, transit-accessible, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development patterns and land use. These land use characteristics epitomize the principles and policies of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area, and would represent a beneficial land use effect.

Mitigation 12-1 and 12-2. The Freedom Circle Focus Area and the Greystar project General Plan Amendment would result in beneficial land use and planning effects. No mitigation pertaining to environmental impacts on the physical arrangement of the community is required.

Impact 12-3 and 12-4: Project Consistency with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating Environmental Effects. CEQA requires environmental impacts to be analyzed compared to existing conditions on the ground.

The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would serve as a foundation for a comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) to achieve a coordinated, connected environment within the Plan Area while increasing land use intensity through frameworks and unified, contextsensitive design standards and guidelines, which would result in the efficient use of existing resources and infrastructure. Though these would represent beneficial land use effects, they would not occur before implementation of the next step in the planning process. However, because Focus Area Plan vision is to create a dynamic, mixed-use district of residential developments and community amenities with a diverse range of employment uses to complement other North Santa Clara neighborhoods and provide pedestrian, bicycle and roadway connections to employment centers, transit stops, trails, and other destinations, and because the Focus Area Plan includes goals and policies to support this CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 vision consistent with the General Plan, the Plan’s impact on land use and planning is considered a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation 12-3 and 12-4. The Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar Project would result in beneficial land use and planning effects. No additional mitigation pertaining to project consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects is required beyond those mitigation measures already identified in the environmental topic chapters of the EIR.

2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
None.

3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.

4. Cumulative impacts
The proposed Focus Area Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative land use impact, for the following reasons. With respect to physically dividing an established community, as described in EIR chapter 12 (Land Use and Planning), the proposed project’s effect would be positive rather than negative because the project is intended to provide for the expansion of housing choices by encouraging compact, transit-accessible, pedestrian-oriented housing development in the Plan Area at densities and heights greater than currently developed and conveniently located near public transportation, shopping, employment, and other community facilities. With respect to consistency with adopted City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan land use plans and policies, projects inside the Plan Area and any projects outside the Plan Area are required by law to be consistent with those General Plan plans and policies.

In addition, future development in the Plan Area (other than the Greystar project) would require a comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) before any project approval would be considered. As the purpose of this comprehensive planning is to ensure development impacts within the area are considered cumulatively in order to identify appropriate mitigation, the proposed Focus Area Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative land use or planning impact.

K. Noise and Vibration

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impact 13-9 and 13-10: Operational Vibrations. The Plan Area does not currently include any substantial vibration generating equipment. The Focus Area Plan would add a mix of residential, mixed-use, flex, and/or office land uses to the Plan Area over time, reaching full development by 2040. These new land uses could involve machinery and equipment such as pumps, compressors, generators, and other fixed equipment that produce vibrations; however, this equipment would not generate vibration levels that could exceed the City’s vibration perception threshold of 0.01 in/sec PPV (see Section

13.2.4.2). As discussed under Impact 13-3, even large construction equipment such as a bulldozer does not generate a vibration level above 0.01 in/sec at distance of approximately 150 feet. Potential pumps, generators, and other typical equipment would be securely mounted and not large enough to generate substantial vibrations beyond the immediate vicinity of the equipment. The Focus Area Plan does not propose or support any large vibration-inducing equipment or land use activities and would not result in excessive ground-borne vibration levels. This represents a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation 13-9 and 13-10. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 13-11: Exposure to Airport-Related Noise. The San Jose International Airport CLUP establishes the 65 CNEL contour as the noise restriction area for residential land uses, and the City’s General Plan (Policy 5.10.6- P8) encourages safe and compatible land uses within the airport’s noise restriction area. The part of the Plan Area north of Mission College Boulevard and east of Great America Parkway lies within the San Jose International Airport influence area; however, the Plan Area is not located within the 65 CNEL contour associated with San Jose International Airport (SCC ALUC 2016; Figure 5). Accordingly, future development within the Plan Area, including the Greystar project, would not be subjected to excessive airport-related noise levels. Consistent with the CLUP (Policy N-5), future owners in the Plan Area that own property in the airport influence area and who rent or lease property for residential use will be required to include a disclosure in the rental/lease agreement with the tenant that the property is within a high noise area associated with airport operations and may be exposed to airport-related noise levels greater than 65 CNEL.

The Plan Area, including the Greystar project, would not expose people living or working in the Plan Area to excessive airport-related noise levels. This impact is considered a lessthan-significant impact.

Mitigation 13-11. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) Impact 13-1: Temporary Construction Noise Levels – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could result in construction and development activities in the Plan Area that generate noise levels above City standards and/or otherwise result in a substantial, temporary CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan Area. This represents a potentially significant impact.

Finding: Mitigation measures would reduce impacts due to construction-related vibration impacts to less than significant levels. The City hereby determines this impact to be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding
With regard to construction noise, demolition, site preparation, and grading phases typically result in the highest temporary noise levels due to the use of heavy-duty equipment such as dozers, excavators, graders, loaders, scrapers, and trucks. The use of specialized equipment such as impact or vibratory pile drivers can also generate high noise levels during initial foundation work stages. The worst-case Leq and Lmax noise levels associated with the operation of a dozer, excavator, scraper, etc., are predicted to be approximately 82 and 85 dBA, respectively, at a distance of 50 feet from the equipment operating area. At an active construction site, it is not uncommon for two or more pieces of construction equipment to operate at the same time and in close proximity. The concurrent operation of two or more pieces of construction equipment would result in noise levels of approximately 85 to 88 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from equipment operating areas. The magnitude of each individual future project’s temporary and periodic increase in ambient noise levels would be dependent upon a number of project-specific factors that are not known at this time, including: the amount and type of equipment being used; the distance between the area where equipment is being operated and the location of the specific land use, receptor, etc., where noise levels are being evaluated; the time of day construction activities are occurring; the presence or absence of any walls, buildings, or other barriers that may absorb or reflect sound waves, the total duration of the construction activities, and the existing ambient noise levels near construction areas.

Typically, sustained construction noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA or higher would require the implementation of construction noise control practices such as staging area restrictions (e.g., siting staging areas away from sensitive receptors), equipment controls (e.g., covered engines and use of electrical hook-ups instead of generators), and/or the installation of temporary noise barriers of sufficient height, size (length or width), and density to achieve targeted noise reductions. In general, typical construction equipment activities could exceed the City’s significance thresholds at residential and commercial land uses within 400 feet and 200 feet of work areas, respectively, assuming the construction activity would last for more than one year (which may or may not be the case depending on the project. The use of pile driving equipment, if necessary, could exceed residential and commercial thresholds at distances of 500 and 400 feet, respectively. While all projects in the Planning Area would be subject to the permissible construction hours established by the Municipal Code, construction activities could result in temporary increases in noise levels above ambient conditions of 10 to 30 dBs or more during permissible CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 time frames, which would be perceived by noise-sensitive land uses as doubling or quadrupling of loudness, respectively. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation 13-1: Reduce Potential Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Construction Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from Focus Area Plan related construction activities, the City shall ensure future development projects within the Plan Area:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least one week prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the Project, and include the name and phone number of the designated contact for the Applicant/project representative and the City of Santa Clara responsible for handling construction-related noise complaints (per Section 8). This notice shall be provided to: A) The owner/occupants of residential dwelling units within 500 feet of construction work areas; and B) The owner/occupants of commercial buildings (including institutional buildings) within 200 feet of construction work areas or within 400 feet of construction work areas if pile driving equipment will be used. 2) Notify San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Users of Construction Activities. Prior to the start of construction activities within 500 feet of the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, signs shall be posted along the trail warning of potential temporary elevated noise levels during construction. Signs shall be posted within 250 feet of impacted trail segments (i.e., portions of the trail within 500 feet of a work area) and shall remain posted throughout the duration of all substantial noise generating construction activities (typically demolition, grading, and initial foundation installation activities).
3) Restrict Work Hours. All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section 9.10.230. Construction activities, including deliveries, shall occur only during the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday, unless otherwise authorized by City permit. The applicant/project representative and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of this requirement.
4) Control Construction Traffic and Site Access. Construction traffic, including soil and debris hauling, shall follow City-designated truck routes and shall avoid routes (including local roads in the Plan Area) that contain residential dwelling units to the maximum extent feasible given specific project location and access needs.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 5) Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to construction equipment used in the Plan Area: A) To the extent feasible, contractors shall use the smallest size equipment capable of safely completing work activities; B) Construction staging shall occur as far away from residential and commercial land uses as possible; C) All stationary noisegenerating equipment such as pumps, compressors, and welding machines shall be shielded and located as far from sensitive receptor locations as practical. Shielding may consist of existing vacant structures or a three- or four-sided enclosure provide the structure/barrier breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and equipment operations; D) Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with standard noise suppression devices such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, etc. These devices shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities; E) Pneumatic tools shall include a noise suppression device on the compressed air exhaust; F) The applicant/project representative and/or their contractor shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary power generators (if feasible); G) No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site.
6) Implement Construction Activity Noise Control Measures: The following measures shall apply to construction activities in the Plan Area: A) Demolition:

Activities shall be sequenced to take advantage of existing shielding/noise reduction provided by existing buildings or parts of buildings and methods that minimize noise and vibration, such as sawing concrete blocks, prohibiting on-site hydraulic breakers, crushing, or other pulverization activities, shall be employed to the maximum extent feasible; B) Demolition Site Preparation, Grading, and Foundation Work: During all demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities within 500 feet of a residential dwelling unit or 400 feet of a commercial building (including institutional buildings), a physical noise barrier capable of achieving the construction noise level standards set forth in Section 7 below shall, if required pursuant to Section 7, be installed and maintained around the site perimeter to the maximum extent feasible given site constraints and access requirements. Potential barrier options capable of reducing construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to: i) A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) of sufficient height (determined pursuant to Section 7) that has a minimum rated transmission such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB; iii) any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving required construction noise reductions during demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities; iv) The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site); and C) Pile Driving: If pile driving activities are CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 required within 500 feet of a residential dwelling unit or 400 feet of a commercial building, the piles shall be pre-drilled with an auger to minimize pile driving equipment run times.
7) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Noise Evaluation. Prior to the start of any specific construction project lasting 12 months or more, the City shall review and approve a project-specific construction noise evaluation prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant that: A) Identifies the planned project construction sequence and equipment usage; B) Identifies typical hourly average construction noise levels for project construction equipment; C) Compares hourly average construction noise levels to ambient noise levels at residential and commercial land uses near work areas (ambient noise levels may be newly measured or presumed to be consistent with those levels shown in Table 13-2 and 13-3 of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and D) Identifies construction noise control measures incorporated into the project that ensure: i) activities do not generate noise levels that are above 60 dBA Leq at a residential dwelling unit and exceed the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq for more than one year; and ii) activities do not generate noise levels that are above 70 dBA Leq at a commercial property (including institutional land uses) and exceed the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq for more than one year. Such measures may include but are not limited to: a) The requirements of Sections 4, 5, 6, and 8; b) Additional project and/or equipment-specific enclosures, barriers, shrouds, or other noise suppression methods. The use of noise control blankets on building facades shall be considered only if noise complaints are not resolvable with other means or methods.
8) Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan. The Construction Noise Complaint Plan shall: A) Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues; B) Includes procedures describing how the designated project representative will receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints; C) At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint; D) The elements of the Construction Noise Complaint Plan may be included in the project-specific noise evaluation prepared to satisfy Section 7 or as a separate document. 9) Owner/Occupant Disclosure: The City shall require future occupants/tenants in the Plan Area receive disclosure that properties in the Plan Area may be subject to elevated construction noise levels from development in the Plan Area. This disclosure shall be provided as part of the mortgage, lease, sub-lease, and/or other contractual real-estate transaction associated with the subject property.

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

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 (b) Impact 13-2: Temporary Construction Noise Levels – Greystar General Plan Amendment. The Greystar project could result in construction and development activities in the Plan Area that generate noise levels above City standards and/or otherwise result in a substantial, temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan Area. This represents a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation 13-2: Reduce Greystar Project Construction Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from Greystar Project construction activities, the City shall ensure the Applicant:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities.

See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 1. 2) Notify San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Users of Construction Activities. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 2.
3) Restrict Work Hours. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 3. 4) Control Construction Traffic and Site Access. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section

4. 5) Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise Control Measures. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 5.
6) Implement Construction Activity Noise Control Measures: See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section. The project will not require pile driving and, therefore, pile driving control measures identified in Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 6 C) are not applicable. See below for noise barrier mitigation requirements per Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 6 B).
7) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Noise Evaluation. Not applicable. The construction noise analysis presented in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report constitutes the Project-specific construction noise evaluation per Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 7.
8) Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section

8. CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 9) Owner/Occupant Disclosure: See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 9.

Per Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 6 B), the following noise barriers shall be installed and maintained around the perimeter of active work areas: A) For all demolition, site preparation, grading, and foundation work within 100 feet of the commercial property (Pedro’s Restaurant and Cantina) that borders the site’s southwest perimeter: i) a 6-foot-tall barrier shall be installed starting at Freedom Circle and extending south along the property boundary to the site’s southern property line (approximately 640 linear feet). B) For all demolition, site preparation, grading, and foundation work within 150 feet of commercial properties across Freedom Circle: i) a 6-foot-tall barrier shall be provided along the length of the property line that fronts Freedom Circle, excepting construction access points as needed (approximately 1,130 linear feet). C) Noise barriers shall consist of ½” plywood or any other material weighing 4 pounds per square foot or more or having a minimum documented transmission loss value of 20 dBA. The barriers may be erected on temporary retaining walls or temporary K-rails or other solid structures (which shall be considered as part of the total height of the barrier). Boards shall be staggered one over two, or joints otherwise fastened and sealed, to prevent sound transmission through joints. There shall be no openings or gaps in the barrier. The barrier shall be regularly inspected (e.g., weekly) and maintained during construction activities (e.g., warped or cracked boards shall be replaced upon discovery). D) The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work within the distances specific above (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site).

With implementation of these measures, this impact would be less than significant (c) Impact 13-3: Temporary Construction Vibration Levels – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could result in construction and development activities in the Plan Area that generate vibration levels above City standards and/or otherwise result excessive ground-borne vibration levels. This represents a potentially significant impact.

Finding: Mitigation measures would reduce impacts due to construction-related vibration impacts to less than significant levels. The City hereby determines this impact to be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding
Construction activities have the potential to result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and activities involved. Vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes with increases in distance. The effects of ground vibration CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 may be imperceptible at low levels, result in low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and can disturb human activities such as sleep and vibration sensitive equipment at high levels. Ground vibration can also potentially damage the foundations and exteriors of existing structures even if it does not result in a negative human response. Pile drivers and other pieces of high impact construction equipment are generally the primary cause of construction-related vibration impacts. The use of such equipment is generally limited to sites where there are extensive layers of very hard materials (e.g., compacted soils, bedrock) that must be loosened and/or penetrated to achieve grading and foundation design requirements. The need for such methods is usually determined through sitespecific geotechnical investigations that identify the subsurface materials within the grading envelope, along with foundation design recommendations and the construction methods needed to safely permit development of a site.

As indicated under Impact 13-1, since project specific information is not available at this time, potential short-term construction-related vibration impacts can only be evaluated based on the typical construction activities associated with residential, commercial, and retail development. Potential construction equipment and activity vibration levels were developed based on methodologies, reference noise levels, and equipment usage and other operating factors documented and contained in the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document and Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (FTA 2018 and Caltrans 2020).

Construction vibration impacts generally occur when construction activities occur in close proximity to buildings and vibration-sensitive areas, during evening or nighttime hours, or when construction activities last extended periods of time.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur in multiple phases and may last several years in total, with full development of the Plan Area anticipated to occur by 2040. In general, construction activities in the Plan Area would not be located near residential or commercial buildings or structures because the Plan Area is bordered by Patrick Henry Drive and Great America Park to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail to the east, U.S. 101 to the south, and Great America Parkway to the west. None of these land uses are sensitive to ground-borne vibration, and there are no residential building facades within 700 feet of the Plan Area; however, existing commercial land uses within the Plan Area and future land uses envisioned by the Focus Area Plan (e.g., residential dwelling units and commercial buildings) could be located near construction work areas within the Plan Area and affected by construction vibration.

Mitigation Measures:

In addition to adhering to the City Code for construction hours, the future development projects would be required to implement the following standard construction noise control measures to reduce construction noise levels at nearby land uses:

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation 13-3: Reduce Potential Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Construction Vibration Levels. To reduce potential vibration-related structural damage and other excessive vibration levels from Focus Area Plan related construction activities, the City shall ensure future development projects within the Plan Area:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 1. 2) Restrict Work Hours. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 2. 3) Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. The use of large vibratory rollers, vibratory/impact hammers, and other potential large vibration-generating equipment (e.g., hydraulic breakers/hoe rams) shall be prohibited within 100 feet of any residential building façade and 50 feet of any commercial building façade during construction activities. Plate compactors and compactor rollers are acceptable, and deep foundation piers or caissons shall be auger drilled. 4) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Vibration Evaluation Plan. If it is not feasible to prohibit vibratory equipment per Section 3) due to site- or projectspecific conditions or design considerations, the City shall review and approve a project-specific construction vibration evaluation that:

A) Identifies the project’s planned vibration-generating construction activities (e.g., demolition, pile driving, vibratory compaction);
B) Identifies the potential project-specific vibration levels (given project-specific equipment and soil conditions, if known) at specific building locations that may be impacted by the vibration-generating work activities (generally buildings within 50 feet of the work area);
C) Identifies the vibration control measures incorporated into the project that ensure equipment and work activities would not damage buildings or result in vibrations that exceed Caltrans’ strongly perceptible vibration detection threshold for peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.1 inches/second (in/sec). Such measures may include, but are not limited to: i) the requirements of Sections 1, 2, and 3; ii) the use of vibration monitoring to measure actual vibration levels; iii) the use of photo monitoring or other records to document building conditions prior to, during, and after construction activities; and iv) the use of other measures such as trenches or wave barriers;
D) Identifies the name (or title) and contact information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration-related issues; and
E) Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive, respond, and resolve to construction vibration complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a vibration complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 described in the first condition D) above shall identify the vibration source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint by reducing ground-borne vibration levels to peak particle velocity levels that do not exceed accepted guidance or thresholds for structural damage that are best applicable to potentially impacted buildings (e.g., see Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Table 13-6) and Caltrans’ strongly perceptible vibration detection threshold (PPV of 0.1 in/sec, see Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Table 13-7).

With implementation of these measures, this impact would be less than significant. (d) Impact 13-4: Temporary Construction Vibration Levels – Greystar General Plan Amendment. The Greystar project could result in construction and development activities in the Plan Area that generate vibration levels above City standards and/or otherwise result excessive ground-borne vibration levels. This represents a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation 13-4: Reduce Greystar Project Construction Vibration Levels. To reduce potential vibration-related structural damage and other excessive vibration levels from Greystar project construction activities, the City shall require the Applicant:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities.

See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 1. 2) Restrict Work Hours. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 2. 3) Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-3, Section 3. 4) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Vibration Evaluation Plan. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 3. Mitigation Measure 13-3, Section 4 A) – C) are not applicable because the construction vibration analysis presented in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR constitutes the Project-specific construction vibration evaluation per Mitigation Measure 13-3, Section 4.

With implementation of these measures, this impact would be less than significant. (e) Impact 13-5: On-site Noise Levels from Focus Area Plan Development. The implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could result in new residential, office, and other land uses that generate noise from on-site equipment, CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 activities, or other operations in excess of applicable City standards. This represents a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation 13-5: Control Fixed and Other On-site Noise-Generating Sources and Activities in the Freedom Circle Area Plan. To ensure on-site, operationsrelated equipment and activities associated with the Focus Area Plan do not generate noise levels that exceed City standards or otherwise result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, future development projects shall submit a project-specific operational noise analysis to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project, or as otherwise determined by the City. The noise analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and shall identify all major fixed machinery and equipment, non-residential truck docks/dedicated loading zones, waste collection areas, and above ground parking garages included in the final project design/site plan. The noise analysis shall also document how project noise sources and activities will comply with the exterior sound limits established in Municipal Code Section 9.10.040, Schedule A and the noise compatibility guidelines in General Plan Table 8.14-1. Fixed machinery and equipment may include, but is not limited to, pumps, fans (including air intake or exhaust fans in parking garages), compressors, air conditioners, generators, and refrigeration equipment. The control of noise from such equipment may be accomplished by selecting quiet equipment types, siting machinery and equipment inside buildings, within an enclosure (e.g., equipment cabinet or mechanical closets, or behind a parapet wall or other barrier/shielding.

Truck docks/dedicated loading zones consist of a loading dock or other dedicated area for the regular loading and unloading of retail, commercial, or other nonresidential goods from delivery trucks. The control of noise from such truck docks/loading areas, waste collection areas, and parking garages may be accomplished by placing such areas away from sensitive land uses, restricting activities or operating hours for certain areas, or other design means.

With implementation of these measures, this impact would be less than significant. (f) Impact 13-6: On-site Noise Levels from Greystar Project. The implementation of the Greystar project could result in new residential, park, and retail land uses that could generate noise from on-site equipment, activities, or other operations in excess of applicable City standards. This represents a potentially significant impact.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation 13-6: Control Greystar Project Parking Garage Ventilation System Noise Levels. To ensure potential parking garage ventilation systems do not generate noise levels that exceed City standards or otherwise result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, the City shall require the Applicant to prepare an acoustical study that identifies the final type, location, and sound power level of all parking garage ventilation systems. The study shall also document how project noise sources and activities will comply with the exterior sound limits established in Municipal Code Section 9.10.040, Schedule A. The control of noise from ventilation systems may be accomplished by selecting quiet equipment types, siting machinery and equipment inside buildings, within an enclosure (e.g., equipment cabinet or mechanical closets), the installation of louvres or baffles, or other design means.

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

3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable (a) Impact 13-7: Increases in Traffic Noise Levels – Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan could generate vehicle trips that substantially increase existing and future No Project traffic noise levels and/or exceed City noise and land use compatibility standards. This represents a potentially significant impact.

Facts in Support of Finding
The Focus Area Plan would have the potential to change the existing amounts and types of land uses within the Plan Area. These potential land use changes would increase residents and employees within the City and lead to an increase in vehicle trips and traffic-related noise levels that could pose land use compatibility issues and/or otherwise represent a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels on roadways used to access the Plan Area.

Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation is possible.

L. Population and Housing

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impacts 14-1 and 14-2: Effects on Population Growth.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Based on the forecasted development assumptions for the proposed Focus Area Plan (see chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR), the Plan is anticipated ultimately to result in up to the following new development in the Plan Area:
 3,600 residential units,
 2,000,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of new office space, and  2,000 sq. ft. of new retail space.

Both the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and this EIR assume these numbers represent the maximum future anticipated development; however, these numbers may be refined further during preparation of the comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) that is required as part of the General Plan-identified process for “future focus areas” and would allow for responsible growth while ensuring quality City services are maintained for existing and future residents and businesses through establishment of the necessary infrastructure, amenities, and services. The residential growth anticipated under Focus Area Plan would help to address the balance between housing and jobs in the city as identified in the General Plan.

The Focus Area Plan and EIR are preliminary planning documents to provide clarification of potentials for development in the Plan Area and could change during preparation of the required more comprehensive planning study called for in the General Plan (see chapter 1, Introduction, of this EIR). As such, development parameters for the Plan Area could change and, if so, would then be re-evaluated.

This Focus Area Plan assumes an average of 2.27 persons per new household (pph) in the Plan Area, based on demographic and economic research prepared for the Plan.2 Using this factor, Plan implementation could accommodate up to approximately 8,172 new residents in the Plan Area by the year 2040 (the estimated Plan buildout horizon).

As described throughout the EIR, Plan implementation would extend roads and infrastructure into an undeveloped portion of the Plan Area (the Greystar project site), but would not induce substantial population growth beyond the Plan Area boundaries. Rather, Plan implementation would facilitate residential, commercial, and community growth within a mixed-use Plan Area identified as being desirable for adding a mix of residential and commercial due to access to existing and future transit, and for redeveloping existing sites from lower to higher intensity uses, as provided for in the Santa Clara General Plan.

Therefore, this impact is considered less-than-significant.

Mitigation 14-1 and 14-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 14-3 and 14-4: Population and Housing Displacement Effects. As of April 2021, there is no housing in the Plan Area, and the Focus Area Plan would not displace any residents or housing. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan is a long-term plan laying the groundwork for a future comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) that would include frameworks and design standards and guidelines for future long-range CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 development, including residential development. Under the current Focus Area Plan, no individual development proposals are being considered (with the exception of the concurrent Greystar project application); however, because there is no existing housing in the Plan Area, the Focus Area Plan would have no impact related to the displacement of housing or population.

