Resolution No. 23-9293 (Final EIR) — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, December 5, 2023

Resolution/Downtown Precise Plan EIR Page 1 of 6
Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 23-9293

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,

APPROVAL AND CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, FOR THE ADOPTION OF

CEQA FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO, AND ADOPTION

OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

FOR THE DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN AND FORM BASED

ZONING CODE

SCH No.: 2022010282
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Environmental Impact Report

WHEREAS, the City intends to adopt the Downtown Precise Plan and Form Based Zoning Code, a Plan and Zoning District for a revitalized Downtown with a reconnected street grid, new public spaces and up to 1,071 residential units, 531,720 square feet of office space, and 197,900 square feet of commercials uses, located on approximately 25 acres bounded by Benton Street, Lafayette Street, Homestead Road, and Madison Street, which is currently developed with a mix of residential, office, and retail uses in buildings ranging from one to seven stories; and; WHEREAS, a Precise Plan provides detailed guidance through goals, policies, and implementation measures with more detail than the General Plan;
WHEREAS, a Form Based Zoning Code provides development standards that implement the direction of the Precise Plan;
WHEREAS, the proposed Downtown Precise Plan is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Future Focus Areas section in the General Plan;
WHEREAS, as a part of implementing the Precise Plan, the City is contemplating the adoption of a General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) to amend the General Plan land use diagram by changing the existing land use designations of the Project Site from Downtown Core, Community Mixed Use, and Medium Density Residential to a new designation, Downtown, that allows for a mix of resident ial, commercial, office, and civic uses with site specific building heights ranging from two to seven stories;
//
Resolution/Downtown Precise Plan EIR Page 2 of 6
Rev: 7/27/2023
WHEREAS, the City is contemplating the am endment of SCCC Title 18, the Zoning Code, to replace the CD - Downtown Commercial zoning district wit h a Down town zoning d istrict and associated Form-Based Zoning Code that implements and is consistent with the proposed Precise Plan, and to apply this zoning district across the entire Project Site; WHEREAS, the Project approvals will include this Resolution; the CEQA Resolution; the General Plan Amendment Resolution; the Precise Plan Resolution; and the Ordinance for the Zoning Code Text Amendment and Rezoning Ordinance (collectively, the “Approvals”); WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022 the City of Santa Clara (“City”) distributed a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Downtown Precise Plan that included a total of approximately 1,317,600 square feet of housing (up to 1,326 residential units); 669,500 square feet of office/hotel; 197,900 square feet of retail/retail ready/and entertainment; and 44,300 square feet of public space and on January 19, 2022 posted the Notice at the Santa Clara County Clerk’s office, soliciting guidance on the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the DEIR; WHEREAS, the DEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the City circulated copies of the DEIR and Notice of Availability to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, as well as to other interested persons, organizations and agencies, and the City sought the comments of such persons, organizations and agencies on May 31, 2023 for a 45-day review period, ending on July 17, 2023 (“Comment Period”);
WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to the comments received during the Comment Period and included those responses in a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”). The FEIR consists of a list of agencies and organizations to whom the DEIR was sent, a list of the comment letters received on the DEIR, revisions to the text of the DEIR, responses to comments received on the DEIR, and copies of comment letters. The FEIR was circulated for a 10 -day review period beginning on October 11, 2023;
WHEREAS, the DEIR and FEIR constitute the EIR for the Project; Resolution/Downtown Precise Plan EIR Page 3 of 6
Rev: 7/27/2023
WHEREAS, the EIR identified certain significant and potentially significant adverse effects on the environment that would be caused by the Proj ect as proposed; WHEREAS, the EIR outlined various mitigation measures that would substantially lessen or avoid the Project’s significant effects on the environment, as well as alternatives to the Project as proposed that would provide some environmental advantages; WHEREAS, the City is required, pursuant to the California Environmental Q uality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.), to adopt all feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental effects of the Project;
WHEREAS, the EIR analyzed a No Project alternative for the Precise Plan area, that contemplates the existing conditions remaining substantially the same, and a Reduced Density alternative; WHEREAS, Public Resources Code § 21081, subdivision (a) requires a lead agency, before approving a project for which an EIR has been prepared and certified, to adopt findings specifying whether mitigation measures and, in some instances, alternatives discussed in the EIR, have been adopted or rejected as infeasible;
WHEREAS, the “CEQA Findings” a ttached to this Resolution is a set of Fi ndings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared in order to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code § 21081, subdivision (a);
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that none of the alternatives addressed in the EIR, would be both feasible and environmental ly superior to the Project as proposed. The No Project alternative and the Reduced Density alternative would not sufficiently satisfy the Project Objectives.

The details supporting these determinations are set forth in the CEQA Findings; WHEREAS, in taking this course, the City Council has acted consistent with the CEQA mandate to look to project mitigations and/or alternatives as a means of substantially lessening or avoiding the environmental effects of projects as proposed;
//
Resolution/Downtown Precise Plan EIR Page 4 of 6
Rev: 7/27/2023
WHEREAS, many of the significant and potentially significant environmental effects associated with the Project can either be substantially lessened or avoided through the inclusion of mitigation measures proposed in the EIR;
WHEREAS, the City Council, in reviewing the Project, intends to adopt all mitigation measures set forth in the EIR;
WHEREAS, Section 15025(c) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that whenever an advisory body such as a Planning Commission is required to mak e a recommendation on a project to the decisionmaking body, the advisory body must also review and consider the EIR; WHEREAS, on October 25, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the EIR at a duly noticed public meeting, at the conclusion of which, the Commission voted to recommend that the Council approve and certify the EIR;
WHEREAS, notice of the December 5, 2023 public hearing on the proposed project was published in the Santa Clara Weekly, a newspaper of gene ral circulation for the City, on October 11, 2023; WHEREAS, notices of the December 5, 2023 public hearing on the proposed project were mailed to all property owners within 1,0 00 feet of the Project Si te, according to the most recent asses sor’s roll, on October 11, 2023; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as the “MMRP”, as well as a set of CEQA Findings and, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, along with the City Staff report pertaining to the EIR for the Project (SCH # 2022010282), and all evidence received at a duly noticed public hearing on December 5, 2023. All of these documents and evidence are incorporated herein by reference i nto this Resolution.

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

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

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

Resolution/Downtown Precise Plan EIR Page 5 of 6
Rev: 7/27/2023

3. That the City Council hereby finds the EIR has been presented to the City Council, which reviewed and considered the information and analysis contained therein.

4. That the City Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and California Co de of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15091, that many of the proposed mitigation measures described in the EIR are feasible, and therefore will become binding upon the City and affected landowners and their assigns or successors in interest as conditions of approval when the Project is approved.

5. That the City Council hereby finds that none of the Project Alternatives set forth in the EIR can feasibl y substantially lessen or avoid those significant adverse environmental effects not otherwise lessened or avoided by the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures.

6. That, in order to comply with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in the attached “MMRP”. The MMRP is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the City, affected landowners, their assigns and successors in interest and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified. The MMRP identifies, for each mitigation measure, the action to be taken and the party responsible for implementation.

7. That the City Cou ncil hereby finds that the EIR set forth program and cumulative environmental impacts that are significant and unavoidable that cannot be mitigated or avoide d through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives. As to these impacts, the City Council finds that there exist certain overriding economic, social and other considerations for approving the Project that justify the occurren ce of those impacts, as detailed in the “CEQA Findings” exhibit attached hereto.
//
//
//
//

8. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution , the evidence in the City Staff Report, and the attached CEQA Findings , the City Council approves and certifies the EIR, adopts the CEQA findings concerning mitigation measures, adopts the MMRP , makes findings concerning alternatives and makes findings that there exist certain overriding economic, social and other considerations for approving the Project that justify the occurrence of those associated impacts and adopts the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, all in accordance with CEQA for the Project.

9. Pursuant to Section 15091 (e) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council hereby designates the Directo r of Community Development as the Custodian of Records for the Project , and the Planning Division at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue , Santa Clara, California, is the location of the documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based .

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

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

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA , AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES : COUNCILORS :

NOES : COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS :

ABSTAINED : COUNCILORS:

Attachments incorporated by reference :

1. MMRP

2. CEQA Findings
Resolution/Downtown Precise Plan EIR
Rev: 7/27/2023
Becker, Chahal, Hardy, Jain, Park , and Watanabe
None
None
MayorGillm ~or ,
ATTEST: ..... N"-O-'--=R~A~P- 1..._M ..... E'-"-N .... T~E .... L ... , """M_M _ ___ _

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Page 6 ends

DRAFT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

May 31, 2023

P R E F A C E

Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program (MMRP) whenever it approves a project for which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring or reporting program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation.

The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) concluded that the implementation of the project could result in significant effects on the environment and mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed project or are required as a condition of project approval. This MMRP addresses those measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented.

This document does not discuss those subjects for which the EIR concluded that mitigation measures would not be required to reduce significant impacts.

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 1 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Air Quality
Impact AIR-1: As
mitigated, the project
would not conflict with
or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan.

Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures AIR-3.1 and AIR-3.2. See below See below See below Impact AIR-2: As
mitigated, the project
would not 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.

Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures AIR-3.1 and AIR-3.2. See below See below See below IMPACT AIR-3:

Development proposed
under the Santa Clara
Downtown Precise
Plan (SCDPP) would
MM AIR 3.1: During any construction ground disturbance, the project applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implements the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Construction Best Management Practices:

During any
construction
ground
disturbance

Project applicant
and project
contractor

Director of
Community
Development or
Director’s
Designee
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 2 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
result in significant
construction air
pollutant emissions due
to dust generation, and
emissions of toxic air
contaminants (TACs)
and criteria pollutants
during construction.
• All exposed unpaved surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles-per-hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum
idling time to five minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a
certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 3 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the construction firm regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
• The contractor shall install temporary electrical service, whenever possible, to avoid the need for independently
powered equipment (e.g., generators).

MM AIR-3.2: Prior to receiving demolition, grading, and building permits, a qualified air quality consultant shall prepare a project-level air quality assessment that quantifies
construction criteria pollutant and TAC emissions for each individual project proposed within the SCDPP once
construction details are available. The air quality assessments shall model construction impacts and, if necessary, include measures to reduce emissions. Criteria pollutant emissions shall not exceed BAAQMD construction criteria pollutant emissions thresholds. Health risks from construction TACs shall be reduced below 10 in one million excess cancer cases, a hazard index (HI) of 1.0, and a fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM

2.5)
concentration of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). The air quality assessment shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee, once complete.

Prior to receiving
demolition,
grading, and
building permits

A qualified air
quality
consultant

Director of
Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 4 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Reduction in emissions can be accomplished through, but is not limited to, the following measures:

• Construction equipment selection for low emissions;
• Use of alternative fuels, engine retrofits, and added exhaust devices;
• Low-volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints;
• Modify construction schedule; and
• Implementation of BAAQMD Basic and/or Additional
Construction Mitigation Measures for control of fugitive dust

Impact AIR-3: As
mitigated, the project
would not expose
sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations.

Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures AIR-3.2 and AIR-3.3. See above and below
See above and
below
See above and
below
Impact AIR-3: Future
development proposed
under the Santa Clara
Downtown Precise
Plan (SCDPP) would
result in significant
operational toxic air
MM AIR-3.3: Prior to receiving demolition, grading, and building permits, a qualified air quality consultant shall prepare a project-level health risk assessment that analyzes project operational TAC sources and identifies sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the project site boundaries. The qualified air quality consultant shall use the latest Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidance to determine which Prior to
receiving
demolition,
grading, and
building permits
A qualified air
quality
consultant
Director of
Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 5 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
contaminant (TAC)
impacts from stationary
sources.

sources of TACs shall be included in the risk assessment.

Screening tools approved by BAAQMD may be used in lieu of dispersion modeling; however, if no screening tool is available then an in-depth health risk assessment with dispersion modeling shall be required. The community risk assessment shall model the project’s operational TAC impacts and compare the health risk values against the latest BAAQMD single-source thresholds. If necessary, the risk assessment shall include measures to reduce project health risk impacts. Health risks associated with project TAC sources shall be reduced below 10 in one million excess cancer cases, a hazard index (HI) of 1.0, and a fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of

2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5) concentration of 0.3
micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m
3). The project-level health
risk assessment shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee, once complete.

Impact AIR-C: As
mitigated, the project
would not result in a
cumulatively
considerable
contribution to a
cumulatively
significant air quality
impact.

Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures AIR-3.1 and AIR-3.2. See above See above See above Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 6 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Impact AIR-C: Future
development proposed
under the Santa Clara
Downtown Precise
Plan (SCDPP) could
contribute to
cumulative toxic air
contaminant (TAC)
impacts.

MM AIR-C.1: Prior to receiving demolition, grading, and building permits, a qualified air quality consultant shall prepare a cumulative community risk assessment that analyzes project operational TAC sources and identifies sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the project site boundaries. The qualified air quality consultant shall use the latest Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidance to determine which sources of TACs shall be included in the risk assessment.

Screening tools approved by BAAQMD may be used in lieu of dispersion modeling; however, if no screening tool is available then an in-depth health risk assessment with dispersion modeling shall be required. The community risk assessment shall model the project’s operational TAC impacts and compare the health risk values against the latest BAAQMD single-source thresholds. The combined health risk impacts shall be
compared against the latest BAAQMD cumulative-source
thresholds. If necessary, the risk assessment shall include measures to reduce project health risk impacts. The combined health risks from TAC sources shall be reduced below the cumulative source thresholds of 100 in one million excess cancer cases, a hazard index (HI) of 10.0, and a fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM

2.5) concentration of 0.8 micrograms per cubic meter
(µg/m3). The cumulative community risk assessment shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development or the Director’s designee, once
complete.

Prior to
receiving
demolition,
grading, and
building permits
A qualified air
quality
consultant
Director of
Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 7 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1:

Construction activities
associated with future
development within the
Santa Clara Downtown
Precise Plan (SCDPP)
area could result in the
loss of fertile eggs,
nesting raptors or other
migratory birds, or nest
abandonment.

MM BIO-1.1: Construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season to the extent feasible. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors, in the San Francisco Bay area extends from February 1st through August 31st.

MM BIO-1.2: If it is not possible to schedule construction and tree removal between September 1st and January 31st, pre- construction surveys for nesting birds shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests shall be disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be completed no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of grading, tree removal, or other demolition or construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February 1st through April 30th) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May 1st through August 31st).

During this survey, the ornithologist shall inspect all tress and other possible nesting habitats within and immediately adjacent to the construction area of nests. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist shall determine the extent of a construction- free buffer zone to be established around the nest to ensure that nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Agreement (MBTA) or Fish and Game Code shall not be
disturbed during project construction.

For pre-
construction
surveys, no more
than 14 days
prior to the
initiation of
grading, tree
removal, or other
demolition or
construction
activities during
the early part of
the breeding
season and no
more than 30
days prior to the
initiation of these
activities during
the late part of
the breeding
season as
described in MM
BIO-1.2
Project applicant
and
qualified
ornithologist
Director of
Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 8 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Impact BIO-5: Tree
removal from
redevelopment of
individual parcels
under the Santa Clara
Downtown Precise
Plan (SCDPP) could
result in a significant
impact to trees.

MM BIO-5.1: Projects proposing or required to retain trees on- site shall implement precautionary measures during site construction to limit adverse environmental effects on trees protected under General Plan Policies 5.10.1-P3 and 5.10.1-P4 that are to be retained. A tree protection plan shall be prepared by a qualified arborist that, at a minimum, requires installation of an open material (e.g., chain link) fence six feet in height around the drip line and maintenance of the existing grade level around a tree and out to its drip line. Proof of tree protection measures shall be provided to the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permits.

The minimum tree replacement size shall be a 24-inch box for all on-site plantings, with all street trees to be a minimum 36- inch box. Street tree selection shall be per City specifications; spacing, and species shall be approved by City Arborist. Tree removal permits shall be obtained prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permits.

Prior to issuance
of any
demolition or
grading permits
Project applicant Director of
Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 9 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Impact BIO-C: As
mitigated, the project
would not result in a
cumulatively
considerable
contribution to a
cumulatively
significant biological
resources impact.

Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1, BIO-1.2, BIO-5.1, and BIO-5.2.

See above See above See above
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-2: Future
projects proposed
under the Santa Clara
Downtown Precise
Plan (SCDPP) could
result in impacts to as
yet unidentified buried
archaeological
resources.

MM CUL-2.1: Prior to grading of the project site, a qualified archaeological consultant shall conduct subsurface sampling to determine if historic archaeological resources are present.

Testing for historic-era resources shall extend to a depth of four feet below the current ground surface. Testing for prehistoric resources shall extend to a depth of eight feet below the current ground surface to account for rapid alluviation during the Holocene era. In the event that resources are discovered on-site, a site-specific cultural resources treatment plan shall be prepared and approved by the Director of Community
Development or Director’s designee prior to issuance of any of grading permits in conformance with the steps outlined below.

Investigation – Resource Identification
Archaeologists shall investigate features to determine their Prior to grading
of the project
site

Project applicant
and a qualified
archaeologist
consultant

Director of
Community
Development or
Director’s
designee

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 10 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
potential significance. Decisions shall be made about which features shall be subject to archaeological data recovery.

• The determination of significance of historic archaeological property types is tied directly to their historical context and relevance to research themes further discussed below.

Usefulness of a property type (feature) with regard to
relevant research themes determines the legal importance of that resource. Also germane to the importance of property types are assessments of integrity, land use history, and comparison with other known similar property types.

Especially relevant here are issues that cannot be addressed using data from other sources. The purpose of identifying relevant research themes is to help predict areas of special concern, given expected property types. Determination of relevance to research themes is critical to the identification of significant features in the field.
• If data recovery is determined to be appropriate, excavation shall target recovery of an appropriate amount of
information from archaeological deposits to determine
potential of the resource to address specific research
questions. If it occurs, data recovery shall emphasize
understanding of the archaeological deposit’s structure, including features and stratification, horizontal and vertical extent, and content including the nature and quantity of artifacts.

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 11 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Reporting
The findings reports shall follow the outline below and shall focus on particular finds encountered during the excavation. All reports shall, at a minimum, meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant and all reviewing agencies, and shall ultimately be filed with the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University.

The technical report on project results may address the following elements:

• executive summary;
• statement of scope, including project location and setting; • background contexts or summaries;
• summary of previous research, historical and
archaeological;
• research goals and themes;
• field and laboratory methodologies;
• descriptions of recovered materials;
• findings and interpretations, referencing research goals; • conclusions;
• references cited; and
• appendices such as artifact catalogs, special studies, and other information relevant to the project and findings.

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 12 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
MM CUL-2.2: Upon completion of all field work, but before completion of the Findings Report (outlined in MM CUL-2.1), a preliminary report outlining the data recovery work on the site(s) shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or Director’s designee for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.

MM CUL-2.3: In the event that buried, or previously
unrecognized archaeological deposits or materials of any kind are inadvertently exposed during any construction activity, work within 50 feet of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist can assess the find and provide recommendations for further treatment, if warranted. The archaeologist, in consultation with the project applicant, shall make the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) if the resource is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Construction and potential impacts to the area within a radius determined by the archaeologist shall not recommence until the assessment is complete.

Prior to issuance
of building
permits

In the event that
buried, or
previously
unrecognized
archaeological
deposits or
materials of any
kind are exposed
during
construction
activity

Project applicant
and a qualified
archaeologist
consultant

Director of
Community
Development or
Director’s
designee

Impact CUL-3.1:

Future projects
proposed under the
Santa Clara Downtown
Precise Plan (SCDPP)
MM CUL-3.1: In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a
determination as to whether the remains are of Native
American origin or whether an investigation into the cause of In the event that
human remains
are discovered
during
excavation
Project applicant Director of
Community
Development or
Director’s
designee, Santa
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 13 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
could result in impacts
to human remains.
death is required. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately. Once NAHC
identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants shall make recommendations regarding proper burial, which shall be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

and/or grading
of the site
Clara County
Coroner, and
Native American
Heritage
Commission
(NAHC)
Impact CUL-C: As
mitigated, the project
would not result in a
cumulatively
considerable
contribution to a
cumulatively
significant cultural
resources impact.

Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1 to CUL-2.3 and CUL-3.1 and implementation of the Condition of Approval.

See above See above See above
Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-6:

Development proposed
under the Santa Clara
Downtown Precise
Plan (SCDPP) has the
potential to disturb
unknown
paleontological
MM GEO-6.1: Future projects requiring excavation of 10 feet or more below the ground surface (bgs) shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. In the event paleontological resources are discovered, all work on the site shall stop immediately, the Community Development Director or Director’s designee shall be notified, and the qualified paleontologist shall assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. Treatment may include, but is not limited to, Prior to the
issuance of
building permits
Project applicant
and qualified
paleontologist
Community
Development
Director or
Director’s
designee
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 14 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
resources during
excavation, grading and
construction activities.

preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations of the qualified
paleontologist. A report of all findings shall be submitted to the Community Development Director or Director’s designee prior to the issuance of building permits.

Impact GEO-C: As
mitigated, the project
would not result in a
cumulatively
considerable
contribution to a
cumulatively
significant geology and
soils impact.

Same mitigation as Mitigation Measure GEO-6.1.

See above See above See above
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1:

Operation of
developments approved
under the Santa Clara
Downtown Precise
Plan (SCDPP) after the
year 2030 has the
MM GHG-1.1: Future projects approved after the year 2030 shall be required to conform to the applicable GHG reduction standards in place at the time the project is initiated as provided in the City’s adopted qualified Climate Action Plan (CAP) for year 2040 or 2050 (whichever is applicable). Proof of
compliance shall be provided in writing for review and
At the time the
project is
initiated

Project applicant

Director of
Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 15 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
potential to result in
greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions that would
result in an impact on
the environment.

approval by the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee.

MM GHG-1.2: If the City of Santa Clara does not have a
qualified GHG CAP adopted for year 2040 or 2050, or the project cannot comply with the reduction strategies in the 2040 or 2050 CAPs (whichever is applicable), then the project applicant shall purchase and retire carbon offset credits equivalent to the project’s total operational GHG emissions.

• The project applicant shall provide proof to the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee that
the carbon offset credits were issued by a registry meeting the following requirements:
o The registry shall account for and quantify emission
reductions using clear and defined standards and
incorporating recognized principles of GHG emissions
reduction accounting, including those set forth in the
international organization for standardization (ISO)
14064 and the World Resources Institute (WRI)/World
Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD) GHG Protocol for Project Accounting;
o The registry shall use clear information sufficient for reviewers to assess credibility of GHG emission
reductions underlying the carbon offset credits. Upon
request by the City’s Director of Community
Development or the Director’s designee, any

At the time the
project is
initiated

Project applicant

Director of
Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 16 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
governmental entity, or any stakeholder, the registry
shall provide the following information within a
reasonable time period in connection with any carbon
offset credit retired by the project applicant: (i) the applicable quantification protocol; and (ii) all third- party confirmation or verification reports issued in
connection with the carbon offset credits. Such
information shall be sufficient to monitor compliance
by the project applicant with this mitigation measure.
o The carbon offset credits retired by the project applicant for the purpose of mitigating GHG emissions shall
represent GHG emission reductions that are real,
permanent, additional, quantifiable, verifiable and
enforceable.1

1 The following terms in this mitigation are defined as follows: “Additional” means GHG emission reductions or removals underlying the carbon offset credits that exceed any GHG reduction or removals otherwise required by law, regulation or legally binding mandate, and that exceed any GHG reductions or removals that would otherwise occur in a business-as-usual scenario. To be additional, the credit shall have reduced GHG emissions below the applicable common industry practice for GHG reductions as in effect at the time the credit project was initiated. “Real” means that GHG reductions or GHG enhancements underlying the carbon offset credits result from a demonstrable action or set of actions, and are quantified using appropriate, accurate, and conservative methodologies that account for all GHG emissions sources, GHG sinks, and GHG reservoirs within the boundary of the applicable credit project and account for uncertainty and the potential for activity-shifting leakage and market-shifting leakage. “Verifiable” means that the GHG reductions or GHG enhancements underlying the carbon offset credits are well documented, transparent and set forth in a document subject to objective review by an accredited verification body. “Permanent” means that GHG reductions and GHG removal enhancements underlying the carbon offset credits are not reversible, or when GHG reductions and GHG removal enhancements may be reversible, that mechanisms are in place to replace any reversed GHG emission reductions and GHG removal enhancements to ensure that all credited reductions endure for at least 100 years. To ensure permanence, reductions from purchased credits must have already occurred. “Quantifiable” means the ability to accurately measure and calculate GHG reductions or GHG removal enhancements relative to a project baseline in a reliable and replicable manner for all GHG emission sources, GHG sinks, or GHG reservoirs included within the boundary of the credit project generating the carbon offset credits, while accounting for uncertainty and activity shifting leakage and market-shifting leakage. “Enforceable” means the authority for the City to hold the project accountable and to take appropriate action if the City determines that any carbon offset credits do not comply with the requirements set forth above.

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 17 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
To demonstrate compliance with such requirements, the project applicant shall provide the following to the City’s Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee: (i) the protocol used to quantify and issue such carbon offset credits, (ii) the third-party verification report(s) pursuant to which such carbon offset credits were issued, and (iii) the unique serial numbers of the carbon offset credits to be retired to ensure that the offset cannot be further used in any manner. The Director of Community Development of the Director’s designee shall reject any carbon offset credits that do not comply with these requirements, and where reductions are not direct reductions within a confined project boundary or provide opportunities for reversal of the avoided emissions. The Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee shall reject any credits for a project that includes technology or GHG abatement practices that are already widely used.

• The carbon offset credits shall be from credit projects developed locally. If carbon offset credits are not available locally, the carbon offset credits shall be from credit projects developed in the United States. Carbon offset
credits resulting from international credit projects shall not be acceptable to satisfy this mitigation measure.
• The project applicant shall mitigate GHG emissions
resulting from project operations by purchasing and retiring offset credits prior to each year’s emissions that exceed the threshold. The applicant shall provide proof in the form of a Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 18 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
compliance report to the Director of Community
Development of the Director’s designee that carbon offset credits equal to the amount of project operational GHG
emissions in excess of the threshold have been purchased and retired, prior to the operational year in which those emissions would occur. The applicant shall also have the right, at any time, to purchase and retire carbon offset credits for some or all of the operational emissions of the project in advance of the issuance of certificates of
occupancy, temporary or permanent.
• The permits relating to the project shall be conditioned on achievement of GHG mitigation milestones. The purchase
and retirement of carbon offset credits required to mitigate the GHG emissions resulting from the operation of the
project shall be a condition of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, temporary or permanent, for the project and as an issuance for continued operation. Should the City determine that the offset credits are non-compliant with these requirements, the City may issue a notice of non- consistency and cease permitting activities and/or stop project operations, until the City determines via an issued public notice that the offsets comply with the
aforementioned standards.

Impact GHG-2: Even
with implementation of
the identified
Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures GHG-1.1 and GHG-

1.2. See above See above See above
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 19 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
mitigation measures,
the project would
conflict with an
applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted
for the purpose of
reducing the emissions
of GHGs.

Impact GHG-C: As
mitigated, the project
would not result in a
cumulatively
considerable
contribution to a
cumulatively
significant GHG
emissions impact.

Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures GHG-1.1 and GHG-

1.2. See above See above See above
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-2:

Existing hazardous
materials
contamination in soils
and groundwater within
the Santa Clara
Downtown Precise
MM HAZ-2.1: Prior to the start of any demolition or
construction activity, a property-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be completed in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Designation E1527-21 (or most recent version) to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), evaluate the property history, and establish whether or not the property is Prior to the start
of any
demolition or
construction
activity

Project applicant

Director of
Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 20 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Plan (SCDPP) area has
the potential to impact
construction workers
and adjacent land uses
if disturbed during
demolition or
construction of new
buildings and structures
on-site.
likely to have been impacted by chemical releases. Soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater quality studies (Phase II ESAs) shall subsequently be conducted, if warranted, based on the findings of the property-specific Phase I ESAs, to evaluate if measures are needed to protect the health and safety of site occupants.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory levels, an appropriate corrective action/risk management plan (e.g., remedial action plan [RAP], removal action workplan [RAW], or Site Management Plan [SMP], etc.) shall be prepared that reflects the results of the property-specific investigations. The corrective action/risk management plan shall describe
mitigation measures necessary to protect the health and safety of future site occupants and establish appropriate management practices for handling and monitoring of impacted soil, soil vapor, and groundwater that may be encountered during
construction activities. The corrective action/risk management plan shall be prepared by an Environmental Professional and be submitted to an appropriate overseeing regulatory agency (e.g., Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
[SCCDEH], DTSC, or RWQCB) and the City of Santa Clara
Fire Department (SCFD) for review. Regulatory agency

Prior to the start
of earthwork
activities

Project
Applicant and
Environmental
Professional

Director of
Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee and the
appropriate
overseeing
regulatory
agency (e.g.,
Santa Clara
County
Department of
Environmental
Health
[SCCDEH],
DTSC, or
RWQCB) and
the City of Santa
Clara Fire
Department
(SCFD)
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 21 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
approval shall be obtained prior to commencing earthwork activities. A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall also be prepared to establish health and safety protocols for personnel working at the site. All mitigation measures shall be completed under regulatory agency oversight and meet all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and requirements.

Following completion, a report documenting compliance with the provisions of the corrective action/risk management plan and describing the work completed shall be submitted and approved by the overseeing regulatory agency.

MM HAZ-2.3: If a project requires importing soil for property grading, the source and quality of imported soil shall be documented according to the DTSC’s Clean Fill Advisory
(October 2001).

Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-2: Even
with implementation of
the identified
mitigation measures,
the project would cause
a significant
environmental impact
due to a conflict with a
land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted
Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures GHG-1.1 and GHG-

1.2. At the time the
project is
initiated

Project applicant

Director of
Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 22 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating
an environmental
effect.

Impact LU-C: As
mitigated, the project
would not result in a
cumulatively
considerable
contribution to a
cumulatively
significant land use and
planning impact.

Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures GHG-1.1 and GHG-

1.2. See above See above See above
Noise and Vibration
Impact NOI-1:

Construction activities
associated with future
development could
generate hourly
average noise levels in
excess of 60 equivalent
continuous noise level
(dBA Leq) for
residential uses and 70
dBA Leq for
MM NOI-1.1: The project applicant shall submit and
implement a construction noise logistics plan that specifies hours of construction, noise and vibration minimization measures, posting and notification of construction schedules, equipment to be used, and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance. In addition, the noise disturbance coordinator shall respond to neighborhood complaints and shall be in place prior to the start of construction and implemented during
Prior to the
issuance of any
grading or
demolition
permits
Project applicant Director of
Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 23 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
commercial uses and
the ambient noise
environment by at least
five dBA Leq for a
period of more than
one year.
construction to reduce noise impacts on neighboring residents and other uses. The noise logistic plan shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or the Director’s
designee prior to the issuance of any grading or demolition permits.

As part of the noise logistic plan, construction activities for the proposed project shall include, but are not limited to, the following best management practices:

• Limit construction hours within 300 feet of any
residentially zoned property to the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays. No construction is
permitted on Sundays or Holidays.
• Use “new technology” power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. Equip all internal combustion engines with adequate mufflers and maintain all equipment in good mechanical condition to
minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained
engines or other components.
• Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
• Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that shall create the greatest distance between the
construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 24 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
receptors nearest the project site during all project
construction.
• Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise-generating equipment when located near adjoining
sensitive land uses.
• Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other
stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project area.
• Notify all adjacent businesses, residences, and other noise- sensitive land uses within 500 feet of the construction schedule and provide a written schedule of construction activities.
• Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” to respond to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise
complaint (e.g., beginning work too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone
number at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.

MM NOI-1.2: If pile driving is proposed, the following
measures shall be included in the construction noise control plan:

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 25 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
• During pile driving, pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile. • During pile driving activities, install “acoustical blankets” to provide shielding for receptors located within 100 feet of the site, or use a noise attenuating shroud on the pile driving hammer.

Impact NOI-1:

Mechanical equipment
from future projects
located in proximity to
existing residential land
uses could result in
noise levels in
exceedance of City
standards for fixed
sources.

MM NOI-1.3: Prior to the issuance of building permits,
mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the City’s Code
requirements. A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained by the applicants for future development projects to review mechanical noise as the equipment systems are selected in order to determine whether the proposed noise reduction measures sufficiently reduce noise to comply with the City’s noise and vibration level performance standards for fixed sources. Noise reduction measures that would accomplish this reduction include, but are not limited to, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels and/or installation of noise barriers such as enclosures and parapet walls to block the line of sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors.

Prior to the
issuance of
building permits
Project applicant
and a qualified
acoustical
consultant
Director of
Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee
Impact NOI-2:

Existing and planned
land uses in the vicinity
of the Santa Clara
Downtown Precise
MM NOI-2.1: The following measures would be incorporated into the project to reduce vibration impacts:

• Comply with the City Code construction hours
requirements to limit the hours of exposure to surrounding Prior to and after
completion of
vibration
generating
Project
applicant,
contractor, and a
licensed
Professional
Director of
Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 26 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

properties. The City Code limits construction activities within 300 feet of residentially zoned property to the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. On weekdays and between the
hours of 9:00 AM. and 6:00 PM on Saturdays. No
construction is permitted on Sundays or holidays within 300 feet of occupied residentially zoned property.
• Prohibit impact or vibratory pile driving as a method of construction. As an alternative, construction of a mat slab2, shall be used.
• Limit the use of vibratory rollers, hoe rams, large
bulldozers, and caisson drilling, and avoid clam shovel drops within 65 feet of the property lines shared with
residences and commercial structures adjacent to the site. • Place operating equipment on the construction site as far as possible from vibration-sensitive receptors.
• Use smaller equipment to minimize vibration levels below the limits.
• Select demolition methods not involving impact tools. • Avoid dropping heavy objects or materials near vibration sensitive locations.
• A list of all heavy construction equipment to be used for this project known to produce high vibration levels (tracked vehicles, vibratory compaction, jackhammers, hoe rams,
construction
activities
Structural
Engineer in the
State of
California

2 A mat slab is a hard surface designed with reinforcement to resist uplift forces created by hydrostatic pressure. A mat slab carries the entire load of the superstructure and spreads it over the whole area beneath the building. It is considered as one type of shallow foundation and is useful in controlling the differential settlement. No piles or other subsurface supports are utilized.

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 27 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
etc.) shall be submitted to the City by the contractor. This list shall be used to identify equipment and activities that would potentially generate substantial vibration and to define the level of effort required for continuous vibration monitoring.
• A construction vibration-monitoring plan shall be
implemented to document conditions at the residences and commercial structures adjacent to the site prior to, during, and after vibration generating construction activities. All plan tasks shall be undertaken under the direction of a licensed Professional Structural Engineer in the State of California and be in accordance with industry accepted
standard methods. The construction vibration monitoring plan should be implemented to include the following tasks:
o Identification of sensitivity to ground-borne vibration of the residences and commercial structures adjacent to the site. A vibration survey (generally described below)
would need to be performed.
o Performance of a photo survey, elevation survey, and
crack monitoring survey for the residences and
commercial structures nearest to the site. Surveys shall be performed prior to and after completion of vibration generating construction activities located within 65 feet of the structure. This distance shall be extended to 80 feet for vibratory pile driving and 120 feet for impact pile driving. The surveys shall include internal and
external crack monitoring in the structure, settlement, Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 28 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
and distress, and shall document the condition of the
foundation, walls and other structural elements in the
interior and exterior of the structure.
o Conduct a post-survey on the structure where either
monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of
damage. Make appropriate repairs where damage has
occurred as a result of construction activities.
o The results of any vibration monitoring shall be
summarized and submitted in a report shortly after
substantial completion of each phase identified in the
project schedule. The report shall include a description of measurement methods, equipment used, calibration
certificates, and graphics as required to clearly identify vibration-monitoring locations. An explanation of all
events that exceeded vibration limits shall be included together with proper documentation supporting any
such claims.
o Designate a person responsible for registering and
investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on
the construction site.

Impact NOI-C: As
mitigated, the project
would not result in a
cumulatively
considerable
Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures NOI-1.3, NOI-1.1, NOI-1.2, and NOI-2.1.

Same as above Same as above Same as above
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 29 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
contribution to a
cumulatively
significant noise
impact.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1: As
mitigated, the project
would not cause a
substantial adverse
change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource that is
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).

Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1 to CUL-2.3 and CUL-3.1.

Prior to grading
of the project
site;

In the event that
buried, or
previously
unrecognized
archaeological
deposits or
materials of any
kind are exposed
during
construction
activity; and

In the event that
human remains
are discovered
during
excavation
Project applicant
and a qualified
archaeologist
consultant

Director of
Community
Development or
Director’s
designee

Santa Clara
County Coroner
and
Native American
Heritage in the
event human
remains are
discovered

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 30 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Impact TCR-2: As
mitigated, the project
would not cause a
substantial adverse
change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource that is
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.

Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1 to CUL-2.3 and CUL-3.1.

Same as above Same as above Same as above
Impact TCR-C: As
mitigated, the project
would not result in a
cumulatively
considerable
contribution to a
cumulatively
significant tribal
Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1 to CUL-2.3 and CUL-3.1.

Same as above Same as above Same as above
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 31 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
cultural resources
impact.

In addition to mitigation measures listed above, there are also Conditions of Approval the project shall implement, including the following:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Future Sensitive Receptors’ Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants Sources (Non-CEQA) • Prior to receiving demolition, grading, and building permits, a qualified air quality consultant shall prepare a project-level community risk assessment that identifies sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) within 1,000 feet of the project site boundaries and analyzes the impacts on future project sensitive receptors. Common sources include roadways with an average daily traffic (ADT) over 10,000 vehicles and permitted Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) stationary sources. The qualified air quality consultant shall use the latest BAAQMD guidance to determine which sources of TACs shall be included in the risk assessment. Screening tools approved by BAAQMD may be used in lieu of dispersion modeling; however, if no screening tool is available then an in-depth health risk assessment with dispersion modeling shall be required. The community risk assessment shall model TAC impacts and compare the health risk values against the latest BAAQMD thresholds, and, if necessary, include measures to reduce health risk impacts. Health risks from existing TACs shall be reduced below 10 in one million excess cancer cases, a hazard index of 1.0, and a fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM

2.5) concentration of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). The combined health risks from TAC sources shall be reduced below the cumulative source thresholds of 100 in one million excess cancer cases, a hazard index of 10.0, and a PM2.5 concentration of 0.8 µg/m3. The community risk assessment shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee, once complete.

Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 32 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
Historical Resources
• For any future project proposed within the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP), the project applicant shall prepare the appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Forms (DPR Forms) for any building or structure that is 50 years of age or older to determine whether or not the building or structure is eligible as a historical resource under the federal, state, or local criteria.

Geological Hazards
• For any future project proposed within the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP), the project applicant shall be required to submit a design-level geotechnical report to the City of Santa Clara’s Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building and grading permit(s). Building design and construction associated with specific development shall comply with the recommendations of the design-level geotechnical investigation (including measures to address seismicity and seismic hazards, liquefaction, and lateral spreading) to ensure building integrity and reduce risk. In addition, future development would be required to adhere to the latest California Building Code (CBC).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• For any future project proposed within the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP) prior to the year 2031, the project applicant shall demonstrate conformance with the City of Santa Clara’s 2022 Climate Action Plan (2022 CAP) by completing the City’s 2022 CAP Compliance Checklist.3
Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint
• In conformance with state and local laws, a visual inspection/pre-demolition survey, and possible sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on-site building(s) to determine the presence of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-based paint (LBP). • During demolition activities, all building materials containing LBP shall be removed in accordance with California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) Lead in Title 8, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing LBP or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of lead being disposed. • All potentially friable ACMs shall be removed in accordance with National Emission Standards for Air Pollution (NESHAP) guidelines prior to demolition or renovation activities that may disturb ACMs. All demolition activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8, CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from asbestos exposure.

3 City of Santa Clara. “City of Santa Clara 2022 Climate Action Plan Compliance Checklist.” Accessed February 2, 2023. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/78990/638060101646470000 Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Project 33 MMRP
City of Santa Clara May 2023

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT
• A registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs and LBPs identified in the asbestos and LBP survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above. • Materials containing more than one-percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations.

Removal of materials containing more than one-percent asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements and notifications.

Soil Vapor Intrusion at 1266 Franklin Mall (Non-CEQA)
• Prior to redevelopment of the 1266 Franklin Mall parcel, soil vapor sampling shall be collected from the site by an Environmental Professional to evaluate if vapor intrusion mitigation is required.

Sight Distance Hazards
• Future development under the SCDPP shall be required to analyze sight distance at the project driveways/vehicle access points. • Vehicular parking next to project driveways shall be prohibited.

Sources: City of Santa Clara. Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. May 2023.

1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS FOR THE

SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN PROJECT

I. INTRODUCTION

The City of Santa Clara, as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022010282). The Final EIR is a program EIR pursuant to Section 15168 of the State Guidelines for implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines).1 The Final EIR consists of the May 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), and October 2023 Final EIR. The EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with implementation of the project. The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision-makers and the general public regarding the objectives and components of the project. The EIR addresses the potential significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the project and identifies feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate those impacts.

In determining to approve the SCDPP project, which is described in more detail in Section II, the City Council certifies that the EIR reflects the City's own independent judgment and analysis under Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(a)-(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15090(a)(3). The City Council further makes and adopts the following findings of fact and adopts and incorporates into the project the mitigation measures identified in the EIR, all based on substantial evidence in the whole record of this proceeding (“administrative record”). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090(a), the EIR was presented to the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, and the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to making the findings provided in Sections IV to IX, below. The conclusions presented in these findings are based upon the EIR and other evidence in the administrative record. The documents that constitute the administrative record on which the City Council's findings are based are located at the Planning Division office at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California. This information is presented in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e).

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Location

The approximately 25.0-acre SCDPP area is bounded by Lafayette Street to the east, Homestead Road to the south, Madison Street to the west, and Benton Street to the north.

Project Overview

The purpose of the SCDPP is to provide guidance for new development within the Downtown, as identified in the City’s General Plan, and to meet the needs of the community. Future development would be required to comply with the form-based code, which was developed as part of the planning process. The form-based code, which includes standards and guidelines associated with building

1 The State CEQA Guidelines are found in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq .

2 height, setbacks, building use, and building form and design, will ensure that the community’s vision for Downtown is implemented.

The community’s vision and priorities for Downtown are as follows:

• Restore the street grid; conserve and recreate the historical street grid; provide open space for relaxation, events and gathering; a transit connection to the Caltrain station; and create a high-quality, memorable place.
• Create a unique character and experience of place, a Downtown with a “heart and soul” that is connected to its historic roots. Look to arts as an anchor, with Santa Clara University as a partner.
• Recognize the challenging environment for retail, underlining the need for high-quality placemaking.
• Present an ambitious vision for long-term change, but create a clear path for near-term action.

To make the community’s vision achievable, a SCDPP framework was developed which consists of three parts: streets and public spaces; essential land use; and urban form.

Streets and Public Spaces

The SCDPP proposes to re-establish the street grid, creating 10 city blocks with four types of streets:
major, multimodal, pedestrian-oriented, and local Downtown streets. Major streets are arterials or collector streets (e.g., Lafayette Street).
2 Multimodal streets provide vehicle, transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel (e.g., Benton Street, Homestead Road, and Monroe Street). Pedestrian-oriented streets encourage pedestrian movements and supports transit, bicycle, and other alternatives to vehicular travel by providing active retail and cultural uses (e.g., proposed extensions of Franklin Street and Main Street). Local downtown streets include a mix of uses and would provide both a quality pedestrian experience and service function (e.g., Washington Street, Jackson Street, and Madison Street).

In addition, the SCDPP envisions midblock alleys that can be service alleys. Per Policy 3.1A of the SCDPP, alleys are required in each block with future development to facilitate parking and service access, but their precise locations are left flexible. Alleys are anticipated to have private ownership with public access and utility easements. Additionally, three public spaces which include the Arts Commons, Franklin Square, and Central Green are proposed.

Essential Land Use

The essential land use component of the SCDPP identifies ground floor spaces where cultural venues (e.g., Santa Clara Theater, Cultural Arts Center, and Market Hall) should be required or encouraged, where retail uses should be required, and where retail uses should be retail ready.

2 Arterial streets are defined high capacity roads that carry longer-distance flows between important centers of activity and collector streets are defined as public streets that carry traffic from minor streets to busy arterial roads.

3 Urban Form

Building form represents general building envelopes that the SCDPP and its form-based code should maintain. Building heights would step down in height where Downtown abuts existing residential neighborhoods, while stepping up in height along the eastern end of the SCDPP area, Franklin Street, and at the Main Street and Franklin Street crossing.

Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations

Per the General Plan, the Downtown Focus Area is envisioned as a unique Downtown destination with boutique shopping, restaurants, public gathering places, civic venues, and multi-family housing.

While the SCDPP is consistent with this vision, the SCDPP provides more detail and direction on public streets and spaces, land use, urban form, and development capacity. As stated in the SCDPP, both the General Plan and zoning would be updated to reflect the SCDPP.

The form-based code regulates land use and the physical form of development for the SCDPP area.

The Downtown Zone would replace the existing zoning for all properties and uses, but would continue to rely on many of the land use and procedural requirements of the City Code. For existing structures and uses that do not conform to the standards discussed in the form-based code, they would be deemed to be legal conforming and the provisions stated in Chapter 18.94 of the City Code would apply.

New development proposed under the SCDPP would be further regulated by character overlays. The form-based code establishes four character overlays: Shopfront, Retail-Ready, General, and Neighborhood Edge which are discussed below.

Shopfront Overlay

The Shopfront Overlay determines the most active and urban areas of Downtown. This overlay would place active ground floor uses, such as restaurants or national retailers, in areas where they are desired.

Retail-Ready Overlay

The Retail-Ready Overlay would include a wider range of ground floor uses when compared to the Shopfront Overlay. The Retail-Ready Overlay must be able to support uses allowed in the Shopfront Overlay.

General Overlay

The General Overlay is the most flexible overlay and allows for ground floor residences and offices, as well as retail-ready frontages and shopfronts.

4 Neighborhood Edge Overlay

The Neighborhood Edge Overlay, located primarily along the north, west, and south boundaries of the plan area, would ensure that the scale of the buildings that interface with the existing residential neighborhood transition to the surrounding neighborhood scale. This overlay would extend from the right-of-way (ROW) into each designated lot to a depth of 20 feet beyond the primary façade.

Planned Uses

Two development scenarios were created which includes a residential maximum development and an office maximum development. The City’s preferred scenario, which is analyzed in this EIR, is the maximum housing scenario which would consist of up to 1,071 residential units, 531,720 square feet of office space, 197,900 square feet of commercial/retail space, and 44,300 square feet of public space.

Maximum Building Heights

The SCDPP and form-based code includes maximum building heights allowed for future developments within the SCDPP. Taller buildings would be located at the eastern end of the Downtown area and building heights would be scaled down for compatibility along Benton, Madison, and Homestead Streets in the direction of the residential neighborhoods (refer to Policy

5.1C: Downtown Form from the SCDPP). Policy 5.1F: Maximum Building Heights and Community Benefits of the SCDPP allows for additional floor area and building heights for Arts Commons cultural destinations (e.g., Santa Clara Theater, the Cultural Arts Center, and the Market Hall). Floor area bonuses would be calculated based on the amount of floor area that could be achieved with maximum (base) building heights and massing limits established in the form-based code and SCDPP.

Multimodal Transportation Networks

Connected Street Grid

As mentioned previously, the SCDPP would maintain the existing roadway network and vehicular connections from the surrounding streets and re-establish the street grid within the plan area.

Complete Streets

The streets within the SCDPP area would be designed as “Complete Streets” which would ensure the streets are accessible for all modes of transportation (i.e., pedestrian, bicycles, and automobiles), as well as support local land uses. This would include widening sidewalks, reducing pedestrian crossing distances at crosswalks with bulb-outs, street trees and other green infrastructure, bike lanes, drop-off zones, service and delivery zones, and bike share stations.

5 Pedestrian Paths

As discussed under Policy 3.1C of the SCDPP, safe, direct, and continuous pedestrian paths throughout Downtown, to and from the surrounding areas, and to the Santa Clara Transit Station shall be provided. An uninterrupted path for pedestrian travel (at least eight feet in width) shall be maintained and curb cuts where vehicles cross pedestrian sidewalks shall be minimized by consolidating access points and usage of alleys.

Bike and Micromobility Improvements

The SCDPP would prioritize bike-friendly designs for new or modified Downtown streets and maintain bike lanes along Monroe Street, Benton Street, and Homestead Road. A new, continuous bicycle route on Washington Street would be created so that bikes and vehicles can share lanes.

Street design elements shall be incorporated to encourage safe, mixed vehicle and bike movement.

Bicycle use and other forms of mobility would be encouraged by creating mobility hubs that cluster combinations of bikeshare, scootershare, carshare, on-demand rideshare, and microtransit. Refer to Policy 3.1C of the SCDPP for more information.

Transit Access

In coordination with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the SCDPP would provide high-quality transit shelters where buses stop adjacent to Downtown. Transit connections from Downtown to regional destinations would be enhanced through pedestrian connections, integration of design features, and wayfinding.

Phasing

It is anticipated that development within the SCDPP would be phased. Phase 1 of the SCDPP would likely include redevelopment of City-owned land. This would include the majority of the easternmost two blocks (Blocks A and B), as well as a significant portion of Block C located south of the proposed Franklin Street alignment between Washington Street and Main Street. Phase 1 could also include interim development of the Franklin Street ROW.

Phase 2 of the SCDPP would likely include redevelopment of Blocks D and F, where the County Courthouse and University Plaza shopping center are located. Later phases could include redevelopment of the remaining portion of Block C, as well as Blocks E, F, G, and H. Development on the westernmost blocks will take the form of smaller infill projects which may take place over time at all phases.

Project Objectives

The City’s objectives for redevelopment within the SCDPP are to provide a framework for new streets and public spaces, essential land uses, and urban form, and to create a Form-Based Zoning Code that would allow implementation of the SCDPP by providing development standards to guide new development. The City’s objectives include the following:

6 Streets and Public Spaces Framework:

• Provide a framework for streets and public spaces, essential land uses, and urban form. • Re-establish the street grid and create up to ten city blocks. • Establish up to four types of streets within the SCDPP area, each with its own typical width, mobility emphasis, and frontage characteristics.
• Identify up to three public spaces, each of which are intended to have a distinct character, formed by the design of the space and by the contributing activities around it.

Essential Land Use:

• Identify where ground floor commercial spaces would be required, as well as the “retail- ready” spaces (i.e., commercial space enabled by design but not required by the SCDPP).

Urban Form:

• Provide a mix of land uses that include housing, commercial retail, restaurant, entertainment, offices, civic or cultural uses, and hotels within a general building envelope. • Identify development standards that promote the stepping down of building massing along the SCDPP boundaries where the SCDPP area transitions into existing residential neighborhoods and/or adjacent historic structures.

Form-Based Zoning Code:

• Create a Form-Based Zoning Code that would implement the SCDPP by providing development standards for new development.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Clara prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the SCDPP Project. The NOP was circulated to local, state, and federal agencies on January 20, 2022. The standard 30-day comment period concluded on February 21, 2022. The NOP provided a general description of the project and identified probable environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the project. The City of Santa Clara also held a public scoping meeting on February 1, 2022, via Zoom to discuss the project and solicit public input.

The City of Santa Clara prepared the Draft EIR in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment for 45 days from May 31, 2023 through July 14, 2023. During this period, the Draft EIR will be available to the public and local, state, and federal agencies for review and comment. Notice of the availability and completion of the Draft EIR were sent directly to every agency, person, and organization that commented on the NOP, as well as the Office of Planning and Research. Written comments from public agencies,

7 organizations, and individuals concerning the environmental review contained in the Draft EIR were sent to the City during the 45-day public review period on the Draft EIR.

Following the conclusion of the 45-day public review period, the City prepared a Final EIR in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. The Final EIR includes responses to comments received by the City on the Draft EIR and any necessary text revisions to the Draft EIR. These revisions do not require recirculation of the EIR because none of the revisions constitute “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 in as much as these changes would not result in a new environmental impact and would not cause a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; and all mitigation measures will be adopted. Responses to public agency comments on the EIR were sent to the commenting agencies on October 11, 2023.

On October 35, 2023, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR.

IV. FINDINGS

These findings summarize the environmental determinations of the EIR about project impacts before and after mitigation, and do not attempt to repeat the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Instead, these findings provide a summary description of and basis for each impact in the EIR, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR, and state the City’s findings and rationale on the significance of each impact with the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the EIR supporting the EIR’s determinations regarding mitigation measures and the project’s impacts.

In adopting the mitigation measures outlined below, the City intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure identified in the Final EIR has been inadvertently omitted from these findings, such mitigation measure is hereby referred to, adopted, and incorporated in the findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language of a mitigation measure set forth below fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measure in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

Sections V through VI, below, provide brief descriptions of the impacts the Final EIR identified as either significant and unavoidable or less than significant with adopted mitigation. These descriptions also reproduce the full text of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for each significant impact.

V. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE DIRECT IMPACTS

The City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, hereby finds that the Noise and Transportation environmental impacts described below are significant and unavoidable and that there is no feasible mitigation for those impacts. "Feasible" is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a

8 reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." The City may reject a mitigation measure or alternative to the project because of specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including consideration for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers. These findings are based on Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR and Section 5.0 of the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis of which are hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Impact GHG-1: Operation of developments approved under the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP) after the year 2030 has the potential to result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would result in an impact on the environment.

Findings: Because of the uncertainty of the availability of carbon offset credits being available for future projects and not knowing the specific reduction strategies that would be required beyond 2030, it is not possible to conclude that all future projects would be able to reduce project-level GHG impacts to less than significant even with implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1.1 and GHG-1.2, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project.

Mitigation: MM GHG-1.1: Future projects approved after the year 2030 shall be required to conform to the applicable GHG reduction standards in place at the time the project is initiated as provided in the City’s adopted qualified Climate Action Plan (CAP) for year 2040 or 2050 (whichever is applicable). Proof of compliance shall be provided in writing for review and approval by the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee.

MM GHG-1.2: If the City of Santa Clara does not have a qualified GHG CAP adopted for year 2040 or 2050, or the project cannot comply with the reduction strategies in the 2040 or 2050 CAPs (whichever is applicable), then the project applicant shall purchase and retire carbon offset credits equivalent to the project’s total operational GHG emissions.

• The project applicant shall provide proof to the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee that the carbon offset credits were issued by a registry meeting the following requirements:
o The registry shall account for and quantify emission reductions using clear and defined standards and incorporating recognized principles of GHG emissions reduction accounting, including those set forth in the international organization for standardization (ISO) 14064 and the World Resources Institute (WRI)/World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) GHG Protocol for Project Accounting;
o The registry shall use clear information sufficient for reviewers to assess credibility of GHG emission reductions underlying the carbon offset credits. Upon request by the City’s Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee, any governmental entity, or any stakeholder, the registry shall provide the following information within a reasonable time period in connection with any carbon offset credit retired by the project applicant: (i) the applicable quantification protocol; and

9 (ii) all third-party confirmation or verification reports issued in connection with the carbon offset credits. Such information shall be sufficient to monitor compliance by the project applicant with this mitigation measure.
o The carbon offset credits retired by the project applicant for the purpose of mitigating GHG emissions shall represent GHG emission reductions that are real, permanent, additional, quantifiable, verifiable and enforceable.
3 To demonstrate compliance with such requirements, the project applicant shall provide the following to the City’s Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee: (i) the protocol used to quantify and issue such carbon offset credits, (ii) the third-party verification report(s) pursuant to which such carbon offset credits were issued, and (iii) the unique serial numbers of the carbon offset credits to be retired to ensure that the offset cannot be further used in any manner. The Director of Community Development of the Director’s designee shall reject any carbon offset credits that do not comply with these requirements, and where reductions are not direct reductions within a confined project boundary or provide opportunities for reversal of the avoided emissions. The Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee shall reject any credits for a project that includes technology or GHG abatement practices that are already widely used.

• The carbon offset credits shall be from credit projects developed locally. If carbon offset credits are not available locally, the carbon offset credits shall be from credit projects developed in the United States. Carbon offset credits resulting from international credit projects shall not be acceptable to satisfy this mitigation measure. • The project applicant shall mitigate GHG emissions resulting from project operations by purchasing and retiring offset credits prior to each year’s emissions that exceed the threshold. The applicant shall provide proof in the form of a compliance report to the Director of Community Development of the Director’s designee that carbon offset credits equal to the amount of project operational GHG emissions in excess of the threshold have

3 The following terms in this mitigation are defined as follows: “Additional” me ans GHG emission reductions or removals underlying the carbon offset credits that exceed any GHG reduction or removals otherwise required by law, regulation or legally binding mandate, and that exceed any GHG reductions or removals that would otherwise occur in a business-as-usual scenario. To be additional, the credit shall have reduced GHG emissions below the applicable common industry practice for GHG reductions as in effect at the time the credit project was initiated. “Real” means that GHG reductions or GHG enhancements underlying the carbon offset credits result from a demonstrable action or set of actions, and are quantified using appropriate, accurate, and conservative methodologies that account for all GHG emissions sources, GHG sinks, and GHG reser voirs within the boundary of the applicable credit project and account for uncertainty and the potential for activity -shifting leakage and market- shifting leakage. “Verifiable” means that the GHG reductions or GHG enhancements underlying the carbon offset credits are well documented, transparent and set forth in a document subject to objective review by an accredited verification body. “Permanent” means that GHG reductions and GHG removal enhancements underlying the carbon offset credits are not reversible, or when GHG reductions and GHG removal enhancements may be reversible, that mechanisms are in place to replace any reversed GHG emission reductions and GHG removal enhancements to ensure that all credited reductions endure for at least 100 years. To ensur e permanence, reductions from purchased credits must have already occurred. “Quantifiable” means the ability to accurately measure and calculate GHG reductions or GHG removal enhancements relative to a project baseline in a reliable and replicable manner f or all GHG emission sources, GHG sinks, or GHG reservoirs included within the boundary of the credit project generating the carbon offset credits, while accounting for uncertainty and activity shifting leakage and market -shifting leakage. “Enforceable” means the authority for the City to hold the project accountable and to take appropriate action if the City determines that any carbon offset credits do not comply with the requirements set forth above.

10 been purchased and retired, prior to the operational year in which those emissions would occur. The applicant shall also have the right, at any time, to purchase and retire carbon offset credits for some or all of the operational emissions of the project in advance of the issuance of certificates of occupancy, temporary or permanent. • The permits relating to the project shall be conditioned on achievement of GHG mitigation milestones. The purchase and retirement of carbon offset credits required to mitigate the GHG emissions resulting from the operation of the project shall be a condition of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, temporary or permanent, for the project and as an issuance for continued operation. Should the City determine that the offset credits are non-compliant with these requirements, the City may issue a notice of non-consistency and cease permitting activities and/or stop project operations, until the City determines via an issued public notice that the offsets comply with the aforementioned standards.

Impact GHG-2: Even with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Findings: Because of the uncertainty of the availability of carbon offset credits being available for future projects and not knowing the specific reduction strategies that would be required beyond 2030, it is not possible to conclude that all future projects would be able to reduce project-level GHG impacts to less than significant even with implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1.1 and GHG-1.2, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures GHG-1.1 and GHG-1.2.

Land Use and Planning

Impact LU-2: Even with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Findings: Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1.1 and GHG-1.2, projects initiated after the year 2030 could conflict or otherwise interfere with the statewide GHG reduction measures set forth by SB 375.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures GHG-1.1 and GHG-1.2.

11 VI. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL EIR THAT ARE

REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL BY MITIGATION

MEASURES ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT

The City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), that the following potentially significant impacts will be reduced below a level of significance with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. These findings are based on Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR, the discussion and analysis of which are hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

Air Quality

Impact AIR-1: As mitigated, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-3.1 and AIR-3.2 would control dust and reduce construction toxic air contaminants (TACs) and criteria pollutant emissions.

Therefore, the construction emissions impacts from individual projects proposed under the SCDPP would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures AIR-3.1 and AIR-3.2.

Impact AIR-2: As mitigated, the project would not 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.

Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-3.1 and AIR-3.2, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would control dust and reduce construction TAC and criteria pollutant emissions. Therefore, future developments proposed under the SCDPP would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures AIR-3.1 and AIR-3.2.

Impact AIR-3: Development proposed under the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP) would result in significant construction air pollutant emissions due to dust generation, and emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and criteria pollutants during construction.

Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3.1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, requires that the project contractor implement Construction Best Management Practices to control dust. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3.2, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, requires individual projects proposed under the SCDPP to prepare a project-level air quality assessment that quantifies construction criteria pollutant and TAC emissions to ensure health

12 risks from construction do not exceed BAAQMD construction criteria pollutant emission thresholds.

Mitigation: MM AIR-3.1: During any construction ground disturbance, the project applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implements the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Construction Best Management Practices:
• All exposed unpaved surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles-per-hour (mph). • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the construction firm regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
• The contractor shall install temporary electrical service, whenever possible, to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g., generators).

MM AIR-3.2: Prior to receiving demolition, grading, and building permits, a qualified air quality consultant shall prepare a project-level air quality assessment that quantifies construction criteria pollutant and TAC emissions for each individual project proposed within the SCDPP once construction details are available. The air quality assessments shall model construction impacts and, if necessary, include measures to reduce emissions. Criteria pollutant emissions shall not exceed BAAQMD construction criteria pollutant emissions thresholds. Health risks from construction TACs shall be reduced below 10 in one million excess cancer cases, a hazard index (HI) of 1.0, and a fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM

2.5) concentration of 0.3 micrograms per cubic
meter (µg/m3). The air quality assessment shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee, once complete.

Reduction in emissions can be accomplished through, but is not limited to, the following measures:

13 • Construction equipment selection for low emissions; • Use of alternative fuels, engine retrofits, and added exhaust devices; • Low-volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints;
• Modify construction schedule; and
• Implementation of BAAQMD Basic and/or Additional Construction Mitigation Measures for control of fugitive dust

Impact AIR-3: As mitigated, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Findings: Mitigation Measure AIR-3.2, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, requires future developments under the SCDPP to complete a construction air quality and health risk assessment to ensure that construction emissions do not exceed BAAQMD construction criteria pollutant emissions thresholds. Mitigation Measure AIR-3.3, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, requires all future sources of operational TACs associated with the SCDPP be analyzed through project-level review and ensure that health risks are below the BAAQMD single-source thresholds.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures AIR-3.2 and AIR-3.3.

Impact AIR-3: Future development proposed under the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP) would result in significant operational toxic air contaminant (TAC) impacts from stationary sources.

Findings: Mitigation Measure AIR-3.3, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, requires all future sources of operational TACs associated with the SCDPP be analyzed through project-level review and ensure that health risks are below the BAAQMD single-source thresholds.

Mitigation: MM AIR-3.3: Prior to receiving demolition, grading, and building permits, a qualified air quality consultant shall prepare a project-level health risk assessment that analyzes project operational TAC sources and identifies sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the project site boundaries. The qualified air quality consultant shall use the latest Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidance to determine which sources of TACs shall be included in the risk assessment. Screening tools approved by BAAQMD may be used in lieu of dispersion modeling; however, if no screening tool is available then an in- depth health risk assessment with dispersion modeling shall be required. The community risk assessment shall model the project’s operational TAC impacts and compare the health risk values against the latest BAAQMD single-source thresholds. If necessary, the risk assessment shall include measures to reduce project health risk impacts. Health risks associated with project TAC sources shall be reduced below 10 in one million excess cancer cases, a hazard index (HI) of 1.0, and a fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM

2.5) concentration of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter
(µg/m3). The project-level health risk assessment shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee, once complete.

14 Impact AIR-C: As mitigated, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant air quality impact.

Findings: With implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-3.1 and AIR-3.2, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, the construction emissions associated with future development under the SCDPP would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures AIR-3.1 and AIR-3.2.

Impact AIR-C: Future development proposed under the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP) could contribute to cumulative toxic air contaminant (TAC) impacts.

Findings: Mitigation Measure AIR-C.1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would require a cumulative community risk assessment be prepared for future development under the SCDPP to quantify health risks and ensure health risks are below the BAAQMD cumulative source thresholds.

Mitigation: MM AIR-C.1: Prior to receiving demolition, grading, and building permits, a qualified air quality consultant shall prepare a cumulative community risk assessment that analyzes project operational TAC sources and identifies sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the project site boundaries. The qualified air quality consultant shall use the latest Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidance to determine which sources of TACs shall be included in the risk assessment. Screening tools approved by BAAQMD may be used in lieu of dispersion modeling; however, if no screening tool is available then an in- depth health risk assessment with dispersion modeling shall be required. The community risk assessment shall model the project’s operational TAC impacts and compare the health risk values against the latest BAAQMD single-source thresholds. The combined health risk impacts shall be compared against the latest BAAQMD cumulative-source thresholds. If necessary, the risk assessment shall include measures to reduce project health risk impacts.

The combined health risks from TAC sources shall be reduced below the cumulative source thresholds of 100 in one million excess cancer cases, a hazard index (HI) of 10.0, and a fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5) concentration of 0.8 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). The cumulative community risk assessment shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee, once complete.

Biological Resources

Impact BIO-1: Construction activities associated with future development within the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP) area could result in the loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors or other migratory birds, or nest abandonment.

Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1 and BIO-1.2, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce impacts to nesting birds by avoiding construction of future projects during nesting bird season or completing pre-construction nesting bird surveys to minimize and/or avoid impacts to nesting birds.

15 Mitigation: MM BIO-1.1: Construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season to the extent feasible. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors, in the San Francisco Bay area extends from February 1st through August 31st.

MM BIO-1.2: If it is not possible to schedule construction and tree removal between September 1st and January 31st, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests shall be disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be completed no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of grading, tree removal, or other demolition or construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February 1st through April 30th) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May 1st through August 31st).

During this survey, the ornithologist shall inspect all tress and other possible nesting habitats within and immediately adjacent to the construction area of nests. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest to ensure that nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Agreement (MBTA) or Fish and Game Code shall not be disturbed during project construction.

Impact BIO-5: Tree removal from redevelopment of individual parcels under the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP) could result in a significant impact to trees.

Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5.1 and BIO-5.2, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce impacts to trees by requiring project applicants to comply with the City Code and tree replacement for any trees to be removed per General Plan Policy 5.3.1-P10.

Mitigation: MM BIO-5.1: Projects proposing or required to retain trees on-site shall implement precautionary measures during site construction to limit adverse environmental effects on trees protected under General Plan Policies 5.10.1-P3 and 5.10.1-P4 that are to be retained. A tree protection plan shall be prepared by a qualified arborist that, at a minimum, requires installation of an open material (e.g., chain link) fence six feet in height around the drip line and maintenance of the existing grade level around a tree and out to its drip line.

Proof of tree protection measures shall be provided to the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permits.

MM BIO-5.2: Project applicants under the SCDPP shall be required to comply with the City Code and submit permit applications for removal of all trees covered by the City’s tree ordinance. Any trees to be removed would require replacement on-site or off-site at a minimum 2:1 ratio per General Plan Policy 5.3.1-P10. To the extent feasible, the replacement trees shall be planted on-site and the project applicant shall comply with all other tree removal requirements imposed by the City. The minimum tree replacement size shall be a 24-inch box for all on-site plantings, with all street trees to be a minimum 36-inch box. Street tree selection shall be per City specifications; spacing, and species shall be approved by City

16 Arborist. Tree removal permits shall be obtained prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permits.

Impact BIO-C: As mitigated, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant biological resources impact.

Findings: All individual projects would be required to comply with the City Code, existing regulations, and Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1, BIO-1.2, BIO-5.1, and BIO-5.2 to protect migratory and nesting birds and minimize the loss of trees; therefore, individual projects proposed under the SCDPP would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to biological resources impacts.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1, BIO-1.2, BIO-5.1, and BIO-

5.2. Cultural Resources

Impact CUL-2: Future projects proposed under the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP) could result in impacts to as yet unidentified buried archaeological resources.

Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1 to CUL-2.3, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would avoid and/or reduce impacts to unknown buried archaeological resources to a less than significant level by requiring subsurface sampling to determine if historic archaeological resources are present. If resources are present, investigation, data recovery, and recordation would be required.

Mitigation: MM CUL-2.1: Prior to grading of the project site, a qualified archaeological consultant shall conduct subsurface sampling to determine if historic archaeological resources are present.

Testing for historic-era resources shall extend to a depth of four feet below the current ground surface. Testing for prehistoric resources shall extend to a depth of eight feet below the current ground surface to account for rapid alluviation during the Holocene era. In the event that resources are discovered on-site, a site-specific cultural resources treatment plan shall be prepared and approved by the Director of Community Development or Director’s designee prior to issuance of any of grading permits in conformance with the steps outlined below.

Investigation – Resource Identification
Archaeologists shall investigate features to determine their potential significance. Decisions shall be made about which features shall be subject to archaeological data recovery.

• The determination of significance of historic archaeological property types is tied directly to their historical context and relevance to research themes further discussed below.

Usefulness of a property type (feature) with regard to relevant research themes determines the legal importance of that resource. Also germane to the importance of

17 property types are assessments of integrity, land use history, and comparison with other known similar property types. Especially relevant here are issues that cannot be addressed using data from other sources. The purpose of identifying relevant research themes is to help predict areas of special concern, given expected property types.

Determination of relevance to research themes is critical to the identification of significant features in the field.
• If data recovery is determined to be appropriate, excavation shall target recovery of an appropriate amount of information from archaeological deposits to determine potential of the resource to address specific research questions. If it occurs, data recovery shall emphasize understanding of the archaeological deposit’s structure, including features and stratification, horizontal and vertical extent, and content including the nature and quantity of artifacts.

Reporting
The findings reports shall follow the outline below and shall focus on particular finds encountered during the excavation. All reports shall, at a minimum, meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant and all reviewing agencies, and shall ultimately be filed with the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University.

The technical report on project results may address the following elements:

• executive summary;
• statement of scope, including project location and setting; • background contexts or summaries;
• summary of previous research, historical and archaeological; • research goals and themes;
• field and laboratory methodologies;
• descriptions of recovered materials;
• findings and interpretations, referencing research goals; • conclusions;
• references cited; and
• appendices such as artifact catalogs, special studies, and other information relevant to the project and findings.

MM CUL-2.2: Upon completion of all field work, but before completion of the Findings Report (outlined in MM CUL-2.1), a preliminary report outlining the data recovery work on the site(s) shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or Director’s designee for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.

18 find(s) if the resource is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Construction and potential impacts to the area within a radius determined by the archaeologist shall not recommence until the assessment is complete.

Impact CUL-3.1: Future projects proposed under the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP) could result in impacts to human remains.

Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3.1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would avoid and/or reduce significant impacts to unknown buried human remains to a less than significant level by notifying the Santa Clara County Coroner and following the necessary procedures as outlined in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) if human remains are found.

Mitigation: MM CUL-3.1: In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin or whether an investigation into the cause of death is required. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately. Once NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants shall make recommendations regarding proper burial, which shall be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Impact CUL-C: As mitigated, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant cultural resources impact.

Findings: As discussed under Impact CUL-1 and as a Condition of Approval for all future developments proposed under the SCDPP, the project applicant shall prepare appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Forms for any building or structure that is 50 years or older to determine whether the building or structure is eligible as a historical resource. Implementation of the Condition of Approval and Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1 to CUL-2.3 and CUL-3.1 would ensure impacts to cultural resources and human remains (if encountered) would be reduced to a less than significant level. The cumulative projects are all subject to CEQA and are required to comply with the federal, state, and local regulations put in place to protect cultural resources.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1 to CUL-2.3 and CUL-3.1 and implementation of the Condition of Approval.

Geology and Soils

Impact GEO-6: Development proposed under the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP) has the potential to disturb unknown paleontological resources during excavation, grading and construction activities.

19 Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-6.1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce or avoid impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level by requiring a paleontologist to monitor construction on sites requiring excavation of 10 feet or more below the ground surface..

Mitigation: MM GEO-6.1: Future projects requiring excavation of 10 feet or more below the ground surface (bgs) shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. In the event paleontological resources are discovered, all work on the site shall stop immediately, the Community Development Director or Director’s designee shall be notified, and the qualified paleontologist shall assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. Treatment may include, but is not limited to, preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations of the qualified paleontologist. A report of all findings shall be submitted to the Community Development Director or Director’s designee prior to the issuance of building permits.

Impact GEO-C: As mitigated, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant geology and soils impact.

Findings: Adherence to Mitigation Measure GEO-6.1, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would ensure construction-related impacts to unknown paleontological resources from individual projects proposed under the SCDPP are reduced/avoided.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measure GEO-6.1.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Impact GHG-C: As mitigated, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant GHG emissions impact.

Findings: Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1.1 and GHG-1.2, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, it would not be possible to conclude that all future projects would be able to reduce GHG impacts to a less than significant level.

While projects constructed within the plan area after the year 2030 could have a significant unavoidable impact with the statewide GHG reduction measures set forth by Senate Bill 375, when combined with all other projects worldwide, the project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emissions impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures GHG-1.1 and GHG-1.2.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Impact HAZ-2: Existing hazardous materials contamination in soils and groundwater within the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP) area has the potential to impact

20 construction workers and adjacent land uses if disturbed during demolition or construction of new buildings and structures on-site.

Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1 to HAZ-2.3, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce impacts from residual hazardous materials contamination to a less than significant level by requiring a property-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to be completed in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Designation E1527-21 (or most recent version) and to evaluate if measures are needed to protect the health and safety of site occupants. If warranted, a correction action/risk management plan will be developed and implemented with all applicable regulatory oversight.

Mitigation: MM HAZ-2.1: Prior to the start of any demolition or construction activity, a property-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be completed in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Designation E1527-21 (or most recent version) to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), evaluate the property history, and establish whether or not the property is likely to have been impacted by chemical releases. Soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater quality studies (Phase II ESAs) shall subsequently be conducted, if warranted, based on the findings of the property- specific Phase I ESAs, to evaluate if measures are needed to protect the health and safety of site occupants.

MM HAZ-2.2: Prior to the start of earthwork activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading, etc.) on properties with known contaminants of concern (COC) exceeding the lower of the then-current Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory levels, an appropriate corrective action/risk management plan (e.g., remedial action plan [RAP], removal action workplan [RAW], or Site Management Plan [SMP], etc.) shall be prepared that reflects the results of the property-specific investigations. The corrective action/risk management plan shall describe mitigation measures necessary to protect the health and safety of future site occupants and establish appropriate management practices for handling and monitoring of impacted soil, soil vapor, and groundwater that may be encountered during construction activities. The corrective action/risk management plan shall be prepared by an Environmental Professional and be submitted to an appropriate overseeing regulatory agency (e.g., Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health [SCCDEH], DTSC, or RWQCB) and the City of Santa Clara Fire Department (SCFD) for review. Regulatory agency approval shall be obtained prior to commencing earthwork activities. A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall also be prepared to establish health and safety protocols for personnel working at the site. All mitigation measures shall be completed under regulatory agency oversight and meet all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and requirements. Following completion, a report documenting compliance with the provisions of the corrective action/risk management plan and describing the work completed shall be submitted and approved by the overseeing regulatory agency.

21 MM HAZ-2.3: If a project requires importing soil for property grading, the source and quality of imported soil shall be documented according to the DTSC’s Clean Fill Advisory (October 2001).

Land Use and Planning

Impact LU-C: As mitigated, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant land use and planning impact.

Findings: While projects constructed within the plan area after the year 2030 could have a significant unavoidable impact due to conflicts with the statewide GHG reduction measures set forth by SB 375, when combined with all other projects worldwide, the project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emissions impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures GHG-1.1 and GHG-1.2.

Noise and Vibration

Impact NOI-1: Construction activities associated with future development could generate hourly average noise levels in excess of 60 equivalent continuous noise level (dBA Leq) for residential uses and 70 dBA Leq for commercial uses and the ambient noise environment by at least five dBA Leq for a period of more than one year.

Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1.1 and NOI-1.2, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce construction noise levels at nearby land uses by requiring project applicants to submit and implement a construction noise logistics plan.

Mitigation: MM NOI-1.1: The project applicant shall submit and implement a construction noise logistics plan that specifies hours of construction, noise and vibration minimization measures, posting and notification of construction schedules, equipment to be used, and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance. In addition, the noise disturbance coordinator shall respond to neighborhood complaints and shall be in place prior to the start of construction and implemented during construction to reduce noise impacts on neighboring residents and other uses. The noise logistic plan shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee prior to the issuance of any grading or demolition permits.

As part of the noise logistic plan, construction activities for the proposed project shall include, but are not limited to, the following best management practices:

22 • Use “new technology” power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. Equip all internal combustion engines with adequate mufflers and maintain all equipment in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engines or other components.
• Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that shall create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise-generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses.
• Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project area.
• Notify all adjacent businesses, residences, and other noise-sensitive land uses within 500 feet of the construction schedule and provide a written schedule of construction activities. • Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” to respond to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., beginning work too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.

MM NOI-1.2: If pile driving is proposed, the following measures shall be included in the construction noise control plan:

• During pile driving, pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile.
• During pile driving activities, install “acoustical blankets” to provide shielding for receptors located within 100 feet of the site, or use a noise attenuating shroud on the pile driving hammer.

Impact NOI-1: Mechanical equipment from future projects located in proximity to existing residential land uses could result in noise levels in exceedance of City standards for fixed sources.

Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.3, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would require applicants for future development projects to retain a qualified acoustical consultant to review mechanical noise from the selected equipment to determine whether the noise reduction measures sufficiently reduce noise.

Mitigation: MM NOI-1.3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the City’s Code requirements. A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained by the applicants for future development projects to review mechanical noise as the equipment systems are selected in

23 order to determine whether the proposed noise reduction measures sufficiently reduce noise to comply with the City’s noise and vibration level performance standards for fixed sources.

Noise reduction measures that would accomplish this reduction include, but are not limited to, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels and/or installation of noise barriers such as enclosures and parapet walls to block the line of sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors.

Impact NOI-2: Existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan (SCDPP) area could be exposed to vibration levels beyond applicable Caltrans vibration limits due to project construction activities.

Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would require future development projects to incorporate measures into the project, including implementation of a construction vibration- monitoring plan, to reduce vibration impacts.

Mitigation: MM NOI-2.1: The following measures would be incorporated into the project to reduce vibration impacts:

• Comply with the City Code construction hours requirements to limit the hours of exposure to surrounding properties. The City Code limits construction activities within 300 feet of residentially zoned property to the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. On weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 AM. and 6:00 PM on Saturdays. No construction is permitted on Sundays or holidays within 300 feet of occupied residentially zoned property.
• Prohibit impact or vibratory pile driving as a method of construction. As an alternative, construction of a mat slab
4, shall be used.
• Limit the use of vibratory rollers, hoe rams, large bulldozers, and caisson drilling, and avoid clam shovel drops within 65 feet of the property lines shared with residences and commercial structures adjacent to the site.
• Place operating equipment on the construction site as far as possible from vibration- sensitive receptors.
• Use smaller equipment to minimize vibration levels below the limits. • Select demolition methods not involving impact tools. • Avoid dropping heavy objects or materials near vibration sensitive locations. • A list of all heavy construction equipment to be used for this project known to produce high vibration levels (tracked vehicles, vibratory compaction, jackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) shall be submitted to the City by the contractor. This list shall be used to identify equipment and activities that would potentially generate substantial vibration and to define the level of effort required for continuous vibration monitoring.

4 A mat slab is a hard surface designed with reinforcement to resist uplift forces created by hydrostatic pressure. A mat slab carries the entire load of the superstructure and spreads it over the whole area beneath the building. It is considered as one type of shallow foundation and is useful in controlling the differential settlement. No piles or other subsurface supports are utilized.

24 • A construction vibration-monitoring plan shall be implemented to document conditions at the residences and commercial structures adjacent to the site prior to, during, and after vibration generating construction activities. All plan tasks shall be undertaken under the direction of a licensed Professional Structural Engineer in the State of California and be in accordance with industry accepted standard methods. The construction vibration monitoring plan should be implemented to include the following tasks:
o Identification of sensitivity to ground-borne vibration of the residences and commercial structures adjacent to the site. A vibration survey (generally described below) would need to be performed.
o Performance of a photo survey, elevation survey, and crack monitoring survey for the residences and commercial structures nearest to the site. Surveys shall be performed prior to and after completion of vibration generating construction activities located within 65 feet of the structure. This distance shall be extended to 80 feet for vibratory pile driving and 120 feet for impact pile driving. The surveys shall include internal and external crack monitoring in the structure, settlement, and distress, and shall document the condition of the foundation, walls and other structural elements in the interior and exterior of the structure.
o Conduct a post-survey on the structure where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage. Make appropriate repairs where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities.
o The results of any vibration monitoring shall be summarized and submitted in a report shortly after substantial completion of each phase identified in the project schedule. The report shall include a description of measurement methods, equipment used, calibration certificates, and graphics as required to clearly identify vibration- monitoring locations. An explanation of all events that exceeded vibration limits shall be included together with proper documentation supporting any such claims. o Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.

Impact NOI-C: As mitigated, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant noise impact.

Findings: With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.3, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, operational noise impacts associated with the SCDPP would be reduced below the City’s thresholds of significance. Construction noise and vibration impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1.1, NOI-1.2, and NOI-2.1, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures NOI-1.1, NOI-1.2, NOI-1.3, and NOI-

2.1. 25
Tribal Cultural Resources

Impact TCR-1: As mitigated, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is 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).

Findings: Future projects under the SCDPP would be required to implement Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1 to CUL-2.3 and CUL-3.1, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, to reduce impacts to unknown buried archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources, and human remains, if encountered.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1 to CUL-2.3 and CUL-3.1.

Impact TCR-2: As mitigated, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is 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.

Findings: Future projects under the SCDPP would be required to implement Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1 to CUL-2.3 and CUL-3.1, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, in the event tribal cultural resources are encountered during excavation and/or grading of future development sites.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1 to CUL-2.3 and CUL-3.1.

Impact TCR-C: As mitigated, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant tribal cultural resources impact.

Findings: Cumulative projects would be required to implement Mitigation Measures CUL-

2.1 to CUL-2.3 and CUL-3.1, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, to avoid impacts and/or reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level consistent with CEQA and AB 52 requirements.

Mitigation: Same mitigation as Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1 to CUL-2.3 and CUL-3.1.

VII. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS

The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR identify the likelihood that a proposed project could “foster” or stimulate “economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment” (Section 15126.2(d)). This section of the EIR is intended to evaluate the impacts of such growth in the surrounding environment.

Direct growth inducement results if a project involves construction of new housing that would result in new residents moving to the area. A project can have indirect growth-inducement potential if it establishes substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or

26 governmental enterprises) or if it involves a substantial construction effort with substantial short-term employment opportunities and indirectly stimulates the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand. Similarly, under CEQA, a project could indirectly induce growth if it expands roadway capacity or removes an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on required public services or utilities (e.g., adding a sewage treatment plant that has capacity to serve demand beyond the associated project).

These findings are based on the discussion of growth inducing impacts in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR, the discussion and analysis of which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

The plan area is located in a developed area fully served by existing infrastructure. Redevelopment of the Downtown Focus Area was envisioned as part of the City’s General Plan. As mentioned in the City’s General Plan, the vision for Santa Clara’s Downtown includes approximately 130,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses along with almost 400 new residences. Full build out of the SCDPP would result in the construction of up to 1,071 dwelling units, 531,720 square feet of office space, 197,900 square feet of commercial/retail space, and 44,300 square feet of public space, a net increase of 67,900 of commercial/retail space, 671 dwelling units, 531,720 square feet of office space, and 44,300 square feet of public space than what was assumed for the Downtown Focus Area. As stated in the SCDPP, both the General Plan and zoning would be updated to reflect the SCDPP.

There are no undeveloped areas adjacent or in the immediate vicinity of the plan area and the SCDPP would not remove any obstacles that would help facilitate additional growth that could significantly affect the physical environment. The SCDPP would increase development on an infill site and indirect population growth could occur because of the jobs generated by the office component of the project, as well as increase housing on-site. The SCDPP does not include the expansion of existing infrastructure that would facilitate growth in the plan area or other areas of the City. Therefore, build out of the SCDPP would not result in growth-inducing impacts.

VIII. SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(c) requires that an EIR also address significant and irreversible environmental changes that may occur as a result of project implementation. Significant irreversible changes include the use of nonrenewable resources, the commitment of future generations to similar use, irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents associated with the project and the irretrievable commitment of resources.

These findings are based on the discussion of significant and irreversible environmental changes in Section 5.0 of the Draft EIR, the discussion and analysis of which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

Use of Nonrenewable Resources

Future development proposed under the SCDPP, during construction and operation, would require the use and consumption of nonrenewable resources. Renewable resources, such as lumber and other wood byproducts, could also be used. Unlike renewable resources, nonrenewable resources (e.g., fossil fuels and metals) cannot be regenerated over time.

27 Construction activities associated with future development would require the use of nonrenewable construction material, such as concrete, metals, plastics, and glass. Nonrenewable resources and energy would also be consumed during the manufacturing and transportation of building materials, preparation of the sites, and construction of the buildings. The operational phases would consume energy for multiple purposes including, building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy, in the form of fossil fuels, would be used to fuel vehicles traveling to and from the SCDPP area.

The proposed SCDPP would result in a substantial increase in demand for nonrenewable resources.

Future development proposed under the SCDPP would, however, be subject to the standard California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6 and CALGreen energy efficiency requirements. As discussed in Section 3.6 of the EIR, the SCDPP is consistent with the City’s General Plan policies regarding energy use, which fosters development that reduces the use of nonrenewable energy resources in transportation, buildings, and urban services (utilities).

Irreversible Damage Resulting from Environmental Accidents Associated with the Project

The SCDPP does not propose any new or uniquely hazardous uses, and its operation would not be expected to cause environmental accidents that would impact other areas. As discussed in Section 3.9 of the EIR, there may be residual hazardous materials contamination in soils and groundwater that may impact construction workers and adjacent land uses if disturbed. Future developments proposed under the SCDPP would be required to implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-2.1 to HAZ-2.3 to mitigate potential risks to construction workers and adjacent land uses from exposure to hazardous substances. There are no known significant unmitigable on-site or off-site sources of contamination that would substantially affect the proposed uses in the area. In addition, there are no significant geology and soils impacts from implementation of the project. Based on the discussion above, future developments proposed under the SCDPP would not likely result in irreversible damage that may result from environmental accidents.

IX. ALTERNATIVES

CEQA requires that an EIR identify alternatives to a project as it is proposed. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that the EIR should identify alternatives which “would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” The EIR considered alternatives of design, scope, or location, which would substantially lessen the project's significant impacts, even if those alternatives “impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives” or are more expensive. While CEQA does not require that alternatives must be capable of meeting all of the project objectives, an alternative's ability to meet most of the objectives is relevant to its consideration.

28 Project Objectives

Streets and Public Spaces Framework:

Essential Land Use:

• Identify where ground floor commercial spaces would be required, as well as the “retail- ready” spaces (i.e., commercial space enabled by design but not required by the SCDPP).

Urban Form:

Form-Based Zoning Code:

• Create a Form-Based Zoning Code that would implement the SCDPP by providing development standards for new development.

CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law have determined that feasibility can be based on a wide range of factors and influences. Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that such factors can include, but are not limited to, the suitability of an alternate site, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, consistency with planning documents or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries or whether the project proposed can “reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.”

The City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, hereby finds that the alternatives described below are not feasible. The City finds that there are specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including consideration for the

29 provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, and important matters of public policy that render these alternatives infeasible.

As explained above, “feasible” is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), the City may reject an alternative to the project if the City finds that it would be infeasible to implement that alternative because of “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers.” An agency also may reject an alternative that does not meet the public policy goals of the agency. In Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 947, the City of Rialto approved a project while rejecting as infeasible a reduced-density alternative that stripped out the portions of the project that would have created a synergistic mix of retail and restaurant tenants. Additionally, in Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039, the appellate court upheld the City of Sacramento's findings that additional preservation of open space would be infeasible because it would “at the very least [slow] 'the progress of necessary development such that the public's health and welfare is harmed through the lack of economic growth and productivity and a shortage of housing supply.”5

These findings are based on the discussion of alternatives in Section 7.0 of the Draft EIR and Section

5.0 of the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis of which are hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

Alternatives Considered but Rejected

Location alternatives are frequently considered to reduce the site-specific impacts of a project. A Location Alternative would need to be of similar size to the SCDPP area (approximately 25.0 acres), within the urban service area of the City, near existing transit, and have the appropriate General Plan land use designation(s). The SCDPP was developed to revitalize the Downtown and provide guidance for new development within a portion of the Downtown Focus Area (as identified in the General Plan). In addition, revitalization of the Downtown Focus Area would support the major strategies for the City identity and community vitality; therefore, alternative locations were not considered further.

Furthermore, there is not an equivalent area available for redevelopment within the Downtown Focus Area or immediate vicinity. For these reasons, an alternative location was considered but rejected as infeasible.

No Project Alternative

The CEQA Guidelines specifically require consideration of a “No Project” Alternative. The purpose of including a No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of

5 Similarly, courts have upheld an agency's infeasibility finding on a policy-based rationale in the following cases:

Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, 936, and Defend the Bay v.

City of Irvine (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1270.

30 approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project. The Guidelines specifically advise that the No Project Alternative is “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” The Guidelines emphasize that an EIR should take a practical approach, and not “…create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment (Section 15126.6[e][3][B]).”

The No Project Alternative would retain the existing buildings and parking lots on-site and if the site were to remain as is, there would be no new impacts. None of the project objectives would be met under the No Project Alternative.

Reduced Density Alternative

The 2010-2035 General Plan includes an increase in residential and non-residential development within the Downtown Focus Area. Under this alternative, the project would include construction of up to 400 residential units and 130,000 square feet of non-residential development, excluding any space devoted to civic or public uses, as allowed in the Downtown Focus Area. It is assumed that public space would still be provided under this alternative. This alternative would result in the loss of 671 dwelling units and approximately 599,620 square feet of office/commercial/retail space compared to the proposed project. Any development scenario with a smaller project of any size would be built out over a shorter timeframe, and result in less excavation and less heavy equipment use, which would lessen construction and operational air quality and noise impacts compared to the proposed project. While full build out of the SCDPP under this alternative could occur prior to 2030, it would be speculative to presume that all development proposed under this alternative would occur prior to that year. Therefore, full build out of this alternative would still result in a significant unavoidable GHG impact even with implementation of the identified mitigation.

The Reduced Density Alternative would be required to implement all identified mitigation to reduce construction and operational impacts associated with the proposed project, as well as the Conditions of Approval identified for the proposed project.

This alternative would meet the City’s objectives of providing public spaces and housing and nonresidential space within the SCDPP area but at a far lower density than what is proposed. The reduction in development capacity within the SCDPP area would likely result in an intensification of development elsewhere in the City where it may be less suitable. This alternative would also comply with the City’s objective of creating a Form-Based Zoning Code by providing development standards for new development but would not meet the vision or framework for the SCDPP that was created by the Downtown Community Task Force (DCTF), community members, stakeholders, and City Council.

Environmentally Superior Alternative

The CEQA Guidelines specify that an EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative among those alternatives discussed. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “No Project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative amongst the other alternatives [Section 15126.6(e)(2)].

31 Based upon the previous discussion, the environmentally superior alternative would be the Reduced Density Alternative as it would lessen construction and operational air quality and noise impacts when compared to the proposed project. While this alternative would meet the City’s objectives, it would not meet the vision or framework for the SCDPP that was created by the DCTF, community members, stakeholders, and City Council.

X. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

CEQA requires decision makers to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological and/or other benefits of a project against its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological and/or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts, those impacts may be considered "acceptable" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)). When significant impacts are not avoided or lessened, CEQA requires the agency to state, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b)).

The City finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR within the purview of the City will be implemented with the project, and that the remaining significant and unavoidable impacts are outweighed and are found to be acceptable due to the following specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological and/or other benefits based upon the facts set forth in the above Findings, the Final EIR and the administrative record, as follows, each of which outweighs the project's remaining significant and unavoidable impacts:

• The project is located in in the historical center of the City surround by residential and commercial uses and in close proximity to transit. Redevelopment of the area with a mix of residential, commercial, and civic uses as allowed by the Plan will serve the community and enhance the City’s quality of life and foster economic vitality; • The project will allow for the creation of residential, commercial, civic, and mixed-use development that will support the residents, businesses and visitors within and around the Plan area, as well as, the users of the nearby Santa Clara Caltrain/BART heavy rail transit station; • The project will maximize the housing unit yield on a site with minimal impact on existing neighborhoods;
• Housing allowed by the project will address the City's jobs/housing balance, create a critical mass of housing to justify commercial services, particularly retail services; and • The project will allow for the development of significant commercial uses that will enhance the tax base and contribute to other revenues to support City services that serve the development.

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentDecember 5, 2023

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
December 5, 2023