City Council and Authorities Concurrent
December 12, 2023

40 1SGA-PT-25A LP ECON FLUE GAS INLET PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 41 1SGA-PT-25B LP ECON FLUE GAS INLET PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 42 1SGA-PT-2A GAS UPPER PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 43 1SGA-PT-2B GAS UPPER PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 44 1SGA-PT-5A HP SUPERHTR 2 INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 45 1SGA-PT-5B HP SUPERHTR 2 INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 46 1SGA-PT-65 HP SUPERHTR 1 OUTLET PRESSURE 0-1600.0 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 47 1SGA-PT-8A CO CATALYST INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 48 1SGA-PT-8B CO CATALYST INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 49 2SGA-FT-048 LP FW FLOW 0-100.0 INH2O 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 50 2SGA-LT-0029A HP DRUM LEVEL -47.5 to -1.40 inH2O 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 51 2SGA-LT-0029B HP DRUM LEVEL -47.5 to -1.40 inH2O 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 52 2SGA-LT-0042A LP DRUM LEVEL -47.5 to -1.40 inH2O 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 53 2SGA-LT-0042B LP DRUM LEVEL -47.5 to -1.40 inH2O 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 54 2SGA-PDT-1 FLUE GAS DP 0-18.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 55 2SGA-PDT-11 HP EVAP 1 FLUE GAS DP 0-0.500 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 56 2SGA-PDT-14 SCR CATALYST FLUE GAS DP 0-4.500 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 57 2SGA-PDT-16 HP EVAP 2 FLUE GAS DP 0-0.700 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 58 2SGA-PDT-17 HP EVAP 3 FLUE GAS DP 0-1.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 59 2SGA-PDT-19 LP SUPERHTR FLUE GAS DP 0-0.200 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 60 2SGA-PDT-20 HP ECON FLUE GAS DP 0-0.900 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 61 2SGA-PDT-22 LP EVAP 1 FLUE GAS DP 0-.0.600 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 62 2SGA-PDT-23 LP EVAP 2 FLUE GAS DP 0-.0.600 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 63 2SGA-PDT-24 LP EVAP 3 FLUE GAS DP 0-1.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 64 2SGA-PDT-26 LP ECON FLUE GAS DP 0-4.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 65 2SGA-PDT-4 DB FLUE GAS DP 0-0.500 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 66 2SGA-PDT-6 HP SUPERHTR 2 FLUE GAS DP 0-0.800 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 67 2SGA-PDT-7 HP SUPERHTR 1 FLUE GAS DP 0-0.500 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 68 2SGA-PDT-9 CO CATALYST FLUE GAS DP 0-3.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 69 2SGA-PT-0030A HP DRUM PRESSURE 0-1650 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 70 2SGA-PT-0030B HP DRUM PRESSURE 0-1650 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 71 2SGA-PT-0038A HP SUPERHTR 2 PRESSURE 0-1529.9 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 72 2SGA-PT-0038B HP SUPERHTR 2 PRESSURE 0-1529.9 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 73 2SGA-PT-003A DB INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 74 2SGA-PT-003B DB INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 75 2SGA-PT-0043A LP DRUM PRESSURE 0-220.00 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 76 2SGA-PT-0043B LP DRUM PRESSURE 0-220.00 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 77 2SGA-PT-52 LP SUPERHTR FLUE OUTLET PRESSURE 0-175.00 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 78 2SGA-PT-10A HP EVAP 1 INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 79 2SGA-PT-10B HP EVAP 1 INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 80 2SGA-PT-13A SCR CATALYST INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 81 2SGA-PT-13B SCR CATALYST INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 82 2SGA-PT-15A HP EVAP 2 INLET PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Appendix A3 - DVR Outage Master Instrumentation List

83 2SGA-PT-15B HP EVAP 2 INLET PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 84 2SGA-PT-18A LP SUPERHTR INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 85 2SGA-PT-18B LP SUPERHTR INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 86 2SGA-PT-21A LP EVAP 1 FLUE GAS INLET PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 87 2SGA-PT-21B LP EVAP 1 FLUE GAS INLET PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 88 2SGA-PT-25A LP ECON FLUE GAS INLET PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 89 2SGA-PT-25B LP ECON FLUE GAS INLET PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 90 2SGA-PT-2A GAS UPPER PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 91 2SGA-PT-2B GAS UPPER PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 92 2SGA-PT-5A HP SUPERHTR 2 INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 93 2SGA-PT-5B HP SUPERHTR 2 INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 94 2SGA-PT-65 HP SUPERHTR 1 OUTLET PRESSURE 0-1600.0 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 95 2SGA-PT-8A CO CATALYST INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 96 2SGA-PT-8B CO CATALYST INLET FLUE GAS PRESSURE 0-25.00 INH20 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 ATS BOILER ROSEMOUNT 3051 97 CECA-PT-1 AUX CW PUMP DISCH HDR XMTR 0-100 PSI 4-20 MA DC AUX COOLING WATER ROSEMOUNT 3051 98 CECA-FT-15 CW BLWDN TO CITY FLOW XMTR 0-100 IN WC 4-20 MA DC AUX COOLING WATER ROSEMOUNT 3051 99 CECB-PT-3 CCCW PMP DISCH HDR PRESS XMTR 4-20 MA DC CCCW ROSEMOUNT 3051 100 1FWA-FT-2 U1 HP ECON FW SPLY FLOW XMTR 0-250 IN WC 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 101 1FWA-FT-5 HP SUPHTR 2 FW SUPPLY FLOW XMTR 0-100 IN WC 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 102 1FWA-FT-16 BFW PMP 1A DISCH FLOW XMTR 0-100 IN WC 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 103 1FWA-FT-17 BFW PMP 1B DISCH FLOW XMTR 0-100 IN WC 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 104 1FWA-FT-20 HP STM BYPASS DESUP SPRAY FLOW XMTR 0-50.0 IN WC 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 105 1FWA-FT-21 BFW PMP 1A RECIRC TO COND FLOW XMTR 0-200 IN WC 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 106 1FWA-FT-22 BFW PMP 1B RECIRC TO COND FLOW XMTR 0-200 IN WC 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 107 1FWA-PDT-18 UNIT 1 RECIRC TO COND STR 3 D/P XMTR 10 PSID 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 108 1FWA-PDT-19 UNIT 1 RECIRC TO COND STR 4 D/P XMTR 10 PSID 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 109 1FWA-PT-14 UNIT 1 BFW PMP 1A DISCH PRESS XMTR 0-2000 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 110 1FWA-PT-15 UNIT 1 BFW PMP 1B DISCH PRESS XMTR 0-2000 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 111 2FWA-FT-2 U2 HP ECON FW SPLY FLOW XMTR 0-250 IN WC 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 112 2FWA-FT-5 HP SUPHTR 2 FW SUPPLY FLOW XMTR 0-100 IN WC 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 113 2FWA-FT-16 BFW PMP 2A DISCH FLOW XMTR 0-100 IN WC 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 114 2FWA-FT-17 BFW PMP 2B DISCH FLOW XMTR 0-100 IN WC 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 115 2FWA-FT-20 HP STM BYPASS DESUP SPRAY FLOW XMTR 0-50.0 IN WC 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 116 2FWA-FT-21 BFW PMP 2A RECIRC TO COND FLOW XMTR 0-200 IN WC 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 117 2FWA-FT-22 BFW PMP 2B RECIRC TO COND FLOW XMTR 0-200 IN WC 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 118 2FWA-PDT-18 UNIT 2 RECIRC TO COND STR 3 D/P XMTR 10 PSID 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 119 2FWA-PDT-19 UNIT 2 RECIRC TO COND STR 4 D/P XMTR 10 PSID 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 120 2FWA-PT-14 UNIT 2 BFW PMP 2A DISCH PRESS XMTR 0-2000 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 121 2FWA-PT-15 UNIT 2 BFW PMP 2B DISCH PRESS XMTR 0-2000 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 BOILER FEED ROSEMOUNT 3051 122 CFWC-PT-10 CONDS PMP DISCH HDR PRESS XMTR 0-800 PSI 4-20 MA DC CONDENSATE ROSEMOUNT 3051 123 1FGAP320 U1 DB GAS PRESSURE 0-50.00 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 1 FUEL GAS SUPPLY ROSEMOUNT 3051 124 2FGAP320 U1 DB GAS PRESSURE 0-50.00 PSI 4-20 MA DC UNIT 2 FUEL GAS SUPPLY ROSEMOUNT 3051 125 CSGG-PT-15 HP STEAM SUPPLY PRESS TO GLAND SEAL 0-160 PSI 4-20 MA DC HP STEAM COMMON ROSEMOUNT 3051 Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Appendix A3 - DVR Outage Master Instrumentation List

126 CSGG-PT-7A MAIN STEAM PRESS XMTR A 0-1600 PSI 4-20 MA DC HP STEAM COMMON ROSEMOUNT 3051 127 CSGG-PT-7B MAIN STEAM PRESS XMTR B 0-1600 PSI 4-20 MA DC HP STEAM COMMON ROSEMOUNT 3051 128 CSGG-PT-902 STG HP STEAM SUPPLY PRESS 0-1500 PSI 4-20 MA DC HP STEAM COMMON ROSEMOUNT 3051 129 1SGG-FT-1 UNIT 1 HP STEAM FLOW XMTR 0-250 NH2O 4-20 MA DC HP STEAM UNIT 1 ROSEMOUNT 3051 130 2SGG-FT-1 UNIT 2 HP STEAM FLOW XMTR 0-250 NH2O 4-20 MA DC HP STEAM UNIT 2 ROSEMOUNT 3051 131 CSGH-PT-4A LP STEAM PRESS XMTR A 0-150 PSI 4-20 MA DC LP STEAM COMMON ROSEMOUNT 3051 132 CSGH-PT-4B LP STEAM PRESS XMTR B 0-150 PSI 4-20 MA DC LP STEAM COMMON ROSEMOUNT 3051 133 CSGH-PT-822 INDUCTION STEAM SUPPLY PRESS 0-150 PSI 4-20 MA DC LP STEAM COMMON ROSEMOUNT 3051 134 1SGH-FT-1 UNIT 1 LP STEAM FLOW XMTR 0-100 INH2O 4-20 MA DC LP STEAM UNIT 1 ROSEMOUNT 3051 135 2SGH-FT-1 UNIT 2 LP STEAM FLOW XMTR 0-100 INH2O 4-20 MA DC LP STEAM UNIT 2 ROSEMOUNT 3051 136 CTGD-PDT-234 LUBE OIL STRAINER DP 0-50.0 PSI 4-20 MA DC STG LUBE OIL ROSEMOUNT 3051 137 CTGD-PDT-264 CONTROL OIL STRAINER DP 0-50.0 PSI 4-20 MA DC STG LUBE OIL ROSEMOUNT 3051 138 CTGD-PT-241 LUBE OIL PRESSURE 7.5-57.5 PSI 4-20 MA DC STG LUBE OIL ROSEMOUNT 3051 139 CTGD-PT-262 CONTROL OIL PRESSURE 0-300.0 PSI 4-20 MA DC STG LUBE OIL ROSEMOUNT 3051 140 CTGD-PS-235 Lube Oil Press. L (MOP Auto Start) 26 PSIG DECREASINGSWITCH ACTION STG LUBE OIL ASHCROFT B461V 141 CTGD-PS-236 Lube Oil Press. L (EOP Auto Start) 17.5 PSIG DECREASI SWITCH ACTION STG LUBE OIL ASHCROFT B461V 142 CTGD-PS-242 Turbine Lube Oil Press. (Turbine Trip) 17.5 PSIG DECREASI SWITCH ACTION STG LUBE OIL ASHCROFT B461V 143 CTGD-PS-247 Turning Lube Oil Press. L 4 PSIG DECREASING SWITCH ACTION STG LUBE OIL ASHCROFT B461V 144 CTGD-PS-265 Control Oil Press. L (COP Auto Start) 178.5 PSIG DECREASSWITCH ACTION STG LUBE OIL ASHCROFT B461V 145 CFWC-PT-2A Condenser Hotwell Pres. Xmtr 'A' -30 to 30 INHG 4-20 MA DC Condenser ROSEMOUNT 3051 25' Capillary 146 CFWC-PT-2B Condenser Hotwell Pres. Xmtr 'B' -30 to 30 INHG 4-20 MA DC Condenser ROSEMOUNT 3052 25' Capillary 147 CFWC-PT-2C Condenser Hotwell Pres. Xmtr 'C' -30 to 30 INHG 4-20 MA DC Condenser ROSEMOUNT 3053 25' Capillary Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Appendix A3 - DVR Outage Master Instrumentation List

TAG: # DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: DESIGN OPEN: DESIGN CLOSED:
1 63QL-1 1 Lube Oil Pressure Switch Turbine Gauge Panel Increasing @ 20 PSI +/-2 Decreasing @ 6 PSI +/- 1 2 63QT-2A 2 Lube Oil Pressure Switch Turbine Gauge Panel Decreasing @ 8 PSI +/- .3 Increasing @20 PSI +/-3 3 63WN-1 3 Water Inj. Pump Suction Pressure Water Injection Skid Increasing @ 8.0 INHG +/-.5 Decreasing @ 5.5 INHG +/-1.5 4 63WN-2 4 Water Inj. Pump Discharge Pressure Water Injection Skid Decreasing @ 500 PSI +/- 10 Increasing @ 555 PSI +/- 20 5 63QA-2 5 Lube Oil Pressure alarm Turbine Gauge Panel Decreasing @ 12 PSI +/- 1 Increasing @ 16 PSI +/- 2 6 63AD-1 6 Atomizing Air DP alarm Turbine Gauge Panel Decreasing @ 6 PSI +/- 2 Increasing @ 11 PSI +/- 3 7 63QQ-3 7 Lube oil filter DP Turbine Gauge Panel Increasing @ 15 PSI +/- .5 Decreasing @ 11 PSI +/-3 8 63HQ-1 8 Hydraulic Oil Supply Pressure Turbine Gauge Panel Decreasing @ 1050 PSI +/- 30 Increasing @ 1150 PSI +/- 40 9 63HL-1 9 Trip Oil Pressure - Liquid Fuel System Turbine Gauge Panel Decreasing @ 20 PSI +/- 1 Increasing @ 24 +/- 2 10 63HG-1 10 Trip Oil Pressure - Nat. Gas System Turbine Gauge Panel Decreasing @ 20 PSI +/- 1 Increasing @ 24 +/- 2 TAG: # DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: DESIGN OPEN: DESIGN CLOSED:
11 26QA-1 1 Lube Oil High Temperature alarm West Side of unit under grating Increasing 165 DEGF +/- 3 ------ 12 26QT-1A 2 Lube Oil High Temperature trip West Side of unit under grating Increasing 175 DEGF +/- 3 ------ 13 26QN-1 3 Lube oil tank Temperature West Side of unit under grating ------ Increasing 50 DEGF +/-5 14 26BT-1 4 Turb Compartment Temperature East Side of unit under grating Increasing 300 DEGF +/-5 ------ 15 26BT-2 5 Turb Compartment Temperature East Side of unit under grating Decreasing 95 DEGF +/-5 ------ TAG: # DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: DESIGN OPEN: DESIGN CLOSED:
1 63QL-1 1 Lube Oil Pressure Switch Turbine Gauge Panel Increasing @ 20 PSI +/-2 Decreasing @ 6 PSI +/- 1 2 63QT-2A 2 Lube Oil Pressure Switch Turbine Gauge Panel Decreasing @ 8 PSI +/- .3 Increasing @20 PSI +/-3 3 63WN-1 3 Water Inj. Pump Suction Pressure Water Injection Skid Increasing @ 8.0 INHG +/-.5 Decreasing @ 5.5 INHG +/-1.5 4 63WN-2 4 Water Inj. Pump Discharge Pressure Water Injection Skid Decreasing @ 500 PSI +/- 10 Increasing @ 555 PSI +/- 20 5 63QA-2 5 Lube Oil Pressure alarm Turbine Gauge Panel Decreasing @ 12 PSI +/- 1 Increasing @ 16 PSI +/- 2 6 63AD-1 6 Atomizing Air DP alarm Turbine Gauge Panel Decreasing @ 6 PSI +/- 2 Increasing @ 11 PSI +/- 3 7 63QQ-3 7 Lube oil filter DP Turbine Gauge Panel Increasing @ 15 PSI +/- .5 Decreasing @ 11 PSI +/-3 8 63HQ-1 8 Hydraulic Oil Supply Pressure Turbine Gauge Panel Decreasing @ 1050 PSI +/- 30 Increasing @ 1150 PSI +/- 40 9 63HL-1 9 Trip Oil Pressure - Liquid Fuel System Turbine Gauge Panel Decreasing @ 20 PSI +/- 1 Increasing @ 24 +/- 2 10 63HG-1 10 Trip Oil Pressure - Nat. Gas System Turbine Gauge Panel Decreasing @ 20 PSI +/- 1 Increasing @ 24 +/- 2 TAG: # DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: DESIGN OPEN: DESIGN CLOSED:
11 26QA-1 1 Lube Oil High Temperature alarm West Side of unit under grating Increasing 165 DEGF +/- 3 ------ 12 26QT-1A 2 Lube Oil High Temperature trip West Side of unit under grating Increasing 175 DEGF +/- 3 ------ 13 26QN-1 3 Lube oil tank Temperature West Side of unit under grating ------ Increasing 50 DEGF +/-5 14 26BT-1 4 Turb Compartment Temperature East Side of unit under grating Increasing 300 DEGF +/-5 ------ 15 26BT-2 5 Turb Compartment Temperature East Side of unit under grating Decreasing 95 DEGF +/-5 ------ APPENDIX A4 - GIANERA CALIBRATION SHEES FOR TWO COMBUSTION TURBINES GIANERA GT-2 SWITCH CALIBRATION LIST
Pressure Switches
Temperature Switches
GIANERA GT-1 SWITCH CALIBRATION LIST
Pressure Switches
Temperature Switches
Agreement with Rosemount Inc./A4-Gianera Calibration List for Two Combustion Turbines

APPENDIX A5 - DVR WATER TRETMENT ANALYZER LIST
# Manufacturer Model Service Qty
1 Hach DR 2800 Spectrometer 2
2 Hach Orbisphere 410 Dissolved Oxygen 1
3 Hach 5500sc Silica 2
4 Hach 8362sc High Purity pH 1
5 Hach CL17 Chlorine 1
6 Hach 1720E Turbidity, Low Range 1
7 Hach sc200 Turbidity 1
8 Hach Polymetron 9240 Sodium 1
9 Rosemont 1055 DUAL pH 3
10 Rosemont 1055 DUAL CONTACTING CONDUCTIVITY 10
11 Rosemont 1055 pH 1
12 Rosemont 1055 pH / CONTACTING CONDUCTIVITY 6
13 Rosemont 1055 CONTACTING CONDUCTIVITY 1
14 Univision Vision 230 Dissolved Oxygen 1
15 Univision Vision 230 Sodium 2
DVR Water Treatment Instruments
Agreement with Rosemount Inc./A5 -DVR Water Treatment Analyzer List

Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Exhibit A -Scope of Services Page 40 of 55

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF FEES AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. MAXIMUM COMPENSATION
The maximum compensation payable to Contractor during the Term shall not exceed the amount in Section 6 of the Agreement.

SECTION 2. RATES
Compensation under each Work Authorization and/or Purchase Order shall be in accordance with the rates set forth herein.

2.1 Rates. Contractor shall submit Proposals and invoice all Services at the rates listed in Appendix B1 attached and incorporated by reference.

2.2 Rates listed in Appendix B1 (Rate Schedule) are fully burdened and will remain fixed for the first two (2) years of the Agreement.

2.3 Rate Increase. After the first two (2) years of the Agreement, rates may be negotiated no more than once annually. Contractor shall notify the City ninety (90) days in advance of any proposed rate increase. Any rate increases are subject to approval by the City and must be substantiated by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the City. All rate adjustments must be approved by the City by executing an amendment to this Agreement. References to alternate rates in quotes that have not been separately authorized pursuant to this section are not approved.

2.4 Reimbursable Expenses. Any and all reimbursable expenses related to each Work Authorization or Purchase Order shall be described in Contractor’s Proposal as set forth in Section 10 of Exhibit A and accounted for in the total cost for each Proposal, Work Authorization, and Purchase Order, as applicable. Expenses shall be reimbursable only to the extent that (1) Contractor submits sufficient documentation to City that the expenses were directly incurred in providing the Services, (2) Contractor demonstrates that such expenses aren’t included in the hourly rate where applicable, (3) such expenses were approved in advance pursuant to Section 10 of Exhibit A, (4) Contractor submits receipts, invoices, or other supporting documentation demonstrating that such reimbursable costs were incurred.

Reimbursable Expense Schedule Mark Up

1. The cost of mailing, shipping and/or delivery of any documents or materials.

No Markup

2. The cost of photographing, printing, reproducing
and/or copying any documents or materials.

No Markup
Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Exhibit A -Scope of Services Page 41 of 55 Reimbursable Expense Schedule Mark Up

3. Charges for outside services and materials
(including subcontractor fees, specialized
equipment, and facilities not furnished directly by
Contractor).

Not to exceed 15%

4. Other reimbursable expenses with prior written
approval from the City
No Markup

5. Allowable mileage will be charged at the prevailing
IRS rate per mile.

No Markup

6. Unless approved in writing (e-mail acceptable) in
advance, meals, lodging, and related per diem
shall not exceed the rates outlined by United
States General Services Administration (GSA)
https://www.gsa.gov/travel-resources. Airfare or
rental car, where applicable shall be at economy
rates.

No Markup
SECTION 3. PAYMENT PROVISIONS

3.1 Time and Material. For As-Needed Services authorized to be paid on a time and material basis, Contractor shall provide an invoice to the City on a monthly basis for services completed in the preceding month, pursuant to the rates listed in Table B1 in Appendix B1. The invoice must include the following information:

3.1.1 Invoice Number, Purchase Order Number, and Invoice Period.

3.1.2 Current amount due with a time and materials breakdown: titles, hours, hourly rates, and any City approved reimbursable expenses itemized with supporting documentation.

3.1.3 Each invoice shall provide sufficient detail for City to verify that the rates listed in Table B1 are charged. Additionally, invoices shall include sufficient detail to allow for accurate comparison with certified payroll submittals.

3.2 Fixed Price. For As-Needed Services authorized to be paid on a fixed price basis, Contractor shall provide an invoice to the City based on either (a) the percentage of services completed during the previous month or (b) a lump sum amount upon the completion of deliverable(s), as specified in the Purchase Order. Invoices must include the following information:

3.2.1 Invoice Number, Purchase Order Number, and Invoice Period.

3.2.2 Detailed information on the work performed on each deliverable or task completed on each project, as applicable.

Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Exhibit A -Scope of Services Page 42 of 55

3.2.3 Contractor shall not invoice labor costs subject to prevailing wages in advance of performing the applicable services.

3.2.4 With regard to milestone payments, Contractor shall invoice each milestone payment in full. Contractor shall not split milestone payments into multiple invoices.

3.3 Pre-Payment. City shall not be required to pay a deposit or any other form of pre- payment prior to Contractor beginning work.

3.4 Payment Limited to Satisfactory Completion of the Services. Contractor is not entitled to any payments until the City concludes that the Services and/or furnished deliverable(s) have been satisfactorily performed.

3.5 Recalculation. The City may recalculate and pay invoices based on the rates established in this Agreement.

3.6 Certified Payroll. When applicable, Contractor must submit all necessary certified payrolls through LCP Tracker in advance of its request for payment..

These submittals shall comply with the requirements set forth in Exhibit D and are subject to verification by the City.

3.7 Disputed Invoices. If the City in good faith disputes any portion of an invoice, the City shall pay the undisputed portion of the invoice and submit written notice to Contractor regarding the disputed amount. The notice shall include documentation supporting the disputed amount.

3.8 Payment. If there are no discrepancies or deficiencies in the submitted invoice and Contractor has submitted all required certified payroll, City shall process the invoice for payment.

Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Appendix B1 – Rate Sheet Page 43 of 55

APPENDIX B1

RATE SCHEDULE
SECTION 1. RATES
Contractor shall charge and the City shall pay for actual services rendered and authorized according to the process outlined in Section 10 of Exhibit A. The rates applicable for the Services are listed below in Table B1.

In cases where services are required but rates are not listed below, Contractor must submit rates for approval by the City in advance before performing the services. For avoidance of doubt, any changes to the rates in Table B1 must be authorized in accordance with Section 2.3 of Exhibit B including execution of an amendment to this Agreement. Rate changes are not permitted as part of the Work Authorization process.

Table B1: Rates
Labor Classification Rate
Overtime
Hourly Rate
Double Time
Hourly Rate
Instrumentation Services during Shutdowns, Turnarounds, or Outages (STO)

STO Instrumentation and
Electrical (I&E) Technician
(Minimum of four (4) hours per
person from the time of arrival at
the job site for onsite services)
$156.00
straight time (ST)
hourly rate
$234.00 $312.00
STO Lead I&E Technician
(Minimum of four (4) hours per
person from the time of arrival at
the job site for onsite services)
$193.00
ST hourly rate
$290.00 $387.00
Instrumentation Services
I&E Technician
(Minimum of four (4) hours per
person from the time of arrival at
the job site for onsite services)
$241.00
ST hourly rate
$362.00 $482.00
I&E Technician Daily Rate
(Up to 10 hours per day from the
time of arrival at the job site for
onsite services)
$2,410.00
daily rate/per
person
$362.00 $482.00
Specialized Instrumentation or Wireless Services
Specialty Technician
(Up to 10 hours per day from the
time of arrival at the job site for
onsite services)
$3,050.00
daily rate/per
person
$458.00 $610.00
Wireless Specialist $3,170.00 $476.00 $634.00
Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Appendix B1 – Rate Sheet Page 44 of 55

(Up to 10 hours per day from the
time of arrival at the job site for
onsite services)
daily rate/per
person
Wireless Engineer
(Up to 8 hours per day from the
time of arrival at the job site for
onsite services)
$2,730.00
daily rate/per
person
$512.00 $683.00
Project Manager
(Up to 8 hours per day from the
time of arrival at the job site for
onsite services)
$2,840.00
daily rate/per
person
$426.00 $586.00
Mobilization Fee
(1) For onsite services within a 150-mile radius of Santa Clara City Hall (“City Hall”), if a local technician located within the Bay Area is available or travel time is less than 1 hour from the technician’s location, there is no mobilization fee. (2) For onsite services within the 150-mile and 300-mile radius of City Hall or between 1- 4 hours of travel time from the technician’s location, whichever is less, there will be a one-time mobilization fee of $2,112 round trip per person per service call. (3) For onsite services outside a 300-mile radius of City Hall or more than 4 hours of travel time from the technician’s location, whichever is less, there will be a one-time mobilization fee of $3,590 round trip per person per service call. (4) The mobilization fee is in addition to the labor rates listed above, and it covers standard equipment, tools, travel time, and mileage.

Example 1: To calculate the eight-hour daily charge for onsite services for a STO Lead I&E Technician within a 150-mile radius of City Hall, multiply the ST hourly rate of $193 by 8 hours, resulting in a total charge of $1,544 with no mobilization fee.

Example 2: To calculate the total cost of a single service call lasting three consecutive days at 10 hours per day for onsite services between the 150-mile and 300-mile radius of City Hall for one I&E Technician, add the daily rate of $2,410 and the mobilization fee of $2,112 round trip, totaling a first travel daily rate of $4,522; multiply the daily rate of $2,410 by two days (2nd and 3rd day) resulting a fee of $4,820, and add the first travel daily rate of $4,522, resulting a total charge of ($4,820+$4,522) $9,342.

Parts
Parts manufactured by the Contractor shall be at the agreed-upon price. Parts from the original equipment manufacturer shall be at the Contractor’s actual cost plus a 15% markup.

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS
The following definitions apply to Table B1:

2.1 “Daily Rate” means the first ten (10) hours worked between Monday through Friday. Hours worked in excess of ten (10) hours from Monday through Friday will be billed at the overtime or double time rates.

Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Appendix B1 – Rate Sheet Page 45 of 55

2.2 “Straight Time” means the first eight (8) hours or ten (10) hours for daily rate as applicable based on labor classification between Monday through Friday, excluding U.S. Federal Holidays.

2.3 “Overtime” means the:

2.3.1 hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours or ten (10) hours for daily rate Monday through Friday; or

2.3.2 first eight (8) hours worked on Saturdays.

2.4 “Double Time ” means the:

2.4.1 hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours from Monday through Friday; or

2.4.2 hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours on Saturdays; or

2.4.3 hours worked on Sundays; or

2.4.4 hours worked during U.S. Federal Holidays.

Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Exhibit C - Insurance Requirements Page 46 of 55

EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Without limiting the Contractor’s indemnification of the City, and prior to commencing any of the Services required under this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide and maintain in full force and effect during the period of performance of the Agreement and for twenty-four (24) months following acceptance by the City, at its sole cost and expense, the following insurance policies from insurance companies authorized to do business in the State of California. These policies shall be primary insurance, to the extent of Contractor’s negligence, as to the City of Santa Clara so that any other coverage held by the City shall not contribute to any loss under Contractor’s insurance.

The coverages, provisions and blanket endorsements are as follows:

1. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

1.1. Commercial General Liability Insurance policy which provides coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01 as follows:
$1,000,000 Each Occurrence
$2,000,000 General Aggregate
$1,000,000 Personal Injury

Note: Contractor is self-insured for Products & Completed Operations coverage, as administered by its parent, Emerson Electric Co., St. Louis, Missouri.

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

1.3. The following provisions shall apply to the Commercial General Liability policy maintained by the Contractor to comply with the insurance requirements of this Agreement:

1.3.1. To the extent of the liabilities assumed by Contractor, there shall be no cross liability exclusion which precludes coverage for claims or suits by one insured against another; and

1.3.2. Coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or a suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

2. BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE
Business automobile liability insurance policy which provides coverage at least as broad as ISO form CA 00 01 with policy limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit, or providing coverage at least as broad as, Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01. Liability coverage shall apply to all owned (if any), non-owned and hired autos.

Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Exhibit C - Insurance Requirements Page 47 of 55

3. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

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

3.3. To the extent of Contractor’s liabilities assumed herein, this policy must include a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents.

4. Not Used

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

5.1. Additional Insureds. City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents are hereby included as additional insureds, via blanket endorsement, in respect to liability arising out of Contractor’s work for City, subject to (a) the limitations and exclusions set out in Section 15, LIMITATION OF REMEDY AND LIABILITY, of the Agreement, (b) such inclusion as additional insured only applying to the materials and/or Services which are performed pursuant to, or in furtherance of, this Agreement, and (c) such inclusion as additional insured only applying to the extent of Contractor’s negligence.

5.2. Primary and non-contributing. To the extent of Contractor’s liabilities assumed herein, each required insurance policy, via blanket endorsement provided by Contractor shall contain language or be endorsed to contain wording making it primary insurance as respects to, and not requiring contribution from, any other insurance which the indemnities may possess, including any self-insurance or self-insured retention they may have. Any other insurance indemnities may possess shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not be called upon to contribute with Contractor’s insurance.

5.3. Cancellation.

5.3.1. Contractor shall provide notice to City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of such material modification or cancellation of the required policies. In the event of non-renewal, Contractor shall Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Exhibit C - Insurance Requirements Page 48 of 55

provide written notice at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of non-renewal.

6. ADDITIONAL INSURANCE RELATED PROVISIONS
Contractor and City agree as follows:

6.1. Contractor agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with the Services, who is brought onto or involved in the performance of the Services by Contractor, provide the same insurance coverage required of Contractor, except as with respect to limits.

Contractor agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this Agreement. Contractor agrees that upon request by City, certificates of insurance evidencing insurance requirements will be submitted to City for review.

6.2. Contractor agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or Contractor for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this Agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto.

6.3. The City reserves the right to withhold payments from the Contractor in the event of material noncompliance with the insurance requirements set forth in this Agreement.

7. EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE
Prior to commencement of any Services under this Agreement, Contractor, and each and every subcontractor (of every tier) shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide and maintain insurance coverage with the blanket endorsements and deductibles indicated in this Agreement. Contractor shall file with the City all certificates and required additional insured blanket endorsements for the required insurance policies for City’s approval as to adequacy of the insurance protection.

8. E VIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE
Contractor or its insurance broker shall provide the required proof of insurance compliance, consisting of the blanket additional insured endorsement form and the ACORD form 25-S certificate of insurance (or its equivalent), evidencing all required coverage shall be delivered to City, or its representative as set forth below, before execution of this Agreement. Unless otherwise required by the terms of this Agreement, all certificates, endorsements, coverage verifications and other items required to be delivered to City pursuant to this Agreement shall be e-mailed to:

EBIX Inc.

Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Exhibit C - Insurance Requirements Page 49 of 55

City of Santa Clara, Silicon Valley Water
P.O. Box 100085 – S2 or 1 Ebix Way
Duluth, GA 30096 John’s Creek, GA 30097

Telephone number: 951-766-2280
Fax number: 770-325-0409
Email address: [email protected]

9. QUALIFYING INSURERS
All of the insurance companies providing insurance for Contractor shall have an A. M. Best rating of at least A minus 6 (A- VI) or shall be an insurance company of equal financial stability
Agreement with Rosemount Inc. /Exhibit D – Labor Compliance Page 50 of 55

EXHIBIT D

LABOR COMPLIANCE
This Agreement is subject to the requirements of California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. requiring the payment of prevailing wages, the training of apprentices, and compliance with other applicable requirements.

A. Prevailing Wage Requirements

1. Contractor shall be obligated to pay not less than the General Prevailing Wage Rate, which can be found at www.dir.ca.gov and are on file with the City Clerk’s office, which shall be available to any interested party upon request. Contractor is also required to have a copy of the applicable wage determination posted and/or available at each job site.

2. Specifically, contractors are reminded of the need for compliance with Labor Code Section 1774-1775 (the payment of prevailing wages and documentation of such), Section 1776 (the keeping and submission of accurate certified payrolls) and 1777.5 in the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Further, overtime must be paid for work in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week pursuant to Labor Code Section 1811-1813.

3. Special prevailing wage rates generally apply to work performed on weekends, holidays and for certain shift work. Depending on the location of the project and the amount of travel incurred by workers on the project, certain travel and subsistence payments may also be required.

Contractors and subcontractors are on notice that information about such special rates, holidays, premium pay, shift work and travel and subsistence requirements can be found at www.dir.ca.gov.

4. Only bona fide apprentices actively enrolled in a California Division of Apprenticeship Standards approved program may be employed on the project as an apprentice and receive the applicable apprenticeship prevailing wage rates. Apprentices who are not properly supervised and employed in the appropriate ratio shall be paid the full journeyman wages for the classification of work performed.

5. As a condition to receiving progress payments, final payment and payment of retention on any and all projects on which the payment of prevailing wages is required, Contractor agrees to present to City, along with its request for payment, all applicable and necessary certified payrolls (for itself and all applicable subcontractors) for the time period covering such payment request. Contractors shall submit certified payroll through LCP Tracker or similar system as directed by the City. The term “certified payroll” shall include all required documentation to comply with the mandates set forth in Labor Code Section 1720 et seq, as well as any Agreement with Rosemount Inc. /Exhibit D – Labor Compliance Page 51 of 55

additional documentation requested by the City or its designee including, but not limited to: certified payroll, fringe benefit statements and backup documentation such as monthly benefit statements, employee timecards, copies of wage statements and cancelled checks, proof of training contributions (CAC2 if applicable), and apprenticeship forms such as DAS-140 and DAS-142.

6. In addition to submitting the certified payrolls and related documentation to City, Contractor and all subcontractors shall be required to submit certified payroll and related documents electronically to the California Department of Industrial Relations. Failure to submit payrolls to the DIR when mandated by the project parameters shall also result in the withholding of progress, retention and/or final payment.

7. No contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1(a)].

8. No contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract for public work on a public works project, unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. Contractors MUST be a registered “public works contractor” with the DIR AT THE TIME OF BID. Where the prime contract is less than $15,000 for maintenance work or less than $25,000 for construction alternation, demolition or repair work, registration is not required.

9. All contractors/subcontractors and related construction services subject to prevailing wage, including but not limited to: trucking, surveying and inspection work must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations as a “public works contractor”. Those you fail to register and maintain their status as a public works contractor shall not be permitted to perform work on the project.

10. Should any contractor or subcontractors not be a registered public works contractor and perform work on the project, Contractor agrees to fully indemnify the City for any fines assessed by the California Department of Industrial Relations against the City for such violation, including all staff costs and attorney’s fee relating to such fine.

11. This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

B. Audit Rights
All records or documents required to be kept pursuant to this Agreement to verify compliance with this Exhibit shall be made available for audit at no cost to City, at any Agreement with Rosemount Inc. /Exhibit D – Labor Compliance Page 52 of 55

time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City Attorney, City Auditor, City Manager, or a designated representative of any of these officers.

Copies of such records or documents shall be provided to City for audit at City Hall when it is practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be made available at Contractor’s address indicated for receipt of notices in this Agreement.

C. Enforcement

1. City shall withhold any portion of a payment; including the entire payment amount, until certified payroll forms and related documentation are properly submitted, reviewed and found to be in full compliance. In the event that certified payroll forms do not comply with the requirements of Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., City may continue to hold sufficient funds to cover estimated wages and penalties under the Agreement.

2. Based on State funding sources, this project may be subject to special labor compliance requirements of Proposition 84.

3. The City is not obligated to make any payment due to Contractor until Contractor has performed all of its obligations under these provisions. This provision means that City can withhold all or part of a payment to Contractor until all required documentation is submitted. Any payment by the City despite Contractor’s failure to fully perform its obligations under these provisions shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term or condition contained in this Agreement or a waiver of the right to withhold payment for any subsequent breach of this Exhibit.

4. City or the California Department of Industrial Relations may impose penalties upon contractors and subcontractors for failure to comply with prevailing wage requirements. These penalties are up to $200 per day per worker for each wage violation identified; $100 per day per worker for failure to provide the required paperwork and documentation requested within a 10-day window; and $25 per day per worker for any overtime violation.

Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Exhibit E – Sample Work Authorization Page 53 of 55

EXHIBIT E

SAMPLE WORK AUTHORIZATION FORM

This work authorization (“Work Authorization”) is made pursuant to the Agreement for Service between the City of Santa Clara and Contractor (“Agreement”). This Work Authorization is governed by the provisions of the Agreement and is hereby incorporated into the Agreement by reference. All Services are subject to the terms and rates included in the Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms and conditions of the Work Authorization and the Agreement, the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall govern and control.

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

WORK AUTHORIZATION
NUMBER: Original
First Revised
Second Revised
Other Contract No.

Contractor Name/Address:

Expiration Date of Agreement:

Contractor’s Project Manager: Name: Email:

City’s Project Manager Name: Email:

Period of Performance for this
Work Order:

Start Date: Expected Completion Date:

Maximum Compensation of Agreement:

Previously Committed Funds:

Available Funds
Maximum Compensation for this Work Authorization
Remaining Available Funds
Sufficient funds are available in Fund #:
(to be completed by City)
Contractor Representative Name (Print)
Contractor Representative Signature

Contractor Representative Signature Date
City Project Manager Name (Print)
Authorized City Representative (Print)
City Representative Signature

City Representative Signature Date
* Authorized City Representatives include Electric Utility Assistant Director, Chief Electric Utility Operating Officer, Chief Electric Utility Officer

LJ
□
□
□
Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Exhibit E – Sample Work Authorization Page 54 of 55

PART B: SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED

1. REVISED WORK AUTHORIZATION
No
If yes, provide a brief description of the change(s).

2. SCOPE

OF SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
The Contractor shall perform the service(s) described below in accordance with all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. (Insert a detailed scope of work below or attach as a separate file.) Scope of Services and cost proposal shall meet all of the provisions of Section 10 of Exhibit A.

3. COMPENSATION
a. Basis of Compensation: Time & Materials Fixed Fee b. Reimbursable Expenses:

No expenses are reimbursable.

Expenses are separately reimbursable in the maximum amount of:

c. Paymen
t Schedule:

Monthly Completion of Deliverable/Milestone Completion of Work d. Payment Terms. Pr ovide payment terms below or attach as a separate file. *Payment for on-site labor may not be paid in advance. On-site labor shall not be invoiced until completed and Customer will not make payment until certified payroll is approved.

4. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

Liquidated Damages do not apply.

Liquidated Damages apply as follows:

□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□ □
□
Agreement with Rosemount Inc./Exhibit E – Sample Work Authorization Page 55 of 55

It is mutually agreed by Contractor and City that, in event completion of the Services to be provided by the Contractor under this Agreement is delayed beyond ___________________, 20___, City will suffer
damages and will incur other costs and expenses of a nature and amount which is difficult or impractical to determine. The Parties agree that by way of ascertaining and fixing the amount of damages, costs and expenses, and not by way of penalty, Contractor shall pay to City the sum of __________________________________dollars ($____________) per day in liquidated damages to a cap of _________. Contractor agrees that City may deduct the amount of said unpaid damages from any money due or that may become due to Contractor under this Agreement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing both Parties understand and agree that no liquidated damages shall accrue for delivery delays due to any modification of the work scope, for delays caused by or attributable to the City, for delays caused by or attributable to third parties not under the direct control of Contractor or any force majeure event during the period of service of this Work Authorization.

Such liquidated damages shall be the City's sole and exclusive remedy for Contractor’s failure to meet the agreed delivery schedule.

5. ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE

Acceptance Certificate not required.

Acceptance Certificate required.

□
□
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-1396 Agenda Date: 12/12/2023

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Agreements with RCR Tasman I, LLC for the Construction of Park Improvements and the Maintenance of the Park within the Tasman East Specific Plan Area at Developer’s Sole Cost

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Sports, Recreational and Arts Assets
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
In July 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.1937 adding Chapter 17.35 “Park and Recreational Land” to the Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) requiring new residential developments to dedicate developed park and recreational land, and/or pay a fee in-lieu pursuant to the Quimby Act and/or the Mitigation Fee Act (MFA) to address the impacts of the new residential population on existing City parks and recreation infrastructure.

On November 13, 2018, the City Council adopted the Tasman East Specific Plan (TESP), which provides detailed guidelines for future land uses and projects proposed within the 45-acre TESP area boundary.

On December 4, 2019, the Architectural Review Committee approved a development application allowing for the construction of a project (Project) consisting of 657 dwelling units in two residential towers (one 20-story Home for the Ambulatory Aged and one 22-story rental housing tower), retail, and a 0.5-acre park. The Project site is within the Bridge District of the TESP and it is bounded by Calle De Luna to the north, Calle Del Sol to the east, and Tasman Drive to the south.

On March 8, 2022, the City Council approved the Park Master Plan - Schematic Design (Attachment 1, RTC #22-180), consisting of a small grass area, enclosed off-leash dog area, playground with play areas for children ages 2-5 and 6-12, benches, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, dog waste stations, lighting, pathways, trees and landscaping.

The Project will meet its parkland dedication requirement of 3.72 acres through:
(1) the construction and dedication of a 0.5357-acre public mini park (Mini Park); (2) the provision of 1.1441 acres of private recreational amenities (private recreational amenities receive credit at 50% of value per SCCC 17.35.070); and (3) payment of Mitigation Fee Act funds in the amount of $11,081,224 in lieu of the remaining parkland dedication owed in conformance with SCCC 17.35.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 12/8/2023Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-1396 Agenda Date: 12/12/2023

DISCUSSION
In conformance with the TESP (Attachment #2), the City and RCR Tasman I, LLC (parties) negotiated the following:
· Parkland Agreement (Attachment #3). This Agreement sets the terms and conditions for the construction of the improvements and acceptance of the park according to the Architectural Review Committee approved schematic design. Key provisions of the Parkland Agreement include:
o Construction of the park improvements;
o City Council-approved Mini Park schematic design (Attachment #3, Exhibit B); o Transfer of title to the City of a 0.5357-acre Mini Park; and o Payment of Mitigation Fee Act fees in the amount of $11,081,224. · Park Maintenance Agreement (Attachment #4). This Agreement sets the terms and conditions for the maintenance of the park. Key provisions of the Park Maintenance Agreement include:
o Developer shall be responsible to provide the labor, supervision, equipment, materials, and any other tools and labor necessary to maintain the parkland (Mini Park) in accordance with City standards as defined in Exhibit C of the Park Maintenance Agreement;
o The obligation for maintenance services (including utilities, landscaping, and maintenance of park amenities) shall begin on the date the title for the park parcel transfers to the City and terminate upon mutual written consent of the parties; and o Periodic performance reviews upon City’s request.

Both parties acknowledge that at all times throughout the duration of the Maintenance Agreement, the park will remain a public park operated, controlled, and managed solely by the City with hours of operation set by the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the TESP which included the construction of parks, was approved on November 13, 2018 (Resolution No. 18-8623), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). Accordingly, no further environmental review is required.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund other than staff time for minor administrative tasks related to the operation of the Mini Park as part of the City’s overall park system. In conformance with the TESP and the terms of the proposed Parkland Agreement and Park Maintenance Agreement, RCR Tasman I, LLC will design, construct, dedicate to the City, and maintain the Mini Park at its sole expense for the life of the park, expiring upon mutual written consent of all parties.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office, Finance Department, Community City of Santa Clara Printed on 12/8/2023Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-1396 Agenda Date: 12/12/2023
Development Department, and City Manager’s Office.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute the Parkland Agreement and the Park Maintenance Agreement with RCR Tasman I, LLC on substantially the terms and in the forms presented, with such minor, non-substantive changes and amendments that may be necessary to implement the project, in final forms approved by the City Attorney.

Prepared by: Gina Saporito, Staff Analyst
Reviewed by: Dale Seale, Acting Director of Parks & Recreation Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. RTC #22-180

2. Tasman East Specific Plan (TESP)

3. Parkland Agreement with RCR Tasman I, LLC

4. Park Maintenance Agreement with RCR Tasman I, LLC
City of Santa Clara Printed on 12/8/2023Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
..Title
Action on Park & Recreation Commission’s Recommendation that Council Approve the Park Master Plan-Schematic Design for the New Public Mini-Park to be located at 5150 Calle Del Sol & 2350 Calle De Luna (Related – Tasman East Focus Area)

..Report

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Sports, Recreational and Arts Assets

BACKGROUND
On November 13, 2018 the Santa Clara City Council adopted the Tasman East Specific Plan (TESP) which provides guidelines for future projects proposed within the 45-acre specific plan area boundaries. The TESP provides a framework for improvements to streets, the construction of greenways, and the dedication of parkland to support a high- density neighborhood near transit.

On December 4, 2019, the City’s Architectural Review Committee approved the Related development (Project). The Project encompasses approximately 5.52 acres and is bounded by Calle De Luna to the north, Calle Del Sol to the east, and Tasman Drive to the south. The Project site is within the Bridge District of the TESP. The Project is approved to construct two residential towers, one 20-story Home for the Ambulatory Aged, and one 22-story rental housing tower.

The Project will meet its parkland dedication requirements (SCCC 17.35) through a half- acre public mini park (Mini Park), eligible private on-site recreational amenities, and payment of City Mitigation Fee Act (MFA) fees due in-lieu of parkland dedication in compliance with City Code 17.35. The Mini Park will be designed and constructed by the developer, dedicated to the City in fee title, and will be maintained in perpetuity by the developer after dedication.

An initial schematic design for the half-acre Mini Park parcel was developed by Surfacedesign, Inc. landscape architects. The schematic design proposed includes: a small natural grass area, an enclosed off-leash dog area, play apparatus for children ages 2-5 and 6-12, benches, pathways, trees, and landscaping. The park and its amenities meet the Parks & Recreation Department’s public park design requirements:
an inclusive, age-friendly, sustainable design; playgrounds for ages 2-5 and 6-12 that contain all developmentally appropriate elements of play; provision of safe accessible routes to and through the park, and connectivity to adjacent uses with public access from public right of way. New public parks are designed to meet the needs of the new residents in the immediate vicinity to reduce potential impacts on the City park system.

The private residential on-site recreational spaces and amenities complement the public park program.

On November 16, 2021, the Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed the Developer’s presentation of the initial Park Master Plan-Schematic Design. The Commission provided initial comments and then initiated the public input and review process on the park master plan and schematic design.

Community Input
The Parks & Recreation Department hosted an online community survey from November 30, 2021 through December 14, 2021. There were 181 attendees who provided 152 responses which represents 7.6 hours of public comment. The park features favored for use were the loop walk (57%), quiet seating areas and playground (38%), and the off- leash dog area (32%). Less than a third of respondents thought any changes should be made to the design of the off-leash dog area (32%) and the playground (25%). The most important landscape element to respondents was shade trees (63%). The respondents primarily would access the park by driving (60%), which is consistent with the newness of the residential neighborhood and 54% of respondents living outside of the 95054 area.

Given the size (less than one acre), location of this mini park (Tasman East area), and intended users (residents of adjacent housing), 62% of the respondents indicate visiting this park more than once a month. It is expected that the majority of park users will access the park in the afternoon and evening (75%), which would be addressed by the park lighting plan and intended use until 10:00 p.m. as a lit park facility.

Based on community feedback and recognizing that the Mini Park will be open until 10:00 p.m., additional lighting was incorporated into the design. Shade was also carefully considered by the design team. Given that the Mini Park is located on the North side of the proposed 7-story building, the need for additional shade trees at this location is limited. However, three (3) additional shade trees could be accommodated without negatively impacting the growth and health of the trees, therefore, were added to the design. It was also noted that the exact color schema of the playground surfacing and equipment may change based on what is available in the market.

DISCUSSION
On January 18, 2022, the Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed a presentation by Related California on the proposed Mini Park Master Plan-Schematic Design. After a brief discussion, the Commission unanimously recommended that Council approve the proposed Schematic Design-Master Plan for the New Public Mini-Park to be located at 5150 Calle Del Sol & 2350 Calle De Luna (Related – Tasman East Focus Area).

Council will review the Parks & Recreation Commission recommendation for approval of the proposed Mini Park Master Plan – Schematic Design (Attachment 1). Once approved, the Developer will complete the construction documents for building permit, execute Park Construction and Park Maintenance agreements, complete the improvements to the acceptance of the City, and record the parcel dedication and maintenance agreement with the County of Santa Clara. The Mini Park will take approximately 18 months to 2 years for completion and opening for the general public’s use.

Once dedicated and placed into the City’s park inventory, the park and its master plan will be subject to the conditions of Measure R, a voter approved initiative in November 2016, which added Section 714.1 Protection of Parkland and Public Open Space to the City Charter. Measure R prohibits selling, leasing, or otherwise disposing of parkland for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days or more, and also prohibits its use from changing, being abandoned, or discontinued without such sale, lease, disposal or changed use having first been authorized or ratified by a two-thirds majority vote of the electorate during a general municipal election for that purpose. Measure R also prohibits changes in park use for over 180 days without a majority vote of the electorate and substantial building, construction, reconstruction, or development upon dedicated parkland except pursuant to ordinance subject to referendum. The referendum process is set forth in the Elections Code.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment. The activity covered by this residential development project is consistent with the Tasman East Specific Plan EIR.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund for the current action. The developer will design, construct, dedicate to City and maintain the Mini Park in perpetuity, at no cost to the City.

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

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

RECOMMENDATION
..Recommendation
Council approve the Park Master Plan - Schematic Design for the New Public Mini-Park to located at 5150 Calle Del Sol & 2350 Calle De Luna.

..Staff
Reviewed by: James Teixeira, Director of Parks & Recreation Approved by: City Manager’s Office

ATTACHMENTS

1. Mini Park Master Plan - Schematic Design - 5150 Calle Del Sol & 2350 Calle De Luna

TASMAN EAST

FOCUS AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
ORIGINAL ADOPTION: 11/13/18
AMENDMENT #1 ADOPTION: 11/18/20
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What 's Possible
PERKINS + WILL
2 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CITY OF SANTA CLARA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Reena Brilliot, Planning Manager
Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development
John Davidson, Principal Planner

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Altamont Corridor Express
City of San Jose Planning Department
County of Santa Clara LEA
Pacific Gas and Electric
Santa Clara Unified School District
Sierra Club
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

CONSULTANT TEAM
Perkins+Will
BKF Engineers
David J. Powers + Associates
Fehr + Peers
Nelson Nygaard
Strategic Economics
Archineers
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
01 INTRODUCTION 4

01.1 Plan Context & Structure 6

01.2 Planning Process 8
02 VISION & PRINCIPLES 10

02.1 Vision 12

02.2 Planning Principles 14

VISION REGULATORY FRAMEWORK DESIGN GUIDELINES IMPLEMENTATION & APPENDIX 03 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 16

03.1 Site Setting 18

03.2 Infrastructure Conditions 20

03.3 Market Analysis Findings 22

03.4 Sustainability Framework 24

03.5 Land Use Framework 28

03.6 Circulation Framework 32

03.7 Open Space Framework 34

03.8 Urban Design Framework 38

03.9 Parking Framework 40
04 STREET DESIGN GUIDELINES 42

04.1 Rights of Way & Sidewalk
Easements 44

04.2 Street Zones 48

04.3 Lick Mill Boulevard 50

04.4 Calle Del Sol 52

04.5 Calle De Luna 58

04.6 Calle Del Mundo 60

04.7 Stormwater Management 62

04.8 Paving & Lighting 63

04.9 Urban Canopy 64
05 OPEN SPACE DESIGN
GUIDELINES 66

05.1 Dedicated Parkland Locations
& Program 68

05.2 River District 70

05.3 Hill District 71

05.4 Bridge & Center Districts 72

05.5 Station District 73

05.6 Greenways 74
06 BUILDING DESIGN
GUIDELINES 76

06.1 Building Design 78

06.2 Bulk and Massing 80

06.3 Building Performance 84

06.4 Building Frontages 85
07 IMPLEMENTATION 90

07.1 Funding, Financing and
Implementation 92

07.2 Phasing & Thresholds 99

07.3 Project Administration 101

07.4 Capital Improvements 102
08 APPENDIX 106

08.1 Existing Conditions 108

08.2 Market Analysis 118

08.3 Infrastructure Report 138

08.4 Transportation Demand
Management 146
01 INTRODUCTION

01.1 Plan Context & Structure 6

01.2 Planning Process 8

6 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

PLAN CONTEXT
In 2010, the City of Santa Clara adopted its
comprehensive 2010-2035 General Plan, which included
the identification of nine Focus Areas throughout the city.

These areas were chosen for their potential to significantly define the City’s identity as a place in transition from a suburb to a regional economic center. The opportunity to develop at a higher density near transit is central to this new identity.

In 2014, the City initiated its Housing and General
Plan Land Use Planning Elements that identified which
Focus Areas would prioritize housing development in
order to reach housing goals set by the State required
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). These areas
were selected based on their proximity to transit, jobs and potential for redevelopment. The City required the
approval of a comprehensive and specific Focus Area
Specific Plan prior to development of each of these areas.

The 46.1-acre Tasman East Focus Area has been
identified by the City of Santa Clara’s General Plan as a Focus Area with potential to contribute to the City’s RHNA goals to increase residential density near transit and to balance the commercial uses along the Tasman corridor.

Plan Objectives
The role of a Specific Plan is to build on City-
specified goals and policies to provide a framework for implementation and ensure that future development will
make the most of key site opportunities. The Specific
Plan is a tool for the City to bring clarity and consistency in the regulation of individual development proposals
within the plan boundary.

The Specific Plan aims to achieve the following
objectives:
• Engage and collaborate with the stakeholders,
a technical advisory committee (TAC) and the
community to develop a transit-oriented design
framework.
• Establish a land use plan and policy framework that
will guide development at the site as a transit-oriented and livable neighborhood with housing close to jobs.
• Improve vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle and transit
connectivity between stations and adjacent
commercial and residential areas.
• Evaluate existing infrastructure and provide
recommendations to meet future needs for the
neighborhood, including a financial analysis to
allocate fair share cost burdens for public facilities
and benefits.
• Develop and implement urban design standards for
streets, streetscapes, buildings and open space, which
promote walkable and livable environments within the
project area.

PLAN STRUCTURE
This plan document is organized into four parts:

Chapters 1+2: Introduction, Vision and Principles
describe the overall vision, planning principles and
planning process, setting the context for the development of the Focus Area Plan.

Chapter 3: Regulatory Framework sets out the multiple
frameworks and accompanying policies that guide
development of the streets, open spaces and buildings
within the Tasman East Focus Area.

Chapters 4-6: Design Guidelines identify the standards
and guidelines required to enhance and improve the
aesthetic and functional quality of streets, open spaces and buildings. These chapters use “shall” or “must”
statements to define standards that are required and
will be regulated. Statements that use “should” are
intended to articulate a vision and aspiration for the site’s development. All standards and guidelines are subject to staff interpretation to determine if the project proposals meet the intent of the Specific Plan.

Chapters 7+8: Implementation and Appendix outline
the necessary steps to fulfill the vision of the plan
and contain background information. Chapter 7:

Implementation covers economic studies, infrastructure
improvements, capital investments and ongoing
monitoring. Chapter 8: Appendix contains information for reference used to generate the Tasman East Focus Area
Plan including existing site conditions, market studies, infrastructure and sustainability analysis.

01.1 PLAN CONTEXT & STRUCTURE
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 7
Figure 01-1-1 Existing and Future Regional Transit Connections Figure 01-1-2 Santa Clara Focus Areas Tasman East

SANTA CLARA

SUNNYVALE

SAN JOSE

MILPITAS
ACE/Amtrak
Tasman Dr
Montague Expy
Central Expy
Lawrence Expy

CALTRAIN
Guadalupe River
San
Tomas Aqu
ino Creek
Calabazas Creek
VTA
237
82 880
101
BART
Future BA RT
Cal train
VTA
ACE
Amtrak
San Jose
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Clara
Tasman East Focus Area
N N
Central Expressway
Focus Are as
City Bo undary
De La Cruz
Great America Parkway
Santa Clara Station
Downtown
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Lawrence
Station
El Camino Real
-••••
----
I
_..,..,,..
-••••• •
8 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

01.2 PLANNING PROCESS
Community involvement was integral to the framing and
development of this plan. The City and consultant team
organized three meetings with a stakeholder group, three meetings with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and four public workshops. Meetings were scheduled around
key project milestones to ensure engagement at critical decision points.

The TAC was selected to represent local and regional
capabilities in technical areas of importance to the plan for data compilation, shared analysis and liaison to other decision making groups.

Meetings with the Stakeholder group created
opportunities for stakeholders to share ideas on business and development perspectives and give feedback on
the plan as it developed. The group consisted of current property owners as well as representatives from the real estate development and broker community.

The community workshops were open to the public and
promoted on the City’s website. Community review was
based on the stated Focus Area Specific Plan goals of
high density housing and supportive retail. The format
and findings from each of the four community workshops
were framed around the following topics: 1) establishing a vision; 2) developing and testing alternatives; 3)
presenting the preferred alternative; and 4) summary of the Specific Plan.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT + TECHNICAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE (TAC)
In the first session with the Stakeholders and TAC,
the team presented an overview of the project vision
and goals. Both groups gave the team insight about
upcoming plans within and around the Focus Area.

The TAC informed the team of VTA’s upcoming bus and
light rail upgrades to Tasman Corridor. The Santa Clara Unified School District expressed their interest in finding space for an elementary school in this location. The
Stakeholders shared their early thoughts on plans for
development within the Focus Area.

In the second session, the team presented five
frameworks developed for the plan – Connectivity,
Sustainability, Open Space + Amenities, Density + Height, and Phasing. The TAC offered suggestions to adjust the
retail and open space to better serve the entities they represented. The Stakeholders stressed the importance of a flexible framework.

In the third session, the team presented a strategy for flexible frameworks rather than one fixed, preferred
plan. The TAC members supported the idea of breaking
down the blocks with smaller paseos or greenways
and recommended that the team find a creative, non-
traditional solutions to accommodate an elementary
school in this proposed urban context. The Stakeholder
group also suggested the team consider varying minimum
densities based on parcel size so as not to prohibit
development of smaller parcels.

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP 1 : VISION
The focus for the first workshop was to summarize the
existing conditions of Tasman East and its relationship to its context as well as to encourage community members
to express their hopes, concerns and ideas as a vehicle for helping to inform the vision for the project. The workshop Participants in the first community workshop
Credit: Perkins + Will
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 9
included a walking tour of the site, a presentation and break-out sessions to more fully engage participants in understanding and reacting to preliminary concept plans and programs.
• In the break-out sessions, the participants gave the
team input on a variety of topics including:
• Types of open space and recreation facilities;
• Types of amenities that constitute a livable
neighborhood;
• Location of taller residential buildings;
• Interest in sustainable strategies; and
• Key context conditions to consider
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP 2: ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
At the second meeting, the team presented three
preliminary alternative concept plans for discussion. The community workshop included both a presentation and a
“planning game” with a hands-on urban design charrette.

For the planning game, participants were organized
into five groups of five to eight people with a facilitator from City staff or the consultant team. The groups were given game pieces for roads, pedestrian paseos, several categories of open space, a grocery store, ground floor retail, and an optional school to be placed on a map of the site as they saw fit. The participants were also given enough blocks to represent 4,500 residential units and
were asked to place all the blocks on the site, suggesting locations for taller buildings. The five group’s plans were photographed and analyzed for trends, which were used to generate the site plan.

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP 3: PREFERRED FRAMEWORK
The community and the working groups suggested a
desire for a flexible framework in which some elements
are fixed while others are flexible. So, rather than
presenting a preferred plan at the final sessions of
workshops, the team presented a preferred framework
for discussion. The material presented included some of the concepts that would be developed into the preferred framework – focusing particularly on streets, paseos, open space, amenities, building form and parking.

The community’s participation brought to light key
concepts such as the desire for a connected public realm and the need to provide safe and comfortable bicycle
infrastructure.

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP 4: DRAFT PLAN OVERVIEW
The Consultant team presented the key ideas from the
regulatory frameworks and gathered feedback from
community members and stakeholders. This feedback was
used to further refine the plan before final publication.

Community members play the planning game at workshop 2
Credit: Perkins + Will
Credit: Perkins + Will
02 VISION & PRINCIPLES

02.1 Vision 12

02.2 Planning Principles 14

12 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
In five to ten years we will likely see approximately half of the Tasman East Focus Area redeveloped with open
space and high density residential buildings, including some that offer a mix of ground floor uses to support a vibrant public life. These developments will largely occur at the site’s perimeter, fashioning a new identity for the urban neighborhood along Tasman Drive and Guadalupe
River Trail. Such development will also bookend gateway developments along Lafayette Street.

At the center of the site, the pace of development
may be slower as it will align with property owners’
decision to redevelop or continue to operate light
industrial businesses. This will lend diverse uses to
the neighborhood and new development may choose to
enhance this character by adding its own mix of urban
industrial uses at the ground level of buildings such as beer gardens, furniture-makers, small press publishers, florists, arts and design activities and performance
spaces.

Full buildout of the site will likely occur over the next 20 years, as the development of the center of the site
responds to market ebbs and flows.

WALKABLE AND TRANSIT AND TRAIL-ORIENTED
Development will build on the site’s rich transit
connections to both regional heavy-rail and local light-rail.

Light-rail will be within a five-minute walk of every front door.

Connections to the Guadalupe River Trail, a recreational and commuter path for bikers and pedestrians, will carry residents through Santa Clara’s unique geography of rivers and creeks south to Downtown San Jose and beyond.

COMPLETE COMMUNITY
The Specific Plan targets the development of up to
4,500 residential units to contribute much needed
housing supply in response to City Place’s increased local employment opportunities. This will include a variety
of housing types, retail and active uses within a vibrant urban neighborhood.

Developments in the Specific Plan area shall adhere
to the affordable housing requirements referenced in
Section 17.40.115 of the Santa Clara City Code. Other
market rate units will be made affordable ‘by design,’ with smaller units targeted for young professionals looking for their first apartment, empty-nesters looking to downsize and others who desire a walkable, urban lifestyle.

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY
The site will target reductions in carbon emissions by
creating a public realm that is well-connected, safe and walkable, decreasing the demands for private vehicles.

Residents will take pleasure in choosing active modes of transit and shared mobility options.

AUTHENTIC CHARACTER
The existing legacy of light industrial uses will be
maintained and woven into the character of the Focus
Area Plan. As some industrial users sell or redevelop
their properties into housing, others will have the option to continue to operate their businesses, or sell to future industrial users that are compatible with an urban, mixed use neighborhood.

02.1 VISION
Northern Santa Clara is at a moment of transformation from a patchwork of industrial parks and single-family communities into a walkable, transit and trail-oriented, high density area offering an urban lifestyle alongside regional destinations. The Tasman East Focus Area will be at the heart of this transformation. 12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 13

14 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

02.2 PLANNING PRINCIPLES
The following principles were developed based on feedback from community and stakeholder engagement and the goals of the General Plan to promote urban design and planning criteria that respond directly to the needs of the site and its specific context.

MULTIMODAL

CONNECTIVITY

DIVERSITY OF

HOUSING OPTIONS

RICH NETWORK

OF OPEN SPACES
Foster strong transit connections to the
VTA light rail, ACE and Amtrak Capitol
Corridor stations. Improve roadways to
benefit cyclists and pedestrians within
and around the plan area to minimize
unwanted cut-through traffic and intrusion
onto residential-only streets.
• Circulation network emphasizes
resident access to transit connections
by providing multiple pedestrian and
bike short cuts through the site;
• Street hierarchy supports both
quiet residential streets and busy
thoroughfares;
• Multi-modal streets prioritize
pedestrians with generous tree-lined
sidewalks.

Create a vibrant residential community
with a diversity of unit types and sizes for
sale and for rent. Promote high density
housing to address needed housing for
surrounding employment centers.
• A range of high density housing
typologies to achieve desired unit
target;
• Creative design solutions reduce
development costs to achieve desired
densities and provide affordable
housing;
• Diverse unit sizes and community
amenities enable mixed-income and
mixed-use community.

Offer an attractive and diverse network of
public or publicly accessible parks and
open spaces to meet both passive and
recreational needs of residents. Share open
spaces with retail uses where appropriate
to enhance visibility and success.
• Adequate park and open space acreage
serves projected resident population;
• Park and open space areas are visible
and accessible to all residents and
include diverse amenities, including
larger community open spaces;
• Internal neighborhood park areas are
sited and designed to prioritize use by
residents;
• Park and open space areas are well
linked via a pedestrian and bike
network.
1 2 3
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 15

VARIETY OF NEIGHBORHOOD-

SERVING AMENITIES

SUSTAINABLE
DESIGN
VARIED

URBAN FORM

RIGHT-SIZING

PARKING
Provide an appropriate amount of active
ground-floor retail and neighborhood
commercial services within walking
distance of residents, nearby employees
and visitors. These services should be
strategically located to best support
transit access, minimize the need to drive
and provide needed street exposure for
commercial success.
• Neighborhood-serving commercial
services are complementary to those
provided at City Place;
• Retail opportunities are sited for
convenience to commuters arriving at
or passing through the site;
• Clustered ground floor retail promotes a
“park-once and stroll” strategy;
• Commercial services are sited on
streets with suitable vehicle access and
speed controls, minimizing vehicular
traffic into quieter residential locations.

Promote a healthy, resilient community
that sets a new benchmark in the planning
and design of high quality development.

Explore utility systems that reduce demand
for energy and water and other resources.
• Reduces on-site resource usage and
promotes reuse measures;
• Uses drought tolerant planting,
promotes rainwater retention and reuse,
and minimizes impervious areas;
• Maximizes shade protection along
streets and in open spaces;
• Provides on-site electric vehicle
locations and charging stations;
• Utilizes Green Building measures and
completes appropriate checklist for
Green Building construction practices;
• Installs photovoltaic panels on
individual projects; participates in
Silicon Valley Power Neighborhood
Solar Program.

Establish land use and architectural
guidelines that will create a landmark
neighborhood. Promote elegant building
design and create key points of interest
with iconic architecture and placemaking.
• Creates opportunities for key gateways
and establishes a strong neighborhood
identity;
• Provides key views and vistas to and
from the plan area;
• Encourages the design of human scale,
high quality buildings and inviting
streetscapes;
• Works with existing topography to
enhance the physical connections to
and through the plan area;
• Sites and orients building heights to
complement and mark open space
amenities.

Develop parking reduction strategies that
incentivize transit, walking and cycling.

Minimize vehicle-per-household ratios.
• Encourages convenient, non-vehicular
pathways from home to commercial to
transit;
• Minimizes surface parking, limits
convenience parking and minimizes
exposed parking garages;
• Allows reduced on-site parking ratios
in return for transit passes and other
Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) vehicle reduction incentives;
• Implements unbundled parking and
promotes shared parking between
different uses;
• Provides secure and convenient bike
storage and services.
4 5 6 7
03 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

03.1 Site Setting 18

03.2 Infrastructure Conditions 20

03.3 Market Analysis Findings 22

03.4 Sustainability Framework 24

03.5 Land Use Framework 28

03.6 Circulation Framework 32

03.7 Open Space Framework 34

03.8 Urban Design Framework 38

03.9 Parking Framework 40
03 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
18 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

SITE SURROUNDINGS
The area surrounding the site is a diverse patchwork of uses, including the approved City Place development which will replace the current golf course to the west and north of the site. Directly south of the site are the Kathryn Hughes Elementary School and several residential neighborhoods, including a mix of single family houses, attached town
homes and medium density mid-rise apartments.

Diagonally south-west of the site is Levi’s Stadium, built in 2014 which hosts the 49ers football team as well as many other large-scale events throughout the year.

The Guadalupe River runs along the eastern edge of the site and also marks the boundary between Santa Clara and San Jose. This area of San Jose is home to a mix of high-density housing and office parks, most notably the Cisco and
Samsung campuses with frontages along Tasman Drive.

LOCAL LAND USE
The current zoning for the site is ML: Light Industrial which allows for uses such as manufacturing, processing, repairing and storing products. Consistent with the zoning, the
existing buildings on site are warehouses with associated surface parking and rear-yard storage areas. There is also an existing data center at the south-west corner of the site and a cluster of office buildings at the south-east corner of the site.

Through implementation of this Focus Area Specific Plan, the area will be re-zoned from ML: Light Industrial to Transit Neighborhood, which allows for a high density residential neighborhood with a mix of uses at the ground floor. Figure 03-5-2 lists the permitted uses and conditional uses in the Transit Neighborhood Zoning District. Chapter 6 of the Tasman East Specific Plan also provides building design guidelines for the Specific Plan Area. The policy for this transition takes into consideration the potential that existing owners of the light industrial parcels will remain or transfer their land to future light industrial users.

SURROUNDING OPEN SPACE NETWORK
Tasman East sits within a 5-minute walk of many large-
scale regional and community parks, including the adjacent Ulistac Natural Preserve and the Guadalupe River Trail
which connects the site to downtown San Jose and beyond.

Diagonally across Tasman Drive from the site is a regional soccer park which is well-used by families and youth from across the city.

To the north of the site, several major recreation spaces are planned as part of the City Place development, including a series of public plazas and paths and a network of bike trails lining both sides of Lafayette Street. Perhaps most significant, is a 35-acre community-wide open space that will be developed as a part of the second phase of the City Place project.

LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
VTA’s Lick Mill Station provides light rail service that operates at 15-, 20-, and 60-minute frequencies, depending on the time of day. Great America Station (with service for Amtrak and ACE trains) is within a 5-minute walk from the site and has some of the highest ridership on the Capitol Corridor transit route, which links San Jose to the south and Sacramento to the north.

Bus, light rail, passenger rail and public and private shuttles are all accessible from Tasman East via Great America
Station and Lick Mill Station.

EXISTING CONNECTIONS AND BARRIERS
The perimeter of the site has a number of grade changes that present challenges for connecting to adjacent streets and open spaces. To the north and east of the site there are steep hillsides ranging from 15 to 26 feet in height.

Where Tasman Drive bridges over the Guadalupe River
and Lafayette Streets, there are also embankments with
challenging grade changes. Slopes are abutting the project area but are on external parcels or City/SCVWD rights-of- way, and are not within the development parcels; therefore, in order to ease these transitions for greater connectivity, cooperative arrangements will need to be pursued.

CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC
Tasman Drive and Lafayette Street are major arterials with traffic connecting between them. However, because Tasman Drive bridges over Lafayette Street and the railroad tracks, there is no physical intersection between these two streets.

Currently, vehicles pass through the site using Calle del Sol and Calle de Luna as a de-facto cloverleaf. Addressing this cut-through traffic is an important factor in creating a safe, pedestrian-friendly, residential neighborhood.

PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS
The single-family neighborhood to the south of the site is oriented facing away from Tasman Drive and separated with a perimeter wall. There is one point of pedestrian access at the connection between the single-family neighborhood and the Riverwood Grove multi-family complex.

Currently, pedestrians walking from the Tasman East Focus Area to Great America Station may cross at the signalized, at-grade intersection at Calle de Luna and Lafayette Street and cross the tracks to access the platform. Alternatively, they may cross to the south side of Tasman Drive and use a pedestrian stair that connects to the southern end of the platform.

03.1 SITE SETTING
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 19
Figure 03-1-1 Surrounding Site Context
N

VTA - Ligh t Rail
ACE
Amtrak
Open Spac e
Guadalu pe River Trail
Site
City Bo undary

1. City Place North Park

2. City Place Campus

3. Great America Station (ACE/
Amtrak)

4. Katherine Hughes Elementary

5. Santa Clara Youth Soccer Park

6. Fairway Glen Park

7. Riverwood Grove

8. Lick Mill Station (VTA)

9. Vista Montana Park

10. Ulistac Natural Area

11. Lick Mill Park

12. Levi’s Stadium

13. Great America Theme Park
Lafayette Street
Tasman Drive
Guadalupe River
San Tomas Aquino Creek
Lick Mill Boulevard
65 12
13 9
2 1
10 78
4 11
3 CITY PLACE
Calle del Mundo
Calle del Luna
------
(!)
20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Because of the major investment in the surrounding area, the Tasman East Focus Area already has access to much of the infrastructure necessary to support redevelopment of this scale, including recycled water supply, sewer capacity and electrical capacity. Improvements will be needed to modernize and bring the site up to new development standards for stormwater treatment and the undergrounding of electric and communications utilities.

03.2 INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITIONS

STORM DRAINAGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number
060885C0062J, dated February 19, 2014 identifies
major portions of the plan area as potential Flood Hazard Zones subject to localized flooding. The Base Flood
Elevation (BFE) of 8 feet at the plan area is significantly lower than the BFE of 15 feet in the Guadalupe River, as adjacent levees provide flood protection. Runoff from the plan area flows to the Eastside Detention Basin and Lift Station to the north of the Project.

The inundation water level within the plan area
represented in the FEMA FIRM could be lowered by
elevating building pads or increasing the 33 inch
diameter line that connects the site to the ditch adjacent to the Guadalupe River.

Because all project flows are pumped, the plan area is
isolated from the direct effects of sea level rise. The primary impact associated with sea level rise would be
hydraulically to the Lift Station’s performance. As sea level rise increases, there would be a minor decrease in the pumping rate associated with the higher discharge
water level. An increase in sea level would have only a minor impact on water levels in the Project area provided the levee separating the Guadalupe River flows is
maintained.

The plan area has high percentages of impervious areas
that direct storm water runoff into the public storm drain infrastructure with little to no retention or treatment. As projects are implemented that comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) requirements, it is
anticipated that the overall percentage of impervious
surface within the plan area will likely decrease, and so additional facilities for stormwater peak flow conveyance will not be required.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND CONVEYANCE
Wastewater from the plan area is conveyed through the
City of Santa Clara’s wastewater collection system to the San Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (SJ/SC RWF), which is approximately two miles to the northeast in the Alviso area of San Jose. The SJ/SC RWF Plant
provides wastewater treatment for the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos,
Saratoga and Monte Sereno.

Existing sewer public infrastructure within the plan area is predominantly 12 inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP). It is anticipated that the existing piping is adequately sized and will not need to be upsized to increase capacity.

The Rabello and Northside Pump Stations are estimated
to operate at capacity in 2035. Because the plan area
will be contributing new flows to those pumps, new
developments may need to provide upgrades to existing
pump stations.

The Primavera Pump Station within the plan area is
operating far below its capacity and will not need capacity upgrades. The Primavera Pump Station would need to
be relocated when Calle del Sol is extended northward to Calle del Mundo.

WATER SUPPLY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Water demand within the plan area, assuming a full build- out, exceeds estimates for the area in City’s Urban Water Master Plan (UWMP) assuming the UWMP used the 2035
General Plan directly for its forecasting. In the event the conditions in the City’s contract with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission are met that require the City to eliminate its take from the SFPUC, the City may need to identify alternate sources of water.

It is anticipated that the system of 12 inch water
mains within the plan area is adequate to serve the
potable water and fire suppression needs of higher
densities. However the 12” AC water lines will need
to be replaced with 12” PVC water lines. The 12 inch
main in Lafayette from the west is likely undersized
for the estimated future fire flow requirement of 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for 4 hours (To be determined
and approved by the Fire Department). Developer shall
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 21
determine the fire suppression needs based on the
current city water distribution system and make revisions/ upgrades accordingly. To meet these flow requirements,
it is assumed that an on-site new storage tank and/or
booster pump may be required at the development site
(Fire Department to Verify) and/or approximately 3,000
lineal feet or more of 12 inch water main along Lafayette Street may need to be up sized to 16 inch as per BKF
recommendation. Developer is required to perform the
hydraulic fire flow analysis to determine the fire and water demands to the project site.

DRY UTILITIES
Gas, Electricity, telecommunications and cable television services will be provided to the site by PG&E, Silicon
Valley Power (SVP), AT&T and Comcast, respectively.

Costs to provide gas and electricity to each development area will be borne by the developers, to the extent off site infrastructure is required.

AT&T typically provides service to a “Minimum Point
of Entry” (MPOE) for a single building on each parcel.

For underground services, the applicant is typically
responsible for trenching and installation of AT&T’s
conduits.

Comcast conduits are typically installed by Comcast’s
contractors in a trench provided by the applicant.

1. Assumes a 200,000 SF Type V Construction with sprinklers and a 50% Fire Flow requirement reduction from Fire Code Table B105.1 22 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Based on projected employment and population growth,
demand for additional housing in Santa Clara will remain robust over the long term. Forecasts from ABAG’s 2013
‘Plan Bay Area’ shows that Santa Clara will grow jobs by 29 percent between 2010 and 2040, and households by
33 percent.

The Tasman East Focus Area is well positioned to attract market interest and demand for multifamily housing
due to its transportation options, employment access,
recreational opportunities and proximity to the planned City Place retail, office and housing development.

In the immediate term, developers could deliver high-
density midrise projects in the Tasman East Focus Area
at 100 dwelling units per acre, though achieving this
relatively high density with midrise buildings will require inclusion of smaller unit sizes.

Economic conditions in the area need to be significantly better to incentivize construction of high rise towers, which are more expensive to construct on a per square
foot basis. Recently completed high rise towers are
typically built in locations where a rent or sales premium associated with local amenities justifies the higher costs of construction.

As the neighboring City Place project is built out and
local-serving retail and service activities are added to the Tasman East Focus Area, rents and sales prices are among the factors that define the point at which high rise tower development may become feasible.

Additional value for housing could be created by
incorporating local-serving retail and services (such
as eating and drinking establishments, dry cleaners,
convenience stores, etc.), parks, and strong pedestrian and bicycle connections to surrounding areas.

NEIGHBORHOOD-SERVING RETAIL POTENTIAL
Residential and employment growth at the Tasman East
Focus Area and City Place may generate significant new
demand for a grocery store and other neighborhood-
serving amenities in and near the Tasman East Focus
Area. Neighborhood serving amenities are defined in
section 3.5 Land Use Framework.

The early phases of retail at City Place are unlikely
to include neighborhood-serving retailers, creating an
opportunity for the Tasman East Focus Area to capture
neighborhood-serving retail opportunities such as
groceries, local-serving restaurants, cafes, and day-to-day retail and services.

Two grocery stores currently operate and two are being
planned within the three-mile radius of the Tasman East Focus Area, but no grocery store is located within one
mile. See Figure 03-3-1. Given the magnitude of planned development activity at City Place, potential residential growth in the Tasman East Focus Area, and ongoing
growth in nearby North San Jose, strong potential exists for grocery stores to eventually add new locations in or near the Tasman East Focus Area.

However, once City Place is built out, it will feature a high concentration of eating and drinking, lifestyle, and entertainment uses. The Tasman East Focus Area will
need to include complementary offerings positioned to
provide a more relaxed, neighborhood-centric, and/or
independent or boutique feel. To encourage patronage
of retail in the TEFA and City Place, circulation within the Specific Plan Area and to nearby areas must be well designed.

03.3 MARKET ANALYSIS FINDINGS
The Tasman East Focus Area is well positioned to attract market interest and demand for multifamily housing due to its transportation options, employment access, recreational opportunities and proximity to the planned City Place retail, office and housing development.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 23
Figure 03-3-1 Existing Retail Centers and Grocery Stores Q
0 Existing Retail Centers:
0 0 0
Q)
~ ~o §o
Esri, HER~Loqne , Mapmy1nd1a, C Opens.treeJ"1!ap 0 oontnbuto~ . a~d tt}'e,GlS user community 0 0 oO
0 0
One, Three, and Five-Mile Trade Areas of Tasman East Focus Area 0 StrtJ;1Cenler
0 Ne1gtibol hood Cente,-
0 Commu111ty Center
0 IJCO'Sly!OO!MN
0 Power Center
·- 0 •
Reg10nal Mall
0 0

SUNNYVALE
3-Mile Radius

SAN JOSE
Tasman East
I / Focus Area
/ Houseliolds: 9,947 ,A. Fm,h & E .. y
Workers~
9\)< '\,,.
~
1-Mile
Radius
SANTA .CLARA
Walmart Neighborhood
Market
Households: 7,375 Ll!,,
Workers: 2~,356 Whole Foods
H011seholds: 5,651
Workers: 41,517
Safeway
Households: 14,137
Workers: 37,788
,,,
Esrl, HERE, Delorme , Mapmylndia. © OeenStreelMap
contributors. and the GIS user commun ity?
Sources. CoStar Group, 2016; LEHD"On the Map~, 2014; U,S. C,ensusAmencaoCommumty Survey 5-Year Es.tima1es. 2010-2014, StrateglC Economics. 2016 Grocery Stores:

One and Three-Mile Radius of Tasman East Focus Area
.6. Existing Grocery Store
A Coming Soon
.A. Recently Closed
1 Mile Trade Area •. , , .. n
0 24 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

03.4 SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK

SUSTAINABILITY TARGETS
Environmental sustainability is one of the five Major
Strategies highlighted as underlying the General Plan
(GP) adopted for 2010-35. The City will continue to grow through redevelopment of existing properties, which will result in higher land use intensities and densities where opportunities for sustainable practices can be more
economically achieved.

The Tasman East Focus Area is intended to attain a
high level of sustainability guidelines and to address the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals identified in the
City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Given its location, the Plan Area will provide housing close to job centers and transit facilities, creating a more sustainable development pattern with substantial reductions in Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT). Later development, as compared to the
initial projects within the Specific Plan Area, may achieve even greater levels of sustainability as new technologies are implemented over time.

Targeted areas of sustainable development should include measures such as:
• Optimized land uses and densities that take advantage of job locations, transit and transportation facilities, lifestyle amenities, and utility services;
• Energy reductions for building construction and use
consistent with or better than applicable State Title 24 standards
• Carbon emission reductions through best choice
equipment selection, use of renewable energies and
purchases of Renewable Energy Credits;
• Transportation measures that reduce carbon emissions
compared to typical practices, such as promoting TDM
and electric vehicle preferences for tenants;
• Water use reduction and efficiency practices that
reduce demand for potable water resources and
maximize use of reclaimed water;
• Treatment of stormwater and reduction of runoff
through on-site landscape design that can reduce
pollutant deposition in streams and rivers;
• Maximized solid waste diversion in construction and
ongoing property management through recycling and
composting measures; and
• Enhancement of urban forestry features and support
for biodiversity to provide beneficial local microclimate conditions
These targets can be achieved to a progressively greater degree over time by incorporating the regulatory measures provided in bullet points below each category into each project.

All projects within the Tasman East Specific Plan
shall design and construct buildings to a sustainability standard of LEED Silver or equivalent level from another green building rating system (such as Build it Green).

A completed green building checklist (as provided by
the US Green Building Council, Build it Green, or other Green Building/Sustainability Certification system) would be provided by the applicant to the Planning Division at the Architecture Review submittal to describe the intent of sustainable design and materials. The checklist must be verified by a third party, whom is acceptable to the Director of Community Development, prior to issuance of a Building Occupancy Permit.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 25

LAND USE
The Focus Plan Area presents a unique opportunity within the City to create high density housing with supporting services and amenities where public infrastructure is
already in place. Reuse of older industrial sites as high density residential properties could yield as many as
4,500 new homes in close proximity to the nearby job
centers in Santa Clara, San Jose, Milpitas, Sunnyvale
and Mountain View. The adjacency of the VTA Light Rail
station and proximity of various bus lines, the nearby
ACE and Capitol Corridor rail service at the Great America Station and the bike and pedestrian facilities along the roadways, Guadalupe River and San Tomas Aquino Creek
all promote non-drive-alone access to work locations
and non-work destinations from the Plan Area. The
incorporation of convenience retail services within the Focus Area for the neighborhood also promotes a walkable lifestyle, further reducing the need for car trips in many daily outings.

Land use related measures that promote sustainability
can include:
• Meet or exceed minimum project densities;
• Provide pedestrian-oriented features, including direct access from units/lobbies to the public sidewalk; and
• Provide TDM measures that promote alternatives to
drive-alone vehicle trips.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY
The City’s CAP calls for reductions in GHG to 15 percent below the 2008 levels by 2020, across all sectors of the community, including buildings, transportation, industry and waste. New development in Santa Clara, including
Tasman East, will be subject to SB-32 targets to reduce 2030 GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels.

Energy efficiency related measures that promote
sustainability on a project-by-project basis include:
• Install energy efficient appliances and lighting through the selection of Energy Star products;
• Utilize smart controls and switches to reduce energy
use in non-occupied spaces;
• Maximize efficient building envelopes using best
R-values insulation, glazing, air-tight features and
solar shading;
• Install energy efficient building mechanical systems, including best technology furnaces, heat pumps,
ventilation systems and water heaters; and
• Integrate renewable energy systems, including
photovoltaic and heat recovery systems.

CARBON REDUCTIONS
Seeking zero carbon emissions over time will come with
advancement of newer technologies and transition away
from use of fossil fuels, such as reducing or eliminating the use of natural gas-fired appliances and mechanical
systems. There are also options for immediate offsetting of carbon content fixtures via the purchase of Renewable Energy Credits from off-site sources.

Carbon reduction related measures that promote
sustainability on a project-by-project basis include:
• Install best technology and non-combustion
appliances, such as water heaters and furnace
systems; and
• Purchase renewable energy credits through Silicon
Valley Power or other off-site sources.
26 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

TRANSPORTATION
Transportation, according to the CAP, is the second
highest contributor to GHG emissions behind
Nonresidential Energy activities, estimated at 25 percent of all GHG emissions in 2015. Measures that will
reduce drive-alone vehicle trips and/or travel distances can deliver a substantial contribution to reductions in emissions. The proximity and density of housing near
employment facilities presents an opportunity to reduce automobile emissions, enhanced by promotional measures
to use alternative modes of travel. Building features and operational obligations, such as Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures, will reduce carbon
emissions related to the project area.

Transportation related measures that promote
sustainability on a project-by-project basis include:
• Reduce parking ratios offset by TDM measures;
• Provide resident transit passes;
• Install Electric Vehicle charging points;
• Dedicate car-share parking spaces;
• Provide bike kitchen and storage facilities;
• Participate in bike share programs and support related facilities;
• Contribute to improvements to transit facilities and to ped/bike access to transit stations; and
• Support and participate in curbside ride-share
programs and/or facilities.

WATER USE
The General Plan supports and promotes reduction in
water demand and use through conservation, design
and the use of recycled water. The Focus Plan Area is
well served by the City’s recycled water infrastructure and new development will be expected to maximize the
use of the recycled water. The State Water Resources
Agency currently has limitations on reclaimed water use in residential projects, but more uses may be allowed
over time as legal constraints change and building codes are requiring pre-plumbing dual piping in multi-family
residential projects.

Water-use measures that promote sustainability on a
project-by-project basis include:
• Maximize all exterior landscape areas that use drought tolerant planting schemes;
• Utilize recycled water for all landscape areas, utilizing water conservation best practices; and
• Install internal dual plumbing (purple pipe) for uses permitted.

STORMWATER
Stormwater runoff requirements are governed by the
City’s participation in the regional urban stormwater
runoff program, which seeks to maximize the purification of urban runoff into lakes, rivers, streams, and the Bay.

The combination of well-designed and integrated surface runoff and landscape designs can reduce the solids,
fertilizers and other runoff pollutants from the Plan Area.

On an area-wide basis, “Green Streets” concepts should
be integrated into street designs to minimize the impacts of polluted runoff. For the purpose of this Specific Plan, green streets may include biotreatment areas in the
form of stormwater curb extensions, stormwater planters and stormwater tree systems, to drain and treat runoff
from curb flowlines, or equivalent technology. Other
systems, such as pervious pavement may also achieve this objective.

Stormwater related measures that promote sustainability on a project-by-project basis include:
• Connect rooftop drain and hardscape surface drainage
systems to landscape swale areas;
• Design landscape features that capture and infiltrate initial runoff flows into grounds/soil; and
• Design landscape swales to capture and treat runoff
waters that flow to river outfalls.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 27

SOLID WASTE DIVERSION
The General Plan notes that the City is working toward an 80 percent solid waste reduction by 2025 by expanding
the residential curbside recycling and composting
programs to divert recyclable and compostable materials from the solid waste stream. Achievement of this goal will rely upon aggressive commercial and residential recycling of waste.

Solid waste diversion related measures that promote
sustainability on a project-by-project basis include:
• Design adequate and convenient recycled waste,
greenwaste and composting facilities in all projects;
• Include public awareness campaigns that would
further encourage diversions from landfills; and
• Provide interior and exterior recycle waste containers for customers within commercial areas.

URBAN FORESTRY AND BIODIVERSITY
Redevelopment of this older industrial area presents an opportunity to improve the local ecosystem and enhance
the biodiversity of the general area, particularly given the proximity of the riparian corridor and the natural
open space of the Ulistac preserve. A well-designed
and integrated arrangement of street trees, landscaped
front yards, landscaped patio amenity areas and paseo
landscaping will enhance habitat within the neighborhood, provide a cooler microclimate and present a comfortable urban forest environment.

Urban forest related measures that promote sustainability on a project-by-project basis include:
• Require a vibrant urban forest and a healthy ecology
for human health and wellness for a high density
residential area;
• Encourage the planting of native trees, especially
native oaks, to improve the ecological integrity of the urban forest;
• Preserve and protect existing native trees through tree protection and education programs;
• Prioritize the preservation of trees along riparian
corridors and in open space areas;
• Protect and maintain mature, healthy, native trees that do not adversely affect the Plan objectives;
• Participate in and contribute to the master street tree plan;
• Maximize native plant landscaping that supports local bird and wildlife populations; and
• Proposed landscaping shall consider the principles
outlined in the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s
(SCVWD) Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near
Streams, specifically Design Guides 2 through 5.
28 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Focus Area Targets
The Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan aims to
achieve the following targets for different uses within the overall plan area:
• Up to 4,500 dwelling units;
• Affordable housing in conformance with Section

17.40.115 of the Santa Clara City Code;
• 10 acres of open space distributed between public,
private and semi-private spaces;
• Up to 106,000 square feet of retail uses, including
a grocery store of approximately 25,000 square feet;
and
• Potential for a small, urban school.

TRANSIT NEIGHBORHOOD USES
Principal Use
This zoning district is intended to provide regulatory
standards for height, setbacks, densities, parking
standards, and allowed uses.

The Tasman East Focus Area will be principally high
density, transit-oriented, residential use for sale and for rent. This includes multi-family dwellings, supportive
housing and transitional housing. Private parking and
home occupation are permitted as accessory uses. Single- family and two-family dwellings are not permitted in this district.

To achieve a vibrant public realm and support a walkable neighborhood, other active uses are encouraged at the
ground floor of residential buildings. See Figure 03-5-2 for a full list of permitted, conditional and excluded uses.

Density
There is a target of 4,500 units in the Tasman East
Focus Area. Each parcel of one acre or more in size is
required to accommodate a minimum density of 100
dwelling units per acre. Each parcel of less than one acre in size is required to achieve a minimum density of 60
dwelling units per acre. There are no density maximums
for individual parcels. Density shall be calculated as
net density, which excludes all of the following, whether public or private, from the calculation of minimum
density: parks, streets, and greenways.

See Figure 03-5-1 for two scenarios of minimum
residential development; one assumes no further
consolidation of individual parcels and one assumes
consolidation of parcels into an area of at least one acre.

Retail uses
The Tasman East Focus Area will provide neighborhood-
serving retail, which is defined as businesses that provide goods and services that people would frequently use
to take care of their personal and household needs.

Examples include grocery stores, drug stores, eating and drinking establishments, dry cleaners, hair salons etc.

As indicated in the Land Use Framework diagram retail
uses are required for ground floor frontages facing onto the existing portion of Calle del Sol, and along the first 50 feet minimum frontage facing the Calle Del Sol Paseo at the intersection with Calle De Luna and Calle Del Mundo.

Ground floor retail is also required along the Calle Del Sol Paseo, except where active ground floor uses are shown as required. This use is also allowed and encouraged along all ground floor frontages.

Neighborhood Light Industrial uses
This use is intended to protect existing industrial
businesses and provide an opportunity for the inclusion of uses with an industrial character which have public- facing operations such as breweries, wineries, catering companies, garment manufacturers and crafts or artists
studios (or similar).

Light industry is intended to accommodate businesses
operating substantially within an enclosed building and without provision of storage or side yards. Such permitted uses shall not be objectionable or detrimental to adjacent properties because of signage, noise, smoke, odor, dust, noxious gases, vibrations, glare, heat, fire hazards or industrial wastes emanating from the property.

Neighborhood light industrial uses are also allowed
along the ground floor of any building in the Urban
Neighborhood district, except where retail uses are
required.

Active uses
To create a pedestrian friendly environment and visual
activity at the ground floors of buildings, all buildings shall provide active uses on every frontage facing a public right-of-way, Paseo, greenway or park to the degree
feasible, and where not governed by the requirement
above to provide retail uses. Building frontage for
mechanical equipment, transformer doors, parking garage entrances, exit stairs, and other facilities necessary to the operation of the building are excluded from this
requirement.

The following uses qualify as active:
• Retail, Entertainment, Arts and Recreation Use;

03.5 LAND USE FRAMEWORK
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 29

DEVELOPMENT AREAS AREA (ACRES) MINIMUM

DEVELOPMENT
Sitewide
Areas
Total Site Boundary Area 46.1
Developable Area
(Total site boundary area, minus: 7.9 acres of existing and proposed ROWs, 0.75 acre SCVWD easement,
5 acres of fixed open space and approximately 1.1
acres of greenways)

31.3 Residential
Scenarios
Scenario 1
Assuming no consolidation of smaller parcels and
achieving minimum required density
2,830 units
Parcels larger than 1 acre (minimum 100 du/ac) 23.8 2,380 units Parcels smaller than 1 acre (minimum 60 du/ac) 7.5 450 units Scenario 2
Assuming consolidation of smaller parcels into
parcels of at least one acre in size and achieving
minimum required density
3,140 units
Parcels larger than 1 acre (minimum 100 du/ac) 31.3 3,140 units Figure 03-5-1 Theoretical Residential Yield
• Retail, Entertainment, Arts and Recreation Use;
• Neighborhood Light Industrial Uses;
• Public Uses including a community room, an urban
school, a bookmobile dock and/or a book vending
machine stocked by the library;
• Residential or live/work units that are individually
entered from the street;
• Building lobbies; and
• Spaces accessory to residential uses, such as fitness rooms, work spaces, leasing offices, shared kitchens,
mail rooms and Class I bicycle parking facilities with
direct access to the sidewalk or street.

Public uses
The Tasman East Focus Area will have a distributed,
publicly accessible open space system where a series
of neighborhood parks are connected throughout the
district by a network of streets and greenways. These
neighborhood parks and greenways count towards the
10-acre site-wide open space target.

Where parks and greenways are privately owned
but publicly accessible, they shall be considered
public uses. The Tasman East Focus Area also allows
for other public or quasi-public facilities such as
schools, municipal facilities, non-profit facilities and neighborhood recreational enterprises.

School Facility
The Specific Plan allows an urban school. The
location would be identified during Specific Plan
implementation. It is assumed that this “urban school”
can be located at the ground floor of a mixed-use
building and must be accessible to a public open space
of a minimum of one acre. This urban school may be
private or public.
30 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES
The lawful use of buildings existing prior to the adoption of this Plan may continue and none of the other sections of this Chapter shall apply. Such buildings will operate as though prior zoning of the parcel remained in place, until such time as the existing use (including any expansions) has been discontinued in its entirety, at which time the prior zoning shall become inapplicable and the other
sections of this Chapter shall apply from that point
forward.

Allowed Uses
For parcels with legal uses of buildings existing prior to the adoption of this Chapter, permitted uses of the ML:

Light Manufacturing district are allowed, and none of the other sections of this Chapter shall apply to such building and use, until such time as the existing use (including any expansions) has been discontinued in its entirety.

Conditional Uses
For parcels with legal uses of buildings existing prior to the adoption of this Chapter, conditional uses of the ML:

Light Manufacturing district are conditionally permitted, and none of the other sections of this Chapter shall
apply, until such time as the existing use (including any expansions) has been discontinued in its entirety.

Development Standards
For parcels with legal uses of buildings existing prior to the adoption of this Chapter, development standards of
the ML: Light Manufacturing district shall apply, and none of the other sections of this Chapter shall apply, until such time as the existing use (including any expansions) has been discontinued in its entirety.

Figure 03-5-2 Permitted Land Uses

LAND USE SANTA CLARA ZONING CODE USES PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL/PROHIBITED Residential Multiple-family dwelling units Permitted
Supportive Housing Permitted
Transitional Housing Permitted
Home for the Ambulatory Aged Permitted
Stand-Alone Parking Prohibited
Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Permitted and Conditional per Zoning Code Chapter 18.34
Alcohol Sales (on-premises) Conditional
Co-working Permitted (only as a ground floor use
to a residential building)
Neighborhood Light Industrial Light Industrial Conditional (only as a ground floor use to a residential building, or as a legal
non-conforming use)
Public/Quasi-Public Parks and Recreational Facilities Public parks are permitted, as well as privately-owned and -maintained parks
that are publicly accessible.

General Education Facilities
(including Elementary School)
Conditional
Municipal and Public Utility
Facilities
Conditional
Places of Worship and other
Assembly uses
Conditional
Neighborhood Recreational
Enterprises
Conditional
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 31
Pump Station
Transit Neighborhood
Required Ground Floor
Retail
Active Ground Floor Use
Dedicated Open Space
(acres)*
Paseo
Greenway
To Be Implemented as
Development Occurs
City Easement
Site Boundary
*
Dedicated Open Space areas will
be implemented through the City’s
Parkland Dedication Ordinance
and the terms of the Specific Plan.
* Greenway and Park locations
depicted are conceptual.

Figure 03-5-3 Land Use Framework

2.51.0 0.5

0.15 0.85
50ft
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Avenue C
Avenue D
Guadalupe River Trail
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle De Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Station
City Place
Guadalupe River
Ulistac
Natural Area
Great America Station
Lick Mill Boulevard
N0 100’ 250’ 500’
--
11111111 ►
~
11111 I
_., .. ~ '
I
\
I
*
,, Ill l,-:=======--7~ T--==== ~~
\___;;;;;::~
\
I
\
I
I
L ____ ,
'- _...._ _ --
-----..........,_ ... .,.
111111111111111111111111
I
II II !!i
111111111111111111di
------
,,,,,,,
32 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

03.6 CIRCULATION FRAMEWORK

COMPLETE STREETS
The streets within the Tasman East Focus Area are
designed as “complete streets” designed with people
and place in mind, centered around providing a variety of mobility options within an inviting public realm. Complete Streets ensure accessibility for people of all ages and abilities, while balancing multiple mobility needs and
supporting local land uses.

The circulation plan includes not only the improvement of existing rights-of-way, but also the addition of new streets to create additional connections in the area.

Streets and other transportation facilities are organized according to typologies that relate to the function and adjacent land uses. All roadways will be designed to
accommodate multiple users and anticipated levels of
vehicular traffic.

Special attention should be given to ensure safe and
convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections to existing transit facilities and neighboring trails.

PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
The City’s General Plan encourages pedestrian
connections from neighborhoods to public amenities
and destinations that are accessible to all segments
of the population. High quality pedestrian facilities
improve the convenience and safety for pedestrians and
reduce vehicle trips made for everyday activities. These facilities include sidewalks, paths, pedestrian bridges and crosswalks. In pedestrian-friendly environments,
frequent crossing locations are essential to provide direct paths between origins and destinations. Special attention should be given to ensure safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections to existing transit facilities and neighboring trails.

BICYCLE NETWORK
Bicycles provide a convenient, active and enjoyable
method of travel, particularly for trips less than 4 miles.

Bicycle facilities improve safety for cyclists and can also promote reductions in vehicle trips and vehicle miles
traveled. A good bicycle network includes bike paths, bike lanes and design treatments such as pavement markings,
bicycle signals and bicycle wayfinding.

Lick Mill Boulevard and Calle del Mundo will be the main bicycle streets with dedicated lanes that connect through the neighborhood to the bike lanes on Tasman Drive and
Lafayette Street, as well as to the Guadalupe River Trail.

All other streets will contribute to the bike network with sharrows to indicate that vehicles should share the road with bicycles.

VEHICULAR NETWORK
While some roadways are designed to move higher
volumes of vehicles quickly and efficiently, other streets prioritize space for pedestrians, bicyclists, on-street parking, loading zones and passenger drop-off locations.

There are 3 street typologies derived from the General
Plan within the site boundary: Minor Arterial, Collector Street and Local Street; Tasman Drive is a Major Arterial, but lies beyond the Focus Area site boundary. Goals and policies for roadway classifications as described in Santa Clara’s General Plan within the Focus Area are below:

Minor Arterials
Minor arterials serve through-traffic and typically include transit vehicles. Minor arterials are generally designed with two to four travel lanes with dedicated left-turn
lanes, traffic signals at major intersections, and parallel street parking. Lafayette Street is a minor arterial that will move traffic to and around the site.

Collector Streets
Collector streets typically provide traffic circulation for residential and commercial uses. These streets penetrate residential neighborhoods and typically feature two to
four lanes of vehicular traffic. Lick Mill Boulevard will be designed as a collector street that moves traffic at lower volumes through the Focus Area and connects to
the broader network of minor arterials. The Lick Mill
Boulevard extension is a responsibility of the adjacent City Place development; its timing is independent of the Tasman East Specific Plan.

Local Streets
Local streets are designed to calm traffic and give
pedestrians priority in terms of scale and facility. These streets typically serve as neighborhood streets, generally providing two travel lanes, on-street parallel parking, bike lanes and sidewalks. The eastern portion of Calle
de Luna will be designed as local street. Although the
eastern portion of Calle De Luna has the same right-of- way width and lane configuration as the western portion, it is anticipated that traffic volumes will be significantly lower due to the fact that it is not part of the current connection between Tasman Drive and Lafayette Street,
thus justifying classification as a Local Street.

Paseo
The northern extension of Calle Del Sol, between Calle De Luna and Calle Del Mundo, is proposed as a pedestrian
and bike oriented street with clearance for emergency
vehicle access(EVA), but not open to private vehicles.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 33
Major A rterial
Minor A rterial
Collecto r Street
Local Str eet
Paseo
Bike Lane
Existi ng Bike Lane
To Be Implemented as
Development Occurs
City Easement
Site Boun dary
Figure 03-6-1 Circulation Framework
Note: Configuration of bike lanes on
Calle Del Sol south of Calle De Luna
will be consistent with whichever street
configuration adopted .

Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Avenue C
Avenue D
Guadalupe River Trail
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle De Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Station
City Place
Guadalupe River
Ulistac
Natural Area
Great America Station
Lick Mill Boulevard
N0 100’ 250’ 500’
----
-
--
34 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

03.7 OPEN SPACE FRAMEWORK

DETERMINED NEED
For residential developments, Open Space requirements
are regulated by Chapter 17.35 of the City’s Municipal
Code. Per City Council direction, the Tasman East Focus Area (TEFA) is required to provide at least 10 acres of open space made up of both dedicated park and privately- owned open spaces.

DEDICATED PARKLAND
A minimum of 5 acres of dedicated parkland is required
throughout the Tasman East Focus Area districts, see
Figure 03-7-1 for location of districts.

Each district is required to provide dedicated parkland of a given acreage and adjacency. The exact dimensions
and programming are flexible to allow for the design to evolve along with the needs of the community, see Figure 03-7-3.

The five dedicated parkland districts are: Hill District (0.85 acres), River District (2.5 acres), Station District (0.15-acre urban plaza), Bridge District (0.5 acre), and Center District (1 acre). For an overview of the character, connections, and programming for each district, see
Chapter 5: Open Space Design Guidelines.

Dedicated parkland and greenways as required by the
TEFA shall receive park land dedication credits for the Santa Clara Parks Ordinance 17.35 SCCC if consistent
with the size and general location of parks identified in Figure 3.7.3 and Chapter 5 of the TEFA.

All development will be responsible for satisfying the
parkland amount specified in Chapter 17.35 of SCCC by
land dedication and/or in-lieu fees. Properties that do not have parkland identified on their sites on Figure 3.7.3 of the TEFA shall make their contribution through in-lieu fees or can choose to propose parkland dedication that
has not yet been identified. The City will retain discretion to provide Parks Ordinance credit for proposed parkland not identified in the TEFA. The “Parkland Dedication
Ordinance and TEFA Additions” section of Chapter 5
specifies the criteria for private recreation credit.

PRIVATELY-OWNED OPEN SPACE
Beyond the minimum 5 acres of dedicated parkland, the
balance of the 10 acres of required open space may be
achieved with any of the three following types of space:
greenways, privately-owned publicly-accessible parks, and Privately-owned Open Space, see Figure 03-7-2.

GREENWAYS
Greenways are privately owned publicly-accessible open
space connectors that will link dedicated parkland and
streets into a continuous green network throughout
the site. Greenways will be car-free, providing safe and pleasant paths for people on foot, bikes and scooters.

If landscaped appropriately, greenways will create open space opportunities for lingering and gathering as an
addition to the dedicated parkland and privately-owned
open spaces. They also provide an opportunity to improve the local environment by reducing air pollution, the heat- island effect, noise, and improving pedestrian safety.

Greenways will be created through minimum 15-foot
easements on either side of property lines for a total
minimum right-of-way width of 30 feet. The general
alignment of greenways are shown in Figure 03-5-
3 (equivalent to roughly 1 acre of open space). This
alignment may be refined, but generally greenways should be toward the middle of a block and create meaningful
connections between open spaces. The greenway network
should align across streets so that they can be connected via mid-block crosswalks. Greenways are to be maintained at a standard equal to or higher than City parks.

Greenways count towards the total 10-acre open space
requirement. Also see Section 05.6 for design guidelines.

PRIVATELY-OWNED PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE
In the case of privately-owned, publicly accessible open space, each portion of at-grade publicly-accessible land may count toward the TEFA open space requirement, as
long as it meets the following criteria:
• To the maximum extent feasible, privately owned
publicly-accessible land shall be contiguous with the
fixed open space network;
• For parcels one acre or greater in size, the minimum
area of a single open space is 2,000 square feet with
a minimum dimension of 40 feet. For parcels less
than an acre in area, the minimum size for open space
is 5% of the net parcel size, after any other required
dedications, with a minimum dimension of 30 feet;
• A minimum 25% of the perimeter of the open space
must abut a sidewalk, greenway, open space or
publicly-accessible pathway;
• The open space shall include signage that is located
in a publicly conspicuous place stating that the open
space is available for public use and the hours of use; • Fences or other barriers that create the appearance of privatization of open space are discouraged. If fencing is used, it shall be designed to maximize visibility.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 35
Figure 03-7-1 Districts
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Avenue C
Avenue D
Guadalupe River Trail
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle De Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Station
City Place
Guadalupe River
Ulistac
Natural Area
Great America Station
Lick Mill Boulevard
N0 100’ 250’ 500’
To Be Implemented as
Development Occurs
City Easement
Site Boundary

STATION DISTRICT

BRIDGE DISTRICT

CENTER DISTRICT

RIVER DISTRICT

HILL DISTRICT
II ii
ti
~
\
I
I
\
I
\
I
I
L - - - .. ---
-:::
36 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Figure 03-7-2 Privately-Owned Open Space Requirement as a Percentage of Development Area.

ACRES
Total Open Space
Requirement

10.0 Dedicated Parkland 5.0
Greenways 1.1
Remaining Privately-Owned
Open Space

3.9 Need from Each Development
(as a percent of 31.35 acres of
developable area)

12.5% (or

3.9 acres)
• To ensure visibility and safety, all points along
the perimeter of an open space must maintain an
unobstructed line of sight to at least one street or
greenway frontage;
• The open space shall be generally flat; sloped areas
programmed with active uses can be considered for
credit.

Privately-owned publicly accessible open space located on a podium must meet all of the above criteria as well as:
• Provide adequate soil volume to support planting; and • Ensure privacy for podium level units; and.
• Clear and visible signage indicating that the space is open for public use.

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
In the case of PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, up to 50 percent
of the area of each open space is eligible for credit toward the TEFA open space requirement. In addition, balconies or stoops that are a minimum of 36 square feet in area
and have a minimum dimension of 5 feet in any direction shall be allowed 25% of area credit toward the TEFA open space requirement.

Parkland Dedication Ordinance and TEFA Additions
Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Open Space and
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE as defined in the Specific Plan
shall receive Park and Recreational Land PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE credits when the combined area of over 0.75 acres meets 4 of the 8 required elements of the Park Ordinance defined in Municipal Code Section 17.35.070 plus two
new as noted below.

The eight required elements of the Park Ordinance
defined in Municipal Code Section 17.35.070 are listed
below for reference:
• Turfed play field, comprised of a single unit of land which is generally level and free of physical barriers
which would inhibit group play activities with a
minimum contiguous area of one-half acre;
• Children’s play apparatus area that conforms to
the then current Federal Consumer Product Safety
Commission guidelines;
• Landscaped and furnished, park-like quiet area;
• Recreational community gardens;
• Family picnic area;
• Game, fitness or sport court area;
• Accessible swimming pool (minimum size forty-two
(42) feet by seventy-five (75) feet) with adjacent deck or lawn areas;
• Recreation center buildings and grounds;
Two additional recreational elements are noted in the
Tasman East Focus Area Plan:
• Dog park with a minimum size of 3,000 square feet,
and a minimum dimension of 30 feet; and
• Game area, a minimum of 2,000 square feet in area
with a minimum dimension of 30 feet. This minimum
area can be reduced to 1,000 square feet if next to
another open space.

The City has the discretion to also allow Park Ordinance credit for costs associated with off-site improvements
in areas which are functionally contiguous to dedicated parkland (or an easement with public access).
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 37

STATION DISTRICT

BRIDGE DISTRICT

CENTER DISTRICT

RIVER DISTRICT

HILL DISTRICT
Figure 03-7-3 Open Space Framework

2.51.0 0.5

0.15 0.85
Public improvements beyond the site
not included in 10.0 acres

PRIVATELY-OWNED OPEN
SPACE

TOTAL 10 ACRES
• Hill District 0.85 acre
• Center District 1.0 acre
• River District 2.5 acres
(Including 0.75 acre easement)
• Bridge District 0.5 acre
• Station District 0.15 acre

DEDICATED PARKLAND
(MINIMUM 5 ACRES)
+
=
• Greenways
• At Grade & Publicly
Accessible (100% Credit )
• PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
(50% Credit )
Paseo
Public Improvement Beyond
the Site
To Be Implemented as
Development Occurs
City Easement
Site Boundary
* Greenway and Park locations
depicted are conceptual.

Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Avenue C
Avenue D
Guadalupe River Trail
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle De Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Station
City Place
Guadalupe River
Ulistac
Natural Area
Great America Station
Lick Mill Boulevard
N0 100’ 250’ 500’
•
--
CJ]
11111 '-~-~-' \ (~
I
\ (~
I
I
\
IIIIIIIIIIH~
1111111111111.➔. A
( ~ ~ ( ~ , ... ,... = ... • •. .,f , ~ ,I.. • • ; ..... T "11111111111111111 1. ••• l / . . ; I \,.__.: ; L______ () e ------- ~,-$/ -------------
+ + + +- +-+ + + + ___ ,--:-; ______ _
+ +- +- +- t" + + + + +- +- + + +- +- Ill
38 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

03.8 URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK
The urban design framework builds on the land use,
circulation and open space frameworks to create a sense of place for the Tasman East Focus Area. An identity
for the neighborhood will take shape through the urban
design devices of gateways, edges, connections, and
landmark buildings. These elements are illustrated in
Figure 03-8-1.

GATEWAYS
The Focus Area will feature two gateway locations at
the edge of the site that offer first impressions upon
approach. Gateways mark important destinations, such as transit stations and points of connection within the site and to adjacent development. Gateways will feature high quality architecture, public realm enhancements (such as plazas and parks), or a combination of both.

The gateway locations include: 1) a connection to the Lick Mill Station at Calle Del Sol; and 2) a connection to the Great America Station at Calle de Luna and a potential
third gateway connection to City Place at 2nd Street.

EDGES
The site is surrounded on the north and east sides by
challenging grade changes ranging from roughly 15 feet
to 30 feet in height. Additionally, at the two southern corners of the site, Tasman Drive bridges over the rail tracks and the Guadalupe River (from west to east),
causing steep slope differences on the site.

Periphery developments along the eastern edge of the
site should gracefully mitigate grade changes to offer
pedestrians continuous access to the Guadalupe River
Trail. The northern edge of the site should be designed to facilitate a pedestrian connection to 2nd Street, as this will be an important pedestrian route to City Place.

Strategies for mitigating grade changes include fill and/or publicly accessible, activated vertical connections such as stairs, ramps or landscaped slopes.

Any action to mitigate the grade changes will happen
beyond the site boundaries and will require landscape
design and civil engineering coordination with adjacent property owners.

CONNECTIONS
A complete and connected network of streets will
provide a safe and enjoyable pedestrian experience that encourages walking and biking. A finer grained network of greenways will provide secondary, pedestrian and bicycle- only connections that link people easily to the parks in the neighborhood as well as regional open spaces, including the Guadalupe River Trail.

In order to truly connect this network, vertical connections are required to be made between specific parks in Tasman East to roads or trails outside of the plan boundary.

Ramps and stairs for pedestrian and bicycle connectivity are required at open spaces in the River District, located along grade changes. See Section 5.2 and 5.3 for Open
Space Design Guidelines.

LANDMARK BUILDINGS
Towers should mark the location of key site features
such as sites nearby the VTA and Amtrak/ACE stations
and neighborhood parks. By locating towers near transit stations and neighborhood parks, these places are
identifiable from a distance and also give the towers a sense of prominence, proximity and space appropriate to their larger scale.

Towers should also be located to take advantage of the
site’s sweeping views. Santa Clara is characterized by flat lands with meandering rivers and creeks – allowing for
distant views of the hills to the East and West, of the Bay to the north, and of landmark buildings such as Levi’s
Stadium, the towers of Downtown San Jose and views up
and down the Guadalupe River.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 39
Open Space Framerwok
Vertical connection / site bndy /
bridges / phased/ D opne space
framework/ OPen space / Xwalks /
existing Row base / Site white base /
trail / channel/ base
Gateway
Pump Station
Grade Change Beyond Site
Filled and Landscaped
Grade Change
Active Ground Floor Use
Required Ground Floor
Retail
Dedicated Open Space*
Paseo
Greenway
Vertical Circulation
To Be Implemented as
Development Occurs
City Easement
Site Boundary
* Greenway and Ppark locations
depicted are conceptual.

Figure 03-8-1 Urban Design Framework
50ft
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Avenue C
Avenue D
Guadalupe River Trail
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle De Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Station
City Place
Guadalupe River
Ulistac
Natural Area
Great America Station
Lick Mill Boulevard
N0 100’ 250’ 500’
~
------11111111 ►
+ + ..
~
~
• llll \
r >-
1111 I
\
I 1111111 1111111111111111➔ II 1111111111111 I
I
~,n ., . ,,,,,
I ., ... _,.,.,_,f ,' / \
... / ~
+ ' -t-+ +- +- +- t-4--1--+
I I __ .. , ~
I ---- +~
--L - - - - .. - - - - - ~ - -...-- - -
+~- ·~~JI~ -1- + I----+ t- +- +- +-+- +- +- t-++-+
40 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

03.9 PARKING FRAMEWORK

USE FOR RESIDENTS/ EMPLOYEES FOR VISITORS/ CUSTOMERS
Residential Uses Minimum 1 space per unit for units
greater than 550 square feet
Minimum 0.5 spaces per unit for units
less than 550 square feet
Minimum 0.05 spaces per unit*
Retail Uses None required Minimum 1 space per 1,000 square feet** Minimum 1 space per 500 square feet for a
grocery store
Home for the Ambulatory
Aged
Minimum 1 space per employee and 0.1
per unit
Minimum number of spaces shall be 10% of
units
Neighborhood Light
Industrial Uses
None required None required
Public Uses None required None required
* Residential visitor parking spaces can be
shared with retail customer spaces
** On-street spaces can qualify toward this
requirement
Figure 03-9-1 Parking Ratios

PARKING RATIOS AND RESTRICTIONS
Parking ratios must be provided as
per the minimums listed in Figure
03-9-1. Note that residential visitor
parking may be shared with retail
parking.

Parking is not allowed as a stand-
alone use, but as a use accessory to
residential, retail or industrial use.

Surface parking is only allowed as a
temporary or interim use.

CAR SHARING
Car sharing programs provide
on-demand access to a shared
fleet of vehicles on an as-needed
basis. Car sharing has been shown
to significantly reduce vehicle
ownership and vehicle miles travelled
(VMT). Access to these vehicles
increases the vehicle availability for
non-car owners and reduces cars per
household.

Developers/property owners shall
provide car share spaces at a rate
of at least 1 per 400 units, up to 2
spaces per development, at no cost
to car share companies. Parking
spaces reserved for car share vehicles
should be conveniently placed next
to building entrances to promote the
use of these vehicles. These vehicles
should be reserved for residents/
employees and the general public.

BICYCLE PARKING AMENITIES
Adequate bicycle parking encourages
bicycle ridership by offering riders
the same level of access and
security as motorists. On-site bicycle
parking should include bike lockers,
bike cages or indoor long-term
bicycle parking for residents and on-site employees and convenient short-term racks for visitors.

Short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces should
be provided in prominent and convenient locations in all buildings. For residential buildings, long-term bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum ratio of one space per two units. For retail portions of buildings, provide one public bicycle parking space per 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area.

EV ENABLED PARKING
EV parking should be provided to meet the significant
increase in statewide EV use. Consider the following:
• For any lower parking floors, a large empty conduit
could be run to dead corner locations where future
electrical breaker panels could be located and
embedded; or exposed conduit could be installed for
future charging locations.
• The actual installation of electrical wiring, chargers, and billing methods could be carried out by an
independent operator where the energy used for
vehicle charging is paid for by the user.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 41
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

04.1 Right of Ways & Sidewalk
Easements 44

04.2 Street Zones 48

04.3 Lick Mill Boulevard 50

04.4 Calle Del Sol 52

04.5 Calle De Luna 58

04.6 Calle Del Mundo 60

04.7 Stormwater Management 62

04.8 Paving & Lighting 63

04.9 Urban Canopy 64
04 STREET DESIGN GUIDELINES

44 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

04.1 RIGHTS OF WAY & SIDEWALK EASEMENTS
Intent
The street network at Tasman East will be improved to
create a safe, comfortable, and complete system. A well designed network will promote walking, encourage cycling and slow vehicles as they drive through this residential neighborhood.

Existing rights of way will remain, but the street network will be expanded to improve connections and increase
widths as indicated in Figure 04-1-1.

Calle del Sol will be extended north of Calle de Luna
as a pedestrian and bicycle paseo, Lick Mill Road will
be extended for all modes of travel through the site
northward to create a more robust, connected network.

The Calle del Sol and Lick Mill Boulevard extensions will be implemented as development occurs.

Substandard sidewalks will be expanded within the right of way, or through easements within adjacent properties.

See Figure 08-1-5 in the appendix for existing pedestrian sidewalks.

All street cross sections and figures shown in this
Section of the Specific Plan depict the intent and
vision for the individual rights-of-way. Should conflicts with utilities or easements make the right-of-way cross sections infeasible, adjustments to cross sections may be approved at the discretion of the Director of Community Development.

Standards
(A) Comfortable sidewalks shall line both sides of
every street. A sidewalk easement may be required
within a property line adjacent to a right of way to
expand the clear walkway of a sidewalk. Dimensions
and locations vary, see Figure 04-1-1 and street
sections for requirements. Sidewalk easements are
to be measured as a perpendicular dimension from
the edge of the right of way, horizontally into the
adjacent property.
(B) Striped pedestrian crosswalks shall be marked at
intersections and mid-block crossings as illustrated
in Figure 04-1-1.
(C) Sidewalk extensions or bulb-outs shall be
implemented at crosswalks on streets with parking
for traffic calming.
(D) The plan proposes an optional 15-foot diameter
traffic circle at the intersection of Calle Del Sol and Calle De Luna as a traffic-calming measure. As an
alternative, this intersection may be designed as
a 4-way stop. The City of Santa Clara Department
of Transportation will determine the daily traffic
thresholds, below which the alternative may be
implemented.
(E) The existing sidewalk on Tasman Drive is sub-
standard; the sidewalk shall be expanded within the
Tasman Drive right of way and in accordance with
plans for Tasman Drive (beyond the scope of this
Specific Plan).

Guidelines
(F) Sidewalks should be designed with considerations
for universal accessibility to accommodate people
with disabilities, children, seniors and adults.
(G) Sidewalks should be designed with adequate space
for street furniture that will provide an enhanced
pedestrian environment with opportunities for
people to linger, socialize and rest.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 45
70ft
60ft
5ft 10ft 8ft
6ft
6ft
6ft
5ft
60ft
60ft

1.5ft

1.5ft
6ft
6ft
72ft
22ft
101ft
64ft
86ft

73.4ft
Figure 04-1-1 Rights of Way and Sidewalk Easements
Existing Right of Way
Additional Right of Way
Sidewalk Easement
(Beyond R.O.W.)
Paseo
To Be Implemented as
Development Occurs
City Easement
Site Boundary
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Calle De Luna
Avenue C
Avenue D
Guadalupe River Trail
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Station
City Place
Guadalupe River
Ulistac
Natural Area
Great America Station
Lick Mill Boulevard
N0 100’ 250’ 500’
~ ----- -- ----..... ......
-- ---- '
- ~---
-
\\\\\
46 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Open Space Framerwok
Vertical connection / site bndy /
bridges / phased/ D opne space
framework/ OPen space / Xwalks /
existing Row base / Site white base /
trail / channel/ base
Existing Sidewalk
Proposed Sidewalk within
Site Boundary
Proposed Sidewalk beyond
Site Boundary
Proposed Dedicated Bike
Lanes
Greenway
Guadalupe River Trail
Paseo
To Be Implemented as
Development Occurs
City Easement
Site Boundary
Figure 04-1-2 Pedestrian and Bike Network Connectivity
Lick Mill Boulevard
04-1-3
04-1-4
Avenue C
Avenue D
Guadalupe River Trail
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Station
City Place
Guadalupe River
Ulistac
Natural Area
Great America Station
N0 100’ 250’ 500’
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del SolCalle De Luna
* Greenway locations depicted are
conceptual.
--
-
1111111• ►
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• I I I I I
! ! ! : ~-------------- r-, •-------------~
I I I I : : I I I I i•••••••••••t
\ \\\ : \::: :l \
I I I I I : I : : : I I : : : ••••••••••• •••••••••••••••' 1 •• 1 I •••••••••••••: :

I I I I : : : I ••••••••••••••••••••1 1•••••••••••••••••1 : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
' ' ' ' ' ' • • I
I
I
I
I
• I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I : ::: : : I / : : I I ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• -••••••••••••••••• I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--------·-------, I
I
I
~~-:::::::::::::.::.-:·:·=·~-~--=:.:-~-=-~-~-=::::·=i1r-· p ~·
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I :
: I
I I
- --- -- - __ .,_ _ ,!._ --. • ------ --, I
• '
i i
\\ :, :,
\\ :, .,
II \
\
I
\
: t!.
11111111111111111111111➔
+-
11111111111111111111
~111111111111111111111)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4:11111111111111111111.#
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
~ ----=--=-"'="'W'IP:.
' -: ... ::-. ::-...... -:.- ........... -- - -- - - -- -·················! .................. ==····················· ... -- -....... .. ..
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 47
Figure 04-1-3 Lafayette Street Section
Figure 04-1-4 Tasman Drive Section
9 to 14ft
setback
7ft
clear
walkway
20 ft
existing
setback
5 ft
street
life
5 ft
street
life
6 ft
existing
sidewalk
4 ft
bike
lane
10 ft
bike
lane
4 ft
bike
lane
4 ft
bike
lane
Great America Station 10ft
median/
turn lane
Lick Mill Station
12ft
travel
lane
12ft
travel
lane
12ft
travel
lane
12ft
travel
lane
12ft
travel
lane
12ft
travel
lane
12ft
travel
lane
12ft
travel
lane
10ft
median/turn
lane / Platform
10ft
turn
lane

WEST EAST

SOUTH NORTH existing proposed
proposedexisting
Note: Dimensions are approximate.

SETBACK LINE

SETBACK LINE

SETBACK LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

SIDEWALK EASEMENT

SIDEWALK EASEMENT
7 ft
10 ft
5 to 10ft
setback
10ft
clear
walkway
48 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Intent
Streets in the Tasman East Focus Area are comprised
of sidewalks and roadways that clearly identify safe,
convenient and attractive paths of travel for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Within the roadway there is
separation for bicycles, parked cars and moving vehicles.

Sidewalks are delineated into zones that allow for spill-out uses from buildings, as well as areas for trees, stormwater planting and street furniture.

Along some rights-of-way there are additional edge
conditions that fall within private property lines. These are located and sized to enhance the pedestrian realm
either by a contribution of right-of-way or an access and maintenance easement, or frontage elements within a
setback that will enliven the sidewalk and contribute to a walkable pedestrian experience.

Standards
(A) Sidewalks are made up of the following two zones:
- Clear Walkway: a continuous, unobstructed and
accessible path of travel for pedestrians that
must remain clear of obstacles at all times. This
zone shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width, or
wider as indicated in each street section. An
exception is Calle Del Mundo, which has a clear
walkway of 5 feet.
- Street Life Zone: This zone organizes the fixed
sidewalk elements along the curb into an area
that delineates the clear walkway from the
roadway. This is the location for street trees,
stormwater planting areas and street furniture
such as benches, trash cans, bicycle racks,
street lighting and street signage. This zone
shall be a minimum of 4 feet in width, with an
ideal width of at least 5 feet, as indicated in
the sections for each street. In some locations
the street life zone may alternate with parking
spaces.
(B) There is one type of bicycle lane throughout the
street network:
- Bicycle Lane: A striped, designated zone for the
exclusive use of bicyclists, usually adjacent to a
vehicle lane. Bicycle lanes shall be a minimum
of 5 feet wide.
(C) Vehicle lanes are divided between travel lanes and
parking or loading lanes:
- Travel Lane: Vehicle travel lanes include
provisions for dedicated turn lanes or center
turn lanes to support queueing at intersections,
where appropriate. Vehicle travel lanes shall be
a minimum of 10 feet per City of Santa Clara
Standards.
- Parking or Loading Lane: Demarcated parallel
street parking is provided on certain streets.

This lane is also shared by zones for passenger
loading and deliveries. Parking lanes shall be
between 7 and 8 feet in width.
(D) Building setbacks are required along all frontages.

There are two types of setback, based on the uses
that they front:
- For retail frontages along Calle del Sol, setbacks
will be treated as spill-out zones where uses can
spill out of the building in the form of furniture,
signage, and merchandizing. For more details on
dimensions and location, see Section 4.4 Calle
del Sol.
- Along residential frontages the setback zone is
an intermediate, semi-public space that creates
a comfortable social distance from the public
sidewalk. This area can be used for stoops,
terraces, and planting that will offer a buffer
between residential activities and the street. For
more details on stoop design and location, see
Section 6.4.

04.2 STREET ZONES
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 49

RIGHT OF WAY
Figure 04-2-1 Street Zones

CLEAR WALKWAY

CLEAR WALKWAY
(MINIMUM 7 FEET)
(MINIMUM 5 FEET)
5 TO 10 FT SETBACK, SIDEWALK EASEMENT

OR EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
5 TO 10 FT SETBACK, SIDEWALK EASEMENT

OR EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
STREET LIFE ZONE (MINIMUM 4.5 FEET)
STREET LIFE ZONE (MINIMUM 4.5 FEET)

TRAVEL LANES
PARKING + LOADING LANES

BUILDING FACE

BUILDING FACE

BIKE LANES

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
(6 INCH CURB WITHIN STREET LIFE ZONE)
(6 INCH CURB WITHIN STREET LIFE ZONE)
50 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Intent
Lick Mill Boulevard is a minor arterial boulevard that
connects from the Montague Expressway to the south,
currently terminating at Tasman Drive. The extension
of this boulevard by the City Place project, will add a significant additional connection to Lafayette Street to the North of Tasman East.

e development of a
high-quality environment for cyclists.

Standards
(A) To the south of Calle De Luna, Lick Mill Boulevard
will be 101 feet in width; narrowing to 86 feet in
width north of Calle de Luna.
(B) Lick Mill Boulevard will be designed with street
zones and lane configurations according to Figure
04-3-1 and Figure 04-3-2 for the street segment
north of Calle de Luna.

04.3 LICK MILL BOULEVARD

WEST EAST 04-3-1
Figure 04-3-1 Lick Mill Boulevard Street Section: North of Calle De Luna 64ft
curb-to-curb
86ft right-of-way
11ft
sidewalk
11ft
sidewalk

SETBACK LINE

SETBACK LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
10ft
median/
turn lane
7ft
bike
lane
7ft
bike
lane
5 to 10ft
setback
5ft
street
life
6ft
clear
walkway
5 to 10ft
setback
5ft
street
life
6ft
clear
walkway
10ft
travel
lane
10ft
travel
lane
10ft
travel
lane
10ft
travel
lane

WEST EAST Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle Del Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Boulevard

STEPBACK LINE

STEPBACK LINE
65ft 65ft
5 ft 5 ft
As it passes through the Tasman East Area, Lick Mill
Boulevard will continue to be flanked by multifamily
housing and parks that link passersby to the river. With the addition of a protected bicycle lane in this new
segment, it will be a critical link in th
1 I
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 51
PARK
5 TO 10’5 TO 10’ 6’5’7’10’10’10’10’10’7’5’6’

GREENWAY

TRAVEL LANE

TRAVEL LANE

TRAVEL LANE

TRAVEL LANE

SETBACK

SETBACK

BIKE LANE

BIKE LANE

STREET LIFE ZONE

STREET LIFE ZONE

CLEAR WALKWAY

CLEAR WALKWAY
Figure 04-3-2 Lick Mill Boulevard Street Plan: Between Tasman and Calle de Luna

SETBACK LINE
PL

ROADWAY
I _ ,_
52 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
3-4-1
04-4-1
Intent
The existing section of Calle del Sol and its intersection with Calle De Luna will be the main retail focus of the Tasman East neighborhood, home to restaurants, cafes
and neighborhood serving amenities that will support a
vibrant public life. It will be enhanced and made more
pedestrian-oriented, allowing the street to serve as a
critical pedestrian link to the VTA Lick Mill Station. In addition to the existing street segment, Calle del Sol
will be extended north of Calle de Luna, to connect to
Calle del Mundo for pedestrians, bicycles and emergency vehicles.

Standards
(A) The alignment and phasing of the northern segment
of Calle del Sol will be determined based on the
availability of land.
(B) North of Calle de Luna, Calle del Sol will be
designed as a pedestrian and bicycle paseo
according to Figure 04-4-1 and Figure 04-4-2.
(C) There are several options proposed for the segment
of Calle del Sol between Tasman Drive and Calle de
Luna that accommodate different levels of vehicular
capacity, see Figure 04-4-3 through Figure 04-4-

8. The most appropriate option will be selected
before adoption of this plan based on input from the
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA).

04.4 CALLE DEL SOL
Figure 04-4-1 Calle Del Sol Street Section: North of Calle de Luna & North of Pump Station

WEST EAST Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle Del Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Boulevard

MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK

MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK

LIMIT OF PUBLIC PASEO EASEMENT

LIMIT OF PUBLIC PASEO EASEMENT

STEPBACK LINE

STEPBACK LINE
8ft
bike lane
20ft
EVA

63.4ft public paseo easement
12ft
pedestrian zone25.4 ft
outdoor seating grove/
passive seating

PROPERTY LINE
14ft
pedestrian realm with
street life
14ft
pedestrian realm with
street life
5 ft
65ft 65ft
5 ft
5 ft 5 ft
i
i
i
i
i
!
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
I- -i
I
i
i l t ·
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 53
Figure 04-4-2 Calle Del Sol Street Section: North of Calle de Luna 8ft
bike lane

40.8 ft
pump station structure
12ft
pedestrian zone

WEST EAST

MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK

LIMIT OF PUBLIC PASEO EASEMENT

LIMIT OF PUBLIC PASEO EASEMENT

STEPBACK LINE

STEPBACK LINE
3-4-1
04-4-3
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle Del Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Boulevard
Intent
The proposed location of the Paseo affects four existing properties; development may occur incrementally in
conjunction with the development of these properties.

A public easement through the affected properties will
facilitate a privately owned public open space. Buildings facing each other across the Paseo will be required to be set back from their property lines in accordance with the dimensions shown in Figures 04-4-2 and 04-4-4. The
Paseo width shall be in accordance with the dimensions
as shown on Figure 4-4-1, 4-4-2 and 4-4-3. At the
Primavera Sewer Pump Station enclosure, an additional
15 feet setback will be required on the western adjacent property for maintenance and circulation.

As sections of the Paseo may be constructed by separate entities at different times, the following standards and guidelines will ensure a cohesive design.

Standards
(A) The paseo shall provide a continuous 12 feet wide
pedestrian ’street life’ zone alongside an 8 feet wide
two-way cycle track. These two zones shall together
constitute a minimum 20 feet wide emergency
vehicle lane (EVA), paved with suitable high-quality
material to accommodate fire trucks. The cycle track
shall be demarcated separately from the pedestrian
zone with alternative texture/color/materials and
shall include directional striping and signage.
(B) Both ends of the EVA lane shall be equipped with
electronically retractable bollards to prevent private
vehicle access but to permit emergency vehicle
access.
(C) In the interim condition where only a portion of the Paseo is constructed at a given phase, the access
requirements of (A) and (B) above shall be provided
within the partial or the temporary condition.
(D) The Paseo should include, at various points along its length, gathering areas, seating zones, stormwater
management zones, sufficiently large outdoor
space to accommodate a farmers market, outdoor
performance etc. and lawn areas.
(E) At the southernmost end of the paseo, the existing
Primavera Sewer Pump Station and associated
equipment must be enclosed in accordance
with Figure 04-4-2 and 04-4-3. The relevant
developer and/or property owner shall coordinate
all access and maintenance requirements with
City of Santa Clara Public Works and Planning
Departments. This enclosure shall be constructed of an
inner solid wall, minimum 14 feet 6 inches high, with
roll-up shutter-type openings as required for access
and maintenance, and an outer screen wall with partial
opacity, minimum 20ft high on all sides. The upper
portion of the screen wall shall provide ventilation for the enclosure. The outer screen wall shall include ‘blind’ outward opening doors, designed to match the fixed
sections of screen, to provide access to the inner wall roll-up shutter openings. The design and rating of the

63.4ft public paseo easement
60ft property line15ft 14.8ft

SCREEN DOORS

HEIGHT OF SOLID WALL AND

DOORS BEHIND SCREEN
15ft
pedestrian realm with
mechanical access
14ft
pedestrian realm with
street life
5 ft 5 ft
5 ft
65ft 65ft
5 ft

0.8 ft 20 ft
min

14.8 ft
min
5 ft 1
I
I
-4
I
i
i
i
D
54 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
wall shall comply with building code requirements
for building separation. The enclosure shall be
covered with an open trellis which is complementary
to the design of the outer screen and which shall
provide coverage of the entire enclosure. The trellis
may extend on the north, west and south sides up to
10 feet beyond the walls of the enclosure, subject
to access agreements on adjacent properties. On
the east side, the trellis shall extend a minimum
20 feet to cover the pedestrian zone and bike
lanes and be supported by a row of columns in
the street-life zone. The screen walls, trellis and
supporting columns in the street-life zone shall
be constructed of high-quality tactile materials
such as stainless steel, wood or terra-cotta or some
combination thereof. The design of the enclosure
shall be submitted for City approval. If the enclosure
is constructed in phases as adjacent development
occurs, Phase one shall, at a minimum, include the
inner solid walls, outer screen walls and that portion
of the trellis which covers the entire enclosure.

Future phases may extend the trellis beyond the
walls of the enclosure as noted above.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 55
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
56 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
5ft
street
life
6ft
clear
walkway
5 to 10ft
setback
11ft
sidewalk

BIKE LANE

OUTDOOR DINING AREA

PEDESTRIAN REALM

WITH STREET LIFE

PEDESTRIAN REALM

WITH STREET LIFE

PROPERTY LINE
Figure 04-4-3 Calle Del Sol Street Plan: North of Calle de Luna 14’14’ 8’12’

17.47’45.93’

25.4’
5’5’

MINIMUM REQUIRED

SETBACK ZONE

LIMIT OF PASEO EASEMENT

MINIMUM REQUIRED

SETBACK ZONE
200’

PEDESTRIAN ZONE

63.4’

PROPERTY LINE
I •
I
I

L ---L ------
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 57
5ft
street
life
6ft
clear
walkway
5 to 10ft
setback
11ft
sidewalk

BIKE LANE

PUMP STATION

GREENWAY PEDESTRIAN REALM WITH

MECHANICAL ACCESS

PEDESTRIAN ZONE
14’
14’
5’55’
5’22’
15’
5’
5’
140’
8’12’
16’ CLR
16’ CLR 16’ CLR

19.2’
24’

EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS

40.8’
60’

PROPERTY LINE

ACCESS DOORS
SOLID WALL 14.8’ HIGH

PLUS OUTER SCREEN
MIN 20’ HIGH

TRELLIS

OVERHANG
ABOVE

7.67’
20’20’

14.8’53.6’

73.4’

25.4’

34.4’

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
5’
5’

PEDESTRIAN REALM

WITH STREET LIFE

PEDESTRIAN

REALM WITH

STREET LIFE
I
l_ _____________ _
----- -j
---- i
I
I
58 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Figure 04-4-4 Calle del Sol Section Option 1: Low Traffic Volumes, 2 Drive Lanes Figure 04-4-5 Calle del Sol Plan Option 1: Low Traffic Volumes, 2 Drive Lanes 8’ 6’6’ 8’ 11’11’
5’ 5’ 5’
5’ to 10’
5’ to 10’5’

CALLE DEL SOL
SOUTH OF CALLE DE LUNA (OPTION 1)
04-4-3
Calle de Luna
5’5’
Property Line
Sidewalk Easement
Sidewalk Easement
Setback Line
Setback Line
Property Line
Tasman Drive
8ft
parking
lane
48ft
curb-to-curb
60ft right-of-way
11ft
sidewalk
5ft
street
life
6ft
clear
walkway
5 to 10ft
setback
5 to 10ft
setback
11ft
sidewalk
11ft
travel
lane
11ft
travel
lane
5ft
bike
lane
5ft
bike
lane
8ft
parking
lane
5ft
street
life
6ft
clear
walkway
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle Del Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Boulevard
Note: Exact location of crosswalk to be aligned with ultimate location of greenways for enhanced pedestrian connectivity.

WEST EAST

SIDEWALK EASEMENT

SIDEWALK EASEMENT

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING FACE OF CURB

EXISTING FACE OF CURB

SETBACK LINE

SETBACK LINE

STEPBACK LINE

STEPBACK LINE
5 ft
5 ft
65ft 65ft
5 ft 5 ft
N
l __ _ ! -----------
r-·-·-·--·-·-·-· I -
Ir-------------------­ ------ -----
I
I I I
I i I I !
I I I I i
H I
i I
! I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
j I
i I j I
i I
~ i I
I I
! I
I I
! I
! I
I
I
I
I
l
------------------------------------------------------------------1 . ..,1111~- ----.· ____ --4 -·-·-·-·-·--·-·- --------·-------·-~:..----- -------1
', 1
', i
------------------------------------- ; ', ' ' .. ...i '\ I l
\
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 59
Calle de Luna
Figure 04-4-6 Calle del Sol Section Option 2: Medium Traffic Volumes, 3 Drive Lanes

CALLE DEL SOL
SOUTH OF CALLE DE LUNA (OPTION 2)
04-4-5
Figure 04-4-7 Calle del Sol Plan Option 2: Medium Traffic Volumes, 3 Drive Lanes Calle de Luna
Tasman Drive
8ft
parking
lane
11ft
travel lane
with sharrow
11ft
travel lane
with sharrow
48ft
curb-to-curb
60ft right-of-way
11ft
sidewalk
5ft
street
life
6ft
clear
walkway
5 to 10ft
setback
5 to 10ft
setback
11ft
sidewalk
10ft
travel lane8ft
parking
lane
5ft
street
life
6ft
clear
walkway
5’5’
Property Line
Sidewalk Easement
Sidewalk Easement
Setback Line
Setback Line
Property Line
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle Del Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Boulevard
8’ 6’6’ 8’ 10’
11’ 11’ 5’
5’ to 10’
5’ to 10’5’
Note: Exact location of crosswalk to be aligned with ultimate location of greenways for enhanced pedestrian connectivity.

WEST EAST

SIDEWALK EASEMENT

SIDEWALK EASEMENT

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING FACE OF CURB

EXISTING FACE OF CURB

SETBACK LINE

SETBACK LINE

STEPBACK LINE

STEPBACK LINE
5 ft
5 ft
65ft 65ft
5 ft 5 ft
N
;::::::-r---------------------------,
\ \
i \
1 l--.-.. ~ .. --·-/ \ -,-
i I
I i
I i
I !
: !
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i i
i I
i I
I I
W i I , I
i I
i I ! I
I I
j I
:'i :

I
I
,I
I
l----------
c.:___ - -----------.==-~--·------------------ ------------- --------------------___ J 1-------------------------
_--4
' i
',, ' ------ ----------- ----------------------------------- ; " \ ' I 'i
I I
\
60 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Figure 04-4-8 Calle del Sol Section Option 3: High Traffic Volumes, 4 Drive Lanes Figure 04-4-9 Calle del Sol Plan Option 3: High Traffic Volumes, 4 Drive Lanes

CALLE DEL SOL
SOUTH OF CALLE DE LUNA (OPTION 3)
04-4-7
Calle de Luna
Tasman Drive
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle Del Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Boulevard
12’ 6’6’ 12’12’ 12’
5’
5’ to 10’
5’ to 10’5’
12ft
travel
lane with
sharrow
12ft
travel
lane with
sharrow
48ft
curb-to-curb
60ft right-of-way
11ft
sidewalk
5ft
street
life
6ft
clear
walkway
5 to 10ft
setback
5 to 10ft
setback
11ft
sidewalk
12ft
travel
lane
12ft
travel
lane
5ft
street
life
6ft
clear
walkway
Note: Exact location of crosswalk to be aligned with ultimate location of greenways for enhanced pedestrian connectivity. 5’5’
Property Line
Sidewalk Easement
Sidewalk Easement
Setback Line
Setback Line
Property Line

WEST EAST

SIDEWALK EASEMENT

SIDEWALK EASEMENT

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING FACE OF CURB

EXISTING FACE OF CURB

SETBACK LINE

SETBACK LINE

STEPBACK LINE

STEPBACK LINE
5 ft
5 ft
65ft 65ft
5 ft 5 ft
N
I
I I
I I , -----------------­----
I I
I
I l
i
I j I .

I I
t-----1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j I
j I
i I
j I
i I
H ! I
! I ! I
I I
! I ! I
I I
i I I I
i I
i I
I I
i I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l I
--------------------------------------------------1
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 61
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
62 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Intent
Calle de Luna will serve as a critical pedestrian link
between Great America Station and the Lick Mill
VTA stop. Generous sidewalks will improve the street
experience for pedestrians.

Standards
(A) A 6 foot sidewalk easement is required on both
sides of the 60 foot right of way to widen the
sidewalk and enhance the pedestrian experience.
(B) Calle de Luna will be designed with street zones and lane configurations according to Figure 04-5-1 and
Figure 04-5-2.

04.5 CALLE DE LUNA
Figure 04-5-1 Calle De Luna Street Section, looking east. 11ft
travel
lane
10ft
travel
lane
48ft
curb-to-curb
60ft

SETBACK LINE
12ft
sidewalk

SETBACK LINE
12ft
sidewalk

PROPERTY LINE

SIDEWALK EASEMENT

SIDEWALK EASEMENT

PROPERTY LINE
8ft
parking
5ft
street
life
7ft
clear
walkway
5 to 10ft
setback
5ft
street
life
7ft
clear
walkway
5 to 10ft
setback 8ft
Parking
lane
11ft
travel
lane
04-5-1
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle Del Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Boulevard

NORTH SOUTH 6 ft
6 ft

STEPBACK LINE

STEPBACK LINE
65ft 65ft
5 ft 5 ft
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 63

CLEAR WALKWAY

CLEAR WALKWAY
PARK
PARK
Figure 04-5-2 Calle De Luna Street Plan
7’5’8’10’ 11’8’ 11’5’7’

ROADWAY

SETBACK LINE

SIDEWALK EASEMENT
PL

TRAVEL LANE

TRAVEL LANE

TRAVEL LANE

SETBACK

SETBACK

STREET LIFE ZONE

STREET LIFE ZONE

PARKING & LOADING

PARKING LANE
5 TO 10’5 TO 10’
* West end of Calle de Luna parking only on the southside of the street to accomodate one eastbound and three westbound lanes.

I 1111111 -----------
_,,,,. ........ --,-----__._--.--'l...,..,,.,,,,,_,,==!..--...,..------ - ---,-,------f I....-- ~~
64 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Intent
Calle del Mundo will be a quieter, residential street that is lined on both sides by residential stoops and building entries. The setback will create a softer edge to the
sidewalk with terraces, steps, and planted areas that will allow for a comfortable social distance between the street and residential units.

Dedicated bike lanes will provide a safe and convenient connection for cyclists through the site, connecting to Lick Mill Boulevard and Lafayette Street.

Standards
(A) Calle del Mundo will be designed with street zones
and lane configurations according to Figure 04-6-1
and Figure 04-6-2.
(B) Where turn lanes need to be added they shall
replace parking lanes.

04.6 CALLE DEL MUNDO
Figure 04-6-1 Calle Del Mundo Street Section
10ft
drive
lane
10ft
drive
lane
11ft
drive lane/
turn lane
41ft
curb-to-curb
60ft right-of-way

9.5ft
sidewalk
5ft
clear
walkway

9.5ft
sidewalk

4.5ft
street
life

4.5ft
street
life
5ft
clear
walkway
5ft
bike
lane
5ft
bike
lane
04-6-1
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle Del Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Boulevard

NORTH SOUTH 5 to 10ft
setback
5 to 10ft
setback
65ft
5 ft
65ft
5 ft

SETBACK LINE

SETBACK LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

STEPBACK LINE

STEPBACK LINE
1·--- I ·-\,
I I
I\· /\/
~ -----------~ -_.,,,.-·
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 65
Figure 04-6-2 Calle Del Mundo Street Plan
5’4.5’5’5’ 10’11’10’5’ 4.5’

ROADWAY

SETBACK LINE
PL

CLEAR WALKWAY

CLEAR WALKWAY

TRAVEL LANE

TRAVEL LANE

TRAVEL LANE

SETBACK

SETBACK

STREET LIFE ZONE

STREET LIFE ZONE

BIKE LANE

BIKE LANE
5 TO 10’5 TO 10’
66 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

04.7 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Stormwater treatment can be a feature within the sidewalk.

Raised planters can function as seating
Stormwater treatment can be an educational opportunity
Intent
The integration of stormwater management in public
open spaces lowers infrastructure costs, increases space efficiency, provides ecological benefits, and creates
opportunities for public interaction.

Stormwater areas should be designed amenities that
function effectively and contribute aesthetically to
the site as a whole, integrating with the architecture
and streetscape design of the surrounding context.

For example, raised planters can function as seating
or stormwater treatment can be a feature within the
pavement.

Standards
(A) Select drought-tolerant plant species in the design of stormwater treatment systems.

Guidelines
(B) Creation of subdistrict stormwater management
areas is preferred over an approach that treats each
space individually.
(C) Designed treatment systems such as bioswales,
flow-through planters, permeable paving,
and greenroofs should be utilized as part of
a comprehensive approach to stormwater
management.
(D) Developments with more than one building that
include greenways and/or parks are encouraged
to treat their stormwater management areas
in adjacent open spaces. Smaller parcels, if
developed concurrently with neighboring parcels,
are encouraged to coordinate stormwater design in
shared open spaces.
(E) Select a planting palette that will provide seasonal interest.
(F) Consider access to sunlight and drainage
requirements of selected trees and shrubs when
locating and designing treatment areas; provide dry
season irrigation to ensure long-term plant heath.
(G) Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention Program’s reports and work
products for materials, precedents, and methods.
(H) Consider educational or interpretive signage near
stormwater treatment areas, to educate the public
about the benefits and processes of stormwater
treatment areas.

Credit: Perkins + Will
Credit: Perkins + Will
Credit: Perkins + Will
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 67
Consider how lane paving meets open space to mark circulation PAVING
Intent
A hierarchy of paving materials helps to create clear
wayfinding and contributes aesthetically to the site as a whole.

Standards
(A) All street paving shall meet City of Santa Clara
Sidewalk Standards.
(B) All control joints are required to be saw cut.
(C) For greenways, use concrete Pavers with Type 1
steel edging.

Guidelines
(D) The design of greenways should consider the
following:
- Use special paving or accent materials to visually
connect with entry points, linear increments, or
adjacent design or program.
- For visual continuity, continue paving patterns
across differing conditions, such as pervious or
vehicular paving and permeable paving sections.
(E) Park paving should consider the following:
- Use a combination of pavers and concrete that
are unique to each park design.
- Meet greenways in a consistent way, using lane
paving to clearly show circulation.

LIGHTING
Intent
Adequate lighting should be provided in all dedicated
open space and along all streets and greenways to ensure clear wayfinding and safe pedestrian passage.

Standards
(A) Parks that connect to the Guadalupe River or City
Place shall include a lit pathway at all times.
(B) A lit pathway that utilizes Dark Sky compliant and
efficient lamping would be provided at all times
within the bounds of the Plan Area and would not
include any part of the trail or trail access on Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) property.

Guidelines
(C) In addition to existing cobra head street lighting, pedestrian scale fixtures should be added as needed
to increase safety and activate retail areas for
evening use.
(D) Streetscapes should utilize shorter pedestrian scale pole light fixtures to improve pedestrian experience,
wayfinding, and safety.
(E) Bollard lighting should be used to create a
consistent and safe passage through greenways at
all times.

04.8 PAVING & LIGHTING
Bollard lighting allows for safe pedestrian passage without intruding light into residential units
Credit: Bega Lighting
68 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Provide proper soil volume to allow trees to mature

04.9 URBAN CANOPY
Intent
Integration of new tree planting and landscape will
enhance the urban forest at Tasman East and surrounding area. The urban forest plays important environmental and social roles: it cleans the air, absorbs rainwater, provides habitat and improves health and well-being. Tree planting also reduces the urban heat island effect by increasing shading. Irrigation will be provided by the City’s recycled water supply.

Standards
(A) All trees shall be planted in consideration of utility offsets.
(B) All selected trees shall conform to CalGreen water
efficiency requirements.
(C) Tree pits shall be a minimum of 4 feet in width, and a maximum of 3 feet in depth. Along the segment
of Calle del Sol from mid-block to Tasman, tree
pits may be a minimum of 3.5 feet in width and
a maximum of 3 feet in depth. Tree pits shall use
planting or granite sets outside of critical root ball
zone or may use tree grates to create additional
travel width for pedestrians. Refer to tree box size
in Figure 04-9-1 when sizing to ensure sufficient
growing space around root ball at installation.
(D) Trees shall be planted in contiguous open planting
areas. Where continuous planting is interrupted by
curb cuts, use of a modular suspended pavement
system (such as Silva Cells) is required.

Guidelines
(E) Reference Figure 04-9-1 for recommended options
for tree selection and planting.
(F) Tree planting areas should target soil volumes listed in Figure 04-9-1, and be assigned as per their
mature size. Soil volume may be shared between
trees co-planted in trench or large planter and below
sidewalks.

Maximize shading to mitigate the heat island effect
Credit: Perkins + Will
Credit: Perkins + Will
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 69
Figure 04-9-1 Urban Canopy Tree Selection
• Medium Deciduous or Evergreen
tree; Deciduous acceptable if other
requirements are satisfied (20-25
feet tall at maturity)
• Minimum 36 inch box at installation
• Upright form; fine-textured canopy;
showy bark
• 25 foot spacing on center
• Soil volume: 600 cubic feet
• Tolerances: Full-sun to part-shade;
drought tolerant; minimal root
disruption of paving
• Low water use
• Recommended species: Arbutus
‘Marina’; Lagerstroemia indica x
fauriei ‘Natchez’; Geijera parviflora
• Large Deciduous tree
(50-60 feet tall at maturity)
• Minimum 48 inch box at installation
• Rounded Form; showy bark
• 25 foot spacing on center minimum
• Soil volume: 1,000 cubic feet
• Tolerances: Full-sun to part-shade;
drought tolerant; with minimal root
disruption at sidewalk
• Low water use
• Required species: Platanus x
acerifolia ‘Columbia’;
20-25’
50-60’
• Large Deciduous or Evergreen tree
(50-60 feet tall at maturity)
• Minimum 48 inch box at installation
• Upright form with winter and
summer interest; iconic seasonal
ornamental character in leaf or
flower
• Spacing as uniform as possible
• Soil volume: 1,000 cubic feet
• Tolerant of full-sun to part-shade
conditions; healthy in paving, with
minimal root disruption at sidewalk
• Low water use
• Recommended species: Platanus x
acerifolia ‘Columbia’;
Lyonothamnus floribundus
aspleniifolius; Aesculus x carnea
‘Briotii’
50-60’

STREET TREES (EXCEPT CALLE DEL SOL) CALLE DEL SOL TREES GREENWAY AND PASEO TREES • Medium to large Evergreen or
deciduous tree based on sun/shade
and location (40-60 feet tall at
maturity)
• Minimum 48 inch box at installation
• Upright/Arching or spreading,
graceful form, with special
ornamental character
• Soil volume: 1,000 cubic feet
• Tolerances: medium wind tolerance;
tolerant of full-sun to part-shade
• Low water use
• Recommended species: Quercus
agrifolia; Rhus lancea; Gleditsia
triacanthos; Acer macrophyllum
40-60’

PARK TREES

05.1 Dedicated Parkland Locations
& Program 68

05.2 River District 70

05.3 Hill District 71

05.4 Bridge & Center Districts 72

05.5 Station District 73

05.6 Greenways 74
05 OPEN SPACE DESIGN

GUIDELINES
05 OPEN SPACE DESIGN

GUIDELINES
72 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

05.1 DEDICATED PARKLAND LOCATIONS & PROGRAM
Intent
The Tasman East open space system will be a network of
diverse neighborhood parks that offer a unique destination and enhance the overall site environment. Open Spaces
will be connected by greenways and pedestrian priority
streets that complement and connect with the larger
North Santa Clara open space network, including the
Guadalupe River Trail and the parks and paths provided at City Place.

Standards
(A) Open spaces shall be sized and located in districts according to Section 3.7 Open Space Framework.

Parkland shall be dedicated and constructed in a
proportional amount to a given project’s district
requirement prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, or temporary certificate of occupancy.

Developer shall have the option of posting a bond
or providing other security to the satisfaction of
the Director of Community Development if the
construction of the new open space is not completed
prior to temporary certificate of occupancy.
(B) Parks and open spaces shall be designed to connect
with the network of greenways and streets that carry
pedestrians through the neighborhood. See also
Section 05.06 for guidance on greenway design.
(C) Grey arrow on Figure 05-1-1 indicates location
where open space is encouraged to be designed
to create vertical connection that navigates grade
changes between River District and the adjacent
Guadalupe River Trail. The character of this
connection is further outlined in the following
section 05.2.

(D) Open spaces shall be generally flat; sloped areas
programmed with active uses can be considered for
credit.
(E) Pioneer trails; Native plantings proposed for
development in the Plan Area shall consider the
SCVWD’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use
Near Streams. Local native plantings, to the extent
they are available, shall be used. Development and
landscaping of the area along the levee should also
consider opportunities such as site layout, fencing,
landscaping, and education to discourage the public
from creating pioneer trails up the levee slope to
access the existing trail. A 15-foot zone free of tree
plantings shall be provided from the levee toe to
allow for emergency access.

Guidelines
(F) The open space network should provide a
comprehensive array of passive and active
recreational opportunities. Each open space should
have a unique identity that reinforces a diversity of
activities within the overall open space system.
(G) Potential program elements which may be used
to create a unique park identity may include, but
are not limited to: dog park, exercise area, sport
courts, games (i.e. bocce, etc), large natural area,
playground, community garden or amphitheater.
(H) Sports courts, where they occur, should be designed to official sizes with required setbacks and safety
fencing. Elements that require fencing should be
sited in a way that does not negatively impact park
connectivity or visibility.
(I) In addition to a signature program element, all open spaces should accommodate passive uses such as
reading, picnicking and gathering.
(J) When siting park elements, consider types of
activity, periods of use or vacancy, availability of sun or shade and the differing needs of a diverse range
of visitors such as small children, adult athletes,
skateboarders, dog owners, etc. Design program
components to accommodate flexible uses.
(K) Park program should relate to adjacent land use,
interior building program and building siting.

Considerations for sun/shade, indoor/outdoor, public/
private should all be incorporated into the design of
open space and siting of buildings.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 73
Figure 05-1-1 Open Space Locations

Dedicated Open Space
Paseo
Greenway
Vertical Circulation
To Be Implemented as
Development Occurs
City Easement
Site Boundary
* Greenway and Park locations
depicted are conceptual.

STATION DISTRICT

BRIDGE DISTRICT

CENTER DISTRICT

RIVER DISTRICT

HILL DISTRICT
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Avenue C
Avenue D
Guadalupe River Trail
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle De Luna
Tasman Drive Lick Mill Station
City Place
Guadalupe River
Ulistac
Natural Area
Great America Station
Lick Mill Boulevard
N0 100’ 250’ 500’
--11111111►
~
~ -------------------------....... ......
\
+ + + +-
I
11111 I
\
I
I
\
I
I
111111111111➔ ~1111111111111111111111➔ I
\ 11111111111111~ Ill
t
~ "
+
\
I
\
I
II II II II /!i
~111111111111110111~
I - \
L ____ , W ________ .,,,,. ......_________________ -,:
+ + + +- t- +- ,- + + + + +- \\\\
74 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Terraces direct views and provide an informal gathering space Passive trails along the riverfront Slides are one way to use grade changes to provide signature play opportunities
Intent
The park in the River District will be the most expansive and natural neighborhood park in the Tasman East
neighborhood.

Standards
(A) The park shall maintain public access along
the riverfront and be designed to embrace the
Guadalupe River as a central feature.
(B) Sloped walks, terraces, stairs and/or ramps for
bicycle and pedestrian circulation shall be a key
feature to connect across the grade change between
the eastern edge of the site and the Guadalupe River
Trail. This will ensure that pedestrians and bicyclists from the Guadalupe River Trail can access the Great
America Station at the western end of Calle De
Luna.
(C) The park may also provide a public outdoor
amphitheater that can be used to host concerts,
movies, and other public events.

Guidelines
(D) The River district park should be designed to
complement the adjacent Guadalupe River and
Ulistac Natural Area.
(E) The park should have larger contiguous soil volumes to support long-lived canopy trees and diverse
habitat.
(F) Plant selections should reinforce the native
and surrounding ecology and promote habitat
development.
(G) Ramps and stairs should be aesthetically pleasing as well as functional. In bridging the grade change, the
elevated open space should open views back across
the Tasman East neighborhood, up and down the
river, and toward Levi’s stadium. More distant views
to Downtown San Jose and the Diablo Mountain
Range should be considered.

05.2 RIVER DISTRICT
Credit: Perkins + WillCredit: Hargreaves Associates
Credit: yuggler.com
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 75
Permanent game tables create a social gathering space
Seating and landscape enhances and diversifies the functionality vertical circulation A variety of soft and hard scape creates a varied and
interesting experience

05.3 HILL DISTRICT
Intent
The Hill District park could potentially connect the site and City Place’s proposed Second Street. Second Street
connects northward and serves as an important bridge
connection across Lafayette Street.

Guidelines
(A) Ramps and stairs should be aesthetically pleasing as well as functional.
(B) Terraces along the grade change should be designed
to serve as meeting points and visual landmarks. In
bridging the grade change, the elevated open space
should open views to Levi’s Stadium, the Guadalupe
River and beyond.
(C) This park should include amenities to support the
neighborhood retail within the district such as
flexible seating areas, social gathering spaces, play
spaces and public art.
(D) Surrounded by development on two sides, this
park should be designed to be protected from
wind and down-drafts from buildings with strategic
tree planting and thoughtful siting of passive
programming.

Credit: Drew Kelly
Credit: ASPECT Studios Credit: MVVA Inc.
76 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Flexible seating areas create a signature amenity
The flexibility of a large lawn can allow for informal recreation like group exercise classes
Play areas are one of many program uses in this park.

The lawn can host community events like
movie screening
Intent
At the heart of the site, the parks in the Bridge and
Center Districts will be a signature social element of the open space network. These parks are the ideal location for intimate neighborhood-serving amenities, because they
are remote from busy Lafayette Street and Tasman Drive, but are still a short walk from the retail at Calle Del Sol.

Guidelines
(A) These parks can include a variety of landscaping
treatments, and should feature urban plazas,
tree-lined promenades, tot-lots, pocket gardens with
seating areas and lawns.
(B) Hardscape plazas and lawns should provide flexible
spaces to accommodate a range of activities for the
community, such as movies, picnics and community
events.
(C) The crossing at Calle de Luna should be designed
to prioritize pedestrian safety and visibility using a
raised tabletop intersection and warning lights.
(D) Surrounded by development on two or three sides,
these parks should be designed to be protected from
wind and down-drafts from buildings with strategic
tree planting and thoughtful siting of passive
programming.

05.4 BRIDGE & CENTER DISTRICTS
Credit: dillondiersphotography
Credit: Sylvia Martin
Credit: Carve, Amsterdam- project Osdorp Oever
Credit: brandurbanagency.com
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 77
Inviting play areas will attract families from
the neighboring communities
Public art can be experiential
Urban plazas can host community eventsPlazas should be nodes of activity within the block Intent
The location and configuration of the open space in the Station District should be designed as an urban plaza to complement the gateway experience from the Lick Mill
VTA Station and highlight this area as a center of activity for neighborhood residents, workers and visitors, see
Figure 03-8-1.

Guidelines
(A) Station District Park should be one large plaza
or form a network of plazas that offer an urban
social space for the neighborhood and enhance
connections between transit, greenways, open space
and the retail experience of Calle del Sol.
(B) Outdoor dining areas - either associated with
restaurants or open seating - should support the
connection to retail at Calle del Sol.
(C) Plazas in this area should feature public art and
other elements that enhance social interaction.
(D) Plazas should be designed to maximize sunlight
during the active hours of the day as well as
visibility and public access.

05.5 STATION DISTRICT
Credit: Rehwaldt Landschaftsarchitekten
Credit: Jim Campbell, Scattered Light, Northern Spark 2011 Credit: Perkins + Will Credit: Perkins + Will
Presented by Northern Lights.mn & Minnesota Museum of American Art 78 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
INTENT
Greenways are public throughways that provide a fine
grain of connections to subdivide large blocks. They will take advantage of code-required fire separation between buildings to create a variety of walking connections that provide a human-scaled pedestrian experience. Public
access easements will be required for greenways to ensure that they remain public at all times.

There is potential for sections of the same greenway to be constructed by separate entities, therefore the standards and guidelines below ensure that greenways will be
designed cohesively.

GUIDELINES
(A) Greenways should provide two distinct paths: a
minimum 12 foot wide, paved or raised boardwalk,
shared use path for pedestrians, cyclists, strollers,
etc and a 6 foot wide dirt/decomposed granite path
for walking and jogging. These paths can either be
side by side or separated by planted areas to count
towards the 10-acre open space requirement.
(B) Greenways may provide a minimum 20 foot wide
access for emergency vehicles. This area can be
partially planted as long as the planting can be
driven over in case of emergency (i.e. grasses but
not trees).
(C) Up to 50% of the surface area of a greenway may
be used for stormwater management. The remainder
of the surface area shall be used to create urban,
public spaces that provide opportunities for social
gathering.

05.6 GREENWAYS
(D) Greenways should provide durable, low-maintenance
seating at intervals of 100 feet or less to create
rest areas for pedestrians. Consider more frequent
seating for the comfort of people with limited
mobility. Consider incorporating seating into other
uses such as planters or stairs.
(E) In the interim condition where only one half of
a greenway is constructed at given phase, there
should be a minimum 5 foot clear walkway provided.

The interim design should be created to anticipate a
complete, cohesive design when finished.

Figure 05-6-1 Greenway Section

STEPBACK LINE
65ft 65ft STEPBACK LINE
5 to 10 ft
Setback5 to 10 ft
Setback
30ft greenway easementcombined
20 ft fire clearance
15ft
greenway
easement

SETBACK LINE

SETBACK LINE

PROPERTY LINE

GREENWAY EASEMENT

GREENWAY EASEMENT
12ft
multi-use
path
8ft
landscape
buffer
6ft
jogging
path (DG)
4ft
landscape
buffer
15ft
greenway
easement
5 ft 5 ft I- -I
I
I
I
I
I- -I
I
I
I
I
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 79
(F) Greenways should apply a consistent palette
of materials, paving, trees, lighting and street
furnishings to ensure clarity and legibility of
the greenway network. See Section 4.9 for
paving and lighting standards, and Section

4.10 for tree selection guidance.
(G) Greenways should be well-lit at night to ensure
safety.
(H) Greenways should have a diversity of plantings
and stormwater treatment areas should be
thoughtfully integrated into the overall design.
(I) Greenway connections to open space should be
aesthetically consistent.
(J) Seating areas should have a variety of
scales and be located at intervals along the
greenways, branching off from the continuous
pedestrian path. These spaces should be
socially-oriented and connected to the main
throughway with benches, planting and shade
structures (where appropriate).
(K) At important intersections or gathering places,
consider the use of catenary lighting and
overhead tree canopies to create a sense
of enclosure and scale while maintaining
pedestrian through-traffic.
(L) Specify low-maintenance, durable street
furnishings appropriate to adjacent uses and
program.
(M) Greenways should use a consistent family of
lighting fixtures. Lighting should be designed
to limit light intrusion into residential units.

Consider feature lighting at important non-
residential entrances. Also see Section 4.9
Paving and Lighting for site-wide lighting
guidelines.
(N) Create a rhythmic tree spacing based on
mature size of species selected and the
spacing of lighting. See also section 4.10
Urban Canopy for tree selection criteria.

Social seating areas Landscape-enhanced
pedestrian environment
Greenways will create an interesting and intimate experience for pedestrians and cyclists
Credit: Perkins + Will
Credit: Miller Company Landscape ArchitectsCredit: Fletcher Studio I
06 BUILDING DESIGN

GUIDELINES

06.1 Building Design 78

06.2 Bulk and Massing 80

06.3 Building Performance 84

06.4 Building Frontages 85

82 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

06.1 BUILDING DESIGN

BUILDING SCALE AND ORGANIZATION
Intent
The following guidelines are general guidance for
architecture that is not monolithic, but appropriately
scaled to create an interesting pedestrian experience, as well as architecture where the building program is legible and well-organized.

Guidelines
(A) Building design should use contrast and depth
to reinforce massing or programmatic changes.

For example, where the tower meets the podium,
building entries and building common areas are all
logical locations for notches, reveals, and changes in
materiality. Buildings should generally be articulated
with smaller scaled elements toward the base of
the building, and larger, more volumetric elements
toward the middle and top of the building.
(B) Residential buildings should express the scale and
proportion of individual residential units through
the use of balconies, expression of floorplates, and
recesses and projections.
(C) The streetwalls of buildings should be modulated
with insets, notches, and larger scale projections
that create shadow lines, conveying a sense of
volumetric depth and modulation, and to reduce the
apparent building mass;
(D) The lower floors of buildings should be more highly articulated with elements such as bay windows,
inset doorways, terraces, vertical piers, landscape
walls, art, and other design elements that reinforce
a human scale.

BUILDING FENESTRATION AND MATERIALS
Intent
Well-designed fenestration and high-quality materials
are essential in establishing buildings that convey the qualities of durability and permanence.

Guidelines
(E) Uninterrupted expanses of full-height glazing should be avoided, including on towers. For example,
vertical piers, horizontal balconies, or spandrel
panels can be used to break up expanses of glazing.
(F) Design the façade and cladding to be sustainable,
provide thermal comfort, give access to daylight,
minimize glaring reflections, and protect interior
spaces from glare.
(G) High quality materials should be used at the
pedestrian zone, with a preference for materials
that are tactile and durable and reflect the natural
quality of the material such as brick, stone, wood,
and tile.
(H) Avoid superficially applied finish materials. Where surface materials are used, ensure they turn the
corner and express an appropriate depth. For
example, if brick tile is used, corners should be clad
in corner pieces with an appropriate thickness, as
opposed to miter joints.
(I) The use of locally sourced and sustainable building materials is encouraged.
(J) Particular attention should be paid to the quality of window detailing.

ROOFTOPS AND OUTDOOR AMENITY AREAS
Intent
Podiums of buildings should provide generous common
spaces including usable rooftops or podium courtyards.

Rooftops of buildings should be considered a “fifth
façade” that is designed to be viewed from taller
buildings.

Standards
(K) In order to encourage the creation of usable outdoor space, balconies or stoops that are a minimum
of 36 square feet in area and have a minimum
dimension of 5 feet in any direction shall be allowed
25% of area credit toward the TEFA open space
requirement.

Guidelines
(L) Courtyards should be designed as welcoming
common spaces, incorporating the individual patios
of adjacent podium level units, or common indoor
amenities where appropriate.
(M) Courtyards should feature both paved and planted
areas. Planted areas must have adequate soil
volume to support mature plant growth, see section

03.7. (N) Courtyards should be designed to integrate any functional elements such as skylights, photovoltaic
panels and shading devices elegantly into the design
of the space.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 83
The tower should be designed to come to
ground in a way that reinforces the human
scale at the sidewalk.

Where used, fresh air intake grills or exhaust ducts shall be incorporated into wall cladding or fenestration design and shall not be recognizable.

Express the scale and proportion of individual residential units through the use of balconies, vertical notches or projections and contrasting materials or changes in fenestration.

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
Intent
Screening for mechanical equipment should be
incorporated into overall architectural character of the building.

Standards
(O) To avoid noise and air quality impacts on open
space areas, mechanical ducts or vents, with the
exception of residential kitchen and bathroom vents,
shall not be located adjacent to areas designated for
courtyards or common activity areas.
(P) Rooftop mechanical equipment greater than 4 feet
in height shall be screened in an enclosure that
also considers views from above. All screening
should be at least of equal height to the mechanical
equipment that it screens.
(Q) Where possible, vents for grease and garbage shall
be exhausted at the roof level or to a greenway.

Guidelines
(R) The location of ducts, vents, and other
appurtenances should be integrated into the
building design. Where used, fresh air intake grills
or exhaust ducts shall be incorporated into wall
cladding or fenestration design and should not be
conspicuous.
(S) Carefully consider the wind direction when
composing the roofscape, and organize all
mechanical equipment to minimize visibility.
(T) All other mechanical equipment or outdoor storage
areas should be screened with architectural detailing
equivalent to that of the rest of the building.

Materials should express their natural qualities.

Credit: Perkins + Will
Credit: DSDHA, Luca Miserocchi
Credit: Perkins+Will Credit: Perkins+Will
84 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

06.2 BULK AND MASSING
Intent
The experience of a place is shaped by the aesthetic
and scale of its buildings, the character and scale of the street and the relationship between the two. A sense of enclosure of the street makes the street feel like a series of urban rooms with a consistent ‘streetwall’, see Section

03.8. Tall buildings are an opportunity to mark the location of key site features and, when treated with appropriate detail and groundfloor use, can also enhance the public realm.

Standards
(A) Long, undifferentiated buildings that span an entire block can create a monotonous urban environment.

In order to create a more interesting and walkable
public realm, individual buildings should ideally
be no longer than 300 feet in length. For those
buildings that are longer than 300 feet in length
a building notch shall be provided on the podium
starting at the street level, for the entire height of
the façade, to break up the massing. The building
notch shall have a minimum dimension of 40 feet in
width and 15 feet in depth
(B) The maximum height on the site shall comply with
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 220 feet
above grade height limit. The height limit for the
site is inclusive of all vertical building elements
including tower tops. Where reasonable exemptions
from FAA height limits are sought, unoccupied
vertical projections may extend beyond the height
limit up to 40 feet.
(C) The maximum height of the base of a tower building
shall not exceed 85 feet. Any portion of a building
greater than 85 feet in height shall be considered a
tower and subject to tower bulk controls.
(D) Starting at 65 feet, buildings shall be articulated with a 5-foot average stepback from the streetwall,
including building recesses and protrusions, for
a minimum of 50% of each building frontage.

Balconies and other architectural elements such as
louvers are permitted in the recesses.
(E) The streetwall shall be varied and articulated to
create interest and diversity of experiences, forms
and materials along public ways. Variety is purposely
sought in order to avoid repetitive or over-sized
buildings and provide visual interest.
(F) In order to create visually appealing towers, ensure that they do not appear monolithic or bulky, and to
minimize shadow and wind impacts of towers on the
public realm, the following bulk controls apply:
- The maximum building envelope footprint shall
not exceed 12,000 square feet (with Director of
Community Development discretion to approve
projects that provide greater articulation for mass
reduction including reduced floor plates for the
upper stories, and higher quality of building
materials to have a maximum building envelope
footprint of up to 15,000 square feet).
- The maximum tower plan length is defined as
the greatest dimension parallel to the longest
side of the building at any level of the tower
above the base of the building. The maximum
tower plan dimension shall not exceed 230 feet
for buildings between 86 and 140 feet in height;
the maximum tower plan dimension shall not
exceed 160 feet for buildings above 141 feet
in height, unless a shift in plane of at least 15
feet in depth or at least 15 degrees from the
original plane is provided at a maximum of 140’
in length, in which case the maximum tower plan
dimension shall not exceed 200 feet.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 85
Low-Rise Mid-Rise High-Rise
Building Element Up to 65 feet facing streets
and greenways
66 - 85 feet facing streets and
greenways 86 - 220 feet
Stepback
Average of 5 feet from
streetwall for a minimum of
50% of frontage
Average of 5 feet from
streetwall for a minimum of
50% of frontage
N/A
Maximum Floor Plate Area * N/A N/A 12,000 square feet
Maximum Plan Length N/A N/A
230 feet for buildings between 86 and 140 feet in height The maximum tower plan dimension shall not exceed 160 feet for buildings above 141 feet in height, unless a shift in plane of at least 15 feet in depth or at least 15 degrees from the original plane is provided at a maximum of 140’ in length, in which case the maximum tower plan dimension shall not exceed 200 feet.

Maximum Apparent Face Length 80 feet 80 feet 140 feet
Change in Plane or Notch
3 feet change in plane for at
least 15 feet in the horizontal
dimension, or 3 feet wide by 5
feet deep notch
3 feet change in plane for at
least 15 feet in the horizontal
dimension, or 3 feet wide by 5
feet deep notch
4 feet change in plane for at least 12 feet in the horizontal dimension Tower Separation N/A N/A Minimum distance between the closest building points of two towers is 60 feet, measured from the nearest tower faces, see Figure 06-2-2 Figure 06-2-1 Bulk and Massing Guidelines
* See Standard F.
86 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Y
Figure 06-2-2 Distance Between Towers
Maximum
Apparent Face
(140’ max)
Streetwall
modulation
(80’ max)
Notch (min
3’ x 5’)
Setback
(5’to10’)
Maximum
streetwall height
(65’ on streets,
greenways, and
other easements)
Maximum
tower height
(220’ above
grade)Stepback above
the streetwall
(average of 5’)
Change
in plane
12’ x 4’
Figure 06-2-3 Bulk Controls
60’60’ 60’
No overlap of long facades.
: I
I
I
✓ ✓ X
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 87
(G) Broad or long tower facades shall be broken into
narrower apparent faces, adding visual relief in the
bulk of the façade and creating shadow lines which
add articulation, depth, and scale. Tower floorplates
shall comply with the following maximum apparent
face standards:
- All towers with floorplates over 10,000 square
feet are limited to a maximum apparent face of
140 feet, after which there is a required change
in plane of at least 12 feet in the horizontal
dimension by a minimum of 4 feet in depth.

A notch is not considered a change in plane.
- Buildings that have rounded facades or faceted
planes that can show that the maximum
apparent face and change in plane meet the
intent of this bulk reduction will satisfy this
requirement.
- Changes in plane shall be accompanied by a
change in material and/or fenestration.
(H) To preserve views and privacy for tower occupants,
planar faces of towers shall be separated one from
another. The minimum distance between the closest
building points of two towers is 60 feet, measured
from the nearest tower faces, see Figure 06-2-2 for
examples of how this may be achieved.

Guidelines
(I) To modulate the streetwall, every 80 feet horizontal or less, use either: a change in plane of at least
3 feet in the horizontal dimension combined with
a change in material or fenestration; or a vertical
notch of at least 3 feet depth and 5 feet width,
combined with a change in material or fenestration.

See Figure 06-2-3.
(J) These massing changes shall relate to the overall
building design, design of the tower, and to other
prominent building elements such as fenestration
patterns and building entries.
(K) The tops of towers are highly visible elements which are identifiable from a distance and contribute to a
larger site identity and project skyline. Tower tops
should use the following approaches;
- Tower tops should be shaped with wall plane
extensions and other non-habitable elements,
and should be designed to allow for building
differentiation and architectural expression.
- There should be a relationship between the
design of the base of the building and tower
which gives a sense of the tower touching the
ground.
- A similar palette of materials, colors and
fenestration should continue from upper building
to base building, so as to create a unified
composition.
(L) The massing of buildings can impact street
level microclimates, making for a comfortable or
uncomfortable pedestrian experience. Consideration
should be given to how the building’s massing might
impact the public realm, private and semiprivate
outdoor spaces, particularly in terms of shadow and
wind.
88 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Intent
In addition to the performance targets listed in Section

3.9, buildings are encouraged to seek high levels of
performance relative to energy, water use, carbon
reductions and waste diversion for buildings regarding
more sustainable choices.

Standards
(A) Buildings shall provide “solar ready” infrastructure such as solar panel standoffs, conduit and roof
water spigots that minimize the cost and effort of
adding solar capacity at a later date, as per the
California Green Building Standards Code.

Guidelines
(B) Buildings should be designed with operable windows
and vents that allow for natural ventilation of
the building in case of power outages in extreme
weather events.
(C) Buildings that allow for natural ventilation reduce energy consumption for heating and cooling and
provide a higher-quality indoor environment.

Consideration should be given to optimizing
floorplates and unit layouts to allow for cross-
ventilation.
(D) Buildings should be designed to maximize the use
of daylighting for all inhabited interior spaces in
order to provide a high quality indoor environment,
reduce overall energy consumption and reduce
exposure to artificial lighting which can negatively
impact human health.
(E) West- and south-facing facades should be designed
to balance solar access with the need to control heat
gain.
(F) Where building roofs are free of solar panels or
other sustainability infrastructure, they should be
designed to include systems such as vegetated
roof covers, plants and roofing materials with high
albedo surfaces in order to reduce heat island effect
and slow rainwater runoff.
(G) Whenever possible, incorporate visible elements of
sustainability – such as green roofs, shading devices
or photovoltaic panels – into the fabric of the
building, so as to make visible the building’s energy
saving features.
(H) Provide interpretive signage to explain the features of the building which promote sustainability,
and to educate visitors and occupants how their
behavior can make an impact on overall building
performance.

06.3 BUILDING PERFORMANCE
A residential roofscape should be considered a “fifth facade”.

Sustainable timber used as a visible green design element.

Credit: Linazasoro&Sanchez,
Credit: Perkins+Will
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 89

06.4 BUILDING FRONTAGES
18’ MIN. OCCUPIED

HABITABLE SPACE

FRONTAGE
ZONE
3’
5 to 10ft
Provide adequate
depth for planting
PL
B
B
B
C
C
D
D
A
A

ABOVE SIDEWALK
LEVEL

BUILDING ELEMENT

PROJECTION
DEPTH

MINIMUM
HIEGHT

SIDEWALK
LEVEL
BELOW
GRADE
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS: ALLOWABLE SETBACK PROJECTIONS
Enclosed Building Area
Unenclosed Building Area
Architectural Elements
Signage
Lighting
Canopies & Awnings
Stairs, Stoops, Patios,
Terraces, and Planted
Areas
Garages, Basements
Full depth of
setback
5 to 10ft
Full depth of
setback
5 to 10ft
3’
3’
2’
3’
3’
8’
24 to 48
inches
at least 12’
at least12’
at least 8’
at least 10’
at least 10’
at least 10’
NA
5’ to 10’ SETBACK
15’-0”
MIN.
5 to 10ft
PL

FRONTAGE
ZONE
3’
B
C
D
A
MIXED USE BUILDINGS: ALLOWABLE SETBACK PROJECTIONS
5’ to 10’ SETBACK
Provide adequate
depth for planting
Figure 06-4-1 Allowed projections in setbacks for mixed-use and residential buildings 18’ MIN. OCCUPIED

HABITABLE SPACE

FRONTAGE
ZONE
3’
5 to 10ft
Provide adequate
depth for planting
PL
B
B
B
C
C
D
D
A
A

ABOVE SIDEWALK
LEVEL

BUILDING ELEMENT

PROJECTION
DEPTH

MINIMUM
HIEGHT

SIDEWALK
LEVEL
BELOW
GRADE
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS: ALLOWABLE SETBACK PROJECTIONS
Enclosed Building Area
Unenclosed Building Area
Architectural Elements
Signage
Lighting
Canopies & Awnings
Stairs, Stoops, Patios,
Terraces, and Planted
Areas
Garages, Basements
Full depth of
setback
5 to 10ft
Full depth of
setback
5 to 10ft
3’
3’
2’
3’
3’
8’
24 to 48
inches
at least 12’
at least12’
at least 8’
at least 10’
at least 10’
at least 10’
NA
5’ to 10’ SETBACK

SETBACKS
Intent
Building setbacks create a transitional zone between the building face and the sidewalk, where retail uses can spill out or residential users can experience public life at a comfortable social distance.

Standards
(A) All building frontages shall be set back between 5
and 10 feet horizontally from the property line or
sidewalk easement or existing 5-foot public utility
easement as illustrated in Figure 06-4-1, subject to
Public Works Triangle of Safety considerations, and
except where a building notch is provided to comply
with Standard 6.2A. Should a notch be provided,
then that portion of building frontage setback may
exceed 10 feet.
(B) The following building elements are allowed to
project horizontally into the setback zone at the
following dimensions and at certain heights above
sidewalk grade, as listed below and illustrated in
Figure 06-4-1.
- Enclosed or unenclosed building area may
project up to 3 feet, at a height of at least 12
feet above sidewalk grade;
- Architectural elements such as cornices and
shading devices may project up to 2 feet and
must be at least 8 feet above sidewalk grade;
- Building signage and lighting may project up
to 3 feet and must be at least 10 feet above
sidewalk grade;
- Canopies and awnings may project up 8 feet and
must be at least 10 feet above sidewalk grade;
- Steps, stoops, terraces and patios may project up
to the full depth of the setback and may be up to
48 inches in height; and
- Planting beds may project up to the full depth of
the setback and may be raised up to 48 inches
above sidewalk grade.
0 0
0 0
=======:
90 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

GROUND FLOOR RETAIL AND ACTIVE USES
Intent
Ground floor retail and other active uses enliven and
activate streets, enhancing the public interface between the buildings and the sidewalk. See section 03.5 for more on active use.

Standards
(A) Ground floor retail is required along the Calle Del Sol frontages indicated in Figure 03-5-3.
(B) Retail facades must be at least 75 percent
transparent between 2 feet and 12 feet above
sidewalk grade; all other non-residential active use
facades must be at least 50 percent transparent
between 2 feet and 12 feet above sidewalk grade.
(C) To ensure ground floor retail spaces that will create a fine-grain scale at dimensions that will feasibly
support retail tenants, retail frontages shall comply
with the following dimensions and requirements:
- Minimum ground floor height shall be 15 feet
from floor to floor;
- Retail spaces must be at least 30 feet deep;
however, depths of up to 60 feet are preferable;
- On Calle del Sol, individual retail frontages are
preferred to be 15 to 30 feet to create a finer
grain of activity along the street. Exceptions in
maximum width can be made to accommodate
local serving tenants, such as grocery stores.

Guidelines
(D) Retail frontages should maintain clear lines of sight into the retail spaces; for example shelves or signs
should not be placed in front of windows such that
a pedestrian walking by cannot see into the space.
(E) Retail is encouraged along Tasman Drive and Calle
de Luna Street frontages, as well as at Riverside
Park corners at Lick Mill Boulevard, at a 30 foot
minimum depth.

GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL
Intent
Residential stoops create a social edge to a neighborhood street. When set back by a small distance and vertically above the sidewalk grade, they can also ensure privacy at a comfortable social distance for a residential unit.

Standards
(A) Where units are located at the ground floor, at least 50% of units on each frontage must be individually
accessed from the sidewalk via stoops, side yards or
other means.
(B) Stoops that face public rights of way shall be set at least 24 inches above sidewalk grade.
(C) Stoops shall have a minimum 5 foot landing depth
with room for a table and chairs to provide an
opportunity for residents to engage in the social life
of the street.

Guidelines
(D) Doorways that are moderately inset provide visual
relief and articulation on the façade and focus
attention on the active areas of the building. Each
residential doorway or entry should be recessed from
the building façade or provide a projecting overhead
covering of at least 2 feet in depth.
(E) Areas between stoops should be planted and can be
an opportunity to provide stormwater management
elements.

GROUND FLOOR LIVE/WORK
Intent
Live/work spaces are often preferred by artists, therapists, architects and other types of creative or service-related industries. Because they are often designed as a loft-
style or townhome unit with the ground floor space as the public-facing part of the unit, they are a good option for a sidewalk-level use that actively engages the public realm and allows for more visibility while also adding to the range of available housing types.

Standards
(A) All live/work units shall be individually accessed
from a street or greenway.
(B) Because live/work units are meant to be public-
facing, they should be entered at-grade and are not
required to be elevated above sidewalk level.
(C) Live/work units must be at least 50 percent
transparent between 2 feet and 10 feet above
sidewalk grade.
(D) Each live/work doorway or entry shall be recessed
from the building façade by at least 2 feet in depth.

Guidelines
(E) Live/work residences should be designed to orient
the nonresidential portions of the unit toward the
street or greenway.
(F) In setbacks, use planting to create a sense of
separation of the frontage from the public realm and
lend a visual identity to individual doorways.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 91
MAX 3’

PROJECTIONS

PARKING

RESIDENTIAL
RETAIL
24”
ABOVE

SIDEWALK

RESIDENTIAL
MINMUM 15’
MINUMUM 15’LIVE / WORK

RESIDENTIAL
5 to 10’

SETBACK
5 to 10’

SETBACK
5 to 10’

SETBACK

FURNITURE

ZONE VARIES
Sig�
Ground Floor Retail Ground Floor Residential
MAX 3’

PROJECTIONS

PARKING

RESIDENTIAL
RETAIL
24”
ABOVE

SIDEWALK

RESIDENTIAL
MINMUM 15’
MINUMUM 15’LIVE / WORK

RESIDENTIAL
5 to 10’

SETBACK
5 to 10’

SETBACK
5 to 10’

SETBACK

FURNITURE

ZONE VARIES
Sig� Ground Floor Live/Work and Neighborhood Light Industrial MAX 3’

PROJECTIONS

PARKING

RESIDENTIAL
RETAIL
24”
ABOVE

SIDEWALK

RESIDENTIAL
MINMUM 15’
MINUMUM 15’LIVE / WORK

RESIDENTIAL
5 to 10’

SETBACK
5 to 10’

SETBACK
5 to 10’

SETBACK

FURNITURE

ZONE VARIES
Sig�
Figure 06-4-2 Ground Floor Sections
Fi . I
I
I -c
92 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Active edges allow for indoor uses to spill out and activate the public realm.

A stoop with a small setback and planting creates a
comfortable social distance from the street.

High ground-floors allow for live-work units. Production uses should incorporate a retail aspect to invite customers in to activate the space.

GROUND FLOOR NEIGHBORHOOD LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
Intent
Maker spaces at the ground floor of a building contribute a unique identity to an urban neighborhood, allowing
people to see and experience where goods are made
firsthand. Much like farmer’s markets connect consumers to the people who grow their food, urban manufacturing
connects consumers to the people who make the
products they use in their everyday lives. Examples of
urban manufacturing are urban wineries and breweries,
chocolate-makers, coffee roasteries, furniture-makers,
print-makers and jewelery-makers.

Most urban “makers” require spaces that have similar
venting, electricity, and gas needs to a typical retail space. There are a few exceptions to this: coffee
roasteries require extra venting and urban wineries require additional drainage.

Standards
(A) The minimum ground floor height shall be 15 feet
clear from floor to ceiling for ease of stacking goods, or to allow for a mezzanine office.
(B) Light industrial ground floor spaces shall be a
minimum of 20 feet in depth and at least 35 feet
in one dimension; however, depths of 60 feet are
preferable.
(C) Light industrial ground floor facades shall be at
least 65 percent transparent between two feet and
twelve feet above sidewalk grade.

Guidelines
(D) Light industrial frontages should feature large doors such as roll-up or sliding doors which will allow
for stacked goods and large equipment to be more
easily moved in and out of the spaces.

Credit: Perkins + Will
Credit: Perkins + Will Credit: SF Made
Credit: San Francisco Giants
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 93

PARKING AND LOADING FRONTAGES
Intent
Parking and loading are necessary uses for a building,
but where they dominate a frontage, they need to create a pleasant and inviting pedestrian experience.

Standards
(A) Driveway access shall be designed to clearly
prioritize pedestrians, according to the following
requirements:
- Driveway crossings shall maintain the elevation
of the sidewalk;
- Driveway aprons shall not extend into the
pedestrian clear walkway where cross slopes
are limited to a maximum of 2 percent; steeper
driveway slopes are permitted in the furnishing
and edge zones of the streets;
- The dimensions and design of parking entry
and exit points shall be coordinated with the
requirements for stormwater treatment areas and
street trees; and
- Curb cuts shall be minimized on greenways or
open spaces, with at most only one maximum
allowable curb cut intersecting greenway or open
space per project.
(B) Parking entries and loading docks may be located
on any frontage except those facing Calle del Sol,
where maximum one curb cut per side of street per
block shall be allowed.
(C) Off-street parking entries and loading docks shall be designed according to the following criteria:
- Parking garage entries shall be no wider than 25
linear feet;
- Loading docks shall be no wider than 25 linear
feet;
- Transformer doors shall be limited to 12 feet of
frontage; and
- Where possible, access for parking and loading
shall be grouped together to limit the number of
curb cuts.
(D) Parking entries and loading docks may be located
on any frontage except those facing Calle del Sol,
where maximum one curb cut per side of street per
block shall be allowed unless deemed infeasible
by the Director of Community Development and
sufficient distance and setbacks are provided.
(E) Exposed structured parking at the street level shall not be permitted on any façade facing a public
right-of-way or greenway.
(F) In order to ensure surveillance and safety for
parking garage frontages, a minimum of 75 percent
of the cumulative length of the total ground floor
frontage on the same grade as and facing a street,
greenway, or open space frontage of an above-grade
parking structure shall be lined with active ground
floor spaces such as residential unit stoops, lobbies,
community rooms or other equivalent use. In no
instance shall any individual parking garage, ground
floor frontage be less than 25% active uses. The
remaining facade length (any amount of ground
floor facade length without active uses) shall be
mitigated with landscaping, artwork or high-quality,
durable materials that create visual interest.
(G) The maximum distance for a blank wall of an above-
ground garage is 150’. A blank wall is one that does
not have architectural screening or is not screened
with lush landscaping treatment.

Guidelines
(H) Gates for parking garages should be visually
transparent if adjacent to the street for an increased
sense of safety brought by higher visibility between
the street level and the interior parking garage.
(I) Parking entries and stairways linking parking
structures to public ways should be attractive, well-
lit and secure.
(J) Half-level openings or ventilation grill work should be designed to the same level of architectural detail
as the rest of the building.
07 IMPLEMENTATION

07.1 Funding, Financing, and
Implementation 92

07.2 Phasing & Thresholds 99

07.3 Project Administration 101

07.4 Capital Improvements 102

96 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

07.1 FUNDING, FINANCING, AND IMPLEMENTATION

INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH
The Tasman East Specific Plan specifies new public
infrastructure and amenities required to support the
emergence of a walkable, transit-oriented district with residential and retail uses. This section outlines a
strategic approach to selecting and implementing funding sources for constructing these public improvements.

The first part of the strategy identifies major projects and their costs, followed by an overview of funding and financing sources/mechanisms applicable to the projects.

This section concludes with a description of the next
steps for determining final public and private funding
responsibilities and mechanisms.

MAJOR PROJECTS AND COSTS
The public infrastructure and amenity improvements
identified in this Specific Plan fall into three primary categories of streets, utilities, and parks and open
space. Street and utility improvements are estimated to cost a total of approximately $30-50 million (in 2020
nominal dollars) for related design, construction, and land acquisition costs. These improvements do not include
project frontage sidewalks, driveways, curb & gutter, ADA ramps, streetlights, or utility lateral connections. To complete the street and utility improvements, there is a proposed Infrastructure Impact Fee for proposed residential development within the Specific Plan area. The proposed fee will be determined by dividing the total cost of street and utility improvements by the total number of residential units within the Specific Plan area. This fee will be due prior to issuance of building permits. The City Council will review and adopt the Infrastructure Impact Fee, which is anticipated to include funding the costs of the following construction items:

FUNDING SOURCE CATEGORIES AND EXAMPLES

CATEGORY EXAMPLES
Developer Contributions Development Standards
CEQA Mitigations
Infrastructure Fee / Impact / In-Lieu Fees
Negotiated Agreements
City Resources General Fund
Capital Improvement Program
User Fees
Outside Grants Regional, State, and Federal Grants
District-Based Tools Assessment District
Community Facilities District
Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District
• Sanitary Sewer: Upgrades to the Primavera Sanitary
Sewer Pump Station, a pump station enclosure with
enhanced design and art work;
• Storm Drainage: Storm drain extension at Calle de
Mundo at Lafayette Street and a 33-inch storm drain
relocation.
• Pavement repair on Calle de Luna, Calle de Mundo,
Calle de Sol
• Calle de Sol Pedestrian and Bicycle Paseo: Paseo
construction and land dedication costs
• Traffic mitigations and fair share funding, new traffic signals, and traffic safety devices
• Water line replacement on Calle Del Sol, Calle De
Luna, & Calle De Mundo
• New Recycled Water Lines
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 97

FUNDING SOURCE CATEGORIES AND EXAMPLES

CATEGORY EXAMPLES
Developer Contributions Infrastructure Fee Development
Standards
CEQA Mitigations
Impact / In-Lieu Fees
Negotiated Agreements
City Resources General Fund
Capital Improvement Program
User Fees
Outside Grants Regional, State, and Federal Grants
District-Based Tools Assessment District
Community Facilities District
Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District
The Tasman East Specific Plan will also require ongoing funding for operation and maintenance costs associated
with new infrastructure, amenities, and general population growth. Examples include street maintenance, park
maintenance, police and fire services, general government services, and administrative costs for implementation
of the Specific Plan and any Transportation Demand
Management programs.

FUNDING AND FINANCING SOURCES AND MECHANISMS
A spectrum of potential funding sources and mechanisms
exist for implementing the improvements identified in
the Tasman East Specific Plan. This section describes
these sources and mechanisms and their potential uses in Tasman East. While the Infrastructure Fee is anticipated to contribute substantial funding for the improvements, in some cases multiple funding sources may need to be
combined to pay for specific projects.

Although the terms “funding” and “financing” are often
used interchangeably, there is an important distinction between the two terms. “Funding” typically refers to a
revenue source such as a tax, fee, or grant that is used to pay for an improvement. Some funding sources, such
as impact fees, are one-time payments, while others,
such as assessments, are ongoing payments. “Financing”
involves borrowing from future revenues by issuing bonds or other debt instruments that are paid back over time
through taxes or fee payments, enabling agencies to pay for infrastructure before the revenue to cover the full cost of the infrastructure is available.

Funding for improvements in Tasman East will come
from a mix of developer contributions (both required
and negotiated), city resources, outside grants, and
district-based “value capture” mechanisms. The funding
responsibilities for private developers and the City are clear in some instances – for example, developers must
meet minimum development standards requirements
and pay citywide impact fees for infrastructure. However, funding many of the infrastructure improvements in
Tasman East – improvements that are necessary to
support the higher-density growth mutually desired
by the City and developers – will require negotiations
with developers and property owners to clarify funding
responsibilities and to establish new mechanisms, such
as the Infrastructure Fee.

Implementation of the Tasman East plan will also require more detailed studies and an ongoing management
process involving the City, developers/property owners, and local utility providers. This process is described
in more detailed following this description of funding
sources.

Developer Contributions:
• Development Standards: Each new development
project will contribute to the Specific Plan’s
implementation by meeting requirements regulating
each project’s land uses, height, density, bulk, parking requirements, on-site circulation, on-site open space,
street frontage improvements, and other requirements
specified in the Specific Plan. These standards are
adopted in the City’s zoning ordinance and must be
satisfied in order for a project to be granted approval. • Infrastructure Fee: As stated above, there are $25-35 million of anticipated infrastructure improvements,
which will be paid for by the individual developers
through a prorated Infrastructure Fee. The
Infrastructure Fee is subject to City Council review and approval.
• Reimbursement Agreements: If a developer is required
to provide additional infrastructure capacity or
amenities to serve the entire district, a reimbursement agreement could be established to receive payments
from later developers who benefit from these early
improvements.
• CEQA Mitigations: As a requirement of approval under
the Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report,
developers may be required to contribute to mitigation
measures. Traffic mitigations are anticipated to be
paid for through the Infrastructure Fee.
98 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
City Resources:
• General Fund: General Fund revenues include property
tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and other
revenues that are primarily used to pay for ongoing
municipal services and operations. Both the General
Fund and the Capital Improvement Program are likely
to be needed to fund the Specific Plan’s highest-
priority infrastructure improvements.
• Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Infrastructure
projects identified in the Specific Plan are candidates for inclusion in the City’s Capital Improvement
Program.
• User Fees: User fees and rates include the fees
charged for the use of public infrastructure or goods.

It may be possible to use a portion of user fee or
rate revenue toward financing the costs of new
infrastructure, but user fees are unlikely to be a major source of funding for implementation of the Specific
Plan.
• Impact / In-Lieu Fees: Impact fees are one-time
fees imposed on new developments to pay for
improvements and facilities that either serve the new
development or reduce the impacts of the project
on the existing community. Fee revenues cannot be
used to fund existing deficiencies in infrastructure.

The City of Santa Clara already has citywide impact
fees for traffic mitigation, sanitary sewer, storm drain, and parks, but can also establish fees unique to the
Specific Plan Area through a nexus study. Any Specific
Plan fee and corresponding study will be brought
forward for City Council review and approval.
• Negotiated Agreements: Community benefits are
developer contributions that exceed the baseline
features required under development standards,
environmental mitigation measures, and fees.

Community benefits agreements can be negotiated
with developers individually, but the existence of
multiple major developers in Tasman East creates an
opportunity to craft a negotiated agreement with these
developers simultaneously.

Outside Grants:

Various federal, state, and regional grant programs
distribute funding for public improvements. Because grant programs are typically competitive, grant funds are an
unpredictable funding source, and the City of Santa Clara must remain vigilant in applying for grants to implement the Specific Plan. Unique grant funding opportunities
may become available due to Tasman East’s designation
as a priority development area and its inclusion of high- capacity transit service.

District-Based “Value Capture” Tools:

Land-based financing tools are typically associated with new real estate development to generate benefit-based
special assessment revenues or property tax revenues
to finance improvements through bond repayment or
paying for improvements over time. District-based tools provide a stable revenue stream while ensuring that
properties benefitting from improvements also contribute to those public investments. The following table describes the three primary types of district-based funding and
financing tools. Note that assessment districts and
community facilities districts primarily capture additional funding from private entities, while the enhanced
infrastructure financing district reinvests growth in public property tax revenues within the district.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 99

SUMMARY OF MAJOR DISTRICT-BASED VALUE CAPTURE TOOLS

FUNDING TOOL DESCRIPTION USES CONSIDERATIONS
Special Assessment Districts
Additional assessment against a range of
participants, depending on the type of
district and relative benefit received.

Examples include: Landscaping and
Lighting District, Community Benefit
District, Business Improvement District.

Most useful for funding ongoing
operations and maintenance.

Requires majority vote of paying stakeholders.

Increases costs and risk for paying stakeholders.

Stakeholders need to perceive a clear benefit for
themselves.

Impacts paying stakeholders' overall ability to support other taxes, fees, and community benefits.

Little financial risk to the City or public agencies;
could lead to increased tax revenue based on private
reinvestment.

Additional City staff time to administer districts could offset some gains.

Community Facilities District
Additional assessment on property, levied
and varied based on a selected property
characteristic (excluding property value).

Infrastructure improvements,
development of public
facilities, ongoing operations
and maintenance.

Requires approval of 2/3 of property owners (by land area) if there are fewer than 12 registered voters residing in the district.

Boundaries can include non-contiguous parcels.

Fees can be proportionally subdivided and passed on to
future property / home owners.

Increases costs and risk for landowners and homeowners if fees dissuade buyers or reduce achievable sales prices.

Impacts paying stakeholders' overall ability to support other taxes, fees, and community benefits.

Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing District
Diverts a portion of future General Fund
property tax revenues generated within the
district to help fund infrastructure projects.

Infrastructure improvements,
development of public
facilities, affordable housing
development.

Formation does not require a local vote, but bond issuance requires a vote of 55 percent of landowners by area if
there are fewer than 12 registered voters residing in the district.

Does not cost individual property owners additional fees and taxes.

Does not divert revenues from schools.

Reduces future General Fund revenues by restricting use of the district's future property tax revenue growth.
100 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

IMPLEMENTING THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
The envisioned growth in Tasman East represents a long- term, ongoing generator of operating revenues for Santa Clara. Tasman East is likely to generate significant net revenue due to increases in assessed values. Growth will also help the City of Santa Clara accommodate desired
housing increases in a format and setting that encourages fewer automobile trips on the City’s roadways.

Achieving these fiscal, housing, and transportation
benefits will require new infrastructure and amenities
identified in this Specific Plan. Some infrastructure items need to be constructed or initiated in the early stages of transformation to support future population densities and avoid missed opportunities for land acquisition. Thus, the City must play an active role in these early investments, while ensuring that each development project contributes its fair share toward capital and operating costs.

The following implementation strategy outlines the
process for delivering the infrastructure and programs
necessary to support Tasman East’s growth.

Short-Term Actions: Immediate Steps
“Short-term actions” should be undertaken immediately
upon adoption of the Tasman East Specific Plan. These
actions include determining more detailed costs of area improvements, establishing the specific legal mechanisms to fund development and implementation of the Specific
Plan itself, and engaging with developers active in Tasman East to determine funding/financing responsibilities.

The goal of the short-term actions is to ensure that
the City and private property owners/developers share
a clear understanding of who is paying for different
improvements, and to lay the groundwork for establishing new funding/financing tools.

1. Establish an ongoing City management structure and
staffing resources for Specific Plan implementation:

The City should ensure adequate staff resources and
decision-making authority are in place to proactively
undertake implementation of the Specific Plan
and achieve the General Fund revenue increases
resulting from growth in Tasman East.

2. Establish a reimbursement fee for Specific Plan and
EIR creation, adoption, and ongoing implementation
costs. A reimbursement fee will ensure developers
contribute toward the City’s costs of implementing
the Specific Plan. These fees are enabled under
Section 65456 of the California Government Code.

3. Identify projects requiring partnerships with other
implementing agencies/organizations. Several
infrastructure projects – particularly utilities projects – are likely to require partnerships with other
agencies, such as Santa Clara Valley Water District
and Silicon Valley Power. The City must identify
required partnerships to lay the groundwork for later
construction and to explore funding and financing
options.

4. Engage with developers and property owners to
evaluate the potential creation of district-based
funding mechanisms for infrastructure construction
or operations and maintenance of improvements. As
shown in the following section, a variety of district-
based funding mechanisms can be applied to the
infrastructure and/or operations and maintenance
costs of public facilities in Tasman East, each with
unique considerations for use and approval. Many of
these tools require a vote of local property owners,
and may take time to study and approve.

5. Identify any infrastructure projects that will require funding sources beyond those required as a
development standard or CEQA mitigation. Explore
creation of a new Infrastructure Fee to fund these
projects.

6. Complete a detailed public facilities financing plan.

The plan would identify precise cost estimates for
improvements, phasing of improvements, allocation
of costs between public and private entities, and a
detailed funding and financing plan.

Mid-Term Actions: Tying to Development Activity
“Mid-term actions” should occur as development activity commences. These actions focus on establishing new
funding/financing tools, commencing the first phases of construction of public improvements, and ensuring that
developers build agreed-upon development-related and
site-specific improvements. High priority should be given to acquiring any land needed for later infrastructure and parks projects. Major actions include:

1. Establish an Infrastructure Fee, as determined in
previous actions.

2. If agreement can be reached with property owners
and developers, establish district-based funding
mechanisms. The City, property owners, and
developers should establish agreed-upon district-
based funding mechanisms, including any impact
fees, voter approvals, and enabling legislation.

3. Pursue partnerships for implementation with other
agencies/organizations, as determined in the short-
term actions.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 101

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND APPLICABLE FUNDING SOURCES IN THE TASMAN EAST SPECIFIC PLAN AREA

IMPROVEMENT CATEGORIES

DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS DISTRICT-BASED MECHANISMS CITY RESOURCES OUTSIDE SOURCES Development
Standards
CEQA
Mitigations
of Project
Impacts
Impact / In-
Lieu / Other
Fees*
Negotiated
Agreements
Assessment
District (LLD,

PBID, CBD)
CFD EIFD General
Fund
Capital
Improvement
Program
Funds
User
Fees
Other Regional,
State, and
Federal Grants
Streets and Sidewalks
Major intersection and street
construction X X X X X X X X
Additions of new streets X X X X X X X X
New intersections at new streets X X X X X X X X X
Streetscape enhancements:
widened sidewalks, landscaping,
lighting, street furniture

X X X X X X X X X
Parks and Open Space
Acquisition of land for parks and
plazas X X X X X X X
Construction of new parks and
plazas X X X X X X X
Land Use
Desired ground floor uses X X
Utilities
District-wide utilities
improvements X X X X X X X
On-site utilities improvements X X X X X X
School X X X X X
* Includes Infrastructure Fee
102 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Long-Term and Ongoing Actions
“Long-term and ongoing actions” should occur over time
as development proposals are submitted, outside grant
funding opportunities arise and growth generates new
needs.

1. Pursue grant funding opportunities, as available and applicable. The City should continuously monitor
and pursue state, regional and local grant funding
opportunities as they emerge.

2. Developments in the Tasman East Specific Plan
may be required to participate in a Transportation
Management Association, which may include a
shuttle and/or other alternative mode measures.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 103

07.2 PHASING & THRESHOLDS
Although it is not possible to accurately predict if and when each of the individual properties within Tasman
East will redevelop, it is reasonable to assume, given
the shared intentions of various property owners
and stakeholders/developers, that the first phase
of transformation is likely to include most of the
perimeter properties (except the data center near
Tasman Drive and Lafayette Street and the strip mall
facing Tasman Drive), including the “loop” roads of
Calle De Luna and Calle Del Mundo.

See “Figure 07-2-1 Phase One Diagram”.

Phase two will include redevelopment of the “island
properties”, should that occur, extension of Calle Del
Sol, and relocation of the Primavera Pump Station
and cell towers which are affected by the Calle Del Sol extension “Figure 07-2-2 Phase Two Diagram.”
The Lick Mill Boulevard extension between Tasman
Drive and City Place 2nd Street will be contingent on
the City Place development schedule.

Site Boundary
Phase One
Phase Two
Non-participating properties
Phase One Roadway
Paseo(Phase Two)
Figure 07-2-1 Phase One Diagram
Figure 07-2-2 Phase Two Diagram.

Lick Mill Boulevard
Lick Mill Boulevard
Great America Station
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Soil
Avenue D Guadalupe River Trail
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle Del Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Station
City Place
Guadalupe River
Ulistac
Natural Area
Great America Station
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Soil
Avenue D Guadalupe River Trail
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle Del Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Station
City Place
Guadalupe River
Ulistac
Natural Area
N
N
-----
104 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

OPEN SPACE
Each landowner/developer will be responsible for
construction, dedication and maintenance of their
parkland contribution.

CALLE DEL SOL PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PASEO
The extension of Calle Del Sol between Calle De Luna and Calle Del Mundo as a pedestrian and bicycle paseo will be implemented as development on the central block occurs.

The extension will require partial dedication of four
properties, upgrades to the Primavera Pump Station at
its current location including an enclosure with enhanced design and art work, and the relocation of one cell tower, located towards the rear of the property facing Calle De Luna. The cost of these improvements, excluding the cell tower relocation, will need to be shared among all owners intending to redevelop their properties within all of the Tasman East Specific Plan through a proposed area-wide
Infrastructure Impact Fee which is to be adopted by the City Council. The pedestrian and bicycle paseo is to be maintained privately by properties that are redeveloping within Tasman East privately through participation in
a Property Owners Association, Community Facilities
District, or through another method of fair share
contribution approved by the City of Santa Clara.

LICK MILL BOULEVARD EXTENSION
The construction of Lick Mill Boulevard by the Related
Companies is required as a mitigation measure for the
development of City Place. If the implementation of
Lick Mill Boulevard, or some temporary alternative, is
required by Tasman East prior to the date of intended
implementation by City Place, further negotiations with the Related Companies will be required.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 105

07.3 PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

TASMAN EAST SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTION
The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing with proper public notice, and issue a report on its findings and recommendations to the City Council on the following applications for approval: 1) the Tasman East Specific Plan, which shall legally function as a Specific Plan
applicable to properties addressed herein; 2) a General Plan Amendment, involving revisions to both text and
land use diagram in order to achieve consistency with the Tasman East Specific Plan; and 3) a Zone Change and
Zoning Text Amendments that will maintain consistency
and support implementation of the Tasman East Specific
Plan. Subsequently, the City Council shall hold a
public hearing to consider the Commission’s report and
approvals. The Tasman East Specific Plan and General
Plan Amendment shall be adopted by Resolution, while
the Zone Change and Zoning Text Amendments shall be
adopted by ordinance.

TASMAN EAST SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
Modification to the Tasman East Specific Plan shall be
subject to the same procedures as described for Plan
adoption, including a public hearing and recommended
action by the Planning Commission, and a public
hearing and approval by resolution by the City Council.

Amendments to the Tasman East Specific Plan shall be
analyzed for consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and may require corresponding amendments to
those documents.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
All development projects within the Tasman East Specific Plan Area shall be subject to Architectural Review in
accordance with the procedures described in Chapter

18.76 of the Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance. These
procedures are intended to promote development in
accordance with the Tasman East Specific Plan concept,
policies, and guidelines, as well as any other applicable City ordinances and standards. In particular, proposals shall meet the development standards and substantially
conform to the design guidelines as set forth in the
Tasman East Specific Plan.

ADDITIONAL APPLICANT APPROVALS
Further approvals may be required for a development
project to move forward. In particular, it is anticipated that subdivision approvals may accompany an applicant’s proposal.
• Subdivision Approval: Approval of any proposed
Subdivision Map shall be in accordance with
procedures adopted by State Law and the Santa Clara
City Code (Chapter 17.05). The subdivision of property
shall be consistent with the intent and requirements of the Tasman East Specific Plan, and other applicable
regulations and standards.
• Use Permits: Application for a Use Permit shall be
processed in accordance with the City of Santa Clara
Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.110). Additionally,
approval of a Use Permit shall be consistent with the
intent and requirements of the Tasman East Specific
Plan, and other applicable regulations and standards.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINOR MODIFICATIONS
• Minor modifications to the Tasman East Specific Plan
which are within 25% of the adopted Specific Plan
standards may be reviewed and approved through the
Zoning Administrator Modification process called out
in Section 18.90.30 of the Municipal Code.
106 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

07.4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

ESTIMATED PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Wastewater Facilities
In order to document the utility infrastructure anticipated for the preferred Land Use Plan, conceptual infrastructure demands for wastewater were developed based on the
land uses presented in the general plan. This method
correlates with the Sewer Master Plan Updated 2001 and
calculated flow model as closely as possible. Additionally, actual existing sewer generation rates were estimated
based on historic water usage. Wastewater generation
rates were assigned to each existing land use based
on rates published in the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Update, Final Report, dated April 2016. No adjustment
were made for future conservation measures which may
reduce expected demands by customers.

Assigning the water consumption rates shown in Table 1
to the existing Land uses, the daily rates of generation are estimated as shown in Table 2. In total, existing sewer generation for the plan area is estimated to amount to
be approximately 0.75 Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
at full build-out, which is nearly 4-times higher than the estimates based on current land use, and double the
estimate (0.336 MGD) included in the Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan Update (SSMPU) (Table 3).

As mentioned in the Existing Conditions Section, the
Rabello and Northside Pump Stations are estimated in the SSMPU to operate at capacity in 2035. Because Tasman
East will be contributing new flows to those pumps, new developments within Tasman East may need to contribute
to upgrades to those pump stations.

The Primavera Pump Station within Tasman East is
operating far below its capacity and will not need capacity upgrades with the development in the Project Area.

Since Tasman East’s location being close to the
downstream terminus of the City’s sewer system, the
increased flows from the site will likely not trigger
hydraulic capacity upgrades in the downstream system.

As the SSMPU does not include hydraulic performance
information on elements of the system where deficiencies were not discovered, the information provided by the
SSMPU does not provide sufficient information as to
whether any of the pipes downstream from the Tasman
East are near their hydraulic capacity.

Existing sewer piping with the Tasman East is
predominantly 12-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP). We
anticipate that the existing piping is adequately sized and will not need to be upsized in increase capacity.

Storm Drainage Facilities
The storm drainage infrastructure within the project
plan area is owned, operated and maintained by the City of Santa Clara. The city is responsible for maintaining its drainage infrastructure within public rights-of-way.

Specifically, the City is responsible for protecting citizens and businesses from flooding and responding to mandates imposed at the Federal, State and Regional levels. The
Clean Water Act is at the Federal level, while the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water
Quality Control Boards act via the Porter-Cologne Act and support Federal and State regulations.

The city’s development policies address storm drain
pipe design for capacity and quality. Storm drains are
to be sized per the current Santa Clara County Drainage Manual approved in 2007. Storm drains are required
to accommodate a 10-year design storm and post-
development flow rates cannot exceed pre-development
flow-rates, on a project by project basis.

Stormwater quality must be met on a project by project
basis as the plan area redevelops. New developments
that create or replace more than 10,000 square feet of
impervious surface must comply with Provision C.3 of
the Municipal Stormwater Permit (MRP) and with the
California State Water Board. Santa Clara Valley Urban
Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) has
published a “C.3 Stormwater Handbook” that assists
developers with ways in which they can meet local
municipal and State regulations through the use of Low
Impact Design (LID) strategies. Commonly accepted
measures include such treatment methods as bio-
retention basins and flow-through planters, as well as
green roofs. Both individual project level as well as
regional level storm water management programs should
be implemented to achieve overall storm water quality
compliance.

The Tasman East is developed land with high
percentages of impervious areas that direct storm water runoff directly into the public storm drain infrastructure with little to no retention or treatment. As projects are implemented that comply with the MRP requirements, it
is anticipated that the overall percentage of impervious surface within the Plan Area will likely decrease,
so additional mitigations for storm water peak flow
conveyance, either additional detention, or upsizing of existing conveyance facilities, other than what has already 12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 107
TABLE 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS: SEWER GENERATION/WATER DEMAND (BASED ON EXISTING ZONING) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SEWER GENERATION* WATER DEMAND**
AC MGD gpd
Totals 48 0.157 164,657
TABLE 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS: SEWER GENERATION/WATER DEMAND (BASED ON HISTORICAL WATER USE)

JANUARY - APRIL
2013 WATER USE
JANUARY - APRIL 2014

WATER USE

AVERAGE WATER
DEMAND

AVERAGE SEWER DEMAND
HCF***** HCF***** gpd MGD
Totals 6,196 5,862 37,581 0.036
TABLE 3: CURRENTLY PROJECTED CONDITIONS: SEWER GENERATION/WATER DEMAND (BASED ON 2035 GENERAL PLAN)

HIGH DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL
SEWER GENERATION ****** WATER DEMAND** WATER DEMAND
AC MGD gpd Acre-Ft/Year
Totals 48 0.336 352,800 395
TABLE 4: CURRENTLY PROJECTED CONDITIONS: SEWER GENERATION/WATER DEMAND (BASED ON 2035 GENERAL PLAN)

RESIDENTIAL SEWER
GENERATION ***

WATER DEMAND
** RETAIL
SEWER

GENERATION
****

WATER DEMAND
** TOTAL (SEWER) TOTAL (WATER) TOTAL (WATER)
Units MGD gpd SF MGD gpd MGD gpd Acre-Ft/Yr
Totals 4,500 0.740 777,263 120,000 0.012 12,600 0.752 789,863 885 *Assumes 0.15 gpd/SF (per the City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update, April 2016, Table
2-1), Assumes 0.5 FAR for Light Industrial Zoning
Designation
**Assumes water demand is 105% of wastewater
generation
***Assumes residential units are half townhouse or
condominiums at 175 gpd/DU and half are apartments
at 154 gpd/DU
**** From water usage file received from City of Santa
Clara on 13 May 2016
*****Hundred Cubic Feet
****** 40 units per acre and 175 gpd/unit
108 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
been discussed, is not anticipated to be needed with new development.

Potable Water Supply
Study Area water demand, assuming a build-out of
4,500 residential units and 120,000 SF of retail space
is estimated at 885 Acre-Ft / Year, which exceeds the
395 Acre-Ft / Year that would have been assumed had
the UWMP used the 2035 General Plan directly for
its forecasting. The forecasting methodology considers
several different elements, such as future conservation programs and natural replacement of less water efficient processes with more efficient processes, among others.

Potable Water Infrastructure
Tasman East is approximately 1/2 –mile northeast of a
turnout on the Bay Division Pipelines of the Hetch-Hetchy delivery system, adjacent to which, the City maintains
9 Million Gallons of storage. There is a 12-inch main
in Lafayette Street along the western project frontage
that extends from a system of 16-inch trunk mains near
the water storage facility. Another 12-inch main enters Tasman East from Tasman Drive into Calle Del Sol that is extended from Lick Mill Boulevard to the southeast and, presumably, another Turnout to the Hetch-Hetchy delivery system near where Lick Mill crosses the Bay Division
Pipeline right-of-way (approximately .5-miles south of the Lick Mill and Tasman intersection).

It is anticipated that the system of 12 inch water
mains within the plan area is adequate to serve the
potable water and fire suppression needs of higher
densities. However the 12” AC water lines will need
to be replaced with 12” PVC water lines. The 12 inch
main in Lafayette from the west is likely undersized
for the estimated future fire flow requirement of 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for 4 hours (To be determined
and approved by the Fire Department). Developer shall
determine the fire suppression needs based on the
current city water distribution system and make revisions/ upgrades accordingly. To meet these flow requirements,
it is assumed that an on-site new storage tank and/or
booster pump may be require at the development site
(Fire Department to Verify) and/or approximately 3,000
lineal feet or more of 12 inch water main along Lafayette Street may need to be up sized to 16 inch as per BKF
recommendation. Developer is required to perform the
hydraulic fire flow analysis to determine the fire and water demands to the project site.

Recycled Water
Recycled water can be appropriate for developments with large non-potable water demands, including irrigation
and toilet flushing. New 6-inch recycled water mains
extending throughout Tasman East would be sufficient for this use provided the system is looped
Gas Facilities
As each development project within Tasman East applies
to PG&E for new gas service, PG&E will evaluate the gas demands on a case by case basis in order to design and
bill the gas facilities installations respectively. PG&E can provide cost estimates for each development based on the particular application for service they receive.

Electrical Facilities
Any off-site frontage underground structure improvement will be the responsibility of developer(s) including onsite electrical underground substructure required to provide power. The costs for residential units are assessed per the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule, per unit. Commercial loads, house meter loads and garage are per 1,000 volt
amps (KVA).

Telecommunications
AT&T typically provides service to a “Minimum Point of
Entry” (MPOE) for a single building on each parcel. They will serve multiple buildings as desired by each applicant, but at the applicants’ cost, typically. For underground services, the applicant is typically responsible for
trenching and installation of AT&T’s conduits.

Comcast conduits are typically installed by Comcast’s
contractors in a trench provided by the applicant.

Site Utility Infrastructure
The Plan proposes new, narrower street sections whose
curb alignments and trees will conflict with existing utility alignments within the Plan Area. The budget should
accommodate relocating underground utilities in the
Plan Area, to meet City, SVP and other utility providers’ standards for utility separations.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 109
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
08 APPENDIX

08.1 Existing Conditions 108

08.2 Market Analysis 118

08.3 Infrastructure Report 138

08.4 Transportation Demand
Management 146

112 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Tasman East is a 46.1-acre industrial neighborhood
in northern Santa Clara that spans west-east from
Lafayette Street to the Guadalupe River and north-
south from 2nd Street to Tasman Drive along Calle Del
Mundo and Calle De Luna. Immediately to the north
of Tasman East, Santa Clara City Place is a approved
240 acre multi-phased, mixed-use development that
includes 9.16 million square feet of office buildings,
retail and entertainment facilities, residential units, and hotel rooms as well as surface and structured
parking facilities.

EXISTING LAND USE
The current zoning for the site is ML: Light Industrial which allows for uses such as manufacturing,
processing, repairing, and storing products. Consistent with the zoning, the current buildings on site are
generally warehouses with associated surface parking
and rear-yard storage areas. There is also currently a
data center at the south-west corner of the site, and
a cluster of office buildings at the south-east corner
of the site, and a few dining establishments facing
Tasman Drive.

As described in the Introduction, the purpose of this
Focus Area plan is to bring this area into conformance
with the General Plan policy that this transit-oriented site become an opportunity to develop high-density
housing with direct walking access to many community
amenities and a robust transit network.

Through implementation of this Focus Area Plan, the
zoning will be updated from ML: Light Industrial to
transit residential, which allows for a high density
residential neighborhood with a mix of uses at the
ground floor.

The policy for this transition takes into consideration the likelihood that existing owners of light industrial Table 08-4-1 Modal Split for Commuting Trips
MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK TASMAN EAST CENSUS TRACT (%) US AVERAGE (%) Car, truck or van 92.5 86.0
Public Transportation 2.8 5.1
Bike 1.4 N/A
Walking 0.0 2.8
Work from home 2.6 4.4
Other 0.6 1.8

08.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
land may want to remain light industrial for the
foreseeable future, and even transfer their land to
future light industrial users.

Other uses that are currently on the site are a City-
owned sewer lift station and an easement along the
toe of the Guadalupe River levee, which is owned and
maintained by the Silicon Valley Water District, and
operates as a public drainage channel.

The area surrounding the site is a diverse patchwork of uses, including the approved City Place development
which will replace the current golf course to the east
and north of the site. Directly south of the site are
the Kathryn Hughes Elementary School and several
residential neighborhoods, including a mix of single
family houses, attached townhomes, and medium
density mid-rise apartments.

Diagonally south-east of the site is Levi’s Stadium, a
relatively recent addition to the neighborhood, built
in 2014 which hosts the 49ers football team as well
as many other large-scale events throughout the year.

Next to the stadium is a regional soccer park which is
well-used by families across the city of Santa Clara.

The Guadalupe River runs along the eastern edge of
the site and also marks the boundary between Santa
Clara and San Jose. The area surrounding the TEFA
is home to a mix of high-density housing and office
parks, most notably the Cisco and Samsung campuses
which front onto Tasman Drive.

Some smaller parcels have already been assembled
into larger properties by land owners who are interested in developing high density residential, while other
owners are interested in continuing to run industrial
operations, or lease to industrial tenants. The fact that these smaller parcels in the center of the site may be
more difficult for a developer to assemble presents
some opportunities unique to the Tasman East
neighborhood, which can be supported and protected
by this plan.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 113

LAFAYETTE ST

TASMAN DR
GREA

MISSION C O LLEGE BLVD
MON
TAGUE
EXPWY

LAWR E EXPWY

SAN TOMAS
EXPW
Y

LAW RENCE
EXPW
Y

CENTRAL EXPWY

CENTRAL EXPWY

SCOTT BLVD

LAFA YETTE ST
BLVD

AGNEW RD
LICK

MILL BLVD

HOPE DR
BOWERS
AVE

O C S TT

L B VDCABRILLO
AVE

MONROEST

MON ROE ST

LINCOLN
ST

Z U R C

L D V B

ELCAMINO REAL

WASHING
TON
ST

BEN TON ST

HOMESTEAD RD

BEN TON ST

MARKET ST

SARATOGA AVE

N EWHALL ST

HOMESTEAD RD

PRUN ERI

POMEROY AVE

C ALAB AZAS
BLVD
280
101
237
880

UNION PACIFIC RR

CALTRAIN
Caltrain
Station

SANTACLARAVTALIGHT RAIL
KIELY
BLVD

STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BO
WERS
AVE

W ALSH AVE

CALTRAIN
Caltrain
Station
12 / 10
MILES
40 acres
10 acres
Figu re 5.2-1
Land Use Diagram
Phase I: 2010-2015
Rail & Light Rail
Stations
City Limits
C reek
Trail
Proposed Trail
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Community Commercial
Regional Comme r cial
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Community Mixed Use
Regional Mixed Use
Public/Quasi Public
Parks/Open Space
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Santa Clara Station Area
Downtown Co re
Approved/Not Constructed
and Pending
Projects 2010
Open Space -
(with new development
1)
N ew Neighborhood Retail
1 A ctua l si z e a n d l o ca ti on
to be determined in
planning process.

Neighborhood Comme r cial Y W K P A C I R E M A
Exception Areas for Places of
Assembly and
Entertainment Uses.

Revised: November 16, 2010
GREAT
High
ENC

AVEDG E
Figure 08-1-1 General Plan land use

LAFAYETTE ST

TASMAN DR
GREA

MISSION C O LLEGE BLVD
MON
TAGUE
EXPWY

LAWR E EXPWY

SAN TOMAS
EXPW
Y

LAW RENCE
EXPW
Y

CENTRAL EXPWY

CENTRAL EXPWY

SCOTT BLVD

LAFA YETTE ST
BLVD

AGNEW RD
LICK

MILL BLVD

HOPE DR
BOWERS
AVE

O C S TT

L B VDCABRILLO
AVE

MONROEST

MON ROE ST

LINCOLN ST

Z U R C

L D V B

ELCAMINO REAL

WASHING
TON
ST

BEN TON ST

HOMESTEAD RD

BEN TON ST

MARKET ST

SARATOGA AVE

N EWHALL ST

HOMESTEAD RD

PRUN ERI

POMEROY AVE

C ALAB AZAS
BLVD
280
101
237
880

UNION PACIFIC RR

CALTRAIN
Caltrain
Station

SANTACLARAVTALIGHT RAIL
KIELY
BLVD

STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BO
WERS
AVE

W ALSH AVE

CALTRAIN
Caltrain
Station
12 / 10
MILES
40 acres
10 acres
Figu re 5.2-1
Land Use Diagram
Phase I: 2010-2015
Rail & Light Rail
Stations
City Limits
C reek
Trail
Proposed Trail
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Community Commercial
Regional Comme r cial
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Community Mixed Use
Regional Mixed Use
Public/Quasi Public
Parks/Open Space
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Santa Clara Station Area
Downtown Co re
Approved/Not Constructed
and Pending
Projects 2010
Open Space -
(with new development
1)
N ew Neighborhood Retail
1 A ctua l si z e a n d l o ca ti on
to be determined in
planning process.

Neighborhood Comme r cial Y W K P A C I R E M A
Exception Areas for Places of
Assembly and
Entertainment Uses.

Revised: November 16, 2010
GREAT
High
ENC

AVEDG E

FUTURE CITY
PLACE
GREAT

AMERICA
49ers

STADIUM
SCVWA
Guadalupe
River
Soccer
Field
Kathryn Hughes
Elementary
N
CJ
----~
-
CJ D Low Intensity Office/R&D
c:J Intensity Office/R&D
114 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

EXISTING TRANSIT NETWORK
Figure 08-4-1 summarizes the mode split of commuter
trips for residents living in the Census Tract where
Tasman East is located. Compared to the national
average, people living in this area rely heavily on
automobile as their major mode of transportation for
commute trips. Public transportation and active travel
modes (bike and walking) make up approximately

4.2% of all commuting trips.

The existing regional transit operations near Tasman
East are shown in Figure 08-1-1. Bus, light rail,
passenger rail, and public and private shuttles are
all accessible from Tasman East via Great America
Station and Lick Mill Station. Tasman East is less than 10-minutes walking distance to Great America Station
and 5-minutes walking distance to Lick Mill Station.

Figure 08-1-1 summarizes the existing transit service
by route serving the Lick Mill and Santa Clara-Great
American stations.

Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) and Amtrak Capitol
Corridor
Great America Station is located on Lafayette Street
below the Tasman Drive overpass, and is served by
ACE Rail and Capitol Corridor transit routes. Eight
private shuttle services provide connections to specific final destinations. The Station is the busiest on the
ACE Rail Route, which links Stockton and San Jose.

Alighting data shown in Figure 08-1-1 indicates that
the station is also popular on the Capitol Corridor
transit route, which links San Jose and Sacramento.

Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA)
Lick Mill Station is located on Tasman Drive directly
east of the intersection with Calle Del Sol, and is
Figure 08-1-2 Existing Transit
237
101

LICK MILL

GREAT AMERICA

OLD IRONSIDES

REAMWOOD
VIENNA

GREAT AMERICA

STATION

CHAMPION
TASMAN

BAYPOINTE

RIVER OAKS

ORCHARD

Tasman E ast Focus Area
VTA
ACE
Amtrak
City Bo undary
N
----
\
- ·, . .... · \
_.,,,,. "\ \
/ 0 \
,,,..-✓· \
'·, ........
··,
\., ,,.' ·'\.
\,
•
··, ··,.
"·J' ··-·· \
)
' '\
\
\
I
\ ·,.
\
I
/ ,·
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 115
Table 08-1-1 Existing Transit Service By Route

ROUTE OPERATING HOURS PEAK

HEADWAY

AVERAGE ANNUAL

WEEKDAY BOARDINGS

FOR ENTIRE ROUTE
Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) – Light Rail
902 5:10 AM – 12:40 AM 15 mins 13,330
Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) – Bus
140 7:10 – 9:50 AM 60 mins 1664:20 – 7:10 PM
200 11:09 PM – 12:16 AM 45 mins 11
330 6:45 – 9-30 AM 30 mins 1754:17 – 7:22 PM
Amtrak
Amtrak Capitol Corridor 6:55 AM – 8:35 PM 90 mins 3,890 4,040
Altamont Corridor Express (ACE)3
ACE 6:15 – 9:00 AM 60 mins 5,100
3:50 – 6:50 PM 5,020
Shuttles
Gray Shuttle: 822 6:15 – 9:20 AM 60 mins 220
3:40 – 6:40 PM 266
Green Shuttle: 823 6:15 – 9:05 AM 60 mins 117
3:40 – 6:40 PM 127
Orange Shuttle: 824 6:15 – 9:15 AM 60 mins 101
3:40 – 6:40 PM 114
Purple Shuttle: 825
6:15 – 9:20 AM
60 mins
136
3:40 – 6:40 PM 147
Red Shuttle: 826 6:15 – 9:10 AM 60 mins 188
3:40 – 6:40 PM 245
Yellow Shuttle: 827 6:15 – 9:15 AM 60 mins 194
3:40 – 6:40 PM 276
Brown Shuttle: 828 6:15 – 9:15 AM 60 mins 155
3:40 – 6:40 PM 175
Violet Shuttle: 831 6:15 – 9:20 AM 60 mins 129
3:40 – 6:40 PM 163
served by Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA)
Light Rail Mountain View-Winchester line. VTA provides
light rail, bus, and paratransit service to Santa Clara County, including the City of Santa Clara. Light rail
trains operate at 15-, 20-, and 60-minute frequencies,
depending on the time of day. VTA bus routes generally
operate between 5:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. on weekdays
and 6:00 a.m. and 12:30 a.m. on weekends.
116 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

EXISTING BICYCLE NETWORK
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
codifies four distinct classifications of bikeways
with California Assembly Bill 1193 and the Highway
Design Manual (Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and
Design). Each bikeway class is intended to provide
bicyclists with enhanced riding conditions. Bikeways
offer various levels of separation from traffic based on traffic volume and speed, among other factors. The
four bikeway types and appropriate contexts for each
are detailed below.

Class I Bikeway (Bike Path): Bike paths provide a
completely separate right-of-way and are designated
for the exclusive use of people riding bicycles and
walking with minimal cross-flow traffic. In general,
bike paths are along corridors not served by streets or where sufficient right-of-way exists to allow them to be constructed away from the influence of vehicles. Class
I Bikeways can also offer opportunities not provided by the road system by serving as both recreational areas
and/or desirable commuter routes.

Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): Bike lanes provide
designated street space for bicyclists, typically
adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. Bike lanes
include special lane markings, pavement legends, and
signage. Bicycle lanes are generally five to six feet
wide. Wider lanes are desirable on roadways with high
traffic volumes and/or high vehicle travel speeds. Bike lanes may be enhanced with painted buffers between
vehicle lanes and/or parking, and green paint at
conflict zones (such as driveways or intersections).

Class III Bikeway (Bike Route): Bike routes provide
enhanced mixed-traffic conditions for bicyclists
through signage, striping, and/or traffic calming
treatments, and to provide continuity to a bikeway
network. Bike routes are typically designated along
gaps between bike trails or bike lanes, or along low-
volume, low-speed streets. Bicycle boulevards provide
further enhancements to bike routes to encourage slow
speeds and discourage non-local vehicle traffic via
traffic diverters, chicanes, traffic circles, and/or speed tables. Bicycle boulevards can also feature special
wayfinding signage to nearby destinations or other
bikeways.

Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bikeway): Separated
bikeways, also referred to as cycle tracks or protected bikeways, are bikeways for the exclusive use of bicycles which are physically separated from vehicle traffic.

Separated bikeways were recently adopted by Caltrans
in 2015. Types of separation may include, but are not
limited to: grade separation, flexible posts, or physical barriers.

Existing bicycle facilities near Tasman East are shown
in Figure 08-1-3. There are existing Class I bicycle
paths along the Guadalupe River and San Tomas
Aquino Creek. Proposed Class I bicycle paths will
extend along Avenue C and City Place Parkway within
the planned City Place development. Class II bicycle
paths currently serve the area along Old Mountain
View-Alviso, Great America Parkway, and Lafayette
Street (south of Calle De Luna). Class II bicycle paths are proposed for the following streets:
• Lick Mill Boulevard
• Avenue A
• City Place Parkway
• 2nd Street
• Tasman Drive
• Lafayette Street

12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 117

Tasman E ast Focus Area
Existi ng Bike Route
Existi ng Bike Path
Existi ng Bike Lane
Existi ng Cycle Track
Planned Bike Route
Planned Bike Path
Planned Bike Lane
City Bo undary
Figure 08-1-3 Existing and City Place planned bicycle network N
-----••• ••• •••
I I- ■ I
I
7 -----
--··-··-··- ··-··- ··-·.i
118 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
Open Spac e
Tasman E ast Focus Area
VTA
ACE
Amtrak
Guadalu pe River Trail

EXISTING PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
Existing pedestrian facilities in and near Tasman East
are shown in Figure 08-1-3. The neighborhood is
served by existing and proposed north-south routes
along Lafayette Street, Lick Mill Boulevard and the
Lick Mill Boulevard extension, and existing east-west
routes along Tasman Drive and part of Calle De Luna.

Additional north-south pedestrian access is provided
by Class I bicycle trails along San Tomas Aquino Creek
and the Guadalupe River. Pedestrian access to Great
America Station is at the Calle De Luna/Lafayette
Street intersection and to Lick Mill VTA Light Rail
Station at Calle Del Sol/Tasman Drive.

Pedestrian facilities are planned along the entirety
of the City Place development’s roadway network,
including along Lick Mill Boulevard as it extends
through Tasman East. Notably, there are no sidewalk
facilities on the following streets within Tasman East:
• Calle Del Mundo on both north and south sides
• Calle De Luna on the south side as well as the
north side between Calle Del Sol and Lick Mill
Boulevard
• Calle Del Sol on the west side for approximately
half of the length of the street
• Lafayette Street on the west side, north of Calle De
Luna

Figure 08-1-4 Pedestrian Access to Transit and Open Space 10 mins
City Place North Park
Guadalupe River and Trail
Lick Mill Park
Ulistac
Natural
Area
Santa Clara Youth Soccer Park
Fairway Glen Park
5 mins

GREAT AMERICA STATION

LICK MILL STATION
N
------
-··-··-··-··-··
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
' ' ' ' ' '
,, ,,
' ',
----.,..,. ., .,. ., .,
', ,,,
......... .,,
------
' \
' \
A • I I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 119
Figure 08-1-5 Existing and City Place planned pedestrian network Existing Sidewalk
Planned Sidewalk
Paseo
To Be Implemented as
Development Occurs
City Easement
Site Boundary
Open Space Framerwok
Vertical connection / site bndy /
bridges / phased/ D opne space
framework/ OPen space / Xwalks /
existing Row base / Site white base /
trail / channel/ base
Calle Del Mundo
Calle Del Sol
Avenue C
Avenue D
Guadalupe River Trail
Lafayette Street
2nd Street
Calle De Luna
Tasman Drive
Lick Mill Station
City Place
Guadalupe River
Ulistac
Natural Area
Great America Station
Lick Mill Boulevard
N0 100’ 250’ 500’
-■■■■
-~
I
l
l
l
l _______ .!
----------'------, --.... , \
I
I
l
I
l l l
l l
l I
I l
I I
I l
I l
I l
----------~
-------------- -:1111
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1111
I
!
I
l
I
I
I \ ~
·------------------------------------------------~-~-,,...._ __ --------------~~~~,, 120 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

EXISTING VEHICULAR NETWORK
Regional access is provided via State Route (SR) 237
and U.S. 101. Local access is provided by Lafayette
Street, Tasman Drive, and Lick Mill Boulevard. Internal circulation within Tasman East is provided by Lick Mill Boulevard, Calle Del Mundo, Calle De Luna and Calle
De Sol. These roadways are described in more detail
below.

SR 237 is a six-lane divided freeway that connects the
east and west sides of Silicon Valley to Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, North San Jose, and Milpitas.

It provides access to employers, including Cisco,
Samsung, Yahoo!, and San Disk and region-serving
retail in Milpitas. One lane in each direction operates as an HOV lane from 5:00 am to 9:00 am and from
3:00 pm to 7:00 pm Monday through Friday.

US 101 is an eight-lane divided freeway that connects
east San José to San Francisco along the west side
of the San Francisco Bay, including communities
along the peninsula. The freeway is a major commute
corridor in Silicon Valley, providing access to
businesses in downtown San José and technology
employers, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft,
Oracle, eBay/PayPal, and Intuit in the northern portion of Santa Clara County. One lane in each direction
operates as an HOV lane from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
and from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday from the northern Santa Clara County border to
south of SR 85 in south San José. Access to Tasman
East from US 101 is provided by the Great America
Parkway and Montague Expressway interchanges.

Lafayette Street is a four-lane, north-south arterial
roadway that provides convenient access to both US
101 via Montague Expressway and SR 237 via the
Gold Street Connector. Lafayette Street, which has an
undercrossing without a connection at Tasman Drive,
connects directly to Great America Way (previously
known as Yerba Buena Way). Union Pacific railroad
tracks with Amtrak and ACE passenger service run
along the west (southbound) side of the street, as do
high-voltage power lines.

Tasman Drive is an east-west six lane divided arterial
located to the south of Tasman East and includes a
center-running VTA-owned and operated light rail line,
which runs between I-880 on the east and Java Drive
on the west. Tasman Drive narrows to two lanes in each
direction west of Great America Parkway. The City of
Santa Clara is currently adding bicycle lanes to Tasman Drive between the Guadalupe River and Calabazas
Creek, which will result in removing or narrowing
existing vehicle lanes.

Lick Mill Boulevard is a four-lane arterial roadway
located between Tasman Drive and Montague
Expressway that provides access to US 101 via
Montague Expressway to the south.

Lick Mill Boulevard will be extended north through
Tasman East with the construction of Santa Clara City
Place, to connect to Lafayette Street at Great America
Way. This will change the current loop configuration
of Calle del Mundo and Calle de Luna into two “T”
intersections with Lick Mill road, making a more
complete network.

Calle Del Mundo is a two-lane local street within
Tasman East that provides access to the businesses
within the neighborhood. Calle Del Mundo runs east-
west from Lafayette Street to Lick Mill Boulevard.

Calle De Luna is a three-lane local street within
Tasman East that provides access to the businesses
within the neighborhood. Calle De Luna is located
immediately south of Calle Del Mundo, and connects
Lafayette Street to Lick Mill Boulevard.

Calle Del Sol is a short, four-lane local street within Tasman East that provides access from Tasman Drive
to the businesses within the neighborhood.

Calle del Sol and Calle de Luna operate together
as a link through the site for vehicles needing to
connect from Lafayette Street and Tasman Drive, and
vice-versa, as there is no direct connection at their
intersection due to the grade difference at the Tasman
Drive overpass.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 121

EXISTING OPEN SPACE NETWORK
Tasman East sits within a 1/4 mile radius of many
large-scale regional and community parks, including
the adjacent Ulistac Natural Preserve and the
Guadalupe River Trail which connects the site to
downtown San Jose and beyond. Kitty-corner to the
site is a regional soccer park, an important recreation facility for families throughout Santa Clara who
participate in soccer leagues.

Several major recreation assets are planned as part of
the City Place development north of the site including
a network of bike trails, pedestrian paths, public
plazas, and open spaces. Perhaps most significant,
is the addition of two opens spaces: a 4.75 acre park
and a 3 acre park. The City Place plan will replace the current golf course that lies to the north and west of
the Tasman East site.

ECOLOGY
The site is nestled between the Guadalupe River to the
east and the Ulistac Natural Area to the south. As the
only dedicated natural open space in the City of Santa
Clara, Ulistac Natural Area is an important community
resource. The site’s proximity to these features in
combination with the proposed parks and greenways
will offer residents a daily experience of the natural
world.

The Guadalupe River on the eastern edge of the site
is a major corridor for migratory bird species. The
plan proposes a waterfront park that would provide
access to the river and increase tree cover, creating
contiguous habitat for migratory birds, butterflies, and other pollinators.
122 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
INTENT
The following analysis explores housing and retail
market conditions in order to clarify the types of
housing densities, building types, and neighborhood-
serving retail and services which will drive
redevelopment of the 48-acre Tasman East Focus
Area’s (TEFA) existing light industrial properties into a new mixed-use, transit-oriented neighborhood. This
analysis specifically examines the following:
• Typical characteristics, general sources of demand,
location preferences, and development feasibility
for a range of higher-density multifamily housing
products;
• Whether market conditions merit an increase in
maximum allowable densities from 50 dwelling
units per acre to a minimum of 100 dwelling units
per acre;
• Potential to attract families to new multifamily
housing in the TEFA;
• Potential to attract neighborhood-serving retail and
services to the TEFA.

POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD TRENDS
This section describes demographic and household
characteristics and trends in order to clarify the TEFA’s positioning to capture multifamily housing demand
and neighborhood-serving retail demand. Strategic
Economics analyzed demographic data at the county,
city, and subarea levels using data from the 1990
and 2000 U.S. Census and the Census’ American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates for 2010-2014.

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
In order to characterize changing conditions in the
area immediately surrounding the TEFA, Strategic
Economics created two subareas entitled “North
Santa Clara Context Area” and “North San Jose
Context Area.”
1 The TEFA itself has remained a
largely industrial and flex/office district for decades.

Therefore, change in the immediately surrounding
areas – and its relative relationship to the City of Santa Clara and Santa Clara County – helps to illustrate
future opportunities in the TEFA.

The context area boundaries represent the primary
market area surrounding the TEFA, and were selected
based on a combination of city boundaries, major
geographic barriers – such as freeways and waterways
– and similar existing and changing land use character.

The context areas largely feature a mix of existing
office, light industrial, and lower-density housing
stock, with portions of the employment-focused
land uses now being redeveloped into high-density
multifamily housing. The market area data analysis
was disaggregated between the Santa Clara and San
Jose segments to illustrate the differences between
the two areas. North San Jose has undergone a similar
transition to higher-density housing uses as that
envisioned for the TEFA, although the nature of the
transition to housing in the TEFA will ultimately differ based on the community’s vision for the area.

Figure 08-2-1 shows the location of the context areas
in relation to the city and county. Figure 08-2-2
provides a closer look at the boundaries of the analyzed context areas. These boundaries are:

North Santa Clara Context Area: bounded by Highway
237 on the north, the Cabaza Creek Trail to the west,
the Guadalupe River to the east, and Highway 101 to
the south.

North San Jose Context Area: bounded by Highway
237 on the north, the Guadalupe River to the west,
Highway 880 to the east, and Highway 101 to the
south.

POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD FINDINGS
The North Santa Clara and North San Jose context
areas are relatively fast-growing. While both the city
and county’s populations grew by an annual average of
1 percent between 1990 and the 2010-2014 period,
the population of the North Santa Clara and North
San Jose context areas grew by 5 and 12 percent,
respectively. Household growth in these areas also
exceeded the city and county (Figure 08-2-3).

08.2 MARKET ANALYSIS
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 123
Figure 08-2-1 Context Area Figure 08-2-2 Context Area
Demographic Reference
Esrl, HERE, Delorme. Mapmylndia. t':> OpenStreetMap
contribUlors. and the GIS user community
D North Santa Clara Context Area {:Zl Sunnyvale O Santa Ciara County • North San Jose Context Area 9 Santa Clara
0 San Jose
0 Milpitas 0
MILPITAS ~
/

SUNNYVA LE

SANTA CLARA
0 El Camino Real

SAN JOSE
Stevens,Cre:ek,Blvd-- ~
Esti, HERE.~li'l~✓. Mapmylndia , © OpenStreelMap
contributors and the GIS user commun ity
Sources: U.S. Census Tigef t,ne Data, 2014; St1a\eg1c Economics. 2016 North Santa Clara Context Area and
North San Jose Context Area
Census Block Groups, 2014
124 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
The overwhelming majority of the City of Santa Clara’s
population and household growth since 2000 occurred
in the North Santa Clara Context Area. Between 2000
and the 2010-2014 period, the North Santa Clara
Context Area drove 82 percent of the City of Santa
Clara’s total population growth. The rapid population
growth in the Santa Clara Context Area is entirely
attributable to housing growth, given that average
household sizes fell from 3.1 persons per household in
1990 to 2.9 in the 2010-2014 period.

Compared to the city and county, the North Santa
Clara and North San Jose context areas have a much
higher proportion of renter-occupied households and
multifamily units (Figure 08-2-4). In the 2010-2014
period, 58 percent of households in the North Santa
Clara Context Area and 74 percent of households
in the North San Jose Context Area were renters,
compared to 55 percent of citywide and 43 percent of
countywide households. In both the city and county,
the housing tenure has remained relatively stable,
although there was a slight uptick of renter-occupied
households between 1990 and 2014. The share of
renter households in the North San Jose Context Area
rapidly increased over the past twenty years as new
multifamily rental housing was built.

The Asian or Pacific Islander population significantly
increased in both numbers and share of total
population in all geographies since 1990 (Figure 08-
2-5). In 1990, the Asian/Pacific Islander population
accounted for 18 percent of the citywide population
and 17 percent of the county’s overall population. By
the 2010-2014 period, Asians or Pacific Islanders
accounted for 39 percent of the citywide population
and 33 percent countywide. In the North Santa Clara
Context Area, the Asian/Pacific Islander population
comprises almost 60 percent of area residents and
nearly half in the North San Jose Context Area.

Small households (one and two person households)
make up the majority of households in both the North
San Santa Clara and North San Jose context areas.

However, three- and four-person households grew faster
than other household size categories in both the North
Santa Clara context area and the city between 2000
and the 2010-2014 period (Figure 08-2-6).

The share of households with children is growing in
the North Santa Clara Context Area, but decreasing
in the North San Jose Context Area (Figure 08-2-
7). The growth of three- and four-person households
in the North Santa Clara Context Area – as cited
above – appears linked to this growth of households
with children. The North Santa Clara Context Area
has experienced growth of a more diverse mix of
housing types than the North San Jose Context Area,
including types more typically associated with families with children – such as single-family homes and
townhomes.

The North Santa Clara and North San Jose context
areas have a slightly higher proportion of young
children compared to the city and county as a whole.

In the 2010-2014 period, 10 to 11 percent of the
population in the North Santa Clara and North San
Jose context areas was under five years old. This
compares to eight percent of residents in Santa Clara
and seven percent countywide (Figure 08-2-8).

Residents in the North Santa Clara and North San
Jose context areas are slightly younger than in the
city and county. The median age in the North Santa
Clara and North San Jose context areas is 32 and 31,
respectively. The median age in the city is 34 and 37
in the county overall.

Like the city and county, household incomes in the
North Santa Clara and North San Jose context areas
are relatively high overall, but have experienced a
bifurcation of incomes into higher and lower brackets
from 2000 to 2014 (as shown in Figure 08-2-9
and Figure 08-2-10). Shares of households in the
bottom income households (less than $35,000) and
highest income households ($150,000 or more)
have increased across all geographies (including
adjustments for inflation). Overall, over one-third of
households earn $150,000 or more in both the North
Santa Clara and North San Jose context areas.

POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CONCLUSIONS
Rapid population and household growth in the North
Santa Clara and North San Jose context areas reflects
their roles as desirable and regionally significant
infill housing development opportunities. Historically
the North Santa Clara and North San Jose context
areas were secondary market locations for housing
development, partly due to their distance from the
historic downtowns of San Jose and Santa Clara, and
partly due to their proximity to the once-undesirable
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 125
TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 6 Like the city and county, household incomes in the North Santa Clara and North San Jose context areas are relatively high overall, but have experienced a bifurcation of incomes into higher and lower brackets from 2000 to 2014 (as shown in Figures 9 and 10). Shares of households in the bottom income households (less than $35,000) and highest income households ($150,000 or more) have increased across all geographies (including adjustments for inflation). Overall, over one-third of households earn $150,000 or more in both the North Santa Clara and North San Jose context areas.

Figure 3. Population and Households, 1990 to the 2010-2014 Period % Change
1990 2000 2014
1990-
2000
2000-
2014
1990-
2014
Average
Annual
Growth,
1990-2014
Total Population
North Santa Clara Context Area 10,360 13,003 23,914 26% 84% 131% 5% North San Jose Context Area 4,233 9,613 16,877 127% 76% 299% 12% Santa Clara City 93,613 102,36 1 119,525 9% 17% 28% 1%
Santa Clara County 1,497,577 1,682, 585 1,841,569 12% 9% 23% 1%

Total Households
North Santa Clara Context Area 3,379 4,268 8,277 26% 94% 145% 6% North San Jose Context Area 1,199 4,065 6,974 239% 72% 482% 20% Santa Clara City 36,545 38,5 26 42,751 5% 11% 17% 1%
Santa Clara County 520,180 565, 863 614,714 9% 9% 18% 1% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses; U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010- 2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Figure 4. Tenure: Renter-Occupied Households, 1990 to the 2010-2014 Period Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses; U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010- 2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
N. Santa Clara
Context Area
N. San Jose
Context Area
Santa Clara City Santa Clara County
1990 2000 2014
TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 6 Like the city and county, household incomes in the North Santa Clara and North San Jose context areas are relatively high overall, but have experienced a bifurcation of incomes into higher and lower brackets from 2000 to 2014 (as shown in Figures 9 and 10). Shares of households in the bottom income households (less than $35,000) and highest income households ($150,000 or more) have increased across all geographies (including adjustments for inflation). Overall, over one-third of households earn $150,000 or more in both the North Santa Clara and North San Jose context areas.

Figure 3. Population and Households, 1990 to the 2010-2014 Period % Change
1990 2000 2014
1990-
2000
2000-
2014
1990-
2014
Average
Annual
Growth,
1990-2014
Total Population
North Santa Clara Context Area 10,360 13,003 23,914 26% 84% 131% 5% North San Jose Context Area 4,233 9,613 16,877 127% 76% 299% 12% Santa Clara City 93,613 102,36 1 119,525 9% 17% 28% 1%
Santa Clara County 1,497,577 1,682, 585 1,841,569 12% 9% 23% 1%

Total Households
North Santa Clara Context Area 3,379 4,268 8,277 26% 94% 145% 6% North San Jose Context Area 1,199 4,065 6,974 239% 72% 482% 20% Santa Clara City 36,545 38,5 26 42,751 5% 11% 17% 1%
Santa Clara County 520,180 565, 863 614,714 9% 9% 18% 1% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses; U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010- 2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Figure 4. Tenure: Renter-Occupied Households, 1990 to the 2010-2014 Period Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses; U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010- 2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
N. Santa Clara
Context Area
N. San Jose
Context Area
Santa Clara City Santa Clara County
1990 2000 2014
and industrial San Francisco Bay. As a result, the
context areas were largely zoned for and built out with low-density office and light industrial employment
uses.

However, the combination of local zoning changes,
local investments in transit and transportation,
and regionally limited land availability for housing
development has positioned the context areas for
significant population and housing growth. The
regional significance of this growth is demonstrated
by the fact that 11.4 percent of all population growth
in Santa Clara County occurred in the context areas
between 2000 and the 2010-2014 period, and nearly
64 percent of the City of Santa Clara’s population
growth over the same period occurred in the North
Santa Clara Context Area.

The types and sizes of households in the North Santa
Clara and North San Jose context areas are highly
correlated with each area’s mix of housing types and
year of housing development. Comparison of the
census data against housing growth trends – described
in the following section – reveals that the presence
of larger/smaller and family/non-family households
in the context areas is largely correlated with the mix of housing types and year of construction in each
location. The North San Jose Context Area features a
low share of households with children and high share
of small households; nearly all housing in the area
was constructed since 2000 and consists of large
multifamily buildings. In contrast, the North Santa
Clara Context Area’s housing includes a mix of single-
Figure 08-2-3 Population and Households, 1990 to the 2010-2014 Period
Figure 08-2-4 Tenure: Renter-Occupied Households, 1990 to the 2010-2014 Period ■ ■ ■
-
126 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
family homes, townhomes, and multifamily housing
built from the 1980s onward; the context area today
features a higher share of larger households and
households with children compared to the North San
Jose Context Area.

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT
This section describes local multifamily housing
market conditions in Santa Clara and nearby cities,
and then examines the potential for higher-density
housing development in the TEFA based on review
of the types, locations, and market drivers of nearby
comparable new multifamily housing developments.

Strategic Economics based the analysis on a variety of
data sources, including the U.S. Census and American
Community Survey, housing unit permit data from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
city records of recently built, under construction,
planned, and proposed residential development, and
interviews with local housing developers.

EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY OVERVIEW
The existing housing supply in the North Santa
Clara Context Area is much more mixed compared
to the North San Jose Context Area, where virtually
all the supply is in multifamily apartment buildings.

Figure 08-2-11 shows that single family homes and
townhomes comprise 45 percent of housing units in
the North Santa Clara Context Area, versus 11 percent
in the North San Jose Context Area. However, the
North Santa Clara Context Area’s share of single family detached homes has decreased between 1990 and
2014, while townhomes and multifamily buildings
have been added to the area’s housing stock.

TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 7 Figure 5. Race and Ethnicity, 1990 to the 2010-2014 Period Share of Total
1990 2000 2014 1990 2000 2014
North Santa Clara Context Area
White, non-Hispanic 4,544 4,225 5,004 44% 32% 21%
Black or African-American, non-Hispanic 378 323 1,224 4% 2% 5% Asian or Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 3,761 6,086 13,924 36% 47% 58% Hispanic or Latino 1,609 1,828 2,820 16% 14% 12%
All Other Races, non-Hispanic 68 541 942 1% 4% 4%
Total 10,360 13,003 23,914 100% 100% 100%

North San Jose Context Area
White, non-Hispanic 3,261 4,492 4,284 77% 47% 25%
Black or African-American, non-Hispanic 169 511 743 4% 5% 4% Asian or Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 167 2,746 8,225 4% 29% 49% Hispanic or Latino 607 1,469 3,030 14% 15% 18%
All Other Races, non-Hispanic 29 395 595 1% 4% 4%
Total 4,233 9,613 16,877 100% 100% 100%

City of Santa Clara
White, non-Hispanic 59,754 49,392 41,252 64% 48% 35%
Black or African-American, non-Hispanic 2,281 2,237 4,039 2% 2% 3% Asian or Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 16,802 30,207 46,820 18% 30% 39% Hispanic or Latino 14,260 16,364 22,802 15% 16% 19%
All Other Races, non-Hispanic 516 4,161 4,612 1% 4% 4%
Total 93,613 102,361 119,525 100% 100% 100%

Santa Clara County
White, non-Hispanic 869,874 744,282 627,346 58% 44% 34% Black or African-American, non-Hispanic 52,583 44,475 44,910 4% 3% 2% Asian or Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 251,496 431,811 612,359 17% 26% 33% Hispanic or Latino 314,564 403,401 492,546 21% 24% 27%
All Other Races, non-Hispanic 9,060 58,616 64,408 1% 3% 3% Total 1,497,577 1,682,585 1, 841,569 100% 100% 100%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses; U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010- 2014; Strategic Economics, 2016. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses; U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010-2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Figure 08-2-5 Race and Ethnicity, 1990 to the 2010-2014 Period 12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 127
TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 8 Figure 6. Household Size, 1990 to the 2010-2014 Period
Share of Total
1990 2000 2014 1990 2000 2014
North Santa Clara Context Area
1 and 2 person 1,778 2,302 4,269 53% 54% 52%
3 and 4 person 1,004 1,226 3,110 30% 29% 38%
5 or more persons 598 740 898 18% 17% 11%
Total 3,380 4268 8,277 100% 100% 100%

North San Jose Context Area
1 and 2 person 667 2,822 4,584 55% 69% 66%
3 and 4 person 418 991 1,967 35% 24% 28%
5 or more persons 117 252 423 10% 6% 6%
Total 1,202 4,065 6,974 100% 100% 100%

City of Santa Clara
1 and 2 person 22,397 22,959 23,967 61% 60% 56%
3 and 4 person 10,798 11,547 14,772 30% 30% 35%
5 or more persons 3,350 4,020 4,012 9% 10% 9%
Total 36,545 38,526 42,751 100% 100% 100%

Santa Clara County
1 and 2 person 276,568 292,957 311,929 53% 52% 51%
3 and 4 person 172,400 185,160 223,076 33% 33% 36%
5 or more persons 71,212 87,746 79,709 14% 16% 13%
Total 520,180 565,863 614,714 100% 100% 100%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses; U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010- 2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.

TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 9 Figure 7. Household Type 1990 to the 2010-2014 Period
Share of Total
1990 2000 2014 1990 2000 2014
N. Santa Clara Context Area
Families w/ children 1,156 1,273 3,296 34% 30% 40%
Families w/o children 1,013 1,515 2,308 30% 35% 28%
Householder living alone 777 984 1,876 23% 23% 23%
Other non-family household 434 496 797 13% 12% 10%
Total 3,380 4,268 8,277 100% 100% 100%

N. San Jose Context Area
Families w/ children 452 965 1,827 38% 24% 26%
Families w/o children 370 1,298 2,561 31% 32% 37%
Householder living alone 287 1,352 1,911 24% 33% 27%
Other non-family household 93 450 675 8% 11% 10%
Total 1,202 4,065 6,974 100% 100% 100%

Santa Clara City
Families w/ children 9,992 10,563 13,792 27% 27% 32%
Families w/o children 12,154 13,537 14,504 33% 35% 34%
Householder living alone 9,878 9,987 10,981 27% 26% 26% Other non-family household 4,521 4,439 3,474 12% 12% 8% Total 36,545 38,526 42,751 100% 100% 100%

Santa Clara County
Families w/ children 186,602 197,245 217,606 36% 35% 35% Families w/o children 173,075 198,316 222,972 33% 35% 36% Householder living alone 112,935 121,109 132,366 22% 21% 22% Other non-family household 47,568 49,193 41,770 9% 9% 7% Total 520,180 565,863 614,714 100% 100% 100%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses; U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010- 2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses; U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010-2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses; U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010-2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Figure 08-2-6 Household Size, 1990 to the 2010-2014 Period Figure 08-2-7 Household Type, 1990 to the 2010-2014 Period 128 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 10 Figure 8. Age Distribution, 1990 to the 2010-2014 Period Share of Total
1990 2000 2014 1990 2000 2014
North Santa Clara Context Area
Under 5 712 872 2,630 7% 7% 11%
5 to 17 1,608 1,898 3,610 16% 15% 15%
18 to 24 1,219 1,338 1,707 12% 10% 7%
25 to 44 4,279 5,439 10,326 41% 42% 43%
45 to 64 1,869 2,476 4,078 18% 19% 17%
65 to 74 378 529 955 4% 4% 4%
75 and over 295 451 608 3% 3% 3%
Total 10,360 13,003 23,914 100% 100% 100%

North San Jose Context Area
Under 5 332 714 1,628 8% 7% 10%
5 to 17 594 1,094 1,535 14% 11% 9%
18 to 24 341 788 1,090 8% 8% 6%
25 to 44 1,782 4,887 9,004 42% 51% 53%
45 to 64 929 1,804 2,789 22% 19% 17%
65 to 74 164 219 576 4% 2% 3%
75 and over 91 107 255 2% 1% 2%
Total 4,233 9,613 16,877 100% 100% 100%

City of Santa Clara
Under 5 5,880 6,688 9,327 6% 7% 8%
5 to 17 11,703 13,707 17,140 13% 13% 14%
18 to 24 12,503 11,569 13,009 13% 11% 11%
25 to 44 37,344 39,991 42,272 40% 39% 35%
45 to 64 16,845 19,506 25,852 18% 19% 22%
65 to 74 5,851 5,705 6,106 6% 6% 5%
75 and over 3,487 5,195 5,819 4% 5% 5%
Total 93,613 102,361 119,525 100% 100% 100%

Santa Clara County
Under 5 111,821 119,418 123,124 7% 7% 7%
5 to 17 247,386 296,984 311,287 17% 18% 17%
18 to 24 170,549 155,900 162,358 11% 9% 9%
25 to 44 561,577 596,023 559,663 37% 35% 30%
45 to 64 275,926 353,733 470,422 18% 21% 26%
65 to 74 79,143 87,193 118,011 5% 5% 6%
75 and over 51,175 73,334 96,704 3% 4% 5%
Total 1,497,577 1,682,585 1, 841,569 100% 100% 100%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses; U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010- 2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.

TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 11 Figure 9. Income Distribution, 2000
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Figure 10. Income Distribution, 2014
Sources: U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010-2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Population and Household Conclusions
Rapid population and household growth in the North Santa Clara and North San Jose context areas reflects their roles as desirable and regionally significant infill housing development opportunities.

Historically the North Santa Clara and North San Jose context areas were secondary market locations for housing development, partly due to their distance from the historic downtowns of San Jose and Santa Clara, and partly due to their proximity to the once-undesirable and industrial San Francisco Bay. As a result, the context areas were largely zoned for and built out with low-density office and light industrial employment 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
N. Santa Clara Context Area N. San Jose Context Area
City of Santa Clara Santa Clara County
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
N. Santa Clara Context Area N. San Jose Context Area
City of Santa Clara Santa Clara County
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses; U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010-2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Sources: U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010-2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census; Strategic Economics, 2016.

TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 11 Figure 9. Income Distribution, 2000
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Figure 10. Income Distribution, 2014
Sources: U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010-2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Population and Household Conclusions
Rapid population and household growth in the North Santa Clara and North San Jose context areas reflects their roles as desirable and regionally significant infill housing development opportunities.

Historically the North Santa Clara and North San Jose context areas were secondary market locations for housing development, partly due to their distance from the historic downtowns of San Jose and Santa Clara, and partly due to their proximity to the once-undesirable and industrial San Francisco Bay. As a result, the context areas were largely zoned for and built out with low-density office and light industrial employment 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
N. Santa Clara Context Area N. San Jose Context Area
City of Santa Clara Santa Clara County
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
N. Santa Clara Context Area N. San Jose Context Area
City of Santa Clara Santa Clara County
Figure 08-2-8 Age Distribution, 1990 to the 2010-2014 Period Figure 08-2-9 Income Distribution, 2000
Figure 08-2-10 Income Distribution, 2014
■
■
111
s:><:) '5
~'=>-"s,
111 Ill
RIC?> RIC?> Cl) Cl)
l/,.C?l' ~b,.-
■
■
Ill
RIC?> Cl)
9C?l'
Ill
RIC?> Cl)
.... ~-
Ill
RIC?> Cl)
b,.C?l'
"
~/Sg ~"s, ~69. ri? ~"s, ~"s, s:><:)
.is' <:)'5 <:)'5 <:)'5 <:)'5 <:)'5 '5
~<,- ~<:)- ~<,- <,<:)' P>"" v0
■
■
"s,
Ill
s:><:) '5
~'=>-

69. "s,
111 Ill
RIC?> RIC?> Cl) Cl)
~- ~b,.-
■
■
<:)<:),
"si"
Ill
RIC?> Cl)
9C?l'
~-"si" "si"
Ill Ill
RIC?> RIC?> Cl) Cl)
b,.C?l'
I
!..0
~o
&
11 !..0
~o .... ~-"s, ~/Sg ~"s, ~69. "
d-
ri,<::-- ~"s, ~"s, s:><:)
.is' <:)'5 <:)'5 <:)'5 <:)'5 <:)'5 '5
P>"" ~<,- ~<:)- ~<,- <:)<:)' ~-
<,<:)'
v0 "s, 69. "s,
"si" "si" "si"
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 129
Multifamily Housing Development Trends
Since 1990, housing development in the North Santa
Clara Context Area has continued the area’s initial
diverse (but lower-density) mix of housing types,
whereas housing development in the North San
Jose Context Area represents a significant shift from
previous land use patterns. In 1990, the North Santa
Clara Context Area already included nearly 3,600
housing units in a mix of single family and multifamily building formats 2.2.11. In contrast, North San Jose
was comprised of approximately 1,200 units, 96
percent of which were mobile homes. Since that time,
over 3,200 housing units – most of which were in
multifamily dwellings – were added to the North San
Jose Context Area, while the North Santa Clara Context
Area added 5,300 units in a greater variety of building types.

The early 2000s ushered an era of unprecedented
residential growth in North San Jose. North San Jose’s
rapid growth is attributed to the 2005 North San Jose
Area Development Policy, which allowed residential
intensification to support the city’s rapid high-tech job growth. Between 2000 and the 2010-2014 period,
housing units grew by 74 percent in the North San
Jose Context Area.

City and county development activity has accelerated
in recent years with the recovery of the housing
market; multifamily housing comprises most permitting
activity. 80 percent of new housing permits issued
between 2011 and 2014 in the City of Santa Clara
were for multifamily units, compared to 75 percent in
the county. Figure 08-2-12 shows the percentage of
building permits issued by type for the City of Santa
Clara between 2000 and 2014, as reported by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The high volume of under construction, planned, and
proposed development projects in Santa Clara and
its neighboring cities of San Jose, Sunnyvale, and
Milpitas suggests that new development, particularly
of rental apartments, is continuing at a rapid pace.

In the City of Santa Clara, there are over 2,300
multifamily units under construction and 7,348 units
being planned and proposed.
2 In the surrounding cities
of San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas, there are over
24,100 multifamily units being planned and proposed
(Figure 08-2-13). The cited projects in just these
cities and the City of Santa Clara alone represent the
equivalent of nearly 15 percent of Santa Clara County’s entire existing multifamily housing units. Significant
townhome development activity is also occurring,
though this analysis focused on higher-density
multifamily development.

High market rents are driving developer interest
in rental housing products. High asking rents and
low vacancy rates are driving developer interest in
constructing rental products. Among higher-density
multifamily product types, apartment buildings are
also often cheaper to build than condominiums since
renters generally demand fewer amenities and high-
end finishes. According to Marcus and Millichap, a
real estate investment services brokerage, Santa Clara
saw the greatest rent increases in the San Jose Metro
area, where rents jumped 10.8 percent between 2015
and 2016, with an average effective rent at $2,629
per month. In comparison, the San Jose Metro area’s
average effective rent increased by 7.9 percent to
$2,474.
3 Based on projected employment and population
growth, demand for additional housing in Santa
Clara will remain robust over the long term. The
City of Santa Clara has a major and long-standing
employment concentration, with an estimated 1.9 jobs
per employed resident as of 2014 (versus 1.2 in the
county overall), and 2.3 jobs per housing unit.
4 The
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects
that the City of Santa Clara will continue to grow as a regionally significant employment concentration; as
of ABAG’s 2013 ‘Plan Bay Area’ forecast, the city was
projected to grow jobs by 29 percent between 2010
and 2040, and households by 33 percent in that
same period. ABAG is in the process of updating these
projections, but the city’s large base of employment
and limited amount of housing will continue to create
strong demand for additional housing near the city’s
office clusters.

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PRODUCT TYPES AND FEASIBILITY

CONSIDERATIONS
This section describes development feasibility
considerations for future higher-density multifamily
housing development in the TEFA. This market and
development feasibility assessment first illustrates and describes the primary types of multifamily housing
products developers are pursuing near the TEFA. The
130 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
assessment then discusses the location and market
factors influencing developer decisions to build
these projects, followed by conclusions regarding the
potential to attract higher-density housing development to the TEFA.

DESCRIPTION OF COMPARABLE COMPETITIVE NEW

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PRODUCT TYPES
New higher-density multifamily projects built or
planned for construction near the TEFA typically fall
within two primary product types, defined for this
study as “midrise” and “high rise towers.” In order
to characterize the different types of higher-density
multifamily products developers are pursuing near the
TEFA, Strategic Economics examined the comparable
competitive supply of recently-built, proposed, and
planned multifamily projects in Santa Clara and
the surrounding cities of San Jose, Sunnyvale, and
Milpitas. Figure 08-2-14 summarizes the typical
characteristics associated with each product type.

Figure 08-2-15 lists comparable competitive
multifamily development projects and their basic
characteristics, distinguishing between midrise housing and high rise towers.

As shown in Figure 08-2-14, midrise multifamily
housing products are typically between four and eight
stories tall. These products are primarily built of up
to five stories of relatively inexpensive wood frame
construction (i.e., below 55 feet), but sometimes
incorporate a one- to two-story concrete parking
podium in order to reach heights of six to eight
stories (under 85 feet tall). High rise towers are built of relatively expensive steel and concrete, and are
generally twelve or more stories tall (as explained in
TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 15 Figure 11. Housing Units by Type of Structure, 2000 to the 2010-2014 Period Share of Total
1990 2000 2014 1990 2000 2014
North Santa Clara Context Area
1 Unit: detached 1,473 1,786 2,866 41% 37% 32%
1 Unit: attached 426 616 1,198 12% 13% 13%
2 units 22 26 145 1% 1% 2%
3 or 4 units 251 253 350 7% 5% 4%
5 to 9 units 48 374 213 1% 8% 2%
10 to 19 units 151 477 1,485 4% 10% 17%
20 to 49 units 845 762 1,195 24% 16% 13%
50 or more units 186 504 1,418 5% 11% 16%
Mobile home 191 0 24 5% 0% 0%
Total 3,593 4,798 8,894 100% 100% 100%

North San Jose Context Area
1 Unit: detached 45 225 263 4% 5% 3%
1 Unit: attached 0 699 581 0% 16% 8%
2 units 0 44 90 0% 1% 1%
3 or 4 units 0 97 56 0% 2% 1%
5 to 9 units 0 310 415 0% 7% 6%
10 to 19 units 0 232 311 0% 5% 4%
20 to 49 units 0 163 596 0% 4% 8%
50 or more units 0 1,510 4,023 0% 35% 53%
Mobile home 1,187 1,045 1,207 96% 24% 16%
Total 1,232 4,325 7,542 100% 100% 100%

City of Santa Clara
1 Unit: detached 16,684 17,633 18,483 44% 45% 41%
1 Unit: attached 3,099 3,585 4,443 8% 9% 10%
2 units 842 929 1,108 2% 2% 2%
3 or 4 units 2,783 2,943 3,098 7% 7% 7%
5 to 9 units 3,049 3,467 3,688 8% 9% 8%
10 to 19 units 3,281 3,038 5,110 9% 8% 11%
20 to 49 units 3,676 2,874 3,509 10% 7% 8%
50 or more units 3,809 5,024 5,430 10% 13% 12%
Mobile home 338 102 84 1% 0% 0%
Total 37,561 39,595 44,953 100% 100% 100%

Santa Clara County
1 Unit: detached 302,515 323,923 342,467 57% 56% 54%
1 Unit: attached 48,114 52,736 66,530 9% 9% 10%
2 units 10,299 11,112 11,988 2% 2% 2%
3 or 4 units 31,804 35,259 35,579 6% 6% 6%
5 to 9 units 28,725 31,041 33,974 5% 5% 5%
10 to 19 units 30,669 28,441 38,144 6% 5% 6%
20 to 49 units 31,717 27,679 33,047 6% 5% 5%
50 or more units 30,609 49,467 59,571 6% 9% 9%
Mobile home 20,899 19,102 18,554 4% 3% 3%
Total 535,351 578,760 639,854 100% 100% 100%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses; U.S. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010- 2014; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Sources:

U.S. Census Bureau,
1990 and 2000 Decennial
Censuses; U.S. American
Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, 2010-2014;
Strategic Economics, 2016.

Figure 08-2-11 Housing Units By Type, 2000 to the 2010-2014 Period 12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 131
TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 16 Figure 12. Annual Building Permits for New Housing Construction by Type of Unit: City of Santa Clara, 2000 to 2014
Sources: U.S. Housing and Urban Development, State of the Ci ties Data Systems (SOCDS) Building Permits Database, 2016; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Figure 13. Multifamily Housing Development Activity by City: Santa Clara, San Jose, Milpitas, and Sunnyvale, 2016
City
Pending/
Approved
Under
Construction/
Recently Completed
Santa Clara 7,348 2,370
San Jose 9,120 18,247
Sunnyvale 1,592 1,424
Milpitas 6,062 N/A
Total 24,122 22,041
Sources: Cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas; 2016; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Multifamily Housing Product Types and Feasibility Considerations This section describes development feasibility considerations for future higher-density multifamily housing development in the TEFA. This market and development feasibility assessment first illustrates and describes the primary types of multifamily housing pr oducts developers are pursuing near the TEFA. The assessment then discusses the location and market factors influencing developer decisions to build these projects, followed by conclusions regarding the potential to attract higher-density housing development to the TEFA.

Description of Comparable Competitive New Multifamily Housing Product Types New higher-density multifamily projects built or planned for construction near the TEFA typically fall within two primary product types, defined for this study as “midrise” and “high rise towers.” In order to characterize the different types of higher-d ensity multifamily products developers are pursuing near the TEFA, Strategic Economics examined the comparable competitive supply of recently-built, proposed, and planned multifamily projects in Santa Clara and the surrounding cities of San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas. Figure 14, below, summarizes the typical characteristics associated with each 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 % of Units in Single Family Structures % of Units in Multifamily Structures Figure 2.2.12 - Annual Building Permits for New Housing Construction by Type of Unit: City of Santa Clara, 2000 to 2014
Sources: Cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas; 2016; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Sources: U.S. Housing and Urban Development, State of the Cities Data Systems (SOCDS) Building Permits Database, 2016; Strategic Economics, 2016 TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 16 Figure 12. Annual Building Permits for New Housing Construction by Type of Unit: City of Santa Clara, 2000 to 2014
Sources: U.S. Housing and Urban Development, State of the Ci ties Data Systems (SOCDS) Building Permits Database, 2016; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Figure 13. Multifamily Housing Development Activity by City: Santa Clara, San Jose, Milpitas, and Sunnyvale, 2016
City
Pending/
Approved
Under
Construction/
Recently Completed
Santa Clara 7,348 2,370
San Jose 9,120 18,247
Sunnyvale 1,592 1,424
Milpitas 6,062 N/A
Total 24,122 22,041
Sources: Cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas; 2016; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Multifamily Housing Product Types and Feasibility Considerations This section describes development feasibility considerations for future higher-density multifamily housing development in the TEFA. This market and development feasibility assessment first illustrates and describes the primary types of multifamily housing pr oducts developers are pursuing near the TEFA. The assessment then discusses the location and market factors influencing developer decisions to build these projects, followed by conclusions regarding the potential to attract higher-density housing development to the TEFA.

Description of Comparable Competitive New Multifamily Housing Product Types New higher-density multifamily projects built or planned for construction near the TEFA typically fall within two primary product types, defined for this study as “midrise” and “high rise towers.” In order to characterize the different types of higher-d ensity multifamily products developers are pursuing near the TEFA, Strategic Economics examined the comparable competitive supply of recently-built, proposed, and planned multifamily projects in Santa Clara and the surrounding cities of San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas. Figure 14, below, summarizes the typical characteristics associated with each 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 % of Units in Single Family Structures % of Units in Multifamily Structures the subsequent findings). The use of wood, concrete,
and steel structural materials is primarily driven by
building code requirements in order to fulfill fire safety needs.

Developers of multifamily housing are primarily
currently building and proposing future development
of midrise products in the market area. As shown in
Figure 08-2-15, units in midrise buildings comprise
nearly three-quarters of the total multifamily
competitive supply.

Midrise multifamily housing developments are typically
developed at densities between 35 and 75 dwelling
units per acre, with heights below eight stories;
higher-densities are achievable if unit sizes are small.

As shown in Figure 08-2-15, the density of projects
being planned or proposed in Santa Clara and its
surrounding cities is in the range of 35 to 75 dwelling units per acre and typically no more than 5 stories in
height, although some projects exceed these heights
and densities. It is important to note that densities
are driven not just by construction type and height,
but also by unit size. Smaller unit sizes allow midrise buildings to potentially accommodate higher densities
approaching or above 100 dwelling units per acre. For
example, two recently completed projects in North San
Jose, “River View (Parcel 1)” and “Aire,” were built at 90 and 92 dwelling units per acre, respectively.

To date, virtually all high rise towers being built in
surrounding cities were located in Downtown San
Jose, with the exception of one tower project that
Figure 08-2-12 Annual Building Permits for New Housing Construction by Type of Unit: City of Santa Clara, 2000 to 2014
Figure 08-2-13 Multifamily Housing Development Activity by City, 2016 ■ ■
132 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
was recently completed in North San Jose’s North
First Street corridor; however, shorter towers are now
planned for development in other settings. The recently completed Century Center consists of two twelve-story
apartment towers, located in close proximity to the San Jose Mineta Airport and the VTA Metro/Airport light rail station. Other tower projects being planned outside
Downtown San Jose are in Milpitas.

As demonstrated in Figure 08-2-15, the average
density of high rise tower projects in the development
pipeline is over 300 dwelling units per acre. As
shown, several projects proposed for development in
Downtown San Jose will achieve densities of well over
350 dwelling units per acre.

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE FEASIBILITY OF MULTIFAMILY

HOUSING PRODUCT TYPES NEAR THE TEFA
Developers prefer to build midrise multifamily housing
projects in nearby cities because rents and sales
prices are not high enough to cover the relatively high construction costs per square foot of high rise towers.

Local developers interviewed for this study agreed that midrise products are favored primarily due to lower
construction costs; since costs per square foot are
lower, developers are able to move forward with midrise projects at a lower rental price point. In contrast,
rents need to be significantly higher to incentivize
construction of high rise towers, which are more
expensive to construct on a per square foot basis.

Developers with experience building midrise housing
in locations similar to the TEFA are increasingly
interested in pursuing denser, more “urban” housing
products, but are achieving this density by providing
TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 17 product type. F igure 15 lists comparable competitive multifamily development projects and their basic characteristics, distinguishing between midrise housing and high rise towers.

As shown in Figure 14, midrise multifamily housing products are typically between four and eight stories tall. These products are primarily built of up to five stories of relatively inexpensive wood frame construction (i.e., below 55 feet), but sometimes incorporate a one- to two-story concrete parking podium in order to reach heights of six to eight stories (under 85 feet tall). High rise towers are built of relatively expensive steel and concrete, and are generally twelve or more stories tall (as explained in the subsequent findings). The use of wood, concrete, and steel structural materials is primarily driven by building code requirements in order to fulfill fire safety needs.

Figure 14. Characteristics of Typical Recently Constructed Midrise and High Rise Tower Projects Midrise High Rise Tower
Typical Number of
Floors
Construction
Type
# of Residential
Stories
Construction
Type
# of Residential
Stories
Type V
(wood frame) 4-5 max / 55 feet Type I
(concrete and
steel)
Unlimited Type III
(modified wood) 6-8 max / 85 feet
Parking
Wrap: parking garage in the center
surrounded by wood frame construction
Podium: 1 to 2 stories of concrete
parking underneath residential;
potentially one story below grade
Garage at/above grade (single or multi-
level)
Garage below grade
Typical DU/Acre 35 to 75 DU/Acre, up to approximately
100 DU/acre maximum Above 150 DU/Acre
Sources: Strategic Economics, 2016.

Developers of multifamily housing are prim arily currently building and proposing future development of midrise products in the market area. As shown in Figure 15, units in midrise buildings comprise nearly three-quarters of the total multifamily competitive supply.

Midrise multifamily housing developments are typically developed at densities between 35 and 75 dwelling units per acre, with heights below eight stories; higher-densities are achievable if unit sizes are small. As shown in Figure 15, the density of projects being planned or proposed in Santa Clara and its surrounding cities is in the range of 35 to 75 dwelling units per acre and typically no more than 5 stories in height, although some projects exceed these heights and densities. It is important to note that densities are driven not just by construction type and height, but also by unit size. Smaller unit sizes allow midrise buildings to potentially accommodate higher densities approaching or above 100 dwelling units per acre.

For example, two recently completed projects in North San Jose, “River View (Parcel 1)” and “Aire,” were built at 90 and 92 dwelling units per acre, respectively.

To date, virtually all high rise towers being built in surrounding cities were located in Downtown San Jose, with the exception of one tower project that was recently completed in North San Jose’s North 1 st Street corridor; however, shorter towers are now planned for development in other settings . The recently completed Century Center consists of two twelve-story apartment towers, located in close proximity to the San Jose Mineta Airport and the VTA Metro/Airport light rail station. Other tower projects being planned outside Downtown San Jose are in Milpitas.

As demonstrated in Figure 15, the average densit y of high rise tower projects in the development pipeline is over 300 dwelling units per acre. As shown, several projects proposed for development in Downtown San Jose will achieve densities of well over 350 dwelling units per acre.

Sources: Strategic Economics, 2016.
smaller units rather than taller buildings; developers
typically pursue these denser midrise projects in
locations with supportive amenities and walkability.

Aire and River View’s Parcel 1, both located in North
San Jose, achieved a density of at least 90 dwellings
units to the acre (Figure 08-2-16). Other higher-
density midrise projects – achieving densities of at
least 75 dwelling units to the acre – are planned and
proposed in Downtown San Jose and Milpitas (Figure
08-2-15). In order to achieve these higher-densities,
these developments include a higher proportion
of studios and one bedrooms and small unit sizes.

Developers interviewed for this study noted that they
are increasingly considering pursuing midrise projects
up to seven or eight stories with smaller units; these
projects can achieve densities of 100 dwelling units
per acre.

Developers of high rise towers typically need to build
projects of at least twelve stories to generate sufficient revenues to cover increased constructions costs.

Additional – and costly – life safety requirements are
required when buildings exceed roughly 75 to 85 feet.

Developers are therefore less likely to build multifamily buildings between eight and twelve stories because
additional revenue-generating space is necessary to
cover the additional expense of construction materials
(although the exact height can vary depending on site
characteristics and rental rates or purchase prices).

According to local developers interviewed for this
study, building a high rise tower results in a significant cost increase per square foot of at least 25 percent
more than a typical building below 85 feet.

As demonstrated by recently-completed rental towers,
high rise towers are typically built in locations where a Figure 08-2-14 Characteristics of Typical Recently Constructed Midrise and High Rise Tower Projects 12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 133
TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 18 Figure 15. Comparable Competitive Supply of Recently Completed, Under Construction, Approved, and Pending Multifamily Development Projects
Project City Status
Land
Area Units Stories
Du/
Acre
Midrise
First and Reed (598 S 1st St) San Jose Approved 0.6 105 7 183 Modera San Jose Approved 1.0 168 6 171
Marshall Square San Jose Approved 1.4 195 6-7 139
River View (Parcel 1) San Jose Recently Completed 4.0 369 6 92 Aire San Jose Recently Completed 3.3 293 4 90
1201 S Main/Ilara Milpitas Recently Completed 2.8 204 4 74 1102 Abel St (Axis) Milpitas Recently Completed 5.2 366 70 Mission Town Center Santa Clara Approved 6.4 417 5 65
Virginia Terrace Apartments San Jose Under Construction 3.7 238 65 Balbach Condos San Jose Under Construction 1.6 101 64
121 Tasman San Jose Recently Completed 2.9 174 4 60
Ascent Apartments San Jose Under Construction 10.8 650 5 60 North Tenth Street Apartments San Jo se Under Construction 2.9 166 58 Cobalt Apartments Santa Clara Under Construction 4.0 222 4 56 Marquis San Jose Recently Completed 3.0 155 3 52
Mio Japantown San Jose Recently Completed 2.0 103 4 52
Villas on the Boulevard Santa Clar a Under Construction 3.6 186 4 52 Monticello Village Santa Clara Under Construction 16.1 825 3-4 51 McCandless Drive Milpitas Approved 23.0 1,154 5-7 50 Lennar 450 Montague Expwy Milpitas Pending 10.5 489 47 1200 Piper Drive Milpitas Approved 16 732 5 46
Alexis Santa Clara Under Construction 1.4 60 4 43
Madison Place Santa Clara U nder Construction 0.7 28 4 41 Tuscany Apartments Santa Clara Re cently Completed 3.4 133 4 39 Fruitdale Station San Jose Under Construction 6.7 256 4 38 Gateway Village Santa Clara Approved 12.6 476 4-5 38
Centre Point Mixed Use Milpitas Pending 15.7 603 38
Berryessa Crossing (Phase 2) San Jose Recently Completed 13.7 494 36 Metropolitan Apartments San Jose Under Construction 2.9 102 35 East Weddell Sunnyvale Approved 12.0 465 3-4 39
Average DU/Acre 65
High Rise Tower
Gateway Tower San Jose Pending 0.5 270 24 542
Greyhound Towers San Jose Pending 1.6 708 23-24 443
Post and San Pedro San Jose Pending 0.5 202 21 438
Silvery Towers San Jose Under Construction 1.8 640 20-22 356 One South Market San Jose Recently Completed 1.0 312 23 322 Centarra San Jose Recently Completed 1.3 347 21 275
NSP3 Towers San Jose Approved 1.5 313 18 209
Century Center San Jose Recently Completed 2.4 376 12 157 Landmark Tower Milpitas Approved 3.0 450 22 150
Parkview Tower San Jose Approved 1.5 216 10-18 144
DIRIDON San Jose Pending 3.8 325 9 86
Average DU/Acre 284
Blended Project
1256 Piper Drive (Tower and
Townhomes) Milpitas Approved 5.7 308 12 54
Sources: Cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas; news articles; Santa Clara County Assessor, 2015; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Sources: Cities of Santa
Clara, San Jose, Sunnyvale,
and Milpitas; news ar -
ticles; Santa Clara County
Assessor, 2015; Strategic
Economics, 2016.
rent or sales premium associated with local amenities
justifies the higher costs of construction. Strategic
Economics compared values between recently built
(2012-2015) midrise and high rise developments in
the City of San Jose, as shown in Figure 08-2-16.
5 Among recently constructed apartment buildings in the City of San Jose, rents in Downtown San Jose’s high
rise apartment towers command a premium of at least
10 percent compared to new midrise buildings. On
average, recently built midrise building asking rents
are around $3.29 per square foot, compared to $3.61
per square foot for a high rise tower.

Locations likely to experience tower construction
generally feature a variety of transportation options,
entertainment and retail amenities, and proven market
value. According to developers, high rise towers
perform best in areas with strong transit access,
walkability, and strong concentrations of amenities
(e.g. retail, restaurants, nightlife). Virtually all existing and newly constructed high rise towers reviewed for
this study are marketed as high-end luxury residential
communities targeted towards young, professionals
seeking to live in vibrant and walkable communities.

High rise condominium tower development activity
is now proceeding after several years of inactivity.

According to Polaris Pacific, no high rise condominium
towers were built since 2012 in Santa Clara or San
Jose, although one is currently under construction
in Downtown San Jose. The gap in condominium
development is explained by the slowdown of
condominium development activity after the 2007
Figure 08-2-15 Comparable Competitive Supply of Recently Completed, Under Construction, Approved, and Pending Multifamily Development Projects 134 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
to 2009 economic recession following the subprime
mortgage crisis. In this current market cycle, several
condominium towers are proposed in Downtown San
Jose, particularly as the City of San Jose’s Downtown
High Rise Incentive Program is set to expire at the end of June 2016.
6 The recent surge in high rises in Downtown San
Jose is partly attributable to the City of San Jose’s
Downtown High Rise Incentive program – a deliberate
public policy and set of incentives to encourage
tower development. In 2007, the City enacted a set
of development incentives to encourage high rise
development in Downtown San Jose, which included
waiver of inclusionary requirements, reduced park
fees, and waiver of parking minimums. When this was
enacted (during the housing boom), these high rises
were only viable as condominiums. It wasn’t until
2010 that Downtown San Jose constructed its first
high rise rental project. Nonetheless, several high rises under construction or being planned for in Downtown
San Jose and Milpitas will be luxury condominiums.

Higher-density multifamily housing – which often
primarily consists of smaller studios and 1-bedroom
units – is rarely marketed to or likely to include many families with children. Based on developer interviews,
review of recent development projects, and review
of census data, multifamily housing in the examined
cities is rarely targeted to or occupied by households
with children. The trend is unlikely to change, as unit sizes shrink in denser buildings designed to meet
demand from the market area’s concentration of young
professional workers.

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN THE
TEFA
The TEFA is well positioned to attract market interest
and demand for multifamily housing due to its
transportation options, employment access, and
proximity to the planned City Place retail, office, and housing development. The TEFA already features a
number of assets that will complement and encourage
growth of a transit-oriented, mixed-use neighborhood.

The TEFA is well-served by transit via VTA light
rail, ACE, and Capitol Corridor. Many of the area’s
surrounding office clusters are easily accessible via
transit or automobile. Future development of City
Place – which will add up to 9.2 million gross square
feet of retail, office, entertainment, hotel, and parks built in multiple phases – to the north and west of the TEFA will further enhance the desirability of the TEFA
by providing retail and employment destinations within
easy walking distance.

Future development in the TEFA is likely to reflect the surrounding area’s ongoing transition to increasingly
higher density multifamily housing. Developers of
midrise multifamily housing in North San Jose and
other nearby areas are pursuing increasingly dense,
“urban” projects with smaller units and taller building formats. For example, the “Aire” project in North
San Jose was built at 90 dwelling units to the acre.

Developers interviewed for this study noted that these
higher densities are likely to become the new norm as
new higher-density neighborhoods emerge in the South
Bay.

In the immediate term, developers could deliver high-
density midrise projects in the TEFA at 100 dwelling
units per acre, if allowed under the area’s zoning,
though achieving this relatively high density in midrise buildings will require inclusion of smaller unit sizes.

The unit sizes in midrise projects this dense will likely be smaller, on average, than the unit sizes in similar
midrise buildings in communities near the TEFA.

Current achievable rents and sales prices in the TEFA
are too low to justify high rise tower construction in
the short term. As explained in this section, high rise towers are a costly and risky development product type.

As a result, they are typically built in locations that already feature strong housing demand – reflected in
top-of-the-region rents or sales prices per square foot – and include existing urban amenities and multimodal
transportation access. Developers are less likely to
pursue high rise multifamily projects in the TEFA in
the near term, creating the risk that prime sites will
already be developed by the time towers are feasible.

As the neighboring City Place project is built out and
local-serving retail and service activities are added to the TEFA, rents and sales prices are likely to increase to the point at which high rise tower development may
become feasible; the city can accelerate this process
by offering incentives that reduce developer costs and
risk, similar to San Jose. The City of San Jose provided incentives to encourage current high rise development
projects. If the City of Santa Clara chooses to prioritize near-term high rise construction, then it should
evaluate incentives to encourage their construction.

Examples include re-examination of the city’s impact
fees for multifamily housing, streamlined permitting
processes, and inclusion of towers in the TEFA plan
Environmental Impact Report.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 135
TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 21 Figure 16. Comparable Competitive Supply of Multifamily Rentals by Product Type, Built 2012 to 2015
Project Subarea Year Stories
Total
Units Du/Acre
Average
Unit
Size
Average
Rent/SF

Midrise
River View (Parcel 1) North San Jose 2013 6 369 92 800 $3.50 Aire North San Jose 2013 4 293 90 867 $3.55
The Verdant North San Jose 2013 5 498 79 892 $3.28
Meridian at Midtown Central San Jose 2014 4 218 64 924 $3.11 Domain North San Jose 2013 4 444 63 1,028 $3.00
Crescent Village North San Jo se 2012 4 1,750 61 897 $3.32 Avalon Morrison Bay Downtown San Jose 2013 4 250 56 1,176 $2.76 Marquis Central San Jose 2015 3 166 56 838 $3.46
Epic North San Jose 2013 5 569 55 862 $3.56
Misora at Santana Row Santana Row 2013 5 212 52 1,150 $3.86 Mio Japantown Central San Jose 2015 4 103 52 929 $3.34
Mosaic Central San Jose 2012 5 386 50 1,091 $2.71

Average DU/Acre 64
Average Unit Size 955
Average Rent/SF $3.29

High Rise Tower
One South Market Downtown San Jose 2015 23 312 322 965 $3.58 Century Center North San Jose 2015 12 376 157 878 $3.23 Centerra Downtown San Jose 2015 21 347 275 935 $4.02

Average DU/Acre 251
Average Unit Size 926
Average Rent/SF $3.61
Sources: realAnswers, 2016; County of Santa Clara Assessor, 2015; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Sources: realAnswers, 2016; County of Santa Clara Assessor, 2015; Strategic Economics, 2016.

Developers in the TEFA are likely to pursue housing
units targeted to small households without children.

Midrise residential projects that also achieve 100
dwelling units per acre typically include mostly studio and one-bedroom apartments with smaller average unit
sizes than other product already on the market. This
unit mix and tendency towards smaller units is less
attractive to families with children than two-bedroom
units, or even more spacious one-bedroom units. If the
City of Santa Clara chooses to prioritize child-friendly housing, the TEFA plan could potentially codify
family-friendly requirements such as inclusion of larger housing units, playgrounds in parks, etc.

Creation of a desirable multifamily neighborhood in
the TEFA will be more successful (and residential
buildings will be able to command higher rents and
sales prices) if the area is well-served by additional
amenities. The TEFA is generally well-positioned
for multifamily housing development due to its
proximity to transit, highway access, and recreational
opportunities. However, additional value could be
created by including local-serving retail and services
(such as eating and drinking establishments, dry
cleaners, convenience stores, etc.), strong pedestrian
circulation within the TEFA and City Place (which will
be discussed in the next section), small-scale open
space, and pedestrian and bicycle connections to
surrounding areas. The following section assesses the
potential for the TEFA to incorporate a grocery store
and other basic local-serving retail and service uses.

Figure 08-2-16 Comparable Competitive Supply of Multifamily Rentals by Product Type, Built 2012 to 2015 136 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

NEIGHBORHOOD-SERVING RETAIL MARKET ASSESSMENT
This section describes the TEFA’s retail market
positioning and potential to attract new neighborhood-
serving retail. Strategic Economics examined the
TEFA’s retail potential by examining current market
conditions and competitive retail supply in the
trade area surrounding the TEFA, interviewing local
retail brokers and developers, and by examining
projects currently under construction or proposed for
development.

For purposes of this report, neighborhood-serving
retail is defined as businesses that provide goods and
services that people would frequent at least weekly
to take care of their personal and household needs.

Examples include grocery stores, drug stores, eating
and drinking establishments, dry cleaners, hair salons, etc. Strategic Economics focused the analysis on
neighborhood-serving retail because the adjacent
proposed City Place development will absorb demand
for stores, restaurants, and entertainment serving a
large regional trade area. City Place is proposed to
consist of a 239-acre mixed-use development, with
an emphasis on regional retail uses, as well as office
and housing. Retail development at City Place will
range between 1.3 and 1.8 million square feet, most
of which will be dedicated to fashion, lifestyle, and
entertainment uses.
7 By definition, neighborhood-serving retail serves a
relatively small primary trade area of about a one- to
three-mile radius. However, some shopping center
formats combine neighborhood-serving retailers
with other general merchandise retailers serving a
larger trade area. A good example of this is when a
grocery store and a Home Depot co-locate in the same
shopping center. In this case the center’s primary trade area expands to a three- to five-mile radius. Figure
08-2-17 provides a basic overview of shopping center
types; neighborhood-serving retail is typically found
in the Strip or Convenience Center and Neighborhood
Center categories and, to a lesser extent, Community
Centers. Day-to-day needs retailers, restaurants,
and cafes are sometimes located in standalone
strip centers or on the ground-floor of mixed-use
residential buildings, but are also often co-located in neighborhood and community centers with grocery
store anchor tenants. Other types of shopping centers
that serve much larger trade areas – such as “lifestyle centers” and “regional shopping malls” – are excluded
from the table below since the focus of this analysis is on neighborhood-serving retail.

Following this introduction, the next section examines
market conditions and the competitive supply of retail
in the One-Mile Trade Area (approximately five-minute
drive) and the Three-Mile Trade Area (approximately
ten-minute drive) of the TEFA. The section concludes
with an assessment of the Tasman East Focus Area’s
positioning for attracting neighborhood-serving retail.

RETAIL MARKET CONDITIONS AND COMPETITIVE SUPPLY
This section provides an overview of the current retail market conditions and competitive retail supply in
the One-Mile Trade Area and Three-Mile Trade Area
surrounding the Tasman East Focus Area. Figure 08-
2-18 maps the location of existing shopping centers
within a one-, three-, and five-mile radius of the TEFA.

This section also examines the competitive supply of
grocery stores – and the neighborhood-serving retail
uses co-located with them – currently serving areas
closest to the TEFA. Figure 08-2-19 shows a map of
existing grocery stores, recently closed grocery stores, and ones expected to open in the immediate term.

Special consideration has been given to grocery stores
because this use tends to anchor other neighborhood
serving shops. In addition, having a grocery store in
close proximity to dense housing can reduce people’s
dependence on automobile trips for some non-work
related trips. Having a grocery store in the TEFA would help make the area more transit- and less automobile-
oriented.

All but eight percent of the One-Mile Trade Area’s
242,000 square feet of retail space is located at North San Jose’s @First community center (Figure 08-2-18).

Other centers within the One-Mile Trade Area consist
of smaller strip retail built in the early 1990s. @First itself includes a Target, CVS, a vacant former Fresh &
Easy grocery store space, and a collection of smaller
retailers and restaurants. Although @First is currently the closest major retail competition and supply relative to the TEFA, its freeway-centric location adjacent to
Highway 238 and big box anchor tenant positions the
center to serve a larger trade area for less frequent
trips.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 137
Nearly 1.9 million square feet of retail space is located in the Three-Mile Trade Area, 34 percent of which
consists of neighborhood and strip retail centers
(Figure 08-2-18). The remainder of the Three-Mile
Trade Area’s total retail space is dispersed between one power center and four community centers. These types
of shopping centers are anchored by grocery stores,
home furnishing stores, and/or general merchandise
stores, and often serve a larger trade area than the
neighborhood-serving retail uses examined throughout
this section. The community centers depicted in Figure
18 are @First, Rivermark Village, Mercado Santa Clara,
and Milpitas Square.

As shown in Figure 08-2-19, two grocery stores
currently operate within the three-mile radius of
the TEFA, but no grocery store is located within one
mile of the TEFA. The map in Figure 08-2-19 shows
existing, planned, and recently closed grocery stores,
along with the number of households and workers each
grocery store currently serves within its one-mile trade area. A Safeway and Walmart Neighborhood Market
are the two closest grocery stores to the TEFA. The
Safeway currently serves over 14,100 households and
nearly 38,000 workers within its primary trade area,
while the Walmart Neighborhood Market serves 6,375
households and over 26,300 workers. The former Fresh
and Easy, located in North San Jose’s @First shopping
center, was the closest grocery store to the TEFA,
but closed at the end of 2015. It is unclear whether
a grocery store will occupy the 20,000 square feet
space.

TEFA Housing and Supportive Retail Market Assessment | June 15, 2016 24 Figure 17. Relevant U.S. Shopping Center Classifications and Characteristics Type of
Shopping
Center
Typical
Sq. Ft.

Range Acres Typical Anchors
Trade Area
Size/
Drive-time Examples
Strip or
Convenience
Center
Less than
30,000
Less
than 3
Un-anchored, or anchored by a
small convenience store (7-11
etc.)
<1 mile/
< 5 minutes
El Camino Real
centers
Neighborhood
Center
30,000 to
125,000 3 to 5
Convenience-oriented, typically
anchored by a grocery and/or
drug store
1-3 miles/
5-10
minutes
El Monte
Center,
Blossom Valley
Center
Community
Center
125,000 to
400,000 10 to 40
General merchandise or
convenience-oriented anchors,
may include discount stores,
grocery stores, drug stores,
and/or large specialty stores
(home improvement/
furnishings, sporting goods,
etc.)
3-6 miles/
10-15
minutes
San Antonio
Center,
Downtown
Sunnyvale
Source: ICSC Research and CoStar Group; Strategic Economics 2016.

Following this introduction, the next section examines market conditions and the competitive supply of retail in the One-Mile Trade Area (approximately five-minute drive) and the Three-Mile Trade Area (approximately ten-minute drive) of the TEFA. The section concludes with an assessment of the Tasman East Focus Area’s positioning for attracting neighborhood-serving retail.

Retail Market Conditions and Competitive Supply
This section provides an overview of the current retail market conditions and competitive retail supply in the One-Mile Trade Area and Three-Mile Trade Area surrounding the Tasman East Focus Area. Figure 18 maps the location of existing shopping centers within a one-, three-, and five-mile radius of the TEFA.

This section also examines the competitive supply of grocery stores – and the neighborhood-serving retail uses co-located with them – currently serving areas closest to the TEFA. Figure 19 shows a map of existing grocery stores, recently closed grocery stores, and ones expected to open in the immediate term. Special consideration has been given to grocery stores because this use tends to anchor other neighborhood serving shops. In addition, having a grocery store in close proximity to dense housing can reduce people’s dependence on automobile trips for some non-work related trips. Having a grocery store in the TEFA would help make the area more transit- and less automobile-oriented.

All but eight percent of the One-Mile Trade Area’s 242,000 square feet of retail space is located at North San Jose’s @First community center (Figure 18). Other centers within the One-Mile Trade Area consist of smaller strip retail built in the early 1990s. @First itself includes a Target, CVS, a vacant former Fresh & Easy grocery store space, and a collection of smaller retailers and restaurants. Although @First is currently the closest major retail competition and supply relative to the TEFA, its freeway-centric location adjacent to Highway 238 and big box anchor tenant positions the center to serve a larger trade area for less frequent trips.

Nearly 1.9 million square feet of retail space is located in the Three-Mile Trade Area, 34 percent of which consists of neighborhood and strip retail centers (Figure 18). The remainder of the Three-Mile Trade Area’s total retail space is dispersed between one power center and four community centers. These types of shopping centers are anchored by grocery stores, home furnishing stores, and/or general Source: ICSC Research and CoStar Group; Strategic Economics 2016.

According to commercial brokerage firm, Cushman
and Wakefield, retail tenant demand remains robust in
the San Jose Metro Area, particularly for new Class A/
B+ space. At the end of 2015, Santa Clara’s vacancy
rate was at 3.5 percent, compared to five percent in
the San Jose Metro overall. The average asking rent in
Santa Clara is slightly higher at $28.80 per square foot per year on a triple net basis, compared to the metro
average asking rent of $28.08. These rates reflect
what is currently available in the marketplace, most of which is Class B or C space.

Figure 08-2-17 Relevant U.S. Shopping Center Classifications and Characteristics 138 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

PLANNED RETAIL PROJECTS
Significant retail development is planned at City Place, located immediately adjacent to the TEFA. However,
City Place will likely include very little neighborhood- serving retail. The City Place community masterplan
plans to build between 1.3 - 1.8 million square feet
of retail, most of which will be dedicated to fashion,
lifestyle, and entertainment uses. According to the
developer, the maximum amount of local-serving retail
would be in the 20,000 sq feet range and may include
a small market and neighborhood services. The final
tenant mix is still uncertain.

Two new grocery stores are planned for development
in the three-mile trade area surrounding the TEFA;
while these stores will fulfill unmet market niches,
neither is located especially close to the TEFA itself. A new neighborhood center, anchored by Whole Foods,
will be opening in the late summer of 2016 as part of
Santa Clara Place, which will add 1.7 million square
feet of office space and up to 2,000 housing units.

This area currently serves about 5,650 households
and over 41,500 workers. Grocery Outlet in Sunnyvale
is also expected to take over the lease of a recently-
closed Fresh and Easy, which will serve over 11,800
households and 23,800 workers within its primary
trade area.
8 Combined with the Safeway and Walmart
Neighborhood Market, the four grocery stores are all
located two to three miles from the TEFA, and cover a
wide variety of price points (from discount groceries to the high-end Whole Foods).

Neighborhood-Serving Retail Potential in the TEFA
Existing residents and workers within the three-mile
radius of TEFA are already well-served by grocery
stores and neighborhood-serving retail. A variety of
grocery stores and neighborhood or strip retail centers already capture demand from existing residents and
workers. Future housing growth in the three-mile
radius of TEFA– including the 2,000 housing units and
additional office space planned at Santa Clara Square,
near Bowers Avenue and Highway 101 – will also be
served by planned retail development, including the
aforementioned Whole Foods, several restaurants, and
basic services.

Despite this nearby supply of grocery stores and
neighborhood retail, the TEFA itself is not well-served by the existing retail supply. The TEFA is currently
occupied by low-density light industrial properties and largely surrounded by open land. As result, the area
lacks the workers and residents needed to support
neighborhood-serving retail.

However, residential and employment growth at the
TEFA and City Place will generate significant new
demand for a grocery store and other neighborhood-
serving amenities, generating increased demand
for retail in and near the TEFA. The current spatial
distribution of grocery stores and neighborhood-
serving retail is largely focused on serving existing
concentrations of residents and workers, and located
along major roadway and freeway transportation routes
(Figure 08-2-19). The TEFA and surrounding areas
currently lack workers and residents, although nearly
10,000 households and over 10,000 workers are
already located within a mile of the TEFA. Over time,
these existing households and workers will be joined by the addition of up to 1,680 households at City Place,
a 700-room hotel, thousands of workers in City Place’s
retail and office spaces (between 3.2 to 6.7 million
square feet), and additional households in new housing
to be built in the TEFA. The combined total workers
and households within a mile of the TEFA will create
significant market demand for neighborhood-serving
retail closer to the area.

The early phases of retail at City Place are unlikely
to include neighborhood-serving retailers, creating an
opportunity for the TEFA to capture neighborhood-
serving retail opportunities. The City Place program
plans to build between 1.3 and 1.8 million square feet
of retail, most of which will be dedicated to fashion,
lifestyle, and entertainment uses. There are plans to
add up to 20,000 square feet of retail as part of the
residential component of City Place, but this retail may be built in a later phase and primarily fulfill the needs of City Place households and visitors. As a result, the TEFA can potentially capture the surrounding area’s
demand for groceries, day-to-day retail, and local-
serving restaurants and cafes.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 139
Figure 08-2-18 Existing Retail Centers Figure 08-2-19 Grocery Stores Q
0 Existing Retail Centers:
0 0 0
Q)
~ ~o §o
Esri, HER~Loqne , Mapmy1nd1a, C Opens.treeJ"1!ap 0 oontnbuto~ . a~d tt}'e,GlS user community 0 0 oO
0 0
0 0
One, Three, and Five-Mile Trade Areas of Tasman East Focus Area 0 StrtJ;1Cenler
0 Ne1gtibol hood Cente,-
0 Commu111ty Center
0 IJCO'Sly!OO!MN
0 Power Center , .... 0 I .! fl
•
SI I" " f fC. I('. f (OUOM I( S Reg10nal Mall

SUNNYVALE
3-Mile Radius

SAN JOSE
Tasman East
I / Focus Area
/ Houseliolds: 9,947 ,A. Fm,h & E .. y
Workers~
9\)< '\,,.
~
1-Mile
Radius
SANTA .CLARA
Walmart Neighborhood
Market
Households: 7,375 Ll!,,
Workers: 2~,356 Whole Foods
H011seholds: 5,651
Workers: 41,517
Safeway
Households: 14,137
Workers: 37,788
,,,
Esrl, HERE, Delorme , Mapmylndia. © OeenStreelMap
contributors. and the GIS user commun ity?
Sources. CoStar Group, 2016; LEHD"On the Map~, 2014; U,S. C,ensusAmencaoCommumty Survey 5-Year Es.tima1es. 2010-2014, StrateglC Economics. 2016 Grocery Stores:

One and Three-Mile Radius of Tasman East Focus Area
.6. Existing Grocery Store
A Coming Soon
.A. Recently Closed
1 Mile Trade Area •. , , .. n
0 • ff AI n or J(ONO,..l < S
140 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
The ability of the TEFA to capture demand for grocery
stores will depend on whether and where other grocery
stores and neighborhood centers are built prior to
these uses in TEFA. Given the magnitude of planned
development activity at City Place, potential residential growth in the TEFA, and ongoing growth in nearby
North San Jose, strong potential exists for grocery
stores to eventually add new locations in or near the
TEFA. Since housing and worker growth in the TEFA
and City Place will only support a limited amount of
grocery demand, the TEFA’s ability to include a grocery store is contingent on whether it captures this demand
before other nearby locations.

The potential to capture a grocery store in TEFA
will improve when better north-south access is
created – when Lick Mill Boulevard is extended – and
connectivity is improved within the TEFA and between
the TEFA and City Place. From a retail perspective,
the TEFA currently lacks excellent connectivity to its
surrounding trade area; the TEFA can only currently
be directly approached from the south and west (at
two different elevations) and no major street runs
directly through the area. When Lick Mill Boulevard
is extended through Tasman East, the site will have
excellent access from the north and south, although
access from the west will remain challenging. This
puts even greater emphasis on the need for excellent
internal circulation both within the TEFA, and
connecting to City Place so that its residents can easily access a grocery store.

Regardless of whether the TEFA captures demand for
a grocery store, residential and worker growth in the
area will drive demand for basic food, beverage, and
personal services to serve as needed amenities for
the housing. The TEFA’s internal residential growth
– coupled with spillover demand from worker and
resident growth at City Place – is likely to support at least a minimal amount of day-to-day retail amenities.

These include limited quantities of convenience stores
and services such as salons and dry cleaning.

The TEFA’s ability to capture demand for eating and
drinking places will require the area to complement
City Place’s options rather than compete with them.

The TEFA’s internal residential growth is likely to
support limited quantities of restaurants and cafes,
but the survival of these uses will require capturing
additional demand from the surrounding area and
growth at City Place. Given that City Place will feature a high concentration of these uses, the TEFA will need
to include complementary offerings positioned to
provide a more relaxed, neighborhood-centric, and/or
independent or boutique feel.
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 141
Footnotes

1. The 2014-based census block groups for North Santa Clara Context Area used in this analysis includes: Tract 5049.01 Block Group 1; Tract 5050.01 Block 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; and Tract 5050.07 Block Group 1 and 2. The 2014-based census block groups for North San Jose Context Area include: Tract 5050.06, Block Group 1 and 2; Tract 5050.08, Block Group 1 and 2; and Tract 5050.09, Block Group 1, 2, and 3.

2. This includes 2,000 residential units approved for Santa Clara Square near Bowers Avenue at Highway 101, and 1,360 residential units approved at City Place.

3. Marcus and Millichap, 1Q 2016. Multifamily Research Market Report: San Jose Metro Area.

4. U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data, 2014. This dataset estimates 105,041 jobs and 54,231 employed workers in Santa Clara as of 2014.

5. City of San Jose rental data obtained from realAnswers.com in May 2016. realAnswers is a commercial vendor that tracks asking market statistics for large apartment communities with 50 or more units.

6. City of San Jose. Memorandum: Downtown Commercial High- Rise Development Incentives. 20 November 2014.

7. Related Companies. “CityPlace Santa Clara Master Community Plan,” June 1, 2016.

8. “Safeway, Grocery Outlet snap up South Bay Fresh & Easy Leases.” Silicon Valley Business Journal. 16 Dec. 2015. 142 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20

EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITIONS
Storm Drainage
Storm drainage facilities in and around the Tasman
East Specific Plan area are owned and maintained
by private property owners, the City of Santa Clara’s
Department of Public Works and the Santa Clara Valley
Water Agency (SCVWA).

Private systems in the individual parcels typically
discharge through 12-inch through 24-inch lines
into the backs of public catch basins in the public
rights-of-way. The local public system consists of
surface inlets and gravity storm drain pipes in streets.

These vary in size between 12-inch and 33-inch.

They generally flow northeasterly in Calle Del Mundo
and Calle De Luna and north in a 33-inch pipe that
runs in the north-south section of Calle De Luna. The
system flows into the City’s Tasman Channel in the
northeast corner of Tasman East on the project side
of the Guadalupe River’s western levee. The Tasman
Channel carries flows of approximately 3,000-LF to
the Eastside Retention Basin. A pump station pumps
stormwater from this basin through the levee and
into the Guadalupe River. The River, which is under
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) jurisdiction, conveys flows to the San Francisco Bay.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number
060885C0062J, dated February 19, 2014 identifies
major portions of the plan area as potential Flood
Hazard Zones and subject to localized flooding.

Approximately 80% of the Plan area is in Zone AH
(elevation 8, North American Vertical Datum – 1988),
which is defined as areas subject to inundation by the
1-percent chance event. The FIRM, whereby the BFE
was derived from detailed hydraulic analyses, defines
this event as having shallow flooding with average
depths of between 1-foot and 3-feet. Mandatory flood
insurance purchase requirements and floodplain
management standards apply to areas with this Zone
AH.

The remaining roughly 20% of Plan area is designated
as Zone AO with probable ponding depths up to 1-foot
during the 1-percent chance event. This includes
several pockets north of Calle de Luna, primarily at the center of the block between Calle de Luna and Calle
del Mundo. The portion of the site south of Calle de
Luna is generally shown as Zone AO with the exception
of the streets and parcel frontages.

The water level of the Guadalupe River adjacent to
the site is presented in the FEMA Flood Insurance
Study (FIS) dated February 19, 2014. The 100-
year water level in the River adjacent to the site is
between elevations 14 and 15 feet (NAVD 88). FEMA
computer model runs of the River are available on the
Santa Clara Valley Water District Web Site. Based on
FEMA’s October 1994 analyses, the 100-year reported
flow delineated on the FIS is 13,000 cfs (located
at the River reach point downstream of Highway
17). The Guadalupe River model shows water levels
of approximately elevation 15.8 within the Project
vicinity.

FEMA requires that levees provide a minimum
freeboard of 3 feet above the Base Flood Elevation
(BFE) all along their length, and an additional 1
foot within 100 feet of structures (such as bridges)
or wherever the flow is restricted. The top of levee
adjacent to the site is about elevation 25, significantly above the FEMA requirement for levee freeboard.

The BFE of 8 at the Project is significantly lower
than the BFE of about elevation 15 in the Guadalupe
River, as adjacent levees provide flood protection to
Tasman East. Runoff from the Project area flows to the
Eastside Detention Basin and Lift Station to the north
of the Project.

The City of Santa Clara further refined the 100-year
event water levels analyses within the project area
as part of their Storm Drain Master Plan (prepared
by Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting City Engineers,
dated December 2015). This Master Plan provides
calculations that delineate a reduced inundation area,
significantly less than indicated by the FEMA FIRM
map. The County’s published LiDAR topography shows
streets below elevation 8, but most of the developed
portion of the site above elevation 8. Based on this
information, the FEMA FIRM overstates the portion of
the site that would be inundated during a 100-year
storm event. Using the LiDAR data, only streets and
parcel frontage would be inundated during the 100-
year storm event.

08.3 INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 143

SEA LEVEL RISE
Runoff from the project area flows to the Eastside Lift Station located about 3,700 feet north of the site.

Because all project flows are pumped, the Project is
isolated from the direct effects of sea level rise. The primary impact associated with sea level rise would be
hydraulically to the Lift Station’s performance. As sea level rise increase, there would be a minor decrease in the pumping rate associated with the higher discharge
water level. An increase in sea level would have only
a minor impact on water levels in the Project area
provided the levee separating the Guadalupe River
flows is maintained. The low point of the levee is
about elevation 18 (north of State Route 237). With
no changes, the levee will provide the required three
feet of freeboard for a 100-year tide of about elevation

15. The current 100-year tide in this area is elevation

11.3. The levee is adequate for a sea level rise of more than 3-ft.

Provided the City upsizes pumps to accommodate
the higher discharge water level within the entire
watershed, there would be no long-term change in
Project 100-year water levels associated with sea level rise.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Wastewater from Tasman East is conveyed through the
City of Santa Clara’s wastewater collection system to
the San Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility
(SJ/SC RWF), which is approximately two miles to
the northeast in the Alviso area of San Jose. The SJ/
SC RWF Plant provides wastewater treatment for the
Figure 08-3-1 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number 060885C0062J, dated February 19, 2014, showing the Tasman East project area. 144 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 12/22/20
cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell,
Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno.

The SJ/SC RWF has an existing capacity to treat
167 MGD, though the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program
limits the amount of treated wastewater that can
be discharged to the San Francisco Bay to 120
million gallons per day (MGD) average dry weather
flow. This is due to potential impacts of additional
freshwater discharges to saltwater marsh habitat, as
well as pollutant loading to the San Francisco Bay.

The NPDES permit contains a trigger that, if the 120
MGD average dry weather effluent flow is exceeded,
additional mitigation activities are required. Currently, discharges are averaging 110 MGD.

WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE
Wastewater conveyance facilities within Tasman East
are owned and maintained by the City of Santa Clara
Department of Water and Utilities (SCDW&U). The
facilities consist of gravity pipe lines constructed in 1973 with vitrified clay (VCP), as well as the Primavera Lift Station, which consists of 6 identical Flygt 3127
pumps having an estimated total capacity of 5.7 mgd .

This station handles wastewater from Tasman East, as
well as incoming flows from a 24-inch gravity main in
Tasman Drive that runs northward up Calle Del Sol.

Wastewater flows from Tasman East to the west to
a trunk system in Lafayette Street. As it flows north
it increases from a 36-inch, to a 42-inch, then to a
48-inch gravity line then enters a control chamber to
the Rabello Pump Station and the Northside Pump
Station. These two-stations work in parallel to convey
flows through a combination of 36-inch Force Mains,
a Junction Structure, and a 48-inch Force Main to the
Santa Clara Influent Junction Structure. This junction
combines City of San Jose’s system and the Santa
Clara system just prior to entering the SJ/SC RWF.

Figure 08-3-2 shows an overview of the City’s
Wastewater Conveyance System.

WASTEWATER GENERATION RATES
Based on 2013 and 2014 water billing records in
the City’s customer billing database, existing Base
Water Flow (BWF) of 0.036 MGD is generated at the
site. Assuming full build-out at the existing Light
Industrial Zoning Designation (50% FAR and 0.15
gpd/sf wastewater generation), 0.157 MGD would be
generated.

In April 2016, RMC Water and Environment prepared
the City’s Sanitary Sewer Master Plan to guide
improvements to the City’s wastewater system to
accommodate current and future development. The
study used future (based on Phase III Development
of the 2035 General Plan) Peak Wet Weather Flow
(PWWF) assumptions to analyze the system. The
2035 General Plan indicates a land use designation
for Tasman East of “High Density Residential,” with
a density of 40 Dwelling Units per Acre, which would
yield a BWF of 0.336 MGD.

WASTEWATER SYSTEM CAPACITY
The Sewer Master Plan indicates that the Rabello and
Northside Pump Stations will be operating effectively
at the Estimated Firm Capacity (total of ~41 MGD)
during future PWWF conditions. The study indicates
that the Primavera Lift Station has a capacity of 5.7
MGD, and projects flows of 2.0 MGD in 2035. The
Master Plan does not indicate any other elements of
the conveyance system between Tasman East and
the SJ/SC RWF that are anticipated to need upgrades
before 2035.

In the event that more development occurs than
is anticipated by the 2035 General Plan, the Firm
Capacity of the Rabello and Northside Pump Stations
will need to be upgraded to meet the demand. The
upgrades would include additional wet well and
pumping capacity as well as, potentially, force main
improvements.

Potable Water Facilities: Water Supply and
Demand
Potable water in the City of Santa Clara comes
from three sources, including local, city-owned
wells; the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD); and the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC). In Tasman East, water is
provided entirely by the SFPUC through turnouts
to the Bay Division Pipelines of the Hetch Hetchy
delivery system. Figure 3 shows sources of water
by area.

Table 1 indicates the anticipated volume of water
that will be used from each source to meet the
12/22/20 Tasman East Focus Area Plan Amendment #1 145
expected demands projected in the City’s 2010
Urban Water Master Plan (UWMP).

The City’s contract with the SFPUC indicates
that if certain conditions are met, the City may
be required to reduce or eliminate its take from
SFPUC.