City Council and Authorities Concurrent
March 19, 2024

3. Evaluation of past performance
The last Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) submitted to HUD was for 2022-2023 (PY2022).

The following are the highlights of the accomplishments reported in support of the Con Plan goals:

Affordable Housing.

The Tenant Based Rental Assistance program assisted 26 households, and between the NCIP program and Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, there were 15 households assisted.

Public Services.

There were 754 households that benefited from public services provided by three non-profit agencies and other city funded programs. 1,683 persons received a variety of public services from six non-profit agencies.

Homelessness.
515 households benefited from case management services provided by local non-profit agencies. The majority of these households were assisted with local funds. Further, 26 TBRA households, which have already been counted under the Affordable Housing goal, also received case management services.

Fair Housing.

Project Sentinel assisted 32 households with fair housing services.

4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process During the development of the 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan, two public hearings are held to solicit public comment to help identify community needs, and non-profit agencies that could provide services to address those identified needs. One of the hearings is held during the drafting phase of the Plan as required by HUD. Further, a 30-day public comment period for the final version of the Plan is scheduled just prior to the final Public Hearing.

Public Hearing #1. This Public Hearing satisfies the Citizen Participation Plan requirement to hold at least one Public Hearing during the drafting phase of the Annual Action Plan. The hearing gives the public an opportunity to provide input. The first Public Hearing for the 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan (DRAFT) is scheduled for March 19, 2024, at the regularly scheduled City Council Meeting.

Public Hearing #2. The second and final Public Hearing is scheduled for May 7, 2024. This Hearing will provide a final opportunity for public comment/input. The final version of the 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan (FINAL) will be presented. Any comments will be included in the final version of the Action Plan and the Plan will be submitted to HUD.

Public Noticing. The noticing follows the Citizen Participation Plan requirements. The following information for the 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan was publicly noticed in The Santa Clara Weekly on February 14, 2024, noticed via email to community non-profits, posted on the City's website, and copies were accessible at libraries and City Hall:
1) Notice of Public Hearing #1 on March 19, 2024, for the 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan (DRAFT) 2) Notice of Public Comment Period (April 5, 2024 - May 7, 2024) for the 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan (FINAL) 3) Notice of Public Hearing #2 on May 7, 2024, for the 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan (FINAL)

5. Summary of public comments
Public Hearing #1:

TBD
30-Day Public Comment Period
TBD
Public Hearing #2.
iTBD

6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them TBD

7. Summary
CDBG-funded public services continue to be a great asset to the community, with many of the programs funded focusing on the senior population, persons with disabilities, and unhoused residents. The leveraging opportunities for our nonprofits by receiving HUD funding is of great value. The City will continue to seek out creative solutions to improve their grants management program.

The City of Santa Clara is the lead agency and administrator for the CDBG & HOME funds. The Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan Public Contacts are:

Reena Brilliot
Acting Director of Community Development
RBrilliot@SantaClaraCA .gov
408.615.2451
Adam Marcus
Housing & Community Services Manager
AMarcus@SantaClaraCA .gov
408 .615.2491

Introduction
The 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan was prepared by City staff with input from a variety of local and regional stakeholders including public service providers (e.g., senior services, homeless services, youth services), affordable housing developers, and County partners. Service partners administer projects and activities that align with the goals and objectives of the Con Plan.

Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction's activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(1)).

The Santa Clara Housing Authority {SCHA) administers the Housing Choice Voucher program . The City's TBRA administrators and City staff have worked with SCHA in the past to assist long standing clients of the TBRA program to acquire long-term vouchers. Typically, these are previously homeless households that did not initially qualify for permanent supportive housing and were not able to improve their income and housing situation by the end of the TBRA program's term . Coordination and case management services resulted in some families receiving 10-year Emergency Housing Vouchers .

The City uses CDBG funds for Bill Wilson's Family Therapy/School Outreach/Grief Counseling. This public service provides mental health services to youth and their families to cope with high-risk behavior choices, family conflict, and grief counseling. The City also funds the County Office of Supportive Housing to provide case management services to a portion of the City's homeless. Further, Abode Services administrators to the City's TBRA program, use local funds to provide case management services for the City's TBRA clientele .

Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness.

The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (Coe) is a multi -sector group of stakeholders dedicated to ending and preventing homelessness in the County of Santa Clara (County). The Coe Board is comprised of the same individuals who serve on the Destination : Home Leadership Board. Destination: Home, a program of The Health Trust, is a public-private partnership implementing collective impact strategies to end homelessness in Santa Clara County. Its mission is to drive and align resources to create permanent housing and sustainable support systems built for the long term.

The CoC primary responsibilities are to coordinate large-scale implementation of efforts to prevent and end homelessness in the County. The CoC is governed by the Santa Clara CoC Board (CoC Board), which stands as the driving force committed to supporting and promoting a systems-change approach to preventing and ending homelessness in the County . The organization is improving how systems work together to end homelessness, as well as protect individuals and families at risk of becoming homeless.

The City of Santa Clara, having endorsed the 2020-2025 Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness, convened a Homelessness Taskforce in April 2022. The Taskforce included stakeholders with a range of perspectives and experience who can help identify priorities and provide recommendations on the development of a City Plan to reduce the impacts of Homelessness. The City partnered with the non-profit, Homebase, to facilitate the taskforce and to develop a City-centric Plan. This plan was presented in January 2023 at a City Council Study Session and the City Council direct staff to move forward with a new street-based case management program.

Page4
The results of the 2022 Point in Time Homeless Count ("Count") showed a 35% increase in homelessness since 2019. By comparison, the Countywide count showed a 3% increase. In prior years the City redesigned the TBRA program to place more emphasis on assisting homeless families. In December 2022, the County's HMIS system included 520 unhoused single adult households and 137 households with at least one child. There is still a need to serve households with children, but there is a greater need to serve single households. To address both needs, the City intends to use HOME funds to continue the focus on ending homelessness for families with children which is consistent with the County's Heading Home campaign to end family homelessness by 2025. The City also intends to use HOME ARP funds to provide supportive services to single adult households and a variety of HOME ARP qualifying populations.

The City supports services and capital improvement projects for agencies that assist chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth primarily through the TBRA program.

In 2023 the City began funding WeHope Dignity on Wheels to provide weekly mobile shower, laundry, and case management services. In partnership with WeHope, the City has continued to fund a weekly mobile shower and laundry service since spring 2022. The service also provides linkages to other services. For the 2022/2023 PY, the service provided 170 showers and 58 laundry loads.

Describe agencies, groups, organizations, and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction's consultation with housing, social service agencies and other entities.

Agency/Group/Organization Bill Wilson Center
Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
Services-Children
Services-homeless
1 What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was Staff is consulted on improvements to the City TBRA program. consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Agency/Group/Organization County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing Agency/Group/Organization Type Publicly Funded Institution/System of Care Other government - County
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment 2 Homeless Needs - Families with children
Market Analysis
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was Staff met with the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the Housing on several occasions to discuss the City response to consultation or areas for improved coordination? homelessness and partnership opportunities.

Agency/Group/Organization Abode Services
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing
3 What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with children Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was Staff is consulted on improvements to the City TBRA program. consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Agency/Group/Organization Senior Adult Legal Services (SALA) Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Elderly Persons 4 What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/ Organization was Submitted public comment at both public hearings; highlighting consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the the need for the services they provide. consultation or areas for improved coordination?
5 Agency/Group/Organization Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing

What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Homelessness Needs - Families with children and domestic violence and human trafficking survivors
Homelessness Strategy
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was Submitted public comment at public hearings; highlighting the consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the need for the services they provide. consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Agency/Group/Organization Homebase
Agency/Group/Organization Type Regional policy consultant that builds capacity to address homelessness systematically .
6 What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? AP-65 Homele ssness and Other Special Needs Activities Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was Helped prepare a set of local strategies to address consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the homelessness and its impacts in the City. Homebase also consultation or areas for improved coordination? helped prepare the City's HOME ARP plan which was approved by HUD.

Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting:

The City did not reach out to broadband-specific providers/organizations. This was due, in part, to the results of the 2020- 2025 Consolidated Plan survey . 62% of respondents felt there was not a common/pressing issue with broadband or internet access. Also, local internet providers all provide low -cost options and/or discounts to low-income households.

Although the City works with organizations whose primary responsibilities include the management of flood prone areas, public land or water resources, and emergency management agencies on normal public business, these organizations were not specifically consulted for the Annual Action Plan. Issues related to such agencies were not mentioned as an issue in the ConPlan survey.

Describe other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead How do the goals of your Strategic Plan Organization overlap with the goals of each plan?
The Continuum of Care works to alleviate the imp act of homelessness in the community Continuum of Continuum of through the cooperation and collaboration of social service providers . This effort aligns Care Care Council with the Strategic Plan goal to end homelessness including rental assistance, homeless prevention programs, case management, outreach activities and support of facilities.

The actions in the Housing Element are consistent with the Strategic Plan, most notably City of Santa in the provision of adequate sites appropriate for a range of housing types and in Housing Element promoting preservation and development of affordable housing including supportive Clara housing for persons with disabilities. The Housing Element was adopted in mid-2023 and is pending state approval.

City of Santa Clara In 2022 the City conducted a six-month Homelessness Taskforce process and worked Homelessness City of Santa with nonprofit consultant Homebase to develop a draft strategic plan. The plan was Strategic Plan Clara City reviewed in January 2023 and is planned to be adopted in late 2024. The plan will (2023) Council include strategies to prevent homelessness, connect unhoused residents with basic needs, case management, and housing opportunities.

Santa Clara Santa Clara The City's outreach for the 5-year Con Plan showed senior needs and services as a high County Seniors County priority . Seniors' Agenda 2021 report speaks to many of the services that have been Agenda provided through the City's CDBG funds.

The 2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness in the County is a five-year plan Community Plan to guide governmental, nonprofits, and other community members as they make to End Destination decisions about funding, programs, priorities and needs. This effort aligns with the Homelessness in Home Strategic Plan goal to support activities to end homelessness: rental assistance, Santa Clara homeless prevention programs, case management, outreach activities & support of facilities .

1. Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal setting.

The City outreach efforts to obtain community input included two public hearings before City Council (one during the drafting phase of the AAP), noticing the AAP and hearings, and posting the draft AAP on the City website. The table below summarizes the results of the City efforts.

Citizen Participation Outreach
Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of URL
Outreach Outreach response/ attendance Comments received comments not (If accepted and applicable)
reasons
Public Hearing #1 was
noticed in The Santa Clara
Public Non- Weekly on February 14, All comments
1 Hearing targeted/broad 2024: City Council TBD were accepted n/a community Meeting - March 19, 2024 and noted.
during the drafting phase
of the Plan.

Public Hearing #2 was
noticed in The Santa Clara See AP-05, section 5 for
Public Non- Weekly on February 14, a summary of t he All comme nts 2 Hearing targeted/broad 2024. The City Council public comments given were accepted n/a commun ity Meeting on May 7, 2024 at Public Hearing #2. and noted. presented the final
version of the Plan.

The following inform ation
for the 24/25 Annual
Action Plan was publicly
noticed in The Santa Clara
Weekly on February 14,
2024, and also noticed via
email to community non-
profits, posting on the City
website, and having
copies accessible at The 30-day comment
libr aries and City Hall: period was noticed on
February 14, 2024 in
1) Notice of Public Hearing the Santa Clara Weekly.

Newspaper Non- #1 on March 19, 2024 for The comment period All comments 3 Ad targete d/bro ad the 2024-2025 Annual ran from April 5,2024 were accepted n/a commun ity Action Plan (DRAFT); through May 7, 2024 and noted .

See AP-05, section 5
2) Notice of Public
(Public Comment
Summary) for more
Comment Period (April 5, comments.
2024 to May 7, 2024) for
the 2024-2025 Annual
Action Plan (FINAL);
3) Notice of Public
Hearing #2 on May 7,
2024 for the 2024-2025
Annual Action Plan
(FINAL).

Introduction
CDBG Funds: The total amount of CDBG resources expected is $1,830,873. This total is made up of the estimated CDBG entitlement, estimated Prior Year Resources (i.e., funds that were committed but not drawn or funds that became unprogrammed due to program income), and Program Income (i.e., income generated from prior CDBG projects such as loan repayments).

Annual Entitlement Funds
Estimated Prior Year Balance
Estimated FY24/25 Program Income
TOTAL
$1,034,553
$ 15,574
$ 780,746
$1,830,873

CDBG CONTINGENCY LANGUAGE
More than estimated: If the City's annual entitlement funds and/or Prior Year Resources (i.e., funds that were committed but not drawn or funds that were not programmed) are greater than estimated, or the Program Income (i.e., income generated from prior CBDG projects) for FY23/24 is greater than $180,000, the set-aside calculation for administrative funds will be recalculated and increased, and any excess funds will be programmed towards Capital Improvements to Public Facilities, Rehabilitation Projects for affordable housing, and/or the homeowner rehabilitation program (i.e., NCIP).

Less than estimated: If the City's annual entitlement funds and/or Prior Year Resources are lower than estimated, then the set-aside calculation for administrative funds will be recalculated and reduced, and the amount committed to NCIP will be reduced. Also, if the calculation of our entitlement dollars plus the 23/24 Program Income (EN+PI) is less than $1,200,000, the Public Service Cap will be less than $180,000 which means one of the public service activities will need to be funded with General Funds.

HOME Funds: The total amount of HOME resources expected is $1,025,000. This is made up of the annual HOME entitlement, Prior Year Resources, and Program Income.
*
Entitlement Funds
Estimated Prior Year Balance
Estimated FY24/25 Program Income
TOTAL
$437,588
$577,412
$ 10,000*
$1,025,000
Estimated HOME Program Income (FY24/25). The City estimates it will receive $100,000 in Program Income during the upcoming FY24/25. Ten percent (10%), or $10,000, will be programmed in this 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan to be used for administrative costs as allowed by HOME regulations. The other 90% ($90,000) will be programmed next year in the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan as part of the Prior Year Balance. Any program income above these estimates will be allocated in the same manner; 10% for administration in FY24/25, and the remaining 90% to be allocated in FY25/26.

HOME CONTINGENCY LANGUAGE
More than estimated: If the City's FY24/25 Entitlement allocation, FY23/24 Program Income, and/or Prior Year Resources are higher than estimated, the excess funds shall be allocated to the TBRA program after the City's portion for administration is set-aside.

Less than estimated: If the City's FY24/25 Entitlement allocation, FY23/24 Program Income, and/or Prior Year Resources are lower than estimated, TBRA will be reduced after the administration set-aside is calculated.

-
-
CDBG Public- Acquisition $1,034,553 $780,746 $15,574 $1,830,873 $0 CDBG funds may be Federal used for: 1) Land
Housing Rehab acquisition for
affordable housing;
Capital 2) NCIP program and
Improvement Minor Repair
Projects - Public Program (Rebuilding
Facilities Together Si licon
Valley); 3) Public
Capital infrastructure and
Improvement other public facility
Projects - improvements ; 4)
Affordable Capital Im prov. to
Housing Affordable Housing;
5) Public services; 6)
Public Services Planning and
Admin./P lanning adm inistration .

HOME Public- CHOO and $437,588 $10,000 $577,412 $1,025,000 $0 Funds may be used Federal regular HOME for: 1) TBRA; 2) NCIP;
rental projects, 3) Fair Housing; 4)
such as property Rental development ;
acquisition, new and/or 5) Admin . &
const.,and/or Planning.
rehabilitation .

Approximately
Homeowner $52,000 of the "Prior
Rehabilitation Year Resources" is
program income (Pl)
TBRA received in FY23/24.

Admin. and Approx. $100,000 in
Planning for Pl is expected to be
HOME programs receipted in
and activities. FY24/25. 10% (i.e.,
$10,000) will be
programmed in this
action plan fo n
administrative
activities (PA) and
drawn in FY24/25.

The remaining $90K
will be programmed
in FY25/26.

If FY24/25 Pl exceeds
$100,000, City will
continue using 10%
for admin. and the
remaining wil l be
programmed in
FY25/26.

Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied Federal funds will leverage local funds (i.e., General Funds, City Affordable Housing Funds, and City Housing Successor Funds) to increase project efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale. The HOME match requirement will be met through the waiving of property taxes on past HOME-funded multi-family affordable developments. The local funds will be used to fund certain the following activities:

General
Fund
City
Affordable
Housing
Fund
(CAHF)
City
Housing
Successor
Fund
(CHSF)

HOME-ARP
Public
Services
Public
Services
Public
Services
Public
Services
$71,264
$225,697
$250,000
$30,000
Other Federal Grant Programs
0 0 $71,264
0 0 $225,697
0 0 $250,000
0 0 $30,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$51,264 Project Sentine l - Landlord/Tenant
Mediat ion Program
$15,000 Catholic Charities Ombudsman Program
$5,000 United Way 211
$160,697 for case management services for TBRA.
$15,000 Intensive Case Mgt.
$50,000 Homeless Prevention
$110,000 to fund case managemen t services for
chronica lly homeless households .
$140,000 for case management services for TBRA.
$30,000 from the HOME-ARP funds will be used to
fund case management services for domestic
vio lence survivors.

Additional federal programs that fund community development and affordable housing, and are provided by Santa Clara County Housing Authority and affordable housing developers include:

Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program,
Section 202,
Section 811; and
Affordable Housing Program (AHP) through the Federal Home Loan Bank.

If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan
In recent years, the City has worked to develop affordable housing on three properties: 1) Bay Area Research and Extension Center (BAREC) senior housing site at 90 North Winchester Boulevard; 2) 2330 Monroe Street, and 3) Fire Station #6 at 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard.

BAREC: On January 29, 2019, City Council approved all land use entitlements for the project and adopted a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Disposition and Development Agreement with Core Affordable Housing LLC for the development of the Agrihood Project located at 90 North Winchester Boulevard/ 1834 Worthington Circle and further authorizing the City Manager to execute all other agreements (including a Ground Lease, Loan Agreements, Deeds of Trust, Promissory Notes, and Affordable Housing Agreement). The project closed in 2022 and is now leased up and operating.
2330 Monroe Street: On January 28, 2020, City Council approved all land use entitlements for the project and adopted a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Disposition and Development Agreement with Freebird Development LLC and further authorizing the City Manager to execute all other agreements (including a Ground Lease, Loan Agreements, Deeds of Trust, Promissory Notes, and Affordable Housing Agreement). The proposed development will have 65 mixed-income units with 11 set-aside for households with developmental disabilities.

The project will be 100% affordable units. The project closed in 2022 and is now leased up and operating. 3575 De La Cruz: The City Council has approved negotiations to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Rights Agreement (ENA) with Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley. The proposed development will be 15 100% affordable, for-sale town homes. In December 2023, the City Manager executed a 12-month extension of the ENA to account for project delays due to high interest rates and the need to secure additional state subsidies.

Goal Description
Goal Name Affordable Housing
1 Goal Description Assist in the creation and preservation of multi-family rental housing for low income and special needs households, rehabilitation of low-income owner-occupied housing through the Neighborhood Conservation and Improvement Program, TBRA rental subsidies, new construction.

Goal Name Homelessness
2 Goal Description Support activities, consistent with Continuum of Care strategies, to prevent and end homelessness. This includes building affordable housing for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness as well as the provision of support services.

Goal Name Public Services
3 Goal Description Support activities that provide basic needs to lower income households and special needs populations.

Services would be provided to low-income households, elderly individuals, homeless persons, people with disabilities, and victims of domestic violence.

Goal Name Fair Housing
4 Goal Description Promote fair housing choice, through th e following activities : fair housing education, fair housing testing, housing assistance hotline, and landlord -tenant mediation .

Goal Name Public Facilities
5 Goal Description Make improvements to public facilities which can include City-owned facilities and/or improvement s to prop erties owned and operated by non-profi ts which serve low-income clientele.

Goal Name Planning & Administration
6 Goal Provide management, planning and implementation of the CDBG & HOME programs as well as monitoring Description of public services and housing project s.

AP-23 -Annual Goals Summary
Goal Category Needs Addressed Needs Addressed Funding
Affordable Housing Affordable Housing CDBG: $823,963
HOME: $971,242
Start Year: 2020 End Year: 2025 Outcome : Affordability Objective : Provide decent affordable
housing
Narrative: Assist in the creation and preservation of multi -family rental housing for low income and special needs households, rehabilitation of low-income owner -occupied housing through the Neighborhood Conservation and Improvement Program (NCIP), TBRA rental subsidies, and/or new construction.

CDBG Program
Afford able Housing $500,000 NCIP Loans and Grants (5 households) $ 73,963 NCIP Project Delivery Costs
$100,000 Liberty Tower Elevator Project (additional funds for a project funded in FY23/24) $150,000 Minor Repair Program - Rebuilding Together (10 households) $ 823,963 total (15 households)
HOME Program
$971,242 TBRA Administration (25 households)
Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity Unit of Measure
Rental Units rehabilitated 0 Household Housing Unit
Homeowner housing rehabilitated 15 Household Housing Unit TBRA/Rapid Rehousing 25 Households Assisted

AP-23 -Annual Goals Summary (continued)
Goal Category Needs Addressed Needs Addressed Funding
Non-Homeless Special Needs Public Services CDBG: $180,000 Start Year: 2020 I End Year: 2025 Outcome: Objective: Create Availability / accessibility economic opportunities
Narrative: Support activities that provide basic needs to lower income households and special needs populations. Services would be provided to low- income households, elderly individuals, homeless persons, people with disabilities, and victims of domestic violence. The following non-profit agencies will be funded with $180,000 of CDBG dollars:
$30,000 BWC Counseling (100 households)
$30,000 The Health Trust Meals on Wheels (20 households ) $30,000 Hope Services (100 clients)
$30,000 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (70 clients ) Public Services $30,000 Senior Adult Legal Assistance (80 clients) $30,000 Heart of The Valley (400 clients)
$180 ,000 tota l (770 households/ persons)
Local funds of $71,264 wi ll also be used for public services as follows :
$51,264 Project Sentinel Landlord/Tenant Mediation {100 clients) $15,000 Catholic Charities Ombudsman (380 persons)
$ 5,000 United Way 211 (500 persons)
$71,264 TOTAL (980 households/ persons)
$30,000 of HOME-ARP funds (previously programmed in 2021) will fund NextDoor Soluti ons Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity Unit of Measure
Public Services 770 Persons Assisted
Goal Category Needs Addressed Needs Addressed Funding
Public Facility Impro vements Public Facility CDBG: $600,000 Improvements
Start Year: 2020 I End Year: 2025 Outcome: Objective: Create Public Facility Availabi lity/accessib ility economic opportunities Narrati ve: Improvements Install ADA curb cuts throughout city. The beneficiaries of this activity are disabled people who are a presumed benefit population .

Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity Unit of Measure
Public Facility Improvement/ Accessibility 200 Persons Assisted Goal Category Needs Addressed Needs Addressed Funding
Non-Homeless Special Needs Fair Housing HOME : $ 22,197 Start Year: 2023 I End Year: 2025 Outcome: Objective: Create Avai I ability/ accessibility economic opport unities
Fair Housing Narrative: Promote fair housing choice thro ugh the following activities: fair housing education, fair housing testing, housing assistance hotline, and landlord/tenant mediatio n.

Goal Outcome Indicator Quant ity Unit of M easure
Public service activities other t han low/mod 50 Persons Assisted income housing benefit

AP-23 -Annual Goals Summary (continued)
Goal Category Needs Addressed Needs Addressed Funding
Other Administration & CDBG: $226,910
Planning HOME: $ 31,561
Start Year: 2020 I End Year: 2025 Outcome: Objective : Create Administration & Availability/accessibility economic opportunities Planning Narrative: Provide management, planning and implementation of the CDBG & HOME programs as well as monitoring of public services and housing projects.

Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity Unit of Measure
Other 0 Other
Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.215(b). 15 households for Homeowner housing rehabilitation (CDBG), 5 Extremely low-income households
10 Low-income households
25 households for TBRA (HOME),
20 Extremely low-income households
5 Low-income households

Introduction
The activities that the City will undertake in FY24/25 using CDBG and HOME funds include: Public Services, Homeowner Rehabilitation , Tenant Based Rental Assistance, Program Administration & Planning, and Affordable Housing Improvements for low and moderate -income residents. The activities meet one or more priority needs identified in the 5- year Consolidated Action Plan.

In addition to the projects and activities funded with HUD funds as noted in table "AP-35 - Project Information Summary", the City also funds other Public Service Activities with local funds that include:

Project Sentinel - Landlord/Tenant Mediation Services ($51,264; 100 clients) Catholic Charities Long-Term Care Ombudsman ($15,000; 380 persons) Homeless Prevention Services for Homeless Households ($50,000; 20 households) Intensive Case Management ($125,000; 20 households)
United Way Bay Area 211 Services ($5,000; 500 households) Next Door Solutions ($30,000 of HOME-ARP funds from 2021; 72 households) TOTAL LOCAL FUNDS: $276,264 (1,092 persons/households)
AP-38 - Project Information Summary
# Project Goals Supported Needs Addressed Funding
Public Services Homelessness Homelessness CDBG: $180,000 Public Services Public Services Description Public services provided to the community that primarily benefit low to low -mod income persons and/or households .

Target Date for Completion 6/30/2025
Estimate the number and type of families 770 persons [280 moderate income at less than 80% AMI; 380 low- that will benefit from the proposed activities . income less than 50% AMI; 110 extremely low-income less than 30%AMI)
Location Description Citywide
$30,000: 2023 Family Therapy/School Outreach/Grief Counseling 1 (Bill Wilson Center) [LMC/5D/100 persons]
$30,000: 2023 Meals on Wheels (The Health Trust) [LMC/5A/20 persons]
$30,000: 2023 Hope Services [LMC/5B/100 persons)
PLANNED ACTIVITIES $30,000: 2023 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center [LMC/5B/70 persons]
$30,000: 2023 Senior Adult Legal Services (SALA) [LMC/5C/80 persons)
$30,000: 2023 Support & Transportation Services for Seniors (Heart of the Valley) [LMC/5A/400 persons)

AP-38 - Project Information Summary (continued)
# Project Goals Supported I Needs Addressed I Funding
Homeowner housing rehab & minor repair Affordable Housing I Affordable Housing I CDBG: $723,963 Financial assistance for low-income homeowners to make
necessary repairs to their owner-occupied homes to address health Description and safety issues. This is completed through the City's NCIP program and/or Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley. Some funds are also used for Activity Delivery Costs (ACD).

Target Date for Completion 6/30/2025
2 Estimate the number and type of families 15 households [10 low-income less than 50% AMI; 5 extremely low - that will benefit from the proposed activities . income less than 30% AMI] Location Description Citywide
$150,000: 2023 Homeowner rehabilitation and minor repair (Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley) [LMH/14A/10 households] PLANNED ACTIVITIES $500,000 : 2023 NCIP [LMH/14A/5 households] $73,963: 2023 NCIP Activity Delivery Costs [LMH/14H/n/a] # Project Goals Supported I Needs Addressed I Funding
Tenant Based Rental Assistance Affordable Housing I Affordable Housing I HOME: $905,604 Provide financial assistance to low and extremely low-income Description households through deposit assistance and monthly subsidy assistance.

Target Date for Completion 6/30/2025
3 Estimate the number and type of families 25 households [5 low -income less than 50% AMI; 20 extremely low- that will benefit from the proposed activities. income less than 30% AMI] Location Description Citywide
$905 ,604: 2024 TBRA Administration (Abode Services) plus PLANNED ACTIVITIES $160,697 of CAHF and $140,000 of CHSF (local funds) for case management services.
# Project Goals Supported I Needs Addressed I Funding
Capital Improvements to Public Facilities Public Facilities I Public Facilities I CDBG: $600,000 Install ADA curb cuts throughout city . The beneficiaries of this Description activity are disabled people who are a presumed benefit population .
4 Target Date for Completion 6/30/2025
Estimate the number and type of families 200 persons [200 low -incom e less than 50% AMI] that will benefit from the proposed activities.

Location Description Citywide
PLANNED ACTIVITIES $600,000 ADA curb cuts throughout city [LMC/14A/ 200 persons]

# Project Goals Supported I Needs Addressed I Funding
Fair Housing Fair Housing I Fair Housing I HOME $22,197 Provide fair housing services by providing case management Description services, risk assessment, safety planning, legal advocacy, assistance filing restrain ing orders, housing assessment, individual 5 action plan development , support groups, and other services.

Target Date for Completion 6/30/2025
Estimate the number and type of families 50 households [40 low-income less than 50% AMI; 10 extremely t hat will benefit from the proposed activitie s. low -income less than 30% AMI] Location Description Citywide
PLANNED ACTIVITIES $22,197 : Fair Housing Services (Project Sentinel) # Project Goals Supported Needs Addressed Funding
General Program Admini stration & Planning Administration Administration CDBG: $226,910 HOME: $31,561
Description Administrative activities by City for CDBG and HOME-funded project s and activitie s.

Target Date for Completion 6/30/2025
6 Estimate the number and type of families N/A
that will benefit from the proposed activities .

Location Description Citywide
PLANNED ACTIVITIES Adm in. and planning for CDBG and HOME funded projects and activities .

Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs:

Allocation of funds is based on needs and priorities identified in the 2020-25 Con Plan. The City prioritize s allocation s to project s that serve the lowest income households, from 0-80% of Area Median Income .

Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed .

Investments will be allocated citywide.

AP-50 -Geographic Distribution
lfil~r~Ee~W1 tefu~~ ~,'l: ~~-.1;1.~_ • •.~::·_,;_ -·-: .. ~1,r_~ ~--~i,~~ Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically The City does not have plans to prioritize investments geographically . HOME CHOO set-aside funds may be spent in a contiguous jurisdiction if a CHOO development cannot be identified within the City limits.

Introduction
For the purpose of this section, the term "affordable housing" is defined in the HOME regulations at 24 CFR 92.252 for rental housing and 24 CFR 92.254 for homeownership.

The City of Santa Clara has identified the production and maintenance of affordable housing as the primary objective for the expenditure offederal funds in the Consolidated Plan. While CDBG and HOME funds are limited, the City will continue to allocate funding to affordable housing projects , including owner-occupied rehabilitation . The City has non-federal funding sources that it may use toward the development of affordable housing during Fiscal Year 2024-2025.

AP-SSA - One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported (by Population Type) Homeless - Housing assistance for units reserved for homeless individuals and households .

Non-Homeless - Housing assistance for all units NOT reserved for homeless individuals and households.

Special-Needs - Housing assistance for units reserved for households that are not homeless but require specialized housing or supportive services.

Total
AP-SSB - One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through (by Program Type) Rental Assistance - Housing assistance for programs such as tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) and one­ time payments to prevent homelessness.

The Production of New Units - New units, including the conversion of non-residential properties.

Rehab of Existing Units - Rehabilitation of existing units, including reconstruction. If unit will be acquired and rehabilitated , report the unit only once.

Acquisition of Existing Units - Housing assistance for programs such as down payment assistance. If the unit will be acquired and rehabilitated, report the unit only once.

Total
Discussion
25 15
0 40
25 0
15 0
40 The City's goal, as it relates to Affordable Housing, is to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households through continuation of the Neighborhood Conservation and Improvement Program (NCIP), rental habilitation of units occupied by low-income tenants, TBRA rental subsidies, and new construction. 15 households for Homeowner housing rehabilitation (CDBG), 05 Extremely low -income households
10 Low-income households
25 households for TBRA (HOME),
20 Extremely low-income household s
5 Low-income households

Introduction
The Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) is the regional entity that manages and maintains housing units and administers Housing Choice Voucher programs across the County. SCCHA operates four public housing units located in City of Santa Clara. The housing authority is a HUD-designated Moving to Work (MTW) agency which allows it greater flexibility to design and implement more innovative approaches to providing housing assistance.

For FY24/25, SCCHA plans to serve 18,299 households with MTW Housing Choice Vouchers, 1,270 with local, non-traditional property-based and tenant based vouchers, and 4 MTW Public Housing units leased for a total of 19,573 households served.

The majority of voucher holders have a tenant-based voucher which allows the holder to use the voucher at any housing unit where the landlord will accept the voucher. Data on the number of vouchers in use within the City is unavailable.

Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing The SCCHA has 536 tenant-based vouchers that the MTW PHA anticipates project -basing for the first time (county-wide); there are 3347 currently. The City will continue to work closely with the SCCHA to address any needs identified during the program year.

The most immediate need is finding housing units and owners that will accept vouchers. Stakeholder interviews also identified the need for assisting families moving into affordable units with basic necessities.

SCCHA re-proposed allocating project-based vouchers to SCCHA-owned projects without competition. This activity was originally proposed and approved by HUD to allow SCCHA to issue Project Based Vouchers (PBVs) to projects owned by SCCHA or a SCCHA affiliate entity without needing to go through a competitive selection process. The re-proposal of this activity would leave the original activity in place and in addition SCCHA is adopting a Housing Opportunities Through Modernization Act (HOTMA) provision that has not yet been implemented by HUD. A modification to Activity 2010-4 will allow SCCHA, at its discretion, to enter into a HAP contract for housing to be rehabilitated or newly constructed even if construction had begun without an AHAP in place.

Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership
SCCHA is proactive in incorporating resident input into the policy-making process. The SCCHA board includes two tenant commissioners that provide input from the tenant perspective .

If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance
Not applicable.

Introduction
The 2022 Point-in-Time Count identified 10,028 homeless individuals county-wide, which was higher than the 2019 count of 9,706. Of these individuals, 2,320 are sheltered and 7,708 are unsheltered. Individuals with the highest rates of being without shelter are the chronically homeless, homeless veterans, and unaccompanied youth. It is estimated that 28.71% (2,838) of the 10,028 homeless people are chronically homeless with 67% of those chronically homeless being unsheltered. 660 are veterans (6.58%) with 79% of those being unsheltered. "Families" comprise 8.95% of total homeless population (276 families with 898 members).1,155 (11.51%) of the homeless population are unaccompanied youth and young adults; 91% of which are unsheltered.

The City of Santa Clara saw an increase in its homeless population of 35% to 440 (up from 326).

Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including:

Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs.

The City will continue its efforts of housing homeless families through its TBRA program. The goal is to house/keep housed approximately 25 households. The City will renew its agreement with the County of Santa Clara for FY24/25 to provide intensive case management to approximately 20 chronically homeless individuals referred by the police department. This program is funded with local funds. The County provides housing subsidies for the participants in this program while the City uses its Successor Housing Agency funds to provide the case management and services for the program. HOME-ARP funds will be used to provide street-based case management services and other supportive services to Qualifying Populations under the HOME-ARP regulations. The City will also continue to offer mobile shower, laundry and case management services on a weekly basis through a partnership with WeHope Dignity on Wheels.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons.

The City will continue to fund agencies that serve homeless persons accessing emergency and transitional shelters. Much of the funding will come from CDBG for agencies providing public services such as case management. Agencies include Next Door Solutions, Bill Wilson Center, and Abode Services. The City is al.so exploring partnerships with the County to potentially build an interim housing site in Santa Clara.

Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again.

Particularly for chronically homeless, it is preferable for individuals to receive intensive case management rather than simple information and referral services. Case managers work to assist homeless individuals find housing, connect with resources, and receive services to maintain housing. The provision of case management is person-based rather than shelter-based with the goal of rapid re-housing. The goals of the County's 2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness establish a target of creating 6,000 housing opportunities for persons who are homeless. An additional goal is for each of the 6,000 new tenants to have access to the services that will allow them to maintain that housing.

The City will continue to use HOME funds for our TBRA program. The TBRA program is a short-term solution to homelessness {unlike permanent supportive housing for the chronically homeless). The Homeless Survey has shown that families with children are not only a special need population but tend to be underrepresented in Homeless Surveys. The TBRA program will continue to focus on assisting the homeless and at-risk of homelessness population; however, preferences towards families with children, and individuals and/or families exiting housing exclusively designated for domestic violence survivors will be given.

Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs.

Although the City does not fund programs or activities that specifically help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless who are being discharged from publicly funded institutions or who receive assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment or youth needs, many of the programs and activities that the City does fund help to prevent homelessness.

Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program (TBRA). Many of the beneficiaries of the TBRA program also receive SNAP {i.e., food assistance), and all receive case management services. The program also allows for assistance to those that are housed, but on the verge of homelessness.

Homeless Prevention Program and Intensive Case Management. The City uses local funds to match county funds for a program that houses up to twenty {20) homeless individuals that are identified by the police department as high users of community resources; some of which had been discharged from facilities and/or jails. This population is also provided case management services. The City also funds the Homelessness Prevention System which provides temporary financial assistance, legal support, and case management to families or individuals who are at risk of losing their housing.

Landlord/Tenant Mediation. This program can indirectly help households stay housed through the mediation of eviction related issues.

Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence. This program provides a safety net of housing and services to either help victims avoid homelessness or make their homeless situation shorter.

Youth needs. The City provides CDBG funding for family and individual counseling needs through the Bill Wilson Center which focuses on the needs of foster children. By administering these programs, it provides The Bill Wilson Center the unique resources to identify homeless families, foster youth in their own system, and households with children in the school system that may be in need of critical needs such as housing, health, employment, education, and other social services.

The City is currently working to complete a City-specific homeless needs assessment and strategic plan. The results of this process will direct future funding for homeless activities and programs.

Introduction
The jurisdictions within the County face barriers to affordable housing that are common throughout the Bay Area. High on the list is the lack of developable land, which increases the cost of available lands and increases housing development costs. Local opposition is another common obstacle as many neighbors have strong reactions to infill and affordable housing developments. Opposition is often based on misconceptions, such as an anticipated increase in crime; erosion of property values; increase in parking and traffic congestion; and overwhelmed schools. However, to ensure a healthy economy, the region must focus on strategies and investment that provide housing for much of the workforce in the region - retail sales clerks, firefighters and police, teachers and health service workers -whose incomes significantly limit their housing choices.

Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment.

The City identified multiple barriers to affordable housing, including income and wages that are not consistent with the rising cost of housing, a competitive rental and home market, and diminishing public funds. The City has identified multiple constraints or barriers to the affordable housing and residential investment in its 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, including:

Land use controls that limit the density of housing production; and/or Parking requirements increase the cost of housing.

Generally, the City faces the same affordable housing barriers as the rest of the Bay Area, including:

High cost of development constrains the development of affordable housing units in favor of higher end units; and
Lack of developable land prevents housing development and increases the price of land; and Local opposition prevents affordable housing from being built in high-resource areas; and Insufficient subsidies and vouchers for deeply affordable units.

Additionally, the Assessment of Fair Housing identified the following contributing factors to fair housing issues, including affordable housing, through analysis of data and community engagement feedback:

Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
Land use and zoning laws
Source of income discrimination
Community opposition to affordable housing
Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes
Availability, type, frequency, and reliability of publictransportation Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs Lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes Lack of affordable housing for individuals who need supportive services Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations Location and type of affordable housing
Loss of affordable housing

Private discrimination
The adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element includes the following actions to remove or ameliorate barriers: Continue to invest in new 100% affordable housing developments, work with nonprofits to acquire and rehabilitate distressed multi­ family housing and convert it to low income housing, update the City zoning ordinance to comply with state laws on reasonable accommodations, the siting of emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing. Reduce parking requirements for housing development near transit, work with religious institutions to identify possible sites for affordable housing development, encourage ADU development, analyze impact fees, promote construction of accessary units and low income housing such as shared housing and Single Room Occupancy units, continue to require developers of 10 or more units to provide Below Market Rate units, identifying new sources of affordable housing funding, and more.

Introduction
This section discusses efforts in addressing the underserved needs, expanding and preserving affordable housing, reducing lead-based paint hazards, and developing institutional structure for delivering housing and community development activities.

Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs One of the major obstacles to meeting the needs of the underserved is the limited amount of funding available to fund public services. The City contributes general funds to fund the tenant/landlord mediation program and the United Way 211 information line . ·
Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City funds Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley to administer a portion of its Homeowner Housing Rehabilitation program. The program addresses building/housing code deficiencies, abatement of hazardous conditions, repair/rehabilitation of deteriorated conditions , and accessibility for persons with disabilities, all to improve the habitability, use and occupancy of owner-occupied housing. Financial assistance is provided in the form of grants. The City also administers its Neighborhood Conservation Improvement Program (i.e., Homeowner Housing Rehabilitation Program) . These projects are typically larger in scope than the projects performed by Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley.

Financial assistance is provided in the form of loans with flexible terms and below market rates.

The City has a Below Market Purchase Program (BMP). This program requires developers to set aside 15% of newly constructed units for housing affordable to low and moderate income homebuyers. The City is in the process of updating the BMP program so that initial buyers will be required to sell to qualified low and moderate income buyers keeping these homes affordable for at least 30 years.

Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards
The City undertakes HUD-funded projects in accordance with the Lead-Based Paint Regulations. These regulations most commonly affect residential structures rehabilitated through NCIP. When identified, lead paint will be controlled or abated and disposed of properly to eliminate or reduce the hazard of environmental or human contamination. The City has adopted a written plan to implement the regulations in its NCIP Program and other housing rehabilitation activities.

Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families On August 22, 2017, the Santa Clara City Council approved a plan establishing the City's local minimum wage. As of January 1, 2020, the City of Santa Clara minimum wage is adjusted annually based on the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI). The City's minimum wage as of January 1, 2024, is $17.75 per hour.

On April 4, 2017, the Santa Clara City Council unanimously passed the first Worker Retention Ordinance in Silicon Valley.

The ordinance, that took effect on May 4, 2017, provides much-needed job security to some of the most vulnerable workers. This law protects food and building service workers from mass layoffs when companies switch contractors. It requires that if a company with an office or venue in Santa Clara hires a new contractor or brings services in-house, the workers who currently work at that location must be kept on for a 90-day transition period.

The Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD) Adult Education Center has a CalWORKs Site Representative who acts as a liaison for participating CalWORKs students and Santa Clara County Social Services Agency. Some of these responsibilities include ensuring that all participants on campus are remaining in compliance with federal regulations, developing a welfare to work plan, reporting monthly attendance to the County for each participant, and reporting progress reports on a quarterly basis for each participant CalWORKs student to the County. In addition to the Site Representative, the Adult Education Center has a Career Advisor for CalWORKs students to help them in job placement, resume development, and interviewing skills.

Actions planned to develop institutional structure
The City will continue its participation in the countywide CDBG Coordinators Committee, which increasingly has become a forum for discussion and active planning of common strategies to address the housing and community needs in Santa Clara County. The City also participates in the Community Planning Collaborative which focuses on housing policy from a development and land use perspective. Lastly, the City works closely with Cloudburst, a HUD approved TA provider.

Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies The City will continue its efforts to encourage consortium-building among housing developers, public service providers, and governmental and non-governmental entities. The City has achieved proven results in using federal funds to leverage private funds. The City participates in the quarterly meetings of the Supportive Housing Roundtable, which includes government agencies, housing developers, service providers, legal services and private funders.

Discussion
In 1983, the City of Santa Clara joined with several other cities to create the North Valley Job Training Consortium (NOVA) in response to the federal Workforce Investment Act. The consortium is a private/public partnership made up of representatives of local government, business and industry, labor, education and training systems, employment services, and community support organizations. The NOVA Workforce Board was established to guide the agency in its mission to deliver employment and training services that enhance the ability to live and work in Silicon Valley. Many of the services and programs provided by NOVA target disadvantaged youth and adult populations, who may have limited education and/or barriers to employment. NOVA is a partner in the CONNECT! Job Seeker Center, a comprehensive resource center opens to all job seekers, which offers computer access, a resource library, resume assistance and job search workshops.

Introduction
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(1) (1) Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out.

1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program 0 year and that has not yet been reprogrammed

2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address 0 the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the strategic plan.

3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements . 0

4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been 0 included in a prior statement or plan.

5. The amount of income from float-funded activities 0
Total Program Income 0
Other CDBG Requirements

1. The amount of urgent need activities. 0

2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low 100.00% and moderate income. Overall Benefit -A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan.

HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(1) (2) A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section 92.205 is as follows:

1. The City does not use HOME funds beyond those identified in Section 92.205. A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds, if used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, are as follows:

Homeowner Equity - for purposes of this policy, it is defined as the sum of the down-payment, principal paid, and homeowner improvements. Home Equity - for purposes of this policy, it is defined as the amount of HOME investment, adjusted as follows: (1) The HOME investment amount would be reduced if, at the time of the homeowner purchase, the market price is less than the cost of construction, by the amount of that difference; and (2) Beginning after six years of residency by the original buyer, the City would reduce its share of excess proceeds by a maximum of 10% for each additional full year the original buyer resides in the home. After the completion of 15 years of residency by the original buyer, the City would have no interest in recapturing any portion of its original HOME investment.

In the event of a sale of a HOME-assisted house during the 15-year HOME affordability period, sales proceeds would be distributed in the following order of priority:
a. Closing costs.
b. Primary mortgage loan (City or private lender).
c. Other loans superior to the HOME investment lien (if any have been approved by the City).

The remaining funds are considered Shared Net Proceeds under the HOME regulations and would be distributed in the following order of priority:
d. Homeowner Equity, or the amount of Shared Net Proceeds, whichever is less. e. Homeowner Shared Net Proceeds. This amount will be the greater of: (1) Homeowner Equity that was paid as described above; or (2) proportionately of the Shared Net Proceeds, according to the formula - Homeowner Equity, divided by the sum of Homeowner Equity plus HOME Equity. f. HOME investment. The remainder of the Shared Net Proceeds. If the remaining Shared Net Proceeds are insufficient to repay the full amount of the HOME investment, the City would forgive any of the HOME investment that could not be repaid from the remaining Shared Net Proceeds.

2. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units acquired with HOME funds. See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows:

The City secures its HOME funds by recording Deeds of Trust on the title of the property that received the funding.