Mitigation 14-3 and 14-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 14-5: Temporary Employment Impacts—Plan Area. No construction jobs would result directly from adoption of the Focus Area Plan because a comprehensive planning study (such as a specific plan) would be required before development in the Plan Area would be authorized; however, development in the Plan Area could ultimately result from adoption of the comprehensive planning study, and future construction jobs would be likely. Such construction jobs would be created over the timeframe of development and would by nature be temporary. It would be anticipated that an adequate construction work force would continue to exist within commute distance of the Plan Area when future development would be likely to commence; a substantial increase in population due to eventual project construction would be considered highly unlikely. The actual number of construction jobs ultimately facilitated as a result of the Focus Area Plan and the comprehensive planning study would depend on the construction dollars spent and the construction schedules. These variables cannot be accurately quantified at this time.

Nevertheless, these project-generated employment opportunities would represent a beneficial temporary economic effect of future development in the Plan Area. In itself, any population growth associated with construction activity ultimately resulting from the Focus Area Plan and comprehensive planning study would represent a less-than-significant environmental impact.

Mitigation 14-5. No significant environmental impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 14-6: Temporary Employment Impacts—Greystar Project. Temporary construction jobs would be created during the Greystar project construction period, estimated at approximately 48 months. It is anticipated that an adequate construction work force will continue to exist within commute distance of the Greystar project site, thereby making a substantial increase in population due to project construction unlikely.

The actual number of construction jobs facilitated by the Greystar project would depend on the construction dollars spent and the construction schedules; however, additional temporary employee growth on site could result in up to 600 construction workers over the projected 48-month construction period, varying between 100 and 600 workers, depending on phase and activity. This temporary increase in worker population would generate demand for services, but the increase would be temporary in duration. It is reasonable to assume that most of the construction jobs would be filled by workers currently residing in the Bay Area region, and therefore this temporary increase would not be considered either substantial or unplanned population growth, and therefore this temporary increase in population would not in itself constitute a significant adverse CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 environmental impact. To the extent that it would result in secondary environmental impacts (e.g., air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic), those impacts would be temporary and are addressed by topic in the various sections of this EIR. The projectgenerated employment opportunities would represent a beneficial temporary economic effect of the Greystar project. In itself, any population growth associated with construction activity resulting from the Greystar project would represent a less-than-significant environmental impact.

Mitigation 14-6. No significant environmental impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

M. Public Services

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 15-1 and 15-2: Increase in Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Service Demands
Individual project proposals are subject to review and approval by the SCFD, based on uniformly applied standards and regulations. As part of the standard development review process for each individual project proposal, the project applicant must demonstrate compliance with Santa Clara City Code Chapter 15.60 (Municipal Fire and Environmental Code), the California Fire Code, and all other applicable regulations. Among other fire protection/EMS requirements, the project must provide adequate emergency water supply (fire flow), storage, and conveyance facilities, as well as unobstructed and adequate access for fire protection equipment and personnel. Without City approval of fire protection/EMS provisions, the project would not receive a building permit or occupancy permit, depending on the specific fire protection issue that needs to be addressed (e.g., emergency access provisions, hydrant pressure, fire alarm and smoke detector adequacy). The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan does not propose new or expanded fire protection/EMS facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, nor does the City anticipate the need for a new facility because of the proximity and adequacy of Fire Station 8 to provide fire service and the future assessment of resources needed as part of the required comprehensive planning study for the Plan Area, as discussed above.

Therefore, based on the above uniformly applied fire protection/EMS standards and regulations, the proximity of existing fire stations, and the City’s commitment to providing adequate fire/EMS service, Focus Area Plan impacts on fire protection/EMS demands are considered less-than-significant.

Mitigation 15-1 and 15-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 15-3 and 15-4: Impacts to Police Services
General Plan Policy 5.1.1‐P8 calls for an analysis of public services as a part of the development of specific plans for future focus areas. Therefore, because it is the City’s policy to reassess SCPD resources available in the vicinity of the Plan Area to ensure CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 adequate capacity for providing police services as part of the future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan), rather than at this more preliminary stage, potential future needs for a new police building or expansion of an existing police building would be speculative at this time, as would options to ensure adequate funds would be available for such facilities required by development in the Plan Area.

Individual project proposals under the Focus Area Plan would be subject to review and approval by the SCPD, based on uniformly applied standards and regulations. As part of the standard development review process for each individual project proposal, the SCPD would determine the ability of the department to provide services and would make projectspecific recommendations in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. Without City approval of police service provisions, the project would not receive a building permit or occupancy permit, depending on the specific police protection/security issue (e.g., security lighting, parking area security provisions, public visibility/defensible space -"eyes on the street" or, in the case of new parks and plazas, “eyes on the park”).

The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan does not propose new or expanded police facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, and any decision whether to build a new facility or expand an existing facility would be the responsibility of the City Council. Although more vehicle traffic from anticipated development in the city could occur (with an associated increase in service calls due to traffic-related enforcement and accident investigations and potentially increased service call response times) and additional staff would be anticipated, the SCPD has not identified at this time the need for a new or expanded police facility. If, as development proceeds in the Plan Area and vicinity, the City determines the need for a new police station or expansion of an existing facility, any additional facilities would be subject to their own CEQA determination--i.e., a CEQA checklist and/or any additional CEQA documentation, if deemed necessary, such as an Addendum to the certified EIR for the future comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan), and/or amendment to the Focus Area Plan.

Under CEQA, the impacts on police service demands are considered less-than-significant.

Mitigation 15-3 and 15-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impacts 15-5 and 15-6: Impacts to School Facilities
New or physically altered school facilities determined necessary by the SCUSD to accommodate students generated by future development under the eventual Specific Plan could cause significant environmental impacts; however, any School District proposal for a new school would be subject to its own evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which would be expected to involve an evaluation of environmental impact topics similar to that provided in this EIR.

The SCUSD is responsible for levying impact fees on new development. The residential and commercial development in the Plan Area would be required to pay the State-authorized school impact fees approved by the SCUSD. Pursuant to section 65995(3)(h) of the CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the payment of statutory school impact fees "...is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization...." Therefore, subsequent to payment of statutory fees, school impacts would be considered less-than-significant.

Mitigations 15-5 and 15-6. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impacts 15-7 and 15-8: Impacts on Parks and Recreational Facilities.

The City ensures a project meets its dedication requirements through the development review process. Parkland, as required, must be included as part of a project’s “land use plan” with the location identified on the project property. A project that does not comply with the parkland dedication requirement would not be approved. In addition, the City requires that parkland be improved (i.e., “turn-key”) and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore, mandatory, future development of parkland and open space in the Focus Area, or as a part of the Greystar project, plus individual project payment of City adopted in-lieu park fees and/or dedication of parkland would ensure that impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less-thansignificant.

Mitigations 15-7 and 15-8. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required. See “Construction Period Impacts” below.

Impact 15-9 and 15-10: Impacts on Other Public Facilities. The Focus Area Plan facilitated increase in residential, commercial, and public activity in the Plan Area and associated job creation and increase in business activity, would result in a corresponding incremental increase in demand for other public, municipal services. The Focus Area Plan does not propose new or expanded public facilities, although the future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) may, when developed, include a public facilities component with discussion of funding options (including approaches and policies for both one-time and ongoing costs of public infrastructure and related improvements).

Any future public facility proposal resulting from Focus Area Plan-facilitated development would therefore be speculative at this time and would be subject to its own evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when a specific proposal was brought forward. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation 15-9 and 15-10. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 15-11 and 15-12: Construction Period Impacts. The construction of Planrelated open space, parkland, and recreational and other public facilities would be temporary and would occur within either existing public rights-of-way or on City property, a project development site, or private property subject to a municipal easement.

Construction period air emissions (dust), noise, and traffic interruption typically associated CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 with parks and recreational facilities construction would be reduced through mandatory, uniformly applied City of Santa Clara construction standards and regulations, as well as mitigations already identified elsewhere in this EIR, which analyzes both operational and construction impacts.

Mitigation 15-11 and 15-12. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
None.

3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.

4. Cumulative impacts
The Project would not have a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative public services impact. The General Plan EIR discussed the cumulative impact on public services from the buildout of the General Plan and concluded that future development, consistent with existing regulations, would not result in significant impacts to public facilities. The proximate City Place project would provide for public services on its site or pay in-lieu fees. The in-lieu fees paid by the Greystar project and projects developed under the eventual Specific Plan would reduce cumulative impacts to school and park facilities and there would be no impacts to fire, police, or library services. For these reasons, implementation of the Project would not have a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative public services impact.

N. Recreation

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
Impact 16-1 and 16-2: Impacts on Parks and Recreational Facilities The City ensures that a project meets its dedication requirements through the development review process. Parkland, as required, must be included as part of a project’s “land use plan” with the location identified on the project property. A project that does not comply with the parkland dedication requirement would not be approved. In addition, the City requires that parkland be improved (i.e., “turn-key”) and dedicated to the City. Therefore, mandatory, future development of public parks in the Focus Area plus individual project payment of City adopted park in-lieu fees and/or dedication of parkland to the City in fee title and free of encumbrances would ensure that impacts on parks and recreational facilities would less-than-significant.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigations 16-1 and 16-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required. See “Construction Period Impacts” below.

Impacts 16-3 and 16-4: Construction Period Impacts. The construction impacts of parks and recreational facilities due to the Focus Area Plan and/or the Greystar project would be considered temporary and would occur within either existing public rights-ofway or on City property, a project development site, or private property subject to a municipal easement. Construction period air emissions (dust), noise, and traffic interruption typically associated with parks and recreational facilities construction would be reduced through mandatory, uniformly applied City of Santa Clara construction standards and regulations, as well as mitigations already identified elsewhere in this EIR, which analyzes both operational and construction impacts.

Mitigations 16-3 and 16-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
None.

3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.

4. Cumulative impacts
The Project would not have significant impacts on recreation facilities. The General Plan EIR discussed the cumulative impact on recreation facilities from the buildout of the General Plan (including the Plan Area) and concluded that future development, consistent with existing regulations, would not result in significant impacts to recreational facilities. The previously approved City Place project includes an approximately 31-acre park to provide for recreational facilities north of US 101 and the Project will provide on-site park and recreational space and payment of parkland dedication fees such that there is no project-level impact on recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant cumulative recreation impacts.

O. Transportation/Traffic

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impacts 17-1 and 17-2: Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Regarding Roadways.

The Focus Area Plan includes the following goals and policies relevant to the transportation significance criteria:
 FC-G4: Reduce reliance on private vehicles and improve jobs/housing balance by locating amenities and jobs within walking distance to housing.  FC-G6: Improve multi-modal transportation options and connections.  FC-G7: Enhance connectivity to the San Tomas Aquino Creek trail.  FC-P3: Require active street frontages and ground floor uses to create a pedestrian friendly, cohesive urban environment.
 FC-P10: Minimize surface parking by requiring below‐grade or structured parking facilities with active uses along street frontages.
 FC-P11: Establish parking ratios that support transit, active transportation and shared vehicle use.
 FC-P12: Encourage shared parking between uses and parcels, including the shared use of existing structures.
 FC-P14: Provide new street, bicycle and pedestrian networks that break down large blocks and sites, accommodate multiple modes of travel, and maximize connections to activity hubs.
 FC-P16: Design and program the plan area and sites to encourage walking, bicycling and transit use.
 FC-P18: Redesign Mission College Boulevard, Freedom Circle, and Hichborn Drive to better balance space dedicated to vehicles, bicycle, and pedestrians.  FC-P19: Maintain VTA bus transit service on Mission College Boulevard and improve transit stops and shelters.
 FC-P20: Design pedestrian and bicycle networks and infrastructure to facilitate access to transit stops on Great America Parkway, Mission College and Tasman Drive.
 FC-P21: Require developments to contribute to City vehicle miles travelled (VMT) goals and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM programs).  FC-P22: Require developers and property owners to coordinate with area employers and stakeholders to explore shared private transit systems and the formation of a Transit Management Authority (TMA) as part of the Specific Plan process.

Because the Focus Area Plan provides the direction for the transportation standards and guidelines to be incorporated into the future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan), the Focus Area Plan is considered substantially consistent with the applicable City of Santa Clara General Plan goals and policies related to transportation. The impact would be less-than-significant.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 The Greystar project, because of its location close to jobs and transit would be consistent with elements such as high density/intensity development near transit; decreased use of the single‐occupant automobiles; reduced vehicle miles traveled; improved pedestrian amenities; accommodating and promoting alternative modes of transportation; improving sidewalks, landscaping, and bicycling facilities to promote pedestrian and bicycle use; connecting private and public open space through publicly accessible trails and pathways; and orienting open spaces to public streets. Therefore the project would not substantially conflict with General Plan transportation policies, this impact would be less-thansignificant.

Mitigation 17-1 and 17-2. No impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 17-3: Impacts on Transit—Plan Area. Impact 17-3: Impacts on Transit Related to Conflicts with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs—Plan Area. Existing transit service for the Plan Area includes an ACE shuttle and three VTA routes along Great America Parkway and/or Mission College Boulevard (though service is currently limited due to COVID-19). Bus stops are currently located within the Plan Area on Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard, with additional bus stops nearby outside of the Plan Area on Great America Parkway (across the street) and Mission College Boulevard (near Juliette Lane). Several bus stops in the Plan Area are also served by an ACE shuttle (along Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard) as well as in the immediate vicinity of the Plan Area.

Because the Focus Area Plan is, by definition, policy oriented, the Plan does not propose any direct transit improvements, but transit support is included in Focus Area Plan Policy FC-19 (“Maintain VTA bus transit service on Mission College Boulevard and improve transit stops and shelters”) and Policy FC-P20 (“Design pedestrian and bicycle networks and infrastructure to facilitate access to transit stops on Great America Parkway, Mission College and Tasman Drive”). Therefore, because the Focus Area Plan would not interfere or conflict with existing or planned transit facilities, this impact would be lessthan-significant.

Mitigation 17-3. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 17-4: Impacts on Bicycle Facilities—Plan Area.

The Plan Area is located near many existing bicycle facilities, including trails along San Tomas Aquino Creek and Calabazas Creek, and bike lanes on Great America Parkway, Mission College Boulevard, and other streets. Future Plan Area residents would be able to ride to work using bike lanes and bike trail connections to surrounding employment areas.

Existing employment zones to the north of the Plan Area would be accessible via bike lanes on Great America Parkway or via the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail. Bike lanes on Tasman Drive would provide a route to other employment opportunities planned as part of the Related Santa Clara development. These bike lanes could also be used to reach the North San José employment area, and the Guadalupe River trail could be used to reach downtown San José. Employment areas south of the project site would be reached via the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail or bike lanes on Great America Parkway/Bowers Avenue.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Because the Focus Area Plan would not interfere or conflict with existing and planned bicycle facilities, this impact would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation 17-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 17-5: Impacts on Pedestrian Facilities—Plan Area.

Because the Focus Area Plan is, by definition, policy oriented, the Plan does not propose any specific pedestrian improvements at this time; however, the Focus Area Plan anticipates future improvements related to pedestrian facilities (Focus Area Plan Policy FCP14: “Provide new street, bicycle and pedestrian networks that break down large blocks and sites, accommodate multiple modes of travel, and maximize connections to activity hubs which would increase the number of connection points that could facilitate emergency access” and Policy FC-P18: “Redesign Mission College Boulevard, Freedom Circle, and Hitchborn Drive to better balance space dedicated to vehicles, bicycle, and pedestrians” such as wider sidewalks).

The Plan Area currently comprises very large parcels that create excessive walking distances between properties. As described earlier in the setting (section 17.1), Plan Area streets mostly all have sidewalk facilities. However, the Focus Area Plan also includes Policy FC-P15: “Develop design standards and guidelines to support active ground-floor environments, welcoming public spaces, and safe and comfortable sidewalks and pathways,” which would support improvements to pedestrian facilities such as wider sidewalks. Currently the only trail connection to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail is located at Mission College Boulevard; however, as discussed below in Impact 17-8, the Greystar project proposes to construct a trail that would provide a connection between Freedom Circle and the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail.

Because the Focus Area Plan would not interfere or conflict with existing and planned pedestrian facilities, this impact would be less-than-significant (see criterion [a] in subsection 17.3.1, “Significance Criteria,” above). Mitigation 17-5. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Mitigation 17-5. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 17-6: Impacts on Transit Related to Conflicts with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs—Greystar Project. The Greystar project does not propose any improvements to existing transit facilities near the project site; however, the project would not interfere or conflict with existing transit facilities-- bus stops located within ½ mile of the project site on Mission College Boulevard (with VTA Route 20 connecting to the Sunnyvale Caltrain station, and service by an ACE shuttle) and on Agnew Road. The project would add additional bicycle and pedestrian improvements that would provide for better access to transit facilities near the project site.

Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation 17-6. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 17-7: Impacts on Bicycle Facilities—Greystar Project. The Greystar project proposes including a new trail connection on the east side of the project site, which would allow pedestrians and bicycles access to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail. In addition, the project would construct an 8-foot Class II bike lane along the Freedom Circle side of the project, which would provide additional bicycle facilities. These proposed bicycle facilities would help connect the project site with other existing bicycle facilities, including the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail and bike lanes on Mission College Boulevard, and would provide a link in the bicycle network.

The proposed Greystar project bicycle facilities, on and near the project site, would provide safer conditions for bicyclists relative to existing conditions, consistent with the City’s General Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan Update 2018; this would be a beneficial effect.

Mitigation 17-7. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 17-8: Impacts on Pedestrian Facilities—Greystar Project. The Greystar project proposes several new pedestrian facilities on and adjacent to the project site, including the new trail connection between the two pedestrian paths on either side of the 2.0-acre park and the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, and a new wider (seven feet) sidewalk on Freedom Circle along the project frontage. The proposed Greystar pedestrian facilities, on and near the project site, would provide safer conditions for pedestrians relative to existing conditions, consistent with the City’s General Plan and the City of Santa Clara Pedestrian Master Plan 2019; this would be a beneficial effect.

Mitigation 17-8. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 17-9 and 17-10: Impacts Related to Vehicle Miles Traveled—Plan Area and Greystar Project. Traffic impacts under CEQA have traditionally been assessed based on increases in intersection delay measured by Level of Service (LOS). However, in 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 743, which directed the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop new California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines to replace LOS with another measure for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. OPR recommended using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which measures the amount of vehicle trip making and trip length and is direct measurement of greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines update and VMT approach. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 (Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts) provides the framework for CEQA transportation analyses.

The City of Santa Clara recently adopted a VMT Transportation Analysis Policy for Environmental Review, which constitutes the City transportation policy, to align with State law and define City transportation analysis requirements for CEQA review purposes. The Policy sets forth screening criteria for certain types of development that are presumed to have a less than-significant impact on VMT due to their characteristics, such as infill CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 development, small projects, and/or transit supportive projects near major transit corridors. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and the Greystar project both qualify as transit supportive projects because they meet the criteria established by the City related to proximity to transit, density, multimodal transportation networks, transit-oriented design elements, parking, and affordable housing. Because the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and the Greystar project qualify as transit-supportive projects (per State guidance and City VMT Policy), the projects’ impact on VMT would be less than-significant.

Mitigation 17-9 and 17-10. No impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 17-11 and 17-12: Hazards due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses.

Plan Area: As a policy oriented plan, the Focus Area Plan does not propose specific internal roadway network improvements; however, the Focus Area Plan anticipates future internal roadway improvements (Plan Policy FC-P14: “Provide new street, bicycle and pedestrian networks that break down large blocks and sites, accommodate multiple modes of travel, and maximize connections to activity hubs which would increase the number of connection points that could facilitate emergency access”). When detailed site plans for future development projects are submitted, project-related roadway designs would be subject to City review, which would ensure adequacy of circulation patterns and safety standards; reduce potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses; and remove potential hazards due to design features (i.e., insufficient sightlines or distances) or incompatible uses.

Greystar Project. Project design features have been reviewed by the City Traffic Division and determined to provide adequate driveway widths and drive aisle widths with sufficient sight lines for entry and exit from driveways, including redesign of the northern perimeter road to be right-in/right-out only where it intersects with Mission College Boulevard.

Therefore, the project would comply with all driveway and related parking and other design standards, and these impacts would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation 17-11 and 17-12. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 17-13: Emergency Access—Plan Area. Existing access to the Plan Area for emergency vehicles is via connections to Patrick Henry Drive, Mission College Boulevard, and Hichborn Drive from Great America Parkway in the west, and to Freedom Circle from Mission College Boulevard as well as from Agnew Road in the east. These connections would remain. As a policy oriented plan, the Focus Area Plan does not propose any specific internal roadway network improvements; however, the Focus Area Plan anticipates future internal roadway improvements (Plan Policy FC-P14: “Provide new street, bicycle and pedestrian networks that break down large blocks and sites, accommodate multiple modes of travel, and maximize connections to activity hubs which would increase the number of connection points that could facilitate emergency access”). When detailed site plans are required to be submitted, street designs would be subject to City review to ensure the CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 adequacy of circulation patterns and compliance with City emergency vehicle access standards, such as requiring that alleys have a minimum width of 25 feet to allow for emergency vehicles and connecting “dead end” street sections (i.e., cul-de-sacs) with multimodal paths that would allow emergency vehicles. City review of future driveway and drive aisle design would ensure compliance with City emergency vehicle access requirements.

Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation 17-13. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 17-14: Emergency Access—Greystar Project. Existing access to the project site for emergency vehicles is via connections to Freedom Circle from Mission College Boulevard (both “west” and “east”—Freedom Circle is a “loop” road). These connections would remain. The Greystar project proposes to construct a new two-way private “perimeter road,” which would connect to Freedom Circle and provide emergency vehicle access around the entire project site. The final design of the perimeter road would be subject to City review. The Fire Department would require roadways to have a “minimum” width of 20 feet for fire engines and a “minimum” width of 26 feet roadways for aerial apparatus. Project plans indicate that the perimeter road would be 26 feet wide, increasing to 34 feet at the three trash staging areas (one for each building; on the south side of Building A, and on the east side of Building B and Building C). As an informational note for disclosure purposes, according to the Hexagon transportation analysis for the project, the 26-foot width for the perimeter road would not provide sufficient room for emergency vehicles to turn around, and with the current design, emergency vehicles would need to enter from the northern driveway and exit from the southern driveway. However, City review of construction drawings would ensure compliance with City emergency vehicle access requirements. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation 17-14. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
None.

4. Cumulative impacts
None.

P. Utilities and Service Systems

1. Project impacts determined to have no impact on the environment, or have a less than significant impact on the environment
CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Impact 18-2: Greystar Project Inconsistency with General Plan and UWMP Growth Projections. The WSA prepared for the proposed Focus Area Plan includes the required water supply analysis for the Greystar project. The Greystar project request for an amendment to the General Plan would change the land use designation of the project site to allow residential development, which would resolve the General Plan inconsistency. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan WSA concluded that sufficient water supplies exist to serve the Greystar project for both a normal year or a single-dry year and that alternative sources exist for projected shortfalls occurring during a multi-year drought scenario. Confirmation of water supply would be provided by the WSA, prepared by the City of Santa Clara in its role as the water service provider, in conjunction with the City’s “Master Geographic Letter,” which provides verification and assurance of the City’s ability and commitment to serve Greystar project water needs. Therefore, this would be a less-than-significant project and cumulative impact.

Mitigation 18-2. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 18-3: Project and Cumulative Need for Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage System Infrastructure—Plan Area. Over the course of development under the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and future, required comprehensive planning study, water, wastewater, and storm drainage infrastructure systems in the Plan Area would be expected to require some improvements to accommodate new development facilitated by the Focus Area Plan and required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan), including the upgrading of deficiencies. (Specific improvements and upgrades required by the Greystar project are discussed separately below.) Due to the preliminary nature of the Focus Area Plan, an infrastructure element has not been developed, though it would be included as part of the required comprehensive planning study and would provide more details on Plan Area needs, based on consultation with City engineers and the results of hydraulic modeling as determined necessary by the City.

Mitigation 18-3. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 18-4: Project and Cumulative Need for Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage System Infrastructure—Greystar Project. Development of the Greystar project would be expected to require construction of improvements and upgrades to City water, wastewater, and storm drainage systems. The construction of Greystar projectrelated utility infrastructure would be temporary and would occur within either existing public rights-of-way, City property, the Greystar project site, or Greystar property subject to a municipal easement. Construction impacts have been evaluated as part of this Focus Area Plan CEQA analysis, and construction period air emissions (dust), noise, and traffic interruption typically associated with utility infrastructure construction would be reduced through mandatory City of Santa Clara construction protocols and mitigations as they would apply to other development under the Focus Area Plan. No additional significant environmental impact beyond those already identified in the EIR would be anticipated with CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 such construction activity. Based on the above analysis, the Greystar project’s construction and operational impacts on water, wastewater, and storm drainage infrastructure would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation 18-4. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 18-6: Cumulative Wastewater Pump Station Capacity Impacts—Greystar Project. As noted in the Woodard & Curran technical memo conducted for the Focus Area Plan, future wastewater generated by the Greystar project would be approximately 0.170 mgd, which would result in an updated total flow to pump stations of 45.407 mgd and would not exceed the current combined wastewater capacity of the Northside and Rabello pump stations (46.1 mgd). The Greystar wastewater contribution would represent less than four percent of the current combined wastewater capacity and less than four percent of the total flow to the pump stations; therefore, the proposed Greystar project would not contribute considerably to a cumulative pump station capacity impact at the Northside and Rabello pump stations, and this would be a less-than-significant impact Mitigation 18-6. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 18-7: Wastewater Treatment Capacity Impacts—Plan Area. Wastewater from the City of Santa Clara, with some flow from the Cupertino Sanitary District (CuSD), is conveyed to the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF) for treatment before the treated water is discharged into the South San Francisco Bay or recycled for other uses. The RWF has a Water Board/NPDES treatment capacity limit of 167 million gallons per day (mgd). Approximately 35 mgd of RWF treatment capacity is allocated to other wastewater agencies by agreement. The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara share the remaining treatment capacity. In 2020, the treatment capacity allotment for Santa Clara was approximately 25.147 mgd, and the City had approximately 9.606 mgd of unused treatment capacity remaining.

According to the Woodard & Curran technical memo prepared for the Focus Area Plan, wastewater generation from Focus Area Plan development (including the Greystar project) is projected to total approximately 1.063 mgd, which would not exceed the City’s remaining capacity allocation of 9.606 mgd. Moreover, that 9.606 mgd of capacity is only the City’s current share; the RWF currently has a total excess flow capacity of approximately 65 mgd.

The total flow capacity at the RWF is 167 mgd, and the joint owners (Santa Clara and San José) have agreements with several tributary agencies, which have capacity rights of approximately 35 mgd. Pursuant to Section V.B.3 of the 1983 agreements with the tributary agencies, Santa Clara can purchase additional capacity from those tributary agencies, in the unlikely event that the City’s current excess capacity of 9.606 mgd was insufficient.

Therefore, Focus Area Plan development (including the Greystar project) would have a less-than-significant impact on wastewater treatment facility capacity.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 Mitigation 18-7. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 18-8: Wastewater Treatment Capacity Impacts—Greystar Project. As discussed in Impact 18-7, wastewater generation from Focus Plan development including the Greystar project is projected to total approximately 1.063 mgd, which would not exceed the City’s remaining capacity allocation of 9.606 mgd. The Greystar project is forecasted to account for approximately 0.170 mgd. Therefore, the Greystar project would have a lessthan-significant impact on wastewater treatment facility capacity.

Mitigation 18-8. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 18-9: Impacts on Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling Service—Plan Area.

Based on City solid waste generation rates, development under the Focus Area Plan (including the Greystar project) would be anticipated to generate approximately 46,852 cubic yards of solid waste per year,1 with about two-thirds of the waste generated by residential use. This would represent approximately 0.2 percent of remaining capacity at the Newby Island Landfill. 2 Because Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan implementation would not be expected to generate an inordinate amount of solid waste for its size (i.e., a rate inconsistent with adopted plans, policies, and regulations) either during demolition/construction activities or operation due to project compliance with the Solid Waste Ordinance, and would be served by solid waste disposal and recycling facilities with sufficient capacities to accommodate the Plan’s demolition/construction debris and solid waste disposal needs, the Plan’s effect on solid waste and recycling services would represent a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation 18-9. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 18-10: Impacts on Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling Service—Greystar project. Because the Greystar project would not be expected to generate an inordinate amount of solid waste for its size (i.e., a rate inconsistent with adopted plans, policies, and regulations) either during demolition/construction activities or operation, and would be served by solid waste disposal and recycling facilities with sufficient capacities to accommodate project demolition/ construction debris and solid waste disposal needs, the Greystar project’s effect on solid waste and recycling services would represent a less-thansignificant impact.

Mitigation 18-10. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 18-11: Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications Infrastructure— Plan Area. The Focus Area Plan is designed as a preliminary planning document. A future comprehensive planning study would be required, per the General Plan, to refine CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 development assumptions. Because no plans have been finalized nor sites identified for these potential additional electrical system improvements, any further analysis would be speculative. Any natural gas, and telecommunications improvements in the Plan Area would be required to comply with uniformly applied City of Santa Clara construction standards and regulations and the mitigations already identified elsewhere in the Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment Project EIR, and therefore the construction period impacts associated with these improvements would represent a less-thansignificant impact.

Mitigation 18-11. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

Impact 18-12: Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications Infrastructure— Greystar Project. Similarly, for the Greystar project, any natural gas, and telecommunications improvements related to the project would be required to comply with uniformly applied City of Santa Clara construction standards and regulations and the mitigations already identified elsewhere in the Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment Project EIR, and therefore the construction period impacts associated with these improvements would represent a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation 18-12. No significant impact has been identified; no mitigation is required.

2. Project impacts determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(a) Impact 18-1: Focus Area Plan Inconsistency with General Plan and UWMP Growth Projections. The WSA prepared for the proposed Focus Area Plan includes development in the Plan Area that has not been identified in the General Plan (i.e., exceeds the General Plan land use projections for 2035, the General Plan horizon year), and therefore, because the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was based on General Plan buildout projections, this WSA is inconsistent with General Plan and UWMP buildout projections. Until the Focus Area Plan development exceeding General Plan growth projections is included in the General Plan and the UWMP (i.e., the 2020 UWMP, currently being prepared), the Focus Area Plan is inconsistent with the General Plan/Urban Water Management Plan, and this inconsistency would represent a potentially significant project and cumulative impact.

Facts in support of Finding:

Approval of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and the required comprehensive planning study (specific plan) would include adoption of a General Plan amendment to incorporate the Focus Area Plan into the General Plan’s growth projections. In addition, the recently adopted 2020 UWMP did not include Focus Area Plan CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 development in its growth projections. Until the General Plan is amended to include Focus Area Plan development, its anticipated growth would exceed the current General Plan growth projections for the Plan Area and would not be consistent with the City’s prerequisite policy, prior to implementation of General Plan Phase III, of “undertak[ing] a comprehensive assessment of water…demand and facilities in order to ensure adequate capacity and funding to implement the necessary improvements to support development in the next phase” (General Plan Goal 5.1.1‐ P3). Therefore, to ensure consistency with General Plan and UWMP policies related to ensuring adequate water supplies for future, projected development, future project applications under the Focus Area Plan would need confirmation that the City-identified water supplies, as discussed previously, would be adequate to serve each project, in compliance with State law.

In addition, SB 221, adopted by the State in 2001, prohibits a city or county from approving a tentative subdivision map or parcel map, or a development agreement including land subdivision, of more than 500 units unless there is written verification that a sufficient and reliable water supply will be available prior to completion of the project. However, the Focus Area Plan would not entitle any specific development application, so while an adequate, specific water supply must still be verified for individual, future project applications, the City in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan WSA has identified that water supplies would be available and has estimated water demand in compliance with State law.

A project-specific, confirmation of water supply (e.g., written verification from the City that sufficient water supply is available for the project) would need to be completed in connection with the City’s approval of any tentative map or development agreement for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan (regardless of the 500-unit or equivalent threshold under SB 221 and SB 610), when the individual project details have been more definitively established. This subsequent confirmation/verification would include any pertinent updates to the citywide water supply situation and would also include progress on City plans for expanding its recycled water program plus City requirements for implementing additional “best management practices” (BMPs) related to recycled water use and/or water conservation.

Mitigation 18-1. Prior to City approval of any tentative map or development agreement for a proposed, individual project, the City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities Department shall review individual project details to confirm that water supplies are adequate for each individual project. Such confirmation shall include an updated description of the citywide water supply situation (including any plans for pumping additional groundwater) at that future time, reflecting any progress on City plans for expanding its recycled water program and any City requirements for implementing additional “best management practices” (BMPs) related to recycled water use and/or water conservation. These City actions would ensure a continual monitoring of citywide water supply throughout implementation of the Focus Area Plan and required comprehensive planning study (specific plan).Incorporation of CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 measures to reduce water demand and, if necessary, identification of alternative water sources to offset project supply shortages would reduce this impact to a lessthan-significant level.

3. Project impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable None.

4. Cumulative impacts
(a) Impact 18-5: Cumulative Wastewater Pump Station Capacity Impacts—Plan Area. As noted in the Woodard & Curran technical memo conducted for the Focus Area Plan (and discussed above), future wastewater generated by anticipated development in the Focus Area Plan Area is projected to exceed the current combined wastewater capacity of the Northside and Rabello pump stations (46.1 mgd) by 0.2 mgd (for a total of 46.3 mgd), which represents a cumulative wastewater impact. Therefore, the proposed Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan contribution to cumulative pump station capacity at the Northside and Rabello pump stations would be a significant cumulative impact.

Facts in Support of Finding: Necessary pump station upgrades could include additional wet well and pumping capacity and/or force main improvements. The timing of pump station improvements is not currently known. A detailed engineering study would be necessary to determine the extent and details of pump station capacity upgrades, and the City would ultimately be responsible for coordinating the capacity upgrades. Proposed developments (including those under the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and the future, required comprehensive planning study) would be responsible for funding their fair-share contribution to the upgrades. Also, although this EIR assumes that the proposed improvements could be accommodated on the existing pump station sites and/or within existing City rights-of-way, the upgrade project(s) would be subject to an environmental review and determination under CEQA.

Mitigation 18-5. The City shall require individual projects implemented under the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan (and the future, required comprehensive planning study – e.g., specific plan) to make a fair-share contribution to the wastewater pump station improvements necessary to accommodate cumulative development in Santa Clara. The fair-share contributions for future projects developed under the Focus Area Plan and required comprehensive planning study shall be determined based on a detailed wastewater pump station engineering study prepared by the City and each project’s percent of wastewater contribution to cumulative flow capacity needs above the current pump capacity. This mitigation would provide funding for wastewater pump station upgrades, which would reduce the Plan’s contribution to the cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level.

CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 The City would be required to plan and construct the improvements. Because the timing of these improvements cannot be guaranteed or estimated at this time (spring 2021), the combined wastewater capacity of the two pump stations could be exceeded by development proposals already under consideration. Therefore, the City shall continually monitor pump station capacity in order to coordinate the pump station improvements with development proposals. Until pump station capacity improvements adequate to accommodate the incremental increases in wastewater flows are completed, the City shall delay individual project building permits. In addition, as a standard condition of approval, each individual project would need to provide sanitary sewer information to the City, and no project would be approved by the City until the City determines that sufficient sewer capacity exists. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce Plan cumulative wastewater pump capacity impacts to a less-than-significant level.

None.

V. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. The concept of “feasibility” encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 (City of Del Mar); Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-1509 [court upholds CEQA findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on applicant’s project objectives]; see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 (CNPS) [“an alternative ‘may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record’”] (quoting Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act [Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2009] (Kostka), § 17.39, p. 825); In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166 (Bay-Delta) [“[i]n the CALFED program, feasibility is strongly linked to achievement of each of the primary project objectives”; “a lead agency may structure its EIR alternative analysis around a reasonable definition of underlying purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal”].) Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; see also CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001 [“an alternative that ‘is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint’ may be rejected as infeasible”] [quoting Kostka, supra, § 17.29, p. 824]; San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 17.)
To provide a basis for further understanding of the environmental effects of a proposed project and possible approaches to reducing its identified significant impacts, the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to also “…describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Identified Alternatives
Pursuant to these CEQA sections, chapter 21 identifies and evaluates the following five alternatives to the project:
(a) Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan
 Alternative FC-1A: No Project (Without Greystar Project) - Existing City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan. Under Alternative FC-1A (No Project—Without Greystar Project), there would be no change in the current land use and zoning controls in the Focus Plan Area, and the Greystar project would not proceed as proposed. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would not be adopted, and development would proceed under the current 2010-2035 General Plan, including development allowed on the Greystar site. New infrastructure would be maintained or constructed as required to accommodate new development on a project-by-project basis, and not as a planned, integrated set of improvements specifically for the Plan Area. The No Project alternative would continue to allow development under the existing High Intensity Office/R&D (HDRD) with some Regional Commercial (RC) General Plan designations.

The HDRD classification would accommodate medical facilities, data centers (and supporting on-site uses), and campus-like corporate/office developments with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.00; the RC classification would accommodate commercial developments such as regional shopping centers, local‐serving offices, medical facilities, and travel‐related services such as hotels, gas stations, restaurants, convention centers, and amusement parks, among other uses, with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.60. Because no residential uses would be developed, no new public parks or open spaces would be required. For this alternatives analysis it is assumed that the Greystar project would not be developed under its current proposal and reasonably foreseeable development on the Greystar site would include approximately 1,159,000 SF of commercial (see Alternative G-1, Greystar—No Project, for further discussion of what the General Plan would allow on the Greystar site). No goals or policies of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would be implemented, and no residential units would be developed. No additional office square footage as proposed by the Focus Area Plan (i.e., the 2,000,000 SF above GP allowed) would be developed.  Alternative FC-1B: No Project (With Greystar Project) - Existing City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan. Under Alternative FC-1B (No Project—With Greystar Project), there would be no change in the current land use and zoning controls in the Focus Plan Area, with the exception of those necessary to accommodate the Greystar project, which would proceed as proposed. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would not be adopted, and development would proceed under the current 2010-2035 General Plan (except for the Greystar proposal). New infrastructure would be maintained or constructed as required to accommodate new development on a project-by-project CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 basis, and not as a planned, integrated set of improvements specifically for the Plan Area. The No Project alternative would continue to allow development under the existing High Intensity Office/R&D (HDRD) with some Regional Commercial (RC) General Plan designations. The HDRD classification would accommodate medical facilities, data centers (and supporting on-site uses), and campus-like corporate/office developments with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.00; the RC classification would accommodate commercial developments such as regional shopping centers, local‐serving offices, medical facilities, and travel‐related services such as hotels, gas stations, restaurants, convention centers, and amusement parks, among other uses, with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.60. Because no residential uses would be developed (except for Greystar), no new public parks or open spaces would be required, but Greystar’s 2.0-acre park would still be proposed. For this alternatives analysis it is assumed that the Greystar project, which could theoretically be approved without approval of the Focus Area Plan, would be a reasonably foreseeable development, and therefore the Greystar project has been included in this “no project” alternative. No goals or policies of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would be implemented, and no residential units (other than the Greystar project) would be developed. No additional office square footage as proposed by the Focus Area Plan (i.e., the 2,000,000 SF above GP allowed) would be developed.
 Alternative FC-2: Mainly Commercial Office Development. Under Alternative FC-2, a Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would be adopted, but the maximum allowable office development would be approved (excluding parcels assumed not to be redeveloped, such as the hotel and other office buildings). Total office development would be 6,410,000 square feet, which would be an increase of 4,061,000 square feet over existing office development in the Plan Area and an increase of 1,041,000 square feet more than the proposed Focus Area Plan. No residential development would be included (besides the Greystar project), and because no other residential uses would be developed, no new public parks or open spaces would be required (again, besides the Greystar project). Alternative FC-2 would result in a net reduction of 2,525 fewer residential units and 5,732 fewer residents, but increases of 1,041,000 SF net new office development and 2,000 SF retail, and a 2.0-acre public park (both retail and the park would be on the Greystar site).
 Alternative FC-3: Mainly Residential Development. Under Alternative FC-3, a Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would be adopted, but most development would be multi-family residential. No community development would be included in the Focus Area Plan. Alternative FC-3 would result in a net reduction of 3,501,000 less square feet of office space, but a net gain of approximately 1,871 multi-family dwelling units, for a total of 5,471 dwelling units in the Plan Area. Overall impacts throughout the Plan Area would be expected to be higher, generally due to the single-use (residential) aspect of the alternative.
 Alternative FC-4: Alternative Project Location (Considered But Rejected). Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states, “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain CEQA Findings Regarding the Freedom Circle Focus Area/Greystar General Plan Amendment and EIR – March 2022 most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project[.]” Further, section 15126.6(c) explains, “Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental effects.” Because an alternative project location would be infeasible, would not necessarily avoid or lessen the significant impacts of the proposed project and might result in new significant impacts, and would not necessarily be able to achieve the basic project objectives, a project alternative in a different location was eliminated from further detailed consideration. No further evaluation of alternative project locations is required under CEQA.4 (b) Greystar Project
 Alternative G-1: No Project - Existing City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan.