City Council and Authorities Concurrent
November 15, 2022

City of Santa Clara
Purpose and Authority
Shared Mobility Device Permit
Administrative Regulations-February 2, 2022
Chapte r 10.35 of the Santa Clara City Code sets forth the requirements and procedures for permits issued for the operation of Shared Mobility Devices in the City of Santa Clara. These regulations implement the provisions of Chapter 10,35 and are issued by the City Manager or Designee under the authorization granted by Section 10.35.030 of the Code. These regulations are not intended to be exhaustive and may be amended at any time by the City Manager .

These regulations shall be referred to as the "Shared Mobility Device Permit Administrative Regulations ."
Definitions
The definitions set for in Chapter 10.35, and herein, shall govern the application and interpretation of these regulations.

Permit Requirements
The following requirements shall be incorpor ated into the Terms and Conditions of all Shared Mobility Device permits issued. By submitting an application , Operator agrees to comply with all requirements, unless a specific modification is noted in the application and approved by the City Manager in writing prior to issuance of permit.

Pennit Issuance

1. Permit application period will be from February 1 to March 31 each year.

2. Permit will be valid for a one-year period, from July 1 to June 30.

3. The City Manager to review permit applications and issue permits by June 1.

4. Based on the content of the Permit Application , the City Manager may select up to three operators to grant permits based on criteria described in "Permit Application Contents" section.

Shared Mobility Device Requirement s

1. All Shared Mobility Devices shall have, and clearly display, a unique, permanent identification number.

2. All Shared Mobility Devices shall be equipped with global positioning system (GPS) tracking or other similar means of continuously tracking locations of such Shared Mobility Devices.

3. All Shared Mobility Devices shall clearly display the operator 's business name, customer service phone number , and email address. Information shall also be provided in Braille on each Shared Mobility Device.

4. All Shared Mobility Devices shall include headlights , tail lights, reflectors, and comply with applicable California State Law, including the California Vehicle Code, and industry standards.

City of Santa Clara Shared Mobility Device Permit
Administrative Regulations-February 2, 2022

5. Operator shall provide a description of Mobility Device capabilities that will assist user in complying with state law, including the California Vehicle Code, regarding maximum scooter operating speeds and prohibited operation on sidewalks. Each Operator will be required to deploy "Geofencing '' or other technology capable of preventing the use of Shared Mobility Devices or to limit the maximum speed of Shared Mobility Devices in designated areas of the City as specified by the City Manager. The City reserves the right to require that modifications to required geofencing areas be made during the duration of the Operator's permit. Operator shall provide geofencing implementation plan and timetine within three business days of City Manager request.

Parkin g

1. Operators will ensure that users of the Shared Mobility Devices Including the Operator 's agents responsible for fleet management and rebalancing are informed of all applicable laws and regulations , and the following parking rules and limitations, and ensure that users comply with these limitations.

2. All Shared Mobility Devices shall be upright when parked.

3. All Shared Mobility Devices shall not be parked in such a manner as to block or obstruct access to public facilities including but not limited to the following:
• Pedestrian Clear Zone area of the sidewalk (The "Pedestrian Clear Zone" area of the sidewalk or pedestrian path of travel is defined as the area within the 48 inches of clear space on the sidewalk or pedestrian path for pedestrian travel). • Any fire hydrant , call box, or other emergency facility (minimum 36-inch clearance) ,
• Rail platforms, bus benches, bus stops, bus shelters , and passenger waitin_g areas, except at existing bicycle racks or designated parking areas for Shared Mobility Devices (minimum 36-inch clearance) .
• Utility poles or boxes (minimum 36-inch clearance) .
• All on- or off-street vehicle parking spaces (minimum 36-inch clearance to curb face) , including but not limited to:
i. Disabled parking zones
ii. Loading zones
iii. Time Limited Parking zones
• Street furniture that requires pedestrian access , for example benches, receptacles, etc. (minimum 36-inch clearance).
• Areas within 15 feet of Curb ramps .
• Areas within 1 O feet of entryways, exits, and driveways . • Vehicu lar traffic lanes including bicycle lanes and associated buffers.

4. When a sidewalk includes a "furniture zone", Shared Mobility Devices shall be parked within the furniture zone. When a sidewalk lacks a "furniture zone", Shared Mobility Devices must not be parked in a way to deny meaningful access to City sidewalks and paths of travel for persons with disabilities . Towards this end, each Operator must give notice and training to the User and ensure that Shared Mobility Devices are parked so that (a) 48-inch clear spaces are provided on pedestrian rights-of-way , and (b) curb

City of Santa Clara Shared Mobility Device Permit
Administrative Regulations-February 2, 2022
ramps, entryways, exits, and other accessible paths of travel are never blocked or obstructed. "Furniture zone" shall refer to that section of the sidewalk between the curb and the pedestrian through zone in which street furniture and public amenities, such as lighting, benches, newspaper kiosks, utility poles, tree wells and bicycle racks are provided.

5. Any Shared Mobility Device that is parked incorrectly shall be reparked in a correct manner or shall be removed within two hours after Operator's customer service team receives notice of the report. The operator will be notified about parking violations directly through customer service communication via contact information provided on each Shared Mobility Device. In addition, City staff will forward notifications to operators during staffing hours that are received from the public, including but not limited to, through the City's My Santa Clara mobile application.

6. Operator must provide a feature within its mobile application that requires a user of a Shared Mobility Device to upload a photograph, or utilize other technology, to ensure the Shared Mobility Device is not obstructing the pedestrian pathway at the end of each ride.

7. Operator shall not place or attach any personal property, fixtures or structures to City property without the prior written consent of City including applicable permits.

8. Operator shall coordinate with, and obtain written approval from, the City Manager for all marked designated parking areas throughout the City.

9. Operator shall not deploy Shared Mobility Devices or install parking on private property without the consent of the property owner.

10. Designated on-street parking areas may be established at selected locations after review and approval by the City Manager.

11. Operator shall obtain an encroachment permit for any installation of infrastructure, signing or striping in the public right-of-way.

12. Operator shall be responsible for installation and removal of all approved infrastructure, signing and striping.

13. The City Manager reserves the right to designate "priority parking areas" in coordination with property owners. The purpose of these priority parking areas is to provide parking at designated locations within or adjacent to commercial centers and other destinations. • Operators shall be responsible for the cost of installation and maintenance of any necessary infrastructure, including construction of the new designated shared parking areas. These costs shall be shared equally among the Operators. • For any priority parking area, all operators that are issued a Shared Mobility Device permit shall have a plan for deployment of Shared Mobility Devices at the designated shared parking areas. The designated shared parking areas may be located at any of the following locations:

1. Related Project (future)

2. AMC Mercado

3. Santa Clara Square

4. Rivermark

5. Santa Clara Convention Center

6. Lawrence Station Area

7. Great America Theme Park

City of Santa Clara Shared Mobility Device Permit
Administrative Regulations-February 2, 2022

8. Levi's Stadium

9. Central Park Library

10. City Hall

11. Great America Train Station

12. Santa Clara Station (Caltrain)

13. Santa Clara University

14. Mission College
Fleet Management and Balancing

1. Each Operator must provide a minimum of 60 shared mobility devices , whichever is applicable, to ensure service availability. The minimum number of Shared Mobility Devices may be amended by the City Manager .

2. The total size of the citywide fleet shall not exceed 3,000 Shared Mobility Devices with up to 1,000 bicycles (including electric bicycles) and 2,000 motorized scooters .

Following the review of shared mobility permit applications , the number of Shared Mobility Devices will be allocated equally among the Operators based on the number of Operators that are permitted to operate Shared Mobility Devices and the number of Shared Mobility Devices desired for deployment by each permitted Operator . The City Manager has the discretion to periodically adjust the City-wide maximum number of Shared Mobility Devices.

3. Approxima tely 5% of the total number of allocated Shared Mobility Devices must be deployed in an area designated as an Equity Priority Community (formerly referred to as Community of Concern) as defined by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission . The number of Shared Mobility Devices allocated within an Equity Priority Commun ity will be split equally among the Operators ,

4. All Shared Mobility Devices parked in a low-density residential zone shall be moved by the Operator out of the residential zone within 72 hours.

5. Any improperly parked Shared Mobility Devices that are not removed within 2 hours of Operator notification may be impounded and taken to a City facility for storage at the Operator's expense . Operator shall be required to pay the impounding fee. 6 . Operator shall be responsible for retrieving the impounded Shared Mobility Devices from the city facility. Failure to retrieve Shared Mobility Devices from the city facility within two work ing days of notification of impoundment shall constitute abandonment of the property and the City may, after written notice is provided, dispose of the property in accordance with the surplus property provisions of the City Code. Furthermore , failure to retrieve the Shared Mobility Device(s) may lead to permit suspension or revocation .

7. Shared Mobility Devices must be re-parked/re-distributed daily to ensure compliance with the regulations and the Operator 's plan of operation.

8. Operators shall ensure that users do not operate Shared Mobility Devices in City parks.

Operators shall use geofencing or equiva lent technology to prevent Shared Mobility Devices from being operated in City parks excludi ng the San Tomas Aquino/Saratoga Creek Trail. A complete list of City parks is available on the City's website at:

City of Santa Clara Shared Mobility Device Permit
Administrat ive Regulations -February 2, 2022
http://missioncity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Map Tour/index. html?ap pid=4c84d4f8913541 ce bd8a8ef3fc31 a326&amp.

Customer Service

1. Operator shall maintain a 24-hour customer service telephone number with live operators for customers and members of the public to report safety concerns , complaints , or to ask questions . The customer service number shall be clearly displayed on all Shared Mobility Devices in service.

2. Operator shall provide options for customer service inquiries to be submitted via email and text message.

3. Operators shall provide email, text message or phone confirmation of any issues reported to originato r if requested and follow up with the originator with status updates as appropriate .

4. Any Shared Mobility Device that is parked improperly (as described in "Parking" section above) shall be re-parked in a correct manner or shall be removed within two hours after notice has been provided to Operator .

5. Operator shall maintain a multilingual (English, Spanish and Chinese) website, call center and mobile app customer interface that are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week .

6. Mobile apps and other customer service interface technology must be fully accessible to persons with disabilities and must comply with Section 508 of the United States Workforce Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Maintenance

1. Operator must ensure that all Shared Mobility Devices are in good working order, are clean, free of graffiti, and are safe to operate.

2. Any Shared Mobility Device that is reported by the City or any third party to be damaged , deficient , or otherwise unsafe to operate shall be immediately assessed and/or remotely disabled, as appropriate .

3. Any Shared Mobility Device that is reported to be damaged, deficient , or otherwise unsafe to operate shall be checked in person and removed within two hours after notice has been provided to Operator.

4. Operator must maintain a record of all maintenance performed for each Shared Mobility Device and make such record available to the City upon request.

Education and Outreach

1. Operator agrees to provide notice to users regarding federal , state and local laws applicable to riding, operating and parking a Shared Mobility Devices in the City, and to require users to acknowledge and comply with all of these applicable laws, including laws relating to accessibility , helmets, age, parking, driver's license requirements ,

City of Santa Clara Shared Mobility Device Permit
Administrative Regulations-February 2, 2022
sidewalk riding, speed limits, use of bike lanes and streets where Shared Mobility Devices can operate with and without bike lanes, and other rules of the road.

2. Operator shall provide multiple public outreach/safety education events throughout the area of operation within the City including a kickoff event prior to deployment of the Shared Mobility Devices. City permit approval and costs associated with public outreach/safety education events shall be the responsibi lity of the operator .

3. Operator agrees to notify users by means of signage or visible language on Shared Mobility Devices as well as through its website and mobile applications that:
a) All State of California laws shall be obeyed while riding a Shared Mobility Device, including laws related to age, driver's license requirements, and speed. b) Shared Mobility Devices may not be used on sidewalks, and generally shall be operated as close as practicable to the right curb of any street except as otherwise specified in state law.
c) At no time may a parked Shared Mobility Device obstruct a sidewalk, other pedestrian path of travel, or c1n accessibility feature designed for persons with disabilities.

Data Sharing

1. Operator agrees to provide the City with access to an Application Programming Interface (API) offering data about its fleet and all trip activity within the City, meeting the current requirements of the Mobility Data Specification (MOS) format developed by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. This specification is detailed at:
https ://github .com/Ci tyOflosA ngeles/mobi lity-da ta-specifica tion

2. Operator agrees to provide and maintain a public dashboard portal providing comprehensive anonymized data about the origins, destinations, distances, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and times of all trip activity related to Shared Mobility Devices deployed in the City, as well as aggregate data and heat maps categorized by vehicle type and allowing analysis by day, week , or month, at no cost to the cfty.

3. Operator agrees to make real-time open data on system status and usage available in Genera l Bike Share Feed Specification (GBFS) format.

4. In addition to the data required by the GBFS and MOS specifications, Operator shall provide a report of the following data on a monthly basis (or more frequently , if requested by the City Manager):
a) Timestamped records of maintenance activities including device ID and maintenance performed.
b) Timestamped records of customer service inquiry including nature of issue, time reported, and time resolved.
c) Collision data received from users.
d) Data related to age of members , low-income program membership , and the number of members divided by residents, surrounding area residents, and visitors from out of the area.
e) Operators shall survey users every 6 months subsequently to provide information to the City for future planning , including asking questions about what mode of

City of Santa Clara Shared Mobility Device Permit
Administrative Regulations -February 2, 2022.
transportation was replaced for the use of a Shared Mobility Device. Survey questions shall be consistent among Operators and determined in coordination with the City Manager.

5. Operator agrees to not sell or share confidential user data or personally identifiable information .

Membership and Enrollment

1. Operator agrees to comply with all relevant state and local regulations regarding age limits for use of Shared Mobility Devices .

2. Operator agrees to conduct outreach and to implement technology-based measures to verify ages of members during enrollment via mobile app and/or website.

3. Operator shall establish a low-income discount program that offers discounted memberships to individuals . Membership in public assistance programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Prog ram (SNAP) , CalFresh, PG&E California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE), or Silicon Valley Power Rate Assistance Program (SVP RAP) may be used for discount eligibility , or some other metric consistent with this requirement and approved by the City Manager.

Levi's Stadium and Specia l Events

1. The maximum number of Shared Mobility Devices permitted in the City at any one time may not apply on Levi's Stadium and other large special event days at the Great America Theme Park. The City Manager may adopt a maximum cap for event days after review of Shared Mobility Device data.

2. The City Manager may implement operating procedures or prohibit use of devices specific to Levi's Stadium and Special Events .

3. Special event days will be identified on the City's Shared Mobility webpage. Operator shall comply with the number of permitted units by midnight of the second day following the event.

4. Operators shall comply with current and future requirements of the Levi 's Stadium Transportation Management and Operations Plan (TMOP) .

Performance Bond

1. Operator shall maintain in effect at all times a valid performance bond in the amount of $20,000 during the term of the annual permit start ing with permit issuance .

2. The performance bond may be used for any public property repair and maintenance costs that may be incurred as a result of operator 's Shared Mobility Devices , as well as removal and storage of Shared Mobility Devices that are not addressed within specified timeframes . The performance bond may be used to cover staff time associated with performing or facilitating these activities .

3. The performance bond may be used for any unpaid fines for violat ions issued to the Operator .

City of Santa Clara Shared Mobility Device Permit
Administrative Regulations -February 2, 2022

4. The performance bond may be used for any future costs incurred by the City related to the Shared Mobility permits.

Enforcemen t
Enforcement is designed to promote and achieve compliance with local law and the program guidelines. The Operators shall be required to pay fines per the schedule below related to improperly parked devices and failure to comply with the regulations .

1. Any improperly parked Shared Mobility Devices that are not removed or remedied within two (2) hours of providing notice to Operator may be impounded and taken to a City facility for storage at the Operator's expense. The Operator shall be required to pay the impounding fee.

2. In addition to the impounding fee, the Operator shall be cited for failure to remove the Shared Mobility Devices within two (2) hours of providing notice. The citation amount is listed in City Code 10.35.050 .

3. Operator shall be responsible for retrieving the impounded devices from the City facility .

Failure to retrieve Shared Mobility Devices from the City facility within two (2) working days of notification of impoundment may lead to disposal of the equipment and perm it suspension or revocation.

Denial, Suspension, or Revocation of Operating Permit

1. An Operator 's permit may be denied , suspended or revoked at the discretion of the City Manager based on any of the following grounds :
a) Consistent failure to address parking violations .
b) Failure to retrieve Shared Mobility Devices from the city fac ility within two (2) working days of notification of impoundment.
c) Transfer of an Operator permit to another party, including company mergers, without written approval by the City Manager.
d) The operator sells or shares confidential user data. e) An applicant or Operator including its employees, managers, officers , principals , directors , owners , contractors, representatives, or agents has:
• One or more false or misleading statements or material omissions on the permit application , during the application process .
• Failed to provide information requested or required by the City . • Operated or has proposed to operate in a manner that endangers public health or safety .
• Failed to comply with any requirement imposed by the prov isions of these regulations or the City Code, includ ing any rule , regulation , conditions or standard adopted pursuant to the Ordinance , or any term or condition imposed on the permit for the operation of Shared Mobility Devices, or any provision of California law .
• Conviction of the Operator, to include any of its officer , owners or principals , of a criminal offense that is substantially related to the qualifications , funct ions

City of Santa Clara Shared Mobility Device Permit
Adm inistrative Regulations-February 2, 2022
or duties of the shared business or profession , including, but not limited to, any criminal conviction involving a violent or serious felony , fraud , deceit, or embezzlement.

2. If an Operator 's permit Is suspended or revoked during the annual permit period, the Operator shall be required to remove all devices deployed in the City at the Operator•s cost. If Operator does not remove the devices within five (5) working days of notification of permit suspension or revocation, the City shall have the authority to remove the Shared Mobility Devices at Operator 's cost and use the Performa nce Bond to cover the cost of removal of the Operator's devices.

3. If an Operator 's permit is suspended , the minimum permit suspension period will be two (2) weeks. The Operator shall be required to provide a plan for corrective actions to demonstrate ability to comply with the regulations for resumpt ion of the Operating permit. Any time spent by City staff on meeting with Operators to facilitate permit resumption will be reimbursed by the Operator on a time and materials basis.

Permit Costs

1. Applicat ion Fee: The applicant must pay the "Shared Mobility Device Permit, Application Fee" as identified in the latest City of Santa Clara Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule . The fee is non-refundable. Any application submitted without this fee shall be considered incomplete. The City will not accept or review any application that is submitted without payment of this fee.

2. Permit Fee: If the City approves the permit application , the applicant must pay a "Shared Mobility Device Permit, Annual Fee., as identified in the latest City of Santa Clara Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule . The City will not issue the permit until this fee is paid.

3. Device Fee: The applicant must pay a "Shared Mobility Device Permit, Device Fee" as identified in the latest City of Santa Clara Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule . The first 60 Shared Mobility Devices deployed per Operator will not be subject to this per­ device fee. The City will not issue the permit until this fee is paid. If capacity exists , the applicant may apply to increase the number of allocated devices deployed in the City after December 1 of the permit operating period. The applicant must then pay a "Shared Mobility Device Permit , Additional Device Fee" as identified in the latest City of Santa Clara Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule.
4, lmpoundrnent Fee: The applicant must pay a "Shared Mobility Device Permit , lmpoundment Fee" as identified in the latest City of Santa Clara Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule to release a device from impoundment.

5. Operator shall also obtain a business license to operate in the City of Santa Clara.

6. All fees are non-refundable .

Permjt Application Contents

1. A description of the proposed plan of operation , including, at a minimum , the applicant's plan to comply with the Administrative Regulations including Shared Mobility Devioe

City of Santa Clara Shared Mobility Device Permit
Administrative Regulations-February 2, 2022
requirements, parking compliance, planned parking locations, fleet management and balancing, customer service, maintenance, data sharing, Levi's Stadium and other special events.

2. A detailed plan for the number and description of outreach and safety education events.

Plan shall specify if events will be virtual or in-person. In-person events shall include proposed locations and if events will be stand-alone events or part of other community events/festivals. Operator shall include plan to advertise events.

3. Description of the number and mix of Shared Mobility Device that will be deployed:
motorized scooters, bicycles, electric bicycles.

4. Shared Mobility Device capabilities including geofencing and other technology to comply with parking, speeding, and path of travel regulations.

5. A map of the proposed deployment area and parking locations.

6. The applicant's experience and demonstrated ability to comply with regulations in other jurisdictions.

7. The applicant's regulatory compliance program.

8. The applicant's history of and ability to comply with state and local law.

9. Any other requirements set forth by the Administrative Regulations.

Attachment 1: Indemnification and Insurance

City of Santa Clara
Indemnification and Insurance
Indemnification
Shared Mobility Device Permit
Administrative Regulations-February 2, 2022
Operator shall indemni fy, defend, reimburse and hold harmless City, rts officers, agents, employees and contractors; the parties who have furnished Priority Parking Areas and their affiliates, as listed in the Annual Shared Mobility Device Permit; and each of them (collectively, "lndemn itees"), from and against any and all demands, claims, legal or administrative proceedings, losses, costs, penalties, fines, liens, judgments , damages and liabilities of any kind (''Claims"}, arising or alleged to arise, in any manner out of (a) any injury to or death of any person or damage to or destruction of any property , or any part thereof , whether it be the person or property of Operator, its officers, directors, members, employees, agents, consultants, contractors or subcontractors (collectively, "Agents") , its invitees , guests or business visitors (collectively, "Invitees "}, or third persons , relating to any use or activity under this Permit, (b) the use of Operator's equipment/products within the City by any person or entity, (c) any activities conducted in the City by Operator , (d) any failure by Operator to faithfully observe or perform any of the terms or conditions of this Permit, or (e) any activities conducted in the City by Operator, rts Agents or Invitees, except for Claims adjudicated to result directly from the sole and active negligence or willful misconduct of lnde mnitees or lndemnitees' authorized representatives. In addition to Operator's obligation to indemnify lndemnitees , Operator specifically acknowledges and agrees that it has an immediate and fndependent obligation to defend lndemn itees from any claim that falls within this indemnity provision even if such allegation is or may be groundless , fraudulent or false , which obligation arises at the time such claim is tendered to Operator by lndemnitees and continues at all times therea fter. The foregoing indemnity shall include , without limitation, reasonable attorneys' , experts' and consu ltants ' fees and costs, investigation and remediation costs and all other reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the lndemnitees. Permittee's obligations under this Section shall survive the expiration or other termina tion of this Permit.

Insura nce
Without limiting the Operator's indemnification of lndemnitees , and at all times while the Permit remains in effect, the Operator shall provide and mainta in in full force and effect, at its sole cost and expense , the following insurance policies with at least the indicated coverages , provisions and endorsements:

A. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

1. Commercial Genera l Liability Insurance policy which provides coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office ("ISO") form CG 00 01 . Policy limits are subject to review , b(.lt shall in no event be less than , the following :
$2,000 ,000 Each occurrence
$5,000,000 General Aggregate

2. Exact structure and layering of the coverage shall be left to the discretion of Operator; however, any excess or umbrella policies used to meet the required limits shall be at least as broad as the underlying coverage and shall otherwise follow form.

City of Santa Clara Shared Mobility Device Permit
Administrative Regulations-February 2, 2022

3. The following provisions shall apply to the Commercial Liability policy as well as any umbrella policy maintained by the Operator to comply with the insurance requirements of this Permit:
a. Coverage shall be on a "pay on behalf" basis with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits;
b. There shall be no cross-liability exclusion which precludes coverage for claims or suits by one insured against another; and
c. Coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or a suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

B. BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE
Business automobile liability insurance policy which provides coverage at least as broad as ISO form CA 00 01 with a minimum limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each accident. Liability coverage shall apply to all owned, non-owned and hired autos.

C. WORKERS' COMPENSATION

1. Workers' Compensation Insurance Policy as required by statute and employer's liability with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) policy limit Bodily Injury by disease, one million dollars ($1,000,000) each accident/Bodily Injury and one million dollars ($1,000,000) each employee Bodily Injury by disease.

2. The indemnification and hold harmless obligations of Operator included in this Permit shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damage, compensation or benefit payable by or for Operator under any Workers' Compensation Act(s), Disability Benefits Act(s) or other employee benefits act(s).

3. This policy must include a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents.

D. UMBRELLA LIABILITY
$5,000,000 per occurrence following form, with the Commercial General Liability, Commercial Automobile Liability, and Worker's Compensation all listed on the policy as scheduled underliers.

E. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS
All of the following clauses and/or endorsements, or similar provisions, must be part of each commercial general liability policy, and each umbrella or excess policy.

City of Santa Clara Shared Mobility Device Permit
Administrative Regulations-February 2, 2022

1. Additional Insureds. City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents; the parties who have furnished Priority Parking Zones and their affiliates, as listed in the Annual Shared Mobility Permit, are hereby added as additional insureds in respect to liability arising out of or related to this Permit, using ISO Endorsement CG 20 10 11 85 or the combination of CG 20 10 03 97 and CG 20 37 10 01, or its equivalent.

2. Primary and non-contributing. Each insurance policy provided by Operator shall contain language or be endorsed to contain wording making it primary insurance as respects to, and not requiring contribution from, any other insurance which the lndemnitees may possess, including any self-insurance or self-insured retention they may have. Any other insurance lndemnitees may possess shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not be called upon to contribute with Operator's insurance.

3. Cancellation.
a. Each insurance policy shall contain language or be endorsed to reflect that no cancellation or modification of the coverage provided due to non­ payment of premiums shall be effective until written notice has been given to City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of such modification or cancellation. In the event of non-renewal, written notice shall be given at least ten ( 10) days prior to the effective date of non­ renewal.
b. Each insurance policy shall contain language or be endorsed to reflect that no cancellation or modification of the coverage provided for any cause save and except non-payment of premiums shall be effective until written notice has been given to City at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such modification or cancellation. In the event of non­ renewal, written notice shall be given at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of non-renewal.

4. Other Endorsements. Other endorsements may be required for policies other than the commercial general liability policy if specified in the description of required insurance set forth herein.

F. QUALIFYING INSURERS
All of the insurance companies providing insurance for Operator shall have, and provide written proof of, an A. M. Best rating of at least A minus 6 (A- VI) or shall be an insurance company of equal financial stability that is approved by the City or its insurance compliance representatives.

City of Santa Clara Shared Mobility Device Permit
Administrative Regulations-February 2, 2022
G. ADDITIONAL INSURANCE RELATED PROVISIONS

1. Requirements of specific insurance coverage features described in this Permit shall not be construed to be a limitation of liability on the part of Operator, nor to relieve any of them of any liability or responsibility under this Permit, as a matter of law or otherwise. All insurance coverage provided pursuant to this Permit in any way relating to lndemnitees is intended to apply to the full extent of the policies involved.

2. Operator shall maintain all required insurance policies in full force and effect during the entire period of this Permit..

3. City reserves the right, at any time during the term of this Permit to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Operator ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change.

4. No liability insurance coverage provided by Operator to comply with the terms of this Permit shall prohibit Operator, or Operator's employees, or agents, from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Operator waives its right of subrogation against lndemnitees. Operator hereby waives any right of recovery against the lndemnitees.

5. Operator agrees to ensure that its contractors provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Operator, except as with respect to limits, and Operator agrees to monitor and review the same. Operator agrees that upon request by City, all agreements with, and insurance compliance documents provided by, such contractors will be submitted to City for review.

6. All coverage types and limits required under this Permit are subject to approval, modification and additional requirements by the City, as the need arises.

Operator shall not make any reductions in scope of coverage which may affect lndemnitees' protection without City's prior written consent.

7. Operator acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of City to inform Operator of non-compliance with any of the insurance requirements set forth in this Permit in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any of the City's rights under this Permit or any other regard.

8. The City acknowledges that some insurance requirements contained in this Permit may be fulfilled by self-insurance on the part of the Operator. The Operator's insurance obligations under this Permit may be satisfied in whole or in part by adequately funded self-insurance retention, but only after approval from the City's Risk Manager upon satisfactory evidence of financial capacity.

City of Santa Clara Shared Mobility Device Permit
Administrative Regulations-February 2, 2022

9. The City reserves the right to suspend or revoke this Permit in the event of material noncompliance with the insurance requirements set forth in this Permit.

H. EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE
Prior to this Permit taking effec( Operator, and each and every contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide and maintain not less than the minimum insurance coverage with the endorsements and deductibles indicated in this Permit. Such insurance coverage shall be maintained with insurers, and under forms of policies, satisfactory to City and as described in this Permit. Operator shall file with the City all certificates and endorsements for the required insurance policies for City's approval as to the adequacy of the insurance protection.

I. EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE
Operator or its insurance broker shall provide the required proof of insurance compliance, consisting of ISO endorsement forms or their equivalent and the ACORD form 25-S certificate of insurance (or its equivalent), to City, or its representative as set forth below, prior to this Permit taking effect. Upon City's request, Operator shall submit to City copies of the actual insurance policies or renewals or replacements. Unless otherwise required by the terms of this Permit, all certificates, endorsements, coverage verifications and other items required to be delivered to City pursuant to this Permit shall be mailed to:

EBIX Inc.

City of Santa Clara Public Works
P.O. Box 100085 - S2
Duluth, GA 30096
Telephone number: 951-766-2280
Fax number: 770-325-0409
or
Email address: [email protected]
1 Ebix Way
John's Creek, GA 30097
Attachment 2
Shared Mobility Device Types
Bird Devices
Veo Devices

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1404 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on a Resolution Extending AB 361 Implementation to Allow City Legislative Bodies to Hold Public Meetings Solely by Teleconference or Otherwise Electronically During the Governor’s Proclaimed COVID State of Emergency

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND
On March 17, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 which suspended the Brown Act teleconferencing requirements so that legislative bodies could hold public meetings solely by teleconference, or otherwise electronically, without listing the teleconference locations and without any physical location, as long legislative bodies followed a set of requirements for noticing the meeting agenda and public participation, among other things. Subsequently on June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which sunset the Brown Act provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 on September 30, 2021.

On September 16, Governor Newsom signed AB 361 into law which allows local agencies to use teleconferencing without complying with specific Brown Act restrictions in certain state emergencies until January 1, 2024, at which point they are to be repealed, and the standard Brown Act teleconference requirements become effective again. The bill was an urgency measure, and it went into effect immediately.

On October 19, 2021, November 16, 2021, December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, February 8, 2022, March 8, 2022, April 5, 2022, May 10, 2022, June 7, 2022, July 5, 2022, July 12, 2022, August 16, 2022, September 13, 2022, October 4, 2022, and November 1, 2022 the City Council approved Resolution Nos. 21-9013, 21-9023, 21-9038, 22-9042, 22-9051, 22-9058, 22-9067, 22-9087, 22- 9096, 22-9115, 22-9124, 22-9135, 22-9142, 22-9145, and 22-9150 respectively, to allow City Legislative bodies to hold public meetings solely by teleconference or otherwise electronically pursuant to AB 361.

DISCUSSION
AB 361 amended Government Code Section 54943 to allow a local agency to use teleconferencing for public meetings without requiring the teleconference location to be accessible to the public or a quorum of the members of the legislative body of the agency to participate from locations within the boundaries of the agency’s jurisdiction during a Governor-proclaimed state of emergency in certain circumstances.

In order for a local agency to utilize AB 361’s exemption to the Brown Act, there must be certain City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
22-1404 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
emergency conditions present. These include:
· There being a state-proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
· The Council is meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; or
· The Council is meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, that in-person meetings would pose health and safety risks to attendees.

In order for the City’s legislative bodies to continue meeting remotely with the exemptions to the Brown Act provided for under AB 361, the Council is required to take certain actions, most of which the City is already implementing:
· The City must continue providing notice of meetings and continue to post agendas as the Brown Act requires to the agency’s website,
· The City must continue allowing for public access to the meeting, while allowing for a public comment period to directly address the legislative body pursuant to Brown Act’s other teleconferencing provisions,
· The City must continue giving notice for how the public can access the meeting and provide public comment, including a call-in or internet-based service option (no physical location required),
· The City must continue providing the public with the opportunity to comment in real time (with the option of additionally allowing comments to be submitted in advance, if the agency desires),
· The City must stop the meeting until public access is restored in the event of a service disruption, and
· No later than 30 days after the first teleconferencing meeting and every 30 days thereafter, the Council will have to reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency to determine if remote meeting procedures need to remain in place.

The legislative body must make certain findings by majority vote every 30 days to continue using the AB 361 Brown Act teleconferencing requirements. Because the City Council approved Resolution No. 22-9150 will expire on December 1, 2022. The City Council must adopt a new resolution in order to allows for its other legislative bodies to continue meeting remotely through December 15, 2022.

Failure to approve this resolution would result in City Council, boards, and commissions meetings being unable to meet fully virtual without exposing the locations of each member’s location on the posted agendas.

Beginning on March 11, 2020 and continuing every 60 days thereafter, the City Council has continued its proclamation of local emergency based on substantial evidence that the public interest and necessity require the continuance of the proclamation of local emergency related to COVID-19.

On September 21, 2021, the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer recommended that public bodies continue to meet remotely to the extent possible due to the continued threat of COVID-19 to the community, the unique characteristics of public governmental meetings, and the continued increased safety protection that social distancing provides as one means by which to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. On November 2, 2021, emergency use of the Pfizer COVID vaccine was authorized for children ages 5-11. On that same day, Santa Clara county moved back into the City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
22-1404 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
substantial (orange) COVID-19 transmission tier. On November 22, 2021, Santa Clara county moved to the moderate (yellow) COVID-19 transmission tier. On November 25, 2021, scientists identified the latest COVID-19 variant, Omicron, which has prompted concern among scientists and public health officials because of an unusually high number of mutations that have the potential to make the virus more transmissible and less susceptible to existing vaccines. On December 13, 2021, the California Department of Public Health reinstituted its statewide mask mandate, requiring all individuals, regardless of their vaccination status, to wear face coverings in indoor public settings from December 15, 2021 through January 15, 2022 due to a 47% increase in the statewide seven- day average case rate and 14% increase in hospitalizations since Thanksgiving. In light of the rapid surge in cases due to the Omicron variant, on December 28, 2021, the County of Santa Clara Health Officer issued a health order requiring up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination for workers in certain higher- risk settings. The new order builds on recent changes in the State Health Officer’s vaccination requirements by mandating up-to-date vaccination by workers in certain healthcare and long-term care settings. As of February 3, 2021, new daily Covid-19 cases are on the decline since the surge from the Omicron variant. However, California Covid-19 deaths continue to rise and hospitalizations remain elevated. On February 27, 2022, the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer rescinded the health order requiring the use of face covering indoors effective March 2, 2022. However, the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer continues to recommend that all persons continue to wear face coverings when indoors. The California Department of Public Health continues to require masking in higher-risk settings such as public transit, healthcare facilities, shelters, jails, and long-term care facilities. As of March 26, 2022, the Omicron subvariant BA.2 is now the dominant variant in the US accounting for nearly 55% of new COVID-19 cases in the U.S. On March 29, 2022, the FDA authorized a second booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccines for people 50 years of age and older and some immunocompromised people. As of April 27, COVID-19 levels in wastewater concentrations in the greater Bay Area from Sacramento to Yolo, San Francisco and Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, were similar to what they were during the Delta surge in the summer of 2021, indicating another wave of the pandemic, although not resulting in an increase in hospitalizations. On April 28, Bay Area Rapid Transit reinstated its mask mandate effective immediately through July 18, which impacts the system’s 50 stations in five Bay Area counties. On May 10, 2022, Santa Clara County’s Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody warned that COVID case counts and hospitalizations are on the increase, with a weekly average of 552 cases and 80 to 100 people currently hospitalized, and urged everyone to consider wearing masks in high-risk settings, keep a stockpile of tests, and exercise caution when socializing indoors. On May 13, 2022, Bay Area health officers from the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma and the City of Berkeley urged residents to wear face masks in indoor public settings as COVID-19 infections driven by highly contagious virus variants multiply throughout the region. As of May 31, 2022, new coronavirus cases in California increased 13.2% from the prior week and California ranked 10th among the states where coronavirus was spreading the fastest on a per person basis. As of June 13, 2022, new COVID-19 cases in California rose 32.3% from the prior week with 128,893 new cases, with California ranking fourth among the states where COVID-19 was spreading the fastest on a per-person basis, and Santa Clara County with the highest worst weekly outbreaks on a per-person basis. On June 15, 2022, an advisory panel to the FDA voted unanimously to recommend the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for children ages five and younger. On June 18, 2022, the CDC and federal regulators authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children ages six months through four years old and the Moderna vaccine for children ages six months through five years old starting June 21, 2022. As of July 5, 2022, the new omicron subvariant known as BA.5 now comprises a majority of U.S. COVID- 19 cases, according to data released from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
22-1404 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
The BA.5, along with a related subvariant known as BA.4, has mutations that have shown an increased ability to evade the protection from vaccines and previous infection. As July 6, 20222, all nine local counties are back in the CDC's high-risk category for COVID-19 community levels, and the highly-transmissible BA.5 subvariant of the virus that causes COVID-19 is quickly taking over. On July 28, 2022, Bay Area Rapid Transit reinstated its mask mandate effective immediately through October 1, 2022, which impacts the system’s 50 stations in five Bay Area counties. On August 4, 2022, the CDC continued to classify Santa Clara County in the high community level for coronavirus, in its weekly update. On August 11, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention streamlined its guidance for COVID exposure to recommending that everyone, regardless of vaccination or past infection, wear a high-quality mask for 10 days and get tested on day five after exposure to the virus. As of August 24, 2022, as California schools reopen for the fall semester with loosened COVID-19 protocols and low student vaccination rates among younger children, health experts are watching to see how schools do in the coming weeks as some experts expect another rise in cases when winter arrives. As of September 20, 2022, a new more transmissible COVID strain, BF.7, short for BA.5.2.1.7, is outpacing nearly all other variants of interest that scientists are tracking in the U.S. this fall. As of September 22, 2022, although daily death rates from COVID-19 have ticked down slightly from August, updated federal data shows that the U.S. is still losing on average 350 Americans to COVID-19 every day, and 225,000 people in the U.S. have been lost to the virus since the start of 2022. On October 4, 2022, the County Health Officer provided that while COVID-19 cases in Santa Clara County have trended down over the summer, that the level of virus circulating locally is likely higher than the county's case count. As of October 17, 2022, in Santa Clara County, only 12% of eligible people have received the updated booster since it was first offered in early September to fight the highly transmissible omicron variants leading to public health official fears of a winter surge with lagging booster vaccination rates. As of November 8, 2022, the U.S. daily average has increased 6% from two weeks ago, as 33 states and Washington D.C., have seen cases rise over the same time. These associated emergency conditions are on-going and there is a need to continue teleconferencing for public meetings without posting the teleconferencing locations on the agenda and without requiring the teleconference locations to be accessible to the public during the current Governor-proclaimed COVID-19 state of emergency. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the City’s legislative bodies to meet safely in person, and City officials continue to impose or recommend public health safety measures.

It is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution to make requisite findings to allow the City’s legislative bodies to hold public meetings solely by teleconference or otherwise electronically so long as the state of emergency and social distancing measures continue. The Council will have to take action on a monthly basis to reassess and reaffirm such findings to continue meeting remotely.

The proposed Resolution is attached.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact other than administrative time and expense.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
22-1404 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, and City Clerk’s Office.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution finding the existence of the need to extend AB 361 implementation to allow the City’s legislative bodies to hold public meetings solely by teleconference or otherwise electronically pursuant to AB 361.

Reviewed by: Nadine Nader, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 1 of 5 Rev: 11/22/17

RESOLUTION NO. _

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF THE NEED TO EXTEND AB 361

IMPLEMENTATION TO ALLOW CITY LEGISLATIVE BODIES TO

HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS SOLELY BY TELECONFERENCE OR
OTHERWISE ELECTRONICALLY PURSUANT TO AB 361

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

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara is committed to preserving and nurturing public access and participation in meetings of the City’s City Council, Council Committees, City Decision-Making Bodies (including Santa Clara Stadium Authority Board, Sports and Open Space Authority, Housing Authority, Successor Agency to the City of Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency, Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority, and Public Facilities Financing Corporation), City Boards, Committees and Commissions, Taskforces, and Other City Advisory Entities; WHEREAS, all meetings of City of Santa Clara’s legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Sections 54950, et seq., hereinafter referred to as the “Brown Act”), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City’s legislative bodies conduct their business; WHEREAS, the Brown Act allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings by teleconference and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to attend and to address the local legislative body, as long as the following requirements are met: (1) each teleconference location from which a member is participating is noticed on the agenda; (2) each teleconference location is accessible to the public; (3) members of the public must be able to address the body at each teleconference location; (4) at least one member of the legislative body must be physically present at the location specified in the meeting agenda; and (5) during teleconference meetings, at least a quorum of the members of the local body must participate from locations within the local body’s territorial jurisdiction;
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 ----
Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 2 of 9 Rev: 11/22/17

which suspended the Brown Act teleconferencing requirements so that legislative bodies can hold public meetings solely by teleconference, or otherwise electronically, without listing the teleconference locations and without any physical location, as long as the agenda that is posted 72 hours in advance indicates that the members of the legislative body will be participating by teleconference, provides the teleconference or webinar access information by which the public may participate electronically, and lists the procedure for individuals with disabilities to request reasonable accommodations;
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which sunsets the Brown Act provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 on September 30, 2021; WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed urgency ordinance AB 361 which allows a local agency to use teleconferencing for public meetings without posting the teleconferencing locations on the agenda and without requiring the teleconference locations to be accessible to the public during a Governor-proclaimed state of emergency pursuant to California Government Code Section 8625 et seq, if the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members of its legislative bodies to meet safely in person or state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing; WHEREAS, in light of the continued state of emergency related to COVID-19, the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer continues to recommend that public bodies meet remotely to the extent possible, specifically including use of newly enacted AB 361 to maintain remote meetings under the Ralph M. Brown Act and similar laws, as outlined in their “Recommendation Regarding Continued Remote Public Meetings of Governmental Entities” issued on September 21, 2021;
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2021, November 16, 2021, December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, February 8, 2022, March 8, 2022, April 5, 2022, May 10, 2022, June 7, 2022, July 5, 2022, July 12, 2022, August 16, 2022, September 13, 2022, October 4, 2022, and November 1, 2022 the City Council approved Resolutions Nos. 21-9013, 21-9023, 21-9038, 22-9042, 22-9051, 22- Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 3 of 9 Rev: 11/22/17

9058, 22-9067, 22-9087, 22-9096, 22-9115, 22-9124, 22-9135, 22-9142, 22-9145, and 22- 9150 respectively, to allow City Legislative bodies to hold public meetings solely by teleconference or otherwise electronically pursuant to AB 361; WHEREAS, on November 2, 2021, federal, state and local health officials authorized emergency use of the Pfizer COVID vaccine for children ages 5-11, and may consider emergency authorization of the COVID vaccine for children under age 5 within the next few months;
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2021, Santa Clara County moved into the moderate (orange) COVID-19 transmission tier;
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2021, scientists identified the latest COVID-19 variant, Omicron, which has prompted concern among scientists and public health officials because of an unusually high number of mutations that have the potential to make the virus more transmissible and less susceptible to existing vaccines; WHEREAS, on December 13, 2021, the California Department of Public Health reinstituted its statewide mask mandate, requiring all individuals, regardless of their vaccination status, to wear face coverings in indoor public settings from December 15, 2021 through January 15, 2022 due to a 47% increase in the statewide seven-day average case rate and 14% increase in hospitalizations since Thanksgiving;
WHEREAS, in light of the rapid surge in cases due to the Omicron variant, on December 28, 2021, the County of Santa Clara Health Officer issued a health order requiring up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination for workers in certain higher-risk settings. The new order builds on recent changes in the State Health Officer’s vaccination requirements by mandating up-to-date vaccination by workers in certain healthcare and long-term care settings; WHEREAS, as of February 3, 2021, new daily Covid-19 cases are on the decline since the surge from the Omicron variant. However, California Covid-19 deaths continue to rise and hospitalizations remain elevated;
Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 4 of 9 Rev: 11/22/17

WHEREAS, on February 27, 2022, the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer rescinded the health order requiring the use of face covering indoors effective March 2, 2022. However, the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer continues to recommend that all persons continue to wear face coverings when indoors. The California Department of Public Health continues to require masking in higher-risk settings such as public transit, healthcare facilities, shelters, jails, and long-term care facilities. While Santa Clara County has met the required masking metrics (80% of the population vaccinated, COVID-19 hospitalizations in the jurisdiction are low and stable, seven consecutive days with the seven-day rolling average of new cases at 550 or below) to transition to a strong recommendation for indoor masking, the county remains in the “medium” level of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s new COVID-19 community level framework;
WHEREAS, as of March 26, 2022, the Omicron subvariant BA.2 is now the dominant variant in the US accounting for nearly 55% of new COVID-19 cases in the U.S.; WHEREAS, on March 29, 2022, the FDA authorized a second booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccines for people 50 years of age and older and some immunocompromised people; WHEREAS, as of April 27, COVID-19 levels in wastewater concentrations in the greater Bay Area from Sacramento to Yolo, San Francisco and Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, were similar to what they were during the Delta surge in the summer of 2021, indicating another wave of the pandemic, although not resulting in an increase in hospitalizations; WHEREAS, on April 28, Bay Area Rapid Transit reinstated its mask mandate effective immediately through July 18, which impacts the system’s 50 stations in five Bay Area counties; WHEREAS, on May 10, 2022, Santa Clara County’s Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody warned that COVID case counts and hospitalizations are on the increase, with a weekly average of 552 cases and 80 to 100 people currently hospitalized, and urged everyone to consider wearing masks in high-risk settings, keep a stockpile of tests, and exercise caution when socializing indoors;
Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 5 of 9 Rev: 11/22/17

WHEREAS, on May 13, 2022, Bay Area health officers from the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma and the City of Berkeley urged residents to wear face masks in indoor public settings as COVID-19 infections driven by highly contagious virus variants multiply throughout the region;
WHEREAS, as of May 31, 2022, new coronavirus cases in California increased 13.2% from the prior week and California ranked 10th among the states where coronavirus was spreading the fastest on a per person basis; WHEREAS, on June 3, 2022, due to the continued increase in positive COVID-19 cases in the City employee workforce and local community, the City extended the mandatory mask mandate for all City employees, regardless of vaccination status, through July 1, 2022;
WHEREAS, as of June 13, 2022, new COVID-19 cases in California rose 32.3% from the prior week with 128,893 new cases, with California ranking fourth among the states where COVID-19 was spreading the fastest on a per-person basis, and Santa Clara County with the highest worst weekly outbreaks on a per-person basis;
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2022, an advisory panel to the FDA voted unanimously to recommend the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for children ages five and younger; WHEREAS, on June 18, 2022, the CDC and federal regulators authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children ages six months through four years old and the Moderna vaccine for children ages six months through five years old starting June 21, 2022; WHEREAS, as of July 5, 2022, the new omicron subvariant known as BA.5 now comprises a majority of U.S. COVID-19 cases, according to data released from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The BA.5, along with a related subvariant known as BA.4, has mutations that have shown an increased ability to evade the protection from vaccines and previous infection;
WHEREAS, as of July 6, 2022, all nine local counties are back in the CDC's high-risk category Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 6 of 9 Rev: 11/22/17

for COVID-19 community levels, and the highly-transmissible BA.5 subvariant of the virus that causes COVID-19 is quickly taking over;
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2022, Bay Area Rapid Transit reinstated its mask mandate effective immediately through October 1, 2022, which impacts the system’s 50 stations in five Bay Area counties;
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2022, the CDC continued to classify Santa Clara County in the high community level for coronavirus, in its weekly update; WHEREAS, on August 11, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention streamlined its guidance for COVID exposure to recommending that everyone, regardless of vaccination or past infection, wear a high-quality mask for 10 days and get tested on day five after exposure to the virus;
WHEREAS, as of August 24, 2022, as California schools reopen for the fall semester with loosened COVID-19 protocols and low student vaccination rates among younger children, health experts are watching to see how schools do in the coming weeks as some experts expect another rise in cases when winter arrives;
WHEREAS, as of September 20, 2022, a new more transmissible COVID strain, BF.7, short for BA.5.2.1.7, is outpacing nearly all other variants of interest that scientists are tracking in the U.S. this fall;
WHEREAS, as of September 22, 2022, although daily death rates from COVID-19 have ticked down slightly from August, updated federal data shows that the U.S. is still losing on average 350 Americans to COVID-19 every day, and 225,000 people in the U.S. have been lost to the virus since the start of 2022;
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the County Health Officer provided that while COVID-19 cases in Santa Clara County have trended down over the summer, that the level of virus circulating locally is likely higher than the county's case count; Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 7 of 9 Rev: 11/22/17

WHEREAS, as of October 17, 2022, in Santa Clara County, only 12% of eligible people have received the updated booster since it was first offered in early September to fight the highly transmissible omicron variants leading to public health official fears of a winter surge with lagging booster vaccination rates;
WHEREAS, as of November 8, 2022, the U.S. daily average has increased 6% from two weeks ago, as 33 states and Washington D.C., have seen cases rise over the same time; WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54953(e)(3) requires that the City Council review the need and make findings for continuing the teleconferencing without complying with the agenda posting and public comment requirements at least once every thirty (30) days until Governor terminates the state of emergency; and,
WHEREAS, the associated emergency conditions are on-going and there is a need to teleconference for public meetings without posting the teleconferencing locations on the agenda and without requiring the teleconference locations to be accessible to the public during the current Governor-proclaimed COVID-19 state of emergency and if approved, will be in effect for 30 days and will expire on December 15, 2022 unless staff returns to City Council on or before December 15, 2022 to request to continue the need for teleconferencing.

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

1. That the City Council hereby finds that the state of emergency conditions related to COVID-19, as set forth in Resolution No. 22-9150 adopted on November 1, 2022 and incorporated herein by reference, are on-going.

2. That the City Council finds that there is a need to teleconference for public meetings without posting the teleconferencing locations on the agenda and without requiring the teleconference locations to be accessible to the public during the current Governor-proclaimed COVID-19 state of emergency.

3. That the City Council finds that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 8 of 9 Rev: 11/22/17

ability of members of the City’s City Council, Council Committees, City Decision-Making Bodies (including Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports and Open Space Authority, Housing Authority, Successor Agency to the City of Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency, Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority, and Public Facilities Financing Corporation), City Boards, Committees and Commissions, Taskforces, and Other City Advisory Entities to meet safely in person.

4. That City officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing in City facilities.

5. That members of the City Council, Council Committees, City Decision-Making Bodies, City Boards (including Santa Clara Stadium Authority Board, Sports and Open Space Authority, Housing Authority, Successor Agency to the City of Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency, Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority, and Public Facilities Financing Corporation), Committees and Commissions, Taskforces, and Other City Advisory Entities are authorized to use teleconferencing, or other electronic means, to hold its public meetings without noticing the teleconferenced locations on the agenda, without making teleconferenced or physical locations accessible to the public, without posting agendas at teleconferenced locations, without requiring members of the legislative bodies to be physically present at the meeting, and without requiring a quorum of the members of the legislative body to participate from locations with the City’s jurisdiction, as long as the agenda that is posted at least 72 hours in advance indicates that members of the legislative body may be participating electronically, provides the teleconference or webinar access information by which the public may participate electronically, and lists the procedure for individuals with disabilities to request reasonable accommodations, in compliance with AB 361, Government Code Section 54953(e).

6. That the Assistant City Clerk is hereby directed to report to the City Council within thirty

(30) days on the need to further continue teleconferencing for public meetings without posting the teleconferencing locations on the agenda and without requiring the teleconference locations to be accessible to the public during the current Governor-proclaimed COVID-19 state of Resolution/Allowing City Legislative Bodies to Hold Teleconference Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Page 9 of 9 Rev: 11/22/17

emergency.

7. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

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

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

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST:

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Attachments incorporated by reference: None
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1205 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022

REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Action on Stadium Authority Bills and Claims for the Month of August 2022

BOARD PILLARS
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency
Ensure Compliance with Measure J and Manage Levi’s Stadium

BACKGROUND
Disbursements made by the Stadium Authority are based on invoices submitted for payment. Prior to payment, staff reviews all disbursement documents to ensure that they are in compliance with the goods or services provided.

The Bills and Claims listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations during the period. Budget control is set by the Stadium Authority Board through the budget adoption process.

DISCUSSION
On March 27, 2019, the Stadium Authority Board directed staff to stop payment of any Stadium Authority invoices for services unless there is substantial documentation of services rendered, which must also be in compliance with State law and City Code. Since March 27, 2019, staff received direction to pay Stadium Authority invoices related to SBL sales and services, insurance, and utilities.

At the March 15, 2022 Stadium Authority Board meeting, the Board delegated authority to the Office of the Executive Director and Treasurer to approve budget amendments that move funds from the Legal Contingency to Shared Expenses after the review of adequate documentations for costs.

Subsequent to that direction, Stadium Authority staff met with Stadium Manager on April 12, 2022 to review documentation for shared expenses. Following meetings with the Stadium Manager, payments related to compensation that were reviewed and approved are included in the August monthly payment.

Effective August 31, 2022, the Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager agreed to the timely payment of Shared Stadium Expenses and other budgeted expenses in accordance with the Annual Stadium Authority Budget-except for buffet expenses invoiced pursuant to Section 4.6.1 of the Stadium Lease.

The Stadium Authority maintains the right to confirm and dispute submitted charges from the 2021-22 fiscal year and onward during a fiscal-year-end reconciliation/true-up, because of any concerns regarding improper allocation, calculation, lack of support, or failure to comply with the Parties’ contracts or California law, among other reasons. The Stadium Authority may raise such questions with respect to any charge at any time before a fiscal year-end reconciliation/true-up and the Stadium Manager must assess and respond to such questions in good faith.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-1205 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
Expenses paid in August 2022 include:
· Payments totaling $203,546.16 to the City of Santa Clara for the following:
o $175,910.18 for reimbursement of General and Administrative (G&A) City payroll costs (e.g.: Executive Director’s Office (City Manager’s Office), Counsel’s Office (City Attorney’s Office), and Treasurer’s Office (Finance Department)) o $4,274.53 for Special Liability Claims for Q1 ending 6/30/2022 o $23,361.45 for the Senior and Youth Fees collected ($0.35 per ticket) for one National Football League (NFL) game.
· Payment totaling $712.50 to Contractor Compliance and Monitoring, Inc. for July 2022 Labor Compliance Services
· Payment totaling $751,797.37 to Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC for the following:
o $32,497.00 for September 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Compensation for Security
o $208,053.00 for September 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Compensation for Stadium Ops
o $143,482.00 for September 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Compensation for Engineering
o $31,302.00 for September 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Compensation for Guest Services
o $7,662.00 for September 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Compensation for Grounds
o $174,077.00 for September 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - SBL Sales & Service o $81,710.00 for September 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Insurance o $12,794.37 for September 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Use of StadCo Tenant Improvements
o $51,886.00 for September 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Other G&A o $8,334.00 for September 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Lender Fees · Payment to Hanson Bridgett LLP for July 2022 Legal Services · Payment to Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP for June 2022 Legal Services · Payments totaling $18,684.16 to Wilson Ihrig for the following:
o $12,284.16 for April - May 2022 Noise Monitoring Services o $6,400.00 for June - July 2022 Noise Monitoring Services The Supreme Court of California in Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court, (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, held that invoices specifying the amounts billed by a law firm to a client fall within the scope of attorney-client privilege while the matters are active. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling, information that would compromise legal strategy, and would otherwise be privileged, is redacted consistent with the Public Records Act.

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

City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-1205 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact to the Stadium Authority is itemized above.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Stadium Authority Counsel’s Office.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the list of Stadium Authority Bills and Claims for August 2022.

Reviewed by: Kenn Lee, Treasurer
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, Executive Director

ATTACHMENTS

1. August 2022 SCSA Bills and Claims
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
Payment Date Vendor Invoice No. Description Fund Amount 8/15/2022 Bank of America N/A July 2022 Bank Fees (Account 0444) CapEx 1,474.66 8/15/2022 Bank of America N/A July 2022 Bank Fees (Account 0425) Operating 230.42 8/15/2022 Bank of America N/A July 2022 Bank Fees (Account 6280) Operating 54.33 1,759.41
8/16/2022 City of Santa Clara N/A B2213 SCSA Admin Payroll Costs Operating 57,664.71 8/17/2022 City of Santa Clara N/A B2214 SCSA Admin Payroll Costs Operating 60,986.11 8/23/2022 City of Santa Clara N/A B2215 SCSA Admin Payroll Costs Operating 57,259.36 8/15/2022 City of Santa Clara 93211 Special Liability Claims FY2022-23 Q1 Operating 4,274.53 8/31/2022 City of Santa Clara N/A Senior/Youth Fees for NFL Game 1 Operating 23,361.45 203,546.16
8/15/2022 Contractor Compliance and Monitoring, Inc 16815 July 2022 Labor Compliance Services Operating 712.50 8/31/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23610 September 2022 Std Mgr - Compensation for Security Operating 32,497.00 8/31/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23610 September 2022 Std Mgr - Compensation for Stadium Ops Operating 208,053.00 8/31/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23610 September 2022 Std Mgr - Compensation for Engineering Operating 143,482.00 8/31/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23610 September 2022 Std Mgr - Compensation for Guest Services Operating 31,302.00 8/31/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23610 September 2022 Std Mgr - Compensation for Grounds Operating 7,662.00 8/31/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23610 September 2022 Std Mgr - SBL Sales & Service Operating 174,077.00 8/31/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23610 September 2022 Std Mgr - Insurance Operating 81,710.00 8/31/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23610 September 2022 Std Mgr - Use of StadCo Tenant Improvements Operating 12,794.37 8/31/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23610 September 2022 Std Mgr - Other G&A Operating 51,886.00 8/31/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23610 September 2022 Std Mgr - Lender Fees Operating 8,334.00 751,797.37
8/31/2022 Hanson Bridgett LLP Various July 2022 Legal Services Operating 8/31/2022 Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP 1858509 June 2022 Legal Services Operating 8/12/2022 Wilson Ihrig 16125N45 April - May 2022 Noise Monitoring Services Operating 12,284.16 8/31/2022 Wilson Ihrig 16125N46 June - July 2022 Noise Monitoring Services Operating 6,400.00 18,684.16
August 2022 Total 1,022,679.10$
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
Bills and Claims
Expenses Paid by Wire Transfer
For the Month of August 2022

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1332 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022

REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Action on Stadium Authority Bills and Claims for the Month of September 2022

BOARD PILLARS
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency
Ensure Compliance with Measure J and Manage Levi’s Stadium

BACKGROUND
Disbursements made by the Stadium Authority are based on invoices submitted for payment. Prior to payment, staff reviews all disbursement documents to ensure that they are in compliance with the goods or services provided.

The Bills and Claims listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations during the period. Budget control is set by the Stadium Authority Board through the budget adoption process.

DISCUSSION
On March 27, 2019, the Stadium Authority Board directed staff to stop payment of any Stadium Authority invoices for services unless there is substantial documentation of services rendered, which must also be in compliance with State law and City Code. Since March 27, 2019, staff received direction to pay Stadium Authority invoices related to SBL sales and services, insurance, and utilities.

At the March 15, 2022 Stadium Authority Board meeting, the Board delegated authority to the Office of the Executive Director and Treasurer to approve budget amendments that move funds from the Legal Contingency to Shared Expenses after the review of adequate documentations for costs.

Subsequent to that direction, Stadium Authority staff met with Stadium Manager on April 12, 2022 to review documentation for shared expenses. Following meetings with the Stadium Manager, payments related to compensation that were reviewed and approved were included in the September monthly payment.

Effective August 31, 2022, the Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager agreed to the timely payment of Shared Stadium Expenses and other budgeted expenses in accordance with the Annual Stadium Authority Budget-except for buffet expenses invoiced pursuant to Section 4.6.1 of the Stadium Lease.

The Stadium Authority maintains the right to confirm and dispute submitted charges from the 2021-22 fiscal year and onward during a fiscal-year-end reconciliation/true-up, because of any concerns regarding improper allocation, calculation, lack of support, or failure to comply with the Parties’ contracts or California law, among other reasons. The Stadium Authority may raise such questions with respect to any charge at any time before a fiscal year-end reconciliation/true-up and the Stadium Manager must assess and respond to such questions in good faith.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-1332 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
Expenses paid in September 2022 include:
· Payments totaling $132,963.23 to the City of Santa Clara for the following:
o $108,327.30 for reimbursement of General and Administrative (G&A) City payroll costs (e.g.: Executive Director’s Office (City Manager’s Office), Counsel’s Office (City Attorney’s Office), and Treasurer’s Office (Finance Department)) o $24,415.65 for the Senior and Youth Fees collected ($0.35 per ticket) for one National Football League (NFL) game.
o $220.28 for reimbursement of SCSA G&A Costs (Supplies/Equipment) · Payment totaling $651,863.00 to Forty Niners SC Stadium Co, LLC for CFD Advance Payment - Principal & Interest
· Payment totaling $225.00 to Contractor Compliance and Monitoring, Inc. for August 2022 Labor Compliance Services
· Payment totaling $128,359.68 to HKS Architects, Inc. for the following:
o $2,740.00 for CapEx Project - Stationary Electric Pressure Washers o $3,900.00 for CapEx Project - Stadium Event Power Upgrades & Switchgear Electrical o $3,900.00 for CapEx Project - Automatic Logic Control Building Engineering System o $6,337.50 for CapEx Project - North East Lobby Security Desk Enhancements o $6,337.50 for CapEx Project - Security Screening Locations o $11,880.00 for CapEx Project - Plumbing (PRVs)
o $17,532.00 for CapEx Project - Broadcast Booth Power
o $3,260.00 for CapEx Project - Creston Control & Building Operating System Upgrades o $6,450.00 for CapEx Project - Cooling Towers
o $7,020.00 for CapEx Project - CO2 Monitoring & Sensors for Code Compliance o $11,332.68 for CapEx Project - Radio Booth Cabling
o $19,552.00 for CapEx Project - VFDs
o $28,128.00 for CapEx Project - Kitchen Exhaust Fans
· Payment totaling $141,592.57 to Pumpman Norcal for CapEx Project - Lift Station

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is a $1,056,711.96 fiscal impact to the Stadium Authority.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Stadium Authority Counsel’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-1332 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the list of Stadium Authority Bills and Claims for September 2022.

Reviewed by: Kenn Lee, Treasurer
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, Executive Director

ATTACHMENTS

1. September 2022 SCSA Bills and Claims
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
Payment Date Vendor Invoice No. Description Fund Amount 9/15/2022 Bank of America N/A August 2022 Bank Fees (Account 0444) CapEx 1,478.01 9/15/2022 Bank of America N/A August 2022 Bank Fees (Account 0425) Operating 230.47 1,708.48
9/14/2022 City of Santa Clara N/A B2216 SCSA Admin Payroll Costs Operating 51,522.44 9/21/2022 City of Santa Clara N/A B2217 SCSA Admin Payroll Costs Operating 56,804.86 9/30/2022 City of Santa Clara N/A Senior/Youth Fees for NFL Game 2 Operating 24,415.65 9/30/2022 City of Santa Clara N/A Reimburse CSC for SCSA G&A Expenses (Supplies/Equipment) Operating 220.28 132,963.23
9/30/2022 Forty Niners SC Stadium Co, LLC N/A CFD Advance Payment - Principal & Interest Debt Service 651,863.00 9/14/2022 Contractor Compliance and Monitoring, Inc 17023 August 2022 Labor Compliance Services Operating 225.00 9/6/2022 HKS Architects, Inc. 25326.001 CapEx Proj - Stationary Electric Pressure Washers CapEx 2,740.00 9/6/2022 HKS Architects, Inc. 25326.001 CapEx Proj - Stadium Event Power Upgrades & Switchgear Electrical CapEx 3,900.00 9/6/2022 HKS Architects, Inc. 25326.001 CapEx Proj - Automatic Logic Control Building Engineering System CapEx 3,900.00 9/6/2022 HKS Architects, Inc. 25326.003 CapEx Proj - North East Lobby Security Desk Enhancements CapEx 6,337.50 9/6/2022 HKS Architects, Inc. 25326.003 CapEx Proj - Security Screening Locations CapEx 6,337.50 9/6/2022 HKS Architects, Inc. 25326.001 CapEx Proj - Plumbing (PRVs) CapEx 11,880.00 9/6/2022 HKS Architects, Inc. 25326.001 CapEx Proj - Broadcast Booth Power CapEx 17,532.00 9/6/2022 HKS Architects, Inc. 25326.001 CapEx Proj - Creston Control & Building Operating System Upgrades CapEx 3,260.00 9/6/2022 HKS Architects, Inc. 25326.001 CapEx Proj - Cooling Towers CapEx 6,450.00 9/6/2022 HKS Architects, Inc. 25326.001 CapEx Proj - CO2 Monitoring & Sensors for Code Compliance CapEx 7,020.00 9/6/2022 HKS Architects, Inc. 25326.001 CapEx Proj - Radio Booth Cabling CapEx 11,322.68 9/6/2022 HKS Architects, Inc. 25326.001 CapEx Proj - VFDs CapEx 19,552.00 9/6/2022 HKS Architects, Inc. 25326.001 CapEx Proj - Kitchen Exhaust Fans CapEx 28,128.00 128,359.68
9/21/2022 Pumpman Norcal 65432A CapEx Proj - Lift Station CapEx 141,592.57 September 2022 Total 1,056,711.96$
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
Bills and Claims
Expenses Paid by Wire or ACH Transfer
For the Month of September 2022

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-2219 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022

REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Action on the Santa Clara Stadium Authority Financial Status Report for Quarter Ending June 30, 2022

BOARD PILLARS
Ensure Compliance with Measure J and Manage Levi’s® Stadium Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND
In Fiscal Year 2014/15 the Stadium Authority Board (“Board”) requested that staff prepare quarterly Santa Clara Stadium Authority (“Stadium Authority”) Financial Status Reports. These reports provide an update on the events held at Levi’s
® Stadium, Stadium Authority finances, and the impact of Stadium Authority activity on the City of Santa Clara’s (“City”).

This report provides information covering the Stadium Authority’s first (April 1, 2022 - June 30, 2022) quarter of the 2022/23 (FY) fiscal year.

The Adopted Stadium Authority Budget incorporates the estimated revenues and expenses for all Stadium Authority funds. The attached Financial Status Reports provide the budget to actual revenue and expense summaries for the operating, debt service, and capital funds. Analysis of the financial activity through the fiscal year measures the adherence to the budget and allows the Stadium Authority to monitor and project revenues and expenses. Any significant variances are explained in the reports.

Certain operating expense payments were withheld based on Board direction for the partial suspension of payments at the March 27, 2019 Stadium Authority Board meeting, based on the concern that public funds would be used to pay for expenses that were not legally procured, or compliant with prevailing wage law or self-dealing/ conflict of interest laws. At that meeting, the Board directed the Executive Director to only release public funds to Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC (“Stadium Manager”) when supporting documents have been submitted to show the expenses adhere to applicable agreements and laws.

At the March 15, 2022 Stadium Authority Board meeting, the Executive Director was delegated authority to approve budget amendments of $5.1 million to move funds from the Legal Contingency line item to Shared Expenses after the review of adequate documentations for costs based on Board direction. Subsequent to that direction, Stadium Authority staff met with Stadium Manager on April 12, 2022 to review documentation for shared expenses. After follow-up meetings with the Stadium Manager, payments related to compensation were reviewed and approved for monthly payment; totaling $5.1 million for the fiscal year.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
22-2219 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
On August 31, 2022, Stadium Authority, Forty Niners SC Stadium Company and Stadium Manager settled disputes regarding the partially suspended Shared Expenses and Operating and Management Expenses. As part of the settlement, the Stadium Authority agreed to pay for the budgeted expense for its share of Shared Stadium Manager Expenses and other expenses for the current fiscal year. As such, the payments were released in the third quarter.

At the November 1, 2022 Board meeting, during discussion of the fourth quarter FY 2021/22 Report, the Board inquired about the financial performance of the first and second quarter in FY 2022/23.

Information for the first quarter is included in this report. Staff is still collecting information from the Stadium Manager for the second quarter and anticipates bringing forward the second quarter report at the December 6, 2022 Board meeting.

DISCUSSION
The attached financial status reports provide information covering the Stadium Authority’s first quarter (April 1, 2022 - June 30, 2022) of FY 2022/23. The reports summarize National Football League (“NFL”) and Non-NFL event activity at Levi’s
® Stadium and describes the financial impact of these
events on the Stadium Authority and City since FY 2014/15. The report also provides the budget to actual revenue and expense summaries for the operating, debt service, and capital funds. Analysis of the financial activity through the fiscal year measures the adherence to the budget and allows the Stadium Authority to monitor and project revenues and expenses. Any significant variances are explained in the report.

NFL Event Revenue and Expenses
There were no NFL games held in the first quarter of the FY 2022/23. Levi’s® Stadium hosted the first 49ers pre-season game of the 2022 season on August 12, 2022, which will be included in the report for the second quarter.

Non-NFL Event Revenue and Expenses
There were 1 ticketed Non-NFL event and 19 special events which are detailed in the report. The Non-NFL event ticket sales generated $202,000 in ticket surcharge revenue, half of which funded the discretionary fund. Public safety costs for these events totaled $406,000 all of which will be fully reimbursed to the City.

When combining ticketed and non-ticketed Non-NFL revenues to date, the table below shows approximately $644,000 in net revenue (excluding surcharge revenue) through the end of the first quarter. It should be noted the financial information provided are a draft and subject to change as additional revenues and/or expenditures are recorded.

No. of
Events
Net
Revenue
Ticketed Events
Concerts 1 $ 320,231
Sporting events:

Football (Non-NFL) 0 -
Soccer 0 -
Miscellaneous Events 0 -
Subtotal Ticketed Events 1 320,231$
Subtotal Remaining Non-NFL Events (weddings, corporate events, etc.) 19 557,805$ Subtotal Other Operating Expenses
(2)
(234,313)$
Total Non-NFL Net Revenue 20 643,723$
Total Performance Rent paid to the General Fund (1) -$
(1) Performance Rent is calculated as 50% of the net revenue from Non-NFL events less performance-based credit of 50% of fixed ground rent
(2) Other Operating Expenses are expenses not attributable to a specific event Event Type
Levi's ® Stadium
Net Revenue for Non-NFL Events
by Event Type
FY 2022/23 Quarter 1
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
22-2219 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
No. of
Events
Net
Revenue
Ticketed Events
Concerts 1 $ 320,231
Sporting events:

Football (Non-NFL) 0 -
Soccer 0 -
Miscellaneous Events 0 -
Subtotal Ticketed Events 1 320,231$
Subtotal Remaining Non-NFL Events (weddings, corporate events, etc.) 19 557,805$ Subtotal Other Operating Expenses
(2)
(234,313)$
Total Non-NFL Net Revenue 20 643,723$
Total Performance Rent paid to the General Fund (1) -$
(1) Performance Rent is calculated as 50% of the net revenue from Non-NFL events less performance-based credit of 50% of fixed ground rent
(2) Other Operating Expenses are expenses not attributable to a specific event Event Type
Levi's ® Stadium
Net Revenue for Non-NFL Events
by Event Type
FY 2022/23 Quarter 1
Stadium Builder Licenses (“SBLs”)
SBLs account for 35% of the Stadium Authority’s annual budgeted revenue in FY 2022/23. There is a total of 61,845 currently active SBLs which is 94% of the 66,066 total sellable SBL seats. The value of the active SBLs amount to $539.6 million of which $503.0 million has already been collected.

Stadium Authority Budgets
The detailed analysis of Stadium Authority budget to actual financials is provided in the attached Financial Status Reports. In summary, total operating revenues were $9.7 million representing 14% of the overall budget for revenues and total operating expenses were $7.1 million or 10% of the budget. The debt service fund was able to pay down $15.6 million in debt, bringing total Stadium Authority debt down to $264.7 million. Capital expenses were $150,000 representing 0.7% of the overall CIP budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to this report.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the Stadium Manager per section 4.6 of the Management Agreement as well as the Stadium Authority Counsel’s Office.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
22-2219 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022

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
Note and file the Santa Clara Stadium Authority Financial Status Report for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2022.

Reviewed by: Kenn Lee, Treasurer
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, Executive Director

ATTACHMENTS

1. SCSA Financial Status Report for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2022 City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
SCSA
Santa Clara Stadium Authority

SANTA CLARA

STADIUM AUTHORITY

FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT
Quarter Ending June 30, 2022
November 15, 2022
'=== WELCOME TO =e:aa
LEVI ' S · STADIUM
1 Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2 NFL Events .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Non-NFL Events ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Discretionary Fund ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Stadium Builder Licenses ......................................................................................................................... 8 Santa Clara Stadium Authority Budget Status Reports ...................................................................... 11 Operating Budget ................................................................................................................................. 11 Debt Service Budget ............................................................................................................................ 14 Capital Improvement Project Budget ................................................................................................ 17 City of Santa Clara Net General Fund Impact ..................................................................................... 19 Public Safety and Administrative Cost Reimbursement ................................................................. 19 Rents and Senior and Youth Fee ...................................................................................................... 19 Other Revenue Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 19 Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................... 21

2 Introduction
This Santa Clara Stadium Au thority (“Stadium Authority ”) Financial Status Report provides information covering the first quarte r of the Stadium Authority’s 2022/23 fiscal year (“FY”) which ended on June 30, 2022. Comparative data fr om prior fiscal years is also included.

In addition to these quarterl y reports, the Stadium Authorit y produces annual financial statements. The FY 2021/22 financial statements were audited by an external audit firm and presented to the Stadium Authority’s Audit Commi ttee on September 30, 2022 and approved by the Stadium Authority Board (“ Board”) on November 1, 2022. The financial statements are published on the Stadium Authority’s website.

The Stadium Authority also pr epares a detailed b udget prior to the beginning of each fiscal year. The FY 2022/23 budget was adopted by the Board on March 15, 2022.

Stadium Authority finances are structured so that the City of Santa Clara (“City”) is not liable for the debts or obligations of the Stadium Authority. All services provided by the City, including administrative and public safety, to the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC (“Stadium Manager”) or the Stadium Authority are fully reimbursed with Stadium Authority funds.

Methodology
Information provided in this report was based in part on documentation submitted by Stadium Manager. Specifically, NFL and Non-NFL event statistics and financial information relating to Stadium Manager expens es are provided by Stadium Manager.

Stadium Authority staff is limited to a review of select ed financial information submitted by Stadium Manager, including some source documentation for Non-NFL events with attendance greater than 25,000, submitted 45 days after each event. More detailed documents are received within 90 days after the close of the quarter. For all other financial information, a full detailed review and/or a udit of source documentation has not been completed by the Stadium Authority for this report.

The Stadium Authority has cont racted with JS Held (formerl y Hagen, Streiff, Newton, & Oshiro), a forensic accounting firm, to review and evaluate Non-NFL event financial information from prior years, including source documentation. This report was discussed with the Board at the December 1, 2020 Stadium Authority Board meeting. The Stadium Authority is working with JS Held for the review of additional historical years.

The information provided reflects the best known and available at the time of the writing of this report and is subject to further re vision when the full body of records becomes available and review is complete. Consequent ly, the Board’s notation and filing of this report should not be considered an approval of the accuracy of the information in the report.
3 NFL Events
This section provides fiscal year to date and comparative data for NFL games categorized as pre-season and regular season games. T here were no NFL games held during the first quarter of FY 2022/23. Levi’s ® Stadium hosted the first 49ers pre-season game of the 2022 season on August 12, 2022, which will be included in the report for the second quarter.

Non-NFL Events
This section provides year to date and comparative data for Non-NFL events categorized as events ranging from high school and colle ge football games, international soccer matches, concerts, wedding fairs, and special events. During the current reporting period, there were a total of 50,478 tickets sold for the one ticketed Non-NFL event that was held, resulting in $202,000 Non-NFL event ticket surcharge revenue (from the $4 per ticket Non-NFL event surcharge). The ticketed Non-NFL event in the current reporting period was a large-scale event resulting in a large increase in the ticket surcharge revenue over the same period in the prior year as there were no ticketed events held during FY 2021/22 which was impacted from restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Stadium Manager reports that t here were also 19 smaller s pecial events held at Levi’s ®
Stadium with 9,996 attendees during the curr ent reporting period. Due to the pandemic, there were only 12 smaller special events held with 3,698 attendees during the entire FY 2021/22. Examples of these s pecial events include corporate events of various sizes, weddings, holiday parties, high school dances, etc.

In correlation with increase in Non-NFL event s held during the curr ent reporting period, there were 5,666 cars parked at these offsite lots and t he City has received $6,000 of a total of $33,000 in related offsite parking fees.

Total Non-NFL event public safety costs were $406,000, an increase of $404,000 from the prior year. As noted previously, this increase in cost is due to more events being held in the current year when compared to the prior year. Of these costs, $33,000 was covered by the offsite parking fee. The remaini ng $373,000 has been invoiced to the Stadium Manager of which $4,000 has been reimbursed.

Statistics for FY 2022/23 events are shown in Table 1 and comparative data from all nine years of operations are shown in Table 2.

4 Table 1

Levi's® Stadium
FY2022/23 Non-NFL Event Statistics
As of June 30, 2022
No. of Scanned Attendee s
No. of Tickets Sold
Non-NFL Ticket Surcharge $
No. of Non-NFL Special Events
Non-NFL Special Event Attende es
Cars Parked at Offsite Lots
City Offsite Parking Fee $
Stadium Public Safety Costs $
Less: Offsite Parking Fee Credit $
Reimbursable Public Safety Costs
Amount Reimbursed
Coldplay
05/15/22
50,308
50,478
201,912
5,666
33,486
399,716
(33,486)
3 ,
$
$
$
2022/23 Q1
Special Events
-
19 9,996
6,416
-
,41
$
$
$
$
2022/23
YTD Total
50,308
50,478
201,912
19 9,996
5,666
33,486
406,132
(33,486)
5 Table 2

Lev i's® Stad ium
Historical Non-NFL Event Statistics<1>
2014/15 Q1 2015/16 Q1 2016/17 Q1 2017/18 Q1 2018/19 Q1 2019/20 Q1 2020/21 Q1 2021/22 Q1 2022/23 Q1 Total 121 Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total No. of non-NFL Ticketed Events 6 8 4 4 3
No. of Tickets Sold 284,352 351,837 90,456 11 5,661 57,344 50,478 Non-NFL Ticket Surcharge $ - $ 1,137,408 $ 1,407,348 $ 361,824 $ 462,444 $ 229,376 $ - $ - $ 201,912 No. of Non-NFL Special Events 62 31 25 24 20 19
Non-NFL Special Event Attendees 19,345 13,709 8,438 13,683 5,737 9,996 Cars Parked at Offsite Lots 27,215 34,376 7,939 10,495 5,251 5,666 City Offsite Parking Fee $ - $ 133,898 $ 174,632 $ 41,600 $ 56,883 $ 29,563 $ - $ - $ 33,486 Cars Parked on Golf Course 9,465 9,562
City Golf Course Parking Fee $ - $ 47,325 $ 47,810 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Stadium Public Safety Costs $ - $ 1,425,075 $ 1,721,055 $ 475,003 $ 707,108 $ 337,972 $ $ 406,132 Golf cou rse Public Safety Costs $ - $ 73,951 $ 39,905 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Subtotal Event Public Safety Costs $ - $ 1,499,026 $ 1,760,960 $ 475,003 $ 707,108 $ 337,972 $ - $ 1,827 $ 406,132 Less: Offsite Parking Fee Credit $ - $ (133,898) $ (174,632) $ (41,600) $ (56,883) $ (29,563) $ - $ - $ (33,486) Reimbursable Public Safety Costs $ - $ 1,365,128 $ 1,586,328 $ 433,403 $ 650,225 $ 308,409 $ - $ 1,827 $ 372,646 Amount Reimbursed $ - $ 1,365,128 $ 1,586,328 $ 433,403 $ 650,225 $ 308,409 $ - $ 1,827 $ 4,309 <1> Includes non-NFL special events.

The first event at Levi's Stadium was in August 2014 (the second quarter of the 2014/15 Fiscal Year) . 6 Table 3 and 4 show Non-NFL net revenue by event type and event revenue and expenses by category. The inclusion of this information is to provide a greater level of transparency and provide the overall financial results of the Non-NFL events.

For FY 2022/23, the Stadium Manager anticipates FY 2022/23 Non-NFL events to result in net profits to range from $250,000 to $1, 750,000, as cited in the FY 2022/23 Adopted Stadium Authority Budget. In the first quarte r of FY 2022/23, ticketed events and non- ticketed special events contributed $320,000 and $558,000 in net profits, respectively.

Offset by $234,000 of non-event specific other operating expenses, Stadium Manager reported a net profit of $644,000 for the current reporting period.

Table 3

No. of
Events
Net
Revenue
Ticketed Events
Concerts 1 $ 320,231
Sporting ev ents:

Football (Non-NFL) 0 -
Soccer 0 -
Miscellaneous Ev ents 0 -
Subtotal Ticketed Events 1 320,231$
Subtotal Remaining Non-NFL Events (weddings, corporate events, etc.) 19 557,805$ Subtotal Other Operating Expenses (2) (234,313)$
Total Non-NFL Net Revenue 20 643,723$
Total Performance Rent paid to the General Fund (1) -$
(1) Performance Rent is calculated as 50% of the net revenue from Non-NFL events less performance-based credit of 50% of fixed ground rent
(2) Other Operating Expenses are expenses not attributable to a specific event Event Type
Levi's
®
Stadium
Net Revenue for Non-NFL Events
by Event Type
FY 2022/23 Quarter 1
7 Table 4

2022/23
YTD Total
REVENUE:

Seating Bowl 5,785,644 $
Ticketmaster Fees 485,404
Suites 87,000
Food & Beverage 345,823
Parking 107,920
Facility Fee 148,194
Miscellaneous(1) 1,967,022
Total Revenue 8,927,007 $
EXPENSE:

Public Safety/Security 624,604 $
Parking 173,422
Food & Beverage - Ticketed Events 66,873
Food & Beverage - Special Events 792,016
Operations/Janitorial/Maintenance 1,377,424
Miscellaneous
(2) 5,248,945
Total Expense 8,283,284$
Total Non-NFL Net Revenue 643,723$
(1) Includes special events revenue such as corporate events, weddings, holiday parties, etc. (2) Includes rentals, fees & commissions, transportation, marketing, and other expenses Levi's® Stadium
Non-NFL Event Results by Category
FY 2022/23 Quarter 1
8 Discretionary Fund
The Discretionary Fund is funded by revenue equal to 50% of the Non-NFL event ticket surcharge of $4 per ticket. The one ticketed Non-NFL Event contributed $101,000 to the Discretionary Fund in the reporting period, which was received and deposited in August 2022. Table 5 shows the revenues and expenses in the Discretionary Fund since FY2014/15. The balance at the end of this reporting period was $2.4 million.

Table 5

Stadium Builder Licenses
The total principal value of currently acti ve Stadium Builder Licenses (“SBLs”) is $539.6 million and, as of June 30, 2022, 93% of the total principal value of all SBLs sold (i.e., $503.0 million) had been collected.

SBL holders that finance their purchase pay an annual interest rate of 8.5% and payments are due by March 1
st each year. The majority of SBL holders make their payments on time. For those that do not pay on time, SBL service staff, working for Stadium Manager on the Stadium Authority’s behalf, contact the SBL holders and attempt to collect the full amounts owed. Ultimately, an SBL can be def aulted for non-payment. Once an SBL is defaulted, the SBL holder in default loses their right to buy season tickets as well as their priority rights to tickets to Non-NFL events, and forfeits any money they had invested in the SBL. Defaulted SBLs are then available for resale.

There is a total of 61,845 currently active SBLs, or 94% of the 66,066 total sellable SBL seats. This is a decrease of 110 from the total active SBLs at the end of the prior fiscal year (March 31, 2022). The main reason for the reduction is due to defaulted SBLs. The defaulted SBLs were offset by (1) the sale of new SBLs and (2) the net increase related to the customer seat relocation program. The customer seat relocation program allows customers to trade in their SBLs in return for others in a different location as long as the total face value of the new seats is equal to or greater than the original seats.

During the current reporting period, 286 SBLs we re sold for a total face value of $2.2 million. The customer seat relocation program resulted in an increase of $1.2 million to Discretionary Fund - Accrual Basis
Beginning
Fiscal Year Balance Revenue Expenses Ending Balance
2014/15 $ - $ 715,770 $ 714,028 $ 1,742
2015/16 1,742 1,238,542 699,129 541,155
2016/17 541,155 1,164,698 1,209,342 496,511
2017/18 496,511 768,564 - 1,265,075
2018/19 1,265,075 796,294 101,267 1,960,102
2019/20 1,960,102 367,748 - 2,327,850
2020/21 2,327,850 - 18 2 ,327,832
2021/22 2,327,832 - (1 8) 2,327,850
2022/23 2,327,850 100,956 1 2,428,805
9 the SBL face value, while netting 157 more SBLs. There were also 553 SBL defaulted during the quarter with a face value of $3.2 million.

Additional details regarding currently active SBLs are noted in Table 6. 10 Table 6

SBL Seats
Available
SBL Seats Sold
as of 3/31/22
New SBL
Sales
Net SBL
Relocations
SBL
Defaults Other SBL Seats
Sold SBL Value SBL Collected % SBL Principal
Collected
100 100 - - - - 100 14,082,625$ 13,079,310$ 92.9% 942 928 2 8 - - 938 75,040,000$ 72,151,621$ 96.2% 2 2 - - - - 2 80,000$ 74,257$ 92.8% 4,945 4,549 18 10 (21) - 4,556 136,680,000$ 129,138,376$ 94.5% 3,475 2,894 20 - (12) - 2,902 58,040,000$ 54,131,038$ 93.3% 7 7 - - - - 7 105,000$ 96,939$ 92.3% 2,163 2,199 6 - (7) - 2,198 26,376,000$ 24,175,245$ 91.7% 7 7 - - - - 7 70,000$ 68,871$ 98.4% 20,651 20,850 36 22 (178) - 20,730 124,380,000$ 114,682,604$ 92.2% 14,307 14,037 140 (21) (158) - 13,998 69,990,000$ 62,889,021$ 89.9% 916 9 19 3 1 - - 923 3,692,000$ 3,618,812$ 98.0% 91 91 - - - - 91 273,000$ 257,424$ 94.3% 40 44 - - - - 44 110,000$ 105,630$ 96.0% 18,392 15,296 61 137 (177) - 15,317 30,634,000$ 28,543,314$ 93.2% 28 32 - - - - 32 32,000$ 30,409$ 95.0% 66,066 61,955 286 157 (553) - 61,845 539,584,625$ 503,042,871$ 93.2% Plus: Interest on financed SBLs 66,133,956
Total Principal & Interest 569,176,827
(1) This table does not include $29.1 million that has been collected life-to-date from defaulted SBL holders. 1,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,500
2,000
Total
10,000
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
Currently Active Stadium Builder License (SBL) Summary (1) Through June 30, 2022
Seat Value
141,392
80,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
15,000
12,000
6,000
11 Santa Clara Stadium Authority Budget Status Reports
Operating Budget
With 25% of the fiscal year complete, total operating revenues for the first quarter of the 2022/23 Fiscal Year were $9.7 million repr esenting 14% of the overall budget for revenues. The primary reasons that revenue is below 25% (par level through three months) is because non-NFL event revenue is recorded at the end of the fiscal year in accordance with Article 5 of the Stadium Management Agreement, and the NFL ticket surcharge revenue is recorded in second quarter when the NFL season starts. In addition, the first SBL proceeds
in the amount of $12.4 million was received in the second quarter instead of in June 2022 this year. During the current reporting period, the Stadium Authority collected $3.6 million in Naming Ri ghts and $5.6 million in rent from StadCo.

The Naming Rights revenue is collected twic e a year in October and February. The Stadium Authority also collected $202,000 or 35% of the budget for non-NFL event ticket surcharge revenue.

Total operating expenses were $7.1 million, or 10% of the annual budget. The primary reason that total expenses are below 25% is due to timing of the debt service transfer that takes place in the second quarter.

For the current fiscal year, the Stadium Authority’s FY2022/23 bu dget was adopted on M
arch 15, 2022 and included the Stadium Manager’s recommended Shared Expense budget of $10.5 million
in a Legal Contingency line item. The expenses that were included in the Legal Contingency lin e are Stadium Operations,
Engineering, Guest Services,
Groundskeeping, Security and the Stadium M anagement Fee. However, the Executive Director was delegated authority to approve budget amendments of $5.1 million to move funds from the Legal Contingency line item to Shared Expenses after the review of adequate documentations for costs based on B oard direction. Subsequent to that direction, Stadium Authorit y staff met with the Stadium Manager on April 12, 2022 to review documentation for shared expenses. After follow-up meetings with the Stadium Manager, payments related to compensation were reviewed and approved for monthly payment, totaling $5.1 million for the fiscal year.

Shared Stadium Manager expenses were at 56% of the budget, or $4.6 million of the $8.3 million budgeted amount. This is due to timing of when insurance premiums are due. The Stadiu
m Authority paid $2.3 million of the $3.2 million budgeted insurance expense paid during the first quarter. SBL Sales & Serv ice expenses were 33% of the budget, or $696,000. The Stadium Authority pays for a ll utility costs from February 1st through July 31st and the tenant (StadCo) pays fo r utility costs from August 1 st through January 31 st (Tenant Season). Therefore, utility costs are 67% of the budget for the year, or $962,000.

The current period covers 50% (three out of the six months) that the Stadium Au thority is responsible for utility costs. Lastly, Stadium Authority G&A costs were tracking below budgeted levels at $516,000 or 12% of the budget.

On August 31, 2022,
the Stadium Authority entered into a settlement agreement with StadCo and Stadium Manager ov er disputes regarding the Operating and Management 12 Expenses, Shared Expenses, and Capital Expenditures that were previously withheld. As part of the settlement, the Stadium Authority agreed to pay for the budgeted expense for its share of Shared Stadium Manager Expenses and other expenses for the current fiscal year. The Stadium Authority released all of t he previously withheld expenses in the first quarter to the Stadium Manager on Octobe r 3, 2022. As such, the payment will be included in the third quarter report.

Overall, the Stadium Authority operating fund ended the first quarter with a fund balance of $41.5 million, an increase of $2.6 million or 6.6%. Included in that amount is a $12.3 million operating reserve and a $2.4 million discretionary fund.

Additional details are shown in Table 7.
13 Table 7

Budget to Budget to
Adopted Amended Q1 YTD Actual Amended YTD Actual
Budget Budget Actuals Actuals Difference % Received Budget Actuals Difference % Received Resources
Revenues
NFL Ticket Surcharge 10,822,000$ 10,822,000$ -$ -$ 10,822,000$ 0% 8,665,000$ -$ 8,665,000$ 0% SBL Proceeds 24,398,000 24,398,000 - - 24,398,000 0% 23,682,000 - 23,682,000 0% Interest 15,000 15,000 60,600 60,600 (45,600) 404% 56,000 4,659 51,341 8% Non-NFL Event Revenue 250,000 250,000 - - 250,000 0% - - - NA Net Revenues from Non-NFL Events - - - - - NA - - - NA Naming Rights 7,380,000 7,380,000 3,635,630 3,635,630 3,744,370 49% 7,165,000 - 7,165,000 0% Sponsorship Revenue (STR) 405,000 405,000 148,143 148,143 256,857 37% 325,000 81,250 243,750 25% Rent 24,762,000 24,762,000 5,640,899 5,640,899 19,121,101 23% 24,762,000 6,741,100 18,020,900 27% Senior & Youth Program Fees 237,000 237,000 - - 237,000 0% 232,000 - 232,000 0% Non-NFL Event Ticket Surcharge 574,000 574,000 201,912 201,912 372,088 35% 150,000 - 150,000 0% Other Revenue - - - - - NA - - - NA Revenues Subtotal 68,843,000$ 68,843,000$ 9,687,184$ 9,687,184$ 59,155,816$ 14% 65,037,000$ 6,827,009$ 58,209,991$ 10% Total Resources 68,843,000$ 68,843,000$ 9,687,184$ 9,687,184$ 59,155,816$ 14% 65,037,000$ 6,827,009$ 58,209,991$ 10% Budget to Budget to
Adopted Amended Q1 YTD Actual Amended YTD Actual
Budget Budget Actuals Actuals Difference % Used Budget Actuals Difference % Used Expenses
Shared Stadium Manager Expenses
Stadium Operations -$ 2,496,635$ 832,211$ 832,211$ 1,664,424$ 33% 1,586,393$ 386,890$ 1,199,503$ 24% Engineering - 1,721,783 573,927 573,927 1,147,856 33% 1,543,240 314,610 1,228,630 20% Guest Services - 375,622 125,206 125,206 250,416 33% 242,553 49,445 193,108 20% Groundskeeping - 91,938 30,642 30,642 61,296 33% 93,809 19,125 74,684 20% Security - 389,965 129,989 129,989 259,976 33% 378,652 77,190 301,462 20% Procurement - - - - - NA 311,412 - 311,412 0% Insurance 3,230,000 3,230,000 2,935,718 2,935,718 294,282 91% 3,136,000 784,045 2,351,955 25% Stadium Management Fee - - - - - NA - - - NA Shared Stadium Mngr Exps Subtotal 3,230,000$ 8,305,943$ 4,627,693$ 4,627,693$ 3,678,250$ 56% 7,292,059$ 1,631,305$ 5,660,754$ 22% Other Expenses
SBL Sales and Service 2,089,000$ 2,089,000$ 696,308$ 696,308$ 1,392,692$ 33% 3,448,000$ 540,000$ 2,908,000$ 16% Senior & Youth Fees (paid to City) 237,000 237,000 - - 237,000 0% 232,000 - 232,000 0% Non-NFL Event Expense - - - - - NA 600,000 - 600,000 0% Ground Rent (paid to City) 460,000 460,000 - - 460,000 0% 425,000 - 425,000 0% Performance Rent (paid to City) - - - - - NA - - - NA Discretionary Fund Expense 250,000 250,000 - - 250,000 0% 250,000 - 250,000 0% Utilities 1,444,000 1,444,000 962,496 962,496 481,504 67% 1,586,000 370,500 1,215,500 23% Use of StadCo Tenant Improvements 48,000 48,000 11,602 11,602 36,398 24% 26,000 - 26,000 0% Stadium Authority G&A 4,205,000 4,205,000 515,590 515,590 3,689,410 12% 5,115,000 580,570 4,534,430 11% Naming Rights Commission 91,000 91,000 45,445 45,445 45,555 50% 88,000 44,122 43,878 50% Legal Contingency 10,542,420 5,466,477 - - 5,466,477 0% 3,966,941 - 3,966,941 0% Other Expenses 723,000 723,000 240,879 240,879 482,121 33% 388,000 - 388,000 0% Transfers Out 44,785,580 44,785,580 - - 44,785,580 0% 41,262,000 - 41,262,000 0% Other Expenses Subtotal 64,875,000$ 59,799,057$ 2,472,321$ 2,472,321$ 57,326,736$ 4% 57,386,941$ 1,535,192$ 55,851,749$ 3% Total Expenses 68,105,000$ 68,105,000$ 7,100,014$ 7,100,014$ 61,004,986$ 10% 64,679,000$ 3,166,497$ 61,512,503$ 5% Operating Reserve 12,329,870$ 12,329,870$ 12,301,488$ 9,693,657$ 11,940,523$ Discretionary Fund 2,364,850$ 2,364,850$ 2,428,806$ 2,327,832$ 2,327,850$ Operating Budget Status Report
For the Period Ending June 30, 2022 and 2021
Period Ending June 30, 2022 Period Ending June 30, 2021 Santa Clara Stadium Authority
14 Debt Service Budget
The Stadium Authority’s FY 2022/23 de bt service revenue budget of $2.1 million represents anticipated contribut ions from the Community Facilities District (CFD). The CFD levies and collects a special hotel tax on hotel rooms within the CFD. All collections from the special CFD hotel ta xes are contributed to Stadium Authority to pay down the CFD Advance. The CFD Adva nce is payable solely from amounts received by the Stadium Authority from the CFD. During the first quarter, $611,000 was contributed by the CFD, or 29% of the annual budget.

Total Stadium Authority debt service expenses for the cu rrent reporting period were $19.0 million, or 44% of the budgeted amount. The debt service expenses for the CFD Advance, the Term A Loan, and the StadCo Subordinated Loan were $434,000, $17.4 million, and $1.1 million, respectively.

As of June 30, 2022, the total outstanding amount of Stadium Authority debt had declined to $264.7 million. This is a reduction in principal of $15.6 million from the March 31, 2022 outstanding debt amount of $280.3 million.

Additional details are shown in Tables 8 and 9 and Chart 1. 15 Table 8

Budget to Budget to
Adopted Amended Q1 YTD Actual Amended YTD Actual
Budget Budget Actuals Actuals Difference % Received Budget Actuals Difference % Received Resources
Revenues
Contribution from CFD 2,124,000$ 2,124,000$ 611,227$ 611,227$ 1,512,773$ 29% 483,000$ 158,418$ 324,582$ 33% Revenues Subtotal 2,124,000$ 2,124,000$ 611,227$ 611,227$ 1,512,773$ 29% 483,000$ 158,418$ 324,582$ 33% Net Transfers In from Operating 40,984,580 40,984,580 - - 40,984,580 0% 37,572,000 - 37,572,000 0% Contribution from Fund Balance - - 18,371,442 18,371,442 (18,371,442) NA - 17,479,851 (17,479,851) NA Total Resources 43,108,580$ 43,108,580$ 18,982,669$ 18,982,669$ 24,125,911$ 44% 38,055,000$ 17,638,270$ 20,416,730$ 46% Budget to Budget to
Adopted Amended Q1 YTD Actual Amended YTD Actual
Budget Budget Actuals Actuals Difference % Used Budget Actuals Difference % Used Expenses
CFD Advance 2,042,000$ 2,042,000$ 433,923$ 433,923$ 1,608,077$ 21% 483,000$ 421,471$ 61,529$ 87% Term A Loan 25,494,000 25,494,000 17,415,690 17,415,690 8,078,310 68% 25,529,000 16,898,728 8,630,272 66% StadCo Subordinated Loan 15,490,580 15,490,580 1,133,056 1,133,056 14,357,524 7% 12,043,000 318,071 11,724,929 3% Total Expenses 43,026,580$ 43,026,580$ 18,982,669$ 18,982,669$ 24,043,911$ 44% 38,055,000$ 17,638,270$ 20,416,730$ 46% Debt Service Reserve 11,536,235$ 11,536,235$ 11,536,235$ 11,536,235$ 11,536,235$ Debt Service Budget Status Report
For the Period Ending June 30, 2022 and 2021
Period Ending June 30, 2022 Period Ending June 30, 2021 Santa Clara Stadium Authority

16 Table 9

Chart 1

Type of Indebtedness
Stadium Funding Trust Loan:

Term A Loan
StadCo CFO Advance
StadCo Subordinated Loan
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$-
Total
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
Debt Summary Report
Period Ending June 30, 2022
Interest Outstanding as of Outstanding as of
Rates March 31, 2022 Net Change June 30, 2022

5.00% $ 230, 138,240 $ (14,723,000) $ 215,415,240

5.73% 30,374,502 30,374,502

5.50% 19,800,950 (867,953) 18,932,997
$ 280,313,692 $ (15,590,953) $ 264,722,739
Total Outstanding Debt (in millions)
Mar 2012 Mar20 13 Mar2014 Mar20 15 Mar20 16 Mar20 17 Mar20 18 Mar20 19 Mar2020 Mar202 1 Mar2022 Jun 2022 ■ Construction Loan ■ StadCo Agency Advance ■ Tenn B Loan ■ Term A Loan ■ StadCo CFO Advance ■ StadCo Subordinated Loan 17 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Budget
As part of the Capital Expense (“CapEx”) Plan, the following projects have been completed as of the current reporting period:
 Financial Management Information System Project
 Emergency Recycled Water Line Repair Project

The following CapEx projects are currently in progress and expected to be completed by the end of the fiscal year:
 Stadium Insulation
 Command Post Window Treatment
 Non-Slip Floor Matting
 Lift Station
 Mechanical and Electrical Closet Lighting
 Rust Prevention Mitigation
 Loading Dock Lighting

The CIP Budget increased from $21.7 million to $23.0 million in the first quarter. This is due to an additional $1.2 million in budget am endment that the Board during the first quarter. A total of $150,000 has been spent in FY 2022/23, which amounts to 0.7% of the budget. The main reasons that this is below budget are (1) there has been little activity on warranty work which makes up 7% of the CIP Budget, (2) delays in projects due to staffing shortage from the cont ractors as a result of CO VID-19, and (3) a number of projects are under compliance reviews of State procurement and prevailing wage laws.

On August 31, 2022, the Stadium Authority entered into a settlement agreement with StadCo and Stadium Manager ov er disputes regarding the Operating and Management Expenses, Shared Expenses, and Capital Expenditures that were previously withheld. As part of the settlement, in regards to Capital Expenditures, the Stadium Authority agreed to discontinue the current practice of withholding payment for Capital Expenditures subject to the review and approval of t he prevailing wage docum entation by Stadium Authority’s labor law compliance consultan t. Under the Settlement Agreement, Stadium Manager further confirmed it s obligation to comply with applicable laws, including Prevailing Wage Laws, and St adium Manager also implem ented its new internal Prevailing Wage Laws compliance policy and pr ocedures. Accordingly, the Stadium Authority will process the invoice payments as they come in.

Additional details are shown below in Table 10.

18 Table 10

Budget to Budget to
Adopted Amended Q1 YTD Actual Amended YTD Actual
Budget Budget Actuals Actuals Difference % Received Budget Actuals Difference % Received Beginning Balances 22,103,296$ 22,103,296$ 23,001,058$ 23,001,058$ (897,762)$ 19,438,420$ 20,805,741$ (1,367,321)$ Resources
3,800,310 3,800,310 - - 3,800,310 0% 3,690,000 - 3,690,000 0% - - - - - NA - - - NA Total Resources 25,903,606$ 25,903,606$ 23,001,058$ 23,001,058$ 2,902,548$ 89% 23,128,420$ 20,805,741$ 2,322,679$ 90% Budget to Budget to
Final Amended Q1 YTD Actual Amended YTD Actual
Budget Budget Actuals Actuals Difference % Used Budget Actuals Difference % Used Expenses
Construction 12,699,189 13,905,231 52,627 52,627 13,852,604 0% 6,743,911 - 6,743,911 0% Equipment 6,555,678 6,555,678 97,584 97,584 6,458,094 1.5% 5,734,770 26,229 5,708,541 0% Contingency 962,743 962,743 - - 962,743 0% 623,935 - 623,935 0% Stadium Warranty Related Construction 1,528,202 1,528,202 - - 1,528,202 0% 1,528,202 - 1,528,202 0% Total Expenses 21,745,812$ 22,951,854$ 150,211$ 150,211$ 22,801,643$ 0.7% 14,630,818$ 26,229$ 14,604,589$ 0% Ending Balances 4,157,794$ 2,951,752$ 22,850,846$ 22,850,846$ 8,497,602$ 20,779,512$ Transfers In from Stadium Manager
CIP Budget Status Report
Transfers In from Operating Budget
For the Period Ending June 30, 2022 and 2021
Period Ending June 30, 2022 Period Ending June 30, 2021 Santa Clara Stadium Authority
19 City of Santa Clara Net General Fund Impact
During the current reporting per iod there was a total of $41, 766 that was contributed to the General Fund as shown in Table 11. This is due to the timing of when the ground rent is paid and the performance rent is calculated. Additionally , the Senior and Youth Fee and the Tasman Lot Parking Fee are both related to NFL games of which there were none in the first quarter. This sect ion of the report also provides information on General Fund revenue and expenditure impacts resulting from the stadium.

Table 11

Public Safety and Administrative Cost Reimbursement
As described in earlier sections of this report, costs incurred by the City on NFL and Non- NFL events are tracked and billed to the Stadium Manager. Reimbursement is monitored and included in this report. A total of $406,000 in public safety costs were incurred in support of Non-NFL events that were held at Levi’s ® Stadium in the current reporting period, all of which have been reimbursed to the City. These reimbursements came from a combination of payments from the Stadium Manager and the offsit e parking fees that were collected.

In addition to public safety costs, administrat ive costs are also tracked and billed to the Stadium Authority. These include the cost of providing overall stadium management, financial, human resource, legal, and other services to the Stadium Authority. In the first quarter of FY 2022/23, a total of $353,000 of adm inistrative costs were incurred by the General Fund, which have been reimbursed to the City.

Rents and Senior and Youth Fee
As noted above, the City’s Gener al Fund did not collect any rents or Senior and Youth fees in the current reporti ng period. See the Glossary for more information on these revenues and how they are calculated.

Other Revenue Impacts
General Fund sales tax, property tax, and transient occupancy tax (TOT) collections have benefited from the direct and indirect economic activity related to stadium events.

Ground Rent -$
Performance Rent -
Senior and Youth Fee -
Tasman Lots Parking Fee -
Sales Tax 41,766
Total Net General Fund Impact 41,766$
City of Santa Clara
Net General Fund Impact
For Stadium Authority Fiscal Year to Date Ending June 30, 2022 20 Food and beverage concession sales and merchandise sales at Levi’s ® Stadium are taxable, resulting in sales tax revenue for the City. The last quarter of sales tax collections from Levi’s ® Stadium transactions generated $42,000 for the City’s General Fund. In addition to the direct sellers at the Stadium, other businesses in Santa Clara are benefiting from the influx of people coming to attend one or more events at Levi’s® Stadium, resulting in potentially more sales tax collections for the General Fund.

In accordance with State Law, StadCo must pay possessory interest property tax based on their lease of Levi’s
® Stadium from the Stadium Authority. This revenue is collected by the county and placed into the Redevelopm ent Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF).

Amounts remaining in the RPTTF after payi ng any enforceable obligations of the Successor Agency are distributed to taxing ent ities in the same proportion as secured property taxes. The City’s proportion is approximately 10%.

Many stadium events bring travelers to the region, resulting in hotel stays which generate TOT collections for the City’s General Fund. Although it is impossible to say exactly what portion of the City’s TOT collections is due to the stadium, it is clear that hotels both inside and outside the City have benefited, resulting in increases in TOT collections in Santa Clara and our neighboring cities.

21 Glossary
This section of the report prov ides details behind key terms that are used in the body of this report.

Discretionary Fund – The Amended and Restated Stadium Lease Agreement describes the Non-NFL event ticket surcharge which is imposed by the Stadium Authority. All promotors or sponsors of ticketed Non-NFL events are requi red to collect a Non-NFL event ticket surcharge of $4 per ticket on behalf of the Stadi um Authority. One-half of these proceeds are used to cover Stadium Authority operating and maintenance costs.

The other one-half of the proceeds are deposited in the Stadium Authority’s discretionary fund. If at any time the discretionary fund balance exceeds $1 million, then in consultation with the Stadium Manager, the Stadium Authority will dete rmine if provision has been made for replacement and improvement of capital improvements contemplated under the public safety plan. If not, t hen funds will be reserved in t he discretionary fund for such purposes. If adequate provision has been made fo r these items and the balance of the discretionary fund still exceeds $1 million, then up to half of the amount over $1 million can be transferred to the General Fund, in which event an equal amount will also be transferred from the discretionary fund to the Stadium Authority operating fund and will be included as revenue available to pay Stadium Authority expenses.

Ground Lease – The Ground Lease Agreement has an initial term of 40 years commencing on the date of substantial completion which was July 31, 2014. The amount of annual base ground rent that is payable by the Stadium Au thority to the City is noted in the chart 2 below.

Chart 2

Lease Year Fiscal Year
Annual Fixed
Ground Rent
1 2014/15 180,000 $
2 2015/16 215,000 $
3 2016/17 250,000 $
4 2017/18 285,000 $
5 2018/19 320,000 $
6 2019/20 355,000 $
7 2020/21 390,000 $
8 2021/22 425,000 $
9 2022/23 460,000 $
10 2023/24 495,000 $
11-15 2024/25 - 2028/29 1,000,000$
16-20 2029/30 - 2033/34 1,100,000$
21-25 2034/35 - 2038/39 1,200,000$
26-30 2039/40 - 2043/44 1,300,000$
31-35 2044/45 - 2048/49 1,400,000$
36-40 2049/50 - 2053/54 1,500,000$
22 Net Non-NFL Event Revenue – Net Non-NFL event revenue is remitted by Stadium Manager to the Stadium Authority on a year ly basis. This is done annually because the final reconciliation of the Non-NFL event revenues and expenses does not occur until after the conclusion of each fiscal year.

NFL Ticket Surcharge – The Amended and Restated Non-Relocation Agreement states that the Team will collect a 10% NFL ticket surcharge on the price of admission to all NFL games on behalf of Stadium Authority.

Non-NFL Event Ticket Surcharge – The Stadium Lease Agreement requires that the promoter or sponsor of any Non-NFL event collect a Non-NF L event ticket surcharge of $4 per ticket. The Lease Agreement sets as ide one-half of the Non-NFL event ticket surcharge for stadium operating and maintenanc e costs and one-half for discretionary expenses of the Stadium Authority.

Offsite Parking Fees – Parking lot operators who wish to operate a parking lot for sports or entertainment venues are required to go through the Cit y’s permitting process. If approved, per the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule, these operators remit an offsite parking fee for each car that is parked for sports or entertainment events. This fee is designed to recover the public safety costs associated with these permitted offsite parking lots.

Therefore, when invoicing for NFL or Non-NFL public safety costs for a particular event held at Levi’s® Stadium, the offsite parking fee that is collected for said event partly offsets the total public safety costs owed for that event. In the City’s FY 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023) the offsite parking fee is $6.13.

Performance-Based Rent – The Amended and Restated Stadium Lease Agreement and the Ground Lease Agreement both describe the performance-bas ed rent that is due to the City. (It is calculated as 50% of the net income from Non-NFL events less performance-based rent credits. The performance-based rent credits include 50% of the fixed ground rent for the current lease year.)

Public Safety Costs – For each NFL and Non-NFL event held at Levi’s ® Stadium, a
public safety plan is developed and implem ented. Multiple City departments provide staffing, materials, and supplies to support t he public safety plan. Services are provided through a combination of City staff, contracts with other agencies (California Highway Patrol, County Sheriff’s Office, and City of Sunnyvale) and some vendor provided services.

The Amended and Restated Stadium Lease Agreement section 7.5 states that the tenant is responsible for reimbursing the City for the public safety costs attributed to NFL events at Levi’s
® Stadium. Additionally, Article 5 of the Stadium Management Agreement notes that the Stadium Manager is responsible for paying Non-NFL event expenses on behalf of the Stadium Authority. Ther efore, the cost of providing public safety services are tracked through the City’s financial system and invoices are sent to the Stadium Manager.

All of these costs are reimbursed to the City of Santa Clara.

23 Senior and Youth Program Fees – The Amended and Rest ated Stadium Lease Agreement requires that StadCo collect a Senior and Youth Program Fee of $0.35 per NFL ticket sold on behalf of the Stadium Aut hority. Per section 8.2 of the Ground Lease Agreement between the City and the Stadium Authority, the Stadium Authority remits this fee to the City as additional rent to support senior and youth programs in the City.

Stadium Management Fee – The Stadium Manager receives an annual base management fee to manage Levi’s® Stadium. The fee was $400,000 in the first lease year and increases by 3% annually as detailed in the table below. This annual base management fee is split 50/50 between StadCo and the Stadium Authority since the Stadium Manager manages the stadium year-round for both entities. In addition to the base management fee, the Stad ium Manager also receives a stadium marketing and booking fee (incentive fee) which is based on a percentage of the amount that the net income from Non-NFL events exceeds t he marketing and booking fee benchmark. The marketing and booking fee benchmark was $5 mill ion in the first lease year and also increases by 3% annually as detailed in the table below. The annual stadium management fee for each of the first ten lease years are noted in the chart 3 below.

Chart 3

Tasman Lots Parking Fees – The City collects a fee of $5 per space for all cars that are parked on the Tasman surface lots during NFL events.

Annual Base Stadium Additional
Stadium Marketing Stadium Total
Management and Booking Net Income Marketing Stadium
Fiscal Lease Fee (SCSA Fee from Non- and Booking Management Year Year Share) Benchmark NFL Events Fee Fee
2014/15 1 $ 200,000 $ 5 000 000 $ 5 207 553 $ 10 378 $ 210.378 2015/16 2 206 000 5 150 000 6 079 016 46 451 252 451
2016/17 3 212 180 5 304 500 5 316 894 620 212,800
2017/18 4 218 545 5 463 635 5 163,329 - 218,545
2018/19 5 225 102 5 627 544 18 591 - 225,102
2019/20 6 231 855 5 796 370 (2 741 014) - 231,855
2020/21 7 238 810 5 970 261 (476 960) - 238,810
202 1/22 8 245,975 6 149 369 (288,74 1) - 245 975
2022/23 9 253,354 6 333 850
2023/24 10 260 955 6 523 866
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1374 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action to Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2055, Adding Section 2.05.100 to the City Code, Amending the Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Santa Clara to Eliminate a Clause Relating to Temporary Employees

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND
At the October 18, 2022 Council meeting, proposed Ordinance No. 2055 was passed for the purpose of publication. Pursuant to City Charter Sections 808 and 812, a summary of proposed Ordinance No. 2055 was published to the Santa Clara Weekly on October 26, 2022, and copies were posted in three public places.

The City of Santa Clara Municipal Code Section 2.05.090 authorizes the City Council of the City and the Board of Administration, Public Employees’ Retirement System to provide retirement benefits for its employees. The City Council of the City of Santa Clara and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) entered into a contract effective September 1, 1943, which was last amended on December 27, 2006, and provides for participation of the City of Santa Clara in CalPERS.

In April 2022, CalPERS reviewed the City of Santa Clara’s application of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) Retirement Contract exclusion that became effective April 1, 1959 which excluded certain classes of employment from CalPERS coverage (“Exclusion”).

CalPERS determined that the Exclusion is superseded by Gov. Code section 20305(b) because temporary employment is already excluded from membership by Gov. Code section 20305 (until membership requirements) are met and therefore does not need to be specifically excluded in the Agreement.

CalPERS informed the City that this provision is no longer in compliance and that the contract between the City and CalPERS must be amended to remove this provision. CalPERS provided the required steps to remove the exclusion from the City’s contract and an amendment to the CalPERS contract to remove the above exclusion. CalPERS requires that the City adopt a Resolution and Ordinance memorializing the Amendment, and that the City use the particular forms provided by CalPERS. The adoption of the final ordinance cannot be earlier than 20 days after the adoption of the Resolution of Intention, which was approved by the City Council in conjunction with the first reading of the proposed ordinance on October 18, 2022.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-1374 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022

DISCUSSION
The proposed Ordinance authorizes an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Santa Clara and the Board of Administration of CalPERS, as required by CalPERS. The Amendment will remove the following exclusion, which was effective April 1, 1959 and is no longer valid:

CROSSING GUARDS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE RECREATION DEPT. AND CITY LIBRARY WHO

NORMALLY ARE EMPLOYED ON A LESS THAN ONE-HALF TIME BASIS NOT WITHSTANDING

THE FACT THAT THEY MAY AT TIMES BE EMPLOYED TEMPORARILY ON A GREATER THAN ONE-HALF TIME BASIS.

To effectuate this amendment, the City Council must first adopt a Resolution of Intention (which it did on October 18, 2022) and, second, adopt an Ordinance approving the Amendment.

In addition to the elimination of the Exclusion, which is the primary reason for CalPERS requiring the Amendment, some additional modifications are also being made because the City’s contract has not had any updates since 2006 (which predated the changes to the retirement system rules under PEPRA). The retirement ages have been increased by seven years for new members; the City agrees to defend and indemnify CalPERS against liability arising from the City’s decisions regarding its own retirement benefits; the benefit calculation formulas have been updated to include the formulas applicable to new employees.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to amend the City’s CalPERS agreement.

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

PUBLIC CONTACT
A summary of proposed Ordinance No. 2055 was published to the Santa Clara Weekly on October 26, 2022, and copies were posted in three public places and made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office.

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
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-1374 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2055, Adding Section 2.05.100 to the City Code, Amending the Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Santa Clara to Eliminate a Clause Relating to Temporary Employees
Reviewed by: Aracely Azevedo, Director of Human Resources Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance No. 2055 (Intro), with CalPERS Contract Amendment City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
ORDINANCE NO. 2055

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 2.05.100 TO "THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA" TO

AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AND THE BOARD

OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC

EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara Municipal Code Section 2.05.090 authorizes the City Council of the City of Santa Clara to contract with the Board of Administration, Public Employees' Retirement System to provide retirement benefits for its employees; WHEREAS, in April 1, 1959, a contract provision was approved that excludes Crossing Guards and employees of the Recreation Department and City Library employees who normally are employed on a less than one-half time basis notwithstanding the fact that they may at time be employed temporarily on a greater than one-half time basis; WHEREAS, Cal PERS has informed the City that this provision is no longer valid because temporary employment is excluded from membership by Government Code section 20305 until membership requirements are met;
WHEREAS, some additional modifications are required in the Amendment to reflect changes arising from the passage of PEPRA; and
WHEREAS, CalPERS requires that the City amend its contract with CalPERS to make these modifications and the City Council agrees.

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

II
Ordinance/Amendment to CalPERS Contract Page 1 of 3
SECTION 1: That a new Section 2.05.100 is added to Chapter 2.05 (entitled "General Provisions") of Title 2 (entitled "Administration and Personnel") of "The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California" to read as follows:
"2.05.100 Amendment to Agreement with Board of Administration for the California Public Employees Retirement System.

That an amendment to the contract between the City of Santa Clara and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached to this Ordinance, and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full."
SECTION 2: Ordinances Repealed. With exception of the provisions protected by the savings clause, all ordinances (or parts of ordinances) in conflict with or inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed.

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Ordinance/Amendment to CalPERS Contract Page 2 of 3
SECTION 3: Savings clause. The changes provided for in this ordinance shall not affect any offense or act committed or done or any penalty or forfeiture incurred or any right established or accruing before the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall it affect any prosecution, suit or proceeding pending or any judgment rendered prior to the effective date of this ordinance. All fee schedules shall remain in force until superseded by the fee schedules adopted by the City Council.

SECTION 4: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final adoption; however, prior to its final adoption it shall be published in accordance with the requirements of Section 808 and 812 of "The Charter of the City of Santa Clara, California." PASSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLICATION this 18th day of October, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

Attachments incorporated by reference:

Becker, Chahal, Hardy, Jain, Park, Watanabe
and Mayor Gillmor
None
None
None
ATTEST:

NORA PIMENTEL:, M C

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

1. Amendment to Contract between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees ' Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Santa Clara Ordinance/Amendment to CalPERS Contract Page 3 of 3
A.

CalPERS

EXHIBIT
California
Public Employees' Retirement System
~==- ♦-====

AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT
Between the
Board of Administration
California Public Employees' Retirement System
and the
City Council
City of Santa Clara
i,;g;a;;=== ♦====
The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective September 1, 1943, and witnessed September 1, 1943, and as amended effective September 1, 1947, July 1, 1950, May 1, 1956, October 1, 1958, April 1, 1959, July 1, 1959, April 1, 1963, July 1, 1964, October 1, 1964, August 1, 1969, January 27, 1974, June 26, 1975, March 19, 1978, January 3, 1982, August 8, 1990, May 23, 1993, January 9, 2000, June 15, 2000, October 15, 2000, May 26, 2002, December 17, 2006, and December 27, 2006, which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Ag~ncy hereby agree as follows:

A. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective December 27, 2006, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 16 inclusive:

1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for classic local miscellaneous members, age 62 for new local miscellaneous members, age 50 for classic local safety members, and age 57 for new local safety members.

2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after September 1, 1943, making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency.

3. Public Agency agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and its trustees, agents and employees, the CalPERS Board of Administration, and the California Public Employees' Retirement Fund from any claims, demands, actions, losses, liabilities, damages, judgments, expenses and costs, including but not limited to interest, penalties and attorney fees that may arise as a result of any of the following:
(a) Public Agency's election to provide retirement benefits, provisions or formulas under this Contract that are different than the retirement benefits, provisions or formulas provided under the Public Agency's prior non-CalPERS retirement program.
(b) Any dispute, disagreement, claim, or proceeding (including without limitation arbitration, administrative hearing, or litigation) between Public Agency and its employees (or their representatives) which relates to Public Agency's election to amend this Contract to provide retirement benefits, provisions or formulas that are different than such employees' existing retirement benefits, provisions or formulas. (c) Public Agency's agreement with a third party other than CalPERS to provide retirement benefits, provisions, or formulas that are different than the retirement benefits, provisions or formulas provided under this Contract and provided for under the California Public Employees' Retirement Law.

4. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement:
a. Local Fire Fighters (herein referred to as local safety members); b. Local Police Officers (herein referred to as local safety members); c. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members).

5. In addition to the· classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System:

NO ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIONS

6. Removal of the exclusion of "All Hourly Rated Or Hourly Basis Employees," pursuant to Section 20503, is declarative of agency's previous interpretation and does not mandate any new classes of employees into membership.

7. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service for classic local miscellaneous members in employment before and not on or after December 17, 2006, shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law, subject to the reduction provided therein for service on and after January 1, 1956, the effective date of Social Security coverage, for members whose service has been included in Federal Social Security (2% at age 55 Full and Modified).

8. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service for classic local miscellaneous members in employment on or after December 17, 2006, shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354.5 of said Retirement Law, subject to the reduction provided therein for service on and after January 1, 1956, the effective date of Social Security coverage, for members whose service has been included in Federal Social Security (2.7% at age 55 Full and Modified).

9. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a new local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with Section 7522.20 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 62 Supplemental to Federal Social Security).

10. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a classic local safety member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21362.2 of said Retirement Law (3% at age 50 Full).

11. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a new local safety member shall be determined in accordance with Section 7522.25(d) of said Retirement Law (2.7% at age 57 Full).

12. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions:
a. Section 21571 (Basic Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local miscellaneous members only.
b. Sections 21624 and 21626 (Post-Retirement Survivor Allowance) for local safety members only.
c. Section 21222.1 (One-Time 5% Increase - 1970). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1, 1980.
d. Section 21222.2 (One-Time 5% Increase - 1971). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1, 1980.
e. Section 20042 (One-Year Final Compensation) for classic local police members and classic local miscellaneous members only.
f. Section 20516 (Employees Sharing Cost of Additional Benefits):

Section 20042 (One-Year Final Compensation) for classic local police members.

From and after January 3, 1982, the classic local police employees of Public Agency shall be assessed an additional 2.250% of their compensation for a total contribution rate of 11.250% pursuant to Government Code Section 20516.
g. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service). h. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local safety members only.
i. Section 20503 (To Remove the Exclusion of 11AII Hourly Rated Or Hourly Basis Employees," prospectively from June 15, 2000).
j. Section 21548 (Pre-Retirement Option 2W Death Benefit). k. Section 21547.7 (Alternate Death Benefit for Local Fire Members Credited with 20 or More Years of Service).

I. Section 20503 (To Remove the Exclusion of "Crossing Guards And Employees Of The Recreation Department And City Library Who Normally Are Employed On A Less Than Half-Time Basis Not Withstanding The Fact That They May At Times Be Employed Temporarily On A Greater Than Half-Time Basis And Who Are Employed April 1, 1959, Or Thereafter," prospectively from the effective date of this amendment to contract).

13. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System.

14. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows:
a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local safety members. b. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law.
c. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law.

15. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees* Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law.

16. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board.
1 This amendment shall be effective on the __ day of ________ _ B~BOF ADMINISTRATION
PUBL~PLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
1//oJ-
~~Lo □v BENA~bis~, HIEF
PENSION CONTRAC 1 · D PREFUNDING

PROGRAMS DIVISION
1 ®.lb._.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETll"{~iNT SYSTEM
Zr-J;
AMENDMENT CalPERS ID #5184718394
PERS-CON-702A
<?~XX COUNCIL
Cf\?Y('S:OF SANTA CLARA
1-t
BY l)Q
PRESIDING~CER
0/4;
~~
~~ Witness Date
Attest:

Clerk
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1317 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on Resolution for an Exception to the 180 Day Waiting Period To Appoint a Retired Annuitant To Serve as Temporary Extra Help (Government Code Sections 7522.56 and 21224)

COUNCIL PILLAR
Manage Strategically Our Workforce Capacity and Resources

BACKGROUND
Generally, the Public Employment Retirement Law (PERL) requires that retired annuitants serve a 180-day wait period before working in a retired annuitant position. However, the PERL also provides for exceptions to this waiting period if certain criteria are met and the governing body of the public agency adopts a non-consent calendar resolution at a public meeting approving the appointment as a critically needed position before the 180 days has passed. The adoption of the resolution allows the employer to hire a retired annuitant to perform work of a limited duration, such as specialized work and limited term complex projects.

There are two types of post-retirement appointments possible under Govt. Code Section 7522.56: 1) Extra help retired annuitants hired to perform work of limited duration such as special projects (Govt.

Code Section 21224); and 2) Appointment to a vacant position on an interim basis while a permanent replacement is being recruited (an active recruitment must be in place for this type of appointment, and the appointment must end when the replacement is hired, Govt. Code Section 21221(h)).

DISCUSSION
Greg Bych was a Risk Manager (Job Code 700) in the Human Resources Department. He retired on October 21, 2022. During his tenure, he led and managed a full array of risk management activities including general liability, EBIX, insurance and Workers Compensation. He provided guidance to departments throughout the City and advised management on matters related to risk and liability and implemented best practices.

Mr. Bych’s extensive experience with risk management activities, will greatly assist City staff while it conducts a recruitment to fill the vacant position. Mr. Bych will be available to cross train staff.

Mr. Bych will be appointed to a limited term as-needed temporary employee position as a retired annuitant. This position will perform duties comparable to the Risk Manager (Job Code 700) classification. This position will provide guidance on risk management activities as the City recruits to fill the Risk Manager position. He will not participate in day-to-day administrative oversight of his former position. This employment arrangement would fall under the type 2 appointment (Govt. Code Section 21224) as Mr. Bych will be providing technical assistance while the City conducts a Risk City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-1317 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
Manager recruitment.

The recommended action would certify that the appointment of Mr. Bych meet the requirements as defined in Govt. Code Sections 7522.56 and 21224, specifically:

1. Appointment is necessary to perform critically needed duties prior to the expiration of the 180- day wait period;

2. Mr. Bych have not received a Golden Handshake or any other form of retirement-related incentive;

3. Adoption of resolution was not placed on consent calendar;

4. Employment will be limited to 960 hours/fiscal year; and

5. Compensation will be within the posted salary range in the publicly available salary schedule.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) sets forth limitations for compensating retired annuitants. All retirees must be paid hourly, at no less than the minimum, nor more than the maximum, paid to employees doing similar work. Based on the CalPERS formula for setting retired annuitant pay rates, Mr. Bych will be paid at the hourly rate for as-needed consultant position of $96.69. Retirees also do not receive any benefits. Sufficient appropriations are available in the Human Resources Department to fund this interim position. This temporary extra help assignment will not exceed 960 hours per fiscal year, for a total maximum amount of approximately $93,000 for Mr. Bych.

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

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].

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt the attached Resolutions to permit the Risk Manager to provide valuable service to the City post-retirement but within the first 180 days of his retirement; or

2. Direct Staff to return with other options.

RECOMMENDATION
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-1317 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
Alternative 1: Adopt the attached Resolutions for an Exception to the 180 Day Waiting Period To Appoint One Retired Annuitant To Serve as Temporary Extra Help (Government Code Sections 7522.56 and 21224).

Reviewed by: Aracely Azevedo, Director of Human Resources Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution for an Exception to the 180 Day Waiting Period To Appoint A Retired Annuitant To Serve as Temporary Extra Help (G. Bych)

2. Greg Bych Offer Letter
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2080 ● Fax: 408-985-0667 ● www.SantaClaraCA.gov 1 Human Resources
November
1, 2022
Greg Bych

Dear Greg,
Congratulations! This is to confirm our offer of employment for the As-Needed position of Temporary Employee (Risk Manager) in the Human Resources Department with the City of Santa Clara.

Below are a few key provisions for your offer of employment:
• Effective Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2022
• Salary: Your hourly pay rate is $96.69 per hour.
• Employment Status: As-Needed employment is not to be considered permanent.

This is an “at-will” position and hours in any given week is not guaranteed. Under CalPERS regulations
and the City of Santa Clara practices, As-Needed retired annuitants are not permitted to work more than 960 hours per fiscal year (July 1 through June 30). If you reach 960 hours during the fiscal year, your assignment will end. As-Needed
employees will be enrolled in PARS retirement system in lieu of participation in CalPERS and Social Security. However, if you have been previously employed
by a CalPERS employer and have funds on deposit with
CalPERS, you will be enrolled in CalPERS and Social Security upon your first date of As-Needed
employment with the City of Santa Clara.
• New Employee Orientation
(NEO): You are required to attend virtual NEO with the
Human Resources Department to continue your employment. You have been scheduled to attend on:
o Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 3:30PM
o Zoom Meeting: https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/87194537542  Meeting ID: 871 9453
7542
• Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification: All new employees are required to show documentation which proves
their identity and their eligibility to work in the
United States. A list of acceptable documentation can be found at http://uscis.gov/i- 9-central/acceptable-documents. Please
bring I-9 employment verification
identification with you on your first day of employment; original documents are required. This verificati
on must be completed in person at the Human
Resources Department within the first 3 days of your employment start date. If this City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
Re: City of Santa Clara Offer of Employment – Greg Bych November 1, 2022

2 is not completed within the deadline, you will be ineligible to work until you have completed your I-9 verification.

Please sign and date this offer letter and return it to me by Wednesday, November 9, 2022. If you have questions, please contact the Human Resources Department at (408) 615-2080.

Sincerely,

Aracely Azevedo
Director of Human Resources

I accept the terms and conditions of my employment with the City of Santa Clara.

______________________________________ Date: ______________________ Greg Bych

Resolution/CalPERS Resolution
Rev: 11/22/17

RESOLUTION NO. _

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
FOR EXCEPTION TO THE 180 -DAY WAITING PERIOD TO HIRE A

RETIRED ANNUITANT AS A TEMPORARY EXTRA HELP
EMPLOYEE (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 7522.56 AND
21224)

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

WHEREAS, in compliance with Government Code section 7522.56 the City of Santa Clara must provide CalPERS this certification resolution when hiring a retiree before 180 days has passed since his or her retirement date;
WHEREAS, Greg Bych (CalPERS ID 1504097678) resigned from the City of Santa Clara in the position of Risk Manager in the Human Resources Department, effective October 14, 2022 and subsequently retired from the CALPERS system;
WHEREAS, section 7522.56 requires that post-retirement employment commence no earlier than 180 days after the retirement date, which is April 2 0, 2023 , w ithout this certification resolution;
WHEREAS, section 7522.56 provides that this exception to the 180 day wait period shall not apply if the retiree accepts any retirement-related incentive; WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara and Greg Bych certify that Greg Bych has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement-related incentive; WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara hereby appoints Greg Bych as an extra help retired annuitant to perform the critically needed duties of Temporary Employee for the City of Santa Clara under Government Code section 21224, effective November 16, 2022; WHEREAS, the entire employment agreement, contract or appointment document between the City of Santa Clara and Greg Bych has been reviewed by this body and is attached herein; WHEREAS, no matters, issues, terms or conditions related to this employment and appointment have been or will be placed on a consent calendar;
----
Resolution/CalPERS Resolution
Rev: 11/22/17

WHEREAS, the employment shall be limited to 960 hours per fiscal year;

WHEREAS, the compensation paid to retirees cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties; WHEREAS, effective May 1, 2022, the maximum hourly salary rate for the Temporary Employee position is $214.06, and the minimum hourly equivalent is $16.40; WHEREAS, the hourly rate paid to Greg Bych will be $96.69; and

WHEREAS, Greg Bych has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate.

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

1. The City of Santa Clara hereby certifies the appointment of Greg Bych and that this appointment is necessary to fill the critically needed position of Temporary Employee for the City of Santa Clara by November 16, 2022. The retired annuitant was the Risk Manager for the City of Santa Clara and will be rehired performing the comparable duties of the Risk Manager classification. The City would like to rehire Greg Bych as an extra to provide guidance on risk management activities.

Resolution/CalPERS Resolution
Rev: 11/22/17

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

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

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

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST:

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Greg Bych Offer Letter
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1268 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Hold a Public Hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) and Action on the Adoption of a Resolution Approving the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) Reissuance of Tax-Exempt Bonds Relating to the Financing of 145-unit Affordable Housing Project for Low-income Households, Located in the City of Santa Clara, California at 3311 Kifer Road

COUNCIL PILLAR
Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development

BACKGROUND
Allied Housing, Inc. (the “Sponsor”), on behalf of Allied 2904 Corvin, L.P. or another entity to be created by the Sponsor or an affiliate of the Sponsor (collectively the “Borrower”), has requested that the CMFA reissue and sell revenue bonds in the maximum principal amount of $35,000,000 including but not limited to revenue bonds reissued as part of a plan to refinance the Project described herein for the purpose of making a loan to the Borrower, to enable the Borrower to refinance the costs of the acquisition, construction and improvement of a 145-unit rental housing facility for low-income tenants, including persons experiencing homelessness, located at 3311 Kifer Road (formerly 2904 Corvin Drive) within the City. This development is also known as Calabazas Apartments.

In order for all or a portion of the Bonds to qualify as tax-exempt bonds, the City of Santa Clara must conduct a public hearing (the “TEFRA Hearing”) providing for the members of the community an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the Project. Prior to hosting a TEFRA Hearing, reasonable notice must be provided to the members of the community. Following the close of the TEFRA Hearing, an “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit hosting the Project must provide its approval of the issuance of the Bonds for the financing of the Project.

A TEFRA hearing was held, and a resolution unanimously approved by the City Council on April 9, 2019 for the original financing. The original financing has now closed, and the project has been constructed. However, the borrower has asked to extend the maturity date of the bonds. This has triggered a technical reissuance of the bonds which requires another TEFRA hearing.

California Municipal Finance Authority
The CMFA was created on January 1, 2004 pursuant to a joint exercise of powers agreement to promote economic, cultural and community development, through the financing of economic development and charitable activities throughout California. To date, over 300 municipalities have become members of CMFA.

The CMFA was formed to assist local governments, non-profit organizations and businesses with the issuance of taxable and tax-exempt bonds aimed at improving the standard of living in California. The City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-1268 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
CMFA’s representatives and its Board of Directors have considerable experience in bond financings.

DISCUSSION
The Bonds to be reissued by the CMFA for the Project will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower, and the City will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the Project or the repayment of the Bonds for the refinancing of the Project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the Bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.

The Board of Directors of the California Foundation for Stronger Communities, a California non-profit public benefit corporation (the “Foundation”), acts as the Board of Directors for the CMFA. Through its conduit issuance activities, the CMFA shares a portion of the issuance fees it receives with its member communities and donates a portion of these issuance fees to the Foundation for the support of local charities. With respect to the City of Santa Clara, the CMFA shared a portion of the issuance received at closing of the original financing in an amount of $15,000 that was granted by the CMFA to the General Fund of the City.

The City of Santa Clara is already a member of CMFA. There are no costs associated with membership in the CMFA, and the City will in no way become exposed to any financial liability by reason of its membership in the CMFA. Outside of holding the TEFRA hearing and adopting the required resolution, no other participation or activity of the City or the City Council with respect to the issuance of the bonds will be required.

Conducting the TEFRA hearing is a procedural action the City is required to take that will allow implementation of the Project, advancing the City’s goals and objectives related to the production of affordable housing and consistent with the City’s General Plan and the Lawrence Station Area Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost to the City other than administrative staff time and expense.

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

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

City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-1268 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022

ALTERNATIVES

1. Conduct the public hearing under the requirements of TEFRA and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

2. Adopt the resolution approving the reissuance of the Bonds by the CMFA for the benefit of Allied 2904 Corvin, L.P., to provide for the refinancing of the Project, such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of TEFRA, the Code and the California Government Code Section 6500 (and following).

3. No action by City Council.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Conduct the public hearing under the requirements of TEFRA and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

2. Adopt the resolution approving the reissuance of the Bonds by the CMFA for the benefit of Allied 2904 Corvin, L.P., to provide for the refinancing of the Project, such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of TEFRA, the Code and the California Government Code Section 6500 (and following).

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. CMFA Joint Powers Agreement

2. TEFRA Resolution for 2904 Corvin Road
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/Approving Reissuance of CMFA Revenue Bonds-TEFRA 1 of 4 Calabazas Apts. Rev. 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. ___________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING

THE REISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS BY THE AUTHORITY TO

REFINANCE A MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING FACILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALLIED 2904 CORVIN, L.P. (OR AN AFFILIATE), AND CERTAIN

OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO

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

WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California (the “Act”), certain public agencies (the “Members”) have entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”) in order to form the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”), for the purpose of promoting economic, cultural and community development, and in order to exercise any powers common to the Members, including the issuance and reissuance of bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness;
WHEREAS, the Authority is authorized to issue or reissue and sell revenue bonds for the purpose, among others, of financing or refinancing the construction of capital projects; WHEREAS, Allied Housing, Inc. (the “Sponsor”), on behalf of Allied 2904 Corvin, L.P. or another entity to be created by the Sponsor or an affiliate of the Sponsor (collectively the “Borrower”), has requested that the Authority reissue and sell revenue bonds in the maximum principal amount of $35,000,000 including but not limited to revenue bonds reissued as part of a plan to refinance the Project described herein (the “Bonds”) for the purpose of making a loan to the Borrower, to enable the Borrower to refinance the costs of the acquisition, construction and improvement of a 145-unit rental housing facility for low -income tenants, including persons experiencing homelessness , located at 3311 Kifer Road (formerly 2904 Corvin Drive) within the City (the “Project”); WHEREAS, in order for the interest on the Bonds to be tax-exempt, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), requires that an “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit, the geographic jurisdiction of which contains the site of Resolution/Approving Reissuance of CMFA Revenue Bonds-TEFRA 2 of 4 Calabazas Apts. Rev. 11/22/17
facilities to be refinanced with the proceeds of the Bonds, hold a public hearing on the reissuance of the Bonds and approve the reissuance of the Bonds following such hearing; WHEREAS, the Authori ty has determined that the City Council is an “applicable elected representative” for purposes of holding such hearing;
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the City Council approve the reissuance of the Bonds by the Authority in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code;
WHEREAS, notice of such public hearing has been duly given as required by the Code, and this City Council has heretofore held such public hearing at which all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard on all matters relative to the financing or refinancing of the Project and the Authority’s reissuance of the Bonds therefore; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and for the public benefit that the City Council approve the reissuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the aforesaid purposes.

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

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The City Council hereby approves the reissuance of the Bonds by the Authority. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitute approval of the reissuance of the Bonds by the “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is to be located in accordance with Section 147(f) of the Code.

3. The reissuance of the Bonds shall be subject to the approval of the Authority of all financing and refinancing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party. The City shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the Bonds.

4. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing or refinancing to acquire or construct the Project or any refinancing of the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any Resolution/Approving Reissuance of CMFA Revenue Bonds-TEFRA 3 of 4 Calabazas Apts. Rev. 11/22/17
planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation or operation of the Project; (iii) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority; or (iv) take any further action with respect to the Authority or its membership therein.

5. The Mayor, the City Manager, the City Clerk and all other proper officers and officials of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute such other agreements, documents and certificates, and to perform such other acts and deeds, as may be necessary or convenient to effect the purposes of this Resolution and the transactions herein authorized.

6. The Clerk shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution and an originally executed Agreement to the Authority in care of its counsel:

Ronald E. Lee, Esq.

Jones Hall, APLC
475 Sansome Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94111

REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK

Resolution/Approving Reissuance of CMFA Revenue Bonds-TEFRA 4 of 4 Calabazas Apts. Rev. 11/22/17

7. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

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

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE_____ day of______________, 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ________________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Attachments incorporated by reference: None

S:\Attorney\RESOLUTIONS\Form Resolution-City.doc
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1257 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Actions on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential, Rezone from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD), and density bonus agreement to allow a multifamily affordable housing development with 108 rental units at 1601 Civic Center Drive
(Continued from September 27, 2022)

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Charities Housing, property owner, is proposing to construct a five-story 100% affordable housing development consisting of 108 apartments, 82 parking spaces, landscaping, and private and public amenities on a 1.4-acre parcel, along with public right-of-way improvements at 1601 Civic Center Drive. The site is developed with a 28,950 square foot two-story office building, that has been vacant since 2019, surface parking lot and site landscaping. The project involves demolition of the existing structure and site improvements with project development.

The proposed project includes a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH#2022060217) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential, a Density Bonus, and a Rezone from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD) (PLN21-15206). These entitlements together would allow construction of 108 rental units at 76.6 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with studio, one- two- and three- bedroom units, common and private open space, resident services and amenities, shared parking and associated on- and off-site improvements. The affordable housing units, with rents set to be affordable at 30 to 50 percent Annual Median Income (AMI) levels, would be secured with an Affordable Housing Agreement between Charities Housing and the City.

BACKGROUND
The project site is located adjacent to the El Camino Real Corridor. While it is not located in the El Camino Real Focus Area, it was included in the Draft El Camino Real Specific Plan initiated by the City Council in 2017. The Council initiated preparation of the Specific Plan to provide a more detailed level of policy and design guidance to support the successful transformation of the El Camino Real corridor and to refine the allowed land uses and density levels along the corridor. A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was appointed to guide the Specific Plan planning process.

The Draft Specific Plan was presented to City Council for adoption at the June 15, 2021 City Council meeting. The Draft Specific Plan included three proposed land use designations, as recommended City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
22-1257 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
by the CAC, supporting residential and mixed-use development at low (Corridor Residential), medium (Corridor Mixed Use) and higher (Regional Mixed Use) densities. As identified by the CAC, the project site was designated Corridor Mixed Use which would have allowed four- to five-story residential development at 45 to 65 du/ac in the Draft Specific Plan.

At the conclusion of the City Council’s consideration of the Draft Specific Plan, the City Council directed staff to modify the proposed Specific Land Use designations to establish reduced height limits and densities as follows: no more than two-stories for Corridor Residential, no more than three stories for Corridor Mixed-Use, and no more than four stories for Regional Mixed-Use. On July 6, 2021, the City Council affirmed their direction for staff to prepare an alternative form of the Specific Plan that reduces densities from the prior draft. At their meeting of October 19, 2021, the City Council again directed staff to proceed with modification of the Specific Plan to include height limits; to continue consideration of the first Draft Specific Plan; and to prepare an analysis comparing the economic feasibility of the two different land use plans. At the time of this staff report, the additional Specific Plan work has been funded within the City’s budget, and staff is now initiating a work program to modify the Plan per City Council’s direction.

Charities Housing has moved forward with a land use entitlement request separate from the Specific Plan process by submitting their own General Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications. The City Council was scheduled to consider these requests at the September 27, 2022 City Council hearing, but deferred the item to the November 15, 2022 City Council hearing after hearing a request for deferral from Councilmember Chahal and testimony from members of the public. Councilmember Chahal noted that the City Council had never acted on a petition submitted by community members requesting that the City purchase the subject property for parkland and stated that the Council should first consider the petition before taking action on the project. Several community members spoke in support or opposition to the deferral. The City Council deferred the item by a 4-3 vote. The City Council discussed the petition at the November 1, 2022 City Council hearing and referred it to City Council closed session with direction to staff to continue negotiations with Charities Housing.

DISCUSSION
For analysis on the project’s proposed General Plan Amendment, rezoning, and use of the State of California’s Density Bonus Law, see the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission and provided here as Attachment 4.

The project was presented to the Planning Commission at a noticed public meeting on August 3, 2022. Joe Head and Hai Nguyen, representing Charities Housing were present at the meeting and 30 individuals that included community residents and interested organizations participated virtually by Zoom. All correspondence received prior to publication of the Planning Commission Staff Report was included as an attachment to the Staff Report; comments received after publication and before 5:00 p.m. the day of the Planning Commission meeting were distributed at the meeting to the Commissioners; and all e-comments received at the Planning Commission meeting were read into the record during public comment.

At this meeting, staff provided an overview of the proposal and the applicant, representatives of Charities Housing, gave a presentation of the proposed project. The representatives then responded to questions by the Planning Commissioners regarding site selection, changes made to the project, rents assigned to the affordability levels, tenancy, shade and shadow effects on neighboring properties, allocation of on-site parking, provision of transit passes, exploration of shared parking City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
22-1257 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
opportunities, and on-site management and security. Public discussion followed with neighboring residents expressing their opposition to the project and management by Charities Housing. The issues raised throughout the planning process for the project include density, shade and shadow impacts, tenancy, site access, parking on- and off-site, construction impacts, noise, security, crime, and site management and are conveyed in Attachment 9. Individuals representing environmental organizations and housing advocacy groups expressed support of the project for site location, transit accessibility, provision of needed affordable housing, integration of the development into the community, provision of on-site resident services and amenities, and connectivity to neighborhood and commercial uses, services, schools and employment.

Following the close of public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the project and expressed their concerns with the level of public opposition, displeasure with the initial management of the property, reduced parking count and critical need for affordable housing. The Commissioners proposed additional measures to the Charites Housing representatives to address parking, site management and security, and post construction engagement with the neighbors. The representatives were receptive to the measures proposed by the Commission and agreed to the added conditions iterated below.

The Planning Commission then concluded their deliberation with the following motions:

1. Adopt a resolution recommending that Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Civic Center Family Housing Project (5-0-2-0).

2. Adopt a resolution recommending Council approve a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential (5-0-2-0).

3. Adopt a resolution to approve a Rezone from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD) to allow a five-story affordable housing development with 108 rental units, on-site parking and amenities, landscaping, and off-site improvements, with the following recommended added conditions (4-1-2-0):
· Charities Housing to provide a transit pass upon request for each tenant. · Continue community outreach with neighbors through an oversight program provided by the Applicant to the satisfaction of Director of Community Development. · Designate a ride share area within the project site to the satisfaction of Director of Community Development.
· Include a venue for the display of public art with consideration towards Native American artists.
· Give serious consideration to establishing a shared parking arrangement with commercial and City buildings in area.
· Failure by the developer or any contractor to comply with mitigation measures or other conditions (including, but not limited to, emissions, noise, street cleaning, and dust control) will subject the developer to code enforcement under the City Code. · Charities shall install a security system approved by the Director of Community Development, with security to be recorded and monitored with approximately 50 cameras. At the Director’s discretion, monitoring may be required to be conducted in real-time by security personnel.

An excerpt of the Planning Commission meeting minutes is provided as Attachment 3 for review. The City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
22-1257 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
added conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission are incorporated as Conditions P13 through P19 in Attachment 8.

California Assembly Bill AB 2011 and Senate Bill SB 6
The 2022 California legislative session included the approval of two new laws, AB 2011 and SB 6, which provide for streamlined approvals of residential projects. Unlike prior State efforts to streamline new residential development, these bills allow residential projects to be developed on sites with commercial General Plan designations. Under these new provisions it may be possible for Charities Housing to develop a residential project on the subject property without the City’s approval of a General Plan amendment. While Charities Housing has indicated a preference to work with the City through the City’s land use entitlement process, it may be possible for them to utilize these new laws to bypass a discretionary City approval process. However, neither bill goes into effect until July 1, 2023, and so the developer would not be able to utilize them in the short term.

Conclusion
The Project would redevelop an underutilized and currently unoccupied parcel to construct 108 affordable housing units and provide housing opportunities for individuals and families with income levels between 30 to 50 percent AMI; which support the City’s Housing Goals and assist the City in achieving RHNA targets for production of affordable housing units as mandated by the State. The General Plan Amendment to allow residential development along with a density bonus would facilitate affordable housing development on the Project Site through an increase in residential density and building height to make the Project economically feasible to construct. As required by Santa Clara City Code Section 18.78.060, a Density Bonus Housing Agreement must be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. The building footprint and height allow the project to maximize open space and private use by the residents, while providing housing at a higher density, and includes common space that is available to the community.

A detailed discussion of the projects’ conformance with the City’s 2010 - 2035 General Plan policies, site design and architecture, circulation and parking, and landscaping and open space is provided for review in Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachment 10 - Development Plans.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project by the environmental consultant firm David J. Powers & Associate, Inc., in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND and Notice of Availability were posted on the City’s website at <https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community-development/planning- division/environmental-review-ceqa> and circulated for 30-day review on June 13, 2022 and ending on July 13, 2022, in accordance with CEQA requirements. The Planning Department received agency comments on the MND from Valley Water, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Department of Toxic Substances Control and public comments from Jamie Lau, Keyhan Sinai, Jean Song, and David Bayto which are provided as Attachment 3 to this report, along with responses to comments for review.

The MND examined potential environmental impacts associated with project development and identified air quality biological, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts that with incorporation of mitigation measures into the project would City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
22-1257 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022
reduce all potential impacts to less than significant. A detailed discussion of the potential impacts and mitigation measures to be applied to the project are specified in the MND and would be implemented through the MMRP (available on the above web link) and project conditions of approval (Attachment 8).

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative time and expense typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.

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

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

On November 3, 2022, the notice of public hearing for this item was posted in three conspicuous places within 300 feet of the project site and was mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site boundaries. A notice of public hearing was also published in the San Jose Mercury News, a newspaper of general circulation, on November 4, 2022. The Planning Department has received comments on the project and are provided in Attachment 9 to this report for review.

Virtual public outreach meetings were conducted by Charities Housing on November 10, 2021, June 29, 2022, and July 27, 2022 to engage the neighborhood community in the planning process. Notices of the meeting were mailed by the applicant to property owners within 500 feet of the project boundaries and interested parties and was also posted on the City’s website. These meetings provided the community the opportunity to convey their concerns to Charities Housing regarding their property management (both past and future); the type and density of housing proposed for the site; five-story building height and shade/shadow effects on neighboring residential properties; driveway access on Civic Center Drive; impacts of reduced parking and off-site parking on Civic Center Drive; construction related impacts and enforcement of mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts; noise from construction; and type of tenants, crime and security with occupancy.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt a resolution to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Civic Center Family Housing Project.

2. Adopt a resolution to approve a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential.

3. Adopt a resolution to approve a Rezone from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD) to allow a five-story affordable housing development with 108 rental units, on-site parking and amenities, landscaping, and off-site improvements.

4. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a density bonus agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
22-1257 Agenda Date: 11/15/2022

5. Deny a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential.

6. Deny a rezone from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD) to allow a five-story affordable housing development with 108 rental units, on-site parking and amenities, landscaping, and off-site improvements.

RECOMMENDATION
Alternative: 1, 2, 3 and 4:

1. Adopt a resolution to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Civic Center Family Housing Project.

2. Adopt a resolution to approve a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential.

3. Adopt a resolution to approve a Rezone from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD) to allow a five-story affordable housing development with 108 rental units, on-site parking and amenities, landscaping, and off-site improvements.

4. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a density bonus agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney.

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Web Link)

2. Responses to Comments received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration

3. Excerpt Planning Commission meeting minutes of August 3, 2022

4. Planning Commission Staff Report of August 3, 2022.

5. Resolution Recommending Council Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

6. Resolution Recommending Council Approve the General Plan Amendment

7. Resolution Recommending the Council Approve the Rezone

8. Conditions of Rezoning Approval

9. Correspondence

10. Petition

11. Development Plans
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/10/2022Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
Civic Center Family Housing Project

Mitigated Negative Declaration
and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/ 451/3649?alpha=C

CIVIC CENTER FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

The Civic Center Family Housing Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and evaluated in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Santa Clara. The Initial Study/MND was circulated for 30 days from June 13 to July 12, 2022. The City received eight comment letters during the public comment period:

Comment Letters Received by the City from State, County, or Local agencies:

A. Department of Toxic Substances Control July 8, 2022 B. Valley Water July 8, 2022
C. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority July 12, 2022 C. Sneha Shah July 6, 2022
D. Keyhan Sinai July 6, 2022
F. Jamie Lau July 11, 2022
G Jean Song July 12, 2022
H. David Bayto July 12, 2022

This memo responses to public comments on the Initial Study/MND as they relate to the potential environmental impacts of the project under CEQA. Numbered responses correspond to comments in each comment letter. Copies of all comment letters are attached.

Civic Center Family Housing Project 2 Response to Comments Memo Comment Letter A: Department of Toxic Substances Control – July 8, 2022

Comment A-1: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Notice of Availability of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Civic Center Drive Family Housing Project (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the MND:

1. The MND should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the Project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the Project site. In instances where releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. Section 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft Initial Study prepared by the City of Santa Clara dated June 2022 makes reference to a Phase II Subsurface Investigation prepared by Professional Service Industries, Inc. in February 2022, but the data presented therein is not available for review as this document does not appear to be included in the Draft Initial Study. The MND should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

Response A-1: DTSC is correct that the Phase II was not included in the distributed materials. The document has been provided to DTSC for review and posted to the State Clearinghouse. The findings of the Phase II are, however, summarized on page 81 of the Initial Study. As stated in the Initial Study:

“A total of 10 soil borings were taken on the project site with soil samples taken at one and four feet bgs. Groundwater was not encountering in any soil borings. The samples were tested for chlorinated pesticides and one sample was found to have a measurable concentration of DDE at 0.054 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential land uses have a threshold of 0.65 mg/kg. The level of contamination documented on-site is below the ESL residential threshold.”

Furthermore, as explained on page 82 of the Initial Study, no off-site releases have impacted the project site. The analysis concluded that construction and operation of the proposed project would have a less than significant hazards and hazardous materials impact.

Furthermore, the project was found to be consistent with all applicable City policies pertaining to potential safety risks for future site residents and hazardous materials.

Therefore, no mitigation or oversight is required.

Comment A-2: 2. Refiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance. This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL)being deposited in and alongside roadways throughout the state. ADL-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found under some existing road surfaces due to Civic Center Family Housing Project 3 Response to Comments Memo past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil, DTSC recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to preforming any intrusive activities for the Project described in the MND.

Response A-2: As a Condition of Approval, the City will require soil sampling for lead prior to issuance of a grading permit.

Comment A-3: 3. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites including in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers.

Response A-3: Page 81 of the Initial Study addresses the potential for lead-based paint and asbestos containing materials to be on-site due to the age of the existing building. Page 86 of the Initial Study outlines the Conditions of Project Approval required by the project to address these contaminants consistent with Cal/OSHA and Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations. The Phase I did not identify polychlorinated biphenyls or mercury as an environmental condition.

Comment A-4: 4. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed Project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 201 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.

Response A-4: The commenters recommendation to require sampling of imported fill (if any is required) consistent with DTSC’s 201 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material will be provided to the decision-makers during consideration of the proposed project.

Comment A-5: 5. If any sites included as part of the proposed Project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the MND. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision).

Response A-5: As discussed in Response A-1, 10 soil borings were taken on the project site and tested for chlorinated pesticides. Only one sample was found to have a measurable concentration of DDE at 0.054 mg/kg, which is below the ESL residential threshold.

Comment A-6: DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND. Should you need any assistance with an environmental investigation, please visit DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Restoration Program page to apply for lead agency oversight. Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at DTSC’s Brownfield website.

Response A-6: This comment is noted.

Civic Center Family Housing Project 4 Response to Comments Memo Comment Letter B: Valley Water – July 8, 2022

Comment B-1: Valley Water has reviewed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Civic Center Drive Family Housing Project, received on June 10, 2022. Valley Water has the following comments on the subject IS/MND document:

1. Section 4.10.1.1- Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3 should note that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has renewed the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit on May 11, 2022 (Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No.

CAS612008).

Response B-1: This edit is incorporated into the Initial Study/MND by reference. See the attached errata sheet.

Comment B-2: 2. Section 4.10.1.1- Water Resources Protection Ordinance and Well Ordinance, the text should also include: “Valley Water also provides stream stewardship and is the wholesale water supplier throughout the county, which includes the groundwater recharge program.”

Response B-2: This edit is incorporated into the Initial Study/MND by reference. See the attached errata sheet.

Comment B-3: 3. Section 4.10.1.1- Water Resources Protection Ordinance and Well Ordinance, the language under this section should be revised to clarify that well construction and deconstruction permits, including borings 45 feet or deeper, are required under Valley Water’s Well Ordinance 90-1.

Under Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, projects within Valley Water property or easements are required to obtain encroachment permits.

Response B-3: This edit is incorporated into the Initial Study/MND by reference. See the attached errata sheet.

Comment B-4: 4. Section 4.10.1.1- 2016 Groundwater Management Plan, this section includes a subsection on Valley Water’s 2016 Groundwater Management Plan. The subsection should be updated to reference Valley Water’s updated 2021 Groundwater Management Plan which was adopted by the Board of Directors on November 21, 2021. The updated plan can be found at https://s3.uswest2.amazonaws.com/assets.valleywater.org/2021_GWMP_web_version.pdf.

Response B-4: This edit is incorporated into the Initial Study/MND by reference. See the attached errata sheet.

Comment B-5: 5. Section 4.10.1.2- Storm Drain System, states that the project site drains to a vegetated channel based on Valley Water’s Storm Drain Catchment Map. Valley Water’s catchment map notes the site drains to the Guadalupe River; however, it is not clear from the discussions in the MND if the drainage from the site is directed to storm drains that discharge to the Guadalupe River or San Tomas Creek. Please revise the document for consistency and accuracy.

Response B-5: The Initial Study/MND will be edited to correct the reference to Guadalupe River. See the attached errata sheet.

Civic Center Family Housing Project 5 Response to Comments Memo Comment B-6: 6. Section 4.10.1.2- Stormwater Drainage, states that “all stormwater enters Guadalupe River through the existing stormwater discharge system” which conflicts with Section

4.10.1.2 on page 93 which states that “all stormwater enters the San Tomas Aquino Creek through the existing stormwater drainage system”. The discussion about drainage at the site should be consistent throughout the document.

Response B-6: Refer to Response B-5.

Comment B-7: 7. Section 4.10.1.2- Dam Failure and Section 4.10.2- Impact HYF-4, describes the project as within both the Lexington Dam and Anderson Dam failure inundation zones; however, the project site is only located within the James J. Lenihan Dam on Lexington Reservoir failure inundation zone. Anderson Dam should be removed from the discussion.

Response B-7: The Initial Study/MND is correct as written. Page 94 and 99 of the Initial Study/MND specifically state that the site is outside the Anderson Dame inundation zone.

Comment B-8: 8. Section 4.21- Cumulative Hydrology Impacts, states “the geographic area for the cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts is the San Tomas Aquino Creek Watershed”. This should be corrected to the Guadalupe River Watershed.

Response B-8: This edit is incorporated into the Initial Study/MND by reference. See the attached errata sheet.

Comment B-9: 9. The buildout of the project will increase water use by an estimated 36 acre-feet per year. Although the MND concludes that the project can be accommodated by existing and planned water sources, given regional and state-wide challenges with water supply, water use should still be reduced to the greatest extent possible. Potential opportunities to minimize water and associated energy use include requiring water conservation measures from the Model Water Efficient New Development Ordinance, which include:

• Hot water recirculation systems.
• Require installation of separate submeters to each unit in multi-family developments and individual spaces within commercial buildings to encourage efficient water use - studies have shown that adding submeters can reduce water use by 15 to 30 percent. • Graywater dual distribution plumbing.
• Encourage non-potable reuse of water like recycled water, graywater, and rainwater/stormwater in new development and remodels through the installation of dual plumbing for irrigation, toilet flushing, cooling towers, and other non-potable water uses. • Require dedicated landscape meters where applicable.
• Weather- or soil-based irrigation controllers.

If you have any questions, you may reach me at (408) 630-2479, or by e-mail at [email protected]. Please reference District File No. 34738 on future correspondence regarding this project.

Response B-9: The commenter’s recommendations for reducing water usage on-site will be provided to the decision-makers. This comment does not speak to the adequacy of the Initial Study/MND, and no text edits are required.

Civic Center Family Housing Project 6 Response to Comments Memo Comment Letter C: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority – July 12, 2022

Comment C-1: VTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND for the Civic Center Drive Family Housing Project at 1601 Civic Center Drive. VTA has reviewed the document and has the following comments:

Pedestrian Improvements
This project is located one block from El Camino Real, VTA’s highest ridership roadway. VTA recommends this project install or upgrade existing crosswalks at the Civic Center Drive/Lincoln Street intersection to high visibility to facilitate more comfortable crossings at this intersection. As this intersection is also skewed, VTA suggests the long crossings be shortened through curb extensions with to help tighten the turning radii and slow drivers down in the area. Installing a curb extension at the northwest corner of the intersection would provide room for new ADA-compliant directional curb ramps that would serve both crosswalks. This should enhance the proposed improvements in the city’s Pedestrian Master Plan for the intersection of Lincoln Street/El Camino Real, one block south.

Response C-1: The commenter’s recommendations for pedestrian improvements will be provided to the decision-makers. This comment does not speak to the adequacy of the Initial Study/MND, and no text edits are required.

Comment C-2: Bicycle Improvements
VTA appreciates the project including a bicycle storage room for residents. VTA recommends the project increase the number of available spaces to at least match 1 space per unit (108 spaces) to meet VTA’s recommended bicycle parking guidance in Chapter 10 of our Bicycle Technical Guidelines. This can be accessed at https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2022- 03/vta_bicycle_technical_guidelines_complete_1.pdf.

The Revised Development Plans from May 2022 show that the bicycle room is located on the east side of the building. VTA recommends the access from the room directly out to Lincoln Street be removed to reduce the risk of theft. Doing so will allow for more wall space to fit more bicycle spaces. VTA also recommends that the door into the room from the garage have ADA-compliant kick plates to automatically open. Industrial strength sliding doors are recommended over swinging doors as the closing of the door can be timed for ADA compliance while also helping to prevent unwanted people from tailgating behind users. The path of travel should be well lit. Any elevators for the project should accommodate multiple large bicycles.

Response C-2: The commenter’s recommendations for bicycle improvements will be provided to the decision-makers. This comment does not speak to the adequacy of the Initial Study/MND, and no text edits are required.

Comment C-3: AHSC Grant Potential
VTA believes this project would be highly competitive for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Grant administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The AHSC Grant funds land-use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects to support infill and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. VTA would like to begin working with the City and the developer to strategize for an AHSC application because this project proposes a high number of affordable housing units near Route 22 and Rapid 522 routes that are major bus corridors and frequent (15 minute) routes. Close collaboration between Civic Center Family Housing Project 7 Response to Comments Memo developer, City of Santa Clara and VTA can make for a highly competitive application. VTA has had two calls to date with the developer and their technical assistance provider Enterprise Community Partners. VTA has experience working on five AHSC applications to date, include two awards in 2019 in partnership with the City of San Jose and one award in 2021 for a VTA project in San Jose at Tamien Station.

Potential El Camino Real Qualifiable AHSC Improvements
• Transit signal priority upgrades
• Bus stop enhancements
• ADA improvements near bus stops
• Protected bikeway enhancements
• Intersection safety enhancements
• Sidewalk improvements

Santa Clara Station Qualifiable AHSC Improvements
Recent discussions and briefings have occurred between the BART Silicon Valley II program team and VTA planning about future coordination of bicycle and pedestrian station amenity improvements at the Santa Clara Station. Qualifiable AHSC improvements could be included in a 1601 Civic Center Drive AHSC grant at this location because Route 22 and Rapid 522 both serve the station.

Potential improvements could include the following:
• Bicycle ramps
• Escalator installation or improvements
• Bus stop enhancements
• Real-time information signs
• Marketing or advertising signs
• Gateway, signage or customer wayfinding enhancements

Response C-1: If the project is approved and the grant opportunities are sought, the City will coordinate with the VTA. This comment does not speak to the adequacy of the Initial Study/MND, and no text edits are required.

Comment Letter D: Sneha Shah – July 6, 2022

Comment D-1: I am greatly concerned and absolutely condemn the new construction proposed by Charities Housing at 1601 Civic Center Dr, Santa Clara. They are not ethical and have provided no due diligence to the property and are an absolute nuisance as a neighbor.

Their environmental study of the project is an example of their bad ethics and lack of diligence. Our neighbors have the following concerns that should be addressed, otherwise we feel the city and council have failed us.

• Transportation Study recommends the project to have only one driveway entrance to reduce pedestrian and traffic safety risk. The project currently plans to have two driveways – one on Civic Center Drive adjacent to Triton Court, another one on Lincoln Street. Our community requests to have the driveway on Lincoln Street only and away from existing homes on Civic Center Drive. The developer was unable to accommodate it.

Civic Center Family Housing Project 8 Response to Comments Memo Response D-1: While the traffic study recommends one driveway, the City has concluded that two driveways are necessary due to site constraints and for distribution of traffic and to reduce noise.

Comment D-2: The security risks of the open parking lot adjacent to Triton Court are not considered in the environmental study. The open parking lot is currently not designed with any security gate and is out of sight from the main street. This can become a hidden alley for dumping, car break-ins and other criminal activities. Even if it is designed with a secured gate, according to posted tenant comments from other CH properties, broken security gates are not fixed promptly.

Response D-2: All proposed projects in the City undergo review by the Santa Clara Police Department (SCPD). The SCPD did not identify any issues with the proposed design. The driveway and parking lot would be visible at all times by the residents of the project site.

Furthermore, the proposed driveway and associated parking lot on Civic Center Drive has better visibility from publicly accessible viewpoints than the adjacent driveway and parking lot located between the church and Triton Court.

The commenter provided no documentation regarding the purported comments from other CH properties. As such, no evaluation of these comments can be made by the City and no response is possible.

Comment D-3: Transportation Study did not consider the sight distance for drivers coming out of Triton Court with the new driveway at Civic Center Drive from the project. Both driveways are very close together and may be a safety risk if the drivers from both driveways are coming out simultaneously.

Response D-3: The transportation study did address the potential conflicts from the proposed location of the driveways on-site. As discussed on Page 4 of the transportation study, drivers must be able to see 200 feet in both directions to be able to safely enter/exit the proposed driveways. The project would meet this criterion. The project drive on Civic Center Drive would also be approximately 100 feet from cars exiting Triton Court. Given the site distances and the distance between exiting cars at both driveways, the proposed project would not create a safety risk for persons exiting Triton Court.

Comment D-4: Parking study was not considered as part of the environmental study. Project's less than 1:1 parking space to unit ratio will burden the existing street parking situation. Also, the project may eliminate many street parking along its frontage at Civic Center Drive as it could be red-zoned for sight clearance, while some for white-zoned for loading as recommended by the Transportation Study.

Response D-4: Parking or lack thereof is not considered a physical effect under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is, therefore, not addressed. A project need only meet the City’s parking requirements. The potential loss of street parking is also not a physical effect under CEQA. Per the Santa Clara Fire Department and Public Works, the City will allow a loading zone and will require the red curbs as recommended by the traffic report.

Comment D-5: Shadow study was not considered at all, though there is a negative impact to the adjacent family homes.

Civic Center Family Housing Project 9 Response to Comments Memo Response D-5: The City of Santa Clara does not have a threshold by which to address increased shading by any project. Therefore, shading was not addressed in the Initial Study.

Comment D-6: Noise Study uses a noise threshold (90 dBA) from a 2018 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) assessment as a criteria to determine construction noise impact to residential homes. The FTA assessment noted its criteria is not meant as construction standards for all, but CH's noise study decided to use that on a residential project study. FTA projects are mostly construction for transportation projects like train stations and rail lines in populated areas, the guidelines are therefore likely to have a higher noise threshold. This standard may not be suitable for the 1601 Civic Center site. The noise study should have used residential construction guidelines from similar projects in kind, and considered the delta to existing ambient noise instead. The study has used 90 dBA as a threshold and that's equivalent to a lawn mower.

Response D-6: The noise study was commissioned by the environmental consultant under direction by City staff. The project applicant has no authority over the analysis in the Initial Study/MND or the methodologies used in the analysis.

The commenter mischaracterized the language in the FTA manual. Chapter 7, page 172 of the PDF document (https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf) specifically states:
“Generally, local noise ordinances are not very useful for evaluating construction noise impact. They usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project. Project construction noise criteria should take into account the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land uses. While it is not the purpose of this manual to specify standardized criteria for construction noise impact, the following guidelines can be considered reasonable criteria for assessment. If these criteria are exceeded, there may be adverse community reaction.”

As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Santa Clara does not have adopted construction noise thresholds. As such, the City and the noise consultant concluded that the FTA thresholds represent reasonable criteria to quantify construction noise impacts, consistent with other local jurisdictions. This is an accepted industry standard, in the absence of local criteria. Therefore, the thresholds and methodology used to assess construction noise impacts from the proposed project are appropriate.

Comment D-7: The permanent noise impact study did not consider the scenario when a car with loud exhaust and building fire alarms can affect permanent noise level of adjacent homes. Also, delivery trucks and moving trucks coming in and out frequently on the Civic Center Driveway were not considered.

Response D-7: Both car exhaust and building fire alarms are temporary noise events. In order for either of these events to result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels, these events would have to occur non-stop over an extended time period (multiple hours) every day. This is not an accurate or reasonable representation of a residential project. CEQA does not allow for speculative analysis (Section 15145).

Civic Center Family Housing Project 10 Response to Comments Memo It is not clear what the commenter considers frequent with regard to delivery trucks and moving trucks, but it would be speculative to assume that the proposed project would have any greater frequency of these types of events than other types of housing as this is not temporary housing.

Comment D-8: The environmental study did not consider the project's architectural aesthetic to the surrounding due to being an affordable high-density housing. In some neighbor's opinions, The 5- story building does not fit in with the adjacent 2-story homes, or surrounding homes.

Response D-8: As discussed on page 19 of the Initial Study, the project side is located in a transit priority area as designated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Consistent with state law, residential in- fill projects in transit priority areas shall not be considered to have a significant aesthetic impact on the environment. Furthermore, while the houses immediately adjacent to the project site are two-story, there are three-story townhouses and a seven-story apartment complex in the immediate vicinity (Civic Center Drive and Warburton). As a result, a five- story building would be consistent with the mix of residential densities in this area.

Comment D-9: The project is not close to a transit hub like a BART or Caltrain station. There's only bus stops nearby with infrequent services unless it's peak hours. Public transportation is not a reliable option for daily commute for work or school at this site. There is no bus route going to Buchser Middle School and Santa Clara High School.

Response D-9: The project site is within 1,000 feet of two bus stops which are served by Bus 22, the most active bus line in the County which runs from Palo Alto to East San José. Also, within 2,000 feet (standard transit access walking distance) are Routes 32, 59, and Rapid 522 (see page 142-143 of Initial Study). Bike lanes are also planned on El Camino Real. As such, the site is well suited for the proposed project as it is also within walking or biking distance to shopping and services on El Camino Real.

Comment D-10: The schools' existing capacity in the Initial Study was sourced from a 2017 data, which is about 5 years old. The Santa Clara High School enrollment is already operating over capacity according to the study with the old data. Also, to a neighbor's knowledge, Busher Middle School has no more space for newcomers as it does not accept a second round of enrollment for 2022, indicating operating at capacity. The school impact study may not be accurate due to old data being used. The mitigation for school impact is for the project to pay fees to the school district to offset the impact, but will the schools be able to implement changes to provide adequate spaces to neighborhood students?

Response D-10: Existing capacity is the number of students that can be reasonably accommodated by a school. None of the schools analyzed have been expanded or modified since 2017, so the existing capacity numbers provided by the school district are valid. Current enrollment numbers were provided by the California Department of Education and represent the best available data at the time the analysis was completed. As the commenter noted, the mitigation for additional students is to pay the school impact fee. School impact fees are discussed on Pages 129 and 134 of the Initial Study/MND. As noted on Page 129, “Government Code Sections 65995 through 65998 set forth provisions for the payment of school impact fees by new development by “mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur (as a result of the planning, use, or development of real property” (Section 65996[a]). The legislation states that the payment of school impact fees “are hereby deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation” under CEQA (Section 65996[b]).”

Civic Center Family Housing Project 11 Response to Comments Memo Each school utilizes the monies as necessary to accommodate any additional students. As this is deemed appropriate and adequate mitigation by the state, no further mitigation is required.

Comment D-11: The project does not have underground parking as encouraged by City's General Plan guidelines.

Response D-11: General Plan Policy 5.3.2-P3 encourages but does not require below-grade or structured parking, so the proposed parking is not inconsistent with this policy.

Comment D-12: The general plan amendment and rezone from commercial to residential for 1601 Civic Center will permanently remove the commercial land use that was designated to serve the planned residential areas surrounding the location, as City Hall, church and medical building lots' planned use until 2035 is residential. The amendment and rezone of site in question does not align with City's General Plan and is shortsighted.

Response D-12: Changing a land use from commercial to residential in a mixed-use area with adjacent residential is not inconsistent with the existing development in the area.

Furthermore, the City has a jobs/housing imbalance (Page 126 of the Initial Study/MND) and must continue to build housing to meet state mandated housing requirements. Currently, the City must build 11,632 new housing units by 2031 under the Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RNHA is mandated by state law.

Comment Letter E: Keyhan Sinai – July 6, 2022

Comment E-1: I hereby strongly and formally object to the "mitigated negative declaration " or MND prepared pursuant to CEQA, for the proposed 1601 Civic Center Drive project.

I believe there is not adequate mitigation for the problems below.

My home at 1691 Triton Ct. is identified as RED on page 36 of the MND report, and is wall-to-wall with 1601 Civic Center Drive. As I understand my home will be exposed to dangerously high cancer- causing agents from the construction site equipment for an extended period of time. We do not believe the mitigation measures proposed will reduce the risk of exposure to cancer and other toxic agents adequately or mitigate the risk of accidents and malfunctions. We do not feel safe breathing the air in our home if/when this project starts.

Response E-1: This comment is noted. Please see responses to specific comments below.

Comment E-2: Please note the following points:

1. Charities Housings Credit History of mitigation efforts is terrible. Their mitigation measures (a $2000 perimeter fence) came too late and exposed our homes for 13 months to petty crime and blight a few yards from our property line culminating in dumping of a toilet tank full of human feces within a few yards of our home which took them 4 days to clean. We suffered 4 days of intolerable odors and exposure to airborne bacteria and viruses from the dumped human feces during the peak of the Covid-19 crisis. Charities Housing was nowhere to be seen during any part of our 13 month ordeal to take any mitigation steps. FYI The dumping of feces was reported by us not them. Stating that we "did not know" makes matters worse (how can you not know for 13 long months?) and is proof of negligence, lack of accountability and a cavalier attitude towards neighbors' safety and well being. We have no reason to believe Charities Housing will take responsibility for the hazards and nuisance it has imposed or will impose upon its neighbors in Civic Center Family Housing Project 12 Response to Comments Memo the future. Hiding under the cover of a "mitigated negative declaration" does not absolve them of responsibility and does not address the true actual risks to us neighbors, with my home being one of the most impacted.

Response E-2: As stated on Page 1 of the Initial Study, the City of Santa Clara is the Lead Agency for this project and prepared the Initial Study/MND in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of Santa Clara, California. Project applicants are not involved in the preparation of the CEQA documents and are required through permitting processes and regulatory oversight to properly implement the mitigation measures and conditions of approval identified in the Initial Study/MND.

The intent and purpose of the Initial Study/MND is to provide the public and decisions- makers with an accounting of the physical environmental effects which may result from construction and implementation of the proposed project. The law does not allow for the CEQA analysis to address current operational issues of a property.

Comment E-3: 2. Absent 24/7 3rd-party monitoring of construction equipment we have no reason to believe we are safe from exposure to cancer causing agents. However, considering how cost sensitive (i.e. cheap) Charities Housing has been in the past, they will figure ways of making short cuts to the cost of preserving our safety and security. Even with a stringent monitoring regime the risks are too high as stated below:

3. Even with effective 24/7 3rd-party monitoring there is a high risk of industrial accidents, malfunctions, power loss or interruption in monitoring that will result in dangerously high exposure for finite periods of time with unpredictable and potentially horrendous long term effects.

Response E-3: It is assumed that the commenter is referring to the toxic air contaminants (TAC) analysis in the air quality report. As noted by the commenter in Comment E-1, Figure 1 of Appendix A shows the commenters house with a red circle on it. This denotes that this house would experience the highest concentration of emissions during construction on the project. As discussed on Pages 35-37 of the Initial Study/MND, the project will be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce emission impacts to this receptor and all other nearby receptors to a less than significant level. This means below the thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

While the air quality analysis did identify an impact which would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds, the BAAQMD thresholds are based on a 70-year exposure to the emissions, so the actual risk is far less than what is calculated for project construction. Construction is estimated to be 18 months. Also, the cancer risk impact is based on the respiratory rates of infants, which are different than children and adults. The analysis did not find an impact to children or adults.

The threshold established by BAAQMD for cancer risk is 10 cancer cases per one million people exposed. With mitigation the infant cancer risk is reduced to 5.99 cases per million people based on a 70-year exposure. For annual PM2.5 emissions, the BAAQMD threshold is

0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). With mitigation, the PM2.5 emissions would be reduced to 0.15 µg/m3. Therefore, with implementation of the identified mitigation measure on Page 36 of the Initial Study/MND, the proposed project would have a less than significant construction air quality impact on all adjacent and nearby sensitive receptors.

The mitigation would be enforced by the City. Furthermore, as noted on Page 33 of the Initial Study/MND (under Conditions of Approval), a publicly visible sign will be posted on-site Civic Center Family Housing Project 13 Response to Comments Memo with the numbers for the on-site project superintendent and the Air District to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Comment E-4: 4. In addition, there will be 90db noise from the construction site a few yards away from our fence. The City code for maximum noise level in residential areas is 55db from 7am-10pm and 50db at night. Why are we being asked to put up with 90db noise a few yards from our home when the City noise code mandates significantly less noise levels by orders of magnitude? The Table below shows the difference in power (loudness) between 55db and 90db is more than 10000 times!

Response E-4: Refer to Response D-2.

Comment E-5: In addition the noise from fire trucks and fire drills, which are often conducted at mid night to emulate real-time conditions, will deprive us of sleep, with fire trucks running their engines right behind our homes. We have repeatedly asked not to place a fire lane or parking access behind our homes and to block access from Civic Center Drive to the 1601 site along the Triton Ct. property line. This is based on our actual experience during 13 months with problems associated with such access.

Response E-5: This is a housing project and like all other multi-family housing projects in Santa Clara, the Fire Department would not be conducting fire drills at this location. Any and all use of the fire lane by first responders would be for actual emergencies. It would be speculative to assume that emergency calls to this site would be substantially greater than for any other multi-family residential property in the City.

Comment E-6: Is our actual experience and observations over 13 months not more relevant than a hypothetical study based on potentially incomplete models? So far our request for blocking access from Civic Center Drive along Triton Ct.'s property line has been ignored. Noise from traffic and fire trucks are a major environmental nuisance. Suffering sleep deprivation due to noise for an extended period of time as we did during our 13 month ordeal has long term health and economic adverse consequences. Many of us still work from home and will not be able to do so because of noise levels.

dB Power ratio Amplitude ratio
100 10000000000 100000
90 1000000000 31623
80 100000000 10000
70 10000000 3162
60 1000000 1000
50 100000 316 .2
I I
Civic Center Family Housing Project 14 Response to Comments Memo 40 10000 100
30 1000 31 .62
20 100 10
10 10 3 .162
6 3 .981 ≈ 4 1 .995 ≈ 2
3 1 .995 ≈ 2 1 .413 ≈ √2
1 1 .259 1 .122
0 1 1
−1 0 .794 0 .891
−3 0 .501 ≈ 1⁄2 0 .708 ≈ √ 1⁄2
−6 0 .251 ≈ 1⁄4 0 .501 ≈ 1⁄2
−10 0 .1 0 .3162
−20 0 .01 0 .1
−30 0 .001 0 .03162
−40 0 .0001 0 .01
−50 0 .00001 0 .003162
−60 0 .000001 0 .001
−70 0 .0000001 0 .0003162
D
□
Civic Center Family Housing Project 15 Response to Comments Memo −80 0 .00000001 0 .0001
−90 0 .000000001 0 .00003162
−100 0 .0000000001 0 .00001

Response E-6: Based on the Community Crime Map for the City of Santa Clara (https://communitycrimemap.com/) there have been no calls for service to the project site between January 1, 0221 and July 12, 2022. Fire Department data is not available on-line.

As noted in Response E-2, the intent and purpose of the Initial Study/MND is to provide the public and decisions-makers with an accounting of the physical environmental effects which may result from construction and implementation of the proposed project. The law does not allow for the CEQA analysis to address current operational issues of a property. The current commercial operation of the site is not equivalent to the proposed project and the current conditions on-site cannot be extrapolated into the analysis of future operations of a housing development.

As discussed on Pages 117-118 of the Initial Study/MND, operation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels from either traffic or building operations and would have a less than significant impact. While construction noise would occur during allowable construction hours (Monday through Friday 7:00am to 6:00pm) for a period of 18 months, a noise control plan is required as a condition of approval.

Comment E-7: 5. As you are aware we have objected to the shadow study and statement in the FAQs posted on the City Project web site that " there is no additional shadow line impact on the neighboring properties when comparing the existing two-stories office building with a 10 ft setback ..."

The above statement is simply false: If you carefully examine Charities Housing's own shadow analysis it clearly shows there is no shadow from the existing building onto my home most of the year (Spring, Summer, Fall). I take issue with the only image showing some shadow during the Winter. I live in this home and currently have no building in my line of sight casting a shadow or blocking my view of the sky. How can a comparison of shadows cast onto my property with the existing building be correct?

I respectfully request a correction to the FAQ.

Response E-7: The shade and shadow study provided by the applicant shows the property at 1691 Triton Court as being cast in varying degrees of shadow from the proposed building in the morning hours throughout the year. The shade and shadow study shows the property at 1691 Triton Court to only be in shadow during the morning winter months under existing conditions. As a result of the applicant’s shade and shadow study, an increase in shading on the commenter’s property from the project is shown. No change to the diagram is necessary.

This comment does not speak to the environmental analysis.

Comment E-9: Conclusion: The primary reason these risks are magnified and don't lend themselves to adequate mitigation is the density of the project and its proximity to our homes. The mitigation models are not incorporating the effect of actual risks. How are the risks of a malfunction or accident Civic Center Family Housing Project 16 Response to Comments Memo modelled? How are the effects of long term ambient noise on our health, sleep, and sanity modelled? We therefore strongly object to the project which poses a long-term health hazard even after mitigations, and emphatically ask that Charities Housing relocate its project to a more suitable location with less adverse impact upon their neighbors, and do so before they cause more damage to their wall-to-wall neighbors than they already have.

Response E-9: Refer to Responses E-2 through E-7.

Comment Letter F: Jamie Lau – July 11, 2022

Comment F-1: Earlier on 6/24 I have submitted questions for the 1601 Civic Center Initial Study.

Please don’t take those as public comments. They are interim questions for the public outreach meeting and some of them have been answered, leading my final comments.

Please use below for my final public comments instead:

1. The 5-story high-density tall building does not fit in with the adjacent 2-story single family homes, this is a significant discount of aesthetics and property value to the adjacent family homes. This consideration should be included for the approval process.

Response F-1: While the houses immediately adjacent are two-story, there are three-story townhouses and a seven-story apartment complex in the immediate vicinity (Civic Center Drive and Warburton). So, a five-story building would be consistent with the mix of residential densities in this area. For additional reference, the proposed building would be setback 67 feet from the shared property line with the adjacent two-story residences and Civic Center Drive is 50 feet wide.

Comment F-2: City of Santa Clara has the opportunity to implement inclusive planning to mandate percentage of affordable housing units with any new regular market rate homes. There are also vacant lots elsewhere in the City more suitable for high-density affordable housing with less social and environmental impact to the surrounding. The site selection at 1601 Civic Center Drive is not suitable for the community in many ways.

Response F-2: This comment does not speak to the adequacy of the Initial Study/MND, and no text edits are required.

Comment F-3: 2. High-density of concentrated low income housing contradicts the City’s planning policies that affordable housing units should be dispersed throughout the City to avoid a concentration in any neighborhood. This Project will bring over 100 units in a small parcel of land - it is concentrated in one neighborhood. I understand the need of building more housing to solve homelessness, but such high-density affordable housing should be planned on a busy street away from quiet residential neighborhood for lesser social and environmental impact, and closer to a transit hub, such as a CalTrain or BART station for mobility. This project is neither.

Response F-3: The intent of the City’s policy is to avoid having all affordable units within one neighborhood or area of the City. Dispersal means throughout all neighborhoods.

Relative to the number of affordable units the City has and still needs to build, having 106 units in this area is not inconsistent with the policy. For reference, the City needs to build 4,525 affordable units by 2031. This project represents two percent of the total new units Civic Center Family Housing Project 17 Response to Comments Memo required Citywide. When added to the existing and approved affordable units, the project represents less than two percent of the total affordable units Citywide.

City policy also states “Encourage higher-density residential development in transit and mixed-use areas and in other locations throughout the City where appropriate. This site meets both criteria. The project site is within 1,000 feet of two bus stops which are served by Bus Route 22, the most active bus line in the County which runs from Palo Alto to East San José.

Also, within 2,000 feet (standard transit access walking distance) are Routes 32, 59, and Rapid 522 (see page 142-143 of Initial Study). The Santa Clara Transit Station is easily accessible from the project site using Bus Route 22 which runs 24 hours per day with buses running every 15 minutes. Bike lanes are also planned on El Camino Real. As such, the site is well suited for the proposed project as it is also within walking or biking distance to shopping and services on El Camino Real.

Comment F-4: 3. The plan amendment and rezoning of 1601 Civic Center is shortsighted. It is the only designated neighborhood commercial planned use outside of El Camino Real for the Civic Center community in City’s General Plan. The planned commercial land use can be local services that neighbors can safely walk to. We do not want to lose the only land that can serve as a commercial use to Civic Center neighbors in the years to come, considering all surrounding parcels will be planned for residential use in City's General Plan. Please use common sense and considerations for existing neighbors when determining the plan amendment approval.

Response F-4: This comment does not speak to the adequacy of the Initial Study/MND, and no text edits are required.

Comment F-5: 4. In the construction noise impact analysis, the study opted to use a guideline from FTA noise assessment, which is intended for transportation projects like trains stations/lines in populated areas. The assessment stated the guidelines are not meant as industry standards for all projects. The noise threshold of 90 dBA is especially high for a quiet residential neighborhood like Civic Center’s. Study should consider the delta from existing ambient noise and construction noise in determining impact level.

Response F-5: See Response D-6.

Comment F-6: 5. The project-generated permanent noise study did not consider scenario of cars with loud exhaust in the open parking lot.

Response F-6: See Response D-7.

Comment F-7: 6. The Project plans an open parking lot located adjacent to existing Triton Court single family homes. First, open at-grade parking lot design is not encouraged by City’s planning policies. Secondly, as the parking lot being situated discreetly away from a main street, it will attract crimes and dumping. As a consideration to the community’s safety and social impact, the Project should be designed with an underground parking lot and secured gate. The developer expressed no intent to build an underground parking structure due to cost.

Response F-7: See Responses D-2 and D-11.

Comment F-8: 7. Project’s planned 5-story building will have shadow impact to adjacent existing homes. It was evident in Developer’s initial project info. However, shadow impact was not discussed in the Initial Study. The shadow impact should be properly investigated.

Civic Center Family Housing Project 18 Response to Comments Memo Response F-8: See Response D-5.

Comment F-9: 8. The Transportation Study from Appendix F recommended only one entrance should be planned for the Project, but it currently plans two entrances - one on Civic Center Dr and another one on Lincoln Street. The recommendation is to reduce pedestrian and traffic safety incidents, as more entrances increases risks of collisions. The Project should follow the study’s recommendation to keep only one entrance, and that entrance should be on Lincoln Street.

Response F-9: This comment does not speak to the adequacy of the Initial Study/MND, and no text edits are required.

Comment F-10: 9. The Transportation Study from Appendix F did not mention there is no bus route from Project site going to Buscher Middle School and possible transit modes to the school. Only Santa Clara High School and Scott Lane Elementary School are discussed for the topic.

Response F-10: The transportation analysis acknowledges all three schools that would serve the project site and their distance from the site. In addition, the analysis outlines the available pedestrian and bicycle routes. Because the analysis provides a description of all transit access currently available to the three schools, it can be inferred that there is no transit access readily available to the middle school. It is acknowledged that most students are expected to be driven or will drive to school.

Comment F-11: 10. The Transportation Study from Appendix F recommended the Project to have white-lined zone and red-lined zones along the Project’s frontage on Civic Center Drive. This will remove street parking on Civic Center and burden the already tighten parking situation.

Response F-11: See Response D-4.

Comment F-12: 11. No where on the development plan indicating the Project’s parking will be assigned or not. The plan should list that as a design commitment on the design plan.

Response F-12: This comment does not speak to the adequacy of the Initial Study/MND, and no text edits are required.

Comment F-13: 12. The Project Listing summary page should accurately reflect the total number of units as 108 instead of 106 without the two management units.

Response F-13: The total number of units proposed is 108, with 106 rental units and two manager units. For the purposes of CEQA and the environmental analysis, the composition of the 108 units is not relevant as each residential unit is treated the same with regard to traffic generation, utility usage, public services usage (including student generation), etc.

Comment F-14: 13. School enrollment impact study uses data from 2017, that’s about 5 years old.

The Santa Clara High School is already reaching capacity per the 2017 data. To my knowledge, Buscher Middle School is also reaching capacity as it does not accept second round of open enrollment; the study shows no impact to Busher Middle School, which is likely false. The mitigation for school enrollment impact is for the developer to pay a fee to the district. The study should involve the school district to provide current enrollment status and if the district is able to mitigate the problem with fees paid. The report does not show the school district was involved in the study.

Civic Center Family Housing Project 19 Response to Comments Memo Response F-14: See Response D-10.

Comment F-15: 14. Appendix D indicates Charities Housing did not return the User Questionnaire per EPA, therefore, environmental liens and activity and use limitations are not evaluated. Should these be evaluated for the study?

Response F-15: The lack of a user questionnaire does not invalidate the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or the analysis in the Initial Study/MND. While these are helpful to gather information on a specific site, the analysis is reliant on a site reconnaissance completed by the hazardous materials consultant and a review of all available regulatory databases.

Comment F-16: 15. Sanitary Sewer Study from Appendix G indicates a sewer pipe will reach 82.2% capacity with the development. Did City of Santa Clara sanitary department review this finding and consider that’s an acceptable number?

Response F-16: The Sanitary Sewer Study is commissioned by the City and reviewed for accuracy prior to being provided to the environmental consultant. Had the study identified any capacity issues resulting from the project, the project would be conditioned by the City to make the necessary improvements. The City did not identify any capacity issue which would require an upgrade to the current infrastructure by the project applicant. As discussed on Page 156 of the Initial Study/MND, City staff concluded that there is sufficient capacity to serve the proposed development.

Comment Letter G: Jean Song – July 12, 2022

Comment G-1: This is Jean, a resident of the Civic Center Drive neighborhood. I read the environmental report and read the reviews of existing Charities Housing (CH) in the bay area. The more I read and learned, the more I'm concerned about this project.

I'm afraid CH barely cares about the living conditions of their residents. Hardly does CH show respect to the neighbors. I'll write in the aspects of transportation, safety and security, amenities and construction impacts.

Response G-1: Responses to specific comments are provided below.

Comment G-2: 1) Transportation
They plan to build 108 units with only 82 parking spaces at most. Note that the average car ownership in Santa Clara county is 2 cars per household. That means, 134 cars of the residents of CH are expected to do street parking. But the current parking in the neighborhood is already overcrowded. You can find _zero_ parking spot after 4pm in Civic Center Dr. I can't imagine what the residents can do after they come back from work but can't find a parking spot.

Response G-2: See Response D-4. A project need only meet the applicable parking requirements. The City of Santa Clara parking ratios are not derived from average car ownership. Parking requirements are based on land use type and take into account mitigating factors such as mixed use, affordable housing, proximity to transit, and the Density Bonus law (when applicable) as noted by the commenter. Per Assembly Bill 2345, 100 percent affordable housing projects within one-half miles of a major transit stop are only required to provide 0.5 spaces per unit. By state law (Government Code Section 65915), the project is required to provide 54 parking spaces, but is proposing 82.

Civic Center Family Housing Project 20 Response to Comments Memo Comment G-3: According to the outreach meeting organized by CH, their focus of this project is the people who make 30-50% AMI. These are working people who need to commute every day. With the poor transportation nearby (no caltrain, no VTA light rail, only 2 bus routes to Palo Alto and Baypointe station), the residents have to commute mostly by cars.

I also learned that 25% of the residents would be those who have risks to become homeless. They either recently lost their jobs, or have some medical conditions. These people either have to look for jobs actively, or need to commute to hospitals frequently. In either case, they need cars to commute.

82 parking spaces are absolutely far from enough. However, CH refused to provide enough parking space to their residents. They rejected the suggestion to build underground parking. I don't understand why they can't accommodate, but they don't seem to care about their residents, let alone the burden that will be posed upon the neighborhood.

Response G-3: See Responses D-4 and D-9.

Comment G-4: 2) Safety and security
According to the reviews of other CH locations in the Bay Area, there're many car break-ins. This poses a big risk to the neighborhood. Is CH prone to attract crimes? Does CH do any security or background check to the future residents? As someone living within 2-min walk from the proposed location, I'm really worried about the change that would be brought by the project. Will it be safe to walk in the neighborhood any more? Will there be break-ins to cars and even houses? How could we protect our fences?

Response G-4: This comment does not speak to the environmental analysis. The intent and purpose of the Initial Study/MND is to provide the public and decisions-makers with an accounting of the physical environmental effects which may result from construction and implementation of the proposed project. The law does not allow for the CEQA analysis to address speculative future scenarios.

Comment G-5: The proposed project creates an entry driveway along the wall with Triton Ct, and their proposed parking lot just faces Triton Ct. How much impact would be on the existing residents?

Response G-5: It is unclear what potential impacts the commenter is referring to. With regard to parking lots, the primary issues under CEQA are noise and lighting. Both were addressed in the Initial Study/MND. Light and glare is discussed in Section 4.1.2 (Page 19) of the Initial Study/MND. Operational noise is discussed on Pages 117-118 of the Initial Study/MND.

Comment G-6: 3) Amenities
Lots of CH residents complain that the places are full of bed bugs and roaches. How CH manages the places is a big question. CH isn't willing to treat these bugs before the move-in of new residents. Again, this shows how little CH cares about their residents.

Response G-6: The intent and purpose of the Initial Study/MND is to provide the public and decisions-makers with an accounting of the physical environmental effects which may result from construction and implementation of the proposed project. The law does not allow for the CEQA analysis to address current operational issues of properties that are not part of the proposed project.

Civic Center Family Housing Project 21 Response to Comments Memo Comment G-7: One reason that CH selected this location is the Warburton medical plaza. However, that plaza only offers urgent care and treatment for sport injuries. If the residents have any other medical conditions, such as diabetes, COVID, or cancer, they have to drive to big hospitals to get treatment. CH's claim of walking distance to hospitals doesn't really hold.

Response G-7: This comment does not speak to the environmental analysis.

Comment G-8: Additionally, the schools in the neighborhood are almost full. With the high density that the proposed CH will bring, how the schools can accommodate more kids is another big question. If overflow happens, parents have to drive even farther to send and pick up their kids. As discussed above about the transportation, this would be very hard for both the CH residents and the neighbors.

Response G-8: See Response D-10.

Comment G-9: 4) Construction impacts
According to the environmental report, the noise from the construction will be up to 90 dB. This is absolutely inappropriate to a neighborhood with so many residents. 90 dB is mostly used to build airports and railways, absolutely not for houses. The construction will also bring lots of dusts, such as PM2.5 and PM10. The proposed location is just one wall against Triton Ct. This will bring great inconvenience and risks to the existing residents. I'm really pathetic about the situation.

Response G-9: A noise study was commissioned by the environmental consultant under direction by City staff. The Initial Study/MND concluded that with implementation of the identified measures, the temporary construction noise impacts would be less than significant (see Pages 116-117 of the Initial Study/MND).

An air quality analysis was also commissioned by the environmental consultant under direction by City staff which addressed dust and other air pollutants that would be generated during construction. The Initial Study/MND concluded that with implementation of the conditions of approval and mitigation measures identified, the temporary construction air quality impacts would be less than significant (Pages 31-33 and 34-37).

Comment G-10: In summary, this project will bring extremely negative impacts on both the future CH residents and the existing neighbors. I know the housing crisis in the bay area is urgent. But please, please do it good instead of evil. Please treat all the people, both low-income and high- income, with respect. Please protect the neighborhood with improved safety and security. Please provide the necessary amenities and healthy living environment to the residents.

There're other locations in Santa Clara that might tolerate 90 dB construction noise, such as those near commercial zones. These locations could be big enough to build more parking spaces. They can also have better transportation, be closer to hospitals, and have less crowded school enrollment than the proposed location. I hope you could consider my petition and cancel this project.

Response G-10: This comment does not speak to the environmental analysis. Please see previous responses.

Comment Letter H: David Bayto – July 12, 2022

Comment H-1: Below are my comments, opinions and recommendations related to Charities Housing (CH) environmental review documents (Mitigated Negative Declaration "MND").

Civic Center Family Housing Project 22 Response to Comments Memo I am opposed to the rezoning of the 1601 Civic Drive property from commercial to high density residential housing zoning as currently proposed. If the zoning change is approved, then the following recommendations should be adapted prior to approved zoning changes.

Comments, Opinions, and Recommendations related to Charities Housing (CH) environmental review documents.

Summary:

• Issue: At what point are the legal rights of the project developers to overshadow the rights and quality of life of the current residences of the Civic Center neighborhood? • Issue: The financial impact of the proposed development has not been provided for public review and discussion.
o What is the financial burden for the citizen of Santa Clara, City of Santa Clara, County of Santa Clara, and the State of California?
o What is the financial interest of the project stakeholders such as the Limited Partnership(s) involved in the proposed development?

Response H-1: Section 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines states that “economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment”. The Initial Study/MND can only address impacts as they relate to the checklist questions which are intended to address the physical environmental effects of the project. As a result, the Initial Study/MND did not address any economic or social effects of the project.

Comment H-2: Issue: The traffic study of Charities Housing (CH) environmental review documents does not address the current neighborhood parking issue. There is a significant lack of street parking to support the current neighborhood requirements.

• Issue: The proposed 1601 Civic Center Drive project would require an additional 134 street parking spaces to be available to service the 1601 Civic Center Drive residence causing an adverse effect on the current parking issues on Civic Center Drive.

Response H-2: See Response D-4.

Comment H-3: Issue: CH’s project design does not include the Transportation Study’s recommendations for 1.) Site Access, 2.) Passenger Loading and 3.) Sight Distance at Project Driveways.

Response H-4: See Responses D-1, D-3, and D-4.

Comment H-5: Issue: The project does not have underground parking as encouraged by City's General Plan guidelines.

Response H-5: See Response D-11.

Comment H-6: Issue: The proposed five (5) story structure architectural does not conform to the El Camino Corridor heigh limits and the adjacent 2-story homes, or surrounding homes.

Response H-6: See Response F-1. The proposed General Plan designation is intended for mid-rise buildings. Mid-rise buildings are typically defined as five to 12 stories.

Comment H-7: Recommendation: Provide a financial impact study for transparency and public review prior to change in rezoning.

Civic Center Family Housing Project 23 Response to Comments Memo Response H-7: See Response H-1.

Comment H-8: Recommendation: Provide no less than two parking space per unit or 216 parking spaces. (108 units x 2 cars)
o Based on the potential 480 occupancy rate and
o Based on 2 car per household is average number for California would require 216 spaces (108 units x 2 cars). Thus, 82 space per unit would appear to be unreasonable. o Based on the need to address the current lack of parking during peak hours and weekends. • Recommendation: All parking should be under the proposed structure either in a garage and/or underground parking lot. Underground parking is both feasible and particle. o 1364 El Camino development has both under building structure parking and an underground parking lot Thus, it can be done.
o 1690 Civic Center Drive has an underground parking lot. Thus, it can be done. o The marginal cost for an underground parking lot structure would be amortized over a 55- year period based. Thus, minimizing the issues that it is not cost effective to build underground parking.

Response H-8: The intent and purpose of the Initial Study/MND is to provide the public and decisions-makers with an accounting of the physical environmental effects which may result from construction and implementation of the proposed project. The law does not allow for the CEQA analysis to address current operational issues of a property or surrounding area.

See Response D-4.

It should be noted that the excavation required for underground parking would result in a longer construction timeframe and, due to the extended use of heavy equipment, increase construction noise and air pollutant emissions compared to the current proposal.

Comment H-9: Recommendation: Eliminate all surface parking on the west side of the proposed project that impact the quality of life for the residence on Triton Court.

Response H-9: It is not clear what quality of life issues the commenter believes would occur as a result of the surface parking lot. See Responses D-2, D-7, and G-5 for responses to specific issues raised by other commenters regarding the proposed surface lot.

Comment H-10: Recommendation: The project should provide only one driveway to access the site on Lincoln Street per Transportation Study’s recommendations • Recommendation: The project should include a loading zone per the per Transportation Study’s recommendations

Response H-10: See Response D-4.

Comment H-11: Analysis and Comments:

Parking
This development, as proposed will provide up to 82 parking spaces which may conform to the Density Bonus law but conflict with the car California ownership data indicating that the average car ownership in California is 2 cars per household. The number of parking space should be 216 (108 units x 2 cars per household. Thus, the proposed 82 parking spaces will contribute to have an adverse effect on the existing the current parking issues on Civic Center Drive. Therefore, based on the California average rate of 2 car per household and CH’s proposed 82 parking would require an additional 134 street parking spaces to be available to service 1601 Civic Center Drive residence

Civic Center Family Housing Project 24 Response to Comments Memo Response H-11: See Response G-2.

Comment H-12: Occupancy:

How Many is too Many? Limits on Unit Occupancy Explained. The total number occupants for the proposed project could be as high as 480 based on Charities Housing’s (CH) occupancy data, and the “California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) policy for regulating occupancy, which is known as the “two plus one” formula.

Based on
Plus 1 for each living room (108 -28) =
80 80

Total 480

Is it reasonable to assume that occupancy rate in combination with the 2 car average per household would requirement more parking than the 82 spaces assuming 2 car per household is average number for California. Thus, there should be 216 parking spaces (108 units x 2) instead of the 82 proposed parking spaces

Response H-12: See Response G-2.

Comment H-13: Transportation Study’s Recommendation

Site Access - Recommendation: The project should provide only one driveway to access the site.

The project would increase the number of driveways accessing the site from one to two driveways.

Because the project would generate a low number of project trips, it is not necessary to provide two access points to the site for access and circulation. Increasing the access points would increase the conflicts between pedestrians/bicycles and vehicles. Therefore, the project should maintain only one driveway to access the site.

Passenger Loading - Recommendation: The project should provide a passenger loading zone on Civic Center Drive near the entrance to the building lobby or within the surface parking lot or parking garage.

Sight Distance at Project Driveways - Recommendation: The curb segments next to the project driveways on Civic Center Drive should be painted red for 15 feet to prohibit parking and ensure adequate sight distance for outbound traffic.

Response H-13: See Responses D-1, D-3, and D-4.

Unit Size # Units Max
Studio (1-2
occupants) 28 56
1BR (1-3 occupants) 24 72
2BR (2-4 occupants) 26 104
3BR (3-6 occupants) 26 156
3BR (3-6 occupants) 2 12
400
Civic Center Family Housing Project 25 Response to Comments Memo

CIVIC CENTER FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT

TEXT EDITS

This section contains revisions to the text of the Civic Center Family Housing project dated June 2022. Revised or new language is underlined. All deletions are shown with a line through the text.

None of the text revisions shown below change the conclusion of the IS/MND and no recirculation is required.

Municipal Regional Permit Provisions C.3:

The RWQCB renewed the MRP on May 11, 2022 (Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008).

Ordinance description will be REVISED as follows:

Valley Water operates as the flood control agency and the wholesale water supplier for Santa Clara County. Their stewardship also includes creek restoration, pollution prevention efforts, and groundwater recharge. Permits for well construction and destruction work, most exploratory boring for groundwater exploration (including borings 45 feet or deeper), and projects within Valley Water property or easements are required under Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance 90-1. Under Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, projects within Valley Water property or easements are required to obtain encroachment permits.

will be REVISED as follows:

Valley Water. 2016 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. November 20162021.

as follows:

The City of Santa Clara owns and maintains the storm drainage system which serves the project site. There is no overland release of stormwater directly into any creek from the project site; all stormwater enters the San Tomas Aquino Creek Guadalupe River through the existing stormwater drainage system.

follows:

Civic Center Family Housing Project 26 Response to Comments Memo The geographic area for cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts is the San Tomas Aquino Creek Guadalupe River watershed. Cumulative developments within the watershed would have similar hydrological and urban runoff conditions. All projects occurring within Santa Clara would be required to implement the same standard measures/BMPs related to construction water quality as the proposed project (including preparation of a SWPPP if disturbance is greater than one-acre). In addition, all cumulative projects that would disturb more than one-acre of soil or replace/add more at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces would be required to meet applicable San Francisco RWQCB requirements and the City’s SWCP requirements on a project-specific basis. For these reasons, the cumulative projects, including the proposed project, would not result in significant cumulative hydrology or water quality impacts. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

08/03/2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
Recommendation:

Alternatives: 1, 2 and 3

1. Adopt a resolution to recommend the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Civic Center Family Housing Project.

2. Adopt a resolution to recommend the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential.

3. Adopt a resolution to recommend City Council approve a Rezone from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD) to allow a five-story affordable housing development with 108 rental units, on-site parking and amenities, landscaping, and off-site improvements.

Associate Planner Debby Fernandez provided the staff presentation.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions as to whether or not other sites had been considered for the development, as well as what rent amounts would be, given Area Median Income (AMI) limits for the project.

Applicant Charities Housing, Joe Head and Hai Nguyen provided a presentation and clarified the property location was very important and also provided an overview of AMI limits.

Commissioners asked questions regarding the applicable state and federal laws for residents; whether or not there would be a right of refusal for residents; whether Section 8 housing be allowed; how rental amounts are set; whether there would be flexibility in the architectural design due to shadowing concerns; sufficiency of parking and methods for parking spot allocation; and methods for residents to communicate with the developer as problems arise, and how the developer will respond to such problems.

Vice Chair Herro expressed concerns that the original management of the site was lacking in response time and actions; other concerns included outreach provided to neighboring residents on the project to date.

Commissioners expressed the desire to have housing as well as acknowledged concerns presented to them by the public. Vice Chair Herro stated that oversight was needed by the Applicant for timely resolution to concerns brought up by nearby residents now, during the construction phase, and on an ongoing basis.

The Applicant agreed to having a meeting with nearby residents to