The period of affordability would be a minimum of 15 years.

3. Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that will be used under 24 CFR

92.206(b), are as follows:

The City does not have any plans to use HOME funds to refinance existing debt on multi-family.

4. HOME funds may be allocated to affordable housing capital projects in contiguous jurisdictions.

The City does not plan on using HOME funds to refinance existing debt.

Discussion
CHDO set-aside funds. The City of Santa Clara will consider providing assistance to affordable housing developments in contiguous jurisdictions using CHDO set-aside funds.

TBRA assistance. While it would be ideal for participants to locate housing within the city limits, the program will allow participants to find housing located anywhere within the County of Santa Clara. 95% After Rehab Valuation
The City of Santa Clara may use HOME funds for acquisition purposes. Per CFR 24 92.254 (a)(iii), the City has chosen to determine separate limits for existing housing than the given median purchase price issued by HUD. City staff researched the Multiple Listings Service (MLS) to determine the number of single-family and multi-family home sales. There were less than 250 sales per months; thus, per 24.92.254 (a)(iii), we were required to compile 3 months of sales figures. The following details the home sales in Santa Clara over the most recent three (3) months for single-family homes and multi­ family homes at the time of publication.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-238 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Action on an Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Rezone, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the Property Located at 1957 Pruneridge Avenue to Allow the Development of 22 Detached Single-Family Residences and Associated On- and Off-Site Improvements

COUNCIL PILLAR
Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development

BACKGROUND
SCS Development Company filed an application for the subject proposal to allow for the development of a single-family residential development with 22 detached two-story homes on the 2.47-acre subject site. Implementation of the proposal requires a rezone of the property from B - Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation to PD - Planned Development and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the property into individual for-sale lots and four common lots. Fifteen percent of the total number of units (or 3.3 homes) are required to be provided as affordable housing units; the fractional unit may be addressed by providing one additional affordable unit or by payment of an in- lieu fee. Redevelopment of the property includes the demolition of all existing structures and site improvements.

The project was presented to the Planning Commission at a publicly noticed meeting on February 21, 2024. The Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 8) provides an analysis of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the project (7-0).

The City Council is being asked to conduct a public hearing and take three actions:

1. Certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopt the CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

2. Adopt a resolution approving a Rezone from B - Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation to PD - Planned Development.

3. Adopt a resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the land into 22 individual lots and four common lots.

DISCUSSION
At the February 21, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented an overview of the proposal and its conformance with the General Plan. The Assistant City Attorney also provided information on two conditions of approval related to the use of natural gas, B8 and P23. Condition B8 requires the developer to comply with the City’s “Reach Code” (Chapter 15.36 of the Santa Clara City Code), City of Santa Clara Printed on 3/15/2024Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
24-238 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
which requires new development to be “all electric” and not include natural gas infrastructure. The Assistant City Attorney explained that in recent discussions with the developer, the developer had also voluntarily committed to All-Electric Construction, regardless of the application of the City’s Reach Code, and that this was memorialized in condition P23.

At the Planning Commission Meeting, however, the developer requested a modification to the way that the All-Electric Construction commitment is memorialized. As drafted by staff, condition P23 states that the developer’s commitment to All-Electric Construction is an express basis for the City’s decision to rezone the property as Planned Development, and that if the developer sought to utilize methane at a later date, a revision to the PD zoning would be required. The Developer asked the Commission to modify condition P23 to remove the text which states that the approval is “issued in reliance upon the developer’s assurance that no natural gas infrastructure will be installed at any time, and is an express basis for granting the PD rezoning.” The Assistant City Attorney advised the Commission that this could make the condition more difficult to enforce, and so the Commission did not modify Condition P23.

The applicant provided a presentation that also concluded with a request to remove condition P5, which requires a “complete street” sidewalk section (sidewalk with a landscape strip at the curb) as it would not provide symmetry with the existing neighborhood. The complete street sidewalk section is a requirement of the City’s Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Plan, adopted by the Council in August 2022, which does not provide an exception process.

The Planning Commission asked questions regarding the proposed building height being 31 feet, when single-family building height is 25 feet, privacy concerns, electric vehicle (EV) charging, guest parking, and safety concerns about the driveway location being too close to the adjacent commercial strip center and the intersection of Winchester Boulevard.

One member of the public provided comments. The speaker noted that he did not receive the EIR Notice of Availability even though he commented on the EIR Notice of Preparation. His concerns included the possible existence of cremated remains on the site and that trees were already removed in May of 2023. The applicant responded to the comments stating that the cremated remains were all removed from the site by the church and the trees were removed by Silicon Valley Power as they were dying and interfering with powerlines. The Assistant City Attorney also stated that comments can still be provided on the project and the EIR until the City Council takes action at the public meeting.

The applicant stated that guest parking is available in each unit’s driveway, EV chargers will be provided, and that for privacy a landscape buffer is provided on the northern property line, as well as no private open space is located in that setback area.

The Commission then closed the public hearing. The Commission had a robust discussion on the safety of the location of the single driveway entrance/exit point for the site. Considerations included potential for a median in the right-of-way to prevent left in and out turning movements, no left turn signage, encouraging cut through traffic in the adjacent neighborhood, and changing the location of the driveway or adding a second driveway. There was also discussion on the applicability of complete streets and documentation on the human remains.

The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the project (7-0). The City of Santa Clara Printed on 3/15/2024Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
24-238 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
Commission’s approval included the conditions on Complete Streets and All-Electric Construction as originally drafted by staff:
· P5: Developer shall construct a complete street section along the project frontage of Pruneridge Avenue to include a 5-foot landscape strip with 4.5-feet of clear planting width and a 5-foot sidewalk behind the landscape strip. The landscape strip is to include trees (minimum 24-inch box) and drought tolerant plantings.
· P23: This approval has been issued in reliance upon the developer’s assurance that no natural gas infrastructure will be installed at any time, and is an express basis for granting the PD rezoning. No natural gas infrastructure shall be installed on the project site. If the developer seeks to install natural gas infrastructure in the future, the developer must first seek an amendment to the PD zoning.

The Planning Commission also added two additional conditions to the project:
· Developer shall use reasonable efforts, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, to obtain documentation from the Diocese of the previous church on the site, Saint Mark’s, regarding the disposition of the human remains and details as to their new location.
· Provide “Right Turn Only During Peak Hours” signage for the project driveway.

The applicant found these to be acceptable and they have been added to the conditions of approval of the PD rezoning as conditions P24 and P25.

After the Planning Commission, the applicant shared with staff that they continue to not support condition P5, which is regarding the need for the developer to install a complete street frontage, which includes a separated sidewalk with a landscape strip for the reasons stated earlier with the Planning Commission. Staff continues to support the inclusion of this condition to be consistent with the City’s Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Plan. The applicant also continues to not support the specific language of condition P23. In particular, the applicant would like to remove the phrase “issued in reliance upon the developer’s assurance that no natural gas infrastructure will be installed at any time, and is an express basis for granting the PD rezoning.” from the condition language:

P23 “This approval has been issued in reliance upon the developer’s assurance that no natural gas infrastructure will be installed at any time, and is an express basis for granting the PD rezoning. No natural gas infrastructure shall be installed on the project site. If the developer seeks to install natural gas infrastructure in the future, the developer must first seek an amendment to the PD zoning.” The Greenhouse Gas (GHG), Air Quality, and Energy analysis in the EIR has relied upon the project being built as all electric. Should the applicant wish to pursue a project that uses natural gas, new GHG), Air Quality, and Energy analysis would be necessary, as well as the re-circulation of the EIR.

The inclusion of conditions P5 and P23 as currently drafted are part of the staff recommendation.

Staff recommends that the Council take the following three actions:

City of Santa Clara Printed on 3/15/2024Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
24-238 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024

1. CEQA: Adopt the resolution certifying the EIR and related CEQA documents. This is a quasi- judicial decision, with required findings including that the EIR complies with CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Council.

2. Rezoning: Adopt the resolution approving the Rezone from B to PD. Although this is a legislative action, a PD rezoning requires the Council to make findings regarding the public benefits of the project, which include imaginative design, furthering City housing objectives and promoting City climate goals.

3. Adopt a resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM). The VTSM is a quasi-judicial decision with a long list of required findings, including that the site is suitable for the density and design of development, and that the project is consistent with the General Plan (including the Climate Action Plan).

The PD rezoning and VTSM include the conditions of approval in the form drafted by staff, as well as the two new conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project by the environmental consultant firm David J. Powers & Associates, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Notice of Availability were posted on the City’s website at Environmental Review/CEQA | City of Santa Clara (santaclaraca.gov) <https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community-development/planning- division/environmental-review-ceqa> and available for public review for 45-days between November 17, 2023 and January 2, 2024, in accordance with CEQA requirements. No public or agency comments on the DEIR were submitted during the 45-day review period.

The DEIR examined potential environmental impacts associated with project development and identified significant impacts on biological, cultural resources, and geology and soils. Mitigation measures were identified for implementation that would reduce most of the significant project development impacts to less than significant levels. However, significant unavoidable project level and cumulative cultural resources impacts were identified to remain with demolition of the church, which is identified as being eligible for listing as an architecturally significant local structure, to redevelop the site. All other resource areas would experience a less than significant impact with project development
In considering a project, CEQA requires decision-makers to balance economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. To approve a project that has a significant unavoidable environmental impact, decision-makers must make findings, supported by substantial evidence, that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable environmental effects. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15124 (b), the DEIR identifies project objectives for evaluation of the proposed project and the development of a range of alternatives for consideration in the findings or statement of overriding considerations

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

COORDINATION
City of Santa Clara Printed on 3/15/2024Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
24-238 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

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

On February 8, 2024, the notice of public hearing for this item was mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project side boundaries and interested parties. Newspaper notice of this item was published in The Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation, on February 7, 2024. At the time of this staff report, no comments have been received by the Planning Department in support or opposition to the project.

Community Meetings
Virtual public outreach meetings were conducted by the Property Owner/Applicant on November 16, 2022 and August 30, 2023 to engage the neighborhood community in the planning process. Notices of the meetings were mailed by the Property Owner/Applicant to properties within 1,000 feet of the project site boundaries and posted on the City’s website. These meetings provided the community opportunities to review and comment on the proposal and revised changes made to the dwellings, site circulation and landscaping resulting from community input.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not certify the Environmental Impact Report or adopt the CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project.

2. Deny the rezoning of the project site from Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation (B) to Planned Development (PD) to allow construction of residential development consisting of 22 detached two-story residences

3. Deny the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the land into 22 individual lots and four common lots.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a resolution to certify the Environmental Impact Report and adopt the CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project.

2. Adopt a resolution to approve a rezoning of the project site from Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation (B) to Planned Development (PD) to allow construction of residential development consisting of 22 detached two-story residences with attached and detached garages, landscaping, and on- and off-site improvements, subject to conditions of approval.

3. Adopt a resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the land into 22 individual lots and four common lots as a utility corridor, vehicle access, landscape open space and bioretention areas to serve the development, subject to conditions of approval.

Reviewed by: Reena Brilliot, Acting Director, Community Development Department City of Santa Clara Printed on 3/15/2024Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
24-238 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Environmental Impact Report

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

3. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

4. Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report

5. Resolution Approving the Rezone

6. Resolution Approving the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map

7. Excerpt Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2024

8. Planning Commission Staff Report of February 21, 2024

9. Historical and Landmarks Commission meeting minutes of December 7, 2023

10. Historic and Landmarks Commission Staff Report December 7, 2023.

11. Conditions of Rezoning Approval

12. Conditions of Tentative Subdivision Map Approval

13.Development Plans

14.Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
City of Santa Clara Printed on 3/15/2024Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR),
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

1957 Pruneridge Avenue - 22 Detached Units (CEQA) | Environmental Review/CEQA | City of Santa Clara (santaclaraca.gov)
1957 Pruneridge Residential Project 1 City of Santa Clara

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

1957 Pruneridge Residential Project

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

January 2024

P R E F A C E
1957 Pruneridge Residential Project 2 City of Santa Clara

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

On _____, the City Council approved the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 1957 Pruneridge Residential Project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the implementation of the project could result in significant effects on the environment and mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed project or are required as a condition of project approval. This Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program addresses those measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented.

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

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 1 City of Santa Clara

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
1957 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Air Quality
IMPACT AIR-3.1:

The proposed project
would exceed the
Cancer Risk Threshold
of 10 cases per million
during construction of
the project.

MM-AIR 3.1-1: All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for PM (PM10 and PM2.5).

If Tier 4 equipment is not available, alternatively the project will use equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve a 60 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment; alternatively (or in combination).

Alternatively, the applicant may develop a construction operations plan demonstrating that the construction equipment used on-site would achieve a reduction in construction diesel particulate matter emissions by 60 percent or greater. Elements of the plan could include a combination of the following measures:

 Implementation Tier 4 engines or alternatively fueled equipment,
 Installation of electric power lines during early
construction phases to avoid use of diesel generators
and compressors,
 Use of electrically-powered equipment,
During
Construction

Prior to issuance
of any
demolition,
grading, and/or
building permits
(whichever
occurs earliest).

Project
Contractor

Project
Applicant and
air quality
professional
City of Santa
Clara Building
Department

Director of
Community
Development or
Director’s
Designee

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 2 City of Santa Clara

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
1957 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
 Forklifts and aerial lifts used for exterior and interior building construction shall be electric,
 Change in construction build-out plans to lengthen
phases, and
 Implementation of different building techniques that
result in less diesel equipment usage.
 Such a construction operations plan would be subject to review by an air quality expert and approved by the
City prior to construction.

The project applicant shall submit a construction operations plan prepared by an air quality professional that outlines how the construction contractor will achieve the measures outlined above. The plan shall be submitted to the Director of
Community Development for review and approval prior to
issuance of any demolition, grading, and/or building permits (whichever occurs earliest).

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 3 City of Santa Clara

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
1957 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Biology
Impact BIO-1.1:

Construction activities
could disrupt nesting
raptors, or other birds,
resulting in
abandonment of nests
and loss of fertile eggs.

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

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

During this survey, the ornithologist shall inspect trees and other possible nesting habitats within and immediately adjacent to the construction area for nests. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by construction, the qualified ornithologist, in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest to ensure that raptor or migratory bird nests shall not be disturbed during project construction.

No more than 14
days prior to the
initiation of
grading, tree
removal, or other
demolition or
construction
activities during
the early part of
the breeding
season (February
through April)
and no more than
30 days prior to
the initiation of
these activities
during the late
part of the
breeding season
(May through
August)
Project applicant
and Qualified
ornithologist
Director of
Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 4 City of Santa Clara

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
1957 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Impact BIO-5.1: The
proposed project would
not comply with the
City’s tree protection
policy.

MM-BIO-5.1-1: The project applicant will coordinate with the supervising planner to identify locations off-site for
replacement trees in addition to the trees proposed as part of the landscaping on-site in accordance with General Plan Policy

5.3.1- P10. This will require the planting of 21, 24-inch box trees off-site to fully offset the removal of trees on-site.

The project applicant will provide the supervising planner with appropriate documentation to confirm that all on- and off-site replacement trees have been planted prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits.

The project
applicant will
provide the
supervising
planner with
appropriate
documentation
to confirm that
all on- and off-
site replacement
trees have been
planted
Supervising
Planner
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1.1: The
proposed project would
require the demolition
of the church building
on-site which would
result in a substantial
adverse change to a
locally eligible
historical resource
pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section
15064.5.

MM CUL-1.1: Prior to issuance of any grading, demolition, or building permits the project applicant shall prepare and submit, for review and approval by the Director of Community
Development or the Director’s designee, a Historic Resources Mitigation Action Plan (Action Plan) demonstrating that the following steps, actions, and documents have been completed for the historic structure in accordance with the Action Plan timeline. The Action Plan shall include roles and
responsibilities between the project applicant, City staff, and outside individuals, groups, firms, and consultants.

Documentation (HABS): The structure and associated features on the project site shall be documented in accordance with the guidelines established for the Level III Historic American Prior to grading
of the project
site

A qualified
archaeological
consultant and
project applicant

Director of
Community
Development

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 5 City of Santa Clara

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
1957 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Building Survey (HABS) consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering
Documentation and shall consist of the following components:

Drawings – Prepare sketch floor plans of the buildings and site plan.

Photographs – 35 mm digital photographs meeting the digital photography specifications.

Written Data – a historical report with the history of the property, property description and historical significance.

A qualified architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards shall oversee the preparation of the sketch plans, photographs, research and written data.

The documentation shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer for review and approval.

After approval, the required documentation shall be filed with the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, the repository for the California Historical Resources
Information System.

MM CUL-1.2: Documentation (Digital Scans): Prior to
issuance of any grading, demolition, or building permits, the structure and associated features on the project site shall be

Prior to issuance
of any grading,

Project
applicant,

City’s Director
of Community
Development or

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 6 City of Santa Clara

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
1957 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
documented by a qualified architectural historian through a series of digital scans and video production. The architectural historian shall meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. A plan of the proposed procedures for the digital scans shall be submitted to the City’s Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee prior to commencement of preparing the digital scans for review and approval. The digital scans must be submitted to the City and filed with the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, the repository for the California Historical Resources Information System prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits.

MM CUL-1.3: Relocation by the Project applicant and/or a Third Party: Prior to issuance of any demolition permits, the project applicant, or an interested third party, shall be required to advertise the availability of the church for relocation for a period of no less than 60 days. The advertisements must include notification in a newspaper of general circulation, on a website, and notice placed on the project site. The project applicant shall provide evidence (i.e., receipts, date and time stamped photographs, etc.) to the City’s Director of Community
Development or the Director’s designee that this condition has been met prior to the issuance of demolition permits.

If the project applicant or third party agrees to relocate the structure, the following measures must be followed:
demolition, or
building permits

Prior to issuance
of any
demolition
permits

architectural
historian

The project
applicant, or an
interested third
party

the Director’s
designee

City’s Director
of Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee that this
condition has
been met prior to
the issuance of
demolition
permits

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 7 City of Santa Clara

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
1957 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation

The Director of Community Development or Director’s
designee must determine that the receiver site is feasible for the building based on the existing setting.

Prior to relocation, the project applicant or third party shall hire a historic preservation architect and a structural engineer to undertake an existing condition study that establishes the baseline condition of the church prior to relocation. The documentation shall take the form of written descriptions and visual illustrations, including those character-defining physical features of the resource that convey its historic significance and must be protected and preserved. The documentation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee prior to the structure being moved.

To protect the building during relocation, the project applicant shall engage a building mover who has experience moving similar historic structures. A structural engineer shall also be engaged to determine how the building needs to be
reinforced/stabilized before the move.

Once moved, the building shall be repaired and rehabilitated, as needed, by the project applicant or third party in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In particular, the character-defining

Upon
completion of all
field work, but
before
completion of
the Findings
Report

During
relocation

After relocation
of the structure

Project applicant

The project
applicant

Project applicant
or third party

Director of
Community
Development

Structural
Engineer

Director of
Community
Development

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 8 City of Santa Clara

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
1957 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
features shall be retained in a manner that preserves the integrity of the building for the long-term preservation and reuse.

Upon completion of the repairs, a qualified architectural historian shall document and confirm that work to the structure was completed in conformance with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and character-defining features were preserved. The project applicant shall submit a memo report supplement to the Action Plan to the City’s Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee documenting the relocation, repair, and reuse prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for the proposed project.

MM CUL-1.4: Salvage: If the project applicant and/or a third party cannot agree to relocate the structure within the specified time, the structure shall be made available for salvage to companies facilitating the reuse of historic building materials prior to the issuance of any demolition permits. The time frame available for salvage shall be established by the City’s Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee in
accordance with the Action Plan. The project applicant must provide evidence to the City’s Director of Community
Development or the Director’s designee and Director of
Community Development, or Director’s designee, that this

After
Completion of
repairs

Prior to the
issuance of any
demolition
permits.

The project
applicant

Project applicant

City’s Director
of Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee

City’s Director
of Community
Development or
the Director’s
designee and
Director of
Community
Development, or
Director’s
designee

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 9 City of Santa Clara

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
1957 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
condition has been met prior to the issuance of any demolition permits.

Impact CUL-2.1:

Construction of the
proposed project would
result in excavation in
an area which has
moderate sensitivity for
archeological
resources, and could
disturb unrecorded
archaeological
resources.

MM CUL-2.1: Prior to commencement of any ground-
disturbing activity on-site, the project applicant shall retain a registered professional archaeologist to be present during all ground-disturbing activity associated with the project. For the purposes of these conditions, ground-disturbing activities shall be defined as any ground disturbance, including but not limited to, excavation, grading, grubbing, scarring, drilling, scraping, blading, trenching, vegetation removal, or demolition of the existing structure or site improvements within the development area shown on the project plans. A registered professional archaeologist shall be given five days’ written notice prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity. The project applicant shall document receipt of notification in writing.

MM CUL-2.2: In the event that buried, or previously
unrecognized archaeological deposits or materials of any kind are inadvertently exposed during any construction activity, work within 50 feet of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist can assess the find and provide recommendations for further treatment, if warranted. The archaeologist, in consultation with the project applicant, shall make the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) if the resource is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources In the event that
human remains
are discovered
during
excavation
and/or grading
of the site

In the event that
buried, or
previously
unrecognized
archaeological
deposits or
materials of any
kind are
inadvertently
exposed during
Project
Applicant and
registered
professional
archaeologist

Registered
professional
archaeologist
and project
applicant
Santa Clara
County Coroner,
Native American
Heritage
Commission
(NAHC)

Santa Clara
County Coroner,
Native American
Heritage
Commission
(NAHC)

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 10 City of Santa Clara

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
1957 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
(CRHR). Construction within a radius determined by the
archaeologist shall not recommence until the assessment is complete.

Any treatment other than preservation in place must be
approved by the City of Santa Clara. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in resource.

The culturally affiliated tribe(s) who consulted on the project, or if no consultation occurred the tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), shall determine the disposition of any Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) artifacts discovered during on-site excavation or construction activities or TCR artifacts resulting from execution of a treatment plan.

The disposition of TCR artifacts shall include, but not be limited to, reburying in close proximity of the finds without scientific study, allowing scientific study before reburying the materials either near the origin of the find or in another protected place, or temporary curation at a facility at an institution that meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s criteria for curation (36 CFR 79) prior to reburial. Disposition of any TCR artifacts shall be subject to approval by the culturally affiliated tribe. All curation fees and related expenses shall be paid by the project applicant.

any construction
activity

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 11 City of Santa Clara

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
1957 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
To ensure adequate space and protection are provided for reburial of any TCRs discovered on the project site, the Permittee shall designate a cultural easement area. The easement area shall be in a location that will not be subject to future disturbance and that will not require the relocation of buildings or other physical improvements on the site.

The registered professional archaeologist shall file State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Series 523 forms for the cultural easement/TCR reburial location (if used) with the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Center in accordance with the guidelines established by the California Office of Historic Preservation.

