City Council and Authorities Concurrent
December 8, 2022

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on Related Santa Clara Development Area Plan (DAP) 2 for Phase 2 of the Related Santa Clara Project, located on Vacant Parcels North of Stars and Stripes Drive (Former Municipal Golf Course) [Council Pillar: Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Related Companies (Developer) filed an application for a Development Area Plan (DAP 2) for the Related Santa Clara Project (Project) located on an approximately 240-acre site north of Tasman Drive. The Related Santa Clara Project was previously referred to as the “City Place Project” and is referenced as such in various City documents. The entire Project includes the development of up to

9.16 million gross square feet of office buildings; retail, food and beverage, and entertainment facilities; residential units; hotel rooms; surface and structured parking facilities; new open space and roads, landscaping and tree replacement; and new/upgraded/expanded infrastructure and utilities.

On June 28, 2016, the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approved General Plan Amendments, and approved the Planned Development - Master Community (PD-MC) Zoning and accompanying Master Community Plan document (MCP) to allow for the phased development of the Project. The MCP (Attachment #7) sets forth the development standards, design guidelines, phasing constructs, project implementation procedures, development transfer provisions among parcels, permitted and conditional uses allowed within the proposed land use areas, and City Approval standards for DAP applications. The adopted Project entitlements also include a Development Agreement (DA) and a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). Consistent with these Project approvals, development of the entire Project is anticipated to occur in approximately seven phases. The City Council approved DAP 1 for the first phase on March 24, 2020.

Before the Developer may ground lease portions of the Project site from the City, it must receive City approval of a “Phase Option Notice” defining the boundaries of the development phase and of a DAP, which will implement the approved PD-MC Zoning and the MCP. The Developer submitted the Phase 2 Option Notice on December 11, 2019, and submitted an amended Phase 2 Option Notice on January 15, 2020 (Attachment #3) delineating the specific boundaries to be included in Phase 2. The City approved such amended Phase 2 Option Notice on January 28, 2020 (Included in Attachment #3). This DAP 2 application is the next step in the land use entitlement process for the second phase of the Project.

As discussed in the attached report to the Planning Commission, staff evaluated DAP 2 and found it to be consistent with the MCP and other applicable standards. As discussed in the following Analysis section of this report, staff evaluated DAP 2 and found it to be consistent with the Project’s City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
Development Obligations as set forth in the DDA.

The Planning Commission at a public hearing on May 27, 2020 considered DAP 2 and recommended that the Council adopt a Second Addendum to the previously-certified Project EIR and approve the DAP 2 application subject to conditions of approval. The Planning Commission also, requested that the Council engage in additional discussions with the Developer regarding Transportation Demand Management (TDM).

BACKGROUND
DAP 2 encompasses a 44.5-acre portion of the 86.6-acre area identified in the MCP as Parcel 4 (APN: 104-03-036). See Attachment #1 (Key Plan Map) for the location of the property and its vicinity. The DAP 2 area is generally bordered by the future Second Street to the north; San Tomas Aquino Creek to the west; the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (west of Lafayette Street) to the east; and the future relocated Stars and Stripes Drive and the Phase One area to the south.

The DAP 2 development would create six blocks within Parcel 4, generally correlating to portions of Blocks 4B, 4D, 4E, 4F, and 4H within the Parcel 4 area of the approved MCP. Block 4H does not include the Station Area. New streets proposed as part of the DAP 2 development include east/west First and Second Streets, north/south Creekside Drive, and the extension of Avenues A, B, and C, and Centennial Boulevard from Phase One. All of City Place Parkway is also a component of this phase.

The proposed development program would be distributed as follows:

Block 4B:
· 100,000 square feet of office;
· 65,000 square feet of retail/food & beverage; and
· 50,000 square feet of entertainment
Block 4D (now divided into two blocks):
· 30,000 square feet of office;
· 150,000 square feet of retail;
· 20,000 square feet of food and beverage
· 180,000 square feet of hotel (220 guest rooms);
· 530,000 square feet of residential (200 Service Apartments & 300 residential units); · Health club, office, retail, food & beverage, and entertainment uses supporting the primary hotel and residential uses; and
· Structured parking (500 spaces)
Block 4E and 4F:
· 305,000 square feet of loft style office buildings;
· 180,000 square feet of retail;
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
· 115,000 square feet of food & beverage, including the global food market; · a large public outdoor plaza; and
· a smaller plaza space associated with the offices
Block 4H:
· 20,000 square feet of retail;
· 5,000 square feet of food & beverage; and
· Structured Parking Garage (2,920 spaces), with the retail and food and beverage uses at the ground floor along Avenue B
Summary of Parking:
· Parking Structure: 2,920 spaces
· Street parking: 150 spaces
· Residential parking: 500 spaces
· Valet storage increment: 275
· Total: 3,845 spaces

DISCUSSION
The following discussion includes a summary of the Planning Commission hearing and additional information related to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and a summary of future entitlement actions for DAP 1 and DAP 2 that were discussed at the Planning Commission hearing. It also provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with the DDA. The determination of DDA consistency was not part of the Planning Commission review, but is a requirement for the City Council.

Planning Commission Hearing
The Planning Commission conducted a hearing on DAP 2 at their May 27, 2020 regular Meeting.

Following a presentation by staff, the Commission opened the item for public hearing. The applicant made a presentation and answered questions form the Commission. No other members of the public appeared to speak at the hearing.

The staff presentation focused on how the DAP 2 conforms with the MCP. The Planning Commission staff report and its attachments provide a more detailed analysis of MCP conformance and are attached to this report (Attachment #2).

During the public hearing, the Planning Commission asked staff and the Developer clarifying questions regarding several issues, including:
· The amount of development square footage within the DAP 2 area compared to the amount planned for Phase 2 in the MCP;
· How the project would work in light of the recent COVID-19 pandemic; · The potential to add TDM Strategies to target a greater level of trip reduction for the project and mode shift from vehicles to other modes of transportation such as bicycles; and · The rationale for the proposed reduction of parking spaces from the numbers described in the MCP.

City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
After the close of the public hearing, the majority of the Commission expressed their support for the Project, particularly program and design elements as depicted in the applicant’s conceptual architectural renderings. The Commission considered the DAP 2’s consistency with the MCP, including additional analysis with respect to DAP 2’s development area, parking supply, and impact on area traffic and asked for clarification of procedural issues. In response to a question from the Commission, staff clarified that the Planning Commission’s purview is focused on evaluating the project’s conformance to the MCP rather than with the DDA and that the Council is the review body for conformance to the Project’s Development Obligations including the DDA. The Commission acknowledged the deferral of architectural review after the initial stage of DAP approval to a later stage review and approval process by the Community Development Director, as permitted under the MCP. The Commission’s discussion then focused primarily on TDM requirements for the project, which are summarized below, with some Commissioners noting that the proposed reduction in parking ratios for the project would be appropriately accompanied by increased use of TDM strategies.

The Planning Commission adopted two Resolutions: 1) recommending that the Council adopt a Second Addendum to the previously-certified Project EIR in connection with the DAP 2 application (vote 5-1; Becker opposed, Biagini absent), and 2) recommending that the Council approve the DAP 2 application subject to conditions of approval (vote 5-1; Becker opposed, Biagini absent). In addition, the Commission forwarded a request that the Council engage in additional discussions with the Developer to include additional TDM measures in the Project to ensure ample parking (vote 6-0).

Transportation Demand Management
The Planning Commission focused the discussion on its preference for a more robust TDM program with larger trip reduction targets than were required when the Project was first approved. On this issue, clarification was provided by the Assistant City Attorney that under the MCP and the DA, the City may not modify existing conditions of approval (such as that related to TDM) without the voluntary agreement of the Developer. Staff noted that the DAP 2 proposal is consistent with the City’s previously-adopted conditions regarding the TDM program. Accordingly, the Planning Commission did not propose any conditions of approval related to the TDM requirements. However, the Commission made a formal request for the Council to discuss this point with the Developer further.

As required by the MCP, the Developer submitted a Traffic Report as part of its application, which was peer reviewed by City staff and its consultant team. The Traffic Report, which is provided as Attachment B to the First Addendum to the Project EIR, includes parameters for the DAP 2 TDM program. As required by Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1, the TDM program must achieve a reduction in Project office-generated daily traffic by a minimum of four percent with a peak hour trip reduction of at least 10 percent and a reduction in Project residential-generated daily traffic by a minimum of two percent with a peak hour trip reduction of at least four percent.

The Final EIR Response to Comments for the Project, dated June 2016, included detailed responses to comments from a Planning Commissioner and other parties expressing similar concerns that these trip reduction targets were too low. (FEIR, 3-8 to 3-10 and App. B.2-71). The FEIR explained that these reductions are much larger than they may appear because the traffic generation estimates City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
against which these reductions will be measured already reflect substantial reductions from the trip generation estimates for standard office projects in the Trip Generation Manual and Handbook published by the Institute for Traffic Engineers. The estimates used as the starting point for the City Place TDM targets were based on rates from Silicon Valley high-tech office developments, which have higher employee densities than standard office developments. The City Place estimates were further reduced to adjust for proximity to transit, and for the fact that it is a mixed-use development with residential, office and retail uses. The FEIR noted that, taking these adjustments into account, the City Place TDM targets “yield a total trip reduction of 15 to 18 percent,” similar to the 16 percent target that the City had recently required for a project one of the commenters had suggested as a model for the City Place TDM program. The FEIR also provides detailed responses to comments suggesting the TDM targets for the North Bayshore (Google), Apple, and Stanford University projects would be appropriate for City Place. The responses noted substantial differences between Stanford’s unique circumstances as a university and other projects, including City Place, and further noted that the North Mountain View and Apple targets had not in fact been achieved, concluding: “The trip reduction targets for City Place are similar to the actual trip reductions achieved at North Bayshore and more aggressive than what has actually been achieved at the Apple campus.” As shown in the Traffic Report, DAP 2 includes potential measures and strategies for reducing traffic generated by office and residential uses, along with an annual monitoring program to evaluate TDM effectiveness and determine if the trip reduction targets established by Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1 are satisfied. In addition, the Addendum to the Project’s EIR concluded that the overall number of trips generated by DAP 2 will be less than the number of trips analyzed under the EIR for Phase 2, and that approval of DAP 2 would not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts than previously analyzed for Phase 2.

Future Entitlement Actions
As part of the Planning Commission discussion, Commissioners requested clarification on the design review process established through the MCP. Staff noted the following review procedures will be conducted either at a staff level or through a separate hearing process.

Architectural Review
Under the City’s review process as set forth in Appendix C of the MCP (Attachment #7), the Developer has elected to defer the submittal of architectural materials, building architectural designs, and building site designs, including building setbacks and building coverage details for each of Blocks 4B, 4D, 4E/F and 4H to a later submittal for review by the Community Development Director, who has approval authority under the MCP. Staff will post the application materials submitted for Architectural Review on the City’s website, on the project web page, as soon as a complete application is received.

Sign Program
The Applicant has also requested to defer the approval of a Comprehensive Sign Program (“CSP”) for development on Parcels 4 and 5. Staff and the Applicant have been discussing specific details to include in the CSP over the past several months, and anticipate a draft coming together in the near future. Accordingly, Staff recommends a condition of approval to permit the CSP required by the MCP for Parcels 4 and 5 (Phases 1-4) to be considered and approved or conditionally approved by the City Council (following consideration and recommendation by the Planning Commission) before City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
the issuance of the first building permit for development (for buildings, other than the below-grade Tasman garage, and excluding excavation and grading) undertaken pursuant to DAP 1 or DAP 2.

Ground Lease
The City and the Developer will prepare a final ground lease that is consistent with the DDA terms and DDA form of Ground Lease for the Phase 2 area before the Phase 2 area is taken down by Developer. Construction under DAP 2 will not commence on Phase 2 until the Ground Lease is executed with limited exception of early infrastructure or site preparation requested by Developer and approved by the City under a form of license, permit to enter, or other agreement approved by the City. In April, the City and the Developer entered into a Landfill Operations and Management Agreement which obligated the Developer to obtain and maintain comprehensive and robust insurance programs throughout the development of the Project and after completion of construction.

The insurance terms were carefully negotiated so that City’s interest in the landfill would be sufficiently protected, even for risks that are unrelated to the development of the Project, and so that the broadest possible range of Developer’s indemnification obligations would be backstopped with insurance running to both City and Developer. The insurance provisions addressed in the Landfill Operations and Management Agreement cover all insurance requirements for the Project and will be applicable to any work done on the former landfill. Submission and management of claims under joint insurance programs will be governed by an Insurance Administration Agreement to be executed prior to Developer commencing intrusive work on the Landfill.

Project Consistency with the MCP
The MCP requires that specific materials be submitted in connection with a DAP application. The following discussion details how the Developer’s application complies with the requirements of Section 1.4 (Development Obligations) of Exhibit 2 (Documents to be Submitted for DAP Applications) of Appendix C (DAP Submittal & Approval Procedures) to the MCP. (The following Section references are to MCP Appendix C, Exhibit 2 except as otherwise noted) This information was updated to further clarify compliance since the Planning Commission meeting.

Section 1.4.1 - Temporary Fire Station No. 8
Section 1.4.1 requires the Phase 1 DAP to provide details regarding the temporary Fire Station No. 8.

This requirement is not applicable to the DAP 2 application; moreover, the necessary improvements to Fire Station No. 8 to temporarily house operations from Fire Station No.10 were approved and permitted, and the construction is complete.

Section 1.4.2 - Minimum Initial Buildings / Minimum Retail Buildings Section 1.4.2 requires the DAP to show the proposed locations and square footages of: (1) Minimum Initial Buildings as defined in DDA Section 5.3.2; (2) Minimum Retail Buildings as defined in DDA Section 5.3.4; and (3) a minimum of 200 residential units within Phases 1 and 2.

Minimum Initial Buildings
First, for the Minimum Initial Buildings, DDA Section 5.3.2 requires that Phase 2 include at least 700,000 square feet of buildings consisting of (i) 500,000 square feet of retail (including food and beverage and entertainment) and (ii) 200,000 square feet of office and/or a 300-key or larger hotel.

In addition, as part of the Minimum Initial Buildings, DDA Section 5.3.2 requires at least 200 residential units in the aggregate between Phases 1 and 2. The DAP 2 application demonstrates that it will include 605,000 square feet of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment uses, which City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
satisfies the Minimum Initial Buildings requirement for retail. DAP 2 also includes 435,000 square feet of office uses plus a 220-room hotel, which satisfies the Minimum Initial Buildings requirement for office and/or hotel uses by virtue of the office space being greater than 200,000 square feet. The City previously approved 200 residential units for the Phase 1 DAP, which satisfied the Minimum Initial Buildings requirement for residential uses in Phases 1 and 2. Therefore, DAP 2’s program fully satisfies the remaining requirements to develop the Minimum Initial Buildings.

Minimum Retail Buildings
Second, for the Minimum Retail Buildings, DDA Section 5.3.4 requires 750,000 square feet of retail uses in the aggregate between Phases 2 and 3. As noted above, the DAP 2 application demonstrates that it will include 605,000 square feet of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment uses towards this total, leaving 145,000 square feet of retail to be built in Phase 3 to achieve the Minimum Retail Buildings obligation.

Section 1.4.3 - Additional Initial Buildings
Section 1.4.3 requires that the DAP also show the proposed locations and square footages of Additional Initial Buildings as defined in DDA Section 5.3.3. The DDA requires that the Developer use its “best efforts” to develop an additional 230,000 square feet of total office, retail (including food and beverage and entertainment), and/or residential buildings during Phase 2. As summarized previously, DAP 2 provides 435,000 square feet of office, which is 235,000 square feet of buildings in addition to the 200,000 square feet required by the Minimum Initial Buildings. DAP 2 also provides 605,000 square feet of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment uses, which is 105,000 square feet of buildings in addition to the 500,000 square feet required by the Minimum Initial Buildings.

Finally, DAP 2 provides 530,000 square feet of residential uses as traditional and serviced apartments, in addition to the 200 residential units approved in the Phase 1 DAP and required by the Minimum Initial Buildings. In total, DAP 2 includes 870,000 square feet of Additional Initial Buildings, easily satisfying the requirement to use best efforts to provide 230,000 square feet of Additional Initial Buildings.

Section 1.4.4 - Additional Retail Buildings
Section 1.4.4 requires the DAP to indicate the proposed locations and square footages of the Additional Retail Buildings that could be satisfied under the best efforts standard of the DDA. As summarized above, DDA Section 5.3.4 requires 750,000 square feet of retail uses in the aggregate among Phases 2 and 3, and DDA Section 5.3.5 requires that the Developer use its “best efforts” to develop an additional 750,000 square feet as Additional Retail Buildings for an aggregate total of 1,500,000 square feet of retail within Phases 2 and 3. The DAP 2 application proposes 605,000 square feet of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment uses. Therefore, there is a balance of 145,000 square feet of retail uses to satisfy the requirements of DDA Section 5.3.4 to provide Minimum Retail Buildings, plus the full 750,000 square feet of Additional Retail Buildings for which Developer must make best efforts to provide within Phases 2 and 3 combined.

Section 1.4.5
Section 1.4.5 requires the DAP to show whether Phase 2 will include Development Obligations that can be satisfied among two or more phases of the Project or if part of the Development Obligations will be deferred to Phase 3. As discussed above, the Phase 2 DAP provides 605,000 square feet of the Minimum Retail Buildings and defers 145,000 square feet to Phase 3, with an obligation to use best efforts to attempt to develop 750,000 square feet for the Additional Retail Buildings. The DAP 2 City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
application demonstrates that, between Phases 2 and 3, it is possible to satisfy the minimum retail program requirements, although the current retail market may make it infeasible to provide the Additional Retail Buildings in Phase 3 notwithstanding the Developer’s best efforts.

Section 1.4.6 - Major Department Stores
Section 5.3.6 of the DDA requires Developer to use best efforts to develop two to three major department stores to be included in one or more DAPs within Phase 1, Phase 2 and/or Phase 3.

Consistent with that provision, Section 1.4.6 requires DAP applications to show proposed locations and square footages of any proposed major department stores. DAP 2 does not propose any major department stores. As noted above, DDA Section 5.3.7(b) permits the Developer to submit an Alternate Leasing Plan that would relieve the Developer of its obligation to use its best efforts to develop the Additional Retail Buildings and any major department stores. The Developer has submitted an Alternate Leasing Plan pursuant to DDA Section 5.3.7(b) that will be considered as an informational item for discussion and comment at a future Council meeting.

Section 1.4.7 is only applicable to Phase 3.

Section 1.4.8 - Cumulative Summary of Uses
Section 1.4.8 requires the DAP to include a cumulative summary of uses constructed to date, plus a balance of development required in future phases (through Phase 3). Although nothing has been constructed to date, DAP 2 includes information about the uses approved under the Phase 1 DAP and proposed by the Phase 2 DAP in Table 1.4.7 on page 1.4-1 (Attachment #10), which is summarized below:
· Minimum Initial Buildings: 1.3 million square feet of office, hotel, and/or retail buildings required among Phases 1 and 2, plus 200 residential units; approximately 2.1 million square feet of office, hotel, and retail buildings approved in DAP 1 and proposed in DAP 2, plus 700 residential units; zero balance required in future phases. · Minimum Retail Buildings: 50,000 square feet required in Phase 1 and 750,000 required among Phases 2 and 3; 51,000 square feet provided in Phase 1 and 605,000 square feet provided in Phase 2; 145,000 square feet balance required in Phase 3. · Additional Initial Buildings: 200,000 square feet of office, retail and/or residential buildings in Phase 1 and 230,000 square feet of office, retail and/or residential buildings in Phase 2 for a total of 430,000 square feet of Additional Initial Buildings; approximately 712,000 square feet of office, retail and/or residential buildings approved in DAP 1 and proposed in DAP 2 as Additional Initial Buildings in excess of the required Minimum Initial Buildings and Best Efforts. · Additional Retail Buildings: none proposed; balance of 750,000 square feet subject to the best efforts requirement.
· Major Department Stores: none proposed.

Section 1.4.9 - Parking Management Plan
Finally, Section 1.4.9 requires an updated Parking Management Plan to be included in the DAP. In accordance with DDA Section 5.5, Exhibit 1.4.8 on page 1.4-2 of DAP 2 (Attachment #12) illustrates how at least 3,000 parking spaces to serve non-NFL events at Levi’s Stadium on a non-reserved basis can be accommodated on the portions of the Project site that will not have been ground leased once Phases 1 and 2 are taken down. The necessary parking can be accommodated on the Citycontrolled Parcels 1 and 2.

City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
Authority for DAP 2 Review and Conditions of Approval
In addition to the Development Obligations summarized above, the MCP defines City Approval standards for DAP applications. Specifically, Section 2.7.2.6 authorizes approval or conditional approval of a DAP if the Council finds that (1) the DAP conforms to and is consistent with the applicable project approvals, transaction documents, and the MCP; (2) the Infrastructure that the Developer proposes to construct in connection with the applicable phase is sufficient to serve the proposed development on the subject property; and (3) the proposed shared outdoor space provided for in the applicable phase in accordance with the MCP is reasonable and appropriate to the proposed level of development.

Under Section 2.7.2.5 of Appendix C to the MCP, Council has the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a DAP application. However, Section 2.7.2.6 limits the Council’s authority, only permitting Council to alter or supersede previously imposed conditions of approval if they are consistent with the standards of review and acceptable to the Developer. Moreover, the DA prohibits any conditions of approval that would conflict with the adopted Project entitlements, including, without limitation, conditions that would alter or change the permitted land uses, limit the Project’s height or bulk, limit or reduce the density or intensity of the Project, or materially increase the Developer’s obligations.

When it approved the Project site rezoning and MCP in 2016, Council adopted conditions of approval that apply to the Project in addition to the development standards identified in the MCP. Among other requirements, the conditions of approval require the Project to comply with the terms of the DA and with the mitigation measures adopted as part of the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program following certification of the Project’s EIR.

Therefore, Council has authority to adopt new conditions of approval that are required to ensure that DAP 2 is consistent with the MCP with respect to the findings listed above. However, modifications to existing conditions, which include all of the Project’s mitigation measures, would require the Developer’s consent under the DA and the MCP. Accordingly, City staff and the Planning Commission have recommended specific conditions of approval in connection with DAP 2 that either (1) are within the City’s discretion to adopt under the MCP and the DDA or (2) have the Developer’s consent to modify.

Specifically, the Developer has agreed to modify two former Conditions of Approval. Proposed Condition of Approval C5 would replace former Condition of Approval P15 (as modified by Condition of Approval C3 from the DAP Phase 1 Approval) to require the Comprehensive Sign Program for Parcels 4 and 5 to be considered by the City Council before the issuance of the first building permit for buildings (excluding the below-grade Tasman garage) developed pursuant to the DAP for Phases 1 or 2. In addition, proposed Condition of Approval E9 would replace former Condition of Approval E2 (as modified by Condition of Approval E10 from the DAP Phase 1 Approval) to allow the Developer to apply for, and receive Council approval of, a Tentative Map or Vesting Tentative Map for Phase 2 prior to the issuance of building permits (excluding excavation and grading) within Phase 2 and to secure approval of and file for recordation Final Maps for Phase 2 prior to any certificate of occupancy within Phase 2; under the existing Condition, Final Maps would be required prior to the issuance of building permits.

City of Santa Clara Page 9 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On June 28, 2016, the Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. Although the EIR and MMRP identified mitigation measures to reduce most project impacts to less-than-significant levels, the SOC was required given the EIR’s conclusion that the proposed Project would have significant unavoidable impacts in the areas of land use, transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and biology; and cumulative significant unavoidable utilities impacts (Attachment #4).

Although there are certain differences between the project described in DAP 2 and the description of Phase 2 development in the MCP and certified EIR, DAP 2 is consistent with the MCP. To ensure that the potential impacts of the Project continue to be thoroughly analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City worked with consultant Environmental Science Associates to prepare an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Related Santa Clara / City Place Project; the Addendum is attached to this report (Attachment #5).

The Addendum provides substantial evidence to support the conclusion that implementation of DAP 2 would not result in substantial changes or introduce new information not already analyzed in the previously-certified Project EIR, primarily because the level of development now proposed for the site is within the broader development assumptions analyzed in the EIR, and would not cause new significant environmental impacts not previously identified in the EIR, or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant unavoidable impacts. Therefore, the potential environmental impacts associated with DAP 2 have already been adequately analyzed in the Project EIR, and no further review or analysis under CEQA is required.

At the May 27, 2020 Planning Commission meeting the Commission voted to find that the Addendum provides substantial evidence that the criteria of CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring additional environmental review under CEQA have not been met and to recommend that the Council adopt the Addendum prior to acting on the DAP 2 application.

Upon adoption of the Addendum and approval of DAP 2 by the Council, a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be filed with the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder’s Office. Because the ClerkRecorder’s Office is not currently open to the public as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the NOD will also be posted on the City’s webpage.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative staff time and expense, which is included in the FY2019/20 Adopted Budget.

As was previously considered by the Council in the decisions to offer development of the project site and subsequent approval of the initial land use entitlements, it was noted there will be social and City of Santa Clara Page 10 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
economic benefits that will accrue to the City and region in terms of new retail and entertainment opportunities not readily found in the South Bay area, as well as creation of jobs, property tax and sales tax revenues, and land lease revenues. Development of the Project will provide substantial land lease revenues to the City. Development fees and other exactions paid for and provided by the Project (including up to $17.4 million for implementation of a multimodal improvement plan and a voluntary contribution to VTA of approximately $16 million) will also benefit the City.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office and 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]
Public Notices and Comments:

The notice of public hearing for this item was mailed to property owners, residents and businesses within 1,000 feet of the project site. A joint meeting notice for this meeting and for the Planning Commission meeting held on May 27, 2020 was published in The Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation for the City, on May 14, 2020. Notice was also posted on the City’s website under the development project page.

The Developer held a Community Open House meeting from 5:30 to 7:00 pm on January 15, 2020 at the Santa Clara Convention Center to provide an update to nearby residents and businesses about the current plans and schedule. The event was attended by the Applicant’s project team, City staff and approximately 24 members of the public. A summary of the open house event provided by the Applicant’s consultant is attached (Attachment #8).

The City Council continued the public hearing on this item from June 23, 2020 to July 13, 2020 to allow more time to address questions regarding information on Developer Obligations.

ALTERNATIVES
Adopt resolutions for the Related Santa Clara (City Place) Phase 2 Development Area Plan application located at 5155 Stars and Stripes Drive to:

1. Adopt the EIR Addendum for DAP 2 for the Related Santa Clara project,

2. Approve the DAP 2 Application for the Related Santa Clara project subject to conditions; or

3. Deny the DAP 2 Application for the Related Santa Clara project City of Santa Clara Page 11 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020

RECOMMENDATION
Alternatives 1 and 2:

Adopt resolutions for the Related Santa Clara (City Place) Phase I Development Area Plan application located at 5155 Stars and Stripes Drive to:

1. Adopt the EIR Addendum for DAP 2 for the Related Santa Clara project; and

2. Approve the DAP 2 Application for the Related Santa Clara project, subject to conditions.

Staff
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Key Map Plan

2. Web Link Slip Sheet - Planning Commission Staff Report - May 27, 2020

3. Amended Developer Phase Option Notice for DAP 2

4. Web Link Slip Sheet - 5155 Stars and Stripes Drive City Place FEIR and MMRP

5. EIR Addendum for DAP 2

6. Resolution to Adopt EIR Addendum for DAP 2

7. Web Link Slip Sheet - Master Community Plan Volume I

8. Applicant-provided 01.15.2020 Community Open House Summary

9. Resolution to Approve DAP 2

10. Staff Report Tables

11. Conditions of Approval

12. DAP 2 Document Plans
City of Santa Clara Page 12 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
Attachment 1
Related Santa Clara
Key Map Plan – DAP 2, Parcel 4
5155 Stars and Stripes Drive – Web Link Slip Sheet to
Planning Commission Staff Report – May 27, 2020
https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4544426&GUID=9EADA7B2-10C2- 43E9-848A-C93A3B2214BC
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
Stephen F. Eimer
Executive Vice President & Co-Managing Partner
Related Santa Clara, LLC
5201 Great America Parkway, Suite 532
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Re: Approval of Phase Option Notice for Phase 2
Dear Mr. Eimer:

City Manager's Office
January 28, 2020
This letter is intended to serve as a decision from the City of Santa Clara (the "City") on the Phase Option Notice for Phase 2 pursuant to Section 4.4 of that certain Disposition and Development Agreement, dated August 12, 2016, by and between the City and Related Santa Clara, LLC (the "Developer") (the "DOA"), in connection with the City Place Santa Clara project (the "Project").1 The City approves the Phase Option Notice for Phase 2 of the Project as submitted in a letter from the Developer to the City dated December 10, 2019 and as amended in a letter from the Developer to the City dated January 15, 2020 (collectively the "Phase 2 Option Notice"), subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in this letter.

The City finds that the geographic boundaries of Phase 2 as shown in Exhibit 1 of the Phase 2 Option Notice are consistent with the conceptual phasing descriptions set forth in Section 2.3 of the Master Community Plan (the "MCP"), as required by DDA Section 4.1.2. The MCP identifies a "conceptual" phasing strategy that allows for parcel modification to address changing conditions, with the goal of developing the essential core of the mixed-use zone involving retail, entertainment, residential, hotel, and office space development on Parcel 4. (MCP Section 2.3, page 25.) Although the proposed boundaries of Phase 2 as shown in Exhibit 1 of the Phase 2 Option Notice do not precisely match the conceptual boundaries illustrated in the MCP, the proposed Phase 2 boundaries are nevertheless consistent with the MCP phasing concept, because development will deliver the mixed-use development envisioned in the MCP on Parcel 4 with a program that includes the required mix of uses at a square footage within the amount permitted by the MCP.

The Phase 2 Option Notice includes a proposed conceptual Phasing Plan intended to replace DDA Exhibit E. The City agrees that DDA Article 4 intends for the Parties to update the Phasing Plan in connection with approval of a Phase Option Notice and to include such updated Phasing Plan with the Memorandum of Ground Lease recorded when the subject phase Ground Lease is executed. The conceptual boundaries of future phases shown in the Phasing Plan are acceptable to the City. 1 Capitalized terms used but not defined in this letter have the meanings defined in the DDA. 1500 Warburton Avenue • Santa Clara, CA 95050 • Phone: (408) 615-2210 • Fax: (408) 241-6771 • www.s antaclaraca.gov Mr. Stephen Eimer, Related Santa Clara, LLC
Re: Approval of Phase Option Notice for Phase 2
January 28, 2020

The Phase 2 Option Notice clarifies that although the Phase 2 land area shown in the Phase 2 Option Notice is reduced from the area shown in the MCP and the DOA exhibits, the Phase 2 Ground Lease will provide that Phase 2 rent will be the full $1.5 million in annual Base Rent in accordance with ODA Section 6.1.8 for Phase 2. The City approves the Phase 2 Option Notice on the condition that the Developer does not seek a pro-rata rent reduction within the Phase 2 Ground Lease due to any reduction in Phase 2 square footage.

Sincerely,
Deanna J. Santana
City Manager
Cc: Brian Doyle, City Attorney
Elizabeth Klotz, Assistant City Attorney
Ruth Shikada, Assistant City Manager
Anna Shimko, Burke, Williams & Sorensen
Eric Phillips, Burke, Williams & Sorensen
Jennifer Jiang, Related Companies
Neil Sekhri, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Sara Ghalandari, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
SF #4816-0261-93 14 v i
January 15, 2020

II RE LATED

SANTA CLARA
By Email and Overnight Mail, Next Business Day
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Attn: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager
Re: Amendment of Phase 2 Option Notice
Phase Option Notice for Phase 2 dated December 10, 2019, under that certain Disposition and Development Agreement, dated as of August 12, 2016, by and between Related Santa Clara, LLC ("Developer") and the City of Santa Clara ("City") (the "DDA"), in connection with the City Place Santa Clara project (the "Project")
Dear Ms. Santana:

Reference is hereby made to (i) that certain Phase Option Notice for Phase 2 of the City Place Santa Clara Project, submitted by Developer to the City on December 10, 2019, in accordance with Section 4 (and all other applicable provisions) of the above-referenced DOA (the "Phase 2 Option Notice"), and (ii) that certain 10 Day Extension of City Response Time Required for Approval of Phase 2 Option Notice, submitted by Developer to the City on January 7, 2020 (the "Phase 2 Option Extension"). Capitalized terms used in this letter but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to such terms in the ODA.

Pursuant to this letter, Developer intends to amend and clarify certain portions of the Phase 2 Option Notice, as more specifically set forth below. Pursuant to the Phase 2 Option Extension, the City has until January 20, 2020 to respond to the Phase 2 Option Notice; however, Developer hereby agrees to a further extension of the City response period for the Phase 2 Option Notice until January 29, 2020.

1. Amendment to Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1 attached to the Phase 2 Option Notice is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety with Exhibit 1 attached hereto. The substance of Exhibit 1 has not changed; we have simply revised the legend text for clarity.

2. Amendments to Exhibit 1A
Exhibit 1A attached to the Phase 2 Option Notice is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety with Exhibit 1 A attached hereto. In addition, paragraph two of Section (a) of the Phase 2 Option Notice is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
"For reference, Exhibit 1A shows a comparison between the land area boundaries of Phase 2 as generally shown on Exhibit 2-1: Scheme A- Development Phasing Concept included on page 23 of the MCP (the "MCP Phasing Plan") and the revised land area boundaries proposed in this Phase 2 Option Notice. Note that the initial Take Down of Phase 2 includes portions of future Avenue A, Avenue C, Creekside Drive and City Place Parkway; however, those areas will be released from the Ground Lease upon completion by Developer and acceptance by the City. The total land area wi.thin Phase 2 is comprised of RELATED • 5201 Great America Parkway, Suite 532, Santa Clara, CA 95054 • (408) 490-3700 phone• (408) 490-3701 fax • www.relatedsantaclara.com 1,939,100 s.f., which is approximately 12% less than the 2,200,000 s.f. of land area allocated to Phase 2 as shown in the MCP Phasing Plan.

3. Amendments to Exhibit 2
~xhjbit 2 attached to the Phase 2 Option Notice is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety with Exhjbit 2 attached hereto. In addition, Section (b) of the Phase 2 Option Notice is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
"A revised conceptual Phasing Plan is attached to this letter as Exhibit 2. The revised Phasing Plan shows a new Phasing Plan that includes changes to the boundaries of Phase 2 and Phase 3, and, upon approval, the revised conceptual Phasing Plan will replace Exhibit E to the DOA that will govern future Phase approvals under the DOA. The current Phasing Plan that was attached to our approved Phase 1 Option Notice is attached to Exhibit 2 for reference. Also included within Exhibit 2 is a diagram that shows a comparison between the Phase 1 Phasing Plan and the revised Phasing Plan submitted with this Phase 2 Option Notice."

4. Clarification Regarding Base Rent for Phase 2
Despite the reduction in Phase 2 land area from that shown in the MCP, Developer remains committed to pay to the City the full $1.5 million in annual Base Rent in accordance with DOA Section 6.1.8 for the proposed Phase 2 Ground Lease, and will not seek a pro-rata rent reduction in that Ground Lease due to any reduction in Phase 2 square footage from the Phase 2 Original Phase Boundary. Depending on the land area within Phase 3 at the time of exercise, adjustments to rent allocations based on changes to land area may be appropriate at that time.

Very truly yours,

RELATED SANTA CLARA, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: ~~I'.•
N~me: 5+ ~~ ,~
Title: ~VP
cc: Brian Doyle, Esq., City Attorney
Ruth Shikada, Assistant City Manager
Anna Shimko, Esq.
-2·

II RELATED

SANTA CLARA
EXHIBIT 1
See Attached
RELATED • 5201 Great America Parkway, Suite 532, Santa Clara, CA 95054 • (4081490-3700 phone • (408) 490-3701 fax • www.relatedsantaclara.com ®
• RELATE

ANTA CLAR
• • • • • Proposed Lease Parcel
CJ Phase 1 Work
C=1 Public Roads (to be dedicated in fee)
Private Roads
L. 7 Public Improvements within Phase 2 scope
of construction (outside of Ground Lease
Boundaries)

II RELATED

SANTA CLARA
EXHIBIT 1A
See Attached
RELATED • 5201 Great America Parkway, Suite 532, Santa Clara, CA 95054 • (408, 490-3700 phone • (408, 490-3701 fax • www.relatedsantaclara.com ®
• RELATE

ANTA CLAR
Phase 2 Land Area: 1,939,100 sq ft
"'""" Phase 2 existing limits: 2,200,000 sq ft (Per MCP) • • • • • Proposed Phase 2 Lease Parcel

II RELATED

SANTA CLARA
EXHIBIT 2
See Attached
RELATED• 5201 Great America Parkway, Suite 532, Santa Clara, CA 95054 • (408) 490-3700 phone• (408) 490-3701 fax• www.relatedsantaclara.com No longer included within
the phased development
• RELATED

ANTA CLARA
Revised City Center Phasing Summary
i
i\ ---- [ ---- ------ \ -If ____ '\
11 \ \
I I \ \
) l J L
*Refinements to parcel areas and sequencing may occur
No longer included within
the phased development
• RELATED

ANTA CLARA
1 1
1 ~
I
----- [
------=-=-=== \ /f \ \
11 \ \
I I \ \
j l J L
Revised City Center Phasing Summary
Per Phase 1 Option Notice
*Refinements to parcel areas and sequencing may occur
No longer included with in
the phased development
• RELATED

ANTA CLARA
, ,
=-::::-..::-..::--=.. - - - - -17, · /f---- 1,, II \ \
11 \ \
j l J L
Revised City Center Phasing Summary
Comparison
• - - - - - Phasing shown in the Phase 1 Option Notice
Proposed Phasing *Refinements to parcel areas and sequencing may occur '-
5155 Stars and Stripes Drive – Web Link Slip Sheet to
City Place Final Environmental Impact Report
and
Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/135/3650?npage=2 RELATED SANTA CLARA PHASE 2 DAP 2 PROJECT
CEQA Addendum
Prepared for May 2020
City of Santa Clara

RELATED SANTA CLARA PHASE 2 DAP 2 PROJECT
CEQA Addendum
Prepared for May 2020
City of Santa Clara

180 Grand Avenue
Suite 1050
Oakland, CA 94612
510.839.5066
esassoc.com
Bend
Camarillo
Delray Beach
Destin
Irvine
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Pasadena
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Monica
Sarasota
Seattle
Tampa
D20191172

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project i ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Related Santa Clara Phase 2 DAP Project
CEQA Addendum
Page
1 General Project Information ........................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Title ........................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address ......................................................................... 1

1.3 Planning/CEQA File Number ................................................................................ 1

1.4 Contact Person and Phone Number ..................................................................... 1

1.5 Project Location .................................................................................................... 1

1.6 Project Applicant’s Name and Address ................................................................. 1

1.7 Existing General Plan Designation ........................................................................ 2

1.8 Existing Zoning ..................................................................................................... 2

1.9 Phase 2 Permits and Approvals ............................................................................ 2 2 Background .................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Planning Context .................................................................................................. 3

2.2 CEQA Context ...................................................................................................... 6 3 Purpose and Determination ........................................................................................ 8

3.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 8

3.2 Determination ....................................................................................................... 8 4 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 9

4.1 DAP 2 Project ....................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Project Characteristics .......................................................................................... 9

4.3 Comparison of Project Analyzed in EIR and DAP 2 Project ................................. 16 5 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................ 19 6 CEQA Analysis ........................................................................................................... 19

6.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 19

6.2 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................... 22

6.3 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................... 24

6.4 Transportation and Circulation ............................................................................ 26

6.5 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 38

6.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 42

6.7 Noise .................................................................................................................. 44

6.8 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 46

6.9 Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 48

6.10 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................... 50

6.11 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................. 52

6.12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................... 55

6.13 Population and Housing ...................................................................................... 58

6.14 Public Services and Recreation .......................................................................... 59

6.15 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................. 61 Table of Contents
Page
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project ii ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
Attachments
A. DAP 2, Phase 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program B. Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2 Traffic Report
C. Getting Trip Generation Right: Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development, 2013
D. Transportation Tables
List of Figures
Figure 1 Project Location .................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 City Place Parcels ................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3 DAP 2 Project Roadways ................................................................................... 10 Figure 4 Site Plan ............................................................................................................. 11 Figure 5 DAP 2 Project Conceptual Massing .................................................................... 12 Figure 6 DAP 2 Project Outdoor Spaces .......................................................................... 13 List of Tables
Table 1 DAP 2 Project Characteristics ............................................................................ 14 Table 2 Project Characteristics Comparison .................................................................... 17 Table 3 Aggregate Development / Project Comparison ................................................... 18 Table 4 Trip Generation Comparison .............................................................................. 35 Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 1 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
RELATED SANTA CLARA PHASE 2

DAP PROJECT
CEQA Addendum
1 General Project Information

1.1 Project Title
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4

1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Santa Clara
Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

1.3 Planning/CEQA File Number
PLN2019-14249 (PLN2014ဨ&(4ဨ6&+)

1.4 Contact Person and Phone Number
Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner
Planning Division
[email protected]


340-5642 x109

1.5 Project Location
Phase 2 (within Parcel 4) of the Related Santa Clara Project site (generally north of DAP 1, Phase 1 development and Stars and Stripes Drive, up to and including what will be Second Street within Parcel 4, west of Lafayette Street and what will be Avenue C within Parcel 4, and east of Great America Parkway, San Tomas Aquino Creek, and what will be Creekside Drive within Parcel 4).

Assessor’s Parcel No. 104-03-036 (portion)

1.6 Project Applicant’s Name and Address
Related Santa Clara
5201 Great America Parkway, Suite 532
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 2 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

1.7 Existing General Plan Designation
Urban Center(QWHUWDLQPHQW'LVWULFW

1.8 Existing Zoning
Planned Development - Master Community (PD-MC)

1.9 Phase 2 Permits and Approvals
The government agency permits and approval for implementation of Phase 2 of the Related Santa Clara Project include but are not limited to the following:

1.9.1 Actions by the City of Santa Clara
x City Council approval of a Phase 2—Development Area Plan and one or more tentative subdivision maps.
x Community Development Director approval of the Architectural Materials component of the Phase 2 DAP, as allowed pursuant to the MCP zoning.
x City administrative approvals for such items as demolition permits, grading permits, building permits, on- and off-site work permits (e.g., public right-of-way improvements, and tie backs), encroachment permits, utilities and stormwater protection measures. x Various implementation agreements between the applicant and the City, as needed. x City of Santa Clara Water and Sewer Utilities – Grant a Special Discharge Permit to GLVFKDUJHFRQVWUXFWLRQGHZDWHULQJWRWKHVDQLWDU\VHZHUDQGRUDSSURYDORIQHZVHUYLFH requests and new water meter installations.

1.9.2 Actions by Other Agencies
x %D\$UHD$LU4XDOLW\0DQDJHPHQW'LVWULFW
%$$40'
– Issuance of permits for hazardous
abatement activities, if any.
x 5HJLRQDO:DWHU4XDOLW\&RQWURO%RDUG
5:4&%
– Acceptance of a Notice of Intent to
obtain coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit, and Notice of Termination after construction is complete; approval of wetland mitigation plans; approval of plans and programs related to construction of the Project on the Landfill, including a revised Closure Plan and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan.
x 6DQWD&ODUD&RXQW\'HSDUWPHQWRI3XEOLF+HDOWK
/RFDO(QIRUFHPHQW$JHQF\
$SSURYDORI
plans and programs related to construction of the Project on the Landfill, including a revised Closure Plan and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 3 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
2 Background

2.1 Planning Context
The proposed Related Santa Clara Phase 2 Development Area Plan (DAP) Project (DAP 2 Project) site is located within Parcel 4 of the City Place Santa Clara Project, for which the City of Santa Clara FHUWLILHGDQ(QYLURQPHQWDO,mpact Report on June  2016, pursuant to the California (QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\$FW
&(4$
(see Figures 1 and 2) and approved General Plan
amendments, zoning amendments (including a Master Community Plan) and other entitlements. For WKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLV$GGHQGXP&(4$analysis, the City Place Santa Clara Project (,5 (,5
for
the City Place Santa Clara Project (City Place Project or Project) comprises the City Place Santa Clara Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 2015
'(,5
; and the City Place Santa Clara
Final Environmental Impact Report, April 2016
)(,5
. $IWHUFHUWLILFDWLRQRIWKH(,5RQ0DUFK
24, 2020, the CLW\DGRSWHGD)LUVW$GGHQGXPWRWKH(,5LQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKLWVDSSURYDORID Development Area Plan for Phase 1 of the Project.

The City Place Santa Clara Project (City Place Project or Project) includes conversion of 240-acres of City-owned property into a multi-phase, mixed-use development.1 The Project analyzed in the (,5and approved at the Master Community Plan level entails demolition of the existing buildings and on-site features and establishment of a new mixed-use City neighborhood with a defined center to serve as a focal point for a pedestrian-oriented “live, work, and play” environment. The Project siteDVDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5consists of ILYHSDUFHOV
3DUFHO
acres), Parcel 2 (60.9 acres),
Parcel 3 (
DFUHV
3DUFHO
DFUHV
DQG3DUFHO
 acres), which will be further subdivided
and developed in approximately eight phases pursuant to the approved Master Community Plan (described below) and subsequent Development Area Plans. 7KH(,5DOVRDQalyzed four variants to vehicular access, four alternativesDQGDQDGGLWLRQDO(QKDQFHG2SHQ6SDFH9DULDQW7KH Increased +RXVLQJ$OWHUQDWLYH DQG(QKDQFHG2SHQ6SDFH9DULDQW were adopted as the Project and are reflected in the approved Master Community Plan.

The Project was approved to include up to 9.16 million gross square feet (gsf) of office buildings, retail and entertainment facilities, residential units, and hotel rooms; it will also include surface and structured parking facilities. In addition, the Project will include: large, shared open spaces throughout the project site; new pedestrian and vehicular entrances and roadway networks; new roads; new, upgraded, and expanded infrastructure; and new utilities, with improvements to offsite connections. In addition, the Project will include construction of a fire station to replace existing Santa Clara Fire Station 10 (Fire Station 10), which will be demolished to accommodate the Project. Because the majority of the Project is located over the former Santa Clara AllPurpose Landfill (Landfill), it includes the following additional activities: constructing foundation systems that minimize disturbance to, and preserve the integrity of, Landfill components; UHORFDWLQJXSJUDGLQJDQGRUUHSODFLQJDVQHFHVVDU\WKHH[LVWLQJJURXQGZDWHUPRQLWRULQJ network, leachate collection system, and landfill gas collection and removal systems; and installing new landfill gas mitigation systems beneath, and in, the newly constructed structures. 1 Although the City Place Santa Clara Project is now referred to as “Related Santa Clara,” this addendum uses “City 3ODFH6DQWD&ODUD´DVWKDWLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHQDPLQJLQWKH&(4$GRFXPHQWVDQGWKH0DVWHU&RPPXQLW\3ODQ Caribbean Dr
Crossman Ave
Great America Pkwy
Lawrence Expy
N. Fair Oaks Ave
Montague Expy
Duane Ave
Tasman Dr
Tasman Dr
1st St
California’s
Great
America
Levi
Stadium
Lakehaven Dr
Mission College Blvd
237
101
Parcel 1
Parcel 2 Parcel 3
Parcel 5
DAP 2 Project Site
Parcel 4
D190583.00 - Confidential San José Mixed-Use Project\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling\Illustrator 0 2000
Feet N
SOURCE: ESA, 2020 Santa Clara Related DAP 2
Figure 1
Project Location
Pacific Ocean
NOVATO
SAN
RAFAEL

SUNNYVALLE
SAN
JOSE

FREMONT

HAYWARD
SAN
RAMON
WALNUT
CREEK

CONCORD

SANTA ROSA NAPA

FAIRFIELD

ALAMEDA SAN

FRANCISCO
DALY
CITY

BERKELEY

VALLEJO

VACAVILLE

REDWOOD
CITY
SAN
MATEO

OAKLAND
Project Site

RICHMOND
101
80 680
580
880
280
280
101
SOURCE: Gensler, 2019
SFO\19xxx\D191172.00 - Santa Clara Related DAP1 and DAP2\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling\Illustrator N
Santa Clara Related DAP 2
Figure 2
City Place Parcels
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 6 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
7KH(,5DQDO\]HGWZRFRQFHSWXDOODQGXVHVFKHPHV
6FKHPH$DQG6FKHPH%
IRUWKHSURMHFW
site to capture the range of possible land uses that could be developed. Both schemes included a building area of up to 9.16 million gsf. Under Scheme A, the uses for Parcels 1, 2, and 3 would be primarily office uses, and Parcels 4 and 5 would be devoted to mixed-use development, consisting of commercial uses, including retail, food and beverage, and entertainment uses along with offices, a hotel, and multi-family residential uses (up to  units). Scheme B included the same development scheme and building area at Parcels 1 and 3 as Scheme A. At Parcel 2, a retail center with offices was proposed rather than only the office use proposed under Scheme A. At Parcel 4, no residential use was proposed under Scheme B; instead, office development equal in area to the residential development in Scheme A was included, along with the same amount of space for the proposed hotel, retail uses, entertainment venues, and open space areas. Ultimately, QHLWKHU6FKHPH$QRU6FKHPH%ZHUHDGRSWHGSUHFLVHO\DVSUHVHQWHGLQWKH'(,5. $VRQHRIWKHIRXU3URMHFWDOWHUQDWLYHVWKH(,5DOVRDQDO\]HGDQ,QFUHDVHG+RXVLQJ$OWHUQDWLYH that would replace the 320,000 gsf of office space planned under the Project for Parcel 4 under Scheme A with 320,000 gsf of residential space, resulting in 320 additional residential units, for a total of approximately UHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVDWWKH3URMHFWVLWH7KH,QFUHDVHG+RXVLQJ Alternative was framed to include the same amount of retail, hotel, and entertainment uses as the Project, Scheme A.
7KH(,5DOVRDQDO\]HGWKH(QKDQFHG2SHQ6SDFH9DULDQW7KLVYDULDQWZas applied to both 6FKHPH$DQG6FKHPH%DQGZDVDQDO\]HGLQ([KLELW$WRWKH)(,57KH(QKDQFHG2SHQ6SDFH Variant envisioned Parcel 3 being retained by the City and reserved for park use. The overall Project development square footage was not reduced undHUWKLVYDULDQW5DWKHUWKHJVI of office use and associated parking in Parcel DQDO\]HGLQWKH'(,5ZDVSUHVXPHGWREHUHallocated to other parcels. 2Q-XQHWKH&LW\FHUWLILHGWKH(,5, approved General Plan Amendments, and approved the Planned Development - Master Community (PD-MC) Zoning and accompanying Master Community Plan document (MCP) to allow for the phased development of the Project. As noted DERYHWKH&LW\DGRSWHGWKH,QFUHDVHG+RXVLQJ$OWHUQDWLYHDQG(QKDQFHG2SHn Space Variant as the Project as reflected in the final MCP. The MCP LVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH,QFUHDVHG+RXVLQJ $OWHUQDWLYHDQG(QKDQFHG2SHQ6SDFH9DULDQWDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5DQGIXWXUHGHYHORSPHQWRQ the site is required to conform to the MCP. Specifically, the MCP sets forth the development standards, design guidelines, phasing constructs, project implementation procedures, development transfer provisions among parcels, permitted and conditional uses allowed within the proposed land use areas, and City approval standards for DAP applications. It anticipates up to eight potential phases of development, each of which would be governed by a DAP.

2.2 CEQA Context
7KH&LW\3ODFH6DQWD&ODUD3URMHFW(,5ZDVFHUWLILHG-XQH 7KLV(,5LVKHUHE\ incorporated by reference and can be obtained from the City of Santa Clara Planning Division at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, 95050, and on the City of Santa Clara Planning Division website at
KWWS
ZZZVDQWDFODUDFDJRY+RPH&RPSRQHQWV%XVLQHVV'LUHFWRU\%XVLQHVV'LUHFWRU\.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 7 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
$VGHVFULEHGDERYHWKH(,5DQDO\]HGWZRFRQFHSWXDOODQGXVHVFKHPHVIRUWKH3URMHFWVLWHWR capture the range of possLEOHODQGXVHVWKDWFRXOGEHGHYHORSHG7KH(,5DOVRDQDO\]HGWKH ,QFUHDVHG+RXVLQJ$OWHUQDWLYHDQGWKH(QKDQFHG2SHQ6SDFH9DULDQWERWKRIZKLFKDUHUHIOHFWHG in the MCP. Individual DAPs must be consistent with the MCP, which permits some flexibility in location, amount, and type of future development in terms of the precise mix of newly developed land uses and their location within the Project site. Provided that the developable area does not change more than 20 percent in a single phase, individual DAPs need not adhere to the specific parcel-by-parcel assumptions in the MCP. This potential for this variation was VSHFLILFDOO\DQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5IRUWKH3URMHFW6SHFLILFDOO\WKH3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQLQWKH(,5 provides for the transfer of up to 20 percent of the maximum allowed density of each of the individual development parcels to one or more of the other development parcels. Therefore, as ORQJDVWKHRYHUDOOSURMHFWVLWHEXLOGRXWVWD\VZLWKLQWKHLPSDFWHQYHORSHDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5DQG the developable area does not change more than 20 percent in a single parcel, the impacts of a DAP that varies from the specific parcel-by-SDUFHOGHYHORSPHQWGHQVLWLHVGHVFULEHGLQWKH(,5 DUHVWLOOZLWKLQWKHVFRSHRIWKHDQDO\VLVRIWKH(,5 7KH(,5anticipated that the environmental review of specific development projects, or DAPs, consistent with the Project DVDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5 ZRXOGEHVWUHDPOLQHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK&(4$ The DAP 2 Project is within the level of development approved as part of the MCP and analyzed in WKH(,5and is generally consistent with the development assumptions ZLWKLQWKH(,5and thus within the impact envelope of the Project as DQDO\]HGLQWKH(,57KLV&(4$analysis is an DGGHQGXPWRWKH(,5ZKLFKSURYLGHVWKHDQDO\VLVHYDOXDWLQJWKHSRWHQWLDOVLJQLILFDQWHQYLURQPHQWDO impacts that could result from the DAP 2 Project when compared with the Project analyzed in the (,5LQFRPSOLDQFHZLWK&(4$*XLGHOLQHV6HFWLRQ 15164.

2.2.1 City Place EIR – Environmental Effects Summary
7KH(,5GHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKH&LW\3ODFH3URMHFWZRXOGUHVXOWLQno impacts for aesthetics (adversely affect scenic vistas); biological resources (plant species, habitat conservation plan); cultural resources (changes to historic resources); geology and soils (alternative waste water system); hazards and hazardous materials (private airstrip, wildland fires); hydrology and water quality (seiche, tsunami, or mudflow); land use (physical division of an established community); noise (private airstrip); population and housing (housing displacement); utilities and service systems (solid waste regulation); agricultural or forestry resources; and mineral resources.

Less-than-significant impacts were identified fRUWKHIROORZLQJUHVRXUFHVLQWKH(,5 DLUTXDOLW\
(carbon monoxide CO concentrations; asbestos); biological resources (trees); geology and soils (ground shaking or a seismic event); hazards and hazardous materials (routine hazardous materials use, proximity to schools, aviation hazards, emergency access routes); hydrology and water quality (groundwater supplies, flooding due to levee or dam failure); population and housing (employment displacement, new housing demand); public services and recreation; utilities and service systems (water supplies, landfill capacity).
7KH(,5GHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKH&LW\3ODFH3URMHFWZRXOGUHVXOWLQWKHIROORZLQJLPSDFWVWKDWZRXOGEH reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures:
aesthetics (degradation of existing visual character, new light or glare); air quality (emissions of Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 8 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
criteria air pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants during construction, odors); biological resources (special status fish or wildlife species, wetlands); cultural resources (archaeological, human remains, paleontological); geology and soils (soil erosion, unstable soils); hazards and hazardous materials (accidental release during construction; the presence of hazardous materials in areas not underlain by the Landfill; landfill-related hazards include gas, contaminated soils or groundwater, and subsurface fires); hydrology and water quality (water quality standards, drainage, and stormwater runoff); noise (construction noise, vibration); and utilities and service systems (construction of water delivery and stormwater generation and drainage systems, energy).

Significant unavoidable impacts were identified for the following environmental resources in WKH(,5
DLUTXDOLW\
HPLVVLRQVRIFULWHULDDLUSROlutants during operation, conflicts with implementation of the applicable air quality plan); biological resources (interference with movement of native migratory wildlife species); greenhouse gases (generation of greenhouse gas emissions, conflict with an applicable plan); land use (land use policy); noise (operational noise in excess of applicable standards); utilities and service systems (cumulative landfill capacity, cumulative energy). Due to the potential for significant unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted as part of the City’s certification of the (,5. 3 Purpose and Determination

3.1 Purpose
&(4$*XLGHOLQHV6HFWLRQ
$GGHQGXPWRDQ(,5RU1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQ
provides that an
$GGHQGXPWRDQ(,5VKDOOEHSUHSDUHGLI some changes or additions are necessary but none of the FRQGLWLRQVRI6HFWLRQFDOOLQJIRUSUHSDUDWLRQRIDVXEVHTXHQW(,5KDYHRFFXUUHG VHH
Section 6.1 below for a description of those conditions). The Guidelines provide that a brief explanation of WKHGHFLVLRQQRWWRSUHSDUHDVXEVHTXHQWRUVXSSOHPHQWDO(,5SXUVXDQWWR6HFWLRQ 15162 should be included in an addendum, the lead agency’s findings or elsewhere in the record and requires that decision to be supported by substantial evidence. The purpose of this Addendum is to: describe the DAP 2 3URMHFWLQFRPSDULVRQWRWKH3URMHFWDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5 SURYLGHWKH
required brief explanation of the decision that the DAP 2 Project does not give rise to the conditions calling for preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report; and summarize the substantial evidence supporting that conclusion. This Addendum does not address every DSSOLFDEOH&(4$WRSLFRUVLJQLILFDQFH threshold, but focuses on those most pertinent to the City’s determination that a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is not required for the DAP 2 Project EHFDXVHQRQHRIWKHFRQGLWLRQVGHVFULEHGLQ&(4$*XLGHOLQHV Section 15162 (SubseTXHQW(,5VDQG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQV calling for the preparation of a
VXEVHTXHQW(,5RULQ&(4$*XLGHOLQHV6HFWLRQ
6XSSOHPHQWWRDQ(,5
FDOOLQJIRUWKH
SUHSDUDWLRQRIDVXSSOHPHQWDO(,5have occurred.

3.2 Determination
The information presented in this Addendum explains the substantial evidence supporting a finding that the DAP 2 Project does not call for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report and therefore the only additional &(4$GRFXPHQWDWLRQQHFHVVDU\LV an addendum XQGHU&(4$*XLGHOLQHV6HFWLRQ 15164.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 9 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
4 Project Description

4.1 DAP 2 Project

4.1.1 Project Location and Surroundings
The DAP 2 project site is located within Parcel 4 of the City Place Santa Clara Project. Parcel 4 is north of Parcel 5 and is largest parcel on the site
DFUHV
. It aligns with Stars and Stripes
Drive to the south, Lafayette Street to the east, and San Tomas Aquino Creek and Great America Parkway to the west. Surrounding uses include the DAP 1 project site to the south as well as Levi’s Stadium and a youth soccer park across Tasman Drive and the Santa Clara Convention Center to the west. The Santa Clara-Great America Train platform and Transit Center is to the southeast and tKH7DVPDQ(DVW6SHFLILF3ODQHQYLVLRQVDKLJK-density transit-oriented neighborhood in the existing industrial park to the east. The area north of the DAP 2 project site is intended for phases 3 and 4 of the Project. The entirety of Parcel 4, including the DAP 2 (i.e., Project phase 2) site and the sites of phases 3 and 4, was located on a former Landfill and was most recently used as a golf course, which as of October 31, 2019 is no longer in operation. Primary access to the site will be via Stars and Stripes Drive from the south, new roadway connections to Great America Parkway from the west and the transit plaza connection from the east.

The General Plan land use designation is Urban Center(QWHUWDLQPHQWDistrict and the Zoning district is Planned Development - Master Community (PD-MC). The building height limit across the DAP 2 Project site is 219 feet above mean sea level (msl). As noted above, development on the DAP 2 Project site is governed by the approved 0&3GDWHG$SULO

4.2 Project Characteristics
The DAP 2 project site includes five proposed blocks, %'()DQG+, located in the southern portion of Parcel 4. The DAP 2 Project would include development of streets through and surrounding the project site (see Figure 3). This includes development of Creekside Drive from Stars and Stripes Drive to Second Street, Avenue A from Stars and Stripes Drive to City Place Parkway, and a small portion of Avenue C to the east. First Street, the portion of Second Street between Avenue A to Avenue B, and City Place Parkway connecting Avenue C and Great America Parkway would also be developed during this phase. The project site plan and building renderings are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Development on block 4B at the west along Creekside drive would include two five-VWRU\
-foot-tall) buildings containing office, entertainment, retail and food and beverage uses as well as an entry to the district (see Figure 5). Shared public open space would be provided between the buildings and along the western portion of the block (see Figure 6).
(DVWRI$YHQXH$WKHSRUWLRQRIEORFN(4F west of Centennial Boulevard would provide a food market and other retail uses in buildings between one and three OHYHOV EHWZHHQDQGIHHt
tall). Shared public outdoor space would be provided in 2.4-acre and 1.4 acre plazas west and east of Centennial Boulevard respectively. (DVW of Centennial Boulevard, these blocks would provide retail uses in single-story (up to 62-foot-tall) structures. Further eastEORFN()ZRXOGLQFOXGH mixed-use office buildings up to five VWRULHV
-feet-tall) facing Avenue B. Further east, block
Figure 3
DAP 2 Project Roadways
SOURCE: Gensler, 2020 Santa Clara Related DAP 2
SFO\19xxx\D191172.00 - Santa Clara Related DAP1 and DAP2\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling\Illustrator 0 200
Feet
N
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723
6723 6723
6723 6723 6723 6723 6723 6723
3276 3276
6723
6723
6723
6723
%/2&.%
5(7$,/2)),&(
(17(57$,10(17
%/2&.()
2)),&(
5(7$,/
$9(18($&(17(11,$/%/9'$9(18(&
),567675((7
$9(18($&(17(11,$/%/9'$9(18(%
&5((.6,'('5,9(
67$56$1'675,3(6'5,9(6
$9(18(%
6(&21'675((7
%/2&.()
*/2%$/)22'
0$5.(75(7$,/
%/2&.+
3$5.,1*
5(7$,/) %
%/2&.'
5(6,'(17,$/
5(7$,/) %
%/2&.'+27(/5(6,'(17,$/
+($/7+&/8%5(7$,/) %
LEGEND
Office
Food & Beverage
Retail
Hotel
Residential
Parking
Entertainment
Land Uses
Figure 
DAP 2 Project Site Plan
SOURCE: Gensler, 2019 Santa Clara Related DAP 2
SFO\19xxx\D191172.00 - Santa Clara Related DAP1 and DAP2\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling\Illustrator 0 200
Feet
N
&(
' %(9(5$*(
,/
(/
'(17,$/
.,1*
57$,10(17
BLOCK 4D

HOTEL/HEALTH CLUB/

RESIDENTIAL/RETAIL/F&B
BLOCK 4D

RESIDENTIAL/RETAIL/F&B
BLOCK 4H
PARKING/RETAIL/F&B BLOCK 4B

RETAIL/OFFICE/

ENTERTAINMENT
BLOCK 4E/4F

OFFICE/RETAIL
BLOCK 4E/4F

FOOD MARKET/RETAIL
Figure 
DAP 2 Project Conceptual Massing
SOURCE: Gensler, 2019 Santa Clara Related DAP 2
SFO\19xxx\D191172.00 - Santa Clara Related DAP1 and DAP2\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling\Illustrator LEGEND
Office
Food & Beverage
Retail
Hotel
Residential
Parking
Entertainment
Land Uses
6;36
9:':/54
/)<
/)<
6723
76 23
3276
6723
6723
6 27 3
6723
76 23
76 23
3276
6723
6723
76 23
3276
6723
6723
6723
76 23
6723
76 23
3276
76 23 76 23
3276 3276
3276 3276 3276 3276
6723
76 23 76 23
3276 3276
6723
6723
6723
6723
,7 :$(5(+
6 27 3
%/2&.%
5(7$,/
%/2&.()
2)),&(
5(7$,/
67$56$1'675,3(6'5,9(6
$9(18(&
6(&21'675((7
$9(18($$9(18(%
&5((.6,'('5,9(
$9(18($&(17(11,$/%/9'$9(18(%
%/2&.()
*/2%$/)22'
0$5.(75(7$,/
$&5(6

$&
$&
$&
$&
$&
$&
$&

$&
$&
%/2&.+
3$5.,1*
5(7$,/) %
%/2&.'
5(6,'(17,$/
5(7$,/) %
%/2&.'
+27(/5(6,'(17,$/
+($/7+&/8%
5(7$,/) %
(163$&(
522)723

63$&(

1.0 ACRES

2.9 ACRES 0.75 ACRES
LEGEND
Open Space
Private Shared Outdoor
Open Space (Rooftop)
Public Shared Outdoor
Open Space
Figure 6
Public and Private Outdoor Open Space
SOURCE: Gensler, 2019 Santa Clara Related DAP 2
SFO\19xxx\D191172.00 - Santa Clara Related DAP1 and DAP2\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling\Illustrator 0 200
Feet
N
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 14 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
+ZRXOGKRXVHDODUJH
six-OHYHODQG-foot-tall) parking garage with retail and food and beverage at the ground floor facing Avenue B. To the east of block 4+DQG$YHQXH&3KDVH would include a 3.9-acre neighborhood park with bike and pedestrian pathways and amenities adjacent to the Union Pacific rail line and Lafayette Street.

Block 4D would encompass development between First and Second Streets, Avenue A, and Avenue B. Along with ground-floor retail, including food and beverage and a health club, hotel and residential uses would occupy the upper level. The 12-story (approximately 150-foot-tall) hotel building would be in the northwest corner of the block facing Avenue A and Second Street.

Residential uses would be in six-VWRU\
EHWZHHQDQGIHet tall) buildings throughout the rest of this block. Four levels of parking would also be provided on the eastern portion of this block. 6KDUHGSXEOLFRXWGRRUVSDFHZRXOGEHSURYLGHGWKURXJKRXWWKHVHEORFNVLQDGGLWLRQWRD-acre shared private rooftop open space atop the residential buildings.

Table 1 provides an overview of DAP 2 Project land uses.

TABLE 1
DAP 2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Area (gsf)
Block 4B 100,000 (Office)
65,000 (Retail/Food & Beverage)
50,000 (Entertainment)
Block 4D 30,000 (Office)
150,000 (Retail)
20,000 (Food & Beverage)
180,000 (Hotel)
530,000 (Residential)
Block 4E/4F 305,000 (Office)
180,000 (Retail)
115,000 (Food & Beverage)
Block 4H 20,000 (Retail)
5,000 (Food & Beverage)
991,053 (Garage)
DAP 2 Project Total 435,000 (Office)
555,000 (Retail/Food & Beverage)
50,000 (Entertainment
180,000 (Hotel)
530,000 (Residential)
Total GSF 1,750,000
SOURCE: Related Santa Clara, City Place Santa Clara, Development Area Plan 2 Phase 2 Parcel 4, May 2020
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 15 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

4.2.1 Open Space
As described above and shown in Figure 6, the DAP 2 Project would provide 4.25 acres of shared outdoor open space provided in a 3.9-acre park between Avenue C and the rail line (2.9 acres VRXWKRI6HFRQG6WUHHWDQGDFUHQRUWKRI6HFRQG6WUHHW DQGDQDSSUR[LPDWHO\-acre private
rooftop open space on Block 4D (counted at 50 percent toward the park requirements for residential units). Approximately 1.21 acres of this shared outdoor open space is intended to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements applicable to the DAP 1 Project residential units.

This requirement had been deferred to Phase 2 as permitted under the Development Agreement with the City, which was approved in connection with approval of the overall Project in 2016. Phase 2 park development would also include sufficient shared outdoor open space to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements applicable to the DAP 2 Project residential units. In addition, the DAP 2 Project would provide shared public outdoor open space between the buildings on all blocks except block +

4.2.2 Streetscape and Infrastructure Improvements
7KH(,5DFNQRZOHGJHGWKDW, as each phase is built, the on-site infrastructure necessary (e.g., road network, and wet and dry utility installations) to support the development of the phase would be constructed in the portion of the site where that phase is being developed. In some cases, it would be necessary to construct infrastructure in portions of the site where future phases would be developed to connect to existing infrastructure and provide a path that would serve the phase that is under development.

As noted above, the DAP 2 Project would develop streets surrounding and through the project VLWH7KHVHLQFOXGHSRUWLRQVRI)LUVWDQG6HFRQG6WUHHWVUXQQLQJJHQHUDOO\HDVWZHVWDQGSRUWLRQV of Creekside Drive, Centennial Boulevard, and Avenues A, B, and C running generally QRUWKVRXWK,QDGGLWLRQWKH'$33URMHFW would develop Avenue A and City Place Parkway to provide access from Great America Parkway to Avenue C.

The DAP 2 Project would include sidewalks, cross walks, bike lanes and street parking where possible along newly developed roadways. Drop off zones for ride hailing services would be provided at strategic locations. In addition, shuttle bus drop-off and pick-up zones primarily for use of office workers would be provided on streets where appropriate.

The DAP 2 Project would include a new storm drainage system, new water main connections, recycled water system, and sanitary sewer system. The DAP 2 Project would also provide required infrastructure to extend electric, gas, and telephone service to the site.

4.2.3 Project Construction
Construction activities would consist of demolition of any existing structures, concrete retaining walls, paving, concrete, and other materials; excavation and grading; foundation and below-grade construction; construction of the buildings and finishing interiors; and construction of required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site. The buildings, streets and plazas on Blocks 4D and ()ZLOOEHbuilt on top of an approximately 25-acre common podium structure founded on pilesupported mats that will extend from the southern to northern boundaries of Phase 2 and from the Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 16 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
eastern edge of Avenue B to the eastern edge of Avenue A. The piles will be drilled into the native deposits underlying the Landfill refuse to a maximum depth of 120 to 130 feet below ground surface, using a cased continuous flight auger process approved by the San Francisco RHJLRQDO:DWHU4XDOLW\Board for this project. During the construction of the podium and installation of the piles, repairs of the existing landfill cap will be made in areas identified as not meeting current regulatory standards. In the interstitial space between the existing cap and the surface of the podium structure, a new landfill gas protection system will be constructed to remove landfill gases (e.g., methane, hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic compounds) that could RWKHUZLVHDFFXPXODWHDQGRUPLJUDWHWKURXJKWKHVXE-slab into enclosed structures. The new landfill gas protection system would include a passive collection and venting system and a contingency active collection and venting system, as well as automatic methane gas sensors beneath and in buildings with alarm and strobe activation.

In addition, construction activities would include a phased reconfiguration, replacement and modernization of portions of the existing Landfill operations monitoring, collection, and removal systems, including the Landfill gas collection and removal system that connects to the existing Ameresco Methane Power Plant. During construction, infrastructure improvements related to the Landfill protection systems would be implemented in a systematic manner within each block that ensures continued protection in compliance with applicable regulations during and after the implementation.

As described below, the DAP 2 Project proposal includes less square footage of development on a slightly smaller SURMHFWVLWHWKDQZDVDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5IRU3KDVH2. The DAP 2 Project construction-related activity would be well within the construction anticipated and analyzed in the (,5IRUWKH3URMHFW

4.3 Comparison of Project Analyzed in EIR and DAP 2 Project The (,5 evaluated the proposed land uses for Parcel 4 as a whole,2 which was projected to develop in three phases (phases 2, 3, and 4). )RUWKHHQWLUHW\RIWKH-acre Parcel 4, the (QKDQFHG2SHQ6SDFH9DULDQWLQ([KLELW$WRWKH)(,5analyzed approximately 1,160,000 gross square feet (gsf) of residential uses (1,160 units); 1,415,000 gsf of commercial uses (retail, IRRGEHYHUDJHDQGHQWHUWDLQPHQW

JVIRIRIILFHXVHs; and 
JVI(300 rooms) of
hotel uses, over two zones, a “City Center” zone and a “Northwest Office” zone. In total, the two zones would comprise up to 4.26 million gsf of development. Parking would be provided in structured parking and surface parking lots.
7KH(,5DOVRconsidered DQ,QFUHDVHG+RXVLQJ$OWHUQDWLYHXQGHUZKLFKJVIRIRIILFH space planned on Parcel 4 would be replaced with 320,000 gsf of residential use, resulting in 320 DGGLWLRQDOXQLWVIRUDWRWDORIXQLWVRQ3DUFHOUnder this Alternative, the whole of Parcel 2 The development plan for ParFHODQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5LQFOXGHGWZRODQGXVHVFKHPHV 6FKHPH$DQG6FKHPH%

The Scheme B plan would differ from Scheme A primarily in that Parcel 4 would have no residential use but commercial office use would be built as a replacement. The DAP 2 Project includes residential uses and therefore is cRPSDUHGZLWK6FKHPH$ODQGXVHVWKH(QKDQFHG2SHQ6SDFH9DULDQWDQGWKH,QFUHDVHG+RXVLQJ$OWHUQDWLYH.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 17 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
ZRXOGFRQVLVWRIJVIRIUHVLGHQWLDOXVHV
JVIRIUHWDLOXVHV
JVIRI
RIILFHXVHV
DQG
JVIRIKRWHOXVHV
The City Council ultimately adopted the (QKDQFHG2SHQ6SDFH9DULDQW with the Increased +RXVLQJ$lternative as the Project, which is reflected in the approved MCP. The DAP 2 Project differs slightly from the plan IRUEORFNV%'()DQG+presented in the MCP (see Table 2). Compared with Phase 2, the DAP 2 Project would reduce development by approximately JVI, which is partially attributable to blocks in Phase 2 of the MCP now anticipated to develop during Phase 3. These deviations from Parcel 4 DVDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5DUHFRQVLVWHQW with the overall &(4$Project and compliant with the MCP.

To assess whether the DAP 2 Project is within broader development assumptions and thus within WKHLPSDFWHQYHORSHDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5the DAP 2 Project was reviewed together with DAP 1 (see Table 3).

TABLE 2

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS COMPARISON
DAP 2 Project Area
(gsf)
MCP Project Area (gsf)
Blocks 4B, 4D, 4E, 4F,
and 4H Difference
BLOCK 4B
Commercial (Retail/Food & Beverage) 65,000 102,000 (37,000) Office 100,000 150,000 (50,000)
Residential - 240,000 (240 units) (240,000)
Entertainment 50,000 - 50,000
Total GSF 215,000 492,000 (277,000)
BLOCK 4D
Commercial (Retail/Food & Beverage) 170,000 233,000 (63,000) Office 30,000 - 30,000
Residential 530,000 (500 units) 440,000 (440 units) 90,000 60 units
Hotel 180,000 (220 rooms) 298,00 (300 rooms) (118,000)
(80 rooms)
Total GSF 910,000 971,000 (61,000)
BLOCK 4E/F
Commercial (Retail/Food & Beverage) 295,000 462,000 (167,000) Office 305,000 146,000 159,000
Entertainment - 190,000 (190,000)
Total GSF 600,000 798,000 (198,000)
BLOCK 4H
Commercial (Retail/Food & Beverage) 25,000 187,500 (162,500) (Structured Parking) (991,053) -
Total GSF 25,000 187,500 (162,500)
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 18 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS COMPARISON
DAP 2 Project Area
(gsf)
MCP Project Area (gsf)
Blocks 4B, 4D, 4E, 4F,
and 4H Difference
Phase 2 Total
Commercial (Retail/Food & Beverage) 555,000 984,500 (429,500) Office 435,000 296,000 139,000
Residential 530,000 680,000 (150,000)
Hotel 180,000 298,000 (118,000)
Entertainment 50,000 190,000 (140,000)
Total SF Development 1,750,000 2,448,500 (698,500)
NOTE:

The final square footages in the adopted MCP vary slightly from the CEQA Project analyzed in the certified EIR.

SOURCES:

Related Santa Clara, City Place Santa Clara, Development Area Plan 2 Phase 2 Parcel 4, May 2020 Related Companies, Cityplace Santa Clara Master Community Plan, April 5, 2017 CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CITY PLACE SANTA CLARA PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, APRIL 2016.

TABLE 3

AGGREGATE DEVELOPMENT / PROJECT COMPARISON
DAP 1
Project
Area (gsf)
DAP 2
Project Area
(gsf)
DAP 1 and DAP 2
Aggregate
Phase 1 and
Phase 2 MCP
Area (gsf)
Blocks 5A,
5B, 5C, 4B,
4D, 4E, 4F,
and 4H Difference
Retail 21,400 405,000 426,400 851,500 (466,300)
Food & Beverage 29,600 150,000 179,600 220,000 (40,400)

Office 440,000 435,000 875,000 602,000 273,000
Hotel 381,000
(480 rooms)
180,000
(220 rooms)
561,000
(700 rooms)
578,000 (17,000)
Residential 175,000
(200 units)
530,000
(500 units)
705,000
(700 units)
880,000 (175,000)
Entertainment - 50,000 50,000 190,000 (140,000)
1,047,000 1,750,000 2,797,000 3,321,500 (524,500)
SOURCE: Related Companies, Cityplace Santa Clara Development Area Plan, Phase 2 Parcel 4, Gensler, 2020 Related Companies, Cityplace Santa Clara Development Area Plan, Phase 1 Parcel 5, Gensler, 2020 Related Companies, Cityplace Santa Clara Master Community Plan, April 5, 2017 Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 19 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
5 Summary of Findings
An evaluation of the DAP 2 Project LVSURYLGHGLQWKH&(4$analysis in Section 6 that follows.

This evaluation concludes that the DAP 2 Project qualifies for an addendum. It is consistent with the development density and land use characteristics established by the City of Santa Clara General Plan and zoning, and any potential environmental impacts associated with its development were adequately analyzed and covered by the analysis in the City Place (,5 The DAP 2 Project would be required to comply with the applicable mitigation measures identified in the City Place (,5DQGapproved in connection with the overall project approvals in 2016 (presented in Attachment A to this document). With implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the DAP 2 Project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the City Place (,5RUUHVXOWLQDQ\QHZVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVWKDW were not previously identified in WKH&LW\3ODFH(,5.

The City Place (,5DQDO\]HGWKHLPSDFWVRIGHYHORSPHQWZLWKLQWKHCity Place project site. The DAP 2 Project would not result in substantial changes or involve new information not already analyzed in the City Place (,5EHFDXVHWKHOHYHORIGHYHORSPHQWQRZSURSRVHGIRUWKHVLWHLVZLWKLQ WKHEURDGHUGHYHORSPHQWDVVXPSWLRQVDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,57KHDAP 2 Project would not cause new significant impacts not previously identified in the City Place (,5RUUHVXOWLQDVXEVWDQWLDOLQFUHDVH in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. No new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant impacts. No changes have occurred with respect to surrounding circumstances that would cause significant environmental impacts to which the DAP 2 Project would contribute considerably, and there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that the DAP 2 Project would cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no supplemental environmental review is required in accordance with Public Resources Code Section DQG&(4$*XLGHOLQHV6HFWLRQV 15162 through 15164.

Overall, based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the City Place (,5, ZKLFKDUHVXPPDUL]HGLQWKH&(4$analysis in Section 6 of this document, the potential environmental impacts associated with the DAP 2 Project have been adequately analyzed and covered in the City Place (,57KHUHIRUHQRIXUWKHUUHYLHZRUDQDO\VLVXQGHU&(4$LVUHTXLUHG 6 CEQA Analysis

6.1 Overview
The analysis in this Chapter summarizes the impacts and findings of the certified &LW\3ODFH(,5 The analysis in this Chapter also provides a comparison of the DAP 2 Project to the Project DQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5DVZHOODVD summary of the potential environmental impacts that may result from the DAP 2 Project. All mitigation measures identified in the City Place (,5WKDWZRXOG apply to the DAP 2 Project are listed in Attachment A to this document, which is incorporated by UHIHUHQFHLQWRWKLV&(4$analysis. If this Addendum or its attachment inadvertently misidentifies or omits a mitigation measure LGHQWLILHGLQWKH(,5, the applicability of that mitigation measure to the DAP 2 Project is not affected.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 20 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
As demonstrated in this AddendumQRQHRIWKHFRQGLWLRQVIRUSUHSDUDWLRQRIDVXEVHTXHQW(,5 per &(4$*XLGHOLQHVSection 15162 apply to the DAP 2 Project:
(a) When an (,5 has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent (,5 shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous (,5 or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous (,5 or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous (,5 was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous (,5 or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous (,5

(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous (,5 would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent (,5 if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. (c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent (,5 or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent (,5 has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 21 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
(d) A subsequent (,5 or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public revieZDVUHTXLUHGXQGHU6HFWLRQRU6HFWLRQ$VXEVHTXHQW (,5 or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed.
7KLV&(4$analysis hereby incorporates by reference the discussion and analysis of all potential environmental impact topics as presented in the certified City Place (,57KLV&(4$analysis uses a checklist approach to determine if the conditions of Section 15162 calling for preparation RIDVXEVHTXHQW(,5DUHPHW7KLVFKHFNOLVWDSSURDFKLV based on significance criteria in the City 3ODFH(,5WRRUJDQL]HWKHDQDO\VLVDQGprovide a determination of whether the DAP 2 Project would result in:
x (TXDORU/HVV6HYHULW\RI,PSDFW3reviously Identified in the &LW\3ODFH(,5; x Substantial Increase in Severity of Previously Identified Significant Impact in the City Place (,5
DQGRU
x New Significant Impact.

Where the severity of the impacts of the DAP 2 Project would be the same as or less than the severity of the impacts described in the &LW\3ODFH(,5WKHFKHFNER[IRU³(TXDORU/HVV6HYHULW\ of Impact Previously Identified in WKH&LW\3ODFH(,5” is checked.

Where the checkbox for “Substantial Increase in Severity of Previously Identified Significant Impact in WKH&LW\3ODFH(,5” or “New Significant Impact” is checked, there would be significant impacts that are:
x Due to substantial changes in the Project;
x Due to substantial changes in circumstances under which the Project will be undertDNHQ DQGRU
x Due to substantial new information not known at the time the &LW\3ODFH(,5ZDV certified. 7KH&LW\3ODFH(,5includes a robust cumulative analysis based on specific local projects in the City and adjacent cities, full implementation of City and County general plans, and where applicable, full implementation of the general plans of the nine Bay Area counties and associated cities. Therefore, DQ\GHYHORSPHQWDQGRUWUDIILFLQFUHDVHVWKDWKDYHRFFXUUHGsince certification of WKH(,5ZHUHLQFOXGHGLQWKH(,5¶VDQDO\VLV and there has been no change in circumstances that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts VHHWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5&KDSWHU 3).

Further, no new information of substantial importance has been provided or otherwise identified that would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. Although there may have been changes and updates to the relevant regulatory setting or to $SSHQGL[*RIWKH&(4$ Guidelines, these changes are not considered new information of substantial importance as GHVFULEHGLQWKH&(4$*XLGHOLQHV)XUWKHUPRUH they would not result in new physical impacts not previously analyzed or in substantially increasing the severity of previously identified physical impacts. Therefore, none of the aforementioned conditions were found for the DAP 2 Project, as demonstrated above and WKURXJKRXWWKHIROORZLQJ&(4$analysis.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 22 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.2 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Physically divide an established community; ܈ ܆ ܆
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.; or
܆ ܆ ܈
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan.
܆ ܆ ܈

6.2.1 City Place EIR Findings
The City Place (,5IRXQGVLJQLILFDQWDQGXQDYRLGDEOHODQGXVHLPSDFWVUHODWHGWRconflicts with adopted City land use plans. Specifically, the Project would conflict with the City’s General Plan SROLFLHVUHODWHGWRMREVKRXVLQJEDODQFHZLWKVHFRQGDU\VLJQLILFDQWDQGXQDYRLGDEOHLPSDFWVRQ WUDIILFDLUTXDOLW\DQG*+*HPLVVLRQV7KHCity Place (,5identified Mitigation Measure LU-1.1, Increase Residential Density in the City’s General Plan, which directed the City to explore permitting higher residential densities, as well as allowing residential land uses in existing nonresidential areas, in the City’s General Plan. This mitigation measure would be implemented by the City during the next General Plan update. +RZHYHUEHFDXVHWKLVPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHUHOLHVRQDQ iterative General Plan process ultimately requiring approval from City Council, it cannot be stated with certainty whether and when the mitigation measure can be implemented. In addition, adding new housing to the City’s General Plan would potentially reduce some of the impacts within the more immediate Project vicinity, but would not fully mitigate the Project’s effect on induced growth in the region and beyond. As a result, the measure would not reduce the effect to a lessthan-significant level.

The Project would also conflict with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the San Jose International Airport although this impact is disclosed with the noise analysis (see Section , Noise). No other land use plan conflicts were identified for the Project. The Project would result in no impacts related to the physical division of an established community or a conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

6.2.2 Project Analysis
The DAP 2 Project would be developed on the same project site and thus would have no impact related to the physical division of an established community or a conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

The DAP 2 Project would provide a mix of uses, including residential, hotel, retail, and office uses within Parcel 4. The DAP 2 Project site and square footage of development is slightly smaller than ZKDWZDVDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5IRUPhase 2 on Parcel 4; however, the potential for this change and minor deviations from the precise land use program ZDVDQWLFLSDWHGZLWKWKH(,5 Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 23 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
analysis of project variants and alternatives. Further, the DAP 2 Project land uses are well within the maximum build-out for the entire project and thus within the impact HQYHORSHRIWKH(,5For these reasons, impacts related to land XVHZRXOGEHWKHVDPHDVWKRVHLGHQWLILHGLQWKH(,5DQG described above.

The DAP 2 Project would introduce a mix of commercial and residential uses which may not, in and of itself, present a conflict with WKH&LW\¶V*HQHUDO3ODQSROLFLHVUHODWHGWRMREVKRXVLQJ balance. Nonetheless, when considered together with the whole Project and as a part of the cumulative scenario, the DAP 2 Project would result in the same significant and unavoidable land use impact and secondary significant and unavoidable land use LPSDFWVLGHQWLILHGLQWKH(,5

6.2.3 Conclusion
%DVHGRQDQH[DPLQDWLRQRIWKHDQDO\VLVILQGLQJVDQGFRQFOXVLRQVRIWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5 implementation of the DAP 2 Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the City Place (,5QRUZRXOGLWUHVXOWLQQHZVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHODWHGWR land use and planning that were not identified in the City Place (,5

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 24 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.3 Aesthetics
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista;
܆ ܆ ܈
Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings along a scenic highway;
܆ ܆ ܈
Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings; or
܆ ܆ ܈
Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would substantially and adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in the area.
܆ ܆ ܈

6.3.1 City Place EIR Findings
The City 3ODFH(,5IRXQGWKDWSURMHFWFRQVWUXFWLRQZRXOGWHPSRUDULO\GHJUDGHYLVXDOFKDUDFWHU and quality and identified mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to less-thansignificant levels. Similarly, mitigation measures addressing significant impacts related to new sources of light and glare would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. No project impacts ZHUHLGHQWLILHGIRUVFHQLFUHVRXUFHVDORQJD6WDWH6FHQLF+LJKZD\ or scenic vistas.

6.3.2 Project Analysis
The DAP 2 Project would be constructed on the same project site, which is not along a Scenic +LJKZD\ and thus would have no impact on VFHQLFUHVRXUFHVDORQJD6WDWH6FHQLF+LJKZD\; there are also no scenic vistas in the City$OWKRXJKWKH(,5IRXQGVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHODWHGWRYLVXDO character and quality during construction, those impacts were limited to areas visible from the Guadalupe River Trail and mitigation measures were identified for construction on Parcels 1 and 2 only. The DAP 2 Project involves Parcel 4, and thus would not be visible from the trail or require mitigation.

The DAP 2 Project site and square footage of development is slightly smaller than what was DQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5IRUPhase 2 on Parcel 4; however, the potential for this change and minor deviations from the precise land use program was anticipated with the (,5 analysis of project variants and alternatives. Further, the DAP 2 Project design is within the general building height, PDVVDQGEXONDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5DQGWKXVZLWKLQWKHLPSDFWHQYHORSHRIWKH(,5 Impacts UHODWHGWRYLVXDOTXDOLW\ZRXOGEHWKHVDPHDVWKRVHLGHQWLILHGLQWKH(,5 Light and glare associated with the DAP 2 3URMHFWZRXOGEHWKHVDPHDVWKRVHDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5 because the proposed land uses and general building height, mass, and bulk are consistent with the Project. Therefore, the DAP 2 Project’s impacts related to new sources of light and glare would be less than significant with applicable mitigation measures. Required mitigation measures include AES-2.1, Installation of Low-Profile Lighting; AES-2.2, Installation of Shielded Fixtures; AES-2.3: Treat Reflective Surfaces; and AES-2.4: Provide Obstruction for Glare from Vehicle Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 25 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
Headlights in the Proposed Garages (see Attachment A). In addition, the DAP 2 Project would be required to adhere to the MCP standards and guidelines including design principles related to light and glare.

6.3.3 Conclusion
%DVHGRQDQH[DPLQDWLRQRIWKHDQDO\VLVILQGLQJVDQGFRQFOXVLRQVRIWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5 implementation of the DAP 2 Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the City Place (,5QRUZRXOGLWUHVXOWLQQHZVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHODWHGWR aesthetics that were not identified in the City Place (,50LWLJDWLRQMeasures AES-2.1, Installation of Low-Profile Lighting; AES-2.2, Installation of Shielded Fixtures; AES-2.3:

Treat Reflective Surfaces; and AES-2.4: Provide Obstruction for Glare from Vehicle Headlights in the Proposed Garages (see Attachment A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by the DAP 2 Project, and would ensure that impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 26 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.4 Transportation and Circulation
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Cause an impact to signalized intersection level of
service (LOS) per the criteria for each jurisdiction
within the study area as described below.

City of Santa Clara
Significant impacts at signalized City of Santa
Clara intersections would occur when the addition
of project traffic would cause one of the following:
x Intersection operations degrade from an
acceptable level (LOD D or better) to an
unacceptable level (LOS E or F), or
x Unacceptable operations are exacerbated by
increasing critical delay by more than 4 seconds
and increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more,
or
x Unacceptable operations are exacerbated by
increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more when
the change in critical delay is negative (i.e.,
decreases). This can occur if the critical
movements change.

The City of Santa Clara has established a minimum
acceptable operation level of service of LOS D for
local streets and LOS E for CMP designated
facilities (City of Santa Clara 2010).

City of Sunnyvale
Significant impacts at signalized City of Sunnyvale
intersections would occur when the addition of
project traffic would cause one of the following:
x Intersection operations (except those on
designated regionally significant roads)
degrade from an acceptable level (LOS D or
better) to an unacceptable level (LOS E or
LOS F), or
x Operations for regionally significant designated
intersections deteriorate from an acceptable
level (LOS E or better) to an unacceptable
level (LOS F), or
x Unacceptable operations are exacerbated by
increasing critical delay by more than 4
seconds and increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01
or more, or
x Unacceptable operations are exacerbated by
increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more when
the change in critical delay is negative (i.e.,
decreases). This can occur if the critical
movements change.

The City of Sunnyvale uses a, LOS D standard for
local street intersections and a, LOS E standard for
regionally significant roadways (also CMP
facilities), including Caribbean Drive, Mathilda
Avenue, Sunnyvale/Saratoga Road, El Camino
Real, Central Expressway, Lawrence Expressway,
and CMP facilities that are under the Sunnyvale
General Plan, consolidated in July 2011 (City of
Sunnyvale 2011).
܆ ܆ ܈
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 27 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
City of San José
Significant impacts at signalized City of San José
study intersections would occur when the addition
of project traffic would cause one of the following:
x Intersection operations degrade from an
acceptable level (LOS D or better) to an
unacceptable level (LOS E or F), or
x Unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) are
exacerbated by increasing critical delay by
more than 4 seconds and increasing the V/C
ratio by 0.01 or more, or
x Unacceptable operations are exacerbated by
increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more when
the change in critical delay is negative (i.e.,
decreases). This can occur if the critical
movements change.

The City of San José’s minimum threshold for
acceptable signalized intersection operations is
LOS D, unless governed by an Area Development
Policy or protected intersection designation.

Several San José intersections are within the
boundaries of the North San José Development
Area (see Figure 3.3-1) [see the City Place EIR
Section 3.3]. For the purpose of this analysis, LOS
D is used as the minimum threshold for all
signalized study intersections in San José,
including Santa Clara County and CMP
intersections in the North San José Development
Area (City of San José 2009).

City of Milpitas
Significant impacts at signalized City of Milpitas
intersections would occur when the addition of
project traffic would cause one of the following:
x Intersection operations degrade from an
acceptable level (LOS D or better) to an
unacceptable level (LOS E or F), or
x Unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) are
exacerbated by increasing critical delay by
more than 4 seconds and increasing the V/C
ratio by 0.01 or more, or
x Unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) are
exacerbated by increasing the V/C ratio by

0.01 or more when the change in critical delay
is negative (i.e., decreases). This can occur if
the critical movements change.

The City of Milpitas has established a minimum
acceptable operating level of LOS D for
intersections that are excluded from the CMP (City
of Milpitas 2002).

Santa Clara County and Congestion Management
Program
The LOS standard for Santa Clara County (2013
VTA Congestion Management Program)
expressway and CMP intersections is LOS E.

Traffic impacts at these intersections would occur
when the addition of traffic associated with a
project would cause one of the following:
x Intersection operations degrade from an
acceptable level (LOS E or better) to an

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 28 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
unacceptable level (LOS F), or
x Unacceptable operations (LOS F) are
exacerbated by increasing critical delay by
more than 4 seconds and increasing the V/C
ratio by 0.01 or more, or
x Unacceptable operations (LOS F) are
exacerbated by increasing the V/C ratio by

0.01 or more when the change in critical delay
is negative (i.e., decreases). This can occur if
the critical movements change.

Cause a significant impact to occur at an
unsignalized intersection due to the addition of
project traffic causing the average intersection
delay for all-way stop-controlled intersections or
the worst movement/approach for side-street
stop-controlled intersections to degrade to LOS F
when the intersection satisfies the peak-hour
signal warrant from CA MUTCD.
܆ ܆ ܈
Cause an impact to freeway segment LOS per the
criteria for each jurisdiction within the study area as described below.

Santa Clara County
Significant traffic impacts to freeway segments
would occur when the addition of project traffic
would cause:
x Freeway segment operations to degrade from
an acceptable level (LOS E or better) to an
unacceptable level (LOS F), or
x Traffic to increase by more than 1 percent of
the capacity of a segment that operates at
LOS F.

San Mateo County
Significant traffic impacts to freeway would occur
when:
x The addition of project traffic causes the
freeway segment to operate at an LOS that
violates the LOS standard adopted in the
current Congestion Management Program
(CMP), or
x When the cumulative analysis indicates that
the combination of the project and future
cumulative traffic demand will cause the
freeway segment to operate at an LOS that
violates the standard adopted in the current
CMP and the project increases traffic demand
on that freeway segment by an amount equal
to 1 percent or more of the segment capacity
or causes the freeway segment V/C ratio to
increase by 1 percent.
o The LOS standards for freeway study
segments on US 101 are LOS F (between
Embarcadero Road and Whipple Avenue)
and LOS E (between SR 92 and Whipple
Avenue).
܆ ܆ ܈
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 29 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Alameda County
Significant traffic impacts on freeway segments in
Alameda County would occur when the addition of
project traffic would cause:
x A freeway segment with an LOS E standard to,
either individually or cumulatively, operate at
LOS F, or
x The V/C ratio to increase by 0.03 or more for a
freeway segment that would operate at LOS F
without the project.

Cause the following regarding transit service:
x Create demand for public transit services
above the capacity that is provided or planned
for by:
o exceeding established peak-hour peak
load factor standards, or
o exceeding passenger rail platform waiting
areas, or
x Disrupt existing transit services or facilities,3 or
x Conflict with an existing or planned transit
facility, or
x Conflict with transit policies adopted by the City
of Santa Clara for facilities within the City of
Santa Clara portion of the study area.
܆ ܆ ܈
Conflict with City of Santa Clara General Plan
(2010) policies that ensure that bicycle and
pedestrian facilities are safe and effective for City
residents such that the Project or an element of the
Project would:
x Create a hazardous condition that currently
does not exist for bicyclists and pedestrians or
otherwise interfere with bicycle and pedestrian
accessibility to the site and adjoining areas, or
x Conflict with an existing or planned bicycle or
pedestrian facility, or
x Conflict with policies related to bicycle and
pedestrian activity adopted by the City of Santa
Clara for facilities within the City of Santa Clara
portion of the study area.
܆ ܆ ܈
Cause a significant safety impact to site access
and on-site circulation facilities including roadways,
driveways, parking garages, sidewalks, crosswalks,
bicycle lanes, and bicycle parking areas by not
adhering to City of Santa Clara design standards
and standard engineering practices, thereby
resulting in a hazardous condition for motorists,
bicyclists, and/or pedestrians.
܆ ܆ ܈
3 7KLVLQFOXGHVGLVUXSWLRQVFDXVHGE\SURSRVHGGULYHZD\VRQWUDQVLWVWUHHWVLPSDFWVRQWUDQVLWVWRSVVhelters, and impacts on transit operations from traffic improvements proposed or resulting from a project.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 30 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Conflict with City of Santa Clara General Plan
(2010) policies pertaining to maintaining standards
for emergency response times such that the
Project or an element of the Project would:
x Conflict with an existing or planned emergency
response facility or route, or
x Increase emergency response time beyond the
threshold of an average of 3 minutes.
܆ ܆ ܈
Cause a significant parking impact by the Project or
any element of the Project would:

Result in parking demand that exceeds the parking
supply in the Project description and either require
the construction of additional parking facilities or
cause vehicles to travel off-site for parking, thereby
causing excessive vehicular circulation.
܆ ܆ ܈

6.4.1 City Place EIR Findings
7KH&LW\3ODFH(,57UDQVSRUWDWLRQTraffic section describes the existing transportation services and facilities on or near the Project site, including the roadway system (including signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and freeway segments), bus and rail service, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities7KH(,5SUHVHQWV the results of the evaluation of the Project’s effect on those facilities and services, including impacts related to signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, freeway segments, transit services, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, emergency access, and parking for PXOWLSOHVFHQDULRV
(xisting with Project Conditions,
Background with Project Conditions, and Cumulative (2040) with Project Conditions. Where significant impacts are projected to occur with the Project, an additional informational scenario was evaluated to identify intersection and freeway segment impacts associated with Phases 1, 2, and 3 (parcels 4 and 5 only). This scenario is intended WRLQIRUPWKHSXEOLFRIQHDUဨWHUP3URMHFW effects and is used to formulate and properly phase mitigation measures.

The transportation analysis that was prepared for the Project followed the guidelines of the City of Santa Clara (City) and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which acts as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County (County). Potential impacts on intersections, freeway segments, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities were evaluated using the standards, methods, and significance criteria of these agencies. Mitigation measures for identified significant impacts were identified where such measures are available and feasible. (i) Intersection Analysis
The City Place (,5IRXQGVLJQLILFDQWDQGXQDYRidable transportation impacts related to conflicts with adopted signalized and unsignalized intersection level of service (LOS) criteria. One hundred and twenty-five (125) intersections were studied in the City of Santa Clara and the surrounding jurisdictions of Sunnyvale, San José, Milpitas, and Santa Clara County.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 31 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

1. Signalized Intersections
7KH&LW\3ODFH(,5IRXQGWKDWWKH3URMHFWZRXOGUHVXOWLQVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVDWVLJQDOL]HG LQWHUVHFWLRQVXQGHU([LVWLQJZLWK3URMHFWDQG%DFNJURXQGZLWK3URMHFW&RQditions. The City Place (,5identified Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1, Vehicle Trip Reduction with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) to decrease office-generated and residentialgenerated daily and peak hour Project traffic. This mitigation measure specifies details regarding vehicle trip reduction targets; vehicle trip thresholds; TDM measures and strategies for office, residential, and retail uses; monitoring and reporting; and remedial action. In addition, Mitigation Measure TRA-1.2, Intersection Improvements specifies intersection improvements where improvements to increase lane capacity are physically feasible, and off-setting mitigation measures where there are no feasible physical improvements, to be implemented as part of the project development. These measures were determined to result in either full mitigation, partial mitigation, off-set mitigation (improvements to other modes of travel), or no feasible mitigation to affected intersections. Although improvement measures to intersections located outside of Santa Clara’s jurisdiction were identified, implementation cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the impacts to these intersections would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure TRA-1.2 details whether the Project Developer would be wholly responsible for discrete improvement measures or partially responsible and thus required to pay a fair-share FRQWULEXWLRQDVD³SHUFHQWRIWRWDOWUDIILF´
VHH&LW\3ODFH(,57DEOH-
7KH(,50053
includes Exhibit MMRP-1, Intersection Mitigation Sensitivity Analysis Results: Full Funding Responsibility establishing the number of project trips at which each of the required intersection mitigation measures that are wholly the Project’s responsibility to implement must be in place. The exhibit also indicates the likely phase of project development where each project trip threshold will be reached.
)XUWKHUWKH(,5LGHQWLILHG0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHTRA-1.3, Prepare and Implement a Multimodal Improvement Plan (MIP) to address impacts to Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections that are only partially mitigated by Mitigation Measures TRA-1.1 and TRA-RUZKHUHQRIHDVLEOHPLWLJDWLRQZDVLGHQWLILHG(YHQ with Mitigation Measures TRA-1.1, TRA-1.2, and TRA-1.3 some intersections would still have significant Project impacts. Thus, the Project impact on signalized intersection LOS is considered to be significant and unavoidable.
7KH(,5LGHQWLILHGLQWHUVHFWLRQVZLWKVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVXQGHUWKH([LVWLQJZLWK3Uoject Phases 1, 2, and 3 Conditions and Mitigation Measure TRA-1a.1, Intersection Improvements for Existing with Project Phases 1, 2, and 3. Mitigation Measure TRA-1a.1 serves to identify the specific improvement measures that would be required to mitigate or partially mitigate impacts from this interim scenario and for which the Project Developer would be required to pay fair-share contributions. These impacts would be reduced but not fully mitigated with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1.1 and TRA-1a.1 resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. 7KH&LW\3ODFH(,5LGHQWLILHGLPSDFWVRQVLJQDOL]HGVWXG\intersections under Cumulative (2040) Conditions and the Project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable on all of them. Mitigation Measure TRA-14.1, Signalized Intersection Improvements specifies Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 32 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
additional intersection improvements, although impacts at some affected intersections would remain significant and unavoidable with implementation of this measure.

2. Unsignalized Intersections
The affected unsignalized study intersections were located only within the City of Santa Clara and the City of San José. In order to mitigate impacts to unsignalized intersections, Mitigation Measures TRA-2.1, Traffic Signal Installation (intersection 109) and TRA-2.2, Traffic Signal Installation (intersection 114) would be implemented so that traffic signals are installed once traffic volumes meet the warrant requirements
SURMHFWHGWRRFFXULQSKDVHVDQGZHOODIWHU
'$3
+RZHYHUZLWKLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRI0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV75$-1.1, TRA-2.1, and TRA-2.2 one unsignalized intersection may still operate at an unacceptable level under Background with Project conditions, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable (intersection 109). 8QGHUWKH([LVWLQJZLWK3URMHFW3KDVHVDQGQRXQVLJQDOL]HGVWXG\LQWHUVHFWLRQVZRXOG have a significant impact. Under Cumulative (2040) Conditions, unsignalized study intersections would be fully mitigated with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1.1 and TRA-2.2.

3. On-Site Intersections
An on-site intersection analysis was conducted to assess operations of the on-site intersections and queuing into the parking facilities and local streets. The analysis was conducted for intersections on parcels 4 and 5, and it concluded that the design guidelines from the MCP would ensure less-than-significant impacts. Mitigation Measure TRA-5.1, Transportation Design Review was identified to reduce impacts to on-site intersections on parcels 1, 2, and 3. Although not used for this Addendum, an on-site transportation analysis for Background with DAP 1 Phase 1 and DAP 2 Phase 2 Project conditions was prepared to evaluate non-&(4$RSHUDWLRQal analysis. This non-&(4$DQDO\VLVLVGHVFULEHGIXUWKHUEHORZIRULQIRUPDWLRQDOSXUSRVHVDQGLV provided as Attachment B of this Addendum.

4. Freeway Segments
The City Place (,5study area included freeway segments within Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, and Alameda County and found significant and unavoidable transportation impacts related to conflicts with adopted freeway level of service criteria. Complete mitigation of freeway impacts is considered beyond the scope of an individual development project because, due to jurisdiction and funding constraints, individual projects and cities are unable to approve and acquire right-ofZD\IRUIUHHZD\ZLGHQLQJ1RQHWKHOHVV(,50LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUH TRA-3.1, Freeway Segment Improvements specifies that the Project Developer will make a voluntary contribution toward the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 ([SUHVV/DQH3URMHFWV 973SURMHFWQXPEHUV
++++++DQG+
DQG&RXQW\ZLGH)UHHZD\7UDIILF2SHUDWLRQ6\VWHPDQG
RDPS0HWHULQJ,PSURYHPHQWV
973SURMHFWQXPEHU6
7KHVH973SURMHFWV
+
++++++DQG6
RQFHIXOO\IXQGHGDQGFRQVWUXFWHGZLOOHQKDQFHWUDYHO choices for Project travelers and make more efficient use of the transportation network.

In addition to the complete project, WKH&LW\3ODFH(,5DQDO\]HGSURMHFWLPSDFWVWRDIIHFWHG freeway segments under existing plus Project conditions with traffic generated by Phases 1, 2, and 3 only (parcels 4 and 5). (YHQZLWKLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRI0itigation Measure TRA-3.1 the Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 33 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
impacts to freeway segments under this interim scenario would remain significant and unavoidable.
(ii) Other Modes of Transportation and Emergency Access Pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities were also evaluated. The City PlDFH(,5IRXQGD significant and unavoidable transportation impact related to the project generating a substantial number of pedestrians travelling to transit stops along routes where sidewalk gaps exist, thus creating a hazardous condition for pedestrians. Mitigation Measure TRA-7.1: Sidewalk Gap Closure on Tasman Drive on Lafayette Street overcrossing extend east to Calle Del Sol was LGHQWLILHGDVD3URMHFW'HYHORSHUUHVSRQVLELOLW\7KH&LW\3ODFH(,5IRXQGDVLJQLILFDQWDQG unavoidable impact on transit operations because the Project would generate considerable amounts of traffic congestion at intersections on bus and light-rail routes in the study area. No feasible transit improvements were identified to address this impact. (iii) Construction
The City Place (,5HYDOXDWHGWKH3URMHFW¶VFRQVWUXFWLRQDFWLYLWLHVIRULPSDFWVWRLQWHUVHFWLRQV 
parking; and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit circulation. The impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measure TRA-18.1, Construction Management, requiring the preparation of a construction management plan. (iv) Game Day
7KH&LW\3ODFH(,5HYDOXDWHG3URMHFWWUDIILFLPSDFWVRQJDPH-day (pre-game and post-game) FRQGLWLRQV7KH(,5LGHQWLILHG0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHTRA-19.1: Modified City’s Traffic Management and Operations Plan (TMOP) and Prepare a Project-Specific Traffic and Parking Management Plan requiring the Project Developer to coordinate with City Planning and Public Works to direct stadium traffic to the new parking locations on the site and develop a separate traffic and parking management plan. Intersections near the site would still operate at unacceptable levels. Therefore, the Project’s impact on game-day conditions would remain significant and unavoidable.

6.4.2 Project Analysis
To determine consistency with the transportation findings of the City Place (,5LQFOXGLQJWULS generation estimates and baseline conditions, this analysis includes two main components:
x 7KHWUDIILFDQDO\VLVLQWKH(,5VWXGLHGWKHLPSDFWVRIWKHtrips generated by the whole Project and the impacts of the Project Phases 1, 2 and 3 scenario. The traffic analysis conducted for this Addendum compares the trips generated by the DAP 1 and DAP 2 Projects combined to the trips generated by the partial build out scenario FDOFXODWHGLQWKH(,57KHFRPELQHG'$3 1 and DAP 2 project area is smaller than the combined area of the Phases 1, 2, and 3 scenario.

The purpose of this trip generation comparison is to confirm that the DAP 1 and DAP 2 trip generation is ZLWKLQWKHLPSDFWHQYHORSHDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5IRUWKHPhases 1, 2, and 3 scenario. The trip generation number at each phase DAP is used to identify the off-site transportation improvements required as prescribed by trip triggers in the Mitigation Monitoring Report Program.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 34 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
x Recent traffic counts collected in connection with other recent projects (see Attachment D for a list of intersections with recent counts) as compared to the volumes for WKH(,R’s baseline conditions and forecasted scenarios to determine if additional transportation analysis was needed because of any changes in background traffic conditions. Trip Generation Comparison
The DAP 1 and DAP 2 Project trip generation methods are consistent with the methods described LQWKH(,5Appendix 3.3-J: City Place Santa Clara – Trip Generation Estimates. Attachment C of this Addendum provides a more detailed summary of the mixed-use trip generation models (Getting Trip Generation Right: Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development, 2013).

The mixed-XVHWULSJHQHUDWLRQPRGHOVXVHGLQWKH(,5DUHXQFKDQJHGIRUWKHVH'$3and DAP 2 Project trip generation estimates. The input data for the model have been updated to reflect current demographics, cost of automobile ownership, land use patterns (e.g., density, diversity, distance to transit, etc.), and available transportation modes near the site. The trip generation input data was drawn from the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS), DAP 1 and DAP 2 project data, and national research values where local data is not available. They include attributes of the surrounding area (e.g., employment within one-mile, average household size, intersection density, etc.), as well as demographic characteristics of the project site (e.g., household size and vehicle ownership) (see Attachment C of this addendum). Using the mixedXVHWULSJHQHUDWLRQPRGHOVIURPWKH(,5SRSXODWHGZLWKXSGDWHGLQSXWGDWDIRU the built environment, mixed-use trip reductions were taken from the gross Institute of Transportation

,7(
WULSVDVVKRZQLQTable 4 (Attachment C includes the gross trip generation documenting the ,7(HTXDWLRQVXVHGLQWKHPL[HGXVHWULSJHQHUDWLRQPRGels).

Table 4 below summarizes the DAP 1 and DAP 2 Project trip generation for Phases 1 and 2 as currently proposed and a comparison to the Project Phases 1, 2 and 3 scenario analyzed in the (,57KH'$3DQG'$33URMHFWFRPELQHGODQGXVHVZRXOGJHQHUDWHGDLO\YHKLFOH WULSV$0SHDNKRXUWULSV
LQERXQGDQGRXWERXQG
DQG30SHDNKRXUWULSV
(1,610 inbound and 1,950 outbound). This land use mix would generate 24,410 fewer daily trips, IHZHU$0SHDNKRXUWULSV
LQERXQG and 450 outbound), and 2,510 fewer PM peak KRXUWULSV
LQERXQGDQGRXWERXQG
FRPSDUHGZLWKWKH3KDVHVDQGWULSJHQHUDWLRQ
analyzed for the Project Phases 1, 2, and 3 scenario analyzed LQWKH(,57KHUHIRUHWKH'$3 Project traffic-related impacts would be less WKDQWKRVHLGHQWLILHGLQWKH(,5DQGGHVFULEHGDERYH These trip generation estimates were also used in the City Place Santa Clara Phase 2 DAP Traffic Report (ARUP, May 2020; see Attachment B), which is focused on the vehicle operations of the internal street network and access points for the Phase 2 DAP. This transportation analysis report LVDUHTXLUHPHQWIRUHDFK'$3SHU([KLELW0053WRWKH0LWLJDWLRQ0RQLWRULQJDQG5HSRUWLQJ Program (see Attachment A). The report was submitted by the applicant and peer reviewed by City staff and a transportation consultant with specific focus on 1) the number of project trips to UHVXOWDQGWKHDOORFDWLRQRIVXFKWULSVE\EXLOGLQJDQGRUXVHVDQG VLWHDFFHVVLPSURYHPHQWV
required and the trip thresholds or development states at which those improvements must be construction. The City Place Santa Clara Phase 2 DAP Traffic Report is focused on traffic operations analysis and street design purposes.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 35 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
TABLE 4

TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Land Use
(Units)
ITE
Code Size
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out Total
Retail, Residential, Hotel, and Restaurant Uses Trip Generation Shopping Center
(1,000 square feet)
820 426.4 17,430 230 150 380
760 820 1,580
Apartment
(Dwelling Units)
220 700 4,370 70 280 350 260 140 400
Hotel
(Rooms)
310 700 5,890 220 150 370 210 210 420
Quality Restaurant
(1,000 square feet)
931 23.4 2,110 10 10 20 120 60 180
Fast Casual Restaurant
(1,000 square feet)
930 45.6 14,370 60 30 90 350 290 640
High Turnover Sit Down
(1,000 square feet)
932 110.6 14,060 660 540 1,200 650 440 1,090
Entertainment
(Screens)
445 7 1,230 - - - 40 60 100
Subtotal 59,460 1,250 1,160 2,410 2,390 2,020 4,410
Mixed-Use Reductions -12,410 -400 -370 -770 -890 -740 -1,630 Subtotal Net New Trips [A] 47,050 850 790 1,640 1,500 1,280 2,780 Office Use Trip Generation
Office
(1,000 square feet)
Local
Rates
875
9,550 890 110 1,000 190 780 970
Subtotal Office Trips [B] 9,550 890 110 1,000 190 780 970 Total Project Trip Generation
Project Trip Subtotal [A + B = C] 56,600 1,740 900 2,640 1,690 2,060 3,750 Public Transit Reduction [5%*C = D] -2,830 -90 -40 -130 -80 -110 -190 Total Project Trips [C + D = E] 53,770 1,650 860 2,510 1,610 1,950 3,560 Comparison
EIR Trip Generation for Project Phases 1, 2, and
2 Scenario
78,180 2,960 1,310 4,270 2,650 3,420 6,070
Difference (Results Less than FEIR Estimates)
[E - F = G]
-24,410 -1,310 -450 -1,760 -1,040 -1,470 -2,510
NOTES:

Trip Generation Estimates using the same mixed-use equations in the City of Santa Clara, City Place Santa Clara Project Environmental Impact Report, 2016, and updated built environment inputs.

Trip generation estimates do not account for transportation network company (TNCs) (e.g., Uber and Lyft) activity or other emerging trends like autonomous vehicles.

SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2020
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 36 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
(v) Baseline Condition Comparison
Also, as a part of the Phase 2 DAP Project analysis, a comparison of newer AM and PM peak hour counts provided by the City to the baseline volumes and Background forecasts (2020 volumes) was conducted to determine if the more recent counts (collected between November DQG1RYHPEHU
DUHVLPLODUWRWKHYHKLFOHYROXPHVVWXGLHGLQWKH(,5 This count comparison was conducted at the following intersections near or adjacent to the project site:
x 7DVPDQ'ULYHDQG3DWULFN+HQU\'ULYH
x Tasman Drive and Old Ironsides Drive
x Tasman Drive and Great America Parkway
x Tasman Drive and Calle Del Sol
x Tasman Drive and Lick Mill Boulevard
x Great America Parkway and Great America Way
x Great America Parkway and Old Mountain View-Alviso Road x *UHDW$PHULFD3DUNZD\DQG%XQNHU+LOO/DQH
x Great America Parkway and Old Glory Lane
x Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard
x Great America Parkway and US 101 Northbound Ramps
The counts were compared on a turn by turn and an intersection total basis (see Attachment D of this Addendum Tables 1 to 3C for the AM peak hour and Tables 4 to 6C for the PM peak hour).

The turn-by-turn comparison shows some variation; however, the turning movements that exhibit the greatest percentage variation are movements with low numbers of vehicles and the differences are insubstantial. The more aggregated comparisons at the intersection level show that the YROXPHVXVHGLQWKH(,5are on average higher than the recent counts. Where the recent counts DUHKLJKHUWKDQWKHSUHYLRXVFRXQWVFRQWDLQHGLQWKH(,5WKH\DUHORZHUWKDQYROXPHV IRUHFDVWHGLQWKH(,57KHUHIRUHWKHXSGDWHd information about background traffic conditions GRHVQRWDIIHFWWKHFXUUHQWXWLOLW\RIWKHDQDO\VLVRUWKHVLJQLILFDQFHGHWHUPLQDWLRQVLQWKH(,5 EHFDXVHWKH(,5SURMHFWHGPRUHWUDIILFWKDQUHFHQWFRXQWVKDYHLGHQWLILHG7KHWUDIILFDQDO\VLVLQ WKH(,5remains adequate, and no additional analysis is needed.

6.4.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination RIWKHDQDO\VLVILQGLQJVDQGFRQFOXVLRQVRIWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5 implementation of the DAP 2 Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the City Place (,5QRUZRXOGLWUHVXOWLQQHZVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHODWHGWR traffic that were not identified in the City Place (,50LWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVTRA-1.1, Vehicle Trip Reduction with Transportation Demand Management (TDM); TRA-1.2, Intersection Improvements; TRA-1.3. Prepare and Implement a Multimodal Improvement Plan (as of the date of this Addendum, the City and applicant have entered into an MIP Funding Agreement under which the MIP measures are being funded.); TRA-3.1, Freeway Segment Improvements; TRA1a.1, Intersection Improvements for Existing with Project Phases 1, 2 and 3; TRA-6.1, Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 37 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
Intersection Improvements With Access Variant Scheme; TRA-6.2, Intersection Improvements for Phases 1, 2 and 3; TRA-7.1, Sidewalk Gap Closure on Tasman Drive on the Lafayette Street overcrossing extending east to Calle Del Sol; TRA-14.1, Signalized Intersection Improvements; TRA-16.1, Intersection Improvements for Cumulative withProject Access Variants; TRA-18.1, Construction Management; and TRA-19.1, Modified City’s Traffic Management and Operations Plan (TMOP) and Prepare a Project-Specific Traffic and Parking Management Plan (see Attachment A of this Addendum which includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) would be applicable to and would be implemented by the DAP 2 Project. These mitigation measures would ensure that impacts related to traffic would be equal to, or less severe WKDQWKRVHSUHYLRXVO\LGHQWLILHGDQGGLVFORVHGLQWKH(,5

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 38 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.5 Air Quality
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan. For the purposes of this
analysis, “conflict with or obstruct implementation” is defined as circumstances in which the project would
worsen existing air quality violations or exceed the
growth assumptions utilized by the City of Santa Clara
and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG);
܆ ܆ ܈
Violate any air quality standard or substantially
contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation. For the purposes of this analysis, “violate any air quality standard or substantially contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation” is defined as circumstances in which construction or operational
emissions exceed the pertinent BAAQMD thresholds,
as described under Local Air District Thresholds [see
the City Place EIR Section 3.4];
܆ ܆ ܈
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standard. For the purposes of this
analysis, a “cumulatively considerable net increase” is defined as circumstances in which total direct
emissions exceed BAAQMD thresholds identified in
Table 3.4-5 [see the City Place EIR Section 3.4]. The
emissions thresholds presented in Table 3.4-5
represent the average daily emissions that a project
may generate before contributing to a cumulative
impact on regional air quality. Therefore, exceedances
of the project-level thresholds, as identified in Table

3.4-5, would be cumulatively considerable [see the
City Place EIR Section 3.4];
܆ ܆ ܈
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. For the purpose of this analysis,
schools, daycare facilities, places of assembly,
medical facilities, parks, and residences are
considered sensitive receptor locations. A “substantial pollutant concentration” is defined as levels in excess of applicable BAAQMD thresholds, as described below
under Local Air District Thresholds; or
܆ ܆ ܈
Create objectionable odors that would affect a
substantial number of people. For the purpose of this
analysis, an odor-producing facility, as defined by
BAAQMD,7 creates an “objectionable odor” if it
receives five complaints per year averaged over
3 years.
܆ ܆ ܈

6.5.1 City Place EIR Findings
The City 3ODFH(,5GHWHUPLQHGWKDWFRQVWUXFWLRQof the Project would generate criteria pollutant emissions and toxic air contaminants. Mitigation measures associated with construction equipment and measures to reduce dust and emissions were identified to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels7KH&LW\3ODFH(,5IRXQGWKDW3URMHFWRSHUDWLRQVZRXOGUHVXOWLQ Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 39 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
regional criteria pollution emissions LQH[FHVVRI%$$40'WKUHVKROGVMitigation measures were identified to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by 15 percent and to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce mobile-source emissions; however, implementation of these mitigation measures would not reduce this impact to less-thansignificant levels. Further, because the overall project will involve concurrent construction and RSHUDWLRQDODFWLYLWLHVWKH(,5FRQVLGHUHGWKHLPSDFWVRIthe combined Project construction and operation, and it too ZRXOGUHVXOWLQUHJLRQDOFULWHULDSROOXWLRQHPLVVLRQVLQH[FHVVRI%$$40' thresholds. (YHQDIWHULPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIWKHPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVGHVFULEHGDERYHWhese impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

The City 3ODFH(,5GHWHUPLQHGWKDWFRQVWUXFWLRQof the Project would generate particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and diesel particulate matter (DPM), resulting in the exposure of nearby existing sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, parks) to increased PM2.5 concentrations and health risks associated with DPM. The results of a health risk assessment FRQGXFWHGIRUWKH(,5concluded that Project construction would result in an increase LQFDQFHUULVNLQH[FHVVRI%$$40'WKUHsholds at sensitive receptors, which are the occupants of residential uses constructed during Phase 1 within Parcel 5. Based on the current anticipated timeframe for implementation, the DAP 2 Project would be constructed substantially concurrently with improvements constructed during Phase 1 (DAP 1 Project) within Parcel 5. Accordingly, it is not anticipated that any sensitive receptors would be present within Parcel 5 during DAP 2 3URMHFWFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGWKHUHIRUHQRVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWZRXOGUHVXOW+RZHver, in the event that the currently-anticipated construction schedule changes such that sensitive receptors would be present within Parcel 5 during DAP 2 Project construction, mitigation measures to reduce constructed-related dust; reduce construction equipment emissions; DQGRUinstall filtration systems on heating, cooling, or ventilation and recirculation systems that serve residences and daycare centers would be required and would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Although Project operations would also expose new on-site sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminant emissions, the resulting impact is considered an impact of the environment on a project and is therefore not a &(4$LPSDFW. Nonetheless, a potential condition of approval requiring filtration systems was included for consideration by the City Council, which adopted it as Condition of Approval 6.
7KH&LW\3ODFH(,5GHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKH3URMHFWZRXOGFRQWULEXWHWRXQSODQQHGUHJional growth.

Further, as noted above, the Project’s long-WHUPRSHUDWLRQDOHPLVVLRQVZRXOGH[FHHG%$$40'¶V thresholds of significance even with mitigation incorporated$FFRUGLQJO\WKH(,5GHWHUPLQHG that the Project would conflict with implementation of the applicable air quality plan and the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Potential Project impacts related to objectionable odors were found to be less than significant with mitigation. Impacts related to carbon monoxide hot spots and asbestos were found to be less than significant.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 40 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.5.2 Project Analysis
The DAP 2 Project construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes were anticipated and analyzeGLQWKH(,5The DAP 2 Project site and square footage of development is slightly less than what was analyzed LQWKH(,5IRUPhase 2 on Parcel 4; however, the potential for this change and minor deviations from the precise land use program was anticipated ZLWKWKH(IR analysis of project variants and alternatives. Further, the DAP 2 Project is well within the maximum buildout for the entire project. The DAP 2 Project construction-related activity would be well within the construction anticipated and anal\]HGLQWKH(,5IRUWKH3URMHFWDQGWKXVZLWKLQWKHLPSDFW HQYHORSHRIWKH(,5
As noted above, aOWKRXJKWKH(,5DQWLFLSDWHGRFFXSDQF\RI3KDVH,GXULQJconstruction of Phase 2, the DAP 1 Project and the DAP 2 Project are currently expected to be constructed simultaneously. In this case, no residential uses or daycare centers are anticipated to exist on the project site or in the immediate vicinity and the DAP 2 Project would not expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants during construction and Mitigation Measure AQ-6.1, Assess Construction Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions Potential Prior to Construction, Utilize Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment, Filtration Systems, and/or other Measures as Necessary to Reduce Cancer Risks Associated with DPM during Construction would not apply to the DAP 2 Project. This mitigation measure would pertain to the DAP 2 Project in the event the DAP 1 Project’s residential uses are constructed and occupied prior to the DAP 2 Project construction.
,PSDFWVUHODWHGWRDLUTXDOLW\ZRXOGEHWKHVDPHDVWKRVHLGHQWLILHGLQWKH(,5DQGGHVFULEHG above. All mitigation measures would apply including AQ-2.1 through AQ-2.4, and HAZ-2.1, Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction to reduce odor impacts from construction over the Landfill.

Although Project operations would also expose new on-site sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminant emissions, the resulting impact is considered an impact of the environment on a project is therefore not a &(4$LPSact. Nonetheless, Condition of Approval 6 requiring filtration systems was adopted by the City Council and thus will be implemented.

6.5.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination RIWKHDQDO\VLVILQGLQJVDQGFRQFOXVLRQVRIWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5 implementation of the DAP 2 Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the City Place (,5QRUZRXOGLWUHVXOWLQQHZVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHODted to air quality that were not identified in the City Place (,50LWLJDWLRQMeasures AQ-2.1, Utilize Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment during Construction to Control Construction-Related Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Emissions; AQ-2.2, Use Modern Fleet for On-Road Material Delivery and Haul Trucks during Construction; AQ-2.3, Implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Additional Construction Mitigation Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust and Exhaust Emissions; AQ-2.4, Offset NOX Emissions Generated during Construction that Are above BAAQMD NOX Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 41 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
Average Daily Emission Threshold; IM-AQ-1, Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust Emissions; IM-AQ-2, Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Exhaust Emissions; and HAZ-2.1, Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction (see Attachment A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by the DAP 2 Project. In the event the DAP 1 Project’s residential uses are constructed and occupied prior to the DAP 2 Project construction, Mitigation Measure AQ-6.1, Assess Construction Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions Potential Prior to Construction, Utilize Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment, Filtration Systems, and/or other Measures as Necessary to Reduce Cancer Risks Associated with DPM during Construction (see Attachment A) also would be applicable to and would be implemented by the DAP 2 Project. These mitigation measures would ensure that impacts related to air quality would be equal to, or less severe than, WKRVHSUHYLRXVO\LGHQWLILHGDQGGLVFORVHGLQWKH(,5

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 42 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Generate GHG emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment. For the purposes of this analysis,
a “significant impact” from GHG emissions would
occur if emissions exceed thresholds described
below; or
܆ ܆ ܈
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs. For the purposes of this
analysis, applicable plans include the AB 32
Scoping Plan and the City’s CAP (consistency with
the goals in EO B-30-15 and EO S-03-05 is also
evaluated).
܆ ܆ ܈

6.6.1 City Place EIR Findings
The City Place (,5GHWHUPLQHGWKDWZLWKLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIWKHLGHQWLILHGPLWLJDWLRQVWUDWHJLHVWKH Project’s emissions would not exceed applicable %$$40'VLJQLILFDQFHWKUHVKROGV, based on consistency with Assembly Bill 32’s greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020, but would exceed %$$40'’s “Substantial Progress” efficiency metric for 2030. Therefore, the impact with respect to JUHHQKRXVHJDV
*+*
HPLVVLRQVwas determined to be significant and unavoidable.

The Project was found to be consistent with the Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan (less than

VLJQLILFDQW
DQGZLWKLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRI*+*DQG7UDIILFPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH Santa Clara Climate Action Plan (2013), although the Project was not included in the socioeconomic forecasts underlying the CAP, and so the Project was not able to tier from the CAP for purposes of a significance determination. Mitigation measures were identified to utilize alternative fuels during construction and implement operational emissions reduction strategies, but these will not achieve the long-WHUP*+*UHGXFWLRQWDUJHWVRI([HFXWLYH2UGHUV6-03-05 and B-30-15, and the impact with respect to plan consistency was found to be significant and unavoidable.

6.6.2 Project Analysis
Although slightly reduced compared with what was analyzed for Phase 2 on Parcel 4, the DAP 2 Project construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes were anticipated and analyzed in WKH(,5Therefore, relative to the overall Project, no increase in construction-related activity ZRXOGRFFXUDQGUHVXOWLQJHPLVVLRQVRI*+*ZRXOGEHWKHVDPHDV or less than those identified in WKH(,5DQGGHVFULEHGDERYH7RUHGXFH*+*HPLVVLRQVIURPFRQVWUXFWLRQ, the DAP 2 Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-2.1, Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction; AQ-2.4, Offset NOX Emissions Generated during Construction that Are above BAAQMD NOX Average Daily Emission Threshold; and GHG-1.1, Utilize Alternative Fuels during Construction. Further, to reduce secondary impacts from required intersection improvements, the DAP 2 Project would be required to implement IM-GHG-1, Utilize Alternative Fuels during Construction.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 43 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
Similarly, the DAP 2 3URMHFWRSHUDWLRQDQGDVVRFLDWHG*+*HPLVVLRQVZHUHDQWLFLSDWHGDQG DQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5DQGZRXOGEHWKHVDPHDVRUOHVVWKDQWKRVHLGHQWLILHGLQWKH(,5DQG described above. 7RUHGXFH*+*HPLVVLRQVIURPRSHUDWLRQV LQFOXGLQJFRQVWUXFWLRQHPLVVLRQV
amortized over 30 years), the DAP 2 Project would be required to implement mitigation measures related to construction listed above as well as Mitigation Measures TRA-1.1, Vehicle Trip Reduction with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and GHG-1.2, Operational GHG Emissions Reduction Measures.

6.6.3 Conclusion
%DVHGRQDQH[DPLQDWLRQRIWKHDQDO\VLVILQGLQJVDQGFRQFOXVLRQVRIWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5 implementation of the DAP 2 Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the City Place (,5QRUZRXOGLWUHVXOWLQQHZsignificant impacts related to *+*HPLVVLRQV that were not identified in the City Place (,50LWLJDWLRQMeasures GHG-1.1, Utilize Alternative Fuels during Construction; GHG-1.2, Operational GHG Emissions Reduction Measures; IM-GHG-1, Utilize Alternative Fuels during Construction; AQ-2.4, Offset NOX Emissions Generated during Construction that Are above BAAQMD NOX Average Daily Emission Threshold; HAZ-2.1, Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction; and TRA-1.1, Vehicle Trip Reduction with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) (see Attachment A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by the DAP 2 Project. These mitigation measures would ensure that impacts related WR*+*HPLVVLRQV would be equal to, or less severe than, those SUHYLRXVO\LGHQWLILHGDQGGLVFORVHGLQWKH(,5

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 44 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.7 Noise
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Expose persons to or generate noise levels in
excess of standards established in a local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies;
Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or ground-borne noise levels; ܆ ܆ ܈
Result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above
levels existing without the Project;
܆ ܆ ܈
Result in a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity above levels existing without the Project;
܆ ܆ ܈
Be located within an airport land use plan area or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport and
expose people residing or working in the Project
area to excessive noise levels; or
܆ ܆ ܈
Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and
expose people residing or working in the Project
area to excessive noise levels.
܆ ܆ ܈

6.7.1 City Place EIR Findings
While the project site is located within an airport land use plan area and near the San Jose International Airport, there are no private airstrips in the Project site vicinity and no related noise impact would occur. The City Place (,5LGHQWLILHGPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHs to prepare and implement a construction noise control plan that would reduce Project impacts related to construction noise for both on-site and off-site land uses. Project operations, however, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts for off-site land uses, primarily associated with increased traffic noise. $OWKRXJKWKH(,5LPSRVHGPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVWRFRQVWUXFWQRLVHEDUULHUVDQGLPSOHPHQWDQRIIsite noise control plan, the impact would remain significant unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures.

Regarding ground-borne vibration, mitigation measures addressing pile driving were found to mitigate noise impacts to on-site receptors. No ground-borne vibration impacts were identified for off-site receptors.

Significant noise and vibration impacts for on-site land uses related to traffic noise, light rail service, passenger train service, and San Jose International Airport operations are considered to be impacts of the environment on a project and therefore QRW&(4$LPSDFWs. Nonetheless, potential strategies to address the noise and vibration problems, including a design-level operational vibration control plan, were included for consideration by the City Council, which the Council DGRSWHGDV&RQGLWLRQRI$SSURYDO.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 45 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.7.2 Project Analysis
The DAP 2 Project would be developed on the same project site and thus would have no noise impact related to private airstrips. There are no existing on-site receptors and therefore the DAP 2 Project would not result in impacts related to ground-borne vibration.

The DAP 2 Project construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes were anticipated and DQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5The DAP 2 Project site and square footage of development is slightly smaller WKDQZKDWZDVDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5IRUPhase 2 on Parcel 4; however, the potential for this change and minor deviations from the precise land use program ZDVDQWLFLSDWHGZLWKWKH(,5 analysis of project variants and alternatives. Further, the DAP 2 Project development and associated construction is well within the maximum build-out for the entire project and thus ZLWKLQWKHLPSDFWHQYHORSHRIWKH(,57KHUHIRUHFRQVWUXFWLRQ-related noise impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1.1, Prepare and Implement a Construction Noise Control Plan to Reduce Construction Noise at Adjacent Land Uses; NOI-1.2, Implement Off-Site Traffic Noise Reduction Measures, and NOI-2.1, Restrict Pile Driving.

The DAP 2 Project would include outdoor residential areas located within the San José International Airport’s 65 decibel CRPPXQLW\1RLVH(TXLYDOHQW/HYHO contour and would therefore result in a land use conflict with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for San José International Airport&RQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH(,5WKHLPSDFWZRXOGUHPDLQVLJQLILFDQWDQG unavoidable even with implementation of NOI-5.1, Prepare and Implement a Noise Control Plan to Reduce Interior Noise at Sensitive Land Uses.

6.7.3 Conclusion
%DVHGRQDQH[DPLQDWLRQRIWKHDQDO\VLVILQGLQJVDQGFRQFOXVLRQVRIWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5 implementation of the DAP 2 Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the City Place (,5QRUZRXOGLWUHVXOWLQQHZsignificant impacts related to noise that were not identified in the City Place (,50LWLJDWLRQMeasures NOI-1.1, Prepare and Implement a Construction Noise Control Plan to Reduce Construction Noise at Adjacent Land Uses; NOI-1.2, Implement Off-Site Traffic Noise Reduction Measures; NOI-2.1, Restrict Pile Driving; and NOI-5.1, Prepare and Implement a Noise Control Plan to Reduce Interior Noise at Sensitive Land Uses (see Attachment A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by the DAP 2 Project. These mitigation measures would ensure that impacts related to noise would be HTXDOWRRUOHVVVHYHUHWKDQWKRVHSUHYLRXVO\LGHQWLILHGDQGGLVFORVHGLQWKH(,5

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 46 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.8 Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5;
܆ ܆ ܈
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;
܆ ܆ ܈
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature; or
܆ ܆ ܈
Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries.
܆ ܆ ܈

6.8.1 City Place EIR Findings
Although tKH&LW\3ODFH(,5IRXQGWKDWthere was a potential for Project impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological and paleontological resources and human remains, WKH(,5LPSRVHG mitigation measures including resource monitoring and stop-work plans for discovery of resources and remains, which resulted in a less than significant impact with mitigation. The structures to be demolished as part of the Project were not more than 50 years old and were not eligible for the &DOLIRUQLD5HJLVWHURI+LVWRULFDO5HVRXUFHV7KHUHIRUHQRKLVWRULFDOVWUXFWXUHVZRXOGEHDIIHFWHGE\ the Project and no impact was identified.

6.8.2 Project Analysis
The DAP 2 Project construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes were anticipated and DQDO\]HGLQWKH(,R. Further, the DAP 2 Project would be developed on the same project site with the same potential impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources and human remains. All related mitigation measures would apply including CR-1.3, Stop Work if Cultural Resources Are Encountered during Ground- Disturbing Activities; CR-2.1, Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan; CR-2.2, Paleontological Resource Monitoring (each of which will include the requirements of CR-2.3, Paleontological Resource Reporting); and CR-3.1, Stop work if human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities would apply.

For potential secondary cultural resources impacts associated with intersection improvements required as traffic mitigation measures, Mitigation Measure IM-CR-1, Conduct Cultural Resource Investigations and Protect and Recover Significant Resources would be required and would be implemented by the City of Santa Clara. Mitigation Measures IM-CR-2, Stop Work if Cultural Resources Are Encountered during Ground-Disturbing Activities and IM-CR-3, Stop Work if Human Remains Are Encountered during Ground- Disturbing Activities (also referred to as CR-3.1) would be required of the project developer.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 47 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.8.3 Conclusion
%DVHGRQDQH[DPLQDWLRQRIWKHDQDO\VLVILQGLQJVDQGFRQFOXVLRQVRIWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5 implementation of the DAP 2 Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the City Place (,5QRUZRXOGLWUHVXOWLQQHZVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHODWHGWR cultural resources that were not identified in the City Place (,50LWLJDWLRQMeasures CR-1.3, Stop Work if Cultural Resources Are Encountered during Ground- Disturbing Activities CR-2.1, Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan; CR-2.2, Paleontological Resource Monitoring (CR2.1 and CR-2.2 will include the requirements of CR-2.3, Paleontological Resource Reporting); CR-3.1, Stop work if human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities; IM-CR-1, Conduct Cultural Resource Investigations and Protect and Recover Significant Resources; IM-CR-2, Stop Work if Cultural Resources Are Encountered during GroundDisturbing Activities; and IM-CR-3, Stop Work if Human Remains Are Encountered during Ground- Disturbing Activities (also referred to as CR-3.1) (see Attachment A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by the DAP 2 Project, and would ensure that impacts related to cultural resources would be less than significant.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 48 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.9 Biological Resources
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by DFW or FWS;
܆ ܆ ܈
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by DFW or FWS;
܆ ܆ ܈
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means;
܆ ܆ ܈
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites.
܆ ܆ ܈
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.
܆ ܆ ܈
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation
plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan.
܆ ܆ ܈

6.9.1 City Place EIR Findings
7KH&LW\3ODFH(,5LGHQWLILHGVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHODWHGWRWKHPRYHPHQWRIQDWLYHPLJUDWRU\ wildlife species, burrowing owl habitat, the western pond turtle, Central California Coast steelhead, chinook salmon, and loss or damage to wetland and other waters. Mitigation measures were identified for each of these significant impacts to monitor for and protect such species and replace habitat lost during construction; implementation of these measures would reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant levels.

The Project would adhere to the City of Santa Clara General Plan, Policy 5.3.1-P10, which UHTXLUHVGHYHORSPHQWVWRUHSODFHWUHHVDWDUDWLRRI

UHSODFHGORVW
SXUVXDQWWRZKLFKWKH
GHYHORSHUZLOOEHUHTXLUHGWRSODQWDVPDQ\DVQHZ WUHHVRQWKHSURMHFWVLWHDQGXSWR additional trees could be planted on off-site removal locations. A separate policy in the General Plan, 5.10.1-P3, protects heritage trees, but there are no heritage trees located on the Project Site.

Through adherence to Policy 5.3.1-P10, the impact to trees was determined to be less than significant.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 49 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
No special-status plant species were documented on the Project site and no impact on specialstatus plant species was identified for the Project. As also noted in Section 6.2, Land Use and PlanningWKH3URMHFWZRXOGKDYHQRLPSDFWRQD+DELWDW&RQVHUYDWLRQ3ODQRUD1DWXUDO Community Conservation Plan.

6.9.2 Project Analysis
The DAP 2 Project would be constructed on the same project site WKDWZDVDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5 which does not contain special-status plant species, and thus the DAP 2 Project would have no impact on special-status plant species. Also, development on Parcel 4 would not involve construction, operations, or maintenance on the riverbank, or in areas within 200 feet of the Guadalupe River. Therefore, the DAP 2 Project would not result in potentially significant impacts to the Central California Coast steelhead, chinook salmon or related critical habitat and Mitigation Measure BIO-4.1, Protect Central California Coast Steelhead, Critical Habitat, and Chinook SalmonZRXOGQRWDSSO\+RZHYHUDVGHVFULEHGLQWKH(,5GHYHORSPHQWRQ3DUFHO4 would contribute to potential impacts to the movement of native migratory wildlife species, burrowing owl habitat, the western pond turtle, and loss or damage to wetland and other waters. The DAP 2 3URMHFWZRXOGLPSOHPHQWDOOELRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHVPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVLGHQWLILHGLQWKH(,5WR address these impacts and would adhere to City of Santa Clara General Plan, Policy 5.3.1-P10 related to heritage trees. Therefore, as with the Project, the DAP 2 Project’s impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant with applicable mitigation measures.

6.9.3 Conclusion
%DVHGRQDQH[DPLQDWLRQRIWKHDQDO\VLVILQGLQJVDQGFRQFOXVLRQVRIWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5 implementation of the DAP 2 Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the City Place (,5QRUZRXOGLWUHVXOWLQQHZVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHODWHGWR biological resources that were not identified in the City Place (,50LWLJDWLRQMeasures BIO-1.1, Protect Nesting Birds; BIO-1.2, Implement Bird-Safe Design Standards into Project Buildings and Lighting Design; BIO-2.1, Detection of Burrowing Owls; BIO-2.2, Mitigation for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat during Construction; BIO-3.1, Protect Western Pond Turtles; BIO5.1, Protect Retention Pond and Eastside Retention Drainage Swale, and San Tomas Aquino Creek and the Guadalupe River Aquatic Habitat during Construction; BIO-5.2, Compensate for Loss of Waters of the U.S. and State (including Wetlands); BIO-C.1, Make a Fair-Share Nitrogen Deposition Fee Contribution to the Santa Clara Habitat Agency’s Voluntary Fee Payment Program; IM-BIO-1, Replace Removed Trees; IM-BIO-2, Preconstruction Surveys; IM-BIO-3, Site-Specific Surveys and Species/Habitat Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation Measures (see Attachment A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by the DAP 2 Project, and would ensure that impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 50 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.10 Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Expose people or structures to substantial risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
x Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map or Seismic
Hazards Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault;
x Strong seismic ground shaking;
x Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence,
collapse; or
x Landslides;
܆ ܆ ܈
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil;
܆ ܆ ܈
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable or that would become unstable as a result
of the project and potentially result in an on-site or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse;
܆ ܆ ܈
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), or on
corrosive subsurface materials, creating
substantial risks to life or property; or
܆ ܆ ܈
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems in areas where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater.
܆ ܆ ܈

6.10.1 City Place EIR Findings
No septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are proposed as a part of the Project and no related impact would occur. The SURMHFWVLWHLVQRWZLWKLQDPDSSHG(DUWKTXDNH)DXOW=RQHDQG the City Place (,5GHWHUPLQHGWKDWLPSDFWVUHODWHGWRJURXQGVKDNLQJRUDVHLVPLFHYHQWZHUH less-than-significant. The City Place (,5IRXQGpotentially significant impacts with respect to settlement, liquefaction, slope instability, expansive soils, and corrosive soils, but concluded that such impacts to geology and soils would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures, such as preparation and implementation of a detailed grading and erosion control plan, geotechnical reports, construction quality assurance plans, and a site operation, monitoring, and maintenance plan.

6.10.2 Project Analysis
The DAP 2 Project construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes were anticipated DQGDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5)XUWKHUWKH'$32 Project would be developed on the same project site with the same geology and soils, subject to the same or more stringent building codes.

Therefore, all related mitigation measures would apply.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 51 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
Parcels 1 through 4 are considered to be all or partly over the Landfill and therefore Mitigation Measure GEO-2.6, Review and Approval by Relevant Regulatory Agencies applies to those parcels. The project applicant is therefore required to implement this mitigation measure prior to obtaining a permit for grading on Parcel 4.

6.10.3 Conclusion
%DVHGRQDQH[DPLQDWLRQRIWKHDQDO\VLVILQGLQJVDQGFRQFOXVLRQVRIWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5 implementation of the DAP 2 Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the City Place (,5QRUZRXOGLWUHVXOWLQQHZVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHODWHGWR geology and soils that were not identified in the City Place (,50LWLJDWLRQMeasures GEO-1.1, Detailed Grading and Erosion Control Plan; GEO-2.1, Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation; GEO-2.2, Final Geotechnical Report Review; GEO-2.3, Construction Quality Assurance Plan; GEO-2.4, Final Project Design Review; GEO-2.5, Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan; GEO-2.6, Review and Approval by Relevant Regulatory Agencies; and IM-GEO-1, Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation (see Attachment A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by the DAP 2 Project, and would ensure that impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 52 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.11 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Violate any water quality standards or WDRs;
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,
resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level that would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted);
܆ ܆ ܈
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or proposed uses for
which permits have been granted);
܆ ܆ ܈
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner that
would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or off-site; ܆ ܆ ܈
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding on-site or offsite; ܆ ܆ ܈
Create or contribute runoff water that would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
܆ ܆ ܈
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; ܈ ܆ ܆
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area,
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map;
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows;
܆ ܆ ܈
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam;
or
܆ ܆ ܈
Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow.
܆ ܆ ܈

6.11.1 City Place EIR Findings
7KH&LW\3ODFH(,5GHWHUPLQHGWKHUHZRXOGEHQRLPSDFWUHODWHGWRVHLFKHWVXQDPLRUPXGIORZ because the project site is not within a tsumani inundation area or a designated landslide area and there are no reservoirs adjacent to the project area.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 53 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
The Project would not result in a significant decrease in infiltration and groundwater recharge and would result in less than significant impacts with respect to groundwater supplies. The Project would result in additional water demand for both surface and groundwater resources. This impact is addressed in Section 6.15, Utilities.

The City Place (,5IRXQGDOORWKHUK\GURORJ\DQGZDWHUTXDOLW\LPSDFWVLQFOXGLQJWKRVHUHODWHG to water quality standards, drainage, and stormwater runoff, would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

Impacts related to placing structures within the 100-year flood zone are considered to be impacts of the environment on a project therefore QRW&(4$LPSDFWs. Nonetheless, a potential condition of approval requiring flood warnings for areas subject to flooding was included for consideration by the City Council, and was adopted by the Council as Condition of Approval 9. The City Place (,5IRXQGWKDWthe risk of dam failure affecting the project site is considerably remote and the potential impacts related to the failure of a levee or dam were less than significant. This impact also is considered to be an LPSDFWRIWKHHQYLURQPHQWRQDSURMHFWDQGWKHUHIRUHQRWD&(4$LPSDFW

6.11.2 Project Analysis
The DAP 2 3URMHFWVLWHZDVLQFOXGHGLQWKH(,5DQDO\VLV and the finding of no impact related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be the same.

The DAP 2 Project construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes were anticipated and DQDO\]HGLQWKH(,57KLVLQFOXGHVWKHDGGLWLRQRIQHZLPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHV and changes to groundwater recharge. The DAP 2 Project would develop a storm drainage system that would be an underground gravity network of pipes, catch basin, manholes, water quality treatment measures and other appurtenances. Outlet points would include gravity outfalls to existing facilities north of City Place Parkway, east of Parcel 4, and west into San Tomas Aquino Creek.

Internal pipes would connect the DAP 2 Project building drainage to the storm drains. The new public streets that would be developed as part of the DAP 2 Project would be designed such that the 100-year event flow would remain within the roadway limits and not extend into private property. The DAP 2 Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure WQ-1.1, Design and Implement Stormwater Control Measures. Further, to reduce secondary impacts from required intersection improvements, IM-WQ-1, Prepare a Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report would also apply to the DAP 2 Project (see Section 6.4, Transportation). &RQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHFRQFOXVLRQVRIWKH(,5'$32 Project’s potential hydrology and water quality impacts would be less-than-significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measure WQ-3.1, Design New Bridge and Outfall Structures to Avoid Increase in 100-year Flow and Channel Erosion would not apply to the DAP 2 Project as no new bridge or outfall structures would be required.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 54 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.11.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the City Place (,5 implementation of the DAP 2 Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the City Place (,5QRUZRXOGLWUHVXOWLQQHZVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHODWHGWR hydrology and water quality that were not identified in the City Place (,50LWLJDWLRQMeasures WQ-1.1, Design and Implement Stormwater Control Measures; and IM-WQ-1, Prepare a Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report (see Attachment A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by the DAP 2 Project, and would ensure that impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 55 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials;
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment;
܆ ܆ ܈
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school;
܆ ܆ ܈
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 (i.e., the
“Cortese List”) and, as a result, would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment;
܆ ܆ ܈
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area;
܆ ܆ ܈
f. Impair or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan;
܆ ܆ ܈
g. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands; or
܆ ܆ ܈
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving subsurface fires
caused by the heating of landfill waste materials.
܆ ܆ ܈

6.12.1 City Place EIR Findings
The project site is surrounded by urban development and there are no private airstrips in the Project site vicinity. Therefore, there would be no impact related to private airstrips or wildland fire hazards.

The City Place (,5GHWHUPLQHGWKDW3URMHFWRSHUDWLRQVZRXOGKDYHDOHVV-than-significant impact with respect to routine hazardous materials use and, as further detailed in the air quality analysis, the potential hazards to the closest school (0.2 miles from the project site) would also be less than significant. The Project would be consistent with the San Jose International Airport’s Airport ,QIOXHQFH$UHDUHVWULFWLRQVDQGZLWKWKH&LW\¶V/RFDO+D]DUGV0LWLJDWLRQ3ODQ7KHUHIRUHWKH3URMHFW would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to aviation hazards and emergency access.

Other hazards and hazardous materials impacts include the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during construction; the presence of hazardous materials in areas not underlain by the Landfill; and landfill-related hazards including the potential significant hazard to human Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 56 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
health from landfill gas, contaminated soils or groundwater, and subsurface fires related to the Landfill. Further, project construction would disturb existing leachate collection and removal systems (LCRSs), ZKLFKFRXOGLPSDFWJURXQGZDWHUTXDOLW\7KH&LW\3ODFH(,5FRQFOXGHGWKDWHDFK of these hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. These measures call for a construction waste management plan reviewed and DSSURYHGE\WKH6DQWD&ODUD&RXQW\'HSDUWPHQWRI(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK/RFDO(QIRUFHPHQW $JHQF\
/($
&DO5HF\FOHWKH5HJLRQDO:DWHU%RDUGDQGWKH%D\$UHD$LU4XDOLW\0DQDgement District; plans for landfill closure and monitoring; landfill gas collection and protection systems and system maintenance; landfill hazards disclosure to be included in all ground leases and space leases; building restrictions, including prohibition of enclosed basements and limiting construction of residential use to areas over open-DLUSRGLXPOHYHOJDUDJHV DQ/($DSSURYHGOHDFKDWHFROOHFWLRQDQG
removal system design; and subsurface fire prevention, detection and response plan with approved prevention and suppression measures.

6.12.2 Project Analysis
The DAP 2 Project’s proposed land uses and general building locations and envelopes were DQWLFLSDWHGDQGDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5DQGLPSDFWVUHODWHGWRSULYDWHDQGSXEOLFDLUVWULSVVFKRROV and wildland fire hD]DUGVZRXOGEHWKHVDPHDVWKRVHLGHQWLILHGLQWKH(,5 The majority of the DAP 2 project site is underlain by the Landfill VHH'UDIW(,5ILJXUH-1).

Development on the southwest portion of Parcel 4, beneath the existing tennis courts, is not underlain by the Landfill but would be within 1,000 feet of the Landfill. 7KH(,5LGHQWLILHG Mitigation Measures HAZ-5.1, Phase II Site Investigation; HAZ-5.2, Soil and Groundwater Management Plan; and HAZ-5.3, Implement Measures Included in CCR Title 27, Section 21190(g) to reduce potential hazards impacts from development on the portion of Parcel 4 beneath the existing tennis courts to a less-than-significant level. These measures would apply to the DAP 2 Project.

All of the project construction features designed to address the particular issues associated with developing on a closed landfill, such as the podium structure supported by regulator-approved cased continuous flight auger piles, the new landfill gas protection system beneath and in structures, and the reconfigured, replaced and modernized landfill collection and removal system

DVGHVFULEHGLQWKH(,5DQGVXPPDUL]HGLQ6HFWLRQ , would be implemented in Phase 2.

The Landfill-related hazards impacts of the DAP 2 development are therefore the same as the Landfill-related hazards impacts for the PURMHFWDVDZKROHDQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5. 7KH(,5 identified Mitigation Measures HAZ-2.1, Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction; HAZ 4.1 through HAZ-4.6; HAZ 9.1, Subsurface Fire Prevention, Detection, and Response Plan; and HAZ-9.2, Subsurface Fire Prevention and Detection Measures; and HAZ-9.3 Subsurface Fire Suppression to reduce potential hazards impacts from development over the Landfill to a less-than-significant level. These measures would apply to the DAP 2 Project.

Further, to reduce secondary impacts from required intersection improvements, IM-HAZ-1, Prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, would also apply to the DAP 2 Project (see Section 6.4, Transportation).

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 57 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.12.3 Conclusion
%DVHGRQDQH[DPLQDWLRQRIWKHDQDO\VLVILQGLQJVDQGFRQFOXVLRQVRIWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5 implementation of the DAP 2 Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the City Place (,5QRUZRXOGLWUHVXOWLQQHZVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHODWHGWR hazards and hazardous materials that were not identified in the City Place (,50LWLJDWLRQMeasures HAZ-2.1, Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction; HAZ-4.1, Landfill Closure, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plans; HAZ-4.2, Landfill Gas Collection and Removal System; HAZ-4.3, Landfill Gas Protection System; HAZ-4.4, Landfill Gas Monitoring and Control System Maintenance; HAZ-4.5, Building Restrictions; HAZ-4.6, Landfill Hazards Disclosure; HAZ-5.1, Phase II Site Investigation; HAZ-5.2, Soil and Groundwater Management Plan; HAZ-5.3, Implement Measures Included in CCR Title 27, Section 21190(g); HAZ-9.1, Subsurface Fire Prevention, Detection, and Response Plan; HAZ-9.2, Subsurface Fire Prevention and Detection Measures; HAZ-9.3 Subsurface Fire Suppression; and IM-HAZ-1, Prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (see Attachment A) would be applicable to and would be implemented for the DAP 2 Project, and would ensure that impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 58 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.13 Population and Housing
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension
of roads or other infrastructure);
܆ ܆ ܈
Displace a substantial number of existing housing
units, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere; or
܆ ܆ ܈
Displace a substantial number of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
܆ ܆ ܈

6.13.1 City Place EIR Findings
No residential buildings would be demolished as a part of the Project and there would be no impact related to the displacement of housing. Although the Project would displace approximately 510 on- and off-site workers from existing commercial operations to be demolished, these workers could be accommodated within the proposed project or existing surrounding office, industrial, and warehouse sites and the impact would be less-than-significant.

The Project would result in new on-site population including construction workers, residents, employees, and guests. The City Place (,5IRXQGthat new housing demand from Project employees would not result in a significant impact as the demand would represent just over 20 percent of the City’s projected household growth between 2015 and 2040.

6.13.2 Project Analysis
The DAP 2 Project site does not include any existing residents, and thus its implementation would have no impact related to the displacement of housing and a less-than-significant impact related to the displacement of on- and off-site workers.

The DAP 2 Project would provide a mix of uses, including residential, hotel, retail, office, and entertainment uses within Parcel 4. The DAP 2 Project land uses and associated population growth (construction workers, residents, employees, and guests) are well within the maximum build-RXWIRUWKHHQWLUHSURMHFWDQGWKXVZLWKLQWKHLPSDFWHQYHORSHRIWKH(,5,PSDFWVUHODWHGWR population and housing would be the same as those identified LQWKH(,5

6.13.3 Conclusion
%DVHGRQDQH[DPLQDWLRQRIWKHDQDO\VLVILQGLQJVDQGFRQFOXVLRQVRIWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5 implementation of the DAP 2 Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the City Place (,5QRUZRXOGLWUHVXlt in new significant impacts related to population and housing that were not identified in the City Place (,5 Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 59 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.14 Public Services and Recreation
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, or the need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for fire protection, police
protection, schools, parks, or other public services
and facilities;
܆ ܆ ܈
Increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or
܆ ܆ ܈
Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have a substantial adverse physical
effect on the environment.
܆ ܆ ܈

6.14.1 City Place EIR Findings
The City Place (,5IRXQGOHVV-than-significant impacts related to public services and recreational facilities; no mitigation measures were warranted.

6.14.2 Project Analysis
The DAP 2 Project land uses and associated demand for public services are well within the maximum build-RXWIRUWKHHQWLUHSURMHFWDQGWKXVZLWKLQWKHLPSDFWHQYHORSHRIWKH(,5 The DAP 2 Project would provide a mix of uses, including residential, hotel, retail, office, and entertainment uses within Parcel 4. As anticipated within WKH(,5DQDO\VLVRf the Project and project variants, the DAP 1 Project included the temporary relocation of Fire Station 10 personnel WR)LUH6WDWLRQ, where they will remain until completion and occupancy of the new replacement Fire Station 10. 7KH(,5GHWHUPLQHGWKDWQRVXVSHQVLRQRIVHUYLFHRUVLJQLILFDQWHQYLURQPHQWDO impacts would result.

The DAP 2 Project would develop a total of 4.25 acres of open space which would fulfill the 1.21 acres required to accommodate the DAP 1 Project residential uses (deferred from DAP 1 pursuant to the Project’s development agreement) and the 3.04 acres required to accommodate the DAP 2 Project residential uses. In addition, aVQRWHGLQWKH(,5Qew residents and employees could use the nearby park facilities, such as Fairway Glen Park, the Santa Clara Youth Soccer Park, the Ulistac Natural Area, the San 7RPDV$TXLQR6DUDWRJD&UHHN7UDLODQGWKH Guadalupe River Trail. These parks and trails with benches, pathways, and other socializing and exercise spaces could attract new residents and employees due to their proximity. Therefore, impacts related to recreation would be the same as those identified LQWKH(,5, and less than significant.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 60 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.14.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusionVRIWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5 implementation of the DAP 2 Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the City Place (,5QRUZRXOGLWUHVXOWLQQHZVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHODWHGWR public services and recreation that were not identified in the City Place (,5.

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 61 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020

6.15 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:

Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the City Place EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the City Place
EIR
New Significant
Impact
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board;
܆ ܆ ܈
Require or result in construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects;
܆ ܆ ܈
Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects;
܆ ܆ ܈
Have insufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or would new or expanded entitlements
be needed;
܆ ܆ ܈
Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it does not have adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the providers' existing commitments;
܆ ܆ ܈
Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs;
܆ ܆ ܈
Violate applicable federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste; or
܆ ܆ ܈
Result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
energy use.
܆ ܆ ܈

6.15.1 City Place EIR Findings
The &LW\3ODFH(,5FRQFOXGHGWKDWWKHProject would not generate unique types of solid waste that would conflict with existing regulations applicable to solid waste disposal and there would be no impact related to solid waste regulation. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the Project demonstrated that sufficient water supplies exist to accommodate the Project’s total water demand7KH(,5DOVRIRXQGWKDWsufficient permitted landfill capacity exists to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs. These impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The City Place (,5IRXQGVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHlated to the Project’s required water delivery and stormwater drainage systems. Construction of public water mains over landfills are prohibited and thus both on- and off-site improvements would be required. Similarly, the Project’s proposed stormwater drainage system could require both on- and off-site improvements. Construction of these improvements would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of all relevant mitigation measures included for construction within the City Place (,5 The City Place (,5FRQFOXGHGWKDWthe Project would contribute considerably to the need for additional off-site wastewater delivery systems due to future insufficient pumping capacity.

Although the Project would have a less-than-significant impact related to wastewater treatment Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 62 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
facilities and on-site wastewater delivery systems, this is considered a significant cumulative impact that would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through a fair-share contribution to the City for necessary upgrades.

The (,5GHWHUPLQHGWKDWDQ\potential for the Project to use energy in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation, in addition to all relevant mitigation measures included for construction within the City Place (,5 Although the City Place (,5IRXQGDOHVV-than-significant impact with respect to landfill capacity and significant but mitigable impacts with respect to efficient energy use and energy demands, these impacts were nonetheless found to have a considerable contribution to existing cumulative impacts. These cumulative impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

6.15.2 Project Analysis
The DAP 2 Project construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes were anticipated and DQDO\]HGLQWKH(,5The DAP 2 Project is well within the maximum build-out for the entire SURMHFWDQGWKXVZLWKLQWKHLPSDFWHQYHORSHRIWKH(,5,PSDFWVUHODWHGWRXWLOLWLHVDQGVHUYLFH ZRXOGEHWKHVDPHDVWKRVHLGHQWLILHGLQWKH(,5
TKH(,5LGHQWLILHGMitigation Measure UT-3.1, Make a Fair-Share Contribution to Upgrading the Rabello and NorthsidePump Station System’s Capacity, requiring the City to conduct a detailed engineering study and analysis to determine the size and timing of required pumping upgrades prior to construction of Phase 2, and requiring the Project Developer to contribute fair share payments prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Phase 2 or later as otherwise determined by the City, is applicable to the DAP 2 Project.

Consistent with the Project, the DAP 2 Project’s impacts associated with construction and energy demand would require implementation of mitigation measures related to greenhouse gas and transportation in addition to all relevant mitigation measures included for construction within the &LW\3ODFH(,5The DAP 2 Project would contribute to the existing cumulative impacts for landfill capacity and energy demand and thus to the Project’s associated significant and unavoidable impact.

6.15.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of thHDQDO\VLVILQGLQJVDQGFRQFOXVLRQVRIWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5 implementation of the DAP 2 Project would not substantially increase the severity of significant LPSDFWVLGHQWLILHGLQWKH&LW\3ODFH(,5QRUZRXOGLWUHVXOWLQQHZVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHODWHGWo XWLOLWLHVDQGVHUYLFHV\VWHPVWKDWZHUHQRWLGHQWLILHGLQWKH&LW\3ODFH(,50LWLJDWLRQMeasure UT3.1, Make a Fair-Share Contribution to Upgrading the Rabello and Northside Pump Station System’s Capacity, as well as mitigation measures related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation, in addition to all relevant mitigation measures included for construction (see Attachment A), would be applicable to and would be implemented by the DAP 2 Project. These Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 63 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
mitigation measures would ensure that impacts related to utilities and service systems would be HTXDOWRRUOHVVVHYHUHWKDQWKRVHSUHYLRXVO\LGHQWLILHGDQGGLVFORVHGLQWKH(,5

Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project 64 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum May 2020
Attachments
A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B. Related Santa Clara DAP1, Phase 1 Traffic Report
C. Getting Trip Generation Right: Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development, 2013
D. Transportation Tables
Attachment A
DAP 2, Phase 2 Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting
Program

Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 1 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
Related Santa Clara DAP 2, Phase 2, Parcel 4 Project
Planning/CEQA File # PLN2019-14249 (PLN2014-10554/CEQ2014-01180) State Clearinghouse # 2014072078
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1

LAND USE
LU-1.1: Increase Residential Density in the City’s General Plan. During the next General Plan Update cycle, the City shall explore permitting higher residential densities in the City as well as allowing residential land uses in existing nonresidential areas. Where feasible, the City shall target strategic areas of the City, specifically those closest to major employment and transit hubs, for new residential land uses and/or increased residential density. In order to maintain projected 2035 jobs/housing ratios, the City shall explore permitting up to 11,000 units.

Not Applicable
City to explore
permitting higher
residential densities in
the City.

Director of
Planning and
Inspection
Director of
Planning and
Inspection
During the next
General Plan
Update cycle

AESTHETICS
AES-1.1: Imported Material Storage. Soils from other parcels that are imported to Parcel 2 shall be stored in areas that are not within view of the Guadalupe River Trail. Alternatively, imported soils within view of the Guadalupe River Trail shall be distributed across Parcel 2 at a depth of 2 feet or less.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
provide applicable
provisions of
construction contracts
to the City
incorporating
requirement.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
AES-1.2: Early Implementation of Master Community Plan Landscaping Plan for Parcels 1 and 2. The existing golf course trees along the eastern edge of Parcel 2 shall be retained (leaving the view from the Guadalupe River trail unchanged) until such time as development on the eastern portion of Parcel 2 would necessitate their removal. The Project Developer shall implement the Landscaping Plan, as presented in the Master Community Plan, at the earliest feasible period, given the constraints and pacing of the development. Prior to planting and installation, the Landscaping Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
submit a landscape
plan to replace
removed trees to the
City for review and
approval.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Director
of Planning &
Inspection
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
for Parcel 2
1 Where the timing of an action is specified as taking place before a permit is issued, that action must be taken with respect to the action underlying the permit, except where otherwise specifically noted.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 2 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
AESTHETICS (cont.)
AES-2.1: Installation of Low-Profile Lighting. The Project Developer shall install low-profile, low-intensity lighting directed downward to minimize light and glare.

Project Developer to
submit catalog cuts of
the fixtures proposed
to the City
demonstrating
compliance.

Project
Developer
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Concurrent with
Architectural
Review submittal,
which may be
included within
Development Area
Plans
AES-2.2: Installation of Shielded Fixtures. The Project Developer shall use shielded fixtures for street lighting and park lighting to minimize spill onto the public right-of- way and glare produced by the lighting on the Project site.

Project Developer to
submit catalog cuts of
the fixtures proposed
to the City
demonstrating
compliance.

Project
Developer
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Concurrent with
Architectural
Review submittal,
which may be
included within
Development Area
Plans
AES-2.3: Treat Reflective Surfaces. The Project Developer shall ensure application of low-emissivity glass at exterior surfaces of the proposed structures for the purpose of reducing reflection of visible light that strikes the glass exterior and reduction in the amount of interior light being emitted through the glass.

Project Developer to
provide evidence that
low-emissivity glass at
exterior surfaces will
be used.

Project
Developer
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Concurrent with
Architectural
Review submittal,
which may be
included within
Development Area
Plans
AES-2.4: Provide Obstruction for Glare from Vehicle Headlights in the Proposed Garages. The Project Developer shall ensure that through the architectural design of the parking garages and through or in combination with landscaping or physical screening at the parking structures glare from vehicle headlights shall be screened from off-site viewers.

Project Developer to
provide garage
sections to City
showing how vehicle
headlights in the
proposed garages will
be obstructed.

Project
Developer
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Concurrent with
Architectural
Review submittal,
which may be
included within
Development Area
Plans
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 3 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1

TRANSPORTATION
TRA-1.1: Vehicle Trip Reduction with Transportation Demand Management (TDM). The Project Developer shall prepare and implement a TDM Plan approved by the Santa Clara Director of Community Development. The TDM Plan shall include trip reduction measures necessary to achieve an overall target of reducing Project office- generated daily traffic by a minimum of 4 percent and peak-hour traffic by a minimum of 10 percent, with an overall target of reducing Project residential-generated daily traffic by a minimum of 2 percent and peak-hour traffic by a minimum of 4 percent, compared to the traffic estimates used in this EIR. The TDM Plan shall also include and implement TDM Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the retail uses. The TDM Plan shall include measures to reduce the amount of vehicle traffic generated by City Place by shifting employees, customers, and residents from driving alone to using transit, carpooling, cycling, and walking modes through TDM measures, strategies, incentives, and policies. The TDM obligation in this measure is to apply for the lifetime of the Project. The TDM Plan may specify a phased implementation approach that provides initially for implementation of the TDM measures that are appropriate for multi-tenant offices (e.g., measures aimed at increased transit use and carpooling), which are expected to be developed during the first three phases of development, and then provide for TDM measures that are appropriate for large corporate office tenants in the remaining phases (such as shuttles). The Santa Clara Director of Community Development shall have the authority and discretion to permit modification of the measures provided that the modifications continue to achieve the overall trip reduction objective and/or the Santa Clara Director of Community Development is satisfied that all feasible TDM measures are being implemented if the overall trip reduction objective is not being met. Specific requirements as to the TDM Plan, its contents, target reductions, monitoring and remedial action are as follows:

Project Developer to
submit a TDM Plan to
the City for each
Development Area
Plan and prior to each
subsequent
Development Area
Plan, submit a TDM
Plan reviewed by the
third party. Submit an
annual report
documenting
compliance with the
TDM Plan.

Project
Developer/
TMA
Department
of Public
Works
Director of
Planning and
Inspection
Prior to the
issuance of a
certificate of
occupancy for
first building
under each DAP
for TDM Plan (or
expansion of TDM
Plan) associated
with development
under the DAP;
obtain approval
prior to certificate
of occupancy;
undertakes
annual reporting,
surveys and
revisions to TDM
Plan in
accordance with
mitigation
measure.

A. Vehicle Trip Thresholds. Vehicle trip reductions will be measured through counts of vehicles that enter and exit the site and by comparison of the results to established trip thresholds. As part of the annual TDM Plan monitoring process, as described below, vehicle trip generation estimates, based on the land uses and their sizes, will be prepared by a transportation professional funded by the Transportation Management Association described below, and working under the direction of the City, who will use the trip generation rates and internalization and public transit ridership reductions used in the EIR transportation analysis. The TDM reduction targets will be applied to create the thresholds. The estimates and thresholds will be reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer. While no thresholds are established for retail

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 4 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
uses because it is difficult to enforce trip reductions for retail customers, this measure requires implementation of TDM BMPs for retail portions of the Project, as described below.

B. Management Association (TMA) is a non-profit, organization that provides transportation services in a particular area, such as a commercial district, medical center or office park, controlled by members that are building owners or tenants in that area. A TMA shall be formed to oversee and coordinate implementation of the TDM measures to be implemented for the Project, including coordinating activities of the various employers and tenants. The TDM Plan shall identify the vehicle trip-reducing measures and strategies to be provided and implemented directly by the Project Developer, those to be implemented directly by the TMA and those to be implemented directly by individual tenants/employers, and any to be implemented directly by the City.

The TDM Plan shall describe the roles and responsibilities of the TMA and its members, which shall be codified in a binding agreement with the City of Santa Clara, approved by the Director of Community Development, and recorded with the County of Santa Clara Clerk Recorder.

C. Office TDM Measures. TDM measures that target office employees shall be described in detail in the TDM Plan, including information regarding the direct implementing party (e.g., Project Developer, TMA, City, and tenants and employers.), The following TDM measures shall be considered for inclusion in the TDM Plan for some or all portions of the office development, to the extent feasible and appropriate, either as part of an initial TDM Plan or as options for enhanced or remedial measures if trip reduction targets are not being met:

z On-site Support Facilities: shuttle bus stops with shelters, bicycle paths and lanes, pedestrian paths linking buildings and transit stations, priority parking for carpools and vanpools
z In-building Support Facilities: showers and changing rooms, bicycle storage rooms and bicycle racks, and bicycle repair stands, cafes, and fitness centers
z Private shuttles for both long distance commute and last-mile service from nearby public transit
z Ridesharing options for long distance commuters such as carpool and vanpool matching services
z Guaranteed ride home services for commuters who carpool, take transit, or bicycle to work

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 5 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
z Financial incentives such as pre-tax benefits for transit and bicycle expenses (e.g., Commuter Check) or subsidized transit passes (e.g., Commuter Checks, Clipper Cards or VTA EcoPass) for all employees z Additional support services for employees who use transit or rideshare, such as flexible work hours
z A website and marketing program to disseminate information on commute options; access to TMA management services
z A TDM information packet to be provided to all new City Place employees upon commencement of work at City Place and, the benefits of alternative commute methods stressed during new employee orientation programs z Incentives for employees to live in locations well served by transit or shuttles
z Bike share pods to enable trips on-site and to nearby destinations to be made by bicycle
z Car share services with cars on-site for use by employees (or others) who use alternative modes to travel to the site but need a car to run an errand, travel to a meeting, etc.
z Multi-passenger demand responsive ride services for local employees that are competitive with drive alone including transportation network/ridesharing services such as Uber Pool, Lyft Line and Chariot on-demand and crowd-sourced bus services
z Yet-to-be developed new services, programs, strategies and emerging technologies
z Congestion cordon (boundary) pricing scheme2
z Parking management strategies such as paid parking and unbundled parking to restrict the parking supply3

2 Cordon pricing would entail charging vehicles a fee as they enter an area. The fees would be higher during congested periods. This type of strategy is most effective with limited access points and requires a high quality transit system to accommodate travel by a non-automobile mode. 3 These parking management strategies can be paired with a residential permit parking program (RPPP) to ensure that Project residents seeking parking do not park in nearby neighborhoods.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 6 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
D. Residential TDM Measures. TDM measures that target residents shall be described in the TDM Plan, including information regarding the direct implementing party (e.g., Project Developer, TMA, City, tenants and employers).

The following TDM measures shall be considered for inclusion in the TDM Plan for some or all portions of the residential development, to the extent feasible and appropriate, either as part of an initial TDM Plan or as options for enhanced or remedial measures if trip reduction targets are not being met:
z Bicycle infrastructure improvements
z Bicycle parking room or lockers
z Bicycle riders guide
z On-site bicycle repair facilities
z Financial subsidies for residents who commute by carpool, transit, walking or bicycle, such as VTA EcoPasses
z A website and marketing program to disseminate information on commute options; access to TMA management services
z Rideshare matching services
z On-site shuttle services, shuttle bus stops with shelters, pedestrians path linking buildings and transit stations
z Bus stops located near buildings
z Pedestrian-oriented site design
z Congestion cordon (boundary) pricing scheme
z Parking management strategies such as paid parking and unbundled parking to restrict the parking supply.

E. Retail Site Design BMPs. BMPs that target retail employees and customers shall be described in the TDM Plan, including information regarding the direct implementing party (e.g., Project Developer, TMA, City, tenants and employers). The following BMPs shall be considered for inclusion in the TDM Plan for some or all portions of the retail development, to the extent feasible and appropriate:
z Bicycle infrastructure improvements
z Bicycle rider encouragement program
z Bicycle parking, showers and lockers
z Bicycle riders guide
z On-site bicycle repair facilities

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 7 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
z Pre-tax commuter incentives
z Rideshare matching services
z On-site shuttle services, shuttle bus stops with shelters, pedestrians path linking buildings and transit stations
z A website and marketing program to disseminate information on commute options; access to TMA management services
z Bus stop locations near building entrances
z Pedestrian-oriented site design
z Congestion cordon (boundary) pricing scheme

F. Monitoring and Reporting. The TDM Plan shall be monitored annually to gauge its effectiveness in meeting the thresholds; while general guidelines are provided here, the monitoring and reporting process shall be explained in detail in the TDM Plan. A transportation professional working at the City’s direction and pursuant to a scope of work approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer shall conduct traffic counts annually using mechanical counters or other devices approved by the City of Santa Clara to measure the daily and peak-hour entering and exiting vehicle volumes for a 72-hour period, Tuesday through Thursday. The counts shall include traffic counts at all City Place driveways, traffic counts at the driveways to office parking locations, and traffic counts at the driveways to residential parking locations. The counts shall be conducted when schools are in session and during non-holiday weeks with fair weather. The individual driveway volumes will be summed to provide the total site traffic volumes. The volumes at the driveways to the office and residential parking locations will be summed to provide the officeand residential-generated traffic volumes. The volumes will be compared to the trip thresholds to determine whether the reduction in vehicle trips is being met. The TMA will assist with the monitoring activities that will be conducted.

In addition to monitoring driveway volumes, a survey will be developed by the transportation professional and administered in coordination with the TMA and individual office employers to determine actual mode splits for employees.

The survey will also gather information on usage of individual TDM Plan components as well as gauge employee perception of the overall TDM Plan After an initial survey is conducted, subsequent surveys shall be conducted in years where the previous year’s annual report has concluded that trip thresholds and trip reduction targets are not being met.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 8 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
The results of the annual vehicle counts and survey (if one is conducted that year) will be reported in writing by the transportation professional to the Santa Clara Director of Community Development. The report will include descriptions of the TDM measures in place, highlighting new or modified measures, summarize the results of the counts, summarize the results of the employee survey (if one is conducted that year), and conclude whether the trip thresholds and trip reduction targets are being met. The report (as well as any remedial action taken as a result) will be summarized in an annual informational report to the Planning Commission on the progress of TDM efforts throughout the City of Santa Clara.

G. Remedial Action. If TDM Plan monitoring results show that the trip reduction targets are not being met, the TDM Plan shall be updated to identify replacement and/or additional feasible TDM measures to be implemented. The updated TDM Plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Santa Clara Director of Community Development. The updated TDM Plan shall also identify other TDM measures that were considered but determined to be infeasible or ineffective. The TMA shall oversee and coordinate the implementation of the feasible additional TDM measures and continue to explore methods of making other potential TDM measures feasible.

TRA-1.2: Intersection Improvements. The intersection improvements and offsetting mitigation measures summarized in Table 3.3-20 shall be implemented, and Project Developer shall pay the fair-share contributions for the mitigation measures summarized in Table 3.3-20. The intent of the table is to identify, based on a preliminary feasibility determination, physically feasible intersection mitigation measures (e.g., lane additions) that increase the intersection’s vehicle carrying capacity and reduce vehicle delay while fully mitigating the impacts. As described below, feasible mitigation measures that fully mitigate the impacts were identified at some locations. However, at other locations, measures that provide only partial mitigation were identified because of physical constraints. Although these mitigation measures do not fully address the impact, they do help reduce the severity of the impact. For intersections where there are no feasible physical improvements, off- setting mitigation measures were investigated. These measures would provide improvements to other modes of travel, thereby increasing the capacity of the transportation system. At some intersections no feasible improvement or off-setting mitigation measures were identified.

Partially Applicable in
accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1
Implement
intersection
improvements
included in Table 3.3-
20 of the Draft EIR and
pay fair share
contribution in
accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1.

Project
Developer (as
noted in Table

3.3-20 of Draft
EIR)
Department
of Public
Works
In accordance
with Exhibit
MMRP-1
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 9 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
The four potential entries are:
z Full Mitigation: At the affected intersection, a physical modification to the intersection that would fully mitigate the impact was identified. This could be accomplished by adding vehicle lanes or upgrading an intersection to an interchange or “fly-over.” These improvements would reduce vehicle delays and fully mitigate Project impacts at several intersections by allowing the intersections to operate at acceptable levels, with delays that would be lower than they would be under no-project conditions, or with less than a 4-second increase in critical delay at intersections that operate at unacceptable levels. z Partial Mitigation: At the affected intersection, a physical modification to the intersection that would partially mitigate the impact was identified. The proposed measure mitigates the impact during one peak hour but not the other or reduces the delay but not enough to mitigate the impact. z Off-setting Mitigation: In the North San José Deficiency Plan area, off-setting local street network, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements were identified to accommodate future travel growth but not directly mitigate the intersection with the identified impact.
z No Feasible Mitigation: No physical improvements or off-setting mitigation measures were identified, typically because of physical limitations, costs, and/or right-of-way constraints.

Some of the intersection improvements would require right-of-way (ROW) acquisition. A preliminary review of ROW constraints was done by viewing aerial photography as a part of the mitigation measure feasibility assessment. An intersection was identified as having ROW constraints if the mitigation measure would include widening the roadway or relocating aboveground utilities. (Use of the center median and “pork-chop” islands was not considered as roadway widening.) If the removal of bicycle facilities was required, the ROW required was defined as “possible.” If the City makes a final determination that a portion or all of an improvement is not feasible because ROW cannot be acquired or for other reasons, the improvement, or infeasible portion, shall not be implemented and, if none of the improvement is feasible, and no off-setting mitigation measure is identified, that intersection shall be considered to have “no feasible mitigation.”

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 10 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
The Project Developer’s responsibility is included in Table 3-3.20, which indicates if the Project Developer would be wholly or partially responsible for the mitigation measure.
z As seen in the table, “100 percent” indicates that the cost and construction of the proposed mitigation measure is the full responsibility of the Project Developer. These are discrete mitigation measures that either fully or partially mitigate significant Project impacts.
z “Percent of total traffic” indicates that the Project Developer shall pay a fairshare contribution to the proposed mitigation measure, which is typically a larger transportation improvement, such as an expressway interchange, that has been identified in an adopted plan. Twelve of the intersections are on the County expressway system and are identified in the County’s Expressway Plan to be upgraded to an interchange or “fly-over.” The Project Developer shall pay its fair share toward these interchange upgrades per agreements between Santa Clara County and the City of Santa Clara.
z “Pay the North San José fee or fair-share contribution of alternative or offsetting mitigation” is identified for affected intersections in the North San José area. There are two options for these locations. The Project Developer can pay the North San José fee or a fair-share contribution for the mitigation measure or off-setting mitigation measure based on the Project’s percent contribution of added traffic at the intersection.
z Where there is no feasible mitigation measure, no fair share is identified (0 percent).

The City-preferred mitigation measure is identified where there is more than one mitigation option.

TRA-1.3: Prepare and Implement a Multimodal Improvement Plan. The Project Developer shall fund the preparation of (including CEQA review for) a Multimodal Improvement Plan (MIP) addressing at least the Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections within the City of Santa Clara that are forecasted to operate at Level of Service F with the Project, either on a project level or cumulative basis.

City shall reimburse the Project Developer for any cost of preparation of the MIP that exceeds the Project Developer’s fair share of such cost. Such MIP shall be prepared in accordance with the guidelines and regulations of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and shall be adopted by the City Council for submission to the VTA for consideration and approval no later than one year after approval of the Project. Once the MIP is adopted by the VTA, it shall be implemented in accordance with its terms and commensurate with the phasing of the development that its measures are intended to offset.

Provide requisite
funding for City
preparation of the MIP
as City Costs under
Development
Agreement. City to
prepare and approve
MIP for submission to
VTA, and implement
MIP once it is
approved.

Project
Developer/City
Department
of Public
Works and
Division of
Planning and
Inspection
City to submit
approved MIP to
VTA within 1 year
of project
approval, and
implement MIP
according with its
terms.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 11 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
TRA-2.1: Traffic Signal Installation. Install a traffic signal at Intersection 109, Liberty Street/Taylor Street once the traffic volumes meet the warrant requirements. The intersection of Liberty Street/Taylor Street is located in San José; the installation of a traffic signal would need to be approved by the City of San José.

Not Applicable
Project Developer shall
provide funding for
traffic signal
installation at Liberty
Street/Taylor Street in
the City of San José and
submit evidence of
compliance to City.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to issuance
of building
permits for the
building that
triggers
improvement in
accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1.

TRA-2.2: Traffic Signal Installation. Install a traffic signal at Intersection 114, Calle Del Sol/Calle De Luna, once the traffic volumes meet the warrant requirements.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
install a traffic signal at
Intersection 114, Calle
Del Sol/Calle De Luna.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to issuance
of certificate of
occupancy for the
building that
triggers
improvement in
accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1.

TRA-3.1: Freeway Segment Improvements. The Project Developer will make a voluntary contribution toward the VTP’s 2040 Express Lane Projects (VTP 2040 project numbers H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, and H15) and Countywide Freeway Traffic Operation System and Ramp Metering Improvements (VTP 2040 project number S83).

These VTP 2040 projects (H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H15, and S83), once fully funded and constructed, will enhance travel choices for Project travelers and make more efficient use of the transportation network.

Project Developer shall
pay per trip fee to the
City in accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to issuance
of certificate of
occupancy for a
new or expanded
structure.

TRA-1a.1: Intersection Improvements for Existing with Project Phases 1, 2, and 3. The intersection improvements and off-setting mitigation measures summarized in Table 3.3-26 shall be implemented, and Project Developer shall pay the fair-share contributions for the mitigation measures summarized in Table 3.3-

26. (This table also includes impacts and mitigation measures for the full Project for comparison purposes.) These improvements will reduce vehicle delays and fully mitigate Project impacts at several intersections by allowing the intersections to operate at acceptable levels, with delays that would be lower than they would be under no-project conditions, or with less than a 4-second increase in critical delay at intersections that operate at unacceptable levels. Table 3.3-26 also contains physical improvements for select intersections that will reduce the delay, but not to a level that mitigates the impact.

Partially Applicable in
accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1
See TRA-1.2
Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
In accordance
with Exhibit
MMRP-1
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 12 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
Some of the intersection improvements would require ROW acquisition.

A preliminary review of ROW constraints was done by viewing aerial photography as a part of the mitigation measure feasibility assessment. An intersection was identified as having ROW constraints if the mitigation measure would include widening the roadway or relocating aboveground utilities. (Use of the center median and “pork-chop” islands was not considered as roadway widening.) If the removal of bicycle facilities was required, the ROW required was defined as “possible.” If the City makes a final determination that a portion or all of an improvement is not feasible because ROW cannot be acquired or for other reasons, the improvement, or infeasible portion, shall not be implemented and, if none of the improvement is feasible, and no off-setting mitigation measure is identified, that intersection shall be considered to have “no feasible mitigation.”

TRA-5.1: Transportation Design Review. The site plans for Parcels 1 and 2 will undergo a design review by the City to ensure that City design standards are adhered to prior to construction. This review shall include an on-site intersection analysis prior to development plan approval. The on-site analysis shall include an intersection operations analysis to develop intersection traffic controls and lane geometries that meet City of Santa Clara traffic standards. These parcels shall also be reviewed for:
z Inbound queuing at parking facilities to ensure that queues do not block public streets and local streets
z Emergency vehicle access and circulation
z Vehicular circulation
z Parking layout and circulation within the site
z Bicycle access and circulation
z Pedestrian access and circulation
z Pedestrian access to and from transit stops
z Truck circulation and loading dock access for commercial parcels Not Applicable
Project Developer to
prepare site plans for
Parcels 1 and 2 to be
submitted to the City to
ensure that City street
design and traffic
standards are
accommodated in each
Development Area
Plan.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Concurrent with
Development Area
Plan submittal for
each phase to the
extent that data is
available and with
Architectural
Review to the
extent minor
details are not
known at DAP
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 13 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
TRA-6.1: Intersection Improvements With Access Variant Scheme. The intersection improvements summarized in Table 3.3-35 shall be implemented.

These improvements will reduce vehicle delays and fully mitigate Project impacts at several intersections by allowing them to operate at acceptable levels, with delays that would be lower than they would be under no-project conditions, or with less than a 4-second increase in critical delay for intersections that operate at unacceptable levels.

Table 3.3-35 also contains physical improvements for select intersections that will reduce the delay, but not to a level that fully mitigates the impact.

Some of the intersection improvements would require ROW acquisition.

A preliminary review of ROW constraints was done by viewing aerial photography as a part of the mitigation measure feasibility assessment. An intersection was identified as having ROW constraints if the mitigation measure would include widening the roadway or relocating aboveground utilities. (Use of the center median and “pork-chop” islands was not considered as roadway widening.) If the removal of bicycle facilities was required, the ROW required was defined as “possible.” If the City makes a final determination that a portion or all of an improvement is not feasible because ROW cannot be acquired or for other reasons, the improvement, or infeasible portion, shall not be implemented and, if none of the improvement is feasible, that intersection shall be considered to have “no feasible mitigation.”
Partially Applicable in
accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1
Implement
intersection
improvements
summarized in Table

3.3-35 of the Draft EIR
and pay fair share
contribution in
accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
In accordance
with Exhibit
MMRP-1
TRA-6.2: Intersection Improvements for Phases 1, 2 and 3. The intersection improvements summarized in Table 3.3-36 shall be implemented. These improvements will reduce vehicle delays and fully mitigate Project impacts at several intersections by allowing the intersections to operate at acceptable levels, with delays that would be lower than they would be under no-project conditions, or with less than a 4-second increase in critical delay for intersections that operate at unacceptable levels.

Table 3.3-36 also contains physical improvements for select intersections that will reduce the delay, but not to a level that mitigates the impact.

Some of the intersection improvements would require ROW acquisition.

A preliminary review of ROW constraints was done by viewing aerial photography as a part of the mitigation measure feasibility assessment. An intersection was identified as having ROW constraints if the mitigation measure would include widening the roadway or relocating aboveground utilities. (Use of the center median and “pork- chop” islands was not considered as roadway widening.) If the Partially Applicable in
accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1
Implement the
intersection
improvements for
Phases 1, 2, and 3, as
summarized in Table

3.3-36 of the Draft EIR
and pay fair share
contribution in
accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
In accordance
with Exhibit
MMRP-1
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 14 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
removal of bicycle facilities was required, the ROW required was defined as “possible.” If the City makes a final determination that a portion or all of an improvement is not feasible because ROW cannot be acquired or for other reasons, the improvement, or infeasible portion, shall not be implemented and, if none of the improvement is feasible, that intersection shall be considered to have “no feasible mitigation.”

TRA-7.1: Sidewalk Gap Closure on Tasman Drive on the Lafayette Street overcrossing extending east to Calle Del Sol. The Project Developer shall construct a sidewalk on the north side of Tasman Drive on the Lafayette Street overcrossing and extending east to Calle Del Sol. The Project Developer shall fully fund the construction of this sidewalk segment between the Project frontage on Tasman Drive and Calle Del Sol.

Project Developer to
construct a sidewalk
on the north side of
Tasman Drive on the
Lafayette Street
overcrossing,
extending east to Calle
Del Sol.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to the
issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for
first building
within Phase 1
TRA-14.1: Signalized Intersection Improvements. The intersection improvements and off-setting mitigation measures summarized in Table 3.3-20 shall be implemented and Project Developer shall pay the fair-share contributions for the mitigation measures summarized in Table 3.3-20, The Project Developer shall also pay the fair-share contribution for the additional intersections or offsetting mitigation measure identified in Table 3.3-50. The improvements will reduce vehicle delays and fully mitigate cumulative impacts at several intersections by allowing the intersections to operate at acceptable levels, with delays that would be less than they would be under no-project conditions, or with less than a 4-second increase in critical delay for intersections that operate at unacceptable levels.

Table 3.3-50 also contains physical improvements for select intersections that will reduce the delay, but not to less than no-project conditions such that the Project’s effects would remain cumulatively considerable.

Some of the intersection improvements would require ROW acquisition.

A preliminary review of ROW constraints was done by viewing aerial photography as a part of the mitigation measure feasibility assessment. An intersection was identified as having ROW constraints if the mitigation measure would include widening the roadway or relocating aboveground utilities. (Use of the center median and “pork- chop” islands was not considered as roadway widening.) If the removal of bicycle facilities was required, the ROW required was defined as “possible.” If the City makes a final determination that a portion or all of an Project Developer to
implement
intersection
improvements
mitigation measures
summarized in Table

3.3-20 of the Draft EIR
and pay the fair-share
contributions for the
mitigation measures in
accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
In accordance
with Exhibit
MMRP-1
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 15 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
improvement or mitigation is not feasible because ROW cannot be acquired or for other reasons, the improvement, or infeasible portion, shall not be implemented and, if none of the improvement is feasible, that intersection shall be considered to have “no feasible mitigation.”

TRA-16.1: Intersection Improvements for Cumulative with-Project Access Variants. The intersection improvements summarized in Table 3.3-54 shall be implemented. Some of the intersection improvements would require ROW acquisition. A preliminary review of ROW constraints was done by viewing aerial photography as a part of the mitigation measure feasibility assessment. An intersection was identified as having ROW constraints if the mitigation measure would include widening the roadway or relocating aboveground utilities. (Use of the center median and “pork-chop” islands was not considered as roadway widening.) If the removal of bicycle facilities was required, the ROW required was defined as “possible.” If the City makes a final determination that a portion or all of an improvement or mitigation is not feasible because ROW cannot be acquired or for other reasons, the improvement, or infeasible portion, shall not be implemented and, if none of the improvement is feasible, that intersection shall be considered to have “no feasible mitigation.”
Project Developer to
implement the
intersection
improvements
summarized in Table

3.3-54 of the Draft EIR
and pay the fair-share
contributions for the
mitigation measures in
accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
In accordance
with Exhibit
MMRP-1
TRA-18.1: Construction Management. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Project Developer and construction contractor shall meet with the Public Works Department to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic congestion during construction of the Project and develop acceptable detour routes for emergency vehicles and for shuttles to the Great America ACE/Capitol Corridor station. The City will coordinate with appropriate transit agencies. The Project Developer shall prepare a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Public Works Department, which shall share the plan with interested the Capitol Corridor Joint Power Authority, the VTA, and ACE for review and comment. The plan, which shall be implemented during construction, shall include at least the following items and requirements:
z A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes. z Notification procedures for adjacent property owners, the public, transit operators, and public safety personnel regarding when detours and lane closures will occur.

Project Developer to
prepare and submit a
Construction
Management Plan for
the purpose of
managing traffic and
reducing traffic
congestion during
construction. City to
review and approve
Plan.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to issuance
of each building
permit
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 16 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
z Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles (must be located on the Project site).
z Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular, pedestrian, and transit vehicle traffic, circulation and safety; and provision for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected. Construction vehicles shall be required to use designated truck/haul routes.
z Provisions for removal of trash generated by Project construction activity. z A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity.
z Construction vehicles and construction workers shall not be allowed to park in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Construction vehicles will be required to park either in the construction zone or in the temporary parking lots.

TRA-19.1: Modified City’s Traffic Management and Operations Plan (TMOP) and Prepare a Project-Specific Traffic and Parking Management Plan. Modify the City’s TMOP to include plans to direct stadium traffic to the new parking locations on the site. (Some of the office parking areas will be used during special events.) A separate traffic and parking management plan shall be developed for the Project by the Project Developer and approved by the Director of Community Development and/or the Director of Public works. This plan would address:
z Parking areas to be used by office employees (versus stadium parking); z Project customer/employee parking (versus stadium parking); z Access and egress routes for vehicles to the site, taking into consideration the lane and roadway segment closures used to direct stadium traffic; z A communications plan to inform customers and employees of game-day operations; and
z Operational improvements such as signal timing and coordination to maximize efficiency of the streets during peak periods.

Performance goals that reflect a successful traffic and parking management plan would be contained in the plan and may include items such as:
z Maintaining vehicular access to the Project with acceptable increases in travel times compared to non-game day conditions;
z Limited vehicle queuing within the Project site such that no internal circulation roadways are blocked; and
Project Developer to
modify the City’s
TMOP to include plans
to direct stadium traffic
to the new parking
locations on the site,
and a site traffic and
parking management
plan for review and
approval by City.

Project
Developer
Director of
Community
Development
and/or
Director of
Public Works
Prior to the
issuance of first
certificate of
occupancy within
each DAP area
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 17 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
z Limited vehicle queuing extending from parking facilities within the Project onto external public roadways.

Even with mitigation, the local streets near the Project site would operate at an unacceptable LOS due to vehicle demand exceeding capacity. Widening roadways or intersections to increase capacity was considered as mitigation but rejected due to utility and secondary impacts. Street widening would provide capacity that would be needed only on game days and not at other times. The City of Santa Clara General Plan has policies to discourage the widening of existing roadways without first considering operational improvements such as the items included in the existing TMOP and items that will be included in the TDM Plan.

AIR QUALITY
AQ-2.1: Utilize Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment during Construction to Control Construction-Related Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Emissions. The Project Developer shall ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction between 2017 and 2022 is equipped with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 3 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment for which an EPA Tier 3 engine is not available. Consistent with advancements of the statewide fleet average, the Project Developer shall ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction between 2023 and 2030 is equipped with EPA Tier 4 engines, except for specialized construction equipment for which an EPA Tier 4 engine is not available. This requirement will ensure construction equipment remains cleaner than the fleet-wide average.4 Project Developer to
provide to City
applicable provisions
of construction
contracts requiring
that all off- road dieselpowered equipment
used for construction
between 2017 and
2022 is equipped with
the U.S. EPA Tier 3 or
cleaner engines and
that all off- road dieselpowered equipment
used for construction
between 2023 and
2030 is equipped with
EPA Tier 4 engines.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to grading
or building permit
issuance
4 As explained in MM AQ-6.1, below, as necessary to reduce cancer risk to on-site sensitive receptors related to construction diesel particulate matter emissions to a level below the BAAQMD, the Project Developer may need to use Tier 4 equipment after occupancy of on-site residences or daycare centers, or may use other appropriate measures (see AQ-6.1). If Tier 4 equipment is used earlier than 2023, this may reduce the amount of mitigation required in MM AQ-2.4.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 18 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
AIR QUALITY (cont.)
AQ-2.2: Use Modern Fleet for On-Road Material Delivery and Haul Trucks during Construction. The Project Developer shall ensure that all on-road heavyduty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 19,500 pounds or greater used at the Project site comply with EPA 2007 on-road emissions standards for PM10 and NOX (0.01 grams per brake horsepower-hour [g/bhp-hr] and 0.20 g/bhp-hr, respectively).

Project Developer to
provide to City
applicable provisions
of construction
contracts requiring the
use of modern fleet for
on-road material
delivery and that haul
trucks comply with
EPA 2007 on-road
emissions standards
for PM10 and NOX.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to grading or
building permit
issuance
AQ-2.3: Implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Additional Construction Mitigation Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust and Exhaust Emissions. The Project Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the specific construction mitigation measures below to reduce fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the following measures. Alternative measures may be identified by the Project Developer or its contractor, as appropriate, provided that they are as effective as the measures below. Alternative measures shall be submitted to the City of Santa Clara for approval. z All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. If water infiltration into landfill refuse layers is a concern, non-toxic soil stabilizers may be used instead. z All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 miles per hour (mph) for a period of 2 hours or more.
z Windbreaks (e.g., fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Windbreaks shall have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
z Exposed ground areas that are to be reworked more than 1 month after initial grading should be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. If grass seeding is not feasible, then non-toxic soil stabilizers may be used.

Project Developer to
provide to City
applicable provisions
of construction
contracts requiring the
use of BAAQMD
additional construction
mitigation measures to
reduce constructionrelated dust and
exhaust emissions.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to grading
and building
permit issuance
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 19 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
AIR QUALITY (cont.)
z All construction trucks and equipment, including tires, involved in ground disturbance or transit through loose soil areas shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
z Site accesses to a distance of 25 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. Alternatively, a rumble plate may be used in place of chips, mulch, or gravel. z Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent. z Idling time of diesel powered construction equipment shall be limited to 2 minutes.
z All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of PM and NOX.
z All contractors shall use equipment that meets the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB’s) most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.

AQ-2.4: Offset NOX Emissions Generated during Construction that Are above BAAQMD NOX Average Daily Emission Threshold. The Project Developer shall track construction activity, estimate emissions, and enter into a construction mitigation contract with BAAQMD to offset NOX emissions that exceed BAAQMD NOX average daily threshold of 54 pounds per day.

The average daily emissions shall be calculated on an annual basis by determining total construction-related NOX emissions in each calendar year and dividing by the number of actual workdays in that calendar year. BAAQMD will use the mitigation fees provided by the Project Developer to implement emissions reduction efforts that offset Project NOX emissions that exceed BAAQMD threshold.

Implementation of this mitigation measure shall apply only to Phase 1 through Phase 4 construction on Parcels 4 and 5 because only construction on Parcels 4 and 5 has the potential to exceed the BAAQMD average daily NOX threshold on an annual basis, depending on construction sequencing and overlapping activity.

This mitigation includes the following specific requirements:
z The Project Developer shall require construction contractors to provide annual construction activity monitoring data for Phases 1 through 4 to estimate actual construction emissions, including the effect of equipment emissions reduction measures. The Project Developer shall submit the annual construction activity monitoring data and an estimate of actual annual City construction
mitigation contracts
with BAAQMD. Project
Developer to provide
to City annual
construction activity
monitoring data for
City verification that
the data is
representative.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Approval of
agreement prior
to grading and
building permit
issuance, annual
submittal of
evidence
documenting
compliance and of
construction
activity
monitoring data
during
construction of
Phases 1 through
4 on Parcels 4 and

5. City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 20 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
AIR QUALITY (cont.)
construction emissions to the City and BAAQMD for review by February 1 of each year for the prior construction year. The City shall examine the construction activity monitoring to ensure it is representative, and BAAQMD shall examine the emissions estimate to ensure it is calculated properly. z After acceptance of the emissions estimates by BAAQMD for the prior year, the Project Developer shall submit mitigation fees to BAAQMD to fund offsets for the portion of annual emissions that exceed the average daily NOX threshold.

The mitigation fees shall be based on the mitigation contract with BAAQMD (see discussion below) but shall not exceed the emissions-reduction project cost-effectiveness limit set for the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) for the year in which mitigation fees are paid. The current Carl Moyer Program cost-effectiveness limit is $18,030 per weighted ton of criteria pollutants (NOX + ROG + [20*PM]). An administrative fee of 5 percent shall be paid by the Project Developer to BAAQMD to implement the program.
z The mitigation fees shall be used by BAAQMD to fund projects that are eligible for funding under the Carl Moyer Program guidelines or other BAAQMD emissions- reduction incentive programs that meet the Carl Moyer Program cost-effectiveness threshold and are real, surplus, quantifiable, and enforceable.
z The Project Developer shall enter into a mitigation contract with BAAQMD for the emissions-reduction incentive program. The mitigation contract shall include the following:
{ Identification of appropriate off-site mitigation fees required for the Project.
{ Timing for submission of mitigation fees.
{ Processing of mitigation fees paid by the Project Developer. { Verification of emissions estimates submitted by the Project Developer. { Verification that off-site fees are applied to appropriate mitigation programs within the SFBAAB.

The mitigation fees shall be submitted within 4 weeks after BAAQMD accepts an emissions estimate provided by the Project Developer showing that the average daily NOX threshold was exceeded (when measured on an annual basis).

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 21 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
AIR QUALITY (cont.)
AQ-6.1: Assess Construction Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions Potential Prior to Construction, Utilize Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment, Filtration Systems, and/or other Measures as Necessary to Reduce Cancer Risks Associated with DPM during Construction. The Project Developer shall implement the following measures, as necessary, to reduce cancer risks associated with DPM during construction to a level less than BAAQMD incremental cancer risk threshold of 10 in 1 million:
z Revised Health Risk Assessment (HRA): The Project Developer may choose to assess the potential construction DPM emissions later in the design phase, but prior to construction, and to prepare a revised HRA using updated construction equipment activity data and submit to the City for review. If the revised HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the cancer risk for construction of the entire Project at all potentially exposed on-site and offsite sensitive receptors will be less than BAAQMD threshold cited, then no additional mitigation is necessary. If the revised HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the cancer risk for construction of the entire Project at some of the on-site or off-site sensitive receptors will be less than presented in the EIR but still over the BAAQMD threshold, then some of the mitigation below may not be necessary.
z As necessary to reduce cancer risks below the BAAQMD threshold in light of projected DPM emissions and exposure and other mitigation (MM AQ-2.1 through MM AQ-2.3 and MM GHG-1.1), one or more of the following measures shall be implemented and the Project Developer will provide updated modeling to the City demonstrating that all on-site risks are reduced to below the BAAQMD threshold level:

Tier 4 Construction Equipment. If on-site and residences and daycare centers are occupied, the Project Developer shall ensure that all off-road dieselpowered equipment used during construction after occupancy of on-site residences or on- site daycare centers is equipped with EPA Tier 4 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment for which an EPA Tier 4 engine is not available. This requirement would be in addition to the clean diesel requirements in Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1.
{ Install Filtration Systems on Ventilation and Recirculation Systems.

Filtration systems shall be installed on ventilation and recirculation systems within on-site residences and for the heating, cooling, or ventilation systems serving daycare centers. All filters must be rated MERV-13 or higher. The Project Developer shall submit a plan for installation and maintenance of all This measure would
apply in the event the
DAP 1 Project’s
residential uses are
constructed and
occupied prior to the
DAP 2 Project
construction.

Project Developer to
provide revised HRA
(optional) or provide
updated modeling and
applicable provisions
of construction
contracts and/or
building plans
including measures to
reduce cancer risks.

City to review and
approve revised HRA
(optional to project
Developer) or approve
applicable provisions
of construction
contracts and building
plans if no HRA is
prepared or if revised
HRA shows that cancer
risks would not be
below regulatory
thresholds.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to
construction that
is planned to
occur after the
first occupancy of
on-site residences
or daycare centers
and/or prior to
residential or day
care building
permit issuance if
Project Developer
desires to
incorporate
measures into
structure
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 22 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
AIR QUALITY (cont.)
filters in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to the City prior to approval of the first building permits.
{ If on-site and residences and daycare centers are occupied, the Project Developer shall employ other reduction measures, such as High Performance Renewable (HPR) Diesel Fuel, that would reduce DPM.

Proposals for alternative reduction measures shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, including evidence of the particulate reduction and/or risk reduction effectiveness of the proposed alternative measures.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1.1: Utilize Alternative Fuels during Construction. Require construction contractors to use alternative fuels in at least 30 percent of the construction equipment that uses diesel fuel. Alternative fuels may include electricity, compressed natural gas (CNG), biodiesel (B-20), or renewable diesel, such as diesel high-performance renewable (HPR).

Developer to provide
to City applicable
provisions of
construction contracts
requiring adequate use
of alternative fuels.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to grading
and building
permits.

GHG-1.2: Operational GHG Emissions Reduction Measures. The Project Developer shall implement the operational GHG emissions reduction strategies described below:

1. Energy Efficiency: The Project’s energy efficiency shall be 15 percent better than the base case energy model developed pursuant to the 2013 Title 24 requirements or shall meet the Title 24 requirements that are applicable at the time of issuance of the building permits for individual phases, whichever is more stringent (Climate Action Plan [CAP] Measure 2.1).5

2. On-site Solar Energy: The Project already includes on-site photovoltaics (PV) solar to meet 10 percent of electricity demand. The Project shall obtain renewable energy electricity corresponding to 50 percent6 of on-site electricity demand by 2030 through a combination of on-site solar, purchase of #1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12:

Building and landscape
plans.
#2: Annual reporting
unless Project
Developer
demonstrates at
building permit
issuance that goal will
be met.
#10, 13: Ground leases
to require
Project
Developer
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
#1, 4, 5 6, 7, 11,
12: Prior to
building permit
issuance
#2: Prior to
building permit
issuance unless
the developer
wishes to
demonstrate that
emissions will
meet the 2030
metric.
5 The CEC intends for residential buildings in 2020 and later to be zero net energy (ZNE) and commercial buildings in 2030 or later to be ZNE, but because pending regulations are not yet adopted, this cannot be assumed in this analysis.
6 CAP measure 1.1 requires the City’s utility (SVP) to replace coal power within its portfolio with natural gas by 2020 and includes a stretch goal to replace the coal power with a combination of 50% natural gas and 50% renewable energy by 2035. Thus the CAP stretch goal is to increase renewable energy within its portfolio from 2020 to 2035. The 29 percent value for the mitigation above was calculated as the difference between the CAP Measure 1.1 reduction amount for the stretch goal for 2035 (71%) and the CAP Measure 1.1 reduction amount for 2020 (42%). As discussed in text, the Project has less than significant impact in comparison to the BAAQMD service population efficiency threshold based on the AB 32 target for 2020. Since the EIR finds that the project’s emissions are significant for the period after 2020, the use of the difference in the CAP Measure 1.1 between 2020 and 2035 is appropriate to the impact identified for the Project.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 23 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (cont.)
renewable energy or other measures (CAP Measure 2.4). This requirement may be phased in as follows: 2020 – 15%; 2025 – 29%; 2030 – 50%. If the Project Developer can demonstrate, to the City’s satisfaction, that through Project design, adopted State or federal regulations, or other assured actions that the Project’s emissions overall will meet the 2030 metric identified in this document without the implementation of this particular measure of its full implementation, then this measure (or its full implementation) may be waived by the City.

3. Food Waste: All retail restaurants shall be required to participate 100 percent in any extant City food waste and composting programs and any that may be developed in the future (CAP Measure 4.1).

4. Electrical Landscaping Equipment: The Project shall include installation of electrical outlets near all maintained landscaping areas to allow for the use of electrical landscaping equipment (CAP Measure 5.1). In the landscaped City Center, only electrical landscape equipment shall be used. Use of electrical landscaping equipment shall not be required for the extensive natural landscaping contemplated at the edges of the City Center and at Parcels 1, 2, and 3.

5. Electrical Vehicle Charging/Preferential Parking (CAP Measure 6.3). The Project shall provide preferential parking in all parking lots for electric vehicles and shall also provide charging equipment, as follows:
a. Residential Use: A total of 10 percent of the required parking spaces shall be provided with a listed cabinet, box, or enclosure and connected to a conduit that links the parking spaces to the electrical service in a manner approved by the building and safety official. Of the listed cabinets, boxes, or enclosures provided, 50 percent shall have the necessary electric vehicle supply equipment installed to provide active charging stations that are ready for use by residents. The remainder shall be installed at such time as they are needed for use by residents. Electrical vehicle batteries and charging technology may change substantially over the next 15 years.

As such, the City shall have the discretion to modify the specific requirements for this measure over time, provided that 10 percent of the spaces have electrical service and 5 percent have active charging, depending on what the technology at the time requires.
implementation of
measures and
incorporation of
operational measures
into subleases.
#3, 8, 9, 10: Prior
to execution of
ground leases;
provisions must
be included in
each applicable
ground lease.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 24 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (cont.)
b. Commercial Use: New commercial uses shall provide the electrical service capacity necessary as well as all conduits and related equipment necessary to serve 2 percent of the parking spaces with charging stations in a manner approved by the City’s Building Official. Of these parking spaces, 50 percent shall initially be provided with the equipment necessary to function as online charging stations upon completion of the Project. The remainder shall be installed at such time as they are needed for use by customers, employees, or other users. Electrical vehicle batteries and charging technology may change substantially over the next 15 years. As such, the City shall have the discretion to modify the specific requirements for this measure over time, provided that two percent of the spaces have electrical service and one percent have active charging, depending on what the technology at the time requires.

6. Shade Trees: Where surface parking lots are not covered by PV solar, shade trees shall be planted to reduce urban heat island effects on adjacent buildings (CAP Measure 7.1).

7. Urban Cooling: Any uncovered parking lots or spaces shall use light-colored pavement (CAP Measure 7.2).

8. Leases for businesses that base a diesel truck fleet within the Project site:

Ensure those fleets meet the highest CARB engine-tier standard in place at the time of issuance of the building permits for the building that such businesses occupy, or the execution of a lease, whichever comes first.

9. Electrical hook-ups at loading docks for businesses that will receive deliveries from refrigerated diesel trucks: Stipulate in the lease agreement for such businesses a requirement to use the hook-ups if the trucks will be idling for more than two minutes.

10. Leases for business receiving deliveries: Prohibit all diesel-powered trucks from idling for more than 2 minutes.

11. Solar hot water heating systems: Incorporate for appropriate applications, including any swimming pools and buildings with swimming pools.

12. Electric heat pumps, or other energy-efficiency techniques, including radiant systems: Include for space heating and cooling, under appropriate circumstances.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 25 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
NOISE
NOI-1.1: Prepare and Implement a Construction Noise Control Plan to Reduce Construction Noise at Adjacent Land Uses. The Project Developer shall develop a noise control plan that requires that the Project construction activities comply with the City Code noise limits. The requirements and limitations specified in the plan shall be determined by phase and/or parcel and/or subsections of a parcel or phase. The construction noise control plan shall require the following:
z The Project Developer shall appoint a Project noise coordinator who will serve as the point of contact for noise-related complaints during Project construction. The Project noise coordinator shall transmit all construction noise-related complaints to the construction contractor, and the construction contractor shall enhance or refine the noise best management practices discussed herein to address the received noise complaints to the extent feasible. The contact information for the Project noise coordinator shall be sent to residents in the greater vicinity of the Project site that could be affected by Project noise and municipalities affected by Project construction noise. z Construction activities that have the potential to generate noise that is detectable at adjacent residential land uses or within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property shall occur only during the times listed below. Activities that would result in no detectable noise at adjacent land uses, such as interior painting, would not be limited by the hours below.
{ Between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. { Between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
{ No duration in time on holidays or Sundays.
z Construction contractors shall specify noise-reducing construction practices that will be employed to reduce construction noise for construction activities that would occur outside of the prohibited hours specified in the City Code and that would have the potential to exceed the receiving zone noise limits specified in the City Code. The measures determined by the Project Developer shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Measures that can be used to limit noise include, but are not limited to, those listed below.

Project Developer to
provide noise control
plan for City review
and approval.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of the first
building permit
within each
Development Area
Plan area
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 26 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
NOISE (cont.)
{ Locating construction equipment as far as feasible from noise-sensitive uses.
{ Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have sound-control devices that are at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer and that all equipment be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation.
{ Not idling inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods (i.e., more than 2 minutes).
{ Prohibiting gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust systems.
{ Using noise-reducing enclosures around noise-generating equipment that has the potential to disturb nearby off-site land uses, or where otherwise necessary, to comply with the City Code noise limits for receiving zones.

NOI-1.2: Implement Off-Site Traffic Noise Reduction Measures. The Project Developer shall implement off-site traffic noise reduction measures along the east side of Lafayette Drive between Tasman Drive and Hogan Drive such that the Project- related increase in traffic noise for noise receptors is less than 3 dBA. The Project Developer shall construct a solid barrier between the roadway and adjacent residential uses along Lafayette Drive between Tasman Drive and Hogan Drive unless deemed infeasible for any reason including unavailability of sufficient right of way or inability to secure design review/architectural approval.

The Project Developer shall implement off-site traffic noise reduction measures along the south side of Tasman Drive between Lafayette and Calle del Sol such that cumulative with project-related increase in traffic noise for noise receptors is less than 3 dBA or the project contribution to traffic noise is less than 1 dBA. The Project Developer shall construct a solid barrier between the roadway and adjacent residential uses along Tasman Drive between Lafayette and Calle del Sol unless deemed infeasible for any reason including unavailability of sufficient right of way or inability to secure design review/architectural approval.

The barriers shall be designed to provide shielding between areas of frequent human use (i.e., residence backyards) and the roadway. This would result in approximately 1,000 feet of noise barriers along this the Lafayette segment (between Tasman Drive and Hogan Drive) and up to 800 feet along the Tasman segment (between Lafayette and Calle del Sol). One effective approach would be to replace the existing privacy fences at single family residences with a solid barrier that is at least 6 feet high. The Project Developer shall prepare an off-site noise Qualified professional
to determine which
Phase of the Project
triggers the need for
the reduction
measures.

Project Developer to
provide noise control
plan for City review,
determination of
feasibility and
approval.

Project
Developer
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Qualified
professional to
determine which
phase triggers
noise barrier
during Phase 1 of
DAP approval.

City to determine
feasibility of noise
barriers, and
approve design if
feasible, as part of
DAP approval. If
feasible, barriers
to be constructed
as part of
construction for
the Phase
triggering the
need for the
barrier.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 27 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
NOISE (cont.)
control plan that identifies the location, design, and effectiveness of the specific treatments to be implemented. This plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The off-site noise improvements shall be completed before Project operations commence.

NOI-2.1: Restrict Pile Driving. Pile driving occurring 175 feet or less from new residential or commercial buildings shall be conducted prior to those buildings being occupied by future occupants.

City will not approve
building permits that
include pile driving
within 175 feet of
occupied residential.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of building
permits if driven
pile foundations
are planned and
prior to
occupancy of
proximate
residential or
commercial
buildings
NOI-5.1: Prepare and Implement a Noise Control Plan to Reduce Interior Noise at Sensitive Land Uses. The Project Developer shall conduct a design-level acoustic study that identifies exterior noise levels for residential and commercial uses on the Project site. This study shall take into account existing airport noise, Project, and reasonably foreseeable future noise sources (such as proposed increases in passenger rail service along the Lafayette Street corridor). Where this study finds that the exterior noise level would exceed the residential compatibility standard of 55 dBA Ldn or the commercial incompatibility standard of 65 dBA Ldn, the Project Developer shall prepare a design-level operational noise control plan to provide acceptable interior noise levels. This plan shall identify all Project features and treatments that will be implemented to ensure that the Project is in compliance with the interior noise standards listed in the City’s General Plan and City Code as well as the standards specified for new construction within the CLUP for SJC.

The study and plan shall be developed by an acoustical design professional. Design features and treatments will be identified to ensure that interior noise levels at new proposed uses are in compliance with the noise standards. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project. Depending on the noise exposure for a particular site, such treatments may include, but are not limited to, those listed below, as recommended by the acoustical design professional.

Project Developer to
provide design-level
acoustic study for City
review and approval
and to incorporate
necessary measures
into building design
when exterior noise
levels exceed
residential and
commercial
incompatibility
standards.

Project
Developer/
Acoustical
Design
Professional
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of building
permits for
residential and
commercial
buildings
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 28 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
NOISE (cont.)
z Construction of enclosures around noise-generating mechanical equipment at commercial uses.
z Use of setbacks from noise sources to maximum attenuation of noise over distance.
z Installation of noise-reducing treatments in new buildings, including:
{ High-performance, sound-rated double-glazed windows,
{ Sound-rated doors,
{ Sound-rated exterior wall construction,
{ Special acoustical details for vents,
{ Acoustical caulking at all exterior façade penetrations, { Sound-rated roof and ceiling constructions, and
{ Adequate mechanical ventilation so that windows and doors may be kept closed at the discretion of the building occupants to control environmental noise intrusion.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
CR-1.1: Conduct Extended Phase I (XPI) Archaeological Investigations within the Project Site near Recorded Resources and within an Area of Archaeological Sensitivity. Prior to construction, if it is determined that Projectrelated ground- disturbing activities may extend into native soil within 100 feet of a previously recorded archaeological site, the Project Developer shall retain the services of a qualified archaeologist to conduct XPI investigations within the Project site. The XPI investigations shall consist of subsurface trench excavations to determine the presence or absence of buried features associated with the known archaeological site. If feasible, at least two trenches shall be placed in recorded location P-43-000025/CA-SCL-5, which is recorded as partially in the Project site, to ensure adequate investigations in this area.

If the XPI investigations reveal resources, additional trenches or testing may be necessary. Mitigation Measure CR-1.3, described below, shall be followed.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
submit XPI
Archaeological
Investigation(s) to
City.

Project
Developer/
Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading permits
that would
disturb native
soils within 100
feet of a
previously
recorded
archaeological site
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 29 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.)
CR-1.2: Provide Archaeological Monitoring of the Project Site When in Native Soil. Prior to construction, if it is determined that Project-related grounddisturbing activities may extend into native soil, within 100 feet of a previously recorded archaeological site, the Project Developer shall retain the services of a qualified archaeologist to monitor earthmoving activities within the Project site.

Monitoring shall consist of coordinating subsurface work to allow for the careful examination of vertical and horizontal soil relationships for the purpose of seeking positive archaeological finds (prehistoric and/or historic). The monitor shall maintain a field log of their presence and observations, carefully noting soil conditions. The archaeological monitor shall be pre-approved by the Director of Planning and Inspection. After written approval, the Planning Division shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to any grading or other subsurface work on the site, and the Project Developer shall provide a written protocol for the City’s review and approval that stipulates the manner in which the Project Developer shall comply with the monitoring requirements. In the event that cultural resources are encountered, Mitigation Measure CR-1.3, described below, shall be followed.

Not Applicable
City to approve
monitor, ensure
monitor is in place, and
approve monitoring
protocol, which shall
include requirements
of CR-1.3.

Project
Developer/
Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Monitoring
protocol prior to
the issuance of
grading and
building permits
that would
disturb native
soils within 100
feet of a
previously
recorded
archaeological
site; monitoring
shall occur during
earthmoving
activities
CR-1.3: Stop Work if Cultural Resources Are Encountered during GroundDisturbing Activities. In the event that cultural resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, all work within proximity of the find shall temporarily halt so that the archaeological monitor can examine the find and document its provenience and nature (drawings, photographs, written description). The archaeological monitor shall then direct the work to either proceed if the find is deemed to be insignificant, or instruct the work to continue elsewhere or cease until adequate mitigation measures are adopted. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Planning Division, shall develop a Treatment Plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. If data recovery is determined to be appropriate, excavation shall target recovery of an appropriate amount of information from archaeological deposits to determine the potential of the resource to address specific research questions. If it occurs, data recovery shall emphasize the understanding of the archaeological deposit’s structure, including features and stratification, horizontal and vertical extent, and content, including the nature and quantity of artifacts.

Archaeological
monitor (retained by
the Project Developer),
as necessary, and in
consultation with the
City, develop a
Treatment Plan. See
also CR-1.2.

Project
Developer/
Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
During
construction if
cultural resources
are encountered
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 30 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.)
CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan. Prior to any deep excavations below an elevation of -30 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD] 88) at the Project site on areas not underlain by landfill refuse, the Planning Division shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the excavation, and a qualified professional paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan (PRMP) in consultation with the Planning Division. The PRMP shall describe the tasks necessary to monitor, assess, and recover (if present) significant paleontological resources during Project excavation activities. The PRMP shall be implemented by the qualified paleontologist during the deep Project excavations below an elevation of -30 feet (NAVD 88).

Project Developer to
submit to City PRMP
prepared by
paleontologist
(retained by the
Project Developer).

Project
Developer/
Qualified
Professional
Paleontologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading permits
for excavations
below an
elevation of -30
feet at Parcel 5
and areas of
Parcel 4 not
underlain by
landfill.

CR-2.2: Paleontological Resource Monitoring. In accordance with the PRMP, a qualified paleontologist shall monitor for fossils in Pleistocene deposits during Project excavations below an elevation of -30 feet (NAVD 88) on areas not underlain by landfill refuse or below other elevations confirmed in the field by the qualified paleontologist. The qualified paleontologist shall be present initially for 100 percent of the excavation activities within the Pleistocene deposits. After 50 percent of the excavation is completed within the rock unit and if no fossils of any kind have been discovered, then the level of monitoring can be reduced or suspended entirely at the Project paleontologist’s discretion. If the paleontologist discovers potential paleontological resources, all ground disturbance within 50 feet of the find shall stop immediately until the qualified professional paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate salvage, treatment, and future monitoring and mitigation actions.

Project Developer to
provide to City
contract with
paleontologist for
implementing PRMP,
which shall include
requirements of CR2.3.

Project
Developer/
Qualified
Professional
Paleontologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading permits
for excavation
below an
elevation of -30
feet at Parcel 5
And areas of
Parcel 4 not
underlain by
landfill
CR-2.3: Paleontological Resource Reporting. If significant paleontological resources are identified, the Project qualified paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the field and laboratory methods, site geology and stratigraphy, faunal/floral list(s), and a brief statement of the significance and relationship of the fossils discovered to similar fossils found elsewhere. The final report should emphasize the discovery of any new or rare taxa, or paleoecological or taphonomic significance. A complete set of field notes, geologic maps, stratigraphic sections, and a list of identified specimens must be included in or accompany the final report. This report should be finalized only after all aspects of the PRMP are completed, including preparation, identification, cataloging, and curatorial inventory. Full copies of the final report shall be deposited with both the Lead Agency and the repository institution with the request that all locality data remain confidential and not made available to the general public.

Paleontologist to
prepare final report for
submission to City. See
also CR-2.2.

Project
Developer/
Qualified
Professional
Paleontologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
After a significant
paleontological
resource is
identified during
construction
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 31 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.)
CR-3.1: Stop work if human remains are encountered during grounddisturbing activities. When human remains are discovered (in either an archaeological or construction context), all work within proximity of the remains shall stop so that the archaeological monitor can examine the remains. The County Coroner shall be notified, who shall make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately. The NAHC shall notify those persons it believes are most likely descended from the deceased Native American. Once the NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Project Developer to
submit to City
applicable provisions
of construction
contracts including
applicable
requirements.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
County
Coroner/
NAHC
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1.1: Protect Nesting Birds. The Project Developer and its contractors shall avoid conducting vegetation removal during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1–August 31). If Project-related activities must commence during the migratory bird nesting season, the Project Developer shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nests of migratory birds. Surveys for nesting migratory birds shall occur within 3 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbance and vegetation removal in areas that will be affected by Project construction activities. Multiple nest surveys shall be required if construction is phased or when construction work stops for more than 2 weeks at a portion of the site where suitable nesting habitat remains. If construction is ongoing for multiple years, these surveys shall be conducted each year prior to construction in areas that have not yet been disturbed and are scheduled to be disturbed during the nesting season. In addition to nesting-season surveys, surveys shall be conducted during the non-nesting season (September 1–January 31) for overwintering burrowing owls in areas scheduled for initial disturbance during the upcoming season. The surveys shall also be conducted as described above, with a goal of identifying overwintering owls so they can be appropriately avoided during construction.

If an active nest is discovered, a no-disturbance buffer zone around the nest tree or shrub (or, for ground-nesting species, the nest itself) shall be established. The nodisturbance zone shall be marked with flagging or fencing that is easily identified by the construction crew and shall not affect the nesting bird or attract predators to the nest location. In general, the minimum buffer zone widths shall be as Project Developer to
provide to City
applicable provisions
of construction
contracts including
pertinent
requirements. If
construction will
occurs in the nesting
season, Project
Developer to submit to
City agreement with
qualified wildlife
biologist requiring
surveys and protective
measures under
BIO-1.1 and
requirement that
wildlife biologist
report to City if
conditions triggering
BIO-2.2 exist.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor/
Qualified
wildlife
biologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to the
issuance of
grading and
building permits
for construction
contracts; prior to
commencement of
grading for
biologist
agreements; and
prior to ground
disturbance for
surveys
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 32 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
follows: 50 feet (radius) for non-raptor ground-nesting species, 50 feet (radius) for non-raptor shrub- and tree-nesting species, and 300 feet (radius) for raptor species. Buffer widths may be modified based on discussion with DFW. Buffers shall remain in place as long as the nest is active or young remain in the area and are dependent on the nest. If a burrowing owl nest is identified during preconstruction surveys, no-activity buffers will adhere to the recommendations in the 2012 California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.7 Most Project activities would result in a high level of disturbance, constituting a 1,640-foot (500-meter) required buffer around occupied nests during any time of year.8

BIO-1.2: Implement Bird-Safe Design Standards into Project Buildings and Lighting Design. Each Development Area Plan (DAP) approved by the City shall include a set of specific standards for minimizing hazards to birds, to be implemented by the Project Developer. The development of the specific bird safety standards for each Development Area Plan shall be tailored to the specific potential hazards to birds in that development area, taking into account the specific locations, types and heights of buildings, lighting, and landscaping. In addition, the DAP shall require enhanced protective measures for buildings within 300 feet of the retention pond, the Guadalupe River, and San Tomas Aquino Creek, such as siting buildings in relation to existing landscape features to reduce conflicts with existing features that may serve as attractive bird habitat; minimizing the reflection of existing vegetation on building facades; or using soil berms, furniture, landscaping, or architectural features to prevent reflection of water in glazed building facades.

The specific bird safety standards in each DAP shall be based on the following birdfriendly building principles, to the extent applicable to the particular development area:
z Reduce mirrors and large areas of reflective glass.
z Avoid transparent glass skyways, walkways, or entryways, free-standing glass walls, and minimize transparent building corners, or utilize glazing treatments to mitigate the hazard.
z Minimize funneling of open space toward a building façade.

City review and
approve each
Development Area
Plan to ensure
adequate measures are
included.

Project
Developer
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Approval of each
Development Area
Plan
7 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7. Available:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/survey_monitor.html#Mammals. 8 Scobie, D., and C. Faminow. 2000. Development of Standardized Guidelines for Petroleum Industry Activities that Affect COSEWIC Prairie and Northern Region Vertebrate Species at Risk.

Environment Canada, Prairie and Northern Region, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 33 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
z Strategically place landscaping to reduce reflection and views of foliage inside or through glass.
z Reduce potential light and glare by implementing Mitigation Measures AES-2.1 (requiring low-profile, low-intensity lighting directed downward), AES-2.2 (requiring shielded fixtures for outdoor lighting), and AES-2.3 (requiring lowemissivity reflective coating on exterior glass surfaces). z To the extent consistent with the normal and expected operations of the uses planned for the particular development area, take appropriate measures to avoid use of unnecessary lighting at night, especially during bird migration season (February-May and August-November) through the installation of motion sensor lighting, automatic lighting shut-off mechanisms, or other effective measures to the extent feasible.

The specific bird safety standards shall also provide for a monitoring program, and placing signs around the buildings with phone numbers for authorized bird conservation organizations.

BIO-2.1: Detection of Burrowing Owls. The Project Developer shall allow access to the Project site or off-site areas for biologists who participate in the annual burrowing owl nest survey coordinated by the Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP.

Burrowing owl surveys are conducted between March and August of each year. As many as four surveys may be conducted each year, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation9 to determine whether burrowing owls are nesting and whether nests are successful. Access to the site for burrowing owl surveys shall be granted until the Project site or off-site area is completely built out. The Project Developer shall not, however, be required to postpone planned development activities to provide such access, except to the extent such postponement is necessary to meet regulatory requirements.

The ground lessee
shall allow such access
until certificate of
completion for the
phase.

Project
Developer/City
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Concurrent with
execution of each
phase ground
lease
9 CDFW 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 34 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
BIO-2.2: Mitigation for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat during Construction.

Should burrowing owls begin nesting on developable portions of the Project site or off-site areas that remain undeveloped as phases of the Project are constructed, or suitable habitat within 600 meters of an active nest is removed from the Project site, then lost burrowing owl habitat shall be replaced at a ratio of at least 1:1 prior to ground-disturbing activities in the area of the Project site or off-site area with an active nest. Affected habitat shall be defined as suitable habitat (based on the habitat mapping completed for this EIR) within a 600 meter radius of an active burrowing owl nest. Suitable land cover types include annual grassland, ruderal, or barren areas. Mitigation sites shall have documented nesting occurrences from at least 1 year within the previous 3 years.

If burrowing owls move onto undeveloped portions of the Project Site or off-site area, including the Retention Basin, once the site is fully constructed, there shall be no requirement to provide replacement habitat, unless that undeveloped habitat is developed in the future.

If required, Project
Developer to submit
certification to the City
that habitat has been
replaced at the
specified ratio. City to
review and approve
certification.

Project
Developer
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to grounddisturbing
activities until the
Project site or offsite areas are
completely builtout in the event
that wildlife
biologist detects
circumstance
triggering BIO- 2.2
BIO-3.1: Protect Western Pond Turtles. Prior to the start of construction activities in or within 50 feet of aquatic habitats, the Project Developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for western pond turtles in all suitable habitats (aquatic and upland) in the vicinity of the work site. Surveys shall take place no more than 72 hours prior to the onset of site preparation and construction activities with the potential to disturb turtles or their habitat. If preconstruction surveys identify active nests on the Project site, the biologist shall establish no- disturbance buffer zones around each nest using temporary orange construction fencing. The demarcation shall be permeable to allow young turtles to move away from the nest following hatching. The radius of the buffer zone and the duration of exclusion shall be determined in consultation with DFW. The buffer zones and fencing shall remain in place until the young have left the nest, as determined by the qualified biologist. If western pond turtles are found on the Project site, the Project Developer shall still retain a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities in the vicinity of suitable habitat and implement appropriate measures to protect the western pond turtle. Such measures may include removal and relocation of western pond turtles in proposed construction areas to suitable habitats outside the Project limits, consistent with DFW protocols and permits. Relocation sites shall be subject to DFW approval.

Project Developer to
submit to City
agreement with
qualified biologist and
applicable provisions
of construction
contracts, including
requirement that
biologist submit to City
certification that
preconstruction
surveys have been
conducted and
protective measures
taken.

Project
Developer/
Qualified
Biologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to the
issuance of
grading or
building permits
for biologist and
construction
agreements; and
72 hours prior to
site construction
activities in or
within 50 feet of
aquatic habitats
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 35 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
BIO-4.1: Protect Central California Coast Steelhead, Critical Habitat, and Chinook Salmon. Construction, operations, and maintenance on the riverbank, as well as areas within 200 feet of the Guadalupe River, that could result in disturbed sediment depositing within the banks of the channel shall be limited to the summer low-precipitation period (June 1 to October 15), unless otherwise approved by appropriate resource agencies. Limiting riverbank disturbance during these months would reduce the likelihood of adverse effects on adult and juvenile salmonid migration.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
provide to City
applicable provisions
of construction
contract ensuring
work on the riverbank
as well as within 200
feet of the Guadalupe
River that could result
in disturbed sediment
depositing within the
banks of the channel is
limited to summer low
precipitation periods.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
BIO-5.1: Protect Retention Pond and Eastside Retention Drainage Swale, and San Tomas Aquino Creek and the Guadalupe River Aquatic Habitat during Construction. For construction activities within 50 feet of the aquatic habitat associated with the retention pond and drainage swale, San Tomas Aquino Creek, and Guadalupe River, protective measures shall be put in place to ensure that impacts on those aquatic features shall be avoided and minimized. The following measures shall be deployed during construction:
z A qualified biologist shall determine the locations where orange construction barrier fencing shall be installed around aquatic resources (USACE and the Regional Water Board jurisdictional wetlands/waters and DFW jurisdictional lakes and streams) that are to be avoided prior to initiation of construction activities.
z Designate the protected area an Environmentally Sensitive Area and clearly identify the area in the construction specifications.
z Maintain jurisdictional wetlands/water protection fencing throughout the grading and construction period.
z Prohibit grading, construction activity, traffic, equipment, or materials in fenced wetland areas.

Project Developer to
provide to City
applicable provisions
of construction
contract and
agreement with
qualified biologist that
include the specified
protective measures.

Project
Developer/
Qualified
Biologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
for construction
activities within
50 feet of the
pertinent aquatic
habitat
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 36 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
BIO-5.2: Compensate for Loss of Waters of the U.S. and State (including Wetlands). If impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or State cannot be avoided, the Project Developer shall obtain permits or approvals to develop from the USACE, the Regional Water Board, and DFW, as appropriate and required. Both the Guadalupe River and San Tomas Aquino Creek are subject to both State and federal jurisdiction because of their connection to the Bay. To ensure that the Project results in no net loss of wetland habitat functions and values, the Project Developer shall compensate for the loss of jurisdictional wetlands/waters through one of the following options.
z Purchase of agency-approved mitigation credits from a suitably located mitigation bank prior to construction (ground disturbance that impacts wetlands/waters);
z On-site wetland/waters restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation) establishment (creation) prior to or concurrent with construction impacts; z Off-site wetland/waters restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation)/establishment (creation) prior to or concurrent with construction; or
z A combination of two or more of the above.

The amount of agency approved mitigation credits required from a suitably located mitigation bank and/or size and location(s) of the area(s) to be restored (reestablished)/established (created) shall be based on appropriate mitigation ratios, as derived in consultation with DFW, USACE, and the Regional Water Board. The Project Developer shall prepare and implement a mitigation and management plan (MMP) as part of the permitting process in conformance with the USEPA/USACE 2008 Mitigation Rule. The mitigation ratios shown in the initial draft MMP submitted to the permitting agencies during Project permitting shall be a minimum of 2:1, as determined through the CEQA process. The MMP, if other than sole purchase of mitigation bank credits, shall include the requirements listed below:
z Mitigation implementation plan;
z Performance (success) standards or criteria to be met in order to determine that the mitigation has successfully replaced the impacted wetlands/waters in terms of “no net loss” of the impacted functions and values; z 5-year monitoring plan for determining that performance criteria have been successfully met through the collection of wetlands/waters vegetation survival and cover field data; hydrology flooding, ponding, and/or soil saturation field data; and habitat area data;
Project Developer to
provide to City
wetland delineation,
copies of permits
obtained as and if
required from USACE,
the Regional Water
Board and DFW, and
the MMP, all satisfying
the requirements of
BIO-5.2 Project
Developer to provide
to City annual
monitoring reports.

Project
Developer/
Qualified
Wetland
Biologist

DFW, USACE,
Regional
Water Board,
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prepare wetland
delineation prior
to first grading or
building permit
for the Project.

Obtain requisite
agency permits
and prepare MMP
prior to issuance
of grading or
building permits
for construction
activities that will
impact
jurisdictional
wetlands.

Monitor plan for a
minimum of 5
years.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 37 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
z Adaptive management plan to be implemented if mitigation performance is found through annual monitoring not to be progressing towards success within the 5-year monitoring period;
z Conservation plan to ensure in-perpetuity land use protection of the mitigation site;
z Long-term (in-perpetuity) conservation management plan; and z Funding plan for mitigation implementation, 5-year mitigation performance monitoring and maintenance, and an endowment (non-wasting fund) for longterm conservation management.

The final MMP shall be determined in consultation with DFW, USACE, and the Regional Water Board. The mitigation plan shall include measure to avoid and minimize the effects of construction on surrounding native habitats. The required performance standard is no net loss of wetland and waters habitat function and values. Monitoring shall occur for a minimum of 5 years, at which time, if the success criteria are met, wetland compensation shall be deemed complete.

BIO-C.1: Make a Fair-Share Nitrogen Deposition Fee Contribution to the Santa Clara Habitat Agency’s Voluntary Fee Payment Program. Consistent with its voluntary commitment to contribute a nitrogen deposition fee through the fee program of the Santa Clara Habitat Agency, the Project Developer shall make a prorated per-vehicle-trip nitrogen deposition fee contribution, which will be based on the amount charged by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency under its Voluntary Fee Payments Policy (http://scv-habitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/345).

Specifically, the per-vehicle trip fee shall be adjusted as set forth below to take into account the different dispersion characteristics of the Project vs. the average dispersion characteristics for development in the HCP/NCCP area.

The Project is located farther from serpentine grassland habitat than average development within the Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP area. Thus, the required fairshare contribution shall be figured as 38 percent (based on the ICF analysis) of the established fee of the habitat agency for the year in which the building permits are issued for the Project. The fee may be paid up front or in installments in proportion to mitigated vehicle trip generation for the phase of the Project for which the building permits are issued. For fiscal year 2015–2016, the adopted HCP/NCCP nitrogen deposition fee was $4.20 per new vehicle trip. Using Scheme B’s estimated trip generation (140,730 trips/day), taking into account the trip reduction effect of Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1 (reduction to 137,910 trips/day), and the 38 percent adjustment factor, if all fees were paid in 2015, the estimated total would be $220,104.

Project Developer to
provide to City proof of
payment.

Project
Developer
City
Community
Development
Department
Prior to issuance
of building
permits: to be
paid up front or in
installments in
proportion to
mitigated vehicle
trip generation for
the phase of
Project for which
the building
permits are
issued.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 38 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1.1: Detailed Grading and Erosion Control Plan. A detailed grading and erosion control plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City Building Department. The plan shall cover all Project parcels (not just the landfill portions) and off-site areas and include all information required to demonstrate that earthwork activities will be in compliance with CCR 21190 et seq. and incorporate by reference the Project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, as required by the Construction General Permit.

Project Developer to
provide detailed
grading and erosion
control plan for review
and approval by City.

Project
Developer
City Planning
and
Inspection
Division
Prior to the
issuance of
demolition and
grading, permits
GEO-2.1: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading, or construction permits at the Project site, a design-level geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a qualified professional (the qualified professional shall be retained by the Project Developer). The investigation shall include further field exploration (e.g., borings, cone penetration tests, test pits and/or geophysical surveys) to develop design-level recommendations to address erosion and other geotechnical concerns for the Project. The design-level geotechnical investigation shall include:
z Evaluation of anticipated settlement. Additional soil borings shall be installed to determine the depth to the refuse layer for aid in preparing grading plans.

Additional samples shall be analyzed to determine potential settlement and determine the likely final post-settlement surface elevation. The potential magnitude of differential settlements between improvements supported by a combination of structural slab and deep foundations and those that are supported by other foundation systems shall be fully analyzed and detailed in the design-level geotechnical report.
z Evaluation of liquefaction potential. Additional borings shall be drilled at the Project site and off-site areas to fully characterize the liquefaction hazard z associated with the Project.
z Evaluation of slope instability. A detailed slope stability analysis for all existing z slopes that would remain under the Project, including the perimeter landfill slopes, and all proposed new slopes shall be prepared.
z Evaluation of expansive soils. Additional borings shall be drilled at the Project site
z and off-site areas to fully characterize the expansive soil hazard associated with the Project.
z Evaluation of corrosive soils. Project site and off-site soils and, in those areas where foundation components would come into contact with landfill materials, refuse shall be evaluated for corrosion potential.

Project Developer to
provide design-level
geotechnical
investigation for
review and approval by
City.

City and Developer to
submit such
investigation to
regulatory agencies
per GEO-2.6 with
respect to areas
underlain by landfill
and secure approval as
required.

Project Developer to
incorporate resulting
measures into project
plans.

Project
Developer/ City
City
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
demolition,
grading, and
building permits
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 39 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
GEOLOGY AND SOILS (cont.)
The design-level geotechnical investigation work plan shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with Mitigation Measure GEO-2.6.

GEO-2.2: Final Geotechnical Report Review. A final geotechnical report shall be prepared by a qualified professional based on the findings of the design-level geotechnical investigation (the qualified professional shall be retained by the Project Developer). The final report shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with Mitigation Measure GEO-2.6. The final geotechnical report shall include:

Measures to address anticipated settlement:
z Specifications of methods to address differential settlement between improvements supported by a combination of structural slab foundations and those that are supported by other deep foundation systems or unsupported areas.
z Exterior slabs and ramps attached to buildings shall be hinged to allow the end of the slab or ramp not attached to the building to move downward as settlement occurs. The design shall not allow building entrance slabs to exceed a 5 percent grade, in compliance with ADA access requirements, and vehicular entrances shall not be allowed to exceed an 11 percent grade to prevent vehicles from scraping during entry or exit.
z Settlement vaults and flexible connections shall be required at locations where utilities transfer from a pile-supported building to a non-supported area for all phases of construction.
z Roadway and other paving at the Project site not located above an area-wide structural slab shall be constructed with flexible materials, such as asphalt or interlocking pavers. The use of concrete and other non-flexible materials shall be minimized. Where non-flexible material is used, expansion and spacing joints that allow rigid materials to shift without breaking shall be used to allow for anticipated settlement.

Measures to address liquefaction:
z In those areas not supported by the structural slab foundation (which would effectively mitigate the liquefaction hazard), other measures shall be developed to mitigate the hazard, such as shallow footings constructed over ground improvement. Foundations for structures shall be designed to completely mitigate settlement hazards associated with liquefaction (i.e., no liquefaction-induced settlement damage shall be accepted for the final design).

Project Developer to
provide final
geotechnical report for
review and approval
by City. City and
Developer to submit
such report to
regulatory agencies
per GEO-2.6 and
secure approval as
required.

Project Developer to
incorporate resulting
measures into project
plans.

Project
Developer/City
City
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
grading and
building permits
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 40 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
GEOLOGY AND SOILS (cont.)
Measures to address slope instability:
z Measures (e.g., reducing slope steepness, providing structural support, or ground improvement) to ensure that an appropriate factor of safety (both static and seismic) is achieved for each slope.

Measures to address expansive soils:
z In those areas not supported by the structural slab foundation (which would effectively mitigate the hazard), other measures shall be developed to mitigate the hazard, such as removal of the problematic soils, treatment of the soils, or specification of appropriate foundation design. If any soils characterized as highly or moderately expansive (linear extensibility of 3.0 percent or more) are to remain at the surface or be used as fill in the upper 5.0 feet, these soils shall be treated (using calcium-based treatment or similar approach) such that the soils are reduced to a low expansion potential (linear extensibility of less than 3.0 percent).

Measures to address corrosive soils:
z A corrosion consultant shall be retained to provide specific recommendations regarding the long-term corrosion protection of pile elements and other subsurface materials. The recommendations of the corrosion consultant, which may include use of specific corrosion-resistant materials and/or treatment of corrosive soils, shall be implemented during construction.

GEO-2.3: Construction Quality Assurance Plan. A Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan that covers both the Project site and off-site areas shall be prepared by the Project Developer for review and approval by the Director of Public Works. The CQA Plan shall establish procedures for testing final cover materials, detail the responsibilities of construction monitoring personnel, and provide procedures for addressing unexpected geologic conditions during grading activities.

Project Developer to
provide a CQA Plan
that covers both the
Project site and off-site
areas for review and
approval by City. City
and Developer to
submit CQA to
regulatory agencies
per GEO-2.6 with
respect to areas
underlain by landfill
and secure approval as
required.

Project
Developer
Director of
Public Works
Prior to the
issuance of
grading, and
building
construction
permits
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 41 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
GEOLOGY AND SOILS (cont.)
GEO-2.3 (cont.) Project Developer to
submit to City
applicable provisions of
construction contracts
incorporating
requirements of CQA.

GEO-2.4: Final Project Design Review. Final Project design plans that cover both Project site and off-site areas shall be prepared by the Project Developer and submitted for review and approval in accordance with Mitigation Measure GEO-2.6.

Project site structures shall be designed to accommodate predicted ground settlement, as determined in the design-level geotechnical investigation for the Project improvements (see Mitigation Measure GEO-1.1).

For the portion of the Project overlying the Landfill, the Post-Closure Land Use Plan shall demonstrate that Project design will be protective of public health and safety and the environment, as required by 27 CCR 21190. Because of the potential for encountering buried obstructions, contingencies for relocating Auger Cast-in Place Piles and Drilled Displacement Columns during construction shall be included in the foundation design. The Project design plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Building Department prior to initiation of field activities.

Project Developer to
provide final Project
design plans meeting
criteria of GEO-2.4 for
review and approval
by City. City and
Developer to submit
such Project design
plans to regulatory
agencies per GEO-2.6
with respect to areas
underlain by landfill
and secure approvals
as required.

Project
Developer/City
City
Community
Development
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
GEO-2.5: Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan. A Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan that covers both the Project site and off-site areas shall be prepared by the Project Developer and submitted for review and approval in accordance with Mitigation Measure GEO-2.6. The Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan shall establish procedures for inspecting structures and improvements as well as evaluating the effects of settlement. It will also establish a mechanism for funding and implementing the Plan’s activities throughout the life of the Project.

Inspections that focus on documenting settlement, particularly at locations where different support systems meet, shall take place at least quarterly during the first 2 years following the completion of each phase of Project construction.

Documentation of each inspection shall be submitted to for review and approval in accordance with Mitigation Measure GEO-2.6 within 30 days of inspection completion. After 2 years, the frequency of inspections may be adjusted with written consent from each agency that approved the Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan. The Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan shall detail the qualifications and Project Developer to
provide Site Operation,
Monitoring, and
Maintenance Plan for
review and approval
by City. City and
Developer to submit
Site Operation,
Monitoring, and
Maintenance Plan to
regulatory agencies
per GEO-2.6 for areas
underlain by landfill
and secure approvals
as required. Project
Developer to submit
inspections to City for
Project
Developer/City
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Plan approval
prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits.

Inspections at
least quarterly
during the first
2 years following
the completion of
each phase of
construction.

Documentation of
each inspection
shall be submitted
within 30 days of
inspection.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 42 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
GEOLOGY AND SOILS (cont.)
responsibilities of monitoring personnel, including immediate notification of the City Building Department of any settlement that could affect the structural integrity of a building and/or structure or settlement that could create a hazard for the public (e.g., separations that create trip hazards for pedestrians). If the types of settlements are observed that could compromise structural integrity or cause hazards for the public, based on the judgment of the qualified inspector, remedial action shall be promptly completed. The Plan shall designate financial responsibility for remedial actions should the effects of settlement be identified and provide timetables for any required remedial action. All remedial action shall be overseen by the qualified geotechnical consultant designated by the Plan and approved by each agency that approved the Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan. Quarterly reports detailing inspection and remedial activities shall be submitted to each agency that approved the Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan following each inspection for review and approval. review and approval,
and to regulatory
agencies as specified in
GEO02.6 for areas
underlain by landfill,
within 30 days or
inspections.

GEO-2.6: Review and Approval by Relevant Regulatory Agencies. To the extent reports and plans required by Mitigation Measures GEO-2.1, -2.2, -2.3, -2.4 or -2.5 address the portion of the Project site overlying the Landfill, they shall be submitted jointly by the City (as owner and operator of the landfill) and the Project Developer for review and approval to the following: (i) the Local Enforcement Agency as principal landfill regulator; (ii) the Regional Water Board for approval of the issues related to the low permeability layer of the final landfill cover pursuant to 27 CCR 21990 (d) and pilings installed in or through the bottom liner of the landfill liner pursuant to 27 CCR 21990 (e)(6), and for review but not approval of other aspects of the plans and reports; (iii) to Cal Recycle for review, but not approval; and (iv) any other agency which is specifically required by applicable law to approve a particular report, plan or component thereof. To the extent reports and plans required by this mitigation measure relate to other portions of the site not overlying the Landfill, they shall be submitted by the Developer to the City, and to any agency which is specifically required by applicable law to approve a particular report, plan or component thereof, for review and approval.

Refer to GEO-2.1
through GEO-2.5
Refer to GEO2.1 through
GEO-2.5
Refer to GEO2.1 through
GEO-2.5
Refer to GEO-2.1
through GEO-2.5
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 43 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
WQ-1.1: Design and Implement Stormwater Control Measures. In compliance with Provision C.3 of the San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit and the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s 100-year peak flood requirements, post-construction stormwater controls shall be implemented to reduce total runoff rates and associated pollutant discharges.

According to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program’s C.3. Stormwater Handbook, the three methods for hydraulically sizing flow-based stormwater treatment control measures are (1) volume-based, (2) flow-based, or (3) a combination of volume-/flow-based hydraulic sizing criteria. The simplified method for sizing bioretention areas and flow-through planters, known as the “4 percent method,” is based on a runoff inflow of 0.2 inch per hour, with an infiltration rate through biotreatment soil of 5 inches per hour. The 4 percent method requires the treatment measure to be 4 percent of the impervious area that drains to it.

The design of the stormwater treatment measures is currently at the conceptual level and further details will be addressed as part of the planning, construction, and operation of the development. The treatment measures shall be designed to remove pollutants from stormwater using filtration, infiltration, and sedimentation. Because infiltration is not feasible due to the landfill, the treatment measures must be built into the structure of the development above the landfill itself. The stormwater treatment measures that provide infiltration shall be lined with an impermeable liner on the bottom and sides. Just above the liner there must be a layer of clean gravel and a network of perforated piping (underdrains). These underdrains must connect to solid drain piping at the exit of the treatment area and ultimately be connected to the storm drainage infrastructure. All of these components shall exist above the podium structure. The impermeable liner would prevent any leaks or ruptures into the landfill and structures. There shall also be perforated underdrain piping connected to solid piping at the exit of the treatment measure/planter solid piping that will connect to the storm drain infrastructure at manholes where leak monitoring can be performed. More information on the potential hazards of a leak or rupture of the stormwater treatment measures causing flooding of the landfill gas venting lines is provided in Section 3.11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The following stormwater treatment (or Low Impact Development [LID]) measures are examples that will be considered and carefully selected as part of the final design process for the different sections of the proposed development:

Project Developer to
provide to City
Stormwater
Management Report.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 44 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (cont.)
z Bioretention Areas (impermeable liner with underdrain—no infiltration into landfill)
z Flow-through Planters
z Tree Well and Media Filters
z Infiltration Trenches (impermeable liner with underdrain—no infiltration into landfill)
z Rainwater Harvesting and Reuse
z Green Roofs
z Green Streets (with bioretention, impermeable liner, and underdrain) z Pervious Pavements (impermeable liner with underdrain—no infiltration into landfill)
As noted above, a minimum of 4 percent of the site area shall be used for the stormwater treatment measures. As part of final design, these treatment measures for the Project site shall be incorporated into the aesthetics of the landscape. Some attenuation of the peak flows can be recognized, depending on the measures selected. The measures shall include an overflow to safely convey the more intense, less frequent rainfall events.

The stormwater treatment measures shall capture sufficient flows so that 100-year peak flood elevations or existing design flows within San Tomas Aquino Creek and the Guadalupe River will not increase as part of the Project. The exact reduction in 100- year peak runoff volumes and flows that the stormwater management measures will need to accommodate will be determined during the design process for the stormwater management measures and will be provided in the detailed Project Stormwater Management Plan.

Due to construction phasing, construction of interim treatment measures may be required once the 40-acre concrete pad has been constructed and before the surface of the pad is developed with new structures with their own associated post-construction stormwater treatment features. These interim measures will be reported to the San Francisco Bay Water Board. The stormwater management measures for each parcel shall be modeled during final design for buildings, parking garages, site landscaping, etc. Dynamic hydraulic modeling shall be used. Dynamic hydraulic modeling tracks the quantity and quality of runoff generated within each subcatchment as well as the flow rate, flow depth, and quality of water in each pipe and channel during a simulation period with multiple time steps. The results of the modeling shall be used to compare the proposed “permanent” stormwater peak flows and volumes for the Project with the existing peak flows and show compliance

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 45 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (cont.)
with the jurisdictional regulations. The dynamic hydraulic modeling shall consider the potential runoff volumes and rates coming from the top of the landfill. The resulting design of stormwater management measures shall be required to be sufficient to protect water quality and habitat resources along receiving waterways.

A Stormwater Management Report, including detailed hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, analysis, and conclusions, shall be prepared to document the final design of the stormwater management and storm drain system and obtain the requisite approvals.

WQ-3.1: Design New Bridge and Outfall Structures to Avoid Increase in 100- year Flow and Channel Erosion. In compliance with the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (SCVWD’s) 100-year peak flood requirements, any new bridge and new outfalls in San Tomas Aquino Creek shall be designed to avoid increases in the 100- year flow and to avoid creek bed/channel erosion. The design shall also consider erosive action or redirection of flow during more frequent flood events in compliance with the City of Santa Clara’s storm drainage design criteria10 and consistent with SCVWD’s guidance.11 The outfalls will be set at elevations high enough to ensure the location of outfalls are above sediment levels within the bottom of the creek.12 The design shall be provided to the City of Santa Clara and the SCVWD for review and approval for the Project. Construction would be done in phases. For example, the new bridge over the San Tomas Creek would not be needed until Phase 2 and outfalls to the eastside drainage ditch would not be needed until later phases. The design review approval of outfalls shall occur prior to the issuance of the building permit for the development that triggers the need for the outfall or associated construction activity, and on a schedule similar to the phases of construction.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
provide design for any
new bridge or outfalls
in San Tomas Aquino
Creek or the eastside
drainage channel for
review and approval
by City and submit to
City evidence of
approval from SCVWD.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to the
issuance of the
building permit
for the
development that
triggers the need
for the outfall or
associated
construction
activity
10 City of Santa Clara. 2015. Design Criteria for Improvements in Public Right-of-Ways and City Easements. Public Works Department. April. Available:
http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=14345. Accessed: 12/29/15. 11 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2006. User Manual: Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams. A Manual of Tools, Standards, and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara County. Prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. Originally adopted in August 2005. Revised: July 2006. 12 Outfalls and work within the SCVWD right-of-way are subject to approval and issuance of permits by the SCVWD.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 46 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (cont.)
WQ-3.2: Vegetation Removal from the Retention Basin Drainage Swale. In accordance with the Retention Basin Drainage Swale Vegetation Clearing Project, and prior to the placement of new impervious surfaces on Parcels 1 or 2, overgrown tule and cattails shall be removed from the entire length of the drainage swale to restore the swale’s flood protection capacity and protect residents and businesses. Vegetation in the drainage swale shall be mowed by hand using rotary mowers, and tule and cattails shall be cut down to 3 to 4 inches above the ground surface. The clippings shall be loaded by hand and hauled from the drainage swale to the Retention Basin where the vegetation will dry out. Once dry, the vegetation shall be transported to the Newby Island Landfill. It is estimated that initial removal of overgrown vegetation will generate approximately 300 cubic yards of debris. Prior to performance of this work, all necessary permits shall be obtained from environmental regulatory agencies for this vegetation removal, including any required compensation for loss of wetland/riparian vegetation.

Not Applicable
City and Project
Developer to execute an
agreement to reimburse
City for the one-time
costs of removing
vegetation from the
swale (including
compliance with any
permit conditions
requiring onsite actions
to do so) as needed to
restore flood protection
capacity suitable to
support the Project. City
to be responsible for
obtaining any necessary
permits and for any
maintenance of the
swale thereafter.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Agreement
executed prior to
issuance of
grading and
building permits
on Parcels 1 or 2.

Vegetation
removal complete
prior to issuance
of a certificate of
occupancy for the
first building on
Parcels 1 or 2.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-2.1: Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction. Prior to Project construction, a final Waste Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented.

This plan shall be submitted to the LEA, CalRecycle, Regional Water Board, and BAAQMD for review and approval. Specifically, the final Waste Management Plan shall contain, at a minimum, the following requirements, which are included in the draft Waste Management Plan:
z Waste excavation shall be performed in accordance with a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) designed to minimize impacts from dust, odor, and other nuisances, and assure waste is handled in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.
z During waste excavation and relocation, the worksite shall be monitored for dust, odor, or other nuisances in accordance with general landfill construction practices and the HASP.
z At the end of the working day, any exposed waste shall be covered with soil or an alternative material, such as a geosynthetic blanket, (i.e., interim cover).

Project Developer to
provide to City final,
approved Waste
Management Plan. City
to verify that final
Waste Management
Plan includes all
required components
and all necessary
approvals.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Plan approved by
pertinent agencies
must be
submitted to City
prior to issuance
of demolition,
grading, and
building permits
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 47 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.)
z Odors, should they occur, shall be controlled by application of a deodorant, masking agent, neutralizing agent, or lime, and an interim landfill cover at the end of each working day.
z A “Project Contact” shall be designated who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about dust, odors, or other nuisances associated with the waste excavation and regrading operations.
z During excavation activities, excavation areas shall be monitored using a handheld instrument calibrated to measure combustible gases (including methane), hydrogen sulfide, oxygen, and VOCs.

No hot work (e.g., welding) shall be allowed in the vicinity of excavation activities unless methane concentrations are sufficiently below the lower explosive limit of 8 percent. If methane concentrations approach 5 percent, excavation activities shall be stopped until the landfill gas collection system can be modified to reduce the methane concentrations in the excavation area. If methane levels are persistent in areas where earthwork and/or hot work activities are necessary, inert gases (e.g., nitrogen) can be introduced into affected subsurface materials to lower oxygen and methane concentrations. By introducing an inert gas into the affected area, methane and oxygen can be displaced to create insufficient oxygen concentrations to support combustion.

HAZ-4.1: Landfill Closure, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plans.13 Prior to issuance of building permits for structures within the area of the Landfill (Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4), a revised Closure Plan and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP) shall be prepared in accordance with the regulatory requirements described in 27 CCR 21790–21840 and submitted to the LEA, CalRecycle, and Regional Water Board (as required) for review and approval. In addition, a PCLUP shall be prepared in accordance with the regulatory requirements described in 27 CCR 21190 and submitted to the LEA and Regional Water Board (as required) for review and approval. Collectively, these plans shall incorporate the requirements of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4.2 through 4.6, below. In addition, the Project Developer shall continue to work with the regulatory agencies (Regional Water Board, LEA, or CalRecycle) and ensure the implementation of all elements and measures necessary to mitigate Project-related health risks to residents and commercial workers to a level below the Regional Water Board’s cumulative incremental cancer risk threshold of 1E-06 and hazard index (HI) (i.e., adverse non-cancer risk) of 1.0 established for the Project are implemented.

Project Developer to
provide to City for its
review and approval
revised Closure Plan,
Post-Closure
Maintenance Plan and
Post Closure Land Use
Plan that include
evidence that health
risks can be mitigated
to identified levels and
contain all elements of
HAZ 4.2 through 4.6.

City to submit these
Project
Developer/City
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to issuance
of grading or
building permits
within the area of
the Landfill
(Parcels 1, 2, 3,
and 4)
13 To the extent the implementation of this mitigation measure at Parcel 3 is made necessary by, or altered by, the City’s park development activities, the City shall be responsible for implementation.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 48 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.)
HAZ-4.1 (cont.) Plans to the Regional
Water Board, LEA, and
CalRecycle for their
approval. City and
Project Developer/
Master Owner
Association to
implement the actions
required by these
Plans in accordance
with the allocation of
responsibilities set
forth in the Landfill
O&M Agreement
attached to the DDA.

HAZ-4.2: Landfill Gas Collection and Removal System.14 During Project construction, the existing landfill gas collection and removal system (i.e., wells and conveyance lines) shall be systematically abandoned and replaced in conjunction with the phased Project site development while complying with applicable regulatory requirements that govern the performance of these systems. The new system shall be designed to effectively draw landfill gases (e.g., methane, hydrogen sulfide, and volatile COPCs) away from building sub-slab areas.

The system design shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, taking into account an evaluation of the following criteria: effective vacuum influence (based on pilot testing and pneumatic modeling), vacuum distribution control, oxygen management (for subsurface fire prevention), ease of maintenance, well location, effect of landfill settlement, mitigation of vapor intrusion risk, and the proposed development on the Project site. The system design shall incorporate temperature- and corrosion-resistant materials. The landfill gas collection and removal system shall be designed, operated, and maintained to control excessive gas concentrations as specified in 27 CCR 20939. The monitoring of landfill gases is described under Mitigation Measures HAZ-4.4, below.

Project Developer to
submit to City system
design for review and
approval. City to submit
system design to the
Regional Water Board,
LEA, and/or CalRecycle
for their approval, as
required by the
relevant regulations
and approved plans.

City to operate and
maintain the system in
accordance with the
allocation of
responsibilities set
forth in the Landfill
O&M Agreement
attached to the DDA.

Project
Developer/City
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to the
issuance of
grading or
building permits
within the area of
the Landfill
(Parcels 1, 2, 3,
and 4)
14 To the extent the implementation of this mitigation measure at Parcel 3 is made necessary by, or altered by, the City’s park development activities, the City shall be responsible for implementation.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 49 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.)
HAZ-4.3: Landfill Gas Protection Systems.15 During Project construction, landfill gas protection systems shall be constructed beneath the sub-slabs of structures located on Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 to remove landfill gases (e.g., methane, hydrogen sulfide, and volatile COPCs) that could otherwise accumulate and/or migrate through the sub-slab. The systems may include active gas collection or passive ventilation mechanisms and shall meet the minimum design requirements described in 27 CCR 21190. The landfill gas protection systems shall be designed, operated, and maintained to control excessive gas concentrations as specified in 27 CCR 20939. The monitoring of landfill gases is described under Mitigation Measures HAZ-4.4, below.

Project Developer to
provide plans to City
for review and
approval and “as built”
drawings to City once
work is complete.

System will be
operated by Project
Developer until a
Master Owners
Association is formed,
after with system will
be operated by Master
Owners Association.

Project
Developer/
Master Owner
Association
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to issuance
of building
permits for
Parcels 1, 2, 3, and
4, with “as built”
drawings
submitted prior to
any certificates of
occupancy on
such sites
HAZ-4.4: Landfill Gas Monitoring and Control System Maintenance.16 During Project construction and operation on Parcels 1-4, a landfill gas monitoring and control program shall be implemented in accordance with 27 CCR 20921-20939.

The gas monitoring network shall be designed by a registered civil engineer or a certified engineering geologist and shall ensure detection of the presence of landfill gas migrating beyond the disposal site permitted facility boundary and also into on-site structures. The monitoring network design shall include provisions for monitoring all structures on the Project site, including but not limited to, buildings, large subsurface vaults, or any other areas where potential landfill gas buildup may cause adverse impacts on the public health or safety or the environment.

Methods for monitoring on-site structures may include, but are not limited to:
periodic monitoring, utilizing either permanently installed monitoring probes or gas surveys, and continuous monitoring systems. A methane monitoring system shall be installed inside all buildings on the Project site. If methane gas concentrations exceed a threshold of 1.25 percent by volume in air, as described under 27 CCR 20921, the methane monitoring system shall automatically alert the Santa Clara Fire Department, who shall assess the methane conditions and, if necessary, trigger an audible fire alarm to initiate a building evacuation. In the Project Developer to
provide landfill gas
monitoring network
plans and Operations
and Maintenance Plan
to City for review and
approval. City to
submit these Plans to
the Regional Water
Board, LEA, and/or
CalRecycle for their
approval, as required
by relevant regulations
and approved plans.

City and Project
Developer/Master
Project
Developer/
Master Owners
Association/
City
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
for Parcels 1, 2, 3,
and 4
15 To the extent the implementation of this mitigation measure at Parcel 3 is made necessary by, or altered by, the City’s park development activities, the City shall be responsible for implementation.
16 To the extent the implementation of this mitigation measure at Parcel 3 is made necessary by, or altered by, the City’s park development activities, the City shall be responsible for implementation.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 50 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.)
event of an evacuation, the building shall not be reoccupied until the Santa Clara Fire Department has confirmed and approved by that: (1) concentrations of methane meet the applicable compliance requirements and (2) the landfill gas monitoring and control system is operating in a manner that ensures adequate control of methane/vapor intrusion.

The landfill gas control system shall be operated and maintained to control excessive gas concentrations as specified in 27 CCR 20939. This includes operating the landfill gas control system in such a manner as to satisfy the following requirements specified in 27 CCR 20921(a):
z The concentration of methane gas must not exceed 1.25 percent by volume in air within any portion of any on-site structures;
z The concentration of methane gas migrating from the disposal site must not exceed 5 percent by volume in air at the disposal site permitted facility boundary or an alternative boundary approved in accordance with Section 20925; and
z Trace gases shall be controlled to prevent adverse acute and chronic exposure to toxic and/or carcinogenic compounds that could result in a health risk exceedance of the Regional Water Board’s cumulative incremental cancer risk threshold of 1E- 06 and HI (i.e., adverse non-cancer risk) of 1.0 established for the Project.

In the event of an earthquake or other event that could cause a rupture or leak from overlying stormwater treatment measures (i.e., planters, vegetated areas), the landfill gas venting pipes shall be inspected at access ports within 24 hours of the event for leaks, ruptures, or any other conditions. Access ports shall be installed at select locations, to provide full coverage of the system based on system design and access constraints, within the venting layer to monitor for the presence of, and removal of, water that might flood the system in the event that water leaks from collection systems above the landfill gas mitigation system. This system would help prevent the water from further migrating into the underlying landfill gas mitigation system. The access ports will allow for use of portable moisture sensing devises to periodically monitor for moisture in the event that a leak is suspected. The access ports shall also be designed to allow for pumping of water from the interstitial space in the event that water is detected.

Owners Association to
implement the actions
required by these
Plans in accordance
with the allocation of
responsibilities set
forth in the Landfill
O&M Agreement
attached to the DDA.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 51 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.)
In addition to the monitoring and control of excessive gas concentrations to protect public health and safety and the environment, as specified in 27 CCR 20939, the landfill gas monitoring and control program shall incorporate the monitoring and control requirements for preventing subsurface fires that are described under Mitigation Measure HAZ-9.1, below.

HAZ-4.5: Building Restrictions. The Project shall prohibit the construction of enclosed basements located over refuse on Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 to minimize the risk of landfill gas accumulation. Over the landfill area, the Project shall also limit residential construction to only Parcel 4 areas located over open-air podium level garages or over at least one level of enclosed commercial space to mitigate vapor intrusion effects by increasing the free flow and exchange of air beneath the residences.

Project Developer to
submit final detailed
design plans for review
and approval by City.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Concurrent with
building permit
application
HAZ-4.6: Landfill Hazards Disclosure. Information about the existing subsurface hazardous materials conditions and the ongoing mitigation and monitoring requirements described in the PCLUP shall be included in all ground leases and space leases for space located over the Landfill. The text to be inserted shall be subject to review and approval by City.

Project Developer and
City to include
language in ground
and tenant leases for
space located over the
landfill.

Project
Developer/City
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to execution
of ground or
tenant leases
HAZ-5.1: Phase II Site Investigation. Prior to Project construction, a Phase II Site Investigation shall be performed on Parcel 5 and the tennis courts located in the southwest portion of Parcel 4 to (1) delineate the extent of soil, soil gas, and potential groundwater contamination on the site and (2) assess potential health risks posed to construction workers and future site users. The Phase II Site Investigation shall be conducted and evaluated by a licensed professional prior to construction and earthwork activities. The findings of the Phase II Site Investigation shall be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency to the extent required by applicable law. The Project Developer shall conduct any additional investigation and/or risk assessment and/or implement any remedial or risk mitigation measures required by the regulatory agency.

If additional remedial
or risk mitigation
measures are needed,
Project Developer to
submit plans to City for
review and approval.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
for Parcel 5 and
the portion of
Parcel 4 beneath
the existing tennis
courts.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 52 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.)
HAZ-5.2: Soil and Groundwater Management Plan. Construction on Parcel 5 and the tennis courts located in the southwest portion of Parcel 4 shall be conducted under a site-specific Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) to protect construction workers, the general public, and the environment from hazardous materials identified in the Phase II Site Investigation (see Mitigation Measure HAZ-5.1) and potential undocumented sources of such materials. The SGMP shall delineate specific soil and groundwater management and disposal procedures, construction worker health and safety requirements, and contingency measures in case unknown contamination is encountered during construction. The SGMP shall incorporate the soil and groundwater analytical data from the Phase II Site Investigation to ensure that soil and groundwater are stored, managed, and disposed of in a manner protective of human health and the environment, and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The SGMP shall specifically include the following:
z Procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of known soil
z and groundwater contamination identified during the Phase II Site Investigation during Project excavation and dewatering activities, respectively;
z Procedures for identifying, testing, and managing soil and groundwater suspected of containing hazardous materials (if any) that have not previously been identified at the site;
z Descriptions of required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in accordance with State and federal worker safety regulations; and
z Identification of personnel responsible for implementation of the SGMP.

City to review and
approve a Soil and
Groundwater
Management Plan
pertaining to Parcel 5
and the portion of
Parcel 4 beneath the
existing tennis courts.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
for Parcel 5 and
the portion of
Parcel 4 beneath
the existing tennis
courts
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 53 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.)
HAZ-5.3: Implement Measures Included in CCR Title 27, Section 21190(g).

Consistent with the Project Developer’s voluntary commitment, in order to mitigate gas migration into structures located within 1,000 feet of landfill, the City (as owner and operator of the landfill) and the Project Developer shall implement the following measures identified in Title 27, Section 21190(g), with respect to development on Parcel 5 and the southwest portion of Parcel 4:
(1) a geomembrane or equivalent system with low permeability to landfill gas shall be installed between the concrete floor slab of the building and subgrade; (2) a permeable layer of open graded material of clean aggregate with a minimum thickness of 12 inches shall be installed between the geomembrane and the subgrade or slab;
(3) a geotextile filter shall be utilized to prevent the introduction of fines into the permeable layer;
(4) perforated venting pipes shall be installed within the permeable layer, and shall be designed to operate without clogging;
(5) the venting pipe shall be constructed with the ability to be connected to an induced draft exhaust system;
(6) automatic methane gas sensors shall be installed within the permeable gas layer, and inside the building to trigger an audible alarm when methane gas concentrations are detected; and
(7) periodic methane gas monitoring shall be conducted inside all buildings and underground utilities in accordance with Article 6, of Subchapter 4 of this chapter (section 20920 et seq.). At a minimum, quarterly monitoring is required, but more frequent monitoring may be required by LEA (Subchapter 4, section 20933(a)).

City to review and
approve detailed
construction plans
including these
measures for Parcel 5
and the areas of Parcel
4 beneath the existing
tennis courts. Project
Developer shall submit
quarterly reports that
report methane gas
levels for review by
City.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to issuance
of building
permits for Parcel
5 and the areas of
Parcel 4 beneath
the existing tennis
courts; quarterly
monitoring
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 54 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.)
HAZ-6.1: Finalize Draft Technical Memorandum: Leachate Collection and Removal System.17 Prior to Project construction, a final Technical Memorandum:

Leachate Collection and Removal System shall be prepared and implemented as part of the PCLUP. The technical memorandum shall be submitted to the LEA for review and approval and to CalRecycle and the Regional Water Board for review and comment. Specifically, the final technical memorandum shall contain, at a minimum, the following requirements:
z During the construction phase of Parcel 3, the existing leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) risers LR-1 and LR-4 shall be protected and preserved during construction by flagging the well head locations, extending the risers, and installing a bollard around each riser.
z If LR-1 or LR-4 are damaged during construction, repairs and modifications shall be completed promptly.
z LR-1 and LR-4 shall be supported and anchored to prevent potential settlement over time and finished to grade at the end of excavation and/or completion of construction.

Ongoing operation and maintenance of the leachate recovery system shall continue during and after Project construction. The LCRS monitoring shall continue in accordance with the Regional Water Board’s WDR Order No. R2-2002-0008 for the site, which shall be revised to consider the proposed development and modifications to the landfill systems.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
submit to City for its
review and approval a
Leachate Collection
and Removal System
Technical
Memorandum. City to
submit to LEA for
review and approval
and to CalRecycle and
the Regional Water
Board for review and
comment. As part of
the PCLUPCity to
operate and maintain
the leachate recovery
system in accordance
with the allocation of
responsibilities set
forth in the Landfill
O&M Agreement
attached to the DDA.

Project
Developer/City
Department
of Public
Works
Submittal of
Memo: Prior to
issuance of
grading or
construction
permits for
Parcels 1 and 3.
17 To the extent the implementation of this mitigation measure at Parcel 3 is made necessary by, or altered by, the City’s park development activities, the City shall be responsible for implementation.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 55 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.)
HAZ-9.1: Subsurface Fire Prevention, Detection, and Response Plan.18 Prior to construction, a Subsurface Fire Prevention, Detection, and Response Plan shall be prepared that describes how subsurface heating conditions above the landfill will be monitored, prevented, and suppressed. The plan, which may be included as part of a larger planning document, shall identify responsible parties and schedules for implementing the measures described in the plan. The Project Developer shall submit the plan to the LEA, CalRecycle, and the Santa Clara Fire Department (SCFD) for review and comment. Responses to comments shall be incorporated into a final Subsurface Fire Prevention, Detection, and Response Plan from the regulatory agencies. The plan shall also incorporate the prevention, detection, and response actions described under Mitigations HAZ-9.2 and HAZ-9.3, below, unless alternative actions are approved by LEA, CalRecycle, and SCFD. The final plan shall be implemented during Project construction and operation.

Project Developer to
submit to City a
Subsurface Fire
Prevention, Detection,
and Response Plan that
has been reviewed and
commented on by
relevant agencies. The
Plan shall be
implemented
consistent with the
Landfill Operations
and Maintenance
Agreement.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Submittal of Plan
prior to issuance
of grading or
construction
permits for
Parcels 1, 2, 3, and

4. Implementation
during Project
construction and
operation
HAZ-9.2: Subsurface Fire Prevention and Detection Measures.19 The following measures may be included in whole, or in part, in the Subsurface Fire Prevention, Detection, and Response Plan, as required by the LEA, CalRecycle, and SCFD. In addition, these agencies may require additional measures.

The landfill gas collection system shall be monitored and maintained to minimize the intrusion of oxygen (i.e., air) into the landfill and prevent the overheating of waste due to aerobic decomposition. In accordance with BAAQMD monitoring requirements (Regulation 8-34), the gauge pressure, nitrogen or oxygen concentration, and temperature of landfill gas within each extraction wellhead shall be monitored once a month and evaluated to ensure the system is not overdrawing air into the landfill. The nitrogen and oxygen concentrations may be measured using a calibrated portable instrument. The landfill gas measured at each extraction well head must meet the following monitoring threshold requirements:
z Nitrogen concentrations less than 20 percent or oxygen levels less than 5 percent; and
z Maximum temperature of 140 degrees Fahrenheit.

Project Developer to
integrate these
measures into the
Subsurface Fire
Prevention, Detection,
and Response Plan as
requested by relevant
agencies.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Submittal of Plan:

Prior to issuance
of grading or
construction
permits for
Parcels 1, 2, 3, and

4. Implementation
during Project
construction and
operation
18 To the extent the implementation of this mitigation measure at Parcel 3 is made necessary by, or altered by, the City’s park development activities, the City shall be responsible for implementation.
19 To the extent the implementation of this mitigation measure at Parcel 3 is made necessary by, or altered by, the City’s park development activities, the City shall be responsible for implementation.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 56 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.)
The nitrogen and oxygen thresholds shall be used to indicate if the gas collection system is overdrawing and causing excessive ambient air infiltration into the landfill through its surface and sides. An exceedance of the maximum temperature threshold shall indicate that a subsurface fire may exist. Other evidence of a potential subsurface fire shall include the following:
z Observations of rapid settlement over a short period of time; z Smoke or smoldering odor emanating from the gas extraction system or landfill; or
z Combustion residue in extraction wells and/or headers.

The landfill gas collection system shall be adjusted to reduce well extraction rates (if necessary) to ensure the monitoring thresholds for nitrogen/oxygen and temperature are not exceeded, while continuing to ensure the control of other excessive gas concentrations in the landfill (e.g., methane and trace gases) as specified in 27 CCR 20939. In the event that one or both of the monitoring thresholds are exceeded or other evidence of a potential subsurface fire is observed, then gas samples shall be collected from the extraction wells in the affected area and submitted to a certified laboratory for analysis of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon monoxide. Analytical results for nitrogen and oxygen that exceed the monitoring thresholds shall be used as confirmation that an aerobic environment is present. Analytical results for carbon monoxide that exceed 1,000 parts per million shall be used as confirmation that a subsurface fire exists.

HAZ-9.3: Subsurface Fire Suppression. If a subsurface fire condition has been confirmed (i.e., carbon monoxide level exceed 1,000 parts per million), the LEA, CalRecycle, and SCFD shall be notified immediately. The extraction wells surrounding the subsurface fire shall be shut down temporarily to reduce oxygen levels. The extraction wells shall then be returned to active use in stages in conjunction with monitoring to determine if the subsurface fire has been suppressed. If shutting down the extraction wells does not suppress the fire and/or results in the excess accumulation of methane and other trace gases beneath structures, then the LEA, CalRecycle, and SCFD shall consider injecting a Class A foam or wetting agent or liquid carbon dioxide (which also has the added benefit of rapidly cooling the refuse/fill) into the affected area. Large amounts of water shall not be used, because water can exacerbate the fire potential, generate contaminated runoff, increase leachate, and cause slope failure.

City to ensure that
SCFD is aware of and
trained on protocols.

Project Developer
and/or City to notify
agencies if a
subsurface fire
condition is confirmed
and to implement
subsurface fire
suppression measures.

Project
Developer/City
City Planning
& Inspection;
SCFD
Prior to operation
of Project over
landfill areas for
SCFD protocols.

After confirmation
of a subsurface
fire condition as
to agency
notification
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Parcel 4 Project Planning
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 57 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing1

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
UT-3.1: Make a Fair-Share Contribution to Upgrading the Rabello and Northside Pump Station System’s Capacity. The City will conduct detailed engineering study and analysis to determine the precise size and timing needed for the required pump station capacity upgrades to address overcapacity due to projected cumulative development. The City will implement the required capacity upgrades and the Developer will fund its fair share of such upgrades. The City shall determine the fair- share cost contribution for the Project based on the Project’s percent of wastewater flow cumulative capacity needs above the current pump capacity (based on conceptual planning to date, that fair share is estimated as 27 percent of 2035 cumulative overcapacity amount). The City may require the Developer to fund the design and construction of the conveyance capacity upgrades to the Rabello and Northside Sanitary Sewer Pump Stations concurrent with construction of Phase 2 of the Project; the pump station upgrades would be designed to address overcapacity due to projected cumulative development. If the Developer is required to fund pump station upgrade costs, with the exception of costs attributable to the Project’s fair share contribution to the upgrade, the City would reimburse the Developer for the design and construction costs through first (a) refunding the Project’s Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fees already paid by Developer or crediting those fees when due and (b) providing to Developer Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fees collected from developers of projects that would use the Rabello and Northside Sanitary Sewer Pump Stations.

Conduct a detailed
engineering study and
analysis to determine
the precise size and
timing needed for the
required pump station
capacity upgrades to
address overcapacity
due to projected
cumulative
development. Project
Developer to
contribute fair-share,
and potentially front
costs of full upgrade.

Department of
Public Works
City Planning
& Inspection
Conduct study
prior to
construction of
Phase 2 of the
Project, fund prior
to issuance of first
building permit
for Phase 2 of the
Project or later as
otherwise
determined
necessary by City;
if Developer to
fund full pump
station upgrade
costs, Developer
and City enter
funding and
reimbursement
agreement prior
to upgrade
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 58 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
Related Santa Clara DAP 1, Phase 1 Project – Secondary Impacts for Intersection Improvements Planning/CEQA File # PLN2019-14186
(PLN2014-10554/CEQ2014-01180) PLN2014-10554/CEQ2014-01180 State Clearinghouse # 2014072078
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing

TRANSPORTATION
IM-TRA-1: Prepare and Implement a Construction Traffic Control Plan. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the construction contractor will develop the traffic control plan in accordance with the appropriate jurisdiction’s policies and submit for approval. The plan will be implemented throughout the course of construction and may include, but will not be limited to, the following elements. z Limit truck access to the intersection during peak commute times (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 pm.).
z Require that written notification be provided to contractors regarding appropriate
z routes to and from the intersection, and the weight and speed limits on local roads used to access the intersection.
z Provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.
z Provide adequate parking for construction employees, site visitors, and inspectors as feasible.
z Maintain bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation during Project construction where safe to do so. If construction encroaches on a bike lane, warning signs will be posted that indicate bicycles and vehicles are sharing the roadway. If construction encroaches on a sidewalk, a safe detour will be provided for pedestrians at the nearest crosswalk.
z Require traffic controls in the vicinity of the intersection, including flagpersons with bright orange or red vests and using a “Stop/Slow” paddle to control oncoming traffic.
z Post standard construction warning signs in advance of the construction area and at any intersection that provides access to the construction area. z Repair or restore the road right-of-way to its original condition or better upon completion of the work.

Project Developer to
prepare and submit a
Construction Traffic
Control Plan for the
purpose of managing
traffic and reducing
traffic congestion
during construction.

City to review and
approve Plan.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Secondary Impacts for Intersection Improvements
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 59 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing

AIR QUALITY
IM-AQ-1: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust Emissions. The Project Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the specific construction mitigation measures below to reduce fugitive dust. Emissions reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the measures below. Alternative measures may be identified by the Project Developer or its contractor, as appropriate, provided that they are as effective as the measures below. Alternative measures shall be submitted to the City for approval. z All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. If water infiltration into landfill refuse layers is a concern, non-toxic soil stabilizers may be used instead. z All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph for a period of 2 hours or more. z Windbreaks (e.g., fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Windbreaks shall have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
z Exposed ground areas that are to be reworked more than 1 month after initial grading should be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. If grass seeding is not feasible, then non-toxic soil stabilizers may be used.
z All construction trucks and equipment, including tires, involved in ground disturbance or transit through loose soil areas shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
z Site accesses to a distance of 25 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. Alternatively, a rumble plate may be used in place of chips, mulch, or gravel. z Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.

Project Developer to
provide to City
applicable provisions
of construction
contracts specifying
construction mitigation
measures to reduce
construction- related
dust emissions.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
IM-AQ-2: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Exhaust Emissions. The Project Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the specific construction mitigation measures below to reduce equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the measures below. Alternative measures may be identified by the Project Developer or its contractor, as appropriate, provided that they are as effective as the measures below. Alternative measures shall be submitted to the City for approval.

Project Developer to
provide to City
applicable provisions of
construction contracts
construction mitigation
measures to reduce
construction-related
exhaust emissions.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Secondary Impacts for Intersection Improvements
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 60 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
AIR QUALITY (cont.)
z Idling time of diesel powered construction equipment shall be limited to 2 minutes.
z Ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction between 2017 and 2022 is equipped with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 3 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment for which an EPA Tier 3 engine is not available. Consistent with advancements of the statewide fleet average, the Project Developer shall ensure that all off-road dieselz powered equipment used during construction between 2023 and 2030 is equipped with EPA Tier 4 engines. This requirement will ensure construction equipment remains cleaner than the fleet-wide average.
z Ensure that all on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 19,500 pounds or greater used at the Project site comply with EPA 2007 on-road emissions standards for particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) (0.01 grams per brake horsepower-hour [g/bhp- hr] and 0.20 g/bhp-hr, respectively). z Notwithstanding the above requirements, all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall meet the California Air Resources Board’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines and shall employ Best Available Control Technology for reductions in NOX and particulate matter (PM) emissions if more stringent than the requirements above.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
IM-GHG-1: Utilize Alternative Fuels during Construction. Require construction contractors to use alternative fuels in at least 30 percent of the construction equipment that uses diesel fuel. Alternative fuels may include electricity, compressed natural gas (CNG), biodiesel (B-20), or renewable diesel, such as diesel high- performance renewable (HPR).

Project Developer to
provide to City
applicable provisions
of construction
contracts requiring
adequate use of
alternative fuels.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Secondary Impacts for Intersection Improvements
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 61 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing

CULTURAL RESOURCES
IM-CR-1: Conduct Cultural Resource Investigations and Protect and Recover Significant Resources. The Lead Agency shall conduct a cultural resource investigation that includes a background records search (including a search of records from Sonoma State and historical societies, contact with Native American representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and site pedestrian surveys) for the areas of ground disturbance from each roadway improvement. If significant known or suspected sites are discovered within the Project footprint and would be disturbed by the Project, then a cultural resource treatment plan shall be prepared, defining Project monitoring and resource recovery and curation requirements concerning any encountered cultural resources.

Lead Agency to conduct
a cultural resource
investigation that
includes a background
records search during
ground disturbance. If
necessary, Lead Agency
to prepare and execute
cultural resource
treatment plan.

City Planning &
Inspection
Division
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
IM-CR-2: Stop Work if Cultural Resources Are Encountered during GroundDisturbing Activities. In the event that cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work within proximity of the find shall temporarily halt so that the archaeological monitor can examine the find and document its provenience and nature (e.g., with drawings, photographs, written descriptions).

The archaeological monitor shall then direct that the work proceed if the find is deemed to be insignificant, continue elsewhere, or cease until adequate mitigation measures are adopted. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the appropriate jurisdiction, shall develop a treatment plan, which could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. If data recovery is determined to be appropriate, excavation shall target recovery of an appropriate amount of information from archaeological deposits to determine the potential of the resource to address specific research questions. If it occurs, data recovery shall emphasize the understanding of the archaeological deposit’s structure, including features and stratification, horizontal and vertical extent, and content, including the nature and quantity of artifacts.

Archaeological monitor
(retained by the Project
Developer), as
necessary, and in
consultation with the
City, develop a
Treatment Plan.

Project
Developer/
Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
During
construction if
cultural
resources are
encountered
IM-CR-3: Stop Work if Human Remains Are Encountered during GroundDisturbing Activities. If human remains are discovered (in either an archaeological or construction context), all work within proximity of the remains shall stop so that the archaeological monitor can examine the remains. The County Coroner shall be notified to make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the NAHC immediately. The NAHC shall notify those persons it believes are most likely descended from the deceased Native American. Once the NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Project Developer to
submit to City
applicable provisions
of construction
contracts including
applicable
requirements.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
County
Coroner/
NAHC
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Secondary Impacts for Intersection Improvements
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 62 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
IM-BIO-1: Replace Removed Trees. The Project Developer shall replace all trees removed as part of the intersection improvements in accordance with the tree preservation policies or ordinances of the jurisdiction in which the improvements are constructed.

Project Developer to
provide to City report
documenting plans to
replace all trees
removed as part of the
intersection
improvements.

Project
Developer
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
IM-BIO-2: Preconstruction Surveys. For all intersections that have trees within the intersection footprint or that will remove trees, the Project Developer and its contractors shall avoid conducting vegetation removal during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1–August 31), if feasible. If construction activities must commence during the migratory bird nesting season, the Project Developer shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nests of migratory birds.

Surveys for nesting migratory birds shall occur within 3 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbance and vegetation removal.

If an active nest is discovered, a no-disturbance buffer zone around the nest tree or shrub (or, for ground-nesting species, the nest itself) shall be established. The nodisturbance zone shall be marked with flagging or fencing that is easily identified by the construction crew and shall not affect the nesting bird or attract predators to the nest location. In general, the minimum buffer zone widths shall be as follows:
50 feet (radius) for non-raptor ground-nesting species, 50 feet (radius) for nonraptor shrub- and tree-nesting species, and 300 feet (radius) for raptor species.

Buffer widths may be modified based on discussion with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Buffers shall remain in place as long as the nest is active or young remain in the area and are dependent on the nest. If a burrowing owl nest is identified during preconstruction surveys, no-activity buffers will adhere to the recommendations in the 2012 California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

Project Developer to
provide to City
provisions of
construction contracts
including pertinent
requirements. If
construction occurs in
the nesting season,
Project Developer to
submit to City
agreement with
qualified wildlife
biologist requiring
surveys and protective
measures.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor/
Qualified
wildlife
biologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
for biologist and
construction
contracts; prior
to commencement of grading
for biologist
agreements; and
prior to ground
disturbance for
surveys
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Secondary Impacts for Intersection Improvements
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 63 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
IM-BIO-3: Site-Specific Surveys and Species/Habitat Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation Measures. For intersections with the potential to have sensitive habitats, the Project Developer, in consultation with a qualified biologist, shall conduct site-specific surveys for special-status species, sensitive habitats, wetlands and waters of the United States, and nesting birds. If found, the Project Developer and its contractor shall implement avoidance and minimization measures, where feasible. Where avoidance is not possible, the Project Developer shall compensate for lost habitat at a minimum 1:1 basis. Compensation for lost habitat will be determined in consultation with CDFW/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as appropriate. The Project Developer shall obtain all required permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CDFW, and USFWS, as appropriate. The Project Developer shall provide buffer fencing and species relocation, as necessary, if permitted by CDFW/USFWS. Additionally, if special-status species or habitats are identified during the site-specific surveys, a Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program for construction personnel will be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the Project Developer. The program will provide workers with information on their responsibilities with regard to the special-status species. The training will provide a physical description of the special- status species that have potential to occur and be affected by construction activities to each construction crew prior to the initiation of the crew’s construction activities. The worker awareness training will also detail each species’ habitat and legal protections, a photo of relevant species, and contact information for the primary biologist.

Project Developer to
conduct site-specific
surveys for specialstatus species, sensitive
habitats, wetlands and
waters of the United
States, and nesting
birds and provide to
City for review and
approval. If special
status species are
found, Project
Developer to submit
documentation to City
detailing protective
measures for review
and approval.

Project
Developer/
Qualified
biologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
IM-GEO-1: Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation. Prior to construction of any intersection improvement that requires retaining walls (or disturbance of existing retaining wall), disturbance or placement of fill, substantial excavation below grade, establishment of new slopes, and/or placement of new structures above or below grade, the Project Developer shall prepare a geotechnical investigation to evaluate the potential for geologic, seismic, and soil risks. The geotechnical investigation shall include recommendations to abate any potential risks. If risks are identified, the Project Developer shall implement the recommendations included in the geotechnical investigation.

Project Developer to
provide to City
geotechnical
investigation for review
and approval. City and
Developer to submit
such report to regulatory
agencies and secure
approval as required.

Project Developer to
incorporate resulting
measures into project
plans.

Project
Developer/City
City Planning
and
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Secondary Impacts for Intersection Improvements
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 64 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
IM-WQ-1: Prepare a Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report. Prior to construction of any intersection improvement, the Project Developer shall prepare a hydrology and water quality technical report to evaluate the existing drainage and stormwater conditions at the subject intersections. The technical report shall include recommendations for drainage and stormwater controls to minimize impacts related to changes in drainage patterns that would result from the intersection improvements. The Project Developer shall be required to implement the report’s recommendations.

Project Developer to
provide to City a
hydrology and water
quality technical report
to evaluate the existing
drainage and
stormwater conditions
at the subject
intersections for
review and approval.

Project
Developer
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
IM-HAZ-1: Prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Prior to construction of any intersection improvement involving ground disturbance of acquired property, the Project Developer shall conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Where the potential to encounter hazardous materials or waste is identified, the Project Developer shall prepare and implement a soil/groundwater handing plan that identifies measures to properly dispose of contaminated materials. Measures could include worker education and training, as appropriate, and site- specific controls to avoid risks to workers and adjacent residents or others.

Project Developer to
submit Phase I
Environmental Site
Assessment to City for
review and approval.

Project Developer to
implement soil/
groundwater handling
plan to City for review
and approval.

Project
Developer
Department
of Public
Works
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 65 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
Related Santa Clara DAP 1, Phase 1 Project – Secondary Impacts Planning/CEQA File # PLN2019-14186 (PLN2014-10554/CEQ2014-01180) State Clearinghouse # 2014072078
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing

TRANSPORTATION
SW-TRA-1: Prepare and Implement a Construction Traffic Control Plan. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the construction contractor will develop the traffic control plan in accordance with the City’s policies and submit for approval. The plan will be implemented throughout the course of construction and may include, but will not be limited to, the following elements:
z Limit truck access to the soundwall site during peak commute times (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).
z Require that written notification be provided to contractors regarding appropriate routes to and from the soundwall and the weight and speed limits on local roads that would be used to access the soundwall site. z Provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
prepare and submit a
Construction Traffic
Control Plan for the
purpose of managing
traffic and reducing
traffic congestion during
construction. City to
review and approve
Plan.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
Department of
Public Works
Prior to
grading and
building
permit
issuance.
z Provide adequate parking for construction workers, site visitors, and inspectors as feasible.

z Maintain bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation during Project construction where safe to do so. If construction encroaches on a bike lane, warning signs will be posted that indicate that bicycles and vehicles are sharing the roadway. If construction encroaches on a sidewalk, a safe detour will be provided for pedestrians at the nearest crosswalk.

z Require traffic controls in the vicinity of the soundwall, including flagpersons with bright orange or red vests and using a “Stop/Slow” paddle to control oncoming traffic.

z Post standard construction warning signs in advance of the construction area and at any soundwall that provides access to the construction area.

z Repair or restore the road right-of-way to its original condition or better upon completion of the work.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Secondary Impacts
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 66 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing

AIR QUALITY
SW-AQ-1: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust Emissions. The Project Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the specific construction mitigation measures below to reduce fugitive dust. Emission reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the measures below.

Alternative measures may be identified by the Project Developer or its contractor, as appropriate, provided that they are as effective as the measures below. Alternative measures shall be submitted to the City for approval.
z All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. If water infiltration into landfill refuse layers is a concern, non-toxic soil stabilizers may be used instead. z All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph for a period of 2 hours or more. z Windbreaks (e.g., fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Windbreaks shall have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
z Exposed ground areas that are to be reworked more than 1 month after initial grading should be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. If grass seeding is not feasible, then non-toxic soil stabilizers may be used.
z All construction trucks and equipment, including tires, involved in ground disturbance or transit through loose soil areas shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
z Site accesses to a distance of 25 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. Alternatively, a rumble plate may be used in place of chips, mulch, or gravel. z Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
City applicable
provisions of
construction contracts
specifying construction
mitigation measures to
reduce constructionrelated dust emissions.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Secondary Impacts
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 67 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
AIR QUALITY (cont.)
SW-AQ-2: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Exhaust Emissions. The Project Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the specific construction mitigation measures below to reduce equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the measures below. Alternative measures may be identified by the Project Developer or its contractor, as appropriate, provided that they are as effective as the measures below. Alternative measures shall be submitted to the City for approval.
z Idling time of diesel powered construction equipment shall be limited to 2 minutes.
z The Project Developer shall ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction between 2017 and 2022 is equipped with U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 3 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment for which an EPA Tier 3 engine is not available. Consistent with advancements of the statewide fleet average, the Project Developer shall ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction between 2023 and 2030 is equipped with EPA Tier 4 engines. This requirement will ensure that construction equipment remains cleaner than the fleet-wide average.
z The Project Developer shall ensure that all on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 19,500 pounds or greater used at the Project site comply with EPA 2007 on-road emissions standards for particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) (0.01 grams per brake horsepower-hour [g/bhp-hr] and 0.20 g/bhp-hr, respectively).
z Notwithstanding the above requirements, all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall meet the California Air Resources Board’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines and shall employ Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and particulate matter (PM) if more stringent than the requirements above.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
provide to City applicant
provisions of
construction contracts
specifying construction
mitigation measures to
reduce constructionrelate exhaust
emissions.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Secondary Impacts
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 68 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing

CULTURAL RESOURCES
SW-CR-1: Conduct Cultural Resource Investigations and Protect and Recover Significant Resources. The improvement Lead Agency shall conduct a cultural resource investigation of the areas of ground disturbance associated with the soundwall that includes a background records search (including a search of records from Sonoma State and historical societies, contact with Native American representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission [NAHC], and site pedestrian surveys) for the areas of ground disturbance from each roadway improvement. If significant known or suspected sites are discovered within the Project footprint and would be disturbed by the Project, then a cultural resource treatment plan shall be prepared, defining Project monitoring and resource recovery and curation requirements concerning any encountered cultural resources.

Not Applicable
City to conduct a
cultural resource
investigation that
includes a background
records search during
ground disturbance. If
necessary, City to
prepare and execute
cultural resource
treatment plan.

City Planning &
Inspection
Division
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits
SW-CR-2: Stop Work if Cultural Resources Are Encountered during GroundDisturbing Activities. In the event that cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work within proximity of the find shall temporarily halt so that the archaeological monitor can examine the find and document its provenience and nature (e.g., withdrawings, photographs, written descriptions). The archaeological monitor shall then direct that the work proceed if the find is deemed to be insignificant, continue elsewhere, or cease until adequate mitigation measures are adopted. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the appropriate jurisdiction, shall develop a treatment plan, which could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. If data recovery is determined to be appropriate, excavation shall target recovery of an appropriate amount of information from archaeological deposits to determine the potential of the resource to address specific research questions. If it occurs, data recovery shall emphasize the understanding of the archaeological deposit’s structure, including features and stratification, horizontal and vertical extent, and content, including the nature and quantity of artifacts.

Not Applicable
Archaeological monitor
(retained by the Project
Developer), as
necessary, and in
consultation with the
City, develop a
Treatment Plan.

Project
Developer/
Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
During
construction if
cultural
resources are
encountered
SW-CR-3: Stop Work if Human Remains Are Encountered during GroundDisturbing Activities. If human remains are discovered (in either an archaeological or construction context), all work within proximity of the remains shall stop so that the archaeological monitor can examine the remains. The County Coroner shall be notified to make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the NAHC immediately. The NAHC shall notify those persons it believes are most likely descended from the deceased Native American. Once the NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
submit to City
applicable provisions of
construction contracts
including applicable
requirements.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor
County
Coroner/
NAHC
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Secondary Impacts
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 69 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
SW-BIO-1: Replace Removed Trees on a 2:1 Basis. The Project Developer shall replace all trees removed as part of soundwall construction at a minimum of 2:1, or more, as required by the local tree ordinance.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
provide to City report
documenting plans to
replace all trees
removed at a 2:1 ratio
for review and approval.

Project
Developer
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits
SW-BIO-2: Preconstruction Surveys. The Project Developer and its contractors shall avoid conducting vegetation removal during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1–August 31) if feasible. If construction activities must commence during the migratory bird nesting season, the Project Developer shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nests of migratory birds. Surveys for nesting migratory birds shall occur within 3 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbance and vegetation removal.

If an active nest is discovered, a no-disturbance buffer zone around the nest tree or shrub (or, for ground-nesting species, the nest itself) shall be established. The nodisturbance zone shall be marked with flagging or fencing that is easily identified by the construction crew and shall not affect the nesting bird or attract predators to the nest location. In general, the minimum buffer zone widths shall be as follows: 50 feet (radius) for non-raptor ground-nesting species, 50 feet (radius) for non-raptor shrub- and tree-nesting species, and 300 feet (radius) for raptor species. Buffer widths may be modified based on discussion with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Buffers shall remain in place as long as the nest is active or young remain in the area and are dependent on the nest. If a burrowing owl nest is identified during pre-construction surveys, no-activity buffers will adhere to the recommendations in the 2012 California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
provide to City
provisions of
construction contracts
including pertinent
requirements. If
construction occurs in
the nesting season,
Project Developer to
submit to City
agreement with
qualified wildlife
biologist requiring
surveys and protective
measures.

Project
Developer/
Project
Contractor/
Qualified
wildlife
biologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits for
biologist and
construction
contracts;
prior to
commencement of
grading for
biologist
agreements;
and prior to
ground
disturbance
for surveys
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Secondary Impacts
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 70 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
SW-BIO-3: Site-Specific Surveys and Species/Habitat Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation Measures. The Project Developer, in consultation with a qualified biologist, shall conduct a site-specific surveys for special-status species, sensitive habitats, wetlands and waters of the United States, and nesting birds. If found, the Project Developer and its contractor shall implement avoidance and minimization measures, where feasible. Where avoidance is not possible, the Project Developer shall compensate for lost habitat on a minimum 1:1 basis. Compensation for lost habitat will be determined in consultation with CDFW/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as appropriate. The Project Developer shall obtain all required permits from the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CDFW and USFWS as appropriate. The Project Developer shall provide buffer fencing and species relocation, as necessary, if permitted by CDFW/USFWS. Additionally, if special-status species or habitats are identified during the site-specific surveys, a Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program for construction personnel will be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the Project Developer. The program will provide workers with information on their responsibilities with regard to the special-status species. The training will provide a physical description of the specialstatus species that have potential to occur and be affected by construction activities to each construction crew prior to the initiation of the crew’s construction activities. The worker awareness training will also provide details regarding each species’ habitat and legal protections, a photo of relevant species, and contact information for the primary biologist.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
conduct site-specific
surveys for specialstatus species, sensitive
habitats, wetlands and
waters of the United
States, and nesting birds
and provide to City for
review and approval. If
special status species
are found, Project
Developer to submit
documentation to City
detailing protective
measures for review
and approval.

Project
Developer/
Qualified
biologist
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
SW-GEO-1: Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation. Prior to construction of the soundwall, the Project Developer shall prepare a geotechnical investigation to evaluate the potential for geologic, seismic, and soil risks. The geotechnical investigation shall include recommendations to abate any potential risks. If risks are identified, the Project Developer shall implement the recommendations included in the geotechnical investigation.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
provide to City
geotechnical investigation
for review and approval.

City and Developer to
submit such report to
regulatory agencies and
secure approval as
required. Project
Developer to incorporate
resulting measures into
project plans.

Project
Developer/City
City Planning
and
Inspection
Division
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits
City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Secondary Impacts
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 71 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
SW-WQ-1: Prepare a Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report. Prior to construction of the soundwall, the Project Developer shall prepare a hydrology and water quality technical report to evaluate the existing drainage and stormwater conditions at the soundwall site. The technical report shall include recommendations for drainage and stormwater controls to minimize impacts related to changes in drainage patterns that would result from the soundwall. The Project Developer shall be required to implement the report’s recommendations.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
provide to City a
hydrology and water
quality technical report
to evaluate the existing
drainage and
stormwater conditions
at the soundwall site for
review and approval.

Project
Developer
City Planning
& Inspection
Division
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
SW-HAZ-1: Prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Prior to construction of the soundwall, the Project Developer shall conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Where the potential to encounter hazardous materials or waste is identified, the Project Developer shall prepare and implement a soil/groundwater handing plan that identifies measures to properly dispose of contaminated materials. Measures could include worker education and training, as appropriate, and site-specific controls to avoid risks to workers and adjacent residents or others.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
submit Phase I
Environmental Site
Assessment to City.

Project Developer to
implement soil/
groundwater handling
plan to City for review
and approval.

Project
Developer
Department of
Public Works
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
SW-UT-1: Identify Underground and Overhead Utilities and Provide Coordination with Utility Providers. Prior to construction of the soundwall, the Project Developer shall identify all underground and overhead utilities within the footprint of the soundwall. If utilities are present, the Project Developer shall coordinate with the appropriate utility owners regarding utility shutoff during construction and relocation, as necessary.

Not Applicable
Project Developer to
identify all underground
and overhead utilities
within the footprint of the
soundwall and provide
documentation to City of
coordination with the
appropriate utility owners
regarding utility shutoff
during construction and
relocation for review and
approval.

City Planning &
Inspection
City Planning
& Inspection
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 72 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
EXHIBIT MMRP-1
Related Santa Clara DAP 1, Phase 1 Project – Intersection Mitigation Implementation Planning/CEQA File # PLN2019-14186
(PLN2014-10554/CEQ2014-01180)
State Clearinghouse # 2014072078
With Each Development Area Plan
Each DAP application must include: (1) a calculation of the number of vehicle trips projected to result from development proposed in the DAP using the methods and trip generation rates in the Final EIR (adjusted as appropriate for the success of TDM measures), that accounts for the site design, density and diversity of proposed land uses of the current DAP application and previous DAP applications, (2) the vehicle trips allocated by building and summarized by land use, and (3) a site access analysis (including a simulation, if needed, as determined by the Director of Community Development or at the applicant’s discretion) to determine which site access improvements should be constructed to serve the development proposed in the DAP.

The City (with assistance of consultants as desired) will peer review the data in the application and will determine at DAP approval for the development proposed in the DAP (1) the number of trips projected to result and the allocation of such trips by building and/or uses, and (2) the site access improvements required and the trip thresholds or development stages at which those improvements must be constructed.

As Development Occurs
The Project Trip thresholds set forth in the table below, Intersection Mitigation Sensitivity Analysis Results: Full Funding Responsibility, establish the number of Project Trips at which each of the required intersection mitigation measures that are wholly the Project’s responsibility to implement must be in place. The Project Phase column of the table is informational and not controlling.

Prior to the issuance of each building permit for a new building, using the calculated number of vehicle trips from the DAP application, Developer will calculate and submit to City the cumulative number of Project trips that will result from all prior development within the Project for which building permits have been issued plus the proposed new building. If the cumulative number of Project Trips meet or exceed any of the intersection Project Trip thresholds, the mitigation measures identified for each of those intersections shall be completed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the building for which the new permit is being sought, except that, for Intersections 48, 55, 57, 82, 84, 109 and 123, Developer will instead fund the mitigation measures at the costs specified in the table below, Costs for Certain Full Funding Responsibility Improvements, prior to the issuance of the pertinent building permit. Any building permits for renovations, remodeling or changes in use to previously permitted and occupied buildings prior to the completion of all Full Funding Responsibility intersection mitigations that result in net new vehicle trips will be subject to the same process.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each new building, the Developer shall pay to City a transportation fair share fee of $2,474.18 per PM peak hour trip based on the calculated number of vehicle trips for each new building. The per trip fair share fee was determined by summing the Project’s fair share of the estimated costs of mitigation measures for impacts to intersections located in the Cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, Sunnyvale, and those under the jurisdiction of the County of Santa Clara, totaling $14,292,901 plus the Project’s voluntary contribution to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for impacts to freeway segments in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties in the amount of $16,164,220, divided by the 12,310 PM peak hour trips projected to be generated by the Project. The fee will be allocated among pertinent jurisdictions as follows: VTA 53.07%; County of Santa Clara 32.97%; City of San Jose 13.25%; City of Sunnyvale 0.11%; and City of Santa Clara 0.60%. Any building permits for renovations, remodeling or changes in use to previously permitted and occupied buildings that result in net new vehicle trips will be subject to the fee on the basis of net new PM peak hour vehicle trips until the full amount of the combined fair share fee and voluntary contribution of $30,457,121 has been paid, after which no additional fee shall be paid. Site access improvements will be built as required by DAP conditions of approval.

Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 73 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
EXHIBIT MMRP-1
Related Santa Clara DAP 1, Phase 1 Project – Intersection Mitigation Sensitivity Analysis Results: Full Funding Responsibility Planning/CEQA File # PLN2019-14186 (PLN2014-10554/CEQ2014-01180) State Clearinghouse # 2014072078
ID Intersection Jurisdiction/CMP20 Mitigation Measure21 Impact Peak Hour
Project
Trips
Project
Phase
22 Agnew Road-De La Cruz
Boulevard/Montague
Expressway
Santa Clara County
(CMP) Partial Mitigation: Add a second northbound left-turn lane. AM 450 Phase 1 54 Lawrence Expressway/
Benton Street Santa Clara County Partial Mitigation: Add a second southbound left-turn lane and a second eastbound left-turn lane. AM 2,240 Phase 2 55 Lawrence Expressway/
Homestead Road
Santa Clara County
(CMP)
Add a third eastbound through lane and a third westbound through lane (Yahoo! Santa Clara Campus TIA, August 2009; City of Sunnyvale Citywide Deficiency Plan, September 2005; and City of Santa Clara Traffic Mitigation Program, June 2011).

AM 2,240 Phase 2
76 San Tomas Expressway/
Walsh Avenue Santa Clara County Partial Mitigation: Add a second eastbound left-turn lane. AM 2,240 Phase 2 82 San Tomas Expressway/
Pruneridge Avenue Santa Clara County Partial Mitigation: Add a second northbound left-turn lane. AM 2,240 Phase 2 8 Great America Parkway/
Tasman Drive* Santa Clara (CMP) Partial Mitigation: Add a southbound right-turn lane and add a third westbound left-turn lane. PM 2,610 Phase 2 48 Lawrence Expressway/
US 101 SB Ramps Santa Clara County Convert eastbound left-turn lane to a shared left-/right-turn lane. PM 2,610 Phase 2 59 Great America Parkway/
Yerba Buena (Great
America) Way
Santa Clara
Partial Mitigation: Add a second westbound right-turn lane with an overlap phase and a second southbound left-turn lane.

PM 3,650 Phase 2
60 Great America Parkway/
Old Mountain ViewAlviso Road Santa Clara Partial Mitigation: Add a second eastbound left-turn lane. PM 3,650 Phase 2 71 Bowers Avenue/Central
Expressway
Santa Clara County
(CMP)
Partial Mitigation: Add third southbound left-turn lane and third eastbound left- turn lane.**
PM 3,650 Phase 2
20 CMP = Congestion Management Program intersection (VTA). 21 Partial Mitigation: The proposed mitigation measure mitigates the impact at one but not the other peak hour or reduces the delay but not enough to mitigate the impact.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Intersection Mitigation Sensitivity Analysis Results: Full Funding Responsibility Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 74 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
ID Intersection Jurisdiction/CMP20 Mitigation Measure21 Impact Peak Hour
Project
Trips
Project
Phase
57 Great America Parkway/
SR 237 WB Ramps
San José (CMP)22 Add third westbound left-turn lane and associated receiving lane under underpass. Add a second westbound right-turn lane. Include safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian facilities along Great America Parkway. Intersections #58 and #123 would also need to be modified to accommodate these intersection improvements.23
AM 2,690 Phase 3
58 Great America Parkway/
SR 237 EB Ramps
Santa Clara (CMP) Add third southbound through lane and a second eastbound right-turn lane.24
AM 2,690 Phase 3
123 Great America Parkway/
Gold Street Connector
San José Add a second northbound right-turn lane.25 AM 2,690 Phase 3 79 San Tomas Expressway/
Benton Street*
Santa Clara County Add a second eastbound left-turn lane. AM 3,140 Phase 3 120 De La Cruz Boulevard/
Laurelwood Road
Santa Clara Reconfigure the northbound and southbound approaches to include one left-turn lane, one through, and one shared through/right-turn lane; change the phasing from split to protected in the northbound and southbound directions; and increase cycle length.

AM 3,140 Phase 3
14 Lick Mill Boulevard/
Tasman Drive
Santa Clara Partial Mitigation: Reconfigure northbound and southbound approach to two left- turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. Change the northbound/southbound signal phasing from split to protective. Add a second westbound leftturn lane.

PM 4,690 Phase 3
23 Lick Mill Boulevard/
Montague Expressway
Santa Clara County Add a third southbound left-turn lane. PM 5,730 Phase 4 96 Lafayette Street/
Montague Expressway
WB Ramps
Santa Clara Add second westbound right-turn lane with an overlap phase and a second southbound left-turn lane.

AM 6,730 Phase 7
22 An LOS D threshold is used for study intersections within San José, including CMP designated intersections. Santa Clara County intersections in San José use an LOS E threshold. 23 Intersection #58 (Great America Parkway/SR 237 EB Ramps) and #123 (Great America Parkway/Gold Street Connector) are not impacted intersections, but would need to be modified to accommodate the improvements at Intersection #57 (Great America Parkway/SR 237 WB Ramps). 24 Intersection #58 (Great America Parkway/SR 237 EB Ramps) and #123 (Great America Parkway/Gold Street Connector) are not impacted intersections, but would need to be modified to accommodate the improvements at Intersection #57 (Great America Parkway/SR 237 WB Ramps). 25 Intersection #58 (Great America Parkway/SR 237 EB Ramps) and #123 (Great America Parkway/Gold Street Connector) are not impacted intersections, but would need to be modified to accommodate the improvements at Intersection #57 (Great America Parkway/SR 237 WB Ramps).

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Intersection Mitigation Sensitivity Analysis Results: Full Funding Responsibility Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 75 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
ID Intersection Jurisdiction/CMP20 Mitigation Measure21 Impact Peak Hour
Project
Trips
Project
Phase
84 Gold Street/Gold Street
Connector
San José26 Convert northbound through lane to a shared left-turn/ through lane, add a second northbound left-turn lane and second eastbound right-turn lane. (move pedestrian crossing to north leg of intersection).

AM 7,180 Phase 7
114 Calle Del Sol/Calle Del
Luna
Santa Clara Signalize. PM 8,340 Phase 7
90 Lafayette Street/Calle De
Luna
Santa Clara Reconstruct the westbound approach to include two left-turn lanes and one right- turn lane.

AM 8,970 Phase 8
13 Calle Del Sol/Tasman
Drive*
Santa Clara Add a westbound right-turn lane. Reconfigure southbound approaches to include two left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane with overlap phase.

PM 9,380 Phase 8
73 Bowers Avenue/Monroe
Street
Santa Clara Add a northbound and a southbound left-run lane. Change the northbound and southbound from split to protected left-turn phasing.

PM 10.420 Phase 8
94 Lafayette Street/Agnew
Road
Santa Clara Add a second eastbound left-turn lane and a second southbound left-turn lane.

PM 10,420 Phase 8
109 Liberty Street/Taylor
Street
San José27 Signalize.

Off-setting Mitigation: Construct traffic control devices to divert traffic from entering the Alviso neighborhood.** PM 10,420 Phase 8
Notes:

Based on information concerning funding sources and status of planning for and construction of transportation improvements identified in the EIR as being 100% the responsibility of the Project Developer, the City Engineer has made relatively minor changes to the responsibilities for implementing such measures; those adjustments are reflected in this table. * Intersection improvement identified at this intersection under existing or background no-project conditions. See Appendix 3.3-D of the City Place Santa Clara Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (October 2015).
** City-preferred mitigation option.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2016.
26 An LOS D threshold is used for study intersections within San José, including CMP designated intersections. Santa Clara County intersections in San José use an LOS E threshold. 27 An LOS D threshold is used for study intersections within San José, including CMP designated intersections. Santa Clara County intersections in San José use an LOS E threshold.

Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 76 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
EXHIBIT MMRP-1
Related Santa Clara DAP 1, Phase 1 Project – Costs for Certain Full Funding Responsibility Planning/CEQA File # PLN2019-14186 (PLN2014-10554/CEQ2014-01180) State Clearinghouse # 2014072078
ID Intersection Mitigation Total Cost Basis of Cost
48 Lawrence Expressway/
US 101 SB Ramps
Convert eastbound left turn lane to
a shared left/right turn lane.
$13,500 The cost estimate was prepared by BKF Engineers and accepted by the City. The cost estimate assumes that the work is limited to striping. 55 Lawrence Expwy/
Homestead Rd
Add a third eastbound through lane
and a third westbound through lane
(Yahoo! Santa Clara Campus TIA,
August 2009; City of Sunnyvale
Citywide Deficiency Plan,
September 2005; and City of Santa
Clara Traffic Mitigation Program,
June 2011).
$2,841,800 The cost estimate was prepared by BKF Engineers and accepted by the City. The cost estimate assumes that 10' turn lanes and 11' through lanes will be implemented.

While the Project has 100% responsibility for this mitigation, the project's responsibility for the cost is reduced by previous contributions made by Yahoo ($96,060) and the County of Santa Clara ($400,000). Right of way for this mitigation has been previously dedicated by Kaiser negating the need for the Project to acquire any right of way for mitigation.

The Project will make a monetary contribution equal to its cost responsibility in lieu of constructing the mitigation.
57 Great America Pkwy/
SR 237 WB Ramps
Add third westbound left-turn lane
and associated receiving lane under
underpass. Add a second westbound
right-turn lane.
$2,351,652 The Total Cost includes both local road work and freeway ramp work. The cost estimate was prepared by BKF Engineers and accepted by the City.

The cost of the local road work is estimated at $963,508 and the freeway ramp work at $1,388,144. Since the freeway ramp work will be performed concurrently with the intersection mitigation, the estimated cost of the freeway ramp work is deducted from the Freeway Fair Share voluntary contribution amount.
82 San Tomas Expwy/
Pruneridge Ave
Partial Mitigation: Add a second
northbound left-turn lane.
$271,900 The cost estimate was prepared by BKF Engineers and accepted by the City after concurrence with the cost by the County. The estimate assumes that the second northbound left turn lane will be implemented by the County as part of the San Tomas widening project.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Costs for Certain Full Funding Responsibility
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 77 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
ID Intersection Mitigation Total Cost Basis of Cost
84 Gold Street/Gold Street
connector
Convert northbound through lane to
a shared left-turn/through lane, add
second northbound left-turn lane
and a second eastbound right-turn
lane (move pedestrian crossing to
north leg of intersection).
$735,100 In order to avoid modifications to existing electrical transmission line towers, the City waived the mitigation requirement to add a second northbound left turn lane. The City also agreed to include a surveillance camera at the intersection as requested by the City of San Jose.

The cost estimate was prepared by BKF Engineers and accepted by the City. The estimated cost includes $685,100 for the intersection mitigation and an additional $50,000 for the surveillance camera requested by the City of San Jose. The estimated cost assumes that 11' lanes will be implemented and the work associated with the addition of the surveillance camera does not require a new signal controller or installation of equipment to the control station.
109 Liberty St/Lewis St Signalize. $300,000 The City of San Jose requested that the intersection not be signalized per the mitigation. The City of Santa Clara will provide the City of San Jose with the monetary equivalent of the cost of installing a signal.

BKF Engineers estimated and the City of Santa Clara concurred with a cost for signalization of $300,000.
123 Great America Pkwy/
Gold Street connector
Add a second northbound right-turn
lane (from Int. 57 dual westbound
right-turn lanes).
$ –– The cost of this work is included in the cost estimate for intersection #57.

City of Santa Clara Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Costs for Certain Full Funding Responsibility
Related Santa Clara, DAP 2, Phase 2 Project 78 ESA: 2019011172 CEQA Addendum MMRP May 2020
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment B
Related Santa Clara DAP 2,
Phase 2 Traffic Report

&,7<3/$&(
6 $ 1 7 $ & / $ 5 $
'(9(/230(17$5($3/$1
'$3

3+$6(3$5&(/
0D\ 
$33(1',;$7UDIILF$QDO\VLV
Memorandum
\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\230000\239661-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\PHASE 2 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT\DAP 2 EIR CONSISTENCY MEMO 05-20-2020.DOCX
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 1 of 8
To Steve Eimer, Related Date
May 20, 2020
Copies Bill Camille, WJCPM
William Baumgardner, Arup
Joerg Tonndorf, Arup
Reference number
239661-00/AGM
From Joerg Tonndorf File reference
4-05
Subject Phase 2 DAP – On-Site Analysis

This memo has been prepared to demonstrate that Phases 1 and 2 of City Place, Santa Clara are consistent with Transportation components of the EIR1
that was approved June 2016. The memo
follows the requirements of Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program2 for the project and focuses
upon the items outlined under Exhibit MMRP-1: City Place Santa Clara – Intersection Mitigation Implementation. The exhibit outlines the requirements to be submitted for each Development Area Plan (DAP), and requires the following information to be provided:

1. A calculation of the number of vehicle trips projected to result from development proposed in the DAP using the methods and trip generation rates in the Final EIR (adjusted as appropriate for the success of TDM measures), that accounts for the site design, density and diversity of proposed land uses of the current DAP application and previous DAP applications.

2. The vehicle trips allocated by building and summarized by land use.

3. A site access analysis (including a simulation, if needed, as determined by the Director of Planning and Inspection or at the applicant’s discretion) to determine which site access improvements should be constructed to serve the development proposed in the DAP.

This memo focuses on Items 1 and 2 with Item 3 addressed in the Phase 2 DAP Traffic Assessment Report.

Project Description
Phases 1 and 2 of City Place Santa Clara would provide a mix of uses, including residential / serviced apartments, restaurants, entertainment, hotel, retail, and office uses. Table 1 summarizes the program by land use for Phases 1 and 2.

1 City Place Santa Clara Project Final EIR, April 2016
2 City Place Santa Clara Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, June 2016
Memorandum
\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\230000\239661-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\PHASE 2 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT\DAP 2 EIR CONSISTENCY MEMO 05-20-2020.DOCX
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 2 of 8
The program will be confined to the areas referred to in the EIR as “Parcel 4” and “Parcel 5”, bounded by Second Street (new), Tasman Drive, Avenue A and Avenue C.

Phases 1 and 2 include modification / construction of new roadways to support the development. The new roadways and the phase during which construction is planned include:
x Realignment of the existing Stars and Stripes Drive (moved north) – Phase 1 x Avenue A – north-south connection between Tasman Drive and Stars and Stripes Drive – Phase 1
x Centennial Boulevard – realigned and extended between Tasman Drive and Stars and Stripes Drive – Phase 1
x Avenue C – north-south connection between Tasman Drive and Stars and Stripes Drive and continuing to the connection of Station Road – Phase 1
x Tasman Eastbound Slip Ramp - new one-way roadway to provide connection from eastbound Tasman Drive to Stars and Stripes Drive, providing connection to Great America Station and Phase 1 below grade parking / service access. – Phase 1 x Creekside Drive – north-south connection between Stars and Stripes Drive and First Street – Phase 2
x Avenue A – north-south connection between Stars and Stripes Drive to City Place Parkway – Phase 2
x Centennial Boulevard – north-south connection between Stars and Stripes Drive to Second Street – Phase 2
x Avenue B – north-south connection between Stars and Stripes Drive to Second Street – Phase 2 x Avenue C – north-south connection from Station Road to First Street, replacing the temporary road section built in Phase 1 – Phase 2
x First Street – east-west connection between Creekside Drive and Avenue C – Phase 2 x Second Street – east-west connection between Avenue A and Avenue B – Phase 2 x City Place Parkway – east-west connection from Great America Parkway to First Street/Avenue C replacing the temporary road along this section built in Phase 1 – Phase 2 Figure 1 provides a summary of the site plan, development blocks and roadways that will be constructed for Phase 2.

The proposed development program for Phases 1 and 2 is outlined in Table 1.

Memorandum
\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\230000\239661-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\PHASE 2 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT\DAP 2 EIR CONSISTENCY MEMO 05-20-2020.DOCX
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 3 of 8
Table 1: Phase 1 and 2 Land Use Program
Parcel Land Use EIR City
Center
Program*
Phase 1
Program
Phase 2
Program
Total Notes
4 & 5 Office 1,786ksf 440 ksf 435 ksf 875 ksf
Hotel 700 rooms 480 rooms 220 rooms 700 rooms
Residential /
Serviced
Apartments
200 units 200 units 500 units 700 units 300 Residential Units 400 Serviced Apartment Units
Retail 1,062ksf 21.4 ksf 405 ksf 426.4 ksf Includes 35.0 ksf Health Club Restaurants 215ksf 29.6 ksf 150 ksf 179.6 ksf 45.6 ksf Fast Casual Restaurant 110.6 ksf High Turnover Sit
Down

23.4 ksf Quality Dining
Entertainment 190ksf 0 ksf 50.0 ksf 50.0 ksf 7 Screen Cinema** *City Center Program on Parcel 4 and 5 or Phase 1, 2 and 3 **Number of screens is assumed based on a proportional rate from the EIR program Trip Generation
The trip generation for Phases 1 and 2 has been estimated using the trip rates as described below, including a mixed-use reduction based on the MXD tool developed by Fehr & Peers, and a public transit reduction. This trip generation methodology adopted for this DAP Phases 1 and 2 is fully consistent with the EIR.

Office – The EIR uses a local Silicon Valley Rate per employee for the office land use and is based on an employee density of 270sq.ft per person.

Hotel – The hotel trip rate in the EIR is based upon ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) LU Code 310 trip rates. The average rate is used for the AM and PM peak hours.

Restaurants – In the EIR, the food & beverage used a mix of different restaurant types for estimating restaurant trips. The land use types included High-turnover (ITE 932), Quality / Fine Dining (ITE 931) and Fast-food (ITE 934). With the refinement of the program, fast-food locations are not being proposed as part of the project, therefore this land use and trip rate is replaced with Fast-casual dining (ITE 930) trip rates, which more accurately reflects the proposed use.

Residential / Serviced Apartments – The residential trip rate used in the EIR is based upon ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) LU Code 220 trip rates. The fitted curve rate is used for the Daily, AM and PM peak hour calculations.

Memorandum
\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\230000\239661-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\PHASE 2 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT\DAP 2 EIR CONSISTENCY MEMO 05-20-2020.DOCX
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 4 of 8
Retail – The EIR used Shopping Center (ITE 820) trip rates for estimation of the retail trips at City Place. The EIR used fitted curve equation for daily and peak hours. It is noted that the EIR assessed all retail (for Parcels 4 and 5) as a single land use using the fitted curve equations. Phases 1 and 2 are assessed using the fitted curve equation, therefore as additional phases are assessed, the trip rates per ksf will adjust to reflect the adjustments to the fitted curve.

Entertainment – The EIR used Multiplex Movie Theater (ITE 445) trip rates for estimation of the entertainment trips at City Place and is based on the variable of number of screens. The number of screens used for the Phase 1 and 2 DAP analysis is an assumption based on a proportional rate from the program evaluated in the EIR. For the Daily trip rate the Friday rate was adjusted to represent a typical weekday rate based on the adjustment between peak hour weekday and Friday rates3 . The average rate
is used for both the daily and peak hour trip estimates.

As in the EIR, the mixed-use reductions were estimated using Fehr & Peers MXD tool, a proprietary tool that estimates reductions based on program use. Fehr & Peers MXD reductions are provided in Appendix A.

Table 2 provides a summary of the estimated gross trip generation for Phases 1 and 2, with the mixeduse reductions.

Table 2: Phase 1 and 2 Peak Hour Trip Generation
Land Use Daily AM
In
AM
Out
AM
Total
PM
In
PM
Out
PM
Total
Office
Gross 9,550 890 110 1,000 190 780 970
5% Public Transit
Reduction -475 -45 -5 -50 -10 -40 -50
Sub-total 9,075 845 105 950 180 740 920
Retail
Gross 17,430 230 150 380 760 820 1,580
Mixed-use Reduction -3,640 -75 -45 -120 -285 -300 -585
5% Public Transit
Reduction -690 -10 -5 -15 -20 -30 -50
Sub-total 13,100 145 100 245 455 490 945
Restaurants
Gross 30,540 730 580 1,310 1,120 790 1,910
Mixed-use Reduction -6,375 -235 -185 -420 -415 -290 -705 5% Public Transit
Reduction -1,210 -25 -15 -40 -35 -25 -60
Sub-total 22,955 470 380 850 670 475 1,145
Hotel
Gross 5,890 220 150 370 210 210 420
Mixed-use Reduction -1,230 -70 -50 -120 -80 -75 -155

3 PM Peak hour for a typical weekday (Mon-Thur) is approximately 60% of the Friday PM Peak Hour rate. The Daily rate adjusted the Daily Friday rate (292.50) by 60% for approximately 175.5 daily trips for a typical weekday (Mon-Thur).

Memorandum
\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\230000\239661-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\PHASE 2 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT\DAP 2 EIR CONSISTENCY MEMO 05-20-2020.DOCX
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 5 of 8
Land Use Daily AM
In
AM
Out
AM
Total
PM
In
PM
Out
PM
Total
5% Public Transit
Reduction -230 -5 -5 -10 -5 -10 -15
Sub-total 4,430 145 95 240 125 125 250
Residential /
Serviced
Apartments
Gross 4,370 70 280 350 260 140 400
Mixed-use Reduction -910 -20 -90 -110 -95 -55 -150
5% Public Transit
Reduction -175 -5 -10 -15 -10 -5 -15
Sub-total 3,285 45 180 225 155 80 235
Entertainment
Gross 1,230 0 0 0 40 60 100
Mixed-use Reduction -255 0 0 0 -15 -20 -35
5% Public Transit
Reduction -50 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 925 0 0 0 25 40 65
Total after mixed-use
and transit reduction 53,770 1,650 860 2,510 1,610 1,950 3,560 EIR Off-site Intersection Mitigation Improvements
The Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program identifies the mitigation measures that are the full funding responsibility of the project and identifies the project phase and number of project trips that trigger the improvement.

Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan
The Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program identifies mitigation TRA-1.1: Vehicle Trip Reduction with TDM that requires the project to implement a TDM plan that supports the reduction of project office traffic by 4 percent daily and 10 percent in the peak hours. For residential trips, the TDM plan will need to identify measures to reduce daily traffic by 2 percent and peak hour traffic by a minimum of 4 percent.

Table 3 summarizes the vehicle trip thresholds for the office and residential program and Table 4 provides a summary of the total vehicle trip thresholds for Phase 1 and 2 combined.

Memorandum
\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\230000\239661-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\PHASE 2 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT\DAP 2 EIR CONSISTENCY MEMO 05-20-2020.DOCX
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 6 of 8
Table 3: Phases 1 and 2 TDM Reductions for Office and Residential Program Office Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Office
Vehicle Trips (Phase 1 and 2 Estimate) 9,075 950 920
TDM Reduction Target -365 -95 -90
Vehicle Trip Threshold 8,710 855 830
Residential
Vehicle Trips (Phase 1 Estimate) 3,285 225 235
TDM Reduction Target -65 -10 -10
Vehicle Trip Threshold 3,220 215 225
Note: Trip reductions rounded to nearest 5 vehicle trips. Trip generation estimates do not account for transportation network company (TNCs) (e.g., Uber and Lyft) activity or other emerging trends like autonomous vehicles.

Table 4: Phases 1 and 2 Vehicle Trip Thresholds
Daily AM In AM Out
Phases 1 and 2 Vehicle Trip Estimates 53,770 2,510 3,560 Phases 1 and 2 TDM Reduction Target -430 -105 -100
Phases 1 and 2 Vehicle Trip Threshold 53,340 2,405 3,460 Note: Trip reductions rounded to nearest 5 vehicle trips. Trip generation estimates do not account for transportation network company (TNCs) (e.g., Uber and Lyft) activity or other emerging trends like autonomous vehicles.

TDM Program Components
Phases 1 and 2 of the project includes infrastructure, measures and strategies as part of the overall design program with the aim of reducing single occupancy vehicle trips. These measures and strategies are summarized in Table 5 and form the basis of the overall TDM plan.

Table 5: TDM Program Components
Program Item Description
Office TDM Program
Transportation Management
Association (TMA)
TDM Monitoring
and Implementation
Organization that will coordinate and provide oversight of the implementation of TDM measures for City Place. The TMA
will offer a baseline of TDM services (coordinated for overall Memorandum
\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\230000\239661-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\PHASE 2 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT\DAP 2 EIR CONSISTENCY MEMO 05-20-2020.DOCX
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 7 of 8
Program Item Description
benefit of reducing auto trips) and provide guidance /
recommendations for individual employee / tenant programs.

Maintain and update website and marketing program to
disseminate information of TDM program
On-site Support Facilities Pedestrian
Infrastructure
Walking is encouraged within City Center through the
incorporation of ample sidewalks and pedestrian cross-walks at intersections. Pedestrian connections are provided between the office program and the nearby Great America LRT Station and Great America Amtrak Station.

Bicycle
Infrastructure
The proposed roadways for City Center include on-street bike lanes with connections into the existing local bicycle network (Along Tasman Drive).

Short-term and long-term bike parking will be provided and will be located at convenient locations near the office program (exact parking locations to be determined)
Transit
Infrastructure
Shuttle stop(s) will be provided within convenient walking access of the office program on Block 5A and other locations to be determined. Off-site transit infrastructure includes the nearby Great America LRT station and Great America Amtrak station, with convenient pedestrian access routes.

Carpool Preferential parking spaces located close to building entrances to encourage carpooling
Car Share Services Provision of car sharing vehicles for use by office employees.

Car sharing services provide office employees access to a car when needed (for off-site meetings, occasional lunch-time errands etc.), without the need for office employees driving their own vehicle to commute.

Multi-passenger demand responsive ride services for local employees that are competitive with drive alone including transportation network/ride-sharing services such as Uber Pool, Lyft Line and Chariot on-demand and crowd-sourced bus
services.

In-building Support Facilities Pedestrian and
Bicycle Services
The office building will include the provision of changing facilities, showers and short-term locker facilities to encourage commuting through active travel modes.

Residential TDM Program
Transportation Management
Association (TMA)
TDM Coordinator TDM Coordinator for residents to help provide information related to commuting (to off-site locations), sign-up support for transit pass programs, car-share programs and 511 rideshare programs.

On-site Support Facilities Pedestrian
Infrastructure
Walking is encouraged for residents with ample sidewalks and pedestrian cross-walks at intersections, providing connections to nearby public transit facilities.

Bicycle
Infrastructure
The proposed roadways for City Center include on-street bike lanes with connections into the existing local bicycle network Memorandum
\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\230000\239661-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\PHASE 2 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT\DAP 2 EIR CONSISTENCY MEMO 05-20-2020.DOCX
Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 8 of 8
Program Item Description
(Along Tasman Drive). Bike lanes will also connect to nearby recreational bike paths and trails.

Transit
Infrastructure
Provide in-building information for nearby public transit services, including schedules, maps to nearby transit-stops and stations
Car Share Services Provision of car sharing vehicles and car share membership information that provides residents access to vehicles, without the need to own a vehicle.

TDM Plan Monitoring
Monitoring of the TDM plan will be conducted in accordance with Section F, Monitoring and Reporting, of Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1. This will include the following:
x Annual monitoring and reporting that includes
o Description of TDM programs in operation over the previous year, results of driveway counts and survey findings
x Traffic counts to collect daily and peak hour traffic volumes at City Place Driveways and parking entrances. Counts will be conducted during school time and collected over a 72-hour period (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays)
x Provide total sum of entering and exiting traffic for the peak hours, adjusted to isolate office and residential parking. Traffic volumes will then be compared to TDM plan trip thresholds to determine TDM plan performance and if the vehicle trip thresholds are being met x Undertake an employee mode-share survey to determine mode-splits for employees, one year after building occupancy. Subsequent surveys will be conducted if the previous year monitoring results indicated that the vehicle trip thresholds had not been met. x If TDM Plan monitoring results show that the trip reduction target is not being met, the TDM Plan shall be updated to identify replacement and/or additional feasible TDM measures to be implemented.

5A
4E 4F 4G
4K 4L
4H
5B

TASMAN DRIVE

STATION ROAD
5C
4E 4F 4G 4H
4K 4L
Legend
Block to be developed in later Phases
Roadway to be constructed in later
Phases
Block developed during Phase 2
Block developed during Phase 1
5A 5B 5C
Source: Proposed Roadway Layout_DRAFT 5-20-2020
Land Use Daily AM PM
Office 1,035 110 105
Retail 305 10 20
Restaurant 3,315 20 120
Hotel 0 0 0
Entertainment 925 0 65
Residential / Serviced Apt. 0 0 0
Total 5,580 140 310
4E
Daily AM PM
000
2,400 45 175
12,285 540 620
000
000
000
14,685 585 795
4F
Daily AM PM
3,165 330 320
4,640 85 335
2,290 170 140
000
000
000
10,095 585 795
4G
Land Use Daily AM PM
Office 0 0 0
Retail 735 15 55
Restaurant 1,150 35 50
Hotel 0 0 0
Entertainment 0 0 0
Residential / Serviced Apt. 0 0 0
Total 1,885 50 105
4H
Daily AM PM
310 30 35
2,765 50 195
290 20 20
1,390 75 80
000
940 60 70
5,695 235 400
4K
Daily AM PM
000
1,600 30 115
570 45 35
000
000
1,405 100 95
3,575 175 245
4L
Land Use Daily AM PM
Office 4,510 470 460
Retail 12,445 235 895
Restaurant 19,900 830 985
Hotel 1,390 75 80
Entertainment 925 0 65
Residential / Serviced Apt. 2,345 160 165
Total 41,515 1,770 2,650
Phase 2 Total
Land Use Daily AM PM
Office 9,075 950 920
Retail 13,100 245 945
Restaurant 22,955 850 1,145
Hotel 4,430 240 250
Entertainment 925 0 65
Residential / Serviced Apt. 3,285 225 235
Total 53,770 2,510 3,560
Phase 1 & 2 Total
Phase 2 Vehicle Trips by Block and Land Use
Phase 1 & 2 Vehicle Trips Total
Figure 1
Phase 1 & 2 Block Development and Constructed Roadways
City Place, Santa Clara
N

Daily
Total In Out Total In Out Total
(820) - Shopping Center (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) 1000 sq ft leasable area 820 426.4 17,430 230 150 380 760 820 1,580 (220) - Apartment (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) Dwelling Units 220 700 4,370 70 280 350 260 140 400 (310) - Hotel (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) Rooms 310 700 5,890 220 150 370 210 210 420 (930) - Fast Casual Restaurant (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) 1000 Sq. Ft. FLA 930 45.6 14,370 60 30 90 350 290 640 (931) - Quality Restaurant (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) 1000 sq ft gross floor area 931 23.4 2,110 10 10 20 120 60 180 (932) - High-Turnover Restaurant (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) 1000 sq ft gross floor area 932 110.6 14,060 660 540 1,200 650 440 1,090 (445) - Multiplex Movie Theater (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) Movie Screens 445 7 1,230 - - - 40 60 100 1,250 59,460 1,160 2,410 2,390 2,020 4,410
(400) (12,410) (370) (770) (890) (740) (1,630)
850 47,050 790 1,640 1,500 1,280 2,780
(Local Rates) Office 1000 sq ft gross floor area N/A 875 9,550 890 110 1, 190 000 780 970 890 9,550 110 1,000 190 780 970
56,600 1,740 900 2,640 1,690 2,060 3,750
(90) (2,830) (40) (130) (80) (110) (190)
53,770 1,650 860 2,510 1,610 1,950 3,560
Notes: Trip Generation Estimates using the same mixed used equations used in the City Place Santa Clara Environmental Impact Report (2016) and updated built environment inputs.

Built environment inputs and trip generation equations documents in separate tables.

These trip generation estimates do not account for transportation network company activity or other emerging trends like autonomous vehicles.

Total Project Trip Generation
Project Trips Subtotal [A + B = C]
Public Transit Reduction [5%*C = D]
Total Project Trips [C+D = E]
Subtotal Net New Trips [B]
Phases 1 & 2 Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units ITE Code Quantity AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Retail, Residential, Hotel, and Resturant Uses Trip Generation Subtotal
Mixed-Use Reductions
Subtotal Net New Trips [A]
Office Use Trip Generation

Related Santa Clara
City Place Santa Clara
Phase 2 DAP Traffic Report
05-20-2020 Phase 2 DAP Traffic Report
Draft 4 | May 20, 2020
This report takes into account the particular
instructions and requirements of our client.

It is not intended for and should not be relied
upon by any third party and no responsibility
is undertaken to any third party.

Job number 239661-00
Arup North America Ltd
560 Mission Street
Suite 700
San Francisco 94105
United States of America
www.arup.com

Related Santa Clara City Place Santa Clara
Phase 2 DAP Traffic Report
Contents
Page
1 Introduction 6

1.1 Project Description 6

1.2 Study Area 10
2 Methodology and Performance Criteria 13
3 Project Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment 15

3.1 Project Trip Generation 15

3.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment 19
4 Phase 1 and 2 Traffic Assessment 24

4.1 Intersection Level of Service 24

4.2 Intersection Queuing 30

4.3 EIR Off-site Intersection Mitigation Improvements 34

4.4 Full Build Cumulative plus Project Buildout Intersection Analysis 35
5 Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan List 37
Appendices
Appendix A
City Place Trip Generation
Appendix B
Traffix Outputs
Appendix C
Full Build 6\QFKURAnalysis
05-20-2020 Phase 2 DAP Traffic Report | Draft 4 | May 20, 2020 | Arup North America Ltd \\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\230000\239661-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\PHASE 2 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT\05-20-2020 PHASE 2 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT.DOCX

Related Santa Clara City Place Santa Clara
Phase 2 DAP Traffic Report
05-20-2020 Phase 2 DAP Traffic Report | Draft 4 | May 20, 2020 | Arup North America Ltd \\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\230000\239661-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\PHASE 2 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT\05-20-2020 PHASE 2 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT.DOCX