City Council and Authorities Concurrent
June 27, 2023

( l) Lflocal law m regulations require the development of a site at a minimum den it ·, the departm,mt shall accept tlie planning agency 's calculation of the total hou ing unit capa ·ity on that site b, cd 011 the establi:hed miuimum densit y. IT the city or county doe,<; not adopt a law or regulation requiring the development of a site. at :'.I. minimum density , then it shall demonstrate how the number of units detennined for that site pursuant to this ubdivision will be accommodated . (2) The number of lUlit · calculated pursuant to paragrnph (1) ·hall be ndju tcd as necessary based on th.: land use controls and site improvements requirement identified i.n paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 , the realistic development capacity for the site, typical densiti es of existing or approved residential developments <1t a similar affordability levd in lhatjltrisdiction. and on 1he cutTenl or planned availability and acoessibi lit , of sufficient water , sev er, and dry utilities. __ _
n) l·ol'the number of units calculated to accommodate its share of the regional hou. ing need for lower income hou ehold. pursuant to paragraph (2) a cit or county shall do either of the following:
(A) Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densiti es accommodate this need. 'll1e analysis shall include, but is not limited to factors such as market demand. financial feasibility , or i.nforn1ation based on development project experience within a ZOJte or zones that provide housing for lo,, er income households.
(B) 'l11e following densitie s shall he deem ed apprnpriate to accommodate housing for lower income households:
( i) For ,m incorporated t;il y wit!J.i.JJ a nonmei.ropol it;m t;Ount y mid for a nonmetropolitan count y tJiat has a micropolitan area : site · allowing at least I - units per acre.
(ii) l"or a11 unit'loorpornte-d area in a nonme1ropolitan cou11ty not included in lause (i): site, allowi11g at least 10 unit per acre. (iii) For a suburban jurisdiction : sites allov iug at least 20 uuils per acr '. (iv) For ajurisdictioo in a metropolitan county : ites allowing at least 30 unit per acre.

Government Code§ 65583.2(c)(l ), (2) and (3) . Tiie draft fails to comply with this statute .

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-104

Santa Clara City Co1111cil and
Santa Clara Planning Commi ssion
Janua ry 22, 2023

FARELLA
BRA U •MART L,,,,

1. The Site Inventory Is lnsullkimt Based On Minimum Densities.

In the draft presented to ru,d reviewed by HCD, the City relied on minimum densities as showing the i.:apacily for ach site . Howeve r, a, number of large sites have now been rcmo ed from the inventory in respon se to earlier comments by I ICD and others, includin g IIom,ing Act ion Coalition . The total capacity of the in entory calcu lated at minimum density is 4 860, rather than the 7,810 claimed.

Notably, the statute arguably r quires use of the minimum densities for cities that h;we them . U nder section 65583. 2(c)(l ), " If local la, or regulation s require tJ1e development of a site at a minimum den ·ity [HCD] shal l accept th e planning agency·s calculation . .. based on the established minimw11 density.' ' HCD is not given discretion to accept an alternat ive calculation.

The remainder of section 65583 .2(c)(l) explains that ' Irth e. cit or county does not adopt a law or regtLlation requiri ng t}le deve.lopme11t of a site at a mininnun den ity, then it shall demon strate how the number of units detennin ed for that site pursuant to this ubdi i. ion will be accommodated.·· (emphasis added) . Becaus e Santa C lara law does requir e minimum densiti s. the calculation is go em e.d by the fir s1 sentence , not the seC,ond. \ hile UCD appears to int rpret the statute as ifi t presents two options , tl1e statutory text requir es use of the minimum d,msiiies hased on the zm1ing laws in effect in anta Clara. If the tatutorytext i applied a<:: wTitten, the draft Housing Element fails to list suf1icicnl in entory lo meet the regional need .

2. The Site Inventory Is lnsullkii'nt Biised On Santa CJam's Own Methodology.

The dratl Housing El menl discusses the "rcali stit.: capauit ' calculaLion - the methodolog y the City use. to estimate the number ofm1it s that each parcel will accommodate for ptu-poses of meeting tl1e RJJNA requirement s - at pages B.6- 7 tllrongh 13.6-10. ·111e draft says it calcu lates the "realistic capacit y·· by multipl ying the parce l size b · the minimum zoned dcnsily, and then multipl ying by the "avurage," for existing and approved proj ects , of the percent by wh.iuh each projc t in a parLiuular Specific P)an exceeded minimum density. TI1c ''ave rage " fOI' Lawre11ce Station rea is claimed to he 191 %; the "aver age·• for Tasman l·'. a<;t Focus rea Specifi Plan is claim¢d to be 215 %; the "average·· for the l'a1rick Henry Focus Area Specific Plan is claimed to be 119%.
major problem with the draft is that in calculating the " average ; the draft excluded nearl y halfoftlie . ites that hould ha e been on the list. . n average requires lo1)king at all the data~ only by listing all of the projects in each Specific Plan area can a tru e averag e be caku)ate .d. Jle.re·s a complet e list of "very high density' projects develop ed in the Lawrenue I
A

Page A-105

anta Clara City Coun il and
Santa CJarn Plruming Commission
January 22, 2( 23

AH t. LLA
B R U 1 •M R r1 11r
'fation Area, mdic,atil1g in bold n11d italics the ones thal were missing froni Tabl e l.3.6-3 :

Pr~jec1 an1e Min. Acres Units Actual % ofminin11~m
densil y densit y densit y jcolunm 5
ldu/ac] [du/acj divided by
colllmn 21
2904 Corvin 5 I du/ac 1.08 14S 134 du/ac 134/51 263 %
2961 Corvin 51 ,/11/ac 1.69 38 22.J9 22 . .J.9/51 = 4-1% 3305Kifer 51 d11/ac 0.94 45 47.87 47.87/51 = 94%
3560 Rambla 51 du/ac 2.49 251 100 du/ac 100/51 = 196 %
3578 Ramhla 51 du/ac 1.72 126 73 du/ac 73/5 1 143%
3580Rambla 51 t/11/ac 2.58 186 110.85 110. 85151 = 117~6 J.517 Rvdcr 51 du.lac 3.92 328 83 du.lac 83/51 = 163%
c ru L
A'ERAGE: 160%
T11e sam<;1 enor of omission was made in calculating the Tasman East "average "; by ignoring half of the data for the Specific Plan area, the draft make the average appear higher llrnn it actually i :

Proj t Namc Min./max. A..:r·s Units Units/Acres % or
density minimum
ldu /acJ densit y
[colmnn 5
di idcd by
cohunn 21
2233 Calle Del Mtu1do 100-350 1.22 196 160 160%
2200 Cal le Del Mundo 100-350 2.44 580 237 237%
2300 Calle De Luna J 00-350 5.528 700 127 127°/4
2343 Call e Del Mrn1do 100-350 2.63 347 131 131%
2302 /2310 Calle Del 60-350 0.T1 151 196 327%
Mundo
2354 Calle Del Mundo 60-350 0.50 89 1 78 297%
5123 Calle Del Sol lfHJ-350 2.62 503 192 192°1,
5185 Laft1yette JOO to 1.12 271 242 l-12%
350
2263 Calle Dcl Mu11do JOO to 1.95 301 154 154%
35()
8 On tl1e City"s chart, this is listed as 5.02, which appears to be a typo. l11e City Plannin g Deparlm nt project listing lists it as 5.52 a docs U1 Cotmty Assessor 's p ar1.cl map. We have con-cctcd the other calculation s accordingl y.

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-106

Santa Clam City Collncil and
Santa Clara Planning Commis sion
January 22. 2023

2101 Tasman Dr.
2354 Colle Del f11fmuln
2225 Calle /Je Lmw &
2232 Colle /Jel Mundo
TOO to 9.03
350
60 to 35(} (J.46
TOO to 2.1
35(}

FARELLA
BRAU • MARTEL 111•
95() 1(}5 105%
89 .193 322%
371 183 183%
ACTUAL
AVJ<:IUGE: 206%
If applying the' average·· hy Specific Plan area is hid ed the proper way t calculate density as the draft argues then for Lav,,rence Station the average is 160% of the minim1m1 density , not 191%; for 1':ismau East , the avcrnge is 206%, not 215~o.9 for Tasman East. the dilfor encc re.duces the unit uoun1 by 43 units ; for Lawrence Station , where the average was more skewed and more acreage is on the inventory . it has a bigger impact : 448 m1its. 1l1is leaves the Patrick Henry area, where we cannot create a hart, because ther> is no valid data at all. 111e single proposed projeut (Pactron / Summerhill) listed on table 13.6-3 for !be Patrick Hemy area does not show an average ort pical d.n, ity of an existin g or approved project. Tt does not show\ hat even a single bui Ider has , ucceed ed in building at the li ted perc entag e-of-mini.mum density . 1l1e statute directs that "typ ical densities of existing or approved reside.ntial developments at a similar affordabi lity Jovel in that j urisdiction " is 1he relevant data set; a single proposed but-not- ye.1-approved projed , and a mark.et-rate one at that dol.'.lsn 't me t the minimum test for consideration , because it is neither 'typicat " nor 'exis ting or upprovcd ." Govemmeut Code§ 65 ·s3.2(c)(2), Th.is rul nrnk ·s good sense : Apropos d pr~jccl. may not be approved or cv r built , and so has not bcci1 tested by th' real world Lo detennine if it reflects the "rea listic" capaciti 0'; City staff ma.y not even have re\riewed it fo r compliance with Santa Clara zoning Jaws. Meanwhile, ·'typical " require. more than a handful. and certainly more than on . Becau e no housing has been built in the Patrick Henry area at all. the City lacks data on which to argue tlrnt the statutory directive of appl ing minimum density based on densities shou ld he ignored or adjus1ed based on real-worl d experience. Meanwhile , 1he City 's calculations fail to aocount for the possi.hilit y that future projects may include commercia l or office u cs, even though severa l of the Patrick Henry zoning categories providl? 9 We also note that at Tasman East, many of the projects included in Lbe averag..-: wer approved or built before the change in th 7.oning to allow nonresidential 'Uses on the second and third floors. l11is increase in the ability to have nonresidential uses may substantially impact the construction mix going forward , which the City has failed to account for .

JO See Government Code § 65583(a)(3) (ret1uiriug a site inv ntory to show the ·'rea .listi-: :ind demonstrated pote11tial fo r l'edeve lopment"); § 65 5 83. 2( c) (""l11e in entory . ·11 al I specify for each site the number of units tJiat can reoli tica lly be accommodated .. ."')•,§ 65583 .2(c)(2)(C) ("A site may be prestuned to be realistic for developme11t to accommodate lower income housing i(. at the tim e ofthe adoption oftJ1e housing efomcnt , a development affordable 1o lower income hoi1scholds has be1.-n proposed and approved for dev elopment on that site.'') (cmph:'lsis added) , I
A

Page A-107

Santa Clara City Coun il and
Santa Clara Plruming Commission
January 22. 2023

FARELLA
BRAU • MART EL 111·
this potential. "l11e City shou ld use the minimum de.nsities as the fail-safe for1 his area of the City where 110 housing has yet been huilt at all. 11

3. The Site Inventory Is In ufficicnf Based On Typkal Dm ·ities For Hi.ghly Atl'Ol'dablc Housing P1·ojects.

If a city u es tile minimum density w1der secti'on 65583.2(c)(l) , it can also treat the site as 11ppropriatc to dev ·lop at that minimum d nsity for lower income housing under sectio n 65583.2(c)(3) , whiuh provides that sites ·with a zoned density or al hrnst 30 units /a re- are considered adequate for lower income housing. But if the city doe not u. e the minimum density, as the latest draft now proposes, it mu t difleret1tfate between market-rate and affordable housing projects in developing a realistic estimate. Here, the City 's draft is seriously flawed, becaus it relics almost exdusive ly on market-rate rather1ban alfordabfo , housing projects in calcu latin g the capacity of the inventory.

Section 65583 .2(c)(2) was amended in 2017 (i\.B 1397) to emphasize that "'typical densities " are 1101 sufficient ; the relevant e.videuce from which to make a capacity calc ulation higher tlum mii1imum is b_ oompa rison to typical densities of existing or approved residentinl developments at a $it11ilar affordabilit y level in that jurisdiction.· , See also Goven 11mmt Code § 65583(a)(3) (requjring that sih::s hav-= a "r alistic and demonstrated potential for rcde clopmcnt dw-ing the pla1ming period to meet the locali ty's housing need for a designated income level ").

A market-rate dewloper may be able to afford to build 300 uni ts on 2.51 acr s, or ven 800 units on G.5 acres, as Sares Regis _propo es to do at Patrick Hem-y. But it is well-recognized that a 100% allordabl · im.:omc development generally ciumot afford a project of this magnitud . s the HCD Siie Inventory Guidebook exp lains:

To achieve financial fea. ibility, man. as isted housing developments using state or fcdcml resources are bclv ccn 50 to 150 units . Pare ·Is thal arc too small may uol s upport th munbcr of units neccs ·ary lo be compcti1iv ,md to access s..:ar..:c JI n1e drafters also made a last-minute change in the creation of \ppendix B (the ·ite inv cnt01y), claiming that the Patrick Henry area densiti,.:is should be calculated based on a 72% ''percentage of maximum" ' instead ofa 119% ''percentagtJ of minimum." This seeming ly minor change makes a big differe11ce - about 728 u11it11 - but the crn1·ent draft of the Mousing Element does not " demonstrate· • why it is valid or reali tic, a required . Govemme ,nt Code§ 65583.2(c). 111e draft of the Housing Element had said that a 119% "percentage of minimum " should be used. Only IJ1e ppcndix B site invc11t01y, which was not circu lated until a.Iler 5 p.m . on Friday January 20, 2023 - the last business day before the Planning Commi:. ion hearing - shO\• s the new methodology. 1ote also that 111 the Tarman East area. with arguab ly the mo t. imilar zoning mies to Patrick Henry, the average "percentage of maxiunun· • based on built and approved ma.rket-ra1e projects is on l 50%, further casting doubt on the "72% of maximum' claim for Patrick Lltmry.

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-108

Santa Clara City Co1111cil and
Santa Clara Planning Commis sion
January 22, 2023

FARELLA
BRA U •MART L ,,,,
funding re-sources. Parcels tllat are large may require very large projects , which 1t1ay lead to an over concentration of affordah le hous ing in one location or may add cost to a project by requiring ad velo per to purchase m ore land than is needed , or render a project ineligibl • for funding .
llCD Site Inventory Gt1id eho◊k (May 2020) at p. 15. These limitation s are, ·hythe Legislature prov ided in AB 1397 that site. small er than 0.5 acre., or larger than IO acres, are u uaJly iucligiblc, absent a spec.ill c identiar _ ·ho, ing , to acconun odate the n ·cd for lower incom e housing. Id. · Go cnm1ent Code§ 65583.2(c)(2)( . ) und (B). Indeed , the same law that added section 65583.2(c)(2)( ) and (B) also added tl1e " siJ11ilar affordability lever' language to subsectio n ( c )(2 ); the Legi. J.aturc simultan eously added several provisio ns to ensure that site invento1ic s rea listically eva luate wh ether affordable housing will be produced. AB 1397 (Stats. 2017 ch. 375) .

In order to depart from the minimum density , the draft would tl1erefore need to show not just that market-rate projects can achieve higher-1ha.u-minimum densities like the 160% average in Lawrence Station, or 206% average in Ta'iman Ea t, but that "typical densities ' for a I 00°/i, affordable housing prqject do so a.<. well, including at the very high densities proj ected for these sites.

Santa Clara 's drafl fails Lo make this requir~d showing . Of the projects on Tab le 13.6-3 , o, eve11 the longer list dis ussed in the previous section, there is only one pmject that can be de ·cribed a having a '"simil ar"' level of affordable housing (i.e. , 100 % affo rdable): the 1.08 acre proj ect at 2904 Corvin . TI1at project fits the. general rnnge of size for affordable hou sing at 163 kiffordabl c units , it is dose to the 50-J 50 w1it range discuss.:d by HCD. But it is onc-of-11-kind:
the fil t supporti ve hotL<.ing in the City, heavi ly sub idized, and the onl. affor dable housing proj ect built in any of the three Speci fic Plan area •. One-of-a-kind is not "typical." 'J11e remaining sit.e inve ntory in Tasman East, Lawrenc ,e Station , and Patrick Henry is proj ecfod to meet the needs for ,,ery lov - low-, and mod erate-inoomes (seep. 13.6-10, splittin g th capacity 33 ,33 percent each to very lo, -, low- and moderate-incomes). el the data to support U1c clain1ed d ensiti s is based excl usively on market-rat e projects thul did not ha e this mix of affordahiJit y. In the Tasman East area, table 13.6-2 shows thal of eleven proj els, buildin g 4 459 units of housing , the mm1ber of unit s of ve ry low- and low-inco me hou sing accommodated is: ze,ro. This how that there are not "typical den itie ofexisti.ng or approved res identia l de elopments at a similar level of affordability '· for this area . As tated above , there has been no housing buiJt or appro ed in the Patrick Henry area at all; there is no "t_ picar · nrnr~et-rate proje t there much less a ty pical densit y fo r a project with the level of a.ffordahilit y calculated by the inventory.

If Santa Clara wan ts to es timate a realisti · produ ction of allordablc housing in the Tasman East, La. reno · Station, and Patrick IIem·y areas, , h r large. high density urnrkd-nH • projects are helng built. then it should estimate how much lower-income hou5ing will be built I
A

Page A-109

Santa Clara City Council and
Santa CJara Plruming Conuuission
January 22. 2023

FARELLA
BRAU • MART L111·
there based on the actual data. 12 ·n, at data s hows that homing affordahle to those in the very low- , low-, and moderate-incom<l categorie,'l is produoed at a rate somewhat less than the J 2% inclu. iollary hou i.ng mandate under city law. (Wh.ich, notably , leads mostl y to inclu ion of moderate units and no very ]ow- or low-in ·onu: units for a large number of projects , see Table

13.6-2 (Pending and pproved Projects)) . "l11e draft fails to make a showing sufficie nt to satisfy section 655S3.2(c) , as amended by AH 1397. 'f"he real data shows that the cutTe.nt site inventory will never achieve the claimed productjon of affordable housing that Santa Clara presents in the llot~~ing Element or tlrnt is ne ·essary to a 1..'Qnunotlate the needs of the community. 'l11e so lution is to detennine the realistic capacity of the new high-d ensity neighborho ods b projecting markel-rate projco1s with their typiual llomplement oJ affordable units. and then to supplem ent ii with smaller , geogra phicall y dispersed sites to acllommodale the remainder of the ve1)' low-, 10\ -. ,md tnod erate-inc ome need on sites that are realisti c in sca le ru1d density for affordable housing project s. TI1e City's experience shows that affordable housing developers b11ild within a half-mile of grocery stores and that they build proj ects in the range of 50-150 units. Building in the Patrick Hemy area , for example , satisfies nejthcr oI these - the area is currentl y a food desert (more than one mile to a grocety store) - and the parcel size and minimum density exceeds anything that is rea li tic and demonstrated for a project with 100% affordable housing .13 TI1e City has munerou s other oppo1tunities for places where affordable housing developers cou ld reali stic11Jly build housing, e.g., along El Camino Relc\l or Stevens Cr ek Boulevard - if only tbe City would comu,it to rezoning lo allow hou sing lo be built thcr · . ftordable hou ing develop ers ·hould not ha ve to nm a year -long gauntlet of eeking '))ecial penni ssion to build housing on realistic, w1derutilized sites, as was done wi1h the Catholic Chariti es project at 1601 Civic Cen1er. Adequate, available, realistic sites should be rezoned llirougl 10ut the city lo make it possible to realisti ally build the requir ed iimounl of housing affordahle to all in ome le el. during the nex1: eig ht yea1. _ J2 Iftbe City instead wants to rely on statutory preswuptions like the "'deemed adequate' ' statutory mlc or section 65583 .2{c)(3) lo claim that these sites can be used for lower income housing , it should limit ilscfflo the minimum densities that state law compels HCD to at:Cept. ·nm City's plam1ers may know that even the minimum densities are not realistic for the large st site (given U1at U1e size of the projects -ubstantially exceeds what affordable developers acttutlly build) , but they would be able to rely on the stat utory presmnption , rather than peculative and unrealistic math.
13 For example , tJrn projections that the need for 972 units of housing affordahle to those witJ1 wry low, low, or moderate incom e. will be met by a project at 4701 Pai.tick Henry Drive , a 687-mul 100% a.frordabl " housing project at 3055 Patrick Henry , or a 664-mlit 100% affordabk housing project at 3350 Central Expresswa_ , is simply not realistic . 111e City ' s experience with affordable projects matches well the HCD guidance about projects of 50-150 unit,;;.

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-110

Santa Clara City Council and
Santa Clara Planning Commis sion
January 22, 2023

FARELLA
BRA U •MART L 111•
C. Land Zoned As Parks And Roads rs Not Available For l1ousin~, And hould He Removc-d FJ·om The Site lnvcntorv.

Santa Clara's Spci.ific Plan proce ss has bad sigu.i.ticaut suu1:ess irI beginning to create new vibrant neighborhood. fo1· housing in the city. s pru1 of the Specific Plru1 pro ess. indu. trial park s were rezoned a<; high-densit re idential. 1 lowever , po1tions of each Specific Plan area were not zoned a residential , but in tead were zoned as either public right of, ay or Lor open space/ parks . These port.ions ctumot be included on the site inventor y, and lhe portiom, oftl1e paruels that are zoned non-residential should not he counted towards the realisti c capacity .

See Government Code§ 65583.2(a) : 65583.2(c). 14
l11e Lawrence ~'1ation Area Plan zoned a strip of land nnming east-west acros the distrid. for park.land nmning along wha1 is now named Feliz Road . Part of that park bas been built on the portion ofthe area tJiat lias developed as housing : a basketball com1 between La Rarnbla and Copper , mid the Nuevo Communi ty Garden hetwe,m Copper and Pancoast. At Pancoast 1be edge of the officc/R&D park owned by Gemini /Rosemont (see below) the park and Feliz Road end . nder the zoning laws of Santa Clam , however , .if the Gemini/Rosemont owned parcels do end up being developed , th~ portion zoned as a publi c right of way (the cont inuati on of Feliz Road) and parkland wi ll not be housing. B failing to deduct tlie pot1ion of the site that has been zon<ld as a new public right of way, and as op..-:J1 space /park. San ta Clara oveIBtates the acreage available for development . While the Cit_ may have better infonnalion on this , based on our rough measurement , it would appe,-ar that approxi111atdy 2.33 acres of parcel s 2 lG-34-084 and -085 are zoned for 'public right of way" or "Parks /Open Space ' based on the Lawrence Station Area Plan .
·n1e Patrick llenry Specific Plan likewise has zoned a substantia l amount of open space /parkland. and new pt1blic roadways , to supp ort the development of this neighborhood.

Whi le some of these pl.ans ma not com to frnitioll the two data center on parcels AP 104- 04-076 ,md -077" i 11 like.ly 1101 be developed as housing in the next eight years, and the City is unlik ·ly to "take " the land from th · data enter parcels for a park a hown on the Specifi c Plan - but other parcels on the inventory do include portions that were zoned "Ope11 Space " (shown in 14 nder Govemimmt Code section 65583.2(a). site inventory can includ e Only (1) vac;aut sit.es zoned rcsidentiat (2) vacant sites Zoned for nour<1sidcntial but wherercsidenlial development is permitted . (3) residentially zoned sites that are capal le ofheing de elop data higher density, or ( 4) sites that can be redeveloped as residential where there is a plan to rezone the site for residential use. Land zoned as open space , or as a public tight-of-, ay, does not fall under any of these categories bcuause under residc11tial ,:.onstrw . .:Lion is not allowed .

A different way of t'eaching the same resnlt is that the land not zoned as residential is not properly inc luded in the lmild able llJ'ea of the parcel. affecting the realist;c capacity calculation .

See Govemment Code§ 65583.2(c)(2) (requiring_ adjustment of the number of units based on " land usi.: controls ').

I
A

Page A-111

Santa Clara City Council and
Santa Clara Plruming Conuuission
January 22. 2023

FARELLA
BRAU 1• MART EL111·
green 011 page l3.6-26 ). It thus appears that the following parcels should be <tdjusted on the invento,y based on the po11ion zoned for residential use a,~ oppose d to the porti011 zone d "Open Space· • or where a ne, pub Ii roadway i s indicated. While the City has better and more precise in.fomrnlion, and is r..:quircd to perfom1 this analysis m1der ·ection 65-83 .2(c)(2) a part of developing a reali stic capacity estimate considering site c011strai11ts such as zon ing laws, \'ire offer the following e.~timate hased on examination of Figure. 1 ].6-4 , and the provided scale , to illustrate tlrnt th.is issue materially affects the acrcag~ available for rcsidentia ~ hou i.ng:

APN Gross Open Space and Right Estimated Net
Acreage of Way Zoning Aca·eage Zoned
Residenti:.11
104-04-124 4.7 ac 2.32 acres 2.38
open space
104-04-128 2.5 ac 0.36 acres 2.14
open space
104-04-094 , -095 2.0 1.12 acres 3.38

2.5 oncn space
104-04-131 3.8 0.96 acres 3.14
Pl~blic righL-oJ:wav
104-53-016 9.0615 2.17 acres open spa e 5.12
and public right-of-way
104-04-136 3.8 1.42 acres open space 2.6
and public right-of-way
104-04-138 1.7 1.12 acres open space 16 0.58
TOTALS 30.06 9.47 acres open space or 20.59
oublic right ofwav
For the Tasman ,ast Specific Plan. the zoning situation i tJ1e murkiest o zoning map was drawn showi ng where I.h e open space /parks will go. Instea d, the Specific Plan sho\>VS circles w ith th..: desiri.:d a -reage of parkland , 5 acres in all. and describes that each zone of the Specific For purpo s~s of this argtuuent, we will analyz 1bc 27 parcd s of the Great \merica Tec hnol ogy Park as iftbey were a single parc el. with APN 104-53-016 , as shown on Figure 13.6-

5. As stated above. there are i.t1 fac t 27 different p-arcels. and par el APN l 04-53-016 is only

3.800 quare feet. See section A.4 ahove .
16 The 1.12 acres of open space on this parcel are conlingcntl zoned . U'1his parcel , zoned " High Densil Fie •. , is developed for nonr esidential use (i.e .. a higher densit y office s ill::), then the opeh space t oning does not apply. "111e zoning map indicates that the open spaoe requiremeut only applies jfth parcel is developed as l1igh de,nsity residential. See * on figure 13.6-4 (" *Public parkland only required with reside11tial developm nt. ''). Because this argument assumes thal the site is properl y included on the inv nlory (b111 see section A.2 abo e, explaining wby it should not be) , the parkland requirement would need to he taken into account in evaluating the acreage a.vallahle for residential developmenL
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-112

Santa Clara City Co1111cil and
Santa Clara Planning Commission
Janua ry 22, 2023

FARELLA
BRAU •MART EL111•
Plan is required to dedicate a certain acreage, to parkland. See Draft I lot1sing Flement at Figure l3.6-2 (page l 3.6-23) · Tasman Fast Specific Plan at section 03. 7 (p. 34). 1 It also shows two public rights-of-, ay being added, one going n orth in the vicini ty of AP 097-05-058,1 8 and the other going south to Tasman Drive across AP 097 -05-056. Tue Ci ty does uot xplain (1) how much of the acreage on the inventor) ' wi ll be devoted to open space and park llses, instead of t'esidentia.l, of' (2) how much a I 00% affordable housing developer would need to pay the City to avoid this requirement. Ass umin g that tl1e park.land constraint is in-kind, as tlle Specific Plan contcrnplat , then the remaining 111.,,-rcagc " 'ould need to contribute approxima tely one acrc ,19 instead of d vcloping them for residential use.

In total, th' open space /park zoning and public right-of-way zoni11g reduces considerab ly the invento1 of (nonvacant) land available for residential development and sharply reduc es the number of muts .
17 The Tasman East Specilic PJan, as amended through 12/22/20, is available bere:
https :/lwww .santaclurnc::1.gov /home .1showpublish >ddocumeu t/722 08/637503896853000000 J S Uere, Figure 13.6-2 would appear to imply llrnt approved project 097-05-059 bas dedicated land providing half of the roadwa , and that 097-05-058 wi l I be expected to contr ibut e U1c other lm]I since the gap between th m is approximately ba lf Lhi.: width of Lhe other streets shown .
19 'I his is a very rough estimate: It e. sentially takes the I-acre parkland obligation of the "Center District " and treats it as the joint responsibility of all remaining sites. lt assumes that the proposed pro.iects have correct ly accounted for their hare of the parkland dedication obligation , such that their projects comply with City la , ev n though they h;ive not yet. been approved . II this assumption i, incol1'ect, it would ,;how a finther problem with the Housing Element : an uncritical acceptance of a prnject proposa l as reflecting a reali.stic e timate of capacity . 'Tlie point here remains that it is the City 's obligation to analyze these constraints , not the public·s.

Govemmen1 Code§ 65583.2(c)(2). The es1imafos we provide here are only to illus1ra1' the signili.cancc of the issue to the Housing El ment as a whole .

I
A

Page A-113

Santa Clara City Coun il and
Santa Clara Plruming Commission
January 22. 2023

FARELLA
BRA • MART L,11·
Summarizing the impact ofthe above discussion by using the same methodology applied in Appendix B:

Specific Plan
Lin rence Station
Tasman East
P.itritk.lle
TOT
ct·eage reduction for
Parks /Right-of-Ways
(Nomesid ntial
Zonin

2.33 a res
1 acre

9.47 acres
E ·timate of Units To Be
Remowd From Site
Inv :)]J_tory Due To on­
R sidential Zonin ! O
227 units
215 lUlits
1,084 units
1, -2 6 units to b · removed i11
very lm, -, low- and
moderate-income cute ories
·mere are two sol utions. one good aJ1d one awful. "n1 good solution is to take the portion of ihi:: paroels zoned for parkland/open space or public rights-of-way off the inventory b ri::ducing the acreage claimed on the inventory , to re-do thi:: capacity ma1b, ,md then to identify other places in the City th.it can realisti1.:ally be redeveloped as alTordable housing eith.er based on existing zoni ng or on a plan to rezone. TI1e awfu l one i amend the Specific Plans, rezone the open space and the street of the e parce ls as residential housing and thwart al l of the good land use planning work that the City djd in adopting the Spc..:ilic Plans to ..:rcalc livable neighborhoods from industrial parks. We 11rge the Ci1y to remo e from the slte inventory the claim that re.sidential uses will be built on the open space and public right-of-way portions of the asman East, Lawrence Station , and Patrick Henr . Specific Plans.

D. The Extensive Rti-Use Of ites Requirt>s New "U c Dy Right" Zoning Overla, •.

In Government Code section 65583 .2(c), nouvacaut laud listed in a prior housing element but not approved for de clopmenl must be rezoned with.in three yi:,1rs so that an_ housing development in which at lea t 20 pet'cent of the units at'e affordable to lower incom hou eholds is entitled to "t·esidentia l use b tight.., (i.e .. no requirement for conditional u e pennit, plann ed developme ,nt pem1it, or other discretionary local govenunent r view). This would prevent subjective and discrntionary pennit processes - for example, subjedivc standards for "'ard1itecturnl review" - from being used to block housi11g projects that provide Mfordable housing.

TI1e draft Housing Element for 2023-2031 liS'ts 11onvacat1t land listod in a prior hou ing element btit not approved for de elopment : All of tbe Tusma11 Ea '1 sites ou the draft for 2023 - 20 For purposes of this chart, we assume that the City·s projected densitie s at 191 % of the minimum for Lawrence Station. 215% oftbeminimum for Tasman Ea51, or 72 o of the maximum for Patrick IIenry - are valid . But see secrion B above .

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-114

Santa Clam City Co1111cil and
Santa Clara Planning Commission
January 22, 2023

FARELLA
BRAU •MART EL111•
2031 werl:l already used on the site i nventory for 2015"2023 , and all of the Lawrencl:l Station sites on the dt·aft for 2023-2031 were already used 01\ the site inventory for 2015-2023. Compare 2015-2023 H011, ing E l<>m,mt at tables 8.12-6-4 and 8.12-6-5 with draft 2023-2031 Housing Elemen t al tables 13.6-9 and 13.6-10 . Und r section 65583 .2(c), the City is th rcfore required to implement a program to rezone all of these. sites by no later than three years from the adoption of the element, to pennit "nse hy right " for housing developments if20<!10 of the unit~ a.re affordable to low or ery low income resident .
111c City is m~1are oftl1is requir ement , but tries to argue aro und it, at page 13.6-1.2 to

1.3.6-13 ofthe draft, titled " Re- se of Site ." The City argues that becau . e it rezoned the Tasman East and Lawrence Station sites during the 2015-2023 cycle for a higher density to conform to the General Plan it can cotult the sites as "new·· for purpo ses of the 2023-2031 cycle and ignon: that they were identified in a prior housing clement Th argum~nt. \.Vill not hold up in comi. ·nie statute unambiguously states that ff the site is nonvacant, was "identified '' in a prior housi,ng element, ru1d wru not approved for· development . it "shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of ihc housing need for lower incomes hous holds . .. ·· unless rezoned in the new housing element for "llse by ii.ght.''
Nor does the City 's "rezoning for higher density" argument fit the facts : "The sites were rezoned as part of a Govenuncnt Code section 65583(c) program (albeit late, as explained in the ne11.1 section). Indeed. if they had not been rezoned , the cit_ would have had a shortfa ll of sites to address the 2015-2023 RH 1A. Moreover , some of 1hem are ;coned at the exact ame density stated in the 2015-2023 Housing ElemetJt. See, e.g., APN 216-33-037.

Iflhc ity docs no(\, ish lo implement n "ll e by right '' overlay , it should rcmo • (be Tasman East aud Lawrence Station sites from th iuventory- almost all of them are being (re-)used t () sat isfy the ve.ry low and low inuome needs 111&1 the_ ,. e.re designated to meet in the last Housing Element, and in the absence ofa use b tight' ' rezoning , they do not meet the criteria under 65583 .2(c) for being re-used .

E. The City Must \ddrt.'Ss Tl1c Umu·commodatcd Need From Th'-' 2015 Region:d HousiDg . eeds Allocation.
ll1e City also failed to implcmenl fo.lly its 2015-2023 Housing Elemen t. 111 · con. eque,nce of i1. failure is 1hat it mu~t addre, s bo1h the unaccommodated 20 1 5-2023 need and th.e new 2023-2031 need .

Where a cit fail lo i.mpkm ent a housing clement , the unacco mmodated need must be quickl y accommodated during the next period. Govemment Code § 65584 .09(a). Here , Santa Clara failed to timely impleme)Jl, hat i1 promised in its 2015 l lous111g Element. 'L11e unaccommodated need from that period the failure to provide adequate ites for lower income housing can-ies over, and the city caimot use the same sites to meet both the 2015 need ai1d the 2023 need .

I
A

Page A-115

Santa Clara City Coun il and
Santa Clara Plruming Commission
January 22, 2023

FARELLA
BRAU • MARTEL111·
We start with a description of the Cit _ 's fai ltire to niak.e available adequate sites to accom111odate tJ1e regional need identifi ed in 2014 . ln 1he 20 15-2023 Housing Element, the City stated th at it believed the housing need could be accommodated on sites in the E l Camin o Real, Tasman East. and Lawrence Station "focus areas·': areas that the Cit y's genera l plan proj ·fed as suitabl e for rezonin g as medium or high density re!;idential , or mi "ed use, but w hich were not yet zoned to pem1it resi dential development. 'fh e Tasman East focus area and l ,m renc e Station focus area wet'e zonad light indrn;trial . 1l1e E l Cam ino Real sites were w ned "thoro ughfard rn1m1ercial " or '"communit y conun en;ial" : zonin g that did not p,:;m1it nisi d,:;nlial cons truction . o one co uld build hou sing on any of Lhe siks in the inv,:;nlory "vithout rezoning . 11der section 65583.02(a), the inventory can on! .include sites that are (I) va ant and zoned for residential use, (2) vacan t and zoned to allow residential develo pment. (3) re ident.ially zoned and capabl e of being developed al a higher deosity , or (4) "zoned for nonresidential use th at can be redeveloped for residential: use, and fo r which the hou sing e lement incl udes a program to rezone the slte. as necessary , to pem1it residential use .... " The 20 15 inven tory was al id, if at all. because of the plann ed program to rezone all of the sites on the list under section 65583.2(a)(4) and 6 · 583(c) .
pr◊gTam to rezo ne sites to make them avail abl e is go ern.ed in part hy Govemment Code section65583(c)( l). That subsec tion required the City to 'identify actio n that w ill be tak en to make site,s available during the plalllling period w ith appropriate zoning and dcvdo pmcnt standard'> and with scrvi :es and facilities to acco mmodate Uiat portion of the cit. ·s .. . share of th e regional housin g need for each income leve l that could not be acco mmod ate d on sites Jn the invento ry . . . witbollt rezoning . . . . " nder sectio n 65583(c) . the City was re.quir ed to '"set fortb a schedule of actions durin g the planning period , each with a timelinc for implementation . . . uch that tliere , ill be benefi0ial impacts of the programs \ ithin the plaiming pe1iod ... :'
The City 's 2015-2023 Horn;ing Elcmcnf explained bow il would comp ly with the law: ll would engage in a compre hens ive rezo ning ofthe entiro city to conform with th e general plan , ··to b1ing con istency beh een t11e Zoning Ordinance and the G,meral Plan , im plemen ting U1e General Plan goa ls b facil itating mixed use deve lopment and higher dens ity res idential deve lopmen t, pro1ectin.g exist ing neighborhoods , and incentrviz ing redeve lopment by appropr .iate dcvel01Jmonl stm1dru:ds and stream. lin ed procedures .·, 111c City stated lliat ~t would compli.itc lhis action by mid-2016 . See 2015-2023 ll ou. ing Element atpp . 8.12-122 - 8.12- 123 ("Action 6:
7,011 ing Ordinance'').

The mid-2016 deadline was important ; the adiou m,cd d to be scheduled "s uch I.hat there will be bemiiicial imp acts of the pro grams within the planning period ." and also k ept the plan for re1.oni11g on track to take place wit hin th e required three years. Government Code ~ 65583( c )( 1 )( ). Housing cou ld not be constru cted tmless it were approve d; housing would face more hurdles to approval until the rezoning took place; and so removing the obstacle of light indu . trial or commercial distri ct zoni n g needed to lake place early in the pl aiming p.:riod to I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-116

Santa Clara City Co1111cil and
Santa Clara Planning Commission
January 22, 2023

FARELLA
BRA U •MART L,,,,

provide deve-lop rs th e ability to propo se and proceed with hou!.ing built to meet the needs during the 2015 -2023 tim e period.

By mid-2016 , th C1ty still had not com pleted the com prehensive rezoning that it identified as Action 6. 'l11e. City blamed problems with its outside consultant fo r not complet ing it in by the deadline of 2016, and prom lsed ii \.Vould be done in 2017 . 13ut even then , the City didn 't compl ete it. The draft was finally c-irculat ed for publi c conun ent in summ er 2022 while the City was working 0 11 tJ1e 2023 !lousing Element - and, on'tbc otcd 011 b_ the City Council until ·omc limc iu 2023 . The drafl 2023-2031 Housing Ekmc nt ucknov I dgcs that ction 6 is lncompl e.te, and now l ists tl1e comprehensive zonit1g ordinm1ce updat e .as ction 9 in the new plan: "Compl te the comprehensive update to tbc Zoning Ordin ance by .iarly 2023.' ' (p. 13.2- 13).

T11e City thu s did not implement the 2015 Housing Element, and did not rezone , as promised , the s ites listed in its 2015-2023 inventory While the City listed 15~ parce ls along 'El Camino Real in its 2015-2023 plan as ha ing lhc ability lo salis( lhc housing m:eds oftbc communi ty, it left the commerc ial di trict zoning in place for the entire 2014 -2022 period. To tliis day. anyone wanting to build housil1g on most of those parcels (exc luding the few that went throu gh the City 's discretion ary process for a rezonin g) needs t o apply for a zoning , ariance, contrary to state law. \ hich n:q uired not just an expedatio n of potential rezoning to match ll10 genera l plan. bul actual iiuple1mmtation of the Housing Elemen t by lhe City. Meanwhile , Lhe City planning staff prnpo sed a rezoning of the e sites repeatedly a,; pa11 of the. El Catnino Real Specific Plan, but the City Council st ill has not take n actio n, and ba deferred furthe r discussion.

The program actions in the 2015-2023 Hou ·ing Element to rezone or provide adequate sites were thus not ft11ly implemented .

Having failed to implement the rezoning as required by , tate hou ing 1aw and promised in the 2015-2023 Housing Eleme nt to take place by mid-2016, the City is now subject to sec tion 65584 .09, whjd1 provides :
[ljf a city 01· county in the prior planning period foiled to identity or make avai lable adequate sites to acconunodat e lhal portion of ll1e regiona l housing ueed allocate d pur mml to S · cliou 65584 , then the city or cotmty shall, wiU1in U1e first year of the phmnin g period of the nev.-- hous ing clement :i-.one or rezone adequate site to acco nun odate the unac ommodated p011ion of tb.e. regional housing need allocation from the p1ior plannin g period.

Sant a Clara ea,;ily accommo dated the need for a.hove-moderate income hous ing durin g the 2015- 2023 pe1'iod: It issue d build ing pem1its fo r 4,606 un its. It appears to have acco mmodated th e 2015-2023 need for mod erate income housing, at lea. :t if project approval , rather than actually constr uct d unit , are cou nted. l3ut it fell seriou ·ly sho11 for th ' "very low" aud "lo~ " income categories . ll1e City grante d building p nu.its for only 289 ary-lm- -income units, 246 low­ income. units. and 125 unit s affordable to those with moderate incomes. ·111is leaves a substanti al I
A

Page A-117

Santa Clara City Coun il and
Santa CJara Plruming Commission
January 22, 2023

FARELLA
BRAU • MARTEL111·
shortfall to be addressed from thti las1 period , in addition to the substantial new 11eed for the ne, period.

E en if the City 's rezoning of adequate sites albeit Oil s where no affordable housing has heen huilt , and may never be - is counted. n the City has a substant ial shortfall :

Very Low Lo•vv
2015-2023 RHNA Need 1,050 695
Building Pem1its 289 246
(from Table 13. 7-2)
"Adequate" ' Sites Re1.oned in Tasma n East22 121 61
"Adequate " Sites Rezoned in Lawrence Station 23 13 7
Appro vals of Afforda ble Housing . 163 145
(from Table 13.6-2)14
A reasonable interpretation of the term "unaccommodated portion of the regional housing need allocation '' would exclude all deduction from the prior RHNA. except affordable hou sing uni1s ac1ually built. Aller all, 110 one 's actual needs are accmmuodated by bousi11g that was never buil t. Using building pcnnjls as a pro ll.)' for this , the u11acco1mnodated vcry-low-incom4.! need would be 761 units. and the unaccommodated low-income need would be 449. However. 1he distinction might make very little difference to the ttltimate maU1 below: Omitti11g the r,aon ed adequate sites in Tasman East and Lawrence Station , and omitting the approved a ffordabl e housing elscv here in the Cii'y, would re.suit in a higher numb er for the " unaccommoda1ed po1iior1," but tliese sites could then be counted as meeting the 2023-203 1 need if they wi ll resu lt in new hou sing during the next eight years. as the City argues at p. 13.6-2. The critical point here, as explained in the te>.'1, is that the City cannot double-count.

We do not tbink the City can fairly uom;ider the Patrick I lenry rezoning as ha ving accol]11J10dated ;my porti on of the need from the prior Housing Eltimeut even for 1hose si1 es that might be considi;m~d adequate in !lie 2023-2031 cycle . given that it was 1'ezo ned so lat e in the period ..
22 We do not include lhe data cen!er or the sites !bat are smaller lhan 0.5 acres , because these sites are 11ot adequat , as the City has recognized by removing them from the inventory of sites adequate for lower income hou sing. We also put '·adequat e" in quotes here because we hav e not analyzed whether the other sites are in fact adequate for lower income hou sing sites (e.g. uitablc, avai lable, realistic): lh Cit should do so a part of its analysis . 23 W<?J do not inc lude the Gemini Rosemont Technology Patk or th e data centers 011 Co1vi11 that were included in the 2015 site inventory but have been deleted from the 2023 site inventory becau , e these sites are not adequate. We aLc;o put "adequate '· in quotes here bocaus we have not analyzed whether the other sites arl! in fact adequate for lmver income housing sites ( e.g., sltitabl e, available , realistict the City should do so as part of its aualysis . 24 In ca.lculating this number, we attempted to count those projects listed a~ " approved " (since proposed project s did not meet the need for affordable hou sing in 2015-2023), and to I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-118

Santa Clam City Co1111cil and
Santa Clara Planning Commis sion
January 22. 2023

Approva ls of Afforda ble Housi ng:
1601 Civic Center25
Unacco mmodated Portion 01'2015-2023 RHNA:

FARELLA
BRA 1 •MARTEL111•
-
106
358 236
In dete11nining the affordable housing r~quiretnents for its 2023-2031 Housing Element. the City i not allowed to use the same site or proj ects to ootmt toward both the 2015-2023 need and the 2023 -2031 need. 1t must instead plan for both the unaccommodated need and then wl allocated need. See Govenunent Co de§ 6 584.09(b). 111is me,,ns that 1he City s anal ysis at page 13.6-2 is flawed because it engages in douhl e-countin g: The City js claiming that the build ing pcnnils and approvals fro m 201- -2023 acco mmoda ted a portion of the housing ne~d for that period and that the smn e buildin g pem1its and approvals from 2015-2023 addre ss ti.Jc new ly allocated need. for 2023-203 1.

Again, the Cit "s failure to follow through on its 2015 Housing Eleme11t ha a onsequ ence: the Ci ty i now obliged lo meet the unaccommodakd need from the 20 15-2022 peri od as well as the re.gio nal ne.ed -i dent ified for the 2023 -2031 pe,iod . Adequate sites must h rezo ned within one yearto address this un acco mm odated portion of th e 20 15-202 3 RJ I A need. void double -count ing th ose project that were counted towards buildin g pennit goal, on Table

13.6-2 . We believe that 3905 Freedom, Gateway, and Agrihood wer n ot counted towards b11ilding pem1its, but that Clara Gardens , TI1e Meridi an, and 2330 Monroe each had building pcnui ts issued and were counted in Table 13.6-2. The ity planning dcpart1m:nl shol)l d pcrfom1 the calc ulat ion itself using the infonnat ion available to it~ thi s calc ulation should he viewe d as il In tmtive.
25 We note that this site is not included in the Housing Ele ment. If tl.ie City bas infonna tion tha t it will not be deve loped, or tha1 the approv,d is not lin al, then it WOLJld be remov ed [rom this c.ilcu la.tion.

I
A

Page A-119

Santa Clara City Coun il and
Santa CJara Plruming Commission
January 22, 2023

FARELLA
BRA U • M ART L,,,,

r. Conclusion: The Draft Housing Element Cannot Be Cc1·titied. lhe issues identified in this letter show that 1J1e " Adoption Draft " i$ not yet ready for adoption at aJL It co.11tai11s unrcaList.ic sites . unsupported projections . claim s that lower income hou sing can be bu1lt on sites zoned a<; open space or even public tight-of-wa ys, and otJ1er violations of state law . 1l1e City cannot make the 1·equired findings to support it. because it lacks ·the evidence to suppott the claims it makes about whether the existin g inventory is suffic ient to meet Ilic considerab le and pressing need for housing al all kvels of aifordabilit_ . While rn ee Li□g the dead.line is impo1tant , passing a valid Housing Element is even more so. 11 ,is better lo be late than to be wrong. and the City should not\ ant to ee it. I lousing Element invalidated by the ·tate or a court
Respectfull submitted.
~jL-
C,/--1-7~
Charles J. HjgJey TI1omas B. Ma hew
IBM:tb
l66 ISll 5246660.2
With copies to:

Reena BriIJiot, Assisbwt Director. Santa Clara Communit y Devclopnrnut D~partmeut E-Mai l: R Brillot @ SantaC.laraCA.go v
Jolm Davidson, Principal Planner, Santa Clara Planning Division E-Mail: JDavid son c. SantaClaraCA.go
.lose Jauregui, State of California, Oeprutment of I lou, ing and Communit y Development Email: Jose.Jauregui ti 1cd.ca.gov
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-120

FIGURE 11: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: HOUSING ACTION COALITION

FARELLA
BRAUN+ MARTEL LLP
February 23 . 2023
Via E-mail
Paul McDougall , Senior Program Manager
Jos e Jauregui, Uous ing Poli1,;y Analysl
late of CaJjJomia
Business, Consumer Ser ices ,md Housing
gency
Ca.Ji fomia l)epartment of Hot1sing and
Conununity Developme11t
Division of Housing Polic y D evelopm ent
2020 W. El Camino ven ue, Suite 500
Sacrrunento CA 9-g33
paul.111-.;dougallraihccl.ca.go,·
10 e_jauregui .@hcd. ca_gov
Re: City of Santa Clara Housing Eleme nt As Adopted
Comments of Housing ction Coalition
Dear Mr. Mcl)ougall and Mr. Jaur egui:

TIIOMAS D. MAYHEW
[email protected]
D ~1 5.95~.<19~8
CHARL [S J. JilG LEY
[email protected]
D 415.954.4942
This letter will addre s the capacity calc ulations the City of Santa Clara used in preparing the site inwntor y for it5 adopted Honsing Element. . s wi II be e.xplained, the rlousing ction Coalition I a,;;ks that yo n find the Housing 1--~lement not to he in substantial comp I iance becaus e it overstates the capac ity of the site inventory to accommodate Santa Clara's share of the regional uced for housing, particularly for lower income categories .

A5 explain ed -in further detail below, Santa Clara 's capacity calc ulations are flaw ed because :

1. 2.

3. In the cru e of the Lawrence Station and Tasman Eru t sites, they are based on incomplete data .

In the case of the Patrick Henry sites. the y arc based Ou no data .

In all three cases, they do not take into account AB 1397, requiri11g au analysis of typical densiti e , of proj •els with "a similar alfordabilily I v I in that jLiri ·diction .. , 1l1e Housing tion Coalition is a nonprofit that advocates for building more homes -at all I vels of affordability io alleviak lh1r I3ay Are-a and C11lifoniia's housing shortage, displac eme nt, and affordabiMy crisis .

Russ Bulldlng 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco. CA 94104 T 415.964.4400 F 415.954.4480 : /, c- • NC IS O •
I
A

Page A-121

Califomia Department of FARELLA
BRAU • MART L111·
Housing and Comm unity Development
Febmary 23, 2023

Background
First , for context. some backgrnwid on the drallin g of the capacit cah.:ulation portion of ' anta C lara' s Housing Element.
l11e capa ity calculations issue is not one that HCD has previously reviewed for Santa Clam , In !he c11rlier ugusl 22. 2022 drafl submitt ed l.o IICD , Siinla Clara used minimum dcnsili cs (the safo harbor und er section 65-83.2(c)(l)) lo calcuh1le lhc cap,icity ol"the sit inventory to a commoda te the RI I . . But in a comment letter on ovemher 30, 2022 , fo llowing HCD 's conunent s, Hon ing Action Coalition pointed out that a munb er of sites on the invent ory were unrealistic: they had exi ting uses that were not "'likely to di continu e" during thi;: plauuiug period.

In respon se, 'anta Clara removed a numb er of sites, includin g six: large data centers and a fire station that were unlikely to be redevelop ed as housing. But rath er than identify 11ew sites for th e inventory, Santa Clara instead added only an llpward adj ustm ent oft be n umb er of unit<; olaimed for each site and an arg ument that the remaining sites had the l:apacity to fully accommodat e the RH . A.
l11e fma l drafl of the site inventory showing the new math, was no! made publi c tmlil after 5 p.m. on Friday, Januar y 20, just days hofo re the January 24 Plannin g Commissio n meeting and City Council m eeting on Janua,y 31. 111is sharpl y limit ed the opportunit y for public analysis ~nd comment on thi. major change to th e Hou . ing Element.

We submitted a comme nt Sunday night, i11 advance of the Tue day Planning Commission hearing , but this left limlte.d ti me fo r statl' to consider that their analysis had omined important infonnation. Given the approa ching deadl ine of January 31, the Planning Conuni sion and City Com1cil quickly adopted the Housing Element v ithout furth er changes , and without taking the lime lo correct any i:rrors .

TI1c Santa Clara Housing Element discusses the ' realistic capacity ' ealculntion the methodology the City use. io estim ate the numb er of units that each parc cJ will accommoda te for purpo ·es of meeting tl1e RJI requirements - at page · 13.6-7 tbrougb 13.6-10. ·n1e approach is des',ribed at page 13.6- 10 in th e finaJ paragraph of the section:

Becau se oach Specific Pla11 has its own disti nct land use designati ons a11d affordabil ity tequi-rement s. reali tic capa ity for available $ites wru calcu lated hased on the average of percent abo e minimum density allowe d per Specific Plan of ex isting and approved projects (see Tab le 13.6-3). Perc ent above-·the minimum density allow ed was used to remain coJJServativc, rca]jstic. and to account for the wid~ rang e of Sp cific Plan deusifo::s all°" ed (from 20 du/ac in Lawren ce Stat ion to 350 dl ac maximum i11 Tasmat1 East) .. . .

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-122

Califomia Department of FAR[LLA
BRA 1 • MARTEL 11,
Housing and Community Development
f ebmary 23, 2023

"Ille folio\, ing averages were used to uaku late realistic uap:wit y per Specifiu Plan areai
• Lawrence Station u-ea Plan : mi.ninmm densities x 19 l '!b • Tasma11 East Focus Area Specific Plan: minimum densities x 215% • Patri k Henry l)ri e Specific Plan: maximum den. itie. ,c 72% (ha. ed 1)11 Specific Plan assumptions) was used as there are currently no exi ting or approved projects in the Patrick Hem-y Drive Specific Plan area.

I lousing Element at p. 13.6-10.

B. The Lawrence Station And Tas man East "Averages" Are Based On Incom plete Data .
. n "ave rage" is not an average unless it includes all of the data. nfortunate ly, for hoth the Lawrence tatiou and Tasman East areas , Santa Clara's analysis omitted key data in calcu lating the mu ltip liers of J 91% for L:n rence Station and 215%for Tasman East. The actual av1::rages are lo~ er. While these errors alone might not show that the site inventory is -insufficient to meet the RI IN it i. important to correct them because they will he used for et I ,oss calculations in the future.
l. The Tasman E~1st Average Is Actually 160-201%, Not 215%.

At table 13.6-3, Santa Clara lists six projects , ai1d calculates an average"% above allowed tninimum density." However , the average is inaccurate because anta Clara did not include all existing and approved projects from the Tasman East area . comparison with Table l3,6-2 - ~ hich li ts eleven pending and appro cd project · in the Tasman East area - reveals the e1Tor. The following cha11 shows the co!l'eet a erage , "~th bold am/ italics used to indicate the infolil1atio11 that wa~ incorrect. or- omitted from the table :

Proje,:,1 lU1le Min ./max . Acre· Units Unit s/ A Tes %of density .. nummum
[du/ac] densit
[column 5
divided h
colunm 21
2233 Calle Del Mundo 100 -350 1.22 196 160 160%
2200 Calle Del Mtmdo 100-350 2.44 580 237 237%
I
A

Page A-123

Califomia Depa rtment of
Housing and Comm unity Development
Febmary 23, 2023

2300 Calle l)e Luna 100-350
2343 Calle Del Mundo 100-350
2302 /2310 Calle Del 60-350
Mun do
2354 Calle Del Mundo 60-350
5123 Calle Del Sol 100-350
2263 Calle Del Mundo l0Oto
350
2225 Calle De Luna & 10010
2232 Calle Del M1mdo 350

5.522

2.63 0.77

0.50 2.62
l.95

2.1 FARCLLA
BR/\ • MART ELur
700 127 127%
347 131 131%
151 196 327%
89 178 297%
503 192 192 %
301 154 154~0
371 183 183°1,

AVERAGE
(mean) : 201%
AVERAGE 160%
(median):

Including all of1l1e projects in the Tasman East area sl1ows that the capacit y calc ulation in th e adopted Housing Element is in11atcd by these errors . Notl.'l. we have also excl uded two additiona l proj ec ts. U1al appear in table 13.6-2 becau se the_ am "pro posed" rather ll1.:m "appro ed"; 5185 Lafayette 100to U2 271 242 242%
350
2101 Tasman Dr. JOO to 9.03 950 105 105%
350
lf the e two additional projects were included in the List, the average percentag above minimum wo11ld go down further , Lo 196%.
ff an average (mean) percentage of201 % is app lied (instead of 215%), the total units on the inventor attributable to the Tasman East sites goes from 1,123 to 1,050, a decrea e of73 units . Not a huge differ ence , but potentia lly important to the p 'Opie who migh t Ji e in those units , as well as to dctcnnining when I o Net Loss provi sions will first apply , Alternatively , HCD shotild consider whether a "median·· is more appropriate than a · mean·· in detenuining the average. \ median avoids skewing the result based on outliers. The significant. diflercnce bet ween the mean and the median here shows that outlier., - hvo sites built at 327% and 2971l,:, oftJ1e minimum density - are lea djng to a high mean without being reflective of the data set. lJ fog the median of 160% (instead of 215%) would reduce the total unit<; 011 the inventory in Tasman East from 1,123 to 837 units, a decrease of 286 units. 2 On the City·s cha11, this is listed a 5 .02, which appears to be a typo. The City Plannin g_ Department proj ect listing lists it as 5.52, as docs the County Asse sor 's parcel m ap. We have corrected the units/acres and% of minimum dens ity calculations acco rdingl y.

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-124

Califomia Depa rtment of
Hous ing and Comm unity Development
Febmary 23, 2023

FARELLA
BRAU •MARTEL111•

2. The La"•1·mcc Station vcra~e Is Actually 134% -140% , ot 191 %.

Table l 3.6-3 list~ four sites in the Lawrence Station area, comprisiug 9.21 acres , and then cakulal s an "average'' o[ 191 %. Here too, the sitiJ inventory omits other sites dcvdoped i.J.1 the Specifi Plan area : the ones listed comprise less than 25% of the 38 acres developed 01· approved.

It is more diOiculL to calculate an "average" Lor the Lawrence Station area because a single project - lhe Summ erhill Nt11::vo project , comprising 29.4 acres and 988 units - iududed a large number ofpm ·cels, and resulted in areas of higher and lower densit y mixed i1 with other public amenities like roads and open space /park .-1 Santa Clara ba ignored the e elemen ts that lowered the o erall density of the project (which averaged ju t 33 .6 du/ac), and instea d lists only two (of the three) apartment buildings that were part of the project , as if those tw o apartment buildings were standalone projects .

Because the mi x of density mies applied to the Stunmerhill project makes the "pen.: ntage of minimum " ;,ppto a.:h chalhmgi.ng t.o app ly, we wiU p.rese-nl seven1l ideas of how it could have been properly in.:orpornt ed. Ult.imalel 1, however, the point is 1h11t Santa Clara 's cun-ent approach , by claiming a.n average that wa.~ nnt ha.~e-d on all of the. da:ta., is invalid. Each ofthese approaches shows that the c11rrent multipli er of 191 %-ol'-minimum-density overstates the typical densities in the Lawrence Station area .

Tl1e firi.t idea is, as with the Ta~man Em;t analysis above, to adjust Tab1e 13.6-3 to simply incorporate the missing data hy adding in the other Lawre.nce Sta.ti on area projects that were omitte d. including the large Summerhill project , and then deleting the1wo subcomponen ts of the Sununcrhill project that \; ere included in Table 13.6-3. The resulting hart~ ould look like this, 3 In our comment letter to Santa Clara on January 21 , 2023 , we pointed out that tl1e requirement. of open space /parks and additional public righl-of-wa s ould reduce the uel buildable acreage, and Urnt the site inventory should be adju sted accordingly . See Housing ction Coalition letter du Led January 22. 2023 at pp. 16-19 ( exp lainin g tll.1t 2.33 ucres of the Lawre nce Station sites, and 9.47 acres of the Patrick Henry sites, are designated for parks or roadways nol zone d for housing) . Al the hearing before Lhe Planning Commission, the City _ t1omey s o1Iice responded derisi \ll;)ly that this was unnecessary because , anla Clara's mini.tmun density m1es are applied to gros. acreage , inclusive of parks and road, ays . ll owe er. if gross acreage is the appropriate measure as tl1e City \ttomey·s office argued , it must be consistently applied: the City cannot cherry-pick the highly dense apartment parcels and ignore that the y were approved and built as part of a packag e with dedi.:aled open space and roadways as parl of the same project. The densities of the projects shown on table 13.6-3 a1-e inflated by omitting the "gt·o~fi acreage" of the parkland and roadwa ys that we re dedicated to the C.ity in order tn obtain approvals of the high density apartment buildi.ng.s. The City cannot use net buildable acreages for calwla ting the C-'pacity multiplier , then ;ipply that mul!iplier to gross acreages inclusiv e of parkland and roadwa_ requirements .

I
A

Page A-125

Cali fom ia Department of
Housing and Commun ity Develop ment
Pebmary 23 , 2023

FARCLLA
BRA U • MART EL ur
wjth bold and italics for the missing infonnation and 11tril,etl-:.rm1gh teid for the Summ erhill uevo ~ubcompon eni~:

Id~ 1: Substitute the entire Summerh ill project into the chart Project ~1Jin. Acres Units .Actual density %of minimum
Name density [dttlai..: l density [coh11m1
[du/ac] 5 divid ed by
column 21
290 4 Corvin 51 du/ai..: 1.08 145 134 du/ac 134/51 = 263 % 2961 Cori1i11 20 du.lac 1.69 38 22.-19 22. 49/20 = 112 % 3305 Kifer 20 lfulac 1.9} 45 23.6 23. 6120 = 118%
~ ~ l at~'ae ~ ~ HlO dt~'ae 100/~ l l9e!!'i,
~aml:!la
~ ~ l att.'ae ~ -!-U 73 ateaa 73 '~ l lqJ !!'i,
~a1'Rhla
3505.Kifer 26 dulr,c 29.4 988 33.6 c/11/ac 33.6120 = 168% (Summerl,ill
Nue,rni
35 l 7 Ryder 51 du/ac 3.92 328 81 du /ac 83/.51 = 163%

AVERAGE
(mean): 165%

AVERAGE
(median): 163%
However, Lhi first approach overweights the smaller sites to a very significant degree: n one acre si1e - and one which has very noiqu e attribut es, as will he discuss ed below - is given lhe same weight as the Summerhi ll N ucvo site, which used 29 times as mui..:h land . This i.ullates lhe perc entage-of-mini.mum, ,Uld overes timat es the site capa cities .

The second approacl1 breaks the Summ erh ill site i11to small er compo11e11ts: leaving the two a11art.tne11t building (3560 and 3578 Ram bl a) on tJ1e chart, but then adding the third '1 3505 K.ifor is lhe addr ess for the entire Sulllll1e1foll proj ei..:1 - 988 uni ts - in the Lawre m.:

Station .rea Plan . 3560 Ramhl a and 3578 Ramhla are pot1ilms of the proje t (individual buildin gs), and so are stricke n from this chrut base d on the inclu sion of the larger project . 5 Because there are three different minimum dens ities for the Summerhill Nuevo site 51 du/ai;.: \ est or Ram bl. 8 du/m: north of Do tcr and 20 du/ac casl of Rambl a - we ha · cslim iilcd the ro ugh propot1ions of each, and derive d a weig hted average minimum density. 3. • acres at 8 dt ac. 17 acres at 20 du/ac, and 7.5 acre at 51 du.lac yie ld8 a total mini.mum numb er of unit s of 750 units, divided by 28 acres . The City may have more precise information about the acreage ; (iguring i1 out is moro di.lli.ellll beca use of the subdi vision of the lots as part o§lhe proj ect whic h renders 1he curre nt Co unty A5se-ssor 's lv[a_p unhelpful for 1his PU!llOSC.

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-126

Califomia Depa rtment of
Hous ing and Commun ity De, elopmcnt
l~ebmary 23, 2023

FAR[LLA
BRAU • M ART EL m
apartme nt huilding. and three hypothetical projects that were also compone nts of the Summ erhill uevo deve.lophlent : (I) the 4 l w1it sing le famil y lot~ north of Boyton, (2) the J 14 " E-towns " in the medium density p011ion, and (3) tl1e 176 'Town Flats" in the medium density portio11. The parkland and roadwa ded i-:ations arc distributed gcogrnpbica Uy v ith t11e sit.: Uia1 they arc aclj acent to.

Id 2 S b titut ti ea : u s e 1e com ponen s o e, un1n1er :t t"tb S hill pro_1e mo e c 1a11 . ct. t th I Prnje t . rune Min. Acres Units ctuaJ. density % of minimum density [du/ac) density [column
[du/ac) 5 divided by
column 21
2904Corvin 51 du/ac 1-08 145 134 du.lac 134/51 = 263 %
2961 Con•in 20 du/ ac 1.69 38 22.49 22.49120 = I 12%
33ll5 Kifer 2ll d11/ ac 1.91 45 23.56 23.56/W =118%
3560 Rambla 51 du/ac 2.49 25] 100 du/ac t00 /51 = 196%
(Summerhill
N11evo)
3578 Rambla 5 1 du/ac 1.72 126 73 du /ac 73/51 = 143%
(Summerhill
Nrn~vo)
3580 Hmnbla 51 d11/ac 2.58+ 286 81. 95 d11/ ac 81.95151 = l6/% (St£mmerhill .91 =
Nuei•o) 3.4!16
S11mmethill N11evo 8 du/ ac 3.5 -41 11.71 d11/ac 11. 11s = um;, - single fami(y
north of BoI11011
Summerhill ttei•o 20d11/ac 6.5 114 17.54 du/ ac 1 7.5120 = 88%' - "E•tow11s"
6 The addit ional acreage i. for the added roadwa. and cotllmuni ty ce11te1· that is bofdered on three ides by the three aprutment buildings . Rather tl1an distiibute the acreage to all three apartment buildings (and correct the acreage for 3560 and 3578 Rambla). we here assign all of the roadway and cmnm unity center land west of Rambla lo the largest of the three apartment buildings .
- Note that here, the percentage for the. e tv,o suhcompo nents of the Summerhill uevo project is shown as Jes than the mininnun density. l11is is because the bulk of the parkland fo r the entire project is in th e area east of Rambla If a portion of the parkland pa.reels was instead prop ortiona lly aJJo<.:atcd to the apar tment buildin gs includi11g 3560 and 3578 Rambla - where the City used only the acreage oftJ1e parcels that the building.· are on - tJ1en all of the com pone11ts of the Summer hill pmject would he complia nt wit11 the mininmt11 denRity 7,oning rules. (See " Idea 3 ., below). TI1ere is m1 additional wrinkle that for a set of buildi.ngs nortb of Boyton , the Lawrence Stalio11 Area Plan zone,d the land as ''very high d nsit _ " (min immn 51 di ac) , but the I
A

Page A-127

Califomia Departm ent of
Housing and Commun ity Development
f'ebmary 23 , 2023

Summ erhill Nue1•0 20dul ac
- '"Town Flats"
3517 Ryder 5 1 du/ac

10.5 176

3.92 328

FAR CL LA
I\RA •M R l'I 11 r

16.8 du.lac 16.8/2() = 84 %
83 du/ac 83/51 163%>

AVERAGE
(mean) : ·t47%
A Vl!:RAGE 143%-'146%
(median):

A tl1ird appro ach is to limit th e analysis to those projec t. on the land zoned as high densit y, but to a i gn a propo rtionat e hare (by unit co unt) of the park.land .and roadway dedi ations tha'I v ere part of the Smnm ·rhill ue o proj cl to th · three apartment bui ldin gl! for that proje~I:

Idea 3: Hieb Densih Pro jects Onlv, But Ind ud.incr Open Space/Roadways Pn~je t 1 ame Min. cref: Units Actual density oof minimum density [du/ac ) den sity [column
[d1 ac) 5 divided by
column 21
2904 Corvin 51 du/ac 1.08 145 134 du/ac 134/51 = 263%
3560 Rambla · 1 du/ac 2.49 + 25 1 70thl/ac 70/51 = 13 7% I .OS=

3.57 3578 Ramb la 51 du/ac 1.72 f J26 Sf, dulac 56/51 =.ll0 %

0.54 =

2.26 3580Ramhla 51 di,/ac 2.58+ 286 75 tlil/ac 75/51 =14 7%

1.24=

3.82 3517 Rvder 51 du/ac 3.92 328 83 du/a.c 83/51 = 163%

AVERAGE
(mean): 164%
AVER.<\.GE
(median): 147%
One virtu ' ol'thi s last approac h is that it is limited t.o a more appks·lo -applcs com parison: all f the sit.:s had a minimum density of 51 du/a1.: rather tlrnn tryi11g to mix in with medimn or low density project . Pru1icularl y since, with one exce pti on. the site in entot'_ a11p.lies the multipli et' final appro ved project includ ed medium den ity on that po11ion of the ite. We haw not tried to adjust for that frac tional portion, but inst ad have calculated the munb ers as if it had a minimum of 20 du/ac, not 5 1. dl ac. Adju. tingto 1ake into accountin g the 51 du/ac minimum north of l3oyton and east of Copper wo uld reduce the ''perce ntagc-01:minimum '' fur ther.

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-128

Califomia Department of
Housing and Community De, elopm ent
llebmary 23, 2023

FARELLA
BRA U •MART L,,,,
to tho , e Lawrenoo Station sites with a minimum density of 51 du/ac , ihj ~ approacl1 is probahl 1he most appropriate.

However. Lherc is a last important piece to note, whic h materiall y alfocts all of the number s above . The first site on Tahle 13.6-3, included in all of the chrut s above, i.e .• 2904 Corvin , is an exceptional situat ion which is unrepre sentative of projects likel. to occur in the. sites on the inventory . As explain ed on the City ·s webs ite and in other press coverage, 8 2904 Corvin is a 144 "micro -unit " ii.lfordablc hou sing proj ect, built primaril _ as supporti ve hou sing for lliosc making a transition from hom elessnc s, and includi11g on-site support services. Because it has 144 units affor dable to tho . e with low or very low incomes (plus a two bedroom manager· s rnut) it was able to apply density bonu s s to significantly exceed the maximum zoned density for the Lawrenc e Station Specific Plan (which would have limikd it to 108 units ; 1.08 acres tim es 100 du/al'.). On compldion , ii will ha ve 80 units rese rved for the homel ess: singl e occupancy, 300 sq uare foot "micro- studio s·' with a private bathroom and kitch enette . 111e constmction was heavily subsidized by a county bond meas tu·e to build affordable hou sing specit.ca lly for the hom eless. It is not r 'pre ·eotati e ofthe likely density of a proj ect lb.at include s 30% mod erate income or eve n 30% low incom e unit s, be.cause 1nost affordable housing proje.its hnild larger units that oan acc,otnmodate families. 11 is thus not fairly consid ere d in caJculatin g a ' typi al' ' density. It should h exclud ed from the analysi to 3void distotting the capacity calculation. Without it, the averages (mean) above are signifi cantl y rcdu ·ed: 140% for idea I, 134%fo r idea 2, 139% for idea 3.9
Because Lawrence Station has a greater amount of land on the inventor y, and becau se the "'average ., was disto1ted by more sig nificant errors, the impact of adjusting the apacity multiplier is muuh higher than for Tasman East. ff a pcrccnta.ge based on "av orngc (mean) above the minimum of 139%> is applied - which we think would he the most p1incipl ed, I ecause it excludes the homeles s supporti ve housing project at 2904 Cor in, and then limit<; the analy. is to high or very high den sity sites, while taking due account of1he parkland /roadway dedication issue and other onuttcd sites - the site inventory would be reduced by 572 units : 234 in the very low income category. 169 in the low income category , and 169 in the moderate income category . 8lmps://www . antadaraca. gov/Homc/Compon ent /B usinc Directory /Bu ine Dire olory/280124 95?alpha =L; https :// nnjosespo1light.comisanta-clarn -lir t· upportive -h u ing-pro ject-brcaks­ grnuuJ.
9 "l11e medians for the 1hree are l 18-163 %. 143% , and 137-147 %: a "median" ' when calcu lating an averag based on four items in a data set is less helpful than when detivin g a median from a long er data set. But the Urrce median s her e hdp support lhc vali dity of the 139% statistic ; they do not di erge to the same significant degree , as the Tasn1ru1 Ea.<rt median and mean .

I
A

Page A-129

Califomia Department of
Housing and Community Dev~topmcut
Febrn ary 23, 2023

c. The Pah·ick Henry "\ veragc" Is Based On No Data.

FARELLA
BRAU • MART L111·
We tum next to the -Patrick Henry area, where we cannot create a cfou~ because th ere is 110 valid data at all.

Here, Santa Clara used a rnultiplier of"maximum de,t,;ities x 72%," and e ·plain s that it was used "as there are currently no existing or approved project s in the Patrick Henry Specific Plan area . Santa Clara in luded no rationale for lhc numb er in lhe Housing Elem,.ml, Conlrnr y 10 the.: requirements in Oovemment Code section 65583 ,2(c), which requires llrnt lhe ily 'dete1111ine,"" pecify." "demon trate ,'' " alcul ate." and approp,iately "adjust"' a "realistic '' muuber using "iypical densiti es of exi ting or approved residential developments .·, Absent ufficient infonnation , Santa Clara is not penuitt ed to simply imagine that 72% is an appropriate mltllipl ier. 11 should instead use 1he established mininrnm densit y. Government Code_§ 65583.2(c)(I ).

Based on the draftin g history , the apparent inspiration of the 72% statistic is a single propostld proje.cl (Pactron/Sunune .rhill) listed on tabl e 13.6-3 for the Patrick I lenry area. ln the draft circulated the. week before thi:J final Plannit1g Ommission hearin g, the draft had indi cated that it wo uld use a 119~1,-, "percentag e of minimum '' based on thi s propo sal. Tirn da before the Plmming Commission hearing, staff mad e a last-minut e change in lh, creation of ppendix B (the site inventory), !aimin g t hat lhe Pa Irick Henry area densities should be cakul afod based on a 72% "percentage of tnaxinmm " instead of al 19% ''perce ntag e, of minimum ." To the eide nt that the Pactron /Stuumerhill proposa l is in fact the basi. for tl1e 72%, it is flawed. first , this propo sal does not sho\.V au average or typical d nsity of an existing or appro ved project. It does not shO\ what eve n a single build er ha.~ sucoeeded in building at the listed perce.nta ge-of-minlmum density. ·111e statute dlrect s that "typi cal densit ies of existing or approved re idential deve lopment s at a imilar affordabilit y level in that juri diction " is the relevant data set~ a single propos ed but-not- d-approvcd proje..:t, and a mark I-rate one at that. doesn' t m 1 the minimum test for onsidcrntion . be,,;ausc it is neither "typical " nor "exi ·ting or approved ." Govemment Code § 6 5583 .2(c)( 2). Thi s rule make s good sense: propo sed proj ect may not be approved or ever built , and so has not been test d b y the real world to detcnnin e ifit reflects the "realistic '' capacity 10'; City staff may not (Wen have reviewed it for complian ce with Santa Clara ioning )a\ s. leaJl\ hile, " typical" require' more than u, handfu l. a..nd certainly more than ooe. Because no housing h3$ been buil1 in th e Patrick Henr y area at alL th e City lacks data on which to argue that the statutory directive of applying minimum density rn See Govcmm ·nl Code § 65 -83(a)(3) (ret1uiriug a site in v ntory to show th.: "'realistic.: and dem onstrated potential for redevelopment "); § 65583.2(c) (".Ille inventory sl1all spe ify for each site the number of units tliat can 1•ealistically be accommodat ed .. ."')'.§ 65583.2(c)(2)(C) ("A site may be prestuned to be realistic for deve lopm e11t to accommodate lower income housing if,, al lhc tim e offhi; adoption ofthe housing clement , a dcvelopm.:111 affordabl e 1o lower inoome households has be..,'11 propo sed and approved for development on that site.'') (emphasis added) .

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-130

Cal ifomia Department of
Housing and Commun ity Development
fobmary 23, 2023

FARELLA
BRAU • MART EL111·
based on densitj es should be ignored or adjusted b,1sed on rea l-wo rld experience. Memr.: hile. the ity 's calcula1ions fail to auommt fur the po ·sibility1hat futur e projeuts ma y u1L1lude conun e1,cial or office u, es, even though evera l oftJ1e Patrick Herny zonin g categor ies provide th.is potential. The Cit y should usi;: the minimum densiti s as the fail-safe for this area ofth City where no housing has yet been built at all.

Second , the last minute switch from a ·'perc tin1age of minimum " (the approa h used for Ta:;mm1 Eas t and Lav rcn e Station) to a 72°10 "percentage of maxim um' was used to inflat e the numbers based 011 th very high maximum s used for Patrick Heury. Thi s seemingly min or ohan,ge makes a. hig differe nce - ahout 728 units - but the CLUTent draft of th e Housing Glement does not "demo n :trat " why the "percentage of maximum ' is valid or realistic , as r quired.

Gove rnm ent Code§ 65583 .2(c) . A percentage of maximum untethers the approach from reality: a jurisdiction could choose (to Lake an extreme exampl e) a l 000 du /ac "max imum " and then claim that lower incom e housing needs are ac.commodated even tl10ugl1 no project has e er been bu/It with that d ensity. Note also th at in the 'fas mm, Ea<;t area, with arguably the most similar zonin g rules to Patrick Henry, the average ·'percentage of maxunmn ., based on built and 1ppro cd market-rate proj cds is o nly 50%, furt.h r cast ing doubt on th "72% of ma ximum " ]aim for Pat.lick Henry .

Ab ent a data-dri vet1 reason for the ' 72% of maximum· multipli er for the P atrick Henry area Santa C lara fails to justify the upwar d adjustment. it applied. Tiie mini.mum densi ty h ould b • used instea d. Tiu , m11kes a big dill erencc : 3,207 uuit s total for the Pallick Ilcnry 11rea. instead of 4.549 , and a fai lrn·e to meet tl1e very low income RHN .

D. Santa Clam Failed To Analyze The .. Typical Densities Of Existing Or . pprovecl R(•siclcntial Devclopmmts At A Similar {[urtlnbiliJv Lt.'vel." If a city use th minimum density und er section 65583.2(c)( l), it can also trea t the s ite as appropriate to develop at that minimum density fo r lower income housing under section 65583.2(c)(3), which provi des that s ites w ith a zo ned d en sity of at least 30 units/acre are considered adequate for lower in<.;onic housing. Bui if the t:ity doos 1101 use tbc miuimun1 density , as the latest draft now prop oses, it must different iate between markt1t-ra1e and affordab le hou sing project <, in develop ing a realistic estim ate. Govemment Cod e§ 65583.2(c)(2). Here, the City·s Housing Element is serio usly flawed. becau se rt relic almost exclusivel y on market­ n1le. rath er than afford 11ble. housi.og projects in calc ulating the, capacity of 1he inventory .

Section 65583.2(c)(2) was amend din 2017 ( B 1397) to emph asize that "typical densities'' are not suffici ent; the rd vant eviden ce from wh.ioh to mak..: a capacity calculation higher t han minimum is b comparison to '"typical densitie s of xisting or approved res idential develo pments a( a similar ajfordabi/jty level in t/wlj11riscliction." See also Govenuw:mt Code § 65583(a)(3) (requirin g that sites have a 'realistic and demonstr ated potential for redeve lopm ent drning the planJ1ing period to meet the loca lity's housing need for a de, ignat ed income level. ' ).

I
A

Page A-131

Califomia Department of
Housing and Community Development
Febmary 23, 2023

FARELLA
BRA U • M ART L111·
A. market-rate developer may be ahle to afford to huild 300 units 011 2.51 acres , or even 800 unit-s on 6.5 acres as Sares Regis propose .s to do at Patrick llenry . But it is well-recognized that a 100% affo rdabl e income development generally caimot afford a proj e t oftbis magn.itud Lbc IICD Sile Inventory Guidebook explains :

To achieve -financial feasibility, 111m1y assisted housing developments using state or federal reso urc es are betw een 5010 150 unit s. Parcel that ar too small may not :support the munbcr of unit s ne c ·sary lo be competiti ve ,md to acc.;ss scarce funding r ·ources . Parc els that arc large may require very larg e projet:1 ·. \>Vhich may lead to m1 over concentration of affordab le hou sing in one locatio11 or may add cost to a proj ect by requiring a dcvolop cr to purchase more laud than i needed, or rend er a project ineli gible for funding .

HCD Site Inventor y Guidebook ( ray 2020) at p. 15. These limitation s are why the f..,egislature provided in . B 1397 th at sit es sm aller than 0.5 acres. or larg er than IO acre s, are u suall y ineligible , absent a specific cvidenl.iary showing, to acco11m1odate the need for low er incom e hou sing. Id. ; G vemment Cod e§ 65583.2( )(2)tA) and (B). Inde ed, the sam e law that added section 65583.2(c)(2)(A) and (B) also added the ·'similar affordability level''la nguage h) subsect ion ( c)(2); the Legis lature simultaneou sly added several provi sions to ensure that site iuventmics realistically c aluate whether aJfor dable housing will be produc ed. AB 1397 (Stats. 2017 ch. 375) .

In order to depaii: from the mini.mum dens ity, Santa Clara would therefo re need to show not just that market-rat e project s cru.1 achieve high er-than-miniurnm densities like the 139% average in Lav,rencc Stntion , or 201 % average in Tasm an East, but that ''typical densities" for a I 00% affordable housing pmject do !';O a,; we ll, including at the v ry high densities p1·oje .ted for the e ites .

Santa Clara·s Housing Elemeut fai ls lo make this ret1uired showing . Of the projed s on Table 13.6-3, ore en the m ore compl e1e lists disuu sse d above , there is only on e projec.;t that cm1 be desc ribed a,; having a "si milar' level of affordable hou . ing (i.e .. 100%, belO\ mark et rate):
the 1.08 acre project al 2904 Corvin . Tha1 proj ect fit s the general rang e of size for affordable hou sing at 145 a1fordabl e units. it is within U1e 0- l 50 unit range discusse d by HCD. But it is one-of-a-kind : the first hom eless suppotiive housing in the City, 11eav ily subsidi7 .ed with single­ occupancy micro-units " that are only 300 quare feet in size and thll only affordable hou ing proje ct built -in any of the three Spec ific Plan area _ One-of-a-kind is not ''t ypical .,. 'l11e re.maining site inventory in Tasman East, I .awre nce Station and Patrick I lenry is projected to meet the need s fo r very Im - Im -, and moderate-incomes (seep . 13.6-10 !iplitting the capacity 33.33 perce.ut each to very low-, low- and mod erate-in come s). et the data to support the claimed den sities is based ·xd usiv ly 011 market-ml · proj ·ct tbal did 1101 hnv • this mi x of affordability . ln the Tasman East area, table 13.6-2 sbow tbat of ·)even proj els, building 4 459 units of hou sing, the. m1mber of unit s ofve.ry low- and low-incom e hou sing.

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-132

Califomia Department of
Housing and Community Development
Febmary 23, 2023

FARELLA
BRA •MARTEL111•
accommodated is: zero. "[his shows that there are not "typical densities of existing or approved residential development~ a1 a similar level, of affordability" for this area. As stated above there ha~ been no housing built or approved in the Pattick Henry arna at all; there is no "t pical " nrnrkct-rate project tl1er , rnucb less a typical den ily for a project, ith the level of alfordability calculated by the invento,y.

Moreover. as fitrthcr eKplained in our letter of Januar y 21, many of the sites includ e areas that have been zoned us parkland or right-of-,. ay . Whill:! the City tlome y·s Office argued al the Plmu1i11g Commission hearing Urn1 the gro s acreage of the site could nonethele s be included because a housing developer could use the gross acreage in calculating the minimum /maximum number oJ units ponuitted by the zoning, this ignores the practical realit. ; a more dense project (i.e .. Ibo same number of units s4ui.;czed .into a smaller buildable footprint) is a much mo1·e ex1Je11, ive one. Taking PN I 04-04-124 as an example , 2.32 ofthe 4. 7 acres is zoned for a park; any development would need to put all of the unit s on the remaining 2.38 acres.

Instead ofbuikliug a 502 tmi! project on 4. 7 acres , Santa Clara appar ntly contends that an affordabl e housing developer will build 2.32 acres of park, and then build all 502 uni Ls ◊n the

2.38acre tlrnt1•emai11(abuiltdensityof211 du/ac). 'J11isspeculationi , not realistic . o affordable housing developer has ever built uch a development in Santa Clam.

If Sant.a Clara wm11s to estimate a realistic production of alfordable housing in 1hc Tasman East, La\ ronuc Station and Patriuk Henry m·e11s, where large, higl1 densi! tnark.et-ratc project s are being built (instead of using the safe harbor ofminirmun den itie, ), then it shottld eslimal how umch lower-incom hou "ing will be buiU there based on the actual daia of affordabh: housing production in market rate proj els . 11 11rn1 data s hows that housing affordable to those in 1he very low- , low-, and moderate-income categories is produced at a rate. somewhat less than th 12% inclusionary housing mandate under city law. (Which , notably , 1 ads mostly to incfusion of moderate unit<; and no vely low- or low-income units for a large number of projects , see Table 13.6-2 (Peniling and Appro ved Projects)) . l11e site invicnlory could int:lud..::
the high density project s, hut s·hould only include the realistic numher of units in the lower mcome categories tha1 are hi. t01icaJly built in projects oftJ1is type. 'll1e CutTent I lousing Element fails to make a showing sufficient to atisfy section 65583.2(c), a. amended b. AB 1397. 111c n:al data ·ho-. s that ll1e current site in eulory will never achieve the claimed production of affordable hotL~iug that Santa Clam pre ·ent in the Jlou ·ing El ·men t, or that is necessa ry to accommodate the needs of the community.
11 lf lhc City instead wants tor ·ly on statutory presumptions like the "deemed ad quute ., stahltory mle of section 65583.2(0)(3)10 olaitn that these sites can be used for lower income housing, it should limit it elf to the mini.mum densitie s that tate law compels HCD to acc.:ipt. 111e City ' s plallllers may know that even the minimum densitie ,s are not realistic for the larg st sites (given that the size oftbc proj cLs :ubslllntially exceed · what affordable developers actually build) , but 111eywo uld be able to rely on the statutory presumption, rather than speculative and unrealistic math .

I
A

Page A-133

Califomia Department of
Housing and Community Devel opment
Febmary 23, 2023

FARELLA
BRA U • MART L111·
'l11e so lution is to determine the realistic capacity of the nc, high-densi ty neighborhoods by projecting market-t·ate project ~ with thc,ir ty pical complement of affordahle units , and then to suppl ement it with small er, geographically dispersed sites to accommodate the remainder of the v ry low- , 10\• -, and mod crate-incom • need on sites that are realistic in sca le and density for affordable housing project s. 'f11e C..'ity's e:-:perience shows that affordable housing developers generally build within a half-mile of grocery stMes and that the y hui Id proje.cts in the range of 50-150 unit s. Building in the Patri ck Henry area, for example, satisfies neither of the se the area is curr ntly a food desert (more than one mile to a grocery store) - and the parcel size and minimum d n sit_ exce eds ,mything that is rcali tic and dcmon strnl ·d for a project~ ith 100% affordable housing .12 The City has numerou s other opportunities for places where affordable housing developers could realistic ally build housing, e.g ., along El Camino Real , or Stevens Creek Boulevard if onl the City would commit to rezoning to allow hou sing to be built there.

Affo rduble hou sing developers ·hould not ha ve to nm u years-long gauutlet of seeki ng special permission to build housing on realistic, underutili zed sites , as was done with the Catholic Charities project at 1601 Civic Center . Adequate. availahle. realistic sites should be rezoned throu gho ut the city lo make il possible to realist icaJJy build the requir ed aiuow1l of housing affordable to all in ome level, durin g the ne>.'1. eight yea, . 12 For example. the 1irojection s that the need for 972 unit s of housing affordable to tho . e with very low. low, or moderat e income wi ll be met by a project at 4701 Patiick Henry Drive, a 687-unit 100% affordable housing project at 3055 Patrick Henry, or a 664-unit 100% affordable housing proj ect at 33 0 cntral Exprcsswa , is simpl y not realistic . The City's c-xperience with a(fordabl oproj ects mat cbtis well the IICD guid,mce about proj ticts of50-150 units.

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-134

Califomia Department of
Housing and Community De, elopmcnt
llebmary 23 , 2023

E. Conclusion

FARELLA
BRA • MART EL 11 ,,
Applying a minimum denstty approach to capac1t1es, as Santa lam did with in; earlier draft reviewed b_ HCD, is simple. When Santa Clara instead mad 1: ils eleventh hour addition to the I rousing Llement , projecting much larger housing production for the same sites, it was required to do so based on actual e aluation of the typica l densitie s for pr~jects with a imilar level of affordabi lity. sex-plained above, Santa Clara's Housing Element did not comply with lb.is statutory mandate. HCD should find that Santa Clara s Housing Elumunl. as adopt..:d on Jat1Uary 31, 2023 . is nol in substantial uompliance with state law.

TBM :tb
J6Gl 5\15W791G.I
With uopi s to :
l{espectfnlly submitted,
~ L-
TI1omc1s B. Mc1yhc . 1
~ 7~
Char1es .I. Jligley
Reen a Brilliot, ssistant Direc:tor Santa Clara Community Development Department E-Mail: RBriJlol({!.SantaCliua A.gov
John David son. Principal Planner. Santa Clara Planning Division E- fail : [email protected]
I
HCD Electronic Sites Inventory Table A
Jurisdiction
Name Site Address/Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres) Existing Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-
Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Optional Information1
[Notes]
Optional Information2
[Project Status]
Optional Information3
[Project Name]
SANTA CLARA 2101 Tasman Drive 95054 097-05-056 I DHRE TN 100 350 6.635837 Vacant Building - Office (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-Ow Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Proposed TE 2101 Tasman Drive (Related California) SANTA CLARA 2101 Tasman Drive 95054 097-05-057 I DHRE TN 100 350 2.3864 Light Industrial / Manufacturing (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 950 950 Proposed TE 2101 Tasman Drive (Related California) SANTA CLARA 2200 Calle De Luna 95054 097-05-058 DHRE TN 100 350 3.699773 Vacant Lot (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 69 510 579 Approved TE 2200 Calle De Luna (Holland) SANTA CLARA 2233 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-05-059 DHRE TN 100 350 1.164296 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 195 0 1 196 Under Construction TE 2233 Calle Del Mundo (St. Anton) SANTA CLARA 2263 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-05-060 J DHRE TN 60 350 0.955107 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Approved TE 2263 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 2263 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-05-061 J DHRE TN 60 350 0.98725 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 301 301 Approved TE 2263 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 2343 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-05-110 DHRE TN 100 350 2.666977 Vacant Lot (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 41 305 346 Prior APNs: 097-05-064, -063, and -062 Approved TE 2343 Calle Del Mundo (Summerhill) SANTA CLARA 5191 Lafayette Street 95054 097-46-001 TN TN 60 350 0.512947 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 47 19 0 66 Available SANTA CLARA 2354 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-002 DHRE TN 60 350 0.458703 Light Industrial / Manufacturing (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 10 78 88 Approved TE 2354 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 2346 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-003 TN TN 60 350 0.458668 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 Available SANTA CLARA 2338 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-004 TN TN 60 350 0.458805 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 Available SANTA CLARA 2330 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-005 TN TN 60 350 0.459186 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 Available SANTA CLARA 2322 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-006 TN TN 60 350 0.459186 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 Available SANTA CLARA 2301 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-007 TN TN 60 350 0.459185 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 Available SANTA CLARA 2309 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-008 TN TN 60 350 0.459186 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 Available SANTA CLARA 2317 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-009 TN TN 60 350 0.460984 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 Available SANTA CLARA 2325 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-010 TN TN 60 350 0.472659 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 30 60 Available SANTA CLARA 5185 Lafayette Street 95054 097-46-011 DHRE TN 60 350 0.897176 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 15 183 198 Proposed TE 5185 Lafayette (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 2300 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-016 K DHRE TN 100 350 1.287041 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related California) SANTA CLARA 2300 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-017 K DHRE TN 100 350 1.531507 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related California) SANTA CLARA 2300 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-018 K DHRE TN 100 350 1.173241 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 684 684 Under Construction TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related California) SANTA CLARA 5123 Calle Del Sol 95054 097-46-019 M DHRE TN 100 350 1.865499 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction TE 5123 Calle Del Sol (Ensemble) - Phase I & II SANTA CLARA 2225 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-020 N DHRE TN 100 350 1.067009 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Approved TE 2225 Calle de Luna & 2232 Calle del Mundo SANTA CLARA 2271 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-021 TN TN 60 350 0.929071 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 84 35 0 119 Available SANTA CLARA 2281 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-023 TN TN 60 350 0.939815 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 85 36 0 121 Available SANTA CLARA 2302/2310 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-024 DHRE TN 60 350 0.987249 Light Industrial / Manufacturing (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 150 0 1 151 Approved/Under Construction TE 2302/2310 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 2272 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-025 TN TN 60 350 0.481745 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 31 31 62 Available SANTA CLARA 2262 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-026 TN TN 60 350 0.482545 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 31 31 62 Available SANTA CLARA 2232 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-027 N DHRE TN 100 350 1.066643 Light Industrial / Manufacturing (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 44 326 370 Approved TE 2225 Calle de Luna & 2232 Calle del Mundo SANTA CLARA 2300 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-028 K DHRE TN 100 350 1.609845 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related California) SANTA CLARA 5123 Calle Del Sol 95054 097-46-029 M DHRE TN 60 350 0.782628 Vacant Building - Fast Food Drive Through (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 503 503 Approved/Under Construction TE 5123 Calle Del Sol (Ensemble) - Phase I & II SANTA CLARA 2203 Tasman Drive 95054 097-46-030 TN TN 100 350 1.026134 Low Intensity Retail / Commercial (strip mall) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 154 66 0 220 Available SANTA CLARA 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard 95054 101-15-049 VLDR B 1 18 0.696784 Vacant Lot (pending project) YES - Current YES - City-OwnePending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 13 2 0 15 Approved using AB 3194 (PLN22-00518) Approved 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard SANTA CLARA 5155 Stars & Stripes Drive 95054 104-01-102 L UCED PD-MC 37 90 35.853211 Vacant - Golf Course (pending project) YES - Current YES - City-OwnePending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Approved Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 5155 Stars & Stripes Drive 95054 104-03-036 L UCED PD-MC 37 90 86.154927 Vacant - Golf Course (pending project) YES - Current YES - City-OwnePending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Approved Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 5155 Stars & Stripes Drive 95054 104-03-038 L UCED PD-MC 37 90 4.401292 Vacant - Parking Lot (pending project) YES - Current YES - City-OwnePending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Approved Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 5155 Stars & Stripes Drive 95054 104-03-039 L UCED PD-MC 37 90 2.990044 Vacant - Parking Lot (pending project) YES - Current YES - City-OwnePending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 20 1660 1680 Approved Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 2901 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-078 HDR UV 100 149 6.496663 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 80 40 680 800 Proposed PHD Sares Regis SANTA CLARA 3200 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-089 HDR UV 100 149 1.285564 Medium / High Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 96 41 0 137 Available SANTA CLARA 3000 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-093 HDR UV 100 149 2.518497 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 31 15 261 307 Approved PHD Summerhill SANTA CLARA 2950 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-094 HDR UV 100 149 2.517905 Low Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 189 81 0 270 Available SANTA CLARA 2900 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-095 HDR UV 100 149 1.983616 Church YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 149 63 0 212 Available SANTA CLARA 4590 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-123 HDR UV 100 149 2.795228 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 40 20 353 413 Proposed PHD Walnut Hill SANTA CLARA 3200 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-124 HDR UV 100 149 4.679705 Medium / High Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 352 150 0 502 Available SANTA CLARA 3100 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-128 HDR UV 100 149 2.519292 Low Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 189 81 0 270 Available SANTA CLARA 3105 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-131 VHDR VHDR 51 99 3.795996 Low Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 189 81 0 270 Available SANTA CLARA 3055 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-136 UC UC 120 250 3.821098 Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 481 206 0 687 Available SANTA CLARA 4699 Old Ironsides Drive 95054 104-04-138 HDF HDF 60 149 1.734805 Medium / High Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 131 55 0 186 Available SANTA CLARA 4677 Old Ironsides Drive 95054 104-04-139 HDF HDF 60 149 2.531554 Medium / High Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 190 81 0 271 Available SANTA CLARA 4655 Old Ironsides Drive 95054 104-04-140 HDF HDF 60 149 2.699689 Medium / High Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 203 86 0 289 Available SANTA CLARA 4633 Old Ironsides Drive 95054 104-04-141 HDF HDF 60 149 2.60243 Medium / High Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 196 83 0 279 Available SANTA CLARA 3905 Freedom Circle 95054 104-40-021 H VHDR PD 51 100 8.224978 Vacant Lot (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Approved 3905 Freedom Circle Mixed-Use Project (Greystar) SANTA CLARA 3905 Freedom Circle 95054 104-40-036 H VHDR PD 51 100 5.136416 Vacant Lot (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 108 54 913 1075 Approved 3905 Freedom Circle Mixed-Use Project (Greystar) SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-001 O VR VR 60 149 0.091117 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-002 O VR VR 60 149 0.113874 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-003 O VR VR 60 149 0.091121 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-004 O VR VR 60 149 0.07811 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-005 O VR VR 60 149 0.113879 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-006 O VR VR 60 149 0.091122 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-007 O VR VR 60 149 0.078107 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-008 O VR VR 60 149 0.078105 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-009 O VR VR 60 149 0.069394 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-010 O VR VR 60 149 0.069385 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-011 O VR VR 60 149 0.078101 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-012 O VR VR 60 149 0.078106 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-013 O VR VR 60 149 0.078114 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-014 O VR VR 60 149 0.078105 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-015 O VR VR 60 149 0.078107 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-016 O VR VR 60 149 0.078105 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-017 O VR VR 60 149 0.078107 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-018 O VR VR 60 149 0.078108 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-019 O VR VR 60 149 0.069387 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-020 O VR VR 60 149 0.078105 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-021 O VR VR 60 149 0.113878 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-022 O VR VR 60 149 0.090637 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-023 O VR VR 60 149 0.078111 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-024 O VR VR 60 149 0.113885 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-025 O VR VR 60 149 0.113872 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-026 O VR VR 60 149 0.091121 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 3615 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-004 RMU CC 37 50 3.576865 Fitness Gym Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 93 40 0 133 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3725 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-008 RMU CC 37 50 0.5646 Gas Station Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 15 6 0 21 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3705 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-010 P RMU CC 37 50 4.47703 High Intensity Retail / Commercial (big box store) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 116 50 0 166 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3735 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-012 P RMU CC 37 50 1.840153 High Intensity Retail / Commercial (big box store) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 47 20 0 67 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3755 El Camino Real 95051 213-35-032 RMU CC 37 50 1.16069 Bank Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 30 13 0 43 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3775 El Camino Real 95051 213-35-035 RMU CC 37 50 2.185194 Low Intensity Retail / Commercial (strip mall) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 34 15 0 49 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 4341 El Camino Real 95051 213-37-015 RMU RT 37 50 1.005848 Hotel/Motel Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 23 10 0 33 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 2725 El Camino Real 95051 216-01-040 RMU CT 37 50 1.137447 Low Intensity Retail / Commercial (strip mall) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 30 13 0 43 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 2775 El Camino Real 95051 216-01-058 RMU CT 37 50 1.244815 Low Intensity Retail / Commercial (strip mall) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 32 14 0 46 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 2789 El Camino Real 95051 216-01-059 RMU CT 37 50 0.884352 Low Intensity Retail / Commercial (strip mall) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 37 16 0 53 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3031 Corvin Drive 95051 216-33-022 MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.609543 Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 6 6 12 Available SANTA CLARA 3323 Kifer Road 95051 216-33-035 VHDR LSAP 51 100 0.531195 Low Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 36 15 0 51 Available SANTA CLARA 3051 Corvin Drive 95051 216-33-036 MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.603888 Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 6 6 12 Available SANTA CLARA 3071 Corvin Drive 95051 216-33-037 MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.780375 Low Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 8 7 15 Available SANTA CLARA 3069 Lawrence Expressway 95051 216-34-052 DHRE LSAP 51 100 3.82527 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 328 328 Approved LSAP 3517 Ryder Street (Westlake Urban) SANTA CLARA 3450 Central Expressway 95051 216-34-079 VHDR LSAP 51 100 3.139213 Low Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 214 91 0 305 Previously 3450 Copper Place (APN 216-60-045) Available SANTA CLARA 3580 Rambla Place 95051 216-59-001 DHRE LSAP 51 100 2.57464 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 48 233 286 Under Construction LSAP 3580 Rambla Place (Summerhill) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 131 95051 216-63-009 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016664 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 129 95051 216-63-010 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015172 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 127 95051 216-63-011 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014778 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 125 95051 216-63-012 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015288 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 123 95051 216-63-013 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014773 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 121 95051 216-63-014 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016597 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2903 Corvin Drive 119 95051 216-63-015 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015922 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2903 Corvin Drive 117 95051 216-63-016 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015883 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2903 Corvin Drive 115 95051 216-63-017 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017325 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 113 95051 216-63-018 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017273 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 111 95051 216-63-019 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014865 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 109 95051 216-63-020 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015487 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 107 95051 216-63-021 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014859 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 105 95051 216-63-022 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015484 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 103 95051 216-63-023 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014864 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 101 95051 216-63-024 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017486 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 179 95051 216-63-025 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016271 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 177 95051 216-63-026 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015246 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 175 95051 216-63-027 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014767 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 173 95051 216-63-028 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015128 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 171 95051 216-63-029 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014648 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 5 40 45 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 169 95051 216-63-030 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016189 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 143 95051 216-63-031 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01721 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 141 95051 216-63-032 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015482 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 139 95051 216-63-033 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015091 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) Appendix B: Housing Element Sites Inventory
Jurisdiction
Name Site Address/Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres) Existing Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-
Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Optional Information1
[Notes]
Optional Information2
[Project Status]
Optional Information3
[Project Name]
SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 137 95051 216-63-034 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015456 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 135 95051 216-63-035 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015076 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 133 95051 216-63-036 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016486 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 189 95051 216-63-037 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016692 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 187 95051 216-63-038 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015251 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 185 95051 216-63-039 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015603 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 183 95051 216-63-040 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01509 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 181 95051 216-63-041 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016675 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 155 95051 216-63-042 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017455 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 153 95051 216-63-043 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015695 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 151 95051 216-63-044 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015311 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 149 95051 216-63-045 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015696 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 147 95051 216-63-046 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015283 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 145 95051 216-63-047 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016728 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 167 95051 216-63-048 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01766 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 165 95051 216-63-049 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015871 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 163 95051 216-63-050 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015453 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 161 95051 216-63-051 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015863 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 159 95051 216-63-052 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015462 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 157 95051 216-63-053 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016921 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-001 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018175 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-002 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014359 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-003 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013386 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-004 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013386 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-005 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014359 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-006 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018212 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-007 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018166 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-008 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017487 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-009 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014832 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-010 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013556 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-011 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017488 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-012 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018203 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-013 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018174 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-014 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01436 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-015 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013388 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-016 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01339 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-017 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014365 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-018 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018157 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-019 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017459 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-020 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014843 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-021 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01355 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-022 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017479 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-023 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018039 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-024 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018147 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-025 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017469 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-026 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014816 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-027 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013542 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-028 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017469 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-029 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.019411 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-030 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01386 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-031 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013029 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-032 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.019274 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-033 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.012775 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 4 34 38 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-034 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014202 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-035 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014205 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-036 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.012779 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-037 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016811 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-038 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017874 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3035 El Camino Real 95051 220-32-059 CMU PD 20 36 1.879895 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 4 44 48 Previously Zoned CT Under Construction 3035 El Camino Real Residential Project SANTA CLARA 2213 El Camino Real 95050 224-15-029 RMU CT 37 50 1.231422 Low Intensity Retail / Commercial (strip mall) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 32 14 0 46 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 2065 El Camino Real 95050 224-15-037 RMU CC 37 50 6.363758 Low Intensity Retail / Commercial (strip mall) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 167 71 0 238 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 2330 Monroe Street 95050 224-37-068 MDR R1-6L 20 36 2.690116 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current YES - City-OwnePending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 64 0 1 65 R1-6L zoning approved using AB 3194 Under Construction 2330 Monroe Street Affordable Housing Project (Freebird) SANTA CLARA 1601 Civic Center Drive 95050 224-49-006 HDR PD 37 50 1.495874 Vacant Building - Office (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 106 2 0 108 53 ELI + 53 VLI Approved 1601 Civic Center Drive SANTA CLARA 1205 Coleman Avenue 95050 230-60-001 A VHDMU VHDMU 51 120 3.695906 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 37 36 652 725 Under Construction Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 1205 Coleman Avenue 95050 230-60-002 A VHDMU VHDMU 51 120 4.025557 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 1205 Coleman Avenue 95050 230-60-003 B VHDMU VHDMU 51 120 2.758509 Vacant Lot (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 42 42 756 840 Proposed Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 2 SANTA CLARA 1205 Coleman Avenue 95050 230-60-004 B VHDMU VHDMU 51 120 3.958583 Vacant Lot (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Proposed Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 2 SANTA CLARA 940/950 Monroe Street 95050 269-20-086 C CMU CC 20 36 0.516498 Vacant Building - Low intensity Retail / Commercial (pending projectYES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoning Pending to PD (PLN2020-14457) Proposed 950 Monroe Street Mixed-Use Project SANTA CLARA 930 Monroe Street 95050 269-20-087 C CMU OG 20 36 0.174445 Single-family residential (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 8 46 54 Rezoning Pending to PD (PLN2020-14457) Proposed 950 Monroe Street Mixed-Use Project SANTA CLARA 906 Monroe Street 95050 269-20-095 C CMU HT 20 36 0.175619 Single-family residential (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoning Pending to PD (PLN2020-14457) Proposed 950 Monroe Street Mixed-Use Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-001 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025297 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-002 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025305 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-003 D CMU PD 20 36 0.016387 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-006 D CMU PD 20 36 0.016403 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-007 D CMU PD 20 36 0.03199 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-008 D CMU PD 20 36 0.018925 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-009 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025576 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-010 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025567 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-011 D CMU PD 20 36 0.032992 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-012 D CMU PD 20 36 0.016357 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 4 4 48 56 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-013 D CMU PD 20 36 0.032972 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-015 D CMU PD 20 36 0.016629 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-019 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025282 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-021 D CMU PD 20 36 0.016367 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-027 D CMU PD 20 36 0.023183 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-031 D CMU PD 20 36 0.032001 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-036 D CMU PD 20 36 0.032908 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-039 D CMU PD 20 36 0.016617 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-041 D CMU PD 20 36 0.020715 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-042 D CMU PD 20 36 0.016625 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-044 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025699 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-048 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025322 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-049 D CMU PD 20 36 0.02526 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-051 D CMU PD 20 36 0.028544 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-052 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025676 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 3550 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-113 RMU CT 37 50 1.147904 Hotel/Motel (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 120 0 0 120 CT zoning approved using AB 3194 / SB 35 Approved/Under Construction Clara Gardens - 3550 El Camino Real SANTA CLARA 3590 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-115 Q RMU CT 37 50 0.679788 Hotel/Motel Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 17 7 0 24 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3580 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-116 Q RMU CT 37 50 1.566176 Hotel/Motel Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 40 17 0 57 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3570 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-117 Q RMU CT 37 50 0.403388 Hotel/Motel Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 10 4 0 14 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 1540 Pomeroy Avenue 95051 290-02-096 E CMU PD 20 36 0.207086 Multi-family residential (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 8 8 Rezoned to PD (PLN2016-12053) Approved 1530-1540 Pomeroy Avenue Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1530 Pomeroy Avenue 95051 290-02-097 E VLDR PD 1 18 0.257028 Multi-family residential (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2016-12053) Approved 1530-1540 Pomeroy Avenue Residential Project SANTA CLARA 2120 El Camino Real 95050 290-10-028 RMU CC 37 50 0.966028 Drugstore / Pharmacy Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 25 11 0 36 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 2200 El Camino Real 95050 290-10-078 RMU CC 37 50 0.945156 Bank Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 23 10 0 33 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3131 Homestead Road 95051 290-24-071 MDR R3-25D 20 36 12.522892 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 9 174 183 R3-25D zoning approved using AB 3194 Under Construction Laguna Clara II (Equity) SANTA CLARA 80 Saratoga Avenue 95051 294-36-018 CMU OG 20 36 0.409406 Vacant Building - Office (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 198 2 0 200 Approved 80 Saratoga Avenue SANTA CLARA 3941 Stevens Creek Boulevard 95051 294-39-010 CMU CT 20 36 0.589208 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 58 0 1 59 CT zoning approved using AB 3194 Under Construction 3941 Stevens Creek Blvd - The Meridian SANTA CLARA 1834 Worthington Circle/90 N. W 95117 303-17-053 MDR PD 20 36 5.791808 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 163 18 144 325 Under Construction Agrihood Mixed-Use Development Project SANTA CLARA 3750 El Camino Real 95051 313-05-010 RMU CC 37 50 0.679786 Fast Food Drive Through Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 17 7 0 24 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 1484 Halford Avenue 95051 313-05-011 RMU CC 37 50 1.289905 Restaurant Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 33 14 0 47 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 1460 Halford Avenue 95051 313-05-012 RMU CC 37 50 1.181981 Liquor Store Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 31 13 0 44 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3740 El Camino Real 95051 313-06-003 RMU CC 37 50 0.671808 Gas Station / Car Wash Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 17 7 0 24 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 See note O VR VR 60 149 6.814311 Parking / Shared Common Space YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 681 291 0 972 Common area does not have an assigned APN Available SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
HCD Electronic Sites Inventory Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction
Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very Low-
Income
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of Shortfall Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Current
General Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
(GP)
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Infrastructure Optional
Information1
Optional
Information2
SANTA CLARA 4341 El Camino Real 95051 213-37-015 13 10 10 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.9 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 33 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1973 0.72 SANTA CLARA 3775 El Camino Real 95051 213-35-035 20 15 15 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.32 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 49 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1980 0.81 SANTA CLARA 3755 El Camino Real 95051 213-35-032 17 13 13 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.16 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 43 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1978 0.37 SANTA CLARA 3725 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-008 8 6 6 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.56 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 21 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1971 0.24 SANTA CLARA 3735 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-012 27 20 20 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.83 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 68 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1972 0.16 SANTA CLARA 3705 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-010 66 50 50 0 Shortfall of Sites 4.47 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 165 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1972 0.43 SANTA CLARA 3615 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-004 53 40 40 0 Shortfall of Sites 3.58 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 132 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1972 0.25 SANTA CLARA 1460 Halford Avenue 95051 313-05-012 17 13 13 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.18 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 44 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1973 0.63 SANTA CLARA 1484 Halford Avenue 95051 313-05-011 19 14 14 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.29 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 48 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1973 0.12 SANTA CLARA 3750 El Camino Real 95051 313-05-010 10 7 7 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.67 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 25 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1976 0.17 SANTA CLARA 3740 El Camino Real 95051 313-06-003 10 7 7 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.66 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 24 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1968 0.17 SANTA CLARA 3590 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-115 10 7 7 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.67 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 25 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1967 0.11 SANTA CLARA 3580 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-116 23 17 17 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.56 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 58 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1970 0.37 SANTA CLARA 3570 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-117 6 4 4 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.39 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 14 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1968 0 SANTA CLARA 2789 El Camino Real 95051 216-01-059 21 16 16 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.41 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 52 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1991 0.52 SANTA CLARA 2775 El Camino Real 95051 216-01-058 19 14 14 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.25 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 46 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1991 0.44 SANTA CLARA 2725 El Camino Real 95051 216-01-040 17 13 13 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.15 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 43 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1987 0.26 SANTA CLARA 2213 El Camino Real 95050 224-15-029 18 14 14 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.22 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 45 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1962 0.43 SANTA CLARA 2065 El Camino Real 95050 224-15-037 95 71 71 0 Shortfall of Sites 6.43 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 238 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1952 0.48 SANTA CLARA 2200 El Camino Real 95050 290-10-078 13 10 10 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.89 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 33 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1979 0.2 SANTA CLARA 2120 El Camino Real 95050 290-10-028 14 11 11 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.97 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 36 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 2013 0.67 1 Notes:

State law also includes specific criteria for assessment of the realistic availability of non ‐vacant sites during the planning period. If non- vacant sites accommodate half or more of the lower- income need, the Housing Element must present “substantial evidence” that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential use on the site. Due to the built-out nature of Santa Clara, most sites have existing uses. Non-vacant sites included in the inventory have been selected using the following criteria, which are indicated for each non- vacant site in the detailed sites matrix included in Appendix B. A site identified under criterion 1, 2, or 3 requires no further factors. These criteria have been applied to all available sites (this does not include pending project sites). 1) Interest: Developer interest or property owner interest to redevelop the site. 2) Vacant Lots: Completely vacant lot.
3) City or County Ownership: Property is under City or County ownership, with defined intent to redevelop the site with a residential use at a higher density.
4) Redevelopment Trend for Existing Use: Uses that are similar to those that have been previously recycled in Santa Clara (e.g., industrial uses, small shopping centers, offices, stand-alone restaurants and retail uses, properties zoned exclusively for residential use that are currently developed well below the zoning capacity). 5) Participation in Specific Plan planning process: Property is located within a defined Specific Plan area and/or the property owner participated in the Specific Plan planning process. 6) Underutilized Residential Site. Property is zoned for residential use at a higher density than existing use or property is zoned residential and existing use is non-conforming. 7) Building/Land Value: Property improvement value is less than half of the land value (ratio is less than 1.00), indicating substantial underinvestment and the ability of a property owner to achieve financial gain through redevelopment.
8) Year: Structure was built prior to 1985 (and therefore over 36 years of age) but is not a designated or eligible historic structure, indicating that properties may need substa ntial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
9) Lease: Site has no existing tenant lease(s) or lease(s) expires or lease(s) have buy-out clauses within in 6th cycle planning period (where known).

City of Santa Clara Revisions to Adopted Housing Element Response / Revision
A.

1. a.

Local Data and Knowledge: The element generally was not revised to address this requirement.

The element must include local data, knowledge, and other relevant factors to discuss and analyze any unique attributes about the City related to fair housing issues. The element should complement federal, state, and regional data with local data and knowledge where appropriate to capture emerging trends and issues, including utilizing knowledge from local and regional advocates and service providers. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information [11/18/22 B.1.c]
Chapter 3 AFFH
At beginning of chapter, included a new Local Knowledge section summarizing local community feedback received throughout the Housing Element Update process and key themes from the City's housing needs analysis.

Throughout the chapter added conclusions within each section based on analysis of the data presented.

At the beginning of the Assessment of Fair Housing Issues section, added text about the three main geographic areas of the City (north, central, south) that are referenced throughout the document.

In the Race/Ethnicity section, added local data (three new tables, two new figures), along with supporting narrative/analysis. Added redlining map from 1937 and analysis connecting historic segregation with current patterns.

In the Persons with Disabilities section, added local data in the form of two new tables showing the Santa Clara County and Santa Clara population with developmental disabilities by age (Table 13.3-10) and adult population with developmental disabilities by residence (Table 13.3- 11), and supporting narrative.

In a newly titled section called Affordability by Census Tract, included summary about LMI residents at the census block level.

Added new Figure 13.3-23 Sites Inventory/TCAC Opportunity Areas - Composite Score, to show current 2023 HCD/TCAC opportunity areas, existing affordable housing, and all sites on the inventory.

In the Transportation section, added figures showing existing transit and the Valley Hopper service, and analysis of local trends.

In the Overcrowded Households section, added additional local data at the census tract level.

Updated contributing factors matrix, added new actions/objectives in Chapter 2 Housing Plan relating to issues raised in the AFFH analysis. b.

Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): While the element generally identifies the number of units in the northeast region, it generally does not address this requirement. A full analysis should address the identified sites, including pipeline project, to accommodate the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) with respect to location (e.g., neighborhoods, planning areas, census tracts), the number of sites and units by all income groups and how that affects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, access to opportunity). The element should also discuss whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates conditions such as isolating the RHNA by income group or not dispersing the RHNA by income throughout the City. If sites exacerbate conditions, the element should identify further program actions that will be taken to promote equitable quality of life throughout the community (e.g., housing mobility, new opportunities in higher resource or income areas, anti-displacement, and place-based community revitalization strategies).

Chapter 3 AFFH
Added new section called AFFH Analysis of the Sites Inventory with narrative and new Table 13.3-22 Sites Inventory Units by HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map Area, showing the distribution of the sites inventory units by income group/affordability category. Added maps of sites inventory sites overlaid on General Plan land use map, ADU trends map, and analysis on how production and presevation strategies will help address historic segregation patterns in South Santa Clara and prevent displacement.

HCD Comments March 28, 2023
Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) 1 City of Santa Clara Revisions to Adopted Housing Element Response / RevisionHCD Comments March 28, 2023

c. Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Based on a complete analysis, the element should re-assess and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues.

Chapter 3 AFFH
Addded a new section called Contributing Factors, revised Table 13.3-23 AFFH Meaningful Actions Matrix to include re-assessment and prioritization of contribution factors to fair housing issues. a.

Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Households: The element now generally describes the effectiveness of strategies, and the magnitude of the housing need for ELI housing needs, However, as noted in the prior review, the element should analyze the housing needs of ELI households, including tenure and overpayment, and add or modify programs as appropriate.

This is particularly important given the disproportionate housing needs of ELI households.

Chapter 4 Housing Needs
In Extremely Low Income (ELI) Households section, added analysis showing lower income households experience overpayment at a much higher rate compared to all households.

In Elderly (65+ years) section, added new Table 13.4-12: Senior Households by Income and Tenure and Table 13.4-13: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level and analysis showing senior ELI and VLI households are cost-burdened or severely cost-burdened at a much higher rate compared to all other senior households.
b.

Special Housing Needs: The element was revised with minimal analysis on special housing needs, it must include additional analysis to address the finding. For a complete analysis of each population group, the element should discuss challenges faced by the population, the existing resources to meet those needs (availability senior housing units, number of large units, number of deed restricted units, etc.,), an assessment of any gaps in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and funding to help address those gaps.

Chapter 4 Housing Needs
At the beginning of the Special Housing Needs section, added conclusion based on analysis, confirmed by public comments received, of each special housing needs population group acknowledging the challenges faced by those populations, the need for additional resources to meaningfully address special housing needs, and referencing the City's housing programs that will help address the gaps in resources to meet their needs.

At the end of each of the sections on Persons with Disabilities including persons with Developmental Disabilities, Elderly (65+ years), and Large Households (5+ members), added conclusions about the gap between existing resources and future needs.

Chapter 2 Housing Plan
Under Action 1 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types, added discrete objective to increase the stock of ELI/VLI rental housing designed for persons with disabilities and elderly persons, and to increase the stock of restricted 3 and 4 bedroom affordable rental units to serve large households. Added ongoing objective to annually explore regional and state funding sources to build more housing opportunities for persons with disabilities and for ELI households.
c.

In addition, while the element now quantifies persons with disability by type, it still must quantify elderly households by tenure and permanent and seasonal farmworkers using USDA agricultural census data.

Chapter 4 Housing Needs
In Elderly (65+) section, added new Table 13.4-12 Senior Households by Income and Tenure In Farmworker section, included additional narrative and data (new tables 13.4-15: Farm Operations and Farm Labor in Santa Clara County and 13.4-16: Migrant Worker Student Population).

Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).)
Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)2.
2 City of Santa Clara Revisions to Adopted Housing Element Response / RevisionHCD Comments March 28, 2023

3. a.

Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The element now demonstrates the anticipated affordability of approved, under construction and proposed developments through mechanisms such as affordable housing agreements and mentions approved projects are anticipated to be completed on or after June 30, 2022. However, the element must still address the availability of approved and proposed projects in the planning period and should include a program to monitor availability and take alternative action, if necessary, especially given the noted uncertainty associated with proposed projects (p. 13.6-5). Please see HCDs prior review for additional information. [11/18/22 B.3.a]
Chapter 2 Housing Plan
Action 9 Zoning Ordinance - Under Zoning Ordinance updated discrete objective, added administrative permit extension Action 10 Adequate Sites Inventory - Added 3 ongoing objectives to:
- monitor approved/proposed projects on the Housing Sites Inventory - proactively notify applicants to apply for extension when entitlement nearing expiration - if proposed projects not approved within 2 years of HCD certificaiton of Housing Element, include additonal sites, as needed to ensure sufficient capacity to meet RHNA at all income levels
Chapter 6 Housing Resources
In Pending or Proposed Projects section, added narrative explaining steps City will take to ensure pending/proposed projects complete development process and result in new units.
b.

In addition, the element was not revised to address the realistic capacity of the large several specific plans that were identified. As noted in HCDs prior review, the element should discuss planned built out horizons, necessary steps to make sites available and any impediments to the availability of sites for development in the planning period.

Chapter 6 Housing Resources
In the Realistic Capacity Calculations seciton, included additional methodology for calculating realistic capacity, buildout horizons for specific plan areas, and description of impediments to development.

Chapter 2 Housing Plan
Added Action 19 Tasman East Specific Plan Amendment to add 1,500 units of capacity and update Tasman East infrastructure fee c.

Parcel Inventory: The element was revised to add the general plan designation of identified sites but should still describe existing uses as noted in the prior review. Specifically, the description of existing use is generic and must include sufficient detail to facilitate an analysis of the potential for addition development on nonvacant sites. For example, many sites describe existing uses as commercial or industrial. Instead, the inventory could describe the existing use through factors such as age and condition of the existing structure expressed developer interest, low improvement to land value ratio, and other relevant factors.

Chapter 6 Housing Resources
In the Realistic Capacity and Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites Section, added information about specific criteria used for assessment of the realistic availability of non-vacant sites during the planning period.

Appendix B Sites Inventory
Added information to Sites Inventory table indicating relevant factors such as age, development interest, improvement to land value ratio.

Included notes regarding specific criteria used for assessment of the realistic availability of non-vacant sites during the planning period. d.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element generally was not revised to address this requirement and demonstrate the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. Further, the element should respond to the various site suitability issues described by comments received as part of this review. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

Chapter 6 Housing Resources and Appendix B Sites Inventory In response to comments received regarding site suitability, modified the Realistic Capacity and Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites section in Chapter 6 and removed several sites from the inventory. To address the reduction in the realistic capacity of sites to accommodate sufficient VLI units to meet the RHNA with an adequate buffer, rezoning sites were added along the El Camino Real corridor.

Chapter 6 Housing Resources
In the Re-use of Sites section added language about sites that are subject to the re-use provisions of AB 1397 (2017) and that Action 9 Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 2 Housing Plan) will include provisions that any nonvacant site in the 6th Cycle Housing Element that was identified in a previous Housing Element would need to provide a minimum of 20 percent of the units affordable to lower income households in order to be approved by right.

An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) 3 City of Santa Clara Revisions to Adopted Housing Element Response / RevisionHCD Comments March 28, 2023

e.

In addition, as noted in the prior review, if the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households, the housing element must demonstrate that the existing use is not an impediment to additional residential development in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA. Based on a cursory review, the City’s current Resolution Number 23-9189 does not appear to make the appropriate findings to demonstrate uses will likely discontinue in the planning period and any future re-adoption must address this requirement, if necessary.

Re-Adoption Resolution
Revised to include required findings to demonstrate uses will likely discontinue in the planning period. f.

Availability of Infrastructure: The element discusses infrastructure management plans and indicates infrastructure capacity is not a constraint on development but should also clearly state whether there is sufficient existing or planned total capacity to accommodate the RHNA. In addition, the element states the City has specific procedures to grant priority for water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households, but then explains if a provision is not part of the regulatory framework the City will commit to adopting a procedure within the next year with no program provided. The element should clearly state whether a written procedure is available and, if not, add a program to establish a procedure by a specified date.

Chapter 5 Constraints
In the Water Supply section, added statement that the Addendum to the 2010 General Plan Update for the 6th Cycle Housing Element consolidates information about the prior water supply assessments for the development anticipated in the City's General Plan, including Specific Plan areas, and concludes that there is sufficient existing capacity to accommodate the City's RHNA.

Chapter 2 Housing Plan
Added Action 20 Water and Sewer Affordable Housing Service Provisions with discrete objective to adopt procedures within six months of certification of the Housing Element to grant priority water and sewer service to development with units affordable to lower-income households. g.

Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element.

The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. While the City has submitted an electronic sites inventory, if any changes occur, the City should submit the revised inventory to HCD as part of any future re-adoption submittal.

A revised Electronic Sites Inventory will be submitted to HCD as part of the re-adoption submittal i.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Emergency Shelters): The element now clarifies emergency shelters are currently permitted in the ML (Light Industrial) zone and are proposed to be permitted in several zones. However, the element was not revised to address HCD’s prior finding regarding various requirements such as non-discretionary review, suitability of sites, development standards and constraints. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information. [11/18/22 B.3.i]
Chapter 5 Constraints
In Emergency Shelters section, added discussion that existing constraints to the location of emergency shelters are proposed to be removed as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update which will allow emergency shelters by right in the R-3 and R-4 Residential districts, the C-C and C-R Commercial districts, and the MU-VHD Mixed Use district, and with the issuance of a Minor Use Permit in the LI Light Industrial and PQP Public/Quasi-Public districts.

Chapter 2 Housing Plan
Action 9 Zoning Ordinance, added bullet listing above changes that will expand the potential locations for emergency shelters throughout the City.

Chapter 4 Housing Needs
In People Experiencing Homelessness section, added background information/data on emergency shelters and listed objective development standards for by-right permitting of emergency shelters. 4 City of Santa Clara Revisions to Adopted Housing Element Response / RevisionHCD Comments March 28, 2023

j.

In addition, please be aware Chapter 654, Statues of 2022 (AB 2339), adds specificity on how cities and counties plan for emergency shelters and ensure sufficient and suitable capacity.

Future submittals of the housing element may need to address these statutory requirements.

For additional information and timing requirements, please see HCD’s memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/ab2339-notice.pdf.

Chapter 4 Housing Needs
In the People Experiencing Homelessness section, identifies that the current permitting process for emergency shelters, which limits the number of beds that can be permitted by right in the City based on the prior year's count of people experiencing homelessness, will be removed as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update.

4. a.

Land Use Controls: The element was generally not revised to address HCDs prior findings regarding heights and lot coverages as constraints. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information. [11/18/22 B.4.a]
Chapter 5 Constraints
To address HCDs prior comment that, "the analysis should specifically address heights, lot coverages, parking, and parking in the MU and TMU zones" a paragraph was added noting that both the MU - Mixed Use and TMU - Transit-oriented Mixed Use districts have not been used to zone any parcels within the City and have not been included in the City's Zoning Ordinance Update because there are no parcels in the City with a corresponding General Plan land use designation. b.

In addition, Action 3 (Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation) and Action 9 (Zoning Ordinance) should go beyond reviewing parking standards and make specific commitment to reduce or revise parking requirements and ensure parking requirements do not constrain development.

Chapter 2 Housing Plan
Action 3 Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation, revised ongoing objective noting that reduced parking requirements for transit-rich environments (from Zoning Ordinance Update) will be applied to the City's long-range plans.

Action 9 Zoning Ordinance, in introductory language, described revisions to parking provisions that include reduced parking requirements and unbundled parking for multi-family uses in transit-rich environments. c.

Fees and Exaction: While the element now quantifies the fees for a large multifamily development, it was not revised to address this finding of listing all pertinent fees as part of the cumulative fees analysis. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information. [11/18/22 B.4.c]
Chapter 5 Constraints
In Planning and Development Fees section, added to and revised narrative clarifying that Table 13.5-5 provides all fees that may be pertinent to different types of residential projects. Added notes to Table 13.5-5. Provided additional explanation of and conclusions from Table 13.5-6 and added notes to table with details of the residential prototype projects. d.

Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element now explains objective standards are used to demonstrate compliance with approval findings for architectural review. However, the element was not revised to address findings regarding the City’s planned development (PD) process.

While the element now includes Action 9 (Zoning Ordinance) to reduce reliance on the PD process, it should include an analysis as described in HCD’s prior review to better formulate the appropriate programmatic response. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information. [11/18/22 B.4.d]
Chapter 5 Constraints
In the Planned Development section, added data (including Table 13.5-8) showing the limited recent use of Planned Development (PD) zonings for residential development and text explaining why use of PDs has and will be further diminished with other by-right/non-discretionary approval processes.
h.

Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Reasonable Accommodation): The element now discusses the City’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodation in zoning and land use but otherwise, provides no analysis to address HCD’s findings. For example, the element does not list or evaluate approval findings. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information. [11/18/22 B.4.h]
Chapter 5 Constraints
In the Reasonable Accommodation section, included section from both current Zoning Code and Zoning Ordinance Update listing findings for approval or denial of a reasonable accommodation request. i.

Inclusionary Housing: While the element describes the broader inclusionary housing policy framework, it must also provide an analysis on the relationship between the inclusionary requirement and State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). For example, the element should describe how meeting the inclusionary requirement may be used toward eligibility for benefits under SDBL.

Chapter 5 Constraints
In Inclusionary Housing section, added statement that the provision of affordable units through the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance count toward units provided for the purpose of receiving benefits under the state's density bonus law. Added note that, as part of Action 2 Affordable Housing Ordinance (Chapter 2 Housing Plan), staff will bring forward a revised ordinance that includes deeper affordability, with all projects subject to these new provisions eligible for density bonus benefits.

An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
5 City of Santa Clara Revisions to Adopted Housing Element Response / RevisionHCD Comments March 28, 2023

j.

In addition, housing element outreach conduct identified that the 100 percent area median income affordability requirement was no longer feasible for residents. In response, the City commits to “assessing the feasibility” in Action 2 (Affordable Housing Ordinance). The City should go above “assessing feasibility” of the current affordable housing ordinance and make specific commitments to also revise the City affordability requirements after the feasibility study has been conducted and include annual outreach as parts of this efforts.

Chapter 2 Housing Plan
Action 2 Affordable Housing Ordinance, under the "By the middle of 2025" discrete objective, added that the City will conduct community outreach to present and receive feedback on the feasibility study and will bring the study and summary of community feedback to the City Council.

5. a.

HCDs prior review found the element should evaluate the risk of conversion; estimate and compare total costs; identify public and private non-profits. In response, the City adds cost comparison of units at-risk; however, the City still must include analysis on the risk of conversion and identify qualified entities.

Chapter 4 Housing Needs
In the At-Risk Housing Analyses section, identified examples of qualified entities and added assessment of risk of conversion. Estancia project removed from table of At-Risk projects because the affordability term, which is tied to their ground sub-lease term runs until July 1, 2053. b.

In addition, Action 5 (Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing) now includes general commitment to work with property owners “when possible”. However, the Action should make specific commitments to monitor at-risk units annually, coordinate with qualified entities annually, prioritize available funding to assist property owners and tenants at risk of conversion.

Chapter 2 Housing Plan
Action 5 Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing & NOAH, update introductory language to reflect that there are four (not five) assisted rental projects with a total of 45 units that are identified to be a potential, albeit very low, risk of conversion to market rate use between June 2028 and October 2031. Revised action and objectives to include monitoring of deed restricted and naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH).

Revised and added to ongoing objectives to make specific commitments to annually monitor and analyze inventory of at-risk units, to coordinate with qualified entities, work with tenants of at-risk units, and to explore new regional and state funding sources for preservation projects.

B.

1. a.

Programs must demonstrate that they will have a beneficial impact within the planning period.

Beneficial impact means specific commitment to deliverables, measurable metrics or objectives, definitive deadlines, dates, or benchmarks for implementation. Deliverables should occur early in the planning period to ensure actual housing outcomes. However, the following programs must be revised to include specific commitments and definitive timeline as follows:

Chapter 2 Housing Plan
In addition to the revisions described below that address HCDs specfic comments on Actions 1, 3, 4, 11, 15, and 16, the City has revised several other Housing Plan actions and objectives to strengthen the City's commitment to accomplishing those programs within more defined timelines.

Action 1 (Provision of a Variety of Housing Types) : The City should commit to identifying housing opportunities and pursing funds at least annually to support ELI households and persons with disabilities.

Action 1, added new objective to annually explore regional and state funding sources to build more housing opportunities for persons with disabilities and for extremely low-income households.

Action 3 (Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation) : The Program was revised to include timing; however, language such as “explore “should be removed or modified with commitment to actual housing outcomes.

Revised objective regarding Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) to replace "explore" language with "continue to coordinate with qualified entities" and moved from Action 3 Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation to Action 5 which was expanded to include Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing & NOAH.

Action 4 (Maintenance of Housing Stock) : The Program now commits to conducting outreach to determine interest and feasibility but should include subsequent actions toward actual housing outcomes such as funding activities.

Action 4, added discrete objective that by fall 2025, the City will market future CDBG capital Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) to residential care facilities for repair and renovation work to begin in summer 2026, with the NOFA including extra points for projects that serve persons with disabilities and/or ELI households.

Housing Programs
Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-low- income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).)
Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).) 6 City of Santa Clara Revisions to Adopted Housing Element Response / RevisionHCD Comments March 28, 2023
Action 11 (Impact Fees) : Timelines identified should be revised to reflect implementation during the eight-year planning period. Action 11, timelines revised for implementation of discrete objectives to occur during the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Action 15 (Homeownership for First-Time Buyers) : The Program should add discrete timing for action implementation for outcomes (e.g., 2025).

Action 15, revised discrete objective to present proposed changes to BMP program from Housing Commission to City Council and added date for implementation of change by December 2025.

Action 16 (Fair Housing Programs) : Action items identified should be revised to include timelines.

Action 16, revised and added new discrete objectives with specific timelines for City Council consideration/implementation

2. a.

As noted in Finding A3, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types.

Chapter 2 Housing Plan
Action 9 Zoning Ordinance, based on complete site analysis, to address a shortfall of sites available to accommodate lower income housing units, added discrete objective to apply adopted zoning designations consistent with the City's General Plan, which will add additional housing sites totaling 1,242 units to the El Camino Real corridor. Also see Chapter 6 Housing Resources, revisions to Realistic Capacity Calculation section and Table 13.6-5 Sites to Meet the RHNA that include the El Camino Real rezoning sites. b.

In addition, the element includes Actions 1 (Variety of Housing Types) and 9 (Zoning Ordinance) to amend zoning to allow a variety of housing types, including SROs, employee housing, emergency shelters, low barrier navigation centers and by-right permanent supportive housing. However, the element should be revised to include at least parameters or certainty for the outcome of these commitments such as comply with state law citing government code or describing requirements (e.g., permit without discretionary action). In addition, the actions should commit to amending zoning for emergency shelters as described on page 13.5-10 and remove ambiguous and non-committal language such as “as necessary”.

Chapter 2 Housing Plan
Action 1 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types, added language clarifying that the Zoning Ordinance update will include provisions allowing a variety of housing types through a by-right approval process using objective standards.

Action 9 Zoning Ordinance, added bullet listing changes that will expand the potential locations for emergency shelters throughout the City.

Removed non-committal "as necessary" language. Also see response to HCD comment A.3.j

3. a.

As noted in Finding A4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

See Response / Revisions under A.4
b.

In addition, Action 9 (Zoning Ordinance) was not revised to address all HCDs prior findings.

Specifically, the City now acknowledges group homes of seven or more; however, it must commit to amend zoning for a variety of housing types in Action 1 by a specific date and clarify that zoning and permit procedures will be amended to permit these housing types in all zones allowing residential use with objective standards to facilitate approval certainty similar to other residential uses.

Chapter 2 Housing Plan
Action 1 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types, added language clarifying that the Zoning Ordinance update will include provisions allowing a variety of housing types, including residential care facilities (group homes), through a by-right approval process using objective standards.

Action 9 Zoning Ordinance, specified date (by November 2023) for completion of Zoning Ordinance update.

Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city's or county's share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
7 City of Santa Clara Revisions to Adopted Housing Element Response / RevisionHCD Comments March 28, 2023

4. a.

As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs. Additionally, the element included Table 13.3-20 (p. 13.3-72) identifying AFFH actions the City could take to address fair housing issues. For example, the Table notes the City could increase housing choice voucher (HCV) mobility and acquire properties for affordable housing. However, beyond promoting HCVs and exploring property acquisitions, the actions do not include specific commitments to addressing fair housing issues. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, milestones, and geographic targeting and, as appropriate, must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity and income areas, concentrated areas of affluence and place-based strategies toward community revitalization and displacement protection.

Chapter 3 AFFH and Chapter 2 Housing Plan
Updated AFFH analysis and revised Housing Plan to include more specific goals and metrics toward mobility, outreach and education, new housing choices in South Santa Clara, and place-based strategies for increasing pedestrian/bike safety access in MTC Equity Priority Communitites and improving access to oportunity in HUD designated low/moderate income census tracts using CDBG dollars.

See Respoonse / Revisions under A.1

5. a.

Action 1 (Provision of a Variety of Housing Types) now commits to establish incentives to promote accessory dwelling units (ADU) as well as monitoring the production of ADUs.

However, the Action should also monitor affordability, specify when a plan will be presented to the City Council and specify when an alternative strategy will be implemented (e.g., within six months). In addition, the Action should clarify that rezoning may be necessary as part of alternative actions.

Chapter 2 Housing Plan
Action 1 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types, modified ongoing objective to include timeline (within six months of acceptance of APR) to present a plan to City Council to remove barriers and/or further incentivize ADU production (e.g., through additional Zoning changes) if the pace of production falls below anticipated levels. Added ongoing objective to continue participating in the development and implementation of the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative ADU Program.

D.

1. a.

The element was revised to include minimal ELI objectives added for rehabilitation and conservation while also reducing overall conservation and rehabilitation objectives. The City must revise overall conservation and rehabilitation objectives to target meaningful outcomes in the planning period. As noted in HCDs previous review, conservation units should not be limited to only units at-risk and should include other activities the City has undertaken to rehabilitate and conserve housing. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information. [11/18/22 D.1.a]
Chapter 2 Housing Plan
In the Quantified Objectives section, modified Table 13.2-1 Quantified Objectives to more clearly show the breakdown of units to be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved by income level. Increased the total number of rehabilitation units and increased the total number of conservation units to include more than the units at-risk of conversion. Added explanatory footnotes below table and noted which actions in the Housing Plan support the quantified objectives for units to be rehabilitated and conserved.

Quantified Objectives
Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.

For purposes of this paragraph, "accessory dwelling units" has the same meaning as "accessory dwelling unit" as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).) 8 City of Santa Clara Revisions to Adopted Housing Element Response / RevisionHCD Comments March 28, 2023
E.

1. a.

While the City made effort to include the public through workshops and surveys, and summarized public comments received and identified how public concerns were addressed.

However, HCD received comments on this review that should be addressed, including considering and incorporating comments as appropriate. Example of issues include errantly listing small sites as aggregated sites, calculations of residential capacity and existing uses that impeded additional development in the planning period.

Appendix A
Housing Action Coalition (HAC) 1/22/23 and 2/23/23 comment letters added.

See revisions to Chapter 6 Housing Resources, summarized in section A.3 above b.

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

Throughout the process, the City's Housing Element Update page has been regularly maintained with updated background information, key public/stakeholder outreach dates, and documents, including all prior draft Housing Element documents and correspondence/comments received. The City's Housing Element Update topic subscribers (1,926 as of 6/9/23) have recevied bulletins (emails) to alert them about the availability of drafts of the Housing Element and public hearing dates.

Revisions to the Housing Element will be posted for a minimum of seven days prior to submittal to HCD.

F.

1. a.

While the element states it has been prepared to maintain internal consistency, it still should discuss how consistency will be maintained throughout the entire planning period. For example, the element could describe internal consistency will be maintained as part of the annual progress report pursuant to Government Code section 65400 or as general plan amendments occur.

Revised Chapter 1 Introduction
Added statement that General Plan consistency will be evaluated and maintained through annual progress report (APR) and as general plan amendments occur.

The Housing Element shall describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).)
Public Participation
Consistency with General Plan
9 Attachment 5: Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Housing Element 1 The following is a summary of proposed amendments to the adopted City of Santa Clara 2023-2031 Housing Element to address the findings in HCDs March 28, 2023 comment letter. The proposed changes are organized by Housing Element chapter/appendix with reference to HCDs numbered comments.

Chapter 1 Introduction
o HCD F.1.a General Plan Consistency
 Added statement that general plan consistency will be evaluated and maintained through annual APR and as general plan amendments occur

Chapter 2 Housing Plan
o HCD A.3.a Progress in Meeting the RHNA
 Action 9 Zoning Ordinance – As part of Zoning Ordinance update discrete objective, added administrative permit extension
 Action 10 Adequate Sites Inventory – Added 3 ongoing objectives to:
• Monitor approved/proposed projects on the Housing Sites Inventory • Proactively notify applicants to apply for extension when their entitlement is nearing expiration
• If proposed projects not approved within 2 years of HCD certification of Housing Element, include additional sites in inventory, as needed, to ensure sufficient capacity to meet City’s RHNA at all income levels. o HCD A.3.b Realistic Capacity
 Added Action 19 Tasman East Specific Plan Amendment to add 1,500 units of capacity and update Tasman East infrastructure fee
o HCD A.3.f Availability of Infrastructure
 Added Action 20 Water and Sewer Affordable Housing Service Provisions with discrete objective to adopt procedures within six months of certification of Housing Element to grant priority water and sewer service to development with units affordable to lower-income households.
o HCD A.3.i/j Emergency Shelters
 Action 9 Zoning Ordinance, added bullet listing changes that will expand the potential locations for emergency shelters throughout the City o HCD A.4.b Parking Requirements
 Action 3 Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation, revised ongoing objective noting that reduced parking requirements for transit-rich environments (from zoning Ordinance Update) will be applied to the City’s long-range plans.  Action 9 Zoning Ordinance, in introductory language, described revisions to parking provisions that include reduced parking requirements and unbundled parking for multi-family uses in transit-rich environments. o HCD A.4.j Affordable Housing Ordinance
 Action 2 Affordable Housing Ordinance, under the “By the middle of 2025” discrete objectives:
o Revised “Assess the feasibility of updating the citywide affordable housing ordinance…” to “Update the citywide affordable housing ordinance…” and noting that complying with the proposed affordability requirements would entitle developers to use the Density Bonus provisions of state law.

Attachment 5 to June 14, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report Summary of Proposed Amendments to the City of Santa Clara Housing Element by Chapter/Appendix 2 o added that the City will conduct community outreach to present and receive feedback on the feasibility study and will bring the study and summary of community feedback to the City Council.
o HCD A.5.b Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing
 Action 5 Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing & NOAH, update introductory language to reflect that there are four (not five) assisted rental projects with a total of 45 units that are identified to be a potential, albeit very low, risk of conversion to market rate use between June 2028 and October 2031. Revised action and objectives to include monitoring of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). Revised and added to ongoing objectives to make specific commitments to annually monitor and analyze inventory of at-risk units, to coordinate with qualified entities, and work with tenants of at-risk units. o HCD B.1.a Housing Programs
 Action 1 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types
• Under Ongoing Objectives:
o Added new objective to annually explore regional and state funding sources to build more housing opportunities for persons with disabilities and for extremely low-income households.
o Revised ADU production objective to include specific timeline for presenting plan to City Council if ADU production falls below expectations. o Added new objective to continue participating in the development and implementation of the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative ADU Program.
• Discrete Objective for Zoning Ordinance update
o Revised adoption date to by November 2023
o Added note that revised provisions to allow a variety of housing types will be through a by-right approval process using objective standards and added residential care facilities to list of housing types  Action 3 Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation • Revised objective regarding Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) to replace “explore” language with “continue to coordinate with qualified entities” and moved from Action 3 Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation to Action 5 which was expanded to include Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing & NOAH.
 Action 4 Maintenance of Housing Stock
• Added discrete objective that by fall 2025, the City will market future CDBG capital NOFAs to residential care facilities for repair and renovation work to begin in summer 2026, with the NOFA including extra points for projects that serve persons with disabilities and/or ELI households.
 Action 11 Impact Fees
• Timelines revised for implementation of discrete objectives to occur during the 6 th Cycle Housing Element.
 Action 15 Homeownership for First-time Buyers
• Revised discrete objective to present proposed changes to BMP program from Housing Commission to City Council and added date for implementation of change by December 2025.

Attachment 5 to June 14, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report Summary of Proposed Amendments to the City of Santa Clara Housing Element by Chapter/Appendix 3  Action 16 Fair Housing Programs
• Revised and added new discrete objectives with specific timelines for City Council consideration/implementation.
• Revised and added new ongoing objectives
o HCD B.2.a Sites and Zoning
 Action 9 Zoning Ordinance, based on complete site analysis, to address a shortfall of sites available to accommodate lower income housing units, added discrete objective to apply adopted zoning designations consistent with the City's General Plan, which will add additional housing sites totaling 1,242 units to the El Camino Real corridor. Also see Chapter 6 Housing Resources, revisions to Realistic Capacity Calculation section and Table 13.6-5 Sites to Meet the RHNA that include the El Camino Real rezoning sites.
o HCD B.2.b Variety of Housing Types and Zoning Ordinance  Action 1 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types, added language clarifying that the Zoning Ordinance update will include provisions allowing a variety of housing types through a by-right approval process using objective standards.  Action 9 Zoning Ordinance, added bullet listing changes that will expand the potential locations for emergency shelters throughout the City. Removed non- committal "as necessary" language. Also see response to HCD comment A.3.j o HCD B.3.a Mitigate Identified Constraints
 See response / revisions to HCD comment A.4 in Chapter 5 and Chapter 2 o HCD B.3.b Group Homes
 Action 1 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types, added language clarifying that the Zoning Ordinance update will include provisions allowing a variety of housing types, including residential care facilities (group homes), through a by-right approval process using objective standards.
 Action 9 Zoning Ordinance, specified date (by November 2023) for completion of Zoning Ordinance update.
o HCD B.4.a Housing Plan/AFFH
 Based on updated AFFH analysis, revised Housing Plan to include more specific goals and metrics toward mobility, outreach and education, new housing choices in south Santa Clara, and place-based strategies for increasing pedestrian/bike safety access in MTC Equity Priority Communities and improving access to opportunity in HUD designated LIMI census tracts using CDBG dollars. o HCD B.5.a ADUs
 Action 1 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types, modified ongoing objective to include timeline (within six months of acceptance of APR) to present a plan to City Council to remove barriers and/or further incentivize ADU production (e.g., through additional Zoning changes) if the pace of production falls below anticipated levels. Added ongoing objective to continue participating in the development and implementation of the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative ADU Program.
o HCD D.1.a Quantified Objectives
 In the Quantified Objectives section, modified Table 13.2-1 Quantified Objectives to more clearly show the breakdown of units to be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved by income level. Increased the total number of rehabilitation units and Attachment 5 to June 14, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report Summary of Proposed Amendments to the City of Santa Clara Housing Element by Chapter/Appendix 4 increased the total number of conservation units to include more than the units at-risk of conversion. Added explanatory footnotes below table and noted which actions in the Housing Plan support the quantified objectives for units to be rehabilitated and conserved.

Chapter 3 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
• HCD A.1.a Local Data and Knowledge
 At beginning of chapter, included a new Local Knowledge section summarizing local community feedback received throughout the Housing Element Update process and key themes from the City’s housing needs analysis  Throughout chapter added conclusions within each section from the data/analysis presented
 At beginning of the Assessment of Fair Housing Issues section, added text about the three main geographic areas of the City (north, central, south) that are referenced throughout the document.
 In the Race/Ethnicity section, added local data (three new tables, two new figures) with supporting narrative/analysis.
 In the Persons with Disabilities section, added local data (two new tables) with supporting narrative/analysis.
 In a newly titled section called Affordability by Census Tract, included summary about LMI residents at the census block level
 Added new Figure 13.3-23 Sites Inventory/TCAC Opportunity Areas – Composite Score, to show current 2023 HCD/TCAC opportunity areas, existing affordable housing, and all sites on the inventory
 In the Transportation section, added figures showing existing transit and the Valley Hopper service, and analysis and trends
 In the Overcrowded Households section, added additional local data at the census tract level
• HCD A.1.b Identified Sites and AFFH
 Added new section called AFFH Analysis of the Sites Inventory with narrative and new Table 13.3-22 Sites Inventory by HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map Area, showing the distribution of the sites inventory units by income group/affordability category. Added maps of sites inventory sites overlaid on General Plan land use map, ADU trends map, and analysis on how production and preservation strategies will help address historic segregation patterns in southern Santa Clara and prevent displacement.
• HCD A.1.c Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues  In a new section called Contributing Factors, revised Table 13.3-23 AFFH Meaningful Actions Matrix, to include re-assessment and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues.
• HCD B.4.a Housing Plan/AFFH
 See response/revisions to HCD A.1
 Updated AFFH analysis and revised Housing Plan to include more specific goals and metrics toward mobility, outreach and education, new housing choices in south Santa Clara, and place-based strategies for increasing pedestrian/bike Attachment 5 to June 14, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report Summary of Proposed Amendments to the City of Santa Clara Housing Element by Chapter/Appendix 5 safety access in MTC Equity Priority Communities and improving access to opportunity in HUD designated LIMI census tracts using CDBG dollars.

Chapter 4 Housing Needs
o HCD A.2.a ELI Households
 In Extremely Low Income (ELI) Households section, added analysis showing lower income households experience overpayment at a much higher rate compared to all households.
 In Elderly (65+ years) section, added new Table 13.4-12: Senior Households by Income and Tenure and Table 13.4-13: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level and analysis showing senior ELI and VLI households are cost- burdened or severely cost-burdened at a much higher rate compared to all other senior households.
o HCD A.2.b/c Special Housing Needs
 At the beginning of the Special Housing needs section, added conclusion based on analysis of each special housing needs population group summarizing the challenges faced by those populations and referencing the City’s housing programs that will help address the gaps in resources to meet their needs.  In Elderly (65+) section, added new Table 13.4-12 Senior Households by Income and Tenure
 In Farmworker section, included additional narrative and data (new Table 13.4-15 Farm Operations and Farm Labor in Santa Clara County and Table 13.4-16 Migrant Worker Student Population
o HCD A.3.i/j Emergency Shelters
 In People Experiencing Homelessness section, added background information/data on emergency shelters and listed objective development standards for by-right permitting of emergency shelters. identifies that the current permitting process for emergency shelters, which limits the number of beds that can be permitted by right in the City based on the prior year's count of people experiencing homelessness, will be removed as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update.
o HCD A.5.a At-risk Units
 In the At-Risk Housing Analyses section, identified examples of qualified entities and added assessment of risk of conversion. Estancia project removed from table of At-Risk projects because the affordability term, which is tied to their ground sub-lease term, runs until July 1, 2053.

Chapter 5 Constraints
o HCD A.3.f Availability of Infrastructure
 In Water Supply section, added statement that the Addendum to the 2010 General Plan Update for the 6
th Cycle Housing Element consolidates information
about prior water supply assessments for the development anticipated in the City’s General Plan, including Specific Plan areas, and concludes that there is sufficient existing capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA.

Attachment 5 to June 14, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report Summary of Proposed Amendments to the City of Santa Clara Housing Element by Chapter/Appendix 6 o HCD A.3.j Emergency Shelters
 In Emergency Shelters section, added discussion that existing constraints to the location of emergency shelters are proposed to be removed as part of the Zoning Ordinance update, which will allow emergency shelters by right in the R-3 and R- 4 Residential districts, C-C and C-R Commercial districts, and the MU-VHD Mixed Use district, and with the issuance of a Minor Use Permit in the LI Light Industrial and PQP Public/Quasi-Public districts.
o HCD A.4.a Land Use Controls
 To address HCDs prior comment that, "the analysis should specifically address heights, lot coverages, parking, and parking in the MU and TMU zones" a paragraph was added noting that both the MU - Mixed Use and TMU - Transit- oriented Mixed Use districts have not been used to zone any parcels within the City and have not been included in the City's Zoning Ordinance Update because there are no parcels in the City with a corresponding General Plan land use designation.
o HCD A.4.c Fees and Exactions
 In Planning and Development Fees section, added to and revised narrative clarifying that Table 13.5-5 provides all fees that may be pertinent to different types of residential projects. Added notes to Table 13.5-5. Provided additional explanation of and conclusions from Table 13.5-6 and added notes to table with details of the residential prototype projects.
o HCD A.4.d Local Processing and Permit Procedures
 In the Planned Development section, added data (including new Table 13.5-8) showing the limited recent use of Planned Development (PD) zonings for residential development and text explaining why use of PDs has and will be further diminished with other by-right/non-discretionary approval processes. o HCD A.4.h Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Reasonable Accommodation)  In the Reasonable Accommodation section, included section from both current Zoning Code and Zoning Ordinance Update listing findings for approval or denial of a reasonable accommodation request.
o HCD A.4.i Inclusionary Housing
 In Inclusionary Housing section, added statement and excerpt from the City’s Residential Density Bonus Standards chapter in the Santa Clara City Code that the provision of affordable units through the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance count toward the units provided for the purpose of receiving benefits under the state’s density bonus law.

Chapter 6 Housing Resources
o HCD A.3.a Progress in Meeting the RHNA
 In Pending or Proposed Projects section added narrative explaining steps City will take to ensure pending/proposed projects complete development process and result in new units
o HCD A.3.b Realistic Capacity
 In Realistic Capacity Calculations section included:
• Additional methodology for calculating realistic capacity • Buildout horizons for specific plan areas
Attachment 5 to June 14, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report Summary of Proposed Amendments to the City of Santa Clara Housing Element by Chapter/Appendix 7 • Description of impediments to development
o HCD A.3.a Progress in Meeting the RHNA, A.3.b Realistic Capacity, A.3.d/3 Suitability of Nonvacant Sites to Accommodate Lower Income RHNA  Sites to Meet the RHNA (Sites Inventory)
The changes described below are also reflected in the revised Appendix B Sites Inventory and will be included in a revised Electronic Sites Inventory to be submitted to HCD as part of the re-adoption submittal.

Sites to Meet the RHNA – As Adopted in the Housing Element (January 31, 2023) Units in Affordability Category
Site/Credit Type VLI LI Mod. Above Mod Total Capacity
RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Pending & Approved Projects 389 361 857 10,339 11,946
Tasman East SP - - 531 3,919 4,459
Patrick Henry Drive SP 75 75 75 1,288 1,516
Lawrence Station Area Plan - 5 57 635 697
Freedom Circle Focus Area 54 54 54 914 1,075
Other 261 228 141 3,569 4,199
ADU Projection 102 102 102 34 340
Available Specific Plan Sites 2,888 2,143 2,465 314 7,810 Tasman East Focus Area SP 214 156 458 295 1,123
Patrick Henry Drive SP 1,829 1,360 1,360 - 4,549
Lawrence Station Area Plan 845 627 647 19 2,138
-

Total 3,379 2,606 3,424 10,687 22,096
Surplus Units 507 953 1,443 5,561 10,464
Surplus (% Above RHNA) 18% 58% 73% 108% 73%

Attachment 5 to June 14, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report Summary of Proposed Amendments to the City of Santa Clara Housing Element by Chapter/Appendix 8 Sites to Meet the RHNA – As Revised / Proposed for Adoption Units in Affordability Category
Site/Credit Type VLI LI Mod. Above Mod. Total Capacity
RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Pending & Approved Projects 668 746 512 10,218 12,144 Tasman East SP 111 234 179 3,842 4,366
Patrick Henry Drive SP 76 75 75 1,294 1,520
Lawrence Station Area Plan - 5 57 635 697
Freedom Circle Focus Area 54 54 54 913 1,075
Other 427 378 147 3,534 4,486
ADU Projection 118 118 118 39 393
Available Specific Plan Sites 2,105 1,561 1,883 314 5,863 Tasman East Focus Area SP 214 156 458 295 1,123
Patrick Henry Drive SP 1,747 1,299 1,299 - 4,345
Lawrence Station Area Plan 144 106 126 19 395
El Camino Real Rezoning Sites 497 378 366 - 1,242

Total 3,388 2,803 2,879 10,571 19,642
Surplus Units 516 1,150 898 5,445 8,010
Surplus (% Above RHNA) 18% 70% 45% 106% 69%

The above table tabulates the total number of housing units in the City’s Sites Inventory after making the changes summarized below.

 Pending & Approved Projects
• Tasman East: revised to reflect affordable housing agreements approved for 2233 Calle Del Mundo (St. Anton) and 2302/2310 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) projects providing affordable housing at Very Low and Low Income levels; two projects revised to reduce total number of units; minor updates/corrections to unit totals and distribution.
• Patrick Henry Drive: minor updates/corrections to unit totals and distribution. • Other: included three recently approved 100% affordable projects 1601 Civic Center Drive, 80 Saratoga Avenue, and 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard; minor updates/corrections to unit totals and distribution

 ADU Projection
• Based on average number of ADUs issued building permits between 2018-2022 (previously 2018-2021)

 Available Specific Plan Sites
• Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHD):
o Removed “Drawbridge” parcel (4600 Patrick Henry Drive); Staff has been unable to make contact with the property owner and so did not receive a response from a qualified representative indicating any interest to redevelop with residential within the Housing Element timeframe.

Attachment 5 to June 14, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report Summary of Proposed Amendments to the City of Santa Clara Housing Element by Chapter/Appendix 9 o Confirmed (by email 4/24) Pearlman (4633, 4655, 4677, 4699 Old Ironsides Drive) interest/availability to redevelop with residential within Housing Element timeframe and so this site was maintained in the sites inventory. o Marriott Center Owners (4701 Patrick Henry Drive) worked with the City to change bylaws/CC&Rs (approved by City Council) to facilitate redevelopment of their site to residential and so the site was maintained in the sites inventory. o Realistic capacity for ten remaining PHD sites that have maximum densities of 149 du/ac and two sites that have a maximum density of 250 du/ac based on Specific Plan assumptions regarding buildout estimates (72% of the average of the low (10,300 units) and high (12,000 units) PHD residential development capacities.
 72% of 149 du/ac = 107 du/ac is a significantly lower density compared to the density for one PHD project recently approved at 122 du/ac and two other projects with pre-applications that are proposed at 123 du/ac and 147 du/ac. • Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP):
o Removed “Gemini Rosemont” (3350 – 3420 Central Expressway) parcels – owners shared their interest (via email) in potential expansion of existing industrial and so staff concluded that residential redevelopment is unlikely within the Housing Element timeframe.
o Confirmed (by phone 4/25) Sobrato (3450 Central Expressway) interest/availability to redevelop their parcel with residential within Housing Element timeframe. Lease with existing industrial tenant (ThermoFisher) has buy-out provision. Therefore, site was retained in Sites Inventory. o The expected capacity for two remaining LSAP parcels with a Very High Density Residential (VHDR) General Plan designation was recalculated based on average density of four approved/under construction LSAP projects that are also designated VHDR.
 191% of 51 du/ac = 97.4 du/ac is consistent with the four approved/under construction LSAP VHDR projects that have densities ranging from 73 to 134 du/ac (average density of 97.5 du/ac).
• Tasman East Specific Plan (TESP):
o Expected capacity for the remaining parcels with Transit Neighborhood (TN) General Plan designation (13 parcels < 1 ac and 1 parcel > 1 ac) was recalculated based on six approved/under construction TESP projects, including two 100% affordable projects, also designated TN with actual densities ranging from 131 to 237 du/ac.
 215% of 60 du/ac = 129 du/ac; 215% of 100 du/ac = 215 du/ac is within the density range of the six approved/under construction TESP projects (131 to 237 du/ac).
• El Camino Real Rezoning Sites:
o Added parcels/sites (greater than 0.5 acres and less than 10 acres) with Regional Mixed Use 37-50 du/ac (RMU) General Plan designation that will be rezoned as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update from a commercial district to a new Regional Mixed Use (RMU) zoning district.
o Realistic capacity for RMU parcels/sites based on minimum density (37 du/ac). o Recent approvals, including 100% affordable projects, and ongoing developer interest, demonstrate that existing older commercial on El Camino Real sites are not an impediment to additional residential development.  One approved/under construction 100% affordable project (Clara Gardens) on a 1.12-acre RMU designated parcel includes 120 VLI units (107 du/ac).

Attachment 5 to June 14, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report Summary of Proposed Amendments to the City of Santa Clara Housing Element by Chapter/Appendix 10 Chapter 7 Program Accomplishments (No Changes)

Appendix A Outreach
o HCD E.1.a/b Public Participation
 Added copy of Housing Action Coalition letters to City and HCD

Appendix B Parcel Inventory
o HCD A.3.c Parcel Inventory
 Added information to the sites inventory table indicating relevant factors such as age, developer interest, improvement to land value ratio
o HCD A.3.d Suitability of Nonvacant Sites
 In response to comments received regarding site suitability of certain parcels, removed several sites from the inventory (See Chapter 6 Housing Resources Realistic Capacity and Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites section). To address the reduction in the realistic capacity of sites to accommodate sufficient VLI units to meet the RHNA with an adequate buffer, rezoning sites were added along the El Camino Real corridor.

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

Addendum to the City of Santa Clara General Plan
Environmental Impact Report

Lead Agency:

City of Santa Clara
Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050

Prepared by:

MIG, Inc.
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106
Riverside, California 92507

December 21, 2022

- This document is designed for double-sided printing -

Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update i City of Santa Clara
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 1

1.1 – Purpose and Authority ................................ ................................ ............................. 1

1.2 – Addendum Analysis and CEQA Guidelines ................................ ............................. 2

1.3 – Tiering ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 3

1.4 – Organization and Scope ................................ ................................ .......................... 5

1.5 – Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5 2 Project Description................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 7

2.1 – Project Title ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 7

2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address ................................ ................................ ............ 7

2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number ................................ ................................ ........ 7

2.4 – Project Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 7

2.5 – Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ............................. 7

2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designations ................................ ................................ ...... 7

2.7 – Zoning Districts................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 8

2.8 – Project Description ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 8

2.9 – Required Approvals ................................ ................................ ............................... 23

2.10 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required ................................ ................ 24 3 Determination ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 29

3.1 – Environmental Categories Potentially Affected ................................ ...................... 29

3.2 – Determination ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 29 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................ ................................ ..................... 31

4.1 – Aesthetics ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 33

4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources ................................ ................................ ......... 37

4.3 – Air Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 40

4.4 – Biological Resources ................................ ................................ ............................. 45

4.5 – Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ 52

4.6 – Energy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 56

4.7 – Geology and Soils ................................ ................................ ................................ . 59

4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................ ................................ .................. 65

4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................ ................................ ......... 68

4.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality ................................ ................................ ................. 74

4.11 – Land Use and Planning ................................ ................................ ......................... 80

4.12 – Mineral Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ 82

4.13 – Noise ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 84

4.14 – Population and Housing ................................ ................................ ........................ 89

4.15 – Public Services ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 92

4.16 – Recreation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 97

4.17 – Transportation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 99

4.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ .................... 104

4.19 – Utilities and Service Systems ................................ ................................ .............. 107

4.20 – Wildfire ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 111

4.21 – Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................ ................................ ..... 114 5 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures ................................ ............................... 117 6 References ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 121

6.1 – List of Preparers ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 121

6.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted ................................ ................................ 121

6.3 – Bibliography ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 122

Table of Contents
ii Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
List of Tables
Table 1 City of Santa Clara RHNA 2023-2031 ................................ ................................ ............ 9 Table 2 Approved and Proposed Projects ................................ ................................ ................. 10 Table 3 Sites to Meet the RHNA ................................ ................................ ............................... 14 Table 4 General Plan Focus Areas ................................ ................................ ........................... 15

List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map ................................ ................................ ................................ 25 Exhibit 2 Existing General Plan Land Use Map ................................ ................................ ......... 27

Appendices
Appendix A 2010-2035 General Plan EIR
Appendix B 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Appendix C Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures

Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 1 City of Santa Clara
1 Introduction

This document has been prepared to serve as an addendum to the previously certified Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH # 2008092005), which was certified in January 2011, and subsequent environmental documents prepared for General Plan amendments made for the various focus areas, Specific Plan areas, and Climate Action Plans .

The City's Housing Element was last updated in 2014 in compliance with State Housing Element Law.

The adoption of the proposed Housing Element update is consistent with the state law requirement that each city and county update the housing element of its general plan every eight years in order to establish and update housing and land use strategies reflective of changing needs, resources, and conditions. The City of Santa Clara (City) is the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed City of Santa Clara General Plan Housing Element Update (project) for the 20 23-2031 planning period.

1.1 – Purpose and Authority
Pursuant to CEQA, the proposed Housing Element Update constitutes a “ project” that is subject to analysis and determination of environmental effects under CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et. seq.).

This Addendum, its appendices, and related supporting environmental documents have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the General Plan EIR and associated amendments prepared for the General Plan EIR are sufficient to address the potential impacts of the proposed Housing Element, or whether additional documentation is required under CEQA. The proposed project requires discretionary approval by the City of Santa Clara and review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). As the project initiator, and because of the legislative approvals involved, the City of Santa Clara is the Lead Agency with respect to this Addendum pursuant to §15367 of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the Project requires the City of Santa Clara ’s approval of a General Plan Amendment. No other governmental agencies have discretionary permitting authority with respect to approval of the propo sed Project, and no Trustee Agencies, as defined in §21070 of the CEQA Statutes, has jurisdiction over resources such that Trustee agency approval is required for entitlement approval.

Under CEQA, the City must determine whether the proposed changes would require a new or supplemental EIR, or whether an addendum would suffice. Section 2, Project Description, provides detailed description of the proposed changes. In determining whether an addendum is the appropriate document to analyze the modifications to the project and its approval, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) states:

a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
1 – Introduction
2 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.

1.2 – Addendum Analysis and CEQA Guidelines
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, 15164, and 15168(c). This Addendum evaluates the project ’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects previously disclosed in the 2010 General Plan EIR and CEQA documents related to subsequent General Plan amendments to determine whether any of the conditions described in Guidelines Section 15162 calling for subsequent CEQA review have occurred.

The General Plan EIR is available for review at the City’s Planning Division, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) provides that the lead agency “shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Sub-Section (c) further provides that an “addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR,” and Sub-Section (e) states that a “brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included” in the addendum, the agency’s findings, or elsewhere in the administrative record.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2) provides that “if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR will be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the EIR” and that “[w]hether a later activity is within the scope of an EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record.” Sub - Section (c)(4) further provides that “[w]here the later activities involve site -specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the EIR.” According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, once an EIR has been certified, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be prepared for a project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following occurs:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occ ur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;

b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

1 – Introduction

Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 3 City of Santa Clara
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

An addendum may be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary to a certified EIR and none of the above-stated conditions apply (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). Per the above, this Addendum functions as both an “addendum” and a “written checklist,” as called for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) and 15168(c)(4). As such, this Addendum analyzes the proposed project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects disclosed in General Plan EIR consistent with Guidelines Section 15162. Based on a review of the proposed project (as described in Section 2, Project Description) and surrounding circumstances (i.e., the Environmental Setting), this addendum concludes that there is no substantial change proposed that would require major revisions to the previous EIR; that there is no substantial change in circumstances as a result of project modifications that would cause new or substantially more severe signif icant impacts (see Section 3, Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures); and, that there is no new information of substantial importance that identifies new or more intense significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162).

1.3 – Tiering
Section 15152 et al of the CEQA Guidelines describes “tiering” as a streamlining tool as follows:

(a) "Tiering" refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and ne gative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project.

(b) Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negativ e declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy, or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site -specific EIR or negative declaration. Tiering does not excuse the lead agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects of the project and does not justify deferr ing such analysis to a later tier EIR or negative declaration. However, the level of detail contained in a first tier EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed.

(c) Where a lead agency is using the tierin g process in connection with an EIR for a large -scale planning approval, such as a general plan or component thereof (e.g., an area plan or community plan), the development of detailed, site -specific information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the lead agency prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of a more limited geographical scale, as long as deferral does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand.

1 – Introduction
4 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
(d) Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to affects which:

(1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or

(2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means.

(e) Tiering under this section shall be limited to situations where the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning of the city or county in which t he project is located, except that a project requiring a rezone to achieve or maintain conformity with a general plan may be subject to tiering.

(f) A later EIR shall be required when the initial study or other analysis finds that the later project may cause significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in the prior EIR.

A negative declaration shall be required when the provisions of Section 15070 are met.

(1) Where a lead agency determines that a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in the prior EIR that effect is not treated as significant for purposes of the later EIR or negative declaration and need not be discussed in detail.

(2) When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the lead agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project would be considerable when viewed in the context of past, present, and probable future projects. At this point, the question is not whether there is a significant cumulative impact, but whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. For a discussion on how to assess whether project impacts are cumulatively considerable, see Section 15064(i).

(3) Significant environmental effects have been "adequately addressed" if th e lead agency determines that:

(A) they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental report; or

(B) they have been examined at a sufficient level o f detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.

(g) When tiering is used, the later EIRs or negative declarations shall refer to the prior EIR and state where a copy of the prior EIR may be examined. The later EIR or negative declaration should state that the lead agency is using the tiering concept and that it is being tiered with the earlier EIR.

(h) There are various types of EIRs that may be used in a tiering situation. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) General Plan EIR (Section 15166)
(2) Staged EIR (Section 15167)
(3) Program EIR (Section 15168)
(4) Master EIR (Section 15175)
1 – Introduction

Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 5 City of Santa Clara
(5) Multiple-family residential development/residential and commercial or retail mixed -use development (Section 15179.5)
(6) Redevelopment project (Section 15180)
(7) Projects consistent with community plan, general plan, or zoning (Section 15183)

This Addendum for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update has been prepared to tier from the General Plan “Program” EIR of the City of Santa Clara dated January 2011 (See Appendix A), and subsequent environmental documents prepared for subsequent General Plan amendments. For the City of Santa Clara, documents by which the analysis recorded herein has been tiered from are available for public review at:

City of Santa Clara
Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

1.4 – Organization and Scope
Although this document is not an initial study, in the interest of thorough disclosure t his document has been organized to comply with Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines , which sets forth the required contents of an Initial Study. These include:

 A description of the project, including the location of the project (see Section 2)  Identification of the environmental setting (see Section 2.8)  Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other methods, provided that entries on the checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries (see Section 3)
 Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls (see Sections 2.6 and 2.7)  The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study (see Section 5.1)

1.5 – Conclusions
The City of Santa Clara may approve the proposed project bas ed on this Addendum. The impacts of the proposed project remain within the impacts previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and associated amendments (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). The proposed project does not require any major revisions to the Gener al Plan EIR. No new significant information or changes in circumstances surrounding the proposed project have occurred since the approval of the General Plan EIR and EIR’s related to subsequent specific plans and area plans that a mended the General Plan . Therefore, the previous CEQA analyses completed for the General Plan EIR and associated amendments remain adequate. The applicable mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval from the General Plan EIR and associated amendments would be imposed on the proposed project as described herein. The proposed project does not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR, due to either the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As illustrated herein, the proposed project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR and associated amendments and would involve only minor changes; therefore, an Addendum is appropriate CEQA compliance for the proposed project. 1 – Introduction
6 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

2 – Project Description
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 7 City of Santa Clara
2 Project Description

2.1 – Project Title
City of Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Santa Clara
Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050

2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number
John Davidson, Principal Planner
(408) 615-2478

2.4 – Project Location
The City of Santa Clara is located in north-central Santa Clara County (See Exhibit 1, Regional Context Map). Santa Clara is at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay, approximately 40 miles south of the City of San Francisco. The Planning Area encompasses all incorporated areas located within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clara.

2.5 – Environmental Setting
The City of Santa Clara is essentially built out and the existing land use pattern is predominantly characterized by single fa mily neighborhoods, retail commercial corridors , and industrial/office employment centers (See Exhibit 2, Existing General Plan Land Use Map). These uses are largely separated by major transportation facilities located in the City. U.S. Highway 101 traverses east-west through the center of the City, while State Route 237 is located to the north and Interstates 880 and 280 skirt the southeast and southwest corners of the City, respectively. Existing transit lines include Caltrain, Altamont Commuter Express ( ACE), Capitol Corridor, and Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus and light rail. The City of Santa Clara covers approximately 18.4 square miles of land, and is completely surrounded by neighboring cities: San José to the north, east and south, and Sunnyvale and Cupertino to the west. The City is located at the center of the Santa Clara Valley, between the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest and the Diablo Range to the northeast. Three seasonal creeks run through the City and empty into the southern portion of the San Francisco Bay: the San Tomas Aquino, Saratoga and Calabazas Creeks. Additionally, the City is bordered by the Guadalupe River to the northeast.

2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designations
Existing General Plan residential and mixed -use land use de signations that support housing development within the City of Santa Clara include: Very Low Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Very High Density Residential, Neighborhood Mixed Use, Community Mixed Use, Regional Mixed Use, Downtown Core, Santa Clara Station Area, Urban Center/Entertainment, Transit Neighborhood, Village Residential, Urban Village, Urban Center, and High Density Flex.
2 – Project Description
8 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

2.7 – Zoning Districts
Existing zoning districts that support housing development within the City of Santa Clara include: R1 - 8L – Single-Family Larger Lot Area, R1 -6L – Single-Family, R2-7L – Duplex, R3-18D – Low-Density Multiple-Dwelling, R3-25D – Moderate-Density Multiple-Dwelling, R3-36D – Medium-Density multiple- Dwelling, R3-M – Mobile Home Park, MU – Mixed Use, TMU – Transit-Oriented Mixed Use, VHDMU – Very High Density Mixed Use, TN – Transit Neighborhood, LSAP – Lawrence Station Area Plan, PH- R5-100 – Patrick Henry Very -High-Density Residential Zone , UV-149D – Urban Village, VR -149D – Village Residential, UC-250D – Urban Center, and HD Flex – High Density Flex.

2.8 – Project Description
The proposed Project would amend the 2010-2035 City of Santa Clara General Plan. The City Council adopted the General Plan on November 16, 2010, and concurrently certified an Environmental Impact Report. Since that time, the Council has adopted a series of General Plan amendments, for which each one was accompanied by either an addendum to the General Plan EIR , a negative declaration , or a subsequent EIR. The most significant of these amendments are listed below:

 December 3, 2013: Adoption of 2013 Climate Action Plan and Negative Declaration  December 4, 2014: Adoption of 2015 – 2023 Housing Element and revisions to land use policies and EIR Addendum
 June 28, 2016: Related Santa Clara Project and EIR
 February 23, 2016: Mission Town Center EIR
 November 29, 2016: Lawrence Station Area Plan and EIR  July 17, 2018: 575 Benton Project and Addendum to Mission Town Center EIR  July 9, 2019: Gateway Crossings Project and EIR
 March 22, 2022: Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan and EIR  June 7, 2022: Adoption of 2022 Climate Action Plan and EIR Addendum  June 7, 2022: Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan, 3905 Freedom Circle Mixed -Use Project, and EIR

References in this document to the “Subsequent EIRs” include all of the environmental documents listed above.

The specific amendments contemplated include the adoption of the 2023–2031 Housing Element of the Santa Clara General Plan , implementation of identified programs and polices set forth in the draft Housing Element, and General Plan text amendments that would allow for zoning code standards to align with current uses (See Appendix B). The State of California has mandated that all local jurisdictions within the Bay Area have approved updated Housing Elements to reflect current “fair share” housing allocations for each City and County. The State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) reviews all Housing Elements to determ ine compliance with State Law governing the content of these Elements.

Housing Element Requirements

The Housing Element is one of seven required elements of the General Plan. It addresses existing and future housing needs of persons in all economic segme nt groups and serves as a tool for decision - makers and the public in understanding and meeting housing needs in Santa Clara. While the law does not require local governments to actually construct housing to meet identified needs, it does require that the community address housing needs in its discretionary planning actions by creating opportunities for 2 – Project Description

Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 9 City of Santa Clara
housing in the land use plan and facilitating housing development through policy. Housing Elements are legal documents, included within a community’s General Plan, that identify housing related conditions, provide an assessment of housing needs for the next eight-year period of time, identify housing resources, identify housing opportunities and constraints, and establish policies, programs, and quantified housing objectives to achieve City housing needs.

Statutory Requirements

State law requires that all housing elements address four key topics: 1) housing needs, 2) constraints to housing development, 3) housing resources, and 4) a housing plan. Analysis of these topics provides the foundation for the preparation of a housing element. Article 10.6, Section 65580 – 65589.11, Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code sets forth the legal requirements for a housing element and encourages the provision of affordable and decent housing in suitable living environments for all communities to meet statewide goals. The 2023-2031 Housing Element update is a policy document of the City of Santa Clara regarding current and projected future housing needs, and the City’s goals, policies, and programs to address those identified needs, and represents a focused update to the City’s adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element, which was found to be fully in compliance with State law by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Housing Needs Assessment

Several factors influence the demand for housing in Santa Clara. The four major needs categories considered in the Housing Element include: 1) current population and population growth, including age, race, ethnicity, and employment; 2) household characteristics, including household type, income levels, and the presence of special needs populations ; 3) housing stock characteristics, including overcrowding, housing condition, and housing cost ; and 4) housing needs of "special needs groups" such as persons with disabilities, the elderly, large households, farmworkers , female -headed households, and people experiencing homelessness.

The City of Santa Clara 2023-2031 Housing Element profiles key community demographics and examines the related housing needs of various groups, including owners versus renters, lower-income households, overcrowded households, elderly households, special needs groups, and homeles s persons. This information is detailed in the Housing Element Update (See Appendix B). California Housing Element law requires a quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need as established in the RHNA-Plan prepared by the jurisdiction’s council of governments. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in conjunction with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), determine a projected housing need for the region covered by ABAG. This share, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), is 441,776 new housing units for the 2023-2031 planning period throughout the ABAG region. ABAG has, in turn, allocated this share among its constituent jurisdictions, distributing to each its own RHNA divided along income levels. The City of Santa Clara has a RHNA of 11,632 housing units to accommodate in the housing element period, with the units distributed among the four income categories shown in Table 1 (City of Santa Clara RHNA (2023-2031)).

Table 1
City of Santa Clara RHNA 2023-2031
Income Group
Income Category
(%AMI)
RHNA (Housing
Units)
Percentage of Total
Housing Units
Very Low <50% 2,872 25%
Low 50-80% 1,653 14%
2 – Project Description
10 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Moderate 80-120% 1,981 17%
Above Moderate >120% 5,126 44%
Total 11,632 100%
Source(s): Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023 -2031, Updated March 2022.

Note(s):
1 AMI = Area Median Income
2 Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are required to project the housing needs of extremely low -income households (0 -30% AMI) and considers this income group a subset of the very -low income category. In estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation or apportion the very low-income figure based on Census data.

Progress Towards the RHNA

Since the RHNA uses June 30, 2022, as the baseline for growth projections for the Housing Element planning period of 2023 to 2031, jurisdictions may count units approved, proposed, or under construction that are anticipated to be complete (have a Certificate of Occupancy) after June 30, 2022.

Proposed and approved residential development projects credited toward the RHNA include a variety of affordable and market rate proje cts in various stages of the development process. Many of these projects are concentrated within Specific Plan areas and along major thoroughfares. Approved and proposed projects are credited toward the RHNA based on the affordability and unit count of the development. A total of 12,712 units from the following approved and proposed project list are expected to be completed within the planning period. Combined, these pipeline projects can accommodate 12,712 total units as shown in Table 2 (Approved and Proposed Projects). Although there is a surplus of above moderate units, the City has a remaining RHNA of 1,033 moderate -income units and 3,698 lower-income units to be addressed through ADU projections and site identification.

Table 2
Approved and Proposed Projects
Site/Credit Type Total Units Project Status
Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan
TE 2233 Calle Del Mundo (St. Anton) 196 Under Construction TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related) 700 Under Construction TE 5123 Calle Del Sol (Ensemble) - Phase I & II 503 Approved/Under Construction TE 2200 Calle De Luna (Holland) 580 Approved
TE 2225 Calle de Luna & 2232 Calle del Mundo 371 Approved TE 2263 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) 301 Approved
TE 2302/2310 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) 151 Approved
TE 2343 Calle Del Mundo (Summerhill) 347 Approved
TE 2354 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) 89 Approved
TE 2101 Tasman Drive (Related) 950 Proposed
TE 5185 Lafayette (Ensemble) 271 Proposed
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
PHD Summerhill 300 Proposed
PHD Sares Regis 800 Pre-application 1
PHD Walnut Hill 416 Pre-application 2
Lawrence Station Area Plan
LSAP 3580 Rambla Pl (Summerhill) 286 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) 38 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) 45 Under Construction LSAP 3517 Ryder St (Westlake Urban) 328 Approved
Freedom Circle Focus Area
I
I
2 – Project Description

Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 11 City of Santa Clara
3905 Freedom Circle Mixed-Use Project (Greystar) 1,075 Approved Other
Villa Bella Residential Project 56 Under Construction
3035 El Camino Real Residential Project 48 Under Construction 3945 Stevens Creek Blvd - The Meridian 59 Under Construction 2330 Monroe Street Affordable Housing Project (Freebird) 65 Under Construction Agrihood Mixed-Use Development Project 361 Under Construction Laguna Clara II (Equity) 183 Under Construction
Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 1 725 Under Construction Clara Gardens - 3550 El Camino Real 120 Approved/Under Construction 1530-1540 Pomeroy Avenue Residential Project 8 Approved Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 1,680 Approved
Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 2 840 Proposed 950 Monroe Street Mixed-Use Project 54 Proposed
TOTAL PENDING AND APPROVED PROJECTS 11,946
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, June 2022.

Note(s): All calculations were rounded down. There are likely discrepancies due to rounding down between the row and column totals.
1 Application expected Dec 2022
2 Application expected early 2023

Approved Projects
Approved projects have been reviewed for compliance with applicable Codes and regulations and have received planning entitlement approval. Projects will proceed through the building permit application review, issuance, and construction process within the planning period.

Projects Under Construction
These projects are under construction, with anticipated completion and occupancy permits to be finalized after June 30, 2022.

Pending/Under Review Projects
Approved projects have been reviewed for compliance with applicable Codes and regulations and have received planning entitlement approval. Projects will proceed through the building permit application review, issuance, and construction process within the planning period.

Default Density Assumptions
The California Government Code states that if a local government has adopted density standards consistent with the population-based criteria set by State law (at least 30 units per acre for Santa Clara), HCD is obligated to accept sites with those dens ity standards (30 units per acre or higher) as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdiction’s share of regional housing need for lower -income households. Default density is considered by the State sufficient to provide market-based incentives for the development of housing for lower-income households.

The Santa Clara General Plan (adopted in 2010) identifies ten Focus Areas appropriate for higher density residential and mixed-use development. A detailed discussion of density assumptions and the affordability level of sites is included below.

Site Suitability and Lot Consolidation
Consistent with Housing Element law related to the suitability of small and large sites, the inventory of lower-income sites is limited to parcels between 0.5 and 10 acres in size. Due to the City’s historical parcelization pattern, the inclusion of small sites in the inventory is expected. To adhere to State law and HCD guidance, small sites (under 0.5 acres) are not used to meet the lower-income RHNA. There 2 – Project Description
12 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
are 10 available sites included in the inventory with a parcel size under 0.5 acres. All of these are located in the Tasman East Specific Plan area and range between 0.458 and 0.482 acres. Parcels of similar size have been developed with residential within the last housing element cycle in the Tasman East Specific Plan area. While these sites have densities that are appropriate for lower-income RHNA sites and meet the default density standard, they are all credited toward the moderate- and above moderate- income categories. No sites in the inventory are larger than 10 acres. Although many of the parcels identified as sites are adjacent to one another, no lot consolidation is assumed.

Realistic Capacity and Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites
Housing Element law requires jurisdic tions to demonstrate that the land inventory is adequate to accommodate that jurisdiction’s share of the region’s projected growth. Santa Clara has a remaining RHNA of 4,985 units to be achieved through the identification of sites. The City has various residential and mixed-use development opportunities on sites that are currently available , although all sites are non-vacant. All available sites are within Specific Plan areas. Each project demonstrates that the project’s actual density was developed higher than the minimum density allowed. Because each Specific Plan has its own distinct land use designations and affordability requirements, realistic capacity for available sites was calculated based on the average of percent above minimum density allowed per Specific Plan of existing and approved projects. Percent above the minimum density allowed was used to remain conservative, realistic, and to account for the wide range of Specific Plan densities allowed (from 20 du/ac in Lawrence Station to 350 du/ac maxi mum in Tasman East). In every case, claiming realistic capacity using the methodology and assumptions defined here yields total unit counts below the maximum density allowed.

Development Trends and Realistic Capacity
Current development trends in the Specific Plan areas show that a range of medium to high residential density is feasible, realistic, and appropriate to accommodate housing for all income levels. Since the City’s adoption of the Lawrence Station Area Plan and Tasman East Specific Plan, Santa Clara has seen an uptick in development and development interest.

Densities Appropriate for Accommodating Lower-Income Housing The capacity of sites that allow development densities of at least 30 units per acre are credited toward the lower-income RHNA based on State law. The California Government Code states that if a local government has adopted density standards consistent with the population -based criteria set by State law (at least 30 units per acre for Santa Clara), HCD is obligated to accept sites with those density standards (30 units per acre or higher) as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdiction’s share of regional housing need for lower-income households. All available sites included in this inventory, except for three sites zoned Medium Density Residential (20-36 du/ac), have density standards of 30 units per acre or higher. Located within the Lawrence Station Area Plan, the three sites zone d Medium Density Residential (20 – 36 du/ac) are credited toward the moderate- and above-moderate income categories.

To create a more conservative and realistic estimate of affordability for Santa Clara, available sites that qualify for one hundred percent affordable units based on the allowed density are split evenly between the very low-, low-, and moderate-income categories 33.33 percent, 33.33 percent, and 33.33 percent, respectively.

Re-use of Sites
AB 1397 (2017) requires that specific parameters be placed on sites that were used in previous Housing Element planning cycles but did not develop and are identified in the current Housing Element to meet 2 – Project Description

Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 13 City of Santa Clara
the lower-income RHNA. However, as noted in HCD guidance documents, due to updates in the prior planning period to the General Plan or other planning activities, such as the creation of a specific plan, some sites previously identified in the Housing Element may hav e been rezoned during intervening years to allow a higher density, thereby increasing the potential housing capacity of the site. Because the zoning characteristics of such a site have changed, that site can be considered a new site for the purposes of the housing element inventory.

All sites in this Housing Element are Specific Plan and focus area parcels, including some previously identified in the fifth cycle. Parcels identified in the fifth cycle subsequently rezoned to a higher density through their respective Specific Plan processes were not rezoned to accommodate a shortfall; rather, the rezoning was conducted to implement General Plan policy. Thus, no sites are subject to the reuse provisions of AB 1397 (2017).

No Net Loss Provision
Government Code Section 65863 stipulates that a jurisdiction must ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate its share of the RHNA by income level throughout the planning period (2023-2031). If a jurisdiction approves a housing project at a lower density or with fewer units by income category than identified in the Housing Element, it must quantify at the time of approval the remaining unmet housing need at each income level and determine whether there is sufficient capacity to meet that need. If not, the city must “identify and make available” additional adequate sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of housing need by income level within 180 days of approving the reduced - density project. This provision is commonly referred to as the "no net loss” provision of Housing Element law.

ADU Projections

Since 2017, the State legislature has passed a series of laws that significantly increase the potential for development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs (JADUs) by removing development barriers, allowing ADUs through ministerial permits, and requiring jurisdictions to include programs in their housing element that incentivize ADU development. Interest in constructing ADUs is high in Santa Clara and continues to grow. In 2018, the City issued 21 ADU building permits. In 2019, the number increased to 51 annual building permits, with similar numbers in 2020 (45 ADU building permits) and 2021 (53 ADU building permits). This represents a 152 per cent increase in ADU production in Santa Clara between 2018 and 2021. The City estimates that interest will continue to increase over the next few years, given the many single -family neighborhoods citywide that create capacity for additional ADUs. As of Ju ne 2022, 53 percent (or 16,103 parcels) of total parcels were zoned for single -family housing, totaling 2,504 acres. ADUs are permitted on single -family, multi-family, and mixed-use lots, including R1, R2, and R3 zoning districts, which represent a significant number of lots in Santa Clara.

As an incentive to ADU production, the City does not charge a Planning fee for review/processing ADU requests. Also, State law allows jurisdictions to charge impact fees on ADUs over 750 square feet, but the City of Sant a Clara does not. The City has also exempted ADUs/JADUs from providing parking .

The slight dip in ADU production in 2020 may be due to the COVD -19 pandemic and other events of 2020. In 2021, the City had the highest number of ADU building permits to date, which is likely more representative of ADU production moving forward based on ADU trends in Santa Clara, new and pending favorable ADU legislation that created new incentives and streamlined processes to build ADUs, and the pent-up demand for additional housing in the Bay Area. While it is impossible to predict with certainty the exact number of ADUs that will be developed during the planning period (2023-2031), the City conservatively estimates:

2 – Project Description
14 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
 An average of 43 ADUs per year will be constructed throughout the planning period. This reflects the average number of building permits issued for ADUs between 2018 and 2021. Given the anticipated increase in ADUs over the near term, this is a conservative estimate.  A total of 344 ADUs can be predicted to be constructed during the planning period.

The affordability assumptions for ADU projections are based on ABAG’s ADU affordability analysis endorsed by HCD.1

Site Selection

The Housing Element sites inventory, in addition to the list of pending and approved projects, includes accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projections and vacant and underutilized sites within Specific Plan areas zoned for high-density residential and mixed-use development. These latter two categories have been used to demonstrate that the RHNA f or the extremely low -, very low -, low - and moderate-income categories can be accommodated during the planning period. As the discussion below concludes, the sites have no identified constraints that would prevent development or reuse during the Housing Element period. Table 3 (Sites to Meet the RHNA), below, summarizes the sites inventory.

Table 3
Sites to Meet the RHNA
Site
Affordability Category
Total
Capacity Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Pending and Approved Projects 390 320 811 9,566 11,946 ADU Projection 102 102 102 34 340
Available Specific Plan Sites 3,049 3,049 3,354 305 9,808 Total 3,541 3,471 4,267 9,905 22,094
RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Difference +669 +1,818 +2,286 +4,779 +10,462
Source(s): Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, Updated March 2022. Technical Assistance for Local Planning, Housing – Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA, Technical Memo, March 2022.

Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, March 2022. Lawrence Station Area Plan, Neighborhood Transit - Oriented Development Plan, Nov. 2016. Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan, Nov. 2020.

Note(s): AMI = Area Median Income

Available Specific Plan Sites

Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Geographies
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and ABAG jointly adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 in October 2021. Thirty-five strategies make up the heart of the plan to improve housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment acros s the Bay Area’s nine counties. Throughout Plan Bay Area 2050, Growth Geographies are geographic areas used to guide where future growth in housing and jobs would be focused under the plan’s strategies over the next 30 years. These geographies are identified for growth either by local jurisdictions or because of their proximity to transit or access to opportunity. All sites included in th e Housing Element are considered Priority Development Areas (PDAs), defined as areas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are locally identified (i.e., identified by towns, cities, or counties) for housing and job growth.

1 ABAG estimates an affordability breakdown of ADUs as follows: 30% very low-income, 30% low-income, 30% moderate-income, and 10% above moderate-income. Technical Assistance for Local Planning, Housing – Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA, Technical Memo, March 2022. 2 – Project Description

Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 15 City of Santa Clara

2010-2035 General Plan Focus Areas, Focus Area Plans, and Related Planning Efforts In 2010, the City of Santa Clara adopted its co mprehensive 2010-2035 General Plan, which included identification of nine focus areas throughout the City, listed in Table 4 (General Plan Focus Area s).

These areas were chosen for their potential to significantly define Santa Clara’s identity as a place i n transition from a suburb to a regional economic center. The opportunity to develop at a higher density near transit is central to this new identity. A comprehensive plan, such as a specific plan, is a required prerequisite for new residential development within a focus area. The purpose of these plans and the prerequisite requirements ensure that new neighborhoods are self-sufficient, with easy access to retail, services, and public amenities. Specific Plans also ensure that adequate public services and facilities are provided in tandem with new development. In 2014, the City initiated updates to the Housing Element and Land Use policies that identify and require future development to be comprehensively planned through the preparation of Specific Plans within the Lawrence Station and Tasman East Focus Areas. Of the nine focus areas identified in the 2010-2035 General Plan, four have resulted in Specific Plans, three of which have been adopted. The Freedom Circle Future Focus Area was added to the General Plan in June 2022, while preparation of this sixth cycle Housing Element was well underway.

A specific plan has not been drafted or adopted for this focus area, and therefore the focus area, with the exception of the Greystar site that had its own approved General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to allow residential development, was not included in the sites inventory. However, properties within that planning area could become available during the planning period if a specific plan were adopted, helping to guard against the loss of affordable housing capacity.

Table 4
General Plan Focus Areas
2010-2035 General Plan Focus Area Related Planning Effort Status Downtown Focus Area Santa Clara Downtown Precise
Plan Draft, Nov. 2022
Santa Clara Station Focus Area None N/A
Stevens Creek Boulevard Focus Area None N/A
El Camino Real Focus Area El Camino Real Specific Plan Draft May 2021 Lawrence Station Focus Area Lawrence Station Area Plan Adopted Nov. 2016 Tasman East Focus Area Tasman East Focus Area Specific
Plan
Adopted Nov. 2018; Revised,
Nov. 2020
Great America Parkway Focus Area Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan Adopted, Mar. 2022
Freedom Circle Focus Area Freedom Circle Future Focus
Area Plan Adopted, June 2022
Central Expressway Focus Area None N/A
De La Cruz Focus Area None N/A
Source(s): City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan, Nov. 2010. Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, March 2022. Lawrence Station Area Plan, Neighborhood Transit-Oriented Development Plan, Nov. 2016. Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan, Nov. 2020.

Focus Areas and Specific Plans

A considerable portion of Santa Clara is designated for specific plan development. The City has three approved Specific Plans with a significant number of sites and residential development capacity remaining. Combined, the sites identified in the Lawrence Station, Tasman East, and Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan areas have enough capacity to satisfy the outstandi ng RHNA (i.e., the remaining RHNA after pending and proposed projects in Table 2), with 6,336 total units distributed among the four income categories as shown in Table s 3 and 4 . The Specific Plan areas provide opportunities for development of market -rate and affordable housing. Development types authorized by the approved 2 – Project Description
16 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Specific Plans include multi -unit and mixed-use development. None of the listed Specific Plan areas have any site restrictions or governmental constraints that would impede development. Further detail is provided in the following sections. The Specific Plan sites have a high level of certainty to develop given that:

 Through the adoption and implementation of each City-initiated Specific Plan, all parcels within each area have been re-zoned to accommodate high density residential development.  Specific parameters for densities, uses, development standards, and minimum affordability requirements have already been established.
 No recent, significant enhancements have been made to these sites.  Infrastructure is either in place, or planned for, in support of proposed land uses, addressing transportation, wet utilities, solid waste management, and energy services and systems. For both the Tasman East and Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plans, an infr astructure fee has been created to apportion costs between developers in the Plan Areas.  Redevelopment of nonresidential uses into high density residential and mixed-use has already occurred, illustrating developer and property owner interest and the finan cial feasibility of site redevelopment.
 All land use designations within the Specific Plan areas have established minimum densities.  No land use designation in the Tasman East Specific Plan or Lawrence Station Area Plan areas allows for stand-alone nonresidential uses.
 The City has financial resources available to support the development of affordable housing.  All developments in the Tasman East Specific Plan area adhere to the affordable housing requirements referenced in Section 17.40.115 of the Santa Clara City Code. For-sale and rental affordable units shall be maintained as affordable housing for not less than 20 years applicable to for-sale units and 55 years applicable to rental units.  In recognition of the conversion of employment uses to residential land, the Patrick Henry Specific Plan calls for a higher level of affordability than is required by ordinance. Affordable housing requirements for the Patrick Henry Specific Plan will provide 15 percent affordable units split equally between three afforda bility levels of 50 percent, 80 percent, and 120 percent of Area Median Income (AMI).
 Additionally, affordability by design in Specific Plan areas is encouraged, with the development of smaller units targeted for those who desire a walkable, urban lifestyle.

Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan
Adopted in November 2018, the Tasman East Specific Plan regulates the development of 46.1 acres of land located near the City’s northern boundary. Approved for the development of 4,500 units, full buildout of the area will likely occur by 2038. The Specific Plan area includes 34 parcels situated east of Lafayette Street, north of Tasman Drive, west of the Guadalupe River Trail, and south of the Santa Clara Tennis and Golf Club property. Each parcel of one acre or mor e in size is required to accommodate a minimum density of 100 dwelling units per acre. Each parcel of less than one acre in size is required to achieve a minimum density of 60 dwelling units per acre. There are no density maximums for individual parcels. Approximately half of the Tasman East Specific Plan’s parcels, on 31 acres, have been redeveloped from a mix of light industrial and business park uses to a high density residential neighborhood with a mix of uses at the ground floor. Eleven projects within the Specific Plan area were counted toward the sixth cycle RHNA as approved, proposed, or under construction. The area’s remaining parcels, on 10 acres, have been identified as sites and remain to be re -developed.

Assuming the realistic capacities, on a parcel-level, the remaining Tasman East Specific Plan area sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 913 units.

2 – Project Description

Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 17 City of Santa Clara

Lawrence Station Area Plan
The Santa Clara Lawrence Station Area Plan Area is located northeast of the Lawrence Caltrain Station, bounded by Central Expressway to the north, Kifer Road to the South, Lawrence Expressway to the west, and Calabazas Creek to the east, encompassing approximately 72 acres (65 acres of developable land area excluding existing public right -of-way). Adopted in 2016, the Lawrence Station Area Plan is largely developed. Residential uses have replaced the areas original uses: one- and two-story buildings, generally occupied by light industrial (including manufacturing and warehousing uses), office (including R&D and data centers), and various other commercial uses. Originally approved for the development of 3,500 residential units, 13 parcels, on approximately 30 acres, remain to be developed and are included in this Housing Element’s site selection. Assuming realistic capacities, on a parcel-level, the remaining Lawrence Station Area Plan sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 2,756 units.

Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
In March 2022, the City Council approved the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. The planning area encompasses approximately 73.59 acres bounded by Sunnyvale and Calabazas Creek to the west, the southern edge of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission right -of-way to the north, Great America Parkway to the east, and Mission College to the south. As one of the City’s first high-density residential neighborhoods, Patrick Henry Drive will add thousands of units to better balance the City’s jobs-housing ratio, a share of which will be income restricted to help meet regional and local affordability goals.

Several regional destinations and amenities are nearby, including Levi’s Stadium, Great America Theme Park, and the Santa Clara Convention Center. The VTA light rail station at Old Ironsides and Tasman Drive is just over one -half mile, or an approximately 10 -minute walk, from the center of the Specific Plan area. The Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan resulted f rom a collaborative planning effort involving the City, area property owners, and the Santa Clara community. The plan will create a 73.59- acre high-density, residential neighborhood located near regional destinations, including job -centers, transit, and ot her amenities. At buildout, the project will accommodate up to 12,000 new residential dwelling units and 310,000 square feet of nonresidential uses, including 200,000 square feet of other new neighborhood-serving retail and public facilities, such as libraries and community spaces. New and improved pedestrian and bicycle connections, trails, and parks will link neighborhoods and enhance connections to nearby amenities and recreation destinations. Careful planning will ensure adequate infrastructure and services to support the proposed new development. Targeted residential densities range from a minimum of 51 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 250 units per acre. These densities will help meet the demand for housing that addresses job and retail growth i n the City and region.

Assuming the realistic capacities, on a parcel-level, the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 6,139 units.

General Plan Amendment

The proposed Housing Element Update includes amendments to the General Plan removing the following three Future Focus Areas: Lawrence Station Phase II, De La Cruz, and Central Expressway. ( These Future Focus Areas were determined internally to have limited value for residential uses based on existing uses both in and around the to-be-deleted Future Focus Areas. None of these future focus areas were included in the inventory of sites for potential future housing element, in either the proposed housing element or any prior housing element. The project also amends the General Plan to make the High-Intensity Office District more relevant to current business practices by removing the 10% cap on manufacturing uses in the High-Intensity Office/Research and Development designation and removing the 20% manufacturing cap from the Low-Intensity Office/Research and Development designation. The General Plan Amendment also proposes to allow medical facilities on a limited basis in the Low - and High-Intensity Office/Research and Development designations. 2 – Project Description
18 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

Proposed Housing Element Update Goals and Policies

The Housing Element Update’s goals and policies have been established to meet state law housing requirements and support the City’s vision of providing decent housing and a suitable living environment for every resident. The Housing Plan identifies the City’s goals for neighborhood conservation, housing production, housing support, and housing opportunities. The goals are supported by policies which are implemented through a series of actions. To make adequate provision for the housing needs for people of all income levels, the Housing Element Update includes the following goals and policies:

Goal A Create and maintain high-quality, livable, and diverse housing stock within the City of Santa Clara.

Policy A-1: Maintain and improve the quality of residential housing stock, address housing deficiencies and prevent future blight through the encouragement of ongo ing maintenance, rehabilitation, and conservation of existing housing stock.

Policy A-2: Provide residential code enforcement for conformance with City Code and Zoning Ordinance regulations.

Policy A-3: Utilize objective design standards to streamline the housing development process.

Policy A-4: Seek collaborative efforts with regional entities and utility service providers to subsidize and incentivize residential energy and water conservation.

Policy A-5: Proactively plan for sufficient housing capacity through infill development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods and through the preparation of neighborhood plans that will support the development of new, complete neighborhoods.

Goal B Designate suitable vacant or underutilized sites for new residential development.

Policy B-1: Identify potential sites for affordable housing units in areas of “high opportunity” as defined by the state.

Policy B-2: Encourage the building of high -density housing on appropriate vacant or underutilized sites.

Policy B-3: Identify and facilitate the award of local, regional, state, and federal funding sources to support housing development, housing infrastructure, and amenities.

Policy B-4: Identify and potentially designate surplus land that can accommodate low, very-low, and extremely low-income residential development.

Policy B-5: Encourage high density residential development utilizing the City’s higher density and mixed-use residential designations in proximity to transit and other residential services.

Goal C Increase special needs housing opportunities for persons of all economic levels.

Policy C-1: The City shall collaborate with services agencies and community-based organizations to prioritize loans and grants toward housing for seniors, persons with disabilities, persons with mental illness, large families with children, female -headed households, victims of domestic violence, and people who are experiencing homelessness. 2 – Project Description

Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 19 City of Santa Clara

Policy C-2: Improve proximity and connections between special needs housing and high -quality transit stops, job centers, educational institutions, day care, open space, community services, and healthy food options.

Policy C-3: Participate in local, regional, State, and federal programs and efforts that support affordable, transitional, supportive, and permanent housing and address the needs of disadvantaged populations and those experiencing homelessness.

Policy C-4: Ensure compliance with all State and federal regulations relating to housing opportunities and the prevention of discrimination based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or mental or physical disability and any other protected classes under federal and State law.

Goal D Promote a variety of housing types, tenure, and location, including higher density where possible, especially for lower and moderate income and special needs households.

Policy D-1: Continue to identify and apply for funding that supports the develop ment of housing for extremely-low and very low-income residents and special needs households.

Policy D-2: Continue to utilize General Plan land use and zoning updates to provide increased opportunity and flexibility in providing a variety of housing types and tenure.

Policy D-3: Periodically review the City’s ordinances, policies, and procedures and make changes as necessary to reduce or remove constraints to housing development.

Policy D-4: Promote the use of density bonuses and development incentives to facilitate a variety of housing types and tenure.

Policy D-5: Encourage the construction of accessory and junior accessory dwelling units through outreach, education, and links to regional technical assistance.

Goal E Affirmatively further fair housing by increasing access to opportunity, reducing displacement impacts, reducing cost burden, targeting outreach to lower income residents, and rehabilitating substandard living conditions.

Policy E-1: Improve access to opportunity by working to impr ove the quality of life for residents of lower income communities, as well as supporting residents’ mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.

Policy E-2: Work to reduce displacement of lower income residents from Santa Clara and to reduce the impact of relocation on low-income households.

Policy E-3: Conduct proactive outreach in areas of the City with less access to opportunity, to build awareness of services including fair housing complaint investigation, landlord tenant mediation, eviction and homelessness prevention counseling, and opportunities to apply for new affordable housing through the HouseKeys application portal.

Policy E-4: Conduct regular outreach, education, and affirmative marketing with community partners that have access to populations experiencing disproportionate housing problems and 2 – Project Description
20 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
encourage early participation from a diverse set of residents and other stakeholders in the development of long-range plans and the review of new development proposals.

Policy E-5: Increase public participation by translating public outreach documents (e.g., flyers, surveys) as part of the public participation process and when marketing the City’s affordable housing lotteries.

Policy E-6: Continue to provide, when appropriate and feasible, options for either virtual, in-person, or hybrid community meetings to allow for broader community participation.

Housing Element Update Implementing Actions

Each Goal outlined in the Housing Plan is supported by one or more policies, which are often implemented by specific actions. Many of the identified actions below will implement multiple policies and goals. Some policies offer direction to Staff and appointed/elected officials in making decisions related to the provision of housing but are not implemented through specific housing programs.

Action 1: Provision of a Variety of Housing Types
The City of Santa Clara supports and encourages the development of a variety of housing types to rent and to own in a variety of locations to maintain social and economic diversity in the community. During the Housing Element planning period, the City will promote the development of accessory units, affordable one - and two -story additions to single -family homes, and other low er income housing alternatives.

Action 2: Affordable Housing Ordinance
The City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance requires developers of residential developments of 10 or more units to provide the following:

 Rental projects - 15% of rental units must be affordable to renters of extremely low, ve ry low, low, and moderate income households, as long as the distribution of affordable units averages to a maximum of 100% of AMI.
 For sale/ownership projects - 15% of units must be affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households, as long as the distribution of affordable units averages to a maximum of 100% of AMI.

The Affordable Housing Ordinance has two components: Below Market Rental (BMR) program and Below Market Purchase (BMP) program. The City offers BMR and BMP units to income -qualified households. This program is an important tool for providing very low, low, and moderate income housing opportunities.

Action 3: Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation For-profit and nonprofit developers play a significant role in providing affordable housing in Santa Clara.

The City will proactively encourage and facilitate the development efforts of developers and organizations for the construction of affordable housing for lower income households, particularly those with special needs including seniors, large households, extremely low income households, households with persons who have disabilities (including developmental disabilities), and licensed residential care homes.

Action 4: Maintenance of Housing Stock
Since 1976, the City of Santa Clara has assisted more than 1,000 homeowners to rehabilitate and increase the value of their homes through the Neighborhood Conservation and Improvement Program (NCIP). Under the direction of the City of Santa Clara Housing and Com munity Services Division and 2 – Project Description

Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 21 City of Santa Clara
in partnership with Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, NCIP offers technical and financial assistance to qualified homeowners. The program is designed for citywide households with gross incomes at or below 80 percent of County median income. Various types of minor and major repairs may be addressed including accessibility improvements, re -roofing, plumbing, heating/cooling, electrical, termite damage, foundation, and weatherization. The costs for home repairs are covered throug h a grant or a loan depending on the size of the project. The Multi-Family Affordable Energy Efficiency program allows for the City’s special revenue funds in partnership with Silicon Valley Power (SVP) to pay for energy consultants to recommend and create a scope of work for specific SVP project rebates.

The program also allows for the City to provide assistance for the cost of installation and facilitate the grant administration process.

Action 5: Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing
To meet the housing needs of persons of all economic groups, the City is committed to guarding against the loss of housing units reserved for lower income households. Five assisted rental projects in Santa Clara are identified to be at potential low risk of conversion to market rate use in 2028-2031.

Action 6: Acquisition of Multi-Family Housing
As a strategy to expand the City’s affordable housing inventory, Santa Clara will continue to explore opportunities for the acquisition/rehabilitation of multi -family housing. As f unding permits, the City will work with nonprofit organizations to acquire and rehabilitate deteriorating and distressed properties and convert them into affordable rental housing for lower income households, including those with special needs.

Action 7: Code Enforcement Program
Code enforcement is essential to ensuring housing conservation and rehabilitation. The City maintains a strong housing inspection and code enforcement program to ensure adequate maintenance of the housing stock and quality of resid ential neighborhoods. In an average year, the City receives several thousand complaints related to possible code enforcement violations. In many cases, the responsible party for the code violation is given the opportunity to voluntarily correct the situation and comply with current codes without a penalty.

Action 8: Neighborhood Relations Programs
Since 1990, the Neighborhood -University Relations Committee (NURC) (formerly Student Housing Committee) has been responsible for reviewing student housing issues . NURC meets regularly to facilitate on-going communication and problem solving among City officials, neighborhoods, property owners and Santa Clara University (SCU) officials and students. Santa Clara University has established a Residency Requirement for Freshman and Sophomore students, with some exceptions, to live on campus. In 2022 the City convened an ad hoc Homelessness Task Force which will be replaced in 2023 with a permanent Housing Commission. The new commission will advise on the use of the City’s federal CDBG and HOME funds, and on the City’s homelessness response efforts.

Action 9: Zoning Ordinance
The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive update to its Zoning Ordinance to reflect the current goals and policies of the 2010-2035 General Plan. As part of this update, the City will reconsider, and revise, if appropriate, its provisions for parking, mixed use developments, shared housing and residential care facilities, employee housing, and SRO housing. The update is expected to be completed in early 2023. The comprehensive Zoning update is intended to bring consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan, implementing the General Plan goals by facilitating mixed use development and higher density residential development, protecting existing neighborhoods, and incentivizing redevelopment with appropriate development standards and streamlined procedures.

2 – Project Description
22 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Action 10: Adequate Sites Inventory
The City is committed to ensuring that adequate sites at appropriate densities remain available during the planning period, as required by law. The residential sites analysis completed for the 2023-2031 Housing Element indicates the City can accommodate its RHNA of 11,632 units, including 2,872 very low income units, 1,653 low income units , 1,981 moderate income units, and 5,126 above moderate income units.

Action 11: Impact Fees
The City charges various impact fees to provide essential services and facilities to serve new development. The City will conduct an impact fee study to compare the City’s fees with surrounding and similar jurisdictions.

Action 12: Affordable Housing Funding
The City will continue to explore gaining access to additional resources that provide a steady funding stream for affordable housing. These may include, fund ing from the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority, County, State, federal, housing or land trust funds, and private sector support, partnerships, or philanthropy.

Action 13: Residential Development
Development in the City has primarily occurred as the recyc ling of existing marginal commercial and industrial uses into higher density multi-family housing. As such, the City has not yet experienced direct displacement of lower income households due to new development. As redevelopment of existing uses continues, the City will evaluate potential displacement of residents, and develop and adopt measures, as appropriate, to address the risk of direct or indirect displacement of those existing residents. The City will monitor such measures biannually for effectiveness and make necessary adjustments.

Action 14: Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program extends rental subsidies to very low income households, as well as elderly and disabled persons. The subsidy represents the difference between 30 percent of the monthly income and the allowable rent determined by the Section 8 program.

Vouchers permit tenants to locate their own housing and rent units beyond the federally determined fair market rent in an area. The City’s role in this ac tion will be to advocate for more Housing Choice Vouchers for Santa Clara residents.

Action 15: Homeownership for First-Time Buyers
The City continues to create affordable ownership units through its Inclusionary Housing Policy.

HouseKeys partners with Santa Clara staff to offer the units created through the Inclusionary Housing - Below Market Purchase (BMP) program to income -qualified households. The intent of the BMP program is to offer low and moderate income homebuyers an opportunity to purchase a home they would not ordinarily be able to afford. If a BMP homeowner wishes to sell the home between 6-20 years after purchase, they must pay back the City’s remaining note value and a share of the equity increase.

Other resources for affordable homeownership are also available to Santa Clara residents. These include the Housing Trust Silicon Valley, Mortgage Credit Certificates, Habitat for Humanity, and Santa Clara County’s Office of Supportive Housing.

The Housing Trust Silicon Valley Empower Homebuyers S CC program provides loans to low - and moderate-income homebuyers in Silicon Valley in the form of low -interest, second mortgages and down-payment assistance. Santa Clara residents are eligible for two types of assistance offered by the Housing Trust, mortg age assistance and gap assistance. The Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (MCC), administered by the County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing, provides financial assistance to first -time homebuyers. The Santa Clara County MCC tax credit reduces the federal 2 – Project Description

Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 23 City of Santa Clara
income taxes of qualified borrowers purchasing qualified homes, thus having the effect of a mortgage subsidy. The current tax credit rate is up to 15 percent of the interest paid to the lender on the first loan.

Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley provides ownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers via a sweat equity and savings plan programs. Households, friends, and family contribute 250-500 hours of sweat equity into the construction of their homes.

Santa Clara County’s Meas ure A also set aside funds to assist first time homebuyers. In 2023, the County will roll out new programs that help low income households attain home ownership.

Additionally, SB 9, signed into law in September of 2021 and effective January 1, 2022, allows property owners within single-family residential zones to build two units and/or to subdivide an existing lot into two parcels, for a total of four units that can each be sold as separate units, can help enable affordable home ownership for first time buyers.

Action 16: Fair Housing Program
The City contracts with a qualified fair housing services provider to provide fair housing services to its residents. Currently, the City utilizes Project Sentinel, a nonprofit agency that provides information and dispute resolution services to tenants, landlords, and roommates. Since 2009, Project Sentinel has assisted over 1,000 Santa Clara households and landlords to resolve disputes through counseling, conciliation, and mediation.

Action 17: Homeless Services
In 2022 the City convened a six-month Homelessness Taskforce. The Taskforce included stakeholders with a range of perspectives and experience to help identify priorities and provide recommendations related to the development of a local plan to reduce homeles sness and its impacts. Additionally, the City’s Police Department conducts outreach through the Community Response Team and the Housing and Community Services Division administers grants to several local agencies that offer services to the homeless. The following agencies have received funding from the City:

 WeHope Dignity on Wheels Mobile Shower and Laundry Service  Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System (HPS)  Santa Clara County case management for permanent supportive housing clients  Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
 Emergency Housing Consortium
 St. Justin Community Ministry
 Bill Wilson Center
 Abode Services
 Community Technology Alliance
 InnVision

Action 18: Shared Housing
Shared housing can be an affordable housing alternative for senio rs and other lower income seniors, disabled, and special needs residents when sufficient support and property management services are included. The City can support this housing type through acquisition and rehabilitation subsidies.

2.9 – Required Approvals
The project would require the following approvals:

2 – Project Description
24 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
 General Plan Amendment to adopt the Housing Element and text amendments to remove the square footage limitations on manufacturing in the low- and high-intensity office districts.  General Plan Amendment to remove the De La Cruz, Central Expressway and Lawrence Station Phase II Future Focus Areas.
 General Plan Text Amendment to remove the square footage limitations on manufacturing and to allow medical facilities in limited circumstances in the low- and high-intensity office districts.  Adoption of the Zoning Code Update to implement Action 1 (provision of a variety of housing types) and Action 9 (Zoning Code Update) in the Implementing Actions section of the Housing Element document.

2.10 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required
 None.

2 – Project Description
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 25 City of Santa Clara
Exhibit 1
Regional Context Map

Mountain
OS View
-
@
Sunnyvale
~ • Cupertino
Permanente
-
'

WEST SA
@
Saratoga
®
Sanborn
Count~ Park
- City of Santa Clara Corporate Boundary

BAYLANDS
M !pitas
•

BERRVESSA
~
East
Alum
@
Sa.-:•aC3a v
San Jose
~
v
Fruitdale
@ ®
\
Campbel
f. ®
® Robertsville
ED
Cambrian Park
,.......: Alamitos @ @
-
Los Gatos f
SOUT
Go gle
Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Hou sing Element Update Santa Clara, California
2 – Project Description
26 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

2 – Project Description
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 27 City of Santa Clara
Exhibit 2
Existing General Plan Land Use Map

Legend
□ --.. -· c:J Speof11CPl.lnJ lhdlr0 .,110p'ntn1
B
\Wy lo,,, Otn1~ ANmntll:I
LOW Den$1y Rttidtnleil
C=t Medium Oln91y ~WI
- H-.ti 01n91yR......,.. @
- Vrr Hfgl OaMi!y RNiOMlal
□--· _ N_Comm,_,
- Ccm~ComtnillrtMI _R_C_
D Hv, o.,,.,yflex
- Ut>etl OWIWIEl'IWlawmtt110•~ _ N_.._,_
- Cantn.Jnily Mx.a U..
- RtglOnalMOltdU•
- V"'J HrgJ Dlnaty Mo.JU• •
□ Put11c1ou.. P\itfic: - o _. ---~ o ..!-
□ low httnat.)' Oke I R&O
Hqi htansatvOficelR&O . .... , __
□ Ugh,_
-Heavyhdu..,..
- Ckwn~Ccn
D Ri!J,lolV..,
D U,._MW'I OetlgnaJOn
Hq,w.,.
s,-.
- RW..,..
-C-• ~:::: Ct1yOrrn
0 --0 Sl• .-0\1
- .
1_-:
11 I l
:::, .... ..,
.,.
1-~/1
1• -f' I t,- 1 ·-
r ' 1=-:r 'T , ..,,... ,._ J I I
f fl111 f.. .-i~ ~--1~! r::-:\ r ~)TI:t ! l I ~J
11 j r Ii J. I f •-·- ·-- 1!
5 r I ; ;:_::s ,~~J I' w· I I 11, ~ · j
~ -~-..-) "ft:_? J ' 'J I --- •■ ' . , ....... ,........ - -- ---..J~ tt-•0..-.~--- ~ 1(-•er.,.. hl.....cl 0 OU 01$ November 2022
Exhibit 2 Existing General Plan Land Use Map
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Santa Clara, California
2 – Project Description
28 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 29 City of Santa Clara
3 Determination

3.1 – Environmental Categories Potentially Affected
The environmental categories checked below were identified in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments as being a ‘Potentially Significant Impact ,’ and the f ollowing Sections of this Addendum identify to what degree the proposed project contributes to these previously identified significant impacts.

□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology /Soils
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions □
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□
Hydrology / Water
Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation Transportation/Traffic □
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities / Service
Systems □ Wildfire □
Mandatory Findings of
Significance

3.2 – Determination
□

The project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□

Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. □

The project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□

The project MAY have a ‘potentially significant impact’ or ‘potentially significant unless mitigated’ impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

The project could have a significant effect on the environment , but all of its potentially significant effects (a) have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION. As such, no further environmental documentation (e.g., a subsequent EIR) is required.

~
~
~
~ ~
~
~
3 – Determination
30 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 31 City of Santa Clara
4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate the CEQA environmental checklist categories in terms of any changed conditions from the approved General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments to the proposed project (e.g., project changes, changed circumstances, or new information of substantial importance) that may produce a changed envir onmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, 15164, and 15168(c). As such, the Addendum’s checklist analysis uses the standard environmental categories provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines but provides answer columns for evaluation consistent with the considerations listed in Guidelines Section 15162(a).

Mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR and applicable to the proposed project are discussed under each environmental Section and are listed in Section 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures. As discussed in the following Sections, the proposed project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified by the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments.

EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES (COLUMNS)

Effect Not Examined in the General Plan EIR?

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(1), this column indicates whether the project would have effects that were not previously examined by the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs, which new effects could necessitate subsequent CEQA review.

Conclusion in the General Plan EIR and Subsequent EIRs?

This column summarizes the conclusion of the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs concerning the environmental issue listed under each topic.

Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts?

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1), this column indicates whether any changes represented by the proposed project would result in new significant environmental impacts not previously identified or mitigated by the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs or whether the changes would result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts?

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(2), this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken that would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts?

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs were certified, shows any of the following:
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
32 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

(A) The project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments;

(B) Significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments;

(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

If the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental review were to find that the conclusions of the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs remain the sam e and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “ No,” and no subsequent environmental review would be required.

DISCUSSION FOLLOWING CHECKLIST EVALUATION

A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers regarding the proposed project in relation to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented. Applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs that apply to the proposed project are listed under each environmental category. The text of the General Plan EIR mitigation measures are included at the end of each of the topical sections. The summary of each of the subsequent Specific Plan EIR’s has been excerpted and are included in Appendix C, and each of the summaries includes the mitigation measures for each of the subsequent Specific Plan EIR’s.

Conclusion

Each Section ends with a summary of the conclusion of the preceding analysis.

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 33 City of Santa Clara

4.1 – Aesthetics
Would the project:

Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?

Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR?
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) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within view from a state
scenic highway?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) In non-urbanized area,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No

Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments

(a) Scenic Vistas. The General Plan EIR noted that there are no scenic vistas within the City, but the City of Santa Clara offers many views of the community and surrounding natural features, including panoramic views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range and stretches of open space and undeveloped land in the Ulistac Natural Area. It was further noted that these scenic vistas can be viewed from the system of roadways and formal and informal public trails throughout the City, but private views of these resources from residential neighborhoods are currently obstructed by adjacent development.

The General Plan EIR found that development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan could obstruct views of these scenic vistas from the system of roadways and formal and informal public trails throughout the City. However, it was noted that the 2010 -2035 General Plan includes a range of policies that provide program -level mitigation for effects to the scenic vistas and ensure high quality design that maintains the quality of these scenic vistas and ensures their importance in the City’s future. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
34 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Therefore, it was determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize effects to the existing scenic vistas and 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 EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element would have a less than significant effect on scenic vistas.

(b) Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway. The General Plan EIR noted that development under the 2010 -2035 General Plan has the potential to alter the City’s scenic resources. It was also noted that the El Camino Real Focus Area would serve as a gateway into the City and help define the boundary of the City’s historic core, and transition goals and policies, in conjunction with the El Camino Real Focus Area policies require that this development respect the existing historic character and development patterns of the surrounding area. It was further noted that the Downtown Focus Area offers opportunities for place-making and for a unique destination in the City to serve both local and regional interests, and that revitalization will support the Major Strategies for City identity and community vitality.

The General Plan EIR found that policies related to Areas of Historic Sensitivity and to transitions would also apply in order to respect the existing character and development patterns of the surrounding area.

It was found that most development would go through the City’s architectural review process prior to issuance of building permits, and would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s Design Guidelines.

It was further found that the City’s scenic resources would be managed consistent with City adopted regulations and policies, in combination with State regulations. Implementation of proposed policies and existing programs would minimize effects to the existing scenic resources. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize effects to the existing scenic resources and 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 inc rease the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element would have a less than significant effect on scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway.

(c) Degrade Existing Visual Character. The General Plan EIR noted that new development and redevelopment under the General Plan would be substantial enough, and would occur at key locations throughout the C ity, such that it could have the potential to degrade the visual character of the City without appropriate planning and oversight. However, t he General Plan EIR noted that most development would go through the City’s architectural review process prior to i ssuance of building permits, and would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s Design Guidelines. In addition, it was noted that Focus Areas within which much of the changes would occur are strategically designed to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods, and changes to public spaces, including roadways, would be designed to upgrade the aesthetic environment. The General Plan EIR found that the City’s visual character would be maintained consistent with City adopted regulations and policies, in combination with State regulations. It was further noted that the General Plan includes a range of policies to ensure high quality design that supports and enhances the aesthetic qualities and character of the City and minimize or avoid adverse effects on the existing visual character. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize effects to the existing visual character and 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 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 35 City of Santa Clara
subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element would have a less than significant effect on the existing visual character of the area.

(d) Light and Glare. The General Plan EIR noted that new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan has the potential to create additional light or glare in the City, and sources of light and glare would include external housing lights, street -lights, parking lot lights, security lights, vehicular headlights, internal building lights, and reflective building surfaces and windows. It was also noted that m ost new development would go through the City’s architectural review process prior to issuance of building permits, and would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s Design Guidelines.

The General Plan EIR found that the City’s light and glare would be reduced and managed consistent with City adopted regulations and policies, in combination with State regulations. It was also found that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes a range of policies to provide program-level mitigation for effects to the neighborhoods from new light and glare resources and ensure high quality design that maintains the quality of existing neighborhoods and reduces light and glare . Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize effects of light and glare and 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 EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element would have a less than significant effect related to light and glare.

Cumulative Impacts

The General Plan EIR noted that visual and scenic resources are generally localized, although specific resources can be regional in nature, such as vistas of a mountain range. It was also noted that b uild- out of the General Plan would be limited to redevel opment of existing urbanized areas within Santa Clara, as there are only a small number of vacant undeveloped parcels remaining in the City. Further, it was noted that cumulative development within Santa Clara by other public agencies (i.e., the public school districts), or in adjacent communities (i.e., San Jose), would also largely consist of ‘recycling’ of existing developed parcels for new urban land uses or intensification of existing land uses. The General Plan EIR determined that i mplementation of th e General Plan, including implementation of design review process and incorporation of applicable policies regulating the appearance of new development, would not result in impacts to regional visual and scenic resources, such as the Valley’s surrounding hillsides, in that new and redevelopment would not be of a scale or density to affect regional visual and scenic resources. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to cumulative regional visual and scenic resource impacts would be less than significant.

The Planning Area is completely urbanized and cumulative impacts related to aesthetics were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Housing Element Update would be required to implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.10 -1 and

4.10-2. Therefore, the cumulative aesthetic impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.

Conclusion

The General Plan EIR determined that im plementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan in accordance with proposed policies and actions would result in less than significant aesthetic and visual character impacts and no mitigation measures were required. The proposed Housing Element Update would 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
36 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
implement General Plan policies and existing programs and would not substantially impact the aesthetic or visual character of the Planning Area. The RHNA allocation described in the proposed Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development potential analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs, and would result in similar less than significant aesthetic impacts. The proposed project would be within the scope of what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. 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 37 City of Santa Clara

4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dep artment of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencie s may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

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) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
No Not Examined No No No
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
No Not Examined No No No
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public
Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code
Section 51104 (g))?
No Not Examined No No No
d) Result in loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
No Not Examined No No No
e) Involve other changes in
the existing environment
which, due to their location or
nature, could result in
No Not Examined No No No
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
38 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?

Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments

(a) Designated Farmland. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The City of Santa Clara is almost completely urbanized and there are very few undeveloped parcels in the Planning Area. While there are locations in the City designated (A) Agricultural, there are no lands designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as being Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use.

(b) Williamson Act. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to Williamson Act contracts.

The City of Santa Clara is almost completely urbanized and there are very few undeveloped parcels in the Planning Area. There are no lands within the City under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.

(c) Forest Zoning. The General Plan EIR did not analyze conflicts with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g)). There are no areas of the City zoned as forest land or timberland resources. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland.

(d) Loss or Conversion of Forestland. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. However, there are no areas of the City zoned as forest land, and the Planning Area and does not contain any forest land resources.

Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land.

(e) Other Changes. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The Housing Element Update does not re-zone or re-designate any parcel within the City from agricultural uses or zones to other uses. In addition, the Housing Element Update does no t propose any specific development that would result in the conversion of farmland to non -agricultural use; Inventory Sites identified within the Housing Element Update are located within urban areas. There are no parts of the City designated as timberland, forest land, or farmland; as such, implementation of the Housing Element Update would not result in a conversion of these land uses to another use. Development associated with implementation of the Housing Element Update would not result in the conversio n of any agricultural or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

The General Plan EIR did not analyze cumulative impacts related to the loss of agricultural or forest land. The City of Santa Clara is almost completely urbanized and is designated in Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as “Urban and Built -Up La nd”. Implementation of the proposed Housing 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 39 City of Santa Clara
Element Update would not result in the loss or conversion of agricultural or forest uses. Therefore, the cumulative agriculture and forest resources impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.

Conclusion

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 project does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures

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

4.3 – Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

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 or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No
c) Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No

Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments

(a) Conflict with AQMP. The General Plan EIR noted that population projections under the General Plan are slightly above the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.

However, it was also noted that the rate of VMT growth is less than half the rate of population growth.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the 2010-2035 General Plan would be consistent with the CAP and project impacts would be less than significant.

The General Plan EIR also noted that the Air District has a long history of implementing control measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions from stationary, area, mobile and transportation sources, and transportation control measures (TCMs) were designed to reduce emissions from motor vehicles by reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. The General Plan EIR also noted that TCMs may also reduce vehicle use, vehicle idling or traffic congestion, and that t he TCMs address State ozone plan ning requirements for the Bay Area. The General Plan EIR found that the policies under the 2010-2035 General Plan support and reasonably implement the applicable Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan TCMs. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the 2010-2035 General Plan would be consistent with the TCMs and project impacts 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 41 City of Santa Clara
would be less than significant . However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Lawrence Station Area Plan found that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact and there are no feasible mitigation measures that reduce the impact to 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, project impacts would be similar to and no greater than those evaluated in the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would also conflict with the applicable AQMP and have a significant and unavoidable impact.

(b) Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase in Criteria Pollutant Emissions. The General Plan EIR noted that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010 - 2035 General Plan could increase the concentration of air pollutants. However, the General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs would substantially reduce air pollutants.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant emission and impacts would be less than significant. However, subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area (FFA) found that construction related impacts would require implementation of mitigation measures to red uce impacts to less than significant and operational impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of mitigation . Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable and the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:

 Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1, AQ-1.2, AQ-2.1, AQ-2.2, and AQ-2.3.  Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures 5-2A, 5-2B, 5-2C, and 5-2D.  Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures AQ-4, AQ-5, AQ-6, and AQ-7.  Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 5-3A, 5-3B, 5-3C, and 5-3D.

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 impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element would not result in a more significant impact than has been previously analyzed.

(c) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors Substantial Pollutant Concentrations. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelo pment allowed under the 2010 - 2035 General Plan could result in construction dust emissions that could affect local and regional air quality . However, the General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs would substantially reduce construction dust emissions and impacts would be less than significant. The General Plan EIR also found that implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan may involve the placement of sensitive receptors (e.g., new residences) near localized sources of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). The General Plan EIR subsequently found that the 2010-2035 General Plan does not provide adequate buffers between existing sources of TAC and new residences or sensitive receptors. As such, the General Plan EIR determined that incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-1 would reduce this impacts to less than significant. The subsequent EIR for the Lawrence Station SP also found implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impact s to less than significant.

However, subsequent EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP and the Freedom Circle FFA found that impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of mitigation measures. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
42 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Therefore, subsequent EIRs have determine d that this impact is significant and unavoidable and the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:

 Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3  Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures 5-3A and 5-2B.  Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 5-3A, 5-3B, 5-3C, and 5-3D.

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 im pacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element would not result in a more significant impact than has been previously analyzed.

(d) Other Emissions Such as Odors. The General Plan EIR noted that i mplementation of the 2010- 2035 General Plan may involve the placement of sensitive receptors (e.g. , new residences) near localized sources of odors. The General Plan EIR subsequently found that the 2010-2035 General Plan does not provide adequate buffers between sources of odors and new residences or sensitive receptors. As listed in the Mitigation Measures section below, the General Plan EIR found that the addition of Policy 5.1.1 -P25 to the Prerequisite section and Policy 5.10.5 -P34 to the Safety section would require minimum screening or buffer distances between emissions sources and sensitive receptors. As such, the General Plan EIR included incorporation of Mitigation Measures 4.10 -2.

Additional mitigation measures have been incorporated in subsequent EIRs and are included here by reference. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts from implementation of the General Plan would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Subsequent EIRs also determined that 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 policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element would have a less than significant effect.

Cumulative Impacts

The General Plan EIR noted that air pollution is a regional issue affected by climate, land uses, and topography. The General Plan EIR also noted that Section 4.10, Air Quality includes a detailed analysis of the cumulative air qualit y conditions related to build -out of the 2010-2035 General Plan, as well as the General Plan’s conformance with the existing Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy and the draft 2010 Bay Area Clear Air Plan, which have been based on regional ABAG projections. The General Plan EIR found that the 2010 -2035 General Plan would conform with the current and proposed long -range air quality plans for the Bay Area. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts.

The Planning Area is completely urbanized and cumulative impacts related to air quality were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Housing Element Update would be required to implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.10 -1 and

4.10-2 as well as subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures incorporated by reference .

Therefore, the cumulative air quality impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 43 City of Santa Clara

Conclusion

The proposed Housing Element Update would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to the mobile, energy, and area sources that cumulatively contribute to criteria pollutant levels and associated air pollution in the Basin. 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. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 and 4.10-2, as described below, 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, nor would the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the General Plan EIR be worsened. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verifica tion. 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.

Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures

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,ii 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

ii 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.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
44 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
reduced to acceptable levels.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 45 City of Santa Clara

4.4 – Biological 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) Have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified
in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
d) Interfere substantially
with the movement of any
native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
46 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the
provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation
plan?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No

Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments

(a) Listed or Sensitive Species. The General Plan EIR found that new development under the 2010- 2035 General Plan would result in minimal direct impacts due to habitat loss since there are very few vacant, undeveloped parcels left in the City proposed for urban development that provide habitat value.

The General Plan EIR noted that the vast majority of new development anticipated under the 2010 - 2035 General Plan would occur on parcels already developed with an urban use. However, the General Plan EIR found that future development of vacant parcels containing ruderal grasslands has the potential to impact the Congdon’s tarplant, should the tarplant be present at the time of development.

Further, the General Plan EIR found that development of vacant parcels could result in impacts to individual burrowing owls if owls moved onto the site prior to project construction. I n addition, it was noted that if owls are using active nests when construction activity commences, grading of the site could result in destruction of nests and individual owls. The General Plan EIR found that development under the 2010-2035 General Plan would be required to comply with State and federal regulations regarding special-status species. In addition, it was found that General Plan policies would reduce the potential for impacts on the special -status species considered most likely to use habitat in the City. As such, mitigation measures 4.9-1 and 4.9-2 were incorporated into the General Plan EIR to ensure avoidance of Congdon’s tarplant and burrowing owl. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. Subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, the Lawrence Station Area Plan, and the Freedom Circle FFA also found that impacts to special status species would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. 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 BIO-1.1, BIO-2.1, BIO-2.2, BIO-2.3, BIO-2.4, BIO-3.1, BIO-5.1, BIO-5.3, and BIO-5.4.
 Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures 6-3 and 6-4.  Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, BIO-1b, BIO-1c, and BIO-2.  Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 6-3 and 6-4.

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 pl ans, the 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 with mitigation incorporated.

(b) Riparian or Sensitive Habitat. The General Plan EIR found that redevelopment of urban parcels adjacent to riparian corridors along Calabazas Creek, San Tomas Aquino Creek, and Guadalupe River 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 47 City of Santa Clara
has the potential to indirectly affect the habitat value of the riparian corridor. It was further noted that the De La Cruz and Tasman East Focus Areas are each immediately west of the Guadalupe River riparian corridor, separated by an earthen levee, and future redevelopment of each Focus Area, in particular, could affect wildlife movement along the Guadalupe River. Additionally, it was noted that the east bank of the Guadalupe River adjacent to Santa Clara is under the jurisdiction of the City of San Jose and is included within the draft Valley HCP boundary, and the Valley HCP’s conservation strategy to ensure urban development on the east side of the Guadalupe River doesn’t further degrade the riparian corridor’s habitat value is to apply the City of San Jose’s Riparian Corridor Policy. In addition, the General Plan EIR found that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes updated biological policies that address impacts to riparian habitats. As described in the General Plan EIR, the City of Santa Clara has adopted the Water Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams, and the two riparian protection policies (5.10.1-P2 and 5.10.1-P5) are functionally equivalent and will ensure that new and redevelopment on either bank of the Guadalupe River doesn’t significantly impact wildlife movement along the Guadalupe River. Finally, it was found that there are no other sensitive natural communities present in the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communit ies would be less than significant . However, subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to sensitive habitat 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 Measure BIO-4.1.
 Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 6-2.  Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 6-2.

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 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 with mitigation incorporated.

(c) Riparian/Wetlands. The General Plan EIR noted that wetlands and other waters are protected under the federal Clean Water Act and the State’s Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. It was further noted that Federal and State regulations require avoidance of impacts to the extent feasible, and compensation for unavoidable losses of jurisdictional wetlands and waters. The General Plan EIR found that development along the City’s watercourses would have some potential to affect jurisdictional waters and wetlands. The General Plan EIR determined that compliance with existing regulations and proposed General Plan policies would ensure impacts on state or federally protected wetlands would be less than significant. However, subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to wetlands 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 Measure BIO -6.1, BIO-6.2, BIO-7.1, BIO-8.1, BIO-8.2, BIO-9.1, BIO-9.2, and BIO-9.3.

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 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
48 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subseq uent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated.

(d) Wildlife Movement. The General Plan EIR noted that the creeks that flow through the City provide the primary wildlife movement corridors, and therefore future development near the creeks has the potential to disrupt or disturb wildlife movements along the creek corridors. However, the General Plan EIR found that the City’s implementation of the Water Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams would minimize the potential for impacts to wildlife movement. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined impacts to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species would be less than significant . The subsequent EIR for the Tasman East SP also found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to wildlife movement 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 Measure BIO-3.1.

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 im pacts 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 with mitigation incorporated.

(e) Local Policies. The General Plan EIR noted that there is a City ordinance currently in effect to protect trees on public property, and the General Plan proposes a new policy that would afford protection to specified trees on private property . Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that Development under the 2010-2035 General Plan would not conflict with the existing tree ordinance and impacts would be less than significant. However, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP and the Lawrence Station SP found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts from tree removal to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, whic h will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:

 Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures BIO-10.1 and BIO-10.2.  Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures BIO-3a and BIO-3b.

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 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 with mitigation incorporated.

(f) Habitat Conservation Plans. The General Plan EIR found that the City is not located within the study area, but rather adjacent to, the Valley Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). It was also found that future nitrogen emissions attributable to the General Plan’s net new development in 2035 would constitute approximately 1.5 percent of total emissions and would represent a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to nitrogen deposition impacts to the serpentine grassland special status flora and fauna being addressed in the Valley HCP. Therefore, the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 49 City of Santa Clara
determined that conflict s with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan 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, the 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 and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impacts

The General Plan EIR noted that there is minimal vacant, undeveloped land within Santa Clara that provides suitable habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered flora or fauna , and that m ost suitable habitat in the City is concentrated along the several creek corridors. It was also noted that t he predominant biologic impacts associated with implementation of the 2035 General Plan would occur to common, urban-adapted species. In the rare instances where future development would involve a site with a special status species, appro priate mitigation, including avoidance, would be implemented to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that new construction and redevelopment within the City of Santa Clara would not contribute to cumulative impacts to special status plants and animals present within the City. As further discussed in Section 4.9 Biology of the General Plan EIR, regional nitrogen deposition impacts to serpentine habitat in southern San Jose is a cumulative issue being addressed by the Local Partner agencies participating in the Valley HCP. However, for the reasons provided in Section 4.9, Santa Clara’s NOx contribution from new development allowed under the 2035 General Plan was determined to be less than cumulatively considerable. Finally, it was also determined that Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emissions associated with the City’s electrical utility, Silicon Valley Power, would be mitigated on an ongoing basis through management of serpentine habitat on Coyote Ridge in San J ose. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that cumulative biological impacts would be less than significant.

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 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 t he City of Santa Clara 2010 -2035 General Plan and subsequent EIRs and were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated .

Therefore, the cumulative biological resources impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.

Conclusion

The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive species or habitat, on any wetlands, with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, and will not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or with a habitat conservation plan. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Pl an EIR and subsequent EIRs. Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to biological 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. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.9-1 and 4.9-2, as described below, would also be applicable to the development associated with implementation of the Housing 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
50 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
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 mi tigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures

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

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 evalua te 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 non- breeding season.

2. Avoid Impacts (destruction, disturbance) to Individual Owls

a. Pre-Construction Surveys for Owl Presence

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 51 City of Santa Clara
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 supplement al 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 pre - construction 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.

b. 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).

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.

c. 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 an d 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 wo uld 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. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
52 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

4.5 – Cultural 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) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource pursuant to
Section15064.5?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to
Section15064.5?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No

Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments

(a) Historical Resources. The General Plan EIR noted that future development under the 2010-2035 General Plan has the potential to impact, either directly or indirectly, historic resources, both those that are currently listed, and those that have yet to be identified and evaluated. It was also noted that t he General Plan’s Phase III prerequisite policy to conduct a citywide survey prior to Phase III (2025)iii would encompass buildings constructed prior to 1975 (i.e. , buildings constructed prior to 1975 would be at least 50 years of age in 2025), and would identify whether additional buildings have achieved historic significance over time. Further it was noted that buildings over 50 years of age would be evaluated prior to demolition or substantial alteration on a case -by-case basis. The General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan policies and programs, including application of the California Histori c 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. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of proposed policies and existing programs would reduce potential historical resources impacts to less than significant. However, the subsequent EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP, the Lawrence Station SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to historical resources 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:

iii In the 2014 General Plan Update, the Phases of the General Plan were shifted to line up with the housing element update schedule. Phase III is now slated to commence in 2023. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 53 City of Santa Clara

 Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-1.  Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure CUL-1.  Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-1.

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 historic resources 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 with mitigation incorporated.

(b) Archaeological Resources . The General Plan EIR found that future development and redevelopment and construction activities under the 2010 -2035 General Plan may result in direct or indirect impacts to both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. It was also noted that construction activities such as grading and excavation may result in the accidental destruction or disturbance of archaeological sites. Further, it was found that all areas of the City hold potential for the presence of prehistoric archaeological resources, with the exception of current and former stream channels and areas with artificial fill. However, the General Plan EIR found that 2010 -2035 General Plan includes a range of policies to ensure the protection of archaeological resources. The General Plan EIR found that existing f ederal, State, and local regulations address the provision of studies to identify archaeological and paleontological resources; application review for projects that would potentially involve land disturbance; provide a project -level standard condition of a pproval that addresses unanticipated archaeological and or paleontological discoveries; and requirements to develop specific mitigation measures if resources are encountered during any development activity .

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would reduce the impact to archaeological resources to less than significant . However, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, the Lawrence Station SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources 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 CUL-1.1, CUL-1.2, and CUL-1.3  Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-2.  Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure CUL-2 and CUL-3.  Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-3.

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 archaeological resources 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 with mitigation incorporated.

(c) Human Remains. The General Plan EIR noted that implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan would allow development and redevelopment, including grading, of sensitive areas, possibly disturbing human remains, including those outside of formal cemeteries. However, it was found that e xisting regulations, including the California Public Resources Code. Section 5097.98, would afford protection for human remains discovered during d evelopment activities. In addition, review and protection are afforded by CEQA for those projects subject to discretionary action, particularly for activities that could 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
54 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
potentially disturb human remains. Further, it was noted that SB 18 requires consultat ion regarding Native American sites and artifacts, but the potential for project-level impacts to unidentified and unrecorded tribal cultural places remains moderate to high. As such, it was found that future excavation and grading activities could result in impacts to human remains. However, it was determined that Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandates the process to be followed in the event of a discovery of any human remains, and would mitigate all potential impacts . Therefore, the General Plan E IR determined that implementation existing programs would reduce the impact to human remains to less than significant. However, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, the Lawrence Station SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to buried human remains 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 CUL-1.1, CUL-1.2, and CUL-1.3.  Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-2.  Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure CUL-5.  Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-3.

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 buried human remains 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 with already identified mitigation incorporated.

Cumulative Impacts

The General Plan EIR found that projects in the City and other cumulative projects in the area would implement mitigation that avoids or substantially lessens p otentially 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 impa cts to cultural resources. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to cumulative effects associated with cultural resources is less than cumulatively considerable and impacts would be less than significant.

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 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 less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the cumulative cultural resources impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.

Conclusion

The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on any historical resources, archaeological resources, or buried human remains. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 55 City of Santa Clara
General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan SP EIRs . Future housing developed in accordance with the goa ls and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to cultural resources impacts; however, development of future housing would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitleme nt permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. The mitigation measures of the subsequent EIRs , as referenced above, would also be applicable to development associated with implementation of t he 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 measures are required.

Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures

No applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures.

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
56 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

4.6 – Energy
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 potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency??
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No

Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments

(a-b) Energy Consumption. The General Plan EIR found that while the substantial new residential, commercial, and industrial development allowed under the 2010 -2035 General Plan would result in increased overall consumption of energy compared to existing levels, the new development would not consume energy in a manner that is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Policies in the General Plan will serve to reduce growth in energy consumption to the extent feasible. It was also found that new construction would be required to meet Title 24 building energy efficiency standards, including the new CALGreen requirements. In addition, the General Plan EIR noted that the Climate Action Plan (discussed in Section 4.16 Climate Change of the General Plan EIR) would focus on efforts to increase energy conservation and efficiency as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the 2010 -2035 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts. Similarly, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Hen ry Drive SP, the Lawrence Station SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA also found that 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 EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the energy 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.

Cumulative Impacts

The General Plan EIR noted that the geographic area for cumulative energy impacts is the State of California, which includes the areas serviced by electrical and natural gas utility providers. The General Plan EIR also noted that Section 4.16 Clima te Change of the General Plan EIR provides Plan -level analysis that places the 2010-2035 General Plan’s growth within the cumulative context for California’s 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 57 City of Santa Clara
2020 and 2050 climate change goals. As discussed in the Climate Change section of the General Plan EIR, the City was committed to the preparation and implementation of a Climate Action Plan to ensure the proposed General Plan would be consistent with the state’s 2020 emissions targets, and would contribute a less than cumulatively considerable amount t oward future GHG levels. Achieving 2020 emissions levels would necessarily entail increased energy conservation and efficiency, and utilization of renewable sources. In addition to Santa Clara, it was noted that the cities of San Jose and Sunnyvale were (at the time) each developing Climate Action Plans to address their respective 2020 emissions. In addition, all other projects constructed within Santa Clara, including projects under subsequent Specific Plans, are required to comply with the policies of the General Plan, plus existing local, state and federal regulations to prevent the inefficient use of energy. Finally, it was found that future development within the electrical and natural gas utility providers’ service area would also be required to adhere to applicable local regulations, including the provisions of Title 24, designed to prevent use of energy.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that cumulative impacts to energy from development under the General Plan would be less than significant with compliance to relevant legislative regulations and General Plan policies.

Subsequent program EIRs, including 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 indicate that the implementation of the respective plans would be expected to result in replacement of older, less energy-efficient structures with newer structures built to the latest building code standards, which would increase the efficiency of electricity consumed within the City. The proposed higher density land uses would result in more efficient energy use compared to energy use for lower density land uses (e.g., “sprawl”) due to more residents being close to transit, which would reduce the amount of transportation energy spent on commuting. The proposed increase in residential development overall would be expected to result in a reduction in outcommuting and a decrease in the associated expenditure of transportation energy. Therefore, by ensuring the buildings are energy efficient, placing the buildings in a low VMT area, and providing space for a mix of uses and amenities that promote non -automobile transportation options, the project would use resources in a non -wasteful and efficient m anner. In addition, implementation of the City’s 2022 Climate Action Plan would reduce natural gas consumption and increase electricity demand by incentivizing conversion of existing buildings to all electric energy use. Proposed actions relating to improving energy efficiency action would reduce the amount of energy used by new and existing development throughout the City by retrofitting existing municipal facilities, and incentivizing home energy upgrades. Therefore, the conclusions of the General Plan EIR regarding energy usage, as amended by subsequent program EIRs and the Climate Action Plan addendum remain less than significant.

The Planning Area is an almost completely urbanized area and cumulative impacts related to climate change and energy were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs and were determined to be less than significant. The City of Santa Clara has an adopted Climate Action Plan which ensures individual projects incorporate measures to reduce their energy use to less than significant levels. The state appears to have adequate supplies of energy and is implementing state policies intended to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, there is no cumulative impact related to wasteful use of energy or adequate supply of energy. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not contribute towards any significant cumulative energy impact and the impact would be less than significant.

Conclusion

The proposed Housing Element Update would not result in the wastef ul, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
58 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to energy resources im pacts.

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
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 59 City of Santa Clara

4.7 – Geology and Soils
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) Directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:

i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for
the area or based on
other substantial
evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
ii) Strong seismic
ground shaking? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iii) Seismic-related
ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iv) Landslides?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Be located on a
geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result
of the project, and
potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
60 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
d) Be located on
expansive soil, as defined in
Section 1803.5.3 of the
California Building Code
(2022), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water
disposal systems where
sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
No Not Examined No No No
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic
feature?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No

Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments

(a.i) Fault Rupture. The General Plan EIR noted that the City does not contain any faults mapped as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones. There are also no other faults that extend through the City.

Because there are no known active earthquake faults within the limits of the City of Santa Clara, the risk for surface fault ru pture is considered low within the City . 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 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 potential fault-related 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.

(a.ii) Strong Se ismic Ground Shaking . The General Plan EIR noted that b ecause the city is in relatively close proximity to several major fault zones, the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of Santa Clara, requires that seismic design features be incorporated in construction and redevelopment projects in Santa Clara. The primary purpose of the seismic design requirements of the building code is to avoid loss of life. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations.

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, strong seismic ground shaking 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 with adherence to existing regulations.

(a.iii) Seismic-Related Ground Failure/Liquefaction. The General Plan EIR noted that under the County of Santa Clara Hazard Mapping, most of Santa Clara is considered susceptible to liquefaction 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 61 City of Santa Clara
hazards (refer to Figure 4.5 -3), and d evelopment and redevelopment allowed under the 2010-2035 General Plan would occur within these areas. In addition, it was noted that there are areas near creeks, such as along the Guadalupe River, where lateral spreading could occur. As such, it was found that future projects approved under the 2010-2035 General Plan within the liquefaction hazard area would be required under the Seismic Hazard Mapping Program and building code and City Code requirements to evaluate site -specific liquefaction and ground failure hazards and mitigate those hazards to an acceptable level. Therefore, t he General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations.

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 potential seismic-related ground failure 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 with adherence to existing regulations.

(a.iv) Landslides/Seismically-Induced Waves. The General Plan EIR noted that because the City is located on gently sloping and nearly flat valley floor topography, it is not subject to risk of la ndslides; and the landslide hazard mapping compiled by the County of Santa Clara shows the City is outside the landslide hazard zone. Therefore, it was determined that there are no areas within the City susceptible to landslides. The General Plan EIR also noted that because the City is not located within a tsunami inundation area, development and redevelopment anticipated under the General Plan would not be exposed to substantial risks associated with tsunamis. Locally, the General Plan EIR found that seiches due to seismic shaking could occur in shallow lakes, reservoirs, or percolation ponds in Santa Clara and the surrounding area, and sloshing of water out of a lake or basin onto the surrounding area could result in water damage, erosion and some slope failure. However, it was found that there are no lakes or reservoirs within the City, but several ponds, including the City’s two retention basins, (located near State Route 237 and the Union Pacific Railroad Line, and the Great America Parkway and San Tomas Aquino Creek). It was also found that Lexington Reservoir is located approximately nine miles from the City. However, the potential for loss of life from this hazard is low. 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 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 potential landslide and seismically-induced wave 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 with adherence to existing regulations.

(b) Soil Erosion. The General Plan EIR noted that g rading and ground disturbance increases the potential for accelerated erosion by removing protective vegetation or cover and changing natural drainage patterns. However, it was also noted that for future development over one acre in size, erosion hazards would be minimized through implementation of site -specific erosion measures in SWPPPs under the NPDES General Construction Permit and grading and excavation requirements in the City’s City Code. Given that many future development projects would be on properties less than one acre, it was further noted that requirements for BMPs under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code would be the primary means of enforcing erosion control measures through the grading and building permit process. Therefore, with the regulatory programs currently in place, the General Plan EIR determined that possible impacts of accelerated erosion during construction associated with development and redevelopment would be less than significant.

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
62 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 potential erosion 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 with adherence to existing regulations.

(c) Unstable Geologic Unit. The General Plan EIR found that development under the 2010 -2035 General Plan would be required to incorporate the seismic design features of the California Building Code in construction and redevelopment projects in Santa Clara . Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the impact would be less than significant. However, the subsequent EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP and the Freedom Circle FFA found that mitigation is required to reduce potential 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:

 Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 8-3.  Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 8-6.

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 ground instability 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 with mitigation incorporated.

(d) Expansive Soils. The General Plan EIR noted that soil and geologic hazards of concern in the City of Santa Clara are primarily related to expansive soils, weak soils, and artificial fill and the City primarily consists of well-drained loamy soils formed on alluvial sediments. It was also noted that soils include loam and clay loam at the surface and in the very shallow subsurface, overlying gravelly sandy clay loam and fine sandy clay loam pres ent at depth and such units are typically moderate to very highly expansive. It was further noted that in general, alluvial fan sediments become increasingly finer grained with greater distance from the mountains and because of this expansion potential is generally moderate in the southern City’s alluvial fan and plain soils and high in the alluvial plain/valley floor soils of the northern City. The General Plan EIR also found that w here expansive soils are present, foundations and pavements can be damaged when solids go through cycles of wetting and drying. Weak compressible soils are located at the City’s northernmost edge and weak soils can compress, collapse, or spread laterally under the weight of buildings and fill. It was also noted that a rtificial fill has been placed under buildings throughout the City, and non-engineered fill can result in excessive settlement of structures, pavement, and utilities. It was found that b ecause the City is located on gently sloping and nearly flat valley floor topograp hy, it is not subject to risk of landslides; landslide hazard mapping compiled by the County of Santa Clara shows the City is outside the landslide hazard zone. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that there are no areas within the City susceptible to landslides. The General Plan EIR found that new development under the 2010-2035 General Plan would occur primarily as intensification of previously developed areas throughout the City and h azards associated with expansive soils, weak soils, and artifici al fill would be reduced and managed consistent with City adopted regulations and policies, in combination with State building regulations. In addition, it was noted that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes updated hazards policies that address geologic and seismic hazards and provide program-level mitigation for geologic, soil and landslide hazards within the City .

While the General Plan EIR determined that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010- 2035 General Plan could occur in areas with identified soil hazards, implementation of General 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 63 City of Santa Clara
Plan policies and existing regulations and programs would substantially reduce hazards to people and property. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined 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 policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the potential soil expansion 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 with adherence to existing regulations.

(e) Septic Systems. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to septic systems . The proposed Housing Element Update does not include provisions permitting use of septic systems and future development resulting from implementation of the Housing Element Update would be required to connect to the existing municipal wastewater conveyance and treatment system provided by the City of Santa Clara. Therefore, impacts related to the ability of soils to adequately support the use of septic systems would not occur as a result of the proposed project.

(f) Paleontological Resources. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment under the 2010 -2035 General Plan has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. However, the General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize this effect . Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant. However, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, the Lawrence Station Area Plan, and the Freedom Circle FFA found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources 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 Measure CUL-2.1.
 Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 8-4.  Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure CUL-4.  Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 8-7 and 8-8

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 paleontological resources 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 with mitigation incorporated.

Cumulative Impacts

The General Plan EIR found that geologic conditions are highly localized and implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan would generally not result in cumulative geologic impacts, unless growth under the Plan would exacerbate a regional cumulative geologic issue (e.g., fault zone, massive landslide) affecting an extensive area covering multiple jurisdictions. There are no such regional geologic features in Sant a Clara. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to regional cumulative impacts related to geology and soils, would be less than significant.

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
64 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
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 geology and soils impacts related to the Housing Element Update in conjunction with other similar projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impac t Report prepared for the City of Santa Clara 2010 -2035 General Plan and subsequent EIRs and were determined to be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the cumulative geology and soils impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.

Conclusion

The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect related to fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground-failure and liquefaction, landslides and seismically-induced waves, soil erosion, expansive soils, and septic systems and would require mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant.

The RHNA allocation described in the Housin g Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan SP EIRs.

Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to geology and soils impacts; however, 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. The paleontological resources mitigation measures of the subsequent EIRs, as referenced above, would also be applicable to 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 veri fication.

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 65 City of Santa Clara

4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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) Generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant
impact on the
environment?
Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No No
b) Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No No

Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments

a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The General Plan EIR determined that the City’s projected 2020 GHG emissions, without further reduction via a Climate Action Plan, would constitute a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change by exceeding the average carbon-efficiency standard necessary to meet statewide 2020 goals as established by AB 32. It was also determined that Citywide 2035 GHG emissions are projected to exc eed efficiency standards necessary to maintain a trajectory to meet long -term 2050 state climate change reduction goals. However, a chieving the substantial emissions reductions will require policy decisions at the federal and state level and new and substantially advanced technologies that cannot today be anticipated, and are outside the City’s control, and therefore cannot be relied upon as feasible mitigation strategies. Therefore, given the uncertainties about the feasibility of achieving the substantial 2035 emissions reductions, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to climate change for the 2035 timeframe is significant and unavoidable.

In 2022, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan that included measures and actions that would reduce overall citywide GHG emissions by approximately 550,553 MTCO2e per year, resulting in citywide GHG emissions of 946,487 MTCO2e in 2030, below the 2030 target of 950,040 MTCO2e per year.

The 2022 Climate Action Plan addendum indicated that the 2022 CAP would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. With the adoption of the 2022 Climate Acti on Plan, impacts from greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant, and would have less impact than the adopted 2010 General Plan EIR.

Impacts from greenhouse gas emissions described in the Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR, the Tasman East Specif ic Plan EIR, and the Patrick Henry Drive Specif ic Plan EIR all found that the proposed projects would meet the City’s efficiency metric threshold, and would be consistent with policies from the 2013 Climate Action Plan.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
66 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Emissions from the Freedom Circle Focus Area were determined to be greater than the City’s efficiency metric threshold, and as a result the EIR included two mitigation measures (9-1A and 9-1B) for projects in the plan area. These measures included the req uirement for individual projects to implement transportation demand management program s, and to use GHG-free electricity sources. With the incorporation of the required mitigation measures, impacts from greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant, and would have less impact than the adopted 2010 General Plan EIR.

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, i ncluding subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the greenhouse gas emissions impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR, subsequent EIRs, and to the 2022 Climate Action Plan addendum. Therefore, similar to the General Plan EIR as addended by the Climate Action Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts.

b) Conflict with Applicable Plan. The General Plan EIR determined that the City’s projected 2035 GHG emissions would constitute a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change by exceeding the average carbon-efficiency standard necessary to maintain a trajectory to meet statewide 2050 goals as established by EO S-3-05. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

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 impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR, subsequent EIRs and the Climate Action Plan addendum.

Therefore, similar to the General Plan EIR as addended by the Climate Action Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts.

Cumulative Impacts

The General Plan EIR found that Citywide 2035 GHG emissions are projected to exceed efficiency standards necessary to maintain a trajectory to meet long -term 2050 state climate change reduction goals. However, it was found t hat achieving the substantial emissions reductions will require policy decisions at the federal and state level and new and substantially advanced technologies that cannot today be anticipated, and are outside the City’s control, and therefore cannot be relied upon as feasible mitigation strategies. Therefore, given the uncertainties about the feasibility of achieving the substantial 2035 emissions reductions, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to climate change for the 2035 timeframe is conservatively determined to be cumulatively considerable.

The Planning Area is an almost completely urbanized area and cumulative impacts related to climate change and energy were analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and subsequent EIRs, and were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Similarly, the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be significant and unavoidable.

Conclusion
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 67 City of Santa Clara

The proposed Housing Element Update would result in significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas emission impacts. However, the RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to greenhouse gas emissions 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 Gene ral 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
68 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
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) Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
b) Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
c) Emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
d) Be located on a site which
is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
e) For a project located
within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the
project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in
the project area?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 69 City of Santa Clara
f) Impair implementation of
or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
g) Expose people or
structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
Yes No Impact No No No

Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments

(a-c) Hazardous Materials Use/Potential for Accidental Releases. The General Plan EIR noted that the 2010-2035 General Plan allows for a greater mix of uses, including location of residential uses in proximity to businesses which could expose sensitive receptors to hazardous materials used, stored or disposed of as waste by industrial or in some cases, commercial, operations. It was also noted that hazardous materials presently stored and used in Santa Clara include flammable liquids, acids, and similar substances, and th at s ome of these substances are routinely transported and kept in large enough amounts that improper handling or an accidental spill or leak could result in off -site consequences that could adversely impact nearby workers or the public. It was further note d that placement of additional sensitive receptors near facilities that could have an accidental release of a hazardous substance that would have off-site consequences, or conversely, location of a new industrial, commercial or institutional use that uses or stores toxic substances near sensitive receptors, including within ¼ mile of schools, could increase the risk of adverse health effects in the event of an accidental release. In addition to housing, it was found that new sensitive receptors such as schools and day care centers will be developed within the General Plan Focus Areas. As such, it was determined that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010 - 2035 General Plan could place sensitive uses in proximity to industrial, commercial or institutional hazardous materials users, and an accidental release of hazardous materials that travels off-site could pose health or safety risks to these sensitive land uses. However, it was found that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes updated hazards policies that address proper hazardous materials use and storage and the proximity of sensitive uses to substantial hazards from accidental release of hazardous materials and provide program -level mitigation for risks associated with the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials within the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that i mplementation of General Plan policies for adequate mitigation or separation buffers between uses and existing regulations and programs would substantially re duce hazards to people and the environment to less than significant . However, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP and the Lawrence Station SP found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts from hazardous materials 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 HAZ-1.1, HAZ-1.2, HAZ-1.3, HAZ-1.4, HAZ-

1.5, and HAZ-1.6..
 Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3.

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 hazardous materials impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
70 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated.

(d) Government Code Section 65962. The General Plan EIR found that the presence of hazardous materials on future development and redevelopment sites could result in hazardous materials exposure of construction workers during site preparation, demolition, and/or construction of new structures.

Contaminated airborne dust could also migrate off-site during demolition or construction activities and affect adjacent land uses if improperly controlled. It was further found that within Santa Clara a variety of chemical compounds associated with fuels, oil, flammable liquids, metals, pesticides or other hazardous substances originating from historical and/or current land uses may be found in soils that will be disturbed by future development or redevelopment. It was also noted that releases of hazardous materials, such as volatile organic compounds and meta ls, into the environment could affect future residents or users through direct contact or, in the case of volatile organic compounds, inhalation of soil vapors. The General Plan EIR noted that contaminated groundwater, where encountered during site redevelopment activities, could also result in potential health risks to construction workers or the public, and if excavations extend to the groundwater table, dewatering could be required and extracted contaminated groundwater would require on -site management and/or treatment. Additionally, it was found that potentially hazardous environmental conditions from reported hazardous materials spills and releases are found in virtually all of the Focus Areas of the City. While a number of these reports represent cases considered closed by Responsible Agencies such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board, where there are changes in land uses or excavation into contaminated areas, a reevaluation of potential hazards and soil or groundwater management may be warranted. It was also found that development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010-2035 General Plan could occur on or near contaminated properties located throughout the City , and localized contamination of soil, soil vapor and ground water could adversely imp act human health or the environment if not appropriately addressed and/or mitigated. Finally, the General Plan EIR found that t here are no DTSC sites within the City included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

The General Plan EIR went on to note that remodel and repair activity, and demolition work in residential and commercial structures that disturbs asbestos-containing building materials may cause the release of asbestos fibers into the air, resulting in health impacts to workers, building occupants and the general public. It was also noted there is no known health threat if asbestos-containing materials are in generally good condition and are left undisturbed, and friable asbestos-containing material (i.e., material that can be crumbled, crushed or reduced to powder by hand pressure when dry) and non -friable asbestos- containing material that will be made friable during renovation or demolition are subject to regulation.

As such, it was found that the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines require the removal of potentially friable asbestos -containing material prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb these materials. In addition, the General Plan EIR found that demolition and renovation of buildings also have the potential to release lead particles to the air, resulting in health impacts to workers, building occupants and the general public. As such , it was determined that applicable OSHA regulations must be followed; these include requirements for worker training, air monitoring and dust control, among others, and any debris or soil containing lead must be disposed appropriately. Finally, the General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010- 2035 General Plan could occur in areas with soil or groundwater contamination or involve demolition of buildings containing hazardous building materials. However, it was determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs would substantially reduce hazards to people and the environment to less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP and the Lawrence Station SP found that mitigation is required to re duce potential impacts from hazardous materials to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 71 City of Santa Clara
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 HAZ-1.1, HAZ-1.2, HAZ-1.3, HAZ-1.4, HAZ-

1.5, and HAZ-1.6..
 Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3.

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 hazardous materials 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 with existing mitigation measures incorporated.

(e) Airport Land Use Plan. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010- 2035 General Plan could occur in localized areas with identified building height and safety restrictions for Mineta San Jose International Airport. However, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs would substantially reduce aviation hazards to people and property . Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that 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 t he General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the potential airport land use 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.

(f) Emergency Plans. The General Plan EIR noted that the City of Santa Clara Hazardous Materials Division responds to emergency calls related to hazardous materials within the City, and the City also participates in the ABAG Local Hazards Plan and also has adopted a City of Santa Clara Emergency Plan (2008). The General Plan EIR also noted that the City does not maintain formal evacuation routes, as the most appropriate routes away from an area that may have been affected by a major disaster would be determined by the location and type of incident. It was determined that it may be necessary to restrict travel on certain roadways within the redevelopment and development areas under the 2010- 2035 General Plan to facilitate construction activities such as demolition, material hauling, construction, staging, and modifications to existing infrastructure, and such restrictions could include lane closures, lane narrowing, and detours, which would be temporary but could continue for extended periods of time.

As such, it was found that lane restrictions, closures, and/or detours could cause an increase in traffic volumes on adjacent roadways, which could affect emergency response routes. However, the General Plan EIR determined that redevelopment and development under the 2010- 2035 General Plan would include preparation a Traffic Management Plan, which would demonstrate where construction activities could interfere with emergency response routes and other traffic. With this information, the City is able to adequately plan around potential blocks in emergency right-of-way and would have the right to deny or halt construction activities if they would result in an adverse impact on public safety. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs, would substantially reduce the impairment of emergency response plans to 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 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
72 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the potential 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.

(g) Wildfire Risks. The General Plan EIR noted that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Hazard Protection is responsible for the identification of very high fire hazard severity zones and transmission of these maps to local government agencies, and found that there are no wildfire hazards in the City of Santa Clara . Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined there would be no project impacts related to wildland fires.

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 po tential wildfire 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 no impacts.

Cumulative Impacts

The General Plan EIR noted that hazardous materials and other public health and safety issues are generally site -specific or affect localized areas and would not be significantly affected by other development in northern Santa Clara County. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to regional cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.

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 hazards and hazardous materials 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 less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.

Conclusion

The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect related to airport land use plans and wildfire but would require mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts related to hazardous materials transport, use, or accidental re lease and hazardous materials waste sites to less than significant. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan SP EIRs. Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to hazards and hazardous materials impacts; however, development of future housing would be subject to env ironmental 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. The hazards and hazardous materials mitigation measures of the subsequent EIRs, as referenced above, would also be applicable to 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 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 73 City of Santa Clara
changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EI R, 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
74 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022

4.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality
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) Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground
water supply?
Yes
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river,
or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:

i) result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-
or off-site;
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
ii) substantially
increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff
in a manner which
would result in flooding
on- or off-site;
Yes
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
iii) create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 75 City of Santa Clara
iv) impede or redirect
flood flows? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) In flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No

Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments

(a) Violate Water Quality Standards or Degrade the Water Supply. The General Plan EIR found that ground-disturbing activities related to construction under the 2010 -2035 General Plan could result in accelerated erosion on work sites including increased input of fine sediments into the City’s storm drains and ultimately into area creeks and the Bay. It was also found that construction would use various hazardous substances such as vehicle fuels and lubricants, paving media, paints, solvents, etc.; accidental release or discharge of any of these substances could adversely affect water quality, endanger aquatic life, and/or result in violation of water quality standards. The General Plan EIR noted that all construction on sites of one acre or larger is required to manage discharge of storm water runoff under the Clean Water Act, through the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. It was also noted that for future development over one acre in size, erosion hazards would be minimized through implementation of site-specific erosion measures in SWPPPs under the NPDES General Construction Permit and grading and excavation requirements in the City Code. However, given that many future development projects would be on properties less than one acre in size, it was noted that requirements for BMPs under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code would be the primary means of enforcing erosion control measures through the grading and building permit process. Additionally, it was noted that the City is committed to ensuring that construction -related grading complies with the erosion and sediment control BMPs set forth in the California Storm Water Quality Association’s (CASQA) Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction and with the erosion and sediment control plan recommendations of the ABAG Manual of St andards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. With regulatory programs currently place, it was determined that the possible impacts of accelerated erosion during construction associated with development and redevelopment would be less than significant.

The General Plan EIR noted that new impervious surfaces can increase the delivery of polluted runoff to area storm drains and ultimately to San Francisco Bay , and t his is especially true during the “first flush” at the beginning of the storm season, when urban pollutants that have accumulated during the dry season are washed from paved surfaces. However, the General Plan EIR also noted that the City adheres to the terms of the NPDES permitting, which requires all developments that create one acre or more of impervious surface to incorporate design measures to reduce pollutant discharge to the maximum extent practicable, including site design measures, source controls, and storm water treatment measures that municipalities are to require of developments to ensure water quality. Given that many future development projects would be on properties less than one acre, requirements under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code would be the primary means of enforcing control measures after development is complete. With regulatory programs currently in place, the General Plan EIR determined that the possible impacts of accelerated runoff and decrease 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
76 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
in water quality after construction is complete for the development and redeve lopment would be less than significant. Therefore, it was determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize water quality hazards to be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Lawr ence Station SP found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to water quality to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measure, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:

 Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure HYD-1.

Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growt h capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the water quality 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 with mitigation incorporated.

(b) Groundwater Supplies. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan would have the potential to add new areas of impervious (paved or hardscaped) surface to the City, potentially decreasing infiltration and local recharge of shallow groundwater. However, it was also found that only a very small portion of the City (about 26 acres at the City’s southwest corner) is within the recharge area for the potable water aquifer, and this area is developed as residential. It was further found that some regional commercial development was planned for this area, but it would be infill and redevelopment in areas that have previously been developed. As such, the net addition of impervious surface area was expected to be small, and would be further reduced by the minimization of paved and impervious surfaces and the promotion of measures to facilitate infiltration in conformance with the requirements under section C.3 of the NPDES Permit.

Therefore, given the City’s existing developed and extensively hardscaped character, limited overall influence on potable aquifer recharge, and the 2010 -2035 General Plan commitment to minimize hardscape and promote infiltration, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to interference with groundwater recharge 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, the groundwater supply impacts related to implementation of t he Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, impacts from implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and would result in less than significant impacts.

(c.i-c.iv) Alter Drainage Patterns. The General Plan EIR noted that d evelopment often requires grading that alters natural drainage patterns. I t was also noted that i n the City, as in other densely developed Bay Area communities, natural drainage patterns have already been substantially modified to accommodate existing development. It was further noted that a dditional infill and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan could entail further modification, and both the City’s industrial and commercial areas are expected to change from lower to higher intensity development. The General Plan EIR found that new development within the Planning Area would result in some potential for increased erosion and siltation both on - and off -site because g rading and ground disturbance associated with development in these areas could increase the potential for accelerated erosion by changing natural drainage patterns. As such, the General Plan EIR found that for all future development and redevelopment on sites that are one acre or greater in size, erosion hazards would be minimized through implementation of site -specific erosion measures in SWPPPs under the NPDES General 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 77 City of Santa Clara
Construction Permit and grading and excavation requirements in the City Code. It was further found that future development projects on properties of less than one acre would be subject to requirements for BMPs under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code, and the primary means of enforcing erosion control measu res are through the grading and building permit process. Finally, it was found that t he City also implements the "Guidelines and Standards for Lands Near Streams" in the City's entitlement and permitting functions, where applicable. Therefore, w ith regulatory programs currently in place, the General Plan EIR determined that possible impacts of accelerated erosion during construction associated with development and redevelopment would be less than significant.

The General Plan EIR went on to note that development proposed under the 2010-2035 General Plan would occur adjacent to water courses throughout the City, which has the potential to alter the course of the drainage pattern near the stream or river and increase flooding. It was also noted that extensive site modifications would have some potential to increase local site runoff and/or contribute to localized flooding, particularly where high density and mixed uses generally increases the percentage of impermeable surfaces. However, the General Plan EIR found that these hazards would be minimized through implementation of site-specific measures in SWPPPs under the NPDES General Construction Permit and by grading and excavation requirements in the City Code. Given that many future development projects would be on properties less than one acre, it was noted that requirements for BMPs under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code would be the primary means of enforcing control measures through the grading and building per mit process.

Therefore, with regulatory protections in place, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to increases in surface runoff would be less than significant.

The General Plan EIR noted that a lthough the City is largely built out, devel opment under the 2010 - 2035 General Plan would add quantities of impervious surface (including both buildings and pavement), potentially decreasing infiltration and increasing runoff. However, it was noted that for future development over one acre in size, storm water runoff would be minimized through implementation of site-specific measures in SWPPPs under the NPDES General Construction Permit and grading and excavation requirements in the City Code. In addition, g iven that many future development projects would be on properties less than one acre, it was noted that requirements for BMPs under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code would be the primary means of enforcing control measures through the grading and building p ermit process. The General Plan EIR further noted that the City Code and building code include provisions for postconstruction effective management of storm water runoff. Therefore, with regulatory programs currently in place, the General Plan EIR determined that potential impacts of additional runoff to the storm water drainage system associated with development and redevelopment would be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Tasman East found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts from on- or off-site flooding 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 HYD-1.1.

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 drainage pattern 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 with existing mitigation incorporated.

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
78 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
(d) Other Water-Related Risks or Pollution. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment under the 2010 -2035 General Plan would have the potential to expose people or structures to increased risk of loss, injury, or death related to flooding, mudflow, debris flow, sea level rise, tsunami, or seiche. However, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would reduce impacts to 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, other water -related risks related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to th e General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs.

(e) Conflict with Water Quality or Groundwater Management Plans. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to conflicts with water quality or groundwater management plans . 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 impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and s ubsequent EIRs. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not exacerbate a conflict with any water quality or groundwater management plans.

Cumulative Impacts

The General Plan EIR noted that new development in the City and surrounding jurisdictions sharing the same watersheds (Guadalupe River, Calabazas Creek, and San Thomas Aquino Creek) may alter local drainage and runoff characteristics. It was also noted that storm water drainage systems are generally provided by local governments for areas within their jurisdictions, and are not provided on a regional basis. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to cumulative regional impacts associated with storm water drainage systems would be less than significant. In terms of water quality, the General Plan EIR found that increased cumulative urbanization would be expected to increase vehicle traffic and related releases of automobile -related pollutants, incl uding petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, and sediment, drain from roads into surface waters and which could have a cumulative impact to local watersheds. As such, it was noted that development in Santa Clara and adjacent cities would be required to comply wit h applicable NPDES permits, as discussed in Section

4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality , which would require that projects implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to treat storm water runoff, prior to its discharge, to the maximum extent practicable.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that compliance with applicable NPDES permits, as the permits are amended over the course of the General Plan’s 25 year planning horizon, would reduce cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts to a less than significant level.

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 hydrology and water quality 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 less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the cumulative hydrology and water quality impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be similar to the impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR and less than significant.

4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 79 City of Santa Clara
Conclusion

The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect related to violations of water quality standards or degradation of the water supply, groundwater supplies, altered drainage patterns, other water -related risks, or conflicts wi th the applicable water quality plan . The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan SP EIRs. Future housing developed in a ccordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to hydrology and water quality impacts; however, 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. The hydrology and water quality mitigation measures of the subsequent EIRs, as referenced above, would also be ap plicable to 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 . As such, no subsequent environmenta l 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
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 Sa nta 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.

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, impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 81 City of Santa Clara
implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would not conflict with applicable plans and would result in less than significant impacts.

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 allo cation 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 substa ntial 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 locally-
important 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 ther e 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 n o 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 b e 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 informatio n 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 en vironmental 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, thi s 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.

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 operational noise impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, impacts from implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be similar to those analyzed i n the General Plan E IR and would result in significant and unavoidable operational noise impacts , and less than significant construction impacts with the application of mitigation measures.

(b) Excessive Vibration. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan could expose people to excessive ground vibration levels exceeding FTA guidelines. However, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.14- 1 along with General Plan policies would minimize vibration impacts . As such, the General Plan EIR included incorporation of Mitigation Measures 4.10 -1. Further, the General Plan EIR determined that the City would require individual development projects to undergo project-specific environmental review.

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.

Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan l and 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 vibration impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
86 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with existing mitigation incorporated.

(c) Airport/Airstrip Noise. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan would exceed Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) noise thresholds, which could expose individuals living and working within the plan area to excessive aircraft noise. However, it was found that compliance with the local airport land use plan and the City’s acceptable noise level standards as well as implementation of General Plan policies would effectively reduce potential program -level aircraft noise impacts . The City will require that individual development projects undergo project-specific environmental review. If significant project-level aircraft noise impacts are identified, specific mitigation measures will be required under CEQA. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined there would be a less than significant impact.

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, includ ing 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels and would result in less than significant impacts.

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 noi se. 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 Gener al 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 infor mation 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 subseque nt 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 noise- generating 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 sho rtage 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 be tween 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 m ost 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 plan s 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 facilit ies. 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 P lan, Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan and the Fre edom 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 poli cies 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 an d 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) S chools. 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 n ew 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 cat chment 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 addres s 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.

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, schools 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.

(d) Parks. Potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities are discussed in section 4.16, below. 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. In addition, in 2014 the Santa Clara City Council adopted 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 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, i t 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 i n 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 Gen eral 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 t he 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 lib rary 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.

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, public facilities 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.

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 provide d 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.

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 resul t in an increase in demand for public services or 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 and less than 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
96 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts.

Conclusion

The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on Public Services beyond the potential impacts already identif ied 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 mea sures 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 Gen eral 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 a nd 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. Chap ter 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 physica l impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities and impacts to parks 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.

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.

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 99 City of Santa Clara

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 v olumes 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 tr ansit 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 EI R – 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 o f 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 V MT per service population are dropping compared to existing condit ions, 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 gr owth 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 be cause 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 p olicies 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 propo sal 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 wo uld 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, “C onflicts 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 tra ffic 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 ve hicle 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 congest ion 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 ide ntified 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 t o 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 an alyzed within the General Plan EIR and the EIR’s for subsequent specific plans and area plans . Therefore, the proposed project would not generate an y 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 P lan 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 w as 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 cultur al 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:

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) 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), or
No Not Examined No No No
b) A resource determined
by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the
significance of the resource
to a California Native
American tribe.

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, p roject 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 i ncludes 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 p lans 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.

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 107 City of Santa Clara

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 im pacts 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 w ould 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 t o 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 ha d 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 t he 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 inc luding 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 W astewater Facility” (RWF). It was also found that s anitary 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 Ci ty 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 collec tion 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-P22v requires 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.

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, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste infrastructure from the proposed project would 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 Pla n 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 designation s 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 adop ted 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 pr oject 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 wi th 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 be yond 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: Includ e 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 non- breeding 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 pre - construction 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 shou ld 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 br eeding 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 imp act 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 indica tes 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 ca n 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 adjac ent 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 on e 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 approxim ately 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 s ources 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 noise- generating 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 use s 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.