The DPR Series 523 forms shall establish a permanent record of the cultural easement location and any TCRs discovered on the project site for future site identification and protection. The registered professional archeologist shall also file a Sacred Lands File record with the NAHC on behalf of the culturally affiliated tribe.

Impact CUL-3.1: The
proposed project could
result in the disturbance
of human remains
during excavation of
the project site.

MM CUL-3.1: In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a
determination as to whether the remains are of Native
American origin or whether an investigation into the cause of death is required. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American
In the event that
human remains
are discovered
during
excavation
and/or grading
of the site
Project applicant Santa Clara
County Coroner
and the Native
American
Heritage
Commission

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 12 City of Santa Clara

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
1957 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately. Once NAHC
identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Impact CUL - 4.1:

The proposed project
would result in the
demolition of the
church building on-site
which would cause a
substantial adverse
cumulative change in a
historical resource
pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section
15064.5.

The proposed project would implement Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1.1 through MM CUL-1.5 which would reduce
impacts to the historical resources on-site.

Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1.1:

Buildings constructed
on-site could
experience settlement
in the event of strong
ground shaking as a
result of an earthquake
MM GEO 1-1: Consistent with General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P6 and General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P7, the project would be built using standard engineering and seismic safety design
techniques. Building design and construction at the site shall be completed in conformance with the recommendations of a
design-level geotechnical investigation, which will be included in a geotechnical report to the City. The report shall be As part of the
building permit
review and
issuance process

Project applicant
and contractors

City of Santa
Clara’s Building
Division

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 13 City of Santa Clara

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
1957 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Impacts Mitigation Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
or other geologic
events.
reviewed and approved by the City of Santa Clara’s Building Division as part of the building permit review and issuance process. The building shall meet the requirements of applicable Building and Fire Codes, including the current California Building Code, as adopted or updated by the City. The project shall be designed to withstand potential geologic hazards identified on the site, including liquefaction and shrink swell capacity of soils, and the project shall be designed to reduce the risk to life or property in compliance with the Building Code.

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 14 City of Santa Clara In addition to mitigation measures listed above, there are also other conditions of approval the project shall implement, including the following:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1957 PRUNERIDGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Construction Dust Emissions Best Management Practices
 During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implements measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less than significant level. Additional measures are identified to reduce construction equipment exhaust emissions. The contractor would implement the following best management practices (BMPs) that are required of all projects:

o All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) would be watered two times per day.
o All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site would be covered. o All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads would be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
o All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads would be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). o All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved would be completed as soon as possible. Building pads would be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. o Idling times would be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage would be provided for construction workers at all access points. o All construction equipment would be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment would be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. o Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number project construction superintendent regarding dust complaints. This person would respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number would be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Paleontological Resources
 If vertebrate fossils are discovered during construction, all work on the site shall stop immediately, the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee shall be notified, and a qualified professional paleontologist shall assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. Treatment may include, but is not limited to, preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 15 City of Santa Clara

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1957 PRUNERIDGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
finds. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations of the qualified paleontologist. A report of all findings shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee.

Traffic Parking Controls
 A 25-foot long red painted curb will be painted on both sides of the site access driveway along Pruneridge Avenue to prohibit street parking and allow for adequate site distance for cars exiting the site.

Lead and Asbestos
 In conformance with state and local laws, a visual inspection/pre-demolition survey, and possible sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on-site building(s) to determine the presence of ACSMs and/or LBP.  During demolition activities, all building materials containing LBP shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Title 8, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing LBP or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of lead being disposed.  All potentially friable ACMs shall be removed in accordance with NESHAP guidelines prior to demolition or renovation activities that may disturb ACMs. All demolition activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8, CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from asbestos exposure.
 A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above.  Materials containing more than one-percent asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one-percent asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements and notifications.

Construction Water Quality Best Management Practices
 Burlap bags filled with drain rock shall be installed around storm drains to route sediment and other debris away from the drains;  Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities would be suspended during period of high winds;  All exposed or disturbed soil surfaces would be watered at least twice daily to control dust as necessary;  Stockpiles of soil or other materials that can be blown by the wind would be watered or covered;  All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered;  All paved access roads, parking areas, staging areas and residential streets adjacent to the construction sites would be swept daily (with water sweepers); and

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 16 City of Santa Clara

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1957 PRUNERIDGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
 Vegetation in disturbed areas would be replanted as quickly as possible.

Construction Noise Control Plan
 Develop a construction noise control plan, including, but not limited to, the following available controls:

o Ensure that excavating, grading and filling activities, and other construction activities (including the loading and unloading of materials and truck movements) within 300 feet of residentially zoned property, including hotel properties, are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction is permitted on Sundays or holidays.
o Construct temporary noise barriers, where feasible, to screen stationary noise-generating equipment. Temporary noise barrier fences would provide a 5 dBA noise reduction if the noise barrier interrupts the line-of-sight between the noise source and receptor and if the barrier is constructed in a manner that eliminates any cracks or gaps. o Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
o Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines should be strictly prohibited. o Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or portable power generators, as far as possible from sensitive receptors as feasible. If they must be located near receptors, adequate muffling (with enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors. Any enclosure openings or venting shall face away from sensitive receptors.
o Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. o Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. o Locate material stockpiles, as well as maintenance/equipment staging and parking areas, as far as feasible from residential receptors. o Route construction-related traffic along major roadways and as far as feasible from sensitive receptors. o Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. o The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance.

1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project 17 City of Santa Clara

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1957 PRUNERIDGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
o Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include in it the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.

Interior Noise Building Design Measures
 The following noise insulation features shall be incorporated into the proposed project to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL or less at residential interiors:

o Provide a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the local building official, so that windows can be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control interior noise and achieve the interior noise standards. Preliminary calculations indicate that worst-case units along Pruneridge Avenue would require windows and doors having a minimum rating of 26 STC in order to achieve the interior noise threshold of 45 dBA CNEL.
o A qualified acoustical specialist shall prepare a detailed analysis of interior residential noise levels resulting from all exterior sources during the design phase pursuant to requirements set forth in the Santa Clara General Plan. The study will review the final site plan, building elevations, and floor plans prior to construction and recommend building treatments to reduce residential interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL or lower. Treatments would include, but are not limited to, sound-rated windows and doors, sound-rated wall and window constructions, acoustical caulking, protected ventilation openings, etc. The specific determination of what noise insulation treatments are necessary shall be conducted on a unit-by-unit basis during final design of the project. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the City, along with the building plans and approved design, prior to issuance of a building permit.

Sources: City of Santa Clara. Draft EIR for the 1957 Pruneridge Residential Project. September 2023.

1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE 1957 PRUNERIDGE AVEUNE

RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

I. INTRODUCTION

The City of Santa Clara (City), as the Lead Agency under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2023100200) (Final EIR or EIR”). The Final EIR is a project EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the State Guidelines for implementation of the CEQA (CEQA Guidelines).1 The Final EIR consists of the September 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and the January 2023 Final Environmental Impact Report. The EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with implementation of the project. The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision-makers and the general public regarding the objectives and components of the project. The EIR addresses the potential significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the project and identified feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate those impacts.

In determining to approve the 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project, which is described in more detail in Section II, the City Council certifies that the EIR reflects the City's own independent judgment and analysis under Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(a)-(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15090(a)(3). The City Council further makes and adopts the following findings of fact and adopts and incorporates into the project the mitigation measures identified in the EIR, all based on substantial evidence in the whole record of this proceeding (“administrative record”). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090(a), the EIR was presented to the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, and the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to making the findings provided in Sections IV to VIII, below. The conclusions presented in these findings are based upon the EIR and other evidence in the administrative record. The documents that constitute the administrative record on which the City Council's findings are based are located at the Planning Division office at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California. This information is presented in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e).

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Location

The project site is located at 1957 Pruneridge Avenue in the City of Santa Clara (APN 303-03-025).

The site has a General Plan Designation of Very Low Density Residential and is zoned Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation (B).

The 2.47-acre site is occupied by two existing buildings which made up the St. Marks Episcopal Church. One building is a church which features stained glass windows around the entire structure, a gabled tile roof, and stylized arches on each end of the building. The other structure is a one- to two-

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

2 story office and school building. The one-story portion of the building is a wooden sided and stucco building with stained glass windows on the east side of the structure and a shingle roof. The two- story portion of the building is a stucco sided building with a balcony facing to the south and tiled roof. Adjacent to this building is a small playground with a storage shed.

There is a small courtyard with landscaping connecting the two buildings and parking is provided in a surface lot surrounding the buildings on the west, east, and north sides. The project site contains 50 trees and features other low-lying landscaping throughout the project site.

The site is currently accessible from two driveways on Pruneridge Avenue, one on the west end of the site and one on the east end.

The buildings are vacant and do not currently have visitors or use city services.

Project Overview

The proposed project would remove all structures and landscaping from the project site and construct 22 two-story residential units at a density of 8.9 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Each unit would include a two to three car garage. Additionally, the project site would include a landscaped paseo in the middle of the site that would provide access to the sidewalk on Pruneridge Avenue. Access to the project site would be provided by an ingress/egress driveway at the east end of the project site. The driveway would connect to a drive aisle which separates the units on the north and south sides of the project site.

Three of the residential units would be affordable units compliant with the City of Santa Clara Affordable Housing program.

The proposed project would include the planting of approximately 79, 24- to 36- inch box trees throughout the site and would feature drought tolerant, low water use landscaping in the common areas and yards of the residential units.

The proposed project would include a rezoning of the project site from Public, Quasi Public, or Recreation (B) to Planned Development (PD). The stained-glass windows of the church complex would be removed and protected for future use by the congregation that previously occupied the church.

Construction Details

The estimated construction period for the proposed project is seven months (approximately 157 construction days). The maximum depth of excavation for the proposed project would be approximately 7.5 feet and the project would require approximately 6,000 cubic yards of cut and 250 cubic yards of fill.

Off-site Improvements

The project proposes the following off-site improvements and utility connections:

3 • Replace existing curb, gutter and sidewalk along project frontage (in kind). • Two connections of new water main to existing water main in Pruneridge Avenue. • Remove and replace existing fire hydrant on project frontage. • Connect to existing 12-inch sanitary sewer main in Pruneridge Avenue and install new manhole.
• Connect to existing 24-inch storm drain main in Pruneridge Avenue and install new manhole. • Remove existing utility poles and underground overhead wires along project frontage.

Project Objectives

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the EIR must identify the objectives sought by the proposed development project. The applicant’s objectives for the project are as follows:

1. Provide a project that meets the strategies and goals of the City of Santa Clara General Plan.

Specifically, providing a low-density development, such as single family detached residential housing units, on the approximately 2.5-acre underutilized infill site at a maximum density of 10 units per acre.

2. Provide three new single family detached affordable residential housing units in accordance with the City of Santa Clara’s Affordable Housing Program.

3. Support the principles of “Smart Growth “by providing new housing at key transportation nodes.

4. Create a high quality, well-designed, low-density development that is compatible with the existing neighborhood and community of predominantly single-family houses and promotes the safety and well-being of its residents and the surrounding community.

5. Create a development resulting in a net reduction in impervious surface area and collect and treat all stormwater runoff on-site.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of an EIR for the 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project. The NOP was sent to state and local responsible and trustee agencies and federal agencies on May 8. 2023. The 30- day comment period concluded on June 7, 2023. The NOP provided a description of the project and identified probable environmental effects that could result from implementation of the project. The City also held a public scoping meeting on May 25, 2023, during the NOP comment period to discuss the project and solicit public input as to the scope and content of the EIR. The meeting was held over Zoom to allow for more public engagement.

The City prepared the Draft EIR for the 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment for 45 days from November 17, 2023 through January 2, 2024. During this period, the Draft EIR was available to the public and local, state, and federal agencies for review and comment. Notice of the Availability and completion of the Draft EIR was sent directly to every agency, person, and organization that commented on the NOP, as well as to the Office of Planning and Research. Written comments from

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

Following the conclusion of the 45-day public review period on the Draft EIR, the City prepared a Final EIR in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. The Final EIR includes responses to comments received by the City on the Draft EIR and any necessary text revisions to the Draft EIR.

These revisions do not require recirculation of the EIR because none of the revisions constitute “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 in as much as these changes would not result in a new environmental impact and would not cause a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; and the project sponsor would adopt the mitigation measures. The response to comments document was circulated on January 9, 2024.

On February 21, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR.

IV. FINDINGS

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

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

Sections V through VII, below, provide brief descriptions of the impacts the Final EIR identified as less than significant with adopted mitigation. Impacts associated with the demolition of the potentially historic church in the Final EIR were found to be Significant and Unavoidable. These descriptions also reproduce the full text of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for each significant impact.

V. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL EIR THAT ARE

REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL BY MITIGATION

MEASURES ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT

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

Biological Resources

Impact BIO-1.1: Construction activities could disrupt nesting raptors, or other birds, resulting in abandonment of nests and loss of fertile eggs.

MM-BIO 1.1: Construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season to the extent feasible.

The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors, in the San Francisco Bay Area extends from February 1st through August 31st.

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

During this survey, the ornithologist shall inspect trees and other possible nesting habitats within and immediately adjacent to the construction area for nests. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by construction, the qualified ornithologist, in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest to ensure that raptor or migratory bird nests shall not be disturbed during project construction.

Findings BIO-1.1: Changes or alterations, which have been incorporated into the project, will reduce the severity of the significant biological resource impact. Specifically, implementation of MM BIO-1.1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce biological resource impacts to a less than significant level by avoiding the nesting bird season or conducting bird surveys in trees close to construction activity to protect active nests.

Impact BIO-5.1: The proposed project would not comply with the City’s tree protection policy on- site.

6 MM BIO-5.1: The project applicant will coordinate with the supervising planner to identify locations offsite for replacement trees in addition to the trees proposed as part of the landscaping on-site in accordance with General Plan Policy 5.3.1- P10 and Santa Clara City Code 12.35. This will require the planting of 21, 24-inch box trees off-site to fully offset the removal of trees on-site.

The project applicant will provide the supervising planner with appropriate documentation to confirm that all on- and off-site replacement trees have been planted prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

Findings BIO-5.1: Changes or alterations, which have been incorporated into the project, will reduce the severity of the significant biological resource impact. Specifically, implementation of MM BIO-5.1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce biological resource impacts to a less than significant level by ensuring trees removed from the project site are replaced in accordance with City General Plan Policy 5.3.1-P10.

Cultural Resources

Impact CUL-1.1: The proposed project would require the demolition of the church building on-site which would result in a substantial adverse change to a locally eligible historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

MM CUL-1.1: Prior to issuance of any grading, demolition, or building permits the project applicant shall prepare and submit, for review and approval by the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee, a Historic Resources Mitigation Action Plan (Action Plan) demonstrating that the following steps, actions, and documents have been completed for the historic structure in accordance with the Action Plan timeline. The Action Plan shall include roles and responsibilities between the project applicant, City staff, and outside individuals, groups, firms, and consultants.

Documentation (HABS): The structure and associated features on the project site shall be documented in accordance with the guidelines established for the Level III Historic American Building Survey (HABS) consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation and shall consist of the following components:

A. Drawings – Prepare sketch floor plans of the buildings and site plan.

B. Photographs – 35 mm digital photographs meeting the digital photography specifications.

C. Written Data – a historical report with the history of the property, property description and historical significance.

A qualified architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards shall oversee the preparation of the sketch plans, photographs, research and written data.

7 The documentation shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer for review and approval. After approval, the required documentation shall be filed with the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, the repository for the California Historical Resources Information System.

MM CUL-1.2: Documentation (Digital Scans): Prior to issuance of any grading, demolition, or building permits, the structure and associated features on the project site shall be documented by a qualified architectural historian through a series of digital scans and video production. The architectural historian shall meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. A plan of the proposed procedures for the digital scans shall be submitted to the City’s Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee prior to commencement of preparing the digital scans for review and approval. The digital scans must be submitted to the City and filed with the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, the repository for the California Historical Resources Information System prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.

MM CUL-1.3: Relocation by the Project applicant and/or a Third Party: Prior to issuance of any demolition permits, the project applicant, or an interested third party, shall be required to advertise the availability of the church for relocation for a period of no less than 60 days. The advertisements must include notification in a newspaper of general circulation, on a website, and notice placed on the project site. The project applicant shall provide evidence (i.e., receipts, date and time stamped photographs, etc.) to the City’s Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee that this condition has been met prior to the issuance of demolition permits.

If the project applicant or third party agrees to relocate the structure, the following measures must be followed:

1. The Director of Community Development or Director’s designee must determine that the receiver site is feasible for the building based on the existing setting.

2. Prior to relocation, the project applicant or third party shall hire a historic preservation architect and a structural engineer to undertake an existing condition study that establishes the baseline condition of the church prior to relocation. The documentation shall take the form of written descriptions and visual illustrations, including those character-defining physical features of the resource that convey its historic significance and must be protected and preserved. The documentation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee prior to the structure being moved.

3. To protect the building during relocation, the project applicant shall engage a building mover who has experience moving similar historic structures. A

8 structural engineer shall also be engaged to determine how the building needs to be reinforced/stabilized before the move.

4. Once moved, the building shall be repaired and rehabilitated, as needed, by the project applicant or third party in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In particular, the character-defining features shall be retained in a manner that preserves the integrity of the building for the long-term preservation and reuse.

Upon completion of the repairs, a qualified architectural historian shall document and confirm that work to the structure was completed in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and character-defining features were preserved. The project applicant shall submit a memo report supplement to the Action Plan to the City’s Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee documenting the relocation, repair, and reuse prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for the proposed project.

MM CUL-1.4: Salvage: If the project applicant and/or a third party cannot agree to relocate the structure within the specified time, the structure shall be made available for salvage to companies facilitating the reuse of historic building materials prior to the issuance of any demolition permits. The time frame available for salvage shall be established by the City’s Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee in accordance with the Action Plan. The project applicant must provide evidence to the City’s Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee and Director of Community Development, or Director’s designee, that this condition has been met prior to the issuance of any demolition permits.

Findings CUL-1.1: Changes or alterations, which have been incorporated into the project, will reduce the severity of the significant cultural resource impact. Specifically, implementation of MM CUL-1.1 through -1.4, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would avoid and/or reduce significant impacts to the church building, however the impact would remain significant and unavoidable because of the demolition of the historic structure.

Impact CUL-2.1: Construction of the proposed project would result in excavation in an area which has moderate sensitivity for archeological resources, and could disturb unrecorded archaeological resources.

MM CUL-2.1: Prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing activity on-site, the project applicant shall retain a registered professional archaeologist to be present during all ground-disturbing activity associated with the project. For the purposes of these conditions, ground-disturbing activities shall be defined as any ground disturbance, including but not limited to, excavation, grading, grubbing, scarring, drilling, scraping, blading, trenching, vegetation removal, or demolition of the existing structure or site improvements within the development area shown on the project plans. A registered professional archaeologist shall be given five days’

9 written notice prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity. The project applicant shall document receipt of notification in writing.

MM CUL-2.2: In the event that buried, or previously unrecognized archaeological deposits or materials of any kind are inadvertently exposed during any construction activity, work within 50 feet of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist can assess the find and provide recommendations for further treatment, if warranted.

The archaeologist, in consultation with the project applicant, shall make the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) if the resource is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Construction within a radius determined by the archaeologist shall not recommence until the assessment is complete.

a. Any treatment other than preservation in place must be approved by the City of Santa Clara. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in resource.

b. The culturally affiliated tribe(s) who consulted on the project, or if no consultation occurred the tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), shall determine the disposition of any tribal cultural resources (TCR) artifacts discovered during on-site excavation or construction activities or TCR artifacts resulting from execution of a treatment plan. The disposition of TCR artifacts shall include, but not be limited to, reburying in close proximity of the finds without scientific study, allowing scientific study before reburying the materials either near the origin of the find or in another protected place, or temporary curation at a facility at an institution that meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s criteria for curation (36 CFR 79) prior to reburial. Disposition of any TCR artifacts shall be subject to approval by the culturally affiliated tribe. All curation fees and related expenses shall be paid by the project applicant.

c. To ensure adequate space and protection are provided for reburial of any TCRs discovered on the project site, the Permittee shall designate a cultural easement area. The easement area shall be in a location that will not be subject to future disturbance and that will not require the relocation of buildings or other physical improvements on the site.

d. The registered professional archaeologist shall file State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Series 523 forms for the cultural easement/TCR reburial location (if used) with the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Center in accordance with the guidelines established by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The DPR Series 523 forms shall establish a permanent record of the cultural easement location and any TCRs discovered on the project site for future site

10 identification and protection. The registered professional archeologist shall also file a Sacred Lands File record with the NAHC on behalf of the culturally affiliated tribe.

Findings CUL-2.1: Changes or alterations, which have been incorporated into the project, will reduce the severity of the significant cultural resource impact. Specifically, implementation of MM CUL-2.1 and MM CUL-2.2, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would avoid and/or reduce significant impacts to unknown buried archaeological resources to a less than significant level by completing a presence/absence exploration and/or monitoring excavation activities and identifying the procedures necessary to protect resources if found.

Impact CUL-3.1: The proposed project could result in the disturbance of human remains during excavation of the project site.

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

Findings CUL-3.1: Changes or alterations, which have been incorporated into the project, will reduce the severity of the significant cultural resource impact. Specifically, implementation of MM CUL-3.1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would avoid and/or reduce significant impacts to unknown buried human remains to a less than significant level by following procedures necessary to identify and protect resources if found.

Geology and Soils

Impact GEO-1.1: Buildings constructed on-site could experience settlement in the event of strong ground shaking as a result of an earthquake or other geologic events.

MM GEO-1.1: Consistent with General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P6 and General Plan Policy

5.10.5-P7, the project would be built using standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques. Building design and construction at the site shall be completed in conformance with the recommendations of a design-level geotechnical investigation, which will be included in a geotechnical report to the City. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Santa Clara’s Building Division as part of the building permit review and issuance process. The building shall meet the requirements of applicable Building and Fire Codes, including the current California Building Code, as adopted or updated by the City. The project shall be designed to withstand potential geologic hazards identified on the site, including liquefaction and shrink swell

11 capacity of soils, and the project shall be designed to reduce the risk to life or property in compliance with the Building Code.

Findings GEO-1.1: Changes or alterations, which have been incorporated into the project, will reduce the severity of the significant geological hazards impact. Specifically, implementation of MM GEO-1.1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce geologic hazards impacts to a less than significant level by ensuring that the proposed project complies with the Santa Clara Building Division review process and California Building Code.

VI. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS

An EIR is required to discuss growth inducing impacts, which consist of the ways in which the project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d); Pub.

Resources Code Section 21100(b)(5).)

Direct growth inducement would result, for example, if a project involves the construction of substantial new housing that would support an increased population in a community or establishes substantial new permanent employment opportunities. This additional population could, in turn, increase demands for public utilities, public services, roads, and other infrastructure. Indirect growth inducement would result if a project stimulates economic activity that results in physical development or removes an obstacle to growth and development (e.g., increasing infrastructure capacity that would enable new or additional development). CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) cautions that it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

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

The project proposes to demolish the existing church and administrative building on-site and develop 22 residential units. As discussed in Section 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR, expansion of the existing utility infrastructure is not proposed or required because the existing utilities would have capacity for the new development which could occur under the proposed project.

In addition, the site is an infill location within Santa Clara and would not require new public streets to be constructed to access the site (a new private street is proposed on-site to serve the development). For these reasons, the project would not foster or stimulate substantial economic growth or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment which is not already planned.

VII. SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES

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

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

Use of Nonrenewable Resources; Commitment of Future Generations to Similar Use

The City of Santa Clara encourages the use of building materials that include recycled materials and makes information available on those building materials to developers. The new buildings would be built to current codes, including the Reach Code, which require insulation and design to minimize wasteful energy consumption. The proposed development project would be constructed in compliance with CALGreen requirements and the City’s policies and ordinances controlling wasteful energy use. Moreover, as explained in Section 3.6 of the EIR, the project is consistent with the City's General Plan policies regarding energy use, which foster development that reduces the use, irretrievable commitment and consumption of nonrenewable resources in transportation, buildings and urban services (utilities).

VIII. ALTERNATIVES

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

The Project Objectives

The applicant’s objectives for the project are as follows:

1. Provide a project that meets the strategies and goals of the City of Santa Clara General Plan.

Specifically, providing a low-density development, such as single family detached residential housing units, on the approximately 2.5-acre underutilized infill site at a maximum density of 10 units per acre.

2. Provide three new single family detached affordable residential housing units in accordance with the City of Santa Clara’s Affordable Housing Program.

3. Support the principles of “Smart Growth “by providing new housing at key transportation nodes.

4. Create a high quality, well-designed, low-density development that is compatible with the existing neighborhood and community of predominantly single-family houses and promotes the safety and well-being of its residents and the surrounding community.

5. Create a development resulting in a net reduction in impervious surface area and collect and treat all stormwater runoff on-site.

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

The City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, hereby finds that the alternatives described below are not feasible. The City finds that there are specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including consideration for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, and important matters of public policy that render these alternatives infeasible.

As explained above, "feasible" is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), the City may reject an alternative to the project if the City finds that it would be infeasible to implement that alternative because of "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers." An agency also may reject an alternative that does not meet the public policy goals of the agency. In Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 947, the City of Rialto approved a project while rejecting as infeasible a reduced-density alternative that stripped out the portions of the project that would have created a synergistic mix of retail and restaurant tenants. Additionally, in Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039, the appellate court upheld the City of Sacramento's findings that additional preservation of open space would be infeasible because it would "at the very least [slow] 'the progress of necessary development such that the public's health and welfare is harmed through the lack of economic growth and productivity and a shortage of housing supply."2

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

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

Alternatives Considered but Rejected

Location Alternative

One alternative proposed for the project was a alternative location. In considering an alternative location in an EIR, the CEQA Guidelines advise that the key question is “whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location”. The alternative location would need to be of similar size to the project site, with a low density General Plan designation and controlled by the project applicant. Sites of similar size that could be redeveloped are present in the City of Santa Clara, however, the project applicant does

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

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

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

14 not have control of alternative sites of similar size in the City. Sites with the General Plan designation for low density housing are sites which would be adjacent to existing residences. As such, air quality and noise construction-related impacts would be comparable to the proposed project.

Furthermore, due to the known cultural sensitivity of the City, ground disturbance on any site would have the potential to uncover unrecorded subsurface resources. Lastly, impacts to nesting birds and loss of tress could occur on any site which has trees or where there are trees nearby.

Relocation of the proposed project would protect the existing church structure on the project site in the near-term and would prevent impacts to this historic resource.3 Although this is the case, changing the location of the project could still result in the change in significance of a historic resource since many of the buildings throughout Santa Clara are over 50 years in age and another suitable location may also have a historic building on it.

For these reasons, most of the impacts associated with the proposed project would not be reduced through relocation of the proposed project. Additionally, the project applicant does not control other parcels within the City suitable for the project and an alternative location to the project was considered but rejected as infeasible.

Preservation Alternative

A preservation alternative which would relocate the on-site, locally historic, church structure was considered for the proposed project. Although the building was determined to be structurally stable for relocation, the size of the structure limited the locations that would be suitable for relocation.

Furthermore, the church structure would be required to be preserved consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and adaptively reused at the location it is relocated. The location would also have to be comparable in setting to the existing project site. Based on a preliminary review of available sites in the City, there are very few underutilized or vacant sites in the City of Santa Clara because most of the City is built out, especially in residential neighborhoods on a major roadway such as Pruneridge Avenue. Therefore, it is unlikely that relocating the church building would be feasible and the preservation alternative was not considered further.

No Project - No Development Alternative

The CEQA Guidelines specifically require consideration of a “No Project” Alternative. The purpose of including a No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 specifically advises that the No Project Alternative is “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services,” and emphasizes that an EIR should take a practical approach, and not “…create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment.”

3 Moving the proposed project to another location would not guarantee the retention the church structure in perpetuity.

15 The No Project – No Development Alternative would retain the existing church complex on-site as is. If the project site were to remain as is, there would be no significant impacts. This alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, the City would lose the opportunity to redevelop an underutilized site in a central location near services and transit to meet the City’s Regional Housing Allocation Needs targets for the production of housing and the City’s strategies and goals of the General Plan.

The project site has a zoning designation of Public, Quasi Public, or Recreation (B), which is intended to serve the needs of the general population. It is possible that in the future an alternative development proposal, such as an alternative public use or recreational buildings, may be presented for the project site. Any such project would be inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation. Construction of any new public use would have similar impacts related to construction.

Any future development proposals for the site would require review and approval by the City of Santa Clara.

This alternative would not result in a residential development consistent with the project objectives and would be inconsistent with the General Plan designation. Any future development on-site would also have similar construction and operational impacts. Additionally, the redevelopment of the site with non-residential development would result in the City losing the opportunity for new housing to meet Regional Housing Allocation needs.

Reduced Development Alternative – Retain Historic Resources On-site

Impacts associated with the proposed development project would primarily result from construction of the project. While all construction-related impacts have been mitigated to less than significant, a reduced density alternative would lessen and/or avoid one of more of the construction related impacts and would avoid the demolition of the church structure.

The Reduced Development Alternative would reduce the number of residential units proposed on- site to allow for the church building to be retained in its existing location. This proposal would provide a maximum of 14 dwelling units to allow for proper circulation and access to unit driveways.

The retained church would be available for adaptive reuse and would need to be retrofitted on the interior and structurally to ensure it is seismically safe for occupation. Any modifications to the building would need to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation of a historic building and the building would need to be maintained for the life of the project.

This alternative would reduce the project impacts associated with historic resources to a less than significant level because it would not require demolition of the church. The impacts associated with biology, geology and soils, and subsurface cultural resources would remain the same because these are all associated with the project site location.

Reduction of the number of units on-site would reduce the amount of housing provided by the proposed project. However, this would still meet the project objective to provide low density development with a maximum density of 10 units per acre. These units would still include affordable residential housing in conformance with the City of Santa Clara’s Affordable housing program. The proposed project would still be able to reduce impervious surfaces on-site and would provide “Smart

16 Growth” consistent with the character of the surrounding community. Based on this information the Reduced Development Alternative would meet all project objectives and would reduce the impact on historical resources.

Environmentally Superior Alternative

The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative. Based on the above discussion, the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project is the No Project - No Development Alternative because all of the project’s significant environmental impacts would be avoided. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” In addition to the No Project -No Development Alternative, the Reduced Development – Retain Historic Resources On-site Alternative would avoid or result in lesser impacts than the proposed project.

IX STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

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

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

 The project will promote the orderly and beneficial development of an u nderutilized property and visually improve the Project Site and surrounding neighborhood with physical and financial investment in the construction of a modern and visually aesthetic residential development with on - site parking, site improvements, landscaping, and streetscape  The project will provide residential development consistent with the General Plan designation for the Project Site and create high quality, for-sale homeownership opportunities with minimal impact on surround in proximity to transit corridors and commercial services.  The project with contribute to the City’s housing stock with minimal impact to the surrounding neighborhood and provide a suitable affordable housing component that addresses the City’s lower income housing needs.

Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – EIR, SOC and MMRP Page 1 of 6 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

TO APPROVE AND CERTIFY A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT, MAKE FINDINGS WITH RESPECT

THERETO, AND ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE 1957 PRUNERIDGE
AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 1957

PRUNERIDGE AVENUE, SANTA CLARA

PLN22-00505 (Rezone)
PLN23-00264 (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map)
SCH# 202300200 (Environmental Impact Report)

WHEREAS, On September 6, 2022, SCS Development (“Owner”) filed an application for the development of a 2.47-acre site located at 1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara (“Project Site”);
WHEREAS, the Project Site has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and is zoned Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation (B); WHEREAS, the Project Site is developed with assembly uses (religious worship and education) and contains St. Mark’s Church complex , comprising a one-story parish hall and administration building, two-story classroom, church building, surface parking lots and site landscaping; WHEREAS, the Owner has applied to rezone the Project Site from Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation (B) to Planned Development (PD) to allow construction of 22 two-story detached residences, a private street, and associated on- and off-site improvements, in addition to a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the property into individual for-sale lots and four common lot s for use as a utility corridor , vehicle access , landscape open space and bioretention areas (“Project”), as shown on the Development Plans and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, the Project approvals will include Resolution No. _____ (“City Council Rezoning Resolution”); Resolution No. _____ (“City Council Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Resolution”); and this California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Resolution (collectively,

Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – EIR, SOC and MMRP Page 2 of 6 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
the “Approvals”);
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2023, the City of Santa Clara (“City”) distributed a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) and posted the Notice at the Santa Clara County Clerk’s office, soliciting guidance on the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the DEIR;
WHEREAS, the DEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the City circulated copies of the DEIR to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, as well as to other interested persons and agencies, and the City sought the comments of such persons and agencies for forty-five (45) days, beginning on November 17, 2023 and concluding on January 2, 2024 (“Comment Period”);
WHEREAS, the City did not receive any comments on the DEIR during the review period; WHEREAS, the Final EIR (”FEIR”) consists of a list of agencies and organizations to whom the DEIR was sent and minor revisions to text and Figure 2.2-1 (Conceptual Site Plan) and Figure

2.2-2 (Landscape Plan) that do not change the conclusions nor require recirculation of the DEIR. The FEIR was subsequently distributed for a 10-day review period beginning on January 9, 2024 and concluding on January 19, 2024;
WHEREAS, the DEIR FEIR, and Exhibits constitute the EIR for the Project; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the EIR prepared for the Project, the City Staff reports pertaining to the EIR, and all evidence received at a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2024. All of these documents and evidence are herein incorporated by reference into this Resolution;
WHEREAS, the EIR identified certain significant and potentially significant adverse effects on the environment that would be caused by the Project as proposed; WHEREAS, the EIR determined that the project would have a less-than-significant impact in the resource areas of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, based on a requirement in the City’s

Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – EIR, SOC and MMRP Page 3 of 6 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
Reach Code that the project construct All-Electric Buildings, with no installation of natural gas infrastructure. Because recent litigation has raised a question about the enforceability of the City’s Reach Code, the developer has voluntarily committed to construct All-Electric Buildings, regardless of whether the Reach Code is enforceable;
WHEREAS, the EIR outlined various mitigation measures that would substantially lessen or avoid the Project’s significant effects on the environment, as well as alternatives to the Project as proposed that would provide some environmental advantages; WHEREAS, the City is required whenever possible, pursuant to CEQA, to adopt all feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental effects of the Project;
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code § 21081, subdivision (a) requires a lead agency, before approving a project for which an EIR has been prepared and certified, to adopt findings specifying whether mitigation measures and, in some instances, alternatives discussed in the EIR, have been adopted or rejected as infeasible;
WHEREAS, the “CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations” attached to this Resolution is a set of Findings of Fact prepared in order to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code § 21081, subdivision (a);
WHEREAS, as the CEQA Findings explain, the City Council, reflecting the advice of City staff, has expressed its intention to adopt the proposed Project as described; WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the alternatives addressed in the EIR would not be feasible and would not sufficiently satisfy the Project Objectives. The details supporting these determinations are set forth in the CEQA Findings;
WHEREAS, in taking this course, the City Council has acted consistent with the CEQA mandate to look to project mitigations and/or alternatives as a means of substantially lessening or avoiding the environmental effects of projects as proposed;

Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – EIR, SOC and MMRP Page 4 of 6 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
WHEREAS, the City Council, in reviewing the Project, intends to adopt all mitigation measures set forth in the EIR;
WHEREAS, the significant effects that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures will necessarily remain significant and unavoidable; WHEREAS, Public Resources Code § 21081, subdivision (b) and CEQA Guidelines § 15093 require the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations before approving a project with significant unavoidable environmental effects; WHEREAS, as detailed in the CEQA Findings, the City Council has determined that, despite the occurrence of significant unavoidable environmental effects associated with the Project, as mitigated and adopted, there exist certain overriding economic, social and other considerations for approving the Project which justify the occurrence of those impacts and render them acceptable; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as the “MMRP”, the CEQA Findings, the City Staff reports pertaining to the EIR, and all evidence received at a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2024. All of these documents and evidence are incorporated herein by reference into this Resolution.

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

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

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

3. That the City Council hereby finds the EIR has been presented to the Council, which reviewed and considered the information and analysis contained therein, at a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2024.

Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – EIR, SOC and MMRP Page 5 of 6 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17

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

5. That the City Council finds that none of the Project Alternatives set forth in the EIR can feasibly substantially lessen or avoid those significant adverse environmental effects not otherwise lessened or avoided by the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures while still sufficiently achieving the project objectives.

6. That, in order to comply with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in the attached “MMRP”.

The Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the City, affected landowners, their assigns and successors in interest and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified. The MMRP identifies, for each mitigation measure, the party responsible for implementation.

7. That the EIR set forth project-level and cumulative environmental impacts that are significant and unavoidable that cannot be mitigated or avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives. As to these impacts, the City Council finds that there exist certain overriding economic, social and other considerations for approving the Project that the City Council believes justify the occurrence of those impacts, as detailed in the “CEQA Findings” exhibit attached hereto.

8. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution and the evidence in the City Staff Report, and the attached CEQA Findings, the City Council hereby approves and certifies the EIR, makes the findings attached hereto, adopts an MMRP, and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations finding that there exist certain overriding economic, social and other

Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – EIR, SOC and MMRP Page 6 of 6 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
considerations for approving the Project that justify the occurrence of the associated impacts, all in accordance with CEQA for the Project.

9. That the City Council hereby designates the Planning Division of the Community Development Department as the location for the documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based and designates the Director of Community Development as the custodian of records.

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

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

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 19th DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST:

___________________________

JOVAN GROGAN

CITY MANAGER

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Attachments Incorporated by Reference:

1. Development Plans

2. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map

3. CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)

Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – Rezone 1 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA ,

CALIFORNIA APPROVING A REZONING FROM PUBLIC,

QUASI-PUBLIC, AND PUBLIC PARK OR RECREATION (B) TO

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) TO ALLO W A RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 22 DETAC HED SIN GLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCES LOCATED AT 1957 PRUNERIDGE

AVENUE, SANTA CLARA

PLN22-00505 (Rezone)
PLN23-00264 (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map)
SCH#2023100200 (Environmental Impact Report)

WHEREAS, on September 6, 2022, SCS Development ( “Owner”) filed a development application for the 2.47-acre site located at 1957 Pruneridge Avenue (APN:303-03-025), which is dev eloped as the St. Mark’s C hurch complex and consists of a one-story parish hall and administration building , two-story classroom, church building, s urface parking l ots and site landscaping (“Project Site”);
WHEREAS, the Owner simultaneously applied to rezone the Project Site from Public, Quasi- Public, and Public Park or Recreation (B) to Planned Development (PD) and subdivide the land through a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map application to allow the construction of 22 t wo- story for-sale detached single-family residences, associated on- and off-site improvements and four common lots to be used as a u tility corridor, vehicle access, landscape open space, and bioretention areas to serve the development (“Project”), as shown on the attached Development Plans and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( “CEQA”) and the City circulated cop ies of the DEIR and Notice of Availability for 45-day review to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Pr oject, as well as to other inte rested persons, organizations and agencies; and the City sought the comments of such persons, organizations and age ncies. The City received no public or agency comments on the DEI R and subsequently prepared and circulated a Final Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – Rezone 2 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
EIR (“FEIR”), for 10-day review in accordance with CEQA, that includes minor revisions to text and Figure 2.2-1 (Conceptual Site Plan) and Figure 2.2-2 (Landscape Plan) that do not change the conclusions of the DEIR;
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) has been prepa red for implementation with Project development to reduce potentially significant impacts identified in the DEIR, FEIR and Appendix to the FEIR, that combined constit ute the EIR for the Project, to less than sign ificant and a Statement of Overriding Consid erations for the significant unavoidable impact associated with the proposed demolition of the church building with Project development, that cannot be mitigated to less than significant, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA;
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) provides for the review and recommendation of the City’s Planning Commission of all rezoning requests before action is to be taken by the City Council;
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the P roject, EIR, MMRP, and all pertinent information in the record , at the conclusion of wh ich, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Council approve the rezone.

WHEREAS, on February 8, 2024, the notice of public h earing for the February 21 , 202 4, Planning Commission meeting and March 19 , 2024 City Council meeting for this item was mailed to property owners within a 1,000 foot radius of the Project Site boundaries, according to the most recent assessor’s roll, and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2024, the City Councill held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Rezoning application, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and evidence offered in favor and in opposition to the Project.

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

Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – Rezone 3 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17

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

2. That the City Council hereby rezones the Project Site from Public, Quasi-Public, Public Park or Recreation (B) to Planned Deve lopment (PD) to allow 22 two-story for-sale detached single-family residences, associated on- and off-site improvements and four common lots to be used as a utility corridor, vehicle access, landscape open space, and bioretention areas to serve the development, as shown on the attached Development Plans and conditioned as specified in the attached Conditions of Rezoning Approval, incorporated herein by this reference.

3. Pursuant to SCCC Code Section 18.112.0 50, the City Council determines that the following findings exist in support of the rezoning:

A. The existing zoning is inappropriate or inequitab le, in that the existing zoning for the Project Site does not allow residential development and creation of housi ng opportunities envisioned by the 2010-2035 General Plan. The Planned Development (PD) zoning would allow residential development to implement the General Plan’s Housing Element more fully than the existing Public, Quasi -Public, and Public Park or Rec reation (B) zoning designation for the Project Site.

B. The proposed zone change will conserve property values, protect or improve the existing c haracter and stability of the area in question, and will promote the orderly an d beneficial development of such area in that the proposal redevelops an underutilized property and visually improves the Project Site and surrounding neighborhood with physical and financial investment in the construction o f a modern, high quality , residential h ome ownership development with on -site parking, si te improvements, landscap ing, and s treetscape enhancements.

C. The proposed zone change is required by public necessi ty, public convenience, or the general welfare of the City in that t he proposed zone c hange provides resid ential development consistent with the General Plan designation for the Project Site and for-sale high- Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – Rezone 4 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
quality homeownership opportunities for 22 househol ds, of which three of the residences shall be available at afforda ble income levels; and in furtherance of the City’s climate goals, the Owner has committed to constructing All-Electric Buildings without the installation of any natural gas infrastructure.

D. The proposed zone change would allow imaginati ve planni ng and design concepts to be utilized that would othe rwise be re stricted in other zoning districts in that the proposed zone change would allow flexibility in the development standards to construct for-sale detached re sidences that are compatible with existing an d planned d evelopment in th e surrounding residential and commercial area.

4. That based on the findings set forth in this resolution and th e evidence in the City Staff Report, EIR and MMRP, the City Council hereby rezones the Project Site to allow development of 22 detached single-family res idences, as shown on the att ached Development Plans and conditioned as specified in the attached Conditions of Rezoning Approval. ///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – Rezone 5 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17

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

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

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AT A REGULAR ME ETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 19th DAY OF MARCH, 2024, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

Attachments Incorporated by Reference:

1. Development Plans

2. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map

3. Rezone Conditions of Approval

ATTEST:

JOVAN GROGAN

CITY MANAGER

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Page 1 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA ,

CALIFORNIA, TO A PPROVE THE VESTING TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE 1957 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 1957 PR UERIDGE
AVENUE, SANTA CLARA, TO SUBDIVIDE THE 2.47-ACRE
PROJECT SITE INTO 22 INDIVIDUAL LOTS AND FOUR

COMMON LOTS

PLN2022-00505 (Rezone)
PLN23-00264 (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map)
SCH# 202300200 (Environmental Impact Report)

WHEREAS, on September 6, 2022, SCS Development ( “Owner”) filed a development application for the 2.47-acre site located at 1957 Pruneridge Avenue (APN: 303-03-025), which is dev eloped a s t he St. Mark’s C hurch complex and co nsists of a one-story parish hall and administration buil ding, two-story classroom, church building, s urface parking lots and site landscaping (“Project Site”);
WHEREAS, the Owner has simultaneously applied to rezone the Project Site from Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation (B) to Planned Devel opment (PD) and subdivide the land t o allow construction of 2 2 for-sale detached two-story single-family residences, associated on- and off-site improvements and four common lots to be used as a utility corridor, vehicle acce ss, landscape open space, and bioretention areas , to serve the development (“Project”), as s hown on the attached Development Plans and proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality A ct (“CEQA”) and the City circulated copies of the DEIR and Notice of Availability for 45-day review to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, as well as to other interested persons, organizati ons and agencies; and the City sought the comments of such persons, organizations and agencies. The City received no public or agency comments on the DEIR a nd subsequently prepared and distributed a Final EIR (“FEIR”) for 10-day review, in accordance with CEQA, that includes minor revisions to text Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Page 2 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
and Figure 2.2-1 (Conceptual Site Plan) and Figure 2.2-2 (Landscape Plan) that do not change the conclusions of the DEIR;
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) has been prepared fo r implementation with Project development to red uce potentially significant impacts identified in the DEIR, FEIR and Appendix to the FEIR, that combine d constitute the EIR for the Project, to less than significant and a Statement of Overriding Consideratio ns for the significant unavoidable impact associated with the proposed demolition of the church building with Project development, that cannot be mitigated to less than significant has been prepared in accordance with CEQA;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.05.210 of t he Code of the City of S anta Clara (“SCCC”), a Tentative Subdivision Map shall be required for all divisions of land into five or more parcels; WHEREAS, consistent with the proposed uses under the development plan, the proposal includes the division of the site into 22 individual lots and four common lots, as shown on the proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference;
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2023, the Subdivision Committee determined that the application was complete and that t he Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council in conformance with Section 17.05.300 of t he SCCC as a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map along with the Project; WHEREAS, SCCC Section 17.05.300(g) requires th at the Planning Commission make recommendations of denial, approval or conditional approval to the City Council on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps;
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the P roject, EIR, MMRP, and all pertinent information in the record , at the conclusion of which, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the V esting Tentative Subdivision Map.

Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Page 3 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map was published in The Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation for the City, on February 7, 2024; WHEREAS on February 8, 2024, notices of the public hearing on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the February 21, 2024 Planning Commission meeting and March 19, 2024 City Council meeting were mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project Site boundaries; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed publ ic hearing to consider the Proje ct, EIR, M MRP, and all pertinent information in the record , during which the City Council invited and considered any and all verbal and writt en testimony and evidence offered in favor of and in opposition to the Project.

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

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

2. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Findings. Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 66426 and 66428 and SCCC Secti on 17.05.300( h), the City Council finds and determines that:

A. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is consistent with the objectives, policies, general lan d u se and programs spec ified in the City’s General Plan in that the proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is to allow the development of 22 detached single- family residences, four common lots to be u sed as a u tility corridor, vehicle access, landscape open space and biorete ntion areas , and on- and off-site improvements compatible with neighboring residential development and existing and p lanned development in the surrounding area, subject to conditi ons set forth in the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. The Project proposes a density of

8.9 dwelling unit s per acre, consistent with the Very Low Re sidential Dens ity General Plan designation for the Project Site, which allows residential development of up to ten (10) dwelling Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Page 4 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
units per acre. The project also furthers of the City’s goal to reduce the use of methane gas citywide stated in Appe ndix 8.13 (Climate Action Plan) , in that the Owner ha s committed to constructing All-Electric Buildings without the installation of any natural gas infrastructure.

B. The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consist ent with the City’s G eneral Plan in th at the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map would redevelop an underutilized and vacant property (Policy 5.3.1-P8), provides adequate landscaping and replaces trees at a 2:1 ratio (Policy 5.3.1-P10), includes sidewalks and consolidates curb cuts to minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts (Policies 5.3.1-P12 and P16), and provides a design that is compatible with and sensitive to neighboring residential development (Policy 5.3.1-P29).

C. The site is physically suitable for t he proposed type of d evelopment in that the Project is designed to provide high quality housi ng consistent with existing and planned development in the surrounding area.

D. This site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the Project Site is located in an urbaniz ed area and allows for redevelopment consistent wit h the height, uses and development that are existing and planned in the surrounding area.

E. The design of the subdi vision and type of improvements are not likel y to cause serious health problems in that the proposed residential subdivision will implement Covenants Conditions and Restrictions for op eration and maintenance of the buildi ngs, common lots and site improvements, and does not propose the use of hazardous materials.

F. The design of the s ubdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and will not substantially or unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habit at in that th e Project Site is located in an urbanized setting, o n a pre viously developed site, and includ es mitigation measures, as iden tified in the EIR and MMRP , that reduce impacts to wildlife habitat to less than significant levels.

G. The design of the subdivisi on and type of improvements wil l not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large or use of property within the p roposed subdivision in Resolution/ 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project – Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Page 5 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
that, the Project is designed to avoid encroachments and conflicts with public easements in the site design.

H. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural h eating or cooling oppor tunities, in that it would allow f lexibility in t he development standards t o maximize th e benefits of green building sta ndards for site and building design.

4. Based on the findings set forth in this Resoluti on and the evidence in the Staff Report, EIR, MMRP, and such other evidence as received at the public hearings on this matter, the City Council hereby approves the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, substantially in the form on file as shown i n the attached Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Conditions of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Approval, incorporated herein by this reference.

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

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

AND ADOPTE D B Y THE OF THE C ITY COUNCIL, AT A REGULA R MEET ING THERE OF HELD ON THE 19th DAY OF MARCH, 2024, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST:

JOVAN GROGAN

CITY MANAGER

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Attachments Incorporated by Reference:

1. Development Plans

2. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map

3. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Conditions of Approval

Planning Commission
Excerpt
Meeting Minutes 02/21/2024

3. 24-1629 PUBLIC HEARING: Action on an Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Rezone, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the Property Located at 1957 Pruneridge Avenue to Allow the Development of 22 Detached Single-Family Residences and Associated On- and Off-Site Improvements Recommendation: Alternatives: 1, 2 and 3
City of Santa Clara

1. Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report and adopt the CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1957 Pruneridge Avenue
Residential Project.

2. Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a rezoning of the project site from Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation (B) to Planned Development (PD) to allow construction of residential development consisting of 22 detached two-story residences with attached and detached garages, landscaping, and on- and off-site improvements, subject to conditions of approval.

3. Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the land into 22 individual lots and four common lots as a utility corridor, vehicle access, landscape open space and bioretention areas to serve the development, subject to conditions of approval.

Associate Planner Debby Fernandez provided the staff presentation.

Assistant City Attorney Alexander Abbe addressed the Commission regarding two conditions of approval related to the use of natural gas, B8 and P23. Mr. Abbe explained that B8 required the developer to comply with the City's "Reach Code," which requires most new development projects to build All-Electric Construction, with no installation of natural gas infrastructure. Mr.

Abbe explained that in recent discussions with the developer, the developer had also voluntarily committed to All-Electric Construction, regardless of the application of the City's Reach Code, and that this was memorialized in condition P23.

Mr. Abbe further explained, however, that the despite this commitment from the developer, the developer had requested a modification to condition P23. As drafted by staff, condition P23 stated that the developer's commitment to All-Electric Construction was an express basis for the City's decision to rezone the property as Planned Development, and that if the developer sought to utilize methane at a later date, a revision to the PD zoning would be required. The developer agreed that a revision to the rezoning would be required if they later sought to use natural gas, but the developer did not want the City to state that All-Electric Construction was one of the express grounds for granting the PD zoning. Mr. Abbe cautioned that the developer's request would likely make condition P23 more difficult to enforce, and make it more likely that the developer could utilize natural gas in the future without City approval.

Page4 Printed on 02/29/2024
Planning Commission
Excerpt
Meeting Minutes 02/21/2024
City of Santa Clara
Mr. Abbe also explained that the developer was objecting to condition PS, which obligated the developer to provide a S-foot sidewalk and a S-foot landscaped area in conformance with the Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Plan (PACSP). Mr. Abbe advised the Commission that the Council formally adopted the PACSP in August 2022 and that the Commission did not have the discretion to waive the requirements of the PA CSP, such as condition PS.

Commissioners inquired upon various items on the proposed project including new sidewalk standards, the possible use of solar for the project, traffic patterns for the project and concerns regarding the busy intersection at Pruneridge and Winchester as it relates to the location of the project driveway, as well as relocation of the remains of the burial site.

SCS Development representatives Matthew Schott and Cory Kusich provided the Applicant presentation.

David J. Powers & Associates staff Shannon George and Patrick Kalle were in attendance and spoke at the meeting.

Public Speaker
Chris Sarbaugh
A motion was made by Commissioner Biagini, seconded by
Commissioner Bouza to close public comment.

Aye: 7 - Vice Chair Bhatnagar, Commissioner Biagini, Chair Cherukuru, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Bouza, Commissioner Saleme, and Commissioner Crutchlow
A motion was made by Commissioner Biagini, seconded by
Commissioner Crutchlow to approve Staff Recommendation 1.

Aye: 7 - Vice Chair Bhatnagar, Commissioner Biagini, Chair Cherukuru, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Bouza, Commissioner Saleme, and Commissioner Crutchlow
A motion was made by Commissioner Biagini, seconded by
Commissioner Crutchlow, to approve Staff Recommendation 2 with additional recommendations to include Provide "Right Turn Only . During Peak Hours" signage for the project driveway and for the applicant to use reasonable efforts, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development to obtain written
documentation from the diocese of the-previous church on the site documenting the disposition of the remains from the burial site on the property.

Aye: 7 - Vice Chair Bhatnagar, Commissioner Biagini, Chair Cherukuru, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Bouza, Commissioner Saleme, and Commissioner Crutchlow
Page5 Printed on 02/29/2024
Planning Commission
Excerpt
Meeting Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Biagini, seconded by
Commission Bouza to approve Staff Recommendation 3.
02/21/2024

Aye: 7 - Vice Chair Bhatnagar, Commissioner Biagini, Chair Cherukuru, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Bouza, Commissioner Saleme, and Commissioner Crutchlow
REPORTS OF COMMISSION/BOARD LIAISON AND COMMITTEE:

1. Announcements/Other Items

2. Commissioner Travel and Training Reports, Requests to attend Trainings Staff Aide II Elizabeth Elliott provided updates on travel requests.

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORTS:

1. Planning Commission Budget Update
Staff Aide II Elizabeth Elliott provided budget updates.

2. Upcoming Agenda Items
Planning Manager Lesley Xavier provided updates.

3. City Council Actions
Planning Manager Lesley Xavier provided updates.

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting adjourned at 8:21 pm. The next regular scheduled meeting is Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6 pm.

City of Santa Clara Page6 Printed on 02/29/2024
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
24-1629

REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION

SUBJECT
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca .gov
@SantaClaraCity
Agenda Date: 2/21/2024
PUBLIC HEARING: Action on an Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Rezone, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the Property Located at 1957 Pruneridge Avenue to Allow the Development of 22 Detached Single-Family Residences and Associated On- and Off-Site Improvements

REPORT IN BRIEF
Applicant /Owner: SCS Development
General Plan: Very Low Density Residential
Zoning: Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation (B) Site Area: 2.47 acres
Existing Conditions: The site contains the St. Mark's Episcopal Church (now vacant), which includes a church building and a single-story parish hall and administration building connected to a two-story classroom building. Buildings are concentrated in the center of the site and are surrounded by a surface parking lot and perimeter landscaping to the north, west and east, and a landscape setback fronting Pruneridge Avenue to the south.

Surrounding Land Uses:
• North: Single-family detached residences
• South: Pruneridge Avenue and a mix of neighborhood commercial uses and detached single­ family residences
• East: Neighborhood commercial uses
• West: Neighborhood commercial uses
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt resolutions recommending the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); adopt the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and approve the Rezone and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the property located at 1957 Pruneridge Avenue.

BACKGROUND
SCS Development Company filed an application for the subject proposal on September 6, 2022 to construct a single-family residential development with 22 detached two-story homes, private street and associated on- and-off site improvements on the 2.47-acre site. Implementation of the proposal requires a rezone of the property from Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation (B) to Planned Development (PD) to construct the residential development and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (Chapter 17.05 of the City Code) to subdivide the property into individual for-sale lots and four common lots for use as a utility corridor, vehicle access, landscape open space and City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 8 Printed on 2/16/2024
powered by Legistar"'
24-1629 Agenda Date: 2/21/2024
bioretention areas. Fifteen percent of the total number of units (or 3.3 homes) are required to be provided as affordable housing units. Per the City's Affordable Housing Ordinance (SCCC §

17.04.080.B), any fractional unit requirement may be addressed by providing one additional affordable unit or by payment of an in-lieu fee. Redevelopment of the property as proposed includes the demolition of all existing structures and site improvements (surface parking lot and landscaping).

Project History and Previous Actions
The existing buildings are over 50 years in age and were evaluated for potential historical and architectural significance in accordance with CEQA. A California Department of Parks & Recreation Form 523 ("DPR") was prepared to record and evaluate the building complex, landscape features and historic context, followed by peer review of the analysis. In accordance with 18.106.060 of the City's Preservation Ordinance, the project was referred to the Historical and Landmarks Commission (HLC) for consideration of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed demolition of the existing structures and to determine whether the property is eligible for listing on the City's Historic Resource Inventory (HRI).

The DPR is incorporated as part of the EIR prepared for the project (Attachment 1) and along with an analysis, was included in the HLC staff report (Attachment 8). The EIR concludes that the church is eligible for listing as an historic resource on the City's HRI as a result of the building architecture. The project was reviewed by the HLC at a publicly noticed meeting on December 7, 2023. Following review of the documents and public testimony, the HLC recommended certification of the EIR to the Planning Commission and City Council with the recommendations listed below and did not recommend the property for listing on the City's HRI. The HLC meeting minutes are provided as Attachment 7.
• Developer to create a memorial to the church (using the Architect William Mays' name) utilizing materials from the church in the memorial if the church is not relocated. • Developer to return to the HLC to present the memorial design.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1 of the EIR already requires the developer to prepare a Historic Resources Mitigation Action Plan, that includes steps like documentation, attempted relocation, and salvage of historic materials. The Commission or Council could give direction to include the HLC's recommended conditions as a part of that Action Plan.

DISCUSSION
Primary issues for the project include consistency with the City's General Plan, and conformance with the City Code for Planned Development Zoning and its subdivision.

General Plan Conformance
The existing General Plan designation for the project site is Very Low Density Residential. This designation is intended for residential densities of up to 1 O dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and envisioned for single-family residential development in scale and character. Development in this classification maintains a feeling of suburban living with setbacks between structures, parking, large landscaped yards and tree lined streets.

The proposed project provides 8.9 du/ac and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies:

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 8 Printed on 2/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-1629 Agenda Date: 2/21/2024
General Land Use Policies
• 5.3.1-P2: Encourage advance notification and neighborhood meetings to provide an opportunity for early community review of new development proposals. • 5.3.1-P26: Support a community-initiated planning process so that existing neighborhoods can participate in developing more detailed plans for street, landscape and pedestrian facility improvements.

The applicant conducted public outreach through mailings and two community meetings to involve neighboring property owners in the design of the project. Notices were mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project boundaries and interested parties. • 5.3.1-P8: Work with property owners to improve or redevelop underutilized and vacant properties.
• 5.3.1-P9: Require that new development provide adequate public services and facilities, infrastructure, and amenities to serve the new employment or residential growth.

The project would redevelop an underutilized parcel for the construction of 22 for-sale single-family residences and public and private on- and off-site improvements, that include private street, utilities, and landscaping as part of the development.
• 5.3.1-P1 0: Provide opportunities for increased landscaping and trees in the community, including requirements for new development to provide street trees and a minimum 2:1 on- or off-site replacement for trees removed as part of the proposal to help increase the urban forest and minimize the heat island effect.

The proposed development plan includes landscaping of the site and the project street frontage with a variety of plant and tree species and would replace the trees removed with redevelopment of the property at a minimum 2: 1 ratio.
• 5.3.1-P12: Encourage convenient pedestrian connections within new and existing developments.
• 5.3.1-P16: Consolidate curb cuts with new development on arterial roadways to minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts at driveway locations and improve traffic flow.

The project includes sidewalks to facilitate pedestrian access and link neighboring land uses. Two existing curb-cuts and a sidewalk along the project frontage would be removed and replaced with a single curb-cut along Pruneridge Avenue, separated sidewalk and landscape strip which would minimize vehicle interface with pedestrians and improve traffic flow. • P.3.1-P29: Encourage design of new development to be compatible with, and sensitive to, nearby existing and planned development, consistent with other applicable General Pan policies.

The proposed project is the construction of 22 detached single-family homes with front yards along the street frontage and setback between buildings that reflect and would blend in with neighboring single-family homes and one- and two-story commercial development.

City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 8 Printed on 2/16/2024
powered by Legistar""
24-1629 Agenda Date: 2/21/2024
Transition Policies
• 5.5.2-P1: Require that new development incorporate building articulation and architectural features, including front doors, windows, stoops, porches or bay windows along street frontages, to integrate new development into the existing neighborhoods.

The project incorporates offsets along the building planes and a mixture of exterior materials and architectural features to create visual breaks and interest in the design for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Residences along Pruneridge Avenue are designed to integrate into the surrounding neighborhood with the front doors, windows and outdoor patios oriented towards the public domain, Pruneridge Avenue. Pedestrian paths connect the residences facing Pruneridge Avenue to the public sidewalk fronting the site and neighboring properties. • 5.5.2-P3: Implement site design solutions, such as landscaping and increased building setbacks, to provide buffers between nonresidential and residential uses. • 5.5.2-P5: Require that new development provide an appropriate transition to surrounding neighborhoods.

The project includes landscaped building setbacks to transition two-story residential development on the site from adjacent commercial properties and abutting one- and two-story detached single-family homes.

Zoning Conformance
Filing of the rezone and vesting subdivision map applications occurred concurrently with the City's efforts to comprehensively update the Zoning Code. The project was deemed complete by the City's Project Clearance Committee (PCC) on June 13, 2023, prior to the adoption of the Zoning Code update. Under the updated Zoning Code, all planning permit applications that are active and that have been determined by the PCC to be complete before the effective date of the Zoning Code, February 8, 2024, shall be processed in compliance with the requirements in effect when the application was deemed complete. Therefore, the current B zoning designation for the site is in effect, as is the project's ability to utilize a rezone to the PD district.

Under existing conditions, the B zoning district assigned to the property is intended to provide for public, quasi-public and public park facilities and does not allow for residential development (per Chapter 18.52 of the City Code); thereby requiring a rezone of the property to PD to utilize flexible development standards to allow the construction of housing at a residential density consistent with the existing General Plan designation for the property.

Per Chapter 18.54 of the City Code, PD zoning districts are intended to allow for creative design solutions and land uses not otherwise allowed in standard zoning districts while maintaining compatibility with the existing community and allowing for greater community ownership. The proposed PD zoning establishes development standards in the density and site design compatible with existing and approved land uses surrounding the project site.

Affordable Housing
The proposed project is subject to the City's lnclusionary Housing Ordinance and would be required to designate 15 percent of the 22 homes (or 3.3 homes) for qualifying home buyers based on income City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 8 Printed on 2/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-1629 Agenda Date: 2/21/2024
level at or below 100 percent Area Median Income, on average. Per Section 17.40.080.B of the City's Affordable Housing Ordinance, the fractional unit (0.3) requirement may be addressed by providing an additional affordable unit or payment of an in-lieu fee.

Site Design and Architecture
The proposal is a small lot residential development with individual lots ranging in size from 3,523 square feet (sf) to 4,356 sf, consisting of 22 two-story single-family residences with either an attached or detached garage. A row of detached homes will front Pruneridge Avenue (on the south side of the property) and a second row of detached homes ( on the north side of the property) will front the driveway aisle / private street behind that separates and provides vehicle access to the homes and on-site parking.

Three types of floor plans range in size from 1,750 sf to 2,925 sf, inclusive of the garage. Plans 1A and B are four-bedroom and 3.5-bath homes with an attached three-car garage. Plan 2A and B are five-bedroom and four-bath homes with an attached three-car garage. Plan 3 is a four-bedroom and three-bath home with detached two-car garage. Each unit has an outdoor patio and private fenced in yard. Building coverage of the lots range from 37 to 53 percent with the remaining allocated to patio and yard area.

The proposed building architecture would be reflective of a modern interpretation of cottage farmhouse design. The design incorporates a mixture of materials that include stucco and batten board (horizontal and vertical) siding and stone veneer applied to the exterior elevations for texture and visual interest. The use of divided light windows and alternating use of architectural materials will provide a rhythmic cohesion and symmetry in the design. Offsets in the building elevations, recessed windows, and varied roof forms (e.g. shed and gable) will provide breaks in mass and scale of the buildings and roof structures. Roofs will be clad with asphalt shingles. Metal seam roofs will appear atop porches of the homes with extended covered front porches.

Circulation and Parking
Two existing curb-cuts and the sidewalk along the project frontage would be removed and replaced with a single curb-cut along Pruneridge Avenue for ingress and egress, at the southeast corner of the site, for vehicle access and a required separated sidewalk along the street frontage that includes a landscape strip next to the curb and sidewalk behind. The single driveway would serve the residences aligned along the drive aisle and provide a hammerhead near its terminus for use by emergency vehicles for back-out.

Because the project site is located within a half-mile of a major transit stop, the City cannot require the provision of any parking spaces under Assembly Bill 2097 (2022). Nevertheless, nineteen of the units will include three-car garages, while three units will include two-car garages, for a total of 63 covered spaces. While no designated visitor parking spaces are provided, driveways in front of the garages allow for additional uncovered parking. There are currently no parking restrictions along Pruneridge Avenue fronting the project site.

Landscaping and Open Space
The project includes a landscape plan for the site that incorporates a mixture of plant species and trees for planting within common areas and yards of the residences. Fifty existing on-site trees will be removed and as a condition of project approval, the project will replace the removed trees at a City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 8 Printed on 2/16/2024
powered by Legistarw
24-1629 Agenda Date: 2/21/2024
minimum of 2: 1 with 24-inch box species or equivalent. The proposed project would include the planting of approximately 79, 24- to 36- inch box trees throughout the site and would feature drought tolerant, low water use landscaping in the common areas and yards of the residential units. An additional 21 replacement trees would be provided off-site.

As a condition of project approval , a Home Owners Association will be established and Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions recorded to manage and maintain on- and off-site improvements (including buildings utilities, landscaping and fencing,) in good condition for the life of the project.

Subdivision
In accordance with Chapter 17.05 of the City Code, the project requires a tentative subdivision map.

The application includes 22 for-sale lots and four common parcels (circulation, landscape open­ space and bioretention areas). The Subdivision Committee reviewed and deemed the application complete, satisfying code requirements and including conditions of approval contained in Attachment

10. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project by the environmental consultant firm David J. Powers & Associates , in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Notice of Availability were posted on the City's website at Environmental Review/CEQA I City of Santa Clara (santaclaraca .gov) <https://www.santaclaraca .gov/our-city/departments -a-f/community -development/planning­ division/environmental -review-cega> and available for public review for 45-days between November 17, 2023 and January 2, 2024, in accordance with CEQA requirements . No public or agency comments on the DEIR were submitted during the 45-day review period.

The DEIR examined potential environmental impacts associated with project development and identified significant impacts on biological , cultural resources, and geology and soils. Mitigation measures were identified for implementation that would reduce most of the significant project development impacts to less than significant levels. However , significant unavoidable project level and cumulative cultural resources impacts were identified to remain with demolition of the church, which is identified as being eligible for listing as an architecturally significant local structure , to redevelop the site. All other resource areas would experience a less than significant impact with project development
In considering a project, CEQA requires decision-makers to balance economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. To approve a project that has a significant unavoidable environmental impact, decision-makers must make findings, supported by substantial evidence, that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable environmental effects. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15124 (b), the DEIR identifies project objectives for evaluation of the proposed project and the development of a range of alternatives for consideration in the findings or statement of overriding considerations .

The EIR determined that the project would have a less-than-significant impact in the resource areas of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions . Part of the basis for these conclusions was that the project would be subject to the City 's Reach Code, and one of the requirements of the Reach Code is City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 8 Printed on 2/16/2024
powered by Legistar"'
24-1629 Agenda Date: 2/21/2024
that the project construct All-Electric Buildings, with no installation of natural gas infrastructure.

Recently, however, a court of appeal opinion, California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, called into question the validity of the All-Electric requirements in the Reach Code. City planning and legal staff are currently evaluating the full nature and extent of this case's impact on the City's Reach Code requirements. If the All-Electric provisions in the Reach Code were ultimately determined to be invalid, then the project developer would potentially be able to install natural gas infrastructure and utilize methane, which is one of the most potent greenhouse gases. For this project, at the very least, this would require the City to re-examine the analysis and conclusions of the Energy and Greenhouse Gas chapters of the EIR. Consequently, the developer has made a commitment not to install any natural gas infrastructure, regardless of the legal status of the City's Reach Code. The description of the project in the PD zoning and the conditions of approval will specifically state that the project does not include any natural gas infrastructure, and that any future proposal to utilize methane would require an amendment to the PD zoning. As a result, the analysis in the EIR remains valid.

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

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

PUBLIC CONTACT
On February 8, 2024, the notice of public hearing for this item was mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project side boundaries and interested parties. Newspaper notice of this item was published in The Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation, on February 7, 2024. At the time of this staff report, no comments have been received by the Planning Department in support or opposition to the project.

Communitv Meetings
Virtual public outreach meetings were conducted by the Property Owner/Applicant on November 16, 2022 and August 30, 2023 to engage the neighborhood community in the planning process. Notices of the meetings were mailed by the Property Owner/Applicant to properties within 1,000 feet of the project site boundaries and posted on the City's website. These meetings provided the community opportunities to review and comment on the proposal and revised changes made to the dwellings, site circulation and landscaping resulting from community input.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report and adopt the CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project.

2. Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a rezoning of the project site from Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation (B) to Planned Development (PD) to allow construction of residential development consisting of 22 detached two-story residences with attached and detached garages, landscaping, and on- and off-site improvements, subject to conditions of approval.

3. Adopt a resolution recommending City Council approve a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the land into 22 individual lots and four common lots as a utility corridor, vehicle City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 8 Printed on 2/16/2024
powered by LegistarT<.,
24-1629 Agenda Date: 2/21/2024
access, landscape open space and bioretention areas to serve the development, subject to conditions of approval.

4. Deny the rezoning from Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation (B) to Planned Development (PD) to allow construction of residential development consisting of 22 detached two-story residences with attached and detached garages, landscaping, and on- and off-site improvements.

5. Deny the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the land into 22 individual lots and four common lots as a utility corridor, vehicle access, landscape open space and bioretention areas to serve the development.

RECOMMENDATION
Alternatives: 1, 2 and 3

1. Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report and adopt the CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project.

2. Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a rezoning of the project site from Public, Quasi-Public, and Public Park or Recreation (B) to Planned Development (PD) to allow construction of residential development consisting of 22 detached two-story residences with attached and detached garages, landscaping, and on- and off-site improvements, subject to conditions of approval.

3. Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the land into 22 individual lots and four common lots as a utility corridor, vehicle access, landscape open space and bioretention areas to serve the development, subject to conditions of approval.

Prepared by: Debby Fernandez, Associate Planner
Reviewed by, Sheldon S. Ah Sing, Development Review Officer Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Lesley Xavier, Planning Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Environmental Impact Report

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

3. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

4. Resolution Recommending Council Certify Environmental Impact Report

5. Resolution Recommending Council Approve the Rezone

6. Resolution Recommending Council Approve the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map

7. Draft Historical and Landmarks Commission meeting minutes of December 7, 2023

8. Historic and Landmarks Commission Staff Report December 7, 2023.

9. Conditions of Rezoning Approval

10. Conditions of Tentative Subdivision Map Approval

11. Development Plans

12. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 8 Printed on 2/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Meeting Minutes
Historical & Landmarks Commission
Draft
6:00 PM Hybrid Meeting
City Hall Council
Chambers/Virtual
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
12/07/2023
REVISED AGENDA - additional attachments have been added to RTC 23-1252 The City of Santa Clara is conducting the Historical and Landmarks Commission meeting in a hybrid manner (in-person and methods for the public to participate remotely) •
Via Zoom:
o https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/97233262035 or
o Phone: 1 (669) 900-6833
Webinar ID: 972 3326 2035
Public Comments prior to meeting may be submitted via email to [email protected] no later than noon on the day of the meeting.

Clearly indicate the project address, meeting body, and meeting date in the email.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ZOOM WEBINAR:

Please follow the guidelines below when participating in a Zoom Webinar:
- The meeting will be recorded so you must choose 'continue' to accept and stay in the meeting.
- If there is an option to change the phone number to your name when you enter the meeting, please do so as your name will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak.
- Mute all other audio before speaking. Using multiple devices can cause an audio feedback. - Use the raise your hand feature in Zoom when you would like to speak on an item and lower when finished speaking. Press *9 to raise your hand if you are calling in by phone only. - Identify yourself by name before speaking on an item. - Unmute when called on to speak and mute when done speaking. If there is background noise coming from a participant, they will be muted by the host. Press *6 if you are participating by phone to unmute.
- If you no longer wish to stay in the meeting once your item has been heard, you may leave the meeting.

12/07/2023Historical & Landmarks Commission Meeting Minutes

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Vargas-Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

Commissioner Michael Celso , Commissioner Amy Kirby,
Commissioner Patricia Leung, Vice Chair Kathleen Romano, Commissioner Ed Stocks, and Chair Ana Vargas-Smith
Present 6 -
Commissioner Yvonne InciarteAbsent 1 -
A motion was made by Commissioner Stocks, seconded by
Commissioner Leung, to excuse Commissioner Inciarte.

Aye: Commissioner Celso, Commissioner Kirby, Commissioner Leung, Vice Chair Romano, Commissioner Stocks, and Chair Vargas-Smith 6 -
Excused: Commissioner Inciarte1 -

CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Commissioner Leung, seconded by Vice Chair Romano, to approve the Consent Calendar with a note to update the minutes to reflect the correct Chair and
Commissioner titles in several places.

Aye: Commissioner Celso, Commissioner Kirby, Commissioner Leung, Vice Chair Romano, Commissioner Stocks, and Chair Vargas-Smith 6 -
Excused: Commissioner Inciarte1 -

1.A 23-1323 Historical and Landmarks Commission Minutes of October 5, 2023

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

GENERAL BUSINESS

12/07/2023Historical & Landmarks Commission Meeting Minutes

2. 23-1347 Consideration of a Significant Property Alteration Permit for a 1,207 Square Foot Addition to a Historic Residence and a Variance to Eliminate the Requirement for a Two-Car Garage at 1277 Jackson Street Public Speakers:

Brandon Spencer
A motion was made by Commissioner Stocks, seconded by Vice Chair Romano, to recommend approval of the Significant Property Alteration Permit to the Planning Commission with the following updates:
- Correct the plans to address the discrepancy between the 8' vs. 9, basement ceiling height, while not modifying the basement windows (do not change their height)
- Modify the proposed kitchen window to a single pane awning style - For all new windows, try to match the existing wood windows to the extent feasible
A motion was made by Commissioner Celso, seconded by Vice Chair Romano, to recommend approval of the Variance to the Planning Commission.

Aye: Commissioner Celso, Commissioner Kirby, Commissioner Leung, Vice Chair Romano, Commissioner Stocks, and Chair Vargas-Smith 6 -
Excused: Commissioner Inciarte1 -

3. 23-1348 Consideration of a Significant Property Alteration Permit for a 556 Square-Foot Addition to the Basement and a 590 square foot First Floor Addition to a Mills Act Residence and a Variance for the Construction of a New Nonconforming Garage at 324 Madison Street
Public Speakers:

Tommy Tran
Rob Mayer
A motion was made by Commissioner Leung, seconded by
Commissioner Kirby, to recommend approval of the Significant Property Alteration Permit to the Planning Commission with the following recommendations:
- Retain the existing chimney
- Differentiate the stucco on the new addition
A motion was made by Commissioner Leung, seconded by
Commissioner Stocks, to recommend approval of the Variance to the Planning Commission.

12/07/2023Historical & Landmarks Commission Meeting Minutes

Aye: Commissioner Celso, Commissioner Kirby, Commissioner Leung, Vice Chair Romano, Commissioner Stocks, and Chair Vargas-Smith 6 -
Excused: Commissioner Inciarte1 -

4. 23-1252 Consideration of an Environmental Impact Report for the Demolition of a Potentially Significant Structure to Construct a Residential Development with 22 Detached Single-Family Dwellings at 1957 Pruneridge Avenue Public Speakers:

Cory Kusich
Richard
A motion was made by Commissioner Celso, seconded by
Commissioner Stocks, to recommend certification of the EIR to the Planning Commission and City Council with the following recommendations:
-
Developer to create a memorial to the church (using the Architect William Mays' name) utilizing materials from the church in the memorial if the church is not relocated
- Return to the HLC to present the memorial design

Aye: Commissioner Celso, Commissioner Kirby, Commissioner Leung, Commissioner Stocks, and Chair Vargas-Smith
5 -
Nay: Vice Chair Romano1 -
Excused: Commissioner Inciarte1 -

5. 23-1324
Action on HLC Board and Committee Assignments
The Board and Committee assignments were updated as follows:

Board/Committee Lead/Alternate Santa Clara Arts and Historic Consortium: Vargas-Smith / Romano Historic Preservation Society of Santa Clara: Vargas-Smith / Leung Old Quad Residents Association: Leung
Development Review Hearing: Romano / Vargas-Smith
BART/ High Speed Rail/ VTA BRT Committee: Vargas-Smith / Leung El Camino Real Specific Plan Community Advisory Committee: Leung Downtown Precise Plan: Vargas-Smith / Stocks
Santa Clara Station Area Task Force: Leung / Stocks

STAFF REPORT

1. Berryessa Adobe Maintenance

12/07/2023Historical & Landmarks Commission Meeting Minutes

2. Training and Travel Request

3. Streetlight Banners for Historic Preservation Month
Staff Liaison Rebecca Bustos gave a verbal report of the price quotes for the banner design, fabrication, and installation/removal.

A motion was made by Commissioner Leung, seconded by
Vice Chair Romano, to establish a Banner Subcommittee with Chair Vargas-Smith, Vice Chair Romano, and Commissioner Kirby.

Aye: Commissioner Celso, Commissioner Kirby, Commissioner Leung, Vice Chair Romano, Commissioner Stocks, and Chair
Vargas-Smith
6 -
Excused: Commissioner Inciarte1 -

COMMISSIONERS REPORT

1. Subcommittee Reporting - 20 minutes

2. Board/Committee Lead/Alternate
Santa Clara Arts and Historic Consortium Leung / Romano Historic Preservation Society of Santa Clara Vargas-Smith / Leung Old Quad Residents Association Leung / Romano
Development Review Hearing Romano /Vargas-Smith
BART/ High Speed Rail/ VTA BRT Committee Vargas-Smith/ Vacant Zoning Ordinance Update Romano / Vacant
El Camino Real Specific Plan Community Advisory Committee Leung Downtown Precise Plan Vargas

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m.

A motion was made by Commissioner Leung, seconded by
Vice Chair Romano to adjourn the meeting.

Aye: Commissioner Celso, Commissioner Kirby, Commissioner Leung, Vice Chair Romano, Commissioner Stocks, and Chair Vargas-Smith 6 -
Excused: Commissioner Inciarte1 -
The next regular scheduled meeting is Thursday, January 4, 2024

MEETING DISCLOSURES

12/07/2023Historical & Landmarks Commission Meeting Minutes The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision. Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. If a person wishes to challenge the nature of the above section in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clara, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.

If a member of the public submits a speaker card for any agenda items, their name will appear in the Minutes. If no speaker card is submitted, the Minutes will reflect "Public Speaker."
In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the City of Santa Clara will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities, and will ensure that all existing facilities will be made accessible to the maximum extent feasible. The City of Santa Clara will generally, upon request, provide appropriate aids and services leading to effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities including those with speech, hearing, or vision impairments so they can participate equally in the City’s programs, services, and activities. The City of Santa Clara will make all reasonable modifications to policies and programs to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to enjoy all of its programs, services, and activities.

Agendas and other written materials distributed during a public meeting that are public record will be made available by the City in an appropriate alternative format.

Contact the City Clerk’s Office at 1 408-615-2220 with your request for an alternative format copy of the agenda or other written materials.

Individuals who require an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or any other disability-related modification of policies or procedures, or other accommodation, in order to participate in a program, service, or activity of the City of Santa Clara, should contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 408-615-3000 as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
23-1252

REPORT TO HISTORICAL AND LANDMARKS COMMISSION

SUBJECT
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca .gov
@SantaClaraCity
Agenda Date: 12/7/2023
Consideration of an Environmental Impact Report for the Demolition of a Potentially Significant Structure to Construct a Residential Development with 22 Detached Single-Family Dwellings at 1957 Pruneridge Avenue

BACKGROUND
On September 6, 2022, SGS Development Company filed an application for a Planned Development (PD) Rezoning to construct a single-family residential development consisting of 22 detached two­ story homes, a private street, and associated on- and-off site improvements at 1957 Pruneridge Avenue. The proposal requires a rezone of the 2.47-acre property from Public, Quasi-Public, Public Park or Recreation (B) to PD Planned Development and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the property into individual for-sale lots and a common lot for use as a utility corridor and vehicle access. Redevelopment of the property as proposed includes the demolition of all existing structures and site improvements. The proposal is consistent with the Very Low Density Residential General Plan designation assigned to the property which allows residential development up to 1 O dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The proposal provides nine du/ac.

The existing site was developed for assembly uses (religious worship and education) and is consistent with the current zoning of the property. The site contains the St. Mark's Episcopal Church complex, including a single-story parish hall and administration building connected to a two-story classroom building constructed between1955-1958 and a church building constructed in 1964. The buildings are concentrated in the center of the site and are surrounded by a surface parking lot to the north, west, and east and a landscaped setback fronting Pruneridge Avenue to the south. The property borders commercial development to the east and west and single-family residential tracts to the north. Across Pruneridge Avenue to the south are a mix of commercial development and single­ family residences.

The parish hall / administration / classroom building was constructed in phases and has undergone alterations over time. It is a wood framed U-shaped structure with stucco finish and mix of mid­ century modern and Spanish colonial architectural styles. The parish hall has a pitched red tile roof with broad eaves and gable roof. Stacked glass panel windows are arranged in a vertical patten on the south and east elevations. Varied window styles are located horizontally on the north elevation.

The administration building links the parish hall and classroom. It has a shingled pitched roof with broad eaves and knee braces. The windows are arranged horizontally along the west and east elevation and includes a row of colored glass windows on the west elevation. The two-story classroom section has a flat roof and exterior staircase with metal railing that provides access to the second-floor balcony. Windows are symmetrically arranged along the first and second floor elevations.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 11/27/2023
powered by Legistarm
23-1252 Agenda Date: 12/7/2023
The church building is rectangular and is considered unique for its structural system and architectural style. It consists of eight concrete arch frames with side wings that extend outside the building to support the roof eaves. Inside, the arches span across the interior of the building. Side walls between the concrete arches are designed with vertical panes of glass separated by wood mullions and glazed with rectangular pieces of colored glass in abstract patterns. A pictorial colored glass window is mounted above two wood-hinged doors on the west building elevation / front entrance to the church. Paired vertical panels of colored glass are present at the east end of the building on the north and south sides of the building and a small Blenko-style colored glass panel is present on the rear wall on the church facing east. The building architecture is a blending of mid-century modern, brutalist and Spanish colonial with a pitched red tile roof and stucco cladding on the exterior elevations.

In accordance with Section 18.106.060 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the proposed demolition permit application and EIR are being referred to the HLC for a recommendation on whether to grant, modify, or disapprove the demolition permit application. The HLC recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council.

DISCUSSION
The existing buildings are greater than 50 years in age and were evaluated for potential historical and architectural significance in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Department of Recreation Form 523 ("DPR") was prepared by Bonnie and Marvin Bamburg of Urban Programmers to record and evaluate the building complex, landscape features, and historic context in March 2023. A peer review of the analysis was conducted by Patricia Kallan of Archeological/Historical Consultants in May 2023. These two documents are combined and provided as Attachment 2 and incorporated for analysis in the preparation and publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project.

The criteria for evaluation are those of the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and the City of Santa Clara's Historical Preservation Element for local significance. The analysis concluded that the buildings are not eligible for listing on the National Register of the Historic Places as they are not associated with an event or entity significant in the history of Santa Clara, the State, or the Nation; and that the National Register may not consider the history of religious facilities to avoid any appearance by government as to the validity of any religious belief, except in circumstances of very significant architecture. Applying the CRHR criteria, the analysis concluded that the buildings are not eligible for listing as a significant resource as they are not associated with people or events of significance in history; that the site has been disturbed/redeveloped such that it is not likely to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the Nation; and that the existing buildings are a mix of architectural styles that do not represent a specific architectural style or period of construction.

Based on the City's local criteria, Saint Mark's complex of religious buildings does not meet the criteria for significance under the Santa Clara Criteria. However, Saint Mark's Episcopal Church, as an individual building, is eligible for designation as a qualified historic resource due to its unique structural system and mix of materials in construction.

Based on the project's consistency with the General Plan and the development of needed for-sale housing units, staff recommends that the HLC recommend approval to the City Council to certify the EIR for the proposed demolition and development of the 22-unit residential project.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of4 Printed on 11/27/2023
powered by Legislar'M
23-1252 Agenda Date: 12/7/2023

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project by the environmental consultant firm David J. Powers & Associates, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Notice of Availability were posted on the City's website and circulated for a 45-day review on November 17, 2023 and ending on January 2, 2024, in accordance with CEQA requirements.

The DEIR examined potential environmental impacts associated with project development and identified significant impacts on biological, cultural resources, and geology and soils. Mitigation measures were identified for implementation that would reduce most of the significant project development impacts to less than significant levels. Although mitigation measures will be implemented regarding the demolition of the eligible resource, the mitigation will not reduce the impact to less than significant. Therefore, significant unavoidable project level and cumulative cultural resources impacts were identified to remain with demolition of the church building. All other resource areas would experience a less than significant impact with project development.

When considering a project, CEQA requires decision-makers to balance economic, legal, social, and technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. To approve a project that has a significant unavoidable environmental impact, decision-makers must make findings, supported by substantial evidence, that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable environmental effects. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15124 (b ), the applicant has identified project objectives for evaluation of the proposed project and the City has considered a range of alternatives in the DEIR for consideration in the findings or statement of overriding considerations. Statements of overriding considerations may include the need to develop additional housing at a time when housing is in great need.

PUBLIC CONTACT
The notice of public meeting for this item was posted at three locations within 300 feet of the project site and mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site boundaries. Consistent with AB 52, formal notification of the proposed project and consultation request was provided to the Native American Tribes listed by the Native Heritage Commission with association to the area. The City did not receive a response from the Tribal representatives requesting consultation. At the time of preparation of this report, the Planning Division has not received any public or agency comments.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Historical and Landmarks Commission recommend that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed demolition and new residential development with 22 detached single-family dwellings at 1957 Pruneridge Avenue.

Prepared by Debby Fernandez, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Rebecca Bustos, Principal Planner
Approved by: Lesley Xavier, Planning Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Link to Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 11/27/2023
powered by Legistarr,.,
23-1252

2. DPR Evaluation

3. Development Plans
City of Santa Clara Page 4of 4
Agenda Date: 12/7/2023
Printed on 11/27/2023
powered by Legistar"'
1975 Pruneridge Avenue Residential Project
Environmental Impact Report
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/ BusinessDirectory/483/3649

ARCHAEOLOGICAL / HISTORICAL CONSULTANTS
609 AILEEN STREET, OAKLAND, CA 94609 / 510.224.4076 I AH C· HERITAGE. COM Patrick Kallas
David J Powers and Associates
1871111e Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95126
May 30, 2023
Re: Peer Review of DPR 523 forms for 1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara Introduction
Tius memorandum presents a peer review of the DPR 523 form prepared by Bonnie Bamberg of Urban Programmers (UP) for the building complex and landscape features at St. Mark's Episcopal Church, 1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara, California. The building complex consists of the church, classrooms, and parish hall buildings, all constructed between 1955 and 1964.

Tlus peer review will address the following topics:
• organization, clarity, and formatting of the DPR 523 forms; • adequacy of the building description;
• adequacy of the lustoric context research;
• adequacy and accuracy of the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources and Santa Clara Criteria for Local Significance evaluations for the property; and • editorial suggestions.

Organization and Clarity
A historic resources evaluation (HRE) usually consists of a stand-alone report on the history of a property and its structures, with an evaluation of whether any lustorical resources are present on the property as defined in the CEQA Guidelines (at §15064.5). Historical resources may include archaeological sites, lustoric arclutecture, and historic landscapes that are eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources.

An HRE report is usually accompanied by California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms, which are the standard format for recording historic resources in California. When prepared as an appendix to a longer HRE report, DPR 523 forms usually present a short form of the lustoric context, building description, and CRHR evaluation contained in the longer report. Sometimes, as in tlus project, DPR 523 forms are submitted to clients in lieu of a separate report, and in tl1ese cases tl1ey typically include a fuller lustoric context discussion and more detailed CRHR evaluation.

For this project, UP prepared DPR 523 forms and a cover letter, but not a separate HRE report. Generally, tl1e prose is clear and readable, tl1e forms are well-organized, and all of the necessary fields are filled out. We would suggest combining tl1e lustoric context discussions into one section for clarity. TI1ere are also many errors in spelling and formatting tl1at should be addressed in a revision. Please see "Editorial Suggestions" below for specific details.
1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara
Peer Review of DPR 523 Forms
Building Description
The Urban Programmers DPR 523 forms provide a good description of the building complex and landscape features at St. Mark's Episcopal Church. The character-defining features list is useful and seems appropriate.

However, the educational building's former use as a preschool is not mentioned and should be noted. It was operating as St. Mark's preschool from the mid 1990s to at least 2015.

If the authors want to add additional detail, the March 17, 2023 letter report by FIBA Structural Engineers also provides a more detailed description of the stmctural system of the church.

Historic Context Research
The historic context statement is used to establish the context in which the buildings should be evaluated. In this DPR 523 form, the context is split between page 25 ("Architectural Context") and page 29 ("Historical Context and Theme"). It would be more effective to have a single historic context statement .

The historic context provides detailed information on the history of the parish and a biography of William May, while providing an outline history of Santa Clara and of mid-century modern building techniques. Many of the details presented in the history section lack citations, making it impossible to verify the information presented .

The authors should cite their sources when revising the DPR 523 forms.

With respect to the architectural context (p.25-26), it would be useful to discuss changes taking place in church architecture during this period. The 1950s and 1960s saw the uses of new material and mid-century idioms in many churches, and sometimes changes in layout (the "church in the round"), along with a shift in focus from exterior to interior space that tracked with trends in residential and commercial construction during this period.

This was a period of significant theological change, with many denominations seeking to modernize worship and some becoming involved in progressive social reforms during this period (see comments below). The most relevant academic source on this appears to be Geva (2019), but popular articles by Florian (2022) and Henderson (2022) provide a good overview.

The history of St. Mark's Parish (p.26-27) provides a detailed overview of the construction history, but does not clearly cite the sources used by the authors. (The pamphlet and directory cited are not in the bibliography.) It should be noted that the 1988 St. Mark's History and Directory names John Galagan as the first Vicar, followed by John Haverland, with Ward McCabe arriving in 1959. McCabe himself is worthy of more discussion: he served as Rector from 1959-1984, throughout the period of potential significance. McCabe was known for social, political, and economic justice activism in the local community and had letters frequently published in local and national newspapers. He was among the first Episcopal priests to train women for tl1e priestl1ood. His obituary and tl1at of his wife, Evelyn, provide additional information (Mercury Ne1vs 2004, 2011), and numerous articles in the News and Mercury covered his activities during his period of rectorship.

The biography of William May (p.27-28) provides many interesting details of his life, though again tl1e source for some of this information is unclear and should be cited. The DPR 523 forms also indicate on page 28 that "altl1ough research was conducted in several repositories, there was no listing for any otl1er building designed by Bill May." Later on page 28 the following statement also appears: "research did not uncover any otl1er architectural project tl1at was directly associated witl1 William N. (Bill) May." Altl1ough tl1e Urban Programmers evaluators were unable to locate evidence of any otl1er works of architect William May, Archaeological/Historical Consultants' prelinlina.ry research for tlus project found mention of many otl1er works by May in local newspapers, along with coverage of awards tl1at May had won, including tl1e 1971 "Certificate of Merit" from the American Plywood Association and the 1965-66 Western Home Awards Program sponsored by Sunset Magazine and AIA. A list of 13 of May's works and citations are included as an )rC AHC-HER ITAGE.COM 2
1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara
Peer Review of DPR 523 Forms
attachment to this memorandum; further research may identify more. He was an active local architect, and his works should be discussed to provide a basis for evaluating the significance of his work under Criterion 3.

The historical context provided for Santa Clara (p.29-30) also lacks any citations. It would be useful to discuss the dates and architectural character of nearby subdivisions and commercial districts, in order to determine whether St. Marks is part of any potential historic district in the area.

National Register Evaluation
The proposed project does not have a Federal nexus, and therefore criteria for identifying historic resources for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the California Register of Historical Resources. An evaluation under National Register of Historic Places criteria is not required for this report and should be deleted.

California Register Evaluation
Criterion 1
While it does not appear that important events occurred at St. Mark's Episcopal Church, it is not clear to the reviewers that "suburbanization and retail growth" are the only patterns of history that apply to the property.

Christian social movements of the mid-20th century might be another appropriate pattern to discuss.

Criterion 2
This section should discuss whether the building is significant for its associations with Ward McCabe and William May. McCabe appears to have had some local reputation for his social justice activism and to have been involved in national movements such as the ordination of women priests in the Episcopal Church. May was a locally active architect whose life was closely associated with the church, as evidenced by his role as an active member and his burial on-site. While we think it unlikely, the discussion should consider whether the careers of these individuals and their association to the property are significant enough for eligibility under this criterion .

Criterion 3
The DPR 523 forms indicate that none of the buildings at St. Mark's Episcopal Church are eligible under Criteria 3 because they do not "embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master or possess high artistic value" (page 33).

In the context of Archaeological/Historical Consultants' historical research about William May and his architecture outlined below, we recommend that the evaluator reconsider their conclusion that the church is not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3. Apparently May had designed other buildings that, like St. Mark's Episcopal Church, exhibited innovative sculptural forms and engineering (referred to stylistically as Brutalism or Expressionism), such as the 1961 "Circle House" in Los Gatos which consists of three overlapping circles witl1 a kitchen in tl1e middle to take advantage of the views. The St. Mark's Episcopal Church building by itself may "embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction ."
Moreover, the Criterion 3 evaluation should consider the church building in the context of the development of religious architecture during tl1e 19 50s and 1960s, where major changes in spatial organization in many churches corresponded with the use of modernist materials and idioms. Is May's work typical of this period and type of architecture?
)rC AHC-HER ITAGE.COM 3
1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara
Peer Review of DPR 523 Forms
Criterion 4
Information potential in a historic resource can also include information about building materials and construction techniques. If a building itself contains information that is not otherwise accessible through documentary sources, it is possible that it may be eligible under this criterion. While this is wilikely to be the case for this project, we would recommend including a statement about the information potential of the building itself.

We would recommend removing the language about archaeological potential, since the authors do not appear to have prepared an archaeological study for this project.

Santa Clara Local Register
We agree with the authors' evaluation of the property under the Santa Clara Criteria for Local Significance.

Editorial Suggestions
General
The DPR 523 forms have many errors in spelling and punctuation that should be corrected . A few examples include "alter" for "altar", "NTHP" for ''NRHP", "Dioses" for "Diocese", and the spacing between the comma and "Santa Clara" in the header on most pages. Double spaces, missing parentheses, inconsistent fonts, and orphan sentence fragments should also be corrected.

Pagel
• The NRHP status code should also be on the Primary Record. • In P3b: Resource Attributes, HO2 is not a valid code for DPR523 forms. The appropriate code appears to be HP16 (Religious Building).
• The Primary Record states that Bonnie Bamberg prepared the forms, while the Building, Structure, and Object Record lists three authors. Please clarify.

Page2
• For "alter" read "altar"
• The page starts with a sentence fragment; it looks like something is missing.

Page4
• Photograph 1 should have each building labeled, and a north arrow would be helpful.

PageJ
• There is a sentence fragment at the bottom of the page.

Page2J
• For "NTHP" read ''NRHP"
• The map on the Building, Structure, and Object record (page 25) is not a sketch map, but rather shows the vicinity of the building. The DPR 523 form should include at minimum a sketch map of the project area. Preferable would be a full-page site plan indicating the locations of each building with text labels, a north arrow, and a scale.

Page27
• Mention that the memorial garden dates to the 1990s (church dedication plaque dates it to 1994). • For "Dioses" read "Diocese"
)rC AHC-HERITAGE.COM 4
1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara
Peer Review of DPR 523 Forms
Page28
• The name of May's wife is spelled two different ways in this section. Her obituary suggests that it should be "Edmonds" rather than "Edm ondson" .
• An architectural draftsman is typically a full-time employee. It is a profe ssional position, not held only by intern s.

Page39
• For "alter" read "altar" (several locations)
References Cited
Geva,Anat
2019 1\11.odemism and AJ11erican mid-20th century satnd architectttre. London: Routledge.

Henderson
2022 "The Theological Angle of the Mid-Century Modern Craze." Common Good Magazine. Available at:
https://commo ngoodmag.com/t he-tl1eologjcal-angle-of-the-mid-century-modern-crnze/ ; accessed May 30, 2023.

Florian, Maria-Cristina
2022 "Sacred Modernity: An Exploration of the Modernist Movement in Mid-Century Holy Architectur e." Architetture Dai/y, 27 June 2022. Available at: https:/hvww .archdaily.com/984046/sncre d-rnodernity­ an-explorntion-of-the-modernis t-movement-in-mid-ce ntury-holy-archi tecture, Accessed 30 May 2023.

Mercury NeJJ1s
2004 ''William Ward McCabe, fought for social justice - Soutl1 Bay minister helped get hospital for poor build in S.J." November 23, 2022. Available at:
https://infoweb. newsbank.com/apps/news/openur l?ctx ver=z39.88- 2004&rft id= i.nfo%3Asid/ infoweb.newsbank.corn&svc dat=.ANINEWS&req dat=0E D 7205AB93 FC626&ft val fonnat=i.nfo%3Aofi/ fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft dat=docume nt id%3Anews %252F10082EEF8ACA56F7 , accessed November 23, 2022.
2021 "Evelyn Dull McCabe." April 11, 2021. Available at:
http s://i.nfoweb.newsbank.com/apps/new s/op enurl?ctx ver=z39 .88- 2004&rft id=info%3Asid / infO\.veb.newsbank .com&svc dat=.ANINEWS&req dat=0ED7205AB93 FC626&rft val format=info%3Aofi/fm t%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft dat=document id%3Anews %252F 181CC0E4285F6360 , accessed November 23, 2022.
)rC AH C- H ERITAGE.CO M 5
Attachment: Works by William May
Works & Aivards
1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara
Peer Review of DPR 523 Forms
1958 The Brookside Club, Saratoga. May was the architect of the first tennis and swim club in Saratoga, built on three acres with a pool, three courts, and play and leisure areas. May is photogr aphed with the Saratoga mayor at the groundbreaking ceremony (Los Gatos Times 19 58; San Jose Mercury News 1958a-b; San Jose Evening News 1958).
1958 Red Cottage Motel, El Camino Real, Menlo Park. This 26-unit "luxury garden-type motel" was designed by May while he was with the firm of Kurt Gross and built by John E. McCarthy and Sons (The Peninsula Times Tribune 1958; San Mateo Times 1958). c. 1961 The Circle House, 17681 Foster Rd, Los Gatos . May designed this house for the Rosen family. It consists of three overlapping circles with a kitchen in the middle to take advantage of the views and was built using reinforced concrete masonry with wood accents throughout the house. This house was featured in the San Francisco Examiner and San.Jose Mercury News (Blum 1964; Befame 1965) 1964-5 San Jose State Kappa Gamma Sorority Chapter House, 360 S 11th Street, San Jose. May was the consulting architect on the three-story, Georgian colonial style house, designed by Francis Schmitz (San Jose Mercury News 1964; Marquardt 1965).
c. 1965 Harveys Residence, Magdalena Ave, Los Altos. May designed this house for the Harveys family. It consists of three pagoda-style buildings linked by trellises set amongst oak trees. This house was featured in the San Jose Mercury News (Befame 1965a).
1965 William May of San Jose won a Special Award in the 1965-66 Western Home Awards Program sponsored by Sunset Magazine and AIA. Winners were to be featured in the Oct 1965 issue of Sunset (San Mateo Times 1965).
c. 1967 Gray Vacation Home, Lake Berryessa. May designed this vacation retreat on the lake for the Gray family. It was a three-sto1y building with a steeply pitched roof, glass walls, and three deck areas that were stepped down so as not to obstruct views. This house was featured in the San Jose Mercury News (Befame 1967).
c. 1968 Johnston Residence, 13434 Old Oak Way, Saratoga. May designed this two-sto1y house for the Johnston family on a steep site surrounded by oak trees. It had a chopped gable roof, L-shaped floor plan, and floor-to-ceiling windows, and the exterior was stained to match the surrounding oaks. This house was featured in the Los Gatos Times-Saratoga Observer and the Sunday Mercury-News (Befame 1973; Tennison 1973).
1968 The firm of William May & W.G. McElhinney of San Jose won runner up in a design contest for a new Palo Alto Airport. The firm won a prize of $2,000 (Palo Alto Times 1968). c. 1973 Cypress Point Apartments and Villas, Mountain View. William May and William McElhinney designed this 300 plus-unit development for Thrust IV. Described as surrounded by lawns and man­ made pools and lagoons, the apartments were clad in plywood with simple single-sloped roofs. May and McElhinney received from the American Plywood Association a Plywood Design Awards Citation of Merit, Residential/Multi-Family Category, for "outstanding structural and aesthetic uses of plywood." This project also received an award from the City of Mountain View for its outstanding design (San Mateo Times 1973; Palo Alto Times 1973, 1975; San Jose Mercury News 19766). )rC AHC · HERITA GE.COM 6
1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara
Peer Review of DPR 523 Forms
c. 1975 Whalers Cove Development, Schwan Lake, Santa Cruz. May designed 28 split-level villas for this Thrust N development. The villas had vaulted wood plank and beam ceilings with skylights (San Jose Mercury News 1975).
c. 1976 Cypress Point Woods Townhouses, Mountain View. May designed two-bedroom and three­ bedroom plans for this approximately 80-unit Thrust IV development (Palo Alto Times 1975; San Jose Mercury News 1976b).
c. 1976 Sylvan Avenue Development,Mountain View. Th.is Thrust IV development was announced in 1976 and planned 45 single family homes designed by William May (San Jose Mercury News 1976a).

References
Befame, Jeannette
1965a A Tree House In 3 Sections. San Jose Mercmy Ne1JJs 10 January:6-7. 19656 Hilltop Home is Built In-111.e-Round. San Jose Mercmy Ne1JJS 21 March:12-13. 1967 Vacation Retreat Or Second Home. San Jose lvfercmy Ne1JJs 31 December:6- 7. 1973 Seeing The House For 111.e Trees. Sundqy Mercury-Ne,vs (San Jose] 24 June:California Today 10-11. 1976a 111.rust IV Planning Mountain View Homes. 4 January:100. 19766 Pre-Construction Sale Begins For Townhouses. San Jose Mercury News 10 July:91.

Blum, Walter
1964 Circles and Scenery. San Francis,v Examiner6 December : Pictorial Living 26-30.

Los Gatos Ti!lles
1958 Club has ground breaking . 14 October:7.

Marquardt, Reed
1965 111.ere's No Place Like Home. San Jose 1\1.ermry Ne1JJs 17 October:99.

Palo Alto Ti!lles
1968 Palo Alto firm wins airport design prize. 24 J anuary:2. 1973 Cypress Point wins design award . 24 April:8.
1975 Developer buys land in Mt. View. 9 September:26 .

Peninsula Times Tribune [Palo Alto)
1958 $250,000 motel started in MP. 10 March:6.

San Josi lvlercury Ne1JJs
1958a Saratoga Club Plans Described. 1 May:3.
19586 Saratogans Cut Ground For New Brookside Club. 19 October:57. 1964 Sorority Starts Residence Hall. 23 April:50.
1975 Whalers Cove Down To 3. 21 September:131.

San Jose Evening Ne1JJs
1958 Private Saratoga Club Gets City Use Permit. 1 May:13.

San Mateo Times
1958 "Red Cottage Motel groundbreaking." 11 March: 21.
1965 Foster City Homes Capture Award; 443 Contest Entries. 25 September:21, 26. 1973 Architects, Designer Win Merit Citations. 12 May:13.

Tennison, Debbie
1973 Unique Saratoga home reflects family's lifestyle. Los Gatos Times-Saratoga Observer 11 September:2. )rC AH C- HERITAGE.COM 7
State of California ~ The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRIMARY RECORD
Other
Review Code
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Reviewer
Listings
Date

Saint Mark's Episcopal Church
1957 Pruneridge Ave . Santa Clara
P1. Other Identifier:
* P2. Location: □ Not for Publication IBJ Unrestricted
*a. County Santa Clara and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad _____ Date _______ T _; R __ , _ □ of □ of Sec _, ___ B.M. c. Address 1957 Pruneridge Ave. City Santa C l a ra Zip __ 9_5_0_5_1 _____ _ d. UTM: (Givemorethanoneforlargeand/orlin earres ources) Zone l0S,,539283 2 . 72 mE/ 413203 1.11 mN e. Othe r Locational Data : (e.g., parcel# , directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN 303-03 - 025
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundarie s)
The parcel contains a complex of bui l dings developed for St . Mark ' s Episcopal Congregation for religious worship and education. Buildings constructed prior to 1968 are modest , utilitarian designs , with red tile facing the courtyard and broad eaves , as a nod to the Spanish Colonial and California Mission style in one and two-story buildings . The sanctuary , constructed in 1968 , is an unusua l building set apart and distinct from the others , with landscaping to fit the religious values of the congregation.

Buildings c .1 955-1958. The attached wood-framed buildings form a "U" in p l an with a two­ story building on one side , a single-story in the center and a slight l y taller hall building at the other side. The parish hall faces the open end of the "U", with a courtyard ----------------------------------
* P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensi ve
side entrance.
* P 3 b. Resource Attributes: (List
attributes and codes)__,H'""O"'-"2~---­
* P4. Resources Present: IBJ
Building □ Structure □ Object □ Site
□ District □ Element of District □
Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view,
date, accession #) Front fa9ade
December21, 2022
*PG. Date Constructed/Age and
Source:IBJ Histor ic [Prehistoric []Both
*P7. Owner and Address:

SCS Development Company
404 Saratoga Ave . # 100
Santa Clara CA 95050
* PS. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliatio n,
and address) Bonnie Bamburg __
Urban Programmers
10710 Ridgeview Ave.

San Jose CA
95127
*P9. Date Recorded:
3/15/2023
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") __ N_o_n_e ____ _ *Attachments: □ NONE □ Location Map ffiContinuation Sheet ffiBuilding, Structure, and Object Record □Archaeological Record □ District Record □ Linear Feature Record □ Mill i ng Station Record □ Rock Art Record □Artifact Record □ Photograph Record □ Other (List) :

DPR 523A (9/2013) * Required information
State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial

*Recorded by: Urban Programmers *Date 3/15/2023_ X Continuation Update with stucco siding. The two-story classroom building is a rectangular form with a flat roof and parapet facing into the courtyard. Below the parapet, a shed roof with red tile covers an exterior walkway on the second level. This stylistic detail supported by square posts give the building a minor nod to Spanish Colonial style. Windows and doors are standard sliding systems with intragyral frames.

The center administration building has similar windows. The pitched roof is covered with shingles and has a wide overhang eave on the east facing into the courtyard. The eaves cover the walkway in front of the building and are supported by square posts.

At the other end is the Parish hall that served as the sanctuary before the church was constructed. This building has a pitched roof with shingles and stucco siding. Glass panels are in the east end and on the rear (west) wood strips form a simple vertical pattern. A cross is on the ridge of the roof.

It appears that Kriss, Goudt & Kriss provided the conceptual designs. Ruth and Going was the engineer for the project.

In 1964 a new sanctuary was permitted and completed in 1968. 1 The building was constructed to face toward the older buildings. The building sits on an exposed aggregate pad that extends to the front creating a patio or gathering space. The church building was designed with an unusual structural system consisting of eight concrete arche frames with side extensions (wings). The arches have their footings below the slab floor of the church. The wings on the arches extend outside to support the eaves of the roof acting like large rafters. The red tile roof dominates the building. Inside, the arches span across the interior of the rectangular building. A keystone element in the top of the arch suggests the two sides were cast separately and joined in the center. 2 The interior wood ceiling does not reveal how the arches are structurally connected. The front entrance wall exhibits a pictorial colored-glass window above sets of hinged wood doors with narrow insets of colored glass. The side walls between the arches have a long window opening that are divided with wood mullions and glazed with rectangular pieces of colored glass in abstract patterns. A raised alter area is at the east end of the space. A pipe organ was removed from this area leaving the wall unfinished. The rear of the building houses administrative and utilitarian functions and its exterior is sheathed in stucco. A utilitarian rear door and a small Blenko-style colored-glass panel exist in the otherwise blank wall. 3
The building was designed at the end of the Mid-century Modern era and captures 1 Santa Clara Building Permit 1964-27592
2 Architectural plans were not available
3 Marc Haeger, Haeger Stained Glass studio, was asked to visit the building and evaluate the glasswork. During an interview on March 14, 2023, he said the glass was not unusual and was currently available from glass supply companies. The wood mullions looked tight and of good craftsmanship. However, the structure to hold the glass pieces in place is deteriorating in several places. 3 3 DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995){Word 9/2013)
State of California ,1:, Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Tri no mi al

*Recorded by: Urban Programmers *Date 3/15/2023_ X Continuation Update the melding of the Brutalist style with heavy concrete forms that were beginning to be seen in the late 1960s-70s in architectural design. At the same time there is a sense of Spanish Colonial of the early California missions in the arches and spaces. The church design blends the heavy concrete with the warmth and light quality provided by the colored glass walls. The overall design and mix of materials is unusual in the religious architecture of Santa Clara.

The landscaping was designed as part of the religious program. Although it is overgrown, and has lost some of the character, there are numerous small statues and markers along a winding path. The stand of mature trees create spaces for the winding path where small concrete benches and biblical sayings are etched or applied to several concrete boxes with religious art that appear to have been lighted. The design appears to have been created by a professional landscape architect.

Character-defining Features
Classroom Building and Parish Hall
The two-story Classroom
Form and mass
smooth stucco
Exterior corridor on the second floor
Square posts
Red tile roof
Parish Hall
Rectangular gable-end building
Knee-braces under the eaves
Vertical windows under the gable
Smooth stucco
Church Building
Exposed aggregate base and patio space
Rectangular form and scale
Low sloping roof of red tile, curved ends
8 concrete formed arches extending beyond the eaves
Front doors with colored glass insets
Pictorial Window above entry doors
Wood Mullions on side windows
Colored glass windows on both sides of the building.

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013}
State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial

*Recorded by: Urban Programmers *Date 3/15/2023_ X Continuation Update P5b continued: Photographs.

Photograph 1 1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara
View: aerial photograph of the Saint Mark's Episcopal Church complex.

Source: Google Earth Pro, 2022
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial

* Recorded by: Urba n P ro g rammers *Date 3/ 15/2 023_ X Continuation Update Photog raph 2 19 5 7 Prun eridge Aven u e , Sa nta Clara Vi ew: Front f a9a de s h owing th e aggregate fron t patio a nd pad wi t h t he Con c r e t e a r ch form i ng th e covered entrance . Re d ti l e c urves ove r t he eaves al ong t he gab l e .
l ower wall.

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California b Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial

* Recorded by: Ur ban Pr ogramme r s * Date 3/ 15/2 023_ X Continuation Update Ph otog r ap h
Vi ew : N ort h
s tu cco .
3 1 95 7 Prun e ridg e Ave nu e , Sa nta C lar a
fa9ade s h owing th e h eavy mulli o n s in th e w indows a nd s moo th DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial

*Recorded by: Urban Programmers *Date 3/15/2023 X Continuation Update Photograph 4 1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara
View: North fac;:ade showing rear portion of the building with smooth stucco and vertical windows.

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial

*Recorded by: Urban Programmers *Date 3/15/2023_ X Continuation Update Photograph 5
View: Side (South)
pattern.
1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara
facade showing the ends of the arches and window
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial

*Recorded by: Urban Programmers *Date 3/15/2023 X Continuation Update Photograph 6 1957
View: Rear (East) fa9ade showing
landscaped area under the trees.

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Pruneridge
the stucco
Avenue, Santa
wall with the
Clara
former
State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial

* Recorded by: Urban Programme r s *Date 3/ 15 /2023 _ X Continuation Update Pho t og r aph 7 195 7 Pr un e ri dge Aven ue , Sant a C l ara Vi ew : Fr o nt of the Chu rc h s h owi ng the art i stic entry doors a nd p i cto ri a l wi ndow above.

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial

*Recorded by: Urban Programmers *Date 3/15/2023_ X Continuation Update Photograph 8 1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara
View: Interior (south wall) of the church showing the arches, ceiling and window pattern.

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995}(Word 9/2013)
State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
Page _1_2 __ of 39 *Resource Name or# (Assigned by recorder) 1957 Pruneridge Ave. ,Santa Clara *Recorded by: Urban Programmers *Date 3/15/2023 X Continuation Update Photograph 9 1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara
View: Interior (north wall.

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial

*Recorded by: Urban Programmers *Date 3/15/20 2 3_ X Continuation Update Photograph 10
View: Windows
security.
1957 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara
of the rear portion of the building with grilles for
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California to Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial