Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, January 31, 2023 (part 5 of 6)

Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
80 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

4.11 – Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Physically divide an
established community? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Divide an Established Community. The General Plan EIR found that changes in land use that would occur upon the implementation of General Plan would not result in the physical division of an established community. The General Plan EIR noted that the Land Use policies and programs of the 2010-2035 General Plan encourage the preservation or enhancement of the existing, primarily residential community through infill development, open space opportunities, and development of compatible uses that will enhance the existing character of Santa Clara. The EIR also noted that the General Plan contains specific Land Use policies for compatibility that would reduce the amount of conflict between differing land uses. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant.

Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to the circulation policies or the general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would not divide an established community and would result in less than significant impacts. (b) Conflict with Applicable Plans. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan has the potential to conflict with a responsible agency’s applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. However, it was determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize this effect. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that project impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR did not analyze cumulative impacts related to land use and planning. The Planning Area is an almost completely urbanized area and most of the Planning Area is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. However, cumulative land use and planning impacts related to the Housing Element Update in conjunction with other similar projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Reports prepared for the subsequent EIRs and were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, the cumulative land use and planning impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not divide an established community or conflict with an applicable land use plan. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR. Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to land use and planning impacts. Development of future housing would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits.

Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
82 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

4.12 – Mineral Resources
Would the project:

Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that would
be of value to the region
and the residents of the
state?
Yes No Impact No No No
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource
recovery site delineated on
a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Yes No Impact No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a-b) Known Mineral Resources/Loss of Mineral Resources. The General Plan EIR found that the City is located in an area zoned MRZ-1 for aggregate materials by the State of California. MRZ-1 zones are areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. The General Plan EIR found that there are no significant mineral resources present in the City boundaries. In addition, it was found that there are no exploitable oil or gas resources within the City, and new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan would not affect locally important mineral resources as there are none present in the City. Therefore, it was determined that there would be no impact.

There are no known significant mineral resources in the City and there are no exploitable oil or gas resources within the City. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not result in the loss of availability of a known or locally important mineral resource.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR did not analyze cumulative impacts related to the loss of known mineral resources or mineral resources recovery sites. However, the General Plan EIR found that the Planning Area is not known to support significant mineral resources of any type, and no mineral resources are currently being extracted in the City. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not result in cumulative mineral resources impacts.

Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not result in the loss of known mineral resources or mineral resources recovery sites. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR. Future housing 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 83 City of Santa Clara
developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to mineral resources impacts. Development of future housing would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
84 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

4.13 – Noise
Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Would the project result in
generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No
b) Would the project result in
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
c) For a project located
within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the
project expose people residing
or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Substantial Increase in Noise Levels.

Temporary/Construction Noise
The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan would cause a temporary or periodic increase in construction noise exposure above ambient levels. However, it was determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.14-3 would reduce potential construction noise impacts to less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, the Lawrence Station SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA also found that mitigation can reduce potential temporary construction-related impacts to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
 Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures NV-2.1 and NV-2.2.  Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 13-1.  Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure NOI-3. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 85 City of Santa Clara
 Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 13-1 and 13-2.

Operational Noise
The General Plan EIR also found that new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan would result in increased traffic noise, and the increases would be substantial for residential land uses along Tasman Drive between Lafayette Street and the easternmost City limits. As such, the General Plan EIR incorporated Mitigation Measure 4.14-2 to reduce traffic noise impacts.

However, because implementation of this measure cannot be guaranteed and may not be feasible, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Similarly, the subsequent EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP, the Lawrence Station SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA found that this impact would be significant and unavoidable even after incorporation of mitigation.

Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
 Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures 13-3 and 13-4.  Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.  Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 13-5 and 13-6.

If project-level significant vibration impacts are identified, site-specific mitigation measures will be required under CEQA. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that vibration impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Similarly, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA found that mitigation measures could reduce potential impacts from excessive vibration to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
 Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures NV-1.1, NV-1.2, NV-1.3, NV-1.4, and NV-1.5.  Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 13-2.  Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 13-3 and 13-4.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that noise impacts are generally experienced locally as opposed to regionally. It was also noted that future increases in noise from buildout of the Mineta International Airport Master Plan, the BART to Silicon Valley extension project, and the High-Speed Rail project would all contribute to future noise conditions that would affect specific areas of Santa Clara. However, it was found that the future development allowed under the General Plan would not contribute to the railway or airport-related noise. It was further found that residents could be exposed to ongoing construction noise if multiple projects are clustered in an area and are constructed simultaneously or in sequence over a period of years, and increased traffic from build-out of the General Plan would contribute to a significant increase in traffic noise levels on roadway segments throughout the region, beyond accepted thresholds in various communities. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact, and the City’s contribution to it with build-out of the General Plan, would be significant and unavoidable. The EIR further found that there was no feasible mitigation available to reduce cumulative impacts to levels of insignificance.

The Planning Area is an almost completely urbanized area and most of the Planning Area is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative noise impacts related to the Housing Element Update in conjunction with other similar projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan and subsequent EIRs and were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the cumulative noise impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would also be significant and unavoidable.

Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not result in more severe noise impacts than were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR. Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to noise impacts. Development of future housing would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 87 City of Santa Clara
permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.14-1, 4.14-2, and 4.14-3, as described below, as well as the subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigations measures described above, would also be applicable to the development associated with implementation of the Housing Element Update. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
MM 4.14-1: Use the Federal Transit Administration vibration impact criteria, as described above under the Regulatory Setting, to evaluate the land use compatibility of sensitive uses proposed along the railroad/light-rail corridor using the best available information (e.g., High Speed Rail Program EIR) or site-specific measurements and analyses (assuming active railroad operations). Developers of sensitive uses shall demonstrate that potential impacts of existing or potential vibration have been minimized to the maximum feasible extent.

MM 4.14-2: Case studies have shown that the replacement of dense grade asphalt (standard type) with open-grade or rubberized asphalt can reduce traffic noise levels along local roadways by 2 to 3 dBA CNEL. A possible noise reduction of 2 dBA would be expected using conservative engineering assumptions, and future traffic noise increases could be mitigated to a less than significant level by repaving roadways with “quieter pavements.” To be a permanent mitigation, subsequent repaving would also have to use “quieter” pavements. Existing residential receivers located along Tasman Drive between Lafayette Street and the easternmost City limits either front the roadway (private outdoor use areas are located behind the homes) or have outdoor use areas adjacent to the roadway that may or may not be shielded by fences or noise barriers. In situations where private outdoor use areas are located adjacent to the roadway, new or larger noise barriers could be constructed to provide the additional necessary noise attenuation in private use areas. Typically, increasing the height of an existing barrier results in approximately one dBA of attenuation per one foot of additional barrier height. The design of such noise barriers would require additional analysis. Traffic calming could also be implemented to reduce noise levels expected with the project. Each five mph reduction in average speed provides approximately one dBA of noise reduction on an average basis (Leq/CNEL). Traffic calming measures that regulate speed improve the noise environment by smoothing out noise levels. Residences could also be provided with sound insulation treatments if further study finds that interior noise levels within the affected residential units would exceed 45 dBA CNEL as a result of the projected increase in traffic noise. Treatments to the homes may include the replacement of existing windows and doors with sound-rated windows and doors and the provision of a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation to allow the occupants the option of controlling noise by closing the windows. The specific treatments for each affected residential unit would be identified on a case-by-case basis.

MM 4.14-3: Develop construction noise control plans that consider the following available controls in order to reduce construction noise levels as low as practical: Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
88 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
exists; Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; Locate all stationary noisegenerating equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from adjacent land uses; Locate staging areas and construction material areas as far away as possible from adjacent land uses; Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; Notify all adjacent land uses of the construction schedule in writing; Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 89 City of Santa Clara

4.14 – Population and Housing
Would the project:

Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in General
Plan EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension
of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
Yes No Impact No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Induce Population Growth. The General Plan EIR found that while over the long-term the 2010- 2035 General Plan accommodates the population growth forecast by ABAG Projections 2007, and accommodates in the near-term (2014) the RHNA goal set by ABAG, the General Plan is nonetheless ‘job-rich’. This means that it provides for more employment than housing and will lead to insufficient housing opportunities for all future Santa Clara workers. This is reflected in the jobs per employed resident ratio discussed above. Therefore, the General Plan EIR found that the 2010-2035 General Plan job growth (25,040 new jobs), would require substantial residential development elsewhere in the region to provide adequate housing opportunities for future workers. Based on planned job growth, roughly 3,500 housing units would need to be built elsewhere in the region to house Santa Clara workers who would have to reside outside of the City due to inadequate housing opportunities within the City.

The General Plan EIR determined this to be a significant impact due to the secondary effects related to increased VMT resulting from commuting due to a shortage of residential opportunities in closer proximity to Santa Clara employment areas. These secondary effects are discussed in detail in the Transportation, Air Quality, and Climate Change sections, respectively, of the General Plan EIR. Since implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan would induce substantial population growth at other locations, the General Plan EIR determined that the impact is significant and unavoidable.

The additional analyses regarding population and housing in the Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR, the Tasman East Specific Plan EIR, the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan EIR and the Freedom Circle Focus Area EIR all concluded that the addition of new housing units would incrementally lessen the City’s jobs/housing imbalance, and would provide those units close to jobs and transit and would constitute a less than significant impact. The conclusions of the General Plan EIR would therefore remain unchanged.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
90 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the project will not result in an increase in the severity of the imbalance between jobs and housing beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR or subsequent EIRs. Impacts related to implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. (b) Displace Housing. The General Plan EIR found that the 2010-2035 General Plan would retain all existing housing units and could accommodate the population growth as forecast in ABAG’s Projections 2007. The General Plan EIR also found that the 2010-2035 General Plan would accommodate employment growth in ways (i.e., intensification of currently planned employment lands) that would not displace existing housing or people, nor would the construction of planned infrastructure or public facilities necessary to serve future growth require the displacement of existing housing units or people.

The EIRs for the Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR, the Tasman East Specific Plan EIR, the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan EIR and the Freedom Circle Focus Area EIR all concluded that those area plans would not displace housing, as they were proposed in existing industrial areas. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the 2010-2035 General Plan as amended by subsequent program EIRs would have no impact in terms of housing or population displacement.

Since the proposed project does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan including subsequent amendments related to specific plans or area plans the project will not result in impacts on housing displacement beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR or subsequent EIRs. Impacts related to implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would not result in impacts related to the displacement of housing.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that the cumulative scenario includes new population and employment growth planned by the cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, Cupertino, and Sunnyvale, and all cumulative population and employment growth would occur within the cities’ existing urban growth boundaries, with no expansion of urban services to rural undeveloped areas. While some new development would occur through development of the relatively few remaining vacant infill parcels found in each city, the cumulative trend would continue to predominantly be redevelopment of existing low-intensity, underutilized parcels with new urban uses. In addition, it was found that most new housing accommodated within the cumulative jurisdictions would be in a medium- or high-density attached or mixed-use format. It was further found that new job growth would largely occur on previously developed parcels in intensified forms (i.e., more employees per acre compared to existing development patterns, often with structured parking). Given the interconnected nature of the cities and the regional transportation network, most workers would travel to jobs in a city different from where they live. In essence, the cumulative projects would accommodate two new jobs for every new employed resident, exacerbating Santa Clara County’s existing jobs-housing imbalance (1.2 in 2005 according to ABAG Projections 2007). The General Plan EIR found that the environmental consequences would primarily be increased regional traffic congestion and air pollution from vehicles as workers unable to live near their employment commute long distances from outlying areas with affordable housing, continuing a pervasive trend over the past several decades as job growth has outpaced housing growth in Santa Clara County. Considering both ‘in process’ growth and new growth caused by the 2010-2035 General Plan, the City of Santa Clara would contribute to this cumulative imbalance in 2035 by adding 39,490 residents (yielding 23,694 employed residents) and 46,180 jobs, for a jobs per employed resident ratio 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 91 City of Santa Clara
of 1.95, (46,180 jobs divided by 23,694 employed residents). Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this is a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact that cannot be mitigated and is adverse and unavoidable. Subsequent program EIRs, including the Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR, the Tasman East Specific Plan EIR, the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan EIR and the Freedom Circle Focus Area EIR did not change this significance determination.

Since the proposed project does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan including subsequent amendments related to specific plans or area plans the project will not result in an increase in the severity of the imbalance between jobs and housing beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR or subsequent EIRs. Project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR and would continue to be significant and unavoidable.

Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on Population and Housing beyond the potential impacts already identified in the General Plan EIR and subsequent specific plan and area plan EIR’s. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and the EIR’s for subsequent specific plans and area plans: therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to the jobs-housing imbalance. Development of future housing would be subject to project-level environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits and would also be subject to existing mitigation measures. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation exists to mitigate the significant unavoidable impact. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
92 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

4.15 – Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Fire protection? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Police protection? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Schools? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Parks? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
e) Other public facilities? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Fire protection. The General Plan EIR found that new growth under the 2010-2035 General Plan would result in new population and residential and commercial development in Santa Clara, which would increase demand for fire and emergency medical protection services. However, it was found that existing facilities would have the capacity to absorb additional fire personnel without expanding the existing stations. Therefore, it was found that there would be no construction activities associated with the provision of new fire and life safety services and no associated construction-related effects.

Additional fire personnel would be housed in the existing facilities; however, there would be no need for expansion of the facilities. In addition, the General Plan EIR noted that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes updated policies that address fire protection and public safety. In the Specific Plan EIR for the Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP), it was determined that there could be Significant and Unavoidable cumulative impacts on the provision of Fire Services based on the demand created from the LSAP and from other foreseeable projects, such as the Tasman East Specific Plan. EIRs for the Tasman East Specific Plan, Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan and the Freedom Circle Focus Area declared the impacts on the provision of Fire Services to be less than significant. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 93 City of Santa Clara
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, fire protection impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in the same impacts as General Plan EIR and subsequent program EIRs. (b) Police protection. The General Plan EIR found that implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan would increase the need for police services, and the additional officers would be housed in the existing facilities. The General Plan EIR found that refurbishment of the facilities would consist of reconfiguration of space and regular upgrade of furniture and equipment, but there would be no need for expansion of the facilities. Therefore, there would be no construction activities associated with the provision of new police services and no associated construction-related effects. The Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR noted that a future police substation would be incorporated into Fire Station Number 9 within the Lawrence Station neighborhood, and that impacts to Police Services would be less than significant. The Tasman East, Patrick Henry Drive and Freedom Circle EIRs all noted that any additional police services could be accommodated within existing buildings. The General Plan EIR also found that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes updated policies that address police protection and public safety. Therefore, the General Plan EIR, along with subsequent program EIRs, determined that impacts on police protection services would be less than significant.

Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, police protection impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts.
(c) Schools. The General Plan EIR found that the increase in population associated with new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010-2035 General Plan would increase the demand for school and community facilities services. The General Plan EIR further found that new development projected under the 2010-2035 General Plan would fall primarily within the jurisdiction of SCUSD, and approximately 12,500 households are expected to be added to the SCUSD area, which would result in approximately 2,000 additional students. The General Plan EIR found that SCUSD has four closed school sites that could be used to serve new development. Alternatively, it was noted SCUSD may choose to modify school catchment areas or add modular classrooms to accommodate new students. It was also noted that SCUSD was also anticipating the construction of new school facilities in north San José as a result of an agreement with that city and future housing developers, and these new facilities in San José would add more capacity for new students and can reduce the number of students now in Santa Clara facilities. The General Plan EIR further noted that the Campbell Union (K-8) and Campbell Union High (9-12) school districts, which overlap, would realize approximately 500 additional households as a result of implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan, generating approximately 38 new K-8 and 42 new 9-12 grade students. The Campbell K-8 and Campbell 9-12 districts were anticipated to be able to accommodate the relatively modest gain in students from the City by modifying school catchment areas, busing and adding modular classrooms. The General Plan EIR found that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes updated policies that address schools and community facilities, and policies and existing regulations and programs are designed to ensure that future development of new facilities within the City would not have an adverse physical effect on the existing environment. The Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR notes that there are proximate closed school facilities that could be re-opened to accommodate the estimated additional 164 students that would live in the plan area. The Tasman East and Freedom Circle EIRs also note proximate schools’ capacities 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
94 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
and their ability to accommodate new students from their respective plan areas. Each of the other subsequent EIRs also recognizes that as required by state law (Government Code Section 65996), the project proponents for future development projects shall pay the appropriate school impact fees to SCUSD to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by their development projects.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR, along with subsequent program EIRs determined that impacts to schools would be less than significant.

17.35 (“Park and Recreational Land”) to Title 17 (“Development”) of the Santa Clara City Code to help mitigate the impacts of new housing development growth on existing parkland subject to the provisions of the State of California Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act. Chapter 17.35 requires new residential developments to provide adequate park and recreational facilities and/or pay a fee in-lieu of parkland dedication at the discretion of the City. Subsequent program EIRs, including the Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR, the Tasman East Specific Plan EIR, the Patrick Henry Drive EIR and the Freedom Circle Focus Area EIR reinforce this requirement. As such, it was determined that the General Plan, as amended by later Specific Plans, would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities and impacts to parks would be less than significant.

Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, parks impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts. (e) Other Public Facilities. The General Plan EIR noted that additional library facilities may be needed to meet the demand from the addition of approximately 33,000 new residents anticipated as a result of the 2010-2035 General Plan. Given that the large Central Park Library facility is located in the southern portion of the City, it is relatively close to, and could serve, anticipated new development along El Camino Real, Homestead Road, Kiely Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard. However, it was found that new library facilities may be needed to serve the anticipated development in the northern portion of the City. The General Plan EIR found that new growth as a result of implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan would increase the demand for arts, cultural and community facilities; however, it was found that this future demand would not exceed the existing service capacity or generate the need for additional facilities particularly when the City can optimize the use of streets or other existing neighborhood amenities for community events. The General Plan EIR determined that General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs would ensure that future development of new facilities within the City would not have an adverse physical effect on the existing environment. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 95 City of Santa Clara
The Lawrence Station EIR notes that development under the LSAP would add approximately 9,415 new residents to the City, increasing Santa Clara City Library’s (SCCL) service population by approximately 7.7 percent. This increase in service population would slightly effect SCCL’s existing service ratios, but not to the extent that would require new or expanded library facilities.

The Tasman East Specific Plan EIR indicates that residential development at buildout would result in approximately 12,285 new residents in Santa Clara. The City does not currently have service ratios or other performance objectives for library services. The residents generated by the project would slightly reduce the library-space-per-resident ratio and library-items-per-resident ratio by 9.4 percent, from 0.85 to 0.77 square feet of library space per resident and from 3.69 to 3.36 items (e.g., books and audio/visual volumes) per resident.

The Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan and Freedom Circle Focus Area EIRs also recognize incremental increases in library usage from new residential uses associated with the respective plans. None of the EIRs identify a new significant impact regarding library services.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR as addended by subsequent program EIRs determined that impacts to other public facilities would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that public services are generally provided by local governments for areas within their jurisdictions and are not provided on a regional basis. It was also noted that law enforcement and fire protection and emergency services are provided by local governments or fire protection districts for areas within their jurisdiction, supplemented by mutual aid agreements between agencies to pool resources. Public schools are provided by school districts to residential areas within their jurisdictions.

While districts may cross city jurisdictional boundaries, school services are still provided at the local, rather than regional, level. As with the other public services, libraries are also generally provided by local governments for areas within their jurisdiction, and services are not provided on a regional basis.

Social services are generally provided by counties, and not on a regional basis. Neighborhood parks and recreational services are generally provided by local governments for areas within their jurisdiction.

The General Plan EIR determined that the 2010-2035 General Plan would not substantially impact the use of the other jurisdictions’ libraries, parks and recreation facilities in the region, although Santa Clara residents are also residents of Santa Clara County and would continue to take advantage of County parks, trails, and other recreational facilities, funded in part by Santa Clara resident taxes. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the cumulative regional impacts of the 2010-2035 General Plan associated with law enforcement, fire and emergency, schools, library, social, and neighborhood parks and recreation services would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on Public Services beyond the potential impacts already identified in the General Plan EIR and subsequent specific plan and area plan EIR’s. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and the EIR’s for subsequent specific plans and area plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate an additional demand for open space and recreational facilities. Development of future housing would be subject to project-level environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits and would also be subject to existing mitigation measures. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 97 City of Santa Clara

4.16 – Recreation
Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in General
Plan EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Would the project
increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
accelerated?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Does the project
include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or expansion
of recreational facilities
which might have an
adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Increased Park Use/ Substantial Physical Deterioration. The General Plan EIR found that the increase in the population associated with new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010-2035 General Plan would increase the demand on existing parks, open space and recreation facilities. However, it was determined that the General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs were designed to ensure that increased demand associated with an increase in population would not significantly accelerate the deterioration of existing facilities. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to recreation facilities would be less than significant.

Since the proposed project does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent amendments related to specific plans or area plans, the project will not result in an increase in demand for parklands and park facilities beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR or subsequent EIRs. Project impacts would be similar to those evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.
(b) Include or Require Recreational Facilities. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010-2035 General Plan would require additional parkland and recreation facilities in the City. However, the General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs were designed to ensure that future development of parkland within the City would not have an adverse physical effect on the existing environment. This includes the 2014 adoption of Ordinance No. 1928 adding City Code Chapter 17.35 (“Park and Recreational Land”) to Title 17 (“Development”) of the Santa Clara City Code to help mitigate the impacts of new housing development growth on existing parkland subject to the provisions of the State of California 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
98 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act. Chapter 17.35 requires new residential developments to provide adequate park and recreational facilities and/or pay a fee in-lieu of parkland dedication at the discretion of the City. Subsequent program EIRs, including the Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR, the Tasman East Specific Plan EIR, the Patrick Henry Drive EIR and the Freedom Circle Focus Area EIR reinforce this requirement. As such, it was determined that the General Plan, as amended by later Specific Plans would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities and impacts to parks would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR did not analyze cumulative recreation impacts. Since the proposed project does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent amendments related to specific plans or area plans, the project will not result in a cumulative increase in demand for parklands and park facilities beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR or subsequent EIRs. Project cumulative impacts would be similar to those evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on Open Space and Recreation beyond the potential impacts already identified in the General Plan EIR and subsequent specific plan and area plan EIR’s. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and the EIR’s for subsequent specific plans and area plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate an additional demand for open space and recreational facilities. Development of future housing would be subject to project-level environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits and would also be subject to existing mitigation measures. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

4.17 – Transportation
Would the project:

Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in General
Plan EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Conflict with a program
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No No
b) Would the project
conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Yes Less than
Significant No No No
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
No Not
Examined No No No
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Circulation Plan Consistency. The General Plan EIR found that despite the 2010-2035 General Plan’s overall land use-transportation efficiency, future development would nonetheless generate substantial additional traffic volumes that would cause congestion along certain roadway segments within the City’s jurisdiction, adjoining cities and freeway segments for which, in most cases, no feasible mitigation (i.e., ability to add new travel lanes) exists. Operating levels of City roadway segments would degrade below City Level of Service standards. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the impact would be significant and unavoidable with respect to Level of Service/congestion.

The General Plan EIR also found that implementation of the 2010- 2035 General Plan would result in the degrading of the operating levels of County Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway segments beyond the then current County CMP Levels of Service standard, which was also determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact with respect for which there is no feasible mitigation.

The General Plan EIR also found that the increased motor vehicle traffic and increased congestion from the 2010 - 2035 General Plan would result in increased transit travel times on transit corridors which 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
100 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
was considered a significant impact. The Findings of Fact also referenced General Plan Policy 5.8.3- P3 as a means to address this potential impact:
“Support transit priority for designated Bus Rapid Transit, or similar transit service, through traffic signal priority, bus queue jump lanes, exclusive transit lanes and other appropriate techniques."
However, it was determined that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact because the feasibility of transit-only lanes would be evaluated in more detailed studies and the effect of these policies is not fully known, including potential secondary impact. Therefore, the impact was considered significant and unavoidable.

The Tasman East Specific Plan also includes the following mitigation measures to address traffic congestion, that, in some cases reduce localized impacts to some road, to less than significant, but overall, still resulted in significant and unavoidable impacts:
 Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures 1.1:9, 1.2:10, 1.3:11, 1.4:37, 3.1:1, 3.2:9,

3.3:10, and 3.4:37.

Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent amendments related to specific plans or area plans, the project will not result in an increase in the number or length of vehicle trips beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR or subsequent EIRs. Project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on the circulation system. (b) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Although the CEQA Guidelines did not, as it now does, require the analysis of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) when the General Plan EIR was certified, potential VMT impacts were actually evaluated in the EIR. The EIR noted that the total VMT generated under the 2010-2035 General Plan for the City of Santa Clara was estimated to be 3.74 million vehicle-miles per day (or a net increase of 552,227 vehicle miles compared to existing conditions). It was also found that the resulting average VMT per service population (residents and jobs) would be 12.2 vehicle miles per day under the 2010-2035 General Plan, which represents a reduction of approximately 15.3 percent per service population compared to existing conditions at the time. The General Plan EIR further noted that this reflects that the general plan Focus Areas would include development of new complementary land uses that are in close proximity to each other, provide more opportunities for shorter trips that encourage walking and bicycling, and utilize higher densities of development that support enhanced transit service. At a citywide performance level, the General Plan EIR found that the 2010-2035 General Plan more efficiently links land uses and the transportation system network in that VMT and VMT per service population are dropping compared to existing conditions, VMT growth is less than population growth, non-auto travel mode shares increase, and trip length is virtually unchanged. The General Plan EIR found that all of these indicators suggest the 2010-2035 General Plan is an efficient, well-balanced plan from a land use-transportation standpoint compared to existing conditions.

The Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR analyzed VMT for the purposes of its Air Quality analysis and determined that the LSAP could potentially contribute to a larger increase in VMT growth in the plan area than population growth. With no way to accurately measure population growth in the study area (because there were no residences at the time), that impact was found to be significant and unavoidable.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 101 City of Santa Clara
The LSAP EIR also indicated that, “It should be noted, however, that the LSAP as a [Transit-Oriented Development] TOD is located in close proximity to transit and employment centers and would reduce VMT trips when compared to suburban projects that contribute to sprawl.” By 2021, CEQA required VMT analyses for development projects, and both the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan and the Freedom Circle Focus Area were analyzed for Vehicle Miles Traveled. Both projects meet the criteria to qualify as a transit supportive project because they meet the criteria established by the City related to proximity to transit, density, multimodal transportation networks, transit-oriented design elements, parking, and affordable housing. Both were therefore exempt from a quantitative analysis of VMT and impacts from VMT were determined to be less than significant.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the impact on vehicle miles of travel would be less than significant. Subsequent program EIRs containing VMT analyses for the purpose of transportation impacts also concluded that transportation impacts would be less than significant.

Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent amendments related to specific plans or area plans, the project will not result in an increase in VMT beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR or subsequent EIRs. Project impacts would be similar to those evaluated in the General Plan EIR and less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would result in a less than significant VMT impact. (c) Design Hazards. The General Plan EIR did not directly analyze potential impacts from design features hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. The General Plan EIR did not identify any existing or potential design hazards that could occur as the result of implementation of the General Plan. In addition, potential roadway and circulation design hazards more typically occur with site specific development proposal instead of plan/programs like a general plan. When development proposal applications are submitted to the City they are review for potential design and circulation hazards and are subject to City regulations and standards related to project access and roadway design.

The Tasman East Specific Plan EIR indicated that the project design does not include sharp curves or dangerous intersections that could result in safety hazards within the Plan Area; nor does the project propose incompatible uses. The Specific Plan would have an interconnected street network and all streets would be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles and concluded that impacts from design features would be less than significant.

In the Patrick Henry Drive Plan EIR, the transportation analysis notes the, “Conflicts between modes would be reduced through better accommodations, including Specific Plan elements such as new and/or improved sidewalks, bike lanes, and more accessible and comfortable bus stops. The Specific Plan proposes an improved internal roadway network designed to accommodate vehicular traffic that is balanced with other modes (including walking, cycling, micro-mobility, and transit).” Freedom Circle: When detailed site plans for future development projects are submitted, project-related roadway designs would be subject to City review, which would ensure adequacy of circulation patterns and safety standards; reduce potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses; and remove potential hazards due to design features (i.e., insufficient sightlines or distances) or incompatible uses. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations, or circulation or related policies, the project will not result in an increase in potential design 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
102 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
hazard beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR or subsequent EIRs. Project impacts would be similar to those evaluated in the General Plan EIR and less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to design hazards. (d) Emergency Access. The General Plan EIR did not specifically analyze impacts related to inadequate emergency access. However, the General Plan EIR found that increased motor vehicle traffic and increased congestion associated with implementation of the General Plan could result in increased emergency response times, and increased vehicle traffic associated with the 2010-2035 General Plan could result in increased traffic congestion as described under Impacts 4.12-1 through

4.12-5. This congestion, anticipated mainly during the morning and evening commute periods, would result in decreased travel speeds and increased emergency vehicle response times on key routes in the City. To mitigate the impact of the 2010-2035 General Plan on emergency vehicle response times, the General Plan included a prerequisite policy 5.1.1-P5. With implementation of this policy, the General Plan EIR determined that the impact would be less than significant.

Since the proposed project does not include any changes to general plan land use designations, or circulation or related policies, the project will not result in an increase in potential design hazards beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR or subsequent EIRs: project impacts would be similar to those evaluated in the General Plan EIR and less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to emergency access.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR determined that under cumulative conditions, which assumes build-out of all planned growth in the region, including the City’s Draft General Plan, regional roadways and highways would experience levels of service in excess of those identified by responsible agencies, for which no feasible mitigation exists. These cumulative impacts, and the City’s contribution to them under the General Plan, were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Since the proposed project does not include any changes to general plan land use designations, or circulation or related policies, the project will not result in an increase in cumulative impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR or subsequent EIRs. Project impacts would be similar to those evaluated in the General Plan EIR and significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulative transportation impacts.

Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on Transportation beyond the potential impacts already identified in the General Plan EIR and subsequent specific plan and area plan EIR’s. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and the EIR’s for subsequent specific plans and area plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate any additional vehicle trips or VMT. Development of future housing would be subject to project-level environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits and would also be subject to existing mitigation measures. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 103 City of Santa Clara
Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
MM 4.12-1: Adopt Prerequisite Policy 5.1.1-P5. Prior to the implementation of Phase IIiv and III of the 2010-2035 General Plan, evaluate appropriate measures to maintain emergency response time standards.

iv Note that Policy 5.1.1-P5 was modified as part of the 2014 General Plan Update, which was adopted with a MND. As modified, the Policy now directs the evaluation of appropriate measures to maintain emergency response time standards prior to the implementation of Phase III, rather than Phases II and III.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
104 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

4.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a Cultural Native American tribe, and that is:

No Not Examined No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Listed or Eligible Historical Resources. The General Plan EIR did not specifically evaluate impacts to Tribal cultural resources because it was not required by CEQA until the passage of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) in 2014, which requires consultation between lead agencies and Tribal representatives for projects within Tribal territory. However, the General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan policies and programs, including application of the California Historic Building Code and the City’s Combining Historic Districts, the City’s design review process, and referral of projects involving historic resources to the Historical and Landmarks Commission, would serve to minimize historic resources impacts. The General Plan EIR further determined implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would reduce the impact to cultural resources to less than significant with respect to Tribal 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 105 City of Santa Clara
Cultural Resources. There were no known tribal historical resources that were identified in the General Plan EIR.

Since the proposed project does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan including subsequent amendments related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Impacts related to resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) would be less than significant as a result of the proposed project. (b) Significant Tribal Resources. The General Plan EIR did not specifically evaluate impacts to Tribal cultural resources because it was not required by CEQA until the passage of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) in 2014, which requires consultation between lead agencies and Tribal representatives for projects within Tribal territory. In addition, the General Plan EIR found that the potential for project-level impacts to unidentified and unrecorded tribal cultural places remains moderate to high. It was also found that future excavation and grading activities could result in impacts to human remains. However, the General Plan EIR found that 2010-2035 General Plan includes a range of policies to ensure the protection of cultural resources and thus, impacts to cultural resources were found to be less than significant.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant. Similarly, subsequent EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP and the Freedom Circle FFA found that impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, subsequent EIRs have determined that this impact is less than significant and the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
 Patrick Henry Drive SP – see mitigation measure 7-2
 Freedom Circle Drive- see mitigation measure 7-4
Since the proposed project does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan including subsequent amendments related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs and would be less than significant (or less than significant with mitigation). Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources would not occur as a result of the proposed project. In addition, all future discretionary proposals will be subject to the current requirements of AB 52 (2014) and SB 18 (2004).Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources would not occur as a result of the proposed project.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR did not specifically evaluate cumulative impacts related to Tribal cultural resources because it was not required by CEQA until the passage of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) in 2014, which requires consultation between lead agencies and Tribal representatives for projects within Tribal territory. However, the General Plan EIR found that Projects in the City and other cumulative projects would implement mitigation that avoids or substantially lessens potentially significant impacts to cultural resources, as required by State law. These mitigation strategies would typically involve pre-construction identification surveys; significance evaluations; consultation with tribal descendant communities; culturally and legally appropriate treatment of human remains; archaeological construction monitoring; resource documentation; and data recovery for unavoidable impacts. These mitigation strategies would generally avoid or substantially lessen the severity of impacts to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to cumulative impacts associated with cultural resources is less than cumulatively considerable.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
106 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan including subsequent amendments related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.

Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on any tribal cultural resource. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR. Development of future housing would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA, as well as AB 52 and SB 18 requirements upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

4.19 – Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:

Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in General
Plan EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of
new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could
cause significant
environmental effects?
No Not
Examined No No No
b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during normal,
dry and multiple dry years?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Result in a determination
by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or
may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s Projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
e) Comply with federal,
state, and local management
and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
108 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Utility Infrastructure. The General Plan EIR not specifically analyze impacts related to relocation or construction of storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

However, as shown in the responses below, the General Plan EIR found that impacts related to water and wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant. In addition, project impacts with respect to stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas and telecommunications facilities would be no greater than those that would occur under the General Plan EIR (and Subsequent EIRs) because the proposed project does not include any changes to general plan land use designations, including changes that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan. Therefore, impacts to utility infrastructure from the proposed project would be less than significant and similar to impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments.
(b) Sufficient Water Supplies. The General Plan EIR noted that new development under the 2010- 2035 General Plan would increase water demand within the City. However, it was also noted that the City’s Water Utility had determined that there would be sufficient water supplies to provide service to the City for the 2010-2035 General Plan under normal and single critical dry year scenarios. In the event of a multiple dry year event and the loss of supply from SFPUC, the General Plan EIR found that there is a projected shortfall of 0.6 percent or 193 afy in the year 2035, and the City plans to meet future demand growth by pumping additional groundwater, relying on more recycled water, and increased conservation. Future pumping by the City of Santa Clara, in combination with the multiple other users of the Santa Clara Sub-Basin, would not be expected to contribute to cumulative groundwater pumping impacts, i.e., withdrawals above the basin’s safe yield, given the Water District’s reasonably foreseeable recharge and groundwater management programs. However, should the District’s recharge program be affected by reduced availability of imported water, there is the potential for future cumulative groundwater basin demand to exceed the aquifer’s safe yield. These impacts were considered potentially significant by the General Plan EIR. However, with the application of Mitigation Measure 4.7- 1 which address the potential for groundwater overdraft, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to water supplies would be less than significant. Similarly, subsequent EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP and the Freedom Circle FFA found that impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
 Patrick Henry Drive SP – see mitigation measure 18-1
 Freedom Circle Drive- see mitigation measure 18-5
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan including subsequent amendments related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, impacts to water supplies would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.
(c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity. The General Plan EIR found that future projected wastewater flows would increase but remain within the City’s allocation of capacity at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), now called the “Regional Wastewater Facility” (RWF). It was also found that sanitary sewer conveyance capacity would need to be increased at select locations throughout the City to serve the increased wastewater flows from new development. The General Plan EIR noted that it is a City requirement that new industrial, commercial, and major residential development be reviewed to determine projected wastewater load and available sewer capacity before zoning approval or permits are approved and, to the extent that additional sewer collection system improvements may be identified as necessary to serve the development, such improvements will 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 109 City of Santa Clara
become the responsibility of the project applicants. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to wastewater services would be less than significant.

The Freedom Circle EIR found that project wastewater would exceed the exceed the current combined wastewater capacity of the Northside and Rabello pump stations (46.1 million gallons per day or mgd) by 0.2 mgd (for a total of 46.3 mgd), which represents a cumulative wastewater impact. Therefore, the proposed Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan contribution to cumulative pump station capacity at the Northside and Rabello pump stations was determined to be a significant cumulative impact. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 18-5 which, requires individual developments to make fair share contributions wastewater pump station improvements, potential impacts are less than significant. (d, e) Solid Waste Infrastructure/Regulations. The General Plan EIR noted that new development allowed under the General Plan would generate solid waste that can be accommodated under the existing landfill disposal contract through 2024. However, it was also noted that the City has no specific plan for disposing of solid waste beyond 2024, including waste generated by existing uses, but will undertake a process to identify a solution prior to 2024. Since no solution to this issue was identified when the EIR was certified this issue was considered significant. The City further determined that there were no feasible measures to reduce this impact and determined that it the impacts was significant and unavoidable. Both the EIR and the findings adopting the EIR indicated that an expansion of the Newby Island landfill was being evaluated and that the City also owns property outside its jurisdiction that could potentially provide this service. In addition, Prerequisite Policy 5.1.1-P22vrequires the re-evaluation of landfill capacity. This assessment could also examine the City's progress on attaining recycling goals in order to evaluate whether there is a continuing long-term need for solid waste capacity. The City found this impact to be significant and unavoidable.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above the General Plan EIR found that there were potential cumulative impacts with respect to water supply and solid waste. Potential impacts to water supply were determined to be less than significant with mitigation and potential impacts to solid waste capacity were determined to be significant, adverse and unavoidable.

Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on utilities and services. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and the EIR’s for subsequent specific plans and area plans. Development of future housing would be subject to project-level environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits and would also be subject to existing mitigation measures. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously

v After the 2014 General Plan amendments, this policy was renumbered 5.5.1-P21, and directs the City to identify solid waste disposal faciltieis to serve development in Phase III of the General Plan. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
110 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
MM 4.7-1: To prevent a cumulatively considerable contribution to a potential future overdraft of the Santa Clara Sub-Basin, the City shall update the forecast groundwater pumping supply quantities every five years with each UWMP to align water supply availability with the water demand associated with each General Plan Phase. Future Santa Clara UWMPs will be coordinated with the Water District and implement alternative sources (i.e., recycled water and increased conservation) if cumulative groundwater pumping, based on all water retailers UWMPs, would exceed the Santa Clara Sub-Basin safe yield. With implementation of this program mitigation measure, potential future impacts associated with supplying future development envisioned by the General Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 111 City of Santa Clara

4.20 – Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
No Not Examined No No No
b) Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of wildfire?
No Not Examined No No No
c) Require the installation
or maintenance of
associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities),
that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in
temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
No Not Examined No No No
d) Expose people or
structures to significant risks,
including downslope or
downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?
No Not Examined No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments Please note that none of the impacts in this section were evaluated in the General Plan EIR because this impact area was added to the Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines in 2019 and thus post-dates the EIR. In addition, the Wildfire section of Appendix G applies only to areas within or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones and these conditions do 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
112 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
not apply to the City of Santa Clara. The General Plan EIR also indicates that there are no wildfire hazards in the City of Santa Clara (See Page 409).
(a) Impairment of Emergency Plans. The General Plan EIR did not examine this potential impact.

However, Section 4.13, Hazards, of the General Plan EIR found that there are no wildfire hazards in the City of Santa Clara, and further fount that it would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In addition, the proposed project will not result in any changes to general plan land use designations or circulation policies that could increase potential impacts beyond those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
(b) Pollutant Concentrations from Wildfire. The General Plan EIR did not examine this potential impact. However, Section 4.13, Hazards, of the General Plan EIR found that there are no wildfire hazards in the City of Santa Clara. In addition, the City is predominantly flat with no areas with steep slopes or wildland interface areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. (c) Installation or Maintenance of Associated Infrastructure. The General Plan EIR did not examine this potential impact. However, Section 4.13, Hazards, of the General Plan EIR found that there are no wildfire hazards in the City of Santa Clara and the City is not within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The City has been largely built out and the necessary infrastructure is in place to support the proposed project. Project roadways would connect to the existing roadway system in the area and utility connections would be made for sewer and electric services. No wildlands exist in the vicinity of the project site, and the development of the site would not result in any hazards related to wildland fires.

The project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, impacts related to installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure would be less than significant. (d) Post-Fire Slope Instability or Drainage Changes. The General Plan EIR did not examine this potential impact. However, Section 4.13, Hazards, of the General Plan EIR found that there are no wildfire hazards in the City of Santa Clara. The City is not located within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is relatively flat. Because no wildlands exist in the vicinity of the City, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Development of the proposed project would comply with the California Uniform Building Code for grading and drainage.

Therefore, impacts related to post-fire slope instability or drainage changes would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR did not examine potential cumulative wildfire impacts. However, Section 4.13, Hazards, of the General Plan EIR found that there are no wildfire hazards in the City of Santa Clara and the City is not within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulative wildfire impacts.

Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect with respect to Wildfire as the City is not within or near a state responsibility area or Very High Fire Hazard Zone, built out, predominantly flat and does not contain areas that are within a wildland/urban interface. Likewise, 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 113 City of Santa Clara
there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation is required.

Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
114 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

4.21 – Mandatory Findings of Significance
Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Does the project have
the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the
range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important
examples of the major
periods of California history
or prehistory?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
b) Does the project have
impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No No
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial
adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Significant Biological or Cultural Impacts. The results of the preceding analysis indicate that the proposed Housing Element Update will have less than significant impacts to sensitive biological, historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources with incorporation of mitigation. Impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, and visual character will be less than significant. Considering the programmatic level of analysis will not authorize any development plan, redevelopment of any existing sites, or construction of new infrastructure, and will not change existing City land use policy regarding locations or intensities of development, and it will not result in any effects that would degrade the quality of the environment beyond such impacts already analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIR’s. Therefore, the City finds that impacts related to degradation of the environment will be less than significant and no new mitigation is required. (b) Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative effects resulting from full implementation of City land use policies were evaluated in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIR’s. The proposed Housing 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 115 City of Santa Clara
Element Update will not change any of these policies and does not propose any specific development or redevelopment project that could contribute to short-term or long-term cumulative impacts that were not addressed sufficiently in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIR’s. The proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to land use designations and thus is consistent with the project analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. The City hereby finds that the proposed Housing Element Update’s individual contribution to potentially significant cumulative impacts is not considerable and no additional mitigation is required. (c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings. As supported by the preceding environmental evaluation, the proposed Housing Element Update will not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. It has been determined through analysis supported by substantial evidence that the proposed Housing Element Update has been determined to have little or no adverse impacts on people or the environment as evaluated in the 20 preceding environmental topics. The City hereby finds that direct and indirect impacts on human beings will be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
116 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 117 City of Santa Clara
5 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
The following General Plan EIR mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed Housing Element Update:

AIR QUALITY
MM 4.10-1: Policy 5.1.1-P25 should be added to the Prerequisite section as follows:

Policy 5.1.1-P25: Prior to the implementation of Phase II,vi the City will include a Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP) for acceptable TAC concentrations consistent with the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, including risk and exposure reduction targets, measures to reduce emissions, monitoring procedures, and a public participation process.

Policy 5.10.5-P34 should be added to the Safety section as follows:

Policy 5.10.5-P34: Include minimum setbacks of 500 feet for roadways with average daily trips of 100,000 or more and 100 feet for railroad tracks for new residential or other uses with sensitive receptors, unless a project-specific study identifies measures such as, site design, tiered landscaping, air filtration systems, windows design to reduce exposure, demonstrating that the potential risks can be reduced to acceptable levels.

MM 4.10-2: Policy 5.10.5-P35 should be added to the Safety section as follows:

Policy 5.10.5-P35: Establish minimum buffers between odor sources and new residential or other uses with sensitive receptors, consistent with the BAAQMD guidelines, unless a project-specific study demonstrates that these risks can be reduced to acceptable levels.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM 4.9-1: Congdon’s Tarplant Program Mitigation: On parcels with ruderal grasslands, surveys will be conducted prior to future development to document the presence/absence of Congdon’s tarplant. In the event the species is present, the project design will incorporate an adequate buffer, as determined by a qualified biologist, to ensure the Congdon’s tarplant is not threatened by development.

MM 4.9-2: Burrowing Owl Program Mitigation: Future development on parcels with ruderal grasslands will include the following standard measures to reduce potential WBO impacts to a less than significant level:

1. Determine Burrowing Owl Presence

vi Note that Policy 5.1.1-P25 was modified as part of the 2014 General Plan Update, which was adopted with a MND. As modified, the Policy now directs the preparation of the CRRP prior to implementation of Phase III, rather than Phase II
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
118 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
a. Breeding Season Surveys
Standardized surveys are necessary to determine presence (or presumed absence) of burrowing owls for the purposes of inventory, monitoring, avoidance of take, and determining appropriate mitigation. In California the breeding season begins as early as February 1 and continues through August 31. The California Burrowing Owl Consortium (Consortium) survey protocol specifies a multi-phase approach, which is recommended in order to adequately evaluate burrowing owl use of an area and to inform the CEQA process. The Department recommends that the Consortium survey protocol for breeding season surveys be adhered to (4 survey visits spread evenly (roughly every 3 weeks) during the peak of the breeding season, from April 15-July 15) The habitat assessment, intensive burrow surveys and burrowing owl surveys should include the area within 150 meters of the project boundaries (approximately 500 feet). b. Non-Breeding Season Surveys (Including Winter)
Surveys during the non-breeding season (September 1- January 31) are recommended by the Department but are not generally required because burrowing owls are much more difficult to detect during the non-breeding season, and the number or type of surveys that would be needed to detect presence then has not been studied or quantified. Negative results during any nonbreeding season surveys are not conclusive proof that owls do not use the site. Because of this complication, the DFG recommends breeding season surveys as the first step, but project applicants should consult with the Department if burrowing owls have been documented on the project site during the nonbreeding season.

2. Avoid Impacts (destruction, disturbance) to Individual Owls d. Pre-Construction Surveys for Owl Presence
Pre-construction surveys (usually initiated during the non-breeding season) are necessary for assessing owl presence at a site within a short time period before site modification is scheduled to begin. Pre-construction surveys are supplemental to the existing breeding season survey protocol (4 survey visits spread evenly during the peak of the breeding season, from April 15- July 15). Initial pre-construction surveys should be conducted no more than 30 days prior to ground-disturbing activities (for example, disking, clearing, grubbing, grading). Generally, at a minimum, 4 survey visits on at least 4 separate days will be necessary, The time lapse between surveys and site disturbance should be as short as possible and will be determined by DFG based on specific project conditions but generally should not exceed 7 days. Additional surveys are necessary when the initial disturbance is followed by periods of inactivity or the development is phased spatially and/or temporally over the project area. Biologists conducting preconstruction surveys should expend enough effort, based on the above criteria, to assure with a high degree of certainty that take of owls will not occur once site modification and grading activities begin. The report should be submitted to the DFG for review. e. Buffer Zones Around Occupied Burrows (Year-Round)
Buffer zones to protect burrowing owls from direct disturbance should be implemented pursuant to the Consortium Guidelines and the Department’s Staff Report (1995). 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 119 City of Santa Clara
Generally, the buffers recommended in these reports for protecting burrowing owls from disturbance is 75 meters (250 feet) from occupied burrows during the breeding season and 50 meters (160 feet) from occupied burrows during the non-breeding season.

Consultation with the Department may result in site-specific buffer specifications, on a case-by-case basis.
f. Passive Relocation
If construction will directly impact occupied burrows, eviction of owls should occur outside the nesting season to prevent injury or mortality of individual owls. No burrowing owls will be evicted from burrows during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) unless evidence indicates that nesting is not actively occurring (e.g., because the owls have not yet begun nesting early in the season, or because young have already fledged late in the season). Relocation of owls during the non-breeding season will be performed by a qualified biologist using one-way doors, which should be installed in all burrows within the impact area and left in place for at least two nights. These one-way doors will then be removed and the burrows backfilled immediately prior to the initiation of grading. Furthermore, should the Valley HCP, once adopted, include a regional WBO mitigation program that would be available to future projects in Santa Clara, future projects may have a feasible option to mitigate for their individual impacts to loss of WBO foraging and/or nesting habitat by participating in the Valley HCP’s program.

NOISE
MM 4.14-1: Use the Federal Transit Administration vibration impact criteria, as described above under the Regulatory Setting, to evaluate the land use compatibility of sensitive uses proposed along the railroad/light-rail corridor using the best available information (e.g., High Speed Rail Program EIR) or site-specific measurements and analyses (assuming active railroad operations). Developers of sensitive uses shall demonstrate that potential impacts of existing or potential vibration have been minimized to the maximum feasible extent.

MM 4.14-2: Case studies have shown that the replacement of dense grade asphalt (standard type) with open-grade or rubberized asphalt can reduce traffic noise levels along local roadways by 2 to 3 dBA CNEL. A possible noise reduction of 2 dBA would be expected using conservative engineering assumptions, and future traffic noise increases could be mitigated to a less than significant level by repaving roadways with “quieter pavements.” To be a permanent mitigation, subsequent repaving would also have to use “quieter” pavements. Existing residential receivers located along Tasman Drive between Lafayette Street and the easternmost City limits either front the roadway (private outdoor use areas are located behind the homes) or have outdoor use areas adjacent to the roadway that may or may not be shielded by fences or noise barriers. In situations where private outdoor use areas are located adjacent to the roadway, new or larger noise barriers could be constructed to provide the additional necessary noise attenuation in private use areas. Typically, increasing the height of an existing barrier results in approximately one dBA of attenuation per one foot of additional barrier height. The design of such noise barriers would require additional analysis. Traffic calming could also be implemented to reduce noise levels expected with the project. Each five mph reduction in average speed provides approximately one dBA of noise reduction on an average basis (Leq/CNEL). Traffic calming measures that regulate speed improve the noise environment by smoothing out noise levels. Residences could also be provided 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
120 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
with sound insulation treatments if further study finds that interior noise levels within the affected residential units would exceed 45 dBA CNEL as a result of the projected increase in traffic noise. Treatments to the homes may include the replacement of existing windows and doors with sound-rated windows and doors and the provision of a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation to allow the occupants the option of controlling noise by closing the windows. The specific treatments for each affected residential unit would be identified on a case-by-case basis.

MM 4.14-3: Develop construction noise control plans that consider the following available controls in order to reduce construction noise levels as low as practical: Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists; Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; Locate all stationary noisegenerating equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from adjacent land uses; Locate staging areas and construction material areas as far away as possible from adjacent land uses; Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; Notify all adjacent land uses of the construction schedule in writing; Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.

TRANSPORTATION
MM 4.12-1: Adopt Prerequisite Policy 5.1.1-P5. Prior to the implementation of Phase IIvii and III of the 2010-2035 General Plan, evaluate appropriate measures to maintain emergency response time standards.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
MM 4.7-1: To prevent a cumulatively considerable contribution to a potential future overdraft of the Santa Clara Sub-Basin, the City shall update the forecast groundwater pumping supply quantities every five years with each UWMP to align water supply availability with the water demand associated with each General Plan Phase. Future Santa Clara UWMPs will be coordinated with the Water District and implement alternative sources (i.e., recycled water and increased conservation) if cumulative groundwater pumping, based on all water retailers UWMPs, would exceed the Santa Clara Sub-Basin safe yield. With implementation of this program mitigation measure, potential future impacts associated with supplying future development envisioned by the General Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level.

vii Note that Policy 5.1.1-P5 was modified as part of the 2014 General Plan Update, which was adopted with a MND. As modified, the Policy now directs the evaluation of appropriate measures to maintain emergency response time standards prior to the implementation of Phase III, rather than Phases II and III.

Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 121 City of Santa Clara
6 References

6.1 – List of Preparers
City of Santa Clara (Lead Agency)
Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
(408) 615-2478
 John Davidson, Principal Planner
MIG (Environmental Analysis)
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106
Riverside, California 92507
951-787-9222
 Pamela Steele, Principal
 Bob Prasse, Director of Environmental Services
 Cameron Hile, Senior Analyst

6.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted
None.
6 – References
122 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

6.3 – Bibliography
California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Web:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp. [Accessed November 2022].

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Ventura County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Web: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. [Accessed November 2022].

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California State Scenic Highways Maps. Web:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-iscenic-highways. [Accessed November 2022].

California Environmental Protection Agency. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List). Web: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed December 2022].

California Environmental Protection Agency. List of Active CDO and CAO. Web:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed December 2022].

California Environmental Protection Agency. List of Hazardous Waste Facilities Subject to Corrective Action Pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Web:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed December 2022].

CalRecycle. Identify Disposal Facility Capacity Shortfalls. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/facility/disposalgap.aspx [Accessed December 2022].

California Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Web: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. [Accessed December 2022].

California Water Resources Control Board. List of Solid Waste Disposal Sites. Web:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed December 2022].

Resolution/Housing Element Update 2023 Addendum Page 5 of 5 Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

TO ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, FOR ADOPTION OF THE
6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the California legislature has found that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and
WHEREAS, the legislature has further found that “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and WHEREAS, the legislature recently adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) which states that “In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita… California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over 7 years”; and WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of Santa Clara (City) regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 11,632 housing units, comprised of 2,872 very-low income units, 1,653 low-income units, 1,981 moderate-income units, and 5,126 above moderate-income units; and WHEREAS, to comply with State Housing Element Law, the City of Santa Clara has prepared its Housing Element Update for the years 2023-2031 (the Housing Element); and Resolution/Housing Element Update 2023 Addendum Page 5 of 5 Rev: 11/22/17
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., the adoption of the updated Housing Element constitutes a General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Project approvals will include a resolution approving the Addendum to the General Plan EIR; and a resolution approving the General Plan Amendment (collectively, the “Approvals”);
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Addendum to the 2010-2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report adopted by the City Council on November 16, 2010, and to the environmental review documents that were prepared for subsequent amendments to the General Plan that affected housing development in the City, including but not limited to the December 2013 Climate Action Plan Negative Declaration; the February 2016 Mission Town Center EIR; the 2016 Related Santa Clara EIR; the November 2016 Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR; the July 2018 575 Benton Project Addendum; the July 2019 Gateway Crossings EIR; the March 2022 Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan EIR; the June 2022 Climate Action Plan Addendum; and the June 2022 Freedom Circle Future Focus Area EIR (collectively, the “Subsequent Documents”), all of which provide environmental clearance for all of the units in the 6th cycle Housing Sites Inventory; WHEREAS, a notice of the public hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendment was published in the Santa Clara Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation for the City, on December 11, 2022, for the January 11, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting and the January 31, 2023 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2023, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment, and then continued the hearing to January 23, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2023, the City published a revised draft Housing Element with the changes required by HCD (see Housing Element Exhibit A – HCD Comments and Reponses) and requested public comment on the draft; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2023, the Planning Commission resumed the previously-opened Resolution/Housing Element Update 2023 Addendum Page 5 of 5 Rev: 11/22/17
public hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment, and then subsequently continued the hearing to January 26, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Addendum to the General Plan EIR, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, along with the City Staff report pertaining to the Project, and all evidence received at a duly noticed public hearing on January 26, 2023. All these documents and evidence are incorporated herein by reference into this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Addendum to the General Plan EIR, in accordance with CEQA for the Project; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2023, the City Council conducted a public hearing, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence in support of and in opposition to the proposed Addendum to the General Plan EIR.

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

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

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

4. That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed General Plan Amendments do not involve substantial changes to the General Plan that would require major revisions to the previous EIR or Subsequent Documents.

5. That the City Council hereby finds that there is no substantial change in circumstances as a result of modifications to the General Plan that would require major revisions to the previous EIR and Subsequent Documents or cause new or substantially more severe significant impacts.

Resolution/Housing Element Update 2023 Addendum Page 5 of 5 Rev: 11/22/17

6. That the City Council hereby finds that there is no new information of substantial importance that identifies new or more intense significant impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Documents.

7. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution and the evidence in the City Staff Report, the City Council approves the Addendum to the General Plan EIR, in accordance with CEQA for the Project.

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

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

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY 2023, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Resolution/Housing Element Page 1 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE

HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE
PERIOD OF 2023-2031 TO COMPLY WITH STATE HOUSING

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

WHEREAS, the California legislature has found that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and
WHEREAS, the legislature has further found that “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and WHEREAS, the legislature recently adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) which states that “In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita… California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over 7 years”; and WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of Santa Clara (City) regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 11,632 housing units, comprised of 2,872 very-low income units, 1,653 low-income units, 1,981 moderate-income units, and 5,126 above moderate-income units; and
WHEREAS, to comply with State Housing Element Law, the City of Santa Clara has prepared its Resolution/Housing Element Page 2 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17
Housing Element Update for the years 2023-2031 (the Housing Element); and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., the Housing Element constitutes a General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Sections 65352 – 65352.5, the City of Santa Clara referred the Housing Element to all California Native American tribes on the contact list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission, to cities abutting Santa Clara’s borders and to Santa Clara County; to local school districts; to the Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; and to other entities listed. No California Native American tribe requested consultation; and
WHEREAS, State law requires that the City take meaningful steps to promote and affirmatively further fair housing (Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(5)); and WHEREAS, State law requires that the City make zoning available for all types of housing, including multifamily housing (Gov. Code Sections 65583.2 and 65583(c)); and WHEREAS, the Housing Element must be adopted to comply with State law, accommodate the RHNA, affirmatively further fair housing, and facilitate and encourage a variety of housing types for all income levels, including multifamily housing (Gov. Code Sections 65583.2 and 65583(c)); and WHEREAS, the preparation, adoption, and implementation of the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update requires a diligent effort to include all economic segments of the community; and WHEREAS, the City conducted extensive community outreach over the last 20 months, including 27 meetings and activities that included community meetings/events, stakeholder workshops, meetings/interviews with residents, and City task force meetings and study sessions; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65585 (b), on August 22, 2022, the City submitted the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its review; and
Resolution/Housing Element Page 3 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2022, HCD and City staff had an introductory meeting, which included an informal conversation and feedback from HCD about the City’s Initial Draft Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2022, the City received a letter from HCD stating that while the draft Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, revisions will be necessary to fully comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code); and WHEREAS, on November 29, 2022, HCD and City staff had a meeting to discuss HCDs findings letter; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2023, the City published a revised draft Housing Element with the changes required by HCD (see Exhibit A – HCD Comments and Reponses) and requested public comment on the draft; and
WHEREAS, a notice of the public hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendment was published in the Santa Clara Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation for the City, on December 11, 2022, for the January 11, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting and the January 31, 2023 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2023, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment, and then continued the hearing to January 23, 2023; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2023, the Planning Commission resumed the previously-opened public hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment, and then continued the hearing again to January 26, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Addendum to the 2010-2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report adopted by the City Council on November 16, 2010, and to the environmental review documents that were prepared for subsequent amendments to the General Plan that affected housing development in the City, all of which provide environmental clearance for all of the units in the 6th cycle Housing Sites Inventory; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 26th, 2023, at Resolution/Housing Element Page 4 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17
the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed 6th Cycle Housing Element would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously identified in the General Plan EIR and recommended that the City Council approve the Addendum to the 2010 - 2035 General Plan EIR prepared for the Housing Element Update; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing, reviewed the Housing Element and all pertinent maps, documents and exhibits, including HCD’s findings, the City’s response to HCD’s findings, the staff report and all attachments, and oral and written public comments.

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

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.

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

A. The proposed Amendment is deemed to be in the public interest, in that the proposed Amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the City’s General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected, in that the Housing Element is consistent with the General Plan’s Land Use and Circulation policies, and does not increase development capacity under the General Plan, as amended.

B. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that the impacts of the Housing Element are disclosed by the General Plan EIR as addended by subsequent amendments to the General Plan that affected housing development in the City, including but not limited to the December 2013 Climate Action Plan Negative Declaration; the February 2016 Resolution/Housing Element Page 5 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17
Mission Town Center EIR; the 2016 Related Santa Clara EIR; the November 2016 Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR; the July 2018 575 Benton Project Addendum; the July 2019 Gateway Crossings EIR; the March 2022 Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan EIR; the June 2022 Climate Action Plan Addendum; and the June 2022 Freedom Circle Future Focus Area EIR (collectively, the “Subsequent Documents”).

C. The potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, in that the Housing Element creates a policy framework that provides opportunities for the development of housing in the City through the year 2031. The impacts of the Housing Element have been disclosed through the CEQA process, and the City Council has determined that any impacts from the Housing Element are within the scope of the General Plan EIR, as addended.

3. The City Council approves the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2023-2031) in its entirety as provided in Attachment B, attached hereto, plus any non-substantive edits or corrections made as directed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development after their review of the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element or Addendum to the 2010 General Plan Update EIR. //
//
//
//
//
Resolution/Housing Element Page 6 of 6
Rev: 11/22/17

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

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

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY, 2023, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. 2023-2031 Housing Element
S:\Attorney\RESOLUTIONS\Form Resolution-City.doc
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-1533 Agenda Date: 1/31/2023

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Action on Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of a Variance to Maintain a 68 Square Foot Accessory Building in the Rear Yard of a Single-Family Residence, at a Site Located at 2121 Sheraton Drive, Santa Clara; and Action on a Class 1(e) CEQA Categorical Exemption

BACKGROUND
The applicant submitted the Variance application on August 3, 2022 in response to a code enforcement citation regarding the construction of a 68 square foot accessory structure within the required setbacks of a single-family residential site located at 2121 Sheraton Drive. Smaller structures of 120 square feet or less are exempt from the requirement of a building permit, but still must comply with all applicable City Codes.

Section 18.66.020(d) of the Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) indicates the setbacks required for detached accessory structures in residential lots. The accessory structure does not meet the minimum rear setback of five feet from the property line and the minimum 6-foot setback from the main building. The applicant is requesting in the Variance application for the City to allow a deviation from the requirements to grant the accessory structure a rear setback of three feet five inches and a setback from the main building of three feet seven inches.

On November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, deliberated, and made findings to support the Variance. The Planning Commission took action (7-0-0) to close the public hearing and bring a revised resolution forward that reflected their intended findings of approval at a subsequent Planning Commission meeting. At the December 7, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, the Variance with a resolution reflecting the findings of approval was approved on the consent calendar (5-0-2).

On December 8, 2022, Annekathrin Chatterjee (“the appellant”) filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to approve the Variance. The appeal, the Planning Commission staff report, and excerpt meeting minutes of the November 9, 2022 and December 7, 2022 meetings are attached to this report as Attachment 3, 4, and 5 respectively.

DISCUSSION
In the case of an appeal, the City Council is the final decision-making body for the City on whether or not to grant a Variance request. As discussed in the attached Planning Commission staff report, staff did not recommend approval of the Variance, having determined that it would be possible to locate the accessory structure at a different location in the rear yard of the property that would comply with City Code and that the size of the lot (7,000 sq. ft.) was sufficient that the lot would not be considered unusual in shape in size. The Planning Commission, however, determined that the Variance is warranted as discussed below. As the decision of the Planning Commission has been appealed, the City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 1/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-1533 Agenda Date: 1/31/2023
City Council is asked to determine if the requested Variance meets the City’s requirements for the granting of a Variance.

November 9, 2022 Planning Commission
At the November 9, 2022 Planning Commission hearing staff made a presentation with the recommendation to deny the requested Variance. After staff concluded their presentation the applicant presented their project and showed why the alternatives that were suggested by staff would not work for the applicant and his project.

Two members of the public spoke; one member in opposition to the project, and one member in support of the project. Both members of the public who spoke are neighbors with property directly abutting the subject rear accessory structure.

After presentations by staff, the applicant, and two public speakers, the Planning Commission closed public comment, deliberated about the project, and concluded the project met the required findings of SCCC Section 18.108.040 to grant the Variance. The Planning Commission made the following findings to approve the Variance, which were ultimately included in the Planning Commission resolution of approval:

A. That there are unusual conditions applying to the land or building which do not apply generally in the same district.

1. The lot is trapezoidal in shape and due to the configuration of the lot and the significant landscaping improvements already made to the lot limit the options for the installation of the storage shed.

B. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the Property Owner.

1. Relocating the storage shed would be infeasible, because other possible locations on the site would have blocked the views of the house or the physical use of the carport on the property given the shape and configuration of the lot.

C. That the approval of such Variance, under the circumstances of the particular case, will not materially affect adversely the health, safety, peace, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the Property Owner’s property, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood.

1. The neighborhood is filled with similar structures and the exact location of proposed shed has already been the site of a shed in the past with no significant adverse effects.

D. That the approval of the Variance is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.

1. The zoning ordinance recognizes that practical difficulties may arise from strict interpretation of the code and the City Code allows the granting of a variance in these instances.

Appeal to the City Council
In the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval, the appellant states the following reasons for the appeal (the complete appeal request is included as Attachment 3):

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 4 Printed on 1/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-1533 Agenda Date: 1/31/2023
“The purpose and intent of the City Code, as stated in its heading, is to promote development in an orderly manner. This means that code enforcement is an expectation of the public.

Failure of the City to not enforce the actions of others is not a reasonable burden on the public. Enforcement of the City Code should not fall to residents to complain then the violator is rewarded for non-compliance. One of the Planning Commissioners stated, “there are other violations in the neighborhood, so no big deal,” which means that the Planning Commission should also disregard city code, according to the commissioner.” “The Planning Commission’s decision should have been limited to the variance criteria as outlined by the city staff planner and as noted by the city attorney at the conclusion of the meeting, not the irrelevant statements about the neighbor being a good person and the planning commissioner that concluded that the person appealing now was a disgruntled neighbor prior to the testimony.”
City Council Considerations
The City Council should review the request of the applicant and determine if, according to the judgement of the City Council, granting of the requested Variance would fulfill the following criteria:

A. That there are unusual conditions applying to the land or building which do not apply generally in the same district.

B. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the Property Owner.

D. That the approval of the Variance is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.

The Planning Commission’s determination on these findings is stated above. The alternative findings of staff are described further in the attached Planning Commission staff report.

Attached to this report is a resolution to sustain the appeal (Attachment 1), which is consistent with the original staff recommendation to deny the Variance. Also attached to this report is a resolution to overrule the appeal (Attachment 2) to uphold the Planning Commission approval of the Variance.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270 provides that “CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.” If, however, the Council votes to overrule the appeal and uphold the Variance approval, the project would be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(2), additions to existing facilities. The Project would make an addition City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 1/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-1533 Agenda Date: 1/31/2023
to an existing structure of less than 10,000 square feet, the Project is located in an area where all public services and facilities are available, and the area where the Project is located is not environmentally sensitive.

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

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

PUBLIC CONTACT
On January 19, a notice of the January 31, 2023 City Council hearing considering this item was posted in at least three conspicuous locations within 300 feet of the project site and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Sustain the appeal and overrule the Planning Commission’s approval of a Variance to maintain a 68 square foot accessory building.

2. Overrule the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of a Variance to maintain a 68 square foot accessory building.

RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Sustain the appeal and overrule the Planning Commission’s approval of a Variance to maintain a 68 square foot accessory building in the rear yard of a single-family residence, at a site located at 2121 Sheraton Drive, Santa Clara
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution to Sustain the Appeal and Deny the Variance

2. Resolution to Overrule Appeal and Approve the Variance

3. Appeal by Annekathrin Chatterjee

4. Planning Commission Staff Report

5. Draft Planning Commission Minutes 11.9.2022

6. Development Plans

7. Conditions of Approval
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 4 Printed on 1/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/ 2121 Sheraton Drive Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. XX-XX

A RESOLUTION OF OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA TO SUSTAIN AN APPEAL, OVERTURN THE

PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL, AND DENY A
VARIANCE TO MAINTAIN A 68 SQUARE FOOT ACCESORY

BUILDING IN THE REAR YARD OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT THE SITE LOCATED AT 2121 SHERATON

DRIVE, SANTA CLARA
PLN22-00441 (Variance)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, on August 3, 2022, Jim Horner (“Applicant”) filed an application for a Variance to allow for a 68 square foot accessory building located in the rear of a single-family residential lot located at 2121 Sheraton Drive, Santa Clara (“Project Site”); WHEREAS, the Project Site is currently zoned as R1-6L, Single-family Residential Zoning District; WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting to maintain and complete a partially built accessory structure within the rear accessory building setback, and within the minimum accessory structure setback from a main building. The accessory structure was requested to be maintained at its current footprint of 68 square feet and have no plumbing, as shown on the Development Plans, attached as Exhibit “Development Plans”;
WHEREAS, the Project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, in that “CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves”;
WHEREAS, the subject property conforms to zoning code standards except for a substandard rear lot width of 44-feet where 60 feet is the minimum lot width in the Single-family Residential Zoning District (R1-6L); the 106 foot front lot width of the subject property exceeds the zoning code standards, as does the lot size of 7,000 square feet, where only 6,000 square feet is required;
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 9, 2022 to consider the application, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Resolution/ 2121 Sheraton Drive Page 2 of 4
Commission voted to approve the variance (7-0-0), after making verbal findings after the close of the public hearing. The Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution reflecting those findings to be voted on at the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for December 7th, 2022.

WHEREAS, on December 7th, 2022, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt the Resolution to Approve the Variance for the Project at 2121 Sheraton Drive (5-0-0); WHEREAS, on December 8th, 2022 Annekathrin Chatterjee (“the appellant”) formally appealed the Planning Commission’s action to adopt a resolution to approve the variance on December 7th, 2022;
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2023, the notice of the January 31 public hearing for this item was posted within 300 feet of the Project Site and was mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the Project Site; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to review the appeal at the meeting of January 31, 2023, at which time the Council invited and considered any and all verbal and written testimony offered in favor of and in opposition to the Project.

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

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

2. That the City Council hereby sustains the Appellant’s appeal and overturns the Planning Commission’s December 7, 2022 decision to approve a Resolution for a variance, and denies the project.

3. That pursuant to SCCC Section 18.108.040, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the variance:

Resolution/ 2121 Sheraton Drive Page 3 of 4
A. That there are no unusual conditions applying to the land or building which do not apply generally in the same district, because the shape, dimensions, and size of the lot are not unusual for the R1-6L zone.

B. That the granting of the Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the Property Owner, because the Owner could locate an accessory structure in an alternate location on the lot and still comply with Code requirements. //
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Resolution/ 2121 Sheraton Drive Page 4 of 4

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

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

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 31st DAY OF JANURARY 2023, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ___________________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments Incorporated by Reference:

1. Conditions of Approval

2. Development Plans
Resolution/ 2121 Sheraton Drive Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. XX-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

OVERRULING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING A VARIANCE TO
MAINTAIN A 68 SQUARE FOOT ACCESORY BUILDING IN THE

REAR YARD OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT THE SITE
LOCATED AT 2121 SHERATON DRIVE, SANTA CLARA
PLN22-00441 (Variance)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, on August 3, 2022, Jim Horner (“Applicant”) filed an application for a Variance to allow for a 68 square foot accessory building located in the rear of a single-family residential lot located at 2121 Sheraton Drive, Santa Clara (“Project Site”); WHEREAS, the Project Site is currently zoned as R1-6L, Single-family Residential Zoning District; WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting to maintain and complete a partially built accessory structure within the rear accessory building setback, and within the minimum accessory structure setback from a main building. The accessory structure was requested to be maintained at its current footprint of 68 square feet and have no plumbing, as shown on the Development Plans, attached as Exhibit “Development Plans”;
WHEREAS, the Project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15301(e)(2), Class 1 Additions to Existing Facilities, in the Guidelines to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), in that the Project would make an addition to an existing structure of less than 10,000 square feet, the Project is located in an area where all public services and facilities are available, and the area where the Project is located is not environmentally sensitive; WHEREAS, the subject property conforms to zoning code standards except for a substandard rear lot width of 44-feet where 60 feet is the minimum lot width in the Single-family Residential Zoning District (R1-6L), the 106 foot front lot width of the subject property exceeds the zoning code standards, as does the lot size of 7,000 square feet, where only 6,000 square feet is required;
Resolution/ 2121 Sheraton Drive Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 9, 2022 to consider the application, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission voted to approve the variance (7-0-0), after making verbal findings after the close of the public hearing. The Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution reflecting those findings to be voted on at the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for December 7, 2022.

WHEREAS, Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt the Resolution to approve the Variance for the Project at 2121 Sheraton Drive at the meeting of December 7, 2022 (5-0-0).

WHEREAS, on December 8, 2022, Annekathrin Chatterjee filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to approve the Variance.

WHEREAS, on January 20, 2023, the notice of the January 31 public hearing for this item was posted within 300 feet of the Project Site and was mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the Project Site; and,
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on January 31, 2023 to consider the appeal. At the public hearing, the City Council invited and considered any and all verbal and written testimony offered in favor of and in opposition to the Project.

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

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

2. That pursuant to SCCC Section 18.108.040, the City Council hereby makes the following findings in support of the variance:

A. That there are unusual conditions applying to the land or building which do not apply generally in the same district.

Resolution/ 2121 Sheraton Drive Page 3 of 4

B. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the Property Owner.

1. The neighborhood is filled with similar structures and the exact location of proposed shed has already been the site of a shed in the past with no significant adverse effects.

D. That the approval of the Variance is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.

1. The zoning ordinance recognizes that practical difficulties may arise from strict interpretation of the code and the City Code allows the granting of a variance in these instances.

3. That the City Council hereby overrules the appeal and upholds the approval of Variance PLN22-00438 to allow a 68 sq ft accessory building in the rear yard setback at 2121 Sheraton Drive, subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
//
Resolution/ 2121 Sheraton Drive Page 4 of 4

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

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

APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 31th DAY OF JANUARY 2023, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ___________________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments Incorporated by Reference:

1. Conditions of Approval

2. Development Plans
Instructions
Planning and Inspection Department
Appeal Form
Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Ph·: (408) 615-2450
Use this form to appeal a decision of the Architectural Review Committee or Planning Commission. All appeals must be filed in the Planning Division within seven calendar days of the action being appealed.

Appeals from the Architectural Review Committee are made to the Planning Commission and will be set for hearing on the next available Planning Commission agenda. Appeals from the Planning Commission are made to the City Council and will be placed on the subsequent City Council Agenda to set a hearing date. Please contact the Planning Division at the number listed above with any inquiries about the process.

Please print, complete, and sign this form before mailing or delivering to the City, along with the fee payment, and supporting documentation, letters, etc. (if any).

Appeal Fees
Appeal Fees are set by the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Clara and are subject to annual review. Please call the Planning Division for the current Appeal Fee. Fee payment must be received by the City of Santa Clara before this form submittal can be certified as complete.

Appeal fees may be paid by cash, check, or with VISA, MasterCard, or American Express, at the Pt;!rmit Center at City Hall. Alternatively, checks or money orders made payable to City of Santa Clara can be mailed or delivered to Planning Division, City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050.

Appellant Declaration
Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Phone number:

E-mail address:
.. ' d t0 () tkvd:h,-\V) C)1A. tte~r3?
222 ~ lr Aikf r ±ci c+.
c(~ C~cl),,) CA ~S-aso
( RlSJ 2 ,c;,s--rl-:2 l
Jrvpai- f'1 uZ :t:}::::
{ fLA1f~ Z-6Df.p.5v J
In accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Clara, I hereby appeal the following action of the:

D Architectural Review Committee ~ anning Commission
at it's meeting of I t. · 7 ~ z._ .z_.
{date)
Agenda Item No.: / , U \
File No.(s): (2:(G i;z - e./8-1.{ C 'PU\.)2--i ... OD l{ 41 ) Address:/APN(s): Zfz,, / 5~ ).J ~- ~
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1313 Agenda Date: 11/9/2022

REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION

SUBJECT
Action on a Variance to the Rear Accessory Building Setback and the Accessory Building Setback from the Main Building, in Order to Allow a 68 square foot accessory building in the rear of a SingleFamily Residence at 2121 Sheraton Drive; and Action on a Class 1(e) CEQA Categorical Exemption File No.(s): PLN22-00441
Location: 2121 Sheraton Dr., a 7,000 square foot single-family residential lot, APN: 224-31-104; the property is zoned R1-6L - Single Family Residential.

Applicant: Jim Horner
Owner: Jim Horner
Request: Variance to the code required rear accessory building setback and the accessory building setback to the main building, in order to allow a 68 square foot accessory building in the rear of a single-family residential lot.

CEQA: Not required per Section 15270, Projects Which Are Disapproved. If approved, Categorically Exempt per Section 15301, Class 1(e) Additions to Existing Structures.

Staff Recommendation: To deny the accessory structure based on the requirements of City Code.

BACKGROUND
On August 3rd, 2022, the applicant, Jim Horner, filed an application for a variance to retain an existing 68 square foot accessory building without plumbing located in the rear setback area of a single-family residence. The project requires a variance in order to maintain the applicant’s ‘hobby hut’ inside the rear five-foot accessory building setback and closer than six feet from the main building.

The location of the accessory building in the rear yard formerly housed an outdoor spa. The applicant has chosen to replace this outdoor spa with the 68 square foot hobby hut. The City of Santa Clara does not require a building permit for structures under 100 square feet, however the City Code does specify that all accessory buildings shall be five feet away from the rear property line and six feet or more from the main building. The applicant has submitted evidence showing that within the subdivision tract for which the subject site is located, there are multiple accessory buildings within required setback areas that have not received permits or variances for their placement. Mr. Horner’s partially finished ‘hobby hut’ has come to Planning Commission as a code complaint was received for the structure being in the accessory building setbacks.

The applicant is specifically requesting a variance of three feet five inches for the rear accessory building setback, where five feet is required, and a variance of three feet seven inches for the accessory building setback from a main building, where six feet is required.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-1313 Agenda Date: 11/9/2022

DISCUSSION
The project proposes a 68 square foot accessory building that would not include plumbing. The applicant has stated that this ‘hobby hut’ would be for his own personal use to tinker and do hobbies.

The proposal as completed would allow the applicant to continue construction on his hobby hut and maintain its location within the accessory building setbacks. The structure sits about four feet from the side setback and about two feet from the rear setback. The structure is about 2.5 feet from the main building.

The minimum required accessory building setback per Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Section

18.66.020(d) is five feet from the rear property lines and three feet from the side property lines. The minimum required accessory building setback from the main building per Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Section 18.66.020(f) is six feet.

The subject lot is trapezoid in shape, the rear portion is 44-feet in width and the front portion of the lot is about 112-feet in width. The minimum lot width in the R1-6L zone is 60 feet. Accessory buildings are not allowed to be constructed in the front yard per SCCC Section 18.66.020(b).

The Building Department has reviewed the project and has stated that an electrical permit would be required for any and all electrical work, and that structures less than 120 square feet are exempt from the requirements for a building permit, but must have one hour rated construction. The Fire Department has specified that given the size of the structure, the fire department has no comments nor conditions for the variance application. All departmental comments are attached to this staff report as ‘Department Comments’ for reference.

The applicant has provided a statement of justification for the proposed Variance attached to this staff report as ‘Applicant’s Application Justification’ for review.

Zoning
The proposed project does not comply with the Chapter 18.66 Special Regulations Applicable to Residential Accessory Buildings, specifically Section 18.66.020 (d) and 18.66.020 (f). Pursuant to SCCC Section 18.108.010, where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and effects, inconsistent with the general purposes of the Zoning Code may result from the strict application of certain provisions, variances may be granted. The location of the accessory building at the rear eastern corner of the property, closest to the main structure where the lot is narrower, does not necessarily equate to an unnecessary hardship. The shape, dimensions, and size of the lot are not unusual. For these reasons and the findings in the Resolution attached to this staff report, there is insufficient evidence to support the Variance request.

Conclusion
The proposed Variance would allow the property owner to complete construction and maintain a 68 square foot accessory building that requires a variance due to its placement within the accessory building rear setback and its placement near the main building. The owner’s intent is to optimize the front and side yards of his property and to reuse the former area of an above ground spa for his proposed hobby hut. The proposed structure is similar or smaller than other accessory buildings in the subdivision tract, most of which have not received a permit nor a variance for their placement.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff’s recommendation is that the Planning Commission deny the variance application. CEQA City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-1313 Agenda Date: 11/9/2022
Guidelines Section 15270 provides that “CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.”
If, however, the Commission votes to approve the variance, the project would be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(2), additions to existing facilities. The Project would make an addition to an existing structure of less than 10,000 square feet, the Project is located in an area where all public services and facilities are available, and the area where the Project is located is not environmentally sensitive.

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

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

PUBLIC CONTACT
On October 27, 2022, a notice of public hearing of this item was posted in at least three conspicuous locations within 300 feet of the project site and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Planning Staff has not received public comments for this application during the preparation of this report.

RECOMMENDATION
Decline to utilize a Class 1 CEQA Categorical Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e) (2) and adopt a resolution to deny the Variance to the Rear Accessory Building Setback and the Accessory Building Setback from the Main Building for a 68 square foot hobby hut Prepared by: Daniel Sobczak, Assistant Planner I
Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Lesley Xavier, Planning Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Applicant’s Application Justification

2. Development Plan

3. Department Comments

4. Resolution

5. Conditions of Approval
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/3/2022
powered by Legistar™
Neighborhood Map
Google Satellite View of Neighborhood
San
To mas
Expy
*RRJOH6DWHOOLWH,PDJH
]RRPHGWRVKRZ
6KHUDWRQ'U
Flower Bed
Flower Bed
Flower
Bed
Back
Yard
Front
Yard
Sidewalk Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Garage
Family Room
Living Room
Kitchen
Master
Bedroom
Bedroom Bedroom
Bthrm
Bthrrm
Dining
Flower Bed
Flower Bed
Flower Bed
Flower Bed
Flower Bed
Flower Bed
Flower Bed
Patio
Circular Driveway
Main Driveway
Covered
Open Sided
Carport
Carport
Driveway
Concrete
Concrete
Concrete Concrete
Flower Bed Flower Bed
Sheraton Dr
Hobby
Hut
115'-2"
44'
122'-8"
Sheraton Dr
44' 10"
67'-9"
*HQHUDO2YHUYLHZ
+REE\+XWLQUHDUULJKW
FRUQHU
+RPHRXWOLQHVKRZQ
ZLWKRXWHDYHRYHUKDQJV
2121 Sheraton Drive, Overview Pictures
Front of House
2121 Sheraton Drive, Overview
Pictures Front Yard
2121 Sheraton Drive, Overview Pictures
Front Yard and Carport
2121 Sheraton Drive, Overview
Pictures, Back Yard
2121 Sheraton Drive, Overview Pictures, Back Yard
Note non code-compliant sheds of 2361 Alberta Ct
Visible in 2nd Picture from back yard
Non Code compliant sheds of 2361 Alberta Ct,
visible from Back yard
Side Yard looking
toward rear of
property
Side Yard looking
toward rear of
property
Hobby
Hut
74'-9"
19'-3"
19'-8"
32'
24'-2"
28'-1"
7'-3"
5'-6"
31'
5'-4"
28'-6"
20'
2'-4"
24'-1"
8'-9"
20'
12'
8'-6"
Main House Dimensions
Back Fence is 6' 10" high
Side Fence is 6' 3" High
Front
Rear
Right
Side
Left
Side
1'-3 1/4" 1'-4" 1 1/2" 2'-11 3/4"
5 1/2"
8'-4"
7'-1"
1'-4"
1'-11 1/4"
1'-5 1/4" 1'-4 1/2" 1'-4 1/2" 1'-4 1/2" 1'-4 1/2" 1'-5 1/4" 9'-11 1/2"
1'-2 3/4"
6"
Doorway
Front View
Unless otherwise Towards side fence -->
noted, all lumber is
2x4 nominal
Base pieces are
pressure treated
1/2" sheeting
not shown
8'
11" 1'-5 1/2" 1'-6 3/4" 1'-6 3/4" 1'-5 1/2" 11"
9'-0 1/4"
2'
3'
7'-1"
9'-3"
7 1/2" 1'-11" 1'-11 3/4" 2' 1'-11 1/4" 7 1/2"
4'-2"
Left Side View
Window
Opening for
Skylight
Toward House -->
<-- Toward Rear Fence
Unless otherwise
noted, all lumber is
2x4 nominal
Base pieces are
pressure treated
1/2" sheeting
not shown
2" x 6" nominal eave piece
8'
11" 1'-5 1/2" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-0 3/4" 1'
1'-4"
5'-3 3/4"
Right Side View
Opening
for AC
<-- Toward House
Toward Rear Fence -->
Opening for
Skylight
Unless otherwise
noted, all lumber is
2x4 nominal
Base pieces are
pressure treated
1/2" sheeting
not shown
2" x 6" nominal eave piece
Bacj
Fence
Line
6'-10"
2'-2 1/4"
1'-4 1/4" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4"
8'-4"
9'-11 1/2"
9'-0 1/4"
Rear View
Unless otherwise
noted, all lumber is
2x4 nominal
Base pieces are
pressure treated
<-- Towards Side Fence
1/2" sheeting not
shown
Previously, this space had a jacuzzi
Previously, this space had a jacuzzi
Previously, this space had a jacuzzi
Previously, this space had a jacuzzi
Stages of construction prior to neighbor complaint
Stages of construction prior to neighbor complaint
Stages of construction prior to neighbor complaint
Stages of construction prior to neighbor complaint
Stages of construction prior to neighbor complaint
Stages of construction prior to neighbor complaint
Stages of construction prior to neighbor complaint
Non-compliant structures at other addresses in the neighborhood From an examination of Google Satellite view, there are many structures in the immediate neighborhood which appear to be in violation of the code. Allowing these other structures to exist and requiring me to destroy mine is selective enforcement of the code and is not right. One address in particular, 2361 Alberta Ct, has 3 structures which appear to violate the code. This address is visible from my back yard and is adjacent to the complaining neighbor’s property (2365 Alberta Ct.) I fail to understand why my smaller structure should cause an issue when the larger ones at 2361 Alberta Ct. do not?
The following table lists the addresses of the properties in the neighborhood which have non-compliant structures.

The reference letters are used to locate these addresses on the neighborhood photo which follows the table. I’ve included closeup pictures of the properties also.

Reference Address Number Of Violating
Structures
A 2180 El Capitan Ave 2
B 2170 El Capitan Ave 1
C 2154 Sheraton Dr 1
D 2144 Sheraton Dr 1
E 2130 Sheraton Dr 1
F 2124 Sheraton Dr 1
G 2120 Sheraton Dr 1
H 2104 Sheraton Dr 1
I 2044 Sheraton Dr 1
J 2030 Staats Way 1
K 2026 Staats Way 3
L 2020 Staats Way 3
M 2018 Staats Way 1
N 2017 Staats Way 2
O 2071 Sheraton Dr 2
P 2081 Sheraton Dr 1
Q 2101 Sheraton Dr 1
R 2161 Sheraton Dr 4
S 2341 Alberta Ct 2
T 2361 Alberta Ct 3
U 2381 Alberta Ct 1
V 2384 Alberta Ct 1
W 2147 El Capitan Ave 1
X 2137 El Capitan Ave 1
Y 2107 El Capitan Ave 1
Z 2087 El Capitan Ave 1
AA 2077 El Capitan Ave 2
AB 2047 El Capitan Ave 1
Reference Address Number Of Violating
Structures
AC 2027 El Capitan Ave 1
AD 2017 El Capitan Ave 1
AE 2007 El Capitan Ave 1
AF 2381 Cabrillo Ave 1
AG 2371 Cabrillo Ave 1
AH 2361 Cabrillo Ave 2
AI 2355 Cabrillo Ave 2
AJ 2341 Cabrillo Ave 1
AK 2038 Los Padres Blvd 2
AL 2048 Los Padres Blvd 1
AM 2068 Los Padres Blvd 1
AN 2078 Los Padres Blvd 1
AO 2128 Los Padres Blvd 1
AP 2138 Los Padres Blvd 1
AQ 2158 Los Padres Blvd 1
AR 2168 Los Padres Blvd 1
So, for the following streets:
x Sheraton Dr
x Staats Way
x El Capitan Ave
x Cabrillo Ave
x Alberta Ct
x Los Padres Blvd
It appears that there are approximately 44 properties with approximately 61 structures which violate the code. I see no reason for me to have to remove my small structure if these people are allowed to keep theirs. If necessary, I will file an official complaint about all of these structures.

A – 2180 El Capitan Ave
B – 2170 El Capitan Ave
C – 2154 Sheraton Dr
D – 2144 Sheraton Dr
E – 2130 Sheraton Dr
F – 2144 Sheraton Dr
G – 2120 Sheraton Dr.

H – 2104 Sheraton Dr
I – 2044 Sheraton Dr
J – 2030 Staats Way
K – 2026 Staats Way
L – 2020 Staats Way
M – 2018 Staats Way
N – 2017 Staats Way
O – 2071 Sheraton Dr
P – 2081 Sheraton Dr
Q – 2101 Sheraton Dr
R – 2161 Sheraton Dr
S – 2341 Alberta Ct
T – 2361 Alberta Ct
Note that this property is diagonally adjacent to my property of 2121 Sheraton. The sheds on this property are visible from my back yard. Note also that this property is adjacent to the property owned by the complaining neighbor. Why are these sheds allowed when my much smaller structure is not? U – 2381 Alberta Ct
V – 2394 Alberta Ct
W – 2147 El Capitan Ave
X – 2137 El Capitan Ave
Y – 2107 El Capitan Ave
Z – 2087 El Capitan Ave
AA – 2077 El Capitan Ave
AB – 2047 El Capitan Ave
AC – 2027 El Capitan Ave
AD – 2017 El Capitan Ave
AE – 2007 El Capitan Ave
AF – 2381 Cabrillo Ave
AG – 2371 Cabrillo Ave
AH – 2361 Cabrillo Ave
AI – 2355 Cabrillo Ave
AJ – 2341 Cabrillo Ave
AK – 2038 Los Padres Blvd
AL – 2048 Los Padres Blvd
AM – 2068 Los Padres Blvd
AN – 2078 Los Padres Blvd
AO – 2128 Los Padres Blvd
AP – 2138 Los Padres Blvd
AQ – 2158 Los Padres Blvd
AR – 2168 Los Padres Blvd
Hobby
Hut
74'-9"
19'-3"
19'-8"
32'
24'-2"
28'-1"
7'-3"
5'-6"
31'
5'-4"
28'-6"
20'
2'-4"
24'-1"
8'-9"
20'
12'
8'-6"
Main House Dimensions
Back Fence is 6' 10" high
Side Fence is 6' 3" High
Front
Rear
Right
Side
Left
Side
8 4 I -3 II
8'6"I -6 II
Hobby
Hut
2-5"
I
1'-3 1/4" 1'-4" 1 1/2" 2'-11 3/4"
5 1/2"
8'-4"
7'-1"
1'-4"
1'-11 1/4"
1'-5 1/4" 1'-4 1/2" 1'-4 1/2" 1'-4 1/2" 1'-4 1/2" 1'-5 1/4" 9'-11 1/2"
1'-2 3/4"
6"
Doorway
Front View
Unless otherwise Towards side fence -->
noted, all lumber is
2x4 nominal
Base pieces are
pressure treated
1/2" sheeting
not shown
I I I I I I L I _J I._________ I
8'
11" 1'-5 1/2" 1'-6 3/4" 1'-6 3/4" 1'-5 1/2" 11"
9'-0 1/4"
2'
3'
7'-1"
9'-3"
7 1/2" 1'-11" 1'-11 3/4" 2' 1'-11 1/4" 7 1/2"
4'-2"
Left Side View
Window
Opening for
Skylight
Toward House -->
<-- Toward Rear Fence
Unless otherwise
noted, all lumber is
2x4 nominal
Base pieces are
pressure treated
1/2" sheeting
not shown
2" x 6" nominal eave piece
I I
- -
L -
I
I
8'
11" 1'-5 1/2" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-0 3/4" 1'
1'-4"
5'-3 3/4"
Right Side View
Opening
for AC
<-- Toward House
Toward Rear Fence -->
Opening for
Skylight
Unless otherwise
noted, all lumber is
2x4 nominal
Base pieces are
pressure treated
1/2" sheeting
not shown
2" x 6" nominal eave piece
-
u - -
i
---
Bacj
Fence
Line
6'-10"
2'-2 1/4"
1'-4 1/4" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4"
8'-4"
9'-11 1/2"
9'-0 1/4"
Rear View
Unless otherwise
noted, all lumber is
2x4 nominal
Base pieces are
pressure treated
<-- Towards Side Fence
1/2" sheeting not
shown
I-
-----

________________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT CLEARANCE COMMITTEE COMMENTS & COA Page 1 of 2
8/23/2022
City of Santa Clara
Project Clearance Committee
Comments & Conditions of Approval
Tuesday, August 26, 2022 Meeting Date

PCC REVIEW OF DEVELOPER APPLICATION
File: PLN 22-00441
Location: 2121 Sheraton Dr.

APN: 224-31-104
Description: Variance request for small (approximately ~8' x 8' 6" outside dimension) outbuilding in right rear of property in rear and side setbacks
Date Last Heard: n/a
Project Planner: Daniel Sobczak
COMMENTS FOR PROJECT COMPLETENESS:

The project is deemed complete/incomplete as submitted.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING DIVISION –
Reviewed by: Armand Lobao, CBO
BD1. An electrical permit is required for any and all electrical work.

BD2. Structures less than 120 square feet are exempt from the requirement for a building permit, however, the structure is still required to comply with the prescriptive requirements of the building code which require one hour rated construction with no openings when erected within three (3) feet of the property line or another structure.

HOUSING & COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION – ☒DEEMED COMPLETE ☐DEEMED INCOMPLETE Reviewed by:

H1.

PLANNING DIVISION – ☒DEEMED COMPLETE ☐DEEMED INCOMPLETE P1. Variance is needed.

FIRE – ☒DEEMED COMPLETE ☐DEEMED INCOMPLETE
Reviewed by: Jake Tomlin
F1. Given the square footage of the proposed structure the fire department has no comments and/or conditions for the variance application.

PARKS & RECREATION – ☒DEEMED COMPLETE ☐DEEMED INCOMPLETE Reviewed by:

PR1.

POLICE – ☒DEEMED COMPLETE ☐DEEMED INCOMPLETE
Reviewed by: John Terry
PD1.
________________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT CLEARANCE COMMITTEE COMMENTS & COA Page 2 of 2
8/23/2022

PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING – ☐DEEMED COMPLETE ☒DEEMED INCOMPLETE
Reviewed by: Viet Nguyen
E1.Show existing 5’ public utility easement along eastern property line and 2’ public utility easement along northern property line.

E2.Obtain DPW, SVP, W&SU, PG&E, and AT&T approval for encroachment into existing public utility easement.
a. The City has determined that there is no encroachment for City Utilities for DPW and W&SU, applicant should still contact PG&E, SVP, and AT&T
E3.Record and execute easement encroachment agreement, if required by approving departments/companies.

STREETS DIVISION – ☒DEEMED COMPLETE ☐DEEMED INCOMPLETE
Landscape
Reviewed by: Chuck Quanz
L1. No Comments
Solid Waste
Reviewed by: Karin Hickey
SW1. No Comments
Stormwater
Reviewed by: Karin Hickey
ST1. No Comments
SILICON VALLEY POWER – ☒DEEMED COMPLETE ☐DEEMED INCOMPLETE Reviewed by: Deemed Complete
SVP1. No comments
WATER & SEWER – ☒☒DEEMED COMPLETE ☐DEEMED INCOMPLETE
Reviewed by: Ahmed Aly
W1. No Comments.

Resolution/ 2121 Sheraton Drive Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. XX-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA DENYING A
VARIANCE TO MAINTAIN A 68 SQUARE FOOT ACCESORY

BUILDING IN THE REAR YARD OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT THE SITE LOCATED AT 2121 SHERATON

DRIVE, SANTA CLARA
PLN22-00441 (Variance)

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

WHEREAS, on August 3, 2022, Jim Horner (“Applicant”) filed an application for a Variance to allow for a 68 square foot accessory building located in the rear of a single-family residential lot located at 2121 Sheraton Drive, Santa Clara (“Project Site”); WHEREAS, the Project Site is currently zoned as R1-6L, Single-family Residential Zoning District;
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting to maintain and complete a partially built accessory structure within the rear accessory building setback, and within the minimum accessory structure setback from a main building. The accessory structure was requested to be maintained at its current footprint of 68 square feet and have no plumbing, as shown on the Development Plans, attached as Exhibit “Development Plans”; WHEREAS, the Project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, Projects Which Are Disapproved; WHEREAS, the subject property conforms to zoning code standards except for a substandard rear lot width of 44-feet where 60 feet is the minimum lot width in the Single-family Residential Zoning District (R1-6L), the 106 foot front lot width of the subject property exceeds the zoning code standards, as does the lot size of 7,000 square feet, where only 6,000 square feet is required;
Resolution/ 2121 Sheraton Drive Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2022, the notice of public hearing for this item was posted within 300 feet of the Project Site and was mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the Project Site; and,
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 9, 2022 to consider the application. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission invited and considered any and all verbal and written testimony offered in favor of and in opposition to the Project.

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

1. That the Planning Commission hereby finds the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part thereof.

2. That the Planning Commission hereby finds that a Variance to allow a 68 square foot rear accessory structure within the required setback areas is denied.

3. That pursuant to SCCC Section 18.108.040, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings with respect to the variance application:

A. That there are no unusual conditions applying to the land or building which do not apply generally in the same district, because the shape, dimensions, and size of the lot are not unusual for the R1-6L zone.

B. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the Property Owner, because the Owner could locate an accessory structure in an alternate location on the lot and still comply with Code requirements.
//
//
Resolution/ 2121 Sheraton Drive Page 3 of 3

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

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

BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 9
th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:

NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS:

ATTEST: ___________________________________

ANDREW CRABTREE

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments Incorporated by Reference:

1. Conditions of Approval

2. Development Plans
________________________________________________________________________________ 2121 Sheraton Dr. – Variance Accessory Building Page 1 of 5 PLN22-00441 – Conditions Of Approval
City of Santa Clara
Project Clearance Committee
Comments & Conditions of Approval
Tuesday, August 26, 2022 Meeting Date

PCC REVIEW OF DEVELOPER APPLICATION
File: PLN 22-00441
Location: 2121 Sheraton Dr.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

GENERAL
A. If relocation of an existing public facility becomes necessary due to a conflict with the developer's new improvements, then the cost of said relocation shall be borne by the developer.

B. Comply with all applicable codes, regulations, ordinances and resolutions.

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
A. The Developer agrees to defend and indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, employees, officials and representatives free and harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, attorneys' fees, injuries, costs, and liabilities arising from any suit for damages or for equitable or injunctive relief which is filed by a third party against the City by reason of its approval of developer's project.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

BUILDING DIVISION

1. Informational: Prior to overall construction permit application, submit to the Santa Clara Building Division, 2 copies of an addressing diagram request, to be prepared by a licensed architect or engineer.

The addressing diagram(s) shall include all proposed streets and all building floor plans. The addressing diagram(s) shall conform to Santa Clara City Manager Directive #5; Street Name and Building Number Changes, and Santa Clara Building Division Address Policy For Residential and Commercial Developments. The addressing diagram(s) shall indicate all unit numbers to be based off established streets, not alleys nor access-ways to garages. Allow a minimum of 10 working days for initial staff review. Please note city staff policy that existing site addresses typically are retired. Provide digital pdf printed from design software, not scanned from printed paper sheet.

2. Informational: The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include a copy of the latest Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone Map: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. The project drawings shall indicate how the project complies with the Santa Clara Flood Damage Prevention Code.

3. Informational: The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Low Impact Development (LID) practices http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/nd_wp.shtml. All projects that disturb more than one acre, or projects that are part of a larger development that in total disturbs more than one ________________________________________________________________________________ 2121 Sheraton Dr. – Variance Accessory Building Page 2 of 5 PLN22-00441 – Conditions Of Approval
acre, shall comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices (BMP): http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/construction_bmp.shtml, and shall provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). All site drainage and grading permit applications submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include a city of Santa Clara "C3" data form, available on this web page:https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/public-works/environmentalprograms/stormwater-pollution-prevention and will be routed to a contract consultant for review.

4. Informational: no California construction code review is being done at this time. The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include an overall California Building Code analysis, including; proposed use and occupancy of all spaces (19' CBC Ch. 3), all building heights and areas (19' CBC Ch. 5), all proposed types of construction (19' CBC Ch. 6), all proposed fire and smoke protection features, including all types of all fire rated penetrations proposed (19' CBC Ch. 7), all proposed interior finishes fire resistance (19' CBC Ch. 8), all fire protection systems proposed (19' CBC Ch. 9), and all means of egress proposed (19' CBC Ch. 10). -Noncombustible exterior wall, floor, and roof finishes are strongly encouraged. • During construction retaining a single company to install all fire rated penetrations is highly recommended.
• The grade level lobbies shall be min.1 hour rated all sides and above. • All stair shafts shall be min. 1 hour rated.
• All elevator shafts shall be min. 1 hour rated.
• All trash chute shafts shall be min. 1 hour rated.
• Recommendation: provide a minimum of two trash chutes; one for recyclables, one for trash, each trash chute to be routed down to a grade level trash collection room. • Any trash rooms shall be min. 1 hour rated all sides and above.

5. Informational: The overall project construction permit application shall include the geotechnical, architectural, structural, energy, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing drawings and calculations. Prior to the issuance of the overall project construction permit, a conditions of approval review meeting must be held in city hall, which meeting must be attended by the on-site field superintendent(s). The meeting will not be held without the attendance of the on-site field superintendent(s). The on-site grading permit shall be a separate permit application to the Building Division.

6. Informational: Temporary Certificates of Occupancy will not be routinely issued, and will be considered on a very limited basis only when there is a clear and compelling reason for city staff to consider a TCO. A TCO will be approved only after all applicable City staff have approved in writing; Planning, P.W./ Engineering, Fire Prev., Santa Clara Water, Silicon Valley Power, and any other applicable agencies such as the Santa Clara County Health Dept., with the Building Division being the final approval of all TCO.'s.

7. An electrical permit is required for any and all electrical work.

8. Structures less than 120 square feet are exempt from the requirement for a building permit, however, the structure is still required to comply with the prescriptive requirements of the building code which require one hour rated construction with no openings when erected within three (3) feet of the property line or another structure.

PLANNING DIVISION

1. Obtain required permits and inspections from the Building Official and comply with all building code requirements and conditions thereof.

2. Applicant is responsible for collection and pick-up of all trash and debris on-site and adjacent public right-of-way.

3. Construction activity not confined within a building shall be limited to the hours of7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays and not permitted on Saturdays and Sundays for projects within 300 feet of a residential use.

Construction activity confined within a building shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. following on weekdays other than holidays, Monday through Friday, inclusive; and within the hours of ________________________________________________________________________________ 2121 Sheraton Dr. – Variance Accessory Building Page 3 of 5 PLN22-00441 – Conditions Of Approval
9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. following, inclusive, on any Saturday which is not a holiday. Construction activity shall not be allowed on recognized State holidays, as noted in Section 9.10.230 of the SCCC, as amended.

4. Minor changes to the project would be subject to Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.

5. This Variance shall be automatically revoked and terminated if not used within two years of the original grant, or within the period of any authorized extensions in accordance with the terms of SCCC Section FIRE

1. Fire apparatus access roadways shall be provided so that all portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the buildings are located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. Ariel access roadways shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the protected building, or the project team will be required to mitigate the lack of compliance. If these conditions can not be met the project team will be required to complete an Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment application. The required mitigation measure will be determined by the Fire Department.

2. At time of Building Permit application provide documentation to show the minimum required fire-flow for the building based on the construction type and square footage in accordance with the California Fire Code, Appendix B, Table B105.1 can be met. A 75% reduction in fire-flow is allowed with the installation of a automatic fire sprinkler system designed in accordance with California Fire Code § B105.2. The resulting fire-flow shall not be less than 1,500 gallons per minute (or 1,000 gallons per minute for NFPA 13 fire sprinkler systems) minute for the prescribed duration.

3. At time of Building Permit application, the required number, location and distribution of fire hydrants for the building based on the California Fire Code, Appendix C, Table C102.1 shall be incorporated into the construction documents. The required number of fire hydrants shall be based on the fire-flow before the reduction.

4. At time of Building Permit application, construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes and construction documents and hydraulic calculations for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention and Hazardous Materials Division.

5. Prior to the start of construction, fire protection water supplies shall be installed and made serviceable prior to the time of construction or prior to combustible materials being moved onsite, unless an approved alternative method of protection is approved by the Fire Prevention and Hazardous Materials Division.

6. At time of Building Permit application, construction documents for the fire department apparatus access roads are required submitted to the Fire Prevention and Hazardous Materials Division. Access roadways shall be provided to comply with all of the following requirements:
a. Fire apparatus access roadways shall be provided for every facility, building, or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building.
b. Fire apparatus access roadways shall have a “minimum” width of a fire apparatus access roadway for Engines is 20 feet. The “minimum” width of roadways for aerial apparatus is 26 feet. Ariel access roadways shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the protected building and the sides of the building requiring access shall be approved by the Fire Department. Trees, overhead wiring, etc. shall not conflict with any means of fire department access.
c. Fire access roadways shall have a “minimum” unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Aerial apparatus access roads may require additional vertical clearance. d. Fire access roadways shall All fire department access roadways shall be an all-weather surface designed to support the imposed load of fire apparatus with a gross vehicle weight of 75,000- pounds.
e. Fire apparatus access roadways shall have a “minimum” inside turning radius for fire department access roadways shall be 36 feet or greater. ________________________________________________________________________________ 2121 Sheraton Dr. – Variance Accessory Building Page 4 of 5 PLN22-00441 – Conditions Of Approval
f. Dead-end fire apparatus access roadways in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for turning around.
g. Traffic calming devices are not permitted on any designated fire access roadway, unless approved by the Fire Prevention & Hazardous Materials Division. h. All Fire Department Access roadways shall be recorded as an Emergency Vehicle Access Easement (EVAE) on the final map. No other instruments will be considered as substitutions such as P.U.E, Ingress/Egress easements and/or City Right-of-Ways. i. All gates installed on designated fire department access roads are required to electrically automatic powered gates. Gates shall be provided with an emergency battery power supply, or shall be a fail-safe design, allowing the gate to be pushed open without the use of special knowledge or equipment. To control the automatic gates a detector/strobe switch shall be installed to allow emergency vehicles (e.g., fire, police, ems) to flash a vehicle mounted strobe light towards the detector/strobe switch, which in turn overrides the system and opens the gate.

The gates shall be equipped with a TOMAR Strobe Switch or 3M OPTICOM Detector to facilitate this override. Said device shall be mounted at a minimum height of seven feet (7’) above the adjacent road surface and is subject to an acceptance test witnessed by the Fire Department prior to final approval of the project.

7. Provisions shall be made for Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System (ERRCS) equipment, including but not limited to pathway survivability in accordance with Santa Clara Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System Standard.

8. Prior to issuance of a Building Demo Permit, Steps 1 through 3 summarized below must be addressed during the planning phase of the project. Submit Phase II environmental documents:
a. Step 1 – Hazardous Materials Closure (HMCP): This is a permit is issued by the Santa Clara Fire Department, Fire Prevention & Hazardous Materials Division. Hazardous materials closure plans are required for businesses that used, handled or stored hazardous materials. While required prior to closing a business this is not always done by the business owner, and therefore should be part of the developer’s due diligence. The hazardous materials closure plans demonstrate that hazardous materials which were stored, dispensed, handled or used in the facility/business are safely transported, disposed of or reused in a manner that eliminates any threat to public health and environment.
b. Step 2 – Site Mitigation: Site mitigation is the cleanup or management of chemical contaminants in soil, soil vapor or groundwater. The type and extent of contamination on site(s) governs which of the regulatory agencies noted below will supervise the cleanup. • Santa Clara Fire Department, Fire Prevention & Hazardous Materials Division (CUPA) • Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
• State Water Resources Control Board
• Santa Clara County, Department of Environmental Health. c. Step 3 – Community Development, Building Division Demolition Application: For the majority of projects within the City of Santa Clara, Steps 1 and/or 2 described above need to be completed prior to proceeding to demolition application in order to avoid permit approval delays. The purpose of a demolition permit is to ensure that the parcel is clear of debris and other health hazard material (lead, asbestos, etc.) and that the utility connections have been plugged and sealed.”
If the project intends to contract with a State or County Agency for onsite/offsite environmental remediation activities the following documentation shall be provided to the Fire Prevention & Hazardous Materials Division prior to issuance of a Building Permit for demolition or grading:
• Oversight agency case number; and
• Oversight mangers contact name, phone number.

PUBLIC WORKS

ENGINEERING

1. Obtain site clearance through Public Works Department prior to issuance of Building Permit. Site clearance will require payment of applicable development fees. Other requirements may be identified ________________________________________________________________________________ 2121 Sheraton Dr. – Variance Accessory Building Page 5 of 5 PLN22-00441 – Conditions Of Approval
for compliance during the site clearance process. Contact Public Works Department at (408) 615-3000 for further information.

2. All work within the public right-of-way and/or public easement, which is to be performed by the Developer/Owner, the general contractor, and all subcontractors shall be submitted within a Single Encroachment Permit to be reviewed and issued by the City Public Works Department. Issuance of the Encroachment Permit and payment of all appropriate fees shall be completed prior to commencement of work, and all work under the permit shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permit.

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

SILICON VALLEY POWER
SVP1. New outbuilding height should not conflict with SVP electric service drop. Maintain minimum clearances between electric conductor & top of outbuilding per G.O 95 requirements.

PREPARED: ______________________
Kirandeep Singh
Office Specialist II
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11/09/2022

Aye: Commissioner Bhatnagar, Commissioner Biagini, Chair Cherukuru, Vice Chair Herro, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Bouza, and Commissioner Saleme
7 -

3. 22-1313 Action on a Variance to the Rear Accessory Building Setback and the Accessory Building Setback from the Main Building, in Order to Allow a 68 square foot accessory building in the rear of a Single-Family Residence at 2121 Sheraton Drive; and Action on a Class 1(e) CEQA Categorical Exemption
Recommendation: Decline to utilize a Class 1 CEQA Categorical Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(2) and adopt a resolution to deny the Variance to the Rear Accessory Building Setback and the Accessory Building Setback from the Main Building for a 68 square foot hobby hut Associate Planner Daniel Sobzak provided the staff PowerPoint.

Commissioners inquired as to why this item was being presented to the Planning Commission and staff clarified this was a inquiry from the public that prompted a code violation. Commissioners noted that the there is no safety hazard for this project as noted by staff in the PCC meeting minutes.

Applicant/Homeowner Jim Horner provided a presentation and clarified the structure was originally a dilapidated shed and also showed a slide with similar rear units throughout the neighborhood that also violate city code.

Public Speaker:

Anndeathrin Chatterjee spoke in opposition of the project Grace Duran spoke in favor of the project
Assistant City Attorney Alexander Abbe clarified that land use decisions are largely non-precedential and that approval of the variance for this property would obligate the City to approve a variance for a different lot. .

A motion was made by Commissioner Saleme, seconded by
Commissioner Biagini to close public hearing.

Aye: Commissioner Bhatnagar, Commissioner Biagini, Chair Cherukuru, Vice Chair Herro, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Bouza, and Commissioner Saleme
7 -
City of Santa Clara Page 5 Printed on 12/06/2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11/09/2022
A motion was made by Commissioner Biagini, seconded by
Commissioner Bouza, to approve the variance with the following four findings and to bring the approval resolution to the December 7, 2022 meeting as a consent item.

1. That unusual conditions apply to the land or building, in that the project site is trapezoidal and the existing landscaping and building configuration limit options for the location of the storage shed

2. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the owner, in that relocating the storage shed would be infeasible, given the shape and configuration of the lot, without adverse impacts such as blocking windows and disturbing the homeowner’s considerable investment in the existing landscaping

3. That granting a variance shall not materially affect the health, safety, peace, comfort or general welfare of the persons or property in the neighborhood of the owner’s property, given that the project site has been occupied by a shed in the same location in prior years with no adverse effects, and the neighborhood is full of similar structures.

4. That granting a variance is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, in that the zoning ordinance recognizes that practical difficulties that could result from strict application of the Code’s standards justify departure from those standards

Aye: Commissioner Bhatnagar, Commissioner Biagini, Chair Cherukuru, Vice Chair Herro, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Bouza, and Commissioner Saleme
7 -
City of Santa Clara Page 6 Printed on 12/06/2022
Hobby
Hut
74'-9"
19'-3"
19'-8"
32'
24'-2"
28'-1"
7'-3"
5'-6"
31'
5'-4"
28'-6"
20'
2'-4"
24'-1"
8'-9"
20'
12'
8'-6"
Main House Dimensions
Back Fence is 6' 10" high
Side Fence is 6' 3" High
Front
Rear
Right
Side
Left
Side
8 4 I -3 II
8'6"I -6 II
Hobby
Hut
2-5"
I
1'-3 1/4" 1'-4" 1 1/2" 2'-11 3/4"
5 1/2"
8'-4"
7'-1"
1'-4"
1'-11 1/4"
1'-5 1/4" 1'-4 1/2" 1'-4 1/2" 1'-4 1/2" 1'-4 1/2" 1'-5 1/4" 9'-11 1/2"
1'-2 3/4"
6"
Doorway
Front View
Unless otherwise Towards side fence -->
noted, all lumber is
2x4 nominal
Base pieces are
pressure treated
1/2" sheeting
not shown
I I I I I I L I _J I._________ I
8'
11" 1'-5 1/2" 1'-6 3/4" 1'-6 3/4" 1'-5 1/2" 11"
9'-0 1/4"
2'
3'
7'-1"
9'-3"
7 1/2" 1'-11" 1'-11 3/4" 2' 1'-11 1/4" 7 1/2"
4'-2"
Left Side View
Window
Opening for
Skylight
Toward House -->
<-- Toward Rear Fence
Unless otherwise
noted, all lumber is
2x4 nominal
Base pieces are
pressure treated
1/2" sheeting
not shown
2" x 6" nominal eave piece
I I
- -
L -
I
I
8'
11" 1'-5 1/2" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-0 3/4" 1'
1'-4"
5'-3 3/4"
Right Side View
Opening
for AC
<-- Toward House
Toward Rear Fence -->
Opening for
Skylight
Unless otherwise
noted, all lumber is
2x4 nominal
Base pieces are
pressure treated
1/2" sheeting
not shown
2" x 6" nominal eave piece
-
u - -
i
---
Bacj
Fence
Line
6'-10"
2'-2 1/4"
1'-4 1/4" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4"
8'-4"
9'-11 1/2"
9'-0 1/4"
Rear View
Unless otherwise
noted, all lumber is
2x4 nominal
Base pieces are
pressure treated
<-- Towards Side Fence
1/2" sheeting not
shown
I-
-----

________________________________________________________________________________ 2121 Sheraton Dr. – Variance Accessory Building Page 1 of 5 PLN22-00441 – Conditions Of Approval
City of Santa Clara
Project Clearance Committee
Comments & Conditions of Approval
Tuesday, August 26, 2022 Meeting Date

PCC REVIEW OF DEVELOPER APPLICATION
File: PLN 22-00441
Location: 2121 Sheraton Dr.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

GENERAL
A. If relocation of an existing public facility becomes necessary due to a conflict with the developer's new improvements, then the cost of said relocation shall be borne by the developer.

B. Comply with all applicable codes, regulations, ordinances and resolutions.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

BUILDING DIVISION

7. An electrical permit is required for any and all electrical work.

PLANNING DIVISION

1. Obtain required permits and inspections from the Building Official and comply with all building code requirements and conditions thereof.

2. Applicant is responsible for collection and pick-up of all trash and debris on-site and adjacent public right-of-way.

4. Minor changes to the project would be subject to Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.

PUBLIC WORKS

ENGINEERING

PREPARED: ______________________
Kirandeep Singh
Office Specialist II
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-89 Agenda Date: 1/31/2023

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on a Written Petition to Waive the Fees for City Services Related to Three (3) Baseball Fundraising Tournaments at Washington Park Ballfield

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND
Council Policy and Procedure 030, (Adding an Item on the Agenda), sets forth the procedure for written petitions. Any member of the public may submit a written request raising any issue or item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. Per the policy, the written request will be submitted on the agenda, in the form substantially provided by the requestor, without any staff analysis, including fiscal, legal or policy review. If a simple majority of the City Council supports further study of the request, then a full staff analysis shall be prepared within thirty (30 days) unless otherwise directed by the City Council.

In early December, the City received a request from Mr. Paul Rosa, Athletic Director at Wilcox High School, for a waiver of park and recreation fees related to three upcoming baseball tournaments to be held at the Washington Park Ballfield. These tournaments are considered to be a major fundraising activity in support of the Santa Clara Unified School District Baseball Program at Wilcox High School.

As City staff does not have the authority to waive fees, Mr. Rosa was informed that should he wish the City to consider his request, the appropriate vehicle would be to submit an 030 written request.

Attachment 1 is a copy of the written request submitted on December 20, 2022 from Mr. Rosa on this topic.

In accordance with the 030 policy, the written request was heard by the City Council on January 10, 2023 with direction to place the item on the January 31, 2023 agenda for discussion and action. The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with background on the charges, information on prior action taken by the City Council related to the cost recovery of Parks and Recreation fees, and to provide options for the Council should they wish to offset the costs of the tournament fees.

DISCUSSION
The Washington Park Ballfield is located on the grounds of Buchser Middle School. While this site is School District property, the City of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department manages the scheduling, operations and maintenance of the site in accordance with a 1985 joint use agreement between the City and the School District.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 6 Printed on 1/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-89 Agenda Date: 1/31/2023
Per the agreement, the School District receives priority use of the ballfield for District programs.

When the School District uses the ballfield for their programs, the agreement also states that the District shall pay for custodial services at the appropriate City rates for employee support, services and maintenance costs incurred, particularly when fees are charged for entry into the District program.

The Wilcox Baseball Program is proposing to use the Washington Park Ballfield for three separate tournaments as follows: 1) February 20-25, 2023; 2) Feb 27, March 1-4, 2023; and 3) April 8, 10-15, 2023.

Costs for these tournaments fall into four categories:

1. Field Use ($14 per hour): Costs incurred related to processing registration, scheduling and use of the fields.

2. Field Preparation ($30 per day): Costs related to initial mowing, set up and lining of fields.

3. Tournament Fees ($110 per hour): Costs related to providing staff support to run the tournament (field preparation such as dragging and watering fields in between games, setting up the mound and bases, during the day custodial services, use of lights for night games, registration support etc.).

4. Staff Support ($35 per hour per staff person; 2 staff minimum): Costs related to staff to provide overall supervision of the tournament site and direction to City staff.

Based on the information provided by the Athletic Director, the combined total of fees for all three tournaments is projected to be $30,416. It is important to note that these costs may vary based on the actual number of days/hours and the number of teams participating and games played.

The following table (Table 1) provides a summary of the projected costs for each tournament.

Table 1 - Tournament Fees* - Washington Ball Field
Dates Field Use Field Prep Tournament Staff Total
Feb. 20 - 25, 2023$686 $180 $5,390 $3,430 $9,686
Feb. 27, Mar. 1 - 4, 2023 $588 $150 $4,620 $2,940 $8,298 Apr. 8, 10-15, 2023 $882 $210 $6,930 $4,410 $12,432
* MuniFee Schedule 9-23, 9-25; 9-26; 9-29 $30,416
City Parks and Recreation Department staff met with the petitioner to gain a better understanding of their costs, revenues and concerns.

The Wilcox Baseball Program receives a budget allocation from the School District that is less than the amount needed to support their program. Consequently, the Wilcox Baseball program holds tournaments to raise funds to augment the District’s allocation. In addition to costs charged by the City, tournament expenses include the cost of officials, balls, tournament shirts for the winners and concession supplies. The tournaments are run by a select number of District staff, supplemented by volunteers. The Washington Park Ballfield has been identified as a preferred site given the highquality condition of the field, covered stands and the amenities on site which include lights for night games.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 6 Printed on 1/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-89 Agenda Date: 1/31/2023
Revenues generated by the tournaments are kept by the tournament organizer (in this case the Wilcox High School Boys Baseball Team). The various sources of revenue include an entry fee of $400 per varsity team and $450 per junior varsity team, ticket sales that include a $6 dollar entry fee per adult spectator and $4 for youth and seniors. Additional revenue is generated through concession sales but after expenses, this revenue source is considered more of an on-site convenience as it generally breaks even.

In conversations with staff, the petitioner has indicated that the organizers could contribute a total of $1,500 this year to offset City fees, leaving a funding gap of $28,916.

City of Santa Clara Cost Recovery Policy
On April 19, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-9082 Parks & Recreation Cost Recovery Policy and Resolution No. 22-9081 Adoption of the 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule.

These actions were critical elements of the City’s budget balancing strategy as they help to maintain valued Parks and Recreation programs and to mitigate the impact of further budget reductions.

These Resolutions provide direction to the Parks & Recreation Department to set fees for programs and services based on a variety of factors including but not limited to: residency, user type, cost to provide the service and community benefit with those services which provide a higher level of individual benefit or service to non-residents paying higher fees in order to provide greater benefit to low-income, Santa Clara residents, non-profits and seniors.

The primary intent of the cost recovery policy is to limit General Fund subsidies for those programs and services that create the least amount of community benefit in order to maintain City services with greater community benefit. Fees for tournaments, which require a higher level of service and often times serve a greater percentage of non-residents, were set at a 50% cost recovery rate with specifics fees adopted by the City Council as part of the 2023 Municipal Fee Schedule adoption.

Outreach on the proposed fee increases included a community survey and a joint Commission meeting of the Youth, Senior and Park and Recreation Commissions held in March 2022. A City govdelivery notice was sent to all interested parties.

The increased fees went into effect on July 1, 2022 with user groups notified of the increased fee schedule and provided opportunities to discuss fees as seasonal use permits were requested.

The fees for Tournaments are higher than general field use for regular practices and games as they require additional supervision, janitorial staffing, repeated field preparation (mound/plate, drag, water, line) between games, and the use of lights for night games. Moreover, invitational tournaments primarily serve non-residents and generate revenues from gate fees, concessions, and team registrations for the sponsor of the tournament.

As noted in the background section of this report, City staff does not have the authority to waive fees that have been approved by the City Council. The following section provides potential options for the Council to consider should they wish to grant a full or partial one-time waiver of the tournament fees as requested.

City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 6 Printed on 1/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-89 Agenda Date: 1/31/2023
Community Grant Program
In 2018, the City Council adopted the Community Grant Policy <https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/61479/637994405594170000> to establish a standardized process to award grants to qualifying nonprofit community organizations, athletic groups or organizations, educational groups or organizations, or individuals, for events, activities, and competitions that provide a public benefit to the City of Santa Clara and its residents.

To qualify for a community grant, the event or activity must:

1. Provide a benefit to Santa Clara residents, students or schools;

2. Contribute positively to the recognition and image of the City of Santa Clara;

3. Be open to the general public and not discriminate against any protected characteristic under state or federal law;

4. Align with establish Council goals, and

5. Not be used for political or religious purposes.

As a fundraiser, proceeds from the fundraising activity must support programs, services or events for residents of the City of Santa Clara. Based on the projected City costs, the petitioner would qualify for a community grant up to an amount of $10,000. This would leave a remaining unfunded need of $18,916.

Reduction in Tournament Support Costs
The single largest expense for the tournaments is the cost for Tournament support (approximately $16,940). Historically, the City has subsidized this cost by providing City staff at no cost. With recent budget balancing actions, the Department can no longer provide this support without charging a fee for the service.

Given that tournament games will be played at night and on weekends, the Department would incur staff costs at an overtime rate. A waiver or fee reduction for this activity would be in direct contradiction to the values and direction set forth in the Council-approved Cost Recovery Policy.

In the alternative, the Petitioner could be encouraged to increase the number of District staff and/or volunteers involved in the running of the tournament to help reduce their tournament support costs.

These individuals would be responsible for managing the gate entry, running concessions, “during the day” restroom cleaning and maintenance, dragging/lining of the fields in between games, etc.

Gate fees
While it would be difficult to increase the team entry fee at this late date, the petitioner could consider an increase in their gate fees (currently at $6 for adults and $4 for youth and seniors) or change the age of an adult admission to anyone over the age of 13. A quick review of gate fees at other sport parks use this age definition for the adult fee.

Waiver of Fees/In-Kind Contribution to Offset Costs
The City Council could consider a one-time full or partial waiver of fees as an in-kind contribution. As noted earlier, staff does not have the ability to waive fees, in part or in whole. Should the Council wish to consider this option, the following is put forth for the Council’s consideration:

1. A waiver of fees/in-kind contribution will result in a loss of revenue intended to offset a portion City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 6 Printed on 1/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-89 Agenda Date: 1/31/2023
of the projected tournament expenses, creating a funding gap for the City.

2. A fee waiver/in-kind contribution would conflict with the Council’s adopted Cost Recovery Policy.

3. A fee waiver/in-kind contribution for one group opens the door for additional requests from other groups.

4. As a program of the School District, Petitioner could be encouraged to seek an increase in its budget allocation from the District or the allocation of additional staff/volunteer resources to offset the City costs of the Tournament expense line item.

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

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this request is a City subsidy in the amount of $30,416 to support a benefit fundraiser for a School District program. The City has established a community grant program to support these types of programs with grants up to $10,000. While the City applauds the organizers for their efforts, an additional subsidy beyond the $10,000 would conflict with the prior Council’s direction to seek 50% cost recovery for these types of activities, the City’s community grant program award guidelines that cap awards at $10,000 and require a reduction in City programs to offset the subsidy for the District program.

COORDINATION
This item has been coordinated with Parks & Recreation, Finance, City Attorney’s Office, and the City Manager’s Office.

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

ALTERNATIVES

1. Authorize the Petitioner to pay a minimum of $1,500 to offset the costs of the three tournaments.

2. Refer the Petitioner to request a Community Grant Award in an amount up to $10,000 for eligible expenses.

3. Request that the Petitioner explore alternative sources of support including the use of District personnel/volunteers as a District-sponsored activity and/or an increase in gate fees.

City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 6 Printed on 1/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-89 Agenda Date: 1/31/2023

4. Provide a waiver of City fees, in whole or in part, with the waiver of City fees to be offset by a reduction in City services in a corresponding amount.

5. Other direction as determined by Council.

RECOMMENDATION
In consideration of the City’s adopted Cost Recovery Policy and eligibility for a Community Grant Award, it is recommended that the Petitioner be directed to submit a grant request for eligible expenses to City’s Community Grant Award Program in an amount not to exceed $10,000 to offset tournament expenses.

Prepared by: James Teixeira, Director of Parks & Recreation Reviewed by: Cynthia Bojorquez, City Manager’s Office
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Written Petition
City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 6 Printed on 1/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
City of
Santa Clara Th Ct ,t r f hat• P<,1 b,

CITY COUNCIL WRITTEN PETITION
Please provide the information requested below. When complete, please submit to the City Clerk's Office, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050. } / Date: IJ..?)o #
I, f ~ ?~Pr , am hereby requesting t: be placed on the Santa Clara City Council Agenda for the following purpose:
~e>)C H-Bd+ ~ a- 2 Aff;p..rrc fol A: ol'-£ 'T.H1£
t d t\:1Alr.+-- Eo IL -mu ,&eA-M E...Nn ~ I 1 Jf\slffid----o..,J (Af.JL :r:J.,., a I understand that it is important that I attend the meeting in the event there are any questions the Council wishes to ask me.

Signed:~k
NAME: f ~ ~£_;~
ADDRESS: _____:::
r\d-::..._<:J
=---:.... Df Q( - - ./1/,,Ut~....__,._u.......:... l. _ _.~ ~ .....;...._-- Street
L-Utl-A- 150 5" I
City Zip Code
TELEPHONE:* VD~ Y)-3 --J lf 'f 7
Optional
DATE: IJ-./2:~ }:>-rt= l I *NOTE: This is a public document. If your telephone number is unlisted or if you do not want it to be public, please provide an alternate number where you can be reached.

S \C1tyClerk\FORMS AND INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE\Written Petition Form - 2016 doc City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-64 Agenda Date: 1/31/2023

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action to Adopt a Resolution Approving and Adopting the Updated Unclassified Salary Plan for the position of City Attorney

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND
Section 9 of the Personnel and Salary Resolution requires City Council approval of compensation plans for both classified and unclassified positions. California Code Regulations Section 570.5 governs and requires the adoption of updated publicly available salary schedules by the governing body. The proposed Council action satisfies these applicable requirements. The updated salary plan reflects the negotiated salary for the City Attorney position.

The City of Santa Clara contracts with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to provide retirement benefits for employees in both classified and unclassified positions.

When the City makes modifications to the salary schedules for its classified or unclassified positions, the City Council must approve and adopt the publicly available salary schedules to comply with California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 570.5. If the City Council does not approve these resolutions, the City will be non-compliant with CalPERS record keeping and reporting requirements.

The City of Santa Clara is a contracting agency with CalPERS and is required to comply with its requirements.

The Unclassified Salary Plan has been modified to reflect the annual salary of $345,000 for the position of City Attorney, as outlined in the employment agreement between the City of Santa Clara and Mr. Glen R. Googins, that the City Council approved on January 10, 2023, with an effective date of March 1, 2023.

DISCUSSION
On January 10, 2023, the City Council approved an employment agreement between the City of Santa Clara and Glen R. Googins. Mr. Googins was appointed to the position of City Attorney effective March 1, 2023, with an annual base salary of $345,000.

The Unclassified Salary Plan has been modified to reflect the salary of the incoming incumbent for the position of City Attorney, which is set at $345,000. Approval of the updated salary plan, as required by Calpers regulation, constitutes the final action on approval of the compensation set forth City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 2 Printed on 1/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-64 Agenda Date: 1/31/2023
in the Agreement in accordance with the Brown Act. The effective date of the salary plan update aligns with the effective date of the employment agreement above-referenced.

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

FISCAL IMPACT
The annual base salary for Mr. Googins will be $345,000. The total compensation cost is $502,000, which includes annual base salary and benefits.

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

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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to approve the revised unclassified salary plan for the position of City Attorney to satisfy the requirements of California Code of Regulations Section 570.5 effective March 1, 2023 Reviewed by: Aracely Azevedo, Director of Human Resources Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Unclassified Salary Plan (effective 03-01-23) approved 01-31-23

2. Resolution Updated Salary Plan
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 2 Printed on 1/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan
Effective 3/1/2023
Approved 1/31/2023
Minimum Salary Maximum Salary
Job Title Job Code Union Code Hourly Monthly Annual Hourly Monthly AnnualACCOUNTING DIVISION MANAGER 109 9 $ 80.131673 $ 13,889.49 $ 166,673.88 $ 103.698692 $ 17,974.44 $ 215,693.28 ASST BUILDING OFFICIAL 222 9 $ 85.410288 $ 14,804.45 $ 177,653.40 $ 110.539731 $ 19,160.22 $ 229,922.64 ASST CITY ATTORNEY 015 9 $ 99.266654 $ 17,206.22 $ 206,474.64 $ 128.467096 $ 22,267.63 $ 267,211.56 ASST CITY CLERK 010 9 $ 66.393519 $ 11,508.21 $ 138,098.52 $ 85.920692 $ 14,892.92 $ 178,715.04ASST CITY LIBRARIAN 012 9 $ 86.493404 $ 14,992.19 $ 179,906.28 $ 111.934038 $ 19,401.90 $ 232,822.80 ASST CITY MANAGER 016 9 $ 134.505115 $ 23,314.22 $ 279,770.64 $ 174.057404 $ 30,169.95 $ 362,039.40 ASST DIR OF COMMUNITY DEV 038 9 $ 97.761288 $ 16,945.29 $ 203,343.48 $ 127.089346 $ 22,028.82 $ 264,345.84 ASST DIR OF ELECTRIC UTIL 021 9 $ 117.181558 $ 20,311.47 $ 243,737.64 $ 151.648154 $ 26,285.68 $ 315,428.16 ASST DIR OF FINANCE 022 9 $ 93.259731 $ 16,165.02 $ 193,980.24 $ 120.692365 $ 20,920.01 $ 251,040.12ASST DIR OF HUMAN RESOURCES 018 9 $ 93.259731 $ 16,165.02 $ 193,980.24 $ 120.692365 $ 20,920.01 $ 251,040.12 ASST DIR OF PUB WORKS/CITY ENG 071 9 $ 102.845885 $ 17,826.62 $ 213,919.44 $ 133.098346 $ 23,070.38 $ 276,844.56 ASST DIR OF WATER & SEWER UTIL 014 9 $ 92.307346 $ 15,999.94 $ 191,999.28 $ 119.466058 $ 20,707.45 $ 248,489.40ASST FIRE CHIEF 024 9B $ 135.770596 $ 23,533.57 $ 282,402.84 $ 175.712019 $ 30,456.75 $ 365,481.00 ASST FIRE MARSHAL 026 9B $ 104.134962 $ 18,050.06 $ 216,600.72 $ 134.762885 $ 23,358.90 $ 280,306.80 ASST POLICE CHIEF 027 9A $ 141.537173 $ 24,533.11 $ 294,397.32 $ 183.163154 $ 31,748.28 $ 380,979.36 ASST TO THE CITY MANAGER 028 9 $ 91.168154 $ 15,802.48 $ 189,629.76 $ 117.978346 $ 20,449.58 $ 245,394.96 AUDIT MANAGER 201 9 $ 77.143788 $ 13,371.59 $ 160,459.08 $ 99.833077 $ 17,304.40 $ 207,652.80 BATTALION CHIEF 036 9B $ 112.191058 $ 19,446.45 $ 233,357.40 $ 145.180327 $ 25,164.59 $ 301,975.08BATTALION CHIEF 24 HRS 036S 9BS $ 76.320453 $ 18,520.43 $ 222,245.16 $ 98.762143 $ 23,966.28 $ 287,595.36 BUDGET & TREASURY DIVISION MGR 113 9 $ 80.131673 $ 13,889.49 $ 166,673.88 $ 103.698692 $ 17,974.44 $ 215,693.28BUILDING MAINTENANCE MANAGER 041 9 $ 70.962519 $ 12,300.17 $ 147,602.04 $ 91.834269 $ 15,917.94 $ 191,015.28 BUILDING OFFICIAL 042 9 $ 93.956885 $ 16,285.86 $ 195,430.32 $ 121.588731 $ 21,075.38 $ 252,904.56 CEMETERY OPERATIONS MANAGER 045 9 $ 56.745115 $ 9,835.82 $ 118,029.84 $ 73.433827 $ 12,728.53 $ 152,742.36 CHIEF ASST CITY ATTORNEY 037 9 $ 114.156346 $ 19,787.10 $ 237,445.20 $ 147.737192 $ 25,607.78 $ 307,293.36 CHIEF ELECTRIC UTILITY OFFICER 108 9 $ 154.685885 $ 26,812.22 $ 321,746.64 $ 200.176615 $ 34,697.28 $ 416,367.36 CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER 311 9 $ 154.685885 $ 26,812.22 $ 321,746.64 $ 200.176615 $ 34,697.28 $ 416,367.36 All classifications on the Unclassifed/Elected Salary Plan are FLSA "Exempt" 1 of 5 City of Santa Clara
Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan
Effective 3/1/2023
Approved 1/31/2023
Minimum Salary Maximum Salary
Job Title Job Code Union Code Hourly Monthly Annual Hourly Monthly AnnualCITY ATTORNEY 060 Appointed $ 165.865385 $ 28,750.00 $ 345,000.00 CITY AUDITOR 067 9 $ 93.259731 $ 16,165.02 $ 193,980.24 $ 120.692365 $ 20,920.01 $ 251,040.12 CITY CLERK 063 Elected $ 1,500.00 $ 18,000.00CITY COUNCIL MEMBER CNCL Elected $ 2,000.00 $ 24,000.00CITY LIBRARIAN 066 9 $ 108.105865 $ 18,738.35 $ 224,860.20 $ 139.902058 $ 24,249.69 $ 290,996.28 CITY MANAGER 069 Appointed 221.016923 $ $ 38,309.60 $ 459,715.20 $ 232.647058 $ 40,325.49 $ 483,905.88 COMMUNICATIONS & OUTREACH MGR 083 9 $ 64.420327 $ 11,166.19 $ 133,994.28 $ 83.362327 $ 14,449.47 $ 173,393.64 COMMUNICATIONS OPERATIONS MGR 068 9 $ 72.998077 $ 12,653.00 $ 151,836.00 $ 94.467288 $ 16,374.33 $ 196,491.96COMPLIANCE MANAGER 081 9 $ 65.434904 $ 11,342.05 $ 136,104.60 $ 84.675750 $ 14,677.13 $ 176,125.56 CONTRACTS MANAGER 342 9 $ 72.132808 $ 12,503.02 $ 150,036.24 $ 93.340673 $ 16,179.05 $ 194,148.60 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY I 170 9 $ 62.036192 $ 10,752.94 $ 129,035.28 $ 80.281038 $ 13,915.38 $ 166,984.56DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II 172 9 $ 72.375577 $ 12,545.10 $ 150,541.20 $ 93.664327 $ 16,235.15 $ 194,821.80 DEPUTY CITY CLERK 178 9 $ 55.873673 $ 9,684.77 $ 116,217.24 $ 72.313327 $ 12,534.31 $ 150,411.72DEPUTY CITY MANAGER 079 9 $ 100.287519 $ 17,383.17 $ 208,598.04 $ 129.774288 $ 22,494.21 $ 269,930.52DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 080 9B $ 123.427212 $ 21,394.05 $ 256,728.60 $ 159.739442 $ 27,688.17 $ 332,258.04DEPUTY PARKS & REC DIRECTOR 175 9 $ 81.040500 $ 14,047.02 $ 168,564.24 $ 104.875154 $ 18,178.36 $ 218,140.32 DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 176 9 $ 81.183635 $ 14,071.83 $ 168,861.96 $ 105.061904 $ 18,210.73 $ 218,528.76 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MANAGER 158 9 $ 81.178327 $ 14,070.91 $ 168,850.92 $ 105.052904 $ 18,209.17 $ 218,510.04DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OFFICER 144 9 $ 78.538154 $ 13,613.28 $ 163,359.36 $ 101.638269 $ 17,617.30 $ 211,407.60 DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPM 090 9 $ 118.849846 $ 20,600.64 $ 247,207.68 $ 153.808212 $ 26,660.09 $ 319,921.08 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 087 9 $ 118.613308 $ 20,559.64 $ 246,715.68 $ 153.496962 $ 26,606.14 $ 319,273.68 DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES 088 9 $ 109.344577 $ 18,953.06 $ 227,436.72 $ 141.501808 $ 24,526.98 $ 294,323.76DIRECTOR OF INF TECHNOLOGY/CIO 089 9 $ 112.830404 $ 19,557.27 $ 234,687.24 $ 146.020962 $ 25,310.30 $ 303,723.60 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 091 9 $ 125.715750 $ 21,790.73 $ 261,488.76 $ 162.690923 $ 28,199.76 $ 338,397.12 DIRECTOR OF WTR & SEWER UTILS 102 9 $ 113.944673 $ 19,750.41 $ 237,004.92 $ 147.452654 $ 25,558.46 $ 306,701.52ELEC DIV MGR - ENGINEERING 104Q 9 $ 96.838962 $ 16,785.42 $ 201,425.04 $ 125.329788 $ 21,723.83 $ 260,685.96 All classifications on the Unclassifed/Elected Salary Plan are FLSA "Exempt" 2 of 5 City of Santa Clara
Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan
Effective 3/1/2023
Approved 1/31/2023
Minimum Salary Maximum Salary
Job Title Job Code Union Code Hourly Monthly Annual Hourly Monthly AnnualELEC DIV MGR - GENERATION 104R 9 $ 96.838962 $ 16,785.42 $ 201,425.04 $ 125.329788 $ 21,723.83 $ 260,685.96 ELEC DIV MGR - OPERATIONS 104P 9 $ 96.838962 $ 16,785.42 $ 201,425.04 $ 125.329788 $ 21,723.83 $ 260,685.96 ELEC DIV MGR - SUBSTATIONS 104M 9 $ 96.838962 $ 16,785.42 $ 201,425.04 $ 125.329788 $ 21,723.83 $ 260,685.96ELEC DIV MGR - TRANSM, DISTRIB 104S 9 $ 96.838962 $ 16,785.42 $ 201,425.04 $ 125.329788 $ 21,723.83 $ 260,685.96ELEC DIV MGR-MKT A & P 107F 9 $ 96.838962 $ 16,785.42 $ 201,425.04 $ 125.329788 $ 21,723.83 $ 260,685.96 ELEC DIVISION MANAGER 104 9 $ 96.838962 $ 16,785.42 $ 201,425.04 $ 125.329788 $ 21,723.83 $ 260,685.96 ELEC PROGRAM MANAGER 424 9 $ 84.215135 $ 14,597.29 $ 175,167.48 $ 108.977308 $ 18,889.40 $ 226,672.80ELEC UTIL CHIEF OPER OFFICER 116 9 $ 128.902846 $ 22,343.16 $ 268,117.92 $ 166.818000 $ 28,915.12 $ 346,981.44ELEC UTIL RISK CONTROL ANALYST 697 9 $ 75.419481 $ 13,072.71 $ 156,872.52 $ 97.604596 $ 16,918.13 $ 203,017.56 EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR 106 9 $ 63.330923 $ 10,977.36 $ 131,728.32 $ 81.961731 $ 14,206.70 $ 170,480.40 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS MGR 461 9 $ 65.434904 $ 11,342.05 $ 136,104.60 $ 84.675750 $ 14,677.13 $ 176,125.56EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 187 9 $ 55.033327 $ 9,539.11 $ 114,469.32 $ 71.217808 $ 12,344.42 $ 148,133.04 FIELD FOREPERSON 114 9 $ 79.253942 $ 13,737.35 $ 164,848.20 $ 102.559558 $ 17,776.99 $ 213,323.88 FIRE CHIEF 117 9B $ 147.659538 $ 25,594.32 $ 307,131.84 $ 191.078769 $ 33,120.32 $ 397,443.84FIRE MARSHAL 120 9B $ 112.190423 $ 19,446.34 $ 233,356.08 $ 145.176346 $ 25,163.90 $ 301,966.80 FLEET MANAGER 034 9 $ 67.613596 $ 11,719.69 $ 140,636.28 $ 87.495577 $ 15,165.90 $ 181,990.80 HOUSING & COMM SVC DIV MGR 075 9 $ 81.252115 $ 14,083.70 $ 169,004.40 $ 105.155308 $ 18,226.92 $ 218,723.04 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OFFICER 749 9 $ 63.810288 $ 11,060.45 $ 132,725.40 $ 82.578000 $ 14,313.52 $ 171,762.24 HUMAN RESOURCES DIV MGR 139 9 $ 80.131673 $ 13,889.49 $ 166,673.88 $ 103.698692 $ 17,974.44 $ 215,693.28INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SVC MGR 112 9 $ 75.207808 $ 13,036.02 $ 156,432.24 $ 97.318269 $ 16,868.50 $ 202,422.00 INSPECTION MANAGER 134 9 $ 80.480250 $ 13,949.91 $ 167,398.92 $ 104.159308 $ 18,054.28 $ 216,651.36LEGAL EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 185 9 $ 55.033327 $ 9,539.11 $ 114,469.32 $ 71.217808 $ 12,344.42 $ 148,133.04 LIBRARY DIV MGR -SUPPORT SVCS 127G 9 $ 67.563808 $ 11,711.06 $ 140,532.72 $ 87.445788 $ 15,157.27 $ 181,887.24 MANAGEMENT ANALYST 008 9 $ 55.873673 $ 9,684.77 $ 116,217.24 $ 72.313327 $ 12,534.31 $ 150,411.72MAYOR MAYOR Elected $ 2,500.00 $ 30,000.00 MUNICIPAL SERVICES DIV MGR 110 9 $ 80.131673 $ 13,889.49 $ 166,673.88 $ 103.698692 $ 17,974.44 $ 215,693.28 All classifications on the Unclassifed/Elected Salary Plan are FLSA "Exempt" 3 of 5 City of Santa Clara
Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan
Effective 3/1/2023
Approved 1/31/2023
Minimum Salary Maximum Salary
Job Title Job Code Union Code Hourly Monthly Annual Hourly Monthly AnnualPARK MAINT & OPERATIONS SUPERV 131 9 $ 66.785712 $ 11,576.19 $ 138,914.28 $ 86.418692 $ 14,979.24 $ 179,750.88PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR 132 9 $ 110.172462 $ 19,096.56 $ 229,158.72 $ 142.566231 $ 24,711.48 $ 296,537.76 PARKS CONST, MTC & REPAIR MGR 130 9 $ 66.785712 $ 11,576.19 $ 138,914.28 $ 86.418692 $ 14,979.24 $ 179,750.88PERFORMANCE AUDITOR I 203 9 $ 46.561385 $ 8,070.64 $ 96,847.68 $ 60.261115 $ 10,445.26 $ 125,343.12 PERFORMANCE AUDITOR II 204 9 $ 55.873673 $ 9,684.77 $ 116,217.24 $ 72.313327 $ 12,534.31 $ 150,411.72 PLAN REVIEW MANAGER 629 9 $ 81.345462 $ 14,099.88 $ 169,198.56 $ 105.261115 $ 18,245.26 $ 218,943.12PLANNING MANAGER 072 9 $ 84.831346 $ 14,704.10 $ 176,449.20 $ 109.780269 $ 19,028.58 $ 228,342.96POLICE CAPTAIN 138 9A $ 134.809558 $ 23,366.99 $ 280,403.88 $ 174.454212 $ 30,238.73 $ 362,864.76 POLICE CHIEF 141 Elected $ 26,141.00 $ 313,692.00
POLICE RECORDS MANAGER 647 9 $ 57.554365 $ 9,976.09 $ 119,713.08 $ 74.485788 $ 12,910.87 $ 154,930.44 POWER SYSTEM SCHEDULER/TRADER 674 9 $ 72.226212 $ 12,519.21 $ 150,230.52 $ 93.471346 $ 16,201.70 $ 194,420.40 POWER TRADER 673 9 $ 92.307346 $ 15,999.94 $ 191,999.28 $ 119.466058 $ 20,707.45 $ 248,489.40 PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT 148 9 $ 72.132808 $ 12,503.02 $ 150,036.24 $ 93.340673 $ 16,179.05 $ 194,148.60 PRINCIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY ENG 145 9 $ 92.238865 $ 15,988.07 $ 191,856.84 $ 119.366423 $ 20,690.18 $ 248,282.16 PRINCIPAL ENG - WATER & SEWER 142W 9 $ 89.437673 $ 15,502.53 $ 186,030.36 $ 115.743635 $ 20,062.23 $ 240,746.76 PRINCIPAL ENG/CITY SURVEYOR 140 9 $ 93.909692 $ 16,277.68 $ 195,332.16 $ 121.532654 $ 21,065.66 $ 252,787.92 PRINCIPAL ENGINEER 142 9 $ 89.437673 $ 15,502.53 $ 186,030.36 $ 115.743635 $ 20,062.23 $ 240,746.76 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL ANALYST 149 9 $ 72.132808 $ 12,503.02 $ 150,036.24 $ 93.340673 $ 16,179.05 $ 194,148.60 PRINCIPAL PLANNER 143 9 $ 72.132808 $ 12,503.02 $ 150,036.24 $ 93.340673 $ 16,179.05 $ 194,148.60 PRINCIPAL POWER ANALYST 154 9 $ 72.132808 $ 12,503.02 $ 150,036.24 $ 93.340673 $ 16,179.05 $ 194,148.60PRINCIPAL UTIL INFO SYSTEM MGR 146 9 $ 92.307346 $ 15,999.94 $ 191,999.28 $ 119.466058 $ 20,707.45 $ 248,489.40PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER 077 9 $ 87.663635 $ 15,195.03 $ 182,340.36 $ 113.440442 $ 19,663.01 $ 235,956.12 PUBLIC RECORDS MANAGER 082 9 $ 55.873673 $ 9,684.77 $ 116,217.24 $ 72.313327 $ 12,534.31 $ 150,411.72 PURCHASING DIVISION MANAGER 147 9 $ 77.143788 $ 13,371.59 $ 160,459.08 $ 99.833077 $ 17,304.40 $ 207,652.80 RECREATION MANAGER 150 9 $ 72.817500 $ 12,621.70 $ 151,460.40 $ 94.230750 $ 16,333.33 $ 195,999.96RISK MANAGER 700 9 $ 77.143788 $ 13,371.59 $ 160,459.08 $ 99.833077 $ 17,304.40 $ 207,652.80 All classifications on the Unclassifed/Elected Salary Plan are FLSA "Exempt" 4 of 5 City of Santa Clara
Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan
Effective 3/1/2023
Approved 1/31/2023
Minimum Salary Maximum Salary
Job Title Job Code Union Code Hourly Monthly Annual Hourly Monthly AnnualSR DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 161 9 $ 76.932115 $ 13,334.90 $ 160,018.80 $ 99.565442 $ 17,258.01 $ 207,096.12 SR ELEC DIV MGR 173 9 $ 106.518519 $ 18,463.21 $ 221,558.52 $ 137.860327 $ 23,895.79 $ 286,749.48SR ELEC DIV MGR-MKT A&P 174A 9 $ 106.518519 $ 18,463.21 $ 221,558.52 $ 137.860327 $ 23,895.79 $ 286,749.48SR INFORMATION TECH SVCS MGR 743 9 $ 82.409942 $ 14,284.39 $ 171,412.68 $ 106.649250 $ 18,485.87 $ 221,830.44 SR MANAGEMENT ANALYST 742 9 $ 61.460885 $ 10,653.22 $ 127,838.64 $ 79.544481 $ 13,787.71 $ 165,452.52 SR PERFORMANCE AUDITOR 202 9 $ 65.434904 $ 11,342.05 $ 136,104.60 $ 84.675750 $ 14,677.13 $ 176,125.56SR POWER SYSTEM SCHEDLR/TRADER 772 9 $ 77.629327 $ 13,455.75 $ 161,469.00 $ 100.467981 $ 17,414.45 $ 208,973.40 STREET SUPERINTENDENT 159 9 $ 73.801038 $ 12,792.18 $ 153,506.16 $ 95.513077 $ 16,555.60 $ 198,667.20 TRANSPORTATION MANAGER 171 9 $ 90.253154 $ 15,643.88 $ 187,726.56 $ 116.801827 $ 20,245.65 $ 242,947.80UTILITY BUSINESS SYSTEMS MGR 898 9 $ 72.014538 $ 12,482.52 $ 149,790.24 $ 93.191250 $ 16,153.15 $ 193,837.80UTILITY OPERATIONS ENGINEER 155 9 $ 76.023288 $ 13,177.37 $ 158,128.44 $ 98.376462 $ 17,051.92 $ 204,623.04 WATER & SEWER OPERATIONS MGR 180 9 $ 74.722327 $ 12,951.87 $ 155,422.44 $ 96.708231 $ 16,762.76 $ 201,153.12WATER & SEWER SUPERINTENDENT 029 9 $ 67.563808 $ 11,711.06 $ 140,532.72 $ 87.445788 $ 15,157.27 $ 181,887.24WEB & DIGITAL MEDIA MANAGER 073 9 $ 64.420327 $ 11,166.19 $ 133,994.28 $ 83.362327 $ 14,449.47 $ 173,393.64 All classifications on the Unclassifed/Elected Salary Plan are FLSA "Exempt" 5 of 5 Resolution/Update Unclassified Salary Plan (eff 02-05-23) Page 1 of 2 Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. 23- _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

TO ADOPT THE AMENDED UNCLASSIFIED SALARY PLAN FOR

THE POSITION OF CITY ATTORNEY WITH AN APPROVAL DATE
OF JANUARY 31, 2023
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara contracts with CalPERS to provide retirement benefits; WHEREAS, to comply with the California Code Regulations section 570.5, the City of Santa Clara shall among other things, have pay scheduled approved and adopted by the City Council; and indicate an effective date and date of any revisions; and, WHEREAS, as required by the California Code Regulations section 570.5 and as mandated by CalPERS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interests of the City to adopt the Amended Unclassified Salary Plan, which includes the classification of City Attorney, when there are salary modifications to existing classifications, with an approval date of January 31, 2023, and an effective date of March 1, 2023 (which is the effective date of the associated employment agreement).

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

1. That the City hereby adopts the Amended Unclassified Salary Plan that includes the position of City Attorney.

2. Effective date. In accordance with the California Code Regulations section 570.5 and to comply with CalPERS, the salary schedule for unclassified positions shall be effective March 1, 2023 and adopted with an approval date of January 31, 2023.

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

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE ____ DAY OF ____, 2023, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

Resolution/Update Unclassified Salary Plan (eff 02-05-23) Page 2 of 2 Rev: 11/22/17
AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Unclassified Salary Plan (effective 03-01-23) approved 01-31-23 City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-905 Agenda Date: 1/31/2023

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Update on City Council and Stadium Authority Staff Referrals

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
During Council and Stadium Authority meetings, the City Council or Stadium Authority Board provide direction on policy issues or refer information requests to staff for follow-up.

The purpose of the City Council and Stadium Authority Referrals Update is to provide the City Council/Stadium Authority Board and the public a current status report. Completion of the referrals may be communicated by various means such as: Report to Council, Information Memorandum provided through a Council Agenda or monthly City Hall News publication or during a future Council meeting.

The Referrals list will be published in the Council agenda packet under the “City Manager/Executive Director Report” section of the Council Agenda. Reports will include both open and closed referrals.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council and Stadium Authority Staff Referrals
City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 1 Printed on 1/26/2023
powered by Legistar™

CITY COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY STAFF REFERRALS

FOR FOLLOW-UP/ACTION
Updated 1/25/2023

Page 1 ends

Date
Initiated
Source Referral Description Assigned Department Projected Completion

1. 1/10/23 Council Meeting Written petition submitted by Paul Rosa to cover costs of City services in support of the Wilcox High School Baseball 2023 Fundraising Tournaments at Washington Ballfield Parks & Recreation Item to return on Jan.
31, 2023 Council
meeting.

2. 11/1/22 Council Meeting Written petition submitted by Kirk Vartan to place an agenda item on a future Council meeting for to discuss the New Parking Permit Ordinance and rules. Current signage very restrictive at 1-2 hours for parking. As a small business, employees need to park. Residents don't need parking during the day as they have a 2-car garage and two driveway spots, allowing for four cars to be parked per house. Informational report provided on Jan. 10, 2023 and note and filed.

Public Works A comprehensive
report targeted to
return in April 2023

3. 11/1/22 Council Meeting Written petition submitted by Lori Garmany requesting to place an agenda item on a future Council meeting for Council to consider the censure of the Mayor for the leaking of closed session information. On 11/1/22 Council meeting, passed 5-2 to return to future agenda date.

City Manager’s Office TBD

4. 10/4/22 Council Meeting Information item on the Traffic Calming Policy: discussion of thresholds for the 85th percentile and 1000 vehicle requirements.

Public Works May 2023

5. 10/4/22 Council Meeting Written Petition submitted requesting to place item on a future meeting for a Public Review of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release dated August 31, 2022 between the City of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, and the 49er Football Team Entities: Post settlement agreement on website as soon as possible and schedule study session in the future following the completion of any pending litigation on buffet costs and public safety costs.

City Manager’s Office Study session TBD
based on completion
of pending litigation
on buffet costs and
public safety costs

6. 10/4/22 Council Meeting Written request submitted requesting to place an agenda Item at a Future Council Meeting to Set a Study/Briefing Session for the Public in which the Terms of the Settlement Agreement are Discussed as well as Presentation of Sources of Revenues, to include an explanation of the Waterfall through which Money Flows as well as the Rate at which the various loans are being paid off.

Finance To return to the
February 21, 2023
Study Session

7. 9/13/22 Council Meeting Approve alternative 2 of El Camino Specific Plan: Direct staff to prepare a significantly modified Specific Plan that retains enough density and elements (e.g., a range of densities that support mixed-use) of the prior Specific Plan so as to be consistent with the prior draft EIR; with added direction to include the activity zones with building heights of up to 6 stories as proposed in the 2021 draft Specific Plan, to continue consideration of the 2021 draft Specific Plan and to prepare an economic feasibility analysis of both plans.

Community Development February 2023

CITY COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY STAFF REFERRALS

FOR FOLLOW-UP/ACTION
Updated 1/25/2023

Page 2 ends

Date
Initiated
Source Referral Description Assigned Department Projected Completion

8. 9/13/22 Council Meeting Reconsider the Council action taken at the Aug. 30, 2022 council meeting which approved up to a 25% apportionment for reimbursement that carried on a 4-1 vote. The action was to consider possible financial assistance options related to the replacement of a private concrete sound wall adjacent to Pruneridge Avenue in the Laurel Park East Neighborhood and potential delegated authority for a budget amendment. This item was heard at the Nov. 15, 2022 Council agenda.

Public Works / City
Attorney’s Office
Expected resolution
by Feb. 14, 2023

9. 8/16/22 Council Meeting Discuss allocating up to $150K to create a Neighborhood Stadium Relations Committee using funds from the SCSA budget
City Manager’s Office Item to be heard at
Feb. 7, 2023 Council
agenda

10. 8/16/22 Council Meeting Discuss potential uses, unfunded repairs, and finances of operating and maintaining the Morse Mansion. Item discussed at Nov. 1, 2022 Council meeting. Staff to return with options to extend lease and maintain property for City uses. The City is hosting a community meeting on Jan. 25, 2023 regarding the future of use of the historic Morse Mansion, located at 981 Fremont St. At the meeting, staff will discuss possible options and receive community feedback to share with the Council for future consideration.

City Manager’s Office TBD

11. 8/16/22 Council Meeting Written petition from Kirk Vartan to review and evaluate the purchase of the CA Great America Theme Park. Specifically, clarify what development could take place on the site given the current and general plan designations. Staff to return at future date with the option for a session with developer.

City Manager’s Office TBD

12. 7/5/22 Council Meeting SB9 Developments: Direct staff to bring back recommendations regarding affordability.

When the City considers an update to citywide affordable housing ordinance, this information will be provided.

Community Development TBD

13. 6/7/22 Council Meeting Rooftop Solar: Direct staff to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on installing rooftop solar and ways to make it feasible for Santa Clara homeowners
Silicon Valley Power TBD

14. 4/5/22 Council Meeting Written Petition submitted by Joseph Goschy to discuss appealing a building Violation (CRN 2020-00310) at 220 Tyler Avenue. Discussions with homeowner ongoing and may eliminate need for a hearing.

City Attorney’s Office TBD

15. 4/5/22 Council Meeting Written Petition submitted by Councilmember Jain requesting a future agenda item to discuss how to change noticing policy to reach more people. A community meeting was held on Dec. 8, 2022 to gather public input. Next steps are a public review of draft revised public outreach policy, which will be available in Feb/March 2023. Planning Commission and City Council consideration of revised policy estimated Summer 2023 Community Development
/ City Attorney
City Council
consideration of
revised policy
estimated Summer
2023

CITY COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY STAFF REFERRALS

FOR FOLLOW-UP/ACTION
Updated 1/25/2023

Page 3 ends

Date
Initiated
Source Referral Description Assigned Department Projected Completion

16. 3/22/22 Council Meeting Patrick Henry Specific Plan: Return to Council with a Proposal for a Plan Amendment for a .3% Public Art Fee Grant the Authority on the Approval of the TMA to the City Council versus the City Manager, indicated in the draft Plan.

Community Development Early 2023

17. 1/11/22 Council Meeting Update on review and monitoring of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. Staff issued RFP to support online reporting and tracking of TDM Measures and present a template to complete the forms. Staff issued the RFP on May 27 and has extended the deadline to July 18 to allow for more proposal submissions. Staff currently reviewing submissions. Will bring potential template to Council based on respondent feedback in Nov./Dec. 2022. Staff reviewed submissions. Notice of Award will be provided in early 2023. Will bring potential template to Council based on respondent feedback in March/April 2023.

Community Development March/April 2023

18. 1/11/22 Council Meeting Action on a Council Written request submitted requesting to place an agenda item at a future Council Meeting to discuss making the Youth Soccer Park parking lot available when there are no events at the Youth Soccer Park

1. Investigate ADA Improvements for parking

2. Investigate whether the City can engage a private operator to manage for parking

3. Investigate whether the 49ers can use their practice facility for parking

4. Determine the fair market value of VIP parking
Parks & Recreation/City
Attorney/City Manager
TBD

19. 1/12/21 Council Meeting Provide a study session on pros/cons lifecycle cost/benefits of artificial surfacing including turf. Staff will return to Council with an informational memo.

Parks & Recreation TBD

20. 4/30/19 Council Meeting Report on number of public transit riders for large stadium events – and relationship of costs of parking increases transit ridership. Ask Stadium Manager for analysis to support their position that reducing the cost of parking would likely adversely impact public transit ridership, resulting in more cars on the roads.
49ers Stadium Manager TBD

21. 10/2/18 Council Meeting Amend sign ordinance to prohibit signs on public property Parks & Rec/ City Attorney TBD 22. 3/13/18 Council Meeting Develop a Stadium Authority Financial Reporting Policy in conjunction with the Stadium Authority Auditor and the external auditor
Finance TBD

COMPLETED

CITY COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY STAFF REFERRALS
Updated 1/25/23

Page 1 ends

Date
Initiated
Source Referral Description Assigned
Department
Completed Resolution

1. 9/27/22 Council Meeting Written petition submitted by Morteza Shafiei to purchase the lot at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, in order to establish a park for the benefit of our Citizens and neighborhood. The community of over 170 homes and 4 HOAs submitted a letter to the City Council detailing concerns for the planned development at 1601 Civic Center Drive (Charities Housing) and requested that this Citizen Proposal be considered on equal footing with any other proposals.

City Manager’s
Office
Completed Park acquisition item
heard at Nov. 1, 2022.

Item regarding 1601
Civic Center Drive
presentation heard at
Nov. 15, 2022 Council
meeting and not
approved.

2. 9/27/22 Council Meeting Expand outreach beyond noticing requirements for study session for the Tasman East Specific Plan Amendment to include noticing of neighboring property owners within a quarter mile of the Plan area.

Community
Development
Competed Completed at Dec. 6,
2022 Council meeting.

3. 7/12/22 Council Meeting Request for costs paid to previous law firms for City of Santa Clara PRA assistance.

Staff are working on summarizing costs.

City Attorney Completed Completed

4. 5/24/22 Council Meeting (11/1/22) Action petition submitted by Shprese Head Requesting to Place an Agenda Item on a Future Council Meeting for Council to Discuss what the City of Santa Clara is doing to help get BMX riders back to Racing under USA BMX Sanction. Lease Agreement between City and Santa Clara PAL for the operation of BMX track: On May 24, 2022, staff returned with a status report on coordination of efforts between BMX and Police Activities League (PAL). Council note and filed report. Council questions included: obtain requested responses to questions presented to PAL, timeline, a full audit (5-years) of PAL, etc.

City Manager’s
Office
Completed The report was noted
and filed on Jan. 10,
2022

5. 9/27/22 Council Meeting Written petition submitted by Morteza Shafiei to purchase the lot at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, in order to establish a park for the benefit of our Citizens and neighborhood. The community of over 170 homes and 4 HOAs submitted a letter to the City Council detailing concerns for the planned development at 1601 Civic Center Drive (Charities Housing) and requested that this Citizen Proposal be considered on equal footing with any other proposals.

City Manager’s
Office
Completed
.

Park acquisition item
heard at Nov. 1, 2022.

Item regarding 1601
Civic Center Drive
heard at Nov. 15, 2022
Council meeting and
not approved

COMPLETED

CITY COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY STAFF REFERRALS
Updated 1/25/23

Page 2 ends

Date
Initiated
Source Referral Description Assigned
Department
Completed Resolution

6. 9/13/22 Council Meeting Information memo on scooters including a recap of the background of what has occurred to present.

Public Works Completed Presented in November
2022 to Council

7. 8/16/22 Council Meeting Refer to staff to explore the option to expand cemetery hours at Mission City Memorial Park to possibly include Sunday hours.

Parks &
Recreation
Completed Staff corresponded
with requestor on
current hours available

8. 7/12/22 Council Meeting Return as an action item under Alternative #1 – Determine the staff investigation sufficiently provided evidence of irregularities regarding Mr. Patrick’s residency and take action in accordance with Policy 032 (up to and including removal.) CMO/CAO/CDO Completed Action taken at 8/16/22
Council meeting

9. 7/5/22 Council Meeting Direct staff to work with subcommittee/task force comprised of Councilmembers Park, Chahal, and Hardy and any other stakeholders (i.e., Apt. Assoc./Dan Kostenbauder) to have discussion with the Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce regarding the Business License Tax.

CMO Completed Meeting was held with
stakeholders and
subcommittee.

10. 6/21/22 Council Meeting Direct staff to return to Council with a scope to redo the El Camino Real Specific Plan including objective design standards.

Community
Development
Completed Completed

11. 6/7/22 Council Meeting Loyalton Ranch property: Direct City Manager to return to Council with a 1) Scope of Work and 2) costs of the following: a) consultant’s Risk Analysis/Assessment, b) clean up, and c) fencing.

Silicon Valley
Power
Completed Completed

12. 5/24/22 Council Meeting Prepare a financial analysis for moving Santa Clara City Hall to a new location within the eight blocks of the original downtown. Staff has contract to prepare the analysis for Council approval on Oct. 18, 2022.

Community
Development
Completed Item approved on
October 18, 2022

13. 5/10/22 Stadium Authority
Meeting
Signage Lighting at Levi’s Stadium – Direct staff to conduct an internal review of signage approach (repair or replacement) and return to the Board for authorization to procure a 3rd party evaluation if needed.

City Manager Completed Completed

14. 5/10/22 Stadium Authority
Meeting
(CP 030) by Vice Mayor Jain to discuss whether SBL contracts be sold on extra field seats. Agendize discussion whether SBL Contract should be sold on extra field seats.

City Manager June 21,
2022
Council approved SBL
contract sold on extra
field seats.

COMPLETED

CITY COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY STAFF REFERRALS
Updated 1/25/23

Page 3 ends

Date
Initiated
Source Referral Description Assigned
Department
Completed Resolution

15. 4/19/22 Council Meeting Adoption of a Resolution of Intention for Parking Maintenance District No. 122 - Franklin Square. Staff to return to Council within 60 days detailing how to recover costs or other methods of enhancing revenue for the City.

DPW June 21,
2022
Completed

16. 4/5/22 Council Meeting Written Petition (CP 030) submitted by Jared Peters regarding Responsibility of Sound Wall Adjacent to Pruneridge Avenue adjacent to Laurel Park East Neighborhood.

Working with resident on development of potential cost-sharing/financial assistance solution.

DPW/CAO Completed Item is still being
considered for possible
financial assistance
options.

17. 1/25/22 Council Meeting Discuss and explore options for a transportation shuttle. City staff referred the Senior Transportation letter to Council. City received a grant from the State for a shuttle and this item is being implemented
City Manager Priority
Setting
Session
Completed

18. 1/11/22 Council Meeting Response was presented on May 10, 2022 on the action on Written Petition (Council Policy 030) submitted by Keith Stattenfield requesting to place an agenda item at a future Council meeting to discuss requirements from the CAO on approving an update to the CC&Rs of the Case del Rey HOA Bylaws.

City Attorney Completed
on July 12,
2022
The HOA agreed to
submit the CAO’s
revisions to the CC&Rs
to their members at
their next election, and
the Council voted to
approve the CC&Rs.

19. 1/5/22 Joint City/VTA Study
Session re: BART to
Santa Clara
Set a meeting with VTA near the proposed Santa Clara BART Station location to provide details to the public regarding station design. VTA conducted a May 10, 2022 City Council Study Session on the Santa Clara Station’s Architecture and Site Layout.

Funding a Brokaw undergrounding study for February 8, 2022 Priority Setting Session (not complete, referred to Priority Setting Session 2022) DPW May 10,
2022
Study Session with VTA
Complete

COMPLETED

CITY COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY STAFF REFERRALS
Updated 1/25/23

Page 4 ends

Date
Initiated
Source Referral Description Assigned
Department
Completed Resolution

20. 12//14/21 Council Meeting Conduct an RFP for noise monitoring services at the stadium, including possible measures to attenuate noise levels.

Community
Development
October
2022
Staff issued RFP which
closed on Oct. 28, 2022

21. 12/14/21 Council Meeting Defer Loyalton to future meeting to develop strategy for the sale of the property and staff to coordinate a visit to the property for interested Councilmembers. Staff visits with Councilmembers was completed.

City Manager /
Silicon Valley
Power

COMPLETED
March 8,
2022 and
June 7, 2022
Completed

22. 12/14/21 Council Meeting Action on Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement for the Performance of Services with Wilson, Ihrig & Associates for Noise Monitoring Services at Vantage CA2 Data Center and Owens Corning Facility and Related Budget Amendment: item continued to get more information on broadcasting, moving from the Northside to the stadium, and an implementation timeline
Community
Development
May 10,
2022
Completed

23. 12/7/21 Council Meeting Written Petition (030) to be added to Future Agenda:
10A: Action on a Written Petition (Council Policy 030) Submitted by Jared Peters Requesting to Place an Agenda Item at a Future Council Meeting to Consider making a Policy Decision Regarding the City Assuming Responsibility of an Unstable and Dangerous Sound Wall in the Laurel Park East Neighborhood DPW 4/5/22 Reported at Council
Meeting; Follow-Up
assigned to staff

24. 12/14/21 Council Meeting Defer Loyalton to future meeting to develop strategy for the sale of the property; staff to coordinate a visit to the property for interested Councilmembers.

CMO/SVP 3/8/22 Approved by Council at
3/8/22 Council Meeting

25. 11/16/21 Council Meeting Consider Resolution to support the bid to FIFA for the 2026 World Cup and related events.

CMO/CAO 2/22/22 Approved by Council at
2/22/22 Council
Meeting

26. 11/9/21 Council Meeting Project Homekey: Look for alternate site in Santa Clara better suited for this use CDD 11/9/21 Update to Council emailed to Council on
3/10/22

COMPLETED

CITY COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY STAFF REFERRALS
Updated 1/25/23

Page 5 ends

Date
Initiated
Source Referral Description Assigned
Department
Completed Resolution

27. 10/26/21 Council Meeting Item 4: Presentation on Business Tax Ballot Measure and Other Potential Revenue Measures for November 2022 Ballot: Explore a business tax that strikes a balance with the value of a business-friendly city (key priority) and progressive tax with input and advice of a consultant.

CMO/Finance 2/8/22 Approved by Council at
2/8/22 Priority Setting
Session

28. 10/19/21 Council Meeting Discussion of Future Ballot Measure Discussion in 2022 for Infrastructure Bond or Tax to 2022 Priority Setting Session
CDD/City
Attorney/Finance
2/5/22 Presented at 2022
Priority Setting Session
Part 1; outreach phase
in progress

29. 10/19/21 Council Meeting Discussion of Construction of Lawn Bowl Facility for consideration: The City currently has allocated $175,000 for the repair and maintenance of the Lawn Bowl facility (clubhouse). There has been no subsequent action to re-allocate or redirect that amount to the design and construction of the new Lawn Bowls facility. Given the current balance in the 3001 General Capital Park Maintenance account, Council would need to reprioritize and reallocate up to $175,000 for the required design and engineering of a new facility. There is no funding allocated for construction.

Parks & Rec/City
Manager
Completed.

Council
action on
June 21,
2022
meeting.

Based on
future
prioritizatio
n and
funding
availability.

Council action to not
prioritize as funding.

30. 9/28/21 Council Meeting Approve staff recommendation for Item 6. Public Hearing: 2020-2021 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) with changes to increase grant funding to $30,000 for 7 agencies and fund the remaining 4 from the City’s General Fund.

Community
Development/
Housing
Completed

31. 9/7/21 Council Meeting Shorten term of amendment to the agreement for the performance of services with Wilson, Ihrig & Associates for Noise Monitoring Services at Levi’s Stadium from 18 months to 6 months and directed staff to return with a proposal for owning versus leasing equipment and the cost benefit for monitoring the noise data and quality of reporting.

CDD 3/8/22 Approved by Council at
3/8/22 Council Meeting

COMPLETED

CITY COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY STAFF REFERRALS
Updated 1/25/23

Page 6 ends

Date
Initiated
Source Referral Description Assigned
Department
Completed Resolution

32. 8/24/21 Council Meeting
(Study Session)
Directed staff to: Engage with HomeBase to design City Plan Framework and start prep for workgroup discussions, Fast-track Task Force/Housing Commission development and implementation, Fast-track HomeKey progress where possible, especially in entitlements processing and explore short-term basic services, including bathrooms, showers, laundry, cell phone charging and others.

CDD/City Clerk/
City Attorney/
Police
1/25/22 Approved at 1/25/22
Council Meeting

33. 8/17/21 Council Meeting Implement pilot meeting management protocol for Council meetings recommended by the Mayor and revisit/assess at 2022 Priority Setting Session. City Attorney to return to Council with resolution outlining this process at future Priority Session to be rescheduled.

City Attorney Completed
at February
2022 Priority
Setting
Presented in a slide at
the Priority Setting
Session.

34. 8/17/21 Council Meeting Direct staff to bring back on a future agenda a presentation on Councilmember conflict of interest, including what staff currently does and what the Council is responsible for.

City Manager/
City Attorney
Completed
at February
2022 Priority
Setting
Reported to Council the
types of Conflict-ofInterest staff report on
for items based on
geographic boundaries

35. 8/17/21 Council Meeting
(Priority Setting
Check-in)
Staff to return at a future Council meeting with draft ordinance to adopt recommended procurement reforms.

Finance Summer
2022
Completed

36. 8/17/21 Council Meeting
(Priority Setting
Check-In)
Directed staff to return to Council at a future date with changes to the eligibility for serving on City Commissions that expands the eligibility requirement from Santa Clara electorate to Santa Clara resident – deferred to December City Attorney 1/11/22 Approved by Council at
1/11/22 Council
Meeting

37. 8/17/21 Council Meeting
(Priority Setting
Check-in)
Direct staff to explore a consultant for a TDM Study (scope, cost, ongoing cost) and talk to other cities and gather anything that may be able to be shared CDD 1/11/22 Reported at Council
Meeting

38. 6/15/21 Council Meeting Request to provide date-based search capability on City website. The new search is currently being tested by the City’s Website Core Team, and the City is working with the vendors to implement by year end.

ITD / City
Manager
COMPLETED IT Department
continues to monitor
and improve on search
capability

39. 5/4/21 Council Meeting Parking Maintenance District No. 122 – Engage with property owners to discuss options for increasing their share of the annual O&M costs and potential for dissolving the district.

Public Works 1/25/22 Reported at Council
Meeting

COMPLETED

CITY COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY STAFF REFERRALS
Updated 1/25/23

Page 7 ends

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentJanuary 31, 2023

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
January 31, 2023